USDA Forest Service - a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/... · The first research objective is designed to evaluate the effects

Swain Mountain Experimental Forest Fuels Reduction and Forest Regeneration Project Environmental Assessment

1

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

USDA Forest Service

Swain Mountain Experimental Forest

Fuels Reduction and Forest Regeneration Project

Almanor Ranger District; Lassen National Forest

Lassen and Plumas County, California

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

and analysis, additional clarifications were identified and are found in the Introduction, Modified

Proposed Action, Purpose and Need, Integrated Design Features, and Decision to be made in

italics. Note that an opportunity to study the regeneration success of aspen suckers and

germinates was identified and aspen treatment units have been added to the project (see page 9).

Introduction

The proposed fuels reduction and forest regeneration project at Swain Mountain Experimental

Forest (SMEF) would be operated under the Plan for the Operation of the Swain Mountain

Experimental Forest (2007)(the “Plan”)(Appendix A). The Pacific Southwest Research Station

(PSW) and Almanor Ranger District (ALRD), Lassen National Forest (LNF), are working jointly

to coordinate procedures for the development, protection, operation, and use of the experimental

forest and ranges. All parties are in compliance with the requirements FSM-4062, R5 Supplement

4000-92-1, and 4062-Experimental Forests and Ranges.

Management of SMEF is through the cooperative effort between the PSW and the LNF. The

Station Director of PSW, through a designated Experimental Forest Manager, has the

responsibility for the planning and execution of research oriented activities, and to determine if

other proposed uses are compatible with research objectives. The Regional Forester, through the

Forest Supervisor, has primary responsibilities toward protection of the Experimental Forest and

implementation of activities necessary to install and protect research studies. This coordinated

relationship between Experimental Forest Manager and Forest Supervisor is imperative for the

successful implementation of practical research-oriented objectives in the experimental forest.

Experimental forests are established and managed entirely for research purposes. Under the

Plan, the Experimental Forest is exempt from the standards and guidelines set forth in the 1992

Lassen National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) and the 1993 Record of

Decision (ROD) as amended by the Herger-Feinstin Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act

(HFQLG) Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), Final Supplemental Environmental

Impact Statement (FSEIS) and RODs (1999, 2003), the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

(SNFPA) FSEISs and RODs (2001, 2004) and the Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator

Species (SNF MIS) Amendment FEIS and ROD (2007)(see 2004 SNFPA FSEIS ROD, p 15). This


2

does not mean operations within the experimental forest boundaries are exempt from federal

regulations (e.g. Endangered Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act, etc.) and

guidelines. All operations will be in compliance with the Code of Federal Regulations.

Modified Proposed Action

A total of 1,985-acres are proposed for treatment with the Swain Mountain Experimental Forest

Fuels Reduction and Forest Regeneration Project (Figure 1).

Within lands under management by the LNF and subject to the standards and guidelines listed

above, treatment is proposed within 440-acres of a 40-year-old plantation by mechanically

thinning from below to approximately 130-150 trees/acre, then mechanically masticating and

underburning (Treatment MaSo, Table 1, Figure 1).

The remaining 1,545-acres proposed for treatment are located within the boundaries of SMEF and

managed under the Plan. SMEF proposes to treat these acres for forest health and to achieve

research objectives. The first research objective is designed to evaluate the effects of scale and

residual density on understory development, overstory retention, and overall stand structure (825-

acres). These study units would be thinned from below to retain various levels of basal area,

ranging from approximately 140-205 (ft2/acre). Different size groups (varying from 1-, 2-, 4- and

6-acres) would be thinned to have different levels of overstory retention (varying from 4-6, 10-12,

and 20-22 trees/acre).

The second research objective is intended to implement administrative studies designed to protect

current and historic long-term study units from potential fire risk. Within SMEF, approximately

685-acres of 40-year-old plantation would be mechanically thinned from below to 110-150

trees/acre, mechanically masticated, and have 50-66% of windrows spread. Administrative

studies would examine the most ecologically sound treatments (currently within Region 5 policy)

to insure the development of a forested stand structure and a healthier ecosystem. Study

treatments would include combinations of complete, partial, and no mastication of understory

brush, and spreading versus no spreading of windrows (144- of the 685-acres). After mechanical

mastication and spreading of windrows, one-half of each administrative study (totaling 72-acres)

would be burned under prescription within 3 years. Specific treatment prescriptions of each unit

can be found on Table 1.

Additional treatments are proposed to contribute to a study currently in place within SMEF

(approx. 5 acres) and to improve growing conditions for aspen stands within SMEF and to

supplement ongoing research (approx. 30 acres).


3

Figure 1: Modified proposed actions at Swain Mountain Experimental Forest (SMEF), and Almanor

Ranger District (ALRD), Lassen National Forest (LNF), California. (For enlarged map, see App. B)


4

Ta

ble

1:

Pro

po

sed

tre

atm

ents

fo

r th

e F

uel

s R

edu

ctio

n a

nd

Fo

rest

Reg

ener

ati

on

Pro

ject

, S

wa

in M

ou

nta

in E

xp

erim

enta

l F

ore

st (

SM

EF

), A

lma

no

r

Ra

ng

er D

istr

ict

(AL

RD

), L

ass

en N

ati

on

al

Fo

rest

(L

NF

), C

ali

forn

ia.


5

Experimental Components

I: Fuels Reduction Administrative Studies: Methods for Reducing Brush and

Enhancing Tree Growth

Purpose and Need

Approximately 1,125-acres of a chinquapin (Chrysolepis sempervirens) and snowbrush

(Ceanothus velutinus) dominated brushfield on the southern flanks of SMEF were windrowed and

planted with Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi)(80%), sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana)(15%), and giant

sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum)(5%) as a brushfield reclamation/conversion project in 1965.

After more than 40-years of heavy snow loads and the encroachment of competitive brush and

natural “volunteers” of red fir (Abies magnifica) and white fir (Abies concolor), the dominant

trees are reaching heights in excess of 30- to 40-feet with the brush component approximately 4-

to 8-feet tall. Early growth losses within this stand due to snow damage appear to have been

overcome as the tree canopy is now above annual snow deposition. Thus, the plantation is

successful in the sense that growth is adequate and current mortality rates appear to be relatively

low. However, this configuration of tree and shrub vegetation is at high risk of loss when a

wildfire enters this area of heavy and homogenous understory fuels.

Historical records show that fires used to occur in SMEF on average every 12.9-years (range 1-

57-years), with larger fires occurring every 26.2-years (range 11-47-years) (Taylor 1993). The

experimental forest is at twice the maximum fire return interval and the southerly exposed

plantation on the down slope of its boundary is increasing the likelihood of extreme fire behavior,

and the loss of current stand structure and composition.

There is a need to implement treatment to protect past and future research efforts and

investments, increase fire fighter safety (e.g. more manageable fire behavior), and increase the

assurance of a forested structure to exist for future generations. The reduction of current

understory structure and fuels in the plantation would help to keep the area in a productive,

firesafe, and manageable condition. The experimental component of this study would help

practitioners understand some of the most affective and ecologically appropriate methods toward

forest health and fuels management in landscapes similar to the windrowed plantation on SMEF.

Research Objectives

The research question: To what extent can treatments of the mixed tree and

shrub vegetation system reduce current fire risk and maintain a low fire risk over

time?

We propose fuels management treatment in approximately 685-acres of plantation (Treatment

MaSiS (south) and MaSiE (east), Figure 1 and Table 1). Treatments would include mechanical

mastication of all brush (total mastication), mechanical mastication of some brush to retain

irregularly shaped leave islands (partial mastication), and no mastication (control). The spreading


6

of windrows or no spreading of windrows would add an additional component to the study,

address issues concerned with the uniform distribution of altered-but-retained fuels, and the return

of once-removed nutrients throughout the windrowed soils.

After, or during mechanical mastication and spreading of windrows across various combinations,

mechanical thinning from below to approximately a 17-20-foot spacing (100-150 trees/acre)

would increase growth at the individual tree level, and at the stand level. We would quantify both

the response of brush (cover and biomass) over time and tree growth, and model fire behavior in

these areas initially after treatment and again 5-years later. The reduction of inter-tree competition

facilitates research of tree growth and mortality over time, fluctuations in fire behavior from

different understory treatments, and helps determine which structure is most suitable for low fire

risk and an overall healthy stand.

Research Methods

Administrative study units are proposed and embedded within the plantation treatment unit. This

study design is set up to have 6 possible combinations, to be replicated 3 times, and to be blocked

on south-facing and east-facing aspects (36 total plots). Each 4-acre unit (including a 50-foot

buffer) would individually contain the same randomly selected treatment, and maintain the

potential for a subsequent split-plot treatment to address the inevitable sprouting of mechanically

treated brush. Prescribed fire would be applied to half of each of the administrative studies after

mechanical treatments have been applied (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Proposed layout of study plots throughout the plantation, including two 1-

acre split-ready administrative study units and a 50-foot buffer.

All possible treatment combinations in each of the 4-acre administrative study units within the

fuels reduction project are as follows:

1. no spread windrows & no mastication (control/do nothing)

2. spread windrows

3. partial mastication

4. total mastication

5. partial mastication & spread windrows

6. total mastication & spread windrows


7

Trees and shrubs would be systematically measured in a two-nested circular plot design. Trees

(plot size of 1/10th-acre, radius of 37.2-feet) would have species, diameter, height, and height to

crown base recorded after treatments were applied. Shrubs (1/250th-acre, radius of 7.5-feet) would

have species, height and crown width recorded after treatments were applied.

II: Forest Regeneration with Openings in True Fir Stands: Effects of Scale and

Retention

Purpose and Need

With crowns beginning to close in the younger stands, inter-tree competition is leading toward

imminent mortality (>30 snags/acre (LoD, Table 2)), and decomposition of recently killed trees is

increasing surface fuel loading. Average annual radial growth is half the rate today (2.5 mm/year)

than it was in 1950 (5.0 mm/year) for the MeD and LoD units, and average annual radial growth

has been unchanged since 1950 for the HiD1 and HiD2 units (2.0 mm/year). The crowns of these

stands are so closed and the floor so covered with large fuels, litter, and duff, that seeds are

unable to germinate in bare mineral soil, or capture enough light to sustain growth if germination

was successful. Additionally, there are no understory shrubs or herbs contributing to species

richness and biological diversity.

Thinning from below and group selections in SMEF are proposed to address the health risks

associated with increased stress through inter-tree competition, heightened disease, blowdown,

increased surface fuels, lack of natural regeneration, and understory biodiversity. A proposal for

treatment in these stands provides an opportunity to look at factors related to regenerative

openings in true fir and to ensure a sustainable domestic resource.

Research Objectives

The research question: What are the effects of scale and residual density on

understory development, overstory retention, and stand structure?

We propose establishing a range of group selections and various levels of overstory retention.

The group sizes would be 1-, 2-, 4-, and 6-acres with retention levels of 4-6, 10-12, and 20-22

trees/acre. This combination of group selections and overstory retention would facilitate a two-

storied stand structure and create an artificial disturbance in the absence of once more frequently

occurring, low-intensity wildfires.

Opening groups within the stands at SMEF would allow more light to reach the forest floor,

potentially increasing species richness via understory shrubs, forbs, herbs, and grasses, and help

increase growth of advance regeneration (Gordon 1973, Oliver 1985), artificial regeneration, and

natural regeneration of seedlings. After site preparation, 120 trees/acres would be planted in a

1:1 mix of Pinus lambertiana and Pinus jeffreyi with a manual release of ≤ 120 trees/acre within

5-years. Scarifying the soil through tractor piling would help expose bare mineral soil where


8

canopy litter and downed woody debris have been collecting well outside its range of historic fire

frequency.

Site preparation would consist of machine piling slash within group selection areas. Machine

piles would be burned following piling. Competing vegetation is one of the response variables

for the proposed research. Pinus lambertiana and Pinus jeffreyi (1:1 mix) would be planted at a

19x19-foot spacing with manual release not to exceed original planting prescription (≤120

trees/acre). No herbicide controls of competing vegetation are proposed within group selections.

Research Methods

A total of 39-acres per unit, or 117-acres in group selections collectively would be created within

units HiD1, HiD2, and MeD (825-unit acres). Based on a 35-year Levels of Growing Stock

(LOGS) study at SMEF, each of the blocks would be thinned from below to a basal area between

140 and 205 (ft2/acre) (Table 1). Trees would be marked for keep based on Gordon’s (1973)

selection criteria, and be evenly spaced through groups. Alternatively, as long as there are no

signs of heart rot, fire scars, or disease, one-third of all selections within these groups would not

necessarily contain perfect tops. This would increase the possibility for older and perhaps

genetically superior varieties of natural regeneration to get established. These phenotypically

inferior trees should also be evenly spaced throughout the group openings and show no signs of

decay or disease.

Trees retained should mostly display:

1. open grown dominant and co-dominant crown classes

2. light to no infections (e.g. dwarf mistletoe, or obvious fire scars)

3. perfect tops (for cone/seed production)

Retention of these following tree types would be avoided (especially along unit

boundaries or group edges):

1. intermediate or suppressed crown classes

2. heavy leaners

3. obvious signs of decay or fire scars in base

4. “twinned” or paired trees

A stand density index of 300-340 would retain a quadric mean diameter of approximately 23-24-

inches in the LoD unit and 26-31-inches in the HiD2 unit. Snag count would change from

between 4.8 trees/acre (MeD) and 38.2 trees/acre (LoD) (minimum diameter of 12-inches

diameter at breast height (DBH)), to 4-6 snags/acre plus 1 standing live cull/acre for snag

recruitment (minimum diameter of 15-inches DBH), across all timbered units (Table 2, no

summary available for LOGs).


9

Table 2: Summaries of existing stand conditions (thinned units only, no data for LOGs) for breast

height diameters greater than 4-inches.

Response variables would be understory growth and development, regeneration success

(understory seedling/sapling density), and rate of overstory blowdown. We would establish a grid

of 1/250th-acre (radius of 7.5-feet) fixed-area plots with shrubs and small trees recorded for

species, diameter, and height. Stocking success would be reflected in number of stocked plots. All

overstory trees retained within groups would be tagged, measured for diameter and height, and

monitored for rates of blowdown over a 5-year period.

III: Additional Experimental Components of Past and Present

Aspen Restoration

Purpose and Need

Lack of successful regeneration in aspen (Populus tremuloides) stands has been attributed to fire

suppression efforts and browsing pressures from domestic livestock and native ungulates. These

aspen stands have been subject to browse pressure by increased domestic livestock on the

landscape. Increased fire suppression efforts have decreased the probability of frequent, low-

intensity surface fires to consume areas of the forest floor down to bare mineral soil; a condition

favorable for aspen clones and germination by seed (Shirley and Erickson 2001).

The initiation of shoot and bud growth (caused from disturbances) must also be accompanied by

abundant sunlight and warmer soil temperatures. Opening the aspen stands along southern

aspects would allow for more direct sunlight to penetrate the forest floor, thus increase solar

insolation and soil temperatures (Shepperd et al. 2006). Opening the northern aspects would help

increase soil moisture by reducing the number of dominant conifers competing for available

water.

Aspen stands within the SMEF are subject to the effects of fire suppression, browse, and

increased competition for resources. There is a need to improve growing conditions for these

stands and an opportunity for monitoring to supplement ongoing research. Identified aspen

stands within SMEF would have a surrounding 200-foot treatment area (not to exceed 40%

slope) in all cardinal directions. Treatment would include an overstory removal of all Abies Sp.

UNIT

Plots/

Unit Acres QMD (in) Height (ft) SDI

Trees/

Acre

*1Volume/

Acre

*2Canopy

Closure

*3Snags/

Acre

HiD1 13 128 17.4 112.5 421.2 172.6 69,144 77.0 10.2

HiD2 17 165 20.2 133.7 403.4 130.8 86,034 76.4 5.9

LoD 9 161 15.6 95.3 591.1 289.7 70,337 80.0 38.2

MeD 15 231 20.4 102.9 620.3 197.3 105,502 82.0 4.8*1

Average Scribner board foot volume/acre (Wensel and Olson 1995), 8 in. top and 1 ft. stump (min. diameter of 10-in.).*2

Canopy closure with zenith angle = 65-degrees (pseudo-spherical densiometer)*3

Snags/acre are based on a minimum diameter of 12-inches


10

and Pinus contorta, with a post-treatment of prescribed fire (8.6-acres) and temporary fencing

(1,415-feet) in the stand adjacent to an encroached meadow to the east of FS road 30N33B. The

other four groves are within lava reefs, are not heavily browsed, and would not carry prescribed

fire.

Research Method

A grid of 1/250th-acre (radius of 7.5-feet) fixed-area plots would be established within the most

eastwardly stand and surrounding buffer (8.6-acres). Aspen suckers (young stems established

from roots), aspen germinates (young stems established from seed), shrubs, and recently

established conifers would be recorded for species, browse damage, and height. Regeneration

success would be reflected in the number of suckers and germinates (>12-inches ht.) per plot

over a 5-year period. Additionally, all overstory trees retained would be tagged, and measured

for diameter and height throughout the aspen stands and surrounding 200-foot buffer (30-acres).

Overstory trees would also be monitored over the same 5-year period.

Levels of Growing Stock (LOGS)

In the 1960s and 1970s, a series of Levels-of-Growing-Stock studies were initiated in the western

United States for major commercial conifer species. One of these studies is located in Swain

Mountain Experimental Forest.

A wide range of densities were tested, from open-grown to untouched, with periodic reentry to

thin plots back to the stand density each was originally assigned. One half-acre plots (including

two controls) were assigned a basal area of 140-, 170-, 200-, 230-, and 260-ft2/acre at SMEF.

Individual tree selection (ITS) (5-acres) would be determined by the current project manager of

this study to thin the plots back to their originally assigned stand density. A thinning from below

(155-acres) around the LOGs ITS plots would create a stand basal area varying from 180- to

200-ft2/acres. A 200-foot no-cut buffer would be established around each LOGs ITS control plot.

Temporal Dynamics in Red Fir

As part of an ongoing study looking at stand structure and dynamics of red fir in the southern

Cascade Range (Taylor and Halpern 1991), a rectangular and a square shaped unit with a 200-

foot buffer (11- and 8-acres respectively) would be marked for no operations. All equipment

would be prohibited in each of the reserves to assure the ongoing integrity of this <50-year-old

study. Additionally, all trees would be felled away from these sites to avoid any potential

influence on stand structure, tree mortality, surface fuels, soil compaction, tree identification, etc.

within these study areas.


11

Non-Experimental Components

Purpose and Need

Currently, surface fuels are very high at SMEF (Figure 3). During the next wildfire these fuels

within the timbered stands would volatize most of the stored nutrients and carbon, and create

severe fire fighting conditions which have become more catastrophic with every passing fire

season. Alternately, under a more controlled and efficient system, solid surface fuels within the

timbered stands could be moved to a cogeneration plant and used as biofuels in a controlled

environment, and masticated fuels within the plantation could be recycled into the soils and

unevenly distributed throughout the landscape.

Figure 3: An example of high surface fuels at Swain Mountain Experimental Forest (SMEF) (Fall

2008 photo).

Retention of some downed surface fuels, however, would be left for wildlife and micro habitat,

moisture retention, nutrient cycling, soil stability, etc., with the majority being removed only to

achieve levels which are more exemplary of conditions prior to the successful era of fire

suppression. Cull material from harvest may be used to meet wildlife standards as stated in the

integrated design features (IDFs) for this proposed project.

Successful regeneration of natural seedlings has several environmental factors. Seed production

and dispersal, insolation (incoming solar radiation) and soil surface temperature, seed vitality,

timing of seed germination, and seedbed, all play a pivotal role to the success or failure in natural

regeneration of red and white fir (Gordon 1970). Historic low-intensity surface fires in this region

may have contributed particulates and greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, but would have

also prepared the site for understory tree and shrub recruitment and the germination of forbs,

herbs and grasses awaiting disturbance in the seedbed. Creating gaps in the overstory, thinning

trees of inter-crown competition, and disturbance from the use of mechanical treatment, would

increase the potential for a variety of species (woody and herbaceous) to germinate in recently


12

disturbed bare mineral soil, and grow as the result of increased insolation, and available nutrients

and water.

The promotion of some understory trees, shrubs, forbs, herbs, and grasses within the forested

units might sound contradictory to the modified proposed actions within the masticated

plantation. Removing brush in a landscape where it dominates, while at the same time

encouraging brush in a landscape where it lacks, is a balanced attempt to promote a healthy

forest system of overstory trees and understory plants. Stimulating more understory growth in a

fir-dominated overstory, and stimulating more overstory growth in a brush-dominated understory

would create complexity where flora, fauna, and management can function collectively and be

mutually beneficial. In other words, there is a need to create disturbance to promote healthy

growth, and decrease the severe wildfire conditions which have increased over the last one-

hundred years of fire suppression.

There is a need to treat all conifer stumps greater then 14-inches in diameter after harvest to

prevent the spread of Hetrobasidion annosum (annosus) root disease. Annosus root disease is

known to historically exist in both pine and white fir. Annosum stump infections could occur in

the project area if freshly-cut stumps are not treated with Sporax®.

Operations

Mechanical Mastication

Smaller diameter trees can be more easily and quickly masticated into smaller diameter pieces

than larger trees. In order to decrease heavy surface fuel loading and low production rates, no tree

diameters being masticated should exceed 8-inches (Harrod et al. 2009). Mastication could be

used to create a residual stand to approximately 17-20 foot spacing. This combination, along with

partial spreading of windrows after mastication, would allow for a more irregular distribution of

surface fuels, lower fire severity, and a higher probability of long-term reforestation success.

Thinning

Based on older harvests on this experimental forest a 20-25% loss in cull from heart rot and fire

damage is expected (Gordon 1973). In order to reduce future losses of trees and tree volume that

result from mechanical injuries during management activities, Aho et al. (1983) techniques as

described below would be applied.

Action to be taken during timber sale planning:

1. Mark “leave” trees rather than “cut” trees to call attention to the residuals we

are trying to protect.

2. Designate “rub” trees to be removed last, or leave cull logs along edges of

skid trails.


13

3. Match maximum log length to spacing of the residual stand. Consider cutting

hand felled trees (>30-inches DBH) into log lengths no greater than 40-feet

(preferable 32-feet), and limbing in beds before skidding logs to landing.

Some whole tree yarding would be permissible where conditions allow and

tree size dictates (e.g. tops of trees with 10≤X<30-inches DBH).

Landings would be used at the end of each road and one landing would be available a minimum

of every 40-acres; i.e. more than one landing should be used throughout every 40-acres to

alleviate skidding damage on standing residuals. All landings may be evaluated for subsoiling.

Stage falling, preferably in-line with designated skid trails, would be beneficial to residuals due to

the size of timber under operations. Where groups are designated, care would be taken to avoid

damage to advance regeneration within the understory and of residual dominants used to naturally

regenerate the openings. If potentially mortal damage occurs to a “keep tree”, then sale

administrator or another qualified representative will select a like tree (or best alternative) in its

place. No timbers shall fall within the no-operating zones of each unit. Site preparation of groups

through tractor and/or grapple piling before planting will insure a fully stocked stand within the

required timeline and an increased possibility of natural regeneration to get established in the bare

mineral soil.

Most surface fuel treatments in this project would consist of mechanical grapple piling of large

solid logs and tractor piling of rotten logs in excess of other resources (see Non-Experimental

Components, Purpose and Need). Tractor piling of smaller surface fuels for biomass removal, or

burning on or near landings under prescription, would take place after harvest.

Transportation

The existing forest transportation system would be utilized to provide access to treatment units,

but changes to the road system are needed if the proposed actions are to be accomplished.

Specific needs for changes to the transporation system are summarized in Table 3 below.

The main route (expected haul direction) leading out of the project is east on National Forest

Service (NFS) road 30N07 to Lassen County Road A21. NFS road30N07 is aggregate surfaced

and county road A21 is paved.

In addition to the existing forest transportation system, approximately 3.37-miles of maintenance

level 2 (ML2) NFS road is needed to access treatment units and to address long-term

management needs for future projects, firefighting access, and monitoring. These new NFS roads

would be designed to be outsloped where possible with self maintaining drainage structures.

Gates would be placed at the entrance of new ML2-NFS roads 30N77 and 30N09.

In order to accommodate chip vans and modifications to existing road drainage facilities to

improve roadway drainage functionality, approximately 2.10-miles of road reconstruction is


14

needed within the project are. This reconstruction work would include curve widening.

Approximately 2-miles of road would receive additional aggregate surfacing.

There is a need to decrease impacts on riparian areas through decommissioning of non-system

roads. One undesignated non-system road (approx. 1.25-miles) would be decommissioned with

motorized vehicles prohibited. Two effective obstructions would then block the non-system road

entrance from NFS roads 30N67 (prior to Robbers Creek) and 30N33B.

Approximately 2.12-miles of temporary road would be constructed for access during project

implementation. These temporary roads would be decommissioned upon project completion.

Table 3: Proposed transportation activities including temporary road construction, existing road

reconstruction, and new road construction, Swain Mountain EF Fuels Reduction and Forest

Regeneration Project, Lassen National Forest, Lassen and Plumas County, California.

NFS Road

Number

Temp

Construction

&

Decommission

Reconstruct

Existing Road

New

Construction

(ML2) Miles

Temp 1 0.34 -- -- 0.34

Temp 2 0.36 -- -- 0.36

Temp 3 0.34 -- -- 0.34

Temp 4 0.17 -- -- 0.17

Temp 5 0.91 -- -- 0.91

30N26 -- 1.19 -- 1.19

30N26 -- 0.28 -- 0.28

30N32A -- 0.39 -- 0.39

30N33B -- 0.24 -- 0.24

30N77 -- -- 0.23 0.23

30N77 -- -- 1.79 1.79

30N77A -- -- 0.57 0.57

30N09D -- -- 0.78 0.78

Total 2.12 2.10 3.37 7.59

Decision to be Made

The decision to be made is: 1) to implement the Modified Proposed Action as described above; 2)

whether the no action alternative should be implemented;or, 3) to implement the Modified

Proposed Action as described above utilizing a noncommercial funding fuels treatment within the

440-acre plantation as described below.

Treatments included in the Modified Proposed Action and located within the SMEF are designed

to be consistent with the Plan for the Operation of the Swain Mountain Experimental Forest


15

(2007), and in compliance with the requirements of FSM-4062, R5 Supplement 4000-92-1, and

4062-Experimental Forest and Ranges.

Treatments proposed within the approximately 440-acre plantation south of and adjacent to the

SMEF are 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 Herger-

Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act (HFQLG) FEIS, FSEIS, and RODs (1999,

2003), and the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) FEIS (2001), FSEIS (2004), and

RODs (2001, 2004).

Public Involvement

Scoping

The SMEF project first appeared on the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) for the LNF in

April, 2009, and has appeared on each subsequent quarterly listing. Scoping was initiated with

the publication of a public notice in the Chester Progressive April 1, 2009. A scoping letter signed

by District Ranger Alfred G. Vazquez was sent to individuals potentially interested in or known to

have an interest in the project, SOPA respondents, private property owners, leaseholders, fire safe

councils, and range permittees. Tribal consultation was initiated through a letter sent to Tribal

representatives. A total of four letters and one email were received in response to the public news

release and scoping letters, all in support of the proposed actions at SMEF. A response to

comments of interested parties is located in the project record which resides at the Almanor

Ranger District, Lassen National Forest.

30-Day Comment Period on EA

This comment period is intended to provide those interested in or affected by this proposal an

opportunity to make their concerns known (raise issues with and suggest alternatives to the

modified proposed action) prior to a decision being made by the Responsible Official. Those

who provide comments or otherwise express interest in the proposal by the close of the comment

period will be eligible to appeal the decision pursuant to 36 CFR part 215 regulations.

Individuals and organizations wishing to be eligible to appeal must meet the legal notice and

comment requirements of 36 CFR 215.6.

Significant Issues

An issue is a point of debate, dispute, or disagreement regarding anticiated effects of the modified

proposed action. No significant issues were identified during the scoping period for the proposed

action.


16

Alternatives Considered in Detail

Alternative One – Modified Proposed Action

Alternative 1, the Modified Proposed Action, is provided in detail on pages 2-14 above.

Alternative 2 (No Action)

No actions would be implemented within the SMEF or adjacent plantation.

Alternative 3 (Noncommercial Funding for Fuels Treatment)

On Nov. 4th, 2009 Judge England issued an order for the Sierra Forestry Legacy v. Rey case. The

order requires all forests that were amended by the 2004 Sierra Nevada Framework to consider in

detail a noncommercial funding fuels reduction alternative for all projects with a fuels treatment

in the purpose and need. The order is applicable to treatments proposed for the 440-acres of

plantation under the operation of LNF and does not affect treatments proposed within SMEF.

Alternative 3 is a noncommercial funding fuels reduction alternative for reduction in ladder fuels

within the 440-acres of plantation just south of the Experimental Forest and within the Almanor

Ranger District of the Lassen National Forest. The proposed treatments for this alternative were

developed for the sole purpose of achieving the fuels reduction component of the purpose and

need for treatment within this 440-acre plantation. Brush would be masticated followed by

prescribed fire within two years. This underburning would occur in units that still have down

woody surface fuels 0- to 3-inches in excess of 5-tons/acre. Additionally, noncommercial

treatments would only occur within areas permissible and in line with watershed and other

resource protection considerations (slope, soil conditions, etc.).

Integrated Design Features Common to All Action Alternatives

Integrated Design Features (IDFs) are elements of the project design that would be applied in

treatment areas. These features were developed to reduce or avoid adverse environmental effects

of the modified proposed action on forest resources.

1. Botany

Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive (TES) and Special Interest Plant Species

New occurrences of TES plant species discovered before or during ground-disturbing activities

would be protected through flag-and-avoid methods.

Noxious Weeds

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

equipment would be done in weed-free areas.

New small infestations identified prior to or during project implementation would be evaluated

and treated according to the species present and project constraints and avoided by project


17

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.

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 of multiple years after

completion of the project.

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.

2. Cultural Resources

If an “unanticipated discovery” is encountered (i.e., an historic property) during project

implementation, the District Archeologist shall be immediately notified and all project work in

that area would cease until the situation can be assessed and remedied.

3. Range

The design features for range resources primarily deal with mechanical treatments, hand

treatments, fencing, and livestock operations to ensure the rangeland resources are adequately

protected with minimal affect to permittees.

If needed, the distribution of livestock will be controlled the season following project

implementation by various protection methods in order to protect treatment areas.

Fences, water developments, cattleguards, existing study areas and transects would be protected.

Repair of damage to range improvements due to project activities would be the responsibility of

the contractor.

Consultation with the District Rangeland Specialist and allotment permittees would be conducted

to coordinate treatment operations. If treatment occurs in areas that need protection, mitigation

measures would be developed such as fencing or controlling distribution with other measures (i.e.

placing supplements away from treated areas, moving livestock to another area, etc.)

The 8.6-acre release of aspen east of FS road 30N33B would be examined prior to release then

monitored for 5-years after release, inside and outside of the proposed fence line. See

Experimental Components, Section III (Additional Experimental Components of Past and

Present) of Modified Proposed Action for greater detail.

4. Recreation and Special Uses

A Limited Operating Period (LOP) would apply from December 26th through April 1

st and be

placed on designated winter trails through Swain Mountain Experimental Forest to facilitate

winter snow grooming and recreation opportunities (NFS road 30N07).


18

All activities adjacent to existing dispersed campsites would be signed and controlled to alert the

public of potential hazards, and all historically used campsites would be protected.

Roads would be kept open and free of debris during operational periods to be passable within 15

minutes. Hauling roads would be designated and signed during these operational periods for

public safety.

5. Silviculture

White Pine Blister Rust

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

A $20,000 fine would be imposed as a contract provision for each rust proven resistant or

candidate tree damaged during operations. Healthy sugar pines that show no observable signs of

blister rust would be favorably retained.

Treatment of Stumps

Cut stumps of conifer trees >14-inches (basal diameter) 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 15-feet of live streamcourses,

meadows/wetlands, or sensitive plant location boundaries as flagged on the ground. Borate

compound would not be applied in aspen treatments.

California Five-spined Ips

Within mechanically treated areas, masticate boles, limbs, and tops so that there would be no

breeding material for the California Five-spined Ips.

6. Soil Quality Standards and Best Management Practices

Soil Quality Standards (SNFPA, 2004), and appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs,

Appendix E) that protect water quality and soils would be implemented. BMPs are described in:

Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in California, Best Management Practices

(USDA FS, 2000a) and SNFPA Record of Decision, 2004. BMPs provide for evaluation of risks

to water quality and aquatic resources from modified proposed actions, and development of

prescriptions needed to protect those resources. The following are specific measures that would

be implemented to protect soil and water resources:

Operations would not commence until soil moisture conditions are evaluated to ensure operations

meet contractual requirements to reduce detrimental soil compaction. Soils must be dry to 10-

inches for operations in inner zones.

Landings, temporary roads, and main skid trails utilized during operations would be evaluated for

subsoiling post-harvest. Subsoiling would lift and fracture the soil in place leaving it loose and


19

friable to a minimum depth of 18-inches. Treatment should be repeated if furrows are left deeper

than 12-inches.

In Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs), no waterbars would be constructed on skid

trails and 90-percent soil cover would be maintained where those conditions of cover existed pre-

harvest.

Where temporary road and landing construction involves cut and fill, the feature would be

subsoiled, then re-contoured to match the existing topography and slash scattered to provide

ground cover. Slash would consist of organic material (logs, branches, and duff). Rocks and

boulders would also be utilized. Slash would be scattered to resemble a natural appearance

similar to the surrounding landscape. Following treatment, a minimum of 50-percent ground

cover consisting of rocks and organic material would be maintained. These areas would be

sufficiently blocked at the entrances to preclude access by motorized wheeled vehicles. Where

temporary roads cross stream channels, all fill would be removed from the channel and utilized

for re-contouring or spread in a stable location outside the RHCA. To the extent possible, existing

landings and skid trails would be utilized thus minimizing any new disturbance within the project

area.

Post treatment areas lacking suitable ground cover (such as skid trails, etc.) necessary to preclude

sediment delivery to surface water would be slashed/mulched with native material so that a

minimum of 50-percent ground cover is maintained or 90-percent in RHCAs where those

conditions of cover existed pre-harvest.

7. Transportation

National Forest Service (NFS) roads and non-paved county roads used for haul will receive

maintenance before, during, and after project implementation, as per Forest Service Road

Maintenance T-Specifications for Timber Sale Contracts. Maintenance items could include

blading, surfacing, clearing for sight distance, installation of rolling dips, and cleaning drainage

facilities.

A dust abatement plan would also be included to control wind-caused erosion from road use. The

proposed water source for this project is located off of NFS road 30N07 at Robbers Creek. This

is an official channel water source that conforms to the applicable BMPs.

New maintenance level 2 (ML2) road constructions would be designed to be outsloped where

possible with self-maintaining drainage structures.

8. Watersheds: Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCA’s)

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

Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs, Appendix L, HFQLG FEIS). RHCAs are managed

differently than the rest of the landscape. In these areas, treatments are designed to ensure that

riparian management objectives (RMOs) are met. In addition to the following integrated design


20

features, all applicable best management practices would be implemented. BMPs are described

in: Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in California, Best Management

Practices (USDA FS, 2000a) and SNFPA Record of Decision, 2004.

RHCA widths

RHCAs are composed of wetlands and/or meadows less than one-acre, wetlands and/or meadows

greater than one-acre, seasonal (annual) streams, and perennial streams. Each RHCA within the

project area would be divided into an inner zone width of riparian management and outer zone

width of riparian management (Table 4).

Table 4: Inner, outer, and total widths (feet) for Riparian Habitat Conservation

Areas (RHCAs)

Treatment in the Inner Zones

Generally mechanical treatment in inner zones of seasonal streams is prohibited unless

mechanical treatment is deemed necessary to meet riparian management objectives and can be

done while minimizing the risk of detrimental effects to the RHCAs. Following are design

features if mechanical equipment is used: (1) Tracked equipment would be required within the

inner zone; (2) No mechanical treatment would occur if the slopes are over 20-percent; (3)

Thinning by hand, and removal of materials by grapples or endlining would be allowed as long as

objectives for groundcover are met (see IDFs, section 6. Soil Quality Standards and Best

Management Practices); (4) In areas where a scoured continuous stream channel exists, no trees

>8-inches DBH would be removed within 10-feet of the edge of the channel; and, (5) Spreading

of windrows would not occur in the inner zone of RHCAs.

Treatment of Inner and Outer Zones

Group selections would not be located within RHCAs.

No mechanical treatment within the outer zones of RHCAs would take place on slopes greater

than 35-percent.

Where fuel concentrations exceed 5-tons/acre (<9-inch size class) following treatment, hand

piling or grapple piling of slash may be required. All hand piles would either be located a

Type of RHCAInner Zone

Width (ft.)

Outer Zone

Width (ft.)

Total

Width (ft.)

Wetland/meadow <1 acre 50 50 100

Wetland/meadow >1 acre 75 75 150

Annual stream 50 50 100

Perennial stream 150 150 300


21

minimum of 50-feet from the edge of the channel, or only one-third of the piles would be burned

in any given year to avoid impacting the near stream environment.

Broadcast burning would be allowed within RHCAs, but there would be no ignitions in the inner

zone because fire may back through this zone.

There would be no construction of new landings or use of old landings without approval of a

hydrologist, soil scientist, or fisheries biologist.

- Conifers <20-inches DBH would be harvested with tracked feller-bunchers.

- Riparian species (alder, willow, aspen, etc.) would not be removed.

- Turning of tracked feller-bunchers would be kept at a minimum.

- No cut and fill would be allowed for new skid trails in RHCAs.

- Piling of slash and other woody material with a dozer would not be allowed in

RHCAs.

Skid trail crossings of non-perennial RHCAs may be allowed upon approval of an agency


Minor modifications of integrated design features may be allowed upon approval of an agency


9. Wildlife

The following Limited Operation Periods (LOPs) would be implemented within one-quarter mile

of known active nest sites: (1) California spotted owls, March 1st to August 15th; and (2)

Northern goshawks, February 15th to September 15th.

To be applied within NFS-ALRD lands only, not to include SMEF:

If a California spotted owl nest is discovered, a protected activity center (PAC) would be

developed surrounding the nest site commensurate with current direction.

If new active goshawk nest sites are found within the project area: (1) The nest tree would be

protected with a 125-foot no treatment buffer; and (2) The marking prescription within the newly

defined territory would encourage the development toward a heterogeneous stand structure.

In unsurveyed northern goshawk or California spotted owl suitable habitat, LOPs would be

implemented until surveys have been completed.

To be applied throughout project area:

Of all standing dead conifers >15-inches DBH, 4-6 snags/acre, plus 1 standing live cull/acre

(dead within life of project) would be retained where available.


22

Leave at least 4 downed logs/acre that are a minimum of 24-inches diameter at the mid-point and

at least 8-feet in length. These may be obtained by leaving unmerchantable material produced

during project implementation.

Downed logs can be of any decay class but there should be all decay classes represented

(assortment of decay classes across the landscape).

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated

In addition to development of the modified proposed action (Alternative 1), the no action

alternative (Alternative 2), and the noncommercial funding alternative (Alternative 3),

collaboration and scoping comments were reviewed for significant issues and alternatives to the

modified proposed action. No issues or additional alternatives were identified during the scoping

and collaboration period.


23

Comparison of Alternatives

Table 5: Analysis summary of effects of alternatives by specialist for the Swain Mountain

Experimental Forest Fuels Reduction and Forest Regeneration Project (page 1 of 3).


24

Table 5: Analysis summary of effects of alternatives by specialist for the Swain Mountain

Experimental Forest Fuels Reduction and Forest Regeneration Project (page 2 of 3).


25

Table 5: Analysis summary of alternatives by specialist for the Swain Mountain Experimental Forest

Fuels Reduction and Forest Regeneration Project (page 3 of 3).


26

Environmental Consequences

Environmental Effects of the Significant Issues

No significant issues were identified from scoping comments received.

Environmental Effects of Other Resources

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

below. The following reports discuss the effects of the project. They are located in the project

record (Lassen National Forest, Almanor Ranger District, Chester, CA) and are hereby

incorporated by reference:

Botany - Biological Evaluation/Assessment for Forest Service Sensitive and

Federally Listed Plant Species: Swain Mountain Experimental Forest Fuels

Reduction and Forest Regeneration Project.

Swain Mountain Fuels Reduction and Forest Regeneration Project: Noxious

Weed Risk Assessment.

Cultural - Swain Mountain Experimental Forest Fuels Reduction and Forest

Regeneration Project: Cultural Resources Report.

Fire and Fuels - Swain Mountain Experimental Forest Fuels Reduction and

Forest Regeneration Project: Fire and Fuels Analysis.

Range - Range Resource Specialist report: Swain Mountain Experimental Forest

Fuels Reduction and Forest Regeneration Project.

Recreation – Memorandum dated March 25, 2009.

Silviculture - Swain Mountain Experimental Forest Fuels Reduction and Forest

Regeneration Project: Silviculture Report.

Transportation - Swain Mountain Experimental Forest Fuels Reduction and

Forest Regeneration Project: Transportation Report.

Watersheds and Soils - Swain Mountain Experimental Forest Fuels Reduction

and Forest Regeneration Project: Watershed and Soils Report.

Aquatic Biological Evaluation: Biological Evaluation/Assessment for Federally

Listed and Forest Service Sensitive Aquatic Species for Swain Mountain

Experimental Forest Fuels Reduction and Forest Regeneration Project.

Wildlife - Swain Mountain Experimental Forest Fuels Reduction and Forest

Regeneration Project: Terrestrial Wildlife Report;

Project Management Indicator Species Report: Swain Mountain Experimental

Forest Fuels Reduction and Forest Regeneration Project.


27

Botany

Alternative 1 (Modified Proposed Action)

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

There are no Threatened, Endangered, or Lassen National Forest Sensitive plant species (TES)

known to the project area, and the project area does not have potential habitats for TES Plant

species. Accordingly, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects associated with

Alternative 1.



No TES Plant species or potential habitats for TES plant species have been found in the project

area. Therefore, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects associated with the No

Action Alternative.



There are no Threatened, Endangered, or Lassen National Forest Sensitive plant species (TES)

known to the project area, and the project area does not have potential habitats for TES Plant

species. Accordingly, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects associated with

Alternative 3.

Cultural Resources


Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Previous archaeological surveys conducted between 1981 and 1995 have not identified any

cultural resources (prehistoric or historic properties) in the Swain Mountain EF Fuels Reduction

and Forest Regeneration Project area. Table 6 refers to Archaeological Reconnaissance Reports

(ARR) which document previous heritage inventories utilizing a combination of intensive survey

coverage strategy in archaeologically sensitive areas and less than intensive survey coverage in

non-sensitive areas that had no surface visibility (Regional Programmatic Agreement, 1996).

Table 6: Archaeological Reconnaissance Reports (ARR) of previous heritage inventories between 1981 and 1995,

within an area of potential effect by the Swain Mountain EF Fuels Reduction and Forest Regeneration Project.

ARR Title Analyst Name Analysis Year ARR Number

Swain Mountain Timber Sale Peter Jensen 1981 R1981050651258

Star Salvage Sale Alex Atkins 1990 R1990050651044

Benner Allotment Management Plan Douglas Prather 1993 R1993050651027

Robbers Creek C&H Joseph Whalen 1995 R1995050651250 All of the reports provided above are on file at the Almanor Ranger District, Lassen National Forest, Chester, CA, 96020.


28

Inasmuch as there are no historic properties identified within the project Area of Potential Effect

(APE), no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to cultural resources are anticipated. Cultural

resources found during project implementation (i.e. an unanticipated discovery) may be initially

affected by said activities but would be provided immediate protection from any further effects

(see IDFs, Section 2. Cultural Resources).



Since historic properties were not identified within the Swain Mountain EF Fuels Reduction and

Forest Regeneration Project area, the No Action alternative would have no beneficial or adverse

direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to cultural resources.



See Effects discussion in Alternative 1.

Fire and Fuels


Direct Effects

Direct effects from the proposed treatments include a reduction in surface fuels, an average

reduction in canopy bulk density, an average increase in height to live crown, and an increase of

localized smoke from burning piles. Table 7 used flame length and fire rate of spread

(BehavePlus 4.0) to indicate fire behavior between current fuel conditions and post-treatment fuel

conditions.

Table 7: Predicted fire behavior in the Swain Mountain Project Area under current conditions

(Models 10 and 6) and after proposed treatments (Model 8). Values range from 10% slope and

midflame wind speed of 6-mph (minimum) to 30% slope and midflame wind speed of 12-mph

(maximum). Values calculated using BehavePlus 4.0 Fire Behavior Simulator.

Current

Conditions

Post

Treatment

Model 10*1

Model 6*2

Model 8*3

Flame Length (ft) 7.1 - 11.1 7.9 - 12.1 1.4 - 2.0

Fire Rate of Spread chains/hr) 15.2 - 40.3 52.1 - 132.6 3.1 - 6.8 *

1 Fuel Model 10 has a fuel type that best represents the vegetation type within conifer stands at SMEF. *2 Fuel Model 6 best represents the plantation with contiguous understory brush. *3 Fuel Model 8 best represents Models 10 and 6 after

thinning, mastication, and fuel treatment (Anderson 1982).

These post-treatment effects would adhere to National Fire Plan standards to attain desired

conditions for wildland fire behavior and firefighter safety, and to the Smoke Management Plan

for pile and prescribed burning, alleviating negative impacts to communities nearby. Short


29

duration production of smoke and associated emissions would occur during pile and understory

burning, but would not violate ambient air quality standards.

Indirect Effects

Surface and ladder fuel reduction through the modified proposed action would significantly

reduce aerial and surface fuel loadings, resulting in a significant reduction in fire behavior and

increased safety to firefighting personnel directly attacking fire on the ground in and around

treatment areas. The reduction in flame lengths, fireline intensity, rate of spread, and crown fire

initiation would likely enable a more direct wildfire attack and an improved fireline production

rate, thus increasing protection efforts of nearby communities and their natural resources from

catastrophic wildfire effects or the potential of large-scale events.

By decreasing surface and ladder fuels through mechanical treatments as proposed, future

management of undesirable understory vegetation could use broadcast burning instead of

chemical treatment. Additionally, treatment of fuels would result in decreased smoke production

and associated emissions in the event of wildfire. This decrease would improve conditions for

nuisance and associated health issues for sensitive receptors.

Cumulative Effects

By further improving surface and aerial fuel conditions and extending the fuel-break network,

proposed treatments would reduce fire hazard and increase firefighter safety. Past public projects

near or adjacent to the SMEF, including both Betty Sue (thinning/burning) and Robbers

(thinning), combined to reduce surface and ladder fuels on a more landscape scale. This decrease

in fuels would result in an overall improvement of conditions for nuisance and associated health

issues from smoke production and emissions in the event of a wildfire. It is expected, however,

that some smoke and associated particulate matter from burning treated fuels on public and

private land would be produced for short durations. Past, present and future land management

action on adjacent private land would not lead to cumulative effects related to the Swain

Mountain Project. The Swain Mountain Project would achieve more desirable conditions and

would not lead to significantly negative issues related to fuels or fire management.


Direct Effects

The absence of thinning would allow growth of shade tolerant trees to continue. Ingrowth that

was historically thinned by more frequent and less severe wildfires would continue unchecked,

resulting in increasing stand densities, ladder fuels, and overall fire severity. The homogeneous

profile of vertical and horizontal live fuels not only increases the probability of a stand replacing

wildfire, but also puts the stand in jeopardy of stress-induced mortality. With water and nutrients

insufficiently distributed between individuals, the competition would decrease health and

eventually kill a large percentage of co-dominant and suppressed trees. Recently killed trees


30

would then increase fuel loading on the forest floor with a mixture of standing dead and downed

material.

As unthinned stands approach the dense mixture of standing live fuels and downed surface fuels,

less favorable conditions (e.g. crown fires and spotting) make suppression efforts at the head of

the fire ineffective. National Fire Plan standards to achieve desired conditions for wildland fire

behavior would not be met in the Swain Mountain project area.

Indirect Effects

The absence of fuels treatment and prescribed fire over time would create a situation where the

continued increase in fuel loading is certain; a result of downed woody material accumulating at

rates greater than it can decompose. Above average weather conditions (i.e. dry fuels and high

wind speeds) would create flame lengths in a wildfire at or in excess of 7-feet in most of the

project area. Potential fire hazards in the area would become more intense, more severe, and

greater in size over time. Severe fire behavior would create a situation where direct fireline attack

would be prohibited and ineffective. Such a situation would allow fires to become considerably

larger and potentially more hazardous for fire fighters and those communities at risk. The threat

of wildfire moving into communities around Silver Lake and Westwood would remain high and

associated smoke from intense, severe wildfires would create both a nuisance and health concern

in these communities for significant time periods.

Cumulative Effects

Uncontrolled wildland fire under current fuel conditions would produce considerable amounts of

emissions. This would negatively affect California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) by

creating a nuisance and would be unhealthy for sensitive receptors when added to an emissions

load from preexisting contributors. Failure to implement the project would leave protection of

lives, property, and natural resources within the experimental forest at risk from wildland fires

that have the potential to be large in scale and would become behaviorally intense. The reduction

of this landscape scale issue (e.g. heavy fuel loads) has already been implemented on other

projects near or adjacent to the Swain Mountain EF Project. The No Action alternative would

disconnect the SMEF project area from landscape scale fuels treatments.



A noncommercial funding alternative would be used to achieve a fuels reduction element within a

440-acre plantation adjacent to the Swain Mountain Experimental Forest (SMEF). The

noncommercial funding alternative proposal would be to masticate brush within a 440-acre

plantation. Post-mastication treatment would include using prescribed fire in those units that still

have excessive loads of down woody surface fuels two years after mastication.


31

The proposed treatment would meet the purpose and need to create a less hazardous fire

environment. No understory tree removal, machine or hand piling is considered with this

proposal. Under this proposal, ladder fuels within the project area would be reduced to

approximate the historical range of variability. Although ladder fuels would be treated, there

would occur an initial net increase of surface fuels that would be added as slash from the

masticated brush. Predicted wildfire behavior following treatment would closely approximate that

of the natural fire regime range. Following this proposed treatment, it would be safe to deploy

firefighters on the ground within this area in the event of a wildfire during fire season.

Additionally, such a fire would likely result in surface fire with flame lengths less than four feet.

The potential of crown fire would be low to moderate. This would occur when fire originates

within the project area, or from outside the perimeter.

For several years following mastication the predicted wildfire behavior would not result in flame

lengths greater than four feet. However, the increased surface fuel load from the mastication

would increase the average length of time that burning would occur (residence heat). These

conditions of an increased surface fuel load and longer burning times could lead to increased root

damage, bole damage, crown scorch, and an overall higher likelihood of increased tree mortality.

Over time, after years of heavy snow loads and subsequent decomposition, litter and duff depths

would more closely approximate its historical range of variability.

The overall cost of such treatment would result as a negative economic value of return.

Range


Direct and Indirect Effects

Treatments may positively affect both the short- and long-term range conditions by reducing

conifer density in stands, reducing ground fuel loading that restricts livestock movement, and

increasing transitory range forage. The modified proposed action treatments would have a

positive effect on range conditions and increase available forage for livestock, along with a

temporary loss of forage during the treatment recovery period due to activities that may cause

displacement for livestock. During the recovery period, grazing management practices would be

implemented to achieve desired use levels. Practice may include deferment, adjustment of pasture

management, placement of salt blocks, or other management practices that would promote use by

livestock away from treatment areas if needed. Grazing management adjustments would be

developed in coordination with the permittee and incorporated into the permit as Allotment

Management Plans (AMPs).

Livestock distribution could potentially change or expand as treatments reduce dead and downed

woody material resulting in areas with improved utilization of forage, water, and salt. There are

no key areas within the treatment areas, but some may be in the vicinity including Swain


32

Mountain (KA48A), Barns Flat (KA48B), Bond Valley (KA48C), and Jennie Springs (KA05A).

Range improvement maintenance may increase initially in these areas as well, resulting in repair

improvements in the event of damage caused by project activities. However, long-term

maintenance costs could be reduced due to improved access near fences and water sources. Some

older structures that may be in the vicinity include Barns Flat Fence (FERC2), Swain Meadow

Fences (FERC4), and Jennie Springs (FEBN2 and WDBN1).

Aspen fencing, as described in the modified proposed action would be constructed to restrict

livestock from accessing approximately 2.4-acres around the aspen unit within the Robbers Creek

Allotment which would be a change to the current operation. Approximately 1,415-feet of

fenceline would be constructed and maintained. This area would be excluded from grazing to

allow aspen to release to an adequate size.

Cumulative Effects

The SMEF Fuels Reduction and Forest Regeneration Project area comprises a portion of the

Robbers Creek Allotment (approx. 750-acres, or 5% of total allotment) and Benner Creek

Allotment (approx. 1,235-acres, or 11% of total allotment), yet proposed activities have the

potential to effect the administration of these allotments as a whole, totaling approximately

22,350-acres. Currently most livestock grazing takes place outside the SMEF boundary/treatment

areas, and alternative grazing areas continue to be available outside SMEF. The long-term

treatment effects would be positive for range resources by increasing forage quality, quantity, and

distribution of livestock within allotments. Future planned projects in these allotments in the next

decade could have a positive effect on all range resources, with negligible cumulative effects.



Current grazing practices would continue on Robbers Creek and Benner Creek Allotments under

the No Action Alternative. There would be no overall short-term impact to range resources, and

long-term effects may result in a reduction in forage availability and distribution of livestock.

Forage availability and distribution of livestock may decrease due to increased plant competition

from overstory shading and fewer areas within the allotments for livestock to feed.

Existing range improvements (e.g. spring developments, fence lines, etc.) would require normal

maintenance. As the stands age, some minor increases in maintenance costs may be incurred as

standing dead trees (snags) and unhealthy trees begin to fall and obstruct fence right-of-ways.

Some clearing of fences from downed logs would be required along with clearing access roads to

spring developments and salt grounds.

Cumulative Effects

Previous harvest and thinning activities have generally had a positive impact on all range

resources by reducing the overstory and allowing forage species to thrive. Cumulative effects of


33

past and present projects would not share an association with the proposed No Action alternative.

There would be no positive effect on transitory range availability and livestock distribution in the

allotments contained within the proposed area. There would be no treatment of forested stands

(i.e. thinning, burning), resulting in no increase in forage availability, no improvement to

livestock distribution, and no long-term protection of range improvements. There would be no

short-term negative effects to the permittee that might occur from possible deferments. Most

livestock grazing takes place outside the SMEF boundary/treatment areas and alternative grazing

areas continue to be available outside SMEF. Since livestock grazing and distribution would

continue to be limited outside the SMEF boundary, there are expected negative cumulative effects

from the No Action alternative of the SMEF Fuels Reduction and Forest Regeneration Project.



The Noncommercial Funding Alternative would apply to the 440-acres within the Benner Creek

Allotment, northwest of Jennie Springs in an area generally not used for trailing livestock. The

project is expected to have a negligible effect on trailing practices, specifically along NFS road

32N10.

Recreation/Special Uses



There are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to Recreation and Special Uses with the

implementation of the IDFs included in the Modified Proposed Action.


Recreation and Special Uses effects to SMEF would continue as present with seasonal use by

hunters, increasing vehicle use of roads, and winter use by snowmobile and cross-country skiers.



There are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to Recreation and Special Uses with the

implementation of the IDFs included in the Modified Proposed Action.

Silviculture



The SMEF Plan of Operation would be implemented through initiation of research and

development on the effectiveness of fuels reduction, and the effects of scale and residual density


34

on understory development, overstory retention, and overall stand structure. Long-term

monitoring of different fuels treatments would be possible. Essential activities pertinent to

initiating proposed research would be fully funded by the positive return from forest products

resulting from proposed treatments. Even though treatment areas were not chosen because they

would generate the greatest amount of dollars or timber output, there would be an economic

return of money to the community in the form of service contracts.

SMEF and areas that are contributing to current and long-term research would be at reduced risk

of being lost to wildfire. Plantation thinning and subsequent surface fuel treatments would reduce

ladder fuels and continuity between surface and ladder fuels. This in turn would reduce the

potential for torching and crown fire initiation by significantly reducing distances between trees,

tree canopies, and by reducing canopy fuel continuity and crown bulk density.

Forest health would be addressed while retaining the largest healthiest trees. Removal would

consist primarily of suppressed and intermediate trees and those having poor vigor, disease, or

damage. Thinning would increase growth and vigor of residual co-dominant and dominant trees,

increase resiliency, carbon sequestration, and the probability of sustaining these forested

landscapes in to the future. Stands would be less susceptible to mortality resulting from drought,

insects, disease, and wildfire.

Creating various sized groups within the thinned stands would allow for a more biologically

diverse forest system, including CWHR size class 1 (seedlings) and the potential for understory

shrubs, forbs, herbs, and grasses to become established shortly after treatment. Additionally,

groups would disconnect fuel bed continuity and accumulation allowing for more variable fire

conditions and less intense fire behavior. Initial planting of under-stocked pine species suited for

higher elevations, in conjunction with the intermitted dispersal of naturally regenerated fir species

would allow for a more genetically rich distribution throughout the landscape, particularly over

time.

Increased growing space through an overstory removal of conifers surrounding aspen groves,

followed by prescribed fire and temporary fencing, would enable existing aspens to grow without

abundant competition and promote more space to become occupied by newly established suckers

and germinates. An increase in overall health and regenerative success for aspen is a potential

result from this project. Instead of being outcompeted from an encroaching coniferous overstory

and being heavily browsed from livestock pressures, the treatments would create more suitable

growing conditions once prevalent prior to the successful implementation of fire suppression.

Cumulative Effects

In an effort to stimulate forest health and actively manage potentially catastrophic losses from

wildfire, the effect of thinning mature stands, an understory encroached plantation, and a few

aspen groves among 1,985-acres (or 30% of the Experimental Forest, including the 440-acres of


35

ALRD plantation to the south) would increase the capacity to manage forest lands at a landscape

scale and increase firefighter safety during the next wildfire.

The average of all mature stands considered in this project is currently at 50-percent of the

maximum Stand Density Index (SDI) (maximum SDI for red fir is 1,000). Under this phase of

stem exclusion and increased mortality, snag recruitment and rates of snag fall-down have now

collected approximately 22-tons/acre more coarse woody debris than adjacent stands which have

been thinned back to densities of approximately 180 SDI (Zhang et al. 2007). The thinning

prescriptions for this project would help reduce potential fire risk by reducing rates of fuels

accumulating on the forest floor and help increase the rates of carbon sequestration stored via

increased health and growth of residuals.

Treatments would affect future CWHR size classes (Table 8) by decreasing stocking of smaller

understory trees. In other words, current CWHR size class of 6 (multi-layered, including trees

6.0- > 24.0-inches dbh) would shift into a mixture of CWHR size class 4 (small co-dominant

trees, 12.0- to 23.9-inches dbh) and CWHR size class 5 (medium/large dominant trees, > 24.0-

inches dbh). This shift would allow for increased individual tree diameters and individual tree

growth rates for the remaining co-dominant and dominant trees, resulting in larger diameter

stands over time.

Table 8: Tree size classes used in California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR).

Group selection would provide various sized openings for establishment of natural and artificial

regeneration, and for inherently new cohorts that provide different forest structures contributing

to landscape diversity. Group selections would increase the percentage of CWHR size class 1

stands in SMEF from 0.4-percent to approximately 15-percent. Planting would supplement the

natural regeneration to achieve desired stocking levels and increase the species composition of

shade-intolerant species.

Through the removal of competing overstory conifers tree species, the reintroduction of fire, and

the temporary divergence of livestock browsing, aspen diversity would be enhanced by restoring

and expanding those areas within the project. Natural regeneration from seed could be more

CWHR

Code

CWHR

Size Class

Conifer Crown

Diameter (ft) DBH (in)

1 Seedling tree n/a < 1.0

2 Sapling tree n/a 1.0 - 5.9

3 Pole tree < 12.0 6.0 - 10.9

4 Small tree 12.0 - 23.9 11.0 - 23.9

5

6

Med./Large tree

Multi-layered tree

> 24

Class 5, 4, and 3

> 24

6.0 - > 24


36

successful after the partial removal of heavy leaf litter, sprouting from aspen roots could be more

abundant after treatment disturbance, and the newly regenerated sucker and germinant aspen

could grow uninhibited from browsing pressures, well above the browse line before removal of

temporary fencing.



Treatments necessary for proposed research and development would not occur. The SMEF Plan

of Operation would not be implemented. SMEF and areas that are contributing to current and

long-term research would be at an increasing risk of loss to wildfire.

Existing stand conditions would persist and develop unaltered. Mortality that would occur as a

result of high stand densities would contribute to an increase of surface fuels. Canopy cover, size

class, and structure would be maintained, perpetuating moderate to low light levels that promote

the establishment and development of a shade-tolerant understory, and its significant contribution

to ladder fuels. Consequently, the horizontal and vertical continuity of surface, ladder, and

canopy fuels would remain intact and fuels accumulation would increase without historically

natural occurrence of disturbance.

Average crown base heights would continue to lower in the next 20-years due to excessively

atypical ingrowth of shade tolerant species within the understory. Crown bulk density would

continue to increase until immanent mortality at the stand level, and the recently killed trees

eventually would contribute more fuels on the forest floor. Species diversity would decline as

shade intolerant pine species would continue to be shaded out of these stands.

Development of early seral structure would rely on natural disturbance. This would result in a

more homogeneous forest dominated primarily by CWHR size class 4, which currently represents

over 60-percent of the stems per acre within the SMEF Fuels Reduction and Forest Regeneration

project area.

Basal area growth (ft2/acre) would decline as mortality begins to exceed annual growth in square

feet. SDI would continue to decrease as tree mortality increases. Growth rates in stands near or

above 60-percent of maximum SDI would continue to decrease. Average stand density would

slowly decline until a large-scale disturbance such as bark beetles or wildfires were to occur.

Wildfire or other natural disturbance could change the CWHR size class distribution. Mortality of

understory trees due to density would increase growth of residual overstory trees increasing stand

size class. However, bark beetle mortality of large diameter trees could cancel this affect and

reduce the size class of stands. As stands reach and persist at maximum densities, they would

remain at high risk of widespread mortality from insect and disease outbreaks and/or wildfire.


37

Cumulative Effects

High fuel loadings and ladder fuels have created prime conditions for wildfire. Given current fuel

conditions and forest structure, the probability of reducing the effects of catastrophic wildfire

would not be possible. Catastrophic fire would reduce structural complexity, create early-seral

conditions, increase brush abundance, and potentially volatize the soil nutrients needed for

healthy growth.

Average crown base heights within the plantation would remain between 5- and 15-feet. There

would be no opportunity to reduce the continuity of crown and ladder fuels and the risk for stand

replacing wildfires in forested stands and plantations. Fires would be more intense, consuming

large areas and degrading air quality, resulting in higher levels of tree mortality and a greater

negative effect across local and distant communities. Large fires could contribute to loss of late-

seral stage diversity.

SDI in mature and immature forested stands would remain in or approach the zone of imminent

mortality. Tree stocking levels in the unthinned areas would continue to be excessive, resulting in

stagnate growth rates, continued inter-tree competition, an overall decrease in stand vigor, and an

ever-increasing susceptibility to insects and disease. Slower growth rates would maintain total

carbon sequestered at approximately 2-5mm/year (radial increment). The high risk for epidemic

levels of tree mortality would continue. Plantation investments would remain at high risk for tree

mortality or total loss from wildfire. These conditions would reduce the probability of sustaining

stands into the future due to synthetic conditions resulting from a shift in the natural fire return

interval.

Group selections would not be implemented. Opportunity to improve species, age, and structural

diversity would be foregone. Seral stage diversity in the project area would remain current unless

changed by moderately severe wildfires or other disturbances.

Conifer encroachment would continue and the health of remnant aspen clones would decline. If

current trends continue, aspen clones would disappear from the area over time. There would be

no opportunity to improve aspen species diversity.



Treatment within the 440-acres of plantation located in ALRD would be modified to meet only

surface and ladder fuels objectives. Fuels objectives would be met by mastication of shrubs only,

followed by underburning. Since there would be no thinning of trees, stocking would remain

unchanged with an average number of 350-400 trees per acre in the fully stocked areas, or a

spacing of approximately 10- to 11-feet.

The minimum acceptable tree spacing required for masticated fuels treatments is typically 16-

feet. Specialized equipment would reduce typical spacing needs but would not be sufficient to


38

adequately masticate without excessive mechanical damage at the base of trees. These

mechanically damaged trees with “bole scars” provide an entry point for pathogens and decay. If

excessive, they could also reduce the flow rate of water and nutrients between roots and the upper

stem, thereby compounding the susceptibility to insects, disease, and/or premature mortality.

Mastication would reduce ladder fuels and continuity between surface and ladder fuels. Ideally

this treatment would reduce the potential for torching and crown fire initiation. However, over

time ladder fuels would increase as shrubs would regenerate, canopy bulk densities would

increase along with crown closure, then surface fuels would increase as the plantation trees reach

maximum densities (i.e. imminent mortality), die, and eventually fall.

Cumulative Effects

Tree stocking levels would continue to be excessive, resulting in stagnate growth rates, continued

inter-tree competition, an overall decrease in stand vigor, and an ever-increasing susceptibility to

insects and disease. The high risk for epidemic levels of tree mortality would continue and

plantation investments would remain in jeopardy to wildfire effects.

Pockets of mortality due to insects and disease could create CWHR class 1 stands. Tree mortality

would reduce stand density which would in turn increase growth of residual trees. However, the

amount of time necessary for stands to increase diameter creating CWHR class 4 and 5 stands

would be indefinite.

Watersheds/Soils/Fisheries


Direct Effects

Aquatic Species: Threatened or Endangered, or Forest Service Sensitive Species

There are no Threatened or Endangered, or Forest Service Sensitive aquatic species in the project

area. Accordingly, there would be no direct effects to Threatened or Endangered species

associated with Alternative 1. Marginal potentially suitable Cascades frog (Forest Sensitive

Species) habitat is located downstream of the project area, though no activities would occur

within or disturb this habitat. Accordingly, there would be no direct effects to Cascades frog

habitat.

Aquaatic Species: Aquatic Management Indicator Species

A total of 18 miles of habitat for benthic macro-invertebrates (riverine & lacustrine habitats) is

present within the four project affected subwatersheds. None of these 18 miles of habitat are

located within or in close proximity to Alternative 1 treatment areas. Alternative 1 activities

would not enter or disturb riverine and lacustrine habitats that are located downstream of the

project area. Accordingly, there would be no direct effects associated with Alternative 1.


39

Soils: Impacts to soils resulting from proposed treatments center on a potential for reduced soil

productivity and increased erosion because of mechanical disturbance and activities adjacent to

sensitive meadow habitats. With implementation of the IDFs and BMPs included in this project,

operations would not result in significant and lasting changes to the soil characteristics in the

project area.

Indirect Effects

The modified proposed action was evaluated for potential impacts to watershed processes and

structure of aquatic habitats. As there are no perennial aquatic habitats within the project area, the

only channel attribute related to aquatics evaluated in detail is sediment.


There are no suitable habitats for aquatic Threatened or Endangered species in the project area.

Accordingly, there would be no indirect effects associated with Alternative 1.

Marginal potentially suitable habitat for Cascades frogs (Sensitive species) is located downstream

of the project area within Robbers Creek. The alternative poses a low risk of increased sediment

to downstream Cascades frog habitat as a result of vegetation treatments located within the Swain

Meadow and Robbers Spring subwatersheds. Decommissioning of 1.26 miles of road that is

partially located within the Robbers Creek RHCA should result in a decrease in the potential

sediment delivery to potentially suitable Cascades frog habitat compared to the current

conditions.

Aquatic Species: Aquatic Management Indicator Species


present within the four project-affected subwatersheds. None of these 18 miles of habitat are

located within or in close proximity to Alternative 1 treatment areas. The alternative poses a low

risk of increased sediment to downstream riverine and lacustrine habitats as a result of vegetation

treatments located in the project-affected subwatersheds.

Hydrology: The concern here is that 1) because of the removal of vegetation, transpiration will

decrease in the watershed, therefore increasing base flow and peak runoff in area creeks; and, 2)

that compaction by heavy equipment could cause an increase in peak and base flows. Both effects

could cause erosion of stream banks and abandonment of floodplains if increased flows resulted

in channel down-cutting. The risk of a change in flows is low. Soil moisture may increase at some

of the treatment units in the short-term, but the increase, if measurable, will be slight. The

implementation of BMPs and inherent soil properties should prevent project-related compaction.

Sediment: The greatest risk for increased sediment delivery to aquatic habitats is from roads and

landings utilized during operations. With implementation of included IDFs and BMPs and

inherent soil properties as described in the Watershed and Soils Report, the modified proposed

action has a low potential for increases to existing sediment delivery to streams.


40

Water Quality (Chemical): The modified proposed action would not result in measurable change

to chemical constituents of water quality. There would be no detectable change in hydrology that

would affect water quality. Borate compound that may be added to stumps to reduce the risk of

root disease would not be applied within 15-feet of live stream courses, meadows, wetlands, or

sensitive plant locations, reducing risk to water quality from use of the compound.

Cumulative Effects

A cumulative watershed effects (CWEs) analysis was conducted for the sub-watersheds

potentially affected by project implementation: Jennie Creek, Swain Meadows, Robbers Creek,

and The Hole sub-watersheds. CWEs or overall disturbance (from past, present, project and

foreseeable future actions) are calculated using equivalent roaded acres (ERAs) using the Region

5 methodology contained within Chapter 20 of Forest Service handbook (FSH) 2509.22.

Connectivity: Changes to connectivity between stream and floodplain habitats is rated as

negligible. Available aquatic habitat quality will not be reduced, so no areas of habitat unsuitable

to movement will be created.

ERAs: Overall disturbance (from past, present, project and foreseeable future actions) as

characterized by ERAs is low (Table 9). Foreseeable disturbance is arrived at by assuming that

private timber harvest will continue at current rates and newly constructed roads are permanent

features on the landscape. Disturbance activities are assigned a 30-year linear recovery. The Mini

Aspen Enhancement Project is currently in the planning phase. The modified proposed action

lies within the Swain Meadows and Robbers Spring sub-watersheds. This modified proposed

action is included in the 5-year projection of ERAs listed in Table 9. According to this method,

the modified proposed action would not increase the current ERA over the threshold of concern

(TOC), which is 15 percent, for any of the subwatersheds.

Table 9: Equivalent Roaded Acres (ERA%) by effected watershed before Modified Proposed Action,

immediately after Modified Proposed Action, and 5-years after Modified Proposed Action.

Watershed

Pre-Project

Watershed (ERA %)

Post-Project

Watershed (ERA%)

5-Yr Post-Project

Watershed (ERA%)

Jennie Creek 5.9 6.4 6.0

Swain Meadows 6.3 7.1 7.0

The Hole 1.7 4.6 4.0

Robbers Spring 4.0 4.1 3.9

Soils: The highest risk of cumulative effects will occur on site to soil productivity by compaction.

It is believed that existing contractual measures are in place to adequately mitigate the potential

effects, but monitoring of these activities is necessary to validate effectiveness of the controls in

achieving soil quality standards.


41

Water Quality: As with indirect effects, the greatest potential for cumulative effects would be

from increased delivery of sediment from project activities in addition to sediment from past,

ongoing, or future land disturbance activities. Sediment delivery could adversely impact

beneficial uses in or downstream of the project area, mainly water quality. Our assessment is that

the risk of adverse cumulative effects from sediment to water quality is low. This assessment is

based on the low risk of sediment delivery from project activities, the relatively low amount of

overall disturbance in the project watersheds, and the decommissioning of 1.26-miles of

unclassified road.

Aquatic species: Threatened or Endangered, or Forest Service Sensitive Species

As there would be no direct or indirect effects to Threatened or Endangered Species associated

with Alternative 1 activities, there would be no cumulative effects.

Cascades frog: This project poses a low risk of cumulative sediment increases within Robbers

Creek located downstream of the project area where potentially suitable habitat for Cascades

frogs occurs. The project was designed to minimize potential adverse effects to Robbers Creek, in

recognition of the sensitivity of downstream habitat, through implementation of IDFs and BMPs

in the project area. Furthermore, the decommissioning of 1.26-miles of road leading to Robbers

Creek should result in a reduction of road related sediment that has the potential of entering the

channel. Other projects being planned in the vicinity (Mini Aspen) may pose a risk of increased

sediment to potentially suitable Cascades frog habitat.

Aquatic species: Aquatic Management Indicator Species

The risk of cumulative effects to benthic macro-invertebrate habitat relative to changes in channel

sediment resulting from past, present, and future management activities in the project

subwatersheds is considered low.


Direct Effects


There are no Threatened or Endangered, or Forest Service Sensitive aquatic species in the project

area. Under Alternative 2, no actions are proposed. Accordingly, there would be no direct effects

associated with Alternative 2.

Aquatic Species: Management Indicator Species

Because there are no actions associated with this alternative, there would be no direct effects to

aquatic management indicator species habitat.

Soils: Under the “No Action” alternative there would be no direct effects to soil resources as

vegetation management activities by means of mechanical equipment would not occur.


42

Indirect Effects

Because vegetation management and road improvement would not occur under this alternative,

the existing trend conditions in relation to sediment, hydrology, water temperature, and riparian

vegetation would not change. As a result, seasonal channels and ephemeral springs in the project

would continue to function under current conditions. Riparian dependant hardwood species (e.g.

aspen, willow, and alder) that are located within the 30-acre aspen enhancement unit identified in

the Modified Proposed Action would continue to be impacted by encroaching conifer species

resulting in potential decreased available soil moisture and direct sunlight. Furthermore, the

Robbers Creek crossing would remain open to motorized travel, maintaining potential erosion

and sedimentation to aquatic resources.

Under this alternative, the risk of stand-replacing high-severity wildfires may increase over time

within the SMEF and the LNF. As a result, the risk for increased sedimentation and nutrient

impacts on aquatic systems within and downstream of the project area would increase.


There are no habitats for aquatic Threatened or Endangered, or Forest Service Sensitive species in

the project area. Accordingly, there would be no indirect effects associated with Alternative 2 as

no actions would occur.

Potential habitat for Cascades frogs (Sensitive species) is located downstream of the project area

within Robbers Creek. Because the Robbers Creek crossing would remain open under this

alternative, the current level of road related sediment would continue to enter Robbers Creek,

potentially resulting in impacts to downstream potentially suitable habitat for Cascades frogs.

Aquatic Species: Management Indicator Species

Because there are no actions associated with this alternative, there would be no direct effects to

aquatic management indicator species habitat.

Cumulative Effects

Project-affected subwatersheds and downstream resources would continue along the same trends

under current management. The risk of road-related sediment transport from the project area may

impact downstream aquatic habitat. Furthermore, continued access to the Robbers Creek crossing

would allow current sediment delivery trends to continue. Additionally, under the no action

alternative, there is a high risk that the remaining aspen stands within the SMEF would not persist

over the long-term due to conifer encroachment.


43


Direct Effects

Soils: Effects to soils would be similar to effects described in the soil effects of the modified

proposed action. This option would not result in significant or lasting changes to soil

characteristics. Soil productivity would be maintained as masticated organic matter would remain

on site. Use of mechanical mastication equipment would only be allowed when soils are

adequately dry, minimizing the risk of compaction.


There are no Threatened or Endangered, or Forest Service Sensitive Species aquatic species in the

project area. Accordingly, there would be no direct effects to Threatened or endangered species

associated with Alternative 3. Marginal potentially suitable Cascades frog (Forest Sensitive

Species) habitat is located downstream of the project area, though no activities would occur

within or disturb this habitat. Accordingly, there would be no direct effects to potentially suitable

Cascades frog habitat.

Aquatic Species: Aquatic Management Indicator Species:


present within the four project affected subwatersheds. None of these 18 miles of habitat is

located within or in close proximity to Alternative 3 treatment areas. Alternative 3 activities

would not enter or disturb riverine and lacustrine habitats that are located downstream of the

project area. Accordingly, there would be no direct effects associated with Alternative 3.

Indirect Effects

Sediment: Effects to sedimentation from project activities are similar to those discussed in the

effects to sediment in the modified proposed action, including site-specific IDFs, implementation

of BMPs, and inherent soil properties. Alternative 3, the noncommercial funding fuels reduction

option has a low potential for increases to existing sediment delivery trends to streams.

Hydrology: Effects to hydrology from project activities are similar to those discussed in the

effects to hydrology in the modified proposed action. The risk of a change in flows from the

noncommercial fuels reduction is low. Soil moisture may increase slightly at the treatment unit in

the short term, but the remaining vegetation would most likely use excess water created by the

fuels reduction.

Water Quality (Chemical): Effects to water quality from project activities are similar to those

discussed in the effects to water quality in the modified proposed action. The noncommercial

fuels reduction option would not result in measurable changes to chemical constituents of water

quality.


44


There are no suitable habitats for aquatic Threatened or Endangered species in the project area.

Accordingly, there would be no indirect effects associated with Alternative 3.

Marginal potentially suitable habitat for Cascades frogs (Forest Sensitive Species) is located

downstream of the project area within Robbers Creek. The alternative poses a low risk of

increased sediment to downstream Cascades frog habitat as a result of vegetation treatments

located within the Swain Meadows and Robbers Spring subwatersheds. Decommissioning 1.26-

miles of road that is partially located within the Robbers Creek RHCA should result in a decrease

in the potential sediment delivery to potentially suitable Cascades frog habitat compared to the

current conditions.

Aquatic Species: Aquatic Management Indicator Species (MIS):

A total of 18-miles of habitat for benthic macro-invertebrates (riverine & lacustrine habitats) is

present within the four project affected subwatersheds. None of these 18-miles is located within

or in close proximity to Alternative 3 treatment areas. The alternative poses a low risk of

increased sediment to downstream riverine and lacustrine habitats as a result of vegetation

treatments located in the project-affected subwatersheds.

Cumulative Effects

Indirect and direct effects of Alternative 3 are similar to the modified proposed action. Therefore,

Alternative 3 would result in similar cumulative effects to the modified proposed action.


As there would be no direct or indirect effects to Threatened or Endangered Species associated

with Alternative 3, there would be no cumulative effects.

Cascades frog: This project poses a low risk of cumulative sediment increases within Robbers

Creek located downstream of the project area where potentially suitable habitat for Cascades frog

occurs. The project was designed to minimize potential adverse effects to Robbers Creek, in

recognition of the sensitivity of downstream habitat, through implementation of IDFs and BMPs

in the project area. Furthermore, the decommissioning of 1.26-miles of road leading to Robbers

Creek should result in a reduction of road-related sediment that has the potential of entering the

channel. Other projects being planned in the vicinity (Mini Aspen) may pose a risk of increased

sediment to potentially suitable Cascades frog habitat.

Aquatic Species: Aquatic Management Indicator Species

The risk of cumulative effects to benthic macro-invertebrate habitat relative to changes in channel

sediment resulting from past, present, and future management activities in the project

subwatersheds is considered low.


45

Wildlife

Of the federally listed (threatened and endangered) and Forest Service sensitive terrestrial wildlife

species which have been considered in the analysis, there are four sensitive species that could be

directly or indirectly affected by the modified proposed actions. California Spotted Owl (Strix

occidentalis), Northern Goshawk (Accipter gentilis), American Marten (Martes americana), and

Sierra Nevada Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes necator) are Forest Service sensitive species known to be

present within or adjacent to the project or having suitable habitat as present within two miles of

the project area. There are no federally listed terrestrial species or their critical habitat known to

occur within the area of analysis.

The analysis considers the two action alternatives, the Modified Proposed Action (Alternative 1)

and the noncommercial alternative (Alternative 3), as well as the No Action alternative

(Alternative 2). Because it was determined that the effects of Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 to

the species being analyzed would be the same, the alternatives are considered together.

Alternative 1 (Modified Proposed Action) and Alternative 3 (Noncommercial Funding

Alternative)


California Spotted Owl (CSO): The project area is surveyed annually under the Lassen

Demography study. There have been no CSO nest sites recorded within any of the stands

considered for treatment since 1996. There are approximately 854-acres of suitable CSO habitat

that would be affected by project activities. There are six owl territories (defined by the 1,000-

acres surrounding the territory center) that fall partially or entirely within the analysis area. Three

of those territories could be affected by this alternative. Table 10 outlines the acres of suitable

habitat for each of the affected territories, the status of the territories, and acres of suitable habitat

potentially affected by the project.

Table 10: Habitat and status of California spotted owl territories in Swain Mountain EF Project

area.

Territory Name

Territory

Status

(1999-2009)

Suitable

Habitat (ac.)

Affected

Suitable

Habitat (ac.)

Difference of

Suitable

Habitat (%)

Post-Treatment

Swain Meadow Occupied 776 11 - 0.6

Jennie Creek Nest 660 16 0

Jennie Mountain Nest 840 0 0


46

Based on the survey history, the project’s potential effects would be limited to the potential for

disturbing individuals within the project area. The risk of disturbance to individuals is considered

low although the risk may increase when owls are dispersing in the late summer. The amount of

habitat lost or reduced in value would be considered minimal and would not affect the current

distribution of owls or the potential for owls to develop new territories. The treatments would

affect only 4% of the available suitable habitat within the analysis area and only approximately

73-acres of the proposed treatment falls within an owl territory. Aspen treatments would be

expected to result in the loss of approximately 20-acres of suitable owl habitat however most of

this is near 6,000-feet in elevation (the upper elevational level of suitability) and is outside of any

known owl territory.

The thinning within suitable habitat would initially reduce the canopy, lowering the value of the

habitat. The reduction of the large tree component would also eliminate potential nest trees. This

is expected to be a temporary impact as the remaining trees would likely respond with quicker

growth and there would be a reduced chance of mortality. The lack of use of these stands by the

California spotted owl indicates that treating these stands would have little impact to the long-

term success of the owl and that nesting opportunities for the owl within the analysis area are not

necessarily being compromised as the owls do not appear to be using the treatment units as nest

or roost stands.

The mastication project would not affect the value of the limited amount (approximately 46-acres

that might be marginally affected through road construction) of suitable habitat that exists within

the stands slated for this prescription that occurs on NFS lands.

Northern Goshawk: The effects analysis for goshawks is based primarily on habitat changes

within the Post Fledgling Area, or PFA (Table 11). The PFA is an area approximately 500-acres

surrounding the nest which young goshawk occupy immediately after fledging and where the

young learn to hunt. In contrast to the larger foraging areas, the PFA is staunchly defended

against intruders, including unsuspecting hikers and forest workers. Vegetative models for the

PFA have been developed as a means to assess the potential effects to goshawks. The desired

condition for a PFA is a mixture of different habitat types that sustain a broad range of goshawk

prey, reflective of a heterogeneous landscape. The PFA models describe optimum habitat as

having 60% of the PFA composed of mid- to late-seral habitat with the remainder in younger,

more open conditions or dense patches of young conifers.

Territory 22-1 is centered within thinning unit HiD1, with a nest site adjacent to a planned group

selection. With implementation of the IDFs, there would be no treatment within 125-feet of the

nest and a limited operating period would be implemented when the nest is occupied. Change in

the current overall habitat composition of the PFA is shown in Table 11.


47

Table 11: Comparison of current and post implementation to desired post fledging area conditions.

Territory 22-1 Territory 30-5

CWHR

Ideal

(%)

Current

(%)

Post

Treatment (%)

Current

(%)

Post

Treatment (%)

1 10 0 8 1 1

2 10 0 0 0 0

3 20 3 3 7 7

4, 5, and 6 60 82 74 91 91

Thinning would reduce the overall effectiveness of the habitat for nesting. CWHR value is

expected to remain the same, however dropping from CWHR canopy density D to M (>60% to

40.0-59.9% canopy closure, respectively). There is a moderate risk that the territory would be

abandoned due to both activity and change in habitat characteristics. However, other nest sites

within the Almanor Ranger District that have experienced similar treatments adjacent to the nest

have been abandoned, only to be reoccupied several years later.

Treatments within Territory 30-5 would result in little change as the treatments would occur

within shrub dominated plantations (CWHR 3).

American Marten: Surveys have been conducted in this area as part of a larger study to look at

the status of marten in the Almanor District and no marten have been detected within the units

proposed for treatment.

The project would reduce stands that contain high quality habitat to low to moderate quality over

approximately 515-acres (HiD1, HiD2, MeD, and LOGs). The effect would be variable. Thinning

within high quality habitat (approximately 395-acres) would retain suitable habitat aspects while

the group selections (approximately 120-acres) would limit habitat value due to a lack of

understory shrubs and down logs and snags used for cover needed for both foraging and for

thermal regulation. Because of the open nature of group selection units, marten would likely

avoid entering these areas although the edge might provide quality foraging habitat. Marten could

continue to be able to move through the landscape as the area covered by groups is small relative

to the landscape.

Marten are frequently found foraging in lodgepole and riparian habitat such as that proposed for

aspen restoration. Initial treatments would reduce suitability with the loss of cover and likely

reduction in the amount of the prey base. This would be of short duration as monitoring has

shown that aspen stands quickly respond with increased densities. Monitoring has also shown an

increase in wildlife biodiversity within a few years, indicating forage opportunities would

increase.


48

Connectivity between areas of high quality (potential reproductive) habitat is essential for the

long-term genetic health of any species including marten. The implementation of this project,

while increasing the risk of predation through reduced cover, would not preclude marten travel to

areas of high quality habitat.

There are approximately 1,125-acres of additional treatments within habitat generally considered

unsuitable. However these stands are dominated by shrubs in the understory and provide

sufficient cover for foraging. The value of these stands as sources of forage would be temporarily

reduced (3- 5-years), until the shrubs resprout and provide sufficient cover. Prey abundance is

likely to increase, at least temporarily, due to improved vegetation (forage) conditions.

Sierra Nevada Red Fox: The modified proposed actions are unlikely to have a measurable effect

on red fox. Disturbance to individuals is unlikely to be a factor as red fox would generally inhabit

the area outside of the seasons in which the project would be implemented (summer and fall). The

proposed treatments are all likely to positively influence common prey species which would

enhance habitat value. The implementation of group selections may reduce the use of these areas

but would not preclude fox from the stands containing openings such as group selections.

Cumulative Effects

California Spotted Owl: There are no additional experiments or further activities currently being

planned within SMEF. Vegetation treatments within SMEF are generally not similar to those on

national forest lands as the management objectives and consequently management direction,

differ. In this case, group selections are generally larger and cover a greater percentage of the

local landscape than are typical in National Forest System lands. The thinning is comparable to

some of the more conservative DFPZ treatments (in terms of retaining habitat elements) within

CWHR size class 4 stands. Therefore, the loss of habitat could be considered cumulative although

treatments comprise a very small percentage of the overall suitable habitat within the area of

analysis. The project would not contribute to further loss of habitat on NFS lands and therefore

would not result in predictable or measurable cumulative effects.

Northern Goshawk: This project is unlikely to produce any long-term cumulative effects. The

activities within the SMEF were designed to implement specific experiments in keeping with the

purpose of the experimental forest. Those activities that would occur in National Forest System

lands would not affect the habitat value for goshawks and therefore provide no measurable

cumulative effect. The models suggest that changes in habitat are not expected to result in long-

term habitat loss; hence the cumulative impact to habitat for goshawk occurring on NFS lands

would be short-term.

American Marten: Though there are allowances for the retention of down logs and snags which

can serve as rest sites, overall, the project would act cumulatively as a temporary decline in the

amount of habitat on the landscape.


49

Sierra Nevada Red Fox: Because there are no quantifiable direct or indirect effects to Sierra

Nevada Red Fox, there are no known cumulative effects.



California Spotted Owl: Because there are no actions associated with this alternative, there are no

immediate direct effects to the owl or its habitat. Over time, there are expected changes to habitat

within the analysis area which may have limited long-term effects. Trees, particularly the larger,

older trees, within the majority of stands that currently provide quality habitat elements are

infected with a multitude of diseases which could eventually lead to premature mortality. Since

the rate of mortality cannot be predicted, it is unknown whether the younger trees would have

sufficient time to replace the pending mortality with suitable nesting structure and canopy

densities.

Stands located on National Forest System Lands are primarily young plantations that lack a large

tree component and the canopy densities generally associated with suitable habitat. These stands

are on a trajectory to provide suitable habitat five or more decades in the future based on growth

rates common for this area. This alternative would have little effect on the amount of future

habitat on National Forest System Lands within the next several decades.

Northern Goshawk:

There are two goshawk territories within or overlapping stands within the proposed project units.

Table 12 compared the current habitat conditions within the two territorial PFAs to those desired

according to the model. As with many PFAs within the broader landscape, the vegetation exceeds

the desired amount of mid- and late-seral habitat and lacks the early-seral conditions that are

considered ideal according to the model.

Table 12: Northern goshawk post fledging area ideal and current conditions.

CWHR Ideal (%) Territory 22-1 (%) Territory 30-5 (%)

1 10 0 1

2 10 0 0

3 20 3 7

4, 5, 6 60 82 91

There would be no change to the strata type; however, the value of foraging habitat would decline

as stands become denser, especially in the understory. Goshawks typically nest in dense mid-seral

stands (CWHR size class 4) that are adjacent to openings such as meadows. Nest habitat would

likely increase over time as stand densities increase. This alternative would continue to see long-

term declines in openings and early-seral stages within the analysis area as shrubs and trees

(natural and planted) increase on the landscape.


50

American Marten: The alternative would retain existing quality marten habitat on the landscape.

Portions of the project area identified as LoD meet the overall strata definition (red and white fir

CWHR 4M and 4D) but lack structural components necessary to support marten. These stands are

devoid of large logs that are important rest and den sites as well as habitats needed to escape

winter cold. These stands are highly diseased and likely would not attain the later-seral elements

preferred by marten within the next several decades.

In other late-seral stands, disease is above what is considered normal and mortality is likely to

increase over time, reducing the canopy provided by large trees. This would likely be

compensated by an increasing understory of small trees and shrubs. The large trees would provide

a continuous supply of large logs over time, further enhancing habitat value.

Prey species populations are likely to remain the same over time. There may be some decline in

species that prefer or require shrubs and young trees. It is unlikely that prey abundance (i.e. voles,

mice, and gophers) would increase beyond what is the normal population cycle as habitat for

most species is unlikely to change.

Sierra Nevada Red Fox: The project area serves primarily as a winter foraging site therefore

thermal cover and prey abundance are the paramount concerns. This alternative would result in

the retention and long-term increase in structural attributes needed to escape winter storms and to

escape the cold. Prey abundance would likely remain stable or decline over time as stands

increase in density and lose the understory preferred or required by common red fox prey (rabbits,

hare, Douglas squirrel, and gophers).

Cumulative Effects

California Spotted Owl: Since this alternative does not affect any known active territories, there

are no predictable cumulative effects to the California spotted owl. Habitat trends within the

project area are similar to those elsewhere, increasing stand densities and increasing mortality

within the large tree component.

Northern Goshawk: Fire suppression, management strategies that favor dense forests, conifer

encroachment into meadows and riparian areas, and a reduction in management-created openings

have all contributed to a more homogenous landscape. Alternative 2 would continue in that vein,

trending toward less diversity on federal lands within the National Forest. Locally, there are no

other known projects that would cumulatively act with this alternative. Research does not

anticipate any further actions within the foreseeable (20-years) future that would further

contribute to a reduction in habitat diversity.

American Marten: This alternative continues the trend for most late-seral habitat on the Forest.

Most of the high quality habitat is in land allocations that either limit or prohibit activities that

could change habitat characteristics for marten. Within these areas, most notably wilderness,

spotted owl and goshawk protected activity centers, and anadromous watersheds stand densities


51

have increased dramatically compared to conditions prior to fire exclusion. These stands would

add to the cumulative change of mid- to late-seral habitat towards an increase density, higher

levels of down snags and down wood. Long-term habitat would decline as mortality would likely

outpace the ability of the stand to provide replacement trees.

Sierra Nevada Red Fox: Because red fox are habitat generalists and the habitat remains

unchanged, no cumulative effects can be accurately described.

MIS

The MIS report completed for this project determined that the alternatives had the potential to

affect Early and Mid-Seral coniferous habitat (Mountain Quail), Late Seral coniferous habitat

(California Spotted Owl, American Marten, and Northern Flying Squirrel), and Snags in Green

Forest (Hairy Woodpecker). Habitat for the late seral MIS species and the hairy woodpecker

within the project occurs only with SMEF and therefore the project would not affect these

habitats on NFS lands. The activities would have a very minor affect on the amount of mid-seral

habiatat available for mountain quail due to approximately .15 miles of road construction,

although the habitat value of the treated area on NFS lands may decline under each of the action

alternatives.

The MIS analysis determined that the project would have a temporary and limited effect on

existing habitat. None of the alternatives would affect habitat trends for any MIS habitat within

the Sierra Nevada bioregion.

Significance Factors

1. Beneficial and adverse impacts.

Both beneficial and adverse effects have been taken into consideration when making the

determination of significance. Beneficial effects have not been used to offset or compensate for

potential significant adverse effects.

Beneficial impacts include implementation of experiments designed to provide information

toward future impacts to the human environment. Administrative studies would examine the most

ecologically sound treatments (currently within Region 5 policy) to insure the development of a

forested stand structure and a healthier ecosystem. Beneficial impacts include thinning plantations

to stocking levels that address site carrying capacity, promote the growth and health of residual

trees, and alter potential fire behavior to protect current and historic long-term study units from

potential fire risk.

There are no known adverse impacts to wildlife, plants, and aquatic species. In the short-term,

there may be negative impacts to wildlife individuals and habitat through the loss of specific

habitat attributes. IDFs and LOPs will be used to lessen any potential short-term negative effects

to species.


52

2. The degree to which the modified proposed action affects public health or safety.

Public health and safety would not be adversely affected by this project. Standard timber sale and

service contract provisions would include signing during operations for public safety.

Prescribed and pile burning is planned through the modified proposed action and short duration

production of smoke and associated emissions would occur. Smoke management plans would

require approval from the Lassen County Air Quality Management District (LCAQMD).

Particulate matter emissions would not violate California Ambient Air Quality (CAAQ) emission

standards for the analysis area.

3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area.

The Swain Mountain Experimental Forest is an area designated for study and experimentation.

This does not preclude human use of the area for recreation. Though no specifically designated

recreation trails are used during the summer months, recreationists may access the Echo Lake

campground, Silver Lake recreation residences, campgrounds, day use areas, and two trailhead

access points to the Caribou Wilderness by roads connecting through SMEF. The area is used

extensively by snowmobile and cross-country ski enthusiasts during the winter season. There are

IDFs and LOPs in place to accommodate this recreation use and access.

The geographic area is not uniquely sensitive to the effects of the proposed treatments. Wetlands

or ecologically critical areas would not be affected by the modified proposed action because these

areas would be buffered and avoided. One element of the modified proposed action would

enhance an existing riparian area through an aspen enhancement treatment and prohibiting further

impacts from OHV use. RHCAs would be treated for the purpose of reducing fuels, but

treatments within the RHCAs would be limited and would follow IDFs and BMPs designed to

protect these areas throughout implementation.

4. The degree to which the effects on the human environment are likely to be highly

controversial.

Implementation of the modified proposed action is not likely to result in effects that are highly

controversial. The project proposes to implement research studies designed to contribute to

knowledge of effective and ecologically appropriate methods toward forest health and fuels

management in similar forested landscapes. Fuels reduction treatment would protect past and

future research efforts and investment, increase the assurance of a forested structure for future

generations, and contribute to fire fighter safety in the event of wildland fire. There is an aspen

enhancement component to promote the continuance of aspen on the landscape for vegetative

diversity and in support of wildlife habitat. Based upon comments received through scoping, the


53

effects of the proposed treatments on the human environment are not likely to generate substantial

controversy.

5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or

involve unique or unknown risks.

The project will implement basic forest vegetation management practices. It does not implement

any treatments with highly uncertain effects or unique or unknown risks, though it introduces

design elements and monitoring components to meet specific research goals.

6. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant

effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration.

This action does not set a precedent for any future actions. Future actions would need to be site-

specific and consider all relevant scientific information analyzed under a separate, specific NEPA

document.

7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively

significant impacts.

Foreseeable future and past actions considered under this section include livestock grazing, past

and future timber sales, DFPZ projects, dispersed recreation, and adjacent private land actions.

Future actions could include DFPZ maintenance and timber harvest on both public and private

lands.

Certain habitat attributes exist in proposed treatment units that may be utilized by California

Spotted Owl, Northern goshawk, American marten, and Sierra Nevada red fox. These attributes

would be negatively impacted in the short-term, but this project will not combine with any other

past, present, or foreseeable projects to result in any negative cumulative effects to spotted owl,

goshawk, marten, or red fox or their habitats. While the project may affect individuals, it is not

likely to cause a trend toward federal listing for these species.

8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or

objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, or may

cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources.

The area has been surveyed for historic and prehistoric resources. Inasmuch as there are no

historic properties identified within the project APE, no effects to cultural resources are

anticipated. If additional sites are discovered during project activities, all work in that area will

stop until a qualified archeologist assesses the situation.

9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or

its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

The following reports discuss the effects of the project, are located in the project record, and are

hereby incorporated by reference: 1) Biological Evaluation/Assessment for Forest Service


54

Sensitive and Federally Listed Plant Species, Swain Mountain Experimental Forest Fuels

Reduction and Forest Regeneration Project, 2) Biological Evaluation/Assessment for Federally

Listed and Forest Service Sensitive Aquatic Species for Swain Mountain Experimental Forest

Fuels Reduction and Forest Regeneration Project, 3) Biological Evaluation/Biological

Assessment Terrestrial Species, and 4) Swain Mountain Experimental Forest Fuels Reduction and

Forest Regeneration Project, Terrestrial Wildlife Report. There are no federally listed species or

their critical habitat known to occur within the area of analysis.

10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or other requirements

imposed for the protection of the environment.

The modified proposed action will not violate Federal, State, and local laws or requirements for

the protection of the environment. Applicable laws and regulations were considered, including:

The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA);

The Plan for Operation of the Swain Mountain Experimental Forest (2007). The Plan for

Operation of the Swain Mountain Experimental Forest guides management of the lands delegated

for administration to a scientist with Research Work Unit 4155, Ecology and Management of

Western Forests Influenced by Mediterranean Climate and identified as Experimental Forest

Manager by the Pacific Southwest Research Station Director.

The 1992 Lassen National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP); the 1993

Record of Decision (ROD) as amended by the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest

Recovery Act (HFQLG) FEIS, FSEIS, and RODs (1999, 2003); the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan

Amendment (SNFOA) FSEIS and ROD (2004); and, the Sierra Nevada Forests Management

Indicator Species (SNF MIS) Amendment (2007) guide management of the approximately 440-

acres of plantation adjacent to SMEF and proposed for treatment.

In addition, the SMEF project complies with the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act, the

Clean Water Act, and other federal, state, and local laws or requirements imposed for the

protection of the environment.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

Tribal consultation for the project was initiated in March, 2009, and the proposed project was

included in the Lassen National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) in April, 2009, and

each subsequent quarterly listing. Scoping was initiated with the mailing of 35 letters to

respondents to the SOPA and interested and potentially affected parties. Public notice appeared in

the Chester Progressive on April 1, 2009.

A total of four letters and one email were received in response to the public news release and

scoping letters, all in support of the proposed actions at SMEF.


55

References

Aho, P.E., G. Fiddler, and G.M. Filip. 1983. How to reduce injuries to residual trees during stand

management activities. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-156, Pacific Northwest Forest

and Range Exp. Stn., Portland, Oregon. 17p.

Collins, S. and M. Nechodom. 2009. Forest resources under unprecedented pressure. Ca. For. vol.

13, no.2 pp. 8-9. http://foresthealth.org/

Gordon, D.T. 1970. Natural regeneration of white and red fir…influence of several factors.

USDA Forest Serv. Res. Paper PSW-58, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Exp. Stn., Berkeley,

Calif. 32 p.

Gordon, D.T. 1973. Damage from wind and other causes in mixed white fir-red fir stands

adjacent to clearcuttings. USDA Forest Serv. Res. Paper PSW-90, Pacific Southwest Forest and

Range Exp. Stn., Berkeley, Calif. 22 p.

Gordon, D.T. 1973. Released advance reproduction of white and red fir…growth, damage,

mortality. USDA Forest Serv. Res. Paper PSW-95, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Exp.

Stn., Berkeley, Calif. 12 p.

Gordon, D.T. 1979. Successful natural regeneration cuttings in California true firs. USDA Forest

Serv. Res. Paper PSW-140, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Exp. Stn., Berkeley, Calif. 14 p.

Harrod, R.J., P.L. Ohlson, L.B. Flatten, D.W. Peterson, and R.D. Ottmar. 2009. A user’s guide to

thinning with masticated equipment. USDA Forest Serv. Okanon-Wenatchee National Forest,

Wenatchee, WA.

http://www.firescience.gov/Science_You_Can_Use/Users-Guide-1-6-09-Harrod.pdf

Oliver, W.W. 1985. Growth of California red fir advanced regeneration after overstory removal

and thinning. USDA Forest Serv. Res. Paper PSW-180, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Exp.

Stn., Berkeley, Calif. 6 p.

Oliver, W.W. 2005. The west-side ponderosa pine levels-of-growing-stock study at age 40.

USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-198. Pacific Southwest Research Stn., Redding,

Calif. 10 p.

Shepperd, W.D., P.C. Rogers, D. Burton, and D.L. Bartos. 2006. Ecology, biodiversity,

management, and restoration of aspen in the Sierra Nevada. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep.

RMRS-GTR-178. Rock Mountain Research Stn., Fort Collins, Co. 122p.

Shirley, D.M. and V. Erickson. 2001. Aspen restoration in the Blue Mountain of northeastern

Oregon. USDA Forest Serv. Proc. RMRS-P-18. Rock Mountain Research Stn., Fort Collins, Co.

pp. 101-116.

Taylor, A.H. and C.B. Halpern. 1991. The structure and dynamics of Abies magnifica forests in

the southern Cascade Range, USA. J. Veg. Sci. vol. 2, pp. 189-200.


56

Taylor, A.H. 1993. Fire history and structure of red fir (abies magnifica) forests, Swain Mountain

Experimental Forest, Cascade Range, northeastern California. Canadian J. For. Res. vol.23, pp.

1672-1678.

Wensel, L.C. and C.M. Olson. 1995. Tree volume equations for major California conifers.

Hilgardia vol.62, pp. 1-11.

Zhang, J., W.W. Oliver, and M.W. Ritchie. 2007. Effect of stand density on stand dynamics in

white fir (Abies concolor) forests in northeastern California, USA. Forest Ecol. Manag. vol. 244,

pp. 50-59.

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.

Documents

USDA Forest Service - a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/... · The first research objective is designed to evaluate the effects