Return to Table of Contents
CHAPTER 2
ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION
INTRODUCTION
Chapter 2 presents and compares the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action, including a
no action alternative 1 . The alternatives are displayed to show how they address the significant issues
identified in Chapter 1 of this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS).
DEVELOPMENT OF THE ALTERNATIVES
An alternative is a set of management practices that meet the purpose of and need for the proposed
action, while addressing one or more significant issues. The purpose of and need for the proposed action
are described in Chapter 1 of this FEIS. Chapter 1 also includes a description of the scoping process and
the significant issues. The alternatives were developed in response to the Act and comments received
during the scoping process.
ALTERNATIVES NOT CONSIDERED IN DETAIL
All alternatives to the proposed action received detailed consideration in this FEIS.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL
This section describes the proposed action and each alternative to the proposed action. Maps, Figures 2.1
through 2.5 at the end of the chapter display resource management activities for the proposed action and
each alternative. Table 2.25 at the end of this chapter, presents an overall comparison of the proposed
action to the alternatives. Table 2.26, at the end of this chapter presents a comparison of how the
alternatives address the significant issues.
Before describing the alternatives in detail, it is important that readers take note of two items that require
clarification to avoid unnecessary confusion.
1. Measurement - The Land and Resource Management Plans for the Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe
National Forests (Forest Plans) commonly describe resource management activities in terms of
commodity and amenity outputs. For example, each Forest Plan describes an allowable sale quantity
for timber harvest expressed in terms of million board feet (MMBF). The Act, however, describes
resource management activities in terms of acres to be treated – a distinctly different method of
expressing amounts of resource work to be completed than the terminology used in the Forest Plans.
1 Required by the implementing regulations for the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1502.14(d).
Chapter 2 – Page 1
This FEIS follows the measurement method described in the Act by expressing and displaying most
outputs in terms of acres to be treated.
2. Landbase - Throughout this chapter, two terms are used to describe landbase. When comparing
alternatives, it is important to distinguish between these terms.
Planning Area - The planning area encompasses all of the National Forest System lands in the
Sierraville Ranger District of the Tahoe National Forest, Plumas National Forest, and that part of the
Lassen National Forest south of State Highway 299. These National Forest System lands are in
Butte, Lassen, Nevada, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, Tehama, and Yuba counties in the State of California.
The planning area encompasses lands in other ownerships, but does not set management direction
for non-Forest System lands. The planning area includes Federal lands identified in the Act as
"offbase" and "deferred." All lands within the planning area are potentially subject to effects from
proposed management activities; therefore, a planning area larger than the pilot project area is used
in assessing environmental impacts, particularly with respect to identification of connected actions,
reasonably foreseeable actions, and cumulative effects.
Pilot Project Area - The pilot project area as referenced in the Act is comprised of certain National
Forest System lands on the Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe National Forests designated as “Available for
Group Selection” on a map dated October 12, 1993, entitled Quincy Library Group Community
Stability Proposal. The map is on file and avilable for inspection in the appropriate offices of the
Forest Service. The pilot project area lands encompass approximately 1,528,667 acres. The pilot
project described in the proposed action and alternatives would be tested and demonstrated on lands
designated as “Available for Group Selection” on the map. The pilot project area does not include all
National Forest System lands in the planning area.
DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES
Elements Common to All Alternatives
Duration of Pilot Project – The pilot project would be in place for a period not to exceed 5 years from
the date of commencement (implementation date specified in the Record of Decision) or until
amendment or revision of the Land and Resource Management Plans for the Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe
National Forests is completed as directed in the Act 2 .
Special Area Allocations - The Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe Forest Plans allocate some National Forest
System lands to allocations and management prescriptions that exclude timber harvest and road
construction activities. Land allocations and management prescriptions excluded from resource
management activities would include established and proposed Special Interest Areas, established and
proposed Research Natural Areas, and administratively withdrawn areas such as designated Wilderness
Areas, Wild and Scenic Rivers, and Semi-primitive, Non-motorized allocations.
Riparian Management - Streamside management zone requirements (current management direction in
the Forest Plans) would continue to be the governing riparian management standards and guidelines in
all portions of the planning area, except for the pilot project areas where resource management activities
or any timber harvesting activities in the pilot project area are implemented. The selected riparian
management strategy in the Record of Decision would govern management of riparian areas where
resource management activities or timber harvests occur.
2
Title IV, Section 401(i)
Chapter 2 – Page 2
PACFISH - All alternatives comply with the amendment to the Lassen Forest Plan described in the
Decision Notice and Environmental Assessment for Interim Strategies for Managing Anadromous FishProducing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Portions of California (PACFISH) 3 .
In conformance with consultation between the USDA Forest Service and the U.S. Department of
Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service, under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, National
Forest System lands in the five anadromous fish-producing watersheds of the Lassen National Forest
(Butte Creek, Deer Creek, Mill Creek, Antelope Creek, and Battle Creek) would continue to be managed
as "key" watersheds. 4 PACFISH requires the identification of Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas
(RHCA). It uses the riparian buffer width requirements identified by the Scientific Analysis Team
(SAT) Report 5 , except that under PACFISH all measurements are calculated using slope distance, rather
than horizontal distance procedures. As directed by PACFISH, watershed analyses have been completed
for the key watersheds in which the majority of the landbase is under Federal jurisdiction (Deer Creek,
Mill Creek, and Antelope Creek).
Roadless Area Management – All alternatives comply with direction published in the Federal
Register 6 precluding new road construction in unroaded areas. This direction suspends new road
construction projects, including temporary road construction, and road reconstruction on specified
National Forest System lands until the Forest Service adopts a revised road management policy, or for a
period of 18 months (ending September 1, 2000), whichever is first. This direction applies in the
following areas:
•
•
•
•
All remaining unroaded portions of inventoried RARE II roadless areas ¼ mile or more beyond
existing classified roads.
All unroaded areas more than 1,000 acres in size contiguous to remaining unroaded portions of
RARE II areas.
All unroaded areas greater than 1,000 acres in size contiguous to Congressionally designated
Wilderness Areas and National Wild and Scenic River System rivers designated as "Wild."
All unroaded areas greater than 1,000 acres in size contiguous to unroaded areas greater than
5,000 acres in size on other Federal lands.
California Spotted Owl Management - All resource management activities would be implemented
consistent with interim direction for the conservation of the California spotted owl. Interim direction is
set forth in the California Spotted Owl Sierran Province Interim Guidelines Environmental Assessment 7
(Appendix Q). Spotted owl habitat areas and protected activity centers are excluded from resource
management activities and timber harvest in all alternatives. This exclusion conforms to direction in the
Act and the interim direction for protection of the California spotted owl. Light underburning designed
to enhance old forest 8 attributes and suitability of spotted owl habitat is the only resource management
3
USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, 1995.
Key watershed: A watershed containing habitat for potentially threatened species or stocks of anadromous salmonids or other potentially threatened fish, or
a watershed that is greater than six (6) square miles with high quality water and fisheries.
5
Viability Assessment and Management Considerations for Species Associated with Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forests of the Pacific Northwest,
The Report of the Scientific Analysis Team, USDA Forest Service, March 1993.
6
The Federal Register, Volume 64, Number 29, pages 7304 through 7305, February 12, 1999.
7
California Spotted Owl Sierran Province Interim Guidelines Environmental Assessment, January 1993, pages lll-2 through lll-5.
8
Old Forest: Old forests are forested areas that look (have physical structure) and act (have ecological processes) as they might have in the absence of
contemporary human activity (prior to the year 1850). Old forests characteristically have: (a) a significant number of trees approaching biological maximum
age for the species present; (b) a complex horizontal and vertical structure, including both live and dead vegetation, shaped or maintained largely by natural
disturbance or its functional equivalent; (c) an array of plant and animal species endemic to the region or location; and (d) continuity in characteristics (a)
through (c) over large geographic areas (hundreds of thousands of acres).
4
Chapter 2 – Page 3
activity allowed in spotted owl habitat areas and protected activity centers for the duration of the pilot
project.
Group Selection Harvest - Group selection harvest is required in the Act to achieve a desired condition
of all-age, multi-story, and fire resistant forests. Reference Appendix D for group selection modeling
simulations. Alternatives 2 through 4 use group selection as a resource management activity. Alternative
1 allows group selection, but at levels commensurate with current programs. Alternative 5 also allows
for some group selection. Appendix E demonstrates feasibility of achieving accomplishments listed in
the Act for the pilot project period. An attachment to Appendix E, Table E-1 – Group Selection
Priorities, discusses the priority stand structures from which to establish group selection harvests.
In the pilot project area, many stands should not be treated using the group selection method due to tree
size, stand structure, and previous policy decisions. It should be noted, however, that these stands still
contribute to the landbase from which group selection expectations are derived. The Act requires 0.57
percent of the landbase be harvested each year using group selection. The vegetation management
strategy for the pilot project period assumes each watershed or area analyzed would be re-analyzed for
group selection re-entry in 10 years. As explained in Appendix E, expected accomplishments, percent of
the landbase analyzed, and length of time to the next re-entry must be balanced.
Within individual stands, percent of the surface area harvested using group selection would vary for
reasons including stand structure, tree size, economics, and compliance with interim California spotted
owl direction. Stands located in suitable habitat for California spotted owl, designated as “selected” and
“other” strata types, as defined by the California spotted owl interim direction (Appendix Q), restrict
harvesting based on tree size, basal area retention, and crown cover. Group selection treatment areas are
not considered to be individual timber stands, but are viewed as subcomponents of larger stands.
Treatment effects on crown cover and basal area retention are, therefore, averaged over the larger stand.
Individual Tree Selection Harvest - Individual tree selection is allowed in the Act to promote forest
health and provide an uneven-aged structure to forested lands (see Glossary for definition). Individual
tree selection is an uneven-aged silviculture system wherein all tree sizes are managed to predetermined
stocking levels. This requires harvesting in all tree sizes to obtain a prescribed ratio of small trees to
large trees. Individual tree selection works best in stands having stocking in several age classes. The
individual tree selection method does not work well in even-aged stands. Reference Appendix D for
individual tree selection modeling simulations.
Stands located in suitable habitat for California spotted owl, designated as “selected” and “other” strata
types, as defined by the California spotted owl interim direction, restrict harvesting of the larger trees in
a stand. These restrictions result in stands treated using individual tree selection method resembling
stands treated using the even-aged silviculture system known as “thinning from below.” Individual tree
selection would be implemented first in uneven-aged stands that are not in suitable owl habitat having
high tree densities, and second in stands having high tree densities.
Smoke Management and Air Quality Protection – Whenever prescribed fire is used, smoke
management and air quality would be emphasized. Where feasible, mechanical treatment of fuels would
be applied before prescribed burning. Guidance and direction for smoke management and air quality
protection is found in: (1) the Interim Air Quality Policy on Wildland and Prescribed Fires, announced
by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1998; (2) a Memorandum of Understanding between
Chapter 2 – Page 4
the California Air Quality Board and the USDA Forest Service, signed on July 13, 1999, and (3) the
Smoke Management Guidelines under Title 17, currently under revision by California Air Quality
Board. A brief description of these documents is contained in Appendix X - Air Quality.
Species of Concern to Native American Tribes – Plant materials (such as bear grass and deer grass)
and animal products (such as porcupine quills) are used by Native American tribes for traditional
cultural uses. Where feasible, all alternatives would provide for identification and enhancement of
species of concern to Native American tribes.
Amendments to the Land and Resource Management
Plans
The following amendments to Forest Plan management direction are common only to Alternatives 2, 3,
and 4. Alternative 5 contains a different set of Forest Plan amendments. Amendments for Alternative 5
are displayed separately under the description of Alternative 5. The amendments apply only to sitespecific projects derived from this FEIS analyisis that are implemented in the pilot project area. An
exception is that the Act specifies that Scientific Analysis Team guidelines for riparian protection
(Tables 2.5 through 2.9) apply to all timber harvest activities in the project area. The amendments do not
apply to the planning area as a whole, nor to National Forest System lands outside the planning area.
These amendments would terminate upon conclusion of the pilot project. Alternative 1 does not amend
the Forest Plans.
Changes in Wildlife Management Direction – Management direction for wildlife in Alternatives 2, 3,
and 4 is not consistent with existing management direction in the Forest Plans for the Lassen, Plumas,
and Tahoe National Forests, as amended. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 change the wildlife management
direction in the Forest Plans for the Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe National Forests as follows:
1. The Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe Forest Plans would be amended to require early consultation with
the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service regarding Federally listed animal species. (Table 2.1)
2. The Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe Forest Plans would be amended to require completion of bald eagle
management plans in consultation with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (Table 2.1)
3. The Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe Forest Plans would be amended to establish or revise limited
operating periods for wildlife habitat protection. (Tables 2.2 and 2.3)
The Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe Forest Plans do not contain management direction requiring for early
consultation with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service regarding Federally listed animal species. The
Forest Plans would be amended to provide new direction for early consultation as shown in Table 2.1.
Chapter 2 – Page 5
Table 2.1
Consultation Requirements
Amended Direction
FOREST PLAN
Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe
AMENDED FOREST PLAN DIRECTION
Involve the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service during the early planning phase of any sitespecific project that implements resource management activities to determine if resource
management activities could have a potential effect on Federally-listed threatened and
endangered species. At a minimum, consult for the following species:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bald eagle
American peregrine falcon
Valley elderberry longhorn beetle
Shasta crayfish
California red-legged frog
Lahontan cutthroat trout
Northern spotted owl
Slender orcutt grass
Green’s tuctoria
Laynes butterweed
Before silvicultural habitat manipulations in bald eagle wintering, roosting, or nesting
habitat complete, in consultation with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, bald eagle
management plans according to direction in the Pacific States Recovery Plan.
Table 2.2
Changes in Limited Operating Periods
FOREST
PLAN
Lassen
Plumas
FOREST PLAN REFERENCE
Bald eagle and goshawk: Forest Plan page 4-55
CURRENT FOREST PLAN DIRECTION
California spotted owl: CASPO IG amendment
Limited operating period is suggested, but not
defined for bald eagle and goshawk
Bald eagle prescription, Forest Plan, page 4-96
Bald eagle (January through August)
Goshawk prescription, Forest Plan, page 4-103
Goshawk (March 1 through August 31)
California spotted owl: CASPO IG amendment
Tahoe
Goshawk: Forest Plan, page V-28
Goshawk (March 1 through July 30)
California spotted owl: CASPO IG amendment
FOREST PLAN
Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe
AMENDED FOREST PLAN DIRECTION
When resource management activities occur in the locations shown in Table 2.3 Limited Operating Periods require the indicated limited operating periods. Regard
limited operating periods as a standard mitigation, in lieu of site-specific survey
information. Based on site-specific survey information, a Wildlife Biologist may modify
the distance, duration, or need for a limited operating period.
Chapter 2 – Page 6
Table 2.3
Limited Operating Periods
SPECIES
Bald eagle
Bald eagle
Peregrine falcon
California spotted owl
Goshawk
Marten den
Fisher den
Wolverine den
Sierra Nevada red fox dens
Sandhill crane
Great gray owl
California red-legged frog
LOCATION
LIMITED OPERATING PERIOD
Within designated territories
November 1 through August 31
Winter roosts
November 1 through March 1
Within designated territories
February 1 through August 31
Within ¼ mile of a protected activity
center boundary
March 1 through August 31
Within ¼ mile of territory
March 1 through September 15
Within ½ mile of known sites
May 1 through August 1
Within ½ mile of known sites
March 1 through July 1
Within ½ mile of known sites
February 1 through June 1
Within ½ mile of known sites
February 1 through July 1
Within ½ mile of nesting sites
April 1 through August 1
Within ½ mile of nesting sites
March 1 through August 31
All unsurveyed and all occupied
suitable habitat
October 1 through April 15 or after the
first frontal system resulting in more
than ¼ inch of precipitation, or both. If
a dry period of 72 hours or more occurs
after the onset of the rainy season,
operations may resume.
Forest Service policy regarding the management of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, and
other species for which viability is a concern would continue to be implemented, including:
1.
Surveying of areas of suitable habitat, to protocols based on the best available science, to
determine information relevant to implementation of site-specific resource management activities.
2.
Where appropriate, limited operating periods would be applied to unsurveyed habitat considered
to be suitable for threatened, endangered, or sensitive species; and to habitat considered suitable for any
species for which viability may be a concern.
3.
Where appropriate, habitat connectivity would be maintained to allow movement of old forest or
aquatic/riparian-dependent species between areas of suitable habitat.
4.
For the duration of a pilot project, old forest-dependent and aquatic/riparian-dependent species
(including amphibians) cumulative reductions in suitable habitat would not be reduced more than 10
percent below 1999 levels.
Changes in Vegetation Management Direction – Vegetation management in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 is
not consistent with existing management direction in the Land and Resource Management Plans for the
Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe National Forests, as amended (Forest Plans). Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 change
the vegetation management direction in the Land and Resource Management Plans for the Lassen,
Plumas, and Tahoe National Forests as follows:
1.
The Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe Forest Plans would be amended to add standards and guidelines
to address management of noxious and invasive exotic weeds. (Table 2.4)
2.
The Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe Forest Plans would be amended to specify direction for oak
management. (Table 2.5)
Chapter 2 – Page 7
The Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe Forest Plans do not currently contain direction for the management of
noxious and invasive exotic weed plants. The Forest Plans would be amended to provide direction for
weed management as shown in Table 2.4.
Table 2.4
Noxious and Invasive Exotic Weed Management
Amended Direction
FOREST PLAN
Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe
AMENDED FOREST PLAN DIRECTION
Manage National Forest System lands so that management activities do not introduce or
spread noxious or invasive exotic weeds using the following guidelines during site-specific
planning and implementation:
Inventory: As part of site-specific planning, inventory project areas and adjacent areas
(particularly access roads) for noxious and invasive exotic weeds.
Control: If noxious weeds are found in or adjacent to a site-specific project area, evaluate
treatment options relative to the risk of weed spread without treatment. Evaluate control
methods at the site-specific planning level.
Prevention/Cleaning: Require off-road equipment and vehicles (both Forest Service
owned and contracted) used for project implementation to be weed-free. Clean equipment
and vehicles of all attached mud, dirt, and plant parts. Use standard timber sale contract
clause C6.343 – Cleaning of Equipment in timber sale contracts.
Prevention/Road Construction: Require all earth-moving equipment, gravel, fill, or other
materials to be weed-free. Use onsite sand, gravel, rock, or organic matter, where
possible. Evaluate road locations for weed risk factors.
Prevention/Revegetation: Use weed-free equipment, mulches, and seed sources. Avoid
seeding in areas where revegetation will occur naturally, unless noxious weeds are a
concern. Save topsoil from disturbance and put it back to use in onsite revegetation,
unless contaminated with noxious weeds.
Prevention/Staging Areas: Do not stage equipment, materials, or crews in noxious weed
infested areas where there is risk of spread to areas of low infestation.
Chapter 2 – Page 8
Table 2.5
Changes in Oak Management
FOREST
PLAN
Lassen
Plumas
Tahoe
FOREST PLAN REFERENCE
CURRENT FOREST PLAN DIRECTION
Forest Plan, page 4-38
Retain 25 square feet basal area per acre.
Forest Plan, page 4-31
Retain 5 square feet per acre. Preference for oaks
greater than 12 inches in diameter at breast height
(DBH).
Forest Plan, page 4-34
Retain up to 35 square feet per acre on deer summer
range and 30 percent canopy cover on deer winter
range.
Forest Plan, page V-30
In capable, available, and suitable strata, retain 30
square feet per acre in type X3P and X4P.
Retain 5 square feet per acre in other capable,
available, and suitable strata.
FOREST PLAN
Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe
AMENDED FOREST PLAN DIRECTION
Where oak is present, retain an average 25 to 35 square feet basal area per acre of
oaks over 15 inches diameter at breast height (DBH). Site-specific planning will
determine feasibility and specific needs. Retain smaller oaks, if determined to be
necessary for future recruitment.
Changes in Riparian Management Direction – Riparian management in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 is not
consistent with existing management direction in the Forest Plans for the Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe
National Forests, as amended. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 change the riparian management direction in the
Forest Plans for the Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe National Forests as follows:
1. The Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe Forest Plans would be amended to apply the minimum protection
riparian buffer widths prescribed by the Scientific Analysis Team guidelines. (Table 2.6)
2. The Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe Forest Plans would be amended to prohibit scheduled timber
harvest, including fuelwood cutting, in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, except for salvage
harvest or to meet Scientific Analysis Team guidelines for resource management objectives. (Table
2.7)
3. The Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe Forest Plans would be amended to allow unscheduled timber harvest
salvage in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas only when resource management objectives are met
or a prescription is needed to obtain resource management objectives. (Table 2.7)
4. The Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe Forest Plans would be amended to include provisions for
accommodating at least a 100-year flow, including associated bedload and debris, at new stream
crossings and existing crossings where resources are degraded. (Table 2.8)
5. The Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe Forest Plans would be amended by adding a standard and guideline
to provide for development and implementation of a road management plan for meeting resource
management objectives. (Table 2.8)
6. The Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe Forest Plan would be amended to provide specific direction for
management of fire and fuel treatment to meet resource management objectives and minimize
disturbance of riparian ground cover and vegetation. (Table 2.9)
7. The Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe Forest Plan would be amended to provide direction for design of
prescribed burn project identifying objectives and risks. (Table 2.9)
8. The Tahoe and Lassen Forest Plans would be amended to require a watershed analysis before
planning, implementing, or monitoring restoration projects. (Table 2.10)
9. The Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe Forest Plan would be amended to require habitat assessments and
surveys for California red-legged frogs in elevations below 5,500 feet. (Table 2.10)
Chapter 2 – Page 9
Table 2.6
Determination of Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCA)
FOREST
PLAN
Lassen
FOREST PLAN REFERENCE
Standard and guideline 22.d.(2), page 4-32, and in
Appendix R
CURRENT FOREST PLAN DIRECTION
Prescribe minimum width guidelines for Streamside
Management Zones (SMZ) as follows:
•
•
•
Plumas
Tahoe
Standards and guidelines for Streamside
Management Zones, pages 4-42 through 4-43, and
Appendix M
Standards and guidelines 46, 47, and Appendix F,
pages F-3 through F-6
100 to 300 feet (perennial water bodies)
50 to 300 feet (intermittent water bodies)
50 feet (ephemeral water bodies)
Prescribe minimum width guidelines for Streamside
Management Zones (SMZ) as follows:
•
•
•
100 to 300 feet (perennial water bodies)
50 to 300 feet (intermittent water bodies)
25 to 100 feet (ephemeral water bodies)
Prescribe minimum width guidelines for Streamside
Management Zones (SMZ) as follows:
•
•
•
100 to 300 feet (perennial water bodies)
25 to 200 feet (intermittent water bodies)
25 to 50 feet (ephemeral water bodies)
All three Forest Plans recognize the need to include other features in the SMZ, such as the top of inner
Common in
gorges, the active floodplain, and the outer edge of riparian vegetation
all 3 Forest
Plans
FOREST PLAN
AMENDED FOREST PLAN DIRECTION
Prescribe minimum widths as “interim boundaries” as follows:
Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe
•
300 feet (perennial fish bearing streams and lakes)
•
150 feet (perennial non-fish bearing streams, ponds, wetlands greater
than 1 acre, and lakes)
•
100 feet (intermittent and ephemeral streams, wetlands less than 1 acre,
and landslides)
Other features to include in RHCA determination, (whichever is greatest):
•
•
•
•
top of inner gorge
100-year floodplain,
outer edge of riparian vegetation
a distance equal to one or two tree heights (depending on the stream
type)
Chapter 2 – Page 10
Table 2.7
Changes to Timber Management Direction
FOREST
PLAN
Lassen
Plumas
FOREST PLAN REFERENCE
CURRENT FOREST PLAN DIRECTION
Management Prescription F, Riparian/Fish
Prescription, Timber standards and guidelines, page
4-52
Allow scheduled timber harvest, but limit to single tree
selection unless other prescriptions are needed to
benefit riparian resources
Prescription 9 - Riparian Area Prescription, Timber
standards and guidelines, page 4-92.
Prohibit scheduled timber harvest in riparian areas.
Only allow vegetation removal in riparian areas that
benefits riparian-dependent resources.
Allow scheduled timber harvest in intermittent and
ephemeral SMZ where riparian wetland attributes do
not exist.
Tahoe
Appendix F, Tahoe National Forest Guidelines for
Management in Riparian Areas and Streamside
Prohibit scheduled timber harvest in riparian areas
along perennial water bodies.
Management Zones (SMZ), Timber/Silviculture
Direction, pages F-7 and F-8.
Allow scheduled timber harvest in intermittent and
ephemeral SMZ where riparian wetland attributes do
not exist.
FOREST PLAN
Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe
AMENDED FOREST PLAN DIRECTION
TM-1: Prohibit scheduled timber harvest, including fuelwood cutting, in Riparian Habitat
Conservation Areas (RHCA).
TM-2 and TM-3: Allow unscheduled timber harvest salvage operations only if Resource
Management Objectives (RMO) are met or a prescription is needed to attain RMO.
Table 2.8
Changes to Road Management Direction
FOREST
PLAN
Lassen
Plumas
FOREST PLAN REFERENCE
CURRENT FOREST PLAN DIRECTION
Management Prescription F, Riparian/Fish
Prescription, Facilities standards and guidelines,
page 4-50
Minimize disturbance to riparian-dependent
resources.
Prescription 9. Riparian Area Prescription, Facilities
standards and guidelines, page 4-94.
Minimize the impact of roads on water quality and
riparian areas.
Maintain natural channel character at stream
crossings.
Tahoe
Appendix F, Tahoe NF Guidelines for Management in
Riparian Areas and Streamside Management Zones
(SMZ), Roads Direction, pages F-8 and F-9.
FOREST PLAN
Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe
Cross at sites that minimize impacts.
AMENDED FOREST PLAN DIRECTION
RF-4 - Require improvement of culverts and stream crossings found to pose a
substantial risk to riparian conditions to accommodate at least a 100-year flood,
including associated bedload and debris. Base priorities for upgrading on the potential
impact and ecological value of the riparian resources affected. Design and construct
new stream crossings to accommodate at least a 100-year flood, including associated
bedload and debris.
RF-8 - Require a Road Management Plan be developed and carried out that meets the
Resource Management Objectives (RMO).
Chapter 2 – Page 11
Table 2.9
Changes to Fire and Fuels Management Direction
FOREST
PLAN
Lassen
FOREST PLAN REFERENCE
Management Prescription F, Riparian/Fish
Prescription, Fire and Fuels standards and
guidelines, page 4-51.
CURRENT FOREST PLAN DIRECTION
Set fuel-loading standards to meet riparian zone
needs.
Minimize soil disturbance during fuel treatment.
Limit prescribed burning in and adjacent to riparian
areas to protect riparian and aquatic values.
Use prescribed fire to improve wildlife habitat,
primarily by stimulating aspen and willow
regeneration.
Plumas
Tahoe
Forestwide standards and guidelines, Fire and Fuels,
pages 4-57 and 4-58.
Meet effective organic ground cover for SMZ and
minimize damage to water quality.
Forestwide standards and guidelines, Fire and Fuels,
pages 4-57 and 4-58.
Limit disturbance in SMZ. Prepare and adhere to an
SMZ Plan for any activity within an SMZ. This Plan
shall establish site-specific resource objectives, and
include at minimum, objectives for vegetation
management based on the needs of ripariandependent resources.
Appendix F, Tahoe National Forest Guidelines for
Management in Riparian Areas and Streamside
Management Zones (SMZ), Fuels Management
Direction, pages F-9.
Consider light burns in the SMZ of headwater
streams.
FOREST PLAN
Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe
Reduce impacts of fuel treatments within SMZ.
AMENDED FOREST PLAN DIRECTION
FM-1: Design fuel treatment to meet Resource Management Objectives (RMO), and to
minimize disturbance of riparian ground cover and vegetation.
FM-4: Design prescribed burn projects to protect Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas
(RHCA) from burning. Where riparian ecosystems would be enhanced by prescribed
burns, clearly identify the specific objectives and risks.
Chapter 2 – Page 12
Table 2.10
Changes to Watershed and Habitat Restoration Management Direction
FOREST
PLAN
Lassen
Plumas
FOREST PLAN REFERENCE
CURRENT FOREST PLAN DIRECTION
Forestwide standards and guidelines, 22. Water and
Riparian Areas d.
Maintain or improve riparian dependent resources.
Forestwide standards and guidelines, 22. Water and
Riparian Areas e.
Evaluate all riparian areas Forestwide and manage to
reach natural or achievable site potential and desired
ecological conditions.
Forestwide standards and guidelines, Watershed
Protection, pages 4-41 and 4-42.
Protect highly sensitive watersheds through
cumulative impact planning and rehabilitate highly
disturbed watersheds.
Prepare and adhere to a Project Implementation Plan
for any activity within a riparian area, and include at
minimum opportunities and procedures for restoration
of any deteriorated area.
Identify lands contributing to watershed degradation
through analysis of National Forest System
watersheds. Analyze
and mitigate on a total watershed basis, not only on
project areas.
Tahoe
Appendix F, Tahoe National Forest Guidelines for
Management in Riparian Areas and Streamside
Management Zones (SMZ), Watershed Management
Direction, pages F-10.
FOREST PLAN
Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe
During compartment planning, identify opportunities
to stabilize watershed problem areas.
AMENDED FOREST PLAN DIRECTION
WR-1: A watershed analysis is a prerequisite to planning, implementing, and monitoring
all restoration projects.
WR-2: Conduct habitat assessments and surveys for California red-legged frogs in all
areas below 5,500 feet in elevation. Within watersheds containing known populations,
including French Creek Watershed and Chino Creek Watershed on the Plumas National
Forest, implement a 300 foot buffer on all sides of waterways (including ephemeral
wetlands). Within all identified California red-legged frog core areas, as identified in the
California Red-Legged Frog Recovery Plan, involve the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service
in early phases of site-specific project planning that implement resource management
activities.
DESCRIPTION OF THE ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE 1
DESIRED CONDITION
The desired condition as described in the Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe Forest Plans is an intensively
managed, even-aged, regulated forest on lands capable, suitable, and available for timber production.
Each Forest Plan has a riparian management program designed to maintain, and where needed restore,
healthy aquatic and riparian ecosystems. Each Forest Plan has a program for wildfire hazard reduction
designed to manage fuels, and a management strategy for maintenance of viable populations of native
and desired non-native plants and wildlife, including old forest-dependent species.
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
In Alternative 1, resource management activities include:
Chapter 2 – Page 13
•
•
•
•
Fuels Management
Vegetation Management
Riparian Management
Road Management
Alternative 1 is the no action alternative (Figure 2.1). Management would continue under the existing
decisions and management direction disclosed in the Records of Decision and the Land and Resource
Management Plans for the Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe National Forests, as amended (Forest Plans).
Fuels Management - The Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe Forest Plans were not designed as comprehensive
fuel reduction or wildfire protection strategies. Existing management direction allows fuels management
activities. The fuels management program under Alternative 1 would continue treating approximately
16,000 acres annually (subject to funding), primarily through underburning projects designed to
maintain past fuels management areas, or reduce natural accumulations of forest fuels and those created
by timber harvest operations. Another objective of many current fuels management activities is to
restore the ecological function of fire in forested ecosystems. Map L displays areas recently treated
through the timber sale program, hazardous fuel reduction program, or Forest Health Pilot Program. 9
Vegetation Management - Over the last 5 years, the vegetation management program has focused on
commercial thinning, precommercial thinning, and salvage of fire and drought-related mortality. In 1997
and 1998, approximately 26,000 acres were precommercially thinned and 23,600 acres commercially
thinned in the planning area. The clearcut regeneration harvest method was most often used for salvage
of areas having intense fire damage or severe drought mortality. Alternative 1 would harvest an average
of 25,000 acres through individual tree selection, and allows group selection, but at levels commensurate
with current programs. Group selection treatment areas would create openings ranging from ½ acre to 2
acres in size. Expected volume of timber sale offer for the Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe Forest Plans is
displayed in Table 2.11:
Table 2.11
Annual Allowable Sale Quantity
Land and Resource Management Plans
FOREST
Lassen
Plumas
Sierraville
Total
TOTAL VOLUME (MBF)
96.0
265.5
28.5
390.0
The California spotted owl interim direction decision did not amend the allowable sale quantity values
in the Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe Forest Plans as displayed in Table 2.12. It estimated harvest volumes
for the 2 years immediately following implementation of the California spotted owl interim direction
decision. This reflects the premise that the interim direction would only be in place for a period of 18 to
24 months. The volume figures displayed in Table 2.12 represent outputs that can reasonably be
expected under management governed by the current Forest Plans, as amended by the interim direction.
9
Forest Heath Pilot Program projects are designed to improve stand health, reduce risk of stand-replacing fires, and improve aquatic and riparian condition.
The monitoring strategy for these projects is focused on estimating the effects of various treatment schemes on fuel loading and vegetation.
Chapter 2 – Page 14
Table 2.12
California Spotted Owl Interim Direction
Estimated Timber Harvest Volumes
(MMBF)
FOREST
YEAR
Lassen
Plumas
Sierraville
GREEN
SAWLOG
SALVAGE
SAWLOG
MULTIPRODUCT
BIOMASS
TOTAL
1993
24.0
56.0
5.0
85.0
1994
36.6
10.5
5.0
52.1
1993
39.1
37.0
9.0
85.1
1994
39.1
37.0
9.0
85.1
1993
4.0
2.0
2.2
8.2
1994
4.0
1.5
2.2
7.7
Totals
1993
1994
178.3
144.9
Timber harvest over the last 5 years ranged from 128 to 210 million board feet (MMBF). Approximately
two-thirds of the timber harvest was sawlog size, and one-third was miscellaneous commercial products
(chips for pulp or biomass fuel for electrical plants). Harvest programs varied greatly from year to year,
based on funding levels and salvage needs, as displayed in Table 2.13. Appendix A includes additional
detailed information.
Table 2.13
Annual Timber Sale Offer History
(MBF)
FOREST
Lassen
Plumas
Sierraville
Totals
YEAR
SAWLOG
MISCELLANEOUS
COMMERCIAL
PRODUCTS
TOTAL
1993
81.2
30.9
112.1
1994
78.5
36.3
114.8
1995
45.8
59.4
105.2
1996
43.3
53.7
97.0
1997
55.6
34.5
90.1
1998
31.9
38.9
70.8
1993
84.4
19.9
104.3
1994
48.9
8.6
57.5
1995
32.6
8.3
40.9
1996
40.7
24.2
64.9
1997
44.9
24.0
68.9
1998
30.1
12.6
42.7
1993
13.7
0.0
13.7
1994
13.4
9.2
22.6
1995
58.8
5.8
64.6
1996
25.2
5.9
31.1
1997
23.6
4.4
28.0
1998
7.1
7.1
14.2
759.7
Chapter 2 – Page 15
383.7
1,143.4
Riparian Management - As directed by each Forest Plan, a variable width strategy would be applied to
delineate streamside management zones. The width of these zones is influenced by downstream
beneficial water uses, condition of the channel and adjacent uplands, and stream type (perennial,
intermittent, ephemeral). Widths vary from 100 to 300 feet along each side of perennial streams, 50 to
300 feet along each side of intermittent channels, and 25 to 100 feet along each side of ephemeral
channels, as shown in Table 2.14. These widths do not vary significantly among the three Forest Plans;
in all cases, an interdisciplinary team determines the actual streamside management zone width and
extent of management activities allowed in each streamside management zone.
Table 2.14
Streamside Management Zone Buffer Widths
Alternative 1
STREAM TYPE
Perennial
Intermittent
Ephemeral
VARIABLE WIDTH BUFFER
(feet)
100 to 300
50 to 300
25 to 100
The Lassen and Plumas Forest Plans require the development of a riparian area or streamside
management zone management plan for any activity within a riparian area or streamside management
zone. Riparian management plans include the establishment of objectives for vegetation within the zone,
determination of the maximum allowable manipulation of that vegetation, manipulation procedures,
limits on soil disturbance, ground cover requirements, analysis of erosion hazards, needed mitigation
measures, and the identification of opportunities for restoration. The Tahoe Forest Plan emphasizes
similar analyses and implementation requirements, but does not require the development of a specific
riparian area or streamside management zone plan.
Road Management – Current Forest Plan management direction allows road management activities,
including road construction, reconstruction, relocation, and decommissioning. Road management
activities would comply with the goals of the Clean Water Action Plan 10 .
Treatment Limitations – Annual funding and management direction have resulted in an average of
20,000 to 40,000 acres of harvest and fuels treatments annually.
Exclusions – In addition to the exclusions found in the Forest Plans, Alternative 1 would prohibit
resource management activities in the following exclusion areas:
Protected Activity Centers and Spotted Owl Management Areas – Approximately 192,400 acres of
protected activity centers and spotted owl habitat areas are excluded from timber harvest and road
construction activities in Alternative 1.
RESPONSE TO SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Issue 1 – Old Forests and Old Forest-Dependent Species - Alternative 1 addresses old forest-dependent
species by continuing to manage under the Forest Plans, as amended. There are approximately 192,400
10
Clean Water Action Plan: Restoring and Protecting America’s Waters, Report to the Vice President of the United States from the US Environmental
Protection Agency and the US Department of Agriculture, February 14, 1998.
Chapter 2 – Page 16
acres of protected activity centers and spotted owl habitat areas excluded from timber harvest and road
construction activities in current Forest Plans. Additional old forest habitat is provided by land
allocations established as goshawk management areas, Special Interest Areas, Research Natural Areas,
Wild and Scenic River corridors, Wilderness Areas, and old growth reservation areas.
Issue 2 – Watershed Effects and Aquatic/Riparian Protection - Alternative 1 addresses aquatic/riparian
protection by implementing streamside management zones, and allowing only 45 miles of new road
construction over 5 years. In addition, each of the Forest Plans identifies standards and guidelines for
resource activities, such as grazing and recreation, that provide additional protection for riparian and
aquatic areas.
Issue 3 – Economic Well-Being - Alternative 1 harvests approximately 124 million board feet (MMBF)
of timber and 215,000 bone dry tons of biomass annually. This would provide employment, income, and
economic activities similar to the current situation. Aesthetic and natural values, as well as levels and
amounts of tourism would be expected to remain unchanged.
Issue 4 - Wildfire Hazard Reduction and Fuel Management - Alternative 1 addresses wildfire hazard
reduction and fuels management by using current management direction to treat National Forest System
lands using underburning and other fuel treatment methods. The number of acres treated annually
subject to funding levels.
FOREST PLAN CONSISTENCY
Alternative 1 is consistent with existing management direction in the Forest Plans for the Lassen,
Plumas, and Tahoe National Forests, as amended. Selection of Alternative 1 would not amend the Forest
Plans.
ALTERNATIVE 2
DESIRED CONDITION
As described in the Quincy Library Group Community Stability Proposal, the desired condition is an
"all-age, multistory, fire-resistant forest approximating pre-settlement conditions" of open forest stands
dominated by large, fire tolerant trees with crowns sufficiently spaced to limit the spread of crown fire.
Riparian areas would support healthy aquatic and riparian ecosystems protected from the impacts of land
use activities, but able to adjust to impacts caused by naturally-occurring disturbance processes such as
wildfire, flood, and drought. Streams and their riparian areas would be restored to their proper
functioning condition.
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
In Alternative 2, resource management activities include:
•
•
•
Fuels Management
Vegetation Management
Riparian Management
Chapter 2 – Page 17
•
Road Management
Alternative 2 is the proposed action and one of the two preferred alternatives identified in the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) (Figure 2.2). Alternative 2 establishes and implements a pilot
project to demonstrate and test the effectiveness of resource management activities described in the Act,
by amending, as needed, management direction in the Land and Resource Management Plans for the
Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe National Forests. The Act specifies the following resource management
activities:
1. Fuelbreak construction in the form of a strategic system of defensible fuel profile zones, 11 including
shaded fuelbreaks, utilizing thinning, individual tree selection, and other methods of vegetation
management consistent with the Quincy Library Group Community Stability Proposal, on not less
than 40,000, but not more than 60,000 acres per year.
2. Group selection and individual tree selection uneven-aged forest management prescriptions as
described in the Quincy Library Group Community Stability Proposal to achieve a desired future
condition of all-age, multistory, fire resilient forests. Group selection harvest is required on an
average acreage of 0.57 percent of the pilot project land each year of the pilot project. Individual tree
selection may also be used within the pilot project area.
3. The total acreage on which resource management activities are implemented may not exceed 70,000
acres each year.
4. A program of riparian management, including wide protection zones and riparian restoration projects
consistent with riparian protection guidelines in the document entitled “Viability Assessments and
Management Considerations for Species Associated with Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forests
of the Pacific Northwest,” a Forest Service research document dated March 1993 and co-authored by
the Scientific Analysis Team.
Fuels Management - Up to 300,000 acres of defensible fuel profile zones would be constructed to
increase the protection from wildfire. Defensible fuel profile zones, approximately ¼ to ½ mile in width,
would be constructed along existing roads, ridgetops, or other suitable terrain. The defensible fuel
profile zone segments would be prioritized to establish an order for construction based on hazard, risk,
and values to be protected. The defensible fuel profile zone strategy is consistent with that outlined in
the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Final Report to Congress 12 and would allow for achievement of
the goals outlined in the Wildland Fire Management Policy 13 .
Defensible fuel profile zone would usually appear as open stands dominated by large trees. To reduce
the potential for crown fire, canopy closure would be approximately 40 percent. Smaller trees may be
present in small clumps or individually. The forest floor would usually be relatively open, with the
exception of occasional large logs. Vegetation management techniques, including prescribed fire, would
be used to construct and maintain defensible fuel profile zones, as well as to mimic natural fire cycles.
Reference Appendix C for modeling simulations of defensible fuel profile zone implementation.
11
Defensible Fuel Profile Zone: A defensible fuel profile zone is a strategically located strip of land on which fuels, both living and dead, have been
modified. The objective is to reduce the potential for a crown fire and to allow fire suppression personnel a safer location from which to take action against a
wildfire. Defensible fuel profile zones are usually located in conjunction with a road system and often along topographic or vegetative features, such as
ridgetops or meadows, that enhance their effectiveness.
12
Status of the Sierra Nevada, Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Final Report to Congress; Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, Wildland Resources
Center Report Number 37, University of California at Davis, July 1996.
13
Final Report, December 18, 1995, prepared by the Department of the Interior and Department of Agriculture to establish principles and policies for
wildland fire management.
Chapter 2 – Page 18
Vegetation Management – Vegetation management in Alternative 2 consists of management of
noxious and invasive exotic weed species, and stocking control through timber harvest. Timber harvest
under Alternative 2 would use two silvicultural treatment systems – group selection and individual tree
selection.
Group Selection - Group selection harvest would create openings ranging from ½ acre to 2 acres in size,
distributed throughout portions of the pilot project area designated "Available for Group Selection.”
Group selection harvest would be implemented on 0.57 percent of the lands labeled "Available for
Group Selection,” or approximately 8,700 acres annually. Reference Appendix D for modeling
simulations of group selection implementation.
Individual Tree Selection - Individual tree selection harvest treatments would be scattered throughout
the pilot project area on lands designated as "Available for Group Selection.” Reference Appendix D for
modeling simulations of individual tree selection.
Riparian Management - Riparian management would consist of riparian restoration projects and
riparian protection zones, as described in the document, Viability Assessments and Management
Considerations for Species Associated with Late-Successional and Old Growth Forests of the Pacific
Northwest. This report provides guidelines for riparian system protection required in the Act, commonly
referred to as the Scientific Analysis Team guidelines. The Scientific Analysis Team interim widths,
standards, and guidelines apply only where management activities prescribed by the Act would be
implemented.
The riparian management program would establish aquatic/riparian protection zone widths, and
management restrictions and practices designed enhance aquatic and riparian ecosystems. Riparian and
aquatic ecosystems would be managed to achieve riparian objectives, developed through watershed
analysis, as identified in Appendix L 14 . Riparian habitat conservation areas widths would be determined
by watershed analysis, although interim widths as shown in Table 2.15 would be applied until the
watershed analysis is completed. Resource habitat conservation areas management guidelines would
apply within the protection area. Scientific Analysis Team guidelines would supercede other direction,
unless the conflicting direction (including PACFISH direction) provides greater protection to riparian
and fish habitat or better achieves riparian management objectives. The Act exempts livestock grazing
from the application of Scientific Analysis Team guidelines for riparian protection during the term of the
pilot project, except where resource management activities defined in the Act would be implemented.
Appendix L addresses resource management activity for riparian habitat conservation areas and the
Scientific Analysis Team guidelines.
14
Appendix L contains excerpts from Appendix 5K of the SAT Report.
Chapter 2 – Page 19
Table 2.15
Scientific Analysis Team
Riparian Habitat Conservation Area Protection Zones
STREAM TYPE
RIPARIAN PROTECTION ZONE
Perennial fish-bearing streams and natural lakes
Minimum 300 feet on each side of the stream
Perennial non-fish bearing streams, ponds, reservoirs,
and wetlands greater than 1 acre in size
Minimum 150 feet on each side of the stream
Intermittent streams, including those ephemeral streams
having a definable channel and evidence of annual
scour and deposition
Minimum 100 feet on each side of the stream
Landslides and landslide prone areas
Use protection zones that cover the extent of the
features
A riparian improvement strategy is an essential component of the riparian management program
(Appendix R). The riparian improvement strategy includes an analysis of watershed condition and trend,
and cause and effect relationships. The riparian improvement strategy includes a determination of
methods to move watersheds towards proper functioning condition. These methods may include
adjustment of management practices and restoration projects. Essential components of the program
include monitoring and adaptive management. The watershed improvement strategy is consistent with
the strategy described by Clifton on behalf of the Feather River Coordinated Resource Management
Group in a document entitled, East Branch North Fork Feather River Erosion Control Strategy. 15
Road Management – Road management activities in Alternative 2 would focus on repairing resource
degradation caused by existing roads. Resource degradation repair methods would include road
decommissioning, relocation, and reconstruction. Additional roads would be decommissioned in
compliance with the Clean Water Action Plan. Amount of road construction would be directly related to
amount of resource management activity accomplished.
Treatment Limitations - The Act specifically limits the combined total acreage of resource
management activities designated in the Act to no more than 70,000 acres per year.
Exclusions - In addition to the exclusions found in the Forest Plans, Alternative 2 would prohibit
resource management activities in the following exclusion areas:
Late Successional Old Growth Forest Areas – Timber harvest and road construction in highly ranked
late successional old growth forests 16 (ranks 4 and 5) would be postponed for the duration of the pilot
project. Approximately 60,000 acres meet this classification in the pilot project area.
Offbase and Deferred – Offbase and deferred areas are described in the Quincy Library Group
Community Stability Proposal as “certain sensitive areas, such as proposed roadless areas and Scenic
River corridors." They include many late successional old growth areas within the exterior boundary of
the pilot project area that are not identified as “Available for Group Selection.” Approximately 466,400
acres meet this classification in the pilot project area.
15
Clifton, Clay C.; East Branch North Fork Feather River Erosion Control Strategy; USDA Forest Service, May 1994.
16
The term “late successional old growth” is defined in the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Volume II, Chpater 21.
Chapter 2 – Page 20
RESPONSE TO SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Issue 1 – Old Forests and Old Forest-Dependent Species - Alternative 2 addresses old forestdependent species by deferring timber harvest and road construction in approximately 60,000 acres of
highly-ranked late successional old growth forest (ranks 4 and 5) in the area designated as “Available for
Group Selection,” for the duration of the pilot project. Additionally, nearly 466,000 acres of offbase and
deferred areas would be excluded from resource management activities.
Issue 2 – Watershed Effects and Aquatic/Riparian Protection - Alternative 2 addresses
aquatic/riparian protection by applying Scientific Analysis Team guidelines to the areas where resource
management activities prescribed by the Act would be implemented. All remaining portions of the
planning area would be protected using streamside management zone buffers. Additionally, a program
of riparian restoration would be implemented.
Issue 3 – Economic Well-Being - Alternative 2 harvests approximately 286 million board feet (MMBF)
of timber and 227,000 bone dry tons of biomass annually providing employment, income, and economic
activity in local communities. Aesthetic values and recreational opportunities would be protected at a
level commensurate with the current condition. Over time, reduction of wildfire hazard would enhance
aesthetics, recreational opportunities, and natural values.
Issue 4 – Wildfire Hazard Reduction and Fuel Management - Alternative 2 addresses wildfire hazard
reduction and fuels management by creating a network of up to 300,000 acres of defensible fuel profile
zones over the pilot project period.
FOREST PLAN CONSISTENCY
Alternative 2 is not consistent with existing management direction in the Forest Plans for the Lassen,
Plumas, and Tahoe National Forests, as amended. Selection of Alternative 2 would amend the Forest
Plans.
ALTERNATIVE 3
DESIRED CONDITION
The desired condition is similar to the proposed action -- an "all-age, multistory, fire resistant forest
approximating pre-settlement conditions," and healthy aquatic and riparian ecosystems. Forest stands
would appear fairly open and dominated by large fire-tolerant trees. The defensible fuel profile zones
would be short segments and much wider than those designed in the proposed action. Defensible fuel
profile zones would be combined with adjacent area fuel treatments in many cases.
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
In Alternative 3, resource management activities include:
•
•
Fuels Management
Vegetation Management
Chapter 2 – Page 21
•
•
•
Riparian Management
California Spotted Owl Management
Road Management
Alternative 3 (Figure 2.3) establishes and implements a pilot project to demonstrate and test the
effectiveness of specified resource management activities, by amending, as needed, management
direction in the Land and Resource Management Plans for the Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe National
Forests. Alternative 3 creates fuelbreaks using area fuel treatments in combination with defensible fuel
profile zones. Alternative 3 excludes resource management activities from late successional old growth
forests (ranks 4 and 5). Alternative 3 provides protection for nesting and foraging habitat for the
California spotted owl through implementation of a species strategy for maintaining suitable California
spotted owl habitat. In this strategy, any resource management activity implemented in habitat currently
considered suitable as nesting or foraging habitat for California spotted owls would not alter habitat to
the extent that nesting habitat would be degraded out of nesting status, nor would foraging habitat be
degraded out of foraging status.
Fuels Management – Up to 300,000 acres of defensible fuel profile zones and area fuel treatments
would be constructed to improve protection from wildfire (40,000 to 60,000 acres annually). The
defensible fuel profile zones would form a strategic network like those in the proposed action; however,
the network would consist of a combination of defensible fuel profile zones and area fuel treatments 17
strategically located to protect resources from catastrophic wildfire. Area fuel treatments are located in
ways that consider fire risk, vegetation, slope, aspect, proximity to defensible fuel profile zones, and
existing roads. They are designed to complement the strategically located defensible fuel profile zone
system. As in the proposed action, treatments planned near communities and other high use areas would
be ranked as high priority for treatment.
Alternative 3 is consistent with the landscape level fuel strategy outlined in the Sierra Nevada
Ecosystem Project Final Report to Congress. It provides for achievement of the goals of the Wildland
Fire Management Policy. Stand structure characteristics in both defensible fuel profile zones and area
fuel treatments would be similar to those described in the proposed action, with the exception of meeting
CASPO interim direction for canopy retention in suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the California
spotted owl (Appendix Q). Defensible fuel profile zones and area fuel treatments would appear as open
stands dominated by large trees. Some smaller trees may be present in small clumps or individually. The
forest floor would be relatively open, with the exception of occasional large logs. As in the proposed
action, timber harvest and prescribed fire would be used to construct and maintain defensible fuel profile
zones and area fuel treatments. Maintenance, accomplished through prescribed burning, would be
planned in intervals that mimic natural fire cycles. Reference Appendix C for modeling simulations of
defensible fuel profile zone implementation.
Vegetation Management – Vegetation management in Alternative 3 consists of management of
noxious and invasive exotic weed species, and stocking control through timber harvest. Timber harvest
under Alternative 3 would use two silvicultural treatment systems – group selection and individual tree
selection.
17
Area fuel treatment: A strategically located block of land on which fuels, both living and dead, are modified. Area fuel treatments are arranged on the
landscape in a pattern that would reduce fire intensity in the direction a fire is likely to spread. Area fuel treatment improves wildfire suppression efficiency.
Chapter 2 – Page 22
Group Selection - Group selection harvest would create openings ranging from ½ acre to 2 acres in size,
distributed throughout portions of the pilot project area designated "Available for Group Selection.”
Group selection harvest would be implemented on 0.57 percent of the lands labeled "Available for
Group Selection," or approximately 8,700 acres per year, for 5 years. Reference Appendix D for
modeling simulations of group selection implementation.
Individual Tree Selection - Individual tree selection harvest treatments would be scattered throughout
the pilot project area on lands designated as "Available for Group Selection.” Reference Appendix D for
modeling simulations of individual tree selection.
Riparian Management - Riparian management would consist of riparian restoration projects and
riparian protection zones, as described in the document, Viability Assessments and Management
Considerations for Species Associated with Late-Successional and Old Growth Forests of the Pacific
Northwest. This report provides guidelines for riparian system protection required in the Act, commonly
referred to as the Scientific Analysis Team guidelines. Scientific Analysis Team interim widths,
standards, and guidelines apply only where management activities prescribed by the Act would be
implemented.
The riparian management program would establish aquatic/riparian protection zone widths, and
management restrictions and practices designed enhance aquatic and riparian ecosystems. Riparian and
aquatic ecosystems would be managed to achieve riparian objectives, developed through watershed
analysis, as identified in Appendix L. Riparian habitat conservation areas widths would be determined
by watershed analysis, although interim widths as shown in Table 2.15 would be applied until the
watershed analysis is completed. Riparian habitat conservation area management guidelines would apply
within the protection zone. Scientific Analysis Team guidelines would supercede other direction, unless
the conflicting direction (including PACFISH direction) provides greater protection to riparian and fish
habitat or better achieves riparian management objectives. The Act exempts livestock grazing from the
application of the Scientific Analysis Team guidelines for riparian protection during the term of the pilot
project, except where resource management activities defined in the Act would be implemented.
A riparian improvement strategy is an essential component of the riparian management program
(Appendix R). The riparian improvement strategy includes an analysis of watershed condition and trend,
and cause and effect relationships. The riparian improvement strategy includes a determination of
methods to move watersheds towards proper functioning condition. These methods may include
adjustment of management practices and restoration projects. Essential components of the program
include monitoring and adaptive management. The watershed improvement strategy is consistent with
the strategy described by Clifton on behalf of the Feather River Coordinated Resource Management
Group in a document entitled, East Branch North Fork Feather River Erosion Control Strategy.
California Spotted Owl Management - The report entitled The California Owl, A Technical
Assessment of its Current Status (Verner et al, 1992), describes the rationale for the California Spotted
Owl interim direction pertaining to suitable nesting and foraging habitat. California spotted owl interim
direction (Appendix Q) is designed to protect large tree attributes for an interim period, but do not
necessarily retain all habitat components needed for nesting and foraging. Management of snags and
down logs would comply with California spotted owl interim direction (Appendix Q). In nesting and
foraging habitat, fuel ladders in the 12 to 15 foot vertical space between the base of the live crowns and
the ground surface would be removed in at least 90 percent of the treated area.
Chapter 2 – Page 23
Where possible, vegetation treatments in suitable spotted owl habitat would retain or promote vertical
diversity (more than one layer of vegetation) and crown cover. Limited opportunities exist in some
currently even-aged stands to achieve multiple vegetation layers. In these cases, retention of crown
cover with the largest trees would be of primary importance. When applied in concert with spotted owl
habitat retention, vegetation management treatments would reduce the potential for crown fire initiation.
Table 2.16 displays vegetation management guidelines for suitable spotted owl habitat. Reference
Appendix Q for direction that is more specific.
Table 2.16
Management Direction for Suitable Spotted Owl Habitat
NESTING HABITAT
FORAGING HABITAT
Canopy Cover
Retain at least 70 percent of crown
cover
Retain at least 50 percent of total
18
crown closure
Retention of trees 6 to 23.9
inches DBH
Retention of trees greater than
23.9 inches DBH
Retain at least 20 percent in lower
canopy layer
Retain at least 10 percent in lower
canopy layer
Retain at least 30 percent in upper
canopy layer
Retain at least 20 percent in upper
canopy layer
Road Management - Road management activities in Alternative 3 would focus on repairing resource
degradation caused by existing roads. Resource degradation repair methods would include road
decommissioning, relocation, and reconstruction. Additional roads would be decommissioned in
compliance with the Clean Water Action Plan. Amount of road construction would be directly related to
amount of resource management activity accomplished.
Treatment Limitations – The total acreage of vegetative resource management treatments would not
exceed 70,000 acres per year.
Exclusions – In addition to the exclusions found in the current Forest Plans, Alternative 3 would prohibit
resource management activities in the following exclusion areas:
Late Successional Old Growth Forest Areas – Timber harvest and road construction in late successional
old growth forest (ranks 4 and 5) would be postponed for the duration of the pilot project period.
Approximately 60,000 acres meet this classification in the area designated as “Available for Group
Selection.”
Offbase and Deferred – Offbase and deferred areas are excluded from resource management activities.
Approximately 466,400 acres meet this classification in the pilot project area.
RESPONSE TO SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Issue 1 – Old Forests and Old Forest-Dependent Species - Alternative 3 addresses old forestdependent species by postponing timber harvest and road construction in approximately 60,000 acres of
highly ranked late successional old growth forest (ranks 4 and 5) for the duration of the pilot project. In
addition, approximately 466,000 acres of offbase and deferred areas are excluded from resource
management activities.
Issue 2 – Watershed Effects and Aquatic/Riparian Protection - Alternative 3 addresses
aquatic/riparian protection by creating riparian protection zones and riparian restoration projects using
18
Foraging habitat between 40 and 50 percent canopy cover would be retained at the existing canopy cover provided by both the lower and upper canopy
layers as identified in Table 2.16.
Chapter 2 – Page 24
the Scientific Analysis Team guidelines. All remaining portions of the planning area would be protected
using streamside management zone buffers.
Issue 3 – Economic Well-Being - Alternative 3 harvests approximately 251 million board feet (MMBF)
of timber and 227,000 bone dry tons of biomass annually providing employment, income, and economic
activity in local communities. Aesthetic values and recreational opportunities would be protected at a
level commensurate with the current condition. Over time, reduction of wildfire hazard would enhance
aesthetics, recreational opportunities, and natural values.
Issue 4 – Wildfire Hazard Reduction and Fuel Management - Alternative 3 addresses wildfire hazard
reduction and fuels management by creating up to 300,000 acres of defensible fuel zones in combination
with area fuel treatments over the pilot project period.
FOREST PLAN CONSISTENCY
Alternative 3 is not consistent with existing management direction in the Forest Plans for the Lassen,
Plumas, and Tahoe National Forests, as amended. Selection of Alternative 3 would amend the Forest
Plans.
ALTERNATIVE 4
DESIRED CONDITION
The desired condition is similar to the proposed action -- an "all-age, multistory, fire-resistant forest
approximating pre-settlement conditions," and healthy aquatic and riparian ecosystems. Forest stands
would appear open and be dominated mostly by large fire-tolerant trees. The defensible fuel profile
zones would be short segments and much wider than those designed for the proposed action with area
fuel treatments adjacent to the defensible fuel profile zones in many cases. Large trees would be
maintained during the pilot project period.
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
In Alternative 4, resource management activities include:
•
•
•
•
•
Fuels Management
Vegetation Management
Riparian Management
California Spotted Owl Management
Road Management
Alternative 4 is one of the two preferred alternatives identified in the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS) (Figure 2.4). Alternative 4 establishes and conducts a pilot project to demonstrate and
test the effectiveness of specified resource management activities, by amending, as needed, management
direction in the Land and Resource Management Plans for the Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe National
Forests. Alternative 4 creates fuelbreaks using area fuel treatments in combination with defensible fuel
profile zones. Alternative 4 excludes resource management activities from late successional old growth
Chapter 2 – Page 25
forests (ranks 4 and 5), and in areas of late successional emphasis. 19 Alternative 4 provides protection
for nesting and foraging habitat for the California spotted owl through implementation of a species
strategy for maintaining suitable California spotted owl habitat. In this strategy, any resource
management activity implemented in habitat currently considered suitable as nesting or foraging habitat
for California spotted owls would not alter habitat to the extent that nesting habitat would be degraded
out of nesting status, or foraging habitat would be degraded out of foraging status.
Fuels Management - Up to 125,000 acres of defensible fuel profile zones and area fuel treatments
would be constructed to improve protection from wildfire (approximately 25,000 acres annually). The
defensible fuel profile zones would form a strategic network like those in the proposed action; however,
the network would consist of a combination of defensible fuel profile zones and area fuel treatments
strategically located to protect resources from catastrophic wildfire. Area fuel treatments are located in
ways that consider fire risk, vegetation, slope, aspect, proximity to defensible fuel profile zones, and
existing roads. They are designed to complement the strategically located defensible fuel profile zone
system. As in the proposed action, treatments planned near communities and other high use areas would
be ranked as high priority for treatment.
Alternative 4 is consistent with the landscape level fuel strategy outlined in the Sierra Nevada
Ecosystem Project Final Report to Congress. It provides for achievement of the goals of The Wildland
Fire Management Policy. Stand structure characteristics in both defensible fuel profile zones and area
fuel treatments would be similar to those described in the proposed action, with the exception of meeting
California spotted owl interim direction for canopy retention in suitable nesting and foraging habitat for
the California spotted owl (Appendix Q). Defensible fuel profile zones and area fuel treatments would
appear as open stands dominated by large trees. Some smaller trees may be present in small clumps or
individually. The forest floor would be relatively open, with the exception of occasional large logs. As
in the proposed action, timber harvest and prescribed fire would be used to construct and maintain
defensible fuel profile zones and area fuel treatments. Maintenance, accomplished through prescribed
burning, would be planned at intervals that mimic natural fire cycles. Reference Appendix C for
modeling simulations of defensible fuel profile zone implementation.
Vegetation Management – Vegetation management in Alternative 4 consists of management of
noxious and invasive exotic weed species, and stocking control through timber harvest. Timber harvest
under Alternative 4 would use two silvicultural treatment systems – group selection and individual tree
selection.
Group Selection - Group selection harvest would create openings ranging from ½ acre to 2 acres in size,
distributed throughout portions of the pilot project area designated "Available for Group Selection.”
Group selection harvest would be implemented on 0.57 percent of the lands labeled "Available for
Group Selection," or approximately 8,700 acres per year, for 5 years. Reference Appendix D for
modeling simulations of group selection implementation.
19
Areas of Late Successional Emphasis: The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project developed this strategy primarily for west side Sierra Nevada vegetation
types. Where possible, large areas (more than 20,000 acres) having a high percentage of late successional or old growth (ranks 4 and 5) were delineated as
areas of late successional emphasis. Areas of late successional emphasis are managed for old forest objectives. Reference the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem
Project Report, Volume I, page 101 for additional details
Chapter 2 – Page 26
Individual Tree Selection - Individual tree selection harvest treatments would be scattered throughout
the pilot project area on lands designated as "Available for Group Selection.” Reference Appendix D for
modeling simulations of individual tree selection.
Riparian Management - Riparian management would consist of riparian restoration projects and
riparian protection zones, as described in the document, Viability Assessments and Management
Considerations for Species Associated with Late-Successional and Old Growth Forests of the Pacific
Northwest. This report provides guidelines for riparian system protection required in the Act, commonly
referred to as the Scientific Analysis Team guidelines. Scientific Analysis Team interim widths,
standards, and guidelines apply only where management activities prescribed by the Act would be
implemented.
The riparian management program would establish aquatic/riparian protection zone widths, and
management restrictions and practices designed enhance aquatic and riparian ecosystems. Riparian and
aquatic ecosystems would be managed to achieve riparian objectives, developed through watershed
analysis, as identified in Appendix L. Riparian habitat conservation areas widths would be determined
by watershed analysis, although interim widths as shown in Table 2.15 would be applied until the
watershed analysis is completed. Riparian habitat conservation area management guidelines would apply
within the protection zone. The Scientific Analysis Team guidelines would supercede other direction,
unless the conflicting direction (including PACFISH direction) provides greater protection to riparian
and fish habitat or better achieves riparian management objectives. The Act exempts livestock grazing
from the application of Scientific Analysis Team guidelines for riparian protection during the term of the
pilot project, except where resource management activities defined in the Act would be implemented.
A riparian improvement strategy is an essential component of the riparian management program
(Appendix R). The riparian improvement strategy includes an analysis of watershed condition and trend,
and cause and effect relationships. The riparian improvement strategy includes a determination of
methods to move watersheds towards proper functioning condition. These methods may include
adjustment of management practices and restoration projects. Essential components of the program
include monitoring and adaptive management. The watershed improvement strategy is consistent with
the strategy described by Clifton on behalf of the Feather River Coordinated Resource Management
Group in a document entitled, East Branch North Fork Feather River Erosion Control Strategy.
California Spotted Owl Management - The report entitled The California Owl, A Technical
Assessment of its Current Status (Verner et al, 1992), describes the rationale for the California spotted
owl interim direction pertaining to suitable nesting and foraging habitat. California spotted owl interim
direction (Appendix Q) is designed to protect large tree attributes for an interim period; however, it does
not necessarily retain all habitat components needed for nesting and foraging. Management of snags and
down logs would comply with California spotted owl interim direction (Appendix Q). In nesting and
foraging habitat, fuel ladders in the 12 to 15 foot vertical space between the base of the live crowns and
the ground surface would be removed in at least 90 percent of the treated area.
Where possible, vegetation treatments in suitable spotted owl habitat would retain or promote vertical
diversity (more than one layer of vegetation) and crown cover. Limited opportunities exist in some
currently even-aged stands for managing to achieve multiple vegetation layers. In these cases, retention
of crown cover with the largest trees would be of primary importance. When applied in concert with
spotted owl habitat retention, vegetation management treatments would reduce the potential for crown
Chapter 2 – Page 27
fire initiation. Table 2.16 displays vegetation management guidelines for suitable spotted owl habitat
that would be applied in Alternative 4. Reference Appendix Q for direction that is more specific.
Road Management - Road management activities in Alternative 4 would focus on repairing resource
degradation caused by existing roads. Resource degradation repair methods would include road
decommissioning, relocation, and reconstruction. Additional roads would be decommissioned in
compliance with the Clean Water Action Plan. Amount of road construction would be directly related to
amount of resource management activity accomplished.
Treatment Limitations – The total acreage of vegetative resource management treatments would not
exceed 70,000 acres per year.
Exclusions – In addition to the exclusions found in the current Forest Plans, Alternative 4 would prohibit
resource management activities in the following exclusion areas:
Late Successional Old Growth - Late-successional and old growth stands (ranks 4 and 5) are excluded
from timber harvest and road construction activities. Approximately 60,000 acres of highly ranked late
successional old growth are within the areas designated as “Available for Group Selection.”
Areas of Late Successional Emphasis – Areas of late successional emphasis would be excluded from
timber harvest and road construction activities. Approximately 397,000 acres in this classification have
been identified. Areas of late successional emphasis would be excluded from timber harvest and road
construction activities.
Offbase and Deferred – Offbase and deferred areas are excluded from resource management activities.
Approximately 466,400 acres meet this classification in the planning area.
RESPONSE TO SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Issue 1 – Old Forests and Old Forest-Dependent Species - Alternative 4 addresses old forestdependent species by postponing timber harvest and road construction in approximately 60,000 acres of
highly-ranked late successional old growth forest (ranks 4 and 5) and areas of late successional emphasis
(ALSE) for the duration of the pilot project. In addition, approximately 466,400 acres of offbase and
deferred areas would be excluded from resource management activities.
Issue 2 – Watershed Effects and Aquatic/Riparian Protection - Alternative 4 addresses
aquatic/riparian protection by applying the Scientific Analysis Team guidelines to the areas where
resource management activities would be implemented. All other portions of the planning area would be
protected using streamside management zone buffers.
Issue 3 – Economic Well-Being - Alternative 4 would harvest approximately 85 million board feet
(MMBF) of timber and 107,000 bone dry tons of biomass annually providing employment, income, and
economic activity in local communities. Aesthetic values and recreational opportunities would be
protected at a level commensurate with the current condition. Over time, reduction of wildfire hazard
would enhance aesthetics, recreational opportunities, and natural values.
Issue 4 – Wildfire Hazard Reduction and Fuel Management - Alternative 4 addresses wildfire hazard
reduction and fuels management by creating 125,000 acres of defensible fuel profile zones and area fuel
treatments during the pilot project period.
Chapter 2 – Page 28
FOREST PLAN CONSISTENCY
Alternative 4 is not consistent with management direction in the Forest Plans for the Lassen, Plumas,
and Tahoe National Forests, as amended. Selection of Alternative 4 would amend the Forest Plans.
ALTERNATIVE 5
DESIRED CONDITION
The desired condition is a managed ecosystem that mimics natural disturbance events and natural
functions and processes. The intent is to protect and enhance ecological values reported in the Sierra
Nevada Ecosystem Project, 20 and retention of high-quality late successional old growth reserves.
Old forest areas would be conserved. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project buffer widths would be used for
riparian protection. Timber harvest activities would be excluded in late successional emphasis areas and
highly ranked late successional old growth (ranks 4 and 5). At least 50 percent of the area within each
California spotted owl home range identified as suitable habitat would be maintained. Fire would be
restored as a natural disturbance process. Protected activity centers for goshawks (200 acres), forest
carnivores (700 acres), willow flycatchers (variable size), great gray owls (50 acres in addition to the
adjacent meadow ecosystem that supports the owl), and California spotted owls (300 acres) would be
created. Roadless areas and roadless character would be protected.
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
In Alternative 5, resource management activities include:
•
•
•
•
•
Fuels Management
Vegetation Management
Riparian Management
California Spotted Owl Management
Road Management
Alternative 5 (Figure 2.5) establishes and conducts a pilot project to demonstrate and test the
effectiveness of specified resource management activities, by amending, as needed, management
direction in the Land and Resource Management Plans for the Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe National
Forests. The pilot project would be designed to mimic natural disturbance events and the restoration of
natural functions and processes. Alternative 5 employs an area fuel treatment strategy. It excludes
resource management activities from areas of late successional emphasis and provides protection for
riparian areas and old forests. Alternative 5 provides habitat protection for the California spotted owl,
goshawks, forest carnivores, willow flycatchers, and great gray owls, and increased protection for
roadless areas and roadless character.
Changes in Wildlife Management Direction – Management direction for wildlife in Alternative 5 is
not consistent with existing management direction in the Forest Plans for the Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe
20
The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Final Report to Congress (SNEP), Volume III, Chapter 5, Appendix 3 (Erman et. al. 1996, pages 270 through 273).
Chapter 2 – Page 29
National Forests, as amended. Alternative 5 change the wildlife management direction in the Forest
Plans for the Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe National Forests as follows:
1. The Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe Forest Plans would be amended to require early consultation with
the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service regarding Federally listed animal species. (Table 2.17)
2. The Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe Forest Plans would be amended to require development of bald
eagle management plans in consultation with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (Table 2.17)
3. The Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe Forest Plans would be amended to establish or revise limited
operating periods for wildlife habitat protection. (Tables 2.18 and 2.19)
The Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe Forest Plans do not contain management direction requiring for early
consultation with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service regarding Federally listed animal species. The
Forest Plans would be amended to provide new direction for early consultation as shown in Table 2.17.
Table 2.17
Consultation Requirements
Amended Direction
FOREST PLAN
Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe
AMENDED FOREST PLAN DIRECTION
Involve the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service during the early planning phase of any sitespecific project that implements resource management activities to determine if resource
management activities could have a potential effect on Federally-listed threatened and
endangered species. At a minimum, consult for the following species:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Bald eagle
American peregrine falcon
Valley elderberry longhorn beetle
Shasta crayfish
California red-legged frog
Lahontan cutthroat trout
Northern spotted owl
Slender orcutt grass
Green’s tuctoria
Laynes butterweed
Before silvicultural habitat manipulations in bald eagle wintering, roosting, or nesting
habitat complete, in consultation with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, bald eagle
management plans according to direction in the Pacific States Recovery Plan.
Chapter 2 – Page 30
Table 2.18
Changes in Limited Operating Periods
FOREST
PLAN
Lassen
FOREST PLAN REFERENCE
Bald eagle and goshawk: Forest Plan page 4-55
Plumas
CURRENT FOREST PLAN DIRECTION
California spotted owl: CASPO IG amendment
Limited operating period is suggested, but not
defined for bald eagle and goshawk
Bald eagle prescription, Forest Plan, page 4-96
Bald eagle (January through August)
Goshawk prescription, Forest Plan, page 4-103
Goshawk (March 1 through August 31)
California spotted owl: CASPO IG amendment
Goshawk: Forest Plan, page V-28
Tahoe
Goshawk (March 1 through July 30)
California spotted owl: CASPO IG amendment
FOREST PLAN
Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe
AMENDED FOREST PLAN DIRECTION
When resource management activities occur in the locations shown in Table 2.19 Limited Operating Periods require the indicated limited operating periods. Regard
limited operating periods as a standard mitigation, in lieu of site-specific survey
information. Based on site-specific survey information, a Wildlife Biologist may modify
the distance, duration, or need for a limited operating period.
Table 2.19
Limited Operating Periods
SPECIES
LOCATION
LIMITED OPERATING PERIOD
Bald eagle
Within designated territories
November 1 through August 31
Bald eagle
Winter roosts
November 1 through March 1
Peregrine falcon
Within designated territories
February 1 through August 31
California spotted owl
Within ¼ mile of a protected activity
center boundary
March 1 through August 31
Goshawk
Within ¼ mile of territory
March 1 through September 15
Marten den
Within ½ mile of known sites
May 1 through August 1
Fisher den
Within ½ mile of known sites
March 1 through July 1
Wolverine den
Within ½ mile of known sites
February 1 through June 1
Sierra Nevada red fox dens
Within ½ mile of known sites
February 1 through July 1
Sandhill crane
Within ½ mile of nesting sites
April 1 through August 1
Great gray owl
Within ½ mile of nesting sites
March 1 through August 31
California red-legged frog
All unsurveyed and all occupied
suitable habitat
October 1 through April 15 or after the
first frontal system resulting in more
than ¼ inch of precipitation, or both. If
a dry period of 72 hours or more occurs
after the onset of the rainy season,
operations may resume.
Forest Service policy regarding the management of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, and
other species for which viability is a concern would continue to be implemented, including:
1. Surveying of areas of suitable habitat, to protocols based on the best available science, to determine
information relevant to implementation of site-specific resource management activities.
2. Where appropriate, limited operating periods would be applied to unsurveyed habitat considered to
be suitable for threatened, endangered, or sensitive species; and to habitat considered suitable for any
species for which viability may be a concern.
3. Where appropriate, habitat connectivity would be maintained to allow movement of old forest or
aquatic/riparian-dependent species between areas of suitable habitat.
Chapter 2 – Page 31
4. For the duration of a pilot project, old forest-dependent and aquatic/riparian-dependent species
(including amphibians) cumulative reductions in suitable habitat would not be reduced more than 10
percent below 1999 levels.
Fuels Management – Alternative 5 does not limit the number of acres that could be treated during the
pilot project period. For comparison purposes with other alternatives in this FEIS, an assumption was
made that up to 200,000 acres would be treated to improve protection from wildfires. Use of mechanical
treatment would be emphasized where needed, particularly around urban interface areas and major
transportation routes. Prescribed fire would be the primary treatment on the remainder of the area and
would be used as a means of reintroducing fire into the ecosystem. When use of prescribed fire alone
would not meet the fuel reduction objectives, understory thinning would be completed before prescribed
burning. Alternative 5 is consistent with the landscape-level fuel strategy outlined in the Sierra Nevada
Ecosystem Project Final Report to Congress and achieves the goals of the Wildland Fire Management
Policy. Stand structure characteristics fuel treatment areas would be similar to those described in the
proposed action, except for retention of a more dense overstory canopy in certain habitat areas and
aquatic emphasis areas. Defensible fuel profile zones and area fuel treatments would appear as open
stands dominated by large trees. Some smaller trees may be present in small clumps or individually. The
forest floor would be relatively open, with the exception of occasional large logs. As in the proposed
action, timber harvest and prescribed fire would be used to construct and maintain defensible fuel profile
zones and area fuel treatments. Maintenance, accomplished through prescribed burning, would be
planned at intervals that mimic natural fire cycles. Reference Appendix C for modeling simulations of
defensible fuel profile zones.
Vegetation Management – Vegetation management in Alternative 5 consists of management of
noxious and invasive exotic weed species, creation of forest openings, and stocking control through
thinning. The amount, method, and location of vegetation management activities would be determined
by conducting landscape-scale watershed analyses to establish a desired vegetative condition.
Forest Openings - Alternative 5 creates forest openings, which are generally less than ½ acre in size,
ranging up to 2 acres in size, only when openings meet the objectives of providing desired vegetative
structure and variability appropriate to the vegetation type.
Thinning - Thinning consistent with restoring, maintaining, and protecting forested ecosystems would be
emphasized and implemented to achieve the desired condition over the landscape.
Changes in Vegetation Management Direction – Vegetation management in Alternative 5 is not
consistent with existing management direction in the Land and Resource Management Plans for the
Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe National Forests, as amended (Forest Plans). Alternative 5 change the
vegetation management direction in the Land and Resource Management Plans for the Lassen, Plumas,
and Tahoe National Forests as follows:
1. The Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe Forest Plans would be amended to add standards and guidelines to
address management of noxious and invasive exotic weeds. (Table 2.20)
2. The Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe Forest Plans would be amended to specify direction for oak
management. (Table 2.21)
The Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe Forest Plans do not currently contain direction for the management of
noxious and invasive exotic weed plants. The Forest Plans would be amended to provide direction for
weed management as shown in Table 2.20.
Chapter 2 – Page 32
Table 2.20
Noxious and Invasive Exotic Weed Management
Amended Direction
FOREST PLAN
Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe
AMENDED FOREST PLAN DIRECTION
Manage National Forest System lands so that management activities do not introduce or
spread noxious or invasive exotic weeds using the following guidelines during site-specific
planning and implementation:
Inventory: As part of site-specific planning, inventory project areas and adjacent areas
(particularly access roads) for noxious and invasive exotic weeds.
Control: If noxious weeds are found in or adjacent to a site-specific project area, evaluate
treatment options relative to the risk of weed spread without treatment. Evaluate control
methods at the site-specific planning level.
Prevention/Cleaning: Require off-road equipment and vehicles (both Forest Service
owned and contracted) used for project implementation to be weed-free. Clean equipment
and vehicles of all attached mud, dirt, and plant parts. Use standard timber sale contract
clause C6.343 – Cleaning of Equipment in timber sale contracts.
Prevention/Road Construction: Require all earth-moving equipment, gravel, fill, or other
materials to be weed-free. Use onsite sand, gravel, rock, or organic matter, where
possible. Evaluate road locations for weed risk factors.
Prevention/Revegetation: Use weed-free equipment, mulches, and seed sources. Avoid
seeding in areas where revegetation will occur naturally, unless noxious weeds are a
concern. Save topsoil from disturbance and put it back to use in onsite revegetation,
unless contaminated with noxious weeds.
Prevention/Staging Areas: Do not stage equipment, materials, or crews in noxious weed
infested areas where there is risk of spread to areas of low infestation.
Table 2.21
Changes in Oak Management
FOREST
PLAN
Lassen
Plumas
Tahoe
FOREST PLAN REFERENCE
CURRENT FOREST PLAN DIRECTION
Forest Plan, page 4-38
Retain 25 square feet basal area per acre.
Forest Plan, page 4-31
Retain 5 square feet per acre. Preference for oaks
greater than 12 inches in diameter at breast height
(DBH).
Forest Plan, page 4-34
Retain up to 35 square feet per acre on deer
summer range and 30 percent canopy cover on deer
winter range.
Forest Plan, page V-30
In capable, available, and suitable strata, retain 30
square feet per acre in type X3P and X4P.
Retain 5 square feet per acre in other capable,
available, and suitable strata.
FOREST PLAN
Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe
AMENDED FOREST PLAN DIRECTION
Where oak is present, retain an average 25 to 35 square feet basal area per
acre of oaks over 15 inches diameter at breast height (DBH). Site-specific
planning will determine feasibility and specific needs. Retain smaller oaks, if
determined to be necessary for future recruitment.
Riparian Management – Riparian management would consist of the delineation of riparian protection
zones as described in The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Final Report to Congress. This strategy
calls for the recognition of riparian area community, energy, and buffering requirements to aid in
riparian area protection and management (Appendix M). Community and energy areas are identified
along all channel types. A wider riparian buffer area, based on slope and potential soil erosion,
encompasses the combined community-energy zone. Before any management activity would occur in
the riparian buffer area, a landscape-scale (approximately 100,000 acres) watershed analysis would be
conducted. In riparian protection zones and buffers, resource management activities would follow the
Chapter 2 – Page 33
standards and guidelines established by the site-specific watershed analysis. Only those management
activities contributing to improvement or maintenance of watershed and aquatic conditions, as described
in the riparian management objectives or established in a site-specific watershed analysis would be
allowed. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project widths, standards, and guidelines as displayed in Table 2.22
apply only where resource management activities would be implemented.
Table 2.22
Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project
Determination of Riparian Buffer Areas
STREAM TYPE
RIPARIAN BUFFER AREA
Perennial fish-bearing streams and natural lakes
Average 540 feet on each side of the stream
Perennial non-fish bearing streams, ponds, reservoirs,
and wetlands greater than 1 acre in size
Average 540 feet on each side of the stream
Intermittent streams, including those ephemeral streams
having a definable channel and evidence of annual
scour and deposition
Average 540 feet on each side of the stream
Landslides and landslide prone areas
Use protection zones that cover the extent of the
features
A riparian improvement strategy is an essential component of the riparian management program. The
riparian improvement strategy includes an analysis of watershed condition and trend, and cause and
effect relationships. The riparian improvement strategy includes a determination of methods to move
watersheds towards proper functioning condition. These methods may include adjustment of
management practices or restoration projects. Essential components of the program include monitoring
and adaptive management. The watershed improvement strategy is consistent with the strategy described
by Clifton on behalf of the Feather River Coordinated Resource Management Group (FRCMG) in a
document entitled, East Branch North Fork Feather River Erosion Control Strategy.
Changes in Riparian Management Direction – Riparian management in Alternative 5 is not consistent
with existing management direction in the Forest Plans for the Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe National
Forests, as amended. Alternative 5 changes the riparian management direction in the Land and Resource
Management Plans for the Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe National Forests as follows:
1. The Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe Forest Plans would be amended to apply the Sierra Nevada
Ecosystem Project guidelines for aquatic/riparian protection and management zones. (Table 2.23)
2. The Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe Forest Plans would be amended to require habitat assessments and
surveys for California red-legged frogs at elevations below 5,500 feet. (Table 2.24)
3. The Tahoe and Lassen Forest Plans would be amended to require a watershed analysis whenever a
resource management activity is planned for implementation inside a riparian buffer area. (Table
2.24)
Chapter 2 – Page 34
Table 2.23
Changes to Aquatic/Riparian Protection Management Direction
FOREST
PLAN
Lassen
Plumas
Tahoe
FOREST PLAN REFERENCE
Standards and guidelines 22.d.(2), page 4-32, and
Appendix R
Standards and guidelines, Streamside Management
Zones (SMZ), pages 4-42 through 4-43, and
Appendix M
Standards and guidelines 46, 47, and Appendix F,
pages F-3 through F-6
CURRENT FOREST PLAN DIRECTION
Prescribe minimum width guidelines as
Streamside Management Zones (SMZ) as
follows:
•
100 to 300 feet (perennial water bodies)
•
50 to 300 feet (intermittent water bodies)
•
50 feet (ephemeral water bodies)
Prescribe minimum width guidelines as Streamside
Management Zones (SMZ) as follows:
•
•
•
100 to 300 feet (perennial water bodies)
50 to 300 feet (intermittent water bodies)
25 to 100 feet (ephemeral water bodies)
Prescribe minimum width guidelines as
Streamside Management Zones (SMZ) as
follows:
•
100 to 300 feet (perennial water bodies)
•
25 to 200 feet (intermittent water bodies)
•
25 to 50 feet (ephemeral water bodies)
All three Forest Plans recognize the need to include other features in the SMZ, such as the top of inner gorges,
Common to
the active floodplain, and the outer edge of riparian vegetation.
all three
Forest Plans
FOREST PLAN
AMENDED FOREST PLAN DIRECTION
Using an interdisciplinary team, identify the area relevant to stream, lake, or wetland
Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe
processes and functions; and determine the extent of the community and energy areas.
The community area includes the aquatic and riparian habitats necessary for the
maintenance of flora and fauna dependent on these habitats. The energy area includes
upstream, riparian, and upslope areas that contribute organic material and energy. The
land use influence area (buffer) includes upstream and upslope areas that influence
aquatic and riparian habitats. Calculate the buffer width as a probability of disturbance
based on slope steepness and soil erodibility.
Chapter 2 – Page 35
Table 2.24
Watershed Restoration
FOREST
PLAN
Lassen
Plumas
FOREST PLAN REFERENCE
CURRENT FOREST PLAN DIRECTION
Forestwide standards and guidelines 22. Water and
Riparian Areas d.
Maintain or improve riparian-dependent resources.
Forestwide standards and guidelines, 22. Water and
Riparian Areas e.
Evaluate all riparian areas Forestwide and manage to
reach natural or achievable site potential and desired
ecological conditions
Forestwide standards and guidelines, Watershed
Protection, pages 4-41 and 4-42.
Protect highly sensitive watersheds through
cumulative impact planning and rehabilitate highly
disturbed watersheds.
Prepare and adhere to a Project Implementation Plan
for any activity within a riparian area and include, at
minimum opportunities and procedures for restoration
of any deteriorated area.
Identify lands contributing to watershed degradation
through analysis of National Forest System
watersheds. Analyze and mitigate on a total
watershed basis, not only on project areas.
Tahoe
Appendix F, Tahoe National Forest Guidelines for
Management in Riparian Areas and Streamside
Management Zones (SMZ), Watershed Management
Direction, page F-10.
FOREST PLAN
During compartment planning, identify opportunities
to stabilize watershed problem areas.
AMENDED FOREST PLAN DIRECTION
Complete a watershed analysis whenever resource management activities enter the
riparian protection land use buffer.
Lassen and Tahoe
Conduct habitat assessments and surveys for California red-legged frogs in all areas
below 5,500 feet in elevation. Within watersheds containing known populations,
including French Creek Watershed and Chino Creek Watershed on the Plumas National
Forest, implement a 300 foot buffer on all sides of waterways (including ephemeral
wetlands). Within all identified California red-legged frog core areas, as identified in the
California Red-Legged Frog Recovery Plan, involve the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service
in early phases of site-specific project planning that implement resource management
activities.
Road Management – Road management activities in Alternative 5 would focus on repairing resource
degradation caused by existing roads. Resource degradation repair methods would include road
decommissioning, relocation, and reconstruction. Additional roads would be decommissioned in
compliance with the Clean Water Action Plan. Road construction completed would be directly related to
the amount of resource management activity accomplished.
Treatment Limitations – The total acreage treated would be determined by annual budget allocations
and by site-specific factors that influence priorities and accomplishment.
Exclusions – In addition to the exclusions found in the current Forest Plans, Alternative 5 would
prohibit resource management activities in the following exclusion areas:
Late-Successional Old Growth – Late successional old growth (ranks 4 and 5) are excluded from timber
harvest and road construction activities. Approximately 154,000 acres meet this classification in the
planning area.
Patches - Patches of old forest greater than 5 acres in size are excluded from timber harvest and road
construction activities.
Areas of Late Successional Emphasis - Areas of late successional emphasis are excluded from timber
harvest and road construction activities, except for those activities specifically designed to enhance old
forest conditions. Approximately 397,000 acres of areas of late succession have been identified.
California Spotted Owl Home Range - At least 50 percent of the area within identified California spotted
Chapter 2 – Page 36
owl home ranges would be maintained as suitable habitat.
Protected Activity Centers - With the exception of light underburning allowed by California spotted owl
interim direction, stand altering activities would be avoided within protected activity centers for
goshawks (200 acres), forest carnivores (700 acres), willow flycatchers (variable in size), great gray
owls (50 acres in addition to the adjacent meadow ecosystem that supports the owl), and California
spotted owl (300 acres).
Offbase and Deferred – Offbase and deferred areas are excluded from resource management activities.
Approximately 466,000 acres meet this classification in the planning area.
Roadless Management - In addition to the direction found in the interim rule published in the Federal
Register, the following additional restrictions will be applied: (1) extend roadless protection to areas
5,000 acres or greater; (2) extend roadless protection to lands equal to or greater than 1,000 acres that
are adjacent to designated Wilderness Areas or contiguous to designated Wild and Scenic Rivers that are
classified as "wild," and (3) until an evaluation of individual roadless lands between 1,000 acres and
5,000 acres is completed, all roadless lands greater than 1,000 acres are managed to fully maintain their
roadless character. Approximately 97,400 acres meet the criteria for roadless protection in Alternative 5.
RESPONSE TO SIGNIFICANT ISSUES
Issue 1 – Old Forests and Old Forest-Dependent Species - Alternative 5 addresses old forestdependent species by deferring timber harvest and road construction in approximately 60,000 acres of
highly ranked late successional old growth forest (ranks 4 and 5), as well as deferring resource
management activities in 397,000 acres of areas of late successional emphasis, except for those
treatments specifically designed to enhance old forest ecosystem conditions. In addition, 50 percent of
the area within identified California spotted owl home ranges would be maintained as suitable habitat.
Issue 2 – Watershed Effects and Aquatic/Riparian Protection - Alternative 5 addresses
aquatic/riparian protection by requiring use of Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project guidelines for stream
protection. All remaining portions of the planning area would be protected using streamside
management zone buffers.
Issue 3 – Economic Well-Being - Alternative 5 harvests approximately 13 million board feet (MMBF)
of timber and 68,000 bone dry tons of biomass annually providing employment, income, and economic
activity in local communities. Aesthetic values and recreational opportunities would be protected at a
level commensurate with the current condition. Over time, reduction of wildfire hazard would enhance
aesthetics, recreational opportunities, and natural values.
Issue 4 – Wildfire Hazard Reduction and Fuel Management - Alternative 5 addresses wildfire hazard
reduction and fuels management by strategically locating area fuel treatments, emphasizing the use of
prescribed fire for implementation, and prioritizing fuel reduction efforts adjacent to urban interface and
major transportation routes.
FOREST PLAN CONSISTENCY
Alternative 5 is not consistent with management direction in the Forest Plans for the Lassen, Plumas,
and Tahoe National Forests, as amended. Selection of Alternative 5 would amend the Forest Plans.
Chapter 2 – Page 37
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED
ACTION
The following series of tables and graphs are provided for comparative purposes only. They display the
management strategies and tradeoffs associated with the proposed action and alternatives to the
proposed action. No additional information is provided beyond that already discussed in the description
of the proposed action and the descriptions of the alternatives to the proposed action. Table 2.25 presents
an overall comparison of the proposed action to the alternatives. Table 2.26 presents a comparison of
how the alternatives address the significant issues.
Chapter 2 – Page 38
Table 2.25
Comparison of Alternatives
RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT
ACTIVITIES
ALTERNATIVE 1
NO
ACTION
ALTERNATIVE 2
ALTERNATIVE 3
PROPOSED
ACTION
FUELS MANAGEMENT
ALTERNATIVE 4
ALTERNATIVE 5
Defensible fuel
profile zones
Not precluded under
current management
direction in the
Forest Plans
40,000 to 60,000
acres per year
14,000 to 20,000
acres per year
Approximately
12,000 acres per
year
Acres treated
annually depend on
funding and
management
objectives
Area fuel treatments
Not precluded under
current management
direction in the
Forest Plans
Not applicable
26,000 to 40,000
acres per year
Approximately
13,000 acres per
year
Estimate 30,000 to
40,000 acres per
year; not to exceed
40,000 acres in
combination with
other treatments
Size of group
selection harvest
openings
½ acre to 2 acres
Group selection
harvest
Average 300 to 400
acres per year
Up to 8,700 acres per year
Individual tree
selection harvest
Not precluded under
current direction in
the Forest Plans
Allowed throughout the pilot project area
Protection Zone
Method
Variable width SMZ
Variable width SAT guidelines
Variable width SNEP
guidelines
Perennial Streams
with Fish
Minimum 100 to 300
feet on each side
Minimum 300 feet on each side
Average 540 feet on
each side
Perennial Streams
without Fish
Minimum 100 to 300
feet on each side
Minimum 150 feet on each side
Average 540 feet on
each side
Intermittent Streams
Minimum 50 to 300
feet on each side
Minimum 100 feet on each side
Average 540 feet on
each side
Ephemeral Streams
with Evidence of
Annual Scour or
Deposition
Minimum 25 to 100
feet on each side
Minimum 100 feet on each side
Average 540 feet on
each side
Natural Lakes
Minimum 100 to 300
feet on each side
Minimum 300 feet on each side
Average 540 feet on
each side
Ponds, Reservoirs,
and Wetlands
Greater than 1 Acre
in Size
Minimum 100 to 300
feet on each side
Minimum 150 feet on each side
Average 540 feet on
each side
Wetlands Less than
1 Acre in Size
Minimum 50 to 100
feet on each side
Minimum 100 feet on each side
Average 540 feet on
each side
Landslides and
Landslide-Prone
Areas
Extent of features
Compliance with the
Clean Water Action
Plan
Complies
Roadless area
February 1999 moratorium restrictions
VEGETATION MANAGEMENT
Generally less than
½ acre, but not more
than 2 acres
Up to 500 acres per
year
RIPARIAN MANAGEMENT
ROAD MANAGEMENT
Chapter 2 – Page 39
protection
Extend protection to areas greater than
or equal to 5,000 acres, areas greater
than or equal to 1,000 acres adjacent to
Wilderness and Wild and Scenic Rivers,
and areas between 1,000 and 5,000
acres until an evaluation is completed
CALIFORNIA SPOTTED OWL MANAGEMENT
Habitat protection
strategy
CASPO IG implemented
Grazing strategy
Managed under
current Forest Plan
direction
California spotted owl suitable habitat
strategy
50 percent of
spotted owl home
range concept
implemented
GRAZING MANAGEMENT
Current Forest Plan direction but SAT guidelines implemented where
resource management activities overlap riparian habitat conservation
areas
Chapter 2 – Page 40
Managed under
current Forest Plan
direction
Table 2.26
Summary of Alternative Response to the Significant Issues
SIGNIFICANT
ISSUE
Old Forest
Values and Old
ForestDependent
Species
ALTERNATIVE 1
NO
ACTION
ALTERNATIVE 2
PROPOSED
ACTION
ALTERNATIVE 3
ALTERNATIVE 4
ALTERNATIVE 5
Resource
management
exclusions:
Resource
management
exclusions:
Resource
management
exclusions:
Resource
management
exclusions:
Resource
management
exclusions:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
SOHA
PAC
SOHA
PAC
Offbase
Deferred
LS/OG 4 and
5
SOHA
PAC
Offbase
Deferred
LS/OG 4 and
5
•
CASPO IG
implemented
Watershed
Effects and
Aquatic/Riparian
Protection
CASPO IG
implemented
SOHA
PAC
Offbase
Deferred
LS/OG 4 and
5
ALSE
•
•
SOHA
PAC
Offbase
Deferred
LS/OG 4 and
5
ALSE
5 acre
patches of
high quality
old forest
CASPO IG
implemented
CASPO IG
implemented
CASPO IG
implemented
California spotted
owl suitable habitat
strategy
California spotted
owl suitable habitat
strategy
50 percent of
spotted owl home
range concept
implemented
Follow advice in
Regional Forester’s
letter of May 1, 1998
Follow advice in
Regional Forester’s
letter of May 1, 1999
Follow advice in
Regional Forester’s
letter of May 1, 1999
Follow advice in
Regional Forester’s
letter of May 1, 1999
Follow advice in
Regional Forester’s
letter of May 1, 1999
CWE analysis
completed with sitespecific analysis
CWE analysis
completed with sitespecific analysis
CWE analysis
completed with sitespecific analysis
CWE analysis
completed with sitespecific analysis
CWE analysis
completed with sitespecific analysis
SMZ guidelines for
stream protection
required
SAT guidelines for
stream protection
required
SAT guidelines for
stream protection
required
SAT guidelines for
stream protection
required
SNEP guidelines for
stream protection
required
BMP and SQS
BMP and SQS
BMP and SQS
BMP and SQS
BMP and SQS
Riparian restoration
limited
Riparian restoration
emphasized
Riparian restoration
emphasized
Riparian restoration
emphasized
Riparian restoration
emphasized
Watershed analysis
required
Aquatic
Conservation Areas
identified
Contributes to
Economic WellBeing
No change
Greater contribution
than current
management
Greater contribution
than current
management
Less contribution
than current
management
Less contribution
than current
management
Wildfire
Protection and
Fuel Reduction
No change
Construct 40,000 to
60,000 acres of
DFPZ annually.
DFPZ patterns are
developed in a
network of strips that
are generally ¼ to ½
mile wide
Construct 40,000 to
60,000 acres of
DFPZ and areawide
fire hazard reduction
treatments
Construct DFPZ and
areawide fire hazard
reduction treatments
on 25,000 acres
each year
Strategically located
fuel treatments
emphasizing the use
of prescribed fire.
Focuses fuel
reduction efforts
adjacent to urban
interface and major
transportation routes
continue to Chapter 3
Chapter 2 – Page 41