United States Department of Agriculture Rim Fire Hazard Trees (43032) Environmental Assessment Forest Pacific Stanislaus March 2014 Service Southwest Region National Forest The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C.-20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1 1.01 Background ...................................................................................................... 1 1.02 Forest Plan Direction ........................................................................................ 3 1.03 Purpose and Need for Action ............................................................................ 4 1.04 Proposed Action ............................................................................................... 5 1.05 Decision Framework ......................................................................................... 6 1.06 Public Involvement ............................................................................................ 7 1.07 Issues ............................................................................................................... 8 2. Alternatives .............................................................................................................. 9 2.01 Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) ........................................................................ 9 2.02 Alternative 2 (No Action) ................................................................................. 22 2.03 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated from Detailed Study .......................... 23 2.04 Comparison Of Alternatives ............................................................................ 24 3. Environmental Consequences ............................................................................. 27 3.01 Introduction ..................................................................................................... 27 3.02 Aquatics .......................................................................................................... 31 3.03 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................... 40 3.04 Economics ...................................................................................................... 41 3.05 Fuels ............................................................................................................... 43 3.06 Invasive Species ............................................................................................. 45 3.07 Range ............................................................................................................. 46 3.08 Recreation ...................................................................................................... 48 3.09 Sensitive Plants .............................................................................................. 49 3.10 Soils ................................................................................................................ 51 3.11 Vegetation ...................................................................................................... 56 3.12 Watershed ...................................................................................................... 57 3.13 Wildlife ............................................................................................................ 61 3.14 Effects Relative to Issues ................................................................................ 78 3.15 Finding of No Significant Impact ..................................................................... 79 4. Consultation and Coordination ............................................................................ 87 References ................................................................................................................... 89 List of Maps and Figures Figure 1.01-1 Vicinity Map .................................................................................................. 2 Figure 3.10-1 Soil and Vegetation Burn Condition Photos ................................................ 53 Project Map ............................................................................. map package List of Tables Table 2.01-1 Alternative 1 (Proposed Action): Roads and Other Developed Facilities ...... 9 Table 2.01-2 Alternative 1 (Proposed Action): Road Surfaces and Treatments .............. 10 Table 2.01-3 Alternative 1 (Proposed Action): Road Segments and Treatments ............ 10 Table 2.01-4 Operating requirements for mechanized equipment operations in RCAs .... 14 Table 2.01-5 Management requirements incorporating BMPs and Forest Plan S&Gs ..... 15 Table 2.01-6 Sensitive Plant Species and associated dry, non-growing periods ............. 20 Table 2.01-7 Water Sources and Management Requirements ........................................ 22 Table 2.04-1 Comparison of Alternatives: Proposed Treatments .................................... 24 Table 2.04-2 Comparison of Alternatives: Relevant Issues ............................................ 24 Table 2.04-3 Comparison of Alternatives: Summary of Effects by Resource .................. 25 Table 3.02-1 California Red-legged Frog Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators ............... 34 Table 3.02-2 Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators ... 35 Table 3.02-3 Foothill Yellow-legged Frog Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators .............. 35 Table 3.02-4 Western Pond Turtle Direct and Indirect Effects Indicators ......................... 36 Table 3.05-1 Average Surface Fuel Loading ................................................................... 44 Table 3.05-2 Average Snag Density ................................................................................ 45 Table 3.07-1 Proposed Hazard Tree Treatments on Grazing Allotments ......................... 47 Table 3.09-1 Sensitive Plant Species and Botanical Interest Species ............................. 50 Table 3.10-1 Dominant Soil Types and Properties .......................................................... 52 Table 3.10-2 Soil Hazard Types ...................................................................................... 52 Rim Fire Hazard Trees (43032) Rim Fire Hazard Trees (43032) Environmental Assessment Stanislaus National Forest Mi-Wok Ranger District; Groveland Ranger District Tuolumne County, California 1. Introduction The Forest Service prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This EA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects that would result from the Proposed Action and the No Action alternatives. Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located at the Stanislaus National Forest office in Sonora, California. 1.01 BACKGROUND The Rim Fire started in a remote area of the Stanislaus National Forest near the confluence of the Clavey and Tuolumne Rivers about 20 miles east of Sonora on August 17, 2013. Exhibiting high to extreme fire behavior with multiple flaming fronts, the fire made runs of 30,000 to 50,000 acres on two consecutive days, quickly spreading in all directions up the Clavey, Tuolumne, Middle Fork Tuolumne, South Fork Tuolumne and other drainages including Cherry Creek (see Figure 1). Over the next several weeks it burned 256,428 acres, including 154,430 acres of National Forest System (NFS) lands, becoming the third largest wildfire in California history. The fire also burned within Yosemite National Park (78,896 acres), Sierra Pacific Industries private timberland (16,035 acres), other private land (6,939 acres) and Bureau of Land Management land (129 acres)1. The Rim Fire Hazard Trees (Rim HT) project area is located within the Rim Fire perimeter in the Stanislaus National Forest on portions of the Mi-Wok and Groveland Ranger Districts. The fire killed or severely damaged trees within the project area. Elevations within the project area range from 1,200 to 6,800 feet and vegetation burn severities varied from low to high. The project area includes high use roads and facilities where varying degrees of fire severity and tree mortality occurred. As the snags and fire-damaged trees weaken and fall, they pose an immediate danger to the lives, safety and property of people in the area. All hazard trees within the proposed project area will be considered for treatment, including trees previously felled during suppression and Burned Area