Environmental Assessment - a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/... · Environmental Assessment Poker Chip Project Lassen National

Environmental Assessment

Poker Chip Project

Lassen National Forest Almanor Ranger District

Plumas County, California

Photo taken by B. Halbrooks November 14, 2012

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

March 2013

Poker Chip Project Environmental Assessment

2

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 USDA, Director, Office of

Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-

6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.


3

Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 5

Alternative 1: Proposed Action ....................................................................................................... 5

Area Salvage Harvesting ............................................................................................................. 7

Danger Tree Removal ................................................................................................................. 7

Reforestation ............................................................................................................................... 8

Transportation System ................................................................................................................ 9

Integrated Design Features ........................................................................................................ 14

Purpose and Need for Action ........................................................................................................ 23

Decision to be Made ...................................................................................................................... 24

Public Involvement ........................................................................................................................ 25

Scoping...................................................................................................................................... 25

Alternatives ................................................................................................................................... 26

Alternatives Considered in Detail ............................................................................................. 26

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) .................................................................................................... 26

Alternative 2 (No Action) .............................................................................................................. 26

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study .................................................. 26

Alternative 3 .................................................................................................................................. 26

Comparison of Alternatives ...................................................................................................... 27

Environmental Effects ................................................................................................................... 28

Terrestrial Wildlife ........................................................................................................................ 29

Management Indicator Species...................................................................................................... 49

Aquatic Species ............................................................................................................................. 68

Watershed ...................................................................................................................................... 74

Silviculture .................................................................................................................................... 82

Economics (from Silviculture Report) .......................................................................................... 88

Fire and Fuels ................................................................................................................................ 91

Soils ............................................................................................................................................... 96

Botany ........................................................................................................................................... 99

Recreation .................................................................................................................................... 104

Transportation ............................................................................................................................. 106

Range Resources ......................................................................................................................... 107

Air Quality ................................................................................................................................... 109

Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................... 111

Agencies and Persons Consulted ................................................................................................. 113

Tables

Table 1. Poker Chip proposed actions by acres ............................................................................... 6

Table 2. Proposed actions by unit number and acres. Changes in acres or treatment detail are in

bold and italics. ..................................................................................................................... 10

Table 3. RCA widths and mechanical restriction zones (measured from the edge of the aquatic

feature) ................................................................................................................................... 20

Table 4. Comparison of Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 .............................................................. 27


4

Table 5. Status and Consideration of terrestrial TES Species within the Poker Chips Analysis

Area. ...................................................................................................................................... 30

Table 6. Tree Size Class and Canopy Cover Categories Used By the California Wildlife Habitat

Relationship (CWHR) System .............................................................................................. 32

Table 7. Selection of MIS for Project-Level Habitat Analysis for the Poker Chip Project. .......... 50

Table 8. Summary of Pre- and Post-treatment Terrestrial MIS Habitat Acres within the Proposed

project area. Total acres within the project area = 8,111, with 4,585 acres proposed for

treatment. ............................................................................................................................... 51

Table 9. Acres of MCP habitat within the project area and acres of MCP in treatment units. ...... 54

Table 10. Summary of Early Seral acres within Poker Chip Project area. .................................... 56

Table 11. Summary of Mid Seral acres within Poker Chip Project area. ...................................... 57

Table 12. Summary of Late Seral Open Coniferous (5S and 5P) acres within project area. ......... 59

Table 13. Summary of Late Seral Closed Coniferous (5M, 5D, and 6) acres within project area. 61

Table 14. Summary of green forested acres potentially supporting medium and large snags within

project area. ........................................................................................................................... 62

Table 15. Suitable BBWO habitat within the 8,111 acre Poker Chip project area. ....................... 64

Table 16. Acres of conifer CWHR 3M, 3D, 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, and 6 within the Poker Chip project

area affected by different burn severities from the fire. ........................................................ 65

Table 17. Acres of Suitable Black-backed Woodpecker habitat affected by moderate and high

burn severity and that would be treated in the Poker Chip Project. ...................................... 65

Table 18. Comparison of amounts of suitable black-backed woodpecker habitat impacted under

the Poker Chip project, based on different definitions of suitable habitat. ............................ 66

Table 19. Acres and percentage of suitable BBWO habitat affected within the project area

separated by treatment type. .................................................................................................. 67

Table 20. Status and consideration of Aquatic TES species for the Poker Chip Project............... 68

Table 21. Pre-project and Alternative 1 ERA percentage (not including future projects or other

projects only in the planning stage) and TOC values for Poker Chip Project subwatersheds.

............................................................................................................................................... 77

Table 22: Estimated ERA percent values by Poker Chip Project subwatersheds for 2013, 2016,

and 2018. Includes ERA percent estimates from Alternative 1 and estimates of activities on

FS and private lands. ............................................................................................................. 79

Table 23. Alternative 2 ERA percentage values for project subwatersheds in 2013 and foreseeable

future. Includes estimates on FS and private lands. .............................................................. 82

Table 24. Alternative 1 Estimated Total Timber Yield and Value ................................................ 89

Table 25. Alternative 1 Site Preparation and Reforestation Costs in Salvage and Danger Tree

Units ...................................................................................................................................... 89

Table 26. Alternative 1 Project Benefit/Cost Ratio ....................................................................... 89

Table 27. Alternative 1 Site Preparation and Reforestation Costs in Reforestation Only Units ... 90

Table 28. Comparison of Economic Impacts of Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. ........................ 91

Table 29. Fuel Models, Fuel Loadings, and Fire Type for Alternative 1 ...................................... 92

Table 30. Fuel models, fuel loading, and fire type for Alternative 2*. This table does not take into

account surface fuels greater than 3-inch diameter ............................................................... 95

Table 31. Summary of Transportation Actions with Alternative 1 ............................................. 106

Appendices

Appendix A – Map package

Appendix B – Noxious Weed Risk Assessment

Appendix C – Burn Severity by California Wildlife Habitat Relationship


5

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT USDA Forest Service

Poker Chip Project

Almanor Ranger District; Lassen National Forest

Plumas County, California

Introduction

On July 29, 2012, a fire began in the Chips Creek drainage in the Plumas National Forest (PNF).

The Chips Fire was contained on August 31, 2012, after burning 75,431 acres in two national

forests and on private lands. The Poker Chip project proposes treatment within the Chips Fire

perimeter in the Almanor Ranger District (ALRD) of the Lassen National Forest (LNF) and in

approximately 118 acres within the Mt. Hough Ranger District of the Plumas National Forest.

The project is located in management areas 37 (Butt Creek), 38 (Prattville), 45 (Soda Ridge), and

47 (Mt. Hope) in all or portions of T. 25 N., R 6 E. sec. 2-5, 9-11; T. 26 N., R. 6 E. sec. 3, 4, 8-

10, 13-27, 29-31, 33-36; T. 26 N., R 7 E. sec. 4-9, 17-19, 30, 31; T. 27 N., R. 7 E. sec. 22-26; T.

27 N., R. 8 E. sec. 19, 20, 29, 30; Mount Diablo Meridian.

It is not the intent of this summary document to analyze the effects of the Chips fire. The Poker

Chip project analysis focuses on whether the alternatives analyzed would cause effects on the

natural and physical environment, and the relationship of people with that environment.

***

Clarification: Specific elements of this project are described below. During site-specific field

review and analysis, additional clarifications were identified and are found in this Environmental

Assessment in italics.

***

Alternative 1: Proposed Action

The proposed action was developed to accomplish the purpose and need for the Poker Chip

project by evaluating existing vegetation conditions, burn patterns and intensities, and land

allocations within the analysis area. It takes into consideration the decision with the Creeks II

Forest Restoration Project (September 27, 2012) to defer until 2016 Creeks II treatments (with the

exception of road decommissioning) in the Grizzly Creek, Soda Creek, and Lemm Hollow

subwatersheds to provide time for these subwatersheds to recover from the impacts of the Chips

Fire. Appendix A – Map 2 displays the general vicinity of the Poker Chip Project in relation to

the Chips Fire perimeter and Appendix A – Maps 3 – 5 provide the locations of proposed area


6

salvage, danger tree, and reforestation treatment units. Table 1 displays the acres proposed to be

treated by activity.

***

Clarification: Since the distribution for public scoping of the Poker Chip Project proposed

actions, the Mt Hough Ranger District of the Plumas National Forest completed project

development for the Chip-munk Recovery and Restoration Project. As the actions included in that

proposed project were refined, it became apparent that some of the acres in the PNF proposed

for treatment with the Poker Chip Project could be included in the Chip-munk implementation.

The Poker Chip proposed action has been modified accordingly. This environmental analysis

includes a proposal to treat only 114 acres within the PNF.

In addition, mechanical site preparation (reforestation) treatments within RCAs have been

changed to hand treatment. This does not change the overall acres treated, but does change

approximately 66 acres of mechanical site preparation within RCAs to hand treatment.

Mastication proposed within RCAs (approximately 13 acres) does not change.

In unit 6017 (near Humbug Valley), approximately 5 acres of proposed mechanical salvage

within an RCA has been changed to proposed helicopter treatment. These 5 acres have been

“dropped” from unit 6017 and included with unit 6018.

During analysis, aerial photos were used to define RCAs around riparian features not previously

identified. As a result, RCAs were recognized to be a larger portion of the project area than

reflected in the scoped proposed action. Treatments proposed with the scoped action were altered

to adhere to RCA treatment guidelines reflected in the IDFs for the Poker Chip project (Table 2).

***

Table 1. Poker Chip proposed actions by acres

Activity

Proposed Action as Scoped (acres*)

Proposed Action as Analyzed (acres*)

RCA treatment proposed with

scoping (acres*)

RCA treatment as analyzed

(acres*)

Area Salvage 723 547 22 90

Danger Tree 1,589 1,589 195 284

Reforestation 3,504 3,296 312 363

*All acres totals are affected by rounding


7

Area Salvage Harvesting

The Forest Service is proposing to salvage harvest fire-killed and fire-injured trees within the

perimeter of the Chips Fire in the Almanor Ranger District (see Appendix A - Maps 3-5, and

Table 2). Fire salvage marking guidelines are based upon the fire-injured tree marking guidelines

(Report #RO-011-01, Smith and Cluck, May 2011) developed by Region 5 Forest Health

Protection at the 0.9 probability of mortality level (Pm = 0.9). The guideline criteria for delayed

conifer tree mortality are based on percent crown length killed. The objectives of these guidelines

are to 1) remove those trees that are dead or have a high probability of mortality due to fire-injury

and 2) retain those trees that would likely survive to maintain wildlife habitat and desired forest

cover.

The salvage harvest operations would utilize ground-based, mechanical harvesting to remove fire-

killed and fire-injured trees from treatment areas on slopes 35 percent or less. On slopes greater

than 35 percent, hand-felling and yarding by helicopter would be used to salvage harvest fire-

killed and fire-injured trees from treatment areas. Area salvage harvesting would occur on

approximately547 acres. Table 2 displays the harvest method for each proposed unit. Activity-

generated fuels would be broadcast burned or piled mechanically or by hand, and piles burned.

With the proposed area salvage activities, approximately 90 acres would be treated within RCAs

adjacent to seasonally or perennially flowing stream channels (Table 2). Approximately 8 acres

would be treated using ground-based mechanical equipment. In the remaining acres within RCAs

proposed for area salvage, harvest activities would consist of hand-felling and helicopter yarding.

Area salvage units would be planted to comply with Region 5 Stocking Guidelines while

considering desired future forested conditions and minimal future management needs.

Concentrations of activity-generated fuels and fire-killed trees less than 15-inches diameter at

breast height (dbh) would be removed to facilitate reforestation, help protect planted trees once

they become established, and reduce the risk of a possible re-burn. In addition to fuels reduction,

site preparation would include activities to reduce competing vegetation. This may be done by

manual scalping, grubbing, or use of gas-powered brush cutters. Site preparation activities are

considered an investment to help ensure the success and protection of planted trees. Planting of

these units would follow the reforestation activities described below.

Danger Tree Removal

The LNF proposes to fell and remove or fell and leave in place fire-affected danger trees along

maintenance level 2 (ML2) and higher roads within the Chips Fire perimeter in the LNF

(Appendix A – Maps 3-5). These fire-injured danger trees are trees which could fall, or fall and

roll, into the roadway. Danger tree marking guidelines would be based upon the fire-injured tree


8

marking guidelines (Report #RO-11-01, Smith and Cluck, May 2011) at the 0.9 probability of

mortality level (Pm=0.9) and hazard tree marking guidelines (Report #RO-12-01, Angwin et al,

April 2012) developed by Region 5 Forest Health Protection. The guideline criteria for delayed,

fire-related conifer tree mortality are based on percent crown length killed. The objectives of

these guidelines are to: 1) remove those trees that are dead or have a high probability of mortality

due to fire-injury or have structural defects that indicate high failure potential to abate potential

hazards to visitors and improve safety and access within the LNF Chips Fire area and 2) retain

those trees that would likely survive to maintain visual quality, wildlife habitat and recreational

values. This balance aims to retain healthy forested conditions while providing for safety and

access to the area.

Sub-merchantable trees and non-merchantable danger trees would be felled and left in place, or

piled and the piles burned, depending upon the amount of surface fuel loading present.

Reforestation would occur in the Danger Tree units adjacent to area salvage and reforestation

only units. Reforestation is not proposed in Danger Tree units elsewhere.

Reforestation

Reforestation is proposed in approximately 2,749 acres outside of the proposed area salvage

harvest units (“reforestation-only units”) (see Table 2 and Appendix A – Maps 3-5). In these

reforestation units, site preparation could include machine or hand cutting and piling and pile

burning or broadcast burning fire killed trees generally less than 15-inches dbh; machine or hand

cutting and leaving in place danger trees; and mastication of fire killed shrub stems and trees less

than 5-inches dbh (Table 2). In addition, sprouting shrubs and vegetation may need to be treated

adjacent to planted trees to reduce competition for site resources in order to assure establishment.

This may be done through manual or mechanical cutting methods such as grubbing, mastication,

or use of brush cutters. A walking excavator may be used for site preparation on slopes over 35

percent. To minimize the need for ground-disturbing site preparation to control competing

vegetation, planting would occur as soon as possible following salvage or fuels reduction

treatments in preparation for planting.

Approximately 363 acres of reforestation are proposed within RCAs. Of these proposed

reforestation acres, approximately 350 acres would be site-prepped by hand treatment and

approximately 13 acres would be masticated using low-pressure, ground-based mechanical

equipment (Table 2).

Planting would comply with Region 5 Stocking Guidelines while considering desired future

conditions and minimal future cultural needs. Planted tree species would be appropriate for the


9

site and would include a mixture of Jeffrey, ponderosa, western white, or sugar pine, Douglas-fir

or incense-cedar. Red fir would be planted if seed source is not present.

Conventional planting would be applied in all areas proposed for reforestation. Tree planting

spacing would average approximately 12 by 12 feet. Hardwood trees would be encouraged and

promoted in plantations. Where California black oak occurs at high density, portions of units may

be left as oak leave islands. In areas of moderate or infrequent hardwood occurrence, planted

conifers would be spaced off hardwood sprouts and saplings and not planted within 20 feet of the

edge of oak tree crowns. Planting densities would generally be lower and more variable within

these units. This spacing would be modified during the first and third year manual release so that

no more than two conifers would be retained within 12 feet of an oak sprout. Conifer seedlings

would not be planted within 150 feet of riparian hardwoods (e.g. alder, willows, cottonwood

trees, aspen, and dogwood within RCAs) or within wet meadows.

First- and third-year survival examinations on all planted units would occur. Planted units would

be assessed for whether competing vegetation may need to be treated. The proposed action

includes at least one release treatment using manual or mechanical methods such as hand

grubbing, mastication, or brush cutting to control competing vegetation within one to three years

and a second treatment conducted within two to five years of planting. Sites planted with trees

should be certified of establishment five years after planting. Animal control actions such as

protective barriers or trapping may be used.

Transportation System

Where possible, the existing forest transportation system would be used to provide access to

treatment units. Road maintenance, including surface protection and erosion control, would be

performed on portions of that system as needed for project implementation. A dust abatement

plan would be included to control wind-caused erosion from road use. National Forest System

roads and non-paved county roads used for haul would receive pre-, during-, and post-haul

maintenance as per Forest Service Road Maintenance T-Specifications for Timber Sale Contracts,

hereby incorporated by reference.

Approximately 2.08 miles of non-system roads are needed for project implementation and long-

term future management. These non-system roads would be upgraded for Forest transportation

standards as maintenance level 1 (ML1) roads and added to the Forest transportation system.

Approximately 1 mile of temporary road would be constructed to implement proposed actions.

Following project implementation, this temporary road would be obliterated. (Appendix A – Map

6).


10

All water sources proposed for use in this project would be brought up to best management

practice (BMP) standards. Water sources proposed for use in implementing this project include:

L-T Creek (T26N R6E, E ½ sec. 19)

Grizzly Creek (T26N R6E, S ½ sec. 23)

Miller Ravine (T26N R6E, SW ¼ sec. 11)

Water Creek (upper) (T26N R6E, SW ¼ sec. 3)

Humbug Creek (T26N R7E, W ½ sec. 5)

Unnamed spring (T27N R8E, near the middle of sec. 19)

Lake Almanor, at the Canyon Dam boat ramp (T27N R8E, SW ¼ of sec. 21)

Soldier Creek (T27N R6E, sec. 14)

Humbug Creek (T26N R7E NW1/4 sec. 6)

Water Creek (T26N R6E SE1/4 sec. 2)

Rock Creek (T26N R6E NE1/4 sec. 7

Table 2. Proposed actions by unit number and acres. Changes in acres or treatment detail are in bold

and italics.

Unit # Danger Tree Area Salvage acres* Reforestation Site Prep** RCA acres

acres* Tractor Greater than

50% basal area mortality

Tractor Less than 50%

basal area mortality

Helicopter Acres* Mechanical

Hand

P = perennial S = seasonal

0010 187 11 S

0011 18 5 S

0012 15 4 S

0013 32 3

22 P S

0014 8

0015 9 4 S

0016 2 2 P

0017 10 7 P

0018 22 6 S

0019 2

0020 104 16 S

0021 21 3 S

0022 9 1 S

0023 21

0024 163 32 3

P S

0025 68


11


0026 47 2 P

0027 78 22 2

S P

0028 33 4

11 S P

0029 2 1 S

0030 6 < 1 P

0031 96 14 S

0032 70 5 P

0033 19 < 1 S

0034 421 2

78 P S

0035 69 2

16 P S

0036 48 2 S

0037 9

0100 26 M/P < 1 P

0102 26 H/P 2 P

0103 117 H/P 4 P

0104 43 H/L

0105 51 H/L 20 P

0107 11 H/L 4 S

0108 24 H/L 4 S

0109 32 H/L 7 2

P S

0111 11 H/L 6 2

P S

0112 48 H/L 2 S

0113 38 33 G/P 5 H/P

5 S

0114 49 35 S/P 14 H/P

14 S

0115 11 H/L 6 P

0116 8 4 S/P 4 H/P

4 S

0117 19 17 S/P 2 H/P

2 S

0118 104 86 S/P 18 H/P

9 9

P S

0120 192 H/L 8 P

0122 114 H/L 21 S

0123 73 H/L 7 S

0124 252 H/L 22 S

0125 51 H/L 6 9

P S


12


0126 60 H/L 1 S

0130 55 45 G/P 10 H/P

10 S

0131 31 H/L 1 7

S P

0133 264 H/L 5

12 P S

0135 29 H/L 2 P

0137 39 H/L 9 S

0138 6 H/L 2 P

0139 77 H/L 58 P

0140 14 H/P 4 P

0141 9 H/L

0142 28 20 S/P 8 H/P

8 P

0143 78 H/L 4 S

0144 67 66 M/P 1 H/P

<1 P

0200 14 H/L

0201 35 H/P

0202 21 H/P

0203 14 H/L

0206 29 H/P 7 P

0207 19 None None

0208 11 Masticate 6 S

0209 10 H/L 2 P

0210 29 None None < 1 S

0211 27 None None

0212 4 None None

0213 10 Masticate


0300 22 M/P

0301 9 M/P

0305 7 H/L 1 S

0307 104 H/L 4 P

0326 9 6 M/P 3 H/P

3 S

0327 44 39 M/P 5 H/P

5 S

0328 4 Masticate

0329 3 H/P < 1 S

0330 7 M/P

0331 14 M/P < 1 S


13


0332 8 H/P 1 S

0333 28 H/P 2 S

0334 9 Masticate

0335 11 M/P <1 S

0336 7 H/P 3 S

0337 3 H/P

0339 6 H/L <1 S

0340 17 H/L 2

10 P S

0343 7 H/L

0345 30 H/L

0346 16 Masticate


0348 3 H/L

0349 14 M/P 4 S

1001 12 0 0 12 M/P <1 S

1002 4 0 0 4 M/P

1003 22 0 0 22 M/P 3 S

1004 12 0 0 12 M/P

1005 56 0 0 56 M/P

1006 0 0 16 16 H/P 10 S

1007 0 0 4 4 H/P 1 S

1008 0 0 62 62 H/P < 1 S

1009 0 0 4 4 H/P 1 S

1010 0 0 2 2 H/P

1012 0 0 16 16 H/P

1013 0 0 10 10 H/P

1014 0 23 0 23 M/P 2 S

1015 0 0 24 24 H/P 11 S

1017 0 37 0 37 H/P 13 S

1019 0 0 13 13 H/P 5 S

1021 0 11 0 11 M/P

6012 0 0 8 8 H/P <1 S

6013 0 19 0 19 M/P 1 S

6015 0 0 15 15 H/P <1 P

6017 9 0 0 9 M/P

6018 0 0 8 8 H/P 5 S

6020 0 0 12 12 M/P

6021 0 0 16 16 H/P <1 S

6022 0 0 10 10 H/P 4 S

6023 0 0 5 5 H/P


14


6024 13 0 0 13 M/P <1 S

6027 0 0 7 7 H/P

6028 0 0 45 45 H/P 28 S

6029 0 0 5 5 H/P 2 S

6030 3 0 0 3 M/P <1 S

7002 31 0 0 31 M/P

7004 3 0 0 3 M/P

7005 0 11 0 11 M/P

7007 0 0 0 28 27 G/P 1 H/P

1

< 1 P S

7011 0 0 0 18 16 G/P 2 H/P

2 S

8002 0 0 0 19 G/P

Totals

1589 165 101 282 3296

Area Salvage Total 547

*All acres totals are affected by rounding

**Site Preparation M/P = mechanical, cut/pile snags G/P = grapple, cut/pile snags S/P = low ground pressure tracked equipment

H/P = hand cut/pile snags H/L = hand cut/leave snags

Integrated Design Features

The following are resource protection measures included as part of Alternative 1 (Proposed

Action) for this project.

Botany

1. Landings would not be placed within known occurrences of any TES plant species.

2. Hand and machine piles would not be placed within known occurrences of any TES plant

species.

3. During danger tree removal, trees would be directionally felled away from Boechera

constancei occurrence #1 (unit 0024), Lupinus dalesiae occurrences #11 (unit 0023), #13

(unit 0024), and #18 (unit 0012), and from Monardella follettii occurrences #2A, #2B,

and #2C (unit 0028).

4. Ground-disturbing activities within salvage units and reforestation units, including

prescribed fire, would not occur within Lupinus dalesiae occurrences #12 (unit 6013),

Monardella follettii occurrences #2A, #2B, and #2C (unit 0109), and Monardella follettii

occurrence #2D (unit 0117). These occurrences would be flagged and avoided with

locations displayed on contract maps.

5. Site preparation and release activities in salvage and reforestation units such as grapple

cutting, grubbing, scalping and mastication would not occur within Packera eurycephala

var. lewisrosei occurrence #2 (units 0104, 0109, 0111, and 7007) unless surveys


15

determine that these activities would not impact Packera eurycephala var. lewisrosei.

Hand cutting would be permitted within this occurrence.

6. Broadcast burning activities would not occur within reforestation units 0104, 0109, 0111,

or 7007 to protect Packera eurycephala var. lewisrosei habitat and plants. Broadcast

burning activities would not occur within area salvage units 1003, 1006, 1015, and 6022

and within reforestation units 0326, 0327 and 0331 unless surveys determine that

broadcast burning would not impact Cypripedium fasciculatum habitat.

7. Tree planting would not occur within known occurrences of TES plant species, with the

exception of Packera eurycephala var. lewisrosei occurrence #2 within units 0104, 0109,

0111, and 7007.

8. A Lewisia kelloggii var. lewisrosei limited operating period (LOP) from May 1 to July 1

would be applied within salvage units 1001, 1002, 1003, 1004, 1006, 1007, 1014 and

1015 and within reforestation units 0300 and 0301. Should surveys prior to

implementation determine lack of suitable habitat and/or plants, the LOP would be lifted.

Any new occurrences would be flagged and avoided by all ground disturbing activities.

9. Ground disturbing activities (with the exception of danger tree removal and hand thinning

activities) would be excluded and trees would be directionally felled away from known

occurrences of Cypripedium fasciculatum, and from patches of dogwood (Cornus sp.)

within RCAs. No piles would be placed within 25 feet of dogwood patches within RCAs.

10. New occurrences of any TES plant species would be flagged and avoided or protected

through similar measures as described above.

11. All off-road equipment would be weed-free prior to entering Lassen National Forest.

Staging of equipment would be done in weed-free areas.

12. Known infestations of Rubus armeniacus (Himalayan blackberry) would be identified,

flagged and avoided, and mapped for this project. Locations would be displayed on

contract maps. Identified noxious weed sites within or adjacent to the project area

containing isolated patches with small plant numbers would be treated (hand pulled or

dug) by forest botany staff prior to project implementation.

13. New small infestations of priority weed species identified prior to or during project

implementation would be treated and avoided by project activities. If larger infestations

are identified, they would be isolated and avoided by equipment, or equipment used

would be washed after leaving the infested area and before entering an uninfested area.

14. Post-project monitoring for implementation and effectiveness of weed treatments and

control of new infestations would be conducted as soon as possible and for a period

multiple years after completion of the project.

15. If project implementation calls for mulches or fill, they would be certified weed-free.

Seed mixes used for re-vegetation of disturbed sites would consist of locally-adapted

native plant materials to the extent practicable.


16

Cultural Resources

Federal laws, regulations and programmatic agreements between the Forest Service and the

Office of Historic Preservation for the protection of cultural resources would be followed.

Cultural resource surveys would be completed to current professional standards for all planned

treatment areas (salvage, danger tree and reforestation units) and project activity areas (water

holes, landings, roads) before project implementation. Treatment units without completed

archaeological survey would be deferred to a future decision. Historic properties identified

within the Poker Chip project area of potential effect (APE) would be protected during project

implementation utilizing the following protection measures:

16. Class I (eligible properties) and Class II (potentially eligible properties) historic

properties within or adjacent to treatment areas, activity areas (i.e., landings, water

sources etc.) or access roads would have their boundaries flagged and tagged as non-entry

zones for all project activities. No project-related activities shall occur within site

boundaries.

17. Class I and Class II historic properties located within the project APE but not in close

proximity to identified treatment areas shall be protected from indirect project impacts

such as use of sites for staging equipment or vehicles (i.e., timber harvest equipment;

water trucks; road construction, reconstruction or maintenance equipment; Forest Service

vehicles etc.) or any other activities. Forest Service project manager would be apprised of

all site locations to insure protection from direct as well as indirect effects; permanent

tags shall define the site boundary.

18. Linear sites such as historic roads, ditches and prehistoric quarries may be crossed on a

limited basis in previously disturbed areas. All crossings shall be made perpendicular to

the site, and the site shall be returned to its original design at project completion. All

crossings shall be designated by heritage personnel.

19. Hauling on main system roads that bisect archaeological sites would continue. Vehicles

and equipment using these roads must stay on the road prism in areas that bisect heritage

sites. New road construction, reconstruction, or modification of the existing prism within

site boundaries would not occur without additional review and/or consultation.

20. Forest system spur roads and non-system roads that bisect archaeological sites shall not

be used except under the following circumstances: road redesigned to exclude historic

properties; heritage properties have been evaluated and determined ineligible for the

NHRP or protective material is placed on roadbed in sufficient quantity to protect surface

of site from disturbance.


17

21. Project manager or sale administrator shall walk historic property boundaries located

within or near activity areas with operator before project implementation to insure

protection.

22. Historic properties within or adjacent to planned treatment areas, activity areas or roads

shall be monitored during and after project completion.

23. If heritage resources are identified during project implementation (unanticipated

discovery) all work would cease immediately in that area until the situation is reviewed

and an assessment and mitigation plan instituted to insure protection of the site.

Range

24. The Forest Service range specialist and the permittee would coordinate livestock

distribution needs for the burned areas, active timber felling operations, or haul routes for

logging trucks.

25. Fences damaged because of project activities would be repaired prior to returning grazing

animals to the project area.

Recreation

The Lassen National Forest LRMP calls for management of visual resources and recreation

resources via application of Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) and the Recreation Opportunity

Spectrum (ROS), respectively. The following measures would assure protection of these

resources during project implementation:

26. National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) trailheads and trails would be protected

during operations and informational signs posted in advance of project implementation.

27. Cut tree marking would be applied within 150 feet of NFTS trails falling within

Retention (R) and Partial Retention (PR) VQO classes.

28. Operations-created slash within 50 feet of trails would be piled, and piles burned or

removed. Piles would be located a minimum of 50 feet from trails and trailheads.

29. Within areas with the ROS designation of semi-primitive, non-motorized (SPNM),

impacts of mechanical treatment would be minimized.

30. In salvage units, trees removed within 50 feet on either side of NFTS trails would leave a

maximum eight-inch stump.

31. Equipment crossing of NFTS trails would be limited to designated crossings. Trail tread

would be restored at crossings.


18

Note: In high severity burn areas, it is unlikely that Visual Quality Objectives may be met in

the traditional sense (e.g. that green trees would be retained as the dominant visual feature).

However, the VQOs set forth for these areas would be kept in mind when planning

reforestation efforts and when treating the burned vegetation. For example, stumps may be

cut low to the ground, at a maximum of eight inches, to facilitate blending into the landscape

once the area begins to recover. Silvicultural management planning would take VQO

guidelines into account when planting. Timber harvest activities may affect visual quality in

terms of ground scars left by skidding or scars left on live trees. All of these elements are part

of the visual equation and would be taken into account during project implementation.

Silviculture

32. All sugar pine identified as rust resistant or as a candidate for rust resistance would be

protected. A $20,000 fine would be imposed for each rust proven resistant or candidate

tree damaged during operations.

33. Cut stumps of conifer trees greater than 14-inches (basal diameter) removed under hazard

tree marking guidelines would be treated with an EPA approved and California registered

borate compound for the prevention of annosus root disease. Borate compound would not

be applied to stumps within 25-feet of live stream courses, meadows/wetlands, riparian

vegetation, or known Sensitive Plant species.

Soils

34. Soil quality standards and appropriate best management practices (BMP) that protect

forest soils would be implemented for the entire project. Standards are described in

Lassen National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP, 1993), the 2004

Sierra Nevada Framework Plan Amendment ROD (2004), and the USFS Region 5 Soil

Management Supplement No. 2500-2012-1 (2012). BMPs are described in the USFS

Region 5 Water Quality Management Handbook Amendment No. 2509.22-2011-1

(2011).

35. Where they exist, at least five logs per acre greater than 12 inches in diameter would be

retained in contact with the soil surface. These logs should represent the total range of

decomposition.

36. Within the RCA: Soils must be dry at the 10-inch depth (15 bars of tension) before heavy

equipment could be operated.

37. Outside the RCA: Soil moisture conditions would be evaluated using Forest established

visual indicators before equipment operations proceed. Lassen National Forest Wet

Weather Operations and Wet Weather Haul Agreements would be followed to protect the

soil and transportation resources.


19

38. Project Units 0117, 0118, and 0142 would retain at least 30 percent of existing shrub

cover. An old landslide located within unit 0118 would be excluded from treatment.

39. Where walking excavators would be used for site preparation on slopes over 35 percent,

operation would be initiated with a soil scientist or hydrologist present to ensure soil

quality standards would be met. Post-implementation disturbed soil in these units would

be left with greater than 70 percent cover on slopes over 35 percent, or greater than 50

percent cover on slopes 16 to 35 percent. This cover would consist of rocks, litter and

duff, low-growing plants, and woody debris (including slash).

40. Outside of RCAs, wheel-based and track-based equipment would be limited to slopes up

to 35 percent.

41. To the extent possible, existing landings and skid trails would be utilized.

42. In units designated for the use of ground-based mechanical equipment other than walking

excavators (area salvage, danger tree, and reforestation) where equipment activities take

place on slopes greater than 15 percent, post-implementation soil cover would be left

with greater than 50 percent. This cover would consist of rocks, litter, low-growing

plants, and woody debris (including slash).

43. Machine piling operations would remove only enough material to accomplish project

objectives. Soil being pushed into burn piles and equipment turning would be minimized.

Duff and litter layers would be left as intact as possible.

44. Following implementation, the project site would be evaluated by a qualified specialist to

determine if detrimentally compacted ground exceeds the LRMP standard of 15 percent

areal extent. If remediation is needed to meet the standard, an appropriate subsoiler,

ripper or other implement would be used to fracture the soil in place, leaving it loose and

friable. Landings no longer needed for long-term management would be remediated as

described. Where landing construction involved cut and fill, the landing would also be re-

contoured to match the existing topography.

Watershed

Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs)

Lands adjacent to streams, meadows, and other wetlands on the forest are referred to as Riparian

Conservation Areas (RCAs). RCAs are managed differently than the rest of the landscape. In

these areas, treatments are designed to ensure that riparian conservation objectives (RCOs) are

met. In addition to the following integrated design features (IDFs), all applicable best

management practices (BMPs) would be implemented. BMPs are described in Water Quality

Management for Forest System Lands in California, Best Management Practices (USDA FS,


20

2010) and the 2004 SNFPA ROD. Soil standards and guidelines established according to the

Region 5, Sierra Nevada Forest Plan, and Lassen National Forest frameworks would be

implemented throughout the project area.

RCA widths

RCAs are composed of wetlands, meadows, lakes, fens, springs, and seasonal and perennial

streams. The term “aquatic feature” refers to all of those features. RCA widths and mechanical

restriction zones would be as follows:

Table 3. RCA widths and mechanical restriction zones (measured from the edge of the aquatic

feature)

Type of RCA RCA width Ground-based mechanical

equipment other than

walking excavator

Walking

excavator

Perennial stream 300 ft. 150 ft. 50 ft.

Seasonal stream 150 ft. 50 ft. 25 ft.

Lake / wetland / meadow /

fen / spring

300 ft. 75 ft. 25 ft.

45. Erosion hazard mitigations such as mulch, certified weed-free rice straw, and straw

waddles may be utilized if needed to meet RCOs.

46. In RCAs, hand-felled trees would be limbed and tops left to provide surface roughness

and ground cover.

47. During broadcast burning, no ignitions within RCAs would be permitted. However, fire

is permitted to back into RCAs.

48. In danger tree units within RCAs, ground-based mechanical equipment would be

restricted to the road prism. Danger trees would be hand-felled onto the road and skidded

to the nearest landing. Danger trees that cannot be felled onto the road would be felled

parallel to the contour of the slope and left in place.

49. Within the mechanical restriction zones, ground-based equipment would be used to

remove timber using one-end suspension.

50. Hand-felling within the RCA (and mechanical restriction zone) would be permitted.

51. Riparian species (aspen, cottonwood, alder, willow, dogwood, etc.) would not be

removed.

52. Within 10 feet of any aquatic feature, trees over 8 inches dbh would not be removed, but

may be felled for safety reasons and left.

53. Ground-based mechanical equipment would be kept off slopes greater than 20 percent

within RCAs. An exception to this would be the use of a walking excavator for

reforestation activities.


21

54. Timber in the RCA would be harvested with equipment with a 24-inch or greater track

width.

55. Turning of equipment would be kept at a minimum.

56. There would be no perennial stream crossings by mechanical equipment. If deemed

necessary, seasonal stream crossings may be designated by a hydrologist, fish biologist,

or soil scientist prior to implementation.

57. Skid trails within RCAs would be kept to a minimum. No waterbars would be installed

on skid trails within RCAs following treatment.

58. Skid trails within RCAs would require 90 percent ground cover following project

implementation.

59. No piling of material for burning may occur within 25 feet of an aquatic feature. If piles

for burning cover more than 10 percent of the RCA in a unit, only one-third of the piles

would be burned in any given year to avoid impacting the nearby riparian environment.

60. There would be no construction of new landings or use of old landings in an RCA

without concurrence with a hydrologist, soil scientist, or fisheries biologist. Within an

RCA, any landing used would be decommissioned following project implementation and

evaluated for erosion potential. Erosion control mitigations may include obliteration of

the landing, spreading of mulch, woody debris, or certified weed-free straw.

61. Maintenance Level 1 Roads used for project implementation: Following project

implementation, drainage features (lead out ditches, waterbars, etc.) would be constructed

to adequately drain the road and prevent erosion and the road would be sufficiently

blocked to prevent use by motorized vehicles.

62. In RCAs, site preparation may be completed by hand within equipment exclusion zones.

No site preparation or planting would occur within an aquatic feature.

Minor modifications of IDFs may be allowed upon concurrence with an agency hydrologist, soil

scientist, or fisheries biologist.

Wildlife

63. Black oak and other hardwoods, alive or dead, would be retained and protected within

treatment units within the limits of safety and operability.

Area Salvage

64. Retain a minimum of 4 snags per acre across a unit area. Retain the largest snags, 15 inch

dbh and greater. Snags should be clumped and distributed irregularly across the treatment

unit especially where large snags are concentrated. Snag selection may include currently

live trees with a 15 to 20 percent chance of survival or snags that were not fire killed.

Preference would be given to retaining sugar pine, ponderosa pine, western white pine,

Douglas fir, and incense cedar snags. Within helicopter units, snags would be retained in

a manner to facilitate meeting safety requirements.


22

Reforestation

65. Maintain a minimum 15 percent cover of shrubs in mastication plantation release

treatments.

66. A minimum of 4 of the largest snags, (15-inch dbh and greater) per acre would be

retained across a treatment unit area. Snags should be clumped and distributed irregularly

across the treatment unit especially where large snags are concentrated. Snag selection

may include currently live trees with a 15-20 percent chance of survival or snags that

were not fire-killed. Preference would be given to retaining sugar pine, ponderosa pine,

western white pine, Douglas fir and incense cedar snags.

Limited Operating Periods

67. The following Limited Operation Periods (LOP) would be implemented within ¼ mile of

known active nest sites:

California spotted owl: March 1 - August 31

Northern goshawk: February 15 - September 15

Bald eagle: November 1 – August 31

68. If a new California spotted owl nest is discovered, a 300-acre protected activity center

(PAC) would be developed surrounding the nest site commensurate with current

direction.

69. If a new, active goshawk nest site is found within the project area, a 200-acre protected

activity center would be developed surrounding the nest site commensurate with current

direction. If found within a unit during operations, the nest tree would be protected with a

500-foot no treatment buffer.

70. In areas with suitable habitat that have not been surveyed, LOPs would be implemented

until surveys have been completed.

71. If a marten den site is discovered, a LOP would be implemented May 1 – July 31 and a

100 acre buffer surrounding the den site would be developed to protect from disturbance

from vegetation treatments.

Air Quality

72. Prescribed burning would only be conducted on permissive burn days as defined by the

California Air Resources Board (CARB) and following the constraints of a Smoke


23

Management Plan (SMP) approved by the appropriate county air quality management

district.

Clarification: The following IDFs were added during analysis:

73. A fisheries biologist will visit all potential water drafting sites within the project area

prior to use to determine presence or absence of Cascades or SNYL tadpoles or egg

masses. If tadpoles or egg masses are identified at a potential water drafting site, that

site would not be used for water drafting.

Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose and need for the Poker Chip Project is as follows:

Recover economic timber value before marketability is drastically reduced as a

consequence of insect activity, decay, and staining from fungi.

The 2004 SNFPA ROD states:

Salvage harvest of dead and dying trees may be conducted to recover the

economic value of this material and to support objectives for reducing hazardous

fuels, improving forest health, re-introducing fire, and/or re-establishing forested

conditions (2004 SNFPA ROD p. 52).

Eliminate roadside danger trees along Forest transportation system roads within the

project area and maintain roads needed for project implementation to provide access to

the project area.

In the wake of the Chips Fire, there is a need to move this area to a condition in which the public

and Forest Service employees may travel without an elevated safety concern for trees which may

fall or roll into the roadways. The objective of roadside danger tree treatment is to maintain safe

road conditions, particularly in those places of relatively high public use or concentrated

administrative use by Forest Service employees, by the felling of danger trees within the Chips

Fire perimeter.

The Poker Chip project proposes to use existing Forest system roads wherever possible.

However, to provide access for implementation of the proposed Poker Chip Project and long-term

management, some existing non-system roads would be used which do not meet Forest

transportation standards. There is a need to upgrade these non-system roads to Forest

transportation standards and to add them to the Forest transportation system. In addition, one

section of temporary road is needed to access proposed reforestation. Temporary road is not

needed for long-term management and would not be added to the Forest transportation system.


24

Maintain forests in a forested condition after the wildfire event through reforestation.

The National Forest Management Act establishes congressional policy to maintain forests in an

appropriate cover of trees in accordance with forest plans. The Lassen National Forest (LNF)

Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) direction is to establish and maintain an all-aged

fire-resilient native species forest for multiple benefits and uses. Without artificial regeneration of

areas left unstocked with trees, the length of time that the areas could remain deforested would be

indefinite.

Promote the re-establishment of fire resistant, shade-intolerant conifer species, and

hardwood species such as California black oak while providing for wildlife habitat

diversity.

Within the Forest-wide standards and guides, the 2004 SNFPA ROD includes direction to

promote shade intolerant pines (sugar and Ponderosa) and hardwoods (p. 52). There is a need to

re-establish shade-intolerant conifer species, and to encourage hardwood species within the

project area.

Reduce the post-fire concentration of fuels in and around re-forestation units to

promote quicker recovery and further protect reforestation investments.

In areas of high- and moderate-intensity burn, the fuel loading is a long-term concern at the time

when dead trees fall to the ground and become down woody material. There is a need to protect

sites identified for planting trees by reducing fuel loading through the removal of dead trees

before planting and reducing fuel loading to decrease the potential for and severity of a re-burn.

Planting trees is an investment of both money and resources for the goal of reforesting a

particular site. Planting trees, if occurring as soon as possible following a fire, would reduce the

chances of a site becoming dominated by shrubs and other competing vegetation.

Decision to be Made

The decision to be made is whether to implement Alternative 1, the Proposed Action, as proposed

here, as modified to address any unresolved issues, or to continue with Alternative 2, the No

Action alternative.

The decision would also determine whether or not to allow a non-significant Forest Plan

amendment for a project-specific deviation from the current LNF LRMP standard and guideline

to adjust project impacts and/or timing to keep disturbance below the appropriate threshold of

concern in all affected subwatersheds. This non-significant Forest Plan amendment would permit

project actions that would aid in protecting watershed resources.


25

Public Involvement

During the Chips Fire, several public meetings were held to provide information on progress in

fighting the fire. A list of people interested in the planning process to follow containment of the

fire was compiled. A public meeting and field trip was held on November 14, 2012. Twelve

interested parties attended this meeting, and eight of them continued to the field to visit the fire

area, discuss needs for the project area, and review possible ways to implement treatment. Three

emails were received during this time which included publications and articles for the Forest

Service to consider as planning began. The literature provided was reviewed and considered for

how it might apply to the project design. These emails and articles, as well as comments from

participants at the public meeting and requests for additional information, are included in the

project record maintained at the Almanor Ranger District.

The project first appeared in the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) on January 1, 2013, and

will continue to be displayed in the SOPA with current status information throughout the

environmental analysis and decision making process.

Scoping

On December 17, 2012, a copy of the proposed action was sent to 67 interested parties and

organizations and tribal consultation was initiated. On December 18, 2012, a public notice

appeared in the Lassen County Times requesting comments on the proposed action be submitted

by January 7, 2013, in order to be considered in the environmental assessment.

Prior to the beginning of the scoping period, emails were received from Chad Hanson, Ph.D. of

the John Muir Project, Bill Wickman, American Forest Resource Council Consultant, Barbara and

Robert MacArthur, Dale Knutsen, and Justin Augustine, Center for Biological Diversity. These

emails included comments, articles, or publications for consideration during planning of the

project. Following publication of the proposed action, scoping comments were received from Bill

Wickman (AFRC), Aaron Seandel, Michael DeSpain (Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico

Rancheria), Robert MacArthur, Dick Artley, Dale Knutsen, John Forno (Sierra Pacific Industries),

Keith Crummer, Ryan Burnett (Sierra Nevada Group PRBO Conservation Science), Chad

Hanson, Ph.D. and Justin Augustine, Esq. (John Muir Project), Monica L. Bond (Center for

Biological Diversity), and Patricia Puterbaugh (Lassen Forest Preservation Group). All comments

and issues raised were considered. No significant issues were identified through interdisciplinary

review; therefore, no alternatives other than the Proposed Action and No Action have been fully

developed and analyzed. One alternative proposed during scoping was considered, but eliminated

from detailed study. The comments received and reviewed are summarized in the “Poker Chip

Project Public Scoping Comment Analysis and Alternative Development” which is included in

the project record maintained at the Almanor Ranger District office.


26

Alternatives

Alternatives Considered in Detail

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

See the description above, beginning on page 1.

Alternative 2 (No Action)

The ‘no action” alternative serves as a baseline for this analysis. Under Alternative 2, current

management practices such as road maintenance and fire suppression would continue within the

analysis area. However, the activities proposed with the Poker Chip Project would not take place.

Salvage harvest of fire-killed and fire injured trees and recovery of economic value would not

occur. Danger tree removal of fire-affected trees along roads for safety would not occur.

Reforestation of fire-deforested areas would not occur.

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

Alternative 3

An alternative was proposed as part of scoping comments which promoted the following actions:

a) fell roadside and trailside hazard trees, but leave felled trees over 15 inches in diameter in the

forest as downed logs to provide large downed log habitat for small mammals, amphibians, and

invertebrates; and b) not engage in any salvage logging, site preparation for artificial replanting,

or replanting – particularly in the Roadless Area. This alternative was not carried forward for

detailed analysis because it is very similar to Alternative 2 (No Action), and it meets only one

element of the purpose and need for this project.

This proposed alternative would meet the purpose and need to reduce danger trees along Forest

transportation system roads within the project area and improve safety for those using roads

through the project area. However, merchantable trees less than 15-inches dbh comprise only

approximately 6 percent of the total merchantable material available at one-year post fire. As

such, this alternative would generate very little timber revenue and service contracts would be

required to accomplish all activities.

The alternative would not address other elements of the purpose of and need for the proposed

project. Because it proposes no reforestation, it would not meet the need to maintain forests in a

forested condition or promote the re-establishment of fire-resistant, shade-intolerant conifer

species. Site-preparation for reforestation would not take place. As a result, the current fuel

loading would not be reduced and additional fuel loading would occur as fire-injured and fire-

killed trees continue to fall over time.


27

Comparison of Alternatives

Table 4. Comparison of Alternative 1 and Alternative 2

Purpose and Need for Action Alternative 1 –

Proposed Action

Alternative 2 –

No Action

Recover economic timber value before

marketability is drastically reduced as a

consequence of insect activity, decay, and

staining from fungi

Meets Does not meet

Area Salvage 547 acres 0 acres

Economics:

Benefit/Cost ratio (1.0 = breakeven, >

1.0 = positive return; < 1.0 = negative

return) 0.15 0.00

Timber volume (tons)

Timber value 107,380

$91,274

0

$0

Eliminate roadside danger trees along

Forest transportation system roads within

the project area and maintain roads

needed for project implementation to

provide access to the project area.

Meets Does not meet

Danger Tree removal 1,589 acres 0 acres

Transportation:

New road construction ML1 (add

existing unauthorized routes) 2.1 0

New Temporary road and

decommission 1.0 0

Maintain forests in a forested condition

after the wildfire event through

reforestation

Meets Does not meet

Reforestation 3,296 acres 0 acres

Promote the re-establishment of fire-

resistant, shade-intolerant conifer

species, and hardwood species such as

California black oak while providing for

wildlife habitat diversity.

Meets

Does not meet reestablishment of

conifer species; Meets contribution to

wildlife habitat diversity

Reforestation 3,296 acres 0 acres


28

Reduce the post-fire concentration of

fuels in and round re-forestation units to

promote quicker recovery and further

protect reforestation investments

Meets Does not meet

Fire and Fuels (tons per acre)

Fire Type (Average) Surface Surface

After approximately 5 years Surface Surface

After approximately 10 years Surface/Passive/Active Surface/Passive/Active

After approximately 25 years Surface/Passive Surface/Passive/Active

Fine fuels (<0.25-in diameter) 0.2 – 0.3 0 – 1.5

Coarse Fuels (0.25 - <3 inch) 1.4 – 2.8 0 – 1.5

Average total fuels (<3 inch) 1.6 – 3.1 0 – 1.5

After approximately 5 years 3.9 – 5.3 3.4 – 3.7



Equivalent Roaded Acres (ERA) percent

increase by subwatershed

Ohio Creek 0.1% 0%

West Shore Lake Almanor 0.6% 0%

Lower Butt Creek Subbasin 0% 0%

Mosquito Creek 0.1% 0%

Chips Creek 0% 0%

Indian Creek 0% 0%

Squirrel Creek 0% 0%

Soda Creek 0.1% 0%

Grizzly Creek 1.0% 0%

Middle Yellow Creek 1.3% 0%

Lemm Hollows 0.2% 0%

Humbug Valley 0.1% 0%

Humbug Creek 1.4% 0%

Environmental Effects

The following documents are hereby incorporated by reference into this assessment and are

summarized throughout this section:


29

Poker Chip Project Biological Evaluation/Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife

Poker Chip Project Biological Assessment for Terrestrial Wildlife Species

Poker Chip Project Management Indicator Species Report

Biological Evaluation/Biological Assessment of Forest Service Sensitive and Federally Listed

Aquatic Species for Poker Chip Project;

Poker Chip Project Watershed Report;

Poker Chip Silviculture Report;

Poker Chip Project Recreation Report;

Poker Chip Project Transportation Report;

Poker Chip Range Report;

Poker Chip Project Fuels Report;

Soil Specialist Report – Poker Chip Project

Biological Evaluation and Assessment for R5 Forest Service Sensitive and Federally Listed

Plant Species – Poker Chip Project

Poker Chip Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Report

Poker Chip Cultural Resources Report

A summary of direct, indirect and cumulative effects for each resource by alternative is shown

below.

Terrestrial Wildlife

Species of Concern

Table 5 lists the species that may occur on the Lassen National Forest and are listed as either

threatened, endangered or candidate species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (March 4,

20131), or as Forest Service Region 5 sensitive species as designated by the Regional Forester. In

addition to threatened or endangered species listed by the USFWS as potentially occurring on the

Lassen National Forest, potential project effects to the gray wolf are considered in detail in the

Poker Chip Project Biological Assessment due to the occurrence of a lone, radio-collared gray

wolf (nicknamed OR-7) within and adjacent to the Poker Chip project area.

The general analysis area used to determine effects for Table 5 species is the Poker Chip project

boundary. The cumulative effects analysis will cover the project area including a 1 mile buffer.

The analysis area includes locations that would be both directly and indirectly affected by the

proposed project. The cumulative effects analysis was bounded in time to 20 years in the future

1 The list is available on line at http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es_species/Lists/es_species_lists_NF-action-page.cfm


30

for reasonably foreseeable future actions. This approximates the time frame over which

conditions due to the proposed action could be reasonably estimated.

Table 5. Status and Consideration of terrestrial TES Species within the Poker Chips Analysis Area.

SPECIES STATUS

SPECIES

OR HABITAT

PRESENT

CONSIDERATION EFFECTS

CATEGORY

FEDERAL LISTED SPECIES

Gray wolf

(Canus lupus) FE Yes

Considered. Addressed in the Biological

Assessment for the Poker Chip Project.

A lone wolf, (OR-7), has traveled through

the project area in multiple instances.

2

Giant garter snake

Thamnophis gigas FT No

Not Considered. This species resides in

the central valley and is not known to

occur on the Forest.

1

Northern Spotted Owl

Strix occidentalis caurina

FT No Not Considered. The project area is

outside the known range of this species. 1

Valley Elderberry Longhorn

Beetle

Desmocerus californicus

dimorphus

FT No Not Considered. The project area is

outside the known range of this species. 1

FOREST SENSITIVE SPECIES

BIRDS

California Spotted Owl

Strix occidentalis

occidentalis

FSS Yes Considered. The project area has suitable

habitat and active territories. 3

Great Gray Owl

Strix nebulosa FSS No

Not Considered. This species is not

known to occur in the project area. 2

Greater Sandhill Crane

Grus Canadensis tabida FSS No


known to occur in the project area but has

been observed in adjacent meadows.

2

Northern Bald Eagle

Haliaeetus leucocephalus FSS Yes

Considered. The project area has suitable

habitat and one active territory. 3

Northern Goshawk

Accipter gentilis FSS Yes

Considered. The project area has suitable

habitat and active territories. 3

Swainson’s hawk

(Buteo swainsonii) FSS No


known to occur in the project area 1

Willow Flycatcher

Empidonax trailii FSS No


known to occur in the project area but has

been observed in adjacent meadows.

2

MAMMALS

American Marten

Martes americana FSS Yes

Considered. The species has been

detected within the project area. 3

California Wolverine

Gulo gulo luteus FSS No


known to occur in the project area. 1


31

SPECIES STATUS

SPECIES

OR HABITAT

PRESENT


CATEGORY

Pacific Fisher

Martes pennanti

Candidate

/FSS Yes

Considered. The only detections of this

species have been the experimental

population released on private lands.

Potential impacts are considered.

3

Pallid Bat

Antrozous pallidus FSS No

Not Considered. The project area is

outside the recognized range for this

species.

2

Sierra Nevada Red Fox

Vulpes vulpes necator FSS No

Not Considered. The species has only

been detected north of HWY 36 near the

Lassen National Volcanic Park and has not

been detected near the project area.

1

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat

Corynorhinus townsendii FSS No

Not Considered. The project area lacks

the structures (caves, mines, bridges)

required by this species for reproduction

and cover.

1

Western red bat

(Lasiurus blossevillii) FSS No

Not Considered. The project area lacks

the large rivers, lakes, and reservoirs that

this species has been associated with on

this forest and is well above the elevation

range of this bat.

1

REPTILES

Northwestern pond Turtle

Clemmys marmorata

marmorata

FSS No

Not Considered. This species has only

been found at elevations below 3000 feet

within the Mill, Deer, and Antelope Creek

drainages on the Lassen NF.

1

FE: Listed as Federally Endangered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service

FT: Listed as Federally Threatened by the US Fish and Wildlife Service

FSS: Listed as Forest Service Sensitive by the Region 5 Regional Forester.

Category 1: Species whose habitat is not in or adjacent to the project area and would not be affected by the

project.

Category 2: Species whose habitat is in or adjacent to project area, but would not be either directly or

indirectly affected by the project.

Category 3: Species whose habitat would be either directly or indirectly affected by the project.

Category 3 species are those whose habitat would be either directly or indirectly affected by the

project and are carried forward in this analysis.

California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR)

Forested habitat classes were identified in accordance with the California Wildlife Habitat

Relationship (CWHR 8.2) system. The CWHR system is a computerized database with habitat

relationship models for over 600 species of wildlife in California. Each species model has

suitability ratings for reproduction, cover and foraging for vegetation types and habitat class

within each vegetation type. The ratings range from low (unsuitable) to high (optimal). CWHR


32

was designed to be a planning tool, and may be used to assess impacts to wildlife communities

from various land uses. Habitat class of forested vegetation types are defined by size class and

canopy closure, and are defined in Table 6.

Table 6. Tree Size Class and Canopy Cover Categories Used By the California Wildlife Habitat

Relationship (CWHR) System

Tree Size Class Canopy Closure*

1 seedlings <1" dbh S (sparse) 10-24%

2 saplings 1-6" dbh P (open) 25-39%

3 poles 6-11" dbh M (moderate) 40-59%

4 small trees 11-24" dbh D (dense) >60%

5 medium/large trees >24" dbh

6 multi-layered trees >24" dbh

* Areas with less than 10% canopy cover are considered to be non-forest vegetation types

Gray Wolf

The gray wolf, Canis lupus, is currently federally listed as endangered within the state of

California. Currently, there are no known permanent wolf residents in the state; however, in 2011

a young, dispersing, radio-collared male (OR-7) from a wolf pack in northeastern Oregon crossed

into northern California. All indications point to a single individual animal and no mates have

been documented with him; therefore, no denning or breeding is indicated. The wolf left northern

California in Mid-March 2013 and is currently in Oregon. It is unknown whether the wolf will

return to California.

Habitat Requirements: Wolves are habitat generalists and are able to utilize a wide range of

diverse habitats including tundra, forests, grasslands, and deserts. Primary habitat requirements

include availability and abundance of prey, availability of den sites, ease of travel, and minimal

contact with humans. Their primary prey usually includes ungulates (hoofed animals) such as elk,

mule deer, bighorn sheep, and sometimes, domestic livestock. Smaller animals, such as beavers,

marmots, ground squirrels, snowshoe hares, pocket gophers, and voles, porcupines, ruffed grouse,

ravens and coyotes are also hunted during the snow-free months.


Direct Effects

Alternative 1 would have no effect on the gray wolf individual. The route traveled by this animal

is indicative of dispersal behavior. During the course of his wanderings, he appears to have

crossed either within or near the proposed Poker Chip project area. Without a mate, the proposed


33

project would cause no disruption to breeding activities. There would be no effect on the

reproduction of the individual or on the greater population, as no denning or breeding has

occurred. Should the wolf come upon the activities of the proposed action, it is entirely within the

wolf’s capabilities and within its usual maneuvering habit to avoid those activities. Any

alterations to habitat from implementation of Alternative 1 would have no effect on either the

individual gray wolf or on the California-Oregon gray wolf population’s viability.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects analysis area is the 8,111-acre Poker Chips project area, all of which can

be utilized by the wolf. Because the implementation of the Poker Chip project would have

no direct or indirect effect to individual wolves or the suitability of the habitat within the

proposed project area, there would be no cumulative effects.


Direct and Indirect Effects

For Alternative 2, there would be no change in the amount of existing suitable gray wolf habitat. .

No direct or indirect effects from project activities would occur to the wolf or to its habitat as a

result of Alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects

Because Alternative 2 would have no direct or indirect effects to individual wolves or to the

suitability of the habitat within the proposed project area, there would be no cumulative effects.

California Spotted Owl

Habitat Requirements: California Spotted Owls (CSO) prefer areas of forest with large trees (>24

in dbh) and with moderate to high levels of canopy cover (>40 percent), for foraging, nesting, and

roosting. CSOs use the mixed conifer forest type which includes white fir, Douglas fir, ponderosa

pine, sugar pine, incense-cedar and California black oak. They use large trees that have cavities,

broken tops or platforms such as mistletoe clumps, debris platforms and old raptor or squirrel

nests for nesting. Nest trees are often more than 200 years old. The CSO prefers habitat classified

as 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, or 6 (Table 6). The foraging habitat most commonly used is intermediate to

late-successional forests with greater than 40 percent canopy cover, a mixture of tree sizes, some

of which are larger than 24-inch dbh. In general, stands suitable for nesting and roosting have (1)

two or more canopy layers, (2) dominant and codominant trees in the canopy averaging at least

24 inches in dbh, (3) at least 70 percent canopy cover (including the hardwood component), (4)


34

higher than average levels of very large, old trees, and (5) higher than average levels of snags and

downed woody material

The northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) is the primary prey at elevations above 5000

feet. They also eat a variety of mammals, birds, insects and an occasional lizard. In lower

elevations of the Sierra Nevada the primary prey for the CSO is the dusky-footed woodrat.

Protected Activity Centers: There are eight Protected Activity Centers (PACs) within or

intersecting the proposed Poker Chip project boundary. Four spotted owl PACs and their

associated Home Range Core Areas (HRCAs) are 100 percent within the Chips Fire boundary,

and four PACs and associated HRCAs are within a portion of the fire perimeter. Direction for

evaluating PACs and HRCAs for retention or removal after a stand replacing event is found on

page 37 of the SNFPA 2004 ROD. A detailed description of the methods used to revise and

delineate the spotted owl PAC and HRCA is available in Appendix A to the BE/BA for

Terrestrial Wildlife. The Chips Fire reduced suitable nesting habitat by 38 percent and suitable

foraging habitat by 44 percent. Total suitable habitat was reduced by 43 percent. Overall, three

modified PACs (<6 percent within PACs) and six HRCAs (<23 percent within HRCAs) burned at

moderate to high intensity.

Though the combination of the Storrie Fire and the Chips Fire created large pockets of barren

land (most likely to be shrubs in 5 years) and no longer support moderate to high quality owl

habitat, there was sufficient habitat within 1.5 miles of each PAC to remap all spotted owl PACs

within the Chips Fire to incorporate the best available habitat; no PACs would be removed from

the network. PAC boundaries may be modified based on future owl survey results, which includes

the Plumas Lassen Administrative Study (PLAS) owl crew efforts currently being conducted

within and adjacent to the analysis area.


Direct Effects

With Alternative 1, the direct effects of project activities on spotted owls would occur in two

areas of primary behavior: nesting/roosting, and foraging. Danger tree removal would occur in

275 acres of seven spotted owl PACs within the Poker Chip project area. There would be no

change in CWHR type, size class, or density as a result of the danger tree treatment. Fire-affected

danger trees may be removed from within 150 feet of ML2 roads if they could fall or fall and roll

into the roadway, otherwise snags would not be felled. Danger tree removal occurs within 13

percent of the PACs within the project area; however, no salvage logging or reforestation would

occur within any PACs.


35

Danger tree removal would occur within 9 percent of the HRCAs within the project area.

Reforestation would occur within 4 percent of the HRCA. Canopy cover would not be reduced or

altered from its current state with Alternative 1. Reforestation within HRCAs would accelerate

future nesting and foraging habitat in areas where natural tree recruitment may take decades to

establish. Site preparation for reforestation actions would only remove snags that are necessary

for safety purposes and would maintain 4 snags per acre in a clumped distribution and spread

irregularly across the unit.

Owls could potentially forage in the original PACs or in other locations within the project area

classified as suitable habitat based on CWHR. According to CWHR, a total of 1,581 acres of

suitable foraging habitat remains within the project area. Thus, prey species preferred by spotted

owls (i.e., flying squirrels) are likely to have already been reduced in number due to changes in

project area habitat caused by the Chips fire. Flying squirrels are associated with mature conifers

and are likely to be absent from portions of the project area until such conditions develop in the

future. One study found that four years post fire, foraging owls selected burned areas for foraging

over unburned forest, with the greatest selection for high-severity burned areas. The most likely

explanation for their results was increased presence of prey (e.g., deer mice, woodrat) caused by

enhanced habitat conditions, including increased shrub and herbaceous cover, and number of

snags.

Effects from project-related activities within ¼ mile of nests or roosts during the breeding season

(March 1 through August 31) could cause reproductive failure or increase mortality of young. No

disturbance to nesting owls is anticipated because it is assumed that any nesting owls would be

detected during Region 5 protocol surveys, which would be conducted in and near the project

area prior to project activities. If nesting owls are found, a ¼ mile no-disturbance radius (limited

operating period) would be delineated around any active nest from March 1 through August 31

(IDF # 67).

In summary, using CWHR criteria, implementation of Alternative 1 would not result in any

increase in unsuitable spotted owl habitat. Project actions would not contribute to a reduction in

canopy closure.

Indirect Effects

Project activities could temporarily reduce prey availability through loss of habitat, mortality of

small mammals, or behavioral changes. Because prey species (e.g., deer mice, flying squirrels)

have relatively rapid reproduction rates, this effect would be expected to be short-term in

duration.


36

Reforestation would contribute to future large tree forest conditions that would eventually provide

suitable habitat (decades into the future). If owls are present, they might be temporarily disturbed

during planting and subsequent hand grubbing due to noise from crews and disturbance to prey

species. Over time, the plantings would increase cover for prey species. If the plantings occur

near suitable forest habitat, owls could potentially forage along the edges as well as within the

reforested sites.

Approximately 43 percent of the project area would not have any treatment. This untreated land

base would support various densities of fire-killed trees. Nonetheless, the natural processes that

would occur, such as snags falling and contributing to downed wood, could develop into more

suitable habitat in the future and could provide habitat for some prey species.

By reducing the fuel load within the proposed project area by salvage harvesting dead standing

snags, long-term effects of the proposed action on spotted owl habitat include a reduced risk of

stand-replacing fire. This would decrease the potential loss of additional suitable spotted owl

habitat adjacent to the project area. Other effects include the eventual return of structural

complexity and canopy cover in treated stands, increased forest health and vigor in treated stands,

and a potential increase in habitat quality and quantity due to the eventual development of

reforested acres into suitable habitat.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects analysis boundary extends 1 mile from the project area. The cumulative

effects analysis area (including Poker Chips project) is 42,932 acres and currently includes

15,223 acres of suitable owl habitat (excluding private land). There are 6,218 acres of private land

within the cumulative analysis boundary, totaling 49,151 acres of cumulative effects analysis

area. Private lands are often managed for purposes other than maintaining habitat for owls.

Therefore, when addressing cumulative effects private lands are usually not considered as

contributing to owl habitat, regardless of the current condition.

The cumulative impacts of the Storrie Fire and Chips Fire have reduced the amount of suitable

habitat available for spotted owls. Although the impacts of the fire itself were great, there would

be no additional direct effects from other project activities on suitable habitat.

The cumulative effects boundary includes two PACs on the Lassen National Forest not affected

by the Chips Fire and represents no reduction of habitat. These two PACs are within the Creeks II

project area. No treatments are planned within those PACs, but surrounding suitable habitat

would be affected by Creeks II project implementation. There would be no direct effects to these

PACs from the Poker Chip proposed actions as they are not within the project area, but indirect


37

effects may include temporary disturbance to individuals by mechanical equipment. Reforestation

may provide additional suitable habitat in the long-term.

The portions of Creeks II units within the Chips Fire perimeter were dropped from the Creeks II

project with the ROD and vegetation treatments in the Grizzly Creek, Soda Creek, and Lemm

Hollow subwatersheds were postponed until 2016. The Creeks II units in the one mile wildlife

analysis buffer for the Poker Chip project are within the Grizzly Creek, Soda Creek, and Lemm

Hollow subwatersheds. These Creeks II deferred treatment areas would provide owls with

additional areas of refuge, or no disturbance during the Poker Chip project implementation. The

Creeks II project would not coincide with the Poker Chip project and would not result in a

combined disturbance effect from project implementation.

In the reasonably foreseeable future, the Creeks II project would reduce suitable owl habitat by

389 acres, but would maintain 996 acres of suitable habitat within the wildlife analysis boundary.

Although there would be a reduction of habitat adjacent to the Poker Chip project, it is not within

the Poker Chip project area and would not contribute to cumulative impacts within the Poker

Chip project area.

The wildlife analysis boundary includes five additional Plumas National Forest PACs all of

which were completely within the Chips Fire boundary. All PACs on the PNF are outside of the

Poker Chip project treatments. There are portions of six Plumas NF HRCAs within the wildlife

analysis area, all of which are outside Poker Chip treatments and would not be directly affected

by the project.

The Chip-munk project located on the Plumas proposes to conduct salvage of fire killed or fire

injured trees, reforestation, and danger tree removal along roads to approximately 1,148 acres of

suitable habitat within the analysis area. Prior to the Chips Fire, the treatment areas consisted of

663 acres of suitable habitat. Post Chips Fire the treatment areas consist of 329 acres, a reduction

of 333 acres (50 percent) of suitable owl habitat within the analysis area as a result of the fire.

The proposed Chip-munk project activities are very similar to the Poker Chip project and the

results may be similar as well. This assumes that the Chip-munk project would not alter the

existing suitable habitat within the analysis area, thus not contributing to a decline in owl suitable

habitat. Danger tree removal is proposed by PNF in one PAC within the wildlife analysis

boundary. Direct effects to the PAC would be similar to the effects already discussed earlier.

Noise disturbance to individuals may occur from both projects. There are no cumulative impacts

to this PAC as the Poker Chip project does not occur within the PAC and the same LOP

requirements have been put in place for the Chip-munk project.

No substantial impacts are expected to spotted owl breeding activities as LOPs would be

implemented when necessary to avoid project impacts to nesting pairs, including those on the


38

Plumas NF. In addition, all projects would comply with the SNFPA framework, which would

protect habitat conditions within spotted owl PACs. Based on known information and

implementation of LOPs, the projects would not disturb known nesting pairs and would not alter

their current distribution across the Lassen National Forest.

In the long-term, cumulative effects of this alternative would be beneficial to spotted owls and

their habitat as (1) the risk of a stand-replacing fire is reduced; (2) a potential increase in habitat

quality and quantity is expected due to the eventual development of reforested acres into suitable

habitat; and (3) habitat in the analysis area matures during the 20-year period following

implementation of the Poker Chip Project.


Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

With Alternative 2, there would be no change in the amount of existing suitable spotted owl

habitat. Potential project-related disturbance to breeding, roosting, and foraging spotted owls

would not occur.

Alternative 2 may increase the potential for prey abundance of small mammals and birds for

spotted owls in areas not reforested. In the long-term, less suitable habitat for flying squirrel

species (spotted owl main prey species) would be available compared to the action alternative as

3,296 acres would likely still be classified as shrub 20 years later.

Alternative 2 would not affect spotted owls or their habitat. No direct or indirect effects would

occur as a result of Alternative 2.

As no direct or indirect effects would occur, no cumulative effects would occur.

Bald Eagle

Habitat Requirements: Bald Eagles require large bodies of water, or free flowing rivers with

abundant fish, and adjacent snags or other perches. Bald eagles are also known to scavenge dead

fish, water birds, and mammals. Individual eagles perch high in large, stoutly limbed trees, on

snags or broken-topped trees, or on rocks near water and will roost communally in winter in

dense, sheltered, remote conifer stands. Bald eagles nest in large, old-growth, or dominant live

trees with open branch work, especially ponderosa and sugar pine that supports some foliage

available to shade the nest. Brown bullhead, carp, Sacramento sucker, and tui chub are the most

common fish species utilized by the eagles. The Rocky Point nest is the only Bald Eagle nest

within the project area. It is located on the Plumas National Forest approximately ¼ mile from

Lake Almanor has been used since 2006.


39

High severity wildfire can result in long term reductions in bald eagle habitat due to the decline of

existing large tree component and loss of future replacement trees that would serve as nesting

structures. However, the Chips Fire had very little effect on bald eagle habitat in the Rocky Point

territory, increasing high nesting habitat by 9 percent and slightly decreasing moderate habitat

(using CWHR vegetation components discussed in Poker Chip Terrestrial BE).


Direct Effects

The direct effects of project activities on bald eagles include the removal of potential nesting or

perching snags created by the fire. Only fire killed and fire affected trees with a 0.9 probability of

mortality level would be removed from the area and would be followed by subsequent

reforestation. With the lack of moderate and high severity fire (1 percent) within the primary and

secondary use areas, there would be a very low amount of fire killed or fire injured trees within

the treatment units and within the use areas. Reforestation of the burned area may provide

potential nest or perch sites in the long term. Danger tree removal may remove potential nest and

perch snags. This treatment would only remove those trees that are fire killed or injured and those

within the fire boundary that have structural deformities indicating a high failure potential and a

high risk of falling into the road. Large, sound snags not affected by the fire would be left

untreated.

Potential disturbance from machinery and other equipment within the primary use area may

present a risk to individuals during the breeding season. Treatments may occur within 300 feet of

the nest, however these effects would be mitigated by the limited operating periods (LOP) from

November 1 to August 31 for the protection of nesting eagles.

Activities proposed with Alternative 1 would not change canopy cover density or size and would

pose a very low risk to bald eagle habitat. With the lack of severe fire and the implementation of

LOPs, the risk to individuals and habitat is very low.

Indirect Effects

The most important element to the home range area is prey availability in or surrounding Lake

Almanor. No treatments would affect prey availability. There are no indirect effects anticipated

with the implementation of Alternative 1.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects boundary includes the Poker Chip project area, plus a 1-mile analysis

buffer. The Rocky Point territory overlaps both the Lassen and Plumas National Forests with the


40

majority of the nest sites on the PNF. The Chip-munk project proposed by the Plumas National

Forest plans to remove danger trees within the primary use area and the secondary use area, with

similar objectives (using PM 0.7 instead of our 0.9) as the Poker Chip Project. Danger tree

removal would not remove all trees within the proposed unit, rather individual trees that meet the

hazard tree removal criteria would be affected. It is possible that one or more or the targeted

hazard trees could have been previously used by eagles.

Alternative 1 and the Chip-munk project would treat 36 percent of the primary use area and 20

percent of the secondary use area. There would be an effect to available snags within the use

areas as some snags would need to be removed, but the canopy cover density and size would not

change with these combined treatments. Therefore, the risk to habitat remains low. The combined

treatments would have noise disturbance from equipment and machinery, but would be mitigated

by IDFs. No private land activities would occur within the primary and secondary use areas.

Alternative 1, with implementation of IDFs, would not have any additional cumulative effects on

individuals, but may present a very low risk to nesting and perching snag habitat within the

primary or secondary use areas.



There would be no direct or indirect effects on individual bald eagles or bald eagle habitat,

similar to the action alternatives, as no action would occur. Effects from the Chip-munk project

within bald eagle use areas may still apply, but no additional effects from the Poker Chip project

would occur.

Northern Goshawk

Habitat Requirements: The majority of goshawk nests are in white fir, although goshawks also

use Douglas fir, red fir, ponderosa, Jeffery and sugar pine, black oak, incense cedar and madrone.

They occasionally use snags. On the Almanor Ranger District the average diameter at breast

height for a nest tree is 26 inches and the average canopy cover is 81 percent. Northern goshawks

use nest-sites with: greater canopy cover; greater basal area; greater numbers of large diameter

trees; lower shrub/sapling/understory cover and numbers of small diameter trees; and gentle to

moderate slopes relative to non-used, random sites.

The number of nests per territory varies from one to eight. Construction of new nests within a

territory appears to occur when the primary nest is lost or disturbance is enough to force the

goshawk to leave the area. Suitable Goshawk habitat would be CWHR size class 4M, 4D, 5M,

5D, and 6 stands.


41

Key prey species include snowshoe hare, Douglas squirrel, golden-mantled ground squirrel, the

northern flicker, and stellar’s jay. The foraging strategy of the goshawk is to take prey in

openings from a perch near the edge of the opening. Since openings, or edges, support a wide

range of wildlife, this would be a natural foraging strategy.

Protective Activity Centers: There are five goshawk PACs within the project area affected by the

Chips Fire. The boundaries to goshawk PACs Sunflower Flat, Grizzly Creek, and Cottonwood

Creek were redrawn to incorporate the best available habitat surrounding the activity center.

Goshawk PAC Miller Ravine was created after the Chips Fire due to a new nest location found in

2012 and encompasses the best available habitat. PACs may be redrawn if annual surveys

determine new nest locations outside of these modified boundaries.

Direction for evaluating PACs and HRCAs for retention or removal after a stand replacing event

is found on page 37 of the SNFPA 2004 ROD. A detailed description of the methods used to

revise and delineate the goshawk PAC is available in Appendix A to the BE/BA for Terrestrial

Wildlife. The Chips Fire reduced suitable nesting habitat by 38 percent and suitable foraging

habitat by 44 percent. Total suitable habitat was reduced by 43 percent.

Overall, remapped goshawk PACs were burned at moderate to high severity at very low amounts

in the Chips Fire. High severity fire was practically non-existent within these goshawk PACs, and

the majority of the PAC acreage did not burn or burned at a very low severity.



Alternative 1 could result in direct effects to goshawks and their habitat in two areas of primary

behavior: nesting and foraging. Currently, there are 2,124 acres of suitable goshawk habitat

located within the project area.

The only project activity proposed within the five PACs in the project area is danger tree

removal. This action would not remove live, healthy trees and would not reduce live tree canopy

cover, or degrade any nesting and foraging for the goshawk. Alternative 1 would not change the

present condition of late-successional forest habitat within the analysis area. Thus no goshawk

habitat would be degraded and/or rendered unsuitable by the proposed action. In addition, these

danger trees are adjacent to (within 150 feet) relatively busy forest roads, making them less

valuable to goshawks.

Disturbance such as human presence, mechanical activity, and noise within ¼ mile of nests

during the breeding season could cause reproductive failure or increase mortality of young, but


42

would be mitigated by project IDFs included a limited operating period (February 15 through

September 15).

Once the activity ceases, the goshawks could return. Due to the availability of suitable goshawk

habitat within ½ mile of the project area, any temporary displacement of foraging goshawks to

adjacent suitable habitat should not be a considerable impact.

Goshawks have home ranges that exceed the size of PACs and the potential exists for disturbance

to undetected nests in suitable habitat within and adjacent to the project area. Prior to project

activities, annual protocol surveys would be conducted in and near the project area to identify and

protect any nests that could be affected by project activities. Therefore, adverse effects from the

proposed action to goshawk breeding would be largely avoided.

Cumulative Effects



15,223 acres of suitable goshawk habitat (excluding private land). There are 6,218 acres of

private land within the cumulative analysis boundary, totaling 49,151 acres of cumulative effects

analysis area.. Private lands are often managed for purposes other than maintaining habitat for

goshawks. Therefore, when addressing cumulative effects private lands are usually not

considered as contributing to goshawk habitat, regardless of the current condition.


habitat available for goshawks. Although the impacts of the fire itself were great, there would be

no additional direct effects from other project activities on suitable habitat





Hollow subwatersheds. These Creeks II deferred treatment areas would provide goshawks with



combined disturbance effect from project implementation.

In the reasonably foreseeable future, the Creeks II project would reduce suitable goshawk habitat

by 389 acres, but would maintain 996 acres of suitable habitat within the wildlife analysis

boundary. Although there would be a reduction of habitat adjacent to the Poker Chip project, it is

not within the Poker Chip project area and would not contribute to cumulative impacts within the

Poker Chip project area.


43

The Chip-munk project, located on the Plumas National Forest, proposes to treat approximately

1,148 acres of suitable habitat within the analysis area. Prior to the Chips Fire, the treatment areas

within the Chip-munk project consisted of 664 acres of suitable habitat. Post Chips Fire the

treatment areas consist of 330 acres, a reduction of 334 acres (50 percent) of suitable goshawk

habitat within the analysis area as a result of the fire. The Chip-munk project activities are very

similar to the Poker Chip project and the results may be similar as well. This assumes that the

Chip-munk project would not alter the existing suitable habitat within the analysis area, thus not

contributing to a decline in goshawk suitable habitat.

No substantial impacts from project activities are expected to goshawk breeding activities as

LOPs would be implemented when necessary to avoid project impacts to nesting pairs. In

addition, all projects would comply with the SNFPA framework, which would protect habitat

conditions within goshawk PACs. Based on known information and as-needed implementation of

a LOP, the projects would not disturb known nesting pairs and would not alter their current

distribution across the Lassen National Forest.

Cumulative effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects on goshawks

include collective temporary displacement from project areas during project implementation

during the non-breeding period. There would be no direct effects from project activities on

suitable goshawk habitat within the proposed project area.

In the long-term, cumulative effects of the proposed action would be beneficial to goshawks and

their habitat as (1) the risk of another stand replacing fire is reduced; (2) a potential increase in

habitat quality and quantity due to the eventual development of reforested acres into suitable

habitat; and (3) habitat in the analysis area matures during the 20-year period following

implementation of the Poker Chip project.



There would be no change in the amount of existing suitable goshawk habitat. Potential project-

related disturbance to breeding, perching, and foraging goshawks would not occur.

The foraging goshawk can take advantage of the short term increase in prey availability resulting

from the increase in snag and down wood component throughout the proposed project area,

especially on edges adjacent to low severity and unburned habitat.

Over time, mortality of some live trees would be expected due to stress caused by insects and

drought. While this would provide snag and down log recruitment, in the long-term, it would also

contribute to fuel accumulation.


44

While there are consequences of inaction, Alternative 2 would not affect goshawks or their

habitat. No direct or indirect effects would occur as a result of Alternative 2.


Cumulative Effects

No direct or indirect effects would occur, therefore no cumulative effects would occur.

American Marten

Habitat: Martens prefer higher elevation coniferous forest types with dense canopy cover and

complex physical structures near the ground. The marten use large woody structures such as

snags, live trees with cavities and logs for resting, denning and protection from predators. They

also use subnivean (under snow) spaces for hunting and protection from the weather.

Marten dens are either natal dens, where pups are born or nursed, or maternal dens where, after

parturition, the young are moved and learn to forage. Natal dens are typically found in cavities of

the largest available trees, snags, stumps, logs, burrows, caves, rocks, or crevices in rocky areas in

structurally complex, late successional forests. Maternal dens are found in mature stands

including stumps, logs, and snags.

No marten dens have been detected within the project area. Suitable marten habitat is higher

elevation (above 6,000 feet) late seral forest conditions (CWHR 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D and 6D) in red

fir, white fir, sierra mixed conifer (where large trees dominate) as well as lodgepole and subalpine

conifer vegetation types with an abundance of decadence and complex physical structure near the

ground.

Prey: Martens kill vertebrates smaller and larger than themselves, eat carrion, and forage for bird

eggs, insects, and fruits. Diets in summer include mammals, birds and their eggs, fish, insects,

and carrion. The importance of soft mast, especially the berries of Vaccinium and Rubus, peaks in

autumn and declines over winter. As snow covers the ground and deepens, martens turn to mostly

mammalian prey, which dominate the winter diet. The most important genera at this time are

Clethrionomys, Microtus, Spermophilus, Tamiasciurus, and Lepus.

Almanor Ranger District personnel and contract crews have conducted winter carnivore surveys

using baited camera stations since 1996. There have been 10 camera stations set up in various

locations within the Poker Chip project area (one of which had a marten in 2003) and 29 camera

stations within the wildlife analysis area (11 of which had marten) from 1996-2006. For this

analysis the project boundary includes a 1 mile buffer around the project boundary. All marten

detections in the project except one were at camera stations above 5840 ft. elevation and all were


45

stations located along the north and western boundary of the project area. One marten detection

occurred at 5,240 ft. The northwest and western portion of the project area increases considerably

in elevation at or above 6,000 feet.

Existing suitable habitat (2,124 total acres) provides 549 acres of marten denning habitat (CWHR

4D and 5D) and 1,459 acres of marten foraging habitat (CWHR 4M and 5M).


Direct Effects

Alternative 1 would remove fire-killed or roadside hazard trees from 1,589 acres. This action

would not reduce live tree canopy cover or degrade any foraging habitat for marten. The present

condition of late-successional forest habitat within the analysis area would not change from the

existing condition. There may be instances where individual live trees may be cut for safety

purposes, but these instances are expected to be rare and impacts to existing live tree stands

minimal. In the short-term, this could affect habitat quality for martens as structural diversity

would be reduced.

The incidental removal of live, structurally deformed trees for operability, would be of minimal

size and scale, highly dispersed, and would have negligible effects on stand structure. Therefore,

it would be affected only minimally by the proposed project.

Although the majority of project activities would occur in unsuitable habitat, approximately 26

percent of the forested habitat within the project area is still classified by CWHR as suitable,

although elevation is lower than optimal for meeting the needs of marten in the majority of the

project area. Potential disturbance effects from human presence, mechanical activity, and noise

may occur, and temporary displacement of individuals or habitat-use patterns could occur during

implementation. The animals may utilize their entire territory once the project activities are

complete.

Indirect Effects

Marten prey may be subject to behavioral changes or mortality during implementation. Prey is

likely to have already been reduced in numbers due to the changes in project area habitat caused

by the Chips fire.

Numerous and heavily traveled roads are not desirable within American marten habitat as they

are associated with habitat disruption and animal mortality. Roads may also reduce prey

availability for marten by increasing road kills in prey populations and creating behavioral

barriers to foraging movements. Occasional one- and two- lane forest roads with moderate levels


46

of traffic are not believed to limit American marten movements. The width of the existing

unauthorized routes falls well within the size that martens cross. Adding these routes to the Forest

Transportation system as ML1 routes would not be expected to affect foraging movements and

dispersal by marten that could inhabit the project area. Although these features would primarily

be sited in currently unsuitable habitat, they could contribute to future forest fragmentation if

suitable habitat does develop in their vicinity. Vehicle traffic from project activities would not be

expected to increase the risk of fatality to martens from vehicle collisions since martens are

naturally wary and speed limits would be reduced in work areas.

If a den site is found in the project area before or during project activities, an LOP would be

implemented from May 1 to July 31 within 100 acres surrounding the den site.

Cumulative Effects



15,223 acres of suitable marten habitat (excluding private land). There are 6,218 acres of private

land within the cumulative analysis boundary, totaling 49,151 acres of cumulative effects analysis

area. Private lands are often managed for purposes other than maintaining habitat for marten.

Therefore, when addressing cumulative effects private lands are usually not considered as

contributing to marten habitat, regardless of the current condition.


habitat available for marten. Although the impacts of the fire itself were great, there would be no

additional direct effects from other project activities on suitable habitat.





Hollow subwatersheds. These Creeks II deferred treatment areas would provide marten with



combined disturbance effect from project implementation. In the reasonably foreseeable future,

the Creeks II project would reduce suitable marten habitat by 389 acres, but would maintain 996

acres of suitable habitat within the wildlife analysis boundary. Although there would be a

reduction of habitat adjacent to the Poker Chip project, it is not within the Poker Chip project area

and would not contribute to cumulative impacts within the Poker Chip project area.


47

The Chip-munk project in the Plumas National Forest proposes activities that are very similar to

the Poker Chip project and the result may be similar as well. Given current management

direction, it is assumed that the Chip-munk project would not alter the existing suitable habitat

within the analysis area, thus not contributing to a decline in marten suitable habitat.

No adverse impacts are expected to marten breeding activities, as no known den sites exist in the

project area. If any den site is found, LOPs would be implemented if and when necessary to avoid

project impacts to den sites.

In the short-term, Alternative 1 may temporarily disturb individual martens and their habitat in

the northwest and west portions of the analysis area during project implementation. The risk to

individuals remains low as the adjacent land would provide suitable habitat for displaced

individuals. Project activities would not alter existing suitable habitat and IDFs have been put in

place to mitigate effects to structural diversity. In the long-term, cumulative effects of this

alternative would be beneficial to martens and their habitat as a potential increase in habitat

quality and quantity would occur due to the eventual development of reforested acres into suitable

habitat



There would be no change in the amount of existing suitable marten habitat. Potential project-

related disturbance to martens would not occur. No potential effects to prey species would occur.

However, canopy closure would be low and martens would not be expected to den within this

area. Over time, mortality of some live trees would be expected due to stress caused by insects

and drought. While this would provide snag and down log recruitment, in the long-term, it would

also contribute to fuel accumulation.

While there are consequences of inaction, Alternative 2 would not affect marten or their habitat.

No direct or indirect effects would occur as a result of Alternative 2.


Cumulative Effects

No direct or indirect effects would occur, therefore no cumulative effects would occur.

Pacific Fisher

The fisher is a candidate for listing under the Endangered Species Act. In 2009, 40 fisher were

introduced near Sterling City (~20 miles west of project area) to study effects of forest


48

management on fisher. Two of the introduced fishers have been detected on the Lassen National

Forest (2011 and 2012); however, the detections were more than 5 miles from the Poker Chip

project boundary

Habitat: The fisher inhabits dense, structurally complex, low- to mid-elevation forests. Habitat

connectivity is especially important for fisher and they are very sensitive to discontinuities in

dense forest cover.

Prey: Fishers eat squirrels, gophers, mice, marten, skunk, gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus),

deer, and birds. Berries of Arctostaphylos sp. have also been reported but the significance of plant

material has not been determined. It has been suggested that Porcupine are essential to the diet of

fisher, but this is questionable given that fisher occur in locations where porcupine do not occur.



The project area does not provide habitat necessary for fisher. However, the analysis must also

consider the potential for fisher to use the area as means to access or connect to other areas of

suitable habitat. This is especially important for dispersing juveniles. The increased fragmentation

from the Storrie and Chips fires, as well as plantations on private land, left the proposed project

footprint a much less desirable habitat for use by fisher. It is unlikely that a fisher would use the

proposed Poker Chip project area to travel through or for denning, and a connective route could

be found to the south and west of the project area where there is possible suitable habitat.

The treatments would retain sufficient canopy cover for fisher. The lack of rugged terrain and the

lack of a hardwood understory would preclude fisher from the project area regardless of the

treatment. Therefore this alternative would not affect fisher or their habitat. Nor would it affect

the ability of the project area to provide connectivity to areas of high quality habitat.


Cumulative Effects

Because there are no direct or indirect effects, there are no cumulative effects.


49



The project area lacks a hardwood component (only 11.5 acres) and rugged terrain. The changes

expected to take place to the vegetation in the project area indicate that this alternative would

have no effect on fisher or suitable fisher habitat.


Cumulative Effects

Because there are no direct or indirect effects to fisher or suitable fisher habitat, there would be

no cumulative effect.

Determination

The Poker Chip Project will not affect the following Federally-listed species or any designated

critical habitat designated for those species:

Gray Wolf, Giant Garter Snake, Northern Spotted Owl, and Valley Elderberry Long

horned Beetle

The Poker Chip Project will not affect the following sensitive species:

Pacific Fisher (candidate), Greater Sandhill Crane, Great Grey Owl, Willow Flycatcher,

California Wolverine, Sierra Nevada Red Fox, Townsend’s Long-Eared Bat, Western

Red Bat, Northwest Pond Turtle, and Swainson’s Hawk.

The Poker Chip Project may affect individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal

listing or loss of viability for the following sensitive species:

Bald Eagle, California Spotted Owl, Northern Goshawk, and American Marten.

The determinations made in this biological evaluation/assessment are based on the assumption

that the findings presented in the SNFPA (SFEIS 2004) reflect all current research with respect to

the sensitive species considered in this document. The findings and analysis within the SNFPA

FEIS ROD (2001) and the SNFPA SFEIS ROD (2004) are incorporated by reference.

Management Indicator Species

Management Indicator Species (MIS) for the Lassen NF are identified in the 2007 Sierra Nevada

Forests Management Indicator Species (SNF MIS) Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2007a).


50

The habitats and ecosystem components and associated MIS analyzed for the project were

selected from this list of MIS, as indicated in Table 7. In addition to identifying the habitat or

ecosystem components (1st column), the CWHR type(s) defining each habitat/ecosystem

component (2nd

column), and the associated MIS (3rd

column), the Table discloses whether or not

the habitat of the MIS is potentially affected by the Poker Chip Project (4th column). The MIS

selected for project-level MIS analysis for the Poker Chip Project are: Aquatic

macroinvertebrates, Fox sparrow, mountain quail, sooty blue grouse, California spotted owl,

American marten, northern flying squirrel, hairy woodpecker, and black-backed woodpecker.

Table 7. Selection of MIS for Project-Level Habitat Analysis for the Poker Chip Project.

Habitat or Ecosystem

Component

CWHR Type(s) defining the

habitat or ecosystem

component1

Sierra Nevada Forests

Management Indicator

Species

Scientific Name

Category

for

Project

Analysis 2

Riverine & Lacustrine lacustrine (LAC) and riverine

(RIV)

aquatic

macroinvertebrates

3

Shrubland (west-slope

chaparral types)

montane chaparral (MCP),

mixed chaparral (MCH),

chamise-redshank chaparral

(CRC)

fox sparrow

Passerella iliaca

3

Sagebrush Sagebrush (SGB) greater sage-grouse

Centrocercus

urophasianus

1

Oak-associated Hardwood

& Hardwood/conifer

montane hardwood (MHW),

montane hardwood-conifer

(MHC)

mule deer

Odocoileus hemionus

2

Riparian montane riparian (MRI), valley

foothill riparian (VRI)

yellow warbler

Dendroica petechia

2

Wet Meadow Wet meadow (WTM),

freshwater emergent wetland

(FEW)

Pacific tree (chorus) frog

Pseudacris regilla

2

Early Seral Coniferous

Forest

ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran

mixed conifer (SMC), white fir

(WFR), red fir (RFR), eastside

pine (EPN), tree sizes 1, 2, and

3, all canopy closures

Mountain quail

Oreortyx pictus

3

Mid Seral Coniferous Forest ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran



pine (EPN), tree size 4, all

canopy closures

Mountain quail

Oreortyx pictus

3

Late Seral Open Canopy

Coniferous Forest




pine (EPN), tree size 5, canopy

closures S and P

Sooty (blue) grouse

Dendragapus obscurus

3

Late Seral Closed Canopy

Coniferous Forest



California spotted owl

Strix occidentalis

3


51

Habitat or Ecosystem

Component

CWHR Type(s) defining the

habitat or ecosystem

component1

Sierra Nevada Forests

Management Indicator

Species

Scientific Name

Category

for

Project

Analysis 2

(WFR), red fir (RFR), tree size

5 (canopy closures M and D),

and tree size 6.

occidentalis

American marten

Martes americana

northern flying squirrel

Glaucomys sabrinus

Snags in Green Forest Medium and large snags in

green forest

hairy woodpecker

Picoides villosus

3

Snags in Burned Forest Medium and large snags in

burned forest (stand-replacing

fire)

black-backed woodpecker

Picoides arcticus

3

1 All CWHR size classes

and canopy closures are included unless otherwise specified; dbh = diameter at

breast height; Canopy Closure classifications: S=Sparse Cover (10-24% canopy closure); P= Open cover

(25-39% canopy closure); M= Moderate cover (40-59% canopy closure); D= Dense cover (60-100%

canopy closure); Tree size classes: 1 (Seedling)(<1" dbh); 2 (Sapling)(1"-5.9" dbh); 3 (Pole)(6"-10.9"

dbh); 4 (Small tree)(11"-23.9" dbh); 5 (Medium/Large tree)(>24" dbh); 6 (Multi-layered Tree) [In PPN

and SMC] (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988).

2

Category 1: MIS whose habitat is not in or adjacent to the project area and would not be affected by the

project.

Category 2: MIS whose habitat is in or adjacent to project area, but would not be either directly or


Category 3: MIS whose habitat would be either directly or indirectly affected by the project.

Table 8. Summary of Pre- and Post-treatment Terrestrial MIS Habitat Acres within the Proposed

project area. Total acres within the project area = 8,111, with 4,585 acres proposed for treatment.

Pre-treatment MIS Habitat –

Acres (same as No Action)

MIS

habitat in

project

area pre

treatment

Pre treatment

acres proposed

for treatment

(Alt 1)

Post Treatment

MIS Habitat –

Acres – Alt. 1 in

project area

Change in MIS

Habitat Acres

Shrubland 2,618 1,942 795 -1,823

Coniferous Forest

Early seral 841 564 2,664 +1,823

Coniferous Forest

mid seral 3,631 1,528 3,631 0

Late Seral Open Canopy

Coniferous Forest 360 140 360 0

Late Seral Closed Canopy

Coniferous Forest 514 187 514 0

Snags in Green Forest 3,866 1,533 3,866 0

Snags in Burned Forest 1,066 477 589 -477


52

Lacustrine/Riverine Habitat (Aquatic Macroinvertebrates)

Aquatic or Benthic Macroinvertebrates (BMI) were selected as the MIS for riverine and

lacustrine habitat in the Sierra Nevada. They have been demonstrated to be very useful as

indicators of water quality and aquatic habitat condition. They are sensitive to changes in water

chemistry, temperature, and physical habitat; aquatic factors of particular importance are: flow,

sedimentation, and water surface shade.

There is approximately 9.8 miles of perennial stream (riverine) habitat located within the Poker

Chip project area. Perennial streams are given buffers of 300 feet surrounding the stream, referred

to as Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs). There are approximately 7,500 acres of perennial

stream RCA within the subwatersheds which have Poker Chip project activities proposed.

Perennial streams within the project area vary widely in size, velocity, and channel gradients. All

perennial streams within the project area support benthic macroinvertebrates.


Direct Effects

There would be no direct effects upon suitable macroinvertebrate habitat resulting from project

implementation. No project activities are proposed within perennial stream channels. Mechanical

equipment would not be permitted to operate within 300 feet of perennial streams.

Indirect Effects

When assessing indirect effects upon macroinvertebrate habitat, three habitat factors are

considered: stream flow, sedimentation, and water surface shade. These factors are analyzed and

discussed below.

Stream flow: No alterations to stream flow are anticipated as a result of project activities.

Proposed activities within the Poker Chip project area include the cutting of fire-killed trees or

trees with a probability of mortality of 0.9. Given that fire-killed trees do not utilize water for

growth, the cutting of these trees would have no effect upon stream flows within the project area.

The cutting of trees with a probability of mortality of 0.9 may result in a slight increase in soil

moisture immediately following the tree felling, but this would not result in a measurable change

in stream flows.

Sedimentation: Project activities would have a negligible to low risk of sediment production into

perennial streams flowing through the project area. No mechanical equipment would be permitted

to operate within 300 feet of perennial streams, thus minimizing ground disturbance within

perennial stream RCAs. Of the 7,500 acres of perennial stream RCA within the project area,


53

approximately 222 acres are proposed for hand treatments only. Approximately 123 acres of hand

treatments would entail falling and leaving fire-killed trees. Approximately 62 acres of hand

treatment would consist of danger tree removal, with removal of danger trees only when the tree

could be felled onto a road (danger trees that cannot be fallen onto a road would be felled and left

as downed wood). The aforementioned hand treatments within RCAs would also require the

limbing and topping of felled trees, which would increase ground cover within the RCA and

further restrict sediment transport. Finally, approximately 37 acres of hand treatment would entail

piling and pile burning. Ground disturbance resulting from hand treatments is considered

minimal, particularly within units that entail falling and leaving fire-killed trees. Thus,

sedimentation of aquatic macroinvertebrate habitat from treatments within perennial RCAs would

not occur in a measurable amount. Ground-disturbing activities within seasonal stream RCAs

would not produce a measurable volume of sediment within downstream aquatic

macroinvertebrate habitat due to very limited ground-disturbance within seasonal stream RCAs

(limited to hand treatments, helicopter salvage logging, and mastication treatments). Other

ground-disturbing treatments outside of RCAs would not produce a measurable volume of

sediment to perennial streams due to the RCAs acting as buffers, filtering out any disturbed

sediment before it could reach perennial waters in a measurable volume.

Water surface shade: No significant alterations to stream channel shade would occur resulting

from project activities. Fire-killed trees provide minimal canopy cover. Since only fire-killed

trees and trees with a 0.9 probability of mortality would be felled within RCAs, project activities

would essentially result in no change to current canopy cover. Thus, no changes in stream

temperatures would be expected as a result of project activities.

Cumulative Effects

The risk of increased sedimentation resulting from project activities combining with effects of

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions within the project area is considered negligible

to low. Although the Chips Fire will likely result in an increase in benthic and suspended

sediments within project-area streams, potential indirect effects of the Poker Chip Project are

considered to have a negligible to low risk of contributing to cumulative watershed effects.

Factors leading to this determination include 1) prescriptions within perennial RCAs would lead

to an increase in groundcover over existing conditions, 2) methods of treatment within and

adjacent to RCAs (mostly hand treatments), 3) utilization of ground-based mechanical equipment

buffers along both perennial and seasonal stream RCAs, and 4) implementation of mitigations

during treatment (Best Management Practices and Integrated Design Features (IDFs); refer to the

Poker Chip Proposed Action for a list of IDFs that will be implemented in the Poker Chip

Project).


54

In summary, the risk of cumulative effects resulting from proposed project activities and past,

present, and reasonably foreseeable activities affecting macroinvertebrate habitat within and

adjacent to the project area is considered negligible to low.

Shrubland (West-Slope Chaparral) Habitat (Fox Sparrow)

The fox sparrow was selected as the MIS for shrubland (chaparral) habitat on the west-slope of

the Sierra Nevada, comprised of montane chaparral (MCP), mixed chaparral (MCH), and

chamise-redshank chaparral (CRC) as defined by the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships

System (CWHR). Recent empirical data from the Sierra Nevada indicate that, in the Sierra

Nevada, the fox sparrow is dependent on open shrub-dominated habitats for breeding. Existing

MCP makes up about 32 percent (2,618 acres) of the 8,111 acre project area (Table 9).

After the Chips Fire, the assumption is made that previously forested areas that are currently

classified as barren would become shrub habitat within the next 5 years. With this assumption,

there are or will be 2,618 acres of shrub habitat within the project area as a result of the Chips

Fire. This is a 34 percent increase from what existed prior to the fire (1,715 acres). Reforestation

would occur in 1,823 acres and danger tree removal without reforestation would occur in 119

acres of this remaining shrub habitat.

Table 9. Acres of MCP habitat within the project area and acres of MCP in treatment units.

Treatment Acres

CWHR

Type

Pre-

Fire

Post

Fire

Post

Treatment

Danger

Tree Reforestation

MCP 1,715.4 2,617.9 795 119 1,823



Danger tree removal would not have an effect on shrub habitat within the project area. The

removal of trees may have a positive shrub response due to increased light exposure to the

ground. Salvage would not affect shrubs either, but the reforestation in these units would. After

reforestation MCP would be classified as SMC1 and within a couple years be SMC2. There

would be a 1,823 acre reduction in the existing 2,618 acres of MCP present in the project area

with reforestation (Table 9). This would leave approximately 795 acres of MCP untreated in the

project area.

The 1,823 acres planned for conversion from MCP to SMC1 would still provide some habitat for

fox sparrow until the planted seedlings emerge from the brush and dominate the site. Therefore,


55

short-term effects are expected to be minimal, whereas long-term effects are expected to allow for

conversion of approximately 1,823 acres of shrubland (MCH) to forest (SMC1).

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects boundary for this analysis includes 13,619 acres of contiguous shrub

habitat patches that intersect the Poker Chip project area. These acres extend into Plumas

National Forest.

The Chips fire resulted in 2,618 acres of potential future shrub habitat in the project area and

13,619 acres of contiguous shrub habitat intersecting the project boundary. The Chip-munk

project (PNF) proposes to conduct hazard tree removal (5,122 acres), salvage timber harvest

(2,794 acres), and reforestation (2,794 acres). Of the 2,794 acres of reforestation planned on the

Plumas, approximately 133 acres of shrub habitat post fire are within the contiguous shrub

patches in the cumulative effects analysis boundary that intersects the Poker Chip project. This

does not include all MCP and MCH acres on the PNF.

The direct/indirect and cumulative effects of the Poker Chip Project would change with time.

With the implementation of Alternative 1, there would be an 70 percent reduction in the amount

and distribution of MCP shrubland within the project area. Although this change in distribution

and availability would reduce the amount from existing levels in the project area, the change of

1,823 acres of shrubland in the project area out of 1,009,681 acres (a decrease of 0.2 percent)

within the bioregion would not alter the existing trend in the habitat, nor will it lead to a change in

the distribution of fox sparrows across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.



None of the MCP habitat created by wildfire would be converted to conifer plantation (SMC1 and

SMC2). There would be no short term conversion or loss of this habitat. Over time, with natural

regeneration, some MCP would gradually be lost to conifer succession, especially on north

aspects and productive sites. Overall, there would be a long term net gain of 903 acres in MCP

habitat within the project area from the Chips Fire. MCP would account for 32 percent of the

project area.

Cumulative Effects

Reasonably foreseeable future actions include the Chip-munk Salvage EA that is proposed by the

Plumas National Forest within the Chips Fire. Cumulatively, the Chip-munk project would

potentially treat 133 acres (<1 percent) of MCP and MCH habitat out of 13,619 acres across the


56

contiguous shrub patches. MCP would decline from 13,619 acres post fire to 13,486 acres after

all reforestation is complete. Areas not treated would develop with natural regeneration of shrubs,

grasses, forbs and/or trees depending on local seed sources and presence of root sprouting

species. The project area would consist of existing montane chaparral and untreated burned

barren areas that would develop into shrub dominated vegetation cover. Shrub dominated areas

would persist for an indefinite time and contribute to landscape diversity.

Early and Mid Seral Coniferous Forest Habitat (Mountain quail)

The mountain quail was selected as the MIS for early and mid seral coniferous forest (ponderosa

pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white fir, red fir, and eastside pine) habitat in the Sierra Nevada.

Early seral coniferous forest habitat is comprised primarily of seedlings (<1” dbh), saplings (1-

inch-5.9-inch dbh), and pole-sized trees (6-inch-10.9-inch dbh). Mid seral coniferous forest

habitat is comprised primarily of small-sized trees (11-inch-23.9-inch dbh). The mountain quail is

found particularly on steep slopes, in open, brushy stands of conifer and deciduous forest and

woodland, and chaparral; it may gather at water sources in the summer, and broods are seldom

found more than 0.8 km (0.5 mi) from water.

Early seral coniferous habitat makes up about 10 percent of the existing vegetation in the analysis

area (Table 10). Mid-seral coniferous habitat makes up about 45 percent of the existing

vegetation in the analysis area (Table 11).

Table 10. Summary of Early Seral acres within Poker Chip Project area.

CWHR

Type

Pre-

Fire

Post-

Fire

Post

Treatment

JPN2P 14.1 4.0 4.0

JPN2S - 4.8 4.8

PPN2M 7.6 5.7 5.7

PPN2P 3.3 4.1 4.1

PPN2S 49.8 51.0 51.0

PPN3M 35.2 8.5 8.5

PPN3P - 7.9 7.9

PPN3S 10.3 18.4 18.4

RFR3S 19.1 19.1 19.1

SMC1X 71.9 51.2 1,873.8

SMC2D 0.2 0.2 0.2

SMC2P - 0.1 0.1

SMC2S 259.1 106.2 106.2

SMC3D 80.9 40.8 40.8

SMC3M 142.4 42.7 42.7

SMC3P 126.3 131.6 131.6


57

CWHR

Type

Pre-

Fire

Post-

Fire

Post

Treatment

SMC3S 98.0 181.2 181.2

WFR2S 8.6 8.6 8.6

WFR3M 8.4 - -

WFR3P 53.3 41.9 41.9

WFR3S 132.9 113.0 113.0

Total

Early 1,122 841 2,664

Table 11. Summary of Mid Seral acres within Poker Chip Project area.

CWHR

Type Pre-Fire

Post-

Fire

Post

Treatment

DFR4P 1 - -

DFR4S - 0.5 0.5

PPN4P 51.8 17.3 17.3

PPN4S - 29.6 29.6

RFR4D 15.7 15.6 15.6

RFR4M 121.3 26.6 26.6

RFR4P 3.2 46.6 46.6

RFR4S - 23.2 23.2

SMC4D 702.2 485.8 485.8

SMC4M 1,480.20 879.8 879.8

SMC4P 626.2 725.9 725.9

SMC4S 193.8 616.3 616.3

WFR4D 74.4 15.8 15.8

WFR4M 471.5 186.2 186.2

WFR4P 389.2 317.8 317.8

WFR4S 38.5 243.9 243.9

Total

Mid 4,169 3,631 3,631



Potential direct effects include the removal of burnt trees, downed woody fuel, and subsequent

reforestation. Danger tree removal would not change the CWHR type within these stands as only

fire-killed and fire-affected trees would be removed, and these trees do not contribute to canopy


58

closure. The proposed danger tree removal would have no effect on the residual live tree size,

canopy cover, or live-tree basal area. The proposed action includes reforestation of conifers to

promote the reestablishment and development of a mature, closed canopy, mixed conifer forest.

The Poker Chip project proposes to reforest approximately 474 acres of post fire early seral and

567 acres of post fire mid seral habitat. Approximately 2,121 acres of the montane chaparral

(MCP) type would also be converted to Sierra Mixed Conifer types 1 and 2

(shrub/seedling/sapling) after reforestation where conifer seedlings would be competing with

brush for the next 2 to 5 decades, contributing to the increase in early seral habitat post treatment.

This would result in an increase in early seral habitat post treatment from 841 acres to 2,664

acres. Mid seral habitat would not change directly post treatment, but in the future the increase in

early seral habitat would become mid seral habitat. Approximately 15 percent of existing shrubs

(not burned by the fire) would be retained within reforestation units, providing an important

element to mountain quail habitat.

Removal of fire-killed and fire-injured trees would not change the CWHR type within these

stands which does not contribute to canopy closure. The proposed salvage would have no effect

on the residual live tree size, canopy cover or live-tree basal area.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects boundary for this analysis includes the 8,111 acre Poker Chip project area.

The outcome of early seral habitat as a result of the Poker Chip project would be higher than pre-

fire conditions and thus indicates a slightly increasing trend in this habitat type locally. Trends in

mid-seral habitat would not change in the existing amount as a result of the Poker Chip project.

Therefore, the change in the amount of early and mid seral habitat in the Poker Chip project

analysis area will not alter the existing trend in the habitat, nor will it lead to a change in the

distribution of mountain quail across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.



Selection of this alternative would not authorize any federal actions and therefore no direct or

indirect effects would result from project activities. Although project activities would not occur to

affect habitat, the Chips Fire affected both early and mid seral habitat. After the Chips Fire there

was a decrease in the amount of early and mid seral habitat available, however these areas are

assumed to become shrub habitat in the near future, which would then provide forage and cover

for the Mountain Quail.


59

Cumulative Effects

There would be no negative changes to Early and Mid Seral Coniferous Forest Habitat with the

No Action Alternative, therefore this alternative would not alter the existing trend in the habitat.

Areas not treated would develop with natural regeneration of shrubs, grasses, forbs and/or trees

depending on local seed sources and presence of root sprouting species. Approximately 10

percent of the project area would consist of existing montane chaparral and untreated burned


would persist for an indefinite time and contribute to landscape diversity (Silviculture report).

Late Seral Open Canopy Coniferous Forest Habitat [Sooty (blue) grouse]

The sooty grouse was selected as the MIS for late seral open canopy coniferous forest (ponderosa

pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white fir, red fir, and eastside pine) habitat in the Sierra Nevada. This

habitat is comprised primarily of medium/large trees (equal to or greater than 24 inches dbh) with

canopy closures less than 40 percent. Sooty grouse occurs in open, medium to mature-aged stands

of fir, Douglas-fir, and other conifer habitats, interspersed with medium to large openings, and

available water, and occupies a mixture of mature habitat types, shrubs, forbs, grasses, and

conifer stands. Empirical data from the Sierra Nevada indicate that Sooty Grouse hooting sites are

located in open, mature, fir-dominated forest, where particularly large trees are present. There are

360 acres of late-seral open-canopy coniferous forest habitat within the Poker Chip project area

(Table 12).

Table 12. Summary of Late Seral Open Coniferous (5S and 5P) acres within project area.

CWHR

Type

Pre-

Fire

Post

Fire

Post

Treatment

PPN5S 0.3 0.3 0.3

SMC5P 103.4 194.2 194.2

SMC5S 18.1 140.3 140.3

WFR5P 0 14.7 14.7

WFR5S 0 10.0 10.0

Total 122 360 360



Potential direct effects include removal of fire-killed or danger trees, downed woody fuel, and

subsequent reforestation. Dead or danger tree removal would not change the CWHR type within


60

any stand as dead trees do not contribute to canopy closure. The proposed dead tree removal

would have no effect on the residual live tree size, canopy cover or live-tree basal area.

Cumulative Effects

The spatial boundary for cumulative effects analysis includes projects within or directly adjacent

to the Poker Chip project area. There are no known projects that affect or plan to affect this

habitat type, therefore there will be no cumulative effects. Although this project proposes to treat

140 acres of late seral open coniferous forest, there would be no change in canopy closure and

project activities will not alter the existing trend in the habitat.

The Poker Chip project would not change the existing amount of available late seral open habitat.

Therefore the change in the amount of late seral open habitat in the Poker Chip project area will

not alter the existing trend in the habitat, nor will it lead to a change in the distribution of sooty

grouse across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.



Selection of this alternative would not authorize any federal actions and therefore, no direct or

indirect impacts to late seral open canopy coniferous forest habitat would occur.

Cumulative Effects

There would be no changes to late seral open habitat with the No Action Alternative, therefore

this alternative would not alter the existing trend in the habitat.

Late Seral Closed Canopy Coniferous Forest Habitat (California spotted owl, American

marten, and northern flying squirrel)

The California spotted owl, American marten, and Northern flying squirrel were selected as an

MIS for late seral closed canopy coniferous forest (ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white

fir, and red fir) habitat in the Sierra Nevada. This habitat is comprised primarily of medium/large

trees (equal to or greater than 24 inches dbh) with canopy closures above 40 percent within

ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed conifer, white fir, and red fir coniferous forests, and multi-layered

trees within ponderosa pine and Sierran mixed conifer forests. There are 513 acres of late seral

closed canopy forest habitat within the Poker Chips project area, which would not be altered by

project activities (Table 13).


61

Table 13. Summary of Late Seral Closed Coniferous (5M, 5D, and 6) acres within project

area.

CWHR

Type

Pre-

Fire

Post

Fire

Post

Treatment

SMC5D 85 21 21

SMC5M 512 322 322

SMC6 159 126 126

WFR5M 80 44 44

Total 836 513 513



Direct effects include removal of fire-killed and fire-injured trees and subsequent reforestation.

Alternative 1 would not alter or change the current vegetation trends. Incidental impacts to snags

and down logs may occur, but identified interdisciplinary features (IDFs) would mitigate adverse

impacts.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects boundary includes the 8,111 Poker Chip project area. Cumulative effects

on owl PACs/HRCAs etc. are discussed in the Project BA/BE. No changes to late seral closed

canopy forest would occur as a result of this project and cumulative projects.



Selection of this alternative would not authorize any federal actions and therefore, no direct or

indirect impacts to late seral closed canopy coniferous forest habitat would occur.

Cumulative Effects

There would be no changes to late seral closed habitat with the No Action alternative, therefore



62

Snags in Green Forest Ecosystem Component (Hairy woodpecker)

The hairy woodpecker was selected as the MIS for the ecosystem component of snags in green

forests. Medium (diameter breast height between 15 to 30 inches) and large (diameter breast

height greater than 30 inches) snags are most important.

A total of 3,866 acres burned at low severity or was unburned while 1,260 acres burned at

moderate to high severity (Table 14). For the purposes of this analysis, the forest habitat that

burned at low severity or unburned is considered green forest with snags. It is possible that some

trees might be burned and still standing within the 3,866 acres burned at low severity or unburned

within the green forest component of the project area.

Table 14. Summary of green forested acres potentially supporting medium and large snags within

project area.

CWHR Type Pre-fire Post-Fire

Post-

Treatment

DFR4 SPMD 0.97 0.17 0.17

PPN4SPMD 51.84 40.17 40.17

PPN5 SPMD 0.30 0 0

RFR4 SPMD 140.23 88.85 88.85

SMC4 SPMD 3,002.40 2,343.53 2,343.53

SMC5 SPMD 717.64 583.74 583.74

SMC6 SPMD 158.50 125.57 125.57

WFR4 SPMD 973.64 625.11 625.11

WFR5 SPMD 80.36 59.03 59.03

Total 5,126 3,866 3,866



The green forest ecosystem supporting medium to large snags after the Chips Fire makes up

approximately 47 percent of the 8,111 acres of project area.

Danger tree removal would not change the CWHR type within these stands as only fire affected

trees and danger trees would be removed if they are likely to fall, or fall and roll into, the

roadway. This would be most likely in the moderate and high severity areas. Danger tree removal

would have no effect on the canopy cover or live-tree basal area, but would have an effect on the

density of existing snags and future recruitment of snags.

In area salvage units, no green trees would be removed under this treatment. No non-burned

forest would be impacted by dead tree removal; therefore none of the above CWHR types


63

identified as green forest supporting snags within the project area would be treated. There would

also be a requirement of leaving 4 snags per acres spread across the treatment unit in a clumped

distribution.

Reforestation would include removal of fire killed trees less than 15-inch dbh for site preparation

and safety. Although reforestation contains 185 acres of medium to large green snag forest, only

snags >15-inchdbh are considered most important to the hairy woodpecker, thus site preparation

and reforestation would not affect the medium to large snag components.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of proposed actions along with past, present and reasonable foreseeable future

actions that may affect snags in green forest would likely result in the reduction of both medium

and large snags in the short-term, but long-term retention of snag recruitment for both medium

and large snags. All future projects would maintain the minimum standard of 4 snags per acre

clumped and irregularly spaced. The proposed action would only minimally impact snags within

green forest ecosystem because dead trees are to be removed primarily from areas that burned at

high/moderate severity that do not support green forest ecosystem. Snags within green forest

ecosystems that are along road corridors and are deemed hazardous would be removed under the

proposed action.



There would be no change to this type of habitat, thus it will not result in a change in the amount

of snags present within unburned and low severity burned stands. The average tonnage of woody

debris would fluctuate over time.

Cumulative Effects

No direct or indirect effects would occur, therefore no cumulative effects would occur. No

changes to snags in green forest would occur as a result of the No Action alternative, therefore


Snags in Burned Forest Ecosystem Component (Black-backed woodpecker)

The black-backed woodpecker (BBWO) was selected as the MIS for the ecosystem component of

snags in burned forests. Recent data indicate that black-backed woodpeckers are dependent on

snags created by stand-replacement fires. The abundant snags associated with severely burned

forests provide both prey (by providing food for the specialized beetle larvae that serve as prey)

and nesting sites. Black backed woodpeckers were also found to select for moderate burn


64

severity. Thus, suitable habitat would be considered in moderate to high vegetation burn severity

areas of the pre-fire CWHR types listed below. Areas where vegetation burn severity habitat is

low are not considered to provide suitable BBWO habitat but may contribute future snag habitat

for BBWO foraging and nesting near moderate and high burn severity areas.

A total of 1,066 acres of suitable BBWO habitat (13 percent of the project area) occurs within the

8,111 acre Poker Chips project area (Table 15). CWHR 3M and 3D were included in this analysis

because size class trees 6-11-inch dbh have been utilized by BBWO as shown in recent studies.

The project area includes 8,111 acres, of which 7,820 acres burned within the Chips Fire and 291

acres did not burn. A total of 737 acres (69 percent) of moderate severity and 328 acres (31

percent) of high severity occur within the project area (Table 16). Of the moderate severity

habitat the proposed action would treat approximately 311 acres and leave 426 acres untreated.

Of the high severity habitat approximately 166 acres would be treated and 163 acres would be left

untreated (Table 17).

Table 15. Suitable BBWO habitat within the 8,111 acre Poker Chip project area.

CWHR Acres of Suitable BBWO Habitat in Project

Area Prior to Chips Fire

3M 63

3D 28

4M 629

4D 172

5M 112

5D 50

6 11

Total Acres 1066

percent Suitable

BBWO Acres 13%


65

Table 16. Acres of conifer CWHR 3M, 3D, 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, and 6 within the Poker Chip project

area affected by different burn severities from the fire.

CWHR Moderate Severity Burn

(Acres)

High Severity Burn

(Acres)

3M 48 15

3D 15 14

4M 432 197

4D 112 60

5M 85 27

5D 35 15

6 11 0

Total

Acres 737 328

*Severity burn defined by CWHR vegetation loss

Table 17. Acres of Suitable Black-backed Woodpecker habitat affected by moderate and high burn

severity and that would be treated in the Poker Chip Project.

CWHR

High

Burn

Severity

Treated

High Burn

Severity

Untreated

Moderate

Burn

Severity

Treated

Moderate

Burn

Severity

Untreated

3M 14 1 38 10

3D 1 13 7 8

4M 88 110 160 271

4D 38 22 56 56

5M 10 17 13 72

5D 15 0 33 3

6 0 0 4 7

Total

Acres 166 163 311 426


66



Approximately 477 acres (45 percent) of moderate and high severity burn habitat is proposed for

treatment out of 1,066 acres available within the project area. When looking at high burn severity

habitat only, approximately 166 acres (51 percent) of the 329 acres available high burn severity

habitat would be treated in the Poker Chip project (Table 18).

Approximately 51 percent of the high severity burn habitat and 42 percent of the moderate

severity habitat would be treated within the project area. The total amount of treated habitat in

both severities is 477 acres (45 percent) and the total untreated suitable BBWO habitat is 588

acres (55 percent) within the project area.

Table 18. Comparison of amounts of suitable black-backed woodpecker habitat impacted under the

Poker Chip project, based on different definitions of suitable habitat.

The direct effects of Alternative 1 include removal of burned trees, downed woody fuel, and

subsequent reforestation on 477 acres (Table 19). In terms of habitat changes to suitable black

backed woodpecker habitat, 90 percent of the existing suitable habitat would be retained when

considering only the danger tree removal. Snags that pose a danger to forest users would not be

retained within the danger tree units. Therefore, for this analysis, 10 percent of the black-backed

woodpecker suitable habitat could be removed through danger tree reduction activities. Salvage

treatments would treat approximately 24 percent of the available suitable habitat in the project

and leave 76 percent untreated. Although there could be a reduction of snags throughout the

reforestation units, 4 of the largest snags per acres are required to be left in clumps and distributed

irregularly across the treatment unit. The total amount of treated habitat in both severities is 478

acres (45 percent) and the total untreated suitable BBWO habitat is 588 acres (55 percent) within

the project area.

Suitable BBWO

Habitat

Moderate and High

Severity Burn Habitat

High Burn Severity Habitat

Only

Suitable BBWO

Habitat treated in the

Project Area

477 166

Suitable BBWO

Habitat available in

the Project Area

1,066 329

Percent Treated in

Project Area 45% 51%


67

Table 19. Acres and percentage of suitable BBWO habitat affected within the project area separated

by treatment type.

Danger Tree

Units

Reforestation

Units

Salvage

Units Project Area

Total Proposed

Treat. (Acres) 1,589 2,449 547 4,585

BBWO Suitable

Habitat 107 113 257 1,066

Potential Suitable

Acres Affected 107 113 257 477

% Suitable

BBWO Habitat

Affected in

Project Area 10.0% 11% 24 % 45%

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects analysis considers the entire Chips Fire, on the Lassen and Plumas

National Forests. There are 8,341 acres of private land that are regulated by the state and are

outside the jurisdiction of the Forest Service; therefore this analysis assumes that it is not suitable

for BBWO. This analysis includes the treatment of 3,135 acres of suitable BBWO habitat in the

Chips Roadside Salvage and Chip-munk projects on the PNF. The combination of 477 acres of

treatment in the LNF and 3,135 acres of potential treatment in the PNF within suitable BBWO

habitat across the Chips Fire could reduce the 11,742 acres of available suitable BBWO habitat

by approximately 3,612 acres.

Cumulatively, more BBWO habitat would be left untreated (8,130 acres or 69 percent) than

treated (3,612 acres or 31 percent) within the Chips Fire perimeter. Although the fire itself

created a short term increase in high severity habitat, the proposed treatments by the Lassen and

Plumas National Forests represent a localized reduction in the available habitat after the proposed

activities, but have a short term increase in the amount of high severity habitat created by the fire

itself.

The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the Poker Chips Project in terms of changes in the

number and distribution of medium-sized and large-sized snags per acre within burned forest

habitat would change on 477 acres out of existing condition. With the implementation of this

project, there would be a reduction in burned forest habitat supporting snags that would

potentially reduce habitat that could support BBWO. Thus the potential for the project area and

analysis area to support BBWO declines post project. Overall, the removal of 477 acres out of

387,000 acres of forested habitat across the bioregion that burned at moderate and high intensity


68

fire between 2000 and 2007 indicates a reduction of 0.12 percent of potential habitat affected.

Therefore, this action will not alter the existing trend in the ecosystem component, nor would it

lead to a change in the distribution of black-backed woodpecker across the Sierra Nevada

bioregion.



No dead tree removal or reforestation would occur under this alternative. Snag densities with the

no action alternative would remain untouched, therefore no direct or indirect effects would result.

Cumulative Effects

No direct or indirect effects would occur, therefore no cumulative effects would occur. No

changes to snags in burned forest would occur as a result of the No Action alternative, therefore


Aquatic Species

Species of Concern

Table 20 below lists Federally-listed (TES) aquatic species (Date accessed: March 19, 2013 2),

and Forest Sensitive Species (FSS) as designated by the Region 5 Regional Forester that occur

within or adjacent to the Lassen National Forest, and rationale for their consideration under the

proposed Poker Chip Project.

Table 20. Status and consideration of Aquatic TES species for the Poker Chip Project.

SPECIES STATUS

SPECIES

OR

HABITAT

PRESENT


CATEGORY 2

FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES

California Red-legged

Frog (Rana aurora

draytoni)

FE No

Not considered. Project area is

located outside historic range of

species, with nearest historic

population identified over 30 miles

northwest of the project area.3

1

Shasta crayfish

(Pacifasctacus fortis) FE No


located outside range of species. 1

Conservancy fairy

shrimp (Branchinecta FE No



2 The list is available on-line at http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es_species/Lists/es_species_lists_NF-

action-page.cfm

http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es_species/Lists/es_species_lists_NF-action-page.cfm

http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es_species/Lists/es_species_lists_NF-action-page.cfm


69

SPECIES STATUS

SPECIES

OR

HABITAT

PRESENT


CATEGORY 2

conservatio)

Vernal pool tadpole

shrimp (Lepidurus

packardi)

FE No Not considered. Project area is


Central Valley

winter-run Chinook

salmon

(Oncorhynchus

tshawytscha)

FE No Not considered. Species has been

programmatically considered.4

1

Central Valley

spring-run Chinook

salmon

(Oncorhynchus

tshawytscha)

FT No


located outside current range of

species.

1

Central Valley

steelhead trout

(Oncorhynchus

mykiss)

FT No Not considered. Project area is


Delta smelt

(Hypomesus

transpacificus)



Vernal pool fairy

shrimp (Branchinecta

lynchi)



FOREST SENSITIVE SPECIES

AMPHIBIANS

Foothill yellow-

legged frog (Rana

boylii)

FSS No Not considered. Project area is


Sierra Nevada

yellow-legged frog

(Rana sierrae)

FSS Yes

Considered. Historic sightings of R.

sierrae occurred within the Butt

Creek watershed, approximately 5

miles northwest of the project area.

Potential suitable habitat for R.

sierrae exists within the project area.

3

Cascades frog (Rana

cascadae) FSS Yes

Considered. Historic sightings of R.

cascadae occurred in the Grizzly

Creek subwatershed, the majority of

which falls within the project area.

Potential suitable habitat for R.

cascadae exists within the project

area.

3

INVERTEBRATES

California floater

(Anodonta

californiensis)



Great Basin Rams-

horn (Helisoma

newberryi newberryi)



Scalloped Juga (Juga

(Calibasis) FSS No




70

SPECIES STATUS

SPECIES

OR

HABITAT

PRESENT


CATEGORY 2

acutifilosa)

Topaz Juga (Juga

(Calibasis) occata) FSS No



Montane Peaclam

(Pisidium

(Cyclocalyx)

ultramontanum)



Nugget pebblesnail

(Fluminicola

seminalis)



FISHES

Eagle Lake rainbow

trout (Oncorhynchus

mykiss aquilarum)



Central Valley

fall/late-fall-run

Chinook salmon

ESUs (Oncorhynchus

tshawytscha)



FE: Listed as Federally Endangered by the US Fish and Wildlife Service

FT: Listed as Federally Threatened by the US Fish and Wildlife Service

FSS: Listed as Forest Service Sensitive by the Region 5 Regional Forester.

1 Category 1: Species whose habitat is not in or adjacent to the project area and would not be affected by

the project.

Category 2: Species whose habitat is in or adjacent to the project area, but would not be either directly or


Category 3: Species whose habitat would be either directly or indirectly affected by the project.

Category 3 species are those whose occupied and/or potentially suitable habitat would be

either directly or indirectly affected by the project. These species are carried forward in

this analysis.


Direct Effects

There would be a negligible risk of direct effects upon Cascades or Sierra Nevada yellow-legged

(SNYL) frogs, or their habitat, resulting from activities proposed under Alternative 1. Multiple

amphibian surveys conducted throughout and adjacent to the project area since the early 1990s

have not detected Cascades or SNYL frogs in potentially suitable or historically occupied

habitats. If there are populations of Cascades or SNYL that have evaded detection over the last 20

years, these populations would likely be isolated and very small in number. With no populations


71

of Cascades or SNYL frogs known to occur within the project area, the risk of direct effects upon

these populations is considered negligible.

There are four potential scenarios in which Cascades or SNYL frogs could be directly affected by

project activities. These scenarios include 1) frogs coming into direct contact with mechanical

equipment, 2) tree falling upon individual frogs, 3) exposure and subsequent sickening of frogs

from borate compound used to treat live cut stumps of conifers, and 4) tadpoles and/or egg

masses coming into contact with water drafting equipment. However, none of these scenarios are

likely to occur under Alternative 1. No mechanical equipment is permitted within 300 feet of

perennial streams or wet meadows in subwatersheds considered to have potentially suitable

habitat for Cascades or SNYL frogs; project activities would not occur during wet soil conditions

when Cascades and SNYL frogs are most likely to be traveling overland; and, when soil

conditions become dry, individual frog movement is typically restricted to stream courses and/or

wetlands. Application of borate compound would be prohibited from within 25 feet of live stream

courses, meadows/wetlands, and riparian vegetation (IDF #33) and have a negligible risk of

affecting Cascades or SNYL frogs, or their potentially suitable habitat. Almanor Ranger District

fisheries biologists will visit all potential water drafting sites prior to use to determine

presence/absence of Cascades or SNYL frog tadpoles or egg masses; no water drafting would

occur in sites where tadpoles or egg masses are identified (IDF #73).

In summary, there would be no risk of direct contact with Cascades or SNYL frogs via ground-

based mechanical equipment or tree felling, and a negligible risk of poisoning by the use of

borate compound 25 feet beyond perennial waters. There would be a negligible risk of tadpoles or

egg masses coming into contact with water drafting equipment.

Indirect Effects

The two risks associated with project activities which may indirectly affect Cascades or SNYL

frogs or their potentially suitable habitat include 1) increased sedimentation of potentially suitable

habitat as a result of ground disturbance, and 2) reductions in canopy cover within potentially

suitable habitat as a result of tree felling within RCAs, which could lead to increased water

temperatures. Implementation of the Poker Chip project would pose a negligible to low risk of

indirect effects upon Cascades frogs or SNYL frogs individuals or their potentially suitable

habitats. The majority of treatments occurring within RCAs would be conducted by hand, with no

ground-based mechanical equipment allowed to operate within RCAs of perennial streams.

Integrated Design Features would be implemented within upland (non-RCA) ground-based

mechanical equipment units that would minimize sediment production and transport to adjacent

stream channels. Since very little ground disturbance would occur within RCAs, these RCAs

would also act as buffers to aid in filtering out any sediment that is potentially produced in upland

treatment areas before it could reach stream channels. The felling of fire-killed and danger trees


72

would have a negligible impact upon water temperatures within perennial streams as dead

standing trees provide very minimal canopy cover for stream channels.

Cumulative Effects

On a worldwide basis, acid precipitation, ultraviolet radiation, and global climate change have all

been suggested as causes to the decline of amphibians. Within the Lassen region, more acute

causes of decline for amphibians include the introduction of non-native predatory fishes into

Cascades and SNYL frog habitats, chytridiomycosis (an infectious disease among amphibians),

extended drought conditions resulting in reduced habitat quality, and loss of potential breeding

habitat through conifer encroachment upon wet meadows.

Within the Poker Chip project area, the Chips Fire has had the greatest, most recent impact upon

aquatic and riparian habitats. Effects of the fire include loss of groundcover, loss of riparian

vegetation, reductions in stream channel canopy cover, and increased sedimentation of streams.

Some of the subwatersheds within the project area are considered to have a high risk of

cumulative effects in terms of sedimentation of stream channels.

The proposed project activities would have a negligible to low risk of sedimentation of potentially

suitable habitat for Cascades frogs or SNYL frogs when added to past, present, and reasonably

foreseeable actions within project-area subwatersheds. Project activities would have a negligible

risk of contributing to declines in stream channel shade when added to past, present, and

reasonably foreseeable actions adjacent to project-area perennial streams.

In addition to the Proposed Action, other activities projected to take place in some of the Poker

Chip Project subwatersheds include the Creeks II Project, Plumas Roadside Hazard Tree (Plumas

NF), the Chipmunk Project (Plumas NF) and ongoing private salvage operations. Additionally,

approximately 6 miles of road within the Middle Yellow subwatershed will be stormproofed

through Burn Area Emergency Response (BAER) efforts in summer of 2013 and several more

miles will be stormproofed in the next decade. Stormproofing of roads would help reduce chronic

sediment production related to poor drainage, hydroconnectivity, and culvert failure.

There would be a low risk of the proposed actions measurably changing existing conditions

within project-area streams. As previously stated, the risk of sedimentation resulting from project

activities is considered negligible to low. When added to existing conditions within the project

area, there would be a negligible to low risk of further reducing habitat quality within the project

area. Implementation of BMPs and IDFs would minimize the risk of sediment entering stream

channels and depositing within perennial stream substrates, or becoming suspended and entering

potential off-channel breeding habitats for Cascades and SNYL frogs. There would be a

negligible risk of perennial stream channel shade declining below existing conditions as a result


73

of project implementation, as riparian vegetation often returns quickly to riparian areas along

perennial streams following wildfire and only fire-killed or trees with a probability of mortality of

0.9 would be hand-felled within perennial stream RCAs. Fire-killed trees provide minimal shade.


There are no proposed activities within the project area under Alternative 2. No area salvage,

reforestation, or danger tree removal would occur. No new roads would be constructed.

Direct Effects

There would be no direct effects from project implementation upon Cascades frogs or SNYL

frogs under Alternative 2 as no project activities would occur. Mechanical equipment would not

come into contact with Cascades or SNYL frog individuals or their habitat. Application of borate

compound within the project area would not occur; therefore frogs would not be exposed to the

effects of borate compound. Since no trees or snags would be felled under Alternative 2, there

would be no risk of trees or snags falling onto Cascades or SNYL frog individuals as a result of

implementation of Alternative 2.

Indirect Effects

No indirect effects upon Cascades frogs or SNYL frogs would occur under Alternative 2. No area

salvage, danger tree removal, reforestation, or road construction would occur within the project

area. As such, sediment and stream channel canopy cover would remain unaffected under

implementation of Alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects

No project activities would occur under Alternative 2. There would be no direct or indirect effects

from project implementation on Cascades frogs or SNYL frogs or their respective potential

suitable or occupied habitats. Therefore, Alternative 2 would impose no cumulative effects upon

the aforementioned species or their respective habitats.

Determination

After considering known life history requirements, current conditions, historical and current

survey information, and integrated design features, it is determined that implementation of the

Poker Chip Project may affect individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal

listing or loss of viability of the Cascades frog or Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog.


74

Watershed


Direct Effects

Soils: The primary direct effects to soils that are of concern for hydrologic resources are

compaction and loss of groundcover. The Poker Chip project includes integrated design features

to specifically address risk of soil compaction from project activities (IDFs 36, 37, 44); therefore,

the risks of compaction from Alternative 1 proposed activities are considered negligible in all

project subwatersheds.

Risks to soils from groundcover removal are considered negligible and existing groundcover

percentages should increase from some project activities, especially in the RCAs. IDF #42 would

require areas treated with ground-based mechanical equipment to maintain 50 percent

groundcover following project implementation on slopes over 15 percent. In danger tree units,

RCA acres would be either treated from the road prism or trees would be hand felled, and limbs

and tops would be left to increase groundcover. In the reforestation units, site preparation in

several areas includes “hand fell and leave material” or mastication contributing to an increase in

groundcover and surface roughness. Masticating and spreading out woody debris across the

ground surface would increase groundcover. Re-planting of conifers would improve long-term

groundcover and organic matter production.

Indirect Effects

Sediment: Overall, the proposed action poses a low to negligible risk of increasing existing

sediment delivery. Risks of short term, localized increases in percent pool tail fines and decreases

in residual pool depths from the proposed action are negligible. This assessment is based on

several factors including number and method of acres being treated, mechanical equipment

exclusion zones, soil moisture and groundcover requirements, slope IDFs, timing of

implementation, BMP implementation, and road treatments. Project activities would be dispersed

across the landscape in several different subwatersheds, minimizing the amount of disturbance in

a single subwatershed. Low impact and minimal disturbance methods of treatment, such as hand

treatment, helicopter, low-pressure ground equipment, and mastication, would be utilized across

the project area. Treatments utilizing these methods would increase groundcover above the

existing condition while minimizing soil disturbance and compaction, resulting in decreased risk

of erosion.

Mechanical equipment exclusion zones have been found to effectively reduce risk of direct

damage to stream courses and reduce project related sediment from reaching stream courses.

Requiring dry soil conditions during project implementation would further reduce risks of project


75

related sediment production. Implementation of best management practices (BMPs) during timber

sale operations and on project roads would reduce risks of sediment production and delivery in

both the short- and long-terms. Post-project road density in all project subwatersheds would

remain the same. The temporary road (one mile) used for project implementation would be

decommissioned and removed from the landscape. Existing non-system roads (2.08 miles) used

for implementation would be brought up to meet BMPs and added to the Forest Transportation

system as maintenance level 1 roads (ML1). This would allow these roads to be maintained and

reconstructed following applicable engineering standards for drainage and alignment, minimizing

erosion and hydroconnectivity related to the roads.

Hydrology: The risk of a measureable change in hydrology from the proposed action is

negligible in all subwatersheds; therefore, the risk of a measureable decrease in bank stability and

connectivity from the proposed action is negligible.

Water Quality (Chemical): The proposed action would not result in a measurable change to

chemical constituents of streams that would affect water quality or beneficial uses. The project

would not contribute to existing mercury, PCB, or unknown invertebrate toxicity levels that were

detected and listed in the California 2006 Clean Water Section 303(d) list for the North Fork

Feather River below Lake Almanor dam. The main concern for chemical changes of water quality

from the Poker Chip Project would be from fungicides (borate compound), machinery related

fluid spillage (oil, gasoline, etc.), or fire related material (ash from piles or burning). IDFs (33,

59) and BMPs (BMP Practice 2-12) are in place that would reduce risks of any of these concerns

measurably affecting water quality.

Water Quality (Temperature): The proposed action would have a negligible risk of negatively

affecting stream channel shade and water temperature in all project area treated streams. This

assessment is based on the seasonal nature of most streams proposed for treatment, the types of

treatment proposed in RCAs, historical records of riparian hardwood recovery, and number of

RCA acres proposed for treatment in each stream. Although there are a few perennial stream

RCAs proposed for hand treatment, the number of acres proposed for treatment are minimal.

Additionally, tree removal is limited to dead or dying trees that would provide little to no shade in

the future. Riparian vegetation in all streams is expected to expand where it currently exists and

contribute to shade.

Large Woody Debris (in-channel and recruitment): Proposed action activities have a negligible

risk of negatively affecting recruitment of in-channel large woody debris or large woody debris

recruitment for project area streams at the subwatershed scale. This assessment is based on the

low number and type of RCA acres proposed for treatment and protection of bank stability trees.

LWD recruitment would not be significantly affected by project activities as trees over 8-inches

dbh within 10 feet of the channel would be retained (IDF #52). There should be an increase in


76

riparian hardwoods available near areas where it currently exists. Overall, the existing LWD in-

channel amounts are sufficient and are expected to increase. The project would only be removing

dead and dying trees. All bank stability trees would be retained (unless posing a safety issue) and

would be available to contribute wood to channels. Bank stability trees are, by nature, close to the

creek and would be available to contribute to in-channel wood.

Riparian Hardwood Stand Distribution and Condition: The proposed action would have a

negligible effect on riparian hardwood species. Riparian species would not be removed during

project implementation (IDF #51). Conifers would not be planted within 150 feet of existing

hardwoods. Riparian species are expected to respond well to the fire disturbance and removal of

shade-producing conifers.

Cumulative Watershed Effects

Equivalent Roaded Acres (ERA): A cumulative watershed effects (CWE) analysis was conducted

for the subwatersheds potentially affected by project implementation (Table 21). CWEs or overall

disturbance (from past, present, project and foreseeable future actions) is evaluated using

Equivalent Roaded Acres (ERA) as described by the Region 5 methodology contained within

chapter 20 of Forest Service handbook (FSH) 2509.22. The ERA calculation assumes that all

proposed action activities and estimated activities would occur in one year, providing a

conservative estimate of risk. Project activities and other future projects are likely to be spread

out to occur over a span of 5 to 10 years. Spreading out activities over time allows some recovery

between actions and keeps the ERA (risk of cumulative effects) from increasing suddenly.

Overall in all subwatersheds, the proposed action would only minimally increase the ERA

percentage above the existing condition (Table 21). None of the subwatersheds would be

increased more than 1.4 percent ERA and several would not increase more than 0.1 percent. Hand

fell and leave actions are considered to have negligible effects to cumulative watershed effects.

Many treatments in the proposed action may positively affect cumulative watershed effects by

increasing groundcover, especially in RCAs. Groundcover has been shown to be one of the most

important factors in reducing erosion and sedimentation and should increase above existing

conditions in units treated by hand, with helicopter, and through mastication.


77

Table 21. Pre-project and Alternative 1 ERA percentage (not including future projects or other

projects only in the planning stage) and TOC values for Poker Chip Project subwatersheds.

Subwatershed Pre-project ERA

(%) ERA % increase from PA, 2013

TOC

Ohio Creek (AD1) 16.9% 0.1% 15%

West Shore Lake Almanor (AL1) 9.5% 0.6% 16%

Lower Butt Creek Subbasin (BC1) 10.8% 0.0% 15%

Mosquito Creek (MC1) 17.3% 0.1% 15%

Chips Creek (NFFR2) 5.8% 0.0% 15%

Indian Creek (NFFR3) 18.1% 0.0% 15%

Squirrel Creek (YE2) 17.1% 0.0% 15%

Soda Creek (YE3) 8.5% 0.1% 15%

Grizzly Creek (YE4) 14.2% 1.0% 15%

Middle Yellow Creek (YE5) 21.1% 1.3% 15%

Lemm Hollows (YE6) 13.7% 0.2% 15%

Humbug Valley (YE7) 7.0% 0.1% 16%

Humbug Creek (YE8) 15.3% 1.4% 15% Percentages are approximate and subject to rounding.

Subwatersheds are assigned thresholds of concern (TOC) that represent a critical value based on

watershed-specific conditions, such as presence of listed species, beneficial uses, and physical

characteristics (soil types, slope gradients, etc.). The TOC represents a value of ERA where the

potential for adverse cumulative effects increases and adverse water quality effects become very

likely. The standard and guideline [#22b(4)] for ERAs is to adjust the project impacts and timing

to keep disturbance below the TOC.

The ERA percent in Mosquito Creek is above the TOC; however, the total ERA percent increase

is only 0.1 percent. The 1.4 acres of tractor based treatments proposed in Mosquito Creek

subwatershed are located within a seasonal RCA and are located 1 mile away from the closest

perennial waters.

Middle Yellow Creek is over the TOC because of the existing condition. The proposed action will

increase the ERA value 1.3 percent; however, there is no ground based mechanical treatment

planned within the RCA and the majority of acres across the subwatershed are being treated

through reforestation. Treatments in the RCA are limited to 57.9 acres of hand treatment and 1

acre of helicopter treatment, both of which will increase groundcover. Additionally,

approximately 6 miles of Forest System road (26N26, 26N72, 26N82A) will be stormproofed

through Chips Fire Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) in summer of 2013 and several

more miles will be stormproofed in the next decade through Storrie Fire Recovery funds. These

actions are not included in the ERA value but will result in positive effects to watershed

resources.


78

Future and Foreseeable Actions:

In addition to the Proposed Action, other activities are estimated to take place from 2013 to 2018.

Private salvage operations will be ongoing, and currently planned Forest Service projects in some

of the Poker Chip Project subwatersheds include the Creeks II Project and the Chipmunk Project

(Plumas NF) (PORFA, USDA, 2013 (c)). The ERA percentages from these projects are included

in the total ERA (2013) and foreseeable future columns in Table 22. The BAER and Storrie Fire

stormproofing work planned for the Chips and Storrie Fire affected subwatersheds is not included

in the ERA value even though stormproofing roads has been shown to reduce chronic sediment

and improve road drainage. As mentioned, roads are the main anthropogenic source of chronic

sediment and stormproofing would help reduce long-term sediment production related to poor

drainage, hydroconnectivity, and culvert failure.

Table 22 shows the overall risk of cumulative watershed effects from past, present, project and

foreseeable future actions as characterized by ERAs in 2013, 2016 and 2018; however, the

increases from the proposed action remain negligible and would not significantly contribute to

cumulative watershed effects. Several activities (hand treatment, mastication, and helicopter

treatment) in the Poker Chip Project would aid in protecting water quality by increasing

groundcover.

The Grizzly Creek, Lemm Hollow, and Soda Creek watersheds contain treatment areas included

with the Creeks II Record of Decision (ROD)(2012). The treatments proposed within these

subwatersheds with the Poker Chip Project are minimal and would cause a negligible risk of

cumulative watershed effects. Treating the proposed reforestation units prior to brush

establishment would reduce the risk of sediment production related to site preparation. The 11.7

acres of salvage logging proposed within the Grizzly Creek subwatershed is located in flat terrain,

on a ridge outside of any RCAs, and above a road. Risks of sediment delivery related to

implementation of this proposed salvage logging are negligible.


79

Table 22: Estimated ERA percent values by Poker Chip Project subwatersheds for 2013, 2016, and

2018. Includes ERA percent estimates from Alternative 1 and estimates of activities on FS and

private lands.

Subwatershed Other

Estimates

Total ERA (%) (All private, FS, & PA activities)

Foreseeable Future ERA % TOC

2013 2013 2016 2018

Ohio Creek (AD1) 6.8% 23.8% 21.3% 19.6% 15%

West Shore Lake Almanor (AL1) 0.6% 10.7% 9.8% 9.2% 16%

Lower Butt Creek Subbasin (BC1) 2.0% 12.9% 11.6% 10.7% 15%

Mosquito Creek (MC1) 3.8% 21.2% 18.8% 17.2% 15%

Chips Creek (NFFR2) - 5.8% 4.9% 4.3% 15%

Indian Creek (NFFR3) - 18.1% 15.9% 14.4% 15%

Squirrel Creek (YE2) - 17.1% 14.9% 13.4% 15%

Soda Creek (YE3) - 8.6% 7.9% 7.7% 15%

Grizzly Creek (YE4) - 15.2% 15.6% 15.1% 15%

Middle Yellow Creek (YE5) 0.3% 22.7% 19.0% 16.7% 15%

Lemm Hollows (YE6) - 13.8% 14.7% 13.7% 15%

Humbug Valley (YE7) - 7.1% 6.8% 6.6% 16%

Humbug Creek (YE8) - 16.7% 14.9% 13.8% 15% Other Estimates refers to other ERA estimates of FS activities (unrelated to Poker Chip Project). All Private salvage

estimates are included in the existing condition.

Percentages are approximate and subject to rounding.

Although Alternative 1 would not meet the Lassen LRMP standard and guideline to alter timing

of projects to stay below the TOC, implementing the project within the first few years following

the fire would protect water resources more than postponing project activities. The existing ERA

percent is above the TOC in several subwatersheds; however, project actions would not result in

measurable increases in cumulative watershed effects above the existing condition.

The project would aid in protecting watershed resources in the following ways:

• Increasing groundcover within the first few years of the fire would help prevent erosion

when it is most likely to occur, which is within the first few years following a fire.

• Implementing reforestation actions prior to brush establishment would prevent increased

ground and soil disturbance that may result from postponing site preparation. Brush response is

expected to be fairly quick following the fire. Once brush is established, removing the brush

through site preparation for planting may result in more soil disturbance than treating the units

prior to brush establishment.

• Stormproofing roads and improving roads to meet BMPs through the proposed action and

Chips Fire BAER and Storrie Fire recovery efforts would improve watershed health but are not

included in the ERA. Roads are the main cause of chronic anthropogenic sediment.


80

To postpone actions several years may result in increased soil disturbance from project activities

(ex. postponed site preparation for replanting) and would have less benefit to watershed resources

(ex. postponed groundcover increases would not occur until after highest erosion period has

already occurred). To gain the maximum benefit from project activities for watershed resources,

activities would need to occur within the next few years.

Alternative 1 is consistent with all other management direction concerning soils, fisheries, and

hydrology.

Water Quality and Beneficial Uses: As with indirect effects, the greatest potential for cumulative

watershed effects to water quality and beneficial uses would be from increased delivery of

sediment from project activities, in addition to sediment from past, ongoing or future land

disturbance activities. Although the risk of increases in sediment related to the existing condition

and additional foreseeable future activities is high in fire-affected subwatersheds, the increases

from the proposed action are negligible and would not significantly contribute to cumulative

watershed effects. This assessment is based on the increase in groundcover across the treatment

units (especially in the RCA), number of acres treated and dispersed nature of those acres to be

treated, types of treatments (hand and helicopter treatment), use of ground based mechanical

equipment buffers, and implementation of mitigations during treatments (BMPs and IDFs).

Several activities would actually aid in protecting water quality by increasing groundcover.

Temperature

Although the risk of increases in water temperature related to the existing condition and

additional foreseeable future activities is moderate in fire-affected subwatersheds, the increases

from the proposed action are negligible and would not significantly contribute to increases in

water temperature. Should there be an increase in water temperature due to the existing condition

and foreseeable future actions, this increase would not be significant enough to negatively affect

aquatic species. Based on temperature data in Grizzly Creek, Cottonwood Creek, Soda Creek, and

Blue Lead Gulch following the Storrie Fire, any temperature increases would be short-term and

still below the threshold of mortality for rainbow trout. Riparian vegetation is expected to expand

where it currently exists and contribute to shade, as was observed in the riparian data following

the Storrie Fire.


Direct Effects

Soils: Under the “No Action” alternative there would be no risk of compaction to soil resources

as vegetation management activities by means of mechanical equipment would not occur.

However, activities that would increase groundcover would not occur either. Compared to the


81

proposed action, these areas would have a higher risk of erosion due to a lack of groundcover

until the area could naturally regain groundcover. Areas with high soil burn severity that are most

susceptible to erosion would also have very little groundcover potential as soil productivity is

most damaged there.

Indirect Effects

Because vegetation management and road improvement would not occur under this alternative,

existing trends in conditions relating to sediment, hydrology, water quality (chemical and

temperature), beneficial uses, large woody debris, and riparian vegetation would continue.

Erosion related to lack of groundcover would be higher in alternative 2 compared to alternative 1

as activities that produce groundcover would not occur.

The existing non-system roads would not be brought onto the system and would continue to be

unmaintained. Sedimentation issues related to these roads would continue or degrade further with

time. Road closures of these non-system roads would not occur, so use-related sediment

production trends would continue.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative watershed effects to water quality, beneficial uses, and ERAs within the project

affected subwatersheds and downstream resources would continue along current trends. Overall

risk of cumulative watershed effects (from past, present, project and foreseeable future actions) as

characterized by Equivalent Roaded Acres (ERAs) would be similar to Alternative 1, ranging

from low to high (Table 23). However, alternative 2 would lack the additional groundcover that

alternative 1 would generate in 2013 and the 2.08 miles of existing non-system roads would not

be added to the system, nor brought up to meet BMPs. Any sediment-related issues associated

with these roads would continue on current trends and may degrade with time.


82

Table 23. Alternative 2 ERA percentage values for project subwatersheds in 2013 and foreseeable

future. Includes estimates on FS and private lands.

Subwatershed

Other Estimates

Total ERA (%) (All activities)

Foreseeable Future ERA % TOC

2013 2013 2016 2018

Ohio Creek (AD1) 6.8% 23.7% 21.2% 19.5% 15%

West Shore Lake Almanor (AL1) 0.6% 10.1% 9.6% 8.7% 16%

Lower Butt Creek Subbasin (BC1) - 10.7% 11.6% 10.7% 15%

Mosquito Creek (MC1) 3.8% 21.2% 18.7% 17.1% 15%

Chips Creek (NFFR2) 2.0% 7.8% 4.9% 4.3% 15%

Indian Creek (NFFR3) - 18.1% 15.9% 14.4% 15%

Squirrel Creek (YE2) - 17.1% 14.9% 13.4% 15%

Soda Creek (YE3) - 8.1% 7.8% 7.6% 15%

Grizzly Creek (YE4) - 14.6% 14.7% 14.3% 15%

Middle Yellow Creek (YE5) 0.3% 21.4% 17.9.0% 15.6% 15%

Lemm Hollows (YE6) - 14.1% 14.5% 13.5% 15%

Humbug Valley (YE7) - 7.0% 6.7% 6.5% 16%

Humbug Creek (YE8) - 15.3% 13.7% 12.7% 15% Other Estimates refers to other ERA estimates that are not on LNF lands and are unrelated to Poker Chip Project

activities (unrelated to Poker Chip Project). All Private salvage estimates are included in the existing condition.

Percentages and acres are approximate.

Overall risks of increases in water temperature due to the existing condition and foreseeable

management actions are similar to alternative 1.

Silviculture



Salvage Harvest: Fire-killed and fire-injured trees would be harvested. These salvage treatments

would occur in a timely manner on approximately 547 acres, or 7 percent of the project area,

contributing to the recovery of the maximum economic value of the timber. Cut conifer stumps

14-inch diameter and larger would be treated with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

registered borate compound (Sporax), but no borate would be applied within 25 feet of known

sensitive and special interest plants or within 25 feet of water. The use of Sporax, when properly

applied, has negligible risk to human health and the environment.

Salvage units would treat approximately 9 percent (251 acres) of the deforested acres in the

project area and facilitate artificial and natural regeneration efforts. Harvesting the dead and

dying trees that are in excess of other resource needs would provide a safer work environment

during tree planting and release. Reducing existing and future heavy fuel loading prior to planting

would help to protect young plantations should wildfire occur in the future. Where available, at


83

least five logs per acre greater than 12-inches in diameter would be retained in contact with the

soil surface to meet soil and wildlife needs.

Many areas that burned at low to moderate severity have very high numbers of trees damaged by

the fire leaving them weakened and highly susceptible to bark beetle attack. Trees with damaged

and exposed cambium resulting from the Chips fire could be at risk to an increase in heart and

root rot infections. The extent of fire damaged trees provides opportunity for bark beetle

populations to increase to epidemic levels and expand in to unburned areas. Salvage harvest and

danger tree removal would reduce the extent of weakened fire damaged trees and help protect

green forests.

Danger Tree: The Chips fire killed and damaged many trees along roads in the project area, and

affected the structural integrity and root system of many live trees. These trees have the potential

to fall in to the roadway causing harm or injury to people and damage to property. Danger trees

within 150 feet of a ML2 or higher road that have the potential to reach the road would be felled

and removed or left in place. Danger tree treatments would treat approximately 20 percent of the

Chips fire and 8 percent (232 acres) of the deforested acres within the project area. As with

proposed area salvage units, cut conifer stumps 14-inch diameter and larger would be treated with

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registered borate compound (Sporax), but no borate

would be applied within 25 feet of known sensitive and special interest plants or within 25 feet of

water. The use of Sporax, when properly applied, has negligible risk to human health and the

environment. Where available, at least five logs per acre greater than 12-inches in diameter would

be retained in contact with the soil surface to meet soil and wildlife needs. In riparian

conservation areas, danger trees that cannot be felled onto the road would be felled parallel to the

contour of the slope and left in place. Danger tree areas adjacent to salvage and reforestation only

units would be planted with conifer trees as prescribed in adjacent unit.

Direct effects of the danger tree treatment would include the removal of hazards along publically

traveled roads, increased safety for people using these roads, and utilization of forest products.

Safety on roads open to the public is an agency responsibility mandated by the Highway Safety

Act, as well as by agency directives. Timber sales generate revenue for the Forest Service which

can be used to accomplish post-harvest treatments. Timber sales also help support the forest

product industries and the local communities that rely on revenue generated by forest products.

See Economic section below.

Indirect effects include fuel reduction and increased safety for wildland fire fighters. Activity-

generated fuels in excess of what is needed for soil cover would be piled and burned. Additional

dead and down material would also be treated. Reduced fuels from danger tree and salvage

operations could decrease wildfire severity and increase wildland firefighters’ safety. Treated


84

salvage units and danger tree areas would contribute to Defensible Fuel Profile Zones created in

the Wildland Urban Interface, especially in the area near Lake Almanor.

Reforestation: The Poker Chip project proposes to reforest by hand planting trees in salvage units

and deforested areas not proposed for salvage. Up to 547 acres of salvage units and 2,746 acres of

non-salvage units would have various site preparation activities followed by reforestation. There

are also areas that would be left for natural regeneration. Areas of danger tree treatment adjacent

to salvage and reforestation units would also be reforested. The 2,746 acres of Reforestation only

treatment represent 35 percent of the Chips fire within the project area. Reforestation only units

would treat approximately 62 percent (1,757 acres) of the deforested acres in the project area.

Reforestation would promote the re-establishment of fire-resistant, shade-intolerant conifer

species before shrub, grass, and forb competition preclude natural regeneration of these tree

species. Areas to plant and the size of plantations within the area salvage units would depend on

the post-fire stand condition. Forested areas (e.g. CWHR 3D, 3M, 4D, 5M, 6) or patches of live

shrubs within salvage units that are still largely intact would not require planting. Sparsely treed

areas and burned areas with no living trees would be planted. Plantations in reforestation only

units would also vary by existing, post fire conditions. Portions of proposed units that are fully

stocked would receive fuel reduction treatment only as needed and partially stocked areas may be

planted or left to regenerate naturally after site preparation.

Site preparation is needed to protect plantation investments and help ensure the success of planted

trees. This treatment would preclude machine piling after plantations have been established to

prevent destruction of planted seedlings. Site preparation and reforestation activities are proposed

in the Grizzly and Soda Creek subwatersheds to take advantage of bare ground now before

subsequent growth of shrubs, forbs and grasses fully occupy the proposed units. Planting trees as

soon as possible following a fire would ensure the best possible survival rate, especially without

use of herbicides to release planted seedlings from vegetation competition. Mechanical site

preparation would be accomplished with low impact machines that typically have less than 6

pounds per square inch ground pressure. Deferring reforestation treatments until 2016 would

result in the need for even more ground disturbing activities to achieve any reforestation results.

Deferred site preparation activities would need to treat highly competitive vegetation by pulling

shrubs and scraping the ground to expose bare mineral soil. Even with these kinds of measures,

trees planted at a later time would have a lower survival rate than those planted immediately

following the wildfire. Additionally more snags may need to be cut down for safety reasons if

reforestation activities are deferred. Weakened fire damaged trees could continue to die in the

years following the wildfire.

Vegetative Diversity: Vegetative species that become established early in the post-fire

environment influence forest dynamics for decades to centuries. Establishment of conifers after


85

wildfires can be spatially variable over a long regeneration period and shade intolerant tree

species may be excluded from sites indefinitely because these tree species might not produce seed

for several years following the fire, or the seed source may be destroyed. A study of post-fire

regeneration in the Storrie fire on the Lassen National Forest found the lowest densities of Pinus

spp. in the unchanged and high fire severity areas which may result in an ecosystem type shift.

The same study of post-fire regeneration in the Storrie fire found that the high densities of conifer

regeneration in the low- and medium-severity burns and the sometimes sparsely regenerating

high-severity burns highlight the landscape structural heterogeneity created by the fire.

Regeneration surveys completed on the Almanor Ranger District over the last few years have

found an approximate 60 percent survival rate of planted trees when herbicides are not used to

control competing vegetation. Shrubs, forbs, and grasses would become a component of planted

areas and maintain vegetation diversity. A minimum of 10 percent of the project area would be

montane chaparral and untreated burned/ barren areas that would become dominated by shrubs.

Tree Size and Density and Shrub Class Distribution: Treatments would affect the conifer size and

density class distribution in the project area and can be shown using the California Wildlife

Habitat Relationship (CWHR) size and density classes. Post treatment CWHR size and density

classes would be the same as pre-treatment CWHR classes except: (1) montane chaparral and

forested stands with high fire severity that became barren (CWHR = BAR) and are proposed for

planting become Sierran mixed conifer, seedling, size class 1, undetermined canopy cover

(SMC1X); and (2) montane chaparral and forested stands with high fire severity that became

CWHR = BAR and are not proposed for planting are expected to become shrub dominated,

montane chaparral (CWHR = MCP).

Harvest Operations and Roads

Salvage operations would have effects on forest stand structure. Tractor and helicopter logging

would require small clearings, or landings, generally less than one half acre in size, to store logs

prior to removal and to be used to service equipment. Landing size depends on the topography

and the number of trees utilizing the landing. These clearings are expected to reforest with

conifers based on field review of past landings within the project area.

Trees would be cleared from road right-of-ways for road maintenance and non-system road

upgrades. Most trees to be removed are saplings and seedlings which have become established

since construction or the last road maintenance treatment. Approximately 2.1 miles of non-system

roads, including a road used during Chips fire suppression activities, are needed for project

implementation and long-term future management and would be added as Maintenance Level 1

roads. A section of dozer line constructed during fire suppression, approximately 1 mile long

would be used as a temporary road and would be obliterated following project implementation.


86

The 2.1 miles of non-system routes being added as Maintenance Level 1 roads and 1.0 miles of

temporary roads would affect approximately 5.5 acres of forest land. The dozer line that would be

used as a temporary road cleared approximately 1.5 acres of forest. The road would be obliterated

at project completion and the area affected would be included in the adjacent planted unit.

Clearing for harvest and road construction operations is expected to impact less than 1 percent of

the treated areas.

Cumulative Effects

The area considered for silviculture cumulative effects is the project area. Stand and site

conditions outside the project area generally have little effect on treated stands, with the

exception of effects on forest insect populations and the risk of fire spread from adjacent

untreated stands. Management activities and disturbances since 1988 were considered in this

analysis because the effects of the past silviculture treatments and events are still occurring.

Management activities and events prior to this are considered in this analysis in so far as they

have shaped current stand structure conditions.

Experience in the Almanor Ranger District and surrounding lands has shown that forested

conditions may not occur for decades or longer after a stand replacing wildfire, resulting in a loss

of overall forest cover if left to natural regeneration. Dense shrub communities become

established which may slowly (greater than 50 years) be overtaken by shade-tolerant white fir

trees (Abies concolor) that become established beneath the shrubs. Shade intolerant tree species

would be scarce or non-existent. With the proposed action, approximately 23 percent of the

project area would consist of young plantations with a mixture of native tree species suited to the

site and elevation that may not otherwise be available. Previous plantations in the project area

have developed a well-defined shrub layer that persist for decades until trees become tall enough

to shade out shrub competition. Plantations established without the use of herbicides for shrub

control (less than 23 years of age) generally have approximately a 40 percent shrub component as

survival of planted trees is much more variable when only hand grubbing is utilized for release.

This results in variable shrub inclusions within plantations. Where planted tree mortality is high,

shrub inclusions should persist until the next disturbance occurs or until reforestation occurs

naturally when and if a seed source is available.

Artificial regeneration with native conifer seedlings would allow for the return of forested cover

in a much shorter time period than natural recovery would allow. Artificial regeneration would

also affect future stand composition and structure. This could speed the recovery of habitat for

forest dependent wildlife species. Sparsely treed mature forests, California Wildlife Habitat

Relationship (CWHR) size and density classes 4P, 4S, 5P, and 5S (see table 3 for CWHR

categories) that are planted would develop into multi-storied forests with a component of

understory vegetation.


87

Areas not treated would develop with natural regeneration of shrubs, grasses, forbs and/or trees

depending on local seed sources and presence of root sprouting species. Approximately 10

percent of the project area would consist of existing montane chaparral and untreated burned


would persist for an indefinite time and contribute to landscape diversity.

Effects of Harvest Operations and Roads: Road construction from past projects throughout the

project area has decreased the forested area. Existing roads consist of approximately 90 acres of

formerly forested lands that are now within road right-of-ways. Effects from a combination of

road construction and temporary road decommissioning in Alternative 1 would result in an

overall decrease of land in road right-of-way. Upgrading approximately 2.1 miles of non-system

route to Maintenance level 1 roads would clear approximately 4 acres of land, and the

approximately 1 mile of dozer line that would be used as a temporary access for treatment cleared

approximately 1.5 acres of land. The temporary road would be decommissioned after use and

planted with the adjacent units. There would be a net decrease of 4 acres of cleared land as a

result of road work associated with the proposed project.



Salvage and Danger Tree: Salvage harvest and danger tree treatments would not occur under this

alternative. There would be no recovery of the economic value of any of the fire killed trees.

Hazard trees adjacent to publically traveled forest system roads would not be cut and/or removed.

Fuel loading within salvage units and transportation corridors would increase as dead and dying

trees eventually fall to the ground.

Trees weakened and damaged by the Chips fire are susceptible to bark beetle attack. Without

salvage and danger tree harvest, these areas would be at an increased risk of epidemic levels of

beetle outbreak that could expand into adjacent green forests. Trees with damaged and exposed

cambium are at risk of heart and root rot infections. Root infections can spread to healthy green

trees through underground root contact. Trees damaged by the fire could increase levels of heart

and root rot infections. Without salvage of dying trees, root rot infection levels could expand into

otherwise healthy trees.

Without salvage and danger tree removal and post-harvest reduction of small diameter fuels, there

would be no decrease in future fuel loading, no decrease in the potential fire severity, and no

increase in firefighters’ safety. Fuel loading along roads would be high in areas and would detract

from safe firefighting operations along project area roads. No treatments would occur in the

Wildland Urban Interface and contribute to adjacent Defensible Fuel Profile Zones.


88

Reforestation: Artificial reforestation in salvage units and non-salvage areas would not occur. Re-

establishment of forest cover would rely on natural regeneration and could take decades or longer.

Without reforestation efforts, high severity fire areas would recover primarily with shrubs,

resulting in a continued loss of forest habitat for an indefinite period of time. Low and moderate

fire severity areas with a component of live overstory trees would reseed with natural tree

regeneration, depending on timing of seed production and vegetation composition. Fire has a

positive influence on seedling density by improving the substrate for seedling establishment.

Natural regeneration depends on adjacent seed sources and all species of a mixed conifer forest

may not be well represented. Plantations that existed before the Chips fire would not be planted to

acceptable stocking levels.

Tree Size and Density and Shrub Class Distribution: Under the No Action Alternative, there

would be no increase in California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) Sierran Mixed Conifer

1X (seedling size class of undetermined canopy cover). All montane chaparral (MCP) and forest

cover areas that burned at high severity and became barren (CWHR=BAR) would regenerate to

montane chaparral. With no treatments, the Poker Chip project area would have approximately 33

percent montane chaparral cover with little to no tree regeneration.

Economics (from Silviculture Report)

This economic analysis is not designed to model all economic factors used in an intensive and

complex timber sale appraisal process, but rather takes a less complex but consistent and

systematic approach to display the relative differences in financial efficiency (i.e. relevant

revenues and costs) for the alternatives. This economic analysis will not revisit information

presented in the Lassen LRMP, 2001 SNFPA FEIS, and 2004 SNFPA FSEIS but will focus on the

time frame associated with implementing salvage and danger harvest and reforestation in the

Poker Chip project. The time frame for completing timber removal would take approximately 2

years and reforestation activities 2 to 5 years.


Direct Effects

Salvage and Danger Tree: Timber harvest values utilized for this analysis are a base rate of $0.85

per green ton. Post salvage treatments would be partially funded from the project’s timber sale

receipts. Timber volume estimates are based on estimates obtained from timber pre-cruise and

visual estimates. Calculations do not include costs and values for those items that cannot be

estimated in dollar terms or easily estimated such agency administration and overhead. There are

no essential reforestation costs with the Poker Chip proposed action since there are no proposed

regeneration harvest cuts, only salvage logging.


89

Table 24. Alternative 1 Estimated Total Timber Yield and Value

Product Total

Volume

Total Value

Salvage Harvest (tractor ground sawlog tons) 24,491 $20,818

Salvage Harvest (helicopter ground sawlog tons) 33,803 $28,733

Danger Tree (sawlog tons) 49,086 $41,723

Totals 107,380 $91,274

Table 25. Alternative 1 Site Preparation and Reforestation Costs in Salvage and Danger Tree

Units

Activity Total Future Costs

Mechanical Piling (202) $116,703

Hand Piling (233) $152,677

Pile Burning (435) $43,067

Tree Planting (435 acres) $140,394

Manual/Mechanical Seedling Release (435 acres) $153,324

Total $606,165

Table 26. Alternative 1 Project Benefit/Cost Ratio

Benefit Cost Net Present Value *Benefit/Cost Ratio

$91,274 $606,165 -$514,891 0.15

* 1.0 = breakeven; > 1.0 = positive return; < 1.0 = negative return

The analysis predicted a negative return for Alternative 1 proposed treatments (

Table 26). Trust funds from the sale of timber would be used to partially fund post-harvest site

preparation and reforestation activities. There would be an economic return of money to the

community from associated harvesting activities, processing and sale of forest products and from

service contracts awarded to complete post-harvest activities.

Employment opportunities can have direct, indirect, or induced effects on the local economy.

Direct effects are associated with the primary producer. For example, the manufacturing of

lumber from the Poker Chip project has a direct effect on employment opportunities. Indirect

effects account for employment in service industries that serve the lumber manufacturer. These

industries may include logging, trucking, fuel supplies, etc. Induced effects are determined by

wages. Wages paid to workers by the primary and service industries are circulated through the


90

economy for food, housing, transportation, and other living expenses. The sum of direct, indirect,

and induced effects is the total economic impact in terms of jobs. This typically ranges from 10 to

15 jobs per 2,000 CCF (13 jobs per 2,000 CCF or 13 jobs per 7,100 green tons for this analysis).

Alternative 1 would generate an estimated 7 direct and 8 indirect and induced jobs for a total of

15 jobs. Total employee related income would be approximately $765,000.

Alternative 1 would provide timber yield tax, administered by the State Board of Equalization

and would also provide Forest Reserve money to Plumas County in which the Poker Chip project

is located. The county would receive 25 percent of the revenues raised from the sale of timber to

be used for county roads and public schools.

Reforestation Only Units: Site preparation and reforestation outside of the proposed salvage and

danger tree units would be funded through appropriated and Storrie Restoration Trust Fund

monies. Though these activities do not generate revenue, they do have direct and indirect effects

on the local economy through award of service contracts and government employment. Service

contract work provides opportunities for small businesses and revenue for the local economy.

Service contracts and timber sales require preparation and administration by government

employees. People from the local communities are often hired as government employees. Table

27 is a list of site preparation and reforestation activities in the proposed reforestation only units.

Listed dollar figures are estimated total future costs with the addition of inflation and overhead.

Table 27. Alternative 1 Site Preparation and Reforestation Costs in Reforestation Only Units

Treatment Total Future Costs

Mechanical Cut and Pile (317 acres) $220,990

Hand Cut and Pile (259 acres) $188,397

Hand Cut and Leave (232 acres) $158,975

Walking Excavator Cut and Pile (57 acres) $85,970

Mastication (65 acres) $40,923

Pile Burning (633 acres) $61,202

Tree Planting (2,189 acres) $578,291

Manual/Mechanical Seedling Release (2,189 acres) $691,465

Total $2,026,213

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 would result in a positive effect on local industries that depend on service contracts

or a steady supply of forest products, as well as counties that use timber yield taxes to fund

county programs. The local economy would receive benefits from associated employment such as

in food, lodging, and transportation businesses. The alternative would have a positive effect on

maintaining local infrastructure that is imperative to implementing future fuels reduction projects.


91

The alternative could provide additional opportunities for employment and rural community

stability because reforestation activities could continue into the future.



Alternative 2 would result in a negative effect on local industries that depend on service contracts

or a steady supply of forest products, as well as counties that use timber yield taxes to fund

county programs. The local economy would also not receive benefits from associated

employment such as in food, lodging, and transportation businesses. Throughout northern

California cumulative years of reduced timber harvesting activities, particularly on federal lands,

have resulted in the loss of infrastructure to complete such activities. The loss of infrastructure,

including local mill closures, could significantly reduce or eliminate future economic and

environmental opportunities from National Forest System lands. The continuation of current

conditions under the No Action alternative would preclude opportunities for long-term

employment and rural community stability because activities related to forest restoration would

not occur. Table 28 compares the economic impacts of Alternatives 1 and 2.

Table 28. Comparison of Economic Impacts of Alternative 1 and Alternative 2.

Employment Alternatives

1 2

*Benefit/Cost Ratio 0.15 0.00

Direct jobs 7 0

Indirect jobs 8 0

Total direct and indirect jobs 15 0

Total employee related income $765,000 0

* 1.0 = breakeven; > 1.0 = positive return; < 1.0 = negative return

Fire and Fuels

The fuels/vegetation profile prior to the Chips fire in 2012 has a bearing on the current conditions

within the Poker Chip project area and the prescriptions proposed. The degree of this effect on the

live and dead fuels (vegetation) could best be associated with the fire intensity on the landscape.

The areas of moderate and high intensity fire experienced stand-replacement conditions, primarily

in chaparral patches, riparian corridors, and conifer stands. The conifer stands primarily affected

were young stands that had not been thinned and stands that have not experienced wildland or

prescribed fire in the last ten years.


92



The fuel complex is comprised of three distinct fuel profiles of live and dead vegetation: surface,

ladder, and canopy fuels. Surface fuels are the organic matter on or immediately under the surface

litter layers, as well as the organic material at and/or immediately above the surface level of

ground fuels, such as pine needle litter, dead and down woody material, and shrubs. Ladder fuels

are the organic materials associated with shrubs in and around trees, as well as all size classes of

both live and dead trees and their crowns. Surface and ladder fuels are vertically and horizontally

connected throughout an area and represent a hazardous fuels complex that can spread through a

diverse topographic landscape. The implication is that high-intensity wildfire with rapid rates of

spread and both active and passive crown fire behavior can occur under extreme fire weather

conditions throughout areas where there is fuel connectivity. For this discussion, “extreme fire

weather” refers to 90th percentile fire weather, the high air temperatures, low relative humidity,

strong wind conditions, and low fuel moisture content levels that historically have occurred on 10

percent of the days during fire seasons. A 90th percentile day creates the potential for severe

wildfire behavior.

Table 29. Fuel Models, Fuel Loadings, and Fire Type for Alternative 1

Alternative 1

Fine Fuels (<¼" dia.)

(t/a)*

Course Fuels (¼" - <3" dia.)

(t/a)*

Average* Total Fuels

(<3" dia.)

Fire Type** S-surface P-passive A-active

Pre

-Ch

ips

Fire

Salvage 5.83 13.54 19.37 Varied

Danger Tree 5.83 13.54 19.37 Varied

Reforestation 2.77 2.65 5.42 Varied

Cu

rren

t St

ate

Salvage 0.0-0.5 0.0-1.0 0.0-1.5 S

Danger Tree 0.0-0.5 0.0-1.0 0.0-1.5 S

Reforestation 0.0-0.5 0.0-1.0 0.0-1.5 S

Po

st-

Act

ion

Salvage 0.2-0.3 1.4-2.8 1.6-3.1 S

Danger Tree 0.2-0.3 1.4-2.8 1.6-3.1 S

Reforestation 0.2-0.3 1.4-2.8 1.6-3.1 S

Po

st-A

ctio

n

(yea

rs) 5 yrs. 2.0-2.1 1.9-3.2 3.9-5.3 S

10 yrs. 2.6-3.1 1.2-1.9 3.8-5.0 Surface/Passive/

Active

25 yrs. 1.6-2.3 1.5-3.7 3.1-6.0 Surface/Passive

* Fuel loadings have been estimated by the District Fuels Officers interpretation from previous experience of pre- &post-fire ground conditions, aerial photos, and interpolated with ArcGIS program using FBFM40 ANDFIRE fuel model layer.

** Fire type under extreme fire conditions (90th percentile fire weather). Varied Severity includes all types of fire, but is primarily surface and passive crown, with some active crown fire.


93

When Poker Chip project activities are completed for the Area Salvage and Reforestation project

units, surface fuels would not exceed 15 tons per acre across these units, consistent with desired

fuel loading conditions. Project activities would contribute to fine and coarse fuel loading, but

these would be within an acceptable level per acre and provide additional groundcover initially.

The felling of danger trees would improve the safety of the public and personnel, and improve the

opportunity for current and future fire management options along the roads and trails. This will

also improve long-term fuels management opportunities by providing safe access for prescribed

fire equipment and personnel.

The different management actions identified in the proposed action present different effects. In

the salvage units, the removal of most of the dead trees will not change predicted fuel loadings of

less than 15 tons per acre in the short term (<5years) and will not have a significant effect on

longer term (5 to 25 years) as most of the initial increases to surface fuels will be from the

salvage operations. The overall increase in fine (<¼-inch diameter) and coarse (¼-inch to 3-inch

diameter) woody surface fuels that would result from salvage operations is not expected to be

greater than 1.6-3.1 tons per acre (t/a). Fire behavior is predicted to transition over the next five

years from very low to moderate. The next five to ten years after the project implementation, it

would continue to increase in hazard and potential fire behavior from moderate to high. This

increase in potential fire behavior parallels the potential surface fire spread of the no action

alternative. This relatively rapid change in fire behavior over a short period of time

(approximately 10 years) is due to rapid growth of new vegetation and the lack of an existing

forest overstory that provides a range of canopy cover (30 percent or more) and a canopy base

height that is high enough to reduce crown fire propagation. Past this initial post-fire phase, the

salvage and reforestation units would be primarily changing from a no-fuel/slash /grass/shrub fuel

model transition to grass/shrub/tree fuel model, which has a significant effect upon changes in

fire behavior and hazard with both action and no action alternatives.

The amount of dead trees contributing to fuel loading would be reduced, while snags and downed

fuels would be retained at lower levels and be concentrated to higher levels within untreated

areas. This arrangement of live and dead fuels will contribute to safe and effective suppression of

wildfire and meet wildfire behavior and suppression standards within the WUI defense zone.

As reflected in Table 29, all of the stands are predicted to experience a surface fire (low intensity)

or a passive fire in which minor “torching” of individual trees or small clumps might occur in

isolated patches, depending on the localized ground fuel or crown conditions and weather

conditions. No active crown fire behavior is predicted. Areas not proposed for treatment are also

predicted to experience a surface fire given the existing conditions with a lack of surface fuels

(dead and live vegetation). However, over time these areas would see increased amounts of

surface fuel as vegetation regrows and dead trees fall.


94

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effect of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects (primarily the

Creeks II Forest Restoration Project (Lassen NF), Chip-munk Recovery and Restoration Project

(Plumas NF) and treatments on private land associated with Chips post-fire recovery) is the

creation of a landscape with reduced fuel loading which would meet desired conditions into the

foreseeable future. Future wildfires would initially be surface fires, with possible occasional

torching into the crowns. As time following project implementation reaches around ten years out,

fire behavior would transition from a surface fire of low intensity to a moderate-high intensity fire

of surface and passive/active crown fire primarily due to shrubs and small trees. This is because

many of the dead trees have been removed from the high and moderate burn severity areas, and

the conifer stands have been thinned by the Chips fire. Salvage activities and prescribed burning

would add to past, present, and future activities and cumulatively reduce fuel loads and fuel

ladders while contributing to a reduced risk of high‐intensity wildfires.



With Alternative 1, surface fuels would not exceed 15 tons per acre across the project units, and

would be consistent with the desired fuel loading conditions for the first five years. After that

time, large woody fuel on the landscape would increase as fire-damaged and standing dead trees

fall to the forest floor, increasing potential fire severity effects. Danger trees would continue to

pose a risk to the safety of the public and personnel using the Forest System roads. Current and

future fire prevention and fire management opportunities along roads and trails would be limited

by the presence of danger trees and the increase in large woody fuel.

As with the proposed action, the effects of Alternative 2 would present different results based on

the existing landscape conditions. In areas with high concentrations of standing dead trees, most

of the dead trees will not change the predicted surface fuel loadings of less than 15 tons per acre

in the short term (<5years), but will have a significant effect on the longer term (5 to 25 years) as

snags begin to decompose and fall. In the first five years, the increase in fine (<¼-inch diameter)

and course (¼-inch to 3-inch diameter) woody surface fuels would primarily be a result of grass

and shrub establishment, followed by the failure and falling of fire-injured and fire-killed trees.

The estimated increase in fine and coarse woody surface fuels is not expected to be greater than

3.7 to 9.5 tons per acre (t/a). Fire behavior is predicted to transition over the first five years from

very low to moderate. The next five to ten years post-fire, as fuel loading increases, fire behavior

is expected to increase from moderate to high. This increase in potential fire behavior parallels

the surface fire spread potential of the action alternative. The density of standing and fallen snags

that provides a dependable fire brand source and receptor for the spotting and spread of wildland


95

fires will increase, making it difficult to manage either prescribed fire or wildland fires on the

landscape. The relatively rapid change in fire behavior over a short period of time (~10 years) is

due to rapid growth of new vegetation and the lack of an existing forest overstory that provides a

range of canopy cover (30 percent or more) and a canopy base height that is high enough to

reduce crown fire propagation. Over this initial phase, the no action alternative for the salvage

and reforestation units will be primarily changing from a no-fuel/slash /grass/shrub (low load)

fuel model transition to grass/shrub(moderate/heavy load) fuel model, which has a significant

effect upon change in fire behavior.

Table 30. Fuel models, fuel loading, and fire type for Alternative 2*. This table does not take into

account surface fuels greater than 3-inch diameter

Alternative 2

Fine Fuels

(<¼" dia.)

Coarse Fuels

(¼" - <3" dia.)

Average Total Fuels (<3" dia.)

Fire Type** S-surface; P-passive;

A-active

Pre

-Ch

ips

Fire

Salvage 5.83 13.54 19.37 Varied

Danger Tree 5.83 13.54 19.37 Varied

Reforestation 2.77 2.65 5.42 Varied

Cu

rren

t St

ate

Salvage 0.0-0.5 0.0-1.0 0.0-1.5 Surface

Danger Tree 0.0-0.5 0.0-1.0 0.0-1.5 Surface

Reforestation 0.0-0.5 0.0-1.0 0.0-1.5 Surface

Po

st-

Act

ion

(yea

rs) 5 yrs. 2.4-2.7 0.8-1.0 3.4-3.7 Surface

10 yrs. 5.4-5.5 3.6-4.0 9.0-9.5 Surface/Passive/Active

25 yrs. 6.0-6.2 5.3-5.8 11.3-12.0 Surface/Passive/Active

* Fuel loadings have been estimated by the District Fuels Officers interpretation from previous experience of pre- &post-fire ground conditions, aerial photos, and interpolated with ArcGIS program using FBFM40 (Scott & Burgan 2005) LANDFIRE fuel model layer.

** Fire type under extreme fire conditions (90th percentile fire weather). Mixed Severity includes all types of fire, but is primarily surface and passive crown, with some active crown fire.

Total fuel loading for Alternative 2 can be expected to exceed 35 tons per acre, with the 3‐inch

and smaller material used in fire behavior calculations ranging up to 9.0 to 12.0 tons per acre over

the next 10 to 25 years. These values exceed the desired overall fuel loading of approximately 10

to 15 tons per acre. While the dead and dying trees would have lost much or all of their dead

branches and foliage, the amount of fine fuels (small branches, needles, etc.) still remaining on

the forest floor would contribute to possible extreme fire behavior. Within 10 years, most of the

dead trees measuring less than 15 inches in diameter, as well as a few larger trees, would have

fallen. These levels of fuel load would not meet the desired conditions for the defense zone of the

Wildland Urban Interface land management allocation and would support a high potential for

damaging wildfires under 90th percentile weather conditions that reflect expected air temperature,

humidity, wind speed, and fuel moisture levels that are typical of late summer.


96

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 2, would, over time, contribute to an increase in fuel loading across the project area.

Fire-killed and fire-injured trees would fall in a patchy distribution and woody material would

continue to be added to the forest floor as dead trees fall and accumulate at a rate that is greater

than the rate of decomposition. As the dead trees fall, it would become more unsafe for people to

work in the area. Within 5 to 10 years, it would become physically taxing to traverse the area for

any purpose, such as providing future treatments for vegetation or conducting fuels management

activities. The gradual increase in the number of downed logs would make it more difficult to

control wildfires because downed logs burn with great intensity and for longer periods of time

than small‐diameter fuel. Creating fire lines in areas with downed logs slows the progress of

firefighters and leads to safety issues.

Live and dead fuel arrangements and the dominance of flashy fuels types (with shrubs) would

exceed suppression capabilities beyond 20 years. This fuel condition would not meet standards

for wildfire behavior and suppression capabilities within the WUI defense zone. Future fuel

buildup and forest health conditions under Alternative 2 would not meet the Forest Plan

objectives for the WUI to reduce fire intensity and increase suppression capabilities.

Soils


Direct Effects

Direct effects of Alternative 1 differ by harvest method and current site conditions. Ground-based

mechanical treatments have the potential to cause detrimental disturbance to soil in a post-fire

environment. On-site direct effects from the proposed action are expected to be minimal with the

project IDFs in place. The potential for activities to generate additional soil cover in the form of

woody debris in areas with moderate and high soil burn severity is considered a net benefit.

Ten years of soil monitoring in the forests of the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group pilot

project (HFQLG), which includes the LNF, have demonstrated the effectiveness of Forest Service

implementation methods in preventing detrimental soil effects from vegetation management

activities in the northern Sierra Nevada and southern Cascades. Similarly, BMP monitoring

during the same time period has demonstrated that the LNF has been highly effective in its

protection of soils and water quality through proper implementation of BMPs. Integrated design

features are included with this proposed action to assure that Forest standards are met and

resource protection measures address potential effects to soils from project activities.


97

Tractor Salvage: The direct effect of this treatment would be a limited beneficial net increase in

soil cover from woody debris from felled trees. Some of that material would be removed during

fuels piling, but the residual material would still amount to a net increase in soil cover. A

temporary decrease in plant cover would occur where equipment operates. Little soil compaction

is anticipated except where machine traffic is highly concentrated, such as landings and primary

skid trails. Litter and duff are mostly absent in some areas, but will be slowly replenished

throughout the project area from needlecast where trees survived and from organic contributions

from other plants over a longer period of time. Soil organic matter will be largely unaffected by

displacement associated with tractor yarding, but the risk of a loss of soil organic matter can be

high with machine piling because there is a potential to move soil into burn piles. The risk is

reduced by piling as little material as necessary to meet site preparation objectives. High

temperature fire, such as generated in burn piles, can cause loss of soil organic matter directly

under the piles. These losses would be superficial (top 2 to 3 inches) and limited in areal extent.

Where they exist, at least five down logs per acre greater than 12-inches in diameter would be

retained in contact with the soil surface.

Danger Tree Removal: As with tractor salvage, there would be a limited net increase in soil

cover. Porosity loss from skidders would be minimal since most of the skidder activity would

occur on the road, and multiple passes as occur on skid trails would not happen in this treatment.

Machine piling would result in a loss of some litter and duff where it exists. Where crown fire did

not occur, needlecast will add litter to the forest floor. Within a few years, needles blown in from

adjacent trees and needlecast from planted trees would begin to restore lost litter and duff. The

risk of loss of soil organic matter is similar to that with tractor salvage. Large woody material

may increase as larger, defective trees are felled and left in place, and further contribute to the

retention requirements reflected in the IDFs.

Reforestation: Where site preparation includes mechanical felling of fire-killed and fire-injured

trees and piling by dozer, the effects to soil cover and litter and duff are similar to both area

salvage and danger tree implementation. As with danger tree, the risk of porosity loss is low

because multiple passes would not occur. Risk of loss of soil organic matter can be high with

machine piling, but the project includes IDFs to pile as little material as necessary to meet site

preparation objectives. Loss of soil organic matter from pile burning would be superficial (top 2

to 3 inches) and limited in extent. Large woody material would be retained as reflected in the

IDF. Where site preparation includes mechanical cutting, followed by grapple piling, effects

would be similar, but at a considerably lower intensity. Grapplers are mounted on lower ground

pressure equipment and lift woody materials to transfer them to burn piles, rather than pushing

them across the soil surface. This reduces the risk of leaving bare soil or moving soil to the burn

pile.


98

Walking excavators can perform a variety of forestry tasks on steeper slopes with presumably low

impacts because they “walk” up the slope. Effects of this type of equipment on soils are currently

being evaluated by Forest Service Technology and Development. The Poker Chip project may be

included in that evaluation. Because soil impacts of walking excavators are unknown, but

presumed to be low, there is an IDF in place that a soil scientist or hydrologist will be present as

operations are initiated to ensure that soil quality standards would be met following

implementation.

Mastication would entail the on-site rearrangement of fuel configurations, in most cases using

mechanized chopping or chipping and leaving material to decompose or make underburning safer

or possible. The equipment used would not be expected to increase soil compaction and

mastication would result in a beneficial increase in ground cover material, litter, and duff. Over

time, a portion of the chips distributed across the soil surface would break down and become part

of the organic matter within the topsoil. Other than occasional disturbance, this treatment would

have no effect on large down wood.

Indirect Effects

Soil erosion and impaired hydrologic function have a general potential to create indirect effects.

Indirect effects of erosion and compaction are off-site effects upon watershed hydrology and/or

water quality. Damaged soil hydrologic function, via compaction, can lead to increased runoff,

which can affect the quantity, timing, and flashiness of stream flows during precipitation events.

As discussed, the direct effects associated with proposed activities are expected to be minimal, so

indirect effects expected would be minimal.

Cumulative Effects

The proposed action will not produce any significant amount of adverse direct or indirect soil

impacts. Therefore, the proposed action in combination with past, ongoing, and reasonably

foreseeable future actions will not produce adverse cumulative effects to the soil resource.

There are no known ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions that involve ground

disturbing activity in the soils analysis area. Past projects have left some degree of persistent

porosity loss (compaction) in the project area. The direct effects of the proposed action are

expected to be minimal due to IDFs that will minimize the detrimental compaction that may be

expected in small areas and remediate areas where detrimental compaction may exceed the

LRMP standard.

Improving soil cover for areas where it is currently lacking will likely result in a net benefit.

Overall erosion potential within the project area would be reduced while soil productivity and

hydrologic function are maintained.


99



Alternative 2 would not directly affect soils as soil disturbing project activities would not take

place. Soil cover for erosion protection would be limited to natural rates of accumulation,

recovering slowly in areas where it is currently lacking as low-growing vegetation germinates,

sprouts and spreads, and as dead trees naturally shed branches and fall. As a result, the soil would

be exposed to slightly more erosion potential over the next 2 to 4 years. Present compaction

levels and soil hydrologic function would remain unchanged. Organic matter dynamics and

nutrient cycling would continue to recover naturally, once vegetation becomes re-established.

Some areas would be left lacking surface cover, while other areas would have high concentrations

of fuels.

Indirect effects of the No Action alternative would include continued short-term erosion,

particularly for areas with moderate and high soil burn severity, until soil water-repellant

properties diminish and vegetation cover returns. Areas with moderate and high soil burn severity

would continue to have high fuel loadings into the near future, with a corresponding elevated

hazard of detrimental soil effects in the event of wildfire.

Botany


There are currently ten species with known occurrences or potential habitat within the Poker Chip

project area. Of these, eight species (Boechera constancei, Cypripedium fasciculatum, Lupinus

dalesiae, Meesia triquetra, Meesia uliginosa, Monardella follettii, Packera eurycephala var.

lewisrosei, and Sedum albomarginatum ) are known to the project area, and there is potential

habitat for two additional species (Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii and Silene occidentalis ssp.

longistipitata ). There would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to Meesia triquetra,

Meesia uliginosa, or Sedum albomarginatum, because all known occurrences and potential

habitat are found outside of proposed treatment units. Direct, indirect and cumulative effects were

analyzed for Boechera constancei, Cypripedium fasciculatum, Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii,

Lupinus dalesiae, Monardella follettii, Packera eurycephala var. lewisrosei and Silene

occidentalis ssp. longistipitata, since these species have occurrences and potential habitat within

proposed treatment units.

Direct Effects

Direct effects may occur to individuals of Boechera constancei, Lupinus dalesiae, Monardella

follettii, and Packera eurycephala var. lewisrosei with the implementation of the Alternative 1 as


100

known occurrences are located within danger tree, area salvage, and/or reforestation treatment

units.

Of the three suboccurrences of Boechera constancei within the project area, one is found within a

proposed danger tree removal unit. Direct effects may occur if danger trees were to be felled onto

or skidded across plants within this occurrence. However, IDFs specify that no landings, hand, or

machine piles would be placed within this occurrence, and that trees would be directionally felled

away from plants. These design features would minimize the risk of direct effects to this species

within danger tree removal units.

There are seven occurrences of Lupinus dalesiae located within danger tree removal units.

Occurrences within danger tree units may sustain low to moderate short-term ground disturbance

from the falling and skidding of danger trees to adjacent roads, but piles and landings would be

excluded from all occurrences. Danger trees would be felled away from two small occurrences,

further minimizing the direct effects of these activities. Portions of two occurrences (LNF #2,

LNF #12) are within area salvage units. Plants within LNF #2 may sustain direct effects from

tractor logging, mechanical cutting and piling of snags, release activities, and broadcast burning

activities across one-third of the occurrence. These activities would be excluded from LNF #12.

Direct effects may be sustained by some plants of Monardella follettii in the two occurrences

located within danger tree removal units, but these effects are expected to be minimal and would

be reduced by IDFs that specify that no landings, hand, or machine piles would be placed within

LNF #1 and LNF #2 and that trees be directionally felled away from plants within LNF #2.

Reforestation activities are excluded from Monardella follettii occurrences, and therefore plants

of this species would not sustain direct effects from these activities.

Danger tree removal activities would take place within small portions of two large occurrences

(LNF #1, LNF #2) of Packera eurycephala var. lewisrosei within the project area. Though this

species would likely sustain some direct effects from danger tree removal and reforestation

activities, project IDFs would greatly diminish the magnitude. In portions of LNF #2 that are

within reforestation units, activities where plants occur would be limited to hand thinning and tree

planting. Direct effects may still occur, however, as a result of tree falling activities within these

units.

Although the one known occurrence of Cypripedium fasciculatum within the project area occurs

outside of treatment units and no occurrences of Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii or Silene

occidentalis ssp. longistipitata are known to the project area, direct effects to these species may

occur to undetected plants within potential habitat. Integrated design features would, however,

minimize the potential for direct effects to occur to these species.


101

Activities that could cause direct effects to undetected individuals of Cypripedium fasciculatum

species include disturbance from mechanical equipment, broadcast burning, and pile burning.

Project IDFs specify that broadcast burning would not occur within salvage and reforestation

units where potential habitat for Cypripedium fasciculatum occurs, and that ground disturbing

activities (with the exception of danger tree removal and hand thinning activities) would be

excluded and trees would be directionally felled away from occurrences of C. fasciculatum and

from patches of dogwood within RCAs. In addition, no piles would be placed within 25 feet of

dogwood patches within RCAs. By minimizing ground disturbance within potential habitat for

this species, impacts from the implementation of the Alternative 1 would be minimal.

Potential for direct effects to undetected individuals of Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii would

be minimized by IDFs that state that a limited operating period (LOP) would be applied within

salvage and reforestation units where suitable habitat for this species occurs. Since this plant is

only above-ground during a short period of time in early summer, this LOP would greatly reduce

the potential for direct effects to occur to undetected plants.

Impacts to potential habitat for Silene occidentalis ssp. longistipitata or any plants missed by

surveys could occur during project implementation. These effects would be short-term and

scattered across the project area since this species has not been located within the project area and

if found, may benefit from the treatments that open the canopy. IDFs specify that if occurrences

are found prior to implementation, this species would be flagged and avoided by all project

activities.

Indirect Effects

Indirect effects to Sensitive plant species include the effects of site preparation and reforestation

activities on shrub and tree canopy cover, and changes in the risk of noxious weed invasion.

Because Boechera constancei, Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii, Lupinus dalesiae, Monardella

follettii, Packera eurycephala var. lewisrosei, and Silene occidentalis ssp. longistipitata all

inhabit relatively open habitat with low canopy cover, the effects of reforestation activities on tree

canopy cover could constitute a long-term adverse indirect effect to these species. This effect

would be limited to potential habitat for Boechera constancei, Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii,

Lupinus dalesiae, Monardella follettii, and Silene occidentalis ssp. longistipitata because

reforestation activities would not occur within known occurrences of these species. However,

reforestation activities would occur within a portion of one occurrence of Packera eurycephala

var. lewisrosei. Reforestation activities could result in the accelerated establishment of tree

canopy cover and could shade out plants within LNF #2 over the long-term. These effects would

not be anticipated to occur within LNF #1, which is partially within a danger tree unit that would

not be replanted.


102

An additional potential indirect effect to all TES plant species is an increase in noxious weeds or

other undesirable non-native species as a result of project activities. There is one occurrence of

Rubus armeniacus (Himalayan blackberry) within a riparian area along Grizzly Creek. Himalayan

blackberry is restricted to a riparian corridor, and does not impinge on habitat for any TES

species that may occur on adjacent upland ultramafic substrates. Project IDFs would further

reduce the risk of weed establishment and spread, and therefore TES plant species are not

expected to sustain project-related indirect effects from noxious weeds.

Cumulative Effects

Current inventories of Sensitive plant species capture the aggregate impact of past human actions

and natural events that have led to the current inventory of these species within the project area.

Past human actions and natural events are therefore implicit within existing conditions. These

include the effects of the 2012 Chips Fire and associated fire suppression activities, as well as

timber harvest activities within the project area. Cumulative effects for all species analyzed

within this document are spatially bounded by the Poker Chip Project area and temporally

bounded by a 20 year time frame.

Ongoing actions would have effects to these species similar to the Poker Chip Project since all

projects have either been surveyed to similar standards or would be prior to project

implementation. Ongoing projects with the potential for the highest impact to Sensitive plant

species within the project area include vegetation management activities, such as those associated

with implementation of the Storrie Fire EA, and road maintenance. Other actions, such as

livestock grazing, fuelwood and Christmas tree cutting, recreation facility maintenance, and

public recreational use may be contributing only incidental effects on these species, if any.

Ongoing and future actions on adjacent private lands may also add cumulatively to affects from

the implementation of Alternative 1, but since survey requirements and mitigations are not known

on these lands, the type and extent of impacts to these species or their potential habitat cannot be

quantified. Future actions such as proposed timber harvest, site preparation, machine piling, pile

burning and reforestation activities associated with the Creeks II Forest Restoration Project and

Storrie Site Preparation Service Contract would occur in areas that have been surveyed to similar

standards. Impacts to Sensitive plant species would be either beneficial or mitigated so that the

long-term viability of each Sensitive plant species on the forest is maintained.

Past, ongoing and foreseeable future actions would add cumulatively to the direct and indirect

effects of Alternative 1. Although project effects would add cumulatively to the effects of past,

ongoing and future actions on Boechera constancei, Cypripedium fasciculatum, Lewisia kelloggii

ssp. hutchisonii, Lupinus dalesiae, Monardella follettii, Packera eurycephala var. lewisrosei, and

Silene occidentalis ssp. longistipitata, these effects would not lead to a loss of viability for these

species within the Poker Chip Project area or across the Lassen NF for at least the next 20 years.


103


Direct Effects

There would be no direct effects to Boechera constancei, Cypripedium fasciculatum, Lewisia

kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii, Lupinus dalesiae, Meesia triquetra, Meesia uliginosa, Monardella

follettii, Packera eurycephala var. lewisrosei, Sedum albomarginatum, or Silene occidentalis ssp.

longistipitata other than those associated with ongoing activities.

Indirect Effects

Indirect effects of Alternative 2 would be those associated with post-fire habitat succession, and

the future risk of noxious weed establishment and spread.

In the absence of the proposed action, post-fire habitat succession within areas that burned under

moderate to high intensities would favor shrub and forb species prior to the re-establishment of a

tree canopy. Delayed establishment of tree canopy cover under with Alternative 2 would

therefore constitute a beneficial indirect effect to species that occur in areas of relatively open

canopy such as Boechera constancei, Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii, Lupinus dalesiae,

Monardella follettii, Packera eurycephala var. lewisrosei and Silene occidentalis ssp.

longistipitata, although this effect would be at least partially offset by the establishment and

cover of shrubs that may compete with these species for light and resources.

The threat of noxious weed invasion with the implementation of the Alternative 2 may also

constitute an adverse indirect effect to Sensitive plant species. Currently, however, there is only

one known occurrence of Himalayan blackberry in the project area. This occurrence would be

treated regardless of the alternative chosen as part of the ongoing Lassen National Forest Noxious

Weed program. As a result, sensitive plant species would not be expected to sustain indirect

effects from noxious weeds under Alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects

The effects of past, ongoing and future foreseeable actions under the Alternative 2 would be

identical to those discussed for the Alternative 1. The implementation of the Alternative 2 would

not result in direct effects to any of the Sensitive plant species analyzed within this document.

Therefore, past, ongoing, and foreseeable future actions would add only to the beneficial indirect

effects of no action as described above.

The implementation of Alternative 2 is not expected to affect the viability of Boechera

constancei, Cypripedium fasciculatum, Lewisia kelloggii ssp. hutchisonii, Lupinus dalesiae,

Monardella follettii, Packera eurycephala var. lewisrosei and Silene occidentalis ssp.


104

longistipitata loss of viability for these species within the Poker Chip Project area or across the

Lassen NF for at least the next 20 years.

Determination

The implementation of Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) of the Poker Chip Project would have no

effect on the R5 Sensitive plant species Meesia triquetra, Meesia uliginosa, and Sedum

albomarginatum because known occurrences and potential habitat for these species do not occur

within proposed treatment units.

With the incorporation of project Integrated Design Features, implementation of Alternative 1

may affect individuals of Boechera constancei, Cypripedium fasciculatum, Lewisia kelloggii ssp.

hutchisonii, Lupinus dalesiae, Monardella follettii, Packera eurycephala var. lewisrosei, and

Silene occidentalis ssp. longistipitata, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing as

Threatened or Endangered or a loss of viability for these species.

Recreation



Dispersed and developed recreation: Impacts to visitors’ opportunities for dispersed recreation

are expected to be minimal. The project area is distributed across a large area and proposed

treatments are not contiguous. It is unlikely that a visitor who has been temporarily displaced

would be unable to find another suitable dispersed recreation opportunity within a short distance.

There is no developed recreation within the project area.

Trails: Only the Indian Springs Trail falls fully within the Poker Chip Project area, though the

Soda Creek and Belden trailheads fall within the project boundary. The project design considers

protection for these features (IDFs 26, 27, 28, 30, 31). The Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail

(PCT) lies to the west of the project boundary. It is unlikely that project activities would affect the

PCT due to the distance and vegetation cover between the PCT and the project area. The Back

Country Discovery Trail follows Forest road 26N26 and PL 307. Slight disruption of normal

travel may occur due to slow-moving equipment or loaded log trucks traveling at reduced speeds

on steep grades.

Visual Quality Objectives (Retention, Partial Retention, and Modification): Given the varying

degrees of severity to which the landscape burned within the project area, visual quality

objectives (VQOs) of Retention or Partial Retention may be difficult to achieve in the traditional

sense. Salvage and reforestation treatments would result in an enhanced recreation experience in


105

the long term by re-establishing natural forms and patterns visible along roadsides and trails, as

well as through the general forest area. Danger tree removal would improve visitor safety along

travel ways.

Cumulative Effects

The Poker Chip Project area has a long history of vegetation management projects. Impacts to

visitors have been well mitigated and complaints are rare. Poker Chip project treatments will help

to re-establish vegetation in burned areas. Because of this, there would be little or no cumulative

effect to recreation activities.

In the long-term, the project would improve the overall health of the forest and protection of

visitors from danger trees, thereby improving recreation opportunities in the future. People

familiar with the area, especially those who return each year (such as hunters) would be most

aware of any limitations to recreation activities during project implementation. New or occasional

visitors would be less aware of changes. Design features would reduce the short-term effects on

recreation.

The project proposal to construct and then decommission temporary routes, as well as the

proposal to add ML1 routes to the NFTS, would eliminate cross country travel, reduce erosion,

and encourage area visitors to travel on authorized routes as identified on the MVUM.



Alternative 2 would result in no immediate or foreseeable change to the impact of the Chips Fire

on existing dispersed or developed recreation activities and visitor use of the roads and trails.

Currently, the visual quality of high severity burn areas within the project boundary has been

modified entirely from its pre-fire state. If, in the absence of proactive management, successional

trends favor brush over timber for the foreseeable future, this could result in displacement or

modification of traditional recreation activities for an indeterminate period of time. In low to

moderate severity burn areas, the visual quality would remain largely unchanged.

Under the no action alternative, existing danger trees would remain, continuing to pose a hazard

to the recreating public as well as other forest users.

Cumulative Effects

Failure to remove salvageable timber and danger trees in the project area could affect the safety

of forest visitors, access to the project area, and the quality of recreation activity in the long term.


106

If another large-scale wildfire were to occur, some temporary and/or long term closures could

take place and recreation users could be displaced. In the worst case, fire damage to the forest

could be extreme and take several decades to recover. In this scenario, a significant number of

visitors could be displaced.

Transportation


Table 31. Summary of Transportation Actions with Alternative 1

Action Miles

New Road Construction ML 1 (existing unauthorized route) 2.1

New Temporary Road (and decommissioning) 1.0

Direct Effects

For the short term during the sale contract, depending on the length and timing of the project,

there would be potential of erosion from the construction of one mile of temporary road. There

would be standard provisions in the contracts to require erosion control measures in case seasonal

closures are needed. For the long term, temporary road would be decommissioned after haul

operations or post sale activities are completed.

In the short term, there would be a direct effect of increasing traffic due to the movement of

equipment, materials and personnel into and out of the project area. Increased traffic can impact

the safety of the public and employees using the roads in the area. Traffic management measures

would minimize these impacts. With the use of standard contract provisions for traffic control,

effects would be negligible.

Indirect Effects

A well-managed and maintained road system provides for safe and efficient public access and

firefighter safety. The road maintenance activities proposed would improve both public access

and firefighter safety.

Cumulative Effects

All past actions have led to the existing transportation system which includes county roads, NFS

roads, unauthorized routes on NF lands, and roads located on private lands which are owned and

operated by timber management companies. Active management of the transportation system

would improve public access and firefighter safety, as well as minimize adverse environmental

effects and reduce future maintenance costs.


107



Under this Alternative, no treatments would be performed and the existing road system within the

project area would remain as is. There would be no direct or cumulative effects. National Forest

System roads may need to be closed for public safety due to numerous snags that would pose a

danger to users. A forest road maintenance program that is currently under-funded would not

receive supplemental maintenance on NFS roads. Some of these roads could possibly deteriorate

to the point where they would no longer be accessible to high clearance vehicles, including fire

suppression equipment. This would limit ingress/egress for firefighting ground resources and

would therefore reduce firefighter safety.

Range Resources


Direct Effects

Effects of the proposed action to range resources are measured against forage availability,

livestock distribution, existing range improvements, and permittee access. The proposed

treatments may positively affect short-term forage availability and would allow for improved

access, as well as contribute to maintenance of some affected range improvements. With

implementation of the proposed actions, grazing on the Soda Creek/North Butte Allotment is

expected to continue at current levels, and impacts would be minimal to vacant allotments.

Access to monitoring areas within the allotments would be continued similar to existing

conditions, including key areas with existing study plots and transects. Project activities involving

roads could affect the livestock operation although alternative roads or trails may be available if

periodic or temporary closures are needed.

Indirect Effects

Long-term availability of forage could be increased by salvage or danger tree treatments since

removing dead or dying trees may increase sunlight as a result of treatments. New areas of

transitory range could be created which could improve livestock distribution and use patterns.

Within the Soda Creek/North Butte Allotment, some key areas would be in the vicinity of

treatment areas and livestock distribution could potentially change or expand if treatments reduce

dead and downed woody material and if transitory range is created around these areas.

Monitoring of grazing standards and guidelines would be continued as described in the permit,

allotment management plan (AMP), and annual operating instructions (AOI).


108

The Soda Creek/North Butte Allotment permittees frequently move and distribute livestock

throughout key areas. Some livestock is kept within fenced areas during a portion of the season.

Deferred use within the project area is not expected to be necessary; however, if a deferment is

needed and the permit holders are required to find other areas to graze cattle or reduce number

during a deferment period, this change could result in inconvenience or economic loss to the

permittees.

Cumulative Effects

Most livestock grazing takes place outside of the Poker Chip proposed treatment areas, and

livestock management activities would be comparable to current operations. The long-term

treatment effects would generally be positive for range resources including forage availability,

distribution of livestock, range improvements, and permittee/range management access.

Presently, grazing levels are at their lowest point when compared to historic levels. Higher

livestock numbers on these ranges in the past may have resulted in higher long-term utilization

levels. Cumulative effects of potential additional compaction through project activities and

grazing are expected to be minimal since only one out of the three allotments is active and

primary range key areas are managed to attain Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Livestock

grazing in the Poker Chip project area may contribute to the risk of spreading exotic plant and

noxious weed invasions, though IDFs for noxious weeds would minimize the risk.

Grazing has increasingly come into conflict with values such as wildlife habitat, and threatened

and endangered species. Range activities may cause a minor reduction in forage for deer and

other species. Past livestock grazing may have influenced wildlife habitat diversity in some areas.

At this time, there are no plans to expand these allotments or increase the number of permitted

animals on any allotment. With implementation of Alternative 1, the trend in range condition is

anticipated to remain static overall, with an upward trend anticipated on vacant allotments and a

static or slight upward trend on the active allotment managed to meet Forest Standards and

Guidelines.

Alternative 2 – No Action

Direct Effects

With Alternative 2, no new management activities would be implemented, thus no overall short-

term impact or project-induced changes to the range resources would be expected. Range

conditions, including forage availability, and the area available for use in livestock grazing would

be expected to continue at levels similar to the existing conditions. There would be no risk of

damaging fences or access routes from project activities.


109

Indirect Effects

In the long-term, Alternative 2 could result in a reduction of forage availability or access in some

areas where standing dead trees (snags) and unhealthy trees begin to fall. Distribution of livestock

could be reduced in the long-term and there could be additional maintenance needs for affected

fence lines and travel routes.

Cumulative Effects

Fire and associated activities generally have a positive impact on range resources by temporarily

reducing the overstory and allowing forage species to thrive; however, previous fires and related

activities have not resulted in major changes in grazing use in the project area.

Some standing dead and unhealthy trees could fall along affected fence line in the project area, as

noted following the Storrie Fire. Maintenance needs would be expected to continue or increase

under Alternative 1. Livestock management adjustments could be required, further impacting the

active livestock operation.

Air Quality


Direct Effects

Two methods of prescribed burning would be used to accomplish fuel load reduction: pile

burning (piles created by machine and by hand) and broadcast burning. Pile burning would

produce less particulate matter (PM) per acre than broadcast burning because piled material can

be ignited with lower fuel moistures, which ensures complete and efficient consumption. The

release of PM into the air during prescribed burning can have adverse effects on visibility and

public health. The volume of PM is related to which burning method is used and the extent of the

burning. Particulate concentrations in the Mountain Counties Air Basins are influenced by

climatic conditions and other emission generating activities carried out in the air basin. Particulate

concentrations are regulated through compliance with the local air quality management district

(AQMD) and California Air Resource Board (CARB).

Under favorable smoke-dispersal conditions, smoke from prescribed burning would likely affect

air quality during ignition and for approximately three days following ignition. Dust from project

activities and emissions from burning and equipment used for project implementation may all be

occurring at the same time, which would elevate PM. By following the burn plan and AQMD

requirements for burning and managing other project activities, it is unlikely that emissions

caused by the project would exceed California Air Quality Standards for the AQMD.


110

Alternative 1 would comply with state implementation plans (SIP) and it would not exceed the

threshold level, measured in tons per year, for any of the criteria pollutants in nonattainment as

required under General Conformity Regulations. The annual criteria pollutant totals for

equipment operations (emissions from timber, road, and fuels treatment equipment) would vary

according to the acres and/or miles of treatment performed each year.

The Poker Chip Project would be in compliance of conformity determination for prescribed

burning due to the Presumption of Conformity for prescribed fires conducted in compliance with

a state Smoke Management Program which follows the tiered regulation of smoke management

plans. There are approximately 6 to 8 days in the fall of each year where broadcast burning would

be possible in the Poker Chip planning area. The assumption is that no more than 550 acres

would be burned on any given day, based on previous burning experience on the Almanor Ranger

District.

Indirect Effects

In the event of a wildfire, stands in the Poker Chip Project area treated by salvage, mastication,

pile burning, and/or broadcast burning would produce less PM emissions than untreated areas

outside the project area.

Cumulative Effects

The volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides, and PM10 emissions from alternative 1 would

contribute to PM loading locally and regionally. The PM10 atmospheric concentrations currently

do not exceed national standards; however, emissions could exceed CARB standards if (1)

weather conditions predicted by CARB meteorologists do not prevail; (2) emissions do not

disperse as predicted; and/or (3) emissions from other AQMDs adversely impact air quality in

local districts. Forest Service and CARB smoke-dispersal forecasting would be used as part of the

burn plan to mitigate effects within the regulatory framework.

Past prescribed burning projects in and around the Poker Chip project area would have no effect

on current air quality because of the temporal effects of dead and live biomass combustion. There

are other prescribed burning projects planned on the Lassen National Forest that may be

occurring during implementation of the Poker Chip Project. The local AQMDs would regulate

prescribed burning on private property and on other National Forest System lands that are close

enough to impact and/or worsen emissions in the Air Basin during Poker Chip Project

implementation. Any cumulative effects from burning in the Poker Chip Project area would be

temporary and, when performed in accordance with AQMD regulations, would not violate any air

quality standards.


111

Alternative 2 – No Action


With alternative 2, no increase in ozone precursors or PM emission levels would be produced

from prescribed burning of activity-generated fuels, salvage operations, or understory burning.

There would be no reduction of surface fuels (large diameter), so the potential for substantial

degradation of air quality from future wildfires would not be reduced. Alternative 2 would not

provide any opportunities for reducing existing forest fuels and the hazard they pose in wildland

fires in the future. During the flaming phase of a large wildfire, air quality degradation could

exceed federal and state standards as far as 60 miles downwind. Wildfires usually occur under

very stable atmospheric conditions that tend to not disperse smoke; consequently, smoke

dispersal cannot be regulated by local AQMDs.

Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative 2, the project area would be subjected to long-term deposition of surface fuels

from new growth and existing dead standing trees. The majority of the increase in large diameter

surface fuels would be from the falling of the dead standing trees over time. Forest fuels would

continue to increase with biomass production, and would out-produce the decomposition rates in

this climate. The long-term chronic effects of wildfires would be higher PM emissions, mostly

due to large areas of exposed soil and ash in the aftermath of a high-intensity wildfire.

Cultural Resources

Federal agencies are required to consider the effects of their undertakings on Historic Properties

before implementing any action that may affect them. The term “Historic Properties” refers to

cultural properties that have been listed or determined eligible for the National Register of

Historic Places (NHRP). For the purpose of this analysis, any properties that have not been

evaluated for NHRP eligibility are considered potentially eligible historic properties and are

treated as eligible properties. Cultural properties that have been evaluated and do not qualify for

listing on the NRHP are considered ineligible resources and generally do not require further

protection or mitigation.

The Cultural Resources analysis includes only those areas or units for which surveys are complete

and to current standard. Further inventories would be completed and any needed mitigations

addressed before implementation of actions proposed within unsurveyed units included in the

Poker Chip project. All NRHP eligible or potentially eligible properties would be protected.


112

Alternative 1- Proposed Action


Alternative 1 should have no direct or indirect effects to known cultural resource sites. Salvage,

danger tree, and site-preparation treatments planned throughout the proposed project area would

lessen the potential of future catastrophic, high-intensity wildfires, benefitting historic properties.

Directionally felling and removing salvage and danger trees away from features, artifact

concentrations, or other sensitive areas would minimize potential damage. Integrated design

features (IDFs), standard resource protection measures (RPA), and site-specific measures would

all be used to ensure that project activities would not directly or indirectly affect known cultural

resource sites.

Cumulative Effects

Thirty-one cultural resource sites have thus far been identified within the area of potential effect

(APE) of the Poker Chip project. Five sites have been determined ineligible for the National

Register and therefore proposed project activities would have no effect on these sites. The

remaining sites and any sites discovered during additional surveys would be treated as historic

properties and protected from direct or indirect effects from project activities.

Early cultural resource inventories and more recent site condition assessments of this area suggest

previous logging operations, road building, fire suppression, and recreation activities have caused

damage to many sites in the area. The proposed action would not cause any additional damage to

these sites as all historic properties would be protected from project-related impacts with

implementation of protection measures included in the project design.

Alternative 2 – No action


Alternative 2 would not cause any direct environmental effects to the historic properties identified

within the Poker Chip APE as no project-related activities are planned. Indirect effects may take

place as fire-killed and fire-injured trees die and fall on cultural resource sites, potentially causing

surface and subsurface damage to deposits. Heavy fuels left on the landscape could be a catalyst

for future catastrophic wildfires in the area, requiring the use of fire suppression activities which

affect historic properties. In addition, severe fire intensities have been shown to damage and

destroy surface artifacts and lessen the data potential of cultural resource sites. The lack of

surface vegetation resulting from a high-intensity wildfire, could cause destructive erosion of

surface and subsurface archaeological deposits and increase site visibility, which might lead to


113

increased instances of looting. All of these effects could potentially compromise cultural and

scientific values of historic properties found within the project area.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

Greenville Indian Rancheria Aaron Seandel

Maidu Summit Consortium Alma and Bob Kopernik

Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria Bill Wickman, AFRC Consultant

Pit River Tribe Bob and Barbara MacArthur

Redding Rancheria Chad Hanson, Ph.D., John Muir Project

Susanville Indian Rancheria Cheryl Viera

Plumas County Fire Safe Council Cliff Shelton

Plumas County Board of Supervisors Craig Thomas, Sierra Forest Legacy

Sherrie Thrall, Plumas County Board of

Supervisors

Dale Knutsen, Almanor Basin Fire Safe

Council

Butte County Fire Safe Council David Edelson, TNC – California Chapter

Scott Hill, California Department of Fish and

Game Dwite Brown

David Sanders James Cramer

Frank Stewart, Counties’ QLG Forester Jay Francis, Collins Pine Company

Jane Staudenmayer Jim Brobeck, Lassen Forest Preservation

Group

Jeff Pudlicki, W.M. Beaty & Associates John Huddleston, Huddleston Property

Management

John Forno, Sierra Pacific Industries Justin Kooyman, Pacific Crest Trail

Association

Justin Augustine, Esq., Center for Biological

Diversity Mark Shaffer

Keith Crummer Monty and Marita Clark

Mike Wood Patricia Anderson

Pat Gallagher, Sierra Club Paul Lemm & Dolores Gard

Patricia Puterbaugh, Lassen Forest Preservation

Group, Yahi Chapter, Sierra Club

Ryan Burnett, Sierra Nevada Group, PRBO

Conservation Science

Robert and Darlene Thomasson Shirley Friedrichs

Sierra Pacific Holding Company Steve Brink, California Forestry Association

Sue Britting, Sierra Forest Legacy Sylvia Milligan, Recreation Outdoor Coalition

Tom Downing, Sierra Forest Legacy W.M. Beaty & Associates, Inc.

William Huffman William Madsen

Documents

Environmental Assessment - a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/... · Environmental Assessment Poker Chip Project Lassen National