United States Department of Agriculture Environmental
Forest Service Assessment
July 2007 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
San Jacinto Ranger District, San Bernardino National Forest Riverside County, California
For More Information Contact:
Greg Casselberry Deputy District Ranger P.O. Box 518 Idyllwild, CA 92549 909/382-2600 x4116
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
Introduction ...... 1 Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action ...... 3 Existing Conditions - Why Here and Now?...... 3 Public and Firefighter Health and Safety ...... 3 Forest Communities of Concern...... 6 Recreation...... 9 Cultural Areas...... 10 Desired Future Condition...... 11 Proposed Action...... 13 Decision Framework ...... 16 Adaptive Management...... 16 Relationship to Forest Plan...... 16 Public Involvement ...... 17 30-Day Comment Period...... 18 Issues ...... 18 Federal and State Permits, Licenses, and Certifications ...... 19 Applicable Laws and Executive Orders ...... 20 Project Record Availability ...... 20 Chapter 2 - Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action...... 21 Forest Plan Consistency ...... 21 Design Features ...... 21 Monitoring...... 21 Findings and Disclosures...... 22 Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed in Detail...... 22 Diameter-Limit Alternative...... 22 Prescribed Fire-Only Alternative ...... 23 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 24 Alternative 1 - No Action...... 24 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action...... 24 Transportation System Needed to Implement Proposed Actions...... 30 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 32 Chapter 3 - Environmental Consequences...... 36 Analysis Documents Used For this Assessment ...... 36 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ...... 36 Vegetation ...... 38 Stand Exams and Analysis ...... 38 Forest Structure ...... 39 Tree Size/Species Composition/Density ...... 39 Resulting Changes from Historic Conditions...... 41 Desired Condition ...... 42 Management of Density and Structure for Fire Resilient Conditions ...... 42 Management of Density and Structure for Healthy/Sustainable Forest Conditions...... 46 Existing or Baseline/Reference Conditions ...... 48 Environmental Consequences to Vegetation...... 50 Alternative 1 - No Action...... 50 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action...... 56 Vegetation Project Monitoring...... 63 Environmental Consequences to Fire and Fuel Conditions ...... 64
i Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
Alternative 1 - No Action...... 64 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action...... 65 Environmental Consequences to Wildlife...... 70 Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species ...... 71 Management Indicator Species...... 86 Migratory Birds ...... 87 Range...... 88 Wildlife Project Monitoring ...... 89 Environmental Consequences to Botany ...... 89 Noxious Weeds...... 89 Botany Management Indicator Species ...... 93 Botany Threatened and Endangered Species...... 94 Botany Sensitive, Watch-list, and Proposed San Bernardino National Forest Sensitive Plant Species...... 95 Botany Project Monitoring...... 95 Environmental Consequences to Watershed...... 97 Alternative 1 - No Action...... 97 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action...... 98 Environmental Consequences to Soils...... 101 Alternative 1 - No Action...... 101 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action...... 101 Consequences to Recreation and Cultural Values...... 105 Alternative 1 - No Action...... 105 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action...... 108 Environmental Consequences to Air Quality...... 110 Federal Clean Air Act...... 110 National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards...... 110 Alternative 1 - No Action...... 111 Alternative 2 - Proposed Action...... 113 Consequences to the Social and Economic Environment ...... 116 Alternative 1 –No Action ...... 116 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ...... 116 Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination ...... 119 Federal, State, and Local Agencies...... 119 Consultation to Date...... 119 Chapter 5 – EA and Specialist Report References ...... 121
List of Tables Table 1. Potential fire types in spotted owl habitat in Thomas Mountain planning area ...... 9 Table 2. Proposed vegetation treatments by goal, treatment level and estimated acres...... 15 Table 3. Proposed treatment level, vegetation type, prescribed treatment and removal system ... 26 Table 4. Summary of acres by burn type...... 27 Table 5. Summary of acres to be treated by vegetation type...... 29 Table 6. Existing stand and predicted residual stand as a result of thinning in Jeffrey pine stratum ...... 29 Table 7. Summary of miles of proposed road actions by road system...... 32 Table 8. Comparison of the no action and proposed action alternatives...... 33 Table 9. Past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects in throughout the San Jacinto Ranger District...... 36 Table 10. Forest strata in Thomas Mountain project area (Stratum 1 is Chaparral)...... 38
ii Environmental Assessment
Table 11. Species composition and successional trends by stratum...... 40 Table 12. Current stand density in Jeffrey pine stratum (all species)...... 40 Table 13. Current canopy cover in Jeffrey pine stratum from FVS ...... 40 Table 14. Estimated hard snags and percent mortality for Jeffrey pine, Coulter pine, and bigcone Douglas-fir strata...... 41 Table 15. Density management regime for pine species ...... 46 Table 16. Stand density of mixed Jeffrey pine at SSPM from Minnich et al. (1995) ...... 48 Table 17. Stand density of mixed Jeffrey pine at SSPM from Minnich et al. (2000) ...... 48 Table 18. Stand density of mixed Jeffrey pine in San Bernardino Mts. from Minnich et al. (1995) ...... 49 Table 19. Predicted (FVS-FFE) mortality in Jeffrey pine stratum under no action from a severe fire ...... 52 Table 20. Predicted (FVS-FFE) canopy cover in Jeffrey pine stratum under no action from a severe fire ...... 52 Table 21. Basal area per acre under no action for Jeffrey pine stratum ...... 54 Table 22. Stand density index (SDI) under no action for Jeffrey pine stratum ...... 54 Table 23. Summary of treatments by vegetation type...... 56 Table 24. Proposed action acres of vegetation treatments by treatment level and stratum ...... 56 Table 25. Predicted change in average stand diameter from thinning with Treatment Level 2 – Jeffrey pine stratum (from FVS, year 2010)...... 57 Table 26. Predicted change in canopy cover from thinning with Treatment Level 2 (non-CASPO territories)- Jeffrey pine stratum (from FVS, year 2010) ...... 58 Table 27. Change in fire type in Coulter pine and bigcone Douglas-fir in planning area...... 58 Table 28. Predicted (FVS-FFE) mortality from a severe fire in Jeffrey pine stratum...... 60 Table 29. Predicted (FVS-FFE) canopy cover from a severe fire in Jeffrey pine stratum ...... 60 Table 30. Basal area per acre under the proposed action in Jeffrey pine stratum ...... 61 Table 31. Stand Density Index (SDI) under the proposed action in Jeffrey pine stratum...... 61 Table 32. Proposed treatment of natural and activity fuels...... 65 Table 33. Types of prescribed burn treatments ...... 67 Table 34. Change in fire type in planning area...... 67 Table 35. Change in fire type in defense zone ...... 67 Table 36. Fireline intensity interpretations...... 68 Table 37. Fire behavior characteristics in treated and untreated chaparral at 90th percentile weather conditions...... 68 Table 38. Summary of stand structure in units within owl territories under no action and proposed action alternatives...... 80 Table 39. Change in fire type acres in treated California spotted owl habitat...... 81 Table 40. Change in fire type in California spotted owl habitat in planning area...... 81 Table 41. Spotted owl habitat treated for the Thomas Mountain Project, and for cumulative projects ...... 83 Table 42. Acres treated in PACs in the San Jacinto Ranger District 1 ...... 83 Table 43. Habitat types, acres in project area and determinations ...... 84 Table 44. Management indicator species of the San Bernardino National Forest...... 86 Table 45. Noxious weed species of potential concern located on the Thomas Mountain project area ...... 90 Table 46. Management indicator plant species of Southern California National Forests ...... 93 Table 47. Effects analysis determination for the Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project threatened, endangered, sensitive, watch-list and SBNF proposed sensitive plants...... 96 Table 48. Percent ERA by year for Thomas Mountain Project...... 100
iii Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
Table 49. Cumulative detrimental disturbance for planned ground-based activities. Percent detrimental disturbance is displayed for planned treatment, past disturbance, temporary road construction, and total cumulative effects...... 102 Table 50. Coarse woody debris classes recommendations...... 103 Table 51. Cumulative detrimental disturbance for planned ground-based activities. Percent detrimental disturbance is displayed for planned treatment, past disturbance, temporary road construction, and total cumulative effects...... 104 Table 52. Past, present, and future projects in the foreground of the project area ...... 107 Table 53. California and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards pertinent to the Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project ...... 111 Table 54. Approximate tons per year of PM-10 generated from the Thomas Mountain Project from all direct and indirect emissions from prescribed burning compared to potential emissions from wildfire...... 113 Table 55. Potential prescribed burning emissions from the Thomas Mountain Project in pounds per day compared to South Coast Significance Level...... 114 Table 56. Total amount of potential particulate emissions “saved” as a result of material being moved off site of the Thomas Mountain Project ...... 114 Table 57. Project outputs, products, jobs and income...... 117 Table 58. Estimated days of logging noise and trucks ...... 117 Table 59. Total project costs with sale of merchantable timber...... 118
List of Figures Figure 1. Vicinity map of the Thomas Mountain planning area...... 2 Figure 2. Existing active and passive crown fire in the Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project planning area ...... 4 Figure 3. Coulter pine within chaparral...... 7 Figure 4. Ladder fuels around Jeffrey pines...... 8 Figure 5. Upper portion of Spillway Canyon with developed and dispersed recreation...... 10 Figure 6. Parry pinyon pine in chaparral ...... 11 Figure 7. Desired open stand structure in Jeffrey pine outside of owl territories...... 12 Figure 8. Proposed treatment levels and estimated acres ...... 14 Figure 9. Primary removal systems in Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project ...... 28 Figure 10. Transportation actions for the Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project...... 31 Figure 12. Cumulative effects boundary for fue ls resource in Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project...... 66 Figure 13. Potential fire following treatment in the Thomas Mountain planning area ...... 69
iv Environmental Assessment
Introduction The Forest Service has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to determine whether to prepare an environmental impact statement. This EA tiers to the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Southern California National Forest Land Management Plan 2005 Revision (Forest Plan) and implements the management direction in the Forest Plan. The Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project includes treatment in approximately 10,465 acres of the 16,046-acre Thomas Mountain Planning area. The project is located within the San Bernardino National Forest (SBNF) administered lands in the vicinity of Thomas Mountain, including the community of Thomas Mountain and a portion of the Ramona Band of the Cahuilla Indian Reservation (Ramona Reservation), in Riverside County, California. Located southwest of California State Highway 74, south of Lake Hemet and north of the Ramona Reservation on National Forest Service Lands between the National Forest and private property boundaries (T. 6 S., R 2 E., sec 13, 24, 25, and 36; T. 6 S, R. 3 E., sec 7-10, 15-36; T. 7 S., R. 3 E., sec 1-3, and 12; T. 7 S., R. 4 E., sec 5-8, 17, and 18) (Figure 1). All National Forest System lands in the project area are administered by the San Bernardino National Forest and guided by its Forest Plan. The Forest Plan designates the areas in Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project as Back Country (9,191 acres), Back Country Motorized Use Restricted (53 acres), Back Country Non- Motorized (5,581 acres), and Developed Area Interface (1,217 acres). Suitable uses of fire and fuels management, in these areas include community protection buffers and fuelbreak construction, including type conversion. The forest is also divided into a series of geographical units called “Places”. The Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project is located in the Garner Valley and Anza Places within the San Jacinto Mountain Range. Community protection from intense wildland fire is a very high priority in these Places. Forest health projects are being implemented to remove dead trees, reduce stand density, promote historic fire return intervals and reduce fire intensity, and sagebrush encroachment. To support the Garner Valley and Anza Place priorities, the Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project is designed to: 1) reduce potential wildfire rate of spread and intensity, maintain vegetation conditions favoring lower intensity fire, and change forest stand conditions to reduce future susceptibility of trees to insect and drought mortality; 2) manage recreation opportunities consistent with fire and fuel management; 3) coordinate vegetative management with Native Americans around Parry pinyon pine stands consistent with traditional uses; and 4) manage the transportation system consistent with fire and fuel management goals and Forest Plan goals, including decommissioning of some unneeded roads.
1 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
Figure 1. Vicinity map of the Thomas Mountain planning area
2 Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1 - Purpose and Need for Action On August 22, 2002, President Bush announced the Healthy Forest Initiative (HFI) for Wildfire Prevention and Stronger Communities. The Healthy Forests Initiative implements core components of the consensus 10-year Implementation Plan agreed to by states, tribes, and stakeholders. The proposed treatments in the Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project further the goals of the President’s initiative. They would reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires to protect communities, firefighters, wildlife and forest health. Other federal direction includes the National Fire Plan (Managing the Impact of Wildfires on Communities and the Environment, A Report to the President; USDI and USDA 2000), Federal Wildland Fire Policy (USDI et al. 1995 with updates in 2001), and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA; 2003). The Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project qualifies as a HFRA project because 1) the Thomas Mountain community has been designated as a “Community at Risk” from wildfire (Federal Register, August 17, 2001, Vol. 66, No. 160), 2) associated residential developments are within an established wildland urban interface (WUI) for the SBNF, 3) threatened and endangered animal species and their habitat occur within the project area, and 4) the project is in an area experiencing an insect epidemic that threatens ecosystem components. Environmental review of the proposal will be conducted as required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). This includes compliance with NEPA-implementing regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) at 40 CFR Part 1500, and application of both the CEQ’s Guidance for Environmental Assessments of Forest Health Projects of December 9, 2002 and Forest Service Handbook 1909.15—Environmental Policy and Procedures Handbook.
Existing Conditions - Why Here and Now? The following paragraphs describe the present conditions that are at risk due to wildfire in the Thomas Mountain planning area. These conditions describe why the proposed action is needed in this location, at this time. These existing conditions demonstrate the need to reduce fuels to provide public and firefighter health and safety, to protect forest communities of concern, to protect critical habitats of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, to restore and maintain safe recreational opportunities, and to protect stands of Parry pinyon pine for cultural uses.
Public and Firefighter Health and Safety Wildland Urban Interface – Defense and Threat Zone Natural and human-caused fire is a continual threat in the (WUI) defense and threat zones. The defense zone is defined as the area up to 1,500 feet from developments (Figure 2). The threat zone is defined as that area beyond the defense zone up to 1.5 miles or greater depending on terrain and fire behavior. An example of a threat from fire was the Hemet Fire of 1975, a human- caused ignition on the shores of Lake Hemet, which spread southeast along the northeasterly
3 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
Figure 2. Existing active and passive crown fire in the Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project planning area
4 Environmental Assessment aspect of Thomas Mountain and triggered the evacuation of residents living in the path of fire. Wildfire is a continual threat as westerly winds, common during the summer fire season, are channeled up the San Jacinto River canyon to Lake Hemet, gaining speed as the wind accelerates up the steep narrow canyon walls. These winds move across Lake Hemet and travel south through Garner Valley. Currently a portion of the WUI consists of mature dense chaparral fuels that pose a threat to nearby communities due to heavy fuel loading and high fire intensities. These areas of continuous fuels are in line with the direction of fire spread increasing the threat to residents in the event of natural fire. Similarly, the Ramona Reservation is threatened by current fuel conditions that have developed due to fire exclusion. The reservation is threatened on all sides because it is situated amidst eight- to twelve-foot red shank chaparral. Recent drought has increased the dead fuel component within the shrubs, increasing potential fire intensity. Wildfires in 1924 and 1928 and smaller, more recent fires have threatened this location but have not burned through the reservation. Permanent residents have only recently lived on the reservation; however, with current and planned residential development, public safety is a concern. Future development in the Anza valley and areas to the south of Garner Valley are a concern as ignition risk increases as people move into the area. The increased fire threat from the south is of particular concern during the dry, easterly Santa Ana winds. Fire threats to the WUI from human-caused and natural ignitions occur on both private and public lands. Some landowners have taken the initiative to create defensible space around their residences, some have not. Much of the hazardous fuels that cause high-intensity fires are located on National Forest lands. A Firesafe Council, organized by the local community, is currently working on community protection plans for the mountain communities, including Thomas Mountain. The Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians is also currently reducing fuels on portions of the reservation to provide defensible space for residents. Presently 91 percent of the planning area has the potential for either active or passive crown fire.
There is a need to reduce wildland fire behavior and associated crown fire in shrub and conifer/mixed-conifer stands to reduce the risk of fire to private land and property.
Fire Suppression The ability to suppress a fire is necessary for effective community protection. Firefighters need both access and areas of reduced fire intensity (such as fuelbreaks) available to fight fire. Firefighters use existing fuelbreaks and roads to access and control fires. The existing Thomas Mountain fuelbreak, created in the 1960s and 1970s, is in need of maintenance to reduce fire behavior and hazards (dead trees) that have developed within the fuelbreak. Vegetation is overgrown in some areas of the fuelbreak, while unauthorized OHV traffic in other areas has reduced the vegetative cover, increasing surface erosion and rutting, resulting in difficult access in the event of fire.
5 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
Existing evacuation routes into and out of the Thomas Mountain area need to be safe. Forest Service Road 6S13, starting and ending along California State Highway 74, is the only access into Thomas Mountain and across the planning area. Dense vegetation along this route creates a fuel hazard on both sides of the road for most of the route until the road passes through the open pine forest along the ridgetop. Because of the narrow width, surface erosion, rolling dips, rocks, cattle guards, sharp curves and inside drainage ditches, the road speed is no more than 30 mph (with an average speed around 10 mph). Safe access is a concern for fire suppression personal and equipment and evacuation of forest visitors. In addition to access needed to fight fires, firefighters count on fuelbreaks to reduce the speed and intensity of fires. The Rouse Ridge fuelbreak and prescribed burn areas to the west provide a good fuel reduction and fire suppression opportunity for fires either coming from the west or spreading west. The 1999 Mixing Fire provides a beneficial burn scar with reduced fuels along the north side of the San Jacinto River. The Garner Fuel Reduction treatments, along California State Highway 74, are creating areas of modified fire behavior, reduced fuel loads and defensible space for the Thomas Mountain community and other rural residents along the valley floor.
There is a need to maintain fuelbreaks to reduce fire intensity and to provide suppression opportunities on future fires, and there is a need to provide safe evacuation routes for fire fighters and the community.
Forest Communities of Concern Bigcone Douglas-fir Bigcone Douglas-fir has been recognized as a diminishing resource in the San Jacinto and San Bernardino Mountains. The bigcone Douglas-fir forest type is a key component of spotted owl habitat and as such, the Forest Plan has recognized these forest communities as a special conservation concern (LMP, Part 1, p. 30; Part 2, p. 131). Reasons for the loss of this forest type are not entirely clear, but it has been suggested that as a result of fire suppression, fires in chaparral have become more intense, causing higher mortality in bigcone Douglas-fir stands than in the past. In the Thomas Mountain planning area, stands occur in drainages amidst chaparral where wildfires are likely to burn hot enough to kill these trees. Reducing fuels in the chaparral and live oak surrounding the remaining bigcone Douglas-fir stands is needed to reduce fire mortality.
There is a need to reduce fuels in chaparral surrounding remaining stands and within stands of bigcone Douglas-fir to reduce risk of stand-replacing fire.
Coulter Pine Coulter pine stands within the planning area are being replaced by chaparral over time (Figure 3). The stands are located primarily within the chaparral, and there is a concern that they will be eliminated by extended drought and/or recurring wildfire over the next several decades. Stands
6 Environmental Assessment within the planning area have varying amounts of mortality due to western pine beetle, with 50- 60 percent mortality being common. There is some Coulter pine regeneration in the Thomas Mountain planning area; however, it grows amidst the highly flammable chaparral and is not likely to survive a wildfire. Furthermore, the seed bank of this pine is variable, with some stands not producing any cones. The terrain and lack of vehicle access makes treatment of these stands difficult and expensive. The increased fuel loading from dead trees, as well as encroachment by chaparral, also makes application of prescribed fire risky, as intense heat could kill the remaining trees.
Figure 3. Coulter pine within chaparral
There is a need to reduce fuels and thin in remaining stands of Coulter pine to reduce risk of stand-replacing fire
Jeffrey Pine The Jeffrey pine forest along the ridgetop of Thomas Mountain supports California spotted owl territories, grazing allotments, and recreation sites. The large trees and open stand characteristics offer vistas through the forest and are typical of the historic stand conditions where low-intensity fire once defined the fire regime.
7 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
The majority of the upper slopes are covered in fairly open mixed-conifer forest. Jeffrey pine dominates the more gentle upper slopes; with a combination of sugar pine and Jeffrey pine dominating the steep southwesterly slopes. Live oak is a component throughout the upper slope. It is theorized that a combination of fire suppression and lack of reforestation as conifers have died, has promoted oak regeneration resulting in more acres of oak stands than historically were present. Overall, stand densities are generally within the desired range, but many areas have high conifer and/or live oak density and numerous ladder fuels (Figure 4). Conifer and oak ladder fuels have grown to the point where active tree torching would be expected within these denser areas. The large remnant Jeffrey pines are being attacked by turpentine beetles and the California flatheaded wood borer. Stress from crowding by smaller trees and live oak are putting additional stress on these older trees. In addition, there are several Jeffrey pine plantations located adjacent to private land near the community of Thomas Mountain planted after the 1975 Lake Hemet Fire. These plantations need to be thinned and managed to reduce the risk of stand loss due to wildfire.
There is a need to reduce ladder fuels and flame lengths to protect Jeffrey pine stands along the ridgetop to maintain the open forest characteristics that are typical of a low- intensity fire regime.
Figure 4. Ladder fuels around Jeffrey pines
8 Environmental Assessment
Spotted Owl Habitat Fifteen percent of the Thomas Mountain planning area contains habitat that has been delineated as California spotted owl territories. Approximately 66 percent of that habitat is threatened by crown fire (Table 1). Several territories occur in the conifer forests along the ridgetop and near the San Jacinto River. The planning area includes portions of five spotted owl territories. The upper pine forests have seen many fuel reduction activities over the past decades. Salvage of dead and dying trees, fuelwood cutting, and prescribed burning have created an open conifer forest of predominately Jeffrey pine with lesser components of incense cedar, white fir, sugar pine, and black and live oaks. The recent droughts have begun to impact the larger remnant Jeffrey pine, and have led to extensive mortality in the white fir and incense cedar. However, large-diameter snags and down logs are still relatively uncommon except in small localized areas. Cheat grass has replaced much of the native grass species, bringing the fire season earlier to the ridgetop, with grass curing in June.
Table 1. Potential fire types in spotted owl habitat in Thomas Mountain planning area
Fire Type Acres % Suitable Owl Habitat No fire 1 0 Surface fire 786 34 Passive Crown fire 1,055 45 Active Crown fire 492 21
Lower on the slope, stands of Coulter pine are experiencing higher rates of mortality because of recent drought. Fifty to sixty percent of the trees are dead and beginning to break, creating a heavy fuel load. Space left by dead pine is being occupied by live oak and chaparral shrubs further increasing the fuel hazard and reducing suitable owl habitat. The risk of fire is present and high-intensity wildfire is likely, potentially carrying fire upslope into oak and pine forest habitat near the ridgetop.
There is a need to manage forest stands surrounding and within California spotted owl habitat to reduce the risk of high-intensity fire and loss of habitat.
Recreation Dispersed and developed recreation opportunities exist within the planning area, both on private and public lands. Forest Service developed recreation includes a campground at Toolbox Springs and yellow-post sites (developed semi-primitive campsites) located mainly along the ridge top. Several yellow-post sites have been discontinued in the Spillway Canyon area due to the tree mortality and increased fuel hazard (Figure 5). Camping is still allowed, but is subject to restricted use of campfires and open flame during the fire season. Campfires are allowed in developed sites including the yellow-post campsites that have a fire ring.
9 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
The Ramona Hiking Trail traverses the eastern slope from California State Highway 74 in Garner Valley to the ridgetop near Toolbox Springs. It is almost entirely surrounded on either side by eight to ten foot-tall chaparral. There is limited visibility and few vistas. Safety and evacuation are concerns as hikers have limited knowledge of their surroundings due to the dense tall shrubs. The Forest is dedicated to providing safe recreation experiences especially in areas where visitors are invited to camp or picnic.
There is a need to provide recreational opportunities that are fire safe and in compliance with Forest Service rules, regulations and goals.
Figure 5. Upper portion of Spillway Canyon with developed and dispersed recreation
Cultural Areas The Parry pinyon stands in the Thomas Mountain planning area are a disjunct population and the most northerly occurrence of the pine (Kate Kramer, District Botanist, pers. comm.). Portions of the chaparral-pinyon stands burned in 1924, 1926, 1942 and 1965, and a small portion burned in 1975 (Hemet Fire). There is some Parry pinyon regeneration present within the chaparral-pinyon
10 Environmental Assessment stands; however, it is not likely to survive a wildfire because any fuels would quickly consume the pine (Figure 6). This pine is of cultural significance to the Native Americans in the area. Historically areas of pinyon were cleared of shrubs and maintained by family groups. Clearing, however, ceased several decades ago and chaparral has grown in and among the pinyon making the stands vulnerable to loss from fire. There is renewed interest from the Ramona Band of the Cahuilla Indians to preserve these traditional cultural areas.
There is a need to reduce fuels and hand clear around Parry pine in chaparral-pinyon stands to reduce risk of loss due to high intensity fires.
Figure 6. Parry pinyon pine in chaparral
Desired Future Condition The desired future condition of the project area is defined by the Forest Vision and Forest Strategy. The desired condition for the Thomas Mountain planning area, located within Garner Valley and Anza Places, is to maintain a historic and natural appearing landscape. Within the Garner Valley place, emphasis is given to the recreation setting offering scenic vistas of open pine forests. In the Anza Place, the landscape functions as a transition zone to the higher mountains
11 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project beyond, as well as a natural continuous expanse of vegetation viewed from the high country. The valued attributes to be preserved over time are the uniform pattern of the chaparral-covered hills, the ribbons of diverse native vegetation in the canyons and riparian areas, as well as the presence of oaks, fir and pine in the higher elevations. Other attributes that would be preserved over time are the natural appearing landscape views from the scenic byways, the presence of montane meadows, the Jeffrey pine forests along the valley’s edge, the mixed-conifer and bigcone Douglas-fir stands, and Jeffrey pine and mixed-pine forests in the higher elevations (Figure 7). Active grazing allotments would be sustainable and would contain a high proportion of native species. Chaparral communities and timber stands would be at historic conditions similar to those found prior to fire suppression. Forest health projects would be implemented to remove dead trees, reduce stand density, promote more historic fire return intervals and fire intensity, and reduce sagebrush encroachment. Reforestation projects would maintain tree diversity. Developed recreation sites would be improved and new recreation opportunities would be explored. Heritage resources would be protected and interpreted as appropriate. Enhancement of wildlife habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species, such as bald eagles, Quino checkerspot butterfly and unique plant species would be emphasized in all management activities.
Figure 7. Desired open stand structure in Jeffrey pine outside of owl territories
12 Environmental Assessment
Desired conditions for restoring historic structure and species composition in montane conifer forests are (Stephenson and Calcarone, 1999): • Forest stands with understory species that are similar to the current overstory species composition, with an emphasis on retaining pines and black oak, providing opportunities for pine and black oak regeneration and growth, and arresting encroachment of shade- tolerant white fir, incense cedar and live oaks;
• Landscape patterns that are resistant to large crown fires and insect/disease epidemics (i.e., a breakup of the continuity of surface and ladder fuels and a reduction in the number of acres that are at a critical density for bark beetle attacks); and
• A continuous and well-distributed supply of large trees; with emphasis on maintaining and promoting large trees greater than 24 inches DBH, which are highly characteristic of pre-suppression forests and vital to many wildlife species.
Proposed Action The following proposed action is designed to move the existing conditions within the Thomas Mountain planning area towards the desired future conditions as defined by the Forest Plan. Using the desired conditions as guidance, the San Jacinto Ranger District (SJRD) has developed treatment levels to meet multiple objectives. The treatment levels are not alternatives, but specific treatments by forest stratum and objective on the landscape. The overall strategy for implementing the treatment levels would include prescribed burning, thinning from below, and removal of dead material. There are eight treatment levels proposed for the Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project ranging in intensity and purpose (Figure 8). Treatment Level 1 is a moderate- to high-intensity treatment that would remove the most biomass. This treatment level would be used in the WUI defense zone (Table 2). Treatment Level 2 is a low- to moderate-intensity treatment designed to move the vegetation towards historic conditions that are resilient to wildfire. Treatment Level 3 and 3B are low- intensity treatment that would leave more understory trees, more live oak, incense cedar, and white fir per acre, a denser canopy, and more snags and down wood; this treatment level would be used in spotted owl habitat. Emphasis for Treatment Levels 1, 2, and 3 would be to maintain larger trees by thinning from below, with a species preference for pines (ponderosa, Coulter, Jeffrey, and sugar) black oak (a minor species in this area), and canyon live oak. Treatment Level 3B emphasis is on protecting and maintaining big-cone Douglas-fir. Treatment Level 4 is focused on public safety. Treatments move towards historic stand structure and species composition in recreation sites, while maintaining the vegetation component to enhance the recreation experience in terms of visuals, shading, screening, and barriers between sites. In Treatment Levels 5, 6, and 6P there is a range of intensities to specifically move forest conditions towards desired future conditions for chaparral vegetation and pine stands within chaparral.
13 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
Figure 8. Proposed treatment levels and estimated acres 14 Environmental Assessment
Table 2. Proposed vegetation treatments by goal, treatment level and estimated acres
Goal by Treatment Description Acres Level
Treatment Level 1 Create defensible fuels profiles in WUI defense and threat zones through restoration or movement towards historic stand structures and species Goal 1.1 Community composition and through creation of an open canopy in chaparral vegetation by Protection thinning and broadcast burning. The objective would be to obtain a 4-foot or less 1,537 Public and flame length under 90th percentile weather conditions. There would be more Firefighter Health intensive treatment of brush, live oaks, and conifer fuel ladders than in and Safety Treatment Levels 2 or 3. Treatment Level 2 Goal 1.2 Restoration Restore or move landscape towards historic stand structures and species of Forest Health composition in the Jeffrey pine stratum, and improve health in the Coulter pine Jeffrey and Coulter stratum that occurs within chaparral. The objectives would be to obtain a 6-foot Pine Forest or less flame length under 90th percentile weather conditions, restore structure 468 Communities and species composition typical of warm, dry, fire maintained, pine and mixed Goal 5.1,5.2 conifer communities in the San Jacinto Mountains, and reduce drought effects, Improve watershed crown fire hazard, and risk of major bark beetle related mortality. & riparian conditions Same general objectives and activities as Treatment Level 2, but within spotted owl habitat, thus treatment would be of a lower intensity with a 24-inch diameter limit on trees cut (few, if any, trees greater than 20 inches DBH would need to be cut to meet objectives), and an objective to leave more canopy cover for spotted Treatment Level 3 owls. Existing canopy closure would be maintained in Protected Activity Centers Goal 6.2 Sustain (PACs) and 40-50 percent canopy closure would be maintained in Home Range 337 Viable Populations Core (HRC) areas. Objectives would be to increase habitat diversity as outlined Spotted Owl Habitat in California Spotted Owl Conservation Strategy (CASPO), with a move towards restoring historic structure and species composition, reducing drought effects on bark beetle-related mortality. The fuels reduction objective would be to have limited passive crown fire (tree torching) and no active crown fire under 90th percentile weather conditions. Ladder fuels would be reduced along with forest floor fuel accumulations to Treatment Level 3B reduce fuel loading in chaparral adjacent to bigcone Douglas-fir stands so that future wildland fires are less likely to initiate crown fire from surrounding Goal 1.2 Restoration shrublands. Treatment would occur only outside of designated CASPO nest of Forest Health 265 stands, and would consist of hand piling and burning of small live oaks, Bigcone Douglas-fir chaparral species, and surface fuels accumulations. Additionally, Unit 26 would Forest Communities be underburned (see Appendix for specifics). Objective would be to protect bigcone Douglas-fir stands from stand-replacing fire.
Treatment Level 4 Provide for public safety and move towards historic stand structure and species composition in recreation sites, while maintaining the vegetation component to Goal 3.1 Provide enhance the recreation experience in terms of visuals, shading, screening, and 7 Public Use barriers between sites. Treatments would vary depending on location relative to Recreation Sites the site (see Appendix A for details) Treatment Level 5 Create defensible fuels profiles along California State Highway 371 in chaparral Goal 1.1 Community and chaparral-pinyon. The objective would be to manipulate vegetation in a 123 Protection tapered gradual reduction pattern providing screening adjacent to the highway. Evacuation Routes Treatment Level 6 Goal 1.1 Community Reduce fire intensity near communities by creating age classes of chaparral Protection across large landscapes and a mosaic of burned and unburned patches within 6,403 Goal 1.2 Restoration chaparral treatment units. of Forest Health Treatment Level 6B Goal 3.1 Natural Reduce potential loss of Parry pinyon to stand-replacing fire by removing ladder Resource Protection fuels within the pinyon stands and reducing fire intensity in surrounding chaparral 1,326 by broadcast burning. Parry pinyon
15 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
Decision Framework Based on the environmental analysis and following a public review period on the EA, the responsible official for the San Jacinto Ranger District will decide whether and how to reduce fuel loading and improve forest health conditions in the Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project area. The decision will be in accordance with Forest Plan goals, objectives, and desired future conditions. The responsible official will decide whether to implement an action alternative, a modified action alternative, or the No Action Alternative. If the proposed action is selected, the decision will include:
• the location, timing, and design of proposed prescribed burning, thinning, removal of dead material and other activities or connected actions; • access management measures and; • design features and monitoring requirements.
If the decision is to proceed, it is anticipated that project operations could begin in late 2007, and continue intermittently for at least five additional years (through 2012 or beyond). The responsible official for this environmental assessment and subsequent decision is Greg Casselberry, Deputy District Ranger for the San Jacinto Ranger District of the San Bernardino National Forest.
Adaptive Management Adaptive management is a systematic process for continually improving management policies and practices by learning from the outcomes of operational programs. It is a type of natural resource management that implies making decisions as part of an ongoing process. Monitoring the results of actions would provide a flow of information that may indicate the need to change a course of action. Scientific findings and the needs of society may also indicate the need to adapt resource management to new information. This project will be using adaptive management throughout its implementation to ensure the project stays within anticipated impacts.
Relationship to Forest Plan The Forest Service has two types of decisions: programmatic decisions such as the Forest Plan, and project level decisions, which implement the Forest Plan. The Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project EA is a project-level analysis; its scope is confined to addressing the significant issues and possible environmental consequences of the project. It does not attempt to address decisions made at a programmatic level. The Forest Plan embodies the provisions of the National Forest Management Act of 1976, its implementing regulations, and other guiding documents. The Forest Plan sets forth in detail the direction for managing the land and resources of the San Bernardino National Forest. Where appropriate, the Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
16 Environmental Assessment
EA also tiers to the Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement, as encouraged by 40 CFR 1502.20.
Relevant Forest Vision and Forest Strategy Goals This project is designed to move the landscape toward goals embodied by the Forest Plan. The plan consists of three parts: (1) Southern California National Forests Vision (Forest Vision - Part 1; USDA Forest Service 2005a), (2) SBNF Strategy (Forest Strategy; USDA Forest Service 2005b), and (3) Design Criteria for the Southern California National Forests (Forest Design Criteria; USDA Forest Service 2005c). The Forest Plan provides the basic direction and standards for management of the SBNF. It was developed under authority of the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA), as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), and regulations implementing NFMA. Detailed discussion regarding the goals and objectives are available in individual specialist reports, available upon request and on the Forest website at http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/sanbernardino/projects/index.shtml.
• Goal 1.1 - Community Protection (Forest Vision - Part 1 p. 20) • Goal 1.2 - Restoration of Forest Health (Forest Vision - Part 1 p. 21) • Goal 1.2.1 - Reduce the potential for widespread losses of montane conifer forests caused by severe, extensive, stand replacing fires (Forest Vision - Part 1 p. 23; Forest Strategy - Part 2 p. 119 and p. 148) • Goal 1.2.2- Reduce the number of acres at risk from excessively frequent fires while improving defensible space around communities (Forest Vision - Part 1 p. 26; Forest Strategy - Part 2 p. 119 and p. 148) • Goal 1.2.3- Maintain long fire-free intervals in habitats which are slow to recover (Forest Vision - Part 1 p. 29; Forest Strategy - Part 2 p. 119) • Goal 2.1 – Reverse the trend of increasing loss of natural resource values due to invasive species (Forest Vision - Part 1 p. 32) • Goal 3.1 – Provide for Public Use and Natural Resource Protection (Forest Vision - Part 1 p. 34) • Goal 5.1 – Improve Watershed Conditions through Cooperative Management (Forest Vision, Part 1, p. 40) • Goal 5.2 – Improve Riparian Conditions • Goal 6.2 – Provide ecological conditions to sustain viable populations of native and nonnative species (Forest Vision - Part 1 p. 45)
Public Involvement This section summarizes the public involvement for this project. A list of agencies, organizations, and individuals contacted during scoping is available in the project record. To date, the public has been invited to participate in the project in the following ways:
17 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
• Local News Media: A legal notice announcing a 30-day notice and comment period for the environmental assessment was published in the Idyllwild Town Crier as the Newspaper of Record on March 22, 2006. In addition, a notice regarding the Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project public field trip on February 25, 2006 was published on February 23, 2006.
• SBNF Website: The January through April, and April through June 2006, Schedule of Proposed Actions included the Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project and was posted on the SBNF website. The Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project ongoing news release with the Proposed Action and Field Trip information was listed at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/sanbernardino/ beginning on March 27, 2006.
• Public Mailing Lists and Meetings: On February 20, 2006, Dan Felix, Fuels Specialist on the San Jacinto Ranger District, attended the Garner Valley Homeowner’s Association Meeting. Dan provided an over-view of the project and announced the public field trip. On February 25, 2006, the public field trip was held and seven people attended. In addition, on March 23, 2005, a letter providing detailed information on the proposed action was either emailed or mailed to approximately 300 individuals and groups, including Federal, State, and local agencies, and affected Indian tribes. The beginning of the comment period was also published in the Town Crier on the same date. March 30, 2006, the “Thomas Mountain Fuels Plan up for Comment” article was written and printed in the Town Crier. On April 2, 2006, Jim Russell, the district Partnership Coordinator, attended a meeting at Paradise Corners. Fifteen people attended this meeting. These individuals requested the Indian Hills Subdivision be added to the project. On April 10, 2006, a supplemental scoping packet was mailed including this area. Mailing lists are included in the project record and available upon request.
30-Day Comment Period A total of 15 responses were received during the 30-day comment period. Copies of the letters are in the project file. A content analysis was conducted on the scoping comments. The content analysis is a compilation of substantive comments from public scoping into a table format and shows how comments were used to develop any significant or tracking issues, alternatives to the proposed action, and any additional project design features or mitigation measures. All comments received to date, responses to those comments by the project team members, and documentation of how those comments or concerns were addressed is provided in the comment analysis located in the project record and available upon request.
Issues An issue, as it relates to the National Environmental Policy Act process, is a point of disagreement, debate, or dispute with the proposed action based on some anticipated effect. After
18 Environmental Assessment reviewing the responses to the proposed action, the Forest Service separated issues into two groups: key issues and analysis issues. Key issues are defined as unresolved direct or indirect conflicts as a result of implementing the proposed action. Key issues form the basis for new alternatives. Analysis issues are defined as concerns about effects of proposed activities on the human environment that are remedied by refining the design of a project or by applying design features. Some issues were eliminated; these consist of disagreements determined to be: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council for Environmental Quality (CEQ) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations requires this delineation in Sec.1501.7, “…identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review…” No key issues were identified for this project; however, a list of analysis issues is presented:
• Treatment within California spotted owl habitat may result in harm to habitat by reducing large trees, snags and coarse woody debris • Implementation of the project may impact California spotted owl prey species within both HRCs and the larger home ranges, and impact matrix habitat • Implementation of the project may not retain adequate numbers of dead trees and downed logs to support biological diversity • Fuel manipulations may spread weeds and increase erosion and non-native species • Ground-based tree removal may impact soils, runoff, watershed processes, and aquatic resources by increasing erosion • Implementation of the project may effect the Pacific Crest Trail • Project implementation may increase OHV use • Project Implementation may reduce air quality
These nonsignificant issues are analyzed in the following section, Environmental Consequences, under each relevant environmental component or natural resource. Other preliminary issues identified at earlier stages of project development and internal scoping are now considered issues eliminated because they are remedied by design features and conservation measures (see Appendix A for a complete list of design features).
Federal and State Permits, Licenses, and Certifications To proceed with the proposed project as addressed in this EA, various permits must be obtained from federal and state agencies. The following permits will be obtained. • State of California, Department of Environmental Conservation • Certification of compliance with California Water Quality Standards (Section 401 Certification).
19 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
• California Department of Transportation Right-of-Way Permit • Any Private Property Right-of-Way Permits
Applicable Laws and Executive Orders Shown below is a partial list of federal laws and executive orders pertaining to project-specific planning and environmental analysis on federal lands. While most pertain to all federal lands, some of the laws are specific to California. Disclosures and findings required by these laws and orders are contained in Chapter 3 or specialist reports for this EA, which are listed in Chapter 3 and hereby incorporated by reference. In keeping with the Forest Plan, this project will be framed to be consistent with all other laws or policies governing national forest management in general and Forest Service operations on lands administered by the San Bernardino National Forest in particular. These other laws or policies include but are not limited to: • California's Agricultural Burning Guidelines in Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations • Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960 • National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended) • Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, amended 1986 • National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (as amended) • Clean Air Act of 1970 (as amended)Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (as amended) • Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) of 1974 (as amended) • National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976 (as amended) • Clean Water Act of 1977 (as amended) • American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 • Archeological Resource Protection Act of 1980 • Executive Order 11593 (cultural resources) • Executive Order 11988 (floodplains) • Executive Order 11990 (wetlands) • Executive Order 12898 (environmental justice) • Executive Order 13186 (Migratory Bird Treaty Act)
Project Record Availability Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project record located at the San Jacinto Ranger District in Idyllwild, California. Certain parts of these documents are referenced throughout the EA by author. All the specialist reports and the EA are available on the San Bernardino website at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/sanbernardino/projects/index.shtml.
20 Environmental Assessment
Chapter 2 - Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action The HFRA states that the Forest Service “shall study, develop, and describe—(A) the proposed agency action; (B) the alternative of no action; and (C) an additional action alternative, if the additional alternative—(i) is proposed during scoping or the collaborative process…and (ii) meets the purpose and need of the project, in accordance with regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality” (HFRA section 104 (c)). The Forest Service considered two alternatives for the project area: no action and the proposed action.
Forest Plan Consistency This project was developed in consideration of the best available science and is consistent with the Forest Plan. All applicable Forest Plan program strategies and standards have been incorporated into the proposed action design. The Forest Service uses many design features and preventive measures in the planning and implementation of land management activities. The application of these measures begins during the planning and design phases of a project. Additional direction comes from the regional guidance, and applicable Forest Service manuals and handbooks.
Design Features Part of the analysis documented in this EA discloses the possible adverse and beneficial impacts that may occur from implementing the proposed action. Measures have been formulated to mitigate or reduce adverse impacts. These measures were guided by direction from the Forest Plan. Team specialists used on-the-ground inventories, computer (Geographic Information System (GIS)) data, and various studies to prepare their reports. Specialists’ reports show the cause-and-effect relationships between the alternatives and their specific effects, and indicate design features to reduce or eliminate those adverse effects in the design of the proposed action. The specialist reports are summarized and referenced in this EA and may be found in the project record. Applicable Forest Plan strategies have been brought forward using the program emphasis objectives and national and regional direction. All Plan Standards required by 36 CFR 219 have been incorporated. "Best Management Practices" (BMPs) have been incorporated to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act, and project-specific design features are identified in the specialist reports. Appendix A includes a complete list of the project-specific design features as well.
Monitoring Monitoring activities can be divided into Forest Plan monitoring and site-specific monitoring. The National Forest Management Act requires the National Forests to monitor and evaluate their forest plans (36 CFR 219.11). Part 3 – Appendix C of the Forest Plan includes the monitoring and evaluation activities to be conducted as part of Forest Plan implementation. There are three
21 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project categories of Forest Plan monitoring: Implementation monitoring, effectiveness monitoring, and validation monitoring. Effectiveness and validation monitoring are not typically done as part of project implementation. Implementation monitoring, and any additional project-specific monitoring, are however important aspects of the project. Recommended monitoring has been described in the effects analysis sections of those resources where specific protective measures should be observed during or following implementation.
Findings and Disclosures Several of the laws and executive orders listed in Chapter 1 require project-specific findings or other disclosures. These findings and disclosures will be in the Decision Notice, which will record the decision and rationale for the decision by the Deputy District Ranger.
Alternatives Considered but not Analyzed in Detail Two alternatives that were considered during project design, but not analyzed in detail, were an alternative that employed an upper diameter limit on trees cut or removed in thinnings, and an alternative that used only prescribed fire with little or no tree cutting, or mechanical fuels treatments. The logic for consideration of these alternatives and the rationale for not carrying these alternatives forward in the analysis are discussed below.
Diameter-Limit Alternative Comments received during scoping asked for a diameter limit on the size of trees cut or removed. Several studies have shown the importance and positive effects on fire behavior from the removal of small-diameter ladder fuels. A diameter limit (e.g. 12 inches diameter and less), would generally meet fuels reduction objectives. The diameter limit alternative, however, would compromise the longevity of the project. Maintenance treatments would be required at shorter intervals to maintain the desired fire behavior. Shade-tolerant (also fire intolerant) understory would redevelop as well as natural litter accumulation due to the abundant overstory trees. Local fire and vegetation managers predict that retreatment would be required in less than 10 years. Canopy Base Height Using a 12-inch diameter limit, FVS-FFE predicts that One of the prime determinants of fire behavior due to its effect on crown the canopy base heights in units 8-10 would be raised 15 to fire initiation- lower canopy base heights lead to a higher probability of 25 percent less than in the proposed action. Increased tree torching and crown fire, and are canopy base heights would likely lead to increased tree considered by fuels planners along with the continuity and density of the torching over time as surface fuels rebuild. In the short canopy. term, there would be little effect because surface fuels would be greatly reduced through pile burning and underburning. It is estimated that in the Jeffrey pine thinnings under the proposed action, 96 percent of the trees removed would be less than 12 inches, and 98 percent would be less than 16 inches, the
22 Environmental Assessment emphasis of these treatments is on removing small tree ladder fuels. Placing a diameter limit on these treatments would reduce over-all longevity, increasing the cost of maintenance. Forest health (a long-term determinant of fire behavior) and remnant old Jeffrey pines in units 8A, 8B, and 10 would likely be compromised as well. A diameter limit eliminates the ability of field personnel to make site-specific decisions on tree cutting/removal that affects fire behavior (mainly tree torching) and forest health. Fire behavior would be affected by the inability to remove white fir and incense cedar ladder fuels (which due to their rapid growth are often 16-18 inches and 70 years old) under Jeffrey pines. From a forest health standpoint, there would be effects on remnant Jeffrey pine which are declining in the project area, on Coulter pine within chaparral (Unit 3A), and on dense areas of second-growth Jeffrey pine exceeding 200 sq. ft. of basal area per acre. Please note, these statements apply to areas outside of spotted owl PAC/HRC (units 7, 8, 22, 22A, and 22B), within within these units with spotted owl habitat, an interlocking crown type of stand structure is desired and would be maintained. Given these considerations, and the fact that this project is generally designed to remove only trees less than 16 inches, a diameter limit alternative was not analyzed in detail. It was also felt that the diameter limit request was directly related to concerns regarding effects on spotted owl habitat, a concern addressed through adherence to the Conservation Strategy for the California spotted owl.
Prescribed Fire-Only Alternative Use of prescribed fire only was considered for all units and chosen as the prescription in the proposed action for units 5, 6, and 16 (there would only be minor small tree cutting in order to prepare the unit for burning). In other units, where ladder fuels and stand density were greater, mechanical treatments in conjunction with follow-up underburning were chosen as the prescription. Reasons for not analyzing a fire-only prescription for all units are as follows: 1) risk of losing trees in the prescribed burn due to ladder and surface fuels (especially risk of losing remnant Jeffrey pines that are already declining); 2) difficulty implementing a short burning window and tighter burn prescriptions associated with higher surface fuel loading, and; 3) the ability to create a more targeted stand structure with mechanical thinning would be lost. The prescribed fire only alternative could not be feasibly implemented without undesired mortality in larger trees. The burning parameters necessary to achieve the desired outcomes would likely be too restrictive to accomplish burning in a timely manner. Availability of personnel and equipment and smoke management restrictions would narrow the window of opportunity for burning, causing implementation to be less likely. For these reasons, this alternative would not meet the purpose and need of the project and was not considered further.
23 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
Alternatives Considered in Detail No action (Alternative 1) and the proposed action (Alternative 2) are considered in detail and are described in this section. Maps of the proposed action are included. Larger-scale maps of the proposed action are contained in the project planning record.
Alternative 1 - No Action The emphasis of this alternative is to disclose the effects of not accomplishing fuel reduction treatments in the Thomas Mountain project area at this time. It does not preclude activities occurring in another area or in the Thomas Mountain project area at some time in the future. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1502.14d) requires that a "no action" alternative be analyzed. This alternative represents the existing and projected future condition against which the other alternatives are compared. The No Action Alternative would provide no outputs or opportunities for employment, and would not meet the purpose and need for the proposed action. The No Action Alternative would not move the project area towards the desired conditions.
Vegetation and Fuels Treatments Under the No Action Alternative, forest health and fuels treatments would not occur. There would be no prescribed burning, hand or mechanical thinning or mechanical mortality removal or salvage. Beyond completing ongoing and previously approved activities, the No Action Alternative would allow ecological processes to control vegetation development. Wildfires would continue to be suppressed in order to protect resources and property.
Access Management Current access management activities would continue (e.g., maintenance, existing uses). There would not be any need to make road improvements for larger vehicles, find water sources, or borrow material. The roads listed as “maintain” or “use” for the proposed action that need to be reconstructed were repaired in 2005 under a storm damage repair project.
Alternative 2 - Proposed Action The proposed action was designed to respond to the purpose and need described in Chapter 1, the National Fire Plan, and the Healthy Forest Restoration Act. There would be a low probability of a catastrophic wildfire if this alternative were implemented. All design features listed in Appendix A would be followed. There would be eight treatment levels and 0.7 mile of road decommissioning designed to meet the purpose and needs in the planning area (Figure 8; Table 3). A summary of the design is given below with specific unit treatments given in Appendix A; Table 1. The eight treatment levels are described below and acreages shown in Table 3.
24 Environmental Assessment
Level 1 Public and firefighter health and safety (1,537 acres)
Fuelbreaks would be constructed in the wildland urban interface (WUI) around and accessing the community of Thomas Mountain to reduce fuel hazards as part of a coordinated set of fuel management activities. Activities in fuelbreaks and evacuation routes would include: • Removing all dead, diseased, and dying trees; thinning and removing live trees • Reducing shrub cover; and pruning trees
Level 2 Reduce fire risk to Jeffrey and Coulter pine stands (468 acres)
Forested areas would be thinned to modify wildland fuel conditions, reduce bark beetle risk and to reduce disease spread. In these areas, activities would include: • Removing dead, diseased, and dying trees, leaving residual snags and downed woody material for wildlife and long-term soil productivity
Level 3B Reduce fire risk to bigcone Douglas-fir pine stands (265 acres)
Reduce potential loss of bigcone Douglas-fir stands to stand-replacing fire by removing ladder fuels within the stands and reducing fire intensity by broadcast burning in surrounding chaparral.
Level 4 Increase public safety in recreation sites (7 acres; 3 yellow-post sites)
Provide for public safety in recreation sites and designate three dispersed camping sites as yellow-post sites. Decommission less than 0.6 mile of spur roads associated with closed yellow- post sites.
Level 5 Provide safe evacuation routes (123 acres) Reduce fuels along California State Highway 371 and S613 and decommission less than 0.1 mile of spur roads that are threatening to wash out road S613.
Level 6 Reduce fire intensity in chaparral outside of WUI (6,403 acres)
Reduce fire intensity near communities by creating a diversity of age classes of chaparral across large landscapes and a mosaic of burned and unburned patches within chaparral treatment units.
Level 6P Reduce fire risk to Parry pinyon pine stands (1,326 acres)
Reduce potential loss of Parry pinyon pine to stand-replacing fire by removing ladder fuels within the pinyon stands and reducing fire intensity by broadcast burning in surrounding chaparral. Coordinate these activities when possible with the Ramona Band of the Cahuilla Indians and other local Native Americans.
25 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
Table 3. Proposed treatment level, vegetation type, prescribed treatment and removal system
Treatment Vegetation Product Treatment Removal System Acres Level Type Removal burn prep hand 9 ground-based/hand 23 masticate ground-based 15 masticate/thin shrubs ground-based/hand 447 Chaparral masticate/thin shrubs/thin ground-based/hand 27 thin shrubs hand 144 1 thin shrubs/masticate hand 88 no thin shrubs/masticate hand/ground-based 48 thin/masticate ground-based/hand 55 Chaparral- masticate ground-based/hand 7 Pinyon pine masticate/reforestation PP ground-based/hand 260 masticate/reforestation JP ground-based 62 Jeffrey pine masticate/thin ground-based/hand 255 Chaparral masticate/reforestation CP, JP ground-based 10 burn prep hand 16 no masticate/reforestation CP ground-based 45 Coulter pine thin/burn prep ground-based/hand 12 thin/burn prep hand 21 no 2 thin/masticate/burn prep ground-based/hand 23 no burn prep hand 89 no thin/burn prep ground-based/hand 151 yes Jeffrey pine thin/burn prep/masticate ground-based/hand 78 thin/burn ground-based/hand 22 no prep/masticate/reforestation JP hand 25 no thin/burn prep ground-based/hand 155 yes 3 Jeffrey pine thin/burn ground-based/hand 157 no prep/masticate/reforestation JP Bigcone burn prep/reforestation bigcone 3B hand 265 no Douglas-fir Douglas-fir 4 Jeffrey pine thin/burn prep hand 6 no Chaparral- 5 burn prep/masticate ground-based/hand 123 no Pinyon pine burn prep hand 50 no reforestation in Coulter pine Chaparral fire 452 no patches 6 prescribed fire fire 5,154 no Hardwood- prescribed fire fire 747 no Coulter pine Chaparral- 6P burn prep hand 1,326 no Pinyon pine
26 Environmental Assessment
To implement the proposed action, three primary strategies would be used across the different vegetation strata; prescribed burning, mechanical and hand thinning, and dead tree removal and salvage. In addition, dispersed recreation sites would be converted to yellow-post sites and clearing around Parry pinyon pine would be implemented to enhance cultural values and use. A summary of individual units and treatments is given in Appendix A - Table 1.
Prescribed Burning Three types of prescribed burning would be used to implement the proposed action: 1) broadcast burning in chaparral; 2) underburning in the forest; and/or 3) pile burning to dispose of slash. In the chaparral, moderate- to high-intensity broadcast burning would be used to create a mosaic of burned and unburned patches, breaking up the continuity size and density of the shrubs, temporarily reducing fire intensity and increasing use by wildlife, such as deer. Low- and moderate-intensity underburning would remove a portion of the surface fuels and smaller ladder fuels that are not cut. The summary of acres by burn type is shown in Table 4, and Figure 9. Brush pulling (uprooting) or mastication would reduce the density of shrubs in areas where ground-based equipment is feasible. Hand cutting small trees and shrubs would be completed in areas where mechanized equipment would have undesired Table 4. Summary of acres by burn type effects. Fuel from slash generated through thinning and brush cutting would be disposed Burn Type Acres of by machine piling, hand piling, whole-tree- Broadcast Burn (BB) 5,621 yarding, and/or chipping or removal off-site. Pile Burn (PB) 563
Machine piling could include pushing or Both pile burn and broadcast burn 2,133 lifting, cut material into piles with a dozer or Both pile burn and underburn 1,261 grapple. Piles would be burned on-site. Underburn 888 Tree pruning would be used to further reduce ladder fuels. Pruning to a height of 15 feet would be desirable where feasible.
Mechanical and Hand Thinning The proposed treatment for meeting the desired conditions for density and structure in the Jeffrey pine and Coulter pine strata is a low thinning. Low thinning (thinning from below) is when trees are removed from the lower canopy, leaving larger trees to occupy the site. This method mimics mortality caused by inter-tree competition or surface fires and concentrates site growth potential on dominant and codominant trees. Low thinnings primarily remove intermediate and suppressed trees, but heavier thinnings may also remove trees in the codominant crown class. Low thinnings not only remove understory canopies that serve as ladder fuels, but also alter species composition. A summary of acres to be treated by vegetation type is shown in Figure 9 and Table 5.
27 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
Figure 9. Primary removal systems in Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
28 Environmental Assessment
Occasionally, larger trees from the dominant or open- Table 5. Summary of acres to be treated by vegetation type grown crown classes may need to be cut to facilitate safe
Vegetation Acres operations around landings or within units. Examples would be trees with dead tops that meet Occupational Safety and Chaparral 6,499 Chap-pinyon 1,715 Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines for danger trees Bigcone Douglas-fir 265 in and around landings. Table 6 lists the expected diameters Coulter pine 117 of trees that would be cut and/or removed in thinning. The Hardwood-Coulter pine 747 list was generated from thinning simulations using the Jeffrey pine 1,000 Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS). Live oak trees in the Sagebrush-Chaparral 122 Jeffrey pine and Coulter pine strata targeted for removal would reduce stress on old-growth and mature pines and black oaks, and/or would reduce live oak density releasing a healthy pine in the understory. Since Unit 10 has the highest basal area per acre and the most trees 16 inches or larger, it is the only unit where any appreciable number of trees 16 inches or larger are expected to be removed. The objective is to reduce competition in order to maintain pines and black oaks in the species mix of stands where mortality has resulted in a trend toward conversion of the stand to live oak. Sprouting of live oaks would occur, but growth may be slowed because the remaining healthy pines and black oaks would shade oak sprouts.
Table 6. Existing stand and predicted residual stand as a result of thinning in Jeffrey pine stratum
Existing Existing Residual Residual Treatment Trees Residual Trees/Acre Unit Trees/Acre Trees/Acre Trees/Acre Level/Acres /Acre ≥16 in. ≥16 in. <16 in. Total <16 in. 6 2 - 53.3 20.8 19.4 66.1 45.5 64.9 7 3 - 24.8 27.7 27.7 191.5 68.7 96.4 8, 8A, 3, 2 - 294.7 25.8 23.4 218.2 38.4 61.8 8B 10 2 - 89.2 44.0 34.6 142.6 24.2 58.8 16 2 - 36.4 4.5 4.5 84.0 84.0 88.5 19 2 - 22.1 13.0 13.0 306.2 86.2 99.2 22, 22A, 3 - 157.1 16.7 16.7 235.8 48.3 65.0 22B Notes: Few, if any trees greater than 20 inches would need to be cut to meet objectives. Units 8, 22, 22A, 22B are in a CASPO territory - more trees than shown above may need to be left to meet wildlife design features. Unit 19 consists primarily of small live oak
Wood by-products would be available from these thinnings, and potential products include sawlogs, firewood, house logs, and posts and poles. Units 8, 8A, 8B, and 10 have the potential to produce sawlogs; together these units total 384 acres with an estimated total sawlog volume from thinning of 264 mbf (thousand board feet). This represents approximately 65 log truck loads.
29 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
Incidental removal of sawlogs from the other thinning units is possible, but the potential is very low.
Thinning of Live Oaks Live oak trees 6 inches diameter and smaller would be reduced in density where doing so would reduce stress on old-growth and mature pines and black oaks, and/or where reductions in live oak density would release a healthy pine in the understory. The objective is to reduce competition in order to maintain pines and black oaks in the species mix of stands where conifer mortality has resulted in a trend toward conversion of the stand to live oak. Sprouting of live oaks would occur, but would be minimized through competition for light with healthy pines and black oaks.
Removal and Salvage of Dead and Bark Beetle-infested Trees Dead and bark beetle-infested trees in excess of snag retention guidelines would be removed and/or piled and burned. This would be completed to reduce fire and public safety hazards, and would be carried out during the thinning of green trees and while partially removing live oak. In addition to these treatments, all conifer stumps created by cutting live and recently dead trees (recently dead trees still have needles on tree) would be treated with borate (Sporax) as per Regional protocol and Forest Plan direction.
Recreation Opportunities Over a number of years, yellow-post campsites in the Thomas Mountain planning area have been closed by the Forest Service because of the potential fire hazard to the public. Simultaneously, three dispersed campsites were created by the public in new locations, safe from fire hazards. The new dispersed sites have existing road access and are very popular among users. There is an opportunity to formalize these three dispersed sites to yellow-post sites. With a yellow-post designation, fuel reduction treatments would be implemented each year and the sites would be maintained. All treatments adjacent to the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) would follow Forest Plan standard and guidelines.
Tribal Opportunities Opportunities would be pursued to work cooperatively with the Ramona Band of the Cahuilla Indians to clear around and maintain stands of Parry pinyon pine to reinitiate tribal tradition.
Transportation System Needed to Implement Proposed Actions The proposed action would include a variety of actions on existing National Forest System (NFS) roads and unclassified roads as needed to safely and efficiently carry out the proposed fuel management actions (Figure 10; Table 7) and provide for long-term fire management needs. Approximately 12.4 miles of NFS roads 6S13, 6S13A, 6S13B and 6S13D would be reconstructed to accommodate log trucks and other project traffic. The reconstruction would include reconditioning the roadway, repairing and improving drainage features, placing crushed rock and
30 Environmental Assessment
Figure 10. Transportation actions for the Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
31 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
soil on the road surface, brush removal, Table 7. Summary of miles of proposed road actions by road system and minor widening of the traveled way for safe log truck passage. Approximately Miles by System Proposed Action 17 miles of National Forest System roads NFSR Unclassified Total and unclassified roads would be Decommission 0.6 0.6 Maintain 11.3 5.3 16.7 maintained for project traffic; this would Reconstruct 12.4 12.4 include repair of eroded surfaces, brush Non Motorized Trail 2.0 2.0 removal, and improvement of road Total 23.7 7.9 31.7 drainage. The proposed action would also include construction of two borrow sites from which soil would be excavated as needed to repair and maintain roads for this project and for long-term road maintenance and reconstruction needs. Four site locations are under consideration (Figure 10). Roads would be watered during reconstruction and maintenance for good compaction, and during log haul to reduce dust and loss of fine-particle road surface material. No streams suitable for water drafting exist within the planning area. It may be possible to purchase water for road use from the Lake Hemet Municipal Water District. In addition, approximately 0.6 mile of unclassified roads would be decommissioned to reduce risk of wildfire ignition in hazardous area or to protect the drivability of system roads needed for fire suppression access.
Comparison of Alternatives Table 8 displays how each alternative achieves the purpose and need and how effects indicators are considered. In general, under the proposed action fire intensity would be decreased by reducing surface and ladder fuels, which in turn would reduce the risk of crown fire throughout the project area. Under the No Action Alternative, the probability of crown fire would remain high, over 91 percent, maintaining the high risk to communities and property. Stand structure and species composition would also improve under the proposed action. The average DBH in over most of the Jeffrey pine stratum would increase to 20 inches and larger, moving the stratum toward desired conditions outlined in the spotted owl conservation strategy. The loss of stand basal area would decrease across all strata under the proposed action, increasing forest health. For information on the analysis of each resource, please refer to Chapter 3 - Environmental Consequences. Detailed information is available in individual specialist reports located in the project file.
32 Environmental Assessment
Table 8. Comparison of the no action and proposed action alternatives
Purpose and Need No Action Proposed Action
• 51% reduction of active crown fire across the planning area and an 86% Reduce Crown Fire reduction of active crown fire in the • 91% of the planning area has the Potential in crease defense zone potential for active or passive public and fire fighter crown fire. • Suppression efficiency by enabling safety effective use of aerial water or retardant delivery and line construction would be improved • Jeffrey pine stands dominated by • Average stand diameter would be small trees less than 16 inches increased, increasing resistance to DBH fire • Stand structure of most stands would Improve Stand • Multi-layered canopies, resulting still consist of multi-layered canopies, Structure/Species in contiguous ladder fuels but large areas of contiguous ladder Composition in • Coulter pine and bigcone fuels would be broken up relation to historic Douglas-fir stands within • Trees per acre would be at or slightly conditions chaparral continue to decrease above historic baseline levels, which • Parry pinyon stands within is 19 trees per acre greater than 16 chaparral remain at risk to stand inches; 25-27 greater than 12 inches; replacing fire and 34-37 greater than 4 inches • Multi-layered canopies, resulting in high crown bulk densities and • More fire- and disease- resistant height species would occupy the landscape; ladder fuels in the form of shade • No increase in average DBH of tolerant species in the understory stands (5 to 14 inches DBH) would be reduced; • No shift in stand composition • More long-lived trees (i.e. Jeffrey towards fire-resistant species pine) would occupy the landscape Improve Stand Structure/Species • Continued accumulation of • There would be a reduction in Composition as surface fuels competitive stress on overstory pines related to fire risk • 1,118 acres would be thinned from (see Silviculturist Report below to reduce number of canopy for full details; Schantz Mortality would range between 54 layers reducing crown bulk densities 2006) to 92 percent of stand basal area and height in Treatment Levels 4 & 5 Trees greater than 20 inches DBH • Thinning on 1,118 acres would are predicted to be lost by 2010 increase average DBH of stands (15 to 35 inches DBH) and shift stand Canopy cover reduced to a range composition towards fire-resistant between 1 to 18% post fire. species (i.e. pines) • Surface fuels would be reduced
• The remnant Jeffrey pine component would exhibit lowered resistance to beetle attack and • Stands would be maintained at the Reduce Mortality Loss continued risk of mortality low to mid-range of desirable stand to insects and diseases • Losses would be especially density through 2025 pronounced under drought conditions
Present fire risk in three dispersed Conversion of campsites to yellow-post sites Recreation Safety campsites is a threat to public. for yearly maintenance and fire safety. Continued fire risk to remaining stands Enhancement of Parry pinyon pine for future Cultural Resources of Parry pinyon pine cultural use.
33 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
Table 8 (continued). Comparison of the no action and proposed action alternatives
Environmental No Action Proposed Action Effects - Indicator
Determination: The Thomas Mountain Project May Affect and is Likely to Adversely Affect The Rouse North prescribed burn, Quino checkerspot butterfly. implemented in 1993 and 1995, impacted approximately 180 acres in Rationale for Determination: the analysis area. The Baldy Project • All suitable habitat would be flagged and Protection of Quino prescribed burn impacted avoided, however, the project could result in Checkerspot Butterfly approximately 179 acres of potential mortality of undetected individuals and Species and Suitable QCB habitat. The Bonita Vista project uncertainty regarding take of individuals; Habitat started in 2004 and still in progress, will impact approximately 130 acres • While cumulative impacts are anticipated to within the analysis area by have beneficial effects to QCB species and mastication and prescribed burning. habitat in the long-term by reducing the risk The Garner Valley project was started of landscape scale and high intensity in 2005 and is ongoing. wildfire, there would be a short-term negative effect on the habitat and potential loss of individuals. • 66% of CASPO habitat acres continue to be at risk from catastrophic fire • 28% of CASPO habitat acres at risk of crown fire In a severe fire: • Reduced loss of Jeffrey pine to insect and Spotted Owl Habitat • Post canopy cover would be disease reduced to 3 percent; • Promotion of large trees; Enhanced growth • Basal area mortality would of small trees for future recruitment into old range from 88 to 92 percent growth in CASPO territories
• Alteration of habitat for prey species would occur; however, design features are incorporated into the project that would retain much of this habitat. All woodrat middens would be left in place along with a vegetation buffer around them; a minimum Under the No Action Alternative, the of one slash pile per acre would be left for prey species and matrix habitat would Prey Species and use as denning, nesting, hiding cover, or continue to persist in a landscape Matrix Habitat gathering material for prey species. with a 91% chance of sustaining an • Retained snags and down logs would active or passive crown fire. continue to provide habitat for spotted owl prey. • Matrix habitat (habitat in between delineated territories) would be minimally impacted since the only treatment in these units is prescribed burning.
Design features should reduce the spread of existing populations and introduction of new. Continued use of the forest could Recommended monitoring: Increased Weeds and result in spread or introduction of new Non-native Species noxious weeds, increasing acres • Noxious weed surveys completed prior and infested by noxious weeds. 4 years after implementation • Infestations would be treated using an integrated pest management approach
34 Environmental Assessment
Table 8 (continued). Comparison of the no action and proposed action alternatives
Estimated potential erosion from areas of Potential erosion rates from a high thinning treatments average 0.30 tons/acre Potential Erosion severity wildfire averages 19.73 in the first year. Potential erosion rates from tons/acre in the first year. prescribed burning average 0.24 in the first year. The project would meet long-term soil productivity standards with predicted soil loss less than the average rate for soil formation, 1 ton/acre/year (USDA Forest Service 1995) To protect soil productivity, harvest within the tractor units with past harvest history would be limited. Recommendations are to: Residual compaction in treatment units and existing fuel breaks would continue • Limit skid trail spacing to at least 100 feet to recover over time. Unit 10 has a for old and new trails; Soil Productivity present detrimental state of 19% from • Limit heavy equipment travel to less than cumulative activities (15% is the two passes where off designated skid Regional Standard). trails; • Use old trails where available; • Operate where no more than 15 percent is left in a detrimental state within each unit except for unit 10. For this unit, minimize disturbance to not exceed current levels. For all planned tractor harvest units, recommended ground cover is reestablished through slash or chipping to 70 percent. Reduction of fuels around PCT; Increase in Impacts to PCT Continued fire risk around trails hiker safety Increased Illegal OHV Vegetative screens designed to discourage No change anticipated Use use South Coast Air Management District Action would conform to State Reduction in Air Quality not in attainment. Implementation Plan (SIP) Other Policy, Law or No Action Proposed Action Regulation Federally Listed Wildlife Continuing threat from wildfire and bark- Reduction in threat of crown fire throughout and Plant Species beetle mortality the species habitat. Wildlife and Plant Habitat conditions would continue to May have short-term impacts, no threat to Management Indicator persist with a continual threat of wildfire viability. Species No effect for all species (continuing Other Species or No Impact, Beneficial Impact or Not likely to threat from wildfire and bark-beetle Habitats of Concern contribute to a trend toward federal listing mortality) Economics $300,000 (planning only) $12,900,394 (cost of project)
35 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
Chapter 3 - Environmental Consequences This chapter provides information concerning the affected environment of the Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project area, and potential consequences to that environment. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives presented in Chapter 2. All effects, including direct, indirect and cumulative effects, are disclosed. Effects are quantified where possible.
Analysis Documents Used For this Assessment This EA is based upon analysis prepared in the following reports for the Thomas Mountain Fuel Reduction Project:
• Silviculture Report (Schantz 2007); Fire and Fuels Report (Gallagher and Young 2007) • Biological Assessment and Addendum (Dyke 2006a and c); Biological Evaluation for Wildlife and Wildlife Report (Dyke 2006b) • Biological Evaluation and Assessment for Plants and Botany Report (Laufman 2006a) • Noxious Weeds Report (Laufman 2006b); Hydrology and Soils Report (Overland 2006) • Air Quality Report (Acheson 2007); Scenery and Recreation Report (Bonnett 2006) • Transportation Report and Road Analysis (Durston 2006); Social and Economics Report (Jesenko 2006) These reports are available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/sanbernardino/projects/index.shtml.
Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions Appendix A-Table 2 contains a list of projects and past prescribed burns considered for cumulative effects analyses. Past, present and foreseeable activities were derived from the San Jacinto Ranger District, and California Table 9. Past, present and reasonably foreseeable Department of Forestry and Mountain projects in throughout the San Jacinto Ranger District
Communities Fire Safe Council Status Type of Activity Total Acres records. Figure 11 displays projects Fuel Break 3,833 that could contribute cumulative Completed Prescribed Burn 16,061 effects in the Thomas Mountain Fuels Thin 1,233 Completed Total 21,126 Reduction Project area. Prescribed Burn 2,920 Present and foreseeable future In Progress Thin 6,134 projects that have been and are focused In Progress Total 9,054 on construction of fuelbreaks, Ongoing Treatment 5,144 prescribed burning and either hand or Ongoing Total 5,144 mechanical thinning to remove excess Prescribed Burn 4,293 Planned fuels are summarized in (Table 9). The Treatment 14,365 majority of these projects were Planned Total 18,658 completed in the 1980s. Grand Total 53,982
36 Environmental Assessment
Figure 11. Past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions in the vicinity of the Thomas Mountain project area 37 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
Vegetation This section addresses the forested vegetation within the Thomas Mountain Project area and the risk of loss of Jeffrey pine, Coulter pine, bigcone Douglas-fir, and Parry pinyon to wildfire and other disturbance agents such as bark beetles. For concerns regarding fire risk to chaparral, see the “Environmental Consequences to Fuels” section. For further details pertaining to environmental consequences to vegetation, please refer to the Silviculture Specialist Report (Schantz 2007). The timeframe for comparison of alternatives and cumulative effects is 20 to 30 years. This period was chosen because it both reflects the historic fire regime and the realistic planning horizon (i.e., the timeframe when the Forest Service is likely to be able to plan another project in the Thomas Mountain area).
Stand Exams and Analysis Forested vegetation within the project area falls into five strata based on the dominant species present (Table 10).
Table 10. Forest strata in Thomas Mountain project area (Stratum 1 is Chaparral)
Stratum Description Primary Forest Series 2 Chaparral-Pinyon (Pinus quadrifolia) Four Needle Pinyon 3 Bigcone Douglas-fir Bigcone Douglas-fir 4 Coulter Pine Coulter Pine 5 Jeffrey Pine Mixed Conifer Pine, Jeffrey Pine
Stand examinations were completed on units within the Jeffrey pine stratum (units 6, 7, 8, 8A, 8B, 10, 16, 19, 22, 22A, and 22B). Data on live, dead, and down trees were recorded. These stand exams were entered in the Field Sampled Vegetation (FSVeg) database of the Natural Resources Information System (NRIS) and processed as individual stands. Stand parameters, such as trees per acre and basal area per acre, were computed for each unit. Summary data from these exams, along with field reconnaissance and FVS modeling, were used to develop the existing condition for forested stands in the project area. The Western Sierra Nevada (WS) Variant of the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) and the Fire and Fuels Extension (FFE) model were used to simulate thinning and fuel treatments for the Jeffrey pine within the project area. The effects of no action and the proposed action on wildfire effects were modeled. Data for running the model came from the stand exams described above. For a description of the WS variant of FVS, reference Dixon (1994), and for FFE reference Reinhardt and Crookston (2003). All references to FVS modeling are for Treatment Level 2. Treatment Levels 1 and 5 would be more intensive treatments (more removal of biomass), and
38 Environmental Assessment
Treatment Levels 3 and 3B would be less intensive. Treatment Level 4 is within a developed recreation site. The following indicators from the FVS-FFE analysis were used to compare the alternatives:
1. Number, size, weight, and volume of trees removed in the proposed action to compare effects to stand structure and species composition in relation to historic conditions; 2. Predicted mortality and loss of canopy cover from a severe wildfire for no action and proposed action; and 3. Stand Density Index (SDI) and basal area per acre for no action and proposed action to evaluate the effects of the alternatives on continued risk of loss to insect and disease, especially the risk of continued loss of old-growth and mature pines due to bark beetles.
Forest Structure The structure of the Jeffrey pine stands throughout the project area is essentially multi-aged second growth with remnant old trees. This second growth has mainly become established within the last hundred years, with ages ranging from 70 to 125 years. Over the course of the last 50 or so years, a relatively even-sized cohort of live oak has developed in the understory layer of some stands. Currently, the ridgetop Jeffrey pine, Coulter pine, and bigcone Douglas-fir stands are characterized by dense canopy cover (i.e., greater than 40 percent), multiple canopy layers, and a high number of shade-tolerant (live oak, incense cedar, white fir) trees per acre. The Parry pinyon stands are relatively open in terms of overstory canopy, but generally have a dense understory of chaparral.
Tree Size/Species Composition/Density Species composition and successional trends are shown in Table 11. Some Jeffrey pine/mixed- conifer-pine stands are succeeding to the shade-tolerant live oaks, white fir, and incense cedar (units 7, 8B, 19, 22, and 22A). Other stands or areas within stands (e.g., units 8 and 8A) are relatively open, and the desire is to keep them that way. Unit 10 has the highest stand density; 60 percent of the stand is at or above 200 square feet of basal area per acre. Table 12 shows the current stand density in the Jeffrey pine stratum, and Table 13 shows the current canopy cover. The Coulter pine is generally succeeding to live oak as mortality of the pine continues to reduce the overstory density. The bigcone Douglas-fir stands are being subjected to increasing live oak and chaparral ladder fuels and increasing down woody surface fuels. Douglas-fir trees are at a desired density and relatively healthy. Little regeneration was noted in the stands. Four needle pinyon stands consist of scattered trees and pockets of trees within the chaparral. Regeneration is common.
39 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
Table 11. Species composition and successional trends by stratum
Percent Series Species Composition/Successional Trends Acres Forested Stands Majority of remaining stocking is in the 12-20 in. DBH class, with live Coulter canopy cover averaging about 15%, and mortality about 50%. 120 6.0 Pine Stands are succeeding to live oak.
Majority of Jeffrey pine stocking is >=20 in. DBH. Percentage of Mixed WF/IC/live oak ranges from 12-62% by basal area, and is heaviest Conifer- in units 7, 8B, 19, 22, and 22A. Much of area is still open and park- 1,497 74.5 Pine like, with WF/IC, live oak, and small pine increasing. Areas within stands are very dense with tree stocking.
Jeffrey Majority of Jeffrey pine stocking is >=24 in. DBH. Stands are still 186 9.2 Pine mainly open and park-like, with shrubs and live oak increasing.
The bigcone Douglas-fir stand are being subjected to increasing live Bigcone oak and chaparral ladder fuels and increasing down woody surface 87 4.3 DF fuels. Douglas-fir trees are at a desired density and relatively healthy. Little regeneration was noted in the stands. Four Four needle pinyon stands consist of scattered trees and pockets of Needle 120 6.0 trees within the chaparral. Regeneration is common. Pinyon Total 2,010 100%
Table 12. Current stand density in Jeffrey pine stratum (all species)
Total Trees/Acre Trees /Acre Total Total Basal Unit Trees/Acre >=16 in. <16 in. Trees/Acre Area/Acre >=4 in. 6 20.8 66.1 76.9 86.9 115 7 27.7 191.5 44.2 219.2 129 8, 8A, 8B 25.8 218.2 101.8 244.0 129 10, 10A 44.0 142.6 120.6 186.6 187 16 4.5 84.0 42.7 88.5 41 19 13.0 306.2 24.2 319.2 41 22, 22A, 22B 16.7 235.8 88.1 252.5 87
Table 13. Current canopy cover in Jeffrey pine stratum from FVS
FVS % FVS % FVS % FVS % Unit Canopy Unit Canopy Unit Canopy Unit Canopy Cover Cover Cover Cover 6 31 8,8A,8B 36 16 19 22,22A,22B 36 7 26 10 45 19 13
40 Environmental Assessment
Resulting Changes from Historic Conditions
Large Trees In 1992, Richard Minnich and others completed a study of forest vegetation in the San Bernardino Mountains documenting changes in tree density by both species and size class. In general, they found increasing stand densities, a transformation from old-growth age structure to young growth, and a compositional shift from ponderosa pine and Jeffrey pine to white fir and incense cedar (Minnich et al. 1995). Specifically, in mixed Jeffrey pine forests similar to those found in the project area, Minnich found that in 1932 the number of trees per acre (4 inches DBH and larger) ranged from 18 to 60 (mean = 37), with the majority being greater than 12 inches diameter at breast height (DBH). By comparison, the estimated number of trees per acre (4 inches and larger) from 2005 stand exams ranged from 24 to 120 trees per acre (Table 12). The decline and mortality of the large remnant trees on the ridge top may reflect competition from younger cohorts (understory trees) that weakened large trees and led to infestations of bark beetles and woodborers.
Tree Mortality The effects of prolonged drought and competition have led to recent extensive mortality of conifers in the San Jacinto Mountains. Within the Thomas Mountain project area, levels of mortality are greatest in the Coulter pine stratum. Table 14 lists the average percent mortality by unit and forest stratum; this information was developed from the 2005 stand exams in the project area and field reconnaissance in the fall of 2005.
Table 14. Estimated hard snags and percent mortality for Jeffrey pine, Coulter pine, and bigcone Douglas-fir strata
Hard Snags >=16 in. DBH per % Mortality of Trees >= 16 in. Unit Stratum acre DBH 1 Coulter Pine No Data >75 2 Coulter Pine No Data 50 3 Coulter Pine No Data 50 6 Jeffrey Pine 2.2 10 7 Jeffrey Pine 8.5 20 8 Jeffrey Pine 3.7 10 8A Jeffrey Pine 3.7 10 8B Jeffrey Pine 3.7 10 10 Jeffrey Pine 3.0 5 16 Jeffrey Pine 3.5 25 19 Jeffrey Pine 2.0 15 22 Jeffrey Pine 8.1 25 26 Bigcone Douglas-fir No Data 15 27 Bigcone Douglas-fir No Data 15
41 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
Mortality of large old Jeffrey pines has been mostly due to the red turpentine beetle and California flatheaded woodborer working in tandem; it is estimated from field visits that about 15 percent of these trees have died within the last five years. White fir mortality has been influenced by an array of forest pathogens, including annosum root disease (Heterbasidion annosum) and fir engraver beetles (Scolytus ventralis). Personal observation in the spring of 2005 indicated pine mortality was generally in the larger size classes, while white fir mortality occurred across all size classes. The stand exam data also shows this same trend.
Desired Condition Management of Density and Structure for Fire Resilient Conditions The Thomas Mountain Project would follow documented scientific principles for creating fire- resilient forests, and would use methods that have been shown to reduce fire severity. This section discusses recent publications dealing with the concepts of fuels reduction treatments, empirical studies regarding the effectiveness of fuels treatments in actual wildfires, and studies modeling fire severity under different treatments using research plot and stand data. The implications of these papers for the design of the Thomas Mountain project will also be discussed.
Concepts of Fire Resilience Agee and Skinner (2005) outlined four basic principles that are most important to address in designing fuels reduction treatments: 1. Reduce surface fuels- this reduces the potential flame lengths, reduces tree torching, and allows for easier suppression. 2. Increase height to live crown (gap between surface fuels and canopy fuels) - this necessitates a longer flame length for tree torching. 3. Decrease crown density- this makes tree-to-tree crown fire less probable 4. Retain big trees of fire-resistant species (i.e. pines)- this results in less mortality for the same fire intensity Increasing the proportion of fire-resistant species in a stand is an additional basic principle needed for creating fire-resilient conditions (Graham et al. 2004). Thinning from below can be the most effective way to alter fire behavior, but must be followed up with treatment of surface fuels to offset the increased flame lengths and drier fuels in thinned stands (Graham et al. 1999). It is important to manage all fuels strata over time and space, and the most appropriate strategy is often thinning followed by prescribed fire, pile burning, or other mechanical treatment of surface fuels. Mechanical treatments can create a more specific desired stand structure than fire alone, and when followed up with slash treatment eliminates the need for multiple prescribed fire treatments over a period of years (Graham et al. 2004). Peterson et al. (2005) discuss many important factors related to forest structure and hazard in dry forests of the western U.S. They reiterate the four basic principles from Agee mentioned above. They note that the formerly open structure of frequent, low severity regimes lead to less
42 Environmental Assessment insect effects, and also less potential for crown fires, due to a lack of continuity in horizontal and vertical fuels. There will be variability on the landscape due to local climate, slope, aspect, and elevation. Empirical data are rare for treated versus untreated stands under extreme weather and on steep slopes, but these extreme conditions will require relatively higher levels of removal of fuels to achieve the same fire behavior objectives. They note that designing fuels treatments to withstand weather conditions at the 97th percentile would be the least risky option. Other observations related to preventing crown fire are: canopy base height should be considerably greater than predicted flame lengths (may need to be 20 feet or more), understory species (e.g., white fir) have higher canopy bulk densities leading to more canopy fuels per unit area, and the effects of thinning can lead to increased surface winds and drying of fuels, but effective treatment of ladder and surface fuels should mitigate these effects. This project would follow the principles outlined above through use of the following methods: • All thinning treatments would be a thinning from below, leaving the largest trees and favoring the fire-resistant pines by removing primarily suppressed and intermediate tree classes.
• In the Jeffrey pine, thinning would be focused around removing ladder fuels and competition from the remnant old trees that have the largest diameter.
• Slash from thinning treatments would be piled and burned and/or broadcast burned.
• Surface fuels such as live oak and manzanita brush would be masticated or cut, piled and burned.
Empirical Studies of Fuels Treatments Several recent studies have looked at how fuels treatments have modified on-the-ground fire effects in treated versus untreated stands. Pollet and Omi (2002) looked at ponderosa pine stands on the Kootenai, Wenatchee, and Tahoe National Forests. Treated stands ranged from averages of 64 to 132 square feet of basal area per acre, 30 to 106 trees per acre, and average diameters of 12 to 17 inches. Untreated stands ranged from averages of 100 to 132 square feet of basal area per acre, 234 to 504 trees per acre, and average diameters of 8 to 10 inches. The authors made the following conclusions: • Stand characteristics contributed to differences in fire severity in terms of crown scorch.
• This study does not support the assertion that more open stands, such as in the ones studied here, experience higher fire severity. The fuel reduction overcame any microclimate effects on fire behavior resulting from a more open stand.
• Removing small diameter trees (actual sizes of trees removed not given in the study, but could be assumed to be mainly 12 inches or less) reduces subsequent fire severity.
43 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
• Quoting from p. 8: “Wildfire, prescribed fire, and mechanical thinning all reduce tree densities and accomplish fuel treatments. Wildfire, or natural fire, is often impracticable. Letting natural fires play their historical role may have unwanted effects in forests that have undergone major stand structural changes. Prescribed fire may be effective in stands that have moderate to steep slopes that preclude mechanical treatment, and in locations where experts can plan and implement large scale prescribed burns. Mechanical tree removal may work best on forests that are too densely packed to burn, and areas that have nearby markets for small diameter trees.” The Thomas Mountain Project would thin stands to average densities of 100 to 140 square feet of basal area per acre in areas where there is potential removal of trees 12 inches and greater, so it would result in similar stand structure as described above. Stands on Thomas Mountain appear to have more trees greater than 16 inches based on a comparison of the post-treatment average stand diameters. Like the treatments in this study, most (96 percent) of the trees removed would be 12 inches DBH or less. Omi and Martinson (2002) looked at treated versus untreated fire severity in Mississippi slash pine, California Douglas-fir, and ponderosa pine in Colorado and New Mexico. The study purposely looked only at noncommercial or precommercial treatment prescriptions, so their results cannot be extrapolated to all stand conditions. However, their conclusions were that the studied fuels treatments moderated extreme fire behavior. Height to live crown had the strongest correlation to fire severity, and tree height and DBH had the strongest correlation to fire resistance. They conclude that opening up stands can increase surface fire intensity, but by increasing the height to live crown and increasing the average diameter, crown fire potential is reduced. The treatments in the Thomas Mountain Project have as their primary objective to increase the height to live crown and the average diameter of the stand, as well as shift species composition towards the more fire-resistant pines. Skinner et al. (2004) looked at the effects of the Cone Fire of 2002 on thinned, thinned and underburned, and untreated stands at the Blacks Mountain Experimental Forest in the Cascade Range of Northern California. The forest here consists of ponderosa pine, Jeffrey pine, incense cedar, and white fir of the inland ponderosa pine type with a historic frequent/low-moderate severity fire regime. Mechanical thinning with and without slash treatment had been done prior to the fire to two cutting prescriptions: a late-seral, high diversity prescription (HiD) that thinned from below with a 16-inch DBH limit to around 90 square feet of basal area per acre, and a mid- seral, low diversity (LoD) prescription that thinned from above and below to a basal area of around 40 square feet per acre. Canopy cover after thinning averaged 30 percent in the HiD treatment and 19 percent in the LoD treatment. The authors concluded: • Differences in fire severity follow current knowledge of how stand structures and fuel treatments contribute to fire behavior
44 Environmental Assessment
• In each case there was a higher percent of mortality in the untreated stands than in the areas treated. Treated stands had lower fire severity than untreated, and treatments with follow-up prescribed fire had lower severity than no prescribed fire. Prescribed fires after thinning reduced surface fuels to exclude surface fire in LoD treatments; surface fire was still possible in the HiD treatments, but it was a very low intensity surface fire.
It is interesting to note that even in the LoD treatment with prescribed fire, where density was reduced to a low level and overstory trees were removed, mortality was negligible because surface fuels were treated and fire-resistant trees were still left on site. In the Thomas Mountain project, the prescription for thinning is very similar to the HiD treatment with prescribed fire; 98 percent of the trees removed would be less than 16-inch DBH, and thinning would be entirely from below, leaving the largest pines. The residual density would actually be higher in the Thomas Mountain prescription.
Studies Simulating Fire Effects from Thinning and other Stand Treatments Stephens and Moghaddas (2005) compared the response of seven silvicultural systems to simulated wildfire at the Blodgett Research Forest on the Westside of the Sierra Nevada in North Central California. Species found on these very productive sites are typical of the Sierra mixed- conifer type. There were basically no differences in tree mortality by diameter class and percentile weather conditions for the old-growth reserve, young-growth reserve, and thin from below (includes an understory of small trees) stands. The thin from below stands were fairly dense (210 square feet of basal area per acre) but average height to live crown was 33 feet, even including all trees greater than 1 inch DBH; canopy cover of 57 percent includes understory trees of which 67 percent would be killed even at 80th percentile weather conditions (96 percent killed at 97th percentile weather). It appears the relevance of this study to the Thomas Mountain Project is that thinning from below, which increases the canopy base height and average diameter, is an effective system for maintaining fire resilience. The fact that this system was maintained at a relatively high basal area/canopy cover is reflective of the very high productivity sites at Blodgett, which may be able to sustain this type of density over time in the absence of fire (the majority of trees less than 20 inches DBH were predicted to die in a wildfire in all treatments). Perry et al. (2004) simulated wildfire effects in ponderosa pine in Central Oregon. Thinnings were simulated using various diameters, below which all trees would be removed. Removal of trees less than 8 inches DBH was generally effective in preventing crown fire. However, it is not possible to determine from the data presented what percentage of the pretreatment ladder fuels were less than 8 inches in diameter. If most or all of the potential ladder fuels were less than 8 inches, then removal of trees 8 inches and less would be a highly effective prescription; however, if ladder fuels were larger than 8 inches, it would not be an effective prescription. The authors conclude that where similar stocking and species composition and slope are found, their results may be generalized. They go on to say that “Our findings support the argument that wide application of highly specific thinning rules is at best crude and at worst contraindicated in
45 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project heterogeneous landscapes…Thinning guidelines using a relatively small diameter limit (e.g., 20 cm, or 8 in.) would significantly reduce the risk of crown fire on some of our plots but not on others, whereas a higher diameter limit would remove more trees from some plots than necessary.” It would seem that the authors are arguing for a prescription that allows site-specific factors to be taken into account, rather than using an arbitrary diameter limit. The Thomas Mountain Project would remove small-diameter trees, but allows flexibility for removing larger trees where they are acting as ladder fuels (e.g. larger white firs directly underneath an old-growth Jeffrey pine), and this would only be done outside of spotted owl territories.
Management of Density and Structure for Healthy/Sustainable Forest Conditions According to Long (1985), density management is the manipulation and control of growing stock to achieve specific management objectives. The SDI was used to develop guidelines for maintaining stand density below a threshold where the individual tree growth rates would be less likely to lead to effects from insects, and possibly diseases as well. This threshold is dependent on site quality, and manipulating stand density through thinning to keep stands below this threshold can reduce losses from mountain pine beetle and western beetle (Cochran et al. 1994). Table 15 is based on maintaining the stand between 30 percent of maximum SDI (approximate onset of inter- tree competition) and 50 percent of maximum SDI (zone below onset of competition-induced mortality; Long 1985).
Table 15. Density management regime for pine species
Basal Trees/Ac Trees/Ac Basal Mean DBH Area/Ac LMZ* UMZ** Area/Ac LMZ* UMZ** 10 171 286 93 156 12 128 213 100 167 14 100 167 107 178 16 81 135 113 188 18 67 111 118 197 20 57 94 123 205 22 49 81 128 213 24 42 70 133 221 26 37 62 137 228 28 33 55 141 235 30 30 49 145 242 *LMZ=lower management zone- 30% of maximum SDI (171) **UMZ=upper management zone- 50% of maximum SDI (286) Maximum SDI=571 for Jeffrey pine (from FVS WS Variant)
Since the sites in the project area are relatively low sites, with a site index of 40-55 out a maximum of 110 (Dunning and Reineke 1933), the values in Table 15 should be thought of as upper limits, especially given the additional stress found in this area from pollution, root diseases,
46 Environmental Assessment and dwarf mistletoes (Pronos, Merrill, and Dahlsten 1999). Also, Sherlock (2005), looking at Region 5 forest inventory data, found that mortality generally began on mixed-conifer-fir plots when the SDI was equal to 200 (basal area per acre of approximately 150 square feet per acre); these data indicate that the threshold density for mortality due to insects and diseases could be much lower than indicated by the upper management zone in Table 15. Hessburg et al. (1994) looked at the historic and current roles of insects and pathogens in forests of eastern Oregon and Washington. One of their conclusions was that stocking levels should be reduced where long-term carrying capacity is exceeded, and that as long as inter-tree competition depresses tree vigor, effects of bark beetles, root diseases, and dwarf mistletoes will be greater when compared to historic levels. In a similar light, Guarin and Taylor (2005) studied old-growth mixed-conifer forests in Yosemite National Park. They concluded that competition for water in the very dense forests found in Yosemite likely increased their vulnerability to drought- related mortality by bark beetles. They also noted that during the extended 1987-1992 drought, bark beetle outbreaks were observed elsewhere in the Sierra Nevada and in the San Bernardino Mountains, leading to widespread mortality in some areas. A recent study in the southern Sierra Mountains looked at density-dependent mortality and its causes (Smith et al. 2005). The study looked at Jeffrey pine and sugar pine on the Teakettle Experimental Forest located on the Sierra National Forest. Density-dependent mortality was found to be a driving force of change, and bark beetles were more severe in areas of higher density. Also, there was higher-than-expected mortality in large diameter classes, which the authors feel is a concern for maintaining and increasing the numbers of old-growth trees; they urge caution in applying these results, which fits with an adaptive management approach. Studying density of ponderosa pine east and west of the Cascade/Sierra crest in California, Oliver (1995) found density thresholds corresponding to different levels of bark beetle damage to stands. A density of 150 square feet of basal area per acre (SDI 230) was determined to be a threshold for a zone of imminent bark beetle mortality. All of the long-term growth plots peaked at an SDI of 365, at which point mortality from bark beetles was widespread. These relationships held true for both the east- and west-side plots. The mechanisms by which reductions in stand density can lead to increased resistance to bark beetles are not fully understood, but many factors are thought to be involved. Decreased water stress, increased foliar nitrogen, increased resin flow, and increased carbon reserves have all been theorized to play a role. Wallin et al. (2004) looked at seven-year results of thinning and burning restoration treatments on old ponderosa pines in northern Arizona. They found lower water stress and increased foliar nitrogen in all thinning treatments, and the thinning and burning treatments increased early summer resin flow. Also, working in northern Arizona, Zausen et al. (2005) found similar results. They also found more Dendroctonus bark beetles in unmanaged stands than in managed stands; there was no difference in levels of Ips bark beetles. Reporting on the same ecosystems, Covington et al. (1997) also found increased resin flow in restoration treatments, and suggested increased resistance to bark beetles as a result. Carbon reserves from photosynthesis
47 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project have been hypothesized to be directly related to a tree’s ability to mobilize defenses against bark beetles, and competition reduces the reserves of individual trees (Christiansen et al. 1987).
Existing or Baseline/Reference Conditions Minnich et al. (1995) looked at 1932 inventory data from the San Bernardino Mountains for mixed Jeffrey pine. Data from this time likely represent a good approximation of the pre-fire suppression forests in this area when looking at the larger size classes. This data shows the mixed Jeffrey pine forest to have about 37 trees per acre and about 115 square feet of basal area per acre for trees four inches and larger (Table 18). Approximately 15 percent of the trees in 1932 were white fir. These figures may represent an approximation of the historic density that was found over much of the SBNF within this forest type, and seem to correspond roughly to the lower management zone in Table 15. Minnich et al. (1995) and Minnich et al. (2000) also looked at the forests of the Sierra San Pedro Matir (SSPM) from the standpoint of a forest ecosystem under a natural fire regime that is similar to the forests of the San Bernardino Mountains. Fires there had never been suppressed at the time of his study. Based on his field data, the density of the mixed Jeffrey pine forest was about 34 trees per acre and 130 square feet of basal area per acre for trees four inches and larger (Table 16, Table 17). These figures also may represent an approximation of the historic density that was found over much of the SBNF within this forest type, and seem to correspond roughly to the lower management zone in Table 15.
Table 16. Stand density of mixed Jeffrey pine at SSPM from Minnich et al. (1995)
Diameter Class Trees/ac BA/ac 4-12 in. 8.9 3 12-24 in. 9.3 16 24-36 in. 7.3 36 >36 in. 8.5 74 Totals 34.0 130
Table 17. Stand density of mixed Jeffrey pine at SSPM from Minnich et al. (2000)
Diameter Class Trees/ac BA/ac 4-8 in. 8.9 2 8-16 in. 6.1 5 16-24 in. 5.3 11 24-32 in. 4.5 19 32-40 in. 4.0 29 >40 in. 5.3 66 Totals 34.0 132
48 Environmental Assessment
Table 18. Stand density of mixed Jeffrey pine in San Bernardino Mts. from Minnich et al. (1995)
Diameter Class trees/ac BA/ac 4-12 in. 10 4 12-24 in. 14 25 24-36 in. 7 34 >36 in. 6 52 Totals 37* 115 *Approx. 15 percent of these were white fir
Minnich et al. (2000) also reported on aerial photo sampling of the forests at SSPM, providing a large scale picture of the forest conditions found there. They reported the following forest attributes: • For all forest types, woody cover (including shrubs) averaged 25-45 percent, overstory trees averaged from 26-59 per acre, and pole-sized trees averaged 6 to 8 per acre with little variation in density.
• For all forest types, snags averaged 0.4 per acre, and 61 percent of stands had no snags. Down logs averaged 0.8 per acre.
• Mixed Jeffrey pine averaged 25 overstory trees per acre, and 47 percent woody cover (including shrubs). Also in the SSPM, Stephens (2004) looked at snag abundance, snag recruitment, and fuel loads in Jeffrey pine mixed conifer, which is floristically very similar to portions of the eastern Sierra Nevada and southern California mountains. Prior to a severe drought from 1999-2003, snags averaged 1.6 per acre, with 35 percent of plots having no snags. After the drought in 2003, snags increased to an average of 2 per acre, with 28 percent of plots still having no snags; 63 percent of snags were 20 inches in diameter or larger, and were dominated by early/mid-decay classes. Surface fuel loads averaged nine tons per acre, again with great variation. The author states that high variability was found in all snag and fuel attributes, and that this patchy distribution is an argument against application of uniform targets for these components. Based on these two studies, it would seem that an appropriate strategy would be to leave patches of high-density standing and down snags/down logs, while other areas could be essentially free of these components. This concept fits with a strategy to manage fuels with varying degrees of intensity across the landscape, from unmanaged areas to WUI Defense/Threat Zones. This project will follow the Conservation Strategy for the California Spotted Owl, which gives guidelines for stand characteristics important to spotted owl such as tree retention, canopy cover, snags, and down logs. These guidelines may be considered a reference condition reflecting current understanding of historic owl habitat, based on the current distribution of owls. It is thought that owls may have historically been distributed in areas that were less subjected to frequent fires, such as drainages, north slopes, rocky, and less exposed areas, where maintenance
49 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project of higher canopy levels and coarse woody debris was more likely to have occurred (Weatherspoon et al. 1992).
Environmental Consequences to Vegetation Alternative 1 - No Action Direct and Indirect Effects Stand Structure and Species Composition in Relation to Historic Conditions Stand structure and density in the Jeffrey pine stratum under the No Action Alternative would continue to deviate from historical conditions in the following ways: • Jeffrey pine stands would continue to be dominated by small trees (less than 16 inches DBH), a high proportion of which are shade-tolerant and fire-intolerant (Table 12). Total trees per acre 4 inches and greater would remain at several times historical levels over the majority of the Jeffrey pine stratum (Table 12, Table 17, Table 18).
• Stand structure of most stands would continue to consist of multi-layered canopies, resulting in large areas of contiguous ladder fuels.
• Dead fuel on the surface would continue to accumulate in the form of decadent brush, dead material from insect and disease mortality, limbs, and needles, adding to the fuels that have accumulated since the last burn cycle. The shift in species composition towards late-seral species (white fir, incense cedar, and live oak) would continue with the following effects: • There would be less fire-resistant species on the landscape, and there would be more ladder fuels from the shade-tolerant trees in the understory; white fir, incense cedar, and live oak would remain at above-historic levels, approaching 45 percent of stand composition by basal area compared to less than 15 percent historically (Table 18).
• There would be more shorter-lived trees (i.e., white fir)
• There would be more stress on overstory pines
• There would be an increased risk of future bark beetle outbreaks, which increases the fire risk over the landscape Coulter pine stands within chaparral would continue to decrease on the landscape due to bark beetles, eliminating seed sources for regeneration following potential stand-replacement fire. Bigcone Douglas-fir stands would continue to decrease on the landscape due to potential stand-replacement fire. The LMP presents the landscape situation on the San Bernardino NF (Chap. 3, p. 319): “...the unprecedented drought-caused tree mortality on the SBNF presents an anomalous situation with respect to bigcone Douglas-fir management. By July 2003, 27 percent of the bigcone Douglas-fir on the San Bernardino was dying or had succumbed to the drought,
50 Environmental Assessment especially at the lower elevations of the San Bernardino Mountains. By 2004, mortality had increased to 50 percent. Because this species grows in steep, inaccessible sites, dead and dying trees are unlikely to be removed; thus, some percentage of these moderate- to high-mortality populations almost certainly will burn in wildfires, causing losses of residual live trees or perhaps even population extinctions.” Parry pinyon stands within chaparral would remain at risk for stand-replacing fire. The population in the project area is disjunct, and represents the northernmost range of the species. Historically, nut-producing areas were maintained by Native Americans who cleared surface fuels around the pinyon trees. Clearing ceased several decades ago and chaparral has grown in and among the pinyon trees, making them vulnerable to fire.
Stand Structure/Species Composition as Related to Fire Risk The No Action Alternative in the Jeffrey pine stratum can be described in terms of the following stand structural elements affecting fire risk and severity: • Stand structure of most stands would continue to consist of multi-layered canopies with areas of high density, resulting in large areas of contiguous ladder fuels; this condition relates directly to crown bulk density and crown base height, which are two of the three primary determinants of fire behavior (Graham et al. 1999). No acres would be thinned from below in order to reduce the number of canopy layers and break up contiguous block of ladder fuels.
• There would be no increase in average DBH of the stand; larger trees have thicker bark and are more resistant to flame scorch from surface fuels. No acres would be thinned from below; the acres thinned from below is the measure of the increase in average DBH (average DBH of trees removed or cut is less than the average DBH of residual trees, resulting in a post-treatment average DBH that is greater).
• There would be no shift in stand composition towards fire-resistant species. No acres would be thinned from below; thinning from below, favoring fire-resistant species, is the measure for changing species composition.
• There would be no treatment of natural surface fuels (brush, 3 inches and smaller fuels). No acres would receive fuels treatments aimed at reducing surface fuels (i.e., hand piling, brush piling, tractor piling, and jackpot and prescribed burning).
Dead fuel on the surface would continue to accumulate in the form of decadent brush, dead material from insect and disease mortality, limbs, and needles, adding to the fuels that have accumulated since the last fire. In a wildfire scenario, these conditions would likely result in either a stand-replacing crown fire or a lethal surface fire. Predicted mortality and predicted canopy cover from a simulated severe wildfire in 2010 are shown in Table 19 and Table 20. Mortality is predicted to range from 54 to 92 percent of the stand
51 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project basal area. Trees 20 inches DBH and larger are predicted to be mostly lost in a severe wildfire. Canopy cover is predicted to be similarly affected.
Table 19. Predicted (FVS-FFE) mortality in Jeffrey pine stratum under no action from a severe fire
Unit % Basal Area per acre Killed % Trees per acre 20 in.+ Killed 6 91 80 7 92 89 8,8A,8B 91 80 10 54 32 16 73 33 19 94 100 22,22A,22B 88 86
Table 20. Predicted (FVS-FFE) canopy cover in Jeffrey pine stratum under no action from a severe fire
Unit Canopy Cover Pre-Fire Canopy Cover Post-Fire 6 31 3 7 26 2 8,8A,8B 36 3 10 45 18 16 19 3 19 13 1 22,22A,22B 36 3
Continued Risk of Losses to Insects and Diseases The San Bernardino NF has recently experienced heavy losses of conifers to insects and pathogens. As described in the LMP (Chapter 3, pp. 87-88): “The recent, historically unprecedented drought has dramatically increased tree and chaparral mortality on the four southern California national forests. Drought-weakened trees became increasingly vulnerable to attack by insects. The drought began in 1999. By 2001, tree mortality was apparent in the San Bernardino Mountains, in the eastern portion of the San Gabriel Mountains (Angeles and SBNFs), in the San Jacinto Mountains (SBNF), and in the Palomar and Laguna Mountains (Cleveland National Forest). Although equally severe droughts likely occurred prior to European settlement, this drought is thought to be unprecedented in its effects. Southern California national forests are artificially dense (attributed to fire suppression, as described above) and in many places are highly impacted by air pollution, leading to greater mortality than would likely have occurred under pre- settlement stand conditions”. Table 565 shows the acres of woody plant mortality mapped 2001 to 2004. These figures included shrub mortality in addition to forest trees. Precipitation was significantly above average over the winter of 2004 to 2005, and new tree mortality associated with drought and pests is expected to be low.
52 Environmental Assessment
Table 565.* Acres of Woody Plant Mortality on The Four Southern California National Forests National Forest 2001 2002 2003 2004 Angeles 394 965 11,570 62,600 Cleveland 401 7,465 82,319 134,675 Los Padres No data 19,214 5,522 13,710 San Bernardino 5,793 66,401 521,752 147,204 * Forest Plan table number. Data from USDA Forest Service, R5, Forest Health Protection aerial surveys.
The numbers in Table 565 include mortality above one percent (background) that was mapped each year. Each year’s maps represent new mortality but not necessarily on new acres; thus the same area may have been mapped each year if mortality continued. The effects of drought have been most severe in the San Bernardino Mountains and Peninsular Ranges. In some areas of the San Bernardino Mountains tree mortality exceeded 80 percent. Trees died because they could not obtain enough soil moisture to sustain minimal metabolic processes to enable them to resist insects. Bark beetles (Dendroctonus spp. and Ips spp.) quickly invade and kill drought-stressed trees. In addition to the extensive tree mortality, large areas of chaparral also suffered extensive top-kill and some shrub death. A number of pathogens have contributed to tree losses, the most serious of which are the dwarf mistletoes (Arceuthobium spp.) and annosum root disease (Heterobasidion annosum). Either of these agents alone can kill trees in years of adequate precipitation, dwarf mistletoe (a parasitic plant) by utilizing the host’s water and photosynthate, and root disease by killing roots. Drought exacerbates the physiological effects of these pathogens. Other significant forest pests include true mistletoes (Phoradendron spp.), which attack hardwoods and some conifers (e.g., white fir and juniper), Armillaria root disease (Armillaria mellea) in oaks and conifers, and blackstain root disease (Leptographium wageneri) in pinyon pine (Pinus monophylla) in the San Bernardino Mountains. The most aggressive and rapidly reproducing of the native bark beetles in southern California is the western pine beetle (Dendroctonus brevicomis), which can overcome the defenses of even vigorously growing trees. The other aggressive species are the mountain pine beetle (D. ponderosae) and the Jeffrey pine beetle (D. jeffreyi). All of the bark beetles have specific host ranges and other ecological needs (tree size and condition, climatic range). For example, the principal hosts of mountain pine beetle are ponderosa, lodgepole, and sugar pine, while the principal hosts of western pine beetle are Coulter and ponderosa pine. Jeffrey pine beetles only attack Jeffrey pines. These latter two species have 1 to 2 generations/year in southern California, while the western pine beetle may have 4 to 5. Thus the mountain and Jeffrey pine beetles were slower to respond to the presence of large numbers of drought stressed trees. ” The landscape context for this is provided in the LMP (Chap. 3, p. 317): “There are approximately 306,275 acres of montane conifer forests (yellow pine, eastside pine, and mixed conifer) on the four southern California national forests, of which 153,360 (50 percent) are on the SBNF. By July 2003, drought-caused mortality affected approximately 20,500 acres of mixed conifer forests and nearly 20,000 acres of yellow pine forests (the total of both is 26.3 percent) on the SBNF. Nearly all the mortality in these forests occurred in overly dense stands delineated by Stephenson and Calcarone (1999). Although above-average precipitation in 2004-2005 almost certainly will slow further mortality, a second or even third year of average or above-average precipitation may be needed to end the drought completely.”
53 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
Another project area recently analyzed on the San Jacinto Ranger District, the North Fork San Jacinto Healthy Forest Project, showed mortality from insects and diseases approaching 75 percent in the mixed-conifer pine, Coulter pine, and ponderosa pine series (see North Fork EA pp. 37-38). Table 14 lists the mortality of trees 16 inches and larger by unit in the Thomas Mountain project; mortality in the Coulter Pine Series typically is 50-75 percent, and in the Jeffrey Pine Series ranges from 5 to 25 percent. Even though average stand densities are within the desired range of basal area (Table 12, Table 15), it is estimated that 15 percent of the remnant Jeffrey pines have died within the last five years. Mortality of younger trees has also occurred during the last five years as reflected in the mortality figures above. Many areas within stands are well above the stand average basal area, and this is thought to be the underlying cause of the observed mortality. Under the No Action Alternative, the remnant Jeffrey pine component, as well as many immature trees, which represent future large trees, would exhibit lowered resistance to beetle attack, and continued risk of mortality. With continued competition from understory trees, mortality within the large tree component would be expected to persist. Losses would be especially pronounced under drought conditions. Current densities under no action in 2005 and in 2025 (a realistic date of a future project in this area) are given in Table 21 for basal area per acre, and in Table 22 for SDI. Current average densities are within the desired range (see Management of Density for Healthy Forest Conditions in Appendix A), but begin to approach the upper threshold by 2025. Several important factors must also be considered when looking at the current and projected densities under no action.
Table 21. Basal area per acre under no action for Jeffrey pine stratum
Unit No Action 2005 No Action 2025 6 115 168 7 129 154 8,8A,8B 129 160 10 187 214 16 41 54 19 41 79 22,22A,22B 87 114
Table 22. Stand density index (SDI) under no action for Jeffrey pine stratum
Unit No Action 2005 No Action 2025 6 177 239 7 233 266 8,8A,8B 238 280 10 304 336 16 78 96 19 101 168 22,22A,22B 174 214
54 Environmental Assessment
First, these are relatively low productivity sites in the project area, as evidenced by the low site index values recorded from stand exams. Secondly, the effects of the prolonged drought have weakened the trees, and the older trees are less able to overcome these effects. Thirdly, pollution stress, root diseases, and dwarf mistletoes are also active in the proposed units, and these factors work to pre-dispose trees to attack by bark beetles (Pronos, Merrill, and Dahlsten 1999). Given these considerations, it would seem prudent to maintain stand density on the low end of the desired range (LMZ, Table 15).
Cumulative Effects The boundary for cumulative effects is the District, and timeframe is all past (since mid-1980s), present, and reasonably foreseeable actions: Angelus, Azalea, Bonita Vista, Hwy. 243, Hwy. 74, May Valley, North Fork, Pinewood, Southridge, and Garner Valley. During this timeline, vegetation is expected to return to pre-treatment conditions for these projects; however past sanitation-salvage logging acres because of the lasting effects on stand structure were also considered. Other vegetation management projects with similar objectives to this project have occurred on other areas of the San Jacinto Ranger District. These projects have created forest conditions that are resistant to adverse effects of drought, insects, and disease, and have enhanced recruitment of trees into the large-tree category by favoring growth of smaller trees. The selection of the No Action Alternative would not improve forest conditions or large tree recruitment in the project area in combination with other past, ongoing, or future projects. The cumulative effects of past actions have also been discussed above. No action would essentially continue the trends set in motion by previous management actions, including fire suppression. Past, present, proposed, and reasonably foreseeable activities were reviewed to determine cumulative effects to forest vegetation. With no action, the condition of unmanaged forest areas would change over time, with continuing loss of old Jeffrey pine from insects. For shade-tolerant, late-seral species, such as white fir and incense cedar, this condition would create available growing space and increased growth, leading to eventual conversion of the site to these species and live oaks. In many areas, this change would continue a trend whereby shade-tolerant species which are more prone to insects and disease and less fire-adapted replace shade-intolerant species that have adapted to the influences of fire and are generally less susceptible to insects and diseases. No action foregoes the opportunity to restore and/or provide maintenance treatments in Coulter pine where this species is at risk. Accumulation of fuels from existing and expected deadfall would likely increase the intensity of a fire in the future. Deferring the opportunity to thin Jeffrey pine stands may, in the long term, compromise habitat diversity, tree health, and vigor.
55 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Table 23 and Table 24 summarize the acres in the proposed silvicultural actions by percent of vegetation to be treated and treatment level. As you can see, the majority of the project area is red shank chaparral. Thinning from below will occur in Treatment Levels 4 and 5 on 1,118 acres.
Table 23. Summary of treatments by vegetation type
Percent of Acres Percent of Vegetation Vegetation Type (CalVeg) Acres Project Area Treated Type Treated Agriculture 9 0.1% 1 11% Barren 22 0.1% 0 0% Basin Sagebrush 450 2.8% 334 74% Chamise 833 5.2% 837 100% Lower Montane Mixed Chaparral 548 3.4% 318 58% Red Shank Chaparral 10,899 67.9% 6,723 62% Upper Montane Mixed Chaparral 140 0.9% 125 89% Bigcone Douglas-fir 87 0.5% 29 34% Annual Grass/Forbs 202 1.3% 158 78% Jeffrey Pine 186 1.2% 145 78% Mixed Conifer-Fir 6 0.0% 1 21% Mixed Conifer-Pine 1,491 9.3% 1,053 71% Coulter Pine 120 0.7% 117 97% Fourneedle Pinyon Pine 120 0.7% 77 64% Coast Live Oak 8 0.1% 0 0% Canyon Live Oak 597 3.7% 308 52% Black Oak 59 0.4% 18 30% Interior Live Oak 8 0.1% 8 100% Buckwheat 6 0.0% 6 94% Urban/Developed 91 0.6% 70 77% Water 8 0.1% 7 85% Birchleaf Mountain Mahogany 155 1.0% 129 83% Total 16,046 100.0% 10,465 65%
Table 24. Proposed action acres of vegetation treatments by treatment level and stratum
Stratum Treatment Totals Level 1 2 3 4 5 Chaparral Chaparral/Pinyon Bigcone DF Coulter Pine Jeffrey Pine 1 954 267 0 0 317 1,537 2 10 0 0 117 341 468 3 0 0 0 0 337 337 3B 0 0 265 0 0 265 4 0 0 0 0 6 6 5 0 123 0 0 0 123 6 6,403 0 0 0 0 6,403 6P 0 1,326 0 0 0 1,326 Totals 7,367 1,715 265 117 1,001 10,465
56 Environmental Assessment
Direct and Indirect Effects
Stand Structure and Species Composition in Relation to Historic Conditions Stand structure and density under the proposed action would be moved towards historical conditions in the following ways: • Average stand diameter would be increased (Table 25), increasing the resistance of the stand to fire
• Stand structure of most stands would still consist of multi-layered canopies, but large areas of contiguous ladder fuels would be broken up
• Dead fuel on the surface in the form of decadent brush, dead material from insect and disease mortality, limbs, and needles, would be treated along with activity created fuels
• Numbers of trees per acre post-treatment would be at or slightly above historic baseline levels (Table 16, Table 17, Table 18, Table 22), which are 19 trees per acre 16 inches and larger, 25-27 trees per acre 12 inches and larger, and 34-37 trees per acre 4 inches and larger.
Table 25. Predicted change in average stand diameter from thinning with Treatment Level 2 – Jeffrey pine stratum (from FVS, year 2010)
Ave. Stand DBH (in.) Unit No Action Proposed Action 6 15.6 22.6 7 10.4 24.4 8,8A,8B 9.8 22.3 10 13.6 24.7 16 9.2 16.8 19 4.9 15.4 22,22A,22B 7.9 19.5 Note: Units 7, 8, 22, 22A, and 22B are in CASPO territories, and thinning would remove fewer trees, so ave. DBH would be less affected
Species composition is another factor influencing the stability of late-successional forests. The current trend in species composition towards late-seral species (white fir, incense cedar, and live oak) would be abated with the following effects: • More fire- and disease-resistant species would occupy the landscape, and ladder fuels in the form of shade-tolerant trees in the understory would be reduced
• More long-lived trees (i.e. Jeffrey pine) would occupy the landscape
• There would be a reduction in competitive stress on overstory pines
Canopy cover in the Jeffrey pine stratum (trees five inches and greater) would be affected as follows (Table 26):
57 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
Table 26. Predicted change in canopy cover from thinning with Treatment Level 2 (non- CASPO territories)- Jeffrey pine stratum (from FVS, year 2010)
Percent Canopy Cover Unit No Action Proposed Action 6 31 23 7 26 26 8 36 36 8A,8B 36 24 10 45 29 16 19 12 19 13 12 22,22A,22B 36 36 Note: Units 7, 8, 22, 22A, and 22B are in CASPO territories, and thinning would remove fewer trees, so canopy cover would be maintained according to Conservation Strategy
• Canopy cover would be reduced mainly through removal of white fire, incense cedar, and live while maintaining canopy within the historic range (assumed to be 20-40 percent for tree cover, based on Minnich 2000)
• Canopy cover would maintained in PAC/HRC under Treatment Level 3 (spotted owl objective), as only understory ladder fuels would be removed.
Analysis shows that of those stands treated, fire behavior would be reduced within the stand (Table 27). Treatment consisting of ladder and surface fuels removal would create a higher canopy base height and lower surface fire intensity, thus protecting the larger trees from lethal fire damage. Removal of vegetation adjacent to the stand would have similar effects on reducing fire intensity in the chaparral and would also reduce the potential for negative impacts from wildfire on the Coulter pine and bigcone Douglas-fir stands.
Table 27. Change in fire type in Coulter pine and bigcone Douglas-fir in planning area
Existing Condition Post Treatment Condition Bigcone Bigcone Fire type Coulter Pine Coulter Pine Douglas-fir Douglas-fir Surface fire 75 21 89 53 Passive Crown fire 69 84 57 55 Active Crown fire 33 6 30 2
Stand Structure/Species Composition as Related to Fire Risk Evidence from recent studies of wildfires points to the importance of treating the entire fuels profile, from surface fuels to crown fuels. Omi and Martinson (2002) found significant correlations between stand conditions and wildfire severity; height to live crowns had the strongest correlation to fire severity, and stand density and basal area were also important factors. Studying the 1994 Wenatchee fires, Agee (1996) found that thinned stands were below the critical
58 Environmental Assessment crown bulk density needed to sustain crown fire, and the fires dropped to the ground in thinned areas; he concludes that forest structure can be manipulated to reduce severity of fire events, and that this is probably most true in lower elevation forests with historic low severity fire regimes. Graham et al. (2004) concluded that thinning treatments that are followed by reduction of surface fuels can significantly limit fire spread under wildfire conditions. The treatments under the proposed action would treat the entire fuels profile (surface fuels, ladder fuels, crown fuels) and would be followed by treatments of fuels generated from operations (tops, limbs, tree stems, etc.). The alternatives can be compared in terms of the following stand structural elements affecting fire risk and severity in the Jeffrey pine and Coulter pine strata: • Reduction in the number of canopy layers in the stand. This parameter relates directly to crown bulk density and crown base height, which are two of the three primary determinants of fire behavior (Graham et. al. 1999). The acres thinned from below, 1,118 acres (Table 24), is the measure of the reduction in canopy layers; the size limit of the trees removed or cut affects the efficacy of the thinning in regards to reduction in crown bulk density and number of layers.
• Increase in average DBH of the stand (Table 25). Larger trees have thicker bark and are more resistant to flame scorch from surface fuels. Thinning from below on 1,118 acres would result in an increase in average DBH (average DBH of trees removed or cut is less than the average DBH of residual trees, resulting in a post-treatment average DBH that is greater).
• Shifting stand composition towards fire-resistant species. Thinning from below on 1,118 acres, favoring fire-resistant species (i.e. pines), is the measure for changing species composition.
• Treatment of activity generated surface fuels on 1,118 acres. All vegetative treatments would include (whole tree yarding/yarding tops) or be followed by a treatment of slash from operations.
• Treatment of natural surface fuels (brush and 3 inches and smaller fuels) on 1,118 acres. This element deals with manual release of pines/black oaks, treatments to reduce density of shrubs, and pile burning/jackpot burning. Predicted mortality and predicted canopy cover from simulated severe wildfire in 2,010 are shown in Table 28 and Table 29 for the Jeffrey pine stratum. Both total mortality and mortality of trees 20 inches and larger are reduced in all units under the proposed action. Canopy cover is predicted to be similarly affected.
59 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
Table 28. Predicted (FVS-FFE) mortality from a severe fire in Jeffrey pine stratum
Unit No Action %BA Killed Proposed Action %BA Killed 6 91 87 7 92 4 8,8A,8B 91 53 10 54 20 16 73 54 19 94 93 22,22A,22B 88 87 Notes: Units 19, 22, 22A, and 22B have a large live oak component that will mostly remain after treatment.
Table 29. Predicted (FVS-FFE) canopy cover from a severe fire in Jeffrey pine stratum
No Action Canopy No Action Canopy Proposed Action Proposed Action Unit Cover Cover Canopy Cover Canopy Cover Pre-Fire Post-Fire Pre-Fire Post-Fire 6 31 3 23 3 7 26 2 26 21 8 36 3 36 10 8A,8B 36 3 26 10 10 45 18 29 22 16 19 3 12 2 19 13 1 12 1 22,22A,22B 36 3 36 3
Continued Risk of Losses to Insects and Diseases Management practices aimed at maintaining vigorously growing stands can considerably reduce the potential impact of insect and disease agents and enhance forest health (Helms 1994). Under the proposed action, thinning treatments would reduce competition stress on pines by removing intermediate and suppressed trees, white fir and incense cedar, and live oaks less than 6 inches DBH where these trees are competing with pines and black oaks. The live oak stems less than 6 inches represent a considerable component of competition with the pines in many units. Removing the live oak around pines may not reduce overall stand density much, but would provide needed growing space to keep these trees growing at rates that would allow them to be resistant to bark beetles. Two recent studies have shown the ability of older trees to respond to reductions in density from thinning treatments with increased growth, which according to basic tree physiology should indicate an improvement in tree vigor and increased resistance to insects and pathogens. Latham and Tappeiner (2002) measured diameter growth increments of 271 old-growth ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and sugar pine in 13 treated and four untreated stands in the Cascades of southwest Oregon. Basal area growth was significantly greater in the treated stands than in the control stands. Fitzgerald et al. (2000) are testing the hypothesis that managed old-growth stands, where density and composition are maintained at historic levels, remain viable longer as old-growth
60 Environmental Assessment habitat (Genesis Research and Demonstration Area). Stands were treated with thinning followed by underburning. Preliminary results, after three years of measurement, indicate that vigor of residual old-growth trees is increasing. A similar study has been initiated in the Whitehorse area of the Lolo NF (Hillis et al. 2001). The authors anticipate increased growth response of the residual old-growth trees, based on nearby research showing response of 800-year-old pine to release from competition by fire. Under the proposed action (Table 30 and Table 31), stands would be maintained at the low to mid-range of desirable stand density through 2025 (see Management of Density for Healthy Forest Conditions, above). Units 16, 19, 22, 22A, and 22B are currently below desired stocking due to mortality and site occupancy by live oaks, and thinning would not reduce overstory tree density.
Table 30. Basal area per acre under the proposed action in Jeffrey pine stratum
Unit Proposed Action 2005 Proposed Action 2025 6 101 109 7 124 133 8,8A,8B 108 116 10 140 149 16 41 45 19 38 49 22.22A,22B 77 88 Note: Units 7, 8, 22, 22A, and 22B are in CASPO territories, and thinning would remove fewer trees, so basal area would be less affected
Table 31. Stand Density Index (SDI) under the proposed action in Jeffrey pine stratum
Unit Proposed Action 2005 Proposed Action 2025 6 150 175 7 192 216 8,8A,8B 157 179 10 191 210 16 78 95 19 75 108 22,22A,22B 121 146 Note: Units 7, 8, 22, 22A, and 22B are in CASPO territories, and thinning would remove fewer trees, so basal area would be less affected
Cumulative Effects The other vegetation management projects that have occurred on approximately 6,000 acres (since mid-1980s: Angelus, Azalea, Bonita Vista, Hwy. 243, Hwy. 74, May Valley, North Fork, Pinewood, and Southridge projects) within the District have created forest conditions that are resistant to adverse effects of drought, insects, and disease as well as enhancing recruitment of trees into the large-tree category by favoring growth of dominant and codominant trees. The
61 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project selection of proposed action would improve forest conditions and large-tree recruitment on an additional 1,200 acres of Jeffrey pine and 120 acres of Coulter pine, achieving desired forest conditions over a larger landscape. The proposed action would attempt to restore many of the ecosystem components that have been altered through the cumulative effects of past by treating approximately 70 percent of the Jeffrey pine and 100 percent of the Coulter pine within the project area. These actions would likely have an overwhelmingly positive effect on the current condition, which is not meeting many desired conditions for vegetation.
Contrasting Effects of Proposed Actions with Past Actions
The Thomas Mountain Project objectives address concerns for fuels reduction, forest health, species viability, ecosystem integrity, and sustainability, by improving species and structural diversity in a variety of forest settings. As compared with most management activities that occurred prior to this project, the Thomas Mountain Project places an emphasis on thinning and use of fire to promote historic stand structure and species composition and maintenance of conditions that promote the health and sustainability of forested areas. Treatments are designed to retain snags, and coarse woody debris. In many instances, past intermediate harvest may have removed the largest, most valuable overstory trees to ‘release’ the developing understory. This practice of removing the most fire- resistant species contrasts with this project, where maintenance and promotion of fire-adapted species is a primary objective. With this project, silvicultural treatments are expected to improve forest conditions that have resulted from the interruption of a natural fire cycle. Areas would be managed to reduce stand density, improve tree growth, and promote a more open stand structure that is conducive to the potential future use of prescribed fire. Coulter pine stands with low mortality would be thinned to promote growth and insect resistance in order to keep some of this forest type alive within the chaparral until regenerating stands develop to the point where they can provide spotted owl habitat. Stands that have experienced recent heavy mortality would be regenerated using fire to release seed stored in serotinous cones. Where a seed source is not present due to mortality from insects, the area would be planted to Coulter pine after being burned. Unlike many past actions, which responded primarily to individual stand treatment needs, proposed activities are a reflection of landscape-level strategies. This effort is directed at trending stand conditions towards a more sustainable and resilient level.
Effects of Ongoing and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions
The ongoing Hwy. 74 and Garner Valley fuels reduction project are consistent with the objectives of the proposed action and will help restore fire, and the associated ecosystem processes, to these fire-adapted ecosystems. As discussed previously, fire suppression is likely to continue to contribute to uncharacteristic vegetative conditions. There would be no cumulative effect to the
62 Environmental Assessment forest vegetation resource from ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities, such as road maintenance, weed control, public use of national forest lands, and outfitter and guide permits. The mountain pine beetle has been active in many portions of the project area for a number of years. As previously described, mortality in Coulter pine likely peaked around 2004, which has resulted in mortality levels in Coulter pine stands that vary from 20 to 90 percent. Whether or not management actions are taken, insects and pathogens will continue to play their role in modifying forest vegetation. Mortality in Coulter pine as a result of ongoing bark beetle infestation will continue, particularly in the maturing trees that are less vigorous. The same can be said regarding Jeffrey pine stands. However, it is expected that thinning treatments in this project will improve individual tree vigor and resistance to bark beetles. Also, this project in combination with the recent/ongoing North Fork San Jacinto Project, the South Ridge Project, and the Pinewood Project should lead to the eventual reduction of bark-beetle susceptible trees on the landscape. Beetle populations are controlled by many factors such as weather, pathogens, and predators, but the presence of host trees that are weakened by competition and drought is also a major factor. A reduction in the number of susceptible trees should contribute to an eventual reduction in beetle populations on the landscape. Large areas of standing dead or down trees form bark-beetle mortality can provide a fuel matrix for the rapid spread of wildfires. In particularly dry years, insect infestations and mortality could increase dramatically, limiting management options. Where these effects are considered negative, it may be necessary to respond in an appropriate and timely manner through prevention measures such as thinning.
Combined Effects from Past, Proposed, Ongoing and Foreseeable Actions
Where thinning and burning is implemented, post-treatment conditions are expected to move the project area more towards historic conditions than what currently exist partly as a result of cumulative past actions. By design, the proposed treatments are expected to contribute towards maintaining the desired seral species composition, creating conditions more typical of a frequent low-severity fire regime, and trending towards a more open stand structure with improved growth potential. Unlike sanitation-salvage harvest, proposed thinning harvests and treatments would not change the successional stage distribution, although the average tree diameter would increase in treated stands.
Vegetation Project Monitoring The following monitoring is recommended for the Thomas Mountain Project: • Annual insect and disease mortality surveys; ongoing program accomplished by Forest Health Protection (FHP);
• Short- and long-term prescribed fire effects surveys accomplished directly after implementation of prescribed fire and at one-, three-, and five-year intervals; and
63 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
• Post-treatment stand exams within each of the treatment units; accomplished within five years of all treatments having been completed. These would provide baseline data on tree and plant vegetation responses and how well implementation of treatments meet the objectives and desired conditions.
Environmental Consequences to Fire and Fuel Conditions Alternative 1 - No Action Direct Effects
There would be no direct or immediate effects on fire behavior, fuel loading or resistance to control from taking no action. Fire suppression would continue to be implemented with the appropriate management response on all fires. When suppression resources are readily available fires would likely remain small in many of the dense forested areas due to the presence and location of many of the roads in the planning area. Ignitions in the mature chaparral could develop into large intense wildfires because of the flammability and density of the mature chaparral and the limited roaded access in this fuel type within the planning area.
Indirect Effects Crown fires are generally considered the primary threat to ecological and human values. The intensity, rapid rates of spread, and spotting can overwhelm suppression efforts and put the public and firefighters in danger. Such fire conditions can also consume vast areas of vegetation, which can lead to increased erosion and sedimentation. Under the No Action Alternative 91 percent of the planning area has the potential for active or passive crown fire. Fire behavior under normal, summer, dry conditions would continue to threaten habitat, people and their homes, and watersheds that are important to communities within and downslope from the mountains. Surface and aerial fuels would accumulate in the absence of fire or mechanical removal. Large even-aged blocks of chaparral tend to be self-perpetuating since the areas become ready to burn at the same time. Large wildfires can cause erosion and sedimentation and reduce structural diversity across the chaparral landscape. Live and dead portions of the plant can carry fire to the crown. The forest edge transition and forested drainages within shrub communities are susceptible to negative effects from intense fire originating in the chaparral. High heat levels and flames can push into the forest with lethal effects to conifers, and top-killing live oaks. Shrub species can easily invade or convert these sites. The recovering forest is more likely to reburn at higher fire intensity until oaks attain tree stature and shade out shrubs (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999); this could take decades and require very aggressive fire suppression.
64 Environmental Assessment
Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects boundary for fuels resources is shown Figure 12 in and the timeframe is 10 years. Treatments accomplished in the late 1980s and 1990s on the southwest slopes of Rouse Ridge, west of Thomas Mountain planning area, are still providing a reduced fuel hazard condition adjacent to and west of Ramona Reservation and the upper western slopes of Thomas Mountain. Small-scale timber management operations have maintained an open pine forest along the upper ridge, with little surface fuels or snags, and have removed hazard trees along roadways and in campsites. Recent mechanical treatments along Highway 74 have reduced the density of sagebrush, reducing fire intensity in lower elevation Jeffrey pine stands, which are also adjacent to Garner Valley communities. Some fuels reduction has occurred on private land within the Garner Valley communities. Mowed areas and irrigated lawns and pastures provide defensible space to clusters of residences. Many roads are present within developed areas. Evacuation route markers have been posted in case of emergency. The vegetation that has regenerated following the Hemet Fire, which occurred on 26 percent of the planning area, has matured to the point it no longer offers any protection to Thomas Mountain or the Garner Valley residents. The Highway 74 Fuel Reduction Project is treating vegetation up to 600 feet on either side of the evacuation route to reduce fuels and fire intensity, while providing defensible positions for suppression operations.
Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Implementation of the proposed action would modify fire behavior on a total of 10,465 acres. Not every acre of each unit would receive treatment. In units treated mechanically prior to burning, 50 to 75 percent of the area would likely receive treatment while the entire unit would benefit. Fire would likely affect 50 to 75 percent of underburned and broadcast burned units; burning piles would affect much less of the ground surface. Proposed treatment of the natural Table 32. Proposed treatment of natural and activity and activity fuels is displayed in Table 32 fuels. and Table 33. The term “prescribed burn” Prescribed Burn Only 6,353 acres Mechanical and/or hand operations is used here to include broadcast burning 4,113 acres with Prescribed Burn in chaparral, underburning in the forested communities, or pile burning. Fuel from slash generated through thinning and brush cutting would be disposed of by pile burning or removal off-site.
65 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
Figure 12. Cumulative effects boundary for fue ls resource in Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
66 Environmental Assessment
Table 33. Types of prescribed burn treatments
Prescribed fire type** Piles (hand system only) Hand piles (< 5 tons/pile) 1,970 acres Piles (combinations of hand and Hand or small machine piles (5-10 tons/pile) 1,942 acres ground-based systems due to terrain) Piles (ground-based system only) Machine piles (> 15 tons/pile) 45 acres Light (grass fuel types) 1,001 acres Underburning Medium (litter & light slash) 1,068 acres Broadcast burning Heavy (chaparral or mixed chaparral and conifer) 7,833 acres **because more than one type of prescribed burn may be used in a unit, acres will add up to more than the total treated acres Direct and Indirect Effects Treatment would account for a 51 percent reduction of active crown fire across the planning area and an 86 percent reduction of active crown fire in the defense zone. Most of this reduction in fire intensity would occur in the chaparral fuel types. See Table 34 and Table 35 for fire type change in the planning area and the defense zone before and after treatment
Table 34. Change in fire type in planning area
Fire Type Existing After Treatment % of Planning % of Planning Acres Acres Area Area No fire 46 <1 46 <1 Surface fire 1,487 9 2,643 16 Passive Crown fire 7,362 46 9,884 62 Active Crown fire 7,150 45 3,472 22
Table 35. Change in fire type in defense zone
Fire Type Existing After Treatment Acres % of Defense Zone Acres % of Defense Zone No fire 38 2 38 2 Surface fire 96 5 393 22 Passive Crown fire 791 45 1206 69 Active Crown fire 825 47 113 6
Chaparral in the defense zone would likely be maintained in a condition where crown closure does not reoccur, reducing the future risk of high-intensity fire in close proximity to homes. In the threat zone, top-kill of chaparral species is expected to create a mosaic of burned and unburned patches across the unit. Much of the area burned would likely have patchy vegetation interspersed with rocky areas and bedrock, which would reduce fire spread. After shrubs have resprouted and grass has filled in gaps, treated chaparral areas are likely to be ineffective at stopping wildfires under extreme conditions, such as the wind-driven wildfires of
67 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
2003. But anecdotal evidence from local fire managers confirms that creating a variety of age classes within large expanses of mature chaparral can reduce fire intensity thus increasing the success of suppression tactics (Ross pers. comm. 2006). This is particularly true of most fires under normal conditions, and was demonstrated in a recent wildfire within the Bee Canyon (1996) fire perimeter. Suppression forces the first day were successful in controlling the fire at less than 500 acres. Rate of spread and flame length are two variables of fire behavior that define intensity. Looking at Table 36 and Table 37, treated chaparral falls between low-moderate and moderate fireline intensity versus high fireline intensity in untreated chaparral. The patchy fuel distribution has an effect on reducing the rate of spread even though patches may exhibit moderate intensity, torching and smaller crown runs. The reduced rate of spread also benefits fire control by allowing more time to implement tactical operations. Treatment would decrease fire intensity and rate of spread from current conditions, and in turn would increase effectiveness of suppression actions, increase safety for firefighters who need to work in close proximity to the fire, and allow more time to evacuate if necessary. Treatment such as mastication has also been shown to reduce fire intensity and rate of spread in other areas of southern California where chaparral has been treated (Benefield 2003).
Table 36. Fireline intensity interpretations
Intensity Flame length BTU/ft/sec Interpretations Less than Direct attack at head and flanks with hand crews, Low <4 feet 100 handlines should stop spread of fire Low- Employment of engines, dozers, and aircraft needed for 4-8 feet 100-500 Moderate direct attack, too intense for persons with hand tools Control problems, torching, crowning, spotting; control Moderate 8-11 feet 500-1000 efforts at the head are likely ineffective Greater than Control problems, torching, crowning, spotting; control High > 11 feet 1000 efforts at the head are ineffective
Table 37. Fire behavior characteristics in treated and untreated chaparral at 90th percentile weather conditions
Existing Mature Chaparral Post Treatment Chaparral
(Scott & Bergen SH5) (Scott & Bergen SH2) Rate of Spread, ft/hr 5,676 (1 mile = 5,280 ft)) 660 (1/8 mile) Flame Length, ft 25-30 5-10
68 Environmental Assessment
Figure 13. Potential fire following treatment in the Thomas Mountain planning area
69 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
Cumulative Effects On a landscape scale, the Thomas Mountain Project would increase the area of reduced fire intensity provided currently by Mixing Fire, Rouse Ridge fuelbreak and prescribed burns, and Garner Valley Fuel Reduction Project, to protect the Garner Valley communities and the Ramona Reservation, and California spotted owl territories, watershed values, and aesthetic and recreation values in the Thomas Mountain area. The proposed vegetation treatments would create fuel conditions that allow fire to be used on this fire-adapted landscape with reduced risk of negative impacts to California spotted owl habitat as well as desired vegetation composition and structure. The Thomas Mountain Project would establish a defense zone around the east, south, and west boundaries of the Garner Valley communities, continuing the efforts initiated by the Garner Valley Fuel Reduction Project. In combination with fuel reduction on private lands and irrigated and/or mowed lawns and pastures, a defensible zone would be created providing a safer firefighting environment and likely increasing the ability of suppression forces to protect structures. Defensible space would be created for the residents of the Ramona Reservation through vegetation removal on tribal and National Forest lands. Defense zones and evacuation route corridors would be treated for reduced fire intensity and rate of spread. In combination with the Highway 74 Evacuation Route Project, Highway 74 and Highway 371 would have zones where fire intensity and rate of spread is less than current conditions, allowing evacuation and suppression operations to occur more safely.
Environmental Consequences to Wildlife This section discloses possible impacts to threatened and endangered wildlife species, and because of the high degree of concern, to California spotted owl. Elements that were brought forward as analysis issues are also discussed. Impact analysis and documentation for other wildlife species of concern was completed and can be found in the Biological Assessment (Dyke 2006a) and Wildlife Biological Evaluation Reports (Dyke 2006b). Several key elements were selected to track as indicators of effects of this project. By law, it is a requirement of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 1973 (as amended) at section 7(a)(2) that Federal agencies insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by the agency is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. To comply with this requirement, the agency must conduct a biological assessment (BA), in which effects to listed species are analyzed and disclosed in the form of an “effects determination.” Further consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may be necessary if the determination for a listed species is “may affect.” The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) gives direction on providing diversity of plant and animal communities, and for providing habitat to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in planning areas. Further direction is given in the 1983 USDA Departmental Regulation 9500-4 that habitats for all existing native and desired
70 Environmental Assessment non-native wildlife species will be managed to maintain at least viable populations of such species. The regulations at 36 CFR 219.20 give direction on ecological sustainability, including species diversity and providing for viability of wildlife populations. The Forest Plan gives direction on providing for diversity and viability of wildlife populations, and for maintenance and improvement of habitat for management emphasis species. Migratory bird conventions impose obligations on Federal agencies for the conservation of migratory birds and their habitats. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act has implemented these conventions with respect to the United States, and Executive Order 13186 ensures that environmental analyses of Federal actions required by the NEPA or other established environmental review processes evaluate the effects of actions on migratory birds, with emphasis on species of concern. Finally, the Forest Service Manual at 2673.4 gives direction on conducting biological evaluations (BE) as part of the NEPA decision making process to analyze project impacts and make an impact determination for regional sensitive species. The indicators chosen for the Thomas Mountain Project are threatened, endangered, sensitive and management indicator species that may be present in the project area, and various habitat components for those species. Additionally, to address the concerns of migratory and resident landbirds, the Partners in Flight (PIF) priority species for the applicable habitat types, and the US Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) for applicable habitat types are considered for effects analysis.
Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species Bald Eagle
Alternative 1 - No Action Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects The only expected effect if no action were taken would be the continued increased risk of high- intensity, severe wildfire, which could destroy suitable nesting and roosting habitat for bald eagles.
Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Project activities are not expected to affect breeding, social, or foraging behaviors of bald eagles. Some suitable perch trees could be removed, but the amount of large tree removal would not be enough to alter the suitability of the habitat in the project area. It is expected that in units designated for thinning (2, 3A and 3B) few if any trees greater than 20 inches DBH would be removed. The largest trees would be left and available for use as perch trees. These units are far enough away from the present nest site that it is not expected that the bald eagle pair would be looking for alternate nest trees in those areas. Reforestation in units 1, 18 and 26 would facilitate
71 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
the maintenance of these stands as conifer stands, and would speed the development of mature age class structure. Additionally, reforestation would shorten the length of time it would take to grow large trees as replacements for those that would die off from natural causes. There is a chance that project activities could cause disturbance to roosting eagles, although protective measures incorporated as design features, and the tolerance for human activity displayed by the species would make this type of impact improbable. Cumulative Effects There are no known State or private activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the project area. Additionally, there are no other Forest Service projects that have been planned or implemented within the project area relevant to effects on this species. No cumulative effects are expected to this species.
Determination: The Thomas Mountain Project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect individual bald eagles. Rationale for Determination: It is possible that some suitable perch trees could be removed. Disturbance buffers and seasonal timing restriction for implementation would reduce chances of disturbance. No impacts to social, foraging or breeding behavior are anticipated.
Quino Checkerspot Butterfly The analysis area for Quino checkerspot butterfly (QCB) is the entire project area.
Alternative 1 - No Action Direct and Indirect Effects The Rouse North prescribed burn, implemented in 1993 and 1995, impacted approximately 180 acres in the analysis area. The Baldy Project prescribed burn impacted approximately 179 acres of potential QCB habitat. The Bonita Vista project started in 2004 and still in progress, will impact approximately 130 acres within the analysis area by mastication and prescribed burning. The Garner Valley project was started in 2005 and is ongoing. While these treatments would have a short-term negative effect on the habitat, over the long term they would prove beneficial in reducing the risk of landscape scale, high-intensity wildfire. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects time frame is 15 years, 10 years past and 5 years into the future. There are no known State or private activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the project area. Therefore, no cumulative effects as defined by the ESA are expected to this species. However, the cumulative effects analysis area as defined by NEPA is the potentially suitable habitat within the portion of the recovery unit that lies within the San Jacinto Ranger District boundary. This area was identified by querying the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) data for
72 Environmental Assessment redshank/chaparral type and is approximately 37,975 acres. Cumulative effects as defined by NEPA have or might occur from several Forest Service projects, and consist of alteration of suitable or potentially suitable habitat. A list of projects is included in the EA as Appendix A. Since not all potentially suitable habitat has been classified for the entire San Jacinto Ranger District, impacts can not be quantified at this time.
Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Suitable habitat in treatment units 13, 14, 15, 15B, 28, 29 and 29A (known occupied sites) would be surveyed to locate host plant patches prior to implementation. All host plant patches would be flagged and withdrawn from treatment. Impacts to individual adults are improbable in these units since host plant patches would be excluded from treatment and implementation would take place outside of the flight season. However, there is a chance that undetected individual larvae near the treatment units could be killed, or that prescribed fires could jump containment lines and burn in flagged off areas. Additionally, because not all potential habitat sites in other treatment units would be surveyed for suitability or occupancy prior to implementation, it is possible that some take of undetected adults or larvae would occur. The presence of biological monitors during implementation would decrease the chances of take, but not eliminate the possibility altogether. Some potentially suitable habitat would be altered by mastication, and/or burning under the proposed action alternative. This would leave the habitat unsuitable over the short term, until vegetation reestablishes. Over the long term, implementation of prescribed burns would promote habitat sustainability and would result in avoidance of landscape-scale wildfires burning at high intensity and destroying habitat for this species. The recovery plan for this species (USFWS 2003) recommends implementing controlled burns over small areas to avoid landscape-scale wildfires. The Thomas Mountain project proposes to implement controlled burns on approximately 9,900 acres, in stages over approximately five years. This comprises approximately four percent of the South Riverside/North San Diego recovery unit. One goal of implementing these controlled burns is to avoid landscape-scale wildfires, which would benefit the QCB. Cumulative Effects In addition to the cumulative effects listed above, this project would impact approximately 1,239 acres within the analysis area by mastication and prescribed burning. While these treatments would have a short-term negative effect on the habitat, over the long term they would prove beneficial in reducing the risk of landscape scale, high-intensity wildfire. Determination: The Thomas Mountain Project may affect and is likely to adversely affect QCB.
73 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
Rationale for Determination: • All suitable habitat would be flagged and avoided, however, the project could result in mortality of undetected individuals and uncertainty regarding take of individuals; • While cumulative impacts are anticipated to have beneficial effects to QCB species and habitat in the long term by reducing the risk of landscape scale and high-intensity wildfire, there would be a short-term negative effect on the habitat and potential loss of individuals.
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher The analysis area for this species is the modeled habitat that is suitable or not yet surveyed for suitability.
Alternative 1 - No Action Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects The only expected effect if no action were taken would be the continued increased risk of high- intensity, severe wildfire destroying potentially suitable habitat for southwestern willow flycatchers.
Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Modeled habitat that is suitable, or has not been surveyed for suitability would be avoided during the nesting season (May 15 through August 31). Treatments within suitable or non-surveyed modeled habitat would be strictly low-intensity underburning, backed into the riparian zones. Some of the ground vegetation in the riparian zones would be burned, but would be expected to recover within a growing season. No riparian vegetation would be removed during this project. If individual flycatchers were occupying the burn units after breeding season, it is highly likely that project activities would cause the birds to avoid the area and relocate to other habitat. If this project is implemented, it would reduce the risk of habitat loss due to wildfire. An implementation timing restriction on unit 29 would prevent any disturbance during breeding season if the previously occupied territory in Bautista Canyon were to be occupied during implementation years. This territory was discovered in 2001 and is outside of the project boundary, but within approximately 0.25 mile of unit 29. Cumulative Effects There are no known cumulative effects under the ESA definition. All Forest Service projects are designed to protect modeled habitat and streamside zones, and are designed to avoid project activities during the breeding season for this species. No past Forest Service projects have treated suitable habitat or non-surveyed modeled habitat. The Thomas Mountain Project would not treat riparian habitat, and would avoid any suitable or non-surveyed modeled habitat during breeding season. For these reasons, no cumulative effects are expected from the Thomas Mountain Project.
74 Environmental Assessment
Determination: The Thomas Mountain Project would have no effect to southwestern willow flycatchers, or to designated critical habitat. Rationale for Determination: There would be no project activity in suitable or non-surveyed modeled habitat during the breeding season for this species. No riparian vegetation would be altered. The species has not been documented to occur in the project area.
California Spotted Owl Habitat Spotted owls on the SBNF typically nest in dense, old-aged, multi-layered forests with large (greater than 24 inch average DBH) trees, hardwood understories, and greater than 60 percent canopy closure. They prefer stands with large-diameter snags, trees with broken tops, diseased trees with cavities, and large diameter fallen trees (Stephenson 1989). Spotted owls usually nest in platform nests or tree or snag cavities (LaHaye and Gutierrez 1988). They feed on small mammals. In southern California, woodrats comprise the majority of their diet (LaHaye and Gutierrez 1988). Home range sizes for spotted owls on the San Bernardino National Forest have been estimated between 2 and 13 square miles (LaHaye and Gutierrez 1988). Spotted owls breed from early March through June, with a peak period from April to May. They produce one clutch each year of one to four eggs (Zeiner et al. 1990a). Suitable habitat within the project area was modeled in ArcMap using the CalVeg data and the habitat suitability criteria from the habitat rating guide in the Conservation Strategy. Currently there are approximately 1,582 acres of suitable spotted owl habitat within the project area. Five spotted owl territories partially overlap with the project area. Protocol presence/absence surveys were completed in 2006 for all five territories; all were vacant. California spotted owl occupancy and breeding surveys have been ongoing for several years on the district. Occupancy rates of spotted owl territories appear to be relatively low in the San Jacinto Mountains, but have been increasing over the past few years. The occupancy rate of the owl territories surveyed in the San Jacinto Mountains in 2004 was about 20 percent; in 2005 about 48 percent, and in 2006, 55 percent (district files). Spotted owl reproduction is very low in the San Jacinto Mountains. In 2004, only one juvenile was observed; two juveniles were observed in 2005 and two in 2006 during surveys. Until 2004, the last observation of a spotted owl juvenile was in 1994. This may be linked to the series of dry winters in southern California during the past six years. If this weather trend continues, it will increase the probability that spotted owls in the San Jacinto Mountains may disappear (LaHaye 2004). The current drought and associated beetle infestation is leading to extensive conifer mortality in the San Jacinto Mountains. Additionally, dead trees and extended periods of dry weather increase the probability of large, stand-replacing wildfires. The combination of these potential impacts is likely to reduce the area of forested habitat in this region. Thus, there may be a
75 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
substantial reduction in area of suitable spotted owl habitat leading to a permanent reduction in spotted owl numbers in this region (LaHaye 2004). Recently the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) found that listing of the California spotted owl under the Endangered Species Act as not warranted. This was in response to the second petition in three years to list the species. The USFWS concluded that:
“The San Bernardino population in Southern California does show a statistically non- significant decline. But in light of the health of all California spotted owl populations, this decline does not warrant a listing of the California spotted owl.”
“Forest fuels reduction activities, notably those provided for in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment of 2004 may have a short-term impact on owl populations. But fuels reduction will have a long-term benefit to California spotted owls by reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires that pose a major threat to California spotted owl habitat.”
The following statements were included in a press release dated May 23, 2006 (USFWS 2006):
“According to a team of scientists convened especially to review the status of the California spotted owl, catastrophic wildfire is the primary threat to spotted owls,” said Steve Thompson, manager of the Fish and Wildlife Service's California/Nevada Operations Office. “While the current evidence does not support listing the owl at this time, the fuels-reduction efforts begun by the U.S. Forest Service in the Sierra Nevada and Southern California will be essential to keeping the California spotted owl off the endangered species list in the future.”
"We support fuel reduction efforts," said Ryan Broddrick, director for the California Department of Fish and Game. "Our desire is to monitor the habitat for all species and insure the overall health of our forests, avoiding the impacts on wildlife from catastrophic wildfires."
Baseline or historic reference conditions used for evaluating the alternatives are described for clarity. In light of the historic reference conditions, it is important to consider where spotted owl habitat likely occurred on the landscape before alteration of natural disturbance regimes occurred. North slopes, canyon bottoms, and sites protected from winds would generally have burned less often, and may have been more closely associated with nesting/roosting habitat (Weatherspoon et al. (1992). Historic reference conditions are assumed sustainable over the long term in terms of insect and disease outbreaks and fire severity. The conservation strategy provides an assumed reference condition reflecting conditions required for owls based on their current occurrence. These habitat conditions may be sustainable when other areas of the landscape (representing the majority of situations) are managed towards reference conditions created by a frequent low- moderate severity fire regime.
76 Environmental Assessment
Management of Density and Structure for Spotted Owl Habitat
Weatherspoon et al. (1992) made observations regarding fire and fuels management in relation to spotted owl habitat in forests of the Sierra Nevada and southern California. The following are some key points from this report: 1. The historic fire regime was frequent, low-moderate severity. More mesic sites and sites protected from winds burned less often, and may have been more closely associated with nesting and roosting habitat, with its complement of shade-tolerant, fire-sensitive species. 2. Suppression of fires has led to an increase in numbers of white fir and incense cedar, and development of multiple canopy layers; as a consequence, stands have become more complex vertically and less complex spatially. Increasing numbers of trees has led to higher levels of inter-tree competition and moisture stress, often resulting in bark beetle mortality, opening of the canopy, and fuel buildup. 3. Initial attack of fire starts has been successful in owl habitat because it is less flammable under most conditions, given a closed canopy is present. However, the authors present three scenarios for loss of habitat from fire: 1) a fire starts on lower slope in flammable chaparral and/or pine types and enters owl habitat with too much energy to suppress it; 2) many lightning strikes strain resources, delaying initial attack and leading to development of a large fire; and 3) a human caused fire under severe weather conditions leads to rapid fire growth before resources can be deployed. 4. The authors recommend an approach that uses understanding of natural ecosystem processes to guide management, not a “hands-off plus fire exclusion” policy, the latter of which would likely lead to degraded and depauperate, rather than healthy and biologically diverse ecosystems. 5. Highest priority for prescribed burning would be the PACs. 6. Recommended strategy to protect bigcone Douglas-fir habitat would be to concentrate burning in chaparral near these stands. A recent finding for a petition to list the California spotted owl under the ESA (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2006) concluded that planned and currently implemented fuels reduction projects in the Sierras and southern California will have a long-term benefit to spotted owls by reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire. It was recognized that a primary threat to spotted owls is loss of habitat and subsequent population losses due to stand-replacing fires in unnaturally dense stands.
Alternative 1 - No Action Direct and Indirect Effects Recent drought-related tree mortality has increased the amount of standing and down fuel. Long- term surface fuel loading will continue to increase as more trees die and snags fall. Pockets of dead trees will add to high fuel concentrations. In the absence of vegetation and fuels
77 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
management, risk of severe fire behavior will continue to increase. See Fire and Fuels Report for more detailed discussion of existing and predicted fire risk and behavior (Gallagher and Young 2007). The Western Sierra Nevada (WS) Variant of the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) (Dixon 1994) and the Fire and Fuels Extension (FFE) model Reinhardt and Crookston 2003) were used to simulate thinning and fuel treatments for the Jeffrey pine within the project area. Data for running the model came from the stand exams that were completed in 2005 on units within the Jeffrey pine stratum. The effects of no action and the proposed action on wildfire effects were modeled. Mortality and remaining canopy cover in the event of a simulated severe wildfire in 2010 were predicted using these models. Results showed that post-fire canopy cover would be reduced to approximately 3 percent, and basal area mortality would range from 88 percent to 92 percent in CASPO territories (Schantz 2007).
Late-Successional/Spotted Owl Habitat The No Action Alternative would defer vegetative treatment for at least 10 years. During this time, the following effects would accrue to late-successional/spotted owl habitat: • Loss of the remnant Jeffrey pine component would continue to occur in all units in the Jeffrey pine stratum. These old trees provide structure as nest trees in spotted owl habitat.
• Loss of the relatively sparse Jeffrey pine component would continue to occur in units 16, 19, 22, 22A, and 22B. This mortality of the pines would contribute to the ongoing species conversion to live oak, white fir, and incense cedar; while these species are desirable in owl habitat, there is a risk of losing the key structural component of long-lived Jeffrey pine.
• Continued loss of Coulter pine stands within chaparral, which provide owl habitat at lower elevations.
• Continued loss of bigcone Douglas-fir stands within chaparral, which provide owl habitat at lower elevations. Large old-growth trees are the key structural components of late-successional forests because of the time required for their development, their habitat functions as living trees, and because they contribute to the large snag and down wood component of these forests. Altered successional patterns are working against the long-term survival of these old-growth trees. All growing sites have a fixed quantity of resources and growing space, and as inter-tree competition increases it is usually the large trees that die first (Dolph et al. 1995, In: Fitzergerald et. al. 2000). It is thought that we may have only a few decades to deal with this situation, or we risk losing the large trees (Fitzgerald 2002, pers. comm.).
Prey Species and Matrix Habitat Fire characteristics including crown fire potential were modeled using Flammap3 for the proposed action (Gallagher 2006). Results of the crown fire potential modeling showed that
78 Environmental Assessment within the project area, approximately 66 percent of habitat within CASPO territories was at risk for crown fire; 21 percent of CASPO territory acres had active crown-fire potential, 45 percent had passive crown fire potential, and 34 percent had surface fire potential. The existing condition would persist without vegetative treatment.
Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area for spotted owl is approximately bounded by Black Mountain to the north, Indian Mountain to the west, Anstell Rock to the east, and Thomas Mountain to the south. This area encompasses all of the spotted owl territories in the San Jacinto Ranger District. Cumulative effects projects on the district include past, ongoing, and planned Forest Service fuel reduction and hazard tree removal projects, and fuel reduction projects on private land, funded by Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) (Appendix A: Table 2). Ongoing forest management such as recreational activities, special use permits, and fire suppression also continue to affect wildlife, although these activities are difficult to quantify. The Conservation Strategy for the California Spotted Owl is expected to maintain habitat for owls in this and other past, present, and future projects. The other vegetation management projects that have occurred on approximately 10,000 acres within the District have created forest conditions that are resistant to adverse effects of drought, insects, and disease as well as enhancing recruitment of trees into the large-tree category by favoring growth of dominant and codominant trees.
Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Effects of the Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project to California spotted owls would include direct alteration of habitat, loss of some habitat components in matrix habitat such as snags, and short-term reduction of habitat for prey species. Although there would be some trees cut in forested stands, alteration of forest structure would be minimal (Table 38). Of the approximately 1,582 acres of rated suitable owl habitat, 562 acres would have trees removed. Of the approximately 1,375 acres that would be treated within owl territories, 303 acres are planned for thinning where trees would be removed. Within PACs, 108 acres are planned for thinning and would have trees removed. Few, if any trees greater than 20 inches DBH would be removed, 96 percent of the trees removed would be 12 inches DBH or less, and no trees over 24 inches DBH would be removed in PACs or HRCs. Canopy cover would be reduced slightly in one unit. The existing canopy cover would be retained in all other treatment units within owl territories. No snags or down logs would be removed in treatment units within owl territories. No disturbance or displacement impacts are expected because none of the territories in or near the project site are occupied. For the same reason, no impacts to foraging or breeding behavior would be expected. The proposed action would be expected to better maintain existing late-successional habitat elements by reducing losses of remnant Jeffrey pine to insects and
79 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
disease. Loss of this large tree component would continue to occur, but should be reduced as trees respond to the increased growing space. Other late-successional elements thought to be important to owls (snags, down logs, and canopy cover) would be retained according to the Conservation Strategy.
Table 38. Summary of stand structure in units within owl territories under no action and proposed action alternatives
Unit Number Measurement Indicator No Action Proposed Action 7 Canopy Cover 26% 26% 7 Basal Area 124 120 7 Average DBH 10.4 24.4 7 Trees per acre > 16” DBH 27.7 27.7 8 Canopy Cover 36% 30% 8 Basal Area 108 92 8 Average DBH 9.8 22.3 8 Trees per acre > 16” DBH 25.8 23.4 22 Canopy Cover 36% 36% 22 Basal Area 77 65 22 Average DBH 7.9 19.5 22 Trees per acre > 16” DBH 16.7 16.7 22A Canopy Cover 36% 36% 22A Basal Area 77 65 22A Average DBH 7.9 19.5 22A Trees per acre > 16” DBH 16.7 16.7 22B Canopy Cover 36% 36% 22B Basal Area 77 65 22B Average DBH 7.9 19.5 22B Trees per acre > 16” DBH 16.7 16.7
Late-Successional/Spotted Owl Habitat The proposed action would be expected to better maintain existing late-successional habitat elements by reducing losses of remnant Jeffrey pine to insects and disease. Loss of this large tree component would continue to occur, but should be reduced as trees respond to the increased growing space. Other late-successional elements thought to be important to owls (i.e., snags, down logs, and canopy cover) would be retained according to the Conservation Strategy. An indirect effect of the proposed action is the effect on the smaller size trees, especially in the pine species, which are the core element of late-successional habitat in this area. Pole size trees (5 to 8.9 inches) and small trees (9 to 20.9 inches) would be promoted, and good growth is desired in these size classes so that these trees will grow into replacement trees for the old growth trees recently lost to bark beetles and root diseases. Large, old-growth trees are the key structural components of late-successional forests because of the time required for their development, their habitat functions as living trees, and because they contribute to the large snag and down wood component. Altered successional patterns are
80 Environmental Assessment working against the long-term survival of these old-growth trees. All growing sites have a fixed quantity of resources; the proposed action would shift a portion of these resources to the large overstory pines with the objective of maintaining them on the landscape for the foreseeable future. The risk of losing spotted owl habitat at lower elevations in Coulter pine and bigcone Douglas-fir would be reduced in the proposed action. Vulnerability to fires would be reduced in both of these types, and vulnerability to bark beetles in conjunction with drought would be reduced in the Coulter pine. Approximately 1,375 acres of California spotted owl habitat is proposed for treatment. Based on CASPO territories mapped, 53 percent of HRC and PAC habitat would receive direct fuel reduction treatments including thinning from below and prescribed burning to reduce the risk of crown fires. No nest areas are proposed for treatment.
Table 39. Change in fire type acres in treated California spotted owl habitat
Existing Condition Post-treatment Condition
(acres) (acres) Fire type PAC HRC PAC HRC Surface fire 257 288 520 483 Passive Crown fire 376 214 252 74 Active Crown fire 193 71 53 17
Table 40. Change in fire type in California spotted owl habitat in planning area
Existing Condition Post-treatment Condition
(acres) (acres) Fire type PAC HRC NEST PAC HRC NEST Surface fire 320 517 22 585 715 22 Passive Crown fire 569 606 61 444 462 61 Active Crown fire 248 232 66 108 177 66
By reducing fuels on approximately 53 percent of the owl habitat, the potential for crown fire would be reduced and larger areas that support only surface fire would be created. Treatment would nearly eliminate active crown fire on the treated areas and passive crown fire would be reduced by 46 percent. Within the planning area, treatment would break up the contiguous dense canopy in forest and chaparral types. Fire intensity in treated chaparral would be reduced. Suppression efficiency by enabling effective use of aerial water or retardant delivery and line construction would be improved. Prescribed burning in adjacent chaparral would reduce the intensity of wildfire in forest-shrub transition areas and in forested drainages, thereby reducing the potential loss of large conifers in owl habitat. Some tree mortality is expected during implementation of prescribed burns, particularly when high-intensity fire is necessary to meet objectives. Untreated pockets of conifer trees intermixed
81 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
within chaparral may experience lethal fire intensity, crown scorch and flame contact. Live oaks may suffer top-kill from the fire intensity. Lighting with a heli-torch would generally occur above these inclusions so fire backs into the forested inclusions. This firing method creates a slow moving lower intensity fire rather than the high-intensity head fire that is created from lighting the chaparral downslope. Larger sized drainages (those depicted on 7.5 minute topographic maps or visible from the air), are generally lit from the flanks or topside to keep fire intensity low to moderate where canopy cover can be retained reducing erosion. This method of firing has been used extensively in the district and has resulted in creating a mosaic of burned and unburned patches and pockets of trees retained within chaparral. Some mortality of trees may occur in stands that are underburned. Disturbance by fire at intervals mimicking historic fire regimes has not occurred for many years and trees that are generally considered fire tolerant need to be disturbed to maintain or develop traits that make them able to survive low- to moderate-intensity fire. The disposal of activity-generated slash is proposed to accomplish prescribed burning objectives without undesired mortality to residual trees.
Prey Species and Matrix Habitat Alteration of habitat for prey species would occur, however design features are incorporated into the project that would retain much of this habitat. All woodrat middens would be left in place along with a vegetation buffer around them; a minimum of one slash pile per acre would be left for use as denning, nesting, hiding cover, or gathering material for prey species. Retained snags and down logs would continue to provide habitat for spotted owl prey. Matrix habitat (habitat in between delineated territories) would be minimally impacted since the only treatment in these units is prescribed burning. Treatment of fuels in between owl territories (matrix habitat) would reduce the risk of high intensity wildfire and help protect spotted owl territories in the event of fire. Reducing tree density would increase growth and vigor in the residual trees and reduce bark beetle risk to low levels. The stands would be more resistant to crown fire due to the tree thinning and the removal of downed woody fuels. Implementation of the Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project would result in reducing the crown fire potential from 66 percent of acres-at-risk to 28 percent of acres- at-risk. Expected surface fire would increase to 72 percent of owl territory acres. By reducing fuels in owl habitat the potential for crown fire would be reduced and larger areas which support only surface fire would be created. Treatment would nearly eliminate active crown fire on the treated areas and passive crown fire would be significantly reduced. Within the planning area, treatment would break up the contiguous dense canopy in forest and chaparral types. Implementation of the Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project would result in reducing the crown fire potential from 66 percent of acres-at-risk to 28 percent of acres-at-risk. Expected surface fire would increase to 72 percent of owl territory acres.
82 Environmental Assessment
Cumulative Impacts Suitable spotted owl habitat was modeled and mapped for the entire San Jacinto Ranger District. Table 41 shows how much spotted owl habitat would be treated by implementing the Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project, and how much would be or has been treated by past, ongoing, or planned projects on the district. Approximately 3 percent of the total CASPO habitat across the San Jacinto Ranger District would be treated through implementation of the proposed action, bringing the cumulative total to 14 percent. Approximately 816 acres of PAC habitat would be treated, for a cumulative acreage of 21 percent (Table 42). Only 108 acres of the 816 would entail tree removal. While some snags would be removed as a result of the Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project, there would be a minimum of eight per acre left in spotted owl territories. According to the Conservation Strategy, this is sufficient to meet the needs of the species.
Table 41. Spotted owl habitat treated for the Thomas Mountain Project, and for cumulative projects
Rated Habitat Treated Habitat Treated Acres Treated Value Thomas Thomas that Would Rated Habitat 1 Habitat SJRD Rating Mountain Mountain Include Tree SJRD (Acres) 3 2 (Acres/%) (Acres) 1 (Acres)/% Removal Highest 105 105/8% 3 1,230 310/25% High 150 150/0% 74 5,163 1,068/20% Moderate 537 537/4% 187 14,088 2,505/17% Low 676 676/9% 298 7,549 2,405/32% Dispersal 114 114/0% 0 12,702 210/2%
Totals 1,582 1582/3% 562/1% 47,696 6,498/14% 1 Habitat was rated based on the habitat value rating guide from the Conservation Strategy. 2 Although all acres of rated habitat in the project area are included in treatment units, 100% of the units would not be treated. Prescribed burns would leave unburned islands and vegetation treatments would not occur across 100% of the unit. It is estimated that approximately 70% of units would be altered by treatments. 3 Treated habitat on the SJRD includes rated habitat treated through past, present, and planned projects.
Table 42. Acres treated in PACs in the San Jacinto Ranger District 1
PAC Acres Treated PAC Percent PAC Acres Year Treated Project SJRD Acres Treated (SJRD) 6,395 312 NEPA done North Fork 5% 31 2004 Pine Cove fuel break 0.5% 22 2004 Azalea 0.3% 8 2005 Lake Fulmor 0.1% 66 2005 Southridge 1% 28 2005 Pinewood 0.4% 80 2006 Highway 74 1% 816 2 Planning stage Thomas Mountain 13%
Totals 1,363 21.30% 1 Treated PAC acres are total acres of PAC treated for the SJRD. Percent PAC acres treated is the percent of total PAC acres treated on the SJRD. 2 Only 108 acres would have tree removal as part of treatment.
83 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
It is imperative that all design features and protection measures be strictly followed to ensure that any impacts to wildlife are minimized. Determination: The Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project may impact individual spotted owls, but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability in the planning area. Rationale for determination: • Owl territories have been delineated with protected areas to minimize impacts. • Conservation strategy guidelines for the protection of spotted owls would be implemented. • Only 14 percent of suitable spotted owl habitat would be treated cumulatively, district wide. • Percentage of PAC acres that would be treated cumulatively is below the maximum allowed in the Conservation Strategy (this maximum being 25 percent). • All five territories that fall within the project area are vacant. • There would be no direct impacts to the species since all territories are vacant. The only possible impacts would be to habitat.
Other Sensitive Species Grouped by Habitat Association The remaining sensitive species that have the potential to occur in the project area are grouped by habitat association (Table 43). The determination for these species is summarized with details available in the Wildlife Biological Evaluation Report (Dyke 2006).
Table 43. Habitat types, acres in project area and determinations
Acres in Habitat Project Determination Type Area 1 Determination: The Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project may impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability in the planning area. Rationale for Determination: • Project disturbance could cause goshawks, Cooper’s hawks, or sharp-shinned hawks to abandon nests if present in area of operation. • Nest surveys prior to project implementation would lessen likelihood Coniferous 2,010 of impacts to nesting birds. forest • There would be some direct reduction of habitat suitability. • Project area is not large enough for impacts to cause viability concerns to populations. • Project activities could cause death or injury to individuals. • Mitigation measures would lessen possible impacts to individuals. • Activity patterns and disturbance avoidance behaviors would reduce likelihood of impacts.
84 Environmental Assessment
Determination: The Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project would have no impact to Lewis’ woodpecker. Rationale for Determination: Hardwood • No habitat would be treated. (oak 672 woodland) • The species is a winter resident only, therefore no impacts to breeding behaviors expected. • Project activities are not expected to change prey base or other food availability. Determination: The Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project may impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability in the planning area. Rationale for Determination: Shrub/ 13,047 chaparral • Project activities could cause death or injury to individuals. • Mitigation measures would lessen possible impacts to individuals. • Activity patterns and disturbance avoidance behaviors would reduce likelihood of impacts. Determination: This project would have no impact to Hammond two-stripe garter snake or osprey. Riparian/ Rationale for Determination: 8 aquatic • There would be no habitat alteration for these species. • There should be no exposure to project activities with implementation of SMZ buffers and BMPs. At a minimum snag levels would be consistent with Forest Plan guidelines and Snags and Forested the Conservation Strategy for California spotted owl, which have determined cavities areas these levels to be sufficient to meet the needs of cavity nesters and spotted owls. Determination: The Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project may impact individual american badgers or mountain lions, but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability in the planning area Rationale for Determination: • If badger burrows are present, they could be damaged or destroyed. • Badgers could be displaced. • Badger prey species could be negatively impacted, but not to the extent that there would be no food available for badgers. • Project activities would not be expected to impact breeding behavior of badgers or mountain lions. Entire • Mountain lions or their prey could be displaced by project operations, Habitat project but there is ample habitat in the project area for them to move to generalists area other location. • Habitat would improve for mule deer, the mountain lion’s main prey. Determination: The project would have no impact to turkey vultures, Townsend’s western big-eared bat, or pallid bat. Rationale for Determination: • If bats use the project area, it would likely only be for foraging. • Bats forage at night when no activities would be taking place. • There are no documented occurrences of turkey vultures, big-eared bats, or pallid bats in the project area. • If turkey vultures were to use the project area, it would be for foraging and there are plenty of other foraging areas on and off the district. 1 Acres are approximate and derived from CalVeg data. Riparian/aquatic acreage is that classified as water in the CalVeg data.
85 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
Management Indicator Species Management indicator species (MIS) are identified in the Forest Plan. These species were selected because their population or habitat trends are believed to indicate the effects of management activities, and they are a focus for monitoring of those activities. Twelve MIS were selected to represent habitat types and indicators of management effects will be monitored for each. Table 44 lists only the wildlife MIS; the other seven MIS identified in the Forest Plan are tree species and are addressed under Botany below.
Table 44. Management indicator species of the San Bernardino National Forest
Indicator of MIS Effects Management Yes; also a Region 5 Sensitive Species Mountain lion (Puma concolor) Fragmentation and is included in Table 43 above Mule deer (Odocoileus Healthy diverse habitats Yes hemionus) Arroyo toad (Bufo californicus) Aquatic habitat No Effect1
Song sparrow (Melospiza Riparian habitat Yes melodia) California spotted owl (Strix Yes; also a Region 5 Sensitive Species is Montane conifer forest occidentalis occidentalis) discussed above 1 Habitat for this MIS does not occur in the Thomas Mountain Project; therefore, habitat for the species will not be analyzed or discussed further.
Alternative 1 - No Action Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects boundary for MIS species is the San Jacinto Ranger District boundary. The time boundary is 15 years. A list of past, present and foreseeable projects that may effect this species is given in Appendix A. The risk of wildfire on the district is gradually increasing over time. Under the No Action Alternative, vegetation will become increasingly brushy and decadent, increasing the risk of wildfire developing from human-caused fire starts. Brush encroachment along previously created fuelbreaks will reduce the efficacy of firefighters to fight wildfires, which may result in larger and more severe wildfires.
Alternative 2: Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects Potential impacts to mule deer could include disturbance, and displacement. This species is wide- ranging, using a variety of habitat types and could easily avoid the area to escape disturbance. During project implementation, mule deer would likely avoid the area. As a forest MIS the indicator of management for mule deer is healthy diverse habitats. The Thomas Mountain Project would not degrade the health of the habitat in the project area, and would add to diversity by opening the trees and shrubs allowing for new growth of young vegetation. While treatments would leave some habitat more open, there would still be horizontal and vertical cover available.
86 Environmental Assessment
Burning the older age, decadent chaparral in the project area would facilitate movement of mule deer through the project area and would increase palatable browse by promoting new vegetative growth. No impacts to song sparrows are anticipated since the areas of suitable habitat (riparian) for the species would not be treated.
Cumulative Effects The biggest impact to deer in this area is the human development and disturbance by people and dogs. Several other non-habitat factors, such as hunting, poaching, road traffic, and diseases affect mule deer population numbers. This project is too small relative to the landscape and too close to human habitation to make a noticeable change to deer populations from the proposed action. Past fires and fuelbreak maintenance around the communities has provided openings within and adjacent to the project areas. There are no past or planned activities known that will incrementally add to these projects’ effects. No cumulative impacts to song sparrows are anticipated since there would be no direct or indirect impacts.
Migratory Birds Alternative 1- No Action Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects boundary for migratory birds is the San Jacinto Ranger District boundary. The time boundary is 15 years. A list of past, present and foreseeable projects that may effect this species is given in Appendix A. For migratory birds that use the conifer forest habitat type, the effects of no action would be continued habitat degradation due to continued bug, drought, and disease-caused mortality, and continued deviation from historic stand characteristics. Current high fuel loading, and continued mortality would result in continued risk of stand replacing fire. There would be no effect as a result of taking no action to riparian associated species, hardwood associated species, or chaparral associated species. Effects to snag dependent species would be continued increases in snags and decreases in live, healthy trees.
Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Effects to conifer forest-associated species would include direct habitat alteration, and could include disturbance or displacement, and nest abandonment. If any bird nests were to be found during marking or implementation, operations would stop in the area and the district wildlife biologist would be consulted to determine appropriate protection measures. There would be no intentional take, and no unintentional take would be expected.
87 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
There would be no effects to riparian associated species as this habitat would be protected by project design and application of BMPs. There would be direct habitat alteration for chaparral- associated species as a result of prescribed burns. Species that use chaparral habitat could also be displaced or abandon nests, if burns were to occur during nesting season.
Cumulative Effects Past, ongoing and planned fuel reduction projects on the San Jacinto Ranger District have, are, or would result in direct habitat alteration, and likely some disturbance or displacement to these species will occur. The fuel reduction projects are designed to protect migratory birds during breeding season. There would be no effects to riparian obligates. Cumulative effects of the Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project and past, present and planned projects are not expected at a magnitude that they would cause population declines.
Range Alternative 1 - No Action Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Current grazing practices would continue on all allotments in the project area. The No Action Alternative would have no overall short-term impact to the range resource. However, long-term effects of the No Action Alternative may result in a reduction in forage availability and distribution of livestock. Forage availability under the No Action Alternative would remain the same or may decrease due to increased plant competition that occurs when overstory shading increases. Decreases in forage availability would affect livestock distribution within the allotments. No cumulative effects are anticipated under this alternative.
Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Forest stand thinning, mastication, and prescribed burning would positively affect both the short- and long-term range conditions by reducing conifer and chaparral density, reducing ground fuel loading that restricts livestock movement, and increasing transitory range forage. All proposed action treatments would have a positive effect on range conditions and would increase available forage for livestock. There would be a temporary loss of forage during treatment and recovery periods due to activities that may cause displacement for livestock. During the recovery period, grazing management practices would be implemented to achieve desired use levels. Practices may include deferment, adjustment of pasture management, placement of salt blocks, or other management practices that would promote use by livestock in portions of the pasture away from treatment areas. Adjustments to promote grazing away from treatment areas may be implemented as determined by the San Jacinto Ranger District Range Program Manager. Grazing management
88 Environmental Assessment adjustments would be developed in coordination with the allotment permittee and incorporated into the annual operating plan.
Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects boundary for range species is the San Jacinto Ranger District boundary. The time boundary is 15 years. Cumulative effects of past and present projects in association with the proposed action would have a positive effect on transitory range availability and livestock distribution in the affected allotments. Previous fuel reduction projects have generally had a positive impact on all range resources by reducing the vegetation and fuel accumulations, creating age class mosaics with more young age classes in chaparral, and allowing forage species to thrive. This project would treat forested stands by thinning and burning, which would also increase forage availability, improve livestock distribution, and long-term protection of range improvements. Some short-term negative effects to the permittee may occur as a result of possible deferments. These deferments could be from zero to three years dependent on the San Jacinto Ranger District Range Specialist’s determinations of range readiness prior to or after treatments.
Wildlife Project Monitoring The following monitoring is recommended for the Thomas Mountain Project: • Implementation monitoring of snag and down log densities accomplished by walk through transects in each treatment unit is recommended; In addition,
• Units with LOPs in effect shall be visited once per week to determine that boundaries are not being breached. For effectiveness monitoring, annual occupancy and breeding surveys would continue to take place.
• Implementation monitoring of post-treatment canopy cover in units with stated canopy retention objectives would be completed by walk-through transects after each unit is complete.
• Lastly, acres of treatment would be updated in the GIS database after treatments in PACs is complete. Total PACs acreage treated across San Jacinto Ranger District would be tracked, ensuring that levels of treatments are consistent with the Conservation Strategy.
Environmental Consequences to Botany Noxious Weeds A noxious weed assessment has not been conducted within the project area. The following list of invasive non-native species (Table 45) that may be of concern in the project area was derived by the San Jacinto Ranger District Botanist, Kate Kramer (Kramer, 2006).
89 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
Table 45. Noxious weed species of potential concern located on the Thomas Mountain project area
Scientific Name Common Name Arundo donax Giant reed, Arundo Atriplex semibaccata Australian saltbush Avena barbata Slender wild oat Avena fatua Wild oat Brassica nigra Black mustard Brassica tournefortii African mustard Bromus diandrus Ripgut brome Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens Red Brome Bromus tectorum Cheat grass Centaurea melitensis Tocalote Centaurea solstitialis Yellow starthistle Cirsium arvense Canada thistle Eichhornia crassipes Water hyacinth Elaeagnus angustifolius Russian olive Festuca arundinacea Tall fescue Nicotiana glauca Tree tobacco Ricinus communis Castor bean Salsola tragus Russian thistle Schismus barbatus Mediterranean grass Spartium junceum Spanish broom Verbascum thapsus Woolly mullein Vinca major Periwinkle
Alternative 1 - No Action Direct and Indirect Effects Noxious weeds are spread through biological dispersal methods in addition to (or assisted by) ongoing human activities such as recreational use, hunting, firewood cutting, and other uses of the forest. Continued use of the forest could result in spread or introduction of new noxious weeds, increasing acres infested by noxious weeds even under the No Action Alternative. Potential increases in weed populations would not be significantly greater than the rate of increase the forest is presently experiencing as a result of forest use.
Cumulative Effects The area chosen for the cumulative effects analysis is the Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project area, northwest portion of the San Jacinto NF, north of California State Highway 74, and north and west of the town of Idyllwild, including access roads and highways into the area. These forested lands are surrounded primarily by private landholders and Indian reservation holdings. The time frame of the analyses includes the past 20 years since most Land and Resource Management Plans in the late 1980s and early 1990s did not recognize problems caused by noxious weeds and ecologically their impacts were not widely recognized until that period of time.
90 Environmental Assessment
Past, ongoing and foreseeable future activities in the SJNF that may impact the noxious and invasive weed occurrence on the Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project are listed in Appendix A, in the EA. Many of these projects are located within the analysis area or adjacent to access roads. Prescribed burning and/or mechanically thinning are the primary treatments of all projects listed. Since no previous survey information is available to determine previous or present levels of infestation, cumulative impacts are difficult to predict. It is expected that noxious weeds may have increased as a result of these project activities. More recent projects (1999-present) have implemented the regional noxious weed strategy aimed at reducing the spread of invasive and noxious weedy by prevention methodologies.
Alternative 2 - Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects Project activities would likely result in short-term increases in noxious or invasive weeds known in the area and could potentially introduce new species to the area. Activities such as construction of fuelbreaks, ground disturbing activities and new road construction or maintenance could introduce increased vehicle and equipment use into areas creating disturbed soils for new noxious or invasive weed establishment. Contractors mobilizing equipment from outside the forest in addition to movement of equipment within the project area also have potential to introduce new species or assist in the dispersal of existing noxious or invasive weeds. Approximately 12.4 miles of NFS roads would be reconstructed to accommodate equipment and project traffic. This reconstruction would include reconditioning the roadways, repairing and improving drainage features, placing crushed rock and soil on the road surface, brush removal, and minor widening of the road. Additionally, 14 miles of NFS roads would be also be maintained. This reconstruction of new roads could create areas where new noxious or invasive weeds could establish. Construction of two borrow sites would be excavated to repair and maintain roads and 0.25 miles of unclassified road would be decommissioned to reduce risk of wildfire ignition in hazardous areas. Landing sites used as drop points and temporary storage for logs until they would be loaded and hauled off site by truck are either presently in place or are presently earmarked for construction. These newly constructed areas are also areas where weeds are likely to establish. Pre-implementation weed assessment of all these areas in addition to implementation of design features (also listed in Appendix A) would reduce the potential of weed spread within the project area. Mastication and hand-based systems for reduction of vegetation are not expected to increase the potential of weed infestation because of the low amount of soil disturbance and ground covering mulch left by these treatments. Additionally, the regional noxious weed equipment- cleaning clause (USDA Forest Service 2000) would further decrease the risk of spread into these areas. All areas proposed for ground-based equipment activity would be assessed in the pre- implementation noxious weed assessment. If noxious or invasive weeds are present in these areas,
91 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
they will be treated by hand pulling and grubbing of weeds prior to implementation or covered with mulch (from project activities) after treatment to reduce germination and re-establishment of any documented occurrences of noxious weeds. Noxious weeds could increase in areas where prescribed fire is proposed if a significant seed or propagule source exists in the soil seed bank. However, with burning of these areas, the potential for establishment of other native grasses, forbs and shrubs is also highly probable. Over time, it is expected that native vegetation will out-compete and shade out most weeds that could establish from prescribed fire treatments. Monitoring and treatment of areas identified in the noxious weed assessment areas with high potential for spread should also help reduce future spread. Under this alternative, all heavy equipment would be cleaned (R5 Weed Handbook guidelines) prior to arrival in the project area. Seed, straw and other materials used for road decommissioning and erosion control would be certified noxious weed free, and all disturbed roads and constructed landing areas would be re-seeded with a certified noxious-weed-free native seed mix after project activities occur. Noxious weed surveys/inventories should be done one year following the project completion and annually for the following four years on all roads (open, closed and temporary system) and other areas affected by the project activities or identified as high potential for spread during the assessment. All noxious weed infestations identified from project activities would be treated using an integrated pest management approach, if possible. This approach could include biological, mechanical, and chemical control methods. Integrated pest management procedures and mitigation measures should manage and control the increase of noxious weeds in the long term; however, increases in noxious weed infestation may occur in the short term.
Cumulative Impacts The proposed Thomas Mountain Project includes a noxious weed assessment prior to implementation. This assessment would identify specific areas within the project that are currently infested or could pose a thread of spread because of project activities. Project design features including monitoring of the areas after implementation associated with this project will minimize the threat of spread and would not likely contribute to a long-term cumulative increase in noxious weeds in the area. Past and present projects have more than likely contributed to an increase in noxious weed populations due to the absence of an aggressive noxious weed management plan. Implementation of actions and practices set forth in the Regional Noxious Weed Strategy (2000) and the National Forests of Southern California Weed Management Strategy (LMP, USDA Forest Service 2005- Part 3, Appendix M) in this project and future projects should help reduce the future spread and establishment of noxious weeds in the district. Additionally, design features and monitoring measures specifically associated with the Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project should
92 Environmental Assessment further reduce the spread of existing populations and introduction of new noxious or invasive weeds in the area.
Noxious Weeds Project Monitoring The following monitoring is recommended for the Thomas Mountain Project: • Noxious weed surveys/inventories should be done one year following the project completion and annually for the following four years on all roads (open, closed and temporary system) and other areas affected by the project activities or identified as high potential for spread during the assessment.
• All noxious weed infestations identified from project activities would be treated using an integrated pest management approach, if possible.
Botany Management Indicator Species Table 46 lists the management indicator plant species of the southern California National Forests (Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres, and San Bernardino), and their relevance to the current project. The following three species have been analyzed due to the presence of potential or suitable habitat within the project: Coulter pine, Black oak, and White fir. No potential/suitable habitat exists within the project area for the remaining Forest MIS plant species.
Table 46. Management indicator plant species of Southern California National Forests
Common Relevance to Scientific Name Desired Condition Measure Name Project No suitable Trend in sapling Blue oak Quercus douglasii Perpetuate habitat type habitat on abundance District* No suitable Trend in sapling Engelmann oak Quercus engelmannii Perpetuate habitat type habitat in project abundance area Maintain or increase Trend in abundance; Present in Black oak* Quercus kelloggii numbers size class distribution project area No suitable Trend in sapling Valley oak Quercus lobata Perpetuate habitat type habitat on abundance District Maintain Coulter pine Trend in age/size class Present in Coulter pine* Pinus coulteri habitat distribution project area Bigcone Pseudotsuga Maintain bigcone Trend in extent of Present in Douglas-fir* macrocarpa Douglas-fir stands vegetation type project area Pre-settlement age/size Trend in size class Present in the White fir* Abies concolor class distribution distribution project area *Species included in effects analysis
Alternative 1: No Action
Direct and Indirect Effects Under the No Action Alternative, no fuels reduction would occur and no benefits to sensitive plant species or MIS habitats would be realized. The chances of a high-intensity wildfire would
93 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
increase with the accumulation of hazard fuels. High-intensity wildfire events have been shown to have direct negative impacts on soil seed banks, thus reducing the regenerative potential for native species.
Cumulative Effects Species-specific life histories, combined with information derived from previous research and models allow land managers to predict the survivability and cumulative effects expected on species affected by project implementation. Thus, available species-specific life histories combined with past historical and known project activities define the temporal boundaries of the cumulative effects analysis. Spatially, the boundary for the cumulative effects analysis consists of the San Jacinto Mountains due to the island nature of the range unless otherwise noted in each species determinations. The temporal boundary for analyses encompasses approximately the past 10 years. Species that may be impacted by the Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project in conjunction with ongoing and previous area-wide projects are listed in the Botany Specialist Report Appendix B, Table B-1 (Laufman 2006). Potential and/or documented habitat was present, or species were present within the projects listed in Appendix B, Table B-1; however, no negative direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts have been documented for any species listed in Appendix B, Table B-1 (K. Kramer, District Botanist). Foreseeable future projects include mechanical thinning and prescribed burning projects on approximately 53,983 acres (Table 9). These projects are expected to comply with all Forest Service standards and guides and other environmental regulations; therefore, no cumulative effects are expected. Past, prescribed fires have more than likely had positive effects on all native vegetation due to the fire-adapted nature of the ecosystem. Prescribed fire data (available from local databases) indicate approximately 17,000 acres have been treated in the area since 1978.
Alternative 2: Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Project-level effects on plant MIS are analyzed and disclosed as part of environmental analysis under the NEPA. The MIS analysis involves examining the impacts of the proposed project alternative on MIS habitat by discussing how direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will change the quantity and/or quality of habitat in the analysis area. For the three species : Coulter pine, black oak; and big-cone Douglas-fir, a summary of effects has already been provided under the section “Environmental Consequences to Vegetation”. Additional information is available in the Botany Specialist Report (Laufman 2006).
Botany Threatened and Endangered Species Surveys to determine the presence for Poa atropurpurea and Taraxacum californicum within modeled habitat are complete and no individuals were located. The implementation of the
94 Environmental Assessment proposed action as described will not affect these listed species. Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation is not required for this project.
Botany Sensitive, Watch-list, and Proposed San Bernardino National Forest Sensitive Plant Species Implementation of the proposed action as described will have the effects as shown in Table 47. The project would not interfere with maintaining viable populations well distributed across the forest (36 CFR 219.19).
Botany Project Monitoring The following monitoring is recommended for the Thomas Mountain Project: • If TES plants are found within the project area, populations would be monitored to ensure population viability. Annual site visits (for 3 years post project) for threatened, endangered and sensitive species and annually (for 5 years) for sensitive pebble plain, wet meadow and vernal annual plants would be completed. • Pre-project implementation surveys would be conducted along project area and access roads, areas where ground-disturbing activities would occur, and specified areas within prescribed burn areas to obtain baseline noxious weed population density. Surveys would be conducted prior to implementation to establish a baseline inventory. Surveys would be a walk through on units and drive along roadsides • Post project evaluation of noxious weeds in disturbed ground areas (including burn piles), along roadsides with access to the project areas, in areas where sensitive plants have been identified, and in riparian areas where modeled wildlife habitat may have received a light prescription burn. Walk through units and drive along roadsides annually for 5 years. • District botanist will compile data and determine control methods set forth in the Southern California Land Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2006b) and the Pacific Southwest Region Noxious Weed Management Strategy and Action Plan (USDA Forest Service 2000).
95 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
Table 47. Effects analysis determination for the Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project threatened, endangered, sensitive, watch-list and SBNF proposed sensitive plants
Effects of Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Proposed Action Threatened and Endangered Species Poa atropurpurea San Bernardino bluegrass modeled NI Taraxacum californicum California dandelion modeled NI Sensitive Species Arabis johnstonii Johnston's rock cress D NI Abronia villosa var. aurita chaparral sand verbena X NI Astragalus pachypus var. jaegeri Jeager's milkvetch D NI Calochortus palmeri var. munzii Munz's mariposa lily X MIIH Calochortus plummerae Plummer's mariposa lily X NI Castilleja lasiorhyncha (syn. Orthocarpus l.) San Bernardino Mountain Owl's clover X NI Caulanthus simulans Payson's caulanthus X MIIH Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi Parry's spineflower X MIIH Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina Long-spines spineflower X MIIH Delphinium hesperium ssp. cuyamacae Cuyamaca larkspur X NI Eriogonum evanudum Vanishing wild buckwheat X NI Galium angustifolium ssp. jacinticium San Jacinto Mts bedstraw X MIIH Galium californicum ssp. primum California bedstraw X MIIH Hemizonia mohavensis = Deinandra mohavensis Mojave tarplant X MIIH Lilium parryi Lemon lily X NI Machaeranthera canescens var. ziegleri Ziegler's aster D MIIH Monardella nana ssp. leptosiphon San Felipe monardella D MIIH Oxytheca emarginata white-margined oxytheca X MIIH Penstemon californicus California penstemon D NI Scutellaria bolanderi ssp.austromontanum Southern mountain skullcap X NI Sidotheca caryophylloides Chickweed oxytheca X MIIH Streptanthus bernardinus Laguna Mountains Jewel flower X NI Streptanthus campestris Southern jewelflower X NI Symphyotrichum defoliatum San Bernardino aster X NI Watch List Species Boykenia rotundifolia Round-leaved boykenia X NI Chaenactis parishii Parish’s chaenactis D NI Chorizanthe xanti var. leucotheca White-bracted spineflower X NI Eriogonum foliosum Leafy buckwheat X NI Hulsea vestita ssp. callicarpha Beautiful hulsea D NI Layia ziegleri Zieglers tidy tips X NI Muhlenbergia californica California muhly grass X NI Rupertia rigida (syn. Psoralea rigida) Parish’s rupertia X NI Syntrichopappus lemmonii Lemmon’s syntrichopappus X NI Plants Proposed for SBNF Sensitive Species (as of 6/18/02) Linanthus orcuttii Orcutt’s linanthus NI X = habitat present in Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project D = Documented in project area (CNDDB 2003) L = Low probability of occurring in project area NI = no impact BI = beneficial impact MIIH = may impact individuals or habitat, but not likely to cause a trend toward Federal listing or a loss of viability
96 Environmental Assessment
Environmental Consequences to Watershed The National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) Stream Geodatabase GIS layers for HUC1807 (USGS 2006) were used to develop the Project subwatersheds for analysis. The project area lies within USGS HUC8 18070202 – San Jacinto, California and 18070302 – Santa Margarita, California. There are 17.35 miles of intermittent and ephemeral streams (53.76 miles). A field review in October, 2005 identified no perennial streams in the project area, based on lack of water and degree of riparian vegetation. Riparian conservation areas (RCAs) would be established 98 feet to either side of the banks for each intermittent stream reach identified (USDA Forest Service 2005; Appendix E and USDA Forest Service 2005b). The purpose of the RCA is to prevent sediment from the activity area from reaching the stream channel, and to preserve adequate canopy for streamside cover, shading, and recruitment of large woody material.
Alternative 1 - No Action Direct and Indirect Effects In the short term, sediment would continue to build up into the stream channels of drainages. Stream flow in wet years such as the recent 2004 water year would continue to wash the sediment downstream toward Hemet Lake. In the longer term, dead canopy from the drought and bark beetle infestation would reduce the litter fall. The loss of live rooting would cause a weakening of the soil structure in places. As dead trees fall, large fuels would accumulate on the ground. Without thinning, the chance of another wildfire in the project area would increase. If a wildfire occurred and was followed by significant precipitation, upland erosion and sedimentation into stream channels would greatly increase. See discussion below on the Old Fire, in the effects section of Alternative 2. Sediment would be stored in stream channels until runoff generated from storms would wash it downstream into Hemet Lake.
Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area is bound by the 26 subwatersheds in the project area and a time period of 30 years. There would be no impact from cumulative effects from the No Action Alternative with the exception of increased wild fire severity and the subsequent sedimentation in channels if a severe wildfire occurred. The most pronounced effect of fire-bared slopes is rilling from intense rain events as occurred in the recent (November, 2003) Old/Grand Prix Fire and subsequent Christmas Day 2003 rainstorm (USDA Forest Service 2004, unpublished report). Rilling not only transports fine sediment, but exacerbates runoff yield and peaks through overland flow. Fines washed from hillslopes through rills and sheet wash could cause severe overburdening of the channels and numerous debris torrents and failures of road fill and lower side slopes within first order and second order draws through the fire area.
97 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects The proposed action was designed to meet Forest Plan standards and guides, and requirements of the Clean Water Act for non-point sources of stream sediment by implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs) established for National Forests in California (USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region 2000; see Appendix A for list of Design Features). Short-term sediment increases may result, but would not be as severe as what would result from a wildfire. The WEPP module “Disturbed WEPP” (USDA Forest Service 2002) was used to determine possible sediment input into channels at the bottom of slopes, from disturbed areas, and slopes burned from wildfire. The WEPP model uses parameters such as soil type, slope gradient, vegetation cover and slope length, as well as climatic records to determine probabilistic erosion rates on a hillslope based on frequency and precipitation intensity data. Other criteria used were a uniform slope of 350 feet total, 250 feet treated, and a 100-foot RCA buffer below. Implementation of the proposed action in one water year would increase the erosion rate for disturbed ground up to 1.2 tons/acre/year, depending on storm severity and slope gradient, in the first year and would taper off to the background erosion rate by 2009. Implementation of BMPs and project design criteria would minimize the amount of upland erosion and sedimentation of the stream channels. The presence of high-intensity rainfall during late summer and fall could exceed the infiltration capacity of the soils without a litter/duff cover removed during thinning activities. Soil infiltration would also decrease from treatment-related compaction. Evapotranspiration rate of the treatment area would decrease from removal of a portion of the vegetation resulting in more water in the soil profile. This could cause localized temporary increases in groundwater tables that are typically manifested in emergent or increased areas of hillside seeps, or base flow in channels. Soil loss, however, should not exceed soil formation for the long-term average of 1 ton/acre/year (USDA Forest Service 1995). The Erosion Hazard Rating (HER; USDA Forest Service 1990) is the recommended method to determine necessary soil cover to avoid accelerated sheet and rill erosion (USDA Forest Service 1995). The method is a checklist type, designed to appraise the relative risk of erosion with variable vegetative and ground cover in the event of a two-year, six-hour rainstorm. Calculated EHR for project area soil types can be reduced to a low or moderate rating after treatment by retention of between 50 and 70 percent tree and shrub cover and 70 and 90 percent ground cover, which includes living and dead plant material and rock fragments. Treatment prescriptions are intended to retain 20 to 50 percent of the shrub component and thin the overstory cover to 40 to 60 percent, which would not alter the EHR results if a ground cover of 70 percent or greater is maintained on disturbed ground. Ground cover measured within recently treated units on projects in the San Jacinto District with similar prescriptions, slopes, soils, elevation and vegetation type, show resulting average ground cover, highly patchy, to be
98 Environmental Assessment between about 67 and 79 percent on ground-based units, and 90 percent on a measured skyline unit. A low rating is not likely to generate accelerated erosion. If accelerated erosion does occur, adverse effects to soil productivity or water quality would not be expected (USDA Forest Service 1989). A moderate rating is where accelerated erosion is likely to occur in most years, yet adverse effects to soil productivity or water quality would not be expected except during periods of above average storm occurrence (USDA Forest Service 1990).
Cumulative Impacts The cumulative impact from the proposed activities in addition to other past, present and ongoing activities would not exceed watershed thresholds. Analysis was based on the Equivalent Roaded Acres (ERA) method (USDA Forest Service 1990), and considered both large-scale USGS and 7th-field HUC watersheds. Twenty-six subwatersheds were delineated for this project analysis. Subwatersheds ranged from 649 to 3,855 acres in size. The timescale for analysis was 30 years. The following past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities were considered:
• Past timber harvest and road • Lion East construction • May Valley Fuel Reduction • Private land activities • Morris Ranch • Bonita Vista • Pipe Creek • Butterfly • Ronald McDonald • Cone • Rouse Hill Mtce • Fobes • Rouse Ridge • Garner Valley Fuel Reduction • Southridge • Goff Flat • USFS Hazard Tree Removal • Hwy 74 Project • Willow
An ERA model for the San Bernardino National Forest, developed with Region 5 guidelines (USDA Forest Service 1990), was used to determine cumulative effects. The only modification was the addition of a landslide deposit area within an individual watershed for determining the threshold of concern (TOC). The threshold of concern, expressed as a percentage of the total watershed area under assessment, gives a limit to the amount of land use activity before significant effects might be manifested downstream. The ERA method portrays changes to hydrologic response of a watershed (runoff yield, and peaks) due to management impacts, including permanent features, such as roads, and recoverable ground from activities such as a timber harvest. The method normalizes each activity or feature to an equivalent road acre per acre of activity. Table 48 shows the present and proposed percent ERA for the subwatersheds. Watershed recovery to baseline condition was assumed within 30
99 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
years of treatment, and followed the form of an exponential curve. The existing condition also considers the recent wildfire disturbances within the last 10 years.
Table 48. Percent ERA by year for Thomas Mountain Project
Threshold Existing of Existing and Watershed Watershed Treatment Condition Concern Treatment (ERA %) (ERA %) (ERA %) Acres Acres 2006 2006 2007 2008 Bautista Canyon 1,657 482 18 to 20 1.94 4.16 3.34 2.82 Cottonwood Creek 1,113 4 14 to 16 0.95 0.98 0.97 0.96 East Fork Hamilton Creek 3,731 795 16 to 18 0.65 1.51 1.04 0.86 Gold Shot Creek 1,662 58 14 to 16 0.41 0.50 0.44 0.42 Hamilton School 2,417 4 18 to 20 13.18 13.20 13.20 13.19 Hop Patch Springs 1,642 925 16 to 18 2.59 5.93 4.54 3.79 Lion Canyon 2,835 122 12 to 14 0.73 0.98 0.87 0.81 Little Thomas Mtn 1,086 1048 16 to 18 0.81 7.68 5.13 3.53 Lower Lake Hemet 711 64 16 to 18 1.52 1.70 1.31 1.12 Magee Spring 3,440 1774 16 to 18 3.58 7.90 5.89 4.60 Martinez Spring 1,114 34 16 to 18 0.68 0.96 0.87 0.79 Penrod Canyon 1,547 100 16 to 18 1.10 1.63 1.42 1.30 Pine Tree Spring 649 105 16 to 18 0.34 1.57 0.99 0.63 Pipe Creek 1,915 64 16 to 18 1.26 1.34 1.30 1.28 Ramona East 2,085 32 16 to 18 4.37 4.54 4.49 4.46 Ramona Middle 1,690 47 16 to 18 7.47 7.82 7.73 7.67 Ramona West 3,855 67 18 to 20 3.01 3.17 3.08 3.03 Santa Rosa Summit 3,134 538 16 to 18 3.54 5.20 4.50 4.17 Spillway Canyon 1,468 650 16 to 18 0.69 3.66 2.67 2.06 Thomas Mtn Lookout 1,221 764 16 to 18 1.65 6.39 4.71 3.64 Tool Box Spring 2,930 1274 16 to 18 3.64 6.95 5.10 3.89 Tripp Flats 2,630 21 16 to 18 2.60 2.66 2.23 1.96 Upper Palm Canyon 1,440 5 18 to 20 2.59 2.62 2.16 1.87 West Garner Valley 2 1,444 789 18 to 20 1.45 5.39 3.74 2.72 West Fork Hamilton Creek 1,691 415 14 to 16 2.01 2.79 2.32 2.17 Willow Valley 1,311 349 16 to 18 0.71 2.48 1.81 1.40
Results for 2006, 2007, and 2008 are the effects of present condition and proposed treatments. The worst-case scenario was modeled based on the assumption that all the proposed action activities would occur during 2006. No subwatersheds are expected to reach the threshold of concern from the implementation of the proposed action. Hamilton School subwatershed has a high percent ERA for existing condition due to the degree of impervious surfaces created by urbanization and agricultural uses. The typically thin soil mantle on the steep slopes of the project would provide relatively rapid downward percolation of precipitation water into the underlying rock. Ground cover prevents overland flow and surface rilling, but the soils are susceptible when bare of cover. Compacted
100 Environmental Assessment areas, areas lacking cover, and loss of overhead canopy would contribute to increased surface runoff from the project area. Nonetheless, it is expected the amount and timing of recharge of the valley fills from the mountain slopes would not be measurably altered by project implementation.
Environmental Consequences to Soils Alternative 1 - No Action Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Direct, indirect and cumulative impacts to the watershed as a whole are listed above, under Environmental Consequences to Watersheds. There would be no change to the compacted acreage in the project area. Residual compaction in treatment units and existing fuelbreaks would continue to recover over time. Since no site-disturbing activities would occur, there would be no effect of soil displacement. Since there would be no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects.
Alternative 2 - Proposed Action The main direct and indirect effects to soil productivity are from displacement, erosion, and alterations to organic matter. Less impact from compaction is expected due to the resilient sandy loam soils. Using Region 5 soil analysis standards, these impacts would not lead to long-term detrimental effects to soil productivity if proposed project design requirements are followed. Soil hydrologic and buffering capacity should be maintained as long as new Forest Plan minimum effective groundcover standards are adhered to. Mitigation is crucial to preserve the thin topsoil and conserve the forest floor organic mat. Unit 10 (89 total acres) could have potential cumulative effects from proposed tractor-based yarding in areas previously disturbed by timber harvest in the 1970s. This unit has additional mitigation requirements to maintain the productive land base. Unstable soil areas were removed from treatment consideration.
Direct and Indirect Effects Soils would primarily be directly affected by displacement and indirectly affected by erosion from the proposed activities. Proposed harvest and fuels treatment would cause compaction and disturbance of the organic layer or deeper displacement along skid trails and cable corridors. Soil impacts may be confounded by compaction and surface organic matter losses (Powers 2002, Powers et al. 2005). Indirect effects of erosion may result where groundcover is reduced from the removal of the forest floor. Loss of groundcover can increase erosion potential since the forest floor buffers the beating action of raindrops and reduces the effects of compaction on soil infiltration (Jurgenson et al. 1997, Elliot et al. 1999). The greatest loss to soil productivity would occur from proposed temporary road building. It is anticipated that some short road segments may be needed during the project for access to log landings. These temporary roads would be decommissioned after project use. It is expected that
101 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
each temporary road would be less than 250 feet in length, totaling less than 0.25 mile over the whole project area, and that most would use the alignment of old decommissioned roads. These roads would be restored to contour in roughly five years. For the short term, reclamation may improve soil hydraulic function adequately to address erosion potential, though reclaimed soil would have infiltration rates markedly lower than natural forest rates (Luce 1997, Foltz 2003). For the long term, infiltration rates may improve somewhat over time as freeze/thaw and plant roots improve soil porosity though rates would likely remain lower than adjacent natural forest soil. Within planned treatment units, predicted soil disturbance from direct and indirect effects of the proposed activities would likely meet standards, but would vary by harvest type. Table 49 shows the amount of treatment acreage by harvest type. Ground-based activities could have up to 15 percent detrimental disturbance, mastication treatments would have less than 5 percent detrimental disturbance. Ground-based harvest activities are planned on 407 acres. Very low impact treatments are planned for 4,113 acres where treatments would consist of mastication or manual treatments. Prescribed burning would occur on 5,901 acres.
Table 49. Cumulative detrimental disturbance for planned ground-based activities. Percent detrimental disturbance is displayed for planned treatment, past disturbance, temporary road construction, and total cumulative effects.
Past Dist Treatment Cumulative Units Substrate Logging System Acres (%) (%) (%) 3A Tonalite ground-based/ hand 23 0 15 15 3B Tonalite ground-based/ hand 21 0 0 0 8 Tonalite ground-based/ hand 155 0 15 15 8A Tonalite ground-based/ hand 62 0 15 15 8B Tonalite ground-based/ hand 78 0 15 15 10 Tonalite ground-based/ hand 89 4 15 19
The Region 5 guidelines to cumulative effects analysis suggest a 30-year recovery rate for compacted soils to near pretreatment conditions (USDA Forest Service 1990). The resilient soils with rocky substrata and sandy loam texture would not likely exceed the regional standard for soil porosity within the tractor-based treatment units where soil disturbance would be highest. Project design features are proposed to increase the recovery potential of soils (see Appendix A). However, in some cases past harvest areas may have less productive potential since topsoil was reduced or eliminated from past skidding operations on thin soils with high erosion potential. Soil displacement from the proposed action would occur from temporary road construction, fireline construction, landing construction, and rutting of roads, as well as in major skid trails and cable corridors. Soil erosion along these displaced soil surfaces is a concern. Topsoil is thin and easily lost where slopes are steep and groundcover is sparse. Surface erosion may occur on trails with sustained grades over 200 feet in length and parallel to the slope (Potyondy 1981). Mastication of
102 Environmental Assessment brush in the ground-based tractor areas would minimize surface erosion with a layer of wood chips left on the ground, but it could compact and displace topsoil. Proposed mitigation to disperse the erosive overland flows using water bars and/or lop and scatter of slash vegetation across bare soil areas would lower erosion risk. Rutting of roads due to treatment activities during wet conditions is a minor concern due to the well-drained sandy loam and fine sand soil textures. Soil organic matter that forms the forest floor includes plant, animal, and microbial residues, fresh and at all stages of decomposition, and the relatively resistant soil humus (USDA Forest Service 1995, Jurgenson et al. 1997). For analysis, the forest floor is classified into categories duff/litter, fine wood debris (less than three-inch diameter) and coarse wood debris (greater than three-inch diameter). Brown et al (2004) was reviewed to determine an optimal range of coarse woody debris (CWD) that should be left post treatment to maintain the short, mid, and long-term soil organic matter needs for soils and stream habitat needs. Using Brown et al. (2004), 7 tons/acre for CWD and 2 tons/acre for fines is recommended as a post-treatment target to maintain soil productivity while reducing wildfire hazard in these pine and mixed conifer habitats (Table 50). Treatment activities would decrease canopy cover and ground cover by displacement of the duff Table 50. Coarse woody debris classes layer in places. This would have a temporary recommendations increase in the impact of raindrops on the forest CWD Class Tons/acres floor, with some higher erosion potential. The Fines to 3 inches 2 healthier residual overstory vegetation would 3 inches and up 5 to 7 continue to supply needle cast to the duff layer for restored groundcover within five years (Elliot et al. 1999). New groundcover standards emphasize maintaining adequate cover to lower erosion potential (USDA Forest Service 2005). The process-based water erosion prediction project (WEPP) model shows lack of groundcover and slope steepness as the greatest drivers for surface erosion. The minimum standards should maintain adequate groundcover to lower the potential for erosive overland water flows from high intensity rainstorms. Values are based on the Region 5 soil erosion hazard model (1990) and are in agreement with Disturbed WEPP modeling. Predicted erosion is between 0.11 and 1.20 tons/acre/year within the project area and 0.01 to 1.16 tons/acre/year within the watershed draining into Lake Hemet, depending on storm severity for the treated area in the first year after operation. Recovery would occur over four to five years to a background rate calculated at between 0.12 and 1.87 tons/acre/year, depending on hillslope gradient and other parameters (also see Watershed direct/indirect effects above). The project would meet long-term soil productivity standards since predicted soil losses are less than the average rate for soil formation, 1 ton/acre/year (USDA Forest Service 1995).
103 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
Cumulative Effects The geographic scale for accessing cumulative effect on the soils resource is the treatment units within the project area. A recovery period of 30 years was chosen, as suggested in the Region 5 guideline for cumulative effects analysis (1990). Recovery of organic litter and downed wood is on an annual timescale, while duff is on a decadal timescale. One of the primary indicators of cumulative effects for soils is persistent compaction and displacement where the thin topsoil is removed and only soil substrata exists. Existing compaction in the treatment areas are primarily due to the transportation system and to a minor extent the recovering soil porosity from previous harvests in the 1970s and ongoing fuelbreak construction. To assess the existing condition, field surveys were conducted where past disturbance likely occurred. Table 51 displays the amount of detrimental disturbance expected within planned harvest units.
Table 51. Cumulative detrimental disturbance for planned ground-based activities. Percent detrimental disturbance is displayed for planned treatment, past disturbance, temporary road construction, and total cumulative effects.
Past Dist Treatment Cumulative Units Substrate Logging System Acres (%) (%) (%) 3A Tonalite ground-based/ hand 23 0 15 15 3B Tonalite ground-based/ hand 21 0 0 0 8 Tonalite ground-based/ hand 155 0 15 15 8A Tonalite ground-based/ hand 62 0 15 15 8B Tonalite ground-based/ hand 78 0 15 15 10 Tonalite ground-based/ hand 89 4 15 19
Using the regional recommendations for maintaining soil productivity, roughly 85 percent of treatment units should be in a non-impaired, non-detrimental state (USDA Forest Service 1995). Alternatively, treatment areas can have up to 15 percent disturbance before long-term impacts to soils may occur. The effects of past harvest usually remove the productive thin topsoil, leaving the raw parent material below. These areas are typically open grassy slopes that have limited vegetation and almost no duff and litter. Unit 10 would not meet recommended standards for continued soil productivity since these areas are currently impaired from past harvest or fuels activities. New activities could aggravate the already limited recovery. Groundcover would be vital for reestablishing soil organics and slowing overland flow by slowing sheet flow and increasing infiltration capacity. Past harvest impacts are largely predicted based on soil type and topographic condition. Ridge soils may have higher past effects from the concentration of activities and loss of thin granitic soils. Bottomland alluvial soils may have higher compaction in these finer textured soils and experience high amounts of equipment travel within these more productive areas. The amount of land affected by compaction from repeated entries can be minimized by designating skid trails by the sale administrator, reutilizing the existing skid trail network wherever feasible, requiring falling to the lead, requiring end lining, and by the scarification or
104 Environmental Assessment deep tillage of all primary skid trails, log decks and temporary roads. The resiliency of the soil together with these design features would meet the recommended standard for soil porosity in the long term. To protect soil productivity, harvest within the tractor units with past harvest history would be limited. Recommendations are to: • Limit skid trail spacing to at least 100 feet for old and new trails
• Limit heavy equipment travel to less than two passes where off designated skid trails
• Use old trails where available
• Operate where no more than 15 percent is left in a detrimental state within each unit except for unit 10. For this unit, minimize disturbance to not exceed current levels For all planned tractor harvest units, recommended ground cover is reestablished through slash or chipping to 70 percent. This recommendation is based on the amount needed to lower erosion status from high to low for these soils and slopes using the R5 Erosion hazard model (USDA Forest Service 1990).
Consequences to Recreation and Cultural Values Alternative 1 - No Action Direct and Indirect Effects Pacific Crest Trail, Campsites and OHV Use The Pacific Crest Trail traverses the eastern boundary of the Garner Valley Place along the desert divide. If there were no action, shrubs around the trail area would continue to encroach on the trail, decreasing its size and making it impassable in the future. The existing rock outcroppings would continue to be hidden by the over grown shrubs and the color variety they add to the landscape would not be exposed. The vista present from the trail would decrease as the shrubs get taller and close them off. Within the planning area there is one campground (Toolbox Springs), approximately 30 campsites (also known as yellow-post sites), three formal trailheads (two for Ramona Trail, and one for the Pacific Crest Trail), several informal parking areas for visitors, and three nonmotorized trails (Ramona, Pacific Crest, and Thomas Mountain). Seven campsites in units 1 and 24 are located in areas where fire intensity could be moderate to high, being situated in sagebrush and chaparral fuel types. The yellow-post sites in unit 1 have been closed due to the high fire hazard and numerous snags. Most campsites and trailheads are located in open areas. Some located in open chaparral along fuelbreaks have clumps of shrubs as privacy screening between sites. Portions of the Pacific Crest Trail and the Ramona Trail are located in mature, dense, lower montane and chamise chaparral.
105 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
Visitors would notice the dense visual obstructions (i.e., trees and shrubs), which block views into various parts of the forest from the scenic byway and from their camping sites. This would also decrease the likelihood of the visitor viewing wildlife. The dense vegetation building up around the campsites close to fire rings would also create a possible fire hazard for forest campers. Not increasing the number of recreation sites in the area would lead to increased competition among visitors for existing sites as the number of visitors increase. The existing rock outcroppings would continue to be hidden by the over grown shrubs and the color variety they add to the landscape would not be exposed.
Proposed South Fork of the San Jacinto River Wilderness Units 1, 5, and 18, overlap with the proposed South Fork of the San Jacinto Wilderness. Unit 1 has a 10 percent overlap, unit 5 has 100 percent overlap, and unit 18 has about 80 percent overlap. Units 1 and 18 consist of high-mortality Coulter pine, while unit 5 is a small stand of relatively intact younger Coulter pine. Forested vegetation would be maintained where it exists, and would not be moved towards a closer approximation of the historic conditions. Chaparral vegetation would also be maintained; fuels continuity would continue to be high with a continuation of older decadent shrubs.
Cultural Areas Parry pinyon stands within chaparral would remain at risk for stand-replacing fire. The population in the project area is disjunct, and represents the northernmost range of the species. Historically, nut-producing areas were maintained by Native Americans who cleared surface fuels around the pinyon trees. Clearing ceased several decades ago and chaparral has grown in and among the pinyon trees, making them vulnerable to fire.
Cumulative Effects The area of consideration for cumulative effects is the project boundary and a 300-foot-outward buffer from the project boundary. All past, present, and future projects that fall within the project boundary and next to the buffer over the last 15 years were considered for overall scenery and recreation effects. Further micro-cumulative analysis was completed with consideration of past, present, and future management activities along with current suggested activities within units that are within the immediate foreground of scenery and recreation resources. There is some visual evidence of previous logging and maintenance management activities in the entire project boundary, but very little evidence of these management activities can be seen in the immediate foreground of the scenery and recreation resources. However, there are some current and planned projects that cold potentially impact the foreground of the project area. These projects are listed in Table 52. The immediate foreground was chosen because it is the most noticeable distance within recreation and scenic resources to the users. The immediate foreground distance of 300 feet is
106 Environmental Assessment specified by the Forest Service Manual, Landscape Aesthetics, Agricultural Handbook 701. Decreasing the understory, would allow for the forest visitor to view into the forest throughout well-traveled corridors while meeting the desired future condition. Not adding additional campgrounds would continue to allow for competition among campers for current campsites. Competition for campsites may increase illegal campsites to other parts of the Forest not in the current project area. Illegal campsites pose a health threat to all campers due to the possibility of fires being started because of the absence of the proper fire rings.
Table 52. Past, present, and future projects in the foreground of the project area
Project Treatment Type Acres Bautista Escape Rx Burn 766.41 Bautista Escape Total 766.41 Bonita Vista Mast/Rx 2,214.25 Mech Thin/Mast/Rx 354.91 Bonita Vista Total 2,569.16 Cone Rx Burn 581.98 Cone Total 581.98 Cottonwood Rx Burn 320 Cottonwood Total 320 Fobes Rx Burn 1,224.01 Fobes Total 1,224.01 Garner Valley Fuel Reduction Mast/Rx 1,385.92 Rx Burn 1,873.31 Garner Valley Fuel Reduction Total 3,259.23 Lion North Rx Burn 123.16 Lion North Total 123.16 Lion South Rx Burn 210.24 Lion South Total 210.24 Morris Ranch Rx Burn 778.36 Morris Ranch Total 778.36 Pipe Creek Rx Burn 1,027.08 Pipe Creek Total 1,027.08 Rouse Rx Burn 1,964.33 Rouse Total 1,964.33 Rouse Ridge Rx Burn 779.97 Rouse Ridge Total 779.97 Thomas Mtn Fuels Reduction mech thin/hand thin/rx burn 10,465.42 Thomas Mtn Fuels Reduction Total 10,465.42 Willow Rx Burn 121.77 Willow Total 121.77 Grand Total 24,191.12
As the current vegetation continues to grow, existing illegal OHV use would decrease in the project area but may cause illegal use to transfer to other areas outside the project area. There would be a decrease in views as vegetation fills in open views along the Pacific Crest Trail and
107 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
within campgrounds. The decrease of views would be noticeable from both looking into scenery and recreation resources from outside the project area and from looking out from the scenery and recreation resources to other areas. Allowing the visual environment to continue to progress in its current direction would decrease the overall noticeable form of the individual vegetation due to overcrowding. The texture of individual vegetation would be less discernable to the average viewer as the vegetation density increases. The characteristic of line that the vegetation adds to the environment would also decrease as the vegetation thickens. The color of the vegetation may also decrease as dead vegetation increases due to competition.
Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Pacific Crest Trail, Campsites and OHV Use Implementing the design features for scenery and recreation would reduce potential adverse effects, ensuring that the project would comply with Forest Plan standards. There would be no direct effects to the Pacific Crest Trail. However, their may be minor indirect effects causing open vistas from the trail into the surrounding landscape. These open vistas would not increase OHV use. Design features (III. f and g, and IV. a, f, k, m and l) described in Appendix A would minimize OHV access to the trail. The proposed action would reduce the fire risk due to a decrease in fuel within corridors, campgrounds, and trails. However, there could be an impact to the forest’s visitor days along parts of the main corridor roads that interface with the project and with the campgrounds within the project area as the project is being implemented. After treatment, fire intensity around the seven campsites would decrease to low. Prescribed burning is expected to top-kill 50 to 75 percent of the shrubs in patches leaving 30 to 50 percent mature shrubs. Fire intensity in the chaparral surrounding the Ramona Trail would be similar to the conditions described above with rates of spread decreased to less than 1/8 mph and flame lengths decreased to five to 10 feet in patches of mature shrubs comprising less than 50 percent of the area. Three additional dispersed campsites have been created by the public in new locations; however, these dispersed campsites do not pose a fire hazard due to their location. The new dispersed sites have existing road access and are very popular among users. Formalizing these three dispersed sites to yellow-post sites would add more opportunities for camping. Fuel reduction would have to be implemented each year within the campsites for public safety. This would require additional maintenance by Forest personnel.
Proposed South Fork of the San Jacinto River Wilderness Units 1, 5, and 18 have overlap with the proposed Wilderness. Unit 1 has about 10 percent overlap, unit 5 has 100 percent overlap, and unit 18 has about 80 percent overlap. Units 1 and 18 consist of high-mortality Coulter pine, while unit 5 is a small stand of relatively intact younger
108 Environmental Assessment
Coulter pine. Unit 1 would receive mastication of the oak-shrub component and planting of Coulter pine. Unit 5 would be underburned and unit 18 would be underburned and planted to Coulter pine. Regeneration of Coulter pine within chaparral is dependent on fire, with hotter burns being the most conducive to regeneration (Borchert, pers. comm.). Burning would allow release of seed stored in closed cones and contribute to reforestation in stands that have experienced heavy mortality. Natural regeneration would be the preferred method of reforestation, with planting undertaken where natural seeding is not expected to occur. Units adjacent to the proposed Wilderness (1, 3A, 3B, 4, 26, 27, 28) would have no effect on the wilderness character of the area. Forested vegetation would be maintained where it exists, and would be moved towards a closer approximation of the historic conditions. Chaparral vegetation would also be maintained; fuels continuity would be reduced and a diversity of age classes of shrubs would be created. Most casual observers would not notice any human-caused changes after the first several years of regrowth. Within the proposed wilderness area there would be the initial effect of an increase in brown and black color to the ground vegetation with the application of fuels treatment in the area. However, the color would begin to be reduced within one growing season. The recovery period currently for the area is within three years, which should allow the area to fully recover to its present color condition. The reforestation of the area would enhance the character of the area by increasing line, form, color, and texture so the vegetation treatment proposed for the area would be in compliance with the scenery designation and its Recreation Opportunity Spectrum In addition, the treatments’ effects after a three-year period would also be in agreement with the recreation designation of wilderness.
Cultural Area Protection Through air photo interpretation and reconnaissance, approximately 165 acres of Parry pinyon pine were mapped within the Thomas Mountain planning area. These acres are located in treatment units 11, 15, and 25. Removing the understory and surrounding shrubs is proposed to re-create conditions similar to those when the stands were tended by Native Americans. Pinyon pine retain low branches on the bole, which also tend to bend toward the ground. Removing understory and surrounding shrubs would remove ladder fuels and decrease the potential for ignition of the tree canopy. Broadcast burning in the surrounding chaparral would further reduce the risk of ignition or lethal scorch to the Parry pinyon by reducing overall fire intensity from 25- to 20-foot flame lengths to 10-foot flame lengths in the shrub types immediately adjacent to the Parry pinyon.
Cumulative Impacts Activities of the past 15 years combined with the current prescribed activities for this project will help direct the project to meet the assigned Scenic Integrity Objective and Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) class in the future. The implementation of the design features would minimize adverse direct and indirect effects from the proposed action. These activities
109 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
would not be noticed by the end of the two-year period, which is allowed for implementing treatments within these resources. For this reason, no cumulative effects are anticipated for the scenery and recreation resources. There would not be any new roads created and maintained; therefore; the current ROS classes would not be changed. The experience of the user within the ROS class would change but only for the duration of the project implementation. The Forest Plan allows for a three-year implementation period of a project if the design features for each resource are implemented; by then, the user experience would be back to the experience associated with the ROS and the Scenic Integrity Objective of the area. Access to the Pacific Crest Trail within the project boundary would not be increased due to the location and topography of the trail. It is more likely that new views would be open from the trail into the surrounding landscape. These open vistas would not increase OHV use once the design features (III. f and g, and IV. a, f, k, m and l in the Scenery and Recreation Report) have been implemented. There could be an impact to the forest’s visitor days along parts of the trail that are being worked on in the project area. The existing rock outcroppings hidden by the shrubs would be exposed, adding color variety to the landscape. After the allotted three-year recovery time period, both the vegetation and fuel treatments proposed for the area within the proposed wilderness boundary, in conjunction with the past and future projects listed in Table 52, would meet both the scenery designations and the current ROS class. The line, form, color, and texture would increase in contrast throughout the proposed wilderness area within the three-year recovery period. This contrast increases the variety in the scenery in a positive way that people expect. Increasing the number of yellow-post sites by three in the project area would decrease competition for yellow-post camping. Decreased competition for camping within the area would decrease the possibility of campers going elsewhere on the Forest to camp illegally.
Environmental Consequences to Air Quality Federal Clean Air Act The framework for controlling air pollutants in the United States is mandated by the 1970 Clean Air Act , as amended in 1977 and 1990 (42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq.). The CAA was designed to “protect and enhance” the quality of the nation’s air resources. The CAA encourages reasonable Federal, State, and local government actions for pollution prevention. State Implementation Plans (SIPs) are developed by each state to implement the provisions of the CAA. The SIPs describe the State’s actions to achieve and maintain the NAAQS.
National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards EPA developed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for a specific set of “criteria” pollutants designed to protect public health. States can adopt standards even more
110 Environmental Assessment stringent than the federal standards. NAAQS are defined as the amount of a criteria pollutant above which detrimental effects to public health (or welfare) may result (Table 53). NAAQS are set at a conservative level with the intent of protecting even the most sensitive members of the public including children, asthmatics, and people with cardiovascular disease. If an area consistently violates one of the NAAQS, that area becomes federally designated as a “non- attainment” area. Due to the unique meteorological and air quality problems in California, State standards were in existence prior to 1970. California requires a stricter standard for pollutants than those recognized at the national level. Table 53 displays Ambient Air Quality Standards for pollutants pertinent to prescribed burning projects.
Table 53. California and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards pertinent to the Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
Ambient Air Quality Standards California Pollutant Averaging Time Federal Standards Standards 8-Hour 9.0 ppm 9 ppm Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1-Hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Annual Arithmetic Mean --- 0.053 ppm Nitrogen Oxide (Nox) 1-Hour 0.25 ppm --- 1-Hour 0.09 ppm 0.12 ppm Ozone 8-Hour 0.070 ppm 0.08 ppm Current* Previous Respirable Particulate 24-Hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 150 µg/m3 Matter (PM-10) Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 µg/m3 Revoked 50 µg/m3 No separate 24-Hour 35 µg/m3 65 µg/m3 Fine Particulate Matter state standard (PM-2.5) Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 µg/m3 15 µg/m3 15 µg/m3 Source: California Air Resources Board; http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqs/aaqs2.pdf; accessed on-line 01/17/07 * Federal standards for PM-10 and PM-2.5 (40 CFR Part 50) were revised on September 21, 2006. Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 200 / Tuesday, October 17, 2006 / pp. 61144 – 61233. Final rule is effective on December 18, 2006.
Rules of the South Coast Air Quality Management District This project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCA Basin). Air polluting activities occurring within the SCA Basin are under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD is the local authority and primary agency for managing and regulating many air emitting activities including open burning. A summary of SCAQMD rules applicable to the project is presented below and is available on the website http://www.aqmd.gov/rules/rulesreg.html.
Alternative 1 - No Action Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects With no action, impacts from dust, vehicle emissions, and other sources would not change from current conditions. Wildfire would continue to present a risk to the public that may result in
111 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
damage to both the environment (e.g., loss of wildlife habitat and large trees) and private property. This alternative would have no immediate direct adverse effects on air quality. If a wildfire were to occur, the potential indirect effects include degraded air quality and reduced visibility. Existing and continued mortality and fuel accumulations would contribute to increased fire intensities and severities. Consumption of the increased fuel loads and understory biomass would increase the amount of smoke emissions. In fact, emissions from wildfire are typically twice those of a prescribed fire on the same acreage due to greater emission factor (Ottmar 2001), fuel consumption, and fire intensity. These emissions would also occur over a period of a few days to several weeks as opposed to intermittent days (approximately 45) over several years for a prescribed fire project.
Seasonality of Emissions Wildfire emissions would typically occur during the summer under hot, dry conditions. This is also the typical smog season (May to October) in the Basin when air quality is typically at its worst due to the higher seasonal temperatures conducive to creating peak ozone concentrations. Local and distant sensitive areas are likely to be affected since winds during the summer are typically from the south and west (see Fuels report) which would disperse the smoke toward upwind communities and the Mojave Desert Air Basin. The emissions could remain in the local and surrounding airsheds for a period of a few days to several weeks creating heavy smoke concentrations. Such was the case during the catastrophic fires of 2003. This is also the experience during wildfires in other parts of California (e.g., Hoopa fire (Herr, date unknown)), New Mexico (Los Alamos National Laboratory, date unknown) and Montana (Story 2005) where particulate concentrations can be several times greater during a wildfire event than normal background concentrations.
Cumulative Effects Past, present and reasonably foreseeable activities and their impacts on air quality are difficult to address in terms of cumulative effects. Several large fires have occurred near the project area over the past century (see Fire and Fuels Specialist Report, Gallagher and Young 2007); however, those effects on air quality are gone and cannot be viewed cumulatively. Cumulative foreseeable activities that produce pollutants include, but are not limited to, the burning on private lands and public lands, use of fireplaces, dust from un-surfaced roads, wildfires, and so on. It is up to the Forest Service to establish priorities for burning and the responsibility of the Air Quality Management District to manage all burning in the Basin on any given day. Because air quality is strictly regulated, overlapping effects to air quality are minimized. Under the No Action Alternative, if a large wildfire were to occur, the Forest Service and the Air Quality Management District would need to restrict all regulated burning. However, effects of smoke from a large wildfire could become cumulative with unregulated pollutants in the area,
112 Environmental Assessment such as smoke from fireplaces, dust from roads, etc. These types of cumulative effects are difficult to measure and predict.
Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 2 would have a direct, short-term effect on air quality in the project area intermittently over a five year period. Daily agricultural and forestry burning within the South Coast Air Basin is coordinated through the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Smoke Management Program via Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. This program requires burners to estimate PM-10 emissions from proposed projects in order to obtain a burn permit from SCAQMD. Burners are to estimate PM-10 emissions using specific tables (1 and 2) in the Smoke Management Plan Application for Burn Permit (www.arb.ca.gov/smp/techtool/smplong.doc) which specifies default emission factors appropriate for specific vegetation types or pile burning common in the Basin. In order to be consistent with the SCAQMD’s Smoke Management Plan, these default values were used to estimate total particulate emissions (in tons) expected from the Thomas Mountain project. Under Alternative 2, approximately 3,957 acres would be treated with various combinations of pile burning. About 2,069 acres would be treated with underburning with light or medium fuel loadings. Another 7,833 acres of chaparral, or mixed chaparral and conifer, typically with heavy fuel loadings (average 45 tons per acre) would be treated by broadcast burning. However, it is expected that only about 75% of those acres (1,553 and 5,875 acres, respectively) would actually be “blackened” by fire. And in any one year likely only about 1,000 acres would be treated due to air quality restrictions, watershed thresholds, staffing, and budget. The data in Table 54 compares these direct and indirect emissions from prescribed burning with those of a wildfire occurring across the same acres and burning at one time. Wildfire estimates were generated using the First Order Fire Effects Model (FOFEM) simulating a wildfire burning in the summer under hot, dry conditions across 10,466 acres (equivalent to the acres that would have been treated to reduce fuel).
Table 54. Approximate tons per year of PM-10 generated from the Thomas Mountain Project from all direct and indirect emissions from prescribed burning compared to potential emissions from wildfire
Total Annual Total Annual Direct Emissions from Total Emissions from Pollutant Indirect Emissions and Indirect 2 Prescribed Wildfire Emissions Burning1 Tons Per Year PM-10 1,457 7 1,464 1,638 1 Based on burning approximately 2,277 Acres per year which is approximately 1/5 of the total project acres to be treated with prescribed fire. 2 Note that wildfire emissions do not include any indirect emissions which would be generated from associated firefighting equipment. Total acres subject to wildfire assumed to be 10,466, which is equal to the amount of acres in the Thomas Mountain Project that would be treated to modify fire behavior (Fuels report; Alternative 2 discussion).
113 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
Table 54 indicates that approximately 1,500 tons of PM-10 could be produced from prescribed burning in a year from about 2,300 acres as opposed to approximately 1,600 tons of PM-10 generated from a 10,466-acre wildfire. Total potential tons of PM-10 emissions over five years were converted to pounds per day in order to compare to the APCD significance values discussed earlier (Table 55). These estimates assumed burning activity was split evenly over five years and burning occurred potentially 45 days in a year.
Table 55. Potential prescribed burning emissions from the Thomas Mountain Project in pounds per day compared to South Coast Significance Level
South Coast Signficance Level Total Thomas Mountain Emissions Pollutant lbs/day (Direct and Indirect)1 PM 10 150 65,063 1 Converted to lbs/day from values in Table 54, e.g. 1,464 tons per year of PM-10 / 45 days of burning * 2000 pounds per ton.
Obviously, emissions from the Thomas Mountain Project would be considered significant when compared to the significance criteria. This result further reinforces the need to apply the “best available control measures” as suggested in the South Coast AQMD Smoke Management Plan. The calculated emissions, however, are based on the assumption that all areas proposed for burning would have continuous fuels across the ground, and an average emission factor for flaming and smoldering fuels. Because of these assumptions, these estimates are high. Actual emissions would likely be much less. Nonetheless, California Environmental Quality Act requires public notification of projects that exceed the significance thresholds for air quality. Documentation of this project’s public notification process and scoping procedures would address this requirement. The implementation of the proposed action also means however that some fuels would be harvested and taken off site and used for purposes such as pulp, chipping, lumber, etc. By taking this fuel off-site, it reduces the amount of emissions going into the atmosphere through prescribed burning or wildfire. The amount of particulate emissions potentially “saved”, as a result of the project are greater than 13 tons per year (Table 56). Note, however, that project implementation will dictate actual amount of material moved off-site and therefore the amount of emissions saved.
Table 56. Total amount of potential particulate emissions “saved” as a result of material being moved off site of the Thomas Mountain Project
Total Potential Tons of Total Potential Tons of Fuel Removed from Material Emission Factor2 PM Emissions Thomas Mountain “Saved” Project1 Merchantable and 2240 0.006 13.44 Submerchantable 1 Values estimated by Robert Schantz 10/13/2006. 2 Emission factor from the California Air Resources Board Smoke Management Plan Table 2 Mixed Conifer (CARB, 2001)
114 Environmental Assessment
Seasonality of Emissions Actual emissions and air quality impacts would vary based on a variety of factors such as weather variables, topography, transport winds, mixing heights, and unit size. Pile burning and underburning would likely occur during late fall and early winter (October through December). Burning of chaparral would typically occur during the late winter and early spring (December through April). Burning during these months are outside of the typical smog season in southern California and so is not expected to contribute further air quality problems during that time. Further, these months are also the time of lowest visitor use to local campgrounds and wilderness areas. However, some camps operate year-round and may be impacted by specific burning units, especially if smoke is trapped during nighttime inversions. This would be most critical in the morning hours until air temperatures rise sufficiently to allow smoke to disperse. Desired transport winds would disperse smoke to the north and northeast in the direction of the Class 1 areas of San Gorgonio Wilderness and Joshua Tree National Park. However, any visible smoke will be of short duration and occur during times of low visitor use. Total number of days that burning would occur during October through April is approximately 45. However, burning can only occur on days with meteorological conditions meeting those specified in the SCAQMD Smoke Management Plan (e.g., the expected height of the inversion base, if any, near 6:00 a.m. at Los Angeles International Airport is 1,500 feet mean sea level or higher; the expected maximum mixing height during the day is above 3,500 feet above the surface; or the expected mean surface wind between 6:00 a.m. and noon is greater than 5 miles per hour). Following these criteria, it is expected that residents near the actual burn area might see or smell smoke; however, it is expected that most impacts will be in the form of “nuisance” smoke and/or smell but would meet all the ambient air quality standards. An indirect effect of this alternative is a reduction in the emissions that would be released from potential wildfires in the area. By removing the small-diameter surface fuels with controlled low-intensity prescribed fire, the potential of a high-intensity fire developing within the stands would be reduced.
Cumulative Effects Smoke from prescribed burning is transitory in nature. The effects of the proposed action from smoke are not likely to have cumulative effects with other activities in the airshed given the oversight by the Air Quality Management District. The district’s burn-day determinations only allow burning when criteria are met that allow for good smoke dispersion. Daily regulation of amount of burning is managed to reduce impacts and negative effects of smoke. The number of days to accomplish prescribed burning in this project would compete with other burning in the airshed on any given day. It would be up to the Forest Service to establish burn priorities and the responsibility of the Air Quality Management District to manage all the burning on a given day. If air quality is exceeding thresholds when proposed activities are scheduled to occur, the proposed action may result in some delays in burning as a result of this increased demand for “air space.”
115 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
Consequences to the Social and Economic Environment The social and economic effects are the direct and indirect impacts of the project or no action on the residents of Riverside County.
Alternative 1 –No Action
Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects If no action were taken, there would not be any direct effects to local residents and the surrounding communities, and there would not be any costs or revenues associated with implementation activities. However, by not treating the fuels, a severe wildfire event could occur, and indirect effects could result from suppression activities or the fire itself. In such a situation, noise and disturbance from firefighting resources would be concentrated in and around the fire area for the duration of suppression activities. Depending on the location of the fire, the intensity, and its proximity to private lands, evacuations could occur, or private property could ignite. Smoke from the fire would permeate the airshed and likely be extensive and for a long duration given the hot and dry conditions when wildfires typically occur. Cumulative effects would only be likely under a wildfire scenario. If any other wildfires were occurring in the vicinity, the effects of suppression activities, threats to private lands and smoke emissions would be additive.
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects While there are no logging industries within Riverside County, there are large construction and agricultural sectors in the county’s economy that would perform the work. Therefore, no new jobs would be created locally, and the direct impacts to be analyzed include the number of existing jobs and income supported by the project. The indirect impact to be analyzed is the impact of the project on the residents of Garner Valley. The project would require heavy equipment to operate within and around the community. During this time, the residents would hear heavy equipment and notice increased heavy truck traffic in and around the community. The indicator for this effect is the number of days of logging related noise and increased truck traffic. The economic impact of the project alternatives includes the cost to the government for implementation of the project. The analysis includes a cost appraisal of the project, and estimates for the cost of planning, implementation, and administration of the project. The project would have insignificant social impacts to the residents of Riverside County. An estimated 96.8 jobs would be supported by the timber harvest and fuels reduction work, for a total estimated value of $2,087,422. The jobs are defined as one person-year of employment. These jobs reflect less than one percent of the total jobs in the Agriculture, forestry, and fisheries sector of the economy (Table 57).
116 Environmental Assessment
The residents of the community of Garner Valley would be impacted directly by the project activities. The removal of merchantable material from the treatment units would require industrial logging equipment. The residents would hear the activities associated with the logging and mechanical fuels treatment of units within the project area. In addition to the increased noise, there would be a marked increase in the heavy truck traffic around and through the community. Table 58 details these disturbances.
Table 57. Project outputs, products, jobs and income
Project Outputs Unit of Measure Volume (CCF) Merchantable Timber 528 Logging Jobs Supported per CCF1 0.00104 Total Logging Jobs Supported 0.5 Total Brush Removal Jobs Supported 96 Total Truck Hauling Jobs Supported 0.3 Total Jobs Supported 96.8 Average Laborer Annual Income2 $21,520 Average Truck Driver Annual Income2 $35,100 Total Jobs Income $2,087,422 1. Sequoia National Forest, Sequoia Monument Management Plan, 2003 2. US Department of Labor, Office of Employment Statistics – San Bernardino County
Table 58. Estimated days of logging noise and trucks
Volume Removed Estimated Daily Number Number of Log Logging System Acres - CCF Production of Days Trucks
Tractor Removal 384 528 50 10 65
The 528 CCF of timber that meets the merchantability standards have virtually no economic value for lumber production based on current log values. The conifer trees would have to be shipped 277 miles to the nearest mill in Terra Bella California, and the costs of logging and transportation exceeds the delivered log prices. The merchantable logs from this project would be removed using conventional tractor skidding, most likely under a service contract. Once the logs are located at landings, several options for removal are available. The first option is to sell the decked logs under a timber sale contract. An initial appraisal shows that there is enough value in the logs to cover the haul cost to the mill in Terra Bella. Another option is to sell the logs under a firewood sale. This option would generate a small amount of revenue, and would remove the logs from the project. Any hardwood trees removed could be decked and included in a firewood sale. Since markets are constantly changing and new opportunities for disposal may become available, further analysis may be needed to determine the best option prior to contract preparation. The cost centers for this part of the treatment are falling, yarding, and hauling costs.
117 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
There are 10,466 acres of the project where the fuels would be treated on site. The treatments are a combination of handpiling and burning, lop and scatter with jackpot burning, broadcast burning, chipping, and mastication. These acres exceed the total treatment acres because some acres would receive two treatments (i.e., handpile and burn, followed by broadcast burn). The cost centers for this treatment are manually cutting and piling, burning, and mechanical treatment. The proposed action and treatment will require approximately 12.4 miles of existing roads to be reconstructed. In some cases, the existing road prism will need to be realigned to accommodate a lowboy as the design vehicle. The least cost logging methods also requires up to 0.25 mile of new temporary road construction as well as the use of 5.3 miles of unclassified road. The cost centers are road reconstruction, road maintenance, and new temporary road construction. In addition to the treatments costs, there are additional costs to the government for planning, implementing, and administering this project. These costs may be offset by the value of the merchantable timber removed from the sale area, providing a market can be found for the timber. Under this scenario, the cost per acre for the project is $1,232.60 per acre treated. If no market for the merchantable size timber can be found, then the material may be hauled to a disposal site for chipping, sold as firewood, or burned on site.
Table 59. Total project costs with sale of merchantable timber
Unit of Cost/Benefit Description Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost Measure NEPA Analysis 1 project $300,000 $300,000 Contract Administration 0.5 Months $15,000 $7,544 Sale Preparation 384 Acres $100 $38,400 Merchantable Timber Removal 528 CCF $233.17 $123,131 Fuel treatment – On-Site Treatment 13,946 Acres $866.36 $12,082,225 Reforestation Costs 308 Acres $634.18 $195,327 Road Development Cost 29.4 Miles $6,736.80 $154,295 Total Project Costs $12,900,922 Stumpage Value 528 CCF $1.00 $528 Net Project Cost $12,900,394
118 Environmental Assessment
Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, state and local agencies, Tribes and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this environmental assessment.
Federal, State, and Local Agencies Jesse Bennett, USFWS
Consultation to Date A draft biological assessment was sent to USFWS for review on October 6, 2006. Informal comments were received and incorporated into the final assessment. A letter requesting formal consultation for the associated biological assessment was initiated with USFWS on August 24, 2006. On October 3, 2006, the USFWS requested including bald eagles in formal consultation. An addendum to the biological assessment addressing bald eagles and additional habitat conditions for the Quino checkerspot butterfly was provided on January 16, 2007. A second addendum was provided on March 30, 2007, to add monitoring for the Quino checkerspot butterfly and a specific design feature for bald eagles. A biological opinion was received on June 13, 2007. No further consultation is needed. The following conditions have been added to the proposed action:
Incidental Take The take threshold and limit is the mortality of 5 individuals. If the take threshold is exceeded, the Forest Service shall immediately contact the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office to review the activities resulting in take and to determine if additional protective measures are required.
Terms and Conditions To be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, the Service must comply with terms and conditions and outline reporting and monitoring requirements. Terms and conditions are non- discretionary. 1. The Forest Service will report to the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office within 48 hours if any of the anticipated take limits are exceeded. The purpose of this contact is to review the project activities to determine if additional protective measures are needed. 2. The Forest Service will provide the results of the pre-project and post-project monitoring to the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office.
Conservation Recommendations Section 7(a)(1) of the Act directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the purposes of the Act by carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened species. Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse effects of a proposed action on listed species or critical habitat, help
119 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
implement recovery plans, or to develop information. The USFWS recommend the following actions: 1. Conduct post-project monitoring of Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat conditions for a number of years post-project. 2. Continue to survey for Quino checkerspot butterfly and map host plant occurrences across the southern portion of the San Jacinto Ranger District.
120 Environmental Assessment
Chapter 5 – EA and Specialist Report References
Silviculture
Agee, J.K. 1996. The Influence of Forest Structure on Fire Behavior. Presented at the 17th Annual Forest Vegetation Management Conference. Redding CA. January 16-18, 1996. pp. 52- 68.
Agee, James K., and Carl N. Skinner. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and Management 211 (2005) 83-96.
Anderson, Hal E. 1982. Aids to Determining Fuel Models for Estimating Fire Behavior. USDA Forest Service, General Tech. Report INT-122, April, 1982.
Barbour, M.G. 1988. California upland forests and woodlands. In: M.G. Barbour & W.D. Billings, editors. North American Terrestrial Vegetation. Cambridge University Press, New York; pp. 131-164.
Cochran, P.H., J.M. Geist, D.L. Clemens, Rodrick R. Clausnitzer and David C. Powell. 1994. Suggested Stocking Levels for Forest Stands in Northeastern Oregon and Southeastern Washington. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Research Note PNW-RN- 513.
Covington, W. Wallace, Peter Z Fule, Margaret M. Moore, Stephen C. Hart, Thomas E. Kolb, Joy N. Mast, Stephen S. Sackett, and Michael R. Wagner. 1997. Restoring Ecosystem health in Ponderosa Pine forests of the Southwest. Journal of Forestry, April 1997.
Christiansen, Erik, Richard H. Waring, and Alan A Berryman. 1987. Resistance of Conifers to Bark Beetle Attack: Searching for General Relationships. Forest Ecology and Management, 22 (1987) 89-106.
Dixon, Gary. 1994. Western Sierra Nevada Prognosis Geographic Variant of the Forest Vegetation Simulator. WO-TM Service Center, USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO.
Dolph, L.K., R.R. Mori, and W.W. Oliver. 1995. Long-term response of old-growth stands to varying levels of partial cutting in the eastside pine type. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 10: 101-108. Cited In: Fitzgerald, S.A., W.H. Emmingham, G.M. Filip, and P.T. Oester. 2000. Exploring methods for maintaining old-growth structure if forests with a frequent-fire history: a case study. Pages 199-206 in W. Keith Moser and Cynthia F. Moser (eds.). Fire and forest ecology: innovative silviculture and vegetation management. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings, No. 21. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL.
Dunning, D. and L.H. Reineke. 1933. Preliminary Yield Tables for Second-Growth Stands in the California Pine Region. USDA, Washington, D.C. Tech. Bull. No. 354, June, 1933.
Fitzgerald, S.A., W.H. Emmingham, G.M. Filip, and P.T. Oester. 2000. Exploring methods for maintaining old-growth structure in forests with a frequent-fire history: a case study. Pages 199-206 in W. Keith Moser and Cynthia F. Moser (eds.). Fire and forest ecology: innovative silviculture and vegetation management. Tall Timbers Fire Ecology Conference Proceedings, No. 21. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahassee, FL.
Fitzgerald, S.A. 2002. pers. comm. Restoration Thinning: Response of Old-Growth Trees to Stand Density Manipulation. Oregon State Univ. Extension Forestry Program.
121 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
Graham, Russel T., et al. 1999. The Effects of Thinning and Similar Stand Treatments on Fire Behavior in Western Forests. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-463, August, 1999.
Graham, Russel T. et.al. 2004. Science Basis for Changing Forest Structure to Modify Wildfire Behavior and Severity. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-120, March, 2004.
Guarin, Alejandro, and Alan H. Taylor. 2005. Drought triggered mortality in mixed conifer forests in Yosemite National Park, California, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 218 (2005) 229-244.
Helms, J.A. 1994. The California Region. In: Barrett, J.W., editor. Regional Silviculture of the United States. John Wiley & Sons, New York; pp. 441-497.
Hessburg, Paul F., Russel G. Mitchell, and Gregory M. Filip. 1994. Historical and Current Roles of Insects and Pathogens in Eastern Oregon and Washington Forested Landscapes. USDA Forest Service PNW Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-327, April 1994, pp. 39-40.
Hillis, M., V. Applegate, S. Slaughter, M.G. Harrington, and H. Smith. Simulating Historical Disturbance Regimes and Stand Structures in Old-Forest Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir Forests. In: Barras, Stan J., ed. 2001. Proceedings: National Silvicultural Workshop; 1999 October 5-7; Kalispell, MT. Proc. RMRS-P-00. Ogden, UT: US Depart. Ag., Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.
Kramer, Kate, District Botanist San Jacinto Ranger District. 2005. Personal communication regarding Parry pinyon, October, 2005.
Latham, P. and J. Tappeiner. 2002. Response of old-growth conifers to reduction in stand density in western Oregon forests. Tree Physiology 22, 137-146.
Livingston, R. Ladd. 1979. The Pine Engraver, Ips pini (Say), in Idaho- Life History, Habits, and Management Recommendations. Idaho Dept. of Lands, Forest Insect and Disease Control P.O. Box 670 Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, 83814. Report 79-3 November 1979.
Long, James N. 1985. A Practical Approach to Density Management. The Forestry Chronical, February, 1985, For. Chron. 61:23-2.
Merrill, Laura D. 2005. Entomologist, USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Protection, Southern California Shared Service Area, Riverside, CA. Personal communication via telephone, May. 2005.
McKelvey et.al. 1996. An Overview of Fire in the Sierra Nevada. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, vol. II, Assessments and scientific basis for management options. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, 1996.
Minnich, R.A., 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 9:902-914.
Minnich, R.A., M.G. Barbour, J.H. Burk, and J. Sosa-Ramirez. 2000. Californian mixed conifer forests under unmanaged fire regimes in the Sierra San Pedro Martir, Baja California, Mexico. Journal of Biogeography, 27, 105-129.
122 Environmental Assessment
Oliver, William W. 1995. Is Self-thinning in Ponderosa Pine Ruled by Dendroctonus Bark Beetles? In: Proceedings of the 1995 National Silviculture Workshop, Mescalero, New Mexico May 8-11, 1995. USDA Forest Service General Technical report RM-GTR-267.
Omi, Philip N. and Erik J. Martinson. 2002. Effect of Fuels Treatment on Wildfire Severity. Submitted to the Joint Fire Science Program Governing Board, Western Forest Fire Research Center, Colorado State University, March 25, 2002.
Peterson, David L., Morris C. Johnson, James K. Agee, Theresa B. Jain, Donald McKenzie, and Elizabeth D. Reinhardt. 2005. Forest Structure and Fire Hazard in Dry Forests of the Western United States. USDA Forest Service, PNW Research Station, General Technical Report PNW-GTR-628, February 2005.
Perry, David A., Huang Jing, Andrew Youngblood, and Doug R. Oetter. 2004. Forest Structure and Fire Susceptibility in Volcanic Landscapes of the Eastern High Cascades, Oregon. Conservation Biology, Vol. 18, No. 4, August 2004, pp. 913-926.
Pollet, Jolie, and Philip N. Omi. 2002. Effects of thinning and prescribed burning on crown fire severity in ponderosa pine forests. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 2002, 11, 1-10.
Pronos, J., L. Merrill, and D. Dahlsten. 1999. Insects and Pathogens in a Pollution-Stressed Forest. In: Miller, Paul R. and Joe R. McBride, editors. 1999. Oxidant Air Pollution Impacts in the Montane Forests of Southern California. Springer.
Reinhardt, Elizabeth, and Nicholas L. Crookston (Technical Editors). 2003. The Fire and Fuels Extension to the forest Vegetation Simulator. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mt. Research Station, Ogden, UT, General Technical Report, RMRS-GTR-116, 209 p.
Schmitt, Craig L., John R. Parmeter, and John T. Klejunas. 2000. Annosus root disease of western conifers. USDA Forest Service, Forest Insect and Disease Leaflet 172, revised February 2000.
Sherlock, Joseph W. 2005. Integrating Stand Density Management with Fuel Reduction Treatments. Presented at 2005 National Silviculture Workshop, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, June 2005.
Skinner, Carl N., Martin w. Ritchie, Todd Hamilton, and Julie Symons. 2004. Effects of Thinning and Prescribed Fire on Wildfire Severity. Proceedings 25th Forest Vegetation Management Conference, Redding CA, 2004.
Smith, Thomas F., David M. Rizzo, and Malcolm North. 2005. Patterns of Mortality in an Old- Growth Mixed Conifer Forest of the Southern Sierra Nevada, California. Forest Science 51 (3) 2005.
Stephens, Scott L. 2004. Fuel loads, snag abundance, and snag recruitment in an unmanaged Jeffrey pine-mixed conifer forest in Northwestern Mexico. Forest Ecology and Management 199 (2004) 103-113.
Stephens, Scott L., and Jason J. Moghaddas. 2005. Silvicultural and reserve impacts on potential fire behavior and forest conservation: Twenty-five years of experience from Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forests. Biological Conservation 125 (2005) 369-379.
Stephenson, John R. and Gena M. Calcarone. 1999. Southern California mountains and foothills assessment: habitat and species conservation issues. General Technical Report GTR-
123 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
PSW-172. Albany CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 402 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Endangered and threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-month Finding for a Petition to List the California Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) as Threatened or Endangered. Fed. Register 71:29886.
Wallin, Kimberly F., Thomas E. Kolb, Kjerstin R. Skov, and Michael R. Wagner. 2004. Sever- Year Results of Thinning and Burning Restoration Treatments on Old Ponderosa Pines at the Gus Pearson Natural Area. Restoration Ecology Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 239-247.
Weatherspoon, C.P, S.J. Husari and J.W. van Wagtendonk. 1992. Fire and fuels management in relation to owl habitat in forests of the Sierra Nevada and southern California. In: Verner, J., K.S. McKelvey, B.R. Noon, R.J. Gutierrez, G.I. Guild, T.W. Beck, tech. coordinators. The California Spotted Owl: a technical assessment of its current status. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report PSW-133; 247-260.
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 (2005) 291- 305.
Fuels
Acheson, Ann. 2006. Air quality Report for the Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project, located in the project file
Agee, James K, and Carl N. Skinner. 2005. Basic principle for forest fuel reduction treatments. Article in Press www.sciencedirect.com
Blonski, Kenneth S. and John L. Schramel. 1981. Photo series for quantifying natural forest residues: Southern Cascades, Northern Sierra Nevada. PMS818, Boise, ID, National Wildfire Coordinating Group, National Interagency Fire Center
Bonnett, Cameron. 2006. Scenery and Recreation Report for the Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project, located in the project file
Brown, James K. 1974. Handbook for Inventorying Downed Woody Material, USDA Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, INT-GTR-16
Brown, J.K., E.D. Reinhardt, and K.A. Kramer. 2003. Coarse woody debris: Managing benefits and fire hazard in the recovering forest. USDA Rocky Mountain Research Station RMRS-GTR-105. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/publications/online/rmrs_gtr.html
Cassidy, Mike; Fire Prevention Technician, San Jacinto Ranger District, San Bernardino National Forest, Idyllwild, CA
Cohen, Jack D. and Jim Saveland. 1997. Structure ignition assessment can help reduce fire damages in the W-UI. Available at: http://www.firelab.org/
Cohen, Jack D. 1999. Reducing the Wildland Fire Threat to Homes: Where and How Much? Proceedings of the Symposium on Fire Economics, Planning, and Policy: Bottom Lines, April 1999, San Diego, CA, .USDA Pacific Southwest Research Station PSW-GTR-173
124 Environmental Assessment
Cohen, Jack D. 2000. What is the Wildland Fire Threat to Homes? Available at: http://www.firelab.org/
Cohen, Jack D. 2002. Wildland-Urban fire- A different Approach. Available at: http://www.firelab.org/
Durston, Thomas. 2006. Transportation Report for the Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project, located in the project file
Dyke, Shelly. 2006. Biological Evaluation and Biological Assessment for the Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project, located in the project file
Finney, Mark A. 2001. Design of Regular Landscape Fuel Treatment Patterns for Modifying Fire Growth and Behavior, p219-228, Forest Science, Vol. 47, No 2, May 2001.
Fire: Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Fire Threat, Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) Information and Data Center. Available at: http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/data/frapgisdata/select.asp
Fites, Dr. Joann etal. 2003. Potential Fire Behavior and Effects Under Conditions of Extensive Vegetation Mortality on the San Bernardino National Forest, project file
Gibson, Shawn. 2006. Heritage Resource Report for the Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project, located in the project file
Glossary of Wildland Fire Terminology. 2005. National Wildfire Coordination Group. Available at: http://www.nwcg.gov
Graham, Russell T., Technical Editor. 2003. Hayman Fire Case Study (and summary) Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-114 and115. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/publications/online/rmrs_gtr.html
Gutierrez, R. J. et al. 1992. Chapters 11 & 12 from “Historical perspectives on forest of the Sierra Nevada and the transverse ranges of Southern California: Forest condition at the turn of the century, and fire and fuels management in relation to owl habitat in forests of the Sierra Nevada and Southern California,” in California Spotted Owl: A Technical Assessment of Its Current Status, USDA Pacific Southwest Research Station PSW-GTR- 133
Healthy Forest Initiative. 2002. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/hfi/background.shtml
Healthy Forests Restoration Act. 2003. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/projects/hfi/background.shtml
Henson, Carol. 2004. San Bernardino Fuels and Fire Behavior Assessment, revised, in project file
Hermandorfer, Chad. 2006. Hydrology Report for the Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project, located in the project file
Keeley, Jon E and C. J. Fotheringham. 2001. History and Management of Crown-Fire Ecosystems: a Summary and Response, pp. 1561-1567, Conservation Biology, Vol15, No6, December 2001
Keeley, Jon E and C. J. Fotheringham. 2001a. Historic Fire Regime in Southern California Shrublands, pp. 1536-1548, Conservation Biology, Vol 15, No 6, December 2001
125 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
Kramer, Kate A.; Botanist, San Jacinto Ranger District, San Bernardino National Forest, Idyllwild, CA
Laufman, Dr. Julie. 2006. Botany Report for the Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project, located in the project file
Minnich, Richard A. and Yue Hong Chou. 1997. Wildland Fire Patch Dynamics in the Chaparral of Southern California and Northern Baja California, International Journal of Wildland Fire 7(3): 221-248, Q IAWF. Printed in USA.
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 http://www.cnr.colostate.edu/frws/research/westfire/finalreports.pdf
Ottmar, Roger D, Robert E. Vihnenek, Jon C. Regelbrugge. 2000. Stereo photo series for quantifying natural fuels, Volume VI: Pinyon-Juniper, Chaparral, and Sagebrush Types in the Southwestern Untied States. PMS 833, Boise, Idaho, National Wildfire Coordinating Group, National Interagency Fire Center
Peterson, David L. et al. 2005. Forest Structure and Fire Hazard in Dry Forests in the Western United States, USDA Pacific Northwest Research Station General Technical Report PNW-GTR-628. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/publications/gtrs2005.shtml
Ross, Greg G.; Fuels Battalion, San Jacinto Ranger District, San Bernardino National Forest, Idyllwild, CA
Rothermel, Richard C. 1983. How to predict the spread and intensity of forest and range fires. USDA Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. GTR-INT-143
San Jacinto Mountains Communities Wildfire Protection Plan, Revised Draft March 2006, www.calmast.org/mast/public/RivCWPP.htm
Schantz, Robert. 2006. Silviculture Report for the Thomas Mountain Fuel Reduction Project, located in the project file
Scott, Joe H. and Robert E. Bergen. 2005. Standard fire behavior fuel models: A comprehensive set for use with Rothermel’s surface fire spread model. USDA Rocky Mountain Research Station RMRS-GTR-153. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/publications/online/rmrs_gtr.html
Scott, Joe H. 2003. Canopy fuel treatment standards for the wildland-urban interface. In Fire, Fuel Treatments, and Ecological Restoration, Conference Proceedings. April 2002. Ft. Collins, CO. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-29. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/publications/online/rmrs_proceedings.html
Stephenson, John R.and Gena M. Calcarone. 1999. Southern California mountains and foothills assessment: habitat and species conservation issues. USDA Pacific Southwest Research Station General Technical Report GTR-PSW-172. Albany, CA. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/gtrs.shtml
USDI and USDA .2000. Managing the Impacts of Wildland Fires on Communities and the Environment - A Report to the President (aka National Fire Plan) http://www.fireplan.gov/resources/annual_report.html
126 Environmental Assessment
USDI and USDA 2001. A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risk to Communities and the Environment 10 Year Comprehensive Strategy. Available at: http://www.fireplan.gov/resources/policies.html
USDI and USDA 2002. A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risk to Communities and the Environment: 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy: Implementation Plan Available at: http://www.fireplan.gov/resources/policies.html
USDI et al. (USDI/ USDA/ DOE/ DOF/DOC/EPA/FEMA/NAOSF).1995. Federal Wildland Fire Policy. http://www.nifc.gov/fire_policy/index.htm and for 2001 updates http://www.nifc.gov/fire_policy/history/index.htm
Wildlife California Dept. Fish and Game. 2004. Deer Hunting Draft Enviornmental Document, February 6, 2004. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. 294pp + appendices.
Chapman, J.A. and G.A. Feldhamer, eds. 1982. Wild mammals of North America, biology, management and economics. Johns Hopkins University Press; Baltimore, Maryland.
Dixon, Gary. 1994. Western Sierra Nevada Prognosis Geographic Variant of the Forest Vegetation Simulator. WO-TM Service Center, USDA Forest Service, Fort Collins, CO.
Gallagher, T. 2006. Thomas Mountain Fuel Reduction Project Fire and Fuels Report. San Jacinto Ranger District, Idyllwild, CA.
LaHaye, William S., and Gutierrez, R.J. November 15, 1988. Ecology of the California Spotted Owl in the San Bernardino Mountains of California. Progress Report No. 3. Submitted to SBNF and Snow Summit Ski Corporation. Humboldt State University Foundation. 12 pp.
LaHaye, W. 2004. Results of Spotted Owl Surveys in the SBNF During the Spring and Summer 2004. Report prepared for SBNF, Contract No. 53-91S8-4-1L20.
NatureServe. 2005. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 4.5. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: June 14, 2005 ).
Poopatanapong, A. 2005. District Biologist, San Jacinto Ranger District. Personal communication with Shelly Dyke.
Reinhardt, Elizabeth, and Nicholas L. Crookston (Technical Editors). 2003. The Fire and Fuels Extension to the forest Vegetation Simulator. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mt. Research Station, Ogden, UT, General Technical Report, RMRS-GTR-116, 209 p.
Reynolds, R.T. et. al. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-217.
Schantz, R. 2006. Thomas Mountain Fuel Reduction Project Silvicutre Report. San Jacinto Ranger District, Idyllwild, CA.
Stebbins, R.C. 1985. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Peterson Field Guide Series. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, MA. 336 pp.
127 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
Stephenson, John. 1989. Habitat Management Plan and Species Management Guide for California Spotted Owls (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) on the SBNF. USDA Agriculture. Forest Service. Pacific Southwest Region. 11 pp.
Stephenson, John R.and Gena M Calcarone. 1999. Southern California mountains and foothills assessment: habitat and species conservation issues. USDA Pacific Southwest Research Station General Technical Report GTR-PSW-172. Albany, CA
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Endangered and threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-month Finding for a Petition to List the California Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) as Threatened or Endangered. Fed. Register 71:29886.
USDA Forest Service 2004. Conservation Strategy for the California Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) on the National Forests of Southern California. SBNF, San Bernardino, California.
USDA Forest Service 2005a. SBNF Land and Resource Management Plan. Pacific Southwest Region.
USDA Forest Service. 2005b. Species Accounts Prepared for the SBNF Land and Resource Management Plan. Pacific Southwest Region.
Zeiner, David C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1988. California's Wildlife. Volume I. Amphibians and Reptiles. California Statewide Habitat Relationships System. State of California. The Resources Agency, California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. 732 pp.
Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1990a. California's Wildlife. Volume II. Birds. California Statewide Habitat Relationships System. State of California. The Resources Agency, California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. 732 pp.
Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1990b. California's Wildlife. Volume III. Mammals. California Statewide Habitat Relationships System. State of California. The Resources Agency, California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. 407 pp.
Noxious Weeds
Kramer, Kate 2005. District Botanist USDA Forest Service San Jacinto Ranger District, On going personal communication via email and telephone.
Tennant, Tracy, 2005. Acting District Botanist, USDA Forest Service San Jacinto Ranger District, On going personal communication via email and telephone.
USDA-Forest Service. 2000. -Noxious Weed Management Strategy Southern California Province, Pacific Southwest Region.10 pp.
USDA Forest Service. 2000. Region 5 Equipment Cleaning Clause (WO-C6.36).
USDA Forest Service. LMP 2005. Design Criteria for the Southern California National Forests, Part 3, Appendix M: National Forests of Southern California Weed Management Strategy.
128 Environmental Assessment
Botany
Beyers, J.L., M. Narog, C. Sclafani, and C. Escobar. 2003. Using a fire cage to test the response of Arabis Johnstoniin to fire effects. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Riverside CA.
Beyers, J. 2006. Ecologist. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Riverside CA. Personal communication via telephone, Jan. 2006
California Department of Fish and Game. 1991. California Natural Diversity Database Records. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/
The California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). 2003. California Dept. of Fish and Game, Natural Heritage Division.
CalFlora. 2005. http://www.calflora.org/index0.html
Carsey, K. and K. Kramer. 2003. Biological Evaluation /Assessment for Plants and Botany Report for Bonita Vista Fuels Reduction Project. On file at: San Jacinto Ranger District San Bernardino National Forest.
California Native Plant Society. 2006. http://www.cnps.org- California Native Plant Society database. http://cnps.web.aplus.net/cgi-bin/inv/inventory.cgi/QuadLocator? _id=symphyotrichum_defoliatum&testDWR=Cuyamaca+Peak+%28020A%29+
Dunwiddie, P, S. Pearson,, and T. Kaye,. 2004. Recovery of Rare Species and Communities in Pacific Northwest Prairies and Oak Woodlands. http://abstracts.co.allenpress.com/pweb/esa2004/document/?ID=35412
Fule, P. Z., J. D. Springer, D. W. Huffman, and W. W. Covington. 2001. Response of a Rare Endemic, Penstemon clutei, to Burning and Reduced Belowground Competition. RMRS: 139-152. USDA Forest Service.
Hickman, J.C. 1993. The Jepson Manual, Higher Plant of California. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA. 1400 pp.
Kramer, K. 2004. Biological Evaluation/Assessment for Plants and Botany Report for Garner Valley Fuels Reduction Project. On file at: San Jacinto Ranger District, San Bernardino National Forest.
Laufmann, J. 2005. Biological Evaluation/Assessment for Plants and Botany Report for North Fork of the San Jacinto Healthy Forest Project. On file at: San Jacinto Ranger District, San Bernardino National Forest
Merril, E., Mayland, H., and M. James. 1960. Effects of a Fall Wildfire on Herbaceous Vegetation on Xeric Sites in the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness, Idaho. J. Range Mgmt. 33 (5):363- 367.
Munz, P.A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA.
Riverside County Integrated Project 2005. Western Riverside County MSHCP Species Accounts http://ecoregion.ucr.edu/dudek/accounts/Plants.pdf
129 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
Skinner, M.W. and B.M. Pavlik, editors. 1994. California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Special publication No. 1. Fifth Edition. The California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. (on file at San Jacinto Ranger District, Idyllwild, CA).
Stephenson, J.R. and G. Calcarone. 1999. Southern California Mountains and Foothills Assessment: Habitat and Species Conservation Issues. General Technical Report GTR- PSW-175. Albany,CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service. 402 pp (on file at San Jacinto Ranger District, Idyllwild, CA).
Tennant, T. 2006. Assistant District Botanist, USDA Forest Service San Jacinto Ranger District. Personal communication via telephone, Jan – June 2006
USDA Forest Service. 1998. Biological Evaluation and Botanical Specialists Report for Bee Fire Salvage Sale, on file at: San Jacinto Ranger District, San Bernardino National Forest.
USDA Forest Service. 1989. San Bernardino National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Pacific Southwest Region
USDA Forest Service fire database: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/forb/casses/all.html
USDA-Forest Service. 2000. -Noxious Weed Management Strategy Southern California Province, Pacific Southwest Region.10 pp.
USDA Forest Service. 2000. Region 5 Equipment Cleaning Clause (WO-C6.36). .
USDA Forest Service 2003. Paradise Fire Baer Report. Cleveland National Forest. Wildlife and Natural Resources http://www.sdfirerecovery.net/documents/reading%20room/ BAERTeam%20cedar%20fire%20reports/Cedar%20BAER%20Fauna%20Final- 1%20Report.pdf
USDA Forest Service. 2005. Fire Effects Information Database http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/alnrho/fire_effects.html
USDA Forest Service. 2005. San Bernardino National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Pacific Southwest Region.
USDA Forest Service 2006a. Best Management Practices for Weed Control USDA-Forest Service Guide to Noxious Weed Prevention Practices http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/gallatin/projects/brackett/html/AppendixF_NoxWeeds.htm
USDA Forest Service 2006b. National Strategy and Implementation Plan for Invasive Species Management. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/publications/Invasive_Species.pdf
USDA Forest Service. 2006c. San Bernardino National Forest Plant Species Occurrence Database http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/scfpr/projects/lmp/docs/species-plants.pdf
Wilken, D. 1993. A systematic study of the genus Hulsea (Asteraceae). Brittonia 27:22-244.
Watershed and Soils BDF GIS layers for roads, existing vegetation, soils, and United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle topographic maps.
130 Environmental Assessment
Brown, J.K., E.D.Reinhardt, and E.A. Kramer. 2003. Coarse woody debris: fire hazard in the recovering forest. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-105. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 16p.
California Division of Forestry. 2006. Fire history GIS layer, Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/data/frapgisdata/select.asp.
Debano, L.F., R.M. Rice, and C.E. Conrad. 1979. Soil Heating in Chaparral Fires: Effects on Soil Properties, Plant Nutrients, Erosion and Runoff. Research Paper PSW-145, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. USDA Forest Service, Berkeley California. 21 pp.
Digital Elevation Models (DEM) for Anza, Butterfly Peak, and Idyllwild USGS quadrangles. http://data.geocomm.com/.
Elliot, W.J., D.E. Hall, and S.R. Graves. 1999. Predicting sedimentation from forest roads. J. of Forestry. 97: 23-29
Foltz, R.B. and E. Maillard. 2004. Infiltration rates on abandoned road-stream crossings. Presented to 2003 ASAE International Meeting. Las Vegas, Nev.
GPS Data Depot. 2006. http://data.geocomm.com/
Hill, R. I. 1981. Geology of Garner Valley; Geology of the San Jacinto Mountains, South Coast Geological Society. Pp 90-99.
Howe, S. W. 2000. Proposed Soil Resource Condition Assessment, Final Draft. Wallow-Whitman National Forest. 9p.
Jurgensen, M. F. et. al. 1997. Impacts of Timber Harvesting on Soil Organic Matter, Nitrogen, Productivity and Health of Inland Northwest Forests. Forest Science. Vol. 43 # 2.
Luce, C.H. 1997. Effectiveness of road ripping in restoring infiltration capacity of forest roads. Restoration Ecology. vol. 5 no. 3, Pp. 265-270
Matti, J.C. and D.M. Morton. 2/9/2000. Geology of the San Bernardino National Forest. U.S. Geological Survey. Unpublished manuscript. 30 p.
Morton, Douglas M (compiler), and Fred K. Miller (compiler),2003,PreliminaryGeologicMap of the San Bernardino 30' x 60' quadrangle, California: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File report 03-293, U.S. Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California.
Moser, Eric. 2004. Personal conversation concerning erosion processes.
Norman, Brent V. Stratigraphy and Structure of the Pelona Schist in the North Fork Lytle Creek Drainage of the San Gabriel Mountains, California — Implications for Palinspastic Reconstruction. Available online at http://geology.csupomona.edu/janourse/Brent's%20Thesis/PS_Thesis-Brent.html
Overland, Bill. Coarse Woody Debris Recommendations for San Bernardino NF. 2005. 4 pages. Unpublished.
Potyondy, J. P. 1981. Technical Guide; Erosion Prevention and Control on Timber Sale Areas. Intermountain Region USDA Forest Service, Soil and Water Management.
131 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
Powers, R.F. 2002. Effects of Soil Disturbance on the Fundamental, Sustainable Productivity of Managed Forests. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report, PSW-GTR-183.
Powers, R.F. et. al. 2005. The North American Long-Term Soil Productivity Experiment: Findings From the First Decade of Research. Forest Ecology and Management. Vol. 220, pp 31-50.
Rice, R.M. 1978. Sedimentation in the Chaparral: How Do You Handle Unusual Events? 10pp.
Rice, R.M., J.S. Rothacher, and W. F. Megahan. 1971. Erosional Consequences of Timber Harvesting: An Appraisal. In National Symposium on Watersheds in Transition, p. 321- 329. American Water Resources Association.
Rodgers, T.H. 1965. Geologic Map of California, Santa Ana Sheet, California Division of Mines and Geology. San Francisco, California. 1 plate.
State of California. 2002. California’s 305 (b) report on water quality. http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/tmdl/305b.html.
State of California. 2003. California Year 2002 305(b) report on water quality to CWA section 305(b). State of California. Available on the internet at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/tmdl/305b.html
State of California. 2006. Watershed (CalWater) GIS layer is available at the California Spatial Information Library (http://gis.ca.gov/data.epl).
USDA Forest Service and Soil Conservation Service. 1981. Soil Survey of the San Bernardino National Forest Area, California, California. 207 p.
USDA Forest Service. 2005. San Bernardino Land Management Plan. San Bernardino National Forest.
USDA Forest Service, 1990 Soil and Water Conservation Handbook. Pacific Southwest Region 53p.
USDA Forest Service, 1995. Soil Management Handbook. Pacific Southwest Region 12p.
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. 2002. Disturbed WEPP: WEPP Interface for Disturbed Forest and Range Runoff, Erosion and Sediment Delivery. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station and San Dimas Technology and Development Center.
USDA Forest Service. 2004. Assessment of Post Storm Conditions, Christmas Day, 2003, Grand Prix and Old Fires Area, San Bernardino National Forest. Unpublished. 21 p.
USDA Forest Service. (September 2005). San Bernardino National Forest Land Management Plan (BDF) http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/scfpr/projects/lmp/.
USDA Forest Service 2005b. R5 supplement # 2005-1, Forest Service Handbook 2509.22, Soil and Water Conservations Practices.
USDA Forest Service. 2006. Region 5 Geology Geodatabase GIS layer.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003. National Wetlands Inventory GIS layer. www.nwi.fws.gov
132 Environmental Assessment
USGS 2005. http://nationalatlas.gov/atlasftp.html?openChapters=chpclim#chpclim
USGS. 2006. National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) Stream Geodatabase GIS layers for HUC1807. http://nhd.usgs.gov/index.html.
AirQuality California Air Resources Board, 2001 Smoke Management Plan Application for Burn Permit. Available at: www.arb.ca.gov/smp/techtool/smplong.doc
California Air Resources Board. 2003. Resolution 03-23. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/scsip03/scsip03.htm
California Air Resources Board, 2004. The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality, 2004 Edition. Pg. 132.
California Air Resources Board, 2004a. Almanac Emissions Projection Data. 2003 Estimated Annual Average Emissions. Available: Available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/emseic1_query.php?F_DIV=0&F_YR=2003&F_SEA SON=A&SP=2004&F_AREA=AB&F_AB=SC&F_DD=Y
California Air Resources Board, 2004b. Communication between California Air Rerources Board and Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, USEPA. January 9, 2004 Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/sip/scsip03/scsip03.htm
California Air Resources Board, 2005. Almanac Emissions Projection Data. 2004 Estimated Annual Average Emissions. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/emssumcat_query.php?F_YR=2004&F_DIV=- 4&F_SEASON=A&SP=2005&F_AREA=CO&F_CO=33&F_COAB=
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2005. California Fire and Resource Assessment Program. Sacramento CA. Available at: http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/. Tiffany Meyer of TEAMS analyzed data for wildfire and prescribed fire acres by decade.
Graham, Russell T.; Sarah McCaffrey, and Theresa B. Jain (tech.eds) 2004. Science basis for changing forest structure to modifying wildfire behavior and severity. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-120. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 43pp.
Herr, Leonard. Date unknown. Air Quality Impacts From the Megram and Onion Wildfire in Northern California. North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District. Available at: http://www.ncuaqmd.org/documents/meagram.pdf
Los Alamos National Laboratory. Date Unknown. Historical Wildfire Data. Jemez Fires Produce High Particulate Measurements. Accessed Online January 19, 2007. Available: http://www.airquality.lanl.gov/nonrad/hist_data.shtml
McCorison, Mike. 2005. Air Quality Specialist’s Report for Forest Plan Revision
Ottmar, R.D. 2001. Smoke source characteristics. In: Hardy, C.C., R.D. Ottmar, J.L. Peterson, J.E. Core, P. Seamon, eds/comps. Smoke management guide for prescribed and wildland fire 2001 edition. National Wildfire Coordination Group; PMS 420-2, NFES 1279. December 2001. Chapter 5, pp 89-106. Available online at http://www.nwcg.gov/pms/pubs/SMG/SMG-72.pdf.
133 Thomas Mountain Fuels Reduction Project
South Coast Air Pollution Control District, Rule 444, Wildland vegetation burning. http://www.aqmd.gov/rules/reg/reg04_tofc.html
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), 2001. Preliminary Staff Report for: Proposed Amended Rule 444 – Open Burning and Proposed Amended Rule 208 – Permits and Burn Authorization for Open Burning. http://www.arb.ca.gov/smp/district/sc.pdf
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Pg. 6-2
Story, Mark; and Thomas Dzomba. 2005. Smoke NEPA Guidance Describing Air Resource Impacts From Prescribed Fire on National Forests & Grasslands of Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, & South Dakota in Regions 1 & 4. 30 pp.
U.S. Air Force. 2005. PROACT Fact Sheet. General Conformity Rule. Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence.
USDA Forest Service. 2005. Land Management Plan Part 2 San Bernardino National Forest Straetgy, Pacific Southwest Region, San Bernardino, CA. R5-MB-079.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. AP 42, Volume I, Fifth Edition. Chapter 13. Available: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Interim air quality policy on wildfire and prescribed fires. Final report. U.S. Environmental Policy Agency. http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/firefnl.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1999. Regional Haze Regulations, Final Rule, 40 CFR Part 51. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/fr_notices/rhfedreg.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. Visibility in our Nation's Parks and Wilderness Areas. Web site: http://www.epa.gov/air/visibility/parks/sago_p.html. Accessed April 5, 2007.
Worldclimate.com. 2004. http://www.worldclimate.com/
134