United States Department of Final Environmental Impact Statement Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Browns Project Shasta-Trinity National Forest Trinity River Management Unit Trinity County California May 2006
Desired future condition (foreground) and existing condition (background) along Musser Hill road in the Browns Project area. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – May 2006
Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement
Trinity County, California
Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service Cooperating Agencies: none Responsible Official: J. Sharon Heywood, Forest Supervisor 3644 Avtech Parkway Redding, CA 96002
For further information, contact: Joyce Andersen, District Ranger Forest Service Office 210 Main Street Weaverville, CA 96093 phone # 530-623-2121
Abstract: This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) considers three alternatives in detail, including a No Action alternative, for the purpose of improving forest health by reducing overcrowded forest stand conditions and the associated fuel ladders. The proposed action would harvest timber from about 790 acres, treat forest fuels within the harvested acreage, construct 4.6 miles of road, reconstruct 3.6 miles of road, and decommission/obliterate 32 miles of road to reduce area Cumulative Watershed Effects. The Record of Decision on this FEIS will identify any deviations from the proposed action, if any.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - i Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – May 2006
ii - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Summary – May 2006
Browns Project Summary
The Browns Project is being proposed as part of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest Fuels Management and Timber Sale Program. The activities being proposed in this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) involve commercial timber harvesting (within mixed conifer stands) and management of roads (road construction for project access and road closures for watershed restoration benefits). The area affected by the proposal includes the area adjacent to the northern Weaverville community boundary. The activities would occur in the Weaverville watershed. These actions are needed, because the Weaverville wildland-fire interface (WUI) occupies approximately 70% of the project area, and the National Fire Plan “Cohesive Strategy” identifies WUIs as priority areas for treatment. For the purpose of this strategy, risk conditions were assigned “condition class” descriptors to represent relative risk of intense resource damage. The existing Condition Class of the project area is mostly “Class 3, relatively high risk” with a lesser portion of “Class 2, moderate risk.” The desired condition is “Class 1” representing a low relative risk. Therefore, the desired condition of this project would be to develop lower risk conditions from areas currently in moderate-to-high risk conditions. The proposed action considered in the FEIS includes: • Timber harvest (thinning) on 754 acres • Timber harvest (group regeneration) on 39 acres • Timber harvest total volume = 8.8 million board feet • Intensive fuel treatment on all harvested acreage • 4.6 miles of road construction, 3.6 miles of road reconstruction • Road decommissioning on about 10.3 miles of system roads and 20.5 miles of non-system roads
A scoping letter for the proposed project was mailed August 1, 2003 to 111 individuals and organizations collectively that might be interested or affected by the Browns Project. In addition, the notice was published in the newspaper of record, the Record Searchlight, on August 6, 2003, and in the Trinity Journal (a local newspaper) on August 20, 2003. The proposed project was also listed quarterly from December 2000 to July 2005 (20 quarters) in the Schedule of Proposed Environmental Actions, a Shasta-Trinity National Forest publication. Both the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the North Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were also informed of the proposed action in the scoping process. Six responses were received during this preliminary scoping period. A Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register on February 10, 2005, which requested public comments to be submitted to the Forest Service by March 21, 2005. A second scoping letter for the proposed project was mailed March 10, 2005, to individuals who responded to the first scoping letter and to organizations that were expected to have interest in the Browns Project. In addition, the notice was published in the newspaper of record, the Record Searchlight, on March 10, 2005, and in the Trinity Journal (a local newspaper) on March 15, 2005. Four responses were received during the scoping period.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - iii Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – May 2006
One significant issue was received and it was regarding road building. Specifically, the Environmental Protection Information Center expressed a concern that road construction and reconstruction may severely impact terrestrial and aquatic systems in the area. Therefore, an additional alternative (Alternative 4) has been added for consideration in detailed study – this alternative does not include road construction, but includes reconstruction where the planning team recognized an environmental benefit from reconstructing existing roads. A “request for comments” letter regarding the Draft EIS (DEIS) along with a copy of the DEIS was mailed April 15, 2005, to 22 interested groups and individuals in addition to 8 Federal Agencies. A Notice of Availability of the DEIS was published in the Federal Register on April 29, 2005, which requested public comments to be submitted to the Forest Service within 45 days (June 13, 2005). A Legal Notice for Comment was published in the newspaper of record, the Record Searchlight, on May 4 and May 5, 2005. Five comment letters were received in response to the DEIS; the comments and the Forest Service responses to these comments are included in Appendix F of the FEIS. Most responses received were concerned with minimizing adverse environmental impacts on National Forest lands. Based on the comments received on the DEIS, minor changes were made to the FEIS to better display the effects of the alternatives. Specific changes resulting from comments received are noted in Appendix F. In addition, comments received have resulted in minor changes to the proposed action for the purpose of reducing potential impacts on geologically sensitive areas. Specifically, areas within units 9 and 5 have been excluded from harvest in the selected action identified in the Record of Decision as the “Alternative 3 – ROD.” Differences between the proposed action and the “Alternative 3 – ROD” are: • Timber harvest (thinning) on 743 acres (a decrease of 11 acres) • Timber harvest (group regeneration) on about 37 acres (a decrease of 2 acres) • Timber harvest total volume = 8.2 million board feet (a decrease of 0.6 million board feet) • Intensive fuel treatment on all harvested acreage (a decrease from 793 acres to 780 acres)
iv - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Contents – May 2006
Table of Contents
Browns Project Summary ...... iii Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action...... 1 Document Structure...... 1 Background ...... 1 Purpose of and Need for Action ...... 2 Proposed Action...... 5 Decision Framework ...... 6 Management Direction...... 6 Public Involvement...... 7 Issues ...... 8 Chapter 2: Alternatives...... 11 Alternatives Considered ...... 11 Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Detailed Study ...... 21 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 22 Chapter 3: Affected Environment ...... 25 Botany ...... 25 Economic Effects ...... 25 Fire and Fuels...... 26 Fisheries...... 28 Forest Productivity...... 30 Heritage Resources...... 31 Land Stability...... 31 Soils...... 33 Water Quality ...... 33 Wildlife...... 39 Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences...... 43 Direct and Indirect Effects Relative to Resources Affected...... 43 Air Quality – Direct and Indirect Effects...... 43 Botany – Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 43 Economic Effects – Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 50 Fire and Fuels Management – Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 51 Fisheries – Direct and Indirect Effects...... 56 Forest Productivity – Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 58 Heritage Resources – Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 60 Land Stability – Direct and Indirect Effects...... 60 Soils – Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 62 Water Quality – Direct and Indirect Effects ...... 63 Wildlife – Direct and Indirect Effects...... 66
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - v Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Contents – May 2006
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences (continued) Cumulative Effects Relative to Resources Affected...... 73 Air Quality – Cumulative Effects ...... 78 Botany – Cumulative Effects...... 78 Economic Effects – Cumulative Effects ...... 83 Fire and Fuels – Cumulative Effects ...... 85 Fisheries – Cumulative Effects ...... 88 Forest Productivity – Cumulative Effects ...... 90 Heritage Resources – Cumulative Effects ...... 92 Land Stability – Cumulative Effects ...... 92 Soils – Cumulative Effects ...... 93 Water Quality – Cumulative Effects ...... 95 Wildlife – Cumulative Effects (Old-Growth Habitat) ...... 102 Other Effects and Compliance Needs...... 104 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity...... 104 Unavoidable Adverse Effects...... 105 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources...... 106 Cumulative Effects ...... 106 Energy Requirements, Conservation Potential, Depletable Resource Requirements ...... 107 Prime Farmland, Rangeland and Forest Land...... 107 Possible Conflicts with Other Land Use Plans...... 107 Other Required Disclosures...... 107 Chapter 5: Preparers and Contributors ...... 109 A. Agencies and Persons Consulted ...... 109 B. Interdisciplinary Planning Team ...... 109 C. Tribes...... 110 D. Distribution of the Draft Environmental Statement...... 110 E. Bibliography...... 111 F. Abbreviations and Acronyms...... 113
vi - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Contents – May 2006
List of Appendices Appendix A: Browns Timber Sale 2005 Appendix B: Erosion Control Plan, Mitigation Measures, and Monitoring Requirements Appendix C: Road Decommissioning List and Prescriptions Appendix D (part 1): Biological Assessment for the Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (Alternative 3) Appendix D (part 2): Biological Opinion for the Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (Alternative 3) Appendix E (part 1): Fisheries Biological Assessment Appendix E (part 2): Fisheries Biological Opinion Appendix F: Response to Comments Appendix G: Fire and Fuels Assessment Appendix H: Browns Project Hydrologist Report Appendix I: Management Indicator Species (MIS) Supplemental Analysis
List of Tables
Table 2-1. Key Timber Management Components of Alternatives 3 and 4...... 13 Table 2-2. Key Fuel Treatment Components for Alternatives 3 and 4...... 13 Table 2-3. Road Actions Proposed by Alternative ...... 15 Table 2-4. Comparison of Effects and Outputs between Alternatives 1, 3, and 4... 22 Table 3-1. The Five Historic Natural Fire Regime Groups] (Cohesive Strategy 2000)...... 26 Table 3-1a. Minimum and maximum fuel distributions by size class and fuel class for the Browns analysis area ...... 27 Table 3-2. Estimated acres and percentages of fuel models found within the Browns analysis area, and proposed treatment units (Alternatives 3 and 4 combined) ...... 27 Table 3-3. Seventh Field HUC Watersheds for the Browns Project...... 35 Table 3-4. The Existing Watershed Condition Class for the Browns Project Area . 39 Table 4-1. Short-term Economic Analysis for Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 (estimates, in dollars) ...... 50 Table 4-2. Other Project Proposal Economic Consequences (estimates, in dollars) ...... 50 Table 4-3. A comparison of alternatives for estimated surface-fire behavior by fuel model within the Browns analysis area (14,069 acres) using 90th percentile weather...... 52
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - vii Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Contents – May 2006
Table 4-3a. Estimated fuel model increase in 20-30 years; and resulting fire behavior within the Browns analysis area (14,069 acres) ...... 53 Table 4-3b. Average probability of mortality by alternative within the Browns analysis area using FOFEM, version 5.0 ...... 55 Table 4-4. Environmental Consequences on the Timber Resource for each Alternative ...... 58 Table 4-5. Soil Quality Standards Matrix for Alternatives ...... 63 Table 4-6. List of Watersheds and Land Use Activities Analyzed...... 65 Table 4-7. Browns Project Effects to Existing Northern Spotted Owl Habitat within the Weaverville 5th Field Watershed, the Northern Spotted Owl “Action Area,” and Within the Home Range and Territory of the One Known Owl Activity Center ...... 68 Table 4-8. A Synopsis of the Determinations and Effects to TE&S Species from the BA and BE ...... 72 Table 4-9. Summary of Other Management Actions Considered in the Evaluation of Cumulative Effects within the Browns Project Area...... 74 Table 4-10. Summary of Effects of Alternatives Considered along with Other Management Actions Affecting Economics ...... 84 Table 4-10a. A summary of past, present and reasonable foreseeable projects considered in the evaluation of fire and fuels cumulative effects for the proposed Browns project ...... 86 Table 4-10b. Summary of proposed acres treated, from alternatives and other management actions, which benefit fire behavior and fire severity (tree mortality) within the Browns cumulative effects analysis area...... 87 Table 4-11. Summary of Effects of Alternatives Considered along with Other Management Actions Affecting the Rush Creek, East Weaver Creek, and Little Browns Creek subwatersheds (the past, present, and foreseeable future actions are summarized from projects identified in Table 4-9) ...... 91 Table 4-12. Summary of Effects...... 94 Table 4-13. Summary of CWE Analysis Results for Alternative 3 ...... 99 Table 4-14. Summary of CWE Analysis Results for Alternative 4 ...... 100 Table 4-15. Summary of Effects (acres) of Alternatives Considered along with Other Management Actions Affecting Old-Growth Habitat in the action area ...... 104
viii - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Contents – May 2006
List of Figures
Photograph #1: (Existing Condition) was taken in August 2005 within Unit 3I of the proposed action...... 4 Photograph #2: Low fire mortality is expected in this stand ...... 5 Plate 3-1. Map illustrating the Browns Project Area 7th and 8th Field HUC watersheds and the existing Watershed Condition Class. Vertical lines = WCC I, diagonal lines = WCC II, and horizontal lines = WCC III...... 35 Figure 3-1. Bar chart showing timber harvest history by decade and land ownership (FS=Forest Service) ...... 37 Plate 3-2. Map illustrating the timber harvest history by land ownership ...... 38 Figure 4-1. Short and Long-term Effects to Spotted Owl Nesting/Roosting and Foraging Habitat within the Spotted Owl Action Area ...... 69 Plate 4-1. Map of Browns Project showing WCC for each alternative analyzed ... 101
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - ix Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Contents – May 2006
x - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 1: Purpose and Need – May 2006
Chapter 1: Purpose and Need for Action
Document Structure ______The Forest Service has prepared this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This FEIS discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was issued in April 2005, and comments were received from five participants. Changes have been incorporated in the FEIS to address comments received from participants’ review of the DEIS. Appendix F is a summary of DEIS comments and includes references to cite where comments are resolved and/or where text has been added to be responsive to the individual comment. The document is organized into five chapters: • Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action: This chapter briefly describes the proposed action, the need for that action, and other purposes to be achieved by the proposal. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposed action and how the public responded. • Chapter 2. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This chapter provides a detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative actions that were developed in response to comments raised by the public during scoping. The end of the chapter includes a summary table comparing the proposed action and alternatives with respect to their environmental impacts. • Chapter 3. Affected Environment: This chapter describes the existing conditions of the project area. • Chapter 4. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter describes the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives. • Chapter 5. Consultation and Coordination: This chapter provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the EIS. • Appendices. The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the EIS. • Index. The index provides page numbers by document topic.
Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Forest Service District Office in Weaverville, California.
Background ______The Browns Project was selected for treatment because of its high fire hazard and overcrowded stand conditions, and close proximity to the community of Weaverville, (See Purpose of and Need for Action Section below). This analysis covers the National Forest System land on the Weaverville Ranger District of Shasta-Trinity National Forest.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 1 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 1: Purpose and Need – May 2006
The project area is located adjacent to the northern Weaverville community boundary in the Weaverville watershed (East Weaver, Little Browns, and Rush Creeks). The legal locations (all within Mt. Diablo Meridian in Trinity County) are within two townships: T34N, R10W, Sections 23 and 24 (road work only); T34N, R9W, Sections 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, and 34. Unless otherwise specified, these affected sections are referred to collectively as the “project area.” It is an area of public lands designated as adaptive management area and riparian reserve. The adaptive management area is managed for stand health and to provide a non-declining flow of timber products. The riparian reserve is managed to maintain and restore riparian-dependent structures and functions, provide benefits to riparian-dependent and associated species, and be consistent with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. Previous public and private timber harvest has occurred in the project area. Since 2000, a large volume of timber has been removed from adjacent private timber lands (see cumulative actions Table 4-9). The Forest completed a watershed analysis (WA), which identifies management activities designed to reduce hazards within the watershed. One management activity identified in the WA is timber harvest for wood products and to reduce fuel hazards (Weaverville WA, citation--(page 58). In addition, a project roads analysis procedure has been completed and includes road status recommendations incorporated into the development of alternatives considered. The purpose and need for the proposed project was developed by an interdisciplinary planning team. This team used the Forest-wide direction and incorporated specific alternative proposals from the Cohesive Strategy to Protect People and Sustain Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems (“Cohesive Strategy,” approved by Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck on October 13, 2000— USDA, 2000). Also, the team incorporated opportunities identified during reconnaissance of the project area, from public scoping, and from the Weaverville WA. The Cohesive Strategy established a framework intended to: • Improve the resilience and sustainability of forests and grasslands at risk, • Conserve priority watersheds, species, and biodiversity, • Reduce wildland fire costs, losses, and damages, and • Better ensure public and firefighter safety.
The Weaverville Wildland-Urban Interface occupies approximately 70% of the project area, and Weaverville, the nearest town to the proposed project area, is listed in the Federal Register for communities at high risk from wildfire (Federal Register, April 17, 2001, page 43390)
Purpose of and Need for Action______The underlying need for the Browns Project is to reduce the number of trees per acre because the forest is overcrowded. This proposed project is needed to help deal with two problems within the watershed: 1) fire hazard and 2) forest health and growth. Fire hazard: Stands in the watershed have become overcrowded with too many trees tightly spaced. Many of these trees are in the understory layer and act as fuel ladders, allowing fire to move from the forest floor into the upper canopy layer. Undesirable fuel ladder conditions occur when the
2 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 1: Purpose and Need – May 2006 crowns of trees extend from the upper canopy to a height above the ground within the reach of flames, because as the flames of a fire move from the ground into the upper canopy, forest crowns are burned and most if not all tree cover lost. This is referred to as a stand-replacing wildfire because few trees survive. It could have adverse effects to ecosystem (see Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, regarding the no action alternative). As an example, loss of tree cover as a result of stand-replacing fire could leave large areas open and exposed to increased soil erosion and sedimentation into water. Sedimentation of the water could impact water quality for fish and domestic water use. Loss of tree cover could adversely impact wildlife species such as the northern spotted owl that depend on forests for its habitat. Forest health and growth: Overcrowded stand conditions also contribute to reduced tree health and growth. Crown and foliage development is limited because not enough room and site resources, e.g. water and nutrients, are available for the large number of trees. As the density of the stand increases, tree crown size becomes smaller with less leaf and needle area to carry on photosynthesis, adding physiological stress to the trees. This results in weakened trees with greater susceptibility to mortality from insects and disease, or drought. As trees die and eventually fall over, a volume of woody material accumulates on the forest floor. As the volume of woody material builds up, fire intensity, including flame heights, increase adding to the likelihood of stand replacing fires. Reducing competition (through the reduction in the number of trees per acre) can create a more hospitable growing condition for the trees left on-site. See Photographs 1 and 2 for an example of a “before” and “after” expected from the Browns Project area.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 3 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 1: Purpose and Need – May 2006
Photograph #1: (Existing Condition) was taken in August 2005 within Unit 3I of the proposed action. The existing trees include incense cedar and Douglas-fir representing the 2- to 14-inch diameter class in the understory; ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and incense cedar representing the 14- to 22-inch size class in the intermediate and co-dominant crown positions; and ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir representing the 24-inch+ size class in the dominant crown positions. The “crown base height” of the stand pictured above is only four to six feet. Since flame heights of a fire burning through this area are expected to be about eight feet, the existing stand would likely sustain crown fire, possibly consuming large number of trees in the upper canopy layer. This condition is a fire hazard due to the dense stocking and the “ladder” fuel conditions. Also, its dense stocking is inhibiting tree growth due to competition for water, nutrients, and sunlight.
4 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 1: Purpose and Need – May 2006
Photograph #2: Low fire mortality is expected in this stand. The “Desired Condition” is in foreground, with the “Existing Condition” in background. This photo was taken in August 2005 within the Browns Project area along the Musser Hill Road (Forest Road 34N95) fuel break.
The foreground of the photo displays a timber stand with 40 trees per acre – similar to the expected condition of the thinned stands included within the Browns Project. Notice in the foreground that “ladder” fuels have been removed, resulting in a “crown base height” of approximately 25 feet. Expected flame heights of a fire burning through this area would be less than four feet. So the fire would have no ladder to climb into the crowns of the remaining trees. The remaining 40 trees per acre will grow at an increased rate, resulting in a stand of large trees with a 90% crown cover (assuming 40 trees per acre, each with a 38-foot diameter crown).
The background of the photo has not been treated within the past 30+ years, resulting in a dense understory of trees which inhibits individual tree growth and serves to increase fire hazard via ground and ladder fuels.
Proposed Action ______The Forest Service proposes to harvest trees through multiple timber sale and/or service contracts to achieve the purpose and need statement, implemented through a timber sale contract. Trees would be removed using helicopter, cable, and tractor logging systems. Key components of the project would include: • Timber Harvest: Intermediate harvest on about 754 acres and group regeneration harvest on about 39 acres, yielding about 8.8 million board feet of timber. Within the intermediate harvest areas, the largest, most vigorous trees would not be harvested; the understory, less healthy trees from all diameter classes would be harvested; the residual crown closure objective would be approximately 40%. Within riparian reserves, the residual crown closure objective would
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 5 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 1: Purpose and Need – May 2006
be to maintain 60% or greater crown closure where available. Intensive fuel treatment would be performed after harvest to meet project area objectives. • Tractor and cable yarding, log hauling, site preparation, tree planting in small (less than two- acre) openings, and subsequent monitoring activities. • Associated project activities include approximately 4.6 miles of road construction and approximately 3.6 miles of road reconstruction. In addition, about 3.6 miles of temporary roads to access the intermediate harvest areas would be constructed and subsequently closed. However, all temporary roads would be closed after public wood gathering and post harvest activities are complete (approximately two years after harvest). Refer to Appendix C for a color-coded map that depicts all proposed road management activities. • Road decommissioning on about 10.3 miles of system roads and road obliteration on about 20.5 miles of non-system roads to reduce area cumulative watershed effects resulting from the combination of proposed and existing watershed impacts.
The proposed action was developed in concert with the Trinity County’s Fire Safe Council’s recommendations and is consistent with and complementary to the Weaverville Community Fuel Break Program Timberland Environmental Impact Report. The Proposed Action does not include the south half of Section 34, T34N, R10W (as recommended by the Council) because this has been addressed in a previous environmental action (Decision Memo for China Gulch Thinning/Fuels reduction, signed July 23, 2001). The proposed activities would likely be completed within five to seven years of the decision being made and may involve multiple timber sale and service contracts. For more detailed information regarding the proposed action, refer to the Alternatives section, Alternative 3 (pages 11 to 18), and the Alternative 3 map (page 19). Additional alternatives considered are identified in that same section.
Decision Framework ______Given the purpose and need, the deciding official reviews the proposed action, the other alternatives, and the environmental consequences to determine whether to implement the proposed action as described, select a different alternative, modify the proposal to more fully address unresolved conflicts and disputes with an alternative action, or take no action at this time.
Management Direction ______National Forest management is guided by various laws, regulations, and policies that provide the framework for all levels of planning, including Regional Guides, Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs), and site-specific documents, such as this EIS. These higher-level documents are incorporated by reference and can be obtained from Forest Service offices. The LRMP provides guidance for managing NFS lands within the Forest. Guidance from the Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision (NWFP ROD) is incorporated into the Shasta-Trinity National Forest LRMP. The LRMP was amended by the Record of Decision and Standards &
6 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 1: Purpose and Need – May 2006
Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines on January 12, 2001 (USDA and USDI 2001), by the Record of Decision To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards & Guidelines on March 22, 2004 (USDA and USDI 2004b), and by the Record of Decision Amending Resource Management Plans for Seven Bureau of Land Management Districts and Land and Resource Management Plans for Nineteen National Forests Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl - Decision to Clarify Provisions Relating to the Aquatic Conservation Strategy on March 22, 2004 (USDA and USDI 2004a). The LRMP provides Forest-wide direction and management prescription direction. Forest-wide direction, which includes Forest goals, objectives, and standards and guidelines, is located on LRMP pages 4-11 through 4-30. The management direction for the Weaverville/Lewiston Management Area is located on LRMP pages 4-107 through 4-109. This proposed action is within the Hayfork Adaptive Management Area, as identified in the NWFP, within a Management Prescription III area that emphasizes Roaded Recreation. Riparian Reserves are applied along streams and wetlands found within the project area and are managed to protect and enhance riparian dependant resources. The LRMP can be found at the following website: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/shastatrinity/publications/forest-plan.shtml
Public Involvement ______Scoping is defined as “…an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action” (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1501.7). The scoping process is used to invite public participation, to help identify public issues, and to obtain public comment at various stages of the analysis process. Notice of the proposal first appeared in the December 2000 Schedule of Proposed Actions for the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. This project has been listed quarterly in that publication since that date (about 20 quarters). The schedule is posted on the Forest web page and paper copies are mailed to those who request them. A scoping letter, dated August 1, 2003, was mailed to 111 people, groups, and agencies that were expected to have interest in the Browns Project, including those who expressed interest in the proposal, who owned property adjacent to the project area and to agencies with responsibilities for local resource management. In addition, the notice was published in the newspaper of record, the Record Searchlight, on August 6, 2003, and in the Trinity Journal (a local newspaper) on August 20, 2003. Six responses were received during this first scoping period and are included in the “Response to Scoping” section of the project file. Based on the information received from the public and on preliminary analyses, it was determined that there was the potential for significant adverse effects, as defined by NEPA. The Forest Supervisor decided that it would be most efficient to prepare an EIS at the beginning of the process, rather than conduct an environmental assessment to determine if an EIS was needed and then possibly prepare an EIS. A Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on February 10, 2005, which requested public comments to be submitted to the Forest Service by March 21, 2005. A second scoping letter for the proposed project was mailed March 3, 2005, to individuals who
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 7 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 1: Purpose and Need – May 2006
responded to the first scoping letter and to organizations that were expected to have interest in the Browns Project. In addition, a legal notice was published in the newspaper of record, the Record Searchlight, on March 3, 2005, and in the Trinity Journal (a local newspaper) on March 9, 2005, informing the public that an EIS would be prepared. Five responses were received during this second scoping period and these are included in the “Response to Scoping” section of the project file. Five expressed opposition to the project; two did not state opposition or support of the project. The rest of the contacts were requests to be included on the mailing list. The comment letters expressed opinions, identified issues, proposed alternatives, requested that appropriate procedures be followed, or raised other concerns about the proposal. Consultation has been completed with USFWS, NMFS, and North Coast Regional WQCB. Copies of the DEIS and/or summaries were mailed to agencies and to members of the public on April 16, 2005. The Environmental Protection Agency published a notice of availability for the DEIS in the Federal Register on April 29, 2005. The public was provided an opportunity to comment during a 45 day comment period on the DEIS and proposed action. A Legal Notice for Comment on the DEIS was published in the Record Searchlight on May 5, 2005, and comments were requested to be submitted no later than 45 days from the published date. Comments were received from five participants. These comments and the consideration of each are summarized in Appendix F. Again five commenters expressed interest in the project, two did not state opposition or support of the project. The rest of the contacts were requests to be included on the mailing list. The comment letters expressed opinions, identified issues, proposed alternatives, requested that appropriate procedures be followed, or raised other concerns about the proposal. The Public Involvement File for the Browns Project contains documentation of the efforts made to involved interested members of the public, appropriate agencies, and Tribal members in the planning process and the results of those efforts. The file is incorporated by reference and available in the project file.
Issues ______Issues are points of discussion, debate, or dispute about the environmental effects. The Forest Service separated the issues for this proposal into two groups: significant and non-significant issues. Significant issues were identified because of their relevance to the proposal, indicating resource conflicts that might result in environmental impacts. Reasons issues are categorized as non-significant may include: 1) they are outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) they are already decided by law, regulation, LRMP, or other higher level decision; 3) they are irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) they are conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations explain this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)…” The responsible official’s consideration of all comments received is included in the “Issue Management” section of the project file. Issues recognized as non-significant are not included within
8 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 1: Purpose and Need – May 2006 this EIS, but are identified in the issue management section of the project file for tracking purposes with the rationale for dismissal/disposition of these being cited. One significant issue, regarding road building, was received during scoping. Specifically, the Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC) expressed a concern that road construction and reconstruction may severely impact terrestrial and aquatic systems in the area. Therefore, an additional alternative (Alternative 4) has been added for consideration in detailed study – this alternative does not include road construction, but includes reconstruction where the planning team recognized an environmental benefit (to soils and water resources) from reconstructing existing roads.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 9 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 1: Purpose and Need – May 2006
10 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 2: Alternatives – May 2006
Chapter 2: Alternatives
This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Browns Project. It describes both alternatives considered in detail and those eliminated from detailed study. The end of this chapter presents the alternatives in tabular format so that the alternatives and their environmental effects can be readily compared.
Alternatives Considered ______Based on the issues identified through public comment on the proposed action, the Forest Service developed one alternative proposal that achieve purpose and need differently than the proposed action. In addition, the Forest Service is required to analyze a no action alternative. The action alternatives and the no action alternative are described in detail below.
Alternative 1 (No Action) Under the No Action Alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. No timber harvest, burning, or watershed restoration project activities would be implemented with this proposal to accomplish the purpose and need. The No Action Alternative provides a point of reference from which to evaluate the action alternatives. This alternative would implement no activity at this time, allowing the existing conditions to remain unchanged. The average fuel loading within the project area is estimated to be 15 tons per acre, with low to high fire behavior ratings in terms of fire hazard and tree mortality. This alternative does not meet the identified purpose and need for action and disregards recommendations from the Weaverville WA, the Cohesive Strategy, and the LRMP.
Alternative 3 (Proposed Action) Refer to the section Design Criteria Common to All Action Alternatives following this section for specific information regarding this alternative. Appendix A lists the units, acreages, and prescriptions proposed in this alternative. Alternative 3 emphasizes management activities to meet the identified project purpose and need, including actions and recommendations from the WA (Opportunity #6.1 to reduce hazardous fuel, Opportunity #1.2 to use commercial timber sales to meet desired fuels and vegetation conditions, and Opportunity 1.3 to improve the road transportation system). A primary objective of Alternative 3 is to limit project activities to the extent that there would be no significant long-term (longer than 5 years) increase in the cumulative watershed effects (CWEs) resulting from project implementation. In addition, the project proposal is designed to avoid adverse effects to slope stability, riparian reserves, soils, and wildlife habitat while still contributing to the objective of meeting the project purpose and need. This alternative proposes to thin mature conifer stands of all existing diameter classes to levels expected to improve forest health, maintain and enhance growth and yield of conifer species, and leaving stand attributes such as snags and hardwoods for wildlife habitat needs. Trees targeted for removal would be the least vigorous individuals in the suppressed and intermediate crown positions.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 11 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 2: Alternatives – May 2006
Whole-tree yarding would be required to reduce the activity fuels and leave the resultant timber stands in an improved fire resilient condition. All pre-dominant and dominant trees would be retained. Trees in the co-dominant crown position would be removed where stand densities are excessive and removal is expected to contribute to the development of late-successional conditions. Stand densities outside of riparian reserves would be thinned to a density that would sustain timber stand growth for approximately 30 years (no re-entry for harvest is anticipated for 30 years or more). Within riparian reserves, stand densities would be maintained at higher levels to retain a greater amount of crown cover (at least 60% where it exists). Group regeneration areas (each no larger than 2.5 acres in size) would be harvested to accommodate the large landings needed for decking/piling the material generated from whole-tree yarding within the thinning units. These areas are located where landings are expected to be created, where cable harvesting effects to the residual stands are expected to be greatest (immediately below the expected yarder setup), in areas of heavy fuel loadings, and in areas where the current stands are understocked. Mitigation measures, road and trail decommissioning, and watershed improvement activities that contribute to decreasing the equivalent roaded acreage (ERA) are included in this alternative. A total of about 31 miles of road decommissioning would be accomplished. Refer to Appendix C for a complete list and map of the proposed road decommissioning.
Alternative 4 (No New Roads Alternative) Refer to the section Design Criteria Common to All Action Alternatives following this section for specific information regarding this alternative. Appendix A lists the units, acreages, and prescriptions proposed in this alternative. This alternative has no road construction, about 27.5 miles of road decommissioning, and avoids road-associated adverse environmental effects, responding to a scoping comment request to consider an alternative that does not build any new or temporary roads. Timber harvest areas identified in Alternative 3 that would require road construction to access are not included in Alternative 4. No roads would be constructed (however, temporary roads within units accessible by the existing road system would be constructed for log hauling and obliterated [ripped] after fuels treatments are complete). Specifically, roads needed to access units 3E, 3F, 3G, 3H, 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D, 5E, 5F, 5G, 5H, 9A, 9B, 9C, 9D, and 9E would not be constructed and these units would not be harvested.
Design Criteria Common to All Action Alternatives Key components of Alternatives 3 and 4, including design features and mitigation measures, are identified in the following section. (Refer to Appendix A for additional unit-specific information on the Proposed Action (Alternative 3) and Alternative 4.) Key Components of Alternatives 3 and 4 1. The timber management proposals include reducing the trees per acre of mature mixed conifer timber stands from approximately 300 trees per acre (individual trees from 4- to 40-
12 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 2: Alternatives – May 2006
inches diameter at breast height, DBH) to 40-70 trees per acre (individual trees remaining would be 16- to 40-inches DBH). This is an intermediate harvest – thinning from below. The most vigorous pre-dominant, dominant, and co-dominant trees would be left after stocking objectives are met. In addition, small (approximately two-acre) regeneration harvesting areas would be created in selected locations within harvest units. The regeneration units would be planted with conifers after successful planting site preparation. See Table 2-1 for a summary of the key timber management components of Alternatives 3 and 4. Refer to Appendix A for unit-specific timber management activities.
Table 2-1. Key Timber Management Components of Alternatives 3 and 4.
Timber Stand Activity Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Intermediate Harvest (thin from below) (acres) 754 543 Tractor yarding (mechanical) (acres) 571 459 Cable yarding (acres) 183 84 Regeneration Harvest (total of two-acre group regeneration areas) (acres) 39 25 Tractor yarding (acres) 26 23 Cable yarding (acres) 13 2 Total timber volume proposed for harvest in millions of board feet (mmbf) 8.8 6.3
2. A combination of fuels treatments would be applied on a unit-by-unit basis to reduce fuel loading and/or fuel continuity. A detailed description of the proposed fuels treatments is included in Appendix A. Additional fuels treatment beyond 10 years of the ROD for this proposal would require a separate NEPA decision. In addition, a specific burn plan would be developed (and approved by the Forest Supervisor) prior to initiating any burning to minimize the potential for adverse affects to personnel involved in burning, to the public, and to the forest resources. This plan might include a combination of mastication, pruning, hand thinning, hand line construction, prescribed fire prescriptions, firing/ignition procedures, smoke management and air quality requirements, holding procedures, signing, traffic controls, and an escape fire contingency plan. See Table 2-2 for a summary of the key fuel treatment components of Alternatives 3 and 4.
Table 2-2. Key Fuel Treatment Components for Alternatives 3 and 4.
Treatment of Activity Fuels Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Whole Tree Yard (acres) 793 568 Lop and Scatter (acres) 674 467 Tractor Pile/Burn (acres) 26 21 Roadside Pile/Burn (acres) 81 76 Burn Concentrations (acres) 674 467 Broadcast Burn (acres) 13 4 Dozer Line Construction (chains) 878 700 Hand Line Construction (chains) 586 290
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 13 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 2: Alternatives – May 2006
3. Archaeologists have conducted archaeological surveys and identified historic properties within the Browns Project area. Identified historic properties will be avoided from management activities. 4. No herbicides or other types of pesticide would be used for any proposed treatments or connected actions. 5. Regarding wildlife and wildlife habitat: • Retain existing large (greater than 19-inches DBH) snags and downed logs within thinning units. Snags felled for safety reasons would be left on site as a downed log. • Limited operating periods (LOPs) would be implemented to avoid direct adverse effects to the northern spotted owl. From February 1 through July 10, all noise- and smoke- generating activities will be prohibited within ¼-mile of suitable nesting/roosting habitat. In addition, all vegetation removal/cutting/burning will be prohibited through September 15 within suitable nesting/roosting habitat. These limited operating periods may be lifted if surveys using currently accepted protocols indicate specific areas are not occupied by breeding owls or with the mutual agreement between the FWS and the Forest Service that a site-specific action would not likely affect owls. • Maintain an average of five tons of downed logs per acre with a preference to have four to six downed logs per acre at the largest available diameter. • Retain all hardwoods that have a reasonable chance of surviving and thriving after stand treatments.
6. Approximately 4.6 miles of system roads in the area would be constructed during the implementation of the fuels treatment and timber management proposals proposed in Alternative 3. These roads are located in areas suited to access land management activities without regard to existing vegetation and would remain open until public woodcutting is complete (estimated to be within three years of implementation of the project). Road reconstruction and temporary roads proposed as part of project implementation are also shown in Table 2-3. In addition, a total of about 27.5 miles of existing (system plus unclassified) roads would be decommissioned as part of the project proposal for Alternatives 3 and 4 for the purpose of reducing the cumulative watershed effects of the area. Table 2-3 summarizes the road actions for Alternatives 1, 3, and 4. The listing of the roads proposed for decommissioning is included in Appendix C.
14 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 2: Alternatives – May 2006
Table 2-3. Road Actions Proposed by Alternative.
Affected Transportation System (Roads) Alt. 1 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 New Road Construction 34N47 (0.9 mi.) Non-existing Constructed, then Non-existing decommissioned 34N47A (0.3 mi.) Non-existing Constructed, then Non-existing decommissioned 34N87 (1.3 mi.) Non-existing Constructed, then Non-existing restricted use 34N87A (0.9 mi.) Non-existing Constructed, then Non-existing decommissioned 34N88 (1.2 mi.) Non-existing Constructed, then Non-existing decommissioned Total Miles of New Road 0 4.6 miles 0 Reconstruction 34N52Y (0.5 mi.) No change Reconstructed, then Same as Alt. 3 decommissioned 34N52YA (0.1 mi.) No change Reconstructed and Same as Alt. 3 surfaced 34N95 (1.9 mile, to northwest corner of Unit 16) No change Reconstructed and Same as Alt. 3 surfaced 34N77 (1.1 mi.) No change Reconstructed and No change surfaced Total Miles of Reconstruction 0 3.6 miles 2.5 miles Summary of Road Decommissioning Total miles of new roads constructed, then 0 3.3 miles 0 decommissioned Total miles of existing classified roads that 0 7.0 miles 7.0 miles would be decommissioned Total Miles of Decommissioned Roads 0 10.3 miles 7.0 miles Total Miles of Temporary Roads 0 3.6 miles 3.1 miles (obliterated after use) Affected Unclassified Roads Total miles of obliterated unclassified roads 0 20.5 miles 20.5 miles
7. Regarding project designs to protect sensitive and endemic plants: • Include Contract Provision C/Ct6.25# in all timber sale contracts for this proposed project. This provision extends protection to any sensitive plants listed on the Regional Forester’s sensitive Species List and provides for halting operations in the vicinity of newly discovered populations after completion of the Biological Evaluation or EIS. • Include Contract Provision C6.36 in all timber sale contracts to reduce the possibility of introducing new noxious weeds into the project area. This provision requires all purchasers to clean off-road equipment prior to entrance into the project area. • Flag sensitive plant populations in Unit 15A and exclude this site from all treatment activities other than fuel concentration burning.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 15 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 2: Alternatives – May 2006
• Flag two populations of Canada thistle along Rush Creek Road and exclude all project activities within these population sites. • Flag two populations of scotchbroom along Rush Creek Road and exclude all project activities within these population sites. Scotchbroom tops will be removed prior to flowering in the year project activities are to occur to minimize the possibility of spreading seed during project activities.
8. Regarding project designs to protect and enhance riparian reserves: • Riparian reserves of intermittent and ephemeral streams that display annual scour would have a minimum 150-foot riparian reserve buffer. There is one inner gorge greater than 150 feet from the defined channel of intermittent or ephemeral streams in Unit 13 that would require a riparian reserve buffer greater than 150 feet in width. • Riparian reserves of fish bearing streams that display annual scour would have a 300-foot riparian reserve. There are no inner gorges or flood plains in the project area greater than 300 feet from the defined channel of fish bearing streams. • Thinning would occur in the riparian reserves (but not within the inner gorge, or within 50 feet from the defined channel of a fish-bearing stream if no inner gorge exists) for the purpose of enhancing riparian reserve timber stand health and treating hazardous fuels. Thinning and fuels treatment would not reduce crown cover to less than 60% within riparian reserves. • A wet weather limited operating period would be in effect from October 15 to May 15. Activities may occur in dry conditions with approval of the Timber Sale Contract Administrator. • Hazard trees 16-inches DBH or greater within riparian reserves would be dropped and retained on site.
9. Regarding management of the soil resource: • All skid trails would be water-barred and mulched with certified weed-free straw or fine slash (achieving 75% or more cover) the last 50 feet of all skid trails where they enter landings or roads to minimize soil erosion. • Contour rip (with winged subsoil to 12-inches deep), seed, and mulch (straw) all temporary roads, main skid trails, and landings to break up compaction. All tractor-yarded regeneration units would be contour ripped. • Rip to 18-inches deep, seed, and mulch using certified weed-free straw all decommissioned roads. • Re-use existing primary skid trails and landings. • Prevent road runoff from draining onto landings and skid trails. • Retain existing down coarse woody debris whenever possible, providing the amount of logs does not exceed fuel management objectives. • All yarding requires one-end log suspension (leading end of log). • Tractor skidding is generally restricted to slopes less than 35%.
16 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 2: Alternatives – May 2006
• Mechanical skidding equipment is restricted to slash covered primary skid trails where slopes are less than 35%. Endlining would be used in those areas where skid trails may exceed 35%. • Spread fine slash material (50% soil cover) on primary skid trails that may occur on greater than 35% slopes. • Ground-based mechanical equipment would only operate when the soils are dry down to 12-inches, or as approved by a Timber Sale Contract Administrator. • Maintain post-treatment soil cover to at least 50%, with at least 50% cover as fine slash (less than 3-inch sized material).
10. Regarding protection of water quality: Standard Pacific Southwest Region Forest Service timber sale harvest management requirements and mitigation measures are required for those alternatives proposing harvest activities. The following mitigation measures are required and are in addition to Best Management Practices (BMPs) listed in the erosion control plan (Appendix B). • No ignition or intensive burning within designated riparian areas. • Keep prescribed fire as cool as possible and attain desired burn conditions. • Allow hand cutting and piling where feasible to arrange fuel load in riparian areas. • All streamside management zones to be flagged and/or signed within proposed treatment units. Identify riparian reserves as “Protect Stream Course” on sale area map. • Remove harvest activity fuels within the high water mark of each affected stream course. • Follow streamside management zone objectives (as defined in BMP Handbook) for each protected stream course in the assessment area for details of permissible and prohibited activities (BMP 1-8). • No mechanical entry or harvesting would occur within inner-gorge areas (designated by sale preparation personnel and approved by the project hydrologist or fishery biologist). • Designate/approve riparian reserve crossings. Skid trail grade shall not exceed 35% and shall be located so as to minimize ground and vegetative disturbance. Rehabilitate skid trail disturbed mineral soil within 50 feet (slope distance) of defined channel limits with available organic material, resulting in minimum 50-70% ground cover post-treatment. • Limit the operating period of heavy machinery prescription activity. To avoid compaction, rutting, gullying, and the resulting long-term damage to the productivity of the soil resource, as well as to achieve clean tractor piles, tractor piling activities would be accomplished with grapple-type equipment and be limited to the dry periods of the year. Tractor operation would be suspended by the Timber Sale Contract Administrator when soil conditions become too wet, and there is a potential for soil compaction and soil hydrologic function to occur. (BMPs 1-10, 5-2, 5-6, 1-13.) • Dedicate no more than 15% of the unit to primary skid roads, trails, and landings. The objective is to design a skidding pattern that best fits the terrain and limits the effect on the soil. Pre-designated skid trails, felling to the lead, and end lining are methods that can be
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 17 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 2: Alternatives – May 2006
used to achieve this. Skid trails should be outsloped and not located in swales, where waterbarring is not possible or requires deep cuts. (BMPs 1-10, 1-12, 1-13, 1-16.) • For Alternatives 3 and 4, decommission system and non-system roads and trails that would improve soil and water quality conditions and are not needed for long-term use (i.e., more than 20 years). Road decommissioning entails removing culverts, ripping and outsloping road surface, and installing large water-bars (a.k.a. tank-trapping). Other activities may occur depending on site conditions. The goal is to control surface runoff, erosion, and mass failure leaving the road unavailable for future use. The condition of these roads would be monitored long-term as part of BMP effectiveness monitoring. For this project, about 30 miles of road (new plus existing) are identified to be decommissioned (as identified in Appendix C). This mitigation measure is critical to project success and would be implemented using dollars generated by the timber sale, Forest Service engineering and watershed restoration funds, and non-Forest Service sources (e.g. water quality grants). • If timber hauling is performed outside the normal operating season, the placement of aggregate base course may be required to provide a stable running surface and prevent rutting and potential erosion. Snow berms would be removed or drains installed to avoid channelization of melt water to minimize potential for damage to the road and to protect water quality. If the road surface is damaged, lost surface material would be replaced, and damaged structures repaired. (BMPs 2-23, 2-24 and 2-25) • Purchaser-utilized roads rutted or otherwise damaged by purchaser operations would be spot-rocked or otherwise suitably repaired. Drainage structures would be protected or repaired as necessary. The road surface would be outsloped, if possible, during maintenance operations. Due to the chance of rilling and gullying of the roadbed, road surfaces in areas crossing serpentinitic soils should be rocked to prevent roadbed deformation (rutting) during wet conditions. • Closed roads would have an earthen berm or gate.
11. Regarding project designs to protect water quality from adverse effects due to mass wasting: • There are several large dormant rotational landslides located within the southeast portion of Unit 3 with deeply incised gullies. The southeast portion of Unit 3 has been reviewed by a hydrologist and a geologist to assure appropriate stream width protection zone widths. • The northwestern portion of Unit 9 and the eastern portion of Unit 15 have been reviewed by a geologist to assure appropriate area exclusion widths have been provided prior to project implementation. • The roadside management zone between Unit 9 and China Gulch has an equipment exclusion area; only trees smaller than 8-inches in diameter would be removed under the Fuels Management prescription. In addition, no trees within 20-feet of a landslide scarp would be taken. This area has been reviewed by a geologist to assure appropriate area exclusion widths have been provided prior to project implementation.
18 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 2: Alternatives – May 2006
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 19 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 2: Alternatives – May 2006
20 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 2: Alternatives – May 2006
Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated from Detailed Study ___ Federal agencies are required to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in response to the Proposed Action provided suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. Some of these alternatives may have been outside the scope of the need for the proposal, duplicative of the alternatives considered in detail, or determined to be components that would cause unnecessary environmental harm. Therefore, a number of alternatives were considered, but dismissed from detailed consideration for reasons summarized below.
Alternative 2 (Timber Harvest Emphasis) This alternative was considered during the first scoping period (in 2003). Alternative 2 focused on management activities to meet the identified project purpose, including actions and recommendations from the WA. The emphasis of this alternative was to maximize the acreage of commercial timber stand harvesting and associated fuels treatments within in strategically located areas. However, the identified need to limit the CWE effects to within the threshold of concern (TOC) for 5th field watersheds would not have been met within a reasonable time period (the TOC would have been exceeded for more than five years, even with implementation of all opportunities for reductions in ERAs within the affected area). Therefore, this alternative has been eliminated from detailed study.
Alternative 5 (19-Inch Diameter Harvest Limit) Alternative 5 was considered in response to DEIS comments received1 to limit timber harvest to trees less than 19-inches diameter at breast height (DBH)2. This alternative would remove ladder fuels to the same degree as Alternative 3, the proposed action; thereby meeting the project objectives to reduce the probability of crown fire. However, Alternative 5 would not open enough growing space in the upper canopy to improve growth of the trees in the dominant and codominant3 crown positions. Trees >19-inches DBH are most often in the upper crown canopy, usually in a codominant position. The density of trees is too high with all trees >19-inch DBH retained, so a portion of these trees need to be removed. An analysis indicates that Alternative 5 would leave stands on average at >25 percent over the desired stocking level. This means that few trees would be removed from the upper canopy
1 Browns Project FEIS – Appendix F, Comment A-1 2 Diameter at breast height (DBH) is at a height of 4½ feet above ground level on the uphill side of the tree, the point at which foresters measure standing trees for inventory purposes. 3 Crown position classification: Dominant – Trees with crowns extending above the general lev3el of the crown cover and receiving full light from above and partly from the side, larger than the average trees in the stand, and with crowns well developed but possibly somewhat crowded on the sides. Codominant – trees with crowns forming the general level of the crown cover and receiving full light from above but comparatively little from the sides, usually with medium-sized crowns more or less crowded on the sides. Intermediate – Trees shorter than those in the two preceding classes but with crowns extending into the crown cover formed by the codominant and dominant trees, receiving a little direct light from above but none from the sides, usually with small crowns considerably crowded on the sides. Suppressed – Trees with crowns entirely below the general level of the crown cover, receiving no direct light either from above or from the sides, overtopped.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 21 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 2: Alternatives – May 2006 layer and growth objectives would not be achieved. Alternative 5 would not achieve the desired stand management objectives for improving live crown development and consequently growth of the best dominant and codominant trees in the project area. Therefore, Alternative 5 is eliminated from detailed study because it would not meet a primary purpose of the Browns Project. Comparison of Alternatives ______Table 2-4 provides a brief summary of the alternatives and their environmental effects in comparative format.
Table 2-4. Comparison of Effects and Outputs between Alternatives 1, 3, and 4.
Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 (No Action) Botany Effect on sensitive plant and fungi species No Effects May affect May affect individuals individuals Effect on noxious weeds No Effects Some adverse Some adverse effects effects Cumulative Watershed Effects (includes completion of road obliterating and decommissioning) % ERA for Rush Creek (TOC 16%) 13.0 13.0 12.9 % ERA for E. Weaver Cr. (TOC 16%) 9.8 9.6 9.6 % ERA for Little Browns Cr. (TOC 16%) 14.8 12.5 11.4 Economic Effects Value of timber harvested (in $) 0 3,577,200 2,560,950 Present net value of timber management (in $) 0 1,177,100 935,750 Road decommissioning costs (in $) 0 650,000 590,000 Fire and Fuels Effects (in treated areas) Fire behavior No Change Reduced Reduced Fire severity No Change Less Severity Less Severity Fisheries Effects to Listed and MIS Fish No direct effect Adverse effect due Adverse effect due to short-term to short-term sediment increase sediment increase Effects to fish habitat & riparian reserves No direct effect Short-term Short-term sediment effect; sediment effect; long-term long-term improvement improvement Acreage of Thinning within Riparian Reserves 0 acres 81 acres 76 acres Geology Effect to land stability No change No effect. Unstable No effect. Unstable areas avoided in areas avoided in project design project design
22 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 2: Alternatives – May 2006
Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 (No Action) Heritage Resources Effects to heritage sites No effect No effect No effect Soils Erosion (erosion hazard) Low (2-4) Moderate (7-12) Moderate (5-8) Compaction (acres compacted) 800 acres 500 acres 600 acres (0 acres (300 acres treated) (200 acres treated) treated) Fertility (tons per acre of slash and duff) 6-12 3-4 5-6
Roads Total miles of obliterated (unclassified) roads 0 20.5 miles 20.5 miles Total miles of decommissioned (classified) 0 10.3 miles 7.0 miles roads Total miles of temporary roads (obliterated 0 3.6 miles 3.1 miles after use) Timber Average timber stand density (square foot of 120-340 80-140 80-140 basal area per acre) Acreage affected by managing stand density 0 754 543 (thinning) Acreage of regeneration harvest 0 39 25 Timber volume (mmbf) 0 8.8 6.3 Wildlife Effects on Old-Growth Habitat No effect Temporary Temporary downgrade; long- downgrade; long- term increase in term increase in habitat quality habitat quality Threatened, Endangered, and sensitive (TE&S) No effect Chance of Chance of species temporary temporary displacement of displacement of spotted owls; long- spotted owls; long- term beneficial term beneficial effect effect
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 23 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 2: Alternatives – May 2006
24 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 3: Affected Environment – May 2006
Chapter 3: Affected Environment
This chapter describes aspects of the environment likely to be affected by the proposed action and alternatives. These descriptions form the scientific basis for the comparison of effects in Chapter 2.
Botany______
Existing Conditions Relative to Sensitive Plants and Fungi The proposed project area contains a mixture of chaparral, mixed conifer/hardwood, conifer, riparian, and oak woodland habitats. Regardless of the alternative, most of the conifer and mixed conifer/hardwood habitat lies on the eastern half of the project area and large blocks of chaparral and oak woodlands are in the western half. All Sensitive species habitat is found within conifer or mixed conifer/hardwood habitats. Suitable habitat is present within the project area for branched collybia, Cudonia monticola, Brownie lady’s-slipper, mountain lady’s-slipper, copper moss, olive phaeocollybia, Canyon Creek stonecrop, and English Peak greenbriar. Populations of Brownie lady’s-slipper, mountain lady’s- slipper, Canyon Creek stonecrop, and English Peak greenbriar were found in the general project area during field surveys, but only one population each of Brownie lady’s-slipper and mountain lady’s- slipper are contained within any treatment units.
Noxious Weeds The project area was inventoried for the presence of noxious weeds in conjunction with Sensitive plant surveys. There were no weed species of concern found within the proposed project area. Isolated populations of Klamath weed (Hypericum perforatum), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), are present, but no populations were dense enough to warrant concern. Yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) is a wide ranging roadside and opening weed that is present throughout the west side of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Two populations of Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) were found along Rush Creek Road, but no more than two plants were found at either population. There are two populations of scotchbroom, also located along Rush Creek Road. The largest population contains 31 plants.
Economic Effects______Trinity County receives a portion of the Forest’s receipts collected on National Forest Timber Sales. The local community is affected in terms of employment opportunities both directly and indirectly related to timber sales and associated management activities on National Forest lands. One method of determining the economic efficiency of a project proposal is the calculation of its present net value (PNV). A PNV is equal to the discounted sum of benefits minus the discounted sum of the costs for the same period of time. A PNV with a positive value indicates that returns associated with a project exceed the project’s costs. A PNV with a negative value indicates that project costs exceed returns. The objective of the Browns Project is to have a positive PNV. However, the resource values
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 25 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 3: Affected Environment – May 2006 associated with project benefits are not always measured in monetary terms (such as the value of increase fire protection for the Weaverville community), requiring resource managers to consider qualitative costs and benefits along with the quantitative values measured by PNV. Executive Order No.12898 requires each federal agency to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. Trinity County is considered the affected area of the Browns Project. Statistics from the 2000 census show that for Trinity County, 0.4% are Black or African American; 4.8% are American Indian and Native Alaskan; 0.5% are Asian; 0.1% are Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander; 0.9% are Persons reporting some other race; 4.4% are persons reporting two or more races; 86.6% are white, not reporting Hispanic/Latino origin; and 4.0% are Hispanic or Latino origin. The poverty level was 18.7 % in 1999.
Fire and Fuels ______About 60% of the proposed Browns Project area falls within the wildland urban interface. Weaverville is the nearest town to the proposed project area, and it is listed in the Federal Register for communities at high risk from wildfire (Federal Register, April 17, 2001, page 43390). Fire hazard reflects fire behavior potential and its magnitude of effects as a function of fuel conditions (USDA 2004). A map was created to display this across the Browns analysis area in which 88 percent is considered high fire hazard (Fire and Fuels Specialist Report, Appendix A). This is a concern because current surface fuel loadings are in excess of desired conditions (Fuel Model 8); which can result in extreme fire behavior and high fire-severity effects. Fire regimes located in the proposed project area, as described by the Cohesive Strategy, fall within Groups I and II (Table 3-1). Both groups describe many of the lower elevational zones across the United States, which have been affected by the presence of human intervention and are the furthest away from historical levels. These areas are at greatest risk to loss of highly valued resources, commodity interests, and human health and safety (Cohesive Strategy 2000). Conifer stands within the proposed project area are considered to be in Fire Regime Group I.
Table 3-1. The Five Historic Natural Fire Regime Groups (Cohesive Strategy 2000).
Fire Regime Group Frequency Severity (Fire Return Interval) I 0-35 years Low severity II 0-35 years Stand replacement severity III 35-100+ years Mixed severity IV 35-100+ years Stand replacement severity V >200 years Stand replacement severity
Fuel loadings range from about 1 to 33 tons per acre (Table 3-1a), with an average of about 15 tons per acre. This information was used to determine fuel models.
26 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 3: Affected Environment – May 2006
Table 3-1a. Minimum and maximum fuel distributions by size class and fuel class for the Browns analysis area.
Size Fuel Minimum Maximum Class Class (tons/acre) (tons/acre) (Inches) Timber Timber 0 - .24 1 hr 0.3 1.0 .25 - .9 10 hr 1.0 3.2 1 - 2.9 100 hr 0.4 7.9 3+ 1000 hr 0.0 27.1 TOTAL 1.70 33.20
Fuel models within the Browns analysis area were chosen based on sampled fuel loads, a fuel model map (Fire and Fuels Specialist Report, Appendix A), and knowledge of past fire behavior for this area (Oregon 2001). Since sample plots show a range of fuel loadings, the map was used to help identify their locations and associated fuel models. Fuel model 9 best represents current expected fire behavior and is found in approximately half of the Browns analysis area; and in more than half of the proposed treatment units (Table 3-2). Fuel model 10 represents small scattered pockets of heavier surface fuels, which would result in worse case fire behavior (Table 3-2). Fuel model 8 exists on a substantial portion of the area and represents the desired condition due to its low flame length, rate of spread, and fireline intensity (Table 3-2). Fuel model 6 represents a small component of brush and plantations scattered throughout the analysis area; and is found adjacent to several proposed treatment units (Table 3-2).
Table 3-2. Estimated acres and percentages of fuel models found within the Browns analysis area, and proposed treatment units (Alternatives 3 and 4 combined).
Fuel Description Browns Analysis Area Proposed Treatment Units Model (acres) (%) (acres) (%) 8 Closed Timber Litter 4707 33 264 33 9 Closed Timber Litter 6167 44 469 59 10 Closed Timber Litter 486 3 39 5 6 Brush 2274 16 0 0 Calculations include approximately 3084 acres of private land within the proposed Browns analysis area.
Fire behavior within the Browns analysis area was determined using Behave Plus (version 2.0.2)4. Outputs are based on fuel models, and 90th percentile weather data. This version of the model does not predict crown fire behavior; however, this phenomenon is likely to occur under certain weather and vegetative conditions. For example, the Oregon fire (2001) is a real time model of what fire in this fuel type can produce under 90th percentile weather. This fire burned through similar fuels and during strong west winds, which resulted in surface and crown fire. The chance for crown fire does exist; which might occur irregularly across the landscape as changes occur in fuels, weather, and topography.
4 Behave Plus represents static conditions; assuming weather, topography, and fuels are constant.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 27 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 3: Affected Environment – May 2006
Fire severity (the terms “fire severity” and “tree mortality” are used synonymously here) is the degree to which a site has been altered or disrupted by fire; a product of fire intensity and residence time (NWCG 1996). Larger fuels (>3-inches) result in a higher energy release over a longer period of time. This increases fire severity and reduces rates of fireline construction (Agee et al. 2000). Changes to fuels are related to potential fire behavior at any given site and have resulted in reduced severity effects (Finney 2003). Stand/tree mortality is a measure of the effects of fire severity. Probability of mortality is the likelihood that a tree will be killed by fire. This is based on bark thickness and percent crown volume scorched. First Order Fire Effects Model (FOFEM, version 5.0) was used to determine percent mortality in Douglas-fir trees. Other tree species exist within the analysis area, such as pine, cedar, and oak; however, the dominant species (Douglas-fir) was used in modeling tree mortality. Inputs to the model were flame length, species, dbh, tree height, trees per acre, and crown ratio. An eight-foot flame length (fuel model 10) was used to predict mortality because it resulted with a flame length (eight feet or greater) and mortality that was actually experienced during the Oregon fire (2001). The science of fire behavior and fire effects is not exact. All modeling tools have certain limitations and percentages of error. FOFEM is a nationally utilized modeling application that has been developed and tested by fire scientists and research specialists based in Missoula Montana. Because FOFEM assumes a continuous fire and since post-treatment fuels continuity would be discontinuous in proposed units, a wildfire would burn only portions where fuels are concentrated. Therefore, predicted mortality rates (Appendix G, Table J) might be lower than predicted after treatments (Reinhardt 2004).
Fisheries ______In general, streams of the Weaverville watershed begin in the Trinity Alps Wilderness area and are in very good condition in the upper areas of the watershed. Large amounts of water are withdrawn from East Weaver Creek by the Weaverville Community Service District and from Rush Creek at the Rush Creek Estates area. High water temperature and low flow are limiting factors to fish, especially during the mid-summer and fall. Anadromous fishes found in the Weaverville watershed include Fall-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho salmon (O. kisutch), Winter-run Steelhead (O. mykiss), and Pacific Lamprey (Lampetra tridentata). The coho salmon is part of the Southern Oregon Northern California Coast (SONCC) Evolutionary Significant Unit and listed as Threatened by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for coho salmon and Chinook salmon in the action area is identical to coho critical habitat. Winter-run steelhead is designated a Forest Service sensitive and Management Indicator Species (MIS) throughout the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Adult fishes are found in the Weaverville watershed during their spawning migrations. Chinook are found infrequently due to low stream flows that prevent migration during the fall. Coho salmon run later in the year can usually ascend streams in the watershed by late November or early December. Steelhead and lamprey ascend streams in the watershed during early spring and
28 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 3: Affected Environment – May 2006
are limited by natural waterfalls, dams, and culverts. Juvenile fish of all species may be found at any time in the watershed, with juvenile steelhead being most abundant. Fish habitat surveys have been performed periodically since the early 1980s for most streams (1963 for Rush Creek) in the analysis area. Many surveys note poor habitat conditions and, from 1986 to 1992, most streams had habitat improvement structures installed. In confined channels such as Little Browns Creek, some well-constructed structures still persist and provide complex habitats. In streams with less confinement and high bedload transport, the structures were less successful. Water quality is generally very high in streams of the Weaverville watershed. Surveyed streams have had dissolved oxygen levels from 11 to 12 parts per million (ppm), pH from 7 to 7.5, and temperatures around 60° F.
Abundance and Distribution of Anadromous Fishes Rush Creek: Anadromous fishes have access to approximately 9.5 miles of stream habitat before steep bedrock falls block passage. There is SONCC coho salmon critical habitat throughout the project area (Appendix E, pages E-15 to E-16). Chinook are only found during years of early fall rain that creates suitable migration conditions. Low fall flows generally prevent anadromous fishes from using Rush Creek until late November. Spawning surveys for salmon and steelhead have been conducted on sections of Rush Creek intermittently since 1964. Counts have varied widely according to year and survey effort, but have ranged from zero to one Chinook, zero to 32 coho, and five to 439 steelhead. The very first fish habitat surveys in Rush Creek noted excessive bedload and recommended that measures be taken to improve habitat. During the 1980s, a Coordinated Resource Management Planning group was formed of state and federal agencies to address habitat needs in Rush Creek. The group recommended placing instream structures and 32 structures were build in 1988 and 1989. Surveys in 2002 and 2004 showed that only 40% of the structures remain and less than 20% are still functioning. A 2002 Stream Condition Inventory found that most of the large woody debris was less than one foot in diameter, pools averaged only 1.6 feet deep, and 68% of the stream banks were unstable. Little Browns Creek: Little Browns Creek has approximately 0.9 miles of habitat accessible to anadromous fishes on NFS lands. Culverts on County Road 232 present a complete barrier to migrating fishes. Little Browns Creek contains critical habitat for coho salmon (Appendix E, page E- 16). Juvenile steelhead and Coho salmon have been observed in the analysis area; however, spawning has not been documented. Highway 3, County Roads 230, 232 and 807, and Forest Service road U34N77A closely parallel Little Browns Creek within the analysis area. Little Browns Creek has been channelized and its habitat greatly simplified. Large woody debris is lacking, pools are shallow, and the stream banks are vulnerable to erosion (2003 stream condition inventory). Six habitat improvement structures were installed in 1992; several of the structures still exist and provide valuable habitat. East Weaver Creek: East Weaver Creek has approximately 0.5 miles of habitat accessible to anadromous fishes on NFS lands. The diversion dam for the Weaverville Community Service District
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 29 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 3: Affected Environment – May 2006
blocks migration 0.25 miles above the East Weaver Campground. There is SONCC coho salmon critical habitat throughout the project area (Appendix E, page E-16). Juvenile Coho salmon and steelhead have been observed near East Weaver Campground but adult spawning has not been observed. Stream condition inventory surveys performed in 2002 found that most large woody debris was of small diameter (< 1 foot), pools are shallow (average 1.1 feet), and 83% of stream banks are unstable.
Forest Productivity ______The existing vegetative condition of the areas considered (for timber harvest in the Proposed Action) includes about 900 acres of even-aged, 90-year-old conifer stands with species distributions of about 80% Douglas-fir, 10% ponderosa pine, 8% incense cedar, and incidental amounts (about 2%) of sugar pine. Remnant trees aged 110 to 300 years are scattered throughout the project area. Stand densities average about 280 square feet of basal area per acre with crown closures of 70 - 100%. Inter-tree competition for sun, water, and nutrients has resulted in decreased in tree diameter growth (from approximately four rings per inch in the 1980s to 14 rings per inch currently) and decreased live crown ratios (from approximately 60% in the 1980s to 30% currently). The desired future condition of the timber resource as identified in the LRMP for the project area is an even-aged forest with ingrowth and understory vegetation treatment to enhance timber stand growth and yield. The management objectives for National Forest lands included in the proposed project are to maintain timber stand vigor/growth by removing excess stand understories and managing stand densities (LRMP, page 4-108). The LRMP emphasizes vegetation management activities to meet recreation, visual, and wildlife objectives while maintaining healthy and vigorous ecosystems (LRMP, page 4-64). These areas are approaching or are beyond the desired carrying capacity as measured by the density of trees. The live crown ratio, an indicator of tree vigor, is decreasing and averages about 30-40% (considered minimum to maintain adequate tree growth and vigor). The high density of understory trees in the suppressed and intermediate crown positions are expected to result in tree mortality within these positions, increasing the fuels available during a wildland fire. Forest stand densities in the project area are to be managed to enhance growth and yield to improve and protect forest health (LRMP, page 4-108). The existing stand densities vary from site to site within the project area. Existing conditions observed through stand examinations indicate that the selected stands are experiencing inhibited individual tree growth due to inter-tree competition, mortality in many trees that occur in the intermediate and suppressed crown positions, and substantial fuel loads and fuel ladders that are expected to increase the probability of high timber stand mortality should a wildfire occur. Pockets of mortality from endemic levels of insect or disease activity are apparent in portions of the proposed harvest areas – a condition that is exacerbated by the dense tree stocking and results in stress in individual trees from root competition for available water.
30 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 3: Affected Environment – May 2006
Heritage Resources ______The proposed Browns Project lies within territory identified as that of the Wintu People. Previous archaeological investigations have occurred within the proposed Browns Project area. These investigations were conducted for the following Archaeological Reconnaissance Reports (ARR): ARR #05-14-431, Moors Land Exchange; ARR #05-14-472, Rush Timber Sale; ARR #05-14-516, Trinity High Land Exchange; ARR #05-14-516/1, Old Weaver Town Dump/Utility; ARR #05-14- 563, Frase II Land Exchange; ARR #05-14-563; Baxter Timber Sale; ARR #05-14-567/1A, Rush Creek Fish Project; ARR #05-14-567/1B, Baxter TS addition; ARR #05-14-568, Lower Clear Timber Sale; ARR #05-14-569, East Weaver Timber Sale; ARR #05-14-569/1, La Grange Bike Race, ARR #05-14-569/2, East Branch CR. Fir Management; ARR #05-14-569/3, Weaver Basin Trail; ARR #05- 14-569/3B, East Weaver; ARR #05-14-569/4 Deer Brush Burn; ARR #05-14-629, West Weaver Timber Sale; ARR #05-14-786, West Weaver Reservoir; ARR # 05-14-786/1, Moon Lee Ditch Project; ARR #05-14-804, Mule Timber Sale; ARR #05-14-851/1, Red Rock/Garden Gulch Land Exchange; ARR #05-14-921, Bear Basin Trail, and ARR #05-14-569/4, Oregon Fire Recovery. Nine historic sites considered eligible to the National Register of Historic Places are located within or adjacent to the proposed project area. These historic properties are: • #05-14-56-010 Dolly Road & Sweepstakes Ditch • #05-14-56-377 Com-A Rush Ck Mining Complex • #05-14-56-379 Com-C Rush Ck Mining Complex • #05-14-56-387 La Grange Mud Tunnel • #05-14-56-385 La Grange Ditch System • #05-14-56-388 La Grange Siphon #2 • #05-14-56-399 La Grange-Musser Hill Ditch • #05-14-56-512 Chinese Cabin Site • #05-14-56-535 Old La Grange Trail
These previously recorded sites were evaluated for inclusion to the National Register of Historic Places and were determined “Eligible.” Therefore, these sites will be protected utilizing standard protection measures stipulated in the Region 5 Programmatic Agreement. These sites will be identified as controlled areas on project maps and they will also be flagged and avoided (no disturbance will be allowed in these areas).
Land Stability ______
Bedrock Geology The project area lies both within the Weaverville Formation, located within the southeast portion of the project area, and the Salmon Hornblende Schist. These formations are in fault contact along a northeast-southwest fault, which trends across the approximate middle of the project area. Additionally, there are granite outcrops in the Weaver Bally Mountain and Rush Creek areas.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 31 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 3: Affected Environment – May 2006
The Weaverville Formation is composed of Oligocene sediments such as sandstone, shale, and coarse stream conglomerate. This formation is relatively more prone to landsliding than the Salmon Hornblende Schist especially where it is composed of coarse stream conglomerate. The Salmon Hornblende Schist is a mixed rock unit composed of amphibolite-rich rocks.
Geomorphology Both glacial and mass wasting process have played a part in shaping the geomorphology of the area. Glacially shaped landscapes are evident in the extreme upper reaches of the East Weaver Creek watershed, although these fall outside the project area. These areas are composed of glacial cirques and moraines. Mass wasting features include deep-seated dormant rotational landslides and shallow stream headwall basins. Deep-seated dormant landslide terrain dominates northeast-facing slopes while headwall basins dominate the southwest-facing slopes. This characteristic is due to higher moisture conditions within northeast-facing landscapes that have allowed the development of deep soils and mass wasting features. Although ancient and dormant mass wasting features occur throughout the project area, their occurrence is somewhat less frequent in the Musser Hill area. The major project area creek systems of East Weaver, Browns, and Rush form the major transporters of rock debris and sediments produced through these mentioned geomorphic processes. Debris flow deposits presently occupy all of these creeks.
Mass Wasting Features Due to the nature just described of the rocks within this area, mass wasting has played a dominant role in shaping the geomorphology. In several instances, the processes that contribute to mass wasting are presently active, in most however they are dormant. The map (stored as “shape files” and held by project geologist Jasso) produced to accompany the Geology Report depicts the major active and dormant slides within the project area. By far the greatest occurrences of mass wasting features within the project area are dormant rotational/translational slides. Movement of a coherent mass over a discrete, broadly concave failure surface characterizes this type of slide. Most slides have occurred in association with wet zones such as inner gorges or road construction especially within the Weaverville formation. Inter-nested rotational landslides occur in proximity to perennial and ephemeral drainages. These areas are somewhat stable if ground slopes remain under thirty percent, less within the Weaverville formation. At greater slope gradients, these slides should be considered potentially unstable. Such slides commonly creep gradually, but where undercut by a road or drainage will slide out rapidly. Valley inner gorges are defined as those slopes adjacent to channel margins having gradients in excess of 65%. The valley inner gorge is formed through mass wasting triggered by channel downcutting, oversteepening, and undercutting. Valley inner gorges occur throughout the project area and are almost always associated with some landsliding activity.
32 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 3: Affected Environment – May 2006
Associated with inner gorges are rock debris flows, which can be found throughout the project area especially along Sidney, Munger, Five Cent, and Garden Gulches and Weaver, Browns, and Rush Creeks. These, together with inner gorges, are active mass wasting features.
Soils ______Soil development was slow in the upper reaches of the project area due to steep slopes and unstable geological formations. In the lower reaches, soil development was moderate to moderately slow due to more stable nonmarine terrace formations. In the upper reaches, the area is susceptible to debris slides and many dormant landslides exist in the area. In the lower reaches, the area is susceptible to rotational slumping. Soils in the lower reaches were in the past placer mined removing vegetation that over time caused erosion and stripping of topsoil. Steep slopes, erosion, and landslides have contributed to current soil conditions of moderately developed soils that are shallow (less than 20 inches) to deep (40 to 60 inches) with a shallow topsoil layer. Current soil conditions for the Weaver and Rush Creek watersheds are indicative of landscapes with heavy past use. Soils in the headwaters are mostly Granitics, while on the hillslopes there are nonmarine terrace deposits. Granitic soils are very susceptible to erosion and past use (shallow topsoil layers vs. similar soils in less impacted areas that have moderately deep topsoil layers) indicates that erosion has been elevated. Currently these areas are stabilized and erosion is at normal rates for granitics (little observable erosion based on field visits). The nonmarine terrace deposits have had elevated erosion due to past placer miming and stripping (shallow topsoil layers for these soils). These areas have been logged in the past thus causing more erosion and compaction. Currently these areas have good cover and erosion is at normal levels. In the nonmarine sediment deposits, legacy compaction is also present due to logging. Legacy compaction on Musser Hill exceeds soil quality standards on 25 to 50 percent of the landscape. If a catastrophic fire were to occur in the Weaverville Watershed, severe erosion would occur on the granitic soils and the fine textured nonmarine sediments. Catastrophic fire would remove soil cover and cause organic matter destruction especially in the topsoil of the granitics. These factors would cause rill and gully erosion in the granitics and sheet and rill erosion in the nonmarine sediments.
Water Quality ______Streams draining the Browns Project area are within the Upper-Middle Trinity River basin and directly contribute water and sediment to Rush, Little Browns, and East Weaver Creeks. The designated beneficial uses for the Trinity River and tributaries within the project area are established in the Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region and are listed in Appendix H, pages H- 1 and H-2. The streams draining the project area are classified as water quality impaired due to excess sediment (EPA 2001). These waters are meeting water quality objectives for water temperature, pH, oil and grease, toxicity, and chemical constituents. The limiting water quality objectives are turbidity
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 33 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 3: Affected Environment – May 2006
and sediment. Historic mining, timber harvest, road use, and urban development are sources of excess sediment within the project area. The Shasta-Trinity National Forest Cumulative Watershed Effects (CWE) analysis process is used to characterize and quantify the past, present, and future condition of the water quality and quantity of the Browns Project area. The Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA) model is used to characterize and analyze the past, present, and future watershed condition. This CWE analysis compares the Forest Plan Threshold of Concern (TOC) to the existing ERA and reports the WCC. The model results are compared to the measured stream stability and water quality data. For at-risk watersheds, a sediment budget is developed to predict the consequences of the proposed action. The CWE process evaluates the potential impacts of land management activities on the balance between rainfall-runoff, erosion, and stream channel response. For a detailed description of CWE methods, refer to the Hydrologist Report and supporting references. The LRMP established TOC for each 5th Field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds and defines the WCC (USDA, 1995b). The 7th and 8th Field HUC watersheds within the 5th Field HUC watersheds are given the same TOC. As the ERA increases, the watershed condition degrades, and the WCC increases. The following is a list of the WCC categories (See Hydrologist Report for definitions): • I: ERA less than 40% TOC • II: ERA between 40 and 80% TOC • III: ERA greater than 80% TOC
The WCC is derived from the water quality cumulative effects model and is rated from WCC I to WCC III. • Watershed Condition Class I: Watersheds exhibit high geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. The drainage network is generally stable. Physical, chemical, and biologic conditions suggest that soil, aquatic, and riparian systems are predominantly functional in terms of supporting beneficial uses. • Watershed Condition Class II: Watersheds exhibit moderate geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. Portions of the watershed may exhibit an unstable drainage network. Physical, chemical, and biologic conditions suggest that soil, aquatic, and riparian systems are at risk in being able to support beneficial uses. • Watershed Condition Class III: Watersheds exhibit low geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. A majority of the drainage network may be unstable. Physical, chemical, and biologic conditions suggest that soil, riparian, and aquatic systems do not support beneficial uses.
Watersheds that are at risk of adverse CWE (i.e., high WCC) are identified and investigated further, using a sediment budget, to determine which actions need to be taken to mitigate ground disturbance. Mitigation requirements are developed from this analysis. If implemented, these mitigations are likely to improve the long-term channel stability and improve WCC.
34 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 3: Affected Environment – May 2006
The Browns Project analysis area includes four 7th Field HUC watersheds. Within the 7th Field watersheds are 11 - 8th Field HUC watersheds (Table 3-3). Plate 3-1 shows the streams, 8th Field HUC watersheds, and existing WCC.
Table 3-3. Seventh Field HUC Watersheds for the Browns Project.
7th Field HUC 7th Field HUC Drainage Area Activities Analyzed Watershed Name (acres)
18010211060101 & 02 Rush Creek 14,388 Mining, roads, and timber 18010211060401 E Weaver Creek 8,892 Mining, roads, timber, and urban 18010211060403 L Browns Creek 4,989 Mining, roads, timber, and urban
Plate 3-1. Map illustrating the Browns Project Area 7th and 8th Field HUC watersheds and the existing Watershed Condition Class. Vertical lines = WCC I, diagonal lines = WCC II, and horizontal lines = WCC III.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 35 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 3: Affected Environment – May 2006
The CWE analysis uses corporate and project specific data and information to characterize the past, present, and future watershed condition within and downstream of the project area. The following is a list of the core data sources used to analyze the Browns Project (See Hydrologist Report and Appendices for the core data): • Watersheds (5th, 7th, and 8th Field HUC watersheds) • Streams [perennial fish bearing (Class 1), perennial non-fish bearing (Class II), intermittent, and ephemeral (Class III)] • Wetlands (springs, meadows, and ponds) • Region 5 geologic map • Shasta-Trinity National Forest geomorphic map • Shasta-Trinity National Forest soils map • Stream condition inventories • Active mass wasting feature inventories • Road condition inventories • Water quality monitoring data • Road layer (includes Forest Service and private classified and unclassified roads and trails) • Forest Service harvest history layer • Fire history layer • Private land harvest history layer
The first significant land use within the Browns Project area was placer and strip gold mining. Starting in 1848, large areas of land were dedicated to mining and most of the project area, including wilderness areas, were explored and mined for gold and other minerals (O’Brien, 1965). The impacts of gold mining are still imprinted on the landscape and stream channel network. The project area has several mining ditches and ponds that are still hydrologically connected to the stream network. Impacts from strip mining are common as well. Typically, headwater stream channels were hydraulically excavated leaving a void that resembles a landslide scar. Larger streams, like Weaver Creek, were placer mined. Entrenched channels and adjacent gravel piles are still present. Since the peak of gold mining, lands within the project area have mainly been used for public and private timber harvest and urban development. About 310 miles of roads and trails have been built for access to towns, recreational areas, mining claims, power lines, and timber lands. About 13 miles of Highway 299 and 3 dissect the project area and parallel Weaver and Little Browns Creeks, respectively. About seven miles of County Road 204 parallels Rush Creek as well. There are about 109 miles of private road, and about 99 miles of Forest Service road. For the CWE road data, see Hydrologist Report Appendix B. Most of these roads are sources of sediment, and constrict and divert stream channels. There are several known fish barriers within the project area on public and private lands. The Trinity County Planning Department completed a fish passage survey and found several full barriers on Little Browns and Weaver Creeks. Timber has been harvested within the project area since the 1800s. Timber harvest outputs peaked in the 1990s (Figure 3-1). Plate 3-2 illustrates the timber harvest history since the 1940s on public and private lands. Since 1940, about 12,818 acres of private land and about 864 acres of public land have
36 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 3: Affected Environment – May 2006
been timber harvested, which is 37 percent of the analysis area. This does not include cutting of small areas that were not tracked by the Forest Service or private. Erosion from past timber harvest is limited to areas that became unstable after vegetation removal. Most of the erosion from past timber harvest is limited to areas that became unstable after vegetation removal. Weaverville is the main town within the project area and is developed around the confluence of West and East Weaver Creek. There are several homes spread throughout the project area, with associated roads mainly in Rush and Little Browns Creeks. Streams draining the town of Weaverville have been heavily modified by urban development and act as canals. Erosion from roads and development sites are sources of sediment and other pollutants.
Figure 3-1. Bar chart showing timber harvest history by decade and land ownership (FS=Forest Service).
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 37 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 3: Affected Environment – May 2006
Plate 3-2. Map illustrating the timber harvest history by land ownership.
The existing watershed condition is derived using the ERA model and field data. For the Browns Project area, the Rush and Little Browns 7th Field HUC watersheds are in WCC III. East Weaver is in WCC II; however, one of the 8th Field HUC watersheds (i.e., 1801021106040102) is in WCC III. Table 3-4 lists the existing condition ERA, and Plate 3-1 shows the WCC for each 8th Field HUC watershed.
38 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 3: Affected Environment – May 2006
Table 3-4. The Existing Watershed Condition Class for the Browns Project Area.
8th Field HUC 6th Field HUC Drainage Forest Existing WCC Watershed Name Area Plan TOC ERA (%) (existing) (acres) (%)
1801021106010101 Rush Creek 2860 16 0.5 I 1801021106010102 Rush Creek 2997 16 9.3 II 1801021106010201 Rush Creek 3470 16 13.3 III 1801021106010202 Rush Creek 2676 16 24.0 III 1801021106010203 Rush Creek 2384 16 19.7 III 7th Field Watershed Rush Creek 14,388 16 13.0 III 1801021106040101 E Weaver Creek 2148 16 0.7 I 1801021106040102 E Weaver Creek 1567 16 17.1 III 1801021106040103 E Weaver Creek 2291 16 10.1 II 1801021106040105 E Weaver Creek 2886 16 13.7 III 7th Field Watershed E Weaver Creek 8892 16 10.3 II 1801021106040301 L Browns Creek 2151 16 14.5 III 1801021106040302 L Browns Creek 2838 16 17.2 III 7th Field Watershed L Browns Creek 4989 16 15.7 III
Wildlife ______Old-growth habitat (called “late seral” in the LRMP) is the main wildlife concern associated with this project. Based upon field reviews and habitat mapping, of the habitats related to the nine wildlife assemblages listed in the LMRP (pages 3-24 and 3-25), only late-successional/old-growth (LSOG) habitat would be measurably affected by either of the action alternatives. The limited amount of old- growth habitat in the project area vicinity is a concern. There is a clear distinction between old- growth and late-successional habitat. Old-growth is a subset of late-successional and is defined as a forest stand usually at least 180-220 years old with moderate to high canopy closure; a multilayered, multi-species canopy dominated by large overstory trees; a high incidence of large trees, some with broken tops and other indications of old and decaying wood (decadence); numerous large snags (i.e., dead trees); and heavy accumulations of wood, including large logs on the ground (NWFP ROD, page F-4). Late-successional is defined simply as conifer stands at least 80 years old regardless of other stand attributes such as level of decadence or canopy closure; it is relatively common in the project area vicinity and is not a concern at this time (see below).
The Northern Spotted Owl as the Old-Growth Management Indicator Species (MIS) The descriptions of the affected environment and effects analysis in this EIS use the federally listed (threatened) northern spotted owl as a old-growth forest habitat Management Indicator Species (MIS) (see below). Thus, existing habitat conditions and anticipated effects to habitat related to the spotted owl “indicate” similar conditions and effects for other species associated with LSOG habitat (called “late seral assemblage” in the LRMP) such as the Forest Service sensitive Pacific fisher, American
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 39 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 3: Affected Environment – May 2006
marten, and northern goshawk as well as a number of migratory bird species (see Appendix G of the LRMP EIS). Old-growth habitat provides high quality owl nesting/roosting habitat even though owls may use other (i.e., younger) densely to moderately canopied late-successional habitat to a lesser extent as nesting/roosting and foraging habitat respectively. Sparsely canopied late-successional forest does not typically provide suitable habitat for species in the late seral assemblage. Therefore, while the concern is old-growth habitat, densely to moderately canopied late-successional habitat is discussed also. The Biological Assessment for the Browns Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (see Appendix D, Attachment 1) provides more detailed habitat definitions. See Appendix I for more discussion on Management Indicator Species.
“Provide for Retention of Old-Growth Fragments Where Little Remains” Standard and Guideline (15% S&G) “Provide for Retention of Old-Growth Fragments Where Little Remains” is the principal Standard and Guideline (S&G) addressing the old-growth concern outside of large areas set aside to provide habitat for old-growth associated species (i.e., Late-Successional Reserves) (page C-44 of the NWFP ROD). The primary intent of this S&G is “to protect ecologically significant patches and fragments of old-growth habitat that provide refugia for old-growth associated species.” The threshold of concern with this S&G is the retention of old-growth at 15% of federal forest land within a 5th field watershed. Old-growth stands should be retained and protected to meet this S&G in most instances, but younger stands may be used to meet the 15% level if there is an ecologically based rational for doing so (memorandum from the Regional Forester, dated September 14, 1998). This S&G applies to federal (e.g., Forest Service) land only. Private property in the area does not provide old-growth habitat (see discussion in the Environmental Consequences chapter). The amount of old-growth is measured at four spatial scales: • The 54,000-acre Weaverville 5th Field Watershed encompasses the project area and the NWFP ROD establishes the 5th field watershed as the appropriate context for landscape-level analyses for the “Provide for Retention of Old-Growth Fragments Where Little Remains” S&G. Old-growth currently comprises 2,300 acres (11.2%) of the 20,533 acres of federal forest land in the watershed. Moderately to densely canopied late-successional habitat is common (i.e., not a concern at this time), comprising an additional 8,944 acres (or an additional 44%) of the federal forest land in the watershed (Appendix D, Attachment 1). • The 16,266-acre spotted owl Action Area represents a 1.3-mile buffer around all the areas proposed for treatment. This area is the primary old-growth analysis area for this EIS because it likely includes any potential, current or future MIS spotted owl activity centers (e.g. nest sites) that would be affected by habitat loss or modification related to this project (Appendix D, Map 2). The 3,477 acres of suitable owl habitat in this area includes 814 acres of old- growth and an additional 2,663 acres of moderately to densely canopied late-successional habitat. Forest records include one spotted owl activity center in the spotted owl action area (Appendix D, Maps 1 and 2).
40 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 3: Affected Environment – May 2006
• The spotted owl home range represents a 1.3-mile buffer around the one known owl activity center in the action area and is used specific to consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The owls associated with this activity center likely use suitable habitat in this area to some extent (e.g., forage) within any given year (Appendix D, Map 2). The 2,908 acres of suitable owl habitat in this area includes 245 acres of old-growth and an additional 2,663 acres of moderately to densely canopied late-successional habitat. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers 1,336 acres of owl habitat within this area as the minimum for long-term viability of an owl pair. • The spotted owl territory represents a 0.7-mile buffer around the one known owl activity center in the action area and is used specific to consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The owls associated with the activity center likely commonly use and defend suitable habitat in this area (Appendix D, Map 2). The 471 acres of suitable owl habitat in this area includes 138 acres of old-growth and an additional 333 acres of moderately to densely canopied late-successional habitat. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers 500 acres of owl habitat within this area as the minimum for long-term viability of an owl pair. Table 4-7 in the Environmental Consequences section also includes the amount and relative quality of spotted owl habitat within these four areas. Figure 4-1 displays this information for the spotted owl action area which is the primary old-growth analysis area for this EIS. The Weaverville 5th Field Watershed is used specific to the 15% S&G while the spotted owl home range and territory were used for consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Other TE&S Species The Biological Assessment for the Browns Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Wildlife BA, see Appendix D) and the Biological Evaluation for the Browns Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Wildlife BE) completed for this project provides habitat conditions and known occurrences for federally listed and Forest Service sensitive species respectively. Again, only old- growth habitat is a concern and habitat conditions for the MIS spotted owl indicate similar habitat conditions for other species within the late seral assemblage such as the Forest Service sensitive Pacific fisher, American marten, and northern goshawk.
Survey and Manage (S&M) Wildlife Species S&M wildlife species are not known or expected to occur in or near any of the areas proposed for treatment in the two action alternatives. In the years 2000 and 2001 surveys completed in the project area and vicinity following the Survey Protocol for Terrestrial Mollusk Species from the Northwest Forest Plan Draft Version 2.0 (Furnish et al. 1997) revealed no S&M species requiring special management consideration or protection as per the Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines (2001) and subsequent Annual Species Reviews (June 14, 2002; March 14, 2003 and December 12, 2003). The project area lies outside the known or expected ranges the Shasta salamander as well as S&M freshwater mollusk species (Frest and Johannes 1999).
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 41 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 3: Affected Environment – May 2006
42 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences
This chapter describes the environmental effects (direct, indirect, and cumulative) that would result from undertaking the proposed action or alternative. The resources are listed alphabetically.
Direct and Indirect Effects Relative to Resources Affected ______The interdisciplinary planning team determined the resources to consider from project area objectives identified in the LRMP and from public scoping. The methodology used to describe the effects relative to the resources considered is described within each resource analysis and is bounded in time and space.
Air Quality - Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 would have no direct effect on air quality because no project-related activities would occur. However, should a future wildfire occur in the project area, the indirect effect of Alternative 1 may result in adverse air quality effects that would exceed the thresholds of air quality set by the California Air Quality Control Board by amounts greater than would be experienced under the treated stands resulting from Alternatives 3 and 4. The project: Smoke would be visible for approximately two weeks. The project would be within the standards of the Clean Air Act. Alternatives 3 and 4 would have a short duration of smoke produced by burning slash and other activity fuels around the community of Weaverville. Burning would occur on permissable burn days and under an approved permit (in compliance with air quality thresholds set by California State Regulations) issued by the North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District (Eureka, California). In addition, smoke management information such as projected tonnage to be burned, type of burning, and smoke contingency actions would be documented in a Burn Plan5. There would be approximately ten days of burning, in which smoke would be present; and this would occur over an estimated two month period.
Botany – Direct and Indirect Effects
Sensitive Plant and Fungi Species A BE for sensitive plant species has been prepared to evaluate the alternatives considered in sufficient detail to determine if the effects of implementation would result in a trend toward Federal listing of any sensitive plant or fungi species, as designated by the June 10, 1998, Region 5 sensitive plant list. There are no Forest Plan Endemic species of concern within the project area (Plant BE included in Browns Project File, page 21).
5 Refer to the Shasta-Trinity Burn Plan (version 5) format. A project specific burn plan would be created before implementing prescribed fire; and would be signed by the District Ranger, and the Forest Supervisor.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 43 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
Direct and Indirect Effects to Sensitive Plant and Fungi Species There would be no indirect impacts on Sensitive plants or fungi resulting from implementation of Alternative 1, the No Action alternative. The single, overlapping populations of mountain and Brownie’s lady’s-slipper near Unit 15A would retain the current overstory shade and duff layer that is present to provide shade, moisture and organic matter nutrients. Thirty other Sensitive plant populations found outside of treatment units but within the greater project area would also remain unaffected. All Sensitive species that occur in or around (but outside of) treatment units benefit from shade and moderate-to-high amounts of forest floor organic matter. This type of habitat would continue to improve and accumulate under the No Action alternative. Not implementing the proposed action could increase the possibility of the project area experiencing high-intensity wildfire, which could result in adverse impacts adverse impacts to 31 of 32 documented Sensitive species populations. Canyon Creek stonecrop would likely remain unaffected even in high intensity wildfire because of it’s location on a large, exposed rock outcrop. The No Action alternative would maintain current tree and shrub density levels which have higher fuel loadings and higher fire hazard. Fire risk remains the same regardless of the alternative because of the proximity of the project area to frequently traveled roads and the inherent level of lightening activity for that zone. Indirect impacts of higher-intensity wildfire in habitat for Sensitive species include loss of above ground plant parts, soil sterilization and temperatures high enough to kill underground reproductive tissues, death of soil microorganisms essential to growth and reproduction of these species, and loss of soil and it’s nutrients through erosion. These are the same impacts that could occur in any wildfire; high intensity wildfire is expected to increase the degree of these impacts on plant species. Four Sensitive species are known to occur within the project area, although not necessarily within proposed treatment units. All are species that have evolved in a fire-dependent ecosystem (Sawyer and Thornburgh, 1977) so they are likely to survive or respond positively to low or moderate-intensity wildfire. High-intensity wildfires were not typical in the Klamath Mountains of California historically and many native plant species are not resilient to impacts of high-intensity wildfire. There is a higher chance of death of native species individuals or populations from lethal soil temperatures that can kill underground reproductive structures. Indirectly, severe modifications in the forest canopy could be great enough to eliminate necessary habitat characteristics, such as shade, necessary for native and rare plant species to survive after high- intensity wildfire has occurred. The Browns project area falls within an identified high risk Urban Wildland Interface Community-at-Risk but is also identified as being within a low-to-moderate wildfire risk area based on risk factors such as lightening starts, presence of roads or developments, and recreation use patterns. In the absence of high-intensity wildfire within the project area in the future, there would be no direct or indirect effects; therefore no cumulative effects, from Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, would occur.
44 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
Alternatives 3 and 4 Because there are no populations of any Sensitive plant species within any treatment units, there would be no direct or indirect impacts. In the absence of direct or indirect impacts, there would be no cumulative impacts. Reducing the potential for high-intensity wildfire would reduce the potential for more severe adverse impacts to 31 of 32 Sensitive plant populations known from within the general project area (Canyon Ck. Stonecrop would not be affected by high-intensity wildfire). The potential for complete loss of canopy (shading), soil sterilization, death of underground reproductive tissues, death of soil microorganisms, and erosional loss of topsoil would all be lessened. No surveys were performed for the branched collybia, Cudonia monticola, olive phaeocollybia, and orange-peel fungus fungi, but there is suitable habitat for all three species present within units containing mid-seral or late-seral conifer or mixed conifer/hardwood forest types. These are primarily the units receiving timber and associated post-activity fuels treatments, where species-specific host trees are found as well as adequate amounts of leaf litter and organic debris in the understory. Because of the lack of field surveys and presence of suitable habitat, occupancy by these four species must be assumed. Little or no scientific research has been completed on impacts from management species to the four Sensitive fungi, but impacts are thought to be similar to those for common forest fungi. Results of research studies on impacts to these species are available to varying degree and those will be cited where applicable. Habitat requirements for fungi at their most basic level include organic matter from which nutrients are extracted and a host tree for exchange of nutrients (Castellano et al., 1999). Water or moisture is almost always necessary to speed decomposition and to sustain plant biomass that will ultimately provide organic matter. Highest quality habitat in general includes abundant organic matter in the form of litter, duff, and down logs, associated host trees, and shade to provide cool, moist conditions that will facilitate decomposition of organic matter. Disruption of the belowground fungal network from host tree or duff layer removal would disrupt nutrient exchange, and moisture is essential to fungal organisms for survival. Underground fungal networks may go into dormancy when moisture is lacking, but expansion of the mycelium is unlikely to occur and the population will eventually die if dry conditions are sustained over long periods. Specific habitat requirements for the four species are (Castellano et al., 1999) (Castellano et al., 2003): • Olive phaeocollybia requires an oak or pine host tree • Branched collybia (mycoparasite) requires the presence of another fungi species, this is provided in organic debris • Cudonia monticola (saprophyte and decomposer) requires decaying coarse, woody debris • Orange-peel fungus (saprophyte and decomposer) requires decaying litter
Assuming occupancy in the absence of surveys within suitable habitat, direct impacts may occur to fungi. The only direct impact would be disruption of mycelial networks where machinery
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 45 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
used in thinning, road construction, and machine piling churns up soil. Fungi typically fruit only when soil is cool and/or wet. Soil protection and Best Management Practices prohibit treatment activities while soil is wet to prevent compaction. Fungi would not be present above ground during any periods that treatments are occurring lessening direct impacts from soil churning.
Thinning From Below Indirect impacts proposed in the Browns Project are more relevant to fungi than are direct impacts. Removal of some forest canopy may disrupt host tree connections for olive phaeocollybia. The greater the number of trees removed, the more adverse the impact. Increased sunlight to the forest floor would dry out the soil and organic layer more quickly, reducing available moisture necessary for fungi growth and reproduction and slowing organic matter decomposition rates. The proposed action would not reduce canopy cover below 50% on average in any treatment units. By thinning from below, this would retain the largest trees to provide shade for ground-floor moisture retention that would contribute to organic matter accumulation, which provides a substrate for branched collybia and orange-peel fungus and a source of fungal species biomass for reinoculation of disturbed soils in the project area. Retention of the largest trees would insure retention of an adequate number of host trees for olive phaeocollybia. There is no information available on the amount of time branched collybia, olive phaeocollybia, and orange-peel fungus require to recover from minor, moderate or heavy impacts. Retention of habitat elements such as organic matter, shade, and host trees would insure that at least a minimum of each of these elements is available after treatments for potential populations of the three species to recover.
Group Selection Harvest Twelve to twenty (depending on the alternative) group regeneration cuts are planned throughout the project area to provide landings for timber removal. No regeneration cut exceeds 2.5 acres. Total acreage of regeneration cuts is 25 acres (Alt. 4) to 39 acres (Alt. 3). Removal of all trees in these units would have the greatest impact on the four fungi species. Complete overstory removal would alter shade patterns to the forest floor, greatly increasing sunlight, drying out forest floor litter and organic matter beyond what is acceptable for many fungi species (Byrd et al, 2000). Fungal biomass, needed for re-inoculation after treatments, will be dramatically reduced (Baath, 1980). All suitable host trees would be taken from each treated unit. In the absence of necessary moisture, woody matter decomposition slows greatly, reducing the available carbon source for fungi to extract nutrients from. With the loss of habitat components, many fungi that occupy late- seral forests, including the four Sensitive fungi species, drop out of the forest community and are not available for future forest recruitment until appropriate habitat components return (Hagerman et al., 1999). Units that are less than 2 acres have been shown to be small enough to allow timely re-inoculation from neighboring inoculant sources (Durall et al., 1999). Branched collybia, Cudonia monticola, olive phaeocollybia, and orange-peel fungi are all thought to require late-seral forest components. However, the alternatives considered would only have the potential to affect up to 39 acres out of the Weaverville watershed of over 53,000 acres - affecting potential
46 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006 populations within group regeneration cuts because most or all late-seral habitat components would be removed.
Harvesting and Fuel Treatment Methods Tractors would be used to remove timber on 597 acres (Alt. 3) or 482 acres (Alt. 4) out of a total of 793 acres (Alt. 3) or 568 acres (Alt. 4). Only 26 acres (Alt. 3) or 21 acres (Alt. 4) would cause heavy disturbance by being invasive into the soil, with the remainder of the disturbance in thinning units restricted to hauling logs. This is less than 5% of the total treatment acres. Tractors can cause much greater soil disturbance than other harvesting methods because they are more invasive into the soil and have greater potential to cause soil compaction. Constant soil moisture is essential to fungal organisms for reproduction and expansion. Entry into the soil will break up the belowground fungal network resulting in disruption of nutrient exchange and acceleration of soil drying. Underground fungal networks may go into dormancy when moisture is lacking, but expansion of the mycelium is unlikely to occur and the population will eventually die if dry conditions are sustained over long periods. Soil compaction caused by repeated tractor passes restricts the movement of water and oxygen through the soil, reducing availability of those necessary components for fungi growth and survival (Amaranthus et al., 1996). There will be a increase in acres of disturbance to organic layers; however, the net results of Alternatives 3 and 4 are a decrease in compaction due to the mitigating measures included in project design (see direct and indirect discussion in the Soils section of this document). Cable systems would be used to remove timber on 196 acres (Alt. 3) or 86 acres out of a total of 793 acres (Alt. 3) or 568 acres (Alt. 4). Cable systems are much less invasive into the soil and damage is mostly restricted to surface soil gouging from dragging logs to decks. Adverse soil compaction and disruption of underground fungal networks will not occur as a result of this type of yarding.
Post-Activity Fuels Treatments Lop and scatter treatments would have no impacts on Sensitive fungi species because they aren’t invasive into the soil and they do not remove canopy or soil cover. Roadside piling and burning by hand is not invasive into the soil, but pile burning would cause temporary soil heating which may result in death of any fungi in the top couple of inches of the soil. Handpiles are typically no bigger than 4’x4’x4’, resulting in a fast burning pile that does not cause lethal soil temperatures at greater than a couple of inches. Broadcast burning and burning concentrations may consume areas of organic matter which is the food source for the four Sensitive fungi, but especially for branched collybia, Cudonia monticola, and orange-peel fungus. All three of these species require decaying organic matter for nutrients, water, or a host species. Burning would occur in either small areas (concentrations) or in a mosaic pattern (broadcast), leaving adequate islands of unburned material within close proximity for reinoculation of any of the 4 species. Dozer line construction would result in 13 acres (Alt. 3) or 11 acres (Alt. 4) of heavy soil disturbance around tractor units. The goal of this activity is to remove as much vegetation as
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 47 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
possible and remove all organic matter down to mineral soil. While the loss of organic matter will remove a nutrient and water-retention source for fungi, the line would be restricted to 10 feet wide. Reintroduction of fungi from inoculant sources outside tractor units and the dozer line should occur easily. Handline construction also works toward the goal of removing vegetation and organic matter, but the line is less than 3 feet wide. While this activity is invasive into the soil, it disturbs very little area and reintroduction of weeds and vegetation can happen quickly. Less than 5 acres total under either alternative would be disturbed.
Road Construction and Decommissioning Decommissioning of existing system or non-system roads and reconstruction of existing roads would have no impacts on the four Sensitive fungi. There is no suitable habitat for most fungi on roadbeds because compacted soils have no soil porosity or organic matter to act as a food source. New road construction and temporary road construction would occur in areas that have not been previously disturbed, although proposed road segments may move in and out of plant communities that would provide suitable habitat for fungi. Up to 8.2 miles or 13.9 acres of new or temporary road would be created under Alt. 3. Up to 3.1 miles or 5.3 acres of temporary road would be created under Alt. 4, with no new road creation. However, these alternatives would potentially affect only up to 13.9 acres out of the Weaverville watershed of over 53,000 acres – affecting suitable habitat for fungi because of heavy soil compaction (Amarathus et al, 1996). About 7 of the 8.2 miles (Alt. 3) or all miles (Alt. 4) of new or temporary road construction would be decommissioned by ripping after project activities are completed. This would work toward counteracting soil compaction by increasing soil porosity and creating spaces for deposition of organic matter that will hold moisture in the soil. Although it would likely take over ten years for habitat conditions to recover enough to host fungi species, this process would take hundreds of years without decommissioning treatments.
Survey and Manage Species The proposed project area contains a mixture of chaparral, mixed conifer/hardwood, conifer, riparian, and oak woodland habitats. Most of the conifer and mixed conifer/hardwood habitat lies on the eastern half of the project area, and large blocks of chaparral and oak woodlands are in the western half. All Sensitive species habitat is found within conifer or mixed conifer/hardwood habitats. Suitable habitat for mountain lady’s-slipper, Brownie lady’s-slipper, and Leptogium cyanescens (lichen with no common name) is present within treatment units in the project area. In the absence of any treatments there would be no direct or indirect effects from Alternative 1. Therefore, there would be no cumulative effects to any Survey and Manage plant species. Four populations of Brownie lady’s-slipper and 18 populations of mountain lady’s-slipper were found within the project area during field surveys. Project design in Alternatives 3 and 4 has excluded all populations of Survey and Manage species from any treatments; therefore, no impacts would occur to either.
48 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
Field surveys were not performed for Leptogium cyanescens due to time constraints. This species is thought to be found on hardwood trees in riparian zones. Project prescriptions that retain at least 50% of canopy cover in riparian zones are thought to provide adequate protection for this lichen without significantly negatively affecting habitat for the species. Thinning prescriptions in the Browns Project will maintain at least 60% crown cover where it exists. Because there would be no direct or indirect impacts to the three species, there would be no cumulative impacts. Because of lack of individuals, All Alternatives considered in the Browns Project are in compliance with the 2001 Survey and Manage ROD.
Noxious Weeds
Alternative 1 Implementation of the No Action alternative would result in a continuation of current weed habitat conditions. Within forest stands, suitable habitat for weeds would diminish as canopy cover increases and litter and duff layers accumulate. Where stand densities are high and the chance of high intensity wildfire is greater, total canopy loss could create suitable habitat for noxious weeds. Where forest stand densities are not overstocked, implementation of Alternative 1 would result in working toward reduction of suitable habitat for noxious weeds as disturbance is minimized, canopies close and litter and duff layers accumulate and suppress weed germination and establishment.
Alternatives 3 and 4
Direct and Indirect Effects The Canada thistle and scotchbroom populations identified within the project area would be flagged. The Canada thistle population on Rush Ck. Road is not within any treatment areas, so no disturbance is expected. The scotchbroom plants would be lopped prior to any treatments, where they are in activity units, to avoid disturbing these plants. The proposed action would not disturb these populations and therefore would not contribute to their spread. Soil disturbance creates spaces of bare soil that provide suitable habitat for competitive noxious weeds to germinate and become established. Noxious weeds have developed growth characteristics that enable them to germinate and grow faster than natives, which allows them to occupy sites before natives can become established. Most native plant species are not able to compete with weeds and would eventually drop out of plant communities. Noxious weeds displace native plant communities, resulting in losses of wildlife habitat and forage, and losses of scenic and recreation values. Soil disturbance would occur as a result of yarding, landing use, machine piling and pile burning, but heavy disturbance will occur only with tractor piling treatments on 26 acres (Alt. 3) or 21 acres (Alt. 4). In areas where tractors are used for yarding, but are not invasive into the soil, soil compaction would decrease soil porosity and create poorer conditions for native seed germination. While soil is disturbed during and immediately after project activities, seeds of
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 49 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
weeds in the surrounding area may blow in and become established, especially if weeds are nearby. Equipment cleaning before initiation of project activities would minimize introduction of weeds. Spreading native grass seed followed by mulching after treatments would help reduce chance introductions from vehicles and surrounding areas after treatments.
Economic Effects – Direct and Indirect Effects The environmental consequences of implementing the alternatives considered on economic effects have been evaluated. Table 4-1 shows the result of the short-term economic analysis for all alternatives.
Table 4-1. Short-term Economic Analysis for Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 (estimates, in dollars).
Timber Management Economic Consequences Alt. 1 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Value of timber harvested 0 3,577,200 2,560,950 Yarding costs 0 1,067,000 765,500 Fuels treatment costs 0 282,000 199,000 Road costs 0 417,100 208,700 Reforestation costs 0 26,800 17,300 Other administrative costs, including overhead costs 0 607,200 434,700 Present net value (using a 4% discount rate) 0 +1,177,100 + 935,750
The values and costs shown on Table 4-1 are estimates intended to capture the economic value of implementing the “timber sale-related” portion of the alternatives considered. The present net value has been calculated using the estimated selling value of the timber as the revenue value of resource outputs and using the associated activity costs (yarding, fuels treatment, roads, and reforestation) and administrative costs (harvest administration, sale preparation, analysis and documentation, and other resource support) as discounted financial costs. Itemized revenues and costs are included on pages 11 and 12 of the Timber/Economics Evaluation included in the Browns Project file. Alternative 1 would have no financial revenue generated. No financial costs would be invested, and no opportunities to achieve management objectives would occur. Alternatives 3 and 4 would result in a timber sale (or sales) removing merchantable timber from the area. The value of the timber would easily pay for the fuels treatments, which are intended to help develop low relative risk fire class conditions within the project area – the primary purpose of the project. The values of community protection, resource protection, and firefighter safety are not reflected in the present net value analysis. Alternative 3 is expected to offer the greatest present net value using the current timber values from the Western Wood Products Association index. Table 4-2 shows other project proposal economic consequences.
Table 4-2. Other Project Proposal Economic Consequences (estimates, in dollars).
Other Project Proposal Economic Consequences Alt. 1 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Road Decommissioning costs 0 $650,000 $590,000
50 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
The costs shown on Table 4-2 are estimates based on similar project work done in the Weaverville area. The road decommissioning costs are intended to improve the cumulative watershed effects within the project area. The decommissioning projects would benefit from funding generated from the project area timber sale (or sales). However, funding may also come from appropriated dollars for community protection, watershed restoration, and/or non-Forest Service sources (e.g. water quality grants). Alternative 1 would result in no additional costs or benefits in water quality improvements within the project area. Alternatives 3 and 4 would be the most expensive, but would result in the most watershed improvements. Based upon the Present Net Value shown in Table 4-1 and the road decommissioning costs shown in Table 4-2, timber sale revenue values are expected to exceed costs. The costs associated with achieving fuels work without constructing new roads is displayed in Table 4-1. There are positive economic effects associated with the Browns Project. Timber sales will provide a business opportunity for the local sawmill. Fuelwood harvesting also provides opportunities for the commodity and personal use sectors. The Present Net Value of the Browns Project is positive and therefore no disproportionately high adverse effect would be created to any minority population. Tribal consultation was part of the planning process. No issues were brought forward. The fisheries biologist concludes that there will be no effect on the Tribes sustainable fishing rights. No disadvantaged groups have indicated an interest in the Browns Project during the “scoping” or “Notice of Intent” public involvement process regarding environmental justice. No impact is expected from any of the alternatives considered regarding environmental justice.
Fire and Fuels Management – Direct and Indirect Effects The factors used to evaluate the effectiveness of proposed treatments are fire behavior (flame length, fireline intensity, and rate of spread) and fire severity (percent mortality). The result of this evaluation is as follows:
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 51 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
Fire Behavior Table 4-3. A comparison of alternatives for estimated surface-fire behavior by fuel model within the Browns analysis area6 (14,069 acres) using 90th percentile weather.
Browns Fuel Fuel Area Area Flame Rate Fireline Analysis Area Model Structure Affected Affected Length of Spread Intensity Current (acres) (%) (ft) (ch/hr) (btu/ft/sec) Condition 6 Brush 2,274 16 8.3 53.5 563 8* Timber 4,707 33 1.6 3.6 16 9 Timber 6,167 44 4.4 15.7 140 10 Timber 486 3 8.0 17 528 No change No change No change No change No change from from from from from 13,634 96 Alt. 1 existing existing existing existing existing conditions conditions conditions conditions conditions Alt. 3 8* Timber 794 6 1.6 3.6 16 Alt. 4 8* Timber 568 4 1.6 3.6 16
Desired condition is described by fuel model 8, which consists of approximately 8-10 tons of dead and down fuels per acre. The results from this fuel model are qualitatively described as low. Direct effects from Alternative 1 would result in no change in fire behavior within the Browns analysis area, with fire behavior dependent upon the existing condition as quantified in Table 4-3 by fuel model. Fuel model 8 has the lowest flame length, rate of spread, and fireline intensity. Direct attack by firefighters would be feasible without mechanical and aerial support, such as dozers and air tankers. Fuel model 8 is considered the desired condition because it produces fire behavior conducive to successful suppression and fire fighter safety. This fuel model is equivalent to approximately 8-10 tons/acre, which complies with desired conditions from the LRMP; and it is currently located in approximately 33 percent of the analysis area. Fuel models 9 and 10 have higher fire behavior results than fuel model 8, which would require mechanical and aerial equipment for fire suppression. Generally, flame lengths greater than four feet produce radiant heat too hot for fire fighters to work near. Indirect fireline must be constructed a distance from the fire, which increases the amount of acres burned, and reduces fireline construction rates. Approximately 47 percent of the analysis area would result with this type of fire behavior. Furthermore, fuel models 9 and 10 pose the greatest threat of crown fire. The Oregon fire (2001), which threatened the town of Weaverville, is one example of what can occur in this fuel model and forest structure. This fire burned through similar fuels during strong west winds, which resulted in surface and crown fire. Fuel Model 6 would produce extreme (spotting and crowning) fire behavior (Table 4-3) in isolated brush patches and plantations within the Browns analysis area. Control problems from crowning and spotting are frequent in this fuel model. Suppression efforts would be ineffective at the head of a fire due to a high rate of spread; and fireline intensity would be too great for
6 The remaining 435 (4%) acres are comprised of grass, water, or are barren, and were not considered in the discussion of direct and indirect effects.
52 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006 firefighters to work near.7 Indirect attack would need to occur, which increases the amount of acres burned and reduces fireline construction rates. The indirect effects of Alternative 1 on fire behavior would increase in 20-30 years (Table 4- 3a). One study suggests that in this forest type normal fuel accumulations (excluding areas of bug kill and windthrow) are approximately 0.6 tons/acre/year (Skaggs 1996). At this rate, fuel models 8 and 9 would increase to the next highest level; however, fuel models 6 and 10 would remain fixed since they are already at their highest position within this classification system (Table 4-3a). Extreme fire behavior would result within more than half of the analysis area, which creates unsafe conditions for firefighters and the public. Indirect attack would need to occur since fireline intensity would be too hot for firefighters to work near. This increases the amount of acres burned and reduces fireline construction rates, thus making containment more difficult.
Table 4-3a. Estimated fuel model increase in 20-30 years; and resulting fire behavior within the Browns analysis area8 (14,069 acres).
Browns Fuel Fuel Fuel Area Area Flame Rate of Fireline Analysis Structure Model Model Affected Affected Length Spread Intensity Area (2005) (2025) (acres) (%) (ft) (ch/hr) (btu/ft/sec) Brush 6 6 2274 16 8.3 53.5 563 Timber 8* 9 4707 33 4.4 15.7 140 Timber 9 10 6653 47 7.6 15.8 460 Timber 10 * Desired condition
Direct effects from Alternatives 3 and 4 would result in a low rate of spread, flame length, and fireline intensity if a wildfire occurred in proposed units (Table 4-3, Fuel model 8). This provides safer conditions for firefighters, and can increase the effectiveness of fire suppression by slowing fire growth and limiting spotting9. The difference is Alternative 3 would treat about 790 acres and Alternative 4 would treat about 570 acres. In addition, Alternative 3 would treat more acres of fuel model 10 (39 acres), than Alternative 4 (17 acres); therefore having a greater benefit because fuel model 10 results in extreme fire behavior (spotting and crowning), which creates unsafe conditions for firefighters and the public. Alternatives 3 and 4 would modify canopy, ladder, and surface fuels by thinning suppressed and intermediate trees, reducing trees per acre, raising crown base heights, and removing surface fuels within proposed treatment units. Scientific literature states that fuels treatments can reduce crown fire in forested stands. One example of successful fuels treatments from the Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest suggests that past thinning treatments had reduced crown fire to a
7 National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) PMS 410-1/ NFES/ 0065. 1998. Fireline Handbook. 8 The remaining 435 (4%) acres are comprised of grass, water, or are barren, and were not considered in this analysis. 9 Finney, Mark A. 2003. Calculation of fire spread rates across random landscapes. International Journal of Widland Fire, 2003, 12, 167-174.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 53 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
surface fire.10 Another example (Hayman Fire 2002) stated that on gentle slopes, and during less extreme fire weather, crown fires diminished to surface fires in stands with low stem densities and low surface fuels.11 Alternatives 3 and 4 would use prescribed fire to burn tractor and roadside piles, to burn concentrations, and to broadcast burn. Burning would be done to reduce activity fuels12 in addition to natural fuels. This would occur during the spring and fall so that fire behavior would be manageable to firefighters due to wet weather conditions. In addition, this would occur under an approved burn plan13. The indirect effects of thinning in Alternatives 3 and 4 would be grass, brush, and small diameter trees growing in the understory. However, the remaining co-dominant and dominant trees would shade out new growth; therefore this altered microclimate is estimated to last approximately 3-5 years. Within regeneration units, the canopy would be removed, and surface fuels including grass and brush would last for approximately 15-20 years until trees grew tall enough to shade out understory vegetation. Fire behavior would result from fuel model 6 (Table 4-3), which requires indirect attack; increases the amount of acres burned; and reduces fireline construction rates. The indirect effect of Alternatives 3 and 4 is that surface fire behavior is predicted to increase within proposed treatment units in approximately 20-30 years (Table 4-3a, Fuel Model 9). This is due to natural fuels accumulations; however, these effects are still lower that what would occur from Alternative 1. Despite this increase, the probability of crown fire would remain low since small diameter trees would be reduced through proposed treatments. Scientific literature suggests that fuels and vegetative treatments can reduce extreme fire behavior (crowning and spotting) within forested stands (Appendix G, pg. 418).
10 Petersen, David L.; Johnson, Morris C.; Agee, James K.; Jain, Theresa B.; McKenzie, Donald; Reinhardt, Elizabeth D. 2005. Forest Structure and Fire Hazard in Dry Forests of the Western United States. PNW- GTR-628. February 2005. USDA Forest Service, Pacific North West Research Station. 11 Petersen, David L.; Johnson, Morris C.; Agee, James K.; Jain, Theresa B.; McKenzie, Donald; Reinhardt, Elizabeth D. 2005. Forest Structure and Fire Hazard in Dry Forests of the Western United States. PNW- GTR-628. February 2005. USDA Forest Service, Pacific North West Research Station. 12 Fuels generated from harvesting operations. 13 Refer to the Shasta-Trinity Burn Plan guidelines for requirements on safety, smoke, weather, etc.
54 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
Fire Severity Direct and Indirect Effects
Table 4-3b. Average probability of mortality by alternative within the Browns analysis area using FOFEM, version 5.0.
Douglas-fir Diameter Mortality (inches) Alternative 1 2-4 100% Current conditions 6-12 99% (8’ flame length) 14-18 95% (Fuel Model 10) 20-24 59% Alternatives 3, 4 2-4 94% Proposed treatments (2’ flame length) (Fuel Model 8) 6-12 53%
14-18 35%
20-24 6%
High Mortality is 67-100% of all vegetation being killed by fire.
The direct and indirect effects of Alternative 1 would result in high wildfire mortality rates (Table 4-3b). Natural fuel accumulations would continue to add to the current fuel profile which raises fireline intensity and increases mortality rates. Scorch heights would reach higher up the trunk damaging tree crowns, and fireline intensity would be greater at the boles damaging the cambium layer. In addition, fuel ladders (small trees and brush) would allow fire to move up into tree crowns, causing high mortality. One example of this is from the Oregon fire (2001), which occurred approximately five miles from the proposed project area. This fire burned through similar vegetation, topography, fuels, and weather, in which this forest type (mixed conifer) resulted in approximately 75 percent mortality (Appendix G, pg 419). Alternatives 3 and 4 would thin out suppressed and intermediate conifers, therefore leaving larger trees that can better tolerate fire. For example, Douglas- fir becomes more fire resistant as size increases due to its thick bark and high crown base 14. In addition, the removal of subcanopy trees results in a higher average crown base height within the residual stand, therefore decreasing ladder fuels that promote crown fire inititation. Furthermore, removing some of the larger trees would break up the continuity of crown fuels, which lessens the chance of crown fire spread. The difference between alternatives is the amount of acres affected. Alternative 3 would treat approximately 791 acres; Alternative 4 would treat approximately 568 acres. More acreage treated would result in reducing tree mortality rates over a greater area. These effects are estimated to last approximately 20 to 30 years. Fuels treatments
14 Raymond, Crystal L.; Peterson, David L. 2005. Fuel treatments alter the effects of wildfire in a mixed- evergreen forest, Oregon, USA. Canadian Journal of Forestry, Res. 35: 2981-2995.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 55 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
can reduce surface fire intensity, as well as crown fire potential, so that mortality from crown scorch is minimal15.
Fire and Fuels Management – Summary of Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1 provides no action in the Browns analysis area. The current fuel profile and vegetative structure would sustain a surface and crown fire if it were to occur during 90th percentile weather. Flame lengths would be greater than four feet high- a condition that hinders firefighters from safely suppressing wildfire. As a result, fire induced mortality to conifers would be moderate to high. In addition, fire behavior and mortality rates are likely to increase from current conditions in approximately 20 to 30 years. Alternative 1 would decrease firefighter and public safety since approximately 63 percent of the Browns analysis area would result in a high flame length, rapid rate of spread, fireline intensity, and crown fire. Suppression tactics would require indirect attack; thus increasing the total area burned; and reducing fireline construction rates. In 20 to 30 years this condition is predicted to increase; as well as affect more area. Alternatives 3 and 4 would reduce surface fuels and standing vegetation to desired conditions. However, Alternative 3 would treat approximately 226 acres more than Alternative 4. If a fire occurred under 90th percentile weather, flame length, rate of spread, and fireline intensity would be low, thus increasing firefighter safety and increasing fireline construction rates. However, after 20 years has passed, fire behavior is expected to increase from post treatment conditions. Alternatives 3 and 4 would result in low mortality rates since the remaining trees would be larger, more fire tolerant, in addition to less trees per acre. Alternatives 3 and 4 would cause brush and grass to grow in the understory of regeneration units, which could increase the chance of fire ignition and fire behavior. This condition could last up to 15 years. Fire behavior would be comparable to fuel model 6, which creates unsafe conditions for firefighters and the public; requires indirect attack; increases the amount of acres burned; and reduces fireline construction rates.
Fisheries – Direct and Indirect Effects
Threatened Fish and Management Indicator Species (MIS) Fish The alternatives have been evaluated for their projected effects on SONCC coho salmon and its designated critical habitat. The SONCC coho salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit is listed as threatened under the ESA. In addition, a detailed fisheries BA has been prepared to review the project proposals in sufficient detail to determine if the actions are likely to adversely affect the threatened species or its designated critical habitat or Essential Fish Habitat. The Fish BA has been prepared in accordance with legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the ESA (19 United States Code (USC) 1536 (c)), and follows the standards established in Forest Service
15 Raymond, Crystal L.; Peterson, David L. 2005. Fuel treatments alter the effects of wildfire in a mixed- evergreen forest, Oregon, USA. Canadian Journal of Forestry, Res. 35: 2981-2995.
56 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
Manual direction (FSM 2672.42). The alternatives have also been evaluated for their projected effects on Winter-Run Steelhead, designated as MIS in the Shasta Trinity LRMP.
Direct Effects on Threatened Fish and MIS Fish Alternative 1 would have no direct effects on threatened Fish and MIS Fish since no activities would occur. Alternatives 3 and 4 would result in no direct effects to fish. There are no aspects of the project that would occur in streams where fish are present.
Indirect Effects on Threatened Fish and MIS Fish Alternative 1 may allow indirect effects to threatened fish to occur due to the risk of fire within the watershed. Severe damage to riparian and fish habitat has occurred due to recent large fires within or near the Weaverville watershed (Browns Fire, 1994; Lewiston Fire, 2000; Oregon Fire, 2001. The Browns Project area is currently in fuels Conditions Class 3 (USDA 2004) in which risk of losing key ecosystem components to fire is high (Cohesive Strategy 2000). The indirect effects of Alternatives 3 and 4 to threatened and MIS fish are addressed together because they are identical in scale, duration, and intensity. Short-term increases in turbidity during precipitation events would result from erosion due to ground disturbance from yarding, fuels treatment, and road decommissioning. Some sedimentation may occur in pools of Little Browns Creek for a distance of about ½-mile below the area where roads are decommissioned on the flood plain. This sedimentation may negatively affect the emergence of anadromous fish fry from gravels and result in reduced pool quality for rearing juvenile fish. The greatest effect would occur following the first rains after the project is completed and effects may linger up to three years until sediments are flushed from the stream. Long-term benefits would result as decommissioned and obliterated roads become re-vegetated and the watersheds’ hydrograph assumes a more normal pattern. Lowering the risk of severe fire events damaging the watershed would be a long term positive effect.
Fish Habitat and Riparian Reserves The project Fisheries Report and the Fish BA include analysis to evaluate expected effects to fish habitat and riparian reserves. The results of those analyses are summarized below.
Direct Effects to Fish Habitat and Riparian Reserve Alternative 1 would have no direct effects on riparian reserves or fish habitat since no activities would occur. Thinning the timber stands in riparian reserves as proposed in Alternatives 3 and 4 would result in a reduction of tree numbers in overstocked stands in 80 acres of riparian reserves. No direct effects would occur to fish habitat since there are no aspects of the project that would occur in streams where fish are present.
Indirect Effects to Fish Habitat and Riparian Reserves Alternative 1 may allow indirect effects to riparian reserves and fish habitat to occur due to the risk of fire within the watershed. The Browns Project area is currently in fuels Conditions Class 3
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 57 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
(USDA 2004) in which risk of losing key ecosystem components to fire is high (Cohesive Strategy 2000). Large fires have occurred recently within or near the Weaverville watershed (Browns Fire, 1994; Lewiston Fire, 2000; Oregon Fire, 2001) and have severely damaged riparian and fish habitat. Indirect effects to fish habitat from Alternatives 3 and 4 include short-term increases in turbidity during precipitation events that may result from erosion due to ground disturbance from yarding, fuels treatment, and road decommissioning. Some sedimentation may occur in pools of Little Browns Creek for a distance of about ½-mile below the area where roads are decommissioned on the flood plain. This sedimentation may increase fine sediment stored in the pool slightly reducing the pool volume and depth. The greatest effect would occur following the first rains after the project is completed and effects may linger up to three years until sediments are flushed from the stream. Long-term benefits would result as decommissioned and obliterated roads become re-vegetated and the watersheds’ hydrograph assumes a more normal pattern. Positive indirect effects would result from lowering the risk of severe fire events damaging the watershed. Indirect effects to riparian reserves may include small changes in microclimate such as slightly lower humidity and slightly warmer temperatures due to increased sunlight; however, these effects would be short-term (less than 10 years) and changes would decrease as tree canopy fills in. Areas where roads would be decommissioned on the flood plains of Little Browns Creek would be re- vegetated and fragmentation of the riparian reserves would be reduced over time. Indirect benefits would result from lowering the risk of severe fire events damaging timber stands located within the riparian reserves.
Forest Productivity – Direct and Indirect Effects Table 4-4 lists the environmental consequences of implementing the alternatives considered on the timber resource in the project area.
Table 4-4. Environmental Consequences on the Timber Resource for each Alternative.
Timber Management Environmental Alt. 1 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Consequences: Timber stand density (basal area per acre 120-340 80-140 80-140 average) of 90-140 year old stands sq. ft.1 sq. ft sq. ft Acreage improved by managing density 0 acres 754 acres 543 acres (thinning the smaller trees within stands) Average number of trees/acre 140-400 trees 40-70 trees 40-70 trees per acre per acre per acre Acreage regenerated with planted trees 0 acres 39 acres 25 acres Timber volume removed 0 mmbf2 8.8 mmbf 6.3 mmbf 1 sq. ft. = square feet. 2 mmbf = million board feet
The thinning treatments in Alternatives 3 and 4 are intended to maintain suitable stand growth and improve tree health and vigor over time by providing space for the trees retained to
58 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006 grow. The thinning treatments also provide merchantable wood removed as an economic offering, and reduce timber stand mortality from wildland fire.
Direct Effects on Forest Stand Productivity Alternative 1 would result in neither a change in existing stand densities nor any improvements in stands identified as having excessive fuel loadings. Therefore, Alternative 1 would forego opportunities for improvements to timber stand health and fire protection at this time. In addition, no timber volume (yield) would be provided toward sustained yield objectives. The direct effect of the implementation of Alternatives 3 and 4 would be the removal of approximately 150 trees per acre over the acreage proposed for thinning. The timber harvesting would reduce stand density, which increases individual tree growth on the residual trees. Reducing stand density also decreases fuel loading and ladder fuels, which lowers the risk to wildfire. Therefore, Alternative 3 would provide the most benefit to timber stand growth and yield and it would also provide the most protection to the residual timber stands from the threat of a stand- replacing wildfire due to acreage involved (793 acres). Alternative 4 (568 acres) would benefit timber stand growth and yield and stand protection from wildfire, but less than Alternative 3 by 2.5 mmbf and 225 acres (see Table 4-3). Another direct effect would involve the two-acre group regeneration areas included in Alternatives 3 (39 acres) and Alternative 4 (25 acres). These two-acre sites are located in landing locations, within areas of higher fuel concentrations, and within areas of understocked live conifers. These two-acre group regeneration areas are expected to accommodate the large landing sizes needed for whole-tree yarding and would add an element of age diversity to the thinned timber stands following successful reforestation. A sustained level of forest (wood) products from suitable Matrix lands is part of the desired future condition of the project area (LRMP, page 4-108). Timber volume harvest is a direct effect of Alternatives 3 (8.8 mmbf) and Alternative 4 (6.3 mmbf), whereas Alternative 1 would provide no wood products.
Indirect Effects on Forest Stand Productivity As young-growth conifer stands age, the number of trees per acre decreases as inter-tree competition occurs. The basal area tends to constantly increase up to a point where the maximum basal area that the site can support is attained. In the absence of harvest, this trend would continue at a rate of 1 to 2% per year. For example, an 80-year-old mixed conifer stand would, on average, experience about an 8% reduction in trees per acre (Dunning, 1933). For stands that average 100 years of age (the approximate age of treated acres in Alternatives 3 and 4), it is anticipated that about 40% of the trees per acre would die by the time the stand reaches 150 years of age (Dunning, 1933). Alternative 1 would result in this amount of mortality within the project area over the next 50 years. Additionally, if a wildfire occurred, mortality would be dramatically increased in areas of high or moderate burn intensity. Many areas would result in stands being entirely eliminated, while a few stands would have a few surviving trees. Alternative 1 would not
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 59 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
contribute to LRMP objectives for managing stand densities to maintain and enhance growth and yield or improve forest health and vigor. Alternatives 3 (754 acres) and 4 (543 acres) would result in increased (diameter) growth and (board foot) yield over time based on professional experience with similar thinning treatments and site capabilities on adjacent projects. Residual trees would grow in an environment with reduced stress and mortality would decline. Inter-tree competition in thinned stands would not become a significant factor for approximately 30 years due to the increased sun, water, and nutrients available to the residual trees. While Alternatives 3 and 4 would be consistent with management objectives for the project area as identified in the LRMP, Alternative 3 best meets the Forest Goals and Objectives in the LMRP by treating more acres.
Heritage Resources – Direct and Indirect Effects The Forest Archaeologist has approved the ARR for the Browns Project, ARR #05-14-569/5. The project proposals are in accordance with Provision III (D) (1) of the Programmatic Agreement for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. As indicated in the ARR, nine sites are located in or adjacent to proposed activities. The environmental consequences of implementing any one of these alternatives would have “no effect” to historic properties because these properties would be avoided by the project design. Historic properties will be fully protected utilizing avoidance protection measures.
Land Stability – Direct and Indirect Effects The broad scale project area and the smaller unit areas of each Alternative were evaluated for potential to increase, maintain, or decrease natural landslide process rates. The broad scale level of analysis encompassed the “project” area based upon aerial photo interpretation and initial field review (Level 1). At this stage, the mass wasting features were first mapped on 1944 (B&W) 1980, 1983 (color infrared) and 2003 vintage aerial photos and the mass wasting processes identified. Analysis of the area during various decades was performed to better identify the distribution, timing, and relative size of mass wasting processes and their relationship with forest practices. The 1944 aerial photo set essentially depicts pre-logging conditions. Scale of photography ranged from 1:15840 to 1:60000. An interpretation of the mass wasting hazard potential was then made by associating the occurrence of landslides with geologic, hydrologic, or terrain features.16 These associations form the basis for the mapping of mass wasting hazard map units in the watershed. Potential mass wasting map units were drawn for each area with similar mass wasting characteristics and triggering mechanisms. These mechanisms are the specific processes that appear to contribute to mass wasting.
16 Specifically these can include: mass wasting features, bedrock type, structure, geotechnical properties or behavior, slope range and aspect, hydrological conditions, and occasionally rainfall, climate, and seismic activity.
60 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
Unique units are created if the mass wasting processes are similar (i.e., shallow debris flows) but the triggering mechanisms are different (i.e., roads versus loss of root strength on hillslopes). Other factors can include: (1) run-out behavior; (2) location of harvest and fuel break units as related to terrain features; (3) total acreage of proposed disturbed area; (4) proposed harvest methods; (5) unit silvicultural prescription; and (6) amount of temporary road construction or reconstruction. This latter factor also included slope positions of roads and the amount and size of landings. The mass wasting potential for the units are thus qualitatively rated, guided by criteria based on the foregoing information and field evidence according to the likelihood of occurrence. These ratings determine the level of “potential hazard”. No one of the factors delineated were used by themselves, but were evaluated in conjunction. Overall, a high level of confidence in mapping accuracy can be applied to the study area; nevertheless, this is a subjective, relative rating meant only to compare different mass wasting features within the area and is not meant as a site specific analysis (a specific level of analysis occurs at Level 2, explained in the following portion of the land stability analysis). A secondary level of analysis was incorporated whereby all harvest units were individually field evaluated (Level 2). At this stage a detailed field analysis addressed the specific problems identified at the previous level 1 stage. Specifically the relationships between land use activities and landslide processes are identified more accurately and precisely and with greater spatial resolution. For Alternatives 3 and 4, all areas and road locations demonstrating instability or potential instability were flagged and avoided and deleted from further consideration. The project design within the unit areas resulted in excluding all unstable or potentially unstable areas through individual unit layout, prescription, and road location modification. Therefore, no direct or indirect17 effects to land stability are anticipated from the action alternatives. Under Alternative 1, no activities would occur. Therefore, there would be no potential for direct impacts associated with land management activities under this proposal. Indirectly, opportunities to improve the watershed would be deferred, as none of the beneficial effects of project implementation would occur. The threat of large wildfires would be potentially increased and should they occur would have the potential to increase mass wasting incidence within the project area by removing ground cover over large areas thus reducing root support, and possibly changing infiltration rates by reducing transpiration and concentrating runoff.
17As defined “indirect effects” are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but still reasonably foreseeable. This analysis has reviewed not only the chances that a landslide may form at a particular place but also the chances that a proposed action from further upslope may form a landslide downslope or that a landslide from farther upslope may strike further downslope.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 61 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
Soils – Direct and Indirect Effects The effects of each alternative on the soil resource have been assessed using the Region 5 Soil Quality Standards. Three soil quality standards will be used as the evaluation criteria to evaluate each alternative: • Soil Stability. Erosion is the detachment, transport, and deposition of soil particles by water, wind, or gravity. Vascular plants, soil biotic crusts, and litter cover are the greatest deterrent to surface soil erosion. Visual evidence of surface erosion may include rills, gullies, pedestalling, soil deposition, erosion pavement or loss of the surface “A” horizon. Erosion models are also used to predict on-site soil loss. • Soil Hydrology. This function is assessed by evaluating or observing changes in surface structure, surface pore space, consistence, bulk density, infiltration, or penetration resistance using appropriate methods. Increases in bulk density or decreases in porosity results in reduced water infiltration, permeability, and plant available moisture. • Nutrient Cycling. This function is assessed by evaluating the vegetative community composition, litter, coarse woody material, and root distribution. These indicators are directly related to soil organic matter, which is essential in sustaining long-term soil productivity. Soil organic matter provides a carbon and energy source for soil microbes and provides nutrients needed for plant growth. Soil organic matter also provides nutrient storage and capacity for cation and anion exchange.
Soil Quality Standards (Refer to Table 4-5) • Erosion (tons per acre): Needs to be less than or equal to one to two tons per acre depending on slope and parent material which equates to an erosion hazard rating in the low-moderates (4-7). • Cover necessary to keep erosion less than two tons per acre: Granitics – 90% cover necessary Metasediments – 50 to 70% cover necessary • Compaction (grams per cubic centimeter, g/cm3): Not to exceed 0.9 g/cm3 for fine textured soils (depends on rock fragments and textures) and will be expressed as total acres compacted. • Fertility or Nutrient Recycling (tons per acre): Tons of duff and fine slash less than three inches left after fuel treatment or nutrient recycling.
62 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
Table 4-5. Soil Quality Standards Matrix for Alternatives.
Soil Quality Standard Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Anticipated % cover 90 – 100% 50 – 70% 60 – 75% Erosion (erosion Low (2-4) Moderate (7-8) Moderate (5-7) hazard rating) Compaction (acres 300 acres 100 acres 200 acres compacted) Acres to be treated 0 acres treated 200 acres treated 100 acres treated Fertility (tons per acre 6 - 12 tons per 3 - 4 tons per acre 5 - 6 tons per of slash and duff) acre acre
Direct and Indirect Effects on the Soils (refer to Table 4-5) Alternative 1 would result in no change to existing soil conditions. With existing soil cover at 90 to 100%, erosion is low but slash and ground surface fuels would create a fuels hazard. A large fire could severely burn the area removing cover and causing accelerated erosion. This alternative would not treat legacy18 compaction, which reduces infiltration and increases runoff. Alternative 3 treats the most thinned acres (754) with track mounted equipment and cable suspension. With planned soil cover of 50 to 70%, erosion would be in the low to moderate range thus keeping erosion below forest thresholds. The area of compacted soils would be reduced by 200 acres from the existing conditions. Road decommissioning proposal would greatly benefit the soils resource in terms of increasing soil infiltration. This alternative reduces total fuels for the project area (754 acres) to favorable levels for fertility by encouraging residual tree biomass and fine root development thus increasing soil organic matter. Regeneration units will also function as landings and staging areas that will be subsoiled and mulched after use thus reducing legacy and activity compaction in these areas. Alternative 4 would result in less area (543 acres) receiving prescribed fuel treatment, so wildfire damage (more untreated areas) would be elevated over Alternative 3. Erosion overall would be less than Alternative 3, but compaction treatment would be less by 100 acres. Overall, the effects on soil erosion would be less than Alternative 3. Alternative 4 reduces fuels on 543 acres. The risk of accelerated erosion due to potential wildfire is lower than Alternative 1 but greater than Alternative 3. Regeneration units will be subsoiled and mulched after use thus reducing legacy and activity compaction in these areas. Road decommissioning will be the same as in Alternative 3 thus reducing compaction, improving infiltration and decreasing runoff.
Water Quality – Direct and Indirect Effects
Effects Analysis To analyze the direct and indirect effects on water quantity and quality, the unit of measure used to quantify the effects is the probability of changing the magnitude, frequency, timing, and duration of runoff and sediment delivery. The proximity to a riparian reserve, slope position, and slope
18 Legacy compaction – cumulative existing compaction from past actions listed on Table 4-9.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 63 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
steepness of each proposed action activity is used quantify the probability of an effect. Each timber sale unit, road, and fuel treatment is ranked based on the above criteria. For example, a road located near a perennial fish bearing stream has a greater probability of directly affecting water quality, than a road on top of a ridge. This is the appropriate unit of measure because it is consistent with the LRMP (USDA, 1995b), Shasta-Trinity National Forest CWE Analysis Process (Appendix H, pages H-4, H-5, and H-17), and the best available science.
Bounding the Effects
Geographic Boundary The Browns Project direct and indirect effects analysis area includes four 7th Field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds (Table 4-6). Within the 7th Field HUC watersheds are 11 – 8th Field HUC watersheds. The topographic boundaries defining a given watershed are used to geographically define the analysis area because land disturbances within a given watershed directly and indirectly affect downstream water quantity and quality. Upland disturbances that change the magnitude, frequency, timing, and duration of rainfall, runoff, and sediment delivery strictly follow watershed boundaries. This analysis evaluates the potential direct and indirect effects of each individual activity on Rush, Little Browns, and East Weaver Creeks. Activities near perennial fish bearing streams have a greater risk of risk directly affecting water quality. For example, a timber sale unit adjacent to Little Browns Creek has the greatest risk of controllable sediment discharge. Activities that affect upslope intermittent, ephemeral, and unstable areas have the greatest risk of indirectly affecting water quantity and quality. For example, a timber sale unit within an active landslide has the greatest risk of indirectly affecting downstream water quality.
Time Frame This direct and indirect effects analysis compiled a land use history to quantify the past and present effects. For this project, placer and strip mining effects that occurred before 1940 are presently directly and indirectly affecting stream channel stability. In addition, the existing roads, urban, and timber harvest activities are directly affecting the analysis area (Table 4-6). The timeframe of the proposed action potential effects depends on the recovery period of a given activity. The longest lasting effects are from road construction and use and do not recover with time unless specific measures are taken to reduce runoff and controllable sediment discharge. Improvements to road stability reduce the additive and compound effects, but recovery is very slow. Most direct disturbances caused by timber harvest recover within 10 to 30 years depending on the type of activity. Fuels treatments and fire suppression actions tend to recover in five to 10 years. Watershed restoration activities tend to recover in one to three years. This analysis assumes that it would take three years to complete timber harvest activities, whereas fuel treatments and watershed restoration activities would take up to 10 years to complete. This analysis uses BMPs and mitigation measures to prevent the direct and indirect effects of short- and long-term land use
64 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006 activities. Treatments like soil ripping and road decommissioning will help prevent direct and indirect effects caused by timber harvest for about 20 years. The timeframe of direct and indirect effects caused by foreseeable actions is 20 years after project implementation. It is difficult to predict what activities would occur on private land during this time period; however, road and timber activities are very likely to continue for the reasonably foreseeable future. It is also likely that watershed restoration activities would continue. For example, Trinity County is planning to improve fish migration through Roundy Road at Little Browns Creek, which would have a direct beneficial effect on overall watershed condition.
Table 4-6. List of Watersheds and Land Use Activities Analyzed.
7th Field HUC 6th Field HUC Drainage Activities Analyzed Watershed Name Area (acres) 18010211060101 & 02 Rush Creek 14,388 Mining, roads, and timber 18010211060401 E Weaver Creek 8,892 Mining, roads, timber, and urban 18010211060403 L Browns Creek 4,989 Mining, roads, timber, and urban
Actions Considered Alternative 1: Presently, streams draining the Browns Project area are in a degraded condition and are not supporting aquatic beneficial uses (Appendix H, pages H-18 and H-19). The magnitude, frequency, timing, and duration of peak flood flows and sediment yield are negatively affecting the fish habitat and water quality of Rush, Little Browns, and Weaver watersheds (EPA, 2001). Past and present land use activities have altered the balance between stream discharge and sediment yield. As a result, the baseline watershed condition is degraded (Appendix H, page H-7) and effects are major locally, offsite, and are long-term. With no action, the analysis area would remain in a degraded condition. Past watershed disturbances caused by mining, roads, and timber harvest would continue to have direct and indirect effects on water quantity and quality. Direct effects include channel destabilization from placer mining and roads and sediment delivery from controllable sediment discharge sources (e.g. road runoff and erosion). Indirect effects include upland sediment delivery from management caused landslides, and runoff diversion from roads and historic mine ditches. Alternative 3: This alternative, as described in Chapter 2, includes BMPs and mitigation measures designed to prevent project activities from directly and indirectly affecting the water quality and beneficial uses of streams draining the analysis area (see Appendix B). This analysis evaluates the direct and indirect effects of the proposed timber harvest activities, new road construction, fuel treatments, road drainage improvements, and road decommissioning on magnitude, frequency, timing, and duration of peak flood flows and sediment yield. As designed, Alternative 3 would not cause any long-term direct or indirect effects that would further exacerbate runoff and sediment delivery. During project implementation, however, the probability of sediment delivery increases where new road construction, road decommissioning, and timber harvest activities dissect streams. Short-term sediment delivery is probable at stream
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 65 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
road or skid trail crossings. The potential effects would be localized (i.e., less than ¼-mile downstream), minor, and last for two to three years. Alternative 4: This alternative, as described in Chapter 2, includes BMPs and mitigation measures designed to prevent project activities from directly and indirectly affecting the water quality and beneficial uses of streams draining the analysis area (Appendix B). For Alternative 4, proposed activities that depend on new roads would not be implemented. As a result, this alternative is less likely affect water quantity or quality in Little Browns 7th Field HUC watershed. Compared to Alternative 3, this alternative would result in less ground disturbance in Little Browns Creek. As designed, Alternative 4 would not cause any long-term direct or indirect effects that would further exacerbate runoff and sediment yield. During project implementation, however, the probability of sediment delivery increases where road decommissioning and timber harvest activities dissect streams. Short-term sediment delivery is probable at stream road or skid trail crossings. The potential effects would be localized (i.e., less than ¼-mile downstream), minor, and last for two to three years.
Wildlife – Direct and Indirect Effects The Biological Assessment for the Browns Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Wildlife BA) (April 5, 2005) and the Biological Evaluation for the Browns Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Wildlife BE) (August 2005) have been completed for this project. The findings identified in these reports include the expected effects to federally listed species and Forest Service sensitive species respectively related to the actions proposed relative to LRMP objectives, species recovery, and habitat management strategies. Again, based upon field reviews and habitat mapping, it is anticipated that only late-successional/old-growth (LSOG) habitat would be measurably affected by either of the action alternatives. Old-growth habitat (not late-successional) is the main wildlife concern
Effects to Old-Growth Habitat Effects to old-growth (and dense to moderate canopied late-successional) habitat are analyzed showing the acres affected in the context of acres available at four spatial scales (described in the Affected Environment) and three categories of intensity. The descriptions of the effects analysis in this EIS use the federally listed (threatened) northern spotted owl as the old-growth forest habitat Management Indicator Species (MIS). Thus, existing habitat conditions and anticipated effects to habitat related to the spotted owl “indicate” similar conditions and effects for other species associated with LSOG habitat (called “late seral assemblage” in the LRMP) such as the Forest Service sensitive Pacific fisher, American marten, and northern goshawk as well as a number of migratory bird species (see Appendix G of the LRMP EIS).
66 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
Effects Intensity Table 4-7 lists the effects from the Browns Project to existing northern spotted owl habitat within 1) the Weaverville 5th Field Watershed, 2) the northern spotted owl “action area,” 3) the home range of the one known owl activity center, and 4) the territory of the one known owl activity center. The following are the definitions of the terms used in Table 4-7. • Removed indicates the habitat would no longer function at any level resulting from regeneration prescriptions and road construction. Long-term experience with similar treatments indicates that regenerated areas should recover to connectivity habitat conditions (Appendix D, page D-15) in about 35 to 40 years. Foraging habitat and nesting/roosting habitat conditions should develop in roughly 80 years and 100+ years respectively. • Downgraded indicates a temporary reduction (30 years) in habitat quality (e.g. owl nesting/roosting habitat to foraging habitat) resulting from thinning prescriptions. There would be a reduction in overall canopy closure from and existing 70-90% down to approximately 40-60% and a reduction in smaller diameter (<19-inch DBH) recruitment snags and logs (live trees that would provide for snags and logs into the future). The retention of large predominant (legacy) conifers, larger snags (>19-inch DBH) and viable hardwoods would maintain snags and decadent conifers large enough to provide owl nest sites and contribute to vertical structure. Visual estimates based upon field reviews indicate that the LRMP S&G of 1.5 snags and 5 tons of course woody material (i.e., logs) would be met at a 40-acre average. Thinning within existing owl foraging habitat would maintain foraging habitat conditions (see degraded below) (Appendix D, pages D-13, D15, and D- 16). • Degraded indicates some habitat components (e.g. smaller snags, canopy closure vertical structure) may be slightly reduced but the habitat would continue to function at the current level resulting from riparian reserve prescriptions in existing moderate quality owl nesting/roosting habitat and thinning prescriptions in existing high quality owl nesting/roosting habitat (old-growth) or foraging habitat.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 67 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
Table 4-7. Browns Project Effects to Existing Northern Spotted Owl Habitat within the Weaverville 5th Field Watershed, the Northern Spotted Owl “Action Area,” and Within the Home Range and Territory of the One Known Owl Activity Center.
Area Effects to Old-Growth Dense Late-Successional Moderately Dense Late-Successional Habitat (high quality NR habitat) (moderate quality NR habitat) (foraging habitat) Existing Acres Affected Existing Acres Affected Existing Acres Affected Available Available Available Alt. 1 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 1 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 1 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Habitat Habitat Habitat Watershed Removed 2,300 0 2 0 5,131 0 15 0 3,813 0 10 9 Downgraded 0 0 0 0 275 210 0 0 0 Degraded 0 59 52 0 22 22 0 162 155 Total 0 61 52 0 312 232 0 172 164 Owl Action Removed 814 0 2 0 2,136 0 15 0 527 0 10 9 Area Downgraded 0 0 0 0 275 210 0 0 0 Degraded 0 59 52 0 22 22 0 162 155 Total 0 61 52 0 312 232 0 172 164 Known Owl Removed 245 0 1 0 1,183 0 12 9 288 0 10 9 Home Range Downgraded 0 0 0 0 222 180 0 0 0 Degraded 0 26 26 0 18 18 0 162 154 Total 0 27 26 0 252 207 0 172 163 Known Owl Removed 138 0 0 0 315 0 3 2 18 0 0 0 Territory Downgraded 0 0 0 0 88 81 0 4 4 Degraded 0 10 10 0 7 7 0 1 1 Total 0 10 10 0 98 90 0 5 5
68 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
Direct (Short-term) Effects to Old-Growth Habitat The following discussion focuses on the concern of high quality owl nesting/roosting habitat (i.e., old-growth). Table 4-7 presents the effects (i.e., acres) that Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 would have to northern spotted owl habitat put in the context of effects intensity, relative habitat quality, and existing habitat at four different spatial scales. Figure 4-1 displays the short-term (30 years) and long-term (>30 years) effects to spotted owl nesting/roosting and foraging habitat within the spotted owl action area. High quality nesting/roosting habitat (old-growth), moderate quality nesting/roosting habitat (relatively dense late-successional) and foraging habitat (moderately dense late-successional) are displayed separately. Alternatives 3 and 4 would result in a short-term loss of nesting/roosting habitat, a short-term gain in foraging habitat and a long-term net increase in total nesting/roosting/foraging habitat acres along with an improvement in overall habitat quality. No changes to habitat quality are expected with Alternative 1 (no action), thus this represents both the existing conditions and long-term conditions without the proposed stand treatments.
Figure 4-1. Short and Long-term Effects to Spotted Owl Nesting/Roosting and Foraging Habitat within the Spotted Owl Action Area.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 69 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
Alternative 1 would result in no direct effects to any forest habitat. Alternative 3 would remove two acres and temporarily degrade an additional 59 acres of old- growth habitat (high quality owl nesting/roosting habitat) due to proposed road construction, regeneration harvesting (landings) and thinning. Alternative 4 would temporarily degrade approximately 52 acres of old-growth habitat (high quality owl nesting/roosting habitat) due to proposed thinning.
“Provide for Retention of Old-Growth Fragments Where Little Remains” Standard and Guideline (15% S&G) Immediately after Alternative 3 implementation, old-growth would comprise 10.19 percent of federal forest land (FFL) in the watershed (down from the current 11.20 percent). When moderately to densely canopied late-successional stands (i.e., 3N and 3G) are included, the watershed would contain well above 15 percent LSOG (Attachment 1, Figure 3). Alternative 4 would not remove or downgrade existing old-growth habitat. The ecologically based rational for causing these effects to existing old-growth is as follows: The roads were located to access areas of dense conifers needing thinning to meet the stated purpose and need for this project to reduce the risk of large-scale catastrophic fire that would likely affect existing and developing old-growth habitat. The regeneration units were located to give cable access to these thinning areas and function as landings to handle the large amount of woody material (fuel) produced by whole-tree yarding of large numbers of relatively small diameter trees within the adjacent thinning areas. The proposed prescriptions with both Alternatives 3 and 4 would result in a long-term increase in higher quality owl habitat (both acres of old-growth and total owl habitat) compared with no action (Figure 4-1).
Indirect (Long-term) Effects to Old-Growth Habitat Alternatives 3 and 4 would have similar indirect effects to old-growth habitat. That is to say, habitat conditions for the MIS northern spotted owl would have improved in both total acres and relative habitat quality (Figure 4-1) by retaining existing important old-growth habitat components (e.g., large live conifers, large snags and logs and viable hardwoods) and accelerating the development of large overstory conifers. Long-term experience with thinning conifer stands indicates that within about 30 years the thinned (degraded) old-growth would have recovered and thinned late-successional stands (including stands that are currently below owl foraging habitat conditions) would have redeveloped a moderate to dense canopy closure. The conifers would have developed larger, fuller crowns with larger lateral branches. These trees would ultimately provide recruitment for larger snags and logs. Small diameter (<19-inch DBH) snags and logs would be rare because of the past removal of smaller diameter recruitment trees. Understory hardwoods would have persisted in the stands adding to vertical structural complexity. Most of the pre- existing large snags and logs would be present. The discussion below focuses on removal and downgrading of old-growth (high quality owl nesting/roosting habitat) while Table 4-7 presents effects (including degradation) to both old-
70 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006 growth and late-successional habitat with at least moderate canopy closure (i.e., owl nesting/roosting and foraging habitat). Alternative 1 would result in old-growth habitat remaining roughly at current levels within the watershed over the long-term (>30 years). There would be a decrease in vertical structural complexity due to understory hardwoods dropping out of the stands and an increase in smaller diameter snags/logs due to competition-induced mortality among the smaller, less thrifty conifers. This tree mortality would increase fuel loading and thus increase the probability of loosing existing and developing old-growth habitat to catastrophic fire. Alternatives 3 and 4 would result in similar overall net increases in forest stands with old- growth characteristics (457 acres and 387 acres respectively) and higher quality spotted owl habitat in about 30 years. Using the spotted owl as the MIS, Figure 4-1 displays the increase in higher quality owl habitat (both acres of old-growth and total owl habitat) compared with no action in the context of the spotted owl Action Area. The thinning and overall reduction in fuel loading would reduce the probability of loosing existing and developing old-growth habitat to catastrophic fire with both alternatives.
TE&S Species The Biological Assessment (Wildlife BA) and Biological Evaluation (Wildlife BE) completed for this project present the likely effects of Alternative 3 to federally listed and Forest Service sensitive species respectively. Table 4-8 summarizes the findings identified in the project BA and BE that would also hold true for Alternative 4. Actions proposed in Alternatives 3 and 4 do not lie within designated critical habitat for any federally listed species or areas set aside for species associated with late-successional or old- growth habitat (late-successional reserves).
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 71 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
Table 4-8. A Synopsis of the Determinations and Effects to TE&S Species from the BA and BE.
Determination from Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Comments the BA/BE (TE) or Forest Service Sensitive (FS) Species. No Effect. TE - Shasta crayfish, bald eagle, marbled The project area is either outside murrelet, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, the known or expected range, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and California red- the species is not known or legged frog. expected to occur in the project FS - California wolverine, pallid bat, Western red area, or suitable habitat bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, peregrine falcon, conditions do not occur or would willow flycatcher, Western pond turtle, Cascade not be affected in or near the frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, Southern torrent project area. salamander, California floater, topaz juga, Note that this applies to wildlife montane peaclam, Shasta sideband snail, Wintu Survey and Manage species sideband snail, Shasta chaparral snail, Tehama also. chaparral snail, Shasta hesperian snail, nugget pebble snail May affect and TE - northern spotted owl There would be a short-term (30 likely to adversely years) reduction in habitat quality affect. and a long-term increase in habitat quality. Actions are consistent with the Draft Recovery Plan. May affect FS -*Pacific fisher, American marten, northern *There would be a short-term (30 individuals but goshawk years) net reduction in habitat would not cause a FS - Pressley hesperian snail quality and a long-term net trend towards increase in habitat quality. federal listing or a Actions are consistent with the loss of viability. LRMP habitat management strategy for these species
Direct Effects on TE&S Species (physical harm, mortality or disturbance of breeding activity) Alternative 1 would result in no direct effects to TE&S species. Alternatives 3 and 4 include a limited operating period for the northern spotted owl and would avoid physical harm, mortality, or disturbance of breeding activity for not only the owl but also the fisher, marten, and goshawk. Indirect Effects on TE&S Species Alternative 1 would result in habitat conditions for TE&S species remaining largely unchanged over the next 30 years. Increasing fuel loading would increase the probability of loosing existing and developing old-growth habitat to catastrophic fire. Alternatives 3 and 4 actions are consistent with the management strategies and S&Gs associated with TE&S species and their habitats. In 35 to 40 years, regenerated stands would function as at least marginal connectivity habitat (see Appendix D, page D-9, for definition) for species associated with late successional/old-growth habitat. In roughly 80 years, the habitat would function as at least moderate quality late successional/old-growth habitat. In about 30 years within the thinning units, habitat conditions for species associated with late successional/old- growth habitat would be improved. The habitat alteration for Alternatives 3 and 4 may temporarily displace spotted owls outside the breeding season (Appendix D, page D-13). The thinning and overall reduction in fuel loading would reduce the probability of losing existing and
72 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006 developing old-growth habitat to catastrophic fire. Catastrophic fire would likely affect other habitat types in addition to old-growth. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that Alternative 3 (along with the cumulative effects described on pages 102-104) is in accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the northern spotted owl, is not anticipated to compromise the conservation and recovery strategy established by the NWFP, or contribute to an appreciable reduction in the likelihood of survival and recovery of the northern spotted owl in the wild by reducing the owl numbers, reproduction, or distribution (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Formal Consultation for the Browns Project; June 7, 2005, file 1-12-2005-F-12). Alternative 4 would have lesser impact to the owl and its habitat.
Cumulative Effects Relative to Resources Affected ______This cumulative effects analysis has been completed in accordance with the CEQ memorandum of June 24, 2005, regarding “guidance on the consideration of past actions in cumulative effects analysis.” In addition, this analysis incorporates guidance identified in the Region 5 white paper titled “Analysis of Cumulative Effects in NEPA,” dated August 4, 2005.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 73 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
Table 4-9. Summary of Other Management Actions Considered in the Evaluation of Cumulative Effects within the Browns Project Area.
Watershed Past Projects (prior to January 2006) Present Project Foreseeable Projects (after Resource Affected Name (Estimated January 2006) implementation of the Alternatives considered - from 2006 to 2009) Water Quality Wildlife Botany Effects Economic Fuels and Fire Fisheries Productivity Forest Heritage Resources Stability Land Soils Rush Creek Precommercial Thinning-175 acres (2004): Precommercial Thinning: Baxter
(14,388 acres) Baker 1 = 11 ac.; Baker 2 = 41 ac.; Baxter = 17 ac. (2005). X X X X = 121 ac.; East Weaver = 2 ac. PTEIR Projects (185 acres in
X 2006, 190 ac. in 2007) X X
- Roadside Fuels (131 ac. in 2004) - Bear FMZ (74 ac. in 2006) X X X X FS Timber Harvest (379 ac. from 1986 to 1997) Patch Clearcutting: Baker 2 units = 29 ac. (1991-1992); Baxter units = 111 ac. (1986- 1989); Browns units = 14 ac. (1989); East Weaver units = 2 ac. (1987); Rush
units = 10 ac. (1990). Overstory Removal X X X X X X X Cut: Baker 2 units = 180 ac. (1991-1992). Stand Clearcutting: Baker 1 units = 11 ac. (1991); Baker 2 units = 8 ac (1991). Sanitation Cut: Baker = 11 ac. (1991). Natural Changes (Slide): Baxter = 3 ac. (1997). Alt. 3 harvests 126 acres. - Bear & Rush Creek Comm
Alt. 4 harvests 94 acres. Fuels (73 ac. in 2006) X X X X X X X X - Plantation Prune- Baxter units
(6 ac. 2007); Browns units X (23 ac. 2007). Private Timber Harvest (5901 ac. from Private Timber Harvest
1940 to 2005) (205 ac. in 2007) X X X X FS Road Construction (53 mi. from 1950 to Alt. 3 builds 0.25 mi. of Private Road Construction
2005) road. (3 mi. in 2007) X X X X Private Road Construction (43 mi. from Road decom (2 mi. following Alt.
1940 to 2005) implementation) X X X
Wildland Fire (year) Highway 299 Bypass X X X
74 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
Watershed Past Projects (prior to January 2006) Present Project Foreseeable Projects (after Resource Affected Name (Estimated January 2006) implementation of the Alternatives considered - from 2006 to 2009) Botany Effects Economic Fuels and Fire Fisheries Productivity Forest Heritage Resources Stability Land Soils Water Quality Wildlife (2 mi. in 2010)
X X - Rush Fire (75 ac. in 1996) X
- Brown Fire (428 ac. in 1994) X X X
X Domestic Water Use Domestic Water Use X
X Historic placer and strip mining X X E Weaver Precommercial Thinning- 157 acres: East Precommercial Thinning -
Creek Weaver units = 157 ac. (1999-2004). 0 acres X X X X (8,892 acres) PTEIR Projects (63 acres in
2006, 44 ac. in 2007) X X X - Musser Hill Fuelbreak (313 ac. in 2004) - 5 cent Gulch Wildlife Burn
(130 ac. in 2006) X X X X - Roadside Fuels (17 ac. in 2004) - Croften Gulch Wildlife Burn
(78 ac. in 2006) X X X X - Musser Hill 46 ac. in 2005) - 5 Cent Gulch Mastication
(334 ac. in 2006) X X X X FS Timber Harvest - 175 ac. Patch Clearcutting: East Weaver units =
158 ac. (1987-1989). Slide: East Weaver X X X X X X X unit = 1 ac. (1998). Musser Hill Brush Clearing = 16 ac. (1973). Alt. 3 harvests 19 acres.
Alt 4 harvests 18 acres. X X X X X X X X Private Timber Harvest (1747 ac. from
1940 to 2005) X X X Plantation Prune, E. Weaver
units (60 ac. 2007) X FS Road Construction (31 mi. from 1950 to Road decom (9 mi. following Alt.
2005) implementation) X X X X Private Road Construction (19 mi. from Highway 299 Bypass
1940 to 2005) (2 mi. in 2010) X X X
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 75 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
Watershed Past Projects (prior to January 2006) Present Project Foreseeable Projects (after Resource Affected Name (Estimated January 2006) implementation of the Alternatives considered - from 2006 to 2009) Botany Effects Economic Fuels and Fire Fisheries Productivity Forest Heritage Resources Stability Land Soils Water Quality Wildlife Wildland Fire (4 ac. in 1931) PTEIR new road construction
(2 mi. in 2007) X X
Domestic Water Use Domestic Water Use X X Musser Hill Wildlife Burn
X (282 ac. in 2006) X X
X Historic placer and strip mining East Branch fish passage X X X L Browns Precommercial Thinning- 63 acres: Precommercial Thinning - 26
Creek Browns = 27 ac. (2004); East Weaver = 36 acres: Browns units = 26 ac X X X X (4,989 acres) ac. (1999-2004). (1997-2006). PTEIR Projects (354 acres in
2006, 328 ac. in 2007) X X
- China Gulch Fuelbreak (21 ac. in 2001) - Bear FMZ (62 ac. in 2006) X X X X
- Musser Hill Fuelbreak (291 ac. in 2004) - Finley FMZ (62 ac. in 2006) X X X X - Musser Hill (71 ac. in 2005) - Lil Browns FMZ
(151 ac. in 2006) X X X X
- Roadside Fuels - (76 ac. In 2004) X X X X - Plantation Prune- Browns units
(75 ac. 2007) X FS Timber Harvest (175.5 ac. from 1973 to 1989) Patch Clearcutting: East Weaver units = 36 ac. (1987-1989); Browns units =
126 ac. (1987-1989). Bug Fire Thin: 5 ac. X X X X X X X (1984). Square Fire Thin: 8 ac. (1985). Musser Hill Brush Clearing: 16 ac. (1973). Alt. 3 harvests 652 acres.
Alt 4 harvests 456 acres. X X X X X X X X Private Timber Harvest (2578 ac. from Private Timber Harvest
1940 to 2005) (130 ac. in 2007) X X X X FS Road Construction (37 mi. from 1950 to Alt. 3 builds 4.1 mi. of Private Road Construction
2005) road. (5 mi. in 2007) X X X X
76 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
Watershed Past Projects (prior to January 2006) Present Project Foreseeable Projects (after Resource Affected Name (Estimated January 2006) implementation of the Alternatives considered - from 2006 to 2009) Botany Effects Economic Fuels and Fire Fisheries Productivity Forest Heritage Resources Stability Land Soils Water Quality Wildlife Private Road Construction (14 mi. from Road decom (20 mi. following
1940 to 2005) Alt. implementation) X X X
Browns Fire (9 ac. in 1994)
Domestic Water Use X X Domestic Water Use Highway 299 Bypass
(3 mi. in 2010) X X
Historic placer and strip mining X X X PTEIR new road construction
(2 mi. in 2007) X X Roundy Road Fish Passage
(1 ac. in 2008) X X Notes: Past Forest Service road construction includes Highways. Private road construction includes urban and industrial timber lands. Foreseeable highway improvement distances are estimates. Present and foreseeable private road construction distances are estimates. Road construction distances related to PTEIR projects are estimates.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 77 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
Each of the resources affected consider the past, present, and foreseeable projects listed on Table 4-9. Where the geographic area considered in individual cumulative effects analysis varies from the subwatersheds listed on Table 4-9, those analyses identify the area of consideration relevant to the resource affected.
Air Quality - Cumulative Effects Alternatives 3 and 4 would produce smoke, which adds to the smoke likely to occur from private landowners within the Weaver Basin (the valley in which the town of Weaverville is located). This is foreseeable since burning is a common practice in Trinity County. However, it is unknown as to when or how much landowners will burn. Smoke from the proposed project is expected to remain in the area for about one to two days each time burning occurs. There would be approximately ten days of burning over an estimted two month period. Permissive burn days would be determined each day by the North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District (Eureka, California); therefore, smoke emissions from project activities would not exceed acceptable levels19.
Botany – Cumulative Effects
Effects Analysis To analyze the cumulative effect(s) on sensitive plants and fungi, the unit of measure used to quantify the effects is acres. This is the appropriate unit of measure because plant and fungi populations are typically described by the geographic area they occupy. The direct and indirect effects of implementing the alternatives considered have been disclosed earlier in this chapter and in the Plant BE. This cumulative effects analysis quantifies the sensitive fungi effects as a sum of the direct and indirect effects of the alternatives considered in addition to the past, present, and foreseeable future actions (which are independent of the alternatives considered). Since Alternative 1 has no direct or indirect effects, there are no cumulative effects resulting from this alternative.
Sensitive Plants Because there are no populations of any Sensitive plant species within any treatment units, there will be no direct or indirect impacts. In the absence of direct or indirect impacts, there will be no cumulative impacts to Brownie lady’s-slipper, mountain lady’s-slipper, copper moss, or English Peak greenbriar.
Bounding the Effects Similar spatial and temporal boundaries were used for branched collybia, Cudonia monticola, olive phaeocollybia, and orange-peel fungus because they all have similar growth patterns and habitat characteristics.
19 Acceptable levels (determined by the North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District) fluctuate day to day, which is determined by atmospheric conditions, and local complaints (Green 2006).
78 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
Spatial Boundary It is difficult to determine the most important factor that influences healthy fungi populations. Influences include a diverse underground fungal community that comes with stand age, species aboveground diversity to provide multiple host species and organic matter inputs, and adequate moisture to grow the plants necessary to create the first two factors listed. The most reasonable spatial boundary for analysis may be the 5th field watershed that contains the project area (Weaverville). These watershed determine the scope of the subsurface hydrology, which is one of the driving factors in plant community composition. The geographic extent of the Weaverville watershed is 53647 acres.
Temporal Boundary All activities occurring from approximately 80 years in the past to approximately 80 years into the future will be considered to contribute to cumulative impacts to branched collybia, Cudonia monticola, olive phaeocollybia, and orange-peel fungus. 80 years is about the time it would take mature or late-seral forest communities to develop habitat characteristics that are minimally suitable for the 4 fungi species to survive in healthy populations in the project area once more. Although stand development rates will vary depending on local conditions, the Northwest Forest Plan (1994) identifies old-growth forest conditions occurring at a minimum of 80 years old.
Sensitive Fungi There are 489 acres of conifer plantations present within the Weaverville watershed, 90% of which are within the 2 miles of the Browns Project area. Plantations primarily, if not entirely, fall within conifer habitat that would have been suitable for Sensitive fungi species prior to historic disturbance. These plantations are established over 7 timber sales that took place in the early 1980’s prior to NEPA analysis for effects to Sensitive plants or fungi. Timber harvest occurred on 18,547 acres within the watershed in the past 80 years, but the actual acres of harvest where tractors were employed are unknown. Assuming 40% of harvest acres occurred on slopes less than 35%, a conservative estimate of acres disturbed by tractors would be 7419. Within those 7419 acres, disruption of organic matter and fungal mass layers would have occurred throughout. The entire project area was impacted from mining in the mid-19th century, with greatest emphasis on riparian areas that contain the most suitable habitat for Sensitive fungi. Although this activity extends beyond the temporal cumulative impacts boundary, many of these areas have still not recovered to pre-mining habitat characteristics. 2,733 acres of suitable habitat for Sensitive fungi (late-seral characteristics) are present at the current time. The total amount of habitat present prior to mining is unknown. The Browns RAC Decision memo, signed in April of 2004, will treat roadside fuels on 787 acres along Musser Hill Road. These treatments will occur entirely along roadsides to reduce fuel hazard. These areas are already highly disturbed with compaction and established annual grasses, yellow starthistle, and Klamath weed. The activities occurring under that project will add no additional impacts to those occurring under the Browns Project.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 79 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
Discussion Smaller-diameter, mid-seral plant communities occupy the majority of forested stands receiving stand density reduction treatments. Assuming suitable habitat for Sensitive fungi exists in forested stands with mature to late-seral conifer habitat, there are currently 2733 acres of suitable habitat within the Weaverville watershed. Historically, all areas that received timber harvest treatments may have had suitable habitat for fungi, but the exact amount is unknown. Between 55 and 63 acres (less than 3%) of mature to late-seral habitat, depending on the action alternative, will be treated with timber stand density treatments. Thinning treatments in overstocked stands would retain all pre-dominant and dominant trees to continue to act as suitable host trees for olive phaeocollybia. An average of 4-6 logs of the largest available diameter will be maintained to meet wildlife habitat standards; these will provide an inoculum source of Sensitive and common fungi species after treatments. At least 60% canopy cover will be maintained in riparian reserves where the habitat conditions are best for fungi and the greatest species diversity exists. A 60% canopy is relatively shady and will provide suitable shade for fungi maintenance and regeneration. Minimization of size and configuration of group regeneration cuts to maximize edge will reduce impacts to fungi. Restriction of these cuts to two acres or less will help maintain diversity in other areas, while still allowing for a space large enough to accommodate a whole-tree yarder for thinning activities. Spreading them throughout the project area will help with reintroduction of residual fungi after treatments. Machine piling on these landings will result in soil compaction and disturbance, and potentially greater impacts to soil fungi, but openings will be distributed and not concentrated, and will occupy no more than 25 acres, or less than 1% of the total project acreage. Alternatives 3 and 4 would create 2-acre landings on 39 and 25 acres or 5.2% and 4.8%, respectively, of total alternative acres. All regeneration cuts will be surrounded by undisturbed forest that can be expected to provide a reinoculation source for maintenance of fungal diversity, including for the four Sensitive fungi species if they are there currently. Landings would be ripped after completion of treatments to reduce compaction, allowing fungi habitat to recover at a faster pace. Tractors will cause heavy soil disturbance on 26 acres (Alt. 3) or 21 acres (Alt. 4) out of a total of 754 acres (Alt. 3) or 543 acres (Alt. 4). This will result in heavy soil disturbance on less than 1% of the potential suitable habitat for Sensitive fungi (2733 ac.) in the Weaverville watershed under either alternative. The proposed action in combination with past and planned disturbance on 7419 acres have resulted or will result in a total of up to 7445 acres of disturbance. There is uncertainty as to how many acres of fungi habitat were present prior to historic timber sales. The proposed action would contribute soil disturbance from tractors to no more than 1% of the current habitat for Sensitive fungi. This is a small amount of disturbance relative to the available habitat in the watershed and relative to other past projects. Road construction and decommissioning impacts are occurring on less than 14 acres under Alternative 3 and less than 6 acres under Alternative 4. Assuming all new and temporary road construction would occur within suitable habitat for Sensitive fungi, road construction would
80 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006 heavily impact less than 1% of the suitable habitat in the Weaverville watershed. This would be a negligible amount of disturbance in addition to all other impacts. Several additional measures have been incorporated into the project design to minimize impacts to natural resources within the project area. All of these will reduce impacts to and benefit the four Sensitive fungi species. • Soil productivity standards described in Forest Service Handbook 2509.18 (2.2.1 Soil Productivity) require maintenance of 50% fine organic matter cover, preferably undisturbed and where capability exists, and at least 5 well distributed logs per acre in a range of decomposition classes. Soil porosity should not be reduced more than 10% of natural conditions. Organic matter will be maintained in amounts sufficient to prevent significant sort or long-term nutrient cycle deficits. • The Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Appendix G lists minimum requirements for down and woody material left on site after treatments to be no less than 5 tons per acre for most target wildlife species. • The Aquatic Conservation Strategy of the Northwest Forest Plan remains unchanged with the 2004 decision to remove Survey and Mange mitigations. Strategy Objectives #8 requires maintenance and restoration of species composition and structural diversity of plant communities in riparian areas and wetlands to provide several hydrologic functions including nutrient filtering, limiting surface erosion, and sustaining physical complexity and stability. Objective #9 requires maintaining and restoring habitat to support well- distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate and riparian-dependent species. Both objectives work to minimize disturbance and disruption of belowground fungal networks in riparian areas where fungi are most likely to grow on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest.
The Browns Project lies within the Weaverville 5th field watershed, which holds a portion of the Trinity Alps Wilderness. The wilderness area contains abundant suitable habitat for all three Sensitive fungi species. Habitat is relatively undisturbed except for historic mining actions that occurred in most of the drainages throughout the wilderness. Wildfires have occurred within the wilderness also. Wildfire can be considered an integral part of fungi ecology and absence of wildfire has probably had greater impacts on fungi than all historic wildfires. Abundant suitable habitat for the four Sensitive fungi species is provided in the Trinity Alps Wilderness and loss of viability of branched collybia, Cudonia monticola, olive phaeocollybia, and orange-peel fungus on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest is not threatened by the proposed project. Regardless of the numerical differences, none of the alternatives will have significant adverse impacts on Sensitive fungi. Low-intensity timber and fuel treatments will be implemented, such as hand thinning, whole-tree harvesting, and cable yarding. Machine piling will occur on less than 1% of total project acres. These landings will serve the rest of the commercial thinning units and will minimize the area receiving more intensive impacts. It is likely that implementation of the proposed action will contribute in some measurable increase in impacts generated by off-road vehicle use, but the exact amount or even the general amount of increases is unknown at this time. Use of whole-tree harvesters and low-impact fuel
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 81 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
reduction techniques will decrease impacts to the land throughout the project area. The proportion of suitable habitat being impacted by all treatment activities relative to the total amount of suitable habitat within the watershed is very low. Impacts to Sensitive fungi from the proposed action are not expected to be great enough to threaten the viability of branched collybia, Cudonia monticola, olive phaeocollybia, or orange-peel fungus.
Noxious Weeds
Spatial Boundary Defining a geographic boundary for noxious weeds is difficult because once weeds are established in an area they can change the successional pathways of the native plant community they replace. Unlike native plants, recovery of the original plant community after a period of time may not occur, especially in the absence of aggressive prevention or control treatments. An additional complication is that weeds are most often transported in on vehicles that can travel from long distances far outside of the project area. The Browns Project area contains few residences and it is unlikely that travelers from outside of Trinity County will travel on roads through the project area. Outside of vehicle spread, most weeds move only short distances in dispersal. With those parameters, the spatial analysis boundary can be set at Musser Hill Road to the west, China Gulch Road to the east, the intersection of Rush Creek Road and Highway 3 to the north, and Highway 3 to the south.
Temporal Boundary The temporal analysis boundary would be that timeframe in which soils would become stabilized once again after disturbance, and suitable habitat for noxious weed introduction would no longer be available. Past actions that have created suitable habitat that has not stabilized in the project area would also be considered. Because past actions have differing degrees of disturbance and stabilization times, it would not be appropriate to define an exact timeframe. Past actions will be considered on a case-by-case basis to determine if they are appropriate for cumulative impacts analysis.
Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions There are 489 acres of conifer plantations present within the Weaverville watershed, 90% of which are within the 2 miles of the Browns Project area. These plantations have been established within 7 timber sales that took place in the early 1980’s. Soil disturbance from harvesting activities occurred during these timber sales. Little noxious weed management occurred prior to the mid-1990’s and it is likely that noxious weeds were imported into the project area. The Browns RAC Decision memo, signed in April of 2004, will treat roadside fuels on 787 acres along Musser Hill Road. These treatments will occur entirely along roadsides to reduce fuel hazard. Roadsides in these areas are already highly disturbed with compaction and established annual grasses, yellow starthistle, and Klamath weed. The activities occurring under that project will add no additional impacts to those occurring under the Browns Project.
82 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
Many roads in the project area, including the 20 miles of unclassified roads that will be obliterated, have contributed to local off-road vehicle use. OHV’s have been responsible for spreading weeds as they pick up seeds and plant pieces and deposit them in unoccupied areas they pass through. With regular OHV traffic, disturbed soil is not allowed to stabilize and their remains a perpetual source of suitable habitat for noxious weeds. All 20 miles are proposed for decommissioning under the proposed action, this may lead to a decrease in noxious weed spread.
Discussion New road construction would not occur under Alternative 4 (4.6 miles of new road under Alt. 3), but 4.9 fewer miles of existing or temporary road would be constructed or decommissioned in someway that heavy disturbance would occur. Each time the road is ripped or bladed, the road base becomes ideal suitable habitat for noxious weed introduction and spread until the road is occupied with vegetation or unless the road is surfaced or receives enough vehicle traffic that it can’t even support weeds. Alternative 4 would result in less creation of suitable habitat for weeds, but suitable habitat will be created under either alternative. Soil disturbance will occur as a result of yarding, landing use, machine piling and pile burning, but heavy disturbance will occur only with tractor piling treatments on 26 acres (Alt. 3) or 21 acres (Alt. 4). A difference of 5 acres between the two alternatives is insignificant. All of these activities are occurring on a limited area, less than 5% of the total project acreage, minimizing soil disturbance to a low level. Excluding treatment activities within the area of the Canada thistle population will reduce or eliminate the chance of stimulating spread of that weed. Removing the tops of scotchbroom plants and excluding burning within the two populations will reduce or eliminate the chance of spreading that weed from project activities. Equipment cleaning will avoid importation of new weeds from outside areas and seeding with native grasses will help to occupy habitat before weeds can become established. Reseeding with locally collected blue wild rye (Elymus glaucus) has proven successful in restoration efforts on decomposed granite in Trinity County in the Grass Valley Watershed (Trinity County Resource Conservation District, 1998). Similar results are expected here. Low amounts of disturbance in combination with mitigation measures described above will help to minimize the spread and/or establishment of weeds as a result of project implementation. Contract Provision C6.36 [Equipment Cleaning 5/01] will be incorporated into the final sale contract as an additional mitigation to prevent the spread of invasive weeds. This provision requires the purchaser to insure his equipment is free of weed seeds or propagules prior to entering the project area. A copy of the complete text of the contract provision can be obtained at the Weaverville Ranger Station.
Economic Effects – Cumulative Effects
Effects Analysis To analyze the cumulative effect(s) on economics, the unit of measure used to quantify the effect is the net public benefit. This is the appropriate unit of measure because the net public benefit
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 83 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
considers the overall value of outputs and benefits less the associated Forest Service inputs and costs, whether they can be quantitatively valued or not. The direct and indirect effects of implementing the alternatives considered have been disclosed in the previous section of Chapter 4. This cumulative effects analysis quantifies the net public benefit effect(s) as a sum of the direct and indirect effects of the alternatives considered in addition to the past, present, and foreseeable future actions (which are independent of the alternatives considered).
Bounding the Effects
Geographic Boundary The area most affected by the project is the Weaverville area of Trinity County since the value of the timber products is expected to benefit the County receipts and local employment. In addition, the Weaverville community benefit in terms of increased fire protection is a non-priced benefit that is not accounted for in quantifiable present net value outputs.
Time Frame The time frame selected is beyond the financial benefits from the timber sale activities since the fire protection benefit would last for about 30 years. Therefore, the selected time frame for the cumulative effects considered is 30 years.
Actions Considered (Table 4-10)
Table 4-10. Summary of Effects of Alternatives Considered along with Other Management Actions Affecting Economics.
Alternative/Unit of Direct Indirect Present Past Future Sum of Effects Measurement Effects Effects Actions Actions Actions within the (Present Selected Time Net Value) Frame Alt. 1 effect on $ 0 No No change Timber Timber No effect, but Weaverville area in change in in fuels harvests, fire harvests, fire opportunity lost net public benefit fire conditions suppression suppression, terms protection fuels work Alt. 3 effect on $1,177,100 Increased Improved Timber Timber Positive effects Weaverville area in fire fuels harvests, fire harvests, fire related to net public benefit protection conditions suppression suppression, revenue terms fuels work generated and increased fire protection Alt. 3 effect on $ 935,750 Increased Improved Timber Timber Positive effects Weaverville area in fire fuels harvests, fire harvests, fire related to net public benefit protection conditions suppression suppression, revenue terms fuels work generated and increased fire protection
The direct effects in terms of revenue generated from a timber sale activity are shown as present net value outputs. Changes in fire protection are indirect effects resulting from the implementation
84 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006 of Alternative 3 or 4. Other actions (past, present, and future) are considered to be independent from the Browns Project.
Conclusion of Cumulative Effects on Economics The net public benefit would be a positive effect from either Alternative 3 or 4, with Alternative 3 being a greater benefit since acreage treated for fire protection and revenue generated in terms of present net value would be higher than Alternative 4. Alternative 1 would have no effect outside of the opportunities lost in improving fire protection and generating revenue.
Fire and Fuels – Cumulative Effects
Effects Analysis To analyze cumulative effect(s) on fire and fuels, the unit of measure used to quantify the effect(s) is the amount of acres resulting with a change in fire behavior and tree mortality. This is an appropriate unit of measure because it shows the amount of landscape that would be affected. One theory suggests that more than 20 to 30 percent of the landscape must be changed from a fast spread rate to a slow spread rate before fire behavior and tree mortality can be substantially reduced20. The direct and indirect effects of implementing the alternatives considered have been disclosed in the previous section of this report. This cumulative effects analysis quantifies the output effect(s) as a sum of the direct and indirect effects of the alternatives considered in addition to the past, present, and foreseeable future actions (which are independent of the alternatives considered).
Bounding the Effects
Geographic Boundary The area considered for the cumulative effects analysis is a subset of the 3 affected subwatersheds, based on topographic features, and is shown on a map in Appendix D of the Fire and Fuels Specialist Report (Browns Project File). The selected geographic area was chosen because topography is a major factor in fire behavior; and is commonly used when managing wild and prescribed fires. The selected boundaries are effective barriers to fire spread due to factors such as high humidity, lack of vegetation, and ridgetops.
Time Frame The period used to analyze cumulative effects is about 30 years. It is estimated to take this long for vegetation to grow back within timber stands; and for surface fuel loadings to somewhat resemble that of its current degraded condition. The effects of fuels reduction in brush fields from past and reasonably foreseeable projects would last for approximately 10-20 years. Although the proposed
20 Finney, Mark A. 2003. Calculation of fire spread rates across random landscapes. International Journal of Widland Fire, 2003, 12, 167-174.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 85 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
project would not occur in brush fields, these acres were used to calculate total area with desired conditions (Table 4-10b).
Baseline A baseline was established for the comparison of environmental effects in order to assess a possible change in conditions. Its purpose is to act as an anchor point for adding the incremental effects of past, present, reasonably foreseeable, and proposed project effects. A discussion of how the baseline was determined is located in Appendix G, pages G-15 and G-16. The baseline for assessing cumulative effects is the current condition (2005) because it considers how conditions have changed over time; and how they are likely to change in the future with or without proposed actions. Current conditions will be compared with the estimated effects from proposed projects, in addition to past and foreseeable actions, to determine whether or not there is a benefit to fire behavior and fire severity.
Actions Considered The actions considered are the proposed alternatives and the actions included in Table 4-9.
Table 4-10a. A summary of past, present and reasonable foreseeable projects considered in the evaluation of fire and fuels cumulative effects21 for the proposed Browns project.
Geography Acres Past Projects Present Projects Foreseeable Projects Fire and 6,276 Fuels Projects: Proposed Project: Fuels Projects: Fuels Musser Hill FMZ- 554 ac. 2004 Alternative 1- 0 ac. Bear FMZ- 136 ac. 2006 Cumulative Musser Hill Mastication- 117 ac. Alternative 3- 781 ac. Finley FMZ- 62 ac. 2006 Effects 2005 Alternative 4- 568 ac. Lil. Browns FMZ- 151 ac. 2006 Area China Gulch FMZ- 10 ac. 2001 Musser Wildlife Burn-282 ac. Browns Roadside FMZ- 178 ac. 2006 2004 Croften Wildlife Burn- 78 ac. Timber: 2006 Pre-commercial Thinning- 55 Bear and Rush Shaded Fuel ac. 2004 Break (RCD)- 18 ac. 2006 Plantation Prune- 80 ac. 2007 Timber: USFS Pre-commercial Thin- 69 ac. 2007 This table is a subset of the Cumulative Effects Table 4.9 found in the Browns Project EIS and is bounded by a smaller area, therefore acres shown here will be different. Reasons for projects not considered in this analysis are listed in Appendix D of the Browns Fire and Fuels Specialist Report.
21 A map of the fire and fuels cumulative effects analysis boundary is located in appendix D of the fire and fuels report located in the project file.
86 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
Table 4-10b. Summary of proposed acres treated, from alternatives and other management actions, which benefit fire behavior22 and fire severity (tree mortality) within the Browns cumulative effects analysis area.
Past Actions Present Future Actions Sum of Total Area with Sum of Total Area with (acres) Actions (acres) Effects Desired Effects Desired (acres) Lasting 10-20 Conditions Lasting 20-30 Conditions years (6,276 acres) years (6,276 acres) (acres) (acres) Fuels- 859 USFS Alternative 1 Fuels- 807 1790 29% 1313 21% Timber- 72 0 USFS Timber- 69 Fuels- 859 USFS Alternative 3 Fuels- 807 2571 41% 2094 33% Timber- 72 781 USFS Timber- 69 Fuels-859 USFS Alternative 4 Fuels- 807 2358 38% 1881 30% Timber- 72 568 USFS Timber- 69 Musser Hill Mastication, Musser Hill Wildlife Burn and Croften Wildlife Burn acres were taken out of the sum of effects within the 20-30 year time frame since these areas contain at least 75% brush. Fuel treatments in these areas are not expected to last as long as treatments which occur in timber stands.
The cumulative effects of Alternative 1 would result in no change from existing conditions. Past and foreseeable projects make up approximately 29 percent (includes brush stands) of the cumulative effects analysis area (Table 4-10b), and 21 percent in timber stands (excludes brush areas). This would reduce fire behavior across the landscape because more than 20 percent is being treated. Finney (2003) states that more than 20-30 percent of the landscape must be changed from a fast spreading fuel type to one with a slower spread rate before fire growth can be substantially reduced23. This would allow firefighters to safely suppress fire in past and future treatment areas. The effectiveness of past and foreseeable treatments would last approximately 10- 20 years (includes all projects); and 20-30 years in timber stands (excludes brush treatments). Since many untreated stands are currently overstocked with small diameter trees and decadent brush; high severity effects would occur. However, past and foreseeable treatment areas would result in low mortality rates, which comprise about 21 percent of the cumulative effects analysis area (Table 4-10b). Alternative 1 would treat no acres near private industrial timberland (SPI). This alternative would have a negative effect to private land because there would be no buffer from wildfire impacts; and no place for firefighters to safely work. The cumulative effects of Alternatives 3 and 4 with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions would decrease fire behavior and fire severity across a greater area (compared to Alternative 1). Furthermore, proposed units would be more strategically located within the middle of other fuels reduction projects. This is important because random patterns of fuels treatments are unlikely to substantially affect the overall growth rate or size of a fire until large areas of the landscape are treated (Finney 2003). Alternatives 3 & 4 would create more protection
22 Beneficial effects to fire behavior and tree mortality result from fuel model 8, which is the desired condition for fire suppression and fire severity effects to vegetation. In addition, it reflects the desired fuel loadings stated in the LRMP pg. 4-65. 23 Finney, Mark A. 2003. Calculation of fire spread rates across random landscapes. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 2003, 12, 167-174.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 87 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
across the landscape by increasing the amount of strategically placed treated acres. For Alternative 3, this would occur over approximately 41 percent of the landscape; and Alternative 4-approximately 38 percent for an estimated 10-20 years (Table 4-10b). At the end of this time, the amount of area resulting with desired conditions would begin to decline (Table 4-10b. 20-30 years column). Other benefits from implementing Alternatives 3 and 4: • Alternative 3 would result in desired fire behavior and severity effects on about 296 acres in the Blue Rock and China Gulch area (combined) that border private industrial timberland; whereas Alternative 4 would only improve about 13 acres. Fuel treatments would provide safe conditions for suppression, and would allow more trees to survive a wildfire. In addition, this would create a buffer from wildfire impacts to Forest Service land if a fire were to spread from private land. • Alternatives 3 and 4 would either border or be adjacent to future and existing fuel management zones (FMZs). Both alternatives would benefit FMZs by slowing or possibly stopping fire growth. • Alternatives 3 and 4 would lower fire behavior and fire severity effects in proposed units that are adjacent to approximately 105 acres of plantations; allowing firefighters to slow or stop a fire before it entered the plantation and provide a safe place for them to work.
Fisheries – Cumulative Effects
Effects Analysis To analyze the cumulative effect(s) on threatened and MIS fish, fish habitat, and riparian reserves, the unit of measure used to quantify the effect is the proper functioning condition based on Watershed Condition Class (WCC). The condition of instream (fish and fish habitat) and near stream (riparian reserves) resources is highly dependant on the overall condition of the watershed. The WCC is derived from the water quality cumulative effects model and is rated from WCC I to WCC III. Instream surveys in the project area have validated the WCC as derived from the cumulative watershed effects modeling.
Bounding the Effects
Geographic Boundary Cumulative effects to threatened and MIS fish, fish habitat, and riparian reserves are addressed by 7th field subwatershed. Three subwatersheds are addressed: Rush Creek, East Weaver Creek, and Little Browns Creek. The 7th field subwatershed is the most appropriate scale to analyze effects to threatened and MIS fish, fish habitat, and riparian reserves because 8th field subwatersheds are generally too small to support fish. Larger scale (6th field) subwatersheds dilute effects enough that effects from an individual project is likely unrecognizable.
88 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
Time Frame See the Water Quality effects section (pages 64 and 65) for a discussion of WCC time frames. Effects from permanent features such as roads will persist in perpetuity and effects from activities such as tree thinning may be completely recovered in 15 years or less. The effects to fish habitat often lag behind upland effects due to the length of time that it takes for streams to recover. Changes to fish habitat and its effects to fish are often five to ten years behind those noticed in upland areas.
Actions Considered
Alternative 1 Effects of past management (Table 4-9) have degraded the project subwatersheds to WCC II (East Weaver Creek) or III (Rush and Little Browns Creeks) (see the “WCC (existing)” column in either Table 4-13 or 4-14). The incremental effect of each action checked in Table 4-9 is represented in the CWE spreadsheets contained within the project file and these effects are summarized by subwatershed. The effects of all activities listed in Table 4-9 when added to Alternative 1 maintain the degraded condition at the current level. Foreseeable projects include fish passage upgrades at Roundy Road and East Branch Road. There are no planned restoration activities to improve the watershed condition. Some recovery would occur over time as previously harvested areas grow; however, much of the cumulative effect comes from roads that would not recover without mechanical rehabilitation. The watershed would remain at high risk of wildfire.
Alternatives 3 and 4 Road construction and maintenance, timber harvest activities, fuels reduction treatments, fire suppression actions, domestic water use, urban development and watershed restoration activities all contribute to changes in the watershed which ultimately result in changes to aquatic habitat and finally to fish. Incremental effects of each action checked in Table 4-9 is represented in the CWE spreadsheets contained within the project file and these effects are summarized by subwatershed. The effects of all activities listed in Table 4-9 have degraded the project subwatersheds to WCC II (East Weaver Creek) or III (Rush and Little Browns Creeks). Watersheds in condition class II may exhibit an unstable drainage network. Physical, chemical, and biologic conditions suggest that soil, aquatic, and riparian systems are at risk in being able to support beneficial uses. Watersheds that are in condition class III have conditions in soil, riparian and aquatic systems that no longer fully support beneficial uses, including fish habitat and fish. Fish habitat surveys support the watershed condition class ratings and demonstrate that negative effects to fish habitat have occurred and are currently manifested as elevated turbidity levels, elevated sediment levels and reduced quality of fish habitat. The incremental effects of the past, present and reasonable foreseeable actions added to the Browns project will result in some increase in cumulative effects to fish habitat over the short term (5- 10 years) but will lead to some recovery over longer time periods (over 10 years). These cumulative effects are expected to be short-term increases in turbidity and sediment levels.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 89 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
Conclusion of Cumulative Effects on Threatened Fish, MIS Fish, Fish Habitat, and Riparian Reserves The subwatersheds and streams channels of the Browns Project area are currently in a degraded condition due to the cumulative effects of past management activities. Alternative 1 proposes only passive restoration. When combined with foreseeable actions of removing fish migration barriers on county roads, slight improvements to fish habitat and fish populations may occur over the long-term. However, under Alternative 1 the risk of wildfire remains high and continues to pose a threat to the health of the watershed. The WCC for Rush Creek, East Weaver Creek, and Little Browns Creek would not change as a result of this alternative (see “WCC Existing” in Table 4-13). Alternatives 3 and 4 propose some active watershed restoration (road decommissioning) as well as lowering the risk of wildfire. Foreseeable actions include fish passage upgrades at Roundy Road and East Branch Road. Although the watershed may show some improvement over the long- term, fish habitat and populations would only show slight improvements because permanent road systems and urban development would remain. The WCC for East Weaver and Rush Creek would not change, but the WCC for Little Browns Creek would change from III to II (Tables 4-13 and 4- 14).
Forest Productivity – Cumulative Effects
Effects Analysis To analyze the cumulative effect(s) on forest stands, the unit of measure used to quantify the effect is the acreage affected by managing stand density. This is the appropriate unit of measure because timber stand growth and yield is benefited by achieving adequate stocking of well-distributed trees in regeneration harvests and by using commercial thinning to maintain or improve tree health and vigor (as recognized in the LRMP, page 4-27). The direct and indirect effects of implementing the alternatives considered have been disclosed in the previous section of Chapter 4. This cumulative effects analysis quantifies the acreage affected by managing stand density effect as a sum of the direct and indirect effects of the alternatives considered in addition to the past, present, and foreseeable future actions (which are independent of the alternatives considered). Bounding the Effects
Geographic Boundary The geographic area considered for the forest stand productivity cumulative effects analysis is the three subwatersheds affected by the proposed action. This includes the Rush Creek, East Weaver Creek, and Little Browns Creek subwatersheds (Table 4-9). Since the affected environment relative to forest productivity is associated with water and nutrient availability, the appropriate analysis area for evaluating effects to forest stands is the subwatershed drainage area. These subwatersheds include both National Forest and other ownership lands.
90 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
Time Frame The three affected subwatersheds are expected to experience pulsed stand density effects over time since similar actions would continue into the foreseeable future (although no quantifiable future actions are foreseeable at this time). Re-entry into the same stands proposed for thinning in Alternatives 3 and 4 is expected in about a 30 years. Therefore, the time frame selected for evaluating the cumulative effects of the alternatives considered is 30 years.
Table 4-11. Summary of Effects of Alternatives Considered along with Other Management Actions Affecting the Rush Creek, East Weaver Creek, and Little Browns Creek subwatersheds (the past, present, and foreseeable future actions are summarized from projects identified in Table 4-9).
Alternative Effects within the Direct Indirect Past Present Future Sum of Effects Three Affected Subwatersheds Effects Effects Actions* Actions** Actions** within 30 Years (37,709 acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Alternative 1 acreage affected 0 0 17,559 0 43 17,642 by managing stand density Alternative 3 acreage affected 793 0 17,559 0 43 18,352 by managing stand density Alternative 4 acreage affected 568 0 17,559 0 43 18,127 by managing stand density * Past actions include approved Timber Harvest Plans on private land. Of the 17,559 acres identified, 13,202 acres are on private land. ** There are no quantifiable acreages for future actions (other than Forest Service precommercial thinning) known at this time. However, more future actions are assumed to occur on private timberland than on federal land over the next 30 year period.
Most of the past actions within the three affected watersheds have occurred on private land. The acreages affected by managing stand density show that Alternative 1 would cause no increase in acreage affected by managing stand density. Alternatives 3 and 4 would cause increases by 793 and 568 acres, respectively, within the 28,269 acres of the three affected subwatersheds. Since the acreages treated by Alternatives 3 and 4 are expected to result in increases in stand productivity, the result of the 30-year effect would be positive.
Conclusion of Cumulative Effects on Forest Productivity (Timber) As described earlier, Alternative 1 would result in high stand densities and increasing tree mortality. In the absence of wildfire, the stands within the project area would continue to produce less than desired growth and yield within managed timber stands while providing increased fire hazard conditions which may lead to stand replacement and/or increased fire risk to adjacent forested lands. Long-term timber product outputs would be less than could be achieved with active stand management. LRMP goals (Forest Goals #34 and #35, LRMP page 4-5) for managing timber stands and providing timber and other wood products would not be achieved within the project area with implementation of Alternative 1 – contributing to a Forest-wide departure from LRMP resource goals. Alternatives 3 and 4 would contribute toward meeting LRMP resource goals (approximately 23 million board feet of wood products per decade is desired to come out of Management Area 7, LRMP page 4-108) by managing the timber resource in a manner to improve the health and vigor
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 91 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
of timber stands. This, in turn, is expected to provide a sustained yield of timber and other wood products, yielding a positive cumulative effect of increased timber growth.
Heritage Resources – Cumulative Effects
Effects Analysis To analyze the cumulative effect(s) on archaeological sites, the unit of measure used to quantify the effect(s) is/are the number of sites in the project area. This is the appropriate unit of measure because the project area is “area of potential effect”. The direct and indirect effects of implementing the alternatives considered have been disclosed in the previous section of this report. This cumulative effects analysis quantifies the effect(s) as a sum of the direct and indirect effects of the alternatives considered in addition to the past, present, and foreseeable future actions (which are independent of the alternatives considered).
Bounding the Effects
Geographic Boundary The physical geographic boundary for the Browns Project was surveyed for heritage resources. The area of potential effect is located in the Weaverville watershed. The legal location is: T34N R10W, sections 23, 24; and T34N, R9W, sections 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, and 34, MDM. As identified in 36 CFR 800 and in the Region 5 Programmatic Agreement, the APE is defined as the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may cause changes in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. Therefore, the effects analysis was determined by utilizing the area of potential effect boundary.
Time Frame The time frame for determining effects would continue until the proposed project had been implemented. This approach would consider the additive effects of project implementation. Historic properties would continue to be protected.
Actions Considered Since all alternatives analyzed would have no direct or indirect effect to historic properties, it has been determined that there would be no cumulative effect on historic properties.
Conclusion of Cumulative Effects on Heritage Resources Historic properties would not be affected by this proposed undertaking. Since the proposed action would have no direct or indirect effects to historic properties there would be no cumulative effects to historic properties.
Land Stability – Cumulative Effects Since there are no effects from the project, there are no cumulative effects.
92 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
Soils – Cumulative Effects
Effects Analysis To analyze the cumulative effects on soils, the units of measure used to quantify the effects are the regional soil quality standards developed and adopted in 1995 (USDA, 1995c). These are the appropriate units of measure because they are regional standards that evaluate measurable changes in soil productivity that have been tested and peer reviewed. The direct and indirect effects of implementing the alternatives considered have been disclosed in the previous section of this report. This cumulative effects analysis quantifies the effects as a sum of the direct and indirect effects of the alternatives considered in addition to the past and foreseeable future actions (which are independent of the alternatives considered).
Bounding the Effects Cumulative effects on the soil ecosystem have two scales. The first deals with the number and types of management activities occurring within an individual stand; the second deals with the number and types of management activities and their distribution occurring within a project area or watershed over time.
Geographic Boundary The soils analysis provided for this project only considered the specialist project bounding area for the activity areas – Units 2 through 17; it did not evaluate cumulative effects on all of the watersheds that pass through the project area. The rationale for bounding at the treatment unit scale is that the direct and indirect effects occur at this scale. Soil quality standards only apply to the affected soils in regards to project area erosion, compaction, and fertility of past, present, and future planned activities.
Time Frame The effect of management on soil recovery is dependent on soil type, climate, moisture, cover, and time. By using the Universal Soil Loss Equation24 typical recovery rates can be developed that show soils in and around the Trinity River, with 50 to 70% cover, recovery would be in three to five years.
Actions Considered The actions considered are the proposed alternatives and the actions included in Table 4-12 below.
24 USLE – Universal Soil Loss Equation is an empirically based erosion model used to predict upland soil erosion rates from various land management activities.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 93 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
Conclusion of Cumulative Effects on Soils (Table 4-12)
Table 4-12. Summary of Effects.
Soil Resource Background (past + Proposed 1st Year Future in 3-5 Cumulative undisturbed) years Alternative 1 Erosion Hazard Low (3-4) - Wildfire V. high (20-35) Compaction 300 acres - Wildfire 300 acres Fertility Moderately low - Wildfire Low Hydrologic Fair (C) - Possible Fair - poor Group wildfire Alternative 3 Erosion Hazard Low (3-4) Moderate (6-8) Low (3-4) Low (3-4) Compaction 300 acres 200 acres treated None 100 acres Fertility Moderately low Moderately low Moderate Moderate Hydrologic Group Fair (C) Good (B) Good (B) Good (B) Alternative 4 Erosion Hazard Low (3-4) Low-moderate (5-7) Low (3-4) Low (3-4) Compaction 300 acres 100 acres treated None 200 acres Fertility Moderate-low Moderately low Mod-low Moderately low Hydrologic Group Fair (C) Fairly Good (low B) Fairly Good Fairly Good
With erosion control measures implemented, cumulative erosion will be slightly elevated for the first year but will go to background levels in 3 to 5 years for Alternatives 3 and 4. For Alternative 1, if a wildfire were to occur, erosion levels would be greatly elevated (high to very high) for the first year and would go back to background levels in 3 to 5 years. For Alternative 1, compaction would not be treated and hydrologic function would be in an impaired state. For Alternative 3, legacy compaction would be significantly reduced by subsoiling 200 acres thus increasing infiltration and improving overall site conditions. Alternative 4, 100 acres of legacy compaction will be treated increasing infiltration and improving overall site conditions but to a lesser degree as Alternative 3. With compaction mitigation measures for all other units without legacy compaction, infiltration will not be impeded and overall soil quality will be maintained. Decompaction mitigation measures of subsoiling would be done after timber and fuel treatments on regeneration units, landings, temporary roads, and main skid-trails. Soil fertility for Alternative 1 is stable at present, but if a wildfire occurred short-term fertility would be greatly increased due to released nitrogen; but as erosion occurred, long-term nutrients would be lost. In contrast, soil fertility would be increased by Alternatives 3 and 4 due to better infiltration and tree growth, which equates to more fine-root development and increase of organic matter in the soil. In Mediterranean climates25 the bulk of soil nutrients reside in the duff and soil organic matter of which is released slowly over time. Maintaining duff and fine slash of at least 50% of the area would insure the maintenance soil health and fertility. Post harvest fuel treatments
25 Mediterranean climate – warm dry summers and cool moist winters.
94 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006 with these alternatives would be moderate and soil health will be adequately protected and enhanced. Burning would be done with a low to moderate prescription, will not affect soil fertility significantly and will be done with the assurance of protecting soil cover, soil organic matter. Mastication will be an added benefit to soil fertility by hastening slash breakdown and speeding the release of nutrients over its decomposition period of 3 to 5 years. Hydrologic function would be unchanged with Alternative 1, but would be improved by Alternatives 3 and 4 due to decompaction mitigation measures which would improve drainage and lessen surface runoff. The extent of decompaction would be less with Alternative 4 than Alternative 3 (by 100 acres) thus reducing overall effects for hydrologic function.
Water Quality – Cumulative Effects
Effects Analysis To analyze the cumulative effects on water quantity and quality, the unit of measure used to quantify the effects is the WCC, which is the quotient of the ERA and the TOC. The TOC for this analysis area is 16%. The WCC is verified using upland and instream data (see Appendix H). A sediment budget was developed for Little Browns Creek because this watershed is at risk of negative cumulative watershed effects. The unit of measure used to quantify the potential impact on water quality is percent above background sediment yield. The risk of sediment contributing to CWE was measured using a threshold of 125% above background. These are the appropriate units of measure because they are consistent with the Forest Plan (USDA, 1995b), Shasta-Trinity National Forest CWE Analysis Process (see Appendix H, page H-5), Trinity River TMDL (EPA, 2001), and the best available science. The direct and indirect effects of implementing the alternatives considered have been disclosed in the previous section of this report. This cumulative effects analysis quantifies the potential effects as a sum of the direct and indirect effects of the alternatives considered in addition to the other past, present, and foreseeable actions (which are independent of the alternatives considered).
Bounding the Effects
Geographic Boundary Refer to description of the geographic boundary earlier in the chapter under Water Quality - Direct and Indirect Effects. Different watershed scales are analyzed to evaluate the spatial extent of potential effects. The largest scale watershed analyzed is the 8th Field HUC (i.e., about 2,500 acres). This analysis evaluates streams draining the project area within the Upper-Middle Trinity River Sub-basin, that directly contribute water and sediment to Rush, Little Browns, and East Weaver Creeks. As watershed size increases, the overall risk of the proposed project activities affecting downstream water quantity and quality decreases. For example, for this analysis area, as watershed size increases several other land use effects are present that, at a broad scale, make the
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 95 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
potential effects of this project discountable. For example, domestic water uses by the town of Weaverville, and channel constrictions, runoff, and erosion, from Highways 3 and 299.
Time Frame This cumulative watershed effects analysis compiled a land use history to quantify the baseline WCC. The land use history is summarized from the late 1800s to present. Land use activities that occurred from 1940 to present and that change rainfall, runoff, and sediment delivery patterns are used to quantify the past, present, and future watershed condition. Land use effects prior to 1940 are assumed to be fully recovered or have a lingering effect on watershed condition. For this project, placer and strip mining effects that occurred before 1940 are not fully recovered and are accounted for in the effects analysis. The additive land use disturbances analyzed include: mine operations, road construction and maintenance, timber harvest activities, fuels reduction treatments, fire suppression actions, and watershed restoration activities (Table 4-9). Road, urban, and timber harvest activities are chronically affecting the analysis area. In addition, past mine operations continue to compound the recent land use disturbances. Refer to the section under Water Quality - Direct and Indirect Effects with regards to the timeframe of the proposed action potential effects and foreseeable actions.
Actions Considered Disturbances caused by land use were accounted for in this CWE analysis, and the past, present, and future land use activities included are listed in Table 4-9. This analysis quantified the past, present, and foreseeable cumulative impacts and benefits from road use and construction, timber harvest activities, plantation management, wildland fire, fuel treatment activities, mine operations, and watershed restoration activities. The impacts of domestic water use were considered, however, they were not quantified. The lack of long-term streamflow and water diversion data prevent a quantitative analysis of the impact of domestic water use on instream flow and water quality.
CWE Effects of Alternative 1 Presently, streams draining the Browns Project area are in a degraded condition and are not supporting aquatic beneficial uses. The magnitude, frequency, timing, and duration of peak flood flows and sediment yield are negatively affecting the fish habitat and water quality of Rush, Little Browns, and Weaver watersheds (EPA, 2001). Past and present land use activities have altered the balance between stream discharge and sediment yield. As a result, the baseline watershed condition is degraded and effects are major locally, offsite, and are long-term (See Hydrologist Report). The baseline ERA is listed for each 7th and 8th Field HUC watershed within the analysis area and used to calculate the baseline (i.e., existing) WCC. The TOC for the project area is 16%. There are four 7th Field HUC watersheds draining the analysis area to include: • Rush Creek (i.e., broken into two 7th Field HUC), • Little Browns Creek, and • East Weaver Creek.
96 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
(At the end of this section, Plate 4-1 depicts the WCC of each watershed by Alternative.) A sediment budget was developed for the Little Browns Creek watershed to better understand and predict the potential effects and shows that the present chronic sediment yield is 13% above background and the acute sediment yield is 36% above background. The main chronic sources of management-related sediment are erosion from roads and private timber harvest activities. The main source of acute sources of management-related sediment is roads and private and Forest Service timber harvest activities. The sediment budget indicates that the present sediment yield is below the target of 125% above background set by the Trinity River TMDL (EPA, 2001). Relative to other watersheds like Indian Creek and Browns Creek, Little Browns within Weaver Creek is presently not a significant sediment producer (GMA, 2001) and this sediment budget supports this conclusion. However, Weaver Creek as a whole has a high sediment yield (GMA, 2001).
CWE Effects of Alternative 3 Alternative 3, as described in Chapter 2, includes BMPs and mitigation measures designed to prevent timber harvest and road building from further degrading the beneficial uses of watersheds draining the Browns Project area. This analysis evaluates the cumulative effects of the proposed harvest activities, new road construction, road drainage improvements, and road decommissioning. It also analyzes the cumulative effects of the proposed action combined with connected actions to include fuel treatments and plantation management that are not part of this alternative (Table 4-9). As designed, Alternative 3 is unlikely to further degrade the long-term WCC. The predicted cumulative short- and long-term effects from peak flood flows and fine/coarse sediment yield increases are not significant. Rather, long-term improvements in WCC are predicted (Table 4-13). This alternative has measures built into the proposed action that are designed to improve road drainage, increase soil infiltration rates, and reduce the risk of stream-road crossing failure. During project implementation, however, the probability of sediment delivery increases where new road construction, timber harvest activities, and road decommissioning dissect streams. Short-term fine sediment delivery from sheet and rill is probable at stream road or skid trail crossings. However, the potential cumulative short-term effects are discountable and would be localized (i.e., less than ¼-mile downstream), minor, and last for two to three years. Project implementation and effectiveness monitoring will be used to document watershed condition trends. It is possible that other actions may occur that increase the ERA in the long-term, for example, private land use activities mainly road, timber, and urban development. For Rush Creek, the ERA increases 2% in the upper middle watershed (HUC#: 1801021106010102). The ERA increase is a result of timber harvest, landing development, and temporary road use. In the long-term, the ERA decreases from 15 to 8%, showing an improvement in watershed condition (Table 4-13). On NFS lands, road decommissioning reduces the ERA 1%, while timber harvest activities increase the ERA 2%. There are several roadside fuel reduction projects that would be implemented using hand methods and the potential effects are discountable.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 97 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
Short-term increases in ERA are shown for the middle watershed (HUC#: 1801021106040102) of East Weaver Creek (Table 4-13) and result from the proposed fuels treatments. The two major fuels projects are Musser Hill Fuel Break and roadside fuels reduction. Mechanized equipment will be used to treat the fuel reduction units. These effects would be short- term and recover within two to five years of project implementation. Long-term benefits to watershed condition are the reduced risk of high severity fire. The ERA decreases at the 7th Field HUC scale as a result of road drainage improvements and road decommissioning and the WCC moves from II to I (Table 4-13). For Little Browns Creek, the ERA increases from 16 to 21% in the short-term (Table 4-13) as a result of the proposed timber harvest and road construction. To prevent direct, indirect, and cumulative effects from these activities, Forest Service geoscientists developed unit- and road- specific mitigation measures that would limit timber harvest operations and road location. Unstable landforms were flagged and avoided with no cutting or yarding within the protected areas. The new road design incorporates measures to prevent triggering landslides and sediment delivery at stream-road crossings. The Little Browns Creek sediment budget indicates that Alternative 3 would not significantly increase the long-term sediment yield and would have discountable beneficial use effects. The
short-term sediment yield increases (i.e., one to five years) to 25% above background for the Q2
event, and to 72% above background for the Q25 event. Long-term, the sediment yield is predicted to decrease to 14% above background for the Q2 event, and to 39% above background for the Q25 event. The sediment yield is not expected to exceed the TMDL target of 125% for two to five years following implementation. The main sources of chronic and acute sediment during the first five years following implementation are roads and private land and Alternative 3 timber harvest activities. For Forest Service activities, BMP implementation and effectiveness monitoring would be used to prevent and eliminate controllable sediment discharge sources. The mitigation measures, listed in Chapter 2 and Appendix B, are designed to minimize the short-term cumulative effects of timber harvest and road building and improve long-term watershed condition. The CWE analysis indicates watershed condition would improve as a result of this alternative (Table 4-13). The mitigation measures applicable to reducing peak flood flows focus on disconnecting the road network from the stream channel by reducing road-stream crossing diversion and improving road drainage. In addition, disturbed areas would be ripped to improve soil infiltration rates and vegetation recovery at the watershed scale. For example, in critical areas identified on the Timber Sale Contract map, landings, skid trails, and unclassified roads would be sub-soiled up to 18-inches to improve soil quality. To mitigate effects from timber harvest in tractor units, mechanical harvesters and whole tree yarding would be used to reduce the relative amount of soil disturbance (see Chapter 2). The mitigation measures applicable to reducing chronic and acute fine/coarse sediment sources are focused on controlling existing erosion sources and preventing new ones. The primary mitigation measure is to decommission about 31 miles of existing roads, trails, old temporary roads, and old skid trails that have compacted soil and contribute sediment. Decommissioning
98 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006 entails removing culverts, ripping and out-sloping road surfaces, and closing road junctions. Other activities may occur depending on site conditions. The goal is to control surface runoff, erosion, and mass failure that leave the road unavailable for future use. See Appendix B for specific information.
Table 4-13. Summary of CWE Analysis Results for Alternative 3.
8th Field HUC 7th Field HUC Drainage Forest Existing Alt 3 Alt 3 WCC Short- Long- Watershed Name Area Plan ERA % (1-5 (5-20 existing Term Term (acres) TOC years) years) WCC WCC ERA % ERA % ERA % (Alt 3) (Alt 3) 1801021106010101 Rush Creek 2,860 16 1 1 0 I I I 1801021106010102 Rush Creek 2,997 16 10 12 10 II II II 1801021106010201 Rush Creek 3,470 16 14 15 11 III III II 1801021106010202 Rush Creek 2,676 16 27 27 12 III III II 1801021106010203 Rush Creek 2,384 16 23 23 10 III III II 7th Field Watershed Rush Creek 14,388 16 14 15 8 III III II 1801021106040101 E Weaver Creek 2,148 16 1 1 1 I I I 1801021106040102 E Weaver Creek 1,567 16 17 18 7 III III II 1801021106040103 E Weaver Creek 2,291 16 11 11 7 II II II 1801021106040105 E Weaver Creek 2,886 16 14 13 9 III II II 7th Field Watershed E Weaver Creek 8,892 16 10 10 6 II II I 1801021106040301 L Browns Creek 2,151 16 14 14 8 III III II 1801021106040302 L Browns Creek 2,838 16 17 26 15 III III III 7th Field Watershed L Browns Creek 4,989 16 16 21 12 III III II
CWE Effects of Alternative 4 Like Alternative 3, Alternative 4, includes BMPs and mitigation measures designed to prevent further degrading the beneficial uses of streams draining the analysis area. However, this alternative does not include new road construction. Proposed timber harvest activities and fuel treatments that depend on new road construction would not be implemented as part of Alternative 4. Overall, this alternative would have less short-term cumulative effects than Alternative 3 due to the lack of new roads and less timber harvest area. This alternative would result in less ground disturbance in Little Browns Creek (Table 4-14) since no new road construction is proposed within this watershed. One of the purposes of Alternative 4 is to maintain and improve the long-term WCC. The mitigation measures, listed in Chapter 2 and Appendix B, are designed to minimize the short-term effects of timber harvest and road building, and improve long-term watershed condition.. The 7th Field HUC watershed 1801021106040301, upper Little Browns Creek, the WCC would decrease from III to II (see Hydrologist Report). Combined with other watershed restoration efforts (e.g. Trinity County fish migration improvements), the trend would be positive in this watershed.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 99 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
Table 4-14. Summary of CWE Analysis Results for Alternative 4.
8th Field HUC 7th Field HUC Drainage Forest Existing Alt 4 Alt 4 WCC Short- Long- Watershed Name Area Plan ERA % (1-5 (5-20 existing term term (acres) TOC years) years) WCC WCC ERA % ERA % ERA % (Alt 4) (Alt 4) 1801021106010101 Rush Creek 2,860 16 1 1 0 I I I 1801021106010102 Rush Creek 2,997 16 10 12 10 II II II 1801021106010201 Rush Creek 3,470 16 14 15 11 III III II 1801021106010202 Rush Creek 2,676 16 27 27 12 III III II 1801021106010203 Rush Creek 2,384 16 23 23 10 III III II 7th Field Watershed Rush Creek 14,388 16 14 15 8 III III II 1801021106040101 E Weaver Creek 2,148 16 1 1 1 I I I 1801021106040102 E Weaver Creek 1,567 16 17 18 7 III III II 1801021106040103 E Weaver Creek 2,291 16 11 11 7 II II II 1801021106040105 E Weaver Creek 2,886 16 14 13 9 III II II 7th Field Watershed E Weaver Creek 8,892 16 10 10 6 II II I 1801021106040301 L Browns Creek 2,151 16 14 13 7 III II II 1801021106040302 L Browns Creek 2,838 16 17 24 14 III III III 7th Field Watershed L Browns Creek 4,989 16 16 19 11 III III II
Foreseeable Actions This CWE analysis considers the past, present, and future watershed condition. To account for future condition, foreseeable actions that are likely to occur within the next 20 years are analyzed (specific calculations are documented in the Hydrologist Report in the project file). Table 4-9 lists the past, present, and foreseeable actions within the Browns Project area. These projects include precommercial thinning, fuel reduction treatments, watershed restoration activities, and private timber harvest. Some of these actions (i.e., private timber harvest) are expected to further increase the risk of CWEs. Several fuels reduction projects are ongoing, and additional projects and would be implemented within the next five years. These fuels projects would have minor short-term effects and long-term benefits to watershed condition. The watershed improvement needs, identified in the Weaverville Watershed Analysis, would be implemented to reduce runoff, erosion, and improve water quantity and quality in the long- term. For example, road decommissioning would continue within the project area to reduce diversion potential, crossing failure, surface erosion, and mass wasting.
Conclusion of Cumulative Effects on Water Quality This CWE analysis shows that neither Alternative 3 nor 4 of the Browns Project would further degrade the water quantity or quality of the Rush, Little Browns, Weaver Creek watersheds and the upper-middle Trinity River Sub-basin. The baseline condition CWE analysis recognizes that the water quantity and quality within and downstream of the project area are presently degraded by past and present land uses. For a description of the CWE analysis process methods, data, results, and interpretation see Hydrologist Report 3/13/06.
100 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
Plate 4-1. Map of Browns Project showing WCC for each alternative analyzed.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 101 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
Wildlife – Cumulative Effects (Old-Growth Habitat)
Effects Analysis To analyze the cumulative effect on old-growth habitat, the unit of measure used to quantify the effect is acres affected and the intensity of effects as described in the previous section. Acres is an appropriate unit of measure because old-growth is a combination of habitat components (e.g. total canopy closure, multiple canopy layers, large old trees, snags, logs, etc.) that must be measured over an area - not at the individual tree or snag level. For example, a 300-year-old Douglas-fir tree in the middle of a large grassy field does not represent old-growth habitat. The direct and indirect effects of implementing the alternatives considered have been disclosed in the previous section of this EIS. This cumulative effects analysis quantifies the removal or downgrading of old-growth habitat as a sum of the direct and indirect effects of the alternatives considered in addition to the past, present, and foreseeable future actions (which are independent of the alternatives considered). Past actions (timber harvesting and road building), included in Table 4-9, were accounted for in Chapter 3 (Affected Environment).
Bounding the Effects
Geographic Boundary The spotted owl represents the MIS of late-seral (old-growth) habitat for this project. The selected analysis area includes a 1.3-mile buffer around all the areas proposed for treatment, resulting in a 16,266-acre area. This area is expected to include any potential, current or future spotted owl activity centers (e.g. nest sites) that would be affected by habitat loss or modification related to the Browns Project (Wildlife BA, Maps 1 and 3). That is to say, owls nesting within this area may use suitable habitat that may be affected by the project. Again, the “Provide for Retention of Old-Growth Fragments Where Little Remains” S&G applies to only federal (i.e., Forest Service) land within the 54,000-acre Weaverville 5th Field Watershed. No foreseeable actions are proposed on federal land within the watershed that would remove or downgrade existing old-growth habitat.
Time Frame Timber (habitat that was likely at or near old-growth conditions) has been harvested within the project area since the 1800s. The future time frame selected for evaluating the cumulative effects of the alternatives considered is 30 years. Proposed thinning prescriptions would have, by far, the largest effect on developing old-growth habitat (Table 4-7). The main old-growth attribute that would be affected by thinning is canopy closure. That is to say, other existing important old- growth attributes, such as large (legacy) conifers, large snags and logs, and viable hardwoods, would be maintained. Pre-thinning canopy closure is expected to recover in about a 30 years.
102 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
Actions Considered Past and foreseeable Forest Service and private actions are considered such as timber harvesting and road building. As discussed below, private property in the project area vicinity does not currently provide meaningful amounts of spotted owl habitat and is not expected to provide meaningful amounts of owl habitat (especially old-growth) into the foreseeable future. Past Forest Service timber harvesting removed approximately 400 acres of old-growth habitat. Additionally, roughly 400 acres of late-successional owl habitat (not old-growth) may be slightly degraded by Forest Service fuels treatments that are in early stages of planning. These areas would continue to function at current levels of owl habitat quality after treatment. No Forest Service projects are planned in the action area that would remove or downgrade high quality spotted owl habitat (i.e., old-growth). Private property in the owl action area (approximately 8,400 acres) does not provide old- growth habitat. This property is either owned by Sierra Pacific Industries and intensively managed for timber production or is residential (including the town of Weaverville, see Wildlife BA, Map 1). Past private timber harvesting on approximately 6,000 of these acres removed owl habitat – much of which was likely at or near the old-growth stage. On March 30, 2005 Dr. Danielle Chi (then a Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS], Red Bluff Field Office), Ron Clementsen (Forest Plan Program Leader, FWS, Red Bluff Field Office), Laura Finley (Wildlife Biologist, Endangered Species Program, FWS, Yreka Field Office), Kelly Wolcott (Forest Wildlife Biologist, Shasta-Trinity National Forest) and Thomas Quinn (Wildlife Biologist, Trinity River Management Unit, Shasta-Trinity National Forest) met to discuss cumulative effects related to the Browns Project and forest management on private lands in the project area vicinity. Laura Finley provided maps and brief descriptions of all the private timber harvest plans (THPs) for projects in the owl action area for which the Yreka FWS office provided “technical assistance.” Inspections of 2003 aerial photographs of the THP areas indicated that these projects had been implemented and are accounted for (85% ground verified) in the Browns Project Hydrology Report, completed by Jim Fitzgerald (hydrologist, Shasta-Trinity National Forest). The meeting further revealed that the definition of spotted owl habitat (that includes old-growth as high quality habitat) used in the THP process is very much broader than the definition used in Browns Project Wildlife BA. Areas considered suitable owl habitat on private land during the THP process would barely qualify as owl connectivity habitat (i.e., 11-inch DBH conifers and 40 percent canopy closure) and are definitely not old-growth habitat. Table 4-15 summarizes the old-growth habitat directly affected (removed or downgraded) due to alternatives considered, along with other Forest Service and private management actions affecting old-growth habitat (acres) in the past and over the next 30 years. Areas that would be degraded are not included because these areas would continue to function at current levels of old- growth habitat quality.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 103 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
Table 4-15. Summary of Effects (acres) of Alternatives Considered along with Other Management Actions Affecting Old-Growth Habitat in the action area.
Alternative Direct Effects (habitat Present Past Future Sum of Effects within the removed or downgraded) Actions Actions Actions Selected Time Frame 3 61 0 6,400 0 6,461 4 52 0 6,400 0 6,452
Conclusion of Cumulative Effects on Old-Growth Habitat Federal land in the owl action area would likely support two to three spotted owl pairs in about 30 years with the implementation of either Alternative 3 or 4, considering the capability of federal land to provide old-growth habitat. The additional one or two owl pairs and their offspring would aid in the recovery of this federally listed species. Past effects to old-growth habitat have reduced the ability of the owl action area to support successful breeding pairs of MIS spotted owls and thus other species associated with late-seral (old-growth) habitat. Much of the past timber harvesting likely targeted larger (i.e. older) conifers in areas that were at or near the old-growth stage. Historically, the area may have been able to support four to five pairs of owls, whereas STNF records include only one pair today. Residential lands are not likely to provide meaningful levels of old-growth habitat and the harvest cycle on Sierra Pacific Industries land would likely be well below the timeframe required to develop old-growth conditions (roughly 180 years). Therefore, older conifer forest habitat within the owl action area would likely be restricted to federal land (approximately 6,431 acres capable of growing to old-growth conditions) into the foreseeable future.
Survey and Manage (S&M) Wildlife Species There would be no effects to S&M wildlife species because surveys revealed none of these species in or near any of the areas proposed for treatment in the two action alternatives.
Other Effects and Compliance Needs ______
Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). As declared by the Congress, this includes using all practicable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans (NEPA Section 101). Short-term uses, and their effects, are those that occur within the first few years of project implementation. Long-term productivity refers to the capability of the land and resources to continue producing goods and services long after the project has been implemented. Under the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act, and the National Forest Management Act, all renewable
104 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006 resources are to be managed in such a way that they are available for future generations. The harvesting and use of standing timber can be considered a short-term use of a renewable resource. As a renewable resource, trees can be reestablished and grown again if the long-term productivity of the land is maintained. This long-term productivity is maintained through the application of key components that include protection measures described in Chapter 2, in particular those applying to the soil and water resources. Openings would be created in regeneration stands in the short-term, but well-stocked vigorous stands would be established for the long term as discussed in the Forest Productivity Section. Both action alternatives would provide timber products to benefit consumers in the short-term; Alternative 3 would provide a somewhat higher yield than Alternative 4. With either Alternative 3 or 4, there would be a very short-term increase in fuel hazard in the period between harvesting and fuel treatment. This would be accompanied by a long-term increase in stand vigor, a reduction in fuel hazard, and a corresponding decrease in the risk of stand-replacing fire occurring within the harvest units. There would also be a three to five year increase in fuel hazard from post-harvest treatments and a corresponding increase in stand vigor as discussed in the Forest Productivity and Fire and Fuels Sections. Road decommissioning and fuel hazard reduction would produce beneficial long-term effects to fish and fish habitat from reduced sediment delivery to stream channels with either Alternative 3 or 4 as discussed in the Fisheries Section. There would be a short-term loss of two acres and the temporary degradation of 59 acres of old-growth habitat due to proposed road construction, regeneration, and thinning in Alternative 3. There would be a short-term degradation of 52 acres of old-growth habitat in Alternative 4. However, treatments under both Alternatives 3 and 4 would result in net increases in old-growth forests and higher quality northern spotted owl habitat in about 30 years. These effects are discussed in the Wildlife Section.
Unavoidable Adverse Effects Implementation of any action alternative could cause some adverse environmental effects that cannot be effectively mitigated or avoided. Unavoidable adverse effects often result from managing the land for one resource at the expense of the use or condition of other resources. Some adverse effects are short-term and necessary to achieve long-term beneficial effects. Many adverse effects can be reduced, mitigated, or avoided by limiting the extent or duration of effects. The interdisciplinary procedure used to identify specific harvest units and roads was designed to eliminate or lessen the significant adverse consequences. The application of LRMP S&Gs, design features, and mitigation measures are intended to further limit the extent, severity, and duration of potential effects. Such measures are discussed throughout this chapter. Regardless of the use of these measures, some adverse effects will occur. Either Alternative 3 or 4 would remove a very small amount of late-successional habitat from the Matrix, well within the acceptable levels identified in the LRMP as discussed in the Wildlife Section.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 105 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006
There is a very low likelihood of increasing the on-site landslide potential in both Alternative 3 and 4 as discussed in the Geology Section. Either Alternative 3 or 4 would have a minimal short-term indirect effect of increased runoff with the potential for sediment delivery to streams, but no degradation of water quality is expected as discussed in the Water Quality Section. Either Alternative 3 or 4 would have short-term sediment effects from projects efforts planned to improve the long-term watershed function. Therefore, short-term adverse effects are expected to occur on EFH as discussed in the Fisheries Section. The habitat alteration for Alternatives 3 and 4 may temporarily displace two pairs of spotted owls. However, in the long-term habitat conditions for species associated with old-growth habitat would be improved. These effects are discussed in the Wildlife Section. No timber would be made available for local markets as discussed in the Economics Section with Alternative 1.
Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Irreversible commitments are decisions affecting non-renewable resources such as soils, wetlands, cultural resources, or the extinction of a species. Such commitments are considered irreversible because the resource has deteriorated to the point that renewal can occur only over a long period of time or at a great expense, or because the resource has been destroyed or removed. No irreversible commitments of resources were identified. Irretrievable commitments apply to the loss of production, harvest, or use of natural resources. The production lost is irretrievable, but the action is not irreversible. If the use changes, it is possible to resume production. Proposed road construction would result in an irretrievable loss of existing spotted owl habitat (five acres in Alternative 3 and no acres in Alternative 4).
Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects have been discussed in the individual resource sections earlier in this chapter, whenever applicable. Cumulative effects for this project include past, present, and on-going actions. Either Alternative 3 or 4, when added to the effects of other past and current timber sales in the Weaverville 5th Field Watershed, would remove no old-growth habitat and degrade less than 3% of the old-growth vegetation, leaving well above the 15% late-successional stands required by the LRMP, as discussed in Appendix D, page D-14. The combined effects of either Alternative 3 or 4 with the other timber sales in the assessment area would have the beneficial effect of reducing overstocked stands, and reducing the acreage with high fuel loading in the landscape as discussed in the Fire/Fuels and Forest Productivity Sections. Reducing the fire risk in individual units of multiple sales leads to a reduced fire risk across the landscape. The cumulative effects of road decommissioning in either Alternative 3 or 4 in
106 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006 multiple projects would reduce the access for fire suppression and fuel management, but these are offset somewhat by the reduced opportunities for human-caused fire starts. The cumulative effects of road improvements in multiple projects would improve the access for fire suppression and fuel management. These effects are discussed in the Fire and Fuels Section. The low intensity harvesting and fuel reduction activities in either Alternative 3 or 4 would minimize any cumulative effects on nutrient cycling and the soil’s strong buffering capacity would reduce the possibility of any measurable long-term cumulative effect on soil productivity. Guidelines for maintaining soil productivity would be met as discussed in the Soil Productivity Section. The cumulative watershed effects of either Alternative 3 or 4, in conjunction with other projects, would range from none to low effect and minor, depending on the 7th field watershed, as discussed in the Water Quality Section. The cumulative watershed effects of either Alternative 3 or 4, in conjunction with other projects, would be negligible on water temperature, existing large woody debris in streams, and streambank condition. The effects on sediment would be as described above. With Alternative 3, there would be long-term cumulative beneficial effects, as described in the Water Quality Section.
Energy Requirements, Conservation Potential, Depletable Resource Requirements Consumption of fossil fuels would occur with the action alternatives during logging and hauling timber and during the decommissioning of temporary roads. No unusual energy requirements are included nor do opportunities exist to conserve energy at a large scale. Wood is a renewable resource. With the proper application of the LRMP S&Gs for soils, soil productivity would be conserved as discussed in the Soils Section.
Prime Farmland, Rangeland and Forest Land The project area does not contain any prime farmland or rangeland. Prime forest land does not apply within the National Forest System.
Possible Conflicts with Other Land Use Plans Alternative 3 and 4 are entirely on NFS land. Only small amounts of private land are intermingled. These alternatives are not in conflict with planning objectives for Trinity County or other agencies or tribes.
Other Required Disclosures NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with …other environmental review laws and executive orders.” Consultation with NOAA-Fish and the FWS is being conducted as required by the ESA as discussed in the Fisheries and Wildlife BAs (Appendices D and E, respectively, to this EIS). As no
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 107 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 4: Environmental Consequences – May 2006 water impoundments or diversions are proposed, the Forest is not required to consult with the FWS under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. As no ground disturbance is proposed in historical places, no consultation under the National Historic Preservation Act is required. Wild and Scenic Rivers are not present within the project area.
108 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 5: Preparers and Contributors – May 2006
Chapter 5: Preparers and Contributors
A. Agencies and Persons Consulted ______The following were consulted in the planning process for the Browns Integrated Project: • Danielle Chi representing US Fish and Wildlife Service • Garwin Yip representing National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries)
B. Interdisciplinary Planning Team______Sam Frink: Forester: 28 years experience in fuels, timber sale planning, and silviculture; BS Resource Management (Forestry), expertise as Certified Silviculturist; responsible for vegetation analysis, silvicultural prescriptions, economic analysis, writing and editing, team leader.
Loren Everest: Fishery Biologist: 18 years experience in fisheries; BS Fisheries, expertise in anadromous and cold water fishes; responsible for fisheries analysis and Fisheries Biological Assessment.
Jim Fitzgerald: Hydrologist: 10 years experience in geosciences; BS and MS in geoscience, Registered Professional Geologist, responsible for water quantity and quality assessment and Hydrologist Report.
Thomas Quinn: Wildlife Biologist: 18 years experience in wildlife/forest management and Endangered Species Act consultation; BS Wildlife Management; responsible for habitat and wildlife analysis and Wildlife Biological Assessment/Evaluation.
Lara A. Graham: District Fuels Specialist: 8 years experience in fire suppression, fire prevention, and fuels management; BS Forestry; responsible for hazardous fuels reduction planning and implementation.
Brad Rust: Soil Scientist: 15 years experience for the Natural Resource Conservation Service and the U.S. Forest Service; BA Range Management, MS Soil Science; expertise in soil mapping, soil management, monitoring, and inventory; responsible for soil analysis.
Dale Stanley: Transportation Planner: 30 years experience in transportation planning for harvest and removal of timber products; provided road location and road design recommendations.
Susan Erwin: Botanist: experience as a professional botanist for 9 years BS Forest Management, MS Forest Biology. Provided botany and weed input to document.
Sherry Chilcott: Archaeologist: 23 years experience in archaeology; BA Anthropology, expertise in Heritage Resource management, responsible for heritage resource analysis, restoration and reconnaissance.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 109 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 5: Preparers and Contributors – May 2006
Alisha Miller: Geologist: 3 years experience as FS Geologist; BA and MA Earth and Planetary Science; expertise in assessing forest management effects on geomorphic process and slope stability hazards mitigation; provided input for slope stability analysis and mitigation.
Bill Branham: Forester: 30 years experience in planning, silviculture, and land management. BS Forestry and MS Forest Ecology/Silviculture, Registered Professional Forester #2539, Certified Silviculturist, responsible for program management.
Steve Graves: Unit Fuels Management Officer: 26 years experience in fire suppression and fuels management. Responsible for unit fuels project designs. Current qualifications include Division/Group Supervisor, Burn Boss Type II, and Fire Effects Monitor.
Abel Jasso: Geologist: 26 years with the Forest Service as a geologist with particular emphasis on slope stability hazards in forested terrain. BA and MS in Geology, provided land stability analysis and documentation.
Joyce Andersen: District Ranger for 10 years. Responsible for planning, implementation and supervision of personnel and programs on 2 ranger districts. BS in Environmental Planning and Management with 28 years of experience in natural resource planning, administration and silviculture. Served numerous details as Northern Spotted Owl Coordinator for Region 5, Fisheries Program Manager, State Community Revitalization Team Liaison, and Special Assistant to the Regional Forester for the Northwest Forest Plan.
C. Tribes ______The following was consulted in the planning process for the Browns Project: • Ray Patton, representing the Nor-El-Muk Tribe of Wintu People.
D. Distribution of the Draft Environmental Statement ______
Federal Agencies • Advisory Council on Historic Preservation • Agriculture, U.S, APHIS PPD/EAD • Agriculture, U.S, Deputy Director • Agriculture, U.S, Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Environmental Coordinator • Agriculture, U.S, National Agricultural Library • BLM California State Office • National Marine Fisheries Service • US Environmental Protection Agency
110 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 5: Preparers and Contributors – May 2006
State Agencies • California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast Region • California Environmental Protection Agency
County • Trinity County Chamber of Commerce • Fire Safe Council, Trinity County Resource Conservation District • Trinity County Board of Supervisors • Trinity County Planning Department • Natural Resources Advisory Council • Trinity County Resource Conservation District
Organizations and Individuals • Petra Taylor-Vandormael, Californians for Alternatives to Toxins • Scott Greacen, Environmental Protection Information Center • Denise Boggs, Conservation Congress • Jeff Bryant, American Forest Resource Council • Scott Morris, Weaverville Basin Trail Committee • Jean Weese, Director Snyder Highland Foundation • Bob Morris & Norma Sorenson • Mark Lancaster • Joseph W. Kasper • Joseph Bower
E. Bibliography______Bossard, C.C., J.M. Randall, and M.C. Hoshovsky, eds. 2000. Invasive Plants of California’s Wildlands. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley.
Cohesive Strategy, 2000. Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems. The Forest Service Management Response to General Accounting Office Report GAO/RCED-99-65, October 13, 2000.
Dunning & Reineke, June, 1933. Preliminary Yield Tables for Second-Growth Stands in the California Pine Region. 24 pages.
EPA. 2001. Trinity River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load. USEPA Region IX.
Falk, D.A. and K.E. Holsinger, eds. 1991. Genetics and Conservation of Rare Plants. Oxford University Press, New York. 283 pages.
Federal Register. 2001. Urban Wildland Urban Interface Communities Within the Vicinity of Federal Lands That Are at High Risk from Wildfire; Notice. Part iii, Department of Agriculture and Department of the Interior. Friday, August 17, 2001
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 111 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 5: Preparers and Contributors – May 2006
Five Counties Coho Plan, Taylor, R.N., M. Love, G.D. Grey, and A. L. Knocke, 2002. Final report: Trinity County Culvert Inventory and Fish Passage Evaluation. Report to Trinity County by Ross Taylor and Associates. 60 pages.
Graham Matthews and Associates (GMA), 2001. Trinity River Sediment Source Analysis. Prepared for USEPA Region IX.
O’Brien, J.C.,1965. Mines and Mineral Resources of Trinity County, California. County Report 4, California Division of Mines and Geology.
USDA Forest Service. 1995a. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Shasta-Trinity National Forests, Redding, California.
USDA Forest Service. 1995b. Land and Resource Management Plan. Shasta-Trinity National Forests, Redding, California.
USDA Forest Service. 1995c. Soil Quality Standards. FSH 2509.18 R5 Supplement 2509.18-95-1.
USDA Forest Service. 2000. Cohesive Strategy: Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems. The Forest Service Management Response to General Accounting Office Report GAO/RCED-99-65, October 13, 2000.
USDA Forest Service. 2004. Weaverville Watershed Analysis, 28 pages, March 2004.
USDA Forest Service, Haskins, D.M., 1986. A management model for evaluating cumulative watershed effects. In: Proceedings from the California Watershed Management Conference, West Sacramento, CA, November 18-20, 1986, pages 125-130.
USDA and USDI. 2001. Record of Decision and Standards & Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines. January 12, 2001.
USDA and USDI. 2004a. Record of Decision Amending Resource Management Plans for Seven Bureau of Land Management Districts and Land and Resource Management Plans for Nineteen National Forests Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl - Decision to Clarify Provisions Relating to the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. March 22, 2004
USDA and USDI. 2004b. Record of Decision To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards & Guidelines. March 22, 2004.
112 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 5: Preparers and Contributors – May 2006
F. Abbreviations and Acronyms ______ARR Archaeological Reconnaissance Reports BA Biological Assessment BE Biological Evaluation BMPs Best Management Practices CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CWE Cumulative Watershed Effect DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement DBH Diameter at Breast Height EIS Environmental Impact Statement EFH Essential Fish Habitat EPIC Environmental Protection Information Center ERA Equivalent Roaded Acre ERA/TOC Equivalent Roaded Acre/Threshold of Concern Risk Ratio ESA Endangered Species Act FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FSM Forest Service Manual FWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service HUC Hydrologic Unit Code LOP Limited Operating Period LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan LSOG Late-Successional Old-Growth LWD Large Woody Debris MIS Management Indicator Species MMBF Million Board Feet NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFMA National Forest Management Act NFS National Forest System NOAA Fisheries National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (formally known as the National Marine Fisheries Service) NWFP ROD Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl OHV Off-Highway Vehicle ROD Record of Decision S&G Standard and Guideline SONCC Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast TE&S Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive THP Timber Harvest Plan
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 113 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Chapter 5: Preparers and Contributors – May 2006
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TOC Threshold of Concern TRMU Trinity River Management Unit USC United States Code USDA United States Department of Agriculture USDI United States Department of Interior WA Watershed Analysis WCC Watershed Condition Class
114 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix A: Browns Timber Sale 2005 – May 2006
Appendix A: Browns Timber Sale 2005
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix A: Browns Timber Sale 2005 – May 2006
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendix A: Browns Timber Sale 2005 - Alternative 3 - May 2006
Unit Logging System Acres Strata Rx RR Powerline GPS Regen Cruised Fuels Treatment Fuels Prescription Fuels Design Features Acres Acres Volume bdf Priority 2 tractor 5.93 2 Thinning 0.94 yes 67,377 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL 9 RR1 3 tractor 47.90 2 Thinning+Regen 15.21 5.8 544,239 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, TP, DL 1 RR1 3A tractor 0.00 4 Thinning 1.91 yes Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL RR2 3A tractor 0.00 4 Thinning 2.24 yes Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL RR2 3B tractor 19.09 2 Thinning yes 216,900 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL 3C tractor 8.19 2 Thinning+Regen 2.21 93,055 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, TP, DL 3D tractor 4.59 2 Thinning 53,378 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL 3E cable 1.53 2 Thinning 17,384 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, HL 3F cable 2.78 2 Thinning 31,586 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, HL 3G cable 11.24 2 Thinning 127,709 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, HL 3H cable 5.60 2 Thinning 63,627 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, HL 3I tractor 7.85 2 Thinning 89,192 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL 8 RR1 3J cable 4.85 2 Thinning 0.73 55,106 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, HL 7 RR1 3K tractor 11.93 2 Thinning 135,548 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL 3L tractor 27.73 2 Thinning 338,591 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL 4A tractor 0.00 4 Thinning 3.35 yes Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL RR2 5A cable 14.11 2 Thinning+Regen 1.87 121,660 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, BB, HL 5B tractor 14.36 2 Thinning 123,816 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL 5C cable 13.27 2 Thinning+Regen 1.96 114,417 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, BB, HL 5D tractor 58.81 2 Thinning+Regen 3.32 507,075 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, TP, DL RR1 5F tractor 16.52 2 Thinning 142,440 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL 5G cable 1.42 2 Thinning 0.67 12,157 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, HL RR1 5H cable 1.93 2 Thinning 16,641 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, HL RR1 7 tractor 14.60 2 Thinning 165,885 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL 4 8 tractor 4.66 2 Thinning 54,779 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL 5 RR1 9A cable 20.14 2 Thinning+Regen 2.47 3.47 230,829 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, BB, HL RR1 9B cable 17.03 2 Thinning+Regen 1.25 1.86 193,495 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, BB, HL 9C tractor 22.59 2 Thinning+Regen 1.72 257,165 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, TP, DL RR2-pond 9D cable 5.58 2 Thinning 63,400 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, HL 9E cable 20.23 2 Thinning 242,842 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, HL 10A tractor 15.15 2 Thinning 1.02 172,909 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL RR1 10B tractor 1.05 2 Thinning 0.79 11,930 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL RR1 10C cable 5.76 2 Thinning 1.37 66,942 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, HL 10D tractor 6.82 2 Thinning 0.18 77,489 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL 10E cable 1.85 2 Thinning 2.22 46,130 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, HL RR1 10F tractor 24.60 2 Thinning 0.93 290,071 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL RR1 10G cable 6.56 2 Thinning+Regen 2.1 74,535 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, BB, HL RR1 10H cable 6.59 2 Thinning 76,874 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, HL 10I cable 6.62 2 Thinning 75,216 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, HL 11 tractor 10.10 2 Thinning 2.50 116,588 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL 3 RR1 12 tractor 23.68 2 Thinning+Regen 3.98 271,157 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, TP, DL RR1 13 cable 8.51 2 Thinning 96,690 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, HL RR1 14 cable 8.28 2 Thinning+Regen 3.05 1.5 94,077 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, BB, HL RR1
Trinity River Management Unit - Shasta-Trinity National Forest - A-1 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendix A: Browns Timber Sale 2005 - Alternative 3 - May 2006
Unit Logging System Acres Strata Rx RR Powerline GPS Regen Cruised Fuels Treatment Fuels Prescription Fuels Design Features Acres Acres Volume bdf Priority 15A tractor 4.99 2 Thinning 61,525 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL SP 15B tractor 4.67 2 Thinning 61,052 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL 15C tractor 6.08 2 Thinning 69,081 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL 15D cable 0.82 2 Thinning 9,317 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, HL 15E cable 2.71 2 Thinning 30,791 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, HL 15F cable 4.23 2 Thinning 48,061 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, HL 16 tractor 66.02 1 Thinning+Regen 26.09 2 774,861 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, TP, DL 2 RR1 17 tractor 74.25 1 Thinning+Regen 13.61 7.38 847,955 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, TP, DL 6 RR1
Total Thinning Unit Volume (bdf) = 7,453,544
Total Riparian Reserve Acres = 80.52 116,874 Total Riparian Reserve Unit Volume (bdf)
Total Regen. Unit Acres = 38.81 1,143,892 Total Regen. Unit Volume (bdf) Total Thinning Acres 673.80 (excludes Riparian Reserve acres) Total ROW ( 10.76 acres ) Volume (bdf)= 132,371 Total Cable 171.64 (excludes Riparian Reserve acres)
Total Tractor 502.16 (excludes Riparian Reserve acres) Fuels Prescriptions *Design Features RS: Roadside pile/burn SP: Flag & avoid sensitive plant site Total Cruised Sale Volume (MBF) = 8,847 MR: Mastication RR1 = 150' Riparian Reserve BC: Burn Concentrations RR2= 300' Riparian Reserve Total Harvest Acres = 793.13 TP: Tractor pile/burn BB: Broadcast Burn HL: Handline DL: Dozerline
Trinity River Management Unit - Shasta-Trinity National Forest - A-2 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendix A: Browns Timber Sale 2005 - Alternative 4 - May 2006
Unit Logging System Acres Strata Rx RR Powerline GPS Regen Cruised Fuels Treatment Fuels Prescription Fuels Design Features Acres Acres Volume bdf Priority 2 tractor 5.93 2 Thinning 0.94 yes 67,377 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL 9 RR1 3 tractor 47.90 2 Thinning+Regen 15.21 5.8 544,239 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, TP, DL 1 RR1 3A tractor 0.00 4 Thinning 1.91 yes Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL RR2 3A tractor 0.00 4 Thinning 2.24 yes Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL RR2 3B tractor 19.09 2 Thinning yes 216,900 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL 3C tractor 8.19 2 Thinning+Regen 2.21 93,055 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, TP, DL 3D tractor 4.59 2 Thinning 53,378 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL
3I tractor 7.85 2 Thinning 89,192 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL 8 RR1 3J cable 4.85 2 Thinning 0.73 55,106 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, HL 7 RR1 3K tractor 11.93 2 Thinning 135,548 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL 3L tractor 27.73 2 Thinning 338,591 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL 4A tractor 0.00 4 Thinning 3.35 yes Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL RR2
7 tractor 14.60 2 Thinning 165,885 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL 4 8 tractor 4.66 2 Thinning 54,779 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL 5 RR1
9E cable 20.23 2 Thinning 242,842 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, HL 10A tractor 15.15 2 Thinning 1.02 172,909 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL RR1 10B tractor 1.05 2 Thinning 0.79 11,930 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL RR1 10C cable 5.76 2 Thinning 1.37 66,942 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, HL 10D tractor 6.82 2 Thinning 0.18 77,489 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL 10E cable 1.85 2 Thinning 2.22 46,130 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, HL RR1 10F tractor 24.60 2 Thinning 0.93 290,071 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL RR1 10G cable 6.56 2 Thinning+Regen 2.1 74,535 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, BB, HL RR1 10H cable 6.59 2 Thinning 76,874 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, HL 10I cable 6.62 2 Thinning 75,216 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, HL 11 tractor 10.10 2 Thinning 2.50 116,588 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL 3 RR1 12 tractor 23.68 2 Thinning+Regen 3.98 271,157 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, TP, DL RR1 13 cable 8.51 2 Thinning 96,690 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, HL RR1 14 cable 8.28 2 Thinning+Regen 3.05 1.5 94,077 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, BB, HL RR1 15A tractor 4.99 2 Thinning 61,525 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL SP 15B tractor 4.67 2 Thinning 61,052 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL 15C tractor 6.08 2 Thinning 69,081 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, DL 15D cable 0.82 2 Thinning 9,317 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, HL 15E cable 2.71 2 Thinning 30,791 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, HL 15F cable 4.23 2 Thinning 48,061 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, HL
Trinity River Management Unit - Shasta-Trinity National Forest - A-3 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement - Appendix A: Browns Timber Sale 2005 - Alternative 4 - May 2006
Unit Logging System Acres Strata Rx RR Powerline GPS Regen Cruised Fuels Treatment Fuels Prescription Fuels Design Features Acres Acres Volume bdf Priority 16 tractor 66.02 1 Thinning+Regen 26.09 2 774,861 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, TP, DL 2 RR1 17 tractor 74.25 1 Thinning+Regen 13.61 7.38 847,955 Whole Tree Yard RS, BC, TP, DL 6 RR1
Total Thinning Unit Volume (bdf) = 5,430,143
Total Riparian Reserve Acres = 76.14 109,069 Total Riparian Reserve Unit Volume (bdf)
Total Regen Unit Acres = 24.92 24.97 785,675 Total Regen. Unit Volume (bdf) Total Thinning Acres 466.89 (excludes Riparian Reserve acres)
Total Cable 77.01 (excludes Riparian Reserve acres)
Total Tractor 389.88 (excludes Riparian Reserve acres) Fuels Prescriptions *Design Features RS: Roadside pile/burn SP: Flag & avoid sensitive plant site Total Cruised Sale Volume (MBF) = 6,325 MR: Mastication RR1 = 150' Riparian Reserve BC: Burn Concentrations RR2= 300' Riparian Reserve Total Harvest Acres = 567.95 TP: Tractor pile/burn BB: Broadcast Burn HL: Handline DL: Dozerline
Trinity River Management Unit - Shasta-Trinity National Forest - A-4 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix B: Erosion Control Plan – May 2006
Appendix B: Erosion Control Plan, Mitigation Measures, and Monitoring Requirements
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix B: Erosion Control Plan – May 2006
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix B: Erosion Control Plan – May 2006
Appendix B: Erosion Control Plan, Mitigation Measures, and Monitoring Requirements
Erosion Control Plan: The purpose of this plan is to facilitate the transition from the environmental analysis to the contract to ensure that erosion control measures described in the environmental analysis are not lost during the transition. This plan applies to all of the watersheds within the project area. This erosion control plan compliments the Best Management Practice 2.2 Erosion Control Plan (C6.3) that requires the Purchaser (contractor) to submit a general plan that describes erosion control measures to be employed on roads and construction practices. Below is a generic erosion control plan that will enable purchaser or contractor to readily see what is required in the erosion control plan. This plan will also display the erosion control measures that will be used for each project and for each type of disturbance. Descriptions for references: C clauses (e.g. “C6.6”) are from the timber sale contract; “T-” specifications are road maintenance T-specifications from the timber sale contract; “WW/WO” are wet weather or winter operations; “STRMP” is a Shasta-Trinity Land and Resource Management Plan requirement; and “IDT” is a Project Interdisciplinary Team requirement.
Timing of Erosion Control Work______
Description of Erosion Control Applicability of Erosion Control BMP Reference Measure Measure to Project
Work before winter storms begin. Applies to project area 1.5 C6.6 Purchaser monitors and maintains Until accepted by FS (see 1.13, 1.20 C6.6 erosion control work. monitoring section below)
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – B-1 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix B: Erosion Control Plan – May 2006
Skid Trails______
Description of Erosion Control Applicability of Erosion Control BMP Reference Measure Measure to Project
Use designated skid trails. Applies to project area 1.10 C6.422# Use water bars (per Timber Sale Applies to project area 1.13, 1.17 C6.6 Admin. Handbook specifications). Install more than normal number Water bar every 20 to 40 feet on 1.13, 1.17 C6.6 water bars on skid trails (>35% >35% slopes slope). Spread appropriate material on Applies to project area where 1.14 C6.602 skid trails to achieve a minimum needed to attain 50% cover, such 50% ground cover. Material may as >35% slopes or where steeper consist of either: fine slash, wood skid trails enter landings chips, weed-free or rice straw, or any combination. Skid trails generally restricted to Applies to project area 1.9 STLRMP <35% slope. Use skid trails when soil is dry to 4 Applies to project area 1.13 WW/WO inches deep. Install silt fences between skid trail Applies to project area 1.14 C6.602 and culvert when slope distance is <50 feet. Use existing skid trails to the Applies to project area 1.10 C6.422# extent possible to minimize the number of skid trails.
Skyline Cable Yarding ______
Description of Erosion Control Applicability of Erosion Control BMP Reference Measure Measure to Project
Require one-end suspension. Applies to project area 1.11 C6.427 Use water bars on skid corridor Applies to project area 1.17 C6.6, C6.602 (per Timber Sale Admin. Handbook specs). Full log suspension across Applies to project area 1.11, 1.19 C6.427 Riparian Reserves. Cable corridors on contour (or Applies to project area 1.17 C6.602 acute angle to slope) require breaches in downhill side berm in lieu of water bars.
B-2 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix B: Erosion Control Plan – May 2006
Landings______
Description of Erosion Control Applicability of Erosion Control BMP Reference Measure Measure to Project
No new landings in Riparian Applies to project area 1.12 IDT Reserves. Outslope landings. Applies to project area 1.16 C6.601, C6.602 Rip landings (up to 12 inches Applies to project area within NA C6.601, C6.603 deep). riparian reserves Seed and mulch landings. Applies to project area within 1.14, 1.15 C6.601 riparian reserves Divert skid trail and road runoff Applies to project area 1.16 SA, C6.602 from crossing landing If runoff must cross landing, Applies to project area 1.16 C6.602 design landing drainage in a way to prevent rilling and gulling of fill slope. Pull organic materials out of fill Applies to project area 1.16, 2.10 C6.602 slope of landings if necessary to prevent collapse. When building landings, layer Applies to project area 1.16, 2.10 C6.602 (2/1/00) place and compact soil material on fill slopes. Seed and mulch landing fill slopes. Applies to project area 1.14, 1.15 C6.601, C6.6 Place silt fence below landing fill Applies to project area 1.14 WW/WO, C6.6, slope during wet weather C6.602 operations if runoff is causing erosion.
Use of Mechanized Equipment in Riparian Reserves______
Description of Erosion Control Applicability of Erosion Control BMP Reference Measure Measure to Project
No tractor yarding or piling in Applies to project area, unless 1.8, 1.19 C6.422, C6.5, Riparian Reserves. specifically designated (see C6.61 mitigation section below) No heavy equipment in Applies to project area, unless 1.8, 1.19 C6.422, C6.5, waterways. specifically designated (see C6.61 mitigation section below)
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – B-3 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix B: Erosion Control Plan – May 2006
Roads ______
Description of Erosion Control Applicability of Erosion Control BMP Reference Measure Measure to Project
Spot rocking of native surface roads Applies to project area 2.7, 2.23 WW/WO with aggregate if used during wet weather operations. Install silt fences at culvert outlets if Applies to project area 2.7 WW/WO road will be used during wet weather. Mulch and seed new or disturbed fill Applies to project area 1.14, 1.15 C6.601 slopes. No debris disposal in or within 100 Applies to project area 1.19, 2.11, T-802, T-803, C5.4 feet Streamside Management Zone, 2.19 meadows, wetlands or Riparian Reserve. No disposal within 100 feet of Applies to project area 1.19, 2.11 T-802, T-803, C5.4 culverts, road dips, in an inside ditch, above a ditch or any where material can reach a stream channel. Dispose of cleaned out material from Applies to project area 1.19, 2.11, T-802, C5.4 culvert intake to location where it will 2.22 not enter a channel, ditch, or re- enter intake area. Soil material at approved disposal Applies to project area 2.4 C5.4 sites will be seeded and mulched prior to winter.
B-4 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix B: Erosion Control Plan – May 2006
Mitigation Measures: Standard Pacific Southwest Region Forest Service timber sale harvest management requirements and mitigation measures, as required by the Forest Service Manual, applicable Forest Service Handbooks, and the timber sale contract, are incorporated by reference into this plan for those alternatives proposing harvest activities. The present Watershed Condition Class of the project area requires implementation of mitigation measures to offset the impacts of the proposed harvest activities. These impacts are related to soil and water quality. The following mitigation measures are required and are in addition to BMPs listed in the erosion control plan.
Fire Mitigations ______• Minimize ignition or intensive burning within designated riparian areas and maintain consistency with the Prescribed Burn Programmatic Biological Assessment. • Keep prescribed fire as cool as possible and attain desired burn conditions. • Allow hand cutting, piling and burning where feasible to reduce fuel load in riparian areas. Burn piles should not be larger than five feet high and five feet in diameter.
Timber Harvest Mitigations______• All Streamside Management Zones to be flagged and/or signed within proposed treatment units. Identify Riparian Reserves as “Protect Streamcourse” on Sale Area Map. • Remove haverst operations-created floatable material within the high water mark of the streamcourse. • Follow Streamside Management Zone Objectives (SMZOs) as defined for each protected streamcourse in the assessment area for details of permissible and prohibited activities (BMP 1-8). • 50 foot no mechanical entry or harvesting for riparian zones (i.e., riparian zones include landslide prone areas). • Designate/approve Riparian Reserve crossings. Skid trail grade shall not exceed 35% and shall be located so as to minimize ground and vegetative disturbance. Rehabilitate skid trail disturbed mineral soil within 50 feet (slope distance) of defined channel limits with available organic material, resulting in minimum 50-70% ground cover post-treatment. • Limit the slopes on which tractor prescription activity takes place. To control erosion and soil disturbance, down hill tractor activity should be limited to 35% slopes and uphill to 25% unless the leading end is suspended. Tractor piling should be limited to 30% slopes and below. (BMP 1-9) Limit the operating period of heavy machinery prescription activity. To avoid compaction, rutting, gullying and the resulting long term damage to the productivity of the soil resource, as well as to achieve clean tractor piles, tractor piling activities should be limited to the dry periods of the year. Tractor operation will be suspended by the contract administrator when soil conditions become too wet, and there is a potential for soil compaction and soil hydrologic function to occur. (BMPs 1-10, 5-2, 5-6, 1-13.) • Dedicate no more than 15% of the unit to primary skid roads, trails, and landings. The objective is to design a skidding pattern that best fits the terrain and limits the impact on the
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – B-5 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix B: Erosion Control Plan – May 2006
soil. Predesignated skid trails, felling to the lead, and end lining are methods that can be used to achieve this. Skid trails should be outsloped and not located in swales, where waterbarring is not possible or requires deep cuts. (BMPs 1-10,1-12,1-13,1-16.) • Where skid trails cross streams remove sediment and crossing material (culvert or logs), reshape stream banks, water bar skid trail adjacent to channel, and mulch-seed disturbed area within stream protection zone. • To minimize potential for erosion and improve soil quality, all primary skid trails and temporary roads from the present, as well as past sales should be scarifyed, if they have not previously. This will be to a depth of 6” to 12” depending on soil type. These areas will be respread with slash. Subsoiling should be performed when the soils are dry. • For landings within a riparian reserve, scarify, seed, and mulch.
Road and Trail Mitigations ______• Decommission system and non-system roads and trails that will improve soil and water quality conditions and are not needed for long-term use (i.e., >20 years). Road decommissioning entails removing culverts, ripping and outsloping road surface, and tank trapping. Other activities may occur depending on site conditions (see Appendix C). The goal is to control surface runoff, erosion, and mass failure leaving the road unavailable for future use. The condition of these roads is monitored long-term as part of BMP effectiveness monitoring. • For this project, 31 miles of road were identified to be decommissioning. Decommissioning will be implemented using dollars generated by KV, FS engineering and watershed restoration funds, and non-FS sources (e.g., water quality grants). Appendix C lists the roads and the prescribed treatments. • Reconstruct system roads that do not meet current engineering and BMP standards. Road reconstruction consists of several or all following actions; blading and shaping of the travel
way, drainage improvement including pipe installation (size culverts to Q100 flood event), waterbars, and/or rolling dips, overside drain where necessary, and rocking for surface protection. • If hauling is performed outside the normal operating season, the placement of aggregate base course may be required to provide a stable running surface and prevent rutting and potential erosion. Snow berms will be removed or drains installed to avoid channelization of melt water to minimize potential for damage to the road and to protect water quality. If the road surface is damaged, lost surface material shall be replaced, and damaged structures repaired. (BMPs 2- 23, 2-24 and 2-25) • Purchaser utilized roads rutted or otherwise damaged by Purchaser operations will be spot- rocked or otherwise suitably repaired. Drainage structures shall be protected or repaired as necessary. The road surface shall be outsloped, if possible, during maintenance operations. Road surfaces in areas crossing serpentinitic soils should be rocked to prevent roadbed
B-6 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix B: Erosion Control Plan – May 2006
deformation (rutting) during wet conditions, resulting in subsequent rilling and gullying of the roadbed. • Seasonal Road Closure - In areas where public and service access is required, but soils are seasonally saturated and road use would cause rutting, soil compaction, damage to the roots of trees, as well as wildlife disturbance during critical periods, roads will be closed October 30th to May 1st. During the open period of the year, regular road maintenance will occur to prevent surface runoff, sediment delivery to streams, and the resulting cumulative effects. • Year Around Road Closure - In areas where public and service access is required, but soils are seasonally saturated and road use would cause rutting, soil compaction, damage to the roots of trees, as well as wildlife disturbance during critical periods, roads will be closed year around. • Closed roads will have tank trap or gate. • Do not conduct harvest, yarding or hauling activity during wet weather conditions. Generally, from October 15 to April 15 activity should only occur when soil conditions are such that the operations will not have a deleterious affect on watershed resources. An earth scientist should be consulted prior to conducting activities during the time frame specified above.
Monitoring Requirements
Wet weather operations implementation and effectiveness monitoring ______Hauling activities may occur outside of the Normal Operating Season (NOS), defined as May 15 to October 15, providing that the following guidelines are adhered to. Daily monitoring of haul routes, landings, and skid trails consisting of BMP forms or daily diaries will document implementation and effectiveness of BMPs. Project activities will be curtailed and corrective action taken when any of the following are encountered or expected: • Erosion of Road Material Scour or sediment deposition evident, and extending more than 20 feet below outlet of cross drain. Scour or sediment movement into riparian reserve or drainage way from road surface, cut slope, or fill slope. • Ponding Ponding present on road surface that is causing fill subsidence or otherwise threatening integrity of fill. • Ruts/Rills More than 10% of road segment length has rills more than 2 inches deep and 20 feet in length that continue off road. Ruts formed that can channel water past erosion control structures. Numerous rills present at stream crossing (>1 rill per lineal 5 feet), apparently active or enlarging, evidence of some sediment delivery to stream.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – B-7 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix B: Erosion Control Plan – May 2006
• Culverts Sediments or debris is blocking 30% of inlet or outlet. More than 10% of the flow to pass beneath or around culvert, or noticeable piping evident. • Skid Trails/ Harvest Areas More than 20% of skid trail or cableway surface lengths have rills present that are over 2 inches deep and more than 10 feet in length. More than 10% of skid trail surface length has ruts greater than 2 inches deep. Rills or sediment deposition extends more than 20 feet below waterbar outlet. More than 10% of waterbars fail to divert flow off skid trails or cableways Sediment movement into a riparian reserve. Presence of gullies (erosional features greater than 4” deep and 6”wide). • Landings Rills (greater than ½” deep and 10’ in length) or sediment deposition has extended more than 20 feet off of landing. More than 1 cubic yard of material (from erosion or slope failure) has moved into riparian reserve.
Erosion control materials and preventative maintenance measures would be in place prior to hauling outside the NOS. These measures include a combination of water-bars, mulch, spot rocking, and road maintenance. When activities extend outside the NOS, erosion control plans are implemented and kept current on a daily basis. The Shasta-Trinity National Forest’s shall provide NMFS with a monthly report of concurrent BMP monitoring for all ground disturbing activities that occur outside the NOS.
Mitigation measure implementation and effectiveness monitoring • Site review by hydrologist, geologist, and/or fishery biologist
BMP implementation and effectiveness monitoring • Follow standard BMPEP monitoring plan
Watershed Condition Class monitoring (control versus treated) • Channel stability monitoring of Rush, Little Browns, and Weaver Creeks. Use channel reference sites to monitor the channel stability trend pre and post project. • Monitor implementation and effectiveness of watershed restoration activities Track benefits to help meet TMDL goals.
B-8 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix C: Road Decommissioning – May 2006
Appendix C: Road Decommissioning List and Prescriptions
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix C: Road Decommissioning – May 2006
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix C: Road Decommissioning – May 2006
Appendix C: Road Decommissioning List and Prescriptions
Road Decommissioning: The Browns Project will decommission about 31 miles of road to mitigate impacts related to timber harvest. Road decommissioning is defined as the demolition, dismantling, removal, obliteration and/or disposal of a deteriorated or otherwise unneeded asset or component, including necessary cleanup work. This action eliminates the deferred maintenance needs for the fixed asset. Portions of an asset or component may remain if they do not cause problems nor require maintenance. Road decommissioning activities result in the stabilization and restoration of unneeded roads to a more natural state (36 CFR 212.1, FSM 7705 - Transportation System). Road decommissioning prescriptions include: • Removal of culverts and all other drainage structures; • Stream channel restoration; • Recontouring and/or outsloping to return road prism to near natural hydraulic function; • Stabilization of road and associated disturbed surfaces tillage, ripping, fertilization and/or revegetation; • Earthen berm barrier installation; and • Other activities depending on site conditions.
Table 1 is a list of the 31 miles of road decommissioning and the prescriptions within the Browns Project area. The following is a list of prescriptions: • T-1: close road with earthen berm or other type of barrier (not a gate) • T-2: rip and outslope road surface • T-3: mulch and seed ripped road surface with weed free straw and native seed mix • T-4: excavate all culverts and other drainage structures (haul off of site) • T-5: shape stream-road crossings to pre-road condition (natural channel slope, width, and depth) • T-6: rehabilitate springs, seeps, and meadows to stable condition • T-7: stabilize active mass failure
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – C-1 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix C: Road Decommissioning – May 2006
Table 1. Browns Project list of roads to be decommissioned.
Road ID Length (miles) Project Prescription 33N38F 0.69 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3, T-4, T-5 33N42A 0.54 Oregon MT T-1, T-2, T-3 34N42A 0.2 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 34N52Y 0.67 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3, T-4, T-5, T-6 34N52Y-10 0.05 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 34N52Y-14 0.15 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 34N52YA-11 0.04 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 34N52YA-13 0.02 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 34N83A 0.34 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 34N83B 0.25 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 34N89 0.80 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3, T-4, T-5 34N89A 0.48 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3, T-4, T-5 34N95-1 0.19 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 34N95-10 0.13 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 34N95-11 0.08 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 34N95-12 0.08 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 34N95-13 0.04 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 34N95-14 0.04 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 34N95-16 0.05 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 34N95-17 0.31 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 34N95-18 0.25 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 34N95-19 0.03 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 34N95-20 0.03 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 34N95-21 0.05 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 34N95-22 0.20 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 34N95-23 0.23 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 34N95-25 0.08 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 34N95-7 0.19 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 34N95-9 0.04 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 34N95A 0.59 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3, T-4, T-5, T-6 34N95A-1 0.03 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 34N95B 0.31 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 34N95C 0.57 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 34N95C-1 0.07 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 34N95E 0.60 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 34N95F 0.27 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 34N95F-1 0.04 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 34N95G-1 0.02 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 34N95G-2 0.14 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 34N96-1 0.39 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3, T-4, T-5, T-7 34N96-2 0.35 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3, T-4, T-5 34N96-3 0.06 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3, T-4, T-5
C-2 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix C: Road Decommissioning – May 2006
Road ID Length (miles) Project Prescription 34N96-4 0.13 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3, T-4, T-5 34N96-5 0.35 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3, T-4, T-5 34N96-6 0.29 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3, T-4, T-5 34N96B 0.31 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3, T-4, T-5 34N96B-1 0.26 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 34N96B-2 0.06 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 34N96B-3 0.06 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 34N96B-4 0.15 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 34N96B-5 0.34 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 34N96C 0.47 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3, T-4, T-5 34N96C-1 0.44 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U09W95A 0.09 Oregon MT T-1, T-2, T-3 U230A 0.72 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3, T-4, T-5 U232A & B 0.15 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U236AA 0.14 5 cent Gulch T-1, T-2, T-3, T-4, T-5 U236AB 0.17 5 cent Gulch T-1, T-2, T-3, T-4, T-5 U236AC 0.17 5 cent Gulch T-1, T-2, T-3, T-4, T-5 U236AD 0.42 5 cent Gulch T-1, T-2, T-3, T-4, T-5 U33N01C 0.03 Oregon MT T-1, T-2, T-3 U33N01K 0.43 Oregon MT T-1, T-2, T-3, T-4, T-5 U33N38B 0.43 Oregon MT T-1, T-2, T-3, T-4, T-5 U33N38D 0.10 Oregon MT T-1, T-2, T-3 U33N38G 0.10 Oregon MT T-1, T-2, T-3 U33N42C 0.02 Oregon MT T-1, T-2, T-3 U33N42R 1.94 Oregon MT T-1, T-2, T-3 U33N42RD 0.04 Oregon MT T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N05YA 0.03 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N05YB 0.14 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N05YC 0.13 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N33YA 0.49 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3, T-4, T-5 U34N34B 0.82 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N34B-1 0.04 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N34B-2 0.11 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N52YB 0.34 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N52YC 0.58 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N52YCA 0.04 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N52YCB 0.04 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N52YD 0.92 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N77A 0.38 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N77A-1 0.02 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N77AA 0.56 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N77AAB 0.03 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N77B 0.16 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – C-3 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix C: Road Decommissioning – May 2006
Road ID Length (miles) Project Prescription U34N77C 0.17 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3, T-4, T-5 U34N95A 0.22 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N95AA 0.40 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N95B 0.08 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N95H 0.56 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N95I 0.25 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N95I-1 0.24 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N95J 0.50 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N95J-1 0.13 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N95J-2 0.04 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N95K 0.13 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N95L 0.04 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N95M 0.23 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N95N 0.29 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N95O 0.85 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N95P 0.03 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N96AB 0.15 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N96AC 0.23 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N96AD 0.04 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N96AE 0.05 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N96B-4 0.02 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N96BA 0.02 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N96D 1.01 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N96E 0.04 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N96F 0.70 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N96G 0.04 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U34N96H 0.13 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U3TRI01 0.13 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U3TRI01A 0.06 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U3TRI02 0.04 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U3TRI03 0.53 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U3TRI03A 0.20 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U3TRI03B 0.11 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U3TRI03C 0.03 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U3TRI03D 0.05 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U3TRI03E 0.04 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U3TRI03F 0.15 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U3TRI03G 0.04 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U3TRI04 0.14 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U3TRI04A 0.14 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U3TRI05 0.13 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U3TRI05-2 0.10 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U3TRI05-3 0.08 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3
C-4 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix C: Road Decommissioning – May 2006
Road ID Length (miles) Project Prescription U3TRI05-4 0.04 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U3TRI05A 0.06 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 U3TRI05A-1 0.09 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 UC232-1 0.07 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 UT34N95C-1 0.10 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 UT34N96BA 0.12 Browns T-1, T-2, T-3 Grand Total = 31
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – C-5 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix C: Road Decommissioning – May 2006
C-6 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix D (Part 1) - Biological Assessment – May 2006
Appendix D: (part 1): Biological Assessment for the Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (Alternative 3)
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service – Pacific Southwest Region Trinity River Management Unit Shasta-Trinity National Forest Trinity County, California
Prepared by: Thomas Quinn, Wildlife Biologist Trinity River Management Unit Shasta-Trinity National Forest Contact person, phone (530) 623-1758 Reviewed by: S. Kelly Wolcott, Wildlife Program Coordinator Shasta-Trinity National Forest Supervisor’s Office April 8, 2005
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – D-1 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix D (Part 1) - Biological Assessment – May 2006
D-2 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix D (Part 1) - Biological Assessment – May 2006
I. Introduction
The purpose of this biological assessment is to present the likely effects of the actions proposed in Alternative 3 in the Browns Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement to federally listed threatened, endangered or proposed species. This document is prepared in accordance with current policy and follows the standards established in Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 2670.32). A separate biological assessment addresses listed fish species. The northern spotted owl represents the late seral assemblage Management Indicator Species (MIS) for this project because late seral (old-growth/late-successional) is the only habitat type that would be measurably affected. This document represents the MIS analysis for the late seral assemblage for this project.
The species considered in this document are: Endangered • none
Threatened • bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) • northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) • marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) • California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytoni)
Proposed • none
Species Dropped from Further Analysis ______The following species will not be further discussed except in the determinations section (VII) for the following reasons: Long-term monitoring and survey efforts have revealed no bald eagle activity areas (i.e., nesting, roosting, or winter roosting/concentration areas) within or near the project area. The project area does not lie proximate to eagle foraging areas (e.g., lakes, rivers, larger creeks) and I do not expect eagles to occur in the vicinity. Consequently, this species will not be further discussed except in the determinations section. The project area lies well outside the known or expected ranges of the marbled murrelet (Ralph et al. 1995) and the California red-legged frog (USDI 2002).
II. Consultation to Date
Dr. Danielle Chi (Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USFWS, Red Bluff Field Office) and Ron Clementsen (Forest Plan Program Leader, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USFWS, Red Bluff Field Office) have visited the project area. I provided drafts of this document to Danielle Chi on July 2, 2004 and March 3, 2005; this final version incorporates her comments. The Shasta-Trinity
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – D-3 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix D (Part 1) - Biological Assessment – May 2006
National Forest accessed the most recent a list of endangered, threatened, or proposed species that may occur in the project area vicinity (i.e., Trinity County) from the USFWS web site dated February 24, 2005 (http://arcata.fws.gov/specieslist/speciesreport.asp). On March 30, 2005 Danielle Chi, Ron, Laura Finley (Wildlife Biologist, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Yreka Field Office), Kelly Wolcott (Forest Wildlife Biologist, Shasta-Trinity National Forest) and I met to discuss cumulative effects related to the Browns Project and forest management on private lands in the project area vicinity. Laura Finley provided maps and brief descriptions of all the private timber harvest plans (THPs) for projects in the owl action area for which the Yreka FWS office provided “technical assistance.” Our inspections of 2003 aerial photographs of the THP areas indicated that the THP projects had been implemented and are accounted for (85% ground verified) in the Browns Project Hydrology report completed by Jim Fitzgerald (hydrologist, Shasta-Trinity National Forest). The meeting further revealed that the definition of spotted owl habitat used in the THP process is very much more broad than the definition used in this document. Areas considered suitable owl habitat on private land during the THP process would largely barely qualify as connectivity habitat using the definitions of owl habitat used in this document. In this light, the description of cumulative effects on private property related to owl habitat is accurate.
III. Current Management Direction
The Shasta-Trinity National Forest (STNF) is currently operating in full compliance with the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (ROD; USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, 1994). The Regional Forester approved the STNF Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan or LRMP) on April 28, 1995 and it became effective as of June 5, 1995. The Northwest Forest Plan ROD was incorporated into the Forest Plan. The Forest Plan adopts the recovery plan for the bald eagle (USDI 1986) and the ROD as the Federal contribution to the recovery of the northern spotted owl. The STNF expects the network of areas withdrawn from active timber management (e.g., wilderness, late-successional reserves, riparian reserves, and administratively withdrawn areas) along with standards and guidelines related to snag, log, and hardwood retention to provide habitat adequate to maintain viable well-distributed populations of federally listed or proposed species.
IV. Description of Proposed Action
Location of Proposed Actions ______The project is located northwest of the town of Weaverville in Trinity County California within the Weaverville 5th Field Watershed (see cover sheet map). The legal locations (all within Mt. Diablo
D-4 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix D (Part 1) - Biological Assessment – May 2006
Meridian in Trinity County) are within two townships: T34N, R10W, Sections 23 and 24 (road work only); T34N, R9W, and Sections 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, and 34.
Purpose and Need for Action ______The Federal Register identifies Weaverville as a Community at Risk (CAR) and the project area is within an area the Forest Service wishes to manage under guidelines for an established “Wildland- Urban Interface” (WUI). Approximately 70 percent of the proposed activities lie within the Weaverville WUI that was the focus of project development in a cooperative effort between the Trinity County Resource Advisory Council (RAC), the Trinity County Fire Safe Council, and the Forest Service. The basic purpose and need of the Browns Project is reflected in the four objectives included in the Cohesive Strategy to Protect and Sustain Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems (approved by Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck on October 13, 2000): • Improve the resilience and sustainability of forests and grasslands at risk. • Conserve priority watersheds, species and biodiversity. • Reduce wildland fire costs, losses and damages. • Better ensure public and firefighter safety.
For the purpose of this strategy, risk conditions were assigned “condition class” descriptors to represent relative risk of intense resource damage from fire. The existing Condition Class of the project area is mostly “Class 3, relatively high risk” with a lesser portion of “Class 2, moderate risk.” The desired condition is “Class 1” representing a low relative risk. Therefore, the primary purpose of this project is to move “Class 2&3” areas toward “Class 1” conditions. A third purpose is to maintain or improve water quality (goals #39 and #40 for Water, LRMP page 4-6) since this watershed provides anadromous fish habitat and serves as a domestic water supply to Weaverville.
Summary of Proposed Actions ______A Forest Service interdisciplinary team developed specific proposals included within the project that include timber harvest, fuels treatments and road management (construction, reconstruction, and obliteration/decommissioning). The team designed the project to provide protection of other resources in accordance with management direction described for the Weaverville/Lewiston Management Area (Area 7) as identified in the Shasta-Trinity National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP).
Mature Conifer Stand Thinning (754 acres) Mature conifer stands would be thinned to levels expected to maintain and enhance growth and vigor of conifer species while leaving stand attributes such as large predominant conifers, snags and hardwoods for wildlife habitat needs (Table 1). Trees targeted for removal would be the least vigorous individuals in the suppressed, intermediate and occasionally the codominant crown positions. A variety of activity fuels and natural fuels treatments would follow (Table 1) to leave the resultant
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – D-5 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix D (Part 1) - Biological Assessment – May 2006
timber stands in an improved fuels condition class. All predominant (i.e., legacy) conifers would remain. Trees in the codominant crown position would be removed where stand densities are excessive and removal is expected to contribute to the development of late-successional fire-resistant conditions. Residual crown closure would be 40-50% in areas with leave trees averaging less than 24” dbh and 60-80% in areas with larger (over 24” dbh) trees. Thinning within the smaller diameter stands is “more aggressive” because the younger (i.e., smaller) conifers will respond (i.e., grow) faster to having more site resources available (mainly water). Within riparian reserves, stand densities would be maintained at a minimum 60% canopy closure regardless of tree size.
Group Regeneration Areas (39 acres) Small (roughly 1 to 2 acres) areas would be harvested (cleared) using a combination of cable and tractor yarding systems followed by a variety of activity fuels treatments (Table 1). These harvest units are located in areas of heavy existing fuel loadings, where the current stands are understocked, in areas where cable harvesting impacts to proposed thinning stands are expected to be greatest (immediately below the expected cable yarder setup) and to provide landings. Landings are critical for handling and storing the large amount of woody material (fuel) produced by whole-tree yarding of large numbers of relatively small diameter trees within the adjacent thinning areas. These areas would be decompacted (see below) and planted with conifers following the thinnings and fuels treatments.
Table 1. Summary of Timber Stand and Activity Fuels Treatments
Timber Stand Treatment: Mature Stand Thinning 754 ac. Tractor yarding 571 ac. Cable yarding 183 ac. Regeneration Harvest (total of 21 1 to 2-acre group regeneration areas) 39 ac. Tractor yarding 26 ac. Cable yarding 13 ac. Treatment of Activity Fuels within Timber Treatment Areas1: Whole Tree Yard (all areas) 793 ac. Lop and Scatter 674 ac. Tractor Pile/Burn 26 ac. Roadside Pile/Burn 81 ac. Burn Concentrations 674 ac. Broadcast Burn 13 ac. Dozer Line Construction (tractor units only) 11 miles Hand Line Construction 7 miles 1 Total fuels treatment exceeds the harvest acres because more than one treatment may occur on the same acre.
Road Construction/Reconstruction Interdependent project activities include approximately 4.6 miles of road construction, 3.6 miles of road reconstruction and 3.7 miles of temporary roads to access the intermediate harvest areas. Road
D-6 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix D (Part 1) - Biological Assessment – May 2006 reconstruction would involve a combination of blading, rocking or culvert replacement within the confines of the existing disturbed roadbed. Temporary roads would lie within proposed thinning units with the precise location determined by the sale administrator. They will not cross drainages or Riparian Reserves and will be rehabilitated after use (see below).
Temporary Road & Landing (regeneration units) Rehabilitation These interdependent actions would minimize potential for erosion and to improve site productivity. Temporary roads and landings (i.e., regeneration units) will be subsoiled to a depth of 18 inches or more. Subsoiling will be performed when the soils are dry, with a winged-subsoiler, forest cultivators or disks. Soil will be loosened across the entire treatment area to achieve a soil condition where 85% of the soil would pass through a 2” opening. Waterbarring and outsloping of a skid trail is not necessary, as the intent of subsoiling is to loosen the soil and attain a permeable soil condition where runoff will not occur. Waterbarring of a skid trail should be avoided unless sections are so steep that there is a potential for surface runoff prior to revegetation. Access to temporary roads will be blocked after subsoiling. All roads adjacent to thinning or regeneration units would be used to haul timber. The haul routes to the nearest main highway (i.e., State Highway 3) would be relatively short (Map 1, as provided to FWS).
Road Decommissioning/Obliteration This interrelated action would involve approximately 32 miles of existing classified and unclassified roads. This mitigation measure is critical to project success related to water quality and will be implemented using dollars generated by KV (funds generated by the timber sale aspect), Forest Service (FS) engineering and watershed restoration funds, and non-FS sources (e.g., water quality grants). Road decommissioning entails removing culverts, ripping and outsloping road surfaces, and tank trapping. Other activities may occur depending on site conditions. The goal is to control surface runoff, erosion, and mass failure leaving the road unavailable for future use. The condition of these roads will be monitored long-term as part of effectiveness monitoring.
Additional Design Criteria (Mitigation Measures)______The team developed these interdependent actions to reduce or avoid impacts to forest resources. Below are those that closely relate to wildlife issues: • Limited Operating Periods (LOPs) would be implemented to avoid direct adverse impacts to the northern spotted owl. From February 1 through July 10, all noise- and smoke-generating activities will be prohibited within ¼ mile of suitable nesting/roosting habitat. In addition, all vegetation removal/cutting/burning will be prohibited through September 15 within suitable nesting/roosting habitat. These LOPs may be lifted if surveys using currently accepted protocols indicate specific areas are not occupied by breeding owls or with the mutual consent of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Forest Service.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – D-7 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix D (Part 1) - Biological Assessment – May 2006
• Retain existing large (>19 inches diameter at breast height) snags and down logs within thinning units. Snags felled for safety reasons would be left on site as logs. • Maintain an average of 5 tons of logs per acre with a preference to have 4 to 6 logs per acre at the largest available diameter. • Retain all hardwoods that have a reasonable chance of surviving and thriving after stand treatments. • Riparian Reserves of intermittent and ephemeral streams that display annual scour will have a minimum 150 foot Riparian Reserve based upon the average maximum height of 200-year-old trees for the site. There is one inner gorge greater than 150 feet from the defined channel of intermittent or ephemeral streams in unit 13 that will require a Riparian Reserve greater than 150 feet in width. • Riparian Reserves of fish bearing streams that display annual scour will have a 300 foot Riparian Reserve based upon twice the average maximum height of 200-year-old trees for the site. There are no inner gorges or flood plains in the project area greater than 300 feet from the defined channel of fish bearing streams. • Thinning may occur in the Riparian Reserves up to the inner gorge, or to 50 feet from the defined channel if no inner gorge exists, for the purpose of enhancing Riparian Reserve timber stand health and treating hazardous fuels. Thinning and fuels treatment will not reduce crown cover to less than 60% within Riparian Reserves.
V. Existing Environment
This document analyzes spotted owls and owl habitat at five spatial scales.
Spatial Scales______• The 54,000-acre Weaverville 5th Field Watershed encompasses the project area and the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (Northwest Forest Plan ROD) establishes the 5th field watershed as an appropriate context for landscape-level analyses (Map 2, as provided to FWS). The watershed is used to analyze the Standard & Guideline (S&G) “Provide for Retention of Old-Growth Fragments Where Little Remains” (ROD page C-44). • The 28,246-acre Action Area represents a 1.3-mile buffer around all the areas proposed for treatment. This area should include any potential current or future owl activity centers (e.g., nest sites) that would be affected by habitat loss or modification related to the Browns Project (Maps 1 and 3, as provided to FWS). • The spotted owl home range represents a 1.3-mile buffer around the one known owl activity center (state ID# TR150) where existing habitat would be affected (Maps 1 and 3, as provided to FWS). TR395 is not analyzed because only 2.7 acres of NR habitat would be slightly degraded approximately 1.25 miles from the activity center with poor habitat conditions
D-8 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix D (Part 1) - Biological Assessment – May 2006
linking the two areas. That is to say, these owls, if they still occupy the 1998 area, do not likely use the habitat that would be affected. • The spotted owl territory represents a 0.7-mile buffer around the one known owl activity center (state ID# TR150) where existing habitat would be affected (Maps 1 and 3, as provided to FWS). TR395 is not analyzed because no actions are proposed within 0.7 miles of the activity center. • The project area includes only the areas that would be directly impacted by the proposed actions (e.g., thinning units, regeneration units or roadbeds). Thus, Alternative 1 (no action) has no “project area.” The project area overlays the other four areas and is used in the context of analyzing effects to those areas.
Land Allocations and Critical Habitat ______All actions proposed in the Browns project lie within the Hayfork Adaptive Management Area. As such, the area’s main assigned biological role in the overall strategy for maintaining viable populations of species associated with late-successional and old-growth (LSOG) forest ecosystems (as described in the FSEIS, the subsequent ROD, and the Forest Plan) is to provide connectivity between large areas set aside for these species (late-successional reserves, LSRs) while maintaining at least 15 percent of federal forest land in LSOG conditions. Connectivity does not necessarily mean that set-aside late-successional and old-growth areas have to be physically joined in space. However, conditions between these areas must be compatible with the movement of LSOG associated species, such that they are both capable of moving through these habitats and inclined to do so. Late-Successional Reserve RC-334, that largely overlays Designated Spotted Owl Critical Habitat Unit (CHU) CA-33, lies just to the north of the project area (Map 1, as provided to FWS). About 755 acres of CHU CA-33 lie within the action area. No actions are proposed within this CHU. LSR RC-334 is “insufficient” in that it currently has less than desirable habitat conditions; thus, adjacent areas may be more than “normally” important for maintaining owl populations.
Connectivity Connectivity habitat is defined as conifer stands meeting at least “11-40” conditions (i.e., an average of at least 11 inches DBH and at least 40 percent canopy closure) (Thomas et al. 1990). Functional connectors are defined as those that lead to outside dispersal habitat leading to main drainages, had at least marginally suitable dispersal habitat, not less than 200 feet wide (generally over 300 feet wide), with gaps no more than 400 feet (generally less than 200 feet). This definition was based upon the habitat capability models for fisher and marten (Freel 1991). Field reviews suggest the following size class/canopy closures generally provide connectivity habitat in the watershed: 4G, 4N, 4P, 4S, 3G, 3N, 3P, 3S, 2G and 2N (see Attachment 1 for habitat code descriptions). Based upon habitat mapping (Map 2, as provided to FWS), aerial photograph interpretation, and field reviews, connectivity through the action area appears to be relatively discontinuous. The main reasons for this are intensely managed private timber industry land, private residential land (including the town of Weaverville) along with naturally occurring harsh, sparsely vegetated areas. The Oregon
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – D-9 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix D (Part 1) - Biological Assessment – May 2006
Fire removed approximately 240 acres of connectivity habitat in 2001 roughly three miles east of the project area.
Late-Successional and Old-Growth Habitat (LSOG) ______Northern Spotted Owl (MIS)
Species Account Northern spotted owl No owl surveys have been conducted for this project. Our records include only one known activity center in the watershed that lies just to the west of thinning unit #9E. This owl activity center (state ID# TR150, Maps 1 & 3, as provided to FWS) is based upon an owl pair last surveyed and confirmed in 1992 (see Figure 2, page D-17 for current habitat conditions within the territory and home range). A 100-acre LSR has been established around this activity center comprised of the best available contiguous habitat. In 1998, Sierra Pacific Industries reported an owl pair just inside the southern action area boundary (state ID# TR395, Maps 1 and 2, as provided to FWS). Habitat conditions, the territorial nature of the owl, topography and distance from known activity centers suggest that the action area could still support TR150 and one additional owl pair centered in the block of high quality NR habitat at the northern boundary of the action area. Habitat conditions on private property in the action area suggest that owls may be using pockets and stringers of habitat but the general tentative owl centers remain as described above. Spotted Owl Population Trend Courtney et al. (2004, Table 2) report the most current estimated rate of population change (PC) for the northern spotted owl where a stable population is indicated by PC = 1, a declining population by PC < 1, and an increasing population by PC > 1. PC ranged from 0.896 to 1.005 and was <1.0 on 12 of 13 range-wide study areas. However, in only four of these 12 were 95% confidence intervals for PC < 1. Evidence for owl population decline was weak on the three study areas closest to the Browns Project Area (i.e., Klamath, NW California and Hoopa study areas). The wealth of information on the demography of the northern spotted owl is unique. For no other threatened or endangered species do we have such extensive information on population trends and the factors affecting them. The demographic studies reported here are among the most significant achievements in conservation biology. Yet, the information is still far from complete, and inadequate to make critical assessments. While northern spotted owl populations appear to be in decline, it is not possible to determine whether this decline is greater than that predicted at the time of the NWFP (Courtney et al. 2004).
D-10 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix D (Part 1) - Biological Assessment – May 2006
Table 2. Estimated rate of population change (PC) for Northern Spotted Owls, with standard error and 95% confidence interval (as reported in Courtney et al. 2004, Table 8.5)
PC1 Standard Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Upper California NW California 0.985 0.013 0.959 1.011 Hoopa 0.980 0.019 0.943 1.017 Simpson 0.970 0.012 0.947 0.993 Oregon Coast Ranges 0.968 0.018 0.932 1.004 H.J. Andrews 0.978 0.014 0.950 1.005 Warm Springs 0.908 0.022 0.866 0.951 Tyee 1.005 0.019 0.967 1.043 Klamath 0.997 0.034 0.930 1.063 S. Cascades 0.974 0.035 0.906 1.042 Washington Wenatchee 0.917 0.018 0.882 0.952 Cle Elum 0.938 0.019 0.910 0.976 Rainer 0.896 0.055 0.788 1.003 Olympic 0.956 0.032 0.839 1.018 1A stable population is indicated by PC = 1, a declining population by PC < 1, and an increasing population by PC > 1.
Competitors & Predators No known northern goshawk, barred owl or great horned owls sightings occur in the action area. West Nile Virus West Nile virus occurs in the project area general vicinity based upon positive lab test results of roughly 18 dead birds found throughout Trinity County (personal communication with Peter Hedtke; Trinity County Environmental Health Division of the Building and Development Services Department). None of the birds analyzed were spotted owls.
Habitat Account The spotted owl is associated with late-successional and old-growth conifer forest LSOG) (Thomas et al. 1990). The distribution of LSOG stands throughout the landscape is an important component of ecosystem diversity and plays a significant role in providing for biological diversity and structural diversity. LSOG patches outside of reserves can be ecologically significant in functioning as refugia for a host of old-growth associated species, particularly those with limited dispersal capabilities. LSOG stands provide areas of relatively high quality habitat for dispersing individuals (e.g., northern spotted owl, fisher, marten, etc.). The project area lies within the Weaverville 5th Field Watershed. Attachment 1 includes the 15% Late-Successional and Old-Growth Retention Analysis and Recommendations for the Weaverville 5th
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – D-11 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix D (Part 1) - Biological Assessment – May 2006
Field Watershed (15% document) that presents habitat definitions, assumptions used and an analysis of current forest conditions related to LSOG habitat.
Spotted Owl Habitat Definition This assessment analyzes owl habitat using the LMP-90 GIS database (Forest Service land) and the Remote Sensing Lab Database (RSL database; Bureau of Land Management land) within the watershed and the definitions presented in the 15% document. The relationship between owl habitat and the LMP-90 database is synopsized below.
Table 3. Spotted Owl Habitat Related to LSOG analysis presented in Attachment 1
Nesting/Roosting (NR) 4G & 4N (relatively high quality), and 3G (relatively moderate quality) Foraging (F) 3N Capable (potential) all remaining Federal Forest Land
There is a clear distinction between old-growth and late-successional habitat. Late-successional is defined simply as conifer stands at least 80 years old regardless of other stand attributes such as level of decadence or canopy closure. Old-growth is a subset of late-successional and is defined as a forest stand usually at least 180-220 years old with moderate to high canopy closure; a multilayered, multispecies canopy dominated by large overstory trees; a high incidence of large trees, some with broken tops and other indications of old and decaying wood (decadence); numerous large snags; and heavy accumulations of wood, including large logs on the ground (ROD page F-4). Old-growth (4N/G) provides “high quality” owl nesting/roosting habitat. Younger densely to moderately canopied late-successional stands provide “moderate” quality owl nesting/roosting habitat (3G) and foraging habitat (3N) respectively. The amount of NRF habitat within the four spacial scales analyzed is included in Table 4 (page D-17) and displayed on Maps 2 and 3 (as provided to FWS). Note that the amount of habitat in the project area is captured in the amount of habitat that would be affected (i.e., the proposed action).
VI. Effects of the Proposed Action
Actions Not Further Analyzed ______The interrelated and interdependent actions listed below will not be further analyzed for the following reasons: • Road reconstruction would occur within existing Forest Service system roadbeds and would have no effect on existing owl habitat. • Temporary road construction would occur within proposed thinning units and their widths would be comparable to the leave tree spacing. Therefore, the effects are lumped in with the effects of thinning.
D-12 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix D (Part 1) - Biological Assessment – May 2006
• Dozer and handlines would occur within proposed harvest units and would have little effect on retained vegetation or habitat components. Therefore, the effects are lumped in with thinning/regeneration effects. • Activity fuels treatments (including burning), decompacting temporary roads or regeneration units, and road decommissioning would not affect owl habitat. • For all these actions the LOP (page D-7) avoids direct impacts to owls due to noise or smoke related to the proposed actions.
Direct Effects (Mortality, Harm, Failed Breeding Attempts, Displacement) ______The limited operating periods included in the design criteria (page D-7) for this project minimize direct effects to the spotted owl by avoiding disturbances during critical periods of the breeding season or when young owls are not mobile enough to readily move from a disturbance. Additionally, the obliteration or decommissioning of about 32 miles of roads would reduce human (vehicle) disturbance in the area. No actions are proposed within the high-quality NR (old-growth) stand where activity center TR150 lies (Map 2, as provided to FWS). Direct impact to activity center TR395 are unlikely given that the nearest proposed activity lies about 1.25 miles away (slightly degrading 2.7 acres of NR habitat). The response of individual owls or pairs to the proposed habitat alteration is speculative without intrusive radio or color-coded tagging and monitoring. The majority of the stands proposed for thinning are very dense, to the point of likely limiting effective foraging by spotted owls. Resident owls may remain in the area or return shortly after the disturbance and then benefit from having these thinned stands available for more effective foraging habitat given that higher quality NR habitat will remain largely intact (2 acres removed) in adjacent areas providing nest sites. Owls are capable and willing to (re)occupy suitable habitat in areas affected by timber harvest activities and many successful owl nest sites occur in landscapes where adjacent timber harvesting has occurred (personal observation). Conversely, resident owls acclimated to current conditions may relocate to other areas permanently or for up to 30 years until stands recover to predisturbance canopy cover levels. If resident owls relocate, other dispersing or nonterritorial (floater) owls may opportunistically move in and occupy NR habitat in the project area or vicinity.
Indirect Effects (i.e., Habitat)______
Connectivity Only regeneration units and road construction would take existing connectivity habitat below 11-40 conditions. The small size of the harvest units (2 acres and roughly 300 feet at their widest) and the narrow impacts from the roads (roughly 30 feet wide) would not likely reduce the free movement of owls through Forest Service portions of the action area. Additionally, proposed thinning prescriptions in mature conifer stands would result in a long-term (>30 years) net increase in owl high quality LSOG habitat in the long-term (i.e., high quality connectivity habitat; Figures 1 through 3). Private
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – D-13 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix D (Part 1) - Biological Assessment – May 2006 residential property and heavily managed private timberland in the action area will likely continue to limit connectivity in the action area.
Standard and Guideline “Provide for Retention of Old-Growth Fragments Where Little Remains” (Management Indicator Species, MIS: Northern Spotted Owl)
The proposed actions would remove a total of 2 acres and temporarily degrade an additional 59 acres of old-growth habitat (high quality owl nesting/roosting habitat) due to proposed road construction and thinning (Table 4). Immediately after implementation, old-growth would comprise 10.19 percent of federal forest land (FFL) in the watershed (down from the current 11.20 percent). When moderately to densely canopied late-successional stands (i.e., 3N and 3G) are included, the watershed would contain well above 15 percent LSOG (Attachment 1, Figure 3, page D-27)). The ecologically based rational for causing these effects to old-growth is as follows: The roads are needed to access areas of dense conifers identified as needing thinning to meet the stated purpose and need for this project to reduce the risk of large-scale catastrophic fire (that would likely impact existing old-growth). The regeneration units were located to give cable access to these thinning areas and to function as landings to handle the large amount of woody material (fuel) produced by whole- tree yarding of large numbers of relatively small diameter trees within the adjacent thinning areas. Understory thinning within selected old-growth stands would reduce ladder fuels and reduce the probability of fire reaching the crowns of the large predominant trees and increase the probability of retaining existing viable hardwoods to retain vertical structure. Stands with old-growth characteristics would increase in the long-term (Figures 1-3).
Effects to Spotted Owl Nesting/Roosting (NR) and Foraging (F) Habitat______
Short-Term (<30 years) Alternative 3 would affect owl habitat in the short-term in four general ways: • Reduction in overall canopy closure: A moderate to dense canopy closure moderates environmental extremes (e.g., temperature, rain/snow fall, etc.). This effect is related to thinning, regeneration, and new road construction. • Simplification in vertical structure: Multiple canopy levels provided by understory conifers and hardwoods provide lower (cooler) roost sites in the hot summer months and provide perch sites for foraging and eating. This effect is related to thinning, regeneration, and new road construction. • Reduction in smaller diameter (<24” dbh) snags and logs: Snags can provide owl nest sites and both snags and logs provide habitat for owl prey species. Few large (>24”dbh) would be removed by the proposed fuels treatments. My experience suggests that spotted owls would not likely use snags less than 24”dbh for nest sites.
D-14 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix D (Part 1) - Biological Assessment – May 2006
• Reduction in potential nesting opportunities: Larger decadent (broken-topped) conifers and snags provide typical nest sites for spotted owls. This effect is related to regeneration, and new road construction (i.e., removal, see effects intensity below) within existing NR habitat. The proposed thinning and riparian prescriptions target larger conifers and snags for retention.
The proposed actions would affect approximately 545 acres of existing NRF habitat and 251 acres of connectivity habitat. Effects to existing NRF habitat are analyzed at four spatial scales (described above) and three categories of intensity (see below). Table 4 presents the amount (acres) of each habitat type that would be affected segregated by the intensity and spatial scales. Map 2 (as provided to FWSdisplays the proposed actions related to NRF habitat at the action area (and owl territory/home range) scale. Effects Intensity • Removed indicates the habitat would no longer function as LSOG at any level resulting from regeneration prescriptions and road construction. Long-term experience with similar treatments indicates that regenerated areas should recover to connectivity habitat conditions in roughly 35 to 40 years after the first commercial thinning. Foraging habitat and nesting/roosting habitat conditions should develop in roughly 80 years and 100+ years respectively. 2 acres high quality NR (4G) 15 acres moderate quality NR (3G) 10 acres F (3N)
• Downgraded indicates a temporary reduction (about 30 years) owl nesting/roosting habitat down to foraging habitat resulting from thinning prescriptions within existing moderate quality nesting/roosting habitat. There would be a reduction in overall canopy closure from and existing 70-90% down to approximately 40-60% and a reduction in smaller diameter (<19” diameter at breast height) recruitment snags and logs (live trees that will provide for snags and logs into the future). The retention of large predominant (legacy) conifers, larger snags (>19”) and viable hardwoods would maintain snags and decadent conifers large enough to provide owl nest sites and contribute to vertical structure. Visual estimates based upon field reviews indicate that the LRMP S&G of 1.5 snags and 5 tons of course woody material (i.e., logs) would be met at a 40-acre average. Thinning within existing owl foraging habitat would maintain foraging habitat conditions. 275 acres moderate quality NR (3G down to 3N)
• Degraded indicates some habitat components (e.g., smaller snags, canopy closure > 60%, and vertical structural complexity) may be somewhat reduced but the habitat would continue to function at the current level resulting from thinning within high quality NR (4G) and foraging habitat (3N) and riparian reserve prescriptions within NRF habitat. The retention of large predominant (legacy) conifers, larger snags (>19”) and viable hardwoods would maintain
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – D-15 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix D (Part 1) - Biological Assessment – May 2006
snags and decadent conifers large enough to provide owl nest sites and contribute to vertical structure. 59 acres high quality NR (4G) 22 acres moderate quality NR (3G) 162 acres F (3N)
Long-Term (>30 years) Effects to NRF Habitat The thinning (including riparian reserve) prescriptions within existing NRF habitat and other conifer stands not currently NRF (Map 3, as provided to FWS) would result in a net increase of forest stands with old-growth (NR) characteristics after about 30 years in all four landscapes analyzed (Figures 1- 3). For example, in approximately 30 years Alternative 3 would result in a net increase of old-growth to 12.25 percent of FFL in the watershed. Thirty years is used as a temporal timeframe because we expect the original canopy closure to be regained or exceeded by then within thinned areas. The proposed thinning within the overcrowded conifer stands would improve the health of these forest areas by making more water, nutrients, and sunlight and growing space available to the remaining trees (conifers as well as hardwoods). In addition, the smaller trees that would be removed act as fuel ladders because their crowns are closer to the ground and allow flames to move into the canopy that could lead to loss of NRF habitat. Long-term experience with thinning conifer stands indicates that within about 30 years the thinned (degraded) old-growth would have recovered and thinned late-successional stands (including stands that are currently below owl foraging habitat conditions) would have redeveloped a moderate to dense canopy closure. The conifers would have developed larger, fuller crowns with larger lateral branches. These trees would ultimately provide recruitment for larger snags and logs. Small diameter (<19” dbh) snags and logs would be rare because of the past removal of smaller diameter recruitment trees. Understory hardwoods would have persisted in the stands adding to vertical structural complexity. Most of the preexisting large snags and logs would still be present. NOTE: The decisions made in the Browns EIS at this time would not dictate ultimate stand development. We anticipate reevaluating the thinned stands in about 30 years.
D-16 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix D (Part 1) - Biological Assessment – May 2006
Table 4. Browns Project Alternative 3 effects (acres) to spotted owl habitat within the Weaverville 5th Field Watershed, the spotted owl “action area” and within the home range and territory of the one known owl activity center (state ID# TR150) that would experience effects to existing habitat.
Old-Growth Dense (3G) Late-Successional Mod. Dense (3N) (high quality NR (moderate quality NR habitat) Late-Successional habitat) (foraging habitat) Analysis Effects to Existing Acres Existing Acres Existing Acres Area Habitat Available Affected Available Affected Available Affected Habitat Habitat Habitat Watershed Removed 2,300 2 5,131 15 3,813 10 Downgraded 0 275 0 Degraded 59 22 162 TOTAL 61 312 172 Owl Action Removed 814 2 2,136 15 527 10 Area Downgraded 0 275 0 Degraded 59 22 162 TOTAL 61 312 172 Owl Home Removed 245 1 1,183 12 288 10 Range Downgraded 0 222 0 Degraded 26 18 162 TOTAL 27 252 172 Owl Territory Removed 138 0 315 3 18 0 Downgraded 0 88 4 Degraded 10 7 1 TOTAL 10 98 5
Figure 1. Current owl habitat conditions (Alternative 1, no action), conditions from just after implementing Alternative 3 through about 30 years and conditions after about 30 years within the Spotted Owl Action Area. We expect no significant changes in habitat conditions in 30+ years with Alternative 1.
Action Area 4,000 3,693 3,477 3,450 3,500 3,338
2,950 3,000 2,658
2,500 2,136 2,067 2,000 1,846 acres
1,500 1,271
1,000 814 812 792 527 500 355
0 High Quality NR (Old- Moderate Quality NR (Late- TOTAL NR Foraging (Late- TOTAL NRF (TOTAL LATE- Growth) Successional) Successional) SUCCESSIONAL & OLD- GROWTH)
Alt. 1 (no action) Alt. 3 (<30 years) Alt. 3 (after 30 years)
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – D-17 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix D (Part 1) - Biological Assessment – May 2006
Figure 2. Current owl habitat conditions (Alternative 1, no action), conditions from just after implementing Alternative 3 through about 30 years and conditions after about 30 years within the Spotted Owl Home Range (state ID TR150). We expect no significant changes in habitat conditions in 30+ years with Alternative 1.
Owl Home Range 2,000 1,776 1,800 1,716 1,660 1,693 1,600 1,428 1,400 1,183 1,193 1,200 1,014 949 1,000 acres 800 646 600 500
400 288 245 244 200 116
0 High Quality NR (Old- Moderate Quality NR (Late- TOTAL NR Foraging (Late- TOTAL NRF (TOTAL LATE- Growth) Successional) Successional) SUCCESSIONAL & OLD- GROWTH)
Alt. 1 (no action) Alt. 3 (<30 years) Alt. 3 (after 30 years)
Figure 3. Current owl habitat conditions (Alternative 1, no action), conditions from just after implementing Alternative 3 through about 30 years and conditions after about 30 years within the Spotted Owl Territory (state ID TR150). We expect no significant changes in habitat conditions in 30+ years with Alternative 1.
Owl Territory 600
521 508 500 471 468 453
400 362
315
300 270
acres 238 224
200 138 138 106 100
18 13 0 High Quality NR (Old- Moderate Quality NR (Late- TOTAL NR Foraging (Late- TOTAL NRF (TOTAL LATE- Growth) Successional) Successional) SUCCESSIONAL & OLD- GROWTH)
Alt. 1 (no action) Alt. 3 (<30 years) Alt. 3 (after 30 years)
D-18 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix D (Part 1) - Biological Assessment – May 2006
Competitors & Predators The probability of predation by great horned owls on spotted owls may be temporarily increased because thinning would provide more open stands that the larger, less maneuverable great horned owl prefers (USDI 1992a). West Nile Virus There is no known connection between WNV and forest management practices and there are no known cases of spotted owl mortality due to this disease at this time. Should WNV begin to impact owls in the area, the short-term negative effects related to this project may be compounded.
Cumulative Effects The 15% document (Attachment 1) presents an analysis of current forest conditions within the Weaverville Watershed (that encompasses the action area) and incorporates past actions that led to those conditions. Mid-mature conifer forest dominates Federal land within the roughly 16,266-acre action area because of historic timber harvest activities and fire. Over time, older conifer forest habitat within the action area will likely be restricted to Federal land (approximately 6,431 acres of NRF and potential/capable habitat). Existing non-conifer areas such as hardwood and shrub dominated habitats and riparian vegetation would remain largely intact on both federal and private lands. The action area includes approximately 8,400 acres of private property that is either intensively managed for timber production or is residential (including the town of Weaverville)(Map 1, as provided to FWS). The Browns RAC Categorical Exclusion (CE) Biological Assessment analyzed fuels treatments that lie adjacent to the treatment areas proposed in this EIS. The CE actions have been largely completed. The Red Bluff Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office received the Browns RAC BA on April 21, 2004 and we received the Biological Opinion on April 23, 2004 (refer to 1-12-2004-F-9). Similar fuel treatments are planned for the near future in the action area that would slightly degrade roughly 400 NRF acres.
VII. Determinations
Bald Eagle ______It is my determination that the proposed actions would have no effect on the bald eagle because eagles are not known nor expected to occur within or near the project area.
Northern Spotted Owl ______It is my determination that the proposed actions may affect and would likely adversely affect the northern spotted owl based upon the following rationale: Existing NRF habitat would be reduced, downgraded or degraded in the short-term. The amount and relative quality of NRF habitat would be increased in the long-term (roughly 30 years). Two potential owl pairs may be temporarily (<30 years) displaced. The probability of large-scale catastrophic loss of owl habitat due to fire would be
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – D-19 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix D (Part 1) - Biological Assessment – May 2006 reduced. Direct harm or disturbance to breeding activities would be avoided with the LOP. Road decommissioning/obliteration would reduce human (vehicle) disturbance in the action area.
Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat ______It is my determination that the proposed actions would have no affect designated spotted owl critical habitat because no designated critical habitat lies within areas proposed for treatment. It is my determination that the proposed actions would have no effect on the marbled murrelet or California red-legged frog because the project area lies well outside the known or expected ranges of these species.
Marbled Murrelet Critical Habitat ______It is my determination that the proposed actions would have no effect on designated marbled murrelet critical habitat because no designated critical habitat lies within areas proposed for treatment.
VIII. Management Recommendations None.
IX. Contributors
• Steve Graves, Fuels Officer, Trinity River Management Unit, Shasta-Trinity National Forest. • Loren Everest, Fishery Biologist, Trinity River Management Unit, Shasta-Trinity National Forest. • Sam Frink, Silviculturist, Trinity River Management Unit, Shasta-Trinity National Forests. • Dr. Danielle Chi, Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Red Bluff Field Office. • Kelly Wolcott, Forest Wildlife Biologist, Shasta-Trinity National Forest. • Laura Finley, Wildlife Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Yreka Field Office.
X. Literature
Anthony, R.G., R.L. Knight, G.T. Allen, B.R. McClelland and J.I. Hoges. 1992. Habitat use by nesting and roosting bald eagles in the Pacific Northwest. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Res. Conf. 68pp.
Courtney, S.P.; J.A. Blakesley; R.E. Bigly; M.L. Cody; J.P. Dumbacher; R.C. Fleischer; A.B. Franklin; J.F. Franklin; R.J. Gutierrez; J.M. Marzluff; and L. Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl. Sustainable Ecosystem Institute; Portland, Oregon.
Freel, M. 1991. A literature Review for the Management of the Marten and Fisher on National Forests in California. Unpublished document. USDA Forest Service, San Francisco, CA.
D-20 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix D (Part 1) - Biological Assessment – May 2006
Ralph, C. John; Hunt, George L., Jr.; Raphael, Martin G.; Piatt, John F., Technical Editors. 1995. Ecology and conservation of the Marbled Murrelet. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-152. Albany, CA; Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 420 p.
Thomas, J.W., E.D. Forsman, J.B. Lint, E.C. Meslow, B.R. Noon, and J. Verner. 1990. A Conservation Strategy for the Northern Spotted Owl. Interagency scientific committee to address the conservation of the northern spotted owl.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. 1991. Protocol for surveying for spotted owls in proposed management activity areas and habitat conservation areas, March 12, 1991.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995. Shasta-Trinity National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan. Shasta-Trinity National Forests, Redding CA.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Commerce, and the Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment. Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Environmental Protection Agency.
USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (Northwest Forest Plan). Portland, Oregon.
U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 173pp.
U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Availability of the draft recovery plan for the Shasta crayfish (Pacifastacus fortis) for review and comment. Federal Register Vol. 62, No. 189.
U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Final rule: endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of endangered status for the conservancy fairy shrimp, longhorn fairy shrimp, and the vernal pool tadpole shrimp; and threatened status for the vernal pool fairy shrimp. Federal Register 59:48136.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1992a. Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl. Final Draft. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Department of the Interior. 2 Volumes.
U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 163pp.
U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Recovery Plan for the valley elderberry longhorn beetle. Portland Oregon.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – D-21 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix D (Part 1) - Biological Assessment – May 2006
Attachment 1 ______
Biological Assessment for the
Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (Alternative 3)
15% Late-Successional and Old-Growth Retention Analysis and Recommendations for the Weaverville 5th Field Watershed
The distribution of old-growth stands throughout the landscape is an important component of ecosystem diversity, and plays a significant role in providing for biological and structural diversity across the landscape. (Record of Decision for the NW Forest Plan, page C-44)
Prepared by Thomas A. Quinn Date Wildlife Biologist Updated Trinity River Management Unit Shasta-Trinity National Forest
D-22 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix D (Part 1) - Biological Assessment – May 2006
Introduction This document presents my analysis of the current condition of late-successional and old-growth conifer habitat within the Weaverville 5th field watershed and recommendations for meeting and maintaining future options to meet the intent of the provide for retention of old-growth fragments in watersheds where little remains standard and guideline (S&G, ROD page C-44).
I used two GIS databases for this analysis: 1. I used the Shasta-Trinity Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) database (LMP-90 database) to assess Forest Service land within the watershed. I updated this database to reflect the affects of the Oregon Fire (late summer of 2001) using aerial photographs taken shortly after the fire. 2. I used the Remote Sensing Lab Database (RSL database) to assess Bureau of Land Management land within the watershed.
Intent of the S&G The intent of this standard and guideline is stated in the first paragraph of the S&G on page C-44 of the Record of Decision for the Northwest Forest Plan; e.g., to protect ecologically significant patches and fragments of old-growth habitat that provide refugia for old-growth associated species (memorandum from the Regional Ecosystem Office dated October 24, 1997). Our discretion to retain a variety of stand ages to meet the intent of the S&G should be applied before federal forest lands reach the 15 percent level of late-successional forest. Management discretion and options to select stands for retention and protection within a watershed only exist prior to late-successional forest reaching the 15 percent level. Old-growth stands would be retained and protected to meet the S&G in most instances; however, based on an assessment, younger (i.e., mature, late-successional) stands could be retained while older stands could be harvested (memorandum from the Regional Forester dated September 14, 1999).
Definitions & Assumptions • Federal Forest Land - Federal land that is now, or is capable of becoming, at least 10 percent stocked with forest trees (i.e., conifers) and that has not been developed for nontimber use. This acreage is the base (denominator) used to calculate the 15 percent retention S&G. Within the watershed I assume Forest Service land of the forest types (LMP-90 database “Vegtype1”) Douglas-fir, mixed conifer, ponderosa/Jeffrey pine, and white fir and Bureau of Land Management land Wildlife Habitat Relations vegetation types (RSL database “WHRTYPE”) Douglas-fir, Klamath mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, and montane hardwood/conifer qualify as Federal Forest Land. • Late-Successional Forest - Forest seral stages that include old-growth and mature age classes. Old-Growth – A forest stand usually at least 180-220 years old with moderate to high canopy closure; a multilayered, multispecies canopy dominated by large overstory trees; high incidence of large trees, some with broken tops and other indications of old and
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – D-23 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix D (Part 1) - Biological Assessment – May 2006
decaying wood; numerous snags; and heavy accumulations of wood, including large logs on the ground. Within the watershed I assume all size class 4 (or greater) stands with a canopy closure of G or N or canopy closure D or M are currently old-growth (LMP-90 database “Vegsize” and “Vegden”; RSL database “Vegsize” and “whrdensity”). Mature Stand – A mappable (>10 acres) stand of trees for which the annual rate of growth has peaked; generally greater than 80 years old but not yet old-growth. Mature stands generally contain trees with a smaller average diameter, less age class variation, and less structural complexity than old-growth stands of the same forest type. Within the watershed I assume all size class 3 stands are mature stands. Because the definition of “mature” does not include a canopy closure criterion, I include size class 4 stands with an S or P canopy as mature. Older mature stands with relatively high canopy closure (e.g., “Vegden” G or “whrdensity” D and to a lesser extent N or M) often provide suitable habitat for species associated with old-growth forests.
LMP-90 Database Assumptions The Shasta-Trinity Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) database (LMP-90 database) is the best existing and available tool for vegetative analysis of Forest Service land within an area as large as the Weaverville Watershed. Using this database to analyze existing vegetative conditions as they relate to LSOG ecosystems requires a number of basic assumptions that long-term local experience suggests are valid for analyses at this scale. The information available in the LMP-90 database represents aerial photo interpretation from 1975 photos. The interpretation was conducted with purely timber production interests in mind. In 1990 and 1992 the database was updated to include recent harvest units (i.e., plantations) and stand replacing fires. Stand attributes in the database (the codes included in the LMP-90 database are included in parentheses) I used to infer potential and existing late-successional forest conditions were: vegetation type (LMP-90 database Vegtype1), crown size (LMP-90 database Vegsize), canopy closure (Vegden). • Vegetation Type: I assume that within the Weaverville Watershed only "commercial conifer" types typically have the potential to provide habitat for species associated with old-growth conifer forests. That is to say, only these types move through the successional stages resembling those described on pages B-2 through B-4 in the ROD and develop LSOG stand structure and composition as described on page B-2 (and the Glossary) of the ROD. Within the watershed these types include Douglas-fir, mixed conifer, ponderosa/Jeffrey pine, and white fir. Nonconifer and noncommercial conifer types almost never achieve the size, canopy closure, or generally complex vertical structure associated with old-growth habitat. • Vegsize (crown diameter size class): I assume that the size classes included in the LMP-90 and RSL databases are a reasonable indicator of general stand age and their use is the only currently available tool for estimating seral stage development over large areas. I also use size classes as the major indicator of the level of decadence within stands (e.g., snags, logs, broken-top trees, etc.) since decadence is largely a function of stand age. That is to say, stands with larger trees are typically older than stands with smaller trees. Size class 4 (or greater) are
D-24 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix D (Part 1) - Biological Assessment – May 2006
typically old enough to have developed these attributes of old-growth conifer forests. Stands in size class 3 on sites highly capable of growing trees often are at least 21 inches dbh (diameter breast height) considering growth since 1975. Generally, if these stands are a result of natural regeneration (e.g., having developed after a stand replacing fire as opposed to past clearcutting) they include legacies from the previous stands (e.g., large trees, snags, logs, etc.) and likely provide at least some of the ecological roles of old-growth.
Crown Size Classes (both LMP-90 & RSL databases): 0 = shrub, forb, grass, noncommercial conifer, hardwood, and nonvegetated (no LSOG potential). 1 = 0-5 foot crown diameter, seedling sapling; stand establishment stage; includes most contemporary plantations. 2 = 6-12 foot crown diameter, poles; growth and maturation with little or no natural thinning; includes minor acreages of contemporary plantations. 3 = 13-24 foot crown diameter, small to medium timber; continued growth and maturation and beginning natural thinning (current mature forest). 4 or greater = >24 foot crown diameter, large sawtimber; transition stage (current old- growth forest).
• Vegden: Moderate to dense canopy closure is typical of LSOG in the Weaverville Watershed. Local experience strongly suggests that canopy closure classes N & G or M & D typify current LSOG habitat. These classes were originally assigned based on predominant crown cover of only commercial conifer overstory species. When the understory component is included along with 20 years of growth these two classes commonly have a total canopy closure above 60 percent. In addition, the understory increases the complexity of vertical structure (an important attribute of LSOG in the area). Infrequently, class P and S stands may also provide LSOG conditions but would require stand-by-stand field verification.
“Vegden” Canopy Closure Classes: S = <20% P = 20-39% N = 40-69% G = >70%
RSL Database Assumptions Existing vegetation coverages were produced by the USDA Forest Service Remote Sensing Lab according to Regional vegetation mapping standards (FGDC compliant at existing definitions). Existing vegetation layers are tiled by ecological section/subsection as defined by the Ecological Units of California (Goudey and Smith, 1994). Vegetation tiles are aggregated by vegetation zone defined within the original CALVEG document. A statewide tile coverage and a statewide vegetation zone coverage (caltile94_1, calzone98_2 ) are provided for spatial reference.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – D-25 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix D (Part 1) - Biological Assessment – May 2006
Questions concerning the data or method/s of capture should be directed to: USDA Forest Service Region 5 Remote Sensing Lab 1920 20th Street Sacramento, CA 95814
I applied the same general assumptions to the RSL database as used for the LMP-90 database. • whrtype: I used this field to query for Federal Forest Land. The Wildlife Habitat Relations vegetation types that typically achieve the size, canopy closure, or generally complex vertical structure associated with old-growth habitat within the Weaverville Watershed include: Douglas-fir, Klamath mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, and montane hardwood/conifer. These types thus qualify as Federal Forest Land. • Vegsize (crown diameter size class): I used this field to query for relative stand age. These size classes are the same as those described for the LMP-90 database. • whrdensity: For this analysis “whrdensity” classes were lumped in with the following LMP- 90 database “Vegden” classes.
“whrdensity” Canopy Closure Classes: S = 10-24% lumped in with LMP-90 class S for this analysis P = 25-39% lumped in with LMP-90 class P for this analysis M = 40-59% lumped in with LMP-90 class N for this analysis D = >60% lumped in with LMP-90 class G for this analysis
Relative LSOG Habitat Quality In general old-growth habitat quality can be listed from higher to lower quality as follows: RELATIVE OLD-GROWTH HABITAT QUALITY RELATED TO SIZE CLASS AND CANOPY CLOSURE
HIGH Moderate Low Marginal Potential Future
4G 4N 3G 3N 4P 3P 4S 3S remaining federal forest land
Current Conditions Current conditions are reported in LMP 90 database terminology. The Weaverville Watershed includes 20,533 acres of federal forest land (Figure 1). Table 1, Figure 2, and the attached map present the current conditions within the Weaverville Watershed related to size class and canopy closure. Old-growth (4N/G) comprises only 2,300 acres or roughly 11 percent of this land; the watershed is dominated by 12,937 acres of mature (i.e., late-successional) forest (63 percent of the federal forest land). Figure 3 displays the proportion of old-growth (4N/G), mature forest that has high enough canopy closure (i.e., G or N) to provide at least that aspect of old- growth habitat as well as the remaining federal forest land within the watershed.
D-26 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix D (Part 1) - Biological Assessment – May 2006
Table 5. Size Class and Canopy Closure distribution within the Weaverville 5th field watershed. Includes only federal land that is now, or is capable of becoming, at least 10 percent stocked with forest trees (i.e., conifers) and that has not been developed for nontimber use.
Size Canopy Closure Class G N P S Total >4 1,864 436 141 40 2,481 3 5,131 3,813 2,492 1,501 12,937 2 2,495 726 494 304 4,019 1 18 1,035 18 25 1,096
Figure 2. Weaverville 5th Field Watershed size class and canopy closure
14000 12000 10000 S 8000 P
acres 6000 N 4000 G 2000 0 4321 size class
Based upon a total of 20,533 "federal forest acres". *capable of growing to LSOG conditions
Figure 3. Weaverville 5th Field Watershed Late-Successional & Old-Growth (LS/OG)
High Quality LS/OG 2,300 acres 11%
Remaining Moderate Quality Federal LS/OG Forest Land 5,131 acres 9,289 acres 25% 45% LS/OG Relative Quality: High = 4G & 4N Low Quality Moderate = 3G LS/OG Low = 3N 3,813 acres 19%
Percentages based upon a total of 20,533 "federal forest acres".
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – D-27 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix D (Part 1) - Biological Assessment – May 2006
Recommendations At this time I recommend the following to meet the intent of the 15 percent retention standard and guideline and to maintain our options for meeting this S&G into the future within the Weaverville Watershed: • The GIS databases used for this analysis are an appropriate “coarse grain’ tools for landscape level (i.e., 5th field watershed) analyses. At the project level, individual stands proposed for treatment should be examined to determine what ecological role they are filling related to old-growth habitat. • Defer timber harvesting in all 4G and 4N stands (2,300 acres). These stands are likely the highest quality old-growth habitat and currently comprise only 11 percent of the watershed. Timber harvesting may become appropriate within these stands that lie within MATRIX when we can demonstrate that other 3G stands are meeting the ecological roles of old-growth habitat. • Prescriptions designed to reduce fuel ladders within 4G and 4N stands may be appropriate in strategically located areas where community fire protection is a concern. Prescriptions should be designed to maintain LSOG conditions to the extent practicable. For example Unit #3 in the Browns Integrated Project Area.
D-28 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix D (Part 2) - Biological Opinion – May 2006
Appendix D: (part 2): Biological Opinion for the Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (Alternative 3)
United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service – Pacific Southwest Region Trinity River Management Unit Shasta-Trinity National Forest Trinity County, California
Prepared by: Heidi E.D. Crowell U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Contact person, phone (530) 527-3043 Reviewed by: James G. Smith U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service June 7, 2005
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix D (Part 2) - Biological Opinion – May 2006
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest
Formal Consultation for the Browns Project (1-12-2005-F-12)
Shasta-Trinity National Forest Trinity River Management Unit
J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 1
BIOLOGICAL OPINION
Introduction
This document transmits the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) Biological Opinion (BO) based on our review of the proposed action and its effects on the northern spotted owl ( Strix occidentalis caurina ) in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
This Biological Opinion (BO) is based on information provided by the following: the Browns Project Biological Assessment (BA) (USDA Forest Service 2005); other documents as referenced; telephone and email correspondence, and a site visit to the project area. Additionally, this BO references information contained in the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994a), A Range-wide Baseline Summary and Evaluation of Data Collected Through Section 7 Consultation for the Northern Spotted Owl and its Critical Habitat: 1994- 2001 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2001), and updates to this report conducted as needed by the Service (most recent completed on December, 2004).
Consultation History
Northwest Forest Plan On October 8, 1993, the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior (Secretaries) initiated formal consultation on the preferred alternative (Alternative 9) in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Management for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (FSEIS) (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994b). On February 10, 1994, the Service issued a BO determining that implementation of the preferred alternative was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence or adversely modify critical habitat of any listed species. The Service rendered the BO on Alternative 9 based on the assumption that all proposed projects would be consistent with the Record of Decision (ROD), and noted that all proposed projects conducted pursuant to the FSEIS, that may affect listed species, would be submitted to the Service for section 7 consultation (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). On April 14, 1994, the Secretaries signed the ROD adopting an amended Alternative 9. The Service subsequently determined that because changes in the amended version of Alternative 9 - herein referred to as the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) - were relatively minor, re-initiation of consultation on the ROD was not required. However, the NWFP is programmatic in nature and did not address site-specific activities and their effects on listed species or their designated critical habitats. These specific assessments were deferred to future consultations in which more specific information on baseline conditions and proposed project actions could be incorporated.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan The Service followed up the NWFP range-wide consultation with a consultation addressing the Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 2
(USDA Forest Service 1995). The LRMP was prepared to guide natural resource management activities and establish management standards and guidelines for the STNF. On April 26,1995, the Service issued a BO determining that implementation of the LRMP was not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the northern spotted owl (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1995).
Level-One Coordination on the Browns Project Informal consultation with the Service was initiated in July, 2003. Site visits were made by Service and Forest personnel on July 30, 2003 and March 29, 2004. Several inter-agency meetings and numerous telephone conversations to discuss the project took place between April, 2004 and March, 2005. Early drafts of the BA for the Browns Project were provided by the Forest to the Service for review on July 2 and November 10, 2004, with comments returned by the Service within a week. The Service received the final draft BA on March 3, 2005 for review via email, with comments returned to the Forest on March 9, 2005. See Appendix A for a detailed account of the consultation history for the Browns Project.
The STNF is using a species list obtained from the Fish and Wildlife Service website (http://arcata.fws.gov/specieslist/speciesreport.asp) on February 24, 2005. The STNF has followed processes outlined in the Streamlined Consultation Process and the Service has provided technical expertise where appropriate. A complete administrative record of this consultation is available and on file at the Service’s Red Bluff Fish and Wildlife Office in Red Bluff, California.
J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Description of the Proposed Action ...... 5 1.1 Project Description...... 5 1.1.1 Mature Conifer Stand Thinning ...... 5 1.1.2 Group Regeneration Areas ...... 7 1.1.3 Road Construction/Reconstruction ...... 7 1.1.4 Temporary Road and Landing (Regeneration units) Rehabilitation ...... 7 1.1.5 Road Decommissioning/Obliteration ...... 7 1.1.6 Conservation Measures ...... 8 1.2 Definition of the Action Area ...... 8 2 Status of the Species – Northern Spotted Owl ...... 9 2.1 Legal Status...... 9 2.2 Life History...... 9 2.2.1 Physical Description ...... 9 2.2.2 Current and Historical Range ...... 9 2.2.3 Behavior ...... 10 2.2.4 Habitat Relationships ...... 10 2.2.5 Reproductive Biology ...... 12 2.2.6 Dispersal Biology ...... 12 2.2.7 Food Habits ...... 13 2.2.8 Population Dynamics ...... 14 2.3 Threats...... 14 2.3.1 Reasons for Listing ...... 14 2.3.2 New Threats ...... 15 2.4 Conservation Needs of the Spotted Owl...... 19 2.5 Conservation Strategy...... 20 2.5.1 Federal Contribution to Recovery ...... 20 2.5.2 Conservation Efforts on Non-Federal Lands ...... 21 2.6 Current Condition ...... 22 2.6.1 Range-wide Habitat and Population Trends ...... 22 3 Environmental Baseline for the Browns Project ...... 26 3.1 Conservation Needs of the Northern Spotted Owl in the Action Area...... 26 3.2 Current condition – Habitat and Population Trends in the Action Area...... 26 3.2.1 Habitat Trends ...... 26 3.2.2 Spotted Owl Numbers, Distribution, and Reproduction Trends ...... 26 4 Effects of the Browns Project ...... 27 4.1 Habitat Modification...... 27 4.1.1 Scientific Basis for Effects ...... 27 4.1.2 Habitat Modification Related Effects of the Browns Project ...... 29 4.2 Disturbance ...... 31 4.2.1 Scientific Basis ...... 31 4.2.2 Disturbance-Related Effects Resulting from the Browns Project ...... 32 4.3 Direct Injury or Mortality ...... 32 4.3.1 Scientific Basis ...... 32 4.3.2 Direct Injury or Mortality Related to the Browns Project ...... 33 J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 4
5 Cumulative Effects of the Browns Project ...... 33 6 Conclusion ...... 33
INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT ...... 35 1 Introduction ...... 35 2 Amount or Extent of The: Northern Spotted Owl ...... 35 3 Effect of the Take ...... 36 4 Reasonable and Prudent Measures ...... 36 5 Terms and Conditions ...... 36 6 Monitoring Requirements ...... 36 7 Reporting Requirements ...... 37 8 Coordination of Incidental Take with Other Laws, Regulations, and Policies ...... 37
CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 37
RE-INITIATION - CLOSING STATEMENT ...... 38
LITERATURE CITED ...... 39
APPENDIX A . Detailed Account of the Consultation History for the Browns Project...... 50
APPENDIX B. Summary of Timber Stand and Activity Fuels Treatments for the Browns Project...... 51
APPENDIX C. Shasta-Trinity Timber and Successional Strata Definitions...... 52
APPENDIX D . Tables and Figure for the Northern Spotted Owl Status of the Species. ... 53 J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 5
1 Description of the Proposed Action
1.1 Project Description The Browns Project is located northwest of Weaverville in Trinity County, California (see Figure 1). This area occurs within the Weaverville 5 th Field Watershed and the California Klamath physiographic province – Eastern Klamath ecozone. The legal locations fall in the Mt. Diablo Meridian within two townships: T34N, R10W, Sections 23 and 24; and, T23N, R9W, Sections 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, and 34. The Browns Project area lies within the Hayfork Adaptive Management Area which serves a role in the overall strategy for maintaining viable populations of species associated with late-successional and old-growth (LSOG) forest ecosystems (as described in the FSEIS, subsequent ROD, and the NWFP). As such, this area serves to provide connectivity between large areas set aside for LSOG species. Approximately 755 acres of designated northern spotted owl critical habitat unit CA-33 (which largely overlays with Late-Successional Reserve RC-334 (Clear Creek)) occur within the action area (see Figure 2). However, none of the proposed actions would occur within the critical habitat unit or the late-successional reserve.
The Trinity River Management Unit is proposing to conduct the Browns Project for the following purposes:
• Improve the resilience and sustainability of the forest; • Conserve priority watersheds, species, and biodiversity; • Reduce wildland fire costs, losses, and damages; • Ensure public and firefighter safety as best as possible; and, • Maintain or improve water quality for anadromous fish habitat and as a domestic water supply to Weaverville
The existing condition class (representing relative risk of intense resource damage from fire) is “Class 3 – relatively high risk” with a lesser portion of “Class 2 – moderate risk”. The Forest’s desired condition as a result of this project is to move these areas toward “Class 1 – low relative risk”.
1.1.1 Mature Conifer Stand Thinning The project area encompasses 754 acres of mature conifer stands that would be thinned to levels to maintain and enhance growth and vigor of conifer species. However, large predominant conifers 1, snags, and hardwoods would remain in place to provide for wildlife habitat needs. Trees to be removed would be the least vigorous individuals in suppressed, intermediate, and occasionally the codominant crown positions. A combination of activity fuels and natural fuels treatments would follow tree thinning to ensure an improved fuels condition class. Table 1 in the associated BA and Appendix B in this document (and Table 1 in the BA) outlines timber stand and activity fuels treatments per acre, to include yarding, lop and scatter, pile/burn, broadcast burning, dozer lines, and hand lines. Residual crown closure would be 40 to 50 percent in areas with leave trees averaging 24 inches dbh, and 60 to 80 percent in areas with trees over
1 Predominant conifers are often defined as “legacy trees” that survived the past stand-replacing event (e.g., fire). In the Browns Project area, these trees are generally greater than 40 inches diameter at breast height. J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 6
Figure 1. Project and Action area for the Browns Project, Trinity River Management Unit, Shasta-Trinity National Forest.
J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 7
24 inches dbh. Thinning in the smaller diameter stands would be more aggressive due to smaller conifers responding faster to having increased site resources (e.g., water) available. Additionally, stand densities in riparian reserves would be maintained at a minimum 60 percent canopy closure regardless of tree size.
1.1.2 Group Regeneration Areas Approximately 39 acres of stands with heavy fuel loadings would be harvested/cleared using a combination of cable and tractor yarding systems, followed by a variety of activity fuels treatments (see Appendix B). These harvest units are located in stands that are currently understocked and where cable harvesting impacts to proposed thinning stands are expected to be greatest. Additionally, these areas would provide landings for handling and storing the fuel material from treatment activities. Following thinning and fuel treatments, these areas would be decompacted 2 and planted with conifers.
1.1.3 Road Construction/Reconstruction Access to intermediate harvest areas would require approximately 4.6 miles of road construction, 3.6 miles of road reconstruction, and 3.7 miles of temporary road development. Road reconstruction would involve a combination of blading, rocking, or culvert replacement within the confines of the existing disturbed roadbed. Temporary roads would lie within the proposed thinning units with the precise location determined by the sale administrator. Additionally, temporary roads would not cross drainages or Riparian Reserves and would be rehabilitated (see section 1.1.4) after use.
1.1.4 Temporary Road and Landing (Regeneration units) Rehabilitation Rehabilitation of temporary roads and landing sites is proposed to minimize potential for erosion and to improve site productivity. The “regeneration units” will be subsoiled to a minimum depth of 18 inches when the ground surface is dry to loosen the soil and to attain a permeable soil condition where runoff would not occur. Waterbarring of skid trails would be avoided except on steep sections where there is potential for surface runoff prior to revegetation. Additionally, access to temporary roads would be blocked following subsoiling to prevent further use or damage.
1.1.5 Road Decommissioning/Obliteration Road decommissioning or obliteration is proposed for approximately 32 miles of existing classified and unclassified roads. This portion of the proposed action is planned to specifically improve water quality using money generated by KV (i.e., funds generated by fuel sold as part of the proposed action), Forest Service engineering and watershed restoration projects, and non- Forest Service sources (e.g., water quality grants). Road decommissioning includes removing culverts, ripping and outsloping road surfaces, and tank trapping. The condition of these decommissioned roads would be monitored long-term to ensure that erosion and mass failure do not occur.
2 Soil areas used as landings would be decompacted to improve water infiltration, reduce surface runoff, and improve site conditions for growing vegetation. Decompacting involves use of either a ripper (i.e., steel tines that dig into a the ground) or a bladed subsoiler (i.e., tines with “wings” that lift and break up the compacted ground) pulled behind a tractor or dozer. J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 8
1.1.6 Conservation Measures The following interdependent actions will be included in the project design to reduce or avoid impacts to forest resources and wildlife issues: o Limited Operating Periods (LOPs) would be implemented to avoid direct adverse impacts to northern spotted owls. All noise- and smoke-generating activities would be prohibited within ¼ mile of suitable nesting/roosting habitat between February 1 and July 10. Additionally, all vegetation removal, cutting, or burning would be prohibited through September 15 within suitable nesting/roosting habitat. An LOP may be lifted if specific areas are not occupied by breeding owls as shown through surveys conducted using currently acceptable protocols and mutual consent of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Forest Service. o Existing large (i.e., greater than 19 inches diameter at breast height) snags and downed logs would be retained within thinning units. Any snags felled for safety reasons would be left on site as downed woody debris. o An average of 5 tons of logs per acre would be maintained within the project area. o All hardwoods that have a reasonable chance of surviving and thriving following stand treatments would be retained. o Riparian Reserves of intermittent and ephemeral streams that display annual scour would have a minimum 150 foot buffer 3 based on the average maximum height of 200-year-old trees for the site. o Thinning would occur in Riparian Reserves up to the inner gorge (or to 50 feet from the defined channel if no inner gorge exists) to enhance timber stand health and treat hazardous fuels. Both thinning and fuels treatements would not reduce crown cover below 60 percent in Riparian Reserves.
1.2 Definition of the Action Area The project action area is defined as all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action, including interrelated and interdependent actions, and not merely the immediate area involved in the action (50 CFR §402.02). The action area for the Browns Project includes all lands within a 1.3-mile radius of the project site (i.e., 16,266 total acres (See Maps 1 and 2 in BA). These Federal acres fall south of the Clear Creek LSR, which largely overlays designated spotted owl critical habitat unit CA-33. Approximately 755 acres of critical habitat unit CA-33 lie within the action area, although no actions are proposed to occur within this unit or the Clear Creek LSR. Additionally, the Clear Creek LSR currently harbors “less than desirable habitat conditions”, as it was found to not likely support 20 pairs of owls due to current habitat conditions (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2000). As such, areas adjacent to this LSR may be important for maintaining owl populations.
3 Unit 13 has one inner gorge greater than 150 feet from the defined channel that would require a buffer greater tha 150 feet in width. J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 9
2 Status of the Species 4 – Northern Spotted Owl
2.1 Legal Status The spotted owl was listed as threatened on June 26, 1990. It was listed due to widespread habitat loss across the entirety of its range and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to provide for its conservation (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1990b).
2.2 Life History The spotted owl is one of three subspecies of spotted owls currently recognized by the American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU) and is typically associated with old-growth forested habitats throughout the Pacific Northwest (AOU 1957). The taxonomic separation of these three subspecies is supported by genetic (Barrowclough and Gutiérrez 1990), morphological (Gutiérrez et al. 1995) and biogeographic information (Barrowclough and Gutiérrez 1990). More detailed accounts of the taxonomy, ecology, and reproductive characteristics of the spotted owl are found in the 1987 and 1990 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Status Reviews (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1987, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1990a), the 1989 Status Review Supplement (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1989), the Interagency Scientific Committee (ISC) Report (Thomas et al. 1990), the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) Report (Thomas and Raphael 1993), final rule designating the spotted owl as a threatened species (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1990b), and Scientific Evaluation of the Status of the Northern Spotted Owl (Courtney et al. 2004).
2.2.1 Physical Description The spotted owl is a medium-sized owl, approximately 46-48 cm in length and weighs approximately 490-850 g (Gutiérrez et al. 1995) and is the largest of the three subspecies (Gutiérrez et al. 1995). It is dark brown with a barred tail and white spots on the head and breast, and has dark brown eyes that are surrounded by prominent facial disks. Three age classes can be distinguished on the basis of plumage characteristics (Forsman 1981, Moen et al. 1991). The spotted owl superficially resembles the barred owl ( Strix varia ), a species with which it occasionally hybridizes (Kelly et al. 2003). Hybrids exhibit characteristics of both species (Hamer et al. 1994).
2.2.2 Current and Historical Range The current range and distribution of the spotted owl extends from southern British Columbia through western Washington, Oregon, and California, as far south as Marin County (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1990a). The southeastern boundary of its range is the Pit River area of Shasta County, California. The range of the spotted owl is partitioned into 12 physiographic provinces (provinces), based upon recognized landscape subdivisions exhibiting different physical and environmental features (Thomas et al. 1993). These provinces are distributed across the range as follows: 4 provinces in Washington (Washington Cascades East, Olympic Peninsula, Washington Cascades West, Western Lowlands); 5 provinces in Oregon (Oregon Coast Range, Willamette Valley, Oregon Cascades West, Oregon Cascades East, Klamath Mountains); and 3 provinces in California (California Coast, California Klamath, California Cascades). Although the current range of the spotted owl is similar to its historical range where forested habitat still exists (the distribution is relatively contiguous, but influenced by the natural
4 The Status of the Species report was last updated by the Coordination Team January 5, 2005. J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 10 insularity of habitat patches within geographic province, and by natural and man-caused fragmentation of vegetation), the spotted owl is extirpated or uncommon in certain areas (e.g., southwestern Washington). Timber harvest activities have eliminated, reduced or fragmented spotted owl habitat sufficiently to decrease overall population densities across its range, particularly within the coastal provinces where habitat reduction has been concentrated (Thomas and Raphael 1993).
2.2.3 Behavior Spotted owls are territorial. However, the fact that home ranges of adjacent pairs overlap (Forsman et al. 1984, Solis and Gutiérrez 1990) suggests that the area defended is smaller than the areas used for foraging. Territorial defense is primarily effected by hooting, barking and whistle type calls.
Spotted owls are monogamous and usually form long-term pair bonds. “Divorces” occur but are relatively uncommon. There are no known examples of polygyny in this owl, although associations of three or more birds have been reported (Gutiérrez et al. 1995).
2.2.4 Habitat Relationships 2.2.4.1 Home Range. Spotted owl home range size varies by province. Home range generally increases from south to north, which is likely in response to decreasing habitat quality (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1990a). Home range size was linked to habitat type, availability, and abundance of prey (Zabel et al. 1995).
Based on available radio-telemetry data (Thomas et al. 1990), the Service estimated median annual home range size for the spotted owl by province throughout the range of the spotted owl. Because the actual configuration of the home range is rarely known, the estimated home range of a spotted owl pair is represented by a circle centered upon a spotted owl activity center, with an area approximating the provincial median annual home range. For example, estimated home range area varies from 3,340 acres (based on a 1.3-mile radius area) in California to 14,271 acres (based on a 2.7-mile radius circle) in Washington. The Service uses a 0.7-mile radius circle (984 acres) to delineate the area most heavily used (core area) by spotted owls during the nesting season. Spotted owls in northern California focused their activities in core areas that ranged from about 167 to 454 acres, with a mean of about 409 acres; approximately half the area of the 0.7-mile radius circle (Bingham and Noon 1997). Spotted owls maintain smaller home ranges during the breeding season and often dramatically increase their home range size during fall and winter (Forsman et al. 1984, Sisco 1990).
Although differences exist in natural stand characteristics that influence provincial home range size, habitat loss and forest fragmentation caused by timber harvest effectively reduce habitat quality in the home range. A reduction in the amount of suitable habitat reduces spotted owl abundance and nesting success (Bart and Forsman 1992, Bart 1995).
2.2.4.2 Habitat Use. Forsman et al. (1984) report that spotted owls have been observed in the following forest types: Douglas-fir ( Pseudotsuga menziesii ), western hemlock ( Tsuga heterophylla ), grand fir ( Abies grandis ), white fir ( Abies concolor ), ponderosa pine ( Pinus ponderosa ), Shasta red fir ( Abies magnifica shastensis ), mixed evergreen, mixed conifer J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 11 hardwood (Klamath montane) and redwood ( Sequoia sempervirens ). Use of these types coincides with appropriate forest structure (see below). In parts of the Oregon Coast Range, spotted owls have been recorded in pure hardwood stands. In California spotted owls are found from near sea level in coastal forests to approximately 2130 m in the Cascades (Gutiérrez 1996). The upper elevation limits at which spotted owls occur decrease gradually with increasing latitude in Oregon and Washington. In all areas, the upper elevation limit at which spotted owls occur correspond to the transition to subalpine forest, which is characterized by relatively simple structure and sever winter weather (Gutiérrez 1996).
Roost sites selected by spotted owls have more complex vegetation structure than forests generally available to them (Barrows and Barrows 1978, Forsman et al. 1984, Solis and Gutiérrez 1990). These habitats are usually multi-layered forests having high canopy closure and large diameter trees in the overstory.
Spotted owls nest almost exclusively in trees. Like roosts, nest sites are found in forests having complex structure dominated by large diameter trees (Forsman et al. 1984, Hershey et al. 1998). Even in forests that have been previously logged, spotted owls select forests having a structure (i.e., larger trees, greater canopy closure) different than forests generally available to them (Folliard 1993, Buchanan et al. 1995, Hershey et al. 1998).
Foraging habitat is the most variable of all habitats used by territorial spotted owls (Thomas et al. 1990). Descriptions of foraging habitat have ranged from complex structure (Solis and Gutiérrez 1990) to forests with lower canopy closure and smaller trees than forests containing nests or roosts (Gutiérrez 1996).
2.2.4.3 Habitat Selection. Spotted owls generally rely on older forested habitats because they contain the structures and characteristics required for nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal. These characteristics of older forests include the following: a multi-layered, multi-species canopy dominated by large overstory trees; moderate to high canopy closure; a high incidence of trees with large cavities and other types of deformities; numerous large snags; an abundance of large, dead wood on the ground; and open space within and below the upper canopy for spotted owls to fly (Thomas et al. 1990, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1990a). Forested stands with high canopy closure also provide thermal cover (Weathers et al. 2001), as well as protection from predation. Recent landscape-level analyses suggest that a mosaic of late-successional habitat interspersed with other vegetation types may benefit spotted owls more than large, homogeneous expanses of older forests (Zabel et al. 2003, Franklin et al. 2000, Meyer et al. 1998). In redwood forests along the coast range of California, spotted owls may be found in younger forest stands with structural characteristics of older forests (Thomas et al. 1990). However, spotted owls do not generally appear to select for stands of intermediate or younger ages (Solis and Gutiérrez 1990).
In mixed conifer forests of the Eastern Cascades, Washington, 27 percent of nest sites were in old-growth forests, 57 percent in the understory reinitiation phase of stand development, and 17 percent in the stem exclusion phase (Buchanan et al. 1995). In the Western Cascades, Oregon, 50 percent of spotted owl nests were in late-seral/old-growth stands (> 80-yrs-old) and none were found in stands less than 40-yrs-old (Irwin et al. 2000). J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 12
Ward (1990) found spotted owls foraged in areas that had lower variance in prey densities (prey were more predictable in occurrence) within older forests and near ecotones of old forest and brush seral stages. Zabel et al. (1995) showed that spotted owl home ranges are larger where flying squirrels ( Glaucomys sabrinus ) are the predominant prey and, conversely, are smaller where woodrats ( Neotoma spp .) are the predominant prey.
In the Western Washington Cascades, spotted owls used mature/old forests dominated by trees greater than 50 cm diameter at breast height (dbh) with greater than 60 percent canopy closure more often than expected for roosting during the non-breeding season and used young forest (trees 20-50 cm dbh with > 60% canopy closure) less often than expected based on availability (Herter et al. 2002).
2.2.5 Reproductive Biology Spotted owls exhibit high adult annual survival rates and are relatively long-lived (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1992b). Spotted owls do not typically reach sexual maturity until after 2 years (Thomas et al. 1990). Once an adult, females lay an average of 2 eggs per clutch (range 1- 4 eggs), although specific spotted owl pairs do not typically nest every year, nor are nesting pairs successful every year (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1990a). The small clutch size, temporal variability in nesting success, and somewhat delayed maturation all contribute to the relatively low fecundity of this species (Gutiérrez 1996).
Nest sites are usually located within stands of old-growth and late-successional forest dominated by Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii ), and they contain structures such as cavities, broken tree tops, or mistletoe ( Arceuthobium spp.) brooms (Forsman et al. 1984, Blakesley et al. 1992, LaHaye and Gutiérrez 1999). In general, courtship and nesting behavior begins in February to March with nesting occurring from March to June; however, timing of nesting and fledging varies with latitude and elevation (Forsman et al. 1984). After young fledge from the nest, they depend on their parents until they are able to fly and hunt on their own. Parental care continues post-fledging into September (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1990b), and sometimes into October (Forsman et al. 1984). During this time the adults may not roost with their young during the day, but they respond to begging vocalizations by bringing food to the young (Forsman et al. 1984).
Some spotted owls are not territorial but either remain as residents within the territory of a pair or move among territories (Gutiérrez 1996). These birds are referred to as “floaters.” Floaters have special significance in spotted owl populations because they may buffer the territorial population from decline (Franklin 1992). Little is known about floaters other than that they exist and typically do not respond to calls as vigorously as territorial birds (Gutiérrez 1996).
2.2.6 Dispersal Biology Natal dispersal of spotted owls from Oregon and Washington typically begins from mid- to late- September, and it is remarkably synchronous across broad areas (Forsman et al. 2002). When data from many dispersing spotted owls are pooled, the direction of dispersal away from the natal site appears random (Miller 1989, Ganey et al. 1998, Forsman et al. 2002). Dispersal direction from individual territories, however, may be non-random in response to the local distribution of habitat and topography (Forsman et al. 2002). Natal dispersal occurs in stages, J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 13 with juvenile spotted owls settling in temporary home ranges between bouts of dispersal (Forsman et al. 2002). Median natal dispersal distance is about 10 miles for males and 15.5 miles for females (Forsman et al. 2002, see also Miller 1989, Ganey et al. 1998). Successful dispersal of juvenile spotted owls may depend on their ability to locate unoccupied suitable habitat in close proximity to other occupied sites (Lahaye et al. 2001).
Breeding dispersal occurs among a small proportion of adult spotted owls; these movements were more frequent among females and unmated individuals (Forsman et al. 2002). Breeding dispersal distances were shorter than natal dispersal distances and also are apparently random in direction (Forsman et al. 2002).
Large non-forested valleys are apparent barriers to natal and breeding dispersal; forested foothills between valleys providing the only opportunities for dispersal (Forsman et al. 2002). The degree to which water bodies, such as the Columbia River and Puget Sound, function as barriers to dispersal is unclear. Analysis of genetic structure of spotted owl populations suggests adequate rates of gene flow may occur between the Olympic Mountains and Washington Cascades (across the Puget Trough) and between the Olympic Mountains and the Coast Range of Oregon (across the Columbia River) (Haig et al. 2001). Both telemetry and genetic studies indicate inbreeding is rare.
Dispersing juvenile spotted owls experience high mortality rates, exceeding 70 percent in some studies (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1990b, Miller 1989). Leading known causes of mortality are starvation, predation, and accidents (Miller 1989, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1990b, Forsman et al. 2002). Parasitic infection may contribute to these causes of mortality (Forsman et al. 2002). In a study on habitat use by dispersing juvenile spotted owls in the Oregon Coast Range, Klamath and Western Oregon Cascades Provinces (Miller et al. 1997), mature and old-growth forest was used slightly more than expected based on availability during the transience phase and nearly twice its availability during the colonization phase. Closed pole- sapling-sawtimber habitat was used roughly in proportion to availability in both phases; open sapling and clearcuts were used less than expected based on availability during colonization.
2.2.7 Food Habits Spotted owls are mostly nocturnal (Forsman et al. 1984), but they may forage opportunistically during the day (Laymon 1991, Sovern et al. 1994). Composition of prey in the spotted owl’s diet varies regionally, seasonally, annually, and locally, which is likely in response to prey availability (Laymon 1988, Duncan and Sidner 1990, Ganey 1992, Verner et al. 1992, Carey 1993, Ward and Block 1995, Forsman et al. 2001). Northern flying squirrels and woodrats are usually the predominant prey both in biomass and frequency (Barrows 1980; Forsman et al. 1984; Ward 1990; Bevis et al. 1997; Forsman et al. 2001, 2004) with a clear geographic pattern of diet, paralleling differences in habitat (Thomas et al. 1990). Northern flying squirrels are generally the dominant prey item in the more mesic Douglas-fir/western hemlock forests characteristic of the northern portion of the range, whereas woodrats are generally the dominant prey item in the drier mixed conifer/mixed evergreen forests typically found in the southern portion of the range (Forsman et al. 1984, Thomas et al. 1990, Ward et al. 1998, reviewed by Courtney et al. 2004). These prey items were found to be co-dominant in the southwest interior of Oregon (Forsman et al. 2001, 2004). J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 14
Other prey species (i.e., red tree vole [ Arborimus longicaudas ], red backed voles [ Clethrionomy s gapperi ], mice, rabbits and hares, birds, and insects) may be seasonally or locally important (reviewed by Courtney et al. 2004). For example, Rosenberg et al. (2003) showed a strong correlation between annual reproductive success of spotted owls (number of young per territory) and abundance of deer mice ( Peromyscus maniculatus ) (r 2 = 0.68), despite the fact they only made up 1.6 ±0.5 percent of the biomass consumed. However, it is unclear if the causative factor behind this correlation was prey abundance or a synergistic response to weather (Rosenberg et al. 2003). Nonetheless, spotted owls deliver larger prey to the nest and eat smaller food items to reduce foraging energy costs; therefore, the importance of smaller prey items, like Peromyscus , in the spotted owl diet should not be underestimated (Forsman et al. 1984, 2001, 2004).
2.2.8 Population Dynamics The spotted owl is a relatively long-lived organism; produces few, but large young; invests significantly in parental care; experiences later or delayed maturity; and exhibits high adult survivorship. The spotted owl’s long reproductive life span allows for some eventual recruitment of offspring, even if recruitment does not occur each year (Franklin et al. 2000).
Annual variation in population parameters for spotted owls has been linked to environmental influences at various life history stages (Franklin et al. 2000). In coniferous forests, mean fledgling production of the California spotted owl ( Strix occidentalis occidentalis ), another closely related subspecies, was higher when minimum spring temperatures were higher (North et al. 2000), a relationship that may be a function of increased prey availability. Across their range, spotted owls have previously shown a pattern of alternating years of high and low reproduction, with highest reproduction occurring during even-numbered years (e.g., Franklin et al. 1999). Annual variation in breeding may be related to weather conditions and fluctuation in prey abundance (Zabel et al. 1995).
A variety of factors may regulate spotted owl population levels. These factors may be density- dependent (e.g., habitat quality, habitat abundance) or density-independent (e.g., climate). Interactions may occur among factors. For example, as habitat quality decreases, density- independent factors may have more influence on variation in rate of population growth, which tends to increase variation in the rate of growth (Franklin et al. 2000). A consequence of this pattern is that at some point, lower habitat quality may cause the population to be unregulated and decline to extinction (Franklin et al. 2000).
2.3 Threats 2.3.1 Reasons for Listing The spotted owl was listed as threatened throughout its range “due to loss and adverse modification of suitable habitat as a result of timber harvesting and exacerbated by catastrophic events such as fire, volcanic eruption, and wind storms” (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1990a). More specifically, significant threats to the spotted owl included the following: low populations, declining populations, limited habitat, declining habitat, distribution of habitat or populations, isolation of provinces, predation and competition, lack of coordinated conservation measures, and vulnerability to natural disturbance (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1992b). These threats were characterized for each province as severe, moderate, low, or unknown. J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 15
Declining habitat was recognized as a severe or moderate threat to the spotted owl in all 12 provinces, isolation of provinces within 11 provinces, and declining populations in 10 provinces. Consequently, these three factors represented the greatest concern range-wide to the conservation of the spotted owl. Limited habitat was considered a severe or moderate threat in nine provinces, and low populations a severe or moderate concern in eight provinces, suggesting that these factors are a concern throughout the majority of the range. Vulnerability to natural disturbances was rated as low in five provinces. The degree to which predation and competition might pose a threat to the spotted owl was unknown in more provinces than any of the other threats, indicating a need for additional information. Few empirical studies exist to confirm that habitat fragmentation contributes to increased levels of predation on spotted owls. However, great horned owls ( Bubo virginianus ), an effective predator on spotted owls, are closely associated with fragmented forests, openings, and clearcuts (Johnson 1992, Laidig and Dobkin 1995). As mature forests are harvested, great horned owls may colonize fragmented forests, thereby increasing spotted owl vulnerability to predation.
2.3.2 New Threats At the time of listing there was recognition that catastrophic wildfire posed a threat to the spotted owl (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1990a). New information suggests that fire may be more of a threat than was previously thought. In particular, the rate of habitat loss in the relatively dry East Cascades and Klamath provinces has been greater than expected (see Habitat Trends). Furthermore, we now recognize that our ability to protect spotted owl habitat and viable populations of spotted owls from these large fires through risk-reduction endeavors is largely uncertain (Courtney et al. 2004).
Barred Owls Since listing of the spotted owl, new information suggests that hybridization with the barred owl is less of a threat (Kelly and Forsman 2004) and competition with the barred owl is a greater threat than previously anticipated (Courtney et al. 2004). Since 1990, the barred owl has expanded its range south into Marin County, California and the central Sierra Nevada Mountains, such that it is now roughly coincident with the range of the spotted owl (Courtney et al. 2004). Further, notwithstanding the likely bias in survey methods towards underestimating actual barred owl numbers (Courtney et al. 2004), barred owl populations appear to be increasing throughout the Pacific Northwest, particularly in Washington and Oregon (Zabel et al. 1996, Dark et al. 1998, Wiedemeier and Horton 2000, Kelly et al. 2003, Pearson and Livezey 2003, Anthony et al. 2004). Barred owl numbers now may exceed spotted owl numbers in the northern Washington Cascades (Kuntz and Christopherson 1996) and British Columbia (Dunbar et al. 1991) and appear to be approaching spotted owl numbers in several other areas (e.g., Redwood National and State Parks in California [Schmidt 2003]). Barred owl populations in the Pacific Northwest appear to be self-sustaining, based on current density estimates and apparent distribution (Courtney et al. 2004).
Barred owls apparently compete with spotted owls through a variety of mechanisms: prey overlap (Hamer et al. 2001), habitat overlap (Hamer et al. 1989, Dunbar et al. 1991, Herter and Hicks 2000, Pearson and Livezey 2003), and agonistic encounters (Leskiw and Gutiérrez 1998, Pearson and Livezey 2003). New information on encounters between barred owls and spotted owls comes primarily from anecdotal reports which corroborate initial observations that barred J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 16 owls react more aggressively towards spotted owls than the reverse (Courtney et al. 2004). There is also limited circumstantial evidence of barred owl predation on spotted owls (Leskiw and Gutiérrez 1998, Johnston 2002). Information collected to date indicates that encounters between these two species tend to be agonistic in nature, and that the outcome is unlikely to favor the spotted owl (Courtney et al. 2004).
Although barred owls were initially thought to be more closely associated with early successional forests than spotted owls (Hamer 1988, Iverson 1993), recent studies indicate that barred owls are capable of utilizing a broader range of habitat types relative to spotted owls (Courtney et al. 2004). The only study comparing spotted owl and barred owl food habits in the Pacific Northwest indicated that barred owl diets overlapped strongly (>75 percent) with spotted owl diets (Hamer et al. 2001). However, barred owl diets were also more diverse than spotted owl diets, including species associated with riparian and other moist habitats, as well more terrestrial and diurnal species.
Evidence that barred owls are causing the displacement of spotted owls is largely indirect, based primarily on retrospective examination of long-term data collected on spotted owls. Correlations between local spotted owl declines and barred owl increases have been noted in the northern Washington Cascades (Kuntz and Christopherson 1996, Herter and Hicks 2000, Pearson and Livezey 2003), on the Olympic peninsula (Wiedemeier and Horton 2000; Gremel 2000, 2003), in the southern Oregon Cascades (e.g., Crater Lake National Park [Johnston 2002]), and in the coastal redwood zone in California (e.g., Redwood National and State Parks [Schmidt 2003]). Spotted owl occupancy was significantly lower in spotted owl territories where barred owls were detected within 0.8 km (0.5 mi) of the spotted owl territory center than in spotted owl territories where no barred owls were detected (Kelly et al. 2003). Kelly et al. (2003) also found that in spotted owl territories where barred owls were detected, spotted owl occupancy was significantly lower ( P < 0.001) after barred owls were detected within 0.8 km of the territory center; occupancy was “only marginally lower” ( P = 0.06) if barred owls were located more than 0.8 km from spotted owl territory centers. In the Roseburg study area, 46 percent of spotted owls moved more than 0.8 km, and 39 percent of spotted owls were not relocated again in at least 2 years after barred owls were detected within 0.8 km of the territory center. Observations provided by Gremel (2000) from the Olympic National Park are consistent with those of Kelly et al. (2003); he documented significant displacement of spotted owls following barred owl detections “coupled with elevational changes of northern spotted owl sites on the east side of the Park” (Courtney et al. 2004). Pearson and Livezey (2003) reported similar findings on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest where unoccupied spotted owl sites were characterized by significantly more barred owl sites within 0.8-km, 1.6-km, and 2.9-km from the territory center than in occupied spotted owl sites.
At two study areas in Washington, investigators found relatively high numbers of territories previously occupied by spotted owls that are now apparently not occupied by either spotted or barred owls (e.g., 49 of 107 territories in the Cascades [Herter and Hicks 2000]; 23 of 33 territories in the Olympic Experimental State Forest [Wiedemeier and Horton 2000]). Given that habitat was still present in these vacant territories, some factor(s) may be reducing habitat suitability or local abundance of both species. For example, weather conditions could cause prolonged declines in abundance of both species (Franklin et al. 2000). Because spotted owls J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 17 have been anecdotally reported to give fewer vocalizations when barred owls are present, it is possible that these supposed vacant territories are still occupied by spotted owls that do not respond to surveys. Likewise, survey protocols for spotted owls are believed to under-detect barred owls (Courtney et al. 2004). Thus, some proportion of seemingly vacant territories may be an artifact of reduced detection probability of the survey protocol. Nonetheless, previously occupied territories apparently vacant of both Strix species suggests that factors other than barred owls alone are contributing to declines in spotted owl abundance and territorial occupancy (Courtney et al. 2004).
Two studies (Kelly 2001, Anthony et al. 2004) attempted to determine whether barred owls affected fecundity of spotted owls in the long-term demographic study areas. Neither study was able to clearly do so, although the Wenatchee and Olympic demographic study areas showed possible effects (Anthony et al. 2004). However, both studies described the shortfalls of their methods to adequately test for this effect. Iverson (2004) reported no effect of barred owl presence on spotted owl reproduction, but his results could have been influenced by small sample size (Livezey in review ). Barred owls had a negative effect on spotted owl survival on the Wenatchee and Olympic study areas and possibly an effect on the Cle Elum study area (Anthony et al. 2004). Olson et al. ( in press ) found a significant (but weak) negative effect of barred owl presence on spotted owl reproductive output but not on survival at the Roseburg study area (Courtney et al. 2004).
Regarding interactions between barred and spotted owls, the uncertainties associated with methods, analyses, and possible confounding factors (e.g., effects of past habitat loss, weather) warrant caution in interpretation of the patterns emerging from the data and information collected to date (Courtney et al. 2004). Further, data are currently lacking that would allow accurate prediction of how barred owls will affect spotted owls in the southern, more xeric, portion of the range (i.e., California and Oregon Klamath regions). In spite of these uncertainties, the preponderance of the evidence gathered thus far is consistent with the hypothesis that barred owls are playing some role in spotted owl population decline, particularly in Washington and portions of Oregon and the northern coast of California (Courtney et al. 2004).
Courtney et al. (2004) compared the size differences between barred owls and spotted owls in the Pacific Northwest to size ratios of coexisting Strix owl species, including that of the Mexican spotted owl ( Strix occidentalis lucida ) and the barred owl in the southwest U.S. and Mexico. This analysis was conducted to explore the potential for eventual coexistence of, or niche partitioning by, barred owls and spotted owls based primarily on differences in size. Results of this analysis indicated that the difference in size between the spotted owl and barred owl in the Pacific Northwest was only 17.5 percent, lower than ratios calculated for all other assemblages examined. The SEI panel concluded that this difference may be too slight to permit “coexistence by dint of size and size-related ecology alone” (Courtney et al. 2004).
Wildfire At the time of listing there was recognition that catastrophic wildfire posed a threat to the spotted owl (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1990a). New information suggests fire may be more of a threat than previously thought. In particular, the rate of habitat loss in the relatively dry East J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 18
Cascades and Klamath provinces has been greater than expected (see Habitat Trends). Furthermore, we now recognize that our ability to protect spotted owl habitat and viable populations of spotted owls from these large fires through risk-reduction endeavors is largely uncertain (Courtney et al. 2004).
In 1994, the Hatchery Complex wildfires burned 17,603 ha in the Wenatchee National Forest, eastern Cascades, Washington, affecting six spotted owl activity centers (Gaines et al. 1997). Spotted owl habitat within a 2.9 km radii of the activity centers was reduced by 8 to 45 percent (mean = 31%) due to direct effects of the fire and by 10 to 85 percent (mean = 55%) due to delayed mortality of fire-damaged trees and insect caused tree mortality. Spotted owl habitat loss was greater on mid to upper slopes (especially south-facing) than within riparian areas or on benches (Gaines et al. 1997). Direct mortality of spotted owls was assumed to have occurred at one site. Data were too sparse for reliable comparisons of site occupancy or reproductive output between sites affected by the fires and other sites on the Wenatchee National Forest.
Two wildfires burned in the Yakama Indian Reservation, eastern Cascades, Washington, in 1994, affecting home ranges of two radio-tagged spotted owls (King et al. 1997). Although the amount of home ranges burned was not quantified, spotted owls were observed using areas that received low and medium intensity burning. No direct mortality of spotted owls was observed even though thick smoke covered several spotted owl site centers for a week.
West Nile Virus West Nile virus (WNV) has been identified as a potential threat of unknown magnitude to the spotted owl (Courtney et al. 2004). WNV has killed millions of wild birds in North America since it arrived in 1999 (McLean et al. 2001, Caffrey 2003, Marra et al. 2004). Mosquitoes are the primary carriers (vectors) of the virus that causes encephalitis in humans, horses, and birds. Mammalian prey may also play a role in spreading WNV among predators, like spotted owls. Owls and other predators of mice can contract the disease by eating infected prey (Garmendia et al. 2000, Komar et al. 2001). Recent tests of tree squirrels (which includes flying squirrels) from Los Angeles County, California, found over 70 percent were positive for WNV (R. Carney, pers. comm. 2004, cited in Courtney et al. 2004). One captive spotted owl in Ontario, Canada, is known to have contracted WNV and died.
Health officials expect that WNV will eventually spread throughout the range of the spotted owl (Courtney et al. 2004), but it is unknown how WNV will ultimately affect spotted owl populations. Susceptibility to infection and mortality rates of infected individuals vary among bird species, even within groups (Courtney et al. 2004). Owls appear to be quite susceptible. For example, breeding screech owls ( Megascops asio ) in Ohio experienced 100 percent mortality (T. Grubb, pers. comm., cited in Courtney et al. 2004). Barred owls, in contrast, showed lower susceptibility (B. Hunter, pers. comm., cited in Courtney et al. 2004). Some level of innate resistance may occur (Fitzgerald et al. 2003), which could explain observations in several species of markedly lower mortality in the second year of exposure to WNV (Caffrey and Peterson 2003). Wild birds also develop resistance to WNV through immune responses (Deubel et al. 2001). The effects of WNV on bird populations at a regional scale have not been large, even for susceptible species (Caffrey and Peterson 2003), perhaps due to the short-term and patchy J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 19 distribution of mortality (K. McGowan, pers. comm., cited in Courtney et al. 2004) or annual changes in vector abundance and distribution.
Courtney et al. (2004) offer competing propositions for the likely outcome of spotted owl populations being infected by WNV. One proposition is that spotted owls can tolerate severe, short-term population reductions due to WNV, because spotted owl populations are widely distributed and number in the several hundreds to thousands. An alternative proposition is that WNV will cause unsustainable mortality, due to the frequency and/or magnitude of infection, thereby resulting in long-term population declines and extirpation from parts of the spotted owl’s current range.
Sudden Oak Death Sudden oak death was recently identified as a potential threat to the spotted owl (Courtney et al. 2004). This disease is caused by the fungus-like pathogen, Phytopthora ramorum, that was recently introduced from Europe and is rapidly spreading. At the present time, sudden oak death is found in natural stands from Monterey to Humboldt Counties, California, and has reached epidemic proportions in oak ( Quercus spp.) and tanoak ( Lithocarpus densiflorus ) forests along approximately 300 km of the central and northern California coast (Rizzo et al. 2002). It has also been found near Brookings, Oregon, killing tanoak and causing dieback of closely associated wild rhododendron ( Rhododendron spp.) and evergreen huckleberry ( Vaccinium ovatum ) (Goheen et al. 2002). It has been found in several different forest types and at elevations from sea level to over 800 m. It poses a threat of uncertain proportion because of its potential impact on forest dynamics and alteration of key habitat components (i.e., hardwood trees); especially in the southern portion of the spotted owl’s range (Courtney et al. 2004).
Inbreeding Depression, Genetic Isolation, and Reduced Genetic Diversity Inbreeding and other genetic problems due to small population sizes were not considered an imminent threat to the spotted owl at the time of listing. Recent studies show no indication of reduced genetic variation and past bottlenecks in Washington, Oregon, or California (Barrowclough et al. 1999, Haig et al. in press , Henke et al. unpublished ). However, in Canada, the breeding population is estimated to be less than 33 pairs and annual population decline may be as high as 35 percent (Harestad 2004). It is possible (but not necessarily the case) that the Canadian populations may be more adversely affected by issues related to small population size including inbreeding depression, genetic isolation, and reduced genetic diversity (Courtney et al. 2004). Low and persistently declining populations throughout the northern portion of the species range (see “Population Trends” below) may be at increased risk of losing genetic diversity.
2.4 Conservation Needs of the Spotted Owl The conservation needs of the spotted owl address three primary threats: declining populations, declining habitat, and isolation of provinces. These needs are centered on the following biological principles: 1) presence of large blocks of habitat to support clusters or local population centers of spotted owls (e.g., 15 to 20 breeding pairs); 2) habitat conditions and spacing between local populations of spotted owls to facilitate survival and movement; and 3) managing habitat across a variety of ecological conditions within the spotted owl’s range to reduce risk of local or widespread extirpation (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1992b).
J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 20
2.5 Conservation Strategy Since 1990, various efforts have addressed the conservation needs of the spotted owl and attempted to formulate conservation strategies based upon these needs. These efforts began with the ISC’s Conservation Strategy (Thomas et al. 1990); they continued with the designation of critical habitat (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1992a), the Draft Recovery Plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1992b), and the Scientific Analysis Team report (Thomas et al. 1993), report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (Thomas and Raphael 1993); and they culminated with the NWFP (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994a). Each conservation strategy was based upon the reserve design principles first articulated in the ISC’s report, which are summarized as follows.
1. Species that are well distributed across their range are less prone to extinction than species confined to small portions of their range.
2. Large blocks of habitat, containing multiple pairs of the species, are superior to small blocks of habitat with only one to a few pairs.
3. Blocks of habitat that are close together are better than blocks far apart.
4. Habitat that occurs in contiguous blocks is better than habitat that is more fragmented.
5. Habitat between blocks is more effective as dispersal habitat if it resembles suitable habitat.
2.5.1 Federal Contribution to Recovery The NWFP is the current conservation strategy for the spotted owl on Federal lands. It is designed around the conservation needs of the spotted owl and based upon the designation of a variety of land-use allocations whose objectives are either to provide for population clusters (i.e., demographic support) or to maintain connectivity between population clusters. Several land-use allocations are intended to contribute primarily to supporting population clusters: Late- Successional Reserves (LSRs), Managed Late-Successional Areas (MSLAs), Congressionally Reserved Areas (CRAs), Managed Pair Areas and Reserve Pair Areas. The remaining land-use allocations [Matrix, Adaptive Management Areas (AMAs), Riparian Reserves (RRs), Connectivity Blocks, and Administratively Withdrawn Areas (AWAs)] provide connectivity between habitat blocks intended for demographic support.
The range-wide system of LSRs set up under the NWFP captures the variety of ecological conditions within the 12 different provinces to which spotted owls are adapted. This design reduces the potential for extinction due to large catastrophic events in a single province. Multiple, large LSRs in each province reduce the potential that spotted owls will be extirpated in any individual province and reduce the potential that large wildfires or other events will eliminate all habitat within a LSR. In addition, LSRs are generally arranged and spaced so that spotted owls may disperse to two or more adjacent LSRs. This network of reserves reduces the likelihood that catastrophic events will impact habitat connectivity and population dynamics within and between provinces.
J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 21
Although FEMAT scientists predicted that spotted owl populations would decline in the Matrix over time, populations were expected to stabilize and eventually increase within LSRs, as habitat conditions improved over the next 50 to 100 years (Thomas and Raphael 1993, USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994a and 1994b).
2.5.2 Conservation Efforts on Non-Federal Lands FEMAT noted that limited Federal ownership in some areas constrained the ability to form an extensive reserve network to meet conservation needs of the spotted owl. Thus, non-Federal lands were an important contribution to the range-wide goal of achieving conservation and recovery of the spotted owl. The Service’s primary expectations for private lands are for their contributions to demographic support (pair or cluster protection) to and/or connectivity with NWFP lands. In addition, timber harvest within each state is governed by rules that may provide protection of spotted owls and/or their habitat to varying degrees.
Washington : In 1993, the State Forest Practices Board adopted rules (Forest Practices Board 1996) that would “contribute to conserving the spotted owl and its habitat on non-Federal lands” based on recommendations from a Science Advisory Group which identified important non-Federal lands and recommended roles for those lands in spotted owl conservation (Hanson et al. 1993, Buchanan et al. 1994). Spotted owl- related Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) in Washington generally provide both demographic and connectivity support as recommended in these reports and the draft recovery plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service1992b).
C Oregon : The Oregon Forest Practices Act provides for protection of 70-acre core areas around known spotted owl nest sites, but it does not provide for protection of spotted owl habitat beyond these areas (ODF 2000). In general, no large-scale spotted owl habitat protection strategy or mechanism currently exists for non-Federal lands in Oregon. The four spotted owl-related HCPs currently in effect address relatively few acres of land; however, they will provide some nesting habitat and connectivity over the next few decades.
C California : In 1990, State Forest Practice Rules (FPRs), which govern timber harvest on private lands, were amended to require surveys for spotted owls in suitable habitat and to provide protection around activity centers (CDF 2001). Under the FPRs, no timber harvest plan (THP) can be approved if it is likely to result in incidental take of Federally-listed species, unless authorized by a Federal HCP. The California Department of Fish and Game initially reviewed all THPs to ensure that take was not likely to occur; the Service took over that review function in 2000. Several large industrial owners operate under Spotted Owl Management Plans that have been reviewed by the Service; the plans specify basic measures for spotted owl protection. Three HCPs, authorizing take of spotted owls, have been approved. Implementation of these plans will provide for spotted owl demographic and connectivity support to NWFP lands. J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 22
2.6 Current Condition The current condition of the species incorporates the effects of all past human and natural activities or events that have led to the present-day status of the species and its habitat (USDI Fish and Wildlife and USDC National Marine Fisheries Service 1998).
2.6.1 Range-wide Habitat and Population Trends Habitat Trends. The Service has used information provided by the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Park Service to update the habitat baseline conditions on Federal lands for spotted owls on several occasions since the spotted owl was listed in 1990. The estimate of 7.4 million acres used for the NWFP in 1994 (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994a) was believed to be representative of the general amount of spotted owl habitat on these lands. This baseline was used to track relative changes over time in the subsequently defined analyses. The Service acknowledges that in 2005 a new definition of suitable spotted owl habitat has been proposed and mapped throughout the range of the spotted owl as a result of the NWFP’s effectiveness monitoring program (Davis and Lint, in press ). However, this new habitat map is not yet available for use in tracking individual actions; therefore, the following analyses indicate changes to the baseline condition established in 1994. Additionally, there are no reliable estimates of spotted owl habitat on other land ownerships; consequently, consulted-on acres can be tracked, but not evaluated in the context of change with respect to a reference condition on non-Federal lands.
Range-wide Analysis 1994 – 2001. In 2001, the Service conducted an assessment of habitat baseline conditions, the first since implementation of the NWFP (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2001). This range-wide evaluation of habitat, compared to the FSEIS, was necessary to determine if the rate of potential change to spotted owl habitat was consistent with the change anticipated in the NWFP. In particular, the Service considered habitat effects that were documented through the section 7 consultation process since 1994. In general, the analytical framework of these consultations focused on the reserve or connectivity goals established by the NWFP land-use allocations (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994a), with effects expressed in terms of changes in suitable spotted owl habitat within those land-use allocations. The Service determined that actions and effects were consistent with the expectations for implementation of the NWFP from 1994 to June, 2001 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2001).
Range-wide Analysis 1994 – 2004 (first decade of the NWFP). This section updates the information considered in USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (2001), relying particularly on information in documents the Service produced pursuant to section 7 of the Act and information provided by NWFP agencies on habitat loss resulting from natural events (e.g., fires, windthrow, insect and disease).
In 1994, about 7.4 million acres of suitable habitat were estimated to exist on Federal lands (Appendix D; Table 1). As of April 12, 2004, the Service had consulted on the proposed removal of 595,165 acres 5 of spotted owl habitat range-wide (Appendix D; Table 2), of which
5 This estimate includes values from NSO consultation effects tracker (database) as of 3/12/04 (-591,914 acres) and two other sources of information that had not yet been incorporated into the database: 1) updates to project effects reported by the agencies (+29,500 acres); and 2) effects authorized in the 1-15-03-F-511 BO (-32,751 acres). J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 23
189,855 acres 6 occurred on Federal lands managed under the NWFP (Appendix D; Tables 3 and 4). Federal lands were expected to experienced an approximate 2.6 percent decline in suitable habitat due to all management activities (not just timber harvest) over the past decade (based upon Table 4 in Appendix D), with about 167,134 acres 7 (approximately 2.3 percent) being removed from timber harvest (Appendix D; Table 1). These anticipated changes in suitable spotted owl habitat were consistent with the expectations for implementation of the NWFP.
Most management-related habitat loss was concentrated in the Oregon physiographic provinces (Appendix D; Tables 3 and 4). In particular, the percentage of habitat to be removed from the Oregon Klamath Mountains province was relatively high (approximately 10 percent) in comparison to other provinces, most of which were characterized by less than a 4 percent decrease in habitat (based on Table 4 in Appendix D). Habitat removed from the Oregon Klamath Mountains province and the two Oregon Cascades provinces made up 43 percent and 36 percent of the habitat loss range-wide, respectively, since 1994. In summary, habitat loss in Washington accounted for 9.22 percent of the range-wide loss, but it only resulted in a loss of 1.25 percent of available habitat on Federal lands in Washington (Appendix D; Table 3). In Oregon, habitat loss accounted for 74.32 percent of the range-wide losses, but only 3.65 percent of available habitat on Federal lands in Oregon. Loss of habitat on Federal lands in California accounted for 16.47 percent of the losses range-wide, but only 2.52 percent of habitat on Federal lands in California.
Since 1994, habitat lost due to natural events was estimated at approximately 168,301 acres range-wide (Appendix D; Table 4). About two-thirds of this loss was attributed to the Biscuit Fire that burned over 500,000 acres in southwest Oregon (Rogue River basin) and northern California in 2002. This fire resulted in a loss of approximately 113,451 acres of spotted owl habitat, including habitat within five LSRs.
There was little available information regarding spotted owl habitat trends on non-Federal lands. Yet, we do know that internal Service consultations conducted since 1992, have documented the eventual loss of 407,849 acres of habitat on non-Federal lands. Most of these losses have yet to be realized because they are part of large-scale, long-term HCPs.
Since this analysis for the first decade (1994 – 2004) of the NWFP was conducted, the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management have reported revised estimates of fire impacts and that not all proposed and consulted-on effects occurred on the landscape. Together these reports reduce the anticipated habitat loss since 1994. Therefore the analysis above represents a worst- case assessment. In addition, at the time of this assessment, we had no empirical information on increases in spotted owl habitat (on any ownership) resulting from habitat that had developed through vegetative succession (i.e., ingrowth). The revised 2005 baseline assessment indicates
6 This estimate includes values from NSO consultation effects tracker (database) as of 3/12/04 (-591,914 acres) and two other sources of information that had not yet been incorporated into the database: 1) updates to project effects reported by the agencies (+29,500 acres); and 2) effects authorized in the 1-15-03-F-511 BO (-32,751 acres). 7 Includes 164,134 acres as reported in Table 1 of the NSO consultation effects tracker as of 3/12/04 and 3,000 acres of the1-15-03-F-511 BO intended to occur during the first decade that had not yet been entered in the database.
J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 24 approximately 1 million acres of younger forests may have grew into suitable habitat since 1994 range-wide (Davis and Lint, in press ).
Range-wide Analysis from 2004 (first decade) to the Present This section updates the information considered in the first decade of the NWFP (April 13, 1994 – April 12, 2004) to the present writing of this Biological Opinion. In 1994, about 7.4 million acres of suitable habitat were estimated to exist on Federal lands (Appendix D; Table 1). As of April 12, 2004, the Service had consulted on the removal 595,165 acres of spotted owl habitat range-wide (Appendix D; Table 2), of which 189,855 acres occurred on Federal lands managed under the NWFP (Appendix D; Tables 3 and 4). From April 12, 2004, to the present, the Service has consulted on the removal or downgrading of 40,393 acres of spotted owl habitat range-wide on Federal lands managed under the NWFP (Appendix D; Table 5). This amount of habitat loss (1.3 percent) is consistent with the expectations for timber management under the NWFP for the second decade of implementation.
2.6.1.2 Spotted owl Numbers, Distribution, and Reproduction Trends . There are no estimates of the historical population size and distribution of the spotted owl within preferred habitat, although spotted owls are believed to have inhabited most old-growth forests throughout the Pacific Northwest prior to modern settlement (mid-1800s), including northwestern California (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1989). According to the final rule listing the spotted owl as threatened (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1990a), approximately 90 percent of the roughly 2,000 known spotted owl breeding pairs were located on Federally managed lands, 1.4 percent on State lands, and 6.2 percent on private lands; the percent of spotted owls on private lands in northern California was slightly higher (Forsman et al. 1984, USDA Forest Service 1988, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1989, Thomas et al. 1990).
Gutiérrez (1994), using data from 1986-1992, tallied 3,753 known pairs and 980 singles throughout the range of the spotted owl (Appendix D; Table 5). At the time the NWFP was initiated (July 1, 1994), there were 5,431 known locations of, or site centers of spotted owl pairs or resident singles: 851 sites (16 percent) in Washington, 2,893 (53 percent) in Oregon, and 1,687 (31 percent) in California (USDI 1995). The actual population of spotted owls across the range was believed to be larger than either of these counts because some areas were, and remain, unsurveyed (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1992b, Thomas et al. 1993).
Because existing survey coverage and effort are insufficient to produce reliable population estimates, researchers use other indices, such as demographic data, to evaluate trends in spotted owl populations. Analysis of demographic data can provide an estimate of the rate and direction of population growth [i.e., lambda ( λ)]. A λ of 1.0 indicates a stationary population (i.e., neither increasing nor decreasing), a λ less than 1.0 indicates a declining population, and a λ greater than 1.0 indicates a growing population.
In January 2004, at the spotted owl demographic meta-analysis workshop, two meta-analyses were conducted on the rate of population change using the reparameterized Jolly-Seber method (λRJS ); 1 meta-analysis for all 13 study areas and 1 meta-analysis for the 8 study areas that are part of the Effectiveness Monitoring Program of the NWFP (Anthony et al. 2004). Data were analyzed separately for individual study areas, as well as simultaneously across all study areas J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 25
(true meta-analysis). Estimates of λRJS ranged from 0.896-1.005 for the 13 study areas, and all but 1 (Tyee [TYE]) of the estimates were <1.0 suggesting population declines for most areas (Anthony et al. 2004) (Appendix D; Figure 1). There was strong evidence that populations on the Wenatchee (WEN), Cle Elum (CLE), Warm Springs (WSR), and Simpson (SIM) study areas declined during the study, and there also was evidence that populations on the RAI (Rainer), OLY (Olympic), COA (Oregon Coast Range), and HJA (HJ Andrews) study areas were decreasing (Appendix D; Figure 1). Precision of the λRJS estimates for RAI and OLY were poor and not sufficient to detect a difference from 1.00. However, the estimate of λRJS for RAI (0.896) was the lowest of all of the areas. Populations on TYE, KLA (Klamath), CAS (South Oregon Cascades), NWC (NW California), and HUP (Hoopa) appeared to be stationary during the study, but there was some evidence that the CAS, NWC, and HUP were declining ( λRJS <1.00). The weighted mean λRJS for all of the study areas was 0.963 (SE = 0.009, 95% CI = 0.945-0.981), suggesting that populations over all of the study areas were declining by about 3.7 percent per year from 1985-2003. The mean λRJS for the 8 demographic monitoring areas on Federal lands was 0.976 (SE = 0.007, 95% CI = 0.962-0.990) and 0.942 (SE = 0.016, 95% CI = 0.910-0.974) for non-Federal lands, an average of 2.4 versus 5.8 percent decline, respectively, per year. This suggests that spotted owl populations on Federal lands had better demographic rates than elsewhere, but interspersion of land ownership on the study areas confounds this analysis.
The number of populations that have declined and the rate at which they have declined are noteworthy, particularly the precipitous declines on the four Washington study areas (WEN, CLE, RAI, OLY) (estimated at 30 to 50 percent population decline over 10 years) and WSR in Oregon (Anthony et al. 2004). Declines in adult survival rates may be an important factor contributing to declining population trends. Survival rates declined over time on 5 of the 14 study areas: 4 study areas in Washington, which showed the sharpest declines, and 1 study area in the Klamath province of northwest California (Anthony et al. 2004). In Oregon, there were no time trends in apparent survival for four of six study areas, and remaining areas had weak non- linear trends. In California, two study areas showed no trend, one showed a slight decline, and one showed a significant linear decline (Anthony et al. 2004). Like the trends in annual rate of population change, trends in adult survival rate showed clear declines in some areas, but not in others.
British Columbia has a small population of spotted owls. This population is relatively isolated and is apparently declining sharply and is absent from large areas of apparently-suitable habitat (Courtney et al. 2004). Breeding populations have been estimated at fewer than 33 pairs and may be declining as much as 35 percent per year (Harestad et al. 2004). The amount of interaction between spotted owls in Canada and the U.S. is unknown (Courtney et al. 2004). The Canadian population has reached the point where it is now vulnerable to stochastic demographic events, that could cause further declines and perhaps extirpation and conditions are not likely to improve in the short term (Courtney et al. 2004, pgs. 3-26 to 3-27).
J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 26
3 Environmental Baseline for the Browns Project
The environmental baseline is an account of the effects of past and ongoing human and natural factors leading to the current status of the species, its habitat, and ecosystem within the action area (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service and USDC National Marine Fisheries Service 1998). The environmental baseline represents a “snapshot” in time of the current condition, and provides the context for the analysis of potential effects of the proposed action on the species. As stated in Section 1.2, the action area for the Browns Project consists of approximately 16,266 acres.
3.1 Conservation Needs of the Northern Spotted Owl in the Action Area The northern portion (i.e., approximately 755 acres) of the action area for the Browns Project fall within the Clear Creek LSR and critical habitat unit CA-33. As such, the LSR’s primary purpose with respect to conservation needs of the northern spotted owl is to provide for population clusters of spotted owls (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management1994a).
3.2 Current condition – Habitat and Population Trends in the Action Area 3.2.1 Habitat Trends For the purposes of this BO, the following habitat definitions apply (See Appendix C): high quality nesting/roosting (NR) habitat includes those stands that are classified as 4G and 4N; moderate quality NR refers to 3G stands; foraging (F) habitat refers to 3N stands; and, habitat that provides for dispersal only includes 4P/S stands.
The 16,266-acre action area includes approximately 2,950 acres of spotted owl NR habitat, 527 acres of F habitat, with approximately 2,954 acres of Forest Service land capable of growing to at least foraging habitat conditions (See Map 2 of BA). Additionally, approximately 8,400 acres of private land within the action area is either intensively managed for timber production or is residential, to include the city of Weaverville.
Habitat conditions on private property within the action area suggest that northern spotted owls could potentially use small pockets of habitat. However, information revealed in private timber harvest plans and discussions with Fish and Wildlife Service biologists suggest that the majority of areas considered suitable northern spotted owl habitat on private lands within the action area would most often barely qualify as connectivity habitat according to the definitions used in this BO and the associated BA.
3.2.2 Spotted Owl Numbers, Distribution, and Reproduction Trends Based on the BA, two owl activity centers overlap with the action area. However, one of these (i.e., TR395, last confirmed presence reported in 1998) was not analyzed by the Forest Service because only 2.7 acres of NR habitat would be slightly degraded approximately 1.25 miles from the activity center. Additionally, poor habitat conditions occur between the activity center and the proposed slightly degraded area. Therefore, if northern spotted owls still occupy the area, they likely do not use the habitat that is proposed for degradation. The other owl activity center (i.e., TR150, last confirmed presence reported in 1992) is surrounded on the north, east, and south by proposed stand treatments. However, no actions are proposed within the 138 acres of high-quality NR habitat that lies within the 0.7 mile buffer of the activity center territory (see Map 2 of BA). J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 27
No northern spotted owl surveys have been conducted for the Browns Project. Current habitat conditions, owl territoriality, and geographic and topographic features indicate that the action area could harbor one additional northern spotted owl pair, possibly utilizing a block of NR habitat that occurs at the northern boundary of the action area.
4 Effects of the Browns Project
This section presents an analysis of the direct and indirect effects of the Browns Project, including interrelated and interdependent actions, on the northern spotted owl. Implementation of the project as proposed in the BA will involve the following: timber harvest, fuels treatments, road management (i.e., construction, reconstruction, and obliteration/decommissioning), and temporary road and landing rehabilitation . The degree to which any of these activities affect the northern spotted owl is presented with respect to modification of suitable habitat, disturbance from human-generated noise, visual stimuli, smoke, and direct injury and/or mortality. Additionally, these effects are then discussed with respect to the conservation needs of the owl within the action area and within the larger conservation strategy established for the owl by the NFWP: 1) protection of large blocks of habitat to provide for clusters of breeding pairs of northern spotted owls; 2) distributed across a variety of ecological conditions; and, 3) connected by habitat within the intervening matrix to support survival and movement across the landscape between reserves.
4.1 Habitat Modification Forest management activities can modify suitable spotted owl habitat to varying degrees, leading to direct and indirect effects on spotted owls at both site-specific and more landscape-level scales as discussed below.
4.1.1 Scientific Basis for Effects 4.1.1.1 Site-Specific Effects. Forest management activities, whether intended to address silvicultural needs or to facilitate other actions (e.g., mining, recreation, etc.) have the potential to reduce availability of spotted owl nest and roost sites. As reported in Section 2.2.5, spotted owls do not construct their own nests, but depend upon existing structures such as cavities and broken tree tops, characteristics associated with stands in later seral stages of development. Silvicultural prescriptions (e.g., regeneration prescriptions) or management activities that specifically target the oldest, most decadent trees in the stand for economic purposes, or require removal of hazard trees and snags to address human safety concerns, are likely to result in loss of nesting opportunities for spotted owls by removing the trees that contain those structures (Blakesley et al. 1992). Further, prescriptions designed to reduce or remove ladder fuels or release co-dominant individuals can simplify vertical structure in the forest understory, where spotted owls perch for hunting or roosting (Forsman et al. 1984).
Intermediate timber harvest and fuels reduction activities can contribute to changes in structure, diversity, and habitat microclimate by reducing overall canopy closure within a stand. Northern spotted owls prefer to nest and roost in older forests (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1990b, Blakesley et al.1992) presumably because they provide protection under most weather conditions (Forsman et al. 1984, North et al. 2000). During periods of rain, snow, or cold, Forsman et al. (1984) found northern spotted owls roosting significantly higher in the forest overstory than J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 28 during hot weather, when northern spotted owls were commonly found roosting low in the forest understory. Weathers et al. 2001 documents physiological limitations that corroborate results of laboratory work and field studies which determined low heat tolerance of spotted owls compared to typical birds.
Various forestry activities that remove large trees, snags, and downed wood can affect prey composition and/or availability by altering characteristics of the habitat upon which prey species depend. Because the amount of standing dead (i.e., snags) and down material present on the forest floor is positively correlated with densities of some northern spotted owl prey species, removing these materials or temporarily disturbing material on the forest floor may contribute to declines in northern spotted owl prey, at least on a localized, short-term basis (Williams et al. 1992, Bevis et al. 1997). It may also be possible for prey species to be adversely affected by incidental loss of hardwoods, hazard trees, or snags during harvest. Because availability of large prey species, particularly dusky-footed woodrat and northern flying squirrels, has been shown to be important for spotted owl reproductive success (Barrows 1985, Zabel et al. 1995), activities that reduce prey populations could lower spotted owl recruitment and individual fitness.
4.1.1.2 Landscape-Scale Effects. Any individual or suite of site-specific effects discussed above could change the habitat function that a forested stand provides for owls. For the purpose of the following discussion, the degree of change to habitat function has been categorized using the following terms: removal, downgrade, and degrade. The term removal represents a complete loss of habitat function following an effect (i.e., an area that functioned as NR, F, or dispersal habitat for northern spotted owls before the effect, no longer provides any habitat function for spotted owls after the effect). Downgrade , a subset of the term removal , refers to a reduction in the function of habitat (i.e., an area that functioned as NR habitat before an effect, provides only F or dispersal habitat following the effect). This term could be used also to signify a change in function from foraging to dispersal as well. Degrade , to be distinguished from downgrade , indicates a reduction in habitat quality, but not habitat function following the effect (i.e., an area that functioned as F habitat prior to the effect, still provides such function after the effect, but perhaps is more limited due to a temporary reduction in prey base).
Landscape-level changes in habitat availability, distribution, and configuration have implications to individual spotted owl survival and productivity, as well as to spotted owl population dynamics. For example, removal or downgrading of habitat within home ranges, and especially close to the nest site, can be expected to have negative effects on northern spotted owls. Bart (1995) reported a linear reduction in northern spotted owl productivity and survivorship as the amount of suitable habitat within a spotted owl home range declined. In northwestern California, Franklin et al. (2000) found that survivorship of adult owls was greater where greater amounts of older forest were present around the activity center, but also found increased reproductive success where the amount of edge between older and younger forest was relatively high. Based on analysis of radio-telemetry data, Bingham and Noon (1997) reported that a sample of spotted owls in northern California focused their activities in heavily-used “core areas” that ranged in size from about 167 to 454 acres, with a mean of about 409 acres. These core areas, which included 60 to 70 percent of the owl telemetry locations during the breeding season, typically comprised only 20 percent of the area of the wider home range. These studies suggest that habitat removal within core areas could have disproportionately important effects on owls. Other J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 29 research has demonstrated that spotted owl abundance and productivity significantly decrease when the proportion of suitable habitat within 0.7 miles of an activity center falls below 500 acres (50 percent of the total 1,000 acres within 0.7 miles) (O’Halloran 1989, Simon-Jackson 1989, Thomas et al. 1990).
Timber harvest that produces relatively open stands ( less than 40 percent canopy closure) or patch clear-cuts can fragment forest stands, creating more forest edge, and reducing the area of interior old forest habitat (Lehmkuhl and Ruggiero 1991). Habitat fragmentation has the potential to isolate individual owls or populations of owls by increasing distances between suitable habitat patches and reducing habitat connectivity. Such isolation decreases the likelihood of successful dispersal of juvenile owls (Miller 1989), which in turn could reduce opportunities for genetic exchange between owl populations (Barrowclough and Coats 1985).
Currently there is little empirical data confirming that habitat fragmentation contributes to increased levels of predation on northern spotted owls. However, great horned owls ( Bubo virginianus ), an effective predator on spotted owls, are known to be closely associated with fragmented forest habitats (Johnson 1992). As mature forests are harvested, it is possible that great horned owls could colonize the fragmented forest and possibly increase spotted owl vulnerability to predation events.
4.1.2 Habitat Modification Related Effects of the Browns Project During implementation of the Browns Project, proposed regeneration prescriptions and road construction would result in the complete removal of 2 acres of high quality N/R habitat, 15 acres of moderate quality nesting/roosting habitat, and 10 acres of foraging habitat. Additionally, thinning prescriptions would result in 275 acres of moderate quality N/R habitat that would be downgraded to foraging habitat conditions. Consequently, the proposed action would significantly alter the stand structure and forest microclimate in the project area to the point that remaining vegetation will neither provide appropriate nest and roost sites in those areas, nor the sufficient thermal cover necessary to protect spotted owls from temperature extremes. In areas where habitat is removed, the stands may remain unsuitable for approximately 80 years for foraging habitat conditions and more than 100 years for N/R habitat conditions. In areas where habitat is downgraded to foraging conditions, there would be a reduction in overall canopy closure from the existing 70 to 90 percent down to approximately 40 to 60 percent canopy closure, and a reduction in smaller diameter (i.e., less than or equal to 19 inches diameter at breast height) recruitment snags and logs. The 2 acres of high quality N/R habitat and 15 acres of moderate quality N/R habitat that are proposed for removal occur within northern spotted owl activity center TR150. However, only 3 acres 8 of the moderate quality N/R habitat proposed for removal occur within the 0.7-mile spotted owl territory. No high quality N/R habitat is proposed for removal within the 0.7 mile territory of owl activity center TR150. A total of 244 acres of high quality N/R habitat would be present within the home range (i.e., 1.3 mile buffer around an activity center) post-implementation of the Proposed Action.
8 The 3 acres of moderate quality N/R habitat represent 1 percent of the total amount of available moderate quality N/R habitat within the activity center territory. Additionally, these 3 acres represent 0.6 percent of the total available high quality N/R habitat (i.e., 138 acres) and moderate quality N/R habitat (i.e., 315 acres) within the activity center territory. J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 30
Proposed actions for the Browns Project would result in temporary degradation of 59 acres of high quality old-growth habitat due to road construction and thinning prescriptions. Immediately following project implementation, high quality N/R habitat would comprise 10.19 percent of Federal Forest Service land in the Weaverville 5 th Field Watershed, which would result in a reduction of 1.01 percent from the current conditions 9. However, when moderate quality N/R habitat (i.e., 3N and 3G stands) 10 is included in this scenario, the watershed would contain well above 15 percent late-successional old growth habitat.
Overall short-term effects to northern spotted owl habitat would occur through reduction of overall canopy closure, simplification in vertical structure, a reduction in smaller diameter (i.e., less than 24 inches diameter at breast height) snags and logs, and a reduction in potential nesting opportunities. Proposed actions would affect a total of 545 acres of existing NRF habitat and 251 acres of connectivity habitat. Table 2 outlines effects to acres of northern spotted owl habitat within the Waverville 5 th Field Watershed, and the northern spotted owl activity center TR150 “action area”, home range, and territory.
Table 2. Browns Project Effects to acres of northern spotted owl N/R and F habitat within the Weaverville 5 th Field Watershed, project action area, and Activity Center TR150.
High Quality N/R Habitat Moderate Quality N/R Habitat Foraging Habitat (Old-Growth; 4G and 4N) (Dense late-successional; 3G) (Moderate Density late- successional; 3N) Analysis Effects to Existing Acres Existing Acres Affected Existing Acres Area Habitat Available Affected Available Available Affected Habitat Habitat Habitat Removed 2 15 10 Water- Downgraded 0 275 0 shed Degraded 59 22 162 TOTAL 2,300 61 5,131 312 3,813 172 Removed 2 15 10 Owl Downgraded 0 275 0 Action Degraded 59 22 162 Area TOTAL 814 61 2,136 312 527 172 Removed 1 12 10 Owl Downgraded 0 222 0 Home Degraded 26 18 162 Range TOTAL 245 27 1,183 252 288 172 Removed 0 3 0 Owl Downgraded 0 88 4 Territory Degraded 10 7 1 TOTAL 138 10 315 98 18 5
9 Current N/R habitat conditions within the Weaverville 5th Field Watershed constitute 11.20 percent of Federal Forest Service land. 10 A discussion of “high quality nesting/roosting habitat” versus “moderate quality nesting/roosting habitat” is provided in Attachment 1 of the Browns Project Biological Assessment (USDA Forest Service 2005). J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 31
Removal and downgrading of 277 acres of N/R habitat would increase the amount of edge along adjacent habitat and would slightly reduce habitat availability in the action area. However, a significant amount of suitable N/R habitat would remain intact within the watershed and activity center home range. The effects of the proposed project do constitute an adverse effect to the species because a primary threat to the northern spotted owl is loss of habitat (See section 2.3). Additionally, removal of habitat is expected to occur within the home range and territory of at least one known activity center. Although no northern spotted owls have been recently detected in the project area, implementation of the Browns Project could potentially displace at least two northern spotted owl pairs 11 . However, due to the limited amount of habitat to be removed in the action area (i.e., 27 acres of NRF habitat within a total available 3,477 acres on Federal property), the Service does not expect that this adverse effect will impede the ability of the action area to provide for the intended conservation needs of the owl.
Connectivity habitat within the Browns Project action area appears to be relatively discontinuous according to Forest Service reviews of aerial photographs, habitat mapping, and field visits (USDA Forest Service 2005). This is likely due to a combination of factors, to include intensely managed/harvested private timber industry land, private residential land, and naturally occurring harsh, sparsely vegetated areas. Additionally, an analysis of fire history in the area reveals that the 2001 Oregon fire removed approximately 240 acres of connectivity habitat approximately 3 miles east of the project area. Within the Browns Project area, only regeneration units and road construction would take existing connectivity habitat below 11-40 conditions. However, harvest units are small in size (i.e., 2 acres and approximately 200 feet at their widest) and impacts from road construction would be narrow (i.e., approximately 300 feet wide). Therefore, these impacts would likely not reduce the free movement of northern spotted owls through Forest Service lands within the action area. The proposed thinning prescriptions in mature conifer stands would ultimately produce net increase in high quality N/R habitat in the long-term (i.e., greater than or equal to 30 years; See Figures 1 through 3 in the BA). Unfortunately, existing residential property and removal of spotted owl habitat through continued timber harvesting practices on private property will continue to limit connectivity for northern spotted owls in the action area.
Additional potential adverse effects from competitors and predators may occur from the Browns Project as a result of proposed thinning activities and road construction (USDA Forest Service 2005). The probability of predation by great horned owls may be temporarily increased because thinning and road construction activities would provide more open stands (USDA Forest Service 2005). These open areas are more favorable to the larger, less maneuverable great horned owl.
4.2 Disturbance 4.2.1 Scientific Basis Removal of forested areas during thinning treatments, regeneration prescriptions, road construction, and road decommissioning would require use of heavy equipment, power tools, chainsaws, and large vehicles - all of which introduce an increased level of sound and human activity into the environment. The effect of sight- and sound-related disturbance on spotted owls is not well studied. Further, the effects of noise on birds can be difficult to establish due to difficulties associated with quantifying and qualifying characteristics of disturbance (i.e., type,
11 Two pairs of northern spotted owls are expected to be in the project area based on the known presence of at least one owl activity center, and based on the amount of additional unsurveyed high quality N/R habitat present. J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 32 frequency, proximity) and appropriate response variables (i.e., behavior, reproductive success, survival). Additional factors increase the complexity of evaluating effects of disturbance such as the individual bird’s tolerance level, ambient sound levels, physical parameters of sound and how it reacts with topographic characteristics and vegetation, and differences in how species perceive noise.
In spite of these challenges, research conducted on a variety of bird species does suggest that disturbance can have a negative impact on reproductive success (Tremblay and Ellison 1979, Anderson 1988, Belanger 1989, Piatt et al. 1990, Henson and Grant 1991). Such studies have shown that disturbance can affect productivity in a number of ways including: interference of courtship (Bednarz and Hayden 1988), nest abandonment (White and Thurow 1985), egg and hatchling mortality due to exposure and predation (Drent 1972, Swensen 1979), and altered parental care (Fyfe and Olendorrf 1976, Bortolotti et al. 1984). The few studies that have examined spotted owl responses to several types of disturbance (helicopters, small chainsaw, hikers) suggest that owl behavior can be disrupted by such stimuli as demonstrated by flushing, altered prey delivery rates, and decreased prey handling behavior (Delaney et al. 1999b, Delaney and Grubb 2001, Swarthout and Steidl 2001, Swarthout and Steidl 2003). Further, spotted owls do exhibit indicators of physiological stress (increased corticosteroids) under some environmental conditions (Wasser et al. 1997). However, not surprisingly, these studies also indicate that owl sensitivity varies with stimulus distance, location (aerial or ground), type, and timing, as well as individual tolerance ((Delaney et al. 1999b, Delaney and Grubb 2001, Swarthout and Steidl 2001, Swarthout and Steidl 2003, Tempel and Guitierrez 2003).
4.2.2 Disturbance-Related Effects Resulting from the Browns Project Although no northern spotted owls have been recently detected within the action area for the Browns Project, thorough protocol-level surveys have not been conducted throughout the area. Noise-related disturbance to any northern spotted owls present is very unlikely and thus discountable because a limited operating period (LOP) is proposed as part of the proposed action. The LOP would prohibit all activities that create loud noise or smoke (e.g., chainsaws, heavy equipment, etc.) within ¼ mile of spotted owl N/R habitat from February 1 through July 10, unless protocol surveys indicate that nesting owls are not present. With implementation of this LOP, adverse effects to owls resulting from continuous loud noise or smoke is very unlikely and thus discountable.
4.3 Direct Injury or Mortality 4.3.1 Scientific Basis Forest management activities can result in direct mortality of adults, eggs, or young. Such cases are rare, but direct mortality due to tree-felling has been documented (Forsman et al. 2002). The potential for northern spotted owls to be struck and killed or injured by falling trees during harvesting or exposed to high levels of smoke during prescribed burning is confined to the area relatively close to the nest tree. During timber harvest or prescribed burning, individual adult spotted owls can reasonably be expected to move from the area and avoid injury. However, nesting adult spotted owls tenaciously tending to reproductive activities such as incubation or brooding young may be reluctant to leave the area (Delaney et al. 1999a), and therefore may be vulnerable to such injury.
J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 33
Young-of-the-year, whether in or out of the nest, may also be vulnerable to the effects of tree falling or smoke inhalation, or might disperse prematurely in response to the disturbance and thus be subject to predation or starvation outside of the nest grove. Potential effects to eggs range from the implications of parental abandonment (Drent 1972, Swensen 1979, White and Thurow 1985) to destruction during tree falling. These types of direct effects are only likely in nesting/roosting habitat during the breeding season when active breeding activities are underway.
4.3.2 Direct Injury or Mortality Related to the Browns Project As stated in section 4.2.2, although no northern spotted owls have been recently detected within the action area for the Browns Project, thorough protocol-level surveys have not been conducted throughout the area. However, an LOP is included as project design criteria that prohibits all activities involving tree-felling or vegetation removal and/or modification in spotted owl N/R habitat from February 1 through September 15 unless protocol surveys indicate that nesting owls are not present (see Section 1.1.3). With implementation of this LOP, the likelihood of direct injury or mortality of owls is very unlikely and thus discountable.
5 Cumulative Effects of the Browns Project
Cumulative effects are those impacts of future State and private actions that are reasonably certain to occur within the area of the action subject to consultation. Future Federal actions will be subject to the consultation requirements established in section 7 of the Act and, therefore, are not considered cumulative to the proposed action.
Approximately 52 percent (i.e., approximately 8,400 acres of the 16,266 acre action area) of the land-base within the action area is under private ownership (see Map 1 and 2 in the BA). These areas are private property that is either intensively managed for timber production or is residential, including the city of Weaverville. There are no future Federal actions planned within the action area other than fuel treatments similar to the Browns RAC consultation (reference #1-12-2004-F-9) that was completed on April 23, 2004. However, any future fuel treatments would be evaluated at a later date should they be proposed. Consequently, cumulative effects of the Brown’s Project on the northern spotted owl are anticipated to be discountable.
6 Conclusion
Under Section 7(a)(2) of the Act, federal agencies must ensure that activities are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed species. Regulations implementing this section of the Act define “jeopardize the continued existence of” as: “to engage in an action that reasonably would be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of that species” (FR §402.02).
After reviewing the current status of the northern spotted owl, the environmental baseline, the effects of the Proposed Action, and the cumulative effects, it is the Service’s biological opinion that implementation of the Browns Project discussed herein is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the northern spotted owl. The Service reached this conclusion based on following factors: J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 34
1. Removal of 2 acres of high quality N/R habitat, 15 acres of moderate quality N/R habitat, and downgrading of 275 acres of moderate quality N/R habitat will not result in a significant decrease (i.e., only 9.9 percent) in habitat availability within the action area 12 , and thus is not anticipated to impair the ability of the action area to provide for owl populations. 2. Proposed habitat removal represents an insignificant decrease in suitable spotted owl habitat range-wide, and does not exceed the amount of suitable habitat expected to be harvested during the first decade of NWFP implementation (i.e., 196,000 acres).
The Browns Project is not anticipated to compromise the conservation and recovery strategy established by the NWFP, or contribute to an appreciable reduction in the likelihood of survival and recovery of the northern spotted owl in the wild by reducing the owl numbers, reproduction, or distribution.
12 A total of 2,950 acres of high and moderate quality N/R habitat exist within the Browns Project action area. High quality habitat constitutes 814 acres and moderate quality habitat constitutes 2,136 acres. J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 35
INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT
1 Introduction
Section 9 of the Act and Federal regulation pursuant to section 4(d) of the Act prohibit the taking of endangered and threatened species, respectively, without special exemption. Take is defined as harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Harm is further defined (50 CFR 17.3) by the Service to include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass is defined by the Service (50 CFR 17.3) as actions that create the likelihood of injury to a listed species by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Incidental take is defined as take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity. Under the terms of section 7(b)(4) and section 7(o)(2), taking that is incidental to and not intended as part of the agency action is not considered to be prohibited taking under the Act provided that such taking is in compliance with this Incidental Take Statement.
The measures described below are non-discretionary, and must be undertaken by the STNF so that they become binding conditions of any grant or permit issued to the (applicant), as appropriate, in order for the exemption in Section 7(o)(2) to apply. The STNF has a continuing duty to regulate the activity covered by this incidental take statement. If the STNF (1) fails to assume and implement the terms and conditions or (2) fails to require any contractors to adhere to the terms and conditions of the incidental take statement through enforceable terms that are added to the permit or grant document, the protective coverage of section 7(o)(2) may lapse. In order to monitor the impact of incidental take, the STNF must report the progress of the action and its impact on the species to the Service as specified in the incidental take statement [50CFR§402.14(I)(3)] .
2 Amount or Extent of Take: Northern Spotted Owl
As described in the Section 4 (Effects of the Action) of the BO, the Browns Project will remove and/or downgrade 292 acres of N/R habitat and 10 acres of F habitat. Because protocol-level surveys have not been conducted in the action area to determine an absence of owls, the Service anticipates that the proposed action could incidentally take northern spotted owls. Based upon the quality, quantity, and distribution of habitat within and adjacent to the project area, the Service estimates that the Browns Project area is likely to provide habitat for two pairs of northern spotted owls. Spotted owls within the project area will also experience an increase in predation risk by great horned owls following project completion due to the creation of more open stand conditions. Consequently, the Service authorizes incidental take in the form of harm or harassment of no more than two pairs of northern spotted owls associated with removal of 2 acres of high quality N/R habitat, removal of 15 acres of moderate quality N/R habitat, downgrading of 275 acres of moderate quality N/R habitat, and removal of 10 acres of F habitat. For the purposes of this Incidental Take Statement, the STNF should consider take exceeded if J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 36 more northern spotted owl habitat is removed or downgraded than what is indicated above. No direct take of owls during the breeding season is authorized.
Therefore, the requirements for exemption from the taking provisions of section 9 have been met. Any take of northern spotted owls resulting from incomplete compliance with measures described in the project description (Section 1.1) and management requirements is not covered by the exemption.
3 Effect of the Take
In the accompanying biological opinion, the Service determined that this level of anticipated take is not likely to result in jeopardy to the northern spotted owl.
4 Reasonable and Prudent Measures
Pursuant to 50 CFR 402.14 (I) (ii), reasonable and prudent measures are those the Service considers necessary to minimize the impact of the incidental taking. Impacts of the proposed action largely will be minimized by compliance with the NWFP and measures incorporated into the project design, as described in Section 1.1.6. Consequently, no reasonable and prudent measures are necessary.
5 Terms and Conditions
In order to be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of ESA, the Forest Service must comply with the following terms and conditions which implement the reasonable and prudent measures described above. These terms and conditions are nondiscretionary. As mentioned above, the Service considers the measures of the project as described to be sufficient to minimize take of northern spotted owls. Therefore, no terms and conditions are necessary other than those discussed under Monitoring Requirements below.
6 Monitoring Requirements
In order to monitor the impacts of incidental take, the Federal agency or any applicant MUST report the progress of the action and its impacts on the species to the Service as specified in the incidental take statement. The reporting requirements are established in accordance with 50 CFR 13.45 and 18.27 and specified as follows:
• Prior to January 31 st of each year for the duration of project implementation, the STNF will provide annual monitoring reports of the estimated take that may have occurred in relation to the amount of take that is identified in this Incidental Take Statement. The report must specify whether pre-project surveys were conducted and the results of those surveys. The Service will subtract from the habitat baselines all acres of northern spotted owl habitat identified to be removed in this BO, unless formally adjusted by the STNF in conjunction with the Service at a later date.
J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 37
7 Reporting Requirements
Any dead or injured northern spotted owls must be reported to the Service’s Law Enforcement Division (916- 979-2987) or the Red Bluff Fish and Wildlife Office as soon as possible, and turned over to the Law Enforcement Division or to a game warden or biologist of the California Department of Fish and Game for care or analysis. The Service is to be notified in writing within three working days of the accidental death of, or injury to, a northern spotted owl or of the finding of any dead or injured northern spotted owls during implementation of the proposed action. Notification must include the date, time, and location of the incident or discovery of a dead or injured northern spotted owl, as well as any pertinent information on circumstances surrounding the incident or discovery. The Service contact for this written information is the Project Leader for the Red Bluff Fish and Wildlife Office at (530) 527-3043.
8 Coordination of Incidental Take with Other Laws, Regulations, and Policies
The incidental take statement provided in this opinion satisfies the requirements of the Act. The Fish and Wildlife Service will not refer the incidental take of any migratory bird or bald eagle for prosecution under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712), or the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended (16 U.S.C.§§ 668-668d), if such take is in compliance with the terms and conditions (including amount and/or number) specified herein.
CONSERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS
Sections 2(c) and 7(a)(1) of the Act direct Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Regulations in 50 CFR S.402.02 define conservation recommendations as Service suggestions regarding discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, or regarding development of information.
The Service offers to the STNF the following conservation recommendations:
1) Conduct two-year protocol surveys for owls within the project area prior to project implementation to determine whether spotted owls are present.
2) Design future forest management activities to reduce incidental take of spotted owls and impacts to other listed species and their habitat through continued interagency cooperation and planning with the Service.
In order for the Service to be kept informed of actions minimizing or avoiding adverse effects, or benefiting listed species or their habitats, the Service requests notification of the implementation of these conservation recommendations. J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 38
RE-INITIATION - CLOSING STATEMENT
This concludes formal consultation on this action. As provided in 50 CFR § 402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required when discretionary Federal agency involvement or control over the action has been maintained (or is authorized by law) and if: (1) the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of the agency action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not considered in this opinion; (3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the listed species or critical habitat that was not considered in this opinion; or (4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action. In instances where the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded, any operations causing such take must cease pending reinitiation.
J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 39
LITERATURE CITED
American Ornithologists' Union. 1957. Check-list of North American Birds. Fifth Edition. American Ornithologists' Union, The Lord Baltimore Press, Baltimore, Maryland. Pages 285-286.
Anderson, D.W. 1988. Dose-response relationship between human disturbance and brown pelican breeding success. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:339-345.
Anthony, R.G., E.D. Forsman, A.B. Franklin, D.R. Anderson, K.P. Burnham, G.C. White, C.J. Schwarz, J. Nichols, J.E. Hines, G.S. Olson, S.H. Ackers, S. Andrews, B.L. Biswell, P.C. Carlson, L.V. Diller, K.M. Dugger, K.E. Fehring, T.L. Fleming, R.P. Gerhardt, S.A. Gremel, R.J. Gutiérrez, P.J. Happe, D.R. Herter, J.M. Higley, R.B. Horn, L.L. Irwin, P.J. Loschl, J.A. Reid, and S.G. Sovern. 2004. Status and trends in demography of northern spotted owls, 1985-2003. Final Report to the Interagency Regional Monitoring Program, Portland, Oregon. September 2004. 179pp.
Barrowclough, G.F., and S.L. Coats. 1985. The demography and population genetics of owls, with special reference to the conservation of the spotted owl ( Strix occidentalis ). Pages 74- 85 in Gutierrez et al. (Eds.) Ecology and management of the spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-185. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service.
Barrowclough, G. F. and R. J. Gutiérrez. 1990. Genetic variation and differentiation in the spotted owl. Auk 107:737-744.
Barrowclough, G.F., R.J. Gutiérrez, and J.G. Groth. 1999. Phylogeography of spotted owl ( Strix occidentalis ) populations based on mitochondrial DNA sequences; gene flow, genetic structure, and a novel biogeographic pattern. Evolution 53(3):919-931.
Barrows, C.C. 1980. Feeding ecology of the spotted owl in California. Journal of Raptor Research 14:73-77.
Barrows, C.W. 1985. Breeding success relative to fluctuations in diet for spotted owls in California. Pages 50-54 in Gutierrez et al. (Eds.) Ecology and management of the spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-185. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service.
Barrows, C. W., and K. Barrows. 1978. Roost characteristics and behavioral thermoregulation in the spotted owl. Western Birds 9:1-8.
Bart, J. 1995. Amount of suitable habitat and viability of northern spotted owls. Conservation Biology 9 (4):943-946.
J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 40
Bart, J. and E.D. Forsman. 1992. Dependence of Northern Spotted Owls, Strix occidentalis caurina , on Old-Growth Forests in the Western United States. Biological Conservation 62(2):95-100.
Bednarz, J.C., and T.J. Hayden. 1988. The Los Medanos Cooperative Raptor Research and Management Program. Final Report 1985-1987. Report for Department of Energy; USDI Bureau of Land Management; University of New Mexico. 112 pages.
Belanger, L., and J. Bedard. 1989. Response of staging snow geese to human disturbance. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:713-719.
Bevis, K.R., G.M. King, and E.E. Hanson. 1997. Spotted Owls And 1994 Fires On The Yakima Indian Reservation. Pages 117-22 in J.M. Greenlee, ed. Proceedings - Fire Effects on Rare and Endangered Species Habitats Conference, Nov 13-16, 1995. Coeur D'Alene, Idaho. International Association of Wildland Fire.
Bingham, B.B., and B.R. Noon. 1997. Mitigation of habitat “take”: Application to habitat conservation planning. Conservation Biology 11 (1):127-138.
Blakesley, J.A., Franklin, A.B., and R.J. Gutiérrez. 1992. Spotted owl roost and nest site selection in northwestern California. 1992. Journal of Wildlife Management, 56(2):388-392.
Bortolotti, G.R., J.M. Gerrard, P.N. Gerrard, and D.W.A. Whitfield. 1984. Minimizing investigator-induced disturbance to nesting bald eagles. Pages 85-103 in J.M. Gerrard and T.M. Ingram (Eds) The Bald Eagle in Canada. Proc. Bald Eagle Days, Winnipeg.
Buchanan, J., E. Hanson, D. Hays, and L. Young. 1994. An evaluation of the Washington Forest Practices Board Wildlife Committee preferred alternative for a spotted owl protection rule. Washington Forest Practices Board Spotted Owl Scientific Advisory Group. Olympia, Washington.
Buchanan, J.B., L.L. Irwin, and E.L. McCutchen. 1995. Within-stand nest site selection by spotted owls in the eastern Washington Cascades. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:301- 310.
Caffrey, C. 2003. Determining impacts of West Nile Virus on crows and other birds. American Birds (103rd Count) 57:12-13.
Caffrey, C. and C.C. Peterson. 2003. West Nile Virus may not be a conservation issue in northeastern United States. American Birds (103rd Count) 57:14-21.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF). 2001. California Forest Practices Rules: 2001. Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Chapters 4, 4.5, and 10. Sacramento, CA.
J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 41
Carey, A.B. 1993. Prey ecology and northern spotted owl diet. Abstract of presentation, Spotted Owl Symposium, annual meeting of the Raptor Research Foundation, Inc., Bellevue, Washington, November 11-15, 1992. Journal of Raptor Research 27(1):53-54.
Courtney, S.P., J.A. Blakesley, R.E. Bigley, M.L. Cody, J.P. Dumbacher, R.C. Fleischer, A.B. Franklin, J.F. Franklin, R.J. Gutiérrez, J.M. Marzluff, L. Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute. Portland, Oregon. September 2004.
Dark, S.J., R.J. Gutiérrez, and G.I. Gould, Jr. 1998. The barred owl ( Strix varia ) invasion in California. Auk 115(1):50-56.
Deubel, V., L. Fiette, P. Gounon, M.T. Drouet, H. Khun, M. Huerre, C. Banet, M. Malkinson, and P. Despres. 2001. Variations in biological features of West Nile viruses. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 951:195-206.
Delaney, D.K., and T.G. Grubb. 2001. Effects of off-highway vehicle noise on northern spotted owls: sound data results. A report to the Mendocino National Forest, Contract # 43-91Z9-0- 0055. Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Delaney, D.K., T.G. Grubb, and P. Beier. 1999a. Activity patterns of nesting Mexican spotted owls. Condor 101:42-49.
Delaney, D.K., T.G. Grubb, P. Beier, L.L. Pater, and M.H. Hildegard Reiser. 1999b. Effects of helicopter noise on Mexican spotted owls. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:60-76.
Drent, R. 1972. The natural history of incubation. Pages 262-311 in D.S. Farner (Ed) Breeding Biology of Bird. Washington, D.C. National Academy of Science.
Dunbar, D.L., B.P. Booth, E.D. Forsman, A.E. Hetherington, and D.J. Wilson. 1991. Status of the spotted owl, Strix occidentalis , and barred owl, Strix varia , in southwestern British Columbia. Canadian Field Naturalist 105:464-468.
Duncan, R.B. and R. Sidner. 1990. Bats in spotted owl pellets in southern Arizona. Great Basin Naturalist 50:197-200.
Fitzgerald, S.D., J.S. Patterson, M. Kiupel, H.A. Simmons, S.D. Grimes, C.F. Sarver, R.M. Fulton, B.A. Fulton, B.A. Steficek, T.M. Cooley, J.P. Massey, and J.G. Sikarskie. 2003. Clinical and pathological features of West Nile Virus infection in native North American owls (family Strigidae ). Avian Diseases 47:602-610.
Folliard, L. 1993. Nest site characteristics of northern spotted owls in managed forest of northwest California. M.S. Thesis. Univ. Idaho, Moscow, ID.
Forest Practices Board. 1996. Permanent rules for the northern spotted owl. Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia, Washington. J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 42
Forsman, E.D. 1976. A preliminary investigation of the spotted owl in Oregon. M.S. thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
Forsman, E.D. 1981. Molt of the spotted owl. Auk 98:735-742.
Forsman, E.D., Meslow, E.C., and H.M. Wight. 1984. Distribution and biology of the spotted owl in Oregon. Wildlife Monographs 87:1-64.
Forsman, E.D., I.A. Otto, S.G. Sovern, M. Taylor, D.W. Hays, H. Allen, S.L. Roberts, and D.E. Seaman. 2001. Spatial and temporal variation in diets of spotted owls in Washington. Journal of Raptor Research 35(2):141-150.
Forsman, E.D., Anthony, R.G., Reid, J.A., Loschl, P. J., Sovern, S.G., Taylor, M., Biswell, B.L., Ellingson, A., Meslow, E.C., Miller, G.S., Swindle, K.A., Thrailkill, J.A., Wagner, F.F., and D.E. Seaman. 2002. Natal and breeding dispersal of northern spotted owls. Wildlife Monographs, No. 149. 35pp.
Forsman, E.D., R.G. Anthony, E.C. Meslow, and C.J. Zabel. 2004. Diets and foraging behavior of northern spotted owls in Oregon. Journal of Raptor Research 38(3):214-230.
Franklin, A.B. 1992. Population regulation in northern spotted owls: theoretical implications for management. Pp 815-827 in D. R. McCullough and R. H. Barrett (eds.)., Wildlife 2001: populations. Elsevier Applied Sciences, London, England.
Franklin, A.B., K.P. Burnham, G.C. White, R.J. Anthony, E.D. Forsman, C. Sanchez, J.D. Nichols and J. Hines. 1999. Range-wide status and trends in northern spotted owl populations. Colorado Coop. Fish and Wildl. Res. Unit, Fort Collins, Colorado and Oregon Coop. Fish and Wildl. Res. Unit, Corvallis, Oregon. Unpublished report.
Franklin, A.B., D.R. Anderson, R.J. Gutiérrez, and K.P. Burnham. 2000. Climate, habitat quality, and fitness in northern spotted owl populations in northwestern California. Ecological Monographs 70(4):539-590.
Fyfe, R.W. and R.R. Olendorff. 1976. Minimizing the dangers of nesting studies to raptors and other sensitive species. Can. Wildl. Serv. Occas. Paper 23. 17pages.
Gaines, W.L., R.A. Strand, and S.D. Piper. 1997. Effects of the Hatchery Complex Fires on northern spotted owls in the eastern Washington Cascades. Pages 123-129 in Dr. J.M. Greenlee, ed. Proceedings of the First Conference on Fire Effects on Rare and Endangered Species and Habitats, November 13-16, 1995. International Association of Wildland Fire. Coeur d’Alene, ID.
Ganey, J.L. 1992. Food habits of Mexican spotted owls in Arizona. Wilson Bulletin 104(2):321-326.
J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 43
Ganey, J.L., W.M. Block, J.K. Dwyer, B.E. Strohmeyer, and J.S. Jenness. 1998. Dispersal movements and survival rates of juvenile Mexican spotted owls in northern Arizona. Wilson Bulletin 110:206-217.
Garmendia, A.E., Van Kruiningen, H.J., French, R.A., Anderson, J.F., Andreadis, T.G., Kumar, A. and A.B. West. 2000. Recovery and identification of West Nile virus from a hawk in winter. Journal of Clinical Microbiology 38:3110-3111.
Goheen, E.M., E.M. Hansen, A. Kanaskie, M.G. Williams, N. Oserbauer, and W. Sutton. 2002. Sudden oak death caused by Phytophthora ramorum in Oregon. Plant Disease 86:441.
Gremel, S. 2000. Spotted owl monitoring in Olympic National Park: 2000 annual report. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Olympic National Park, Port Angeles, Washington.
Gremel, S. 2003. Spotted owl monitoring in Olympic National Park: 2003 annual report. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Olympic National Park, Port Angeles, Washington.
Gutiérrez, R.J. 1994. Changes in the distribution and abundance of spotted owls during the past century. Studies in Avian Biology 15:293-300.
Gutiérrez, R.J. 1996. Biology and distribution of the northern spotted owl. Pages 2-5 in E.D. Forsman, S. DeStefano, M.G. Raphael, and R.J. Gutierrez (eds). Studies in Avian Biology No. 17.
Gutiérrez, R.J., A.B. Franklin, W. LaHaye, V.J. Meretsky, and J.P. Ward. 1985. Juvenile spotted owl dispersal in northwestern California: preliminary analysis. Pages 60-65 in R.J. Gutiérrez, and A.B. Carey (eds). Ecology and Management of the Spotted Owl in the Pacific Northwest. USDA Forest Service GTR-PNW-185. Portland, Oregon.
Gutiérrez, R. J., A. B. Franklin, and W. S. LaHaye. 1995. Spotted owl ( Strix occidentalis ) in A. Poole and F. Gill (eds). The birds of North America, No. 179. The Academy of Natural Sciences and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. 28pp.
Haig, S.M., Wagner, R.S., Forsman, E.D., and T.D. Mullins. 2001. Geographic variation and genetic structure in spotted owls. Conservation Genetics 2(1):25-40.
Hamer, T.E., S.G. Seim, and K.R. Dixon. 1989. Northern spotted owl and northern barred owl habitat use and home range size in Washington: preliminary report. Washington Department of Wildlife, Olympia, Washington.
Hamer, T.E., E.D. Forsman, A.D. Fuchs, and M.L. Walters. 1994. Hybridization between barred and spotted owls. Auk 111(2):487-492.
J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 44
Hamer, T.E., D.L. Hays, C.M. Senger, and E.D. Forsman. 2001. Diets of northern barred owls and northern spotted owls in an area of sympatry. Journal of Raptor Research 35(3):221-227.
Hanson, E., Hays, D., Hicks, L. Young. L., and J. Buchanan. 1993. Spotted Owl Habitat in Washington: A Report to the Washington Forest Practices Board. Washington Forest Practices Board, Spotted owl Advisory Group. Final Report: December 20, 1993. Olympia, Washington. 116 pages.
Harestad, A., J. Hobbs, and I. Blackburn. 2004. Précis of the Northern Spotted Owl in British Columbia. Pages. 12-14 in Zimmerman, K., K. Welstead, E. Williams, J. Turner, (editors). Northern Spotted Owl Workshop Proceedings. Forrex Series (online No. 14), Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Henke, A.L., T.Y. Chi, J. Smith, C. Brinegar. Unpublished Draft . Microsatellite Analysis of Northern and California Spotted Owls in California. Conservation Genetics Laboratory, Department of Biological Sciences, San Jose State University, San Jose, California.
Henson, P., and T.A. Grant. 1991. The effects of human disturbance on trumpeter swan breeding behavior. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:248-257.
Hershey, K.T., E.C. Meslow, and F.L. Ramsey. 1998. Characteristics of forests at spotted owl nest sites in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Wildlife Management 62(4):1398-1410.
Herter, D.R., and L.L. Hicks. 2000. Barred owl and spotted owl populations and habitat in the central Cascade Range of Washington. Journal of Raptor Research 34(4): 279-286.
Herter, D.R., L.L. Hicks, H.C. Stabins, J.J. Millspaugh, A.J. Stabins, and L.D. Melampy. 2002. Roost site characteristics of northern spotted owls in the nonbreeding season in central Washington. Forest Science 48(2):437-446.
Irwin, L.L., D.F. Rock, and G.P. Miller. 2000. Stand structures used by northern spotted owls in managed forests. J. Raptor Res. 34(3):175-186.
Iverson, W.F. 1993. Is the barred owl displacing the spotted owl in western Washington? M.S. Thesis, Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington.
Iverson, W.F. 2004. Reproductive success of Spotted Owls sympatric with Barred Owls in western Washington. Journal of Raptor Research 38(1):88-91.
Johnson, D.H. 1992. Spotted owls, great horned owls, and forest fragmentation in the central Oregon Cascades. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
Johnston, A. 2002. Northern spotted owl survey and monitor report. U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, Crater Lake National Park, Crater Lake, Oregon.
J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 45
Kelly, E.G. 2001. Range expansion of the northern barred owl: an evaluation of the impact on spotted owls. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
Kelly, E.G. and E.D. Forsman. 2004. Recent records of hybridization between barred owls (Strix varia ) and northern spotted owls ( S. occidentalis caurina ). Auk 121:806-810.
Kelly, E.G., E.D. Forsman, and R.G. Anthony. 2003. Are barred owls displacing spotted owls? Condor 105:45-53.
King, G.M., K.R. Bevis, M.A. Rowe, E.E. Hanson. 1997. Spotted owls use of habitat impacted by 1994 fires on the Yakama Indian Reservation: three years post fire.
Komar, N., N.A. Panella, J.E. Burns, S.W. Dusza, T.M. Mascarenhas, and T.O. Talbot. 2001. Serologic evidence for West Nile virus infection in birds in the New York City vicinity during an outbreak in 1999. Emerging Infectious Diseases 7(4):621-5.
Kuntz II, R.C. and R.G. Christophersen. 1996. A survey of the northern spotted owl in North Cascades National Park Service Complex. NPS Technical Report NPS/CCSONOCA/NRTR- 96/05. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, North Cascades National Park, Sedro Woolley, Washington.
LaHaye, W.S. and R.J. Gutiérrez. 1999. Nest sites and nesting habitat of the northern spotted owl in northwestern California. Condor 101(2):324-330.
Lahaye, W.S., Guiterrez, R.J. and J.R. Dunk. 2001. Natal dispersion of the spotted owl in southern California: dispersal profile of an insular population. Condor 103:691-700.
Laidig, K.J., and D.S. Dobkin. 1995. Spatial overlap and habitat association of Barred Owls and Great Horned Owls in southern New Jersey. Journal of Raptor Research 29:151–157.
Laymon, S.A. 1988. The ecology of the spotted owl in the central Sierra Nevada, California. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, California.
Laymon, S.A. 1991. Diurnal foraging by spotted owls. Wilson Bulletin 103(1):138-140.
Lehmkuhl, J.F., and L.F. Ruggiero. 1990. Forest fragmentation in the Pacific Northwest and its potential effects on wildlife. Pages 35-47 in L.F. Ruggiero et al. (Eds) Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir forests. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Researh Station, Portland OR. PNW-GTR-285. 533 pages.
Leskiw, T. and R.J. Gutiérrez. 1998. Possible predation of a spotted owl by a barred owl. Western Birds 29:225–226.
Marra, P.P., S. Griffing, C. Caffrey, A.M. Kilpatrick, R. McLean, C. Brand, E. Saito, A.P. Dupuis, L. Kramer, and R. Novak. 2004. West Nile Virus and wildlife. BioScience 54(5):393-402. J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 46
McLean, R.G., S.R. Ubico, S.E. Docherty, W.R. Hansen, L. Sileo, and T.S. McNamara. 2001. West Nile Virus and transmission and ecology in birds. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 951:54-57.
Meyer, J.S., Irwin, L.L., and M.S. Boyce. 1998. Influence of habitat abundance and fragmentation on northern spotted owls in western Oregon. Wildlife Monographs 139:1-51.
Miller, G.S. 1989. Dispersal of juvenile spotted owls in western Oregon. M.S. Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
Miller, G.S., R.J. Small, and E.C. Meslow. 1997. Habitat selection by spotted owls during natal dispersal in western Oregon. J. Wildl. Manage. 61(1):140-150.
Moen, C.A., A.B. Franklin, and R.J. Gutiérrez. 1991. Age determination of subadult northern spotted owls in northwest California. Wildlife Society Bulletin 19:489-493
North, M.P., G.Steger, R.Denton, G.Eberlein, T. Munton, and K. Johnson. 2000. Association of weather and nest-site structure with reproductive success in California spotted owls. Journal of Wildlife Management 64(3):797-807.
O’Halloran, K. 1989. Spotted owl inventory and monitoring: Annual report for 1989. U.S. For. Serv., Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR. Unpublished report.
Olson, G.S., E. Glenn, R.G. Anthony, E.D. Forsman, J.A. Reid, P.J. Loschl, and W.J. Ripple. 2005 . Modeling demographic performance of northern spotted owls relative to forest habitat in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 68(4):1039-1053.
Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF). 2000. Forest Practices Administrative Rules and Forest Practices Act. Salem, OR.
Piatt, J.F., B.D. Roberts, W.W. Lidster, J.L. Wells, and S.A. Hatch. 1990. Effects of human disturbance on breeding least and crested auklets at St. Lawrence Island, Alaska. Auk 107:342-350.
Rizzo, D.M., M. Garbeloto, J.M. Davidson, G.W. Slaughter, and S.T. Koike. 2002. Phytophthora ramorum as the cause of extensive mortality of Quercus spp. and Lithocarpus densiflorus in California. Plant Disease 86:205-214.
Rosenberg, D.K., K.A. Swindle, and R.G. Anthony. 2003. Influence of prey abundance on northern spotted owl reproductive success in western Oregon. Canadian Journal of Zoology 81:1715-1725.
Schmidt, K. 2003. Northern spotted owl monitoring and inventory, Redwood National and State Parks, 2002 annual report. Redwood National and State Parks, Orick, California.
J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 47
Simon-Jackson, T. 1989. Spotted owl inventory and monitoring program: Annual report for 1989. U.S. For. Serv., Pacific Southwest Region, San Francisco, CA. Unpublished report.
Sisco, C.L. 1990. Seasonal home range and habitat ecology of spotted owls in northwestern California. M.S. Thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, California.
Solis, D.M., and R.J. Gutiérrez. 1990. Summer habitat ecology of northern spotted owls in northwestern California. The Condor 92:739-748.
Sovern, S.G., E.D. Forsman, B.L. Biswell, D.N. Rolph, and M. Taylor. 1994. Diurnal behavior of the spotted owl in Washington. Condor 96(1):200-202.
Swarthout, E.C., and R.J. Steidl. 2001. Flush responses of Mexican spotted owls to recreationists. Journal of Wildlife Management 65(2):312-317.
Swarthout, E.C., and R.J. Steidl. 2003. Experimental effects of hiking on breeding Mexican spotted owls. Conservation Biology 17(1): 307-315.
Swenson, J.E. 1979. Factors affecting status and reproduction of ospreys in Yellowstone National Park. Journal of Wildlife Management 43(3):595-601.
Tempel, D.J. and R.J. Gutiérrez. 2003. Fecal corticosterone levels in California spotted owls exposed to low-intensity chainsaw sound. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31(3):698-702.
Thomas, J.W., E.D. Forsman, J.B. Lint, E.C. Meslow, B.R. Noon, and J. Verner. 1990. A conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl. Report of the Interagency Scientific Committee to address the conservation of the northern spotted owl. Unpublished interagency document. 458pp.
Thomas, J.W., and M.G. Raphael (Eds.) 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological, Economic, and Social Assessment. Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). July 1993. Portland, Oregon: USDA Forest Service and the USDI Bureau of Land Management.
Thomas, J.W., M.G. Raphael, R.G. Anthony, E.D. Forsman, A.G. Gunderson, R.S. Holthausen, B.G. Marcot, G.H. Reeves, J.R. Sedell, and D.M. Solis. 1993. Viability assessments and management considerations for species associated with late-successional and old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest. USDA Forest Service, Portland, Oregon.
Tremblay, J., and L.N. Ellison. 1979. Effects of human disturbance on breeding black-crowned night herons. Auk 96:364-369.
USDA Forest Service. 1995. Shasta-Trinity National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan. Shasta-Trinity National Forests, Redding, CA.
J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 48
. 2005. Biological Assessment. Browns Project, Draft Environmental Impact Statement (Alternative 3). Trinity River Management Unit, Shasta-Trinity National Forest.
, and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994a. Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl; standards and guidelines for management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Portland, Oregon.
______, and ______. 1994b. Final supplemental environmental impact statement on management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Portland, Oregon. 2 vols. and appendices.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. The northern spotted owl status review. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR.
. 1989. The northern spotted owl; a status review supplement. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR.
. 1990a. The 1990 status review: northern spotted owl: Strix occidentalis caurina . Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 95 pages.
. 1990b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; determination of threatened status for the northern spotted owl. Fed. Reg. Vol. 55. 123: 26114-26194. June 26, 1990.
. 1992a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; determination of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl. Fed. Reg. Vol. 57. 10:1796-1838. January 15, 1992.
. 1992b. Draft final recovery plan for the northern spotted owl. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2 Volumes. Portland, OR.
. 1994. Biological Opinion for the Preferred Alternative (9) of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Habitat for Late Successional and Old- Growth Forest Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. 53 pages.
. 1995. Biological Opinion for the Shasta-Trinity National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento CA.
. 2000. Unpublished report for the Northwest Forest Plan Northern Spotted Owl Baseline Analysis.
. 2001. A range wide baseline summary and evaluation of data collected through section 7 consultation for the northern spotted owl and its critical habitat: 1994-2001. Portland, OR. Unpublished document. 41 pages.
J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 49
, and USDC National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
Verner, J., R.J. Gutiérrez, and G.I. Gould, Jr. 1992. The California spotted owl: general biology and ecological relations. Pages 55-77 in Verner, J., K.S. McKelvey, B.R. Noon, R.J. Gutiérrez, G.I. Gould, Jr., and T.W. Beck (technical coordinators). The California Spotted Owl: A Technical Assessment of Its Current Status. PSW-GTR-133, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, California.
Ward, J. W. Jr. 1990. Spotted owl reproduction, diet and prey abundance in northwest California. M.S. Thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, California.
Ward, J.P., Jr. and W.M. Block. 1995. Mexican Spotted Owl prey ecology. Pages 1-48 in USDI Fish and Wildl. Serv., Recovery plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl Vol. 2 USDI Fish and Wildl. Serv., Albuquerque, New Mexico.
Ward, J. W. Jr., R.J. Gutiérrez, and B.R. Noon. 1998. Habitat selection by northern spotted owls: the consequences of prey selection and distribution. Condor 100:79-92.
Wasser, S.K., K. Bevis, G. King, and E. Hanson. 1997. Noninvasive physiological measures of disturbance in the northern spotted owl. Conservation biology 11(4):1019-1022.
Weathers, W.W., P.J. Hodumand, and J.A. Blakesley. 2001. Thermal ecology and ecological energetics of California spotted owls. Condor 103:678-690.
Weidemeier, D.J. and S.P. Horton. 2000. Trends in spotted owl and barred owl detections in the Olympic Experimental State Forest from 1991 to 1999. Northwestern Naturalist 81(3):63.
White, C.M., and T.L. Thurow. 1985. Reproduction of ferruginous hawks exposed to controlled disturbance. Condor 87. 14-22.
Williams, D.F., J. Verner, H.F. Sakai, and J.R. Waters. 1992. General biology of major prey species of the California spotted owl. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR- 133. Portland, OR.
Zabel, C. J., K.M. McKelvey, and J.P. Ward, Jr. 1995. Influence of primary prey on home- range size and habitat-use patterns of northern spotted owls ( Strix occidentalis caurina ). Canadian Journal of Zoology 73:433-439.
Zabel C.J., S.E. Salmons, and M. Brown. 1996. Demography of northern spotted owls in southwestern Oregon. Studies in Avian Biology 17:77-82.
Zabel, C. J., J.R. Dunk, H.B. Stauffer, L.M. Roberts, B.S. Mulder, and A. Wright. 2003. Northern spotted owl habitat models for research and management application in California (USA). Ecological Applications 13(4):1027-1040. J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 50
APPENDIX A . Detailed Account of the Consultation History for the Browns Project.
July 30, 2003 – D. Chi (Wildlife Biologist, FWS) and T. Quinn (Wildlife Biologist, TRMU, STNF) met in Weaverville to discuss the Browns Project and to visit the project area.
March 25, 2005 – April 18, 2004 – Forest Service proposed to partition out a portion of the Browns Project for separate consultation (i.e., Browns RAK Fuels Project) due to the immediate availability of funding. During this period, the Service met with Forest Service staff to discuss the Browns RAK Fuels Project, to visit the site, and to complete consultation (See BO for Browns RAK Fuels Project on file at the RBFWO).
April 20, 2004 – D. Chi attended an IDT meeting in Weaverville on the Browns Project. Discussion included NEPA alternatives, 2-acre regeneration units that would serve as landings, the condition of the area proposed for landings, thinning prescriptions in Riparian Reserves, and logging methods.
June 18, 2004 – Telephone conversation between T. Quinn and D. Chi discussing the thinning units and the 2-acre regeneration units.
July 2, 2004 – T. Quinn forwarded a draft BA via email to D. Chi for comment.
June 8, 2004 – D. Chi forwarded comments on the Browns Project BA (7/2/04) to T. Quinn.
November 10, 2004 – T. Quinn forwarded second draft BA via email to D. Chi for comment.
November 12, 2004 – D. Chi forwarded comments on second draft of Browns Project BA (Nov. 11/04) to T. Quinn.
March 3, 2005 – T. Quinn forwarded third draft BA via email to D. Chi for comment.
March 9, 2005 – D. Chi contacted J. Johnson (FWS, YFWO) via telephone regarding any known Timber Harvest Plans on private lands for the Weaverville area. She indicated there was the possibility and referred D. Chi to Laura Finley (FWS, YFWO) for more information. D. Chi forwarded a map of the Browns project area to L. Finley for her review.
March 9, 2005 – D. Chi forwarded comments on third draft of Browns Project BA to T. Quinn. These comments reflected concern regarding the potential for cumulative effects given that the Service had been informed of possible timber harvest activity on non-federal lands in the Weaverville vicinity.
March 24, 2005 – Telephone conversations between T. Quinn, L. Finley, and D. Chi regarding cumulative effects for the Browns Project.
March 29, 2005 – D. Chi, K. Wolcott, T. Quinn, L. Finley, and R. Clementsen met in Redding to examine maps of recent and upcoming THPs that fall within the action area for the Browns Project. They also discussed the differences in the habitat conditions and definitions on Federal lands versus private lands. Participants agreed that the analysis would evaluate effects to habitat as well as cumulative effects based on the Forest Service definition of habitat as it appeared better supported in this case. J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 51
APPENDIX B. Summary of Timber Stand and Activity Fuels Treatments for the Browns Project.
TIMBER STAND TREATMENT Acres Mature Stand Thinning 754 - tractor yarding 574 - cable yarding 183 Regeneration Harvest 13 39 - tractor yarding 26 - cable yarding 13 TREATMENT OF ACTIVITY FUELS WITHIN TIMBER TREATMENT AREAS 14 - whole tree yard (all areas) 793 - lop and scatter 674 - tractor pile/burn 26 - roadside pile/burn 81 - burn concentrations 674 - broadcast burn 13 - dozer line construction (tractor units only) 11 - hand line construction 7
13 Total of 21 1- to 2-acres group regeneration areas. 14 Total fuels treatment exceeds the harvest acres because more than one treatment may occur on the same acre. J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 52
APPENDIX C. Shasta-Trinity Timber and Successional Strata Definitions 15 .
Table 1. Timber strata definitions used in reference to northern spotted owl habitat determinations. DBH refers to ‘diameter at breast height’.
Size Class Definitions Density class Definitions 1 1 to 5.9 inches dbh. S 10 to 19% canopy closure 2 6 to 12.9 inches dbh P 20 to 39% canopy closure 3 13 to 24.9 inches dbh N 40 to 69% canopy closure 4 25 to 40.0 inches dbh G > or equal to 70% canopy closure 5 > 40 inches dbh 6 two-storied stands
Table 2. Successional stage stratification based upon forest timber type.
Type Description Late-successional/Dense 4N, 4G, 5N, 5G: primarily commercial conifer forest. Includes 4P and 5P stands if they contain conifers as a primary component and conifers or black oak as a secondary component. Late-successional/open 4S, 4P (except as noted above), 5S, 5P (except as noted above): primarily commercial conifer forest. Mid-successional/dense 3N, 3G, 6 stands: primarily commercial conifer forest. Includes 3P stands if they contain conifers as a primary component and conifers or black oak as a secondary component. Mid-successional/open 3S, 3P (excepted as noted above): primarily commercial conifer forest. Early-successional/poles and 2N, 2G and plantations older than 20 yrs: primarily commercial conifer forest. Includes 2S and 2P stands if they contain conifers as a primary and saplings secondary component. Early-successional/seedlings 1N, 1G and plantations younger than 20 yrs: primarily commercial conifer forest. Includes 1S and 1P stands if they contain conifers as a primary and secondary component. Other Includes hardwood stands, non-commerical conifer stands, early- successional S and P stands with conifers as a primary component and hardwoods as a secondary component with shrubs and grasses.
15 Source: Forest-wide LSR Assessment, Shasta-Trinity National Forest, 1999. J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 53
APPENDIX D. Tables and Figure for the Northern Spotted Owl Status of the Species.
Table 1: Aggregate results of all adjusted, suitable habitat (NRF 1) acres on Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) lands; range-wide changes by land use allocations from 1994 to March 12, 2004.
Reserves 2 Non-reserves 3
LSR MLSA CRA AWA AMA Matrix TOTALS Evaluation Baseline 4 3227014 28900 1638652 300219 364268 1838045 7397098 Removed/Downgraded (timber harvest only) 5 6404 1109 30 749 14510 141332 164134 Removed/Downgraded (all other activities) 6 1532 0 908 54 458 19518 22470 Consultation Subtotal 7936 1109 938 803 14968 160850 186604 Removed/Downgraded (natural disturbance) 7 0 0 1861 22 0 2087 3970 Net Changes from Land Exchanges and Ownership Transfers 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Other Activities Subtotal 0 0 1861 22 0 2087 3970 Total Net Change 7936 1109 2799 825 14968 162937 190574 BASELINE BALANCE 8 3219078 27791 1635853 299394 349300 1675108 7206524 Degraded 9 21205 178 2861 410 9350 419374 453378
1 Nesting, roosting, foraging (NRF) habitat. In California, suitable habitat is divided into two components; nesting-roosting (NR) habitat, and foraging (F) habitat. The NR component most closely resembles NRF habitat in Oregon and Washington. Due to differences in reporting methods, effects to suitable habitat compiled in this, and all subsequent tables include effects for nesting, roosting, and foraging (NRF) for 1994-6/26/2001. After 6/26/2001, suitable habitat includes NRF for Washington and Oregon but only nesting and roosting (NR) for California. 2 Land-use allocations intended to provide large blocks of habitat to support clusters of breeding pairs. 3 Land-use allocations intended to provide habitat to support movement of spotted owls among reserves. 4 1994 FSEIS baseline (USDA and USDI 1994b). 5 Includes both effects reported by USFWS (2001) and subsequent effects compiled in the Spotted owl Consultation Effects Tracker (web application and database). Total effects from the timber sale program, presented in the right column, is the value to contrast with the expectation that NWFP implementation would result in removal of 196,000 acres of NRF habitat per decade. 6 Includes NRF habitat effects from recreation, roads, minerals, and other non-timber programs of work. 7 Includes effects to NRF habitat resulting from wildfires (not from suppression efforts), insect and disease outbreaks, and other natural causes. 8 Calculated as (evaluation baseline) – [(total consulted-on changes) + (removed/downgraded as documented through TA process)]. 9 Degraded habitat means that function remains the same, but quality is reduced. J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 54
Appendix D, continued
Table 2: Changes to NRF 1 habitat acres from activities subject to section 7 consultations and other causes range-wide from 1994 to March 12, 2004.
Consulted On Other Habitat Habitat Changes 2 Changes 3 Northwest Forest Plan Group / Removed/ Removed/ Ownership Downgraded Degraded Downgraded Degraded Bureau of Land Federal - Management 71053 7318 0 0 Northwest Forest Service 99468 419862 3970 3492 Forest Plan National Park Service 908 2861 0 0 4 (NWFP) Multi-agency 15175 23314 0 0 NWFP Subtotal 186604 453355 3970 3492 Other Bureau of Indian Affairs Management and Tribes 98857 2135 1 0 0 and Habitat Conservation Plans 295889 14430 0 0 Conservation Plans OMCP Subtotal 394746 35781 0 0 Other Federal Agencies & Lands 5 241 434 28 70 Other Public & Private Lands 6 10323 878 30240 20949 TOTAL Changes 591914 490448 34238 24511
1 Nesting, roosting, foraging habitat. In California, suitable habitat is divided into two components; nesting – roosting (NR) habitat, and foraging (F) habitat. The NR component most closely resembles NRF habitat in Oregon and Washington. Due to differences in reporting methods, effects to suitable habitat compiled in this, and all subsequent tables include effects for nesting, roosting, and foraging (NRF) for 1994-6/26/2001. After 6/26/2001, suitable habitat includes NRF for Washington and Oregon but only nesting and roosting (NR) for California. 2 Includes both effects reported by USFWS (2001) and subsequent effects compiled in the Spotted owl Consultation Effects Tracker (web application and database). 3 Includes effects to NRF habitat (as documented through technical assistance) resulting from wildfires (not from suppression efforts), insect and disease outbreaks, and other natural causes, private timber harvest, and land exchanges not associated with consultation. Information from all fires occurring since 1994 is not yet available for entry into the database and thus is not included here but is compiled in Table 4. 4 The ‘Multi-agency’ grouping is used to lump a variety of NWFP mixed agency or admin unit consultations that were reported together prior to 6/26/2001, and cannot be split out. 5 Includes lands that are owned or managed by other Federal agencies not included in the NWFP., 6 Includes lands not covered by Habitat Conservation Plans that are owned or managed by states, counties, municipalities, and private entities. Effects that occurred on private lands from right-of-way permits across Forest Service and BLM lands are included here. J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 55
Appendix D, continued
Table 3: Aggregate results of all adjusted, suitable habitat (NRF 1) acres affected by section 7 consultation for the northern spotted owl; baseline and summary of effects by State, physiographic province and land use function from 1994 to March 12, 2004 (the first decade of the Northwest Forest Plan).
% Provincial 2 3 Physiographic Evaluation Baseline Habitat Removed/Downgraded Baseline % Range-wide 4 Province Reserves 5 Non-Reserves 6 Total Reserves 5 Non-Reserves 6 Total Affected Affected WA Olympic Peninsula 548483 11734 560217 63 24 87 0.02 0.05 Eastern Cascades 506340 200509 706849 1745 4222 5967 0.84 3.20 Western Cascades 864683 247797 1112480 249 10890 11139 1.00 5.97 Western Lowlands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 OR Coast Range 422387 94190 516577 279 3 954 4233 0.82 2.27 Klamath Mountains 448509 337789 786298 1357 66605 67962 8.64 36.42 Cascades East 247624 196035 443659 1813 12216 14029 3.16 7.52 Cascades West 1012426 1033337 2045763 2826 49633 52459 2 .56 28.11 Willamette Valley 593 5065 5658 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 CA Coast 47566 3928 51494 181 69 250 0.49 0.13 Cascades 61852 26385 88237 0 5200 5200 5.89 2.79 Klamath 734103 345763 1079866 1470 23808 25278 2.34 13.55 Total 4894566 2502532 7397098 9983 176621 186604 2.52 100.00
1 Nesting, roosting, foraging habitat. In California, suitable habitat is divided into two components; nesting – roosting (NR) habitat, and foraging (F) habitat. The NR component most closely resembles NRF habitat in Oregon and Washington. Due to differences in reporting methods, effects to suitable habitat compiled in this, and all subsequent tables include effects for nesting, roosting, and foraging (NRF) for 1994-6/26/2001. After 6/26/2001, suitable habitat includes NRF for Washington and Oregon but only nesting and roosting (NR) for California. 2 1994 FSEIS baseline (USDA and USDI 1994). 3 Includes both effects reported by USFWS (2001) and subsequent effects compiled in the Northern Spotted Owl Consultation Effects Tracking System (web application and database). 4 Defined by the NWFP as the twelve physiographic provinces, as presented in Figure 3&4-1 on page 3&4-16 of the FSEIS. 5 Land-use allocations intended to provide large blocks of habitat to support clusters of breeding pairs 6 Land-use allocations intended to provide habitat to support movement of spotted owls among reserves.
J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 56
Appendix D, continued
Table 4: Change in suitable spotted owl habitat from 1994 to March 12, 2004, resulting from Federal management actions and natural events by physiographic province.
CAUSES OF HABITAT LOSS Physiographic Province Forest Plan Natural % change % of Total baseline Mgmt 1 Events 2 TOTAL in Province Effects
Olympic Peninsula 560,217 -87 -299 -386 -.07 0.09
WA East Cascades 706,849 -5,967 -5,754 -11,721 -1.66 2.83
WA West Cascades 1,112,480 -11,139 0 -11,389 -1.02 2.75
Western Lowlands 0 0 0 0 0 0
OR Coast 516,577 -3,278 -66 -3,344 -0.65 0.81
OR Klamath Mountains 786,298 -82,286 -117,622 -199,908 -25.42 48.30
OR Cascades East 443,659 -14,029 -4,008 -73,037 -16.46 17.65
OR Cascades West 2,045,763 -55,055 -24,583 -79,638 -3.89 19.24
Willamette Valley 5,658 0 0 0 0 0
CA Coast 51,494 -250 -100 -350 -0.68 0.08
CA Cascades 88,237 -5,091 0 -5,091 -5.77 1.23
CA Klamath 1,079,866 -12,673 -15,869 -29,032 -2.69 7.01
TOTAL 7,397,098 -189,855 -168,301 -413,896 -5.60 100 1 Includes 3/12/04 estimates from the NSO consultation effects tracker, and updates to projects submitted by the Federal action agencies and effects reported in the 1-15-03-F-511 Biological Opinion, neither of which have been entered into the NSO consultation effects tracker. 2 Fires occurring in 2003 were not included here as the data were not yet available.
J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 57
Appendix D, continued
Table 5: Suitable (NRF 1) habitat loss on Federal lands from proposed management activities during the second decade (2004 - 2014) of the NWFP and natural events. Baseline and summary of effects by State, physiographic province and land use function from April 12, 2004 to the present.
% Provincial 2 3 Physiographic Evaluation Baseline Habitat Removed/Downgraded Baseline % Range-wide 4 Province Reserves 5 Non-Reserves 6 Total Reserves 5 Non-Reserves 6 Total Affected Affected WA Olympic Peninsula 548483 11734 560217 0 -59 -59 -0.03 0.15 Eastern Cascades 506340 200509 706849 -1 -4435 -4436 -1.36 10.98 Western Cascades 864683 247797 1112480 0 -4749 -4749 -0.92 11.76 Western Lowlands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 OR Coast Range 422387 94190 516577 -35 -615 -650 -0.19 1.61 Klamath Mountains 448509 337789 786298 -4 -11161 -11165 -3.56 27.64 Cascades East 247624 196035 443659 0 -972 -972 -0.70 2.41 Cascades West 1012426 1033337 2045763 -100 -16996 -17096 -1.91 42.32 Willamette Valley 593 5065 5658 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 CA Coast 47 566 3928 51494 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 Cascades 61852 26385 88237 0 -472 -472 -0.93 1.17 Klamath 734103 345763 1079866 0 -794 -794 -0.22 1.97 Total 4894566 2502532 7397098 -140 -40253 -40393 -1.29 100.00
1 Nesting, roosting, foraging habitat. In California, suitable habitat is divided into two components; nesting – roosting (NR) habitat, and foraging (F) habitat. The NR component most closely resembles NRF habitat in Oregon and Washington. Due to differences in reporting methods, effects to suitable habitat compiled in this, and all subsequent tables include effects for nesting, roosting, and foraging (NRF) for 1994-6/26/2001. After 6/26/2001, suitable habitat includes NRF for Washington and Oregon but only nesting and roosting (NR) for California. 2 1994 FSEIS baseline (USDA and USDI 1994). 3 Includes effects compiled in the Northern Spotted Owl Consultation Effects Tracking System (web application and database) from April 2004 to the present. 4 Defined by the NWFP as the twelve physiographic provinces, as presented in Figure 3&4-1 on page 3&4-16 of the FSEIS. 5 Land-use allocations intended to provide large blocks of habitat to support clusters of breeding pairs 6 Land-use allocations intended to provide habitat to support movement of spotted owls among reserves J. Sharon Heywood 1-12–2005-F-12 58
Appendix D, continued
Figure 1. Physiographic provinces, northern spotted owl demographic study areas, and demographic trends (Anthony et al. 2004).
Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Appendix E (part 1): Fisheries Biological Assessment
Weaverville Watershed Analysis • HUC-4: Trinity River • HUC-5: Weaverville • HUC-6: Weaver Creek
Weaverville Ranger District Trinity River Management Unit Shasta-Trinity National Forest April 29, 2005
Prepared by: Loren Everest – Fishery Biologist
Effects: • May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect Southern Oregon Northern California Coast (SONCC) Coho Salmon and their Designated Critical Habitat • May Adversely Affect Essential Fish Habitat
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
I. Introduction
Purpose of the Assessment ______The purpose of this Biological Assessment (BA) is to review the Browns Project (Project) in sufficient detail to determine if the action is likely to adversely affect any threatened, endangered, or proposed species, or designated or proposed critical habitat, or may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). This BA is prepared in accordance with legal requirements set forth under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (19 U.S.C. 1536 (c)), and follows the standards established in Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 2672.42). A new analytical process for Endangered Species Act consultation for listed fish species was developed by an interagency group including the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), USDI-Bureau of Land Management (USDI-BLM), and the U.S. Forest Service (USDA-FS et al. 2004). The following biological assessment serves to clearly document the logic tracking and links of the project with watershed analysis (USDA-FS 2004), ESA Section 7(c), 50 CFR Section 402.12, Consultation Handbook Section 3.4 (USFWS and NMFS 1998), Streamlining Guidance (USDA-FS et al. 1999) and associated NEPA documentation.
Purpose and Need for Action ______The Browns Project is being proposed as part of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest’s Fuels Management and Timber Sale Program. The project area has had previous timber harvests including a large amount of timber removal from adjacent private timberlands since the year 2000. The activities being proposed involve commercial timber harvesting (within mixed conifer stands), management of roads, and watershed restoration activities. A Watershed Analysis (WA, USDA-FS 2004) was completed to identify management activities that would benefit the resources within the fire-prone watershed. Key findings and management opportunities resulting from the WA have led to the proposed actions affecting management actions and Riparian Reserves.
Summary of Proposed Action ______Intermediate harvest is proposed on about 754 acres, including select Riparian Reserves, and group regeneration harvest on about 39 acres; yielding about 8.7 million board feet of timber. Intensive fuel treatment would be performed after harvest to meet project area objectives. Following timber harvest, site preparation and tree planting would occur in the regeneration units. Associated Project activities include approximately 4.6 miles of road construction, approximately 2.7 miles of road reconstruction, and about 3.6 miles of temporary road construction. In addition, 28 miles of roads would be rehabilitated. Implementation of the proposed Project is planned for the calendar years 2006-2010, and may involve multiple timber sale and service contracts to accomplish road construction, road reconstruction, timber harvesting, tree removal, fuels treatment and then restoration activities
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-1 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Location of Proposed Action ______The Project is located northeast of the town of Weaverville in Trinity County, California (Appendix D). The legal locations (all within Mt. Diablo Meridian in Trinity County) are as follows: T34N, R10W, Sections 27, 34, and 36; T33N, R10W, Section 1; T34N, R9W, Sections 16, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34; and T33N, R9W, Section 6. The Project is located entirely within the ‘Weaverville’ watershed (HUC 1801021106000000) at 40 degrees 47minutes latitude and 122 degrees 54 minutes longitude.
Management Direction ______The Project is situated within the Weaverville/Lewiston Management Area (Area 7) as identified in the LRMP. The LRMP Land Allocation further identifies the Project as being within an Adaptive Management Area (AMA), on Matrix Lands, and in a prescription VI area, which emphasizes wildlife habitat. The Browns project is not within a Key Watershed. Riparian Reserves are contained within all land allocations. Management direction, and standards and guidelines for Riparian Reserves override those of the surrounding land allocations. Complete management directions, management prescriptions, and standards and guidelines for each management area and allocation can be found in the appropriate section of the LRMP (Forest-wide, page 4-23; Riparian Reserve, page 4-53; Matrix Land, page 4-61; Wildlife Habitat, page 4-66; and AMA, page 4-69; USDA-FS 1995). The STNF developed a LRMP that adopted standards and guidelines set forth in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (ROD; USDA-FS and USDI-BLM 1994b).
ROD and Forest LRMP The ROD evolved from the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) Report (1993) and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (USDA and USDI 1994a). Collectively, these documents are known as the Northwest Forest Plan. The standards and guidelines of the Forest’s LRMP (USDA FS 1995) were amended by the ROD (USDA-FS and USDI-BLM 1994b). In the Project area, Riparian Reserves have been designated based on guidelines in the ROD and on the Weaverville WA (USDA-FS 2004). Riparian Reserves of intermittent and ephemeral streams that display annual scour will have a minimum150 foot Riparian Reserve based upon the average maximum height of 200-year-old trees for the site. Riparian Reserves of fish bearing streams that display annual scour will have a 300 foot Riparian Reserve based upon twice the average maximum height of 200-year-old trees for the site. There are no inner gorges or flood plains in the project area greater than 300 feet from the defined channel of fish bearing streams.
E-2 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Monitoring Monitoring direction comes from the ROD (Section E) and Appendix H of the LRMP. Monitoring will be conducted to determine if standards and guidelines are being followed (implementation monitoring), verify if they are achieving desired results (effectiveness monitoring), and determine if underlying assumptions are sound (validation monitoring). Some effectiveness and most validation monitoring will be accomplished by formal research. Monitoring will be conducted at multiple levels and scales, with local information compiled and considered in a regional context. Monitoring will be coordinated among agencies and organizations to enhance effectiveness and usefulness. Baseline conditions have been measured on larger streams within the project area (East Weaver Creek. Rush Creek and Little Browns Creek) using Forest Service Region 5 Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) protocols. Reoccupation of SCI sites post Project may be useful to determine the effectiveness of stream protection measures. The Regional Ecosystem Office is currently finalizing a framework that outlines short-, mid-, and long-term monitoring priorities and strategies, called Interagency Framework for Monitoring the President’s Forest Ecosystem Plan. The Forest monitoring plan will tier to the interagency framework when completed, and will be modified or amended as necessary to be in compliance with that direction.
Watershed Analysis______The Project has been developed in response to management opportunities to meet desired conditions developed in the Weaverville WA (USDA-FS 2004).
Species and Habitats Covered under the ESA and Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation Management Act (MSFCMA)_____ The USFWS provided a list on April 2, 2004 of Threatened, Endangered and Proposed species suspected to occur on the Forest. Of the eight fish species found on the quarterly species list, only the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast (SONCC) coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) and its designated critical habitat are found in the Project area or may be influenced by the Project. The MSFCMA, as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (public Law 104-297), requires all Federal agencies to consult with NMFS on all actions or proposed actions (permitted, funded, or undertaken by the agency) that may adversely affect EFH. EFH is defined as those waters and substrates necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, and growth to maturity. EFH consultation is being consolidated with this ESA consultation based upon the finding by NMFS that the ESA section 7 consultation process used by the Forest Service can satisfy the EFH consultation requirements. In this regard, the BA is also the EFH assessment of the action. EFH within the action area is the same for Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch).
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-3 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Consultation and Project History______Level 1 team discussions between Loren Everest (Forest Service) and Karen Hans (NMFS) occurred in June of 2004. A general field inspection of the Project area occurred on June 23, 2004 with Ms. Hans, Mr. Everest and Bill Brock (Forest Service). A draft BA was sent electronically to Level 1 representative, Garwin Yip (NMFS) on November 29, 2004. A site visit occurred on December 14, 2004 with Mr. Yip, Clarence Hostler (NMFS) and Mr. Everest. Comments were received from Mr. Yip on December 13, 2004. An edited version of the BA was provided to Mr. Yip on February 25, 2005. Mr. Yip reviewed the draft BA and provided further comments to Mr. Everest on March 11, 2005. In addition, an interagency “Analytical Process” (AP) team reviewed the revised draft BA, and provided comments to Mr. Everest on March 10, 2005. Another revised draft BA was sent to Mr. Yip and the AP team for review on April 12, 2005. The BA was finalized and agreed upon with Level 1 on April 27, 2005.
II. Description of Proposed Action and ESA Action Area
Timber Harvest (Project Elements “Harvest” and “Fuels Treatment”)______‘Intermediate’ harvesting (thinning from below) will occur on about 754 acres, while group regeneration harvesting will take place on about 39 acres, yielding approximately 8.7 million board feet of timber (Table 1 and Table 2). Within the intermediate harvest areas, the largest, most vigorous trees will not be harvested, while the less healthy understory-positioned trees will be harvested. The residual canopy closure objective will be about 40%. Within Riparian Reserves, the residual conifer canopy closure objective will be 60% where initially available. Riparian Reserve thinning will occur down to, but not within, the inner gorge of each channel. Trees will be removed by using tractor on slopes under 35% and cable yarding on slope steeper than 35%. Openings created from regeneration harvest will be used to pile and treat the activity fuel generated from whole tree yarding. Site preparation and tree planting will occur in small (less than 2.5-acre) openings and will follow regeneration harvest. Intensive fuel treatment will be performed after harvesting occurs to meet Project objectives (Table 1).
E-4 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Table 1. Summary of Timber Harvest and Activity Fuels Treatment by watershed.
Timber Stand Activity: East Weaver Little Browns Rush Creek Creek (acres) Creek (acres) (acres) Intermediate Harvest (thin from below) 9.4 666.1 78.5 Tractor yarding 9.4 532.8 26.8 Cable yarding 0.0 133.3 51.7 Regeneration Harvest (total of group 0.0 33.7 5.5 regeneration areas) Tractor yarding 0.0 22.4 4.0 Cable yarding 0.0 11.3 1.5 Total timber volume proposed for 8.7 mmbf harvest in millions of board feet (mmbf) Treatment of Activity Fuels within Timber Harvest Areas: Whole tree yard up to a 3-inch top. Remaining treetops, broken trees, bark, and limb wood would be lopped and scattered. Fuels within a 50-foot strip along the roadside would be hand piled and burned. All other fuels would be burned in concentrations. Dozer line construction would occur after harvesting for tractor units, and handline construction would occur around cable units. Fire lines will not be constructed in Riparian Reserves. Hand piles would be burned about one year after harvesting commenced. Concentrations would be burned at a rate of about 100 acres per year, and would begin about one year after harvesting commenced. Regeneration units would be broadcast burned.
Table 2. Individual Unit Harvest, Fuels Treatment and Log Haul detail.
Unit Acres Harvest Yarding Fuels Treatment Slope Distance to Haul Route Prescription System Critical Habitat (mi.) Stream Name
2 5.9 Thinning tractor WTY RS, BC, DL 0.6 East Weaver Creek Hwy 3 3 47.9 Thinning tractor WTY RS, BC, TP, DL 0.2 Little Browns Creek 34N95, 34N52Y 3B 19.1 Thinning tractor WTY RS, BC, DL 300 Ft. Little Browns CO 232 Creek 3C 8.2 Thinning tractor WTY RS, BC, TP, DL 0.1 Little Browns Creek CO 232 3D 4.6 Thinning tractor WTY RS, BC, DL 0.15 Little Browns Creek CO 232 3E 1.5 Thinning cable WTY RS, BC, HL 0.2 Little Browns Creek 34N95, 34N52Y 3F 2.8 Thinning cable WTY RS, BC, HL 0.25 Little Browns Creek 34N95, 34N52Y 3G 11.2 Thinning cable WTY RS, BC, HL 0.05 Little Browns Creek 34N95, 34N52Y 3H 5.6 Thinning cable WTY RS, BC, HL 0.15 Little Browns Creek 34N95, 34N52Y 3I 7.9 Thinning tractor WTY RS, BC, DL 1.5 Little Browns Creek 34N95, 34N52Y 3J 4.9 Thinning cable WTY RS, BC, HL 1.2 Little Browns Creek 34N95 3K 11.9 Thinning tractor WTY RS, BC, DL 1.1 Little Browns Creek 34N95 3L 27.7 Thinning tractor WTY RS, BC, DL 0.8 Little Browns Creek 34N95, 34N52Y 5A 14.1 Thinning cable WTY RS, BC, HL 1.15 Little Browns Creek 34N87A, 34N87, 34N77 5B 14.4 Thinning tractor WTY RS, BC, DL 1.2 Little Browns Creek 34N87A, 34N87, 34N77 5C 13.3 Thinning cable WTY RS, BC, HL 1.3 Little Browns Creek 34N87A, 34N87, 34N77 5D 58.8 Thinning tractor WTY RS, BC, TP, DL 0.75 Little Browns Creek 34N87A, 34N87, 34N77 5F 16.5 Thinning tractor WTY RS, BC, DL 1.35 Little Browns Creek 34N87A, 34N87, 34N77 5G 1.4 Thinning cable WTY RS, BC, HL 1.0 Little Browns Creek 34N87, 34N77 5H 1.9 Thinning cable WTY RS, BC, HL 1.1 Little Browns Creek 34N87, 34N77 7 14.6 Thinning tractor WTY RS, BC, DL 0.75 Little Browns Creek 34N96 8 4.7 Thinning tractor WTY RS, BC, DL 0.70 Little Browns Creek 34N96
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-5 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Unit Acres Harvest Yarding Fuels Treatment Slope Distance to Haul Route Prescription System Critical Habitat (mi.) Stream Name
9A 20.1 Thinning cable WTY RS, BC, HL 0.25 Little Browns Creek 34N88, CO 230 9B 17.0 Thinning cable WTY RS, BC, HL 1.2 Little Browns Creek 34N88, CO 230 9C 22.6 Thinning tractor WTY RS, BC, TP, DL 0.1 Little Browns Creek 34N88, CO 230 9D 5.6 Thinning cable WTY RS, BC, HL 0.6 Little Browns Creek 34N88, CO 230 9E 20.2 Thinning cable WTY RS, BC, HL 1.4 Little Browns Creek 34N28, 34N28B 10A 15.2 Thinning tractor WTY RS, BC, DL 0.5 Little Browns Creek 34N28 10B 1.1 Thinning tractor WTY RS, BC, DL 0.6 Little Browns Creek 34N28, 34N28B 10C 5.8 Thinning cable WTY RS, BC, HL 0.4 Little Browns Creek 34N28B 10D 6.8 Thinning tractor WTY RS, BC, DL 0.45 Little Browns Creek 34N28B 10E 1.9 Thinning cable WTY RS, BC, HL 0.75 Little Browns Creek 34N28B 10F 24.6 Thinning tractor WTY RS, BC, DL 0.70 Little Browns Creek 34N28, 34N28B 10G 6.6 Thinning cable WTY RS, BC, HL 0.3 Rush Creek 34N28, 34N28B 10H 6.6 Thinning cable WTY RS, BC, HL 0.45 Rush Creek 34N28, 34N28B 10I 6.6 Thinning cable WTY RS, BC, HL 0.25 Rush Creek 34N28, 34N28B 11 10.1 Thinning tractor WTY RS, BC, DL 1.8 East Weaver Creek 34N95 12 23.7 Thinning tractor WTY RS, BC, TP, DL 0.55 Rush Creek 34N42, 34N22 13 8.5 Thinning cable WTY RS, BC, HL 0.45 Rush Creek 34N42, 34N22 14 8.3 Thinning cable WTY RS, BC, HL 0.3 Rush Creek 34N42, 34N22 15A 5.0 Thinning tractor WTY RS, BC, DL 0.3 Little Browns Creek 34N95, 34N52Y 15B 4.7 Thinning tractor WTY RS, BC, DL 0.45 Little Browns Creek 34N95, 34N52Y, 34N52YA 15C 6.1 Thinning tractor WTY RS, BC, DL 0.35 Little Browns Creek 34N95, 34N52Y, 34N52YA 15D 0.8 Thinning cable WTY RS, BC, HL 0.45 Little Browns Creek 34N95, 34N52Y,34N52YA 15E 2.7 Thinning cable WTY RS, BC, HL 0.45 Little Browns Creek 34N95,34N52Y, 34N52YA 15F 4.2 Thinning cable WTY RS, BC, HL 0.3 Little Browns Creek 34N95, 34N52Y, 34N52YA 16 66.0 Thinning tractor WTY RS, BC, TP, DL 1.6 Little Browns Creek 34N95, 34N52Y, 34N05Y 17 74.3 Thinning tractor WTY RS, BC, TP, DL 1.65 Little Browns Creek 34N95, 34N52Y, 34N52YA, 34N05Y 100 26.1 RR Thinning tractor WTY RS 1.75 Little Browns Creek 34N95, 34N52Y, 34N05Y 101 13.6 RR Thinning tractor WTY RS 1.65 Little Browns Creek 34N95, 34N52Y, 34N52YA, 34N05Y 102 8.4 RR Thinning tractor WTY 0.2 Little Browns Creek 34N95, 34N52Y 103 6.8 RR Thinning tractor WTY 0.2 Little Browns Creek 34N95, 34N52Y 104 0.7 RR Thinning cable WTY 1.25 Little Browns Creek 34N95 105 2.5 RR Thinning tractor WTY 1.8 East Weaver Creek 34N95 106 4.2 RR Thinning tractor WTY RS 100 ft. Little Browns Creek CO 232 107 3.4 RR Thinning tractor WTY 150 ft. Little Browns Creek Hwy 3 108 0.9 RR Thinning tractor WTY 0.8 East Weaver Creek Hwy 3 109 3.1 RR Thinning cable WTY 0.4 Rush Creek 34N42, 34N22 110 1.2 RR Thinning cable WTY 1.1 Little Browns Creek 34N88, CO 230 111 2.5 RR Thinning cable WTY 0.35 Little Browns Creek 34N88, CO 230 112 3.3 RR Thinning cable WTY RS 0.7 Little Browns Creek 34N28B 113 0.8 RR Thinning tractor WTY RS 0.6 Little Browns Creek 34N28, 34N28B
E-6 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Unit Acres Harvest Yarding Fuels Treatment Slope Distance to Haul Route Prescription System Critical Habitat (mi.) Stream Name
114 1.4 RR Thinning cable WTY 0.45 Little Browns Creek 34N28B 115 1.0 RR Thinning tractor WTY RS 0.55 Little Browns Creek 34N28 RR5G 0.7 RR Thinning cable WTY 1.2 Little Browns Creek 34N87, 34N77 R03A 2.1 Regen tractor WTY BB,DL 1.5 Little Browns Creek 34N95, 34N52Y R03B 1.8 Regen tractor WTY BB,DL 1.25 Little Browns Creek 34N95, 34N52Y R03C 1.8 Regen tractor WTY BB,DL 1.4 Little Browns Creek 34N95, 34N52Y R3C 2.2 Regen tractor WTY BB,DL .2 Little Browns Creek CO 232 R5A 1.9 Regen cable WTY BB,HL 1.25 Little Browns Creek 34N87A, 34N87, 34N77 R5C 2.0 Regen cable WTY BB,HL 1.3 Little Browns Creek 34N87A, 34N87, 34N77 R5DA 0.9 Regen tractor WTY BB,DL 1.2 Little Browns Creek 34N87A, 34N87, 34N77 R5DB 2.4 Regen tractor WTY BB,DL 1.25 Little Browns Creek 34N87, 34N77 R9AA 1.7 Regen cable WTY BB,HL .4 Little Browns Creek 34N88, CO 230 R9AB 1.6 Regen cable WTY BB,HL .5 Little Browns Creek 34N88, CO 230 R9B 1.9 Regen cable WTY BB,HL .4 Little Browns Creek 34N88, CO 230 R9CB 1.5 Regen tractor WTY BB,DL .35 Little Browns Creek 34N88, CO 230 R10G 2.4 Regen cable WTY BB,HL .4 Rush Creek 34N28, 34N28B R12A 1.9 Regen tractor WTY BB,DL .75 Rush Creek 34N22, 34N42 R12B 2.1 Regen tractor WTY BB,DL .75 Rush Creek 34N22, 34N42 R14 1.5 Regen cable WTY BB,HL .5 Little Browns Creek 34N22, 34N42 R16 1.6 Regen tractor WTY BB,DL 2.4 Little Browns Creek 34N95, 34N52Y, 34N05Y R17A 2.2 Regen tractor WTY BB,DL 1.6 Little Browns Creek 34N95, 34N52Y, 34N05Y R17B 1.8 Regen tractor WTY BB,DL 1.7 Little Browns Creek 34N95, 34N52Y, 34N52YA R17C 1.9 Regen tractor WTY BB,DL 1.9 Little Browns Creek 34N95, 34N52Y R17D 1.5 Regen tractor WTY BB,DL 2.3 Little Browns Creek 34N95, 34N52Y, 34N05Y Fuels Prescriptions WTY: Whole Tree Yard RS: Roadside pile/burn BC: Burn Concentrations TP: Tractor pile/burn BB: Broadcast Burn HL: Handline DL: Dozerline
Road Construction, Reconstruction and Use (Project Elements “Road Construction” “Road Reconstruction” and “Hauling”____ Associated Project activities include about 4.6 miles of road construction (and subsequent decommissioning of 3.3 miles of the new road) and 3.6 miles of road reconstruction (Table 3)(Appendix D). Reconstructed roads will have hazard trees felled and be surfaced with crushed rock. Roads to be reconstructed cross three Riparian Reserves and new road construction will enter three. Log hauling activities will not occur during wet weather conditions. From November 15 to May 15, hauling will only occur when soil conditions are such that the operations will not result in compaction
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-7 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006 or accelerated erosion. An earth scientist will be consulted prior to conducting activities during the time frame specified above.
Table 3. Summary of Road Management Activities.
Affected Activity Length Length In Minimum Slope Transportation (mi.) Riparian Distance to Critical System (Road): Reserve Habitat (mi.) 34N95 Reconstructed, surfaced, replace culvert (54”) 1.9 200 ft. 1.1 34N77 Reconstructed and surfaced 1.1 .1 100 ft. 34N52Y Reconstructed, surfaced, replace 2 culverts .5 .1 1.5 (54”, 42”) 34N52YA Reconstructed and surfaced .1 0 1.4 Total miles of road reconstruction 3.6 0.24 34N47 Constructed, then Decommissioned .9 .1 .3 34N47A Constructed, then Decommissioned .3 0 .4 34N87 Constructed, then Restricted Use 1.3 .1 .8 34N87A Constructed, then Decommissioned .9 300 ft. 1.2 34N88 Constructed, then Decommissioned 1.2 0 .3 Total miles of new specified road construction 4.6 0.25 U34N52YD Use existing nonsystem as temp then obliterate .6 .4 1.3 U34N05YB Use existing nonsystem as temp then obliterate .1 .1 1.7 U34N52YC Use existing nonsystem as temp then obliterate .5 .2 1.1 U34N52YB Use existing nonsystem as temp then obliterate .3 0 0.9 U232A Use existing nonsystem as temp then obliterate .4 0 0.1 U34N95H Use existing nonsystem as temp then obliterate .5 0 0.6 U3TRI03 Use existing nonsystem as temp then obliterate .1 0 0.9 Unit 17 New temp construction then obliterate .1 0 2.4 Unit 3H New temp construction then obliterate .2 0 0.3 Unit 10C New temp construction then obliterate .1 0 0.4 Unit 10F New temp construction then obliterate .1 0 0.5 Unit 9B New temp construction then obliterate .1 0 0.4 Unit 9C New temp construction then obliterate .1 0 0.3 Unit 9D New temp construction then obliterate .1 0 0.6 Unit 5B New temp construction then obliterate .1 0 1.3 Unit 5D (2seg) New temp construction then obliterate .1 0 1.0 Unit 12 (2seg) New temp construction then obliterate .1 0 0.6 Total Miles of Temp road 3.6 0.7
Existing nonsystem roads used for this Project will be treated as temporary roads. Additional temporary roads will be constructed as needed to complete harvest in units 3, 5D, 9B, 9C, 10D, 12, and 17. About 3.6 miles of temporary roads will be needed and their location will be at the discretion of the sale administrator. However, the approximate locations of the temporary roads are displayed in Appendix D. Two designated crossings are proposed in unit 16 and one is proposed in unit 17. Designated crossings are 1.7 miles slope distance or more away from critical habitat. The designated
E-8 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006 crossing sites have been reviewed by the project fishery biologist and are located at areas of previous skid trail or road crossings that will require minimal ground disturbance. About 0.7 miles of existing nonsystem roads are located within Riparian Reserves in units 16 and 17. All temporary roads, including existing nonsystem roads, used for this Project will be obliterated after post harvest activities are complete. Access to temporary roads will be blocked after subsoiling.
Skid Trails and Landings (Project Element “Yarding”) ______Skid trails will be constructed and used as necessary for tractor yarding of units up to 35% slope. Skid trails may occupy up to 15% of any individual unit and will be located by the sale administrator on the ground during harvest activities. Mechanical harvesters and forwarders will be used on thinning units to reduce ground impacts and limit the number of mechanical equipment entries into units. Eighty-nine landings are proposed for construction. Twenty-three landings are within regeneration units that will be used for piling and burning of treetops and slash generated from whole tree yarding. No landings are located within Riparian Reserves; however, several landings are adjacent to Riparian Reserves. Approximate locations of landings are displayed in Appendix D. To minimize the potential for erosion and to improve site productivity, skid trails, and landings (excluding the adjacent road corridor) will be subsoiled to a depth of 12 inches. Subsoiling will be performed with a winged-subsoiler, or forest cultivators and/or disks when the soils are not subject to compaction. Soil will be loosened across the entire treatment area to achieve a soil condition where 85% of the soil would pass through a 2” opening. Waterbarring and outsloping skid trails is not necessary, as the intent of subsoiling is to loosen the soil and attain a permeable soil condition where runoff will not occur. Waterbarring of a skid trail should be avoided unless sections are so steep that there is a potential for surface runoff prior to revegetation.
Road Decommissioning and Obliteration (Project Element “Road Rehabilitation”) ______System roads that are not needed for long-term use (i.e., >20 years) will be decommissioned to improve soil and water quality conditions. Road decommissioning entails removing culverts, waterbarring, ripping and outsloping road surfaces, and ‘tank trapping’. Other activities may occur depending on site conditions. The goal is to control or prevent surface runoff, erosion, and mass failure that could otherwise leave the roadbed unavailable for future use. Non-system roads will be obliterated. Road obliteration entails removal of all culverts, ripping and slope recontouring. The goal is to restore full hydrologic function and productivity. These roads will receive long-term Best Management Practices (BMP) effectiveness monitoring.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-9 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Table 4. Road decommissioning summary by subwatershed.
Subwatershed Miles of decommissioning Minimum distance and obliteration to Critical Habitat Rush Creek 2.3 0.2 miles Little Browns Creek 15.9 25 feet East Weaver Creek 8.8 0.4 miles
Total 27.0
Twenty-seven miles of road will be treated as part of this Project (Appendix C). This mitigation measure is critical in meeting Project objectives. Twenty-seven culverts will be removed with 0 to 750 yd3 fill volumes (Table 5). The approximate locations of roads to be decommissioned are displayed in Appendix F.
E-10 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Table 5. Culverts to be removed as part of the Browns Project and distance to coho critical habitat/essential fish habitat.
Road HUC 8 YD3 of fill Distance (mi) CH Stream Number to coho CH 33N38F 1801021106040102 0 1.8 East Weaver Creek 33N38F 1801021106040102 150 1.8 East Weaver Creek 34N52Y 1801021106040301 750 .1 Little Browns Creek 34N52Y 1801021106040301 675 .1 Little Browns Creek 34N52Y 1801021106040301 650 .2 Little Browns Creek 34N89 1801021106040102 650 2.0 East Weaver Creek 34N89A 1801021106040102 200 2.1 East Weaver Creek 34N89A 1801021106040102 175 2.1 East Weaver Creek 34N95A 1801021106040105 450 1.25 Little Browns Creek 34N95A 1801021106040105 300 1.0 Little Browns Creek 34N95A 1801021106040105 325 1.0 Little Browns Creek 34N95A 1801021106040105 275 1.0 Little Browns Creek 34N95B 1801021106040301 550 1.2 East Weaver Creek 34N95B 1801021106040301 550 0.6 East Weaver Creek 34N96 1801021106010201 575 0.6 Rush Creek 34N96B 1801021106040301 180 1.0 Little Browns Creek 34N96B 1801021106040301 0 1.1 Little Browns Creek 34N96B 1801021106040301 325 1.15 Little Browns Creek 34N96B 1801021106040105 250 1.2 Little Browns Creek 34N96B 1801021106040105 275 1.25 Little Browns Creek 34N96C 1801021106040301 275 1.0 Little Browns Creek 34N96C 1801021106040301 500 1.1 Little Browns Creek 34N96C 1801021106040301 175 1.2 Little Browns Creek U230A 1801021106040302 225 0.4 Little Browns Creek U34N33YA 1801021106010201 275 0.3 Rush Creek U34N33YA 1801021106010201 175 0.2 Rush Creek U34N77C 1801021106040302 250 0.5 Little Browns Creek
Project Design Criteria ______The following project design criteria have been provided by resource specialists and will be implemented on this Project.
Criteria Common to all Project Activities Ground disturbing activity will not occur during wet weather conditions. From November 15 to May 15, activity will only occur when soils are dry down to 12 inches or conditions are such that the operations will not result in compaction or accelerated erosion. An earth scientist will be consulted prior to conducting activities during the time frame specified above.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-11 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Yarding • Minimize soil erosion by water-barring all skid trails, mulching with straw or fine slash (achieve 75%+ cover) the last 50 feet of all skid trails where they enter landings or roads. • Contour rip (with winged subsoiler up to 12 inches deep), seed, and mulch (straw) main skid trails, landings, and regeneration units to break up compaction. Include all identifiable skid trails in units 3, 16, and 17. • Reuse existing primary skid trails and landings. • All yarding requires one-end log suspension (leading end of log). • Tractor skidding generally restricted to slopes <35%. Tractor skidding is allowed to exceed 35% for short pitches where negative environmental effects will not occur. • Spread fine slash material (50% soil cover) on primary skid trails when they occur on >35% slopes. • Designate/approve Riparian Reserve crossings. Skid trail grade shall not exceed 20% and shall be located to minimize ground and vegetative disturbance. Rehabilitate skid trail disturbed mineral soil within 50 feet (slope distance) of defined channel limits with available organic material, resulting in minimum 50-70% ground cover post-treatment. • Dedicate no more than 15% of the unit to primary skid roads, trails, and landings. Skid trails should be outsloped and not located in swales, where waterbarring is not possible or requires deep cuts. The objective is to design a skidding pattern that best fits the terrain and limits the impact on the soil. Predesignated skid trails, felling to the lead, and end lining are methods that can be used to achieve this. Fuels Treatment • Retain existing down coarse woody debris (CWD) whenever possible providing the amount of logs does not exceed fuel management objectives. • Maintain post-treatment soil cover to at least 50% with at least 50% cover as fine slash (<3 inch material). • Keep prescribed fire as cool as possible and attain desired burn conditions. Road Construction and Reconstruction • Prevent road runoff from draining onto landings and skid trails. Decommissioning • Contour rip (with winged subsoiler up to 12 inches deep), seed, and mulch (straw) all temporary roads to break up compaction. Erosion Control and Best Management Practices • An erosion control plan is required by the Timber sale contract to be prepared by the contractor and approved by the Forest Service. Appendix B provides an example of areas covered, and the authorities for ensuring that BMP’s are implemented.
E-12 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
ESA Action Area______For the purpose of ESA consultation the action area includes the Little Browns Creek subwatershed (HUC 18010211060403) down stream to Weaver Creek, the East Weaver Creek subwatershed (HUC 18010211060401) from the East Branch downstream to Weaver Creek, Weaver Creek from the confluence with East Fork Weaver Creek downstream to the Trinity River and the Rush Creek subwatershed (HUC 18010211060100) from the Highway 3 crossing downstream to the Trinity River.
Figure 1. ESA Action area and Coho salmon Critical Habitat (in purple).
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-13 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
III. Description of Listed Species
SONCC Coho Salmon ______
Suitable Habitat Description Structurally complex streams containing stones, logs, brush, and aquatic macrophytes support larger numbers of rearing coho salmon juveniles (Scrivener and Andersen 1982) than do streams that lack these structural features. The most productive coho salmon streams are small, rather than large, because small streams have the highest proportion of marginal slack water to midstream area. Insect drift in midstream of large streams is generally unavailable to juvenile coho salmon. The wider the stream is, the greater the loss of food (Sandercock 1991).
Natural History Coho salmon were historically distributed throughout the North Pacific Ocean from central California to Point Hope, Alaska through the Aleutian Islands, and from the Anadyr River, Russia, south to Hokkaido, Japan. Historically, this species probably inhabited most coastal streams in Washington, Oregon and central and northern California (Brown and Moyle 1991). In contrast to the life history patterns of other anadromous salmonids, coho salmon in the region under status review generally exhibit a relatively simple, 3-year cycle. SONCC coho salmon adults typically enter rivers in September and October. River entry is much later south of the Klamath Basin, occurring in November and December. Spawning in southern Oregon and northern California occurs typically in December. Depending on temperature, eggs incubate in redds for 1.5 to 4 months before hatching as alevins. Following yolk sac absorption, alevins emerge from the gravel as young juveniles or fry and begin actively feeding. They require cold water (10-15 degrees Celsius), deep pools, and abundant instream cover, especially fallen trees. Fry rear in fresh water for up to 15 months, then migrate to the ocean as smolts in the spring. Coho salmon typically spend two growing seasons in the ocean before returning to their natal stream to spawn as three-year-olds. Some precocious males called “jacks” return to spawn after only six months at sea. Coho salmon die after spawning. See “Status review of coho salmon from Washington, Oregon and California” (Weitkamp et al. 1995) for complete life history information and status review. The SONCC coho salmon ESU encompasses coastal drainages between Cape Blanco in southern Oregon and Punta Gorda in northern California. Most information for the northern California region of this ESU was recently summarized by the California Department of Fish and Game (2002). It concluded that coho salmon in California, including hatchery stocks, could be less than 6% of their abundance during the 1940s, and have experienced at least a 70% decline in numbers since the 1960s. While limited data are available to assess population numbers or trends in the ESU, NOAA Fisheries has determined that all coho salmon stocks between Punta Gorda and Cape Blanco are depressed relative to their past abundance and conclude that coho salmon in this ESU are presently threatened.
E-14 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Critical Habitat Critical habitat is defined in Section 3(5)(A) of the ESA as “the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species ... on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection.” Critical habitat was designated (64 FR 24049), May 5, 1999) to include all river reaches accessible to listed coho salmon between Cape Blanco, Oregon, and Punta Gorda, California. Critical habitat consists of the water, substrate, and adjacent riparian zones of estuarine and riverine reaches (including off-channel habitats). Accessible reaches are those within the historical range of the ESU that can still be occupied by any life stage of coho salmon. Inaccessible reaches are those above specific dams or above long-standing, naturally impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls in existence for at least several hundred years). In designating critical habitat, NOAA Fisheries considers the following requirements of the species: (1) space for individual and population growth, and for normal behavior; (2) food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; (3) cover or shelter; (4) sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing offspring; and, generally, (5) habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical and ecological distributions of this species [see 50 CFR 424.12(b)]. In addition to these factors, NOAA Fisheries also focuses on the known physical and biological features (primary constituent elements) within the designated area that are essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection. These essential features may include, but are not limited to, spawning sites, food resources, water quality and quantity, and riparian vegetation. Specifically, the adjacent riparian area is defined as the area adjacent to a stream that provides the following functions: shade, sediment, nutrient or chemical regulation, streambank stability, and input of large woody debris or organic matter. The physical and biological features that create properly functioning salmonid habitat vary throughout the range of coho salmon and the extent of the adjacent riparian zone may change accordingly, depending upon the landscape under consideration. While a site-potential tree height can serve as a reasonable benchmark in some cases, site-specific analyses provide the best means to characterize the adjacent riparian zone because such analyses are more likely to accurately capture the unique attributes of a particular landscape. Knowing what may be a limiting factor to the properly functioning condition of a stream channel on a land use or land type basis and how that may or may not affect the function of the riparian zone will significantly assist Federal agencies in assessing the potential for impacts to listed coho salmon. On Federal lands within the range of the northern spotted owl, Federal agencies continue to rely on the ACS of the Northwest Forest Plan to guide their projects. Within the range of SONCC coho salmon, the species’ life cycle can be separated into five essential habitat types: (1) Juvenile summer and winter rearing areas; (2) juvenile migration corridors; (3) areas for growth and development to adulthood; (4) adult migration corridors; and (5) spawning areas. Within these areas, essential features of coho salmon critical habitat include adequate: (1)
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-15 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
substrate, (2) water quality, (3) water quantity, (4) water temperature, (5) water velocity, (6) cover/shelter, (7) food, (8) riparian vegetation, (9) space, and (10) safe passage conditions. NOAA Fisheries believes that the current range of the species encompasses all essential habitat features and is adequate to ensure the species’ conservation. Therefore, designation of habitat areas outside the species’ current range is not necessary. It is important to note that habitat quality in this range is intrinsically related to the quality of riparian and upland areas and of inaccessible headwater or intermittent streams which provide key habitat elements (e.g., large woody debris, gravel, water quality) crucial for coho salmon in downstream reaches. Rush and East Weaver Creeks contain Critical Habitat for coho salmon throughout the action area; Little Browns Creek contains Critical Habitat, coho salmon have been observed up to County Road 232 where poorly placed culverts block migration.
Local Population Populations of coho salmon are present on the STNF in the watersheds of the Klamath and Trinity rivers. Coho salmon are known to inhabit the Weaver Creek drainage, including East Weaver Creek and Little Browns Creek. These populations are found sporadically in response to favorable tributary migration conditions. Coho salmon are frequently found in Rush Creek.
Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) ______
Suitable Habitat Description Chinook salmon require cool water, diverse and complex habitat and clean gravels to successfully reproduce. Habitat needs of Chinook salmon fry change rapidly from the time of emergence to time of smolting, but generally require cool water and instream cover. For a complete description of habitat requirements for Chinook salmon, see Bjornn and Reiser (1991).
Natural History Chinook salmon historically ranged as far south as the Ventura River, California, and their northern extent reaches the Russian Far East. The predominant life history strategy for Chinook salmon in the coastal streams of North America is the “ocean-type” (September 16, 1999, 64 FR 50393). The ocean-type Chinook salmon migrate to the ocean within their first year. Ocean-type Chinook salmon tend to use estuaries within the first several weeks after emergence and prior to emigrating to the ocean. Residence in the Pacific Ocean is variable and complex with most fish returning to natal streams to spawn as adults between their third and fifth year (September 16, 1999, 64 FR 50393). Chinook salmon die after spawning. Adult spawning runs begin in August and continue into January. Chinook salmon spawn in clean gravel of streams and river mainstems. Depending on water temperature, eggs incubate in redds from 1.5 to 4 months before hatching as alevins. Following yolk-sac absorption, alevins emerge from the gravel as fry and begin feeding. They require cold water, deep pools, and cover. Fry grow quickly and will emigrate from freshwater between 60 and 120 days after emergence (September 16, 1999, 64 FR
E-16 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
50393). For a complete life history description and status review, see “Status Review of Chinook Salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon and California” (Meyers et al. 1998).
Local Population Populations of Chinook salmon are located throughout the STNF. Chinook salmon are rarely found in Weaver Creek or Rush Creek due to limited flows during the fall migration period. When early fall rain events overlap Chinook salmon arriving late to the adjacent Trinity River reach, then some spawning may occur in lower Weaver Creek and Rush Creek.
IV. Environmental Baseline
The Shasta Trinity National Forest Tributaries Matrix of Factors and Indicators (Appendix A of this document), was used to characterize the environmental baseline for the proposed action. Level 1 teams are permitted to revise indicator values to more biologically appropriate values for specific watersheds or basins (NMFS 1996, page 3). This concept is reinforced in the Analytical Procedures process paper (NOAAF et al. 2004, page 7) and the Streamlined Consultation Procedures handbook (USDA Forest Service et al. 1999, pages IV-A-1 and IV-B-1). The Shasta Trinity National Forest Tributaries Matrix of Factors and Indicators is functionally equivalent to the “Table of Population and Habitat Indicators for Use in the Northwest Forest Plan Area” provided in the Analytical Process, except for the “population characteristics” and “population and habitat” pathways. An ESA recovery plan for SONCC coho salmon has not been proposed or completed. Therefore, insufficient information exists to address the “population characteristics” and “population and habitat” pathways at this time.
Existing Habitat Conditions for SONCC Coho Salmon and Chinook Salmon ______
General Upland Conditions Forest management activities that influence the quantity, quality, or timing of stream flows affect fish habitat primarily through changes in the natural levels of peak flows or low flows (Sullivan et al. 1987; Chamberlin et al. 1991). Water outflow from hillsides to streams is affected through changes in evapo-transpiration, soil water content, and soil structure. Timber management activities can allow more water to reach the ground, altering water infiltration into forest soils. Less water is therefore absorbed by tree roots, or the soil may become saturated faster, thereby increasing surface flow. Road systems, skid trails, and landings where the soils become compacted will also increase surface runoff. Roads and ditches concentrate surface runoff and intercept subsurface flow, bringing it to the surface (Chamberlin et al. 1991; Furniss et al. 1991). Increases in the magnitude of peak flows or the frequency of channel forming flows can increase channel scouring or accelerate bank erosion. Changes in peak flow and sediment yield directly related to the removal of vegetation will typically persist for only a few years and tend to decrease over time
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-17 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006 as the watershed recovers and new vegetation grows. Changes associated with roads persist indefinitely as roads are maintained or abandoned without treatment. Stream channel responses can take decades or centuries to recover (Chamberlin et al. 1991; Furniss et al. 1991). Road construction likely causes the greatest impact to stream systems relative to increases in sediment delivery and changes in peak flows. The relationship of road density to stream degradation has been documented in literature (Wemple 1994). Fire suppression has long- and short-term effects to aquatic habitats and species. It has been documented that a natural fire regime like that within the action area reduced the occurrence of catastrophic fires because fuels did not accumulate on the ground, and fire-tolerant conifers dominated the overstory (Agee 1993). Transformation of forest type from mixed-conifer to true fir is largely due to fire suppression and could result in microclimate alteration in riparian areas. Fire suppression, commencing in earnest around 1910, has altered the plant and animal species composition and stand densities of forests in the Trinity River Basin. Historically, there was a short ‘return interval’ fire regime from 5 - 35 years in the terrain surrounding the action area (USDA FS 2004). Fire scar analyses in mixed conifer stands on the Klamath National Forest, which are similar to mid-elevation stands in the action area, indicate an average fire return interval of approximately 8 years (Skinner and Chang 1996). Fires were caused by lightning, and Native Americans burned to improve hunting and gathering opportunities. As a result of fire suppression, many forest stands which naturally grew approximately 50 large fire-tolerant trees per acre are now over-stocked with hundreds of small, mostly fire intolerant trees per acre. Stands which historically experienced low intensity understory burns now are prone to high intensity crown fires with corresponding high percent mortality in large, normally fire-tolerant trees. The threat from catastrophic fire to aquatic species and their habitat is increasing and multiple high intensity wildland fires in a given watershed can lead to a decline of ESA listed salmon and or degradation of their critical habitat.
General Instream Conditions Anadromous fish use about 300 miles of stream and river habitat on the STNF (USDA FS 1995). There are about 30 miles of habitat accessible to anadromous fishes in the Weaverville watershed. The Weaverville watershed is the most heavily impacted tributary within the Trinity River watershed. Historic photos document hydraulic mining, timber harvest and residential activity, starting in the mid-1850s and continuing through present times. These activities loaded local creeks with much more sediment than could be transported, resulting in braided channels with cobble and gravel substrate, few pools, little shade and little large woody debris. Mining in the Trinity River basin began prior to the establishment of the STNF and has persisted to the present day. Widespread stream channel disturbance had already resulted from activities that occurred prior to 1940. This disturbance altered the dynamic equilibrium of the mainstem Trinity River and most of its tributaries, many of which are still responding to that disturbance. There has been a limited amount of commercial mining since the end of World War II. There has been a rise, however, in the level of small-scale mining by suction dredging and panning since the 1970’s.
E-18 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Water diversions have fragmented anadromous fish habitat and altered hydrographs throughout the basin. Initial diversions were localized for irrigation and mining; these began in the mid 1800s, and those for irrigation and domestic use persist today. The Weaverville Community Service District withdraws significant amounts of water from West and East Weaver Creek for domestic and irrigation purposes. Rush Creek Subdivision uses water from Rush Creek resulting in very low late-summer flows. Trinity Dam was completed in 1963, eliminating over 100 miles of anadromous fish habitat. This facility changed the hydrograph and temperature regime for the remaining portion of the river that was available to anadromous fish by diverting up to 90 percent of the river’s flow to the Sacramento River (USFWS and Hoopa Valley Tribe 1999). Degraded habitat from the lack of river flow is the single greatest limiting factor to anadromous fish populations in the Trinity River.
Local Surveys ______Fish habitat surveys have been performed periodically since the early 1980s for most streams (1963 for Rush Creek) in the action area. Many surveys note poor habitat conditions. From 1986 to 1992, most streams had habitat improvement structures installed. In confined channels such as Little Browns Creek, some well-constructed structures still persist and provide complex habitats. In streams with less confinement and high bedload transport, the structures were less successful. Water quality is generally very high in streams of the Weaverville watershed. Surveyed streams have had dissolved oxygen levels from 11 to 12 ppm, pH from 7 to 7.5, and temperatures in the 60° F range. The seventh field sub-watershed has been chosen as the best scale to analyze effects of the Project within the ESA action area. The following provides a brief description of fish use and describes the functional condition of each indicator for each subwatershed (7th field as appropriate) and the Weaverville watershed (5th field) based on Stream Condition Inventory data, California Department of Water Resources hydrological station data, other data on file at the Weaverville Ranger District and personal observations. The matrix of pathways and indicators was modified by the Shasta Trinity National Forest Level 1 team in June of 2004 (Appendix A).
Rush Creek Anadromous fishes have access to about 9.5 miles of stream habitat before steep bedrock falls block passage. Chinook salmon are found only during years of early fall rain that creates suitable migration conditions. Low fall flows generally prevent anadromous fishes from using Rush Creek until late November. Spawning surveys for salmon and steelhead have been conducted on sections of Rush Creek intermittently since 1964. Counts have varied widely according to year and survey effort, but have ranged from zero to one Chinook salmon, zero to 32 coho salmon, and five to 439 steelhead. The very first fish habitat surveys in Rush Creek noted excessive bedload and recommended that measures be taken to improve habitat. During the 1980s a Coordinated Resource Management Planning group was formed, composed of state and federal agencies to address habitat needs in Rush Creek. The group recommended placing instream structures, 32 of which were built in 1988 and 1989. Surveys in 2002 and 2004 showed that only 40% of the structures remain and less than 20% are
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-19 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006 still functioning. A 2002 Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) found that most of the large woody debris was less than 1 foot in diameter, pools averaged 2.4 feet deep and 68% of the stream banks were unstable. Baseline conditions for Rush Creek Unless otherwise noted all baseline information for Rush Creek is from Stream Condition Surveys conducted in 2002 by the Forest Service (USDA-FS 2002). • Temperature - Maximum Temperatures in this 4th order stream are 70 – 71.5 degrees Fahrenheit. At Risk. Data from USGS Stream gage. • Turbidity - Rush Creek becomes turbid quickly after precipitation events, but usually clears within two days. At Risk. Data from USGS Stream gage. • Chemical/Nutrient Contamination - Rush Creek has low levels of contamination from agriculture, industrial, and other sources; no excess nutrients. Properly Functioning. • Physical Barriers - Rush Creek has no man-made barriers. Properly Functioning. • Substrate - Fine sediment in pool-tails is 9%. Properly Functioning. • Large Woody Debris - Rush Creek has 31 pieces of Large Wood per mile of stream. At Risk. • Pool Frequency - Rush Creek has 1 pool every 5.4 channel widths and over half of the pools are greater than 36 inches deep. At Risk. • Off-channel Habitat - Rush Creek has backwaters with cover, and low energy off-channel areas. Properly Functioning. • Refugia (important remnant habitat for sensitive aquatic species) - Rush Creek has habitat at “At Risk” or better levels, but low summer water flows limit the usefulness of Rush Creek as a refugia. At Risk. • Width/Depth Ratio - Rush Creek is a Rosgen “B” type channel. The width to depth ratio of 39 is appropriate for the channel type however, some braiding has occurred in the area below the Hwy 3 Bridge. At Risk. • Streambank Condition - 68% of stream banks are unstable. Not Properly Functioning. • Floodplain Connectivity - Rush Creek has areas that are frequently hydrologically linked to main channel; overbank flows occur and maintain wetland functions and riparian vegetation. Properly Functioning. • Change in Peak/Base Flows - Rush Creek has a Watershed Condition Class (WCC) (see glossary for a full description of Watershed Condition Class) of three and exhibits low geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to its natural potential condition, and the Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA) increases downstream (Figure 1). The headwaters of Rush Creek drain wilderness and are in WCC one (exhibits high geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to its natural potential condition). The project area is in WCC two (exhibits moderate geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to its natural potential condition), and the Threshold of Concern (TOC) is exceeded in the lower portion (private lands) of the subwatershed (Table 6). At Risk. Data from the Hydrology Specialist Report for the Browns Project.
E-20 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
• Increase in Drainage Network - Rush Creek has moderate increases in active channel length due to the road network and timber harvest activities within the drainage. At Risk. Data from the Hydrology Specialist Report for the Browns Project. • Road Density and Location - The Rush Creek subwatershed has 4.4 miles per square mile of roads, with one county road located in the valley bottom. Not Properly Functioning. Data from the Hydrology Specialist Report for the Browns Project. • Disturbance History - The CWE model shows that the Rush Creek subwatershed is at 81% of the TOC. At Risk. Data from the Hydrology Specialist Report for the Browns Project. • Riparian Reserves - The Riparian Reserves of Rush Creek have a moderate loss of connectivity and function (shade, LWD recruitment, etc) due to historic mining and the current road system. Ground cover is good and riparian timber stands are recovering from past disturbance. At Risk. Personal observations of Loren Everest TRMU Fishery Biologist.
Table 6. Existing ERA for Rush Creek.
HUC8 Name Drainage Forest Plan Existing Area (acres) TOC (%) ERA (%) 1801021106010101 Headwaters Rush Creek 2860 16 1 1801021106010102 Upper Rush Creek 2997 16 9 1801021106010201 Baxter Gulch 3470 16 13 1801021106010202 Lower Rush Creek 2676 16 24 1801021106010203 Snow Gulch 2384 16 20 Rush Creek (all) 14,388 16 13
Little Browns Creek Little Browns Creek has approximately 0.9 miles of habitat accessible to anadromous fishes on Forest lands. Culverts on County Road 232 present a complete barrier to migrating fishes. Juvenile steelhead and coho salmon have been observed in the action area with limited spawning observed. Little Browns Creek flows intermittently during the dry season in the lower portions of the creek, (from the project area downstream to the confluence with Weaver Creek) and is often completely dry during summer months upstream of the Highway 3 crossing. Highway 3, County Roads 230, 232 and 807, and FS road U34N77A closely parallel Little Browns Creek within the action area. Little Browns Creek has been channelized and its habitat greatly simplified. Large woody debris is lacking, pools are shallow, and the stream banks are vulnerable to erosion (2003 stream condition inventory). Six habitat improvement structures were installed in 1992. Several of the structures still exist and provide valuable habitat. Baseline conditions for Little Browns Creek Unless otherwise noted all baseline information for Little Browns Creek is from Stream Condition Surveys conducted in 2003 by the Forest Service (USDA-FS, 2003a). • Temperature - Maximum water temperatures recorded in this 3rd order stream have been 68 degrees Fahrenheit. At Risk.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-21 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
• Turbidity - Little Browns Creek is slow to clear after precipitation events. Not Properly Functioning. Personal observation of Loren Everest TRMU Fishery Biologist. • Chemical/Nutrient Contamination - Water quality tests conducted during SCI surveys did not indicate any chemical contamination or nutrient problems. Properly Functioning. • Physical Barriers - Culverts on County Road 229 serve as a complete barrier to migrating fishes. Not Properly Functioning. Personal observation of Loren Everest TRMU Fishery Biologist. • Substrate - Pool Tail Fines are 6%. Properly Functioning. • Large Woody Debris - Little Browns Creek has 30 pieces of wood per mile but the size is small and recruitment is poor due to the locations of roads near the creek. Not Properly Functioning. • Pool Frequency - There is one pool every 4.8 channel widths however pools are very shallow (avg. 1.3 feet deep). Not Properly Functioning. • Off-channel Habitat - There are no backwater or off channels areas. Not Properly Functioning. • Refugia- Adequate habitat refugia do not exist. Not Properly Functioning. Personal observation of Loren Everest TRMU Fishery Biologist. • Width/Depth Ratio - Stream width/depth ratio has been constrained by Hwy 3. At Risk. • Streambank Condition - Twenty three percent of stream banks are classed as “unstable.” Not Properly Functioning. • Floodplain Connectivity - Floodplain and off channel habitats have been severely reduced by roads. There is little flood plain habitat for the stream to connect to. Not Properly Functioning. • Change in Peak/Base Flows - Little Browns Creek has a WCC of three (Figure 1). Smaller than the other two 7th field watersheds, the ERA is 94% of the TOC (Table 7). The road network, rate of timber harvest and urban development are the main causes of the high ERA. Not Properly Functioning. Data from the Hydrology Specialist Report for the Browns Project. • Increase in Drainage Network - There is a large increase in drainage density due to roads. Not Properly Functioning. Data from the Hydrology Specialist Report for the Browns Project. • Road Density and Location - The Little Browns Creek subwatershed has 6.2 miles per square mile of roads, Highway 3 has impacted stream channel stability significantly near the stream crossing where the highway occupies ¾ of the original channel width. Not Properly Functioning. Data from the Hydrology Specialist Report for the Browns Project and Personal observation of Loren Everest TRMU Fishery Biologist. • Disturbance History - CWE modeling shows Little Browns subwatershed is very close to the TOC (Table 6). Not Properly Functioning. Data from the Hydrology Specialist Report for the Browns Project. • Riparian Reserves - The Riparian Reserves of Little Browns Creek have been impacted by Hwy 3. The eastern half of the Riparian Reserve is occupied by Hwy 3. The western half is recovering with vegetation still adequate to provide >70% stream shade and adequate duff
E-22 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
layer to provide and effective sediment filter strip. Not Properly Functioning. Personal observation of Loren Everest TRMU Fishery Biologist.
Table 7. Existing ERA for Little Browns Creek.
HUC8 HUC Name Drainage Forest Plan Existing Area (acres) TOC (%) ERA (%) 1801021106040301 Upper Little Browns Creek 2151 16 15 1801021106040302 Long Gulch 2838 16 15 Little Browns Creek (all) 4989 16 15
East Weaver Creek East Weaver Creek has approximately 0.5 miles of habitat accessible to anadromous fishes on STNF lands. The diversion dam for the Weaverville Community Service District blocks migration .25 miles above the East Weaver Campground. Juvenile coho salmon and steelhead have been observed near East Weaver Campground but adult spawning has not been observed. Baseline conditions for East Weaver Creek Unless otherwise noted all baseline information for East Weaver Creek is from Stream Condition Surveys conducted in 2003 by the Forest Service (USDA-FS 2003b). • Temperature - Temperature measurements in this 3rd order stream near the Forest Boundary have been 67 degrees Fahrenheit or less. Properly Functioning. • Turbidity - Turbidity is low and clears quickly after precipitation events. Properly Functioning. Personal observation of Loren Everest TRMU Fishery Biologist. • Chemical/Nutrient Contamination - Water quality tests conducted during SCI surveys did not indicate any chemical contamination or nutrient problems. Properly Functioning. • Physical Barriers - The diversion dam for the Weaverville Community Service District blocks migration .25 miles above the East Weaver Campground. Not Properly Functioning. • Substrate - Fine sediment at pool tails is 10%. Properly Functioning. • Large Woody Debris - East Weaver Creek has 40 pieces of wood per stream mile but the recruitment potential is somewhat reduced by roads and development near the Riparian Reserve. At Risk. • Pool Frequency - Pools are frequent but average only 18 inches deep. At Risk. • Off-channel Habitat - There are few backwaters. Not Properly Functioning. • Refugia - Areas that may have historically provided refugia for anadromous fishes now have barriers that prevent fish use. Not Properly Functioning. Personal observation of Loren Everest TRMU Fishery Biologist. • Width/Depth Ratio - East Weaver Creek is a Rosgen “B” channel type. The width/depth ratio is appropriate for the channel type. Properly Functioning. • Streambank Condition - Stream bank are 28% unstable. Not Properly Functioning. • Floodplain Connectivity - Reduced linkage of wetland, floodplains, and riparian areas to main channel; overbank flows are reduced relative to historic frequency, as evidenced by
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-23 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
moderate degradation of wetland function, riparian vegetation/succession. At Risk. Personal observation of Loren Everest TRMU Fishery Biologist. • Change in Peak/Base Flows - East Weaver Creek has a WCC of two, however, one of the subwatersheds (1801021106040102) is in WCC three (Figure 1). The headwaters of East Weaver Creek drain wilderness and have a WCC of one. The ERA increases downstream; urban development is the main cause of the high ERA (Table 8). At Risk. Hydrology Specialist Report for the Browns Project. • Increase in Drainage Network - East Weaver Creek has moderate levels of road and urban development. At Risk. Hydrology Specialist Report for the Browns Project. • Road Density and Location – The East Weaver Creek subwatershed has 5.0 miles per square mile of roads. Not Properly Functioning. Data from the Hydrology Specialist Report for the Browns Project. • Disturbance History - CWE modeling shows that the upper East Weaver subwatershed is over TOC, while the overall condition is less than 80% of the TOC. At Risk. Hydrology Specialist Report for the Browns Project. • Riparian Reserves - Riparian Reserves on STNF lands are moderately functional however much of the riparian areas are privately managed and are greatly reduced in width. At Risk. Personal observation of Loren Everest TRMU Fishery Biologist.
Table 8. Existing ERA for East Weaver Creek
HUC8 HUC Name Drainage Forest Plan Existing Area (acres) TOC (%) ERA (%) 1801021106040101 Headwaters East Weaver Creek 2148 16 1 1801021106040102 Upper East Weaver Creek 1567 16 17 1801021106040103 East Branch East Weaver Creek 2291 16 10 1801021106040105 Lower East Weaver Creek 2886 16 12 E Weaver Creek (all) 8892 16 10
Watershed (5th field) baseline Weaver Creek has 5.7 miles of habitat available to anadromous fishes below the confluence of East and West Weaver Creeks. The community of Weaverville is located entirely within the watershed and heavily impacts the watershed through domestic water use and disruption of peak and base flows. The riparian areas of Weaver Creek have shown some recovery from those pictured in early photos when both bucket dredge and hydraulic mining occurred in and near the community. Culverts and concrete lined ditches gave no provision for fish passage. Migration barriers are slowly being modified and upgraded to allow fish to reach areas that have been blocked for many years. Coho salmon are now commonly seen in town during November and December when flows are suitable for migration. Baseline conditions for Weaver Creek Baseline conditions for Weaver Creek are based on the personal observation of Loren Everest TRMU Fishery Biologist unless otherwise noted.
E-24 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
• Temperature - Maximum temperatures in this 4th order stream are often > 73.0 degrees F Not Properly Functioning. Data from USGS Stream gage. • Turbidity - Weaver Creek becomes turbid quickly and remains turbid through precipitation events. Not Properly Functioning. • Chemical/Nutrient Contamination - Weaver Creek has low levels of contamination from agriculture, industrial, and other sources; no excess nutrients. Properly Functioning. • Physical Barriers - Man-made barriers are present in the watershed. Not Properly Functioning. • Substrate - Fine sediment levels are somewhat elevated in pool tails and spawning areas. At Risk. • Large Woody Debris - Large woody debris are often recruited by bank cutting during high flow events but are often removed from the channel. At Risk. • Pool Frequency - Pools are infrequent and generally shallow. Not Properly Functioning. • Off-channel Habitat - Some side channels and backwater areas exist at high flow. At Risk. • Refugia - Adequate habitat refugia do not exist. Not Properly Functioning. • Width/Depth Ratio - Width/depth ratio is suitable for a “C” type channel, some braiding occurs due to excessive sediment in the channel. At Risk. • Streambank Condition - Many banks are actively eroding. Not Properly Functioning. • Floodplain Connectivity - Floodplains have been greatly reduced by Hwy 299 in some areas. Not Properly Functioning • Change in Peak/Base Flows - Pronounced changes in peak and base flow is evident in Weaver Creek. Not Properly Functioning. • Increase in Drainage Network - The drainage network has been significantly increased at the watershed level due to urban development. Not Properly Functioning. • Road Density and Location - There are over 3 miles of road per square mile of watershed, many valley bottom roads. Not Properly Functioning. • Disturbance History - The Weaver Creek watershed has had a long history of mining and urban development that has significantly disrupted watershed function, Not Properly Functioning. • Riparian Reserves - Riparian reserve system is fragmented, poorly connected, or provides inadequate protection of habitat and refugia for sensitive aquatic species, however it has shown some recovery over time. Not Properly Functioning.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-25 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Figure 2. Watershed Condition Class by subwatershed in the Weaverville watershed (Green areas are WCC one, Yellow areas are in WCC two, Red areas WCC three).
V. Effects of the Proposed Action
The Shasta Trinity National Forest Tributaries Matrix of Factors and Indicators (Appendix A of this document), was used to assist in the analysis of effect for the proposed action. Level 1 teams are permitted to revise indicator values to more biologically appropriate values for specific watersheds or basins (NMFS 1996, page 3). This concept is reinforced in the Analytical Procedures process paper (NOAAF et al. 2004, page 7) and the Streamlined Consultation Procedures handbook (USDA Forest Service et al. 1999, pages IV-A-1 and IV-B-1). The Shasta Trinity National Forest Tributaries Matrix of Factors and Indicators is functionally equivalent to the “Table of Population and Habitat Indicators for Use in the Northwest Forest Plan Area” provided in the Analytical Process, except for the “population characteristics” and “population and habitat” pathways. An ESA recovery plan for SONCC coho salmon has not been proposed or completed. Therefore, insufficient information exists to address the “population characteristics” and “population and habitat” pathways at this time. The analytical process contains efficiency measures to limit duplicative analysis. Project elements that have similar effects (or no causal mechanism) to an indicator may be grouped for analysis.
E-26 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Indicators that address similar habitat characteristics (such as substrate and turbidity) may be grouped for analysis since they are similarly affected by project elements. Direct effects to coho salmon are not expected to occur. There are no aspects of the Project that will occur where fish are present. Indirect effects to SONCC coho salmon and its critical habitat, and EFH for SONCC coho salmon and KMP Chinook salmon will be analyzed by evaluating the expected effect of the Project elements on habitat indicators as described above. For evaluating effects, the Project is divided into Project Elements as described below: Harvest 1. Intermediate Thinning Harvest. 2. Regeneration Harvest. Yarding 1. Tractor Yarding. 2. Cable Yarding. 3. Development of a skid trail system on less than 15% of unit area. 4. Construction of 89 landings to be used only for this Project and then rehabilitated. Fuels Treatment 1. Whole Tree Yard 2. Lop and Scatter 3. Hand Pile 4. Burn Piles 5. Burn Concentrations 6. Broadcast Burn 7. Fire Line Construction Hauling 1. Log haul on the Transportation System. Road Construction 1. System Road Construction of 4.7 miles (and subsequent decommissioning of 3.3 miles of new road). 2. Temporary Road Construction of 3.6 miles, to be used only for this Project and then obliterated Road Reconstruction 1. System Road Reconstruction of 4.4 miles of existing system roads (including rocking, grading, culvert upgrade or drainage repair). 2. Hazard tree mitigation. Road Rehabilitation 1. Decommissioning or obliteration of 28 miles of existing system and nonsystem road including culvert removal, outsloping, ripping, waterbarring, slope stabilization and revegetation.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-27 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Each of the Project elements is analyzed for its effect on habitat indicators that are used to characterize the health of aquatic habitat. Changes to an indicator are evaluated using factor analysis to determine if there is an effect to individuals of the species or critical habitat.
Water Temperature ______
Harvest • Proximity - Intermediate thinning will occur in Riparian Reserves adjacent to critical habitat (Little Browns Creek) in unit 106 and unit 107. All “100” series units occur within Riparian Reserves of intermittent tributaries and are located 0.2 to 1.75 miles upstream of critical habitat. Unit 3B is the closest non RR unit, it is located 300 feet away from critical habitat in Little Browns Creek but is separated from the RR by county road 232. Other thinning and regeneration units are at least 500 feet (0.10 miles) from critical habitat. • Probability – There is low probability that reducing conifer canopy closure by 1% to 34% on one side of Little Browns Creek outside of the inner gorge would result in a change in water temperature. There is no probability that thinning of RR’s of intermittent tributaries would result in a change in water temperature, because the intermittent streams go dry before water temperatures in critical habitat become limiting to fish. • Magnitude – Conifer canopy cover will be reduced to 60% in the RR but outside of the inner gorge along one side of Little Browns Creek in units 106 and 107. The inner gorge provides approximately 100 feet of undisturbed canopy between the thinning area and Little Browns Creek. Steinblums (1977) found that leaving a buffer of 100 feet would not change stream shade. If stream shade is unaffected than water temperature will not change as a result of this project element. • Element Summary - This project element would have a neutral (0) effect on water temperature.
Yarding • Proximity – Yarding will occur adjacent to critical habitat in units 107 and 107 and in RR units that are upstream of critical habitat. • Probability – There is no probability that Yarding would result in a change in water temperature because there is no causal mechanism. Yarding does not remove shade canopy over streams. • Element Summary - This project element would have a neutral (0) effect on water temperature.
Fuels Treatment • Proximity – Fuels treatment will occur in Units 106 and 107 that are adjacent to critical habitat. All “100” series units occur within Riparian Reserves of intermittent tributaries and are located 0.2 to 1.75 miles upstream of critical habitat and will have fuels treated.
E-28 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
• Probability - All “100” series have fuels treated through whole tree yarding and hand piling along roads. Fuels treatment does not remove shade canopy over streams. There is no causal mechanism because fuels to be treated are harvest generated fuels. • Element Summary - This project element would have a neutral (0) effect on water temperature.
Hauling • Proximity – Hauling will cross critical habitat in Little Browns Creek, Rush Creek, and East Weaver Creek on the bridges of Hwy 3 and County road 204. • Probability - There is no probability that this element would have any effect on water temperature because there is no mechanism for removing stream shade. • Element Summary - This project element would have a neutral (0) effect on water temperature.
Road Construction • Proximity - Specified road construction of 34N47 and 34N47A will cross Riparian Reserves of two intermittent channels. These crossings are .25 and .37 miles away from critical habitat. U232A is the closest temporary road to critical habitat; it is about 0.10 mile away from Little Browns Creek and is separated by an existing county road. • Probability - Tree removal will be required at the channel crossings resulting in some canopy reduction that may reduce stream shade. • Magnitude - Due to the intermittent nature of the streams and limited amount of canopy removal, road construction will not result in changes to stream temperature that can be meaningfully measured. • Element Summary - This project element would have insignificant negative (-) effects on water temperature.
Road Reconstruction • Proximity – Road 34N77 is about 100 feet away from critical habitat in Little Browns Creek. All other roads to be reconstructed are 0.10 mile or more away from critical habitat. • Probability – It is probable that some hazard trees will be fell during road reconstruction that may result in reductions in stream shade. There is low probability that tree removal for road reconstruction will result in water temperature changes. • Magnitude – Changes to stream shade resulting from removing individual hazard trees will be so small that no water temperature change will result. • Element Summary - This project element would have a neutral (0) effect on water temperature.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-29 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Road Rehabilitation • Proximity – Twenty-eight miles are proposed for rehabilitation. Roads range from 25 feet to over 2 miles away from critical habitat. Road U34N77A is located on the flood plain of Little Browns Creek. Several other roads including U34N77A-1, U34N77AA, U3TRI02, U3TRI01, U3TRI01A and U3TRI03F are located within one site tree distance (150 feet) of Little Browns Creek. Road rehabilitation in Rush and East Weaver Creek subwatersheds is at least 0.2 miles from critical habitat. • Probability - Road rehabilitation will not result in the loss of any canopy cover of any stream; therefore, there is no causal mechanism to change water temperature. • Element Summary - This project element would have a neutral (0) effect on water temperature.
Water Temperature Indicator Summary The Project would have insignificant negative (-) effects on water temperature due to canopy loss resulting from road construction.
Turbidity and Substrate______These indicators are grouped since they are affected similarly by project elements. Turbidity is used as an indicator of fine sediment suspended in the water, and substrate is an indicator of fine sediment that settles onto the streambed.
Harvest • Proximity - Intermediate thinning will occur in Riparian Reserves adjacent to critical habitat (Little Browns Creek) in unit 106 and unit 107. All “100” series units occur within Riparian Reserves of intermittent tributaries and are located 0.2 to 1.75 miles upstream of critical habitat. Unit 3B is the closest non RR unit, it is located 300 feet away from critical habitat in Little Browns Creek but is separated from the RR by county road 232. Other thinning and regeneration units are at least 500 feet (0.10 miles) from critical habitat. • Probability - There is no probability that harvest would affect turbidity or substrate because harvest units are not located on unstable or potentially unstable soils. There is no other mechanism in which this PE could affect turbidity or substrate. • Element Summary - This project element would have a neutral (0) effect on turbidity or substrate.
Yarding • Proximity – Tractor yarding will occur in Riparian Reserves adjacent to critical habitat (Little Browns Creek) in unit 106 and unit 107. All “100” series units occur within Riparian Reserves of intermittent tributaries and are located 0.2 to 1.75 miles upstream of critical habitat. Unit 3B is the closest non RR unit, it is located 300 feet away from critical habitat in Little Browns
E-30 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Creek but is separated from the RR by county road 232. Tractor yarding will occur in Riparian Reserves down to the inner gorge of ephemeral and intermittent streams. Mechanical harvesters and forwarders will be used to limit the number of trips that vehicles will make into the Riparian Reserves. Three designated channel crossing sites are in units 16 and 17. These crossings are on intermittent channels and are 1.75 miles or more from critical habitat. Cable yarding will occur in seven RR thinning units. These units are 0.35 miles or more away from critical habitat. Proposed landings are all located outside of RR’s, the closest landing to critical habitat is in unit 107 and is about 300 feet away. Landings in unit 3B are just outside the RR (300 feet) but are hydrologically separated from Little Browns Creek by County Road 232. • Probability – Cable yarding, tractor yarding, and landing use have the potential to cause ground disturbance that may lead to an increase in turbidity or change in substrate. • Magnitude – Mechanical yarding in units directly adjacent to critical habitat (106,107) will occur on relatively flat ground, outside of the inner gorges and any runoff would have to pass through the duff-litter, forbs and shrubs of the inner gorge. The filtering effects of the duff- litter, forbs and shrubs of the inner gorge and the use of project design criteria, proper erosion control and BMP’s will limit increases in turbidity or change in substrate of adjacent critical habitat to levels that cannot be meaningfully measured. Tractor yarding in RR thinning units away from critical habitat will have similar effects to units 106 and 107 except where channel crossings occur. Projects design criteria call for mulching with organic material for 50 feet on each side of the crossing to provide at least 50% ground cover and filter any runoff that occurs. Implementation of project design criteria for channel crossings will limit increases in turbidity or change in substrate in critical habitat to levels that cannot be meaningfully measured. Due to the limited amount of ground disturbance and adherence to project design criteria, proper erosion control and BMP’s the negative effect of cable yarding throughout the project on turbidity and substrate in critical habitat is insignificant. • Element Summary - This project element would have insignificant negative (-) effects on turbidity and substrate due to yarding of trees from units directly adjacent to critical habitat.
Fuels Treatment • Proximity – Fuels treatment will occur in all harvest units including RR thinning adjacent to critical habitat (Little Browns Creek) in unit 106 and unit 107. All “100” series units occur within Riparian Reserves of intermittent tributaries and are located 0.2 to 1.75 miles upstream of critical habitat. Unit 3B is the closest non RR unit, it is located 300 feet away from critical habitat in Little Browns Creek but is separated from the RR by county road 232. Hand and dozer lines will be constructed where necessary but will not be constructed in Riparian Reserves. • Probability –The whole tree yarding fuels prescription does not have any mechanism to cause an increase in turbidity or change in substrate. Due to the location outside of RR’s, implementation of project design criteria and meeting ground cover requirements there is no probability of broadcast burning, burning concentrations, hand fireline construction and dozer
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-31 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
fireline construction increasing turbidity or changing substrate. Roadside piling and burning will occur along system roads within RR’s and will result in small areas of exposed mineral soil. • Magnitude – The nearest to critical habitat that roadside piling and burning will only occur near critical habitat in unit 106 next to county road 232. Other RR units with roadside piling and burning are at least 0.7 miles from critical habitat. Ground cover, including duff, litter and shrubs in riparian reserves is adequate to effectively filter most sediment that leaves burn piles through overland flow resulting in negative effects to critical habitat that cannot be meaningfully measured. • Element Summary - This project element would have insignificant negative (-) effects on turbidity and substrate resulting from fuel treatments, especially roadside piling and burning in Unit 106.
Hauling • Proximity – Hauling will cross critical habitat in Little Browns Creek, Rush Creek, and East Weaver Creek on the bridges of Hwy 3 and County Road 204. Hauling will occur on Forest roads that cross streams draining into critical habitat and enter RR’s. • Probability –Hauling on Hwy 3 and County Roads 204 and 230 has no probability of affecting turbidity or substrate in critical habitat. Hwy 3 and County Roads 204 and 230 are paved roads suitable for all season use. Hauling on Forest Roads and County Road 232 has a low probably of affecting turbidity or changing substrate in critical habitat due to restrictions on wet weather operation and improved road drainage and rocked surfaces from reconstruction of main haul roads. • Magnitude – Hauling on Forest Roads and County Road 232 will result in negative effects that cannot be meaningfully measured or detected to turbidity and substrate in critical habitat due to wet weather operation restrictions and improved road drainage and rocked surfaces from reconstruction of main haul roads. • Element Summary - This project element would have insignificant negative (-) effects on turbidity and substrate as a result of hauling on native and aggregate surfaced roads.
Road Construction • Proximity - Specified road construction of 34N47 and 34N47A will cross RR’s of two intermittent channels in units 102 and 103. These crossings are .25 and .37 miles away from critical habitat. U232A is the closest temporary road to critical habitat, it is about 0.10 mile away from Little Browns Creek and is separated by an existing county road. Other temporary roads in unit 100 and 101 are located in the RR but are over 1 mile away from critical habitat. • Probability – Specified road construction will create some ground disturbance near intermittent channels that drain to critical habitat. There is a low probably that ground disturbance will cause some localized increase in turbidity or change in substrate in the intermittent channels due to the timing of work outside of the wet season and adherence to all
E-32 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
project design criteria and BMP’s. Timing of the road work during the dry season will allow disturbed surfaces to stabilize before rain events, project design criteria for roads requires that landings and skid trails drain away from new construction and proper erosion control measures be followed. • Magnitude – Negative effects (-) to turbidity and substrate in critical habitat resulting from road construction cannot be meaningfully measured due to the timing of road work, the adherence to project design criteria and the distance from critical habitat. The further the disturbance is located from critical habitat the greater the likelihood that any individual effect is diluted or overwhelmed by background levels of turbidity. • Element Summary – Road Construction will have insignificant negative (-) effects on turbidity and substrate resulting from the road construction causing some soil disturbance.
Road Reconstruction • Proximity - Road 34N77 is about 100 feet away from critical habitat. All other roads to be reconstructed are 1.10 miles or more away from critical habitat. All culverts being replaced are more than 1.0 mile away from critical habitat. • Probability - The probability for road reconstruction activities (which includes ditch cleaning, culvert inlet cleanout, constructing rocked water dips, and replacing culverts in non-fish streams) to negatively (-) affect coho salmon is low because of timing of sediment movement and because of the limited amount of sediment that could reach critical habitat. The likelihood that this project element would positively (+) affect (reduce) turbidity or improve substrate in critical habitat under winter stream flow conditions is also low because relatively few road miles would be reconstructed compared to total road miles in the watershed. • Magnitude – Road reconstruction would have a short-term negative (-) effect, as well as a slight long-term positive (+) effect on the indicator. The slight negative effects of road reconstruction on turbidity and substrate in critical habitat would be difficult to detect and would not measurably affect critical habitat. Project design criteria would be used to minimize the amount of soil that moves off-site. In addition, any soil that is flushed downstream at the beginning of the rainy season would be immediately diluted by the much greater volume of water in critical habitat and would become indistinguishable from the elevated levels of sediment entering channels from all sources at that time.
The slight positive (+) effect for this element will occur for reducing road-related stream sediment in the long term. Positive effects will occur as a result of better cross drains moving water off the road surface, rock surfacing to reduce erosion from the running surface and larger culverts to reduce the risk of catastrophic failure. • Element Summary – Road reconstruction will have insignificant short-term negative (-) effects to turbidity and substrate due to soil disturbance and long-term positive (+) effects resulting from better road drainage and lower risk of culvert failure.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-33 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Road Rehabilitation • Proximity – Twenty-eight miles are proposed for rehabilitation. Roads range from 25 feet to over 2 miles away from critical habitat. Road U34N77A is located on the flood plain of Little Browns Creek. Several other roads including U34N77A-1, U34N77AA, U3TRI02, U3TRI01, U3TRI01A and U3TRI03F are located within one site tree distance (150 feet) of Little Browns Creek. Road rehabilitation in Rush and East Weaver Creek subwatersheds is at least 0.2 miles from critical habitat. Culverts to be removed range from 0.1 to 2.1miles from critical habitat. • Probability – There is high probability that road rehabilitation will have short-term (-) negative effects on turbidity and substrate in critical habitat and a long-term positive (+) effect in the Little Browns subwatershed. There is low probability that that road rehabilitation will have short-term (-) negative effects on turbidity and substrate in critical habitat and a long- term positive (+) effect in the Rush and East Weaver Creek Little subwatersheds. • Magnitude - Road rehabilitation would have short-term negative (-) effects, as well as a slight long-term positive (+) effect on the habitat indicator. The negative effects of road rehabilitation related turbidity and substrate would be evident in Little Browns Creek for a short distance (1/4 mile) downstream. An unknown amount of sediment will be mobilized into critical habitat. If spawning fish were present there may be enough sediment entering the stream to affect emergence of fry from redds. Because of the distance of road rehabilitation activities from critical habitat, in addition to implementing project design criteria and BMP’s effects in Rush and East Weaver Creeks could not be meaningfully measured.
The long-term positive (+) effect of this element for reducing road-related turbidity and decreasing fine sediment in the substrate in the long-term would be reducing the density of roads in the Little Browns Creek subwatershed by one third. Rush and East Weaver Creek subwatersheds would have positive effects that could not be meaningfully measured. • Distribution - The greatest negative effect to critical habitat would occur in Little Browns Creek from the Hwy 3 crossing downstream ¼ mile. Some effects could occur in intermittent tributaries to Little Browns Creek but it is unlikely that effects to turbidity or substrate would be significant by the time it reached critical habitat. Positive effects would occur in the Little Browns Creek subwatershed as rehabilitated roadbeds revegetate over time. • Frequency – Negative effects to Little Browns Creek would occur during precipitation events. Positive effects of road rehabilitation would occur continuously over time. • Duration – Negative effects to Little Browns Creek would occur with the first precipitation event and diminish in following events. It is likely that negative effects would occur for a period of 2 to 3 years, until disturbed areas become stabilized. Positive effects of road rehabilitation would occur in perpetuity. • Timing - Negative effects in Little Browns Creek would be coincidental with adult fish migration, spawning, egg incubation and emergence. Long-term positive effects will occur year-round and may affect all freshwater life stages of coho salmon.
E-34 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
• Nature –If spawning were to occur near and downstream of the Project area, increased fine sediment levels could cause a reduction in emergence of hatched coho salmon due to fine sediment infiltrating a redd. Road rehabilitation will also provide long-term positive effects to the watershed by decreasing compacted surfaces, increasing infiltration, decreasing the drainage network and revegetating bare surfaces that are prone to erosion. • Element Summary - Road rehabilitation will have effects great enough to negatively (-) affect coho salmon and their habitat in Little Browns Creek due to increases in turbidity and changes in substrate as a result of road obliteration in the floodplain. Road rehabilitation will have insignificant short-term negative (-) effects due to ground disturbance well away from critical habitat in Rush and East Weaver Creeks. Road rehabilitation will have long-term positive (+) effects to turbidity and substrate in Little Browns Creek due to decreasing compacted surfaces, increasing infiltration, decreasing the drainage network and revegetating bare surfaces that are prone to erosion and insignificant long-term positive effects in Rush and East Weaver Creeks.
Turbidity and Substrate Indicator Summary For Rush and East Weaver Creeks the Project would have insignificant negative (-) effects on turbidity and substrate from several project elements. The additive effects are still expected to be insignificant because of the small amount of harvest and road rehabilitation that will occur in those subwatersheds. In the Little Browns Creek subwatershed, the additive effects of all project elements are expected to result in slightly elevated turbidity levels for a period of two to three years. One element (road rehabilitation) is likely to result in negative (-) effects to turbidity and substrate in Little Browns Creek that may impact coho salmon. Long-term positive (+) effects will occur in Little Browns Creek due to decreasing compacted surfaces, increasing infiltration, decreasing the drainage network and revegetating bare surfaces that are prone to erosion.
Chemical Contamination/Nutrients ______• Harvest • Yarding • Fuels Treatment • Hauling • Road Construction • Road Reconstruction • Road Rehabilitation All Project elements have a common analysis for Chemical Contamination/Nutrients because the mechanism with potential to cause effects is the same. All equipment fueling sites will be located at landings well away from any watercourses and have appropriate spill containment (Appendix B,). Chemical contamination in the form of a spill of petroleum products due to a motorized vehicle accident (log truck, tractor, and yarder) is, of course, not expected as part of the Project. Reinitiation of consultation will be initiated, as appropriate, if such an accident occurs. No project elements have a causal mechanism to affect the nutrient loading in any way.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-35 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Chemical Contamination/Nutrients Indicator and Element Summary The Project will have neutral (0) effects on Chemical Contamination/Nutrients.
Physical Barriers ______• Harvest • Yarding • Fuels Treatment • Hauling • Road Construction • Road Reconstruction • Road Rehabilitation The Project neither corrects nor creates any fish passage barriers. There is no causal mechanism associated with the proposed Project to affect the indicator.
Physical Barriers Indicator and Element Summary The Project will have neutral (0) effects on Physical Barriers.
Large Woody Debris (LWD) ______
Harvest • Proximity - Intermediate thinning will occur in Riparian Reserves adjacent to critical habitat (Little Browns Creek) in unit 106 and unit 107. All “100” series units occur within Riparian Reserves of intermittent tributaries and are located 0.2 to 1.75 miles upstream of critical habitat. Unit 3B is the closest non RR unit, it is located 300 feet away from critical habitat in Little Browns Creek but is separated from the RR by county road 232. Other thinning and regeneration units are at least 500 feet (0.10 miles) from critical habitat. • Probability – There is no probability that thinning will have negative (-) effects on LWD levels in critical habitat because only two units are located adjacent to critical habitat and the diameter of trees being removed does not meet the minimum size requirements (>16”dbh) for LWD. Any standing dead snags will be retained for future recruitment. Thinned stands will have increased growth rates for long-term positive (+) effects on LWD levels in critical habitat. • Magnitude – Thinning will have slight positive (+) effect on LWD recruitment because increased growth will occur in only two stands (4.2 acres) thinned that are adjacent to critical habitat. • Element Summary - Harvest will have insignificant long-term positive (+) effects on LWD levels due to increased growth rates in 4.2 acres of Riparian Reserve thinning.
E-36 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
• Yarding • Fuels Treatment • Hauling These project elements are not directly related with any tree removal and therefore do not have any causal mechanism by which to affect LWD. • Element Summary - Yarding, Fuels Treatment, Hauling and Road Rehabilitation will have neutral (0) effects on LWD.
Road Rehabilitation • Proximity - Twenty-eight miles are proposed for rehabilitation. Roads range from 25 feet to over 2 miles away from critical habitat. Road U34N77A is located on the flood plain of Little Browns Creek. Several other roads including U34N77A-1, U34N77AA, U3TRI02, U3TRI01, U3TRI01A and U3TRI03F are located within one site tree distance (150 feet) of Little Browns Creek. Road rehabilitation in Rush and East Weaver Creek subwatersheds is at least 0.2 miles from critical habitat. • Probability – There is high probability that road rehabilitation may result in long-term positive effects to LWD due to revegetation. • Magnitude – Road rehabilitation will have a slight positive effect on LWD levels in critical habitat because only a small portion of Riparian Reserve is affected. • Element Summary – Road Rehabilitation will have insignificant long-term positive (+) effects on LWD levels due to revegetation of rehabilitated road areas.
• Road Construction • Road Reconstruction • Proximity - Road 34N77 is about 100 feet away from critical habitat. All other roads to be reconstructed are 1.10 miles or more away from critical habitat. Specified road construction of 34N47 and 34N47A will cross RR’s of two intermittent channels in units 102 and 103. These crossings are .25 and .37 miles away from critical habitat. U232A is the closest temporary road to critical habitat, it is about 0.10 mile away from Little Browns Creek and is separated by an existing county road. Other temporary roads in unit 100 and 101 are located in the RR but are over 1 mile away from critical habitat. • Probability – There is no probability that trees of sufficient size to be recruited to critical habitat for LWD will be removed during road construction or road reconstruction. Hazard trees within RR’s along roads to be reconstructed will be dropped and left in place. Trees of sufficient size to be LWD will be removed from 0.25 acres of RR’s in units 102 and 103 where new construction will occur. Removing trees from RR’s in units 102 and 103 will have insignificant negative effects because of the small amount of area affected. • Element Summary - Road Construction and Road Reconstruction will have insignificant negative effects on large woody debris.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-37 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Large Woody Debris Indicator Summary Harvest will have insignificant long-term positive (+) effects on LWD levels due to increased growth rates in 4.2 acres of Riparian Reserve thinning. Road Rehabilitation will have insignificant long-term positive (+) effects on LWD due to conversion of road into vegetated area. Yarding, Fuels Treatment and Hauling will have neutral (0) effects on LWD. Road Construction and Road Reconstruction will have insignificant negative effects on LWD.
Pool Frequency ______Project elements do not directly change pools but may alter processes that affect pool frequency and depth. This analysis focuses on sediment supply as related to pool filling and LWD as related to pool forming structures.
Harvest • Proximity - Intermediate thinning will occur in Riparian Reserves adjacent to critical habitat (Little Browns Creek) in unit 106 and unit 107. All “100” series units occur within Riparian Reserves of intermittent tributaries and are located 0.2 to 1.75 miles upstream of critical habitat. Unit 3B is the closest non RR unit, it is located 300 feet away from critical habitat in Little Browns Creek but is separated from the RR by county road 232. Other thinning and regeneration units are at least 500 feet (0.10 miles) from critical habitat. • Probability – There is no probability that Harvest will affect pool frequency because harvest units and prescriptions have been designed to avoid unstable areas that could cause mass failures and lead to increased sediment supply and there are no changes in LWD expected from Harvest. • Element Summary – Harvest will have neutral (0) effects on pool frequency.
Yarding • Proximity - Tractor yarding will occur in Riparian Reserves adjacent to critical habitat (Little Browns Creek) in unit 106 and unit 107. All “100” series units occur within Riparian Reserves of intermittent tributaries and are located 0.2 to 1.75 miles upstream of critical habitat. Unit 3B is the closest non RR unit, it is located 300 feet away from critical habitat in Little Browns Creek but is separated from the RR by county road 232. Tractor yarding will occur in Riparian Reserves down to the inner gorge of ephemeral and intermittent streams. Mechanical harvesters and forwarders will be used to limit the number of trips that vehicles will make into the Riparian Reserves. Three designated channel crossing sites are in units 16 and 17. These crossings are on intermittent channels and are 1.75 miles or more from critical habitat. Cable yarding will occur in seven RR thinning units. These units are 0.35 miles or more away from critical habitat. Proposed landings are all located outside of RR’s, the closest landing to critical habitat is in unit 107 and is about 300 feet away. Landings in unit 3B are just outside the RR (300 feet) but are hydrologically separated from Little Browns Creek by County Road 232.
E-38 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
• Probability - Cable yarding, tractor yarding, and landing use cause ground disturbance that may lead to erosion and changes in sediment supply, an important factor in pool frequency. • Magnitude – Mechanical yarding in units directly adjacent to critical habitat (106,107) will occur on relatively flat ground, outside of the inner gorges and any runoff would have to pass through the duff-litter, forbs and shrubs of the inner gorge. The filtering effects of the duff- litter, forbs and shrubs of the inner gorge and the use of project design criteria, proper erosion control and BMP’s will limit increases (negative effects) in sediment supply to adjacent critical habitat to less than detectable levels. Tractor yarding in RR thinning units away from critical habitat will have similar effects to units 106 and 107 except where channel crossings occur. Projects design standards call for mulching with organic material for 50 feet on each side of the crossing to provide at least 50% ground cover and filter any runoff that occurs. Implementation of project design criteria for channel crossings will limit increases in sediment supply (negative effects) in critical habitat to levels that cannot be meaningfully measured.
Due to the limited amount of ground disturbance and adherence to project design criteria, proper erosion control and BMP’s, cable yarding will have neutral (0) effect on pool frequency in critical habitat do to an increase in sediment supply. • Element Summary – Yarding will have insignificant negative (-) effects on pool frequency due to some ground disturbance by tractor yarding.
Fuels Treatment • Proximity – Fuels treatment will occur in all harvest units including RR thinning adjacent to critical habitat (Little Browns Creek) in unit 106 and unit 107. All “100” series units occur within Riparian Reserves of intermittent tributaries and are located 0.2 to 1.75 miles upstream of critical habitat. Unit 3B is the closest non RR unit, it is located 300 feet away from critical habitat in Little Browns Creek but is separated from the RR by county road 232. • Probability – The whole tree yarding fuels prescription does not have any mechanism to cause a change in pool frequency. Due to the location outside of RR’s, implementation of project design criteria and meeting ground cover requirements, there is no probability of broadcast burning, burning concentrations, hand fireline construction and dozer fireline construction changing pool frequency. Roadside piling and burning will occur along system roads within RR’s and will result in small areas of exposed mineral soil. • Magnitude – Roadside piling and burning will only occur near critical habitat in unit 106 next to county road 232. Other RR units with roadside piling and burning are at least 0.7 miles from critical habitat. Ground cover, including duff, litter and shrubs in riparian reserves is adequate to effectively filter most sediment that leaves burn piles through overland flow resulting in negative effects to critical habitat that cannot be meaningfully measured. • Element Summary – Fuels treatment will have insignificant negative (-) effects to pool frequency as a result of roadside piling and burning in unit 106.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-39 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Hauling • Proximity – Hauling will cross critical habitat in Little Browns Creek, Rush Creek, and East Weaver Creek on the bridges of Hwy 3 and County Road 204. Hauling will occur on Forest roads that cross streams draining into critical habitat and enter RR’s. • Probability – Hauling on Hwy 3 and County Roads 204 and 230 has no probability of affecting pool frequency in critical habitat. Hwy3 and County Roads 204 and 230 are paved roads suitable for all season use. Hauling on Forest Roads and County Road 232 has a low probably of affecting pool frequency, through changes in sediment supply, in critical habitat due to restrictions on wet weather operation and improved road drainage and rocked surfaces from reconstruction of main haul roads. • Magnitude – Hauling on Forest Roads and County Road 232 will result in negative effects to sediment supply that are not great enough to meaningfully detect. Pool frequency in critical habitat due to wet weather operation restrictions and improved road drainage and rocked surfaces from reconstruction of main haul roads will not change due to hauling. • Element Summary - This project element would have insignificant negative (-) effects on pool frequency as a result of hauling on native and aggregate surfaced roads.
Road Construction • Proximity - Specified road construction of 34N47 and 34N47A will cross RR’s of two intermittent channels in units 102 and 103. These crossings are .25 and .37 miles away from critical habitat. U232A is the closest temporary road to critical habitat; it is about 0.10 mile away from Little Browns Creek and is separated by an existing county road. Other temporary roads in unit 100 and 101 are located in the RR but are over 1 mile away from critical habitat. • Probability – Specified road construction will create some ground disturbance near intermittent channels that drain to critical habitat. There is a low probably that ground disturbance will cause some localized increase in sediment supply in intermittent channels due to the timing of work outside of the wet season and adherence to all project design criteria and BMP’s. • Magnitude – Negative effects (-) to sediment supply in critical habitat resulting from road construction will be small enough to not be meaningfully measured due to the timing of road work, the adherence to project design criteria and the distance from critical habitat. Timing of the road work during the dry season will allow disturbed surfaces to stabilize before rain events, project design criteria for roads requires that landings and skid trails drain away from new road construction and proper erosion control measures be followed. • Element Summary – Road Construction will have insignificant negative (-) effects on pool frequency as a result of ground disturbance and insignificant sediment mobilization and delivery during construction.
E-40 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Road Reconstruction • Proximity - Road 34N77 is about 100 feet away from critical habitat. All other roads to be reconstructed are 1.10 miles or more away from critical habitat. All culverts being replaced are more than 1.0 mile away from critical habitat. • Probability – There is no probability that road reconstruction could have an effect in Rush or East Weaver Creek because all road reconstruction occurs in the Little Browns Creek subwatershed. The probability for road reconstruction activities (which includes ditch cleaning, culvert inlet cleanout, constructing rocked water dips, and replacing culverts in non- fish streams) to negatively (-) affect pool frequency is low because of the limited amount of sediment that could reach critical habitat. The likelihood that this project element would positively (+) affect (reduce) sediment supply in critical habitat under winter stream flow conditions is also low because relatively few road miles would be reconstructed compared to total road miles in the watershed. • Magnitude – Road reconstruction would have a short-term negative (-) effect, as well as a slight long-term beneficial (+) effect on the indicator. The slight negative effects of road reconstruction on sediment supply and therefore pool frequency in critical habitat would be undetectable and would not measurably affect critical habitat. Project design criteria would be used to minimize the amount of soil that moves off-site.
The slight positive (+) effect for this element will occur for reducing road-related stream sediment in the long term. Positive effects will occur as a result of better cross drains moving water off the road surface to reduce erosion, rock surfacing to reduce erosion from the running surface and larger culverts to reduce the risk of catastrophic failure. • Element Summary – Road reconstruction will have insignificant short-term negative (-) effects as a result of ground disturbance during construction and long-term positive (+) effects to pool frequency in Little Browns Creek due to better road drainage and reduced risk of culvert failure.
Road Rehabilitation • Proximity – Twenty-eight miles are proposed for rehabilitation. Roads range from 25 feet to over 2 miles away from critical habitat. Road U34N77A is located on the flood plain of Little Browns Creek. Several other roads including U34N77A-1, U34N77AA, U3TRI02, U3TRI01, U3TRI01A and U3TRI03F are located within one site tree distance (150 feet) of Little Browns Creek. Road rehabilitation in Rush and East Weaver Creek subwatersheds is at least 0.2 miles from critical habitat. Culverts to be removed range from 0.1 to 2.1 miles from critical habitat. • Probability – There is high probability that road rehabilitation will have (-) negative short- term effect on sediment supply that could change pool frequency in critical habitat and a positive (+) long-term effect in the Little Browns subwatershed. There is no probability that road rehabilitation will affect pool frequency in Rush or East Weaver Creeks because roads that will be rehabilitated are not located close to streams.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-41 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
• Magnitude - Road rehabilitation would have short-term negative (-) effects, as well as a slight long-term beneficial (+) effect on the habitat indicator. The negative effects of road rehabilitation related to sediment supply would be evident in Little Browns Creek for a short distance downstream. An unknown amount of sediment will be moved within very close proximity to critical habitat and may be deposited in pools as high flows recede.
The positive (+) effect of this element for reducing road-related sediment in the long-term would be reducing the density of roads in the Little Browns Creek subwatershed by one third. • Distribution - The greatest negative effect to critical habitat would occur in Little Browns Creek from the Hwy 3 crossing downstream ¼ mile. Some effects could occur in intermittent tributaries to Little Browns Creek but it is unlikely that effects to sediment supply would be significant by the time it reached critical habitat. Positive effects would occur in the Little Browns Creek subwatershed over time as rehabilitated roadbeds revegetate over time. • Frequency – Negative effects to Little Browns Creek would occur during each precipitation event with the first precipitation event bringing the greatest effects. Positive effects of road rehabilitation would occur continuously over time. • Duration – Negative effects to Little Browns Creek would occur with the first precipitation event and diminish in following events. It is likely that negative effects would occur for a period of two to three years. Positive effects of road rehabilitation would occur in perpetuity. • Timing - Negative effects in Little Browns Creek would be coincidental with adult fish migration, spawning, egg incubation and emergence. Long-term positive effects will occur year-round and may affect all freshwater life stages of coho salmon. • Nature – Increased fine sediment levels could cause a slight reduction (negative effect) in pool volume that newly emerged coho salmon would use for rearing. Long-term positive effects would be a reduction in sediment supply and an increase in pool frequency (increasing rearing habitat) over time. • Element Summary - Road rehabilitation will have insignificant short-term negative (-) effects in Rush and East Weaver Creeks. Road rehabilitation is likely to result in negative (-) effects to substrate that may in turn affect pool frequency in critical habitat in Little Browns Creek.
Pool Frequency Indicator Summary The Project will have short-term negative (-) effects on pool frequency and depth in Little Browns Creek by slightly increasing sediment supply. The Project will have neutral (0) effects on these pool characteristics in Rush and East Weaver Creeks. The Project is also expected to have long-term positive (+) effects to pool frequency through a reduction in sediment supply.
E-42 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Off-channel Habitat ______• Harvest • Yarding • Fuels Treatment • Hauling • Road Construction • Road Reconstruction • Road Rehabilitation • Proximity - Due to the well-confined nature of the channels of Little Browns Creek and East Weaver Creek off-channel habitat does not exist. Off-channel habitat exists in Rush Creek but the location is upstream of any possible Project influences. There is no causal mechanism associated to affect this indicator.
Off-Channel Habitat Indicator and Element Summary Due the location of off-channel habitat the Project will have neutral (0) effects on this indicator.
Refugia ______• Harvest • Yarding • Fuels Treatment • Hauling • Road Construction • Road Reconstruction • Road Rehabilitation There are no areas of refugia within the action area. There is no causal mechanism associated with the proposed Project to affect the indicator.
Refugia Indicator and Element Summary Due the lack of refugia habitat the Project will have neutral (0) effects on this indicator.
Width/Depth Ratio ______• Harvest • Yarding • Fuels Treatment • Hauling • Road Construction • Road Reconstruction • Road Rehabilitation There is no causal mechanism associated with the proposed Project to affect the indicator. All stream sections within the action area have very narrow valleys and are not capable of changing width/depth ratios. East Weaver Creek and Little Browns Creek are artificially confined by roads and Rush Creek is confined by bedrock and mine tailings.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-43 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Width/Depth Ratio Indicator and Element Summary Due the nature of the stream channels in the action area the Project will have neutral (0) effects on this indicator.
Streambank Condition ______
Harvest • Proximity - Intermediate thinning will occur in Riparian Reserves adjacent to critical habitat (Little Browns Creek) in unit 106 and unit 107. All “100” series units occur within Riparian Reserves of intermittent tributaries and are located 0.2 to 1.75 miles upstream of critical habitat. Unit 3B is the closest non RR unit, it is located 300 feet away from critical habitat in Little Browns Creek but is separated from the RR by county road 232. Other thinning and regeneration units are at least 500 feet (0.10 miles) from critical habitat. • Probability - The mechanism that may cause streambank condition to be degraded is direct physical disturbance. Harvest will not occur on stream banks, however even with directional falling it is possible that a tree felled in a Riparian Reserve thinning unit along an intermittent stream may hit a stream bank, however it is extremely unlikely to occur. The probability that effects will occur from direct disturbance is discountable (negative effect). • Element Summary - Harvest will have discountable negative (-) effects on streambank condition.
Fuels Treatment • Proximity - Fuels treatment will occur in all harvest units including RR thinning adjacent to critical habitat (Little Browns Creek) in unit 106 and unit 107. All “100” series units occur within Riparian Reserves of intermittent tributaries and are located 0.2 to 1.75 miles upstream of critical habitat. Unit 3B is the closest non RR unit, it is located 300 feet away from critical habitat in Little Browns Creek but is separated from the RR by county road 232. • Probability – There mechanism by which the Project may cause streambank condition to be degraded is direct physical disturbance. Fuels treatment will not occur on stream banks, there is no probability that effects will occur from direct disturbance. Changes in flow would occur from compacted surfaces and increases in drainage network. Fuels treatment has no probability (neutral effect) of further increasing peak stream flows in the action area. • Element Summary - Fuels treatment will have neutral (0) effects on streambank condition.
E-44 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Hauling Hauling only occurs on existing road systems and therefore has no causal mechanism to affect streambank condition.
• Element Summary – Hauling will have neutral (0) effects on streambank condition.
• Yarding • Road Construction • Road Reconstruction • Road Rehabilitation • Proximity – Tractor yarding will occur in Riparian Reserves adjacent to critical habitat (Little Browns Creek) in unit 106 and unit 107. All “100” series units occur within Riparian Reserves of intermittent tributaries and are located 0.2 to 1.75 miles upstream of critical habitat. Unit 3B is the closest non RR unit, it is located 300 feet away from critical habitat in Little Browns Creek but is separated from the RR by county road 232. Tractor yarding will occur in Riparian Reserves down to the inner gorge of ephemeral and intermittent streams. Mechanical harvesters and forwarders will be used to limit the number of trips that vehicles will make into the Riparian Reserves. Three designated channel crossing sites are in units 16 and 17. These crossings are on intermittent channels and are 1.75 miles or more from critical habitat. Cable yarding will occur in seven RR thinning units. These units are 0.35 miles or more away from critical habitat. Proposed landings are all located outside of RR’s, the closest landing to critical habitat is in unit 107 and is about 300 feet away. Landings in unit 3B are just outside the RR (300 feet) but are hydrologically separated from Little Browns Creek by County Road 232.
Specified road construction of 34N47 and 34N47A will cross RR’s of two intermittent channels in units 102 and 103. These crossings are .25 and .37 miles away from critical habitat. U232A is the closest temporary road to critical habitat; it is about 0.10 mile away from Little Browns Creek and is separated by an existing county road. Other temporary roads in unit 100 and 101 are located in the RR but are over 1 mile away from critical habitat.
Road 34N77 is about 100 feet away from critical habitat. All other roads to be reconstructed are 1.10 miles or more away from critical habitat. All culverts being replaced are more than 1.0 mile away from critical habitat.
Twenty-eight miles of road are proposed for rehabilitation. Roads range from 25 feet to over 2 miles away from critical habitat. Road U34N77A is located on the flood plain of Little Browns Creek. Several other roads including U34N77A-1, U34N77AA, U3TRI02, U3TRI01, U3TRI01A and U3TRI03F are located within one site tree distance (150 feet) of Little Browns Creek. Road rehabilitation in Rush and East Weaver Creek subwatersheds is at least 0.2 miles from critical habitat. Culverts to be removed range from 0.1 to 2.1 miles from critical habitat. • Probability –Three designated crossings for tractor yarding are more than 1.75 miles from critical habitat. Crossing stream channels 1.75 miles away from Critical Habitat will have no probability of affecting stream banks of critical habitat.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-45 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
• There are no culverts to be replaced or removed within Critical Habitat. Streambank disturbance at a culvert removal or replacement site is a localized effect and will not affect streambanks (neutral effect) of Critical Habitat downstream. • Element Summary – Yarding, Road Construction, Road Reconstruction and Road Rehabilitation will have neutral (0) effects on streambank condition.
Streambank Indicator Summary The Project will have neutral (0) effects on streambank condition in critical habitat.
Floodplain Connectivity ______• Harvest • Yarding • Fuels Treatment • Hauling • Road Construction • Road Reconstruction
• Proximity – None of the above PE’s will occur on floodplains. • Probability - There is no probability that any of these elements would affect floodplain connectivity because there is no mechanism for any of them to influence the habitat indicator. • Element Summary – Harvest, Yarding, Fuels Treatment, Hauling, Road Construction and Road Reconstruction will have neutral (0) effects on floodplain connectivity.
Road Rehabilitation • Proximity – Road U34N77A is located within the floodplain of Little Browns Creek. • Probability – There is high probability that the floodplain connectivity will be affected by rehabilitating Road U34N77A. • Magnitude – Floodplain connectivity will be fully reestablished. • Distribution – The effect would occur on about 0.15 mile of stream below the Hwy.3 crossing. • Frequency – The effect would occur once when road rehabilitation is complete. • Duration – The effect would be permanent. • Timing – The floodplain will be reconnected during high winter flows, during the migration period of coho salmon. • Nature – Reconnecting the floodplain will allow for increased health of the riparian area and reestablish some wetland function in a small section of Little Browns Creek. The effect of reconnecting the floodplain is not likely to be large enough to directly affect fish populations but may contribute to some improvement in fish habitat in Little Browns Creek. • Element Summary – Road rehabilitation will have positive (+) effects on floodplain connectivity by removing a road that is on the floodplain.
E-46 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Floodplain Connectivity Indicator Summary The project will have positive (+) effects on floodplain connectivity by removing a road that is on the floodplain.
Change in Peak/Base Flow and Increase in Drainage Network___ The Flow/Hydrology indicators of Change in Peak/Base Flow and Increase in Drainage Network are related because changes in the drainage network affect peak and base flows. Both indicators are analyzed in the CWE analysis using the Equivalent Roaded Area model (Haskins 1986) and the magnitude of expected changes is derived from model results. The Project is modeled in its entirety; hence, PE’s that may have an effect on these indicators have a common analysis.
• Harvest • Yarding • Fuels Treatment • Road Construction • Road Reconstruction • Road Rehabilitation
• Proximity - Intermediate thinning will occur in Riparian Reserves adjacent to critical habitat (Little Browns Creek) in unit 106 and unit 107. All “100” series units occur within Riparian Reserves of intermittent tributaries and are located 0.2 to 1.75 miles upstream of critical habitat. Unit 3B is the closest non RR unit, it is located 300 feet away from critical habitat in Little Browns Creek but is separated from the RR by county road 232. Other thinning and regeneration units are at least 500 feet (0.10 miles) from critical habitat.
Tractor yarding will occur in Riparian Reserves adjacent to critical habitat (Little Browns Creek) in unit 106 and unit 107. All “100” series units occur within Riparian Reserves of intermittent tributaries and are located 0.2 to 1.75 miles upstream of critical habitat. Unit 3B is the closest non RR unit, it is located 300 feet away from critical habitat in Little Browns Creek but is separated from the RR by county road 232. Tractor yarding will occur in Riparian Reserves down to the inner gorge of ephemeral and intermittent streams. Mechanical harvesters and forwarders will be used to limit the number of trips that vehicles will make into the Riparian Reserves. Three designated channel crossing sites are in units 16 and 17. These crossings are on intermittent channels and are 1.75 miles or more from critical habitat. Cable yarding will occur in seven RR thinning units. These units are 0.35 miles or more away from critical habitat. Proposed landings are all located outside of RR’s, the closest landing to critical habitat is in unit 107 and is about 300 feet away. Landings in unit 3B are just outside the RR (300 feet) but are hydrologically separated from Little Browns Creek by County Road 232.
Fuels treatment will occur in all harvest units including RR thinning adjacent to critical habitat (Little Browns Creek) in unit 106 and unit 107. All “100” series units occur within Riparian Reserves of intermittent tributaries and are located 0.2 to 1.75 miles upstream of critical
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-47 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
habitat. Unit 3B is the closest non RR unit, it is located 300 feet away from critical habitat in Little Browns Creek but is separated from the RR by county road 232.
Specified road construction of 34N47 and 34N47A will cross RR’s of two intermittent channels in units 102 and 103. These crossings are .25 and .37 miles away from critical habitat. U232A is the closest temporary road to critical habitat; it is about 0.10 mile away from Little Browns Creek and is separated by an existing county road. Other temporary roads in unit 100 and 101 are located in the RR but are over 1 mile away from critical habitat.
Road 34N77 is about 100 feet away from critical habitat. All other roads to be reconstructed are 1.10 miles or more away from critical habitat. All culverts being replaced are more than 1.0 mile away from critical habitat.
Twenty-eight miles of road are proposed for rehabilitation. Roads range from 25 feet to over 2 miles away from critical habitat. Road U34N77A is located on the flood plain of Little Browns Creek. Several other roads including U34N77A-1, U34N77AA, U3TRI02, U3TRI01, U3TRI01A and U3TRI03F are located within one site tree distance (150 feet) of Little Browns Creek. Road rehabilitation in Rush and East Weaver Creek subwatersheds is at least 0.2 miles from critical habitat. Culverts to be removed range from 0.1 to 2.1 miles from critical habitat. • Probability –Activities proposed in the Project directly affect conditions (compacted soils, increased drainage network) that change peak/base flow. There is high likelihood that changes will occur as a result of this project. • Magnitude – The Project is designed to maintain or improve watershed condition in the long term. Due to the sequencing of road construction, road reconstruction, timber harvesting, tree removal, fuels treatment and then restoration activities the impact of the Project will vary over the life of the Project. The mitigation measures are designed to minimize the short-term impacts of timber harvest and road building and improve long-term watershed condition. The mitigation measures applicable to reducing peak flood flows are focused on disconnecting the road network from the stream channel by reducing road-stream crossing diversion and improving road drainage. In addition, disturbed areas (landings, temp roads and skid trails) will be decompacted to improve infiltration and vegetation recovery at the watershed scale.
Road Construction, Harvest, Yarding, and Fuels Treatment will result in short term negative effects to Peak/Base flow through increases in compaction and increasing the drainage network. Short term increases (negative effect) on the drainage network will occur as a result of road construction. The mitigation measures developed by the interdisciplinary team will limit the negative impacts to a level that cannot be meaningfully measured.
Road Reconstruction and Road Rehabilitation will result in insignificant short-term and insignificant long-term positive effects on peak/base flows and drainage network by decompacting problem areas and removing roads that interfere with the drainage network.
E-48 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Table 8. CWE model results
7th Field HUC Drainage Area Forest Plan Existing Post Project WCC WCC (post Watershed Name (acres) TOC (%) ERA (%) ERA (%) (existing) project)
Rush Creek 14,388 16 13.0 13.0 3 3 E Weaver Creek 8892 16 9.8 9.6 2 2 L Browns Creek 4989 16 14.8 12.5 3 2
Modeling of the post project subwatershed condition (Table 8) shows no significant change from the current conditions in the Rush Creek and East Weaver Creek subwatersheds. Modeling of the post project condition of the Little Browns Creek subwatershed shows some improvement and a change in watershed condition class (positive effect), however a change of 2.3 % in the model is too small to result in actual measurable change on the ground. • Element Summary - Hydrological modeling shows that the Project will have insignificant short-term negative effects (-) on peak/base flow and drainage network from road construction, harvest, yarding, and fuels treatment; and insignificant short- and long-term positive effects (+) from road reconstruction and road rehabilitation. Over the long term, the Project will result in neutral (0) effects to peak/base flow and drainage network in Rush and East Weaver Creeks and insignificant positive (+) effects in Little Browns Creek. All positive and negative effects to peak flows are so small as to be immeasurable where critical habitat is found and are therefore insignificant.
Hauling There is no causal mechanism by which Hauling can affect Change in Peak/Base flow and Increase in Drainage Network indicators. • Element summary - Hauling will have neutral (0) effects on Increase in Peak/base Flow and Increase in Drainage Network indicators because there is no causal mechanism.
Change in Peak/Base Flow and Increase in Drainage Network Indicator Summary Hydrological modeling shows that the Project will have insignificant short-term negative effects (-) on peak/base flow and drainage network from road construction, harvest, yarding and fuels treatment; and short- and long-term positive effects (+) from road reconstruction and road rehabilitation. Over the long term, the Project will result in neutral (0) effects to peak/base flow and drainage network in Rush and East Weaver Creeks and insignificant positive (+) effects in Little Browns Creek. Hauling will have neutral (0) effects on Increase in Peak/base Flow and Increase in Drainage Network indicators because there is no causal mechanism. All positive and negative effects to peak flows are so small as to be immeasurable where critical habitat is found and are therefore insignificant.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-49 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Road Density & Location ______Current road density is high for all subwatersheds (Table 9) in the action area and all subwatersheds have roads that are located at the valley bottoms. The project will result in a short-term (3years) increase (negative effect) in road density followed by a long-term reduction (positive effect). Post project road density will still be at the not properly functioning level for all subwatersheds.
Table 9. Road density by subwatershed.
Subwatershed Pre Project Mid Project Post Project Density (mi./mi.2) Density (mi./mi.2) Density (mi./mi.2) Little Browns Creek 6.2 6.7 3.7 East Weaver Creek 5.0 5.0 4.3 Rush Creek 4.4 4.4 4.3
New road construction will cross three Riparian Reserves for a total distance of .25 miles(short- term negative effects); all crossings will be subsequently decommissioned. Road rehabilitation will remove crossings at 3 locations in Rush Creek, 5 locations in East Weaver Creek and 9 locations in Little Browns Creek, in addition 1.3 miles of road located in the Riparian Reserve will be rehabilitated in Little Browns Creek (Positive Effects). The location of new road construction is well away from critical habitat. Some roads that are being rehabilitated are located very close to critical habitat or to intermittent streams that drain into critical habitat. Removing roads that are located close to critical habitat will have positive effects.
Road Density & Location Indicator Summary The Project will result in a short term increase [negative (-) effect] in road density, The Project will have positive (+) long-term effects on Road Density and Location, but effects will not be of sufficient magnitude to change the road density baseline category as provided in Appendix A.
Disturbance History______Cumulative Watershed Effect Modeling for the Weaverville watershed shows that some 7th field subwatersheds are at or near the TOC and some of the 8th field subwatersheds are well over TOC (Table 10). Two subwatersheds (shaded gray in Table 10) are significantly over TOC. The Lower Rush Creek and Snow Gulch subwatersheds are privately owned and have experienced high intensity fire (Browns Fire) and salvage logging. Field surveys support the results of the CWE modeling in that all subwatersheds show high ERA and degraded fish habitat.
E-50 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Table 10. Summary of HUC8 CWE analysis results. Shading indicates those HUC 8 subwatersheds that are well over the TOC.
HUC8 HUC Name Drainage Forest Existing Post Area Plan ERA (%) Project (acres) TOC (%) ERA (%) 1801021106010101 Headwaters Rush Creek 2860 16 1 1 1801021106010102 Upper Rush Creek 2997 16 9 9 1801021106010201 Baxter Gulch 3470 16 13 13 1801021106010202 Lower Rush Creek 2676 16 24 24 1801021106010203 Snow Gulch 2384 16 20 20 Rush Creek (all) 14,388 16 13 13 1801021106040101 Headwaters East Weaver Creek 2148 16 1 1 1801021106040102 Upper East Weaver Creek 1567 16 17 15 1801021106040103 East Branch East Weaver Creek 2291 16 10 10 1801021106040105 Lower East Weaver Creek 2886 16 12 12 E Weaver Creek (all) 8892 16 10 10 1801021106040301 Upper Little Browns Creek 2151 16 15 9 1801021106040302 Long Gulch 2838 16 15 15 L Browns Creek (all) 4989 16 15 13
This Project will not result in any subwatersheds exceeding TOC relative to existing conditions. Each watershed will be maintained or improved through this project. Modeling of the post project condition of the Little Browns Creek subwatershed shows some improvement [positive (+) effect], however a change of 2% in the model is too small to result in actual measurable change on the ground.
Disturbance History Indicator Summary CWE modeling shows that at the watershed scale the projects maintain (neutral effects) or insignificantly improve (+) disturbance history in the action area.
Riparian Reserves ______The Project will directly affect 80.6 acres of Riparian Reserves by thinning conifer trees down to minimum of 60% canopy closure. Project design criteria will reduce negative effects to Riparian Reserves by limiting wet weather operations, maintaining ground cover, designating all crossings and limiting grade of crossings to minimize disturbance that may result from harvest and yarding. There are no landings located in Riparian Reserves. Fuels treatment will be limited to hand piling along roads where crossings occur. About 0.7 miles of existing nonsystem road in Riparian Reserves will be used as part of the temporary road system and then 1.3 miles of existing nonsystem road will be rehabilitated. Harvest, yarding and temporary road use will have some insignificant negative effects related to ground disturbance on the Riparian Reserves. Long-term positive effects will occur because thinned timber stands in the Riparian Reserve will be healthier and have increased growth and obliterating nonsystem roads will result in less erosion and more productive ground. Road obliteration
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-51 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006 on the flood plains of Little Browns Creek will allow some recovery of Riparian Reserves directly adjacent to critical habitat. Riparian Reserves outside of Riparian Reserve thinning units and road rehabilitation areas should not be affected (neutral effects) by the Project.
Riparian Reserves Indicator Summary The Project will have insignificant negative (-) short-term effects due to physical disturbance from Riparian Reserve thinning and road obliteration and insignificant long-term positive effects on Riparian Reserve tree growth and floodplain connectivity from road obliteration.
VI. Element Summary
Harvest ______• Harvest will have neutral (0) effect on Water Temperature, Turbidity, Substrate, Chemical Contamination/Nutrients, Physical Barriers, Pool Frequency, Off-Channel Habitat, Refugia, Width/Depth Ratio, Streambank Condition and Floodplain Connectivity. • Harvest will have insignificant long-term positive (+) effects on Large Woody Debris levels due to increased growth rates in 4.2 acres of Riparian Reserve thinning. • Hydrological modeling shows that the Project will have short-term negative effects (-) on peak/base flow and drainage network from road construction, harvest, yarding, and fuels treatment.
Yarding ______• Yarding will have neutral (0) effect on Water Temperature, Chemical Contamination/Nutrients, Physical Barriers, Large Woody Debris, Pool Frequency, Off-Channel Habitat, Refugia, Width/Depth Ratio, Streambank Condition and Floodplain Connectivity. • Yarding will have insignificant negative (-) effects on turbidity and substrate due to yarding of trees from units directly adjacent to critical habitat. • Hydrological modeling shows that the Project will have short-term negative effects (-) on peak/base flow and drainage network from road construction, harvest, yarding, and fuels treatment.
Fuels Treatment ______• Fuels Treatment will have neutral (0) effect on Water Temperature, Chemical Contamination/Nutrients, Physical Barriers, Large Woody Debris, Pool Frequency, Off- Channel Habitat, Refugia, Width/Depth Ratio, Streambank Condition and Floodplain Connectivity. • This project element would have insignificant negative (-) effects on turbidity and substrate from roadside piling and burning in Unit 106.
E-52 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
• Fuels treatment will have insignificant negative (-) effects to pool frequency due to roadside piling and burning in unit 106. • Hydrological modeling shows that the Project will have short-term negative effects (-) on peak/base flow and drainage network from road construction, harvest, yarding, and fuels treatment.
Hauling ______• Hauling will have neutral (0) effect on Water Temperature, Chemical Contamination/Nutrients, Physical Barriers, Large Woody Debris, Pool Frequency, Off- Channel Habitat, Refugia, Width/Depth Ratio, Streambank Condition, Floodplain Connectivity, Increase in Peak/base Flow and Increase in Drainage Network. • This project element would have insignificant negative (-) effects on turbidity and substrate as a result of hauling on native and aggregate surfaced roads. • This project element would have insignificant negative (-) effects on pool frequency as a result of hauling on native and aggregate surfaced roads.
Road Construction______• Road construction will have neutral (0) effect on Water Temperature, Chemical Contamination/Nutrients, Physical Barriers, Off-Channel Habitat, Refugia, Width/Depth Ratio, Streambank Condition and Floodplain Connectivity. • Road Construction will have insignificant negative (-) effects on turbidity and substrate because road construction will cause some soil disturbance. • Road Construction will have insignificant negative (-) effects on pool frequency as a result of ground disturbance during construction. • Road Construction will have insignificant negative (-) effects on large woody debris as result of removing 0.25 acres of trees from Riparian Reserves of intermittent streams during construction. • Road reconstruction will have insignificant short-term negative (-) effect as a result of ground disturbance during construction and long-term positive (+) effects to pool frequency due to better road drainage and reduced risk of culvert failure. • Hydrological modeling shows that the Project will have short-term negative effects (-) on peak/base flow and drainage network from road construction, harvest, yarding, and fuels treatment.
Road Reconstruction______• Road Reconstruction will have neutral (0) effect on Water Temperature, Chemical Contamination/Nutrients, Physical Barriers, Off-Channel Habitat, Refugia, Width/Depth Ratio, Streambank Condition and Floodplain Connectivity.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-53 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
• Road Reconstruction will have insignificant short-term negative (-) effects to turbidity and substrate due to soil disturbance and long-term positive (+) effects resulting from better road drainage and lower risk of culvert failure. • Road Reconstruction will have insignificant short-term negative (-) effects to large woody debris because hazard trees in riparian reserves will be felled and left in place. • Hydrological modeling shows that the Project will have short- and long-term positive effects (+) from road reconstruction and road rehabilitation. Over the long term, the Project will result in neutral (0) effects to peak/base flow and drainage network in Rush and East Weaver Creeks and insignificant positive (+) effects in Little Browns Creek.
Road Rehabilitation ______• Road Rehabilitation will have neutral (0) effect on Water Temperature, Chemical Contamination/Nutrients, Physical Barriers, Large Woody Debris, Off-Channel Habitat, Refugia, Width/Depth Ratio and Streambank Condition. • Road rehabilitation will have insignificant short-term negative (-) effects to turbidity and substrate in Rush and East Weaver Creeks due to ground disturbance well away from critical habitat and insignificant long-term positive effects as a result of decreasing compacted surfaces, increasing infiltration, decreasing the drainage network and revegetating bare surfaces that are prone to erosion. Road Rehabilitation will have effects great enough to negatively (-) affect coho salmon and their habitat in Little Browns Creek due to road obliteration on the floodplain. Road rehabilitation will have long-term positive (+) effects to turbidity and substrate in Little Browns Creek due to decreasing compacted surfaces, increasing infiltration, decreasing the drainage network and revegetating bare surface that are prone to erosion. • Road rehabilitation will have insignificant short-term negative (-) effects and insignificant long-term positive effects to pool frequency in Rush and East Weaver Creeks. Road rehabilitation is likely to result in negative (-) effects to substrate that may in turn affect pool frequency in critical habitat in Little Browns Creek. Road rehabilitation will have long-term positive (+) effects to sediment supply that affects pool frequency in Little Browns Creek. • Road rehabilitation will have positive (+) effects on floodplain connectivity by removing a road that is on the floodplain. • Hydrological modeling shows that the Project will have short- and long-term positive effects (+) from road reconstruction and road rehabilitation. Over the long term, the Project will result in neutral (0) effects to peak/base flow and drainage network in Rush and East Weaver Creeks and insignificant positive (+) effects in Little Browns Creek.
E-54 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
VII. Indicator Summary
“Population Characteristics” and “Species and Habitat” Pathway indicators are not addressed in this document, since insufficient information exists to allow for their evaluation. A species recovery plan has not been drafted for SONCC coho salmon.
Water Temperature Indicator Summary______The Project will have insignificant negative (-) effects on water temperature due to canopy loss resulting from road construction.
Turbidity and Substrate Indicator Summary ______One project element (road rehabilitation) is likely to result in significant negative (-) effects to substrate in Little Browns Creek that may impact coho salmon. Long-term positive (+) effects will occur in Little Browns Creek due to decreasing compacted surfaces, increasing infiltration, decreasing the drainage network and revegetating bare surface that are prone to erosion. The additive effects of all project elements in the Little Browns Creek subwatershed area expected to result in slightly elevated turbidity levels for a period of two to three years. The Project would have insignificant negative (-) effects on turbidity and substrate from several other project elements. The additive effects in Rush and East Weaver Creeks are still expected to be insignificant because of the small amount of harvest and road rehabilitation that will occur in those subwatersheds. Road rehabilitation work in Rush and East Weaver Creek subwatersheds will result in insignificant long- term positive (+) effects.
Chemical Contamination/Nutrients Indicator and Element Summary ______The Project will have neutral (0) effects on Chemical Contamination/Nutrients.
Physical Barriers Indicator and Element Summary ______The Project will have neutral (0) effects on Physical Barriers.
Large Woody Debris Indicator Summary ______Harvest will have insignificant long-term positive (+) effects on LWD levels due to increased growth rates in 4.2 acres of Riparian Reserve thinning and rehabilitation of road segment in the Riparian Reserve. Road Construction and reconstruction will have insignificant short term negative effects by removing trees in 0.25 acres Riparian Reserves and falling hazard trees. Yarding, Fuels Treatment, Hauling, will have neutral (0) effects on LWD.
Pool Frequency Indicator Summary ______The Project will have short-term negative (-) effects on pool frequency and depth in Little Browns Creek by slightly increasing sediment supply. The Project will have neutral (0) effects on these pool
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-55 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006 characteristics in Rush and East Weaver Creeks. The Project is also expected to have long-term positive (+) effects to pool frequency through a reduction in sediment supply.
Off-Channel Habitat Indicator and Element Summary ______Due the lack of off-channel habitat in the action area, the Project will have neutral (0) effects on this indicator.
Refugia Indicator and Element Summary ______Due the lack of refugia habitat in the action area, the Project will have neutral (0) effects on this indicator.
Width/Depth Ratio Indicator and Element Summary ______Due the nature of the stream channels in the action area the Project will have neutral (0) effects on this indicator.
Streambank Indicator Summary______The Project will have neutral (0) effects on streambank condition in critical habitat.
Floodplain Connectivity Indicator Summary______The project will have positive (+) effects on floodplain connectivity by removing a road that is on the floodplain.
Change in Peak/Base Flow and Increase in Drainage Network Indicator Summary ______Hydrological modeling shows that the Project will have short-term negative effects (-) on peak/base flow and drainage network from road construction, harvest, yarding and fuels treatment; and short- and long-term positive effects (+) from road reconstruction and road rehabilitation. Over the long term, the Project will result in neutral (0) effects to peak/base flow and drainage network in Rush and East Weaver Creeks and insignificant positive (+) effects in Little Browns Creek. Hauling will have neutral (0) effects on Increase in Peak/base Flow and Increase in Drainage Network indicators because there is no causal mechanism.
Road Density & Location Indicator Summary______The Project will result in a short term increase [negative (-) effect] in road density, The Project will have positive (+) long-term effects on Road Density and Location, but effects will not be of sufficient magnitude to change the road density baseline category in Appendix A.
E-56 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Disturbance History Indicator Summary ______CWE modeling shows that at the watershed scale the project maintains (neutral effects) or insignificantly improves (+) disturbance history in the action area.
Riparian Reserves Indicator Summary ______The Project will have insignificant negative (-) short-term effects due to physical disturbance from Riparian Reserve thinning and road obliteration and long-term positive effects on Riparian Reserve tree growth and floodplain connectivity from road obliteration.
VIII. ESA Effect Determination
Project Effects Determination Key for Species and Designated Critical Habitat 1) Do any of the indicator summaries have a positive (+) or negative (-) conclusion? Yes – Go to 2 No – No Effect 2) Are the indicator summary results only positive? Yes – NLAA No – Go to 3 3) If any of the indicator summary results are negative, are the effects insignificant or discountable? Yes – NLAA No – LAA, fill out Adverse Effects Form
Direct effects to coho salmon are not expected to occur. There are no aspects of the Project that will occur where fish are present. Analysis of the effects of the Project Elements on the habitat indicators has found that negative effects that are of sufficient probability (not discountable) and magnitude (not insignificant) to affect SONCC coho salmon and its critical habitat will occur. One project element (road rehabilitation) is likely to result in negative (-) effects to substrate and negative (-) effects on pool frequency (including depth) in Little Browns Creek that may impact coho salmon. Because of the adverse effects on substrate and pool frequency sediment, this Project is likely to adversely affect SONCC coho salmon and its critical habitat.
VIII. Aggregated Federal Effects
There is no other LAA Federal land management activity proposed in the Weaverville HUC 5 watershed.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-57 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
IX. ESA Cumulative Effects
There are no known timber harvest plans currently under review within the Browns Project action area. Road building and residential construction are occuring in the action area. The Weaverville Community Service District withdraw significant amounts of water from East Weaver Creek for domestic and irrigation purposes. These activities manifest effects downstream and/or down slope as net increases in sediment delivery to channels; higher turbidities; alterations to riparian habitat including riparian canopy removal; increased water temperatures; and decreases in available fish habitat.
X. Essential Fish Habitat Determination
A description of the proposed action appears in Part II of this Biological Assessment. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), in concordance with the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-267) designated Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for coho and Chinook salmon (Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 12). The MSA defined EFH as “...those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity (Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 12).” EFH for coho salmon and Chinook salmon in the Action Area is identical to coho critical habitat displayed in Figure 1, Appendix D and Appendix F. Analysis of the effects of the Project Elements on the habitat indicators has found that negative effects that are of sufficient probability (not discountable) and magnitude (not insignificant) to affect essential fish habitat will occur. One project element (road rehabilitation) is likely to result in negative (-) effects to substrate and negative (-) effects on pool frequency (including depth) in Little Browns Creek that may impact coho salmon and Chinook salmon. Because of the negative impacts to substrate and pool frequency this proposed Project may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat.
XI. Literature Cited
Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Southwest forests. Island Press. Covelo, California.
Bjornn, T. C. and D. W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:83-138.
Brown, L.R., P.B. Moyle. 1991. Status of coho salmon in California. Report to the National Marine Fisheries Service. Santa Rosa, CA. 114pp.
California Department of Fish and Game, 2002. Status Review of California Coho Salmon North of San Francisco. Report to the California Fish and Game Commission 233pp.
Chamberlin, T. W., R. D. Harr, and F. H. Everest. 1991. Timber harvesting, Silviculture, and watershed processes. Pages 181-205 in W.R. Meehan (ed.), Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. Bethesda, MD. 751pp.
E-58 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
FEMAT (Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team). 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. U.S. Forest Service, Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv., Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Portland, Oregon, and Washington, D.C. 843 pp. + app.
Furniss, M. J., T. D. Roelofs, and C. S. Yee. 1991. Road construction and maintenance. Pages 297- 323 in W.R. Meehan (ed.), Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. Bethesda, MD. 751 pages.
Haskins, D.M. 1986. A Management Model for Evaluating Cumulative Watershed Effects; Proceedings from the California Watershed Management Conference, West Sacramento, CA, November 19-20, 1986, pp 125-130.
Meyers, J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D.Teel, L. Lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright, W.S. Grant, F.W. Waknitz, K. Neely, S.T. Lindley, and R.S.Waples. 1998. Status review of Chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. US Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-35. 443 pp.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996. Making Endangered Species Act determinations of effect for individual or grouped actions at the watershed scale. Environmental and Technical Services Division, Habitat Conservation Branch.
Sandercock, R.K. 1991. Life history of coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). In: Pacific salmon life histories. C. Groot and L. Margolis editors. Pages 395-445. Univ. of British Columbia Press, Vancouver, B.C.
Scrivener, J.C., and B.C. Andersen. 1982. Logging impacts and some mechanisms which determine the size of spring and summer populations of coho salmon fry in Carnation Creek. In: Proceedings of the Carnation Creek Workshop: a ten year review. G.F. Hartman editor. Pacific Biological Station, Nanaimo, BC.
Skinner, C. N., and C. Chang. 1996. Fire regimes, past and present. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress. Vol. II: Assessments and scientific basis for management options. Wildland Resources Center Publication No. 37. Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California, Davis, 1041-1070.
Steinblums, I. 1977. Streamside bufferstrips: survival, effectiveness, and design. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon State University. As cited in FEMAT (1993).
Sullivan, K., S.H. Duncan, P.A. Bisson, J.T. Heffner, J.W. Ward, R.E. Bilby, and J.L. Nielson. 1987. A summary report of the Deschutes River Basin: sediment, flow, temperature and fish habitat. Research Report, Paper N0. 044-5002/87/1. Weyerhaeuser, Federal Way, Washington.
USDA, Forest Service. 1995. Shasta-Trinity National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan. Shasta-Trinity National Forests, Redding CA.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-59 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
USDA, Forest Service. 2002. Rush Creek Stream Condition Inventory Report. Unpublished Report. Weaverville Ranger District, Weaverville, CA.
USDA, Forest Service. 2003a. Little Browns Creek Stream Condition Inventory Report. Unpublished Report. Weaverville Ranger District, Weaverville, CA.
USDA, Forest Service. 2003b. East Weaver Creek Stream Condition Inventory Report. Unpublished Report. Weaverville Ranger District, Weaverville, CA.
USDA, Forest Service. 2004. Weaverville Watershed Analysis. Shasta Trinity National Forest, Weaverville Ranger District, Weaverville, CA.
USDA-Forest Service and USDI-Bureau of Land Management. 1994a. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl Portland, Oregon: U.S. Department of Agriculture (Forest Service), U.S. Department of Interior (Bureau of Land Management).
USDA-Forest Service and USDI-Bureau of Land Management. 1994b. Record of Decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl; standards and guidelines for management of habitat for late- successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Department of Agriculture (Forest Service), U.S. Department of Interior (Bureau of Land Management).
USDA-Forest Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, USDI-Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Streamlined Consultation Procedures for Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. July.
USDA-Forest Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, USDI-Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Analytical Process for Developing Biological Assessments for Federal Actions Affecting Fish Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area. November.
USFWS and Hoopa Valley Tribe, 1999. Trinity River Flow Evaluation Final Report. Report to the Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior. Washington D.C. 307 pp.
USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Endangered Species Consultation Handbook, Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. March.
Weitkamp, L.A., T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, G.B. Milner, D.J. Teel, R.G. Kope, and R.S. Waples. 1995. Status review of coho salmon from Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-24. 258 pp.
Wemple, B.C. 1994. Hydrologic integration of forest roads with stream networks in two basins, Western Cascades, Oregon. Oregon State Univ. MS thesis.
E-60 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
XIII. Glossary of Terms Commonly Used in Forest Service Land Management
Activity Fuels - Fuels generated by any number of timber harvesting methods. Adaptive Management Area - Landscape units designed for development and testing of technical and social approaches to achieving desired ecological, economic, and other social objectives. Basal Area - The cross-sectional area of a stand of trees measured a 4.5 feet above the ground, expressed in square feet. Broadcast Burning - A type of burning that occurs inside defined boundaries, and may be several acres in size. Broadcast burning would only occur when weather and air quality permits, and a burn plan would be written and approved prior to its implementation. This form or burning under prescribed parameters is beneficial for reducing hazardous fuels, and restoring fire’s natural role into the ecosystem. Burn Concentrations - See Jackpot burning. Cable Logging (yarding) - A harvest technology where cut logs are partially or fully suspended above the ground and transported to a landing. Canopy - The more or less continuous cover of leaves and branches collectivity formed by the crowns of adjacent trees in a stand forest. Canopy Closure - The degree to which the canopy blocks sunlight or obscures the sky. Decommissioned Road - These roads are not needed for future use and are taken off the FS transportation system once the decommissioning activities have been implemented and earth berm barriers installed. However, the roads are still tracked by the database. The goal is to remove those elements of a road that reroute hillslope drainage and present slope stability hazards by re- establishing natural drainage to the extent practicable. Dozer Line - To rearrange, gather and push aside fuels with a bulldozer. This provides a break in the continuity of fuels, which helps prevent fire from spreading outside of the unit. Some fuels and the duff layer would remain on the forest floor in these areas. Duff Layer - The layer of loosely compacted debris underlying the litter layer on the forest floor. Equivalent Road Acre (ERA) - A unit of measure used in cumulative watershed impact analyses, which represents the equivalent disturbance of one acre of roaded area. Disturbances primarily include soil exposure and compaction. Erosion Hazard Rating - A relative rating of the potential for the loss of soil due to sheet and rill erosion from a specific site. Commonly used to address erosion response expected from a given land management activity. Ratings are the result of a cumulative analysis of soil type, topography, climate, and vegetative and protective factors. Fuel Break - A strip of land strategically placed where hazardous fuels have been replaced with less burnable materials. Fuel breaks divide fire-prone areas into smaller parcels for easier fire control and provide access for firefighting. Fuel - Any material capable of sustaining or carrying a forest fire, usually natural material both live and dead.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-61 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Fuel Loading - The amount of combustible material present per unit of area. Fuel Management Zone - A specified area of land where natural fuels are either removed of manipulated in order to help slow or stop the spread of wildfire. Green Tree Retention (GTR) - The practice of retaining live, growing trees on a site during a regeneration harvest as a future source of trees and snags for wildlife. An average of six to twelve trees per acres that exceed the average stand diameter are retained as biological legacies within the harvest unit to provide habitat components over the next management cycle. Hand Line - To cut and remove understory vegetation to bare mineral soil to a width of six to eight feet. This width can be determined on site during a wildfire or before hand in project planning, and is based on current and expected fire behavior. Trenches are constructed on the down hill side of the unit on steep slopes to prevent rolling material from crossing fire lines. Hand pile - Piling of fuel using only human laborers. Helicopter Logging (yarding) - Use of helicopters to transport logs from where they are felled to a landing. Jackpot Burning - A technique of applying fire to target fuels, which ignites only concentrations of burnable materials within the unit being treated. Landing - Any place on or adjacent to a logging site where logs are assembled for further transport. Lop and Scatter - Cutting, lopping and scattering residual vegetation. Usually to a height of less than 18 inches above the ground. Management Direction - A statement of goals and objectives and the associated management prescriptions and standards and guidelines for attaining them. Mass Wasting - A general term for the dislodgement and downslope transport of soil and rock material under the direct application of gravity. Mastication - To mechanically grind up forest fuels such as brush, branches and small diameter trees into small pieces, which are then left on site. This would occur on slopes < 35% inside plantations and fuel buffers. Matrix - Federal lands outside of reserves, withdrawn areas, managed late-successional reserves, and adaptive areas. Obliteration - Road removal where no presence of the road remains. All drainage structures are removed and the road is returned to the natural slope. Overstory - That portion of trees in a forest, with more than one roughly horizontal layer of foliage, which forms the upper or uppermost layer. Overstory Removal - A timber cutting method applied to stands with two or more distinct age or size classes, the older (or larger) of which is merchantable and is removed. The removal leaves an adequately stocked stand of understory trees. Regeneration Harvest - Applies to the logging stands of rotation age or greater; and of stands below rotation age which cannot economically be held any longer because of poor stocking, health, thrift, quality, or composition. These cuttings are intended to replace the existing stands with a new stand. See also green tree retention. Residual Stand - Trees that remain standing after some event such as thinning.
E-62 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Riparian Reserve - A land designation where riparian-dependant resources receive primary emphasis and where special standards and regulations apply. Sanitation/Salvage - The removal of dead or damaged trees, or trees susceptible to insect and disease attack such as intermediate and suppressed trees, essentially to prevent the spread of pest or pathogens and to promote forest health. Silviculture - The science of cultivating forest crops. Silvicultural Prescription - A professional plan for controlling the establishment, composition, constitution, and growth of forests. Silvicultural System - Establishing, growing, and tending of forests. Skid Trail - A path created to drag logs to a landing. Skyline - See cable logging. Snag - A standing dead tree from which the leaves and most of the branches have fallen. Stand - A community of trees occupying a specific area sufficiently uniform in composition, age arrangement and condition distinguishable as a silvicultural or management unit. Stocking Level - In a forest, a subjective indication of the number of existing trees as compared to the desirable number for maximum productivity of wood. Temporary Road - Roads authorized by contract, permit, lease, and/or emergency operation. These roads are not part of the FS transportation system, nor maintained for long-term use. Temporary road removal and site stabilization is required after approved use prior to the rainy season each year or when the facility is no longer needed, whichever is earliest. Thinning - Harvest made in an immature stand in order primarily to maintain or accelerate the diameter increment (annual growth) of the residual trees but also, by suitable selection, to improve the average form of the trees that remain, without damaging the canopy. Tractor Pile - Piling fuels by the use of a bulldozer, most often equipped with a brush rake to minimize the amount soil incorporated into piles. Tractor Logging (Yarding) - Moving cut trees to a landing by dragging behind a ground based rubber tired or tracked skidder equipped with grapples. Understory - The lower layer of trees and shrubs under the forest canopy. Watershed Condition Class - The Forest Plan LMP established Thresholds of Concern for 5th field watersheds and defines Watershed Condition Class (WCC) (USDA Forest Service, 1994). The WCC are defined as follows: • Watershed Condition Class I: ERA less than 40 percent TOC; • Watershed Condition Class II: ERA between 40 and 80 percent TOC; and • Watershed Condition Class III: ERA greater than 80 percent TOC.
The following summarizes the FSM 2521.1 – Watershed Condition Classes. The ERA evaluates watershed condition and assigns one of the following three classes: 1. Class I Condition. Watersheds exhibit high geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. The drainage network is generally stable. Physical, chemical, and biologic conditions suggest that soil, aquatic, and riparian systems are predominantly functional in terms of supporting beneficial uses.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-63 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
2. Class II Condition. Watersheds exhibit moderate geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. Portions of the watershed may exhibit an unstable drainage network. Physical, chemical, and biologic conditions suggest that soil, aquatic, and riparian systems are at risk in being able to support beneficial uses. 3. Class III Condition. Watersheds exhibit low geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. A majority of the drainage network may be unstable. Physical, chemical, and biologic conditions suggest that soil, riparian, and aquatic systems do not support beneficial uses. Whole Tree Yard - The removal of a whole tree (including its bole, limb wood, branches and bark) to the landing, except for where the top of the tree is determined to be 3-inches in diameter, which is lopped off and left on site. Whole tree yarding does not remove broken limb wood, bark sloughing, and broken boles. Once at the landing, the tree is delimbed and cut into logs at specified lengths. Yarding - Moving logs from the stump to a central concentration area or landing. Yarding of Unmerchantable Material (YUM) - Moving unmerchantable portions of trees from the stump to a central location.
E-64 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Appendix A: Shasta-Trinity National Forest Tributaries Matrix of Factors and Indicators This matrix shows criteria used to determine baseline conditions in 7th and 5th field watersheds. Modifications agreed to at the June 2004 Level 1 meeting by Karen Hans and Loren Everest
The Matrix, as designed, suggests values to determine a level of functioning for anadromous fish bearing streams.
Factors Indicators Properly Functioning At Risk Not Properly Functioning Water Temperature (1) Quality: 1st - 3rd Order Streams 67 degrees F or less > 67 to 70.0 degrees F > 70.0 degrees F [instantaneous] 4th-5th Order Streams 70.0 degrees F or less > 70.0 to 73.0. degrees F > 73.0 degrees F [7 Day Maximum] Turbidity (2) Turbidity Low Turbidity Moderate Turbidity High Chemical/Nutrient Low levels of contamination from Moderate levels of contamination from High levels of contamination from agriculture, Contamination (3) agriculture, industrial, and other agriculture, industrial, and other industrial, and other sources; high levels of sources; no excess nutrients. sources; some excess nutrients. nutrients. Habitat Physical Barriers (3) Any man-made barriers present Any man-made barriers present in Any man-made barriers present in watershed do Access: in watershed allow upstream and watershed do not allow upstream not allow upstream and/or downstream passage at downstream passage at all and/or downstream passage at a range of flows. flows. base/low flows. Habitat Substrate (4) Less than 15% fines (<2 mm) in 15% to 20% fines (<2 mm) in spawning Greater than 20% fines (<2 mm) in spawning Elements: spawning habitat (pool tail-outs, habitat (pool tail-outs, low gradient habitat (pool tail-outs, low gradient riffles, and low gradient riffles, and glides) riffles, and glides) and/or cobble glides) and cobble embeddedness greater than and cobble embeddedness less embeddedness is 20% or greater. 25%. than 20%. Large Woody Debris (5) More than 40 pieces of large 40 pieces or less of large wood (>16 Less than 20 pieces of large wood (>16 inches in wood (>16 inches in diameter inches in diameter and > 50 feet in diameter and > 50 feet in length) per mile AND and > 50 feet in length) per mile length) per mile OR current riparian current riparian vegetation condition well below site AND current riparian vegetation vegetation condition below site potential for recruitment of large woody debris. condition near site potential for potential for recruitment of large woody recruitment of large woody debris. debris.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-65 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Factors Indicators Properly Functioning At Risk Not Properly Functioning Pool Frequency (4) At least 1 pool every 3 to 7 At least 1 pool every 3 to 7 bankfull Less than 1 pool every 7 bankfull channel widths bankfull channel widths. These channel widths. These pools should and/or less than half of the pools have a maximum pools should occupy at least occupy at least 50% of the low-flow depth of at least 36 inches. 50% of the low-flow channel channel width. At least half of the pools width and all have a maximum have a maximum depth of at least 36 depth of at least 36 inches. inches. Off-channel Habitat (3) Backwaters with cover, and low Some backwaters and high energy side Few or no backwaters or off-channel ponds. energy off-channel areas (ponds, channels. oxbows, etc.). Refugia (important Habitat refugia exist and are Habitat refugia exist but are not Adequate habitat refugia do not exist. remnant habitat for adequately buffered (eg. by adequately buffered (eg. by intact sensitive aquatic intact riparian reserves); existing riparian reserves); existing refugia are species) (3) refugia are sufficient in size, insufficient in size, number and number and connectivity to connectivity to maintain viable maintain viable populations or populations or sub-populations. sub-populations. Channel Width/Depth (W/D) W/D ratio < 12 on all reaches More than 10% of the surveyed M ore than 25% of the reaches are outside of the Condition Ratio (6) that could otherwise best be reaches are outside of the ranges given ranges given for Width/Depth ratios for the channel and described as ‘A’, ‘G’, and ‘E’ for Width/Depth ratios for the channel types specified in “Properly Functioning” block. Dynamics: channel types. W/D ratio > 12 on types specified in “Properly Braiding has occurred in many alluvial reaches as all reaches that could otherwise Functioning” block. Braiding has a result of excessive aggradation due to high best be described as ‘B’, ‘F’, and occurred in some alluvial reaches sediment loads ‘C’ channel types. No braided because of excessive aggradation due streams formed due to excessive to high sediment loads. sediment loads Streambank Condition > 90% stable; ie., on average, < 80 - 90% stable < 80% stable (3) 10% of banks are actively eroding. Floodplain Connectivity Off-channel areas are frequently Reduced linkage of wetland, Severe reduction in hydrologic connectivity (3) hydrologically linked to main floodplains, and riparian areas to main between off-channel, wetland, floodplain, and channel; overbank flows occur channel; overbank flows are reduced riparian areas; wetland area drastically reduced and maintain wetland functions, relative to historic frequency, as and riparian vegetation/succession altered riparian vegetation, and evidenced by moderate degradation of significantly. succession. wetland function, riparian vegetation/succession.
E-66 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Factors Indicators Properly Functioning At Risk Not Properly Functioning Flow / Change in Peak/Base Use Equivalent Roaded Area Use ERA model to estimate risk of Use ERA model to estimate risk of change in flow. Hydrology: Flows (7) (ERA) model to estimate risk of change in flow. Some evidence of Pronounced changes in peak flow, baseflow and/or change in flow. Watershed altered peak flow, baseflow and/or flow flow timing relative to an undisturbed watershed of hydrograph indicates peak flow, timing relative to an undisturbed similar size, geology, and geography. Condition base flow, and flow timing watershed of similar size, geology, and Class III watershed. characteristics comparable to an geography. Condition Class II undisturbed watershed of similar Watershed size, geology, and geography. Condition Class I watershed. Increase in Drainage Zero or minimum increases in Moderate (5%) increases in drainage Significant (20-25%) increases in drainage network Network (3) drainage network density due to network density due to roads. density due to roads. roads.
Watershed Road Density and Less than 2 miles per square Two to three miles per square mile, Over 3 miles per square mile, many valley bottom Conditions: Location (3) mile, no valley bottom roads. some valley bottom roads. roads. Disturbance History (8) Cumulative watershed effects CWE model indicator values are above CWE model indicator values are above threshold of (CWE) model indicator values threshold of .80 and 1.0. Clarify and 1.0. Clarify and verify conditions and risk through are not above .80. Clarify and verify conditions and risk through field field reviews and/or other available info, as verify conditions and risk through reviews and/or other available info, as available. field reviews and/or other available. available info, as available. Riparian Reserves The riparian reserve system Moderate loss of connectivity or Riparian reserve system is fragmented, poorly (hydrologic) (3) provides adequate shade, large function (shade, LWD recruitment, etc) connected, or provides inadequate protection of woody debris recruitment, and of riparian reserve system, or habitat and refugia for sensitive aquatic species habitat protection and incomplete protection of habitat and (approx. less than 70% intact), and/or for grazing connectivity in all refugia for sensitive aquatic species impacts; percent similarity of riparian vegetation to subwatersheds, and buffers or (approx. 70-80% intact), and/or for the potential natural community/composition is 25% includes known refugia for grazing impacts; percent similarity of or less. sensitive aquatic species (> 80% riparian vegetation to the potential intact), and/or for grazing natural community/composition 25-50% impacts; percent similarity of or better. riparian vegetation to the potential natural community/composition > 50%.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-67 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Footnotes to Trinity River tributaries matrix of factors and indicators (1) Stream Order according to Strahler (1957). Proper Functioning criterion for 4th/5th Order streams derived from temperature monitoring near the mouth of streams considered to be pristine or nearly pristine (North Fork Trinity and New Rivers - 5th order, East Fork North Fork Trinity and New Rivers near East Fork- 4th order (Data on file at the Weaverville Ranger District). 7 day maximum temperatures as high as 71.8 degrees F have been recorded on these streams, however, the average is just less than 70 degrees F. At Risk criterion for 4th/5th order streams derived from monitoring in streams that support populations of anadromous fish, although temperatures in this range (70 to 73.0 degrees F) are considered sub-optimal. Not Properly Functioning is sustained temperatures above 73.0 degrees F that cause cessation of growth and approach lethal temperatures for salmon and steelhead. Properly Functioning criterion for 1st - 3rd order streams is derived from Proper Functioning criterion for 3rd order streams derived from temperature monitoring near the mouth of streams considered to be pristine or nearly pristine (Devils Canyon Creek, East Fork New River, Slide Creek, Virgin Creek). At Risk and Not Properly Functioning are assigned on a temperature continuum with values given for 4th/5th order streams, with the maximum instantaneous temperature of At Risk of 1st - 3rd order streams coinciding with the minimum 7 day maximum of 4th/5th order At Risk streams. Similarly for the Not Properly Functioning category. (2) Properly Functioning: Water clarity returns quickly (within several days) following peak flows. At Risk: Water clarity slow to return following peak flows. Not Properly Functioning: Water clarity poor for long periods of time following peak flows. Some suspended sediments occur even at low flows or baseflow. (3) Criteria unchanged from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) matrix (NMFS 1996). (4) Properly Functioning criterion from Klamath Land and Resource Management Plan EIS p 3-68 (USDA 1995a). At Risk and Not Properly Functioning criteria defined through professional judgment. (5) Properly Functioning LWD criteria derived from stream surveys of 25 stream reaches on the Trinity River Management Unit. The reaches from which the properly functioning criteria were derived have not been “cleaned” or had extensive mining activity that removed LWD and support anadromous fish (or historically did). The Properly Functioning criterion is clearly defined, whereas the At Risk and Not Properly functioning criteria are ambiguously defined based on professional judgment of the Shasta-Trinity Level 1 team. (6) Width to depth (W/D) ratio for various channel types is based on delineative criteria of Rosgen (1994). Properly Functioning means that W/D ratio falls within expected channel type as determined by the other four delineative factors (entrenchment, sinuosity, slope, and substrate). Aggradation on alluvial flats causing braiding is well known phenomenon that often accompanies changes in W/D ratio as watershed condition deteriorates.
E-68 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
(7) Criteria changed from NMFS matrix. Shasta-Trinity National Forest uses Equivalent Roaded Area/Threshold of Concern (ERA/TOC) Model (Haskins 1986) to determine the existing risk ratio as well as the effect risk ratio. Therefore, the ECA values are not used in Region 5 analysis; instead the ERA/TOC model is used. ERA/TOC provides a simplified accounting system for tracking disturbances that affect watershed processes, in particular, estimates in changes in peak runoff flows influenced by disturbance activities. This model is not intended to be a process-based sediment model, however it does provide an indicator of watershed conditions. This model compares the current level of disturbance within a given watershed (expressed as %ERA) with the theoretical maximum disturbance level acceptable (expressed as %TOC). ERA/TOC (or “risk ratio”) estimates the level of hydrological disturbance or relative risk of increased peak flows and consequent potential for channel alteration and general adverse watershed impacts. TOC is calculated based on channel sensitivity, beneficial uses, soil erodibility, hydrologic response, and slope stability. The TOC does not represent the exact point at which cumulative watershed effects will occur. Rather, it serves as a “yellow flag” indicator of increasing susceptibility for significant adverse cumulative effects occurring within a watershed. Susceptibility of CWE generally increases from low to high as the level of land disturbing activities increase towards or past the TOC (FS Handbook, 2509.22-23.63a). CWE Analysis Threshold of Concern and Watershed Condition Class: The LRMP established TOC for 5th field watersheds and defines Watershed Condition Class (WCC) (USDA Forest Service, 1995b). The WCC are defined as follows: • Watershed Condition Class I: ERA less than 40 percent TOC; • Watershed Condition Class II: ERA between 40 and 80 percent TOC; and • Watershed Condition Class III: ERA greater than 80 percent TOC.
The following summarizes the FSM 2521.1 - Watershed Condition Classes. The ERA evaluates watershed condition and assigns one of the following three classes: 1. Class I Condition. Watersheds exhibit high geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. The drainage network is generally stable. Physical, chemical, and biologic conditions suggest that soil, aquatic, and riparian systems are predominantly functional in terms of supporting beneficial uses. 2. Class II Condition. Watersheds exhibit moderate geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. Portions of the watershed may exhibit an unstable drainage network. Physical, chemical, and biologic conditions suggest that soil, aquatic, and riparian systems are at risk in being able to support beneficial uses. 3. Class III Condition. Watersheds exhibit low geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. A majority of the drainage network may be unstable. Physical, chemical, and biologic conditions suggest that soil, riparian, and aquatic systems do not support beneficial uses. (8) The components of the STNF CWE model (Haskins, 1986) are used to determine conditions and risk to this Indicator. The STNF CWE model components replace use of ECA that was originally identified in the Checklist. ECA is not used in Region 5.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-69 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
References Haskins, D.M. 1986. A Management Model for Evaluating Cumulative Watershed Effects; Proceedings from the California Watershed Management Conference, West Sacramento, CA, November 19-20, 1986, pp125-130.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996. Conference Opinion. Implementation of Land and Resource Management Plans 31p.
Rosgen, D.L. 1994.A Classification of Natural Rivers, Catena, vol 22:169-199 Eisevier Science, B.V. Amsterdam.
Strahler, A.N. 1957. Quantitative analysis of watershed geomorphology. American Geophysical Union Transactions. 38: 913-920.
USDA, Forest Service. 1995a. Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement. Klamath National Forest, Yreka CA.
USDA, Forest Service. 1995b. Shasta-Trinity National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan. Shasta-Trinity National Forests, Redding CA
E-70 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Appendix B: Erosion Control Plan, Mitigation Measures, and Monitoring Requirements ______Erosion Control Plan: The purpose of this plan is to facilitate the transition from the environmental analysis to the contract to ensure that erosion control measures described in the environmental analysis are not lost during the transition. This plan applies to all of the watersheds within the project area. This erosion control plan compliments the Best Management Practice 2.2 Erosion Control Plan (C6.3) that requires the Purchaser (contractor) to submit a general plan that describes erosion control measures to be employed on roads and construction practices. Below is a generic erosion control plan that will enable purchaser or contractor to readily see what is required in the erosion control plan. This plan will also display the erosion control measures that will be used for each project and for each type of disturbance. Descriptions for references: C clauses (e.g. “C6.6”) are from the timber sale contract; “T-” specifications are road maintenance T-specifications from the timber sale contract; “WW/WO” are wet weather or winter operations; “STRMP” is a Shasta-Trinity Land and Resource Management Plan requirement; and “IDT” is a Project Interdisciplinary Team requirement.
Timing of Erosion Control Work
Description of Erosion Control Applicability of Erosion BMP Reference Measure Control Measure to Project
Work before wet weather LOP Applies to project area 1.5 C6.6 begins. Purchaser monitors and maintains Until accepted by FS (see 1.13, 1.20 C6.6 erosion control work. monitoring section below)
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-71 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Skid Trails
Description of Erosion Control Applicability of Erosion Control BMP Reference Measure Measure to Project
Use designated skid trails. Applies to project area 1.10 C6.422 Use water bars (per Timber Sale Applies to project area 1.13, 1.17 C6.6 Admin. Handbook specifications). Install more than normal number Water bar every 20 to 40 feet on 1.13, 1.17 C6.6 water bars on skid trails (>35% >35% slopes slope). Spread appropriate material on Applies to project area where 1.14 C6.602 skid trails to achieve a minimum needed to attain 50% cover, such 50% ground cover. Material may as >35% slopes or where steeper consist of either: fine slash, wood skid trails enter landings chips, weed-free or rice straw, or any combination. Skid trails generally restricted to Applies to project area 1.9 STLRMP <35% slope. Use skid trails when soil is dry to 4 Applies to project area 1.13 WW/WO inches deep. Install silt fences between skid trail Applies to project area 1.14 C6.602 and culvert when slope distance is <50 feet. Use existing skid trails to the Applies to project area 1.10 C6.422 extent possible to minimize the number of skid trails.
Skyline Cable Yarding
Description of Erosion Control Applicability of Erosion Control BMP Reference Measure Measure to Project
Require one-end suspension. Applies to project area 1.11 C6.427 Use water bars on skid corridor Applies to project area 1.17 C6.6, C6.602 (per Timber Sale Admin. Handbook specs). Full log suspension across Applies to project area 1.11, 1.19 C6.427 Riparian Reserves. Cable corridors on contour (or Applies to project area 1.17 C6.602 acute angle to slope) require breaches in downhill side berm in lieu of water bars.
E-72 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Landings
Description of Erosion Control Applicability of Erosion BMP Reference Measure Control Measure to Project
No new landings in Riparian Applies to project area 1.12 IDT Reserves. Outslope landings. Applies to project area 1.16 C6.601, C6.602 Rip landings (up to 12 inches Applies to project area within NA C6.601, C6.603 deep). riparian reserves Seed and mulch landings. Applies to project area within 1.14, 1.15 C6.601 riparian reserves Divert skid trail and road runoff Applies to project area 1.16 SA, C6.602 from crossing landing If runoff must cross landing, Applies to project area 1.16 C6.602 design landing drainage in a way to prevent rilling and gulling of fill slope. Pull organic materials out of fill Applies to project area 1.16, 2.10 C6.602 slope of landings if necessary to prevent collapse. When building landings, layer Applies to project area 1.16, 2.10 C6.602 (2/1/00) place and compact soil material on fill slopes. Seed and mulch landing fill slopes. Applies to project area 1.14, 1.15 C6.601, C6.6 Place silt fence below landing fill Applies to project area 1.14 WW/WO, C6.6, slope during wet weather C6.602 operations if runoff is causing erosion.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-73 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Roads
Description of Erosion Control Applicability of Erosion BMP Reference Measure Control Measure to Project
Spot rocking of native surface Applies to project area 2.7, 2.23 WW/WO roads with aggregate if used during wet weather LOP. Install silt fences at culvert outlets Applies to project area 2.7 WW/WO if road will be used during wet weather LOP. Mulch and seed new or disturbed Applies to project area 1.14, 1.15 C6.601 fill slopes. No debris disposal in or within 100 Applies to project area 1.19, 2.11, T-802, T-803, C5.4 feet Streamside Management 2.19 Zone, meadows, wetlands or Riparian Reserve. No disposal within 100 feet of Applies to project area 1.19, 2.11 T-802, T-803, C5.4 culverts, road dips, in an inside ditch, above a ditch or any where material can reach a stream channel. Dispose of cleaned out material Applies to project area 1.19, 2.11, T-802, C5.4 from culvert intake to location 2.22 where it will not enter a channel, ditch, or re-enter intake area. Soil material at approved disposal Applies to project area 2.4 C5.4 sites will be seeded and mulched prior to winter.
Mitigation Measures: Standard Pacific Southwest Region Forest Service timber sale harvest management requirements and mitigation measures, as required by the Forest Service Manual, applicable Forest Service Handbooks, and the timber sale contract, are incorporated by reference into this plan for those alternatives proposing harvest activities. The present Watershed Condition Class of the project area requires implementation of mitigation measures to offset the impacts of the proposed harvest activities. These impacts are related to soil and water quality. The following mitigation measures are required and are in addition to BMPs listed in the erosion control plan.
Fire Mitigations • Keep prescribed fire as cool as possible and attain desired burn conditions • Allow hand cutting, piling and burning where feasible to reduce fuel load in riparian areas. Burn piles shall not be larger than five feet high and five feet in diameter.
Timber Harvest Mitigations • All Streamside Management Zones to be flagged and/or signed within proposed treatment units. Identify Riparian Reserves as “Protect Streamcourse” on Sale Area Map. • Remove harvest operations-created floatable material within the high water mark of the streamcourse.
E-74 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
• Follow Streamside Management Zone Objectives (SMZOs) as defined for each protected streamcourse in the assessment area for details of permissible and prohibited activities (BMP 1-8). • 50 foot no mechanical entry or harvesting for riparian zones (i.e., riparian zones include landslide prone areas). • Designate/approve Riparian Reserve crossings. Skid trail grade shall not exceed 35% and shall be located so as to minimize ground and vegetative disturbance. Rehabilitate skid trail disturbed mineral soil within 50 feet (slope distance) of defined channel limits with available organic material, resulting in minimum 50-70% ground cover post-treatment. • Limit the slopes on which tractor prescription activity takes place. To control erosion and soil disturbance, down hill tractor activity shall be limited to 35% slopes and uphill to 25% unless the leading end is suspended. Tractor piling shall be limited to slopes 30% or less. (BMP 1-9) Limit the operating period of heavy machinery prescription activity. To avoid compaction, rutting, gullying and the resulting long term damage to the productivity of the soil resource, as well as to achieve clean tractor piles, tractor piling activities shall be limited to the dry periods of the year. Tractor operation will be suspended by the contract administrator when soil conditions become too wet, and there is a potential for soil compaction and soil hydrologic function to occur. (BMPs 1-10,5-2,5-6,1-13.) • Dedicate no more than 15% of the unit to primary skid roads, trails, and landings. The objective is to design a skidding pattern that best fits the terrain and limits the impact on the soil. Predesignated skid trails, felling to the lead, and end lining are methods that can be used to achieve this. Skid trails shall be outsloped and not located in swales, where waterbarring is not possible or requires deep cuts. (BMPs 1-10,1-12,1-13,1-16.) • To minimize potential for erosion and improve soil quality, all primary skid trails and temporary roads from the present, as well as past sales shall be scarifyed, if they have not previously. This will be up to 12” depth depending on soil type. These areas will be respread with slash. Subsoiling shall be performed when the soils are dry.
Road and Trail Mitigations • Decommission system and obliterate non-system roads and trails that will improve soil and water quality conditions and are not needed for long-term use (i.e., >20 years). Road decommissioning entails removing culverts, ripping and outsloping road surface, and tank trapping. Other activities may occur depending on site conditions. The goal is to control surface runoff, erosion, and mass failure leaving the roadbed unavailable for future use. The condition of these roads is monitored long-term as part of BMP effectiveness monitoring.
For this project, 27 miles of road were identified to be decommissioned or obliterated.
• Reconstruct system roads that do not meet current engineering and BMP standards. Road reconstruction consists of several or all following actions; blading and shaping of the travel
way, drainage improvement including pipe installation (size culverts to Q100 flood event),
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-75 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
waterbars, and/or rolling dips, overside drain where necessary, and rocking for surface protection. • If hauling is performed outside the normal operating season, the placement of aggregate base course may be required to provide a stable running surface and prevent rutting and potential erosion. Snow berms will be removed or drains installed to avoid channelization of melt water to minimize potential for damage to the road and to protect water quality. If the road surface is damaged, lost surface material shall be replaced, and damaged structures repaired. (BMPs 2- 23, 2-24 and 2-25) • Purchaser utilized roads rutted or otherwise damaged by Purchaser operations shall be spot- rocked or otherwise suitably repaired. Drainage structures shall be protected or repaired as necessary. The road surface shall be outsloped, if possible, during maintenance operations. • Do not conduct harvest, yarding or hauling activity during wet weather conditions. Generally, from October 15 to April 15 activity should only occur when soil conditions are such that the operations will not lead to soil compaction. An earth scientist should be consulted prior to conducting activities during the time frame specified above.
Monitoring Requirements Wet weather operations implementation and effectiveness monitoring Hauling activities may occur outside of the Normal Operating Season (NOS), defined as May 15 to October 15, providing that the following guidelines are adhered to. Daily monitoring of haul routes, landings, and skid trails consisting of BMP forms or daily diaries will document implementation and effectiveness of BMPs. Project activities will be curtailed and corrective action taken when any of the following are encountered or expected: • Erosion of Road Material Scour or sediment deposition evident and extending more than 20 feet below outlet of cross drain. Scour or sediment movement into riparian reserve or drainage way from road surface, cut slope, or fill slope. • Ponding Ponding present on road surface that is causing fill subsidence or otherwise threatening integrity of fill. • Ruts/Rills More than 10% of road segment length has rills more than 2 inches deep and 20 feet in length that continue off road. Ruts formed that can channel water past erosion control structures. Numerous rills present at stream crossing (>1 rill per lineal 5 feet), apparently active or enlarging, evidence of some sediment delivery to stream.
E-76 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
• Culverts Sediments or debris is blocking 30% of inlet or outlet. More than 10% of the flow to pass beneath or around culvert, or noticeable piping evident. • Skid Trails/ Harvest Areas More than 20% of skid trail or cableway surface lengths have rills present that are over 2 inches deep and more than 10 feet in length. More than 10% of skid trail surface length has ruts greater than 2 inches deep. Rills or sediment deposition extends more than 20 feet below waterbar outlet. More than 10% of waterbars fail to divert flow off skid trails or cableways Sediment movement into a riparian reserve. Presence of gullies (erosional features greater than 4” deep and 6”wide). • Landings Rills (greater than ½” deep and 10’ in length) or sediment deposition has extended more than 20 feet off of landing. More than 1 cubic yard of material (from erosion or slope failure) has moved into riparian reserve.
Erosion control materials and preventative maintenance measures would be in place prior to hauling outside the NOS. These measures include a combination of water-bars, mulch, spot rocking, and road maintenance. When activities extend outside the NOS, erosion control plans are implemented and kept current on a daily basis. The Shasta-Trinity National Forest shall provide NMFS with a monthly report of concurrent BMP monitoring for all ground disturbing activities that occur outside the NOS. Mitigation measure implementation and effectiveness monitoring • Site review by hydrologist, geologist, and/or fishery biologist BMP implementation and effectiveness monitoring • Follow standard BMPEP monitoring plan Watershed Condition Class monitoring (control versus treated) • Channel stability monitoring of Rush, Little Browns, and Weaver Creeks. Use channel reference sites to monitor the channel stability trend pre and post project. • Monitor implementation and effectiveness of watershed restoration activities Track benefits to help meet TMDL goals
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-77 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Appendix C: Roads to be Decommissioned or Obliterated______
Subwatershed Road Length Distance to HUC8 Number (Feet) Critical Habitat Rush Creek U34N33YA 2577 0.2 1801021106010201 U34N96D 5357 0.6 1801021106010201 34N96-5 1825 1.4 1801021106010201 U34N96E 218 1.75 1801021106010102 34N96-6 1532 1.75 1801021106010201 U34N96AB 811 1.9 1801021106010102 Total Feet 12,320 Total Miles 2.3 E Weaver Creek U3TRI03 2791 0.4 1801021106040105 34N95B 1644 0.5 1801021106040105 U3TRI03A 1072 0.5 1801021106040105 U34N95H 2969 0.6 1801021106040105 U34N95L 208 0.6 1801021106040105 U3TRI03B 596 0.6 1801021106040105 U3TRI03C 152 0.6 1801021106040105 U3TRI03G 205 0.6 1801021106040105 U34N95AA 2121 0.7 1801021106040103 U34N95O 4480 0.8 1801021106040103 34N95A 3098 0.8 1801021106040105 U34N95I 1314 0.8 1801021106040105 U34N95M 1195 0.8 1801021106040105 U34N95A 1170 0.9 1801021106040105 34N95-10 692 1.3 1801021106040103 34N83B 1342 1.3 1801021106040102 34N95-9 217 1.4 1801021106040103 U34N95N 1520 1.4 1801021106040103 34N83A 1808 1.6 1801021106040102 U34N95P 153 1.6 1801021106040103 33N38F 3665 1.9 1801021106040102 34N89 4211 >2 1801021106040101 34N89A 2541 >2 1801021106040102 34N95-11 417 >2 1801021106040103 34N95-12 440 >2 1801021106040103 34N95-13 188 >2 1801021106040103 34N95-25 401 >2 1801021106040103 U34N34B 4335 >2 1801021106040103 U34N34B-2 576 >2 1801021106040103 U34N95K 703 >2 1801021106040105
E-78 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Subwatershed Road Length Distance to HUC8 Number (Feet) Critical Habitat Total Feet 46,224 Total Miles 8.8 Little Browns Creek U34N77A 1996 25ft 1801021106040302 U34N77A-1 91 50ft 1801021106040302 U34N77AA 2934 75ft 1801021106040302 U3TRI02 217 100ft 1801021106040301 U3TRI01 671 100ft 1801021106040302 U3TRI01A 300 100ft 1801021106040302 U3TRI03F 812 150ft 1801021106040302 UC232-1 364 250ft 1801021106040301 U34N77AAB 155 300ft 1801021106040302 34N52Y 3548 400ft. 1801021106040301 U232A 2247 0.1 1801021106040301 U232B 778 0.1 1801021106040301 U230A 1531 0.2 1801021106040302 U34N77B 828 0.2 1801021106040302 34N95E 3151 0.3 1801021106040301 U3TRI05 665 0.4 1801021106040301 U3TRI05-2 531 0.4 1801021106040301 U3TRI05-3 444 0.4 1801021106040301 U3TRI05-4 189 0.4 1801021106040301 34N52YA-13 109 0.4 1801021106040302 U3TRI04 764 0.4 1801021106040302 U3TRI04A 284 0.4 1801021106040302 U34N05YA 142 0.5 1801021106040301 U34N95J 2619 0.5 1801021106040301 U34N77C 896 0.5 1801021106040302 34N96C 2469 0.6 1801021106040301 U34N96G 229 0.6 1801021106040301 U3TRI05A 295 0.6 1801021106040301 U3TRI05A-1 467 0.6 1801021106040301 U34N95I-1 1244 0.7 1801021106040302 U3TRI03D 288 0.75 1801021106040302 U3TRI03E 215 0.75 1801021106040302 34N95F 1436 0.8 1801021106040301 34N95F-1 231 0.8 1801021106040301 34N96B-3 337 0.9 1801021106040301 U34N52YB 1778 0.9 1801021106040301 U34N95B 425 0.9 1801021106040301 U34N96B-4 91 0.9 1801021106040301
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-79 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Subwatershed Road Length Distance to HUC8 Number (Feet) Critical Habitat U34N96BA 363 0.9 1801021106040301 U34N96F 3709 0.9 1801021106040301 U34N96H 704 0.9 1801021106040301 34N96B 4160 1 1801021106040301 34N96-1 2081 1.1 1801021106040301 34N96B-5 1816 1.1 1801021106040301 34N96C-1 2337 1.1 1801021106040301 34N52Y-10 271 1.1 1801021106040302 34N52Y-14 773 1.1 1801021106040302 34N95A-1 138 1.1 1801021106040302 U34N52YC 3074 1.1 1801021106040302 34N95C-1 365 1.2 1801021106040301 34N96B-4 810 1.2 1801021106040301 34N52YA-11 221 1.2 1801021106040302 U34N52YCA 229 1.2 1801021106040302 34N95C 3008 1.3 1801021106040301 34N96-2 1844 1.3 1801021106040301 34N96B-2 299 1.3 1801021106040301 UT34N96BA 623 1.3 1801021106040301 U34N52YD 4875 1.3 1801021106040302 34N95-7 1018 1.4 1801021106040301 34N96-3 332 1.4 1801021106040301 34N96-4 703 1.4 1801021106040301 34N96B-1 1365 1.5 1801021106040301 U34N05YC 702 1.5 1801021106040302 U34N52YCB 208 1.5 1801021106040302 U34N05YB 758 1.7 1801021106040302 34N95-1 1015 1.75 1801021106040301 U34N96AC 1212 1.9 1801021106040301 U34N96AD 222 1.9 1801021106040301 U34N96AE 287 1.9 1801021106040301 34N95-14 224 >2 1801021106040301 34N95-16 247 >2 1801021106040301 34N95-17 1614 >2 1801021106040301 34N95-18 1315 >2 1801021106040301 34N95-19 140 >2 1801021106040301 34N95-20 167 >2 1801021106040301 34N95-21 266 >2 1801021106040301 34N95-22 1055 >2 1801021106040301
E-80 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Subwatershed Road Length Distance to HUC8 Number (Feet) Critical Habitat 34N95-23 1219 >2 1801021106040301 34N95G-1 83 >2 1801021106040301 34N95G-2 727 >2 1801021106040301 U34N34B-1 215 >2 1801021106040301 U34N95J-1 699 >2 1801021106040301 U34N95J-2 188 >2 1801021106040301 UT34N95C-1 504 >2 1801021106040301 Total Feet 83,958 Total Miles 15.9
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-81 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
E-82 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit
Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Appendix E: Intentionally Left Blank ______Appendix E never existed. The original Fishery Biological Assessment inadvertently included a reference to “Appendix F” when it should have referenced “Appendix E.” During the consultation process, the material in “Appendix E” became “Appendix F.” This blank Appendix E page has been included as a placeholder to connect Appendix D to Appendix F.
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-85 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
E-86 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit
Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Documentation of Expected Adverse Effects to Listed Fish Species and their Habitat______Name of action: Browns Project Species of concern: SONCC coho salmon HUCs in ESA action area: 1801021106 Critical habitat area of concern: Little Browns Creek Element(s) of the action causing the expected adverse effects: Road Rehabilitation in the flood plain of Little Browns Creek. 1. The proposed action may result in adverse effects through which of the following mechanisms (underline or circle and describe as appropriate). Harm: act that actually kills or injures fish (may include habitat modification that significantly impairs behavioral patterns such as breeding, spawning, rearing, migrating, feeding or sheltering). Harass: significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Other forms of take: pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, trap, capture, kill, collect, or delayed mortality from stress or disease. Habitat: cause an adverse effect to occupied or accessible habitat of listed/proposed species; proposed/designated critical habitat. For anadromous fish, accessible habitat is considered to be occupied. 2. Nature, magnitude and probability Describe the nature, magnitude and probability of the effects of the action on a species or habitat. Quantify where possible. (Describe in BA outline) Nature: If spawning were to occur within the action area, increased fine sediment levels could cause a reduction in emergence of hatched coho salmon due to fine sediment infiltrating a redd. Increased fine sediment levels could cause a reduction in pool frequency and size (negative effect) that emerged coho salmon would use for rearing. Magnitude: The negative effects of road rehabilitation related turbidity, substrate, and its effect on pool frequency would be evident in Little Browns Creek for ¼ mile downstream of the Project area. An unknown amount of sediment will be moved into critical habitat. Probability: There is high probability that road rehabilitation will have (-) negative effect on turbidity, substrate, and pool frequency in critical habitat in the Little Browns Creek subwatershed. 3. Which of the following life stages, forms and essential behaviors will be adversely affected (underline or circle and describe as appropriate)? Life history forms Resident Fluvial Adfluvial Anadromous
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit – E-89 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 1) Fisheries Biological Assessment – May 2006
Life stages and essential behaviors Fertilization to emergence (incubation)Emergence to juvenile out-migration (freshwater rearing) Juvenile out-migration and smoltification (including estuarine rearing) Adult migration to spawning areas Adult holding Gamete survival and maturation Spawning 4. Temporal Scale (frequency and duration) (underline or circle and describe as appropriate). 1. Frequency: How often will the effect occur? 2. Duration: a. Short term or pulse effect: subsides almost immediately. b. Long term or press effect: chronic. The effect will occur with each precipitation event for two to three years. The initial precipitation event would be the greatest impact with each succeeding event reducing in severity. 5. Spatial scale 1. Distribution: Describe the geographic extent of the effect
The impact is expected to occur in Little Browns Creek from the Hwy. 3 crossing down stream for about ¼ mile. 2. Proximity a. Describe where the effect is in relation to the species and its habitat. b. Note relationship to occupied habitat, designated critical habitat, or essential fish habitat The effect will occur in a known spawning and rearing area. It is within designated critical habitat and essential fish habitat. 6. Tracking Adverse Effects: Catalogue a unit number for this adverse effect and identify the specific location on the GIS water theme as a point, segment, or polygon datum (depending upon the nature of the effect). 7. Include this form and map in the BA.
E-90 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 2) Fisheries Biological Opinion – May 2006
Appendix E (part 2): Fisheries Biological Opinion
September 19, 2005
Prepared by: National Marine Fisheries Service
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix E: (Part 2) Fisheries Biological Opinion – May 2006
Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Trinity River Management Unit
Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix F: Response to Comments – May 2006
Appendix F: Response to Comments
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix F: Response to Comments – May 2006
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix F: Response to Comments – May 2006
Appendix F: Response to Comments
This appendix presents the comments on the Draft EIS and the Forest Service’s responses. The Forest received five comment letters; no modified form letters were received. Letters were received from one Federal agency, one State agency, and one County government; two letters were from environmental groups. Two comment letters stated opposition to the Browns Project or supported the No Action Alternative. Similar comments have been summarized and combined. Whenever possible, the response includes a reference to the location in the documents where the reader may find changes or supporting information. The commenters are identified by acronym and the comment number listed for each comment in the following table. Scanned copies of the two agency and one local elected official comment letters are included at the end of this appendix. The following table lists the comments received by related areas, and identifies the comments as either being “substantive” or not. To meet the definition of being “substantive,” the comment must meet the following two criteria: 1) the comment must be within the scope of the proposed action, specific to the proposed action, and have a direct relationship to the proposed action; and 2) the comment must include supporting reasons for the Responsible Official to consider. Possible responses to comments include the following (40 CFR 1503.4): 1. Modify alternatives including the proposed action. 2. Develop and evaluate alternatives not previously given serious consideration by the agency. 3. Supplement, improve, or modify its analyses. 4. Make factual corrections. 5. Explain why the comments do not warrant further agency response.
A list of those who commented is below (all were timely): • Scott Greacen, representing the Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC). • Joseph Bower, representing the Citizens for Better Forestry (CBF) • Will J. Arcand, representing the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board (RWB) • Nova Blazej, representing the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) • Howard Freeman, representing the Trinity County Board of Supervisors (BOS)
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – F-1 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix F: Response to Comments – May 2006
Comment Commenter(s) Comment and Responsible Official’s Consideration of Comment Substantive and Comment (Response) Comment? Number(s) Yes/No (if No, explain why) A Trees A-1 EPIC Comment: Harvest of trees greater than 19-inch diameter breast height Yes. (1, 9, 48, 51, (DBH) was expressed as a concern. The commenter requested the 53, 55) development of an alternative that did not remove trees over 19-inches DBH. Response: Alternative 5 was considered (FEIS, page 21) that limited harvest to trees smaller than 19-inches DBH. An estimate of the number of trees proposed to be harvested in the Proposed Action Alternative 3 is shown in Figure F-1, at the end of this appendix. The figure shows about 92 percent of the total trees estimated to be harvest would be less than 19- inches DBH. A-2 CBF Comment: Proposing to leave only the healthy old trees fails to recognize No. (28) the value in old trees with dead tops and other defects. Comment is Response: All predominant and dominant conifers would be left within part of the thinning units (FEIS page 12). These represent the largest/oldest conifers proposed within the forest stands and they typically have “defects.” action. A-3 EPIC Comment: The group regeneration harvest seems to include a great many No. (49, 50) larger trees including sugar pine and incense cedar that are a smaller Clarification of percentage of tree species composition. the proposal. Response: Areas to be harvested by group regeneration were selected because of a high rate of tree mortality or a lower than desired number of trees, not by species or size of trees. Trees of various different sizes and species would be harvested from the groups. A-4 CBF Comment: The DEIS did not respond to (our) concern of retaining as much No. (56) canopy closure as possible for the purpose of providing shade to retard Concerns growth of brush species and maintaining a cool, moist fire-resistant forest document (60-80% canopy may provide greater benefits). disclosure. Response: The primary purpose of the project is to improve forest health by reducing overcrowded stand conditions and the associated fuel ladders. Canopy closure would retard brush species at the cost of reducing growth and vigor of the largest trees retained after harvest. Moisture (water availability) available to residual trees would increase with reduction of crown closure (and tree densities). The planning team considered leaving a 60%+ canopy (this was along with the decision to eliminate Alternative 5 from detailed study discussed on FEIS pages 20 & 21), but dismissed this idea early because it would require more frequent entries into the planning area (about every 10 years), would not benefit tree growth (trees need “room to grow”), and result in more management intrusion to possibly cause a negative effect on indigenous wildlife species (including the northern spotted owl).
F-2 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix F: Response to Comments – May 2006
Comment Commenter(s) Comment and Responsible Official’s Consideration of Comment Substantive and Comment (Response) Comment? Number(s) Yes/No (if No, explain why) A-5 EPIC Comment: We found quite a few trees larger than 19-inches DBH marked No. (3) for cutting as part of the road corridor, indicating that the road locations Clarification of were designed to generate timber from the largest trees. the proposal. Response: Road corridor timber volume is proposed to be harvested from approximately 24,100 feet of road (equating to 10.7 acres). There are a total of 25 trees on these 10.7 acres that are larger than 19-inches DBH (about 2.3 large trees/acre). The average site throughout the project area also has about 2.3 large trees/acre. The road locations were designed to access the treatment areas, not to harvest the largest trees. A-6 EPIC Comment: The response of the forest to thinning is not supported by Yes. (12) scientific literature. Response: The forest’s response to thinning in development of larger trees is documented in the scientific literature. “The literature on the effect of stand density on growth is voluminous.”1 Tappeiner found “that thinning may be needed in dense young stands … to speed development of old- growth characteristics. When the objective of forest management is to grow stands with old-growth characteristics, it appears that density management (e.g. one or more thinnings to low densities) would be required.”2 Oliver reported that thinning ponderosa and Jeffrey pine pole stands stimulates growth in diameter and height.3 Growth was modeled for stands on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest (STNF) with similar species composition as in the Browns Project. The analysis indicated that treatment would accelerate stand development by approximately 30-50 years as compared with no action.4 Maintenance of habitat capability related to thinning is based upon habitat characteristics described in the BA (Appendix D, pages D-9 and D-12) and BA Attachment 1 (in project file). B Soils and Land Stability B-1 EPIC Comment: We are concerned about the construction and reconstruction of Yes. (2, 66, 67) roads in unstable soils and landslides. Response: FEIS, pages 60-63 discloses the impacts on soils and land stability. Unstable areas are avoided by both action alternatives. Refer to the geology review and revisions described at the end of this appendix. B-2 RWB Comment: Commenter requests a map identifying mass wasting features No. (68) within and adjacent to Browns Project harvest units and roads. Comment was Response: Commenter was provided a map. a request for information. C Roads C-1 RWB Comment: Commenter requests a map showing proposed road No. (5) management activities. Comment was Response: A map of the road management activities is part of Appendix C a request for of the FEIS. information.
1 Smith, D.M., 1962. The Practice of Silviculture – Seventh Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., page 37. 2 Tappeiner, J.C., Huffman, D., Marshall, D., Spies, T.A., Bailey, J.D., 1997. Density, ages and growth rates in old-growth Douglas-fir forests in coastal Oregon. Can. J. For. Res. 27, 638-648. 3 Oliver, W.W., 1972. Growth after thinning ponderosa and Jeffrey pine pole stands in northeastern California. USDA Forest Service Research Paper PSW – 85. 4 Shasta-Trinity National Forest – Forest Wide LSR Assessment, 1999. Appendix J, pages J-4 through J-13.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – F-3 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix F: Response to Comments – May 2006
Comment Commenter(s) Comment and Responsible Official’s Consideration of Comment Substantive and Comment (Response) Comment? Number(s) Yes/No (if No, explain why) C-2 BOS Comment: Proposed roads 34N87 and 34N87A should be reduced in Yes. (6, 7) length or dropped to take advantage of existing parallel roads on private land. Less sediment would be delivered to Browns Creek if these roads were not built. Response: The Forest Service is aware of the existing parallel roads. Right-of–way acquisition is not likely and would only reduce road construction by about 600 yards. C-3 EPIC Comment: The DEIS does not mention any proposed measures to limit or No. (4) monitor road use by off-highway vehicles (OHVs) in areas where access Beyond the would be increased. scope of this Response: The Forest Service policy for management of OHVs is beyond proposal. the scope of this project. D Wildlife D-1 EPIC Comment: Where are the effects to threatened and endangered, sensitive No. (8, 10, 14, 15, species, and management indicator species disclosed? The comment 17, 18, 19, 20, Response: The Wildlife Biological Assessment (BA) and Biological concerns the 21, 22, 23) Evaluation (BE; in project file) completed for this project disclose adequacy of anticipated effects to federally listed and Forest Service sensitive species. the These effects are summarized in the FEIS, pages 71-73. The BA (see environmental Appendix D) includes an analysis of the management indicator species. analysis. D-2 EPIC Comment: The DEIS on page 4-33 states that the impacts to late- No. (11) successional habitat will result in the “irretrievable very small short-term Correction of loss of suitable nesting/roosting and foraging spotted owl habitat, 27 acres.” an error in the Response: The last sentence in section C on page 4-33 of the DEIS is DEIS. incorrect. The sentence should have read as follows: “Proposed road building would result in an irretrievable loss of existing spotted owl habitat (5 acres in Alternative 3 and no acres in Alternative 4)”. This error has been corrected in the FEIS, page 106. D-3 EPIC Comment: What are the Browns Project’s impacts to the northern spotted No. (13) owl habitat in LSR RC-334, since the Wildlife BA states that the habitat is Clarification of insufficient? analysis. Response: The Browns Project proposes no actions within LSR RC-334. All project activities lie within land designated as Adaptive Management Area and Riparian Reserve. See FEIS, page 2 and Appendix D, page D-9.
F-4 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix F: Response to Comments – May 2006
Comment Commenter(s) Comment and Responsible Official’s Consideration of Comment Substantive and Comment (Response) Comment? Number(s) Yes/No (if No, explain why) D-4 EPIC Comment: Since recent surveys for NSO have not been conducted, the Yes. (16) STNF cannot know with certainty how many owl pairs exist in the project area, and what portions of the project area are actually necessary to prevent further decline in the species. Response: Knowing with certainty how many owl pairs exist within any give area at any given time would require extremely intrusive direct human observation or affixing all owls with radio transmitters. The number of owl pairs was thus inferred from our records of owl locations and habitat conditions in the area (Appendix D, page D-13). The Draft Recovery Plan as well as the Northwest Forest Plan does not depend upon maintaining all owls outside of areas set aside for owls (e.g., LSRs) for the recovery of the species. D-5 EPIC Comment: The DEIS fails to comply with Survey and Manage provisions of No. (24, 25) the NWFP. The STNF should comply with NWFP provisions until Procedural challenges to changed rules are litigated. comment. Response: The Browns Project was developed in compliance with the 2001 Survey and Manage standards and guidelines.5 See FEIS pages 6 & 7 and Appendix D, page D-2. D-6 EPIC Comment: The DEIS discussion of connectivity of late-successional habitat No. (26) is inadequate Opinion of Response: The Wildlife BA analyzes connectivity (Appendix D pages D-9, commenter. D-13, and D-14). E Fuels and Fire E-1 EPIC Comment: Fuels treatments would remove the large snags and logs. No. (27) Response: Large snags and logs would be maintained in all thinning units Clarification of (FEIS page 14). the proposal. E-2 EPIC Comment: The project will not reduce the probability that property and No. (46, 47, 61) lives will be lost in a wildfire. Opinion of Response: The fuels analysis indicates that the proposal would improve commenter. the fire regime condition class from a Class 3 to a Class 1, reducing fire behavior, and resulting in less fire severity (FEIS, pages 55 & 56, and Browns Project Fuels Specialist Report, page 15). E-3 BOS Comment: The DEIS does not mention Trinity County Fire Safe Council’s No. (60) Fire Safe Recommendations or the Weaverville Community Fuel Break Concerns Program Timberland Environmental Impact Report. document Response: This comment is correct. The FEIS includes additional citations disclosure. (FEIS, page 6) to document these important county recommendations and the fuel break program. E-4 EPIC Comment: The Browns Project does not treat younger plantations to No. (63) reduce the fire hazard. This is beyond Response: The Browns Project reduces fuel hazards and improves forest the scope of health in stands with larger trees than those found in young plantations. the proposal. Younger plantations are scheduled to be considered for fuels treatments under a separate planning effort beginning in 2006. These plantation thinning projects are considered and disclosed as reasonably foreseeable actions in the FEIS (pages 74-77).
5 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures, 2001. USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – F-5 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix F: Response to Comments – May 2006
Comment Commenter(s) Comment and Responsible Official’s Consideration of Comment Substantive and Comment (Response) Comment? Number(s) Yes/No (if No, explain why) E-5 EPIC Comment: What would it cost to do the most needful fuels work without No. (64) building a bunch of roads and cutting many big trees? This is a Response: The effects of not building roads are disclosed in Alternative 4 request for in the FEIS. Specifically, costs are disclosed in FEIS on page 50, Table 4- information. 1. E-6 BOS Comment: The project area is not inclusive of the fire risk needs existing in No. (65) the south half of Section 34, T34N, R10W. This is beyond Response: It is true that the Browns Project does not propose any the scope of treatments in the south half of this section. However, there is another the proposal. project awaiting implementation (included in the China Gulch Thinning/Fuels reduction project, which was approved July 23, 2001) to lower the fire risk related to the hazardous fuels in the south half of this section. F Watershed F-1 EPIC, RWB Comment: We are especially concerned by what appears to be an attempt No. (29, 40, 41, 45, to disguise the unacceptable cumulative effects of the proposed actions by The comment 51) promising mitigation, in the form of road removal, that is at best uncertain concerns the and, in our experience, unlikely ever to be achieved. Are there any adequacy of assurances that both fuels and road management phases of the Browns the Project will be completed? What is the expected timing of road environmental management activities as related to proposed timber harvesting and fuel analysis. treatment activities? Response: No attempt was made to disguise the present or future watershed condition or impacts. Mitigation measures are being proposed to minimize short- (i.e., one to three years) and long-term (more than five years) effects to water quantity and quality. Mitigation measures include not only road removal, but also low ground disturbance mechanical harvesting, ripping of skid trails and landings, and road improvements (FEIS, Appendix B, pages B-1 to B-7). Mitigation measures tied to the Timber Sale Contract will be implemented; for example, ripping of skid trails and landings. There are 31 miles of road decommissioning required that would cost about $650,000 (FEIS, page 50). Road removal would be accomplished with Knutsen-Vandenberg (KV) and other funding. There will likely be $1 million in KV dollars generated by the timber sale that would be available for implementation of the required mitigation measures. In addition, the Forest Service has already received $112,000 from the Trinity County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) to decommission 3.8 miles of road. The Forest Service is committed to implementing the fuels and road management prescribed in the proposed action. Implementation of these activities is dependent on funding. The Forest Service will request the needed funding; however, it cannot guarantee that funding will become available. The analysis assumes the project will be implemented within 10 years of the decision date. All new road construction will occur within one year of the decision date. Road work associated with timber harvest will be implemented once the contract is awarded and implemented, which normally is within one to four years after the decision date. Road restoration activities will be implemented as funding becomes available. The high priority roads will be treated first (i.e., roads with controllable sediment discharge sources). Some roads identified for decommissioning are needed for timber harvest and will be removed after the timber is removed. Based on past funding and resources available to implement, the project will likely decommission about 10 to 15 miles per year.
F-6 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix F: Response to Comments – May 2006
Comment Commenter(s) Comment and Responsible Official’s Consideration of Comment Substantive and Comment (Response) Comment? Number(s) Yes/No (if No, explain why) F-2 EPIC Comment: The DEIS consistently downplays the potential impacts of No. (30) “temporary” roads, failing to fully disclose and analyze their potentially The comment significant direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. concerns the Response: The potential impacts from temporary road construction and adequacy of use are accounted for in the Cumulative Watershed Effect (CWE) analysis the (FEIS, pages 63-66). The CWE model disturbance factors are used to environmental quantitatively account for temporary roads, skid trails, and landings. analysis, with Because the exact location of each temporary road is not determined until no supporting implementation, their effect is lumped into the appropriate harvest unit. The evidence/ Hydrologist Report in the project file includes the data and explanation of reasons for the the impact analysis used to analyze the temporary roads. Responsible Official to consider. F-3 EPIC, RWB Comment: Five of the nine subwatersheds listed as Class III are over the No. (31, 32, 42) threshold of concern. The DEIS fails to analyze or discuss the significance The comment of this information in light of these very significant and continuing effects. concerns the The Equivalent Roaded Acres/Threshold of Concern (ERA/TOC) model adequacy of may underestimate effects and leave significant questions about potential the CWEs unanswered or incompletely addressed. It is hard to decipher what environmental activities are proposed, and what activities are elevating or reducing, the analysis and a ERA in the watersheds of concern. disagreement Response: Most of the increased ERA model results are from private land concerning disturbances. For example, in Rush Creek the ERA values increase appropriate downstream (the headwaters are in Wilderness with low ERA model modeling results) and the lower end of watershed is in private landownership with tools. high ERA model results (FEIS, page 99, Table 4-13). The Forest Service has considered past, present, and foreseeable private land impacts in the CWE analysis, but it has no control over activities on private land. Given this, the Forest Service must consider the private land effects in the context of CWE and their activities (FEIS, page 36). The Forest Service is committed to working towards an improved watershed condition and is doing its own work and cooperating with other federal, state, and local agencies to implement restoration projects. For example, fish passage improvement projects on Trinity County roads below Forest Service lands, and road upgrade projects on roads that dissect private and public lands. The STNF CWE analysis process is based on the logic established by the Haskins model (1983). This model is appropriate to use since it was developed on the STNF and is considered by the project hydrologist as the best model available. However, refinement of the process has occurred over the past two decades making it more robust and spatially/temporally explicit. For this project, the model is calibrated to the physical and biological characteristics of each subwatershed. The results were ground- truthed and adjusted to the actual condition of the landscape. For example, several of the past harvest units were presumed to be fully recovered, but investigation in the field showed that there are active landslides from these units and, as a result, their disturbance factor was adjusted in the model as “not recovered due to active landsliding.” The record discloses that this project is occurring within degraded watersheds. Private and Forest Service roads are the main cause of degradation. Legacy effects from mining are present in every subwatershed. Timber harvest related landslides are also contributing to poor water quality. Specific to the CWE model, high rates of private timber harvest are a major factor driving high CWE risk. Since 1940, about 37% of the project area has been harvested with the majority of it on private land (Appendix H, page H-16). Specific actions within this project that will increase the risk of CWE are new road construction (FEIS, Appendix C), mechanized treatments for harvest and fuels treatments, and timber harvesting (FEIS, Appendix A).
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – F-7 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix F: Response to Comments – May 2006
Comment Commenter(s) Comment and Responsible Official’s Consideration of Comment Substantive and Comment (Response) Comment? Number(s) Yes/No (if No, explain why) F-4 EPIC Comment: The Browns Project must comply with the requirements of the No. (33) Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) as interpreted by the federal courts in Procedural the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations (PCFFA) cases. Comment. Response: It is the intent of the Browns Project to follow all known requirements and protect riparian areas. Project designs (FEIS, pages 14- 16) include protection measures consistent with those identified in requirements of the ACS. Court PCFFA cases have been decided, and the Forest Service will follow the present policy. F-5 EPIC Comment: The DEIS is unclear as to whether or not wet weather hauling No. (34, 35, 39) would occur. If wet weather hauling does occur, the DEIS fails to The comment adequately accounts for this effect with respect to CWE. How can the concerns the STNF assure that BMPs will be fully and successfully implemented? adequacy of Response: Limits to wet weather activities are addressed in the FEIS the (page 16) as well as the Fisheries Biological Opinion and Hydrologist environmental Report (Appendix B, pages B-6 to B-7). A limited operating period (LOP) analysis. will be in effect from October 15 to May 15. In addition, the Forest Service Timber Sale Contract includes resource protection requirements applicable to wet weather conditions as a standard operating procedure. Potential effects from wet weather activities will be mitigated through Best Management Practice (BMP) implementation and proper oversight (Appendix B, pages B-1 to B-8). BMP implementation is required for every Forest Service Project. For the Browns Project, the Timber Sale Contract will insure BMP implementation through monitoring and contract administration by a certified Timber Sale Administrator. BMP implementation and effectiveness is monitored annually to ensure legal requirements are met. A monitoring report is published annually reporting the BMP implementation results. Data show that the STNF is implementing BMPs, and when they are not effective, the effects are corrected by additional mitigative actions. F-6 EPIC Comment: Although private harvesting history was listed in DEIS Chapter No. (36, 37, 38) 3, the CWEs of present private harvesting are not discussed, nor is an The comment analysis of future private actions disclosed. The conclusion that the Browns concerns the Project will not effect the Rush watershed is unsubstantiated since no adequacy of current private projects on Rush Creek were disclosed. the Response: The discussion of connected and foreseeable actions used environmental information available at the time of the analysis. No private THPs were analysis. submitted at the time of the analysis. The analysis assumes that private timber harvest will continue; however, it is not quantifiable beyond what Timber Harvest Plans (THPs) have been submitted to the State of California (FEIS, page 91, Table 4-11). The present private harvesting is included in the CWE analysis and current projects are included in the timber harvest history (FEIS, page 36). The water quality analysis of the proposed action used information available at the time of the analysis. Foreseeable private land use is difficult to predict and quantify. The analysis area was delineated upstream of Weaverville to help separate private from Federal effects. However, there is a large area of private lands nested within the public lands. The CWE analysis shows that this project will not further degrade the water quality above Weaverville (FEIS, pages 63-66). Water quality effects below Weaverville cannot be controlled by the Forest Service since most of the land base is private property.
F-8 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix F: Response to Comments – May 2006
Comment Commenter(s) Comment and Responsible Official’s Consideration of Comment Substantive and Comment (Response) Comment? Number(s) Yes/No (if No, explain why) F-7 RWB Comment: Order No. R1-2004-0015 may require monitoring in watersheds No. (43, 44) that are currently over or may be elevated above the TOC. The Browns Procedural Project must meet specific eligibility criteria and comply with the conditions comment. contained within Order No. R1-2004-0015. Response: This project meets the Eligibility Criteria listed in Order No. R1- 2004-0015. An inter-disciplinary team analyzed the potential impacts to water quality including a hydrologist, fishery biologist, geologist, and soil scientist. To comply with Order No. R1-2004-0015, Section C, Condition-3, the Forest Service will continue to monitor the condition of subwatersheds draining the project area. Monitoring includes Wet Weather Operations Monitoring, BMP and mitigation implementation and effectiveness monitoring (i.e., random and site selective BMP monitoring will occur especially in areas prone to landslides, new road construction, and areas treated with mechanized equipment), and Watershed Condition Class Monitoring to include Stream Condition Inventory, Controllable Sediment Discharge Source Inventory, and watershed restoration tracking. Required BMPs and mitigation measures are listed in the FEIS as well as the Hydrologist Report and Fisheries BO (FEIS, Appendix B, pages B-1 to B-8). A Level 3 CWE analysis was completed for this project (Hydrology Report, page 5). Proposed harvest units, road construction, fuels treatments, and road removal activities were reviewed on the ground and adjusted, where necessary, to minimize water quality effects. The public and other interested parties were allowed to review the project through the NEPA process. F-8 EPIC Comment: Where units are not marked, it is impossible for citizens to No. (54) properly assess and reflect on the potential impacts of the proposed action. Procedural Response: Unit boundaries are marked. Individual trees to be harvested comment. are usually not marked until after a decision is signed. However, portions of the Browns Project have been marked with either orange paint (for leave trees) or blue paint (for cut trees). G Fish G-1 EPIC Comment: The project is likely to harm coho salmon. The DEIS must No. (69, 70) consider recovery of coho salmon in order to comply with the ESA. Opinion of the Response: Road obliteration for watershed rehabilitation is the only portion commenter. of the project that would cause adverse effects to coho salmon. It is a short-term adverse effect for a long-term benefit. Section 7 (a) 1 of the ESA requires that “All other Federal agencies shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered species and threatened species listed pursuant to section 4 of this Act.” The Browns Project contains substantial restoration actions to improve the health of the watershed. Consultation with NOAA Fisheries has been done for the Browns Project, resulting in a BO (located in Appendix E) that addresses compliance with ESA. A full Fisheries Biological Assessment is provided in Appendix E of the FEIS. G-2 EPA Comment: Since adverse effects to coho salmon and winter-run steelhead No. (71) are likely to occur, “reasonable and prudent measures” to avoid and Comment is minimize potential impacts to fish as recommended by FWS, NOAA consistent with Fisheries, and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) should be Proposed adopted into the project design. Action. Response: NOAA Fisheries provided “reasonable and prudent measures” with corresponding “terms and conditions” in the BO (Appendix E, NOAA Fisheries BO dated Sept.19, 2005, pages 44- 46). Terms and conditions are nondiscretionary and will be implemented. The FWS and CDFG do not provide “reasonable and prudent measures” for coho salmon.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – F-9 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix F: Response to Comments – May 2006
Comment Commenter(s) Comment and Responsible Official’s Consideration of Comment Substantive and Comment (Response) Comment? Number(s) Yes/No (if No, explain why) H Botany H-1 EPIC Comment: We are concerned by mulching with straw not certified as No. (72) weed-free (DEIS, page 2-5). Consistent Response: Certified weed-free straw will be used for all mulching activities, with Proposed preferably rice (FEIS, page 15). Action. H-2 EPIC Comment: We do not believe that surveys have been completed for No. (73, 74) sensitive or survey and manage plant species in Slashbuster masticator Procedural units. It is unclear if buffering plant sites has been effective in previous comment. slashbuster treatments. Response: Slashbuster masticator units are part of a separate NEPA project named the Browns Fuels Project. Suitable habitat for sensitive plant and fungi species and survey and manage plant species are not present in montane shrub and chaparral stands targeted for slashbuster treatments, negating the need for field surveys. Specific scientific documentation on the effects of buffering target species from slashbuster effects is unavailable. However, District experience by the project botanist has indicated that buffering target species from any impacts has proven to be very successful. H-3 EPIC Comment: Effects to sensitive plant sites are not listed in the DEIS. No. (75, 76, 77) Appendix A doesn’t mention anything about flagging and/or avoiding Procedural sensitive plant sites that are in the area, even though the project would thin comment. in Unit 15A, which contains populations of Brownie’s and mountain lady’s slipper. Why aren’t there (direct) effects to the Canyon Creek stonecrop population? Response: Appendix A identifies silvicultural harvest prescriptions for the proposed project. Flag and avoid mitigations are identified on pages 15 & 16 of the FEIS. The area containing both lady’s-slipper populations has been dropped from Unit 15A, and has been flagged in the field as a precaution. The Canyon Creek stonecrop population will be flagged and avoided – resulting in no effects to the population (FEIS, page 45) H-4 BOS Comment: Private vehicle use will increase within the project area as a No. (78) result of road construction, increasing the potential for the introduction of Outside of noxious weeds. scope. Response: There is a possibility for increased private vehicle use under Alternative 3, but there is no evidence of introductions of noxious weeds being caused by private vehicle use within the vicinity of the project area. Mitigation measures to reduce introduction and spread of noxious weeds as a result of road construction include washing equipment and seeding and mulching obliterated roads and landings after use. Issues associated with increases in private vehicle use on new roads that remain intact after the completion of the project are beyond the scope of this project, but monitoring and mapping of weeds on the Weaverville Ranger District is a regular component of the botany program. I Economics I-1 EPIC Comment: The public needs to know not only what the project will cost and No. (79) what it would yield under various alternatives, but what portion of those Comment receipts would be retained by the Forest Service as administrative requests overhead. additional Response: Overhead costs are included within the Economic Effects information. shown on Table 4-1 of the FEIS, page 50.
F-10 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix F: Response to Comments – May 2006
Comment Commenter(s) Comment and Responsible Official’s Consideration of Comment Substantive and Comment (Response) Comment? Number(s) Yes/No (if No, explain why) J General Comments J-1 EPA Comment: Because Alternative 4 meets the same project objectives as the No. (57) proposed action, but with significantly fewer environmental impacts, EPA Recommendat recommends that the Final EIS identify Alternative 4 as the preferred ion. alternative. Response: The rationale for the selection of the action to implement as a result to the environmental analysis is documented in the Record of Decision (ROD) issued for the Browns Project. J-2 BOS Comment: The Forest Supervisor is highly encouraged to consider a No. (59) modified alternative that reduces cumulative watershed effects and Recommendat equivalent road acres in the Little Browns Creek watershed. ion. Response: Same response as provided for Comment J-1. J-3 EPA Comment: The Draft EIS does not present a complete air quality analysis, No. (58) including discussion of: properly tuned equipment; the use of low-sulfur The comment diesel fuels; and an evaluation of hazardous materials in or near the project concerns the site. adequacy of Response: Air quality was not an issue in the scoping responses received the for this project. In addition, all local, state, and federal air quality standards environmental specific to equipment uses are expected to be met by regulation outside of analysis. the scope of the Browns Project. J-4 EPIC Comment: There is no possible way to justify the likely environmental No. (62) effects of road building with any argument constructed around fuels Opinion of treatments. commenter. Response: Road building is associated with land access to provide vegetation and fuels treatments. The adverse effects of roads are recognized and about 31 miles of road decommissioning is a major part of the project proposal (FEIS, pages 14 & 15). The effects of road building are discussed throughout the FEIS.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – F-11 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix F: Response to Comments – May 2006
Trees to be harvested in Response to Comment A-1______
Geology Review and Revisions in Response to Comment B-1___
Unit 3 Northern and northwestern boundary was pulled upslope to avoid a potentially unstable draw. Some minor boundary modifications were also placed on the northern boundary to avoid hollows and these were flagged in blue/white tape.
Unit 5C Unit 5C was reviewed by USFS geologists on 8/3/05. This unit has several benches and scarps and is surficially wet as evidenced by a good deal of grasses, but no other evidences of surface or groundwater were identified. The logging system was changed to cable yarding only and moved the edge of the unit south (away from) the head of the lower scarp at least 25 linear feet. Unit R5C was changed from a regeneration harvest prescription to a thinning harvest prescription.
Unit 9A Unit was reviewed by Forest Service geologists on 7/27/05 and on 8/3/05. This review identified several potentially unstable areas. These areas were flagged for avoidance with blue/white stream management zone (SMZ) flagging. The flag line was found to go further down the hill than planned. This was moved making the unit match the proposed action map.
F-12 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix F: Response to Comments – May 2006
Unit R9AB The lower boundary of this unit was pulled upslope to protect a potentially unstable area located below unit. Cable corridors were also designated to lie outside of this potentially unstable area.
Unit 9B Unit was reviewed on 7/27, 8/2, and 8/3/05. Several potentially unstable areas were flagged and avoided and cable corridors were designated to lie outside these. This flagging resulted in the elimination of Unit 110. Some thinning will occur within these former areas to reduce fuel loading.
Unit R9B Unit was reviewed on 8/3/05. Lower unit boundary was pulled upslope. Potentially unstable area below unit was flagged in blue/white tape and cable corridors were designated so that they lie outside the latter area.
Unit 9C Reviewed on 8/9/05. Several small potentially unstable features located within the east central portion of unit were flagged out using blue/white tape.
Unit 9D Unit was reviewed on 7/27 and 8/11/05. Two potentially unstable features located in the central and western portion of unit were flagged out with blue/white tape.
Unit 9E Unit reviewed on 7/27, 8/2, and 8/3/05. Southern boundary was moved northward approximately 50 yards to avoid an unstable draw.
Unit 15C Unit reviewed on 8/4/05. Recommend a temporary road down to Unit 15C landing and no fill into existing road failure. Okay to land on bench, avoid cutting into hillslope.
Road 34N87 Realigned road to avoid unstable areas and added culverts where road dissects SMZs.
Road 34N87A Realigned road to avoid unstable areas.
Road 34N88 Realigned from milepost (MP) 10+00 to 15+00 upslope to bench in order to avoid cutting headwall of ancient landslide.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – F-13 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix F: Response to Comments – May 2006
Road 34N47 MP 22+60, recommend culvert diameter be increased from the current planned 24- to 36-inches. MP 39+00, drop pipe and end road at MP 39+00.
F-14 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix F: Response to Comments – May 2006
Two page comment letter from the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)______
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – F-15 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix F: Response to Comments – May 2006
F-16 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix F: Response to Comments – May 2006
Three page comment letter from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board ______
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – F-17 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix F: Response to Comments – May 2006
F-18 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix F: Response to Comments – May 2006
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – F-19 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix F: Response to Comments – May 2006
Five page comment letter from the Trinity County Board of Supervisors ______
F-20 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix F: Response to Comments – May 2006
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – F-21 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix F: Response to Comments – May 2006
F-22 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix F: Response to Comments – May 2006
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – F-23 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix F: Response to Comments – May 2006
F-24 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix G: Fire and Fuels – May 2006
Appendix G: Fire and Fuels Assessment
Specialist Report Browns Project
Shasta-Trinity National Forest Trinity River Management Unit
5/22/06
Prepared by:
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix G: Fire and Fuels – May 2006
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix G: Fire and Fuels – May 2006
I. Introduction
A. Purpose and Need______The purpose and need, regarding Fire and Fuels, is to remove surface and ladder fuels; and treat activity fuels in excess of desired conditions to reduce wildfire behavior and fire severity effects to the ecosystem.
Shasta-Trinity Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP)
The proposed project area is within the Weaverville/Lewiston Management Area (Area 7) as identified in the LRMP. Management direction identifies the proposal as being within Adaptive Management Area lands as identified in the Northwest Forest Plan, within a Management Prescription III area that emphasizes Roaded Recreation.
Shasta-Trinity Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines: Remove only biomass material that is in excess of that required to meet the standards for soil quality, wildlife diversity, and natural fire regimes (pg. 4-15 #3).
Matrix Lands-Roaded Recreation: In Roaded Recreation areas, maintain an average of 10 tons per acre of unburned dead/down material on slopes less than 40 percent. Preference is to have a portion of this tonnage in large material (i.e., 4 to 6 logs over 10 feet long at the largest diameter available). Where feasible, maintain the same amount on slopes over 40 percent (pg 4-65).
B. Issues ______There were no identified significant issues regarding Fire and Fuels during the scoping process.
II. Alternatives
See Alternative descriptions in the Browns Project Environmental Impact Statement.
III. Affected Environment
Project Area Description ______The Browns analysis area (includes private land) is located in the Klamath Mountains1 of northern California on the Trinity River Management Unit of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. It is approximately two air miles north of Weaverville, California, which is listed in the Federal Register
1 The Klamath Mountains are a complex of mountain ranges that include the Siskiyous, Marble, Trinity, Salmon, Scott and Yolla Bolly Mountains (Frost and Sweeney 2000).
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – G-1 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix G: Fire and Fuels – May 2006
for Communities at Risk from Wildfire (2001). Elevations range from 2,400 to 4,000 feet, and slopes range between 0-60 percent.
Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) ______The wildland urban interface is an area where structures and other human developments intermingle with undeveloped wildland (NWCG 1996). Approximately 60 percent (8,144 acres) of the Browns analysis area is within the Weaverville WUI (WUI Map, Appendix A-Fire and Fuels Specialist Report, Browns Project File). Reducing fire hazard within the WUI is a national priority (Cohesive Strategy 2000).
Fire Hazard ______Fire hazard reflects fire behavior potential and its magnitude of effects as a function of fuel conditions (USDA 2004). A map (Appendix A-Fire and Fuels Specialist Report, Browns Project File) was created to display this across the analysis area in which 88 percent is considered high fire hazard. This is a concern because current surface fuel loadings are in excess of desired conditions2, which can result in extreme fire behavior and high fire-severity effects.
Fire Regime ______Historical fire regimes in the Browns analysis area, as described by the Cohesive Strategy (2000), are within Groups I and II (Table A). Both groups describe many of the lower elevational zones across the United States, which have been affected by the presence of human intervention; and are the furthest away from historical levels (Cohesive Strategy 2000). These areas are at greatest risk to loss of highly valued resources, commodity interests, and human health and safety (Cohesive Strategy 2000). Conifer stands within the analysis area are classified as I, and brush stands are classified as II.
Table A. The Five Historic Natural Fire Regime Groups (Cohesive Strategy 2000).
Fire Regime Group Frequency (Fire Return Interval) Severity I 0-35 years Low severity II 0-35 years Stand replacement severity III 35-100+ years Mixed severity IV 35-100+ years Stand replacement severity V >200 years Stand replacement severity
Fire History______In pre-settlement (1626-1849) forests of the Klamath Mountains, biomass ultimately burned by frequent, low to moderate-severity fire. High-severity fires more than a few acres in size were unusual. Dead fuels on the forest floor were kept at low levels, and small understory trees were killed
2 Desired conditions are discussed under the Fuel Models heading in the Affected Environment section of the Fire and Fuels Specialist report.
G-2 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix G: Fire and Fuels – May 2006 and later consumed by fire (Weatherspoon and Skinner 1996). Most of the native species (e.g., ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir) and communities evolved with fire; and therefore, are adapted to its frequent occurrence (Frost and Sweeney 2000). Native Americans of the Klamath Mountains were dependent on local resources for commodities and shelter; therefore, periodic, planned understory burning was a desired strategy. These forests were frequently burned along ridgetops to maintain travel corridors and openings for food and commodity production (Agee 1993). Lightning was another main cause of fire within this area, and it continues to be today. Euro-American settlement emerged in 1848, in which fires may have been set; however, there is no written record of this (Taylor and Skinner 2003). A fire suppression policy was introduced in 1905 on the Trinity Reserve, which was established as part of the National Forest Reserve System (Taylor and Skinner 2003). Logging (mostly high-grading) occurred along ridgetops in the 1960’s; and clear- cut logging occurred between 1980 and 1990 (Taylor and Skinner 2003). From 1990 to present day, logging has decreased considerably in this area to protect the Spotted Owl and other species. This decrease in logging, in addition to fire exclusion, has allowed natural fuels and biomass to build up to conditions that promote extreme fire behavior (crowning and spotting). Mining was another disturbance that occurred in the Browns analysis, which is evident by rock tailings and holding ponds. This activity stripped small areas of forest to bare mineral soil, which may have allowed uncharacteristic vegetation (e.g., grass and brush) to grow back. A map was created (Appendix A-Fire and Fuels Specialist Report, Browns Project File) to show fire history (1931-2003) for the Browns analysis area. A mean fire return interval (FRI) was then calculated and compared to the historical mean FRI. This is the arithmetic average of all fire intervals in a given area over a given time, which uses data from multiple fires in the same stand (Agee 1993). This estimate is used to describe how often fires entered a given area. Too much emphasis, however, was not be placed on the statistical difference between past and present fire frequencies since it is probable not all fires were recorded; and there were occasional errors in fire dates and locations. This information in conjunction with stand density, forest health, climate, the Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), and the Cohesive Strategy, was used to determine the desired fire regime (low severity). The historical fire frequency and fire regime is the desired condition for this particular area because it once played a key role in stand development, thus promoting forest health and vigor (LRMP 1994). From a fire suppression and severity effects standpoint, it is also the desired condition because it results in fire behavior conducive to safe suppression and low to moderate3 tree mortality. The current estimated mean FRI ranges from 17-40 years compared to the historical level determined by Agee (1993) of approximately 11-17 years; and Taylor and Skinner estimated approximately 10 years (Frost and Sweeney 2000).
3 Fire severity (percent mortality) in this report is described as Low (0-33%); Moderate (34-66%) and High (67- 100%).
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – G-3 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix G: Fire and Fuels – May 2006
Weather______Historical weather data is important for assessing current fire behavior. This was used to obtain 90th percentile weather data (Appendix B- Fire and Fuels Specialist Report, Browns Project File), which is associated with large fire events. For the Browns analysis area, a high west wind, low humidity, and high temperature occur approximately ten percent of the time each year (May 1-October 31). This creates extreme fire behavior such as crowning and spotting, which results in high tree mortality rates (67-100%). Large fires burning under these conditions are difficult and sometimes impossible to suppress. One example is the Oregon fire (2001), which resulted in both surface and crown fire, destroyed approximately 25 homes, and resulted in high fire severity effects to vegetation. Weather was recorded from the Weaverville Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS). Historical data (ten years) was then extracted from the National Interagency Fire Management Integrated Database (NIFMID) through Kansas City Fire Access Software (KCFAST). This information was used to help determine fire behavior in the Browns analysis area.
Fuels History ______In California’s Mediterranean climate, decomposition rates are generally low and limited by temperature. Neither historically, nor presently has decomposition been the primary remover of dead fuels in a mixed-conifer forest (Weatherspoon and Skinner 1996). Frequent, low-severity fire plays an important role in regulating fuel accumulations in forested stands of the Klamath Mountains. This type of fire influences vertical and horizontal fuel continuities; as well as, create and maintain canopy gaps that mitigate crown fire spread (Skinner and Chang 1996). Information of past fuel loadings is limited in the Browns analysis area. Old photographs from the late 1800’s and early 1900’s of Trinity County were assessed to determine fuel loadings. Either no photographs were found, or fuel loadings were indistinguishable. However, fuel assessments were conducted in the later part of the 20th century and are found in four Forest Service Environmental Assessments (Table B).
Table B. Average fuel loadings within the Browns analysis area from four Forest Service Environmental Assessments.
Environmental Assessment Date Tons/Acre East Weaver 1985 35 Browns 1985 35 Lewiston 1988 21 West Weaver 1992 15
Existing Vegetation ______The Browns analysis area is located in a montane forest, with vegetation characterized as mixed conifer-Douglas-fir with a hardwood component (Agee 1993). Dominant conifer species are Pseudotsuga menziesii var. menziesii (Douglas-fir), Pinus ponderosa var. ponderosa (ponderosa
G-4 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix G: Fire and Fuels – May 2006 pine), Pinus lambertiana (sugar pine), Calocedrus decurrens (incense-cedar) and Pinus sabiniana (gray pine). Dominant hardwood species consist of Quercus garryana (Oregon white oak), Quercus kelloggii (California black oak), Arbutus menziesii (Pacific madrone), and Quercus chrysolepis (canyon live oak). Dominant brush species consist of Arctostaphylus patula (greenleaf manzanita), Arctostaphylus viscida (whiteleaf manzanita), and Ceanothus sp. (buck brush). Stand composition in the Browns analysis area was determined from collected data using a variable plot sampling method (Bell and Dilworth 1988). Plots in China Gulch were sampled in 1999; and plots at Musser Hill and Little Browns creek were sampled in 2003. The total sample area consists of 561 acres, 12 units, and 136 plots. Units were determined for preliminary sampling purposes only, and may not coincide with proposed treatment units discussed in alternatives. Basal area (BA) per acre, trees per acre, and canopy closure were determined by unit (Table C). This information was used for determining percent mortality in conifers; as well as, estimating crown fire potential4
Table C. Basal area per acre, trees per acre, and canopy closure for the Browns analysis area.
Unit Basal Area Trees Per Canopy Per Acre (ft²) Acre Closure (%) 1A Brush 1B 51 158 44 1C 94 431 80 1D 105 280 50 2A 151 307 73 3A Brush 3B 221 519 74 3C 240 678 82 3D 192 533 84 3E Brush China Gulch 1 245 322 NA China Gulch 4 248 386 NA
In addition, a weighted average was calculated for basal area per acre (BA), trees per acre, trees per acre between 2-12 inches dbh, and canopy closure (Table D). This was calculated so it could be applied to the entire area, rather than a specific unit. By calculating trees per acre, we determined whether stands were overstocked with ladder fuels and/or crown fuels. The desired amount of trees for this growing site would be approximately 40-70 trees per acre at 16 (minimum) inches dbh and greater. Currently, there are excess trees per acre5, especially in the 2-12 inch diameter class (ladder
4 Crown fire potential was not determined using a fire behavior model; however, it was estimated based on trees per acre, size class, weather, fuel models, and past local fire behavior. This is further discussed under the Fire Behavior heading in the Browns Fire and Fuels Specialist Report. 5 This is based on factors such as site quality and was determined by the unit’s silviculturist.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – G-5 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix G: Fire and Fuels – May 2006 fuels). This is a concern because ladder fuels allow fire to move up into the tree canopy, which causes extreme fire behavior (crowning and spotting) and high tree mortality rates.
Table D. Weighted average BA per acre, trees per acre, trees per acre (2-12 inches dbh), canopy closure for the Browns analysis area.
BA/Acre (ft²) Trees/Acre Trees/Acre Canopy (2-12 dbh) Closure (%) 185 369 233 73
Existing Fuels ______Fuel Loading: The Browns analysis area is comprised of timber stands with varied surface fuel loadings. Surface fuels (e.g., twigs, branches and trees that fall onto the forest floor) create a cris- cross mosaic that stack up over time. Vertical fuels in this area include small diameter trees (2-12 inches dbh) and a small portion of brush. A random sampling method was conducted utilizing the Photo Series (Maxwell and Ward 1980) to assess fuel loadings in the Browns analysis area. The total sample area consists of 458 acres, 10 units, and 126 plots (ten plots from China Gulch were excluded due to a conflicting sampling method). Data was then entered into the Fuels Management Analyst Plus version 1.2.38 (FMA +) computer software program to calculate average fuel loadings for each unit (Appendix C- Fire and Fuels Specialist Report, Browns Project File). Fuel loadings range from approximately 1-33 tons per acre (Table E). This information was then used to determine fuel models.
Table E. Minimum and maximum fuel distributions by size class and fuel class for the Browns analysis area.
Size Class Fuel Minimum Maximum (inches) Class (tons/acre) (tons/acre) Timber Timber 0-.24 1 hr 0.3 1.0 .25-.9 10 hr 1.0 3.2 1-2.9 100 hr 0.4 7.9 3+ 1000 hr 0.0 27.1 Total 1.70 33.20
Fuel Models: Andersen (1982) classifies forest fuels as grass, brush, timber, and slash. Differences in fire behavior among these groups relate to fuel load and how they are distributed among fuel size. These four classifications are further separated into the 13 fire behavior fuel models (Andersen 1982). They are tools to help estimate fire behavior in the modeling program Behave Plus (version 2.0.2.). Fuel models within the Browns analysis area were chosen based on sampled fuel loads, a fuel model map (Appendix A- Fire and Fuels Specialist Report, Browns Project File), and knowledge of past fire behavior for this area (Oregon 2001). Since sample plots show a range of fuel loadings, the map was used to help identify the location of various fuel models.
G-6 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix G: Fire and Fuels – May 2006
Fuel model 9 (Table F) best represents current expected fire behavior and is found in approximately half of the Browns analysis area, and in more than half of the proposed treatment units. Fuel model 10 (Table F) represents small scattered pockets of heavier surface fuels, which would result in worse case fire behavior. Fuel model 8 (Table F) exists on a substantial portion of the area and represents the desired condition due to its low flame length, rate of spread, and fireline intensity. Fuel model 6 (Table F) represents a small component of brush and plantations scattered throughout the analysis area, and is found adjacent to several proposed treatment units.
Table F. Estimated acres and percentages of fuel models found within the Browns analysis area6, and proposed treatment units (alternatives 3 and 4 combined).
Fuel Model Description Browns Analysis Area7 Proposed Treatment Units (acres) (%) (acres) (%) 8 Closed Timber Litter 4707 33 264 33 9 Closed Timber Litter 6167 44 469 59 10 Closed Timber Litter 486 3 39 5 6 Brush 2274 16 0 0
Fire Behavior ______A surface fire is one that burns in surface fuels, which include dead and down logs, branches, twigs, cones, needles and leaves. Surface fire outputs, from the fire behavior model-Behave Plus 2.0.2, discussed in the effects analysis are rate of spread, flame length, and fireline intensity. Rate of spread and flame length show how resistant the fire might be to suppression control and containment. Generally, flame lengths greater than four feet high prevent firefighters from accomplishing direct attack, and pose other safety and tactical problems. Fireline intensity is the energy released per unit length of fireline per unit of time (BTU/foot/second), and is related to flame length. A crown fire burns in the elevated canopy fuels, which include live and dead foliage, branches, twigs, cones, bark, and lichens. Crown fires create special problems for fire managers because they are more difficult to control than surface fires and their rate of spread is several times faster (Scott and Reinhardt 2001). This type of fire creates long-range spotting, high flame lengths, and increased fireline intensity (Scott and Reinhardt 2001). The effects of crown fire to suppression result in larger firefighter safety zones, a difficulty in defending structures, and greater risk to human life. The effects of crown fire to vegetation are usually total tree mortality, greater smoke emissions, and foliar nutrient loss from the site (Scott and Reinhardt 2001). Fire behavior within the Browns analysis area was determined using Behave Plus, version 2.0.2. Outputs are based on fuel models and 90th percentile weather data. One limitation of the program is it represents static conditions; assuming weather, topography, and fuels are constant. In addition, it does not predict crown fire behavior; however, this phenomenon is likely to occur under certain weather
6 Calculations include approximately 3,084 acres of private land within the proposed Browns analysis area. 7 Alternative 3 (794 acres) was used in determining percentages.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – G-7 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix G: Fire and Fuels – May 2006
and vegetative conditions. For example, the Oregon fire (2001) is a real time model of what fire in this fuel type can produce under 90th percentile weather. This fire burned through similar fuels and during strong west winds, which resulted in surface and crown fire. The chance for crown fire does exist, which might occur irregularly across the landscape as changes occur in fuels, weather, and topography.
Fire Severity ______Fire severity8 is the degree to which a site has been altered or disrupted by fire; a product of fire intensity and residence time (NWCG 1996). Fire severity is also described as an ecological parameter that loosely shows the effects of fire (Carey and Schumann 2003). Larger fuels (>3-inches) result in a higher energy release over a longer period. This increases fire severity and reduces fireline construction rates (Agee et al. 2000). Fuel treatments such as thinning trees and removing surface fuels can lessen fire severity. Changes to fuels are related to potential fire behavior at any given site and have resulted in reduced severity effects (Finney 2003). Probability of mortality is the likelihood that a tree will be killed by fire. This is based on bark thickness and percent crown volume scorched. First Order Fire Effects Model (FOFEM, version 5.0) was used to determine percent mortality in Douglas-fir trees. Other tree species exist within the analysis area, such as pine, cedar, and oak; however, the dominant species (Douglas-fir) was used in modeling tree mortality. Inputs to the model were flame length, species, dbh, tree height, trees per acre, and crown ratio. One limitation to the model is that FOFEM assumes a continuous fire. Since post-treatment fuels continuity would be discontinuous in proposed units, a wildfire would burn only portions where fuels were concentrated, therefore predicted mortality rates (Table I) might be even lower after treatments (Reinhardt 2004). In addition, FOFEM does not consider ladder fuels, which allow fire to move up into the tree canopy, thus burning the crowns of larger trees. Generally, a large tree is less susceptible to fire due to its thick bark and high crown base9. However, if a fire moves up into the canopy a total loss of foliage might occur, resulting in high mortality despite tree size and species.
Baseline Conditions ______A baseline was established for the comparison of environmental effects in order to assess a possible change in conditions. Its purpose is to act as an anchor point for adding the increment of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable effects. Several factors were considered before choosing the baseline: the natural, or reference fire regime; fire history; fuels history; climate; and existing conditions. All these factors were previously discussed in this document under their specific headings. The baseline for assessing cumulative effects is the current condition (2006) because it considers how conditions have changed over time; and how they are likely to change in the future without the proposed action. For example, fire exclusion over the past 70 years has resulted in overstocked stands with high fuel loadings, which can create extreme fire behavior and high severity effects to
8 The terms Fire severity and tree mortality are used synonymously in this report. 9 This further varies by species.
G-8 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix G: Fire and Fuels – May 2006 vegetation. Furthermore, if this condition continues fire behavior is predicted to increase as well as tree mortality rates.
IV. Environmental Consequences
A. Fire Behavior: Direct Effects ______
Table G. A comparison of alternatives for estimated fire behavior, by fuel model, within the Browns analysis area10 (14,069 acres) using 90th percentile weather.
Browns Fuel Fuel Area Area Flame Rate of Fireline Analysis Model Structure Affected Affected Length Spread Intensity Area Current (acres) (%) (ft) (ch/hr) (btu/ft/sec) Condition 6 Brush 2,274 16 8.3 53.5 563 8* Timber 4,707 33 1.6 3.6 16 9 Timber 6,167 44 4.4 15.7 140 10 Timber 486 3 8.0 17 528 Alternative 1 No No 13,634 96 No No No change change change change change from from from from from existing existing existing existing existing conditions conditions conditions conditions conditions Alternative 3 8* Timber 794 6 1.6 3.6 16
Alternative 4 8* Timber 568 4 1.6 3.6 16 *Desired condition is described by fuel model 8, which consists of approximately 8-10 tons of dead and down fuels per acre.
Alternative 1 would be no action within the analysis area. The direct effects of fire behavior (flame length, rate of spread, and fireline intensity) would be variable within fuel models 6, 8, 9, and 10 (Table G). Fuel model 8 had the lowest flame length, rate of spread, and fireline intensity. Direct attack by firefighters would be feasible without mechanical and aerial support, such as dozers and air tankers. Fuel model 8 is considered the desired condition because it produces fire behavior conducive to successful suppression and fire fighter safety (exception during drought conditions). Currently, fuel model 8 comprises approximately 33 percent of the analysis area. Fuel models 9 and 10 have higher fire behavior outputs (Table G); therefore, mechanical equipment would be needed. Generally, flame lengths greater than four feet produce radiant heat too hot for fire fighters to work near. Indirect fireline must then be constructed a distance from the fire, which increases the amount of acres burned, and reduces rates of fireline construction. Approximately 47 percent of the analysis area would result with this type of fire behavior. There is potential for passive and active crown fire due to high fuel loadings, ladder fuels, and overstocked tree stands. This fuel structure, in addition to surface fireline intensity provides a way for
10 The remaining 435 (4%) acres are comprised of grass, water, or are barren, and were not considered in the discussion of direct and indirect effects.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – G-9 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix G: Fire and Fuels – May 2006
fire to get into the canopy (RMRS-RN-22-2-WWW 2004). Fuel models 9 and 10 pose the biggest threat of crown fire; however, this can occur in fuel model 8 under drought conditions (Hann and Strohm 2003). The Oregon fire (2001), which threatened the town of Weaverville, is a real time model of what can occur in this fuel model and forest structure. This fire burned through similar fuels and during strong west winds, which resulted in surface and active crown fire. Fuel Model 6 would produce extreme fire behavior (Table G) in isolated brush patches, and plantations within the analysis area. Control problems from crowning and spotting are frequent in this fuel model. Suppression efforts would be ineffective at the head of the fire due to a high rate of spread; and fireline intensity would be too great for firefighters to work near (NWCG 1998). Indirect attack would need to be used, which increases the amount of acres burned and reduces fireline construction rates. Alternative 3 would treat more acres than alternative 4, thus changing fire behavior within a greater area (Table G). In addition, more acres of fuel model 10 (approximately 39 acres) would be treated, compared to alternative 4 (approximately 17 acres); therefore having the greatest benefit. This is because fuel model 10 results in extreme fire behavior (spotting and crowning), which creates unsafe conditions for firefighters and the public. Alternatives 3 and 4 would modify canopy, ladder, and surface fuels by thinning suppressed and intermediate trees, reducing trees per acre, raising crown base heights, and removing surface fuels. The chance for crown fire initiation and spread would be reduced by implementing proposed treatments. Thinnings, combined with surface fuel treatments, have been shown to be effective in reducing crown fire potential because they lower crown bulk densities (i.e., tree crowns), thus decreasing fire intensities (Graham et. al. 1999). One example of successful fuels treatments, which occurred on the Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest, observed that past thinnings had reduced crown fire (Cone fire) to a surface fire (Peterson et. al 2005). Another example, after the Hayman fire in Colorado, stated that on gentle slopes, and during less extreme fire weather, crown fires diminished to surface fires in stands with low stem densities and low surface fuels (Peterson et. al 2005). Alternatives 3 and 4 would create desired surface fuel conditions of approximately 8-10 tons per acre (Fuel Model 8), which is consistent with the Shasta-Trinity Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP). In addition, proposed treatments would result with a minimum of approximately 40 trees per acre, and a height to live crown of approximately 25 feet. If a fire occurred under these conditions, the results would be a low rate of spread, flame length, and fireline intensity within proposed units (Table G, Fuel model 8). Fuel treatments can reduce fireline intensities, reduce crown fire potential, and improve suppression capabilities (Peterson et. al 2005; USDA 2004). This provides safer conditions for firefighters, and can increase the effectiveness of fire suppression by slowing fire growth and limiting spotting (Finney 2003). Alternatives 3 and 4 would implement prescribed fire by burning tractor and roadside piles; burning concentrations; and broadcast burning. This would take place post-harvest operations and before fuels treatments were completed. Burning would be utilized to reduce activity fuels11 in
11 Fuels generated from harvesting operations.
G-10 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix G: Fire and Fuels – May 2006 addition to natural fuels. This would occur during the spring and fall so that fire behavior would be more manageable to firefighters due to wet weather conditions. In addition, this would occur under an approved burn plan12. Alternatives 3 and 4 would create smoke from burning vegetation after harvesting operations were completed. Burning would occur on permissible burn days and under an approved smoke permit issued by the North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District (Eureka, California). In addition, smoke management information such as projected tonnage to burn, type of burning, and smoke contingency actions would be documented in a Burn Plan13. There would be approximately ten days of burning, in which smoke would be present; and this would occur over an estimated two-month period.
B. Fire Behavior: Indirect Effects ______
Table H. Estimated fuel model increase in 20-30 years and resulting fire behavior within the Browns analysis area14 (14,069 acres).
Browns Fuel Fuel Fuel Area Area Flame Rate of Fireline Analysis Structure Model Model Affected Affected Length Spread Intensity Area (2005) (2025) (acres) (%) (ft) (ch/hr) (btu/ft/sec) Brush 6 6 2274 16 8.3 53.5 563 Timber 8* 9 4707 33 4.4 15.7 140 Timber 9 6653 47 7.6 15.8 460 Timber 10 10 *Desired condition
The indirect effects of Alternative 1 on fire behavior are predicted to increase in 20-30 years (Table H). Surface fuel loadings would accumulate in addition to living vegetation, which add to available fuels for future consumption. Research suggests that for this forest type the normal fuel accumulation (excluding areas of disease, insects, and windthrow) is approximately 0.6 tons/acre/year (Skaggs 1996). At this rate, fuel models 8 and 9 would increase to the next level; however, fuel models 6 and 10 would remain fixed since they are at their highest position within this classification system for natural fuels (13 Fire Behavior Fuel Models)(Table H). Alternative 1 would allow more than half of the analysis area to result in extreme fire behavior (crowning and spotting) (FM 6 and FM 10), which creates unsafe conditions for firefighters and the public. Indirect attack would need to occur since fireline intensity would be too hot for firefighters to work near. This would increase the amount of acres burned and reduce fireline construction rates, thus making containment more difficult.
12 Refer to the Shasta-Trinity Burn Plan guidelines (version 5) for requirements on safety, smoke, weather, etc. 13 Refer to the Shasta-Trinity Burn Plan (version 5), Appendix D (Smoke Management Plan) for information regarding smoke management requirements. 14 The remaining 435 (4%) acres are comprised of grass, water, or are barren, and were not considered in this analysis.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – G-11 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix G: Fire and Fuels – May 2006
The indirect effects of Alternatives 3 and 4 on surface fire behavior would be an increase within proposed treatment units in approximately 20-30 years (Table H, Fuel Model 9). This is due to natural fuels accumulations; however, these effects are still lower that what would occur from Alternative 1. Despite the increase in surface fire behavior, it is likely that crown fire would remain low since ladder fuels (small diameter trees) would be reduced by proposed treatments. Scientific literature suggests that fuels and vegetative treatments can reduce extreme fire behavior (crowning and spotting) within forested stands (Agee and Skinner 2005; Graham et al. 2004; Martinson and Omi 2003; Graham et al. 1999). Alternatives 3 and 4 may cause grass, brush, and small diameter trees to grow since more light would reach the forest floor. One theory suggests an open understory would result in an altered microclimate near the ground, resulting in lower fuel moistures and higher wind speeds (Agee et al. 2000; Graham et al. 2004; Martinson and Omi 2003; Graham et al. 1999). This condition can increase the chance of ignition and increase surface fire behavior. However, thinning trees in general can reduce crown fire potential because it lowers crown bulk densities (i.e., tree crowns) (Graham et.al. 1999); and leaves larger trees that have higher crown bases. Therefore, reducing canopy fuels may increase and decrease fire hazard simultaneously (Martinson and Omi 2003). Clearly, there is a tradeoff between a decrease in crown fire potential and increased surface fire behavior. An increase in surface fire behavior would occur in the two-acre regeneration units, since the overstory would be removed. It is predicted that fire behavior within these small, isolated patches would result from fuel model 6 (Table G), which causes unsafe conditions for firefighters; requires indirect attack; and reduces fireline construction rates. However, this is not expected to effect fire behavior across the landscape; only in regeneration units, which would last for approximately 15-20 years until trees grew tall enough to shade out the understory. Conversely, within thinned stands, it is foreseeable that the remaining co-dominant and dominant trees would shade out the new growth; therefore, this altered microclimate is estimated to last approximately 3-5 years.
G-12 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix G: Fire and Fuels – May 2006
C. Fire Severity: Direct Effects and Indirect Effects ______
Table I. Mortality rates for Douglas-fir within the Browns analysis area using FOFEM 5.0.
Diameter Mortality Douglas-fir (inches) (percent) Alternative 1 2 100 Current Conditions 4 100 (8’ flame length) 6 100 (Fuel Model 10) 8 99 10 99 12 98 14 96 16 96 18 93 20 84 22 61 24 33 Alternatives 3, 4 2 100 Proposed 4 100 treatments 6 81 (2’ flame length) 8 40 (Fuel Model 8) 10 39 12 20 14 15 16 11 18 9 20 7 22 6 24 5 Low- 0-33%, Moderate- 34-66%, High- 67-100%
The direct and indirect effects of Alternative 1 would result in high wildfire mortality rates (Table I). Natural fuel accumulations would continue to add to the current fuel profile which raises fireline intensity and increases mortality rates. Scorch heights would reach higher up the trunk damaging tree crowns, and fireline intensity would be greater at the boles damaging the cambium layer. In addition, fuel ladders (small trees and brush) would allow fire to move up into tree crowns, thus also causing high mortality. One example of this is from the Oregon fire (2001), which occurred approximately five miles from the proposed project area. This fire burned through similar vegetation, topography, fuels, and weather, in which this forest type (mixed conifer) resulted in approximately 75 percent mortality (Oregon BAER report 2001). Alternatives 3 and 4 would thin out suppressed and intermediate conifers, therefore leaving larger trees that can better tolerate fire. For example, Douglas- fir becomes more fire resistant as size
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – G-13 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix G: Fire and Fuels – May 2006
increases due to its thick bark and high crown base (Raymond and Peterson 2005). In addition, removing subcanopy trees raises crown base heights, therefore eliminating ladder fuels that promote crown fire inititation (Raymond and Peterson 2005). Furthermore, thinning some of the larger trees would break up the continuity of crown fuels, which lessens the chance of crown fire spread. The difference between alternatives is the amount of acres effected. Alternative 3 would treat approximately 791 acres, and Alternative 4 would treat approximately 568 acres, thus reducing tree mortality rates over a greater area; and are estimated to last approximately 20 to 30 years. Fuels treatments can reduce surface fire intensity, as well as crown fire potential, so that mortality from crown scorch is minimal (Raymond and Peterson 2005).
D. Summary: Direct and Indirect Effects ______Alternative 1 provides no action in the Browns analysis area. The current fuel profile and vegetative structure would sustain a surface and crown fire if it were to occur during 90th percentile weather. Flame lengths would be greater than four feet high- a condition that hinders fire fighters from safely suppressing wildfire. As a result, fire induced mortality to conifers would be moderate to high. In addition, fire behavior and mortality rates are predicted to increase in approximately 20 to 30 years. Alternative 1 would decrease fire fighter and public safety since approximately 63 percent of the Browns analysis area would result in a high flame length, rapid rate of spread, fireline intensity, and crown fire. Suppression tactics would require indirect attack; thus increasing the total area burned, and reducing fireline construction rates. In 20 to 30 years, this condition is predicted to increase, as well as effect more area. Alternatives 3 and 4 would reduce surface fuels and standing vegetation to desired conditions. However, Alternative 3 would treat approximately 226 acres more than alternative 4. If a fire occurred under 90th percentile weather conditions, flame length, rate of spread, and fireline intensity would be low; thus increasing firefighter safety and increasing fireline construction rates. However, after 20 years has passed fire behavior is expected to increase. Alternatives 3 and 4 would result in low tree mortality rates since the remaining trees would be larger, more fire tolerant, in addition to less trees per acre. The difference being, alternative 3 would have low mortality rates over a greater area than alternative 4. These rates are predicted to increase in 20 years, however, the majority of trees would still fall into the low mortality category. Alternatives 3 and 4 would cause brush and grass to grow in the understory of regeneration units, which would increase the chance of fire ignition and surface fire behavior. Fire behavior would be comparable to fuel model 6, which creates unsafe conditions for firefighters and the public; requires indirect attack; increases the amount of acres burned; and reduces fireline construction rates. This condition could last for approximately 15-20 years; however, it is not expected to effect fire behavior across the landscape. Thinned stands would also experience an increase in surface fire behavior; however, it would last for a shorter duration (3-5 years). However, the tradeoff between increased surface fire behavior, and reduced crown fire potential is reasonable.
G-14 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix G: Fire and Fuels – May 2006
Alternative 3 would treat more acres of fuel model 10 (approximately 39 acres) compared to alternative 4 (approximately 17 acres); therefore having the greatest benefit since fuel model 10 produces extreme fire behavior, which creates unsafe conditions for firefighters and the public; requires indirect attack; increases the amount of acres burned; reduces fireline construction rates; and results in high fire severity effects to vegetation.
E. Cumulative Effects ______This fire and fuels analysis has been completed in accordance with the CEQ memorandum of June 24, 2005, regarding “guidance on the consideration of past actions in cumulative effects analysis.” In addition, this analysis incorporates guidance identified in the R5 white paper titled “Analysis of Cumulative Effects in NEPA” dated 8/4/2005.
1. Effects Analysis To analyze cumulative effect(s) on fire and fuels, the unit of measure used to quantify the effect(s) is the amount of acres resulting with a change in fire behavior and tree mortality. This is an appropriate unit of measure because it shows how much of the landscape would be effected. One theory suggests that more than 20 to 30 percent of the landscape must be changed from a fast spread rate to a slow spread rate before it can be substantially reduced (Finney 2003). The direct and indirect effects of implementing the alternatives considered have been disclosed in the previous section of this report. This cumulative effects analysis quantifies the output effect(s) as a sum of the direct and indirect impacts of the alternatives considered; in addition to past, present, and foreseeable future actions (which are independent of the alternatives considered).
2. Bounding the Effects
Geographic Boundary The geographic area considered for the cumulative effects analysis is based on topographic features, and is shown on a map in Appendix D of the Fire and Fuels Specialist Report, Browns Project File. This was chosen because topography is a major factor in fire behavior; and is commonly used when managing wild and prescribed fires for this fire regime (Taylor and Skinner 2003). These areas are effective barriers to fire spread due to factors such as high humidity, lack of vegetation, and gentle slopes. The proposed project would create an additive effect to past, present, and future actions. From a fire and fuels standpoint, these effects are positive because the more acres with vegetation and surface fuels treatments, the greater a reduction in overall fire behavior and fire severity effects across the landscape.
Time Bounding The period used to analyze cumulative effects on fire behavior is approximately 20-30 years in timber stands and ten to 20 years in brush fields. It is estimated to take this long for vegetation to grow back;
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – G-15 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix G: Fire and Fuels – May 2006
and for surface fuel loadings to somewhat resemble that of its current degraded condition. Although the proposed project would not occur in brush fields, these areas were used to calculate total area with desired conditions (Table K) because they result in the same fire behavior effects as would proposed treatments.
Baseline A baseline was established for the comparison of environmental effects in order to assess a possible change in conditions. Its purpose is to act as an anchor point for adding the increment of past, present, reasonably foreseeable and proposed project effects. Further discussion of baseline determination is located in the Fire and Fuels Specialist Report under the Affected Environment section. The baseline for assessing cumulative effects is the current condition (2005) because it considers how conditions have changed over time; and how they are likely to change in the future with or without proposed actions. The current condition was compared with the estimated effects from proposed projects, in addition to past and foreseeable actions, to see if there is a benefit to fire behavior and fire severity.
Table J. A summary of management actions considered in the evaluation of cumulative effects for the proposed Browns project.
Geography Acres Past Projects Present Projects Foreseeable Projects Fire and 6,276 Fuels Projects: Proposed Project: Fuels Projects: Fuels Musser Hill FMZ- 554 ac. 2004 Alternative 1- 0 ac. Bear FMZ- 136 ac. 2006 Musser Hill- 117 ac. 2005 Alternative 3- 793 ac. Finley FMZ- 62 ac. 2006 China Gulch FMZ- 10 ac. 2001 Alternative 4- 568 ac. Lil. Browns FMZ- 151 ac. 2006 Browns Roadside FMZ- 178 Musser Wildlife Burn-282 ac. 2006 ac. 2004 Croften Wildlife Burn- 78 ac. 2006 Timber: Bear and Rush Shaded Fuel Break Pre-commercial Thinning- 55 (RCD)- 18 ac. 2006 ac. 2004 Plantation Prune- 80 ac. 2007 Timber: USFS Pre-commercial Thin- 69 ac. 2007 The above table is a subset of the Cumulative Effects Table 4.9 (Browns EIS) and is bounded by a smaller area, therefore acres shown here will be different. Reasons for projects not considered in this analysis are listed in Appendix D of the Browns Fire and Fuels Specialist Report (Browns Project File).
G-16 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix G: Fire and Fuels – May 2006
3. Projects Considered
Table K. Summary of proposed acres treated, from alternatives and other management actions, which benefit fire behavior15 and fire severity (tree mortality) within the Browns cumulative effects analysis area.
Past Actions Present Future Actions Sum of Total Area Sum of Total Area (acres) Actions (acres) Effects with Desired Effects with Desired (acres) lasting 10-20 Conditions lasting 20-30 Conditions years (acres) (6,276 acres) years (acres) (6,276 acres) Fuels - 859 USFS Alternative 1 Fuels- 807 1790 29% 1313 21% Timber- 55 0 USFS Timber - 69
Fuels - 859 USFS Alternative 3 Fuels- 807 2583 41% 2106 33% Timber- 55 793 USFS Timber - 69 Fuels - 859 USFS Alternative 4 Fuels- 807 2358 38% 1881 30% Timber- 55 568 USFS Timber - 69 Musser Hill, Musser Hill Wildlife Burn, and Croften Wildlife Burn acres were taken out of the sum of effects within the 20-30 year time period calculation since these areas contain at least 75% brush. Fuel treatments in these areas would not last as long as treatments which occur in timber stands.
Alternative 1 would result in no change from existing conditions. Currently, past and foreseeable projects make up approximately 29 percent (includes brush stands) of the cumulative effects analysis area (Table K); and 21 percent in timber stands. This alone is a reduction in fire behavior across the landscape because more than 20 percent has been treated. Finney (2003) states that more than 20-30 percent of the landscape must be changed from a fast spreading fuel type to one with a slower spread rate before fire growth can be substantially reduced. This would allow firefighters to safely suppress fire in past and future treatment areas, such as wildlife burns, fuel management zones (FMZ’s), and mastication units. The effectiveness of past and foreseeable treatments would last approximately ten to 20 years (includes all projects); and 20-30 years in timber stands (excludes brush treatments). Generally, brush grows faster than trees; therefore, fuel treatment efficacy is for a shorter duration. This is reflected in Table K -Sum of Effects (20-30 years) column, by taking out treatment acres in brush stands. Alternative 1 would increase tree mortality rates in 20 to 30 years. Since many untreated stands are currently overstocked with small diameter trees, high severity effects would occur (Table I). However, past and foreseeable treatment areas would result in low mortality rates, which comprise approximately 21 percent of the cumulative effects analysis area.. Alternative 1 would treat no acres near private industrial timberland (SPI). This alternative would have a negative effect to private land because there would be no buffer from wildfire impacts, and no place for firefighters to work safely. The cumulative effects of Alternatives 3 and 4 would decrease fire behavior and fire severity across a greater area (compared to Alternative 1). Furthermore, proposed units would be more strategically located within the middle of past and foreseeable fuels reduction projects. This is
15 Beneficial effects to fire behavior and tree mortality result from fuel model 8, which is the desired condition for fire suppression and fire severity effects to vegetation. In addition, it reflects the desired fuel loadings stated in the LRMP pg. 4- 65.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – G-17 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix G: Fire and Fuels – May 2006
important because Finney (2003) states random patterns of fuels treatments are unlikely to affect the overall growth rate or size of a fire until large areas of the landscape are treated. Both alternatives would create more protection across the landscape by increasing the amount of acres treated; and consequently become strategically located. For Alternative 3, this would occur over approximately 41 percent of the landscape, and Alternative 4-approximately 38 percent for an estimated 10-20 years (Table K). At the end of this time, the amount of area resulting with desired conditions would begin to decline (Table K, 20-30 years column). Alternatives 3 and 4 would produce smoke, which adds to the smoke likely to occur from private landowners within the Weaver Basin (the valley in which the town of Weaverville is located). This is foreseeable, since burning is a common practice in Trinity County. However, it is unknown as to when or how much landowners will burn. Smoke from the proposed project is expected to remain in the area for about one to two days each time burning occurs. There would be approximately ten days of burning over an estimated two-month period. Permissive burn days are determined by the North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District (Eureka, California); therefore, smoke emissions from proposed burning would not exceed acceptable levels16. Other benefits from implementing Alternatives 3 and 4: • Alternative 3 would result in desired fire behavior (Table G, fuel model 8) and severity effects (Table I) on approximately 296 acres in the Blue Rock and China Gulch area (combined) that border private industrial timber land; where as, Alternative 4- approximately 13 acres. This would provide safe conditions for suppression, and would allow more trees to survive a wildfire. In addition, this would create a buffer from wildfire impacts to Forest Service land if a fire were to spread from private land. • Alternatives 3 and 4 would either border or be adjacent to future and existing fuel management zones (FMZ). FMZ’s would benefit both alternatives by slowing or possibly stopping fire growth before it entered proposed treatment units. Future and existing FMZ’s would be more strategically located within the Browns cumulative effects analysis area. They are intended to reinforce a defensible location, such as a ridgetops or roads, to facilitate suppression action through indirect attack (Finney 2001). In addition, a successful FMZ would change the fire behavior as it entered the fuel-altered zone thus promoting safer conditions (Agee, et. al. 2000). The difference between alternatives is that Alternative 3 would lye adjacent to the China Gulch FMZ; where as, alternative 4 would not. • Both Alternatives 3 and 4 would lower fire behavior and fire severity effects in proposed units that are adjacent to approximately 105 acres of plantations; therefore allowing firefighters to slow or stop a fire before it entered, and provide a safe place for them to work.
4. Conclusion of Cumulative Effects on Fire and Fuels The sum effects of Alternative 1 would be no change in fire behavior and severity effects, across the landscape from current conditions. Currently, past and foreseeable projects make up approximately
16 Acceptable levels (given by the North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District) fluctuate day to day, which is determined by atmospheric conditions, and local complaints (Green 2006).
G-18 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix G: Fire and Fuels – May 2006
29 percent of the analysis area, in which fire fighters could safely suppress a wildfire; as well as, resulting in low fire severity effects. This would last approximately ten to 20 years, after which the amount of area would decline to 21 percent. The sum effects of Alternative 3 would be a reduction (from current conditions) in fire behavior and severity across 41 percent of the landscape for ten to 20 years. After this time, the total area affected would be reduced to 34 percent. The resulting desired condition would create a safe environment for firefighters to work in; as well as, reduce tree mortality rates so that more trees would survive a wildfire. Proposed actions would border or lye adjacent to past and foreseeable fuels reduction projects; which collectively, provide strategic locations for firefighters to slow or possibly stop fire spread. In addition, this alternative would treat more acres than alternative 4 that are adjacent to homes and private-industrial timberland (SPI); therefore, providing a buffer from wildfire affects to both private and federal land. The sum effects of Alternative 4 would be a reduction (from current conditions) in fire behavior and severity across 39 percent of the landscape for ten to 20 years. After this time, the total area affected would be reduced to 30 percent. The resulting desired condition would create a safe environment for firefighters to work in; as well as, reduce tree mortality rates. This alternative would treat fewer acres adjacent to homes and private, industrial timberland (SPI) than alternative 3; therefore, it does not provide as much of a buffer from wildfire impacts to both private and federal land. In addition, alternative 4 would tie into a smaller portion (than alternative 3) of FMZ’s. This results in fewer opportunities for firefighters to slow or stop a wildfire because FMZs and proposed units, collectively, provide more area that is defensible.
V. Other Individuals Consulted
Lindsay Large, Trinity River Management Unit - Timber Marking Crew Leader Michael Rubenstein, Timber Prep. Officer Mike Archibald, Trinity River Management Unit - GIS planner Steve Graves, Trinity River Management Unit - Fuels officer Sam Frink, Silviculturist and Inter-disciplinary Team Leader Julie Titus, Forest Fuels Officer Ralph Phipps, Shasta-Trinity Forest Environmental Coordinator Joe Millar, Shasta-Trinity Forest Fire Management Officer George Chapman, Trinity River Management Unit - Fire Management Officer
VI. Citations and References
Agee, James K. 1993. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Island Press, Suite 300, 1718 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20009.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – G-19 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix G: Fire and Fuels – May 2006
Agee, James K.; Bahro, Berni; Finney, Mark A.; Omi, Philip N.; Sapsis, David B.; Skinner, Carl N.; van Wagtendonk, Jan W.; Weatherspoon, Phillip C. 2000. The use of fuelbreaks in landscape fire management. Forest Ecology and Management 127 (2000) 55-66.
Agee, James K.; Skinner, Carl N. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and Management 211 p. 83-96.
Baldwin, Blomstrom,Wilkinson and Associates. 2004. Program Timberland Environmental Impact Report for the Weaverville Community Fuel Reduction Project. Prepared by Trinity Resource Conservation and Development Council. P.O. Box 2183, Weaverville, CA 96093-2183.
Behave Plus Fire Modeling System. Version 2.0.2. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station Systems for Environmental Management.
Bell, John F.; Dilworth, J.R. 1988. Log Scaling and Timber Cruising. Professors of Forest Management, Oregon State University. Published by O.S.U. Book Stores, Inc. Corvallis, Oregon 1993.
Carey, Henry; Schumann, Martha. 2003. Modifying Wildfire Behavior—The Effectiveness of Fuel Treatments. The Status of our Knowledge. A publication of the National Community Forestry Center Southwest Region Working Paper # 2—April 2003.
Cohesive Strategy. 2000. Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems. The Forest Service Management Response to the General Accounting Office Report. GAO/RCED-99-65, October 13, 2000.
Dorkin, Brad. 2006. Phone conversation with Brad (CDF Forester) at the CDF Redding Headquarters on February 22, 2006 at 1120 a.m. Phone number 530-225-2418.
FFP+ (Fire Family Plus). Version 3.0.4. USDA Forest Service. Copyright 2000-2003.
Federal Register. 2001. Urban Wildland Interface Communities Within the Vicinity of Federal Lands That Are at High Risk From Wildfire; Notice. Part III, Department of Agriculture and Department of the Interior. Friday, August 17, 2001.
Finney, Mark A.; Cohen, Jack D. 2003. Expectation and Evaluation of Fuel Management Objectives. USDA Forest Service Proceedings. RMRS-P-29.
Finney, Mark A. 2001. Design of Regular Landscape Fuel Treatment Patterns for Modifying Fire Growth and Behavior. Forest Science 47(2).
Finney, Mark A. 2003. Calculation of fire spread rates across random landscapes. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 2003, 12, 167-174.
Fire Management Analyst Plus (FMA+). Dead and Down Woody Inventory, version 1.2.38 and Crownmass version 1.1.107. Fire Program Solutions/Acacia Services, 1999, 2000, 2001.
FOFEM, version 5.00. First Order Fire Effects. Bob Keane; Elizabeth Reinhardt; Jim Brown; and Larry Gangi. RMRS Fire lab. P.O. Box 8090 Missoula, MT 59807.
G-20 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix G: Fire and Fuels – May 2006
Frost, Evan J.; Sweeney, Rob. 2000. Fire Regimes, Fire History and Forest Conditions in the Klamath-Siskiyou Region: An Overview and Synthesis of Knowledge. Wildwood Environmental Consulting 84 4th Street, Ashland, Oregon 97520.
Graham, Russell T.; Harvey, Alan E.; Jain, Theresa B.; Tonn, Jonalea R. 1999. The Effects of Thinning and Similar Stand Treatments on Fire Behavior in Western Forests. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, PNW-GTR- 463. 27 p.
Graham, Russell T.; McCaffrey, Sarah; Jain, Theresa B. 2004. Science Basis for Changing Forest Structure to Modify Wildfire Behavior and Severity. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station-GTR-120.
Green, Lloyd. 2006. Phone conversation with Lloyd Green from the North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District (Eureka, California). April 10, 2006 at 3:30 p.m.
Hann, Wendel J.; Strohm, Diane J. 2003. Fire Regime Condition Class and Associated Data for Fire and Fuels Planning: Methods and Applications. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-29.
Hann, Wendel, Havlina, Doug, Shlisky, Ayn, et al. 2003. Interagency and The Nature Conservancy fire regime condition class website. USDA Forest Service, US Department of the Interior, The Nature Conservancy, and Systems for Environmental Management [frcc.gov].
Martinson, Erik J.; Omi, Philip N. 2003. Performance of Fuel Treatments Subjected to Wildfires. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-29. Western Forest Fire Research Center, Department of Forest Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.
Maxwell, Wayne G.; Ward, Franklin R. 1980. Photo Series For Quantifying Natural Forest Residues In Common Vegetation Types Of The Pacific Northwest. USDA Forest Service GTR-PNW-105. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR.
National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG). 1996. Glossary of Wildland fire Terminology. November 1996. National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG) PMS 410-1/ NFES/ 0065. 1998. Fireline Handbook. Omi, Philip N.; Martinson, Erik J. 2002. Effect of Fuels Treatment on Wildfire Severity- Final Report. Submitted to the Joint Fire Science Program Governing Board. March 25, 2002.
Oregon BAER Report. 2001. USDA Forest Service Burned-Area Report, FS-2500-8. September 18, 2001, page 6. Shasta-Trinity National Forest, Weaverville Ranger Station, Fuels Department.
Petersen, David L.; Johnson, Morris C.; Agee, James K.; Jain, Theresa B.; McKenzie, Donald; Reinhardt, Elizabeth D. 2005. Forest Structure and Fire Hazard in Dry Forests of the Western United States. PNW-GTR-628. February 2005. USDA Forest Service, Pacific North West Research Station.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – G-21 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix G: Fire and Fuels – May 2006
Reinhardt, Elizabeth. 2004. Using FOFEM 5.0 to Estimate Tree Mortality, Fuel Consumption, Smoke Production and Soil Heating from Wildland Fire. USDA Forest Service, Missoula Fire Sciences Lab, Missoula, MT.
Raymond, Crystal L.; Peterson, David L. 2005. Fuel treatments alter the effects of wildfire in a mixed-evergreen forest, Oregon, USA. Canadian Journal of Forestry, Res. 35: 2981-2995.
RMRS-RN-22-2-WWW. 2004. Research Note. USDA Forest Service. Fuels Planning: Science Synthesis and Integration. Forest Structure and Fire Hazard Fact Sheet: 2 Fire Hazard; Fact Sheet 4: Role of Silviculture in Fuel Treatments. Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Scott, Joe H. and Reinhardt, Elizabeth D. 2001. Assessing Crown Fire Potential by Linking Models of Surface and Crown Fire Behavior. USDA Forest Service Research Paper RMRS-RP-29.
SHF- LRMP. 1991. Shasta-Trinity Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.
SHF-2005. Shapefile located in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest GIS: fsfiles/fstmp/arc/fireshed_2005.
Skaggs, Brent. 1996. Technical Fire/Fuels Management (TFM) Report. USDA Forest Service- Sequoia National Forest, California.
Skinner, C. N.; C. Chang 1996. Fire regimes, past and present. In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, vol. II, chap. 38 Davis University of California, Center for Water and Wildland Resources.
Snell, Kendall J.A.; Brown, K. James. 1980. Handbook for Predicting Residue Weights of Pacific Northwest Conifers. USDA-Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. General Technical Report PNW-103. February 1980.
Taylor, Alan H.; Skinner, Carl N. 2003. Spatial Patterns And Controls On Historical Fire Regimes And Forest Structure In The Klamath Mountains. Ecological Applications, 13(3). 2003, pp. 704-719.
Taylor, Alan H.; Skinner, Carl N. 1998. Fire history and Landscape dynamics in a late-successional reserve, Klamath Mountains, California, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 111 (1998) 285-301.
Weatherspoon, P. C. 1996 and Skinner C. N. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project report to Congress, vol. II Assessment and scientific basis for management options. Davis: University of California, Center for Water and Wildland Resources. Wideman, Jon. 2002. Fire and Fuels Assessment for Oregon Fire Community Protection. Shasta- Trinity National Forest, Trinity River Management Unit. Weaverville Ranger Station, California. Oregon Fire Community Protection Project- Project File 1 of 2, Fire and Fuels section, page 4, paragraph 3.
VII. Appendices – Available in Project File
G-22 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix H: Hydrologist Report – May 2006
Appendix H: Browns Project Hydrologist Report March 14, 2006
/s/ Jim Fitzgerald Trinity Zone Hydrologist
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix H: Hydrologist Report – May 2006
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix H: Hydrologist Report – May 2006
Summary
This analysis shows that neither Alternative 3 nor 4 of the Browns Project will further degrade the long-term water quantity or quality of Rush, Little Browns, East Weaver Creeks, and the upper- middle Trinity River. This analysis recognizes that the surface water quality and beneficial uses within and downstream of the project area are presently degraded by excess sediment and hydrologic alteration. Field inventory and project analysis focused on reducing the risk of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts from sediment. All three alternatives were analyzed to quantify their short and long term effect on the magnitude, frequency, timing, and duration of peak flood flows, mass wasting, surface, and fluvial erosion. The Equivalent Roaded Area model was used to estimate the probability of negative cumulative watershed effects. The results indicate that negative water quality impacts from excess sediment delivery are possible in Little Browns Creek. Hence, a sediment budget was developed and the results were compared to Trinity River TMDL sediment targets to quantify the risk of further degrading water quality. Results indicate that the short and long-term sediment increases from the Browns Project are unlikely to further degrade local and regional water quality. Browns Project and other foreseeable actions will likely increase the short-term chronic and acute sediment yield of Little Browns Creek 20 and 42 percent, respectively. However, within 10 to 20 years after project implementation, the sediment yield will likely decrease to the 2005 amount.
Project Name
Browns Project
Downstream Watersheds
Streams draining the project area are within the Upper-Middle Trinity River basin and directly contribute water and sediment to Rush, Little Browns, and East Weaver Creeks.
Beneficial Uses and Water Quality Objectives Within and Downstream of Project Area
The designated beneficial uses for the Trinity River and tributaries within the project area are established in the Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region and are listed below (NCRWQCB, 2001): • municipal and domestic supply (MUN); • agricultural supply (AGR); • groundwater recharge (GWR); • freshwater replenishment (FRSH); • hydropower Generation (POW);
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – H-1 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix H: Hydrologist Report – May 2006
• water contact recreation 1 and 2 (REC-1 and REC-2); • commercial and sport fishing (COMM); • cold freshwater habitat (COLD); • wildlife habitat (WILD); • migration of aquatic organisms (MIGR); and • spawning, reproduction, and/or early development (SPWN).
The following is a list of the applicable water quality objectives that apply to the tributaries draining the Browns Project area: • general objective (anti-degradation); • suspended material; • settleable material; • oil and grease; • sediment; • turbidity; • pH; • temperature; • toxicity; and • chemical constituents.
These pollutants cannot be above a level that adversely effect human, plant, animal, or aquatic life (NCRWQCB, 2001). As a Water Quality Management Agency the Forest Service must demonstrate that the proposed management activities will not further degrade local and regional water quality (USDA Forest Service, 2000). For the Shasta Trinity National Forest, sediment and turbidity are the most common water quality concerns. In 1992, the Trinity River and the watersheds draining the Browns Project area were listed as water quality impaired due to sediment under the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) (NCRWQCB, 2001). A water quality management plan or Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) was developed and approved by the EPA (2001) to reduce the amount of sediment in the Trinity River. The TMDL used existing data and reports to determine which subwatersheds nested within the Trinity River watershed are producing excess sediment (e.g., De la Fuente, et al., 2000 and GMA, 2001). The TMDL sets sediment load allocations, by subwatershed, that specify the amount of sediment reduction needed to meet the water quality objectives. EPA (2001) concludes that the limiting factor to beneficial uses is excess sediment transported and/or deposited in the Trinity River. The California State water quality objectives for sediment are listed in Table 1. Fine and coarse sediment are considered negative to the designated beneficial uses to include: spawning gravel quality and permeability; pool depth and frequency, and other geomorphic indicators (e.g., channel stability).
H-2 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix H: Hydrologist Report – May 2006
Table 1. Sediment water quality objectives applicable to the Browns Project.
Parameter Water Quality Objective Suspended Waters shall not contain suspended material in concentrations that cause nuisance Material or adversely affect beneficial uses. Settleable Waters shall not contain substances in concentrations that result in deposition of Material Material that causes nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. Sediment The suspended sediment load and suspended sediment discharge rate of surface water shall not be altered in such a manner as to cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. Turbidity Turbidity shall not be increased more than 20 percent above naturally occurring background levels. Allowable zones of dilution with which higher percentages can be tolerated may be defined for specific discharges upon the issuance of discharge permits or waiver thereof.
The TMDL sediment source analysis shows that the majority of the management related sediment sources result from roads, legacy mining, and timber harvest (GMA, 2001). The Weaver-Rush watersheds were analyzed as a subset of the TMDL analysis area. According to the TMDL, fine and coarse sediment sourced from these watersheds needs to be reduced 42 percent to meet water quality objectives (EPA, 2001). The TMDL targets eliminating controllable sediment discharge sources which are sites or locations, both existing and those created by proposed land use activities, within the project area that meet the all of the following conditions (NCRWQCB, 2001): • is discharging or has the potential to discharge sediment to waters of the state in violation of water quality requirements; • was caused or affected by human activity; and • may feasibly and reasonably respond to prevention and minimization management measures (i.e., Best Management Practices).
CWE Analysis Watershed Condition Class and CWE Risk Matrix: The Cumulative Watershed Effects (CWE) process is used to demonstrate that the Browns Project will not degrade local and regional water quality. CWE result from the combination of changes in surface and mass failure erosion rates, instream sedimentation rates, and peak streamflows within watersheds in response to management activities (Haskins, 1983). The Federal Register defines a cumulative effect as the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such other action (40 CFR 1508.7). The Forest Plan LMP established Threshold of Concern (TOC) for 5th Field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) subwatersheds and defines Watershed Condition Class (WCC) (USDA Forest Service, 1994). The WCC are defined as follows: • Watershed Condition Class I: ERA less than 40 percent TOC; • Watershed Condition Class II: ERA between 40 and 80 percent TOC; and • Watershed Condition Class III: ERA greater than 80 percent TOC.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – H-3 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix H: Hydrologist Report – May 2006
Table 2. CWE analysis risk matrix.
Rating Magnitude Geographic Extend Duration and Frequency 1 Indicator: Watershed Condition Class I Negligible Negligible Effects Effect: not measurable Effects 2 Indicator: Watershed Condition Class I or II, or 1-15% Impacts are minor locally Short-term, one- sediment increase over background and result in minimal time effect Effect: Small sediment increase; no impact to fish offsite impacts or water quality 3 Indicator Watershed Condition Class II or III, or 15- Impacts are moderate Moderate; 30% increase of sediment over background immediately offsite but do intermittent effect Effect: Moderate increase in sediment – minor not translate to watershed stress on fish and minor increase in turbidity scale impacts 4 Indicator: Watershed Condition Class III, or 30-50% Impacts are large Long-term, sediment increase over background immediately offsite but do Intermittent effect Effect: Substantial increase in sediment; major not translate to watershed stress on fish and large increase in turbidity scale impacts 5 Indicator: ERA exceeds TOC, Or >50% sediment Impacts are large on a Long term; chronic increase over background watershed scale and likely Effect: Significant increase in sediment; Fish have direct impacts on mortality and degraded water quality beneficial uses; fish mortality and degraded water quality
The following summarizes the FSM 2521.1 - Watershed Condition Classes. The CWE analysis process is used to evaluate watershed condition and assign one of the following three classes. 1. Class I Condition. Watersheds exhibit high geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. The drainage network is generally stable. Physical, chemical, and biologic conditions suggest that soil, aquatic, and riparian systems are predominantly functional in terms of supporting beneficial uses. 2. Class II Condition. Watersheds exhibit moderate geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. Portions of the watershed may exhibit an unstable drainage network. Physical, chemical, and biologic conditions suggest that soil, aquatic, and riparian systems are at risk in being able to support beneficial uses. 3. Class III Condition. Watersheds exhibit low geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. A majority of the drainage network may be unstable. Physical, chemical, and biologic conditions suggest that soil, riparian, and aquatic systems do not support beneficial uses.
To interpret the CWE analysis results, the Condition Classes are defined in terms of thresholds established by the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service, 1994), the Trinity River TMDL sediment targets (EPA, 2001), and the Endangered Species Act. Table 2 summarizes the five classes of CWE risk in terms of Watershed Condition Class and sediment yield increase over background. The sediment yield over background is calculated using the following equation:
H-4 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix H: Hydrologist Report – May 2006
(Qt – Qb)/Qb
Qt = total sediment delivery per flood event
Qb = background sediment delivery per flood event
CWE Analysis Limiting Factor Analysis: A Limiting Factor Analysis identifies those factors most critical to beneficial uses and water quality. Increased peak flood flow and fine and coarse sediment yield, and their associated impacts on the fisheries and fisheries habitat of Rush, Little Browns, Weaver, and the Trinity River, are the identified limiting water quality factors. Within the context of the limiting factors, the equivalent roaded area (ERA) model and sediment budget analysis (Haskins, 1983, Reid, 1998, and Reid and Dunne, 1996) are used to evaluate how this project could affect the relationship between rainfall runoff, sediment delivery, sediment yield, and channel stability. This analysis evaluates the impacts of wildland and prescribed fire, timber harvest, plantation management, and roads on the frequency, timing, magnitude, geographic extent, and duration of peak flood flows, and fine and coarse sediment delivery and yield. This analysis considers the direct effects on individual watersheds within the assessment area as well as indirect effects on the Upper-Middle Trinity River. It also attempts to account for the spatial and temporal variability of climate, land disturbance, runoff processes, and sediment yield. Some of the disturbance causing variables of this system cannot be forecast with any certainty to predict the effects on the impacted variables. Therefore, a risk analysis is used to predict the past, present, and future condition and is used to develop mitigation measures and monitoring requirements.
Browns Project CWE Analysis Overview
The Shasta-Trinity CWE analysis process is used to characterize and quantify the current and potential condition of water quality and quantity for the Browns Project. This CWE analysis compares the Forest Plan Threshold of Concern (TOC) and Watershed Condition Class to the existing Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA). For areas with a high risk of negative cumulative watershed effects, a sediment budget was developed to further analyze the potential impacts from this project. Watersheds that are identified as at risk are analyzed to determine which actions need to be taken to maintain or improve watershed condition. Geographic Boundary: The Browns Project analysis area includes four 7th Field HUC watersheds (Table 3 and Plate 1). Within the 7th Field HUC watersheds are 11 - 8th Field HUC watersheds. The topographic boundaries defining a given watershed are used to geographically bound the analysis area because land disturbances within a given watershed directly and indirectly impact downstream water quantity and quality. Upland disturbances that change the magnitude, frequency, timing, and duration of rainfall, runoff, and sediment delivery strictly follow watershed boundaries.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – H-5 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix H: Hydrologist Report – May 2006
Table 3. List of 7th Field HUC watersheds and activities considered for the Browns Project Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis.
7th Field HUC 7th Field HUC Drainage Area Activities Analyzed Watershed Name (acres) 18010211060101 & 02 Rush Creek 14388 mining, roads, and timber 18010211060401 E Weaver Creek 8892 mining, roads, timber, and urban 18010211060403 L Browns Creek 4989 mining, roads, timber, and urban
Plate 1. Map illustrating the Browns Project area 7th and 8th Field HUC watersheds and the existing Watershed Condition Class. Vertical lines = WCC I, diagonal lines = WCC II, and horizontal lines = WCC III.
H-6 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix H: Hydrologist Report – May 2006
This analysis evaluates the potential direct and indirect effects of each individual activity on Rush, Little Browns, and East Weaver Creeks (Table 3) and assumes that activities near perennial fish bearing streams have a greater risk of risk directly impacting water quality. For example, a timber sale unit adjacent to Little Browns Creek has the greatest risk of controllable sediment discharge. Activities that impact upslope intermittent, ephemeral, and unstable areas have the greatest risk of indirectly impacting water quantity and quality. For example, a timber sale unit within an active landslide has the greatest risk of indirectly impacting downstream water quality. Time Frame: This CWE analysis compiled a land use history to quantify the past and present impacts. For this project, placer and strip mining impacts that occurred before 1940 are presently directly and indirectly impacting stream channel stability. In addition, the existing roads, urban, and timber harvest activities are directly impacting the analysis area. The timeframe of the proposed action potential impacts depends on the recovery period of a given activity. The longest lasting impacts are from road construction and use and do not recover with time unless specific measures are taken to reduce runoff and controllable sediment discharge. Improvements to road stability reduce the additive and compound impacts, but recovery is very slow. Most direct disturbances caused by timber harvest recover within 10 to 30 years depending on the type of activity. Fuels treatments and fire suppression actions tend to recover in five to 10 years. Watershed restoration activities tend to recover in one to three years. This analysis assumes that it will take three years to complete timber harvest activities, whereas fuel treatments and watershed restoration activities will take up to 10 years to complete. This analysis uses Best Management Practices and mitigation measures to prevent the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of short and long-term land use activities associated with this and other connected Forest Service projects. Treatments like soil ripping and road decommissioning will help prevent direct and indirect impacts caused by road construction and timber harvest for about 20 years following project implementation. The timeframe of impacts caused by foreseeable actions is 20 years after project implementation. It is difficult to predict what activities will occur on private land, however, road and timber activities are very likely to continue for the reasonably foreseeable future. It is also likely that watershed restoration activities will continue. For example, Trinity County is planning to improve fish migration through Roundy Road at Little Browns Creek, which will have a direct beneficial effect on overall watershed condition. CWE Analysis Results: The ERA based CWE analysis indicates that several of the bounded subwatersheds are in a degraded condition (Table 4). Additional impacts from this project were mitigated to maintain the present watershed condition. This analysis indicates the proposed activities could further degrade the condition of Little Browns Creek. As a result sediment budget was developed for this watershed to better understand and quantify the existing condition and the potential effects of the proposed action on upland erosion, sediment yield, and beneficial uses. The sediment budget estimates the natural, present management, and potential management caused short and long term sediment delivery.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – H-7 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix H: Hydrologist Report – May 2006
Table 4. The existing Watershed Condition Class for the Browns Project area.
8th Field HUC 6th Field HUC Drainage Area Forest Plan Existing WCC Watershed Name (acres) TOC (%) ERA (%) (existing) 1801021106010101 Rush Creek 2860 16 0.5 I 1801021106010102 Rush Creek 2997 16 10.3 II 1801021106010201 Rush Creek 3470 16 14.0 III 1801021106010202 Rush Creek 2676 16 27.4 III 1801021106010203 Rush Creek 2384 16 22.7 III 7th Field watershed Rush Creek 14388 16 14.5 III 1801021106040101 E Weaver Creek 2148 16 0.7 I 1801021106040102 E Weaver Creek 1567 16 17.3 III 1801021106040103 E Weaver Creek 2291 16 10.9 II 1801021106040105 E Weaver Creek 2886 16 13.7 III 7th Field watershed E Weaver Creek 8892 16 10.3 II 1801021106040301 L Browns Creek 2151 16 14.5 III 1801021106040302 L Browns Creek 2838 16 17.2 III 7th Field watershed L Browns Creek 4989 16 15.7 III
CWE Analysis Methods
The ERA and sediment budget methods are used to account for rainfall runoff and upland sediment inputs. Rainfall runoff for background, existing, and potential conditions are modeled using the Haskins (1983) method. Sediment delivery from surface, fluvial, and mass failure erosion sources, in- channel fluvial bank erosion, and inner gorge mass failure is estimated Reid and Dunne (1996) methods (Figure 1). The type and amount of upland rainfall, runoff, and erosion are qualified and quantified using the existing and field inventory data. This analysis accounts for the chronic runoff and sediment input caused by frequent high intensity rainfall. Sediment delivered from surface and
fluvial erosion is classified as chronic erosion and is quantified for the Q2 flood event. Sediment delivery from mass wasting and bank erosion is classified as acute and is assumed to occur
infrequently as a result of large flood events (i.e., > Q25). The sediment budget accounts for the short and long-term sediment input to the drainage network and the episodic nature of large flood events. Chronic sediment sources tend to deliver fine sediment on an annual basis raising the suspended sediment load during bankfull flood events. For example, road surface erosion during rainstorms is a common source of chronic sediment. Acute sediment sources are typically triggered by large flood events and deliver more sediment to the drainage network than can be transported. For example, debris flows and other mass failures are common acute sediment sources in steep stream channels.
H-8 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix H: Hydrologist Report – May 2006
Figure 1. Flow chart illustrating sediment budget process.
For the Browns project area, the two major natural disturbance processes causing runoff and
erosion are infrequent floods (i.e., >Q25) coupled with severe and large wildland fires. These are infrequent events, but when they overlap in time on erodible bedrock and soils, landscape scale watershed disturbances can occur. Large flood events cause accelerated mass wasting, surface, and fluvial erosion and sediment delivery to the stream network. Most of the sediment delivered to the stream network is coarse, and it can take decades to centuries for the network to route and redistribute this sediment. The spatial and temporal distribution of coarse sediment transport and storage depends on the available stream power, particle size, particle attrition rates, and sediment storage potential. A sediment budget accounts for inputs from surface, fluvial, and mass failure, in-channel fluvial bank erosion, and inner gorge mass failure (Figure 2) (Reid and Dunne, 1996), and it is quantified using the following mass balance equation:
Qs = I +/- ΔS
Qs = sediment yield I = sediment input ΔS = change in sediment storage
Sediment yield (Qs) is the total amount of in-channel suspended and bed-material load passing a
given point in the stream network per flood event. For this analysis, the sediment yield per Q2 and Q25 flood events was quantified using the chronic and acute sediment input (I) from upland sources and
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – H-9 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix H: Hydrologist Report – May 2006
the sediment transport and storage potential (i.e., Geomorphic Index) of the stream network (Figure 1).
Typical sedimentary events are classified for this analysis that includes chronic (Q2) and acute
(Q25) upland erosion and sediment delivery to the stream network (NCASI, 1999). These events are presumed to be a function of bedrock geology, soil type, ground cover, slope stability, slope position, and slope steepness. Land-types are classified by mapping individual polygons with similar erodibility, proximity to the drainage network, and potential to deliver sediment. The land-types are mapped using the Region 5 Bedrock Geologic Map, 10 meter DEM generated slope position, and 10 meter DEM generated slope steepness (see Appendices A and B for coefficients and data). GIS is used to generate the land-type polygons, and sediment source inventory data are used to refine the polygon’s erosion rate and sediment delivery potential. For a given land-type, the percent of the eroded sediment delivered to the drainage network is estimated for undisturbed and managed conditions. Frequent chronic upland erosion is assumed to represent the average annual sediment budget for fine sediment, whereas the infrequent acute upland erosion is assumed to represent the long-term sediment budget for coarse sediment. In-channel sediment transport and storage are estimated using a geomorphic index and are presumed to be a function of stream power and drainage network efficiency. For a given watershed, the relief ratio, drainage density, length of transport (3-20% slope) and response channels (<3% slope), bankfull discharge (Q2), and flood prone discharge (Q25) of a given watershed are used to quantify the geomorphic index. This index is used instead of a sediment deliver ratio (NCASI, 1999) and is calculated using the following equation from Geier and Loggy (1995):
Ps = (LST/A*(Emax-Emin/Lb)*Qx/Qy)/(LR+(0.5*LS)/A)
Ps = geomorphic index A = watershed drainage area (miles2)
LB B = total basin length measured along valley (miles)
LST = total length of stream channels (miles)
LR = total length of response stream channels (miles)
LS = total length of source stream channels (miles)
Emax = maximum watershed elevation (feet)
Emin = minimum watershed elevation (feet)
Qx = 2 or 25 year flood event of the subwatershed (cfs)
Qy = 2 or 25 year flood event of the analysis area watershed (cfs) The background sediment yield is defined as the background sediment delivery (i.e., I) to stream network from surface, fluvial, mass, and bank erosion caused by natural disturbance processes (i.e., floods and fire). It is estimated using the amount of natural upland erosion multiplied by the sediment delivery factor (i.e., geomorphic index) (Figure 2). The background yield is calculated using the bedrock geology layer, stream channel order and slope. Erosion rates per rock and channel type are used to calculate the yield for each watershed within the analysis area (Appendix A for erosion rates), and are based on modeled and measured rates published in the Trinity River TMDL (EPA, 2001 and
H-10 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix H: Hydrologist Report – May 2006
GMA, 2001) and sediment budget literature. For the Q2 flood event, erosion rates were adjusted to fit GMA (2001) the measured sediment yield of Little Browns and Weaver Creek. Very few
measurements are available for the Q25 flood event. The existing and potential management related sediment delivery is defined as the sediment input to the stream network from mass wasting, surface, and fluvial erosion caused by management activities or controllable sediment discharge sources (NCRWQCB, 2001) (i.e., roads, mining, and timber harvest). It is estimated using the amount of management related mass wasting, surface and fluvial mass erosion from known and potential sources. The management related sediment yield is defined as the sediment delivery and transport to a specified point usually near the outlet of a given watershed. Like the natural sediment yield, the amount of sediment delivery is multiplied by the geomorphic index (i.e., sediment yield factor) (Figure 1). Management related sediment delivery and yield caused by the present land condition and the proposed action are calculated by intersecting the past and proposed timber harvest units, fuel treatment units, and roads with the mapped land-type and multiplying the area with the disturbed erosion rates (Appendix A). The short and long term sediment delivery rate is estimated and varies by type, location, and timing of the actions. The unit erosion rate is multiplied by the geomorphic index. This prevents including erosion sources that do not fit the controllable sediment discharge source definition. The amount of sediment delivered from controllable sediment discharge sources associated with road decommissioning treatments was quantified using results from treatment effectiveness monitoring. Trinity Zone monitoring results indicate that the majority of erosion from road decommissioning treatments is from stream-road crossings (USDA, 2005). To predict the amount of short-term sediment generated from this alternative the following regression equation was used (Madej, 2001):
V = (20.8+0.041*(A)*(S))+(0.009*Ve)
V = volume eroded from crossing (m3) A = drainage area (km2) S = channel slope 3 Ve = volume excavated (m ) Drainage area above the crossing and channel gradient are used as surrogates for stream power. The equation predicts that more erosion occurs as stream power and stream-road crossing volume increase (Madej, 2001). The total sediment yield at the outlet of each subwatershed is proportioned in to suspended sediment load (< 0.062 mm), fine bed-material load (0.062-2 mm) and coarse bed-material load (> 2 mm). Based on the measured texture of upland soils, the less than 16 percent of the land surface available for erosion is fine material less than 0.062 mm, 15 percent is between 0.062 and 2 mm, and 60 percent are greater than 2 mm (Table 5). The bed-material of the stream channel is coarser than the upland soils indicating that the fines are transported out of the project area and the coarser material is stored for a longer period of time (Table 5). The source of coarse sediment is from mass wasting and
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – H-11 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix H: Hydrologist Report – May 2006 inner-gorge failures. The total sediment yield, described above, is proportioned using these sediment texture values.
Table 5. Measured hillslope soil and bed-material texture for project area.
Upland Soil Map Unit Little Browns Creek Forbes Particle Holland Particle Nuens Particle Soulajule/ Particle Bed- Particle Size Size Size Chawanakee Size Material Size (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) Texture D16 0.062 D16 0.062 D16 0.062 D16 0.062 D16 12.0 D50 0.062 D50 2 D50 2 D50 2 D50 32.0 D84 >3 D84 >2 D84 >2 D84 >2 D84 64.0
CWE Analysis Level and Confidence
For the Browns Project, a Level 3 CWE analysis was completed that relied on field verified data and information. This level of CWE analysis uses the Haskins (1986) ERA model as a tool to identify at risk or “red flag” watersheds. The model attempts to analyze spatial and temporal impacts and uses slope position, steepness, and adjacency to riparian reserves of the different disturbances (e.g., roads and harvest unit) to evaluate potential CWE. For at risk watersheds, a sediment budget was developed to quantify short and long term sediment inputs to impaired streams, identify controllable sediment discharge sources, and develop mitigation measures. For the Browns Project, the confidence in analysis is medium to high. About 45% of the available information was ground verified. Ground verification focused on past timber harvest, road condition, mine impacts, and other public uses.
CWE Analysis Core Data Sources
The CWE analysis uses corporate and field extensive data and information to characterize the past, present, and future watershed condition within and downstream of the project area. The following is a list of the core data sources used to analyze the Browns Project: • Watersheds (5th, 7th, and 8th Field HUC watersheds) • Streams (perennial fish bearing (Class I), perennial non-fish (Class II), intermittent, and ephemeral (Class III) • Wetlands (springs, meadows, and ponds) • Bedrock geology • Geomorphology • Soils • Stream Condition Inventories(SCI) • Active mass wasting feature inventories • Road condition inventories • Water quality monitoring data
H-12 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix H: Hydrologist Report – May 2006
• Road layer (includes FS and private system and unclassified roads and trails) • Forest Service harvest history layer • Fuel Treatment and Fire history layer • Private land harvest history layer
Timber Harvest Data: The timber harvest disturbance and erosion are calculated using the land area, rate, type and method of timber harvest on public and private lands. The timber harvest ERA uses disturbance factors to quantify the short and long-term impacts from the type of harvest (e.g., thinning from below), the yarding method (e.g., tractor), the site preparation method (e.g., tractor pile and burn), and future actions (e.g., planting and prescribed burning). The disturbance factor coefficients by activity are listed in Appendix A. The timber harvest data used for the Browns Project are stored as part of the project record. The public land harvest history relies on data from the Forest Service FACTS database stored and maintained in GIS and past information gathered from Forest Service Foresters (e.g., Mike Archibald and Jose Perry). The FACTS data were updated to reflect public land harvest as of fiscal year 2005. Of the units listed in the database, all were inspected from aerial photos and 22% were field inventoried to verify the recovery of past treatments. Most of the activities were found to be recovering or fully recovered, however, five of the units have initiated active landslides. The private land harvest history was developed using harvest history data summarized as part of the Trinity River sediment TMDL. These data were gathered from Timber Harvest Plans filed with CDF, DWR (1980), and aerial photos from 2000 (EPA, 2001). Several errors and gaps in the TMDL data were identified after comparing the GIS data to the aerial photos. Forest Service Foresters Chris Losi and Lindsy Large, corrected the private harvest data using 2003 aerial photos and field verification. About 80% of the units were field verified and several corrections were made to the harvest data. This effort greatly improved the CWE model accuracy. For example, initially the total watershed area clearcut was 459 acres (TMDL data), which increased to 3,666 acres after aerial photo and field verification. To calculate the timber harvest disturbance, each harvest unit’s map area was multiplied by the corresponding disturbance factor that depends on the treatment types and yarding method. Timber harvest prescriptions vary from clear cut to thin from below. Flat ground is mainly mechanically harvested (e.g., tractor skidding), and steep ground is cable yarded (e.g., skyline). The treatment type disturbance factors account for reduced canopy and ground cover. The factors assume that harvest reduces evapotransporation and increases runoff and groundwater recharge for 10 to 40 years. The yarding method disturbance factors account for soil disturbance associated with skid trail, cable corridors, and landings. Road Data: The road disturbance and erosion are calculated using the area of land disturbed by the road prism. The road disturbance calculation uses data from the Forest Service road database stored and maintained in INFRA and GIS. The road layer was updated as part of the Browns Project and Browns Project Roads Analysis Process. The existing road disturbance was calculated using the updated road layer that includes existing and new classified and unclassified Forest Service roads and
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – H-13 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix H: Hydrologist Report – May 2006 trails, user created ATV trails, private roads and trails, county roads, and state and federal highways. The road data are stored in Excel and GIS and is too large to include with this report. Several errors and gaps in the road data set were identified and corrected after comparing the corporate data to field inventory data and the 1998 aerial photos. For example, about 35 miles of private road were mapped from the 1998 aerial photos. On Forest System Lands, unmapped classified and unclassified roads and trails were mapped. To calculate the road disturbance, the road length is multiplied by road width. The road length is summarized using GIS data. Road width varies depending on the road and surface type, and maintenance level (Appendix A). Road width accounts for the average prism width, pullouts, and landings. Fire and Fuels Data: Watershed disturbances caused by wildland and prescribed fires and their impact on the hydrologic balance, sediment yield, and beneficial uses is analyzed as part of the CWE analysis. The fire disturbance is calculated using the known wildland and prescribed fire history for the project area. For this analysis accounts for large and severe fires that cause watershed scale disturbances and result in measurable excess runoff or erosion are accounted for. Each fire is characterized according to how severe it burned and when it burned. A burn severity map is drawn to calculate the disturbed watershed area. Fire disturbance factors and recovery rates for different vegetation types and burn characteristics are used to estimate the likely-hood of negative cumulative effects. Typically, runoff and erosion caused by vegetation and duff layer removal are assumed to be recovered, or within the natural range of variation, after five to 10 years. For example, chaparral or brush fires typically have a high rate of fuel consumption, are large, and damage the soil, however, the ground disturbances recover within two to five years. Within coniferous vegetation types, the rate of disturbance recovery depends more on the type of burn, for example, a low severity under-story burn is fully recovered within two to five years, whereas, a high severity crown fire may not recover for 30 or more years. Fire history data, stored in GIS, was used to calculate the fire disturbance. The Oregon Fire was the most recent large fire and burned in the western portion of the Browns Project area. Field Inventory Data: Field extensive data are used to help verify present and potential watershed condition. The following types of field data were collected as part of the Browns Project and other monitoring and are documented in the project record: • Inventory of channel stability; • Inventory of landslide prone terrane; • Inventory of needed restoration and mitigation measures; • Location, type, and condition of riparian reserves; and • Instream water quality data; and • Road restoration and upgrade opportunities.
Stream channel stability was measured to help verify the CWE model and characterize the existing and potential condition of channels draining the project area. Standard methods are used to
H-14 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix H: Hydrologist Report – May 2006 measure channel stability (Montgomery and Buffington, 1993 and USDA Forest Service, 2003). See the Browns Project Fisheries Report for the results of stream channel condition inventories. Road condition inventories were completed to assess the present condition of roads and prescribe road upgrade and maintenance recommendations. Several roads (about 31 miles) that are diverting stream flow, eroding and delivering sediment to the stream system, were identified for decommissioning. Roads used as the main timber sale haul routes were inventoried for proper drainage and culvert sizing. Almost 200 different sites were inventoried. Pre-harvest road improvements were identified as well as long-term needs that will be implemented later.
CWE Analysis Disturbance Factors and Recovery Rates
ERA and sediment budget disturbance factors erosion rates for the project area were developed using the coefficients described by Haskins (1983), other Region 5 National Forests, and scientific literature (Appendix A). All mechanical ground disturbances from project activities are assumed to be fully recovered after 10 to 40 years. Ground disturbances caused by wildland and/or prescribed fire are assumed to be recovered in five to 10 years. Roads and landings do not recover with time unless specific mitigation or restoration occurs (Haskins 1986). Once a road is decommissioned or a landing is rehabilitated they are assumed to reduce the ERA and sediment delivery rate. Mass wasting features triggered by management activities are field inventoried and assigned a recovery coefficient.
CWE Analysis Land Use History
The existing watershed condition, qualified and quantified using the ERA model and sediment budget, is a result of the following land use history. The first significant land use within the Browns Project area was placer and strip gold mining. Starting in 1848, large areas of land were dedicated to mining and most of the project area, including wilderness areas, were explored and mined for gold and other minerals (O’Brien, 1965). The impacts of gold mining are still imprinted on the landscape and stream network. The project area has several mining ditches and ponds that are still hydrologically connected to the stream network. Impacts from strip mining are common as well. Typically, headwater stream channels were hydraulically excavated leaving a void that resembles a landslide scar. Larger streams, like Weaver Creek, were placer mined. Entrenched channels and adjacent gravel piles are still present.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – H-15 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix H: Hydrologist Report – May 2006
Figure 2. Bar chart showing timber harvest history by decade and land ownership.
Since the peak of gold mining, lands within the project area have mainly been used for public and private timber harvest and urban development. About 310 miles of road and trail have been built for access to towns, recreational areas, mining claims, power lines, and timber lands. About 13 miles of Highways 299 and 3 dissect the project area and parallel Weaver and Little Browns Creeks, respectively. About seven miles of County Road 204 parallels Rush Creek as well. There are about 109 miles of private road, and about 99 miles of Forest Service road. Most of these roads are sources of sediment and constrict and divert stream channels. There are several known fish barriers within the project area on public and private lands. The Trinity County Planning Department completed a fish passage survey and found several full barriers on Little Browns and Weaver Creeks. Timber has been harvested within the project area since the 1800s. Timber harvest outputs peaked in the 1990s (Figure 2). Plate 2 illustrates the timber harvest history since the 1940s on public and private lands. Since 1940 about 12,818 acres of private land and about 864 acres of public land have been timber harvested which is 37 percent of the analysis area. This does not include cutting of small areas that were not tracked by the Forest Service or private. Most of the erosion from past timber harvest is limited to areas that became unstable after vegetation removal.
H-16 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix H: Hydrologist Report – May 2006
Plate 2. Map illustrating the timber harvest history by land ownership and decade.
Weaverville is the main town within the project area and is developed around the confluence of West and East Weaver Creek. There are several homes spread throughout the project area with associated roads mainly in Rush and Little Browns Creeks. Streams draining the town of Weaverville have been heavily modified by urban development and effectively function as canals. Erosion from roads and development sites are sources of sediment and other pollutants (e.g., oil and grease).
Environmental Consequences
The direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental consequences of implementing the Browns Project alternatives have been evaluated using the CWE analysis process. This analysis considers the background and present watershed condition from known land use activities to include: timber harvest activities, road construction and use, mine operations, wildland fire/fuel treatments, and urban
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – H-17 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix H: Hydrologist Report – May 2006
development. The future watershed condition is estimated by factoring the potential impacts from the proposed action, connected actions (e.g., fuels treatments), and foreseeable actions. Alternative 1: Based on the results of the existing condition CWE analysis, most of the streams draining the Rush and Weaver Creek watersheds are in a degraded condition and are not supporting beneficial uses. This conclusion is supported by De la Fuente et al. (2000) who determined that Rush and Weaver are impaired (Category III) based on an analysis of the stream and watershed condition indicators. The water quality and channel conditions were rated as functioning at risk. The EPA (2001) has set TMDL sediment targets for the project area that focus on eliminating chronic and acute controllable sediment discharge sources. The existing ERA and WCC are listed for each 8th Field HUC subwatershed within the analysis area (Table 6 and Plate 3). For the Browns Project analysis area, CWE analysis results indicate a moderate increase in sediment with minor increases in turbidity and a minor stress on fish (Table 2 and Table 6). The geographic extent of the sediment impacts are moderate, immediately offsite, and do not translate to watershed scale impacts. The duration and frequency of sediment delivery is moderate, relative to background, and is having an intermittent effect on beneficial uses (Table 2 and Table 6). The Browns Project area has a long history of land use to include mining, water diversion, road construction, timber harvest, and urban development. In the 1800s, the stream system was altered by mining. Flow diversion, tributary damning, and placer mining all significantly modified the stream network, and the present network configuration is a result of these legacy impacts. Road network and timber harvest disturbances have increased peak flood flows and sediment delivery and yield. Old and new roads are causing chronic and acute erosion, constricting stream channels, and blocking fish migration. In addition, urban development and domestic water use have increased storm runoff and sediment delivery and reduced summer base streamflow. Rush Creek has a WCC of three, and the ERA increases downstream (Table 6 and Plate 3). The headwaters of Rush Creek drain wilderness and are in WCC one, whereas, the lower portion has been heavily managed and exceeds the TOC by a factor of two. The road network and rate of timber harvest are the main causes of the high ERA. There are several management related mass wasting features contributing large volumes of sediment to Rush Creek. Until these features stabilize, they deliver large pulses of sediment during large flood events and chronically erode during frequent high intensity rainfall. East Weaver Creek has a WCC of two, however, one of the subwatersheds (1801021106040102) is in WCC three (Table 6 and Plate 3). The headwaters of East Weaver Creek drain wilderness and have a WCC of one. The ERA increases downstream with roads and urban development as the main causes of the high ERA. Roads, urban development, and domestic water uses are significantly altering water quality and quantity in lower Weaver Creek. Along Highway 299, runoff, channel constriction/diversion, and road-cut instability have reduced the channel stability of Weaver Creek and increased sediment delivery. Little Browns Creek has a WCC of three (Table 6 and Plate 3). Smaller than the other three 7th field watersheds, the ERA of this watershed is almost equal to the TOC (i.e., 16%). The road network,
H-18 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix H: Hydrologist Report – May 2006
rate of timber harvest, and urban development are the main causes of the high ERA. Highway 3 has impacted stream channel stability significantly in subwatershed (1801021106040301) were Highway 3 occupies three quarters of the original valley bottom. There are several management related active mass wasting features chronically and acutely delivering sediment to Little Browns Creek.
Table 6. Summary of Alternatives 1 and 3 CWE analysis results for short term (1-5 years) and long term (5 to 20 years) effects.
8th Field HUC 7th Field HUC Drainage Forest Existing Alt 3 Alt 3 WCC Short Long Watershed Area Plan ERA (1-5 (5-20 (existing) Term Term Name (acres) TOC (%) (%) years) years) WCC WCC (Alt 3) (Alt 3) 1801021106010101 Rush Creek 2860 16 1 1 0 I I I 1801021106010102 Rush Creek 2997 16 10 12 10 II II II 1801021106010201 Rush Creek 3470 16 14 15 11 III III II 1801021106010202 Rush Creek 2676 16 27 27 12 III III II 1801021106010203 Rush Creek 2384 16 23 23 10 III III II 7th Field watershed Rush Creek 14,388 16 14 15 8 III III II 1801021106040101 E Weaver Creek 2148 16 1 1 1 I I I 1801021106040102 E Weaver Creek 1567 16 17 18 8 III III II 1801021106040103 E Weaver Creek 2291 16 12 12 7 II II II 1801021106040105 E Weaver Creek 2886 16 14 13 10 III III II 7th Field watershed E Weaver Creek 8892 16 10 11 6 II II II 1801021106040301 L Browns Creek 2151 16 14 14 8 III III II 1801021106040302 L Browns Creek 2838 16 17 25 15 III III III 7th Field watershed L Browns Creek 4989 16 16 20 12 III III II
Alternative 3: This alternative, as described in the Proposed Action, includes mitigation measures designed to prevent further degrading the water quality and beneficial uses of watersheds draining the Browns Project area. This analysis evaluates the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed harvest activities, new road construction, road drainage improvements, and road decommissioning, and it evaluates the cumulative effects of proposed action combined with connected actions to include fuel treatments and plantation management. As designed, Alternative 3 will not cause any long-term direct or indirect impacts that further exacerbate runoff and sediment delivery. During project implementation, however, the probability of sediment delivery increases where new road construction, road decommissioning, and timber harvest activities dissect streams. Short-term sediment delivery is probable at stream road or skid trail crossings. The potential impacts will be localized (i.e., less than ¼ mile downstream), minor, and last for two to three years. Small (i.e., < two percent) short-term increases in ERA are shown for Rush Creek (Table 6 and Plate 3). These increases result from the proposed fuels treatments and will recover within five years of project implementation. Long-term the ERA is predicted to decrease and the WCC should improve from a III to a II. This improving trend is based on the reasonably foreseeable activities on public and private lands. Unforeseen actions on private land could change the long-term WCC trend, especially
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – H-19 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix H: Hydrologist Report – May 2006
in lower Rush Creek: for example, timber harvest activities that were not reasonably foreseeable at the time of this analysis. Small (i.e., < one percent) increases in ERA are shown for East Weaver Creek (Table 6 and Plate 3). These increases result from the proposed fuels treatments and are short term. These impacts will recover within five years of project implementation. Long-term the ERA is predicted to decrease and the WCC is maintained at II. At the 8th Field HUC scale, the WCC will improve from III to II for subwatersheds 1801021106040102 and 1801021106040105. A substantial increase in ERA was predicted for Little Browns Creek, and the results indicate a “red flag” condition. In subwatershed 1801021106040302 the ERA is predicted to increase eight percent. As a result, a sediment budget was completed to better understand and predict CWE within and downstream of Little Browns Creek and is described below. One of the purposes of this alternative is to maintain and improve the long-term watershed condition. The mitigation measures, listed in FEIS Appendix C, are designed to minimize the short- term impacts of timber harvest and road construction and improve long-term watershed condition. However, the watershed condition will not improve significantly as a result of this project (Table 6 and Plate 3). The mitigation measures applicable to reducing peak flood flows and chronic erosion are focused on disconnecting the road network from the stream channel by reducing road-stream crossing diversion and improving road drainage. In addition, disturbed areas will be de-compacted to improve infiltration and vegetation recovery at the watershed scale. For example, in critical areas identified on the Timber Sale Contract map, landings, skid trails, and unclassified roads will be sub-soiled up to 18 inches to improve soil quality. The mitigation measures applicable to reducing chronic and acute sediment sources are focused on controlling existing erosion sources and preventing new ones. The main mitigation measure is to decommission about 31 miles of existing roads, trails, old temporary roads, and old skid trails that are discharging sediment. Decommissioning entails removing culverts, ripping and out sloping the road surface, and closing road junctions. Other activities may occur depending on site conditions. The goal is to control surface runoff and erosion leaving the road unavailable for future use. See FEIS Appendix C for a list of roads. The short-term sediment input from road decommissioning activities was quantified. The total amount of short-term erosion predicted for the Browns Project is about seven tons, which is substantially less than the existing input from background and controllable sediment discharge sources. Alternative 4: This alternative is the same as Alternative 3, but does not include new road construction and associated timber harvest and fuel treatments. Proposed activities that depend on new roads will no be implemented as part of Alternative 4, to include connected mitigation measures. This analysis evaluates the direct and indirect impacts of the proposed harvest activities, road drainage improvements, and road decommissioning, and it evaluates the cumulative effects of proposed action combined with connected actions to include fuel treatments and plantation management.
H-20 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix H: Hydrologist Report – May 2006
If Alternative 4 is implemented, then the direct, indirect, and cumulative long-term impacts from peak flood flows and fine/coarse sediment yield increases are not significant (Table 7). Overall, this alternative will have less impact than Alternative 3 due to the lack of new roads and less timber harvest area. This alternative will cause substantially less ground disturbance in Little Browns Creek (Table 7).
Table 7. Summary of Alternatives 1 and 4 CWE analysis results for short term (1-5 years) and long term (5 to 20 years) effects.
8th Field HUC 7th Field HUC Drainage Forest Existing Alt 4 Alt 4 WCC Short Long Watershed Area Plan TOC ERA (%) (1-5 (5-20 (existing) Term Term Name (acres) (%) years) years) WCC WCC (Alt 3) (Alt 3) 1801021106010101 Rush Creek 2860 16 1 1 0 I I I 1801021106010102 Rush Creek 2997 16 10 12 10 II II II 1801021106010201 Rush Creek 3470 16 14 15 11 III III II 1801021106010202 Rush Creek 2676 16 27 27 12 III III II 1801021106010203 Rush Creek 2384 16 23 23 10 III III II 7th Field watershed Rush Creek 14,388 16 14 15 8 III III II 1801021106040101 E Weaver Creek 2148 16 1 1 1 I I I 1801021106040102 E Weaver Creek 1567 16 17 18 8 III III II 1801021106040103 E Weaver Creek 2291 16 12 12 7 II II II 1801021106040105 E Weaver Creek 2886 16 14 13 10 III III II 7th Field watershed E Weaver Creek 8892 16 10 11 7 II II II 1801021106040301 L Browns Creek 2151 16 14 12 6 III II I 1801021106040302 L Browns Creek 2838 16 17 23 13 III III III 7th Field watershed L Browns Creek 4989 16 16 19 10 III III II
Little Browns Sediment Budget: A sediment budget was completed for Little Browns Creek within the Browns Project analysis area. The sediment budget was completed for Alternative 3 because it includes new road construction and associated timber harvest, whereas Alternative 4 has no new road construction and less timber harvest. The analysis area does not include the lower portion of the Little Browns Creek watershed (Plate 4). Most of the land south of the analysis area is in private ownership and is complicated by multiple land use activities.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – H-21 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix H: Hydrologist Report – May 2006
Plate 3. Map of Browns Project showing WCC for the existing, 1 to 5 year, and 5 to 20 year time periods.
H-22 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix H: Hydrologist Report – May 2006
The results indicate that the short and long-term sediment delivery increases from the Browns Project are unlikely to further degrade local and regional water quality. There will be a moderate increase in sediment with a minor increase in turbidity and a minor stress on fish. The geographic extent of the predicted impacts are moderate, immediately offsite, and do not translate to watershed scale impacts. The duration and frequency of the impacts are moderate and may have intermittent effects to water quality (Table 2 and Table 8). The sediment budget for the existing conditions indicates that the percent over background
sediment delivery is 13 percent per Q2 flood event and 36 percent per Q25 flood event, lower than the 167 percent above background calculated as part of the Trinity River TMDL (EPA, 2001). This difference is likely results from the refinement of the public and private land harvest history. The percent above background sediment yield is predicted to increase to 25 percent per Q2 flood event and
72 percent per Q25 flood event for the first five years following project implementation (Table 8). The sediment yield is predicted to return to 2005 amounts within 10 to 20 years following project implementation (Table 8). This prediction is based on the sediment delivery from the reasonably foreseeable actions listed below. If other actions occur on private land, the long-term sediment delivery amount could be different. Sediment delivered from project activities will likely have a coarse sand to fine gravel texture (Table 5). Less than 16 percent of the soil available for erosion is less than 0.065 mm which suggests that large turbidity increases are unlikely. Sediment delivery from the Browns Project represents less than half of the short-term sediment delivery and less than a quarter of the long-term sediment delivery. Mitigation measures designed to reduce and prevent erosion are predicted to save 162 tons per Q2 flood event and 952 tons per Q25 flood event (Table 8). The mitigation measures lower the predicted sediment delivery from the Browns Project by about half. The sediment budget results indicate that roads and private timber harvest activities are producing about 44 and 55 percent of the existing management related sediment yield, respectively (Table 8). Within 20 years after completing the Browns Project, a small portion of the management related sediment will result from this project, whereas private timber harvest is predicted to produce over half of the management related sediment delivery. The remainder is associated with sediment delivery from roads.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – H-23 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix H: Hydrologist Report – May 2006
Plate 4. Little Browns Creek location map showing watershed relative to Weaverville and Trinity River.
H-24 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix H: Hydrologist Report – May 2006
Table 8. Summary of Little Browns Creek sediment budget.
Existing Condition Sediment Source Category Q2 Q25 Background Upland Erosion (tons) 3572 6831 Background Bank Erosion (tons) 1893 4269 Road Erosion (tons) 304 1764 Fuels Erosion (tons) 4 4 PCT Erosion (tons) 1 1 Private Timber Erosion (tons) 363 2101 FS Timber Erosion (tons) 23 138 Fire Erosion (tons) 0 0 Existing Condition Sediment Yield Total Erosion (tons) 6161 15107 Geomorphic Index (Ps) 0.22 0.92 Total Sediment Yield (tons) 1328 8998 Existing % Above Background Sediment Yield 13 36
Alternative 3 Sediment Source Category (short-term 1-5 years) Q2 Q25 Road Erosion (tons) 323 1875 Fuels Erosion (tons) 2 3 PTEIR Erosion (tons) 375 2184 Private Timber Erosion (tons) 370 2149 FS Timber Harvest Erosion (tons) 12 69 Alt 3 Timber Harvest Erosion (tons) 455 2697 Mitigated Erosion (prevented) (tons) 162 952 Alternative 3 Sediment Yield (short-term 1-5 years) Total Erosion (tons) 6839 19124 Geomorphic Index (Ps) 0.22 0.92 Total Sediment Yield (tons) 1474 11390 Alt 3 % Above Background Sediment Yield (tons) 25 72
Alternative 3 Sediment Source Category (long-term 5-20 years) Q2 Q25 Road Erosion (tons) 161 922 Fuels Erosion (tons) 1 7 PCT Erosion (tons) 0 0 PTEIR Erosion (tons) 308 1760 Private Timber Erosion (tons) 94 549 FS Timber Erosion (tons) 6 35 Alt 3 Timber Harvest Erosion (tons) 182 1079 Alternative 3 Sediment Yield (short-term 5-20 years) Total Erosion (tons) 6217 15452 Geomorphic Index (Ps) 0.22 0.92 Total Sediment Yield (tons) 1340 9203 Alt 3 % Above Background Sediment Yield (tons) 14 39
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – H-25 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix H: Hydrologist Report – May 2006
Foreseeable Actions
This CWE analysis evaluated the past, present, and future watershed condition. To account for future condition, reasonably foreseeable actions within the project area were analyzed. These projects include precommercial thinning, road construction and maintenance, fuels reduction projects, watershed restoration, and private timber harvest. These actions were quantified as part of the ERA model and Little Browns Creek sediment budget.
References
Department of Water Resources, 1980. Trinity River watershed erosion investigation. State of California, Department of Water Resources, Northern District.
De la Fuente, J., T. Laurent, D. Elder, R. VendeWater, A. Olsen. 2000. Watershed condition assessment beta test results of northern province forests. Pacific Southwest Region, US Forest Service.
Graham Matthews and Associates, 2001. Trinity River Sediment Source Analysis. Prepared for USEPA Region IX.
EPA, 2001. Trinity River Sediment Total Maximum Daily Load. USEPA Region IX.
Haskins, D.M., 1983. An overview of the use of cumulative watershed impact analysis, Shasta-Trinity National Forest, internal publication.
Haskins, D.M., 1986. A management model for evaluating cumulative watershed effects. In: Proceedings from the California Watershed Management Conference, West Sacramento, CA, November 18-20, 1986, pp. 125-130.
Madej, M.A., 2001. Erosion and Sediment Delivery Following Removal of Forest Roads. US Geological Survey Redwood Field Station. Final Report, Agreement No. FG7354IF.
Montgomery, D.R. and Buffington, J.M., 1993. Channel classification, prediction of channel response, and assessment of channel condition. Washington State Report TFW-SH10-93-002.
National Council for Air and Stream Improvements (NCASI), 1999. Scale Consideration and the Detectability of Sedimentary Cumulative Watershed Effects. Technical Bulletin No. 776.
North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB), 2001. Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Region, Basin Plan.
O’Brien, J.C., 1965. Mines and Mineral Resources of Trinity County, California. County Report 4, California Division of Mines and Geology.
Reid, L.M., 1998. Cumulative Watershed Effects: Caspar Creek and Beyond. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report. PSW-GTR-168.
H-26 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix H: Hydrologist Report – May 2006
Reid, L.M. and Dunne, T., 1996. Rapid Evaluation of Sediment Budgets (1 ed.): Reiskirchen, Germany, Catena Verlag GMBH, 1 v., 9-19 p.
USDA Forest Service, 1994. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Shasta-Trinity National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan. Pacific Southwest Region.
USDA Forest Service, 2000. Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in California, Best Management Practices. Pacific Southwest Region.
USDA Forest Service, 2003. Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) Guide Book, Version 7.0. Pacific Southwest Region.
USDA Forest Service, 2005. Road-Stream Crossing Excavation Effectiveness Monitoring Report (working draft). Trinity Zone, Shasta Trinity National Forest, Pacific Southwest Region (unpublished report).
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – H-27 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix H: Hydrologist Report – May 2006
Appendix A: Browns Thin CWE analysis ERA disturbance factor and sediment budget erosion rate tables ______
Table 1. CWE analysis land-type slope factor. Used to weight disturbed area (disturbance factor x total disturbance area) from timber harvest, fuels treatments, and roads.
Slope Slope Code Factor Lowest 1.5 Mid 1.2 Ridge 0.8 Lowest = valley bottom Mid = middle of hillslope Ridge = near top of ridge
Table 2. ERA forest system lands timber harvest and site preparation disturbance factors, from FACTS database.
RX Dist Factor Description 4111/420 0.30 Patch clearcut/tractor skidder 4111/430 0.17 Patch clearcut/Single span skyline 4111/480 0.12 Patch clearcut/hele 4112/420 0.30 Strip clearcut/tractor 4113.1/420 0.30 Stand clearcut/tractor reserve trees 4113.1/430 0.20 Stand clearcut/cable reserve trees 4113/420 0.30 Stand clearcut/tractor skidder 4113/430 0.20 Stand clearcut/Single span skyline 4113/480 0.12 Stand clearcut/helecopter 4131/420 0.20 Shelterwood seed cut/tractor skidder 4131/430 0.15 Shelterwood seed cut/Single span skyline 4131/480 0.08 Shelterwood seed cut/hele 4143/420 0.22 Overstory removal/tractor skidder 4143/430 0.16 Overstory removal/Single span skyline 4143/480 0.08 Overstory removal/hele 4151/420 0.20 Individual tree selection/tractor 4151/430 0.15 Individual tree selection/cable 4152/420 0.30 Group selection/tractor 4220/420 0.18 Thinning/tractor 4220/430 0.12 Thinning/cable 4230/420 0.18 Salvage/tractor 4230/430 0.11 Salvage/cable 4232/420 0.27 Sanitation/tractor 4260/0 0.15 human fire
H-28 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix H: Hydrologist Report – May 2006
Table 3. ERA private land timber harvest disturbance factors.
RX Dist Factor Description C/CC 0.2 cable clearcut C/Selection 0.15 cable select cut C/STSS 0.18 cable sanitation salvage C/SWR 0.18 cable shelterwood removal H/CC 0.08 helicopter cleacut H/Selection 0.03 helicopter select cut H/STSS 0.075 helicopter sanitation salvage H/SWR 0.07 helicopter shelterwood removal T/CC 0.35 tractor cleacut T/Selection 0.3 tractor select cut T/STSS 0.25 tractor sanitation salvage T/SWR 0.28 tractor shelterwood removal
Table 4. ERA fuels treatment codes and disturbance factors.
Fuel Treatment Codes Disturbance Factor Broadcast Burn 0.075 Hand Thin 200' 0.01 Masticate 0.05 Prune 0.015 Thin and Prune 0.03 Thin/masticate; pile/under burn; prune. 0.13
Table 5. ERA disturbance factors for proposed action harvest.
Slope Disturbance Factor Timber Harvest Disturbance Factor Site prep Disturbance Factor Code code code Lowest 1.5 R/C 0.20 H/BB 0.09 Mid 1.2 R/T 0.30 H/BC 0.04 Ridge 0.8 RR/C 0.20 T/BB 0.15 Lowest = valley bottom RR/T 0.35 T/BC 0.10 Mid = middle of hillslope Th/C 0.15 WTY/BC 0.02 Ridge = near top of ridge Th/T 0.25 H = hand work C = cable yarding T = tractor T = tractor WTY = whole tree yard R = regeneration harvest BB = broadcast burn RR = riparian reserve thinning BC = burn concentrations Th = thin heavy at > 8000 MBF
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – H-29 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix H: Hydrologist Report – May 2006
Table 6. List of road widths used to calculate road area by road type.
Road Type Road Type Road Width Code Description (feet) BL Paved road 50 IP Paved road 50 OT Paved road 50 PT Private trail 15 PV Private road 50 SY FS system road 45 TR FS trail 15 UC Unclassifed road 35 NR New road 35
Table 7. Sediment budget background and disturbed erosion rates.
Formation Description MAPUNIT Natural Erosion Natural Erosion Disturbed Disturbed Rate (tons/acre/ Rate (tons/acre/ Erosion Rate Erosion Rate Q2) Q25) (tons/acre/ (tons/acre/ Q2) Q25) mica schist; impure marble; amphibolite Da 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.8 gneiss & amphibolite in contact aureole Da? 0.05 0.1 0.1 0.8 of Shasta Bally batholith Sector-collapse avalanche deposit of df 0.85 2.5 1 6 Shasta Valley block facies coarse to fine-grained; foliated to Ds 0.45 0.65 0.7 2 massive hornblende schist peridotite (part-to-total serpentinized); Dum 0.4 1 0.8 2 cm? tr? biotite (&hb) quartz diorite - lesser Kqd_sb 2 10 3.5 15 granodiorite unconsolidated gravels & Tw 1.35 2.5 1.35 8 conglomerate; fanglomerate; lucustrine; fluvial
H-30 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix H: Hydrologist Report – May 2006
Table 8. Sediment budget land-type upland sediment delivery factors.
Sed Delivery Code Sed Delivery Factor
1/LOWEST 0.75 1/MID 0.42 1/RIDGE 0.08 2/LOWEST 0.83 2/MID 0.50 2/RIDGE 0.17 3/LOWEST 0.92 3/MID 0.58 3/RIDGE 0.25 4/LOWEST 1.00 4/MID 0.67 4/RIDGE 0.33 Sediment Delivery Code = factor that represents the delivered percent of hillslope erosion. 1 = slopes <35% 2 = slopes 35 to 45% 3 = slopes 45 to 65% 4 = slopes >65% Lowest =lower hillslope and highly connected to stream network Mid = middle hillslope and moderately connected to stream network Ridge = upper hillslope and not connected to stream network
Table 9. Sediment budget road condition factors and erosion rates.
Q2 Surface type, Erosion rates Q25 Surface type, Erosion rates cond, and div pot (tons/ac/yr) cond, and div pot (tons/ac/yr) N/S/AGG 0.8 N/S/AGG 8 N/S/NAT 1 N/S/NAT 34 N/S/PAV 0.6 N/S/PAV 2 N/US/AGG 1 N/US/AGG 20 N/US/NAT 1.2 N/US/NAT 55 N/US/PAV 0.8 N/US/PAV 5 Y/S/AGG 1.1 Y/S/AGG 22 Y/S/NAT 1.2 Y/S/NAT 57 Y/S/PAV 1 Y/S/PAV 6 Y/US/AGG 1.3 Y/US/AGG 37 Y/US/NAT 1.5 Y/US/NAT 75 Y/US/PAV 1.2 Y/US/PAV 7
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – H-31 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix H: Hydrologist Report – May 2006
H-32 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix I: Management Indicator Species – May 2006
Appendix I: Management Indicator Species (MIS) Supplemental Analysis
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix I: Management Indicator Species – May 2006
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix I: Management Indicator Species – May 2006
Appendix I: Management Indicator Species (MIS) Supplemental Analysis
The purpose of the following document is to supplement the MIS analysis provided by the District Wildlife Biologist. Summary: Based on the following analysis, we determine that the habitat changes resulting from the proposed project, as planned, will not significantly affect the population trends of the selected management indicator species. This is based on the following: • Although the project is likely to significantly affect individual northern spotted owls, olive- sided flycatchers and hermit thrushes through the removal and downgrading of nesting and foraging habitat, these effects are very small in relation to the range and larger populations of these species. • Olive-sided flycatchers and hermit thrushes are somewhat more flexible in their requirements than northern spotted owls and may adapt relatively well to the small scale of the operations, successfully breeding either somewhere else or in following years. • Based on the best available data, review of the population trends of these species, and a review of the habitat changes proposed in this project, there is no reason to believe that this project is likely to significantly affect the larger population trends of this species. • Based on the distribution of population trends as documented in Table 2 of Appendix 2, there is no obvious pattern that would suggest that any species is acting as an indicator for a precipitous decline or loss of population for a group of species.
Part 1: Background ______In 1979 and again in 1982, 1996, and most recently in 2005, the Secretary of Agriculture adopted comprehensive planning regulations under the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA). These legal commitments, as developed in the Code of Federal Regulations, require forest planning to: “provide for diversity of plant and animal communities and tree species consistent with the overall multiple use objectives of the planning area.” (36 C.F.R. §219.26 (1996).
The regulations also require that the Forests, where appropriate and to the extent practicable, “shall preserve and enhance the diversity of plant and animal communities ... so that it is at least as great as that which would be expected in a natural forest and the diversity of tree species similar to that existing in the planning area.”
The use of management indicator species (MIS) as developed in 36 CFR 219.19 and individual Land and Resource Management Plans provides us with a mechanism for maintaining effective stewardship of our public lands relative to preserving and enhancing the diversity of our ecosystems. The Shasta-Trinity Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), 1994, identified nine terrestrial wildlife habitat assemblages as management indicators.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – I-1 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix I: Management Indicator Species – May 2006
The Forest monitors and maintains population level data at several different scales. By monitoring larger scale trend data, such as the breeding bird survey (BBS), we are able to inform ourselves of potential concerns regarding the population growth or stability of a species. The Breeding Bird Survey measures the relative abundance of bird species in a given area during the early summer. At the larger scales of the BBS, the population data is buffered from localized fluctuations and therefore more robust. Trends in this data can serve as bellwethers of some level of concern. The trends inform us regarding which species we may want to watch for unanticipated, detrimental population level effects, whether these be declines, or with some species, increases. Noting the effects, we can at least speculate on its causes and whether or not our management actions may help, hinder or act neutrally towards any given species. The BBS data is the only large-scale, long-term comprehensive monitoring program to give us the kind of data necessary for seeing long-term, population scale trend changes. We have no corresponding large-scale population trend level data for mammals, reptiles nor amphibians. The value of this program is well-illustrated in the Breeding Bird Survey’s notable success as an indicator of population level changes. In 1989, the publication of a paper by the Breeding Bird Survey’s founder Chandler Robbins documented what many had already suspected, the precipitous decline of neotropical migrants in the northeast of the United States. This decline had been long suspected to be associated with the loss of wintering habitat in the tropics and the shift of breeding habitat abundance in the northeast from early seral old-field communities to mid-seral forestland {DeGraaf & Miller 1996 #1282}. This bellwether alarm provoked agencies and private partners into forming Partners in Flight to address issues of decline. The BBS acted as an indicator leading eventually to an Executive Order mandating Federal Agencies cooperation in addressing neotropical migrant conservation. The dual strategy of long-term monitoring of habitat components for changes in abundance and distribution and the support and monitoring of the Breeding Bird Survey provides the Forest with a system for informing management of larger, ecosystem level effects that may affect native biodiversity. This provides a system of indicators which fulfill our obligations under the NFMA and the LRMP to be good stewards of native biodiversity. Project level monitoring is neither required, nor is it useful as an indicator. As an indicator, the small scale of project level monitoring is not robust enough and too prone to small scale fluctuations and variations that are difficult to account for.
Part 2: Additional Analysis ______Species descriptions and relevant life history information is documented in Appendix 1. The wildlife portion of the Brown’s Integrated Project EIS selects the northern spotted owl as a suitable management indicator species for the late-successional and old-growth assemblage. As stated in the EIS, the northern spotted owl is highly associated with late-successional and old-growth habitats and typically generates a high degree of public interest. It is also one of the best researched species in northern California and one of the few with an active and specific range-wide demographic monitoring system. The analysis of impacts to the northern spotted owl as developed in the EIS and
I-2 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix I: Management Indicator Species – May 2006 the BA indicates that the proposed project is unlikely to affect population trends in any significant manner. However, in order to support decision-making in the Browns Project, we have supplemented the analysis of the Northern Spotted Owl with additional analysis of population trends of some selected species. These species were selected because of their occurrence in habitat types that are affected by the proposed project, and for their availability of data. The EIS and the Biological Assessment comprehensively analyze the direct, indirect and cumulative effects to old-growth habitat. In summary, relative to owl definitions, the project will affect a total of 545 acres of northern spotted owl habitat. This includes acres removed, acres downgraded and acres degraded. Downgrading represents a significant change in condition that may, for instance, modify suitable nesting and roosting habitat to foraging habitat. Degrading represents a less significant change in habitat conditions that may decrease the utility of the habitat to a species, but will still allow its use for the same purposes.
The break down is as follows: • Will affect 61 acres of high quality old-growth habitat 2 acres will be removed, 59 acres will be degraded. • Will affect 312 acres of dense late-successional, moderate quality nesting and roosting habitat, 15 acres will be removed 275 acres will be downgraded and 22 acres will be degraded. • Will affect 172 acres of moderately dense late successional foraging habitat 10 acres will be removed and 162 acres will be degraded.
These modifications are not necessarily concentrated in one unit, but spread amongst the units of the sale. Appendix 2 lists the results of over thirty years of Breeding Bird Survey monitoring in the California Foothill region. Table 1 lists those terrestrial birds with 1966-2003 population trend data greater than a negative 5%. Of those 23 species, the olive-sided flycatcher and the hermit thrush are associated with late-seral habitats. The olive-sided flycatcher has seen a 5.8 % decrease in the population over those years with a 0% probability of the number being by chance, and the hermit thrush has seen a 7.3% decrease with a 25% probability of the decrease being by chance. These would make suitable species to supplement the Northern spotted owl analysis for management indicator species.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – I-3 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix I: Management Indicator Species – May 2006
Part 3: Impact Analysis ______
Olive-sided Flycatcher Although associated with late-successional forests, in breeding season, olive-sided flycatchers are commonly found in other conifer forests as well, including exotic cypress or eucalyptus groves {Fix & Bezener 2000 #2196}. This flexibility makes it more difficult to determine the population-level effects of a project. The following assumes a lesser degree of flexibility than is indicated by the literature. The ability of olive-sided flycatchers to use a variety of conifer forests probably decreases the effect of degraded stands. It is likely that any local pairs would continue to use these in more or less the same manner. The most significant impact would be the removal of coniferous forests on 27 acres of forestland. Even if we assumed that the removal all occurred in one area (the greatest possible impact), we are likely to impact no more than a little less than a quarter of a typical home territory.
Conclusion Although distributed unevenly, based on an assumed territory size of 111 acres (cited above from the Sierra Nevada), the 27 acres of removed forestland would impact one territory (one pair) significantly. If the pair were not able to shift territory, it may lose a breeding season, reducing reproduction that year. Assuming that the pair is able to adapt to the new forest configuration, the impact will be loss of reproduction in that one year. Given the large home ranges of these species, it is not likely that this impact would be significant in the larger population and probably not affect either local, regional or rangewide population trends in any measurable manner.
Hermit Thrush Similar to the Olive-sided Flycatcher, the hermit thrush lives in a variety of coniferous forest types. Although associated with late-successional forests, in the breeding season, hermit thrushes are commonly found in a variety of montane coniferous forests and moist coastal forests in the north of the State {Fix & Bezener 2000 #2196}. The hermit thrushes ability to live in a variety of coniferous habitats makes it more difficult to determine the population level effects of a project. The ability of olive-sided flycatchers to use a variety of conifer forests probably decreases the effect of degraded stands. If a stand becomes degraded significantly, the individual or pair may have the option of changing territories. If it is not ‘downgraded” or made unsuitable for a particular use such as nesting or foraging, then it is likely that any local pairs would continue to use these in more or less the same manner. The most significant impact would be the removal of coniferous forests on 27 acres of forestland. The strong discrepancy between the average home range size (8.4 pairs per 100 acres averaged over the five data points) and the territory size (1.5 to 2.5 acres or about 50 pairs per 100 acres) is probably due to an uneven distribution. A single territory in suitable habitat may be small, but we would assume that the territories would be interspersed with a lot of unsuitable habitat.
I-4 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix I: Management Indicator Species – May 2006
Conclusion If we assume that the average 8.4 pairs per 100 acres would be found in the project area, then the 27 acres of forestland, if concentrated in one area of the project, would be likely to significantly impact the territories of at least two pair (assuming 1 pair occupies about 12 acres of forestland – 8.4 acres for the territory itself and the remainder for unsuitable areas). If we assume the greatest impact, the complete removal of two territories, then the two pairs are likely to lose both of their clutches for that year. The pairs themselves may die because of the impact, either directly during the operation or indirectly in the attempt to adapt by moving or living on site. If they shift territories, they may survive, but are unlikely to successfully breed that year. Given the large species range of the Hermit Thrush, it is not likely that this impact would be significant in the larger population and probably not affect either local, regional or rangewide population trends in any measurable manner.
Appendix 1: Species Descriptions
The Olive-sided Flycatcher (http://www.birds.cornell.edu/bfl/speciesaccts/olsfly.html) The olive-sided flycatcher is widespread across western and central Alaska over the boreal and mixed forests of Canada to southern Labrador, Newfoundland, and the Maritime provinces; also south to central Minnesota, northern Michigan, northeastern Ohio, the Adirondack Mountains, and western Massachusetts; breeds locally in high Appalachians south to Tennessee and North Carolina. The species typically winters in South America, mainly in the Andes from Colombia and Venezuela to southeastern Peru; but also in small numbers in Central America and southern Mexico, also in Amazonian and southeastern Brazil. It breeds primarily in montane and northern coniferous forests, usually at mid- to high-elevations. Within coniferous forest biome, the species is most often associated with forest openings, forest edges near natural openings (e.g., meadows, bogs, canyons, rivers) or human-made openings (e.g., harvest units), or open to semi-open forest stands. Presence in early successional forest appears dependent on availability of snags or residual live trees for foraging and singing perches. Frequently occurs along wooded shores of streams, lakes, rives, beaver ponds, bogs and muskegs, where natural edge habitat occurs and standing dead trees often are present.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – I-5 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix I: Management Indicator Species – May 2006
In the Sierra Nevada, eastside pine forests, this species had an estimated home range of about 111 acres. In Virginia, a mean territory was about 20 acres {Zeiner, Laudenslayer Jr., et al. 1990 #1918}. Unlike many other flycatcher species that can attack prey by hovering and striking or pouncing on prey on the ground, Olive-sided Flycatchers are restricted almost entirely to sallying for aerial prey. This species typically sallies out to snatch a flying insect, then returns to the same or another prominent perch. The Olive-sided flycatcher is a passive sit-and-wait predator, remaining perched until prey is sighted, then actively pursues prey, including insects that are often difficult to capture. Their diet consists almost exclusively of flying insects. Bees, wasps, and flying ants make up a large portion of the diet; but they also take flies, moths, grasshoppers and dragonflies. In Alaska, the olive-sided flycatcher eats Yellow-jacket Wasps. Female appears to choose the nest site, although some males suggest locations by repeatedly flying to certain branches while female is nearby and bellying down into foliage as if molding lining of a nest. Generally, they build their nests saddled on top of a horizontal branch, well out toward the tip, often where an overhanging branch provides some security and protection from weather. Mostly they nest in coniferous trees, although they have been observed in trembling aspen and willow. Their average nest height is 32 feet (10 meters). The female constructs a loosely formed, somewhat bulky, shallow and relatively small nest. The foundation and frame is mostly made up from twigs and rootlets, but they also use arboreal lichens. They produce 3 eggs, sometimes 4, creamy white, buff or pale salmon eggs with ring or wreath of spots or small blotches near large end. Female will incubate for 15-19 days and the male may bring food to the female on the nest, particularly during early incubation. Little is known of their actual nesting period, but seems to last about 3 weeks, typically between 15-19 days. The actual time of fledgling departure from the nest is difficult to ascertain because nestlings spend time on branches near the nest before their first flight, and some birds return to the nest or nest branches after fledging. Some departures, particularly when the nestling period is protracted or when other nestling have already departed, are solicited by adults with food. Most pairs brood a single clutch a year. In spite of its very large range, this species occurs in overall low density and is of great conservation concern, because of precipitous population declines in nearly every region. An overall loss of 67% has been noted since 1966. Deforestation in its Andean wintering range is a likely culprit, although understanding this species’ sensitivity to silvicultural and other land-use practices will be important for conserving future populations.
Behavior and Displays • Flight usually direct, fast, and efficient with deep rapid wing-beats and sharp turns when pursuing prey or chasing predators; walking or hopping rarely observed. • When flushed off nest during incubation, female often drops down toward ground without beating wings. • Nesting pairs generally are well spaced and require relatively large territory.
I-6 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix I: Management Indicator Species – May 2006
Courtship • Male pursues female through territory, making several short, looping display flights near perched female. • Receptive female may fly with male, the birds make shallow, synchronized downward swoops together with 1 bird approximately 3 feet (1 meter) above the other. • Female solicits copulation by landing on branch near male and rapidly fluttering half-open wings. • Male also may reinforce pair bond during incubation by occasionally swooping at a perched female to force her back on nest.
Cowbird Parasitism: Rare host species for Brown-headed Cowbird, possibly due to aggressive defense around nest site.
The Hermit Thrush (http://www.birds.cornell.edu/bfl/speciesaccts/herthr.html) The Hermit thrush breeds from Alaska, central Yukon, north-central Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, south-central Quebec and Labrador, Newfoundland, and Nova Scotia; south to the mountains of southern California, Arizona, southern New Mexico, and extreme western Texas. It also frequents the upper Midwest, north-central and northeastern Minnesota, central Wisconsin, north-central Michigan and in the East to the mountains of West Virginia and Maryland, and along the Atlantic coastal plain to Long Island and central New Jersey. Typically, the species over-winters in the Southern United States, northeast to southern New England and south to Guatemala and El Salvador. They inhabit a variety of coniferous and mixed conifer-hardwood forests up to approximately 4,000 feet in the northern Appalachians and up to the tree line in the Western Mountains. Surveys found a preference for dry coniferous forests such as jack-pine plains and conifer plantations, as well as mesic mixed forest types dominated by northern hardwoods and spruce (Granlund et al. 1994). Also favor edges such as the margins of lakes, clearings, burns, and second-growth areas rather than the interior of mature stands of trees. There is some overlap with Veeries and Swainson’s Thrushes, but Veeries generally prefer wetter, more deciduous woodlands, and Swainson’s Thrushes tend to breed more within the forest interior. Among the forest thrushes, the Hermit Thrush is the one species that shows stable or even increasing population trends throughout its large range. Breeding bird data however, show it to be moderately decreasing in the California Foothills. This data however is based on a small sample size and has a large error level. Breeding densities in Arizona were 1.1 pairs per 100 acre in fir-pine-aspen stands, 8 pairs per 100 acres in Ponderosa Pine and 10 to 13 pairs per 100 acres in spruce-fir forest. In a bay-Bishop Pine- mixed forest in Marin Co, CA, researchers found about 10 males per 100 acres. The same researchers sketched 3 territories varying from 1.5 to 2.5 acres in the spruce fir forest in Arizona {Zeiner, Laudenslayer Jr., et al. 1990 #1918} .
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – I-7 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix I: Management Indicator Species – May 2006
The species forages mostly on the ground by hopping and then stopping abruptly to scan for prey. They turn fallen leaves over with bill to search for food and glean from foliage and branches in the understory and in young saplings, occasionally much higher up in the trees. Sometimes they will take insects or berries from the vegetation above the ground while hovering. They eat mostly beetles, ants, caterpillars, grasshoppers, crickets, spiders, sow bugs, snails, earthworms, and sometimes salamanders. In the fall and winter, they eat more fruit: pokeberries, serviceberries, grapes, elderberries, mistletoe berries, and raspberries. This species is seemingly tolerant of various disturbances, but in many areas it is a species associated with large and mature forests. Researchers do not know why this species is successful while other closely related thrushes are declining. • Often sings from a high, exposed perch. Begins singing in the pre-dawn and sings past dusk. • Incessantly flicks wings, a behavior that distinguishes this species from other forest thrushes. • Wing flash: stands erect and orients wing or wings toward another bird. Flashes the wing quickly, displaying a buffy wing-stripe, and then flees. • Raises and lowers its tail after alighting or when alarmed. • When performing an agonistic display (a behavior used to threaten another bird), the bird holds its body in a sleek, erect posture with the bill pointing upwards, raised crest, and flicking wings. • Has been observed “anting.” Anting occurs when a bird picks up a single ant or group of ants and rubs them on its feathers. The purpose of this behavior is not well understood. It is thought that birds may be able to acquire defensive secretions from the ant possibly used for some medicinal purpose. Also may be a supplement to the birds own preen oil. • Wild, circular courtship flights within territory with the male chasing the female. In 1-2 days the flights become more leisurely.
The nest site, in the East, is usually on the ground well hidden under a small tree, bush, fern, or in a natural depression. In the West, the species generally nests above ground in a tree or shrub, conifer sapling, or on top of a stump or log. There are some accounts of nests under the eaves of a building or on a rock ledge. Generally found near an edge or gap rather than in the interior of a forest. The female generally incubates alone for 12-13 days. The male, however feeds the female on the nest. Males also guard their territory by perching on a dead snag or a branch of a conifer about 40 feet from the nest and singing frequently. The nestlings are altricial (born naked or with a small amount of down, eyes closed, unable to move or feed themselves). Parents both feed the young and keep the nest clean. The young’s eyes will open at 3-4 days, feather plumes erupt from the sheaths at 7 days, and young leave the nest after 10-12 days. The parents coax the young to leap from the nest to the ground to be fed upon first fledging. There is no information on how long the parents feed the young out of the nest. A typical pair hatch two broods per season. A study done in Massachusetts however, found that they sometimes lay a third brood. They are occasionally parasitized by cowbirds, but more information is needed concerning the effect of brood parasites.
I-8 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix I: Management Indicator Species – May 2006
Appendix 2
Table 1: BBS Data, California Foothills Terrestrial Birds that occur or may occur on the Shasta Trinity National Forest with Negative trends > 5 for the 1966 – 2003 period (Those species associated with late-seral habitats are highlighted)
1966-2003 Trends 1966-1979 1980 - 2003 Species Trend P N ( 95% CI ) R.A. Trend P N Trend P N Sharp-shinned Hawk -14.4 0.28 6 -37.7 8.9 0.01 ------20.9 0.1 4 Barn Owl -5.6 0 8 -8.2 -3.1 0.04 28.8 0.54 4 -23.3 0.12 6 Allen’s Hummingbird -12.9 0.01 11 -20.4 -5.3 0.13 -3.2 0.82 8 -17.3 0.14 6 Sapsucker (3 species) -9.4 0 12 -13.3 -5.5 0.1 -3.8 0.7 7 -15 0 9 Red-breasted Sapsucker -9.6 0 12 -13.8 -5.3 0.1 -3.8 0.69 7 -15.2 0 9 Olive-sided Flycatcher -5.8 0 33 -8.9 -2.6 1.45 -1.2 0.78 26 -6.1 0.03 29 Willow Flycatcher -17.8 0.38 5 -53.2 17.5 0.01 ------16.8 0.56 2 Willow/Alder Flycatcher -18.4 0.36 5 -53.6 16.8 0.01 ------17.1 0.56 2 Cassin’s Kingbird -6.3 0.43 9 -21.1 8.5 0.1 -13.1 0.74 4 -6.8 0.37 4 Horned Lark -5.3 0.06 18 -10.6 -0.1 2.06 -0.2 0.95 16 -8 0.12 15 Purple Martin -6.1 0.45 6 -20.6 8.5 0.12 -17.9 0.37 3 -1.5 0.82 4 Bank Swallow -14.5 0.44 3 -44.2 15.1 0.42 -25.8 0.17 3 ------Rock Wren -6.4 0.19 26 -15.8 3 0.38 -3.5 0.86 18 -7.4 0.13 18 Canyon Wren -5.2 0.34 24 -15.8 5.3 0.5 -15.2 0.14 15 -6.6 0.01 23 Hermit Thrush -7.3 0.25 11 -18.9 4.3 0.12 2.7 0.87 6 2.2 0.68 8 MacGillivray’s Warbler -14.6 0.12 11 -31.6 2.4 0.13 -13.8 0.6 2 -13.9 0.03 10 Chipping Sparrow -6.2 0 39 -9 -3.4 2.1 -5.3 0.24 31 -6.2 0 32 Black-chinned Sparrow -9.9 0.02 16 -17 -2.8 1.44 -10 0.24 10 -11.1 0.45 10 Black-throated Sparrow -6.9 0.75 4 -46.4 32.5 0.34 51.8 0.77 2 0.5 0.93 3 Yellow-head. Blackbird -15.9 0.32 3 -39.9 8.1 0.03 ------8.9 0.63 2 Cassin’s Finch -29.7 0.24 7 -74.8 15.4 0.25 -11.3 0.83 4 -8.9 0.66 5 Trend data presented for three time periods - 1966-2003, 1966-1979 and 1980-2003 Trend: Estimated trend, summarized as a % change/year. P = Statistical level of significance: Because the trends are estimates, we conduct a statistical test to determine whether the trend is significantly different from 0, The lower the number, the less likely that a particular value would have occurred by chance alone. A “0.01” indicates a 1% probability that a number would have occurred by chance. A very low number indicates that we cannot reject the null hypothesis that the trend is different from 0. N: Number of survey routes in the analysis. Caution should be used in interpreting any result that was based on fewer than 50 routes. 95% CI = 95% confidence interval for the trend estimate: Estimated as a multiplicative (constant rate) change in counts over time, with covariables to adjust for differences in observer quality. R. A.: Relative abundance for the species, in birds/route. This number is an approximate measure of how many birds are seen on a route in the region.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – I-9 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix I: Management Indicator Species – May 2006
Table 2: BBS Data, California Foothills Birds that occur or may occur on the Shasta Trinity National Forest (Negative trends > 5 for the 1966 – 2003 period are highlighted)
1966-2003 Trends 1966-1979 1980 - 2003 Species Trend P N ( 95% CI ) R.A. Trend P N Trend P N Pied-billed Grebe 5 0.3 18 -4.3 14.3 0.24 11.8 0.52 7 -0.1 0.95 13 Western/Clark’s Grebe 21 0.39 8 -24.1 66.1 0.28 25.1 0.75 2 37.2 0.02 7 Double-crest. Cormorant 37.2 0.12 10 -5.5 79.9 0.06 ------13.9 0.12 10 Great Blue Heron 1.8 0.1 38 -0.3 3.8 0.89 4.6 0.63 21 1 0.69 35 Great Egret 27.7 0.15 12 -7.4 62.8 0.11 ------20.3 0.19 12 Snowy Egret -5.2 0.48 4 -17.9 7.5 0.02 ------1.1 0.77 4 Green Heron 6.3 0.07 14 0 12.6 0.14 53.4 0.3 2 4.3 0.17 14 Black-crn. Night Heron -1.8 0.66 8 -9.8 6.1 0.06 ------8.3 0.35 7 Turkey Vulture 2.7 0.02 51 0.5 4.9 4.32 1.2 0.7 39 3.3 0 47 Canada Goose 23.1 0 10 12.4 33.8 0.38 ------25.7 0 10 Wood Duck 7.7 0 13 3.5 11.9 0.21 71.4 0.51 2 6.5 0.04 12 Mallard 5.5 0 41 2.9 8.1 2.02 4.5 0.61 19 5.2 0.01 34 Cinnamon Teal -5.5 0.04 8 -10 -1.1 0.12 27.9 0.37 4 -5.1 0.1 6 Common Merganser 9.4 0.09 9 -0.2 19 0.09 ------8.2 0.1 9 Ruddy Duck 3.1 0.71 4 -12.1 18.4 0.07 ------2.7 0.61 4 Osprey 3.9 0.25 7 -2 9.8 0.06 ------4 0.73 7 White-tailed Kite 2.1 0.37 19 -2.3 6.5 0.3 11 0.47 12 0.5 0.86 15 Northern Harrier 10.9 0.37 9 -11.4 33.1 0.07 3 0.81 5 15.9 0.37 4 Sharp-shinned Hawk -14.4 0.28 6 -37.7 8.9 0.01 ------20.9 0.1 4 Cooper’s Hawk 0.9 0.87 28 -9.5 11.3 0.14 -11.1 0.33 11 -8.3 0.01 18 Red-shouldered Hawk 11.4 0 35 5.3 17.6 0.55 14.7 0.43 10 8.9 0.04 33 Red-tailed Hawk 0.8 0.13 55 -0.2 1.8 3.69 -2.8 0.17 48 1.6 0.04 49 Golden Eagle 7.6 0.08 14 -0.2 15.3 0.06 22.9 0.16 5 7 0.19 11 American Kestrel -2.1 0.04 53 -3.9 -0.2 2.26 -5.2 0.07 41 -1 0.45 48 Prairie Falcon 8.9 0.46 4 -11.7 29.6 0.01 6 0.33 2 -4.8 0.25 3 Ring-necked Pheasant 0.2 0.96 17 -7.1 7.5 0.77 -2.7 0.6 12 -1 0.79 13 Wild Turkey 24.4 0 15 20.5 28.3 0.31 ------25.2 0 15 Mountain Quail 1.4 0.27 36 -1 3.7 4.68 11.8 0.02 22 1.5 0.39 31 California Quail 0.9 0.19 57 -0.4 2.1 20.23 1.3 0.56 48 1.1 0.15 53 Common Moorhen 10.1 0.32 2 -0.8 21.1 0.01 ------American Coot 5.7 0.32 18 -5.3 16.7 0.6 -12.9 0.51 10 3.7 0.51 14 Killdeer -2.5 0.01 46 -4.4 -0.6 3.59 3.3 0.24 38 -3 0.04 41 Black-necked Stilt 15.7 0.29 2 0.4 31 0.01 ------15.6 0.3 2 American Avocet 8.7 0.63 2 -17.1 34.4 0.01 ------8.3 0.64 2
I-10 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix I: Management Indicator Species – May 2006
1966-2003 Trends 1966-1979 1980 - 2003 Species Trend P N ( 95% CI ) R.A. Trend P N Trend P N Spotted Sandpiper 3.8 0.24 11 -2.1 9.7 0.06 22.9 0.3 5 -0.6 0.83 8 Common Snipe 69.9 0.36 2 -15.9 155.7 0.02 ------Ring-billed Gull -23.6 0.34 3 -60.4 13.2 0.08 3.9 0.94 3 -53.2 0.08 2 California Gull 2.9 0.6 6 -7.4 13.3 0.09 -2.5 0.55 3 -3.9 0.76 4 Western Gull -23.1 0.16 2 -35.1 -11.1 0.82 -45.1 0.26 2 ------Caspian Tern 9.5 0.09 6 0.7 18.3 0.14 13.8 0.13 3 4 0.59 5 Forster’s Tern 2.4 0.77 3 -12.1 17 0.04 ------0.7 0.92 3 Rock Dove -0.6 0.65 35 -3 1.9 4.91 10.2 0.3 27 -1.1 0.62 26 Band-tailed Pigeon -2.3 0.44 39 -8.3 3.6 2.61 16 0.09 23 -4.7 0.13 34 Mourning Dove -1.3 0.03 58 -2.4 -0.2 36.02 0 0.99 48 -0.9 0.24 55 Greater Roadrunner 1.3 0.83 9 -10.2 12.7 0.07 37.2 0.01 5 -19.8 0.18 6 Barn Owl -5.6 0 8 -8.2 -3.1 0.04 28.8 0.54 4 -23.3 0.12 6 Western Screech-Owl -4.2 0.54 6 -16.8 8.4 0.02 22 0.14 2 0.1 1 4 Great Horned Owl 0 0.99 42 -4 4 0.71 6.7 0.17 24 -4.1 0.22 38 Northern Pygmy-Owl 2.3 0.13 17 -0.6 5.2 0.1 2.9 0.92 4 -3.1 0.22 16 Lesser Nighthawk -0.4 0.94 5 -11.9 11 0.08 17 0.22 2 -5.6 0.45 4 Common Nighthawk -3.4 0.51 3 -11.7 4.9 0.03 8.4 0.21 2 ------Common Poorwill -4.5 0.46 13 -16.1 7 0.07 -12.8 0.43 4 -12.2 0.22 9 Black Swift 32.3 0.23 4 -9.8 74.4 0.09 49.7 0.44 2 130.6 0.15 2 Vaux’s Swift 12.3 0.5 5 -20.4 45 0.06 ------9 0.49 4 White-throated Swift 0.4 0.86 23 -4.3 5.2 4.14 -1.9 0.58 15 -0.4 0.91 19 Black-chin. Hummingbird -3.6 0.27 22 -9.9 2.7 0.33 -20.8 0.07 12 -8.4 0.02 17 Anna’s Hummingbird 0.8 0.29 56 -0.7 2.4 3.12 -4.2 0.24 38 2.2 0 52 Costa’s Hummingbird 7.2 0.43 9 -9.6 24 0.48 -2 0.93 5 0.4 0.95 8 Allen’s Hummingbird -12.9 0.01 11 -20.4 -5.3 0.13 -3.2 0.82 8 -17.3 0.14 6 Belted Kingfisher -4.2 0.01 27 -7.1 -1.3 0.23 3 0.64 19 -6.8 0.02 20 Lewis’s Woodpecker 8.4 0.33 6 -6.7 23.5 0.08 -1.5 0.93 5 20.1 0.58 4 Acorn Woodpecker 1 0.01 57 0.3 1.8 32.68 1.3 0.61 47 1.6 0 54 Sapsucker (3 species) -9.4 0 12 -13.3 -5.5 0.1 -3.8 0.7 7 -15 0 9 Red-breasted Sapsucker -9.6 0 12 -13.8 -5.3 0.1 -3.8 0.69 7 -15.2 0 9 Nuttall’s Woodpecker -0.2 0.87 52 -2.2 1.9 4.47 -1.7 0.47 41 -0.6 0.48 49 Downy Woodpecker -1.3 0.53 44 -5.2 2.7 0.61 -9.6 0.02 21 -1.9 0.45 36 Hairy Woodpecker -0.2 0.88 30 -3.1 2.7 0.44 16 0.02 15 -1.8 0.45 27 White-headed Woodpecker -0.8 0.84 11 -8.1 6.5 0.18 44 0.34 5 -4.4 0.51 9 Northern Flicker -2.3 0 56 -3.5 -1.1 3.99 -2.5 0.26 46 -2.3 0 50 Pileated Woodpecker 3.2 0.37 9 -3.5 9.9 0.17 4.6 0.75 4 -1.8 0.47 9
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – I-11 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix I: Management Indicator Species – May 2006
1966-2003 Trends 1966-1979 1980 - 2003 Species Trend P N ( 95% CI ) R.A. Trend P N Trend P N Olive-sided Flycatcher -5.8 0 33 -8.9 -2.6 1.45 -1.2 0.78 26 -6.1 0.03 29 Western Wood-Pewee -3.8 0 56 -5.6 -2.1 8.22 -3.9 0.13 41 -3.5 0 52 Willow Flycatcher -17.8 0.38 5 -53.2 17.5 0.01 ------16.8 0.56 2 Willow/Alder Flycatcher -18.4 0.36 5 -53.6 16.8 0.01 ------17.1 0.56 2 Hammond’s Flycatcher 4.8 0.79 8 -29.4 39 0.09 ------26.5 0.67 8 Dusky Flycatcher 8 0.17 10 -2.5 18.5 0.32 137.2 0.4 2 5.2 0.41 10 Pac.-sl./Co. Flycatcher 0.1 0.94 45 -2.7 2.9 3.56 -2.3 0.26 25 0.2 0.92 42 Black Phoebe 1.1 0.11 56 -0.2 2.5 2.79 9.8 0.01 36 -0.9 0.43 53 Say’s Phoebe 2.2 0.28 6 -1.4 5.8 0.1 -14.4 0.71 3 1.2 0.52 4 Ash-throated Flycatcher 0.4 0.65 57 -1.3 2.2 19.01 2.6 0.33 47 -0.1 0.93 53 Cassin’s Kingbird -6.3 0.43 9 -21.1 8.5 0.1 -13.1 0.74 4 -6.8 0.37 4 Western Kingbird 0.1 0.91 52 -1.1 1.3 14.4 1.2 0.56 42 0.3 0.67 48 Loggerhead Shrike -1.7 0.41 30 -5.7 2.3 0.8 -6.3 0.3 21 2.4 0.55 25 Cassin’s Vireo -0.1 0.95 34 -1.8 1.7 2.12 2.4 0.38 15 0.5 0.63 30 Hutton’s Vireo 0.6 0.6 46 -1.7 3 1.86 0.4 0.96 21 0.4 0.8 41 Warbling Vireo -1.6 0.01 46 -2.9 -0.4 2.55 0 0.98 29 -3.5 0.01 40 Steller’s Jay 1.2 0.04 39 0.1 2.4 6.57 4 0.3 25 1.2 0.15 37 Western Scrub-Jay 0.6 0.11 58 -0.1 1.2 27.52 1 0.39 47 0.5 0.32 55 Clark’s Nutcracker 176.1 0.34 2 -24.9 377.1 0.01 77.4 0.58 2 ------Yellow-billed Magpie -0.1 0.92 26 -2 1.8 7.58 -2.9 0.11 21 0.5 0.65 24 American Crow 1.9 0.01 44 0.6 3.2 9.44 2.1 0.46 34 2.1 0.01 36 Common Raven 6.8 0 46 3.6 9.9 4.29 1.7 0.82 19 8.2 0 44 Horned Lark -5.3 0.06 18 -10.6 -0.1 2.06 -0.2 0.95 16 -8 0.12 15 Purple Martin -6.1 0.45 6 -20.6 8.5 0.12 -17.9 0.37 3 -1.5 0.82 4 Tree Swallow 6.4 0.01 38 1.9 10.9 2.86 2 0.63 17 5.6 0.06 34 Violet-green Swallow -3 0.01 54 -5.3 -0.8 10.38 1.2 0.69 46 -5.1 0.02 49 N. Rough-winged Swallow -3.8 0.02 47 -6.7 -0.8 2.06 -11.5 0 33 -2.1 0.19 36 Bank Swallow -14.5 0.44 3 -44.2 15.1 0.42 -25.8 0.17 3 ------Cliff Swallow -1.5 0.18 53 -3.7 0.7 69.87 -1.1 0.71 42 -2.4 0.13 50 Barn Swallow -1.4 0.19 36 -3.5 0.7 4.26 -3.4 0.36 28 -2.1 0.06 31 Mountain Chickadee -2.9 0.07 22 -5.9 0.1 2.61 -3.2 0.69 17 -3.2 0.17 21 Chestnut-bkd. Chickadee -2.3 0.32 20 -6.7 2.1 2.87 -1.9 0.62 11 -5.1 0.01 16 Oak Titmouse -1.4 0.07 57 -2.9 0.1 19.61 1.6 0.54 46 -1.7 0.02 54 Bushtit -2.2 0.18 57 -5.4 1 11.11 -1.6 0.71 45 -3.9 0.05 52 Red-breasted Nuthatch 0.1 0.9 23 -2.1 2.4 1.41 27.6 0.06 14 0.4 0.81 22 White-breasted Nuthatch 2.2 0.09 53 -0.3 4.8 7.11 8.4 0.19 35 1.1 0.57 48
I-12 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix I: Management Indicator Species – May 2006
1966-2003 Trends 1966-1979 1980 - 2003 Species Trend P N ( 95% CI ) R.A. Trend P N Trend P N Pygmy Nuthatch 3.8 0.63 7 -11 18.6 0.9 -11.7 0.58 5 0.6 0.94 6 Brown Creeper -2 0.32 26 -5.8 1.8 0.83 3.1 0.48 15 -3.9 0.35 24 Rock Wren -6.4 0.19 26 -15.8 3 0.38 -3.5 0.86 18 -7.4 0.13 18 Canyon Wren -5.2 0.34 24 -15.8 5.3 0.5 -15.2 0.14 15 -6.6 0.01 23 Bewick’s Wren -1.9 0.05 58 -3.7 -0.1 10.91 -1.4 0.7 46 -2.3 0.11 53 House Wren 0 0.99 51 -2.2 2.2 8.46 -4.4 0.15 36 -0.5 0.56 47 Winter Wren 16.6 0.52 4 -27.7 60.9 0.17 ------50.2 0.51 4 American Dipper 2 0.7 2 -5.6 9.5 0.03 ------0.6 0.87 2 Golden-crowned Kinglet 29.7 0.53 9 -60 119.5 0.36 21.9 0.47 2 18.6 0.48 8 Ruby-crowned Kinglet 10.7 0.83 4 -77 98.4 0.05 42.7 0.4 4 ------Blue-gray Gnatcatcher 0.5 0.68 39 -2 3.1 1.44 1.9 0.86 22 0.3 0.84 34 Western Bluebird -1.5 0.02 54 -2.6 -0.3 7.78 -2.8 0.45 44 -1.3 0.08 51 Townsend’s Solitaire 8.4 0.58 6 -19.5 36.3 0.05 ------1.6 0.89 6 Swainson’s Thrush -3.1 0.37 14 -9.7 3.4 0.45 -6.4 0.29 9 -2.6 0.31 10 Hermit Thrush -7.3 0.25 11 -18.9 4.3 0.12 2.7 0.87 6 2.2 0.68 8 American Robin -1.4 0.04 55 -2.7 -0.1 10.15 1 0.74 34 -1.9 0.03 52 Wrentit -1.5 0.21 54 -4 0.9 13.55 -2 0.38 40 -2.6 0.25 51 Northern Mockingbird 2.3 0 41 1.1 3.6 3.88 4.2 0.24 30 2.5 0 34 California Thrasher -3 0.07 46 -6.3 0.2 2.78 -3.8 0.33 33 -1.4 0.22 38 European Starling -1.6 0.12 55 -3.6 0.4 44.67 -5.1 0.2 45 -0.3 0.69 52 Cedar Waxwing 6.1 0.51 2 -6.4 18.6 0.3 ------0 1 2 Phainopepla 1.5 0.53 34 -3.2 6.2 1.55 -12.6 0.3 20 -1.6 0.49 30 Orange-crowned Warbler 0 0.96 49 -1.3 1.2 5.38 -1 0.67 31 -0.4 0.49 44 Nashville Warbler 0.1 0.94 19 -3.4 3.7 2.39 -2.3 0.83 9 -2.7 0.24 19 Yellow Warbler -2.6 0.09 47 -5.6 0.4 1.71 -5.5 0.16 32 -3.8 0.06 39 Yellow-rumped Warbler 1.3 0.11 18 -0.2 2.8 1.56 8.2 0.04 7 -1.5 0.23 18 Black-thr. Gray Warbler 1.3 0.32 23 -1.2 3.9 2.65 -1.5 0.82 8 2.2 0.38 22 Hermit Warbler 8.8 0.19 12 -3.5 21 0.62 21.4 0.46 5 2.5 0.73 10 MacGillivray’s Warbler -14.6 0.12 11 -31.6 2.4 0.13 -13.8 0.6 2 -13.9 0.03 10 Common Yellowthroat 5 0.06 15 0.1 9.9 0.2 -36.5 0.14 5 1.2 0.87 13 Wilson’s Warbler 0.2 0.94 38 -5.3 5.7 0.58 -4.5 0.66 24 0.2 0.96 26 Yellow-breasted Chat -0.6 0.54 24 -2.4 1.2 0.97 -8.5 0.19 9 -1.1 0.1 20 Western Tanager 1.6 0.12 45 -0.4 3.5 5.6 -3.9 0.1 29 1.5 0.21 42 Green-tailed Towhee 9.3 0.14 4 0.3 18.3 0.06 4.5 0.78 2 9.6 0.11 3 Spotted Towhee -0.7 0.29 57 -2 0.6 23.75 -2.8 0.2 45 -0.3 0.64 53 California Towhee -0.6 0.31 58 -1.6 0.5 18.72 -2 0.53 48 -0.4 0.46 54
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – I-13 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix I: Management Indicator Species – May 2006
1966-2003 Trends 1966-1979 1980 - 2003 Species Trend P N ( 95% CI ) R.A. Trend P N Trend P N Rufous-crowned Sparrow 0.4 0.9 22 -6.4 7.2 0.56 2 0.93 7 -0.2 0.93 20 Chipping Sparrow -6.2 0 39 -9 -3.4 2.1 -5.3 0.24 31 -6.2 0 32 Black-chinned Sparrow -9.9 0.02 16 -17 -2.8 1.44 -10 0.24 10 -11.1 0.45 10 Lark Sparrow -1.8 0.16 51 -4.3 0.7 5.92 5.4 0.03 37 -3.3 0.03 46 Black-throated Sparrow -6.9 0.75 4 -46.4 32.5 0.34 51.8 0.77 2 0.5 0.93 3 Sage Sparrow -2.7 0.33 14 -7.9 2.5 0.76 -1.6 0.95 5 -3.6 0.14 12 Savannah Sparrow -3.6 0.57 3 -14.3 7.1 0.01 ------10.3 0.49 2 Grasshopper Sparrow 4.2 0.01 8 2.1 6.4 0.12 -6.2 0.86 2 -7.6 0.09 8 Fox Sparrow 1.9 0.48 13 -3.3 7.2 0.75 10.2 0.35 4 0.3 0.96 11 Song Sparrow -0.3 0.82 47 -3 2.4 3.36 1.7 0.7 28 -3 0.41 41 White-crowned Sparrow 0.6 0.95 3 -14.1 15.2 0.73 7.1 0.42 3 ------Dark-eyed Junco -0.8 0.39 44 -2.7 1 7.25 -0.8 0.73 35 -1 0.46 42 Black-headed Grosbeak 0.6 0.65 58 -1.9 3 17.49 -1.1 0.68 45 0.9 0.22 53 Blue Grosbeak 6.6 0.52 7 -12.5 25.8 0.07 -1.2 0.99 2 -8 0.22 6 Lazuli Bunting -2.2 0.31 50 -6.4 2 2.37 3.4 0.31 30 -2 0.31 46 Red-winged Blackbird -0.1 0.96 50 -3.2 3 28.07 4.3 0.1 36 -1.2 0.56 46 Tricolored Blackbird 4.3 0.8 16 -28.4 37 6.32 -27.9 0.2 7 -2.3 0.77 10 Western Meadowlark -3 0.01 48 -5.2 -0.9 20.58 -3 0.09 39 -2.7 0.04 42 Yellow-head. Blackbird -15.9 0.32 3 -39.9 8.1 0.03 ------8.9 0.63 2 Brewer’s Blackbird -2.8 0 57 -3.8 -1.8 54.61 -3.7 0.13 47 -3.1 0 53 Brown-headed Cowbird -2.2 0.09 57 -4.7 0.3 7.47 6.4 0.2 42 -2.3 0.15 52 Hooded Oriole 6.3 0.41 9 -7.8 20.4 0.12 -27.9 0.28 2 4.8 0.39 8 Bullock’s Oriole -2.2 0 55 -3.2 -1.1 14.24 1.5 0.5 47 -2.2 0 51 Purple Finch -0.9 0.54 41 -3.7 1.9 2.96 4.8 0.38 27 1.6 0.75 36 Cassin’s Finch -29.7 0.24 7 -74.8 15.4 0.25 -11.3 0.83 4 -8.9 0.66 5 House Finch -2.9 0 56 -4.8 -1 50.85 -0.9 0.68 47 -1.5 0.21 52 Red Crossbill 40 0.08 5 5.6 74.3 0.07 ------20.8 0.5 4 Pine Siskin -3.4 0.92 10 -66.8 60 0.68 -22.9 0.02 9 -34.6 0.03 4 Lesser Goldfinch -1 0.35 57 -2.9 1 18.4 0.8 0.8 47 -1.5 0.03 53 Lawrence’s Goldfinch -1.5 0.43 29 -5.2 2.2 1.53 0.9 0.91 20 -7.9 0.2 25 American Goldfinch 7.2 0.04 24 0.6 13.9 1.24 -2.1 0.74 11 6.5 0.14 20 House Sparrow -1.6 0.06 48 -3.2 0 17.16 -0.3 0.88 40 -1.3 0.22 45 Trend data presented for three time periods - 1966-2003, 1966-1979 and 1980-2003 Trend: Estimated trend, summarized as a % change/year.
I-14 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix I: Management Indicator Species – May 2006
P = Statistical level of significance: Because the trends are estimates, we conduct a statistical test to determine whether the trend is significantly different from 0, The lower the number, the less likely that a particular value would have occurred by chance alone. A “0.01” indicates a 1% probability that a number would have occurred by chance. A very low number indicates that we cannot reject the null hypothesis that the trend is different from 0. N: Number of survey routes in the analysis. Caution should be used in interpreting any result that was based on fewer than 50 routes. 95% CI = 95% confidence interval for the trend estimate: Estimated as a multiplicative (constant rate) change in counts over time, with covariables to adjust for differences in observer quality. R. A.: Relative abundance for the species, in birds/route. This number is an approximate measure of how many birds are seen on a route in the region.
Reference List DeGraaf, Richard M. and Ronald Miller. “The Importance of Disturbance and Land-Use History in New England: Implications for Forested Landscapes and Wildlife Conservation.” in Conservation of Faunal Diversity in Forested Landscapes. 1st ed., Editors Richard M. DeGraaf and Ronald L. Miller, 3-36. London: Chapman & Hall, 1996.
Fix, David and Andy Bezener. Birds of Northern California. Auburn, WA: Lone Pine Press, 2000.
Zeiner, David C. and others, Editors. “California Wildlife, Volume II - Birds.” (1990):1990.
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest – I-15 Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Appendix I: Management Indicator Species – May 2006
I-16 - Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Index – May 2006
Index of Chapters 1 to 5
Alternatives Equivalent Roaded Acre, 12, 22, 34, 38, Alternative 1, 11, 14, 15, 22, 23, 43, 39, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 114 44, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, Fire 58, 59, 60, 62, 64, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, Fuels Management, iii, 18, 51, 57, 110, 73, 79, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 95, 111 96, 97, 107 Risk, 92, 107 Alternative 2, 21 Severity, 28, 51, 56, 87, 88, 89 Alternative 3, iv, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, Fish, iii, 16, 22, 28, 29, 31, 36, 41, 57, 58, 18, 21, 22, 23, 27, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48, 59, 65, 66, 74, 77, 78, 89, 90, 91, 97, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 100, 104, 106, 108, 110, 113, 114 60, 61, 62, 64, 66, 67, 69, 70, 71, 72, Fisheries, 22, 28, 51, 57, 58, 75, 89, 106, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, 84, 85, 107, 108, 110, 111, 114 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 95, 96, 98, Heritage, 23, 31, 61, 75, 93, 110 99, 100, 101, 105, 106, 107, 108 Hydrologic Unit Code, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, Alternative 4, iv, 9, 12, 13, 15, 22, 23, 65, 66, 67, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 114 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 52, 54, 56, 57, 59, Irretrievable, 107 60, 64, 67, 69, 71, 72, 74, 75, 81, 84, Irreversible, 107 86, 87, 88, 89, 92, 95, 96, 100, 101, Land and Resource Management Plan, 106, 107 6, 7, 8, 11, 30, 34, 39, 43, 52, 58, 60, 61, Alternative 5, 21 65, 67, 68, 73, 82, 88, 91, 92, 106, 107, Aquatic Conservation Strategy, 2, 7, 82, 108, 113, 114 113 Land Stability, 22, 31, 61, 62, 75, 93, 111 Best Management Practices, 17, 18, 46, Large Woody Debris, 29, 30, 108, 114 65, 66, 67, 98, 99, 100, 114 Limited Operating Period, 114 Creeks Management Indicator Species, 22, 28, East Weaver Creek, 28, 29, 32, 33, 37, 39, 40, 41, 57, 58, 67, 71, 72, 89, 91, 65, 89, 90, 91, 92, 96, 97, 99 103, 105, 114 Little Browns Creek, 29, 36, 37, 58, Northern Spotted Owl, 7, 39, 69, 111, 59, 65, 66, 67, 89, 90, 91, 92, 96, 97, 113, 114 98, 99, 100 Present Net Value, 51, 85 Rush Creek, 2, 15, 16, 22, 25, 28, 29, Riparian Reserves, 5, 7, 11, 12, 16, 17, 31, 33, 35, 36, 39, 66, 75, 83, 89, 91, 22, 58, 59, 81, 89, 91 92, 97, 98, 100, 101 Road Desired Condition, 5, 88 Building, iv, 9, 98, 99, 100, 103, 104 Effects Construction, iii, iv, 6, 9, 12, 15, 32, Cumulative Effects, 34, 44, 48, 74, 75, 46, 48, 62, 65, 66, 68, 71, 75, 76, 77, 79, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 78, 81, 84, 97, 98, 99, 100, 106, 107 93, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 100, 101, 103, Salmon, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 57 104, 105, 107, 108 Sediment, 22, 33, 34, 36, 37, 59, 64, 65, Cumulative Watershed Effects, 6, 11, 66, 67, 90, 96, 97, 98, 99, 106, 107, 108, 14, 21, 22, 34, 36, 51, 65, 89, 90, 96, 112, 113 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 108, 113, 114 Sensitive Species, 41, 67, 72 Endangered Species Act, 28, 57, 74, 108, Slope Stability, 11, 111 110, 114
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest Browns Project Final Environmental Impact Statement – Index – May 2006
Soil, 3, 9, 11, 16, 17, 18, 23, 32, 33, 34, 36, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 63, 64, 66, 75, 81, 82, 83, 84, 90, 94, 95, 96, 98, 99, 106, 107, 108, 110, 113 Standards and Guidelines, 7, 40, 41, 68, 71, 73, 103, 106, 108, 113, 114 Survey and Manage Species, 41, 48, 105 Temperature, 28, 33, 108 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive, 23, 41, 72, 73, 114 Threshold of Concern, 21, 22, 34, 39, 96, 97, 100, 101, 114, 115 Turbidity, 33, 58, 59, 90 Volume, iii, iv, 2, 3, 13, 23, 28, 59, 60 Watershed Analysis, 2, 11, 21, 101, 113, 115 Watershed Condition Class, 34, 35, 38, 39, 89, 90, 91, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 115 Wildlife, iii, 11, 14, 23, 30, 39, 41, 49, 67, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 81, 82, 87, 88, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 110, 114
Trinity River Management Unit – Shasta-Trinity National Forest