United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service ...a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...The Forbestown Community Protection and Fuels Reduction (CPFR) project

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Forbestown Community Protection and Fuels Reduction (CPFR) Project

Environmental Assessment

Feather River Ranger District, Plumas National Forest, Butte County, California

March 2016

i

For More Information Contact:

Randall J. Gould Feather River Ranger District

875 Mitchell Avenue Oroville, CA 95965

Phone: 530 534-6500 Email: [email protected]

Fax: 530 532-1210

* Local Volunteer Fire Equipment Leads a Parade in Front of Forbestown General Store, Forbestown, California. Photograph by Eric Murphy, USDA Forest Service.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g. Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected]

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html

mailto:[email protected]

Contents Contents ........................................................................................................................................... ii Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Proposed Project Location .......................................................................................................... 1 Need for the Proposal ...................................................................................................................... 1 Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation ................................................................................... 3 Proposed Action and Alternatives ................................................................................................... 5

Proposed Action .......................................................................................................................... 6 No Action Alternative ................................................................................................................. 8

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives................................................. 10 Fire Resistant Stand Structure ................................................................................................... 12 Fire and Fuels ............................................................................................................................ 12

Finding of No Significant Impact .................................................................................................. 25 Context ...................................................................................................................................... 25 Intensity ..................................................................................................................................... 25

References ..................................................................................................................................... 28

List of Tables

Table 1. Existing and Desired Conditions by Resource Issue ......................................................... 2

List of Figures

Figure 1. Vicinity map ..................................................................................................................... 1

Feather River Ranger District, Plumas National Forest

Introduction We are proposing to reduce the risk of wildfire and enhance firefighting safety in the vicinity of the community of Forbestown, California using a combination of vegetation treatment activities on 618.2 acres. These actions are proposed to be implemented on the Feather River Ranger District of the Plumas National Forest.

We prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to determine whether implementation of a

combination of vegetation treatment activities to reduce fuels may significantly affect the quality

of the human environment and thereby require the preparation of an environmental impact

statement. By preparing this EA, we are fulfilling agency policy and direction to comply with the

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). For more details of the proposed action, see the

Proposed Action and Alternatives section of this document.

Proposed Project Location The project area is located approximately 12-15 miles east of Oroville, CA, in and around the

community of Forbestown. County Road 174 (Forbestown Road) traverses the project area. The

legal description of the project area is portions of: Mount Diablo Meridian, California, T. 19 N., R

6 E., sections 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16.

Figure 1. Vicinity map

Need for the Proposal The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-148) contains a variety of provisions

to expedite hazardous-fuel reduction and forest-restoration projects on specific types of

Federal land that are at risk of wildland fire or insect and disease epidemics. The act helps

rural communities, States, Tribes, and landowners restore healthy forest and rangeland

conditions on State, Tribal, and private lands.

Forbestown Community Protection and Fuels Reduction (CPFR) Project Environmental Assessment (EA)

2

The area is classified as wildland-urban interface (WUI) and, as such, has specific objectives as

identified in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, 2004. Much of the proposed project area

lies uphill from densely vegetated canyons inaccessible to treatment and firefighting efforts due

to steep terrain, lack of safety zones and escape routes for firefighters, and a high probability of

warm high winds that could further fan the fire.

Table 1. Existing and Desired Conditions by Resource Issue

Coordinated local efforts are underway on private lands to thin the forest and reduce fuels. These

are generally facilitated by county fire safe councils of which the Feather River Ranger District is

an active partner. There is a need for the Forest Service to complement these efforts on public

lands to do its part to help protect communities from wildfire, reduce the hazard of falling trees

along roadways and provide safe areas for firefighters to take a stand and attempt to suppress

future wildfires.

Specific purposes of the project are to:

• Remove hazard trees along roadways to make these areas safer and increase roadside

viewing distances for motorists, local residents, recreationists, and other forest users;

• Thin vegetation to create defensible spaces along roads and ridgetops to create safe

conditions for wildland firefighters; thinning would be more aggressive near roads and

taper off at greater distances from the roads;

• Reduce ground, ladder, and crown fuels by thinning trees and brush, thereby decreasing

the likelihood of a severe wildfire spreading to private lands and structures;

• Utilize removed material – timber and smaller trees – to create an economic benefit

locally and generate partial funding for the required noncommercial thinning and burning

fuel treatments;

Resource Issue Existing Conditions Desired Condition

Community

protection

Project area is fire-prone, overstocked,

at head of canyons, along roads, and

near homes and communities. Fuel

loads and conditions could carry fire

into residential areas and communities

and to, across roads. Fire could continue

eastward and higher in elevation.

Thinner fuels; zero to low

ground and ladder fuels.

Conditions where people and

communities could be protected

from wildfire.

Firefighter safety Abundant and volatile fuels near roads;

not a safe environment to defend roads,

fire lines.

Thinner vegetation; a defensible

fire protection zone (DFPZ)

along the roads. Greater

visibility through forest.

Transportation

safety

Hazardous trees (many dead or dying)

located near and along roads; trees often

falling onto road or spreading debris

onto roadway. Use of roads and

personal safety both in jeopardy.

Hazardous trees removed;

roadway corridors safe for

motorists, pedestrians and other

forest users.

Material utilization Little or no human utilization of fallen

or standing trees.

Possible economic benefit of

removed material for lumber,

biomass or other human uses.


• Remove invasive plants from the project area.

Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation The Forbestown Community Protection and Fuels Reduction (CPFR) project has been listed on

the Plumas National Forest schedule of proposed actions (SOPA) since July, 2015.

Collaboration: The proposed project was developed through a collaborative process of planning

and prioritizing with the Butte County Fire Safe Council and Forbestown Ridge Fire Safe

Council. The District participates as a stakeholder and working committee member developing

Community Wildfire Prevention Plans (CWPP) with Butte and Yuba Counties.

Tribal Consultation: On July 28, 2015 the Feather River Ranger District sent letters to Estom

Yumeka Tribe of Enterprise Rancheria, Tyme Maidu Tribe of Berry Creek Rancheria, Concow

Maidu Tribe of Mooretown Rancheria, and Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria. On

request the District Ranger met with the Tribal Chairman of Concow Maidu Tribe of Mooretown

Rancheria and members of their staffs for Government to Government consultation on August 28,

to discuss the project. This included results of a feasibility study to build and operate a facility

that uses forest products biomass to produce electric energy.

Scoping: The Forest Service published a legal notice asking for public input on the plan on July

24, 2015 in the Oroville Mercury-Register, the paper of record of the Feather River Ranger

District.

Public Scoping letters were sent by email and mail to 146 individuals, organizations, institutions,

industry representatives, and government agencies on July 28, 2015.

The Feather River Ranger District conducted a public meeting to communicate and gather project

information 6:00 pm – 7:30 pm, Thursday, August 6, 2015 at the Challenge Work Center. Thirteen

members of the public along with District fire fighters and staff attended. Questions and

comments included insect infestations, salvage, treating edges of spotted owl PAC to protect

habitat, and use of herbicides.

The Forest Service received written comments from:

Butte County Federal/State Land Use Coordinating Committee – Letter of Support

Butte County Fire Safe Council – Letter of Support

Forbestown Ridge Fire Safe Council – Letter of Support

Don S. Roberts, Retired Fire Management Officer – Letter of Support and encouragement

to plan additional projects

Lynette Wood, Forbestown area resident – Request for details and comments

Tony and Robin Murphy, Challenge area residents – Letter of Support and request for

Challenge CPFR project

Roman and Jeanette Rassier, Forbestown area residents – Request to retain specific trees


4

Lynette Wood visited the District office in Oroville and met with the District planner,

hydrologist, and silviculturalist who provided additional details and answered questions. Her

comments pertained to fire control, aesthetics, clean-up, and long-term maintenance.

Public Comment: The Forest Service published a legal notice of the opportunity to comment on

this Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of no Significant Impact (FONSI) on January

9, 2016 in the Oroville Mercury-Register, the paper of record of the Feather River Ranger

District.

By invitation the District planner, fuels officer, and timber sale forester gave a presentation on the

EA and planning for the project at the January 25, 2016 Butte County Forest Advisory Committee

meeting. There was a lively discussion around the options for removal of biomass including

opportunities for firewood, chips, and other forest products.

The Forest Service received written comments from:

Butte County Air Quality Management District - Comments

Butte County Board of Supervisors – Letter of Support and comments

Sierra Pacific Industries, Lincoln Division – Comments

Sierra Forest Legacy – Comments

Lassen Forest Preservation Group – Comments

Six comments were specific and identified issues and they have been addressed in revisions to

resource reports, this Environmental Assessment (EA), and or clarified in the Decision Notice

(DN). There were an additional 15 comments that lacked specificity; did not identify issues, or

met reasons for non-significance. These comments are addressed in a response to comments that

is part of the project record but do not change the Environmental Assessment or basis for the

Decision.


Proposed Action and Alternatives Project development and public scoping identified only the significant issues identified in

Table 1: community protection, firefighter safety, transportation safety, and material

utilization.

Non-significant issues included:

Aesthetics – comments were outside the scope of the proposed project, already decided

by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher-level decision, irrelevant to the decision

being made, or does not meet the purpose and need of the project, in accordance with

regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality.

Clean-up and long-term maintenance – comments related to Forest Plan standards and

guidelines and/or best management practices already incorporated into project planning

for the proposed action.

If an authorized hazardous fuel reduction project proposed to be conducted in the WUI is located

no further than 1 ½ miles from the boundary of an at-risk community, the Secretary is not

required to study, develop, or describe any alternative to the proposed agency action. When there

is consensus about the proposed action based on input from interested parties, the Forest Service

may consider the proposed action and proceed without consideration of additional alternatives.

During the public comment period issues were identified regarding biomass removal options;

socio-economic benefits; prescribed burning; and California spotted owl. The issues of biomass

removal and socio-economic benefits are detailed in the Decision Notice.

Based on comments we considered an alternative action that allowed prescribed burning in the

fall (not the spring) only. Comments included: sensitive plants, bulbs, and grasses will more

likely survive as well as potential for damaging root systems of trees, resulting in weakened trees

and potential blow downs in future years.

A Comprehensive Guide to Fuel Management Practices for Dry Mixed Conifer Forests in the

Northwestern United States (Jain and others 2012), describes the benefits, opportunities, and

trade-offs concerning fuel treatments in the dry mixed conifer forests of northern California and

other regions of the northwestern United States. It provides exhaustive summaries of literature on

the mechanics of fuels treatments, including prescribed fire and discussion on how to apply

prescribed fire to achieve diverse and specific objectives. We have summarized this literature

regarding prescribed fire and seasonality and added it to the project record.

Fire managers should consider the benefits of burning during all seasons when determining burn

days and season of burn. Restricting the burn season to the historical or some other conjectural

season is not supported by scientific evidence. Limiting the number of days over the entire year

that are actually available to conduct prescribed burns does not meet the purpose and need of this

action and this alternative was excluded from further consideration.

Although the project was designed following the Standards and Guidelines for the California

spotted owl (SNFPA ROD 2004), based on comments, in the section, Environmental Impacts of

the Proposed Action we add a section on California Spotted Owl Habitat. We also provide

additional detailed discussion on specific treatments in Fire and Fuels and Fire Resistant Stand

Structure. We add a section on Socio-Economic Benefits.


6

Proposed Action In order to achieve the goals and meet the purpose and need for action described above, the

Feather River Ranger District proposes a combination of vegetation treatment activities in the

project area (approximately 664 acres). The project would be implemented as soon as feasible

after a decision is reached (anticipated May, 2016) and should take one to three years to complete.

Future maintenance involving the removal of excessive regrowth fire fuels – generally brush and

small trees – in the project area would likely be necessary to retain the desired condition of this

landscape and is considered in the scope of this project.

The following activities are proposed:

• Thinning trees ≤ 29.9 inches diameter at breast height (dbh), reducing canopy cover to 30 to

40 percent along a 200 feet buffer road corridor including the removal of hazard trees with no

diameter limit within 200 feet of roads and structures (the buffers are 200 feet from each side

of roads);

• Variable thinning trees ≤ 29.9 inches dbh resulting in 40 to 50 percent average canopy cover

including thinning from below to remove ladder fuels along road corridors beyond the 200

feet buffers;

• Commercial-sized timber resulting from thinning would be offered for sale;

• Smaller material – trees – would be offered for sale as biomass, firewood, chips, or other

small-log uses;

• California spotted owl protected activity centers (PACs) would receive no canopy reducing

treatments other than for hazard trees;

• Resulting slash and other woody debris would be piled and burned;

• Prescribed fire is expected as a secondary treatment over much of the project area;

• In some areas, mastication equipment would be used to thin and chip brush and small trees

onsite; areas unsuitable for mastication, would be treated by hand-cutting and piling; and

• Known and encountered non-native invasive plants – weeds – would be treated.

• Portions of the project area as originally proposed were burned during the Lumpkin Fire,

September 11-17, 2015. Those acres, now identified as Unit 22 (Table 2, below), were treated

under the Lumpkin Fire Salvage project and will not be considered for any further treatment

under this project.

Some existing roads would be used as logging haul roads and/or access roads for equipment to

complete project activities. Approximately 0.66 miles of temporary roads would be needed to

perform the activities proposed for the project. These roads would be rehabilitated and/or returned

to their original condition at the end of the project.

Table 2 (following page) identifies the specific treatment(s) prescribed in each treatment unit

within the project area. Note that unit numbers in the first column of the table refer to the unit

numbers on the map (Figure 2)


Table 2. Vegetation treatment proposed by unit number.

Unit Hazard

tree

removal

Mechanical

thinning

(timber

removal)

Biomass

removal

Mastication Cut and pile

(grapple or

hand) and/or

underburn

Acres

1 Yes Yes Optional Optional Yes 84.9


3 Optional Yes Yes 26.4





8 Yes 20.1

9 Yes Yes 14.2


11 Yes 39.5

12 Yes 14.3

13 Yes 26.5

14 Yes 1.3

15 Yes 8.9

16 Yes 1.3

17 Yes 19.2

18 Yes 5.0

19 Yes Yes 8.1


21 Yes Yes 20.7

22 46.2

Prescribed Treatment Acres 618.2

Total Acres 664.4

The Forest Service would use specific treatment methods to achieve the desired results for the

project. The following list briefly describes the treatment methods proposed:

Hazard Tree Removal: Removal of trees deemed hazardous or dangerous based on Forest

Services handbook standards for identifying such trees. This is generally done within two tree

heights, or approximately 200 feet, from roads or structures.

Mechanical Thinning (timber removal): Mechanical thinning generally utilizes wheeled or

tracked processing machines that cut, buck and limb trees onsite. Often, a separate machine

carries or drags the logs to the landing area where they are stacked and stored for transport to a

mill.

Removal of saw-timber sized trees (10 - 29.9 dbh) to thin the stand and remove ladder and

canopy fuels. The goal is to increase ground-to-crown height, increase spacing between trees, and

increase the spacing between tree crowns. Approximately 40 percent canopy cover would be

retained on average over all treatment units, with a 30% canopy cover target near roads

transitioning to a variety of canopy reducing prescriptions (from landings to no treatment) as

treatments move away from roads. The purpose of the 30% canopy cover standard near roads is

to create safer conditions for firefighters to establish a fire line. A fire will generally “lie down” to

a ground fire when the flames cannot move from treetop to treetop.


8

The priority for thinning would be the removal of the smaller, suppressed, and intermediate-

crown class trees (10-16 inches dbh), and removal of some co-dominant and dominant (17-29.9

inches dbh) trees with crowns underneath and adjacent to healthy large trees. The preferred

species for residual trees in this are shade-intolerant species where they exist. In order of

preference, the shade-intolerant species are ponderosa pine, black oak, sugar pine, Douglas-fir,

incense-cedar, and true fir.

Biomass Removal: Removal of surface and ladder fuels (trees 3 - 9.9 inches) following the

guidelines stated above for mechanical thinning. Many ladder fuels fall into this size range.

Biomass removal allows the option for these trees to be sold for small log uses (firewood, post

and poles, bioenergy production, woodchips) rather than cut, piled and burned on site.

Mastication: Removal of woody shrubs and trees using mechanical ground-based equipment to

grind harvest residue or thin small trees. Shrubs and trees less than 10 inches dbh would be

masticated, unless the trees are needed for the desired spacing. Most masticated trees would be

less than 6 inches dbh.

Cut and pile (grapple or hand pile) and/or underburn: Removal of shrubs and trees up to 10

inches dbh by manually cutting using chainsaws. These ground and ladder fuels are removed

from beneath overstory trees, and/or aggregations of small-diameter conifers or plantation trees.

The spacing of residual conifers and black oaks would be generally 18-24 feet to allow retention

of the healthiest, largest, and tallest conifers and black oaks and to avoid creating openings where

future regrowth would be likely. The cut trees, shrubs, and existing slash would be manually piled

and burned.

Underburning is prescribed ground fire designed to consume excessive live and dead vegetation

on the forest floor and some of the existing lower canopy. The treatment modifies the amount,

structure, and pattern of vegetative fuel conditions to interrupt wildfire spreading across the

landscape, with treatment prescriptions designed to modify fire behavior within the treated area.

Landings: Landings are cleared areas where timber is brought, sorted, and stored until it is

trucked to a sawmill. Whole tree yarding is a method of harvesting trees by cutting and moving

the entire tree to a landing where its branches and tops are removed. Skyline yarding is a

technique that uses skyline cable system to transport logs from the forest to a landing, the cable

system suspends logs off the ground to reduce erosion.

Existing skid trails, landings, and temporary roads would be used, when available, to facilitate the

harvesting and removal of forest products (i.e. sawlogs).

No Action Alternative The wildland-urban interface (WUI) has specific objectives as identified in the Sierra Nevada

Forest Plan Amendment, 2004. Much of the proposed project area lies uphill from densely

vegetated canyons inaccessible to treatment and firefighting efforts due to steep terrain, lack of

safety zones and escape routes for firefighters, and a high probability of warm high winds that

could further fan the fire.

The project area would remain fire-prone and overstocked at head of canyons, along roads, and

near homes and communities. Fuel loads and conditions could carry fire into residential areas and

communities and across roads. Fire could continue eastward and higher in elevation. Abundant


and volatile fuels would remain near roads as an unsafe environment to defend roads and fire

lines.

Figure 2. Map of units by vegetation treatment


10

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives As with many areas in the Sierra Nevada, the landscape in the analysis area has been heavily

influenced over the last 150 years by past management activities that included mining, grazing,

timber harvesting, fire exclusion, large high-severity fires (Beesley 1996; McKelvey and

Johnston 1992), and more recent drought-related mortality (Guarin and Taylor 2005; Ferrell 1996;

Macomber and Woodcock 1994). Past harvest activities were primarily focused on overstory

removal and sanitation or salvage harvest, with a shift toward even-aged systems in the 1980s.

Past use of these harvest systems is consistent with well-documented overall management

practices that occurred over vast areas of the Sierra Nevada during the 20th century (Leiberg

1902).

The elevation in the project area ranges from 1,100 feet near Ponderosa Reservoir to 3,321 feet

near Sunset Hill electronic site. Elevation affects the forest types that are present. The forest types

in the analysis areas range from montane hardwood and Sierra mixed conifers-ponderosa pine at

lower elevations, to Sierra mixed conifer-Douglas-fir at mid elevations.

There are fewer large (greater than 30 inches dbh) ponderosa pines, sugar pines, and Douglas-fir

trees as a result of past harvesting. Mortality of sugar pine from white pine blister rust

(Cronartium ribicola) has also contributed to reduced numbers of these species, especially the

smaller trees. Past disturbance has favored germination of new shrub, hardwood, and conifer

seedlings, and along with fire exclusion, a higher density of small, mostly shade-tolerant trees

(tanoak, incense-cedar, and white fir) in the understory.

The typical mixed conifer type includes shade-tolerant species (i.e., incense-cedar, tanoak, and

white fir) that can germinate and grow in the shade of the overstory trees. Without any

disturbance, these shade-tolerant species can develop into multiple layers of vegetation or ladder

fuels. When low-severity fires are allowed to burn through these stands at frequent intervals

(every 5 to 15 years), shade-tolerant vegetation can be kept below the lower reaches of the

overstory foliage, preventing the development of a fuel ladder.

The stands have high densities of trees, particularly in the 1-11 inches diameter class range, and

most stands have moderate densities in the 11-24 inches range. These stands have high

accumulations of ladder fuels and vertical continuity with the canopy fuels; in combination with

the high surface fuel loads these stands are predicted to have increased susceptibility to higher

fire intensity and subsequent tree mortality. These high stand densities also increase stress on

larger more desirable retention trees due to increased tree competition for water during extended

drought periods.

The existing stand structure based upon canopy cover and trees per acre promotes a low light

environment, favoring the regeneration, growth, and development of shade-tolerant species such

as white fir and incense-cedar. There is currently little opportunity for the naturally dominant pine

species to reestablish and regenerate themselves without disturbance or naturally created

openings.

Because such stand structure has increased vulnerability to high-severity fires, insect outbreaks,

and landscape level drought-induced mortality, a homogenous (same species or structure)

occurrence of this seral stage across the landscape is unstable. A more diverse distribution of seral

stages, characterized by heterogeneous stand structures, may be more resilient to disturbance


events such as fire, drought, and insect and disease infestations and more characteristic of desired

conditions.

The Sierra Nevada Forests Plan Amendment (SNFPA) 2004 Record of Decision designates

Wildland Urban Intermix (WUI) and further characterizes Defense and Threat Zones. The WUI

Defense Zone is the buffer in closest proximity to communities, areas with higher densities of

residences, commercial buildings, and/or administrative sites with facilities. Defense zones

should be of sufficient extent that fuel treatments within them will reduce wildland fire spread

and intensity sufficiently for suppression forces to succeed in protecting human life and property.

For the Forbestown CPFR project area, 95% lies within the WUI defense zone.

The WUI Threat Zone typically buffers the defense zone. Fuels treatments in these zones are

designed to reduce wildfire spread and intensity. Strategic landscape features, such as roads,

changes in fuels types, and topography may be uses in delineating the physical boundary of the

threat zone. The remaining 5% of the project area is within the WUI threat zone.

The project area overlaps with portions of two California spotted owl protected activity centers

(PAC) and their associated home range core areas (HRCA). One PAC located in Butte County is

referred to as BU078; the other in Yuba County as YU008.

California spotted owl PAC are delineated surrounding each territorial owl activity center

detected on National Forest System lands since 1986 (SNFPA ROD 2004). During project

planning, surveys confirmed resident owls at both BU078 and YU008. California spotted owl

PAC encompass the best available 300 acres of habitat in as compact an unit as possible including

two or more tree canopy layers; trees in the dominant and codominant crown classes averaging 24

inches dbh or greater; and at least 70 percent tree canopy cover.

California spotted owl HRCA are established surrounding each territorial owl activity center

detected after 1986. HRCA sizes are 1,000 acres on the Plumas National Forest. The acreage in

the 300-acre PAC counts toward the total home range core area. Core areas are delineated within

1.5 miles of the activity center. HRCA consist of large habitat blocks that have at least two tree

canopy layers; at least 24 inches dbh in dominant and co-dominant trees; a number of very large

old trees; at least 50 percent canopy cover; and higher than average levels of snags and down

woody material.

When HRCA are within the WUI defense zone exceptions are allowed to adequately reduce

ladder fuels, provide sufficient spacing for equipment operations, or minimize reentry. In such

cases at least 40 percent canopy cover averaged within the treatment unit will be retained. For this

project, stands that make up part of an HRCA for which canopy reducing treatments have been

designed, lay 100% within the WUI defense zone.

Activities in California spotted owl PAC and HRCA follow the Standards and Guidelines for the

California spotted owl. Refer to Table 3 below for PACs YU008 and BU078 and the proposed

treatment acres.

• In PAC YU008 and PAC BU078 treatment includes the removal of hazard trees, along roads

and next to structures, with no diameter limit and hand-cut pile trees ≤ 10 inches dbh. A

limiting operation period (LOP) March 1 – August 1 is applicable for hazard tree treatments.

• In home range core areas (HRCAs) the removal of trees ≤ 29.9 inches dbh will result in 30 to

50 percent canopy cover. In some stands where treatment is needed but mechanical thinning


12

is unpractical trees ≤ 10 inches dbh will be hand cut and piled. Snags and structurally

complex green trees would be retained (appendix A).

Table 3. Proposed project actions within California spotted owl protected activity centers (PAC) and their associated home range core areas (HRCA).

Protected Activity Center (PAC) ID Number YU008 BU078

Protected Activity Center Acres 289.2 314.9

Removal of Hazard Trees Along Roads acres 14 21

After Project Canopy Cover Percent No Change No Change

Acres Impacted by Lumpkin Fire (September 2015) 5.3 0

Shrubs and Trees Hand Cut ≤ 10 inches DBH Acres 60.8 21

Home Range Core Area (HRCA) ID Number YU008 BU078

Home Range Core Area Acres 632.6 595.9

Removal of Trees ≤ 29.9 inched DBH Acres 97.2 127.7

After Project Canopy Cover Percent 30-50% 30-50%

Shrubs and Trees Hand Cut ≤ 10 inches DBH and Possible

Masticate 6-10 inches DBH Acres

35.7 60

This section summarizes the potential impacts of the proposed action. Resources that would not

be impacted and are therefore not further analyzed include: Aquatics, Archaeology, Botany,

Hydrology & Soils, Minerals, and Recreation & Scenery. These resource reports are located in the

project record.

Fire and Fuels The Lumpkin Fire, September 11-17, 2015 demonstrated the need for treatment near the town of

Forbestown. The fire burned 1,042 acres and proved very difficult to contain due to the

inaccessible topography and steep terrain. The network of roads helped corral the fire, but fire

fighters still had a difficult task with numerous stop fires on the steep slopes as well as the rolling

material that aided the fire and prevented direct suppression tactics. Direct attack is fighting fire

right next to the active burning flank. Fire fighters had to instead conduct indirect attack; backing

up to a safer distance, road, fuel treatment where the fire fighters could prepare and conduct burn

out tactics to attempt to contain the active fire.

Fire fighters were able to fall back to treated units from the Slapjack Defensible Fuel Profile Zone

project. The Slapjack units were implemented in a way that the active Lumpkin Fire behavior

type went from a passive crown fire and isolated tree group torching to a surface fire where fire

fighters were able to use direct fire tactics and add to the fires containment and suppression.

Without the pretreated and well placed Slapjack units, acting as a speed bump and slowing the

fire’s progress, the Lumpkin Fire had the potential to grow exponentially in the South Fork of the

Feather River drainage and further threaten the town of Forbestown (where evacuations had

already begun) and other communities on its projected burn path.

Treatments to create defensible space that increases firefighter safety, transportation safety, and

increases suppression efficiency is designed within buffers surrounding roads and structures.

These treatments alter surface fuels, increase the height to the base of the live crown, and open


the canopy by removing trees (Agee et al. 2000). This is accomplished by using a range of

understory and overstory prescriptions and methods of manual, mechanical, and prescribed fire

means. In this project these prescriptions are to remove all hazard trees; reduce ground, ladder,

and crown fuels by thinning trees and brush to 30% canopy cover; utilize removed material,

timber and biomass; and prescribed burning within buffers occurring 200 feet from roads and

structures.

Opening overstory and understory canopy in strategic locations, along roads, ridge tops, and near

communities aid fire suppression resources by allowing for a combination of ground and air

attack. By reducing the canopy cover, the effectiveness of firefighting aircraft is improved by

increasing retardant and water penetration through the canopy to the surface fuels, thereby

slowing the fire progression and allowing ground units to be more effective. Aerial suppression

methods (retardant or helicopter bucket drops) would be more effective with back up of ground

suppression resources (building fire line, back firing, or laying hose).

Moghaddas (2006) documents how during the 2005 Bell Fire on the Plumas National Forest,

treatments established a safe access point which could be used to move equipment and other

resources towards the head of the main fire allowing direct fire tactics. The relative openness of

the stand allowed the incident commander to maintain visual contact with equipment and

personnel. In addition, greater penetration and coverage of aerial retardant to surface fuels was

observed in the treated area.

Within the WUI Defense Zone, beyond the 200 feet buffers, prescriptions are designed along

basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments (Agee and Skinner 2005). Reducing surface

fuels, reduces potential flame lengths that are controlled easier and allow less torching. Removing

ladder fuels and increasing height to live crown requires longer flame lengths to begin torching.

Decreasing crown density makes tree-to-tree crown fire less probable, reducing the potential of

crown fire. Keeping big trees of resistant species, results in less mortality and generally restores

historic stand structure. Treatments are designed as low thinning, where all small trees are

removed, and cutting of successively larger trees continues until the criterion is reached: 40% -

50% canopy cover (Agee and Skinner 2005).

Increasing canopy base height and providing inter-tree crown separation, or canopy fuels,

decreases the chances of torching and active crown fire (Agee and Skinner 2005). Increases in

canopy base height would require a higher flame length and greater wind speed to carry fire into

the canopy of remaining trees. By separating overstory, canopy fires approaching the treated areas

require greater wind speeds and lower fuel moisture levels to sustain active crowning. By treating

surface and ladder fuels, that generate greater flame lengths, passive and active crown fire is

mitigated. As ladder and canopy fuels would be reduced within treatment units, it is predicted

approaching crown fires should drop to the ground, providing suppression resources a tactical

advantage, as seen during the Lumpkin Fire.

In other areas: plantations, California spotted owl PAC, steep slopes inaccessible to mechanical

thinning, and sites of cultural or historic significance, mastication or hand-cut pile and burn

possibly followed by underburning treatments can remove or at least manipulate ladder fuels and

surface fuels providing some alteration of fire behavior in Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forest

(Stephens and Moghaddas 2005a; Stephens and Moghaddas 2005b; Moghaddas 2006). In

portions of stands underburning only or no treatment will be possible due to access or protections.


14

Mastication rearranges hazardous fuel; decreasing ladder fuels while increasing canopy base

heights. Surface fuel loading may increase with mastication; however flame length and rate of

spread have been shown to decrease after treatment. In the event of a wildfire, mastication units

may still experience higher levels of mortality, as seen in the Lumpkin Fire, due to the residual

soil heating. Burn severity studies in masticated fuels show the burn severity decreases with

reduced fuel bed depth and increased soil moisture (Busse et al. 2005).

Figure 3. Overlay of treatment stands on WUI defense zones (red) and threat zones (orange) in

the Forbestown CPFR project area.

Hand cutting ladder fuels, grapple or hand piling and/or prescribed burning to reduce surface

fuels to less than 5 tons per acre of dead woody material less than 3 inches diameter and

increasing canopy base heights on average to greater than 15 feet break up horizontal and vertical

continuity of flammable fuels. The decrease in live and dead fuel loading and continuity of

material results in lower flame lengths, decreases in potential spotting and increased fire

suppression production rates. Based on observations on the 2006 Bolder Fire, the 2007Antelope

Complex Fire (Fites et al. 2007), and recent scientific literature (Fule et al. 2006; Safford et al.

2009), lighter intensity, hand thinning treatments may not be as effective as mechanical

treatments in modifying ladder and crown fuels and resulting fire behavior or tree mortality,

dependent on individual stand conditions. Consequently, hand thinning treatments are prescribed

for specific stand conditions where removal of smaller diameter material alone may be effective,

for example riparian areas.

Fire behavior predictions of other projects on the Feather River Ranger District, Plumas National

Forest with similar vegetation, topography, and treatment types as the Forbestown project, when


modeled meet desired conditions. Analysis in the Slapjack EIS, 2006; On Top HFR EIS, 2012;

and St. Louis Fuels Reduction EA, 2010 all show decreases in fire behavior and increased canopy

base heights following mechanical thinning, mastication, hand cut and hand/tractor piling and

underburning. Treating the Forbestown project with similar prescriptions of thinning over and

understory canopies and decreasing surface fuels, it is expected that in treated areas canopy base

heights will increase to greater than 15 feet and fires will burn as surface fire with flame length

less than 4 feet.

It is the combined effects of the fuels treatments that have the greatest effect on fire behavior.

Mechanical thinning by itself reduces intermediate ladder and canopy fuels and thereby reduces

the chance of active crown fires; it does not necessarily alter surface fuels or surface fire intensity

(Agee and Skinner 2005).

The proposed actions would increase the likelihood that wildland fires occurring in the treatment

units could be successfully suppressed by initial attack resources compared to taking no action.

The proposal would also provide a strategic location for fire suppression resources to indirectly

attack a wildfire approaching treated areas by opening overstory canopy; reducing ladder fuels;

reducing surface fuels; and strategic location of treatments.

Thinning of canopy and understory vegetation and prescribed fire can modify understory

microclimate that was previously buffered by overstory vegetation (Agee 1996; Scott and

Reinhardt 2001; Martinson and Omi 2003). However, when all the effects (reductions in surface

fuels, flame lengths, and ladder fuels, and an increase in fire suppression production rates) of the

treatments are considered together, the fuel treatment activities mitigate the effects caused by

possible decreased relative humidity and increased temperature (Rothermel 1983; Agee 1996; van

Wagtendonk 1996; Agee et al. 2000). Another benefit of thinning dense stands and leaving larger

fire tolerant pine species would be altering current trends by helping to re-establish more

historical fire adapted ecosystems (North et al. 2009).

As part of the Forbestown CPFR project, we propose prescribed burning during project

implementation, including follow-up underburning to other treatments to achieve less than 5 tons

per acre of dead woody material less than 3 inches diameter. Existing studies generally agree that

mechanical thinning followed by prescribed burning is the most effective at mitigating wildfire

severity (Prichard et al. 2010). Prescribed burning is considered effective in mitigating wildfire

severity by reducing surface fuels, reducing understory stand densities by killing small diameter

trees, and pruning lower limbs of intermediate and large diameter trees through scorch of foliage.

Over time, approximately 1-2 years post treatment; scorched foliage would drop to the ground

increasing canopy base heights and contributing to surface fuel loading.

Treatment areas that are exclusively treated by understory burning may need additional entries to

meet desired conditions. As fire killed trees fall and contribute to surface fuel loading the

effectiveness on modifying fire behavior is lessened (Collins et al. 2010). Second prescribed burn

entries in underburn only units are expected to occur 5-7 years after initial treatment, to achieve

desired fuel conditions.

Prescribed burning is nonselective and may kill some dominant and co-dominant trees, which

may have been otherwise retained in more aggressive mechanical treatments. Overall, the

overstory canopy would not be affected by underburning, although torching of individual or small

groups of trees could occur on up to 10 percent of the burn area where high surface fuel

concentrations and ladder fuels occur together. Torching during operations may result in gaps in


16

the canopy typically less than 0.5 acres in size, thereby creating small openings in the overstory

where shade-intolerant species may become established and grow.

Currently, dry forest landscapes of the Inland Northwest exhibit high landscape connectivity of

conditions that support large and severe fires. It makes sense to begin restoration by designing

and developing networks of shaded fuel breaks throughout the dry forests (Agee et al. 2000; Arno

and Allison-Bunnell 2002). These networks provide the advantage of breaking large fire-prone

landscapes into smaller and more manageable pieces, which would be of significant benefit, both

for restoration and fire suppression efforts. It is useful to position fuel breaks adjacent to existing

roads so that the fuel breaks can be revisited at regular intervals, and re-treated to maintain a

widely scattered cover of medium and large-sized ponderosa pine (where available) with only

light fuels.

At the landscape level, these treatments provide connectivity between the existing fuel treatments

of Slapjack DFPZ, and other smaller projects by BLM and on private lands completed by Butte

and Yuba Counties Fire Safe Councils, Forbestown Ridge Fire Safe Council, local private land

owners (including logging companies).

Treatments proposed by this project would provide for better community protection, provide for

firefighter safety, transportation safety, and material utilization by altering the hazardous fuel

conditions and aiding fire suppression. These treatments would increase the ability of fire

management personnel to suppress and contain wildfires during initial attack and extended attack

operations, while increasing firefighter and public safety. They also work to reverse current trends

showing an increase in the proportion of high severity fire in the Sierra Nevada mountain range

and instead contribute to fire resilient forests where fire is a natural disturbance that is essential to

ecosystem function.

Fire Resistant Stand Structure Mechanical thinning (hazard tree, variable density, thinning from below)

Mechanical thinning treatments would utilize species preference guidelines to enhance species

composition of the residual stand. Prescriptions that generally retain trees greater than 24 inches

dbh would allow for the removal of undesirable trees such as, a shade-tolerant white fir, up to

29.9 inches dbh if it is competing with a desired tree such as shade-intolerant pine or a hardwood

tree greater than 30 inches dbh. Shade-tolerant species, like white fir and incense-cedar, would

be targeted, but not enough large shade-tolerant trees would be removed to promote regeneration

of many more shade-intolerant species.

Stand Structure: Mechanical treatments would reduce stand density through thinning and

removal of conifers up to 29.9 inches dbh. The Forbestown project incorporates the concepts of

GTR-220, which allows intermediate to larger diameter trees (up to 29.9 inches dbh) to be

harvested (i.e., overtopping black oaks, reducing tree density and promoting crown separation

near roads and upper slopes). Trees per acre would be reduced by variable density thinning,

removing sapling and pole size trees and some co-dominant trees, creating 1/10 acre to ½ acre

gaps, and skipping other areas by leaving moderate to high density areas.

Trees per acre and canopy cover would be reduced through mechanical treatments. Some stands

adjacent to roads would receive heavier thinning (removal of more trees and thin down to 30%

canopy cover) to create open canopy stands and enhance diameter growth of residual trees. Some

stands that are farther away from roads would receive lighter thinning (less removal of trees and

thin down to 50% canopy cover) to maintain closed-canopy stand conditions of later seral stands


while reducing ladder fuels and stand density to reduce negative impacts of future fires, drought,

and insect and disease occurrences. Some stands would receive no canopy reducing treatment due

to inaccessible or restricted entry. Canopy cover within riparian conservation areas (RCA) would

be maintained.

Table 4 - Existing stand structure by California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) System diameter classes for trees per acre and canopy cover percent.

CLASS

CWHR

Before thinning - Trees per Acre by dbh size classes

1-6” 6-11” 11-24” 24-30” >30” Total

4D 231 89 68 7 5 400

4M 236 70 56 6 4 372

5D 243 39 72 9 14 376

5M 223 38 40 9 11 322

CLASS

CWHR

Before thinning – Canopy Cover Percent by dbh size classes

1-6” 6-11” 11-24” 24-30” >30” Total

4D 23 27 42 9 12 71

4M 23 19 29 7 8 64

5D 22 14 47 11 24 79

5M 19 12 26 12 21 63

Note: Sums of canopy cover by size do not sum to “Total” because of overlapping canopy.

The time frame for vegetation effects is approximately 20 to 25 years. The western slope of the

Sierra Nevada in the Plumas National Forest has a high rate of vegetation establishment and

growth due to high annual precipitation and highly productive forest soils. Within this time frame,

vegetation generally has sufficient opportunity to increase canopy closure, basal area, and tree

density growth. This time period also encompasses the expected time period for fuels reduction

effectiveness (approximately 10 to 20 years).

Table 5. After thinning stand structure by California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) System diameter classes for trees per acre and canopy cover percent.

CLASS

CWHR

After thinning – Trees per Acre by dbh size classes

1-6” 6-11” 11-24” 24-30” >30” Total

4D 0 1 31 6 5 43

4M 0 11 45 6 4 66

5D 0 0 10 8 14 32

5M 12 2 18 7 11 50

CLASS

CWHR

After thinning – Canopy Cover Percent by dbh size classes

1-6” 6-11” 11-24” 24-30” >30” Total

4D 0 0 24 8 12 40

4M 0 5 25 7 8 40

5D 0 0 11 10 25 40

5M 1 1 13 10 21 40

Note: Sums of canopy cover by size do not sum to “Total” because of overlapping canopy.

The number and distribution of trees per acre by diameter class is an important unit of measure

because it shows the effect of treatments on different size trees. High density stands also slow the


18

rate of fire line construction by hand crews and mechanical equipment. Data from natural stands

(Dunning and Reineke 1933) indicates that for well-stocked, second-growth 100- to 150-year-old

mixed conifer stands, the number of trees per acre range from 71 to 165. However, the desired

trees per acre in the fuels reduction units would be lower in order to ensure effectiveness of the

treatments for a 10 to 20 year period. For plantations, the desired trees per acre for the second

decade would lower tree density to between 100 and 150 well distributed trees per acre, and shrub

cover would be maintained between 10 and 20 percent (SNFPA final EIS, volume 1, chapter 2).

Battles et al. (2008) evaluated the impacts of climate change on the mixed-conifer region in

California providing insight to forest health and management implications for forest managers.

This study found that changes in climate could “exacerbate forest health concerns” by increasing

weakened tree susceptibility to mortality as a result of fire, disease epidemics and insect

outbreaks, and potentially enabling forest insects and disease to expand ranges or increase

potential for widespread damage. The authors suggest that forest management strategies that

increase species diversity, promote heterogeneity, and create lower density stands would be

effective in providing “structures that are more resilient to catastrophic events like fire and

epidemics”.

Biomass removal, mastication, hand cutting, and piling (hand, tractor, or grapple)

Biomass removal, mastication, and hand cutting would change the structure (by reducing ladder

fuels), density, and size of fuels in the stand but would not necessarily change the total fuel

loading.

Post-treatment residual conifer tree spacing would range from 18 to 22 feet, on average. Trees per

acre and basal area per acre would be reduced as well. Biomass removal, mastication, and hand

cutting treatments would employ species preferences to retain species native to the forest stand

ecological type. Desired shade-intolerant species such as black oak, ponderosa and Jeffrey pine,

rust-resistant sugar pine, and Douglas-fir would typically receive preference for retention while

allowing for a diverse mix of species occupying the site.

Biomass removal, mastication, and hand cutting treatments would create open canopy stands

within plantations and naturally occurring pole sized (less than 11 inches dbh) stands. These

treatments would enhance the development of stands with open and sparse canopy cover (less

than 39 percent canopy cover).

Pile burning and Underburning

Underburning is nonselective, and it may kill some dominant and codominant trees that may have

otherwise been retained in mechanical treatments. Implementation of prescribed burning

treatments would have a negligible to minor effect on species composition in underburn units.

Localized torching from underburning would occur, thereby creating small openings in the

overstory where shade-intolerant species may become established and grow, depending on size.

Prescribed fire treatments would not notably affect species composition. However, prescribed fire

treatments are the first step in the process of re-introducing fire into landscapes that have not

burned for decades. Multiple entries of prescribed or natural fire may favor fire adapted shade-

intolerant species over decades if not a century.

Prescribed fire treatments would not notably affect stand size class and density. Prescribed fire

treatments would incur mortality of the smaller diameter trees, primarily those less than 10 inches


in diameter with some incidental mortality of larger trees due to torching or post-fire delayed

conifer mortality. Canopy cover density could be reduced by isolated torching; however, most

tree mortality resulting from prescribed fire treatments would occur in the understory which

would not notably affect the overstory canopy cover.

Summary of Cumulative Effects

Forest management strategies that increase species diversity, promote heterogeneity, and create

lower density stands would be effective in providing “structures that are more resilient to

catastrophic events like fire and epidemics” (Battles et al., 2008). The prescribed treatments

would best meet desired conditions for both the fuels reduction and forest health objectives and

enhance forest resiliency to trends presented by climate change. Particularly, the prescriptions

(variable density and thinning from below) that would be implemented would enhance

heterogeneity at multiple scales – both the stand and landscape scale – while reducing fuels and

potential fire behavior and improving forest stand structure, species composition, and forest

health, in general. Thinning would convert stands with dense (greater than 60 percent) canopy

cover into stands with open (25-39 percent) or moderate (40-59 percent) canopy cover.

To rely on density-dependent mortality, wildfires, and continued fire exclusion to shape overall

landscape structure would not meet the purpose and need to reduce hazardous fuel accumulations

or to improve forest health. The existing forest and landscape structure could lead to a greater

potential for large, moderate to high-severity fires in forested areas including the wildland urban

interface, riparian conservation areas, protected activity centers, and home range core areas in the

analysis area during a wildfire under severe weather conditions. These high stand densities and

closed-canopy forests would favor a gradual shift in species composition toward exclusively

shade-tolerant species, which would have an adverse effect on species diversity across the

landscape. Over the long term, mortality occurring in high-density stands would continue to

increase surface fuel loads (Stephens and Moghaddas 2005a; Agee 2002). These increased

surface fuels, combined with continuous ladder and canopy fuels, would continue to hinder

suppression effectiveness and would likely maintain stands susceptible to high-mortality fires.

Socio-Economic Benefits This economic analysis focuses on those revenues and treatment costs associated with

implementing fuel reduction treatments in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) defense zone. The

Forbestown CPFR project is planned to be an Integrated Resource Service Contract (IRSC).

Even with the current log market at a low point, areas with positive timber harvest values, greater

than 2,500 Board Feet per acre (BF/Ac) may pay for or help to offset the cost of associated fuel

reduction activities within the project area. The project contains approximately 1.4 million board

feet (MMBF) of timber. The sale of this timber would generate approximately $140,000 in

revenue. Under an IRSC contract, this revenue would be applied towards the cost of the service

work. The planned service work includes road reconstruction/maintenance, biomass removal to

the landing, mastication, hand cut pile and prescribed burning. The total cost of service work is

estimated at $401,000. After applying the revenue earned through the sale of timber, the

remaining cost of service work will be approximately $261,000. This cost will be covered using

retained receipts from past timber contracts. There is no other source of funds anticipated for the

treatment costs of implementing the project fuel reduction treatments.

Timber yield taxes are based on values established by the State of California for various timber

products, as determined by analysis of market transactions in a given area twice each year. On


20

timber harvested from National Forest land the tax is paid by the timber operators or purchasers,

based on the amount of timber harvested in a given year. Generally 80 percent of the yield tax

would be returned to the county from where it was collected.

Employment opportunities can have direct, indirect, or induced effects on the local economy.

Direct effects are associated with the primary producer. Indirect effects account for employment

in service industries that serve the lumber of other wood products manufacturer. These industries

may include logging, trucking, and fuel suppliers. Induced effects are driven by wages. Wages

paid to workers by the primary and service industries are circulated through the local economy

for food, housing, transportation, and other living expenses. The sum of direct, indirect, and

induced effects is the total economic impact in terms of jobs, which typically range from 10 to 15

jobs per million board feet of timber harvested.

California Spotted Owl Habitat The California spotted owl (Strix occidentails occidentalis) a forest sensitive species has been

petitioned for listing on August 19, 2015 by the Sierra Forest Legacy and Defenders of Wildlife.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is currently reviewing the petition and shall return its findings

on whether the petition presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that

the petitioned action may be warranted.

In the eight-plus years since the last petition to list the owl (2006) spotted owls have declined on

all of the long-term demographic study areas on Forest Service-managed lands (Conner et al.

2013, Tempel and Gutierrez 2013, Tempel et al. 2014a), including a 50 percent decline on the

Eldorado (ELD) study area prior to the effects of the King Fire in September 2014. Spotted owl

populations are increasing on the SKC study area (Conner et al. 2013), the only study area where

timber harvest is not permitted and ecological burning is an integral part of forest management,

suggesting the decline is not a Sierra-wide phenomenon. Currently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service is reviewing the petition to list and shall return its findings on whether the petition

presents substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may

be warranted.

The project area overlaps with portions of two California spotted owl protected activity centers

(PAC) and their associated home range core areas (HRCA). One PAC located in Butte County is

referred to as BU078; the other in Yuba County as YU008. We conducted historical daytime visits

to known nest sites or night-time surveys. During survey efforts, no California spotted owl nests

were found within the project treatment areas. The PAC YU008 was established in 1987. We

made 6 visits to determine that this pair was non-nesting in 2015. The PAC BU078 was

established in 2004. We made 6 visits to determine that this pair was non-nesting in 2015. A nest

was found in 2011 and the pair had successfully fledged two young.

Table 6 shows the combined acres of protected activity center and home range core area as

characterized by percentage canopy cover as it was evaluated prior to impacts by the Slapjack

DFPZ project, the Lumpkin Fire, and proposed treatments from the Forbestown CPFR project.

The effects of no action on wildlife are related to the forests natural occurrences. Such natural

occurrences include tree mortality.

From a fuels management prospective, the project area would remain fire-prone and overstocked

at the head of canyons, along roads, and near homes and communities. Fuel loads and conditions

could carry fire into residential areas and communities and across roads. Fire could continue


eastward and higher into elevation. Abundant and volatile fuels would remain near roads as an

unsafe environment to defend roads and fire lines.

Battles et al. (2008) evaluated the impacts of climate change on the mixed-conifer region in

California providing insight to forest health and management implications for forest managers.

The study found that changes in climate could exacerbate forest health concerns by increasing

weakened tree susceptibility to mortality as a result of fire, disease epidemics and insect

outbreaks, and potentially enabling forest insects and disease to expand ranges or increase

potential for widespread damage.

Table 6. Pre-Fire, Slapjack, Forbestown Canopy Cover Percent by Acres of Protected Activity

Center (PAC) and Home Range Core Area (HRCA)

CANOPY COVER PAC ID (same for HRCA) COMBINED

BU078 YU008

Percent Acres Acres Acres

0% - 9% 0.0 36.9 36.9

10% - 24% 0.8 9.7 10.5

25% - 39% 1.4 39.4 40.8

40% - 59% 29.7 47.1 76.8

60% - 100% 878.8 788.6 1667.4

Total Acres 910.7 921.7 1832.4

However as they currently exist, the two California spotted owl PAC/HRCA contain a great deal

of desirable habitat. Average canopy cover is currently between 63 to 70 percent in the project

area. The desired condition for spotted owls is at least two tree canopy layers; at least 60 to70

percent canopy cover (SNFPA ROD 2004). Snags are found throughout the project in adequate


22

amounts. An example of adequate snags across the landscape is the California spotted owl nest

sites have an average of 14 snags per acre (Steger et. al 1997). Large logs are found throughout

the project in adequate amounts. Large woody material is defined as 8-10 logs 20 inches in

diameter and 10 feet long at different stages of decay. Found on the forest floor provides cover,

and food.

Cumulative effects are not expected since no action would be taken. The only expected cause for

change in habitat is of natural occurring events such as a wildfire or drought etc. As trees continue

to grow the average time frame for tree growth, such as increase canopy cover, and basal area is

approximately 20-25 years.

Table 7 shows changes to the average canopy cover percentage by acres within the two California

spotted owl protected activity center and home range core area after evaluating the impacts by the

Slapjack DFPZ project, the Lumpkin Fire, and proposed treatments from the Forbestown CPFR

project.

Current research shows the effects of implementing fuels treatments immediately decreased

average habitat suitability for the owl from 0.25 to 0.23, with a difference still present after 30

years of simulated forest growth (SNAMP 2015) and that the owls avoided foraging in reduced

fuel zones for the first 1 to 2 years after fuel treatments (Stephens et al. 2014).

Table 7. Post-Fire, Slapjack, Forbestown Canopy Cover Percent by Acres of Protected Activity

Center (PAC) and Home Range Core Area (HRCA)

CANOPY COVER PAC ID (same for HRCA) COMBINED

BU078 YU008

Percent Acres Acres Acres

Lumpkin Fire 60.1 88.9 149.0

0% - 9% 0.0 36.9 36.9

10% - 24% 0.8 9.7 10.5

25% - 39% 1.4 30.9 32.3

Forbestown 40% avg. 127.7 97.2 224.9

Slapjack 40% avg. 20.5 0.4 20.9

40% - 59% 23.0 41.1 64.1

60% - 100% 677.2 616.6 1293.8

Total Acres 910.7 921.7 1832.4

Although studies suggest that fuel treatments can have negative and direct impacts on spotted owl

habitat quality in the short term, comprehensive assessments must consider the potential long-

term benefits of reduced wildfire risk. Long-term benefits will depend on both the risk that fire

poses to spotted owls and the extent to which fuel treatments reduce high-severity fires (Tempel

et al. 2014b).

Indicator measures used to measure habitat changes are acres of dense to moderate (D/M) canopy

cover within size class 5 and 4 stands. The desired condition for spotted owls is at least two tree

canopy layers; at least 60 to70 percent canopy cover (SNFPA ROD 2004). Canopy cover within

the PACs is generally 70% or greater. Outside of the PACs, canopy cover is currently between 63

to 70 percent (Roskopf 2015).

hand-cut units would not remove primary (over or mid-story) canopy (Roskopf 2015). Of the

combined 1667.4 acres of suitable habitat, 224.9 acres are proposed to be thinned to an average of

a 40% canopy cover (Roskopf 2015). Another 198 acres of suitable habitat would be treated by


hand thinning and or hazard tree removal, 82 acres of which are within PACs. Even though there

are 82 acres proposed for treatment in spotted owl PACs, the canopy cover remains the same.

The SNFPA ROD 2004, page 50-51 states “Within California spotted owl Home Range Core

Areas: Where existing vegetation conditions permit, design projects to retain at least 50 percent

canopy cover averaged within the treatment unit. Exceptions are allowed in limited situations

where additional trees must be removed to adequately reduce ladder fuels, provide sufficient

spacing for equipment operations, or minimize re-entry. Where 50 percent canopy cover retention

cannot be met for reasons described above, retain at least 40 percent canopy cover averaged

within the treatment unit.

The proposed treatments would reduce 224.9 acres of suitable habitat, within HRCA to an

average of a 40% canopy cover, which is considered unsuitable for not only nesting but even for

foraging habitat. Although all size classes stay the same the canopy cover is reduced.

The SNFPA ROD 2004, page 50-51 states Within California spotted owl PACs, where treatment

is necessary, remove only material needed to meet project fuels objectives. Focus on removal of

surface and ladder fuels. Of the two PACs (604.1 acres), within the project area there are

approximately 82 acres proposed for hand thinning and/or hazard tree removal.

A portion of the project is along a major road that borders 20 acres in PAC (BU078). The road is

in a wildland urban intermix (WUI) defense zone. For the protection of communities and land

management continuity purposes, it is necessary to remove saw-timber trees with the primary

objective to increase ground-to-crown height, increase spacing between trees, and increase the

spacing between tree crowns (Vermillion 2015).

In PAC BU078 there are 21 acres proposed for hazard tree removal and removal of shrubs and

trees up to10” diameter by manually cutting using chainsaws in a 200-foot buffer from the road.

This particular PAC has a road that is in a WUI–defense zone and is considered a strategic

location from which to fight wildfire. The road runs through the lower south end of the PAC and

is considered steep. The objective is to remove the hazard trees and hand cut trees up to a 10”

diameter. Hazard trees within the PAC may be identified to be retained once felled as part of the

Large Woody Material requirements for PACs.

In PAC YU008 there are 60 acres proposed for the removal of shrubs and trees up to10” diameter

by manually cutting using chainsaws within a 200-foot buffer on an interior road that leads to a

private home. This particular PAC has a dense understory that is in need of removal, the dense

understory is not advantageous for foraging. In some areas the removal of woody shrubs and trees

may require using mechanical ground-based equipment to grind harvest residue or thin small

trees. Shrubs and trees less than 10” diameter would be masticated, unless the trees are needed for

the desired spacing. The primary canopy cover will not be affected by this treatment.

Snags and structurally deformed trees (i.e. broken tops, multiple leaders, heart rot and burls etc.)

will not be retained along the road corridors 200-foot buffer, but will be retained in treatment

areas beyond the 200-foot buffer in 224.1 acres of HRCA.

Snags are critical as cavities for California spotted owls because they do not build their own nest

structures but require abandoned cavities in snags or deformed trees. Cavities in snags also serve

as areas to cache their food. In the Sierra Nevada conifer forest, nests are often [66% of the time]

found in tree cavities, broken topped trees, or snags (Verner et la. 1992) and tree size requirement

are greater than 45” diameter (SNFPA ROD 2004). Although owls on this district have been

found using cavities in snags 25-30” diameter.


24

It is expected that snags within the project particularly in timber harvested areas will be impacted

directly. This indirectly affects future nesting trees. Snag deficits have been reported in several

research papers indicating that thinning harvest practices leaving single canopy stands to reduce

ladder fuel usually have been "sanitized" by removal of snags, defective trees and salvageable

cull logs (Neitro 2014). Snag densities in managed forest have previously been reported at lower

densities than unmanaged forests (Zack et al. 2002). Current data on the Lassen and Plumas

National Forests and Sierraville Ranger District of the Tahoe National Forest (Statistical analysis

of snag data HFQLG Pilot Project 2011) demonstrate that Silviculture treatments do reduced snag

(≥15” diameter) densities in harvested areas.

Emphasize retention of wood in the largest size classes and decay 1, 2, and 3 (SNFPA ROD

2004). Woody material is defined as 8-10 logs 20 inches in diameter and 10 feet long at different

stages of decay. Found on the forest floor provides cover, dens, and food.

Cumulative effects are evaluated in the context of how diverse processes sustain values within the

system for species. From a temporal perspective, cumulative effects for wildlife habitat is

dependent on the time needed to recover suitable habitat. Besides private land activities the

activities most associated with this project are the Lumpkin Fire and the Slapjack DFPZ project.

The Lumpkin Fire that started on September 11, 2015 and burned 1,042 acres burned in a mosaic

pattern of intensity and severity. Currently removal of trees burned in the fire is occurring (132

acres) at the western edge of the project area. Approximate volume for the Lumpkin Salvage

project is 1.0-1.5 million board feet (MMBF). Re-entry can occur up to 3 years to remove any

additional trees that may pose a danger trees, additional volume, and to plant the logged areas.

The Lumpkin Fire impacted approximately 149 acres of BU078 and YU008 PAC and HRCA.

The Slapjack Defensible Fuel Profile Zones (DFPZ) project, began implementation in 2010. The

project authorized construction of approximately 4,419 acres of fuel breaks known as DFPZs by

treating surface, ladder, and canopy fuels using prescribed burning, mastication, and mechanical

harvest; harvest of 219 acres of timber using group selection and 148 acres using individual tree

selection. Key fuel reduction activities include mastication, grapple piling, and sawlog removal

using mechanical harvesting equipment. This decision will harvest an estimated 9.8 million board

feet of sawlogs. The project impacted 20.9 acres of BU078 and YU008 HRCA.

The Forbestown project would add acres to the loss of suitable habitat from other projects like

Slapjack project and Lumpkin fire. The average time frame needed to increase removed canopy

cover and increased basal area is approximately 20-25 years. This is based on typical growing

conditions on the Westside of the Sierra Nevada Mountains.

Cumulatively the impacts of the incidental removal of snags could take decades to recover more

snags are produced during the forest aging process. By following the design features for snag

retention and “flawed” green trees the potential loss of snags would be greatly reduced.

Additional areas of retention are PACs where snags tend occur abundantly.

It is unlikely that climate is the sole primary cause of decline in owl populations. Franklin et al.

(In press) found that habitat quality was the primary determinant of survival. Though the adult

survival is to a certain extent also affected by weather. Temperature and precipitation during

incubation is most affected during reproductive output than adult survival on the Eldorado

National Forest (Seamans and Gutierrez 2007). Future responses to climate change are likely to

be governed by complex interactions of factors that directly affect spotted owls and their habitat

as well as indirect effects (Keane 2013).


It is the Forest Service determination that the proposed activities within the Forbestown Project

analysis area may affect individuals, but are not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or

loss of viability for the Forest Service Sensitive species the California spotted owl.

Finding of No Significant Impact As the responsible official, I am responsible for evaluating the effects of the project relative to the

definition of significance established by the CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1508.13). I have reviewed

and considered the EA and documentation included in the project record, and I have determined

that Forbestown Community Protection and Fuels Reduction (CPFR) project will not have a

significant effect on the quality of the human environment. As a result, no environmental impact

statement will be prepared. My rationale for this finding is as follows, organized by sub-section

of the CEQ definition of significance cited above.

Context For the proposed action and alternatives the context of the environmental effects is based on the

environmental analysis in this EA.

While the increased risk of catastrophic wildland fire is often blamed on long-term drought or

expansion of the wildland-urban interface in the Western United States, the underlying cause

is the buildup of forest fuel and changes in vegetation composition over the last century.

Unnaturally dense stands competing for limited water and nutrients are at increased risk of

unnaturally intense wildland fires and insect or disease epidemics (USDA Forest Service,

DOI Bureau of Land Management, 2004).

Butte County is located on the eastern side of the northern Sacramento Valley and

encompasses over 1.1 million acres. Approximately 220,000 people reside in the county. In

the 2014 Unit Strategic Fire Plan, approximately 52% of the county is designated State

responsibility area and approximately 14% is designated Federal responsibility area. The

majority of the public lands include National Forest System (NFS) lands. The remaining 34%

of the county is comprised of local responsibility area (LRA). The LRA contains densely

populated areas as well as lower density rural areas. The LRA experiences a large occurrence

of wildfires and poses a significant threat to adjacent lands (CAL FIRE, 2014).

The project area is fire-prone, overstocked, at head of canyons, along roads, and near homes

and communities. Fuel loads and conditions could carry fire into residential areas and

communities and to, across roads. Fire could continue eastward and higher in elevation. The

proposed project strategically ties together and enhances recently-completed LRA fuel

reduction work along the community of Forbestown’s roadways and forests on State and

private lands.

Intensity Intensity is a measure of the severity, extent, or quantity of effects, and is based on information

from the effects analysis of this EA and the references in the project record. The effects of this

project have been appropriately and thoroughly considered with an analysis that is responsive to

concerns and issues raised by the public. The agency has taken a hard look at the environmental


26

effects using relevant scientific information and knowledge of site-specific conditions gained

from field visits. My finding of no significant impact is based on the context of the project and

intensity of effects using the ten factors identified in 40 CFR 1508.27(b).

1. Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the

Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial.

Because the project was developed in collaboration with the County and local Fire Safe

Councils in support of the Community Wildfire Protection Plan and no issues were identified

during the scoping process, consideration of the intensity of environmental effects is not

biased by any potential beneficial effects of the action.

2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety.

This project is essential to the welfare of the Forbestown area, especially as it integrates with

adjacent Forest Service lands. Additionally, the project falls within the guidelines established

in 2014 by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Butte, Cal-Fire, Butte County Fire, and

the Butte County Fire Safe Council. These local stake holders collaborated to establish the

Butte Unit Strategic Fire Plan, generally known as the 2014 Community Wildfire Protection

Plan (CWPP), based upon the priority goals and objectives identified by the local

collaborators (Butte County Federal/State Land Use Coordinating Committee, 2015).

3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as the proximity to historical or cultural

resources, parklands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically

critical areas.

There are no parklands, wetlands, or wild and scenic rivers within or in proximity to the

proposed project.

4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be

highly controversial.

Acceleration of the rate and extent of fuels reduction is needed because longer fire seasons

and warmer temperatures associated with a changing climate may increase the potential for

high-severity fire in Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer forests. Stand- and landscape-level

reductions in hazardous fire occurrence can be achieved while incorporating heterogeneity

into stand prescriptions. Forest resiliency at landscape scales needs to be increased before

changing fire regimes create conditions that managers and the public find unacceptable. The

next one to three decades are a critical period in mixed-conifer forest management and

conservation in the Sierra Nevada (USDA Forest Service, 2012).

5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or

involve unique or unknown risks.

The term at-risk community means an area that is comprised of an interface community as

defined in the notice entitled Wildland Urban Interface Communities within the Vicinity of

Federal Lands that are at High Risk from Wildfire issued by the Secretary of Agriculture and

the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with title IV of the Department of the Interior and

Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001 (114 Stat. 1009) (66 Fed. Reg. 753, January 4,

2001) or a group of homes and other structures with basic infrastructure and services (such as

utilities and collectively maintained transportation routes) within or adjacent to Federal land;

in which conditions are conducive to a large-scale wildland fire disturbance event; and for


which a significant threat to human life or property exists as a result of ta wildland fire

disturbance event (HFRA, 2003).

6. The degree to which the action may establish precedent for future actions with significant

effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration.

The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 provides improved administrative procedures to

improve the capacity to conduct hazardous fuels reduction projects on National Forest

System lands aimed at protecting communities, watersheds, and certain other at-risk lands

from catastrophic wildfire, to enhance efforts to protect watersheds and address threats to

forest health including catastrophic wildfire, across the landscape, and for other purposes.

7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively

significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively

significant impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action

temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts.

The cumulative impacts are not significant. The effects of the action are limited to the local

area other than providing connectivity at the landscape level to other fuel reduction, fire

resilient forest projects as discussed in the cumulative effects of the fuels analysis.

8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or

objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause

loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources.

No cultural resources will be impacted by project activities due to following standard

resource protection measures as outlined in II(A) of the First Amended Programmatic

Agreement among the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, the Advisory

Council on Historic Preservation, and the California State Historic Preservation Officer,

Regarding the Process for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation

Act of Undertakings on the National Forests of the Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5

Programmatic Agreement, 2013).

9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or

its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

It is the Forest Service determination that the proposed activities within the Forbestown

project analysis area may affect individuals, but are not likely to result in a trend toward

Federal listing or loss of viability for the Forest Service sensitive species the California

spotted owl.

10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements

imposed for the protection of the environment.

The proposed action violates no federal, state, or local environmental protection laws. The

project is consistent with the 1988 Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management

Plan, as amended by the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forests Plan Amendment (SNFPA) final

supplemental EIS Record of Decision.


28

References Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests, Island Press.

Agee, J.K. 1996. The influence of forest structure on fire behavior, In: Proceedings, 17th annual

forest vegetation management conference. Redding, CA: The conference: 52.68.

Agee, J.K. 2002. The fallacy of passive management: managing for fire safe forest reserves.

Conservation in Practice, Vol. 3, No. 1. Society for Conservation Biology, 6 p.

Agee, J.K., B. Bahro, M.A. Finney, P.N. Omi, D.B. Sapsis, C.N. Skinner, J.W. van Wagtendonk,

J.W., and C.P. Weatherspoon. 2000. The use of shaded fuel breaks in landscape fire

management. Forest Ecology and Management. 127: 55-66.

Agee, J.K. and C.N. Skinner. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest

Ecology and Management. 211(1-2): 83-96.

Arno, S. and S. Allison-Bunnell. 2002. Flames in our forest: Disaster or renewal? Washington,

DC. Island Press. 227 pp.

Battles, J.J., T. Robards, A. Das, K. Waring, J.K. Gilless, G. Biging and F. Schurr. 2008. Climate

change impacts on forest growth and tree mortality: a data-driven modeling study in the

mixed-conifer forest landscape, Southern Cascades, California, USA. Journal of

Biogeography, 28: 955-966.

Beesley, D. 1996. Reconstructing the landscape: an environmental history. In: Sierra Nevada

ecosystem project: Final report to Congress, II: Assessments and scientific basis for

management options. University of California Davis, Center for Water and Wildland

Resources. 2-24.

Busse, M.D., K.R. Hubbert, G.O. Fiddler, C.J. Shestak and R.F. Powers. 2005. Lethal soil

temperatures during burning of masticated forest residues. International Journal of

Wildland Fire. 14: 267-276.

Butte County Federal/State Land Use Coordinating Committee. 2015. Letter of support for the

proposed action – Forbestown community protection and fuel reduction project. Dated

August 14, 2015. Oroville, CA.

CAL FIRE. 2014. Butte Unit Strategic Fire Plan.

Collins, B.M., S.L. Stephens, J.J. Moghaddas and J. Battles. 2010. Challenges and approaches in

planning fuel treatments across fire-excluded forested landscapes. Journal of Forestry:

January/February: 24-31.

Conner, M.M., J.J. Keane, C.V. Gallagher, G.J. Jehle, T.E. Munton, P.A. Shaklee , and R.A.

Gerrard. 2013. Realized population change for long-term monitoring: California spotted

owl case study. Journal of Wildlife Management 77: 1449-1458.

Executive Office of the President. 2002. Guidance for environmental assessments of forest health

projects. Council on Environmental Quality. Letter from Chairman James L.

Connaughton. Dated December 9, 2002. Washington DC.


Ferrell, G.T. 1996. The influence of insect pests and pathogens on Sierra Forest. In: Sierra

Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress, II: Assessments and scientific basis

for management options. Wildland Resources Center Report No. 37. University of

California, Davis. 1177-1192.

Fites, J., M. Campbell, A. Reiner and T. Decker. 2007. Fire behavior and effects relating to

suppression, fuel treatments, and protected areas on the Antelope Complex Wheeler Fire.

Franklin, A.B., D.R. Anderson, R.J. Gutierrez, and K.P. Burnham. In press. Climate, habitat

quality, and fitness in northern spotted owl populations in northwestern California.

Ecological Monographs.

Fule, P.Z., W.W. Covington, M.T. Stoddard and D. Bertolette. 2006. Minimal-impact restoration

treatments have limited effects on forest structure and fuels at Grand Canyon, USA.

Restor. Ecol. 14 (3): 357-368.

Guarin, A. and A.H. Taylor. 2005. Drought triggered mortality in mixed conifer forests in

Yosemite National Park, California, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 218: 229-

244.

Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003, Pub. L. 108-148, 117 Stat. 1887-1915, codified as

amended at title 16 U.S.C. § 6501-6591.

Hessburg, P.F., J.K. Agee, and J.F. Franklin. 2005. Dry mixed conifer forests of the inland

Northwest, USA: contrasting the landscape ecology of the pre-settlement and modern

eras. Forest Ecol. Manage. 211(1): 117-139.

Jain, T.B., M.A. Battaglia, H.-S. Han, R.T. Graham, C.R. Keyes, J.S. Fried, and J.E. Sandquist.

2012. A comprehensive guide to fuel management practices for dry mixed conifer forests

in the northwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-292. Fort Collins, CO:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 331

p.

Keane J.J. 2014. California spotted owl: scientific considerations for forest planning. Pages 437-

467 in Long, J.W., L. Quinn-Davidson, and C.N. Skinner eds. Science Synthesis to

Support Socioecological Resilience in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Range.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Report, PSW-GTR-247.

Leiberg, J.B. 1902. Forest conditions in the Norther Sierra Nevada, California. USGS

Professional Papers, No. 8. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC. 194 p. plus maps.

Macomber, S.A. and C.E. Woodcock. 1994. Mapping and monitoring conifer mortality using

remote sensing in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Remote Sensing of Environment 50: 255-266.

Martinson, E.J. and P.N. Omi. 2003. Performance of fuel treatments subjected to wildfires. In:

Omi, P.N. and L.A. Joyce, tech. eds. Fires, fuel treatments, and ecological restoration:

conference proceedings; 2002 April 16-18; Fort Collins, CO. Proc. RMRS-P-29. Fort

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research

Station: 7-13.


30

McKelvey, K.J. and J.D. Johnston. 1992. Historic perspectives on forests of the Sierra Nevada

and the Transverse Ranges of Southern California: forest conditions at the turn of the

century. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-133. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Moghaddas, J.J. 2006. A fuel treatment reduces potential fire severity and increases suppression

efficiency in a Sierran mixed conifer forest. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-

41.

North, M., P. Stine, K. O’Hara, W. Zielinski and S. Stephens. 2009.An ecosystem management

strategy for Sierran mixed-conifer forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-220. Albany, CA:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 49p.

Olson, R., R. Heinbockel and S. Abrams. 1995. Technical fuels report. Unpublished report.

Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe National Forests: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service.

Omi, P.N. and E.J. Martinson. 2002. Effects of fuels treatments on wildfire severity. Final report,

Joint Fire Sciences Program. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.

Pinchard, S.J., D.L. Peterson and K. Jacobson. 2010. Fuel treatments reduce the severity of

wildfire effects in dry mixed conifer forest, Washing, USA. Canadian Journal of Forest

Research 40: 1615-1626. NRC Research Press.

Roskopf, D. 2015. Forbestown community protection and fuels reduction project – silviculture

report. USDA Forest Service, Plumas National Forest, Feather River Ranger District, CA.

Unpublished. 43p.

Rothermel, F.C. 1983. How to predict the spread and intensity of forest and range fires. GTR-

INT-143. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and

Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. 161 pp.

Safford, H.D., D.A. Schmidt, and C.H. Carlson. 2009. Effects of fuel treatments on fire severity

in an area of wildland-urban interface, Angora Fire, Lake Tahoe Basin, California. Forest

Ecology and Management. 258(5): 773-787.

Scott J.H. and R.E. Burgan. Standard fire behavior fuel models: a comprehensive set for use with

Rothermel’s surface fire spread model.

Scott J.H. and E.D. Reinhardt. 2001. Assessing crown fire potential by linking models of surface

and crown behavior. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-29. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins, CO. 59 pp.

Seamans, M.E. and R.J. Gutierrez. 2007. Habitat selection in a changing environment: the

relationship between habitat alteration and spotted owl territory occupancy and breeding

dispersal. Condor 109: 566-576.

SNAMP (Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Program). 2015. Draft Sierra Nevada adaptive

management program final report: Appendix C. California spotted owl team report.


Steger, G.N., G.E. Eberlein, T.E. Munton, and K.D. Johnson. 1997. Characteristics of California

spotted owl nests in foothill riparian and oak woodlands of the southern Sierra Nevada,

California. In: Pillsbury, N.H., J. Verner, and W.D. Tietje, technical coordinators.

Proceedings of a symposium on oak woodlands: ecology, management, and urban

interface issues; 1996 March 19-22; San Luis Obispo, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-

160. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest

Research Station: 355-364.

Stephens, S.L. and J.J. Moghaddas. 2005a. Experimental fuel treatment impacts on forest

structure, potential fire behavior, and predicted tree mortality in a California mixed

conifer forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 215: 21-36.

Stephens, S.L. and J.J. Moghaddas. 2005b. Silvicultural and reserve impacts on potential fire

behavior and forest conservation: twenty-fire years of experience from Sierra Nevada

mixed conifer forests. Biological Conservation. 125: 369-379.

Tempel, D.J. and R.J. Gutierrez. 2013. Relationship between occupancy and abundance for a

territorial species, the California spotted owl. Conservation Biology 00: 1-9.

Tempel, D.J., M.Z. Peery, and R.J. Gutierrez. 2014a. Using integrated population models to

improve conservation monitoring: California spotted owls as a case study. Ecological

Monitoring 289: 86-95.

Tempel, D.J., R.J. Gutierrez, S.A Whitmore, M.J. Reetz, R.E. Stoelting, W.J. Berigan, M.E.

Seamans, and M.Z. Peery. 2014b. Effects of forest management on California spotted

owls: implications for reducing wildfire risk in fire-prone forests. Ecological Applications

24: 2089-2106.

USDA Forest Service. 1988. Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and

Final Environmental Impact Statement. Pacific Southwest Region, San Francisco, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. Final Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement. Pacific Southwest Region, R5-MB-046, Vallejo, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2012. Managing Sierra Nevada forests. Pacific Southwest Research

Station, PSW-GTR-237, Albany, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2014. Snags in wildlife trees. Neitro, W.A., R.W. Mannan, D. Taylor, V.W.

Binkley, B.G. Marcot, F.F. Wagner, and S.P. Cline.

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r6/landmanagement/resourcemanagement.

USDA Forest Service, DOI Bureau of Land Management. 2004. The healthy forests initiative and

healthy forests restoration act: interim field guide. FS-799. Washington, DC. 58 p.

van Wagtendonk, J.W. 1996. Use of a deterministic fire growth model to test fuel treatments. In:

Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress, II: Assessments and scientific

basis for management options. Wildland Resources Center Report No. 37. University of

California, Davis. 1155-1165.

Vermillion, J. 2015. Forbestown community protection and fuels reduction project – fire and fuels

report. USDA Forest Service, Plumas National Forest, Feather River Ranger District, CA.

Unpublished. 13p.


32

Verner, J., R.J. Gutierrez, and G.I. Gould, Jr. 1992. The California spotted owl: general biology

and ecological relations, in The California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its

current status (Verner, J., J.S. McKelvey, B.R. Noon, R.J. Gutierres, G.I. Gould, Jr., and

T.W. Beck, tech. coords.) pp. 55-77. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-133, U.S. Forest Serv.,

Pac. Southwest Res. Station, Albany, CA.

Wills and Stuart. 1994. Fire history and stand development of a Douglas-fir/hardwood forest in

Northern California. Northwest Science 60 (3): 205-212.

Zack, S., L. George, and W.F. Laundenslayer, Jr. 2002. Are there snags in the system? Comparing

cavity use among nesting birds in “snag-rich” and “snag poor” eastside pine forests.

USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report, PSW-GTR-181, pp. 279-291.

Documents

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service ...a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...The Forbestown Community Protection and Fuels Reduction (CPFR) project