Environmental Assessment

Home , Frazier Mountain, Layia heterotricha, Layia munzii

United States Department of Agriculture Environmental

Forest Service Assessment

January 2012 Frazier Mountain Project

Mt. Pinos Ranger District, Los Padres National Forest Kern and Ventura County, California

Frazier Mt. Project

Errata Cover Sheet (dated May 21, 2012)

for the

Frazier Mt Project EA (dated January 19, 2012)

The following list includes the Frazier Mt EA errata items and changes or additions to the Project Design Features (PDFs) agreed to by all parties during the Objection Resolution Process.

• This errata sheet will be attached to the front of previously completed EA dated January 19, 2012.

Errata #1 EA pages 36-43: Table 9- Project Design Features and Table 10 - Monitoring Activities

• Replace existing Table 9- Project Design Features, with the following replacement Table 9.

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

Silviculture SL-1 All project activity will use existing classified and unclassified roads. Removal of forest products would require travel by vehicles (such as tree skidding equipment) off of existing system roads to facilitate removal. These temporary roads will be closed and obliterated where necessary following product removal. Ground equipment (such as masticators, skidders, or feller-bunchers) will be restricted to slopes of less than 35%, except for occasional pitches up to 50%. SL-2 When chipping is employed, chip depth should be no more than 2 inches scattered across no more than 75% of the project area. SL-3 In all units, as soon as possible, and no longer than 24 hours after tree cutting, all activity-created fir and pine tree stumps greater or equal to 14-inches in diameter would be treated with a borax compound (Sporax) to inhibit the spread of annosus root disease. SL-5 In all treatments, all live and dead trees posing a safety hazard to management activities or to the public will be removed within the treated areas. SL-5 General species preference for thinning trees will be: California black oak, Jeffrey pine or ponderosa pine, white fir, and live oak in descending order of preference to retain. This order of preference will be modified for individual stands to take into account management objectives such as species diversity, site and stand-specific factors, as well as other design criteria and therefore, the order of preference given in individual stand/unit prescriptions will supersede that given here. SL-6 All tree thinning will be “from below” to favor retaining larger trees over smaller trees but (1) thinning regimes will retain a proportion of the understory stocking to maintain stand vertical structural diversity, (2) large and old trees will be heavily thinned around, (3) thinning will consider species preference in tree selection, and (4) thinning will be “variable density” to increase horizontal structural diversity. Fire/Fuels/Air Quality FU-1 Slash from thinning less than 3” diameter will be reduced to less than 5 tons/acre following treatment. FU-2 CT or NCT units will be machine pile and/or hand pile and burn, depending on slope. The method of fuels piling will be determined primarily by slope. If it is over 35%, fuels will be hand piled. If less than 35% slope, then it could be machine piled.

Frazier Mt. EA-Errata page errata-1 Errata Sheet Attachment

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

AQ-1 Prescribed burning (both pile burning and underburning) will be conducted with an approved burn plan. A copy of the smoke management plan will be sent to the appropriate County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) upon completion of the burn plan. AQ-2 Prior to burning the Forest Service Prescribed Fire Manager will ensure that required burn plan components, vicinity map, and project map are mailed with a completed copy of a CB-3 to California Air Resources Board (CARB) so that CARB is familiar with the burn area for 48/72 hour forecasts. AQ-3 The County APCD would review the burn prior to project implementation. AQ-4 Smoke should not be allowed to affect highway visibility on public highways. AQ-5 A Smoke Management Report will be completed daily by the Prescribed Fire Manager, Burn Boss, or Forest Fuels staff during the burn to evaluate fire behavior, smoke venting, wind speed, wind direction, any possible excess standards and actions taken to mitigate excess. Heritage HR-1 Post-implementation survey of areas with heavy brush cover will occur. All known sites will be flagged prior to implementation, and the project manager will be notified of HR-2 their location for protection measures. Recreation Treatments implemented along the edge of East and West Frazier Mountain roads need to be held RE-1 to a minimum of disturbance by utilizing residual vegetation to discourage OHV trespass when consistent with purpose and need. Where available, downed logs will be used to fashion a barrier near the edge of the road to deter RE-2 motorized vehicle trespass activities and provide resource protection. Maintain the integrity of desired fencing and signing that currently exist along East and West Frazier RE-3 Mountain roads. No tree felling activities except for insect infested, diseased and hazard trees are proposed within RE-4 the Chuchupate Campground and Chuchupate Recreation Residence Tract perimeters; however some of the broadcast burning may overlap into the campground where feasible and practicable. Masticator will not treat brush within 150-200 feet from the edge of parking lot at the Frazier RE-5 Mountain/#118 Trailhead in order to prevent potential OHV trespass. RE-6 Utilize existing open areas that meet the criteria for landings when possible. RE-7 All temporary road segments are to be restored to their natural condition. Where there is a safety concern for recreationists, implement temporary closures in the project RE-8 area. Ensure that sufficient public and internal notice is provided prior to those closures. Throughout the duration of the project, communicate with the district recreation staff to coordinate RE-9 closures and/or consultation for privacy screening or potential OHV trespass during implementation. Visuals VQ-1 Minimize loss of vegetation screening along East, West and Frazier Mountain Roads. VQ-2 Equipment access away from view origins is preferred. If accessed directly from the view origins (highway or road) avoid linear features. VQ-3 Cut to 4” stumps within the immediate foreground. VQ-4 Feather/undulate treatment block edges and fuelbreak lines. VQ-5 Identify pockets or islands of vegetation to retain, where screening is important. VQ-6 Burn piles should be located away from the road and out of view when possible. VQ-7 Temporary drops of more than one Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) level may be made during and immediately following project implementation providing they do not exceed three years in duration. Noxious Weeds

Frazier Mt. EA-Errata page errata-2 Errata Sheet Attachment

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

NX-1 Implement Best Management Practices for weed management and control. In areas that will be subject to ground disturbing activities, treat cheatgrass seed heads to the NX-2 extent practicable with propane torches in the spring prior to treatment. Pre-treat staging areas to reduce abundance of weeds by hand pulling, grubbing, or torching where NX-3 weed species occur. NX-4 Implement aggressive weed control near transportation routes where groundcover is limited. NX-5 Assure that machines are clean and weed seed free prior to transportation into the project area NX-6 Report any newly discovered weed occurrences to the Los Padres National Forest Botanist. Botany/TES Plants BO-1 Sensitive plant surveys will occur prior to project activities. Wildlife WL-1 LRMP- S11: When occupied or suitable habitat for a threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate or sensitive (TEPCS) species is present on an ongoing or proposed project site, consider species guidance documents (see Appendix H) to develop project-specific or activity-specific design criteria. This guidance is intended to provide a range of possible conservation measures that may be selectively applied during site-specific planning to avoid, minimize or mitigate negative long-term effects on threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate or sensitive species and habitat. Involve appropriate resource specialists in the identification of relevant design criteria. Include review of species guidance documents in fire suppression or other emergency actions when and to the extent practicable. LRMP- S12: When implementing new projects in areas that provide for threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species, use design criteria and conservation practices (see Appendix H) WL-2 so that discretionary uses and facilities promote the conservation and recovery of these species and their habitats. Accept short-term impacts where long-term effects would provide a net benefit for the species and its habitat where needed to achieve multiple-use objectives. WL-3 LRMP- S14: Where available and within the capability of the site retain a minimum of six downed logs per acre (minimum 12 inches diameter and 120 total linear feet) and 10 to 15 hard snags per five acres (minimum 16 inches diameter at breast height and 40 feet tall, or next largest available). Exception allowed in Wildland/Urban Interface Defense Zones, fuelbreaks, and where they pose a safety hazard. WL-4 LRMP - S15: Within riparian conservation areas retain snags and downed logs unless they are identified as a threat to life, property, or sustainability of the riparian conservation area. WL-5 LRMP - S17: In areas outside of Wildland/Urban Interface Defense Zones and fuelbreaks, retain soft snags and acorn storage trees unless they are a safety hazard, fire threat, or impediment operability. WL-6 LRMP - S18: Protect known active and inactive raptor nest areas. Extent of protection will be based on proposed management activities, human activities existing at the onset of nesting initiation, species, topography, vegetative cover, and other factors. When appropriate, a no-disturbance buffer around active nest sites will be required from nest-site selection to fledging. WL-7 LRMP- S19: Protect all spotted owl territories identified in the Statewide California Department of Fish and Game database (numbered owl sites) and new sites that meet the state criteria by maintaining or enhancing habitat conditions over the long-term to the greatest extent practicable while protecting life and property. Use management guidelines in the species conservation strategy (or subsequent species guidance document; see Appendix H) to further evaluate protection needs for projects, uses and activities.

Frazier Mt. EA-Errata page errata-3 Errata Sheet Attachment

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

In addition, a correction to the LOP for California spotted owl is noted as follows: February 1 to August 15 (this was changed in WL-8 above also.) WL-9 LRMP - S24: Mitigate impacts of on-going uses and management activities on threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species. WL-10 LRMP- S25: Conduct road and trail maintenance activities during the season of year that would have the least impact on threatened, endangered, and proposed wildlife species in occupied habitats, except as provided by site-specific consultation. WL-11 LRMP- S28: Avoid or minimize disturbance to breeding and roosting California condors by prohibiting or restricting management activities and human uses within 1.5 miles of active California condor nest sites and within 0.5 miles of active roosts. Refer to California condor species account (or subsequent species guidance document; see Appendix H) for additional guidance. WL-11a For the California Condor, the Forest Service shall contact the USFWS prior to operations to ensure (Added from Objection that no birds are currently utilizing roosting trees within the project area, or within 0.5 miles of the Resolution Process- project area. If the USFWS identifies any roost trees or sites that they would like protected, See Attachment B of measures shall be incorporated into the Decision Notice to do so. If the USFWS identifies roosting the DN/FONSI)) sites within the project area or within 0.5 miles of the project area, Forest Plan Standard S28 shall be activated along with further consultation with the USFWS. Incorporate all required or recommended mitigation measures for California Condor listed in the USFWS concurrence letter or Biological Opinion WL-12 LRMP- S32: When surveys for species presence/absence are done for threatened, endangered, and proposed species, use established survey protocols, where such protocols exist. WL-13 Any trash associated with this project shall be removed and properly disposed of. The District wildlife biologist or designee will brief all personnel involved in Frazier Mountain project activities on the importance of not leaving hazardous materials exposed and daily removal of all garbage fragments to maintain condor health. Garbage removal will be stipulated in mechanical brush treatment contracts.

Frazier Mt. EA-Errata page errata-4 Errata Sheet Attachment

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

WL-14 Goshawk surveys shall be conducted prior to operations consistent with the U.S. Forest Service’s (Replaced with Northern Goshawk Inventory and Monitoring Technical Guide language from (http://www.fs.fed.us/wildecology/GoshawkTechGuideJuly06.pdf). The Forest Service has recently Objection Resolution received information that a pair of goshawks has been observed nesting within the project area. The Process-See Forest Service has been unable to verify the exact location of this sighting, but surveys shall take Attachment B of the place prior to operations to confirm the presence of any goshawks in the project area, or within ¼ DN/FONSI)) mile of the project area. If surveys indicate that goshawks are nesting in or near the project area, then the following restrictions will occur (source: USFS Species Account): o When conducting vegetation management, maintain a minimum of 200 acres of suitable canopy cover around identified goshawk nest sites. o Maintain seasonal restrictions limiting activities within 1/4 mile of the nest site during the breeding season (approx. 2/15 ‐ 9/15) unless surveys confirm northern goshawks are not nesting.

WL-15 Piles burned should be ignited from one side only to allow for small mammals, rodents and reptiles to escape. WL-16 Vegetation treatments, particularly broadcast burns, should be implemented as early in the fall and winter as moisture conditions warrant, to more closely mimic the natural burn ecology and to avoid burning any early nesting efforts of migratory landbirds. WL-17 Spotted towhee and the black‐chinned sparrow have habitat types that exist within the lower (Added from Objection portions of the project area. For these species, the plan shall incorporate a Limited Operating Period Resolution Process- between April 1 and August 31 for the area between the Chuchupate Campground and the See Attachment B of Chuchupate Ranger Station. This area receives less snow and a Limited Operating Period can be the DN/FONSI)) practically incorporated for this area. WL-18 To the extent practicable, the Forest Service shall also conduct point count surveys for migratory (Added from Objection birds within the project area so that it can more effectively identify which species are located in that Resolution Process- portion of the forest. This may be accomplished though Forest Service employees or volunteers. See Attachment B of the DN/FONSI)) WL-19 Any snag or other tree that may be felled for safety concerns will remain on site to provide downed (Added from Objection logs. The Forest Service will use tools such as the “Field Guide for Danger Tree Identification and Resolution Process- Response” to help in the evaluation of any potential hazard tree or what the EA referred to as a See Attachment B of safety hazard. A qualified person will be used in the determination of any potential hazard tree. If DN/FONSI) any of these trees >10” DBH are felled they will be retained as large woody debris (downed logs). Watershed / Soils WS-1 RCA’s will be 100 meters (328 feet) on perennial, or 30 meters (98 feet) on intermittent streams, measured as the slope distance from either bank of the channel. Other special aquatic features, such as wetlands, seeps and springs, also have 100 meter RCAs. • No self-propelled ground skidding equipment is allowed within the RCA (exceptions would require input by an earth scientist and/or biologist as described in standard S47 and Appendix E of the Forest Plan). • There is no fuels treatment within the stream inner gorge except where needed to remove hazard trees. Equipment crossing is permitted if necessary and evaluated by an earth scientist. Vegetation removal outside of any inner gorge feature but w ithin an RCA Additionally, roads already constructed and used for project access within the RCA may be used for project work. • There will be no removal of riparian plant species. WS-2 Use of heavy equipment will be excluded from meadow areas.

Frazier Mt. EA-Errata page errata-5 Errata Sheet Attachment

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

WS-3 Only designed temporary roads, classified roads, channel crossings, and their approaches would be allowed within RCAs. Temporary roads will be constructed outside of RCAs, unless limited by topography. Where channel/riparian crossings are necessary, the crossing sites will be determined in coordination with a wildlife biologist/botanist and hydrologist/soil scientist. Crossings must be engineered to limit damage to streambeds and riparian zones. WS-3(a) Landing locations should be located outside of RCAs, unless infeasible due to topography. Landings within an RCA may occur where there is existing disturbance, instead of constructing a new one, using special protective measures as specified by an earth scientist or biologist. WS-4 Skid roads and skid trails should not be constructed within the RCAs. However, in those situations where it is necessary and authorized, the contracting officer/forest officer will designate equipment- crossing locations for skidding operations on intermittent and ephemeral channels. All skidding trails within the RCA must be designated prior to implementation. WS-5 Construct erosion control measures on all cable corridors and skid trails. The measures can include waterbars, chipping, scattered slash, or other methods as approved by an earth scientist. WS-6 Burn piles should not be placed in an ephemeral channel, within stream inner gorges, or within 50 feet of streams within RCAs. WS-7 Where mechanical slash piling is used, the method of mechanical slash piling will maintain soil quality standards (such as grappling vs. brush raking). WS-8 If there is a 30% chance precipitation according to the National Weather Service, the day before use of heavy machinery in the project area, all skid trails in use will be water barred. WS-9 All necessary permits shall be obtained from the applicable State Water Quality Control Board prior to fuel treatment operations being implemented on lands located with the jurisdiction. WS-10 The Five-Step project screening process will be used to identify riparian conservation areas (S-47, LRMP Part 3, p. 11). WS-11 Refueling of equipment and storage of fuel and other hazardous materials will not occur within RCAs (perennial and seasonal streams, seeps, springs, and meadows). When landings are located within RCAs, refueling will occur outside the RCA in an approved refuel area. No storage of fuel quantities greater than 100 gallons in designated RCAs Storage of any quantity of fuel greater than 100 gallons will require a California Engineer Spill Plan. WS-12 Within RCAs, retain snags and downed logs to the extent possible. Exceptions would be made if snags and logs are identified as a threat to life, property, or sustainability of the RCA (S15, LRMP Part 3, p. 6). For the purposes of this project, in RCAs all snags and downed logs will remain in WUI Threat Zones. In WUI Defense Zones downed woody debris will be retained at 5 tons/acre or less within the first 100 feet from roads and private property boundaries and between 5-20 tons/acre in the remaining WUI Defense Zones, which overlaps with the RCA. Fuel removal in the first 100 feet of WUI Defense Zones where they overlap with RCAs will be coordinated with an earth scientist to maximize watershed function after fuels reduction activities. WS-13 Material must be fully-suspended when crossing a channel: a perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral stream with scour. WS-14 Directional felling away from channels will be required, unless infeasible due to tree characteristic (leaning, avoidance of other trees, etc.). If a tree is felled into a stream channel, it shall remain unless there is the potential to cause damming or downstream damage. If removed, require a full- suspension yarding system. WS-15 Where existing conditions permit, maintain or increase ground cover to 50-70% through chips or other slash. WS-16 Implement USDA Forest Service Region 5 Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect water quality and soils. BMPs are described in: Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in California, Best Management Practices. September 2000. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.

Frazier Mt. EA-Errata page errata-6 Errata Sheet Attachment

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

WS-17 Limit use of mechanical activities (cutting with shears, mastication, skidding, or chipping) to slopes 35% or less, and on slopes between 35 - 50% for distances no longer than 50 feet.

• Replace existing Table 10- Monitoring Activities, with the following replacement Table 10.

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

Frazier Mt. EA-Errata page errata-7 Errata Sheet Attachment

Errata #2 EA page 101-Northern Goshawk Discussion • Strike this sentence: “To date there are no records of goshawk presence within the project area, but this may be due to lack of surveys.” • Replace with this: “The Forest Service has recently received information that a pair of goshawks has been observed nesting within the project area. The Forest Service has been unable to verify the exact location of this sighting, but surveys shall take place prior to operations to confirm the presence of any goshawks in the project area.”

Errata #3 EA page 102, Northern goshawk Discussion

• Strike this sentence: “LOP for goshawk within Post-fledgling Family Area (PFA) is March 1- Sept 30.” • Replace with this: “LOP for goshawk within Post-fledgling Family Area (PFA) is February 15 through September 15, with a ¼ mile buffer around the PFA.”

Errata #4 EA page 104, California Spotted Owl Discussion

• Strike the LOP portion of this sentence: “The CASPO Conservation Strategy calls for added protection of nest sites and habitat: management activities within ¼-mile of active nests or activity centers, which would be disruptive to spotted owls, would have an LOP of February 15th to August 15th. • Replace with this correct LOP: “……would have an LOP of February 1 to August 15.”

Errata #5 EA page 121, Migratory Bird Discussion

• Strike the “extraordinary circumstances” portion of this sentence: “The Frazier Mountain project will have a negligible effect on the above migratory bird populations, and therefore will not lead to extraordinary circumstances under NEPA • Replace “extraordinary circumstances” with “adverse impacts”

Frazier Mt. EA-Errata page errata-8

Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) Process for Public Involvement on the Frazier Mountain Project

Pursuant to HFRA, instead of an appeal period (36 CFR 215), there will be an “objection process” before the final decision is made for the Frazier Mountain project and after the environmental document is mailed (36 CFR 218). A cover letter will also be mailed and will disclose what the preferred alternative is that the Responsible Officer is considering selecting, in order for the public to have the needed information to file an objection.

How do Objections Work?

Certain land management plan amendments and revisions, and hazardous fuel reduction projects authorized by the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA), are subject to a pre-decisional administrative review process. Direction for the HFRA fuel reduction projects objection process is at 36 CFR 218. Under this process individuals and organizations may file objections after an environmental analysis document is completed and before a decision document is signed. These processes build on early participation and collaboration efforts, with the intention of resolving concerns before a decision is made.

The objection process is different from the project-level appeal process at 36 CFR 215. Similar to Forest Service appeal processes under 36 CFR 215, responses to objections are provided by the next higher level supervisor of the Forest Service official proposing to sign the hazardous fuel reduction or land management plan decision.

In order to be eligible to file an objection to the preferred alternative, specific written comments related to the project must be submitted during scoping or other public involvement opportunities on this EA (36 CFR 218.7). Individual members of organizations must have submitted their own comments to meet the requirements of eligibility as an individual, objections received on behalf of an organization are considered as those of the organization only. For more information on how this objection process works and the requirements, see the regulations under 36 CFR 218 Subpart A on the national Forest Service web site at: http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/applit/36cfr218a.htm.

For More Information Contact:

Greg Thompson, Forester Los Padres National Forest Mt. Pinos Ranger District, 34580 Lockwood Valley Road Frazier Park, CA. 93225 Phone No: 661.245.3731 Email: [email protected]

The project EA is available online at:http://fs.usda.gov/goto/lpnf/projects

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.

Environmental Assessment

Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 5 Background ...... 5 Historic Condition ...... 5 Existing Condition ...... 9 Desired Future Conditions / Objectives of the Proposed Action ...... 21 Purpose and Need for Treatment ...... 21 Proposed Action in Brief ...... 22 Land and Management Plan Direction ...... 22 Public Involvement ...... 29 Issues ...... 29 Decision Framework ...... 30 II. ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ...... 31 Alternative 1 – No Action ...... 31 Alternative 2 -- Proposed Action ...... 31 Alternative 3 – 10” Diameter Cap - No Commercial Harvest ...... 34 Project Design Features Common to All Action Alternatives ...... 36 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 43 III. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES...... 46 Forested Vegetation ...... 46 Affected Environment ...... 46 Environmental Consequences ...... 46 Fire/Fuels ...... 64 Affected Environment ...... 64 Environmental Consequences ...... 74 Watershed/Soils ...... 85 Affected Environment ...... 85 Environmental Consequences ...... 89 Wildlife ...... 97 FWS Listed Endangered, Threatened and Proposed wildlife species (TEP) ...... 97 Forest Service Sensitive Wildlife Species ...... 99 Los Padres National Forest Management Indicator Species (MIS) ...... 116 Migratory LandBird Species ...... 120 Rare Plants ...... 123 Federally Listed and Forest Service Sensitive Plants ...... 123 Management Indicator Species (MIS) Plants ...... 127 Invasive Species ...... 130 Affected Environment ...... 130 Environmental Consequences ...... 130 Recreation / Visuals ...... 132 Affected Environment ...... 133 Environmental Consequences ...... 134 IV. LIST OF PREPARERS / CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...... 138 References ...... 141 Appendix A- Maps ...... 164 Map A- 1. Frazier Mt Project Location ...... 165 Map A- 2. Frazier Mt Project Proposed Action ...... 166 Map A- 3. Frazier Mt Project Alternative 3 ...... 167 Map A- 4. Frazier Mt Project LRMP Management ...... 168

i Frazier Mt. Project

Map A- 5. 12th Code HUC Watersheds and CA Water Board Boundaries ...... 169 Map A- 6. Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) ...... 170 Map A- 7. Frazier Mt Project – CWPP WUI Map ...... 171 Map A- 8. Frazier Mt Project – Los Padres NF LRMP WUI Map ...... 172 Map A- 9. Frazier Mt Project – Scenic Integrity Objectives Map ...... 173 Map A- 10. Frazier Mt Project – Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Map ...... 174 Appendix B – Existing Condition - Stand Summary Data ...... 178 Appendix C – Alternative 2 Post-treatment Stand Attributes ...... 179 Appendix D – Alternative 3 Post-treatment Stand Attributes ...... 180 Appendix E – Models and Assumptions ...... 181 Appendix F – Heterobasidion annosum Root Disease Treatment ...... 183 Appendix G – Forest Stocking and Bark Beetle Risk ...... 188 Appendix H – Variable spacing thinning ...... 193 Appendix I – Common Forestry Terms ...... 196 Appendix J – Fire/ Fuels Models and Assumptions ...... 198 Appendix K – Best Management Practices for Soils and Water ...... 200

List of Tables

Table 1. Existing condition percent of analysis area by cover type...... 9 Table 2. Project and analysis area existing condition percent of conifer cover type by forest type...... 10 Table 3. Aerial Damage Survey Results...... 19 Table 4. Analysis area large fire acres and percent of analysis area burned...... 20 Table 5. Land Use Zones and Suitable Land Uses...... 24 Table 6. WUI Defense Zone Minimum and Maximum Widths by Vegetation Types...... 26 Table 7. Summary of Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Activities by Treatment Type:...... 32 Table 8. Summary of Alternative 3 - Activities by Treatment Type ...... 35 Table 9. Project Design Criteria by Resource Area ...... 36 Table 10. Monitoring Activities ...... 41 Table 11. Comparison of Alternative Activities, Objectives, Issues and Effects...... 43 Table 13. Percent of forest types proposed for treatment in project and analysis areas...... 50 Table 14. Fire regime and Condition Class by Vegtype...... 66 Table 15. 90th Percentile Weather for Chuchupate RAWS, California...... 72 Table 16. Fireline intensity interpretations ...... 72 Table 17. Existing Fire Potential for Sampled Stands in the Project Area ...... 73 Table 18. Predicted Fire Behavior for Shrublands...... 76 Table 19. Comparison of Fire Potential for Sampled Stands in the Project Area Alternative 2 in 2014. ... 77 Table 20. Comparison of Fire Potential for Sampled Stands in the Project Area Alternative 2 in 2020. ... 78 Table 21. Comparison of Fire Potential for Sampled Stands in the Project Area Alternative 3 in 2014. ... 81 Table 22. Comparison of Fire Potential for Sampled Stands in the Project Area Alternative 2 in 2020. ... 82 Table 23. Soils within the Frazier Mountain Project Area...... 86 Table 24. Streams within the Frazier Mountain Project Area...... 87 Table 25. Frazier Mountain 12th Code Subwatersheds ...... 88 Table 26. Detrimental Soil Disturbance by Treatment Type Activity Area...... 92 Table 27.Estimated Sediment Delivery to Road Crossings by Alternative ...... 94 Table 28.Total acres by treatment type within Riparian Conservation Areas...... 94 Table 29. Equivalent Road Area by watershed...... 96 Table 31. Region 5 Sensitive species that might occur within project area ...... 99 Table 32. Summary of wildlife sensitive species analyzed and determinations ...... 101 Table 33. Management Indicator Species (MIS) Selection for Project Analysis ...... 117

ii Environmental Assessment

Table 34. Estimated total number of deer killed by sex in D-13 Zone from 2000 -2010...... 118 Table 35. Rare Plants of the Mount Pinos Ranger District and their Status ...... 123 Table 36. Sensitive plant species / Mt. Pinos Ranger District...... 124 Table 37. Plant Management Indicator Species (MIS) Selection for Project Analysis...... 127 Table 38. List of Preparers of the EA...... 138

List of Figures

Figure 1. Jeffrey pine stand on the top of Alamo Mountain in 1938...... 7 Figure 2. Jeffrey pine and ponderosa pine stand on Alamo Mountain in 1938...... 7 Figure 3. Frazier Mountain pinyon pine stand east of Mt. Pinos Ranger Station in 1934...... 8 Figure 4. Frazier Mountain pinyon pine stand above Frazier Park in 1934...... 9 Figure 5. Frazier Mountain Stand 99...... 11 Figure 6. Frazier Mountain Stand 3...... 11 Figure 7. Frazier Mountain Stand 243...... 12 Figure 8. Frazier Mountain Stand 19...... 12 Figure 9. Stand 99 diameter distribution and species composition...... 13 Figure 10. Stand 3 diameter distribution and species composition...... 14 Figure 11. Stand 3 diameter distribution and species composition...... 14 Figure 12. Stand 19 diameter distribution and species composition...... 15 Figure 13. Stand 4 diameter distribution and species composition...... 15 Figure 14. Stand 29 diameter distribution and species composition...... 16 Figure 15. Stand 3 percent canopy cover distribution...... 17 Figure 16. Stand 99 percent canopy cover distribution...... 17 Figure 17. Stand 243 percent canopy cover distribution...... 18 Figure 18. Stand 19 percent canopy cover distribution...... 18 Figure 19. Stand 3 post-treatment uneven-aged thin diameter distributions...... 51 Figure 20. Stand 99 post-treatment uneven-aged thin diameter distributions...... 52 Figure 21. Stand 243 post-treatment uneven-aged thin diameter distributions...... 52 Figure 22. Stand 19 post-treatment diameter distributions...... 53 Figure 23. Stand 4 post-treatment diameter distributions...... 54 Figure 24. Stand 29 post-treatment diameter distributions...... 54 Figure 25. Stand 3 post-treatment thin up to 10-inches dbh...... 59 Figure 26. Stand 99 post-treatment thin up to 10-inches dbh...... 59 Figure 27. Stand 243 post-treatment thin up to 10-inches dbh...... 60 Figure 28: Canopy Base height as it relates to critical flame length...... 69 Figure 29. Frazier Mountain Intermittent Stream Crossings ...... 87 Figure 31. Stand and mean tree growth potential relative to percent maximum SDI...... 191

iii

Environmental Assessment

I. INTRODUCTION The Forest Service has prepared this environmental assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This environmental assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives.

In the Frazier Mountain Project, the Mt. Pinos Ranger District proposes to provide fire hazard reduction, reduce wildfire risk, reduce bark beetle risk and maintain health of mature conifers and conifer plantations, and protect high value recreation areas. The project is on the Mount Pinos Ranger District, Los Padres National Forest. The nearest community is Frazier Park, approximately 4-5 miles northeast. The project is located in Kern and Ventura Counties, California (San Bernardino Meridian). The Frazier Mountain project is approximately 2,850 acres and is located on Frazier Mountain in T8N, R19W, Sections 7 and 18; and T8N, R20W, Sections 4, 8, 9 through 16, 22, 23, 27, and 28. Thinning and fuels treatments would occur on approximately 2,386 acres of the 2,850 acre project area. See Appendix A - Map A- 1. Frazier Mt Project Location for the project location and the proposed action activities.

Background

Historic Condition Historically, wildfires were a common occurrence in California with an average of approximately 1.8 million ha (4.4 million acres) being burned annually prior to 1800 (Stephens et al. 2007). By contrast, an average of approximately 102,000 ha (252,000 acres) burned annually in all vegetation types from 1950 to 1999, only 5.6 percent of the pre-1800 level. Due to a number of factors related to Euroamerican settlement in the 1800’s–including removal of Native Americans from their ancestral homelands, livestock grazing, and fire suppression–forest fire activity has been reduced to levels far below those pre-1800’s levels (Sugihara et al. 2006, Stephens et al. 2007 )..

In his 2005 paper, Stephens (2005) found that the amount of USFS forests that burned relative to the area protected from fire in California did not significantly change from 1940 to 2000 even though there was an increase in the number of ignitions during that period. In the San Bernardino Mountains, McBride and Laven (1976) studied fire frequencies in the ponderosa pine and Jeffrey pine forest types prior to and after 1905, the year of initiation of organized fire control efforts in the area. They found relatively frequent fire regimes with an average fire frequency of 10 years before 1905 and an average fire frequency of 22 years after 1905 in ponderosa pine forests, and an average fire frequency of 12 years before and 29 years after 1905 in Jeffrey pine forests. They concluded that wildfire frequencies have declined over the last 70 years in southern California montane forests due to fire suppression efforts (McBride and Laven 1976). Everett (2008) used fire-scar dendrochronology to establish historic fire regimes (pre 1900) in mixed-conifer forests of the San Jacinto Mountains of southern California and found a point mean fire return interval of 5.2 years and an area wide grand mean fire interval of 32.2 years. He also noticed that evidence of fire scaring almost ceased following the onset of organized fire suppression in the 20th century. These studies and others discussed below demonstrate that fire regimes have changed in California in general including southern California forests. Skinner et al. (2006) investigated historic fire regimes of forests in the peninsular and transverse ranges of Southern California including the Los Padres. One of their plots was on Frazier Mountain. They found that

5 Frazier Mt. Project

historically the Los Padres had primarily very late-summer and fall fires and that the median fire return intervals ranged from 3.15 at Mt. Pinos to 4.13 at Frazier Peak. These studies, as well as others, demonstrate that fire regimes have changed in California, southern California forests, the Los Padres National Forest, and on Frazier Peak with substantially less forested area burned during the last 100 years or so.

Declines in fire frequencies have contributed to increases in tree densities and fire-tolerant trees in Californian forests (Ansley and Battles 1998, Barbour et al. 2002, McKelvey and Johnston 1992, Minnich et al. 1995, Parsons and DeBenedetti 1979, Vankat 1977) with losses in forest openings (Skinner 1995) and increases in insect and fire risk. Other evidence exists to show that forest fire severity in California may have changed in recent decades due to changes brought about by fire suppression (Miller et al. 2009). Miller et al. (2009) in their study of fire severity in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Mountains found a “notable increase” in the extent of stand-replacing (“high-severity”) fire between 1984 and 2006. They found that “mean and maximum fire size, and the area burned annually have also risen substantially since the beginning of the 1980’s, and are now at or above values from the decades preceding the 1940’s.”

In the San Bernardino Mountains (SBM), Minnich et al. (1995) compared 1929-1935 California Vegetation Type Map (VTM) survey data with 1992 data sampled in the same areas as the original plots and found increases in stand density, transformations from old-growth structure to young growth, and a compositional shift from ponderosa and Jeffrey pine to white fir and incense cedar. Stand densities varied in the 1929-1935 data from 50 to 200 stems per hectare (20 to 80 trees per acre (TPA)) larger than 12 cm (5 inches) and the majority of trees had a diameter at breast height (DBH) larger than 67 cm (26 inches). They characterized the presuppression Jeffrey pine forests as “open, heterogeneous mixtures of stem diameters” with a total stem density averaging 93 per ha (37 per acre) greater than 12 cm (5 inches) DBH. They observed that stocking of trees more than 12 cm (5 inches) in DBH had increased by 80 percent between historic and current conditions, which they attributed to fire exclusion. Minnich et al. (1995) also compared the 1929-1935 VTM data with data recently collected in the Sierra San Pedro Martir, Baja, California, Mexico (SPM) in similar forest types. The SPM forests have a climate similar to the SBM forests but fire suppression has not been practiced in the SPM. They found that the historic San Bernardino conditions were similar to the current SPM conditions in respect to total tree density, structure, and species relative importance. Tree density for SPM monotypic Jeffrey pine stands averaged 76 trees per ha (31 TPA) greater than 10 cm (4 inches) and 83 trees per ha (34 TPA) for the mixed conifer Jeffrey pine dominated stands.

Minnich et al. (2000) found that Californian Jeffrey pine and mixed-conifer forests under unmanaged fire regimes in the SPM burned in a mosaic of intensities and severities with relatively small (<5 ha) patches of intense surface burns. Stand replacement burns were less frequent and more localized than intense surface burns, and accumulatively accounted for 16.2 percent of forested area within fire perimeters. About 58.2 percent of stands within study areas experienced low intensity surface fires. They found that “after fire, mixed conifer forests retained green overstory but they were denuded of understory shrubs, juvenile trees, and litter.” Also in the SPM, Stephens and Gill (2005) found that average tree density in unmanaged Jeffrey pine-mixed conifer forest was 145.3 trees per ha (58 TPA) with all size classes counted.

Goforth and Minnich (2008) compared 1932 VTM plot data with data gathered in the same area in 2007 for mixed conifer forests in the Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, southern California. They found that stem density had almost doubled from 1932 to 2007, including a 250 percent increase in trees 10-29.9 cm dbh and that old-growth trees (>90 cm) had decreased by 40 percent.

6 Environmental Assessment

Historic photos taken of vegetation types in the 1938s (UC Berkeley 2010) show mountain top Jeffery pine forests near Frazier Mountain to be very open, multi-aged, and generally multi-story with single-story patches and openings (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The photos were taken on Alamo Mountain, approximately 7 miles south of Frazier Mountain. The photos show forests that are similar to the open, heterogeneous mixtures of stem diameters described for historic SBM forests and modern SSPM forests by Minnich et al. (1995).

Figure 1. Jeffrey pine stand on the top of Alamo Mountain in 1938.

Figure 2. Jeffrey pine and ponderosa pine stand on Alamo Mountain in 1938.

7 Frazier Mt. Project

Vegetation Type Mapping plot data collected in 1935 on a plot that is in Frazier Mountain Stand 243 shows a stocking of Jeffrey pine and white fir of 95 TPA: 50 TPA in the 4-11 DBH class, and 45 TPA in the 12-23 inch DBH class. In Stand 3 data collected in 1930 shows Jeffrey pine with 70 TPA: 5 TPA in the 4-11 inch DBH class, 20 TPA in the 12-23 DBH class, 10 TPA in the 24-35 inch DBH class and 35 TPA in the 36 inch and greater DBH class. A third plot in the area of Stand 22 shows Jeffrey pine with 50 TPA: 30 TPA in the 4-11 inch DBH class, 15 TPA in the 12- 23 DBH class, and 5 TPA in the 24-35 inch DBH class. This data indicates that Jeffrey pine and Jeffrey pine-dominated mixed-conifer stands in the Frazier Mountain area historically ranged from 35 to 70 TPA greater than 4 inches DBH. If we assume that the stands also had about 30 TPA less than 4 inches DBH, that is, the same number of trees as averaged in the 4-11inch DBH class, the total historic TPA stocking would roughly have been in the 65 to 100 TPA range. Averaging the four plots gives general stocking characteristics of 68 TPA: 29 TPA in the 4-11 inch DBH class, 26 TPA in the 12-23 DBH class, 4 TPA in the 24-35 inch DBH class and 9 TPA in the 36 inch and greater DBH class. Computing Stand Density Index (SDI) for this diameter distribution gives us a rough estimate of historic SDI stocking of about 193 without trees less than four inches DBH and 202 with the small trees included.

The analysis and project areas also contain stands dominated by single-leaf pinyon pine (Pinus monophylla) often mixed in with canyon live oak (Quercus chrysolepis). Single-leaf pinyon pine stands surrounding Frazier Mountain in the early 1930’s VTM plot data show an average of 56 TPA in the 4-11 inch DBH class with no larger trees. Figure 3 shows the pinyon pine landscape looking south toward Frazier Mountain about 1.5 miles east of the Mt. Pinos Ranger Station in early 1934. Figure 4 shows the pinyon pine landscape looking south from Frazier park in 1934. Note that the landscape shown in Figure 4 was burned by a fire a couple of years before the picture was taken but the fire did not extend west into the Figure 3 photo.

Figure 3. Frazier Mountain pinyon pine stand east of Mt. Pinos Ranger Station in 1934.

8 Environmental Assessment

Figure 4. Frazier Mountain pinyon pine stand above Frazier Park in 1934.

Existing Condition The project and analysis areas are dominated by conifer forest or woodlands and shrublands (see Table 1). Hardwood forest, water, urban, herbaceous, and barren cover types together comprise a very small portion of both areas.

Table 1. Existing condition percent of analysis area by cover type.

Cover Type Acres in Percent of Acres in Analysis Percent of Analysis Project Area Project Area Area Area Conifer forest or 1,738 62 15,945 59 woodland Hardwood forest or 14 >1 731 3 woodland Mixed conifer and 50 2 1,320 5 hardwood forest or woodland Shrub 982 35 8,697 32 Other (Water, Urban, 23 >1 270 1 Herbaceous, Barren)

Shrubland cover types are largely scrub oak, mixed chaparral, and sagebrush, but there are a number of other types in the area in very minor amounts. Coniferous and mixed conifer and hardwood in the analysis area is mostly pinyon-juniper (see Table 2) which dominates the lower and mid-elevations. On the higher elevations there are substantial areas classified as “eastern pine” (EP) that are mostly Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi) and ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) with minor pinyon pine (Pinus monophylla) and/or white fir (Abies concolor) components. The eastern pine dominates the project area with the driest pinyon-juniper only about 11 percent of the

9 Frazier Mt. Project

project area. Jeffrey pine (JP) and mixed conifer-fir (MF) are mixtures of Jeffrey pine and fir. The mixed conifer-fir is mostly confined to the upper-elevation northern aspects. Only a few acres were classified as ponderosa pine forest type and in this analysis this acreage is included in with the EP.

Table 2. Project and analysis area existing condition percent of conifer cover type by forest type.

Forest Type Project Area Percent of Analysis Area Percent of Conifer Conifer Cover Type and Conifer-Hardwood Mixed Cover Types EP 66 17 JP 16 6 MF 6 3 PJ 12 73 EP – eastern pine, JP – Jeffrey pine, MF – mixed conifer-fir, PJ – pinyon-juniper

Conifer Stand Conditions Existing stand conditions in many forested stands on Frazier Mountain are similar to the modern stands described for San Bernardino Mountain forests by Minnich et al. (1995) and are in contrast to the historic forests and the modern SSPM forests described by Minnich et al. (1995). Existing stand conditions also show much higher and more homogenous tree stocking on Frazier Mountain than seen in the 1938 Alamo Mountain forests.

Representative Stands Used for Comparison Figure 5 to Figure 7 show current Frazier Mountain Jeffrey pine forest conditions in stands 99, 3, and 243 respectively. These three stands will be used as representative examples to discuss and display the general existing condition, desired condition and effects of proposed action treatments in stands for which a variable-spacing, commercial and non-commercial treatment is prescribed. Other forested stands in the area for which these treatments are prescribed are similar to these three and treatment effects would be similar. Stand 99 is a pure Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi) stand, the other two stands are dominated by Jeffrey pine with a few overstory white fir (Abies concolor) and with substantial understory white fir stocking that can be considered encroachment. Ponderosa pine may occur in the analysis area, but for simplicity sake in this analysis, we classified all pine trees as either Jeffrey or pinyon pine.

The figures show stands that are much different, with higher and more uniform tree stocking than the historic photos in Figure 1 and Figure 2 above. The figures also show that the current understory shrub and herbaceous vegetation in the current heavily-stocked Frazier Mountain stands may be substantially less than in the 1938 Alamo Mountain forests. In addition, we will also use Stands 19, 4 and 29 to discuss existing and desired conditions and the effects of the alternatives. Stand 19 is displayed in Figure 8. This stand is dominated by pinyon pine and oak and is generally representative of the pinyon pine-dominated stands for which non-commercial thinning is proposed. Stand 4, which is an even-aged pine plantation, is used in this analysis to display the current condition and effects of non-commercial thinning in the plantation. Stand 29 is used in this analysis to display the current condition and effects of non-commercial thinning in Jeffrey pine dominated stands for which non-commercial thinning is prescribed in the proposed action.

10 Environmental Assessment

Figure 5. Frazier Mountain Stand 99.

Figure 6. Frazier Mountain Stand 3.

11 Frazier Mt. Project

Figure 7. Frazier Mountain Stand 243.

Figure 8. Frazier Mountain Stand 19.

12 Environmental Assessment

Stand Diameter Distributions and Species Compositions Figure 9 displays the diameter distribution and species composition for Stand 99. Jeffrey pine (PIJE) was the only tree species measured in the exam plots. The number of trees in each 2-inch DBH class abruptly begins to increase with decreasing DBH at the 22-inch DBH class indicating that tree establishment increased following the last wildfire which was roughly110 to 140 years ago. The distribution above the 22-inch DBH class is very flat. The distribution also indicates that tree establishment continued to increase with the absence of wildfire. The distribution shows about 214 TPA: 87 TPA in the 4-10 inch DBH class, 78 TPA in the 12-22 inch DBH class, 8 TPA in the 24-34 inch DBH class, and 1 TPA in the 36+ DBH class. These values are much higher than the 1930’s sample plots discussed above.

Figure 9. Stand 99 diameter distribution and species composition.

Figure 10 shows the diameter distribution and species composition for Stand 3. Jeffrey pine (PIJE) dominates the stand but there is a minor white fir (ABCO) component. The number of trees in each 2-inch DBH class abruptly begins to increase with decreasing DBH at the 20-inch DBH class indicating that tree establishment increased following the last wildfire which was roughly100 to 140 years ago. Above the 20-inch DBH class the distribution is very flat. The distribution also indicates that tree establishment continued to increase with the absence of wildfire. The distribution also shows about 239 TPA: 80 TPA in the 4-10 inch DBH class, 95 TPA in the 12-22 inch DBH class, 8 TPA in the 24-34 inch DBH class, and 4 TPA in the 36+ DBH class. These values are much higher than those of the 1930 sample plot discussed above.

13 Frazier Mt. Project

Figure 10. Stand 3 diameter distribution and species composition.

Figure 11 shows the diameter distribution and species composition for Stand 243. Jeffrey pine dominates the stand, but there is a substantial white fir component. As above with Stand 3, number of trees in each 2-inch DBH class abruptly begins to increase with decreasing DBH at the 20-inch DBH class above which the distribution is very flat. This indicates that tree establishment increased following the last wildfire which was roughly100 to 140 years ago and continued with the absence of wildfire. The distribution shows about 181 TPA: 33 TPA in the 4- 10 inch DBH class, 72 TPA in the 12-22 inch DBH class, 9 TPA in the 24-34 inch DBH class, and 1 TPA in the 36+ DBH class. These values are higher than those of the 1930’s plots discussed above.

Figure 11. Stand 243 diameter distribution and species composition.

Figure 12 shows the diameter distribution for Stand 19, which is pinyon pine with a few canyon live oak. The total stocking is about 227 TPA, of which 107 TPA is in the 2-inch DBH class. The stand’s distribution shape is generally characteristic of other pinyon pine stands in the project area that are proposed for treatment (Stands 45, 46, 47, and 55) with a large proportion of the stocking

14 Environmental Assessment in small diameter trees, but stocking in pinyon pine stands varies quite a bit due to site factors. Stands 47 and 55 differ in places because they have a Jeffrey pine component.

Figure 12. Stand 19 diameter distribution and species composition.

PIMO – Singleleaf pinyon (Pinus monophylla) QUCH2 – Canyon live oak (Quercus chrysolepis)

Figure 13 shows the diameter distribution for Stand 4, which is an even-aged plantation. The stand includes a few naturally established pinyon pine and a few large Jeffrey pine which were measured as part of the stand and which are concentrated around the campground. The total stocking is about 338 TPA. The stand’s distribution shape is narrow and characteristic of even-age stands.

Figure 13. Stand 4 diameter distribution and species composition.

15 Frazier Mt. Project

Figure 14 displays the current diameter distribution and species composition for Stand 29. This stand is a Jeffrey pine dominated multi-story stand that is proposed for non-commercial thinning only in the proposed action. Stands 2, 22, 24, 37, 38, 49, 50, 52, and 61 are similar to Stand 29 but differ slightly in composition and distribution. Stands 50, 52, and 55 also have pinyon pine components that are not represented in Stand 29.

Figure 14. Stand 29 diameter distribution and species composition.

Of the twenty-three stands sampled in the project area in the fall of 2009, average TPA ranges from 82 to 402 with 21 having greater than 100 TPA. Stocking in the remaining two are 82 and 96 TPA.

Stocking in terms of stand density index (SDI) ranges from 141 to 395 with one of the sampled stands having an SDI of less than 200 and 18 having SDIs greater than 230. Eleven of the sampled stands have greater than 55 percent of the maximum SDI and are within the “zone of imminent mortality. All but three of the sampled stands have SDIs that are higher than those computed from the 1930’s plots.

Stand Structural Diversity Stand structural diversity can be discussed in terms of horizontal and vertical diversity. Vertical structural diversity can be examined in terms of the diameter distributions of trees within stands. As shown above in Figure 8 to Figure 12, which are generally representative of stands in the project area, there is a high level of vertical diversity with wide variety of tree sizes. The figures are showing stand averages, however, and in many stands there are areas that are distinctly single- story and the stands can be considered composed of even-sized groups of trees. Figure 6, for example, shows a portion of Stand 3 which is relatively single-story although the diameter distribution of the stand in Figure 3 shows trees in all size classes.

We are displaying and describing horizontal structural diversity in this analysis by looking at the distribution of stocking in terms of percent canopy (crown) cover (PCC) for selected stands. Although we are only displaying PCC distributions for selected stands, the trends displayed in the figures is characteristic of all sampled stands discussed in this analysis.

16 Environmental Assessment

Figure 15 displays the PCC distribution for Frazier Mountain Stand 3. The figure shows a forest stand with a relatively heavy and continuous PCC with about 61 percent of the stand area in the 55 and 65 percent classes and no area in the 15, 25, and 95 percent classes. This stand has very homogeneous stocking.

Figure 15. Stand 3 percent canopy cover distribution.

Figure 16 shows the percent canopy cover distribution for Stand 99. This stand also has a narrow and uniform distribution of forest canopy cover.

Figure 16. Stand 99 percent canopy cover distribution.

17 Frazier Mt. Project

Figure 17shows a PCC distribution for Stand 243 which again has a relative narrow distribution indicating a relatively uniform coverage, but note that the stand did have a small portion in openings large enough to be classified in the spatial data.

Figure 17. Stand 243 percent canopy cover distribution.

Figure 18shows the canopy cover distribution for Stand 19, which is dominated by pinyon pine. As with all other distributions, the percent canopy cover distribution for this stand is very narrow with almost all of the stand area within the 65 to 85 percent canopy cover class indicating that the stand is heavily and uniformly stocked with trees.

Figure 18. Stand 19 percent canopy cover distribution.

18 Environmental Assessment

Insect and Disease Activity and Risk Aerial tree damage and mortality survey data for the Frazier Mountain area collected from 2003 through 2009 shows generally low levels of bark beetle mortality. The highest levels of mortality occurred during 2003 to 2005 (see Table 3 below), which are the years that had the highest level of bark beetle mortality throughout the southern California forests. The mortality was due to high tree stocking levels and extended drought conditions. From 1998 to 2003 southern California had lower than normal precipitation (Coleman et al. 2008). Bark beetle activity commonly increases one year following drought and can increase in following years as drought conditions intensify. Precipitation in southern California increased after 2004. Due to the decrease in 2007 precipitation, increased bark beetle mortality was predicted for 2008 (Coleman et al. 2008) and can be seen in Table 3.

Bark beetles involved are Pinyon ips (Ips confusus) which kills pinyon pine, California fivespined ips (Ips paraconfusus) which was top-killing Jeffrey pine, and Jeffrey pine beetle (Dendroctonus jeffreyi) which kills Jeffrey pine. Other damage causal agents in the aerial survey data include “bark beetles” which was identified as killing Jeffrey pine and so was most likely Jeffrey pine beetle, and “Ips engraver beetles” that were identified as top-killing Jeffrey pine.

Table 3. Aerial Damage Survey Results. ADS Survey Year/Acres of Mortality (Mortality Trees Per Acre) Damage Casual 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Agent Multi-damage 400 (1) (Insect/Disease) Bark Beetles 233 (5) 110 (1) Pinyon Ips 75 (5) 89 (2) 2 (13) 212 (4) 13 (4) California five- 555 spined Ips Ips engraver 126 2 beetles Wildfire/Fire 5 (2) 2 Jeffrey pine beetle 30 (5) 27 (2) Unknown (Black 1 (1) oak mortality)

As mentioned above, of the sampled stands, most have SDIs that exceed 230. The significance of this SDI stocking level is that research has shown that activity levels of many bark beetles, including Dendroctonus species such as mountain pine beetle, western pine beetle, and Jeffrey pine beetle, increase with stand density and that there appears to be a threshold level of stand density, below which bark beetle activity will remain endemic and above which epidemic levels are possible (Cochran 1992, Cochran et al 1994, Larsson et al. 1983, Mitchell et al. 1983, Oliver 1995, Peterson and Hibbs 1989, Sartwell and Stephens 1975, Sartwell and Dolph 1976). Oliver (1995) established this threshold for Dendroctonus bark beetles in California ponderosa pine stands to be about 230. Below the threshold, bark beetle activity would occur at endemic levels and above the threshold epidemic levels of bark beetle could occur. Other research indicates that historic ponderosa pine (Harrod et al. 1999) stand stocking was about the same as the threshold level for the sites involved in their study which supports Oliver’s (1995) conclusion that pine stand stocking was maintained at some level below the zone of imminent mortality by bark

19 Frazier Mt. Project beetles. Also, as discussed above, SDI computed for the 1930’s VTM plots that are now within Jeffrey pine and Jeffrey pine-mixed conifer stands show a general stocking level of 202 SDI, which is close to, if not slightly below, Oliver’s (1995) threshold.

As mentioned above, of the sampled stands, most have SDIs that exceed 230. Four of the Jeffrey pine stands have SDIs that range from 197 to 224 which also put them within the range of full site occupancy but slightly below Oliver’s 230 SDI thresholds. We conclude that given the current literature and the stocking levels in the sampled stands, that most can be considered at risk to developing epidemic levels of bark beetles during periods of stress such as droughts. Most other conifer stands outside of the project area and within the analysis area are probably in a similar condition because they have not experienced recent wildfires or timber cutting which would have reduced tree stocking.

Wildfires Available wildfire spatial data used for this analysis contains fires that burned at least partly from 1915 through 2008 within the analysis area. Table 4 shows the acreage and percent of the analysis area burned by each wildfire within the analysis area. These are not the total acreages burned for many fires because area burned on private land or outside of the analysis area is not included. The Day fire, which burned in 2006, burned about 162,000 acres, of which only 6 acres is within our analysis area. Some of the fires overlap earlier fires in burn areas and the acres, and percent of analysis area, shown in Table 4 does not subtract the overlap. The sum of all fires is about 19 percent since 1915, but without overlap, the proportion is closer to 15 percent. Most of the area has not burned for the last 95 years, probably for longer.

Most of the burn area has been in the northwest corner of the analysis area above Frazier Park, and most of the burn area has been in pinyon pine and shrub cover types with only about one- quarter being in Jeffrey pine and mixed conifer cover types.

Table 4. Analysis area large fire acres and percent of analysis area burned. Fire Year Acres Percent Of Analysis Area 1915 174 0.64 1921 1040 3.86 1922 12 0.04 1923 1 0.01 1928 870 3.23 1930 404 1.50 1941 1031 3.82 1942 101 0.38 1948 774 2.87 1954 457 1.69 1957 115 0.43 1984 139 0.52 2006 6 0.02

20 Environmental Assessment

Desired Future Conditions / Objectives of the Proposed Action Desired forest conditions for the Jeffrey pine and mixed conifer stands on Frazier Mountain are:

(1) Stand structure, stocking, and species compositions would reflect historic conditions.

Desired conditions include:

• Stand densities in terms of TPA would be in the 50 to 100 TPA range within which tree density would be dependent upon stand attributes and site factors.

• Stand densities in terms of stand density index would be in the 200 to 230 range (35 to 40 percent of the maximum for Jeffrey pine of 571) depending upon site factors. These tree stocking levels would ensure that while fully-stocked, bark beetle mortality would be occurring at endemic levels and stands would be at low risk of developing epidemic levels of bark beetle mortality.

• Diseases such as annosus root rot and parasites such as dwarf mistletoe, while present, would infect a minor portion of the trees or stand areas.

• Tree stocking would be variable with a high degree of horizontal diversity. Stands would be a mosaic of small groups of closely-spaced trees, groups of more widely-spaced trees, and very open areas containing widely-spaced individual trees. Percent canopy cover distributions for individual stands and for the area in general would be almost flat with a relatively equal distribution of area in each canopy cover class.

• Stands would be uneven-aged and multi-story with a high degree of vertical diversity. Stand average diameter distributions would be almost flat with only slightly increasing TPA with decreasing DBH.

• Jeffrey pine would be the dominant species on the higher elevation stands with white fir present as a minor component on the moister northern aspects and single-leaf pinyon pine present as a minor component on the dryer southern aspects. The lowest elevation, hottest-and-driest, sites would be occupied by single-leaf pinyon pine and/or shrubland and grassland.

(2) Stands would be “natural appearing” with a high level of horizontal and vertical structural diversity, and

(3) Damaging insects such as Jeffrey pine beetle would be present at endemic levels with a low risk of epidemic levels occurring,

(4) Wildfires would mostly burn with low-intensity and low-severity with high-intensity and high-severity fire limited to small areas,

Purpose and Need for Treatment In comparing the historic, existing and desired conditions discussed above, we can say that the existing condition has changed from the historic condition and is not the desired condition in respect to a number of conditions.

Stand stocking in terms of TPA is greater than historic and desired conditions in almost all stands sampled in the area (Appendix A). Only two sampled stands are within the desired TPA range. Also, current diameter distributions show many more trees in the smaller diameter classes than

21 Frazier Mt. Project

historic and desired. There is a need to reduce TPA stocking in stands within the project area to push them back toward historic and desired conditions.

In terms of SDI stocking, stands exceed the historic SDI and our desired range of 200 to 230. Those stands that exceed the SDI range of 200 to 230 we consider at risk to developing epidemic levels of bark beetles and there is a need to reduce stocking to meet management goals for preventing epidemic levels from occurring in the future, especially during future droughty conditions.

As discussed above, within-stand stocking is relatively uniform with little horizontal diversity. Percent canopy cover distributions show that within-stand canopy covers are very homogenous with little diversity. There is a need to create more structural diversity within forest stands.

Current stands are still dominated by Jeffrey and/or ponderosa pine, but on moister northern aspects there are greater numbers of white fir in stand understories than desired and on dryer sites there are greater numbers of single-leaf pinyon than desired. There is a need to reduce white fir and pinyon pine as stand components in Jeffrey and ponderosa pine stands.

Wildfires could potentially burn through the Frazier Mountain stands with greater than the desired intensities and severities (Lewis 2010). The fuel hazard occurring in this project area needs to be lowered by removing the number of trees growing in dense stands. Thinning will lower the density of overstocked conifer stands, reducing moisture competition for residual trees, lowering fuel total fuel loading, and reducing the negative impact of wildfire effects. Fuel hazard reduction will be accomplished through breaking up the horizontal and vertical continuity of fuel and fuel ladders, raising crown base heights, and reducing canopy bulk densities, which will assist in reducing crown fire potential.

Proposed Action in Brief This proposed action responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the Los Padres Forest Plan, and helps move the project area towards desired conditions described above and in the Los Padres Forest Plan (See Los Padres Forest Plan direction and discussion section below).

The Frazier Mountain Project would provide fire hazard reduction, reduce risk and maintain health of mature conifer stands and existing conifer plantations, and treat vegetation around existing facilities to reduce high risk wildfire, including high value recreation areas, campgrounds, trail heads, special-use dwellings and the Mount Pinos Ranger District building and warehouse complex. Commercial and noncommercial thinning and fuels treatments would occur on approximately 2,386 acres of the 2,850-acre project area. The project is on the Mount Pinos Ranger District, Los Padres National Forest. The nearest community is Frazier Park, approximately 4-5 miles northeast. The project is located in Kern and Ventura Counties, California (San Bernardino Meridian). The Frazier Mountain project is located on Frazier Mountain in T8N, R19W, Sections 7 and 18; and T8N, R20W, Sections 4, 8, 9 through 16, 22, 23, 27, and 28. A detailed project proposed action description is in the Alternatives section II of this EA and maps for the proposed action and alternatives are in Appendix A- Maps of this EA. Land and Management Plan Direction The Los Padres National Forest Land Management Plan consists of three parts: (1) Southern California National Forests Vision (USDA 2005a), (2) Los Padres National Forest Strategy (USDA 2005b), and (3) Design Criteria for the Southern California National Forests (USDA 2005c).

22 Environmental Assessment

The Frazier Mt Project is consistent with the Southern California Forests Vision (Part 1), the Los Padres National Forest Strategy (Part 2) and the Design Criteria for the Southern California National Forests (Part 3).

The Southern California National Forests Vision (USDA 2005a) includes the following goals:

• Goal 1.1 - Community Protection (USDA 2005a, p. 20). Improve the ability of southern California communities to limit loss of life and property and recover from the high intensity wildland fires that are a natural part of this state’s ecosystem.

• Goal 1.2 - Restoration of Forest Health (USDA 2005a, p. 21). Restore forest health where alteration of natural fire regimes has put human and natural resource values at risk.

• Goal 1.2.1 - Fire Regime I (0-35 years - low severity) (USDA 2005a, p. 23). Reduce the potential for widespread losses of montane conifer forests caused by severe, extensive, stand replacing fires.

Place-Based Program Emphasis The Los Padres National Forest has been divided into a series of geographical units called “Places”. Each Place has its own landscape character. Landscape character has been described as an overall visual and cultural impression of landscape attributes and the physical appearance and cultural context of a landscape that gives it an identity and “sense of place”. Each Place has a theme, setting, desired condition, and program emphasis section. The Frazier Mt. Project is primarily (2,659 acres) within the Hungry Valley/Mutau Place (Land Management Plan, Part 2, pages 62-64), with a minor portion (191 acres) within the Mount Pinos Place (Land Management Plan, Part 2, pages 65-67). Also, see Appendix A, Map A-4 in this EA for a map.

The Hungry Valley/Mutau Place includes the following management direction that is relevant to the stated purpose and need of the Frazier Mt. project:

• Valued landscape attributes to be preserved over time are the meadows/grasslands and pine tree overstory. • Treat vegetation for forest health and to reduce fuel loading. • Manage vegetation to maintain healthy stands of mature conifers, which may include road construction. The Mount Pinos Place includes the following management direction that is relevant to the stated purpose and need of the Frazier Mt. project:

• Management to focus on perpetuating healthy conifer forests. • The big tree (old growth) appearance of the Jeffrey pine forests would be maintained with vegetative treatments that reduce stand density problems. • Active management of vegetation to maintain healthy conifer stands and protect communities is emphasized.

Land Use Zones Land use zones were used to map the Los Padres National Forest for the purpose of identifying appropriate management types of ‘uses’ that are consistent with the achievement of the desired conditions described in Part 1 of the revised forest plan. These land use zones are used to help

23 Frazier Mt. Project

demonstrate clearly management’s intent and to indicate the anticipated level of public land use in any area (Place) of the national forest. The land use zones, in order of decreasing land use intensity are:

• Developed Area Interface (DAI) • Back Country (BC) • Back Country Motorized Use Restricted (BCMUR) • Back Country Non-Motorized (BCNM) • Critical Biological (CB) • Recommended Wilderness (RW) • Existing Wilderness (EW)

The Frazier Mt. Project is within two different land use zones: Developed Area Interface (DAI) with approximately 461 acres and Back Country (BC) with approximately 2,389 acres. See Appendix A, Map A-4 in this EA for a map. The complete description of land use zones is in the Los Padres Land Management Plan, Part 2, pages 2-10. Table 5 below notes the land use zones and the suitable land uses activities for the Frazier Mt. project that are relevant to the project proposed actions.

Table 5. Land Use Zones and Suitable Land Uses Suitable Land Uses DAI BC Restoration of Vegetation Condition Suitable Suitable Wood Products, including fuelwood harvesting Suitable Suitable Special Forest Products Suitable Suitable Community Protection Areas Suitable Suitable Fuelbreak Construction Suitable Suitable

Land Management Program Strategies This section describes the detailed program strategies (Land Management Plan, Part 2, Page 117) that apply to the Frazier Mt. Project in order to make progress toward achieving the desired conditions and goals discussed in Part 1 of the Land Management Plan.

FH 3 - Restoration of Forest Health • Implement vegetation management activities to reduce tree densities and fuel loading in yellow pine and mixed conifer forests to levels similar to those that characterized forest of the pre-suppression and early suppression eras (ca. 1880-1930). Restore species composition comparable to forests of the same era with an emphasis on increasing the relative abundance of large-diameter (greater than 24 inches diameter breast height), shade-intolerant conifer species.

• Implement vegetation treatments that improve the health of Coulter pine forests and woodlands growing in chaparral. Focus treatments on stands older than 35 years, except where it is necessary to protect life and property. In the latter case, treatments may occur in stands older than 20 years so long as seed (cone) banks are adequate to perpetuate the stands.

• Remove ladder fuels and forest floor fuel accumulations to protect stands of bigcone Douglas-fir from stand replacing crown fires. Reduce fuel loading in chaparral adjacent

24 Environmental Assessment

to fir stands so that future wildland fires are less likely to initiate crown fires from surrounding shrublands.

• Treat fuel loading in montane chaparral to reduce the likelihood that fires originating in this type will generate crown fires in adjacent forested stands.

• Manage chaparral in selected locations to protect life and property of human inhabitants, to improve wildlife forage, and to protect watersheds from the adverse impacts of large, destructive, high intensity fires.

FH 4 – Insect and Disease Management • Protect natural resource values at risk due to insect or disease loss at levels outside of the desired range of variability or where needed to improve habitat

• Thin conifer stands to prevent water stress and damage by bark beetles.

Land and Management Plan Direction for Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) The Frazier Mt. Project is designed to meet the direction in the Land Management Plan (2006) for fuels reduction treatments in the WUIs. Appendix A, Map 8 shows the LRMP WUI direction as applied to the Frazier Mt project area.

The direction on WUIs in the LRMP is summarized below:

Land Management Plan, Part 2, page 22, notes:

Fuelbreak Construction - Most of the planned fuelbreaks are also along roads and ridgetops and are proposed for limiting the spread of wildland fire. Most fuelbreaks are constructed with mechanized equipment. Some are built by hand or by using prescribed fire. Herbicides may be used to kill resprouting chaparral and then fire is used to maintain the fuelbreak over time. Fuelbreaks are sometimes constructed near communities to provide some level of future protection in cases where land ownership patterns or topography limit the applicability of the Wildland/Urban Interface Defense and Threat Zones concept.

Wildland/Urban Interface (WUI) Defense and Threat Zones-. A WUI Defense Zone is a relatively narrow area in width (see standards S7 and S8 in Part 3) directly adjoining structures that is converted to a less flammable state to increase defensible space and firefighter safety. A secondary zone (the WUI Threat Zone, see standard S7 in Part 3) is an additional strip of vegetation modified to reduce flame heights and radiant heat. The two zones together are designed to make most structures defensible. These zones are applicable to national forest lands only and are applicable to structures on public land and can also be applied where national forest boundaries are directly adjacent to communities on private lands. Techniques may include hand or machine removal of vegetation and the use of herbicides in the WUI Defense Zone. Treatments in the WUI Threat Zone are less intensive and can generally be maintained with prescribed fire over the long-term. In forested areas, extensive tree thinning is planned as part of installing WUI Threat Zones.

Land Management Plan, Part 3, page 5, notes:

Standard S7: There are extensive areas within and adjacent to the national forests of southern California meeting the definition of Wildland/Urban Interface (WUI) as

25 Frazier Mt. Project

described in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. WUI (as defined by the Act) is a variable width up to 1.5 miles from communities at risk or as defined in individual community fire protection plans. This forest plan further identifies a direct protection buffer (WUI Defense Zone) and an indirect protection buffer (WUI Threat Zone) that fall within the broader definition WUI. A WUI Defense Zone is the area directly adjoining structures and evacuation routes that is converted to a less-flammable state to increase defensible space and firefighter safety. The WUI Threat Zone is an additional strip of vegetation modified to reduce flame heights and radiant heat. The Threat Zone generally extends approximately 1.25 miles out from the Defense Zone boundary. Yet, actual extents of Threat Zones are based on fire history, local fuel conditions, weather, topography, existing and proposed fuel treatments, and natural barriers to fire and community protection plans, and therefore could extend well beyond the 1.25 mile. The two zones together are designed to make most structures more defendable. Following in Table 6, are the minimum and maximum widths for the WUI Defense Zone by general vegetation type:

Table 6. WUI Defense Zone Minimum and Maximum Widths by Vegetation Types. WUI Defense Zone Widths Min Width (ft) WUI Max Width (ft) WUI Vegetation Type Defense Zone Defense Zone Grass 50 100 Chaparral 100 300 Forests 300 1,500

Standard S8: Community protection needs within the WUI Defense Zone take precedence over the requirements of other forest plan direction; including other standards identified in Part 3 of the forest plan. If expansion beyond the 300-foot minimum width of the defense zone is needed due to site-specific conditions, projects will be designed to mitigate effects to other resources to the extent possible.

Land Management Plan, Part 3, Appendix K, pages 81 to 83 has detailed information on the development and guidelines for WUIs and is summarized below:

WUI

This is a variable width up to 1.5 miles from communities at risk or as defined in individual community fire protection plans. This forest plan further identifies a direct protection zone (WUI Defense Zone) and an indirect protection zone (WUI Threat Zone) that fall within the broader definition of WUI. A WUI Defense Zone is the area directly adjoining structures and evacuation routes that is converted to a less-flammable state to increase defensible space and firefighter safety. The WUI Threat Zone is an additional strip of vegetation modified to reduce flame heights and radiant heat. The Threat Zone generally extends approximately 1 1/4 miles out from the Defense Zone boundary. Yet, actual extents of Threat Zones are based on fire history, local fuel conditions, weather, topography, existing and proposed fuel treatments, and natural barriers to fire and community protection plans, and therefore could extend well beyond the 1 1/4 mile. The two zones together are designed to make most structures more defendable.

WUI Defense Zone

26 Environmental Assessment

This is a strip of land where planned suppression activities involve both containment of the fire perimeter and protection of structures. The intensity of the vegetation management activities varies by vegetation type and topography. Vegetation is divided into three groups for purposes of providing guidelines: grass, chaparral, and forests. Flame lengths expected from wildland fires burning in these various vegetation types are the basis for the minimum and maximum widths of planned defense zones. See Table 6 above.

WUI Threat Zone

Activities within the Threat zone are less intensive than those implemented in the Defense Zone. There is no need to maintain any area in a less-flammable state within the Threat Zone. The object is to complete enough tree thinning and surface fuel management over time to reduce the potential for stand replacing fires in the Threat Zone. Emphasis will usually be the reduction of ladder fuels and periodic reduction of surface fuels.

In vegetation types such as grass and chaparral, there may be no need to conduct extensive treatments in the Threat Zone. In forested areas there may be significant treatment needs within the Threat Zone. In these areas, site-specific prescriptions will be jointly developed by vegetation and fire management staff and biologists to describe crown closure and forest structure objectives. Depending on the site, thinning to achieve as low as 30 percent crown closure may occur; however, crown closure may be retained at 60 percent or higher to meet wildlife habitat objectives in some locations, such as highly productive sites, drainages and north facing slopes.

WUI Maintenance

There will generally be some annual maintenance needs in the Defense Zone. Specifically, that portion of the Defense Zone that must be maintained in a less- flammable state, hand or machine projects or the use of herbicides may be utilized to perform this maintenance work.

National Fire Plan, Healthy Forest Initiative, HFRA Direction

National Fire Plan Direction The National Fire Plan was also reviewed as part of project development. The National Fire Plan was developed in August 2000 with the goal of ensuring sufficient firefighting resources for the future, to rehabilitate and restore fire-damaged ecosystems, to reduce fuels in forest and rangelands at risk, to work with local residents to reduce fire risk, and to improve fire protection. The National Fire Plan provides national direction for hazardous fuels reduction, restoration, rehabilitation, monitoring, applied research, technology transfer and established the framework for a 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy initiated in 2001 and revised in 2006. Relevant goals of the National Fire Plan Strategy are: 1) improve prevention and suppression, 2) reduce hazardous fuels, 3) restore fire adapted ecosystems, 4) promote community assistance. Comprehensive strategies, implementation plans, and initiatives pertinent to the National Fire Plan can be found on the web at http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/index.shtml. The Frazier Mt. project meets the goals of the National Fire Plan.

27 Frazier Mt. Project

Healthy Forest Initiative (2002) The 2002 Healthy Forest Initiative for Wildfire Prevention and Stronger Communities (known as the Healthy Forests Initiative) implements core components of the consensus 10-year implementation plan agreed to by States, tribes, and stakeholders. The Frazier Mt. project would further the goals of the initiative by reducing the threat of high-intensity wildfires to protect communities, firefighters, wildlife, and forest health.

Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003 The 2003 Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) provides direction and goals for this project as well. The HFRA authorizes hazardous fuel reduction projects on Federal lands and provides a foundation to work collaboratively with at-risk communities to reduce wildfire hazards caused by vegetative conditions and fuel loads within the WUI that are above desired conditions defined by Federal, State, county, or local agencies. The Frazier Mt. project qualifies as a HFRA project because the adjacent communities have been designated as “communities at risk” (Federal Register; August 17, 2001, Vol. 66, No. 160) and other communities and residential areas meet the definition of communities at risk under HFRA and are within the established WUI as defined by the Forest Plan and a local community wildfire protection plan (CWPP) see below.

Mt. Pinos Communities Wildfire Protection Plan (2006) The Frazier Mt. project responds to the objectives of the Mt. Pinos Communities Wildfire Protection Plan 2006 (CWPP) developed by the Mt. Pinos Communities Fire Safe Council in Kern and Ventura County, California, for Land management agencies and private landowners to take actions to reduce fire hazards. The CWPP identifies and prioritizes areas for hazardous fuel reduction treatments and recommends the types and methods of treatment that will protect the communities with the Mt. Pinos CWPP Study Area. The Mt. Pinos CWPP study area is located in Kern, Ventura, and Los Angeles Counties within the state of California. The boundary of the study area was delineated by the Mt. Pinos Communities Fire Safe Council. The Los Padres National Forest surrounds most of the communities with the study area. The following communities are within the CWPP study area:

• Lebec • Los Padres Estates • Frazier Park • Lake of the Woods • Cuddy Valley • Pinon Pines • Pine Mountain Club • Lockwood Valley • Camp Scheideck/ Ozena Valley • Highway 33 Corridor

The Mt. Pinos CWPP delineates the WUI Zone into 1. Defense Zone – 500-ft buffer around structures, 2. Threat zone – ¼ mile buffer around the Defense Zone, and 3. Wildland Zone – the area beyond the Threat Zone (CWWP, pp 121-123).

The Frazier Mt. Project includes all three of these WUI zones. The Defense Zones are around the LPNF District Office, several FS special use lease homesites, and the Chuchupate Campground and the Frazier Mt. Communication Site. The Threat Zone is areas buffering those defense zones, and areas outside the defense and threat zones are in the Wildland Zone (See Appendix A, Map

28 Environmental Assessment

7). The Frazier Mt. project area description from 20061 is noted in the Mt. Pinos CWPP starting on pages 161-164 and the CWPP notes that the Frazier Mt. Project would break up large areas of continuous fuels south of Frazier Park and southeast of Lake of the Woods (CWPP, pg 161). The CWPP notes that the Frazier Mt Project could slow a fire moving from Frazier Park, under a north wind, from moving into Lockwood Valley (CWPP, pg 161).

Public Involvement The Frazier Project was updated2 and listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) on October 1, 2009 and then included on every quarterly SOPA update since. The Frazier project proposal was provided to the public and other agencies for comment during scoping with a scoping letter dated September 13, 2010. The scoping letter (including an attachment that provided a detailed description of the proposed action for Frazier project) was mailed to approximately 65 individuals, groups, other agencies and tribal governments. The project proposal and maps were also posted in the Los Padres forest web site for public review since October 1, 2010.

Approximately eight (8) letters or emails were received from the public in response to the scoping efforts noted above. A scoping summary analysis to identify potential issues and potential alternatives was completed by the IDT and reviewed by the responsible official. The project record file contains the scoping letters sent from the Forest Service and letters/emails received from the public, and the IDT scoping summary analysis.

A public field trip to the Frazier project area with FS staff, interested individuals and groups occurred May 5, 2011 and included approximately thirteen (13) participants (six FS staff and seven private individuals / public group representatives). The list of attendees for this public field trip is in the project record files. This field trip with interested publics and project collaborators was considered meeting the direction for a Frazier project public meeting per the HFRA process.

In addition, as part of the public involvement process, the FS arranged several follow-up conference calls with involved members of the public that had submitted written comments during scoping and requested more information and follow-up contact by the responsible official. The intent of those conference calls was to discuss those scoping comments and clarify issues or concerns with members of the involved public.

Issues Using the comments from the public scoping process noted above, the interdisciplinary team completed a scoping summary analysis, and from that process, developed a list of issues to address and alternatives for the responsible official to consider.

The Forest Service separated the potential issues into those that were addressed or could be addressed with project design features (see the list of project design features in the Alternatives section of this EA), and those analysis issues that may result in an alternative being developed

1 The original Frazier Mt Project was scoped to the public in 2005-2006 by the Los Padres NF. Other projects in the Mt. Pinos area were higher priority and the Frazer Mt. project was postponed. The new Frazier Mt Project described in this EA has a revised Proposed Action that is significantly different than the original 2006 Frazier Mt. proposed action; therefore, the Forest re-started the Frazier Mt Project NEPA process again in Sept-Oct. 2010. The project area boundary is exactly the same in both the 2006 and 2010 proposals. 2 Ibid, see above.

29 Frazier Mt. Project

and studied in detail. A complete list of potential analysis issues and potential alternatives considered are found in the scoping summary analysis report in the project files.

• The Responsible Official identified the issue of “cutting trees over 10”-12” diameter as an analysis issue and directed the IDT to develop an alternative to the proposed action to address this issue from the public. To that end, the IDT developed Alternative 3 which would have a diameter cap of 10” on any tree cutting and as a result, would have no commercial thinning or commercial timber sale activities (See the Alternatives section in this EA for details of Alternative 3). However, there could be some firewood permits used to sell the small diameter trees left at landings from the noncommercial thinning treatments.

• Indicators for comparison of the alternatives and for this issue are noted below. These indicators will be presented in more detail at the end of the Alternatives Section II of this EA and in the Environmental Consequences Section III for Forested Vegetation and Fuels in this EA.

1. Stand Density Index (SDI). (Used in the Forested Vegetation section analysis). 2. Trees per Acre (TPA). (Used in the Forested Vegetation section analysis). 3. Fire Type (Active, Passive, Surface). (Used in the Fuels section analysis). 4. Flame Length. (Used in the Fuels section analysis). 5. Probability of Torching (P-torch). (Used in the Fuels section analysis)

Decision Framework3 The Responsible Official for the Frazier Mountain Project is the Forest Supervisor for the Los Padres National Forest. Given the purpose and need, the Los Padres Forest Supervisor would review the proposed action and alternatives in order to make the following decision:

 Whether to implement the Proposed Action (Alternative 2), or Alternative 3, or a combination of alternative activities, or take no action (Alternative 1) at this time, and whether a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) can be supported by the environmental analysis contained in this EA.

Pursuant to HFRA, instead of an appeal period post-decision (36 CFR 215), there will be an “objection process” before the final decision is made for the Frazier Mountain project and after the environmental document is mailed (36 CFR 218). In order to be eligible to file an objection to the preferred alternative, specific written comments related to the project must have been submitted during scoping or other public involvement opportunities on this EA (36 CFR 218.7). Individual members of organizations must have submitted their own comments to meet the requirements of eligibility as an individual, objections received on behalf of an organization are considered as those of the organization only. For more information on how this objection process works and the requirements, see the regulations under 36 CFR 218 Subpart A on the national Forest Service web site at: http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/applit/36cfr218a.htm

30 Environmental Assessment

II. ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION This section describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Frazier Mt project. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, sharply defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public. There are three alternatives studied in detail in this analysis:

• Alternative 1 -- No Action • Alternative 2 – Proposed Action • Alternative 3 – (10” diameter limit on tree removal, no commercial harvest)

Alternative 1 – No Action No thinning or fuels reduction treatments would occur with the No Action Alternative. Other ongoing activities would still continue. No map is presented for the No Action alternative.

Alternative 2 -- Proposed Action Thinning and fuels treatments would occur on approximately 2,386 acres of the 2,850 acre project area. See Table 7 and Appendix A- Map A-2 for Alternative 2 - Proposed Action treatments.

Frazier Mountain Timber Stand Treatments High risk timber stands exist on upper Frazier Mountain. These stands would be treated using commercial thinning and/or noncommercial thinning to thin dense conifer stands to reduce tree competition and crown densities, reduce under story green tree and brush competition, decrease ladder and surface fuel loads and reduce existing brush cover. Commercial thinning would thin smaller diameter trees (thin from below) and would leave the larger diameter fire resilient trees unless they pose a safety hazard to harvest operations or the public. Trees may be cut by machine where feasible, or by hand. Activity fuels from thinning would be treated and existing fuels would be reduced. Ladder fuels, tops and limbs and excess large fuels would be removed or burned on site. Machine piling and burning, hand piling and burning, loping-and-scattering, and prescribe burning would be used to treat activity fuels. Approximately 1,040 acres would be commercial thinned. Trees would be removed from most stands using ground-based tractor logging; however, there are three stands (#97B, #104 and #106) from which trees would be removed using a cable/skyline yarding system (47 acres).

See Appendix A-Table A-1 for a detailed list of proposed CT and NCT units. Approximately 40 landings would be needed and approximately 2.4 miles of temporary roads would be needed to access units. All landings would be rehabilitated after treatments are completed. Temporary roads would be decommissioned and rehabilitated after treatments are completed. OHV use would be restricted from using these decommissioned temporary roads using barriers or signage and active enforcement. Commercial harvested trees would be part of a commercial timber sale and log trucks would haul those trees to a regional mill. Public access may be restricted on Frazier Mt area roads for safety needs for a limited time during commercial log haul operations.

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

31 Frazier Mt. Project

treated and activity fuels would be treated by hand or machine pile and burning or jackpot burning.

Frazier Mountain Fuelbreak and Prescribed Fire Treatments The objectives of a fuelbreak are to serve as a point of control in the event of wildfire and to be used as an anchor point for prescribed underburning operations. An emergency fireline was constructed on Frazier Mountain during the Day Fire event in 2008. The existing fireline would be incorporated into an improved fuelbreak treatment approximately 7.5 miles long and up to 300 feet wide, treating approximately 220 acres. The Frazier Mountain fuelbreak would be treated using a combination of commercial thinning (when within existing commercial units), noncommercial thinning, mastication of shrubfields, pile burning, jackpot burning and prescribed fire. Areas on the top of Frazier Mountain not treated by commercial thinning, noncommercial thinning and fuelbreak treatments would be treated using prescribed fire to reduce surface fuels, ladder fuels and shrubfields. A total of approximately 823 acres would be treated along the top of Frazier Mountain using prescribed fire and the Frazier Mt fuelbreak treatments.

Chuchupate Campground, Special Use Residences and Mt Pinos District Ranger Office Fuel Reduction Treatments Fuel reduction treatments would be implemented around the Chuchupate Campground, three special use residences, lower trailhead access parking areas, and the Mt Pinos Ranger District office and warehouse complex. These treatments would include a combination of methods including mastication or burn (173 acres), handpile/burn (14 acres), and noncommercial thin/handpile/burn (95 acres). Approximately 282 acres total would be treated around these recreation areas, special use residences and Forest Service facilities. Table 7 below summarizes the proposed action treatment activities.

Table 7. Summary of Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Activities by Treatment Type: Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Activities Acres / Miles / # Project Area acres (managed by USDA-FS) 2,850 Private Ownership acres (if intermingled) 0.0 Total Project Area acres 2,850 Forested Stand Treatments (on FS acres only) • Commercial Thin (CT) (includes NCT and activity fuels 1,040 treatments on same acres.) • Noncommercial Thin only (NCT) (includes activity fuels 241 treatments on same acres) *Total CT/NCT and NCT only acres 1,281 Commercial Harvest Landings / Transportation Activities • Temporary road construction miles 2.4 • Timber harvest landings # (estimated) 40 Fuels Treatments (on FS acres only) • Prescribed Fire Treatments (upper Frazier Mt), also 823 includes Frazier Mt Fuelbreak Treatments • Fuel Reduction Treatments (mastication, thin, handpile, burn, – lower project area including Chuchupate 282 Campground, trailheads, special use residences and FS facilities) *Total Fuels Only acres 1,105 Total Project Treated Acres (Fuels-CT-NCT Treatments) 2,386

32 Environmental Assessment

Treatment Definitions for Proposed Action Activities Ground-based yarding Thinned trees would be pulled from the site to landings by the use of ground-based machine such as a rubber-tired skidder, tracked skidder (dozer), or ATV. Cable yarding Thinned trees would be transported from the site to landings by a cable system. The leading end of trees being removed would be suspended, but in most cases the trees would not be fully suspended and ground contact would occur. Hand thinning Trees and/or shrubs would be cut or pruned using hand-carried machines (e.g., chainsaws) to the desired spacing.

Hand pile and burn Fuels created by pruning, tree thinning or shrub thinning would be piled by hand and burned during conditions when risk of fire spread is low and when smoke will be adequately dispersed. Handpiles would be up to 6 feet high and 8 feet in diameter and would be placed as far from the canopy drip-line of trees as possible to prevent scorch. Machine cut Trees would be cut by a ground-based machine such as a track-mounted feller-buncher, but on occasion, hand cutting may be necessary. Mechanical equipment will be limited to 35% (as defined in the LRMP) with some pitches up to 50%. Anything above 35% will be hand felled, piled, and burned. Machine pile and burn Fuels created by tree thinning would be piled by machine and burned during conditions when risk of fire spread is low and when smoke will be adequately dispersed. Piles would be placed as far from the canopy drip-line of trees as possible to prevent scorch. The operation could be the use of a track-mounted excavator with a grapple or a track-mounted dozer to pile thinning debris. Mechanical equipment will be limited to 35% (as defined in the LRMP) with some pitches up to 50%. Anything above 35% will be hand felled, piled, and burned. Mastication Brush fields and smaller diameter trees remaining after commercial or noncommercial thinning after thinning would be masticated. The specific type of mastication equipment used is dependent on availability and cost at the time. Prescribed fire underburn Fuels would be reduced by prescribed burning with a low intensity controlled burn. A range of prescribed burning activities including hand piling, jackpot burning, aerial ignitions, and low intensity burns would be conducted, usually under a forest canopy. Most of the thinning units are nested within larger underburn areas. Fuels treatment would vary depending on the existing and post-thinned conditions.

33 Frazier Mt. Project

Alternative 3 – 10” Diameter Cap - No Commercial Harvest Noncommercial thinning and fuels treatments would occur on approximately 2,386 acres of the 2,850 acre project area. See Table 8 and Appendix A-Map A-3 for Alternative 3 treatments.

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

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

Areas on the top of Frazier Mountain not treated by noncommercial thinning and fuelbreak treatments would be treated using prescribed fire to reduce surface fuels, ladder fuels and

34 Environmental Assessment shrubfields. A total of approximately 823 acres would be treated along the top of Frazier Mountain using prescribed fire and the Frazier Mt fuelbreak treatments.

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

Table 8. Summary of Alternative 3 - Activities by Treatment Type (*Alternative 2 – Proposed Action activities are presented for comparison). Alternative 2* Alternative 3 Treatment Activities Proposed Action Acres/Miles/ # Acres / Miles / # Project Area acres (managed by USDA-FS) 2,850 2,850 Private Ownership acres (if intermingled) 0.0 0.0 Total Project Area acres 2,850 2,850 Forested Stand Treatments (on FS acres only) • Commercial Thin (CT) (includes NCT and activity fuels 1,040 0.0 treatments on same acres.) • NonCommercial Thin only (NCT) (includes activity fuels 241 1,281 treatments on same acres) *Total CT/NCT and NCT only acres 1,281 1,281 Commercial Harvest Landings / Transportation Activities • Temporary road construction miles 2.4 0.8 • Timber landings # (estimated) 40 10 Fuels Treatments (on FS acres only) • Prescribed Fire Treatments (upper Frazier Mt), also 823 823 includes Frazier Mt Fuelbreak Treatments • Fuel Reduction Treatments (mastication, thin, handpile, burn, – lower project area including Chuchupate 282 282 Campground, trailheads, special use residences and FS facilities) *Total Fuels Only acres 1,105 1,105 Total Project Treated Acres (Fuels-CT-NCT Treatments) 2,386 2,386

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

35 Frazier Mt. Project

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

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

Silviculture SL-1 All project activity would use existing classified and unclassified roads. Removal of forest products would require travel by vehicles (such as tree skidding equipment) off of existing system roads to facilitate removal. These temporary roads would be closed and obliterated where necessary following product removal. Ground equipment (such as masticators, skidders, or feller-bunchers) would be restricted to slopes of less than 35%, except for occasional pitches up to 50%. SL-2 When chipping is employed, chip depth would be no more than 2 inches scattered across no more than 75% of the project area. SL-3 In all units, as soon as possible, and no longer than 24 hours after tree cutting, all activity- created fir and pine tree stumps greater or equal to 14-inches in diameter would be treated with a borax compound (Sporax) to inhibit the spread of annosus root disease. SL-5 In all treatments, all live and dead trees posing a safety hazard to management activities or to the public will be removed within the treated areas. SL-5 General species preference for thinning trees would be: California black oak, Jeffrey pine or ponderosa pine, white fir, and live oak in descending order of preference to retain. This order of preference would be modified for individual stands to take into account management objectives such as species diversity, site and stand-specific factors, as well as other design criteria and therefore, the order of preference given in individual stand/unit prescriptions would supersede that given here. SL-6 All tree thinning would be “from below” to favor retaining larger trees over smaller trees but (1) thinning regimes would retain a proportion of the understory stocking to maintain stand vertical structural diversity, (2) large and old trees would be heavily thinned around, (3) thinning would consider species preference in tree selection, and (4) thinning would be “variable density” to increase horizontal structural diversity. Fire/Fuels/Air

Quality FU-1 Slash from thinning less than 3” diameter would be reduced to less than 5 tons/acre following treatment. FU-2 CT or NCT units would be machine pile and/or hand pile and burn, depending on slope. The method of fuels piling would be determined primarily by slope. If it is over 35% fuels would be hand piled. If less than 35% slope, then it could be machine piled. AQ-1 Prescribed burning (both pile burning and underburning) would be conducted with an approved burn plan. A copy of the smoke management plan would be sent to the appropriate County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) upon completion of the burn plan. AQ-2 Prior to burning the Forest Service Prescribed Fire Manager would ensure that required burn plan components, vicinity map, and project map are mailed with a completed copy of a CB-3 to California Air Resources Board (CARB) so that CARB is familiar with the burn area for 48/72 hour forecasts. AQ-3 The County APCD would review the burn prior to project implementation. AQ-4 Smoke would not be allowed to affect highway visibility on public highways.

36 Environmental Assessment

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

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

37 Frazier Mt. Project

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

NX-4 Implement aggressive weed control near transportation routes where groundcover is limited. NX-5 Assure that machines are clean and weed seed free prior to transportation into the project area NX-6 Report any newly discovered weed occurrences to the Los Padres National Forest Botanist. Botany/TES Plants BO-1 Sensitive plant surveys would occur prior to project activities. Wildlife WL-1 LRMP- S11: When occupied or suitable habitat for a threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate or sensitive (TEPCS) species is present on an ongoing or proposed project site, consider species guidance documents (see Appendix H) to develop project-specific or activity- specific design criteria. This guidance is intended to provide a range of possible conservation measures that may be selectively applied during site-specific planning to avoid, minimize or mitigate negative long-term effects on threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate or sensitive species and habitat. Involve appropriate resource specialists in the identification of relevant design criteria. Include review of species guidance documents in fire suppression or other emergency actions when and to the extent practicable. LRMP- S12: When implementing new projects in areas that provide for threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species, use design criteria and conservation practices (see Appendix H) so that discretionary uses and facilities promote the conservation and WL-2 recovery of these species and their habitats. Accept short-term impacts where long-term effects would provide a net benefit for the species and its habitat where needed to achieve multiple-use objectives. WL-3 LRMP- S14: Where available and within the capability of the site retain a minimum of six downed logs per acre (minimum 12 inches diameter and 120 total linear feet) and 10 to 15 hard snags per five acres (minimum 16 inches diameter at breast height and 40 feet tall, or next largest available). Exception allowed in Wildland/Urban Interface Defense Zones, fuelbreaks, and where they pose a safety hazard. WL-4 LRMP - S15: Within riparian conservation areas retain snags and downed logs unless they are identified as a threat to life, property, or sustainability of the riparian conservation area. WL-5 LRMP - S17: In areas outside of Wildland/Urban Interface Defense Zones and fuelbreaks, retain soft snags and acorn storage trees unless they are a safety hazard, fire threat, or impediment operability. WL-6 LRMP - S18: Protect known active and inactive raptor nest areas. Extent of protection will be based on proposed management activities, human activities existing at the onset of nesting initiation, species, topography, vegetative cover, and other factors. When appropriate, a no- disturbance buffer around active nest sites will be required from nest-site selection to fledging. WL-7 LRMP- S19: Protect all spotted owl territories identified in the Statewide California Department of Fish and Game database (numbered owl sites) and new sites that meet the state criteria by maintaining or enhancing habitat conditions over the long-term to the greatest extent practicable while protecting life and property. Use management guidelines in the species conservation strategy (or subsequent species guidance document; see Appendix H) to further evaluate protection needs for projects, uses and activities.

38 Environmental Assessment

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

WL-8 LRMP- S20: Maintain a limited operating period (LOP) prohibiting activities within approximately .25 miles of a California spotted owl nest site, or activity center where nest site is unknown, during the breeding season (February 1 through August 15), unless surveys confirm that the owls are not nesting. Follow the USDA Forest Service (1993, 1994 or subsequent) protocol to determine whether owls are nesting. The LOP does not apply to existing road and trail use and maintenance, use of existing developed recreation sites, or existing special-uses, such as recreation residence tracts. When evaluating the need to implement a limited operating period, site- and project-specific factors need to be considered (use species management strategy or subsequent guidance; see Appendix H). WL-9 LRMP - S24: Mitigate impacts of on-going uses and management activities on threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species. WL-10 LRMP- S25: Conduct road and trail maintenance activities during the season of year that would have the least impact on threatened, endangered, and proposed wildlife species in occupied habitats, except as provided by site-specific consultation. WL-11 LRMP- S28: Avoid or minimize disturbance to breeding and roosting California condors by prohibiting or restricting management activities and human uses within 1.5 miles of active California condor nest sites and within 0.5 miles of active roosts. Refer to California condor species account (or subsequent species guidance document; see Appendix H) for additional guidance. WL-12 LRMP- S32: When surveys for species presence/absence are done for threatened, endangered, and proposed species, use established survey protocols, where such protocols exist. WL-13 Any trash associated with this project shall be removed and properly disposed of. The District wildlife biologist or designee will brief all personnel involved in Frazier Mountain project activities on the importance of not leaving hazardous materials exposed and daily removal of all garbage fragments to maintain condor health. Garbage removal will be stipulated in mechanical brush treatment contracts. WL-14 Any discovered active goshawk nest stand (30 acres) would be protected from project implementation. LOP for goshawk within Post-fledgling Family Area (PFA) is March 1- Sept 30. Therefore, treatments shall only occur during the non breeding season of 1 October through 28 February. WL-15 Piles burned should be ignited from one side only to allow for small mammals, rodents and reptiles to escape. WL-16 Vegetation treatments, particularly broadcast burns, should be implemented as early in the fall and winter as moisture conditions warrant, to more closely mimic the natural burn ecology and to avoid burning any early nesting efforts of migratory landbirds. Watershed / Soils WS-1 RCA’s will be 100 meters (328 feet) on perennial, or 30 meters (98 feet) on intermittent streams, measured as the slope distance from either bank of the channel. Other special aquatic features, such as wetlands, seeps and springs, also have 100 meter RCAs. • No self-propelled ground skidding equipment is allowed within the RCA (exceptions would require input by an earth scientist and/or biologist as described in standard S47 and Appendix E of the Forest Plan). • There is no fuels treatment within the stream inner gorge except where needed to remove hazard trees. Equipment crossing is permitted if necessary and evaluated by an earth scientist. Vegetation removal outside of any inner gorge feature but w ithin an RCA Additionally, roads already constructed and used for project access within the RCA may be used for project work. • There will be no removal of riparian plant species. will be for fuels reduction purposes to meet Forest Plan RCA Resource Management Objectives.

39 Frazier Mt. Project

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

WS-2 Use of heavy equipment will be excluded from meadow areas. WS-3 Only designed temporary roads, classified roads, channel crossings, and their approaches would be allowed within RCAs. Temporary roads would be constructed outside of RCAs, unless limited by topography. Where channel/riparian crossings are necessary, the crossing sites will be determined in coordination with a wildlife biologist/botanist and hydrologist/soil scientist. Crossings must be engineered to limit damage to streambeds and riparian zones. WS-3(a) Landing locations should be located outside of RCAs, unless infeasible due to topography. Landings within an RCA may occur where there is existing disturbance, instead of constructing a new one, then do so using special protective measures as specified by an earth scientist or biologist. WS-4 Skid roads and skid trails should not be constructed within the RCA. However, in those situations where it is necessary and authorized, the contracting officer/forest officer will designate equipment-crossing locations for skidding operations on intermittent and ephemeral channels. All skidding trails within the RCA must be designated prior to implementation. WS-5 Construct erosion control measures on all cable corridors and skid trails. The measures can include waterbars, chipping, scattered slash, or other methods as approved by an earth scientist. WS-6 Burn piles should not be placed in an ephemeral channel, within stream inner gorges, or within 50 feet of streams within RCAs. WS-7 Where mechanical slash piling is used, the method of mechanical slash piling will maintain soil quality standards (such as grappling vs. brush raking). WS-8 If there is a 30% chance precipitation according to the National Weather Service, the day before use of heavy machinery in the project area, all skid trails in use will be water barred. WS-9 All necessary permits shall be obtained from the applicable State Water Quality Control Board prior to fuel treatment operations being implemented on lands located with the jurisdiction. WS-10 The Five-Step project screening process will be used to identify riparian conservation areas (S- 47, LRMP Part 3, p. 11). WS-11 Refueling of equipment and storage of fuel and other hazardous materials will not occur within RCAs (perennial and seasonal streams, seeps, springs, and meadows). When landings are located within RCAs, refueling will occur outside the RCA in an approved refuel area. No storage of fuel quantities greater than 100 gallons in designated RCAs Storage of any quantity of fuel greater than 100 gallons will require a California Engineer Spill Plan. WS-12 Within RCAs, retain snags and downed logs to the extent possible. Exceptions would be made if snags and logs are identified as a threat to life, property, or sustainability of the RCA (S15, LRMP Part 3, p. 6). For the purposes of this project, in RCAs all snags and downed logs will remain in WUI Threat Zones. In WUI Defense Zones downed woody debris will be retained at 5 tons/acre or less within the first 100 feet from roads and private property boundaries and between 5-20 tons/acre in the remaining WUI Defense Zones, which overlaps with the RCA. Fuel removal in the first 100 feet of WUI Defense Zones where they overlap with RCAs will be coordinated with an earth scientist to maximize watershed function after fuels reduction activities. WS-13 Material must be fully-suspended when crossing a channel: a perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral stream with scour. WS-14 Directional felling away from channels will be required, unless infeasible due to tree characteristic (leaning, avoidance of other trees, etc.). If a tree is felled into a stream channel, it shall remain unless there is the potential to cause damming or downstream damage. If removed, require a full-suspension yarding system. WS-15 Where existing conditions permit, maintain or increase ground cover to 50-70% through chips or other slash.

40 Environmental Assessment

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

WS-16 Implement USDA Forest Service Region 5 Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect water quality and soils. BMPs are described in: Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in California, Best Management Practices. September 2000. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. WS-17 Limit use of mechanical activities (cutting with shears, mastication, skidding, or chipping) to slopes 35% or less, and on slopes between 35 - 50% for distances no longer than 50 feet.

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

Table 10. Monitoring Activities Monitoring Item Description of Monitoring Silviculture Continued monitoring for any initial outbreak of Sudden Oak Death, Phytophthora ramorum. SL-m1 Identification of an outbreak may be controlled and spread limited. Responsibility: District Silviculturist, Sale Preparation Forester, or designee. Fire/Fuels Monitoring of non-commercial thinning, as well as fuels treatments such as handpiling and burning and prescribed burning as they are being accomplished to determine if objectives are FU-m1 being achieved and those thinning contract specifications are being followed. Responsibility: Fuels Specialist / Forester or designee. Recreation Monitoring should be conducted to determine if OHV trespass activities are occurring in areas where treatments have been performed. If monitoring reveals trespass is occurring in those RE-m1 areas, steps should be taken to discourage the use (i.e. signing and barrier installation). Responsibility: Recreation Specialist or designee. Heritage Resources HR-m1 All sites must be monitored post project implementation to determine the effectiveness of the integrated design protection measures. Responsibility: Forest Archeologist or designee. Botany MIS Monitor California Black Oak populations/stands after activities. BO-m1 Responsibility: Forest Botanist or designee. Noxious Weeds Monitor for noxious weed populations before, during, and after activities. NX-m1 Responsibility: Forest Botanist or designee. Watershed / Soils Implement Best Management Practice Monitoring as described in: Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in California, Best Management Practices, September WS-m1 2000. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Responsibility: District Hydrologist or designee.

41 Frazier Mt. Project

Table 10. Monitoring Activities Monitoring Item Description of Monitoring Monitor to determine if 60% groundcover on slopes over 30% is maintained following mastication and burning treatment for first year. Consider rehabilitation where groundcover WS-m2 objectives are not met. Responsibility: District Soils Scientist or designee. Monitor to determine if 80% groundcover is maintained by end of 2nd growing season. WS-m3 Consider rehabilitation where groundcover objectives are not met. Responsibility: District Soils Scientist or designee.

42 Environmental Assessment

Comparison of Alternatives Activities and Effects This section provides a comparative tabular summary of the alternative activities proposed and the effects of implementing each alternative. Information in Table 11 below is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives. Based on information provided in the purpose and need section and relative to potential issues and the information in the Environmental Consequences Section III of this EA, the Responsible Official and the public are able to compare how the different alternatives address the purpose and need, respond to issues and affect resources.

Table 11. Comparison of Alternative Activities, Objectives, Issues and Effects. Alternative 1 Alternative 2 List of items for Comparison of Alternatives Alternative 3 No Action Proposed Action Alternative Activities Forested Stand Treatments (on FS acres only) • Commercial Thin (CT) (includes NCT and activity fuels 0.0 1,040 0.0 treatments on same acres.) • NonCommercial Thin only (NCT) (includes activity fuels 0.0 241 1,281 treatments on same acres) *Total CT/NCT and NCT only acres 0.0 1,281 1,281 Commercial Harvest Landings / Transportation Activities • Temporary road construction miles 0.0 2.4 0.8 • Timber landings # (estimated) 0 40 10 Fuels Treatments (on FS acres only) • Prescribed Fire Treatments (upper Frazier Mt), also 0.0 823 823 includes Frazier Mt Fuelbreak Treatments • Fuel Reduction Treatments (mastication, thin, handpile, burn, – lower project area including Chuchupate 0.0 282 282 Campground, trailheads, special use residences and FS facilities) *Total Fuels Only acres 0.0 1,105 1,105 Total Treated Acres (Fuels-CT-NCT Treatments) 0.0 2,386 2,386 Desired Conditions / Objectives for Forest Health Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 and Fuels Reduction Treatments No Action Proposed Action 1. Stand structure, stocking, and species compositions Objectives not met Objectives met on Objectives met on all would reflect historic conditions all treated acres treated acres, but to a lesser degree than Alternative 2. 2. Stands would be “natural appearing” with a high Objectives not met Objectives met on Objectives met level of horizontal and vertical structural diversity all treated acres partially on all treated acres, but reduced vertical structural diversity would still exist. 3. Damaging insects such as Jeffrey pine beetle would Objectives not met Objectives met on Objectives met on 1/3 be present at endemic levels with a low risk of all treated acres of treated acres, but epidemic levels objectives only partially met on 2/3 of treated acres 4. Wildfires would mostly burn with low-intensity and Objectives not met Objectives met on Objectives met on all low-severity with high-intensity and severity fire all treated acres treated acres limited to small areas Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Analysis Issue and Indicators Alternative 3 No Action Proposed Action Issue: Thinning of trees over 10” diameter 0.0 acres 1,040 acres 0.0 acres 1. Stand Density Index (SDI). (Used in the Forested SDI exceeds SDI within desired SDI within desired

43 Frazier Mt. Project

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 List of items for Comparison of Alternatives Alternative 3 No Action Proposed Action Vegetation section analysis. SDI of 200-230 is the desired range range on all treated range on 1/3 of desired range). Appendix C and Appendix D, stands treated acres. Post-treatment Stand Attributes, have the SDI values for each unit by Alternative. SDI not within desired range on 2/3 of treated acres 2. Trees per Acre (TPA). (Used in the Forested TPA exceeds TPA within desired TPA within desired Vegetation section analysis. TPA of 50-100 is the desired range range on all treated range on 1/3 of desired range). Appendix C and Appendix D, stands treated acres. Post-treatment Stand Attributes, have the TPA values for each unit by Alternative. TPA not within desired range on 2/3 of treated acres 3. Fire Type. (Used in the Fuels section analysis. 57% crown fire 0% crown fire 0% crown fire “Surface fire type” is desired. Percent (%) of stands 43% surface fire 100% surface fire 100% surface fire in crown fire vs. surface fire noted). 4. Flame Length. (Used in the Fuels section analysis. Flame length of 4ft or < less is desired condition. 61% > 4-ft. 5% > 4-ft. 5% > 4-ft. Percent of stands > 4-ft flame length or < 4ft flame 39% < 4-ft. 95% < 4-ft. 95% < 4-ft. length is presented) 5. Probability of Torching (Used in the Fuels section analysis. P-Torch indicator is 0.0 to 1.0 with 1.0 being the highest probability of torching and 0.0 95% > 0.1 P-Torch 27% > 0.1 P-Torch 17% > 0.1 P-Torch* being lowest probability of torching and. P-Torch of 5% < 0.1 P-Torch 73% < 0.1 P-Torch 83% < 0.1 P-Torch 0.1 or less is desired condition. Percent (%) of acres > and < 0.1 P-Torch in sampled stands is presented)* Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Other Resource Indicators Alternative 3 No Action Proposed Action Watershed / Soils

Detrimentally Disturbed Soils (desired ratio is No impacts DDS not exceeding DDS not exceeding less than (<) 15%) 15% 15% No impacts Sediment Delivery (tons/yr) Avg 2.4 Avg 2.4 Current avg is 2.8 tons/yr/crossing tons/yr/crossing tons/yr/crossing Equivalent Road Area (indicator is risk of Low Low Low exceeding Threshold of Concern (TOC) Wildlife

TEP Listed Wildlife Species No effects in short- May Affect2 May Affect2 term1 California Condor California Condor FS Sensitive Wildlife Species May Impact May Impact Individuals, but not Individuals, but not No impacts in short- lead to Listing for lead to Listing for the term1 the nine (9) species nine (9) species analyzed analyzed No significant No significant MIS Wildlife Species No impacts in short- changes in habitat changes in habitat or term1 or populations populations Migratory Bird Species No impacts in short- Negligible effect on Negligible effect on term1 MBs MBs Rare Plants / Invasive Species No impacts in short- May affect (5) FS May affect (5) FS term1 Sensitive spp. Sensitive spp. Invasive species Invasive species controlled controlled Recreation (Indicators are Scenic Integrity Objectives No impacts in short- term1 Meets SIO and (SIO) and Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Meets SIO and ROS Meets SIO and ROS ROS

44 Environmental Assessment

*P-Torch is dependent on "small places" within the stand modeled. Since Alternative 3 essentially focuses on the smaller diameter trees, it does a better job of getting rid of small diameter ladder fuels. In Alternative 2 the silviculture prescriptions are "uneven aged" which leaves pockets of small diameter trees and intentionally leaves a few more of the small trees, which are the ones that cause "torching". As the P-Torch model goes through and picks out random locations to test, it is more likely to hit something that says it will torch in Alternative 2 vs. Alternative 3. 1 The No Action would have no immediate adverse effects in the short-term for many of the resources; however, a large wildfire in the future could have the potential to cause a large stand-replacing wildfire and resource areas such as watershed, soils, wildlife habitats, rare plant habitats, heritage sites, recreation activities and social value of the area could be adversely affected. 2 May affect, but is not likely to adversely affect (the species or habitat).

45 Frazier Mt. Project

III. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This section summarizes the physical, biological, social and economic environments of the affected project area and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of the alternatives. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives presented in Table 11 in previous section above. This section is arranged by resource area with major sub-headings for each resource.

Past, Ongoing, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis A list of potential past, ongoing and foreseeable actions considered for the cumulative effects analysis for each resource area is noted in Appendix A-Table A-3 of this EA. Note that each resource area would determine which potential projects may result in cumulative effects on that resource area.

Forested Vegetation The effects of the alternatives for the forested vegetation resource area are summarized and described below. The complete forested vegetation specialist report and appendices are in the project files.

Affected Environment The affected environment or the historic/current condition for the forested vegetation resource is described in detail in Section I of this EA and is not repeated here for brevity.

Environmental Consequences

Methodology The effects analysis below is a combination of general description in qualitative terms and specific description in quantified terms of treatment effects upon the existing condition. We use specific examples of treatments on sampled stands to discuss and display the direction and nature of potential effects and stand- and treatment-specific data tables where needed to show specific effects. Additional stand- and site-specific data is available in analysis records but not included in this section.

We used the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) to model thinning and prescribed burning effects on the sampled stands (See Appendix E in the Forested Vegetation Specialist Report, in the project files). We used a combination of specific examples and stand and treatment specific data tables to show FVS modeling results. Additional stand-specific FVS modeling results are available in analysis records but are not included in this section. The FVS models changes in stand attributes over time and as a result of treatments as a stand-average on a per-acre basis but does not model within-stand variability. Increases in within-stand horizontal heterogeneity due to the application of variable-density treatments (See Appendix H, Forested Vegetation Specialist Report, in the project files) is very difficult to model and display with FVS. In the FVS modeling, we are modeling a proposed treatment regime as an average stocking change within the stand and qualitatively discussing how the stocking would vary within the stand.

Specific factors that we are analyzing are: (1) stand stocking in terms of TPA and SDI, (2) horizontal stand structural diversity in terms of percent canopy cover distributions, (3) vertical

46 Environmental Assessment

stand structural diversity in terms of tree diameter distributions, (4) bark beetle risk in terms of SDI stocking, and (4) stand species compositions.

To analyze on a landscape-level we discuss the proportion of each cover type within the analysis area that would be treated in the project.

Incomplete and Unavailable Information Stand exam data is not available for all forest or woodland stands in the analysis area. Data collection concentrated on sampling stands within the project area.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis We use three spatial scales for the effects analysis below, the spatial scale being used depending upon the measurement indicator being discussed. First, we will be discussing treatment effects on individual trees or classes of trees, for example the increase in growth and vigor of large overstory trees due to stocking reduction. Second, we will be discussing treatment effects on stand-level attributes, for example, changes in stand structure or bark beetle risk for which the special scale is the individual stand. Third, we will be discussing treatment effects on the landscape, for example, the effects of all thinning treatments on structural diversity or bark beetle risk within the context of a greater landscape. In this case, the “analysis area” we use is the land area managed by the Los Padres National Forest on and surrounding Frazier Mountain bounded by Cuddy Canyon on the north side, Lockwood Creek on the west side, and Long Dave Canyon and Dry Creek on the South side (See Appendix J, Forested Vegetation Specialist Report, in the project files). The analysis area is about 27,000 acres.

The baseline year used for this analysis is the year 2009 as the existing condition because proposed thinning treatment stands were examined in the fall of 2009. We are assuming that no major changes will take place in the stands from the fall of 2009 to 2012, the time at which we are modeling and discussing as the point of implementation. All past activities and events are included in the existing condition. In the cumulative effects analysis below, cumulative effects are discussed as changes in the existing condition due to present and future activities, including the effects of the alternative being discussed.

In the discussion below, “short-term” effects refers to effects over the 10-year period from the time the activity was accomplished. For modeling, analyzing, and discussing changes in the existing condition due to activities, we assume that the accomplishment year is 2012 or 2013. Also, in the discussion below, “long-term” effects refers to effects greater than 10 years from the time the activity was accomplished.

Connected Actions, Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis Within the analysis area, all activities affecting forest, woodland, and shrubland vegetation such as wildfires, the Day fire dozerlines, and the Lake of the Woods Fuelbreak were accomplished prior to this analysis and are included in the current condition. The exception to this is the trailhead project which is in shrubland adjacent to Chuchupate Station and which is currently being constructed. Other ongoing activities such as trail maintenance, grazing, recreational activities and firewood cutting have very minimal to no effect on the stand conditions being discussed in this analysis and are not considered here.

47 Frazier Mt. Project

Alternative 1- No Action In the “No Action” alternative, no management actions would take place.

Direct Effects There would be no direct effects to forest vegetation from this alternative. Under the No Action alternative, stand stocking levels, tree diameter distributions, and species compositions would remain as described above in the existing condition.

Indirect Effects Under the No Action alternative, structural diversity and bark beetle risk would remain as described in the existing condition.

Stand Diameter Distributions, Stocking Levels, and Species Compositions Most of the stands sampled within the project area have stocking in terms of TPA that is greater than what we consider historic and desired. In the short term, this alternative would have no effect on TPA stocking. Long-term effects would be that as SDI increases, overstory mid-story TPA stocking would tend to decline due to competition-related and bark beetle mortality and understory TPA would tend to increase as overstory and mid-story mortality creates canopy gaps in which seedlings become established.

In the short term species compositions would change little. In the long-term on the moister sites white fir would increase in proportion to the Jeffrey pine.

Most of the stands sampled within the project area have stocking in terms of SDI that we consider higher than historic and desired. A little less than one-half of the stands have SDIs that are greater than 55 percent of the maximum and are now within the zone of imminent mortality. With no action and assuming no disturbance such as wildfires or bark beetle epidemics, in the short-term and long-term we would expect to see competition-related mortality increasing to the point that SDI stops increasing, if it has not already. In the stands that are less than 55 percent of maximum we would expect little change in the short-term and in the long-term SDI stocking would increase and level off as the stands move into the zone of imminent mortality.

Stand Structural Diversity With no action and assuming no disturbance such as wildfires or bark beetle epidemics, in the short-term within-stand structural diversity would change very little. Stands would remain as described in Section I of this EA (see Figure 13 to Figure 16), which is generally low in horizontal structural diversity and higher in vertical structural diversity. In the long-term, stands would become structurally more diverse as trees die and create forest gaps which then become occupied by younger and smaller trees and as the more shade-tolerant white fir become established.

Insect and Disease Activity and Risk Stand stocking in terms of SDI is higher than historic and desired, and are sufficiently elevated to make the sampled stands at a risk to developing epidemic levels of bark beetles. With no action and assuming no severe disturbance such as wildfires or bark beetle epidemics these conditions will worsen in the short-term and long-term as SDI stocking increases further. Sooner or later, severe bark beetle mortality is imminent.

48 Environmental Assessment

Cumulative Effects With no action, the only changes to forest, woodland, or shrubland vegetation would be the trailhead and parking area construction which would impact a very small portion of the shrubland within the 27,000 acre analysis area.

Summary of Effects of Alternative 1-No Action The No Action alternative would not push stands toward achieving the desired condition discussed above. Specifically, under this alternative:

• Forest stand density in terms of TPA would not be reduced and pushed to or toward the historic and desired conditions and many stands would continue to have relatively large numbers of small trees • Forest stand density in terms of SDI would not be reduced and most stands would continue to be at risk to developing epidemic levels of bark beetles • Forest stand species compositions would not be pushed back toward historic or desired conditions and the undesirable trend toward an increase in understory white fir would continue in some stands • Vertical structural diversity would continue to be high • Horizontal structural diversity would continue to be low and may decrease as small openings decrease in size and stand stocking becomes more uniform

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans This alternative would not meet the Forest Plan guidance stated above.

Specifically, the No Action Alternative would not:

• Manage vegetation to maintain healthy stands of mature conifers • Focus on perpetuating healthy conifer forests • Maintain the big tree (old growth) with vegetative treatments that reduce stand densification problems • Implement vegetation management activities to reduce tree densities and fuel loading in yellow pine and mixed conifer forests to levels similar to those that characterized forest of the pre-suppression and early suppression eras nor would it restore species composition comparable to forests of the same era • Thin conifer stands to prevent water stress and damage by bark beetles

49 Frazier Mt. Project

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action All tree thinning would be “from below” to favor retaining larger trees over smaller trees but (1) thinning regimes would retain a proportion of the understory stocking to maintain stand vertical structural diversity, (2) large and old trees would be heavily thinned around, (3) thinning would consider species preference in tree selection, and (4) thinning would be “variable density” to increase horizontal structural diversity.

Direct Effects The proposed treatments would impact approximately 2,386 acres of forestland, woodland, shrubland, and herbland (see Table 12 below). Small portions of the proposed treatment areas are classified in the cover type data as urban and herbaceous, including several road sections. Vegetation treatments would not impact these areas and so they are not addressed further in this analysis. There is, therefore, a small difference between the cover type acreages discussed below and the proposed treatment acreages.

Table 12. Acres / percent of cover type proposed for treatment in project and analysis areas.

Percent of Cover Type in the Percent of Cover Type in the Cover Type Project Area Analysis Area Conifer forest or woodland 93 10 Hardwood forest or woodland 71 1 Mixed conifer and hardwood forest 94 4 or woodland Shrubland 69 8

Some of the area forest and woodland area would be treated with a combination of thinning and fuels treatments while other areas would only be prescribe burned. Except for pinyon-juniper (PJ), most of the forest type area within the project area would be treated in some fashion (see Table 13 below). Within the analysis area most of the forest type areas would not be treated.

Table 13. Percent of forest types proposed for treatment in project and analysis areas. Percent of Forest Type in Percent of Forest Type in Forest Type Project Area Treated Analysis Area Treated EP 68 26 JP 72 20 MF 75 14 PJ 33 <1 EP – eastern pine; JP – Jeffrey pine; MF – mixed conifer-fir; PJ – pinyon-juniper

The direct effects of this alternative in forested treatment units would be to reduce stand stocking, modify tree diameter distributions, and modify species compositions. The effects would continue through the short-term, but into the long-term stocking would rise to again exceed desired levels. The increase in stocking would be through tree growth, but also through the establishment of young trees and the diameter distributions would again move toward those displayed in the current condition. In hardwood and shrublands the direct effects would be an immediate reduction in shrub and hardwood coverage.

Stand Diameter Distributions, Stocking Levels, and Species Compositions Proposed thinning and burning treatments would flatten stand diameter distributions and retain uneven-sized and uneven-aged stands, except for currently even-aged plantations. Figure 19

50 Environmental Assessment

through Figure 21 display the post-treatment diameter distributions for Stands 3, 99, and 243. These stands are dominated by Jeffrey pine and would have an uneven-aged, variable-spacing thinning treatment which is both commercial and non-commercial. Compared to the current condition diameter distributions displayed in Section I of this EA in Figure 9 through Figure 11, the post-treatment distributions are much flatter due to heavier thinning of small diameter trees relative to larger trees. The post-treatment distributions would be much closer to the historic and desired condition than the current condition. Diameter distributions for other Jeffrey pine dominated stands in the area that are proposed for both commercial and non-commercial treatments would be slightly different and can be derived from data in project records, but the effect of treatments would be very similar to that displayed in Figure 19 through Figure 21.

Figure 19 shows the diameter distribution and species composition for Stand 3. As in the current condition Jeffrey pine dominates the stand but due to the proposed treatments the understory white fir component has been reduced. The post-treatment diameter distribution would be much flatter than the current condition displayed in Section I of this EA in Figure 10. The modeled post-treatment stand would have about 75 TPA: 28 TPA in the 4-10 inch DBH class, 32 TPA in the 12-22 inch DBH class, 6 TPA in the 24-34 inch DBH class, and 5 TPA in the 36+ DBH class. Note that the modeled post-treatment stocking values are several years into the future and tree diameter growth is included. The post-treatment diameter distributions would be much closer to the historic and desired condition discussed above in Section I of this EA than the current condition. Stocking in terms of SDI would be reduced to about 200.

Figure 19. Stand 3 post-treatment uneven-aged thin diameter distributions.

Figure 20 displays the diameter distribution and species composition for Stand 99 following the modeled treatments. Compared to the current condition, the treatments would flatten the diameter distribution. Jeffrey pine was the only species recorded in the exam plots so species composition would not change. The distribution shows about 98 TPA: 38 TPA in the 4-10 inch DBH class, 41 TPA in the 12-22 inch DBH class, 9 TPA in the 24-34 inch DBH class, and 1 TPA in the 36+ DBH class. These values are closer to the historic and desired condition discussed above in Section I of this EA than the current condition. Stocking in terms of SDI would be reduced to about 201.

51 Frazier Mt. Project

Figure 20. Stand 99 post-treatment uneven-aged thin diameter distributions.

Figure 21 shows the modeled post-treatment diameter distribution and species composition for Stand 243. Jeffrey pine would still dominate the stand and the current understory white fir component would be reduced. The modeled distribution would have about 96 TPA: 24 TPA in the 4-10 inch DBH class, 55 TPA in the 12-22 inch DBH class, 9 TPA in the 24-34 inch DBH class, and 1 TPA in the 36+ DBH class. As with other post-treatment distributions displayed above, this stand would be much closer to the historic and desired condition than the current condition. Stocking in terms of SDI would be reduced to about 200.

Figure 21. Stand 243 post-treatment uneven-aged thin diameter distributions.

Figure 22 displays the post-treatment diameter distribution for Stand 19. This stand is a multi- storied stand dominated by pinyon pine and is proposed for non-commercial thinning only, which in this analysis limits thinning to trees less than 10-inch DBH. Post-treatment the stand would still be dominated by singleleaf pinyon with a minor canyon live oak component. The proposed

52 Environmental Assessment

treatments would flatten the diameter distribution and result in a stand stocking of about 110 TPA and 205 SDI. The effects of this treatment on other pinyon pine dominated stands in the area that are proposed for non-commercial thinning (Stands 45, 46, 47, and 55) would be similar to that displayed in Figure 22. Note that Figure 22 displays the diameter distribution post-treatment in 2014 and due to tree diameter growth the distribution has shifted to the left compared to the current condition displayed in Section I of this EA in Figure 12.

Figure 22. Stand 19 post-treatment diameter distributions.

Post-treatment stand diameter distributions in even-aged plantations would be narrower than the current condition due to the effects of thinning from below and retaining the largest, most healthy and vigorous trees. The post-treatment diameter distribution of Stand 4 is displayed in Figure 23 which is narrower than the current condition displayed in Section I of this EA in Figure 13. Note that Figure 23 displays the stand post-treatment in 2014 which is later than that displayed in Section I of this EA in Figure 13 and trees have grown and the distribution shifted to the right. Modeled post-treatment stocking would be about 213 TPA and 213 SDI.

53 Frazier Mt. Project

Figure 23. Stand 4 post-treatment diameter distributions.

Figure 24 displays the post-treatment diameter distribution and species composition for Stand 29. The proposed treatments would reduce trees less than 10 inches in DBH resulting in a flatter, although still mostly uneven-sized diameter distribution. Treatments in Stands 2, 22, 34, 37, and 38 would result in similar effects. The modeled post-treatment stand would have about 195 TPA and an SDI of 210.

Figure 24. Stand 29 post-treatment diameter distributions.

Of the twenty-three stands sampled in the project area, post-treatment average TPA would range from about 44 to 213 TPA. Most of the stands would be within the desired 50 to 100 TPA range stated above with two stands being slightly below 50 TPA due to the large average DBH and several being above due to the average small average DBH. Modeled stocking in terms of SDI

54 Environmental Assessment

would generally be reduced to within the 196 to 213 SDI range. These stocking levels would be closer to the desired conditions discussed above than the current condition.

Areas that would be prescribe burned only (744 acres) are those for which site visits indicated that no tree thinning would be needed or feasible to achieve stand density and structural treatment objectives. They are generally stands that are very open and patchy in nature already. The proposed low-intensity and low-severity prescribe burns would kill many, but not all, small diameter understory seedling and sapling trees, a few pole-sized trees, and very few larger trees.

Areas that would be “thinned” to reduce fuels (183 acres) in addition to surface fuels treatments are also areas for which site visits indicated that no tree thinning would be needed or feasible to achieve stand density and structural treatment objectives. Some cutting of trees to reduce ladder fuels would occur where needed and would be followed by surface fuels treatments. The proposed treatments would remove seedling, sapling, and pole-sized trees where needed but no larger trees would be cut in the treatments. Underburning in the fuelbreak (79) acres would be low-intensity and low-severity and in these treatments would kill a few additional seedling, sapling, and pole-sized trees, but very few, if any larger trees.

Structural Diversity As a direct result of the variable-spacing thinning regime, horizontal diversity would increase in all commercial and non-commercial thinned stands although less of a change would occur in the NCT-only stands. The distributions displayed in Section I of this EA in Figure 15 through Figure 18 would be flattened as: (1) a portion of the treated stands are heavily thinned and the percent of stand areas in the lowest two percent canopy cover classes increases, (2) portions of the stands are moderately thinned and the percent of stand areas in the mid-range percent canopy cover classes increases, and (3) portions of the stands are retained in the highest canopy cover classes. Stand understories would become more open than the current condition, but vertical structural diversity would be retained by the uneven-sized and aged thinning regime. In areas proposed for prescribed burning only, due to the variable nature of fire associated mortality, structural diversity can be expected to increase to some degree, although the magnitude of the increase would be much less than those areas proposed for CT-NCT or NCT and burning. In areas proposed for thinning for fuels reduction purposes, stand understories would be more open due to the cutting of a portion of the small diameter trees but changes to structural diversity in the tree layers would be slight due to the relatively small numbers of trees being removed.

Indirect Effects

Stand Diameter Distributions, Stocking Levels, and Species Compositions In the long-term, assuming no future actions, stocking levels would again increase as trees grow and trees become established in the understories. Diameter distributions would begin to develop the characteristics displayed in the current condition. White fir and pinyon pine would again increase in presence in Jeffrey pine stand understories. Due to the extent of the thinning treatments, however, the effects of the thinning would be relatively long-lasting with no further treatments needed within the next 20 years.

Insect Risk and Disease Presence In the short-term, treated stand stocking levels would be reduced to the point that the stands could be considered at a low risk to developing epidemic levels of bark beetles. Trees within the treated areas would be resistant to bark beetle attacks in the future when bark beetle levels increase in the surrounding untreated stands. Within the treated stands, the variable-spacing thinning regime

55 Frazier Mt. Project

would retain about 15 percent of the stand areas as dense unthinned patches. These patches would continue to be high risk and trees within these patches can be expected to be successfully attacked by bark beetles. Under the proposed treatments, diseases would continue at their current low levels. In the long-term, assuming no further actions, bark beetle risk would again increase as stocking levels increase.

Structural Diversity In the short-term, structural diversity would change little from immediately post-treatment. In the long term, as additional understory trees become established, especially in the heaviest-thinned and more open areas, vertical diversity would increase. Horizontal diversity would decrease as trees grow and as trees become established in heavily-thinned areas.

Cumulative Effects As displayed above, the proposed treatments would treat about 10 percent of the conifer forest and woodland and 4 percent of the mixed conifer and hardwood forest (see Table 12 above) within the 27,000 acre analysis area. In terms of forest type these treatments would involve only 26 percent of the EP, 20 percent of the JP, 14 percent of the MF, and less than one percent of the PJ within the analysis area. Note that the treated acreage includes all treatment types and the proportion of the forest types being thinned would be slightly less. About 8 percent of the shrub would be treated by mastication or burning, and the trailhead reconstruction that is occurring would only add a couple of acres to the area treated.

In the analysis area, a minority of the forest acreage would be affected. The treated area would be within the project area which is concentrated along the road system on Frazier Mountain and would be surrounded by untreated forest area. The remaining great majority of the forest and woodland area in the analysis area would generally continue as described in the current condition.

Summary of Effects Alternative 2-Proposed Action In terms of the issue indicators and treatment needs stated above Alternative 2 would:

• Push stand stocking in terms of TPA back toward the historic and desired conditions which is from 50 to 100 TPA. TPA stocking in stands proposed for CT-NCT and NCT would range from 44 to 213 TPA as modeled in sampled stands with a few of the stands being below 50 TPA and a few being above 100 TPA due to current large and small average DBH’s.

• Reduce the risk for high levels of bark beetle mortality from occurring in stands proposed for CT-NCT and NCT to a low level by reducing stand SDI’s to within a range of 196 to 213 as modeled in sampled stands. The post-treatment range being close to the desired 200 to 230 SDI range.

• Modify stand species compositions in stand understories and mid-stories in stands proposed for CT-NCT and NCT by removing white fir and pinyon pine that have become established in Jeffrey pine stands due to fire suppression. Stand species compositions would also be modified in underburn-only areas due to an expected higher level of mortality in the relatively fire intolerant white fir and pinyon pine, and in fuels-reduction thin areas which would also favor retaining Jeffrey pine over other species.

• Decrease current levels of vertical structural diversity in CT-NCT treatments by thinning stand understories and mid-stories and in stand understories by NCT and other treatments

56 Environmental Assessment

by reducing the numbers of smaller diameter trees and “flattening” the diameter distributions. Vertical structural diversity would be retained by pushing stands to or at least toward an uneven-aged or at least uneven-sized structure.

• Increase horizontal structural diversity in stands proposed for CT-NCT and NCT by thinning using a variable-spacing thinning regime in which portions of the stands are not thinned, portions are moderately thinned, and portions are heavily thinned. The current PCC distributions, of which examples are displayed above, would be “flattened” with much greater diversity in PCC distributions.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans Alternative 2-Proposed Action would be in compliance with the management direction described above. Specifically it would:

• Treat vegetation to restore forest health to Frazer Mountain pine stands where alteration of the natural fire regime has increased tree stocking, water stress, and bark beetle risk • Manage vegetation to maintain healthy stands of mature conifers by reducing bark beetle risk • Maintain the big tree appearance of Jeffrey pine forests by reducing stand densities using a thin-from-below, variable-spacing thinning regime • Reduce tree densities to levels similar to those that characterized pre-suppression and early suppression era forests • Restore species compositions comparable to the pre-suppression and early suppression era forests by removing white fir and pinyon pine from Jeffrey pine forests • Use vegetation management practices of uneven-aged management, thinning for stocking control, and prescribed burning for stocking control for mixed conifer yellowpine and pinyon/juniper forest types • Meet maximum size opening limits for mixed conifer yellowpine and pinyon/juniper • Favor retaining large trees during thinning in fuelbreaks • Treat freshly cut live or recently dead conifer stumps to prevent the establishment of annosus root disease • Achieve multiple objectives including increased resistance to damage from crown fires, reduced surface/ladder fuels, reduced insect damage, and inter-tree competition, and restoration of densities more characteristic of the past • Thin to a stocking level that would be effective for about 20 years • Increase ecosystem resilience and adaptive capacity making the Jeffrey pine stand ecosystems more sustainable, resilient, and healthy under current and future conditions

57 Frazier Mt. Project

Alternative 3 Under this alternative, all proposed thinning would be limited to trees 10-inches in DBH or less. The modeled treatments retain about 20 percent of the smaller diameter trees to avoid completely eliminating the younger age classes. Variable-spacing thinning would also be used in Alternative 3, however due to the thinning being limited to 10 inches DBH or less, the opportunity to vary spacing and stocking levels would be greatly reduced under this alternative.

Direct Effects

Stand Diameter Distributions, Stocking Levels, and Species Compositions In this alternative, proposed treatments would modify stand diameter distributions and reduce stocking levels, although not to the degree that would occur under Alternative 2. Figure 25 through Figure 27 display the Alternative 3 post-treatment diameter distributions for Stands 3, 99 and 243. Compared to the current condition and Alternative 2 diameter distributions displayed above, the post-treatment distributions would be pushed toward even-aged stand distributions. Except for those stands that are proposed for non-commercial treatments under both alternatives, the post-treatment distributions would be farther from the historic and desired condition than the current condition.

Figure 25 shows the diameter distribution and species composition for Stand 3. As in the current condition Jeffrey pine dominates the stand and the understory white fir component has been reduced in the smallest DBH classes, but due to the diameter limit on thinning, the mid-story white fir component has not been reduced. The post-treatment diameter distribution would have a single “hump” characteristic of even-aged stands, as displayed in Section I of this EA in Figure 13 for the plantation Stand 4, but would still have small and large DBH components. The modeled post-treatment stand would have about 115 TPA: 14 TPA in the 4-10 inch DBH class, 86 TPA in the 12-22 inch DBH class, 7 TPA in the 24-34 inch DBH class, and 5 TPA in the 36+ DBH class. Note that the modeled post-treatment stocking values are several years into the future and tree diameter growth and modeled mortality is included. The post-treatment diameter distribution would, if anything, be pushed farther away from the historic and desired condition discussed above than the current condition. Stocking in terms of SDI would be reduced to about 295.

58 Environmental Assessment

Figure 25. Stand 3 post-treatment thin up to 10-inches dbh.

Figure 26 displays the diameter distribution and species composition for Stand 99 following the modeled Alternative 3 treatments. Compared to the current condition, the treatments would create a diameter distribution with a single hump in the 12 to 20 inch DBH classes but would retain some stocking in smaller trees. Jeffrey pine was the only species recorded in the exam plots so species composition would not change. The distribution shows about 105 TPA: 20 TPA in the 4- 10 inch DBH class, 70 TPA in the 12-22 inch DBH class, 9 TPA in the 24-34 inch DBH class, and 2 TPA in the 36+ DBH class. Note that these stocking values include several years of tree growth and modeled mortality. The overall TPA value is closer to the historic and desired condition discussed above than the current condition but as discussed for Stand 3, the distribution would be pushed farther from the desired and historic condition. Stocking in terms of SDI would be reduced to about 257.

Figure 26. Stand 99 post-treatment thin up to 10-inches dbh.

59 Frazier Mt. Project

Figure 27 displays the diameter distribution and species composition for Stand 243 following the modeled Alternative 3 treatments. Compared to the current condition, the treatments would create a diameter distribution with a single hump in the 12 to 20 inch DBH classes but would retain some stocking in smaller. The white fir component would be reduced up to 10 inches in DBH. The distribution shows about 109 TPA: 13 TPA in the 4-10 inch DBH class, 84 TPA in the 12-22 inch DBH class, 9 TPA in the 24-34 inch DBH class, and 1 TPA in the 36+ DBH class. These overall TPA value is closer to the historic and desired condition discussed above than the current condition but as discussed for Stand 3, the distribution would be pushed farther from the desired and historic condition. Stocking in terms of SDI would be reduced to about 253.

Figure 27. Stand 243 post-treatment thin up to 10-inches dbh.

In Alternative 3 the treatments for Stands 19, 4, and 29, as well as several other treatment units are the same non-commercial thin as under Alternative 2 and the effects are as displayed and discussed above.

Of the twenty-three stands sampled in the project area, Alternative 3 post-treatment average TPA would range from about 42 to 213. About one-third of the stands would be within the desired 50 to 100 TPA range stated above with one stand being slightly below 50 TPA and about two-thirds being above. Modeled stocking in terms of SDI would range from 186 to 335 with about two- thirds being above the desired range. Only one would remain in the zone of imminent mortality. These stocking levels would be closer to the desired conditions discussed above than the current condition.

Structural Diversity As discussed above, the variable-spacing thinning regime would also be applied to Alternative 3 treatments. Due to the 10-inch maximum DBH limitation, however, the effects of variable- spacing thinning upon horizontal diversity would be substantially less than that described above under Alternative 2. As displayed above in Figure 25 through Figure 27, the proposed thinning regime would reduce greatly reduce stand understory stocking. By doing so, this alternative would reduce within-stand vertical structural diversity, pushing the stands toward even-sized and even-aged distributions.

60 Environmental Assessment

Indirect Effects

Stand Diameter Distributions, Stocking Levels, and Species Compositions As described above for Alternative 2, in the long-term, assuming no future actions, stocking levels would again increase as trees grow and trees become established in the understories. Because under Alternative 3, post-treatment average stocking levels would generally be higher than in Alternative 2, and because of lessened opportunity under Alternative 3 to use variable- spacing thinning to heavily thin in areas, the establishment of a new cohort of trees would be greatly reduced under this alternative. Understory trees would, in time, become established, giving many stands what would be largely a 2-story structure. White fir and pinyon pine would again increase in presence in Jeffrey pine stand understories.

Insect Risk and Disease Presence In the short-term, treated stand stocking levels in about one-third of the treated stands would be reduced to the point that the stands could be considered at a low risk to developing epidemic levels of bark beetles. Two-thirds of the treated stands would still be considered “at risk” following the treatments. Trees within the low risk one-third would be resistant to bark beetle attacks in the future when bark beetle levels increase in the surrounding untreated stands and trees within the at-risk two thirds would not be as resistant. Under the proposed treatments, diseases would continue at their current low levels.

In the long-term, assuming no further actions, bark beetle risk would again increase as stocking levels increase, but under Alternative 3 this would occur much sooner than under Alternative 2.

Structural Diversity In the short-term, structural diversity would change little from immediately post-treatment. In the long term vertical diversity would increase due to the establishment of a new cohort of trees, but as described above, due to higher post-treatment stocking in most stands vertical structural diversity would develop at a slower rate and to a lesser degree. Horizontal diversity, which would directly increase to a lesser degree under Alternative 3 than under Alternative 2, would decrease as trees grow and stands fill in, the stands generally becoming more uniform sooner than under Alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects Under Alternative 3, the same area would be treated as under Alternative 2. The proportions of each forest type treated would be as discussed above for Alternative 2. The major difference between Alternatives 2 and 3 is that under Alternative 2, stands proposed for CT-NCT and NCT- would be resistant to bark beetle epidemics and under Alternative 3, most of the NCT stands would not be resistant and would be surrounded by most of the forest an woodland area in the analysis area which is untreated and generally not resistant.

Summary of Effects of Alternative 3 In terms of the issue indicators and treatment needs stated above Alternative 3 would:

• Push stand stocking in terms of TPA back toward the historic and desired conditions from 50 to 100 TPA on a minority of the thinned stands. TPA stocking in stands proposed for NCT would range from 42 to 213 TPA as modeled in sampled stands with about one-third of the stands within or slightly below the desired range and about two-thirds being above the desired range.

61 Frazier Mt. Project

• Reduce the risk for high levels of bark beetle mortality from occurring in stands proposed for NCT to a low level on a minority of treated stands. Post-thinning modeled SDI’s would be within a range of 186 to 335 as modeled in sampled stands with almost two- thirds of the stands still being above the desired range and considered at risk.

• Modify stand species compositions in stand understories and mid-stories in stands proposed for NCT by removing white fir and pinyon pine that have become established in Jeffrey pine stands due to fire suppression. In a portion of the stands, however, white fir and pinyon pine in stand mid-stories would not be removed due to the 10-inch DBH limit. Stand species compositions would also be modified in underburn only areas due to an expected higher level of mortality in the relatively fire intolerant white fir and pinyon pine, and in fuels-reduction thin areas which would also favor retaining Jeffrey pine over other species.

• Decrease current levels of vertical structural diversity in stand understories by NCT and other treatments by reducing the numbers of smaller diameter trees and “flattening” the diameter distributions. However, in many stands, vertical structural diversity would be greatly reduced by pushing stands to, or at least toward, an even-aged or at least even- sized structure.

• Increase horizontal structural diversity in stands proposed for NCT by thinning using a variable-spacing thinning regime in which portions of the stands are not thinned, portions are moderately thinned, and portions are heavily thinned. However, due to the 10-inch DBH limit, the opportunity to use variable-density thinning to increase structural diversity would be very limited in many stands. The current PCC distributions, of which examples are displayed above, would be slightly “flattened” with somewhat greater diversity in PCC distributions.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans This alternative would partially be in compliance with LRMP management direction, including:

• Treat vegetation to restore forest health to Frazer Mountain pine stands where alteration of the natural fire regime has increased tree stocking, water stress, and bark beetle risk. As described above, a portion of the proposed treatments would substantially address this management direction but most would not. • Manage vegetation to maintain healthy stands of mature conifers by reducing bark beetle risk. As described above, a portion of the proposed treatments would substantially address this management direction but most would not. • Maintain the big tree appearance of Jeffrey pine forests by reducing stand densities using a thin-from-below, variable-spacing thinning regime • Reduce tree densities to levels similar to those that characterized pre-suppression and early suppression era forests. As described above, in term of total TPA, most treatments would address this management direction, but in terms of the tree diameter distributions, most of the proposed thinning treatments would push the distribution away from that which characterized pre-suppression and early suppression era forests. • Restore species compositions comparable to the pre-suppression and early suppression era forests by removing white fir and pinyon pine from Jeffrey pine forests. The treatments would only partially meet this management direction.

62 Environmental Assessment

• Use vegetation management practices of uneven-aged management, thinning for stocking control, and prescribed burning for stocking control for mixed conifer yellowpine and pinyon/juniper forest types. Only a portion of the treatments would achieve this management direction. As described above, however, in many stands for which NCT is prescribed, the stands would not be meeting this direction because they would become almost even-aged as a result of the treatment. • Meet maximum size opening limits for mixed conifer yellowpine and pinyon/juniper • Favor retaining large trees during thinning in fuelbreaks • Treat freshly cut live or recently dead conifer stumps to prevent the establishment of annosus root disease • Achieve multiple objectives including increased resistance to damage from crown fires, reduced surface/ladder fuels, reduced insect damage, and inter-tree competition, and restoration of densities more characteristic of the past • Thin to a stocking level that would be effective for about 20 years. A portion of the treatments would meet this direction, but as discussed above, most of the stands proposed for NCT would not. • Increase ecosystem resilience and adaptive capacity making the Jeffrey pine stand ecosystems more sustainable, resilient, and healthy under current and future conditions. A portion of the treatments would meet this direction, but as discussed above, most of the Jeffrey pine stands proposed for NCT would not become substantially more resilient to epidemic levels of bark beetles.

63 Frazier Mt. Project

Fire / Fuels This section will disclose the affected environment, analysis indicators and environmental consequences of the alternatives on the fire and fuels resource area. A complete fire/fuels specialist report is in the project files.

Affected Environment

Evaluation Criteria Measures The following evaluation criteria (indicators) were used to assess the effects of each alternative and their effectiveness in meeting project objectives.

• Fire Type: Reduced chance of active crown fire expressed as Surface Fire, Passive Crown Fire, or Active Crown Fire.

• Flame length: Flame lengths generally less than 4 feet are desired allowing for safe direct attack by handcrews. Flame lengths greater than 4 feet generally require equipment to be employed such as dozers and aircraft; beyond 8 feet torching, crowning and spotting can occur.

• Probability of Torching: Expressed as the percentage (or decimal equivalent) of small places in a stand where torching can occur, given specific surface fire intensity.

Methodology Please see Appendix J – Fire/ Fuels Models and Assumptions, for information about the methodology used in the fire fuels analysis. The appendix includes information, assumptions and limitations for the Forest Visualization Simulator (FVS) and the Fire and Fuels Extension (FFE), the fire behavior analysis program used for this analysis. The area of analysis for this section is the Frazier Mountain project area, unless otherwise noted.

Fire Regime and Condition Class A fire regime is a generalized description of the role fire plays in an ecosystem. It refers to the pattern and variability of fire occurrence and its effect on vegetation. Fire regime typically is a description of fire frequency, predictability, intensity, seasonality, and size characteristics of fire in a particular ecosystem.

Coarse scale definitions for natural (historical) fire regimes have been developed by Hardy et al. (2001) and Schmidt et al. (2002) and interpreted for fire and fuels management by Hann and Bunnell (2001). The five natural (historical) fire regimes are classified based on average number of years between fires (fire frequency) combined with the severity (amount of replacement) of the fire on the dominant overstory vegetation (see text box below).

Fire Regimes I – 0 to 35-year frequency and low- (surface fires most common) to mixed- severity (less than 75% of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced); II – 0 to 35-year frequency and high (stand-replacement) severity (greater than 75% of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced); III – 35 to 100+-year frequency and mixed-severity (less than 75% of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced); IV – 35 to 100+-year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity (greater than 75% of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced); V – 200+-year frequency and high (stand-replacement) severity.

64 Environmental Assessment

Fire is considered a natural part of the ecosystem in southern California. Research has shown that under natural conditions periodic wildfires historically burned through the timber and brush ecosystems, clearing dead plant material (fuel) and rejuvenating vegetation (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999, Keeley and Fotheringham 2001, Minnich 1995 et al., Minnich and Everett 2001). The primary source of wildfires prior to the human alteration of the “natural” fire regime was lightning (Keeley et al. 1999). Research suggests that fires in the mixed conifer zones tend to burn 2 to 3 times per century (Minnich and Everett 2001). Other research indicates that prior to fire suppression in the twentieth century, southern California upland mixed conifer forests burned relatively frequently at intervals of 4 to 20 years with low-intensity ground fires (Barbour and Minnich 2000). Historically the Frazier Mountain project area is best described as having a moderate to low intensity, frequent interval (1-25 years) regime with large fires. This places the forested areas primarily in Fire Regime I as described above. For shrubland areas, Fire Regime III is the best representation. In more recent history, fire exclusion in forested areas has played a significant role in vegetation successional patterns throughout this area. The current condition of the project area is characterized by infrequent interval (greater than 25 years); moderate to high severity fires both in shrubland and forested areas.

Condition Classes Condition classes are a way of categorizing how much key ecosystem components such as species composition, structural stage, and stocking level, have changed in an area due to changing fire regimes. One or more activities such as fire exclusion, insects and disease, and past management activities can cause a change in fire regimes (Schmidt et al. 2002).

There are three condition classes:

• Condition Class 1: Fire regimes are within an historical range and the risk of losing key ecosystem components is low. Vegetation attributes (species composition and structure) are intact and functioning within their historical range.

• Condition Class 2: Fire regimes have been moderately altered from their historical range. The risk of losing key ecosystem components is moderate. Fire frequencies have departed from historical frequencies by one or more return intervals (either increased or decreased), resulting in moderate changes to one or more of the following: fire size, intensity and severity and landscape patterns. Vegetation attributes have been moderately altered from their historic range.

• Condition Class 3: Fire regimes have been significantly altered from their historical range. The risk of losing key ecosystem components is high. Fire frequencies have departed from historical frequencies by multiple return intervals. This results in dramatic changes to one or more of the following: fire size, intensity, severity, and landscape patterns. Vegetation attributes have been significantly altered from their historical range.

Fire frequency has decreased markedly in California’s conifer forests. The lack of fire has brought about changes in stocking levels and species composition in the montane conifer forests (Minnich et al. 1995). These changes in vegetation conditions, which have occurred throughout much of California, have also occurred in and around the Frazier Mountain project area. Consequently, wildfires in the project area today could potentially be larger, more intense, and more severe than in the past.

65 Frazier Mt. Project

Vegetation attributes in the Frazier Mountain Project area have changed over time from historic conditions. Based on recorded fire history, only a small proportion of the project area has burned under wildfire conditions since active fire suppression started. Most of the project area has missed one or more wildfire return intervals. Understory stocking has increased with small- and medium- diameter trees and shade-tolerant species. Conditions such as these, which lead to larger wildfire size, intensity, and severity, have increased throughout the western states (Graham et al. 2004, Healthy Forests Initiative 2002).

Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) data was gathered from the national Landfire database for the project area. This data was compared to photos from field reconnaissance to determine if the typing was reasonable. Although there is some variability within the project area, it was felt that in general, the mapping was reasonable. Table 14 below shows fire regime and condition classes for the project area. It does not include small areas of annual grasses or areas that are urban or barren. These areas are quite small in comparison to the project area.

Table 14. Fire regime and Condition Class by Vegtype. Fire Existing Desired Condition Vegtype regime Condition Class Class Pinyon III 2 1 Mixed Conifer-Fir I 2 1 Jeffrey pine I 2,3 1 Mixed Chaparral IV 1 1 Eastern Pine I 2 1 Other shrub IV 1 1

As mentioned above, the historic fire regime for the forested areas of the Frazier Mountain Project area was one of frequent low-intensity fires. In low-severity fire regimes fires are frequent (1-25 years) low-intensity fires with few overstory effects. Frequent fires prevented the build-up of ground fuel as well as understory fuel ladders, thus high intensity crown fires were rare, and generally small in size. Pre-fire suppression era stands consisted of fewer trees and were healthier than today’s stands that are overstocked, and have to compete for available moisture, sun light, and nutrients. Almost a century of fire exclusion through successful fire suppression has altered the historical fire regime from frequent low-to-moderate intensity fires to one of infrequent high intensity fires. Within the project area, only a small percentage of the area has had wildfire activity in the last 90 + years and most of the burn area has been in pinyon pine and shrub cover types .Approximately 5 percent of the Jeffrey pine and mixed conifer cover types have burned in wildfire during that time period.

Historic Fires Since 1970, fire history records show the Mount Pinos Ranger district averages approximately 25 fires a year. The fires range from 1/10 to 5640 acres in size on the Mount Pinos Ranger District. This does not include fires that started on other jurisdictions and burned onto the district. Fire records indicate that approximately 45 percent of the fire ignitions in the area throughout those years reported years have been caused by human activities. Because of the relatively high incidence of human caused fires, ignitions could start in almost any location within the project.

Within the project area, approximately 15 percent of the project area has burned since 1915. Most of the burn area has been in the northwest corner of the analysis area above Frazier Park which burned in the 1948 Chuchupate fire burned (724 acres). The fire started near the bottom of the

66 Environmental Assessment

slope just east of the present day Mt. Pinos Ranger District office. The fire spread rapidly upslope with high intensity. The fire resulted in high mortality to timbered stands that occurred on the relatively steep north to northeast slope of Frazier Mountain. The area has been threatened by large fires in the vicinity on several occasions since then. More recently, the 162,000 acre Day fire burned into the project boundary on the south side of the project, burning approximately 6 acres within the project boundary before being contained. This demonstrates that the project area has to potential to be threatened from large fires from within the project area, as well as fire approaching from more than one direction from outside the project area.

Fire Hazard Fire Hazard identifies the availability of fuels to sustain a fire and using fire modeling results in varied intensity levels of fire behavior prediction. Fire behavior is the manner in which a fire reacts to available fuels, weather, and topography. A change in any of these components results in a change in fire behavior (DeBano et al 1998). Fire behavior is complex, with many contributing factors in the categories of topography (slope, aspect, elevation), weather (climate, air temperature, wind, relative humidity, atmospheric stability) and fuels (size, type, moisture content, total loading, arrangement) (Agee 1993). These three elements comprise the fire environment, surrounding conditions, influences, and modifying forces that determine fire behavior (NWCG 1994).

Topography and weather at a given location are beyond the ability of management to control. Fuel hazard is the only controllable factor. Weather conditions such as drought, high temperature, low humidity, and high wind play a major role in the spread of wildfires and are influenced by topography and location of mountains as well as global influences such as La Niña and El Niño. Weather conditions are a major factor in the initiation and spread of all wildfires, but Omi and Martinson (2002) found that stands with prior fuel treatments experienced lower wildfire severity than untreated stands burning under the same weather and topographic conditions. Fuel management modifies fire behavior, ameliorates fire effects, and reduces fire suppression costs and danger (DeBano et al 1998). Manipulating fuels reduces fire intensity and severity, allowing firefighters and land managers more control of wildland fires by modifying fire behavior in the fire environment (Pollet and Omi 2000).

Fuel management can include reducing the loading of available fuels, lowering fuel flammability, or isolating or breaking up large continuous bodies of fuels (DeBano et al 1998). Fuels contribute to the rate of spread of a fire, intensity/flame length, fire residence time, and the size of the burned area (Rothermel 1983, Agee et al. 2000). For these reasons, the comparison of alternatives in this analysis focuses on the effects of reduction of important fuels and fire behavior indicators.

A wildfire hazard assessment should analyze the hazard of crown fires as well as surface fire. Crown fires normally are highly destructive, difficult to control, and present the greatest safety hazard to firefighters and the public. Therefore, fuel management must emphasize the factors that contribute to the initiation and spread of crown fires. These factors include height of the forest canopy above the ground, density of the canopy, stand density, and basal area (Omi and Martinson 2002). In general, crown fires burn hotter and result in more severe effects than surface fires. Crown fires generally spread at least two to four times faster than surface fires (Rothermel 1983). Fires that spread quickly and at higher intensities can pose a greater risk to firefighters and the public when they occur. Agee (1996) states that crown fire potential can be managed through prevention of the conditions that initiate crown fires and allow crown fires to spread. Three main factors contributing to crown fire behavior can be addressed through fuels management: initial surface fire behavior, canopy base height, and canopy bulk density. Omi and Martinson (2002)

67 Frazier Mt. Project

note that their study of fuel treatments provides a strong evidence of fuel treatment efficacy, and that their results “appear quite similar to those provided by previous authors”.

There is a large body of literature that makes the case for treating the various strata of fuels. According to Graham et al (2004) “Qualitative observations, limited empirical data, and modeling provide the scientific basis for identifying how forest structure can be modified to reduce fire hazard and modify fire behavior. Additionally, research shows that when activities reduce surface fuels (low vegetation, woody fuel, shrub layer), those activities decrease the chances that surface fires will be able to ignite ladder fuels and canopy fuels (Weaver 1955, Cooper 1960, Biswell 1960, Biswell and others 1973, Martin and others 1989, Pollet and Omi 2002). The most effective strategy for reducing crown fire occurrence and severity is to (1) reduce surface fuels, (2) increase height to live crown, (3) reduce canopy bulk density, and (4) reduce continuity of the forest canopy (Van Wagner 1977, Agee 1996, Graham and others 1999, Scott and Reinhardt2001, Cruz and others 2002).”

Surface Fuels Fire behavior is described by flame length, rate of spread, and fireline intensity (Rothermel 1983). Surface fuels are an important factor in determining how fast a surface fire will spread and how hot it will burn. Surface fuels consist of needles, leaves, grass, forbs, branches, logs, stumps, shrubs, and small trees. Surface fire factors are also important to the initiation and spread of crown fires.

Anderson (1982) identifies surface fuels that are up to 3 inches in diameter as those that used in the Fire Behavior Model. Surface fuels greater than 3 inches contribute towards intensity, resistance to control and spotting but are not part of the fire behavior model. Fuel models as defined by Anderson (1982) were used to model general changes in fuel profiles by vegetative cover type. Fuel models were chosen after site visits in order to most accurately represent fuels for the project area.

Canopy Fuels Crown fire and crown fire initiation is related to several conditions that must be met. First the intensity of the surface fire must be high, then foliar moisture content of the live vegetation must be low, crown base heights be low enough to interact with the surface fire and the crown bulk density must be high enough to sustain the fire once it gets into the crowns. Canopy Base Height (CBH) is the lowest height above the ground at which there is a sufficient amount of canopy fuel to propagate fire vertically into the canopy (Scott and Reinhardt 2001).. CBH incorporates ladder fuels such as shrubs and understory trees as well as the lower branches of mature trees. It is often measured at the lowest height above ground where at least 30 pounds per acre per foot (or .010 kilograms per cubic meter) of available canopy fuels is present. The lower the canopy base height, the easier it is for a given surface fire to initiate a crown fire. Low canopy base heights provide the “ladder” which allows a surface fire to become a crown fire. Figure 28 displays the CBH as it relates to critical flame length

68 Environmental Assessment

Crown Combustion @ 100% Foliar Moisture Content

50 50 45 40 40 35

30 Flame Ht. Required to Ignite the Crown 30 Crown Base Height 25 20 20 17.6 16.4 15 15.1 13.8 12.4

Crwon Tree the of Bottom to Ground from Height 10.9 10 9.4 10 7.7 5 5.8 3.6

0 Flame Height Required to Ignite the Crown

Figure 28: Canopy Base height as it relates to critical flame length.

In order for a crown fire to initiate, a surface fire must be intense enough, with long enough flame lengths, to ignite the lowest level of branches that will propagate fire to the upper levels of the canopy (Figure 28). When the height from the surface fuels to the bottom of the tree crown is low, for example only 5 feet, a relatively short flame length will ignite the crown. A greater height from the ground would require a larger flame length to ignite.

In order for the initiated crown fire to persist, the canopy must be dense enough for the fire to spread from one tree’s branches to another tree which is determined by the Canopy Bulk Density (CBD). Canopy Bulk Density (CBD) is defined as the mass of available canopy fuel per unit canopy volume. It is a bulk property of a stand, not an individual tree, and is represented as the available canopy fuel load divided by canopy depth (Scott and Reinhardt 2001). For any given species, more widely spaced trees have a lower canopy bulk density, which makes it more difficult to maintain crown fires.

Once a fire begins burning in the crowns of the trees, whether that crown fire ignition is sustained or not is determined by surface fire rate of spread, and crown bulk density. (Alexander 1988, Van Wagner 1977). Wind and slope are important factors in potential crown fire spread (Rothermel 1991), and species composition and structure control crown bulk density. Stands with high CBDs can sustain a crown fire that initiated outside the stand, even when surface fire intensity and CBH are such that fires that start within the stand itself will not transition into a crown fire.

Defining a set of critical conditions that may be influenced by management activities can be difficult. At least two alternative methods can define conditions such that crown fire will likely be low. One is to calculate critical wind speeds for given levels of crown bulk density (Scott and Reinhart 2001) and the other is to define empirically derived thresholds of crown fire rate of spread so that critical levels of crown bulk density can be defined (Agee 1996). Crown bulk densities of 0.2 kg m/3 are common in mixed conifer forests that burn (Agee 1996), levels below 0.10 kg/m3 crown fire spread was unlikely, but no definitive single “threshold” is likely to exist (Agee et. al. 2000).”

69 Frazier Mt. Project

Reducing stand density has the potential to increase surface fire behavior, however overall fire behavior is more significant. “Modifying canopy fuels as prescribed in this method may lead to increased surface fire intensity and spread rate under the same environmental conditions, even if surface fuels are the same before and after canopy treatment. Reducing CBD to preclude crown fire leads to increases in the wind adjustment factor (the proportion of 20-ft wind speed that reaches midflame height). Also, a more open canopy may lead to lower fine dead fuel moisture content. These factors increase surface fire intensity and spread rate. Therefore, canopy fuel treatments reduce the potential for crown fire at the expense of slightly increased surface fire spread rate and intensity. However, critical levels of fire behavior (limit of manual or mechanical control) are less likely to be reached in stands treated to withstand crown fires, as all crown fires are uncontrollable. Though surface intensity may be increased after treatment, a fire that remains on the surface beneath a timber stand is generally controllable.” (Scott 2003)

Treatment Methods and Efficacy The treatment of forest fuels (surface, ladder, and canopy fuels) can be accomplished in more than one manner. Prescribed fire and mechanical treatment have been show to be effective in certain situations. However, it is often the combination of the two that provide for the most effective treatment based upon site conditions and management constrictions. For instance, Petersen et al (2003) state that “there is generally less predictability in post treatment stand structure following prescribed fire than with mechanical thinning treatments- regardless of the targeted condition and the burning prescriptions, since prescribed fire is not as precise a tool for modifying stand structure and composition” They also state that “thinning followed by prescribed burning reduces canopy, ladder, and surface fuels, thereby providing maximum protection from severe fires in the future”.

Managing Risk to Communities Much of the Frazier Mountain Project area is in an area identified by Mt Pinos Community Wildfire protection plan as an area important for the protection of communities at risk. In addition, the project area falls within WUI under the Los Padres Land and Resource Management Plan.

Research by (Cohen and Butler 1998) has shown that structures with typical ignition characteristics (wood sided, wood framed, asphalt composition roof) are at risk of catching on fire from one of three sources. The first method is direct flame contact to the structure. Another method is aerial transport of burning materials to a structure from vegetation or other burning sources. The third is exposure to intense flames from a nearby source, which could be intensely burning vegetation or another structure. His research shows that the structures may be at risk if the flame front is less than approximately 100 feet away. Structures may also be ignited from less intense sources against or close to the side of the structure. This can occur if firewood or other flammable material next to the structure is ignited by a ground fire or firebrands. In addition, firebrands falling directly on roofs can ignite the structure if the roof is flammable, or if flammable debris is present.

An important difference between the behaviors of fires in urban areas from those in wildlands is that structures, homes, garages, and other buildings, are part of the fuel conditions. Research by Dr. Cohen and others have provided information on how structures catch on fire, and how once on fire they contribute to the spread of the fire. Once a structure ignites, the fire can spread to other nearby structures, sometimes without igniting the surrounding vegetation.

70 Environmental Assessment

Fuel treatments around and within communities are performed to reduce fire hazard, and thus reduce the potential damage to community resources and increase the safety of the public and of firefighters, should a fire occur. Fires burning through a community can damage and destroy homes and other structures, and damage other public and private property, such as vehicles, urban trees and shrubs. The goals of Wildland/Urban interface treatments are to reduce flammability, reduce fire intensity, reduce the potential for creating firebrands and crown fires, and increasing firefighter safety and effectiveness.

In order to effectively protect a community located in a high fire hazard environment, it is desirable to perform fuel treatment projects at a range of distances from homes. Treatments at some distance from the developed portion of a community (a few to several miles) can reduce the direct risk to the community when conditions that support the initiation and spread of crown fires that can reach the community are managed, or where a large or intense fire may cause indirect damage to the community (such as a water source or erosion hazard).

Treatments near developed portions of a community (a hundred to thousands of feet from structures, for example) can add to the protection of the community infrastructure and local environmental resources. They can increase the safety of escape routes for residents and access routes from firefighters. Reducing spotting potential and the production of fire brands from this zone can reduce the risk to structures, although spotting can occur over much longer distances when burning intensity is high. It is generally true however; that the greater distance that a given point is from a fire, the less pronounced spot fires at that location become. If treatments are applied in areas to create or link areas which could act as firebreaks, they could be effective in some circumstances at allowing fires to be kept outside a community. For fires that might originate in or near these areas, treatments that are effective at reducing spread rates or decreasing resistance to control can increase to opportunity for containing the fire before it damages structures.

Treatments of natural fuels within and around developed areas are not sufficient to insure protection of neighborhoods and individual, privately owned structures. Firebrands from crown fires may be carried long distances, and fires that start from firebrands in or immediately around homes can ignite structures. The construction details and the materials used in homes, the removal of flammable material on and adjacent to the homes, and the treatment of vegetation on the property itself is important to individual structure protection. Ideally, each homeowner would engage in this kind of protection for their homes, including inflammable roofs and other areas on which firebrands might collect and ignite flammable home materials. However, it is still important to have room in which firefighters can work safely from to protect the structure, since except for an exceptionally well designed structure; firefighter intervention is needed during the passage of a wildland fire to suppress incipient ignitions (Scott 2003). There must be an area large enough for these firefighters to work safely in because even with full wildland protective gear, radiant heat will injure a firefighter or homeowner before untreated wood siding would ignite (Scott 2003 Cohen and Butler 1998).

Treatments that center on high value and strategic locations also make sense in managing fire spread across the landscape. Since treatment of every acre is improbable due to both ecologic and economic concerns, it is logical to concentrate the bulk of treatments in these locations.

Fire Weather Historic weather data from the Chuchupate Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS) was obtained for fire behavior modeling. The 90th percentile weather was chosen because it is the

71 Frazier Mt. Project

normally accepted weather parameters used for Fuels planning. Modeling at the most extreme end of atmospheric and fuel moisture conditions are not normally used for fuels planning. Table 15 below displays the weather parameters used for modeling potential fire behavior using weather parameters that represent the “average worst” conditions that can be expected on 90 percent of all the days that fires occur. More severe conditions would likely result in more severe fire behavior and fire effects to the site. This weather data was used to model potential fire behavior for the project area for both existing and post treatments vegetation and fuels.

Table 15. 90th Percentile Weather for Chuchupate RAWS, California. 90th PERCENTILE FUEL/WEATHER VARIABLE VALUES 1 Hour Fuel Moisture, % 3 10 Hour Fuel Moisture, % 4 100 Hour Fuel Moisture, % 8 1000 Hour Fuel Moisture, % 10 Herbaceous Fuel Moisture, % 30 Woody Fuel Moisture, % 70 20 Foot Wind Speed, MPH 20 Dry Bulb Temperature, Degrees F 85

Flame length has significance for suppression strategy and tactics, and is also an indicator of intensity at the head of the fire (fireline intensity). Table 16 displays fireline intensity and flame length as it relates to suppression difficulty (Rothermel 1983). Table 17 below shows the existing condition for flame length in the Frazier Mountain project area.

Table 16. Fireline intensity interpretations

Flame Intensity length BTU/feet/second Interpretations (feet)

Direct attack at head and flanks with hand crews, Low <4 <100 handlines should stop spread of fire Low– Employment of engines, dozers, and aircraft needed for 4–8 100–500 Moderate direct attack, too intense for persons with hand tools Control problems, torching, crowning, spotting; control Moderate 8–11 500–1,000 efforts at the head are likely ineffective Control problems, torching, crowning, spotting; control High >11 >1,000 efforts at the head are ineffective

Vegetation and Fuel Loading The composition and structure of forest vegetation as well as the arrangement of dead material within the forest are major factors in influencing the frequency and intensity of wildfire activity.

The Frazier Mountain project area consists of conifer forests or woodlands and shrublands. Additional forested areas consist of mixed conifer and hardwoods. Shrubland cover types are largely scrub oak, mixed chaparral, and sagebrush, but there are a number of other types in the area in very minor amounts. Coniferous and mixed conifer and hardwood in the analysis area is mostly pinyon-juniper Random sampling plots, using the Photo Series for Quantifying Natural Forest Residues In Common Vegetation Types, were taken to determine existing fuel models within the project area.

72 Environmental Assessment

Existing Fuels Conditions and Fire Behavior The fire behavior potential was modeled for the project area. The results were categorized in low, moderate and high for both crown fire behavior and flame length. For the purposes of analysis, crown fire was rated as high when active crown fire was predicted, moderate for passive crown fire, and low for surface fire. The results are displayed in Table 17.

Table 17. Existing Fire Potential for Sampled Stands in the Project Area Stand ID Surface Flame Total Flame Fire Type Probability of Torching 050757FrazierMt0003 4 4 SURFACE 0.67 050757FrazierMt0004 5 52 ACTIVE 1.00 050757FrazierMt0019 3 3 SURFACE 0.49 050757FrazierMt0029 4 4 SURFACE 0.87 050757FrazierMt0073 4 8 PASSIVE 0.81 050757FrazierMt0075 4 4 SURFACE 0.22 050757FrazierMt0080 5 5 SURFACE 0.44 050757FrazierMt0083 4 4 SURFACE 0.50 050757FrazierMt0084 5 28 PASSIVE 0.99 050757FrazierMt0085 5 38 PASSIVE 0.25 050757FrazierMt0090 4 53 ACTIVE 0.95 050757FrazierMt0092 4 10 PASSIVE 0.82 050757FrazierMt0097 4 31 PASSIVE 0.87 050757FrazierMt0098 5 27 PASSIVE 0.31 050757FrazierMt0099 5 9 PASSIVE 0.90 050757FrazierMt0104 3 54 ACTIVE 0.95 050757FrazierMt0106 3 3 SURFACE 0.55 050757FrazierMt0116 3 3 SURFACE 0.75 050757FrazierMt0130 4 4 SURFACE 0.05 050757FrazierMt0134 5 7 PASSIVE 0.27 050757FrazierMt0241 4 4 SURFACE 0.60 050757FrazierMt0242 3 22 PASSIVE 0.67 050757FrazierMt0243 5 10 PASSIVE 0.59

Although the model shows the amount of high crown fire danger is limited, the amount of passive crown fire is a concern. If the wind speed is increased, as is common in a wildfire situation, many areas could become active crown fire. In addition, the Probability of Torching (P-Torch) is relatively high for most of the units that are predicted to have surface fire. P-Torch is the proportion of small places where trees are present and torching is possible. A torching situation is generally defined as one where tree crowns of significantly large trees can be ignited by the flames of a surface fire or flames from burning crown of small trees. The importance of P-Torch is that it does not rely on the calculation of stand level Canopy Base Height yet it is sensitive the flame length and key processes in stand development such as the development of an understory, the decline of old overstory trees, and crown recession. As such, it is a good indicator to use in conjunction with flame length and fire type because it indicates the potential for “flare-ups” within a stand that can cause control issues as well as an indication of the potential for lofting of embers that can lead to spotting.

Desired Fuels Conditions and Fire Behavior Desired fuels conditions in forested stands include reduction of ladder, crown, and surface fuels to lower the potential for crown fire and stand mortality, while providing for diversity within the stands. In Jeffrey pine and mixed conifer stands wildfires would mostly burn with low intensity

73 Frazier Mt. Project

and low severity with limited high intensity or severity areas. Stands would be converted from high and moderate fire potential to low, where surface fuels are light, ladder fuels are not widespread, and canopy density is reduced. Fuel loading would be reduced in fire-prone forests to protect people and sustain resources as directed by the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, the National Fire Plan, and A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy Implementation Plan. This would result in lower flame lengths, with the ideal being 4 feet or less. It would also reduce the number of acres that are likely to have crown fire activity (either passive or active).

Desired fuels conditions can be achieved by: 1) Treating surface and small ladder fuels, raising canopy base height and reducing the potential for crown fire initiation and spotting. 2) Thinning the canopy from below to decrease canopy bulk density, which would result in higher wind speeds and more severe weather needed for active crown fire spread. 3) Pile burning of surface and residual activity fuels, or masticating surface fuels. Reduction of surface fuel loads would result in decreased rates-of-spread, flame lengths, fireline intensities, and stand mortality in the event of wildfire.

Environmental Consequences

Connected Actions, Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis Within the project boundary, the existing condition reflects the effects of past activities, including fire suppression. Fuel models and stand conditions modeled reflect the changes associated with activities affecting fire behavior and hazard up to present. All activities affecting forest, woodland, and shrubland vegetation such as wildfires, firewood gathering, limited prescribed burning, and the very limited thinning prior to this analysis and are included in the current condition. The exception to this is the trailhead project which is in shrubland adjacent to Chuchupate Station and which is currently being constructed. Other ongoing activities such as trail maintenance, grazing, recreational activities and firewood cutting have very minimal to no effect on the stand conditions being discussed in this analysis and are not considered here.

Alternative 1- No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects on Fire Behavior and Fuels The fire behavior effects of the no action alternative is considered the same as described under the existing condition and summarized in Table 17 above.

Surface, ladder, and crown fuels would continue to accumulate in the absence of fire or treatment. With no modification of forest structure and fuels, fire behavior under 90th percentile conditions would persist as described under the existing condition, threatening resources within the project area. Fifty seven percent (57%) of the area would continue to be susceptible to crown fire activity and 61% of the project area would continue to have flame length 8 feet or greater. The probability of torching would be 95.

Fires that escape initial attack, usually those burning under severe conditions are likely to become large and damaging crown fires. Direct suppression tactics would not be effective in most circumstances.

In the absence of any kind of human-caused or natural disturbance, indirect effects would occur from the natural progression of forest growth and change. The result would be increased surface

74 Environmental Assessment

and ladder fuels that affect flame length, reduced canopy base heights that affect torching of trees, and increased crown density that make crown fire probable (Peterson et al. 2005, Graham et al. 2004). Fire risk in the project analysis area would likely increase and contribute to severe wildfires that could destroy important resources and habitat.

No progress would be made towards initiating the restoration of ecological processes that include the natural fire regimes, moderate to low intensity, frequent interval fire regime. Stands would continue to shift toward increasing density, increasing the risk of loss due to high intensity fire.

The No Action Alternative 1 would not be consistent with the Forest Plan direction and other regulatory direction outlined in this document. It would not contribute to the desired condition, purpose and need, or respond to the National Fire Plan goals of reducing hazardous fuels to modify current fire behavior that would improve suppression operations. Suppression operations would continue to occur. The ability of firefighters to safely and effectively suppress wildland fire would become more difficult as fire behavior intensifies.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects on Fire Behavior and Fuels Under Alternative 2, substantial changes to post treatment fire behavior potential were predicted. Ladder and crown fuels would be reduced through thinning of the stands. Activity fuels (slash generated from harvest and thinning activities) would be treated through a variety of methods including yarding methods, mastication, and piling and burning. The reduction of surface fuels would reduce the potential flame length within the proposed treatment units. This when combined with the raising of the canopy base heights by reducing the ladder fuels would in turn, reduce the ability of a fire to transition into a crown fire). FVS has the ability to not only show the initial surface fire flame length, but can also incorporate the increase in overall flame length due to the involvement of canopy fuels. This helps display the difficulty of controlling a fire when ladder and canopy fuels become involved. The total flame length is not altered when only surface fuels are involved, but increases substantially when the fire involves the aerial fuels. This is important when taken in the context of the above Table 16. Flame lengths went from being classified as ineffective to control efforts from handcrews in the majority of the units to being effective in all but one of the units. The reduction in potential flame length would reduce the area that would likely need mechanized equipment such as engines and dozers to contain (see Table 19 below). Fires that are difficult to suppress utilizing direct attack are more likely to escape initial attack efforts, grow large, and have the potential to burn for days or weeks.

In addition, to the substantial decrease in both surface and overall flamelength, most units show additional benefits in regard to fire hazard. For the modeled units the predicted fire type went from mostly passive or active crown fire to surface fire following treatment. For the units that were showing a surface fire under existing condition, the probability of torching (P-Torch) would drop substantially from 95% under the existing condition to only 27% and would not be common under the modeled conditions. This condition is not expected to last in perpetuity however. As vegetation grows, the increasing fuel levels will result in increased fire behavior in the absence of follow up treatment. Over time, treated areas can be expected to trend toward existing condition, however Alternative 2 would still have less severe fire behavior in 2020 than the existing condition. The proposed treatments of the plantations will reduce the potential fire behavior over time and represents an overall decrease in fire hazard throughout the project area.

75 Frazier Mt. Project

Thinning of overstocked small-diameter understory stands would reduce the ladder fuels allowing fire to remain in the surface fuels, and reducing the potential for crown fire. Suppression operations would continue to occur, however, fire behavior modeling indicates the proposed action would keep the fuels profile at a level that reduces fireline intensity allowing handcrews to effectively attack a fire. Under Alternative 2, 95 % of the modeled stands had flamelengths less than 4ft. and all of the stands (100%) were classified as surface fire..

Fire modeling results show a significant decrease in fire behavior as compared with Alternative 1 (existing condition). Table 20 below, shows that all treated units would have reduced flame lengths, less crown fire activity, and less severe fire effects. The overall fire hazard would be reduced across the treatment units. Treatments would result in predicted fire behavior that is not likely to cause severe effects to forested stands.

The proposed fuelbreak along the top of Frazier Mountain would provide firefighters with a strategic place to defend against an oncoming fire. Maintenance treatments would be required to keep fire intensity within the desired range and to maintain the integrity of the fuelbreak. Mechanical treatments and low-intensity prescribed fire would be the likely methods used to maintain fuelbreaks and reduced understory vegetation. The need for maintenance would be monitored by district fire personnel and performed as needed.

The proposed WUI treatments near the campgrounds, homes, and district office would provide firefighters with a strategic place to defend against an oncoming fire. Defensible space would be increased, thereby reducing the threat of wildfire to the developed areas within WUI.

For the shrubland areas, fire behavior was modeled using the fire behavior software program Behave Plus. Initial fuel models were taken from National Landfire data and adjusted based upon field visits to the area for the existing condition (Alternative 1). Adjustments were made to post treatment conditions for Alternatives 2 and 3 based upon the treatment type and then run through Behave Plus utilizing the same weather parameters. Potential fire behavior would be substantially reduced under both Alternative 2 and 3 as compared to Alternative 1. The projected fire behavior for shrubland areas for all the alternatives is displayed in Table 18.

Table 18. Predicted Fire Behavior for Shrublands. Shrublands Potential Fire Behavior Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Flame Length 19 4.5 4.5 Rate of Spread (chains per Hour) 79 19 19 Control Difficulty High/Very High Low/ Moderate Low/ Moderate Based on fireline intensity and flame length as it relates to suppression difficulty (Rothermel 1983). and adjusted to include spread rates

76 Environmental Assessment

Table 19. Comparison of Fire Potential for Sampled Stands in the Project Area Alternative 2 in 2014. Existing Condition (Alternative 1) Alternative 2

Surface Total Probability Surface Total Probability Stand ID Fire Type Year Fire Type Flame Flame of Torching Flame Flame of Torching 050757FrazierMt0003 4 4 SURFACE 0.67 2014 2 2 SURFACE 0.03 050757FrazierMt0004 5 52 ACTIVE 1.00 2014 5 5 SURFACE 0.82 050757FrazierMt0019 3 3 SURFACE 0.49 2014 2 2 SURFACE 0.14 050757FrazierMt0029 4 4 SURFACE 0.87 2014 4 4 SURFACE 0.66 050757FrazierMt0073 4 8 PASSIVE 0.81 2014 2 2 SURFACE 0.00 050757FrazierMt0075 4 4 SURFACE 0.22 2014 2 2 SURFACE 0.03 050757FrazierMt0080 5 5 SURFACE 0.44 2014 2 2 SURFACE 0.01 050757FrazierMt0083 4 4 SURFACE 0.50 2014 2 2 SURFACE 0.00 050757FrazierMt0084 5 28 PASSIVE 0.99 2014 3 3 SURFACE 0.13 050757FrazierMt0085 5 38 PASSIVE 0.25 2014 2 2 SURFACE 0.04 050757FrazierMt0090 4 53 ACTIVE 0.95 2014 2 2 SURFACE 0.03 050757FrazierMt0092 4 10 PASSIVE 0.82 2014 2 2 SURFACE 0.01 050757FrazierMt0097 4 31 PASSIVE 0.87 2014 4 4 SURFACE 0.60 050757FrazierMt0098 5 27 PASSIVE 0.31 2014 3 3 SURFACE 0.04 050757FrazierMt0099 5 9 PASSIVE 0.90 2014 3 3 SURFACE 0.11 050757FrazierMt0104 3 54 ACTIVE 0.95 2014 2 2 SURFACE 0.02 050757FrazierMt0106 3 3 SURFACE 0.55 2014 3 3 SURFACE 0.03 050757FrazierMt0116 3 3 SURFACE 0.75 2014 2 2 SURFACE 0.00 050757FrazierMt0130 4 4 SURFACE 0.05 2014 3 3 SURFACE 0.00 050757FrazierMt0134 5 7 PASSIVE 0.27 2014 3 3 SURFACE 0.07 050757FrazierMt0241 4 4 SURFACE 0.60 2014 2 2 SURFACE 0.03 050757FrazierMt0242 3 22 PASSIVE 0.67 2014 2 2 SURFACE 0.02 050757FrazierMt0243 5 10 PASSIVE 0.59 2014 3 3 SURFACE 0.01

77 Frazier Mt. Project

Table 20. Comparison of Fire Potential for Sampled Stands in the Project Area Alternative 2 in 2020. Existing Condition (Alternative 1) Alternative 2 Surface Total Probability Surface Total Probability Stand ID Fire Type Year Fire Type Flame Flame of Torching Flame Flame of Torching 050757FrazierMt0003 4 4 SURFACE 0.67 2020 3 3 SURFACE 0.03 050757FrazierMt0004 5 52 ACTIVE 1.00 2020 5 5 SURFACE 0.59 050757FrazierMt0019 3 3 SURFACE 0.49 2020 2 2 SURFACE 0.05 050757FrazierMt0029 4 4 SURFACE 0.87 2020 4 4 SURFACE 0.63 050757FrazierMt0073 4 8 PASSIVE 0.81 2020 3 3 SURFACE 0.06 050757FrazierMt0075 4 4 SURFACE 0.22 2020 3 3 SURFACE 0.00 050757FrazierMt0080 5 5 SURFACE 0.44 2020 3 3 SURFACE 0.04 050757FrazierMt0083 4 4 SURFACE 0.50 2020 3 3 SURFACE 0.00 050757FrazierMt0084 5 28 PASSIVE 0.99 2020 3 3 SURFACE 0.19 050757FrazierMt0085 5 38 PASSIVE 0.25 2020 4 4 SURFACE 0.16 050757FrazierMt0090 4 53 ACTIVE 0.95 2020 3 3 SURFACE 0.08 050757FrazierMt0092 4 10 PASSIVE 0.82 2020 3 3 SURFACE 0.06 050757FrazierMt0097 4 31 PASSIVE 0.87 2020 3 3 SURFACE 0.07 050757FrazierMt0098 5 27 PASSIVE 0.31 2020 3 3 SURFACE 0.03 050757FrazierMt0099 5 9 PASSIVE 0.90 2020 3 3 SURFACE 0.20 050757FrazierMt0104 3 54 ACTIVE 0.95 2020 3 3 SURFACE 0.14 050757FrazierMt0106 3 3 SURFACE 0.55 2020 3 3 SURFACE 0.00 050757FrazierMt0116 3 3 SURFACE 0.75 2020 3 3 SURFACE 0.00 050757FrazierMt0130 4 4 SURFACE 0.05 2020 3 3 SURFACE 0.00 050757FrazierMt0134 5 7 PASSIVE 0.27 2020 3 3 SURFACE 0.01 050757FrazierMt0241 4 4 SURFACE 0.60 2020 3 3 SURFACE 0.10 050757FrazierMt0242 3 22 PASSIVE 0.67 2020 3 3 SURFACE 0.02 050757FrazierMt0243 5 10 PASSIVE 0.59 2020 3 3 SURFACE 0.06

78 Environmental Assessment

The following are types of treatments that are planned under Alternative 2 to treat both existing and activity generated fuels within the treatment units. A table displaying the treatments by each unit is located in Appendix A, Table A-1 and Table A-2 of this EA. A district fuels specialist will monitor onsite conditions to determine the appropriate type of final treatment.

Thinning Removal of some trees to provide growing space for better quality trees, and/or to remove dead or dying trees to reduce pest problems. Thinning would remove excess canopy and ladder fuels.

Cable yarding Thinned trees would be transported from the site to landings by a cable system. The leading end of trees being removed would be suspended, but in most cases the trees would not be fully suspended and ground contact would occur. Whole Tree yarding Thinned trees would be pulled from the site to landings by the use of ground-based machine such as a rubber-tired skidder, tracked skidder (dozer), with the tops attached. Yarding in this manner removes activity fuels from the stand, thereby lowering the potential fire intensity Hand thinning Trees and/or shrubs would be cut or pruned using hand-carried machines (e.g., chainsaws) to the desired spacing. Hand thinning can redistribute fuels from a vertical to horizontal orientation, reducing ladder fuels and canopy fuels. This method often requires follow-up treatment such as piling and burning , mastication, or other prescribed burning to complete the treatment.

Hand pile and burn Fuels created by pruning, tree thinning or shrub thinning would be piled by hand and burned during conditions when risk of fire spread is low and when smoke will be adequately dispersed. Handpiles would be up to 6 feet high and 8 feet in diameter and would be placed as far from the canopy drip-line of trees as possible to prevent scorch. Machine cut Trees would be cut by a ground-based machine such as a track-mounted feller-buncher, but on occasion, hand cutting may be necessary. Machine cut trees are often yarded with tops attached to a central landing site where the tops and branch material can be burned, reducing fuel loading in the treated area. Machine pile and burn Fuels created by tree thinning would be piled by machine and burned during conditions when risk of fire spread is low and when smoke will be adequately dispersed. Piles would be placed as far from the canopy drip-line of trees as possible to prevent scorch. The operation could be the use of a track-mounted excavator with a grapple or a track-mounted dozer to pile thinning debris. Mastication Modifying forest fuels by grinding or crushing the fuels into smaller pieces and leaving them on the site. Prescribed fire underburn Fuels would be reduced by prescribed burning with a low intensity controlled burn. A range of prescribed burning activities including hand piling, jackpot burning, aerial ignitions, and low intensity burns would be conducted, usually under a forest canopy. Most of the thinning units are nested within larger underburn areas. Fuels treatment would vary depending on the existing and post-thinned conditions. Prescribed burning reduces surface fuels, prunes low branches of

79 Frazier Mt. Project

overstory trees, and reduces flammable understory vegetation. Fuels (surface, ladder and canopy) will begin to accumulate after treatment. This is due to the growth of the forest over time. Historic fire regimes show that the area likely burned much more often than the current fire return interval (see discussion of fire regime above). While there will be some variability in how rapidly fuels accumulate throughout the project, it is anticipated that it will take approximately 15 to 20 years before fuels have accumulated to the extent that the treatments are no longer effective. The exceptions will be areas such as the fuelbreak due to the shrub the heavier shrub component. Such areas would likely need some maintenance in approximately 10 years.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects on Fire Behavior and Fuels The effects on the fuels profile, loading and fire behavior on treated stands are similar to Alternative 2. There are some instances where flame length and probability of torching (Ptorch) are slightly less under Alternative 34 when compared to Alternative 2, but the results are so close that they are for all practical purposes the same. For Alternative 3, 95% of the modeled stands had flamelengths less than 4 foot, and 100% of the stands indicated surface fire. Probability of torching was slightly lower than alternative 2 (17% vs. 27% under Alternative 2). Alternative 3 fire behavior predictions are displayed in Table 21 below. As displayed in Table 22 below, when projecting out to the year 2020, Alternative 3 again shows similar results to Alternative 2. There is some modeled advantage in some stands for Alternative 3, but given the margin of error in modeling, the results for Alternative 3 would be considered the same for Alternatives 2 and 3.

Cumulative Impacts The cumulative effects area was determined to be the project analysis boundary because collective activities within this area can modify fire behavior. Although the effects outside this boundary could notably influence fire behavior, the spatial magnitude (size) of this boundary was determined quite adequate from a fire management perspective.

With No Action Alternative 1, the only changes to forest, woodland, or shrubland vegetation would be the trailhead and parking area construction which would impact a very small portion of the shrubland within the 27,000 acre analysis area.

With Alternative 2, the proposed mechanical and hand treatments would treat about 10 percent of the conifer forest and woodland and 4 percent of the mixed conifer and hardwood forest within the 27,000 acre analysis area. About 8 percent of the shrub would be treated by mastication or burning, and the trailhead reconstruction that is occurring would only add a couple of acres to the area treated. Prescribed fire would be utilized on a much larger portion of the project area. This would reduce fire behavior potential on these acres as well.

With Alternative 3, the same area would be treated as under Alternative 2. The proportions of each forest type treated are as discussed above for Alternative 2.

4 Ptorch is dependent on "small places" within the stand. Since Alt 3 essentially takes out more of the small diameter trees, it does little better job of getting rid of ladder fuels. Currently, prescriptions that are "uneven aged" for the Proposed Action leaves pockets of smaller diameter trees untreated, and intentionally leaves a few more of the small trees, which are the ones that cause "torching". The fuels model picks out random locations and is more likely to hit a pocket of small trees that will torch.

80 Environmental Assessment

Table 21. Comparison of Fire Potential for Sampled Stands in the Project Area Alternative 3 in 2014. Existing Condition (Alternative 1) Alternative 3

Surface Total Probability Surface Total Probability Stand ID Fire Type Year Fire Type Flame Flame of Torching Flame Flame of Torching 050757FrazierMt0003 4 4 SURFACE 0.67 2014 2 2 SURFACE 0.01 050757FrazierMt0004 5 52 ACTIVE 1.00 2014 5 5 SURFACE 0.82 050757FrazierMt0019 3 3 SURFACE 0.49 2014 2 2 SURFACE 0.14 050757FrazierMt0029 4 4 SURFACE 0.87 2014 4 4 SURFACE 0.66 050757FrazierMt0073 4 8 PASSIVE 0.81 2014 2 2 SURFACE 0.00 050757FrazierMt0075 4 4 SURFACE 0.22 2014 2 2 SURFACE 0.00 050757FrazierMt0080 5 5 SURFACE 0.44 2014 2 2 SURFACE 0.01 050757FrazierMt0083 4 4 SURFACE 0.50 2014 2 2 SURFACE 0.00 050757FrazierMt0084 5 28 PASSIVE 0.99 2014 2 2 SURFACE 0.06 050757FrazierMt0085 5 38 PASSIVE 0.25 2014 2 2 SURFACE 0.01 050757FrazierMt0090 4 53 ACTIVE 0.95 2014 2 2 SURFACE 0.09 050757FrazierMt0092 4 10 PASSIVE 0.82 2014 2 2 SURFACE 0.00 050757FrazierMt0097 4 31 PASSIVE 0.87 2014 4 4 SURFACE 0.28 050757FrazierMt0098 5 27 PASSIVE 0.31 2014 2 2 SURFACE 0.07 050757FrazierMt0099 5 9 PASSIVE 0.90 2014 2 2 SURFACE 0.01 050757FrazierMt0104 3 54 ACTIVE 0.95 2014 2 2 SURFACE 0.01 050757FrazierMt0106 3 3 SURFACE 0.55 2014 3 3 SURFACE 0.05 050757FrazierMt0116 3 3 SURFACE 0.75 2014 2 2 SURFACE 0.00 050757FrazierMt0130 4 4 SURFACE 0.05 2014 2 2 SURFACE 0.00 050757FrazierMt0134 5 7 PASSIVE 0.27 2014 3 3 SURFACE 0.06 050757FrazierMt0241 4 4 SURFACE 0.60 2014 2 2 SURFACE 0.03 050757FrazierMt0242 3 22 PASSIVE 0.67 2014 2 2 SURFACE 0.00 050757FrazierMt0243 5 10 PASSIVE 0.59 2014 2 2 SURFACE 0.01

81 Frazier Mt. Project

Table 22. Comparison of Fire Potential for Sampled Stands in the Project Area Alternative 2 in 2020. Existing Condition (Alternative 1) Alternative 3 Surface Total Probability Surface Total Probability Stand ID Fire Type Year Fire Type Flame Flame of Torching Flame Flame of Torching 050757FrazierMt0003 4 4 SURFACE 0.67 2020 3 3 SURFACE 0.00 050757FrazierMt0004 5 52 ACTIVE 1.00 2020 5 5 SURFACE 0.59 050757FrazierMt0019 3 3 SURFACE 0.49 2020 2 2 SURFACE 0.05 050757FrazierMt0029 4 4 SURFACE 0.87 2020 4 4 SURFACE 0.63 050757FrazierMt0073 4 8 PASSIVE 0.81 2020 3 3 SURFACE 0.01 050757FrazierMt0075 4 4 SURFACE 0.22 2020 3 3 SURFACE 0.03 050757FrazierMt0080 5 5 SURFACE 0.44 2020 3 3 SURFACE 0.06 050757FrazierMt0083 4 4 SURFACE 0.50 2020 3 3 SURFACE 0.01 050757FrazierMt0084 5 28 PASSIVE 0.99 2020 3 3 SURFACE 0.02 050757FrazierMt0085 5 38 PASSIVE 0.25 2020 3 3 SURFACE 0.05 050757FrazierMt0090 4 53 ACTIVE 0.95 2020 3 3 SURFACE 0.05 050757FrazierMt0092 4 10 PASSIVE 0.82 2020 3 3 SURFACE 0.03 050757FrazierMt0097 4 31 PASSIVE 0.87 2020 3 3 SURFACE 0.02 050757FrazierMt0098 5 27 PASSIVE 0.31 2020 3 3 SURFACE 0.13 050757FrazierMt0099 5 9 PASSIVE 0.90 2020 4 4 SURFACE 0.05 050757FrazierMt0104 3 54 ACTIVE 0.95 2020 3 3 SURFACE 0.10 050757FrazierMt0106 3 3 SURFACE 0.55 2020 3 3 SURFACE 0.01 050757FrazierMt0116 3 3 SURFACE 0.75 2020 3 3 SURFACE 0.04 050757FrazierMt0130 4 4 SURFACE 0.05 2020 3 3 SURFACE 0.00 050757FrazierMt0134 5 7 PASSIVE 0.27 2020 4 4 SURFACE 0.02 050757FrazierMt0241 4 4 SURFACE 0.60 2020 3 3 SURFACE 0.02 050757FrazierMt0242 3 22 PASSIVE 0.67 2020 3 3 SURFACE 0.07 050757FrazierMt0243 5 10 PASSIVE 0.59 2020 3 3 SURFACE 0.07

82 Environmental Assessment

Summary and Conclusion Alternatives 2 and 3 similarly reduce surface, ladder and crown fuels that change the fuel profile resulting in reduced fireline intensity and severe crown. For all practical purposes, they are equally effective at reducing fire hazard and the associated fire behavior.

The reduction of flame lengths has a cascading effect on fire behavior. As a result of lower flame lengths, it is less likely that the crowns of trees become involved in the fire, reducing the amount of embers produced from individual and or groups of trees burn intensely. Burning embers can produce spots at distances over ¼ mile. The increased fire behavior associated with the burning of tree crowns further complicates suppression action and makes direct attack unlikely to be successful.

The action alternatives are also responsive to the Mt Pinos Community Wildfire Protection Plan, by reducing fuels and fire behavior in the vicinity of the community of Frazier Park and the outlying residences which is listed as a community at Risk. Alternative 1 does not do this.

Scientific Controversy There is some controversy about the effectiveness of mechanical treatment of forest landscapes to reduce fire hazard. Odion et al (2004) in a study of the western Klamath Mountains of California found that a “long absence” of fire resulted in low severity fire effects. However, While the Odion paper reaches the conclusion that unmanaged stands are less prone to severe fire in the specific area of their study, others have found otherwise Finney (2006) notes that “stand level fuel treatment benefits of reduced wildfire severity under extreme weather conditions are increasingly proven (Pollet and Omi 2002, Graham et al 2004, Finney et al 2005)”. Finney (2006) also states that “not managing forests that historically were mediated by surface fire as a disturbance, essentially places faith in passive management (but continues the active policy of excluding fire) which is not well understood to lead to the demise of the very forests so treasured (Arno and brown 1991, Agee 2002). Indeed restoration efforts for previously “logged” and “unlogged” forests is needed for improving the resistance to the inevitable wildland fires (Arno and Brown 1989, Brown et al 2004)”.

The Frazier Mountain project does not propose simply reducing tree density, and follows the direction of most of the scientific literature in treating surface, ladder, and canopy fuels through a variety of methods including prescribed fire. The project was designed to take advantage of the conditions in various areas of the project. Although prescribed fire by itself is effective in some situations, scientific literature does support the use of mechanical treatments in conjunction with prescribed fire

“The beneficial effects of prescribed fire on altering fuel structure and wildfire behavior and effects have long been observed and reported (Cooper 1960, Biswell et al 1973, Fernandes and Botelho 2003). There is generally less predictability in post treatment stand structure following prescribed fire than with mechanical thinning treatments—regardless of the targeted condition and burning prescriptions, since prescribed fire is not as precise a tool for modifying stand structure and composition.” They also state that “Thinning followed by prescribed burning reduces canopy, ladder, and surface fuels, thereby providing maximum protection from severe fires in the future (Peterson et al 2003).”

Graham et al 2004 note that “Forest ecosystems are inherently complex entities about which we have limited understanding. Detailed site-specific data on anything beyond basic forest structure and fuel properties are rare, limiting our analytical capability to prescribe management actions to

83 Frazier Mountain Project

achieve desired conditions for altering fuels and fire hazard. In the face of this complexity, it is important to focus on basic principles that assist decision making processes (Agee 2002b, Peterson et al2003).” These basic principals include reducing surface fuels to decrease surface fire behavior, reducing ladder fuels to increase height to crown base, and reducing canopy fuels to reduce the probability of crown fire. All of these treatments have been integrated into the design of the action alternatives on the Frazier Mountain project.

In regards to the effect of opening the canopy, and the effect of mechanical treatment of forest stands, Pollet and Omi (2002) state that “Fuel moistures may be affected by microclimate and probably do vary between the untreated and treated stands. A more open stand allows more wind and solar radiation resulting in a drier microclimate compared to a closed stand. A drier microclimate generally contributes to more severe fire behavior. However, our study does not support the assertion that more open stands experience higher fire severity. More open stands had significantly less fire severity compared to the more densely stocked untreated stands in this study.”

84 Environmental Assessment

Watershed/Soils This section will describe an assessment of the current condition of the proposed project area and the potential effects to soil and water resources from the implementation of vegetation and fuels treatments for fire hazard reduction, wildfire risk reduction, bark beetle risk reduction, and to maintain the health of mature conifers and conifer plantations, and protect high value recreation areas.

Three alternatives were studied as part of this analysis: the No Action, Proposed Action and the Third Alternative (diameter limit with no commercial harvest). The proposed treatments include forest stand thinning and fuels reduction through both mechanized and hand methods. Both action alternatives also propose temporary road construction and landing construction. Specific treatment descriptions, acreages, and road lengths for each alternative are detailed in Section II of this EA. The analysis will concentrate on the potential impacts from the prescribed burning, cutting, removal, or chipping mastication of live, dead, or dying trees and shrubs to soil quality, stream stability, and water quality. The analysis utilized existing information from previous fuels reduction analyses, recent field surveys, spatial data, and computer modeling.

Overview of Issues Addressed The current issues relevant to soil and water resources within the Frazier Mountain Project area were developed from internal review and external scoping comments from the public. The primary issues surrounding soil and water resources are related to, A) immediate impacts from mechanical equipment which is utilized to cut and masticate fuels, B) impacts to long term soil productivity from repeated fuels reduction activities within the fuel break areas, and C) sediment delivery to nearby stream channels. The primary concerns are that the proposed fuels reduction activities will impact soil health and create erosion and sediment delivery, affecting water quality and stream stability

Analysis Indicators • The indicator to describe potential effects to long term soil productivity is acres of detrimentally disturbed soils (expressed in a % of the area, with less than 15% being the desired DDS condtion)

• The indicator for water quality and stream stability is sediment (tons/yr) delivered at the local site scale.

Affected Environment The project area is located within the Central Coast Mountains approximately 14 miles west of Frazier Park, California. The topography is characterized by alluvial valleys bordered by steep montane footslopes. Precipitation in the area averages 18 inches annually with most falling during November through March. Snow is not uncommon within the project area. Base runoff is derived from groundwater inputs at bedrock fracture points and higher flashy flows which occur as a result of winter Pacific frontal storm systems and occasional late winter or early spring snowmelt events. The proposed treatment units are, with a few exceptions, located along Forest Service roads which run past the Mount Pinos Ranger Station up to and around Frazier Mountain. Slopes for the treatment units generally range from 5 – 30 percent, with some limited areas of 30 – 40 percent slopes. The proposed prescribed fire areas have slopes that vary from 0 – 65% with the majority of the acres on slopes less than 45 percent.

85 Frazier Mountain Project

Soils in the project area have developed on mountain slopes that are adjacent mountains directly south of the San Andreas Fault. This area is deeply dissected and has mature landforms. Though mature, landforms are evolving from earthquake faulting and fluvial erosion processes. Slopes continue to adjust following shifts from mountain building, finding the natural angle of repose. Soil development is deepest in the old alluvium just north of the ranger station whereas on the slopes surrounding Frazier Mountain, soil depths tend to be shallower. South facing slopes have limited development from moisture. North facing slopes have greater effective precipitation, developing more organics. North facing slopes are prone to erosion even though they are more developed because soil depth is limited.

Due to the granite, gneiss and schist parent rock materials, all soils have sandy loam textures in the surface horizon. Frazier Mountain soils are classified as coarse loamy, frigid, Pachic Haploxerolls (See Table 23 below). The Frazier Mountain is among a unique system of broad ridges for the Los Padres NF that includes Campos Altos summit, and Mt. Pinos. This soil comprises only 0.5% of the Los Padres NF. Soils on these ridges have a colder climate, more precipitation, and thus have developed deeper and accumulated greater organics in the surface layers. These soils are comparatively very fertile, providing a good growing environment for conifers. Large, older groves of Jeffery pine, sugarpine and white fir currently occupy these soils, compared to the mixed conifer and more expansive scrub habitats that make up most of the Los Padres landbase. Soil limitations are due to erosion where soils are uncovered on slopes greater than 30%.

Table 23. Soils within the Frazier Mountain Project Area. Acres within Soil Map Unit Name Project Area Hades-Ginser-Ola Families association, 10 to 30 percent slopes 783 Kilburn-Wrentham-Supan Families association, 10 to 30 percent 587 slopes Kilburn-Wrentham-Supan Families association, 30 to 60 percent 752 slopes Los Gatos-Kilburn-Panamint Families association, 10 to 30 438 percent slopes Morical-Supan-Greenbluff Families association, 10 to 60 284 percent slopes Oak Glen-Supan-Hagen Families complex, 0 to 10 percent 6 slopes

Soils throughout the project area consist primarily of coarse grain gravelly loam textures and low amounts of clay with small areas of exposed outcrop landforms in the upper elevations. The lower elevations are dominated by moderately dissected landforms which have resulted from the erosion of the steep mountainous upland slopes. The upper ridge areas are broad and relatively flat. Infiltration in these soils is generally rapid with very little water holding capacity. Compaction risks are limited by the coarse gravelly nature of the soils; however, when moist or wet, these soils will compact easily. Surface displacement is of concern on the lower slopes of the activity units as most of these soils have limited structure and erode easily on steeper slopes.

Soil disturbance is generally low except for small localized areas (generally less than 1/10th acre) from vehicle traffic. None of the transects within areas proposed for forest stand thinning or fuels reductions treatments rated above 3 percent detrimental disturbance. Past wildfires (1921 and 1948) are no longer measurably affecting soil or water function. The exceptions were the

86 Environmental Assessment communications tower site at the top of the mountain and where there are some areas where dispersed campsites and OHV traffic have created localized impacts to soil productivity, but these areas compose less than two percent of the proposed treatment activity units. The problems for these camping and OHV impact sites included loss of ground cover, rutting and soil displacement, and soil compaction. In areas not impacted by camping and OHV use, soils appear to be functioning close to their productive capacity with vigorous brush and grass vegetation, and very little evidence of surface erosion. Ground cover was good overall.

Erosion on all proposed treatment units other than the plantation areas is occurring at natural background levels. Ground cover over all surveyed fuelbreak and prescribed fire units is sufficient to prohibit accelerated erosion.

The U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute topographic maps for the project area show only intermittent stream channels (See Table 25 below and Figure 29 below). At the time of the site visits by the project hydrologist, there was no water flowing in the headwater stream channels identified as intermittent and little to no water flowing in the higher order intermittent stream channels.

Table 24. Streams within the Frazier Mountain Project Area. Stream Channel Type Length (miles) Intermittent 7.7

Figure 29. Frazier Mountain Intermittent Stream Crossings

87 Frazier Mountain Project

Streams in the project area are mainly source area or transport type channels (Montgomery and Buffington, 1997). The project area stream reaches, with few exceptions, are steep A type (Rosgen, 1996) ephemeral to intermittent source area channels. All of the channels in the project area have intermittent or ephemeral streamflow regimes. The channel bottom materials are generally fine grained sands (derived from deteriorated granitics, gneiss, and schists) with a heavy armoring of boulder and cobbles. The streams in the project area are fairly stable, generally high gradient, and have very little influence from riparian vegetation. Large woody debris (fallen trees and other organic material) provide some stability and sediment storage in these channels. The woody debris and other organic material occasionally “clean-out” during short-duration, high intensity rainfall events. None of the channels has a stream gradient which would promote any floodplain development.

Affected 12th code subwatersheds include those displayed below in Table 25 below and in Appendix A, Map A- 5. 12th Code HUC Watersheds and CA Water Board Boundaries. The California Water Quality Control Boards that have jurisdiction of the project area are the Los Angeles Board and the Central Valley Board. None of the streams within the affected watersheds flows into a downstream waterbody that is 303(d) listed as not meeting water quality parameters for State Beneficial Uses for water. None of the streams within or immediately adjacent to the project activities are listed as not supporting State designated Beneficial Uses.

Table 25. Frazier Mountain 12th Code Subwatersheds Acres within Project area Percent of Project Area 12th Code Hydrologic Unit (acres) (%) Castac Lake 1390 49 Upper Lockwood Creek 439 15 Canada De Los Alamos 788 28 Piru Creek/Snowy Creek 191 7 Piru Creek/Mutau Creek 41 1 Total 2850 100

Forest roads within the project area are variably in or out-sloped throughout their length. Most of the roads appeared to have a consistent engineered system of drainage ditches and cross relief drains. The road prism is drained either at irregularly spaced dips in the bed or through cross- drains. Several road segments have a berm built along their outside edge, which interferes with the possibility of water being dispersed over the side wherever the bed is out-sloped, rather than at the discrete points provided. Wet weather traffic from recreationists creates some localized areas of road surface rutting and some limited sediment delivery down-slope, but overall the roads were in fair to good condition with relatively minor inputs of road sediment to stream channels.

There are five intermittent stream crossings in the project area. All of the crossings are in fair to good condition and did not appear to be contributing substantial amounts of sediment to the stream channels. WEPP modeling estimated that road sediment delivery is less than ¼ ton/crossing/year.

88 Environmental Assessment

Environmental Consequences

Methodology The soils and hydrology analysis for this project is a compilation of data and information from past Natural Resource Conservation Service Soil surveys for Forest Service lands within Kern and Ventura Counties, recent resource surveys for the proposed project, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis of spatial data, and sediment delivery and yield modeling using the soils data from the Natural Resource Conservation Service soil survey data, Forest Service GIS interfaces for the Water Erosion Prediction Project computer model (FSWEPP).

Impacts to soils that may result from the project were estimated by taking soil disturbance point data the Forest Soil Disturbance methodology described by soil disturbance points were taken along proposed fuel break areas and proposed treatment areas within plantations.

Source areas for potential watershed impacts were identified in the field and located on maps spatially using GIS. Relative impacts to watershed condition through erosion and sediment delivery were then estimated for both the No Action (current condition) and the action alternatives using the FSWEPP model. The results of these analyses were then used to show a comparison between the No Action and Proposed Action alternatives. The data output is not expected to be utilized as exact quantities of sediment which will be delivered to stream channels. The output data are used to show the relative differences between Alternatives.

The Watershed Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP: Disturbed) (WEPP: Road) models were used for direct and indirect effects analysis of post fire harvest and road use erosion predictions (Elliot, W.J., 1999; Elliot, W.J., 2000). WEPP is designed to assist as a tool to evaluate erosion and sediment delivery potential from forest roads, harvest activities, prescribed fires, and wildfires, using input values for forest conditions developed by scientists at the Rocky Mountain Research Station (Elliot 1999). WEPP was used to estimate maximum sediment delivery distances and used average hill slope and road slope conditions, and a 30-year climate record period. Estimates of erosion and sedimentation are not considered absolute values, but rather are estimates only for the purpose of comparing alternatives.

Actual erosion and sediment delivery rates would be expected to be lower than the WEPP model output figures reflect. This is because the WEPP model does not readily account for the mitigation measures to control erosion and sedimentation that the Forest Service would implement. In particular, the model does not readily account for the improvements in road and trail drainage and design features to reduce erosion and sedimentation from the transportation system. Further, Forest Service Soil and Water Conservation Practices (also known as BMPs, (See Appendix K – Best Management Practices for Soils and Water) have also been found to greatly reduce impacts to water quality and soil resources (Seyedbagheri 1996).

Cumulative watershed effects (CWE) were analyzed using the both the Equivalent Roaded Acreage Method and by estimating changes to peak discharges and sediment yield at the watershed scale. The Region 5 method of CWE analysis, as outlined in chapter 20 of the U.S. Forest Service Soil and Water Conversation Handbook (USDA, 1990, R5 Amendment), is termed the Equivalent Roaded Acre (ERA) method. It uses a roaded acre as the basis for comparing effects of activities and features. A road surface, in the context of the method, is considered to be a native surface forest road, bare of vegetation, severely compacted and practically impervious, that sheds and possibly conveys some distance all water precipitated upon it. As originally

89 Frazier Mountain Project

conceived, adverse impacts from activities such as timber harvests, are the result of the degree of soil compaction incurred, hence “road-likeness” that increases peak flows (Reid, 1993).

Effects are assumed mitigated over time by natural processes, if not by specific actions done after the project for that purpose. The period of time for recovery, generally of all activities, selected for the Los Padres National Forest is 30 - 75 years, based on surveys of soil conditions and expected vegetative recovery of treated and burned slopes on the Forest.

The ERA method is essentially an accounting of the past, present and future impacts. It is used to index land use intensity, rather than to predict effects. Judgment of the effect of proposed actions is made in consideration of current conditions, as determined by field observations, and those environmental parameters that are deemed relevant to the response of watershed hill slopes and channels in the project area

This analysis assumes that all project design features in Table 9. Project Design Criteria by Resource Area and BMPs (See Appendix K – Best Management Practices for Soils and Water) will be implemented and are effective. The Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region and California State Water Quality Boards periodically review and amend the Best Management Practices. This review is conducted in order to adapt to changing water quality needs and to meet the Management Agency Agreement (MAA). The MAA designates the Forest Service as a Water Quality Management Agency on Forest Service lands. The State Water Quality Board and the Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region are currently reviewing and updating BMPs. Therefore, there is the possibility that the project would need to adapt to the new BMPs when they are promulgated.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis Analysis for direct and indirect effects is considered at the site specific activity area scale. Cumulative effects are assessed at the scale including all affected watersheds. For the purpose of this analysis, short term effects are considered to last no more than 3 – 5 years. Medium term effects are those which last beyond 5 years, but less than 20 years. Any effect which has an impact on water quality, water yield, or riparian habitat which lasts longer than 20 years is considered a long term effect.

Connected Actions, Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis The list of connected actions, past, present, and foreseeable activities relevant to cumulative effects analysis is located in Appendix A Table A- 3. Potential Past, Ongoing and Foreseeable Actions.

Alternative 1- No Action

Direct Effects There would be no change from the current condition to either soil resources or water resources resulting from the No action Alt.

Indirect Effects Under the No Action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. No fuels management activities would be implemented to accomplish project goals. Road maintenance and repair, trail maintenance and repair would continue. This alternative

90 Environmental Assessment

would allow the area to recover to continue on its current trend without the proposed management actions. The trend of the current conditions described previously would continue.

Cumulative Effects There would be no likely, immediate cumulative effects resulting from the No Action alternative.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action and Alternative 3 The Proposed Action Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 are analyzed together in this analysis as their actual on the ground effects are relatively similar. The main difference between the two alternatives is the commercial harvest of the larger diameter trees. The number of landings and length of temporary roads needed decreases for Alternative 3. Other than the landings and the temporary roads, the change from commercial to non-commercial does not substantially change the end result of the effects to the ground because potential thinning methods and follow-up fuels treatments are similar for those units which may change from commercial to non-commercial activities. Further, Project Design Features are the same for both alternatives and should result in the same outcome in the protection of soil and water resources.

Project Design Features and Best Management Practices The project would implement project design features and Best Management Practices in order to comply with Forest Plan requirements and other laws and regulations. The full list of project project design features is listed in Section II of this EA in Table 9.

Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) delineated in Figure 30 below are for those stream reaches that have been determined perennial under most conditions of climate or intermittent with prolonged dry season base flow sustained by groundwater storage.

Riparian Conservation Area segments will be established on all stream reaches in the project area. Protocol for Riparian Conservation Areas is found in Forest Service Handbook – Forest Supplement (FSH 2509.22). The purpose of the RCA is to prevent potential erosion from management activities reaching the stream channel and to preserve adequate canopy for cover, shading and recruitment of large woody material. The RCA on intermittent reaches is 98 feet on both sides of the channel. Riparian Conservation Areas are exclusive of heavy equipment, except when there is a need for a crossing of a stream or a designated access to upslope treatment areas.

Effective ground cover within an RCA was determined by the Soil monitoring protocol method (Howes, 2000). Ground cover consists of a combination of living Figure 30. Frazier Mountain Project RCAs.

91 Frazier Mountain Project plants, rock, litter, slash and duff. Litter and slash should be at least 2 inches deep and consist of material 4 inches or less in diameter. Duff and humus should be an average of 1 inch to be effective.

The Proposed Action alternative, through project design features, incorporates Forest Service Soil and Water Conservation Practices (USDA, 2000) that are designed to protect and restore watershed resources. All of these measures included in the action alternatives have evolved through extensive research and development (Burroughs and King, 1989) and have been monitored and modified over several decades, with the express purpose of improving measures and making them more effective. Federal and State site evaluations of BMP control measures (Seyedbagheri, 1996; USDA, 2002; USDA, 2004) have found the practices to be effective in protecting beneficial uses.

Direct Effects

Soils The direct effects of the proposed action on soils will be limited to the actual proposed fuel break locations, plantations, and prescribed fire areas. The impacts from the project activities are expected to occur from the use of ground based mechanical equipment used for masticating cut fuels. The concern regarding effects to soils is 1) surface soil displacement from log and brush skidding, and the turning action of tracked ground based equipment, and 2) the potential for the compaction of soils due to the weight and vibration of the ground based equipment. Soil disturbance surveys were conducted to analyze and address soil displacement concerns. Soil compaction concerns were analyzed through field surveys and a GIS review of the soil units proposed for ground based treatment. The risk for compaction was evaluated based on the current condition of the soils, inherent physical properties of the affected soil units and their potential for compaction.

Soil disturbance surveys were conducted on proposed fuel break areas where past disturbance activities have occurred or where ground based equipment is proposed for yarding, chipping, or mastication treatment. Those proposed fuel break areas which are in a relatively natural condition were not intensively surveyed and were estimated to have a low background disturbance ratio (3 percent or less). Soil disturbance surveys were conducted in 2005 (USDA, 2005) on proposed thinning areas, fuel break sections, and plantations where ground based equipment is proposed for treating fuels. Most of these areas tend to be on the gentler, lower elevation sections proposed for fuel breaks. The soils that would be affected by the use of heavy equipment are listed below in Table 26. Treatment activity areas were delineated based on fuel break treatment type.

Table 26. Detrimental Soil Disturbance by Treatment Type Activity Area. Expected Total Expected Fuel Break Current Avg. 15 yr Post- Proposed increase in Treatment Alternative Detrimental Project Action Detrimental Type Activity 3 Acres Disturbance Detrimental Acres/Miles Disturbance Area Ratio Disturbance Ratio Ratio Thinning Units 1281 1281 <3% 8 - 12 % <=8% Fuels Units 282 282 <3%% 8 – 12%% <=15 – 25% (Mastication) Fuels Units 823 823 <3% 3 – 5% <3% Prescribed Fire

92 Environmental Assessment

Expected Total Expected Fuel Break Current Avg. 15 yr Post- Proposed increase in Treatment Alternative Detrimental Project Action Detrimental Type Activity 3 Acres Disturbance Detrimental Acres/Miles Disturbance Area Ratio Disturbance Ratio Ratio Landings (1/4 10 2.5 <3% 20% <=12% acre/landing) Temporary 2.4 0.8 <3% 20% <=12% Roads (miles)

Detrimental soil disturbance ratios exceeding 15 percent are typically considered to not be meeting standards and guidelines for the maintenance of long term soil productivity (FSH 2509.18). None of the proposed thinning units or fuel break treatment sections is expected to exceed the 15 percent threshold; however it is expected that the fuel breaks would be maintained into the future, thus the post-project detrimental disturbance percentages would not be allowed to recover and would become a semi-permanent soil condition. Landings and temporary roads will be rehabilitated after project activities have been completed. However, it is not expected that they will be fully recovered in the near term. Rehabilitation on these treatment areas is expected to take longer- 10 – 15 years to be within the 15% threshold.

A review of the project area soil units and their physical properties indicates that the soils affected by ground based activities are generally very coarse and, except for when wet or moist, are structurally resistant to compaction. All of the affected soil map units have gravelly to sandy gravel loam soil textures. There is very little clay content found in the affected soils. Therefore, it is expected that as long as the thinning, and fuels reduction/fuel break activities occur within the operating limits for weather conditions, there should be a low risk for additional soil compaction.

Water The direct effects to water will be limited to a very few locations and situations where roads with cross streams and where road drainage is connected to the stream network.

It is expected that the impact of the road crossings will be negligible as most of the current crossings will be upgraded to meet soil and water quality conditions project activities. Stream crossings for log yarding activities would be required to meet BMPs for log skidding activities. The storm-proofing of these road crossings and implementation of BMPs is expected to minimize sediment input or disturbance to stream channels (Burroughs, 1989). Any disturbance to a stream that might occur to would be identified and rehabilitated following BMP and timber contract processes.

The WEPP Road modeling indicates that there may be a slight reduction (less than 5%) in sediment delivery at road crossings due to the road maintenance upgrades at the stream channel approaches to meet BMP guidelines (See Table 27 below). Because of the variability in erosion and the potential for wide differences in erosion rates due to other than ordinary weather events, these numbers sediment delivery numbers could vary by approximately 50% . In either case, the volumes that are estimated here for the action alternatives are not sufficient to change the downstream water quality conditions such that beneficial uses would be impacted.

93 Frazier Mountain Project

Table 27.Estimated Sediment Delivery to Road Crossings by Alternative Average Tons Treatment Level Sediment/Year/Crossing Alternative 1- No Action 2.8 Alternative 2- Proposed Action 2.4 Alternative 3 2.4

Indirect Effects The effects to soil resources would occur solely in location and time as a direct effect. It is not expected that there would be any delayed indirect effects to the soil resource

Indirect effects to water resources and riparian areas are those effects which occur off-site (not directly on the waterbody) and do not immediately affect water quality, riparian health, or stream channels (such as is the case with the local area of a road crossing). The effects usually occur at a later time or place as a result of precipitation events and runoff (erosion from an activity unit or landing to a stream after a storm event for example).

Treatments within Riparian Conservation Areas usually pose the most risks for impacts to water quality, riparian health, and stream channels. The proximity of activities within Riparian Conservation Areas to waterbodies, riparian species, and sensitive habitat promotes Riparian Conservation Areas as areas of critical attention. Soil compaction, loss of surface soil organics, and soil displacement are typically the initial impacts which lead to accelerated soil erosion and sediment delivery (Brown, 2003). There are a total of 108 acres of Riparian Conservation Areas within the general project area. Table 28 below displays the treatment type acreages within Riparian Conservation Areas. The majority of the treatment areas within Riparian Conservation Areas would be affected by prescribed fire treatments. Riparian Conservation Area treatments would require that sufficient fine slash, chips, or Course Woody Debris be left to meet or exceed the 70 percent ground cover requirement within the Riparian Conservation Areas. Effects within Riparian Conservation Areas would be controlled through the implementation of project design features or Best Management Practices.

Table 28.Total acres by treatment type within Riparian Conservation Areas. PA Acreage/miles within Alt 3 Acreage/miles within Treatment Type Riparian Conservation Areas Riparian Conservation Areas Thinning (commercial or 36 36 non-commercial Fuels 63 63 Landings 0 0 Temp Roads (miles) 0 0

Impacts to Riparian Conservation Areas are expected to be low due to the implementation of project design features (See Table 9 in EA Section II). The requirements to restrict the use of ground based equipment immediately adjacent to stream channels and to fully suspend and yarded materials within Riparian Conservation Areas will prevent most of the potential negative impacts from the proposed action. Further, the requirements to leave 70% ground cover where activities occur in Riparian Conservation Areas will maintain existing runoff and sediment delivery rates to stream channels. Studies on erosion of forest soils indicate that when ground cover is reduced below 50 percent of existing cover (post logging or post fire), erosion rates

94 Environmental Assessment

increase beyond natural background rates (Robichaud, 2000). The requirement to maintain ground cover levels at 70 percent of existing cover is expected to maintain sediment delivery rates within their natural background range. Sedimentation modeling with Disturbed WEPP produced erosion estimates that would indicate there would be no substantial increase in erosion rates beyond naturally occurring background levels.

Overall, the project would have a neutral impact on affected RCA areas. The project is affecting a very small portion of the available RCA area within the project boundary, but of those acres, there would be a neutral effect due to the limitations on cutting riparian vegetation, ground cover maintenance standards, and stream crossing maintenance on road stream crossings.

Further, improvements in road drainage and implementation of BMPs associated with project related road use and maintenance should decrease the impact of sedimentation on stream channels.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area was delineated based on affected subwatersheds. The subwatersheds were delineated approximately on 12th code subwatershed scales. The affected subwatersheds and their acreages are listed below in Table 29.

A degree of activity within a watershed, beyond which an adverse effect might be expected, is termed a Threshold of Concern (TOC). Thresholds of concern for the affected subwatersheds were developed based on a sensitivity index which includes slope, vegetative cover, geology/erosion hazard rating, and critical watershed elements (habitat for endangered species, public drinking water sources, and other waterbodies highly susceptible to water quality degradation). TOCs are expressed as a percentage of a watershed that is in Equivalent Roaded Acreage (ERA). An appropriate range for TOCs is 10 to 20 percent ERA (USDA Forest Service, 1990). This numeric range is supported by research and guidelines for soil disturbance, beyond which significant adverse effects in study watersheds was reported (Reid, 1993). TOC for a watershed is calculated by a summation of sensitive ground within that watershed. Because of the varied terrain and cover types, the thresholds for subwatersheds in and near the project range between 11 and 14 percent. The affected subwatersheds that are analyzed for this project were rated as 14 percent.

The percent Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA), Table 29 below, shows the relative disturbance level attributed to each watershed by roads and existing conditions prior to and after the implementation of an action alternative, which is estimated here as 2011. Much of the proposed activity area not been previously harvested or at least is in an unroaded condition. All the subwatersheds with the exception of Castac Lake are relatively undisturbed. The Castac lake subwatershed in the northern portion of the project area has some residential development activity, but the majority of all the watersheds are in a semi-natural hydrologically functioning condition. The ERA analysis estimates that all of these subwatersheds are in a relatively low disturbance condition and that the action alternatives will not substantially change those disturbance ratios.

The implementation of the proposed action would slightly increase disturbance values as compared to Alternative 3. But the proposed project activities are small enough in scale that they do not represent a large percentage of disturbance activity within any of the affected subwatersheds. These ERA values are relative in that they do not consider the increase in ground cover and the attendant reduction in surface erosion resulting from project activities. Erosion

95 Frazier Mountain Project modeling with WEPP indicates that the increase in ground cover would reduce overall runoff and surface erosion. However, the ERA modeling is an index of overall watershed disturbance and does not account for spatial location or factors which reduce erosion and ground disturbance. Therefore, it is not expected that the project will have a substantial impact at the watershed scale due to the relatively small additions in ERA attributable to the project activities. Although the ERA values indicates some slight increases over current values, the actual impacts associated with the project should be begin or slightly beneficial when considered in context the implementation of project design features and BMPs or the effects from large wildfires.

Table 29. Equivalent Road Area by watershed. Post-Project Current Risk for Current Final Alt. 2 Final Alt. 3 Condition exceeding Condition ERA % ERA % Risk TOC (both ERA % Alternatives) Watershed Acres TOC 2011 2012 2011 2012 2012 Castac Lake 1390 14 - 16 Low Low 6 – 8% 10 – 12% 8 – 12% Upper Lockwood 439 16 - 18 Low Low 3 – 5% 5 – 6% 4 – 5% Creek Canada De 788 16 - 18 Low Low 3 – 5% 5 – 6% 4 – 5% Los Alamos Piru Creek/Snowy 191 16 - 18 Low Low 3 – 5% 5 – 6% 4 – 5% Creek Piru Creek/Mutau 41 16 - 18 Low Low 3 – 5% 5 – 6% 4 – 5% Creek Note: the estimated threshold values for the affected 12th Code subwatersheds ranges between 10 – 18%.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans Forest wide directives for project standards (USDA Forest Service,2005) are to implement Best Management Practices (BMP) (USDA Forest Service, 2000) that meet state and federal guidelines in water quality protection and appropriate standards in Forest Service manuals and handbooks.

Use of the ERA method is recommended in regional supplements to the Soil and Water Conservation Handbook, to determine the cumulative watershed effects of an action (USDA Forest Service, 1990, 1995). Modeling using the ERA method indicates that the project watersheds existing conditions are all within the threshold values. Further, the proposed action itself does not constitute a substantial increase in accumulated watershed disturbance according to model outputs.

Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) are established for all stream reaches in the project area. These buffers are treatable, but are exclusive of equipment entry, except on established roads and trails. Requirements for ground cover retention and riparian woody species are standard. In addition, no treatment is allowed within the steam inner gorge of each RCA to maintain biodiversity and further buffer effects from upland treated areas.

96 Environmental Assessment

Wildlife This section will disclose the affected environment and environmental effects on the following wildlife species groups:

1. FWS Listed Endangered, Threatened and Proposed Wildlife Species (TEP) 2. Forest Service Sensitive Wildlife Species 3. Los Padres National Forest Management Indicator Species (MIS) 4. Migratory Landbirds

FWS Listed Endangered, Threatened and Proposed wildlife species (TEP) A Biological Assessment (BA) review of management activities proposed for the Frazier Mountain Project Area Environmental Assessment (EA) of the Los Padres National Forest (LPNF) to determine the potential effects on the federally endangered California condor and associated habitats was completed and is in the project files. This section is a summary of the information presented in the BA.

Affected Environment – TEP Species The California condor and California condor designated critical habitat are the only Federally listed threatened, endangered or proposed species and critical habitat known to occur or potentially occur within or adjacent to the project area. However, the USFWS Condor Recovery Team has provided information that Condors have not roosted around the Frazier Mountain area for about two years and the nearest known nesting area is approximately 20 miles south of the Project area in the Sespe-Piru Condor Area (Wildlife BA, pg 2, in project files). Habitat: The entire project area falls within modeled habitat for California condors. Condors are habitat generalists, foraging over open country and utilizing mountain updrafts for soaring. Nesting sites are typically located in caves or crevices on steep cliffs or large rock formations within chaparral, coniferous forests, or oak woodland communities. There are no documented or potential nest sites within the project area. Traditional roosting sites include cliffs, large trees and snags, and are often near feeding and nesting areas (USFWS 2001). Modeled high-use flyway habitat for the California condor occurs over a portion of the project area (Map 3 of Wildlife BE in project files). Within the project area, this flyway is approximately ½ mile in width and extends into the project area from the north, northeast, south, and southeast.

Occurrence: The large live trees on the ridgeline in the project area could provide roosting habitat. No condors have utilized the area for roosting or nesting habitat over the last two years. The closest known nesting area is approximately 20 miles to the south within the Sespe-Piru Condor Area (J. Grantham pers. comm.).

Designated Critical Habitat: There is no designated critical habitat for California condor within the project area however, the Mt. Pinos Condor Area occurs directly west of the project area, which is mostly comprised of the Chumash Wilderness (Map 4 in Wildlife BA in project files).

Environmental Consequences – TEP Species

Alternative 1- No Action – TEP Species Direct and Indirect Effects: Individual California condor would not be impacted by disturbance or habitat modification as no project activities would occur.

97 Frazier Mountain Project

Determination: this alternative has no effect on California condor.

Cumulative Effects: No cumulative effects would occur under this alternative.

Alternatives 2 and 3 – TEP Species Direct and Indirect Effects: With the implementation of project design features, the proposed treatments in the Frazier Mountain Project are not expected to cause any direct effects to California condors. Project activities would occur during daytime hours and would be stopped if California condors were observed in the project area after operations had begun. If condors are observed in the area during operations, all activity would cease and USFWS would be notified.

There are no anticipated direct effects to any potential roost trees, as under Alternative 2, commercial thinning would thin smaller diameter trees (thin from below) and would leave the larger diameter fire resilient trees, and under Alternative 3, no live trees or snags greater than 10 inches in diameter would be felled. Either of these treatments, combined with the rest of the hand and mechanical treatments is expected to result in less severe fire behavior in the event of wildland fire than if there were no treatment.

Direct effects of project-generated smoke are not expected due to a very low possibility of condors being present in the area during prescribed burning activities. Condors are also mobile and able to move away from any incidental smoke that may occur and all known roosting/nesting sites are approximately 20 miles away, allowing for extensive dispersal of the small amount of smoke expected from understory burning.

There is no designated critical habitat within the project area; therefore no direct effects are expected from project activities to designated critical habitat. There are no anticipated direct effects to high-use flyways.

The Frazier Mountain project was designed to avoid or minimize indirect effects to California condors. Indirect effects of the project to California condors are expected to be negligible. Noise disturbance from project activities to California condors using roost trees is not expected since there is a very low possibility of condors being in the project area during operations. Project activities would be stopped if condors approach and/or remain within the project area during operations. The District wildlife biologist will brief personnel to minimize the presence of garbage or hazardous materials in the project area.

Project activities including selective tree removal, brush cutting and mastication and proposed burning are not expected to adversely affect any feeding opportunities or nest sites. Closest known nesting site is approximately 20 miles south of the project area. Reduced brush and understory tree cover could slightly increase accessible forage areas, but this is not expected to significantly increase foraging opportunities.

Since wildfires are a normal and periodic occurrence in the surrounding area, the beneficial effect expected by implementation of the Frazier Mountain project is a reduced potential for habitat destruction and degradation in the event of a wildfire.

There are no anticipated indirect effects to California condor designated critical habitat or high- use flyways.

98 Environmental Assessment

Determination: The determination is that the proposed treatments under Alternative 2 or 3 of the Frazier Mountain project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the California condor since the condors are highly mobile and have been known to occur in or near the project area. Project operations may attract condors or cause them to avoid the area, however, project design features are expected to be effective at minimizing or avoiding these possibilities.

Implementation of treatments, under either alternative during the Frazier Mountain project would have no effect on California condor designated critical habitat.

Cumulative Effects: Since this project is not expected to have direct effects and indirect effects are considered negligible to California Condors, it is not expected to add any cumulative adverse effects to California condors with consideration of past, present or foreseeable future activities. Since this project has no anticipated direct or indirect effects to designated critical habitat for California condor, it would not contribute to cumulative effects to designated critical habitat with consideration of past, present or foreseeable future activities.

Forest Service Sensitive Wildlife Species A Biological Evaluation (BE) was completed as a review of management activities proposed for the Frazier Mountain Project to determine whether it may impact sensitive wildlife and fish species listed by the Los Padres Sensitive species list (April 2010). The BE was prepared in accordance with standards established in the Forest Service Manual 2670 and the completed BE is in the project files. This section is a summary of that information for FS Sensitive wildlife species.

Affected Environment – Sensitive Species Table 23 below lists all the wildlife species considered in the Biological Evaluation for Sensitive species. Additional information on each species selected for analysis is presented below.

Table 31. Region 5 Sensitive species that might occur within project area Range Project effects: N=none; w/in Occupied Species Status* Habitat type U=Unknown, UL=Unlikely; project habitat P=Possible; L=Likely area BIRDS California condor cliffs, open country, (Gymnogyps E possibly redwoods Yes Possible Addressed in project BA californianus) Least Bell’s vireo riparian woodlands of N-project located outside (Vireo bellii pusillus) E coastal sage No No distributional range scrub,live oak Southwestern willow dense riparian N-project located outside flycatcher E tree/shrub habitat No No suitable habitat (Empidonax traillii extimus) Yellow-billed cuckoo N- project located outside C No No (Coccyzus americanus) distributional range Northern goshawk coniferous forests S Yes Possible Analysis needed (Accipiter gentilis) California spotted owl mature forest (Strix occidentalis S stands, riparian Yes No Analysis needed occidentalis) corridors Swainson’s hawk grasslands, N-project located outside (Buteo swainsoni) S agricultural fields No No distributional range with scattered trees Peregrine falcon S cliffs, near water No No N-mobile, likely suitable nesting

99 Frazier Mountain Project

Range Project effects: N=none; w/in Occupied Species Status* Habitat type U=Unknown, UL=Unlikely; project habitat P=Possible; L=Likely area (Falco peregrinus anatum) sites and habitat are not present on the project area MAMMALS San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes arid grassland, N-project located outside macrotis mutica) E scrubland, oak No No distributional range savanna, alkali sinks Giant kangaroo rat <2800’, flat arid N-project located outside E No No (Dipodomys ingens) areas distributional range Mt. Pinos lodgepole open canopy forest chipmunk with chinquapin, S No No Analysis needed (Tamias speciosus manzanita callipeplus) Townsend’s big-eared bat caves, mines (Plecotus townsendii S Yes No Analysis needed townsendii) Tehachapi white-eared arid grass/scrub, pocket mouse pine woodlands, S Yes No Analysis needed (Perognathus alticola 3,500’-6,000’ inexpectus) Pallid bat rock crevices, tree (Antrozous pallidus) S hollow, mines, Yes No Analysis needed caves, structures Western red bat riparian trees, shrubs N-unknown presence, mobile, (Lasiurus blossevillii) S Yes No typical habitat not present on project area REPTILES Southern Pacific pond turtle <4000’, river/streams N-project area does not contain (Actinemys marmorata S No No w/ deep pools suitable habitat pallid) San Diego horned lizard <7000’, sandy ( Phrynosoma coronatum S shrub Yes No Analysis needed blainvillii) California legless lizard chaparral, pine-oak N-project site does not contain ( Anniella pulchra) S woodland, riparian, No No typical suitable habitat, located <3,500’ above elevation range Southern rubber boa >4,900’ moist (Charina bottae S woodland/conifer Yes Yes Analysis needed umbratica) forest Two-striped garter snake perennial or N-highly riparian associated (Thamnophis hammondii) S intermittent streams Yes Possible species, project activities would not alter suitable habitat AMPHIBIANS Arroyo toad shallow, sandy low N-project area located outside (Bufo [microscaphus E gradient streams No No distributional range, no suitable californicus) habitat present California red-legged frog deep pool, low N-has never been found on Mt. (Rana aurora draytonii) T gradient streams, No No Pinos District, no suitable highly aquatic habitat on project area. Yellow-blotched ensatina oak/conifer, woody (Ensatina eschscholtzii S debris Yes Yes Analysis needed croceator)

100 Environmental Assessment

Environmental Consequences – Sensitive Species Table 24 shows a summary of the wildlife sensitive species analyzed in this section and the impact determinations. Detailed information for each species analyzed is presented in the following sections below.

Table 32. Summary of wildlife sensitive species analyzed and determinations Determination Species Scientific name Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis NI MII MII California spotted owl Strix occidentalis occidentalis NI MII MII Mt. Pinos lodgepole chipmunk Tamias speciosus callipeplus NI MII MII Townsend’s big-eared bat Plecotus townsendii townsendii NI MII MII Tehachapi white-eared pocket mouse Perognathus alticola inexpectus NI MII MII Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus NI MII MII San Diego horned lizard Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillii NI MII MII Southern rubber boa Charina bottae umbratica NI MII MII Yellow-blotched ensatina Ensatina eschscholtzii croceator NI MII MII NI = No Impact; MII = May Impact Individuals

Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Status: Region 5 Sensitive

The goshawk is a forest habitat generalist, occurring in all major forest types (coniferous, deciduous, and mixed). These forests, because of natural and man-caused disturbances (fires, diseases, insects, logging), contain a wide variety of forest ages and successional stages (Reynolds 1992). The goshawk seldom uses young, dense forests. Large trees are needed to nest in as well as sufficient space below the canopy to facilitate flight and capture prey (Reynolds 1992).

Goshawks feed mostly on birds and small mammals and will pursue prey on the ground, in the air, or within vegetation. Snags or dead-topped trees are utilized for observation/hunting and prey-plucking (Zeiner et al. 1990).

To date there are no records of goshawk presence within the project area, but this may be due to lack of surveys. Suitable conifer habitat exists within the project area, including large diameter trees for nesting habitat, logs for plucking posts, prey species, and understory conditions conducive to foraging. Prey species are common in the area. A pair of goshawks with young were found in June at Mount Abel (1989) and an adult with an immature bird was found in July at Mount Pinos (1991) about 6 miles west of the project area in 1976 (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999).

Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative) Direct and Indirect Effects: Individual Northern goshawk would not be impacted as no project activities would occur.

Cumulative Effects: No cumulative effects would occur under this alternative.

Determination: this alternative has no impact on Northern goshawk.

101 Frazier Mountain Project

Alternative 2 and 3 Direct and Indirect Effects: Suitable habitat exists within the project area. Individual goshawks could be impacted if they are present in the area during project implementation. Goshawk foraging habitat in the proposed project area would likely benefit from implementing the proposed alternative. Creating a more open understory generally makes finding and catching prey easier for raptors. Surveys for nesting activity are recommended prior to implementing the project during the breeding season; any discovered active goshawk nest stand (30 acres) would be protected from project implementation. LOP for goshawk within Post-fledgling Family Area (PFA) is March 1- Sept 30. Therefore, treatments shall only occur during the non breeding season of 1 October through 28 February, if goshawks are found and determined to be nesting within the project area.

The fire may consume seedlings and saplings, down logs, and occasionally standing snags; however, it would be limited due to the patchy distribution and low intensity of the fire. Foraging habitat generally has attributes similar to that of nesting habitat, but such habitat may not always support successfully nesting pairs. Goshawks are known to utilize a variety of habitats for foraging, from openings to dense forests. There is evidence that goshawks prefer edges and small openings for foraging. Reducing tree density within the foraging habitat zone would improve forest health and reduce risk from wildfire. Structural conditions from thinning from below would be maintained in order to support prey occurrence and abundance while allowing for rapid development of replacement habitat. Effects to the goshawk are minimal with prescribed burning and thinning in the foraging habitat zone because although the understory (and to some extent the midstory) is affected, the overhead tree canopy remains intact. The change in the forest structure would be short-term in nature. The reduction of ground fuels would reduce risk from wildfires by lowering flame lengths and protect the stand against catastrophic stand-replacing fires.

Noise and smoke generating activities that occur within or adjacent to suitable goshawk habitat have the potential to disturb nesting goshawks. To avoid disturbance, design features and limited operating periods would be implemented as described in the project design features if goshawks are found to be nesting or foraging in the area. Although operations conducted between October 1 through February 28 are not expected to disturb nesting adults, they have the potential to disturb newly fledged young. These activities are not expected to impact suitable goshawk habitat; however, there may be some indirect impacts to goshawk habitat. Burning would occur under specific weather and moisture conditions designed to minimize damage to the residual stand, and maintain large woody debris. Burning could reduce prey species temporarily in the immediate area, but it is expected to cause a short-term effect. Dead and down materials are usually of large enough diameters that the logs are not burned completely and continue to provide key habitat features such as refugia and escape cover. Reduction of fuel in the stands would improve stand resilience to fire disturbance, thus protecting goshawk habitat in the long run.

The change in the forest structure within the fuelbreak is long term in nature. The reduction of ground fuels would reduce risk from wildfires by lowering flame lengths and thereby protecting the stand against catastrophic stand-replacing fires. Treatments within fuelbreaks for different vegetation types would follow thinning guidelines described above. All dead trees, regardless of size, would be cut. All previously existing dead fuels and treatment-generated activity slash would be piled by hand or machine and burned or if possible, removed. Fuelbreak areas would receive future treatments of broadcast and maintenance burning or would be maintained with mechanical treatments. If possible, biomass from fuelbreak construction will be removed. Impacts to northern goshawks and their habitat within fuelbreaks are expected to be slight because there would be no change in the mid-story and overstory forest structures.

102 Environmental Assessment

Many prey species that goshawks forage upon, such as ground squirrels, benefit from prescribed fire while others, such as ground nesting birds, generally do not. Prey species would continue to exist within proposed burn areas although short term (3-10 years) changes to habitat for small mammals and birds would likely occur. Slight modifications in the short term to their distribution may occur as a result, but would not likely affect their population numbers or availability to goshawks.

While the potential exists for individual goshawks to be affected, implementing the action alternatives would not affect goshawk population persistence on the Los Padres National Forest or lead to a trend towards federal listing of the species. Also, a wildlife project design feature measure would be incorporated into the project to prevent disturbance to nesting goshawks if found in the area.

Cumulative Effects: Northern goshawks are likely to be impacted by similar ongoing and future drought-related fuel reduction projects, especially close to mountain communities. The other ongoing activities will continue to result in some inadvertent losses of individuals and disturbances to habitat. Given the amount and distribution of mixed-conifer forest habitats on the Los Padres NF, these impacts, individually or cumulatively, will be localized and of a magnitude that will not contribute to a loss of viability of the Northern goshawk on the Los Padres National Forest.

Determination: the Frazier Mountain Project may impact individuals, but are not likely to result in a loss of species viability on the Planning Area, nor cause a trend to Federal listing of Northern goshawk or their habitat. Impacts of the action alternatives include temporary habitat loss and direct mortality that may occur from prescribed burning, road construction, vehicle collisions and other management activities.

California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) Status: Region 5 Sensitive

California Spotted owls in the Los Padres National Forest and the southern California mountain ranges typically nest in dense, old, multi-layered forests with large trees (>18" DBH average), hardwood understories, and greater than 40 percent canopy closure. Often these stands have large, natural cavities, broken tops, and/or dwarf mistletoe brooms (Verner et al 1992).

Foraging habitats include suitable nesting and roosting sites, as well as more open stands, regularly down to 40-50 percent canopy cover, that are generally similar in structure and composition to nesting and roosting habitat. Spotted owls typically feed on small mammals; woodrats, Northern flying squirrels, pocket gophers, mice, squirrels, shrews and voles but also may prey on reptiles, birds, and larger invertebrates (Verner et al 1992).

Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative) Direct and Indirect Effects: Individual California spotted owl would not be impacted as no project activities would occur.

Cumulative Effects: No cumulative effects would occur under this alternative.

Determination: this alternative has no impact on California spotted owl.

103 Frazier Mountain Project

Alternative 2 and 3 Direct and Indirect Effects: Suitable Spotted owl habitat is present in the project area but no territories are located within the project area. Spotted owls are present on the Mount Pinos Ranger District and have been located in forested riparian areas as close as 5 miles from the project area (on Mount Abel). No owls were detected when the project area was last surveyed in 1994 (Madden 2005). Surveys to determine occupancy will be done prior to implementation of the project to determine if the limited operating period (LOP) would apply; if surveys cannot be done occupancy will be assumed. Mitigation measures for spotted owls include surveys for active nests prior to project implementation, and if needed limited operating periods to prevent impacts to nesting owls. The CASPO Conservation Strategy calls for added protection of nest sites and habitat: management activities within ¼-mile of active nests or activity centers, which would be disruptive to spotted owls, would have an LOP of February 15th to August 15th. Should surveys detect nesting owls; the protective measures listed above will apply to those nests.

Under Alternative 3 trees would be removed from most stands using ground-based tractor thinning. No trees greater than 10” dbh would be cut unless pose a safety hazard. The quantity and quality of spotted owl habitat would be maintained. This project is not anticipated to adversely affect the availability or quantity of prey species.

The prescribed burn or mechanical treatments will be conducted on a limited amount of acres in any one spot, at any one time. Prescribed fire with low intensity controlled burns would have no little to no impact as individuals should have enough time to burrow underground and/or escape. If the fire should reach higher intensities then there is the possibility of individual fatalities.

The change in the forest structure within the fuelbreak is long term in nature. The reduction of ground fuels would reduce risk from wildfires by lowering flame lengths and thereby protecting the stand against catastrophic stand-replacing fires. Treatments within fuelbreaks for different vegetation types would follow thinning guidelines described above. All dead trees, regardless of size, would be cut. All previously existing dead fuels and treatment-generated activity slash would be piled by hand or machine and burned or if possible, removed. Fuelbreak areas would receive future treatments of broadcast and maintenance burning or would be maintained with mechanical treatments. If possible, biomass from fuelbreak construction will be removed. Impacts to California spotted owl and their habitat within fuelbreaks are expected to be slight because there would be no change in the mid-story and overstory forest structures.

Project implementation would retain existing downed logs and standing snags in treated areas, unless particular trees were hazardous to property or to the public. Desirable cover, large woody material, rodent activity, and rock habitat in untreated areas will not be affected by project activities, as proposed. Pocket mice are expected to be found throughout the project area thereby providing prey species.

In forest areas that are within 1.5 miles of a spotted owl nest, the Spotted Owl Conservation Strategy recommends using vegetation treatments such as thinning, small group selection, and prescribed burning to reduce surface and ladder fuels, especially in overly dense stands, to promote forest health in foraging habitat. Treatment prescriptions, as proposed, will leave the

104 Environmental Assessment

some of the structural components that are important to spotted owls (i.e. large trees and snags) on site.

With incorporation of the protection and project design feature measures in the proposed action, no direct disturbance impacts to spotted owls are expected during periods when they are especially sensitive to disturbance because activities will 1) avoid key areas (nest stands), and 2) be done outside of the nesting season within ¼ mile of nest stand or activity center. However, due to the nature of proposed activities, indirect disturbance may occur during times when the owls are less sensitive to disturbance. The nest stands will be protected.

Treatment of the shrub component would decrease the likelihood of stand-replacing fire in coniferous stands present in the project area and are consistent with Forest Plan direction for spotted owl. Relatively light fires, including most prescribed fires, probably have no clear, short- term, positive or negative impact on spotted owl presence or reproduction, but they may indirectly benefit the owl by reducing the threat of potentially harmful wide-scale stand-replacing fires (Jenness 2000).

The drought itself and associated mortality has caused some natural changes to these important spotted owl territories. The proposed treatments are not expected to add any additional impacts to these territories, if implemented as described above. Overall, direct effects (i.e. temporary disturbance of individuals) and indirect effects (i.e. habitat alteration) are expected. For the reasons described above, the proposed action may impact individual California spotted owls, but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.

Cumulative Effects: Numerous actions have been implemented or are planned within spotted owl habitats in the Los Padres National Forest. Many of the actions are focused on fuel reductions or forest health improvement and should affect habitat similarly to the effects described above. Appendix A Table A- 3. Potential Past, Ongoing and Foreseeable Actions in the EA, outlines projects of the past, present and future actions.

The greatest threat to the California spotted owl is the loss of habitat and subsequent population loss due to large, stand-replacement wildfires and beetle-related tree mortality. In addition, spotted owls are subject to alteration of habitat from fuels management for community protection, community development and associated infrastructure within and outside of the forest, and human disturbance and habitat loss from a variety of uses and activities. The California spotted owl population is relatively small because of the small amount of forested habitat in southern California, and the populations are naturally isolated. Recent fires, the five-year severe drought, and tree mortality in the San Bernardino, San Jacinto, San Gabriel and Santa Rosa mountains and the San Diego Ranges have had a substantial negative effect on habitat for the spotted owl. There is a continuing threat of additional catastrophic fires due to increased stand densities and extended drought. For these reasons, experts have been concerned about the viability of the southern California spotted owl population for many years.

The cumulative effects of these factors further reduce and isolate owl populations. California spotted owl populations appear to be declining in southern California, most likely because of the recent drought and wildfires. Alteration and loss of habitat due to tree mortality and dead tree removal will continue for many years, as will the increased risk of catastrophic fire created by high levels of tree and shrub die-off. Small populations in isolated mountain ranges could decrease or even be lost because of these factors.

105 Frazier Mountain Project

Although the project activities may affect individuals, as described above, no direct impacts to the population are expected. For this reason, the project activities is not expected to add any additional impacts to those that may be occurring from drought, fire, and other cumulative land management activities. These impacts, individually or cumulatively, will be localized and of a magnitude that will not contribute to a loss of viability of the California spotted owl on the Los Padres National Forest.

Determination: the Frazier Mountain Project may impact individuals, but are not likely to result in a loss of species viability on the Planning Area, nor cause a trend to Federal listing of California spotted owl or their habitat. Impacts of the action alternatives include temporary habitat loss and direct mortality that may occur from prescribed burning, road construction, vehicle collisions and other management activities.

Mt. Pinos Lodgepole chipmunk (Tamias speciosus callipeplus) Status: Region 5 Sensitive

Mount Pinos lodgepole chipmunk occurs only on the upper forested slopes and summits of Mount Pinos, Mount Abel and Frazier Mountain on the Los Padres National Forest near the Kern/Ventura county line. These chipmunks are generally found in open-canopy forests with a mix of shrubs and trees, including white fir and Jeffrey pine, such as the habitat within the project area. Habitat for this subspecies is extremely limited, which increases the impact of even small losses of suitable habitat in the Mount Pinos/Mount Abel and Frazier Mountain area.

There are four subspecies of lodgepole chipmunk (Tamias speciosus) in California, so named because they are common in forests containing lodgepole pines. Two of the subspecies are found in northern and central California, and the other two - including the Mount Pinos lodgepole chipmunk - occur in southern portions of the state. The Mount Pinos lodgepole chipmunk is an isolated subspecies and does not overlap in range with any of the other lodgepole chipmunk subspecies. They are highly aggressive towards other chipmunks outside their species.

Mount Pinos lodgepole chipmunks are primarily found around old logs, rock outcroppings and other forest debris. Rock crevasses and old logs are required for protection from predators (coyote, foxes, bobcat, Cooper's hawk, and red-tailed hawk) and are used as nesting sites. Trees are also an important habitat component - the lodgepole chipmunks are perhaps the best climbers of any of the chipmunks and they readily use trees as an escape route. Occasionally an existing cavity may be used as a nesting site, but more often nests are concealed under rocks or in rock crevasses.

Lodgepole chipmunks are active during the day, though a bit skittish and secretive. They are generally arboreal, using trees for refuge and as observation posts. There is little information on the diet of the Mount Pinos subspecies, but lodgepole chipmunks in other parts of the state are generally omnivorous, eating seeds of grasses, forbs, and trees; fruits and berries; insects; picnic scraps; and carrion. Lodgepole chipmunks also eat fungi, which comprises 32 percent of the annual dietary volume. During summer and autumn, in preparation for hibernation, lodgepole chipmunks devote much of their time to gathering food, collecting it in external cheek pouches and later storing it beneath old logs, in rock piles, and in forks and foliage of trees.

The lodgepole chipmunk enters hibernation in late October/early November, waking every 1-2 days near the beginning and end of hibernation, but remaining dormant for longer periods (5-6 days) during the remainder of their hibernation. Their breeding season occurs in May and June,

106 Environmental Assessment

about one month after emerging from hibernation. They produce one litter per year, and the number of young ranges from three to six.

The population status is presently unknown. Because the Mt. Pinos lodgepole chipmunk is an isolated subspecies with a very limited distribution, threats include but are not necessarily limited to: vacation home development, improperly managed recreational activities, logging of habitat, prescribed burns and large-scale wildfire. A single, large stand-replacing fire could eliminate this subspecies (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999).

Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative)

Direct and Indirect Effects: Individual Mount Pinos lodgepole chipmunk would not be impacted as no project activities would occur. Foraging habitat would not be affected by changes in vegetation structure. There would be no action to treat vegetation under this project, it is anticipated that there would be an increase in density of the vegetative species such as shrubs, forbs, and grasses. Other activities in the project area such as road maintenance, fire suppression, firewood cutting, and recreational activities would continue. Over time this alternative would increase foraging habitat for this species.

Cumulative Effects: No cumulative effects would occur under this alternative.

Determination: this alternative has no impact on Mount Pinos lodgepole chipmunk or their habitat.

Alternative 2 and 3 Direct and Indirect Effects: Individual Mount Pinos lodgepole chipmunk may be impacted by project activities. Direct mortality is expected to be none to minimal with the action alternatives. Direct impacts include the limited potential for individual mortality due to tree felling and collisions. Mechanical treatments are not expected to significantly disturb the downed log resources, but to the extent that they do, individuals could be injured or killed.

Management activities such as prescribed burning would continue to reduce fuels and competition by stimulating nutrient cycling, promoting grasses and forbs and enhance the quality of this species habitat. The proposed activities within the range of the Mount Pinos lodgepole chipmunk are expected to retain existing understory shrub habitat and create a more open canopy in some areas. The change in the forest structure would be short-term in nature. The reduction of ground fuels would reduce risk from wildfires by lowering flame lengths and protect the stand against catastrophic stand-replacing fires.

Under Alternative 2 Commercial thinning would thin smaller diameter trees (thin from below) and would leave the larger diameter fire resilient trees. Approximately 1,040 acres would be commercial thinned. Since the chipmunks are generally arboreal, using trees for refuge and as observation posts, this alternative would have more of an impact than Alternative 3 where the understory thinning would only remove smaller diameter trees (thin from below up to 10” diameter dbh) and would leave the larger diameter (>10” diameter) trees. Thinning the smaller trees would have minimal effect on the habitat of this species.

The prescribed burn or mechanical treatments will be conducted on a limited amount of acres in any one spot, at any one time. Prescribed fire with low intensity controlled burns would have little to no impact as individuals should have enough time to escape. If the fire should reach higher intensities then there is the possibility of individual fatalities.

107 Frazier Mountain Project

Cumulative Effects: Individual Mount Pinos lodgepole chipmunks are likely to be impacted by future projects, since their range is so specific and they only occur in the forests around Mount Pinos and Mount Abel. The population status is presently unknown. Because the Mt. Pinos lodgepole chipmunk is an isolated subspecies with a very limited distribution, threats include but are not necessarily limited to: vacation home development, improperly managed recreational activities, logging of habitat, prescribed burns and large-scale wildfire. A single, large stand- replacing fire could eliminate this subspecies (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999).

Townsend’s Western big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii townsendii) and Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) Status: Region 5 Sensitive

Townsend's Western big-eared bat occurs throughout the western United States, including California, Nevada, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. There is habitat for this species throughout the Los Padres National Forest although local distribution is limited to the presence of caves and similar structures, most of which are not distributed evenly across the landscape. There are no known caves within the Project Area.

The distribution of this species is strongly correlated with the availability of suitable caves and cave analogues (mines, rock shelters, tunnels, buildings) for roosting. Abandoned mines are particularly important as roost sites in areas where there are not suitable caves (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). Townsend's big-eared bat can be found in a variety of habitats throughout California, from the moist coastal redwoods to the mid-elevation mixed conifers to the dry deserts, but are most commonly associated with desert scrub, mixed conifer, piñon-juniper, and pine forest. Within these communities, these bats are most commonly associated with limestone caves, mines, lava tubes, buildings and tunnels (Dobkin et al 1995).

They roost in crevices of rocky outcrops, caves, old mines or buildings. Townsend's big-eared bats mate in autumn or winter (September-February), and females store the sperm until spring (March-May), when ovulation and fertilization occur (Christy & West 1993).

Preferred prey items include small moths (which are an important component of the diet); however appear to forage opportunistically on other prey items such as beetles and flies as well. Townsend’s big-eared bat forage in woodlands, canopy gaps, vegetated stream corridors, and commonly feed along forest edges, roads, or open areas within the forest (Christy and West 1993). These bats feed primarily on moths, but also take beetles and a variety of soft-bodied insects. They are slow fliers, capable of hovering and great maneuverability. Prey is gleaned from brush or trees, especially along habitat edges. Suitable foraging habitat does occur in the project area.

During 1996-1998, bat surveys were conducted at 76 sites located throughout the four forests of southern California. Although surveys have not been conducted within the project area, roosts may occur but there are no known mines, or cave habitat within the project area, although the project area is within the distribution range of this species.

Pallid bats are found from southern British Columbia to central Mexico and from California east to Texas (NatureServe). This species appears to be most common at elevations below 6,000 feet

108 Environmental Assessment

(Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). The pallid bat is known or suspected from 16 National Forests within Region 5, including the Angeles, Cleveland, San Bernardino, and Los Padres National Forests. During 1996-1998, bat surveys were conducted at 76 sites located throughout the four forests of southern California. Pallid bats were found at seven of the 76 sites (four sites on Los Padres National Forest) at elevations of 1,100–6,600 feet (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). Although no surveys were conducted within the project area, suitable roosting and foraging habitat does occur in the project area.

Pallid bats are found in a variety of habitats, including arid deserts and grasslands, often near rocky outcrops and water. Less abundant in evergreen and mixed conifer woodland. Usually roosts in rock crevice or building, less often in cave, tree hollow, mine, etc. In Oregon, night roosts were in buildings, under rock overhangs, and under bridges; bats generally were faithful to particular night roosts. Prefers narrow crevices in caves as hibernation sites (NatureServe).

Pallid bats alight on the ceilings of overhangs or grottos to manipulate and consume their prey with fragments of food items (elytra, wings, pedipalps, and other parts) falling to the ground beneath these sites. All of the food items collected beneath these places share at least two of the following characteristics: 1) they are at large in size; 2) they are obligate ground dwellers, or are mostly active at the ground surface being 3) weak flyers which fly at heights low to the ground; or 4) they are strong flyers that frequently alight on vegetation (O’Shea & Vaughn 1977).

Some of the major threats facing these two species are loss, modification and disturbances of roosting habitat by closures of abandoned mines, human activity in roost sites, and renewed mining at historical sites. Loss, modification and disturbances of foraging areas from the elimination of forest canopy, elimination or alteration of wetland habitat, conversion of native shrub and grasslands especially to urban agricultural uses (Christy and West 1993).

Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative) Direct and Indirect Effects: Individual Townsend’s big-eared bat and pallid bats would not be impacted as no project activities would occur. Bats roosting within the project area would not be disturbed by project activities. Foraging habitat would not be affected by changes in vegetation structure.

Cumulative Effects: No cumulative effects would occur under this alternative.

Determination: this alternative has no impact on Townsend’s big-eared bat, pallid bats or their habitat.

Alternative 2 and 3 Direct and Indirect Effects: The implementation of these alternatives have the potential to impact individual bats. However, would not have a measurable negative effect to their populations. Bats roosting within the project area could be disturbed by project activities- equipment noise and vibration, smoke, and felling of trees.

While potential foraging habitat for the species may be treated by mechanical means or prescribed fire, it is not expected that these treatments would have any long term negative effects to insects that these bats forage upon, and in fact may have beneficial effects to foraging habitat. Foraging habitat would likely improve in more open pine stands. Prescribed burning may have beneficial impacts to these bat species by increasing insect prey populations.

109 Frazier Mountain Project

Direct mortality is expected to be minimal with the action alternatives. Direct impacts include the limited potential for individual mortality due to tree felling and from collisions. Potential loss of occupied daytime roost trees may negatively impact individuals, if the snag is determined to be a safety hazard and removed. Due to the maneuverability of these species and their hours of activity (night time), collisions are possible, but unlikely. Indirect effects include the possibility that some daytime roost trees may be lost in harvest and burn units. There is the slight chance that individual bats could be killed or injured by prescribed fire if they were to occur in the burn units during implementation, however this would not lead to a trend towards federal listing for the species.

A single female pallid bat was captured 12 miles south of the project area at the Pine Springs Cattle Trough in 1997 (Madden 2005). There are no known occurrences of individuals or cave habitat within the project area, but there are rock crevices and tree hollows available within or near the project boundaries. Implementation may result in temporary noise, activity, and smoke disturbance to any undetected individuals within the project area, but bats can fly to other nearby habitats or remain protected within crevices or cavities. Rock crevices would not be affected by the proposed project, and no structures within the project area are proposed to be modified. The project is not proposing to alter suitable pallid bat cover and habitat such as snags, structures, or typical roosting sites; therefore, the quantity and quality of pallid bat habitat would be maintained. This project is not anticipated to adversely affect the availability or quantity of prey species.

Cumulative Effects: Townsend’s big-eared bats and pallid bats are likely to be impacted by similar ongoing and future drought-related fuel reduction projects, especially close to mountain communities. The other ongoing activities will continue to result in some inadvertent losses of individuals and disturbances to habitat. Given the amount and distribution of mixed-conifer forest habitats on the Los Padres NF, these impacts, individually or cumulatively, will be localized and of a magnitude that will not contribute to a loss of viability of the Townsend’s big- eared bats and pallid bats on the Los Padres National Forest.

Determination: the Frazier Mountain Project may impact individuals, but are not likely to result in a loss of species viability on the Planning Area, nor cause a trend to Federal listing of Townsend’s big-eared bats, pallid bats or their habitat. Impacts of the action alternatives include temporary habitat loss and direct mortality that may occur from prescribed burning, vehicle collisions and other management activities.

Tehachapi white-eared pocket mouse (Perognathus alticola inexpectus) Status: Region 5 Sensitive

The project area may contain suitable habitat for the Tehachapi white-eared pocket mouse. This pocket mouse has been found in a variety of habitats including arid annual grassland, pinyon pine woodland, a grain field, desert scrub communities, although habitat associations of this species are not well defined (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). Tehachapi pocket mice are known from a few scattered localities from Tehachapi Pass on the northeast to the area of Cuddy Valley and Mount Pinos on the southwest, and around Elizabeth, Hughes, and Quail Lakes on the southeast in Los Angeles County. Known distributional localities of this animal are between about 3,500 and 6,000 feet in elevation (www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb). Suitable habitat is not well-defined for this species, but this pocket mouse usually selects arid annual grassland and desert shrub communities or grassy flats among scattered yellow pine trees and Joshua trees (Williams 1986).

110 Environmental Assessment

It is unknown whether this pocket mouse presently occurs within the project area. The nearest records are 2 miles north of the project area near Cuddy Valley and also within the project area at Chuchupate Campground, where they were found in 1998 (R. Davis in: Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). These pocket mice are nocturnal and burrow in the ground.

Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative) Direct and Indirect Effects: Individual Tehachapi white-eared pocket mouse would not be impacted as no project activities would occur. There would be no action to treat vegetation under this project, it is anticipated that there would be an increase in density of the vegetative species such as shrubs, forbs, and grasses. Other activities in the project area such as road maintenance, fire suppression, firewood cutting, and recreational activities would continue. Over time this alternative would increase foraging habitat for this species.

Cumulative Effects: No cumulative effects would occur under this alternative.

Determination: this alternative has no impact on Tehachapi white-eared pocket mouse.

Alternative 2 and 3 Direct and Indirect Effects: Project activities are not expected to significantly disturb the soil, but to the extent that they do, mice could be injured or killed. Due to the unknown presence and unknown abundance of this species in or near the project area, it is not known what impact any activities might have upon individual animals, but their quantity and quality of potentially suitable habitat would not be affected to any extent that would prohibit their use of it in the future.

Under Alternative 2 ground-based yarding would occur where thinned trees are pulled from the site to landings by the use of ground-based machine such as a rubber-tired skidder, tracked skidder (dozer), or ATV. Trees would also be cut by a ground-based machine such as a track- mounted feller-buncher. Mechanical treatments are not expected to significantly compact or scarify the soil. These activities could increase soil compaction within the treatment area although effects would be localized such that the pocket mouse would not have difficulty finding suitable soils to burrow underground.

Under Alternative 3 trees would be removed from most stands using ground-based tractor thinning. Ground-based tractor thinning could increase soil compaction within the treatment area although effects would be localized such that the pocket mouse would not have difficulty finding suitable soils to burrow underground.

The prescribed burn or mechanical treatments will be conducted on a limited amount of acres in any one spot, at any one time. Prescribed fire with low intensity controlled burns would have little to no impact as individuals should have enough time to burrow underground and/or escape. If the fire should reach higher intensities then there is the possibility of individual fatalities.

111 Frazier Mountain Project

Little is known about the status of the Tehachapi pocket mouse that it would be shear speculation to suggest threat factors and conservation needs. Surveys are needed to determine the distribution and relative abundance of this species on public lands within the assessment area. Williams (1986) identifies desert-facing slopes of the San Gabriel Mountains, the Castaic Ranges, and the Mount Pinos/Frazier Mountain region as areas where this mouse may be found.

Cumulative effects: Sensitive species are likely to be impacted by similar ongoing and future drought-related fuel reduction projects, especially close to mountain communities. These projects have the potential to change forest floor vegetative components and microclimates, potentially changing the suitability for various sensitive and watch list species. This is especially important for a species with such limited distribution as the Tehachapi pocket mice which are only known from a few scattered localities.

Determination: the Frazier Mountain Project may impact individuals, but are not likely to result in a loss of species viability on the Planning Area, nor cause a trend to Federal listing of Tehachapi white-eared pocket mouse or their habitat. Impacts of the action alternative include temporary habitat loss and direct mortality that may occur from prescribed burning, road construction, vehicle collisions and other management activities.

San Diego horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillii), Southern rubber boa (Charina bottae umbratica), and Yellow-blotched ensatina (Ensatina eschscholtzii croceator) Status: Region 5 Sensitive

San Diego horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillii) is endemic to southern California and northern Baja California, México. In California, this species is distributed predominately throughout cismontane regions of the Transverse Ranges in Kern, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, San Bernardino, and Ventura Counties, southward to the Peninsular Ranges in Orange, Riverside, and San Diego Counties (Brattstrom 1997, Jennings and Hayes 1994). San Diego horned lizards are found in a wide variety of habitats including coastal sage scrub, chaparral, grassland, coniferous forest, oak woodland, riparian, and the margins of the higher elevation desert where it is restricted to the juniper-desert chaparral (Brattstrom 1997, Jennings and Hayes 1994). Within each of these habitats, this species prefers areas with loose, fine soils, an abundance of open areas for basking and plenty of native ants and other insects (Jennings and Hayes 1994). San Diego horned lizards are surface active mostly during April-July, disappearing into over-wintering sites below ground from late August through early October.

Development and the expansion of non-native ants (which displace native ant species) have caused population reductions, so that most San Diego horned lizard populations currently inhabit upland sites, many of which are on Forest Service lands that are marginally suitable (www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb).

Southern rubber boa is found in the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains at elevations of 5,050–8,070 feet. The southern rubber boa may not exist within the project area as a distinct subspecies. Isolated populations of rubber boas have been found on Mount Pinos, Mount Abel, and Alamo Mountain on the Mount Pinos Ranger District. Morphologic and electrophoretic analysis of specimens from these locations shows them to be intergrades between the southern rubber boa (C. b. umbratica) and the northern rubber boa (C. b. bottae) (NatureServe, Stewart etal 2005). These rubber boas are probably distributed throughout the project area with the probable exception of the drier slopes.

112 Environmental Assessment

Typical habitat for the Southern rubber boa is mixed conifer-oak forest or woodland dominated by two or more of the following species: Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi), yellow pine (P. ponderosa), sugar pine (P. lambertiana), incense cedar (Calo-cedrus decurrens), white fir (Abies concolor), and black oak (Quercus kelloggii). A relatively open canopy seems to be preferred during April and May, and rock outcrops are important as hibernacula (Stewart etal 2005). The boa is semi- fossorial, primarily crepuscular or nocturnal, and highly secretive, its seasonal activity and habitat use are difficult to determine. Boas essentially disappear during the summer months, retreating deeper into cooler, moister forest and riparian habitats. though they may emerge for surface activity on humid nights or after a rain (Stewart etal 2005). In all habitat types, rock outcrops and surface materials (such as rocks, logs, and a well developed litter/duff layer) are important habitat components because they provide cover and maintain soil moisture (Stewart etal 2005).

Juvenile and adult boas readily consume lizard eggs, particularly common sagebrush lizards (Sceloporus graciosus) and western fence lizards (S. occidentalis), with adults also taking nestling voles (Microtus spp.) and shrews (Sorex spp.) (Stewart etal 2005).

The rubber boa is vulnerable to habitat loss from development on private land, water diversion or extraction, and land use activities that destroy soil or surface cover. The majority of known rubber boa locations are on private lands. The lush, mesic forests that are prime habitat for this species tend to be highly interspersed with private lands. Where such forest conditions occur on public land, care should be taken to maintain mesic conditions, down logs, and leaf cover.

Yellow-blotched ensatina is a medium-sized, brown to black nocturnal salamander that is found only in a very narrow range in South-Central California. It is one of seven subspecies of Ensatina eschscholtzii, each of which is found in a limited range in mountains and foothills encircling California's Central Valley. The yellow-blotched ensatina occupies one of the smallest of these ranges; it's limited only to the Tehachapi Mountains and extends into the Los Padres National Forest in the vicinity of Mt. Pinos, Frazier Mountain and Alamo Mountain. The known range of yellow-blotched ensatinas is restricted to Kern and Ventura Counties and extends from the Piute Mountains southwest to Alamo Mountain (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Yellow-blotched ensatinas have been found 5 miles northwest of the project area near the Cuddy Creek and San Emigdio Creek watershed divide.

The yellow-blotched salamander occurs in a wide variety of vegetation associations including oak (Quercus douglasii and Q. kelloggii) woodlands, pine (Pinus jeffreyi and P. ponderosa) and fir (Abies concolor) forests, and open chaparral (Jennings and Hayes 1994, Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). It typically is found under downed logs, leaf litter and duff, woody debris, and medium-to-large rocks (Jennings and Hayes 1994). As with most other southern California salamanders, the habits of this subspecies are poorly known, although surface activity generally peaks during the winter months. Gravid females have been observed in April and May (Jennings and Hayes 1994, Stewart etal 2005).

Ensatinas live in relatively cool moist places on land, and stay underground during hot and dry periods where they are able to tolerate considerable dehydration. They are most active on rainy or wet nights when temperatures are moderate. This subspecies is often found at high altitudes and is also inactive during severe winter weather (CaliforniaHerp).

The salamander breeds during the fall and spring and possibly throughout the winter, and lays its eggs underground or under debris, such as bark or rotting logs. The young salamanders are fully- formed when hatched (CaliforniaHerp).

113 Frazier Mountain Project

Alternative 1 (No Action Alternative) Direct and Indirect Effects: Individual San Diego horned lizard, Southern rubber boa, and Yellow-blotched ensatina would not be impacted as no project activities would occur. There would be no action to treat vegetation under this project, it is anticipated that there would be an increase in density of the vegetative species such as shrubs, forbs, and grasses. Other activities in the project area such as road maintenance, fire suppression, firewood cutting, and recreational activities would continue. Over time this alternative would increase foraging habitat for these species.

Cumulative Effects: No cumulative effects would occur under this alternative.

Determination: this alternative has no impact on San Diego horned lizard, Southern rubber boa, and Yellow-blotched ensatina.

Alternative 2 and 3 Direct and Indirect Effects: San Diego horned lizard, Southern rubber boa, and Yellow-blotched ensatina, are all species that inhabit microhabitat features on the ground such as down logs, rocky outcrops, leaf litter and other surface debris. Project activities will remove some of these habitat features. However, design criteria would ensure that not all of these components will be removed, and that there will be enough dead or dying trees left for future down log recruitment.

Project activities could cause mortality or injury to individuals. Microhabitats under project- generated logs and rocks that are left in place (beyond immediate removal post-felling) may become occupied; removal of these logs at a later date may cause additional mortality of individuals. Ensatinas are crepuscular (active during dawn or dusk) or nocturnal (active at night), so direct impacts to these species would be less likely than for horned lizards, which are diurnal (active during the day). Since ensatinas retreat underground during the summer, impacts to these species is even more unlikely. Most of these species burrow in soft soil or move into rock crevices or under decaying logs to escape disturbance. Due to their tendency to temporarily remain motionless when disturbed, horned lizards may be more vulnerable to injury or death. Measures to protect rocks and logs from disturbance by equipment and skidding operations will help limit potential impacts to individuals and their habitat. Project design feature measures to leave additional trees for future logs in log-deficit areas will help provide long-term habitat for these species.

Ignite hand and machine piles from one side only to allow for small mammals, rodents and reptiles to escape.

Under Alternative 2 ground-based yarding would occur where thinned trees are pulled from the site to landings by the use of ground-based machine such as a rubber-tired skidder, tracked skidder (dozer), or ATV. Trees would also be cut by a ground-based machine such as a track- mounted feller-buncher. Mechanical treatments are not expected to significantly compact or scarify the soil. These activities could increase soil compaction within the treatment area although effects would be localized such that individuals would not have difficulty finding suitable soils to burrow underground.

Under Alternative 3 trees would be removed from most stands using ground-based tractor thinning. Ground-based tractor thinning could increase soil compaction within the treatment area although effects would be localized such that individuals would not have difficulty finding suitable soils to burrow underground.

114 Environmental Assessment

The prescribed burn or mechanical treatments will be conducted on a limited amount of acres in any one spot, at any one time. Prescribed fire with low intensity controlled burns would have little to no impact as individuals should have enough time to burrow underground and/or escape. If the fire should reach higher intensities then there is the possibility of individual fatalities.

Project implementation would retain existing downed logs and standing snags in treated areas, unless particular trees were hazardous to property or to the public. Desirable cover, large woody material, rodent activity, and rock habitat in untreated areas will not be affected by project activities, as proposed. Horned lizards, rubber boas and ensatinas are expected to be found throughout the project area. Mechanical treatments are not expected to significantly disturb the soil or downed log resources, but to the extent that they do, individuals could be injured or killed.

Ensatinas are nocturnal and are often active on the surface of the soil during and after summer rains. Individuals occupying underground habitats during project activities would likely be protected within burrows or by large ground cover material, allowing them to avoid people, machines, and fire. Any ensatinas or rubber boas above ground during project implementation within treated areas may be too slow to retreat underground and would likely be affected. The proposed action would not consume or reduce downed logs within areas that are likely occupied by the rubber boa or ensatina. Other areas outside the proposed treatment areas would not have any habitat modification, therefore, retaining the quantity and quality of existing habitat.

Mechanical treatments are not expected to significantly disturb the soil or downed log resources, but to the extent that they do, horned lizards, rubber boa, or yellow-blotched ensatinas could be injured or killed. Vegetative material left as ground cover may beneficially increase soil moisture retention.

Cumulative Effects: Sensitive reptile and amphibian species are likely to be impacted by similar ongoing and future drought-related fuel reduction projects, especially close to mountain communities. These projects have the potential to change forest floor vegetative components and microclimates, potentially changing the suitability for various sensitive and watch list species. Given the amount and distribution of mixed-conifer forest and chaparral habitats on the LPNF, this impact, individually or cumulatively, is not considered substantial.

Ongoing impacts include private land development, road and trail maintenance, trampling, and wildfires. Private land development results in much more permanent losses of species and suitable habitat availability. The other ongoing activities will continue to result in some inadvertent losses of individuals and disturbances to habitat. With the avoidance and minimization measures included in project designs, impacts are expected to be minimal. As such, changes in cumulative impacts for these species in the LPNF are expected to be nominal.

Determination: the Frazier Mountain Project may impact individuals, but are not likely to result in a loss of species viability on the Planning Area, nor cause a trend to Federal listing of San Diego horned lizard, Southern rubber boa, the genetic intergrade taxon individuals, C. b. umbratica /C. b. bottae, and Yellow-blotched ensatina or their habitat. Impacts of the action alternative include temporary habitat loss and direct mortality that may occur from prescribed burning, road construction, vehicle collisions and other management activities.

115 Frazier Mountain Project

Los Padres National Forest Management Indicator Species (MIS) This section will evaluate and disclose the impacts of the Frazier Project on the Los Padres National Forest (LPNF) Management Indicator Species (MIS) identified in the Forest Land Management Plan (LMP) (USDA Forest Service 2005). This section documents the effects of two alternatives (implementation of the proposed action, and not implementing the project) on the habitat of selected Management Indicator Species (MIS) appropriate to the proposed project. A completed detailed MIS analysis and description of the Frazier Project is in the project files.

The Forest Plan expresses a desire to maintain or improve habitat conditions to sustain healthy populations of MIS. MIS monitoring will be addressed at the Forest Plan level, and is not required or appropriate for this project since there are no concerns for MIS species, due to the lack of adverse effects anticipated by the project (See projects BA and BE reports in the project files and discussion in effects section below).

MIS are animal or plant species identified in the Los Padres National Forest (LPNF) Land Management Plan (LMP (USDA Forest Service 2005: Part 1, page 44-45 in printed copy (p. 45- 46 on disk and internet), Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), Vol. 1, pages 123-130, and FEIS, Vol. 2, Appendix B, pages 72-81). MIS are included in National Forest LMPs as a result of the 1982 National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning Rule (1982 Planning Rule) (36 CFR 219). The current rule applicable to project decisions is the 2004 Interpretive Rule, which states “Projects implementing land management plans…must be developed considering the best available science in accordance with §219.36(a)…and must be consistent with the provisions of the governing plan.” (Appendix B to §219.35).

Los Padres National Forest Strategy WL-2 includes monitoring MIS (LMP Part 2, page 115) at the Forest level, which is to be evaluated by the question “Are trends in resource conditions indicating that habitat conditions for fish, wildlife, and rare plants are in a stable or upward trend?” (LMP Part 1, page 45 in print, page 46 on disk and internet, and LMP Part 3, Appendix C: Monitoring Plan, pages 57-62). This question can be cost effectively addressed by evaluating the effects of proposed projects on the habitats of MIS and determining how those effects will affect the trend of MIS habitat conditions forest-wide (FEIS, Vol. 2, page 76). Affected Environment – MIS Species The rationale for MIS species selection is presented in Appendix B of the LMP FEIS and project level selection of MIS is discussed below. This section discusses known information about MIS occurrence within or near the project area, population trends over time, the amount of potentially available and affected suitable habitat, and a discussion on the effects of implementing the project (action alternatives) as compared with not implementing this project (no action alternative).

The timeline for this evaluation is from project implementation until five years following the final decision on this NEPA document. MIS species status is updated every five years.

Project Level Selection of MIS The forest wildlife MIS were reviewed and placed into 3 categories in Table 25 below:

1 = No habitat in or adjacent to the project area, thus not affected directly or indirectly by the project;

2 = Habitat in or adjacent to the project area, but not affected directly or indirectly by the project;

116 Environmental Assessment

3 = Habitat would be affected directly or indirectly by the project. MIS that do not have habitat within or adjacent to the project area, or whose habitat will not be affected directly or indirectly by the project will not be further addressed in this report.

Table 33. Management Indicator Species (MIS) Selection for Project Analysis Forest MIS Species Management Indicator 1 2 3 Mule Deer Healthy diverse habitats X Mountain Lion Fragmentation X Arroyo Toad Aquatic habitat X Song Sparrow Riparian habitat X California spotted owl Montane conifer forest X

Mule deer, and mountain lion, have habitat that is in or adjacent to the project area and will be addressed below. Project affects upon the California spotted owl are analyzed and disclosed in the Wildlife Sensitive species section above and in the Biological Evaluation (BE) prepared for the Frazier Mountain project. The Arroyo toad and Song sparrow will not be analyzed as these species have no habitat in or adjacent to the project area, thus not affected directly or indirectly by the project and will not be discussed further in this section.

Environmental Consequences – MIS Species

Mule Deer

Environmental Baseline Deer numbers and density vary widely by habitat type, with fewer deer in chaparral habitat than found in mixed open habitats on private lands. Mule deer on the Los Padres National Forest reach their highest densities in oak woodlands, riparian areas, and along the margins of meadows and grasslands (Bowyer 1986). They occur in lower densities in open scrub and young chaparral, and tend to avoid dense brush fields. Summer forage is considered lacking on public lands because of decadent shrub dominated stands (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hunting/deer/rept.html).

The Department of Fish and Game analyzes the deer population of California by Deer Analysis Units (DAUs). The project area is located in the D-13 Zone and the majority of the Los Padres National Forest is in the A-South Zone (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/deer/deer.maps.html). Deer populations are comprised of black-tailed in the north, including Monterey County, and California mule deer in the south. Deer in this area are resident, moving up or down in elevation, depending upon seasonal changes in weather and forage availability, with the vast preponderance of deer habitat on privately owned lands. Characteristics of habitat used by mule deer differ geographically. In the low-elevation mountain ranges that lack conifer forests (e.g., most of the Los Padres National Forest), mule deer reach their highest densities in oak woodlands, riparian areas, and along the margins of meadows and grasslands (Bowyer 1986). The estimated deer population in DAU 13 has varied from about 70,000-120,000 in the past several years, but appeared stable to increasing over the seven year period 1990-96, in contrast to most of the state, which showed decreasing or stable population trends (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hunting/deer/rept.html). Table 26 shows estimated (versus reported) total number of deer killed in Zone D-13 from 2000 to 2010. The average percentage of hunter success between 2000 and 2010 is 9%.

117 Frazier Mountain Project

Table 34. Estimated total number of deer killed by sex in D-13 Zone from 2000 -2010. Percent Tag Tags Estimated Estimated Estimated Year hunter quota issued Buck killed Doe killed Total success 2010 4,000 3,511 378 0 378 10.8 2009 4,000 3,213 349 0 349 10.9 2008 4,000 3,164 338 0 338 10.7 2007 4,000 3,314 303 0 303 9.1 2006 4,000 3,010 218 0 218 7.2 2005 4,000 3,084 285 0 285 9.2 2004 4,000 3,556 275 0 275 7.7 2003 4,000 3,230 215 0 215 6.7 2002 4,000 3,738 327 0 327 8.7 2001 4,000 3,461 330 0 330 9.5 2000 4,000 3,436 435 0 435 12.7 Total 36,717 3,453 0 3,453 9.4

The deer population on the Los Padres National Forest was lowest around 1990 as a result of 6 years of drought (Reading Room 2005), within this zone the lowest was in 1991 at a population of 40,000 (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hunting/deer/rept.html). These herds have not fully recovered due to a variety of factors including predation by mountain lions, coyotes, illegal poaching, and disease. There was little evidence of deer in the early 2000’s; even in areas with adequate water supplies and ample browse from recent burns (U.S. Forest Service ocular surveys in cooperation with Santa Barbara County Fish and Game commission 2002). Aerial herd composition counts by California Department of Fish and Game located only 30-50 deer each in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties on the Los Padres National Forest (reported to the Santa Barbara County Fish and Game Commission in 2002). It is unknown if the increased rainfall within the past winters have helped deer population recovery.

The Forest Plan desired future condition is to maintain or improve habitat to sustain healthy deer populations by retaining oak canopy cover in oak/grasslands and managing chaparral areas near water sources to create irregular shapes to maximize cover and forage opportunities. Fire and fuel management are the main tools intended to implement these objectives. The project area constitutes good mule deer habitat, especially around the periphery of the smaller grass openings, near the brush boundaries and riparian areas, where there is cover, water, and forage available.

Alternative 1- No Action Implementing of Alternative 1 would eliminate any disturbance of project activity from the project area. Forage and cover, temporarily removed or trampled by machinery or hand tools under the action alternatives would be still be available. Over time, stands would become decadent and forage use would decrease, while cover would increase. The small amount of erosion/siltation generated from ground disturbance would be eliminated.

Alternative 2 & 3 Under both these alternatives, short term results from the action alternatives include positive benefits to the herbaceous forage used by deer. The action alternatives would create a diversity of forest structures, providing additional forage in some stands with an increase in shrubs; and by providing suitable cover in untreated or mature, dense stands throughout the Project Area. The

118 Environmental Assessment

action alternatives would result in a variety of structural stages providing year-round habitat for the deer.

Most studies of fire and wildlife foods in Western forests focus on ungulates. This research generally indicates that burning produces positive results for mule deer. During the first 5 to 10 years following stand-replacing fire, grass and forb biomass generally increases. Grass and forb biomass decreased the first growing season after fire in aspen stands in Wyoming but increased the second and third growing seasons to above preburn levels (Bartos and Mueggler 1981). Forage increased three-fold after both understory and stand-replacement fire in a ponderosa pine forest in Arizona (Oswald and Covington 1983).

Road construction and road density can affect deer habitat. Expanding road systems or an increasing traffic volume on roads will affect the distribution of deer and may affect their welfare and behavior, which contribute to animal displacement and stress (Rost and Bailey 1979). Roads may cause a direct loss in habitat and increased vehicular volume may indirectly degrade habitat quality.

The miles of new road temporary construction, road reconstruction and pre-use maintenance present an additional negative impact to deer, at least partially due to increased disturbance along new road corridors as well as increased potential of collisions. Under Alternative 2 it is expected approximately 2.4 miles of temporary road would be constructed and under Alternative 3 it is expected approximately 0.8 miles of temporary road would be constructed.

Based on the above information, thinning and burning would increase forage, while increased road densities and traffic would have a detrimental effect on habitat.

Cumulative Effects The greatest impacts to deer in the planning area are habitat loss to development, and fire suppression. Several other non-habitat factors, such as illegal hunting, predation, highway mortality, and diseases affect deer population numbers.

Effects at the Forest Level The size of this project (2,386 treatment acres; not all of it is suitable for deer) is too small relative to the size of the Los Padres National Forest (2 million acres) to lead to a noticeable change in deer populations on the Los Padres National Forest.

Mountain Lion

Environmental Baseline Mountain lion population counts are very difficult and expensive, and do not exist for the project area or the Forest. The best available information suggests that lions are more numerous and widespread than they were 25 years ago (http://users.frii.com/mytymyk/lions/outdoor.htm). The California Department of Fish & Game estimates the mountain lion population statewide to be about 6,000 conservatively (Santa Barbara News-Press 10/27/05). They estimated the population to be 5,100 adults during the late 1980s (http://users.frii.com/mytymyk/lions/outdoor.htm). Based on records of depredation, attacks on people, and predation on prey populations, it is suspected that the population peaked in 1996, and has been somewhat stable for the past several years (www.dfg.ca.gov/news/issues/lion/lion_faq.html).

119 Frazier Mountain Project

The Los Padres National Forest has vast tracts of unfragmented wilderness habitat ideal for supporting mountain lion populations. During a drought cycle in the mid-1970s, the Los Padres National Forest was documented to have one of the highest densities of mountain lions reported within the state (Reading Room 2005). Mountain lions are most abundant in areas that support large deer populations. Currently there is no information that would lead to a cause for concern for mountain lion populations on the Los Padres National Forest.

Depredation permits issued by the state over the past 29 years indicate three distinct geographic clusters where a disproportionate number of permits were requested and lions killed. One of the clusters includes Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties, in which 302 permits were requested and 120 lions killed.

The Forest Plan desired condition to maintain or improve habitat conditions to sustain healthy lion populations can be supported by activities that support healthy deer populations and provide travel routes for lions to disperse to other suitable habitats. The project area contains good mule deer habitat especially along the edges (see Mule Deer analysis above), and therefore supports mountain lions which prey on these deer.

Alternative1 - No Action Effect on lion populations from the no action alternative will parallel the effects on mule deer as mentioned above. No change would be expected in the lion population or habitat.

Alternative 2 and 3 The affect on mountain lions from this project is parallel to the affect on mule deer (above); increased forage production may increase deer numbers in and around the project area, increasing the number of mountain lions that could be supported in the area. The possible impact to mountain lion from the scenario above would be the increase of lion-human interaction.

Cumulative effects of the action Cumulative impacts to mountain lions could include road collisions, poaching, disease, competition with hunters for deer, and competition with other lions moving into the area. Factors that affect mule deer population size would probably have the greatest effect on mountain lion numbers (see mule deer analysis above).

Effects at the Forest Level The size of this project (2,386 treatment acres; not all of it is suitable for deer, thereby not mountain lion) is too small relative to the size of the Los Padres National Forest (2 million acres) to lead to a noticeable change in deer populations and, similarly, mountain lion populations. Since the mountain lion population in California and Los Padres N.F. is considered high at this time, the small changes in lion population from any decisions based on this project are probably inconsequential at the Forest level and regional level.

Migratory LandBird Species Sixty-seven high priority migratory bird species (Memorandum of Understanding between USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 01/16/01 and 01/17/01) were reviewed (the complete list of bird species considered is n the Migratory Landbird report in the project files).

The bird species noted (see Migratory Landbird report in project files) could potentially occur or breed within the treatment areas. If the project is implemented in suitable breeding habitat during

120 Environmental Assessment a period when eggs or young are nest-bound (generally after early April) any adults nesting in the treatment areas can fly to other nearby habitat, but eggs or young may be destroyed.

The Frazier Mountain project will have a negligible effect on the above migratory bird populations, and therefore will not lead to extraordinary circumstances under NEPA, for the following reasons:

1. Broadcast burns are not likely to be implemented after March 30, due to increasing fire hazard. All the above species nest after that period.

2. Young may be affected if nest-bound in mechanical treatment areas during implementation after early April, although some of these areas are not highly suitable habitat due to oak canopy cover or lack of grasses and openings. The risk of adversely affecting nests is deemed to be very low, and not likely to cause a noticeable change in migratory bird populations.

3. The amount of dense brush habitat that will be treated is a relatively insignificant amount of the landscape, with effects being temporary till brush recovers in 3-5 years. Implementation over several years will allow various stages of vegetation recovery, which is generally attractive to a wider range of bird species than a continuous area of homogeneous habitat.

4. Broadcast burns generally leave large patches of unburned vegetation interspersed throughout the project area which will provide patches of nesting habitat for shrub species. Openings will be used by some species to forage in.

5. Although some migratory birds favor open habitat and may find the treatment areas more favorable than prior to implementation, there are other habitat requirements that may not be present, such as appropriate tree or grass species. The increase of habitat is therefore not likely to match the increase in acres of openings, and any increase in the local number of birds is not likely to cause a noticeable change in migratory bird populations.

6. All the species considered in this analysis are considered common species by the Fish and Wildlife Service, except spotted owl, yellow-billed magpie, oak titmouse, spotted towhee, and black-chinned sparrows, which are Birds of Management Concern (FWS 2004). The risk of adversely affecting individual species nests is deemed to be very low, and not likely to cause a noticeable change in their populations. (See recommendation below.)

7. Any adverse effects would pertain only to eggs and young, since adults can fly away. However, birds nesting in adjacent habitat may have increased breeding success (i.e. multiple broods in one season) due to the abundant seed or insect availability associated with shrub habitat in early seral stages. Any displaced adults might re-nest in other nearby suitable habitat and are likely to return to the treatment area following project completion. Treated habitat can be expected to recover to nesting suitability in 1-5 growing seasons.

8. On a landscape basis, project completion should reduce the risk of wildfires, which would have greater potential to affect migratory birds and habitat. The last two wildfires on the forest (Day and Zaca) burned nearly 403,000 acres, including riparian habitats.

9. To date, the Fish and Wildlife Service has not developed regulations by which to interpret and implement the MBTA for Forest Service projects. The status of the MBTA should be

121 Frazier Mountain Project

checked with the Forest Biologist prior to implementing the project to see if there are new developments that would affect the project.

Recommendations: It is recommended that vegetation treatments, particularly broadcast burns, be implemented as early in the fall and winter as moisture conditions warrant, to more closely mimic the natural burn ecology and to avoid burning any early nesting efforts.

122 Environmental Assessment

Rare Plants This section will disclose the affected environment and the environmental consequences on Federally Listed Threatened, Endangered and Proposed (TEP), Forest Service Sensitive (S) and Los Padres National Forest Management Indicator (MIS) plant species. A biological evaluation (BE) for TES plants was prepared for the Frazier Mt project. The BE analyzes the potential effects of thinning and fuels treatments on the Listed Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Forest Service Sensitive plant species currently listed by the Regional Forester for the Los Padres National Forest (Los Padres National Forest, October 2006). Fieldwork was conducted by forest botany staff on June 21 and 22, 2006 and again on July 8, 2010. The complete TES plant BE is in the project files. In addition, a project level assessment of plant Management Indicator Species (MIS) was completed by the forest botanist and the complete report is in the project files.

Federally Listed and Forest Service Sensitive Plants

Affected Environment There are no threatened, endangered, or proposed plant species in the project area. Within the project area there is no critical habitat or areas proposed as critical habitat for listed plant species. There will be no further discussion of listed TEP species in this EA.

Table 23 below notes the complete list of Sensitive plants for the Mount Pinos Ranger District.

Table 35. Rare Plants of the Mount Pinos Ranger District and their Status Common Name Scientific Name Status* Abrams' flowery puncturebract Acanthoscyphus parishii var. abramsii Sensitive Mount Pinos onion Allium howellii var. clokeyi Sensitive Palmer's mariposa lily Calochortus palmeri var. palmeri Sensitive late-flowering mariposa lily Calochortus weedii var. vestus Sensitive Santa Barbara jewel flower Caulanthus amplexicaulis var. barbarae Sensitive Lemmon's jewelflower Caulanthus lemmonii Sensitive Blakeley's spineflower Chorizanthe blakleyi Sensitive Mount Pinos larkspur Delphinium parryi ssp. purpureum Sensitive umbrella larkspur Delphinium umbraculorum Sensitive Hoover’s eriastrum Eriastrum hooveri Sensitive southern alpine buckwheat Eriogonum kennedyi var. alpigenum Sensitive Fort Tejon woolly sunflower Eriophyllum lanatum var. hallii Sensitive San Gabriel Mountains sunflower Hulsea vestita ssp. gabrielensis Sensitive pale-yellow layia Layia heterotricha Sensitive flax-like monardella Monardella linoides ssp. oblonga Sensitive Baja pincushionplant Navarretia peninsularis Sensitive Transverse Range phacelia Phacelia exilis Sensitive Parish's checkerbloom Sidalcea hickmanii ssp. parishii Sensitive chickweed starry puncturebract Sidotheca carphylloides Sensitive San Bernardino aster Symphyotrichum defoliatum Sensitive gray-leaved violet Viola pinetorum ssp. grisea Sensitive *Status: USDI FWS, January 2006; USDA FS-R5 updated Sensitive Species List, October 1, 2006; Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List, July 2001.

123 Frazier Mountain Project

Five sensitive plant species would be potentially affected by the proposed action (see Table 24 below). The five sensitive plant species considered in detail in this analysis are: Calochortus palmeri var. palmeri, Layia heterotricha, Monardella linoides ssp. oblonga, Navarretia peninsularis, and Phacelia exilis.

Table 36. Sensitive plant species / Mt. Pinos Ranger District. Common Name Potential Comments on potential habitat Effect? Palmer's mariposa lily Yes (See section below in this EA) pale-yellow layia Yes (See section below in this EA) flax-like monardella Yes (See section below in this EA) Baja pincushion plant Yes (See section below in this EA) Transverse Range phacelia Yes (See section below in this EA) This species is known to occur to the west on Mt. Pinos and to the southwest on Pine Mt. and Reyes Peak below 6750 ft. Abrams' flowery puncturebract No (2060 m). It was not detected during field surveys of similar habitats in the project area. This species is found on the “loamy” soils of Ballinger Canyon and Lockwood Valley clay, a particular soil type. No Lockwood Valley clay occurs in the project area. This Mount Pinos onion No species was not detected during field surveys below 6000 ft. (1800 m) elevation which is the upper elevation range for the species. This mariposa lily is found on inner coast ranges that experiences a marine influence and is not expected to occur late-flowering mariposa lily No on the more arid Grade Valley. Surveys have been negative for this showy perennial and numerous visits by botanists have failed to detect its presence in the project area. There is potential habitat only at the extreme western edge of the district well away from the project area. This species is a Santa Barbara jewel flower No serpentine endemic and there is no serpentine in the project area This species is found below 4,000 feet (1200 m) elevation. Lemmon's jewelflower No The project is above 5,200 feet (1600 m) elevation. It is found mostly further north. This plant is endemic to Sierra Madre Ridge and has not Blakeley's spineflower No been found outside of that narrow range; therefore, it is not expected to be found this far to the southeast. This species occurs in the understory of chaparral, Mojavean Desert scrub, and pinyon-juniper woodland. It was not Mount Pinos larkspur No detected in similar habitats in the project area during field surveys. This species occurs mostly further to the west of the project umbrella larkspur No location and typically below 2,000 feet (600 m) elevation. There is no open grassland habitat in the project area where activities will take place and the elevation of the project area Hoover’s eriastrum No is above the known and predicted elevation range of this annual plant. This subalpine pincushion plant is found only atop Mount Pinos above 8500 ft. (2600 m) elevation. The summit of southern alpine buckwheat No Frazier Mountain is 7863 ft. and no subalpine environments are found on Frazier Mountain. Surveys of the summit of Frazier Mountain were negative for this species. Fort Tejon woolly sunflower No There is no grassland habitat in the project area. Cursory

124 Environmental Assessment

Common Name Potential Comments on potential habitat Effect? surveys for this species were negative. The project area is outside of the predicted range of this subspecies. This species is known from only one location on the forest San Gabriel Mountains No Southeast of Frazier Mountain east of Alamo Mountain. It sunflower was not detected in surveys of Frazier Mountain. Cursory surveys for this species were negative. This Parish's checkerbloom No subspecies is found further west on Sierra Madre Ridge and Big Pine Mountain. This species is found on peaks and ridge tops in montane chickweed starry No conifer forests. It is only known on the forest from an area puncturebract on the western edge of the District. This species is not known to occur on the forest . The closest San Bernardino aster No location is east of the forest in Lebec. Surveys for this species have been negative. The closest known location for this species is well to the east gray-leaved violet No in the Tehachapi Mountains.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1- No Action This alternative would have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects on any sensitive plant species.

Effects Common to Alternative 2 – Proposed Action and Alternative 3 There are no known occurrences of Listed Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed (TEP) plant species in project area and no TEP plants would not be affected by the projects.

Five (5) Forest Service Sensitive plant species are found in or adjacent to the project area and may be affected by the action alternatives. These species are Calochortus palmeri var. palmeri, Layia heterotricha, Monardella linoides ssp. oblonga, Navarretia peninsularis, and Phacelia exilis. All but Phacelia exilis were previously known to occur in the area. A new occurrence of Phacelia exilis was discovered during field surveys first conducted in 2006 and its extent surveyed and mapped in 2010.

Calochortus palmeri var. palmeri is found in meadows, seeps, and vernally moist areas in chaparral, mixed conifer forest, and yellow pine forest. Navarretia peninsularis grows in mesic openings in chaparral, pinyon woodland, and Jeffrey pine forest. In some locations, plants are found along vernal creeks, in meadows, and in snowmelt seeps within pinyon-juniper woodland and yellow pine forest. Both species are found in these habitats within the project area with Calochortus palmeri var. palmeri located in a wet meadow adjacent to dwellings near the northern end of the project area. Navarretia peninsularis is also found in this meadow as well as two meadows higher in elevation to the south of the first population but still in the northwest arm of the project area. The areas adjacent to the meadows with these two species are designated for fuel reduction treatments but the meadows will not be treated. There should be no direct effects on either of the species by the fuels treatments. Some disturbance at the margins may occur but that should be minimal. Indirect effects could include minor soil movement around the edge of the meadows and deposition of dust from fuel reduction activities but these are expected to be

125 Frazier Mountain Project

minor. No cumulative effects are expected since no other activities have occurred in the past or are planned in the future in the area of the meadows.

Monardella linoides ssp. oblonga grows among rock outcrops and general openings in mixed conifer forests, yellow pine forests, pinyon-juniper woodlands, and desert scrub habitat. There is one population located within the northwest arm of the project area in an area planned to be non- commercially thinning. This activity could have a direct effect on the population by trampling and scraping the soil with skidded logs. No indirect effects are foreseen other than the possibility of some soil movement following the thinning operation before the ground vegetation is fully reestablished. No cumulative effects are expected as no other activities are planned for the project area and none has occurred in the recent past.

Phacelia exilis is found in dry swales, and ephemeral creeks and streams. In the project area, it was found in one such habitat. It was most common in sandy and gravelly reaches along these linear features. It may occur in other parts of the project area in similar ecological settings but when those areas were examined none was found. Thousands of individuals were found along the linear feature created by water flow. This is the first population of Phacelia exilis to be found on Frazier Mountain. This population occurs in an area planned for non-commercial thinning and understory burn. These could both result in direct effects on the population. However, not all of the population occurs in the treatment area and Phacelia exilis responds well to fire so not all effects are negative. The population is bisected by an existing forest road (8N04.2) but no planned temporary roads or landings occur near enough to the population to have any effect. Indirect effects include an increased amount of sediment moved into the swale following the thinning operation and fire before the ground vegetation is fully reestablished. The existing road already adds sediment to the swale on the downhill side of the roadbed. The additional sediment created by the planned fuels treatment will create a cumulative effect of adding even more sediment to the system.

Layia heterotricha grows on grasslands and open areas in oak woodland, pinyon-juniper woodland, and sagebrush scrub below 5,200 feet of elevation. On the Los Padres National Forest, it is most often associated with calcareous potreros and Lockwood clays. The only population of Layia heterotricha that could be potentially affected by the project is located along Lockwood Valley Road northwest of the project area. The effects are limited to the results of short-term increase in traffic along the road. These effects will be trivial if there are any at all. The same is true for a small occurrence of Navarretia peninsularis located along the same stretch of road. No indirect of cumulative effects are expected for either of these populations.

Determination Statements for Sensitive Plant Species The proposed Frazier Mountain Project: • will not affect Acanthoscyphus parishii var. abramsii, Allium howellii var. clokeyi, Calochortus weedii var. vestus, Caulanthus amplexicaulis var. barbarae, Caulanthus lemmonii, Chorizanthe blakleyi, Delphinium parryi ssp. purpureum, Delphinium umbraculorum, Eriastrum hooveri, Eriogonum kennedyi var. alpigenum, Eriophyllum lanatum var. hallii, Hulsea vestita ssp. gabrielensis, Sidalcea hickmanii ssp. parishii, Sidotheca carphylloides, Symphyotrichum defoliatum, or Viola pinetorum ssp. grisea.

• may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for Calochortus palmeri var. palmeri, Layia heterotricha, Monardella linoides ssp. oblonga, Navarretia peninsularis, or Phacelia exilis.

126 Environmental Assessment

Management Indicator Species (MIS) Plants This section will evaluate the potential impacts of the Frazier Mountain Project on the Plant Management Indicator Species (MIS) identified in the 2005 Los Padres Land Management Plan (LMP). Plant MIS were selected because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities and to serve as a focus for monitoring (USDA Forest Service 2005). The complete plant MIS report is in the project files.

Affected Environment

Project Level Selection of MIS The forest plant MIS were reviewed and placed into 3 categories in Table 25 below. Plant MIS that do not have habitat within or adjacent to the project area, or whose habitat will not be affected directly or indirectly by the project will not be further addressed in this section. California black oak and California white fir have habitat that is in or adjacent to the project area and will be addressed in the following sections below.

Table 37. Plant Management Indicator Species (MIS) Selection for Project Analysis. No habitat in or adjacent to the Habitat in or adjacent to the Habitat would be project area, thus not affected project area, but not affected affected directly or Forest MIS Species directly or indirectly by the directly or indirectly by the indirectly by the project project project Blue Oak X Engelmann Oak X Valley Oak X Coulter Pine X Bigcone Douglas-fir X California Black Oak X California White Fir X

Habitat within the Project Area The Frazier Mountain Project ranges in elevation from just under 5200 at Chuchupate Ranger Station to 7863 ft. at its peak. Geology is dominated by older alluvium at the lowest elevations and gneiss and metasediments and augen gneiss at the upper elevations (Crowell 2003). The vegetation on the upper part of Frazier Mountain where project activity will take place consists of mixed-conifer and hardwood forest. The mixed-conifer forest is primarily Jeffery pine (Pinus jeffreyi) with a small component of ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana), white fir (Abies concolor), and single-leaf pinyon pine (Pinus monophylla). The hardwood forest is predominantly California black oak (Quercus kelloggii) and is generally lacking a well defined herbaceous understory. Lower elevation is dominated by pinyon-juniper woodland and chaparral vegetation.

Detailed Species accounts for MIS can be found in the Plant MIS report in the project record. The rationale for MIS species selection on the Los Padres NF is presented in Appendix B of the LMP FEIS.

Environmental Consequences This section will disclose the effects of implementing the project (action alternatives 2 & 3) as compared with not implementing this project (no action alternative 1). The timeline for this

127 Frazier Mountain Project evaluation is from project implementation until five years following the final decision on this NEPA document. MIS species status is updated every five years.

Effects Common to Plant MIS Species

No Action Alternative 1 No potential damage would occur to living trees on Frazier Mountain. The small amount of erosion/siltation generated from ground disturbance would be eliminated.

Action Alternatives 2 & 3 The Frazier Mountain timber stand, tree plantation, and fuelbreak and prescribed fire treatments will affect the two MIS species that are located in the project area. These include California black oak and white fir.

The main impacts from fuels treatments to plant MIS are:

• Physical damage to living trees during thinning and burning operations • Disturbance of the soil surface during thinning operations • Dispersal of native and non-native seeds.

California Black Oak

No Action Alternative 1 The no action alternative 1 would remove the risk for damage from fuels treatment operations. The chance for soil movement may also be less with no action.

Action Alternatives 2 & 3 There are scattered black oak individuals in the project area with some occurring in areas where tree thinning operations are proposed. Direct effects would include damage to newly germinated seedlings, and existing individuals from fuels reduction operations and controlled fire. However, standing black oak mature trees, sprouts, and seedlings should be avoided during these operations. Indirect effects could include soil movement and sedimentation.

Cumulative Effects There is no other activity taking place in the project area or activity in the past that would add to the impacts that would occur as a result of the proposed project.

Effects at the Forest Level There are 194 acres of black oak on the Los Padres Nation Forest. Frazier Mountain has a small of scattered individuals but no stands. Only a few acres of black oak are within the project area and subject to impact by the project. The black oak on Frazier Mountain should be monitored for the effects of the Frazier Mountain project.

California White Fir

No Action Alternative 1 The no action alternative 1 would have no effect on the white fir population. It is more competitive than any other tree species in the area and would replace them if left undisturbed.

128 Environmental Assessment

Thinning the white fir in stands would allow the pine species to mature before white fir can dominate them.

Action Alternatives 2 & 3 As with the other MIS species affected by this project, the only stands of white fir within the project areas occur on Frazier Mountain. One of the purposes of the project is to lower the density of white fir on Frazier Mountain in order to restore the pre-settlement mix of species densities. Lack of natural fire in the appropriate fire regime has resulted in a higher than desired density of white fir

Cumulative Effects There is no other activity taking place in the project area or activity in the past that would add to the impacts that would occur as a result of the proposed project.

Effects at the Forest Level The effects of both recent prescribed burns on Alamo Mountain and the Day Fire have reduced the amount of white fir on the forest and helped to reestablish pre-settlement population levels. The Frazier Mountain project would add in a positive way to this preferred condition.

129 Frazier Mountain Project

Invasive Weed Species The purpose of this section is to disclose the risk assessment used to identify vectors for invasive weed spread and changes in habitat that might favor the introduction of new weed species into a proposed project area, or might further spread weeds that already exist within the project boundaries.

Affected Environment Vegetation types analyzed include the following alliances: singleleaf pinyon (Pinus monophylla) woodland, Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi) forest, Tucker oak (Quercus john-tuckeri) chaparral, Big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentate), and Chaparral white thorn (Ceanothus leucodermis) chaparral.

Risk Factors Considered Vulnerability of vegetation to invasion: High Moderate Low In its present state, vegetation in the project is at low risk for invasion by noxious weeds. The Frazier Mountain project area is currently fairly free of weeds and the vegetation is mature and intact throughout the project area. The only exceptions are along existing roads and fuel breaks or old dozer lines constructed for recent fires. However, even in these areas there are a relatively low amount of invasive species present.

Soil Disturbance High Moderate Low Soil disturbance can be moderate to high in areas where there is tree cutting and skidding, landings and temporary roads created, and mastication. Hand cutting and stacking of brush can also have significant soil disturbance.

Travel routes to project (equipment in and out, etc.): High Moderate Low Equipment could potentially spread noxious weeds that already exist along travel corridors further along those corridors. However, there is very little equipment anticipated for use in this project. Mostly it would involve equipment used to transport machines, masticator, track- mounted excavator, and dozer.

Risk of transporting new infestations into project area: High Moderate Low It is not anticipated that there will be any significant use of equipment from outside the project area that could introduce new weed infestations. Any equipment from outside the area will be cleaned prior to beginning work.

Are there known infestations in the project area (check noxious weed atlas)? Yes Known infestations include Red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), Cheat grass (Bromus tectorum), and bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare)

Have weed surveys been conducted in the project area? Yes Surveys conducted June 21 and 22, 2006. Red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), Cheat grass (Bromus tectorum), and bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) are found in or adjacent to the project site mostly along roads and cleared areas around campgrounds and parking areas.

Are weed prevention and control measures included in the Proposed Action? Yes

Environmental Consequences Likely effectiveness of the proposed weed prevention and control measures? Controlling the impact of soil disturbance by pre-treating areas with known infestations will reduce the risk of spreading noxious weeds that already exist in the project area. Bringing machines in from outside

130 Environmental Assessment

can introduce noxious weeds because weed seed can be carried in mud or soil on the machine. Assuring that machines are clean and weed seed free prior to their introduction into the project area will significantly reduce the risk of new infestations. However, weeds would continue to spread in the project area via other mechanisms such as wind, water, wildlife, vehicles, and human foot travel. Follow-up monitoring and treatment of infestations in areas of significant ground disturbance will reduce the risk of weed spread. The weed prevention and control measures are primarily aimed at preventing the introduction of weed seed to bare mineral soil. If this is done well, then the measures should be highly effective in reducing weed introduction and spread.

Summary Determination of Invasive Weed Risk The proposed action would result in a low risk that invasive noxious weeds would be introduced and/or spread in the project area. Noxious weeds are mostly found along travel corridors. Preventing their spread along these corridors will help keep them out of the project area. Project Design Features and monitoring are included to reduce spread of weeds in the project area.

131 Frazier Mountain Project

Recreation / Visuals This section analyzes the potential impacts to recreation and visual resources from three alternatives (No Action, Proposed Action, and Alternative 3) for the Frazier Mountain Project. The complete Recreation/Visual Resources specialist report is in the project file.

Scenic resources emphasize conserving or restoring aesthetic, recreation, and open space values, especially those of high-valued scenery, such as scenic byways and backdrops for local communities. The national forests offer an escape from busy urban life by providing much- needed open space and a wide variety of recreation opportunities.

The issues relevant to visual resources include the following:

• Minimize loss of vegetation screening on East, West, and Frazier Mountain Road.

• Avoid linear features on the landscape.

This includes maintaining the appropriate level of vegetation screening while meeting the purpose and need of the project.

The analysis topics relevant to recreation resources include the following:

• Maintain privacy screening between the individual campsites within Chuchupate Campground and throughout the Chuchupate Recreation Residence Tract.

• Increased potential for illegal Off Highway Vehicle use after implementation of the project.

• The newly constructed Frazier Mountain/Trail #118 and planned construction of Phase 2.

Analysis Indicators:

• Meeting Scenic Integrity Objectives of High and Moderate in the project area (See Map A- 9. Frazier Mt Project – Scenic Integrity Objectives Map)

To ensure that scenic integrity is maintained, scenic integrity objectives have been established, which were derived from the attractiveness of the landscape and expectations of the public. The following scenic integrity objectives depict a level of scenic integrity used to direct landscape management: High (appears unaltered), Moderate (slightly altered), Low (moderately altered). There are 2,642 acres that are categorized as” High” and 208 acres as “Moderate” Scenic Integrity Classes in the project area.

• Meeting the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (See Map A- 10. Frazier Mt Project – Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Map)

The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) is used to classify and select the desired experience level for individual recreation sites. The types of experience levels selected for each geographic area are based on the physical, social, and managerial settings.

Visitors choose specific settings for their activities to enjoy desired experiences. These settings vary by place and are further refined by the ROS, a classification system that describes different settings across the national forests using five classes that range from highly modified and developed to primitive, undeveloped settings. The settings, activities and opportunities for

132 Environmental Assessment

obtaining experiences are arranged along a continuum or spectrum divided into five classes: primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized, semi-primitive motorized, roaded natural, and rural. There are 2,389 acres of Semi-Primitive Motorized and 461 acres of Roaded Natural and in the project area.

The Semi-Primitive Motorized Class is characterized by a predominantly natural or natural- appearing environment of moderate to large size. The concentration of users is low, but there is often evidence of other users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum on-site controls and restrictions may be present but would be subtle. Motorized use of local primitive or collector roads with predominantly natural surfaces and trails suitable for motorbikes is permitted. Developed facilities are present but are more rustic in nature.

The Roaded Natural Class is characterized by predominantly natural-appearing environments with moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of people. Such evidence usually harmonizes with the natural environment. Interaction among users may be moderate to high, with evidence of other users prevalent. Resource modification and utilization practices are evident, but harmonize with the natural environment. Conventional motorized use is allowed and incorporated into construction standards and design of facilities, which are present and well defined.

Affected Environment The proposed project includes one developed trailhead (Frazier Mountain/Trail 118), one developed campground (Chuchupate), one recreation residence tract consisting of 7 cabins (Chuchupate); five Off Highway Vehicle Trails; one lookout tower (Frazier Mountain); one communication site consisting of several buildings and towers; and three National Forest System roads. Chuchupate Campground has 29 campsites and three block vault toilets. There are approximately 2 miles of Off Highway Vehicle trails which include the following: #118 (West Frazier Mine Road); #131 (Whata Trail); #122 (Tejon Trail); #121 (Arrastra Trail); and #120 (East Frazier Trail). The Frazier Mountain Road (8N04) is paved from the junction of Lockwood Valley Road for approximately 3 miles, then chip sealed which eventually turns to dirt as it provides access to the top of Frazier Mountain (8,000 ft. elevation) and to East and West Frazier Mountain Roads. According to the 2011 Motor Vehicle use Map (MVUM), the road has a designated seasonal closure between November 1 and May 1.

Recreation activities that occur in the proposed project area include hiking, camping, mountain biking, hunting, Off Highway Vehicle use, and winter snowplay.

There are no designated wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, or scenic byways in the proposed project area. The proposed project is outside of any Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA).

There are 2,659 acres of the project area in the Hungry Valley – Mutau Place. Native American rock art and campsites, historic mining, and early Forest Service Administrative sites and town sites reflect the history of human use in the area. Human influence today is in the form of developed and dispersed recreation facilities and trails. This Place is a major year-round recreation area for both local residents and regional visitors. It is a popular destination for OHV and day-use visitors. The dramatic contrasts in scenery and vegetation provide an excellent viewshed for touring. Although the area is readily accessible from Interstate 5, it still offers visitors opportunities to experience a sense of distance and isolation. Recreation focuses mainly on remote camping and day-sue facilities although some developed facilities support OHV

133 Frazier Mountain Project

activities and camping. A wide variety of multiple and special uses take place ranging from electronic sites to recreation residence tracts.

The desired condition is maintained as a natural appearing landscape that functions as an OHV recreation area and a tranquil Back Country area. The valued landscape attributes to be preserved over time are the meadows/grasslands and pine tree overstory (especially in the Mutau area), and the natural appearance of the backdrop to communities.

The program emphasis states that management will strive to increase the recreation opportunities and yet maintain the primitive feel afforded by this Place, as adjacent areas become more populated. Treat vegetation for forest health and to reduce fuel loading. Manage vegetation to maintain healthy stands of mature conifers, which may include new road construction. Enhance recreation infrastructure to meet growing demand.

There are 191 acres of the project area in the Mount Pinos Place. The theme includes a big tree (old growth), high country environment offering opportunities for year-round recreation. It serves as the primary outdoor recreation gateway on the eastern side of the forest. It is readily accessible from Interstate 5 and is within an hour’s drive of downtown Los Angeles to the south or of Bakersfield to the north.

The desired condition is maintained as a naturally evolving and naturally appearing landscape that functions as a big tree (old growth) recreation environment. The valued landscape attributes to be preserved over time are the big tree (old growth) Jeffrey pine forested areas, the natural appearing backdrop to rural communities, and the rustic mountain-built environment.

The program emphasis includes focusing on perpetuating healthy conifer forests that are one of the main attractions for national forest visitors. Management of recreation is expected to focus on: (a) improving the snowplay experience both for visitors and the community; (b) maintaining facilities and trails to standard; and (c) providing hiking, biking, equestrian, and OHV opportunities.

Environmental Consequences

Methodology A field trip to the project with the Mount Pinos District Ranger and Recreation Staff occurred on November 2, 2011. The team analyzed the proposed activities with respect to the potential impact on recreation and visual resources including: recreation use and facilities dispersed and developed recreation use with particular attention to OHV activity. The areas of concern that included the following geographic locations:

• Frazier Mountain/#118 Trailhead • Chuchupate Recreation Residence Tract • Chuchupate Campground • OHV Routes # 118, 131, 122, 121, 120

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis For the purpose of this analysis, short-term is defined as immediate treatment up to 3 years and long-term is defined as 3 years to 10 years after implementation of the project.

134 Environmental Assessment

Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis The past, present and reasonably foreseeable future activities include hiking, camping, mountain biking, hunting, Off Highway Vehicle use, and winter snowplay.

The Frazier Mountain/#118 Trailhead has a direct effect on recreation and visual resources as it was constructed in 2010. Prior to the construction of the trailhead, there was a large, dirt flat area (approximately 2 acres in size) with no human development. The trailhead has 50 designated paved parking spots and 1vault toilet. The proposal for Phase 2 of the Frazier Mountain/#118 Trailhead is to include another 50 paved parking spaces.

Alternative 1- No Action

Direct Effects There are no direct effects from this alternative.

Indirect Effects In the long term, surface, ladder, and crown fuels would continue to accumulate within the project area. The increased fuels accumulation would likely increase the risk of severe fires that could destroy scenic and recreation resources.

Cumulative Effects There would be no cumulative effects as a result of this alternative. Recreation use levels and patterns would be comparable to the existing condition and would be influenced largely by factors such as economic, weather, and individual choices; all of which are outside the scope of this project. Subtle changes would occur in the visual resource as a result of plant successions over time.

Summary of Effects – Alternative 1- No Action The Scenic Integrity Objectives and the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum will not be affected.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Recreation project design features are included for both Alternative 2 and 3 and are detailed in Section 2-Alternatives of this EA and listed in the Recreation Specialist report in the project file.

Direct Effects Construction of 2.4 miles of temporary road would increase the potential for OHV trespass. The 40 landings would also increase the potential for OHV trespass and/or dispersed camping as most of the landings are located in the vicinity of the fuelbreak and within a close distance to several existing OHV routes.

Indirect Effects During project implementation recreationists may choose not to visit the area due to noise and equipment use. In some instances, the area may be closed temporarily during implementation in the interest of public safety. Such disruptions to recreation within, or adjacent to the project area would be minor and short-term. The SIO may drop from High to Low and the Semi Primitive Motorized ROS class may be affected by the increase of on-site controls and restrictions after implementation due to the thirteen temporary road segments 40 landings.

135 Frazier Mountain Project

Cumulative Effects Phase 2 of the Frazier Mountain/#118 Trailhead project includes an additional 50 paved parking spaces may have a cumulative effect on the Frazier Mountain Project.

Summary of Effects Alternative 2 is not expected to have any long-term negative effects on any recreation and/or visual resource in the project area. It will have direct long-term beneficial effects to the visual resource by enhancing and sustaining the socially valued vegetative scenic attributes. Treatment of the conifer trees will reduce the density of the stands, primarily removing intermediate and suppressed Jeffrey pine and mixed conifer stands. The treatments will help promote species and spatially diverse, multi-storied stands adding to the Scenic Integrity Objectives. It may, however, have a short-term, temporary impact on both recreation and visual resources during project implementation. The project is suitable for the Semi-Primitive Motorized and Roaded Natural Land Use Zone which directly relates to the objective of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. Dispersed recreation, as well as trail-based recreation activities would be disrupted, and would likely be inaccessible due to visitor safety concerns during implementation. The overall effects of Alternative 2 are greater than Alternative 3 since there are more landings (41 instead of 10) and a longer distance and increased number of temporary road segments (2.4 miles instead of 0.8 miles/14 segments instead of 2).

Alternative 3

Direct Effects Construction of 0.8 miles of temporary road would increase the potential for OHV trespass. The 10 landings would also increase the potential for OHV trespass and/or dispersed camping as most of the landings are located in the vicinity of the fuelbreak and within a close distance to several existing OHV routes.

Indirect Effects During project implementation recreationists may choose not to visit the area due to noise and equipment use. In some instances, the area may be closed temporarily during implementation in the interest of public safety. Such disruptions to recreation within, or adjacent to the project area would be minor and short-term. The SIO will remain High and the Semi Primitive Motorized and Roaded Natural ROS class will not be affected by the increase of on-site controls and restrictions after implementation since there are two temporary road segments and 10 landings.

Cumulative Effects Phase 2 of the Frazier Mountain/#118 Trailhead project includes an additional 50 paved parking spaces may have a cumulative effect on the Frazier Mountain Project.

Summary of Effects Alternative 3 is not expected to have any long-term negative effects on any recreation and/or visual resource in the project area. It will have direct long-term beneficial effects to the visual resource by enhancing and sustaining the socially valued vegetative scenic attributes. Treatment of the conifer trees will reduce the density of the stands, primarily removing intermediate and suppressed Jeffrey pine and mixed conifer stands. The treatments will help promote species and spatially diverse, multi-storied stands adding to the Scenic Integrity Objectives. It may, however, have a short-term, temporary impact on both recreation and visual resources during project implementation. The project is suitable for the Semi-Primitive Motorized and Roaded Natural

136 Environmental Assessment

Land Use Zone which directly relates to the objective of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. Dispersed recreation, as well as trail-based recreation activities would be disrupted, and would likely be inaccessible due to visitor safety concerns during implementation. The overall effects of Alternative 3 are less than Alternative 2 since there are less landings (10 instead of 41) and a shorter distance and reduced number of temporary road segments (0.8 miles instead of 2.4 miles/2 segments instead of 14).

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans The recreation and visual project design features (see Table 9 in EA Section II) ensure compliance with the Forest Plan Program Strategies.

Summary of Effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 Neither Alternative 2, or Alternative 3 are expected to have any long-term negative effects on any recreation and/or visual resource in the project area. The alternatives will have direct long-term beneficial effects to the visual resource by enhancing and sustaining the socially valued vegetative scenic attributes. Treatment of the conifer trees will reduce the density of the stands, primarily removing intermediate and suppressed Jeffrey pine and mixed conifer stands. The treatments will help promote species and spatially diverse, multi-storied stands adding to the Scenic Integrity Objectives. The alternatives may, however, have a short-term, temporary impact on both recreation and visual resources during project implementation. Dispersed recreation, as well as trail-based recreation activities would be disrupted, and would likely be inaccessible due to visitor safety concerns during implementation. The project is suitable for the Semi-Primitive Motorized and Roaded Natural Land Use Zone which directly relates to the objective of the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum. The Frazier Mountain Project would reduce the potential for a catastrophic wildland fire. Reducing the risk of potential wildfires by implementing either Alternative or Alternative 3would have an overall beneficial impact on both recreation and visual resources in the project area.

137 Frazier Mountain Project

IV. LIST OF PREPARERS / CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION The following persons contributed to the Frazier Mountain Project EA: Table 38. List of Preparers of the EA. Name Title Subject Area Los Padres National Forest Staff Erik Van Walden Mt. Pinos District Ranger Responsible Official Ivana Noell District Resources Officer Resources Reviewer Gregory Thompson Forester Forester and Project Reviewer Diane Cross District Recreation Specialist Recreation/Visuals analysis Steve Galbraith District Archeologist Cultural Resources analysis Lloyd Simpson Forest Botanist TES plants-Invasive analysis Kevin Cooper Forest Wildlife Biologist Wildlife analysis reviewer John Abell District Fire Management Fuels analysis reviewer Officer Pete Zavalla Tribal Relations Specialist Tribal Relations Forest Service TEAMS1 Enterprise Unit Staff Greg D. Lind IDT Team Leader, TEAMS IDT Leader / Writer/Editor Bruce Davidson GIS Specialist, TEAMS GIS support and analysis Larry Amell Silviculturist, TEAMS Silviculture, project development Glen Lewis Fuels Specialist, TEAMS Fire/Fuels, project development Joe Cinek/Dave Link Logging Systems, TEAMS Logging systems development Cavan Maloney Hydrologist, TEAMS Watershed and Soils Janet Moser Wildlife Biologist, TEAMS Wildlife analysis / TES species 1 TEAMS is a Forest Service NEPA Enterprise Unit (website at: www.fs.fed.us/teams).

The Forest Service consulted Federal, State, and local agencies, Tribal governments and other groups during the development of this environmental assessment. A complete list of public scoping contacts (including individuals) for the Frazier project is in the project record files.

Federal, State, Local Agencies, Tribes and other Groups:

Chumash Council of Bakersfield Tejon Tribe Santa Ynez Elders Council P.O. Box 902 2234 4th Street PO Box 365 Bakersfield CA 93302 Wasco, CA 93280 Santa Ynez, CA 93460

The Honorable Elton Gallegly U.S. House of Representatives Superintendent 2829 Townsgate Road, Hungry Valley State Vehicular Pacific Legal Foundation Suite 315 Recreation Area 3900 Lennane Drive Suite 200 Thousand Oaks, CA 91361- P.O. Box 1360 Sacramento, CA 95834 3018 Lebec, CA 93243

Ventura County Planning Karl Kemp Ventura County Supervisor Department Castaic Mine 800 South Victoria Ave. 800 South Victoria Ave. 3355 Marigold Ventura, CA 93009 Ventura, CA 93009 Costa Mesa, CA 92626

138 Environmental Assessment

Mountain Communities Town Mountain Communities California Trail Users Coalition Council Chamber of Commerce 10354 McBroom Street P.O. Box 178 P.O. Box 552 Shadow Hills, CA 91040 Frazier Park, CA 93225 Frazier Park, CA 93225

Ed Waldheim Barry W. Jones CORVA CORVA O.H.V. Recreation 1500 West El Camino Ave. # 6645 Day Street 1725 23rd St. Suite 220 352 Tujunga, CA 91042 Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 Sacramento, CA 95833-1945 John Nelson San Joaquin Air Pollution Quail Unlimited, Santa Clarita Sierra Club Condor Group Control District Chapter P.O. Box GG 27200 M Street 24925 Chicory Court Frazier Park, CA 93222 Bakersfield, CA 93301 New Hall, CA 91381-2217

Jeff Kuyper Editor Mountain Enterprise Mt Pinos Fire Safe Council Los Padres Forest Watch P.O. Box 610 P.O. Box P Post Office Box 831 Frazier Park, CA 93225 Frazier Park, CA 93222 Santa Barbara, CA 93102

Terry Wayne Cloutier Ventura Co. Wildlife Comm. CA Dept of Fish & Game Mule Deer Foundation Channel Islands Harbor 1234 East Shaw Ave 1005 Terminal Way Ste. 170 3900 Pelican Way Fresno, CA 93710 Reno, NV 89502 Oxnard, CA 93035

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Tri County Watch Dogs Sierra Club Ventura Fish & Wildlife Office P.O. Box 2458 5637 Keynote St. 2493 Portola Road, Suite B Frazier Park, CA 93225 Long Beach, CA 90808 Ventura, CA 93003

Dan Higginbotham Ventura County Motorcycle Pt. Mugu 4X4 Club Rif-Raff 4X4 Club Club P.O. Box 5974 111 Park Road 1211 Indigo Place Bakersfield, CA 93308 Ojai, CA 93023 Oxnard, CA 93036

Los Angeles County James & Brenda Zoppe Steve Brink Road Mtc Division American Jousting Alliance California Forestry Association

4304 Eugene Street 15568 Greenleaf Springs Road 1215 K Street, Suite 1830 Los Angeles, CA 90022 Frazier Park, CA 93225 Sacrament, CA 95481

139 Frazier Mountain Project

Professor Samuel S. Sweet Dave Monett Conservation Manager University of California, Santa Monett Logging, Inc. Center for Biological Diversity Barbara

PO Box 780 PO Box 7745 Department of Ecology, Southerlin, OR 97479 San Diego, CA 92167 Evolution and Marine Biology Santa Barbara, Calif. 93106-

Kern Kaweah Chapter Central Valley RWQCB (5F) Los Angeles RWQCB (4) Sierra Club Fresno Office Address: 320 W. Fourth Street, P.O. Box 988 Address: 1685 E Street Suite 200 Weldon, CA 93283 Fresno,CA 93706 Los Angeles,CA 90013

140 Environmental Assessment

References

Forested Vegetation Albini, F.A. 1976. Estimating wildfire behavior and effects. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-30. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 92 p.

Amman, G. D. 1988a. Why partial cutting in lodgepole pine stands reduces losses to mountain pine beetle. Paper presented at the Symposium on the Management of Lodgepole Pine to Minimize Losses to Mountain Pine Beetle. Kalispell, MT. July 12-14, 1988.

Amman, G. D. 1988b. Lodgepole pine selection by mountain pine beetle in relation to growth and vigor following thinning. In: Proceedings of the IUFRO Working Party and XVII International Congress of Entomology Symposium, “Integrated Control of Scolytid Bark Beetles” T; L. Payne and H. Saarenmaa Editors. Vancouver, B.C., Canada.

Amman, G.D., Gene D. Lessard, Lynn A. Rasmussen, Curtis G. O’Neil. 1988a. Lodgepole pine vigor, regeneration, and infestation by mountain pine beetle following partial cutting on the Shoshone National Forest, Wyoming. USDA Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station. Research Paper INT-396.

Amman, G.D.; M. D. McGregor; R. F. Schmitz; R. D. Oakes. 1988b. Susceptibility of lodgepole pine to infestation by mountain pine beetles following partial cutting of stands. Can. J. For. Res. 18: 688-695.

Andrews, P.L. 1986. BEHAVE: Fire behavior prediction and fuel modeling system - BURN subsystem, Part 1. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-194. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 130 p.

Ansley, J., Battles, J., 1998. Forest composition, structure, and change in an oldgrowth mixed conifer forest in the northern Sierra Nevada. Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 125, 297–308.

Arno, Stephen F.; Joe H. Scott; Michael G. Hartwell. 1995. Age-class structure of old growth ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir stands and its relationship to fire history. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. Research Paper INT-RP- 481. 28 p.

Barbour, M., Kelley, E., Maloney, P., Rizzo, D., Royce, E., Fites-Kaufmann, J., 2002. Present and past old-growth forests of the Lake Tahoe Basin, Sierra Nevada. Journal of Vegetation Science 13, 461–472.

Bartos, Dale L. and Gordon D. Booth. 1994. Effects of thinning on thinning on temperature dynamics and mountain pine beetle activity in a lodgepole pine stand. USDA Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station. Res. Pap. INT-RP-479. 9 p.

Beal, J. A. 1943. Relation between tree growth and outbreaks of the Black Hills beetle. Journal of Forestry. 359-366.

Blackwood. 2004. Conifer forest density management for multiple objectives. Regional Forester’s internal memo to Region 5 Forest Supervisors and Program Directors. USDA Forest Service, Region 5. Vallejo, CA.

141 Frazier Mountain Project

Bleiker, Katherine P.; B. Steffan Lindgren; Lorraine E. Machiauchian. Resistance of fast- and slow-growing subalpine fir to pheromone-induced attack by western balsam bark beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytinae). Agricultural and Forest Entomology. 7:; 237-244.

Carey, A. B. 2003. Biocomplexity and restoration of biodiversity in temperate coniferous forest: inducing spatial heterogeneity with variable-density thinning. Forestry. 76(2): 127-136.

Cochran, P. H. 1992. Stocking levels and underlying assumptions for uneven-aged ponderosa pine stands. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station. PNW-RN-509.

Cochran, P. H.; J. M. Geist; D. L. Clemens; Rodrick R. Clausnitzer; David C. Powell. 1994. Suggested stocking levels for forest stands in northeastern Oregon and southeastern Washington. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station. PNW-RN-513.

Cochran, P. H. and James W. Barrett. 1995. Growth and mortality of ponderosa pine poles thinned to various densities in the Blue Mountains of Oregon. U.S.D.A. Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station. Research Paper PNW-RP-483.

Cochran, P. H. and James W. Barrett. 1999a. Growth of ponderosa pine thinned to different stocking levels in central Oregon: 30-year results. U.S.D.A. Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station. Research Paper PNW-RP-508.

Cochran, P. H. and James W. Barrett. 1999b. Thirty-five-year growth of ponderosa pine saplings in response to thinning and understory removal. U.S.D.A. Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station. Research Paper PNW-RP-512.

Cochran P. H. and Walter G. Dahms. 2000. Growth of lodgepole pine thinned to various densities on two sites with differing productivities in central Oregon. U.S.D.A. Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station. Research Paper PNW-RP-520.

Cole, Walter E. and Mark D. McGregor. 1985. Reducing or preventing mountain pine beetle outbreaks in lodgepole pine stands by selective cutting. In: Proceedings of the IUFRO Conference on: the role of the host in the population dynamics of forest insects. L. Safranyik Editor. Published jointly by Canadian Forestry Service and USDA Forest Service. Pacific Forest Research Center, Victoria BC.

Cole, W.E.; Donn B. Cahill.; and Gene D. Lessard. 1983. Harvesting strategies for management of mountain pine beetle infestations in lodgepole pine: preliminary evaluation, east Long Creek demonstration area, Shoshone National Forest, Wyoming. USDA Forest Service. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Ogden, UT. Research Note INT- 333.

Coleman, Tom; Andi Koonce; Paul Zambino. 2008. Bark beetles in Southern California National Forests: forecast for 2008. USDA Forest Service. Southwest Region. Forest Health Protection, Southern California Shared Service Area. Found online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/spf/fhp/socal/2008WBBconditions052908.pdf

Cooper, Charles F. 1960. Changes in vegetation, structure, and growth of southwestern pine forests since white settlement. Ecological Monographs. 30(2): 129-164.

Curtis, R. O. and D. D. Marshall. 2000. Why Quadratic Mean Diameter? Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 15(3): 137-139.

142 Environmental Assessment

Dixon, Gary. 2008. Personal Communication.

Dixon, Gary E. comp. 2009. Western Sierra Nevada (WS) variant overview: Forest Vegetation Simulator. Fort Collins, CO: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center. 47p.

Dixon, Gary E. comp. 2010. Essential FVS: A user’s guide to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. Internal Rep. Fort Collins, CO: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Management Service Center. 242p.

Ducey, Mark J. and Bruce C. Larson. 2003. Is there a correct stand density index? An alternate interpretation. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 18(3): 179-184.

Eaton C. B. 1941. Influence of the mountain pine beetle on the composition of mixed pole stands of ponderosa pine and white fir. J. For. 39(8): 710-713.

Edminster, C. B.; Mowrer, H. T.; Mathiasen, R. L.; Schuler, T. M.; Olsen, W. K.; Hawksworth, F. G. 1991. GENGYM: a variable density stand table projection system calibrated for mixed conifer and ponderosa pine stands in the southwest. Res. Paper RM-297. Fort Collins, CO: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 32p.

Edmonds, Robert L.; David C. Shaw; Tom Hslang; Charles H. Driver. 1989. Impact of precommercial thinning on development of Heterobasidion annosum in western hemlock. In: Otrosina, William J.; Scharpf, Robert F., technical coordinators. Proceedings of the symposium on research and management of annosus root disease (Heterobasidion annosum) in western North America; April 18-21, 1989; Monterey, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-116. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station; 177 p.

Everett, Richard G. 2008. Dendrochronology-based fire history of mixed-conifer forests in the San Jacinto Mountains, California. Forest Ecology and Management. 256: 1805-1814.

Ferrell, G.T., Otrosina,W.J., Demars, C.J., 1994. Predicting susceptibility of white fir during a drought-associated outbreak of the fir engraver, Scolytus ventralis, in California. Can. J. For. Res. 24, 302–305.

Fiala, Anne C. S.; Steven L. Garman; Andrew N. Gray. 2006. Comparison of five canopy cover estimation techniques in the western Oregon Cascades. Forest Ecology and Management. 232: 188-197.

Fiddler, Gary O., Dennis R. Hart, Phillip M. McDonald, and Susan J. Frankel. 1995. Silvicultural practices (commercial thinning) are influencing the health of natural pine stands in eastern California. In: Forest Health Through Silviculture; Proceedings of the 1995 National Silviculture Workshop. Lane G. Eskew, Station Editor. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Fiedler, Carl E. and Todd A. Morgan. 2002. Mortality as a source of coarse woody debris in managed stands. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-181.

Filip, Gregory M. and Craig L. Schmitt. 1990. Rx for Abies: silvicultural options for diseased firs in Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-252.

143 Frazier Mountain Project

Graham, David A. 1971. Evaluation of borax for prevention of annosus root rot in California. Plant Disease Reporter. Vol. 55, No. 6.

Goforth, Brett R. and Richard A. Minnich. 2008. Densification, stand-replacement wildfire, and extirpation of mixed conifer forest in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, southern California. Forest Ecology and Management. 256: 36-45.

Harrod, Richy J.; Bradner H. McRae; William E. Hartl. 1999. Historical stand reconstruction in ponderosa pine forests to guide silvicultural prescriptions. Forest Ecology and Management. 114: 433-446.

Hartig. 1894. Text-book of the diseases of trees. MacMillan and Co. New York. Found online on 12/28/2009 at http://google.com/books.

Havis, Robert N. 2008. Personal communication.

Husch, B., T. W. Beers, and J. A. Kershaw, Jr. 1972. Forest Mensuration (2nd Edition).John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey. Pages 33, 92, 166.

Kipfmueller, Kurt F.; Thomas W. Swetnam; Penelope Morgan. 2002. Climate and mountain pine beetle-induced tree mortality in the Selway-Betterroot Wilderness Area. Final Report to the USFS Research Joint Venture Agreement. #RMRS-99611-RJ VA.

Kliejunes. 1989. Borax stump treatment for control of annosus root disease in the eastside pine type forests of northeastern California. In: Otrosina, William J.; Scharpf, Robert F., technical coordinators. Proceedings of the symposium on research and management of annosus root disease (Heterobasidion annosum) in western North America; April 18-21, 1989; Monterey, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-116. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station; 177 p.

Kliejunas, John and Bill Woodruff. 2004. Pine stump diameter and Sporax® treatment in eastside pine type stands. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. State and Private Forestry, Forest Health Protection, Vallejo, CA. Report No. R04-01.

Larson, Andrew J. and Derek Churchill. 2008. Spatial patterns of overstory trees in late- successional conifer forests. Can. J. For. Res. 38: 2814-2825.

Larsson, S,; R. Oren; R. H. Waring; J. W. Barrett. 1983. Attacks of mountain pine beetle as related to tree vigor of ponderosa pine. Forest Sci. 29(2): 395-402.

Lewis, Glen E. 2010. Frazier Mountain Project fire/fuels report. Unpublished analysis report. USDA Forest Service. Los Padres National Forest. Mt Pinos Ranger District.

Long, James N. 1985. A practical approach to density management. Forest Chronicle. 61:23- 27.

Long, James N. 1996. A technique for the control of stocking in two-storied stands. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 11(2): 59-61.

Long, James N. and Theodore W. Daniel. 1990. Assessment of growing stock in uneven-aged stands. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 5(3): 93-96.

144 Environmental Assessment

Mattson, William J. and Robert A. Haack. 1987. Drought’s physiological effects on plants can predict its influence on insect populations. Bioscience. 37(2): 110-119.

McBride, Joe R. and Richard D. Laven. 1976. Fire frequency in the San Bernardino Mountains, California. Journal of Forestry. 439-442.

McGregor, M.D.; G. D. Amman; R. F. Schmitz; R. D. Oakes. 1987. Partial cutting lodgepole pine stands to reduce losses to the mountain pine beetle. Canadian Journal of Forest Resources. 17:1234-1239.

McKelvey, K. and J. Johnston. 1992. Historical perspectives on forests of the Sierra Nevada and the Transverse Ranges of southern California at the turn of the century. In: Verner, J., McKelvey, K., Noon, B., Gutie´ rrez, R., Gould, G., Beck, T. (Eds.), The California Spotted Owl: A Technical Assessment of Its Current Status. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-133. Pp. 225–246.

Miller, J. D.; H. D. Safford; M. Crimmins; A. E. Thode. 2009. Quantitative evidence for increasing forest fire severity in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Mountains, California and Nevada. Ecosystems. 12: 16-32.

Miner, C. L.; Walters, N. R.; Belli, M. L. 1988. A guide to the TWIGS program for the North Central United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-125. St. Paul, MN: U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Experiment Station. 105p.

Minnich, Richard A.; Michael G. Barbour; Jack H. Burk; Robert F. Frenau. 1995. Sixty years of change in Californian conifer forests of the San Bernardino Mountains. Conservation Biology. 9: 902-914.

Minnich, R. A.; M. G. Barbour; J. H. Burk; J. Sosa-Ramírez. 2000. Californian mixed-conifer forests under unmanaged fire regimes in the Sierra San Pedro Mártir, Baja California, Mexico. Journal of Biogeography. 27: 105-129.

Mitchell, R. G., R. H. Waring, G. B. Pitman. 1983. Thinning lodgepole pine increases tree vigor and resistance to mountain pine beetle. Forest Science. 29(1):204-211.

Negron, José; Joel D. McMillin; John A. Anhold; Dave Coulson. 2009. Bark beetle-caused mortality in a drought-affected ponderosa pine landscape in Arizona, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 257: 1353-1362.

Nelson, E. E. and C. Y. Li. 1980. Preliminary test of two stump surface protectants against Fomes annosus. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Res. Note PNW-383.

Nicolotti, B. and P. Gonthier. 2005. Stump treatment against Heterobasidion with Phlebiopsis gigantea and some chemicals in Picea abies stands in the western Alps. For. Path. 35(2005) 365-374.

Oliver, William W. 1995. Is self-thinning in ponderosa pine ruled by Dendroctonus Bark beetles? In: Forest Health Through Silviculture: Proceedings of the 1995 National Silviculture Workshop; Mescalero, NM. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-267.

145 Frazier Mountain Project

Otrosina, William J. and Fields W. Cobb Jr. 1989. Biology, ecology, and epidemiology of Heterobasidion annosum. In: Otrosina, William J.; Scharpf, Robert F., technical coordinators. Proceedings of the symposium on research and management of annosus root disease (Heterobasidion annosum) in western North America; April 18-21, 1989; Monterey, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-116. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station; 177 p.

Parsons, David J and Steven H. DeBenedetti. 1979. Impact of fire suppression on a mixed-conifer forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 2: 21-33.

Peterson, William C. and David E. Hibbs. 1989. Adjusting stand density management guides for sites with low stocking potential. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 4(2): 62-65.

Pratt, J. E. 2000. Effect of inoculum density and borate concentration in a stump treatment trial against Heterobasidion annosum. For. Path. 30(2000) 277-283.

Puettmann, K. J., D. H. Hibbs and D. W. Hann. 1993. Evaluation of the size-density relationships for pure red alder and Douglas-fir stands. Forest Science. 39(1): 7-27.

Reinhardt, E.D.; Keane, R.E.; Brown, J.K. 1997. First Order Fire Effects Model: FOFEM 4.0, user’s guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-344. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 65 p.

Reinhardt, Elizabeth; Crookston, Nicholas L. (Technical Editors). 2003. The Fire and Fuels Extension to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-116. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 209 p.

Rishbeth, J. 1951. Observations on the biology of Fomes annosus, with particular reference to east Anglian pine plantations II. Spore production, stump infection, and saprophytic activity in stumps. Annuals of Botany. 15(57): 1-23.

Ross, Eldon W. 1968. Duration of stump susceptibility of loblolly pine to infection by Fomes annosus. Forest Science. 14 (2): 206-218.

Rothermel, R.C. 1972. A mathematical model for predicting fire spread in wildlands fuels. Res. Pap. INT-115. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 40 p.

Russell, K. W.; J. H. Thompson; J. L. Stewart; C. H. Driver. 1973. Evaluation of chemicals to control infection of stumps by Fomes annosus in precommercially thinned western hemlock stands. State of Washington Department of Natural Resources. Report No. 33.

Safranyik. L.; T.L. Shore; A.L. Carroll; D.A. Linton. 2004. Bark beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) diversity in spaced and unmanaged mature lodgepole pine (Pinaceae) in southeastern British Columbia. Forest Ecology and Management. 200:23–38.

Sanchez-Martinez, Guillermo and Michael R. Wagner. 2002. Bark beetle community structure under four ponderosa pine forest stand conditions in northern Arizona. Forest Ecology and Management. 170:145-160.

146 Environmental Assessment

Sartwell, Charles and R. E. Stevens. 1975. Mountain pine beetle in ponderosa pine - prospects for silvicultural control in second-growth stands. Journal of Forestry. 73(3):136-140.

Sartwell, Charles and Robert E. Dolph Jr. 1976. Silviculture and direct control of mountain pine beetle in second-growth ponderosa pine. U.S.D.A. Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station. PNW-268. 7 p.

Schmid, J.M. and S. A.Mata. 2005. Mountain pine beetle-caused tree mortality in partially cut plots surrounded by unmanaged stands. USDA Forest Service. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins CO. Research Paper RMRS-RP-5. 11 p.

Schmitt, Craig. L.; John R. Parmeter; John T. Kliejunas. 2000, Annosus root disease of western conifers. USDA Forest Service. Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet 172.

Schmitz, Richard F.; McGregor, Mark D.; Amman, Gene D. 1981. Mountain pine beetle response to lodgepole pine stands of different characteristics. In: Berryman, A. A.; Safranyik, L., eds. Dispersal of forest insects; evaluation, theory and management implications: Proceedings, second IUFRO conference; 1979 August 27-31; Sandpoint, ID. Washington State University, Cooperative Extension Service, Pullman, WA: 234-243.

Schultz, Mark E.; John R. Parmeter Jr.; Garey W. Slaughter. 1992. Long-term effect of treating true fir stumps with sodium tetraborate to control losses from Heterobasidion annosum. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 7(1) 29-31.

Scott, J.H.; Reinhardt, E.D. 2001. Assessing crown fire potential by linking models of surface and crown fire behavior. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-29. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 59 p.

Shaw, John D. 2000. Application of stand density index to irregularly structured stands. Western Journal of Applied Forestry. 15(1): 40-42.

Shrimpton, D. M. and A. J. Thomson. 1983. Growth characteristics of lodgepole pine associated with the start of mountain pine beetle outbreaks. Can. J. For. Res. 13: 137-144.

Skinner, Carl N. 1995. Change in spatial characteristics of forest openings in the Klamath mountains of northwestern California. Landscape Ecology. 10(4): 219-228.

Skinner, Carl; Scott Stephens; Rick Everett. 2006. Fire regimes of forests in the peninsular and transverse ranges of southern California. Joint Fire Science Program Project 01B-3-3-18.

Smith, Richard S. 1970. Borax to control Fomes annosus infection of white fir stumps. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Plant Disease Reporter. 54(10) 872-875

Smith, Richard S. Jr. 1989. History of Heterobasidion annosum in western United States. In: Otrosina, William J.; Scharpf, Robert F., technical coordinators. Proceedings of the symposium on research and management of annosus root disease (Heterobasidion annosum) in western North America; April 18-21, 1989; Monterey, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-116. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station; 177 p.

147 Frazier Mountain Project

Stage, Albert R. 1973. Prognosis model for stand development. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Research Paper INT-137. 40 p.

Stephens, Scott L. 2005. Forest fire causes and extent on United States Forest Service lands. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 14: 213-222.

Stephens, Scott L.; Robert E. Martin; Nicholas E. Clinton. 2007. Prehistoric fire area and emissions from California’s forests, woodlands, shrublands, and grasslands. Forest Ecology and Management. 251: 205-216.

Stephens, Scott L. and Samantha J. Gill. 2005. Forest structure and mortality in an old-growth Jeffrey pine-mixed conifer forest in north-western Mexico. Forest Ecology and Management. 205: 15-28.

Stratton, Richard D. 2006. Guidance on spatial wildland fire analysis: models, tools, and techniques. Gen.Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-183. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 15 p.

Stambaugh, William J. 1989. Annosus root disease in Europe and the southeastern United States: occurrence, research, and historical perspective. In: Otrosina, William J.; Scharpf, Robert F., technical coordinators. Proceedings of the symposium on research and management of annosus root disease (Heterobasidion annosum) in western North America; April 18-21, 1989; Monterey, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-116. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station; 177 p.

Sugihara, N.G., van Wagtendonk, J., Shaffer, K.E., Fites-Kaufman, J., Thode, A.E. (Eds.), 2006. Fire in California’s Ecosystems. University of California Press, Berkeley, California, p. 596.

Thomson, A. J. and D. M. Shrimpton. 1983. Weather associated with the start of mountain pine beetle outbreaks. Can. J. For. Res. 14: 255-259.

UC Berkeley. 2010. Weislander Vegetation Type Mapping. University of California, Berkeley. Last accessed on 03/10/2010 at: http://vtm.berkeley.edu/about/.

USDA. 1994. FSH 3409.11 - Forest Pest Management Handbook R5 Supplement No. 3409.11- 94-1 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo, CA.

USDA. 2000. Water quality management for forest system lands in California best management practices. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.

USDA. 2004. Annosus root disease: effects, biology and prevention in southern California recreation areas. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. R5-PR-006.

USDA. 2005a. Land management plan, part 1 southern California national forests vision. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. R5-MB-075.

USDA. 2005b. Land management plan, part 2: Los Padres National Forest strategy. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. R5-MB-080.

148 Environmental Assessment

USDA. 2005c. Land management plan, part 3 design criteria for the southern California national forests. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. R5- MB-080.

USDA. 2005d. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2; Land Management Plans, Angeles National Forest, Cleveland National Forest, Los Padres National Forest, San Bernardino National Forest. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. R5-MB-074-B.

USDA. 2006. Human health and ecological risk assessment for borax (Sporax) final report. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Health Protection. Arlington, VA.

USDA. 2008. 2007 Forest Vegetation Simulator staff report. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Found online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/fmsc/annual_report/FVSsupport.shtml

USDA. 2009. Common stand exam user’s guide. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Natural Resource Information System. Washington, D. C.

USDA. 2010a. Frazier Mountain Project Proposed Action Scoping Letter. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Los Padres National Forest, Mount Pinos Ranger District. Frazier Park, CA.

USDA. 2010b. FSM 2000 – National Forest resource management: Chapter 2020 – ecological restoration and resistance: Interim Directive No.: 2020-2010-1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Forest Service Manual.

Vankat, J., 1977. Fire and man in Sequoia National Park. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 67, 17–27.

Van Wagner, C.E. 1973. Height of crown scorch in forest fires. Can. J. For. Res. 3:373-378.

Van Wagner, C.E. 1977. Conditions for the start and spread of crown fire. Can. J. For. Res. 7:23- 34.

White, Alan S. 1985. Presettlement regeneration patterns in a southwestern ponderosa pine stand. Ecology. 66(2): 589-594.

Whitehead, Roger J. and Glenda L. Russo. 2005. “Beetle-proofed” lodgepole pine stands in interior British Columbia have less damage from mountain pine beetle. Canadian Forest Service. Pacific Forestry Centre. Victoria, British Columbia. Information Report BC-X- 402.

Wilson, Duncan S. and Klaus J. Puettmann. 2007. Density management and biodiversity in young Douglas-fir forests: Challenges of managing across scales. Forest Ecology and Management. 246: 123-134.

Woodall et al. 2002. Stand density index in uneven-aged ponderosa pine stands. Can. J. For. Res. 33: 96-199.

Woods C. M.; S. Woodward; D. B. Redfern. 2000. Receptivity of Picea sitchensis stumps to infection by Heterobasidion annosum basidiospores. Forestry. 73(5): 457-465.

149 Frazier Mountain Project

Zausen, G. L..; T. E. Kolb; J. D, Bailey; and M. R. Wagner. 2005. Long-term impacts of stand management on ponderosa pine physiology and bark beetle abundance in northern Arizona: a replicated landscape study. Forest Ecology and Management. 218:291-305.

ZipcodeZoo. 2009. Found online on 12/28/2009 at: http://zipcodezoo.com/Fungi/H/Heterobasidion_annosum/Default.asp#SimilarSpecies

Fire / Fuels Agee, James K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Washington, DC: Island Press. 493 p.

Agee, James K. 1996. The influence of forest structure on fire behavior. In: Proc. of the Symp. 17th Forest Vegetation Management Conference, Jan. 16-18, 1996, Redding, CA.

Agee, James k. et al. 2000. The use of shaded fuelbreaks in landscape fire management. Forest Ecology and Management 4801 (1999): 1-12.

Alexander, M. E. Calculating and interpreting forest fire intensities. Canadian Journal of Botany. 1983; 60(4):349-357.

Anderson, Hal E. 1982. Aids to determining fuel models for estimating fire behavior. Gen Tech. Rep. INT-122, USDA, FS, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Ogden, UT. A publication of the National Wildfire Coordinating Group., 22 pp.

Barbour, Michael G. and Richard A. Minnich. 2000. Californian Upland Forests andWoodlands. In North American Terrestrial Vegetation. Second Edition. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge, UK

Cohen, Jack D.; Butler, Bret W. 1998. Modeling potential ignitions from flame radiation exposure with implications for wildland/urban interface fire management. In: proceedings of the 13th conference on fire and forest meteorology, vol. 1; 1996 October 27–31; Lorne, Victoria, Australia. Fairfield, WA: International Association of Wildland Fire: 81-86.

Cooper, C.F. 1960. “Changes in vegetation, structure, and growth of southwestern pine forest since white settlement.” Ecological Monographs 30:129–164.

Cruz, Miguel G. Martin E. Alexander, and Ronald H. Wakimoto. 2003. “Assessing canopy fuel stratum characteristics in crown fire prone fuel types of western North America.” International Journal of Wildland Fire 12(1):39−50.

Debano, L.F., D.G. Neary, and P. F. Folliott. 1998. Fire’s effects on ecosystems. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158-0012. p 331

Ferna ndes, P. A .M., C. A . L ou rei ro, a nd H. S. Botel ho. 20 0 4. Fi re behav iou r severity in a maritime pine stand under differing fuel conditions. Ann. For. Sci. 61:537- 544

Finney, M.A. 2006 Unpublished letter responding to environmental concerns on Bitteroot National Forest

Graham, Russell T.; McCaffrey, Sarah; Jain, Theresa B. (tech. eds.) 2004. Science basis for changing forest structure to modify wildfire behavior and severity. Gen. Tech. Rep.

150 Environmental Assessment

RMRS-GTR-120. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 43 p.

Hann, W.J, Bunnell, D.L. In Press 2001. Fire and land management planning and implementation across multiple scales. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 27pp.

Hardy, Colin C.; Schmidt, Kirsten M.; Menakis, James P., and Sampson, R. Neil. Spatial data for national fire planning and fuel management. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 2001; 10(3-4):353-372.

Healthy Forests Restoration Act. 2003. H. R. 1904, One Hundred Eighth Congress of the United States of America. On the web at: www.fs.fed.us/projects/hfi/

Healthy Forests Initiative 2002. An Initiative for Wildfire Prevention and Stronger Communities. On the web at: www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/healthyforests/toc.html

Keeley, J.E. and C.J. Fotheringham. 2001. History and management of crown-fire ecosystems: A summary and response. Conservation Biology 15: 1561-1567.

Martin, Robert E.; Kauffman, J. Boone 1989. Use of prescribed fire to reduce wildfire potential. In: Berg, Neil H. tech. coord. Proceedings of the Symposium on Fire and Watershed Management: October 26-28, 1988, Sacramento, California. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-109. Berkeley, Calif.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 17-22.

Minnich, R.A., M.G. Barbour, J.H. Burk, and R.F. Fernau. 1995. Sixty years of change in California conifer forests of the San Bernardino Mountains. Conservation Biology. Vol. 9. No. 4.

Odion, Dennis C., James R. Strittholt, Hong Jiang, Evan J. Frost, Dominick A. DellaSala, and Max A. Moritz. 2004. Patterns of Fire Severity and Forest Conditions In the Western Klamath Mountains, California. Conservation Biology 18: 927-936.

Omi, Philip N. and Erik J. Martinson. 2002. Effects of Fuel Treatment on Wildfire Severity, Final Report; Joint Fire Science Program, Western Forest Fire Research Center, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO.

Peterson, D.L., Agee, D.L., Jain, T., Johnson, M., McKenzie, D., and Reinhardt, E. 2003. Fuels planning: managing forest structure to reduce fire hazard. Proceedings of the 2ndInternational Wildland Fire Ecology and Fire Management Congress

Pollet and Omi 2002. Effect of thinning and prescribed burning on crown fire severity in ponderosa pine forests. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 2002, 11,1-10

Rothermel, Richard C. 1983. How to predict the spread and intensity of forest and range fires, Gen Tech Rep. INT-143, USDA, FS, Intermountain Range and Experiment Station, Ogden, UT, 161 p.

Rothermel, Richard C Predicting behavior and size of crown fires in the northern Rocky Mountains. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station; 1991; Res. Pap. INT-438. 46.

Scott J. and Reinhardt E. 2001. Research Paper RMRS-RP-29, USDA Forest Service

151 Frazier Mountain Project

Scott, Joe H. 2003. Canopy fuel treatment standards for the wildland-urban interface. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-29.

Stephenson, J. R and Calcarone, G.M. 1999. Southern California mountains and foothills assessment: habitat and species conservation issues. General Technical Report GTR- PSW-172. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 402 p.

Schmidt, Kirsten M.; Menakis, James P.; Hardy, Colin C.; Hann, Wendall J.; Bunnell, David L. 2002. Development of coarse-scale spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-87. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 41 p.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 2001. Urban wildland interface communities within the vicinity of Federal Lands that are at high risk from wildfire, Federal Register (Volume 66, Number 160) http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA- IMPACT/2001/August/Day-17/i20592.htm

USDI et al. (USDA/ DOE/ DOF/DOC/EPA/FEMA/NAOSF) 2001. Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy http://www.nifc.gov/fire_policy/index.htm

USDI/USDA. 2001. 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy: A collaborative approach for reducing wildland fire risks to communities and the environment. U.S. Department of Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture. August 2001. 21 pp. http://www.fireplan.gov/reports/7-19-en.pdf

USDI/USDA. 2002. National Fire Plan, 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy: a collaborative approach for reducing wildland fire risks to communities and the environment -- Implementation Plan. U.S. Department of Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture. May 2002. 27 pp. http://www.fireplan.gov/reports/11-23-en.pdf

Van Wagner 1977. Conditions for the start and spread of crown fire. Can. J. For. Res. 7: 23-34.

Van Wagner. C. E. 1973. Height of crown scorch in forest fires. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 3(3): 373-378. (139 KB; 6 pages)

Watershed / Soils Brown, James K., Elizabeth D. Reinhardt and Kylie A. Kramer. 2003. Coarse woody Debris: managing benefits and fire hazard in the recovering forest. USDA Forest Service RMRS GRD-105.

Burroughs, E.R., Jr.; King, J. G. 1989. Reduction of soil erosion on forest roads. General Technical Report INT-GTR-264. Ogden, UT: U.S. Forest Service Intermountain Research Station. 21 p

Elliot, Bill et al. 1999. WEPP: Disturbed (Draft 02/2000). WEPP interface for Disturbed Forest and Range Runoff, Erosion, and Sediment Delivery. Technical Documentation. USDA Forest Service Rocky, Mountain Research Station and San Dimas Technology and Development Center. http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/docs/distweppdoc.html

Elliot, Bill et al. 1999. WEPP: ROAD (Draft 12/1999). WEPP interface for predicting Road Runoff, Erosion, and Sediment Delivery. Technical Documentation. USDA Forest

152 Environmental Assessment

Service Rocky, Mountain Research Station and San Dimas Technology and Development Center. http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/docs/wepproaddoc.htm

Graham, R.T.; Harvey, A.E.; Jorgensen, M.F.; Jain, T.B.; Tonn, J.R.; Page-Dumroese, D.S. 1994. Managing coarse woody debris in forests of the Rocky Mountains. Res. Pap. INT-RP- 477. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 12p.

Gucinski, Hermann; Furniss, Michael J.; Ziemer, Robert R.; Brookes, Martha H.2001. Forest roads: a synthesis of scientific information. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-509. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 103 p.

Howes, S.W. 2000; Proposed Soil Resource Condition Assessment; Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Baker City, Oregon.Montgomery, D.R. and J.M. Buffington, 1997. Channel Morphology in mountain drainage basins. Geological Society of America Bulletin; May 1997; v 109; no. 5; p. 596 - 611.

Robichaud, P.R. 1999. Fire Effects on Infiltration Rates after prescribed fire in the Northern Rocky Mountain Forests, USA. Journal of Hydrology 231–232 (2000) 220–229

Reid, L.M. 1993. Research and Cumulative Watershed Effects. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report. PSW-GTR-141. 128 p.

Rosgen,D 1996;Applied River Morphology . Pagosa Springs: Wildland Hydrology Books, Wildland Hydrology

Seyedbagheri, Kathleen A.1996. Idaho Forestry Best Management Practices, A compilation of Research on their effectiveness. General Technical Report INT-GTR-339.

State of California, 2006. Water Quality Assessment of the Condition of California Coastal Waters and Wadeable Streams. Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. California Water Boards. State of California

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Soil and Water Conservation Handbook, Region 5 Amendment, 2509.22.

USDA Forest Service. 1991. Chapter 2 of FSH 2509.18 Soil Management Handbook. WO amendment 2509.18-91-1. 10p.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Regional 5 Supplemental, Forest Service Handbook 2509.18-95-1.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in California: Best Management Practices. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 138p.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Best Management Practices Evaluation Program. 1992 – 2002 Monitoring Results. USFS Pacific Southwest Region. 76p.

USDA 2005; Land and Resource Management Plan, Los Padres National Forest

153 Frazier Mountain Project

Wildlife – TEP Species Cade, Tom. 2007. Exposure of California Condors to Lead from Spent Ammunition. The Journal of Wildlife Management. Vol 71, No. 7.

Cooper, Kevin. 2011. Forest Biologist, Los Padres National Forest. Personal communication concerning threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. October 11, 2011.

Grantham, Jesse. 2011. USFWS Condor Recovery Team. Personal communication concerning California condor. November 8, 2011.

Los Padres ForestWatch. 2011. Information concerning species found on the Los Padres National Forest. Available http://www.lpfw.org.

NatureServe. 2011. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.

Species Accounts, found in the Reading Room, prepared for the 2005 Los Padres National Forest Land Management Plan. See USDA Forest Service 2005 below.

Stephenson, John R. and Gena M. Calcarone. 1999. Southern California Mountains and foothill assessment: habitat and species conservation issues. General Technical Report GTR- PSW-172. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 402 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Southern California Conservation Strategy--Province Consultation Package for the Existing Forest Plans for the Four Southern California National Forests. Southern California Province.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Los Padres National Forest Land Management Plan. Goleta, CA. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/scfpr/projects/lmp/

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. California Condor Recovery Plan, Third Revision. Portland, Oregon. 62 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Biological and Conference Opinions on the Continued Implementation of Land and Resource Management Plans for the Four Southern California National Forests, as Modified by New Interim Management Direction and Conservation Measures (1-6-00-F-773.2). Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office.

Wildlife – Sensitive Species Ball, Lianne. 1998. A Strategy for Describing and Monitoring Bat Habitat. Journal of Wildlife Management 66(4):1148-1153.

Brattstrom, Bayard. 1997. Status of the Subspecies of the Coast Horned Lizard, Phrynosoma coronatum. Journal of Herpetology. Vol. 31. No. 3.

CaliforniaHerps. 2011. An online database for California Reptiles and Amphibians.

Christy, Robin, and S. West. 1993. Biology of Bats in Douglas-Fir Forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-308. Portland, Oregon.

154 Environmental Assessment

Dobkin, David, R. Gettinger, and M. Gerdes.1995. Springtime Movements, Roost Use, and Foraging Activity of Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Plecotus townsendii) in Central Oregon. Great Basin Naturalist 55(4).

Fellers, Gary, and E. Pierson. 2001. Habitat Use and Foraging Behavior of Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) in Coastal California. Journal of Mammalogy, Vol. 83, No. 1.

Jenness, J.S. 2000. The effects of fire on Mexican spotted owls in Arizona and New Mexico. Masters Thesis. Northern Arizona University. Flagstaff, Arizona.

Jennings, Mark, and M. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game.

LaHaye, W. S., R. J. Gutierrez, and D. R. Call. 1997. Nest site selection and reproductive success of California spotted owls. Wilson Bulletin 109:42–51.

Los Padres National Forest Sensitive Species List, dated April 2010.

Madden, John. 2005. Assistant Resource Officer, Mount Pinos Ranger District. Frazier Mountain Project Biological Evaluation, unpublished draft wildlife specialist report.

McBride, Joe and R.D. Laven. 1976. Scars As an Indicator of Fire Frequency in the San Bernardino Mountains, California. Journal of Forestry.

Minnich, Richard, M.G. Barbour, J.H. Burk, and R.F. Fernau. 1995. Sixty Years of Change in Californian Conifer Forests of the San Bernardino Mountains. Conservation Biology, Vol. 9. No. 4.

Mount Pinos Ranger District. 1994. California spotted owl survey summary.

NatureServe. 2011. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available at http://www.natureserve.org.

Reynolds, Richard, R. T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P. L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce, Jr., G. Goodwin, R. Smith, and E.L. Fisher. 1992. Management Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern United States. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Stephenson, John R.; Calcarone, Gena M. 1999. Southern California mountains and foothills assessment: habitat and species conservation issues. General Technical Report GTR- PSW-172. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 402 p.

Stewart, Glenn. M. Jennings, and R. Goodman, Jr. 2005. Sensitive Species of Snakes, Frogs, and Salamanders in Southern California Conifer Forest Areas: Status and Management. Gen. Tech. Report. PSW-GTR- 195.

USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 1988. Los Padres National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

155 Frazier Mountain Project

Verner, Jared; McKelvey, Kevin S.; Noon, Barry R.; Gutiérrez, R. J.; Gould Jr., Gordon I.; Beck, Thomas W., Technical Coord. 1992. The California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its current status Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-133. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 285 p.

Williams 1986. Mammalian Species of Special Concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. E. Mayer, M. White, eds. 1990. California's Wildlife, Volume II: Birds. State of California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. 731 p.

Wildlife – MIS Species Bartos, D.L. and W.F. Mueggler. 1981. Early Succession in Aspen Communities Following Fire in Western Wyoming. Journal of Range Management. Vol 34, No.4. pp 315-318.

Bowyer, R. T. 1986. Habitat selection by southern mule deer. California Fish and Game 72:153−169.

Oswald, B.P. and W.W. Covington. 1983. Changes in Understory Production following a Wildfire in Southwestern Ponderosa Pine. Journal of Range Management. Vol. 36, No.4.

Rost, G. and J. Bailey. 1979. Distribution of Mule deer and Elk in Relation to Roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 43(3):634-641.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Los Padres National Forest Land Management Plan. Pacific Southwest Region. Los Padres National Forest.

Internet sources:

http://fsweb.cleveland.r5.fs.fed.us/sccs/animals/ MIS species accounts created for the 2005 southern California LMPs.

http://users.frii.com/mytymyk/lions/outdoor.htm Stories from the “Special Mountain Lion Issue” of the California Department of Fish and Game’s Outdoor California Magazine. Revised 3/21/96.

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hunting/deer/harvest/table2d.pdf Reported and Estimated Deer Kill by Zone or Hunt, Deer Management Subunit (DMS).

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hunting/deer/rept.html Report to the Fish and Game Commission: An Assessment of Mule and Black-tailed Deer Habitats and Populations in California with Special Emphasis on Public Lands Administered by the Bureau of Land Management and

156 Environmental Assessment

the United States Forest Service. February 1998. A collaborative effort by the California Department of Game, United States Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management.

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hunting/deer/zoneinfo/azoneinfo.pdf General Deer Hunting Information for South A Zone.

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hunting/rept.html California Dept. Fish and Game, An Assessment of Mule and Black-tailed Deer Habitats and Populations in California

Wildlife – Migratory Birds Birds of North America. 2011. Online database of avian species: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/. Combination of data from Cornell Lab of Ornithology and the American Ornithologists’ Union.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife. 2009. Birds of Management Concern List 2009.

Rare Plants / Invasive Weeds Baldwin , B.G. and Bainbridge, S.J. 1993. Layia. In Hickman, James C. (ed.). The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Baldwin, Bruce G.; Bainbridge, Susan J. May 30, 1992. [Letter to Dr. Mark Skinner, Botanist, California Native Plant Society]. On file, Los Padres National Forest, Frazier Park, Calif.

Baldwin, Bruce G. May 5. 1994. [Letter to Craig Faanes, Field Supervisor, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Field Office]. On file, Los Padres National Forest, Frazier Park, Calif.

Baldwin, Bruce G. 1996. Phylogenetics of the California tarweeds and the Hawaiian silversword alliance (Madiinae; Heliantheae sensu lato). In D.J.N. Hind & H. Beentje (eds.), Compositae: Systematics. Proceedings of the International Compositae Conference, Kew, 1994. (D. J. N. Hind, Editor-in-Chief), vol 1, pp. 377-391, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

Baldwin, Bruce G.; Wessa, W. L.; Panero, J. L. 2002. Nuclear rDNA evidence for major lineages of helenioid Heliantheae (Compositae). Systematic Botany 27: 161-198.

Clausen, J. 1951. Stages in the Evolution of Plant Species. Ithaca, New York: Cambridge University Press.

CalFlora: [web application]. 2002. Information on California plants for education, research and conservation. Berkeley, California: The CalFlora Database [a non-profit organization].

California Native Plant Society. 2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (Sixth Edition). Sacramento, CA: California Native Plant Society.

California Natural Diversity Database. 2002. RareFind 2, Version 2.1.2 (August, 2002, update). Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game.

California Natural Diversity Database. June 2003. Special vascular plants, bryophytes, and lichens list. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game.

157 Frazier Mountain Project

California Natural Diversity Database. 2004. RareFind 3.0.5. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game.

Day, Alva G. 1993. Navarretia. In Hickman, James C. (ed.). The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Foster, Mike. 1999. Plant Occurrence Form, Mount Pinos III Prescribed Fire. Unpublished report on file, Los Padres National Forest, Frazier Park, Calif.

Foster, Mike. 2002. "Region 5 Sensitive plant species evaluation and documentation form for Monardella linoides ssp. oblonga." On file, Los Padres National Forest, Frazier Park, Calif.

Foster, Mike. 2003a. "Occurrence discovery record for northeast slope of Mount Pinos." On file, Los Padres National Forest, Frazier Park, Calif.

Foster, Mike. 2003b. "Occurrence discovery record for Little Cuddy Valley – NFS land." On file, Los Padres National Forest, Frazier Park, Calif.

Foster, Mike. 2003c. "Occurrence discovery record for Little Cuddy Valley – private land." On file, Los Padres National Forest, Frazier Park, Calif.

Foster, Mike. 2003d. "Occurrence discovery record for Chuchupate Campground." On file, Los Padres National Forest, Frazier Park, Calif.

Foster, Mike. 2003e. "Occurrence discovery record for upper meadow." On file, Los Padres National Forest, Frazier Park, Calif.

Foster, Mike. 2003f. "Occurrence discovery record for lower meadow." On file, Los Padres National Forest, Frazier Park, Calif.

Foster, Mike. 2003g. "Occurrence discovery record for San Guillermo Mountain." On file, Los Padres National Forest, Frazier Park, Calif.

Foster, Mike. 2003h. "Occurrence discovery record for Lockwood Valley." On file, Los Padres National Forest, Frazier Park, Calif.

Foster, Mike. 2003i. "Occurrence record for Layia heterotricha found at Quatal Canyon, Los Padres National Forest." Unpublished report on file, Los Padres National Forest, Frazier Park, Calif.

Foster, Mike. 2003j. "Occurrence record for Layia heterotricha found at Little Dry Summit, Los Padres National Forest." Unpublished report on file, Los Padres National Forest, Frazier Park, Calif.

Foster, Mike. 2003k. "Occurrence record for Layia heterotricha found at Oak Creek, Los Padres National Forest." Unpublished report on file, Los Padres National Forest, Frazier Park, Calif.

Foster, Mike. 2003l. "Occurrence record for Layia heterotricha found at Lockwood Valley1, Los Padres National Forest." Unpublished report on file, Los Padres National Forest, Frazier Park, Calif.

158 Environmental Assessment

Foster, Mike. 2003m. "Occurrence record for Layia heterotricha found at Lockwood Valley2, Los Padres National Forest." Unpublished report on file, Los Padres National Forest, Frazier Park, Calif.

Foster, Mike. 2003n. "Occurrence record for Layia heterotricha found at Bear Canyon, Los Padres National Forest." Unpublished report on file, Los Padres National Forest, Frazier Park, Calif.

Foster, Mike. 2003o. "Occurrence record for Layia heterotricha found at Lockwood Valley3, Los Padres National Forest." Unpublished report on file, Los Padres National Forest, Frazier Park, Calif.

Foster, Mike. 2004. Plant Occurrence Form, Alamo Mountain. Unpublished report on file, Los Padres National Forest, Frazier Park, Calif.

Hoover, Robert. 1970. The vascular plants of San Luis Obispo County. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Jokerst, James D. 1993. Monardella. In Hickman, James C. (ed.). The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Keator, Glenn. 1993. Calochortus. In Hickman, James C. (ed.). The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Kopp, Deveree. Mountaintop District Botanist, San Bernardino National Forest. 2005 review of CNDDB field survey forms from 2001-2002 of Calochortus palmeri var. palmeri locations burned in the 1999 Willow Fire. On file on the San Bernardino National Forest, Big Bear Ranger Station, Fawnskin, CA.

Krantz, T.P., Sanders, A.C., and Thorne, R.F. 2000. The Vascular Plants of the San Bernardino Mountains. Unpublished draft on file on the San Bernardino National Forest, Big Bear Ranger Station, Fawnskin, CA.

Krantz, T., R. Thorn, A. Sanders. 1995. Draft Flora of the San Bernardino Mountains. Unpublished manuscript on file, San Bernardino National Forest, Big Bear Ranger Station, Fawnskin, CA.

Kyhos, Donald W.; Carr, Gerald D.; Baldwin, Bruce G. 1990. Biodiversity and cytogenetics of the tarweeds (Asteraceae: Heliantheae – Madiinae). Annals of Missouri Botanical Garden (77) 84-95.

Lardner, Melody; Foster, Mike; Brown, William; Tanner-Sutton, Linda. 1998. "Calochortus palmeri var. palmeri. Region 5 USFS Plant Species Evaluation and Documentation Form." Unpublished data. Vallejo, CA: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.

Lee, G. J. 1988. A systematic re-evaluation of Phacelia mohavensis var. exilis (Hydrophyllaceae). Systematic Botany 13(1): 16-20.

Lewis, Russ. 1997. Field inventory for Layia heterotricha, Layia munzii, Layia discoidea, Lepidium jaredii ssp. jaredii, and Acanthomintha lanceolate. Carrizo Plains Natural Area, Clear Creek Management Area. Bureau of Land Management.

159 Frazier Mountain Project

Matthews, Mary Ann. 1997. An illustrated field key to the flowering plants of Monterey County and ferns, fern allies, and conifers. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game.

Mishler, Brent D. 1995. Plant systematics and conservation: science and society. Madroño 42: 103-113.

Painter, E.L. 2004. Individual taxon accounts. Science consistency review report. Unpublished document on file, Cleveland National Forest, San Diego, CA.

Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden Herbarium

Reiser, Craig. 1994. Rare plants of San Diego County. Imperial Beach, CA: Aquafir Press.

Smith, Clifton. 1997. A flora of the Santa Barbara region, California. Santa Barbara, CA: Santa Barbara Botanic Garden & Capra Press.

Stephenson, John R.; Calcarone, Gena M. 1999. Southern California mountains and foothills assessment: habitat and species conservation issues. (General Technical Report GTR- PSW-172.) Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Twisselmann, Ernest. 1995. A flora of Kern County, California. Sacramento, CA: California Native Plant Society.

University of California Riverside Herbarium. Herbaria records for Calochortus palmeri var. Palmeri at http://www.herbarium.ucr.edu/UCRDB.html

University of California Riverside Herbarium. Herbaria records for Phacelia exilis at http://www.herbarium.ucr.edu/UCRDB.html

USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. "Conservation strategy for blakley's spineflower (Chorizanthe blakleyi), Fort Tejon woolly sunflower (Eriophyllum lanatum var. hallii), Parish's checkerbloom (Sidalcea hickmanii ssp. parishii) and pale- yellow layia (Layia heterotricha)." A memorandum of understanding between the USDA Forest Service, Los Padres National Forest and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Unpublished document on file at Los Padres National Forest, Goleta, California.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. "Effects of the 1999 Willow Fire on threatened,endangered and sensitive and watch list plant species and their habitats on the San Bernardino National Forest. Final Accomplishment report for monitoring funded under the National Fire Plan 2001, San Bernardino National Forest 2002." Unpublished report on file on the San Bernardino National Forest, Big Bear Ranger Station, Fawnskin, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Location data provided to the Mountaintop District of the San Bernardino by R.T Hawke, Botanist. Location data was also provided in 2001 in other locations for this taxon after the Willow Fire. Records on file on the San Bernardino National Forest, Big Bear Ranger Station, Fawnskin, CA.

Utech, Frederick H. 2002. LILIACEAE Jussieu – Lily Family. In: Flora of North America, Volume 26, Mangoliophyta: Liliidae: Liliales and Orchidales. New York: Oxford University Press.

160 Environmental Assessment

Wilken, D. H., R. R. Halse and R. W. Patterson. 1993. Phacelia. In Hickman, James C. (ed.) The Jepson manual: higher plants of California. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Personal communications

Austin, Terry. Forester, Ojai District, Los Padres National Forest. [Conversation with Mike Foster, Forest botanist, Los Padres National Forest.] 2003.

Burgess, Rick. Planner/Botanist for City of Thousand Oaks, CA. [Conversation with Mike Foster, Forest botanist, Los Padres National Forest.] 2003.

Merk, Kevin. Consulting Biologist. [Personal communication with Mike Foster, Los Padres National Forest, Forest Botanist]. 2002.

MIS Plants Arno, S.F. 2000. Fire in western forest ecosystems. In: Brown, James K.; Smith, Jane Kapler, eds. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Effects of fire on flora. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42- vol. 2. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 97-120.Fowells, H. A., comp. 1965. Silvics of forest trees of the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook 271. Washington, DC. 762 p.

Barbour, M. G.; Pavlik, B. M.; Antos, J. A. 1990. Seedling growth and survival of red and white fir in a Sierra Nevada ecotone. American Journal of Botany. 77(7): 927-938.

Conard, S. G. and S.R. Radosevich, S. R. 1982. Post-fire succession in white fir (Abies concolor) vegetation of the northern Sierra Nevada. Madrono. 29(1): 42-56.

Crowell, John C. (ed.). 2003. Evolution of Ridge Basin, Southern California: An interplay of sedimentation and tectonids. Geological Society of America. 247pp. Franklin, J. F., R. Carkin, and J. Booth. 1974. Seeding habits of upper-slope tree species. 1. A 12- year record of cone production. USDA Forest Service, Research Note PNW-213. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR. 12 p.

Gause, G.W. 1966. Silvical characteristics of bigcone Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga macrocarpa [Vasey] Mayr). USDA Forest Service, Research Paper PSW-39. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, CA. 10 p.

Gordon, D.T. 1978. White and red fir cone production in northeastern California: report of a 16- year study. USDA Forest Service, Research Note PSW-330. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, CA. 4 p.

Jones, J.R. 1974. Silviculture of southwestern mixed conifers and aspen: the status of our knowledge. USDA Forest Service, Research Paper RM-122. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 44 p.

Kauffman, J. B. and R.E. Martin. 1987. Effects of fire and fire suppression on mortality and mode of reproduction of California black oak (Quercus kelloggii Newb.). In: Plumb, Timothy R.; Pillsbury, Norman H., technical coordinators. Proceedings of the symposium on

161 Frazier Mountain Project

multiple-use management of California's hardwood resources; 1986 November 12-14; San Luis Obispo, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-100. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 122-126.

Kauffman, J. B. and R.E. Martin. 1989. Fire behavior, fuel consumption, and forest-floor changes following prescribed understory fires in Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forests. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 19: 455-462.

Keen, F. P. 1958. Cone and seed insects of western forest trees. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Technical Bulletin 1169. Washington, DC. 168 p.

Kilgore, B.M.and H.H. Biswell. 1971. Seedling germination following fire in a giant Sequoia forest. California Agriculture. 25(2): 8-10.

Laacke, R.J. 1990. Abies concolor (Gord. & Glend.) Lindl. ex Hildebr. white fir. In: Burns, Russell M.; Honkala, Barbara H., technical coordinators. Silvics of North America. Volume 1. Conifers. Agric. Handb. 654. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 36-46.

Lanner, Ronald M. 1983. Trees of the Great Basin: A natural history. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press. 215 p.

Martin, A. C., H. S. Zim, and A. L. Nelson. 1961. American wildlife and plants. A guide to wildlife food habits. p. 308-310. Dover Publications, New York.

Martin, Bradford D. 1982. Vegetation responses to prescribed burning in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, California. In: Conrad, C. Eugene; Oechel, Walter C., technical coordinators. Proceedings of the symposium on dynamics and management of Mediterranean-type ecosystems; 1981 June 22-26; San Diego, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-58. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 617.

Mauk, R.L.and J. A.Henderson. Coniferous forest habitat types of northern Utah. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-170. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

McDonald, P.M. 1978. Silviculture-ecology of three native California hardwoods on high sites in north central California. Dissertation (Ph.D.), Oregon State University, Department of Forest Science, Corvallis. 309 p.

Minnich, R.A. 1976. Vegetation of the San Bernardino Mountains. In: Latting, June, ed. Symposium proceedings: plant communities of southern California; 1974 May 4; Fullerton, CA. Special Publication No. 2. Berkeley, CA: California Native Plant Society: 99-124.

Minnich, R.A. 1977. The geography of fire and big-cone Douglas-fir, Coulter pine and western conifer forests in the east transverse ranges, southern California. In: Mooney, Harold A.; Conrad, C. Eugene, technical coordinators. Proc. of the symp. on the environmental consequences of fire and fuel management in Mediterranean ecosystems; 1977 August 1- 5; Palo Alto, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-3. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 443-450.

162 Environmental Assessment

Minnich, R.A. 1980. Wildfire and the geographic relationships between canyon live oak, Coulter pine, and bigcone Douglas-fir forests. In Proceedings, Symposium on the Ecology, Management, and Utilization of California Oaks, June 26-28, 1979. Claremont, California. p. 55-61. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report PSW-44. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, CA.

Minnich, R.A.; Barbour, M.G.; Burk, J.H.; Fernau, R.F. 1995. Sixty years of change in Californian conifer forests of the San Bernardino Mountains. Conservation Biology 9(4): 902-914.

Novick, H.J., and G.R. Stewart. 1982. Home range and habitat preferences of black bears in the San Bernardino Mountains of Southern California. California Fish and Game 67:21-35.

Oliver, W.W. 1974. Seed maturity in white fir and red fir. USDA Forest Service, Research Paper PSW-99. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, CA. 12 p.

Plumb, T.R. and A.P. Gomez, Anthony P. 1983. Five southern California oaks: identification and postfire management. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-71. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 56 p.

Roberts, T. A., and C. H. Smith. 1982. Growth and survival of black oak seedlings under different germination, watering, and planting regimes. Tree Planters' Notes 33(4): 10-12.

Schopmeyer, C. S., tech. coord. 1974. Seeds of woody plants in the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook 450. Washington, DC. 883 p.

Stephens, S. and M.A. Finney. 2002. Prescribed fire mortality of Sierra Nevada mixed conifer tree species: effects of crown damage and forest floor combustion. Forest Ecology and Management 162: 261-271.

Stephenson, J.R. and G.M. Calcarone. 1999. Mountain and foothills ecosystems: habitat and species conservation issues. In: Stephenson, John R.; Calcarone, Gena M. Southern California mountains and foothills assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-172. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 15-60.

Thorne, R.F. 1977. Montane and subalpine forests of the Transverse and Peninsular ranges. In: Barbour, Michael G.; Major, Jack, eds. Terrestrial vegetation of California. New York: John Wiley and Sons: 537-557.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Los Padres National Forest Land Management Plan. Pacific Southwest Region. Los Padres National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 1994. Riparian Conservation Strategy. Los Padres National Forest.

Internet sources:

http://fsweb.cleveland.r5.fs.fed.us/sccs/animals/ MIS species accounts created for the 2005 southern California LMPs.

163 Frazier Mountain Project

Appendices- Maps -

Appendix A- Maps ...... 165 Map A- 1. Frazier Mt Project Location ...... 166 Map A- 2. Frazier Mt Project Proposed Action ...... 167 Map A- 3. Frazier Mt Project Alternative 3 ...... 168 Map A- 4. Frazier Mt Project LRMP Management ...... 169 Map A- 5. 12th Code HUC Watersheds and CA Water Board Boundaries ...... 170 Map A- 6. Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) ...... 171 Map A- 7. Frazier Mt Project – CWPP WUI Map ...... 172 Map A- 8. Frazier Mt Project – Los Padres NF LRMP WUI Map ...... 173 Map A- 9. Frazier Mt Project – Scenic Integrity Objectives Map ...... 174 Map A- 10. Frazier Mt Project – Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Map ...... 175 Appendix B – Existing Condition - Stand Summary Data ...... 179 Appendix C – Alternative 2 Post-treatment Stand Attributes ...... 180 Appendix D – Alternative 3 Post-treatment Stand Attributes ...... 181 Appendix E – Models and Assumptions ...... 182 Appendix F – Heterobasidion annosum Root Disease Treatment ...... 184 Appendix G – Forest Stocking and Bark Beetle Risk ...... 189 Appendix H – Variable spacing thinning ...... 194 Appendix I – Common Forestry Terms ...... 197 Appendix J – Fire/ Fuels Models and Assumptions ...... 199 Appendix K – Best Management Practices for Soils and Water ...... 201

164 Environmental Assessment – Appendix A Maps

Map A- 1. Frazier Mt Project Location

165 Frazier Mountain Project

Map A- 2. Frazier Mt Project Proposed Action

166 Environmental Assessment – Appendix A Maps

Map A- 3. Frazier Mt Project Alternative 3

167 Frazier Mountain Project

Map A- 4. Frazier Mt Project LRMP Management

168 Environmental Assessment – Appendix A Maps

Map A- 5. 12th Code HUC Watersheds and CA Water Board Boundaries

169 Frazier Mountain Project

Map A- 6. Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs)

170 Environmental Assessment – Appendix A Maps

Map A- 7. Frazier Mt Project – CWPP WUI Map5

5 This map was created by IDT GIS FS-TEAMs to meet the intent of the WUI Defense, Threat and Wildland Zones definitions as described in the Mt. Pinos Community Wildfire Protection Plan, 2006 (CWPP). The WUI buffers noted are described in the Mt. Pinos CWPP on pps 120-123.

171 Frazier Mountain Project

Map A- 8. Frazier Mt Project – Los Padres NF LRMP WUI Map6

6 This map was created by the IDT GIS FS-TEAMs to meet the intent of the WUI direction for Defense, Threat and Wildland Zones definitions as described in the Los Padres NF LRMP 2005. The WUI direction and standards are discussed in detail in Section 1 of this EA.

172 Environmental Assessment – Appendix A Maps

Map A- 9. Frazier Mt Project – Scenic Integrity Objectives Map

173 Frazier Mountain Project

Map A- 10. Frazier Mt Project – Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Map

174 Environmental Assessment – Appendix A Maps

Appendix A Table A- 1. Silvicultural Treatments Unit Table – Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Silvicultural Treatments Unit Number Treatment Acres Unit Number Treatment Acres 2 NCT 64.4 73 CT-NCT 33.2 3 CT-NCT 181.5 75 CT-NCT 7.4 4 NCT 43.9 80 CT-NCT 79.1 17 CT-NCT 2.7 83 CT-NCT 32.0 19 NCT 8.9 84 CT-NCT 10.3 22 NCT 15.7 85 CT-NCT 17.9 24 NCT 5.3 89 CT-NCT 8.9 29 NCT 12.5 90 CT-NCT 23.7 34 NCT 7.2 92 CT-NCT 60.5 35 CT-NCT 21.3 97A CT-NCT 38.6 37 NCT 16.5 97B (cable) CT-NCT 33.6 38 NCT 15.6 98 CT-NCT 17.7 42 NCT 7.4 99 CT-NCT 52.8 43 NCT 13.4 104 (cable) CT-NCT 9.7 44 NCT 0.5 106 (cable) CT-NCT 2.8 45 NCT 12.9 116 CT-NCT 168.8 46 NCT 2.3 117 CT-NCT 2.9 47 NCT 1.6 130 CT-NCT 18.2 49 NCT 5.5 134 CT-NCT 6.3 50 NCT 1.0 138 CT-NCT 36.9 52 NCT 1.2 241 CT-NCT 113.1 55 NCT 3.6 242 CT-NCT 42.0 61 NCT 1.9 243 CT-NCT 15.3 72 CT-NCT 3.0 Total NCT Acres 241.4 Total CT-NCT Acres 1040.1 Total Silvicultural Treatment Acres 1281.5 Fuels Treatments (additional acres only) Treatment Acres masticate or burn 172.8 handpile and burn 13.9 thin, handpile and burn 95.1 underburn 822.7 Total additional Fuels Acres 1104.5 TOTAL TREATMENT ACRES (Silvicultural and Fuels) 2386.0 Note: Units # in the above table are derived from the stand identification number established during stand delineation. Some of the “stands”, including non-forested areas, are not proposed for tree thinning, so the unit numbering system in this table is missing some unit numbers. However, most of the units not displayed in the table above would be treated by prescribed fire underburning or fuels reduction treatments for the Frazier Mt fuelbreak.

175 Frazier Mountain Project

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

176 Environmental Assessment – Appendix A Maps

Appendix A Table A- 3. Potential Past, Ongoing and Foreseeable Actions List of Past Management Actions - (10 years 2001-2011) Activity Name Year Activity Description Activities: tractor work was all done 10 or more years ago, 1984- ~1000 acres, thinning, site prep., reforestation…more Frazier Mountain EA 2002 detail: 400 acres mech. thin, 300 acres crush and burn, < 100 acres brush rake) Alamo I Prescribed Burn DM 2003 ~3000 acres prescribed burn treatments Past Wildfires Various Acres/name/year to be compiled by GIS Mt. Pinos, McGill, & Mil Petrero Campground, 2000- LPNF project Organizational Camps Mistletoe Reduction and 2006 Slash Treatment Alamo II Prescribed Burn 2006 13,000 acres of prescribed burn treatments, LPNF Trailhead 118 Upgrade Phase 1 2008 Upgraded trailhead, parking lot and re-routed trailhead. List of Present/Ongoing Actions - (Ongoing) Activity Name Year Activity Description Recreation Use Ongoing Camping, hiking, biking, hunting etc. OHV Trails Use Ongoing On designated trail system Livestock grazing Ongoing Public firewood cutting, fuelwood cutting, Ongoing Christmas tree cutting on LPNF Trail Maintenance on LPNF Ongoing Road Maintenance on LPNF Ongoing Frazier Park Community Defense Zone Project Ongoing 174 acres of fuel break construction & maintenance Lake of the Woods Community Defense Zone Ongoing 175 acres of fuel break construction & maintenance Project Day Fire Reforestation Ongoing Planting on 2,800 acres Kern County Pinyon Pines community Fuel Ongoing Approximately 32 acres Break Kern County Pinyon Pines Community Fuel Ongoing Approximately 27 acres Break Extension Kern County Lake of the Woods Community Ongoing Approximately 35 acres Fuel Break Alamo II Prescribed Burn Ongoing 13,000 acres of prescribed burn treatments List of Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions - Activity Name Year Activity Description Tecuya Ridge Fuelbreak 2012 Ridgeline Organizational Camps Project 2013 Thinning and RX fire on 700 acres. See detailed PA McGill-Mt. Pinos Project 2013 Thinning and RX fire on 1,010 acres. See detailed PA Tamarisk Removal Project 2013 Removal of non native species Trail Reroute on Frazier Mountain NA ~1/4 mile within Block A, ~1 mile total, decision signed, funding pending Trailhead 118 Upgrade Phase 2 2013 Second half of Parking Lot constructed

177 Frazier Mountain Project

Appendix B – Existing Condition - Stand Summary Data StandID Tpa BA SMSDI2IN QMD 3 239 226 372 13 4 388 126 256 8 19 227 115 214 10 29 308 123 239 9 73 181 193 310 14 75 96 148 221 17 80 136 138 224 14 83 194 178 294 13 84 295 186 331 11 85 337 224 395 11 90 393 192 360 9 92 179 195 312 14 97 347 203 367 10 98 179 201 319 14 99 214 190 317 13 104 402 197 369 9 106 229 244 393 14 116 215 212 346 13 130 148 200 307 16 134 82 133 197 17 241 121 142 224 15 242 302 230 395 12 243 181 177 289 13 TPA – Trees per acre BA – Basal area in square feet per acre SDI – Stand density index QMD – Quadratic mean diameter

178 Environmental Assessment – Appendix A Maps

Appendix C – Alternative 2 Post-treatment Stand Attributes Stand/Unit TPA BA SDI QMD Treatment Number 3 75 139 200 18 CT-NCT-UB 4 213 116 213 10 NCT-HB 19 110 126 205 15 NCT-HB 29 308 143 210 9 NCT-HB 73 78 137 200 18 CT-NCT-UB 75 53 147 196 23 CT-NCT-UB 80 74 138 205 18 CT-NCT-UB 83 72 132 201 18 CT-NCT-UB 84 101 121 201 15 CT-NCT-UB 85 91 133 200 16 CT-NCT-UB 90 101 122 200 15 CT-NCT-UB 92 72 136 202 19 CT-NCT-UB 97 92 128 201 16 CT-NCT-UB 98 65 143 200 20 CT-NCT-UB 99 98 131 201 16 CT-NCT-UB 104 103 129 201 15 CT-NCT-UB 106 59 133 200 20 CT-NCT-UB 116 49 148 200 24 CT-NCT-UB 130 44 140 201 24 CT-NCT-UB 134 64 136 206 20 CT-NCT-UB 241 78 138 202 18 CT-NCT-UB 242 64 145 200 20 CT-NCT-UB 243 96 131 200 16 CT-NCT-UB TPA – Trees per acre BA – Basal area in square feet per acre SDI – Stand density index QMD – Quadratic mean diameter

179 Frazier Mountain Project

Appendix D – Alternative 3 Post-treatment Stand Attributes Stand/Unit TPA BA SDI QMD Number 3 115 203 295 18 73 107 182 267 18 75 42 147 186 25 80 74 136 203 18 83 89 179 264 19 84 104 160 250 17 85 136 201 302 16 90 123 141 232 15 92 89 180 262 19 97 112 165 255 16 98 89 198 274 20 99 105 174 257 17 104 83 150 217 18 106 122 220 335 18 116 101 195 286 19 130 78 200 294 22 134 60 133 200 20 241 74 139 201 19 242 105 210 298 19 243 109 170 253 17 TPA – Trees per acre BA – Basal area in square feet per acre SDI – Stand density index QMD – Quadratic mean diameter

180 Environmental Assessment – Appendix A Maps

Appendix E – Models and Assumptions

Forest Vegetative Simulator/Fire Fuels Extension The Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) was developed in the early 1970’s as the “Prognosis” model (Stage 1973). Since that time, FVS has undergone continual and continuing research and development efforts to expand FVS’s range and capabilities, validate, update, and modify FVS’s predictions, and increase the FVS program’s usefulness and usability. Over the last three decades, the USDA Forest Service has invested a substantial amount annually on research and development of FVS. For the Fiscal Year 2008 the Forest Service budget for FVS staff alone was about $653, 000 (Havis 2008). An additional uncounted millions has also probably been spent by other entities such as universities, other countries, and private industry on development and validation efforts.

Currently, the FVS is used almost exclusively by the USDA Forest Service, and is used heavily by other US government agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Park Service, Geological Survey, Department of Defense, and Department of Energy (Dixon 2008, USDA 2008). Most state departments of natural resources utilize FVS and it is heavily used in the private forestry sector. Most major university forestry programs in the US teach the use of FVS.

International use of FVS includes use in the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Ontario, Alberta and Nova Scotia. FVS is also being used, or variants are being developed for use in Russia, China, Austria, South Korea, Japan, Costa Rica, Portugal, Indonesia, and the United Kingdom as well as other European countries.

Over the last several decades, the Forest Vegetation Simulator has become the most used forest vegetation modeling program in the US and the world.

The Forest Vegetation Simulator is the product of hundreds of contributors over the past three decades (Dixon 2010). It is not a single growth and yield “model” but consists of a number in integrated models including those for predicting large-tree height and diameter increment, small- tree height and diameter increment, tree mortality, crown change, tree regeneration establishment, shrub development, shrub and tree vertical canopy distribution, mountain pine beetle risk, Douglas-fir tussock moth hazard and impacts, economic analysis, western spruce budworm hazard and impacts, western root disease impacts, dwarf mistletoe impacts, white pine blister rust impacts, and fire effects.

The Forest Vegetation Simulator has expanded its range of applicability from its original Northwest US roots through the creation of “geographic variants” that utilize research from various geographic regions of the US to tailor equations such as those for tree growth, mortality and volume to those regions. There are currently over 20 variants representing forests within the US. In developing some the variants, the Forest Vegetation Simulator has evolved from a growth and yield model into a framework supporting regional models such as TWIGS (Miner et al.1988) and GENGYM (Edminster et al.1991) further incorporating the extensive research undertaken in developing these models into FVS.

Since FVS uses stand exam data, geographical variant equations for growth are further calibrated using the stand data. This, coupled with the use of site variables such as slope, aspect, elevation, habitat type, plant association, or ecoclass code, location (nearest National Forest, and in some cases Ranger District), site index, and stand density index maximums or basal area maximums

181 Frazier Mountain Project

and tree measurements such as species, diameter-at-breast-height, total tree height, tree height to a dead or broken top, diameter increment, age, crown ratio, and damages or diseases enables FVS to make very accurate predictions.

Dixon (2010) describes FVS as “a semi-distant-independent individual tree growth and yield model”. He considers it semi-distant-independent because certain parts of the model localize competition and site variables to a plot (or point) basis within a stand where other parts do not. Because FVS uses stand exam data, it keeps track of the plot on which trees are located enabling the user to simulate group selection or differentially treat a stand based on density within a stand. One must realize when one is modeling treatment simulations based upon plots that although the plots may be modeled independently in FVS, the FVS outputs will still be showing the average of all trees on all plots. Portions of the FVS that do not model on a plot basis are the VSS classification module and the Fire and Fuels Extension.

Fire effects are modeled in FVS through the Fire and Fuels Extension (FFE) which simulates fuel dynamics and potential fire behavior over time in the context of stand development and management (Reinhardt and Crookston 2003). The FFE uses existing fire fuel models for fire behavior and effects and adds new submodels for snag and fuel dynamics. The FFE uses Rothermel’s (1972) fire behavior model as implemented by Albini (1976) in FIREMOD and subsequently by Andrews (1986) in Behave to predict fire intensity, approaches developed by Van Wagner (1973, 1977) and Scott and Reinhardt (2001) to predict the onset of crowning, and methods from FOFEM (Reinhardt and others 1997) for predicting tree mortality, fuel consumption and smoke production.

In this analysis we used stand exam data collected during 2009 using the Common Stand Exam protocols (USDA 2009) in 25 selected analysis area stands. With FVS we modeled proposed tree removals (thinning), and fuels treatments to describe and compare the effects of treatments and non-treatment on the forest stands. We used the West-Sierra variant of FVS for this analysis (Dixon 2009). We used “site tree” data taken in the stand exams to calibrate the site indexes for the local area.

Limitations of the Models “It should be noted a model is a simplification or approximation of reality and hence will not reflect all of reality (Stratton 2006). The use of models such as FVS depends upon sample data, validity of the model itself and assumptions made by the modeler. All three affect the results. The use of FVS in this analysis is to generally characterize and display existing conditions and the nature and magnitude of treatment effects to support decisions to be made. The modeling results are not to be taken as reality.

182 Environmental Assessment – Appendix A Maps

Appendix F – Heterobasidion annosum Root Disease Treatment

What’s In A Name? The root rot that we now know as Heterobasidion annosum (Fr.) Bref. has been renamed a number of times over the last 190 years as researchers studied the species and tried to get it correctly placed in the taxonomic system. There have been 32 “unambiguous synonyms” identified for the disease by ZipcodeZoo (2009) that have been suggested. Common names for the root rot include “fomes root rot”, “annosus root rot”, “annosum root rot” or just “fomes”, “annosus” and “annosum.” We will generally use the name annosum, but quotations from other sources in this document do use other names. Annosum was first described by Fries in 1821 under the name Polyporus annosum (Fr). Later, it was found to be linked to conifer disease by Hartig in 1874 and described under the name: Trametes radiciperda (Hartig). It was named to Fomitopsis annosa (Fr.) Karst. by Karsten in 1881, a name which was not used long. It was given the name Fomes annosus (Fr.) Cooke by Cooke in 1885, the name which was most widely used until the 1990’s. Its current accepted name of Heterobasidion annosum (Fr.) Bref. was suggested by Brefeld in 1888.

Research on Annosus and Borax Treatment For the 1989 Symposium on Research and Management of Annosus Root Disease (Otrosina and Scharpf (1989), Stambaugh (1989) briefly described the history of Heterobasidion annosum research in Europe and the Southeastern United States. Also for the 1989 symposium, Smith (1989) briefly described the history of annosum in the western United States. In this document, we will include a portion of annosum research history to show the long and extensive record of the annosum root rot species and root rot prevention treatments recommended in this analysis. At the time he wrote his history, Stambaugh (1989) conservatively estimated that there were over 1800 research papers and reports concerning annosum, a number that has certainly increased over the last two decades.

In his book, “Text-Book of the Diseases of Trees”, Hartig (1894) described the tree-to-tree spread of Trametes radiciperda (Hartig) through tree root systems, but it was not until Rishbeth (1951) that research was available showing that annosum could also spread through spores colonizing fresh-cut stumps. Rishbeth (1951) also demonstrated that the probability of a stump becoming colonized increased with the stump size, and that the probability of a stump becoming infected decreased with time. In the late 1940’s the disease occurrence was recognized in the southeastern United States and the large acreages of even-aged southeastern pine plantations that had been created were considered vulnerable. A major research effort took place led by the USDA Forest Service and among other findings, it was shown that the mode of annosum spread in the southern pines was consistent with that shown for pine in Europe (Stambaugh 1989). During this period of time in Europe and the southern US it was also found that covering freshly-cut stump faces with material such as creosote or paint could reduce annosum infection levels.

Annosum was recognized to be present but “somewhat rare” in California (Meinecke 1914 in Smith 1989). Through the next two decades, others identified annosum as being the cause of tree mortality at other locations in California, and Olson (1937 in Smith 1989) observed that mortality was occurring in trees 5 to 17 years old on areas that had been logged 7 to 18 years earlier and occurred in localized centers surrounding old stumps. Other research in the west found that annosum was able to enter western hemlock through logging wounds (Englerth and Isaac 1944 in Smith 1989) and was more commonly a wound pathogen than a root parasite of western hemlock

183 Frazier Mountain Project

in western Oregon and Washington (Rhoads and Wright 1946 in Smith 1989). During the 1940’s and 1950’s annosum was also recognized as a root disease of true fir (Smith 1989).

Following World War II, timber harvest increased in the west, as did interest in the impacts of annosum on second growth stands. Research related to the management and prevention of annosus increased as a result and Driver (1963 in Smith 1989) showed that stump infection could be prevented by dusting freshly cut stumps with borax in the southern United States, Graham (1971) found that borax prevented infection of ponderosa and Jeffrey pine stumps in California, Smith (1970) showed that borax also blocks infection of true fir stumps, Russell et al. (1973) evaluated the effectiveness of several chemicals in preventing annosum colonization of cut stumps and found that dry granulated borax gave the best results, Nelson and Li (1980) compared the ability of two materials (borax and monolaurin, an ester of lauric acid and glycerine) in protecting western hemlock and found borax to be the most effective, Pratt (2000) studied the effectiveness of borax for preventing annosum infection in Sitka spruce and found it to be effective, Nicolotti and Gonthier (2005) studied the effectiveness of six stump treatments and found borax to be effective and not significantly different than copper oxychloride and Phlebiopsis gigantean. In a study with conflicting results, Schultz et al. (1992) studied the use of borax to control infection by annosum and reduce losses in true fir stands and found that borax reduced stump infection but did not show a significant effect on tree mortality. We can say that the vast majority of research has shown borax to be effective at preventing the infection of freshly-cut stumps by annosum. Using a borax product has been recommended by a number of sources to prevent the colonization of cut stump faces (Filip and Schmitt 1990, Schmitt et al. 2000, USDA 2004).

There have been several other means of preventing the colonization of freshly cut stumps that have been shown to be effective, several of which were mentioned above, but research on those other means is not discussed further here because they are not approved for use in the United States. The borax product, Sporax, is the only chemical or biological annosus root rot prevention treatment approved and available for use in the United States. A peer-reviewed human health and ecological risk assessment for borax stump application (USDA 2006) found that “Except for the most extreme exposure scenario considered in this risk assessment –i.e., the direct consumption of Sporax from a tree stump by a child – the use of Sporax in Forest Service programs will not substantially contribute to boron exposures in humans” and that “The use of Sporax in the control of annosum root disease does not present a significant risk to humans or wildlife species under most conditions of normal use, even under the highest application rate.”

The question of how long a created stump is susceptible to infection by annosum has also been the object of several research studies. Rishbeth (1951) discussed two experiments to determine the ability of annosum to infect stumps at one week intervals for four weeks after they were created and observed that the ability of annosum to infect stumps “decreased markedly as the interval between felling and inoculation increased.” Ross (1968) studied the duration of loblolly pine stump susceptibility to annosum infection and found that stumps were “highly susceptible to infection…up to 12 days after the tree is felled” and recommended that “chemical stump protectants…must provide protective action for at least 12 days.” Cobb and Barber (1968 in Otrosina and Cobb 1989) found in studying the susceptibility of ponderosa pine stumps that they may remain susceptible for up to 4 weeks although the susceptibility drops markedly after 1 to 2 weeks. However, Cobb and Schmidt (1964 in Otrosina and Cobb 1989) found that eastern white pine stumps to be highly susceptible for only a few days after cutting. Woods et al. (2000) studied the susceptibility of Picea sitchensis stumps following cutting and found that the degree

184 Environmental Assessment – Appendix A Maps

of colonization declined after 24 hours, was greater than their control stumps at 7 days but stumps were not susceptible at 28 days.

Current Management Direction The Los Padres Land Management Plan Part 3: Design Criteria for the Southern California National Forests (USDA 2005c) states:

“S5: Treat all freshly cut live or recently dead conifer stumps with a registered fungicide to prevent the establishment of annosus root disease.”

The Land Management Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the southern California forest plans (USDA 2005d) states that annosus root disease in the southern California National Forests infects ponderosa pine, Jeffrey pine, white fir, sugar pine, Coulter pine, incense cedar, white fir, and giant sequoia. It also mentions that:

“Preventing annosus root disease would protect habitat for the many species-at-risk that occur in forested habitats” and that “Controlling annosus root disease is important for the California spotted owl and montane conifer habitat.”

Appendix O of the FEIS contains a risk assessment of applying the fungicide Sporax for prevention of annosus root disease spread. No other discussion concerning the treatment of recently cut live or recently dead conifer stumps with Sporax can be found in the Land Management Plan or FEIS. What is considered a “recently dead” is not defined nor is the time period for what should be considered a “freshly cut” live tree. No freshly-cut stump size limit is established.

The Forest Service Manual (FSM) Region 5 Supplement No. 2300-92-1 under section 2303 contains the statement:

“To perpetuate the forest environment in and around developed recreation sites, treat all freshly cut coniferous tree stumps to prevent introduction and spread of Fomes annosus.”

The Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 3409.11 is the Forest Pest Management Handbook. FSH R5 Supplement No. 3409.11-94-1 discusses annosus root disease presence in the Region, biology, detection, management, and prevention (USDA 1994). The supplement states that “Stumps are susceptible to infection immediately after cutting. Ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and coast redwood stumps remain susceptible to infection for 2 to 4 weeks.” It also states that control of annosus root disease should be accomplished “by prevention of new disease centers, thereby decreasing the risk of stump and wound infection, and through silvicultural manipulation of infested stands to minimize the impact of the disease” and that prevention can be accomplished by treating freshly cut stumps by registered products including stump borate products. It acknowledges that FSM 2303 requires treatment of all conifer stumps in recreation sites and extends the direction to other high value areas such as progeny test sites, seed orchards, and areas of high value trees such as giant sequoia groves. It also recommends that:

“In eastside pine or mixed conifer type stands, where surveys have indicated high levels of annosus root disease, treatment of conifer stumps 12 inches or greater in diameter is highly recommended during chainsaw felling. When mechanical shearers are used, the minimum diameter should be reduced to 8 inches…..In all other areas, consider stump treatments on an individual stand basis. The line officer is responsible for the decision to

185 Frazier Mountain Project

treat freshly cut conifer stumps, and shall base that decision on information available for the specific situation in the particular stand in question.

This information should include:

a. The objectives and management direction for the stand.

b. The level of annosus root disease currently in the stand or in nearby similar stands, determined by an examination of stumps for evidence of H. annosum and indications of infection in living trees.

c. An estimate of the cost-effectiveness of the treatment.

d. A Forest Pest Management biological evaluation or an on-site visit.”

Borax Stump Diameter Treatment Recommendations In the Pacific Southwest Region Forest Health Protection Report No. R04-01, Kliejunas and Woodruff (2004) discuss Sporax application to cut stumps and the background behind stump diameter application criteria for chainsaw and mechanical shearer created stumps found in FSH 3409.11-94-1. They conclude that mechanical shearer cut stump minimum diameter could be changed to be the same as those cut by chain saws. They further recommend that Sporax application on pine stumps be limited to 14 inches and larger in diameter. That they are not recommending that trees less 14 inches in diameter be treated is consistent with other available research:

Smith (1970) recommended that newly created but non-stained (uninfected) stumps greater than 18 inches (45 cm) in diameter should be treated with borax to prevent spore infection by H. annosum, if true fir is to be managed.

Kliejunas (1989) stated that data and observations from recent studies suggest that the lower stump diameter limit for treating chain saw cut pine in northeastern California forests could be raised to about 16 inches with “little or no risk of creating active annosus root disease centers.”

Edmonds et al. (1989) found that precommercial thinning in western hemlock did not “appreciably increase the incidence of H. annosum in the current rotation” and that “borax treatment of precommercially thinned stumps was not effective in reducing the incidence of H. annosum.”

Filip and Schmidt (1990) suggest following Smith’s (1970) recommendation to treat newly- created stumps greater than 18 inches with a borax product.

Pesticide Application Best Management Practices The following best management practices apply to the use of Sporax for annosum root disease prevention purposes (USDA 2000).

BMP 5.7--Pesticide Use Planning Process. To introduce water quality and hydrologic considerations into the pesticide use planning process.

• The Pesticide Use Planning Process is the framework for incorporation of water quality protection requirements contained in BMPs 5-8 through 5-14 into project design and management.

186 Environmental Assessment – Appendix A Maps

• The IDT (Inter-Disciplinary Team) will evaluate the project in terms of site response, social and environmental impacts and the intensity of monitoring needed.

The responsible line officer will prepare environmental documentation, Project Plan, and the Safety Plan. Project plans and safety plans will specify management direction.

Approval for proposed pesticide projects will proceed according to direction established in Region 5 supplement No. 2100-95-1 to 2150.

BMP 5.8--Pesticide Application According to Label directions and Applicable Legal Requirements: To avoid water contamination by complying with all label instructions and restrictions for use.

• This BMP applies to the application of a borax fungicide (Sporax) on cut stumps (14” diameter or larger) within the project area.

• TSAs are responsible for ensuring Timber Sale Contract specifications pertaining to treatment of stumps, are met and would periodically inspect the contractor’s operations to ensure that label directions and legal requirements are followed.

BMP 5.9--Pesticide Application Monitoring and Evaluation: To determine whether pesticides have been applied safely, restricted to intended target areas, and have not resulted in unexpected non-target effects; to document and provide early warning of possible hazardous conditions resulting from possible contamination of water or other non-target areas by pesticides; and to determine the extent, severity and possible duration of any potential hazard that might exist.

• This BMP applies to the application of a borax fungicide (Sporax) on cut stumps (14” diameter or larger) within the project area. • TSAs are responsible for implementation monitoring of Sporax application, and would document and provide early warning of any accidental spills and potential water contamination. • The purchaser is responsible for notification and reporting of releases of reportable quantities of hazardous substances caused by employees or contractors, directly or indirectly as a result of operations in the sale area. BMP 5.10--Pesticide Spill Contingency Planning: To reduce contamination of water by accidental pesticide spills.

This BMP applies to the application of a borax fungicide (Sporax) on cut stumps (14” diameter or larger) within the project area.

• See BMP 5.9.

BMP 5.11 – Cleaning and Disposal of Pesticide Containers and Equipment: To prevent water contamination resulting from cleaning, or disposal of pesticide containers.

• This BMP applies to the application of a borax fungicide (Sporax) on cut stumps (14” diameter or larger) within the project area. • Cleanup and disposal of containers would follow directions on the manufacturer’s label.

187 Frazier Mountain Project

Appendix G – Forest Stocking and Bark Beetle Risk

Tree Stocking Measures There are a number of measures of tree stocking levels; some that are very easy to measure and apply, and others that are very difficult to measure and apply. When prescribing a stocking level, foresters generally attempt to take into account a number of factors including site quality, tree size, and tree numbers. The simplest measures of stocking--trees per acre (TPA) and basal area (BA), which is the cross sectional area of the trees at 4.5 feet from ground level expressed in terms of square feet per acre--are commonly used by foresters for stand-level prescriptions and marking guides because they are the easiest to measure and implement. When prescribing a stocking level for a stand in terms of BA or TPA, a forester has already taken into account factors such as site quality, tree species, and tree sizes. It is very difficult, however, to use these measures when making prescriptions for multiple stands or for landscape-level stocking recommendations because diameter distributions (tree sizes) and site quality within and between stands vary. These measures alone give little information as to what the forester is fundamentally managing, that is, how site resources are being utilized and allocated. These simple measures, without additional information of tree size, can be very biased when used to determine how site resources are being used. For example, a stand of 100 TPA that are 10 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) use a lot less site resources than 100 TPA that are 20 inches DBH. Conversely, a BA of 100 square feet of trees that are 10 inches DBH use a lot more site resources than a BA of 100 square feet of trees that are 20 inches DBH.

Quadratic Mean Diameter Quadratic mean diameter has a long history of use in forestry and is often seen in the literature as the “average diameter” and is the diameter of the tree with the average basal area. It differs from the arithmetic mean tree diameter in that the quadratic mean diameter (DBHq) is the average diameter of the trees in the stand expressed as the diameter of the tree of the mean basal area. It is computed by converting the individual diameters (DBHi) to basal area, multiplying the basal area times the expansion factor (TPA), summing the basal area, dividing by the total TPA to get mean basal area, then converting that mean basal area back to diameter.

The arithmetic average (AveDBH) is computed by summing the diameters multiplied by the expansion factor (TPA) for each record and then dividing by the total TPA. Quadratic mean diameter gives greater weight to large trees and is equal to or greater than the arithmetic mean (Curtis and Marshall 2000). If the primary interest in diameter is to permit calculation of basal area or volume, then a better average is the quadratic mean (Husch et al. 1972). It is also stable for modeling purposes, being better correlated to stand density and directly convertible to basal area. The Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) uses DBHq in many of its growth and mortality equations (Dixon 2010).

Stand Density Index The Reineke Stand Density Index (SDI) takes into account both tree size (DBH) and numbers (TPA) to determine better than BA and TPA how site resources are being used. The SDI equation is (1) SDI=TPA(DBHq/10)-1.6 where DBHq is the “quadratic mean diameter” of a stand. Although originally developed for managing even-aged stands, SDI has been applied to managing two-storied (Long 1996) and multi-aged stands (Cochran 1992, Long 1996, Long and Daniel 1990, Shaw 2000, Woodall et al. 2002). For uneven-aged or irregularly-structured stands, SDI is best computed by summing values for individual trees or for DBH classes (Cochran 1992, Long 1996, Long and Daniel 1990, Shaw 2000, Woodall et al. 2002). When this is done, the SDI

188 Environmental Assessment – Appendix A Maps

equation becomes (2) SDI=∑(DBHi/10)-1.6 where DBHi is the diameter of the ith tree in the stand or when computing for size class groups; (3) SDI=∑TPAi(DBHi/10)-1.6 where TPAi is the number of trees in the ith tree size class and DBHi is the mid-point of the diameter class. In an alternative interpretation, Ducey and Larson (2003) consider the Reineke Stand Density Index (equation 1) and the “additive” stand density index (equations 2 and 3) as separate indices with different properties. The method of computing current or desired stocking for uneven-aged stands by apportioning SDI to size classes should be done carefully, however, because SDI may overpredict site occupancy for reverse J-shaped diameter distributions with more small trees than large ones, and it may underpredict occupancy with non-reverse J-shaped diameter distributions (Woodall 2003). In this analysis, we compute an additive SDI for all stands by 2-inch DBH class.

Reineke developed the SDI in about 1933 from empirical observations. He apparently plotted data (TPA versus DBHq on log-log paper) for fully stocked, even-aged stands and drew a free hand line skimming the highest data points. He proposed that the slope of the line (-1.605) was the same for all species but that the y-intercept value differed with species. Since that time, evidence has suggested that slope, as well as the intercept varies with species (Puettmann et al. 1993). Evidence also suggests that differences in intercept values for plant associations for a given species indicate that the density of a fully-stocked stand changes with site conditions (Cochran et al. 1994).

There are at least two ways to express SDI, the maximum SDI (SDImax) and normal SDI (SDIn). If you plot TPA (x-axis) against DBHq (y-axis), as Reineke did for many observations, and draw a line along the outside of all of the observations, you are establishing the SDImax for the species. If you draw the line through the middle of the observations, you would be establishing the SDIn which is the average of the observations. Both means are commonly used in forestry; FVS uses SDImax whereas Cochran uses SDIn in his research concerning stocking levels required to reduce bark beetle risk. For this analysis we will generally be using FVS and SDImax, but may refer occasionally to SDIn where necessary.

Several general SDI points-of-interest have been established for managing stand stocking levels (Figure 29), however, because the density of a fully-stocked stand changes with site quality (Cochran et al. 1994) these should not be considered rigid thresholds but as conceptual “way- points” in the development of forest stands around which there is a certain amount of variation due to site-specific factors. In terms of SDI, trees are not competing for site resources until stand density reaches about 25 percent of maximum SDI (Long 1985). Up to this stocking level, shown as zone I in Figure 29, trees are considered to be “free to grow” with no competition for site resources. This point is about 40 percent of SDIn and Long (1985) considered the point to be that at which the stand has reached crown closure. Long (1985) considered crown closure to be the maximum amount of crown cover--the proportion of ground surface area covered by a vertical projection of the tree crowns--expected for the species and site. Note that the definition of crown closure has changed since Long (1985) wrote his paper and care should be taken in how one uses it. Between 25 and 35 percent of maximum SDI is a zone in which trees are increasing in competition for site resources, but not all site resources are being utilized. This is shown as zone II in Figure 29. In this zone, as competition between trees increases, mean tree growth and the rate of stand growth declines. At about 35 percent of maximum SDI (50 percent SDIn), site resources are fully being utilized and trees in the stand are strongly competing for those site resources. This is the point of “full site occupancy” and is shown as zone III in Figure 29. In this zone, as competition between trees intensifies, mean tree growth continues to decline and the stand growth levels out. Within and above this range, since resources are effectively being utilized, changed conditions such as droughts increase in their potential impacts upon individual

189 Frazier Mountain Project

trees and the forests in general. At about 60 percent of maximum SDI (75 percent SDIn), the stand has reached the “zone of self thinning” or the “zone of imminent mortality” where a suppressed layer of trees begins developing (Long 1985). In this zone, for some trees to continue to grow, other trees have to die. Stand growth flattens and begins to fluctuate as disturbances such as insect attacks impact the stand. In most variants of FVS, the zone of imminent mortality is set at 55 percent of maximum SDI. Above this point, FVS’s “mortality model” begins computing tree mortality and “killing trees” from the modeled stands above a constant background level. What is not directly modeled in FVS is that bark beetle risk and activity increase far before stand stocking reaches the zone of imminent mortality because site resources become limiting at about 35 percent of SDImax and because of the potential impacts of droughty conditions on tree stress (Cochran et al. 1994, Oliver 1995).

Figure 31. Stand and mean tree growth potential relative to percent maximum SDI.

Bark Beetle Activity and Risk Bark beetles are characterized by foresters as primary and secondary. Aggressive bark beetles thought of as primary killers of trees are those that attack and kill apparently healthy trees. These primary killers include Douglas-fir beetle (Dendroctonus pseudotsugae), mountain pine beetle

190 Environmental Assessment – Appendix A Maps

(Dendroctonus ponderosae), western pine beetle (Dendroctonus brevicomis), Jeffrey pine beetle (Dendroctonus jeffreyi), pinyon engraver (Ips confusus), roundheaded pine beetle (Dendroctonus adjunctus), spruce beetle (Dendroctonus rufipennis), and fir engraver (Scolytus ventralis). Secondary bark beetles infest severely stressed, dying, or freshly dead trees as well as stressed tree tops and branches. Pine engraver (Ips pini), red turpentine beetle (Dendroctonus valens) and striped ambrosia beetle (Trypodendron lineatum) are mostly considered secondary bark beetles. Depending upon stand conditions and beetle population levels, some bark beetles that typically act in a secondary role can act as a primary killer of trees. Pine engraver, for example, normally reproduces in logging slash, wind-blown trees, broken limbs, and severely stressed trees like other secondary bark beetles, but when populations increase due to an abundance of host material, it frequently invades and kills small live trees or the tops of larger trees. Bark beetle risk concerns in the project area involve primary bark beetles, not secondary, and the following discussion addresses only those listed above as primary bark beetles.

Researchers began to recognize the importance of tree stocking control to reduce bark beetle activity in about 1941 (Eaton 1941). In 1953, Clements was the first to recognize the relationship between stand density and mountain pine beetle activity (Clements 1953 in Oliver 1995). Research by Cochran (1992), Larsson et al. (1983), Mitchell et al. (1983), Peterson and Hibbs (1989), Sartwell and Stevens (1975) and Sartwell and Dolph (1976) indicated that there may be threshold values below which bark will remain endemic and above which epidemic levels are possible. Peterson and Hibbs (1989) concluded that for lodgepole pine in the Blue Mountains that below an SDI of 160 stands would have low mortality, between 160 and 250, stands would have moderate mortality, and all stands with high mortalities had SDIs above 250, with a threshold value of about 170 for the increase. Mitchell and others (1983) indicated a threshold of about 165 for mountain pine beetle in lodgepole pine. Sartwell and Stevens (1975) and Sartwell and Dolph (1976)worked to further establish the links between tree stocking levels and bark beetle activity finding a threshold value of 150 ft2 of basal area above which stands became susceptible to bark beetles. Based upon the works of Sartwell and others, Oliver (1995) investigated the relationship between the stand density index (SDI) threshold of self-thinning mortality due to competition and SDI thresholds for mortality due to bark beetles. Oliver (1995) concluded that stand density for ponderosa pine stands was limited by Dendroctonus bark beetles to lower levels than the level of self-thinning. He found that there appears to be a “limiting stand density index” of 365, and stands approaching that limiting SDI usually suffered large losses from bark beetle epidemics that equal or exceed periodic growth for the stands experiencing the bark beetle mortality. He suggests that endemic levels of bark beetle mortality could start in stands when they reached an SDI of 230. The 230 SDI level could be considered a “zone of imminent bark beetle mortality.” Other research also indicates that historic pine stand stocking was below the threshold at which epidemic levels of bark beetle activity would occur. In Eastern Washington, Harrod et al. (1999) reconstructed historic ponderosa pine stocking and found SDI stocking that was nearly the same as the threshold for serious bark beetle mortality.

Bark beetle risk has also been shown to be related to site conditions, resource availability and tree growth. Sartwell and Stevens (1975) suggested that better sites could maintain greater ponderosa pine stocking with less mountain pine beetle mortality. Beal (1943) studied mountain pine beetle epidemics that had occurred in western states in the early 1900’s and showed that most occurred during periods of deficit moisture and poor tree growth. Shrimpton and Thomson (1983) also related the start of mountain pine beetle outbreaks with reduced growth related to deficit moisture. More recent research, (Mattson and Haack 1987, Ferrell 1994, Kipfmueller et al. 2002, Thomson and Shrimpton 1983, Negron et al. 2009) have related periods of deficit moisture with increased tree stress and bark beetle activity.

191 Frazier Mountain Project

Bleiker et al. (2005) showed that fast-growing subalpine trees were better able to resist western balsam bark beetle attack than slow-growing trees. Larsson et al. (1983) showed that mountain pine beetle attached low vigor ponderosa pine at greater rates than high vigor trees.

A number of other studies have simply shown that infestation levels for the bark beetles we are concerned about is directly and positively related to stand stocking. Higher stocked stands would have lower growth and vigor and greater stress during summer or prolonged drought periods than those with lower stocking. Many of these studies examined the relationship between bark beetle activity and tree thinning.

Thinning to Reduce Bark Beetle Risk Within the last several decades, a number of studies examined the relationships between tree thinning to reduce bark beetle activity and risk. Many of the studies observed decreased bark beetle activity with decreased tree stocking levels. These studies include: (1) observations of low bark beetle activity within thinned stands during long term stocking studies (Cochran and Barrett 1995, Cochran and Barrett 1999a, Cochran and Barrett 1999b, Cochran and Dahms 2000), (2) control studies measuring bark beetle mortality within pine stands thinned to various stocking levels and un-thinned areas (Amman 1988a, Amman 1988b, Amman et al. 1988a, Amman et al. 1988b, Cole and McGregor 1985, Cole et al. 1983, Fiedler and Morgan 2002, Fiddler et al. 1995, McGregor et al. 1987, Mitchell et al. 1983, Safranyik et al. 2004, Schmid and Mata 2005, Whitehead and Russo 2005) and (3) control studies measuring bark beetle activity as a function of the number of beetles trapped in stands thinned to various stocking levels as well as unthinned stands (Bartos and Booth 1994, Sanchez-Martinez and Wagner 2001, Schmitz et al. 1981, Zausen et al. 2005). Of the mortality studies, only Mitchell et al. (1983) did not demonstrate a difference in mortality between lightly thinned stands and unthinned controls, but they did observe that the heavily thinned stands had no mortality. Only one trapping study, Sanchez-Martinez and Wagner (2001), did not observe fewer trapped beetles in thinned stands compared to unthinned. Sanchez- Martinez and Wagner’s (2001) measurements found no significant difference between bark beetles trapped in thinned and unthinned ponderosa pine stands on the Coconino plateau in Arizona. However, their data was collected during low levels of bark beetle activity (endemic) in the area and they observed that the average tree size within the unthinned stands was very small, (22.2 cm) making the trees undesirable habitat for the most aggressive bark beetles found in the area--western pine beetle and mountain pine beetle. Given the results all studies mentioned, we conclude that available research provides strong evidence for the utility of thinning to reduce tree stocking and so the level of bark beetle mortality and the risk of epidemic levels of mortality.

Assessing Bark Beetle Risk in the Frazier Mountain Project In the Frazier Mountain Project, most of stands we are concerned with are Jeffrey pine and single leaf pinyon pine. Over time, research has largely concentrated upon bark beetle activities and risk in lodgepole pine and ponderosa pine. There is little research specific to Jeffrey pine beetle risk in Jeffrey pine forests. Jeffrey pine is very similar to ponderosa pine, however, so in this analysis we will use available research concerning mountain pine beetle and western pine beetle risk assessment to establish stocking levels desired to minimize the risk of epidemic levels of Jeffrey pine. We are establishing a lower bounds for our desired range to be an SDI of 200, which is 35 percent of the maximum SDI for Jeffrey pine of 571 (Dixon 2009), and as discussed above, is roughly the point at which site resources are being utilized. The upper bounds for our desired range we are establishing as an SDI of 230, which as discussed above is the point at which Oliver (1995) found endemic levels of bark beetle activity to begin in ponderosa pine.

192 Environmental Assessment – Appendix A Maps

Appendix H – Variable spacing thinning Thinning regimes proposed in the Frazier Mountain project can be considered (1) pre-commercial thinning, (2) commercial thinning, and (3) a combination of pre-commercial thinning and commercial thinning. Pre-commercial thinning in this project involves cutting trees less than 10.0 inches DBH. Commercial thinning involves cutting trees greater than or equal to 10.0 inches DBH. Both pre-commercial and commercial thinning treatments would have in common the goal to reduce stocking to desired levels, and increase or maintain stand horizontal and vertical structural diversity. The following discussion describes the proposed thinning regimes in general terms and expected ranges of stocking levels. To achieve treatment objectives, stand- specific silvicultural prescriptions and tree marking guidelines would be developed for implementing the project.

Variable-density thinning is a “crown thinning” or “free thinning” regime in which post-thinning tree stocking is deliberately varied throughout the thinned stand. In a crown or free thinning the most desirable trees in terms of desired species and size, not necessarily the dominant trees are favored for retaining.

As discussed and displayed above (Figures 1 and 2), historic and desired conditions for stands in the Frazier Mountain area are to be very open, but heterogeneous, mixtures of stocking levels and size classes. To achieve the desired heterogeneity, in this project we are proposing a variable- density thinning regime.

Cooper (1960) described southwestern ponderosa pine stands that had historically developed under a frequent fire regime as being composed of “an all-aged forest composed of even-aged groups.” He found that trees comprising the mature stands in his study were aggregated into groups ranging from 0.16 to 0.32 acres in size. White (1985) in studying southwestern ponderosa pine stands found that trees established before significant European influence were “strongly aggregated” with most of the stems occurring in groups of 3 or more with the area occupied by groups ranging from 0.02 to 0.29 ha (0.05 to 0.7 acres). He also found on his study sites that ages within each group were variable with the most homogeneous group having a range of 33 years within the group. Arno et al. (1995) found in Montana old growth ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir that pre-1990 stands on dry sites were many-aged with “a fine-grained, subtle mosaic” and that “in addition to the fine mosaic, occasionally on dry sites we could readily observe a coarser mosaic (units of ½ to 3 acres) apparently related to patches of overstory mortality caused by fire and other factors.” In reconstructing historical ponderosa pine forests in the Eastern Cascades of Washington, Harrod et al. (1999) found that historic stand overstory SDI was nearly the same as the threshold for serious bark beetle mortality and that “clumping of historical trees was observed across all spatial scales” with clump sizes ranging from 0.005 to 0.2 ha (0.01 to 0.5 acres). Skinner (1995) in examining the change in spatial characteristics of forest openings in northern California estimated that the area occupied by openings had decreased from 25.8 percent to 15.6 percent of the study area due to increases in tree stocking. Stephens and Gill (2005) studied Jeffrey pine-mixed conifer old-growth forests in the Sierra San Pedro Martir that had not received systematic fire suppression or harvesting. They found that the forests had a heterogeneous distribution of tree diameters and diverse structures and that “The relatively intact disturbance regime has developed a forest structure where different canopy strata are separated by space, resulting in a patchy distribution of trees”. Minnich et al. (1995) in a study in the San Bernardino Mountains compared 1929-1935 California Vegetation Type Map (VTM) survey data with 1992 data sampled in the same areas in as the original plots and characterized the presuppression Jeffrey pine forests as “open, heterogeneous mixtures of stem diameters.” The various studies from Arizona, Montana, Washington, northern California, southern California, and

193 Frazier Mountain Project

northwest Mexico all indicate that if a fire resistant pine, i.e., Jeffrey pine or ponderosa pine, forest is burned relatively frequently, a characteristic stand structure is the result. It is the objective of variable spacing thinning prescribed in this project to “push” stands in the project area back toward that structure.

To develop future horizontal and vertical diversity characteristic of late-successional northwest forests for spotted owl habitat Carey (2003) recommended a variable density thinning regime that would create patches of 0.1 to 0.5 hectare (0.2 to 1.2 acre) scale with a 2:1 ratio of light to heavier thinning. Wilson and Puettmann (2007) recommended leaving unthinned patches (skips) and openings (gaps) in addition to thinning between the “skips and gaps” to increase stand structural and species heterogeneity to a greater degree than can be established by thinning alone. They recommended using a thinning regime that included larger gaps (up to 1.0 ha) to produce the longest-lasting increase in heterogeneity. Based upon study of overstory tree spatial patterns in late-successional stands, Larson and Churchill (2008) suggested that thinning and including “skips and gaps” would not produce the fine-scale heterogeneity found in late-successional stands. They suggested that, in addition to variable density thinning with skips and gaps, small clusters of closely-spaced trees be retained in the thinned portion of the treated stands. Although stands are in the Frazier Mountain Project area are different than those discussed above and are not going to be managed for spotted owl habitat, the concepts presented above are valid for creating the horizontal and vertical structural heterogeneity desired for stands in this project. In the variable-density thinning regime proposed in this project we will be applying the concepts of “skips and gaps” as well as retaining small tree clusters.

Note that the thinning regimes described below are meant to establish general thinning targets and guidelines for a number of stands with similar characteristics and are not meant to be site-specific silvicultural prescriptions. Forest Service Manual direction is that a stand and site-specific silvicultural prescription be developed for any vegetation management. Following the guidance of this analysis, silvicultural prescriptions would be developed for each stand proposed for treatment to “tailor” the thinning regime described below to each stand.

In thinned stands, the variable density thinning described below would:

• Retain all large and old trees

• Create stands that are more diverse structurally

• Increase growth and vigor in all trees and so grow large trees faster than would occur under current stand conditions

• Reduce competition and stress on large and old trees to retain them in the stand for a longer period of time than would occur under current stand conditions

• Increase understory shrub and herbaceous vegetation coverage and species diversity

• Tree thinning would retain trees of all size classes retaining stands that are uneven-aged and multi-story.

Specific characteristics of the thinning regime would be:

• Approximately 15 percent of the stand areas would be retained as unthinned “skips” ranging in size from 0.1 to 0.5 acres.

194 Environmental Assessment – Appendix A Maps

• Approximately 15 percent of the stand areas would have all to almost all trees removed. Treatment in these “gaps” could include removal of all trees, very heavy thinning, and removal of all younger trees from around selected large Jeffery pine or groups of large trees. The gaps would also range in size from 0.1 to 0.5 acres.

• Approximately 70 percent of the stand areas would be thinned to the stocking levels discussed below. Within the thinned areas about one small group of 3-5 closely-spaced trees per acre would be retained to retain small groups for mid-story heterogeneity and to create future overstory fine-scale heterogeneity.

• Stands would be thinned to a stand average of approximately 35 percent of the maximum stand density index for Jeffrey pine (Appendix G). Tree-per-acre spacing would depend upon residual tree size, but could be expected to be within the 50 to 100 tpa range.

• Thinning treatments would generally favor for retaining tree species in the following order: California black oak, Jeffrey pine, single-leaf pinyon pine, and white fir. Note that this is a general guideline and the final order of species would be established for individual stands in silvicultural prescriptions based upon stand and site attributes.

• No trees greater than 30 inches DBH would be cut except as needed for safety and implementation (for example road or landing construction) purposes.

195 Frazier Mountain Project

Appendix I – Common Forestry Terms Basal area (BA) : the area of a cross-section of a tree, including bark, at breast height. Basal area of a forest stand is the sum of the basal areas of all individual trees in the stand, usually reported as square feet per acre or square meters per hectare.

Breast height : 4.5 feet above ground level. See "dbh."

Climax : the final stage in ecological succession; the persistent community of species that will develop on a site in the absence of disturbance. In forests, the climax ecosystem is dominated by tree species capable of reproducing in their own shade. Periodic disturbances, however, can prevent the formation of a climax ecosystem and maintain a site at an earlier successional stage. For example, many of the ponderosa pine stands growing on and dominating sites in the San Bernardino Forest were historically maintained by periodic fires. In the absence of fire, shade tolerant white fir is increasing on many sites, and will compose the climax vegetation.

DBH : diameter of a tree at breast height, or 4.5 feet above ground level, the accepted point of diameter measurement for most trees. The abbreviation generally is written without capital letters or periods.

Density : a measure used in plant and animal ecology to indicate the number of individuals of an organism within a given area. See "stand density."

Diameter class : a grouping of diameter measurements used to simplify tallying of trees during a cruise. If 1-inch size classes are used, all trees with a dbh between 7.6 and 8.5 inches would be recorded as 8-inch trees, and all trees with a dbh between 8.6 and 9.5 inches would be recorded as 9-inch trees. Two-inch size classes are used frequently. For a 2-inch size class, all trees between 7.0 and 8.99 inches dbh would be recorded as 8-inch trees.

Dominant tree : a tree with its crown extending above the general level of the canopy of surrounding trees, and receiving full sunlight from above and partly from the sides.

Ecological succession : the natural process, following a disturbance, in which one community of plants and animals gradually replaces another, in reponse to changing environmental conditions.

Even-aged stand : a stand of trees in which the age difference between the oldest and youngest trees is less than 20 percent of the stand age when mature. Even-aged stands are produced by cutting all trees within a relatively short period, or by natural disturbances that eliminate most vegetation in the previous stand.

Thinning : harvest of some trees to provide growing space for better quality trees, and/or to remove dead or dying trees to reduce pest problems.

Thinning from below : A type of thinning that particularly favors the dominants or, in heavier thinning intensities, selected dominants more or less evenly distributed over the stand, by removing a varying proportion of the other trees (i.e. the removal of sub-dominants and suppressed trees). Also called “low thinning.”

Tolerance : the ability of an organism to subsist under particular environmental conditions. In forestry, tolerance generally refers to the capacity of trees to develop and grow in the shade of surrounding trees (see "shade tolerance"). Intolerant trees are "light demanders"; tolerant trees are

196 Environmental Assessment – Appendix A Maps

"shade bearers." For wildlife, tolerance refers to a species' ability to adjust to different conditions or disturbed habitats.

Treatment : any silvicultural practice or procedure applied to a stand.

Understory : trees and other woody species that grow beneath the overstory of a forest stand.

Uneven-aged management : periodic thinning to create or maintain an uneven-aged stand, by removing trees from all diameter classes, and by retaining high quality trees in all diameter classes.

Uneven-aged stand : a group of trees of a variety of ages and sizes, and often of different species.

197 Frazier Mountain Project

Appendix J – Fire/ Fuels Models and Assumptions Field observations were made and timber stand exam data was collected within the analysis area in 2008. See the Silviculture Report in the project files for more detailed explanation on stand exam data collection. Photo series handbooks and ocular estimating were also applied. Stand exam and fuels data were processed through Forest Vegetation Simulator and Fire & Fuels Extension (FVS-FFE) by vegetative strata to derive data used for modeling in the fire behavior software package FlamMap. Fire behavior characteristics and hazard were derived for the proposed treatment areas by placing forest vegetation types into nationally accepted fire fuel model groups that describe the potential fire behavior within defined weather variables and the fuel model groups were used as a measure to estimate changes in fuel profile by alternative Fuel models were taken from the national Landfire database and compared to information gathered during walkthrough surveys by fuels specialists. The Landfire data was found to give a good representation of on the ground conditions and the fuel models were used as is for the existing conditions. For the proposed action, FVS was again used to determine the effects of treatment by strata on the vegetation. Adjustments to fuel models were made based upon the treatment types and were again adjusted by strata.

FlamMap is a fire behavior mapping and analysis program that computes potential fire behavior characteristics over an entire landscape for given weather and fuel moisture conditions. FlamMap uses GIS-based raster inputs for terrain and fuel characteristics (elevation, slope, aspect, fire behavior fuel models, and canopy characteristics), computes fire behavior outputs for a given landscape using standard fire behavior prediction models, and generates raster maps of potential fire behavior characteristics (spread rate, flame length, crown fire activity, etc.) over an entire landscape.

FlamMap employs the fire behavior model (Rothermel's 1972). The Rothermel fire behavior model makes several assumptions which include:

• The fire is free-burning;

• Fire behavior is predicted for the flaming front of a surface fire;

• Fine fuels are the primary carrier of the initial fire front

• Fuels are continuous and uniform.

FlamMap then utilizes VanWagner's 1977 crown fire initiation model, Rothermel's 1991 crown fire spread model, and Nelson's 2000 dead fuel moisture model to model both crown fire. FlamMap defines two types of crown fire:

• Passive Crown Fire - fire does not carry continuously through the crown fuels, but burns crown fuels intermittently, such as when individual trees or groups of trees torch.

• Active Crown Fire- fire carries continuously through the stand.

Assumptions and variables used in the model include: Weather parameters used in the models represent the 90th percentile weather conditions for the area. These values were derived from a weather station site located near the project area. 90th percentile wind speed for the area is approximately eight miles per hour. However, since FlamMap does not incorporate spotting, an important means of fire spread, a moderate wind (25 miles/hour at 20 feet) was used to represent the greater spotting potential (Fites-Kaufman et al.

198 Environmental Assessment – Appendix A Maps

2003). This also is more likely to represent the actual conditions when a fire is likely to escape initial suppression actions.

Fire behavior outputs generated from modeling exercises only reflect static conditions and do not take into account changing weather conditions. Any change in these factors could drastically affect fire behavior. Given the uncertainty of any modeling exercise, the results are best used to compare the relative effects of the alternatives, rather than as an indicator of absolute effects. Interpretation, professional judgment, and local knowledge of fire behavior were used to evaluate the outputs from the models and adjustments made as necessary to refine the predictions.

199 Frazier Mountain Project

Appendix K – Best Management Practices for Soils and Water The following descriptions are the Best Management Practices (BMP) (USDA Forest Service, 2000) recommended for project implementation. A BMP is a practice, or a combination of practices, that is determined by a state or designated area-wide planning agency to be the most effective, practicable means of preventing, or reducing the amount of pollution generated by non- point sources to a level compatible with water quality goals. (USDA Forest Service, 2000). BMPs are certified by the California State Water Resource Control Board and approved by the Environmental Protection Agency, in compliance with section 208 of the Clean Water Act (Pl- 500). The following BMPs are specific to the project.

• Practice 1.8. A Riparian Conservation Area (RCA) is designated along riparian areas to minimize adverse effects. For the Frazier Mountain Project an RCA is a no mechanical treatment area and exclusive of equipment except as necessary for crossing.

• Practice 1.9. Determining Tractor Loggable Ground. Consider site characteristics such as slope, and soil. See WS-17.

• Practice 1.10. Tractor Skidding Design. Consider skid trail system design that avoids using water drainage features and routes, such as swales. Other methods include end-lining fell trees, and falling to lead.

• Practice 1.11. Suspended Log Yarding in Timber Harvesting. Consider site characteristics such as slope and soil.

• Practice 1.12. Log Landing Location. Locate landings to avoid watershed impacts.

• Practice 1.14 Special Erosion Prevention Measures. Ground disturbed within 100-foot RCAs, should be treated with slash, mulch or chips.

• Practice 1.16. Log Landing Erosion Control. Landings are ditched as necessary for drainage and dispersion of water, and should have cover added—chipping or mulch. Sub-soiling or any deep tilling is to be avoided.

• Practice 1.17. Erosion Control on Skid Trails. This practice requires the installation of erosion control features on skid trails such as cross ditches.

• Practice 1.18. Meadow Protection During Timber Harvesting. These environments are identified by the IDT during scoping and onsite evaluation.

• Practice 1.19. Stream course and Aquatic Protection. See Design Features.

• Practice 2.12. Servicing and Refueling of Equipment. Select service and refueling areas well away from wet areas and surface flow.

Practice 2.2. Develop an erosion control plan to be detailed in the contract specifications and provisions. The intent of the plan is to prevent road maintenance and project related road use generated erosion from entering stream courses.

Practice 2.3. Minimize erosion by conducting operations during minimal runoff periods.

• Practice 2.14. Controlling In-Channel Excavation. Excavation during installation of any instream structures (such as culverts) must follow water quality protection requirements.

200 Environmental Assessment – Appendix A Maps

• Practice 2.16. Stream Crossings on Temporary Roads. The number of crossings will be kept to a minimum for access. Crossings will be as a perpendicular to the stream course as possible.

• Practice 5.2. Slope Limitations for Mechanical Equipment Operations. This measure facilitates water drainage by limiting operation to gradients where features such as water bars can be effectively installed. Tractor operation limitations for the Los Padres N.F. are on slopes < 35%). Given the erosive nature of soil map units in the project area any length pitch above this limit should be avoided if possible.

• Practice 5.3 Tractor Operation Limitations in Wetlands and Meadows. These areas are excluded from equipment use except for the purpose of restoring Meadow function in the case of conifer encroachment or wetland/meadow restoration.

• Practice 5.6. Soil Moisture Limitations for Mechanical Equipment Operations. This practice is intended to reduce soil erosion by limiting equipment operation during wet soil conditions.

• Practice 6.2. Factors that influence fire intensity, and therefore directly affect resultant ground cover, and formation of water-repellant layers must be considered when designing fire prescriptions. Creation of water repellant soils should be kept to a minimum and generally avoided.

• Practice 6.3. Soil productivity and water quality is maintained by minimizing erosion on hill slopes, and delivery of ash, sediment, nutrients and debris to stream channels. Any constructed handlines would be waterbarred immediately after project activities.

201