United States Department of Agriculture Environmental Assessment
Forest Service Silverado Fuel Break March 2013
Trabuco Ranger District, Cleveland National Forest Orange and Riverside Counties, California
For More Information Contact:
Jacob Gipson Trabuco Ranger District Cleveland National Forest 1147 East 6th Street, Corona, CA 92879 Phone: 951-736-1811
Non-Discrimination Policy The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.)
To File an Employment Complaint If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can be found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html.
To File a Program Complaint If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at [email protected].
Persons with Disabilities Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish).
Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
Table of Contents
Summary ...... 1 Chapter 1- Purpose & Need for Action ...... 2 Introduction ...... 2 Background ...... 5 Forest Plan & Management Direction ...... 5 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 7 Public Involvement ...... 7 Issues ...... 8 Chapter 2- Alternatives...... 9 Introduction ...... 9 Alternative One- No Action ...... 9 Alternative Two- Proposed Action ...... 9 Alternative Two Treatment Actions and Design Criteria ...... 10 Design Criteria ...... 10 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 16 Chapter 3- Environmental Consequences...... 17 Introduction ...... 17 Air Quality ...... 18 Fire & Fuels ...... 22 Heritage Resources ...... 31 Hydrology & Soils ...... 35 Invasive Nonnative Plants ...... 43 Plants ...... 50 Scenery ...... 59 Wildlife ...... 65 Consultation & Coordination ...... 77 Acronyms & Definitions ...... 78 Interdisciplinary Team Members ...... 80 References ...... 81
List of Tables
Table 1- Project Area & Communities ...... 4 Table 2- Summary of Best Management Practices (BMPs) ...... 13 Table 3- Waterbar Spacing Guidelines ...... 13 Table 4- Comparison of Alternatives ...... 16 Table 5- Recent Activities on the Trabuco Ranger District ...... 17 Table 6- Designated Non-Attainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants ...... 19 Table 7- Total Project Emissions ...... 21 Table 8- Significance Tess/Conformity Test (Tons per Year of Emissions Produced)...... 21 Table 9- Fire Hazard & Percentage in the Analysis Area ...... 24 Table 10- Vegetation Types in the Analysis Area ...... 25 Table 11- Fuel Model Category, Description, Acres in the Analysis Area ...... 25 Table 12- Comparison of Alternatives for Fireline Intensity, ...... 27 Table 13- Properties & Ratings of Soils within the Project Area ...... 37 Table 14- Equivalent Roaded Areas for Proposed Fuel Break & Threshold of Concern for 6th Code HUC Subwatersheds ...... 42
i Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
Table 15- Occurrences of Nonnative Invasive Plant Species in the Silverado Project Area & in other Fuel Breaks in the Vicinity ...... 45 Table 16- Potential Invasive Species ...... 46 Table 17- Forest Service Sensitive (FSS) Plant Species Habitat in the Project Area ...... 52 Table 18- Determination of Effects for Plant Species in the Project Area ...... 58 Table 19- Project Area Key Viewpoints ...... 61 Table 20- Scenic Integrity Alternative Information ...... 62 Table 21- Vegetation Types & Acreages in Project Area Footprint ...... 66 Table 22- Determination of Effects to Sensitive & Management Indicator Species ...... 76
List of Figures
Figure 1- Vicinity Map ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 2- Project Area Map ...... 4 Figure 3- Project Area Photo ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 4- Historic Fires in the Vicinity of the Silverado Fuel Break ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 5- Erosion, Bedrock Geology & Landslides (outside of project area) ...... Error! Bookmark not defined.
ii
Summary The Trabuco District Ranger on the Cleveland National Forest has completed an Environmental Assessment (EA) with an Interdisciplinary Team for the Silverado Fuel Break Project. This project has been designed to improve firefighter and public safety and enhance the effectiveness of the Silverado Fuel Break by implementing a series of vegetation treatments to reduce the fuel loading within the footprint of the existing fuel break. The project is located in portions of T5S, R6W, Sections 7, 8, and 18; T5S, R7W, Sections 13, 14, 15 and 16.
The proposed action includes a combination of mechanical treatments (mastication), hand treatments (cutting and piling cut material) and prescribed fire (pile and broadcast burning) to reestablish approximately 260 acres of the Silverado Fuel Break. Treatments are designed to provide for indirect fire protection for the communities of Silverado Canyon, Modjeska Canyon, Williams Canyon, Irvine, and along the Highway 241 corridor.
No new road construction is proposed by this project. The majority of the proposed treatment area is accessible by roads open only to administrative use. Where necessary, crews would hike to locations to complete fuels reduction activities. Non- motorized use is popular along Harding Road and the Silverado Truck Trail.
This project is needed to reestablish the Silverado Fuel Break in a condition such that it can modify the intensity of a wildfire and provide strategic and tactical advantage for both ground- based and aerial firefighting personnel and equipment. The purposes of these treatments are to:
• Improve firefighter safety during fire management efforts. • Improve public safety by reducing the size and/or intensity of a wildfire burning adjacent to local communities. • Reduce potential damaging effects of fire to unique local resources, including cultural, historic and natural resources. • Reduce potential for flooding and sedimentation in adjacent watersheds caused by wildland fires. • Reduce the potential for frequent landscape level wildfires that promote the spread of invasive weeds and unwanted vegetation communities on the adjacent landscape. Two alternatives were analyzed in this environmental assessment, a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1) and a Proposed Action Alternative (Alternative 2). Alternative 2 responds to direction in the Cleveland National Forest Land Management Plan. Implementation is expected to begin in 2013 and would occur over a five year period.
This Environmental Assessment (EA) is not a decision document, but EAs are usually followed by a decision document. This document discloses the environmental consequences of the two alternatives. Based upon the effects of the alternatives and public comments, the Trabuco District Ranger would decide to implement the proposed action, another action alternative, or take no action.
1 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
Chapter 1- Purpose & Need for Action Introduction The Silverado Fuel Break Project is located on the Trabuco Ranger District of the Cleveland National Forest (CNF). Based on the Forest Land Management Plan (LMP or Forest Plan), the CNF is divided into a series of geographical units called “Places” with similar landscape character. This project is located within the Silverado Place and Elsinore Place. Approximately 65 percent of the project area is located within the Silverado Place and 35 percent crosses over into the neighboring Elsinore Place. The Silverado Place is a canyon lands backdrop for millions of southern Orange County residents. It is characterized by canyon communities, open-space links to surrounding communities, and trail-based recreation. The northwest slopes of the Santa Ana Mountains are dominant features. The Elsinore Place includes the east-facing slopes of the Santa Ana Mountains and is almost entirely surrounded by urban development. Both Places are characterized by steep slopes, with elevations ranging from 1,200 feet to over 5,600 feet at Santiago Peak.
The project area is influenced by relatively high levels of precipitation in the Silverado Place with riparian habitats such as oak, ash, bigleaf maple and bay laurel. The headwaters in Silverado’s canyons contain the greatest concentrations of bigcone Douglas-fir in the Santa Ana Mountains. In the Elsinore Place, the landscape consists of a mixed chaparral vegetative pattern on steep slopes with dense low scrub on north slopes and drainages, and more open grassland on ridgelines. The higher elevations in both Places support stands of knobcone pine, particularly in serpentine outcrops. Non-native plant species and the remnants of native Coulter pine plantations occur within the project area.
Both Places are important day-use areas for the surrounding communities. Popular activities include hiking, mountain biking, and off highway vehicle (OHV) use on forest roads. Motorized access to the project area is possible along Maple Springs Road. Non- motorized use is popular along Harding Road and the Silverado Truck Trail (CNF LMP, Part 2 pp. 36-39, 58-60).
The map below shows the location of the project area in relationship to the Forest boundary and nearby communities.
2
Figure 1 - Project Vicinity Map
The fuel break falls within the Backcountry and Backcountry Non-motorized Land Use Zones identified in the Forest Plan. Vegetation is regrowing within the footprint of the Silverado Fuel Break, lessening its effectiveness in serving as a wildland fire control feature for firefighting personnel. Due to this growth, the ability of this fuel break to provide for indirect fire protection for the communities of Silverado Canyon, Modjeska Canyon, Williams Canyon, Irvine, and along the Highway 241 corridor is reduced. Periodic treatment of fuel breaks is necessary to maintain their effectiveness. This fuel break was last burned during the 2007 Santiago Fire. No vegetation management has taken place since the 2007 fire. Figure 2 below is a map of the proposed Silverado Fuel Break and the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) and Table 1 provides information as to the proximity of the project area to communities and the WUI. A photo also appears below the map which displays the location of the proposed fuel break.
3 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
Figure 2 – Project Area Map
Table 1- Project Area & Communities Community/Feature Approximate Distance From Project Area (miles) Wildland Urban Interface 0.2* Silverado Canyon 0.5 Glen Ivy RV Park 2.6 Modjeska 2.6 Limestone & Whiting 1.7 Wilderness Park Irvine Lake 6.0 Irvine City 10.0 Rancho Santa Margarita 5.5 Lake Matthews 7.1 Corona 7.8 *At its closest point.
4
Figure 3- Project Area Photo
Background The Cleveland National Forest has a year round fire season. Wildfires occur during every month of the year; however, the largest fires usually occur under Santa Ana winds during the fall. The area surrounding the Silverado Fuel Break has a history of frequent high intensity, stand replacing fires. Nearly all fires within this area are human caused, with only rare lightning ignited fires; there have been seven lightning fires in 20 years across the Trabuco Ranger District. The Silverado Fuel Break was last burned during the 2007 Santiago Fire. Forest Plan & Management Direction This proposal is consistent with the CNF LMP, September 2005, Program Strategy and Tactics, Fire 5, Fuel breaks and Indirect Community Protection. This strategy calls for the Forest to “Maintain the existing system of fuel breaks to minimize fire size and the number of communities threatened by fire” (LMP, Part 2, page 118).
The CNF LMP has identified the need to maintain 1,000 acres of fuel break annually in order to meet the goals of the Vegetative Restoration program on the Forest (LMP, Part 2, pgs. 22 and 23). In order to maintain their effectiveness, the fuel breaks need to be treated on a rotational basis to assure that a low fuel loading is maintained along these primary wildfire control features.
The LMP goals related to fire management include (LMP, Part 2 Page 116, 118):
• Fire 2 - Direct Community Protection: Reduce the number of high and moderate risk acres by using both mechanical treatments and prescribed fire. Identify and schedule for treatment the high risk acres near communities, including the installation of Wildland/Urban Interface Defense and Threat Zone vegetation treatments. Highest priority should be given to those areas with substantial drought and insect-killed vegetation that present a significant threat to life and property in entire communities. • Fire 5 - Fuel breaks and Indirect Community Protection: Maintain the existing system of fuel breaks to minimize fire size and the number of communities threatened by fire. On land outside of wilderness or other special designations consider the construction of new fuel breaks. Achieve a balance of fire suppression capability and fuels management investments that are cost effective and able to meet ecosystem objectives and protection capabilities.
5 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
The Cleveland National Forest 2012 Fire Management Plan (FMP) was considered in the development of this project. The FMP and LMP state that the district should, “Consider an opportunistic approach to fuels management. Take advantage of wildland fire occurrence and wherever possible, connect wildland fires to fuels treatment, forest health and wildlife habitat improvement projects, and fuel breaks to maintain multiple lines of community defense and to minimize future wildland fire patch size” (CNF LMP, Part 2 Page 118). The CNF has “Place” based fire and fuels management emphasis stated in the LMP and FMP. The Silverado Place emphasis states:
“Silverado Place is a difficult location to fight wildland fire due to the lack of roads and fuel breaks to provide firefighter access and defensible space. Improve forest health through vegetative management. Vegetation treatments protect chaparral stands and big-cone Douglas-fir. Develop fire protection measures for canyon communities. A Fire Safe Council has been formed and has identified a fuel break and an emergency escape route across National Forest System lands as enhancements needed for community protection” (FMP 2012 page 5; LMP Part 2, page 118).
This FMP has identified the project area as being within Fire Management Unit (FMU) 1. This suppression FMU is an area defined by a set of fire management strategies, objectives and attributes. The focus of this FMU is on prevention and aggressive suppression of wildland fire to protect private property and infrastructure as well as cooperative efforts to reduce fire hazard through treatment of fuels.
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 and others 1995 with updates in 2001-2006), and the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA 2003), all provide national direction for hazardous fuels reduction, restoration, rehabilitation, monitoring, applied research and technology transfer. These efforts established the framework for a 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy initiated in 2001 and revised in 2006. Relevant goals of the National Fire Plan strategy to the proposed action are to improve fire prevention and suppression and to reduce hazardous fuels.
This project has been designed to further the goals of the Healthy Forest Initiative. The proposed action would help protect communities, firefighters, wildlife, and forest health by assuring that the fuel break is reestablished to provide viable tactical options for firefighters.
Comprehensive strategies, implementation plans, and initiatives pertinent to the National Fire Plan are available at http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/index.shtml.
Ninety four acres of the Backcountry Non-motorized Land Use Zone are within the project area. This land use zone states that: 1) fuel break construction including type conversion is by exception where conditions which are not generally compatible with the land use zone but may be appropriate under certain circumstances; and 2) administrative access (usually for community protection) is allowed by exception for emergency situations and for short duration management purposes such as fuel treatment. This project is consistent with intent of the LMP to include exceptions for fuel break construction and type conversion as well as associated administrative access for short durations as the LMP states, “fuelbreaks that contrast with the natural character may be present” (LMP Part 2, pages 5-8).
6
Purpose and Need for Action The purpose of the proposed action is to reestablish the Silverado Fuel Break in a condition such that it can improve the ability to limit wildfire spread (up to 90th percentile weather conditions) and provide strategic and tactical advantage for both ground based and aerial firefighting personnel and equipment. It is important to note that while these fuel breaks may provide for a tactical and strategic advantage the over-arching objective is to provide a zone of reduced fire behavior that would enhance firefighter and public safety. The Cleveland Land Management Plan, Fire 4 - Firefighter and Public Safety states that:
“Firefighter and public safety is the first priority in every fire management activity. Integrate all fire management activities with those of other government agencies and conduct fire management activities in a cost effective manner.”
The need for action is a result of the continued vegetative growth within the footprint of the Silverado Fuel Break, lessening its effectiveness in serving as a wildland fire control feature for firefighting personnel. Due to this growth, the effectiveness of this fuel break to provide for indirect fire protection for the communities of Silverado Canyon, Modjeska Canyon, Williams Canyon, Irvine, and along the Highway 241 corridor is reduced. Fuel breaks need to be treated periodically to maintain their effectiveness. This fuel break was last burned and utilized during the 2007 Santiago Fire. No vegetation management type activities on the fuel break have occurred since this 2007 fire.
The purposes of these treatments are to:
• Improve firefighter safety during fire management efforts. • Improve public safety by reducing the size and/or intensity of a wildfire burning adjacent to local communities. • Reduce potential damaging effects of fire to unique local resources, including cultural, historic and natural resources. • Reduce potential for flooding and sedimentation in adjacent watersheds caused by wildland fires. • Reduce the potential for frequent landscape level wildfires that promotes the spread of invasive weeds and unwanted vegetation communities on the adjacent landscape. Public Involvement The CNF listed this project in the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) starting in January of 2010. A web link to the SOPA can be found on the Cleveland National Forest projects web page at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/cleveland/landmanagement/projects. This link also provides project specific information.
In July of 2011, more than 200 letters were mailed to interested individuals, groups, Tribal entities, and county, state and federal agencies. This letter described the proposed project, explained how to receive additional information on the project, and outlined the comment period.
A legal notice for scoping for this project was published in the Riverside Press-Enterprise. The notice requested public comments for a 15 day period, initiated with the printing of the legal notice on July 26, 2011. The Trabuco District Ranger and the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) reviewed all public comments and identified potential issues. All information presented in the
7 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
comment letters was considered during project development. The original full-text scoping letter and scoping comments are available in the project record.
A legal notice of the availability of the Preliminary EA, which was posted online at http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=12953, and provision of a 30-day comment period was published in both the Riverside Press-Enterprise and the Orange County Register on March 27, 2013. Additionally, notification of the public comment period was provided to those who had submitted scoping comments for this project. No comments were received during the 30-day public comment period. Issues The Trabuco District Ranger and IDT did not identify issues that would require the consideration of an alternative other than the Proposed Action Alternative and the No Action Alternative. However, public concerns did result in the formulation of design criteria and additional analysis considerations.
8
Chapter 2- Alternatives Introduction This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for this project. Two alternatives were carried forward and analyzed in detail in Chapter 3. Information used to compare the alternatives was based on the design of the alternative and potential effects.
During this EA process, reasonable alternatives were explored and objectively evaluated (40 CFR 1502.14). Information used to compare the alternatives was based on the design of the alternative and potential effects.
This Environmental Assessment (EA) is not a decision document. This document discloses the environmental consequences of the two alternatives. Based upon the effects of the alternatives and public comments, the Trabuco District Ranger would decide to implement the proposed action, another action alternative, or take no action. Alternative One- No Action This alternative would not result in any of the proposed management activities being implemented within the project area at this time. The analysis of the No Action Alternative provides reviewers a baseline to compare the magnitude of environmental effects of the Action Alternative.
Vegetation would continue to encroach on the existing footprint of the fuel break. No improvement to the fire suppression capabilities of ground and aerial based firefighting resources would be achieved. The probability that a landscape level wildfire would return to this area remains unchanged or increases as the fuel loading increases. The risk of a wildfire affecting local communities, firefighters, and natural resources remains unchanged or increases as wildfire intensity (flame length) increases within the footprint of the existing fuel break system. Alternative Two- Proposed Action The proposed action was designed to meet the purpose and need and to address the issues and concerns identified by the Ranger, Interdisciplinary Team and the public. The proposed action alternative would improve firefighter and public safety and enhance the effectiveness of the Silverado Fuel Break by implementing a combination of mechanical treatments (mastication), hand treatments (cutting and piling cut material) and prescribed fire (pile and broadcast burning) to reduce the fuel loading within the footprint of the existing fuel break. The five mile (approximate) fuel break extends south and west to private lands north of Williams Canyon. This action is designed to maintain the area in an early vegetative seral stage.
The average width of the fuel break system is approximately 200 to 300 feet, and the Silverado Fuel Break occupies approximately 260 acres. Approximately 50-100 acres of the fuel break would be treated annually, with the entire length of the fuel break maintained approximately every 5 years. Treatments are expected to begin in 2012 and would contribute towards the Forest’s LMP goal of maintaining 1,000 acres of fuel break annually (LMP, Part 2, pgs. 22 and 23).
9 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
Alternative Two Treatment Actions and Design Criteria The following activities, mastication, prescribed fire and hand-clearing, include design criteria that apply to the action alternative and were considered by all resources when evaluating potential impacts (effects) in Chapter 3.
Mastication: Mastication would be limited to those areas with slopes less than or equal to 35 percent. A tracked vehicle with masticating head would be used. Brush would be masticated to a depth not to exceed six inches. The masticated material would remain on site, until prescribed fire is applied. A maximum of 80 percent of the standing brush within a mechanical treatment unit would be treated. The presence of slopes, in excess of 35 percent, and rocks may decrease the overall treatment percentage below 80 percent within any single unit. Any conifer greater than eight inches at diameter breast height (DBH) or tree-form oaks within the unit would be retained. Where feasible, sage, manzanita, and ceanothus species would be favored in the retained pockets.
Prescribed Fire: Ground based ignition techniques would be used to remove 60 to 80 percent of the vegetation (treated or untreated) from the project area. A combination of live and dead fuel moistures, temperature, wind and humidity would be used to prescribe a moderate intensity fire. Fire lines may be constructed as part of this treatment to provide control points and/or to allow access for firefighters. Fire lines would be no wider than four feet and may be constructed down to mineral soil. Generally, burning would be scheduled to avoid the spring/nesting season for migratory birds. If burning does occur during the given migratory bird season, mitigation would occur which includes pre burn surveys. Vegetation would be cut or masticated during fall and/or winter months to minimize disturbance to these species. Burning would only occur with authorization from the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
Hand Clearing: Hand treatments would be conducted using chainsaws and other hand tools. Where conifers intersect the historic footprint of the fuel break, trees would be thinned and limbed to enhance their chances of survival during a wildfire. Conifers would be retained and pruned to 10 feet or ½ of their live crown height, whichever is less. No live tree greater than eight inches DBH would be removed from the project area. Material generated from hand treatments would be piled and burned. Design Criteria To minimize potential impacts to resources from project implementation, the following design features are incorporated into the project. These features apply to the action alternative and were considered by all resources when evaluating potential impacts (effects) in Chapter 3. These features are listed in alphabetical order and not in order of importance. Air Quality Design Criteria
• Prepare a smoke management plan for the South Coast Air Quality Management Control District’s approval and include within the burn prescription. Forest Health Design Criteria:
• Treat all freshly cut live or recently dead conifer stumps with a registered fungicide (i.e. Sporax) to prevent the establishment of annosus root disease. • Transport, store and dispose of fungicide containers in accordance with applicable State and local laws and regulations, as well as Federal laws and regulations.
10
Forest Service Sensitive (FSS) Plant Species
• Extend protection to any newly discovered populations of Forest Service Sensitive (FSS) plant species (after completion of the Biological Assessment/ Biological Evaluation) found before or during project implementation. If any plant (or wildlife species) is listed as threatened, endangered, proposed, or Forest Service sensitive, additional analysis would be completed to determine potential impacts. Fish and Wildlife Service consultation would occur, if applicable. • Site and/or species specific prescriptions would be adopted for protection of known FSS plants, based upon survey results, documentation of individual species response to various treatment types, and project specific analysis. Otherwise, all Forest Service Sensitive plants would be flagged and avoided with a 50 foot buffer. • Within this project area, the only known or observed FSS species are two Tecate cypress individuals. Tecate cypress can be planted, so it is uncertain whether the population on the fuel break is naturally-occurring. Due to the Tecate cypress community being fire-maintained (See species information in the plant section of this EA and the project record for more information including conservation considerations.), an adaptive management strategy may be more applicable than an avoidance strategy in the future. Since these individuals are not in a cypress community or stand, but are isolated and potentially not fully mature for seed production, adaptive management lessons should be learned elsewhere, and then potentially applied to this project area in the future. Design features for this specific location would be to flag and avoid these individuals with a 50 foot buffer during all treatment or maintenance implementation and to monitor their viability. Heritage Resources Design Criteria
The following criteria are Standard Resource Protection Measures (SRPM) from the Regional Programmatic Agreement (USDA FS, 2001) and the Interim Protocol (USDA FS, 2002) designed to reduce the potential for adverse effects to historic properties associated with the proposed activities.
• Thirty days prior to project implementation, the Silverado Project Manager would notify the CNF Heritage Program Manager (HPM) so that coordination occurs to ensure implementation of SRPM and cultural resource monitoring. The results of any project related cultural resources survey or monitoring, including post-implementation (deferred) surveys would be reported to the Regional Heritage Program Leader (HPL) by the CNF HPM and to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in the Programmatic Agreement Annual Report, as stipulated in the Regional Programmatic Agreement (USDA FS, 2001). Prescribed Burning & Manual Vegetation Treatment: Cultural resources (prehistoric or historic archaeological sites) identified within the proposed project Area of Potential Effect (APE) would be flagged by a qualified archaeologist to include a buffer zone of approximately 10 meters around the outside of the mapped boundary of each site. Prescribed burning and manual vegetation clearing would be conducted within identified subsurface archaeological site boundaries, as this action does not represent an adverse effect to historic properties. No prescribed burning would occur within the boundary or buffer zone of cultural resource sites containing bedrock outcrops with milling features, petroglyphs, pictographs, cupules or other cultural features. Vegetation within the boundary or buffer zone of archaeological sites containing bedrock cultural features would be removed by manual clearing only in order to prevent damage to boulder outcrops that could result from spalling, fragmenting of the bedrock, or enhanced erosion resulting from future wildfire. No hand-line construction involving subsurface
11 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment disturbance associated with the controlling of prescribed fire or the piling or burning of manually cleared vegetation would occur within the boundary or buffer zone of any cultural resource site or on or adjacent to bedrock outcrops containing cultural features.
Mechanical Treatment: Any identified archaeological sites within mechanical treatment areas would be flagged by a qualified archaeologist to include a buffer zone of approximately 10 meters around the perimeter of each site. No mechanical treatment would occur within the boundaries of or within the buffer zones identified by the flagging placed around recorded sites.
• Mastication conducted in previously unsurveyed areas within the proposed APE would be monitored at the discretion of the CNF HPM, in accord with Stipulation V.B.11.C of the Interim Protocol. All monitoring would be conducted by a qualified archaeologist that meets the Secretary of the Interior standards for conducting cultural resource management activities on federal property. A monitoring log and summary report documenting the results of the required monitoring would be prepared by the Forest Service staff or contractor conducting the required monitoring and submitted to the CNF HPM within 30 days of completion of proposed project activities that require monitoring. • Bedrock outcrops would be avoided during any mastication conducted within the proposed project APE. Tracked mastication equipment would not traverse or remove brush on or within the immediate vicinity of bedrock outcrops, and masticated material would not be piled or burned on or within the immediate vicinity of bedrock outcrops. Hand Thinning: Monitoring of hand thinning is not required, but monitoring may be conducted at the discretion of the CNF HPM. If monitoring is conducted, a monitoring log and summary report documenting the results of the monitoring would be prepared and submitted to the CNF HPM within 30 days of the completion of the monitoring.
• Bedrock outcrops would be avoided during the proposed vegetation removal process associated with hand thinning. No tracked vehicles would traverse, remove brush, or chip vegetation on or within the immediate vicinity of bedrock outcrops, in an effort to avoid adverse effects to any unidentified cultural resources such as milling features or rock art. Hydrology& Soils Design Criteria:
• Provide at least 30 percent ground cover adequate to prevent erosion in disturbed areas, such as slash, wood chips, or masticated material. A combination of natural barriers (i.e. rocks, logs), screening and fencing would be used to prevent/discourage illegal vehicle activity during and after project implementation. Forest Service personnel would monitor the area, and if/when problem areas arise, remedial and preventative actions would be taken as appropriate. Coordination with adjacent landowners, public education, and signing would be used as appropriate. • Prescribed burning or mechanical treatments generally should not occur on slopes where only grass is growing (as this is the desired condition). Areas with evidence of recent gully erosion would not receive fuels treatments (See the figure in the hydrology section below for locations of erosion, geology and landslides.). • Transport, store, and dispose of fungicide containers in accordance with applicable State and local laws and regulations, as well as Federal laws and regulations. • All equipment must contain appropriate spill containment kits to respond to potential leaks and spills.
12
• Implement applicable Water Quality Best Management Practices (USDA FSb, 2000) which are summarized in the following table. Table 2- Summary of Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Best Management Practice Project Application Method
Vegetation Manipulation
5.5 Disposal of Organic Debris Debris disposal methods or placement of debris after treatment would be determined.
5.6 Soil Moisture Limitations for Mechanical Determine when optimum soil conditions exist, Equipment Operations prevent adverse soil effects.
Fire Suppression & Fuels Management
6.1 Fire and Fuel Management Activities Design features describe limits on fuel management activities.
6.2 Consideration of Water Quality in Design features describe water quality Formulating Fire Prescriptions considerations for fuel management activities.
6.3 Protection of Water Quality from Design features describe limits on fuel Prescribed Burning Effects management activities.
Watershed Management
7.2 Conduct Floodplain Hazard Analysis and Identify floodplains and avoid long term and Evaluation short term adverse impacts to water quality if floodplains would be modified.
• If new, illegal OHV roads or trails are created resulting from prescribed fire, install barriers to block these trails and roads. • Prior to fuel treatments, adequate soil moisture must be present at a depth of 4 or more inches. • Prescribed burning should not be conducted within 30 feet of five identified unstable areas. These areas have been identified as being potentially unstable (see figure displaying erosion, geology and landslides below) if large amounts of surrounding soil cover are removed. • Where applicable, install water bars on hand lines at the recommended spacing specified in the following table. Water bars are to be installed at the time of fireline construction and spacing should be described in the burn plan. Table 3- Waterbar Spacing Guidelines Fireline Percent Grade Maximum Spacing (feet)
6-15 150
16-25 100
26-65 50
13 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
Fireline Percent Grade Maximum Spacing (feet)
65+ 25
Scenery Management Design Criteria:
The design criteria prescribed below would ensure that any drop in the level of scenic integrity would be temporary, not lasting longer than three years after project implementation.
• A landscape architect would be involved with initial layout strategy, along with other resource specialists including the fuel layout crew. A portion of the project area that is representative of the whole project area would be used to convey specific resource instructions and overall marking strategies. • Mimic the natural pattern of the landscape character to be more open on ridgelines with denser shrubs in drainages while meeting fuel reduction objectives. The shape along shrub and tree lines should relate to the topographic forms of the land and flow with the contours. • Eliminate straight lines by undulating edges and feathering/thinning along the edges of the fuel break into existing downslope vegetation. • Blend fuel break edges with natural landscape features such as natural openings and rock outcrops. • Randomly sized and randomly distributed islands and peninsulas of vegetation would be retained within the fuel break to provide a natural appearance and reduce visual contrasts while meeting fuel reduction objectives. Precaution would be taken to prevent scarring of leave trees by equipment. • The fuel break is to be of varying widths along the ridgeline rather than of equal width on either side of the ridgeline. Foreground Design Criteria: Foreground is defined as the area within ½ mile from viewpoints identified on the landscape visibility map which is on file in the scenery section of the record. The following criteria are applicable to the foreground.
• Leave shrub islands of various shapes and size in a random distribution to provide a natural appearance and reduce visual contrasts. • Create irregularly shaped burn piles that would blend into the characteristic landscape. The following criteria are applicable to prescribed burning in the foreground:
• Fire lines and slash piles should not be visible from Level 1 travelways (See project area key viewpoints table in the scenery section of this EA for travelways.). • All fire lines would be rehabilitated at the end of the project, so they are not visually evident in the foreground from roads. • Scatter vegetation on control lines to reduce the color contrast of the exposed soil. Invasive Plant Species Design Criteria
• All off-road equipment used would be washed before moving into the project area so that equipment is free of soil, seeds, vegetative material, or other debris that could contain or hold seeds of nonnative invasive plants. Off-road equipment may include masticators and chippers but does not include service vehicles, water trucks, pickup trucks, and similar vehicles not
14
intended for off-road use. Equipment would be considered clean after six minutes of washing. (Flemming, 2008, found that 95% of debris was removed at six minutes, whereas 66 percent was removed in three minutes.) • When working in known weed (nonnative invasive plant) infested areas (both outside and within the project area), vehicles and equipment would be cleaned before moving to the project area where those species presently do not exist. • Staging areas for equipment, materials, or crews would be prohibited in areas supporting invasive nonnative plants that do not currently occur in the project area (i.e., yellow star thistle, canarygrass) or occur infrequently in the treatment area (i.e., Italian plumeless thistle, artichoke thistle, and smilograss). • Remove seeds and/or vegetative propagules of invasive weeds from clothing and equipment prior to leaving identified infestation areas. • Occurrences that are rare or in concentrated areas, including Italian plumeless thistle, artichoke thistle, and smilograss would be treated by manual or mechanical means (Mechanical and manual removal techniques are described in the weed treatment guide used by the CNF.) and/or flagged and avoided with a 100 foot buffer prior to implementation. If monitoring shows expansion of these three species of invasive plant populations, treatment and subsequent monitoring of occurrences would occur for no less than three years. • Piling and burning on Italian plumeless thistle, artichoke thistle, and smilograss infestations would be permitted; however, mastication would not. • Firelines would not be constructed through Italian plumeless thistle, artichoke thistle, and smilograss infestation areas, or FSS plant species occurrences. • A combination of natural barriers (rocks, logs, etc.), screening, and fencing would be used as required to prevent/discourage illegal vehicle activity during and after the project treatment. Fire Prevention Technicians and/or other staff would monitor the area, and if/when problem areas arise, remedial and preventative actions would be taken as appropriate. Coordination with adjacent landowners, public education, and signing would be used as appropriate. • To reduce seed spread, disposal of invasive weeds removed would be as follows: If no flowers or seeds are present, pull the weed and place it on the ground to dry out. If flowers or seeds are present and have the potential for the seed to be widely dispersed during treatment (i.e. thistle), remove the flowering head and place in container then pull the weed, and place in an appropriate container for disposal. • Transport of removed invasive weeds with seeds or vegetative propagules would occur in enclosed disposal containers, or in an enclosed vehicle. Invasive weeds to be disposed of off- site would be taken to a facility (i.e. landfill) that contains the disposed items. Wildlife Design Criteria:
• All trash generated from this project would be collected and properly disposed of on a daily basis. Upon completion of the project, all unused material and equipment shall be removed from the site. • Trash and food shall be stored in closed containers and removed daily to reduce attractiveness to opportunistic predators such as coyotes, domestic and feral dogs and cats, opossums, skunks and raccoons. Littering of trash and food waste is prohibited. • Where feasible, burning and the removal of trees and other vegetation would be conducted outside of the general nesting season for migratory birds (approximately April 1st to September 1st).
15 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
Comparison of Alternatives Table 4- Comparison of Alternatives Activity/Treatment Alternative Alternative 1- 2- No Action Action (acres) (acres) Masticate & Broadcast Burn 0 188 Hand pile/Burn & Broadcast Burn 0 74
Masticate & Broadcast Burn within the WUI 0 138 (Threat Zone) Hand pile/Burn & Broadcast Burn within the WUI 0 74 (Threat Zone) Contributes to Forest Plan 1000 acre Fuel Break 0 262 treatment Objective (LMP Part 2, page 23)
Improvement of fire suppression No Yes ability & firefighter safety Reduce risk to life, property & No Yes resource values Treated WUI (Threat) Acres 0 212 Number of communities/high use areas provided 0 9 with Fuel breaks and Indirect Community Protection (Strategy “Fire 5” in LMP Part 2, page 118)
16
Chapter 3- Environmental Consequences Introduction This chapter summarizes the physical and biological environments of the affected project area and the potential changes to these environments due to implementation of the alternatives. This chapter also provides a description of how the alternatives meet the purposes and need, address key issues, and how various environmental laws, regulations and policies are being met based on best available science. More information on the use of best science can be found in the planning record located on the Cleveland National Forest.
Environmental effects that result from alternative implementation are discussed in terms of direct, indirect and cumulative effects.
• Direct effects are caused by an action and occur at the same time and place. • Indirect effects are caused by an action but occur later in time or farther removed in distance and space. • Cumulative effects result from the incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future action, regardless of what agency or person undertakes the other action (40 CFR 1508.7 and 8). The following table and figure displays some of the activities and events considered in the analysis of effects discussed in this chapter. Additional activities considered in analysis include, but are not limited to, road construction, road reconstruction, road maintenance, storm flow events, trail construction and maintenance, land development, tree thinning, and recreational use and activities. Table 5- Recent Activities on the Trabuco Ranger District
Project Estimated Implement Primary Activity Name Acres Year(s) Type
Cutting, hand pile/burning, block Elsinore Peak 750 2010-2020 burning, road brushing
Old Dominion 250 2010-2015 Mechanical & prescribed fire South Main Mechanical & prescribed fire, Divide Fuel 293 2010-2015 reentry hand pile/burn Break
North Main 953 2012+ Prescribed fire, hand pile/burn Divide
Los Pinos 80-100 2010-2015 Mechanical & prescribed fire Elsinore, Santiago, Hand & mechanical work, Sierra, 100 + Ongoing pile burning Pleasants & Modjeska
17 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
Project Estimated Implement Primary Activity Name Acres Year(s) Type Peaks Electronics Site
Figure 1- Historic Fires in the Vicinity of the Silverado Fuel Break
Air Quality
Introduction This analysis section provides meteorological descriptions, information and effects on local and regional air quality conditions. This project is located within the South Coast Air Basin which includes all of Orange County and the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San
18
Bernardino Counties. The Basin is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) which encompasses approximately 10,750 square miles and is the second most populated area in the United States. This project is subject to air quality rules and regulations at the local, state, and federal level.
Affected Environment Weather: General wind patterns in the area are characterized by daytime onshore sea breezes, especially in summer, and nighttime weak down slope winds. Basic parameters controlling the dispersion of pollutants are wind direction, wind speed, and vertical temperature profiles. Wind conditions determine the location and extent of dilution of pollutants.
Air Quality: Temperature inversions are frequently found in the Southern California Air Basin, causing pollutants to accumulate as they are generated in the air basin which are then blown inland by onshore winds. As the temperature inversion gets closer to the higher inland terrain, foothill communities within the air basin are exposed to pollutants trapped within the inversion layer.
The combination of poor dispersion and abundant sunshine provide conditions especially favorable to the formation of photochemical smog. The unfavorable combination of meteorology, topography, and emissions from the nation’s second largest urban area are the result in the Basin having the worst air quality in the United States.
Air quality is measured by the amount of tiny particulates in the air called particulate matter (PM). Particles 10 microns and smaller (PM10) maybe inhaled into the lungs and may impact visibility and public health. Fine particles 2.5 microns and smaller (PM 2.5) are generally emitted from activities such as industrial and residential combustion, wildland fire, agriculture burning (this project fits the definition of agricultural burning) and vehicle exhaust.
Sources of Air Pollution: The largest producer of carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx) and reactive organic gasses (ROG) in the Basin are on-road motor vehicles Particulates (PM-2.5 and PM-10) are emitted into the air by sources such as factories, power plants, construction activities, automobiles, fires, and agricultural activities.
Non-attainment Areas: If a community does not “attain” the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for one or more pollutants, the environmental protection agency (EPA) designates it as a “non-attainment area." States must demonstrate to the public and the EPA how a non-attainment area would meet the NAAQS, based upon the control of emission sources. Such demonstrations employ control plans that are part of each state implementation plan, including emissions from prescribed fire. The following table displays current California attainment status for the air district associated with the Silverado Project. Table 6- Designated Non-Attainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants
Regulated SCAQMD* Emission Ozone Non-Attainment
PM2.5 Non-Attainment
PM10 Non-Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide Non-Attainment Carbon Monoxide Attainment
19 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
*South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)
Analysis Area The analysis area boundary is the South Coast Air Basin boundary.
Alternative 1- Direct & Indirect Effects Under this alternative, there would be no direct effect to air quality within the analysis area as there would be no process in place to treat the fuel break. There would be no immediate direct adverse effects on air quality; however, in the event of a wildfire the potential indirect effects would be a large quantity of smoke-based pollutants or emissions (Wiedinmyer and Hurteau 2010) leading to a degradation of air quality and reduced visibility. Current and continued fuel accumulations would contribute to future increases in wildfire intensities and severities. Consumption of the increasing fuel loads and understory biomass would increase the amount of smoke emissions. Emissions from wildfire are typically twice those of a prescribed fire on the same acreage due to greater emission factors (Ottmar 2001), fuel consumption, and fire intensity.
Alternative 1- Cumulative Effects With this alternative there is potential for degradation of air quality within the air basin from smoke produced by unwanted wildfire in combination with pollutants from other sources. During the summer of 2008, wildfires in California had a cumulative impact on air quality due to the significant number of acres burned between June and August. Numerous air quality monitoring sites across the state exceeded state and federal air quality standards for particulate matter and other pollutants during the period (California Air Resources Board 2009). Smoke from these fires combined with other sources of pollution (i.e. vehicle exhaust, fugitive dust) further degrade air quality. Existing and continued fuel accumulations would contribute to future increases in wildfire intensities and severities. Future large fires in untreated fuels would be expected to produce similar emissions. While smoke from wildfires is considered an exceptional event and does not count against attainment standards, there is a measurable effect on visibility and public health from these events.
Alternative 2- Direct & Indirect Effects The direct effects on air quality from the implementation of the proposed action would be the result of smoke produced from the burning activities as well as road dust, vehicle exhaust and equipment emissions. These effects would occur in and adjacent to the project area. Implementation of the proposed action would produce particulate matter (PM) although actual amounts would be significantly less than there would be in the event of a wildland fire because of the reduction in available fuels.
If a wildland fire were to occur in the project area during the critical fire season, smoke production would be approximately two times greater than would be produced from prescribed burning the same acreage.
Indirect affects to air quality associated with the implementation of the proposed action would be the result of smoke that drifts from the project area. These impacts would vary by atmospheric conditions during and shortly after burning occurs and would be directly related to the amount of material burned. Short term smoke impacts may affect the local area, especially during stable atmospheric conditions, particularly at night. This could include reduced visibility, along travel corridors adjacent to the project area, as well as reduced visibility and the smell of smoke at adjacent residences.
20
Impacts resulting from emissions have been calculated for the air basin for both mobile emissions and smoke, and measured against the established Threshold of Significance for the air district to determine if the proposed action complies with the State Implementation Plan for regulated emissions and the Federal Clean Air Act.
The following table displays prescribed fire calculated emissions across the analysis area that would be produced for the life of the project. This table is the significance/conformity test of emissions produced (conformity determination).
Table 7- Total Project Emissions
Emissions – Tons (life of the project)(1) NOx CO(2) PM10 PM2.5 VOC/ROG(3) Hand pile burning 1.60 53.49 7.19 6.5 5.01 Broadcast burning 0.57 24.98 3.27 2.8 2.34 Mobile Emissions(4) 3.2859 4.9 0.3 0.3 1.18 Total 5.45 83.37 10.76 9.6 8.53 (1)Emissions were calculated with the EMFAC computer program. (2)CO is micro-scale pollutant and relative reactive gas and is not expected to contribute to the non- attainment condition of the area south of down town Los Angeles which is in non-attainment for CO. (3)For purposes of this analysis, Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) are considered synonymous (McCorison 2005). (4)Data from 2003 South Coast State Implementation Plan (Accessed 3-25-2010).
Alternative 2- Cumulative Effects Emissions from activities associated with this project and others on the Cleveland National Forest and other lands within the air basin would have a short term effect on air quality. The air districts permit and regulate prescribed burning, the major contributor of emission from the Silverado project, in cooperation with the California Air Resources Board. Regulation by the districts allows for the management of impacts on air quality from all projects within their jurisdictional area. It is through the regulation process that cumulative effects would be managed to assure that a significant deterioration of air quality does not occur. By these actions, the air districts can reduce the cumulative effects of criteria pollutants and potential impacts to public health. The following table displays the result of the conformity determination. Table 8- Significance Tess/Conformity Test (Tons per Year of Emissions Produced)
NOx PM10 CO VOC/ROG Threshold for significance 10 70 100 10 Total Project Emissions 5.45 10.76 83.37 8.53 Annual Emissions Less Than Threshold Yes Yes Yes Yes SIP Emission Budgets 1,784 4,518 35,580 2,624 Project less than the SIP Yes Yes Yes Yes Project Conforms with the CAA & SIP Yes Yes Yes Yes
Alternative 2- Summary of Effects This alternative would produce emissions and temporarily impact air quality. Prescribed fire emissions can be mitigated by burning when atmospheric conditions are conducive to the transport and dispersion of smoke. Local air quality districts permit and regulate prescribed burning which assures that conditions are favorable for this activity. There would be a short term cumulative impact to air quality if several prescribed burns are occurring in an air basin at the
21 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
same time. There would be reduced impacts to air quality when future wildfires burn in units where activity fuels are treated, due to lower emissions as a result of decreased fuel loading.
In the absence of maintenance treatments, fuels would increase as does the potential for increased particulate output in the event of wildfire. This project conforms to all national regional and local rules and regulations.
Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans Alternative 2 meets the Cleveland National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan strategies (LMP, Part 2, page 94 Air 1 and Air 2) for air quality to:
• Control and reduce smoke and fugitive dust to protect human health, improve safety and/or reduce or eliminate environmental impacts (Air 1, page 94). • Maintain and update the inventory for wildland fire emissions and other forest resource management emissions within the current State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP inventories establish levels of air pollution that meet the long term federal air quality goals for bringing the non-attainment areas to attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (Air 2, page 94). Alternative 2 is compliant with the Air 1 strategy because a reduction in available fuel would lead to a reduced level of emissions in the event of a wildfire. This alternative is also compliant with the Air 2 strategy because the project decreases fuels that would be available to burn in the likely event of a wildland fire; therefore, trending towards the desire to bring the area to attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Alternative 2 meets local and state regulations including the Federal Clean Air Act, California Clean Air Act, National Ambient Air Quality Standards, Regional Haze Rule, California Regional Haze Plan, Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires, and the California Code of Regulations, Title 17, subchapter 2 Smoke Management Guidelines for Agricultural and Prescribed Burning as it would be below the significance level which would lead to a “significant deterioration of air quality” in the South Coast Air Quality Management Control District (SCAQMD).
Alternative 2 conforms to the Clean Air Act and the State Implementation Plan (SIP) because predicted emissions are less than the conformity thresholds and accounted for within the SIP emission inventories. Prescribed fire smoke emissions and similar activities including pile burning, would be included in an approved Smoke Management Program (SMP) and are therefore presumed to conform to the SIP (EPA 2010).
Alternative 1 is also compliant with preceding laws, regulations, policies and plans as no action would be taken to improve existing conditions. Fire & Fuels
Introduction This section discusses the fire and fuels management aspect of the purpose and need to maintain the Silverado Fuel Break system. The historical and present role of wildfire on the landscape is discussed as well as the interactions between fire and natural resources within the area. Specifically addressed are the effects to potential fire behavior by the proposed treatments for the
22
no action and action alternatives, and how the proposed action would provide for an increase in firefighter and public safety by providing a zone of reduced fire behavior in which to conduct fire management actions in the event of wildland fire.
Public comment concerning fire and fuels related issues was received during the public scoping process. Specifically, a commenter suggested review of research which debated the effectiveness of fuel breaks. Review of this research was conducted; however, fuel breaks have proven to be strategically important in several locations on the Cleveland National Forest in particular along the Silverado/North Main Divide Fuel Break system. These fuel breaks are connected and have provided a zone of defensible space and has allowed for the safe and efficient use of fire suppression tactics while providing community protection since as early as 1948. Examples include: Sierra Fire of 2006, Silverado Fire of 1987, Paseo Fire of 1979, Mine Fire 1977, Pleasant fire of 1960 and the Green River Fire of 1948. These fires were all controlled at some location along the Silverado/North Main Divide Fuel Break. Additionally, frequent fire or repeated burning on the CNF has been shown to increase the risk of type conversion which is the situation on the Silverado Fuel Break System. However, repeated maintenance of this fuel break would have an effect in altering the spread and direction of large wildfires by reducing fuel in major fire flow paths. This in turn, would provide for a zone of reduced fire behavior to provide for a safe strategic opportunity in which firefighters can meet suppression objectives should wildfire occur in the area. The proposed project would reestablish the fuel break, which has not been maintained in recent history (last 25 years or so). The Silverado Fuel Break combined with the North Main Divide Fuel Break has reduced large fire size. This reduction in large fire acreage burned has reduced the amount of chaparral vegetation types from burning outside the normal historic range of variability which leads to a risk of type conversion caused by the increased frequency of human caused ignitions. The reduction in large fires would also increase firefighter and public safety by limiting the exposure of nearby communities to the inherent dangers of fire suppression as well as reducing large fire expenditures incurred by the Forest Service.
Methodology For the purpose of this analysis, the Fire Family Plus software program was used to determine historical fuel and weather conditions at the 90th and 97th percentile conditions specific to the analysis area. The 90th and 97th percentiles represent the top 10 percent and three percent of the driest days. The intent of modeling fuel treatments is to show relative changes in fire behavior between the no action and the action alternative. The outputs are not absolutes and are bound by the assumptions and limitations of data collection methods and individual models. The outputs allow for comparison of changes associated with different levels of fuel treatments. Fire behavior was modeled using NEXUS 2.0 to demonstrate the changes to potential fire behavior characteristics for comparison of the no-action and action alternative based on measureable indicators.
Analysis Area The treatment area is the boundary for the analysis area. The cumulative effects analysis area is the entire Trabuco Ranger District.
Background Fire History: Fire is a primary agent of change in the vegetation patterns across the southern California landscape. Historically, fires appear to have burned under a wide range of environmental conditions, exhibiting erratic, smoldering-and-run behaviors as weather and fuel conditions change. These fires would continue to burn in some instances until extinguished by
23 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
rain or lack of fuel. Natural fire-return intervals in low elevation chaparral are in the range of 50- 70 years, however fire frequency has significantly increased in the ignition-prone areas near the urban interface, usually where there are high proportions of scrub and grass vegetation that facilitates fire spread. Increased development on private lands inside the Forest and along the Forest boundary has added complexity to suppression operations.
Recent Fire Occurrence: The area surrounding the project area has a history of frequent high intensity, stand replacing fires. Nearly all fires within this area are human caused, with only rare lightning ignited fires (there have been seven lightning fires in 20 years across the district). Wildfires occur throughout the year, due to the extremes reflected by climate, highly flammable chaparral vegetation, and topography. A high potential for a large wildfire exists and with the proximity of the Forest to high-density urban areas, this situation creates significant potential for the loss of life and property.
Trends: Recent scientific research has shown a trend towards increased fire frequency, fire size, longer wildfire duration, and longer wildfire seasons since the mid-1980’s (Westerling et al. 2006). The authors suggest that this may involve both climate change and previous land-use effects in California. Martin and Sapsis (1991) suggest that in the absence of vegetation management, there is an increased potential for loss of biological diversity in the advent of future high severity large fires that damage or eliminate components of the ecosystem. “No treatment” or “passive management” can perpetuate the potential for high severity fire (Stephens et al. 2009).
Ability to Control Wildfires: The ability to control wildfires can be characterized by how a fire will burn or fire behavior. Fire behavior is the product of the natural environment or the combination of topography, weather and fuels (Countryman 1972). Topography and weather are factors on which humans have little effect but, fuels can be altered through human intervention or natural processes such as fire (rapid) or decomposition (very slow).
Therefore, when assessing the ability to control wildfires, the focus can be on fuels and the associated fire behavior, determined by fire behavior characteristics such as rate of spread, flame length, fireline intensity, torching, crowning, spotting, fire persistence and resistance to control. Resistance to control is a relative measure of the capabilities of firefighting resources to suppress a wildland fire. Firefighting resources have enhanced production rates as fuel loading and fuelbed depth decrease. Increased fireline production rates and changes to lower fireline intensities allow both ground based and aerial suppression resources to be more effective.
Flame Lengths: Flame lengths are a measure of how intense or severe a fire may become and a proxy for ease of fire suppression. The following table displays flame length and control information specific to the project area. Table 9- Fire Hazard & Percentage in the Analysis Area
Flame Lengths Hazard/Resistance Percent (%) to Control of the Treatment Area Non-flammable N/A <1% 0-4 feet Low 38% 4-8 feet Moderate 37% > 8 feet High-Extreme 25% Total 100%
24
Affected Environment Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI): The CNF represents a true “urban interface” where communities have built up to the Forest boundary. This characteristic presents obstacles for management of wildfire and the protection of life and property. There are extensive areas within and adjacent to the analysis area meeting the definition of Wildland/Urban Interface (WUI) as described in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. WUI (as defined by the Act) is a variable width up to 1.5 miles from communities at risk or as defined in individual community fire protection plans. The CNF Forest Plan further identifies a direct protection zone (WUI Defense Zone) and an indirect protection zone (WUI Threat Zone) that fall within the broader definition of WUI.
Existing Vegetation/Fuels Complex: The primary vegetation type to be treated within the analysis area consists of mixed chaparral/chamise with minor inclusions of coastal scrub, annual grasses, and montane hardwood. Chaparral is the dominant vegetation class and is the primary concern with regard to fire hazard and fire suppression effectiveness. High-intensity, stand replacing fires have burned chaparral for millennia (Southern California National Forest Vision, Part 1 page 26).
Because human populations in southern California have increased exponentially in the last fifty years, urban development has expanded within areas that contain hazardous fuels. Therefore, an outcome of this growth is that chaparral fires increasingly pose a major threat to life and property, as demonstrated by fires in recent years. Most homes lost in recent fires resulted from high- intensity fires spreading into urban areas from surrounding chaparral. The following table displays vegetation types within the analysis area. Table 10- Vegetation Types in the Analysis Area Vegetation Type Acres*
Non Burnable or Barren 10
Chamise Redshank Chaparral 7
Mixed Chaparral 215
Montane Hardwood/Conifer 8
Montane Hardwood 18
Sierran Mixed Conifer 2
Grand Total 260*
*Acreage variance due to variance in fuels and vegetation map layers.
Fuel Models: In order to quantify the effects of a wildfire, a fuel model is selected to use as input to the fire spread model. Fuel models are derived from vegetation layer and can describe fire behavior based on weather and topography. The following table displays the fuel types and associated acres within the analysis area. Table 11- Fuel Model Category, Description, Acres in the Analysis Area
25 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
Fuel Model Category and Description Acres
Unburnable areas such as rock screes, roads or other areas of non- vegetated lands 2
GR2 (102) Low Load, Dry Climate Grass (Dynamic). The Primary carrier of fire in 9 GR2 is grass, though small amounts of fine dead fuel may be present. Load is greater than GR1, and fuel bed may be more continuous. Shrubs, if present, do not affect fire behavior.
GS1 (121) Low Load, Dry Climate Grass-Shrub (Dynamic). The primary carrier of 107 fire in GS1 is grass and shrubs combined. Shrubs are about 1 foot high, grass load is low. Spread rates are moderate; flame length low. Moisture of extinction is low.
GS2 (122) Moderate Load, Dry Climate Grass-Shrub (Dynamic). The primary 38 carrier of fire in GS2 is grass and shrubs combined. Shrubs are about 1 to 3 feet high, grass load is moderate. Spread rate is high; flame length moderate. Moisture of extinction is low.
SH2 (142) Moderate Load, Dry Climate Shrub. The primary carrier of fire in SH2 is 37 woody shrubs and shrub litter. Moderate fuel load depth of about 1 foot, no grass fuel present. Spread rate is low; flame length low.
SH5 (145) High Load, Dry Climate Shrub. Primary carrier of fire in SH5 is woody 4 shrubs and shrub litter. Heavy shrub load, depth 4-6 feet. Spread Rate very high; flame length very high.
SH7 (147) Very High Load, Dry Climate Shrub. The primary carrier of fire in SH7 is 46 woody shrubs and shrub litter. Very high shrub load, depth 4-6 feet. Spread rate is high; flame length very high.
TU1 (161) Low Load Dry Climate Timber-Grass-Shrub (Dynamic). The primary 15 carrier of fire in TU1 is low load of grass and/or shrub with litter. Spread rate is low; flame length low.
TU5 (165) Very High Load, Dry Climate Timber-Shrub. The primary carrier of fire 5 in TU5 is heavy forest litter with a shrub or small tree understory. Spread rate is moderate; flame length moderate.
Desired Condition: The following measurement indices were used to determine whether an alternative meets the needs for the project.
Flame Length is a measurement of the average distance from the base of the flame to its highest point and is an indicator of the relative ease to which a fire can be successfully suppressed by firefighting resources. This project’s desired condition for flame length is to have a flame length no greater than four feet. Flame lengths, four feet or less, are expected to allow for firefighter and
26
public safety and improved fire suppression efficiencies that would enable a direct attack containment strategy through the use of hand crews and engines.
Fireline Intensity is a measurement of the rate of energy release per unit length of the flaming front, and is an indicator of potential fire intensity/severity. To meet the needs for the project, the desired condition for fireline intensity is < 500 btu/feet/second in combination with flame lengths of less than four feet.
Rate of Spread (ROS) is a measurement of the speed at which the flaming front advances measured in chains per hour (1 chain=66 feet) and is an indicator of the relative ease at which the fire can be successfully contained. To meet the needs for the project, the desired condition for rate of spread is a 50 percent reduction as compared to pretreatment conditions.
Direct, Indirect & Cumulative Effects The following table is a summary of predicted fire behavior for fireline intensity, rate of spread, and flame length for Alternative 1- No Action and Alternative 2- Proposed Action. In comparison of the two alternatives to the desired condition, modeling results indicate that Alternative 2 would meet the desired condition. See the affected environment section above for fuel model descriptions. Table 12- Comparison of Alternatives for Fireline Intensity, Rate of Spread & Flame Length
Fuel Fireline Intensity Rate Of Spread Flame Length Model* (btu/ft/s) (chains per hour) (feet) Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 1 Alt 2 GR 2 422 6 88 6 7.3 1 (102) GS 1 (121) 183 3 31 3 5 1 GS 2 (122) 419 14 43 7 7 2 SH 2 (142) 300 27 12 4 6 2 SH 5 (145) 3055 122 92 18 18 4 SH 7 (147) 2622 105 59 12 17 4 TU 1 (161) 41 1 5 1 2.5 1 TU 5 (165) 796 32 15 3 9.7 2.2 *Fuel model abbreviations explained in Table 11.
Alternative 1- Direct & Indirect Effects With this alternative there would be no reestablishment of the Silverado Fuel Break system. Natural processes would continue and the growth of vegetation would increase natural fuel loadings. Direct effects include increased fuel loads over the project area that would affect fire suppression effectiveness. When a wildfire occurs, the fuel break would not be effective in slowing fire growth, reducing fireline intensity, or providing enhanced fire suppression opportunities. Current conditions indicate that indirect firefighting tactics would be needed to control wildfires along the majority of the Silverado Fuel Break; thereby, increasing the complexity, size, and duration of future wildland fires.
27 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
Under this alternative, the existing condition would not change and firefighter and public safety would continue to be compromised by increased vegetation that would limit the potential areas to provide for safety zones, escape routes, anchor points, and safe access and egress routes. Longer duration and larger wildfires would increase exposure to firefighters, forest visitors, and surrounding communities to the potential dangers associated with wildfire such as increased traffic, smoke exposure and damage to private property. These effects, under the existing condition would continue under this alternative and have been demonstrated multiple times on this Forest.
Alternative 1- Cumulative Effects Past actions considered in this analysis include, but are not limited to, five hazardous fuel treatment projects adjacent to the proposed project areas: Elsinore Peak, Los Pinos, Old Dominion, South Main Divide, and North Main Divide.
Since 2002, the Trabuco Ranger District has been planning and implementing various fuel treatment projects to protect the local communities. Cumulatively, these actions have had a positive effect on reducing fuel loading and modifying fire behavior within the treatment areas. Alternative 1 would not contribute to enhancing community protection. At the landscape level, Alternative 1 does not support the integrated community protection strategy.
Alternative 1- Summary of Effects Effects of implementing Alternative 1 –No Action are below. Please see the desired condition and tables in this analysis section for comparative purposes. Additional information is also found in the project record.
• Fire suppression ability would not be increased because fireline intensities and flame lengths would be such that mechanized equipment and indirect firefighting tactics would be needed for control. Only 98 acres currently exhibit a four foot or less flame length. • Firefighter and public safety would not be improved because flame lengths on approximately 160 acres is greater than a four foot flame length and fireline intensities are above 500 btu/sq/ft. • Risk to life and property, adjacent to and near the project area, would not be improved because fireline intensities and flame lengths would be such that mechanized equipment and indirect firefighting tactics and a larger firefighting organization would be needed for fire control. • The risk of large wildland fires would not be reduced because indirect community protection would not be developed to provide for a tactical advantage to limit the spread of wildland fire across the landscape.
Alternative 2- Direct & Indirect Effects From a landscape level perspective, implementation of this alternative would impact the spread and direction of wildfires by reducing fuel in major fire flow paths that would allow for enhanced fire suppression opportunities. Implementation of this alternative would provide for a zone of reduced fire behavior to provide a safe strategic opportunity in which firefighters could meet suppression objectives should wildfire occur in the area. The Silverado Fuel Break was burned over during the Santiago Fire of 2007 as a result of the absence of vegetation management to maintain the effectiveness of this fuel break system.
28
Connected to this fuel break to the north is the North Main Divide Fuel Break which has proven to be strategically important in several cases in limiting the spread and direction of wildfires. This fuel break has reduced the size and duration of fire activity, which in turn has reduced the amount of chaparral vegetation at risk of type conversion due to the increased frequency of human caused ignitions.
Under this alternative, surface fuel reduction and modification would occur through mechanical treatments (mastication), hand treatments (cutting and piling cut material) and prescribed fire (pile and broadcast burning). This would reduce the amount, depth, and continuity of surface fuels reducing the potential for intense surface fires that could occur within this zone. Implementation of this alternative would modify fire behavior so wildfires could be suppressed more easily (Graham et al. 2004). Prescribed fire experience has shown that broadcast burning proposed in this alternative would not burn 100 percent of the area, resulting in a mosaic burn pattern. The objective of the project purpose and need is to reduce surface fuels by approximately 60 to 80 percent.
The length of individual treatment effectiveness would range from 5 to10 years, depending on initial treatment levels. These proposed treatments would reduce the amount of shading on surface fuels, increase the wind speeds to the surface, reduce the relative humidity at the surface, increase the fuel temperature, and reduce fuel moisture. Depending on weather conditions, these factors may increase the probability of ignition over current conditions; however, reduced fuel levels and arrangement would reduce flame length, fire severity, and fire intensity, and would increase opportunities for safe and effective fire management actions by creating a zone of indirect community protection.
Overall, fire behavior characteristics would be reduced to a low intensity/severity potential (refer to Table 12) in all fuel models associated with this alternative within the Silverado Fuel Break. This conclusion is based on fire behavior modeling which assumes that there is a continuous fuel bed. Prescribed burning is expected to occur on a rotation through a combination of activities (hand piling, pile burning, underburning) during the spring, fall, or winter. These fuel treatments would include small scale underburning in natural and activity fuels.
Alternative 2- Cumulative Effects Future and ongoing activities within the analysis area include but are not limited to: thinning; prescribed burning; and other fuels reduction activities in the Elsinore, Old Dominion, South Main Divide, North Main Divide, Los Pinos areas, and the electronics sites near the area. These activities have had and are expected to continue to have positive effects on hazardous fuels conditions by providing a network of managed areas that would limit the spread and direction of wildfires in the area. However, these recent and ongoing actions have not addressed the overall fuels management and urban interface protection needs for the areas surrounding the Silverado Fuel Break System. This area is in need of management actions to reduce the fuel loading to limit the spread of wildfire and provide a strategic and tactical advantage for both ground-based and aerial firefighting personnel and equipment.
In areas where fuel treatments overlap with other completed and/or planned projects there is expected to be a cumulative benefit in the form of reduced fire behavior and providing for fire fighter and public safety.
29 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
Alternative 2- Summary of Effects Effects of implementing Alternative 2 –the Proposed Action are below. Please see the desired condition, tables, and summary of alternative 1 in this analysis section for comparative purposes. Additional information is also found in the project record.
• Fire suppression ability would be increased because fireline intensities and flame lengths would be reduced on approximately 260 acres. Flame lengths would generally be less than four feet and fireline intensities would be low, allowing for more direct firefighting tactics. • Firefighter safety would be improved because of the reduction in flame length, fireline intensity, and rate of spread. • The horizontal and vertical continuity of surface fuels and brush on approximately 260 acres would be reduced. • The risk to life and property adjacent to and near the project area would be reduced because post treatment conditions within the fuel break would allow for the use of safe efficient fire suppression management actions due to low flame lengths (less than four feet high), decreased fireline intensities, and reduced rates of spread. • Risk to resource values would be reduced because the potential for large wildfires near and adjacent to the project area would be reduced by: Providing a zone of reduced fire behavior potential that would allow for the use of safe efficient management actions to control future fires and; Reducing the probability of large or frequent wildfires in chaparral vegetation communities that are at risk of type conversion.
Compliance with Forest Plan & Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies & Plans Alternative 1: This alternative is not consistent with the National Fire Plan and Healthy Forest Initiative because it does not reduce the accumulation of hazardous fuels within the wildland urban interface.
This alternative does not meet the Forests’ Land and Resource Management Plan goals (LMP, Part 2, page 116 Fire 2 and page 118 Fire 5) to:
• Reduce the number of high and moderate risk acres by using both mechanical treatments and prescribed fire. Identify and schedule for treatment the high risk acres near communities, including the installation of Wildland/Urban Interface Defense and Threat Zone vegetation treatments. Highest priority should be given to those areas with substantial drought and insect-killed vegetation that present a significant threat to life and property in entire communities. • Maintain the existing system of fuel breaks to minimize fire size and the number of communities threatened by fire. On land outside of wilderness or other special designations consider the construction of new fuel breaks. Achieve a balance of fire suppression capability and fuels management investments that are cost effective and able to meet ecosystem objectives and protection capabilities. This alternative does not meet the goals of the Forest Fire Management Plan or the specific objectives of the individual Fire Management Unit (FMU) to:
• Suppress all fires in FMU 1 using the appropriate management response with the intent of minimizing the loss of natural resources and improvements, protecting cultural and historic resources and checking fire spread onto private property. Control 95 percent or higher all
30
human and natural ignitions during initial attack (48 hours). As per the LMP, control fires in the wildland urban interface at 10 acres and maximum wildfire patch size forest-wide at no more than 8,000 acres. • Use prescribed fire and mechanical treatment to reduce hazardous fuel accumulations, restore rangeland and wildlife habitat and enhance ecosystem health. As per the LMP, treat an average of 5,500 acres per year. • Develop and maintain cooperative agreements and working relationships with local fire agencies, and adjacent landowners, to encourage hazard fuel reduction projects in the wildland/urban intermix. Alternative 2: This alternative meets applicable Forest Land and Resource Management Plan goals, standards and guidelines as well as Forest Fire Management Plan and FMU 1 objectives identified in Chapter 1 of this EA (see Forest Plan and Management Direction).
This alternative is consistent with National Fire Plan and Healthy Forest Initiative because the proposed action is reducing the accumulation of hazardous fuels within the wildland urban interface and providing a zone of defensible space on approximately 260 acres. Heritage Resources
Introduction This section includes documentation of previous cultural resource inventories of the Area of Potential Effect (APE), identification of historic properties, and the identification of the potential for effects on historic properties associated with project implementation. Design criteria found in Chapter 2 would be implemented to avoid potential adverse effects to any identified historic properties within the proposed project APE.
Analysis Area & Identification of Historic Properties The Cleveland National Forest Heritage Program Manager (HPM) has defined the proposed project Area of Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the Ranger District’s natural resources and wildfire specialists. The APE associated with the proposed project includes, but is not limited to, the boundary of the area proposed for mechanical treatment (mastication), hand thinning, prescribed fire, handlines, and includes areas in which equipment and/or materials storage, staging or access would occur. The APE is consistent with the project boundary. The APE is within the boundary of previous wildfire and prescribed burn boundaries, including the 2007 Santiago Fire.
There are no identified “At Risk” Historic Properties within the proposed project APE, (defined as a historic property that is susceptible to being adversely affected by specific undertaking activities such as prescribed fire), nor are any expected. An “at risk” historic property is identified based on property characteristics (i.e., flammability or fragility) and undertaking parameters (i.e., fuel load, fire temperature, or equipment weight or type). Examples of “at risk” historic properties are wooden structures susceptible to fire from prescribed burning, stacked rock features or rock alignments that could be crushed or otherwise damaged by tracked vehicles, or rock art, including petroglyphs and petrographs that could be adversely affected by heat or smoke.
Cultural resource surveys within the proposed project APE did not result in the identification or recordation of cultural resources. The majority of the proposed project area has been surveyed for cultural resources in support of a previous project (see district records for project survey
31 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment information). The cultural resource surveys conducted in support of previous projects were not 100 percent intensive, being comprised of a combination of intuitive and intensive surveys; however, the previous survey has been determined to be adequate for the purposes of identifying historic properties within the proposed project APE, in accordance with Stipulation III.A.2.c of the Interim Protocol. Additional cultural resource surveys of the proposed project APE would not be conducted prior to implementation of the proposed project and would be deferred until after the implementation of the proposed project due to the presence of impenetrable brush, limited ground visibility, and/or steep slopes (25 percent or greater), the lack of areas with a high potential for “at risk” cultural resources, and because the majority of the proposed project APE has been recently subjected to moderate to high intensity wildfire (Santiago Fire, 2007).
The presence of steep slopes, impenetrable vegetation, and/or low ground surface visibility within the proposed project APE is based on a review and analysis of available data (i.e. CNF LMP) analysis, pre-field research, the results of previously conducted cultural resources survey in the vicinity, and available Geographic Information System (GIS) and vegetation density data gathered from existing aerial photos and orthographic maps that has been checked with sample field inspections. No “at risk” cultural resources (as defined in the Interim Protocol) are known to exist within or in the vicinity of the proposed project APE, and pre-field research has not identified any “at risk” historic properties that have the potential to be adversely affected by the use of prescribed fire, mastication, or other treatments proposed within the proposed project area.
The proposed project is an “undertaking” in which design criteria may be necessary for the protection and avoidance of historic properties, should any be identified during the course of project implementation.
Direct, Indirect & Cumulative Effects
Alternative 1 – Effects Under this Alternative, no vegetation management would occur within the proposed project APE. Vegetation fuel loads would remain high and the potential for intense wildfire would remain high. Cultural resources would be affected to some degree during a wildfire within the proposed project APE and the surrounding area. Whether or not the effect of a wildfire would represent an adverse effect that could destroy the integrity, and therefore the eligibility of archaeological sites for nomination to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) depends on two primary factors: temperature and the duration of the wildfire event. Generally, higher temperatures and/or longer duration heat exposure increases the potential for damage to cultural resources. Variables that affect temperature and duration include type of vegetation, vegetation load, distribution (density), and moisture content, soil type and moisture content, weather, and terrain.
Alternative 1 – Direct Effects Generally, “typical” wildfires do not have a substantial effect on buried cultural materials. Studies show that even a few centimeters of soil cover (10 cm) are sufficient to protect most cultural materials from the effects of wildfire. However, there are times when conditions do carry heat below the surface, potentially having an effect on buried cultural materials (Winthrop 2004). These conditions include subsurface tree stumps that smolder and burn and have the potential of affecting buried materials that are in the vicinity. Heavy duff and/or surface deadwood and roots that smolder and burn also have the potential to expose subsurface materials to heat over an extended period of time, which may have the potential to affect buried cultural materials as well.
32
Fires that burn at relatively high temperature and speed may have less of an effect on certain types of cultural materials than fires that smolder in duff, or in dead surface wood that may burn for a sustained period of time. The effects of vegetation mastication and/or prescribed fire on cultural resources can be controlled to a greater degree than those of a wildfire. Cultural resource management specialists can work with fire technicians to determine the predicted temperature and duration of a prescribed burn, modify burn plans accordingly, and implement protective measures to effectively minimize the potential effects of controlled vegetation management to a level that is not adverse.
In summary, wildfire effects to cultural resources are context dependent. The effects of wildfire on cultural resources depends upon factors which vary from place to place, including physical factors such as vegetation type/density, and terrain, and cultural resource factors including site type and the type of cultural materials within subsurface site deposits. Managing for wildfire effects also depends upon the value of the cultural materials at risk. In areas where surface materials have little integrity, for example, due to collecting, erosion, past wildfires, or other factors, surface effects from wildfire may be of minimal consideration. However, wildfire is generally more destructive to cultural resources than prescribed fire, since it typically involves uncontrolled, high temperature, long duration fire effects as well as ground disturbance that may potentially occur during the course of wildfire suppression.
Alternative 1 – Indirect & Cumulative Effects Indirect and cumulative effects to cultural resources associated with the implementation of the No Action alternative include those presented in the Direct Effects section above. Although repeated occurrence of wildfire within the proposed project APE and the surrounding area may not compound the quantity or severity of effects to cultural resources, repeated wildfire suppression efforts may result in a cumulative increase in adverse effects to cultural resources. Most importantly, repeated wildfire within the proposed project APE and the surrounding area may result in increased levels of ground disturbance that may be associated with repeated wildfire suppression efforts.
Direct, Indirect & Cumulative Effects
Alternative 2 –Effects Under this Alternative, vegetation fuel loads would be reduced and the potential for intense wildfire would be reduced for the surrounding area which would reduce the potential for effects to cultural resources during any potential wildfire episode within the proposed project APE and the surrounding area.
Alternative 2 – Direct Effects There would be no adverse effect to historic properties associated with implementation of the proposed activities, as the project would be implemented in accordance with the stipulations of the Interim Protocol. Standard Resource Protection Measures (SRPM) (as defined in the Regional Programmatic Agreement and Section V of the Interim Protocol) would be implemented for any cultural resources identified during the course of project activities or cultural resource monitoring of project activities in an effort to avoid adverse effects to any inadvertently discovered cultural resources.
33 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
Alternative 2 – Indirect and Cumulative Effects There would be no indirect or cumulative effects associated with the proposed project, as no cultural resources or historic properties have been identified within the proposed project APE during cultural resources surveys. Potential effects to any inadvertently discovered cultural resources would be avoided through implementation of standard SRPM. Post-implementation surveys would be conducted to update the condition of inadvertently discovered sites (if any), locate and document previously unrecorded sites (if any), and assess the effectiveness of the SRPM (See Chapter 2 of this EA for design criteria.). The reduced potential for wildfire within the proposed project APE and the surrounding area would result in decreased levels of ground disturbance and potential for effects to cultural resources otherwise associated with future wildfires and fire suppression efforts.
Summary and Conclusions There would be no adverse effect to historic properties resulting from the proposed project with the implementation of the identified SRPM found in the design criteria in Chapter 2. Monitoring may be performed and post-project (deferred) survey and monitoring would be performed within the proposed project APE to assist in the identification and future avoidance of any previously unrecorded cultural resources within the APE. The results of the post-implementation (deferred) survey and site monitoring would be used to assess the effectiveness of the design criteria and the recommended deferred inventory approach.
Compliance with Forest Plan & Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies & Plans This project is consistent with the Regional Programmatic Agreement and the Interim Protocol for Non-intensive Inventory Strategies for Hazardous Fuels and Vegetation Reduction Projects, Annex to Stipulation IX in the Regional Programmatic Agreement (USDA FS, 2002) which satisfy the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) implementing regulations. These requirements, contained in 36 CFR 800, the federal requirements for identifying, taking into account and recommending mitigation for any potential adverse effects of the proposed project on historic properties, have been met and the NRHP Section 106 pre-implementation cultural resource management requirements of the Cleveland National Forest are complete.
In the event that the scope or design of the project is altered or changed, additional review by the CNF HPM would be required. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of archaeological or cultural features within the project area during project implementation, all ground-disturbing work at the work area would be suspended, reasonable efforts would be taken to avoid or minimize harm to the discovery, and the CNF HPM would be notified immediately. If an unanticipated discovery of an “at risk” historic property is made during project implementation and the site has not been impacted by the time of discovery, the HPM, in consultation with fuels, vegetation management, or fire specialists as necessary, would design and implement SRPMs to eliminate or minimize potential impacts prior to authorizing resumption of project activities. If an “at risk” historic property is discovered during project implementation and the site has been impacted by project activities, a qualified archaeologist would inspect the cultural feature or the ground surface in and around the discovery of any archaeological materials in order to determine the nature of the find and the extent of any effects.
A determination regarding the potential National Register eligibility of the find and a mutually acceptable course of action would be made in consultation with SHPO, ACHP (if it chooses to participate), and Tribes, including the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, within 10 calendar days
34
after the discovery. If the undertaking has already been concluded when an effect to a property has been discovered, the Forest shall consult with the SHPO, the ACHP (if it chooses to participate), and Tribes, including the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, to agree on a mutually acceptable course of action which the Forest would implement within a specified time period. This consultation shall not exceed 30 calendar days. If agreement on a mutually acceptable course of action cannot be reached within this time frame, the Forest would take any comments received during the consultation process into account, and would submit appropriate documentation of the consultation process and its decision regarding resolution of the effect to the SHPO, ACHP, and Tribes, including the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, within 10 calendar days.
If Native American human remains are identified within the project area during project implementation, the protocols established within the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) would be implemented in addition to the previously described process for unanticipated discoveries. The Forest HPM would be responsible for initiating and coordinating all government-to-government consultation between the Forest and any affected Native American Tribes, including the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians, associated with the implementation of NAGPRA protocols.
This project is also consistent with Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments; Department Regulation 1340-007, Policies on America Indians and Alaska Natives; and Department Regulation 1350-001. Hydrology & Soils
Introduction This section provides an analysis of the hydrology and soil resources and focuses on the following issues identified during the scoping process as well as the associated thresholds. Thresholds describe the limit at which impacts to soil or water quality become potentially major.
• Removal of vegetative soil cover resulting from prescribed fire or wildfire could cause detrimental levels of soil erosion. o Threshold: A severe erosion hazard rating. • Prescribed fire or wildfire could result in detrimental effects to soil productivity. o Threshold: A severe fire damage potential rating and high severity soil heating based on fuel and weather conditions. • Prescribed fire or wildfire could result in negative effects to natural watershed conditions by decreasing soil moisture storage, increasing peak flows, and increasing sedimentation. o Threshold: Greater than 1 ton sediment would enter an intermittent stream estimated using Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) modeling. • The proposed treatments could increase the risk of unauthorized motorized vehicles within the project area. Additional routes would result in a decrease in soil productivity and potential negative effects to natural watershed conditions. o Threshold: Additional new OHV routes are created within the project area. An Equivalent Roaded Acres (ERA)/Threshold of Concern (TOC) ratio greater than one measured by the cumulative watershed effects analysis. An ERA is equivalent to one acre of land that is completely roaded. • Proposed treatments could result in major impacts to soil and water resources. These impacts could be greater than those caused by a possible wildfire.
35 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
o Threshold: An ERA/TOC ratio greater than one as measured by the cumulative watershed effects analysis.
Methodology Soil data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) was utilized and verified during field visits. Geologic data was derived from the Geographic Information System (GIS) Region Five Clearinghouse. Hydrologic observations in the field were compared to stream data from the US Geological Survey Hydrography database. Hydrological effects have been analyzed basin by basin in the two Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 6 subwatersheds covered by the proposed treatment areas.
Potential soil erosion was determined using NRCS Erosion Hazard ratings and rates of erosion were estimated using the Forest Service Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) model Fuel Management Erosion Analysis (FUME). The NRCS Fire Damage Potential rating was used to assess damage to nutrient, physical and biotic soil characteristics by moderate intensity fire (160 to 500 btu).
Erosion Hazard ratings (EHR) were used to indicate the hazard of soil loss from off-road and off- trail areas following disturbance activities. Fire Damage Potential ratings were used to evaluate potential impacts of prescribed fires or wildfires intense enough to remove the duff layer and consume organic matter in the surface layer. High Fire Damage Potential (HFDP) ratings indicate potential detrimental effects to soil productivity.
Effects to water quality were assessed by conducting a cumulative watershed effects analysis. Equivalent roaded acres (ERA) were quantified. ERAs are a unit of hydrologic disturbance assumed to be related to water quality impacts such as erosion, sediment delivery, and downstream sedimentation. The ERA was compared to a threshold of concern (TOC) which is a measure of risk that a subwatershed may have large physical changes. An ERA/TOC ratio approaching or greater than one serves as a “yellow flag” indicator of increasing susceptibility for significant adverse cumulative effects occurring within a watershed (Reid 1993).
Analysis Area The analysis area for the hydrology component is the boundaries of the two subwatersheds at the 6th Hydrologic Unit level (HUC 6) in the analysis area. The analysis area for the soil resource is bounded by project activity areas, where disturbing activities are proposed.
Affected Environment Watershed and Streams: The two subwatersheds that comprise the analysis area include the 16,401 acre Santiago Creek subwatershed and the 8,865 acre Bedford Wash-Temescal Wash subwatershed. Proposed treatment units cover 1.4 percent of the Santiago Creek subwatershed, and 0.3 percent of the Bedford Wash-Temescal Wash subwatershed.
Streams within the two subwatersheds are intermittent and flow during the wet season. There are no streams within the project area; however, approximately 10 ephemeral drainages begin several hundred feet directly below the proposed treatment area. None of these drainages have floodplains near their headwaters, but floodplains are present in the lower reaches of Coldwater Canyon and Temescal Wash.
36
Surface drainages in 90 percent of the proposed treatment areas flow west to Santiago Creek and Reservoir, and 10 percent flow east to Temescal Wash then to the Santa Ana River. Santiago Creek is used for municipal and domestic water supply as well as groundwater recharge.
There are no documented springs, seeps, or wetlands within the proposed treatment areas.
Water quality: Beneficial uses of streams within project area subwatersheds include municipal and domestic supply, groundwater recharge, contact and non-contact recreation, support for warm water ecosystems, wildlife habitat, and habitat for threatened or endangered species.
The pH of Temescal Creek does not meet water quality standards. The Regional Water Quality Control Board recommends this segment be placed on the 303(d) list. This creek segment is approximately five miles north of the Silverado Fuel Break; therefore, the proposed activities are not expected to impact this segment.
Soil and Geologic Conditions: Approximately eighty percent of soils within the project area are fine textured sandy loams and 10 percent are loamy. Generally, project area soils are shallow with weak structure, and medium to very rapid runoff potential. The erosion hazard rating is severe to very severe when 50 to 75 percent of the soil cover is removed and the Fire Damage Potential is moderate to high. Approximately 95 percent of the project area is located on moderate to steep slopes and NRCS EHR ratings are severe to very severe. The following table displays soil information and ratings for soils within the project area. Table 13- Properties & Ratings of Soils within the Project Area Map Soil Series Depth Erosion Fire Soil Area Unit & Texture Hazard Damage Rutting (Acres) Symbol Rating Potential Hazard Rating 153 Friant fine Shallow Very severe Moderate Moderate 197 sandy loam 118 Blasingame Moderately Severe High Moderate 40 stony loam deep 151 Escondido very Shallow Moderate Moderate Severe 11 fine sandy loam 142 Cineba sandy Shallow Very severe Moderate Severe 7 loam, eroded 160 Laughlin Shallow Severe Low Severe 7 gravelly loam
Soil Productivity: The 2007 Santiago Fire resulted in the combustion of organic matter and high rates of accelerated erosion following the removal of soil cover. Shrubs and forbs have since regrown and provide 90 to 95 percent of the soil cover thereby limiting soil erosion. It is likely soil productivity has decreased following the fire and it would not completely recover until approximately 2017.
Forest roads can significantly affect site productivity by removing and displacing top soil, altering soil properties, and accelerating erosion (Gucinski 2001). There are approximately 5.4 miles of road and 4.3 miles of trail within the proposed Silverado Fuel Break project area. Generally, accelerated rill and gully erosion is minimal on these roads and trails because they are gradually
37 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
sloped and follow the ridge line. However, high rates of runoff following the Santiago Fire and a lack of trail maintenance has resulted in the formation of five large gullies. Vegetation has returned and accelerated erosion has decreased, yet the gullies continue to concentrate runoff. On two road sections, gully erosion is occurring resulting in gullies down slope of the road. The area bordering these gullies is potentially unstable if high amounts of soil cover are removed. Vegetation has regrown below these gullies, thereby decreasing the potential for soil erosion to reach streams.
Geomorphology: The 2007 Santiago Fire resulted in the removal of soil cover over large areas and debris flows have occurred following two-year precipitation events. Following the Santiago fire, debris flows have occurred in Pine and Halfway Creeks in the Silverado Canyon area (Cannon 2007). Vegetation has reestablished within the burned area, reducing peak flows and the potential for debris flows and landslides. The following map displays existing gully erosion, bedrock geology and existing landslides. The existing landslides are outside the project area. The two landslides closest to the project area are approximately 500 and 1000 feet below the project area. Vegetation has regrown and the area appears stable. Figure 5- Erosion, Bedrock Geology & Landslides (outside of project area)
Direct, Indirect & Cumulative Effects
Alternative 1 – Direct & Indirect Effects Under this alternative there would be no reestablishment of the Silverado Fuel Break. Natural processes would continue and the growth of vegetation would increase natural fuel loadings.
38
This alternative would have no direct effects on soil erosion, unstable areas, or water quality. Soil cover is present in sufficient quantity to minimize surface erosion. Recovery from past and on- going management activities (see the introduction section of Chapter 3 for a discussion of management activities) would continue.
If a wildfire occurs, effects would be the same as described below in Alternative 2, yet a higher percentage of the two HUC 6 subwatersheds would be negatively affected. The fuel break would not be effective in slowing fire growth, reducing fire intensity, or providing enhanced fire suppression opportunities. In addition, detrimental effects to soil and water quality would occur within the project area because fuel loading would remain high.
Alternative 1- Cumulative Effects Future activities include, but are not limited to, thinning and prescribed burning on the North Main Divide Fuel Break and on the electronics sites near the area (see the introduction section of this chapter for more information). These activities continue to provide a network of managed areas to limit the spread and direction of wildfires in the area. Under these conditions, there would be beneficial cumulative impacts to soil quality because these activities have been designed to limit the spread of wildfire for as long as the fuel break is effective. Under this alternative, it is less likely that a wildfire could be suppressed at the Silverado Fuel Break while burning in either of the adjacent subwatersheds. This could result in negative cumulative soil and hydrologic impacts occurring in a greater area of Santiago subwatershed and Bedford Wash/Temescal Wash subwatershed. Detrimental effects could include a loss in soil productivity, increased sediment to streams, and an increase in debris slides.
Alternative 2 – Direct & Indirect Effects Soil Erosion: Prescribed burning would remove varying amounts of soil cover resulting in short term accelerated erosion. The bare soil percentage is the dominant control on post-fire erosion, followed by rainfall intensity (Pietraszek 2006). At least 30 percent soil cover would remain following prescribed burning. The Region 5 Sheet and Rill Erosion Hazard Rating system was used to calculate erosion hazard ratings within proposed treatment areas (USDAFS 1995). Erosion Hazard ratings (EHRs) calculated for project area soils and hill slopes estimate accelerated erosion would be moderate. Calculated EHRs are less than those calculated by the NRCS because treatments would occur on short hill slopes that are more gradually sloped. Retaining at least 30 percent soil cover would limit detrimental soil loss. The retention of additional soil cover would increase wildfire risk.
Fire control lines could be constructed on either side of the fuel break area to assist in fire control operations during broadcast burning. The design criteria, identified in Chapter 2, to install waterbars on fire control lines greater than five percent slope would limit accelerated erosion and potential detrimental soil loss. Waterbars are effective at slowing runoff and limiting accelerated erosion.
Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) modeling of hill slopes within the project area estimates prescribed burning would increase accelerated erosion rates between 26 and 58 tons per square mile. It is expected that sufficient vegetation would return to treatment areas within two years and accelerated erosion would then decrease (Beyers 1998). WEPP estimates background erosion rates between 4 and 10 ton per square mile. If the risk of accelerated erosion increases, so does the likelihood that accelerated erosion would exceed soil formation rates.
39 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
Water Quality: Prescribed fire could indirectly result in higher runoff rates due to the removal of vegetation and a resulting decrease in soil infiltration and changes to soil structure. This could occur where moderate to high intensity fire is expected (i.e. on soils with chaparral or dense shrub vegetation). When soil organic matter in the upper soil layers is volatilized, a small amount moves downward into the soil, condensing to form a water-repellent layer that impedes infiltration. The creation of water repellant soils is not anticipated due to observations of similar prescribed burns on similar soils (2012 Personal Communication, Jason Jimenez).
Within the project area, there is adequate vegetation to buffer accelerated erosion from immediately reaching ephemeral drainages.
Ash from prescribed burning would have a negligible effect on water quality and pH in Temescal Creek. The impaired section of Temescal Creek is greater than 5 miles from the proposed treatment areas. Proposed treatment areas cover 0.3 percent of the subwatershed, and several hundred feet of vegetation would buffer ash before it reaches an ephemeral channel. With the use of design criteria identified in Chapter 2, this project would be in conformance with the Clean Water Act, as it would not negatively impact water quality in streams and it does not encroach on wetlands or deplete or pollute groundwater aquifers.
Soil Productivity: Proposed treatments could increase the potential for unauthorized OHV use on up to 1.25 miles of the fuel break. The creation of new roads or trails would decrease soil productivity by compacting the soil and removing soil cover, thereby increasing the potential risk of accelerated erosion. OHV use is low within the project area and fuel break maintenance could result in some new, mostly single track routes. Fewer new four wheel drive routes are anticipated because it is difficult for wider vehicles to access proposed fuel break project areas. The design features identified in Chapter 2 would result in the installation of barriers to block the potential for new illegal trails or roads. These features are designed to limit additional detrimental soil disturbance and have proven to be effective.
Prescribed burning can negatively affect soil quality by burning organic matter and destroying soil microbes. Soil organic matter is concentrated at or near the soil surface and begins changing chemically when heated to 200 degrees Celsius and is completely destroyed at 450 degrees Celsius (Debano 1989).
Fire intensity would be low on annual grass slopes and moderate to high on soils with chaparral. Prescribed burns in chaparral are often nearly as intense as wildfires (Debano 1989). Approximately 60 percent of the project area is chaparral and brush, approximately 40 percent is grass and forbs. Fifteen percent of the project area has soils with a high Fire Damage Potential rating and approximately five percent of the broadcast burn area could have detrimental soil damage.
Pile burning activities would result in the most severe soil heating and effects from pile burning could last more than 10 years. However, criteria in Chapter 2 have been designed to ensure that adequate soil moisture is present to reduce effects to pile burning. Pile burning and detrimental effects to soil quality are estimated to occur on less than five percent of the project area.
Soil nutrients including nitrogen, phosphorous and sulfur would increase in the short term and decrease in the long term. Depending on the timing of rainfall following treatment, ash from prescribed burning containing nitrogen and phosphorous would be available to improve plant growth. Elevated levels of available nitrogen and phosphorus found after burning would decrease to prefire levels in about one year (Debano 1989). Depending on rainfall intensity in the first year
40
after burning, nutrients from burned material could be lost due to the increased erosion, thereby potentially decreasing soil productivity.
Prescribed fire could directly result in damage to both soil microbes and invertebrates which alter the structure of the below ground environment by creating habitats with widely varying aeration, moisture relations, nutrient status, and penetrability. Indirectly, these factors influence the growth and health of plants (Egerton-Warburton 2005). Detrimental damage to microbes and invertebrates from moderate to intense soil heating could negatively affect the reestablishment of chaparral and other shrubs over the long term. Burn piles would result in the most damage to soil microorganisms, yet because these areas are small and scattered, overall changes to soil productivity would be minor.
If/when a wildfire occurs, the proposed fuel break maintenance would indirectly benefit soil and water resources by providing enhanced fire suppression opportunities and thereby reducing the number of project area subwatersheds affected. Depending on the severity of a wildfire, detrimental effects to water quality and soil productivity would occur in fewer project area subwatersheds.
WEPP modeling for the project area estimates that, after a large, moderate severity wildland fire, the amount of sediment transported to streams in the first post-fire year would be between 930 and 2,100 tons per square mile. This is an increase of more than 10 times background rates. Increased erosion and sediment transport would occur in diminishing volumes for years following wildfire while vegetation regrows. Typically, erosion returns to near background levels within 10 years of a wildfire.
Following the proposed fuel break maintenance, it’s likely that fewer project area subwatersheds would be burned and negatively affected by an increase in sedimentation. Fewer subwatersheds would have detrimental effects to soil productivity resulting from the combustion of organic matter and soil microorganisms.
A wildfire may provide increases in opportunities for illegal OHV use for a longer period of time.
Alternative 2- Cumulative Effects Future activities include thinning, and prescribed burning on the North Main Divide Fuel Break and on the electronics sites near the area (Sierra Peak, Modjeska Peak, Pleasants Peak and Santiago Peak). These activities continue to provide a network of managed areas to limit the spread and direction of wildfires in the area. The North Main Divide Fuel Break is designed to improve fire suppression below 90th percentile weather conditions. Under these conditions, there would be beneficial cumulative impacts to soil quality because these activities have been designed to limit the spread of wildfire for as long as the fuel break is effective. Fewer subwatersheds would be affected with detrimental effects to soil productivity resulting from high severity fire. There are no known negative cumulative effects to soil quality because activities do not overlap spatially.
Treatments of the Silverado Fuel Break are proposed to occur annually, with the entire length of the fuel break treated after five years. Prescribed burning at these intervals would result in a long term decrease in soil productivity within the project area. The project has been designed to reduce fuel loading along the fuel break, resulting in effects to long term soil productivity. Future maintenance of the fuel break would benefit long term soil and water quality in the project area subwatersheds by improving fire suppression capabilities.
41 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
Equivalent Roaded Acres (ERA) values along with results of ERA/TOC analysis for individual 6th-field drainages are displayed in the following tables in this section. ERA values are determined by comparing coefficients for disturbance classes to values for roads to calculate the area of road that would produce the same changes in peak flows An ERA/TOC ratio approaching or greater than one serves as a “yellow flag” indicator of increasing susceptibility for adverse cumulative effects occurring within a watershed. None of the project area subwatersheds have an ERA/TOC ratio greater than one. A wildfire in any of the project area subwatersheds would result in an ERA/TOC ratio greater than one. Table 14- Equivalent Roaded Areas for Proposed Fuel Break & Threshold of Concern for 6th Code HUC Subwatersheds Bedford Wash- Temescal Wash Acres RX* Fires* Road Trail Hwy TD* %ERA %TOC %ERA/ %TOC ERA/Acre 0.06 0.08 1.0 1.0 1.0 NA NA NA NA Route Width 20 4 70 124 0 9.92 0 2 NA NA NA NA ERA 7 0 10 0 2 10 0.1 0.12 0.0 Upper-Sanitago Creek Acres RX* Fires* Road Trail Hwy TD* %ERA %TOC %ERA/ %TOC ERA/Acre 278 8124 48.34 26 0 NA NA NA NA Route Width ERA 17 487 48 26 0 530 3.2 0.12 0.3 *RX= hand thin/prune/pile/pile burn followed by prescribed fire. *The 2006 Sierra Fire and 2007 Santiago Fire have coefficients of 0.08 because some vegetation has become reestablished. *TD= Total Disturbance. .
Compliance with Forest Plan & Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies & Plans The No Action Alternative does not meet Forest Plan Direction for soils and hydrology to: Improve long-term soil productivity and decrease soil erosion through a rotational prescribed burning program that would reduce losses from wildfire. Rotational prescribed burning would have less severe impact on the soil resource over the long term than unpredictable large-scale wildfires which usually burn under the hottest, most extreme weather conditions which create the most severe soil damage in terms of loss of cover and the creation of hydrophobic water-repellent conditions (Southern California Land Management Plan, USDA FSa, 2005. Part 1, page 40).
The No Action Alternative meets its obligations for compliance with water quality standards through implementation of state certified and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved Best Management Practices (BMPs) (USDA FSb 2000).
Alternative 2 complies with the Clean Water Act through use of BMPs designed to minimize or prevent the discharge of both point and non-point source pollutants from forest roads, developments, and activities.
Alternative 2 complies with the Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management and 11990 Protection of Wetlands (1977) by avoiding impacts associated with the destruction or modification of floodplains and wetlands.
42
Alternative 2 complies with the Executive Order 12088 through implementation of BMPs, implementation of a forest restoration program which includes a sediment source inventory and road decommissioning program, compliance with discharge waivers and implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines for watershed management.
With the implementation of design criteria identified in Chapter 2, Alternative 2 would be in conformance with the Clean Water Act (CWA), as it would not negatively impact water quality in streams and it does not encroach on wetlands or deplete or pollute groundwater aquifers.
Alternative 2 meets applicable Forest Land and Resource Management Plan goals, standards and guidelines. Invasive Nonnative Plants
Introduction This section provides an analysis of the potential risk for nonnative plant invasion as a result of project implementation. Specific risks include: the potential for vegetation type conversion with project implementation; the potential changes in abundance and distribution of known invasive species; and the introduction of invasive species into the project area from existing infestations in the vicinity of the project area.
Background Many invasive nonnative plant species are stimulated to grow, reproduce, and spread by the effects of disturbance. The presence of invasive nonnative plants could have substantial adverse effects on native plants and animals and their habitat. Impacts could be long-term depending on many factors, including the type of nonnative plant species, agents (vectors), disturbance regimes, and environmental conditions.
A concern in some areas in southern California, similar to the project area, is that some chaparral communities have been ecologically changing or “vegetatively type converted” to annual grasslands due to increased fire return intervals (Zedler et al. 1983) and disturbance regimes. Type conversion may result in the displacement of some native plant populations due to the increased dominance of nonnative plants. These annual grasslands not only displace native species, but also change the fuels characteristics of the ecosystem (Brooks et al. 2004). The annual grasses grow for a single year, then die, creating a continuous flashy fuel layer that is more susceptible to changes in relative humidity than native vegetation, making them flammable whenever the relative humidity drops. Once established, the invasive nonnative plants can burn at a lower temperature than the native chaparral vegetation, which potentially results in higher seed survivorship of the nonnatives, and perpetuates the nonnative community (D’Antonio and Vitousek 1992, Keeley 2006, Keeley and Zedler 2009).
Methodology Spatial representation of the invasive plant species documented in the project area was derived from an aggregate of various sources, including the Cleveland National Forest GIS cooperative dataset (NRIS, 2011); Consortium of Herbaria (http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/) and project level surveys (Boes et al., 2011).
This analysis examined the existing habitat conditions, the significant vectors independent of and dependent on project implementation, and the potential impact of project implementation on the
43 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment spread of nonnative species. Additionally, this analysis relied on the following impact thresholds to help assess potential risks to native vegetation and the risk of invasive nonnative plant species.
• Type of Impact: Adverse or Beneficial • Duration of Impact: Short-term or Long-term • Intensity of Impact: Negligible, Minor, Moderate or Major • Context of Impact: Localized or Regional • Likelihood of Impact: Probable, Possible or Unlikely
Analysis Area The treatment area is the boundary for the analysis area. The cumulative effects analysis area is bounded spatially by Highway 74 to the south and the boundary of the Santa Ana ranges to the north. The temporal boundary for the cumulative effects analysis is 30 years because the majority of native vegetation types in the proposed project area are adapted to recover from natural disturbance events in this time period (Minnich and Chou 1997).
Management Direction The Cleveland National Forest LMP (Part 2, Pages 91-93) includes the following direction for invasive species prevention and control. Additional direction is found in Part 3 of the LMP.
• Prevent the introduction of invasive species and coordinate the treatment of invasive species across jurisdictional boundaries. Coordinate internally as well as with local, state, and federal agencies and permittees, and the public to prevent future introductions of invasive species. Limit ground disturbance to the minimum area necessary during project activities. Promote conditions to enhance the recovery of vegetation recovery in project planning, design, and implementation. Conduct follow-up inspections of ground disturbing activities to monitor the effectiveness of restoration efforts in reducing or preventing the introduction or re- introduction of invasive non-native plants (LMP IS1). • Minimize vegetation type conversion (permanent or long-term loss of plant communities) resulting from frequent fires. Emphasize fire prevention and fuel break maintenance to reduce the number of fires burning at excessively short fire-return intervals (less than 25 years) that have degraded or could degrade low-elevation (below 2000 feet) chaparral or where needed for wildlife habitat improvement (LMP FH2/FH3) . Part 3 of Land Management Plan describes criteria, which includes laws, standards, and guidance for project planning and implementation. Applicable criteria have been incorporated into design criteria for this project as well as the following guidance:
• Land Management Plan, Appendix M, National Forests of Southern California Weed Management Strategy • National Strategy and Implementation Plan for Invasive Species Management • USFS Guide to Noxious Weed Prevention Practices
Affected Environment Eight dominant vegetation types occur within the proposed treatment area (see wildlife section of this EA.). Sites supporting mature vegetation range from 60-90 percent canopy cover, with occasional rock out crops, though the vegetation is generally very dense, covering some of the rock out crops. Previously treated portions of the project area support sparse, herbaceous vegetation with occasional regenerating shrub species. Invasive species are limited in extent to
44
disturbed sites, where vegetation is open and shrub canopy cover largely lacking. Much of the project area overlaps with the 2007 Santiago Fire area where the vegetation is rapidly recovering and has reached about 30-50 percent cover, except on the truck trail (Boes pers.com. 2012).
Portions of the project area show evidence of the historic fuel break. In these areas, there is type conversion to annual grassland, a rutted linear feature with soil exposure and disturbance and early successional vegetation characteristics. The project area is dominated by chaparral which has an inherent low risk to nonnative invasion; however, with the previous fires and other disturbance factors its vulnerability has increased. The historic fuel break has resulted in earlier seral vegetation that supports nonnative species, primarily annual and perennial grasses. This linear fuel break has also provided a “corridor” for invasive plants to infiltrate into adjacent lands. Overall, the project has a moderate inherent vulnerability to invasive plants.
Field surveys were conducted in the spring and summer of 2011 and identified two high ranking, seven moderate ranking, and four limited ranking invasive plant species in the project footprint. Populations of three species, artichoke thistle, Italian plumeless thistle, and smilograss were rarely found and mapped in the project footprint. Ten of the 13 invasive species have widespread distribution and include: wild oat, ripgut brome, soft brome, red brome cheatgrass, tocalote, wild oat, shortpod mustard, horehound, rattail fescue and redstem filaree. Surveys identified these ten species as common or occasional and are naturalized in much of Southern California. Table 15- Occurrences of Nonnative Invasive Plant Species in the Silverado Project Area & in other Fuel Breaks in the Vicinity Cal-IPC Species Occurrence Ranking* Wild oat Moderate Common
Ripgut brome Moderate Common
Soft brome Limited Occasional
Red brome High Common
Cheatgrass High Common
Tocalote Moderate Occasional
Italian plumeless thistle Moderate Rare, in concentrated occurrences
Artichoke thistle Moderate Rare, in concentrated occurrences
Redstem filaree Limited Common
Shortpod mustard Moderate Common Horehound Limited Occasional
45 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
Cal-IPC Species Occurrence Ranking* Smilograss Limited Rare, in concentrated occurrences
Rattail fescue Moderate Common *Ranking according to California Invasive Plant Inventory. Available at http://www.cal- ipc.org/ip/management/plant_profiles/index.php.
In addition to the species identified in the preceding table, six other invasive species have the potential to occur, given their occurrence in fuel breaks in the vicinity; however, they were not identified within the project area. Table 16- Potential Invasive Species Species Rank* Fuel Break (common ranking North Main name) Bedford Hagador Manning Eagle Main Street Divide Yellow star thistle High X
Intermediate Rare, in Not wheatgrass concentrated rated occurrences Sweet fennel Rare, one High population observed Canarygrass Rare, in Mod- concentrated erate occurrences Russian Patchy Rare, Limited Occasional thistle throughout patchy Milk thistle Occurs beyond Limited project area *Ranking according to California Invasive Plant Inventory.
Direct, Indirect & Cumulative Effects
Alternative 1 – Direct & Indirect Effects The no action alternative is not anticipated to directly impact invasive nonnative species’ distribution and abundance. This alternative is anticipated to allow for the recovery of the vegetation to pre-fire closure levels which would result in a reduction in the distribution and abundance of invasive nonnative species, especially in the chaparral and scrub habitats.
Alternative 1 – Cumulative Effects If no fuels reduction occurs and a wildfire occurs, it is likely that the project area is incorporated by a larger wildfire perimeter and/or that the area is burned at higher frequencies or severities.
46
Fires with higher vegetation severities have been shown to be positively correlated with a decrease in post-fire invasive responses (Keeley et al. 2008); whether this effect is a result of lower pre-fire presence of invasive plants or a result of the increased temperatures is not clear (Keeley, per. comm. 2009). The cumulative effects of this and other projects are expected to be passively beneficial and potentially long term under this no action/no treatment alternative.
Alternative 2 – Direct & Indirect Effects Effects from Habitat Alteration as a result of Project Implementation: Fuel breaks are sites where the native plant community is continuously repressed. The recovery of chaparral from fire has been documented as attaining full canopy closure in five to twenty years and mature height in thirty years (Minnich and Chou 1997). This recovery response has been shown to decrease in areas where multiple fires have occurred more frequently than at thirty year intervals (Zedler et al. 1983). The mechanisms and regeneration response rates from the proposed treatments are, at this point in time, largely unstudied but are potentially similar to that of fire. There is the probability, with repeated suppression of the native chaparral and scrub communities that areas treated multiple times would undergo vegetative type conversion to nonnative grasslands (Zedler et al. 1983). With fewer treatment entries per site, there is a lower risk associated with type conversion to nonnative grasslands but there still remains the risk associated with the inevitable increase in annual and perennial grasses that could out-compete native species for resources. This alteration is anticipated to primarily impact chaparral communities, as the existing nonnative grasslands and buckwheat communities are the result of high levels of disturbance. Under this alternative, alteration of the vegetation is anticipated to be moderate and long term.
Fuel breaks create corridors for nonnative exotic invasion into lands where competition could markedly reduce native species (Keeley 2007, Merriam et al. 2006). This is likely to facilitate invasion of nonnative species. All treatments create suitable habitat for nonnative invasive plant species by disturbing soil, decreasing the canopy cover and creating areas for nonnative plant establishment.
Pile Burning: Pile burn areas may have an adverse effect by increasing competition by invasive plant species and creation of habitat for invasion of nonnative species. Thistles are able to disperse seed long distances (greater than 100 feet); thereby, there is a higher potential risk of invasion of these plants within the disturbed area around burn piles. Windblown seeds of Italian plumeless thistle inside the project area and milk thistle from outside the project area may also find their way to burned areas. Nonnative grasses such as intermediate wheatgrass and smilograss, along with perennial herbs such as redstem filaree and horehound are not able to disperse seeds long distances and normally drop seeds close to the parent plant. The widespread invasive species identified in the preceding table may spread due to the abundance of seed already present. Criteria (see Chapter 2) has been designed to limit the spread of invasive plants that are not currently widespread (described as rare in Table 15) in the project area and higher ranking invasive weeds found outside the project area (see Table 16) and/or the potential to spread by avoiding and/or treating existing weed populations.
Hand Clearing: Hand clearing has been shown to enhance nonnative invasive plant establishment (Bradley et al. 2006). Hand clearing has adverse effects by creating areas of exposed soil that nonnative species need for germination. Widespread species have the potential to increase and spread due to soil disturbance associated with this project. With perennial species, there is also a chance of resprouting (i.e. smilograss). By following the design criteria in Chapter 2, this inherent risk of spread for the three rarely found weed species can be reduced to minor and/or moderate.
47 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
Prescribed Fire: Prescribed fire can create suitable habitat for non-natives by disturbing the soil and decreasing the canopy cover. Prescribed fires are anticipated to have lower temperatures than wildfires. Most non-native species benefit from low-intensity fires, unlike most natives that need a higher temperature for germination (Keeley 2006a). Widespread non-native invasive plant species in the area have the potential to further increase and spread with the use of prescribed fire. Widespread species in the area have the potential to further increase and spread. With perennial species there is a chance of resprouting (i.e. smilograss). Firelines would create suitable habitat and increase the risk of spread and subsequent establishment of non-native species through soil disturbance and canopy cover reduction. With implementation of design criteria in Chapter 2, the spread of the three rarely found weed species and higher ranked weeds found outside the project area would be reduced.
Prescribed fires are generally conducted at lower temperatures and at different seasons than naturally occurring fires. The historic fire regime in the project area is thought to have burned as crown fires with a fire return interval of approximately 70 years but two possible scenarios under are debate: large and stand replacing crown fires driven by weather (Keeley and Fotheringham 2001, Keeley and Zedler 2009) or patchy-mosaic fires driven by fuel accumulation (Minnich 1995, Minnich and Chou 1997). In Southern California chaparral, Keeley et al. (2008) found that fires with lower severity effects to vegetation had an increased invasive nonnative plant response when compared with those fires that occur as high-severity crown fires. However, the lower severity fire effects to vegetation observed in Keeley’s study were likely due to areas that had early seral vegetation due to past disturbance and likely had an initial higher nonnative species component as part of their vegetation community (Keeley, pers. comm. 2009).
Non-project dependent Vectors: Non-project dependent vectors may have an adverse effect by spreading seed of nonnative invasive species. All surveyed nonnative invasives have a greater inherent ability to spread through the use of the heliport pad as well by vehicles, hikers and OHV users. (See below for an additional discussion on vectors.). With implementation of design criteria in Chapter 2, the spread of the three rarely found weed species and higher ranked weeds found outside the project area would be reduced to negligible/minor.
Increased Vectors as a Result of Project Implementation: Roads are thought to promote invasive distribution and abundance due to the creation of suitable habitat (i.e. disturbance and reduced competition from native plants) and the increase in vectors (Hastings et al. 2005). Much of the proposed project area encompasses the Silverado Truck Trail, which is not maintained as a Forest Road. The trail does receive considerable use by mountain bikers and hikers. Removing vegetation adjacent to roads and trails allows for new species to enter lands and perpetuates their abundance. Wherever the fuel breaks meets travel corridors there is potential for new invaders
Increases in vectors are anticipated as a direct result of project implementation, including increased vehicular traffic, increased foot traffic and machinery into the project area. The greatest vector impact would be from machinery being used if machinery enters portions of the project area with weeds and then moves to other portions of the project area. Though vehicle washing is a design criteria, studies have found that an average of 33 percent of debris is left on machinery and vehicles even with this action (Flemming 2008). Flemming also found that with washing, 95 percent of debris was removed at six minutes, whereas 66 percent was removed in three minutes. Disturbance created by vectors (especially machinery) in areas that have existing populations of nonnative invasive species facilitates spread throughout the area being treated and enhances suitable habitat. This disturbance is likely to increase the populations of the annual grasses and herbs such as redstem filaree and tocalote.
48
Alternative 2 – Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area is bounded spatially by Highway 74 to the south and the Santa Ana Range to the north. The bounds of this analysis area were determined by disturbance events and planned projects that interact with the project area (See the introduction section of Chapter 3 for a discussion of projects and activities considered in this cumulative effects analysis.). Events, projects and their impacts were considered based on their interaction with the action alternative. For example, impacts from wildfires in the immediate project area were considered and impacts from immediately adjacent Forest Service activities were considered. Additionally, larger scale impacts, such as pollution, development, and climate change, were considered in a more general sense given the feasibility of quantifying their impacts on a small scale project such as the Silverado Fuel Break.
Fuel Reduction Projects: As with wildfires, fuels reduction projects (see table in the introduction section of Chapter 3) impact vegetation, resulting in a reversion to earlier seral stages and an increase in invasive nonnative plant species cover. Most of these fuel reduction project areas also underwent wildfire in the past 10 years, increasing the likelihood for long-term vegetation alteration due to frequent fire. The Silverado Fuel Break project contributes cumulatively to the increase of invasive nonnative species distribution and abundance; however, it is difficult to quantify how many acres would be impacted in the long term. However, it is anticipated that projects with multiple entries would have reduced capacity for recovery to pre- treatment canopy covers and would have longer lasting nonnative infestations.
Other Management Activities: The area is utilized by recreationists and other non-Forest Service entities to maintain two communications towers, one heliport, and one water tank. This project, along with other projects and activities in the area, contributes to the maintenance of early vegetative seral stages which contribute to the ability of invasive plants to become and remain established.
Fire History: The Silverado Fire (1987) burned approximately 25 percent of the proposed treatment area. The Santiago Fire burned the remaining 75 percent of the project area in 2007. The Santiago Fire has resulted in reduced canopy cover within the fire perimeter. The areas that burned in previous decades have largely recovered to pre-fire canopy levels. Implementation of this project contributes to the overall effect of type conversion within the project area. Please see the fire and fuels section in Chapter 3 and the background section of Chapter 1 for more information on fire history.
Non-Project Dependent Vectors: Non-project dependent vectors that could contribute to invasive nonnative distribution include hikers, vehicles and OHV use. Openings created along Silverado Road would be suitable habitat for new, and already present, invasive species. Additionally, reducing shrub cover has the potential to enhance opportunities for illegal bicycle and OHV activity.
Summary: Fuel breaks in chaparral have been referred to as “nurseries for invasives” as they modify the vegetation structure and are areas of disturbance, both factors which have been found to be correlated with invasive plant species richness and abundance. This project area has been treated in the recent past, resulting in ridgeline suppression of native vegetation to an early successional state that has been colonized by both regenerating natives and nonnative annual grasses and forbs.
49 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
There are two high ranking, seven moderate ranking, and four limited ranking invasive plant species known within the project area (see tables in this section of the EA). Of these thirteen species, red brome, soft brome, tocalote, cheatgrass, wild oat, ripgut brome, horehound, shortpod mustard, rattail fescue and redstem filaree are widespread and are naturalized species that are commonly known to occur in nonnative grasslands. Three species including Italian plumeless thistle, artichoke thistle, and smilograss would be treated prior to project implementation or flagged and avoided with a 100 foot buffer. If monitoring shows expansion of these three invasive plant populations, treatment and subsequent monitoring of occurrences would occur for no fewer than three years (See design criteria in Chapter 2.). The remaining species are anticipated to increase in abundance within the project area but range extension is likely to be limited.
Implementation of the action alternative is anticipated to increase invasive nonnative plant species cover. It is likely that with multiple treatments there would be a shift in vegetation towards nonnative grassland. Disturbing the existing fuel break could result in the increased capacity for the fuelbreak to act as a “corridor” for invasive species to distribute into adjacent lands which may result in the edges of the vegetation adjacent to the fuel break having increased colonization of invasive species.
This project contributes to cumulative impacts moderately and long term by increasing the extent and abundance of non-native plant species within the cumulative effects analysis area. Overall, the increase in invasive species is anticipated to be localized, minor (confined to the ridgetop) and long term. However, design criteria in Chapter 2 have been designed to reduce weed spread and long-term impacts for some weed species. Specifically, these features would result in eradication of some existing invasive nonnative plant species as well as the control and prevention of the spread of some invasive nonnative plant species. Though widespread invasive nonnative plant species are expected to expand as a result of project implementation, adjacent mature chaparral vegetation may contain/control further weed expansion from spreading to untreated areas that are not dissected by dispersal vectors.
Compliance with Forest Plan & Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies & Plans Alternatives 1 and 2 meet applicable Forest Land and Resource Management Plan goals, standards and guidelines (LMP, Part 2, IS 1 & FH2/FH3; LMP, Part 3, S37 and Monitoring of Design Criteria; USDA 2005). These Alternatives are also consistent with the National Strategy and Implementation Plan for Invasive Species Management (USDA 2001) and applicable Forest Service Manual Direction (FSM 2900; USDA 2011. Plants
Introduction This section provides an analysis of conditions and potential effects of the proposed activities on all federally listed threatened, endangered, proposed, and Forest Service Sensitive (FSS) botanical species that are known to occur, or have the potential to occur within the project area.
No species listed under the ESA have the potential to occur in the project area and no suitable habitat for federally-listed species has been identified. One Forest Service Sensitive (FSS) species (Tecate cypress) has been identified in the project area, and six FSS species (Plummer’s mariposa lily, intermediate mariposa lily, long-spined spineflower, heart-leaved pitcher sage, Hall’s monardella, and Santiago Peak phacelia) have been acknowledged as having marginal to suitable habitat in the project area. The botanical species considered in this document are FSS and are identified in the affected environment section.
50
• Plummer’s mariposa lily • Intermediate mariposa lily • Long-spined spineflower • Tecate cypress • Heart-leaved pitcher sage • Hall’s monardella • Santiago Peak phacelia
Analysis Area The treatment area is the boundary for the analysis area. The cumulative effects analysis area is bounded spatially by Highway 74 to the south and the boundary of the Santa Ana ranges to the north. The temporal boundary for the cumulative effects analysis is 30 years because the majority of native vegetation types in the proposed project area are adapted to recover from natural disturbance events in this time period (Minnich and Chou 1997).
Management Direction The following direction is from the CNF Land Management Plan (USDA 2005) and is specific to the botanical resource. Additional direction is in the Plan, ESA and Forest Service Handbooks/Manuals. • Manage habitat to move listed species toward recovery and de-listing. Prevent listing of proposed and sensitive species (LMP Part I, page 87).
Affected Environment Eight dominant vegetation types occur within the proposed treatment area and are displayed in the vegetation table in the fires and fuels section. Sites supporting mature vegetation ranged from 60-90% canopy cover, with occasional rock outcrops, though the vegetation is generally very dense, covering some of the rock outcrops. Historical fuel break portions of the proposed project area supported sparse, herbaceous vegetation with occasional regenerating shrub species. Invasive plant species are limited in extent to disturbed sites, where vegetation is open and shrub canopy cover is largely lacking. Thirteen invasive nonnative plant species were observed in the proposed treatment areas in 2011. Please see the invasive plant section for more information on invasive species and existing vegetative conditions.
Prior to field surveys of the project area, the following information sources were reviewed:
• Jepson Manual Online (Hickman 1993 and UC Berkeley 2012). • Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants online (CNPS 2010) to determine which species would occur within the elevation and habitat parameters of the project area. • CNF TES GIS corporate database (NRIS 2011) and soil and vegetation GIS layers. • Consortium of California Herbaria (2010) (http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/). • California Department of Fish and Game’s (CDFG) California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), Rare Find 3 (CDFG 2010), records of plant species occurrences for the Silverado Fuel Break project area. • Communication with Cleveland National Forest Botanist, Lisa Young, regarding the potential for occurrence of listed species in the project area.
51 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
Based on the pre-field review, it was determined that surveys for Forest Service Sensitive (FSS) species would be required for this project. Field visits to the project area occurred in 2011 and 2012. Surveys were general initially, followed up with intuitive control survey methods. Past surveys in and near the project area have been conducted by Forest Service staff in 2004 and 2009 with no threatened, endangered, and/or sensitive (TES) plant species found. Some survey limitations existed due to the thickness of the chaparral and steep slopes in portions of the project area.
No suitable habitat in the project area exists for any federally listed threatened or endangered species. Habitat for Forest Service Sensitive species (FSS) was found in the project area for seven plant species. Tecate cypress was the only FSS plant species found within the project area. The occurrence consisted of two individuals in close proximity of each other. The project record includes a list of the ten federally endangered and fifty Forest Service Sensitive plant species found on the CNF and a summary of their suitable habitat in relation to the project area.
The potential for project effects was determined based upon the probability of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects related to the proposed activities. The viability threat determination was based upon the potential for proposed activities to threaten a species’ ability to maintain and/or increase its population. Based upon results from field surveys, the project site contains suitable habitat for the following FSS plant species that are carried forward in this analysis. Table 17- Forest Service Sensitive (FSS) Plant Species Habitat in the Project Area Species Habitat Presence Information Plummer’s Rocky and sandy sites in meadows, Species has general habitat preferences. Habitat mariposa lily chaparral, valley and foothill characteristics of this species are present in project grassland, cismontane woodland, area. No individuals were observed. and lower montane coniferous Closest known occurrences within 5 miles north of forest. project (Black Star Canyon), south of Modjeska in Vulture Crags area, and Lower Trabuco Canyon. Intermediate Inhabits dry, open rocky slopes in Species has general habitat preferences. Habitat mariposa lily chaparral and coastal scrub. characteristics are present in project area. No individuals were observed during surveys. Closest known population within a mile north of project area in Santiago Peak area. Long-spined Occurs in gabbroic clay areas of Suitable habitat occurs within the project area. No spineflower chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and individuals were during surveys. valley and foothill grasslands. Also Closest known occurrence 7 miles northeast of found at edges of vernal pools in project area in Lake Mathews area. grasslands and meadows. Tecate cypress Occurs on mesic east- or north- Two individuals identified in the project area in facing slopes and grows in alkaline, 2011 and 2012. clay soils derived from ultramafic Closest known population is 8 miles to northwest gabbroic rocks or metavolcanics. of project area. Heart-leaved Occurs in closed-cone coniferous Suitable habitat occurs at higher elevations of pitcher sage forests, chaparral and cismontane project area. No individuals were identified during woodlands. Taxon may be a fire surveys. follower. Closest known species is 2 miles to the north of the project area. Hall’s Occupies dry slopes and ridges in Surveys identified marginally suitable habitat monardella openings in chaparral, broadleaf characteristic of this species present in project area. upland forest, cismontane No individuals were identified during surveys. woodland, and lower montane Closest known populations are located from 0.5 coniferous forest. mi. to 2 miles south and east of the project area.
52
Species Habitat Presence Information Santiago Peak Occurs on stream alluvium, Species has general habitat preferences and species phacelia volcanic soils, and other open sites habitat characteristics present in project area. No within chaparral and knobcone pine individuals were observed during surveys. stands and is seen in greatest Closest known populations are 0.6 to 2 miles from abundance following fires. project area.
Environmental Consequences The following assumptions were considered for this analysis: • Design criteria for sensitive species would reduce potential indirect impacts to a negligible to minor level. • Suitable habitat identified during pre-field review and field reconnaissance is assumed to be unoccupied, especially for the larger conspicuous perennials. However, some suitable habitat could be potentially occupied by less obvious annual species, even though no individuals were found during field surveys. The ability to analyze past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions and/or project impacts on special status plant species is limited to: • The available documentation on the type of treatments proposed and the disclosed impacts on FSS plant species. • The available location data and known ranges for the FSS plant species and their habitat being analyzed.
Direct, Indirect & Cumulative Effects
Alternative 1 & 2 – Direct, Indirect & Cumulative Effects Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species No known federal threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate plant species have habitat in the project area. No critical habitat for any known threatened and endangered species exists in or adjacent to the project area. There would be no effects on any threatened or endangered species or its designated critical habitat.
Alternative 1 – Direct & Indirect Effects- FSS The potential exists that the no action alternative could have passive indirect impacts to FSS species or their habitat, including two known Tecate cypresses and their habitat and six FSS plant species with marginal to suitable habitat. Passive indirect impacts are possible from the risk of larger and/or more severe wildfire effects occurring in the vicinity or spreading onto or through the project area. It is expected that without the proposed action, an increased risk of larger wildfires exists. It is expected that the effects of larger and/or more severe wildfires are somewhat more likely with the no action alternative; yet no alternative can fully eliminate these risks. No direct effects are expected for the FSS plant species considered in this analysis.
Alternative 1 – Cumulative Effects- FSS Over the long term, the passive indirect effect of not reestablishing the fuel break could be large- scale alteration of habitat due to large wildfires. Habitat within the fuel break could be damaged if the area is used or altered for fire control lines like dozer lines. If this occurs, the habitat quality found along the fuel break would be reduced for all analyzed sensitive species and this effect would persist for at least 5 to 10 years or potentially up to approximately 30 years (Minnich and
53 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
Chou 1997). No short-term effects are anticipated with this alternative. Selection of this alternative may contribute to cumulative effects if the unmaintained fuel break results in larger fires in the future.
Alternative 1 – Summary of Effects- FSS With implementation of this no action alternative, there would be no direct effects. There is the potential for passive indirect effects from increased wildfire severity or size within the cumulative impacts analysis area for the species under analysis. Due to the potential for indirect effects, selection of the no action alternative could contribute slightly to cumulative effects from increased wildfire size or severity in the analysis area.
Alternative 2 – Direct & Indirect Effects- FSS No direct effects are anticipated for any known occurrences of the species being considered in this analysis. Flag and avoid design criteria prevent direct impacts to the known occurrence of Tecate cypress. Project specific surveys may not have found all FSS plants; therefore, there is the possibility of direct effects occurring to currently unknown occurrences. Proposed project-related actions may disturb potential habitat of the species within the project footprint.
Potential indirect effects exist in terms of disturbance to potential habitat for the FSS species considered in this analysis. Species occur in multiple habitat types (see preceding table in this section). Some habitat types and species characteristics are considered more or less resilient to potential impacts from the proposed action. Commonalities exist between species and habitat characteristics that may result in similar intensity and likelihood of impacts. Following are the ranges of potential impacts to suitable habitat that could result from project activities and the altered processes or conditions (indirect effects) that may occur due to project activities.
Impacts from a reduction in canopy cover resulting from project activities (i.e., cutting, masticating, removing, and/or consumption/burning of overstory and understory plants, and/or the changing in fuel profile (mastication and piling before removal)) would cause a reduction in shrub or tree canopy cover. The altered process or conditions that may occur due to the reduction in canopy cover are:
• Increased solar radiation • Reduced fuel loading (amount of vegetation) • Increased recreational access • Increased biomass/fuel on the ground • Reduced probability of high severity fire The effects from these resulting conditions could include beneficial effects such as increased suitable habitat due to the creation of openings. FSS plants such as intermediate mariposa lily, Plummer’s mariposa lily, and heart-leaved pitcher sage are known to often follow disturbance and could benefit from more open conditions and existing rocky and sandy sites. Adverse effects to suitable habitat could occur with increased biomass on the ground, or where site suitability is reduced for species that may require the microclimatic influences of shade, moisture, and/or ground cover.
The proposed activities would likely have a beneficial or neutral effect on species that do well in openings by maintaining the presence of this habitat feature in the project area. Under normal conditions (not altered by humans), chaparral would burn at 25 year intervals or longer, allowing
54
fewer opportunities for some fire-following species (or those that need bigger openings) to emerge. The proposed activities include a more frequent vegetation clearing process, so some species may benefit, depending on the potential invasive plant competition for resources during the recovery/regrowth years.
Where species could occupy potentially suitable habitat that currently has a shrub component, impacts to occurrences within this habitat would likely have greater, adverse effects as this habitat constituent would be reduced by 70 to 90 percent by the proposed action.
Impacts from an introduction or expansion of invasive nonnative plants: Removing and burning vegetation creates opportunities for invasive plants to establish. Project activities, such as mastication, burning, line cutting, and piling could result in the introduction or expansion of invasive nonnative plant populations. The altered processes or conditions that may occur due to the introduction or expansion of invasive nonnative plants are:
• Alteration of the biomass structure and fuels profile • Competition with native vegetation for resources (i.e. nutrients, water, light, space) • Allelopathy/Toxicity • Changes in soil biota • Changes in nitrogen cycling • Alteration of hydrologic regimes • Alteration of the successional pathways (reversion of vegetation to early successional stages, changes in species composition, potential increased vulnerability to disturbance events). The probable increase in nonnative invasive plants within the fuel break after one or more fuel break maintenance activities is likely to have some adverse indirect effects on all FSS plant species and habitat, in terms of changes to sustainability given that most available resources (i.e., space, water, etc.) could be used or consumed by nonnative invasive plants. The prevalence of nonnative invasive plants on the Silverado Fuel Break is currently at a moderate level (see the invasive plant species section).
Impacts from fire consumed vegetation, litter, and duff: Some prescribed/broadcast and pile burning activities would consume vegetation, litter, and duff. The altered process or conditions that may occur due to consumed vegetation, litter, and duff are:
• Consumption of litter and duff (creation of bare soil) • Release of nutrients • Stimulation of seed bank Potential for beneficial and adverse effects to suitable habitat from these impacts exist. Beneficial effects would include an increase in habitat suitability due to increases in nutritional resources. Both beneficial and adverse effects could occur from nutrient release and seed bank stimulation, depending on if the plants were native or nonnative and how well they compete for site resources. The shrub and tree species (heart-leaved pitcher sage and Tecate cypress) are native components of some chaparral ecosystems, as well as other vegetation types.
Impacts from soil disturbance: Project activities, such as fireline construction, mastication, access/egress paths, and pile burning would result in soil disturbance. The altered processes or conditions that may occur due to soil disturbance are:
55 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
• Creation of bare soil • Scarification of seeds • Disruption of mycorrhizal networks Impacts from soil compaction: Project activities, such as mastication, piling vegetation, and fireline construction could result in soil compaction. The altered processes or conditions that may occur due to soil compaction are:
• Soil structure changes reducing infiltration • Pore space in soil profile decreased • Crushing of underground plant parts Impacts from soil heating: Some prescribed/broadcast and pile burning activities would result in soil heating. The altered processes or conditions that may occur due to soil heating are:
• Lethal heating of the seed bank • Lethal heating of underground plant parts • Heat scarification of the seed bank • Lethal heating of soil microbes • Hydrophobic soil resulting in reduced infiltration and/or soil erosion • Loss of soil organic matter Effects from soil related impacts are divided into two categories, reduced or increased species vigor and lost or gained habitat suitability. Project impacts to soil affect species habitat with outcomes in multiple adverse and limited beneficial effects.
Five of the seven analyzed plant species are perennial. Many perennial plants have evolved to withstand some extreme conditions in their environment, such as hot and dry or saturated and freezing conditions. For this project, the two lily species, Hall’s monardella, heart-leaved pitcher sage and the cypress trees all have adaptations to help some individuals survive disturbance (limb/leaf breakage) or normal ecosystem process in Mediterranean climates, such as wildfire and floods. Therefore, the habitat of the five perennial plants should be able to withstand such environmental processes and be considered suitable quality habitat. Some of these natural processes would be mimicked by the proposed fuel management actions, such as prescribed fire, pile burning, and cutting (fire control lines and mastication), but with a potentially more frequent or intense (higher heat, more cutting) cycle than natural processes.
Annual plants can be more vulnerable to environmental fluctuations than perennials, and annuals are dependent upon good seed production, available space, and other resources for the subsequent population’s survival. The annual long-spined spineflower and the Santiago Peak phacelia and their habitat may be more vulnerable to similar environmental fluctuations than the perennial plants. This is unknown, as other plant attributes such as seed bank viability may assist in annual population heath. Annual plants have evolved with natural processes as mentioned for perennial plants. However, these species’ evolution probably occurred under conditions where: larger communities were intact; populations were potentially spatially connected; and population fluctuations were more resilient compared to the currently documented occurrences that are spatially separate and affected by widening human activities.
During fuel break maintenance, design criteria stipulate that the Tecate cypress individuals would be avoided so they are protected from direct fire, heat, cutting, and limbing; therefore, no direct
56
effects are expected. (Note that Tecate cypress communities are fire-maintained given their serotinous cones and need for bare soil for germination.). See Chapter 2 design criteria for a discussion of why an adaptive management strategy may be more applicable than an avoidance strategy at some time in the future, largely due to known occurrences of two individuals in the project area. Suitable habitat for the cypress is likely to be affected by indirect effects similar to those for the other six species, as summarized below.
The intensity and likelihood of impacts to potentially occupied suitable habitat would vary based on the season and frequency of treatment and factors such as sprout or seedling viability, available moisture, and competition for resources. The design criteria are intended to protect individual known or newly discovered occurrences of FSS or newly identified federally threatened or endangered plant species; therefore, impacts are reduced to little or no effect to individual species, and of negligible to minor effects to their habitat.
In summary, the species under analysis (Plummer’s mariposa lily, intermediate mariposa lily, long-spined spineflower, Tecate cypress, heart-leaved pitcher sage, Hall’s monardella, and Santiago Peak phacelia) and the two individual Tecate cypresses are likely to experience no direct effects from the proposed action with the implementation of design criteria found in Chapter 2. Their habitat would experience direct effects because of impacts to soil, changes in vegetative species composition and plant community structure including canopy cover. Competition for resources would increase, especially by nonnative plants.
Alternative 2 – Summary of Direct & Indirect Effects- FSS Suitable habitat for the species under analysis are likely to experience direct and indirect effects that are both beneficial and adverse, of short-term and long-term duration, negligible to minor intensity, and within a localized context by the proposed action. The reasoning for this summary of effects is similar to the cumulative effects summary below. The potential for positive effects exists due to FSS plant habitat protection from frequent wildfires and/or higher fire severity patch sizes and related second order effects (ex. erosion). This is due to firefighter ability to utilize the reestablished fuel break during suppression activities.
Alternative 2 – Cumulative Effects- FSS Events, projects, and their impacts were considered based upon whether or not they interact synergistically with the proposed activities. Projects and activities considered in this cumulative effects analysis are found in the introduction section of Chapter 3 and in the nonnative invasive plant section (i.e. fuel reduction activities, fire history, non-project vectors). Additionally, other larger scale impacts, such as pollution, development, and climate change were considered in a more general sense as quantifying their impacts on such a small project is not feasible.
Activities and events would likely result in an increase in cumulative vegetation type conversion and an increase in invasive nonnative plant species in the cumulative effects analysis area. The proposed project contributes cumulatively to actions which increase invasive nonnative species distribution and abundance. It is difficult to quantify how many acres would be impacted in the long term; however, it is expected that projects with multiple entries would have reduced capacity for recovery to pre-treatment canopy cover conditions and native species ratios. Additionally, longer lasting nonnative plant populations would occur or persist which negatively impact FSS plant species habitat in the project area.
In summary, this alternative contributes to long-term changes in vegetation structure resulting in impacts to FSS plant habitat within most of the project area. When project impacts are
57 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
summarized to synergistically interact with other projects and events, the indirect cumulative effects would be:
• Short to long term duration due to: project implementation occurring over 10 years; other projects in the vicinity occurring at multiple implementation stages/timeframes; and mature chaparral habitat needing up to 30 years to recover potentially affecting some FSS plants that live in chaparral habitat. • Negligible to minor intensity based on existing impacts in the project area and adjacent areas from past land and fire management activities and well as the proposed treatments; therefore, cumulatively some FSS plant habitat could have no perceptible effect while some habitat would be perceptibly or measurably affected. • Localized context due to the size of the project area and in relationship to the FSS plants’ habitat range. • Adverse due to potential loss of native habitat and increased or continued competition by nonnative invasive plants.
Determination of Effects There is no suitable habitat for any federally listed plant species in the project area. Therefore, the proposed project would not affect any threatened, endangered, proposed or candidate species, or any designated critical habitat. The following table provides a determination for the FSS plant species in the project area with the incorporated design criteria mentioned in Chapter 2. Table 18- Determination of Effects for Plant Species in the Project Area Alt 1 – Alt 2 – Proposed Forest Service Sensitive Plant Species No Action Action
Plummer’s mariposa lily
Intermediate mariposa lily May affect Long-spined spineflower habitat, but is not No Effect likely to lead Tecate cypress towards a trend in federal listing Heart-leaved pitcher sage Hall’s monardella Santiago Peak phacelia
Compliance with Forest Plan & Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies & Plans Alternatives 1 and 2 meet and/or are consistent with applicable USFS and CNF Land and Resource Management Plan goals, standards and guidelines (FSM 2670 and 2901.03, LMP Part 2 WL-1 p. 87; LMP Part 3 S-11 and S-37 p. 6-8; USDA 2005).
58
Scenery
Introduction This section provides an analysis of scenery as a manageable resource using the Scenery Management System (SMS). SMS provides a systematic approach for determining the relative value and importance of scenery. This process is documented in Agricultural Handbook 701- Landscape Aesthetics, and is described in the scenery section of the project record.
The project area lies in close proximity to the National Forest boundary. It is visible from most parts along Harding Road and the Silverado hiking trail. Additionally, the project area is part of the scenic backdrop for surrounding residential neighborhoods, parks and recreation areas. The low, dense chaparral vegetation and light colored soil accentuate the landscape.
Methodology Impacts on scenic resources were assessed by determining the potential for change to the views of landscape scenery. Key components of the assessment include Landscape Character goals, Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) and predictions of potential effects on scenery for each alternative evaluated. The existing Landscape Character serves as a baseline from which to judge deviation in a landscape.
Information used to conduct this analysis included onsite inventory and ground reconnaissance; Southern California Forest Plan GIS data; field observations and discussions with Forest Fire Management personnel to review key issues, management strategies and inventory requirements; mapped data; Google Earth, and aerial photography.
Analysis Area The analysis area for direct and indirect effects includes the landscape within and immediately adjacent to the project area boundary. The spatial boundary of the cumulative effects analysis consists of fuel breaks within Trabuco Ranger District. The spatial boundary has been constructed in this manner because the Trabuco Ranger District, including this project, is an isolated district surrounded by urbanized landscapes and has numerous fuels management projects within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). The temporal boundary for this analysis is: short term (effects last 3 years or less) and long term (effects last over 3 years).
Management Direction The Cleveland National Forest LMP (Part 3, Page 6) defines Aesthetic Management Standards as:
• S9: Design management activities to meet the Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO). • S10: Scenic Integrity Objectives will be met with the following exceptions: Minor adjustments, not to exceed a drop of one SIO level, are allowable with the Forest Supervisor’s approval. Temporary drops of more than one SIO level may be made during and immediately following project implementation providing they do not exceed three years in duration. Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO) are designated in the LMP. This project area is located in an area with a High SIO. Small areas with a Moderate SIO designation are scattered in the vicinity of the project area but not within the project area.
To ensure consistency with the LMP, the project would be designed and implemented to preserve the scenic integrity of the project area through blending and visually integrating the fuel break
59 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
into the larger landscape. Scenic integrity refers to the alteration of the landscape created by human activities. Integrity is stated in degrees of change from the existing landscape character.
Desired Landscape Character and Condition The Silverado Place and the Elsinore Place are some of the most visible landscapes on the national forest and are maintained as a natural appearing urban backdrop for Orange and Riverside Counties, respectively. The valued landscape attributes to be preserved over time are the undeveloped quality and character of the urban backdrop, and areas viewed from canyon communities including woodland plant habitats and the native vegetative communities of the upland slopes. Program emphasis is on maintaining the natural appearance of the urban backdrop while increasing fire prevention efforts, community outreach, recreation access, and maintaining a road network that supports the demand for scenic driving with canyon-woodland views (LMP, Part 2, pages 39, 60).
Affected Environment Introduction: The project area is located on the north end of the National Forest in Trabuco Ranger District, south and east of Silverado, CA. The Forest is divided into geographical units called “Places.” Approximately 65 percent of the project area is located within the Silverado Place, and approximately 35 percent is located in the neighboring Elsinore Place. Within the Silverado Place, the project area follows an east-west ridgeline between Silverado Canyon and Harding Canyon, and continues northward along the ridgeline into the Santa Ana Mountains of Elsinore Place.
The Silverado Place is a canyon lands backdrop for millions of southern Orange County residents. The Place is characterized by canyon communities, open-space links to surrounding communities, and trail-based recreation. The northwest slopes of the Santa Ana Mountains are dominant features within the landscape. The Elsinore Place includes the east-facing slopes of the Santa Ana Mountains and is almost entirely surrounded by urban development. Both Places are characterized by steep slopes, with elevations ranging from 1,200 feet near communities to over 5,600 feet at Santiago Peak (LMP, Part 2, pages 36-39, 58-60).
Existing Landscape Character and Condition: Landscape character expresses an overall impression of the physical appearance and cultural context of a landscape. Landscape character describes the visual effect and cultural significance that give the landscape an identity and makes it unique. The existing landscape character of the project area is influenced by relatively high levels of precipitation in the Silverado Place which create opportunities for riparian habitats such as oak, ash, bigleaf maple and bay laurel. The headwaters of Silverado’s canyons contain the greatest concentrations of bigcone Douglas-fir in the Santa Ana Mountains. In the Elsinore Place, the landscape character consists of a mixed chaparral vegetative pattern on steep slopes with dense low scrub on north slopes and drainages, and more open grassland on ridgelines. The higher elevations in both Places support stands of knobcone pine, particularly in serpentine outcrops. Non-native plant species and remnants of native Coulter pine plantations occur within the project area.
Both Places are important day-use areas for the surrounding communities. Popular activities include hiking, mountain biking, and OHV use along forest roads. Motorized access to the project area is possible along Maple Springs Road. Non-motorized use is popular along Harding Road and the Silverado Truck Trail.
60
A fire road used for recreation and administrative access runs through most of the project area along the ridgeline. The hard, straight edges of an existing fuel break can be seen in some areas, but neither the road nor the fuel break is dominant in the landscape. Evidence of the 2007 Santiago Fire, such as blackened tree trunks, still linger on north-facing slopes, although much vegetation has grown back. Regional haze associated with urbanization, agriculture and seasonal fuel management activities occasionally obscures or limits visibility of the area as seen from surrounding communities beyond the Forest boundary.
This kind of landscape character tends to emphasize alterations in the landscape, due to the dispersed trees, low shrub cover, visibility of the topography and the light color of the soils. However, as evidenced by the speed of growth since the 2007 Santiago Fire, this vegetation also tends to have quick regrowth and these landscapes can recover quickly from landscape changes. The larger landscape mainly appears unaltered or slightly altered with the appearance of straight lines from the remnants of the old fuel break and road cuts along slopes. This is consistent with a High to Moderate Scenic Integrity level.
Viewsheds and Key Viewpoints: Viewsheds are visible portions of the landscape seen from viewpoints. Viewpoints were identified, documented and included as part of this inventory. Each viewpoint was evaluated based on levels of screening by topography, vegetation, and/or development blocking the direct view of the project area. Viewshed visibility was determined by the edge conditions of viewpoint locations. Edge conditions are described as screened, partially screened or open conditions. A screened edge condition would block views of the project area. Partial screening occurs where there are dispersed patterns of vegetation and/or development. Open edge conditions lack any screening.
Visibility levels for the Cleveland NF were established in the 2005 LMP scenery analysis process and verified by field observation in March 2012. Travelways and use areas were identified within the proximity of the project area, and their concern levels and distance zones documented in the table below. The identified travelways and use areas are either prominent or slightly prominent with regard to their Concern Levels, and are approximately 40 percent foreground, and 60 percent middleground viewsheds. The project area is not visible from background views.
The table below displays a summary of the viewsheds evaluated for visibility. Key viewpoints were selected to best represent critical views from the identified travelways and use areas. Table 19- Project Area Key Viewpoints Travelways & Distance Visibility Use Areas Zone*/ Concern Level Highway 241 Mg/2 Screened
Silverado Road Mg/1 Partially Screened to Screened
Maple Springs Fg/1 Open to Partially Screened in higher Road (5S04) elevations, Screened in lower elevations
Silverado Truck Fg/2 Open to Partially Screened in higher Trail (5S05) elevations, Screened in lower elevations
61 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
Travelways & Distance Visibility Use Areas Zone*/ Concern Level Williams Canyon Fg/1 Partially Screened to Screened
Harding Canyon Fg/1 Partially Screened to Screened
Harding Road Mg /1 Open to Partially Screened (5S08)
Silverado Trail Mg/1 Open *Mg=Middleground & Fg=Foreground
Direct, Indirect & Cumulative Effects Introduction: Potential change in Scenic Integrity was assessed and impacts to scenery resources were analyzed from the key viewpoints. The key viewpoints represent critical views from travelways and use areas with High concern levels. The following table identifies the potential for change in the Scenic Integrity of the existing landscape character in relationship to the no action and action alternative. Table 20- Scenic Integrity Alternative Information
Scenic Integrity Level**
Viewpoint Visibility* SIO Proposed Proposed No Action/ Action Action Existing (After (1-3 years) 3 years)
Silverado Road Mg1 High High High High A
B Silverado Truck Trail Fg2 High High Moderate High
C Harding Road Mg1 High High-Moderate Moderate High
Intersection of Harding D Road & Maple Spring Fg1 High Moderate Moderate High Road
E Maple Springs Road Fg1 High High High High
Silverado Motorway F Mg1 High High Moderate High Hiking Trail
*Viewing distance/Concern Level (Mg=Middleground, Fg=Foreground)
62
**Scenic Integrity Level of the project area as see from key viewpoints. Moderate=landscape appears to be slightly altered. High=landscape appears unaltered.
Alternative 1- Direct and Indirect Effects If there is no action taken and the proposed fuel reduction project does not take place, the direct effect to existing landscape character associated with the project area would be neutral, consisting of a gradual filling in of vegetation over time. Other than this, there would be no foreseeable change to the future landscape character and therefore no known change in future Scenic Integrity of the project area from current conditions. Therefore, there are no direct effects associated with this alternative.
If this alternative is selected and no fuels reduction occurs, potential indirect effects to the landscape character would include the potential loss of vegetation and land scarring associated with a wildfire. This alternative could potentially be more damaging to the landscape character of the project area because of the risk associated within the natural ecosystem fire regime. The fuel buildup can result in an unmanaged wildfire that could potentially destroy existing trees and plants, leaving behind blackened vegetation and scared earth. This kind of fire can dramatically change the vegetation composition of the forest, resulting in scenery with a negative appearance for many years.
Alternative 1- Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects include an analysis of fire breaks within the Trabuco Ranger District. The area of cumulative effects was bounded in this manner to include the fuels management projects within the WUI. Cumulative effects include the aggregate of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. If the No Action Alternative is selected, cumulative effects would include a heightened potential for a high intensity wildfire spreading within the respective project area location. This could have a negative effect on scenic resources on forest lands at a regional level, lasting many years into the future.
Alternative 2- Direct and Indirect Effects Proposed fuel treatment and vegetation management for the Silverado Fuel Break project area would include a combination of mechanical and hand treatments, prescribed burning, and hand piling and burning.
Effects to scenery directly resulting from Alternative 2 (the proposed action) include the visual reduction in vegetation. The linear character of the fuel break has the potential to impact Scenic Integrity by inserting a highly visible, unnatural appearing line into the landscape. Slash piles and stumps would be highly visible to hikers and mountain bikers who use the road because of the close distance, low chaparral vegetation, steep slopes, and the light colored soil. Additional direct effects include the mosaic of blackened vegetation and earth associated with prescribed burning that would contrast with the undisturbed setting.
These impacts would temporarily accentuate the evidence of human activity. However, the quick regrowth potential of the characteristic vegetation would speed the healing of the disturbance, and it would not be dominant within three growing seasons.
With implementation of the design criteria (see Chapter 2), the Proposed Action would have a long-term neutral to positive impact to the existing landscape character. The design criteria would help visually blend management activities into the characteristic landscape. Scenic Integrity would be maintained or improved by easing the edges of the fuel break into the characteristic
63 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
landscape and increasing visual diversity in form and texture. Overall, from some key viewpoints, the Scenic Integrity level may drop to a Moderate level in the short term, but a High Scenic Integrity level, as established by the LMP, would be achieved in the long term.
Indirect effects of the fuel break treatments include assisting the ability of fire personnel to mobilize and control threatening wildfires, which would aid in the overall preservation of the characteristic landscape. Reestablishment of the fuel break would aid in securing the health, safety, and welfare of neighboring communities.
Alternative 2- Cumulative Effects The Proposed Action Alternative cumulative effects analysis for scenery resources include an analysis of fire breaks within the Trabuco Ranger District. The area of cumulative effects was bounded in this manner to include the fuels management projects within the WUI. Cumulative effects include the aggregate of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The Silverado Fuel Break belongs to a strategic system of fuel breaks within the WUI. Current and foreseeable actions in the vicinity include the reestablishment of various other fuel breaks and vegetation management projects as identified in the introduction section of Chapter 3.
Past, present and foreseeable actions would have potentially similar impacts as the Proposed Action and could possibly magnify the initial impact of the Scenic Integrity of the area because of their close proximities. However, within two to three years, the vegetation would be restored from the low intensity fire to the desired landscape condition. Additionally, the cumulative effect of fire prevention treatments would reduce the risk of another high intensity wildfire such as the 2007 Santiago Fire and the 1987 Silverado Fire, both of which burned within the project area.
Compliance with Forest Plan & Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies & Plans If the No Action Alternative, Alternative 1, is selected there would be no immediate change to the scenery resources of the project area. The scenic resource of the project area would continue to appear largely unaltered, with some slightly altered areas, due to the noticeable straight lines from existing road cuts and the former fuel break. This gives the area a scenic integrity level of High- Moderate, which is slightly below the Scenic Integrity Objective of High, prescribed by the LMP. Additionally, there would be an increased risk of high severity wildfire resulting in the long-term loss of the existing landscape character and an even lower level of scenic integrity. Program emphasis as prescribed in the LMP for the project area calls for maintaining the natural appearance of the urban backdrop while increasing fire prevention efforts, improving community protection and defensible space. This would not be achieved by implementing this alternative.
If the Proposed Action, Alternative 2, is selected, the short-term changes in the landscape character would have a minimal impact on the existing Scenic Integrity of the project area. Additionally, long-term effects would maintain the landscape’s scenic integrity of High, and improve areas from Moderate to High. Design criteria would assure that the outcome of the Proposed Action complies with the Aesthetic Management Standards contained in the LMP. The Proposed Action would modify the existing condition of the vegetation in the short term, but would create a natural appearing landscape and improve Scenic Integrity in the long term.
According to the LMP Aesthetic Management Standards, management activities shall be designed to meet the Scenic Integrity Objectives with the following exceptions:
• Minor adjustments, not to exceed a drop of one SIO level, are allowable with the Forest Supervisor’s approval.
64
• Temporary drops of more than one SIO level may be made during and immediately following project implementation providing they do not exceed three years in duration. With the implementation of the design criteria outlined in Chapter 2, the scenic integrity of the project area is expected to be maintained or improved, approaching the prescribed SIO of High within three years; thus, complying with the management direction as established in the LMP. Wildlife
Introduction This section provides an analysis of the biological effects of the proposed activities on all federally listed threatened, endangered, proposed, Forest Service sensitive wildlife species (TEPSC) and Management Indicator Species (MIS) identified in the LMP (LMP Part 1, page 45) that are known to occur, or have the potential to occur within the project area. No comments specific to wildlife were brought forward through the public scoping process.
Methodology The following sources were reviewed to determine which species had the potential to occur within the project area:
• Southern California Biodiversity Wildlife Species Accounts; • California Department of Fish and Game’s (CDFG) California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) (CDFG 2004a) records of wildlife species occurrences; • Cleveland NF biological Geographic Information System (GIS) layers (USDA Forest Service 2012) containing occurrence data for California spotted owls and other wildlife species that have been documented to occur in the area; • Site reconnaissance in April 2010. Five species (California spotted owl, San Diego horned lizard, coastal rosy boa, San Diego mountain kingsnake and pallid bat) were determined to have the potential to occur within the project area and were carried forward in this analysis. Three MIS (mountain lion, mule deer and California spotted owl) were also determined to have suitable habitat in the project area and were carried forward in this analysis.
Analysis Area The spatial boundary for direct and indirect effects is the project area. The spatial boundary for the cumulative effects analysis extends beyond the project area and is defined as follows: the northern boundary follows a portion of the Main Divide Trail along an unnamed ridgeline north of Silverado Canyon; the southern boundary follows Harding Road which also follows an unnamed ridgeline south of Harding Canyon; the western boundary follows the portion of Santiago Creek that flows south to north; and the eastern boundary is one mile east between Orange and Riverside counties.
The temporal boundary for direct and indirect effects is the life of the project. The temporal boundary for cumulative effects analysis is seven years, two years longer than the life of the project and includes enough time for some vegetation to become reestablished. Though impacts are likely to extend beyond this period of time, more than seven years is beyond the scope of what can be meaningfully analyzed, with the exception of a general discussion on impacts of climate change, population growth and pollution.
65 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
Affected Environment There is no suitable habitat for any threatened, endangered, proposed or candidate species in the project area. There is suitable habitat for five Forest Service sensitive species (California spotted owl, San Diego coast horned lizard, coastal rosy boa, San Diego mountain kingsnake, and pallid bat). There is also suitable habitat for three MIS species (mountain lion, mule deer and California spotted owl).
Eight dominant vegetation types occur within the proposed treatment area (see table below) The dominant vegetation type is primarily characterized by chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), hoaryleaf ceanothus (Ceanothus crassifolius), scrub oak (Quercus berberidifolia), interior live oak (Q. wislizeni) and manzanita (Arctostaphylos sp.), but also includes laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), sugar bush (Rhus ovata), mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), and heartleaf keckiella (Keckiella cordifolia). Table 21- Vegetation Types & Acreages in Project Area Footprint Treatment Dominant Vegetation Type Acres
Big Cone Douglas Fir 0.9
Canyon Live Oak 1.4 Hand Cut, Pile and Chamise 4.6 Broadcast Burn Lower Montane Mixed Chaparral 59
Scrub Oak 0.8
Barren 10
Big Cone Douglas Fir 6.3
Buckwheat 1.8
Masticate, Broadcast Canyon Live Oak 15.4 Burn Chamise 1.9
Coulter Pine 2.2
Lower Montane Mixed Chaparral 125
Scrub Oak 12.3
*Vegetation types and acres based on Eveg 2011 Regional Dominance Type 1 GIS data.
Sites supporting mature vegetation ranged from 60-90 percent canopy cover, with occasional rock outcrops, though the vegetation was generally very dense, covering some of the rock outcrops. Previously treated portions of the proposed project area support sparse, herbaceous vegetation with occasional regenerating shrub species. Invasive species are limited in extent to disturbed sites, where vegetation is open and shrub canopy cover is largely lacking. Invasive species observed in the proposed treatment units include: wild oats (Avena species), ripgut (Bromus diandrus), soft chess (Bromus hordaceus), cheat grass (Bromus tectorum), Italian plumeless
66
thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), tocolate (Centaurea melitensis), artichoke thistle (Cynara cardunculus), shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), smilograss (Piptatherum miliaceum) and rattail fescue (Vulpia myuros).
Desired Condition & Management Direction The LMP (Part 2, Pages 87-90, Strategy, WL 1/WL-2) provides guidance for Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate species management which states:
• Manage habitat to move listed species toward recovery and de-listing. Implement Forest Service actions as recommended in recovery plans for federally listed species. • Maintain and improve habitat for fish, wildlife, and plants, including those with the following designations: game species, harvest species, management indicator species, and watch list species. • Prevent listing of proposed and sensitive species. • Use vegetation management practices to reduce the intensity of fires to reduce habitat loss due to high severity widlfires. • Protect habitat during fire suppression activities where feasible. The LMP (Part 3, Pages 6-8) describes design criteria which include laws, standards, and other applicable guidance that the Forest Service uses during project planning and implementation. Standards are mandatory requirements for site-specific activities which are designed to be consistent with the objectives in Part 2 of the LMP and the desired conditions in Part 1 of the LMP. Applicable design criteria in Part 3 of the LMP would be applied during project development and implementation. Design criteria related to wildlife species is found in Chapter 2 of this EA.
Management Indicator Species (MIS) are animal or plant species identified in the Cleveland NF LRMP (USDA 1988, Pages 15-16). This guidance directs Forest Service resource managers to: (at project scale) analyze the effects of proposed projects on the habitats of each MIS affected by such projects; and (at the national forest) monitor populations and/or habitat trends of forest MIS, as identified by the LRMP.
Forest Service Sensitive Species
Alternative 1 – Direct & Indirect California Spotted Owl There would be no known direct effects to California spotted owls as a result of Alternative 1, because there would be no treatments occurring in the area. However, indirect effects would occur with implementation of this alternative. Existing fuel loads would increase as there would be no treatment which would indirectly affect wildfire suppression efforts. Based on the fire and fuels analysis in this EA, if a wildfire were to occur in the area the existing fuel break would not be effective in slowing fire growth, reducing fireline intensity, or providing enhanced fire suppression opportunities. This alternative is expected to result in larger and longer fires, increasing exposure of the wildfire to firefighters, the public and wildlife in the area. It could result in a loss of habitat in the area. If a high intensity wildfire were to burn through forested stands used by the owl, recovery of this habitat is unknown.
Alternative 1 – Cumulative Effects to California Spotted Owl See Cumulative Effects for Forest Service Sensitive and Management Indicator Species below.
67 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
Alternative 2 Direct & Indirect Effects - California Spotted Owl The proposed project would not directly affect the California spotted owl. All treatment activities would occur during the day when spotted owls are roosting. There is a historic Protected Activity Center (PAC) located adjacent to the project boundary; however, no owls have been detected since the 2007 Santiago Fire (Thomas, personal communication). Historical detections of owls are located over 0.75 miles from the project boundary. Suitable nesting/roosting and foraging habitat exists within and adjacent to the PAC boundary.
Treatment activities would remove approximately 70-90% of vegetation and would retain conifer and hardwood species (as per design criteria in Chapter 2 of this EA). Although there is habitat along portions of the project area, it is not high quality owl habitat. The proposed project would decrease the amount of vegetation in treatment units, however, vegetation in treatment areas are not dense because they follow the footprint of the fuel break that was previously cut. Treatments would affect habitat along the edge of the PAC, but it would result in little to no change in the quality of owl habitat it currently supports.
The proposed project may provide a beneficial effect to the existing spotted owl PAC by creating a zone of reduced fire behavior that would allow firefighters to meet suppression objectives in the event that a wildfire occurs in the area (USDA 2012a). Based on the fire and fuels analysis for this project, treatments are expected to alter the spread and direction of large wildfires by “reducing fuel in major fire flow paths that would allow for enhanced fire suppression opportunities (USDA 2012a).” This would help to protect the PAC located adjacent to the project area by decreasing the risk of a wildfire and its potential to impact habitat.
Effects Determination: Based on analysis, the proposed action may affect individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for the California spotted owl.
Alternative 2 – Cumulative Effects to California Spotted Owl See Cumulative Effects for Forest Service Sensitive and Management Indicator Species below.
Alternative 1 – Direct & Indirect- San Diego Horned Lizard, Coastal Rosy Boa and San Diego Mountain Kingsnake There would be no known direct effects to the reptile species analyzed for this project as a result of implementation of this alternative. This alternative does not propose any treatments to the area.
The indirect effect resulting from this alternative would be that existing vegetation would continue to grow. This would increase fuel loads in the area which would indirectly affect wildfire suppression efforts. Based on the fire and fuels analysis for this EA, if a wildfire were to occur in the area the fuel break would not be effective in slowing fire growth, reducing fireline intensity, or providing enhanced fire suppression opportunities. It would also result in larger fires that are of longer duration, increasing exposure of the wildfire to firefighters, the public and wildlife in the area. It could result in mortality to listed reptile species and a loss of habitat in the area. If this were to occur, it would take a few years for chaparral habitat to recover and in forested stands, habitat recovery length is unknown if a high intensity fire burns through the area.
Alternative 1 – Cumulative Effects- San Diego Horned Lizard, Coastal Rosy Boa and San Diego Mountain Kingsnake See Cumulative Effects for Forest Service Sensitive and Management Indicator Species below.
68
Alternative 2 Direct & Indirect Effects - San Diego Horned Lizard, Coastal Rosy Boa and San Diego Mountain Kingsnake Direct effects to all these species is due to the presence of people in the area conducting vegetation removal treatments. This may result in trampling of suitable habitat and may also result in avoidance of the area by some species as people enter and exit areas to conduct treatment activities. Burning and mastication activities may result in mortality to some individuals if they remain during treatment activities. All potential direct effects are expected to be short term.
Indirect effects include changes to the vegetative structure which may remove cover for reptiles in the area. This is especially true in chaparral vegetation. There is currently a footprint of the fuel break and vegetation on either side of the footprint ranges from sparse to dense. Mastication and prescribed burning activities would thin and remove up to 90% of the vegetation. This would remove cover for reptiles that may utilize the area, however over time, it is expected that chaparral vegetation would re-sprout in response to disturbance activities. The long term effect would be vegetation that is sparse in the majority of the project area which would also result in sparse cover for reptiles.
The proposed project would have a beneficial effect to reptiles by creating a zone of reduced fire behavior that would allow firefighters to meet suppression objectives in the event that a wildfire occurs in the area (USDA 2012a). Treatments are expected to alter the spread and direction of large wildfires by “reducing fuel in major fire flow paths that would allow for enhanced fire suppression opportunities (USDA 2012a).” This would help to protect existing habitat by decreasing the risk of a wildfire destroying habitat in the area.
Effects Determination: Based on analysis, the proposed action may affect individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for the San Diego horned lizard, the coastal rosy boa and the San Diego mountain kingsnake.
Alternative 2 – Cumulative Effects to San Diego Horned Lizard, Coastal Rosy Boa and San Diego Mountain Kingsnake See Cumulative Effects for Forest Service Sensitive and Management Indicator Species below.
Alternative 1 – Direct & Indirect- Pallid Bat There would be no known direct effects to pallid bats as a result of this alternative because there would be no treatments occurring in the area. However, indirect effects would be that existing vegetation would continue to grow. This would increase fuel loads in the area which would indirectly affect wildfire suppression efforts. Based on the fire and fuels analysis in this EA, if a wildfire were to occur in the area the fuel break would not be effective in slowing fire growth, reducing fireline intensity, or providing enhanced fire suppression opportunities. It would result in larger fires that are of longer duration, increasing exposure of the wildfire to firefighters, the public and wildlife in the area. It could result in a loss of habitat for pallid bats in the area.
Alternative 1 – Cumulative Effects- Pallid Bat See Cumulative Effects for Forest Service Sensitive and Management Indicator Species below.
Alternative 2 Direct & Indirect Effects - Pallid Bat Direct effects to pallid Bats would be due to disturbance associated with treatment activities. Bats roosting in or near treatment activities may be disturbed by noise, or vibration which may cause
69 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
individuals to temporarily displace from the area. Impacts resulting from displacement would be greatest during the maternity and the winter roosting seasons.
The proposed project would not modify or remove any buildings, caves, mine adits and cliff roosting habitat. Treatment activities may alter vegetation structure, but is not expected to remove potential roost sites for pallid bats. Vegetation treatments would also modify foraging habitat. Shifts in the amount of vegetative cover would impact insect populations and foraging opportunities.
The proposed project would have a beneficial effect to bats by creating a zone of reduced fire behavior that would allow firefighters to meet suppression objectives in the event that a wildfire occurs in the area (USDA 2012a). Treatments are expected to alter the spread and direction of large wildfires by “reducing fuel in major fire flow paths that would allow for enhanced fire suppression opportunities (USDA 2012a).” Treatments are expected to help to protect existing habitat by decreasing the risk of a wildfire destroying habitat in the area.
Effects Determination: Based on analysis, the proposed action may affect individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for the pallid bat.
Alternative 2 – Cumulative Effects to Pallid Bat See Cumulative Effects for Forest Service Sensitive and Management Indicator Species below
Management Indicator Species Alternative 1- Direct & Indirect Effects- Mountain Lion
There would be no known direct effects to mountain lions as a result of Alternative 1 because there would be no treatments occurring. Indirect effects would be the result of vegetation in the area continuing to grow. Habitat for mountain lions would not be degraded or decreased; however, over time, some areas may become impassable as brush species become dense. Foraging conditions would continue to provide hunting opportunities for mountain lions but would likely degrade as forage for mule deer, the mountain lion’s primary prey species, becomes too dense and less palatable for deer.
Alternative 1would leave the area at risk for a high severity wildfire to burn through the area. The fuel break is no longer as effective as it once was due to the growth of vegetation. Under the Alternative 1, the vegetation would continue to grow and a wildfire that may start in or near the area would have a higher chance of burning through the fuel break and into adjacent areas. It would also result in the risk of a large fire occurrence as there would be no new areas where firefighters could safely initially attack the fire. This could affect populations of mountain lions due to loss of habitat and loss of prey species.
Alternative 1 – Cumulative Effects- Mountain Lion See Cumulative Effects for Forest Service Sensitive and Management Indicator Species below.
Alternative 2- Direct & Indirect Effects Mountain Lion The project area is suitable habitat for mule deer, the primary prey species for mountain lion. Thus the area is also suitable habitat for mountain lion. The amount of mountain lion habitat affected by the proposed action is approximately 262 acres. Direct and indirect effects to habitat would be due to changes in vegetation structure as a result of treatment activities. Under the proposed action, treatments would result in up to 90 percent removal of vegetation. This would
70
initially degrade foraging habitat and remove cover for mountain lions. Although suitable habitat would degrade, the area would still provide habitat for mountain lions. In the long term, foraging conditions would improve as brush species re-sprout over time providing forage for mule deer in the area. Habitat linkages would remain despite the change in vegetation. Although treatments are expected to remove 70-90 percent of existing vegetation, the project area follows the footprint of the original fuel break and portions of the fuel break are currently not dense with vegetation. In addition, portions of the project area were burned in the 2007 Santiago Fire and the vegetation is still in the process of recovering from that event. Treatments would not remove all vegetation, and chaparral vegetation would re-sprout in less than two years. Mountain lions would continue to be able to move from the project area into adjacent areas.
The proposed project may provide a beneficial effect to mountain lions by creating a zone of reduced fire behavior that would allow firefighters to meet suppression objectives in the event that a wildfire occurs in the area (USDA 2012a). Based on the fire and fuels report for this project, treatments are expected to alter the spread and direction of large wildfires by “reducing fuel in major fire flow paths that would allow for enhanced fire suppression opportunities.” (USDA 2012a). This would help to protect mountain lions by decreasing the risk of a wildfire destroying habitat.
Relationship of Project-Level Impacts to Forest-Scale Habitat and Population Trends for the species: The Trabuco Ranger District is isolated from other portions of the Cleveland National Forest. There are no habitat linkages or corridors to allow mountain lions to move from the district to other areas of the Forest. Population trends would be on a district scale instead of the Forest because of the isolation. Mountain lions are found throughout the Trabuco Ranger District (134,529 acres). The total area impacted by the proposed action is 262 acres or 0.18% of the Trabuco Ranger District. Areas impacted by project activities would degrade suitable habitat for mule deer, the mountain lion’s preferred prey. Over time, habitat conditions would improve which would provide high quality mule deer habitat in the future (>5 years) which would benefit mountain lions. However, maintenance treatments to the fuel break would continue to degrade foraging conditions for mountain lions. The proposed action would not eliminate corridor linkages for mountain lion within the Cleveland NF. The project-level habitat impacts would not alter or contribute to the existing forest wide population trends for the mountain lion.
Alternative 2 – Cumulative Effects to Mountain Lion See Cumulative Effects for Forest Service Sensitive and Management Indicator Species below.
Alternative 1 – Direct & Indirect- Mule Deer There would be no known direct effects as a result of this alternative. Indirect effects would be the result of continual growth of vegetation in the project area. Habitat for mule deer would not be degraded or decreased; however, over time some of these areas may become impassable for deer due to the density of the vegetation. Foraging conditions may also become less favorable for mule deer as brush becomes less palatable with age and access to new shoots would become more difficult for mule deer.
Alternative 1 would leave the area at risk for a high severity wildfire to burn through the area. The fuel break is no longer as effective as it once was due to the growth of vegetation. Under this alternative, the vegetation would continue to grow and a wildfire that may start in or near the area would have a higher chance of burning through the fuel break and into adjacent areas. It would also result in the risk of a large fire occurrence as there would be no new areas where firefighters could safely initially attack the fire. This could result in a decrease in the mule deer population
71 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
due to a loss of habitat and possibly a loss of mule deer herds if they are unable to escape a wildfire in the area.
Alternative 1 – Cumulative Effects- Mule Deer See Cumulative Effects for Forest Service Sensitive and Management Indicator Species below.
Alternative 2 – Direct & Indirect Effects- Mule Deer The project area is suitable habitat for mule deer. The amount of mule deer habitat affected by the proposed action is approximately 260 acres. Direct and indirect effects to habitat would be due to changes in vegetation structure as a result of treatment activities. Treatments are not expected to result in a decrease in the amount of habitat available although foraging habitat and cover would be reduced and/or degraded immediately after treatment activities. Foraging conditions would improve over time as brush species begin to re-sprout providing high quality forage.
The proposed project may provide a beneficial effect to mule deer by creating a zone of reduced fire behavior that would allow firefighters to meet suppression objectives in the event that a wildfire occurs in the area (USDA 2012a). Based on the fire and fuels report analysis for this EA, treatments are expected to alter the spread and direction of large wildfires by “reducing fuel in major fire flow paths that would allow for enhanced fire suppression opportunities (USDA 2012a).” This would help to protect mule deer by decreasing the risk of a wildfire destroying habitat.
Relationship of Project-Level Impacts to Forest-Scale Habitat and Population Trends for the species: The Trabuco Ranger District is isolated from other portions of the Cleveland National Forest and due to the presence of urban areas and major freeways, there is no habitat link to other areas of the Forest. As a result, population trends would be at the district scale instead of the Forest. Mule deer are found throughout the Trabuco Ranger District (134,529 acres). The total area impacted by the proposed action is approximately 260 acres or 0.18% of the Trabuco Ranger District. Areas impacted by project activities would degrade suitable habitat for mule deer and over time, habitat conditions would improve which would provide high quality forage for mule deer in the future (>5 years). Maintenance treatments, however, would likely keep habitat at low quality. The project-level habitat impacts would not alter or contribute to existing forest-wide trends.
Alternative 2 – Cumulative Effects to Mule Deer
Alternative 1 – Direct & Indirect California Spotted Owl There would be no known direct effects to California spotted owl habitat or their populations as a result of Alternative 1 because there would be no treatments occurring in the area. However, the indirect effects would be that existing fuel loads would increase which would indirectly affect wildfire suppression efforts. Based on the fire and fuels analysis in this EA, if a wildfire were to occur in the area the fuel break would not be effective in slowing fire growth, reducing fireline intensity, or providing enhanced fire suppression opportunities. It would result in larger fires that are of longer duration, increasing exposure of the wildfire to firefighters, the public and wildlife in the area. It could result in a loss of habitat in the area. Length of recovery for forested stands used by California spotted owls is uncertain, if a wildfire of a high intensity were to burn through the stands.
72
Alternative 1 – Cumulative Effects to California Spotted Owl See Cumulative Effects for Forest Service Sensitive and Management Indicator Species below.
Alternative 2 – Direct & Indirect California Spotted Owl Treatment activities would remove 70-90 percent of vegetation and would retain conifer and hardwood species. Although there is habitat along portions of the project area, it is not high quality owl habitat. The proposed project would decrease the amount of vegetation in treatment units, however vegetation in treatment areas are not dense because they follow the footprint of the fuel break that was previously cut. Treatments would affect habitat, but would result in little to no change in the quality of owl habitat currently supported in the project area.
The proposed project may provide a beneficial effect to the existing spotted owl PAC by creating a zone of reduced fire behavior that would allow firefighters to meet suppression objectives in the event that a wildfire occurs in the area (USDA 2012). Based on the fire and fuels analysis for this project, treatments are expected to alter the spread and direction of large wildfires by “reducing fuel in major fire flow paths that would allow for enhanced fire suppression opportunities (USDA 2012).” This would help to protect the PAC located adjacent to the project area by decreasing the risk of a wildfire destroying habitat.
Relationship of Project-Level Impacts to Forest-Scale Habitat and Population Trends for the species: The Trabuco Ranger District is isolated from other portions of the Cleveland National Forest and due to the presence of urban areas and major freeways, there is no habitat link to other areas of the Forest. As a result, population trends would be at the district scale instead of the Forest. The Trabuco Ranger District has approximately 2,625 acres of suitable California spotted owl habitat. The total area impacted by the proposed action is approximately seven acres or 0.3% of this habitat type on the Trabuco Ranger District. Suitable habitat would be affected by the proposed project, but it would not remove any suitable habitat. The project level habitat impacts would not alter or contribute to existing forest-wide trends.
Alternative 2 – Cumulative Effects to Spotted Owl See Cumulative Effects for Forest Service Sensitive and Management Indicator Species below
Cumulative Effects This section addresses how past actions contribute to the cumulative effects of the proposed action. Specifically, how these activities impact Cleveland National Forest sensitive and management indicator species and their habitats in a way that would contribute to a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability to these populations. Information in the introduction section of Chapter 3 of this EA display some of the activities and events considered in this analysis. The identified fuel break projects are designed for community protection and the activities associated with these projects are similar to those proposed in this project. These fuel reduction projects have been designed to be implemented in a manner to prevent impacts to species in the area while providing community protection and reducing wildfire risk.
No known activities are planned in the project area by private land owners. Some private land owners may do annual brush clearance around their property to protect against the threat of wildfires, but no large scale vegetation removal activities are planned. Recreation activities that do occur in or near the area include activities such as camping, hiking, mountain biking, and fishing. These activities would continue to occur and may impact San Diego horned lizards, coastal rosy boas and San Diego Mountain kingsnakes due to disturbance. Recreation activities
73 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
are not likely to affect the pallid bat since the majority of these activities occur when bats are roosting. The following factors were also considered in this analysis and findings for species and their habitats.
The types of activities associated with these fuel breaks are similar to those proposed for this project. These fuels reduction projects and are intended to provide community protection and reduce the risk of a wildland fire occurring. All of these projects are designed to be executed in a manner to prevent impacts to species in the area.
Fire History: The area surrounding the proposed action has a history of frequent high intensity, stand replacing fires. Due to the location of the project area which is bounded on the east by Interstate 15 and highway 91 to the north, the area is easily accessible by forest users and there is a steady stream of vehicle traffic near the project area. As a result, the area has a high fire frequency compared to other areas of the Forest. Most of the fires in this area are human caused, with only rare lightning ignited fires. See the fire and fuels section of this EA, as well as wildfire map in the introduction section of Chapter 3, for more information on fires in and near the project area.
Population Growth and Development on Private Lands: Population growth and associated activities including development on private lands continues to have an impact on species in the area. Degradation and/or loss of habitat adversely impacts animals in the area by changing their distributions, decreasing their population size and in some cases extirpating species from an area. Water resources are also heavily affected due to the increase need for water. This has resulted in increases in ground water extraction, the construction of dams to create reservoirs and in some cases an increase in the direct draw of surface water in streams and creeks. All of these activities have adversely impacted riparian habitat by changing and decreasing the amount of habitat available. Development on private lands has also increased the amount of invasive species, both plant and animal, to ecosystems.
Climate Change and Pollution: Little is known about the effects of climate change and pollution for most wildlife species. Amphibians and reptiles are one group of species that are sensitive to and respond to changes and variability in air and water temperature, precipitation, and the length of time and seasonality of water presence in their environments.
Climatic patterns are expected to affect habitat for California spotted owls. Changes in temperature and the amount of annual rainfall have and would continue to affect both the condition of spotted owl habitat and its vulnerability to fire. Spotted owls are highly dependent on the condition of vegetation they require as habitat and it is unlikely they would be able to shift their range based on climate until the vegetation also shifts.
Alternative 1- Cumulative Effects for Forest Service Sensitive and MIS
Under the no action alternative, vegetation within the fuel break footprint would continue to grow. It would continue to provide habitat for the species analyzed for this project. The project area is currently a mix of sparse and dense vegetation. In areas where the vegetation is sparse, habitat would improve in the short term. However, in the long term, if there are no naturally occurring events to disturb the area, the vegetation would increase in density and would become difficult for large species, such as mountain lions and mule deer to pass through the area. Reptile species may benefit from the no action alternative because as the vegetation grows, it would increase the amount of thermal cover and shelter available in the area. Areas that provide marginal California spotted owl habitat may also improve in the short term, but in the long term,
74
the quality of habitat may decrease as forested stands increase in density resulting in natural mortality due to competition between small and large trees.
Based on the fire and fuels analysis is this EA, the no action alternative would result in “increased fuel loads over the project area that would indirectly affect fire suppression effectiveness.” If a wildfire were to occur in the area, the fuel break would not be effective in slowing the growth of a fire and it is likely a fire in the area would be larger and more difficult to suppress. These conditions could result in mortality to species that are unable to escape and it may also result in a large amount of habitat loss. If this were to occur, it would take a few years for chaparral habitat to recover and in forested stands, it may never recover if it is a high intensity fire that burns throughout the area.
Alternative 2 – Cumulative Effects to Forest Service Sensitive Species
The proposed project, when added to activities identified in Chapter 3 and discussed in this section would have a cumulative effect to their habitats. The cumulative effects would be the result of changes to vegetation in treated areas and the associated disturbance resulting from treatments. Disturbance would be short term and would be due to the presence of personnel in suitable habitat which may cause reptiles to displace temporarily. In the long term, the proposed action is designed to reduce the risk of a high severity wildfire occurring in the area.
The proposed project would not contribute to the cumulative effects of wildfire occurrences in the project area; however, it may help to reduce the number of large fires occurring in the area. The proposed project is intended to improve the effectiveness of the Silverado Fuel Break and provide a safe place for firefighters to attack the fire.
Population growth and associated activities are expected to continue to occur. This project would not contribute toward the cumulative impacts of population growth, development on private lands or impacts to water resources.
Alternative 2 – Cumulative Effects to MIS
Mountain Lion Cumulative Effects Conclusion: It is anticipated that implementation of the proposed action, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would result in improved foraging habitat conditions on approximately 260 acres of mountain lion habitat in the analysis area. This amount is equivalent to approximately 0.18% of the total acreage of the Trabuco Ranger District.
Mule Deer Cumulative Effects Conclusion: It is anticipated that implementation of the proposed action, in combination with these past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would result in improved foraging habitat conditions on approximately 260 acres of mule deer habitat in the analysis area. This amount is equivalent to approximately 0.18% of the total acreage of the Trabuco Ranger District.
California Spotted Owl Cumulative Effects Conclusion: It is anticipated that implementation of the proposed action, in combination with these past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would result in protection of owl habitat on approximately seven acres of California spotted owl habitat in the analysis area. This amount is equivalent to approximately 0.3% of the total acreage of the Trabuco Ranger District.
75 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
Compliance with Forest Plan & Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies & Plans Alternatives 1 and 2 are consistent with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended) as these alternatives would not likely jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitats.
Alternatives 1 and 2 are consistent Forest Service Manual 2670: to “Manage habitats for all existing native and desired nonnative plants, fish, and wildlife species in order to maintain at least viable populations… Manage National Forest System habitats and activities for threatened and endangered species to achieve recovery objectives…. and develop and implement management practices to ensure that species do not become threatened or endangered because of Forest Service Actions.”
The project area is not located within habitat for any federally threatened, endangered, proposed or candidate species. There is habitat for Forest Service sensitive species in the project area and the project may affect individuals, but would not lead toward a trend in federal listing for any of the species analyzed. This complies with Forest Service manual direction by preventing listing and maintaining viable populations. Alternative 2 complies with the Forest Plan because it is intended to alter the spread and direction of large wildfires by altering fuels in major flow paths allowing for improved fire suppression abilities. Proposed activities would help to reduce the spread and intensity of wildfire which would decrease the risk of a large wildfire destroying habitat. Alternative 1 is also consistent with the Forest Plan.
Summary of Effects Table 22- Determination of Effects to Sensitive & Management Indicator Species Alt 1 – No Species Status Alt 2 – Proposed Action Action May affect individuals, but is not likely to lead towards a trend in federal listing. California Spotted FSS No Effect The project level habitat impacts Owl MIS would not alter or contribute to existing forest-wide trends for California spotted owls. May affect individuals, but is not San Diego Horned FSS No Effect likely to lead towards a trend in Lizard federal listing. May affect individuals, but is not Coastal Rosy Boa FSS No Effect likely to lead towards a trend in federal listing. May affect individuals, but is not San Diego Mountain FSS No Effect likely to lead towards a trend in Kingsnake federal listing. May affect individuals, but is not Pallid Bat FSS No Effect likely to lead towards a trend in federal listing. The project-level habitat impacts would not alter or contribute to the Mountain Lion MIS No Effect existing forest-wide population trends for the mountain lion.
76
Alt 1 – No Species Status Alt 2 – Proposed Action Action The project-level habitat impacts would not alter or contribute to Mule Deer MIS No Effect existing forest-wide trends for mule deer.
Consultation & Coordination The Forest Service worked with and or communicated with Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as many individual landowners and interested groups during the development of this project. Additionally, the project coordinator worked with the Forest’s Tribal Liaison, as documented in the project record. A separate Erosion Control Plan for the Silverado Fuelbreak is also available in the project record.
77 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
Acronyms & Definitions
Acronyms BA- Biological Assessment
BE- Biological Evaluation
BMPs- Best Management Practices
EA- Environmental Analysis
EHR- Erosion Hazard Ratings
ERA- Equivalent Roaded Acres
FSS- Forest Service Sensitive (species)
IDT- Interdisciplinary Team
LMP- Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan)
MIS- Management Indicator Species
OHV- Off-Highway Vehicles
SCAQMD- South Coast Air Quality Management Control District
SRPM- Standard Resource Protection Measure (cultural resources)
TOC - Threshold of Concern
WEPP- Water Erosion Prediction Project
WUI- Wildland Urban Interface
Definitions Historic Range of Variability- The natural fluctuation of ecological and physical processes and functions that would have occurred during a specified period of time. A range of conditions and processes likely to have occurred prior to settlement of the area by Euro Americans (about the mid-1800s).
Invasive nonnative plants: Invasive nonnative plants are plants that are not native to, yet can spread into, wildland ecosystems, and that 2) displace native species, hybridize with native species, alter biological communities, or alter ecosystem processes (Cal-IPC 2009).
Naturalization: The species establishes new self-perpetuating populations, undergoes widespread dispersal and becomes incorporated within the resident flora (Richardson et al. 2000).
Ninetieth percentile weather- is the weather conditions for 10 percent of the hottest days during the fire season.
Ninety-seventh percentile weather- is the weather conditions for three percent of the hottest days during the fire season.
78
Nonnative plants: plant species introduced to an area after European contact and as a direct or indirect result of human activity (Cal-IPC 2011) and somewhat based on the history or botanical research done in that area. Note: The term “exotic” is often used interchangeably with “nonnative.”
Noxious weed: Any plant or plant product that can directly or indirectly injure or cause damage to the natural resources of the United States or the environment. Note: that the term “noxious weed” is often used interchangeably with “invasive nonnative.”
Weed: An unwanted plant, regardless if native or nonnative to the area.
Wildland Urban Interface (WUI)- as described in the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003. WUI (as defined by the Act) is a variable width up to 1.5 miles from communities at risk or as defined in individual community fire protection plans. The Land Management Plan (LMP) further identifies a direct protection zone (WUI Defense Zone) that falls within the broader definition of WUI. A WUI Defense Zone is the area directly adjoining structures and evacuation routes that is converted to a less-flammable state to increase defensible space and firefighter safety.
79 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
Interdisciplinary Team Members
Cleveland National Forest Specialists
• Keith W. Fletcher-Trabuco District Ranger • Jason Jimenez – Forest Watershed Specialist • Kirsten Winter- Forest Biologist • Steve Harvey- Forest Archaeologist • Jacob Gipson- Fuels/Prevention Management, Battalion Chief 23 • Lisa Young- Forest Botanist • Stephen Fillmore- Forest Fuels Officer
AMSET Forest Service Specialists
• David Kerr- Fire Management Specialist • Anita Bueno- Visual Specialist • Carly Gibson- Botanist • Wendy Boes- Botanist • Carol Ewell- Ecologist • Chris Clervi- GIS Specialist • Tim Metzger- Fuels Specialist • Nikos Hunner- Soil Scientist • Kirsten Kaiser- Environmental Coordinator • Teresa Sue- Wildlife Biologist
80
References
Air Quality California Air Resources Board. 2010. Regional Haze Plan. Available online: http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/reghaze/rhplan.htm [Accessed 02/2012].
Fire and Environmental Research Applications Team. 2009. Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Laboratory, USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, Seattle, WA Available online: http://depts.washington.edu/nwfire/handpiles/index.php [Accessed 02/2012].
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.
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Emission Factors (computer program; EMFAC). 2007. EMFAC2007, version 2.3. Available online at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/onroad/latest_version.htm [Accessed 02/2012].
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 1986. Rule 444, Wildland vegetation burning. Available online: http://www.aqmd.gov/rules/reg/reg04_tofc.html [Accessed 02/2012].
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 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 [Accessed 02/2012].
South Coast Air Quality Management District. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. AP 42, Volume I, Fifth Edition. Chapter 13. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ [Accessed 02/2012].
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 1997. 1997 Air Quality Management Plan: Appendix I-D, Best Available Control Measures - PM10 SIP and Appendix III-B, Current and Future Planning Emissions for the South Coast Air Basin. South Coast Air Quality Management District. Diamond Bar, CA. available online at: https://www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/docs/2004ATCPaddendum.pdf [Accessed 02/2012].
South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2006. Final Methodology to Calculate Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 and PM 2.5 Significance Thresholds. Appendix A - updated CEIDARS Table with PM2.5 Fractions. Available online at: http://www.aqmd.gov/CEQA/handbook/PM2_5/PM2_5.html [Accessed 06/2011].
USDA Forest Service. 2005. Cleveland National Forest: Land and Resources Management Plan, Part 1. US Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.
81 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
U.S. EPA. 1992. Prescribed Burning Background Document and Technical Information Document for Best Available Control Measures. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Staff Work Project, Washington D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1998. AP-42, Fifth Edition, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors Volume I: Stationary Point and Area Sources, Supplement D. Available online at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html [Accessed 02/2012].
Wiedinmyer, Christine and Matthew D. Hurteau. 2010. Prescribed Fire As a means of Reducing Forest Carbon Emissions in the Western United States. Environmental Science and Technology. Vol. 44, No. 6, 1926-1932.
Fire & Fuels Agee, J.K. and Skinner, C.N. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuels reduction treatments. Article in press. Forest Ecology and Management. 14 pgs. Available online at: http://www.amazon.com/Fire-Ecology-Pacific-Northwest-Forests/dp/1559632305 (Accessed 2012, January).
Byram, G.M. 1959. Combustion of forest fuels. In: Davis, K.P., ed. Forest fire: control and use. New York: McGraw Hill: 61–89. Available online at: http://www.firemodels.org/downloads/behaveplus/publications/Byram_1959_Combustio n Of ForestFuels.pdf (Accessed 2012, January).
Busenberg, George J. 2004. Wildfire Management in the United States: The Evolution of a Policy Failure. Review of Policy Research 21(2): 145-156. Available online at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2004.00066.x/pdf (Accessed 2012, January).
Calkin, D.E. Gebert, K.M. Jones G. and Neilson, R.P. 2005 Forest service large fire area burned and suppression expenditure trends, 1970-2002. pg. 179-183. Journal of Forestry Volume 103, Number 4. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/fire/management/wfdss/docs/calkin_etal_usfs_firearea_suppresio ncosts_jof_2005.pdf (Accessed 2012, January).
Cohen, Jack D. 2000. What is the Wildland Fire Threat to Homes? Presented at the Thompson Memorial Lecture, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ. April 10, 2000. 13p. Available online at: http://www.saveamericasforests.org/congress/Fire/Cohen.htm (Accessed 2012, January).
Countryman. Clive M. 1972. The Fire Environment Concept, USDA Forest Serv. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Exp. Station, Berkeley, Calif. Available online at: at http://www.firemodels.org/index.php/behaveplus-introduction/behaveplus-publications (Accessed 2012, January).
Graham, R.T., McCaffrey, S. and Jain, T. B. 2004. Science basis for changing forest structure to modify wildfire behavior and severity. RMRS-GTR-120, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 43 pgs. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr120.pdf (Accessed 2012, January).
Keeley, J. E. 2001. Fire and Invasive Species in the Mediterranean Climatic Ecosystems of California. Pages 81-94 in K.E.M. Galley and T.P.Wilson, editors. Proceedings of the
82
Invasive Species Workshop: The role of fire in the control and spread of invasive species. Miscellaneous publication No. 11. Tall Timbers Research Station, Tallahaseem FL. Available online at: http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Paper/6007450.aspx (Accessed 2012, January).
Keeley, J. E. 2002. Native American Impacts on Fire Regimes of the California Coast Ranges. Journal of Biography 29;303-320. Available online at: http://www.wildfirelessons.net/documents/keeleypbapr2002.pdf (Accessed 2012, January).
LANDFIRE: 1.1.0 LCP. U.S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey. Available Online: http://landfire.cr.usgs.gov/viewer/ (Accessed January, 2012).
Mack, R. N. 1989. Temperate grasslands vulnerable to plant invasions: characteristics and consequences. Pages 155–180 in J. A. Drake, H. A. Mooney, F. di Castri, R. H. Groves, F. J.
Kruger, M. Rejmánek, and M. Williamson, editors. Biological invasions: a global perspective. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Martin, R.E. and D.B. Sapsis. 1991. Fires as agents of biodiversity: pyrodiversity promotes biodiversity. Pages 150-157 in: R. Harris, D. Erman, and H. Kerner (Editors). Proceedings of the Symposium on Biodiversity of Northwestern California, Santa Rosa, CA. Available online at:http://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/FireForestEcology/FireScie nceResearch/FireEcology/FireEcology-Martin91.pdf (Accessed 2012, January).
National Fire Plan. 2000. Available online at: http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/overview/index.shtml (Accessed 2012, January).
National Wildfire Coordinating Group (NWCG). 2004. Fireline Handbook, NWCG Handbook 3, NFES #0065. Prepared by: Incident Operations Standards Working Team. Available online at: http://www.nwccweb.us/content/products/fwx/publications/appendixB.pdf (Accessed January, 2012).
Phillips, Clinton B. California Aflame! September 22-October 4, 1970. San Diego, CA? : State of California, Resources Agency, Dept. of Conservation, Division of Forestry, 1971. 73 p. Available online at: http://openlibrary.org/books/OL14127291M/California_Aflame!_September_22- October_4_1970 (Accessed January, 2012).
Rothermel, Richard C. 1991. Predicting Fire Behavior and Size of Crown Fires in the Northern Rocky Mountains. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-438. 44 p. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_int/int_rp438.html (Accessed January, 2012).
Rothermel, Richard C. 1983. How to Predict the Spread and Intensity of Forest and Range Fires. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-143. 161 p. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_int/int_gtr143.pdf (Accessed January, 2012).
Schroeder, M.J., M. Glovinsky, and V Hendricks. 1964. Synoptic weather patterns associated with critical fire weather. Contract OCD-05-62-143, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, CA.
83 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
Scott, J.H. and Reinhardt, E.D. 2001. Assessing crown fire potential by linking models of surface and crown fire behavior. RMRS-RP-29. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 59 pgs. Available online at: http://www.fire.org/downloads/nexus/2.0.0/rp29.pdf (Accessed January, 2012).
Scott, J.H and Burgan, R.E. 2005. Standard fire behavior fuel models: a comprehensive set for use with Rothermel’s surface fire spread model. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-153. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 72 p. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr153.html (Accessed January, 2012).
Stephens, S.L., Moghaddas, J.J., Edminster, C., Fiedler, C.E., Hasse, S., Harrington, M., Keeley, J.E., Knapp, E.E., McIver, J.D., Metlen, K., Skinner, C.N. and Youngblood, A. 2009. Fire treatment effects on vegetation structure, fuels and potential fire severity in western U.S. forests. Ecological Applications, 19(2). Pg. 305-320. Available online at: http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/32027 (Accessed January, 2012).
U.S.A. Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148) Available online at: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi- bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_cong_bills&docid=f:h1904enr.txt.pdf (Accessed January, 2012).
U.S. DOI, USDA, Forest Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Protecting People and Natural Resources, A Cohesive Fuel Treatment Strategy. Available online at: http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/resources/documents/CFTS_03-03-06.pdf (Accessed January, 2012).
U.S. DOI, USDA, Forest Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. A collaborative approach for reducing Wildland Risks to Communities and the Environment 10 yr Comprehensive Strategy. 2001. Available online at: http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/resources/plan/documents/7-19-en.pdf.
USDA Forest Service, 2009. Cleveland National Forest Fire Management Plan.
USDA Forest Service, 2009. Guidance for implementation of federal wildland fire management policy. 20 pgs. Available online: http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/info/regulations/Instruction_Memos_and_Bulletins/national _instruction/2009/IM_2009-112.html (Accessed January, 2012).
USDA Forest Service 2009. Wildland Fire Lessons Learned Center. Large Fire Management. http://www.wildfirelessons.net/Additional.aspx?Page=156 (Accessed January, 2012).
Westerling, A.L., Hildalgo, H.G, Cayan, D.R. and Swetnam, T.W. 2006. Warming and earlier spring increase Western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Pages 940-943. Science, Vol. 313. Available online at: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/313/5789/940.full.
Western Regional Climate Center http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/Climsum.html (Accessed January, 2012).
84
Heritage USDA Forest Service, 2001. First Amended Regional Programmatic Agreement among the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, California State Historic Preservation Officer, and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the Process for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for Undertakings on the National Forests of the Pacific Southwest Region. United States Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), Sacramento, CA.
USDA Forest Service, 2002. Interim Protocol for Non-intensive Inventory Strategies for Hazardous Fuels and Vegetation Reduction Projects, Annex to Stipulation IX in the Regional PA. United States Department of Agriculture, United States Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), Sacramento, CA.
USDA Forest Service, 2005. Revised Land Management Plan, Cleveland National Forest. United States Department of Agriculture, United States Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), Sacramento, CA.
USDA Forest Service, 2008. Forest Service Handbook. United States Department of Agriculture, United States Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), Sacramento, CA.
USDA Forest Service, 2008. Forest Service Manual. United States Department of Agriculture, United States Forest Service, National Headquarters, Washington Office (WO), Washington, DC.
Winthrop, Kate, 2004. Bare Bones Guide to Fire Effects on Cultural Resources For Cultural Resource Specialists. Bureau of Land Management, National Headquarters, Washington, DC.
Hydrology & Soils Beyers, Jan L.; Wohlgemuth, Peter M.; Wakeman, Carla D; Conard, Susan G. 1998b. Does ryegrass seeding control postfire erosion in chaparral? Fire Management Notes 58(3): 30- 34.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region, 1995. Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana Region Basin, 1995. Available at: http://www.ocwatersheds.com/documents/WaterControlPlan_SantaAna_River_Basin.pdf.
Cannon, Susan H.: Gartner, Joseph E. Michael, John A. 2007. Emergency Assessment of Debris Flow Hazards From Basins Burned by the 2007 Santiago Fire, Orange County, Southern California. USGS Open file report 2007-1419.
Debano, L.F. 1981. Water repellent soils: a state-of-the-art. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, General Technical Report PSW-46. 21p.
Debano, 1989. Effects of Fire on Chaparral Soils in Arizona and California and Postfire Management Implications. Presented at the Symposium on Fire and Watershed Management, October 26-28, 1988, Sacramento, CA.
GIS Clearinghouse, Pacific Southwest Region, bedrock geology layer. Accessed May 4, 2011. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/rsl/clearinghouse/data.shtml.
85 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
Egerton-Warburton, L.; Graham, E. C.; Hendrix, P. F. 2005 Soil ecosystem indicators of post-fire recovery in the California chaparral. Final Report to the National Commission on Science for Sustainable Forestry. NCSSF Research Project C4.1. Chicago Botanic Garden. Chicago, IL.
Elliot, William J., 1999 Rock: Clime, Rocky Mountain Research Station Stochastic Weather Generator U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Moscow Forestry Sciences Laboratory, http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/ accessed February 12, 2011.
Elliot, William J., Watershed Analysis for Fuel Management Operations, USDA. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, February 2005, http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/.
Gucinski, Hermann; Furniss, Michael J.; Ziemer, Robert R.; Brookes, Martha H. 2001. Forest roads: a synthesis of scientific information. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-509. Portland, OR: US. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 103 p.
Kaiser, K. 2012. Silverado Fuelbreak Project Environmental Assessment. Adaptive Management Enterprise Team.
Metzger, T. Adaptive Management Services Enterprise Team. Personal Communication. December 11, 2011.
Pietraszek, J.H. 2006. Controls on post-fire erosion at the hillslope scale, Colorado Front Range. M.S. Thesis. Colorado State University, Fort Collins.
Radtke, Klaus W. H. 1983. Living more safely in the chaparral-urban interface. Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-PSW-067. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station; 51 p.
Reid, Leslie M. 1993. Research and cumulative watershed effects. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR- 141. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 118 p.
Santi, Paul M.; DeWolf, V.G., Higgins, J.E., Gartner, J.E., 2008, Sources of debris flow material in burned areas. Geomorphology 96:310-321.
Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resource Conservation Service, USDA. Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Cleveland National Forest, CA. Available online at http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed February 18, 2011.
US Department of the Interior, National Atlas of the United States, map of Silverado area showing average annual precipitation from Natural Resources Conservation Service data, http://nationalatlas.gov/mapmaker, accessed March 1, 2011.
USDA FS (a), Revised Land Management Plans and Final Environmental Impact Statement, Angeles National Forest, Cleveland National Forest, Los Padres National Forest, San Bernardino National Forest,” R5-MB-086-CD, September 2005.
86
USDA FS (b), Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in California: Best Management Practices, Pacific Southwest Region, September 2000.
USDA FS (c), 1995. Soil Quality Standards. 2909.18. Soil Management Handbook. San Francisco, CA.
USGS (e), National Hydrography Database, available online at http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/nhd.html?p=nhd, accessed September 25, 2007.
Wyckoff, S. N. 1947. Some aspects of watershed management in southern California. California Forest and Range Experiment Station.
Invasive Plants [ACWM] Agricultural Commissioner/ Weights and Measures. 2009. Invasive Weeds in Los Angeles County. County of Los Angeles. Available at http://acwm.lacounty.gov/scripts/wma_4.htm#F.
Bradley, T., J.Gibson, W. Bunn. 2006. Fuels management and non-native plant species: and evaluation of fire and fire surrogate treatments in a chaparral plant community. Final Report to the Joint Fire Science Program, Project number: JFSP 01B-3-3-27. National Park Service Wiskeytown, CA.
Boes, Wendy. 2012. Adaptive Management Services Enterprise Team. Personal Communication. March 4, 2012.
Keeley, J. Oct. 2009. Research Ecologist, USGS Sequoia and Kings Canyon Field Station, 47050 Generals Highway #4, Three Rivers, CA.
Brooks, M.L., C.M. D’Antonio, D.M. Richardson, J.B. Grace, J.E. Keeley, J.M. DiTomaso, R.J. Hobbs, M. Pellant, D. Pyke. 2004. Effects of invasive alien plants on fire regimes. BioScience 54(7): 677-688.
Cal-IPC 2011. California Invasive Plant Inventory. California Invasive Plant Council. Plant Profiles. Berkeley, CA. Available at http://www.cal- ipc.org/ip/management/plant_profiles/index.php.
Consortium of California Herbaria. 2011. Available online: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/.(Accessed February, 2011).
D’Antonio, C. M., P.M. Vitousek. 1992. Biological invasions by exotic grasses, the grass/fire cycle, and global change. Annual Review of Ecological Systems. 23: 63-87.
Flemming, J. 2008. Comparrison of relocatable commercial vehicle washing systems. 5100 Fire Management, 0851 1809-SDTDC. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, San Dimas Technology & Development Center, San Dimas, California. 36p.
Hastings, A., K. Cuddington, K.F. Davies, C.J. Dugaw, S. Elmendorf, A. Freestone, S. Harrison, M. Holland, J. Labrinos, U. Malvadkar, B.A. Melbourne, K. Moore, C. Taylor, and D. Thomson. 2005. The spatial spread of invasions: new developments in theory and evidence. Ecology Letters. 8: 91-101.
87 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
Keeley, J. Research Ecologist, USGS Sequoia and Kings Canyon Field Station, 47050 Generals Highway #4, Three Rivers, CA. Personal Communication, 2009.
Keeley, J.E. 2006a. South Coast Bioregion. Pages 350-390 in N.G. Sugihara J.W. Van Wagtendonk, K.E. Shaffer, J. Fites-Kaufman, & A.E. Thode, editors. Fire in California’s Ecosystems. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Keeley, J.E. 2006. Fire Management Impacts. Publication Brief for Resource Managers. Sequoia and Kings Canyon Field Station, USGS Western Ecological Research Center, Three Rivers CA.
Keeley, J.E. 2007. The role of fuel breaks in the invasion of nonnative plants. Publication Brief for Resource Managers. Sequoia and Kings Canyon Field Station, USGS Western Ecological Research Center, Three Rivers, CA.
Keeley, J.E. and C.J. Fotheringham 2001. Historic fire regime in southern California shrublands. Conservation Biology 15(6):1536-1548.
Keeley, J.E., P.H. Zedler. 2009. Large, high-intensity fire events in southern California shrublands: debunking the fine-grain age patch model. Ecological Applications 19(1):69- 94.
Keeley, J.E., T. Brennan, T. and A.H. Pfaff . 2008. Fire severity and ecosystem responses following crown fires in California shrublands. Ecological Applications 18(6):1530-1546.
Merriam, K.E., J.E. Keeley, and J.L. Beyers. 2006. Fuel breaks affect nonnative species abundance in California plant communities. Ecological Applications 16:515-527.
Minnich, R.A., Y.H. 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.
Zedler, Paul H., Gautier, Clayton R., and McMaster, Gregory S. 1983. Vegetation change in response to extreme events: the effect of a short interval between fires in California chaparral and coastal scrub. Ecology 64(4):809-818.
[USDA] USDA Forest Service. 2001. Guide to Noxious Weed Prevention Practices.
[USDA] USDA Forest Service. 2004. National Strategy and Implementation Plan for Invasive Species Management. USDA, Forest Service.
[USDA] USDA Forest Service 2005. Land Management Plan, Part 1: Southern California National Forests Vision (R5-MB-075), Part 2: Cleveland National Forest Strategy (R5- MB-076) and Part 3: Design Criteria for the Southern California National forests (R5- MB-080). Pacific Southwest Region.
Plants Boes, Wendy. 2012. Discussion about field surveys in project area on 3/4/12. USFS, AMSET, 631 Coyote Street, Nevada City, CA 95959. Personal communication.
California Department of Fish and Game. 2010. California Natural Diversity Data Base, RareFind, Version 3. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. Updated monthly. Available online: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/rarefind.asp. Accessed April 2010.
88
California Native Plant Society. 2010 and 2012. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants online edition, v6.2. Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, David P. Tibor, Ed. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. Available online: http://www.cnps.org/inventory. Accessed April 2012.
Consortium of California Herbaria. 2010. Available online: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/. Accessed April, 2010.
Dunn, A. T. 1987. Population dynamics of the Tecate cypress. Pp. 367-376. In: Elias, T. S (ed.), Conservation and management of rare and endangered plants. Sacramento, CA: California Native Plant Society.
Flemming, J. 2008. Comparison of relocatable commercial vehicle washing systems. 5100 Fire Management, 0851 1809-SDTDC. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, San Dimas Technology & Development Center, San Dimas, California. 36p.
Hickman, J.C. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA. 1400 p. Jepson online version available via UC Berkeley at: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/interchange/. Accessed April 2012.
Keeley, Jon. Oct. 2009. Research Ecologist, USGS Sequoia and Kings Canyon Field Station, 47050 Generals Highway #4, Three Rivers, CA. Personal communication.
Keeley, Jon E.; Zedler, Paul A. 1978. Reproduction of chaparral shrubs after fire: A comparison of sprouting and seeding strategies. American Midland Naturalist 99(1): 142-161. Available online at: http://www.werc.usgs.gov/person.aspx?personID=170. Accessed April 2012.
Keeley, Jon and Frank W. Davis. 2007. Chaparral (book chapter) in M.G. Barbour, T. Keeler- Wolf, and A.A. Schoenherr (eds), Terrestrial Vegetation of California, 3rd Edition. University of California Press, Los Angeles, CA, p. 339-366. Available online at: http://www.werc.usgs.gov/person.aspx?personID=170. Accessed April 2012.
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.
Reiser, Craig H. 1994. Rare plants of San Diego County. Imperial Beach, CA: Aquafir Press.
Stephenson, John R.; Calcarone, Gena M. 1999. Southern California mountains and foothills assessment: habitat and species conservation issues, GTR-PSW-172. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Available online at: http://treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/6778 . Accessed April 2012.
Richardson, D.M., P. Pysek, M. Rejmanek, M. Barbour, F.D. Panetta, C.J. West. 2000. Naturalization and invasion of alien plants: concepts and definitions. Diversity and Distributions, Vol. 6, Issue 2, 93-107. Available online at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1472-4642.2000.00083.x/pdf Accessed April 2012.
USDA Forest Service. 1998 Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive & Proposed (TESP) Animals of the Cleveland National Forest. Pacific Southwest Region.
89 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
USDA Forest Service. 2005. Land Management Plan, Part 1: Southern California National Forests Vision (R5-MB-075), Part 2: Cleveland National Forest Strategy (R5-MB-077) and Part 3: Design Criteria for the Southern California National forests (R5-MB-080), including Appendix H, Pacific Southwest Region.
USDA Forest Service. 2005. Biological Assessment for Forest Plans. 3 Notebooks, Unpublished data on file. Cleveland National Forest files, Rancho Bernardo, CA.
USDA Forest Service. 2010. Biological Evaluation/Assessment North Main Divide Fuel Break. Cleveland national Forest, Trabuco Ranger District, Corona, CA.
USDA Forest Service. 2012. Fire and Fuels Report for the Silverado Fuel Break Project. Adaptive Management Services Enterprise Team, Nevada City, CA.
Winter, Kirsten. May 2012. Feedback on draft Silverado Plants BEBA on May 14 and 24, 2012. Forest Biologist, Cleveland National Forest, 10845 Rancho Bernardo Road #200, San Diego, CA 92127. Personal communication.
Scenery Silverado Motorway Hiking Trail.” 33 ˚44”32.56’N and 117˚35”03.49’W. Google Earth. http://www.panoramio.com/map/#lt=33.749857&ln=-117.588698&z=4&k=2. March 9, 2011. April 2, 2012.
Maller, Cecily; Townsend, Mardie; Pryor, Anita; Brown, Peter; St. Leger, Lawrence. 2005. Healthy nature healthy people: ‘contact with nature’ as an upstream health promotion intervention for populations. Health Promotion International 21(1): 45-54.
Ryan, Robert L. 2005. Social science to improve fuels management: a synthesis of research on aesthetics and fuels management. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-261. St. Paul, MN: Rocky Mountain Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2005. Cleveland National Forest Land Management Plan (LMP). Cleveland National Forest, CA. Available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/cleveland/landmanagement/planning.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995. Forest Service Handbook 701. Landscape aesthetics; a handbook for scenery management. Washington, D.C.
Wildlife- Management Indicator Species Ahlborn, G. 1988-1990. Mountain lion, Felis concolor. In: Volume III: Mammals. California wildlife habitat relationships system, edited by D.C. Zeiner, W.F. Laudenslayer Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White. Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Game, California Interagency Wildlife Task Group.
Anderson, A.E., D.C. Bowden, and D.M. Kattner. 1992. The puma on the Uncompahgra Plateau, Colorado. Colo. Div. Wildl. Tech. Publ. 40, Denver. 116 pp.
Barbour, Michael G. and Richard A. Minnich. 2000. Californian Upland Forests and Woodlands. In North American Terrestrial Vegetation. Second Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
90
Beier, P. 1993. Determining minimum habitat areas and habitat corridors for Cougars. Conservation Biology 7:94-108.
Beier, P. 1995. Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented habitats. Journal of Wildlife Management 5:228-237.
Beier, P. and R. Barrett. 1993. The cougar in the Santa Ana Mountain Range, California. Final Report for the Orange County Cooperative Mountain Lion Study.
Bowyer, R.T. 1981. Management guidelines for improving southern mule deer habitat on the Laguna-Morena demonstration area. USDA Forest Service, 40-9AD6-9-622.
Bowyer, R.T. 1984. Sexual segregation in southern mule deer. Journal of Mammalogy 65: 410- 417.
Bowyer, R.T. 1986. Habitat selection by southern mule deer. California Fish and Game 72: 153- 169.
CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2004. California Natural Diversity Database, RareFind 3.0.5. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game.
CDFG. 2008. California Department of Fish and Game and California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) version 8.1. personal computer program. Sacramento, California. On-Line version. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.asp.
CDFG. 2011. California Department of Fish and Game website for Mountain Lion depradation permits. Accessed on the world wide web at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/news/issues/lion/.
Dickson, B.G.; Jenness, J.S.; Beier, P. 2005. Influence of vegetation, topography, andRoads on cougar movement in southern California. J. Wildlife Mgmt 69: 264-276.
Dixon, K.R. 1982. Wild mammals of North America: Biology, management, and economics. Chapman, J.A.; Feldhamer, G.A., eds. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Ehrlich, P. R., D. S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The birder’s handbook: a field guide to the natural history of North American birds. Simon & Shuster Inc., New York, NY.
Gutiérrez, R. J., J. Verner, K. S. McKelvey, B. R. Noon, G. N. Steger, D. R. Call, W. S. La Haye, B. B. Bingham, and J. S. Senser. 1992. Habitat relations of the California spotted owl. In: J. Verner, K. S. McKelvey, B. R. Noon, R. J. Gutierrez, G. I. Gould, and T. W. Beck (technical coordinators), The California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its current status. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-133. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service; 79-98.
Logan, K.L. and L.L. Sweanor. 2001. Desert puma: evolutionary ecology and conservation of an enduring carnivore. Island Press, Covelo, California.
Maehr, D.S. 1992. Florida panther: Felis concolor coryi. Pp. 176-189 In: S.R. Humphrey, (ed.). Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Mammals: Volume 1. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Naples, Florida.
91 Preliminary Silverado Fuel Break Environmental Assessment
Spowart, R.A. and F.B. Samson 1986. Carnivores. Pp. 475-496 In: A.Y. Cooperrider, R.J. Boyd, and H.R. Stuart (eds). Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitat. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Service Center. Denver, Colorado.
Stephenson, John R., and Gena M. Calcarone. 1999. Southern California mountains and foothills assessment: habitat and species conservation issues. General Technical Report PSW- GTR-172. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service.
Sweanor, L.L., K.A. Logan, and M.G. Hornocker. 2000. Cougar dispersal patterns, metapopulation dynamics, and conservation. Conservation Biology, Vol. 14, pp. 798-808.
Sweanor, L.L., K.A. Logan, J.W. Bauer, B. Millsap, and W.M.Boyce. Submitted. Puma-human relationships in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, California. Journal of Wildlife Management.
USDA Forest Service 2005a. Land Management Plan, Part 1: Southern California National Forests Vision (R5-MB-075), Part 2: Cleveland National Forest Strategy (R5-MB-076) and Part 3: Design Criteria for the Southern California National forests (R5-MB-080). Pacific Southwest Region.
USDA Forest Service. 2005b. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Land Management Plan. R5-MB-074A.
USDA Forest Service. 2007. Cleveland National Forest MIS Report. Cleveland National Forest files.
USDA Forest Service. 2012. Fire and Fuels Report for the Silverado Fuel Break Project. Adaptive Management Services Enterprise Team.
Wildlife CNDDB California Natural Diversity Data Base 2009. RareFind, Version 3. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. Updated monthly.
Holland, R.F.1986. Preliminary description of the terrestrial natural communities of California. Non-game Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.
Jennings, M.R. and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California. Contract 38023, report to the California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division. Sacramento, CA. 255 pp.
Lind, A. J. 2009. Amphibians and Reptiles and Climate Change. (May 20, 2008) U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Climate Change Resource Center (CCRC). http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/amphibians-reptiles.shtml.
Raphael, M.G. 2008. Effects of global climate change on birds. (October 28, 2008). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Climate Change Resource Center (CCRC). http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/birds.shtml.
Stebbins, R.C. 2003. Western Reptiles and Amphibians, Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Co., New York. 533pp.
92
Stephenson, John R and G.M. Calcarone 1999. Southern California mountains and foothills assessment: habitat and species conservation issues. General Technical Report GTR- PSW-172. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 402p.
Thomas, Mary. April 2010. Information regarding California spotted owl inventory. District Biologist, Trabuco Ranger District, Cleveland National Forest, 1147 East 6th Street, Corona, CA 92879. Personal communication.
USDA Forest Service. 1998 Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive & Proposed (TESP) Animals of the Cleveland National Forest.
USDA Forest Service. 1999: Southern California Mountain and Foothill Assessment. Cleveland National Forest.
USDA Forest Service. 2000. Biological Assessment for Forest Plans. 3 notebooks. Cleveland National Forest files.
USDA Forest Service. 2005b. Land Management Plan, Part 1: Southern California National Forests Vision (R5-MB-075), Part 2: Cleveland National Forest Strategy (R5-MB-076) and Part 3: Design Criteria for the Southern California National forests (R5-MB-080). Pacific Southwest Region. Available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/cleveland/landmanagement/planning
USDA Forest Service. 2012a. Fire and Fuels Report for the Silverado Fuel Break Project. Adaptive Management Services Enterprise Team.
USDA Forest Service. 2012b. Vegetation Report for the Silverado Fuel Break Project. Adaptive Management Services Enterprise Team.
Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, and K.E. Mayer. 1990. California’s Wildlife. California Dept. Of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. 3 volumes.
93