north 49 forest health recovery...

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Lassen

National Forest

April 2008

North 49 Forest Health Recovery Project

Record of Decision

And

Final Environmental Impact Statement

This document is available in large print.

Contact the Lassen National Forest

Hat Creek Ranger District

1-530-336-5521

TDD Available, use general number

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Cover photo: Lassen Peak from Manzanita Chutes, North 49 Project, N Brown, photographer

Record of Decision

North 49 Forest Health Recovery Project ROD-i

Final Environmental Impact Statement for the North 49 Forest Health Recovery Project

Record of Decision

Preface

This Record of Decision (ROD) is the legal documentation for my decision to implement Alternative

7 as described in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the North 49 Forest Health Recovery

Project. In accordance with the planning regulations under which this project was prepared, I am the

responsible official for this decision. I do not take this responsibility lightly. Although, the decision is

mine, the project represents a very significant team effort. The analysis draws heavily on the expertise

of our professional staff and the insight of many members of the public who care deeply about the

lands we have been entrusted to manage.

I have reviewed the expected environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives. I have

also carefully considered public comments and feedback generated during the internal review of the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Alternative 7 was shaped by public input and

additional work by the planning team to improve upon the original proposal.

This decision is the result of the positive and productive relationships that evolved during the

planning process and the important contributions from all who participated. Several citizens

interacted with members of the planning team during meetings and field trips held throughout the

process. Collaboration with local governments, state and federal agencies, the Pit River Tribal

Council, and various interest groups resulted in valuable contributions to the planning effort. We have

listened. Your input is reflected in this decision and the confidence I have in making it.

Thank you for working with us throughout this planning effort. I am counting on your continued

engagement in the years to come as we work to improve forest health, increase the diversity of

vegetation types and wildlife habitats in the forest, and contribute to the economic well-being of local

communities.

Kathleen S. Morse

Forest Supervisor

Lassen National Forest

RECORD OF DECISION Table of Contents

Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 1 Background .......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose of and Need for Action ........................................................................................................................... 1

Need to Improve Fire-resiliency ..................................................................................................................... 1 Need to Improve Forest Health ..................................................................................................................... 2 Improve Forest Diversity ................................................................................................................................ 2

Public Involvement ................................................................................................................................. 2 Issue Development ........................................................................................................................................ 3

Decision ................................................................................................................................................... 3

Reasons for Decision ............................................................................................................................. 3 Reasons for not choosing Alternative 1, Proposed Action ................................................................................... 5 Reasons for not choosing Alternative 2, No Action ............................................................................................. 6 Reasons for not choosing Alternative 3, Modified Proposed Action .................................................................... 6

Findings Related to Other National Policies, Law and Authorities .................................................... 6 Mitigation of Effects to the Environment ........................................................................................................ 6 Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations ...................................................................................... 7 Principle Environmental Laws ....................................................................................................................... 7 Executive Orders ........................................................................................................................................... 7 Special Area Designations ............................................................................................................................ 7

Alternatives Considered in Detail .......................................................................................................... 8 Alternative 1, Proposed Action ............................................................................................................................. 8 Alternative 2, No-Action ....................................................................................................................................... 8 Alternative 3, Modified Proposed Action .............................................................................................................. 8 Alternative 7, the Preferred Alternative ................................................................................................................ 9

Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated From Detailed Study ........................................................ 10 Alternative 4 – Implement the 2001 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment - ................................................. 10 Alternative 5 - Non-pesticide annosus treatment alternative ............................................................................. 11 Alternative 6 – Alternative to maintaining fuelbreaks - ....................................................................................... 11

The Environmentally Preferred Alternative ........................................................................................ 12

Implementation ..................................................................................................................................... 12

Administrative Appeal of My Decision ................................................................................................ 12

Contacts ................................................................................................................................................ 14

Record of Decision

North 49 Forest Health Recovery Project ROD-1

Introduction

The Lassen National Forest (LNF) proposes the North 49 Forest Health Recovery Project (hereafter

called North 49 Project) to improve fire-resiliency, forest health and ecological diversity. The

approximately 42,400 acre project area is bounded by the Thousand Lakes Wilderness on the north,

California State Highway 44/89 to the southeast, and the Forest boundary on the west. Located to the

northwest of Lassen Volcanic National Park, the North 49 Project is on the Hat Creek Ranger District

(HCRD) of the Lassen National Forest. It is within all or part of T31N, R4E; T31N R3E; T32N, R3E;

T32N, R4E and T33N, R4E

Background

In November of 2005, a Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register requesting

public input on the Purpose and Need and Proposed Action for the North 49 Project. In April of 2006,

a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was prepared and distributed to the public for a 30-

day comment period.

During development of the North 49 Forest Health Recovery Project EIS, the public had opportunities

to contribute comments, ideas, and concerns about the proposed project. An Interdisciplinary Team

(IDT) assessed the historical and existing conditions of the project area and the factors that

contributed to the area’s current condition. The project area was studied to determine the wildfire risk,

forest health, wildlife habitat suitability, riparian and watershed conditions, noxious weed and

sensitive plant occurrence, heritage resources presence and road conditions.

The North 49 Project will be managed under the 1992 LNF Land and Resource Management Plan

(LRMP), as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan FEIS, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement (FSEIS) and Record of Decision (ROD) (USDA FS and USDI BLM 1994, 2001, 2004),

Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act (HFQLG) FEIS, FSEIS and RODs

(USDA FS 1999a, 1999b, 2003a, 2003b), and the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment FEIS,

FSEIS and RODs (USDA FS 2001a, 2001b, 2004c).

Purpose of and Need for Action

The purpose of the North 49 Project is to begin restoring fire-adapted forest ecosystems by creating

an all-age, multistoried, more fire-resilient forest that approximates pre-settlement conditions. The

desired conditions include: (1) open forested areas that act as fuel breaks characterized by fire-

resilient tree species, reduced surface fuel loads and ladder fuels where periodic low-intensity surface

fires can be safely reintroduced and where wildfires can be safely fought; (2) sustainable forested

areas dominated by fire-resilient tree species with supportable tree densities that decrease the risk of

mortality from insects, drought and disease, and exhibit multistory structure that provides habitat for

late seral species such as California spotted owls, American marten and northern goshawks.

Need to Improve Fire-resiliency

Management practices, including the suppression of fire in the North 49 project area, have disrupted

the historic fire return interval and contributed to the increase of both surface and ladder fuels.

Considering the increase in fuels and the historic severity of fires in the surrounding area, there is a

moderate to high chance that an escaped wildfire would be a large high severity fire that would put

the safety of suppression personnel, the public, resources, property, and structures at risk.

Record of Decision

ROD-2 North 49 Forest Health Recovery Project

Need to Improve Forest Health

The current condition of the North 49 Project area is not a healthy, sustainable forest. Abnormally

high tree density within the area as well as high mortality due to competition, disease and insects are

all indications of an unhealthy forest. Without the continued check provided by wildfires, conifers

(specifically white fir) have become prolific and established themselves in unprecedented numbers

and in areas where they have not been found historically. Competition between the trees will continue

to cause mortality, increasing the amount of surface fuels and increasing the risk for a stand-replacing

fire. Trees will continue to be stressed making them vulnerable to death from insects, disease and

drought. With the continued build-up of fuels and densely-packed trees, grasses, forbs and shrubs will

not be able to grow beneath the canopy reducing the habitat suitability of the area for small prey

species (mice, small birds, woodrats and voles) and their predators (California spotted owls, northern

goshawks and American marten).

Improve Forest Diversity

The increased ingrowth of white fir and the loss of the pine species have dramatically altered the

vegetation composition of the North 49 Project area from that witnessed during the pre-settlement

period. The diversity of tree species within a forest contributes to the sustainability and survival of the

forest. Fire, drought, insects and disease all impact different tree species with different intensity.

Therefore, a forest with many types of trees helps to ensure that some trees will survive under

extreme environmental conditions.

Age diversity is also an important component in ensuring the conservation of the forest. A range of

vegetation ages ensures that there is a newer generation established to replace the older generation.

This also provides habitat for a greater variety of wildlife species, from those associated with early

seral ecosystems to those associated with late seral ecosystems.

Public Involvement

This project was first listed as an environmental assessment (EA) in the Schedule of Proposed

Actions (SOPA) in February 2004. Comments on the Purpose and Need and Proposed Action were

requested from the public and other agencies during scoping in March, 2004. The Forest Service

provided an additional opportunity to comment on the Proposed Action from May 11 to June 11,

2004 in accordance with 36 CFR 215.6. A public meeting was held in the Old Station Volunteer

Fireman’s Hall on June 2, 2004. In August of 2004, an EA and Finding of No Significant Impact

were released to the public. The decision was appealed and later litigated, resulting in an injunction.

In August, 2005, the Lassen National Forest Supervisor (Responsible Official) made the decision to

analyze this project in an EIS. Comments received from the public during 2004 were considered in

the development of this EIS. A Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register on

November 2, 2005 describing the proposed project, decision to be made and requesting public

comments by November 17. A public meeting on the project was held January 25, 2006. A Notice of

Availability of the Draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on April 14, 2006. A legal notice

was published in the newspaper of record, the Lassen County Times, on April 18, 2006 notifying the

public of the availability of the Draft EIS and the 45-day opportunity to comment. The Draft EIS was

mailed to state and federal agencies and individuals who commented during scoping.

Record of Decision


Comments submitted on the 2006 Draft EIS and the 2005 scoping document were assessed and

considered for incorporation into the FEIS. Three field trips were conducted in the project area with

commenters to ensure that their comments were clearly understood by the planning team.

Issue Development

The Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) reviewed public comments to identify issues related

to the Proposed Action. The Forest Service separated issues into two groups: significant issue and

non-significant issues. Significant issues are defined as those directly or indirectly caused by

implementing the proposed action. Non-significant issues are defined as those: 1) outside the scope of

the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest LRMP, or other higher level

decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or

factual evidence. The Council on Environmental Quality regulations at 40 CFR Sec. 1501.7(a)(3)

direct federal agencies to, ―[I]dentify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not

significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review. . . .‖ Public comments and a

listing of non-significant issues and concerns may be found in the project record. One significant

issue was identified during scoping and raised again in comments on the Draft EIS.

Commenters voiced concern that the Proposed Action and Alternative 3 would degrade old forest

habitats, rendering them unsuitable for old forest dependent wildlife including California spotted owl,

northern goshawk habitat, Pacific fisher and American marten.

In preparing the Draft EIS, the IDT developed Alternative 3 to address this issue. However,

substantive comments on the Draft EIS continued to express concern about the effects on older forest.

The IDT met with commenters to assure comments on the issue were understood. The IDT analyzed

additional information and data, and focused their efforts on designing treatments that would better

address the issue yet continue to achieve the goals of the project. Alternative 7 was developed as

direct result of the substantive comments and additional analysis.

Decision

My decision is to implement Alternative 7, the Preferred Alternative, of the North 49 Forest Health

Recovery Project. I have considered the Purpose and Need for action, and the range of alternatives

and their associated environmental consequences. I have also considered public comments on the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement and guidance within the Lassen National Forest Land and

Resource Management Plan as amended. Simply put, I have chosen the Preferred Alternative because

it will more completely address the concerns expressed by the public, while meeting the Purpose and

Need for action.

Reasons for Decision

Overall, Alternative 7 is expected to result in the best outcome for all resources and issues analyzed.

This alternative clearly achieves the Purpose and addresses the Needs for taking federal action, and

provides sufficient economic value for the project to be accomplished though timber sales and service

contracts. The IDT use of public comments and interaction to understand the issues and concerns on

the Draft EIS, and the level of integration of public input in the development of Alternative 7 is an

excellent and successful use of the NEPA process. Public concerns were clearly addressed and the

resulting Preferred Alternative demonstrates the value of public involvement.

Record of Decision


Forest Service silviculturists and wildlife biologists worked in concert to develop treatments that

maintain the greatest amount of suitable habitat for late seral-dependant species, and address the

needs for fuels reduction and forest health. The retention or improvement in suitable late-seral habitat

under Alternative 7 is significantly better than under Alternatives 1 or 3. Alternative 7 retains 82

percent of the existing California spotted owl foraging habitat and 90 percent of the owl nesting

habitat. Foraging habitat for northern goshawk is retained at 97 percent and nesting habitat at 84

percent. For mesocarnivores, denning habitat is retained at 74 percent and foraging habitat is

increased by 38 percent over existing conditions.

The diversity thin will treat 5,222 acres, which is about one third of all acres treated and about 80

percent of the total acreage harvested outside of the Defensible Fuel Profile Zone (DFPZ). The

combination of structural thinning, large tree radial thinning, and retention islands will produce a

multi-layered, multi-aged forest on more acres than other alternatives. Seventy acres of pine

restoration treatment would be conducted in conjunction with 908 acres of group selections that

would be planted with sugar pine and yellow pine species. Combined with 55 acres of aspen release

and 383 aces of lodgepole treatment, Alternative 7 does more then other alternatives to restore species

diversity. The resulting heterogenic forest will play a significant role in moving the forest toward true

long-term health and sustainability.

Within the North 49 project area there are eight spotted owl protected activity centers (soPAC). None

of the soPACs or spotted owl home areas (SOHA) would be modified. Implementation of Alternative

7 would result in a more fire-resilient forest that protects the long-term viability of soPACs, SOHAs,

and suitable late-seral habitat. Fire-resiliency will provide opportunities to increase the large tree

component that appears to be important to the sustainability of spotted owl populations.

The structural thinning component of the diversity thinning treatment, places an emphasis on

retaining healthy desirable trees within all size classes. Stand exam data shows that the forest is

stocked at a density five times that of pre-settlement condition and 63 percent of the forest is

comprised of trees 11 to 24 inches in diameter. This illustrates an unhealthy, homogeneous condition

with high inter-tree competition for essential resources such as water and nutrients. The structural

thin, unique to Alternative 7, is designed to reduce tree density while maintaining trees within all

diameter classes. Because a disproportionate number of trees in the project area are in the 11 to 24

inch size class, a greater number of trees in this size class will be removed to achieve the reduction in

density and achieve a more balanced age class distribution.

Healthy predominant, ―legacy trees‖, or dominant overstory trees (>24‖ dbh) of desirable species

(yellow pine, sugar pine) would have most or all trees removed within a 30 to 50-foot radius, except

for trees 30-inches dbh or more in diameter. This radial thinning treatment, also unique to Alternative

7, will release those few remaining large fire-resilient overstory trees (legacy trees) from incursion

and competition for soil moisture and nutrients from the more shade-tolerant understory.

Roughly 15 percent of diversity thinning units will be kept as retention islands. Where possible,

retention islands will include both horizontal and vertical structural diversity and provide habitat

elements for California spotted owls and forest carnivores. They will also provide low ground cover

for prey species and retain foraging habitat for carnivores. Retention islands will vary in size and

bolster stand habitat canopy cover. Retention islands will be irregular in shape and locations will be

determined in conjunction with Forest Service wildlife biologists. Preferred areas to retain will

include several of the following characteristics: the densest canopy of larger trees, large snags (>24

inches dbh), multiple large logs or evidence of oblong or keyhole shaped cavities.

Record of Decision


Under Alternative 7, actions designed to improve forest health and ecological diversity also make a

meaningful contribution to the economic well-being of local communities. Because the diversity thin

removes a greater number of trees in the 11 to 24 inch size class, the volume of sawlogs generated is

greater than the other alternative. This also increases the ratio of sawlog to biomass volume which

improves the economic viability of the project. The harvest volumes presented in the Final EIS are

estimates produced by the Forest Vegetation Simulator computer model using stand data. These

estimates are indicative and not definitive. However, volumes are comparable across all alternatives.

The risk of stand-replacing wildfires continues to grow in the North 49 project area. Small trees and

brush serve as ladder fuels that lift fire into the forest canopy increasing fire severity and the potential

for damaging crown fires. Heavy surface fuels increase the intensity of surface fire and the length of

time fire remains at the base of trees, increasing the likelihood of tree mortality. All action

alternatives treat the fuel load with the same prescriptions and in a manner adequate to meet the

purpose of the project. Alternative 7 adjusts the location of some DFPZs to be more strategic and

effective, while reducing the acres of DFPZ treatment. This maintains more acres of suitable habitat

for late seral-dependant species and provides a better balance in meeting the project purpose.

Alternative 7 also restores more pine into the project area and helps move the area to a more fire-

resilient condition than any of the other alternatives considered.

I have considered the information presented in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, including

the evaluation criteria used to address the identified issue of late-seral habitat. I have concluded that

Alternative 7 best responds to public comments, internal management concerns, and national

direction and policy. In my judgment, Alternative 7 meets the multiple objectives for this project,

reflects sincere commitment to addressing public concerns, and when implemented will be an

important step in restoring ecological balance to the North 49 Project area.

Reasons for not choosing Alternative 1, Proposed Action

I did not select Alternative 1 because I believe it does not meet the Purpose of, or Need for action as

well as Alternative 7. The DFPZ proposed under Alternative 1 is unnecessarily wide and treats the

DFPZ with a thin from below prescription to remove ladder surface fuels. This amounts to

approximately 90 percent of the treated acres receiving a more aggressive treatment. Although the

thin from below prescription is an effective and necessary fuels reduction treatment for DFPZs, it

does not create or maintain forest components that are believed to provide suitable habitat for late-

seral dependant species. The thin from below prescription creates a homogeneous stand by removing

the vertical structure necessary for suitable late-seral habitat. Because Alternative 1 employs the

prescription across the greatest area, it is less successful than the other alternatives in addressing the

identified issue of impacting late-seral habitat used by the California spotted owl, northern goshawk,

and American marten.

Alternative 1 has the greatest number of group selections of all three action alternatives. These group

selection openings would be planted with pine which would provide the next generation of fire-

resilient trees and improve the tree species composition. However, some of the groups would require

the use of a helicopter to remove the logs, which would be a cost prohibitive operation.

For these reasons, Alternative 1 is less effective than Alternative 7 at moving the project area toward

a sustainable fire-resilient, healthy and ecologically diverse condition.

Record of Decision


Reasons for not choosing Alternative 2, No Action

I did not select Alternative 2 because it is does not respond to the Purpose of, or Need for action. It is

clear that the forest is at increasing risk from fire and loss of diversity over much of the North 49

project area. Alternative 2 would allow this risk to increase.

Removing heavy fuel loads is the first step in re-establishing a fire-resilient forest. Alternative 2

would not allow this to happen. Without fuels treatment, it is expected that when fire occurs in the

project area it will exhibit greater intensity and greater scope of area affected with longer lasting

harmful effects.

Alternative 2 would not improve the forest condition in the project area. It would not reduce the

unhealthy density of trees or improve ecological diversity. Alternative 2 would continue the trend

toward an unhealthy and homogeneous forest in the project area.

Reasons for not choosing Alternative 3, Modified Proposed Action

I did not select Alternative 3 because it does not meet the Purpose of, or Need for action as well as

Alternative 7. Alternative 3 applies the modified thin from below prescription and leaves the stands

with a higher tree density. Approximately 15 percent of the area treated would remain at a density

that continues to stress trees and risk large-scale die-off due to drought, insects and disease. Small

trees and some legacy trees in these high density stands would continue to die.

The modified thin from below prescription includes 10 percent retention islands which provide

structural diversity within the stand. This provides some improved habitat attributes over the thin

from below prescription in Alternative 1. However, under this treatment 90 percent of the stand

would still be greatly reduced in vertical structure. As a result, this treatment impacts more late-seral

habitat important to the California spotted owl than Alternative 7.

Alternative 3 has the least number of group selections. This reduces the opportunity for improving

species diversity and fire resiliency with the addition of pine species through replanting. For these

reasons, Alternative 3 is less effective than Alternative 7 at moving the project area toward a

sustainable fire-resilient, healthy and ecologically diverse condition.

Findings Related to Other National Policies, Law and Authorities

The Forest Service manages the Lassen National Forest in compliance with many laws, regulations,

executive orders, and policies. The list provided here is not a complete list of all governing statutes

that apply, but it highlights the primary statutes guiding the preparation of this project. In all cases,

the North 49 Project is consistent with national law, policy, and direction.

Mitigation of Effects to the Environment

Mitigation measures to avoid or minimize effects to the environment are incorporated in Alternative 7

and will be implemented with the project. These measures will, at a minimum, meet the requirements

of applicable laws, regulations, State standards, and additional standards and guidelines for each land

allocation. During implementation of the North 49 Forest Health Recovery Project, mitigation

measures will avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or eliminate the potential adverse effects.

Record of Decision


Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations

This decision to implement the North 49 Forest Health Recovery Project is consistent with the Lassen

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP 1992), as amended by the HFQLG

FEIS and ROD (1999), and the 2001 SNFPA and ROD as amended by the SNFPA FSEIS and ROD

(2004).

Principle Environmental Laws

I have determined that the North 49 Forest Health Recovery Project meets the requirements of the

following laws:

Endangered Species Act

Civil Rights Act

Clean Water Act

Clean Air Act

Healthy Forest Restoration Act

National Historic Preservation Act

National Forest Management Act

National Environmental Policy Act

Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act

Executive Orders

Executive orders provide additional direction to federal agencies. I have determined that the North 49

Forest Health Recovery Project meets the requirements of the following executive orders:

Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, Executive Order 13175 of

November 6, 2000.

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

Invasive Species, Executive Order 13112 of February 3, 1999.

Recreational Fisheries, Executive Order 12962 of June 6, 1995.

Migratory Birds, Executive Order 13186 of January 10, 2001.

Floodplain Management, Executive Order 11988 of May 24, 1977.

Protection of Wetlands, Executive Order 11990 of May 24, 1977.

Environmental Justice, Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994.

Special Area Designations

I have determined that the North 49 Forest Health Recovery Project complies with laws, regulations,

and policies that pertain to the following special areas:

Research Natural Areas—there are no Research Natural Areas within the North 49 Project

area and, therefore, no areas will be affected.

Inventoried Roadless Areas—there are no Inventoried Roadless Areas within the North 49

Project area and, therefore, no areas will be affected.

Wilderness Areas—there are no Wilderness Areas or Wilderness Study Areas within the

North 49 Project area and, therefore, no areas will be affected.

Wild and Scenic Rivers—there are no designated wild and scenic rivers in the North 49

Project area and, therefore, no areas will be affected.

Special Interest Areas—there are no Special Interest Areas within the North 49 Project area

and, therefore, no areas will be affected.

Record of Decision


Alternatives Considered in Detail

Alternative 1, Proposed Action

Alternative 1, the Proposed Action was developed to achieve the purpose and address the needs using

a combination of treatments intended to fully implement HFQLG. This alternative is an aggressive

fuels treatment and removes a significant amount of biomass from the forest. Treatments follow the

standards and guidelines of the SNFPA FSEIS, Appendix A, while focusing on maximum treatment.

Compared to Alternatives 3 and 7, the Proposed Action establishes the most group selections, and has

the most acres treated to the standard DFPZ thin from below to a 40 percent canopy cover. This

alternative has the most Area Thin acres using a thin from below treatment that retains a 40-50

percent canopy cover without leave islands.

Treatments for Alternative 1 include the following:

1. Thin from Below in DFPZ – 7,793 acres.

2. Modified Thin from Below with Retention Islands – 1,121 acres.

3. Thin from Below – 2,040 acres.

4. Group Selection – 584 groups for 1,168 acres.

5. Release Thin in Pine Plantations – 3,452 acres.

6. Aspen Release – 38 acres.

7. Underburn Only – 1,064 acres.

8. Broadcast Burns – 224 acres.

The North 49 Project area is approximately 42,400 acres in size. The Proposed Action would treat

16,900 acres, approximately 40 percent of the project area.

Alternative 2, No-Action

Alternative 2, No Action, would result from the decision not to implement the North 49 Forest Health

Recovery Project. This alternative would not achieve the purpose or address the need of the project,

or implement the provisions of the 1992 LNF Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended by

the Northwest Forest Plan FEIS, Final Supplemental EIS, the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group

Forest Recovery Act FEIS, FSEIS, and the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment FEIS, FSEIS and

ROD.

The No Action alternative provides a baseline for comparative analysis of the action alternatives.

Although there would be no action to treat vegetation under this project, other activities in the North

49 project area such as road maintenance, fire suppression, firewood cutting, grazing, hunting, and

OHV riding would continue.

Alternative 2 would not directly impact the key issue resource of late seral wildlife habitat. However,

there could be adverse impacts over time from continued degradation of forest health, a lack of

species and structural diversity, and the potential for large, stand-replacing.

Alternative 3, Modified Proposed Action

Alternative 3 was developed to address the issue identified during scoping that the Proposed Action

would significantly impact late-seral forests rendering them unsuitable for California spotted owl and

northern goshawk habitat, and degrading furbearer travel corridors. Alternative 3 would achieve the

purpose and address the need using a combination of the following treatments while addressing this

Record of Decision


issue. Compared to Alternatives 1 and 7, the Modified Proposed Action establishes the least group

selections, and has the most acres treated with the modified thin from below to a 50 percent canopy

cover with 10 percent retention islands.



2. Modified Thin from Below with Retention Islands – 4,988 acres.

3. Thin from Below – 1,080 acres.

4. Group Selection – 340 groups for 680 acres.





Alternative 3 would treat approximately 16,413 acres or 39 percent of the project area. Alternative 3

would thin more treatment acres using the lower intensity modified thinning prescription, providing

higher canopy cover within areas of increased spotted owl use and providing north-south connectivity

for closed-canopy wildlife species; while managing fuels between spotted owl reserve areas.

Alternative 7, the Preferred Alternative

Under Alternative 7, the DFPZ will be constructed to an average width of ¼ to ½ mile (HFQLG

FEIS). In the Manzanita Chutes area where fire history and existing brush indicate a potential for

high-intensity fire, the DFPZ width will be greater than ½ mile. The location of the DFPZ will be

changed from the Proposed Action to take advantage of natural barriers and previously thinned areas,

and to align the DFPZ perpendicular to prevailing winds while duplicating the aggressive DFPZ fuels

treatment of Alternative 1. This will help to decrease wildfire behavior by slowing momentum and

providing firefighters with safe areas and opportunities to directly attack oncoming wildfires. The

DFPZ treatments in Alternative 7 will not include retention islands, which will more effectively

reduce fire behavior than the modified thin from below DFPZ sections treated under Alternative 3.

Realignment of the DFPZ reduces the impacts to suitable late seral habitat in five California spotted

owl HRCAs by reducing the number of acres treated as DFPZ. Instead these acres will be treated

under the Diversity Thin prescription to maintain a richer and more diverse stand structure. The

DFPZ realignment also minimizes impacts to furbearer travel corridors by decreasing the number of

acres affected by the more aggressive DFPZ treatment.

A Diversity Thin prescription will treat through the diameter classes and leave up to 15 percent in

retention islands resulting in improved structural diversity. This alternative will retain late-seral

wildlife habitat and will increase foraging habitat for American marten and other furbearers.

Alternative 7 establishes more group selections than Alternative 3 but less than Alternative 1. The

location, composition and harvest method of each group identified in Alternative 1 was evaluated for

inclusion in Alternative 7. Groups whose composition included a high number of healthy sugar and/or

yellow pine were assigned a Pine Restoration treatment and will be thinned to enhance existing sugar

pine and yellow pine which will act as seed trees to promote the pine regeneration. Alternative 7

includes approximately 70 acres of Pine Restoration treatments.

Record of Decision


The North 49 Project area has large old legacy trees and some of these will receive a radial thin of up

to 50 feet to reduce competition and mortality. Although Alternatives 1 and 3 contain 38 acres of

aspen release treatment, Alternative 7 will release 55 acres of aspen.

Acres thinned will be evaluated by Forest Service Fuels Specialists to determine if fuels treatments

are needed to reduce surface fuel loading and disrupt fuel continuity. Fuels treatments may include

machine piling and burning, and/or underburning.



2. Diversity Thin – 5,222 acres.

3. Group Selection – 484 groups for 978 acres.

4. Pine Restoration – 70 acres.





The North 49 Project area is approximately 42,400 acres in size. The Preferred Alternative will treat

16,093 acres (including 383 acres of lodgepole pine thinning), approximately 38 percent of the

project area

Alternatives Considered, but Eliminated From Detailed Study

Under CEQ regulations, Federal agencies are required to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all

reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not

developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in response to scoping and the Draft EIS

provided suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and addressing the need. Some of

these alternatives may have been outside the scope of the project intent, duplicative of the alternatives

considered in detail, or determined to have components that would cause unnecessary environmental harm.

Therefore, a number of alternatives were considered, but dismissed from detailed study.

Alternative 4 – Implement the 2001 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment -

maintain canopy cover at 50 percent or greater and protect trees of 20 inches dbh or greater

Thinning to a 20-inch upper diameter limit (UDL) or leaving 50 percent canopy across the North 49

Project area would not meet the purpose or address the need for forest health and forest diversity

outlined in the FEIS. Density reduction for forest health using a 20-inch UDL would essentially

require the removal of all trees less than 20 inches resulting in DFPZ-like forest across the project.

Although useful for fuels and fire management, DFPZs lack young trees that are required for future

forests and provide necessary structure for suitable wildlife habitat. As described in Chapter 1of the

FEIS, suitable habitat for late seral dependent wildlife requires heterogeneity. A heterogeneous forest

consists of diverse components including vertical and horizontal structure. This is not achievable

applying a 20-inch UDL. To restore the forest to a condition that is healthy, structurally diverse, and

fire resilient, flexibility in tree removal would be needed. A 20-inch UDL does not provide the

flexibility necessary to improve forest diversity because it would require the removal of smaller fire-

resilient trees species (e.g. ponderosa pine) while retaining larger, over-abundant, less fire-resilient

trees species (e.g. white fir).

Record of Decision


As described in the Chapter 4 of the FEIS (Environmental Consequences under Silviculture) the

modified thinning prescription would average a canopy cover of 50 percent. If applied across the

project area, the 50 percent canopy cover requirement would favor shade-tolerant species and greatly

curtail the ability to increase species diversity. Analysis of this modified thinning prescription reveals

that the 50 percent canopy cover leaves more potential ladder and canopy fuels. Additionally, at a 50

percent canopy cover, most of the stand would be approaching 60 percent SDImax immediately after

the thinning, which is the zone of imminent mortality. Trees within stands that have an SDImax

greater than 60 percent experience a decrease in growth and vigor as trees are stressed for resource.

Finally, post-thinning tree spacing would average approximately 14 feet, operability would be

restricted and residual tree damage would increase.

Alternative 5 - Non-pesticide annosus treatment alternative

In order to achieve the purpose and address the need presented in Chapter 1of the FEIS, trees and

biomass need to be removed from the project area. Fresh cut stumps are susceptible to infiltration by

annosus spores that can then move into the root system and infect adjacent trees. Sporax (Borax) is

the most cost effective and environmentally neutral treatment against the spread of annosus infection.

Sporax applications would follow all State and Federal rules and regulations as they apply to

pesticides. The June 2004 US Forest Service Forest Health Report No. R04-01 by J. Kliejunas and B.

Woodruff demonstrates the Sporax treatment of stumps 14 inches or larger is the most effective

method of reducing the spread of annosus. Kliejunas (1989) cites studies showing that in eastside pine

annosus incidence were greatly reduced in boraxed stands vs. non-boraxed stands. Logging in areas

that are susceptible to annosus will result in increased levels of annosus if stumps are not treated.

Cutting when annosus spores are lowest has been suggested as an alternative to Sporax use, but there

are no data or studies to support the efficacy of such a treatment in California. There is also no

literature supporting prescribed burning as a control of annosus in California ecosystems. Stump

removal is cost prohibitive, highly destructive to the site and would cause unnecessary significant

impacts to forest soils and watershed resources. Treating with Phlebiopsis gigantea is not feasible at

this time as it is not registered as a biopesticide either with the US Environmental Protection Agency

or the State of California, and there are no efficacy data for California forest conditions. There are

data suggesting that Phlebiopsis gigantea would not be efficacious in California because it is too dry

in summer and fall. This alternative would not achieve the purpose or address the need presented in

Chapter 1 of the FEIS because other types of annosus treatment have not proved effective to reduce

the risk of the disease. Therefore this alternative was not considered in detail.

Alternative 6 – Alternative to maintaining fuelbreaks -

that mimics historic fire cycles without the use of chemicals.

The Lassen LRMP, as amended by the 1999 HFQLG ROD and the 2004 SNFPA ROD directs the

construction of fuelbreaks consisting of a strategic system of DFPZs. The DFPZs proposed for the

North 49 project area are designed and located to be part of a larger strategic system of DFPZs that

provides fire suppression personnel relatively safe locations from which to take action against

wildfires. Wildfire suppression efforts can be assisted by the availability of DFPZs located along

strategic landscape features such as roads and ridgelines. Alternative treatments to DFPZs were

analyzed in the 1999 HFQLG FEIS and ROD. DFPZ maintenance within the project area would be

achieved through a combination of mechanical and hand-treatment of fuels, piling and burning, and

Record of Decision


underburning. This EIS does not propose or analyze the use of herbicides or other chemicals to

maintain DFPZ fuelbreaks in the North 49 Project area. Therefore, an alternative addressing the use

of chemicals to maintain DFPZ fuelbreaks was not considered or studied in detail. A discussion on

DFPZ maintenance can be found in Appendix A of the FEIS, the cumulative effects section and

would not be part of the decision.

The Environmentally Preferred Alternative

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing regulations require agencies to specify the

alternative or alternatives which are considered to be environmentally preferable, 40 CFR 1505.2(b).

In addition, Forest Service NEPA policy (FSH 1909.15, Section 05) defines ―environmentally

preferable‖ as:

―An alternative that best meets the goals of Section 101 of the NEPA...‖ (FSH 1909.15). Section 101

of the NEPA describes national environmental policy, calling on federal, state and local governments

and the public to ―create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive

harmony.‖ Section 101 further defines this policy in six broad goals, to:

1) Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding

generations;

2) Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive and esthetically and culturally pleasing

surroundings;

3) Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or

safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences;

4) Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain

wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity and variety of individual choice;

5) Achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living

and a wide sharing of life’s amenities; and

6) Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of

depletable resources.

Based on the description of the alternatives considered in detail in the FEIS and this Record of

Decision, I believe that Alternative 7, Preferred Alternative best meets the goals of Section 101 of the

NEPA and is therefore the environmentally preferable alternative for this proposed federal action.

Implementation

If no appeals are filed within the 45-day appeal period, implementation of the decision may occur on,

but not before, five business days from the close of the appeal filing period. When appeals are filed,

implementation may occur on, but not before, the fifteenth business day following the date of the last

appeal disposition.

Administrative Appeal of My Decision

This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to the provisions of 36 CFR 215.11. A written appeal must

be filed with the Region 5, Regional Forester within 45 days of the date that legal notice of this

decision appears in the Lassen County Times, California. Those wanting to appeal this decision

should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source. Individuals or

Record of Decision


organizations who submitted comments during the comment period may appeal this decision pursuant

to the provisions of 36 CFR 215.13.

It is the appellant’s responsibility to provide sufficient project-specific evidence and rationale,

focusing on the decision, to show why the Responsible Official’s decision should be reversed. Any

appeal of this decision must be fully consistent with 36 CFR 215.14 and include:

A clear statement that the submittal is an appeal filed pursuant to 36 CFR Part 215.

The name, address, and telephone number of the appellant.

A signature or other verification of authorship.

Identification of the document in which the decision is contained, by title and subject.

Date of the decision, and name and title of the Responsible Official who made the decision.

Identification of the specific portion of the decision which is being appealed.

Identification of the specific change(s) in the decision that the appellant seeks.

Any portion of the decision with which the appellant disagrees and why.

Reasons why the appellant believes the decision failed to consider substantive comments.

The reason the appellant believes the decision violates law, regulation, or policy.

The appeal must be sent to the Appeal Deciding Officer:

Randy Moore, Regional Forester

US Forest Service

Regional Office R5

1323 Club Drive

Vallejo, CA 94592

Appeals may be FAXed to (707) 562-9229

Electronic Mail: Appeals may also be filed by e-mail to: appeals-pacificsouthwest-regional-

[email protected] [Subject: North 49 Project FEIS]. The use of Microsoft Word (.doc), WordPerfect

(.wpd) or Adobe (.pdf) is recommended.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

north 49 forest health recovery...

Documents