a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...Plumas National Forest...

Chip-munk Recovery and Restoration Project

Management Indicator Species Report Plumas National Forest Mt. Hough Ranger District

Prepared by: Date:

Matthew Johnson Wildlife, Fish and Rare Plants Program Manager Plumas National Forest – Supervisor’s Office

Date:

Kristina Van Stone Hopkins Forest Fisheries Biologist Plumas National Forest – Supervisor’s Office

Plumas National Forest Chip-munk Recovery and Restoration Project Mt. Hough Ranger District Management Indicator Species Report

2

Table of Contents Management Indicator Species Report .................................................................................................... 4

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 4 Direction Regarding the Analysis of Project-Level Effects on MIS Habitat ...................................... 4 Direction Regarding Monitoring of MIS Population and Habitat Trends at the Bioregional Scale ... 5

Selection of Project level MIS ............................................................................................................... 6 Monitoring Requirements for MIS Selected for Project-Level Analysis ................................................ 8

MIS Monitoring Requirements ......................................................................................................... 8 How MIS Monitoring Requirements are Being Met .......................................................................... 9

Description of Alternatives .................................................................................................................... 9 Comparison of the Alternatives ............................................................................................................ 9 Effects Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................................ 10

Geographic Analysis Areas ............................................................................................................ 10 Specific Assumptions ..................................................................................................................... 10 Specific Methodology ..................................................................................................................... 11

Data Sources ...................................................................................................................................... 11 Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences ........................................................................ 11

General Affected Environment ....................................................................................................... 11 General Environmental Consequences ......................................................................................... 12

Effects of the Proposed Project on the Habitat for the Selected Project-Level MIS .......................... 16 Early and Mid-Seral Coniferous Forest Habitat (Mountain Quail) ................................................. 17 Late Seral Closed Canopy Coniferous Forest Habitat (California spotted owl and Northern flying squirrel) .......................................................................................................................................... 24 Stream Condition ........................................................................................................................... 29 Shrubland (West-Slope Chaparral) Habitat (Fox Sparrow) ........................................................... 37 Snags in Burned Forest Ecosystem Component (Black-backed Woodpecker) ............................ 41 Snags in Green Forest Ecosystem Component (Hairy woodpecker) ............................................ 50

Literature Cited ................................................................................................................................... 54 APPENDIX A ...................................................................................................................................... 59

Wildlife Habitat Relationship Strata ................................................................................................ 59 Wildlife Habitat Relationship Codes ............................................................................................... 59

APPENDIX B ...................................................................................................................................... 60


3

List of Tables and Figures Table 1. Selection of MIS for Project-Level Habitat Analysis for the Chip-munk Project.............................. 7 Figure 1. Chips Fire boundary, Chip-munk Project treatment units, and aquatic and terrestrial analysis

area used to evaluate and disclose the impacts of the Chip-munk Project. .................................. 10 Table 2. Pre- and post-fire California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) types in four basal area

mortality categories within the Chips Fire boundary (67,617 acres; all acres are approximate and National Forest System lands only). .............................................................................................. 12

Table 3. Pre- and post-fire California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) types in four basal area mortality categories within the Chip-munk Project analysis area (41,414 acres; all acres are approximate and National Forest System lands only). .................................................................. 13

Table 4. Summary of California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) types within Chip-munk Project treatment units (5,464 acres; all acres are approximate and National Forest System lands only). ....................................................................................................................................................... 14

Table 5. Summary of pre- and post-treatment MIS habitat in the Chip-munk Project analysis area (measured in acres). ...................................................................................................................... 14

Table 6. Summary of Early and Mid Seral acres within the analysis area and Chip-munk Project treatment units (all acres are approximate and National Forest System lands only). ................... 19

Table 7. Summary of Late Seral Open Canopy Forest acres within the analysis area and Chip-munk Project treatment units (all acres are approximate and National Forest System lands only). ....... 21

Table 8. Summary of Late Seral Closed Canopy Forest acres within the analysis area and Chip-munk Project treatment units (all acres are approximate and National Forest System lands only). ....... 25

Table 12. Summary of Shrubland (west-slope chaparral types) habitat in the analysis area and Chip-munk Project treatment units (all acres are approximate and National Forest System lands only). ....................................................................................................................................................... 38

Table 13. Summary of Snags in Burned Forest Habitat within the Chips Fire boundary and four basal area mortality categories (all acres are approximate and National Forest System lands only). .... 43

43 Table 14. Summary of Snags in Burned Forest Habitat within the analysis area and four basal

area mortality categories (all acres are approximate and National Forest System lands only). ............................................................................................................................................. 44

Table 15. Summary of Snags in Burned Forest Habitat within Chip-munk Project treatment units and four basal area mortality categories (all acres are approximate and National Forest System lands only)................................................................................................................................................ 45

Table 16. Summary of snags in burned forest habitat within Chip-munk Project equipment exclusion and full suspension zones (see Appendix B for zone details). ............................................................. 46

Table 17. Summary of Green Forest acres potentially supporting medium and large snags within the analysis area and Chip-munk Project treatment units (all acres are approximate and National Forest System lands only). ............................................................................................................ 52

Table A - 1. California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) Strata Definitions ........................................ 59 Table A - 2. California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) Vegetation Codes ....................................... 59 Table B.1. Chip-munk Project Riparian Conservation Area (RCA), equipment exclusion zone and

burn pile restriction widths (fullbank width, measured horizontal from both sides of stream channel) in RCAs for ground-based mechanical equipment operations under roadside hazard actions. ............................................................................................................................. 60

List of Figures Figure 1. Peak Fire Salvage and Reforestation Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area (dash line, includes the

project area (solid line)), Project Area (solid line) and Treatment Area (solid color). .................... 14


4

Management Indicator Species Report

Introduction The purpose of this report is to evaluate and disclose the impacts of the Chip-munk Recovery and Restoration Project (hereafter Chip-munk Project) on the 11 Management Indicator Species (MIS) identified in the Plumas National Forest (NF) Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) (USDA Forest Service 1988) as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species Amendment (SNF MIS Amendment) Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 2007). This report documents the effects of the Proposed Action and No-action Alternative on the habitat of selected project-level MIS. Detailed descriptions of the Chip-munk Project Alternatives are found in the Chip-munk Recovery and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment (USDA Forest Service 2013). Implementation could begin as early as summer, 2013. All activities proposed would be completed within approximately three to five years.

MIS are animal species are identified in the SNF MIS Amendment Record of Decision (ROD) signed December 14, 2007, which was developed under the 1982 National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning Rule (1982 Planning Rule) (36 CFR 219). Guidance regarding MIS set forth in the 1988 Plumas LRMP as amended by the 2007 SNF MIS Amendment ROD directs Forest Service resource managers to (1) at project scale, analyze the effects of proposed projects on the habitat of each MIS affected by such projects, and (2) at the bioregional scale, monitor populations and/or habitat trends of MIS, as identified in the 1988 LRMP as amended.

Direction Regarding the Analysis of Project-Level Effects on MIS Habitat Project-level effects on MIS habitat are analyzed and disclosed as part of environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This involves examining the impacts of the Proposed Project Alternatives on MIS habitat by discussing how direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will change the habitat in the aquatic and analysis areas.

These project-level impacts to habitat are then related to broader scale (bioregional) population and/or habitat trends. The appropriate approach for relating project-level impacts to broader scale trends depends on the type of monitoring identified for MIS in the LRMP as amended by the SNF MIS Amendment ROD. Hence, where the Plumas NF LRMP as amended by the SNF MIS Amendment ROD identifies distribution population monitoring for an MIS, the project-level effects analysis for that MIS is informed by available distribution population monitoring data, which are gathered at the bioregional scale. The bioregional scale monitoring identified in the 1988 Plumas NF LRMP, as amended, for MIS analyzed for the Chip-munk Project is summarized on the following pages.

Adequately analyzing project effects to MIS generally involves the following steps: • Identifying which habitat and associated MIS would be either directly or indirectly affected by

the Project Alternatives; these MIS are potentially affected by the project. • Summarizing the bioregional-level monitoring identified in the 1988 Plumas LRMP, as amended,

for this subset of MIS.


5

• Analyzing project-level effects on MIS habitat for this subset of MIS. • Discussing bioregional scale habitat and/or population trends for this subset of MIS. • Relating project-level impacts on MIS habitat to habitat and/or population trends at the

bioregional scale for this subset of MIS. These steps are described in detail in the Pacific Southwest Region’s draft document “MIS Analysis

and Documentation in Project-Level NEPA, R5 Environmental Coordination”(May 25, 2006) (USDA Forest Service 2006). This Management Indicator Species (MIS) Report documents application of the above steps to select project-level MIS and analyze project effects on MIS habitat for the Chip-munk Project.

Direction Regarding Monitoring of MIS Population and Habitat Trends at the Bioregional Scale The bioregional scale monitoring strategy for the Plumas NF’s MIS is found in the Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species Amendment (SNF MIS Amendment) Record of Decision (ROD) of 2007 (USDA Forest Service 2007). Bioregional scale habitat monitoring is identified for all 11 of the terrestrial MIS. In addition, bioregional scale population monitoring, in the form of distribution population monitoring, is identified for all of the terrestrial MIS except for the greater sage-grouse. For aquatic macroinvertebrates, the bioregional scale monitoring identified is Index of Biological Integrity and Habitat. The current bioregional status and trend of populations and/or habitat for each of the MIS is discussed in the 2010 Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional Management Indicator Species (SNF Bioregional MIS) Report (USDA Forest Service 2010).

Habitat Status and Trend All habitat monitoring data are collected and/or compiled at the bioregional scale, consistent with the LRMP as amended by the 2007 SNF MIS Amendment ROD (USDA Forest Service 2007).

Habitats are the vegetation types (e.g., early seral coniferous forest) or ecosystem components (e.g., snags in green forest) required by an MIS for breeding, cover, and/or feeding. MIS for the Sierra Nevada National Forests represent 10 major habitats and 2 ecosystem components (USDA Forest Service 2007), as listed in Table 1. These habitats are defined using the California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) System (CDFG 2005). The CWHR System provides the most widely used habitat relationship models for California’s terrestrial vertebrate species (Ibid). Strata and code definitions for CWHR habitat types are provided in Appendix A, and is described in detail in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010).

Habitat status is the current amount of habitat on the Sierra Nevada Forests. Habitat trend is the direction of change in the amount of habitat over time. The methodology for assessing habitat status and trend is described in detail in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010).


6

Population Status and Trend All population monitoring data are collected and/or compiled at the bioregional scale, consistent with the LRMP as amended by the 2007 SNF MIS Amendment ROD (USDA Forest Service 2007). The information is presented in detail in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010).

Population monitoring strategies for MIS of the Plumas NF are identified in the 2007 Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species (SNF MIS) Amendment ROD (USDA Forest Service 2007). Population status is the current condition of the MIS related to the population monitoring data required in the 2007 SNF MIS Amendment ROD for that MIS. Population trend is the direction of change in that population measure over time.

There are a myriad of approaches for monitoring populations of MIS, from simply detecting presence to detailed tracking of population structure (USDA Forest Service 2001, Appendix E, page E-19). A distribution population monitoring approach is identified for all of the terrestrial MIS in the 2007 SNF MIS Amendment, except for the greater sage-grouse (USDA Forest Service 2007). Distribution population monitoring consists of collecting presence/absence data for the MIS across a number of sample locations over time. Presence/absence data are collected using a number of direct and indirect methods, such as surveys (population surveys), bird point counts, tracking number of hunter kills, counts of species sign (such as deer pellets), and so forth. The specifics regarding how these presence data are analyzed to track changes in distribution over time vary by species and the type of presence data collected, as described in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010).

Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Status and Trend For aquatic macroinvertebrates, condition and trend is determined by analyzing macroinvertebrate data using the predictive, multivariate River Invertebrate Prediction and Classification System (RIVPACS) (Hawkins et.al. 2000, Hawkins 2003) to determine whether the macroinvertebrate community has been impaired relative to reference condition within perennial water bodies. This monitoring consists of collecting aquatic macroinvertebrates and measuring stream habitat features according to the Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) manual (Frasier et al. 2005). Evaluation of the condition of the biological community is based upon the “observed to expected” (O/E) ratio, which is a reflection of the number of species observed at a site versus the number expected to occur there in the absence of impairment. Sites with low O/E scores have lost many species predicted to occur there, which is an indication that the site has a lower than expected richness of sensitive species and is therefore impaired.

Selection of Project level MIS Management Indicator Species (MIS) for the Plumas NF are identified in the 2007 Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species (SNF MIS) Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2007). The habitats and ecosystem components and associated MIS analyzed for the project were selected from this list of MIS, as indicated in Table 1. In addition to identifying the habitat or ecosystem components (1st column), the CWHR type(s) defining each habitat/ecosystem component (2nd column), and the associated MIS (3rd


7

column), Table 1 discloses whether or not the habitat of the MIS is potentially affected by the Chip-munk Project (4th column).

Table 1. Selection of MIS for Project-Level Habitat Analysis for the Chip-munk Project.

Habitat or Ecosystem Component

CWHR Type(s) defining the habitat or ecosystem

component*

Sierra Nevada Forests

Management Indicator Species (Scientific Name)

Species Status**

Category for Project

Analysis ***

Early Seral Coniferous Forest

Douglas-fir (DFR), Eastside Pine (EPN), Jeffrey Pine (JPN), Lodgepole Pine (LPN), Ponderosa Pine (PPN), Red Fir (RFR), Sierran Mixed Conifer (SMC), Subalpine Conifer (SCN), White Fir (WFR), tree sizes 1, 2, & 3, all canopy closures

Mountain Quail (Oreortyx pictus) USFS : MIS 3

Mid Seral Coniferous Forest

Douglas-fir (DFR), Eastside Pine (EPN), Jeffrey Pine (JPN), Lodgepole Pine (LPN), Ponderosa Pine (PPN), Red Fir (RFR), Sierran Mixed Conifer (SMC), Subalpine Conifer (SCN), White Fir (WFR), tree size 4, all canopy closures

Mountain Quail (Oreortyx pictus) USFS : MIS 3

Late Seral Open Canopy Coniferous Forest

Douglas-fir (DFR), Eastside Pine (EPN), Jeffrey Pine (JPN), Lodgepole Pine (LPN), Ponderosa Pine (PPN), Red Fir (RFR), Sierran Mixed Conifer (SMC), Subalpine Conifer (SCN), White Fir (WFR), tree size 5, canopy closures S and P

Sooty Grouse (Dendragapus obscurus) USFS : MIS 3

Late Seral Closed Canopy Coniferous Forest

Douglas-fir (DFR), Eastside Pine (EPN), Jeffrey Pine (JPN), Lodgepole Pine (LPN), Ponderosa Pine (PPN), Red Fir (RFR), Sierran Mixed Conifer (SMC), Subalpine Conifer (SCN), White Fir (WFR), tree size 5 (canopy closures M and D), and tree size 6.

California Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis)

USFS : S, USFS : MIS, DFG : SSC,

USFWS : BCC 3

Northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) USFS : MIS

Oak-associated Hardwood & Hardwood/conifer

Montane Hardwood (MHW), Montane Hardwood-Conifer (MHC)

Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) USFS : MIS 2

Riparian Montane Riparian (MRI), Valley Foothill Riparian (VRI)

Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia)

USFS : MIS, DFG : SSC 2


8


CWHR Type(s) defining the habitat or ecosystem

component*

Sierra Nevada Forests

Management Indicator Species (Scientific Name)

Species Status**

Category for Project

Analysis ***

Riverine & Lacustrine Riverine (RIV), Lacustrine (LAC)

Aquatic macroinvertebrates USFS : MIS 3

Shrubland (west-slope chaparral types)

Montane Chaparral (MCP), Mixed Chaparral (MCH), Chamise-Redshank Chaparral (CRC)

Fox Sparrow (Passerella iliaca) USFS : MIS 3

Snags in Burned Forest Medium and large snags in burned forest (stand-replacing fire)

Black-backed Woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) USFS : MIS 3

Snags in Green Forest Medium and large snags in green forest

Hairy Woodpecker (Picoides villosus) USFS : MIS 3

Wet Meadow Wet Meadow (WTM), Freshwater Emergent Wetland (FEW)

Pacific chorus frog (Pseudacris regilla) USFS : MIS 2

*All CWHR size classes and canopy closures are included unless otherwise specified; dbh = diameter at breast height; 1 = Seedling Tree <1” dbh, 2 = Sapling Tree 1 - 6” dbh, 3 = Pole Tree 6 - 11” dbh, 4 = Small Tree 11 - 24"dbh, 5 = Medium/Large Tree >24"dbh, 6 = Multi-layered Tree. D = Dense Canopy Cover (> 60%), M = Moderate Canopy Cover (40 - 59%), P = Open Canopy Cover (25 – 39%), S = Sparse Canopy Cover (10 – 24%) (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988). **Species Status: FE = Federal Endangered, FT = Federal Threatened, FP = Federal Proposed, FC = Federal Candidate, USFS : S = U.S. Forest Service - Sensitive, USFS : MIS = U.S. Forest Service – Management Indicator Species, SE = State Endangered, ST = State Threatened, DFG : FP = State Fully Protected, DFG : SSC = State Species of Special Concern, USFWS : BCC = U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern, SOI = Species of Interest. *** Category 1: Species whose habitat is not in or adjacent to the wildlife analysis areas and would not be affected by the project. Category 2: Species whose habitat is in or adjacent to the wildlife analysis areas, but would not be either directly or indirectly affected by the project. Category 3: Species whose habitat would be either directly or indirectly affected by the project.

Mule deer, Yellow Warbler, and Pacific chorus frog are identified as Category 2 above, have habitat in the wildlife analysis areas but will not be further discussed because the habitat factors for these species would not be either directly or indirectly affected by the project.

The MIS whose habitat would be either directly or indirectly affected by the Chip-munk Project, identified as Category 3 in Table 1, are carried forward in this analysis. This MIS report will evaluate the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives on the habitat of the Category 3 MIS.

Monitoring Requirements for MIS Selected for Project-Level Analysis

MIS Monitoring Requirements The Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species (SNF MIS) Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2007) identifies bioregional scale habitat and/or population monitoring for the Management Indicator Species for ten National Forests including the PNF. The habitat and/or population monitoring requirements for PNF’s MIS are described in the 2010 Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional Management Indicator Species (SNF Bioregional MIS) Report (USDA Forest Service 2010) and are summarized below for the MIS being analyzed for the Chip-munk Project. The applicable habitat and/or population


9

monitoring results are also described in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010) and are summarized below for the MIS being analyzed for the Chip-munk Project.

Habitat monitoring at the bioregional scale is identified for all the habitats and ecosystem components, including the following analyzed for the Chip-munk Project: early seral coniferous forest, mid seral coniferous forest, late seral open canopy coniferous forest, late seral closed canopy coniferous forest, riverine and lacustrine, snags in green and burned forest.

Population monitoring at the bioregional scale for: Mountain Quail, Sooty Grouse, California Spotted Owl, northern flying squirrel, aquatic macroinvertebrates, Fox Sparrow, Black-backed Woodpecker, and Hairy Woodpecker.

Distribution population monitoring, which consists of collecting presence data for the MIS across a number of sample locations over time (USDA Forest Service 2001, Appendix E).

How MIS Monitoring Requirements are Being Met Habitat and/or distribution population monitoring for all MIS is conducted at the Sierra Nevada scale. Refer to the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010) for details by habitat and MIS.

Description of Alternatives The Chip-munk Project is located approximately 5 miles west of Greenville, California near Butt Valley Reservoir and the communities of Seneca and Caribou within the Mt. Hough Ranger District, Plumas National Forest, Plumas County, California. The project area is within Management Areas 20 and 26 as described in the PNF LRMP. Management direction for these areas is described in the PNF LRMP as amended by the 2004 SNFPA ROD.

Two alternatives are discussed in this MIS report: the Proposed Action (Alternative A), and the No-action Alternative (Alternative B). The Proposed Action proposes to remove roadside fire-killed and fire-injured hazard trees (1,788 acres), recover the economic value of fire-killed trees and re-establish forested conditions by planting native conifer seedlings (3675 acres). Detailed descriptions of the Chip-munk Recovery and Restoration Project are found in the Chip-munk Recovery and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment (USDA Forest Service 2013). Implementation could begin as early as summer 2013, and all activities proposed would be completed within approximately three to five years.

Comparison of the Alternatives Potential MIS habitat within the Chips Fire boundary, analysis area, and Chip-munk Project treatment units (Alternative A) are presented in Tables 2-4, respectively (see Appendix A for CWHR strata and code definitions). There are no activities associated with the No-action Alternative (Alternative B), so there would be no impacts to the existing habitat conditions.


10

Effects Analysis Methodology

Geographic Analysis Areas The analysis area is defined by the 15 subwatersheds surrounding the treatment area (Figure 1; 41,414 acres on NFS lands). The additional larger land base was delineated based on roads being used for project activities including a 150’ buffer on either side of the road and drafting sites (waterholes to draw water from). All potential direct, indirect and cumulative effects discussed, occur within the 41,414 acre analysis area. Potential direct, indirect and cumulative effects discussed in this report occur within the 41,414 acre analysis area. The direct and indirect effects of each alternative, together with the additive or cumulative effects of each alternative, have been considered in evaluating impacts to MIS and MIS habitat. This threshold of tolerance will be assessed through determination of whether or not the effects to the MIS and MIS habitat will alter the existing trends in habitat and/or populations across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.

Figure 1. Chips Fire boundary, Chip-munk Project treatment units, and aquatic and terrestrial analysis area used to evaluate and disclose the impacts of the Chip-munk Project.

Specific Assumptions The following assumptions apply specifically to the MIS analysis: Assumption 1: All standards and guidelines, standard operating procedures (SOPs), project specific design features and mitigations will be fully adhered to and implemented. Assumption 2: All activities proposed would be completed within approximately three to five years. Assumption 3: All hardwoods and wildlife inhabited trees (nest trees, roosts, etc.) would be retained unless they pose a safety hazard.


11

Assumption 4: Proposed activities have the potential to affect MIS species habitat either directly (modification or loss of habitat or habitat components) or indirectly (e.g., through changes to canopy cover, age class structure and species composition).

Specific Methodology The Chip-munk Project was reviewed on the ground and using aerial photographs, digital orthophoto quadrangles (DOQs), vegetation layer spatial datasets, species specific spatial datasets and known information to help determine the potential presence of MIS species. All observations of MIS species are documented and georeferenced while conducting surveys for other species and projects. Species nest sites and locations are then incorporated into forest-level spatial datasets. For the analysis of effects, changes to suitable habitat were determined by using a spatial dataset of the vegetation layer combined with treatment type (e.g., Roadside Hazard Tree). All vegetation information is displayed using the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) vegetation codes and serves as the baseline acres for analyses. Forest-wide vegetation typing is updated after fires and forest activities to most accurately represent available habitat types. Vegetation burn severity data, aerial photos, and satellite imagery were used to generate the post-fire CWHR vegetation map used for these analyses.

Data Sources ● GIS layers containing the following information: vegetation layer, ownership, aquatic features

(streams, springs and lakes, etc.), riparian/aquatic management areas (Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs), Critical Aquatic Refuges (CARs), and species management layers (e.g., Protected Activity Centers, PACs; Home Range Core Areas, HRCAs), Wild and Scenic and Wild Trout streams, fire severity, CWHR pre- and post-fire vegetation, slope, elevation, gradient, aquatic features.

● Project survey reports and incidental detection records. ● Scientific literature and internal reports. ● Equivalent Road Area (ERAs) as compared to Threshold of Concern (TOC) calculations analyzed

at the sub watershed scale.

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences

General Affected Environment Existing post-fire conditions of low, moderate and high severity were observed within the Chip-munk Project area. The high severity burned sites burnt at an intensity that resulted (or will result) in the sites becoming dominated by shrub species consistent with montane chaparral. Sites that burnt at lesser intensities either resulted in a decrease in canopy cover (e.g., moderate canopy closure to open canopy, CWHR category M to P) or no change to the existing CWHR types. Habitat within the Chips Fire perimeter, analysis area, and Chip-munk Project treatment units are presented in Tables 2-4, respectively (see Appendix A for CWHR strata and code definitions).


12

General Environmental Consequences Potential changes in MIS habitat or ecosystem components as a result of implementing silvicultural treatment by alternative are displayed for analysis area in Table 2 (see Appendix A for CWHR strata and code definitions).

Table 2. Pre- and post-fire California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) types in four basal area mortality categories within the Chips Fire boundary (67,617 acres; all acres are approximate and National Forest System lands only).

1 = Seedling Tree <1” dbh, 2 = Sapling Tree 1 - 6” dbh, 3 = Pole Tree 6 - 11” dbh, 4 = Small Tree 11 - 24"dbh, 5 = Medium/Large Tree >24"dbh, 6 = Multi-layered Tree. D = Dense Canopy Cover (> 60%), M = Moderate Canopy Cover (40 - 59%), P = Open Canopy Cover (25 – 39%), S = Sparse Canopy Cover (10 – 24%). AGS = Annual Grassland, ASP = Aspen, BAR = Barren, BBR = Bitterbrush, DFR = Douglas-Fir, EPN = Eastside Pine, JPN = Jeffrey Pine, LAC = Lacustrine, LPN = Lodgepole Pine, MCH = Mixed Chaparral, MCP = Montane Chaparral, MHC = Montane Hardwood-Conifer, MHW = Montane Hardwood, MRI = Montane Riparian, PGS = Perennial Grassland, PPN = Ponderosa Pine, RFR = Red Fir, SCN = Subalpine Conifer, SGB = Sagebrush, SMC = Sierra Mixed Conifer, URB = Urban, WFR = White Fir, WTM = Wet Meadow (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988).

CWHR type 0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pre-fire Post-

fireChange in acres

AGS 47 3 1 5 55 55 0ASP 3M, 3S 41 3 < 1 < 1 44 45 1ASP 4D, 4M, 4P 100 1 < 1 1 102 100 -1BAR 610 32 27 58 727 738 11JPN 1, 2M, 2S 46 16 18 38 118 80 -38JPN 3P, 3S, 4S 481 33 21 20 555 536 -18JPN 3M, 4P, 5P 121 1 < 1 < 1 123 121 -2LAC 5 < 1 < 1 < 1 5 5 0MCH 136 20 25 155 336 336 0MCP 2690 725 934 5943 10292 20,406 10114MHC 3D, 3M, 3P, 3S, 4S, 5S 153 21 18 78 270 869 599MHC 4P, 5P 239 59 56 315 669 495 -174MHC 4D, 4M 930 94 70 155 1250 930 -319MHC 5D, 5M 418 31 23 53 524 418 -106MHW 3P, 3S, 4P, 4S, 5P 54 9 6 9 78 206 128MHW 3D, 3M 257 17 16 76 366 257 -109MHW 4D, 4M, 5D 207 8 3 7 225 207 -18MRI 2D, 2M, 2P, 2S, 3D, 3P 86 4 3 12 105 105 0PPN 1, 2P, 2S, 3P, 3S 76 11 10 25 122 103 -19PPN 4P, 5P 148 30 36 127 341 148 -193PPN 4S, 5S 128 27 27 71 253 248 -4PPN 3M 10 1 4 10 26 10 -16PPN 4D, 4M 26 < 1 0 < 1 26 26 0RFR 3P, 3S, 4S 35 5 2 4 46 49 3RFR 4P 4 < 1 < 1 < 1 4 15 11RFR 4M 60 11 7 25 102 60 -42RIV 126 3 1 < 1 131 131 0SMC 1, 2P, 2S, 3P, 3S 1277 249 202 740 2468 1,882 -586SMC 2M, 4S, 5S 434 41 27 69 571 2,698 2128SMC 3D, 3M, 4P, 5P 4572 508 419 1620 7119 6,401 -718SMC 4D, 4M 10132 751 599 2208 13690 10,129 -3562SMC 5D, 5M 13052 1080 824 3649 18605 13,050 -5554WFR 2S, 3P, 3S, 4S, 5S 540 72 49 142 803 1,308 505WFR 3D, 3M, 4P, 5P 1438 192 162 379 2170 1,796 -374WFR 4D, 4M 2003 220 159 507 2889 2,002 -887WFR 5D, 5M 1614 139 135 484 2372 1,613 -758WTM 35 < 1 < 1 1 37 37 0TOTAL 42329 4420 3884 16984 67617 67617

Pre-fire CWHR acres in four basal area mortality categories Total acres


13

Table 3. Pre- and post-fire California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) types in four basal area mortality categories within the Chip-munk Project analysis area (41,414 acres; all acres are approximate and National Forest System lands only).

1 = Seedling Tree <1” dbh, 2 = Sapling Tree 1 - 6” dbh, 3 = Pole Tree 6 - 11” dbh, 4 = Small Tree 11 - 24"dbh, 5 = Medium/Large Tree >24"dbh, 6 = Multi-layered Tree. D = Dense Canopy Cover (> 60%), M = Moderate Canopy Cover (40 - 59%), P = Open Canopy Cover (25 – 39%), S = Sparse Canopy Cover (10 – 24%). AGS = Annual Grassland, ASP = Aspen, BAR = Barren, BBR = Bitterbrush, DFR = Douglas-Fir, EPN = Eastside Pine, JPN = Jeffrey Pine, LAC = Lacustrine, LPN = Lodgepole Pine, MCH = Mixed Chaparral, MCP = Montane Chaparral, MHC = Montane Hardwood-Conifer, MHW = Montane Hardwood, MRI = Montane Riparian, PGS = Perennial Grassland, PPN = Ponderosa Pine, RFR = Red Fir, SCN = Subalpine Conifer, SGB = Sagebrush, SMC = Sierra Mixed Conifer, URB = Urban, WFR = White Fir, WTM = Wet Meadow (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988).

CWHR type 0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Pre-fire Post-fireChange in

acresAGS 28 2 1 5 36 36 0ASP 3M, 3S 41 3 0 0 44 45 1ASP 4D, 4M, 4P 100 1 < 1 1 102 100 -1BAR 392 14 6 2 414 417 3JPN 1, 2M, 2S 46 16 18 38 118 80 -38JPN 3P, 3S, 4S 435 27 15 11 488 479 -9JPN 3M, 4P, 5P 107 1 < 1 < 1 108 107 -2LAC < 1 < 1 0 0 < 1 < 1 0MCH 136 20 25 155 336 336 0MCP 566 108 109 669 1452 9424 7972MHC 3D, 3M, 3P, 3S, 4S, 5S 133 19 16 74 241 674 433MHC 4P, 5P 83 19 21 236 360 225 -134MHC 4D, 4M 592 64 54 140 851 592 -258MHC 5D, 5M 227 12 9 19 267 227 -40MHW 3P, 3S, 4P, 4S, 5P 37 4 2 3 46 151 105MHW 3D, 3M 198 14 14 74 300 198 -102MHW 4D, 4M, 5D 73 2 < 1 < 1 76 73 -3MRI 2D, 2M, 2P, 2S, 3D, 3P 21 1 1 10 33 33 0PPN 1, 2P, 2S, 3P, 3S 57 7 7 14 84 76 -9PPN 4P, 5P 144 24 29 109 306 144 -162PPN 4S, 5S 122 26 25 52 225 226 1PPN 3M 10 1 4 10 26 10 -16PPN 4D, 4M 26 < 1 < 1 < 1 26 26 0RFR 3P, 3S, 4S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0RFR 4P 0 0 0 0 0 0 0RFR 4M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0RIV 122 3 1 0 126 126 0SMC 1, 2P, 2S, 3P, 3S 971 214 173 675 2033 1485 -548SMC 2M, 4S, 5S 325 31 16 26 399 2044 1645SMC 3D, 3M, 4P, 5P 3176 378 318 1417 5290 4583 -707SMC 4D, 4M 7469 567 455 1858 10349 7469 -2881SMC 5D, 5M 9779 840 647 3249 14515 9779 -4736WFR 2S, 3P, 3S, 4S, 5S 94 19 11 48 172 297 126WFR 3D, 3M, 4P, 5P 558 56 44 107 764 650 -115WFR 4D, 4M 625 62 52 209 949 625 -324WFR 5D, 5M 680 30 22 149 881 680 -200WTM < 1 0 0 0 < 1 < 1 0TOTAL 27369 2586 2096 9363 41414 41414

Pre-fire CWHR acres in analysis area and four basal area mortality categories

Total acres (analysis area)


14

Table 4. Summary of California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) types within Chip-munk Project treatment units (5,464 acres; all acres are approximate and National Forest System lands only).

Note: Acres may vary slightly during the final layout due to topography, stand condition, and rounding, etc. 1 = Seedling Tree <1” dbh, 2 = Sapling Tree 1 - 6” dbh, 3 = Pole Tree 6 - 11” dbh, 4 = Small Tree 11 - 24"dbh, 5 = Medium/Large Tree >24"dbh, 6 = Multi-layered Tree. D = Dense Canopy Cover (> 60%), M = Moderate Canopy Cover (40 - 59%), P = Open Canopy Cover (25 – 39%), S = Sparse Canopy Cover (10 – 24%). AGS = Annual Grassland, ASP = Aspen, BAR = Barren, BBR = Bitterbrush, DFR = Douglas-Fir, EPN = Eastside Pine, JPN = Jeffrey Pine, LAC = Lacustrine, LPN = Lodgepole Pine, MCH = Mixed Chaparral, MCP = Montane Chaparral, MHC = Montane Hardwood-Conifer, MHW = Montane Hardwood, MRI = Montane Riparian, PGS = Perennial Grassland, PPN = Ponderosa Pine, RFR = Red Fir, SCN = Subalpine Conifer, SGB = Sagebrush, SMC = Sierra Mixed Conifer, URB = Urban, WFR = White Fir, WTM = Wet Meadow (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988).

Table 5. Summary of pre- and post-treatment MIS habitat in the Chip-munk Project analysis area (measured in acres).


Alternative B (No-action) Alternative A (Proposed Action)

Pre-treatment MIS Habitat Post Treatment MIS Habitat MIS habitat in treatment

units Early and Mid Seral Coniferous Forest 15,710 16,997 1,326

Late Seral Open Canopy Coniferous Forest 2,565 2,565 409

Late Seral Closed Canopy Coniferous Forest 10,459 10,459 690

Riverine & Lacustrine 906 906 714

Shrubland (west-slope chaparral types) 9,760 6,736 3,024

Snag in Burned Forest habitat (>25% basal area mortality)

8,803 6,406 2,397

Snags in Green Forest 26,378 24,213 2,165

Roadside Hazard -

skyline

Roadside Hazard -

tractorSalvage -

SkylineSalvage -

tractor TotalAGS 0 3 0 0 3BAR < 1 2 0 0 3MCP 258 153 751 1862 3024MHC 3 1 0 0 4MHW 2 0 3 0 4MRI 2D 1 0 0 0 1PPN 3P, 3S, 4S 11 2 2 4 18PPN 4P, 5P 2 8 2 13 25PPN 5S 0 0 0 12 12SMC 2P, 2S, 3P, 3S, 4S, 5S 96 162 61 300 619SMC 3D, 3M, 4P, 5P 151 95 35 190 472SMC 4D, 4M 174 99 35 112 420SMC 5D, 5M 238 184 38 173 633WFR 2P, 2S, 3P, 3S, 4S, 5S 3 23 1 40 68WFR 3D, 3M, 4P, 5P 9 25 0 28 62WFR 4D, 4M 17 12 0 10 39WFR 5D, 5M 37 19 < 1 < 1 57TOTAL 1002 786 929 2746 5464


15

Cumulative Effects The existing condition reflects the landscape changes from all activities that have occurred in the past. The analysis of cumulative effects of the alternatives evaluates the impact on MIS habitat from the existing condition within the analysis areas.

According to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations, “cumulative impact” is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions (40 CFR § 1508.7).

In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects.

This cumulative effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human actions by adding up all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. There are several reasons for not taking this approach. First, a catalog and analysis of all past actions would be impractical to compile and unduly costly to obtain. Current conditions have been impacted by innumerable actions over the last century (and beyond), and trying to isolate the individual actions that continue to have residual impacts would be nearly impossible. Second, providing the details of past actions on an individual basis would not be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the alternatives. In fact, focusing on individual actions would be less accurate than looking at existing conditions, because there is limited information on the environmental impacts of individual past actions, and one cannot reasonably identify each and every action over the last century that has contributed to current conditions. Additionally, focusing on the impacts of past human actions risks ignoring the important residual effects of past natural events, which may contribute to cumulative effects just as much as human actions. By looking at current conditions, we are sure to capture all the residual effects of past human actions and natural events, regardless of which particular action or event contributed those effects. Third, public scoping for this project did not identify any public interest or need for detailed information on individual past actions. Finally, the Council on Environmental Quality issued an interpretive memorandum on June 24, 2005 regarding analysis of past actions, which states, “agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical details of individual past actions.

Present and future projects planned that overlap with the analysis areas may have cumulative impacts to wildlife, fisheries and amphibians. In this analysis, each present and future project is analyzed by species in order to understand the contribution of present and future projects to the cumulative effects of the alternatives.

Present or Reasonably Foreseeable Future Activities The existing condition reflects the changes of all activities that have occurred in the past. The analysis of cumulative effects of the alternatives evaluates the impact on MIS habitat from the existing condition within the analysis area.


16

Cumulative effects could occur with the incremental loss of the quantity and/or quality of habitat for this species. Overall, increases in urbanization, increases in recreational use of Forest Service system lands, and the utilization of natural resources on state, private and federal lands may contribute to habitat loss for this species.

As a result of the Chips Fire, many trees along National Forest System (NFS) and Plumas County roads were damaged and could fall into the roadway, posing a safety and access hazard to area residents and landowners, Forest Service personnel and contractors, special use permit holders, and the visiting public. Mt Hough Ranger District is implementing the Chips Fire Roadside Hazard Tree Removal Project (Chips Fire Roadside Project) on approximately six miles (up to 250 acres) of five main NFS and/or Plumas County roads have been identified for hazard tree removal. The majority of hazard trees proposed for removal occur in high severity burned areas; however, hazard trees within mixed severity burned areas will also be included to ensure the safety of road users in all those areas where burned trees pose a genuine risk of falling into the roadway. The four roads that are to be treated provide access to the communities of Caribou and Seneca, Butt Valley Reservoir, and PG&E infrastructure.

The Lassen National Forest has proposed the Poker Chip Project (salvage, danger tree and reforestation treatments) which overlaps the Chip-munk Project analysis area. Forest biologists did not report the Poker Chip Project, nor other planned or ongoing Lassen NF projects within the Poker Chips area, would meaningfully alter MIS habitat.

The Chip-munk Project treatment units, as well as much of the analysis area are open to woodcutting and, a large portion also is open to Christmas tree cutting. The woodcutting program would continue to remove snags and down logs, resulting in the cumulative loss of these habitat components across the landscape. Loss of these habitat features may indirectly impact wildlife species. Uncontrolled public use, especially during the breeding season, may cause disturbance to species nesting and denning nearby.

Approximately nine miles of Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) right-of-way corridors (Caribou-Westwood 60 KV, Caribou-Plumas Jct. 60 KV, Caribou-Table Mtn 230 KV, Caribou-Palermo 115 KV, Caribou #2 60 KV, and Butt Valley-Caribou 115 KV) have been identified and proposed for economical tree recovery within the analysis area (Chips Fire PG&E Right of Way Salvage Timber Project). This project is still in the planning phase, with treatment units currently being delineated (up to 250 acres). The PG&E Right of Way Salvage Timber Project will potentially impact 250 acres of suitable MIS habitat for removal of downed hazard trees that were felled during and immediately after fire suppression by PG&E to protect critical electrical power infrastructure. Most recreation use in the analysis areas consists of camping, hiking, aquatic activities, horseback riding, hunting, fishing, mining, mountain biking, OHV use, pleasure driving, and wildlife watching. Recreational use is expected to continue at the current rate. These activities are expected to have a minimal effect on MIS habitat.

Effects of the Proposed Project on the Habitat for the Selected Project-Level MIS


17

The following section documents the analysis for the following ‘Category 3’ species: Mountain Quail, Sooty Grouse, California Spotted Owl, northern flying squirrel, aquatic macroinvertebrates, Fox Sparrow, Black-backed Woodpecker, Hairy Woodpecker. The analysis of the effects of the Chip-munk Project on the MIS habitat for the selected project-level MIS is conducted at the project scale using CWHR vegetation types, as discussed earlier. Detailed information on the MIS is documented in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010), which is hereby incorporated by reference. Cumulative effects at the bioregional scale are tracked via the SNF MIS Bioregional monitoring, and detailed in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010).

Early and Mid-Seral Coniferous Forest Habitat (Mountain Quail)

Habitat/Species Relationship The Mountain Quail was selected as the MIS for early and mid seral coniferous forest (Douglas-fir, eastside pine, Jeffrey pine, ponderosa pine, red fir, Sierran mixed conifer, and white fir) habitat in the Sierra Nevada. Early seral coniferous forest habitat is comprised primarily of seedlings (<1” dbh), saplings (1”-5.9” dbh), and pole-sized trees (6”-10.9” dbh). Mid seral coniferous forest habitat is comprised primarily of small-sized trees (11”-23.9” dbh). The Mountain Quail is found particularly on steep slopes, in open, brushy stands of conifer and deciduous forest and woodland, and chaparral; it may gather at water sources in the summer, and broods are seldom found more than 0.8 km (0.5 mi) from water (CDFG 2005).

Project-level Effects Analysis – Early and Mid Seral Coniferous Forest Habitat Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis

1. Acres of early (CWHR tree sizes 1, 2, and 3) and mid seral (CWHR tree size 4) coniferous forest habitat, all canopy closures.

2. Acres with changes in CWHR tree size class. 3. Acres with changes in tree canopy closure. 4. Acres with changes in understory shrub canopy closure.

Current Condition of the Habitat Factor(s) in the Analysis Area Based on the vegetation layer and the CWHR model, 78% of early and mid seral habitats within the analysis area were retained post Chips Fire, and 38% (15,710 acres) of all habitat within the analysis area is currently typed as early and mid seral coniferous forest (Tables 2 and 3).

Effects of the Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat Potential direct effects include removal of fire-killed or hazard trees and subsequent reforestation; however, Alternative A would increase early and mid seral coniferous forest habitat by 8% (Tables 4-6). The Chip-munk Project proposes to treat hazard trees and conduct salvage operations on approximately 13% (5,464 acres) of the analysis area. Tree removal would not change CWHR habitat types within treated stands as the Proposed Action would remove roadside fire-killed and fire-injured hazard trees and


18

salvage fire-killed tress (i.e., trees that would be removed do not contribute to canopy closure).The proposed action would potentially have a minimal effect on the residual live tree size, canopy cover or live-tree basal area through the removal of trees where damage indicates specific probabilities of mortality guidelines are met (Appendix B, Smith and Cluck 2011). The Proposed Action includes reforestation of conifers to promote the reestablishment and development of a mature, closed canopy, coniferous forest. Alternative A proposes to reforest salvaged acres (up to 3,675 acres) with a mix of ponderosa, Jeffrey, and sugar pine seedlings. Montane chaparral (2,613 acres) would be converted to Sierra Mixed Conifer types 1 and 2 (shrub/seedling/sapling) after reforestation, when conifer seedlings would be competing with brush for the next 2 to 5 decades (Table 4).

Cumulative Effects to Habitat The existing condition reflects habitat changes from all activities that have occurred in the past. The analysis of cumulative effects of the alternatives evaluates the impact on MIS habitat from the existing condition within the analysis area.

As a result of the Chips Fire, many trees along National Forest System (NFS) and Plumas County roads were damaged and could fall into the roadway, posing a safety and access hazard to area residents and landowners, Forest Service personnel and contractors, special use permit holders, and the visiting public. Mt Hough Ranger District is implementing The Chips Fire Roadside Hazard Tree Removal Project (Chips Fire Roadside Project) on approximately six miles (up to 250 acres) of five main NFS and/or Plumas County roads have been identified for hazard tree removal. The majority of hazard trees proposed for removal occur in high severity burned areas; however, hazard trees within mixed severity burned areas will also be included to ensure the safety of road users in all those areas where burned trees pose a genuine risk of falling into the roadway. The four roads that are to be treated provide access to the communities of Caribou and Seneca, Butt Valley Reservoir, and PG&E infrastructure. These activities would have no effect on early and mid seral habitat in the analysis area.

Woodcutting and Christmas tree cutting programs on the PNF are ongoing programs that have been in existence for years and are expected to continue. The past and future effect of these actions has and would be to shift forest successional stages to somewhat earlier stages, while generally retaining continuous forest cover which would have a nominal effect on the early and mid seral coniferous forest habitat.

The Lassen National Forest has proposed the Poker Chip Project (salvage, danger tree and reforestation treatments) which overlaps the Chip-munk Project analysis area. While considering potential future impacts (such as the Chip-munk Project), Lassen NF biologists found there would be no decrease in early of mid seral habitat in the Poker Chip analysis area as a result of removing dead or hazard trees under the proposed action.

Most of the recreation use within the wildlife analysis areas consists of dispersed camping, hiking, horseback riding, hunting, mining, mountain biking, OHV use, pleasure driving, and wildlife watching. Such use is expected to continue at the current rate. These activities would have no effect on early and mid seral habitat in the analysis area.


19

Table 6. Summary of Early and Mid Seral acres within the analysis area and Chip-munk Project treatment units (all acres are approximate and National Forest System lands only).

*1 = Seedling Tree <1” dbh, 2 = Sapling Tree 1 - 6” dbh,, 3 = Pole Tree 6 - 11” dbh, 4 = Small Tree 11 - 24"dbh. D = Dense Canopy Cover (> 60%), M = Moderate Canopy Cover (40 - 59%), P = Open Canopy Cover (25 – 39%), S = Sparse Canopy Cover (10 – 24%), DFR = Douglas-Fir, EPN = Eastside Pine, JPN = Jeffrey Pine, LPN = Lodgepole Pine, PPN = Ponderosa Pine, RFR = Red Fir, SMC = Sierra Mixed Conifer, WFR = White Fir (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988). **Chip-munk unit acres will removal of trees where damage indicates specific probabilities of mortality guidelines are met and show the worst case scenario.

Approximately nine miles of Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) right-of-way corridors (Caribou-

Westwood 60 KV, Caribou-Plumas Jct. 60 KV, Caribou-Table Mtn 230 KV, Caribou-Palermo 115 KV, Caribou #2 60 KV, and Butt Valley-Caribou 115 KV) have been identified and proposed for economical tree recovery within the analysis area (Chips Fire PG&E Right of Way Salvage Timber Project). This project is still in the planning phase, with treatment units currently being delineated (up to 250 acres) for removal of downed hazard trees that were felled during and immediately after fire suppression by PG&E to protect critical electrical power infrastructure. These activities would have no effect on early and mid seral habitat in the analysis area.

Cumulative Effects Conclusion It is anticipated that implementation of the Proposed Action, in combination with present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would increase the amount of early and mid seral coniferous forest habitat within the analysis area. These changes will not alter the existing trend in the early and mid seral coniferous forest habitat.

Acres in Chip-munk treatment units

CWHRPre-fire

acres 0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%

Post-fire acres in analysis

area

Riparian Conservation

Areas

Roadside Hazard

Tree Salvage

Total Chip-munk units

JPN 1 118 46 16 18 38 80 0JPN 4P 77 75 1 0 0 75 0JPN 4S 488 435 27 15 11 479 0PPN 1 7 6 0 0 1 6 0PPN 2S 10 9 1 0 10 0PPN 3M 26 10 1 4 10 10 0PPN 3P 55 32 5 5 13 33 0 1 0 1PPN 3S 13 10 1 1 0 26 0 1 0 1PPN 4D 14 14 0 0 0 14 0PPN 4M 12 12 0 12 0PPN 4P 146 32 14 17 83 33 2 1 1 4PPN 4S 225 122 26 25 52 203 9 6 2 16SMC 1 27 24 1 1 1 26 0SMC 2P 104 20 10 7 67 20 1 2 0 3SMC 2S 131 83 12 12 25 124 4 13 0 17SMC 3D 196 136 12 9 39 136 2 6 0 8SMC 3M 844 317 55 53 420 317 5 20 2 27SMC 3P 1257 597 127 102 432 662 22 49 8 79SMC 3S 513 247 64 52 151 652 27 41 34 102SMC 4D 2992 2357 128 94 413 2356 29 46 17 92SMC 4M 7357 5112 439 361 1444 5112 72 150 105 328SMC 4P 3286 2048 245 207 787 2615 53 111 86 250SMC 4S 341 278 23 15 25 1223 49 58 132 238WFR 2S 22 10 5 4 4 18 0 1 0 1WFR 3D 120 72 5 3 39 72 0 0 0 0WFR 3M 97 85 4 2 6 85 0 0 0 1WFR 3P 50 24 7 3 16 33 1 1 3 6WFR 3S 53 45 6 2 1 68 2 8 4 14WFR 4D 366 272 18 17 59 272 2 12 8 22WFR 4M 583 353 45 35 151 353 4 11 2 17WFR 4P 515 372 45 37 61 434 25 12 20 57WFR 4S 44 13 1 2 27 151 8 9 26 42

TOTAL 20088 13266 1343 1102 4376 15710 317 558 450 1326

Pre-fire CWHR acres within four basal area mortality categories


20

Effects of Alternative 2 (No-action) Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Habitat There would be no direct or indirect effects on early and mid seral coniferous forest habitat, as no activities would occur that would impact the existing habitat conditions, thus there would also be no additional cumulative effects as a result of selecting this alternative. As a result, existing early and mid seral coniferous forest conditions and mountain quail habitat conditions would be maintained.

Cumulative Effects Conclusion It is anticipated that implementation of the No-action Alternative, in combination with present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not have a cumulative effect to the population and habitat distribution across the Plumas National Forest. Thus existing early and mid seral coniferous forest conditions and mountain quail habitat conditions would be maintained.

Summary of Mountain Quail Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale The Plumas NF LRMP (as amended by the SNF MIS Amendment) requires bioregional-scale habitat and distribution population monitoring for the Mountain Quail; hence, the early and mid seral coniferous forest effects analysis for the Chip-munk Project must be informed by both habitat and distribution population monitoring data. The sections below summarize the habitat and distribution population status and trend data for Mountain Quail. This information is drawn from the detailed information on habitat and population trends in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010), which is hereby incorporated by reference.

Habitat Status and Trend There is currently 530,851 acres of early seral and 2,776,022 acres of mid seral coniferous forest habitat on National Forest System lands in the Sierra Nevada. Over the last two decades, the trend for early seral is decreasing (changing from 9% to 5% of the acres on National Forest System lands) and the trend for mid seral is increasing (changing from 21% to 25% of the acres on National Forest System lands).

Population Status and Trend Monitoring of Mountain Quail across the ten National Forests in the Sierra Nevada has been conducted since 2009 in partnership with PRBO Conservation Science, as part of a monitoring effort that also includes Fox Sparrow, Hairy Woodpecker, and Yellow Warbler (USDA Forest Service 2010, http://data.prbo.org/partners/usfs/snmis/). Mountain Quail were detected on 40.3% of 1,659 point counts (and 48.6% of 424 playback points) in 2009 and 47.4% of 2,266 point counts (and 55.3% of 492 playback points) in 2010, with detections on all 10 national forests in both years. The average abundance (number of individuals recorded on passive point count surveys) was 0.103 in 2009 and 0.081 in 2010. In addition, mountain quail continue to be monitored and surveyed in the Sierra Nevada at various sample locations by hunter survey, modeling, and breeding bird survey protocols. These are summarized in the 2008 Bioregional Monitoring Report (USDA Forest Service 2008). Current data at range-wide, California, and Sierra Nevada scales indicate that the distribution of mountain quail populations in the Sierra Nevada is stable.

http://data.prbo.org/partners/usfs/snmis/


21

Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional-Scale Mountain Quail Trend The direct/indirect and cumulative effects of the Chip-munk Project would have a nominal effect on the amount and/or distribution of early and mid seral habitat within the analysis area. Alternative A would increase early and mid seral coniferous forest habitat within the analysis area by 8%. Proposed treatments will not alter the existing trend in the habitat, nor will it lead to a change in the distribution of mountain quail across the Sierra Nevada bioregion. Late Seral Open Canopy Coniferous Forest (Sooty Grouse)

Habitat/Species Relationship The Sooty Grouse was selected as the MIS for late seral open canopy coniferous forest habitat in the Sierra Nevada. This habitat is comprised primarily of medium/large trees (equal to or greater than 24 inches dbh) with canopy closures less than 40%. Sooty Grouse occur in open, medium to mature-aged stands of red fir, white fir, Douglas-fir, and other conifer habitats, interspersed with medium to large openings, and available water, and occupies a mixture of mature habitat types, shrubs, forbs, grasses, and conifer stands (CDFG 2005). Empirical data from the Sierra Nevada indicate that sooty grouse hooting sites are located in open, mature, fir-dominated forest, where particularly large trees are present (Bland 2006).

Project-level Effects Analysis - Late Seral Open Canopy Coniferous Forest Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis

1. Acres of late seral open canopy coniferous forest habitat, tree size 5, canopy closures S and P. 2. Acres with changes in tree canopy closure class. 3. Acres with changes in understory shrub canopy closure class.

Current Condition of the Habitat Factor(s) in the Analysis Area Based on the vegetation layer and the CWHR model, about 6 % of the analysis area may be considered suitable late seral open canopy coniferous forest habitat (Tables 4, 5, 7).

Table 7. Summary of Late Seral Open Canopy Forest acres within the analysis area and Chip-munk Project treatment units (all acres are approximate and National Forest System lands only).

* 5 = Medium/Large Tree >24"dbh, P = Open Canopy Cover (25 – 39%), S = Sparse Canopy Cover (10 – 24%), DFR = Douglas-Fir, EPN = Eastside Pine, JPN = Jeffrey Pine, PPN = Ponderosa Pine, RFR = Red Fir, SMC = Sierra Mixed Conifer, WFR = White Fir (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988).


CWHRPre-fire

acres 0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%


area


Areas

Roadside Hazard

Tree Salvage


JPN 5P 31.5 31.5 31.5 0.0PPN 5P 160.3 111.5 10.9 11.9 26.0 111.5 10.6 1.7 8.5 20.8PPN5S 0.8 0.0 11.0 11.9SMC 5P 963.8 675.1 67.1 50.3 171.3 1514.7 48.6 49.6 87.9 186.1SMC 5S 58.0 47.5 7.7 1.6 1.1 821.1 42.0 32.2 106.2 180.4WFR 5P 32.8 29.8 2.2 0.6 0.2 59.6 2.1 1.4 0.6 4.2WFR 5S 2.2 1.6 0.5 0.1 26.9 2.8 0.9 2.1 5.7TOTAL 1248.7 897.0 88.4 64.5 198.7 2565.3 106.9 85.7 216.4 409.1



22

Effects of the Action Alternatives Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat The Chip-munk Project proposes to treat hazard trees and conduct salvage operations on approximately 13% (5,464 acres) of the analysis area. Potential direct effects include removal of fire-killed or hazard trees and subsequent reforestation. Tree removal would not change CWHR habitat types within treated stands as the Proposed Action would remove roadside fire-killed and fire-injured hazard trees and salvage fire-killed tress. The proposed action would potentially have a minimal effect on the residual live tree size, canopy cover or live-tree basal area through the removal of trees where damage indicates specific probabilities of mortality guidelines are met (Appendix B). Any changes to late seral open canopy habitat resulting from the Proposed Action would be nominal (Tables 4, 5, 7), There would be no direct or indirect effects on late seral open canopy habitat, as no activities would occur that would impact the existing habitat conditions.


As a result of the Chips Fire, many trees along National Forest System (NFS) and Plumas County roads were damaged and could fall into the roadway, posing a safety and access hazard to area residents and landowners, Forest Service personnel and contractors, special use permit holders, and the visiting public. Mt Hough Ranger District is implementing The Chips Fire Roadside Hazard Tree Removal Project (Chips Fire Roadside Project) on approximately six miles (up to 250 acres) of five main NFS and/or Plumas County roads have been identified for hazard tree removal. The majority of hazard trees proposed for removal occur in high severity burned areas; however, hazard trees within mixed severity burned areas will also be included to ensure the safety of road users in all those areas where burned trees pose a genuine risk of falling into the roadway. The four roads that are to be treated provide access to the communities of Caribou and Seneca, Butt Valley Reservoir, and PG&E infrastructure. These activities would have no would have a nominal effect on the late seral open canopy forest habitat in the analysis area.

Woodcutting and Christmas tree cutting programs on the PNF are ongoing programs that have been in existence for years and are expected to continue. The past and future effect of these actions has and would be to shift forest successional stages to somewhat earlier stages, while generally retaining continuous forest cover which would have a nominal effect on the late seral open canopy forest habitat.

Most of the recreation use within the wildlife analysis areas consists of dispersed camping, hiking, horseback riding, hunting, mining, mountain biking, OHV use, pleasure driving, and wildlife watching. Such use is expected to continue at the current rate. These activities would have no effect on late seral open canopy forest habitat.

Approximately nine miles of Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) right-of-way corridors (Caribou-Westwood 60 KV, Caribou-Plumas Jct. 60 KV, Caribou-Table Mtn 230 KV, Caribou-Palermo 115 KV,


23

Caribou #2 60 KV, and Butt Valley-Caribou 115 KV) have been identified and proposed for economical tree recovery within the analysis area (Chips Fire PG&E Right of Way Salvage Timber Project). This project is still in the planning phase, with treatment units currently being delineated (up to 250 acres) for removal of downed hazard trees that were felled during and immediately after fire suppression by PG&E to protect critical electrical power infrastructure.

The Lassen National Forest has proposed the Poker Chip Project (salvage, danger tree and reforestation treatments) which overlaps the Chip-munk Project analysis area. While considering potential future impacts (such as the Chip-munk Project), Lassen NF biologists found there would be no decrease in late seral open canopy forest habitat in the Poker Chip analysis area as a result of removing dead or danger trees under the proposed action.

Cumulative Effects Conclusion It is anticipated that implementation of the Action Alternatives, in combination with present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would maintain the amount of late seral open canopy coniferous forest habitat within the analysis area. These changes will not alter the existing trend in the late seral open canopy coniferous forest habitat.

Effects of Alternative 2 (No-action) Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Habitat There would be no direct or indirect effects on late seral open canopy coniferous forest habitat, as no activities would occur that would impact the existing habitat conditions, thus there would also be no additional cumulative effects as a result of selecting this alternative. As a result, existing late seral open canopy coniferous forest conditions and sooty grouse habitat conditions would be maintained.

Cumulative Effects Conclusion It is anticipated that implementation of the No-action Alternative, in combination with present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not have a cumulative effect to the population and habitat distribution across the Plumas National Forest. Thus existing late seral open canopy coniferous forest conditions and sooty grouse habitat conditions would be maintained.

Summary of Sooty Grouse Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale The Plumas NF LRMP (as amended by the SNF MIS Amendment) requires bioregional-scale habitat and distribution population monitoring for the Sooty Grouse; hence, the late seral open canopy coniferous forest effects analysis for the Chip-munk Project must be informed by both habitat and distribution population monitoring data. The sections below summarize the habitat and distribution population status and trend data for the sooty grouse. This information is drawn from the detailed information on habitat and population trends in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010), which is hereby incorporated by reference.


24

Habitat Status and Trend There is currently 63,795 acres of late seral open canopy coniferous forest habitat on National Forest System lands in the Sierra Nevada. Over the last two decades, the trend is decreasing (changing from 3% to 1% of the acres on National Forest System lands).

Population Status and Trend The Sooty Grouse has been monitored in the Sierra Nevada at various sample locations by hunter survey, modeling, point counts, and breeding bird survey protocols, including California Department of Fish and Game Blue (Sooty) Grouse Surveys (Bland 1993, 1997, 2002, 2006); California Department of Fish and Game hunter survey, modeling, and hunting regulations assessment (CDFG 2004a, CDFG 2004b); Multi-species inventory and monitoring on the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU 2007); and 1968 to present – BBS routes throughout the Sierra Nevada (Sauer et al. 2007). These data indicate that sooty grouse continue to be present across the Sierra Nevada, except in the area south of the Kern Gap, and current data at the range-wide, California, and Sierra Nevada scales indicate that the distribution of sooty grouse populations in the Sierra Nevada north of the Kern Gap is stable.

Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional-Scale Sooty Grouse Trend The direct/indirect and cumulative effects of the Chip-munk Project would have a nominal effect on the amount and/or distribution of late seral open canopy coniferous forest habitat within the analysis area. However, this change in the amount of late seral open canopy coniferous forest habitat in the analysis area will not alter the existing trend in the habitat, nor will it lead to a change in the distribution of sooty grouse across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.

Late Seral Closed Canopy Coniferous Forest Habitat (California spotted owl and Northern flying squirrel)

Habitat/Species Relationship

California Spotted Owl The California Spotted Owl was selected as an MIS for late seral closed canopy coniferous forest (Douglas-fir, eastside pine, Jeffrey pine, ponderosa pine, red fir, Sierran mixed conifer, and white fir) habitat in the Sierra Nevada. This habitat is comprised primarily of medium/large trees (equal to or greater than 24 inches dbh) with canopy closures above 40% within Douglas-fir, eastside pine, Jeffrey pine, ponderosa pine, red fir, Sierran mixed conifer, and white fir coniferous forests, and multi-layered trees within Douglas-fir, eastside pine, Jeffrey pine, ponderosa pine, red fir, Sierran mixed conifer, and white fir forests. The California Spotted Owl is strongly associated with forests that have a complex multi-layered structure, large-diameter trees, and high canopy closure (CDFG 2005). It uses dense, multi-layered canopy cover for roost seclusion; roost selection appears to be related closely to thermoregulatory needs, and the species appears to be intolerant of high temperatures (CDFG 2005). Mature, multi-layered forest stands are required for breeding (Ibid). The mixed-conifer forest type is the predominant type used by spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada: about 80 percent of known sites are found in mixed-conifer forest, with 10 percent in red fir forest (USDA Forest Service 2001).


25

Northern flying squirrel The northern flying squirrel was selected as an MIS for late seral closed canopy coniferous forest (Douglas-fir, eastside pine, Jeffrey pine, ponderosa pine, red fir, Sierran mixed conifer, and white fir) habitat in the Sierra Nevada. This habitat is comprised primarily of medium/large trees (equal to or greater than 24 inches dbh) with canopy closures above 40% within Douglas-fir, eastside pine, Jeffrey pine, ponderosa pine, red fir, Sierran mixed conifer, and white fir coniferous forests, and multi-layered trees within Douglas-fir, eastside pine, Jeffrey pine, ponderosa pine, red fir, Sierran mixed conifer, and white fir. The northern flying squirrel occurs primarily in mature, dense conifer habitats intermixed with various riparian habitats, using cavities in mature trees, snags, or logs for cover (CDFG 2005).

Project-level Effects Analysis – Late Seral Closed Canopy Coniferous Forest Habitat Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis

1. Acres of late seral closed canopy coniferous forest habitat, tree size 5 (canopy closures M and D), and tree size 6.

2. Acres with changes in canopy closure (D to M). 3. Acres with changes in large down logs per acre or large snags per acre.

Current Condition of the Habitat Factor(s) in the Analysis Area Based on the vegetation layer and the CWHR model, about 25 % of the analysis area may be considered suitable late seral close canopy coniferous forest habitat (Tables 4, 5, 8).

Table 8. Summary of Late Seral Closed Canopy Forest acres within the analysis area and Chip-munk Project treatment units (all acres are approximate and National Forest System lands only).

5 = Medium/Large Tree >24"dbh, 6 = Multi-layered Tree, D = Dense Canopy Cover (> 60%), M = Moderate Canopy Cover (40 - 59%), DFR = Douglas-Fir, EPN = Eastside Pine, PPN = Ponderosa Pine, RFR = Red Fir, SMC = Sierra Mixed Conifer, WFR = White Fir (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988).

Effects of the Action Alternatives Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat The Chip-munk Project proposes to treat hazard trees and conduct salvage operations on approximately 13% (5,464 acres) of the analysis area (41,414 acres). Twenty-five percent (10,459 acres) of the analysis area is late seral closed canopy habitat, and about 7% (690 acres) of the late seral closed canopy habitat in


CWHRPre-fire

acres 0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%


area


Areas

Roadside Hazard

Tree Salvage


SMC 5D 6252.1 4582.0 354.5 255.7 1060.0 4582.0 32.1 42.3 47.1 121.5SMC 5M 8262.5 5197.0 485.1 391.2 2189.1 5196.7 152.2 248.5 110.4 511.1WFR 5D 222.5 185.1 6.2 4.5 26.7 185.1 5.0 5.6 0.0 10.5WFR 5M 658.3 495.3 23.6 17.4 122.0 495.2 15.1 30.6 0.8 46.5TOTAL 15395.3 10459.4 869.4 668.8 3397.7 10458.9 204.3 327.0 158.3 689.6



26

the analysis area is proposed for treatment in the Chip-munk Project (Tables 4, 5, 8). Potential direct effects include removal of fire-killed or hazard trees and subsequent reforestation. Tree removal would not change CWHR habitat types within treated stands as the Proposed Action would remove roadside fire-killed and fire-injured hazard trees and salvage fire-killed tress. The proposed action would potentially have a minimal effect on the residual live tree size, canopy cover or live-tree basal area through the removal of trees where damage indicates specific probabilities of mortality guidelines are met (Appendix B). Any changes to late seral closed canopy habitat resulting from the Proposed Action would be nominal (Tables 4, 5, 8), There would be no direct or indirect effects on late seral open canopy habitat, as no activities would occur that would impact the existing habitat conditions.


Woodcutting and Christmas tree cutting programs on the PNF are ongoing programs that have been in existence for years and are expected to continue. The past and future effect of these actions has and would be to shift forest successional stages to somewhat earlier stages, while generally retaining continuous forest cover which would have a nominal effect on the late seral closed canopy forest habitat.

The Lassen National Forest has proposed the Poker Chip Project (salvage, danger tree and reforestation treatments) which overlaps the Chip-munk Project analysis area. While considering potential future impacts (such as the Chip-munk Project), Lassen NF biologists found there would be no decrease in late seral closed canopy forest habitat in the Poker Chip analysis area as a result of removing dead or hazard trees under the proposed action.

Most of the recreation use within the wildlife analysis areas consists of dispersed camping, hiking, horseback riding, hunting, mining, mountain biking, OHV use, pleasure driving, and wildlife watching. Such use is expected to continue at the current rate. These activities would have no effect on late seral closed canopy habitat in the analysis area.

Approximately nine miles of Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) right-of-way corridors (Caribou-Westwood 60 KV, Caribou-Plumas Jct. 60 KV, Caribou-Table Mtn 230 KV, Caribou-Palermo 115 KV, Caribou #2 60 KV, and Butt Valley-Caribou 115 KV) have been identified and proposed for economical tree recovery within the analysis area (Chips Fire PG&E Right of Way Salvage Timber Project). This project is still in the planning phase, with treatment units currently being delineated (up to 250 acres) for removal of downed hazard trees that were felled during and immediately after fire suppression by PG&E to protect critical electrical power infrastructure.

As a result of the Chips Fire, many trees along National Forest System (NFS) and Plumas County roads were damaged and could fall into the roadway, posing a safety and access hazard to area residents and landowners, Forest Service personnel and contractors, special use permit holders, and the visiting public. Mt Hough Ranger District is implementing The Chips Fire Roadside Hazard Tree Removal Project (Chips Fire Roadside Project) on approximately six miles (up to 250 acres) of five main NFS and/or Plumas County roads have been identified for hazard tree removal. The majority of hazard trees


27

proposed for removal occur in high severity burned areas; however, hazard trees within mixed severity burned areas will also be included to ensure the safety of road users in all those areas where burned trees pose a genuine risk of falling into the roadway. The four roads that are to be treated provide access to the communities of Caribou and Seneca, Butt Valley Reservoir, and PG&E infrastructure. These activities would have no effect on late seral closed canopy habitat in the analysis area.

Cumulative Effects Conclusion It is anticipated that implementation of the Action Alternatives, in combination with present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would maintain the amount of late seral closed canopy coniferous forest habitat within the analysis area. These changes will not alter the existing trend in the late seral closed canopy coniferous forest habitat.

Effects of Alternative 2 (No-action) Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Habitat There would be no direct or indirect effects on late seral closed canopy coniferous forest habitat, as no activities would occur that would impact the existing habitat conditions, thus there would also be no additional cumulative effects as a result of selecting this alternative. As a result, existing late seral closed canopy coniferous forest conditions and California Spotted Owl/northern flying squirrel habitat conditions would be maintained.

Cumulative Effects Conclusion It is anticipated that implementation of the No-action Alternative, in combination with present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not have a cumulative effect to the population and habitat distribution across the Plumas National Forest. Thus existing late seral closed canopy coniferous forest conditions and California Spotted Owl/northern flying squirrel habitat conditions would be maintained.

Summary of Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale California spotted owl and Northern flying squirrel The Plumas NF LRMP (as amended by the SNF MIS Amendment) requires bioregional-scale habitat and distribution population monitoring for the California Spotted Owl and northern flying squirrel; hence, the late seral closed canopy coniferous forest habitat effects analysis for the Chip-munk Project must be informed by both habitat and distribution population monitoring data. The sections below summarize the habitat and distribution population status and trend data. This information is drawn from the detailed information on habitat and population trends in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010), which is hereby incorporated by reference.

Habitat Status and Trend There are currently 1,006,923 acres of late seral closed canopy coniferous forest (Douglas-fir, eastside pine, Jeffrey pine, ponderosa pine, red fir, Sierran mixed conifer, and white fir) habitats on National Forest System lands in the Sierra Nevada. Over the last two decades, the trend is slightly increasing (changing from 7% to 9% of the acres on National Forest System lands); since the early 2000s, the trend has been stable at 9%.


28

Population Status and Trend - California spotted owl The California Spotted Owl has been monitored in California and throughout the Sierra Nevada through general surveys, monitoring of nests and territorial birds, and demography studies (Verner et al. 1992, Gutierrez et al. 2008. 2009, 2010, USDA Forest Service 2001, 2004, 2006, USFWS 2006, Sierra Nevada Research Center 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010). Current data at the range-wide, California, and Sierra Nevada scales indicate that, although there may be localized declines in population trend [i.e., localized decreases in “lambda” (estimated annual rate of population change)], the distribution of California spotted owl populations in the Sierra Nevada is stable.

Population Status and Trend – Northern flying squirrel The northern flying squirrel has been monitored in the Sierra Nevada at various sample locations by live-trapping, ear-tagging, camera surveys, snap-trapping, and radio telemetry: 2002-present on the Plumas and Lassen National Forests (Sierra Nevada Research Center 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010), and 1958-2004 throughout the Sierra Nevada in various monitoring efforts and studies (see USDA Forest Service 2008, Table NOFLS-IV-1). These data indicate that northern flying squirrels continue to be present at these sample sites, and current data at the range-wide, California, and Sierra Nevada scales indicate that the distribution of northern flying squirrel populations in the Sierra Nevada is stable.

Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional-Scale Trends California spotted owl The direct/indirect and cumulative effects of the Chip-munk Project would have a nominal effect on the amount and/or distribution of late seral closed canopy coniferous forest habitat within the analysis area. However, this change in the amount of late seral closed canopy coniferous forest habitat in the analysis area will not alter the existing trend in the habitat, nor will it lead to a change in the distribution of California Spotted Owls across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.

Northern flying squirrel The direct/indirect and cumulative effects of the Chip-munk Project would have a nominal effect on the amount and/or distribution of late seral closed canopy coniferous forest habitat within the analysis area. However, this change in the amount of late seral closed canopy coniferous forest habitat in the analysis area will not alter the existing trend in the habitat, nor will it lead to a change in the distribution of northern flying squirrels across the Sierra Nevada bioregion. Riverine & Lacustrine (Aquatic macroinvertebrates)

Habitat/Species Relationship Aquatic or Benthic Macroinvertebrates (BMI) were selected as the MIS for riverine and lacustrine habitat in the Sierra Nevada. They have been demonstrated to be very useful as indicators of water quality and aquatic habitat condition (Resh and Price 1984; Karr et al. 1986; Hughes and Larsen 1987; Resh and Rosenberg 1989). They are sensitive to changes in water chemistry, temperature, and physical habitat;


29

aquatic factors of particular importance are: flow, sedimentation, and water surface shade (USDA, 2013a). Project-level Effects Analysis - Riverine & Lacustrine Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis

1. Acres of riparian conservation area (RCA), Equipment Exclusion Zone (EEZ), and Full Suspension Zone (FSZ) impacted by the proposed action, primarily tree sizes 4’s and 5’s and potential for sedimentation.

2. ERA values and watersheds below, at, or above the threshold of concern and potential for cumulative watershed effects.

Current Condition of the Habitat Factor(s) in the Analysis Area Macroinvertebrates are organisms that are large (macro) enough to be seen with the naked eye and lack a backbone (invertebrate). They inhabit all types of running waters, from fast-flowing mountain streams to slow-moving muddy rivers. Examples of aquatic macroinvertebrates include insects in their larval or nymph form, crayfish, clams, snails, and worms. Most species live part or most of their life cycle attached to submerged rocks, logs, and vegetation.

Stream Condition The total area for the fifteen project analysis watersheds is roughly 46,500 acres (public and private lands). According to the PNF corporate GIS stream layer, there are approximately 533 miles of stream channel within the analysis watersheds: 326 miles are ephemeral (analyzed in CWE analysis), 150 miles are intermittent and 57 miles are perennial. Ephemeral and intermittent streams are seasonal—surface water is present during some portion of the year but these streams are typically dry by late summer. Ephemeral streams only flow in response to storm events or snowmelt, and do not necessarily flow every year. Intermittent streams are seasonally connected to the underlying water table and may flow during all but the driest months, whereas perennial streams typically flow year round (USDA 2013, Chapter 3, Soil and Water Resources). Streams are further classified by their slope—response reaches have low-gradient (typically less than three percent slope) alluvial conditions. The morphology of response channels reflects depositional processes associated with flowing water. Transport reaches have higher gradient (3 to 12 percent slope or more), non-alluvial conditions and the morphology of transport channels is generally resilient to change due to the prevalence of large channel substrate material (cobbles and boulders). The vast majority of stream channels in the project analysis area resemble these steeper and more resilient transport reaches. Exceptions include a short response reach of Clear Creek above Seneca Road and roughly two miles of Ohio Creek (although most of this stretch of Ohio Valley is on non-NFS lands and is outside of proposed treatment units). Exposed bedrock substantially increases channel stability; occurrence of exposed bedrock is more prevalent along streams in the east side of the project analysis area (USDA 2013, Chapter 3, Soil and Water Resources).


30

Effects of the Action Alternative (Alternative A) Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat Acres of riparian conservation area (RCA), Equipment Exclusion Zone (EEZ), and Full Suspension Zone (FSZ) impacted by the proposed action, primarily tree sizes 4’s and 5’s and potential for sedimentation. Riparian Conservation Area (RCA) for perennial streams require a buffer a minimum of 300’ horizontal distance from bank full width on both sides of the stream (600 foot buffer) in which project design features and Sierra Nevada Framework standards and guidelines apply(USDA Forest Service 2004). Table 9. Pre-fire CWHR size and density classes within RCAs (roadside hazard, tractor salvage, skyline salvage) and full suspension zones (skyline salvage) of proposed treatment units (all acres are approximate and National Forest System lands only).

No direct effect is expected to aquatic macroinvertebrates, because there is no equipment allowed within the stream channel. The greatest concern resulting from project activities is increases in sedimentation within suitable macroinvertebrate habitat. There will be no significant disturbance within the RCAs, EEZs, and FSZs due to the proposed action. Project activities would have a negligible to low risk of sediment production into perennial streams flowing through the project area. No mechanical equipment would be permitted to operate within 300 feet of perennial streams (USDA Forest Service 2013, Chapter 2), thus minimizing ground disturbance within perennial stream RCAs.

There are a total of 741 acres of Riparian Conservation Acres (Tables 9 and 10) within Roadside Hazard Tractor, Interior Salvage Tractor, and Skyline Salvage units within the project area. There are approximately 460 acres within the RCAs that are designated as equipment exclusion zones and full suspension zones. Sixty-two percent of the riparian conservation area will not have impacts from equipment or skyline yarding, or one end suspension outside of the FSZ. To prevent additional disturbance adjacent to the streams, to protect the existing microclimate, and to provide LWD and CWD recruitment, large diameter tree (>30” dbh) will be retained in equipment exclusion zones.

Acres in RCAs - roadside hazard tree units Acres in RCAs - tractor salvage units Acres in RCAs - skyline salvage units Acres in full suspension zones - skyline salvage units

CWHR size and density class Intermittent Perennial Total Intermittent Perennial Total Intermittent Perennial Total Intermittent Perennial Total1 1.1 0.1 1.2 9.7 2.7 12.4 4.8 0.0 4.82D 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.42P 2S 4.1 4.1 0.6 0.6 1.0 1.03D 3M 1.8 1.8 5.5 5.5 11.0 2.9 1.0 3.83P 3S 17.1 17.1 5.3 0.4 5.6 2.1 2.4 4.5 0.5 0.9 1.44D 4M 19.5 4.4 23.9 17.0 3.9 20.9 76.9 75.8 152.7 31.1 15.7 56.84P 4S 26.0 5.4 31.4 17.7 5.3 23.1 25.4 6.0 31.4 11.8 0.1 11.85D 5M 53.9 12.2 66.1 86.3 2.2 88.4 115.1 93.6 208.7 58.7 23.2 81.95P 15.4 15.4 11.7 1.1 12.8 5.3 5.3 1.9 1.9Total 139.9 22.0 161.9 138.6 12.9 151.5 240.0 188.5 428.5 121.6 42.3 163.9


31

Table 10. Post-fire CWHR size and density classes within RCAs (roadside hazard, tractor salvage, skyline salvage), full suspension zones (skyline salvage), and four basal area mortality categories in proposed treatment units (all acres are approximate and National Forest System lands only).

Ground-disturbing activities within RCAs along intermittent streams would not produce a

measurable volume of sediment within downstream aquatic macroinvertebrate habitat due to very limited ground-disturbance within intermittent stream RCAs (limited to hand treatments and skyline treatments).

Acres in RCAs - roadside hazard tree unitsIntermittent streams Perennial streamsBasal area moratlity Basal area moratlity

CWHR 0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%Total - intermittent 0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%

Total - perennial

all streams

1 0.4 0.1 0.2 32.3 33.0 0.0 0.1 1.9 2.0 35.02P 2S 1.8 0.6 0.2 5.2 2.63D 3M 1.4 1.4 1.43P 3S 14.2 1.2 0.6 0.0 16.0 16.04D 4M 10.5 10.4 4.2 4.2 14.64P 4S 19.2 4.5 3.0 26.8 2.7 0.5 1.0 4.1 30.95D 5M 29.6 29.6 11.3 11.2 40.85P 5S 12.8 3.4 18.9 0.4 0.1 0.5 60.3Grand Total 90.7 10.0 6.8 32.3 139.9 18.1 1.0 1.1 1.9 22.0 161.9

Acres in RCAs - tractor salvage unitsIntermittent streams Perennial streamsBasal area moratlity Basal area moratlity


Total - perennial

all streams

1 92.2 92.2 1.9 1.9 94.22S 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.13P 3S 3.1 0.7 0.1 3.9 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.3 4.24D 4M 1.0 1.0 2.8 2.8 3.84P 4S 3.8 3.1 4.9 11.8 4.6 0.7 0.3 5.7 17.55D 5M 15.4 15.4 0.8 0.6 16.05P 5S 3.6 4.1 6.4 14.1 0.6 0.4 0.5 1.6 15.7Total 26.8 7.9 11.6 92.2 138.6 8.9 1.1 1.0 1.9 12.9 151.5

Acres in RCAs - skyline salvage unitsIntermittent streams Perennial streamsBasal area moratlity Basal area moratlity


Total - perennial

all streams

1 0.1 145.2 145.3 0.3 0.5 0.9 124.0 125.7 271.02 2.1 0.1 0.2 2.4 2.42D 1.4 1.4 1.42P 2S 0.6 0.9 0.93D 3M 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.9 1.33P 3S 1.4 0.9 1.0 3.2 0.8 1.2 1.3 3.2 6.54D 4M 24.8 24.8 13.7 13.8 38.64P 4S 6.7 5.3 7.1 19.1 0.7 4.0 7.5 12.2 31.45D 5M 30.1 30.0 21.7 21.7 51.75P 5S 4.5 5.1 7.4 17.0 4.0 4.6 8.6 25.7Total 68.0 11.3 15.5 145.2 240.0 40.2 9.9 14.4 124.0 188.5 428.5

Acres in full suspension zones - skyline salvage unitsIntermittent streams Perennial streamsBasal area moratlity Basal area moratlity


Total - perennial

all streams

1 76.3 76.3 27.0 27.0 103.32D 1.4 1.4 1.43M 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.43P 3S 0.3 0.2 0.0 1.2 0.5 0.4 1.3 2.54D 4M 12.1 12.1 3.2 3.2 15.34P 4S 2.4 2.5 3.6 8.5 0.1 1.0 3.6 12.15D 5M 15.5 15.5 4.0 4.0 19.55P 5S 1.8 2.1 7.8 0.6 1.0 1.6 9.3Total 32.5 4.8 8.0 76.3 121.6 9.4 1.9 4.1 27.0 42.3 163.9


32

Other ground-disturbing treatments outside of RCAs would not produce a measurable volume of sediment to perennial streams due to RCAs acting as buffers, filtering out any disturbed sediment before it could reach perennial waters in a measurable volume.

Site preparation such as hand thinning, piling and burning for reforestation would be implemented wherever salvage activities have occurred. Hand treatments within RCAs would require limbing and topping of felled trees, which would increase ground cover within the RCA and further restrict sediment transport. Ground disturbance resulting from hand thinning, piling, and burning is considered minimal, particularly within units that entail falling and leaving fire-killed trees. Thus, sedimentation of aquatic macroinvertebrate habitat from hand treatments within perennial and intermittent RCAs would not occur to any measurable extent.

Cumulative Effects to Habitat ERA values and watersheds below, at, or above the threshold of concern and potential for cumulative watershed effects.

There are fifteen sub-watersheds within the analysis area in which a cumulative watershed effects (CWE) analysis has been completed. The Equivalent Roaded Acre (ERA) method is used to assess cumulative effect of activities that alter hydrologic function and result primarily in alteration of runoff in project watersheds. The ERA method is essentially an accounting of the past, present and future impacts. Watersheds are rated as moderately sensitive by Forest staff when evaluated for use of the ERA method. Rating variables include erosion potential, slope steepness, amount of alluvial channels, risk of rain-on-snow and/or thunderstorm events, and re-vegetation potential. Using these ratings, a Threshold of Concern (TOC) value is assigned for each watershed, beyond which an adverse effect might be expected. The TOC is generally expressed as a percentage of watershed area.

Seven of the fifteen CWE watersheds are over acceptable Forest thresholds for management impacts that affect runoff; all but one are due to the effects of the fire (see Hoffman 2013 and the Soils and Water section of this Environmental Assessment for details). These watersheds include (in order of the highest ERA values, including miles of perennial and intermittent streams at risk): Clear Creek (p=4.7. I=4.2), Ohio Creek (p=3.6, i=7.5), Upper Mosquito Creek (p=5.3, i=12.0), Belden Forebay North Fork of the Feather River (p=4.6, i=15.5), Salmon Creek (p=5.2, i=7.4), Butt Valley Reservoir East (p=2.2, i=8.4), and the Upper North Fork Feather River (p=2.4, i-3.3). Butt Valley Reservoir East watershed is currently over threshold because of private logging activities and road densities.

Erosion from harvest slopes, and subsequent sediment delivery to channels is expected to be elevated over normal conditions because of lack of ground cover. But in the event of precipitation that initiates erosion the overall lack of ground cover on burned slopes will be the greater source. Within these watersheds with a high threshold of concern there are 28 miles of perennial streams and 58 miles of intermittent streams identified as potentially suitable SNYLF habitat, and have a higher risk of these cumulative watershed effects. Harvesting creates areas of compaction and displacement of soils, leading to localized incidences of overland flow, but incorporation of RCA equipment restrictions, BMPs, Forest Plan standards and regional soil productivity guidelines into project implementation would limit


33

detrimental disturbances to soil to 15 percent or less of a treatment unit. Therefore actual harvest effects are a relatively minor proportion of the cumulative effects to watersheds.

Exposed, unprotected soil has the potential to move into the aquatic system as a result of the season’s first significant rain. High levels of sediment can fill deep pools, alter and fill interstitial spaces in streambed materials with fine particulates, change flow characteristic, reduce dissolved oxygen, and restrict waste removal (USDA 2007).

The slight amounts of sediment generated from activity areas during a high runoff event over the burned landscape would not be measurable or detectable at the analysis watershed scale and would not affect identified downstream beneficial uses, including aquatic macroinvertebrate habitat.

Other effects from the Chips wildfire to aquatic macroinvertebrates include a reduction of the

input of leaf fall and insects from floodplains into streams and a potential for a reductions in relative

abundances of shredder and scraper taxa, while collector-gatherer abundances increased.

Clear Creek and Upper Mosquito Creek watersheds are currently above the Threshold of Concern

(USDA Forest Service 2013, Chapter 3, Soil and Water Resources). These two watersheds are

susceptible to very high cumulative effects risk, such as erosion and large movement of sediment into

streams. See Soils and Water Resources section of the Environmental Assessment (Chapter 3) for detailed

cumulative conditions of watersheds with perennial stream miles and thus populations of aquatic

macroinvertebrates. Those perennial streams with greater than 15% ERA, and over the threshold of

concern are at very high risk of adverse downstream effects. However, implementation of conservative

project design criteria (USDA 2013, Chapter 2), standards and guidelines, and BMPs, there will be

minimal additional impact to water quality, sedimentation, and temperature.

Prior to the Chips Fire, macroinvertebrate samples were collected in relation to Stream Condition

Inventory Monitoring reaches (Appendix C). Seven reaches were selected to show the variability of

streams over time, and in relation to “reference streams” and those “managed streams”. Chips and

Yellow Creek are just to the West of the project boundary, East and West Branch Nelson and Willow

Creek were reference streams, and Fourth Water and Lights Creek are managed watersheds. In addition,

sampling of Lights Creek was completed one winter after the Moonlight Fire. The metric used to describe

the benthic community condition was the Observed/Expected (O/E) score. O/E models compare the

macroinvertebrate taxa observed at sites of unknown biological condition (in this case, all HFQLG

monitoring reaches) to the assemblages expected to be found in the absence of anthropogenic stressors

(collected from reference streams across California). Given the physiographic diversity of California,

separate O/E models for three climatically unique regions have been developed for the state. An O/E

score of 1.0 would indicate that all macroinvertebrate taxa expected to occur there (when compared with

reference streams with comparable conditions) were identified, and would indicate the stream is in


34

“good” condition. Meanwhile, an O/E score of 0.5 would represent a stream in “poor” condition, in which

only 50 percent of expected taxa were found to occur.

Macroinvertebrate samples have not been taken within the project area. Chips and Yellow Creek, just to

the West of the Project Area, have an O/E rating from poor to good, and reference reaches also varied

from poor to good. This represents the annual variability in stream taxa in both managed and reference

watersheds. Biologic indices and O/E scores were higher following the 2007 Moonlight Fire than they

were pre-fire, despite the significant increase in fine sediment post-fire. One possible explanation for the

increases in O/E scores following the Moonlight Fire is increased productivity within the riparian area.

Field notes collected in 2010 indicated a significant increase in the abundance of riparian hardwood

species (particularly willow), as the Moonlight Fire burned the vast majority of conifers within the

watershed and allowed increased sunlight penetration into the Moonlight Creek riparian zone. Many

macroinvertebrate species feed upon the leaves of deciduous hardwoods such as willows. Thus, an

increase in the abundance of riparian hardwoods may have led to an increase in macroinvertebrate species

richness and abundance as well.

As a result of the Chips Fire, many trees along National Forest System (NFS) and Plumas County roads were damaged and could fall into the roadway, posing a safety and access hazard to area residents and landowners, Forest Service personnel and contractors, special use permit holders, and the visiting public. Mt Hough Ranger District is implementing the Chips Fire Roadside Hazard Tree Removal Project (Chips Fire Roadside Project) on approximately six miles (up to 250 acres) of five main NFS and/or Plumas County roads have been identified for hazard tree removal. The majority of hazard trees proposed for removal occur in high severity burned areas; however, hazard trees within mixed severity burned areas will also be included to ensure the safety of road users in all those areas where burned trees pose a genuine risk of falling into the roadway. The four roads that are to be treated provide access to the communities of Caribou and Seneca, Butt Valley Reservoir, and PG&E infrastructure. These activities have the potential for direct and indirect effects to stream condition and aquatic macroinvertebrates and their habitat in the analysis area.

Woodcutting and Christmas tree cutting programs on the PNF are ongoing programs that have been in existence for years and are expected to continue. The past and future effect of these actions has and would be to shift forest successional stages to somewhat earlier stages, while generally retaining continuous forest cover which would have a nominal effect on stream and riparian habitat within the project area.

The Lassen National Forest has proposed the Poker Chip Project (salvage, danger tree and reforestation treatments) which overlaps the Chip-munk Project analysis area. While considering potential future impacts (such as the Chip-munk Project), Lassen NF biologists found there would be no decrease in the quality and quantity of riparian habitat and associated stream condition in the Poker Chip analysis area as a result of removing dead or hazard trees under the proposed action.


35

Most of the recreation use within the wildlife analysis areas consists of dispersed camping, hiking, horseback riding, hunting, mining, mountain biking, OHV use, pleasure driving, and wildlife watching. Such use is expected to continue at the current rate. These activities would have no effect on riparian and stream habitat in the analysis area.

Approximately nine miles of Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) right-of-way corridors (Caribou-Westwood 60 KV, Caribou-Plumas Jct. 60 KV, Caribou-Table Mtn 230 KV, Caribou-Palermo 115 KV, Caribou #2 60 KV, and Butt Valley-Caribou 115 KV) have been identified and proposed for economical tree recovery within the analysis area (Chips Fire PG&E Right of Way Salvage Timber Project). This project is still in the planning phase, with treatment units currently being delineated (up to 250 acres) for removal of downed hazard trees that were felled during and immediately after fire suppression by PG&E to protect critical electrical power infrastructure. These activities would not directly and indirectly effect stream condition and aquatic macroinvertebrates and their habitat in the analysis area.

Cumulative Effects Conclusion Effects to aquatic macroinvertebrate habitat by the proposed management actions were considered at multiple scales. On site impacts of activities to LWD and CWD recruitment, microclimate effects, and streamside areas (RCA, EEZ, and FSZ) were considered. Indirect impacts to stream habitat was considered, and cumulative effects were considered at both the sub-watershed scale, and the larger scale of the CWE Analysis Area which includes fifteen Huc-6 sub-watersheds, and analyzing the downstream effects of the two alternatives (USDA Forest Service 2013, Chapter 3, Soil and Water Resources).

The responses to the key factors (as described below) identified for riverine habitat would be affected by wildfire. As with numerous studies (included in Roby & Azuma 1995, and in Minshall, 2003), it is expected that stream temperatures, stream flows and nutrient levels will all increase in the short term, and that long term increase in sediment production and deposition will occur. Partial recovery of these systems will occur quickly (1-5 years), species diversity will be higher than pre-fire but species richness would be lower, and long term recovery of the macroinvertebrate community may take 10-50+ years. With salvage logging, the timeframes for recovery may be extended. Recovery of stream ecosystems from the effects of fire is likely to be slower, more sporadic, and potentially incomplete in cases where natural process is impaired (Minshall, 2003). Rapid recovery of stream macroinvertebrates is associated with the more rapid recovery of the riparian vegetation (Ibid).

It is anticipated that implementation of the Proposed Action, in combination with present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, implementation of the project design features and standards and guidelines would retain sufficient for LWD and CWD recruitment, maintain existing post-fire microclimate, and have minimal increase in sedimentation in the analysis area.

Effects of Alternative B (No-action) Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat No direct or indirect effect is expected to aquatic macroinvertebrates from the No-action Alternative.


36

Cumulative Effects to Habitat Cumulative effects of the No-action Alternative are identical to those presented under the Proposed Action above. Cumulative Effects Conclusion It is anticipated that implementation of the No-action Alternative, in combination with present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not have a cumulative effect to the population and habitat distribution across the Plumas National Forest. Thus existing aquatic macroinvertebrate population and habitat conditions would be maintained.

Summary of aquatic macroinvertebrates Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale The Plumas NF LRMP (as amended by the SNF MIS Amendment) requires bioregional-scale Index of Biological Integrity and Habitat monitoring for aquatic macroinvertebrates; hence, the lacustrine and riverine effects analysis for the Chipmunk Recovery and Restoration Project must be informed by these monitoring data. The sections below summarize the Biological Integrity and Habitat status and trend data for aquatic macroinvertebrates. This information is drawn from the detailed information on habitat and population trends in the 2010 Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010), which is hereby incorporated by reference.

Habitat Status and Trend Habitat monitoring for benthic macroinvertebrate data are collected and/or compiled at the bioregional scale, consistent with the LRMP as amended by the 2007 SNF MIS Amendment ROD (USDA Forest Service 2007a). Habitat trend is the direction of change in the amount or quality of habitat over time. The methodology for assessing habitat status and trend is described in detail in the SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2008). All habitat monitoring data are collected and/or compiled at the bioregional scale, consistent with the LRMP as amended by the 2007 SNF MIS Amendment ROD (USDA Forest Service 2007).

Population Status and Trend For aquatic macroinvertebrates, condition and trend is determined by analyzing macroinvertebrate data using the predictive, multivariate River Invertebrate Prediction and Classification System (RIVPACS) (Hawkins 2003) to determine whether the macroinvertebrate community has been impaired relative to reference condition within perennial water bodies. This monitoring consists of collecting aquatic macroinvertebrates and measuring stream habitat features according to the Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) manual (Frasier et al. 2005). Evaluation of the condition of the biological community is based upon the RIVPACs generated O/E (observed/ expected) score, which is a reflection of the number of species observed at a site versus the number expected to occur there based on the RIVPACS model in the absence of impairment. Sites with a low O/E scores have lost many species predicted to occur there, which is an indication that the site has a lower than expected richness of sensitive species and is therefore impaired.


37

Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional-Scale trends - Aquatic macroinvertebrates In the short term, based on the direct/indirect and cumulative effects of the Proposed Action and No-action Alternative, the status and trend of in-stream habitat and the macroinvertebrate community would be negatively impacted, but long term restoration and recovery would occur 10-50 years out. This impact could occur in approximately 10+ miles of perennial streams within the project area. These short term impacts at the project level are too small to have any affect at the larger scale and thus will not alter the existing trend in the habitat or population distribution of aquatic macroinvertebrates across the Sierra Nevada bioregion. Overall, the collection of condition scores reveals that there are many sites in very good-to-excellent condition (Table 11), since their O/E scores are near unity (i.e., the species of aquatic macroinvertebrates observed to occur at many sites closely matches those expected to occur at a site that is unimpaired). However, the sites sampled were specifically chosen because they generally represented the best sites available on each forest and data from them cannot be related confidently to broader scales for assessment of condition and trend. However, samples taken in future years at these sites will allow us to assess condition and trend at scales from stream reach up to watersheds of thousands of acres. Table 11. Summary of existing BMI bioassessment data from the Sierra Nevada national forests.

Forest Number of Sites

Samples Collected

What Years

Mean Watershed

Area (acres)

Range in Watershed

Areas (acres)

Mean RIVPACS O/E Score

Range in RIVPACS O/E Scores

Eldorado 10 2000-01 4,426 670 - 13,523 1.04 0.76 – 1.24 Inyo 9 2000-02 4,112 1,429 – 8,192 0.95 0.87 – 1.12 Lassen 18 2000 9,996 215 – 67,748 1.02 0.61 – 1.27 LTBMU 17 2000-01 3,054 263 – 10,905 0.89 0.58 – 1.16 Modoc 14 2000-01 82,176 1 – 913,982 0.81 0.67 – 1.34 Plumas 14 2000-05 67,244 1,262 –

564,652 0.92 0.57 – 1.26

Sequoia 8 2000 3,009 3 – 5,506 1.05 0.77 – 1.20 Sierra 10 2000-01 22,135 640 – 167,029 0.93 0.78 – 1.30 Stanislaus 14 2000-01 21,535 585 – 92,806 0.90 0.77 – 1.23 Tahoe 15 2000-01 11,429 480 – 87,939 0.93 0.59 – 1.26 Total 130 2000-05 23,686 1 – 913,982 0.95 0.57 – 1.34

Shrubland (West-Slope Chaparral) Habitat (Fox Sparrow)

Habitat/Species Relationship The Fox Sparrow was selected as the MIS for shrubland (chaparral) habitat on the west-slope of the Sierra Nevada, comprised of montane chaparral (MCP), mixed chaparral (MCH), and chamise-redshank chaparral (CRC) as defined by the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System (CWHR) (CDFG 2005). Recent empirical data from the Sierra Nevada indicate that, in the Sierra Nevada, the Fox Sparrow is dependent on open shrub-dominated habitats for breeding (Burnett and Humple 2003, Burnett et al. 2005, Sierra Nevada Research Center 2007).


38

Project-level Effects Analysis - Shrubland (West-Slope Chaparral) Habitat Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis

1. Acres of all shrubland (chaparral) habitats. 2. Acres with changes in all shrubland habitat ground cover class. 3. Acres with changes in all CWHR shrubland habitat size class.

Current Condition of the Habitat Factor(s) in the Analysis Area Based on the vegetation layer and the CWHR model, about 24 % of the analysis area may be considered shurbland habitat (Tables 4, 5, 12).

Table 12. Summary of Shrubland (west-slope chaparral types) habitat in the analysis area and Chip-munk Project treatment units (all acres are approximate and National Forest System lands only).

*MCH = Mixed Chaparral, MCP = Montane Chaparral (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988). Effects of the Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat The Chip-munk Project proposes to treat hazard trees and conduct salvage operations on approximately 13% (5,464 acres) of the analysis area (41,414 acres). Twenty-four percent (9,760 acres) of the analysis area is shrubland habitat, and about 31 % (3,024 acres) of the shurbland habitat in the analysis area is proposed for treatment in the Chip-munk Project (Tables 4, 5, 12). Roadside hazard tree and salvage treatments would not directly result in a change in the amount of shrubland habitat within the analysis area. However, the Proposed Action would directly affect shrubland habitat through reforestation of up to 3,675 acres, thus converting shrubland habitat back to early seral conifer habitat within a couple decades. Early seral conifer habitat resulting from reforestation under the action alternative will function similarly to shrubland habitat, but because such early seral conifer habitat would be classified as plantations, they could be subject to actions that release seedlings (such as grubbing, brush mastication, and pre-commercial thinning) that would accelerate the succession of this habitat into mid seral conifer habitat in the future. If every acre proposed for reforestation were treated, it would leave approximately 6,736 acres of shrubland habitat in the analysis area, which is well over three-times the amount of shrubland habitat that existed prior to the Chips Fire (Table 12). Overall, 69% of shrubland habitat would be retained post-project within the analysis area (Tables 5 and 12).


CWHR

Pre-fire

acres 0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%


area (exisiting

condition)


Areas

Roadside Hazard

Tree Salvage


MCH 336.0 135.7 19.6 25.3 155.5 336.0MCP 1451.7 565.7 107.8 109.2 669.0 9424.0 825.8 297.6 1900.8 3024.2TOTAL 1787.8 701.4 127.5 134.4 824.5 9760.1 825.8 297.6 1900.8 3024.2



39

Cumulative Effects to Habitat The existing condition reflects the changes of all activities that have occurred in the past. The analysis of cumulative effects of the alternatives evaluates the impact on MIS habitat from the existing condition within the analysis area.

As a result of the Chips Fire, many trees along National Forest System (NFS) and Plumas County roads were damaged and could fall into the roadway, posing a safety and access hazard to area residents and landowners, Forest Service personnel and contractors, special use permit holders, and the visiting public. Mt Hough Ranger District is implementing The Chips Fire Roadside Hazard Tree Removal Project (Chips Fire Roadside Project) on approximately six miles (up to 250 acres) of five main NFS and/or Plumas County roads have been identified for hazard tree removal. The majority of hazard trees proposed for removal occur in high severity burned areas; however, hazard trees within mixed severity burned areas will also be included to ensure the safety of road users in all those areas where burned trees pose a genuine risk of falling into the roadway. The four roads that are to be treated provide access to the communities of Caribou and Seneca, Butt Valley Reservoir, and PG&E infrastructure. These activities would have no effect on shrubland habitat in the analysis area.

Woodcutting and Christmas tree cutting programs on the PNF are expected to continue. The past and future effect of these actions has and would be to shift forest successional stages to somewhat earlier stages, while generally retaining continuous forest cover which would have no effect on shrubland habitat in the analysis area.

Most of the recreation use within the wildlife analysis areas consists of dispersed camping, hiking, horseback riding, hunting, mining, mountain biking, OHV use, pleasure driving, and wildlife watching. The use is expected to continue at the current rate. These activities would have no effect on shrubland habitat in the analysis area.

The Lassen National Forest has proposed the Poker Chip Project (salvage, danger tree and reforestation treatments) which overlaps the Chip-munk Project analysis area. While considering potential future impacts (such as the Chip-munk Project), Lassen NF biologists found there may be a positive impact of danger tree removal on shrubland habitat due to increased light exposure to the ground and proposed measures (retaining shrubs in some treatment units) to mediate any shrubland habitat loss associated with reforestation activites.


Cumulative Effects Conclusion It is anticipated that implementation of the Action Alternative, in combination with present and reasonably foreseeable future actions may slightly decrease or maintain the amount of shrubland habitat,


40

through reforestation, within the analysis area (dependent upon out-year plantation management). These changes will not alter the existing trend in the shrubland habitat. Effects of Alternative 2 (No-action) Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Habitat There would be no direct or indirect effects on shrubland habitat, as no activities would occur that would impact the existing habitat conditions, thus there would also be no additional cumulative effects as a result of selecting this alternative. As a result, existing shrubland habitat conditions and Fox Sparrow habitat conditions would be maintained.

Cumulative Effects Conclusion It is anticipated that implementation of the No-action Alternative, in combination with present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not have a cumulative effect to the population and habitat distribution across the Plumas National Forest. Thus existing shrubland habitat conditions and fox sparrow habitat conditions would be maintained.

Summary of Fox Sparrow Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale The Plumas NF LRMP (as amended by the SNF MIS Amendment) requires bioregional-scale habitat and distribution population monitoring for the Fox Sparrow; hence, the shrubland effects analysis for the Chip-munk Project must be informed by both habitat and distribution population monitoring data. The sections below summarize the habitat and distribution population status and trend data for the Fox Sparrow. This information is drawn from the detailed information on habitat and population trends in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010), which is hereby incorporated by reference.

Habitat Status and Trend There are currently 1,009,681 acres of west-slope chaparral shrubland habitat on National Forest System lands in the Sierra Nevada. Over the last two decades, the trend is slightly increasing (changing from 8% to 9% of the acres on National Forest System lands).

Population Status and Trend Monitoring of the Fox Sparrow across the ten National Forests in the Sierra Nevada has been conducted since 2009 in partnership with PRBO Conservation Science, as part of a monitoring effort that also includes Mountain Quail, Hairy Woodpecker, and Yellow Warbler (USDA Forest Service 2010, http://data.prbo.org/partners/usfs/snmis/). Fox Sparrows were detected on 36.9% of 1659 point counts in 2009 and 44.3% of 2266 point counts in 2010, with detections on all 10 national forests in both years. The average abundance (number of individuals recorded on passive point count surveys) was 0.563 in 2009 and 0.701 in 2010. These data indicate that Fox Sparrows continue to be distributed across the 10 Sierra Nevada National Forests. In addition, the Fox Sparrows continue to be monitored and surveyed in the Sierra Nevada at various sample locations by avian point count, spot mapping, mist-net, and breeding bird survey protocols. These are summarized in the 2008 Bioregional Monitoring Report (USDA Forest Service 2008). Current data at the range-wide, California, and Sierra Nevada scales



41

indicate that, although there may be localized declines in the population trend, the distribution of Fox Sparrow populations in the Sierra Nevada is stable.

Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional-Scale Fox Sparrow Trend The direct/indirect and cumulative effects of the Chip-munk Project would have a nominal effect on the amount and/or distribution of shrubland habitat through reforestation within the analysis area. The Chip-munk Project would not alter the existing trend in the habitat, nor would it lead to a change in the distribution of Fox Sparrow across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.

Snags in Burned Forest Ecosystem Component (Black-backed Woodpecker)

Habitat/Species Relationship The Black-backed Woodpecker was selected as the MIS for the ecosystem component of snags in burned forests. Recent data indicate that black-backed woodpeckers are dependent on snags created by stand-replacement fires (Hutto 1995, Kotliar et al. 2002, Smucker et al. 2005). Severely burned forests provide abundant snags that benefit both prey (by providing food for the specialized beetle larvae that serve as prey) and nesting sites (Hutto and Gallo 2006). Black-backed Woodpeckers were also found to select for moderate burn severity (Dudley 2012). Thus, suitable habitat would be considered in moderate to high vegetation burn severity areas (> 25% basal area mortality) of the pre-fire CWHR types listed below. Areas where vegetation burn severity habitat is low (< 25% basal area mortality) are not considered to provide suitable Black-backed Woodpecker habitat but may contribute future snag habitat for Black-backed Woodpecker foraging and nesting near moderate and high burn severity areas (Hutto 1995).

Project-level Effects Analysis – Snags in Burned Forest Ecosystem Component Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis

1. Large number of small and large snags per acre within burned forest created by moderate to high severity fire (>25% basal area mortality, within size classes 3,4,5, and 6 that existed pre-fire).

2. Moderate to dense stand density pre-fire (CWHR density classes M and D). 3. Exclude elevations below 3,700 as these areas are not frequently used by Black-backed

Woodpeckers.

Current Condition of the Key Habitat Factor(s) in the Chips Fire and Analysis Area The Chip-munk Project proposes to treat hazard trees and conduct salvage operations on approximately 13% (5,464 acres) of the analysis area (41,414 acres). Within the Chip Fire boundary, 11,561 acres of snags in burned forest habitat (>25% basal area mortality) was created, and 64% of this area burned at high severity (>75% basal area mortality, Table 13).Within the analysis area, 8,803 acres of potentially suitable Black-backed Woodpecker habitat was created, and 68% of those acres burned at high severity (Table 14). CWHR 3M and 3D were included in this analysis because size class trees 6-11” dbh have been utilized by Black-backed Woodpeckers, as shown in recent studies (Burnett et al. 2011, Seavy et al. 2012). The analysis area contains 663 acres CWHR with size class 3 of moderate and dense canopy cover and represents 8% of total suitable snags in burned forest habitat within the project area (Tables 14, 15).


42

Effects of the Action Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat The Chip-munk Project proposes to treat hazard trees and conduct salvage operations on approximately 13% (5,464 acres) of the analysis area (41,414 acres). Twenty-one percent (8,803 acres) of the analysis area contains potentially suitable Black-backed Woodpecker habitat, and about 31 % (2,767 acres) of potentially suitable habitat in the analysis area is proposed for treatment in the Chip-munk Project (Tables 13-15). Several studies have suggested that Black-backed Woodpecker distribution is most associated with areas that burned at the high end of the fire severity spectrum (Russell et al. 2007, Hanson and North 2008, Vierling et al. 2008, Hutto 2008). Acres of potentially suitable Black-backed Woodpecker habitat that burned at high severity (>75% basal area mortality, 5,980 acres) comprise 68% of potential habitat in the analysis area and 38% of these acres are in Chip-munk Project treatment units (Tables 14-15).

Of the 2,767 acres of potentially suitable Black-backed Woodpecker habitat proposed for treatment in the Chip-munk Project (Table 15), 9% (243 acres) are roadside hazard tree treatment, 63% (1,758 acres) are salvage treatment, and 28% (767 acres) are within Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs; Table 15). Roadside hazard tree removal and salvage operations are restricted within 950 acres of RCAs, and 50% (474 acres) of these acres are potentially suitable for Black-backed Woodpeckers (Table 16; total RCA acres = 1,464; equipment exclusion and full suspension zone acres = 950; snags in burned forest habitat acres = 474; see Appendix B for RCA and equipment exclusion and full suspension zone widths). Based on project design criteria, we do not anticipate significant salvage activities in RCA equipment exclusion and full suspension zones for tractor units. Within Chip-munk Project treatment units, snag retention areas also would be designated and maintain 370 acres of snags in burned forest habitat. Further, the 243 acres of snags in burned forest habitat within roadside hazard treatment units may still provide suitable habitat for snags in burned forest species (e.g., roadside hazard tree removal units would likely still provide foraging habitat for Black-backed Woodpeckers).

We estimate 73% (6,406 acres) of potentially suitable Black-backed Woodpecker habitat in the analysis area will be retained post Chip-munk Project (Tables 14-15; 8,803 acres available; 2,767 acres proposed for treatment; 370 acres snag retention). Of those acres proposed for treatment (2,397 acres), equipment and full suspension restrictions within RCAs will maintain approximately 474 additional acres of woodpecker habitat (although some salvage may occur in these areas if operators are able to fully suspend harvested timber). Further, roadside hazard tree units (243 acres) will provide some level of woodpecker habitat (e.g., foraging sites). If we consider RCA exclusion and full suspension zones and roadside hazard acres as providing some level of snags in burned forest habitat, our estimate of potentially suitable Black-backed Woodpecker habitat maintained post-project ranges between 73-81% (Tables 14-16).


43

Table 13. Summary of Snags in Burned Forest Habitat within the Chips Fire boundary and four basal area mortality categories (all acres are approximate and National Forest System lands only).

*1 = Seedling Tree <1” dbh, 2 = Sapling Tree 1 - 6” dbh,, 3 = Pole Tree 6 - 11” dbh, 4 = Small Tree 11 - 24"dbh. D = Dense Canopy Cover (> 60%), M = Moderate Canopy Cover (40 - 59%), P = Open Canopy Cover (25 – 39%), S = Sparse Canopy Cover (10 – 24%), DFR = Douglas-Fir, EPN = Eastside Pine, JPN = Jeffrey Pine, LPN = Lodgepole Pine, PPN = Ponderosa Pine, RFR = Red Fir, SMC = Sierra Mixed Conifer, WFR = White Fir (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988).

CWHR 0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% Total

Potential Black-backed Woodpecker

habitatJPN 3M 4.2 4.2 0.0PPN 3M 9.8 1.4 4.1 10.3 25.6 15.8SMC 3D 219.0 16.6 11.8 45.3 292.6 73.6SMC 3M 465.3 66.3 59.8 439.6 1031.0 565.7WFR 3D 150.9 9.4 8.2 50.9 219.4 68.5WFR 3M 183.7 15.1 6.8 16.4 222.0 38.3

3D 3M subtotal 1032.9 108.8 90.7 562.4 1794.8 761.9

PPN 4D 13.8 0.2 0.0 0.2 14.3 0.4PPN 4M 11.7 0.0 11.7 0.0RFR 4M 60.0 11.0 6.8 24.6 102.4 42.4SMC 4D 2997.1 169.4 121.3 524.2 3812.0 814.9SMC 4M 7135.0 581.8 477.7 1683.9 9878.4 2743.4WFR 4D 677.3 81.7 68.7 209.3 1037.0 359.7WFR 4M 1325.2 138.8 90.1 298.0 1852.1 526.9

4D 4M subtotal 12220.2 982.9 764.6 2740.2 16707.9 4487.7

SMC 5D 5405.6 386.6 286.0 1110.3 7188.4 1782.9SMC 5M 7646.1 692.9 538.4 2539.0 11416.5 3770.4WFR 5D 753.2 38.7 38.0 113.3 943.2 190.0WFR 5M 860.3 100.0 97.1 371.1 1428.6 568.2

5D 5M subtotal 14665.1 1218.2 959.5 4133.7 20976.6 6311.5

GRAND TOTAL 27918.3 2309.9 1814.8 7436.3 39479.4 11561.1



44

Table 14. Summary of Snags in Burned Forest Habitat within the analysis area and four basal area mortality categories (all acres are approximate and National Forest System lands only).

*1 = Seedling Tree <1” dbh, 2 = Sapling Tree 1 - 6” dbh,, 3 = Pole Tree 6 - 11” dbh, 4 = Small Tree 11 - 24"dbh. D = Dense Canopy Cover (> 60%), M = Moderate Canopy Cover (40 - 59%), P = Open Canopy Cover (25 – 39%), S = Sparse Canopy Cover (10 – 24%), DFR = Douglas-Fir, EPN = Eastside Pine, JPN = Jeffrey Pine, LPN = Lodgepole Pine, PPN = Ponderosa Pine, RFR = Red Fir, SMC = Sierra Mixed Conifer, WFR = White Fir (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988).

CWHR 0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% TotalPPN 3M 9.8 1.4 4.1 10.3 25.6 15.8SMC 3D 136.3 11.8 8.6 39.0 195.8 59.5SMC 3M 316.6 54.6 52.5 419.8 843.5 526.9WFR 3D 71.8 5.4 3.2 39.3 119.7 47.9WFR 3M 84.5 3.8 2.3 6.5 97.1 12.6

3D 3M subtotal 619.1 77.0 70.8 514.8 1281.7 662.6

PPN 4D 13.8 0.2 0.0 0.2 14.3 0.4PPN 4M 11.7 0.0 11.7 0.0SMC 4D 2356.9 128.2 93.9 413.4 2992.5 635.5SMC 4M 5112.5 439.2 361.1 1444.3 7357.0 2244.5WFR 4D 272.2 17.7 17.1 58.9 365.9 93.7WFR 4M 352.7 44.6 34.7 150.5 582.6 229.9

4D 4M subtotal 8120.0 630.0 506.8 2067.3 11324.0 3204.1

SMC 5D 4582.0 354.5 255.7 1060.0 6252.1 1670.1SMC 5M 5197.0 485.1 391.2 2189.1 8262.5 3065.4WFR 5D 185.1 6.2 4.5 26.7 222.5 37.4WFR 5M 495.3 23.6 17.4 122.0 658.3 163.0

5D 5M subtotal 10459.4 869.4 668.8 3397.7 15395.3 4936.0

GRAND TOTAL 19198.4 1576.4 1246.4 5979.8 28001.1 8802.7



habitat


45

Table 15. Summary of Snags in Burned Forest Habitat within Chip-munk Project treatment units and four basal area mortality categories (all acres are approximate and National Forest System lands only).

*1 = Seedling Tree <1” dbh, 2 = Sapling Tree 1 - 6” dbh,, 3 = Pole Tree 6 - 11” dbh, 4 = Small Tree 11 - 24"dbh. D = Dense Canopy Cover (> 60%), M = Moderate Canopy Cover (40 - 59%), P = Open Canopy Cover (25 – 39%), S = Sparse Canopy Cover (10 – 24%), DFR = Douglas-Fir, EPN = Eastside Pine, JPN = Jeffrey Pine, LPN = Lodgepole Pine, PPN = Ponderosa Pine, RFR = Red Fir, SMC = Sierra Mixed Conifer, WFR = White Fir (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988)

Treatment type CWHR

0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100% TotalRoadside Hazard Tree 3D 6.3 0.0 0.2 0.1 6.6 0.3

3M 20.1 1.8 0.8 8.0 30.7 10.50.0

4D 57.3 7.0 7.4 23.5 95.2 37.94M 161.4 17.3 11.4 45.9 236.1 74.75D 47.9 7.0 4.4 9.6 68.9 21.05M 280.1 27.1 18.1 53.3 378.5 98.4

Subtotal 573.2 60.1 42.4 140.3 816.0 242.9

Riparian Conservation Areas 3D 2.0 0.4 0.0 0.2 2.6 0.73M 5.6 1.0 1.1 7.4 15.2 9.6

0.04D 30.7 5.8 5.7 37.0 79.2 48.54M 76.3 13.4 18.7 172.3 280.7 204.45D 37.1 6.4 8.7 88.0 140.2 103.25M 167.3 23.6 25.7 351.1 567.6 400.3

Subtotal 318.9 50.7 59.9 656.0 1085.4 766.6

Salvage 3D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.03M 2.5 0.4 0.8 25.7 29.5 27.0

0.04D 25.2 7.2 8.5 79.6 120.5 95.34M 107.6 45.9 71.4 431.9 656.8 549.25D 47.1 13.7 20.3 175.6 256.6 209.55M 111.2 42.6 68.4 765.7 988.0 876.7

Subtotal 293.7 109.8 169.4 1478.5 2051.4 1757.7

GRAND TOTAL 1185.7 220.6 271.7 2274.9 3952.9 2767.2

Pre-fire CWHR acres within four basal area mortality categories Potential

Black-backed Woodpecker

habitat


46

Table 16. Summary of snags in burned forest habitat within Chip-munk Project equipment exclusion and full suspension zones (see Appendix B for zone details).

3 = Pole Tree 6 - 11” dbh, 4 = Small Tree 11 - 24"dbh; D = Dense Canopy Cover (> 60%), M = Moderate Canopy Cover (40 - 59%), P = Open Canopy Cover (25 – 39%), S = Sparse Canopy Cover (10 – 24%); DFR = Douglas-Fir, EPN = Eastside Pine, JPN = Jeffrey Pine, LPN = Lodgepole Pine, PPN = Ponderosa Pine, RFR = Red Fir, SMC = Sierra Mixed Conifer, WFR = White Fir (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988).

There is considerable variation in home range size among individual Black-backed Woodpeckers. Recent studies on PNF (Wheeler Fire) estimated individual home range sizes varying between 59-166 acres (95% Brownian bridge kernel) or 412-822 acres (minimum convex polygon), dependent upon home range size estimation method (Siegel et al. 2013). Further, this same study examined Black-backed Woodpecker home range size on the Lassen NF (Peterson and Sugarloaf Fire areas) and found similarly wide variation among individuals, with generally larger home range size estimates compared to PNF (Brownian bridge (95%) range of estimates = 101-773 acres, minimum convex polygon range of estimates = 252-1,967 acres). Variation in home range size within and across populations limits our ability to accurately estimate the potential number of Black-backed Woodpecker territories within suitable habitat. However, we did crudely estimate the number of potential woodpecker territories within the analysis area to examine the relative impact of the Chip-munk Project. For simplicity, we used a range of home range sizes (59-166 acres) based on the mean (+/- 1 standard deviation) estimated home range size for Black-backed Woodpeckers on PNF (95%, Brownian bridge estimator, Siegel et al. 2013). If we assume all snags in burned forest habitat within the analysis area (8,803 acres) is available and suitable for Black-backed Woodpeckers, the analysis area could potentially support between 53-149 woodpecker territories within the analysis area (8,803/166 = 53, 8,803/59 = 149). Using these same simplifying assumptions, the analysis area could potentially support 38-108 woodpecker territories post Chip-munk Project (6,406 acres of snags in burned forest habitat retained post-project). Using this crude method to examine the relative impact of the Chip-munk Project underestimates project impact on snags in burned forest habitat suitability for Black-backed Woodpeckers. Implementation of the Chip-munk Project will fragment available habitat, potentially rendering some portions of the analysis area not suitable or unavailable. Snag retention areas (370 acres) and restrictions on activities in RCAs (Appendix B) would

Pre-fire CWHR acres in four basal area mortality categories

CWHR 0-25% 25-50% 50-75% >75% Total pre-fire acresSMC 3D 0.4 0.2 0.0 0.6 0.2SMC 3M 1.4 0.2 0.6 2.3 4.5 3.2SMC 4D 12.0 2.1 2.4 15.0 31.5 19.5SMC 4M 40.1 8.0 12.0 78.2 138.3 98.2SMC 5D 19.3 3.0 5.6 52.4 80.2 61.0SMC 5M 96.8 15.6 16.2 220.1 348.7 251.9WFR 3D 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0WFR 3M 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0WFR 4D 1.6 0.1 0.4 0.4 2.6 0.9WFR 4M 2.7 0.4 1.1 9.9 14.2 11.4WFR 5D 2.6 0.2 0.0 2.9 0.3WFR 5M 6.3 0.8 1.8 24.4 33.3 27.0TOTAL 183.6 30.7 40.1 402.8 657.2 473.6


habitat


47

be implemented to mediate fragmentation effects on Black-backed Woodpeckers. Although these measures will not eliminate negative impacts of the Proposed Action on snags in burned forest habitat and the species it supports, they will mediate these effects to some extent.

Cumulative Effects to Habitat The existing condition reflects the changes of all activities that have occurred in the past. The analysis of cumulative effects of the alternatives evaluates the impact on MIS habitat from the existing condition within the analysis area.

As a result of the Chips Fire, many trees along National Forest System (NFS) and Plumas County roads were damaged and could fall into the roadway, posing a safety and access hazard to area residents and landowners, Forest Service personnel and contractors, special use permit holders, and the visiting public. Mt Hough Ranger District is implementing The Chips Fire Roadside Hazard Tree Removal Project (Chips Fire Roadside Project) on approximately six miles (up to 250 acres) of five main NFS and/or Plumas County roads have been identified for hazard tree removal. The majority of hazard trees proposed for removal occur in high severity burned areas; however, hazard trees within mixed severity burned areas will also be included to ensure the safety of road users in all those areas where burned trees pose a genuine risk of falling into the roadway. The four roads that are to be treated provide access to the communities of Caribou and Seneca, Butt Valley Reservoir, and PG&E infrastructure. These activities would have nominal effect on snags in burned forest habitat in the analysis area.

The woodcutting and Christmas tree cutting programs on the PNF are ongoing programs that have been in existence for years and are expected to continue. The past and future effect of the woodcutting program has and would be to reduce snags, in all forest types (including burned patches), along roadsides throughout much of the analysis area. However, the impacts are expected to be minimal due to the topography (steep), accessibility in the area and the abundance of snags post fire.


Most recreation use within the analysis areas consists of dispersed camping, hiking, horseback riding, hunting, mining, mountain biking, OHV use, pleasure driving, and wildlife watching. The use is expected to continue at the current rate. These activities would have no effect on snags in burned forest in the analysis area.

The Lassen National Forest has proposed the Poker Chip Project (salvage, danger tree and reforestation treatments) which overlaps the Chip-munk Project analysis area. Lassen NF biologists estimated the Poker Chips Project could potentially eliminate 477 acres of snags in burned forest habitat. The cumulative effects of Poker Chip and Chip-munk Projects on National Forest lands would be the potential loss of 2,874 acres of snags in burned forest habitat.


48

Cumulative Effects Conclusion Considering treatment estimates for the Poker Chips and Chip-munk Projects, approximately 75% (8,687 acres) of potentially suitable Black-backed Woodpecker habitat within the Chips Fire boundary would not be treated (Table 13). Implementation of salvage and reforestation treatments within the analysis area, in combination with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would result in a decline in habitat availability and distribution, and potentially a reduction in the amount of woodpeckers the analysis area could potentially support. However, overall there would be an increase in suitable habitat over pre-fire conditions, and local populations should remain relatively stable given the retention of such a large portion of potentially suitable habitat post-project.

Effects of Alternative 2 (No-action) Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Habitat No tree removal would occur with this alternative. Snags in burned forest habitat would remain in the analysis area.

Cumulative Effects Conclusion It is anticipated that implementation of the no action alternative, in combination with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not have a cumulative effect to the population and habitat distribution across the Plumas National Forest. There would be short term population increase resulting from the suitable habitat created by wildfire.

Summary of Black-backed Woodpecker Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale The Plumas NF LRMP (as amended by the SNF MIS Amendment) requires bioregional-scale habitat and distribution population monitoring for the Black-backed Woodpecker; hence, the snags effects analysis for the Chip-munk Project must be informed by both habitat and distribution population monitoring data. The sections below summarize the habitat and distribution population status and trend data for the Black-backed Woodpecker. This information is drawn from the detailed information on habitat and distribution population trends in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010), which is hereby incorporated by reference.

Ecosystem Component Status and Trend The current average number of medium-sized and large-sized snags (≥ 15” dbh, all decay classes) per acre across major coniferous and hardwood forest types (westside mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, white fir, productive hardwoods, red fir, eastside pine) in the Sierra Nevada ranges from 1.5 per acre in eastside pine to 9.1 per acre in white fir. In 2008, snags in these forest types ranged from 1.4 per acre in eastside pine to 8.3 per acre in white fir (USDA Forest Service 2010).

Data from the early-to-mid 2000s were compared with the current data to calculate the trend in total snags per acre by Regional forest type for the 10 Sierra Nevada national forests and indicate that, during this period, snags per acre increased within westside mixed conifer (+0.76), white fir (+2.66), productive hardwoods (+0.35) and red fir (+1.25) and decreased within ponderosa pine (-0.16) and eastside pine (-0.14).


49

Detailed information by forest type, snag size, and snag decay class can be found in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010).

These data include snags in both green forest and burned forest. Between 2000 and 2007, 211,000 acres underwent severe burn and 176,000 acres underwent moderate burn in the Sierra Nevada.

Population Status and Trend Monitoring of the black-backed woodpecker across the 10 National Forests in the Sierra Nevada has been conducted since 2008 in partnership with the Institute for Bird Populations (IBP) (USDA Forest Service 2010, http://www.birdpop.org/Sierra/bbwo.htm). In 2008, Black-Backed Woodpeckers were detected at 68 survey stations distributed across 10 of the 19 fire areas surveyed. In 2009, black-backed woodpeckers were detected at 169 survey station distributed across 28 of the 51 fire areas surveyed. In both years, occupied sites were well distributed across the 10 Sierra Nevada National Forests, included burned areas of a variety of sizes, and included areas 1 to 10 years post-fire. These data indicate that black-backed woodpeckers continue to be distributed across the 10 Sierra Nevada National Forests. Additionally, mean occupancy probability for stations surveyed during 2009 was 0.253 (95% credible interval: 0.222 – 0.289); applying this probability across the 10 Sierra Nevada National Forests yields an estimate that approximately 81,814 ha (25.3%) (range of 71,921 – 93,610 ha) of the 323,358 ha of burned forest (burned between 1999 and 2008) within monitoring area were occupied by Black-backed Woodpeckers in 2009. In addition, the Black-backed Woodpeckers continue to be surveyed in the Sierra Nevada at various sample locations by avian point count, spot mapping, mist-net, and breeding bird survey protocols. These are summarized in the 2010 Bioregional Monitoring Report (USDA Forest Service 2010). Current data at the range-wide, California, and Sierra Nevada scales indicate that the distribution of black-backed woodpecker populations in the Sierra Nevada is stable. On 08 April 2013, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service announced a 90-day status review finding on a petition to lest the Oregon Cascades-California population and Black Hills population of the Black-backed Woodpecker under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act), as subspecies or distinct population segments that are endangered or threatened, and to designate critical habitat concurrent with the listing (Federal Registry Document 2013-07897). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has found that these two populations may warrant listing and initiated a status review to determine whether listing each population as endangered or threatened under the Act is warranted. This 90-day finding does not constitute a status review under the Act. The Service will report on their finding on whether a petition action is warranted in a 12-month finding, after completing a thorough status review of the species (a substantial 90-day finding does not mean that the 12-month finding will result in a warranted finding.

Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional-Scale Black-Backed Woodpecker Trend The direct, indirect, and cumulative effect of the Chip-munk Project in terms of changes in medium-sized and large-sized snags per acre within burned forest habitat would change from the existing condition. With the implementation of the Chip-munk Project, there would be a reduction in burned forest habitat supporting snags, potentially reducing habitat that could support Black-Backed Woodpecker. Thus, the


50

potential for the analysis area to support woodpeckers declines post project implementation. Overall, the analysis area still supports large amounts of habitat (snags in burned forest) that may support higher densities of woodpeckers compared to 2002 levels. The Proposed Action would not alter the existing trend in the ecosystem component, nor would it lead to a change in the distribution of Black-backed Woodpecker across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.

Snags in Green Forest Ecosystem Component (Hairy woodpecker)

Habitat/Species Relationship The Hairy Woodpecker was selected as the MIS for the ecosystem component of snags in green forests. Medium (diameter breast height between 15 to 30 inches) and large (diameter breast height greater than 30 inches) snags are most important. Hairy Woodpeckers use stands of large, mature trees and snags of sparse to intermediate density; cover is also provided by tree cavities (CDFG 2005). Mature timber and dead snags or trees of moderate to large size are apparently more important than tree species (Siegel and DeSante 1999).

Project-level Effects Analysis - Snags in Green Forest Ecosystem Component

Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis 1. Green forest acres potentially supporting medium and large snags within the terrestrial wildlife

analysis area (CWHR size class 4 and 5).

Current Condition of the Habitat Factor(s) in the Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area Based on the vegetation layer and the CWHR model, about 80% of the pre-fire analysis area may have been supporting medium (CWHR size class 4) and large (CWHR size class 5) snags (Tables 3, 17). Approximately 69% of this habitat did not burn or was burned at low severity (< 25% basal area mortality) during the Chips Fire (Tables 17). Overall, the Chips Fire reduced the habitat potentially supporting medium and large snags in the analysis area by 16%, from 33,089 to 26, 378 acres (Table 17).

Effects of the Action Alternatives Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat The Chip-munk Project proposes to treat hazard trees and conduct salvage operations on approximately 13% (5,464 acres) of the analysis area (41,414 acres). Twenty-five percent (26,378 acres) of the analysis area may contain medium and large snags, and about 8% of those acres are proposed for treatment under the Chip-munk Project (Table 17). For those acres within treatment units potentially containing medium and large snags (2,165 acres), 62% are in Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) or are within roadside hazard units (i.e., no salvage will occur, Table 17). Roadside hazard tree removal and salvage operations are restricted within 950 acres of RCAs, (total RCA acres = 1,464; equipment exclusion and full suspension zone acres = 950; see Appendix B for RCA and equipment exclusion and full suspension zone widths). Based on project design criteria, we do not anticipate significant salvage activities in RCA equipment exclusion and full suspension zones for tractor units. Within Chip-munk Project treatment units, snag retention areas also would be designated and maintain 370 acres of snags adjacent to forests


51

not in Chip-munk Project treatment units. In total, 3% of habitat in the analysis area potentially supporting medium and large snags may experience meaningful loss of these habitat components as a result of the Chip-munk project (828 acres of salvage, Table 17). The potential exists for some additional snags to be removed due to safety and operability concerns; however snag recruitment in the analysis area also is expected to increase due to fire kill, and project design criteria requires replacement snags of the same species and size class be retained within treatment units in such cases. Although the net result of snag loss and gain is not determinable, the Proposed Action calls for the retention of snags at SNFPA (2004) Standards.

Cumulative Effects to Habitat The existing condition reflects the changes of all activities that have occurred in the past. The analysis of cumulative effects of the Proposed Action evaluates the impact on MIS habitat from the existing condition within the terrestrial wildlife analysis area.

The woodcutting and Christmas tree cutting programs on the PNF are ongoing programs that have been in existence for years and are expected to continue. The past and future effect of the woodcutting program has and would be to reduce snags, in all forest types, along roadsides throughout much of the analysis area. However, the impacts are expected to be minimal due to the topography (steep), accessibility in the area and the abundance of snags post fire.

As a result of the Chips Fire, many trees along National Forest System (NFS) and Plumas County roads were damaged and could fall into the roadway, posing a safety and access hazard to area residents and landowners, Forest Service personnel and contractors, special use permit holders, and the visiting public. Mt Hough Ranger District is implementing The Chips Fire Roadside Hazard Tree Removal Project (Chips Fire Roadside Project) on approximately six miles (up to 250 acres) of five main NFS and/or Plumas County roads have been identified for hazard tree removal. The majority of hazard trees proposed for removal occur in high severity burned areas; however, hazard trees within mixed severity burned areas will also be included to ensure the safety of road users in all those areas where burned trees pose a genuine risk of falling into the roadway. The four roads that are to be treated provide access to the communities of Caribou and Seneca, Butt Valley Reservoir, and PG&E infrastructure. These activities would have a nominal effect on snags in burned forest habitat in the analysis area.



52

Table 17. Summary of Green Forest acres potentially supporting medium and large snags within the analysis area and Chip-munk Project treatment units (all acres are approximate and National Forest System lands only).

*1 = Seedling Tree <1” dbh, 2 = Sapling Tree 1 - 6” dbh, 3 = Pole Tree 6 - 11” dbh, 4 = Small Tree 11 - 24"dbh, 5 = Medium/Large Tree >24"dbh, 6 = Multi-layered Tree. D = Dense Canopy Cover (> 60%), M = Moderate Canopy Cover (40 - 59%), P = Open Canopy Cover (25 – 39%), S = Sparse Canopy Cover (10 – 24%), DFR = Douglas-Fir, EPN = Eastside Pine, JPN = Jeffrey Pine, LPN = Lodgepole Pine, PPN = Ponderosa Pine, RFR = Red Fir, SMC = Sierra Mixed Conifer, WFR = White Fir, WTM = Wet Meadow (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988).

Most recreation use within the analysis areas consists of dispersed camping, hiking, horseback riding, hunting, mining, mountain biking, OHV use, pleasure driving, and wildlife watching. The use is expected to continue at the current rate. These activities would have no effect on snags in the analysis area.

The Lassen National Forest has proposed the Poker Chip Project (salvage, danger tree and reforestation treatments) which overlaps the Chip-munk Project analysis area. Lassen NF biologists estimated the Poker Chip Project would potentially impact 201 acres of habitat containing medium and large snags (salvage units).

Cumulative Effects Conclusion It is anticipated that implementation of the Proposed Action, in combination with present and reasonably foreseeable future actions would somewhat decrease the amount of snags in green forest habitat within the analysis area. However, the Chip-munk Project calls for the retention of snags at SNFPA (2004) Standards. The proposed action would have minimal impact on snags within green forests because dead trees are to be removed primarily from areas that burned at high/moderate severity that do not support green forest ecosystem.


CWHRPre-fire

acres 0-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-100%


area (exisiting

condition)


Areas

Roadside Hazard

Tree Salvage


JPN 4P 76.6 75.0 1.5 0.0 0.1 75.0JPN 4S 487.8 434.6 27.4 15.2 10.7 478.7JPN 5P 31.5 31.5 31.5PPN 4D 14.3 13.8 0.2 0.0 0.2 13.8PPN 4M 11.7 11.7 0.0 11.7PPN4P 146.0 32.4 13.5 16.8 83.2 32.6 1.9 1.1 1.4 4.4PPN4S 225.1 122.1 25.6 25.0 52.3 203.1 8.9 2.0 5.6 16.5PPN5P 160.3 111.5 10.9 11.9 26.0 111.5 10.6 8.5 1.7 20.8PPN5S 22.8 0.8 11.0 0.0 11.9SMC4D 2992.5 2356.9 128.2 93.9 413.4 2356.5 29.1 17.1 45.5 91.6SMC4M 7357.0 5112.5 439.2 361.1 1444.3 5112.1 72.2 105.4 150.4 328.0SMC4P 3286.4 2047.9 245.0 207.0 786.6 2615.1 53.4 85.6 110.9 249.9SMC4S 341.0 277.9 23.2 14.6 25.3 1222.5 48.7 131.9 57.5 238.1SMC5D 6252.1 4582.0 354.5 255.7 1060.0 4582.0 32.1 47.1 42.3 121.5SMC5M 8262.5 5197.0 485.1 391.2 2189.1 5196.7 152.2 110.4 248.5 511.1SMC5P 963.8 675.1 67.1 50.3 171.3 1514.7 48.6 87.9 49.6 186.1SMC5S 58.0 47.5 7.7 1.6 1.1 821.1 42.0 106.2 32.2 180.4WFR4D 365.9 272.2 17.7 17.1 58.9 272.2 1.6 8.1 11.8 21.6WFR4M 582.6 352.7 44.6 34.7 150.5 352.7 4.1 2.2 11.0 17.3WFR4P 514.6 371.6 45.0 37.5 60.6 433.9 24.6 19.9 12.2 56.7WFR4S 43.8 13.2 1.3 1.9 27.3 150.7 7.6 25.6 9.0 42.2WFR5D 222.5 185.1 6.2 4.5 26.7 185.1 5.0 0.0 5.6 10.5WFR5M 658.3 495.3 23.6 17.4 122.0 495.2 15.1 0.8 30.6 46.5WFR5P 32.8 29.8 2.2 0.6 0.2 59.6 2.1 0.6 1.4 4.2WFR5S 2.2 1.6 0.5 0.1 26.9 2.8 2.1 0.9 5.7

TOTAL 33089.2 22851.0 1970.3 1558.1 6709.7 26377.8 563.2 773.7 828.0 2165.0



53

Effects of Alternative 2 (No-action)

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects to Habitat Selection of the No-action Alternative would contribute to no direct or indirect effects to snags in green forest habitat, thus there would also be no additional cumulative effects as a result of selecting this alternative. Therefore, there would be no direct, indirect or cumulative impacts to snags in green forest habitat. As a result, existing snags in green forest habitat conditions and Hairy Woodpecker habitat conditions would be maintained.

Cumulative Effects Conclusion It is anticipated that implementation of the No-action Alternative, in combination with present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, would not have a cumulative effect to the population and habitat distribution across the Plumas National Forest. Thus existing snags in green forest habitat conditions and Hairy Woodpecker habitat conditions would be maintained.

Summary of Hairy Woodpecker Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale The Plumas NF LRMP (as amended by the SNF MIS Amendment) requires bioregional-scale habitat and distribution population monitoring for the hairy woodpecker; hence, the snag effects analysis for the Clarks Aspen Project must be informed by both habitat and distribution population monitoring data. The sections below summarize the habitat and distribution population status and trend data for the Hairy Woodpecker. This information is drawn from the detailed information on habitat and distribution population trends in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010), which is hereby incorporated by reference.

Habitat Status and Trend The current average number of medium-sized and large-sized snags (≥ 15” dbh, all decay classes) per acre across major coniferous and hardwood forest types (westside mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, white fir, productive hardwoods, red fir, eastside pine) in the Sierra Nevada ranges from 1.5 per acre in eastside pine to 9.1 per acre in white fir. In 2008, snags in these types ranged from 1.4 per acre in eastside pine to 8.3 per acre in white fir (USDA Forest Service 2008).

Data from the early-to-mid 2000s were compared with the current data to calculate the trend in total snags per acre by Regional forest type for the 10 Sierra Nevada national forests and indicate that, during this period, snags per acre increased within westside mixed conifer (+0.76), white fir (+2.66), productive hardwoods (+0.35), and red fir (+1.25) and decreased within ponderosa pine (-0.16) and eastside pine (-0.14).

Detailed information by forest type, snag size, and snag decay class can be found in the 2010 SNF Bioregional MIS Report (USDA Forest Service 2010).

Population Status and Trend Monitoring of the Hairy Woodpecker across the ten National Forests in the Sierra Nevada has been conducted since 2009 in partnership with PRBO Conservation Science, as part of a monitoring effort that also includes Mountain Quail, Fox Sparrow, and Yellow Warbler (USDA Forest Service 2010, http://data.prbo.org/partners/usfs/snmis/). Hairy Woodpeckers were detected on 15.1% of 1659



54

point counts (and 25.2% of 424 playback points) in 2009 and 16.7% of 2266 point counts (and 25.6% of 492 playback points) in 2010, with detections on all 10 national forests in both years. The average abundance (number of individuals recorded on passive point count surveys) was 0.116 in 2009 and 0.107 in 2010. These data indicate that hairy woodpeckers continue to be distributed across the 10 Sierra Nevada National Forests. In addition, the Hairy Woodpeckers continue to be monitored and surveyed in the Sierra Nevada at various sample locations by avian point count and breeding bird survey protocols. These are summarized in the 2008 Bioregional Monitoring Report (USDA Forest Service 2008). Current data at the range-wide, California, and Sierra Nevada scales indicate that the distribution of hairy woodpecker populations in the Sierra Nevada is stable.

Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional-Scale Hairy Woodpecker Trend The direct/indirect and cumulative effects of the Chip-munk Project, in terms of potential medium-sized and large-sized snags per acre within green forest habitat, under the Proposed Action would not change with time, the amount and distribution of snags in green forest habitat within the analysis area. Since there will be no affect, the Chip-munk Project will not alter the existing trend in the ecosystem component, nor will it lead to a change in the distribution of Hairy Woodpecker across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.

Literature Cited Bock, C.E., and J.F. Lynch. 1970. Breeding Bird Populations of Burned and Unburned Conifer Forest in

the Sierra Nevada. The Condor 72 (2):182-189

Burnett, R. D., and D. L. Humple. 2003. Songbird monitoring in the Lassen National Forest: Results from the 2002 field season with summaries of 6 years of data (1997- 2002). A PRBO report to the Forest Service.

Burnett, R.D., D.L. Humple, T.Gardali, and M.Rogner. 2005. Avian monitoring in Lassen National Forest 2004 Annual Report. PRBO Conservation Science Contribution Number 1242. 96pp.

Burnett, R.D., P. Taillie, and N. Seavy. 2011. Plumas Lassen Study 2010 Annual Report. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. 2005. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) version 8.1 personal computer program. Sacramento, CA. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.asp. (Accessed: January 3, 2008).

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2007. Deer Hunting Final Environmental Document, April 10, 2007. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. 80pp + appendices.

Collins, C. 2009. Management Indicator Species Report, Moonlight and Wheeler Fires Recovery and Restoration Project, Mt. Hough Ranger District, Plumas National Forest. February 2009.

Cover, MR. C.L. May, W.E. Dietrich, V.H.Resh. 2008. Quantitative linkages among sediment supply, streambed fine sediment, and benthic macroinvertebrates in northern California


55

streams. The North American Benthological Society, DOI: 109.1899/07-032.1 pub. 15 January 2008. pp 135-149.

Cover, M.R., V.H. Resh, M.C.L. Dietrich. XXX. Quantitative Linkages Between Sediment Supply, Streambed Fine Sediment, and Benthic Macroinvertebrates in Streams of the Klamath National Forest. Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, Division of Insect Biology, University of California at Berkeley Department of Earth and Planetary Science, University of California at Berkeley.

Dixon, Rita D. and Victoria A. Saab. 2000. Black-backed Woodpecker (Picoides arcticus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/509.

Dudley, J.G., V.A. Saab, and J.P Hollenbeck. 2012. Foraging-habitat selection of Balck-backed Woodpeckers in forest burns of southwestern Idaho. Condor 114:348-357.

EPA. 2006. Wadeable Streams Assessment: A Collaborative Survey of the Nation’s Streams, Office of Research and Development, Office of Water Washington, DC 20460; EPA 841-B-06-002.

Frazier J.W., K.B. Roby, J.A. Boberg, K. Kenfield, J.B. Reiner, D.L. Azuma, J.L. Furnish, B.P. Staab, S.L. Grant. 2005. Stream Condition Inventory Technical Guide. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region - Ecosystem Conservation Staff. Vallejo, CA. 111 pp.

Gutiérrez, R.J., D.J. Tempel, and W. Berigan. 2008. Population ecology of the California spotted owl in the Central Sierra Nevada: Annual Results 2007: Region 5, USDA Forest Service (CR Agreement: 06-CR-11052007-174). June, 2008. 29pp.

Gutiérrez, R.J., D.J. Tempel, and W. Berigan. 2009. Population ecology of the California spotted owl in the Central Sierra Nevada: Annual Results 2008: Region 5, USDA Forest Service (CR Agreement: 06-CR-11052007-174). April 2000. 29pp.

Gutiérrez, R.J., D.J. Tempel, and W. Berigan. 2010. Population ecology of the California spotted owl in the Central Sierra Nevada: Annual Results 2009: Region 5, USDA Forest Service (CR Agreement: 06-CR-11052007-174). March 2010. 29pp.

Hanson, C.T. and M.P. North. 2008. Postfire Woodpecker Foraging in Salvage-Logged and Unlogged Forests of the Sierra Nevada. The Condor 110(4):777–782.

Hawkins, C.P., R.H. Norris, J.N. Hogue, and J.W. Feminella. 2000. Development and Evaluation of Predictive Models for Measuring the Biological Integrity of Streams. Ecological Applications 10: 1456 – 1477.

Hawkins, C.P. 2003. Development, evaluation, and application of a RIVPACS-type predictive model for assessing the biological condition of streams in Region 5 (California) national forests. Completion Report. Western center for Monitoring and Assessment of Fresh Water Ecosystems. Utah State University. Logan, Utah 23 pp.

Hawkins, C.P. 2006. Quantifying Biological Integrity by Taxonomic Completeness: Its Utility in Regional and Global Assessments. Pub. Ecological Society of America. Ecological Applications: 16(4). 2006, pp. 1277-1294.

Hutto, R.L. 1995. Composition of Bird Communities Following Stand Replacement Fires in Northern Rocky Mountain (U.S.A.) Conifer Forests. Conservation Biology 9: 1041 – 1058.

Hutto, R.L. 2006. Toward Meaningful Snag-Management Guidelines for Postfire Salvage Logging in North American Conifer Forests. Conservation Biology, Volume 20, page 984, August 2006.

Hutto, R. L., and S. M. Gallo. 2006. The effects of postfire salvage logging on cavity-nesting birds. Condor 108:817-831.


56

Hutto, R.L. 2008. The ecological importance of severe wildfires: some like it hot. Ecological Applications 18: 1827-1834.

Hughes, R.M. and D.P. Larsen. 1987. Ecoregions: an approach to surface water protection. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation 60:486-493.

Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant, and I.J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessing biological integrity in running waters: a method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication 5, Champaign,

Kotliar, N.B., S.J. Hejl, R.L. Hutto, V. Saab, C.P. Melcher, and M.E. McFadzen. 2002. Effects of fire and post-fire salvage logging on avian communities in conifer-dominated forests of the western United States. In: T.L. George and D.S. Dobkin (eds.). Effects of habitat fragmentation on birds in western landscapes: contrasts with paradigms from the eastern United States. Studies in Avian Biology No. 25. Camarillo, CA: Cooper Ornithological Society. p. 49-64.

Mayer, K.E., and W.F. Laudenslayer, eds. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento, CA. 166pp. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/wildlife_habitats.asp

Nature Conservancy, 1999. Species management Abstract Black-Backed Woodpecker (Picoides arcticus). The Nature Conservancy 4245 Fairfax Drive, Arlington VA.

Raphael, M. G. and M. White. 1984. Use of snags in cavity-nesting birds in the Sierra Nevada. Wildlife Monographs 86: 1-66.

Resh, V.H. and D.G. Price. 1984. Sequential sampling: a cost-effective approach for monitoring benthic macroinvertebrates in environmental impact assessments. Environmental Management 8:75-80.

Resh, V.H. and D.M. Rosenberg. 1989. Ecology of Aquatic Insects. Greenwood Publishing Group. Westport, Connecticut.

Russell, R. E., V.A. Saab, and J.G. Dudley. 2007. Habitat-Suitability Models for Cavity-Nesting Birds in a Postfire Landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 71: 2600-2611.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2007. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, results and analysis 1966–2006. Version 10.13.2007. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland, USA. [online] URL: http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs2006.html. [cited 2009 Oct].

Seavy, N.E., R.D. Burnett, and P.J. Taille. 2012. Black-backed woodpecker nest-tree preference in burned forests of the Sierra Nevada, California. Wildlife Society Bulletin 36: 722-728.

Siegel, R.B. and D.F. DeSante. 1999. Version 1.0. The draft avian conservation plan for the Sierra Nevada Bioregion: conservation priorities and strategies for safeguarding Sierra bird populations. Institute for Bird Populations report to California Partners in Flight. Available on-line:http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/sierra.html.

Siegel, R. B., M. W. Tingley, R. L. Wilkerson, M. L. Bond, and C. A. Howell. 2013. Assessing

home range size and habitat needs of Black-backed Woodpeckers in California. Institute for Bird populations.

Sierra Nevada Research Center. 2007. Plumas Lassen Study 2006 Annual Report. USDA Forest

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Sierra Nevada Research Center, Davis, California. 182pp.

http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs2006.html


57

Sierra Nevada Research Center. 2008. Plumas Lassen Study 2007 Annual Report. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Sierra Nevada Research Center, Davis, California. 310pp. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/snrc/forest_health/plas_annual_report_2007.pdf



Smith, S.L. and D.R. Cluck, 2011. Marking Guidelines for Fire-Injured Trees in California, May 2011, Report #RO-11-01, US Forest Service, Region 5, Forest Health Protection.

Smucker, K.M., R.L. Hutto, and B.M. Steele. 2005. Changes in bird abundance after wildfire: importance of fire severity and time since fire. Ecological applications 15(5):1535-1549.

USDA Forest Service. 1988. Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (PNF LRMP) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD). USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo, CA. January 2001. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/library/archives/feis/index.htm

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD). USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo, CA. January 2004. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/final-seis/

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Draft - MIS Analysis and Documentation in Project-Level NEPA, R5 Environmental Coordination, May 25, 2006. Pacific Southwest Region. 3pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Record of Decision, Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species Amendment. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. December, 2007. 18pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional Management Indicator Species (MIS) Report: Life history and analysis of Management Indicator Species of the 10 Sierra Nevada National Forests: Eldorado, Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Sequoia, Sierra, Stanislaus, and Tahoe National Forests and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. January 2008. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfmisa/pdfs/2008_Sierra_Nevada_Forests_MIS_Report_January_2008.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional Management Indicator Species (MIS) Report: Life history and analysis of Management Indicator Species of the 10 Sierra Nevada National Forests: Eldorado, Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Sequoia, Sierra, Stanislaus, and Tahoe National Forests and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. December 2010. 132pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2013. Chip-munk Recovery and Restoration Project Environmental Assessment, Mt. Hough Ranger District, Plumas National Forest.


58

Verner, J., K. S. McKelvey, B. R. Noon, R. J. Gutiérrez, G. I. Gould, and T. W. Beck. 1992. The California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its current status. Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture, Albany, CA.

Vierling, Kerri T., L.B. Lentile, N. Nielsen-Pincus. 2008. Preburn Characteristics and Woodpecker Use of Burned Coniferous Forests, Journal of Wildlife Management 72 (2): 422-427.


59

APPENDIX A

Wildlife Habitat Relationship Strata

Table A - 1. California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) Strata Definitions Tree Canopy Closure Shrub Canopy Closure Herbaceous Canopy Closure

Closure Class Canopy Closure Closure Class Canopy

Closure Closure Class Canopy Closure

S Sparse 10-24% S Sparse 10-24% S Sparse 2-9% P Open 25-39% P Open 25-39% P Open 10-39% M Moderate 40-59% M Moderate 40-59% M Moderate 40-59% D Dense 60-100% D Dense 60-100% D Dense 60-100%

Tree Size Class Shrub Size Class Herbaceous Size Class

Size Class dbh Size Class Crown Decadence Height Class Height at

Maturity

1 Seedling < 1inch 1 Seedling seedlings or sprouts < 3 years

1 Short < 12 inch

2 Sapling 1 to 6 inch 2 Young None 2 Tall > 12 inch 3 Pole 6 to 11 inch 3 Mature 1 - 25% 4 Small 11 to 24 inch 4 Decadent > 25% 5 Medium/ Large > 24 inch 6 Multi – Layered *

*Size class 5 trees over a distinct layer of size class 4 or 3 trees, total tree canopy exceeds 60% closure.

Wildlife Habitat Relationship Codes

Table A - 2. California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) Vegetation Codes Habitat Definition Habitat Definition AGS Annual Grassland MHW Montane Hardwood

ASP Aspen MRI Montane Riparian

BAR Barren PGS Perennial Grassland

BBR Bitterbrush PPN Ponderosa Pine

DFR Douglas-Fir RFR Red Fir

EPN Eastside Pine SCN Subalpine Conifer

JPN Jeffrey Pine SGB Sagebrush

LAC Lacustrine SMC Sierran Mixed Conifer

LPN Lodgepole Pine URB Urban

MCH Mixed Chaparral WFR White Fir

MCP Montane Chaparral WTM Wet meadow

MHC Montane Hardwood-Conifer


60

APPENDIX B

Table B.1. Chip-munk Project Riparian Conservation Area (RCA), equipment exclusion zone and burn pile restriction widths (fullbank width, measured horizontal from both sides of stream channel) in RCAs for ground-based mechanical equipment operations under roadside hazard actions.

a – For Clear Creek watershed, the equipment exclusion zone width for ephemeral streams would be 50 feet.

Table B.2. Chip-munk Project Riparian Conservation Area (RCA), RCA snag retention and equipment exclusion zones, and burn pile restriction widths (fullbank width, measured horizontal from both sides of stream channel) in RCAs for ground-based mechanical equipment operations under salvage timber actions.

a – For Clear Creek watershed, the equipment exclusion zone width for ephemeral streams would be 50 feet.

Stream Type

Equipment Exclusion Zone Riparian

Conservation Area (RCA) buffer width

Minimum distance to burn pile

Slope < 25% Slope >25%

Perennial stream 300 feet 40 feet 100 feet 300 feet

Intermittent stream over 3,500 ft. elevation

150 feet 40 feet 100 feet 150 feet

Intermittent stream below 3,500 ft. elevation

150 feet 25 feet 50 feet 150 feet

Ephemeral stream 100 feet 25 feet 25 feet a 100 feet

Stream Type

Equipment Exclusion Zone

Riparian Conservation Area (RCA) buffer and RCA snag retention

zone widths

Minimum distance to burn pile

Slope < 35%

Slope >35%

Perennial stream 300 feet 40 feet 100 feet excluded Intermittent stream over 3,500 ft. elevation

150 feet 40 feet 100 feet excluded Intermittent stream below 3,500 ft. elevation

150 feet 25 feet 50 feet excluded Ephemeral stream 100 feet 25 feet 25 feeta excluded


61

Table B.3. Chip-munk Project Riparian Conservation Area (RCA), RCA snag retention and full suspension zone widths (fullbank width, measured horizontal from both sides of stream channel) in RCAs for skyline salvage timber actions.

Stream Type

Riparian Conservation Area (RCA) buffer and RCA snag retention

zone widths

Full suspension

zone

Perennial Stream 300 feet 75 feet

Intermittent Stream over 3,500 ft. elevation

150 feet 75 feet

Intermittent Stream below 3,500 ft. elevation

150 feet 50 feet

Ephemeral Stream 100 feet 25 feet a – RCA equipment exclusion zones are not applicable to skyline operations because motorized equipment does not leave roads or constructed landings. No landings would be constructed within RCAs.

Table B4. Mortality guidelines for removing conifers during the Chip-munk Project (no upper diameter limit would be used). Fire salvage marking guidelines are based on Smith and Cluck (2011).

Conifer size (dbh, inches) Probability of mortality Roadside Hazard Tree

< 40 > 0.7 > 40 > 0.9 > 40 in Protected Activity Centers 1.0 (dead)

Salvage < 40* > 0.9

> 40** 1.0 (dead) *Conifers under 40.0 inches dbh that fade and meet a Pm of 0.9, during salvage operations, may be designated for removal. **Conifers > 40.0 inches dbh that were not completely dead during timber marking, but die during removal activities will be left standing unless they are a hazard to operations. Trees > 40.0 inches dbh removed for operability or safety would be replaced with a tree of the same size and species.


62

APPENDIX C Table C.1. Pre Chips Fire Observed/Expected (O/E) scores for Yellow Creek and Chips Creek SCI monitoring reaches adjacent to the analysis area, in relation to East and West Branch Nelson Creek and Willow Creek (Reference Streams). All streams are transport streams (i.e., >3% gradient) except for E. Branch Nelson Creek. O/E scores closer to 1 are considered “healthy”.

Stream Collection Date OE ConditionChips Creek 7/26/2007 0.85 FairChips Creek 8/4/2005 0.96 GoodChips Creek 6/26/2000 0.59 NAChips Creek 7/30/1998 0.64 PoorYellow Creek 10/29/2002 0.70 PoorEast Branch of Nelson Creek 7/6/2010 0.81 FairEast Branch of Nelson Creek 7/7/2009 1.08 GoodEast Branch of Nelson Creek 8/7/2007 1.17 FairEast Branch of Nelson Creek 7/27/2005 1.17 FairFourth Water Creek 6/28/2010 1.12 GoodFourth Water Creek 6/23/2009 1.18 FairFourth Water Creek 7/21/2008 1.01 GoodFourth Water Creek 7/17/2007 1.18 FairFourth Water Creek 6/27/2006 1.07 GoodWillow Creek 7/26/2007 0.97 GoodWillow Creek 8/1/2006 1.05 GoodWillow Creek 10/28/2002 1.12 GoodWillow Creek 8/20/2002 0.90 GoodWillow Creek 6/27/2000 1.05 GoodWillow Creek 7/1/1998 0.63 PoorWest Branch Lights Creek 9/6/2008 0.98 GoodWest Branch of Nelson Creek 7/26/2010 0.98 GoodWest Branch of Nelson Creek 7/20/2009 0.98 GoodWest Branch of Nelson Creek 9/30/2008 1.29 PoorWest Branch of Nelson Creek 8/22/2007 1.14 GoodWest Branch of Nelson Creek 8/12/1999 0.76 PoorWest Branch of Nelson Creek 7/13/1999 0.91 NAWest Branch of Nelson Creek 8/19/1997 0.83 Fair

a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...Plumas National Forest...

Documents

Transcript of a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...Plumas National Forest...