WILDLIFE SURVEY AND MANAGE REPORTa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · project would cause a significant negative effect on the species habitat or the persistence

1

WILDLIFE SURVEY AND MANAGE REPORT

Trinity Post-Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project

South Fork and Trinity River Management Units

Shasta-Trinity National Forest

Trinity County, California

Prepared by:

Mark Goldsmith Wildlife Biologist South Fork and Trinity River Management Units Shasta-Trinity National Forest

Reviewed by:

Talitha Derksen NEPA Planner South Fork Management Unit Shasta-Trinity National Forest

2

Non-Discrimination Policy

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and

applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity,

religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual

orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected

genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all

prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.)

To File an Employment Complaint

If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45

days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional

information can be found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html.

To File a Program Complaint

If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program

Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/ complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any

USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of the

information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington,

D.C. 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at [email protected].

Persons with Disabilities

Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or

program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-

6136 (in Spanish).

Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact

us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g.,

Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.htmlhttp://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.htmlhttp://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.htmlmailto:[email protected]

Wildlife Survey and Manage Report Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage

i

Table of Contents

Non-Discrimination Policy ........................................................................................................ 2

To File an Employment Complaint ............................................................................................ 2

To File a Program Complaint ................................................................................................... 2

Persons with Disabilities ........................................................................................................... 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 2

Introduction .................................................................................................................... 2

COMPLIANCE WITH LAW, REGULATION, POLICY, AND THE FOREST PLAN ...... 2

Proposed Actions and Alternatives Analyzed .................................................................... 3

Methodology .................................................................................................................... 3

Affected environment ....................................................................................................... 4

Environmental Consequences ........................................................................................... 4

Alternative 1 – Proposed Action ............................................................................................... 6

Direct and Indirect Effects ...................................................................................................... 6

Alternative 2 – Consistent Buffer and Fuelbreaks Alternative .................................................. 8

Alternative 3 – Wider Buffer Alternative .................................................................................. 9

Alternative 4 – Northern Spotted Owl Alternative .................................................................... 9

Alternative 5 – Minimum Impact Alternative ........................................................................... 9

Alternative 6 – No Action Alternative .................................................................................... 10

Cumulative Effects .................................................................................................................. 10

References ..................................................................................................................... 14

List of Tables

Table 1. Effects to wildlife Survey and Manage species 4

List of Figures

Figure 1. H. talmadgei and V. pressleyi – Alternative 3 Error! Bookmark

not defined.

Figure 2. H. talmadgei and V. pressleyi - Alternative 2 17


2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This project is in compliance with the Survey and Manage program requirements in the 2001

Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to Survey and Manage,

Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines (USDA and USDI

2001), the April 25, 2013 9th Circuit Court Order in Conservation Northwest [and others] v.

Sherman, No. 11-35729 No. 08-1067-JCC (W.D. Wash) and the February 18, 2014 District Court

Order in Conservation Northwest [and others] v. Robert Bonnie [and others], No. C08-1067-JCC

(W.D. Wash.).

Project activities are unlikely to have a meaningfully measurable effect on the life requirements

of any Survey and Manage wildlife species in the project area, their habitat suitability, or their

likelihood of persistence. Conditions do not warrant additional field surveys for any of these

species.

INTRODUCTION

Survey and Manage requirements were established to address little-known species that were

believed to be associated with old-growth and late-successional forest micro-habitats, and for

which species experts were unsure whether the Late-Successional Reserve (LSR) system was

sufficient to provide for their conservation. The purpose of this report is to assess potential effects

of the proposed Trinity Post-Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project in sufficient detail to

determine whether it is consistent with current Survey and Manage requirements. Table 1 and the

analysis following it address all Survey and Manage wildlife species assessed, requirements for

pre-disturbance surveys and/or protecting known sites, and determinations of potential effects of

project activities.

Eight wildlife Survey and Manage species analyzed in this report are also designated as Forest

Service Sensitive species. These species are addressed in this document using the criteria that

apply to Survey and Manage species, and addressed in the project Wildlife Biological Evaluation

using the criteria that apply to Forest Service Sensitive species.

COMPLIANCE WITH LAW, REGULATION, POLICY, AND THE FOREST PLAN

Forest Service guidance under the Northwest Forest Plan and the Shasta-Trinity National Forest

Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) requires the agency to analyze projects for

potential impacts to Survey and Manage Species. The Survey and Manage program is a result of

the 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to Survey and

Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines (USDA

Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2001). The species listed in the 2001

Survey and Manage Record of Decision (ROD) were selected “to more efficiently provide the

level of species protection intended in the Northwest Forest Plan...for the management of habitat

for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern

spotted owl” (p. 1). Modifications to the requirements in the ROD included a Settlement

Agreement filed on July 6, 2011, in Conservation Northwest [and others] v. Sherman, Case No.

C08-1067-JCC (W.D. Wash).


3

On April 25, 2013 the 9th Circuit Court reversed the District Court's approval of the 2011

Settlement Agreement, concluding that "Because the consent decree allows for substantial,

permanent amendments to Survey and Manage, it impermissibly conflicts with laws governing

the process for such amendments" (Conservation Northwest [and others] v. Sherman [and

others], No. 11-35729 [9th Cir.] No. 08-1067-JCC [W.D.Wash]). The 9th Circuit Court remanded

the decision to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The District

Court issued a remedy order on February 18, 2014 (Conservation Northwest v. Bonnie, W.WA

No. C08-1067-JCC). As a result, the 2011 Settlement Agreement is invalid and the order issued

by Judge Coughenour (Conservation Northwest [and others] v. Rey [and others] No. 08-1067) on

December 17, 2009 is still valid. Consequently, the Forest Service Pacific Southwest and Pacific

Northwest Regions are currently working under the 2001 Survey and Manage Record of Decision

and the December 2003 species list (USDA Forest Service 2014).

PROPOSED ACTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED

For a detailed description of the alternatives considered for this analysis, please see Chapter 2 of

the Trinity Post-Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

METHODOLOGY

This analysis is based on species occurrence data documented in National Forest wildlife

databases (Shasta-Trinity and Six Rivers National Forests) and the California Natural Diversity

Database, maintained by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. For this analysis,

potential effects were assessed based primarily on the likelihood and intensity of effects to habitat

characteristics favorable for these species, such as high canopy cover levels and moist micro-

habitats.

The Survey and Manage program requires pre-disturbance field surveys for some species where

appropriate (Table 1). Line officers have discretion to determine whether or not conditions

warrant additional surveys. The ROD Standards & Guidelines (p. 22) stipulate that “The line

officer should seek specialists’ recommendations to help determine the need for a survey based on

site-specific information. In making such determination, the line officer should consider the

probability of the species being present on the project site, as well as the probability that the

project would cause a significant negative effect on the species habitat or the persistence of the

species at the site.”

Three evaluation criteria were used to determine whether a proposed project triggers the need for

field surveys: 1. species range, 2. habitat suitability, and 3. the potential for project activities to

degrade habitat or cause disturbance (Duncan and others 2003). Evaluation of these criteria is

presented in Table 1 and the analysis following it. Additional surveys were determined to be

unwarranted for the following reasons: 1.) Areas where intensive treatments are proposed have

been heavily affected by wildfire, and habitat suitability for Survey and Manage mollusk species

is very low; and 2.) Areas that are highly suitable for Survey and Manage mollusk species will

have low-intensity treatments and extensive resource protection measures (RPM’s), and these

treatments are unlikely to have a meaningfully measurable effect on habitat suitability or

persistence of these species.


4

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The analysis area covers a large portion of the South Fork and Trinity River Management Units,

and vegetative communities are highly variable across this area. The most common vegetation

types are typified by mixed conifers in the overstory, oaks and other hardwoods in the understory,

and shrubs, forbs and grasses comprising the ground cover. The mixed conifer forests in the

action area are typically dominated by Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine and incense cedar. Higher

elevation sites provide favorable conditions for white fir, and the high-elevation sites on South

Fork Mountain support forests dominated by red fir. Common hardwood trees in the understory

of conifer forests in the action area include Pacific madrone, California black oak, canyon live

oak, Oregon white oak and alder. Many sites with shallow, rocky soils and southerly and westerly

aspects have harsh growing conditions. As a result, the primary vegetation in many of these areas

consists of oaks, shrubs, forbs and grasses rather than coniferous trees.

Proposed treatments are spread widely across this area, with highly variable vegetative conditions

ranging from old-growth conifer forest to high-severity fire areas with little living vegetation.

Mixed conifer forests dominate this area, and where sufficient canopy cover was present, some of

the mature stands of mixed conifer forest in the project area likely supported the habitat

conditions necessary for Survey and Manage mollusk species.

The wildfires of 2015 burned approximately 144,000 acres on Shasta-Trinity National Forest

lands. All proposed treatment areas are within the perimeters of these wildfires. These fires

removed an estimated 21,237 acres of late-successional forest habitat. Fire severity was generally

lower in areas dominated by late-seral vegetation, and higher in early-seral habitats. As a result,

the areas most likely to support Survey and Manage mollusk species were generally affected the

least by wildfire. Canopy cover reduction was lower, and the microclimates favorable to Survey

and Manage mollusk species are more likely to have survived the wildfires.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Table 1 displays the management requirements for the wildlife Survey and Manage species on the

Shasta-Trinity National Forest. The majority of these species do not occur in the project area, and

thus will not be affected by proposed activities under any of the project alternatives. The analysis

following Table 1 describes effects to the two species potentially affected by project activities.

Alternative 1 includes a detailed assessment of potential effects to these species. The other

alternatives also address potential effects, primarily by referencing the Alternative 1 discussion

and describing differences in effects compared to that alternative.

Table 1. Effects to wildlife Survey and Manage species.

Common name Scientific name

Pre-disturb-ance survey require-ment?

Manage known sites require-ment?

Determination of effects & rationale for determining need for pre-disturbance surveys

Also a USFS Region 5 Sensitive species?

INVERTEBRATES

Nugget

pebblesnail

Fluminicola

seminalis Y Y

No effect: The project area is

outside the known range of this

species, and it is not expected to

occur in or near the project area.

Y


5






Klamath

shoulderband

snail

Helminthoglypta

talmadgei N1 Y2 (See analysis following Table 1). N

Siskiyou

sideband snail

Monadenia

chaceana N Y





N

Shasta

sideband snail

Monadenia

troglodytes

troglodytes

Y Y





Y

Wintu sideband

snail

Monadenia

troglodytes wintu Y Y





Y

Shasta

chaparral snail Trilobopsis roperi Y Y





Y

Tehama

chaparral snail

Trilobopsis

tehamana Y Y





Y

Pressley (Big

Bar) hesperian

snail

Vespericola

pressleyi Y Y (See analysis following Table 1). Y

Shasta

hesperian snail Vespericola shasta Y Y





Y

AMPHIBIANS

Shasta

salamander

Hydromantes

shastae Y Y





Y

BIRDS

Great grey owl Strix nebulosa N N No effect: The project area is



N

1 Formerly a Category A species requiring pre-disturbance surveys, it is now a Category D species not requiring pre-disturbance surveys.

2 High-priority sites only.


6






occur in or near the project area

(Ziener and others 1990).

Alternative 1 – Proposed Action This alternative allows treatments of a 300-foot total width buffer (up to 275 feet on one side of

the road, and a minimum of 25 feet on the other side). The width of the buffer on either side of

the road could change but would not exceed 300 feet; i.e. if conditions lend to a wider treatment

on the uphill side, the uphill side may be treated up to 275 feet from the road and the downhill

side would be treated 25 feet from the road. The minimum treatment area along either side of the

road will be 25 feet. The maximum area of treatment is approximately 8,000 acres.

Because the exact location of treatment at any given point along a road is unknown, this analysis

considers treatment impacts to the entire 600-foot width buffer to ensure that any suitable habitat

or known locations of Survey and Manage species are addressed in this analysis (Figure 1). This

will result in roughly twice the number of acres analyzed as will actually be treated, and as a

result this analysis greatly overestimates the potential effects to Survey and Manage wildlife

species.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Helminthoglypta talmadgei (Klamath shoulderband snail)

H. talmadgei is classified as a Category D Survey and Manage species. The management

objective for these species is to “Identify and manage high-priority sites to provide for a

reasonable assurance of species persistence.” Pre-disturbance surveys are not required for

Category D species (ROD S&G p. 11).

H. talmadgei occurs in stable rock talus and rockslides in limestone substrates, especially near

springs or streams. On moist, north-facing slopes they can also occur under woody debris, moss

and leaf mold. This species feeds on herbaceous plants, and overhead vegetative cover appears to

be an important habitat element for shading and food (Duncan et al. 1999; USDI Bureau of Land

Management 1999). This species is common and well-distributed across the South Fork and

Trinity River Management Units, and observations have been recorded near and within proposed

treatment areas (Figure 1). Project activities have the potential to affect H. talmadgei by directly

impacting individuals during project implementation, or modifying habitat in ways that reduce its

suitability for this species. However, the following factors will greatly reduce potential effects to

this species:

Only dead vegetation is targeted for treatment. The sites with the most intensive treatments will therefore be those with the greatest extent of fire-induced mortality, and

these sites are least likely to support habitat conditions favorable to H. talmadgei and

other late-successional forest species. As a result, potential effects to these species are

very limited in the areas that were most heavily affected by wildfire.

Areas where fire severity was low are most likely to still support habitat conditions favorable to H. talmadgei (where conditions were favorable pre-fire). However, since

proposed treatments target dead vegetation only, areas with low fire-induced mortality


7

will have much less treatment than areas heavily affected by high-severity wildfire.

Treatments in areas that survived largely intact may reduce woody debris to some extent,

but post-fire levels of woody debris are much higher than pre-fire levels, and RPM’s limit

removal of woody debris (see below). Also, removal of dead vegetation will have little

effect on canopy cover. As a result, in the areas that were least affected by wildfire and

are likely to be most suitable to H. talmadgei, effects to this species will be very limited.

RPM’s include a prohibition on timber salvage in northern spotted owl (NSO) nesting/roosting habitat in High-Value Wildlife Conservation Areas (HVWCA’s). These

late-successional forested habitats are also likely to be high-quality habitats for H.

talmadgei, and this protective measure will further reduce potential effects to H.

talmadgei in these valuable habitats.

RPM’s include limitations on timber salvage in NSO foraging habitat in HVWCA’s. Salvage in these areas will be restricted to hazard trees only. This measure will further

reduce potential effects to H. talmadgei habitat quality in habitats high in value to this

species.

RPM’s include requirements to leave 15 tons of coarse woody debris (CWD) per acre in suitable NSO habitats in HVWCA’s. Except where it poses a hazard to operations or haul

routes, all CWD in advanced states of decay (snag and log decay classes 3-5) will be

retained in these areas. This measure will benefit H. talmadgei by ensuring retention of

large amounts of this important habitat feature in HVWCA’s. Outside HVWCA’s, 10 tons

CWD/acre will still be retained.

Numerous RPM’s restrict operations in riparian habitats. These include equipment exclusion zones for all wet meadows, seeps, fens and springs. Riparian habitats are

valuable to H. talmadgei, and these measures will further reduce potential effects to this

species.

The project’s connected actions will occur in existing roadbeds and culvert sites. These sites have been highly disturbed, and have limited potential value to this species. Ground

disturbance at sites with some potential to support this species (e.g., riparian habitats at

culvert replacement sites) will be very limited in spatial extent.

Proposed treatments are specifically designed to reduce the occurrence and extent of high-severity wildfires. They will thus likely reduce the impacts these wildfires may have

on H. talmadgei habitats and populations.

Replanting treatments will accelerate re-establishment of high-quality habitats for H. talmadgei and other wildlife Survey and Manage species.

As a result of these factors, project activities are unlikely to have any meaningfully measurable

effect on the life requirements or habitat suitability for this species, or on its persistence in the

project area.

Vespericola pressleyi (Pressley [Big Bar] hesperian snail)

This species occurs in conifer and/or hardwood forest habitats in permanently damp areas within

200 m. of seeps, springs, and stable streams, and uses woody debris and rock refugia near water

during dry and cold periods. Recommended protection measures include conserving favorable

canopy cover, woody debris and herbaceous vegetation in suitable habitats (Duncan et al. 1999;

USDI Bureau of Land Management 1999). This species is known primarily from the Big Bar area

of the Trinity River Management Unit, but has also been found on the South Fork Management

Unit. It appears to be less common than H. talmadgei, but observations have been recorded near

and within the boundaries of proposed treatment units (Figure 1).


8

Extensive protection measures for riparian habitats have been incorporated into the project

design. These measures protect the permanently damp areas that are key landscape features for

this species, and greatly decrease the potential for negative effects to habitat conditions around

these features. The project’s connected actions include removal or replacement of culverts to

improve overall hydrologic conditions in the watersheds affected by project activities. Ground

disturbance at sites with some potential to support this species (e.g., riparian habitats at culvert

replacement sites) will be very limited in spatial extent. The other RPM’s cited above for H.

talmadgei will also greatly reduce the potential for negative effects to V. pressleyi. As a result,

project activities will not have any meaningfully measurable effect on the life requirements or

habitat suitability for V. pressleyi, or on its persistence in the project area, and conditions do not

warrant additional field surveys for this species.

Alternative 2 – Consistent Buffer and Fuelbreaks Alternative This alternative is similar to Alternative 1, with three exceptions:

1. The buffer width is consistent throughout treatment areas (150 feet on either side of the road).

2. Both dead and dying hazard trees are subject to removal.

3. Approximately 16 miles of treated roads will be subject to fuelbreak treatments, which have a wider treatment zone than the other treatment types (600 feet on either side of the

road). The fuelbreak treatments include removing live small-diameter trees (up to 10”

DBH), and pruning live trees to remove lower branches.


The effects of Alternative 2 on H. talmadgei in the non-fuelbreak areas will be similar to those of

Alternative 1. The same types of treatments will occur, and approximately the same number of

acres will actually be affected. Removal of dying hazard trees in addition to dead trees will

increase the potential for minor effects to habitat suitability somewhat compared to Alternative 1

by potentially affecting canopy cover and removing some sources of future CWD. The potential

effects to canopy cover are limited due to the weakened condition of the living hazard trees that

will be removed under this alternative, and the likelihood that they will die in the near future

regardless of the proposed treatments. The CWD retention measures incorporated into the project

design will ensure retention of large amounts of CWD.

Fuelbreaks: Observations of H. talmadgei have been recorded within proposed fuelbreak areas

(Figure 2), and the potential for effects to this species may be greater within the fuelbreak areas

than in the other treatment areas. Removal of small-diameter trees in fuelbreaks has a greater

potential to affect canopy cover. However, the restriction of live tree removal to trees 10” DBH or

less will greatly limit the potential reduction in canopy cover, especially in the late-successional

forests that are most suitable for this species. The canopy in these stands is dominated by large-

diameter trees, and removal of small-diameter trees has a very limited potential to affect overall

canopy cover levels. Pruning lower branches of live trees is expected to have no measurable

effect on canopy cover or any other habitat element important to H. talmadgei.

Because this alternative includes fuelbreaks on approximately 16 miles of roads, tree removal will

occur on more acres than under Alternative 1. As a result, CWD will be reduced on a larger

number of acres. However, the project RPM’s detailed under Alternative 1, including the CWD

retention measures, will also apply to the fuelbreak treatment areas. These measures will ensure

retention of large amounts of CWD, an important habitat element for this species.


9

In summary, although Alternative 2 has a greater potential to affect H. talmadgei than Alternative

1, project design features and RPM’s will provide for a reasonable assurance of species

persistence in fuelbreaks as well as the non-fuelbreak areas. Overall, project activities are

unlikely to have a meaningfully measurable effect on the life requirements or habitat suitability

for this species, or on its persistence in the project area.

Vespericola pressleyi (Pressley [Big Bar] hesperian snail)

The effects of this alternative on V. pressleyi in the non-fuelbreak treatment areas will be very

similar to those of alternative 1. The same types of treatments will occur, and approximately the

same number of acres will be affected.

Fuelbreaks: Observations of V. pressleyi have been recorded near proposed fuelbreaks. The

closest observation was approximately 1 mile to the east (Figure 2). The extensive riparian

protection measures protecting permanently damp areas will protect these habitats in fuelbreaks

as well as other treatment areas. The many RPM’s cited above for H. talmadgei will also greatly

reduce the potential for negative effects to V. pressleyi, both within and outside of fuelbreaks. As

a result, project activities will not have any meaningfully measurable effect on the life

requirements or habitat suitability for V. pressleyi, or on its persistence in the project area under

this alternative, and conditions do not warrant additional field surveys for this species.

Alternative 3 – Wider Buffer Alternative This alternative allows treatment of a 600-foot total width buffer, rather than the 300-foot buffer

allowed under Alternative 1. However, because the exact location of treatment at any given point

along a road is unknown under Alternative 1, the analysis for that alternative assumes treatment

of the entire 600-foot width within which treatments may occur. As a result, the analysis for

Alternative 1 assumes effects to the same acres that will be subject to treatment under Alternative

3, and the potential effects to Survey and Manage wildlife species are very similar to those

analyzed under Alternative 1. Removal of dying hazard trees in addition to dead trees will

increase the potential for minor effects to habitat suitability somewhat compared to Alternative 1

by potentially affecting canopy cover and removing some sources of future CWD. The potential

effects to canopy cover are limited due to the weakened condition of the living hazard trees that

will be removed under this alternative, and the likelihood that they will die in the near future

regardless of the proposed treatments. The CWD retention measures incorporated into the project

design will ensure retention of large amounts of CWD.

Alternative 4 – Northern Spotted Owl Alternative This alternative is similar to Alternative 1, but treatments will be greatly restricted inside suitable

NSO habitats. Treatments in these habitats will be limited to hazard tree mitigation, targeting

dead trees only; no tree removal or fuels reduction will occur. As a result, potential effects to

Survey and Manage wildlife species will be similar to but more limited than those of Alternative

1. Salvage treatments will occur on fewer acres, so the extent of tree removal will be more limited

than Alternative 1. Fuels treatments will also occur on fewer acres, so more CWD will be retained

in the project area. In summary, overall effects will be less than Alternative 1, and project

activities will not have any meaningfully measurable effect on the life requirements or habitat

suitability for Survey and Manage wildlife species, or on their persistence in the project area.

Alternative 5 – Minimum Impact Alternative This alternative is similar to Alternative 4, but treatments will be even more restricted. The areas

where restrictions will apply include all suitable NSO habitats, plus riparian reserves, inventoried


10

roadless areas, and at-risk watersheds. Treatments in these habitats will be limited to hazard tree

mitigation, targeting dead trees only, and no tree removal or fuels reduction will occur. Outside of

these areas, treatments proposed are the same as Alternative 4, with the exception that no

commercial timber sale removal will be allowed in any treatment areas.

Potential effects to Survey and Manage wildlife species will be similar to, but more limited than,

those of Alternative 4. Fewer acres will be subject to fuels treatments, so more CWD will be

retained in the project area. In summary, overall effects will be the least compared to all other

action alternatives, and project activities will not have any meaningfully measurable effect on the

life requirements or habitat suitability for Survey and Manage wildlife species, or on their

persistence in the project area.

Alternative 6 – No Action Alternative Under this alternative, no vegetation will be treated. Trees and vegetation impacted by the

wildfires will continue to decay and fall without human influence. No reduction in fuel loading

levels or fire hazard will be achieved. Long-term effects of this alternative on Survey and Manage

wildlife species include continued limitations on use of existing road system for wildfire

suppression due to safety concerns, and a higher risk of widespread loss of suitable habitats to

high-severity wildfire.

Cumulative Effects Analysis of cumulative effects under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) addresses

the impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the proposed action

when added to other past, present and reasonable foreseeable future actions, regardless of which

agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes these actions (40 CFR 1508.7). Reasonably

foreseeable future actions are described in the project EIS. Past effects are assumed to be

expressed within the current habitat conditions shown in the analysis, including the effects of the

2015 wildfires.

The cumulative effects analysis is bound in space and time to properly evaluate if there would be

any overlap of effects between this project and other foreseeable actions. V. pressleyi is found in

permanently damp areas within 200 m. (656 feet) of seeps, springs, and stable streams (USDI

Bureau of Land Management 1999). H. talmadgei habitat areas are on the order of 10 acres

(Duncan et al. 1999), which equates to a circle with a radius of approximately 375 feet. To

encompass potentially affected individuals of the species analyzed in this report, this analysis is

therefore bounded in space to include any area within 375 and 656 feet of all treatment areas for

H. talmadgei and V. pressleyi, respectively.

Temporal bounding for this analysis is both short term and long term. The short-term bounding is

the time during project implementation because it is tied directly to the potential for noise

disturbance and immediate habitat alteration. The estimated timeline for hazard tree abatement,

fuel loading reduction, wood product removal and planting implementation is up to 5 years, and

maintenance actions may occur up to 20 years into the future.

Long-term bounding is determined by several factors. In habitats that burned at low severity and

have high levels of canopy cover remaining, bounding reflects the time needed for tree mortality

to provide the habitat functionality of CWD as a habitat component. A time frame of 40 years

beyond implementation (60 years post-fire) will allow for substantial snag recruitment in these

habitats, particularly since significant additional tree mortality from the effects of the 2015 fires is

expected to occur in the future. This tree mortality is also expected to provide ample down logs

in these habitats.


11

In habitats that burned at moderate or high severity and have low levels of canopy cover but high

levels of snags, temporal bounding reflects effects of proposed activities to snags compared to the

natural decline in snag presence. In Idaho the half-life of snags in post-fire areas where salvage

logging did not occur was 9-10 years for ponderosa pine, and 15-16 years for Douglas-fir

(Russell et al. 2006). Using these estimates, if no action is taken, less than 10% of the Douglas-fir

snags will still be standing 60 years after the fires, and less than 2% of the ponderosa pines will

still be standing. In these habitats, the difference in habitat functionality of snags between the

proposed activities and the no-action alternative is therefore not likely to be meaningful at that

point in time. Down log density in these habitats is also expected to be high due to significant

additional tree mortality in the future from the effects of the 2015 fires. As a result of these

factors, a time scale of approximately 40 years beyond implementation (60 years post-fire) is be

used to bound this cumulative effects analysis.

On the Shasta-Trinity and Six Rivers National Forests, there are 660 and 35 known H. talmadgei

and V. pressleyi sites, respectively. Fifty known H. talmadgei sites are within the cumulative

effects analysis area for this project, and 30 are within potential treatment units. Three known V.

pressleyi sites are within the cumulative effects analysis area, and two are within the boundaries

of potential treatment units. Approximately 1.1% of the known H. talmadgei sites (7 sites total)

were directly affected by moderate- or high-severity wildfire in 2015. No known V. pressleyi sites

were directly affected.

Future foreseeable actions that may affect habitat suitability within the cumulative effects

analysis area for these species are discussed below. Two acreage figures are listed for each type of

action. They represent the total acres within the cumulative effects analysis area for this species

that are potentially affected under Alternatives 1, 3, 4 or 5, and under Alternative 2, respectively.


Forest Service vegetation management and fuels reduction projects - The Gemmill and

Burnt Ranch projects (720 acres in all alternatives) may reduce Klamath shoulderband

snail habitat suitability by reducing canopy cover and CWD through forest thinning and

fuels reduction. The Mud Springs and Sims projects (1,218 acres in all alternatives) will

have a limited effect on habitat conditions because only trees


12

approximately 0.6% of the cumulative effects analysis area, but they will have less effect

than clearcuts and


13

Forest Service grazing allotments (10,693 acres in all alternatives) – These activities will

affect grasses and forbs, but may also affect riparian habitats. However, although range

allotments cover a very large area, overall grazing intensity is extremely low. As a result,

potential effects to Big Bar Hesperian snail habitat suitability are widespread but

extremely limited in overall intensity.

Transmission line maintenance and PG&E Hazard Tree Salvage (345 acres in all

alternatives) – These activities will take place along utility corridors that are kept clear of

trees. They are expected to have little or no effect on riparian habitats, and are likely to

have little effect on habitat suitability for Big Bar hesperian snails. Log deck removal is

expected to have no effect on habitat suitability for this species.

Grazing has the greatest potential to negatively affect habitat suitability for this species because

of the number of acres potentially affected, but this activity is extremely limited in intensity. The

Gemmill Thin and Burnt Ranch projects may also affect habitat suitability for this species, but

they incorporate extensive RPM’s to reduce potential effects to riparian habitats. As a result, the

potential negative effects of all future foreseeable actions on the viability of this species are very

limited.

As a result of these factors, the combined effect of these projects and the proposed project is

unlikely to result in meaningfully measurable effect on the life requirements or habitat suitability

for V. pressleyi or its persistence in the project area under any of the project alternatives.

The activities addressed above may cause some noise- and/or smoke-disturbance to individuals

that are also affected by the proposed project. However, noise or smoke disturbance does not

accumulate over time in the way effects to habitat conditions accumulate. Individuals in this

project area are also likely to be well-habituated to disturbances associated with roads and forest

management activities, and have adapted to these ongoing types of actions. As a result,

cumulative noise/smoke impacts, should they occur, are not expected to result in any significant

cumulative effects to these species.


14

REFERENCES

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2013. A status review of the black-backed

woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) in California. Report to the Fish and Game Commission.

March 13, 2013.

Conservation Northwest v. Bonnie, W.WA No. C08-1067-JCC (W.D. Wash. Feb. 18, 2014).

Conservation Northwest [and others] v. Rey [and others]. No. 08-1067 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 17,

2009).

Conservation Northwest [and others] v. Sherman [and others]. No. 11-35729, 2013 WL 1760807,

Opinion (9th Cir. Apr. 25, 2013).

Conservation Northwest [and others] v. Sherman [and others]. No. C08-1067-JCC, Parties

Stipulation and Order (W.D. Wash. Jul. 5, 2011).

Duncan, Nancy; Tom Burke; Steve Dowlan; and Paul Hohenlohe. 2003. Survey Protocol for

Survey and Manage Terrestrial Mollusk Species from the Northwest Forest Plan, Version

3.0. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 70 pp.

Duncan, Nancy (Editor); Thomas E. Burke; John S. Applegarth; and Ted R. Weasma. 1999.

Management Recommendations for Survey and Manage Terrestrial Mollusks. Version

2.0. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. October 1999. 305

pp.

International Union for the Conservation of Nature, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian

Assessment. IUCN and NatureServe. Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Available:

http://www.natureserve.org/sites/default/files/projects/files/amphibian_fact_sheet.pdf.

Jennings, Mark R; Hayes, Marc. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in

California. Report to California Department of Fish and Game. 255 pp.

Northwest Ecosystem Alliance [and others] v. Mark E. Rey [and others]. No. C04-844P,

Stipulation and (Proposed) Order Re: Injunction (W.D. Wash. Oct. 11, 2006).

Northwest Ecosystem Alliance [and others] v. Mark E. Rey [and others]. No. 04-844P, Order on

Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (W.D. Wash. Jan. 9, 2006).

Olson, Deanna H. (Editor). 1999. Survey Protocols For Amphibians Under the Survey and

Manage Provision of the Northwest Forest Plan. USDI Bureau of Land Management.

Version 3.0.

Roth, Barry. 1984. A new species of Vespericola (Gastropoda: Pulmonata: Polygyridae) from the

Klamath Mountains, California. Wasmann Journal of Biology, Volume 42 [for 1984],

number 1-2, pp. 84-91.

USDA Forest Service. 2014. Direction Regarding the Survey and Manage Standards and

Guidelines. Pacific Southwest and Pacific Northwest Regions. May 13, 2014.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Shasta-Trinity National Forests Land and Resource Management

Plan. Shasta-Trinity National Forests, Redding CA.

USDA Forest Service; USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Record of Decision and

Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer

and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines.

USDA Forest Service; USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1999. Survey and Management

Recommendations – Aquatic Mollusks.


15

USDA Forest Service; USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of Decision for

Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents

Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl; Standards and Guidelines for

Management of Habitat for Late-successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species

Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.

USDA Forest Service; USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Final Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement on management of habitat for late successional and old-

growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl.

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1999. Field Guide to Survey and Manage Terrestrial Mollusk

Species from the Northwest Forest Plan. BLM Oregon State Office.

Wilson, Randolph A.; Amy J. Lind; Hartwell Welsh, Jr. 1991. Trinity River Riparian Wildlife

Survey, final report. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Experiment Station

Redwood Sciences Laboratory, Arcata, CA. 98pp.

Zeiner, David C.; William F. Laudenslayer, Jr.; Kenneth E Mayer; Marshall White (Editors).

1990. California's Wildlife. Vol. 2 - Birds. California Department of Fish and Game.

Sacramento, CA. (Map updated 1997).


16

Figure 1 H. talmadgei and V. pressleyi – Alternative 3


17

Figure 2. H. talmadgei and V. pressleyi - Alternative 2