liberty utilities 619 power line maintenance project...

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service

Liberty Utilities 619 Power Line Maintenance Project Environmental Assessment Beckwourth Ranger District, Plumas National Forest, Plumas County, California; Sierraville Ranger District, Tahoe National Forest, Plumas County, California July 2015

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: US Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected]. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Beckwourth/Sierraville Ranger Districts Plumas/Tahoe National Forests 619 Power Line Maintenance Project Environmental Assessment

CONTENTS Chapter 1 Purpose and Need ....................................................................................................... 1

Project Description and Location............................................................................................ 1 Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................................... 3

Purpose and Need 1: Repair and Replace Deteriorated Power Poles .............................. 3 Purpose and Need 2: Vegetation Management .................................................................. 4 Purpose and Need 3: Repair Existing Access Road........................................................... 6

Laws, Regulations, and Policy that Influence the Scope of this EA ..................................... 7 Project Schedule ........................................................................................................................ 7 Decision to be Made.................................................................................................................. 7 Public Involvement and Scoping Issues .................................................................................. 7

Issues ................................................................................................................................... 8 Chapter 2 Proposed Action and Alternatives............................................................................. 9

Contents of Chapter 2............................................................................................................... 9 Alternative 1 - Proposed Action .............................................................................................. 9

Replacement of Existing Wood Poles ................................................................................ 10 Vegetation Management in the Plumas National Forest................................................. 12 Vegetation Management in the Tahoe National Forest................................................... 14 Access to Plumas National Forest Facilities and Proposed Staging Areas .................... 14 Access to Tahoe National Forest Facilities ....................................................................... 15 Road Maintenance .............................................................................................................. 15

Alternative 2 – No Action Alternative................................................................................... 15 Comparison of the Alternatives............................................................................................. 16

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ................................... 17

Introduction............................................................................................................................. 17 Direct and Indirect Effects..................................................................................................... 17 Cumulative Effects.................................................................................................................. 17 Specialist Reports.................................................................................................................... 18 Wildlife..................................................................................................................................... 19

Environmental Consequences – Western bumble bee..................................................... 19 Environmental Consequences – Bald Eagle ..................................................................... 23 Environmental Consequences – California Spotted Owl ................................................ 26 Environmental Consequences – Northern Goshawk ....................................................... 29 Environmental Consequences – Bats ................................................................................ 32

Watershed ................................................................................................................................ 36 Water Resource Indicators – Proposed Action ................................................................ 36 Soil Resource Indicators – Proposed Action .................................................................... 38

i


Water & Soil Resource Indicators – Proposed Action .................................................... 39 Water & Soil Resource Indicators – No Action Alternative ........................................... 40

Botany ...................................................................................................................................... 40 Environmental Consequences on Sensitive plant Species – Proposed Action ............... 40 Environmental Consequences on Sensitive plant Species – No Action Alternative ...... 41

Noxious Weeds ........................................................................................................................ 41 Known Noxious Weeds ....................................................................................................... 41 Summary.............................................................................................................................. 42

Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................. 42 Environmental Consequences............................................................................................ 42

Legal Regulatory Compliance and Consultation................................................................. 43 Principle Environmental Laws .......................................................................................... 43 Wildlife and Fisheries ......................................................................................................... 44 Botany ................................................................................................................................. 44 Clean Water Act.................................................................................................................. 45 National Historic Preservation Act ................................................................................... 45 Executive Orders................................................................................................................. 46

Chapter 4 Consultation and Coordination ............................................................................... 49

Introduction............................................................................................................................. 49 Federal, State, and Local Agencies.................................................................................... 49 Tribal Consultation............................................................................................................. 49

References.................................................................................................................................... 50

Reports Prepared for the 619 Power Line Maintenance Project ....................................... 50 Other References Cited .......................................................................................................... 50

Appendix A: Standard Operating Procedures ......................................................................... 53

Watershed ................................................................................................................................ 53 Riparian Conservation Areas – Designation .................................................................... 53 Riparian Conservation Areas – Treatment (Excluding Aspen/Cottonwood Units) ..... 53

Aspen/Cottonwood Treatment ............................................................................................... 55 Soil Protection Measures........................................................................................................ 56 Transportation ........................................................................................................................ 57 Silviculture ............................................................................................................................... 58 Botany ...................................................................................................................................... 58 Invasive Species Management ............................................................................................... 58

Prevention ............................................................................................................................ 58 Control ................................................................................................................................. 59 Restoration/Revegetation ................................................................................................... 59

ii


Wildlife..................................................................................................................................... 59 Downed Wood and Snags ................................................................................................... 60

Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................. 60 Implementation ....................................................................................................................... 62

Appendix B: Cumulative Effects Analysis Displaying Present and Foreseeable Projects on the 619 Power Line Maintenance Project ................................................................................. 63

Introduction............................................................................................................................. 63

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Estimated Structure Hole Sizes per Digging Method .................................. 10 Table 2: Proposed Soil Disturbance from Power Pole Replacement ........................ 10 Table 3: Estimated Equipment Accessible Tree Volumes to be Treated .................. 13 Table 4: Estimated Equipment Inaccessible Tree Volumes to be Treated ............... 13 Table 5: The 619 Maintenance Project Purpose and Need Comparing Each

Alternative ....................................................................................................... 16 Table 6: Limited Operating Periods ............................................................................ 19 Table 7: BMPEP Protocols and Associated BMPs Selected for Completion in

2010-2012 ......................................................................................................... 37 Table 8: BMPEP Summary of Ratings 2010-2012 for Timber Activities ................. 37 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Project Location, Land Status, and Access .................................................... 2 Figure 2: Wire-Border Zones ........................................................................................... 5

LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A: Standard Operating Procedures Appendix B: Cumulative Effects Analysis Displaying Present and Foreseeable Projects on

the 619 Power Line Maintenance Project

iii


ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS

ACRONYMS

BA/BE Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation BMP Best Management Practice BMPEP BMP Evaluation Program CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CCF gross hundred cubic feet CDFA California Department of Food and Agriculture CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CPUC California Public Utilities Commission CWE cumulative watershed effects CWHR California Wildlife Habitat Relationships dbh diameter at breast height EA Environmental Assessment EDRR Early Detection and Rapid Response EHR Erosion Hazard Rating EIS Environmental Impact Statement ELZ Equipment Limitation Zone EPA Environmental Protection Agency ERA Equivalent Roaded Acre ESA Endangered Species Act FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FSEIS Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement FSM Forest Service Manual GO General Order HFQLG Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group IDT Interdisciplinary Team ISC Invasive Species Council kV kilovolt LOP limited operating period LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan LU Liberty Utilities NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFMA National Forest Management Act NFS National Forest System NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service O&M Plan Operations and Maintenance Annual Plan – 2015 OHV off-highway vehicle PA Programmatic Agreement PACs Protected Activity Centers

iv


PNF Plumas National Forest PRC Public Resources Code Project 619 Power Line Maintenance Project RCA Riparian Conservation Area ROD Record of Decision ROW right-of-way SMMs standard mitigation measures SMZ Streamside Management Zones SNFPA Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment SOPs Standard Operating Procedures SOPA Schedule of Proposed Actions TDD Telecommunication Device for the Deaf TES threatened or endangered species TNF Tahoe National Forest USDA United States Department of Agriculture USFS United States Forest Service USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

v


CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED

PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION

Liberty Utilities (Calpeco Electric) LLC (LU) is a California Investor Owned electrical utility. Portions of the service territory and associated facilities are located in the eastern portions of Plumas County on National Forest System (NFS) land managed by the United States Forest Service (USFS) under Special Uses Permit Authorization BEC1204 located in the Plumas National Forest (PNF) and under Special Uses Permit Authorization TKD424001 in the Tahoe National Forest (TNF). This authorization includes portions of LU’s 619 60 kilovolt (kV) overhead power line along with portions of other distribution circuits located on PNF land and portions of LU’s 619 60 kV power line located in the TNF: the 619 Power Line Maintenance Project (Project). LU purchased the electrical facilities from Sierra Pacific Power Company (doing business as NV Energy) on January 1, 2011.

LU is required to maintain a safe and reliable electrical system. Conformance with safety requirements are mandated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Recent inspections of the 619 power line have identified the need for maintenance work to the power line to ensure public safety and system reliability.

This environmental assessment (EA) has been prepared to determine whether implementation of the activities associated with the proposed maintenance activities may significantly affect the quality of the human environment and thereby require the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). By preparing this EA, the USFS is fulfilling agency policy and direction to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). For more details of the proposed action, see the Proposed Action and Alternatives section of this document.

The Project is located on the north, northwest, and northeast side of Beckwourth Peak and southeast of the City of Portola, in Plumas County, California. The Project would occur in portions of Section 1, Township 22 North, Range 13 East (T22N, R13E), Sections 4, 5, 6, and 9, T22N, R14E, and Section 31, T23N, R14E, within the PNF, and Section 9, T22N, R14E, within the TNF, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (Project Area). The Project Area is accessed from California State Highway 70 (West Sierra Avenue) in Portola, then traveling south on South Gulling Street to NFS Road 23N03 and from Plumas/Sierra County Road A23 (Beckwourth Calpine Road) and then west on Valley Vista Drive to the existing permitted Route 109-20. Route 109-20 is authorized only for LU’s use and is closed to the general public. LU would also use NFS 22N55 and NFS 22N55C for accessing portions of the Project Area (Figure 1). Access to the Project Area includes a combination of state, local, NFS roads, and permitted roads. Many of these existing roads have been used and would continue to be used by the general public, unless specifically closed to general public access.

1

Portola

Permitted Route 109-20

NFS 23N03

Valley Vista Dr

Beckwourth Calpine Rd

¬«70

Portola McLears Rd

NFS 22N55NFS 22N55C

South Gulling St

Existing Gate

A15

A23

23N 14E

22N 14E

22N 13E

23N 13E

Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

U. S. FOREST SERVICE

$

ExplanationProject AreaAccess Roads

Land SatusBureau of Land ManagementUS Forest ServiceState LandUnclassified 0 0.5 1

Miles

Project Location, Access, and Land StatusFigure 1

04/17/2015

619 POWER LINEMAINTENANCE PROJECT


PURPOSE AND NEED

PURPOSE AND NEED 1: REPAIR AND REPLACE DETERIORATED POWER POLES

Objective: Reduce the risk of falling power poles by replacing and repairing power poles identified as hazardous pursuant to LU’s maintenance plans (LU 2014a and 2014b) and in conformance with CPUC General Order (GO) 95 construction standards for overhead power lines.

Need for Action

LU is mandated to conform to rules and regulations as adopted by the CPUC. LU’s maintenance, inspection, and repair programs are driven by these rules. Historic records regarding the 619 power line indicate the line was originally built during the 1930s. Since that time, poles have been periodically replaced or reinforced with steel or wood trusses by LU’s predecessor, NVEnergy. A recent survey of the power line indicates the majority of the current existing poles were installed between 1952 and 1975. The 619 power line is the sole source of electrical power for the community of Portola. Outages resulting from equipment or pole failures occurring on this power line can often be extensive with delayed response times due to its remote location.

The average life expectancy of wood poles is between 30 and 40 years. Wood poles require replacement due to deterioration or degradation. Wood poles are affected by numerous factors including decay in the near-ground-line zone caused by soil organisms, mechanical damage, animal damage, and pole-top decay caused by excessive weathering. LU performs annual, five-year, and ten-year inspections of power poles and power lines to determine maintenance and replacement needs pursuant to CPUC GO 165. Recent inspections determined power poles along the 619 power line showed signs of deterioration or degradation. Replacement of these existing structures is necessary to maintain public health and safety, to maintain electrical reliability, and to reduce the risk associated with an electrically-caused forest fire.

Desired Conditions

The desired condition for the power line is to replace and/or re-frame power poles determined to be non-compliant by LU during their inspections, as identified in LU’s Operations and Maintenance Annual Plan – 2015 (O&M Plan) (LU 2015a and 2015b) and comply with CPUC regulations for the safe and effective operation of electrical facilities.

Measures of effective repair and replacement of deteriorated power poles: age of wooden structures, compliance with CPUC regulations and O&M Plan, and evidence of power poles showing decay.

3


PURPOSE AND NEED 2: VEGETATION MANAGEMENT

Objective: To remove trees identified as a hazard and reduce/thin vegetation in order to continue the safe operation of the 619 power line.

Need for Action

Vegetation management is necessary to ensure public safety, system reliability, and reduce the risk of fire associated with energized equipment, i.e., overhead power line and power poles. LU operates a vegetation management program as part of its overall maintenance program, with the goal of providing safe and reliable electrical power to LU customers. The program accomplishes this goal through compliance with California state laws, regulations, and guidelines that require adequate line clearance from trees in order to: 1) prevent potential injury to the public; 2) prevent damage to the electrical facilities and/or nearby property; 3) reduce the potential of fire; and 4) provide a safe working environment for utility workers who must maintain these facilities. Adequate line clearance also helps to reduce power line failures where trees are present; a leading cause of power outages.

CPUC GO 95, Rule 35, dictates the minimum vegetation clearance requirements for vegetation and overhead high voltage power lines. GO 95, Rule 35, applies to all facilities at all times of the year and includes all lands that LU occupies. In the LU service territory, the vegetation to conductor required clearances range from 18 inches to ten feet (minimum) depending on the voltage. In addition to the clearance requirements, GO 95, Rule 35 requires that dead, rotten or diseased trees or dead, rotten or diseased portions of otherwise healthy trees overhang or lean toward and may fall into a span of supply or communication lines, said trees or portions thereof be removed.

In addition to CPUC GO 95, Rule 35, LU must comply with California Public Resources Code (PRC) 4293, which dictates minimum vegetation clearance and hazard tree requirements in State Responsibility Areas between overhead electrical conductors and vegetation during fire season, as defined annually by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). The minimum vegetation to conductor clearance ranges from four to ten feet depending on the voltage. In addition to the minimum vegetation to conductor clearance requirements, CAL FIRE requires that dead trees, old decadent or rotten trees weakened by decay or disease, and trees or portions thereof that are leaning toward the line, which may contact the line from the side or may fall on the line, shall be felled, cut, or trimmed so as to remove such hazards.

Lastly, CAL FIRE enforces PRC 4292 for vegetation minimum clearance requirements surrounding power poles. PRC 4292 requires clearing of flammable fuels for a minimum ten-foot radius from the outer circumference of certain poles and towers, which supports a switch, fuse, transformer, lightning arrester, line junction, or dead end or corner pole (non-exempt or subject poles or towers).

Recent LU surveys have identified hazard trees located in proximity to the power lines and trees growing within the existing 40-foot right-of-way (ROW) that require trimming or removal to adhere to CPUC regulatory requirements, PRC statutory requirements, and best utility practices.

4


Desired Conditions

The desired condition for vegetation within the ROW or in close proximity is to remove hazard trees by implementing the wire-border zone methodology, which requires removing branches overhanging the electrical conductors, removing all trees within the wire zone, and removing defect, dead or suppressed trees within the border zones (Figure 2). A hazard tree is defined as “a tree with the potential to fail (structural defects and areas and points of weakness or deformity), an environment that increases the likelihood of failures (storm events, wind, shallow and/or wet soils, or restricted area for root and crown development), and a target that would be struck by the tree (people, property, or utility lines)” (LU 2015a).

Figure 2: Wire-Border Zones

Vegetation clearance for the 60 kV 619 power line would consist of removal of all trees within the current authorized 40-foot ROW (wire zone) that have the ability for future and impedance set forth in the before-mentioned regulatory requirement, remove all hazard trees within the border zone, and trim otherwise healthy trees located within the border zone, where branches are known to encroach into the wire zone.

When removing trees growing directly under/adjacent to high voltage conductors/equipment, trees would be removed based on the following standards:

5


Trees less than ten inches diameter at breast height (dbh) would be classified as non-merchantable biomass material and be removed, as a biomass component of the Project;

Trees ten inches in diameter and greater identified for removal have been marked and cruised using Region 5 guidelines; and

Reasonable effort would be used to retain and preserve trees greater than 30 inches dbh; however, trees identified as hazardous would be removed regardless of size.

Measures of effective vegetation management: Distance of trees from conductors, distance of trees from poles, and health of trees in proximity to power line.

PURPOSE AND NEED 3: REPAIR EXISTING ACCESS ROAD

Objective: To perform maintenance work on an existing access road by performing grading, realigning a portion of the road and installing a new culvert, and constructing low water crossings.

Need for Action

LU has identified NFS 23N03 as needing maintenance. Deterioration of this existing access road, once used to repair and service the facility, has resulted in access from alternative roads with lengthier travel distances and times. Portions of the 619 power line are currently completely inaccessible to line trucks and equipment necessary for repair and maintenance due to the waning condition of this road. One new culvert need to be installed in an area where a low water crossing currently exists and where the existing road alignment does not meet current USFS goals and objectives for water crossings. Two low water crossings need to be installed where water is currently flowing within the existing road and where an existing culvert has been blown out.

Desired Conditions

The desired conditions for the road would include maintaining the road to USFS standards as identified in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) (United States Department of Agriculture [USDA]-Forest Service 2004) and providing safe access to maintain utilities infrastructure in compliance with LU’s O&M Plan (LU 2015a). LU would design stream crossing(s) to minimize the diversion of streamflow out of the channel and down the road in the event of a crossing failure, design stream crossings to minimize disruption of natural hydrologic flow paths, including minimizing diversion of streamflow and interception of surface and subsurface water, and design new stream crossings and replacement stream crossings for at least the 100-year flood, including bedload and debris (USDA-Forest Service 2004).

Measures of effective road maintenance and realignment and culvert reconstruction: Ability to access power line and poles, compliance with USFS design standards and best management practices (BMPs), and operation of the road during storm events, including the 100-year flood.

6


LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICY THAT INFLUENCE THE SCOPE OF THIS EA

Direction for the PNF and TNF is based on the 1988 Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) (USDA-Forest Service 1988), the 1990 TNF LRMP (USDA-Forest Service 1990) and a major Forest Plan amendment (USDA-Forest Service 2004).

The Regional Forester signed the Record of Decision (ROD) for the PNF LRMP in August 1988 and signed the TNF LRMP ROD in June 1990. In January 2004, the Regional Forester signed the SNFPA Final Supplemental EIS (FSEIS) ROD, which replaced the 2001 SNFPA ROD. The 2001 SNFPA Final EIS (FEIS) and ROD are incorporated by reference in the 2004 ROD on the SNFPA FSEIS. The 2004 Record of Decision on the SNFPA FSEIS directed the PNF and TNF to implement the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group (HFQLG) Forest Recovery Act Pilot Project. When the HFQLG Act expired on September 30, 2012, the PNF and the TNF began implementing 2004 SNFPA direction for all projects.

The PNF and TNF LRMPs, as amended by the 2004 SNFPA FSEIS ROD, guide the Proposed Action and alternatives. The 2004 SNFPA ROD (pages 49-56) displays the standards and guidelines added to the PNF and TNF LRMPs. Land allocations in the 2004 SNFPA that apply to this proposal include: California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) and northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Protected Activity Centers, California spotted owl Home Range Core Areas, Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs), and general forest.

PROJECT SCHEDULE

The Responsible Officials expect to make a decision on this Project as early as the summer of 2015. Implementation could begin as early as summer of 2015.

DECISION TO BE MADE

The Responsible Officials for the Project would be the Forest Supervisors for the PNF and TNF. The Responsible Officials would decide whether to implement the Project as stated in the Proposed Action, as modified by an alternative, or not to implement the Project at this time.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND SCOPING ISSUES

Notice of the pending action first appeared in the PNF quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) as the “619 Power Line Maintenance Project” in 2015, and the TNF quarterly SOPA in 2015 and has been on each subsequent SOPA.

The District started the NEPA scoping process with publication in the Portola Reporter on April 22, 2015. The packet was mailed to Native American entities (including federally recognized tribal governments, tribal groups currently applying for federal recognition, and Native American organizations/non-profit groups) that are interested in projects located on these portions of the PNF and TNF. The scoping period ended on May 22, 2015. No comments were received during the scoping period.

7


The purpose of the scoping process was to inform the public about the Proposed Action and Purpose and Need, in order to seek different points of view on the pending actions and issues to be addressed during the Project analysis period.

ISSUES

The interdisciplinary team (IDT) considered the scoping comments to identify potential issues and any potential effects of the Proposed Action. No issues that would drive new alternatives were identified by the IDT for the Project.

8


CHAPTER 2 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES

CONTENTS OF CHAPTER 2

This chapter provides the reader with a detailed description of the Proposed Action, action alternatives, the No Action Alternative and the Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study. Each section illustrates the differences between the alternatives and the issues to which the alternatives respond. In addition to the action alternatives, a No Action Alternative is analyzed to determine the effects of taking no action.

Chapter 2 is organized as follows:

Alternatives Considered in Detail

Project Specific Design Features and Mitigations

Comparison of Alternatives

Chapter 2 follows the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations 1502.14 for implementing the NEPA, which require the USFS to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives. This process was done with resource specialists in an IDT setting. The IDT discussed the potential benefits and costs of the action alternatives.

ALTERNATIVE 1 - PROPOSED ACTION

LU owns and operates an existing overhead power line (619 Power Line) located on NFS and private land. LU plans to conduct power line maintenance activities within the TNF and PNF. Maintenance activities would occur over a three-year period, with maintenance activities cumulatively lasting approximately six months, depending on weather conditions. In the PNF portion of the Project Area, LU would conduct road maintenance activities, existing wood pole replacement, existing wood pole reframing, and vegetation management, which would include tree removal and vegetation mastication techniques. In the TNF portion of the Project Area, LU would conduct existing wood pole replacement and existing wood pole reframing.

These maintenance activities would occur within an approximate 163 acre Project Area, which includes a 3.1 mile long, 40-foot wide ROW, and 400-foot-wide buffer around the ROW, located on the TNF and PNF. No maintenance activities would occur on private land. LU, however, would use the existing road the crosses the PNF, TNF, and private land for access to Project-related activities.

9


REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING WOOD POLES

LU has identified 41 existing wood poles located on PNF land, and ten existing wood poles located on TNF land for replacement due to degradation or deterioration. Poles would be replaced with similar structures as the existing poles. Wood pole heights and classes are dependent upon vertical and horizontal loading calculations as required by the CPUC; however, it is expected that all wood structures would be replaced in-kind. All wood pole construction would adhere to LU’s 60 kV Structure Standards and Avian Protection Plan.

In addition to replacement of existing wood pole structures, five poles not requiring replacement in the PNF portion of the Project Area would be re-framed to adhere to structure and avian protection standards. All replacement poles would be framed to adhere to structure and avian protection standards. Avian-safe construction is designed to prevent electrocutions by providing conductor separation of 60 inches or greater. Re-framing of these poles would consist of the following: removal of the existing wooden cross-arm and attached insulators; installation of new non-porcelain insulators and associated brackets; and re-attaching the existing conductor to new insulators.

Proposed Digging Method for Replacing Poles

LU would use various methods for digging and setting in order to accomplish the necessary pole replacement work. In each instance, new holes would be dug as closely to the existing pole as possible. Holes pre-dug for later use would be covered to prevent accidental fall-ins and minimize erosion. Digging methods include the use of a backhoe or blasting. Hand digging may also be utilized in the PNF portion of the Project Area. The hole size would vary depending on the method used for excavation. Table 1 summarizes the estimated structure hole sizes per method, and Table 2 identifies the total soil disturbance associated with the pole replacement.

Table 1: Estimated Structure Hole Sizes per Digging Method

Digging Method Hole Depth (feet) Hole Width (feet)

Hand1 7 3

Backhoe 7 4

Blasting 7 7 1PNF portion only

Table 2: Proposed Soil Disturbance from Power Pole Replacement

Action Proposed Action

PNF (acres) TNF (acres) Hand Digging 0.001 0 Back Hoe Digging 0.008 0.002 Blasting 0.01 0.006 Total Disturbed Acres 0.019 0.008

10


Hand Digging

LU has identified six structure holes in the PNF portion of the Project Area to be excavated using hand tools. LU would access areas by four-wheel drive vehicles over existing roads. Vehicles would be driven and parked only on existing roadways. Tools include shovels and picks. Tools would be hand carried to each individual structure hole site.

Backhoe Digging

LU has identified 23 structure hole locations in the PNF portion of the Project Area, and five structure hole locations in the TNF portion of the Project Area to be excavated by backhoe. Backhoe travel would occur only across existing roadways or other access ways approved by the USFS.

Blasting

LU has identified 12 structure hole locations in the PNF portion of the Project Area and five structure hole locations in the TNF portion of the Project Area that require blasting methods for excavation. The necessity for blasting was determined through an on-site field investigation and information obtained from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey. According to the NRCS, the predominant soil type occurring in the structure hole locations in the PNF consists of the Woodseye-Waca families-rock outcrop complex. The typical soil profile is described as follows: zero to ten inches – very gravelly loam; ten to 16 inches – very gravelly loam, extremely cobbly loam; and 16 to 20 inches – unweathered bedrock.

According to the NRCS, the predominant soil type occurring in the structure hole locations in the TNF consists of Basic Rock Land (BeG). Digging within this location by hand or with mechanical equipment is not practical due to the soil and rock characteristics of the site.

Blasting operations would meet USFS Standard Specifications for Civil Engineering Projects and Subdivision Improvements. Persons hired to perform blasting would, at a minimum, have the necessary qualifications, experience, and licensing as required by the USFS. LU would work with the USFS to ensure blasting plans conform to USFS specifications and appropriate noise, dust, safety to the public, and fire prevention are properly managed.

Blasting equipment may include the use of a rubber-tired, self-contained drill rig with an on-board air compressor. The undercarriage of the vehicle would be equipped with a mounted plate to keep heat away from foliage. The drill rig would contain an articulating boom capable of a maximum 15-foot reach. The drill rig would pre-drill a hole in the rock surface to contain the explosive material, which would consist of stick powder. Once the explosive is installed, the shot would be covered to contain fly rock. Care would be taken to avoid disturbance of materials outside of the area necessary for the excavation. Once the rock is blasted and broken apart, LU would remove rock and soil material from the hole using either a backhoe or by hand, depending on access restrictions, to complete the preparation of the structure hole.

11


Vehicles used for travel and transport of blasting materials would be limited to existing dirt roads or other temporary access ways identified by LU and approved by the USFS.

Proposed Methods for Setting New Poles

Once the structure hole is complete, a Sonotube would be installed and the new pole would be placed within the Sonotube. Once the Sonotube is installed, the new pole would be set and the structure hole would be backfilled and compacted between the pole and Sonotube wall with soil from the stockpile created from excavation. The existing conductor would be properly secured; the old pole would be cut off at or below ground level using a chain saw, removed from the site, and discarded. Exposed soil would be covered with existing pine mulch located on the site. Setting methods would also vary depending on accessibility. In areas where existing road access is currently available, line trucks would be used to set poles; poles located in remote areas inaccessible to line trucks would be set by helicopter.

VEGETATION MANAGEMENT IN THE PLUMAS NATIONAL FOREST

LU proposes to implement vegetation management activities as part of scheduled maintenance. The maintenance requires the cutting of hazard trees that have the potential to fall and could strike the power line or associated wood poles or guys and the removal of trees that occur within and adjacent to the existing 40-foot ROW. As described in LU’s annual operating plans, LU proposes to manage power lines operating at 60 kV and higher utilizing the wire zone, border zone methodology, which includes the following:

Removal of branches which overhang the electrical conductors; Removal of trees within the wire zone, i.e., the ROW; Removal of defected or dead trees within the border zone; and Removal of suppressed trees within the border zone.

Hazard trees that have been identified for removal are either dead, have decay, weak branch unions or other structural defects such as dead tops, decline in the crown, co-dominant tops, multi-stem trunks, cracks, cankers, conks, or cavities. In addition, mastication and hand cutting of brush is proposed in areas containing concentrations of large brush within the existing ROW. This brush is currently prohibiting access to poles requiring replacement.

Summary of Individual Tree, Timber, and Biomass Inventories

The tree inspection during the 2012-2013 field season identified approximately 974 trees for removal and approximately 32 trees for trimming in the PNF portion of the Project Area. The total number of trees to be removed is an approximate number, but the total gross hundred cubic feet (CCF) to be removed would not exceed 228.91 gross CCF for equipment accessible areas. An additional 62.13 CCF would be treated using non-mechanized means for equipment inaccessible areas for a total of 291.04 CCF. The identified trees are located along the entire existing permitted power line. Tables 3 and 4 identify the total volume of trees to be removed by species.

12


A timber cruise of the previously identified trees was performed in 2013 that determined the board and cubic foot volumes associated with the trees. The cruise and inventory tallied all trees, including seedlings and saplings greater than three inches dbh. Trees were also inventoried based on accessibility by equipment to move material.

Table 3: Estimated Equipment Accessible Tree Volumes to be Treated

Tree Species Gross CCF Jeffrey Pine (Pinus jeffreyi) 18.93 Incense Cedar (Calocedrus) 197.47 White Fir (Abies concolor) 11.9 Other 1.15 Total 228.91

Table 4: Estimated Equipment Inaccessible Tree Volumes to be Treated

Tree Species Gross CCF Jeffrey Pine (Pinus jeffreyi) 6.38 Incense Cedar (Calocedrus) 40.58 White Fir (Abies concolor) 6.22 Other 8.95 Total 62.13

Woody Fuels Treatment and Disposal of Timber and Biomass Material

LU would conduct tree thinning/removal by two different methods: mechanical thinning utilizing conventional tractor harvesting methods (equipment accessible areas) and hand treatment methods (equipment inaccessible areas). All treatment would occur within the Project Area. Mechanical thinning would occur in an approximate 55 acre area, and hand treatment would occur in an approximate 24 acre area. Hazard tree removal activities within the RCA would occur within an approximate 36 acre area, with mechanical thinning occurring in an approximate 24 acre area and hand thinning occurring in an approximate 13 acre area.

LU would dispose of timber and biomass material as identified below.

Equipment Accessible Areas

The USFS and LU would enter into a Timber Settlement Sale Agreement for material that is both merchantable and accessible using conventional tractor harvesting methods. LU would purchase merchantable and accessible timber products from the USFS. Accessible timber products would be skidded using conventional tractor logging methods, decked, and processed at approved landing locations, and transported and sold by LU.

13


Inaccessible Areas

Inaccessible areas include portions of the land encompassed within the ROW and the border zone that may have greater than 30 percent slope, where equipment accessible roads do not exist, or where limiting environmental features have been found to exist (watercourses, heritage sites, sensitive flora or fauna, etc.). In these areas, LU would utilize hand/ground crews to fell trees or climb and rig sections of the trees to the ground. Bole wood greater than six inches in diameter would be left on site in lengths as long as possible lying flat on the ground. Chipping and broadcasting of material less than six inches in diameter could occur within 100 feet of roads accessible by four-wheel drive pickups. Foliage and limbs six inches in diameter or less located more than 100 feet from existing dirt roads would be lopped and scattered in a non-contiguous manner to depths less than six inches in height. Piling of slash material may also be an option if this method is preferred by the USFS. If piling is preferred over chipping, the USFS and LU would agree on designated piling locations. Piles would consist of limbs, tops of trees (less than six inches in diameter), and brush. Unless otherwise agreed to by the USFS, piling would be done in the same season as the tree cutting.

Mastication

One area within the PNF has been identified for reduction of vegetation using mastication techniques. This area is located within the ROW and contains a large amount of manzanita and varying species of native conifer seedlings and saplings and is approximately 660 feet in length and 40 feet in width (0.6 acre). Due to access restrictions to transport equipment, LU proposes to use an ASV type skid steer with a brush mulching attachment. Mobilization equipment would drive along the existing NFS dirt roadway (NFS Road 23N03 or 22N55). Once the equipment reaches the point where the power line crosses the road, LU would operate the equipment moving westward down the power line corridor.

VEGETATION MANAGEMENT IN THE TAHOE NATIONAL FOREST

LU is not engaged in vegetation management pursuant to an exemption in 2014. No tree removal is proposed on the TNF under the Proposed Action.

ACCESS TO PLUMAS NATIONAL FOREST FACILITIES AND PROPOSED STAGING AREAS

Vehicular or equipment access to PNF facilities would be primarily limited to existing documented roads or previously disturbed areas. Existing roads used to access the poles scheduled for replacement consist of NFS Roads 23N03, 22N55C, and 22N55. Temporary equipment access across existing non-NFS roads or other disturbed areas inside or outside the current ROW may also be necessary to access certain structures. LU has identified six staging areas in the PNF portion of the Project Area that could be used to store equipment or materials or could be used as landings. These staging areas are currently void of vegetation or have been previously disturbed.

During tree removal, LU would need to access treatment areas via existing roads but would travel off of these roads in order to skid the trees to the landing. Some of these areas would be

14


within the RCA. Prior to commencing tree removal, LU would work with the USFS to identify Equipment Limitation Zones (ELZs), and these areas would be flagged. Trees felled within the ELZs would be directionally felled away from watercourses and end-lined to an area outside of the ELZ. LU would provide the applicable training to their employees, including contractors, regarding the requirements when operating within the ELZs.

ACCESS TO TAHOE NATIONAL FOREST FACILITIES

Vehicular or equipment access to facilities is expected to occur utilizing the existing permitted Route 109-20. Temporary equipment access within the current ROW is also necessary for access of blasting equipment for excavation of certain structure holes. LU has identified the need to access its facility utilizing equipment off the current existing road.

ROAD MAINTENANCE

LU would need to perform maintenance on NFS Road 23N03 to gain access to complete pole replacement activities, provide continued access to the power line, and potentially provide better access for the USFS for land management or fire suppression purposes. Approximately 0.8 acre of existing road would be subject to road maintenance activities. LU would re-grade portions of the existing dirt/gravel road, replace a blown out culvert with a low water crossing, construct a new low water crossing, and realign a section of the road (approximately 225 linear feet) around an existing low water crossing and install a box culvert. On the TNF, LU currently utilizes a Special Uses Road (authorized via LU’s 20-year special use permit). LU is not proposing any maintenance activities on this road, but LU may conduct minor blading and roadside vegetation clearing (brushing), if needed for access.

ALTERNATIVE 2 – NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

This alternative serves as a baseline for comparison between the alternatives and is required by the implementing regulations of the NEPA. Under the No Action Alternative, the existing road and power poles would remain in their current condition and most likely, continue to deteriorate. Access to the 619 power line for routine maintenance and emergency repairs would continue to be difficult, the blown out culvert would not be replaced, and the low water crossing would continue to be used. Vegetation management would not occur, and hazard trees would remain in proximity to the 619 power line. The threat to the 619 power line from falling hazard trees would continue and likely get worse as hazard trees continued to decay and possibly fall onto the 619 power line.

Actions associated with this alternative would be limited reactionary, emergency type repairs, and the cutting or trimming of trees that have breached the requirements of GO 95, Rule 35 or PRC 4293. Limited access to treat slash material generated from reactionary vegetation management activities over time could create unacceptable levels of downed woody debris and slash material.

15


COMPARISON OF THE ALTERNATIVES

This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Information in Table 5 is focused on activities and on effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively, or qualitatively, between the alternatives.

Table 5: The 619 Maintenance Project Purpose and Need Comparing Each Alternative

Alternative 1 Alternative 2

PNF TNF PNF TNF Purpose and Need 1: Repair and Replace Deteriorated Power Poles Total number of power poles to be replaced

41 10 0 0

Total number of power poles re-framed 5 0 0 0

Total soil disturbance related to power pole removal (acres)

0.019 0.008 0 0

Purpose and Need 2:Vegetation Management Total tree volume removed (CCF) 291.04 0 0 0 Total silvicultural treatment area (acres)

78.1 0 0 0

Purpose and Need 3: Repair Access Road Realigned Section Length (feet) 250 0 0 0 Total number of new low water crossings1

2 0 0 0

Total number of new culverts2 1 0 0 0 1One low water crossing would replace a blown out culvert. 2The new box culvert would be part of the road realignment that would avoid an existing a low water crossing.

16


CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL

CONSEQUENCES

INTRODUCTION

This chapter summarizes the social, physical, and biological environments affected by the Proposed Action, and the effects on the environment resulting from implementation of any of the alternatives. This chapter also presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of the alternatives presented in Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives.

The Affected Environment section under each resource topic describes the existing, or baseline, condition against which environmental effects were evaluated, and from which progress toward the desired condition can be measured. Environmental consequences form the scientific and analytical bases for comparison of alternatives through compliance with standards set forth in the Forest Plan. The environmental consequences discussion centers on direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. Effects can be neutral, beneficial, or adverse.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

Direct effects are caused by the action and occur at the same place and time as the action. Indirect effects are caused by the action but occur later in time or further removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.

The environmental consequences presented in Chapter 3 address the impacts of actions proposed under each alternative. This effects analysis was completed at the project level.

As described in Chapter 2, for ease of documentation and understanding, the effects of the alternatives are described separately for distinct actions. The combination of these distinct actions is then added to the ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions in the cumulative effects analysis. The distinct actions analyzed for each alternative are power pole removal, hazard tree removal, and mechanical and hand thinning treatments.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

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

The cumulative effects analysis area varies according to the resource being analyzed. Past activities are considered part of the existing condition and are discussed in the Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences sections under each resource. Appendix B provides a list of present, ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions that could potentially contribute to cumulative effects.

17


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

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

This aforementioned cumulative effects analysis rationale has been used for each resource, with the exception of the Water and Soil Resource effects assessment, where past actions over a 30-year period are used as an input to the Equivalent Roaded Acre (ERA) analysis model.

SPECIALIST REPORTS

Each section in this chapter provides a summary of Project specific reports, assessments, and/or input prepared by USFS specialists, which are incorporated by reference into this EA. The following reports or memoranda are incorporated by reference: Liberty Utilities 619 Power Line Maintenance Project Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation (BA/BE) Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Report (Enviroscientists 2015a); Liberty Utilities 619 Power Line Maintenance Project Management Indicator Species Report (Enviroscientists 2015b); Liberty Utilities 619 Power Line Maintenance Project Migratory Bird Species Report (Enviroscientists 2015c); 619 Power Line Maintenance Project Soil and Water Resource Effects Assessment (Enviroscientists 2015d); Liberty Utilities 619 Power Line Maintenance Project BE for Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Plant Species (Overlin Botanical Consulting 2015a); Liberty Utilities 619 Power Line Maintenance Project Noxious Weed Risk Assessment (Overlin Botanical Consulting 2015b); A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Liberty Utilities

18


CalPECo 619 Line Replacement, Plumas County, California, HRM # 01-03-204 (Drews 2014); and Addendum to A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Liberty Utilities CalPECo 619 Line Replacement, Plumas County, California, HRM # 01-03-204 (Drews et al. 2015). These reports or memoranda are part of the Project record on file at the Beckwourth Ranger District at 23 Mohawk Road, Blairsden, California, 96103. Copies of these reports are available upon request by contacting the Beckwourth Ranger District at (530) 836-2575.

WILDLIFE

Direct effects include immediate changes in habitat conditions that would result in a change in the size class or density of California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) types (approximately 14 acres in the ROW only) and disturbance/harassment to individuals, including direct mortality during Project activities. It is assumed in this analysis that the Proposed Action would be implemented as stated, in compliance with all rules and regulations governing land management activities, including the use of the appropriate limited operating periods (LOPs) identified in Table 6. Direct disturbance, including mortality to individual animals addressed in this report, is highly unlikely, due to survey efforts for selected species, incorporation of LOPs where appropriate, and implementation of Forest standards and guidelines. Indirect effects include effects that are not expected to change CWHR types (i.e., removal of scattered hazard trees within the Project Area), occur later in time or beyond the treatment areas of the Project, effects to a species prey base.

Table 6: Limited Operating Periods

Species Location Limited Operating Period Reference Pages

Bald eagle Within ¼ mile of territory or active nest site

January 1 through August 31 Professional

Judgment

California spotted owl

Within ¼ mile of a protected activity center boundary or active nest

site

March 1 through August 15 A-60* Modified by October 2006 RO

Letter

Northern goshawk Within ¼ mile of

territory or active nest site

February 15 through September 15

A-60*

*USDA-Forest Service 2004, page A-60

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES – WESTERN BUMBLE BEE

Direct and Indirect Effects of Strategically Removing Hazard Trees and Improving Public Safety (Proposed Action)

Indicator Measures 1 & 2: Acres of suitable habitat modified, lost or fragmented at various scales and habitat components modified, lost or fragmented.

19


Although potential direct effects on the Bombus occidentalis (western bumble bee) include mortality of individuals or entire nesting colonies, it is difficult to precisely quantify the risk of and occurrence of such events for this species. The focus, therefore, is based on three management questions regarding the western bumble bee while designing and evaluating potential environmental consequences of the Project:

Do bumble bees have continuous access to flowering plants from spring through autumn?

Does adequate habitat for nesting and overwintering sites exist (undisturbed areas with logs and clumps of grass)?

Are floral resources and nesting habitat fragmented or isolated in distribution? (e.g., is nesting habitat in close proximity to foraging habitat?).

Flowering plant species (nectar sources) known to be used by the western bumble bee likely occur throughout the Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area. Ground disturbing activities associated with the Project would likely reduce foraging opportunities for the western bumble bee in the Project footprint (treatment units) through mechanical disturbance; however, this reduction in foraging habitat would likely be ephemeral as flowering plants would sprout and regenerate post-Project. Ground disturbing activities also may destroy suitable nesting and overwintering sites for the western bumble bee within treatment units. However, ELZs within the RCA would not experience ground disturbing activities and would provide foraging, nesting, and overwintering opportunities throughout the Project Area. Further, RCA ELZs would help mediate any spatial fragmentation in flowering plant availability that may occur during Project activities.

The Proposed Action plans to utilize existing and temporary access roads and perform road maintenance activities including realigning a small section of the road (approximately 225 linear feet). The habitat within the Project Area is already fragmented from past activities, and the road realignment of approximately 225 linear feet in conjunction with road maintenance activities is not considered to add substantially to that fragmentation or loss of potential habitat. Road maintenance activities may also result in a reduction of available nectar sources due to the road realignment and roadside vegetation clearing (brushing), if needed for access. The planned improvements to the low water crossings and culvert installation may have beneficial effects on potential habitat and increase nectar sources through recruitment.

Potential direct effects on the western bumble bee or its habitat from reoccurring line maintenance and temporary disturbance from equipment workers could occur through ground disturbance to nesting or foraging bees within the treatment units. However, the western bumble bee would have continuous access to flowering plants in nearby habitats from spring through autumn. The amount of ground disturbance associated with power pole removal is negligible (0.019 acre) compared to available habitat within the Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area (912 acres).

20


Habitat Components

As previously noted, ground disturbing activities associated with the Project may reduce available nectar sources and nesting and overwintering sites (e.g., rodent burrows) for the western bumble bee. Although ground disturbing activities likely would trample some nectar sources that could be utilized by the western bumble bee, ground disturbing activities also likely would promote germination of flowering plants immediately post-Project as maintenance activities would disturb the seed bank, and promote germination.

Throughout the Project, both spatially and temporally, there would be habitat refugia for the western bumble bee via the RCA ELZs. Given the linear nature of the RCA, ELZs within the RCA serve as habitat corridors for the western bumble bee, providing habitat connectivity between and among foraging and nesting habitat. In addition, hazard trees are not all harvested at once, so ground disturbance impacts a very small area at any given time.

Based on the Pesticide Fact Sheet prepared by Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. (Syracuse 2006), the application rate of Borax is considered non-toxic to honey bees, although it is used as an insecticide. It is believed that with the method of application (i.e., treating each individual stump versus broadcast application) and the amount used, that Borax applied to stumps under the Proposed Action should not affect the western bumble bee.

Cumulative Effects (Proposed Action)

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

Future activities on NFS lands include fuelwood gathering on PNF lands and Christmas tree cutting and fuelwood gathering programs on the TNF are ongoing programs that have been in existence for years and are expected to continue. The true extent and effect of these activities on the western bumblebee is not known.

The entire Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area is heavily used by the public, being so close to the city of Portola and other communities. Most of the recreation use within the wildlife analysis area consists of off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, dispersed camping, fishing, hiking, horseback riding, hunting, mountain biking, pleasure driving, and wildlife watching. These uses are expected to continue. The true extent and effect of these activities on the western bumblebee is not known.

Direct and Indirect Effects of Strategically Removing Hazard Trees and Improving Public Safety (No Action Alternative)


21


There would be no direct effects on the western bumblebee or its habitat, as no activities would occur that would cause disturbance to nesting or foraging bees, nor any impacts to the existing habitat conditions. The indirect effects on the western bumblebee of not removing hazard and deteriorated trees is unknown, but over time may reduce the amount of foraging habitat if there is a loss of flowering plants due to the closed canopies and competition for resources. In addition, the deteriorating power poles and the hazard trees threatening the 619 power line would be left in place. Both the power poles and trees would pose a hazard such as fire to the PNF and TNF resources including nesting and foraging habitat for the western bumble bee. The hazard trees could also disrupt power service to the local communities, which could be detrimental to public safety.

There would be no direct effects on the western bumble bee or its habitat, as no road maintenance would occur and cause disturbance to nesting or foraging bees, nor any impacts to the existing habitat conditions. The indirect effects on the western bumble bee of not performing road maintenance is unknown, but the lack of replacing a blown out culvert with a low water crossing, constructing a new low water crossing, and realigning a section of the road (approximately 225 linear feet) around an existing low water crossing and installing a box culvert may reduce the availability of nesting and foraging habitat over time in these areas. Seasonal flooding in these areas would continue and road conditions would continue to degrade and threaten adjacent habitat. Any indirect effects to nesting or foraging bees due to public access and activities on all the open roads would continue along with road deterioration.

There would be no direct effects on the western bumble bee or its habitat, as no reoccurring line maintenance and no associated temporary disturbance from equipment workers except for emergency repair work would occur that causes ground disturbance to nesting or foraging bees, nor any impacts to the existing habitat conditions. The indirect effects on the western bumble bee of not performing power pole replacement is unknown, but the lack of replacing deteriorated power poles would remain in place and the hazard trees threatening the 619 power line would be left in place. Both the power poles and trees would pose a hazard to the PNF and TNF resources including nesting and foraging habitat for the western bumble bee, and public safety.

Cumulative Effects (No Action Alternative)

Cumulative effects on the western bumble bee under the No Action Alternative could be a loss of foraging habitat over time as overstocked conifers outcompete flowering plants for sunlight and nutrients. In addition, a loss of nesting and foraging habitat could occur as seasonal flooding continues to expand the low water crossing areas, which could be exasperated by public access.

Determinations for Both Alternatives – Western Bumble Bee

Proposed Action

The Project may affect individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the western bumble bee.

22


No Action Alternative

Implementation of the No Action Alternative would not directly affect the western bumble bee. However, this alternative is not without long-term risk as stated under the cumulative effects analysis.

Cumulative effects on the western bumble bee under the No Action Alternative could be a loss of foraging habitat over time as overstocked conifers outcompete flowering plants for sunlight and nutrients. In addition, a loss of nesting and foraging habitat could occur as seasonal flooding continues to expand the low water crossing areas, which could be exasperated by public access.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES – BALD EAGLE



Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area

Potential direct effects on the bald eagle may result from the modification or loss of habitat or habitat components. Direct mortality could occur if nest trees are felled but this would be exceedingly rare. The Proposed Action would not cut or remove known nest trees. In addition, disturbances associated with tree removal, vegetation management, temporary road building, or other associated activities within or adjacent to occupied habitat may disrupt nesting, fledging, and foraging activities. Implementation of a LOP from January 1 through August 31 around the known bald eagle territory would remove the effects associated with direct disturbance on treatment units and access routes.

The Proposed Action plans to utilize existing and temporary access roads and perform road maintenance activities including realigning a small section of the road (approximately 225 linear feet). The habitat within the Project Area is already fragmented from past activities, and the road realignment of approximately 225 linear feet in conjunction with road maintenance activities is not considered to add substantially to that fragmentation. Road maintenance activities may result in increased public access attributed to better road conditions; however, an existing gate on permitted Route 109-20 on the TNF limits public access from the southeast.

Proposed activities could cause short-term displacement and disruption outside of the LOP, which includes times associated with courtship, pair bonding, territory establishment, and winter foraging activities. Based on the vegetation layer and the CWHR model, approximately 11 percent or approximately 103 acres within the Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area (912 NFS acres) may be considered high importance habitat, and approximately 47 percent or approximately 427 acres may be considered medium importance habitat.

23


Bald Eagle Territory

One bald eagle territory overlaps with the Project Area and the Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area. Implementation of the Proposed Action during the nesting season may cause disturbance that could disrupt nesting behaviors and potentially lead to nest failure. The risk of this occurring is tempered by the delineation of the bald eagle primary and secondary territories around known nest sites and implementation of a LOP prohibiting disturbing activities from occurring within 0.25 mile of the territory or active nest site from January 1 through August 31.

The Proposed Action would treat less than one acre of high importance habitat and approximately seven acres of medium importance habitat in the ROW. This change should have a minimal effect on the bald eagle, since the ROW has been previously treated and the goal of the ROW is to provide safe, reliable power, not forest habitat. The removal of scattered hazardous trees from the Project Area is not expected to contribute toward a decreasing trend in nesting or foraging habitat within the Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area. Under the Proposed Action, one bald eagle territory (primary habitat) would be entered. In terms of acres treated in the bald eagle territory, less than two acres of medium importance habitat and no high importance habitat would be treated.

Potential indirect effects on the bald eagle or its habitat from reoccurring line maintenance are temporary disturbance from equipment and workers through noise disturbance which could disrupt nesting and foraging behaviors. However, the implementation of the bald eagle LOP along with the short duration and minimal disturbance associated with the Project maintenance activities should not adversely affect bald eagles.

Habitat Components

Potential direct effects on the bald eagle may result from the modification or loss of habitat components. Even with the current low levels of old growth, snags and large woody debris, the possibility remains that some large trees, snags, and downed logs could be lost during treatment activities. To help mitigate potential loss, bole wood greater than six inches in diameter would be left on site in lengths as long as possible lying on the ground to help mitigate the potential overall decrease in wildlife habitat components.

Based on the Pesticide Fact Sheet prepared by Syracuse (2006), the application rate for Borax used by the USFS is considered non-toxic to vertebrate species, including birds. Thus, Borax applied to stumps during the Proposed Action should not affect bald eagles, or other avian and mammalian prey species. In addition, the short duration and minimal disturbance associated with the Project is not likely to have a meaningful reduction on the prey base of this species.


Cumulative effects of recurring line maintenance on bald eagles have been and would continue to be no nesting or roosting habitat within the power line corridor. However, it is not anticipated that this cumulative habitat reduction would result in the loss of occupancy or productivity of the known bald eagle territory based on the location of the proposed activities to the known nest site because the site became occupied with the power line corridor already in place.

24


Overall, increases in urbanization, increases in recreational use of NFS lands, and the utilization of natural resources on state, private and federal lands all may contribute to habitat loss for this species. Future activities on NFS lands include fuelwood gathering on PNF and TNF lands, and Christmas tree cutting on the TNF are ongoing programs that have been in existence for years and are expected to continue. The past and future effects of these actions have and would be to decrease snags and downed logs in the area that removes habitat structures for wildlife. The true extent and effect of these activities on the bald eagle is not known.

The entire Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area is used by the public, being some close to the city of Portola and other communities. Most of the recreation use within the Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area consists of OHV use, dispersed camping, fishing, hiking, horseback riding, hunting, mountain biking, pleasure driving, and wildlife watching. These uses are expected to continue. The true extent and effect of these activities on the bald eagle are not known.



There would be no direct effects on bald eagles or bald eagle habitat, as no Project-related activities would occur that would remove habitat or cause disturbance to nesting or foraging birds, nor any impacts to existing habitat components. Due to a lack of management, direct effects to nesting and foraging bald eagles could result from emergency repair work in the form of temporary disturbance.

Indirect effects of the No Action Alternative would be to not remove the deteriorating power poles and the hazard trees threatening the 619 power line, which would be left in place. Indirect effects from the No Action Alternative would be those associated with continued live and dead fuel accumulation and potential arcing from transmission lines. Both the power poles and trees would pose a hazard to the PNF and TNF resources including nesting and foraging habitat for the bald eagle. Not removing hazard trees could increase the risk of fire.

Continued live and dead fuel accumulations under a power line increases the risk of high intensity wildfire. It is impossible to determine where, when, and how a wildfire may enter an area, making any calculations of effects of wildfire unpredictable. With the No Action Alternative, vegetation would not be thinned or burned. As a result, both ladder and surface fuels would continue to increase over time, leading to an increase in the risk of a high intensity wildfire. High intensity fire may kill sensitive plants and affect soil seed sources in the vicinity of the Project. Not taking action slightly increases effects if wildfire were to burn through the area.


Cumulative effects on the bald eagle under the No Action Alternative could be a loss of nesting and foraging habitat due to a fire resulting from a tree hitting the power line or a deteriorated

25


power pole failing. There would be no actions designed to reduce the risk of fire from the deteriorated power poles and hazard trees.

Determinations for Both Alternatives – Bald Eagle

Proposed Action

The Project may affect individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the bald eagle. This determination is based on the following:

1. Retention of nearly all (99 percent) of suitable habitat on NFS lands within the Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area; and

2. Implementation of a LOP within 0.25 mile of bald eagle territory or an active nest site from January 1 through August 31.


Implementation of the No Action Alternative would not directly affect the bald eagle. However, this alternative is not without long-term risk as stated under the cumulative effects analysis.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES – CALIFORNIA SPOTTED OWL


Indicator Measure 1: Acres of suitable habitat modified, lost or fragmented at various scales.


Potential direct effects on the California spotted owl may result from the modification or loss of habitat or habitat components. Direct mortality could occur if nest trees are felled but this would be exceedingly rare. There are no known nest sites or territories in the Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area. In addition, disturbances associated with vegetation management, temporary road building, or other associated activities within or adjacent to occupied habitat may disrupt nesting, fledging, and foraging activities. If occupied habitat is discovered, implementation of a LOP from March 1 through August 15 in the vicinity of the California spotted owl nest site would minimize the effects to the owl pairs associated with direct disturbance on treatment units and access routes.

The Project-related activities such as scattered hazard tree removal, tree trimming, and vegetation removal, could directly affect transient California spotted owls in the Project Area due to equipment and human disturbance. However, the Project Area is small (162 acres) compared to the surrounding Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area (912 acres); therefore, owls would have places to escape, away from the disturbance.

26


Indicator Measure 2: Habitat components modified, lost or fragmented.

Habitat Components

The Project Area is not being managed for habitat components such as snags and downed logs; therefore, the potential direct effects on the spotted owl would result from the modification or loss of these habitat components. The power line corridor is not expected to contribute to these habitat components for the foreseeable future.

Based on the Pesticide Fact Sheet prepared by Syracuse (2006), the application rate for Borax used by the USFS is considered non-toxic to vertebrate species. Thus, Borax applied to stumps under the Proposed Action should not affect California spotted owls, or their prey species. In addition, the short duration and minimal disturbance associated with the Project is not likely to have a meaningful reduction on the prey base of this species.


The Proposed Action would contribute to a cumulative reduction of approximately one acre of California spotted owl marginal nesting habitat and approximately seven acres of marginal foraging habitat. Cumulative effects of recurring line maintenance on spotted owls have been and would continue to be no nesting or foraging habitat within the power line corridor. These reductions in marginal foraging and nesting habitats would have a nominal effect on future California spotted owl activity and occupancy within the Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area.

Future activities on NFS lands include fuelwood gathering programs on PNF lands and Christmas tree cutting and fuelwood gathering programs on TNF lands, which are ongoing programs in the Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area that have been in existence for years and are expected to continue. Snags and downed logs would continue to be removed, resulting in the cumulative loss of these habitat components across the landscape. Snags are recruited annually from live trees through natural processes at a rate that may sustain this loss within the Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area. Snag and log removal is most common along, or within a short distance from, open roads. The true extent and effect of these activities on the California spotted owl during the winter is not known because the species is not present nor has it ever been.

The entire Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area is used by the public, being so close to the city of Portola and other communities. Most of the recreation use within the Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area consists of OHV use, dispersed camping, fishing, hiking, horseback riding, hunting, mountain biking, pleasure driving, and wildlife watching. These uses are expected to continue. These activities are expected to have a minimal effect on suitable habitat in the Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area. It is unknown what effect, if any, this disturbance has on individual California spotted owls.

27




There would be no direct effects on California spotted owl or California spotted owl habitat, as no activities would occur that would cause disturbance to nesting or foraging birds, nor any impacts to the existing habitat conditions.

Indirect effects of the No Action Alternative would be not removing the deteriorating power poles and the hazard trees threatening the 619 power line would be left in place. Indirect effects from the No Action Alternative would be those associated with continued live and dead fuel accumulation and potential arcing from transmission lines.


Both the power poles and trees would pose a hazard to the PNF and TNF resources including nesting and foraging habitat for the California spotted owl. Seasonal flooding in areas requiring road maintenance would continue and road conditions would continue to degrade and threaten adjacent prey habitat. Any indirect effects to nesting or foraging California spotted owls due to public access and activities on all the open roads would continue along with road deterioration.

With the current PNF woodcutting program, the Project Area would be open to public woodcutting 12 months a year, limited only by available access, and snags would continue to be lost. Uncontrolled public use, especially during the nesting season, could cause disturbance that could disrupt and preclude successful nesting.


The No Action Alternative for the Project would not provide for the long-term protection of California spotted owl habitat. There would be no actions designed to reduce the risk of fire from the deteriorated power poles and hazard trees. In addition, a loss of prey foraging habitat could occur as seasonal flooding continues to expand the low water crossing areas, which could be exasperated by public access.

28


Determinations for Both Alternatives – California Spotted Owl

Proposed Action

Implementation of the Project may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the California spotted owl. This determination is based on the following:

1. No current or historic occupancy of California spotted owls in this section of Beckwourth Peak;

2. Retention of nearly all foraging habitat and nesting habitat on NFS land within the Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area. This retention of nesting and foraging habitat outside existing Protected Activity Centers (PACs) would provide opportunities for future occupancy and population expansion; and

3. If occupied California spotted owl habitat is identified within the Project Area, the following LOP would be implemented from March 1 through August 15 within 0.25 mile of a California spotted owl active nest site.


Implementation of the No Action Alternative would not directly affect individual California spotted owls. However, this alternative is not without long-term risk as stated under the cumulative effects.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES – NORTHERN GOSHAWK




Potential direct effects on the northern goshawk may result from the modification or loss of habitat or habitat components, and rarely from direct mortality if nest trees are felled. The Proposed Action would not cut or remove known nest trees. In addition, disturbances associated with tree removal, road maintenance, pole removal and replacement, or other associated activities within or adjacent to occupied habitat may disrupt nesting, fledging, and foraging activities (Richardson and Miller 1997). Implementation of a LOP from February 15 through September 15 around known northern goshawk nest(s) would remove the effects associated with direct disturbance on treatment units and access routes. There are no known nest sites within the Project Area.

Proposed activities could cause short-term displacement and disruption during fall and winter foraging activities. Based on the vegetation layer and the CWHR model, approximately

29


157 acres or approximately 23 percent of the Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area may be considered goshawk foraging habitat on NFS lands (912 acres) and approximately 530 acres or approximately 77 percent may be considered goshawk nesting habitat.

The changes to suitable habitat as a result of implementing the Proposed Action would be treatment to approximately five acres of foraging habitat and approximately eight acres of nesting habitat in the Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area.

Potential indirect effects on the northern goshawk or its habitat from reoccurring line maintenance are temporary disturbance from equipment and workers through noise disturbance that could disrupt nesting and foraging behaviors. However, the implementation of the northern goshawk LOP should minimize these effects.


Habitat Components

The Project Area is not being managed for habitat components such as snags and downed logs; therefore, the potential direct effects on the northern goshawk would result from the modification or loss of these habitat components. The power line corridor is not expected to contribute to these habitat components for the foreseeable future.

It is not known how northern goshawk prey species (small mammals, birds) respond to opening up forested stands. Based on CWHR modeling, it is known that several bird species respond favorably to either less dense forested stands and/or openings within forested stands, while some do not.

Based on the Pesticide Fact Sheet prepared by Syracuse (2006), the application rate for Borax used by the USFS is considered non-toxic to vertebrate species. Thus, Borax applied to stumps under the Proposed Action should not affect northern goshawks, or avian and mammalian prey species.


Cumulative effects from recurring line maintenance on northern goshawks have been and would continue to be no nesting or foraging habitat within the power line corridor. It is uncertain as to what influence this reduction in habitat would do to northern goshawk activity and occupancy within the Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area. However, it is not anticipated this cumulative habitat reduction would result in loss of occupancy or productivity of the known goshawk territory, based on the fact that the power line predates the known goshawk PAC.

Future activities on NFS lands include fuelwood gathering programs are ongoing programs in the Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area that have been in existence for years and are expected to continue. The true extent and effect of these activities on the northern goshawk is not known. Snags and downed logs would continue to be removed, resulting in the cumulative loss of these habitat components across the landscape. Snags are recruited annually from live trees through

30


natural processes at a rate that may sustain this loss within the Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area. Snag and log removal is most common along, or within a short distance from, open roads.

As for the effect of the Christmas tree cutting program on TNF lands, in general this activity retains continuous forest cover and would have a nominal effect on the understory. It is unknown what effect, if any, this disturbance has on individual northern goshawks during the winter.

The entire Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area is used by the public, being so close to the city of Portola and other communities. Most of the recreation use within the Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area consists of OHV use, dispersed camping, fishing, hiking, horseback riding, hunting, mountain biking, pleasure driving, and wildlife watching. These uses are expected to continue. These activities are expected to have a minimal effect on suitable habitat in the Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area. It is unknown what effect, if any, this disturbance has on individual northern goshawks.




There would be no direct effects on northern goshawks or northern goshawk habitat, as no Project-related activities would occur that would cause disturbance to nesting or foraging birds, nor any impacts to the existing habitat conditions.

Indirect effects of the No Action Alternative would be not removing the deteriorating power poles and the hazard trees threatening the 619 power line would be left in place. Indirect effects from the No Action Alternative would be those associated with continued live and dead fuel accumulation and potential arcing from transmission lines.


Both the power poles and trees would pose a hazard to the PNF and TNF resources including nesting and foraging habitat for the northern goshawk. The indirect effects on the northern goshawk of not performing road maintenance is unknown, but the lack of replacing a blown out culvert with a low water crossing, constructing a new low water crossing, and realigning a section of the road (approximately 225 linear feet) around an existing low water crossing and installing a box culvert may reduce the availability of prey habitat over time in these areas.

31


Seasonal flooding in these areas would continue and road conditions would continue to degrade and threaten adjacent habitat. Any indirect effects to nesting or foraging northern goshawks due to public access and activities on all the open roads would continue along with road deterioration.

With the current PNF and TNF woodcutting programs, the Project Area and Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area would be open to public woodcutting 12 months a year, limited only by available access and snags would continue to be lost. The TNF also supports a Christmas tree program. Uncontrolled public use within the areas used by northern goshawks, especially during the nesting season, could cause disturbance that could disrupt and preclude successful nesting.


The No Action Alternative for the Project would not provide for the long-term protection of northern goshawk habitat. There would be no actions designed to reduce the risk of fire from the deteriorated power poles and hazard trees. In addition, a loss of prey foraging habitat could occur as seasonal flooding continues to expand the low water crossing areas, which could be exasperated by public access.

Determinations for Both Alternatives – Northern Goshawk

Proposed Action

The Project may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the northern goshawk. This determination is based on the following:

1. Retention of nearly all suitable nesting and foraging habitat within the Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area. This retention of nesting and foraging habitat outside existing PACs would provide opportunities for future occupancy and population expansion; and

2. Implementation of LOP within 0.25 mile of northern goshawk territory or active nest sites from February 15 through September 15.


Implementation of the No Action Alternative would not affect individual northern goshawks. However, this alternative is not without long-term risk as stated under the cumulative effects.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES – BATS

Potentially suitable habitat may exist within the Project Area for all three of these bat species (pallid bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, and fringed myotis).

32




Direct effects from the Proposed Action are possible through the destruction of active roosts through felling or removal of trees with hollows or loose bark, especially snags. Due to the small size of bats, and the difficulty of surveying for them, it is hard to determine where they are roosting. These bats have been known to utilize large conifer snags and tree hollows as day roosting sites, so some roosting habitat may be lost. Hazard trees, including snags, along the power line, and those removed for safety reasons, could result in direct mortality of bat species that may be roosting within the tree or snag. In addition, chain saw activity or the use of heavy equipment causing ground vibrations may cause noise and tremor disturbance enough to cause temporary or permanent roost abandonment resulting in lowered reproductive success. These effects would primarily occur during the breeding season (May 20 to August 15) when the potential exists for disturbance to active breeding females and maternity colonies. If any of these sensitive bat species breed in the area, Project activities during the breeding season could affect individual bats, including direct mortality. Implementation of the bat LOP from April 1 through October 31, if a roost tree is found, would remove the direct effects associated with felling or removal of trees and noise disturbance on treatment units and access routes.

The Proposed Action plans to utilize existing and temporary access roads and perform road maintenance activities including realigning a small section of the road (approximately 225 linear feet). The habitat within the Project Area is already fragmented from past activities, and the road realignment of approximately 225 linear feet in conjunction with road maintenance activities is not considered to add substantially to that fragmentation. The disturbance created from heavy equipment, vehicles, and workers causing noise and tremor disturbance could be significant enough to cause temporary or permanent roost abandonment resulting in lowered reproductive success. However, the implementation of the LOP from April 1 through October 31 would remove the direct and indirect effects of noise and ground disturbance.

There would be no habitat disruption or modification to rock outcrops, caves and adits. No man-made structures that could provide habitat for bats are planned for removal or modification, other than roads and culverts, both of which do not provide habitat.

Based on the Pesticide Fact Sheet prepared by Syracuse (2006), very little information is available on the effects of boron compounds on nontarget terrestrial invertebrates. However, given that borax is used in the control of termites, ants, and house flies, toxic effects may occur in other insects. Thus, Borax applied to stumps in the Proposed Action should not affect bats but prey species exposed to borax may suffer toxic effects.


The existing condition reflects the changes of all activities that have occurred in the past. The analysis of cumulative effects of the Proposed Action evaluates the impact on threatened or

33


endangered species (TES) from the existing condition within the Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area.

Based on surveys conducted across the PNF in various habitats, presence of all three sensitive bat species is anticipated. Cumulative effects on bats could occur with the incremental loss of the quantity and/or quality of habitat for these species. Overall, increases in urbanization, increases in recreational use of NFS lands, and the utilization of natural resources on state, private and federal lands may contribute to habitat loss for these species.

Future activities on NFS lands include fuelwood gathering programs, which are ongoing programs in the Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area that have been in existence for years and are expected to continue. The true extent and effect of these activities on the three sensitive bat species are not known. Snags and downed logs would continue to be removed, resulting in the cumulative loss of these roosting habitat components across the landscape. Snags are recruited annually from live trees through natural processes at a rate that may sustain this loss within the Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area. Snag and log removal is most common along, or within a short distance from, open roads.

As for the effect of the Christmas tree cutting program on TNF lands, in general this activity retains continuous forest cover and would have a nominal effect on the understory. It is unknown what effect, if any, this disturbance has on the three sensitive bat species during the winter. However, human activities can often lead to decreased habitat suitability for all three of these bat species (pallid bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, and fringed myotis) due to snag and log removal thru woodcutting and disturbance.

The entire Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area is used by the public, being so close to the city of Portola and other communities. Most of the recreation use within the Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area consists of OHV use, dispersed camping, fishing, hiking, horseback riding, hunting, mountain biking, pleasure driving, and wildlife watching. These uses are expected to continue. These activities are expected to have a minimal effect on suitable habitat in the Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area. It is unknown what effect, if any, this disturbance has on individual bats.



There would be no direct effects on bats or bat habitat, as no activities would occur that would cause disturbance to roosting bats, nor any impacts to the existing habitat conditions.

Indirect effects of the No Action Alternative would be not removing the deteriorating power poles and the hazard trees threatening the 619 power line, which would be left in place. Indirect effects from the No Action Alternative would be those associated with continued live and dead fuel accumulation and potential arcing from transmission lines.

34



Both the power poles and hazard trees could pose a hazard to the PNF and TNF resources including potential roosting and foraging habitat for the three sensitive bat species. The indirect effects on bats by not performing road maintenance is unknown, but the lack of replacing a blown out culvert with a low water crossing, constructing a new low water crossing, and realigning a section of the road (approximately 225 linear feet) around an existing low water crossing and installing a box culvert is unknown. Seasonal flooding in these areas would continue and road conditions would continue to degrade and threaten adjacent habitat potentially causing resource damage that would continue to fragment the hydrology and aquatic habitat thus potentially reducing habitat diversity in the Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area.

With the current PNF and TNF woodcutting programs, the Project Area and Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area would be open to public woodcutting 12 months a year, limited only by available access, and snags would continue to be lost. The TNF also supports a Christmas tree program. Uncontrolled public use within the areas used by bats, especially during the roosting season, could cause disturbance that could disrupt and preclude successful roosting.


The No Action Alternative for the Project would not provide for the long-term protection of potential bat habitat. There would be no actions designed to reduce the risk of fire from the deteriorated power poles and hazard trees. In addition, as seasonal flooding continues to expand the low water crossing areas, these areas could be exasperated by public access.

Determinations for Both Alternatives – Bats

Proposed Action

The Project may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the bats (pallid bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, and fringed myotis). This determination is based on the following:

1. Meeting RCA standards and compliance with RCOs would safeguard against any affects to potential habitat, such as riparian hardwoods, snags, and conifers with characteristics valued by wildlife, in these areas; and

2. Implementation of the LOP from April 1 through October 31, if a roost tree is found, would remove the direct effects associated with felling or removal of trees and noise disturbance on treatment units and access routes during the breeding season.

35



Implementation of the No Action Alternative would not affect the pallid bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, or fringed myotis.

The No Action Alternative is not without risk to bats, as no action taken to reduce the risk of fire from the deteriorated power poles and hazard trees leaves existing bat habitat vulnerable to large-scale fragmentation as a result of fire.

WATERSHED

WATER RESOURCE INDICATORS – PROPOSED ACTION

Direct and Indirect Effects of General Forest Fuels Reduction and Forest Health Treatments (Proposed Action)

Indicator Measure – Effectiveness of Best Management Practices

Harvest activities may locally alter soil moisture regimes, canopy cover, and subsequent water yield due to altered interception and evapo-transpiration. However, a recent modeling study of HFQLG treatments determined changes to water yield, while likely to exist in the near term, would not be measurable in the field due to the relatively small amount of harvested material (Troendle et al. 2007).

Harvest operations (product removal) would cause associated disturbance from skid trails, site preparation, and transportation needs, such as temporary roads. Following implementation, the remaining canopy and vegetative recovery would contribute to rebuilding forest floor materials. Due to ground disturbance, harvested areas would be more susceptible to erosion and sediment transport to the channel network.

Provisions of adequate protection buffers to streams, as well as use of effective nonpoint source pollution prevention measures, would greatly reduce the potential of sediment reaching stream channels within and downstream of proposed treatment units and would protect beneficial uses of water. Throughout the USFS Pacific Southwest Region, BMPs are evaluated annually using the regional BMP Evaluation Program (BMPEP). Recent results of BMP monitoring on the PNF demonstrate that BMPs are effective at preventing erosion and sedimentation (USDA-Forest Service 2012).

For the 2010-2012 monitoring seasons, 145 effectiveness evaluations of BMPs were conducted for practices associated with timber and fuel management activities (Table 7). BMPs were rated as effective for over 93 percent of those evaluations (Table 8). In most cases, BMP effectiveness evaluations rate a “fail” when sediment is introduced into a stream channel adjacent to a project activity. The BMP deficiencies observed were predominantly due to legacy effects associated with the original design or location of timber haul roads.

36


Table 7: BMPEP Protocols and Associated BMPs Selected for Completion in 2010-2012

BMPEP Onsite Evaluation Protocols BMPs Evaluated T01: Streamside Management Zones (SMZ) SMZ Designation (1.8)

Stream Course and Aquatic Protection (1.19) Slash Treatment in Sensitive Areas (1.22)

T02: Skid Trails Tractor Skidding Design (1.10) Erosion Control on Skid Trails (1.17)

T04: Landings Log Landing Location (1.12) Log Landing Erosion Control (1.16)

E08: Road Surface, Drainage & Slope Protection Road Construction and Reconstruction (2.3) Road Maintenance and Operations (2.4) Erosion Control Plan (2.13)

E09: Stream Crossings General Guidelines for Location and Design of Roads (2.2)

Road Construction and Reconstruction (2.3) Road Maintenance and Operations (2.4) Stream Crossings (2.8) Erosion Control Plan (2.13) equipment

E11: Control of Sidecast Material Road Maintenance and Operations (2.4) E12: Servicing and Refueling Equipment Refueling and Servicing (2.11) E13: In-Channel Construction Practices Stream Crossings (2.8)

Erosion Control Plan (2.13)

Table 8: BMPEP Summary of Ratings 2010-2012 for Timber Activities

Implementation Effectiveness Form Pass At-Risk Fail Total Pass At-Risk Fail Total T01 21 0 0 21 16 4 1 21 T02 23 1 0 24 19 5 0 24 T04 23 0 0 23 22 1 0 23 E08 13 0 0 13 6 7 1 14 E09 11 1 0 12 3 6 4 13 E11 11 0 0 11 7 3 2 12 E12 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1

Total 103 2 0 105 74 26 8 108 # of fails, Implementation = 0 # of fails, Effectiveness = 8 Percent Implemented = 100% Percent Effective = 92.6%

Direct and Indirect Effects of Providing Improved Access and Reducing Transportation System Effects (Proposed Action)

Indicator Measure – Miles of road drainage improved

Roads in the Project Area provide access to the USFS for land management and fire suppression, as well as public uses. Poorly maintained roads can impact water quality and disrupt the flow of water. LU would need to perform maintenance on USFS Road 23N03 on the PNF to gain access to complete pole replacement activities, provide continued access to the power line, and

37


potentially provide better access to NFS lands for land management or fire suppression purposes. Approximately 0.8 acre of existing road would be subject to road maintenance activities. LU would re-grade portions of the existing dirt/gravel road, replace a blown out culvert with a low water crossing, construct a new low water crossing, and realign a section of the road (approximately 225 linear feet) around an existing low water crossing and install a box culvert. On the TNF, LU is not proposing any road maintenance activities, but may conduct minor blading and roadside vegetation clearing (brushing), if needed for access.

Road improvements and maintenance are expected to help disperse runoff and correct sources of road-generated sediment. Road improvements and maintenance also have the potential to reduce the risk of erosion of the road prism during large flood events.

Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis - Water (Proposed Action)

Indicator Measure – ERA values within the Watershed Analysis Area

Under Alternative 1, both subwatersheds were below the identified threshold of concern of 12 percent under Alternative 1, with the Ross subwatershed at 6.97 percent and the Wildcat subwatershed at 11.83 percent.

Direct and indirect effects of vegetation management activities, particularly ground-disturbing activities were assessed for water resources. The potential cumulative watershed effects (CWE) are based on the disturbed area within a cumulative effect analysis area using the ERA method.

For this Project, disturbance effects were reviewed, and based on the proposed activities and the size of the action within the subwatersheds, it was determined this Project would not result in disturbance effects that would amount to a change in the existing ERA. This is particularly due to the small size and low disturbance potential for the Project and the implementation of manual vegetation control methods within the RCA, as well as proper implementation of BMPs and standard mitigation measures (SMMs).

SOIL RESOURCE INDICATORS – PROPOSED ACTION

Direct and Indirect Effects of General Forest Fuels Reduction and Forest Health Treatments (Proposed Action)

Indicator Measures: Soil ground cover, surface organic matter, ground disturbance, and surface erosion.

By following the SMMs and BMPs outlined in this EA and the 619 Power Line Maintenance Project Soil and Water Resource Effects Assessment, any direct or indirect effects to soil condition under implementation of the Proposed Action would not be of a size or pattern that would result in a detrimental effect to plant growth function or soil hydrologic function within the analysis subwatersheds. All standards and guidelines for soil productivity presented in the PNF LRMP and the Regulatory Environment section of this report would be met under the implementation of the Proposed Action.

38


Mechanical thinning would occur in an approximate 55 acre area, and hand treatment would occur within an approximate 24 acre area. Hazard tree removal activities within the RCA would occur within an approximate 36 acre area, with mechanical thinning occurring in an approximate 24 acre area and hand thinning occurring in an approximate 13 acre area. All of the mechanical treatment units proposed for the Project are located on soils with a moderate to high Erosion Hazard Rating (EHR).

Beginning in 2001, soil condition measures have been monitored on HFQLG project units for both the pre- and post-project condition per the Monitoring Plan prescribed in the 1999 HFQLG FEIS. Post-project monitoring began in 2004. The 2010 HFQLG Soil Monitoring Report presents effects to soil parameters for over 100 units treated on the three National Forests that are implementing the HFQLG pilot project (Young 2011).

The existing use for these lands as a power line ROW has already removed the area around the power line from the base of “productivity” as it relates to soils productivity for timber. Therefore, the Proposed Action would not be expected to significantly change productivity in the areas adjacent to the power line corridor.

The existing effective soil cover within the PNF portion of the Project ranges from 70 to 93 percent. Hazard tree removal would occur within an approximate 78 acre area on the PNF. Approximately 0.019 acre would be disturbed on the PNF and approximately 0.008 acre would be disturbed on the TNF from power pole removal and replacement. SMMs and BMPs are designated to allow for adequate ground cover to minimize erosion and provide for organic matter to maintain productivity. In addition, practices conducted under this Project would be in full compliance with all Standards and Guidelines as outlined in the PNF LRMP and the TNF LRMP, as amended by the 2004 SNFPA ROD.

Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis - Soils (Proposed Action)

Direct and indirect effects of vegetation management activities, particularly ground-disturbing activities are assessed for soil resources. The potential CWE are based on the disturbed area within a cumulative effect analysis area using the ERA method.

For this Project, disturbance effects were reviewed, and based on the proposed activities and the size of the action within the subwatersheds, it was determined this Project would not result in disturbance effects that would amount to a change in the existing ERA. This is due to the small size and low disturbance potential for the Project and the implementation of manual vegetation control methods within the RCA, as well as proper implementation of BMPs and SMMs.

WATER & SOIL RESOURCE INDICATORS – PROPOSED ACTION

Direct and Indirect Effects of Fungicide Treatments (Proposed Action)

Indicator Measure – Changes to soil and water quality from fungicide treatment within the Watershed Analysis Area

39


A boron Fungicide (i.e., Sporax) would be applied to stumps six inches in diameter or greater cut within six inches of the ground to prevent the dissemination and spread of fungal spores of Heterobasidion annosum (Root rot). The potential for adverse effects of fungicide residues in soil and water would be minimized or eliminated by incorporating the SMMs and applying BMPs for herbicide application. There are potentially increased risks of boron entering surface water through overland flow when applied to slopes greater than 30 percent. However, it is expected that with the absence of direct application onto surface waters and implementation of BMPs and SMMs would likely reduce the likelihood of entry into surface waters.

Cumulative Effects of Fungicide Treatments – Proposed Action

A CWE analysis explores the potential for possible cumulative indirect effects on hydrologic function as a result of removing vegetative cover, ground disturbance, and soil compaction. Since the proposed fungicide treatments would not result in additional bare or compacted soil, the proposed herbicide treatments would not result in new ERAs that would change the results of the CWE ERA analysis. In addition, the HFQLG FSEIS determined through modeling the watershed effects of herbicide maintenance treatment would be small, relative to other disturbances within watersheds of the HFQLG pilot project area, and would not significantly increase CWE (USDA-Forest Service 2003). Cumulative effects associated with the application of boron fungicide are expected to be negligible to the detriment of water and soils within the Project Area.

WATER & SOIL RESOURCE INDICATORS – NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

Under the No Action Alternative, the Proposed Action would not occur. The deteriorating power poles would remain in place and the hazard trees threatening the 619 power line would be left in place. There would be no road maintenance activities resulting in an increased risk to erosion of the existing road prism during large flood events. In addition, if the existing roads are not improved, runoff would not be as dispersed and sources of road-generated sediment would not be corrected.

BOTANY

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ON SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES – PROPOSED ACTION

No sensitive species were observed within the proposed Project Area. No federally listed plant species or sensitive plant species tracked by PNF or TNF including Eriogonum microthecum var. schoolcraftii (Schoolcraft’s wild buckwheat) or Juncus luciensis (Santa Lucia dwarf rush) were observed. Marginal habitat for both species was identified but activities would not have an effect on habitat.

40


ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ON SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES – NO ACTION

ALTERNATIVE

Direct and Indirect Effects on Sensitive Plant Species (No Action Alternative)

Though there are not any direct effects from Project activities, there are possible negative indirect effects from the No Action Alternative. Indirect effects from the No Action Alternative would be those associated with continued live and dead fuel accumulation and potential arcing from transmission lines. By not taking action through vegetation removal, the canopy, wood and duff layer would not be reduced in the surrounding habitat of the 619 power line.



Cumulative effects for the No Action Alternative include no power line maintenance, vegetation removal, and risk of high-intensity fire. Historically, the eastside pine habitat would have experienced frequent low- to moderate-intensity fires as opposed to high intensity stand-replacing fires. Quantifying the threat a wildfire poses to the sensitive species habitat is difficult since many species are dependent on fire, but a stand-replacing wildfire may be detrimental.

Noxious weeds would continue to pose a threat, though not as likely to be introduced as they would be with the Proposed Action. Without Project activities to introduce weeds, introduction would be limited to other vectors such as firewood cutting, Christmas tree cutting, or wildfire suppression activities. Wildfire suppression activities are also likely to occur, but cannot be quantified since the location and intensity of a wildland fire cannot be predicted. The risk of introduction is much lower with no action.

Summary of Determinations for Both Alternatives

The Proposed Action and No Action Alternative would not affect sensitive plant habitat.

NOXIOUS WEEDS

KNOWN NOXIOUS WEEDS

The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) develops and maintains the State of California noxious weed list. The CDFA noxious weed ratings reflect CDFA's view of the

41


statewide importance of the pest, the likelihood that eradication or control efforts would be successful, and the present distribution of the pest within the state. The CDFA noxious weed list divides noxious weeds into categories AW, BW, and CW. AW-listed weeds are those for which eradication or containment is required at the state or county level. The eradication or containment of BW-listed weeds is at the discretion of the County Agricultural Commissioner. CW-listed weeds require eradication or containment only when found in a nursery or at the discretion of the County Agricultural Commissioner (NRCS 2014).

There are no known occurrences of the A-, B-, or C-listed weed species in the Project Area.

There are no known noxious weeds in the portions of the Beckwourth Ranger District and the Sierraville Ranger District that are likely to be transported into the Analysis Area by Project activities.

SUMMARY

There are no high-priority weeds located in the Project Area or the Analysis Area. However, there have been Centaurea maculosa (spotted knapweed), Centaurea solstitialis (yellow starthistle), and Lepidium latifolium (tall white-top) occurrences within 1.5 miles of the Project Area; however, activities associated with the Project are unlikely to overlap with these infestations.

The implementation of the Project is predicted to result in a low potential for weed introduction and spread if all standard operating procedures (SOPs) are adopted. SOPs and the design of the Proposed Action would decrease the risk associated with habitat alteration expected as a result of the Project. Habitat vulnerability and non-Project dependent vectors would not be changed by the SOPs. However, monitoring during and after Project implementation, avoidance of known noxious weed sites, and treatment of any noxious weed occurrences discovered during implementation would greatly reduce the chances of an uncontrollable spread of noxious weeds in the Project Area.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

The 619 Power Line Maintenance Project EA meets the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) by protecting cultural resources through a field survey, tribal consultation, and protection of sites in the Project Area. All known archaeological sites within the area of potential effect for the Project, were field visited, documented, and site boundaries were flagged for avoidance.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Project on Cultural Resources (Proposed Action)

Cultural resource site boundaries are flagged and Standard Operating Procedures would be followed during implementation of any of the action alternatives. As outlined in the Programmatic Agreement, protection measures would be implemented, as appropriate, for all

42


cultural resources located within the Project Area. The application of the protection measures would result in the Project having “no effect” on cultural resources and the USFS would have taken into account the effect of the Project on cultural resource sites in compliance with the PA and Section 106 of the NHPA. In addition, all artifacts and features would be avoided during project implementation therefore there would be no effect on cultural resources.


There would be no direct or indirect effects to cultural resources from the Project; therefore, there would be no cumulative effects.

Direct and Indirect Effects on Cultural Resources (No Action)

With no proposed activity, there would be no effect to cultural resources.

Cumulative Effects (No Action)

There would be no direct or indirect effects to cultural resources from any of the alternatives; therefore, there would be no cumulative effects.

LEGAL REGULATORY COMPLIANCE AND CONSULTATION

The Beckwourth and Sierraville Ranger Districts operate under a diverse array of local, state and federal management guidance and policy as well as various executive orders.

Currently, the Beckwourth Ranger District is guided by the Plumas National Forest 1988 LRMP as amended by the 2004 SNFPA FSEIS and ROD. The Sierraville Ranger District is guided by the Tahoe National Forest 1990 LRMP, also as amended by the 2004 SNFPA FSEIS and ROD.

PRINCIPLE ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS

National Environmental Policy Act The CEQ regulations for implementing the NEPA requires that federal agencies rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives and briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives not developed in detail (40 CFR § 1502.14).

The 619 Power Line Maintenance Project EA meets the CEQ regulations requiring public scoping and a thorough analysis of issues, alternatives, and effects.

National Forest Management Act

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) reorganized, expanded and otherwise amended the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, which called for the management of renewable resources on national forest lands. The NFMA requires the Secretary of Agriculture to assess forest lands, develop a management plan for each unit of the NFS lands.

43


The USFS is complying with the provisions of this law by designing the Project to meet the Standards and Guidelines of the PNF 1988 LRMP and the TNF 1990 LRMP and their amendments.

Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 United States Code 1531 et seq.) (ESA) requires any action authorized by a federal agency not be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a TES, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species that is determined to be critical. Section 7 of the ESA, as amended, requires the responsible federal agency to consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service concerning TES under their jurisdiction. It is USFS policy to analyze impacts to TES to ensure management activities not be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a TES, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species that is determined to be critical. This assessment is documented in a BA/BE and is summarized or referenced in Chapter 3.

WILDLIFE AND FISHERIES

Consultation with USFWS

Section 7 consultation with the USFWS was not required for the Project. A list of TES was provided by the “Federal Endangered and Threatened Species that may be affected by projects on the Plumas National Forest (updated January 13, 2015) and the Tahoe National Forest (updated January 15, 2015),” accessed via USFWS county list web page at http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/ES_Species/Lists/es_species_lists_NF-action-page.cfm, was used for the analysis. Based on the analysis conducted in the BA/BE, it was determined no effects to listed species would occur from implementation of the Project; therefore, no consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, was required.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife

Input specific to the Project was solicited from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) through the public scoping process. However, since no input was received, all past advice from the CDFW was considered during the planning of the Project.

BOTANY

Prior to conducting field surveys, Overlin Botanical Consulting compiled a list of sensitive plant species known within the vicinity of the Project by conducting a nine quadrangle database search of the Project Area (California Natural Diversity Database [CNDDB] 2014). Additional species lists and information reviewed in preparation for field surveys included the California state noxious weeds lists (NRCS 2014), the USFS Region 5 Sensitive species list (USDA-Forest Service 2013a) and the USFWS species list for Plumas County obtained from the USFWS website (USFWS 2015). This list fulfills the requirements to provide a current species list pursuant to Section 7(c) of the ESA, as amended.

44

http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/ES_Species/Lists/es_species_lists_NF-action-page.cfm


The only federally Threatened plant species known to occur on the PNF is Packera layneae (Layne’s butterweed). This species grows in open rocky areas on gabbro and serpentine-derived soils between 650 and 3,300 feet in elevation above mean sea level. The PNF has four occurrences, totaling approximately 12 acres. There is no suitable habitat for this species within or near the Project Area. Two additional species of federal concern that have the potential to occur on the PNF are the federally Threatened Orcuttia tenuis (slender Orcutt grass) and the Candidate species Ivesia webberi (Webber's ivesia). Orcuttia tenuis is limited to relatively deep vernal pools with clay soil. Ivesia webberi is found in open areas of sandy volcanic ash to gravelly soils in sagebrush and eastside pine. Based on field surveys, no suitable habitat for these two species occurs within the Project Area. In addition, these plant species were not observed during field surveys.

The only federally Threatened plant species known to occur on the TNF is Calystegia stebbinsii (Stebbins’ morning glory) and Packera layneae (Layne’s butterweed). The Project Area does not have suitable habitat for either of these species.

No TES occur within the Project Area; therefore, a BA was not required.

CLEAN WATER ACT

Section 208 of the Clean Water Act required each state of the union prepare non-point source pollution plans, which were to be certified by the state and approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In response to this law and in coordination with the State of California Water Resources Control Board and EPA, Region 5 began developing BMPs for water quality management planning on NFS lands within the State of California in 1975.

The Project meets the Clean Water Act by implementing the BMPs of the Soil and Water Conservation Handbook. By using BMPs, the Project meets this Act according to the ROD of the SNFPA (Section VII, ROD of the SNFPA).

NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT

Section 101 of the NEPA requires the federal government to preserve important historic, cultural and natural aspects of our natural heritage. To accomplish this, federal agencies utilize the Section 106 process of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). This process has been codified in 36 CFR 800 Subpart B. The coordination or linkage between the Section 106 process of the NHPA and the mandate to preserve our national heritage under NEPA is well understood and is formally established in 36 CFR 800.3b and 800.8. Locally, the Plumas National Forest uses the Programmatic Agreement Among the U.S.D.A Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), California State Historic Preservation Officer, Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the Processes for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for Management of Historic Properties by the National Forests of the Pacific Southwest Region (USDA-Forest Service 2013b) to implement the Section 106 process.

45


EXECUTIVE ORDERS

Consultation and coordination with Indian Tribal governments, Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000

The following tribes were consulted during the NEPA scoping phase of the Project beginning on April 23, 2015:

Washoe Tribe of California and Nevada Susanville Indian Rancheria Greenville Rancheria Maidu Summit Consortium

Indian Sacred Sites, Executive Order 13007 of May 24, 1996

Through scoping and consulting with local Native American tribes, it was determined by District Archeologist there were no known Indian sacred sites in the Project.

Invasive Species, Executive Order 13112 of February 3, 1999

Executive Order 13112 created the Invasive Species Council (ISC) in order to prevent the introduction of invasive species, provide for their control and minimize the economic, ecological and human health impacts that invasive species cause. Federal agencies are required to complete the following:

Identify actions that may affect the status of invasive species; Use relevant programs and authorities to prevent the introduction, control and monitoring

of invasive species; Provide for native species restoration as well as their habitats; Promote public information; Not condone or carry out actions that may spread invasive species; and Consult with the ISC and other stakeholders as appropriate.

The Project meets the Executive Order by following the noxious weed management Standards and Guidelines in Appendix A of the ROD for SNFPA. The SNFPA guidelines direct proactive management of noxious weeds that meet with the Executive Order. District botanists carried out the intent of the Executive Order and the noxious weeds Standards and Guides by the following:

Consulting with a ISC representative;

Identifying and controlling weed infestation areas;

Preventing the spread of noxious weeds through SOPs and site-specific mitigation; and

Educating the public regarding the presence and spread of noxious weeds.

46


Floodplain Management, Executive Order 11988 of May 24, 1977, and Protection of Wetlands, Executive Order 11990 of May 24, 1977

Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 require federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, short- and long-term effects resulting from the occupancy and modification of flood plains and the modification or destruction of wetlands. These executive orders are intended to preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains and wetlands.

The Project meets these executive orders by implementing the BMPs of the Soil and Water Conservation Handbook. By using BMPs, the Project meets the executive orders according to the ROD of the SNFPA (Section VII, ROD of the SNFPA).

Environmental Justice, Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994

Executive Order 12898 requires that federal agencies make achieving environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects of their programs, policies and activities on minority and low-income populations.

Although low-income and minority populations are within the vicinity of the Project, activities associated with the Project would not discriminate against them. Proposed activities would not adversely affect community, social, economic and health and safety factors. Public scoping was conducted in accordance with NEPA regulations to identify any potential issues or hazards associated with the Project.

Special Area Designations

The selected alternative would need to comply with laws, regulations and policies that pertain to the following special areas:

Research Natural Areas

There are no Research Natural Areas with the Project Area.

Inventoried Roadless Areas

There are no Inventoried Roadless Areas within the Project Area.

Wilderness Areas

There are no Wilderness Areas within the Project Area.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

There are no Wild and Scenic Rivers in the Project Area.

47


Municipal Watersheds (Forest Service Manual [FSM] 2540)

There are no Municipal Watersheds in the Project Area.

48


CHAPTER 4 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

INTRODUCTION

The USFS operates under the ESA, which requires consultation with the USFWS regarding impacts to potential endangered species from the Proposed Action and the action alternatives. Consultation is also done with local federally recognized Tribes to ensure that heritage resources are respected and would not be impacted by any potential Project activities.

FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES

Regional Water Quality Control Board City of Portola, California Plumas County

TRIBAL CONSULTATION

Washoe Tribe of California and Nevada Greenville Rancheria Susanville Indian Rancheria Maidu Summit Consortium

49


REFERENCES

REPORTS PREPARED FOR THE 619 POWER LINE MAINTENANCE PROJECT

Drews. 2015. Addendum to A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Liberty Utilities CalPECo 619 Line Replacement, Plumas County, California, HRM # 01-03-204. On file at the Beckwourth Ranger District office Heritage Resource files.

Drews, Hall, and Parrish. 2014. A Class III Cultural Resource Inventory for the Liberty Utilities CalPECo 619 Line Replacement, Plumas County, California, HRM # 01-03-204. On file at the Beckwourth Ranger District office Heritage Resource files.

Enviroscientists, Inc. (Enviroscientists). 2015a. Liberty Utilities 619 Power Line Maintenance Project Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Report. Reviewed by Debbie Bliss, Wildlife Biologist, Beckwourth Ranger District, Plumas National Forest.

_____. 2015b. Liberty Utilities 619 Power Line Maintenance Project Management Indicator Species Report. Reviewed by Debbie Bliss, Wildlife Biologist, Beckwourth Ranger District, Plumas National Forest.

_____. 2015c. Liberty Utilities 619 Power Line Maintenance Project Migratory Bird Species Report. Reviewed by Debbie Bliss, Wildlife Biologist, Beckwourth Ranger District, Plumas National Forest.

_____. 2015d. Liberty Utilities 619 Power Line Maintenance Project Soils and Water Resource Effects Assessment. Reviewed by Antonio Dueñas, Hydrologist, Beckwourth Ranger District, Plumas National Forest.

Overlin Botanical Consulting. 2015a. Liberty Utilities 619 Power Line Maintenance Project Biological Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive Plant Species. Reviewed by Michael Friend, Botanist, Beckwourth Ranger District, Plumas National Forest.

_____. 2015b. Liberty Utilities 619 Power Line Maintenance Project Noxious Weed Risk Assessment. Reviewed by Michael Friend, Botanist, Beckwourth Ranger District, Plumas National Forest.

OTHER REFERENCES CITED

California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2014. California Natural Diversity Database, Rarefind. California Department of Fish and Game. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/.

50

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb


Liberty Utilities (LU). 2014a. 619 Power Line – Maintenance Plan Proposal, Plumas National Forest. Original Submittal January 2014.

_____. 2014b. 619 Power Line Pole Maintenance Plan 2014, Tahoe National Forest. Original Submittal January 2014.

_____. 2015a. Operations and Maintenance Annual Plan – 2015: Scheduled Maintenance Activities on Liberty Utilities’ Electric Distribution Facilities on the Plumas National Forest.

_____. 2015b. Operations and Maintenance Annual Plan – 2015: Scheduled Maintenance Activities on Liberty Utilities’ Electric Distribution Facilities on the Tahoe National Forest.

Richardson, C. T. and C. K. Miller. 1997. Recommendations for Protecting Raptors from Human Disturbance: A Review. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:634-638.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. (Syracuse). 2006. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for Borax (Sporax) Final Report. February 24, 2006.

Troendle, C.A. et al. 2007. Final Report: The Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Project – Impacts of Vegetation Management on Water Yield. USDA-Forest Service.

United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA-Forest Service). 1988. Plumas National Forest – Land and Resource Management Plan.

_____. 1990. Tahoe National Forest – Land and Resource Management Plan.

_____. 2003. Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision. USDA-Forest Service, Quincy, CA.

_____. 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Supplement Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision. USDA-Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA.

_____. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands (Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide) FS-990a.

______. 2013a. Region 5 Regional Forester's 2013 Sensitive Plant Species List. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo, California. http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/r5/plants-animals.

51

http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/r5/plants-animals


_____. 2013b. Programmatic Agreement Among the U.S.D.A Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), California State Historic Preservation Officer, Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the Processes for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for Management of Historic Properties by the National Forests of the Pacific Southwest Region.

United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). 2014. California State-listed Noxious Weeds. Available online at: https://plants.usda.gov/java/noxious?rptType=State&statefips=06.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015a. Federal Endangered and Threatened Species that Occur in or May Be Affected by Projects in the Plumas National Forest. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. Database last updated: April 8, 2015. http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/spp_lists/NFFormPage.htm

Young, David. 2011. 2010 HFQLG Soil Monitoring Report. Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Implementation Team.

52

http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/spp_lists/NFFormPage.htm

https://plants.usda.gov/java/noxious?rptType=State&statefips=06


APPENDIX A: STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

The following Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) apply unless specifically allowed for in the environmental analysis.

WATERSHED

Protect water quality through the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs), which are employed by the USFS and the State of California to prevent water quality degradation and to meet state water quality objectives relating to non-point sources of pollution. In addition, use site-specific mitigation measures that relate directly to these BMPs to minimize erosion and resultant sedimentation. Apply the standards and guidelines identified in the 2004 SNFPA Record of Decision (ROD) relating to treatment of fuels and associated project activities in all Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs).

RIPARIAN CONSERVATION AREAS – DESIGNATION

Perennial Streams: 300 feet on each side of the stream, measured from the bank full edge of the stream

Seasonally Flowing Streams (including intermittent and ephemeral streams): 150 feet on each side of the stream, measured from the bank full edge of the stream

Streams in Inner Gorge1: top of inner gorge

Special Aquatic Features2 or Perennial Streams with Riparian Conditions extending more than 150 feet from edge of streambank or Seasonally Flowing streams with riparian conditions extending more than 50 feet from edge of streambank: 300 feet from edge of feature or riparian vegetation, whichever is greater

Other hydrological or topographical depressions without a defined channel: 50 feet from edge of feature or riparian vegetation, whichever is greater.

RIPARIAN CONSERVATION AREAS – TREATMENT (EXCLUDING ASPEN/COTTONWOOD

UNITS)

Ground Based Harvesting Soil Conditions: See the section below on Soil Protection Measures.

Mechanical Equipment Use in RCAs: Equipment use within RCAs will be restricted from ELZs. ELZ widths, measured on each side of the RCA feature (e.g. edge of the active channel,

1 Inner gorge is defined by stream adjacent slopes greater than 70 percent gradient.

2 Special Aquatic Features include: lakes, meadows, bogs, fens, wetlands, vernal pools, and springs.

53


wet perimeter of the soil, etc.) or riparian vegetation, whichever is greater. Equipment limitation zone widths per RCA type are listed below:

Riparian Conservation Area Type Equipment Limitation Zone Width (Feet)

Perennial Streams 100 feet from edge of feature or to edge of riparian

vegetation, whichever is greater Seasonally Flowing Streams (includes intermittent 50 feet from edge of feature or to edge of riparian

and ephemeral) vegetation, whichever is greater 3 Streams in Inner Gorge Top of Inner Gorge

Special Aquatic Features 50 feet from the edge of the feature or riparian vegetation Other hydrological or topographic depressions without a defined channel

25 feet from edge of feature or riparian vegetation

Machinery can work adjacent and reach into the limitation zone with the extendable boom. RCA crossings would be permissible upon consultation with District watershed department staff. Crossings will be fully restored after use. No skidding would be allowed in the RCAs.

Slope Restrictions: All mechanical equipment would be restricted to slopes up to 35 percent within the RCAs.

Bank Stability: Remove no trees adjacent to channels that provide bank stability and/or contribute to channel integrity (except for hazard trees).

Landing Location: Minimize landing location in RCAs. Landings would generally not be within 100 feet of the stream course. The District watershed department staff would approve, on a site-specific basis, landings that need to be closer than 100 feet of a stream course.

Skid Trail and Temporary Road Locations: Skid trails may be allowed within RCA ELZs on a case-by-case basis with permission of the District watershed department staff and would generally only be allowed for crossing stream courses. Within the RCA, but outside of the ELZ, skid trails would be perpendicular to the stream course within 50 feet of the stream and spacing of skids would be no closer than 120 feet. Do not locate skid trails parallel to the bottom of swales. Treat swales as stream courses, crossing at right angles and skidding away from these features. Temporary roads would generally not be allowed within RCAs unless authorized by District watershed department staff.

Restoring Landings: Where specified by the District watershed department staff, existing and activity related disruptions in landings would be restored to their natural contour. This would occur during subsoiling operations. These landings would be tilled, seeded, mulched after use and available slash would be spread out across landing to improve infiltration and minimize erosion upon site visit. Subsoil and mulch landings and other disturbances within 200 feet of

3 Inner gorge is defined by stream adjacent slopes greater than 70 percent gradient.

54


55

stream channels. Areas within 50 feet of the meadow edges would not be subsoiled. All project subsoiling activities within RCAs are to be approved by the District watershed department staff prior to subsoiling. Reference: BMP 1-12

Restoring Skid Trails & Temporary Roads: Where specified by the District watershed department staff, skid trails and temporary roads would be restored to their natural contour or subsoiled (see the section below on Subsoiling Specifications). Where available, slash would be spread out across the restored skid trails and temporary roads. Areas within 50 feet of the meadow edges would not be subsoiled unless otherwise agreed upon by the District watershed department staff. Stabilize and strategically place water bars on skid trails and temporary roads where drainage control issues are evident or expected. After use, barricade temporary roads to discourage vehicle traffic, using available natural materials such as rocks, logs, root wads and earth, to appear somewhat natural, have low installation costs and require little to no maintenance. All project subsoiling activities within RCAs are to be approved by the District watershed department staff prior to subsoiling.

Slash near Stream Courses: Remove any slash outside of RCAs that are generated by project activities as soon as practicable, not exceeding 48 hours.

Hazard Tree Removal in RCAs: With case-by-case permission of the project Sale or Contract Administrator, hazard trees may be hand-felled and left in place or removed from RCAs in a manner that minimizes disturbance to the RCA. Mechanical entry would be subject to the ELZs described above. No skidding would be allowed in RCAs.

Fungicide Application: Borate compound shall not be applied during heavy rain fall or when such precipitation rate is predicted within four hours. Borate compound also shall not be applied to stumps located within five feet of live stream courses and special aquatic features.

ASPEN/COTTONWOOD TREATMENT

Mechanical Equipment Use in RCAs: Equipment use within RCAs will be restricted within 15 feet on each side of the RCA feature (e.g. edge of the active channel, wet perimeter of the soil, etc.) or riparian vegetation, whichever is greater. Mechanical equipment will be allowed to work adjacent to this exclusion zone and reach in with an extendable boom. Skid trails will be perpendicular to the stream course within 50 feet of the stream and spacing of skids will be no closer than 120 feet. No trees will be removed that are providing stability to the streambank. These units will be harvested in dry periods when the upper eight inches of the soil is essentially dry. For this measure soil is defined as “dry” when no portion can be molded by hand compression and hold that shape when the hand is tapped. Additionally, these units can be treated when the ground is frozen to a depth of five inches or snow depth is at least 18 inches or is snow is compacted by equipment to eight inches.


SOIL PROTECTION MEASURES

Ground Cover: The Project standard for ground cover for the proposed treatment units will be dependent upon the soil EHRs within the unit. The Soil Resource Inventory for Plumas National Forest indicates that the maximum Erosion Hazard Rating for soils within the proposed treatment areas is moderate (50 percent) to high (60 percent) (USDA 1988c). If multiple EHRs existing within a treatment unit then 60 percent ground cover would be applied.

Wet Weather and Winter Harvest Operations: Conduct ground based harvest operations when soil is dry; that is, in the spring when soil moisture in the upper eight inches is not sufficient to allow a soil sample to be squeezed and hold its shape, or will crumble when the hand is tapped. In the summer and early fall after storm event(s) when soil moisture between two to eight inches in depth is not sufficient to allow a soil sample to be squeezed and hold its shape, or will crumble when the hand is tapped. Winter harvest operations may occur only when the ground is frozen to a depth of five inches or over eight inches of well packed snow.

Slope Restrictions: Allow low ground pressure (under 8.0 psi when “unloaded”) excavators to work on slopes up to 45 percent to pile excess fuels. All other mechanical equipment would be restricted to slopes that are equal to or less than 35 percent with exception of units 125 and 126, where slopes would be restricted to 45 percent.

Skid Trails: Restrict skidding equipment to designated skid trails, unless, through consultation with the District watershed department staff, it is determined that departure from skid trails would not likely impair the soil or the operator is using low ground pressure (under 8.0 psi) harvesting equipment to travel off designated skid trails to bring logs to trails. Generally use skid trail spacing averaging 100 feet, center to center, when trails are parallel and generally perpendicular to the stream. Reusing existing skid trails, with spacing closer than prescribed, is acceptable.

Restoring Landings, Skid Trails & Temporary Roads: Unless otherwise agreed to by the District watershed department staff and sale administrator and based upon subsoiling specification listed below, landings, skid trail approaches to landings (to a distance of 200 feet), and new temporary roads would be subsoiled to restore compaction. Vehicle access to temporary roads and selected skid trails would be blocked and water bars would be installed prior to subsoiling operations. When landings and temporary roads are planned for subsoiling, recovery of topsoil displaced during construction would be considered. Where possible, recontour temporary roads to the natural hillside contour in place of subsoiling. Additionally, where available, slash would be spread out across the restored landing, skid trails and temporary roads.

Subsoiling Specifications: Subsoiling to 18 inches minimum depth would occur on skid trails and 24 inches minimum depth on temporary roads and landings within the same year as harvest unless otherwise agreed to by the District watershed department staff and sale administrator. The

56


subsoiler would be lifted where substantial root and bole damage to larger trees would occur from subsoiling. Skids with slope over 25 percent may not be approved for subsoiling but would be frequently water barred per project BMPs. Subsoiling would not occur on shallow soils where the displacement of rocks disrupts soil horizons or where there are concerns about the spread of root disease, or damage to tree roots. Subsoiling skid trails within harvest units on coarse textured soils (USDA texture classes: sands, loamy coarse sands; and coarse sandy loams with less than five percent clay content) that have developed from granitic parent material would generally not be recommended by the District watershed department staff.

TRANSPORTATION

Stream Crossings: Design all new stream crossings to accommodate a 100-year flood and provide fish passage as necessary.

Water Bars: Stabilize and strategically place water bars on temporary roads where drainage control issues are evident or expected.

Dust Abatement: Abate dust from logging traffic with water selected from water drafting sites that have suitable stream flow and access. When water is scarce, use alternative sources such as chlorite, sulfonate or other dust abatement materials.

Drafting Sites: New or existing water draft sites would be evaluated with the Beckwourth Ranger District Biologist prior to changes or use. Drafting sites shall be visually surveyed for amphibians and their eggs before drafting begins. Estimate maximum drawdown volumes prior to using the draft site. Maintain minimum pool levels during drafting using measurements such as staff gauges, stadia rods, tape measures, etc. Construct water-drafting sites so that oil, diesel fuel, or other spilled pollutants would not enter the stream. Back down ramps would be constructed and or maintained to ensure the streambank stability is maintained and sedimentation is minimized. Rocking, chipping, mulching, or other effective methods are highly recommended to achieve this objective. As necessary, earthen or log berm, straw waffle, certified hay or rice straw bale berms, or other containment structures would be constructed at the bank full water line to protect the stream bank. Forest personnel and contractors shall use the USFS approved suction strainer (FSM 5161) or other foot vales with screens having openings less than 2mm in size at the end of drafting hoses. The suction strainer shall be inserted close to the substrate in the deepest water available; the suction strainer shall be placed on a shovel, over plastic sheeting, or in a canvas bucket to avoid uptake of substrate or aquatic biota. “Mucked out” debris, bedload sediment, etc. shall be transported to an appropriate disposal site (to be designated) if no apparent site is feasible.

57


SILVICULTURE

Borax Application: Treat all freshly cut conifer stumps greater than 14 inches in diameter with a borate compound within four hours of cutting the trees to prevent the introduction and spread of annosus root disease. Within Recreation Areas, apply borate compound within four hours to all pine and true fir cut stumps greater than three inches in diameter.

Genetic Stock Protection: Protect trees identified or trees being tested as genetically superior or resistant to blister rust or dwarf mistletoe.

BOTANY

Protection for Plant Species: Protect known Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive and Special Interest plant species according to Plumas National Forest current interim management prescriptions for specific species. If additional protected plant species are found during the life of the Project, conduct an assessment and apply appropriate management prescriptions.

INVASIVE SPECIES MANAGEMENT

Recommended standard management requirements (SMRs) were developed in accordance with the direction set forth in FSM 2900, as well as the standards and guidelines in Appendix A of the ROD for SNFPA:

PREVENTION

1. Require all off-road equipment and vehicles (USFS and contracted) used for Project implementation to be weed-free. Clean all equipment and vehicles of all attached mud, dirt and plant parts at a vehicle washing station or steam cleaning facility before the equipment and vehicles enter the Project Area. Cleaning is not required for vehicles that would stay on the roadway. In addition, clean all off-road equipment prior to leaving areas infested with noxious weeds.

2. Make every effort to ensure that all materials (i.e. gravel, fill, mulches, etc.) used on the NFS are free of invasive species and/or noxious weeds. Use onsite sand, gravel, rock or organic matter where possible. Encourage use of certified weed free hay and straw. Where states have legislative authority to certify materials as weed-free (or invasive free) and have an active State program to make those State-certified materials available to the public, rules shall be developed that restrict the possession, use, and transport of those materials unless proof exists that they have been State certified.

58


CONTROL

Early Detection and Rapid Response (EDRR): Inventory and survey so as to quickly detect invasive species infestations, and subsequently implement immediate and specific actions to eradicate those infestations before they become established and/or spread. Coordinate detection and response with internal and external partners. EDRR actions are grouped into three main categories: early detection, rapid assessment, and rapid response.

RESTORATION/REVEGETATION

1. Pro-actively manage aquatic and terrestrial areas of the NFS to increase the ability of those areas to be self-sustaining and resistant (resilience) to the establishment of invasive species. Where necessary, implement restoration, rehabilitation, and/or revegetation activities following invasive species treatments to prevent or reduce the likelihood of the reoccurrence or spread of invasive species.

2. Where restoration, rehabilitation, or revegetation activities are planned, 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. All activities that require seeding or planting will need to use only locally collected native seed sources. Plant and seed material should be collected from as close to the Project Area as possible, from within the same watershed and at a similar elevation whenever possible. Persistent non-natives such as timothy, orchard- grass, or ryegrass will be avoided. This will implement the USFS Region 5 policy that directs the use of native plant material for revegetation and restoration for maintaining "the overall national goal of conserving the biodiversity, health, productivity, and sustainable use of forest, rangeland, and aquatic ecosystems."

WILDLIFE

Wildlife Limited Operating Periods: Unless determined to be unnecessary following pre-implementation surveys, limited operating periods (LOPs) to protect key wildlife species listed in the 2004 SNFPA ROD (pages 54-62) and the Biological Evaluation/Biological Assessment would apply.

New Wildlife Findings: Where subsequent surveys identify occupied threatened, endangered, or sensitive species habitat, establish PACs, den site buffers, or other protections as described in the SNFPA FSEIS. Include protections for any additional sensitive species identified in the BE/BA. In the event of a verified TES species occurrence after Project award, the appropriate LOPs

59


would apply. Other mitigations may take place as agreed upon by the Sale Administrator and District Wildlife Biologist.

Known Populations: In areas of known populations of TES amphibians, apply direction from the SNFPA ROD. Apply additional protection measures as follows: do not burn slash piles within RCAs during the LOP and when burned, assure that 1) no fuel is dumped on the pile and fuses or a single torch is used to light the pile and 2) light piles from a single location rather than multiple locations, allowing sheltering amphibians to escape.

DOWNED WOOD AND SNAGS

Downed wood and snag retention would follow the Standards and Guides in Table 2 of the 2004 SNFPA ROD.

Downed Wood: Within westside vegetation types, generally retain an average of ten - 15 tons (> 15 inch diameter) of large downed wood per acre over the treatment unit. Within eastside vegetation types, an average of three large down logs would generally be retained per acre. In areas considered deficient in large woody debris, wherever possible leave cull logs at the stump rather than being skidded to the landing. The Sale Administrator and the District Wildlife Biologist would agree upon the location and amount.

Snags: Snag retention levels would be determined on an individual, project basis; however, they would consider the guidelines set forth in the Standards and Guides (USDA-Forest Service 2004). The Guidelines state that projects would retain four of the largest snags per acre in westside mixed conifer and ponderosa pine types; six of the largest snags per acre in the red fir forest type; three of the largest snags per acre in the eastside and eastside pine types; and four of the largest snags in westside hardwood ecosystems. Wherever possible, use snags larger than 15 inches dbh to meet these guidelines.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

The proposed Project has the potential to affect cultural resources. The following protection measures will be implemented, as appropriate, for all cultural resources located within the Project Area. The application of the following protection measures from the Regional Programmatic Agreement (USDA-Forest Service 2013b) would result in the Project having “no effect” on cultural resources and the Forest would have taken into account the effect of the Project on cultural resource sites in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA.

If any unrecorded cultural resources (artifacts, features or sites) are encountered as a result of Project operations, all activities in the vicinity of such finds will immediately cease pending an examination by the Forest or District Archaeologist.

60


At a minimum, cultural resource sites shall be avoided where activities associated with the Project will occur.

1. All proposed undertakings shall avoid cultural resource sites. Avoidance means that no activities associated with the Project that may affect cultural resource sites shall occur within a site’s boundaries, including any defined buffer zones. Portions of undertakings may need to be modified, redesigned, or eliminated to avoid cultural resource sites.

2. All known cultural resource sites within the area of potential effect shall be clearly delineated prior to implementing any associated activities that have the potential to affect cultural resource sites.

3. Buffer zones may be established to ensure added protection where the Forest or District Archaeologist determines that they are necessary. The use of buffer zones may be applicable where setting contributes to the property’s eligibility under 36 CFR 60.4, or where it may be an important attribute of some types of cultural resource sites (e.g., historic buildings or structures with associated historic landscapes; or traditional cultural properties important to Native Americans). The size of buffer zones shall be determined by the Forest or District Archaeologist on a case-by-case basis.

4. When any changes in proposed activities are necessary to avoid historic properties (e.g., Project modifications, redesign, or elimination; removing old or confusing project markings or engineering stakes within site boundaries; or revising maps or changing specifications), these changes shall be completed prior to initiating any Project activities.

5. Monitoring by heritage program specialists may be used to enhance the effectiveness of protection measures.

6. The Forest or District Archaeologist may approve the use of mechanical equipment to remove brush or woody material from within specifically identified areas within site boundaries under prescribed measures designed to prevent or minimize effects. Vegetative or other protective padding may be used in conjunction with the Forest or District Archeologist authorization of certain equipment types within site boundaries.

7. Upon approval of the Forest or District Archaeologist, existing breaches within linear sites may be designated on the ground and reused for Project activities.

8. Roads and trails that currently overlie historic linear sites may continue to be used as transportation routes without notification. However, if there are activities that will change

61


the morphology of the existing road or trail (that is overlaying a historic linear site), these activities need to be reviewed by the Forest or District Archaeologist.

9. Roads proposed to be decommissioned.

10. Vegetation may be removed within sites using hand tools, so long as ground disturbance is minimized and features are avoided. The removed vegetation shall not be piled within site boundaries unless the location has been specifically approved by the Forest or District Archaeologist.

IMPLEMENTATION

NEPA and Implementation: Within the Project contract area, allow minor adjustments in boundaries of units if compatible with Forest Plan direction, the desired conditions and anticipated environmental effects disclosed by the Project’s NEPA document.

62


APPENDIX B: CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS DISPLAYING

PRESENT AND FORESEEABLE PROJECTS ON THE 619 POWER

LINE MAINTENANCE PROJECT

INTRODUCTION

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

In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the Proposed Action and alternatives, this analysis, with the exception of hydrology, relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. This cumulative effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human actions by adding up all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. There are several reasons for not taking this approach. First, a catalog and analysis of all past actions would be impractical to compile and unduly costly to obtain. Current conditions have been impacted by innumerable actions over the last century and trying to isolate the individual actions that continue to have residual impacts would be nearly impossible. Second, providing the details of past actions on an individual basis would not be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the Proposed Action or alternatives. In fact, focusing on individual actions would be less accurate than looking at existing conditions, because there is limited information on the environmental impacts of individual past actions, and one cannot reasonably identify each and every action over the last century that has contributed to current conditions. Additionally, focusing on the impacts of past human actions may ignore the important residual effects of past natural events, which may contribute to cumulative effects just as much as human actions. By looking at current conditions, we are sure to capture all the residual effects of past human actions and natural events, regardless of which particular action or event contributed those effects. Third, the CEQ issued an interpretive memorandum on June 24, 2005, regarding analysis of past actions, which states, “agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical details of individual past actions.” For these reasons, the analysis of past actions in this section is based on current environmental conditions.

Most of the specialists use the aforementioned cumulative effects analysis rationale, with the exception of watershed, where past actions over a 30-year period are used as an input to the ERA analysis model.

The cumulative effects analysis areas vary depending on the specialist doing the analysis.

Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Area (1,314 acres) – Project Area plus a 0.25-mile buffer

63


Aquatic Wildlife Analysis Area (16,445 acres) – three subwatersheds where the Project Area is located

Watershed Analysis Area (3,973 acres) – two subwatersheds delineated by PNF hydrologist

Noxious Weeds Analysis Area - one-mile buffer around Project Area

Table B - 1 is a compilation of the present and future-foreseeable actions that may be occurring within the largest combined extent of all of the cumulative effects analysis areas combined.

Table B-1: Present and Future Foreseeable Projects

Project Name

PNF or TNF

Year Acres Treatment Type Miscellaneous

Present and Future-Foreseeable Projects Fuelwood Gathering

PNF and TNF

2012 Entire District 148 commercial woodcutting permits for 1,133 cords of wood. 885 personal woodcutting permits for 2,764 cords of wood

Typically cord wood consists of downed logs within the forest, along forest roads, and within cull decks created by past logging operations, or as standing snags

Christmas Tree Cutting Program

TNF 2012 Entire District 4,425 permits This consists of the trees ≤ 6 inches in diameter (measured at the ground) being removed generally along or within a short distance from open roads

Recreation PNF and TNF

Entire District Dispersed camping, hunting, fishing, hiking, mining and OHV use

64

liberty utilities 619 power line maintenance project...

Documents