Little Bear Forest Health Restoration Project Almanor ...a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akam… · Little Bear Forest Health Restoration Project . Almanor

Little Bear Project PA/PN Page 1 of 29 Lassen National Forest

Little Bear Forest Health Restoration Project Almanor Ranger District, Lassen National Forest

Plumas County, California July 2017

The Almanor Ranger District, Lassen National Forest, is proposing the Little Bear Forest Health Restoration Project (hereafter called the Little Bear Project) located approximately 11 to 16 miles south-southwest of Chester, California. The proposed project area would be located in the Butt Creek Management Area 37 and Soda Ridge Management Area 45, Sec. 26, 27, 34 and 35, T. 27 N., R. 6 E.; Sec. 2, 3, 11, 25, 26, 35 and 36, T. 26 N., R. 6 E., Mount Diablo Meridian (see Figure 1 Vicinity Map). The Little Bear Project area encompasses approximately 1,133 acres with 241 acres proposed for treatment.

Figure 1. Little Bear Vicinity Map 2017

The Little Bear Project was originally part of the Grizzly Forest Restoration Project scoped on May 1, 2015. Since 2015 it was decided to separate the Little Bear Project into its own analysis area.

The proposed action is designed to be consistent with the 1992 Lassen National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) and 1993 Record of Decision (ROD) as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan


Amendment (SNFPA) Final Environmental Impact Statement and ROD (2004), and the Management Indicator Species Amendment (2007).

Region 5 is in the process of developing a new conservation strategy for the California spotted owl throughout its range in California. The Little Bear project is consistent with the Draft Interim Recommendations for the Management of California Spotted Owl Habitat on National Forest System Lands May 29, 2015.

The Little Bear Project area ranges in elevation from 4,100 to 5,000 feet. Conifer trees are the dominant vegetation type and include mixed conifer forests and pine plantations with small areas of montane chaparral, black oak stands and meadows. Natural disturbance events and past land use and management have shaped the present conditions of the project area.

• Approximately 118 acres of brush fields were converted to pine plantations in the early 1960s. • Approximately 130 acres of the project area burned in the 1973 Humbug fire near Humbug Valley. Thirty

acres were salvage logged and planted. • Three multi-product and two sanitation timber sales occurred between 1983 and 1997. • The 2000 Storrie Fire and 2012 Chips Fire burned mixed severity in the southern portion of the project area.

Roadside danger trees were removed and about 27 acres were salvaged logged. About 97 acres were planted after the fires.

Treatments would be designed to increase forest health and vegetative diversity, reduce fuels, support research projects and provide an economic benefit to the local community.

Purpose and Need The purpose of the proposed Little Bear Project is to retain and restore ecological resilience of National Forest System lands within the project area. Objectives developed for the project are in line with Region 5 Ecological Restoration Leadership Intent (USDA FS 2011a) and are consistent with goals and strategies for fuels and vegetation management in the Lassen National Forest LRMP as amended by the SNFPA Record of Decision. The Little Bear project area is within the Tier 2 High Hazard Zone identified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection as areas that have significant tree mortality as well as significant community and natural resource assets. The objectives for the Little Bear Project are:

1. Improve forest health, increase vegetative diversity and provide an economic benefit to the local communities;

2. Reduce wildfire threat to human communities, ecosystems, and wildlife habitat;

3. Reduce wildfire threat and improve forest health conditions in riparian conservation areas (RCA) toward the attainment of Aquatic Management Strategy (AMS) goals, Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs), and Standards and Guidelines (2004 SNFPA ROD pp. 32-34); and

4. Support research proposals developed to guide future management activities

Purpose 1: Forest Health and Vegetative Diversity Objective: To improve forest health, increase vegetative diversity and provide an economic benefit to the local communities.

Forest Health and Vegetative Diversity Vegetation communities within the Little Bear Project area have changed over time as a result of past management actions, including fire exclusion and tree planting, and wildfire events. Present conditions within the proposed Little Bear treatment area include overly dense stands composed mainly of shade-tolerant white fir trees, over-stocked pine


plantations from the 1960s and 1970s, and white fir-encroached oak stands. These dense conditions reduce tree vigor and increase stress on forest stands making them more susceptible to insects, disease, and drought related mortality and high-severity wildfire. Trees intolerant of shade, such as ponderosa pine and black oak, are at the most risk of mortality.

Within the proposed treatment units densities average over 330 trees per acre and the total basal area averages 220 square feet per acre. The density of a stand is ultimately limited by resources such as soil moisture and growing space. Research has shown that when a stand approaches 60 percent of the stand’s maximum stand density index (SDI)1, the inter-tree competition for resources and the risk of mortality from insect, disease, and drought begin to increase (Oliver 1995, Simonson 1998, Cochran et al. 1994). The stands proposed for treatment currently average 70 percent of maximum stand density index2. Existing stand density measures are outlined in Table 1.

Table 1. Current conditions of proposed treatment areas.

Treatment Percent max

SDI average

Percent max SDI

range

Basal area (sq.ft./acre)

average

Basal a rea (sq.ft./acre)

range

Trees per acre Average

(trees > 1inch dbh)

Trees per acre Range

(trees > 1inch dbh)

Area Thin 58 52 - 62 198 178 – 242 404 232 - 567

Area Thin - plantations 74 69 - 80 230 180 – 282 246 150 - 380

Source: GIS and stand exam data processed with the Forest Vegetation Simulator forest growth simulation model

Desired conditions for the Little Bear treatment area are lower stand densities that would support shade-intolerant pine and oak tree species and reduce threats from insects, disease, drought and high severity wildfire (LRMP p. 4-2 and 4-3, 2004 SNFPA ROD p. 48, USDA FS 2011a). Basal area would generally range from 100 to 160 square feet per acre depending of forest cover type and trees per acre average less than 180. Desired stand densities would remain below 60 percent of maximum stand density for 20 years following treatment.

The difference between the desired condition and current condition within the proposed Little Bear project area shows a need to reduce conifer densities and improve resilience to disturbance, such as epidemic levels of insects and disease and high severity wildfire. The reduced density of forested stands would also contribute to better growing conditions for shade-intolerant pine and oak tree species thus increasing vegetative diversity.

Windrow Spreading Plantation units 25, 124, 146 and 157 were 1964 brush field conversion plantations. Site preparation prior to planting consisted of machine piling debris and shrubs into linear rows to expose bare mineral soil. Trees were planted between the windrows. These windrows still exist and contain a large amount of topsoil. Spreading windrowed material would redistribute nutrients and topsoil back across the forest floor and help improve growing conditions for trees and vegetation. Spreading of windrow material has shown to result in higher soil nitrogen and mineralizable nitrogen contents in topsoil (Zhang et al. 2015).To facilitate windrow spreading, shrubs would need to be masticated.

1 Stand Density Index-Measurement of stand density index is a very useful tool to predict present or future susceptibility of a stand to drought-related or insect-caused mortality. The stand density index (SDI) is a quantitative measurement that expresses tree frequency and tree size into a standardized numeric value, or SDI. This numeric value can be used to compare different stands and different treatments. 2 The maximum stand density index was calculated by the Forest Vegetation Simulator software, Inland California and southern Cascades Variant, and is an average of the maximum stand density index for the individual species within the stand.


Economics The Forest Service has a role to play in sustaining industry infrastructure and sustaining part of the employment base in rural communities. There is an ongoing need to support local rural communities by providing a wood supply for local industry and sustaining a part of the employment base in rural communities (LRMP p. 4-2, 2004 SNFPA ROD p. 9, USDA FS 2011a). There is a need to retain industry infrastructure and support the ability of public managers to manage overstocked stands and accomplish ecological objectives in the Lassen National Forest (2004 SNFPA ROD p. 9). Measurement indicators to analyze contributions to economics and community stability would include the total number of acres treated, total cost, volume of sawlog and biomass products, and number of jobs created or sustained.

Transportation A connected action to the proposed forest health and vegetative diversity treatments is the need for an efficient transportation system to implement the proposed Little Bear project. A managed road system provides for safe public access and travel, and contributes to economical and efficient management of National Forest System lands. The LNF LRMP (p. 4-3) gives direction to provide a stable and cost-efficient road system through appropriate construction, re-construction, and/or maintenance. Additionally, water sources are used for project implementation and in support of transportation system use and fire suppression operations.

Existing roads and water sources would be utilized for project implementation; however there is a need to add one unauthorized route to the National Forest road system and to bring water sources up to best management practice standards. The unauthorized route provides access to a water source.

Purpose 2: Fire and Fuels Objective: To reduce wildfire threat to human communities, ecosystems, and wildlife habitat.

The 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) Record of Decision (ROD) emphasizes reducing threats to communities and wildlife habitat from large, severe wildfires and making demonstrated progress in moving acres out of unnaturally dense conditions. Goals for managing fuels described within the 2004 SNFPA ROD (pp. 34 and 35) include: 1) strategically placing fuel treatments across landscapes to interrupt potential fire spread; 2) modifying canopy fuels to reduce the potential for spread of crown fire; and 3) removing sufficient material in treatment areas to reduce wildland fire intensity, thereby contributing to more effective fire suppression and fire-fighter safety.

Approximately 67 percent of the Little Bear project area is within 1-1/2 miles of Lemm Ranch which has several buildings. This area where human habitation mixes with vegetated wildland is called the wildland urban intermix (WUI) zone and includes treatment units 20, 25, 501 and 502. The SNFPA describes desired conditions within the WUI (2004 SNFPA ROD pp. 40 and 41) including but not limited to the following:

• Flames lengths at the head of the fire are less than 4 feet; • The openness and discontinuity of crown fuels, both horizontally and vertically, result in very low

probability of sustained crown fire. • Tree density has been reduced to a level consistent with the site’s ability to sustain forest health during

drought conditions.

Desired fire type throughout the Little Bear Project treatment area would be primarily surface fire exhibiting an average flame length of four feet or less, and a less than 20 percent probability of initiation of crown fire during 90th percentile weather conditions.

Fire Type as defined by the Forest Vegetation Simulator – Fire and Fuels Extension (FVS-FFE)

• Surface fires -- crowns do not burn, fire remains at the surface burning only ground fuels


• Conditional crown fires -- if the fire begins as a surface fire then it is expected to remain so. If it begins as an active crown fire in an adjacent stand, then it may continue to spread as an active crown fire. FVS-FFE models this fire type as an active crown fire, in terms of the flame lengths, mortality, and other fire effects.

• Passive crown fires -- some crowns will burn as individual trees or groups of trees torch

• Active crown fires -- the fire moves through the tree crowns, burning all crowns in the stand (thus killing all trees)

The fire environment is based on topography, weather, and fuels. Fuels are the only element that may be manipulated and reduced across strategic landscape areas to safely manage and lessen impacts from wildfires. Fuels resource indicators and measures for the Little Bear Project include flame length, fire type, and P-torch3.

There are two primary factors that must be present to initiate torching and crown fire in a stand. First, there must be a surface fire that is intense enough to ignite the canopy fuels. Second, the conditions must be in place to sustain the spread of a crown fire. These conditions include canopy base heights low enough to be ignited by surface fire, and wind speeds fast enough, slopes steep enough, and canopy bulk density great enough to support fire moving through the stand. The P-Torch reflects the probability that a surface fire can move up into the crown layer. The lower the P-Torch value, the less susceptible a stand is to the vertical movement of fire.

Canopy characteristics are critical to the development and movement of crown fires, from torching to active crown. Canopy bulk density and canopy base height are two of the key components in determining initiation and propagation of crowning. As a stand becomes denser, the stand is more vulnerable to active crown fires because crown fires can occur at lower wind speeds. Gaps in the canopy continuity are effective in reducing propagation of torching into active crowning. The higher the canopy base height, the less susceptible a stand is to initiation of torching and crowning from surface fire. This can also be seen as a separation of the surface fuels from the canopy fuels. Ladder fuels are those fuels (i.e., small trees, shrubs, etc.) that actually connect the surface fuels to the canopy fuels layer. A decrease in abundance of ladder fuels would also decrease the frequency and severity of torching and crowning in wildfires. The reduction in both canopy and ladder fuels is important in restoring and retaining fire resilient stands for the present and possible future conditions with climate change.

Predicted fire behavior within the Little Bear Restoration Project area was determined using the Forest Vegetation Simulator Fire and Fuels Extension (FVS-FEE) under severe fire weather conditions. Severe fire weather, also known as 90th percentile fire weather, are local conditions that have occurred on l0 percent of the days during fire season (June 1 – September 30) between 1990 and 2011. Existing and desired conditions for the fuels resource indicators and measures are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Fire behavior measurement indicators. Existing and desired outputs modeled in FVS-FEE under 90th percentile weather conditions.

Measurement Indicators Existing Condition Little Bear Fuel Type Desired Condition

average range

Flame length (feet), total 22 2 to 76 <4 Fire type (surface, passive, active, conditional crown) Conditional Crown Surface to Passive Surface only

P-Torch (probability of torching) 11% 0 to 23% <20%

3 A torching situation is generally defined as one where tree crowns of significantly large trees ae ignited by the flames of a surface fire or flames from burning crowns of small trees that reach the larger trees. P-torch is a stand-level torching index that estimates the probability of finding a torching situation in a forest stand, identifying those places in a stand where trees are present and torching is possible.


Source: Common stand exam data modeled with FVS-FFE, preliminary results from ALRD Fuels Shop.

Surface down woody material also contributes to fire behavior and intensity. The desired amount of surface fuels within treated areas would result in fires that burn at lower intensities and at slower rates compared to untreated areas and would be determined on an individual project basis (SNFPA ROD pp. 34 and 51). For the Little Bear project, the desired amount of surface fuels less than 3 inches in diameter would be less than 5 tons per acre and the total amount of down woody material would not exceed 15 tons per acre.

Existing surface fuel accumulation varies throughout the Little Bear project area. Most proposed treatment units have low amounts of down woody material; though units 20 and 21 exceed the desired amount, see Table 3. Unit 20 is a dense stand of mixed-conifer trees located within the WUI. Unit 21 is an oak and mixed conifer stand that burned in the 2012 Chips fire. Pockets of overstory trees within the unit experienced high levels of mortality. In the years since the Chips fire, many of these trees have fallen, creating jackpots of down woody material. In units 20 and 21, there is a need to decrease high concentrations of surface fuel loading to meet desired conditions.

Table 3. Exiting surface fuel loading for units 20 and 21 Unit Average (tons per acre) Range (tons per acre) 20 15.5 5.1 – 24.7 21 17 2.4 – 43.5

The current stand structure and predicted fire behavior, support a need to reduce surface, ladder and canopy fuels in an effort to reduce the predicted size, intensity, and severity of fires within the project area; reduce the potential for detrimental effects of large-scale, high-severity wildfire; and contribute to safer conditions under which fire fighters can implement fire suppression actions.

Purpose 3: Riparian Conservation Areas Objective: To reduce wildfire threat and improve forest health conditions in riparian conservation areas.

The 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) Record of Decision (ROD) established land allocations that are referred to as riparian conservation areas (RCA) in non-anadromous watersheds. Riparian conservation areas are managed differently than the rest of the landscape. Riparian conservation areas are comprised of wetlands, wet meadows, lakes, fens, springs, and seasonal and perennial streams and the land surrounding and adjacent to those features. The areal extent of RCA are determined based on the distance from an aquatic feature’s edge. Table 4 shows the designated width of the RCA from the edge of the aquatic feature.

Table 4. Riparian Conservation Area Widths (measured from the edge of the aquatic feature).

Aquatic Feature RCA width

Perennial stream 300 feet

Seasonal stream 150 feet

Lake, wet meadows, fens, wetlands, springs 300 feet

Yellow Creek The Little Bear project area is located in the Yellow Creek (fifth-field) watershed. Management direction specific to fish and riparian areas for the Yellow Creek watershed is described in Chapter 4 of the 1992 Lassen National Forest LRMP and in the 2004 SNFPA ROD.

The 2004 SNFPA includes an Aquatic Management Strategy for management of aquatics and riparian areas at the landscape level. Within the Aquatic Management Strategy are Riparian Conservation Objectives that direct


management of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems at the project level towards the goals described within the Aquatic Management Strategy. Additionally, the Aquatic Management Strategy (AMS; SNFPA 2004 ROD, p. 32) provides broad goals for moving ecosystem conditions towards restoring and maintaining the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of water resources. These goals include maintaining and restoring the species composition and structural diversity of plant and animal communities in riparian areas, wetland, and meadows to provide desired habitats and ecological functions.

Both the 1992 Lassen LRMP and the 2004 SNFPA ROD describe desired conditions for aquatic and riparian areas in non-anadromous watersheds. Stream and riparian area surveys conducted within five subwatersheds (Humbug Valley, Upper Yellow Creek, Lemm Hollows, Lower Grizzly Creek, and Soda Creek) of the Yellow Creek watershed identified areas where desired conditions were not being met. The Little Bear Project area includes proposed treatments within riparian conservation areas of the Humbug Valley, Lemm Hollows and Lower Grizzly Creek subwatersheds. Key findings from field surveys include the following:

• Vegetation inventories within riparian conservation areas identified fuel conditions as exceeding desired conditions within the subwatersheds. Under severe weather conditions total flame length averages 58 feet, P-Torch averages 45 percent and fire type is surface to active. Desired conditions are flame lengths less than 4 feet, P-Torch less than 20 percent and surface fire.

• Conifer stand densities within the subwatershed riparian conservation areas (RCA) were identified as exceeding desired conditions for stand health. Average conditions for the RCA are 235 square feet per acre of basal area, 500 trees per acre and 67 percent of maximum stand density index. Desired conditions are a range of basal area from 100 to 200 square feet per acre, trees less than 180 per acre and 35 to 50 percent of maximum stand density index.

As identified with field surveys, there is a need to reduce surface, ladder and canopy fuel loading and decrease stand densities within riparian conservation areas to reduce the risk of high severity wildfire. Reduced fuel loading and stand density would trend these areas toward the riparian conservation objective to provide suitable plant and animal community diversity within and adjacent to the RCA while ensuring a renewable supply of large down logs (2004 SNFPA ROD p. 32 and 33). Management actions would be implemented within the standards and guidelines established by current direction (2004 SNFPA ROD pp. 62 – 64).

Research Proposals There is an ongoing need to support research that informs future management actions. The location of the Little Bear Project, its forest cover-types, and its proximity to the Storrie Fire area provide the opportunity to accommodate three research proposals received from the Pacific Southwest Research Station (PSW).

Canopy Cover Studies: Effects on Understory Development and Potential Interaction with Disturbance Methods Western forest ecosystems have changed dramatically in structure and composition over the past century. Managing these forests has become a great challenge to forest managers. When mechanical thinning is used, the first target of thinning in the prescription is usually canopy cover. The desired level of canopy cover must be balanced with a variety of ecosystem services. Forest canopy cover plays a primary role in determining what tree and understory vegetation establishes and how fast it grows, directly or indirectly affecting a variety of forest resources.

There is a need to determine an optimal canopy cover to enhance the health and function of forest ecosystems, the resiliency of forests to either wildfire or biotic disturbances, and provide forest managers and policy makers a solid, scientific basis for effectively treating surface, ladder and canopy hazardous fuels without diminishing wildlife habitat and other ecological services.


Enhancing health and function of oak-dominant stands through an appropriate stand density mitigation California black oak (Quercus kelloggii) is the most widely distributed oak species in California, spanning a north-south range of about 780 miles and an altitudinal range of 650 to 7,900 feet. It is a valuable forest resource that has a rich history of cultural, wildlife, and livestock importance. However, because black oak has little commercial use other than as firewood, information in its management is limited. The condition of black oak communities has been affected by a number of factors, including drought, disease, animal foraging, logging practices, fire suppression, and a variety of other human impacts.

What were once open oak and conifer stands, often dominated by pine, have been gradually taken over by shade-tolerant fir species. Once conifers overtop the oak, competition for necessary resources such as light, water, and nutrients increases, and oak crown, as well as mast production, is reduced. Eventually, the oak will succumb.

There is a need to determine an optimal stand density for a healthy oak-dominant stand in high elevations of the northern Sierra Nevada to help inform future management aimed at sustaining healthy, resilient black oak stands on the landscape.

Radial release of large trees in a mixed-conifer forest: quantifying radius distance to improve vigor Large, old trees are not only a sharp contrast to the smaller, younger trees surrounding them, but are a very important part of wildlife habitat and provide inspiration to many people. These trees provide structure to our forests and record a history of climate and disturbance events for the stands they occupy.

Direction found in the 2004 SNFPA ROD for National Forest System lands in the Sierra Nevada region calls for retaining trees with a diameter of 30 inches dbh and greater in any vegetation management projects.

Simply leaving these trees uncut, however, may not be enough to ensure they remain on the landscape. Many disturbances, biotic and abiotic, can pose a threat to these trees, and dense stand conditions increase the risk from wildland fire, intensify competition for natural resources (water, nutrients, and light), and decrease resistance to insect and disease attacks.

Silviculture treatments to enhance the vigor and longevity of these trees are being applied in National Forest System lands with increasing regularity. A current silvicultural treatment, commonly referred to as “radial release”, thins all vegetation around the subject tree sometimes using a diameter-based rule for the radius of the thin. This type of radial-release treatment has not been experimentally tested, and land managers lack information in Westside habitats to quantify the space that provides adequate natural resources to retained trees. There is a need to provide forest managers a solid recommendation toward the proper distance for radial release of large, old, pine trees to enhance old tree health and function in a mixed conifer forest.


Proposed Action The objectives outlined in the purpose and need would be addressed through thinning, pile burning, and conifer removal throughout the project area. Treatments would be implemented utilizing commercial timber sales, stewardship contracts, service contracts, and/or the work of Forest Service personnel. Proposed actions for the various components of the project area are described in the following sections. Table 5 displays acres of each type of action proposed. Table 10 lists the proposed units, treatment, acres, and post-thinning fuels treatment.

Table 5. Acres by proposed treatment.

Treatment Acres*

Area thin 155

Area thin - plantation 38

Research proposals 48

Total thinning treatment acres 241

Post-thin grapple pile/burn piles 144

Post-thin tractor pile/burn piles 25

Post-thin mastication 46

Post-thin spread windrows 21

Total post-thin treatment acres 236

*All acres approximate and affected by rounding

Vegetation Treatments Concepts from the Pacific Southwest Region General Technical Reports, An Ecosystem Management Strategy for Sierran Mixed-Conifer Forests (GTR 220) and Managing Sierra Nevada Forests (GTR 237) would be applied to meet the desired conditions for the project area. Trees would be thinned using a modified thin from below prescription to vary density throughout a treatment unit. Trees would be retained in groups of trees separated by moderately treed or open gap conditions. Variable density thinning would encourage horizontal and vertical structural diversity.

Area thin and area thin in plantation prescriptions would enhance the health and vigor of stands by reducing density-related stress and insect and disease mortality, particularly in the large tree component, and aid in protecting stands from high-severity wildfire. Target stand densities following thinning would range from 35 to 50 percent of maximum stand density index (SDI) appropriate to the forest cover so that stand density would remain at or below 60 percent of the maximum SDI for 20 years after thinning to minimize the need for re-entry. Thinning treatments would meet the management standards and guidelines set forth in the 2004 SNFPA ROD p. 50-51.

In areas proposed for mechanical treatment, ground-based equipment would be utilized on slopes up to 35 percent to harvest trees greater than or equal to 3.0 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) to less than 30 inches dbh. Whole-tree yarding would be used when possible. Hand treatments would occur in areas such as rocky or steep slopes and streamside areas where equipment cannot be used. Follow up hand treatment would also occur post-mechanical


treatment to cut non-merchantable trees. Hand treatments include felling trees less than 30 inches dbh, and lopping and scattering or piling and later burning. Activity generated landing slash would be machine piled and burned.

Within treatment areas, trees 30 inches dbh and larger and conifer snags 15 inches dbh and larger would be retained within the limits of safety and operability. Trees 30 inches dbh and larger and conifer snags 15 inches dbh and larger that are felled for safety and operability would be left on site for wildlife and other resource considerations.

Trees that are suppressed, of considerably poor health, or appreciably diseased would be removed in favor of retaining healthy trees. A component of healthy understory trees would be retained to promote structural diversity. Healthy, shade intolerant pine (ponderosa, sugar, and Jeffrey) and Douglas-fir would be favorably retained over shade-tolerant red and white fir trees.

Area Thin (155 acres) There are four natural forested stands proposed for treatment. Stand 20 is a Sierran mixed conifer stand that would be thinned to approximately 40 percent canopy cover. Approximately 27 acres of stand 20 is within a habitat management area and would retain at least 50 percent canopy cover. Post-thinning densities would favor shade-intolerant pine and black oak tree species (see Figure 2) and increase vegetative diversity over the next 20 years. Thinning stand 20 would also complement thinning in the research units.

Stands 21, 23 and 24 are in the south portion of the Little Bear project area that burned in both the Storrie and Chips Fires. Thinning treatments would enhance pine and black oak trees by cutting the white fir and dwarf mistletoe infected pine trees within the units. Treatments in these units would also facilitate thinning in the research units. Table 6 shows the pre- and post-treatment basal area for the area thin treatment units. Table 6. Pre- and post-treatment basal area in the area thin treatment units.

Stand Number

CWHR4 size and density class

Pre-treatment basal area average (sq.ft./acre)

Post-treatment basal area r ange (sq.ft./acre)

20 SMC4M 240 150 - 200

21 23 24

MHC3D, MHW3M, SMC4P

180 180 190

100 - 120

CWHR codes used: Forest Type Tree Size Class Tree Canopy Cover SMC = Sierran mixed conifer

MHC = montane hardwood-conifer MHW = montane hardwood

3 = poles (6-10.9 inches dbh) 4 = small (11-23.9 inches dbh)

P = 25-30 percent M = 40-59 percent D = 60-100 percent

4 CWHR - California Wildlife Habitat Relationship


Figure 2. Photo of black oak tree (fall foliage) in stand 20 (October 2013).

Plantations (38 acres) There are four existing plantations proposed for treatment in the Little Bear project. The plantations would be thinned to approximately 40 percent canopy cover. Post-thinning densities would favor shade-intolerant pine tree species and reduce the need for re-entry for at least 20 years. Table 7 shows the pre- and post-treatment basal area for the plantation treatment units.

Table 7. Pre- and post-treatment basal area in the area thin plantation treatment units.

Stand Number

CWHR5 size and density class

Pre-treatment basal area average (sq.ft./acre)

Post-treatment basal area r ange (sq.ft./acre)

25 124 128 146 157

SMC4D SMC4D PPN4D PPN4M PPN4D

230 (range of 180 to 280) 100 - 120

CWHR codes used: Forest Type Tree Size Class Tree Canopy Cover SMC = Sierran mixed conifer

PPN = ponderosa pine 4 = small (11-23.9 inches dbh) M = 40-59 percent

D = 60-100 percent

Radial Release Radial release is proposed as a research component, and the research proposed actions are described below. Radial release is also proposed as a component of vegetation treatments throughout the proposed project area and could be implemented around one selected single pine tree or group of pines (sugar, ponderosa, western white, and Jeffrey) per acre, with a focus on retaining large pine in the treatment area. Radial release would consist of removing some or all conifer trees that are less than 30-inches dbh adjacent to the release tree, or group of trees, for a distance from the bole

5 CWHR - California Wildlife Habitat Relationship


of 30 feet. Trees selected for radial release would be those already exhibiting or expected to develop habitat attributes such as platforms, mistletoe brooms, forked tops, and cavities, which are preferred by late-seral species and, where they exist, pine trees exhibiting flat, platy bark, broad, flat topped crowns, and large diameter branches would be selected first for radial release.

Additional radial release is proposed to encourage the persistence of black oak trees (Quercus kelloggii) found within the Little Bear project area. Currently, oak is known only to be found in stands 20, 21, 23, 24, 502, and 503. To meet objectives within these stands, oak would be released as follows:

• Stands 20 and 24 are mixed conifer stands with occasional scattered oak trees. An average of two oak trees per acre would be released by removing conifer trees within 10 feet of the crown of oak trees 3- inches dbh and larger or sprouting oak trees that were 3-inches dbh and larger prior to the Chips fire. Trees 30-inches dbh and larger and up to two healthy pine or Douglas-fir trees would be retained within the release distance.

• Stands 21 and 23 are hardwood stands with a component of mixed conifer trees. Conifer trees within 10 feet of the crown of oak trees 3-inches dbh and larger or sprouting oak trees that were 3-inches dbh and larger prior to the Chips fire would be removed. Trees 30-inches dbh and larger and up to two healthy pine or Douglas-fir trees would be retained within the release distance.

• Stands 502 and 503 are mixed-conifer cover and oak enhancement research stands, respectively, and treatment would implement the research study.

If isolated oak trees are found elsewhere in the proposed treatment units, they would be released from conifer competition for a distance of 30 feet from the edge of the oak tree crown, as has been implemented in other oak enhancement projects. Removing competing trees within this distance is intended to maximize the retention of these isolated oak trees. Trees 30-inches dbh and larger and up to two healthy pine trees would be retained within the release distance. No more than two oak trees per acre would be released.

Windrow Spreading (21 acres) Windrows created as site preparation before tree planting in units 25 and 146 would be spread to redistribute the piled top soil after tree thinning. Shrubs would be masticated before windrow spreading to make it easier to spread the windrows effectively. Windrows containing top soil and root wads would be pushed out amid the plantation trees to a nearly level condition using a wheeled or tracked machine. Bare soil resulting from windrow spreading would be seeded with native grass species.

Transportation The existing forest transportation system would be utilized to provide access to treatment units. Road maintenance would be performed on a portion of that system as needed for timber sale/stewardship implementation. National Forest System (NFS) roads and non-paved county roads used for log and chip hauling would receive pre-, during-, and/or post-haul maintenance as per Forest Service Road Maintenance T-Specifications for Timber Sale Contracts. NFS roads would be evaluated prior to use for reconstruction maintenance needs to accommodate log trucks and chip vans. Maintenance items include surface blading, surfacing, clearing for sight distance, installation of rolling dips, and cleaning drainage facilities. A dust abatement plan would also be included for safety and to control wind-caused erosion from road use. Dust abatement generally includes applying a dust suppressant product, such as water or magnesium chloride, on road surfaces. A surface replacement deposit collection would be required based on haul volume on any gravel- or cinder-surfaced NFS road. The road maintenance on this project would supplement a forest road maintenance program that is currently under-funded.

One unauthorized route, approximately 0.03 miles long, would be added to the system as a maintenance level 2 road. This route provides access to a water source on Grizzly Creek and would be brought up to best management practice (BMP) standards. See Figure 5 for a map of the unauthorized route.


All water sources proposed for use in this project would be brought up to BMP standards. The following water sources are proposed to be used in the Little Bear project, see Figure 4 and Figure 5 for maps of the water sources.

• Grizzly Creek T26N R6E SE ¼ Sec. 23 • Water Creek T26N R6E SE ¼ Sec. 2

Grizzly and Water Creeks are fish-bearing streams and integrated design features for water drafting would follow Region 5 Best Management Practice 2.5 (USDA FS 2011b p. 97-100) for fish-bearing streams.

Fuels Treatments Area thin vegetation treatments within the project area would use a modified thin from below prescription to vary basal area retention. Area thin treatments would meet the desired fuel conditions for flame length, fire type, and P-Torch, and would contribute to the ability to safely manage pile burning and wildfire. Following mechanical vegetation treatments the following fuels treatments are proposed:

Post-Mechanical Treatment Hand Thin (155 acres) After mechanical treatment, non-merchantable trees that are ladder fuels to larger trees would be hand felled and either lopped and scattered or hand piled and piles burned.

Grapple Pile/Burn Piles (144 acres) Piling operations would occur in units 20 and 21 where down woody surface fuels 3 inches in diameter or less exceed 5 tons per acres. Surface fuels 3 to 11.9 inches in diameter would be reduced to 10 tons per acre. Surface fuels 12 inches in diameter and greater and at least 6 feet in length would not be piled except where surface fuel loading exceeds 15 tons per acre. Activity generated and existing surface fuels would be piled using a machine with a grapple style attachment.

Mastication (46 acres) In units 25, 124, 146 and 157, shrubs and trees less than 5 inches dbh would be masticated to reduce ladder fuels to plantation trees. Approximately 10 percent of the treatment unit would not be masticated to retain a component of older shrub species.

Riparian Conservation Areas All applicable best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented. BMPs are described in Region 5 Best Management Practices (USDA FS 2011b), National Best Management Practices (USDA FS 2012) and the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) Record of Decision (ROD). Soil standards and guidelines would be implemented throughout the project area and are described in the Lassen National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1992) and 1993 ROD, the 2004 SNFPA ROD, and the USFS Region 5 Soil management Supplement No. 2500-2012-1 (2012). Except as specified below, treatments in riparian conservation areas would be the same as treatments in the surrounding upland vegetation types within the parameters of integrated design features (IDF) designed to protect riparian features. The IDF modify treatments to address soil and watershed concerns, e.g. limiting streamside mechanical treatment, retaining trees for bank stability, etc. Table 8 displays acres of RCA by proposed treatment type.


Table 8. Acres of proposed riparian conservation area treatment.

Proposed Treatment Riparian Conservation Area (RCA)

Area Thin 37

Area Thin - plantations 9

Research 3

Total RCA acres proposed for treatment 49

Thinning would focus on removing ladder and canopy fuels to reduce the potential of high severity wildfire and reduce competition for resources and promote tree growth. Variable density thinning would encourage horizontal and vertical structural diversity. An average of 40 to 50 percent canopy cover would be retained throughout the RCA where it currently exists. Pockets of healthy, understory trees would be retained throughout the treatment area where they exist. Trees needed for stream bank stability would be identified and retained. Mechanical equipment would be permitted to operate up to the limiting distances described in Table 9 and the IDF. All conifers 30 inches dbh and greater and snags 15 inches dbh and greater would be retained within the limits of safety and operability. Trees 30 inches dbh and larger and snags 15 inches dbh and greater that are felled for safety or operability would be left on site for wildlife and other resource considerations. Hand thinning of conifers is proposed in areas where mechanical equipment is restricted (see integrated design features for RCA).

Existing surface fuels in unit 20 and fuels produced by implementation activities would be hand-piled or grapple- piled. Whole-tree yarding would be used when possible and slash piled at the landings. Hand and grapple piles would be placed at least 25 feet from riparian hardwoods and would not be placed where there is existing riparian vegetation. Piled fuels would be burned either within the units or at landings.

Where they exist, down logs 12 inches in diameter and greater would be retained to meet wildlife and other resource needs.

A small (less than 0.25 acres) portion of a research plot within unit 501 falls within the mechanical restriction zone for Water Creek, though it is located over 100 feet from Water Creek. Site-specific field review by a qualified specialist determined no anticipated potential effect from mechanical treatment within this small piece of the RCA; therefore, mechanical equipment would be permitted to operate within the RCA mechanical restriction zone in unit 501.

Research Areas The U.S. Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station located in Redding, California, has three proposed research projects included in the Little Bear project. More information detailing the research is available upon request.

Canopy Cover Studies The canopy cover research plots are proposed and embedded within plantation or natural stand treatment units 20, 25, 124 and 157. These research plots have each been assigned a treatment unit number (units 501 and 502). Post-thinning treatments would include mechanical mastication of all shrubs (total mastication) and no mastication (control) in the pine plantations and either grapple piling (GP) or tractor piling (TP), with the piles subsequently burned (B), in the mixed conifer plots.


For each forest type, the study design is set up to have eight possible combinations, to be blocked three times (24 total plots). Trees would be thinned to meet a canopy cover percent.

• Pine plantations (units numbered 501): The eight factorials among two disturbance methods (mastication and control - no treatment) and four levels of canopy cover would be randomly assigned into each block. Plot size would be 150 feet x 150 feet with about 13 acres in total for the research plots. The inner 100 feet x 100 feet square would be the measurement plot. All possible treatment combinations would be:

o 15 percent canopy cover + mastication o 30 percent canopy cover + mastication o 45 percent canopy cover + mastication o 60 percent canopy cover + mastication o 15 percent canopy cover + control o 30 percent canopy cover + control o 45 percent canopy cover + control o 60 percent canopy cover + control

• Mixed-conifer plots (units numbered 502): Fuels would be treated with either grapple piling or tractor piling, with the piles subsequently burned. The amount of piling would be the same as proposed for unit 20. Eight factorials among two disturbance methods (grapple-pile plus burn and tractor-pile plus burn) and four levels of canopy cover would be studied in these two forest types. Eight plots would be randomly assigned into each of three blocks. Because the trees in these natural stands are tall, plot size would be one-acre (210 feet x 210 feet) with three blocks, yielding 24 plots in the mixed conifer forest type for a total of 25 acres. An inner half-acre plot (100 feet x 100 feet) would be the measurement plot. All possible treatment combinations would be:

o 15 percent canopy cover + GP+B o 30 percent canopy cover + GP+B o 45 percent canopy cover + GP+B o 60 percent canopy cover + GP+B o 15 percent canopy cover + TP+B o 30 percent canopy cover + TP+B o 45 percent canopy cover + TP+B o 60 percent canopy cover + TP+B

Enhancing health and function of oak-dominant stands through an appropriate stand density mitigation The oak density research plots are proposed and embedded within natural stands 21 and 24 and have been assigned treatment unit number 503. A complete randomized design would be used to establish four research blocks. Three stand densities of 80, 120, and 160 square feet per acre basal area and control plots would be randomly assigned into each of the blocks. Plot size would be 150 feet x 150 feet with about 8 acres in total for the research plots. The inner 100 feet x 100 feet square for overstory trees would be the measurement plot. The understory vegetation would be measured in the subplots. The thinning prescription would remove trees to meet desired basal area, targeting conifer trees for removal first then thinning oak trees as needed. Oak trees 12 inches dbh and larger and conifer trees 30 inches dbh and larger would be retained.

Radial release of large trees in a mixed-conifer forest: quantifying radius distance to improve vigor The main objective of this study is to evaluate tree vigor or health responses measured by diameter growth and physiological variables to various radial releases and to determine the effect of neighbor tree species (pine or oaks) on


soil quality and subsequent improvements in large trees’ health. Forty pine trees with 30 inches dbh or greater would be selected as experimental units to address the first objective. All mid- and understory trees would be removed within a 30 feet radius around 10 pine trees, around 10 pine trees with a radius of dbh (in.) x 12 (e.g., 32 inch dbh would remove all mid and understory trees within a 32 foot radius), around 10 pine trees with a radius of dbh (in.) x 12 x 1.25 (e.g., 32 inch dbh would remove all mid- and understory trees within a 40 foot radius), and leave 10 pine trees without thinning as control. Snags within research plots would be felled, but may be left in place to meet other resource needs.

To address the second objective, 20 pine trees in the conifer and oak stand would be identified. Thinning would occur around 10 pine trees, but leaving two pines within a radius of dbh (inches) x 12 (e.g., 32 inch dbh would remove all mid and understory trees, but retain two pines within a 32 foot radius), and thinning would occur around 10 pine trees, but leaving the two largest oaks within a radius of dbh (inches) x 12.

Integrated Design Features The following integrated design features are resource protection measures that are developed by specialists and incorporated as part of the action alternative for the project. They are project-specific and in addition to Best Management Practices (BMP) and standards and guidelines from the Lassen LRMP, as amended. These design features are also included to provide implementation parameters that would be incorporated into treatments, contracts, or used to guide forest service personnel in conducting implementation activities.

Aquatics and Watershed:

Riparian Conservation Areas Equipment exclusion zones would be established within Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) measured from the edge of the stream channel or aquatic feature, see Table 9. Equipment would be permitted to reach beyond mechanical restriction zone boundaries into the RCA, but not allowed to enter. RCA widths and mechanical restriction zones would be as follows:

Table 9. RCA widths and mechanical restriction zones (measured from the edge of the aquatic feature).

Aquatic Feature RCA width Ground-based mechanical equipment restriction zone Slope 20% or less Slope greater than 20%

Perennial stream 300 feet 50 feet 150 feet Seasonal stream 150 feet 25 feet 50 feet Lake, wetland, wet meadow 300 feet No restriction zone; may work to the edge of the feature

Fens 300 feet 150 feet Springs 300 feet 10 feet 50 feet

1. Hand felling within the RCA, including within the mechanical restriction zone, would be permitted.

2. Riparian species (aspen, cottonwood, alder, willow, dogwood, etc.) would not be cut or removed.

3. Stream bank stability trees would be identified by a qualified specialist prior to RCA treatments. Stream bank stability trees would not be felled unless they pose a safety risk, in which case they would be felled and left in place.

4. Turning of mechanical equipment within RCA would be kept to a minimum.

5. There would be no crossing of perennial streams by mechanical equipment. Crossings of seasonal and/or intermittent streams would be designated by a qualified specialist prior to implementation. Following use of


these specified crossings, a qualified specialist would assess the site for potential repair and/or restoration needed.

6. Skid trails within RCAs would be kept to a minimum. No waterbars would be installed on skid trails within RCAs following treatment.

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

8. No cut and fill would be allowed for new skid trails within RCAs.

9. Where mechanical equipment is used to fell timber within RCAs, one-end suspension would be used to remove felled timber where feasible. If one-end suspension is not feasible, endlining would be permitted as long as objectives for 90 percent groundcover on non-rocky riparian soils are met.

10. Endlining of material would be permitted within RCAs with slopes greater than 20 percent, but would not be permitted within 25 feet of any continuous scour channels.

11. No piling of material for burning would 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.

12. There would be no construction of new landings or use of old or existing landings within an RCA without concurrence by a qualified specialist. Landings would not be within 25 feet of the existing riparian or meadow vegetation. Landings within RCAs would be decommissioned following project implementation and a qualified specialist would evaluate them for compaction or erosion potential. Mitigations may include obliteration of the landing, spreading of native seed, mulch, woody debris, or certified weed-free straw.

Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog 13. Tightly woven fiber netting or similar material will not be used for erosion control or other purposes within

potential suitable habitat for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs.

14. If work is completed within flowing watercourses, large mesh, non-Plastic mono-filament nets would be placed above and below the area to prevent aquatic organisms from entering the project area during implementation. Nets would be removed from the watercourse following project implementation. Net selection will be made so there is no chance of entangling or trapping amphibians.

15. A fisheries biologist will visit the project area prior to implementation to determine the presence/absence of Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs.

16. If Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs are observed during project implementation, activities will be stopped and the Forest Service will contact the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to reinitiate consultation.

Water Drafting 17. A fisheries biologist would visit all potential water drafting sites within the project area prior to use to

determine presence/absence of Cascades or Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog 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.

18. If streamflow is greater than or equal to 4.0 cubic feet per second, the water drafting rate should not exceed 350 gallons per minute.

19. If streamflow is less than 4.0 cubic feet per second, the water drafting rate should not exceed 20 percent of the streamflow.


20. Water drafting would cease when bypass surface flows drop below 2.0 cubic feet per second.

Botany

Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plant Species 21. New occurrences of TES plant species discovered before or during ground-disturbing activities would be

protected through flag and avoid methods or measures similar to those described above.

Invasive Plant Species 22. All off-road equipment would be weed-free prior to entering the Forest. Staging of equipment would be done

in weed free areas.

23. Known noxious weed infestations would be identified, flagged where possible, and mapped for this project. Locations would be displayed on contract maps. Identified invasive plant species’ 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. Any larger or unpullable infestations would be avoided by harvesting equipment to prevent spreading plant species within the project.

24. New small infestations identified during project implementation would be evaluated and treated according to the species present and project constraints and avoided by project activities. If larger infestations are identified after implementation, 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.

25. Post project monitoring for implementation and effectiveness of treatments and control of new infestations would be conducted as soon as possible and for a period of multiple years after completion of the project.

26. If project implementation calls for mulches or fill, they would be certified weed-free. Seed mixes used for revegetation of disturbed sites would consist of locally-adapted native plant materials to the extent practicable.

Cultural Resources Cultural Resource protection is managed through the Programmatic Agreement (PA) among the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), California State Historic Preservation Officer, Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the Processes for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for Management of Historic Properties by the National Forests of the Pacific Southwest Region (2013).

Cultural Resources within the Little Bear project area of potential effect (APE) would be protected during project implementation utilizing the following Approved Standard Protection Measures:

27. Proposed undertakings shall avoid historic properties. Avoidance means that no activities associated with undertakings that may affect historic properties, unless specifically identified in this PA, shall occur within historic property boundaries, including any defined buffer zones.

28. Activities within historic property boundaries will be prohibited with the exception of using developed Forest transportation systems when the Heritage Program Manager (HPM) or qualified heritage professional recommends that such use is consistent with the terms and purposes of this agreement, where limited activities approved by the HPM will not have an adverse effect on historic properties or as accepted otherwise.

29. All historic properties within APEs shall be clearly delineated prior to implementing any associated activities that have the potential to affect historic properties.


a. Historic property boundaries shall be delineated with coded flagging and/or other effective marking. b. Historic property location and boundary marking information shall be conveyed to appropriate Forest

Service administrators of employees responsible for project implementation so that pertinent information can be incorporated into planning and implementation documents, contracts and permits.

30. Linear sites (e.g., historic trails, roads, railroad grades, ditches) may be crossed or breached by equipment in areas where their features or characteristics clearly lack historic integrity.

a. Crossings are not to be made at points of origin, intersection, or terminus of linear site features. b. Crossings are to be made perpendicular to linear site features. c. The remainder of the linear site is to be avoided, and traffic is to be clearly routed through designated

crossings.

31. Placement of foreign, non-archaeological material (e.g., padding or filter cloth) with transportation corridors over archaeological deposits or historic features to prevent surface and subsurface impacts caused by vehicles of equipment.

a. Engineering will design the foreign material depth to acceptable professional standards. b. Engineering will design foreign material use to assure that there will be no surface or subsurface

impacts to archaeological deposits or historic features. c. The foreign material must be easily distinguished from underlying archaeological deposits. d. The remainder of the archaeological site is to be avoided, and traffic is to be clearly routed across the

foreign fill material. e. The foreign material must be removable. f. Indian tribe or other public concerns about the use of the foreign material will be addressed prior to

use.

In addition to the programmatic agreement approved standard protection measures, the following measures would be utilized:

32. The project manager or sale administrator would walk historic property boundaries located within or near activity areas with operators before project implementation to insure protection.

33. Historic properties within or adjacent to planned treatment areas, activity areas, or roads would be monitored during and after project completion.

34. 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.

Fuels 35. Hand and machine piles would not be placed in a locations that would result in the mortality of surrounding

trees when piles are ignited.

36. All pile burning would be completed under an approved prescribed burn plan.

37. Control lines would be constructed around piles except where exiting roads, skid trails or natural barriers would serve as control lines.

38. Control lines would be rehabilitated after pile burns have been completed and declared out by the appropriate fire and fuels personnel, unless the control line is to be used in a subsequent prescribed burn.


39. All pile burning would be in compliance with California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS).

Recreation/Special Uses 40. Trails and roads accessing dispersed camping areas and trailheads would be kept open and free of debris.

41. Seasonal restrictions are in place for winter recreation (cross-country ski, snowmobile) from December 26 through March 31 annually for Plumas County roads 307, 308 and 309, and National Forest System roads

Silviculture 42. Cut stumps of live conifers with a 14-inch stump diameter would be treated with an Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA)-approved borate compound which is registered in California for the prevention of annosus root disease. No EPA-approved borate would be applied within 25 feet of known Sensitive and Special Interest Plants or within 25 feet of live streams and meadow/wetlands.

43. 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-resistant or candidate tree damaged during operations. Healthy sugar pine showing no observable signs of blister rust would be favorably retained.

Soils 44. Soil quality standards and appropriate best management practices (BMP) that protect forest soils would be

implemented for the entire project. BMPs and soil standards are described in Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in California, Best Management Practices (USDA FS 2011b), LNF LRMP (1993), and the 2004 SNFPA ROD.

45. Soils in the RCA and in meadow units 78 and 241 would be dry to a depth of 10-inches prior to equipment entry.

46. In treatment units outside of RCAs, soil moisture conditions would be evaluated using Forest-established visual indicators before equipment operation proceeds. Lassen National Forest (LNF) Wet Weather Operations and Wet Weather Haul Agreements would be followed to protect the soil and transportation resources.

47. Areal extent of detrimental soil disturbance would not exceed 15 percent of the area dedicated to growing vegetation. Following implementation, the mechanical treatment units would be evaluated by a qualified specialist to determine if detrimentally compacted ground exceeds the LNF Land and Resource Management Plan standard of 15 percent areal extent. If restoration is needed to achieve compliance, an appropriate subsoiler, ripper or other implement would be used to fracture the soil in place leaving it loose and friable.

48. In mechanical treatment units, landings within treated areas no longer needed for long-term management would be evaluated by a qualified specialist to determine whether remediation is needed to restore productivity and hydrologic function. If so, appropriate remediation would be implemented. Where landing construction involved cut and fill, the landing would be re-contoured to match the existing topography.

49. Machine piling operations would remove only enough material to accomplish project objectives and would minimize the amount of soil being pushed into burn piles. Duff and litter layers would remain as intact as possible, and the turning of equipment would be minimized. Piles would be constructed as tall as possible, within limits of safety and feasibility. A mixture of fuel sizes in each pile is preferred, avoiding piles of predominately large wood when practicable.

50. To the extent possible, existing landings and skid trails would be used.

51. Mechanical equipment would not operate on slopes greater than 35 percent.


52. Where it exists, large woody material greater than 20 inches in diameter would be retained at a rate of at least five logs per acre.

Wildlife

Northern Goshawk 53. Existing goshawk protected activity centers (PAC) would be surveyed prior to treatment and no treatment

would occur within goshawk PACs.

54. A northern goshawk limited operating period (LOP) from February 15 to September 15 would be applied within ¼ mile of all goshawk PAC or within ¼ mile of a nest if a nest is confirmed. The LOP may be lifted if it is determined that the PAC is not occupied.

55. If a northern goshawk nest is found within any of the proposed treatment units, the nest would be protected through the placement of a new PAC or the realignment of an existing PAC boundary.

California Spotted Owls 56. Existing California spotted owl protected activity centers (PAC) would be surveyed prior to treatment and no

treatment would occur within an existing or new owl PAC.

57. A California spotted owl LOP from March 1st to August 15th would apply to stands within ¼ mile from a spotted owl PAC unless surveys confirm that spotted owls are not nesting. The LOP would be lifted after surveys if no nesting spotted owls are confirmed.

58. If a California spotted owl nest is found within any of the proposed treatment units, the nest would be protected through the placement of a new PAC or the realignment of an existing PAC boundary.

Marten 59. If a marten den site is identified, a 100-acre area consisting of the highest quality habitat in a compact

arrangement would be placed around the den site. The den site area would be protected from vegetation treatments with a limited operating period (LOP) from February 15 through July 31st as long as habitat remains suitable or until another Regionally-approved management strategy is implemented.

60. No mechanical treatment would be permitted within the 100-acre marten den site area regardless of time of year. Hand treatments may be permitted if existing desired conditions for suitable habitat are retained and timing of treatments abide by the LOP.

61. If a marten rest site (female or male) is found within a treatment unit, the rest site structure, (e.g., log, snag, tree) would be protected from being damaged during project implementation.

Fisher 62. If a fisher den site is identified, a 700-acre area consisting of the highest quality habitat in a compact

arrangement would be placed around the den site. The den site area would be protected from vegetation treatments with a limited operating period (LOP) from March 1st through June 30th as long as habitat remains suitable or until another Regionally-approved management strategy is implemented.

63. No mechanical treatment would be permitted within the 700-acre fisher den site area regardless of time of year. Prescribed burning or other treatments may be permitted if existing desired conditions for suitable habitat are retained and timing of treatments abide by the LOP.

64. If a fisher rest site (female or male) is found within a treatment unit, the rest site structure, (e.g., log, snag, tree) would be protected from being damaged during project implementation.


Wolves 65. A limited operating period (LOP) from March 1 through August 15 would be observed within 1 mile of areas

of wolf activity IF indicative of a potential den location, known den sites, or pup rendezvous sites. The LOP may be lifted if surveys indicate no denning activity is taking place.

Snags and Down Logs 66. In area thin and plantation treatment units, retain all snags larger than 15 inches dbh within the limits of

safety and operability. Retain all oak snags regardless of size within the limits of safety and operability. To encourage snag recruitment, retain an average of two mid- and large diameter live trees per acre that are in decline, have defects, or desirable wildlife characteristics (e.g., teakettle branches, stick nests, large diameter broken top, cavities, and woodpecker excavations) where they exist.

67. In research units retain a minimum of four snags larger than 15 inches dbh per acre where they exist within the limits of safety and operability. Snags should be retained in clumps where possible.

68. 10-15 tons per acre of large down logs (>12 inches in diameter and 6 feet in length) would be retained. Large log retention can be met with either existing logs; or trees 30 inches dbh and larger and snags cut for safety or operability that would be left on site.

Aspen and Oak 69. All aspen and oak trees greater than 8 inches dbh would be protected during operations within the limits of

safety and operability in area thin and plantation units. Oak trees 12 inches dbh and larger would be protected during operations within the limits of safety and operability in research units.

70. Landings would be placed outside of aspen and oak stands if possible.

Decision to be Made The decision to be made is whether to implement this project as proposed, as modified to address any relevant issues raised during scoping, or not at all. This proposal will be subject to the pre-decisional objection process found at 36 CFR 218. Under this collaborative process, public concerns can be addressed before a decision is made, increasing the likelihood of resolving any concerns and making more informed decisions.


References (Literature Cited)

Cochran, P.H., J.M. Geist, D.L. Clemens, R.R. Clausnitzer and D.C. Powell. 1994. Suggested stocking levels for stands in northeastern Oregon and southwestern Washington. Research Note PNW-RN-513. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR., 21 p.

Oliver, W.W. 1995. Is Self-Thinning in Ponderosa Pine Ruled by Dendroctonus Bark Beetles? In: Proceedings of the 1995 National Silviculture, Workshop, General Technical Report RM-GTR-267. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. pp. 213-218.

Simonson, T. 1998. Region 5, Lassen National Forest. White Paper, Imminent Susceptibility to Insect Attack, 8 p.

USDA Forest Service. 1992. Lassen National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. San Francisco, CA: Pacific Southwest Region. Chapters 1-4.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. (2004 SNFPA FSEIS and ROD) Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision, Pacific Southwest Region, USDA Forest Service.

USDA Forest Service. 2011a. Region 5 Ecological Restoration Leadership Intent. Pacific Southwest Region. March 2011. 4 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2011b. Forest Service Handbook Southwest Region (Region 5), Chapter 10-Water Quality Management Handbook. Vallejo, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands. FS-990a.

USDA Forest Service. 2015. Draft Interim Recommendations for the Management of California Spotted Owl Habitat on National Forest System Lands. May 29 2015.

Zhang, Jianwei, Young, H. David, Luckow, K. 2015 Effect of redistributing windrowed topsoil on growth and development on ponderosa pine plantations. Forest Ecology and Management, 353, pp. 148-155


List of proposed units and acres. Table 10. List of Proposed Units and Acres

Unit Number Proposed Treatment

Area

Thi

n

Area

Thi

n Pl

anta

tions

Rese

arch

Post

-thi

n M

astic

ate

Shru

bs

and

Smal

l Tre

es

Post

-thi

n G

rapp

le

pile

, pile

bur

n

Post

-thi

n tr

acto

r Pi

le, p

ile b

urn

Post

-thi

n Sp

read

w

indr

ows

20 Area Thin 121 121 21 Area Thin 23 23 23 Area Thin 5 24 Area Thin 7 25 Area Thin - plantation 12 12 12

124 Area Thin - plantation 8 8 128 Area Thin - plantation 5 146 Area Thin - plantation 9 9 9 157 Area Thin - plantation 4 4 501 Research - plantation canopy cover 13 13

502 Research -mixed conifer canopy

cover 25 25 503 Research - black oak density 10

Total acres (approximate & affected by rounding) 155 38 48 46 144 25 21


Maps

Figure 3. Little Bear Project Area Map


Figure 4. Little Bear Thinning Treatment Map – North End


Figure 5. Little Bear Treatment Map – South End


Figure 6. Little Bear Post-Thinning Treatment Map


Figure 7. Little Bear Post-Thinning Treatment Map

Documents

Little Bear Forest Health Restoration Project Almanor ...a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akam… · Little Bear Forest Health Restoration Project . Almanor