project-level management indicator assemblage...

1

PROJECT-LEVEL MANAGEMENT INDICATOR ASSEMBLAGE REPORT

Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction & Salvage Project

South Fork & Trinity River Management Units

Shasta-Trinity National Forest

Prepared By: Carla De Juilio

Wildlife Biologist

May 18, 2017

Date

Management Indicator Assemblages Report Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage

2

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

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

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


3

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to evaluate and disclose the impacts of the Trinity Post Fire Hazard

Reduction & Salvage (TPFHR&S) Project on management indicator assemblage habitat

identified in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest

Plan, USDA 1995). Detailed descriptions of the project are found in the Trinity Post Fire Hazard

Reduction & Salvage Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (USDA 2017).

Management indicator assemblages are groups of wildlife associated with vegetative

communities or key habitat components, as identified in the Forest Plan (page 3-24). The Forest

Plan directs resource managers to monitor assemblage habitat trends at the National Forest scale

(Forest level). The Forest Plan permits the use of habitat components to represent the

management indicator assemblages. This project level report analyzes the effects of the project on

habitat of each potentially affected management indicator assemblage, and describes how these

effects to habitat may influence Forest level trends.

Methodology for Effects Analysis of Management Indicator Assemblages Project level effects on management indicator assemblages are analyzed and disclosed as part of

environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act. This involves examining

the impacts of the project alternatives on the habitat of each management indicator assemblage by

discussing how the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects would change the quantity and/or

quality of that habitat in the analysis area. These project level impacts to habitat are then related

to broader scale (Forest level) habitat trends.

Analyzing project effects to management indicator assemblages involves the following steps:

Identifying which management indicator assemblages have habitat that may be either directly

or indirectly affected by the project alternatives.

Analyzing project level effects on the amount of habitat available for each management

indicator assemblage, and examining how project habitat effects may influence Forest level

assemblage habitat trends.

Project effects to assemblage habitat are assessed using forest stand exam data, aerial

photography, burn severity indexes, and field surveys. Data collected by silviculturists and

wildlife biologists at the stand level are the best available data for project level effects analysis.

These data include current tree size (or shrub size for chaparral), forest canopy cover, snag and

log density, and location of cliffs, caves, talus and rock outcrops. To provide context for the

analysis of project effects to assemblage habitat, this analysis also discusses representative

species from the potentially affected management indicator assemblages and relates project

effects on habitat to that species. These are typically species for which the Shasta-Trinity National

Forest is also gathering population data at the Forest level.

Direction for and Implementation of Forest Scale Monitoring for Management Indicator Assemblages Forest level monitoring direction for the Shasta-Trinity National Forest management indicator

assemblages is identified in the Monitoring Action Plan of the Forest Plan (USDA 1995, Chapter

5, Page 5-16). The Forest Plan provides direction for Forest scale monitoring of management


4

indicator assemblages using habitat components to represent the assemblages (Forest Plan, page

5-16). Therefore, habitat status and trend is monitored at the Forest scale. 1 Population monitoring

is not required. However, the Shasta-Trinity National Forest gathers high quality population data

at the Forest level for a number of species. These types of monitoring are described in more detail

below.

Habitat Status and Trend

Monitoring assemblage habitat includes Forest level reporting of habitat status and trend. Habitat

status refers to the current amount of management indicator assemblage habitat on the Forest.

Habitat trend is the direction of change in the amount of management indicator assemblage

habitat between the time the Forest Plan was approved and the present.

The Shasta-Trinity Forest Plan provides direction for Forest scale (Forest level) monitoring of

management indicator assemblages using habitat components to represent the assemblages

(Forest Plan, page 5-16). Habitat components that define each assemblage are described below in

Table 1. The habitat components for late seral, openings and early seral, multihabitat, hardwood,

riparian and chaparral assemblages are categorized using the California Wildlife Habitat

Relationship (CWHR) System (CDFG 2008). The CWHR System provides the most widely used

habitat relationship models for California’s terrestrial vertebrate species (ibid), and is described

further in Appendix A.

The Forest wide quantity and distribution of management indicator assemblage habitat are

monitored using Gradient Nearest Neighbor (GNN) vegetation layers developed for use in

Northwest Forest Plan effectiveness monitoring.2 The GNN vegetation layers are used by regional

interagency monitoring teams to evaluate forest conditions in the Northwest Forest Plan area,

under the direction of the Regional Interagency Executive Committee.3 The GNN layers are

developed by integrating data from field plots (forest inventory data) with satellite imagery and

mapped environmental data, using gradient analysis and nearest-neighbor imputation. To assess

changes in proportions of assemblage habitat on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest since the time

of Forest Plan approval, the GNN layer developed to reflect vegetation in 1994 is compared to the

most current GNN layer (2007).4 A similar analysis, using vegetation layers produced by regional

monitoring teams, was conducted to evaluate the status and trend of late-successional habitat

since 1994 in the entire Northwest Forest Plan area (Moeur et al. 2005).

The snag and down log assemblage is monitored using data collected at the Forest level by the

Forest Service Forest Health Monitoring Program,5 and by the Forest Service, Pacific Southwest

Region, Fire and Aviation Management fire and fuels monitoring project.6 The forest health

monitoring program monitors forest disease and insect outbreaks through annual aerial surveys

that pinpoint new areas of snag recruitment and tracks the progress of previously reported

1 Forest Level Management Indicator Assemblage Report is available at:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5292949.pdf

2 The Landscape Ecology Modeling, Mapping and Analysis team develops Gradient Nearest Neighbor vegetation

layers and produces GNN maps for Northwest Forest Plan effectiveness monitoring. More information is at:

http://www.fsl.orst.edu/lemma/

3 Northwest Forest Plan monitoring reports, including Moeur et al. (2005) and Haynes et al. (2006), are available at:

http://www.reo.gov/monitoring/reports/10yr-report/index.shtml

4 The GNN vegetation layers are presently undergoing an accuracy assessment by the Forest Service Pacific Northwest

Research Station for the ability to detect change between years. Each separate year of data used in this analysis has

already been assessed for accuracy. Accuracy reports are available on the website noted above.

5 USDA Forest Service Forest Health Monitoring Program: http://fhm.fs.fed.us/

6 USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Fire and Aviation Management, fire and fuels monitoring program:

https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/r5/fire-aviation). Rapid Assessment of Vegetation Condition after Wildfire (RAVG) data

is also collected and used.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/r5/fire-aviation


5

outbreaks. The fire and fuels monitoring program monitors forest fire severity. Moderate and

severe fires add large pulses of snags and down logs to the landscape. The Forest management

indicator assemblage analysis uses data from annual aerial forest health surveys collected from

1994 through 2009, and wildfire severity data from 1994 through 2008. In addition, the Forest

Service Activity Tracking System is used to monitor management activities across the Forest.

These data were used to determine areas that consist of older plantations (generally created before

1994), which are known to be deficient in snags and down logs due to past forest management

practices.

The cliffs, caves, talus and rock outcrops assemblage is composed of static landscape components

of habitats that are identified in GNN data vegetation layers. Forest level trends for this

assemblage are generally static and the occurrence of these habitat components across the Forest

is not typically influenced by management. For project analyses, presence of these habitat

components are recorded during field surveys to determine whether they are present and may be

affected by the project.

Table 1. Habitat components monitored for each management indicator assemblage.

Management Indicator Assemblage

CWHR Habitat Components*

Late Seral

Mature stands of conifers and hardwood conifer habitats, CWHR tree

size 5, all canopy closures.

CWHR habitat types include:

blue oak-foothill pine,

Douglas fir,

eastside pine,

Jeffrey pine,

Klamath mixed conifer,

lodgepole pine,

montane hardwood conifer,

Ponderosa pine,

red fir,

sierran mixed conifer, and

white fir.

Openings and Early Seral

Young forests and woodlands with openings, CWHR tree size 1, 2, 3,

and 4, all canopy cover classes.

CWHR habitat types include all CWHR types listed above in Late Seral

Assemblage

Multi-Habitat Proportion of all habitats in relation to each other on the Forest including

conifer forests, woodlands, chaparral and riparian.

Snag and Down Log Conifer and hardwood habitats with substantial snags and down logs.

Areas with heavy tree mortality due to fire and/or disease.

Riparian

Dense streamside shrubby or forested habitat.

CWHR habitat types include:

montane riparian,

valley foothill riparian, and

aspen.7

7 Aspen is not strictly a riparian species, but in California it is usually associated with streams, seeps and wet meadows,

and it is usually found with other riparian species such as willow and alder (CDFG 2008).


6

Aquatic8 N/A

Hardwood

All size classes and canopy closures of woodlands composed of

hardwood species. CWHR habitat types include:

montane hardwood,

blue oak woodland, and

valley oak woodland

Chaparral

All size classes of shrub dominated habitats.

CWHR types include:

chamise-redshank chaparral,

mixed chaparral,

montane chaparral,

bitterbrush, and

sagebrush.

Cliffs, Caves, Talus and

Rock Outcrops

These habitat components are static landscape features that are

identified in Forest level spatial data, and are not usually impacted by

management activities.

*Based on CWHR habitat suitability information. Dbh = diameter at breast height. Canopy Cover classifications:

S=Sparse Cover (10-24% canopy cover); P= Open cover (25-39% canopy cover); M= Moderate cover (40-59% canopy cover); D= Dense cover (60-100% canopy cover). Tree size classes: 1 = Seedling (<1") dbh; 2 = Sapling (1"-5.9" dbh); 3=Pole (6"-10.9" dbh); 4 = Small tree (11"-23.9" dbh); 5 = Medium/Large tree (>24" dbh); 6 =Multi-layered Tree (CDFG 2008).

Population Status and Trend

As discussed above, management indicator assemblages are groups of wildlife species associated

with particular habitat types. Although population status and trend monitoring is not required by

the Forest Plan, the Forest has selected appropriate representative species for several management

assemblages and collects and/or compiles data regarding population status and trend for these

species at the Forest level. Population status is the current condition of the population measure for

the representative species. Population trend is the direction of change in that population measure

over time. Population data are compiled and discussed in Forest level monitoring reports, which

are issued every 3 to 5 years.

SELECTION OF PROJECT LEVEL MANAGEMENT INDICATOR ASSEMBLAGES

Each Shasta-Trinity National Forest management indicator assemblage was assessed to determine

which may be affected by the TPFHR&S Project. Each assemblage was then assigned a category

for project analysis (Table 2). The categories are: (1) management indicator assemblage habitat

type is not in or adjacent to the project area and would not be affected by the project, (2)

management indicator assemblage habitat type is in or adjacent to project area, but would not be

either directly or indirectly affected by the project, or (3) management indicator assemblage

habitat type would be either directly or indirectly affected by the project. The management

indicator assemblages analyzed for the project were selected as indicated below in Table 2.

8Aquatics assemblage is analyzed in the fisheries management indicator assemblage report.


7

Table 2. Management indicator assemblages for TPFHR&S project-level analysis.

Management Indicator Assemblages Category for Project Analysis* Late Seral 3

Openings and Early Seral 3

Multi-Habitat 2

Snag and Down Log 3

Riparian 3

Hardwood 3

Chaparral 3

Cliffs, Caves, Talus, Rock Outcrops 2

*Category 1: Assemblage habitat is not in or adjacent to the project area and would not be affected by the project;

Category 2: Assemblage habitat is in or adjacent to project area, but would not be either directly or indirectly affected by the project;

Category 3: Assemblage habitat would be either directly or indirectly affected by the project.

Category 1 Assemblages There are no category 1 assemblages for this project.

Category 2 Assemblages Multi-habitat: This assemblage is defined by the proportion of each assemblage habitat present,

in relation to each other.9 Six assemblages may be affected by this project: openings and early

seral, late seral, snag and down log, riparian, hardwood, and chaparral; therefore, the multi-

habitat assemblage occurs in the project units. Since the project would not change the amount or

distribution of any assemblage, there would be no effect to the proportion of assemblage habitats

available. Since the proportions of these six assemblages will not be changed by the project, this

assemblage will not be discussed further in this report.

Cliffs, Caves, Talus, Rock Outcrops: These features are present in the project area; however this

assemblage will not be affected by project implementation. The proposed project would not

directly or indirectly affect the habitat for this assemblage and would, therefore, have no impact

on Forest level habitat trends. This assemblage will not be further discussed in this report.

Category 3 Assemblages Openings and Early Seral: Openings and early seral habitat (Douglas fir, Klamath mixed

conifer, montane hardwood conifer, ponderosa pine, red fir, and white fir CWHR types, tree size

1-4) exists in the project area and will be affected by implementation. This assemblage will be

affected by implementation of the TPFHR&S Project and these effects are discussed below.

Representative Species: The Nashville warbler is selected as an appropriate representative

species for the openings and early seral assemblage because it is found in all of the openings and

9 The snag and down log and cliff, cave, talus, and rock outcrop assemblages are not factored in to the proportions of

habitat used to define the multi-habitat assemblage because these assemblages are defined by physical features and

habitat components that overlay the other assemblages. For example, a snag patch is categorized as openings and early

seral and snag and down log assemblage habitat and a rock outcrop on a ridgetop surrounded by shrubs is categorized

as chaparral and snag and down log assemblage habitat.


8

early seral assemblage CWHR types, and is strongly associated with specific habitat components

that define the assemblage (Table 1), and it occurs in the area.

Late Seral: Late seral habitat (Douglas fir, Klamath Mixed Conifer, montane hardwood conifer,

ponderosa pine, red fir, white fir and CWHR types, tree size 5) occurs in the project area and will

be affected by project implementation.

Representative Species: The brown creeper is selected as an appropriate representative species

for the late seral assemblage because it is strongly associated with specific habitat components

that define the assemblage (large trees), and it occurs in the area.

Snag and Down Log: Snags and down logs exist in the project area and will be affected by

project implementation.

Representative Species: The red-breasted nuthatch is selected as an appropriate representative

species for the snag and down log assemblage because it is strongly associated with specific

habitat components that define the assemblage (i.e., snags), and it occurs in the area.

Riparian: Riparian assemblage habitat (montane riparian) exists along numerous streams within

the project area and may be affected by project implementation.

Representative Species: The yellow warbler is selected as an appropriate representative species

for the assemblage because it is strongly associated with specific habitat components that define

the assemblage (Table 1), and it occurs in the area.

Hardwood: Hardwood stands (montane hardwood) and individual hardwoods exist in the project

area and will be affected by project implementation.

Representative Species: The white-breasted nuthatch is selected as an appropriate representative

species for the hardwood assemblage because it is strongly associated with specific habitat

components that define the assemblage (Table 1), and it occurs in the area.

Chaparral: Chaparral habitat (mixed chaparral and montane chaparral) occurs in the project area

and will be affected by project implementation.

Representative Species: The wrentit is selected as an appropriate representative species for the

hardwood assemblage because it is strongly associated with specific habitat components that

define the assemblage (Table 1), and it occurs in the area.

Table 3 displays preferred reproductive habitat for the six representative species, using CWHR

types that define the assemblages. The Nashville warbler shows preference for young, second

growth conifer stands, a habitat component that is an indicator for the openings and early seral

assemblage. The red-breasted nuthatch shows a strong association with snags, a habitat

component that is an indicator for the snag and down log assemblage. The brown creeper shows a

strong association with mature stands with large trees, a habitat component that is an indicator for

the late seral assemblage. The white-breasted nuthatch shows a strong association with hardwood

tree species, a habitat component that is an indicator for the hardwood assemblage. The wrentit

shows a strong association with shrubby upland vegetation, a habitat component that is an

indicator for the chaparral assemblage. Additionally, population data of high reliability are

available for these species, and are tracked/compiled at the Forest level.1011

The CWHR types listed in the table are moderately and highly suitable reproductive habitat for

the representative species from the habitat suitability information provided in the CWHR program

(CWHR 2008). The CWHR types that are part of the assemblages that are not listed in table

10 The Forest compiles Breeding Bird Survey data (BBS) for the representative species, and reports them at the

regional (BBS strata), California, and rangewide scales. Four BBS strata occur on the Forest. BBS data have varying

degrees of reliability based upon sample size. Representative species selected for Forest level tracking have data with

the highest reliability in at least one of the 4 strata that occur on the Forest.

11 The Forest Level Management Indicator Assemblage Monitoring Report is available at:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/stnf/landmanagement/planning


9

below are used as low, moderate or high suitability feeding and cover habitat, and/or low

suitability reproductive habitat by each species.

Table 3. Management indicator assemblage habitat suitability for representative species.

Management Indicator Assemblage and Representative Species

Reproductive CWHR Habitat Suitability

CWHR Habitat Types

Late Seral Brown creeper Certhia americana

Moderate Closed Cone – Pine Cypress, Tree size 4, 5, Canopy Cover M, D Douglas Fir, Tree size 4, Canopy Cover M, D Eastside Pine, Tree size 4, Canopy Cover M, D Jeffrey Pine, Tree size 4, Canopy Cover M, D Lodgepole Pine, Tree size 4, 5, Canopy Cover M, D Montane Hardwood-Conifer, Tree size 4, Canopy Cover M, D Ponderosa Pine, Tree size 3, Canopy Cover M, D Red Fir, Tree size 4, Canopy Cover M, D Red Fir, Tree size 5, Canopy Cover P

High Douglas Fir, Tree size 5, Canopy Cover M, D Eastside Pine, Tree size 5, Canopy Cover M, D Jeffrey Pine, Tree size 5, Canopy Cover M, D Klamath Mixed Conifer, Tree size 4, 5, Canopy Cover M, D Montane Hardwood-Conifer, Tree size 5, Canopy Cover M, D Ponderosa Pine, Tree size 4, 5, Canopy Cover M, D Red Fir, Tree size 5, Canopy Cover M, D Sierran Mixed Conifer, Tree size 4, 5, Canopy Cover M, D White Fir, Tree size 4, 5, Canopy Cover M, D

Openings and Early Seral Nashville warbler Oreothlypis ruficapilla

Moderate Klamath Mixed Conifer, Tree size 2, 3, 4, Canopy Cover M Montane Hardwood – Conifer, Tree size 2, 3, 4, Canopy Cover M Ponderosa Pine, Tree size 2, 3, 4, Canopy Cover M Sierran Mixed Conifer, Tree size 2, 3, 4, Canopy Cover M Sierran Mixed Conifer, Tree size 5, Canopy Cover S, P, M White Fir, Tree size 2, 3, 4, Canopy Cover M

High Klamath Mixed Conifer, Tree size 2, 3, 4, Canopy Cover S, P Montane Hardwood – Conifer, Tree size 2, 3, 4, Canopy Cover S, P Ponderosa Pine, Tree size 2, 3, 4, Canopy Cover S, P ierran Mixed Conifer, Tree size 2, 3, 4, Canopy Cover S, P White Fir, Tree size 2, 3, 4, Canopy Cover S, P

Snag and Down Log Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis

Moderate Douglas Fir, Tree size 4, Canopy Cover S, P, M, D Eastside Pine, Tree size 5, Canopy Cover S, P, M, D Jeffrey Pine, Tree size 4, Canopy Cover S, P, M, D Klamath Mixed Conifer, Tree size 4, Canopy Cover S, P, M, D Lodgepole Pine, Tree size 5, Canopy Cover S, P, M, D Ponderosa Pine, Tree size 4, Canopy Cover S, P, M, D Red Fir, Tree size 4, Canopy Cover S, P, M, D Sierran Mixed Conifer, Tree size 3, Canopy Cover P, M, D Sierran Mixed Conifer, Tree size 4, Canopy Cover S, P, M, White Fir, Tree size 4, Canopy Cover S, P, M, D

High Douglas Fir, Tree size 5, Canopy Cover S, P, M, D Jeffrey Pine, Tree size 5, Canopy Cover S, P, M, D Klamath Mixed Conifer, Tree size 5, Canopy Cover S, P, M, D Ponderosa Pine, Tree size 5, Canopy Cover S, P, M, D Red Fir, Tree size 5, Canopy Cover S, P, M, D Sierran Mixed Conifer, Tree size 5, Canopy Cover S, P, M, D White Fir, Tree size 5, Canopy Cover S, P, M, D

Riparian Yellow warbler Dendroica petechial

Moderate Montane Riparian, Tree size 2, 3, Canopy Cover D Montane Riparian, Tree size 3, 4, Canopy Cover S Valley Foothill Riparian, Tree size 2, 3, Canopy Cover D Valley Foothill Riparian, Tree size 3, 4, Canopy Cover S

High Montane Riparian, Tree size 2, 3, 4, Canopy Cover P, M Valley Foothill Riparian, Tree size 2, 3, 4, Canopy Cover P, M

Chaparral Moderate Chamise Redshank Chaparral, Shrub size 2, 3, 4, Cover P


10

Management Indicator Assemblage and Representative Species

Reproductive CWHR Habitat Suitability

CWHR Habitat Types

Wrentit Chamaea fasciata

Chamise Redshank Chaparral, Shrub size 4, Cover S Mixed Chaparral, Shrub size 2, 3, 4, Cover S, P Montane Chaparral, Shrub size 2, 3, Cover M, D

High Chamise Redshank Chaparral, Shrub size 2, 3, 4, Cover M, D Mixed Chaparral, Shrub size 2, 3, 4, Cover M, D

Hardwood White-breasted nuthatch Sitta carolinensis

Moderate Blue Oak Woodland, Tree size 4, Canopy Cover S, P Montane Hardwood, Tree size 4, Canopy Cover S, P Montane Hardwood-Conifer, Tree size 4, Canopy Cover S, P Valley Oak Woodland, Tree size 4, Canopy Cover S, P

High Blue Oak Woodland, Tree size 4, 5, Canopy Cover M, D Blue Oak Woodland, Tree size 5, Canopy Cover S, P Montane Hardwood, Tree size 4, 5, Canopy Cover M, D Montane Hardwood, Tree size 5, Canopy Cover S, P Valley Oak Woodland, Tree size 4, 5, Canopy Cover M, D Valley Oak Woodland, Tree size 5, Canopy Cover S, P

Canopy Cover classifications: S=Sparse Cover (10-24% canopy cover); P= Open cover (25-39% canopy cover); M= Moderate cover (40-59% canopy cover); D= Dense cover (60-100% canopy cover). Tree size classes: 1 = Seedling (<1") dbh; 2 = Sapling (1"-5.9" dbh); 3=Pole (6"-10.9" dbh); 4 = Small tree (11"-23.9" dbh); 5 = Medium/Large tree (>24" dbh); 6 =Multi-layered Tree (CDFG 2008).

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT

In 2015, the west side of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest experienced wildfires on

approximately 144,000 acres of the South Fork and Trinity River Management Units. All

proposed treatment areas of the Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction & Salvage (TPFHR&S)

project are within the perimeters of these wildfires and are along roadsides, except for some

Connected Actions (see below). Proposed activities for all alternatives are described below and in

Table 4. A more detailed description and list of project design features and resource protection

measures for each alternative is included in the project Environmental Impact Statement.


11

Table 4. Summary of Proposed Action and Alternatives for the TPFHR&S Project1,2

Proposed Action

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 No Action

Road Miles 233 233 233 233 233 0

Road Buffer width total (feet)

300

(variable)

300 (uniform) +

Fuelbreaks

600 (uniform) 300 (variable) 300 (variable) 0

Road Buffer (only) Acres3

3,897 2,004 7,264 5,840 4,100 0

Fuelbreak Acres 0 2,178 0 0 0 0

Harvest (Salvage) Acres

4,072 5,340 7,684 782 0 0

Harvest (Salvage) Miles

128 128 128 20 0 0

Fire Behavior Reduction/ Utilization Acres4

7,969 9,522 14,948 5,840 4,100 0

Unauthorized Road Use/Decom Miles

0 2 3 1 0 0

New Temporary Road

0 <1 mile 0 0 0 0

Total Footprint Acres

7,969 9,522 14,948 7,969 7,969 0

1This table depicts the total acres proposed for treatments. Due to the variable width buffer proposed under the Proposed Action, Alternative 4 and 5, analysis throughout the rest of this report is based upon the total amount of assemblage habitat within 300 feet of each side of road. However, the total buffer for the Proposed Action, Alternative 4 and 5 will be 300 feet, not 600 feet. 2 For all alternatives, salvage will not occur in northern spotted owl (NSO) nesting/roosting habitat within High Value Wildlife Conservation Areas (HVWCAs), per project Resource Protection Measures (RPMs). Salvage will also not occur in chaparral habitat due to lack of trees. Therefore, this table overstates the number of acres that will receive salvage treatments. 3 Road buffer fuels treatments include felling trees and leaving on site and potential utilization of wood products for commercial or personal firewood, biomass removal etc. Within these areas, intermittent salvage may occur under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 in areas outside of northern spotted owl (NSO) nesting/roosting habitat within High Value Wildlife Conservation Areas (HVWCAs). 4Utilization of wood products could include commercial and/or personal firewood and/or biomass removal etc.

Actions Common to all Action Alternatives (Alternatives 1-5)

Hazard trees have the potential to cause property damage, personal injury or fatality in the event

of a failure. Hazard trees will be felled (mechanically or by hand) on National Forest System

(NFS) lands along 233 miles of roads open to the public (i.e. open NFS roads, county roads and


12

state highways) that burned during the 2015 wildfire season. Hazard trees12 will be felled along all

open roads in all alternatives. However, differences between alternatives include criteria utilized

for identification of hazards and level of fuel reduction treatments prescribed to treat (or not treat)

felled trees. Maps for all Alternatives can be found in the EIS.

Open roads crossing NFS lands identified for treatment include:

- 153 miles of NFS Maintenance Level 2 (accessible with high clearance vehicles) roads;

- 34 miles of NFS Maintenance Level 3 (accessible with passenger cars) roads;

- 19 miles of NFS Maintenance Level 4 (paved) roads; and

- 27 miles of state and county roads.

Treatments common to all alternatives include:

Create a control line on the outside edge of treatment areas where necessary to maintain

fuel reductions with prescribed fire.

Where appropriate, stumps of freshly cut conifers over 14-inches in diameter will be

treated with an EPA-registered borate compound to prevent spread of Heterobasidion root

disease.

Trees or snags that are imminent hazards to the road and/or operations would be felled;

those that are not dead at the time of implementation or are felled outside the treatment

buffer would be left onsite.

Personal firewood use of felled trees or other down wood would be allowed where

normally permitted.

No treatments are proposed within Wilderness.

The fires burned with variable intensity throughout the fire footprints. Areas within the road

buffer that burned at low severity may need very little or no treatment. As a result, treatments will

be uncommon and will occur intermittently within areas that burned at low severity. However,

where treatments are necessary and merchantable material remains, fuels treatments and small

salvage sales may be utilized within these intermittent zones.

Alternative 1 - The Proposed Action

Dead trees and vegetation will be treated utilizing up to a 300-foot wide (plus width of road bed)

total buffer on National Forest System (NFS) lands along 233 miles (approximately 8,000 acres)

of roads open to the public (i.e. open NFS roads, county roads, and state highways) that burned

during the 2015 wildfire season. Width of the buffer on either side of the road could change but

would not exceed 275 feet; e.g. if conditions lend to a wider treatment on the uphill side, the

uphill side may be treated up to 275 feet from the road and the downhill side would be treated at

least 25 feet from the road. The minimum treatment area along either side of the road will be 25

feet. Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative.

Roadside treatments Treatments along open public roads (identified above) are designed to improve public and

firefighter safety by reducing the number of fire-induced hazards along roads and reducing

excessive fuels within the treatment buffer. Treatments along these roads include:

12 Hazard Tree Guidelines for Forest Service Roads and Facilities in the Pacific Southwest Region (Angwin et al 2012)

will be utilized to assess hazard trees.


13

1. Remove or treat only dead13 vegetation (using one of the treatment types listed below)

within the treatment buffer. Dead vegetation will be identified at the time of treatment.

Treatment types could include:

a. Mechanical or hand felling and removal of trees utilizing ground or cable logging

systems. Trees that must be felled for safety reasons that occur outside of the 300

foot buffer would be left on site.

b. Utilize wood products whenever possible. Utilization can include salvage logs,

commercial firewood, biomass removal, etc.

i. Commercial timber sales (sawlogs) are proposed on approximately 128

segmented miles of the roads (approximately 4,100 acres, displayed in

yellow on project maps) proposed for treatment. Along 105 miles, wood

utilization would occur intermittently and the expected volume is

substantially lower within this area (displayed in cyan on project maps).

ii. No new roads will be constructed. Access ramps (less than 100-feet in

length) may be utilized to access existing or newly constructed landings.

Ramps will be decommissioned following use.

c. Fuels Treatments: Reduction of fuel loading to 10-20 tons/acre. Dead brush will

be reduced by 50-100%. Within areas that burned with low severity, reduction of

fuel loading will be intermittent (displayed in cyan on project maps). The

following methods may be used to reduce the fuel load.

i. Hand felling, i.e. cutting trees and/or brush using hand tools such as a

chainsaw.

ii. Mastication, i.e. pulverizes or chops standing trees and logs into small

particles, redistributing surface fuels. This treatment can include

mowing, mulching, or chipping.

iii. Lopping woody debris (slash) and scattering around the treated area, i.e.

redistributing woody material.

iv. Pruning which removes lower limbs up to 10 feet from the ground.

v. Hand piling slash involves the concentration of slash and surface fuels in

small piles.

vi. Machine piling slash utilizes equipment to pile slash and surface fuels

into larger piles.

vii. Pile burning.

viii. Jackpot burning which would burn heavy intermittent fuel

concentrations, where fuels are not continuous enough to carry a

broadcast fire.

ix. Broadcast burning is the burning method used where heavy continuous

fuel concentrations exist.

2. Provide for future forest cover within the treatment buffer through planting, utilizing a

species composition consistent with historic conditions, with spacing between seedlings

of 18 to 30 feet.

13 No green limbs at time of implementation.


14

Fuel Treatment Maintenance After the initial entry, vegetation will continue to grow, and trees will continue to succumb to fire

damage and subsequent insect and disease and fall to the ground. These processes contribute to

increasing fuel loading along roads once the initial implementation is complete. In order to

sustain the desired condition as it relates to hazard mitigation, follow-up treatments may be

necessary to maintain fuel loading levels between 10-20 tons/acre. Conditions will be evaluated

and prescribed within 15 years following implementation. Maintenance treatments would be

restricted to the following treatment types:

Prescribed burning (broadcast, jackpot, underburn, piles);

Felling of hazard trees; and

Hand piling excess fuels.

Alternative 2 – Consistent Buffer and Fuelbreaks Alternative

Dead and dying trees and other vegetation will be treated utilizing a consistent 300-foot wide

(150 feet on either side of the road, plus width of road bed) buffer on NFS lands along 217 miles

(approximately 7,300 acres) of roads open to the public (i.e. open NFS roads, county roads, and

state highways) that burned during the 2015 wildfire season. In addition, 16 miles of strategically

located fuelbreaks (approximately 2,200 acres) have been identified along eight roads (3N10,

4N04, 4N24, 4N12, 5N04, 5N13, 5N60 and 6N04). This alternative responds to alternative

driving issues, numbers 6-9 and 11.

Roadside treatments Treatments along open public roads are designed to improve public and firefighter safety by

reducing the number of fire-induced hazards along roads and reducing excessive fuels within the

treatment buffer. Treatment methods are consistent with the Roadside Treatments described for

the Proposed Action (Alternative 1) except:

Remove or treat dying vegetation (using one of the treatment types listed in Alternative 1)

in addition to dead vegetation. Dying trees would be identified utilizing a probability of

mortality of 0.6.14

Treatments would occur within a consistent 300-foot total width buffer. Width of the

buffer on either side of the road would equal 150 feet.

Commercial timber sales (sawlogs) are proposed on approximately 128 segmented miles

of the roads (approximately 5,300 acres) proposed for treatment (displayed in yellow on

project maps). Along 105 miles, wood utilization would occur intermittently and the

expected volume is substantially lower within this area (displayed in cyan on project

maps).

Provide for future forest cover through planting, utilizing a species composition

consistent with historic conditions, with spacing between seedlings of 15 to 30 feet.

Approximately 2 miles of existing unauthorized roads may be utilized as temporary roads

to access existing or new landings. Unauthorized roads utilized will be decommissioned

after completion of project activities.

14 As identified in Hazard Tree Guidelines for Forest Service Roads and Facilities in the Pacific Southwest Region (Angwin et al 2012) and utilizing Marking

Guidelines for Fire Injured Trees in California (Smith and Cluck 2011).


15

Fuelbreaks Fuelbreak treatments will create new fuelbreaks along approximately 16 miles of existing open

roads (3N10, 4N04, 4N24, 4N12, 5N04, 5N13, 5N60 and 6N04). Treatment width will extend

600 feet from either side of the road, for a total width of approximately 1,200 feet. The fuelbreak

area overlays roads identified for roadside hazard tree and fuels treatments, and would be treated

utilizing the same methods of treatment as identified for in Alternative 1 above. In addition to the

treatments described in Alternative 1, treatment within the fuelbreak would vary by distance from

the road, and would include the following modifications:

Remove or treat live and dead vegetation. Treatments could include:

Thinning live trees up to 10” diameter at breast height (DBH), by hand felling, with the

target of the following canopy covers depending upon distance from the road:

0-200’ from road will be thinned to a minimum 40% canopy cover;

201-400’ from road will be thinned to a minimum 60% canopy cover; and

401-600’ from road will be thinned to a minimum 80% canopy cover.

Pruning, which raises canopy base heights.

0-200’ from road will be pruned to a maximum 10’canopy base height;

201-400’ from road will be pruned to a maximum 8’canopy base height; and

401-600’ from road will be pruned to a maximum 6’canopy base height.

Utilize wood products whenever possible. Utilization can include salvage logs, commercial or

personal firewood, biomass removal, etc.

Commercial timber sales (sawlogs) are expected to be feasible on around 14 segmented

miles (approximately 1,300 additional acres) of the roads proposed for fuelbreak

treatment. Additional sales would be considered outside of these miles.

As is true within the Roadside Treatments, dead and dying trees would be removed

within the entire treatment area, even when they do not pose a hazard to a road.

Less than 1 mile of new temporary road construction may be constructed within

fuelbreak buffer to aid in tree removal, and decommissioned after completion of project

activities.





necessary to maintain fuel loading levels between 10-20 tons/acre. Conditions will be evaluated

and prescribed within 15 years following implementation. Maintenance treatments would occur

within Roadside Treatments and Fuelbreaks. Maintenance treatments would be restricted to the

following treatment types:


Hand piling excess fuels;

Hand felling of small trees and brush that have grown since implementation in the fuelbreak

areas; and

Felling and utilization of hazard trees.

Alternative 3 – Wider Buffer Alternative

Dead and dying trees and other vegetation will be treated utilizing up to a 600-foot wide (300 feet

on either side of the road, plus width of road bed) buffer on NFS lands along 233 miles


16

(approximately 14,948 acres) of roads open to the public (i.e. open NFS roads, county roads, and

state highways) that burned during the 2015 wildfire season. This alternative responds to

alternative driving issues, numbers 6, 9-11 and 13.

Roadside treatments Treatments along open public roads are designed to improve public and firefighter safety by

reducing the number of fire-induced hazards along roads and reducing excessive fuels within a

variable width buffer not exceeding 600 feet, e.g. areas without hazardous trees due to steep

slopes downhill of the road may have a narrower treatment. Treatment methods are consistent

with the Roadside Treatments described for the Proposed Action (Alternative 1) except:

Remove or treat dying vegetation (using one of the treatment types listed in Alternative 1)

in addition to dead vegetation. Vegetation would be removed within a buffer of up to a

600-foot total width. Width of the buffer on either side of the road would not exceed 300

feet.

Hazard trees would be identified utilizing a probability of mortality of 0.6.

Salvage of commercially viable saw logs is proposed on approximately 128 segmented

miles of the roads (approximately 7,700 acres) proposed for treatment (displayed in

yellow on project maps). Along 105 miles, wood utilization would occur intermittently

and the expected volume is substantially lower within this area (displayed in cyan on

project maps).

Up to 3 miles of existing unauthorized roads may be utilized as temporary roads to access

existing or new landings. Unauthorized roads utilized will be decommissioned after

completion of project activities.





necessary to maintain fuel levels between 10-20 tons/acre. Conditions will be evaluated and

prescribed within 15 years following implementation. Maintenance treatments would be restricted

to the following treatment types:


Hand piling excess fuels; and

Felling and utilization of hazard trees.

Alternative 4 – Northern Spotted Owl Alternative

As described in Alternative 1, dead trees and vegetation will be felled within a variable 300-foot

wide (plus width of road bed) total buffer on NFS lands along 233 miles (approximately 8,000

acres) of roads open to the public (i.e. open NFS roads, county roads, and state highways) that

burned during the 2015 wildfire season. Roadside Treatments and Fuel Treatment Maintenance

(consistent with treatments described in Alternative 1) would occur on approximately 5,840 acres

along roads outside areas identified as important habitat for northern spotted owls. This

alternative responds to alternative driving issues, numbers 2-4.

Roadside treatments Treatments consistent with Roadside Treatments described in Alternative 1 would occur on

approximately 5,840 acres along roads outside areas identified as important habitat for northern

spotted owls.


17

Salvage of saw logs containing commercial value is proposed on approximately 20

segmented miles of the roads (approximately 780 acres) proposed for treatment (shown in

cyan on project map). Along 155 miles (5,060 acres), there would be no salvage harvest.

Along 155 miles with no salvage treatments (5,060 acres), fuels treatments would occur

(shown in cyan on project map).

As is the case for Roadside Treatments in Alternative 1, future forest cover within the

treatment buffer would be provided through planting, utilizing a species composition

consistent with historic conditions, with spacing between seedlings of 18 to 30 feet.

Fuel Treatment Maintenance Maintenance treatments consistent with treatments described in Alternative 1 would occur on

approximately 5,840 acres along roads outside areas identified as important habitat for northern

spotted owls.

Important Northern Spotted Owl habitat Hazard tree mitigation would occur along 58 miles of road on 2,100 acres identified as important

habitat for northern spotted owls. These areas are those which consist of:

Suitable (nesting, roosting, foraging) and post-fire foraging in northern spotted owl territories

(1.3 miles from current and historic nesting sites); and

Suitable (nesting, roosting, foraging) and post-fire foraging in northern spotted owl Critical

Habitat.

Within these areas, treatments would be limited to hazard tree mitigation. Hand felling trees

identified as hazardous to the road or operations would be left on site: there would be no removal,

no fuels reduction, and no maintenance treatments (shown in orange on the project maps).

However, tree planting, utilizing a species composition consistent with historic conditions, with

spacing between seedlings of 18 to 30 feet

Alternative 5 – Minimum Impact Alternative

Dead trees and vegetation will be treated within a variable 300-foot wide (plus width of road bed)

total buffer on NFS lands along 233 miles (approximately 8,000 acres) of roads open to the public

(i.e. open NFS roads, county roads, and state highways) that burned during the 2015 wildfire

season. Roadside treatments and Fuel Treatment Maintenance (consistent with treatments

described in Alternative 1) would occur on approximately 4,100 acres to reduce fuel loadings

outside of sensitive areas, with the exception that no commercial timber sale removal or machine

piling would be allowed in any treatment areas. This alternative responds to alternative driving

issues, numbers 2-5 and 14-16.

Roadside treatments Roadside treatments would occur on approximately 4,100 acres outside of certain sensitive areas

(shown in cyan on project maps). Treatments would be consistent with the Roadside treatments

described in Alternative 1 with following exceptions:

No commercial timber sale removal would occur

No machine piling would be allowed.

As is true with the Roadside Treatments under Alternative 1, future forest cover would be restored

through planting, utilizing a species composition consistent with historic conditions, with spacing

between seedlings of 18 to 30 feet.

Fuel Treatment Maintenance Maintenance treatments (consistent with treatments described in Alternative 1) would occur on

approximately 4,100 acres along roads outside areas identified sensitive areas as described below.


18

Sensitive Areas Hazard tree mitigation would occur on 3,900 acres identified as sensitive areas. These areas

consist of:

- All northern spotted owl suitable (nesting, roosting, foraging) and post-fire foraging habitat;

- Riparian Reserves;

- Inventoried Roadless Areas; and

- At-risk watersheds.

Within these areas, treatments would be limited to hazard tree mitigation. Hand felling trees

identified as hazardous to the road or operations would be left on site: there would be no removal,

no fuels reduction, and no maintenance treatments. However, tree planting would occur, utilizing

a species composition consistent with historic conditions, with spacing between seedlings of 18 to

30 feet.

Alternative 6

No Action Under the No Action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management

of the project area. No hazard mitigation would be implemented to accomplish the purpose and

need.

Connected Actions Connected actions are those actions that are closely related and therefore should be analyzed in

the same document. Actions are connected if they automatically trigger other actions which may

require environmental analysis, cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken

previously or simultaneously, or are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the

larger action for their justification (CEQ Regulations Section 1508.25). Connected actions for this

project may include road construction, reconstruction, maintenance, and restoration, temporary

road use; and use and creation of landings.

Road Maintenance

Maintenance preserves the function of the road but generally does not include improvements.

Road maintenance activities generally do not disturb ground outside the existing roadway (toe of

fill to top of cut) other than removal of material around culvert inlets.

Reconstruction

No new permanent roads will be constructed. Road widening or realignment is not expected to

occur in this project. Road reconstruction would improve and restore roads for safe and efficient

passage, reduce the potential for road erosion and sedimentation, and protect riparian and aquatic

resources. In general, reconstruction activities for this project would be focused around stream

crossings. This project proposes construction of one low water crossing, replacement of 12

undersized, worn or damaged culverts to withstand 100-year peak flows and/or debris flows, and

maintenance/reconstruction, such as inlet/outlet clearing or installation of riprap, at 35 additional

culverts.

Restoration

Approximately 4.7 miles of non-system (i.e. unauthorized) routes in Hyampom and Sulphur

Glade Creek-Waldorf Flat watersheds would be restored in order to reduce watershed impacts in

these already sensitive watersheds that experienced substantial wildfire effects. Restoration of

these routes would include installing native material barriers made of log, earth, or rock to close

the roads. Beyond the closure, measures would be implemented, as necessary, to reduce sediment


19

delivery from the road surface to make it hydrologically neutral. These measures may include

partial recontouring, loosening compacted soils, and removing all structures including culverts.

Landings

Landings are critical for handling and storing woody material prior to hauling. Each alternative

would require a different number of landings; however, landings would be located within

treatment units, wide spots in the road or other already disturbed/impacted areas adjacent to

roads. New short-term (temporary) landings would be created within treatment units. New

landings will not be constructed within Riparian Reserves, however landings that currently exist

in Riparian Reserves may be used. As a result, landings are not expected to impact any

assemblage habitat.

Summary Although Alternative 1 is the Proposed Action, all alternatives are included throughout this

analysis. Table 5 provides a summary of treatments and CWHR types for each assemblage within

each alternative. Due to the variable width buffer proposed under the Proposed Action

(Alternative 1), Alternative 4 and 5, assemblage habitat within 300 feet of each side of the road

was included in Table 5 (and Table 6) for these alternatives, and in subsequent analysis

throughout this report. In reality, the total buffer would be 300 feet, not 600 feet. As a result, the

number of acres of each assemblage affected within the project area would be much lower than

those reflected in Table 5 and Table 6 (they will be approximately half). Total acres being treated

under the Proposed Action, Alternative 4 and 5 would only be 7,969 as shown in Table 4 above,

not 14,948. It should also be noted that the number of acres of salvage treatments has been

overstated for all alternatives. Only portions of the salvage units would actually be salvaged

because burn severity and subsequent tree mortality is variable throughout the project area.

Mortality of commercial sized trees is scattered in pockets, therefore some areas classified as

salvage will not actually have salvage opportunities. Connected Actions located outside of the

project treatment units are quantified separately and are not included in Table 5.


20

Table 5. Summary of Treatments and CWHR types within the TPFHR&S Project.

Treatment Prescription

Alternative (Acres)1 CWHR Type2 Assemblage

Proposed Action

2 3 4 5

Salvage &

Fuels

Treatment

(Road

Buffer)3,4

1,818 815 1,818 284 0 Douglas fir, Klamath

Mixed Conifer, Montane

Hardwood Conifer,

Ponderosa Pine, Red fir,

White fir

Tree Size: 0, 5

Canopy Cover: D

Late Seral5

4,808 2,174 4,808 4,594 0 Douglas fir, Klamath


Hardwood Conifer,


White fir

Tree Size: 0-4

Canopy Cover: S, P, M, D

Openings

and Early

Seral

37 19 37 26 0 Montane riparian

Tree size: 0-4


Riparian

168 97 168 168 0 Montane Hardwood

Tree Size: 0-4

Canopy cover: S, P, M, D

Hardwood

0 0 0 0 0 Mixed chaparral, Montane

chaparral

Shrub size: 0-4

Canopy cover: S, P, M

Chaparral6

Fuels

Treatment

(Road

Buffer)3,4

2,492 1,285 2,492 809 0 Douglas fir, Klamath


Hardwood Conifer,


White fir

Tree Size: 0, 5

Canopy Cover: D

Late Seral

4,760 2,541 4,760 4,728 6,095 Douglas fir, Klamath


Hardwood Conifer,


White fir

Tree Size: 0-4


Openings

and Early

Seral


Tree size: 0-4


Riparian


Tree Size: 0-4

Canopy cover: S, D, M, P

Hardwood


chaparral

Chaparral


21



Proposed Action

2 3 4 5

Shrub size: 0-4


Salvage &

Fuelbreak &

Fuels

Treatment3,4

0 470 0 0 0 Douglas fir, Klamath


Hardwood Conifer,


White fir

Tree Size: 0, 5

Canopy Cover: D

Late Seral5

0 1,218 0 0 0 Douglas fir, Klamath


Hardwood Conifer,


White fir

Tree Size: 0-


Openings

and Early

Seral


Tree size: 0-4


Riparian


Tree Size: 0-4

Canopy cover: S, D, M, P

Hardwood


chaparral

Shrub size: 0-4


Chaparral6

Fuelbreak &

Fuels

Treatment3,4



Hardwood Conifer,


White fir

Tree Size: 0, 5

Canopy Cover: D

Late Seral



Hardwood Conifer,


White fir

Tree Size: 0-4


Openings

and Early

Seral


Tree size: 0-4


Riparian


Tree Size: 0-4


Hardwood


22



Proposed Action

2 3 4 5


chaparral

Shrub size: 0-4


Chaparral

Hazard

Mitigation

Only8

0 0 0 3,217 4,310 Douglas fir, Klamath


Hardwood Conifer,


White fir

Tree Size: 0, 5

Canopy Cover: D

Late Seral

0 0 0 246 3,473 Douglas fir, Klamath


Hardwood Conifer,


White fir

Tree Size: 0-4


Openings

and Early

Seral


Tree size: 0-4


Riparian


Tree Size: 0-4


Hardwood


chaparral

Shrub size: 0-4


Chaparral

All

Treatments

14,409 9,238 14,409 14,409 14,409 All other assemblages

except chaparral

Snag and

Down Log7

Total Acres

Impacted

(Total Acres

Analyzed)1

7,969

(14,948)

9,522

(9,522)

14,948

(14,948)

7,969

(14,948)

7,969

(14,948)

1Due to variable width buffer under the Proposed Action, Alternative 4 and 5 these acreages represent the total amount of assemblage habitat within 300 feet of each side of road. In reality, the total buffer will be 300 feet, not 600 feet, therefore, these acreages will be much lower (approximately half). Total acres being treated under the Proposed Action, Alternative 4 and 5 will only be 7,969. 2Canopy Cover classifications: S=Sparse Cover (10-24% canopy cover); P= Open cover (25-39% canopy cover); M= Moderate cover (40-59% canopy cover); D= Dense cover (60-100% canopy cover). Tree size classes: 0= dead; 1 = Seedling (<1") dbh; 2 = Sapling (1"-5.9" dbh); 3=Pole (6"-10.9" dbh); 4 = Small tree (11"-23.9" dbh); 5 = Medium/Large tree (>24" dbh); 6 =Multi-layered Tree (CDFG 2008). 3Followed by tree planting and maintenance 4Fuels treatments and fuelbreaks include felling trees and leaving on site, and potential utilization of wood products for commercial or personal firewood, biomass removal etc. Within these areas, intermittent salvage may occur under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 in areas outside of northern spotted owl (NSO) nesting/roosting habitat within High Value Wildlife Conservation Areas (HVWCAs).


23

5Salvage will not occur in northern spotted owl (NSO) nesting/roosting habitat within High Value Wildlife Conservation Areas (HVWCAs), which is late seral habitat. This table reflects proposed acreages of salvage in late seral habitat, after moving HVWCA NSO nesting/roosting habitat acres from salvage treatment to fuels/road buffer treatment. 6Salvage will not occur in chaparral habitat due to lack of trees, therefore this table reflects proposed salvage acres after moving chaparral acres from salvage treatment to fuels/road buffer treatment. 7Snag and down log overlaps with all other assemblages except chaparral 8 Includes hand-felling trees hazardous to the road and leaving on site as well as tree planting; no removal or fuels reduction treatments or maintenance

PROJECT EFFECTS ON MANAGEMENT INDICATOR ASSEMBLAGE HABITAT

The following section documents the effects of the TPFHR&S Project and its Connected Actions

on habitat components of the openings and early seral, late seral, snag and down log, riparian,

hardwood and chaparral management indicator assemblages. The analysis used forest stand level

vegetation and fuels data obtained from a combination of sources including forest stand exam

data, aerial photography, burn severity indexes, and field surveys. These site specific data are the

best available data for project level analysis. For each assemblage potentially affected by the

project, the biologist evaluates a species strongly associated with the habitat components that

define the assemblage. The species analysis is used to provide further context to project effects

and the relationship of project habitat impacts to Forest level trends. Table 6 summarizes the pre-

and post-treatment assemblage acres for the Proposed Action. As explained above, due to the

variable width buffer proposed under the Proposed Action, the number of acres of each

assemblage within the project area will be much lower than those reflected in Table 6 (they will

be approximately half). Some Connected Actions are located within the proposed project

treatment units. Additional impacts from Connected Actions that are located outside of the

treatment units will be the same for all alternatives and may impact the openings/early seral and

riparian assemblages only. Potential impacts to those two assemblages are described below in

their respective sections.

Table 6. Summary of pre- and post-treatment terrestrial management indicator assemblage

habitat within TPFHR&S Project for the Proposed Action.15,16

Assemblage Pre-treatment Habitat Acres* (No Action)

Post Treatment Habitat Acres

Change in MIS Habitat Acres

Openings and Early Seral 9,568 9,568 0

Late Seral 4,310 4,310 0

Hardwood 426 426 0

Riparian 105 105 0

Chaparral 539 539 0

15 The late seral and openings and early seral assemblages are defined by management indicator assemblage

definitions, so acreages may differ from late seral and early seral habitat in other reports.

16 Due to variable width buffer under Proposed Action, these acreages represent the total amount of assemblage habitat

within 300 feet of each side of road. In reality, the total buffer for the Proposed Action will be 300 feet, not 600 feet,

therefore, the affected acres will be much lower (approximately half). Total acres being treated under Proposed Action

will only be 7,969.


24

Snag and Down Log17 14,409 14,409 0

*Forest Service ownership only

Openings and Early Seral Stage Wildlife Assemblage (Nashville warbler) This assemblage is defined as: CWHR tree sizes seedlings (<1” dbh), saplings (1”-5.9” dbh),

pole-sized (6”-10.9” dbh), and small trees (11”-23.9” dbh) of blue oak-foothill pine, closed cone

pine-cypress, Douglas fir, eastside pine, Jeffrey pine, Klamath mixed conifer, lodgepole pine,

montane hardwood conifer, ponderosa pine, red fir, sierran mixed conifer, and white fir CWHR

habitat types.

Habitat/Species Relationship

The Nashville warbler is found in early seral, open, brushy stands of forests and woodlands. The

species is strongly associated with the small tree and brush habitat components that are likely to

be affected by the project. This species nests on the ground under dense brush in openings within

young forests and woodlands (CDFG 2008). Preferred Nashville warbler nesting habitat includes

CWHR tree sizes: saplings (1-5.9 inches dbh), pole-sized (6-10.9 inches dbh), and small trees

(11-23.9 inches dbh), with sparse or open canopy cover (CDFG 2008).

Project level Effects Analysis – Openings and Early Seral Assemblage

This analysis discloses project effects on the amount of openings and early seral assemblage

habitat available (quantitative), and effects of the project on the quality of assemblage habitat in

relation to a representative species (Nashville warbler).

Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis 1. Quantitative: Acres with changes in amount of openings and early seral assemblage

habitat.

2. Qualitative: Acres with changes in CWHR tree size class.

3. Qualitative: Acres with changes in tree canopy cover.

Current Condition of the Habitat Factor(s) in the Project Area This project occurs on approximately 9,568 acres of openings and early seral conditions. The

habitat consists of Douglas fir, Klamath mixed conifer, montane hardwood conifer, ponderosa

pine, red fir, and white fir CWHR types with size class 0-4 trees and sparse-dense canopy cover.

The openings and early seral habitat within the project area includes areas that burned at all

severity levels in 2015. Openings and early seral habitat increased as a result of the fires, as some

late seral habitats were converted to openings/early seral when they burned at moderate to high

severity.

17 Snag and down log assemblage overlaps all other assemblages except chaparral, thus these numbers when summed

add up to more than the total number of treatment acres.


25

Effects of Proposed Action (Alternative 1)

Direct and Indirect Effects to Assemblage Habitat The TPFHR&S project proposes to conduct fire salvage, roadside treatments (fuels reduction and

dead tree removal or treatment), tree planting, and/or maintenance on approximately 9,568 acres

of openings and early seral habitat (Table 5). The treatment units now consist of habitat

conditions that meet the management indicator assemblage definition of openings & early seral

habitat. The 9,568 acres of proposed treatments would impact openings and early seral

assemblage habitat, including approximately 2,257 acres of high quality Nashville warbler

nesting habitat and 4,297 acres of moderate quality nesting habitat (Table 7). Due to the variable

width buffer proposed under the Proposed Action, all openings/early seral assemblage habitat

within 300 feet of each side of the road was included in this analysis. In reality, the total buffer for

the Proposed Action will be 300 feet, not 600 feet. Total acres being treated under the Proposed

Action will only be 7,969, therefore the amount of openings/early seral assemblage habitat within

it will be much lower than 9,568 acres (it will be approximately half).

CWHR tree size class would not be changed as a result of this alternative because remaining trees

will be characterized as the size classes 0-4 after treatment, and these size classes are included

under the early seral assemblage. The proposed action would only remove or treat trees and

vegetation that are dead (no green limbs) at the time of implementation, as well as during future

maintenance. Fire killed trees and vegetation have few if any needles/leaves remaining; therefore,

canopy cover would not be reduced as a result of the removal of dead trees and vegetation. As a

result, although the treated stands would be more open in the understory and have fewer large

dead trees, they would continue to provide habitat for species associated with early seral stands.

There would not be acreage change or conversion into another assemblage directly as a result of

this alternative (Table 7). Effects involve qualitative changes to habitat such as more open

understory within early seral forests; however, effects are negligible since the vegetation is

already dead.

Table 7. Direct effects on the openings and early seral assemblage (Proposed Action)*

Analysis factors No Action* Proposed Action*

Acres of openings and early seral assemblage within

treatment units

9,568 9,568

Tree size class 0**, 1-4 0**, 1-4

Acres of openings and early seral assemblage with

reduction in CWHR tree size class

0 0

Acres of Dense Canopy Cover 3,014 3,014

Acres of Moderate Canopy Cover 4,297 4,297

Acres of Open Canopy Cover 905 905

Acres of Sparse Canopy Cover 1,352 1,352

Acres of openings and early seral assemblage with

reduction in CWHR canopy cover class

0 0

*Due to variable width buffer under Proposed Action, this acreage represents the total amount of openings/early seral habitat within 300 feet of each side of road. In reality, these acreages will be much lower (approximately half).

**Tree size 0=dead trees (due to fire)


26

Cumulative Effects to Assemblage Habitat There is no change in the amount of openings and early seral assemblage habitat as a result of this

alternative (the project does not convert any acres from this assemblage to another), so there

would not be cumulative effects.

Influence of Project Effects to Habitat Status and Trends at the Forest scale There are currently 801,000 acres of openings and early seral assemblage habitat on National

Forest System lands in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Within the last decade, the trend for

openings and early seral assemblage on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest is steady at 36% of

National Forest lands (Table 8).18

Although not reflected in this recorded trend for assemblage habitat on the Shasta-Trinity

National Forest, Northwest Forest Plan monitoring findings reported a net change over the last

decade in the amount of older forests19 due to the gradual growth of trees into the lower end of the

20 inch diameter class (Haynes et al. 2006). Across the Northwest Forest Plan area, the actual rate

of net increase in older forest was 1.9 percent from 1994-2003, and attributed largely to growth

and development of natural stands with quadratic mean diameter greater than 17.7 inches during

the 1990’s.20 Researchers report that the increase in older forests during this period was due to a

bulge in the size-class distribution of forests with diameters just below the 20-inch class, and

estimate the accumulation of older forests will decline as the bulge moves into the greater than

20-inch class. Because the Forest classification of late seral assemblage habitat includes stands

with mean diameters greater than 24 inches, these data predict that Forest wide trends would

show an increase in late seral and decrease in openings and early seral assemblage habitat in the

near future.

Table 8. Forest wide openings and early seral assemblage over time.

Assemblage Amount of assemblage habitat in 1994 (acres)

Percent of Forest in openings and early seral assemblage in 1994

Amount of assemblage habitat in 2007 (acres)

Percent of Forest in openings and early seral assemblage in 2007

Openings &

Early Seral

796,000 36% 801,000 36%

This proposed action would create more fire resistant stands of opening and early seral

assemblage with more open understory. To put the project’s influence into perspective, it affects

only 1% of the Forest wide assemblage habitat. Due to the small scale, even if potential

unforeseen indirect effects are realized, these effects are not expected to meaningfully influence

Forest level habitat trends for management indicator assemblages.

Direct and Indirect Effects to Breeding Habitat for Nashville Warbler The openings and early seral habitat in the project units is characterized as Douglas fir, Klamath

mixed conifer, montane hardwood conifer, ponderosa pine, red fir, and white fir CWHR types,

with tree sizes 1-4 and sparse to dense canopy cover. Portions of this habitat provide moderate or

18 Based on GNN vegetation analysis of assemblages as defined by CWHR habitat types.

19 Older forest encompasses both mature and old-growth stages and is defined differently than the Forest management

indicator assemblages. Older forests are defined in the Northwest Forest Plan by mean diameter of over 20 inches, and

the late seral assemblage is defined by mean diameter of over 24 inches.

20 See Haynes et al. (2006), Chapter 6 and Moeur et al. (2005).


27

high quality Nashville warbler nesting habitat. The openings and early seral habitat would persist

after treatments, therefore the project area would continue to provide Nashville warbler habitat.

In the short and long term, the proposed action would not decrease habitat suitability for the

Nashville warbler because only dead trees and vegetation would be treated/removed and tree size

class and canopy cover would not be affected (Table 7). Regrowth of shrubs and young trees both

within and outside of treatment areas would result in an increase in habitat suitability for

Nashville warblers in the future.

Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Larger Nashville Warbler Population Trends As described above, Forest level trend in the amount of openings and early seral assemblage

habitat is steady (Table 8). In the long run, it is likely that early seral assemblage will decline

slightly and late seral assemblage will increase slightly due to current and foreseeable forest

practices of retaining and encouraging development of late seral forest. Typical practices on

private timber land and the occurrence of wildfire on both federal and private lands within the

Forest boundaries will continue to create early seral assemblage habitat.

Population trends for the Nashville warbler are tracked and compiled at the Forest level.21 These

data indicate a potential decline in species occurrence within the BBS strata that overlap the

Shasta-Trinity National Forest, but the decline is weakly supported by statistical analysis (Sauer

et al. 2008). In light of best available population data, the proposed action effects to habitat, and

the ongoing contribution of habitat from wildfires and private timber harvest, the proposed action

is not likely to result in any meaningful change to population trends and habitat availability for

the Nashville warbler.

Effects of Alternative 2

Under Alternative 2, 6,169 acres of open and early seral assemblage would be treated. Salvage,

roadside treatments (fuels reduction and tree removal or treatment), fuelbreaks, tree planting,

and/or maintenance would occur (Table 5). No acres would be converted from early seral to

another assemblage habitat. CWHR tree size class would not be changed as a result of this

alternative because remaining trees would be characterized as the size classes 0-4 after treatment,

and these size classes are included under early seral assemblage.

In addition to removing/treating dead trees, Alternative 2 would remove or treat trees that have a

60% probability of mortality. Canopy cover would be slightly reduced as a result of the removal

or treatment of dying trees. Within the fuels treatment road buffers and salvage units, dying

vegetation would also be removed or treated. Within the proposed fuelbreaks, more intensive

treatments would occur compared to the other treatment units and other alternatives. There are

1,454 acres of early seral/openings habitat within the fuelbreaks (Table 5). Within the fuelbreaks,

both live and dead trees and vegetation would be removed or treated, with intensities varying by

distance from the road. This treatment could include thinning live trees up to 10 inch dbh (tree

size class 1-3) to a 40% canopy cover within 200 feet of roads, 60% canopy cover between 201-

400 feet from roads, and 80% canopy cover between 401-600 feet from roads. Within fuelbreaks,

live vegetation may be pruned to raise canopy base heights (cbh) to 10 feet cbh within 200 feet of

the road, 8 feet cbh from 201-400 feet from the road, and 6 feet cbh from 401-600 feet from the

road. In the future (within 15 years after implementation), maintenance treatments may be

prescribed to maintain desired fuel loading levels. These treatments may decrease the canopy

cover and density of understory vegetation. As a result, although the treated stands may be more

open, they would continue to provide habitat for species associated with early seral stands. When

21 The Forest Level Management Indicator Assemblage Monitoring Report is available at:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/stnf/landmanagement/planning


28

the actual footprint of the Proposed Action is considered, instead of 300 feet on each side of the

road, Alternative 2 would impact more acres of early seral/opening habitat because its total

project footprint is larger than the Proposed Action’s. Under Alternative 2, more acres would have

a decrease in canopy cover and understory density. Decreasing canopy cover would improve early

seral/opening assemblage habitat for Nashville warbler because sparse to moderate canopy cover

is considered moderate to high quality habitat. Openings and early seral habitat will persist after

treatments, therefore the project area will continue to provide Nashville warbler habitat.

Alternative 2 is not likely to result in any meaningful change to population trends for the

Nashville warbler. Regrowth of shrubs and young trees both within and outside of treatment areas

would result in an increase in habitat suitability for Nashville warblers in the future.


Under Alternative 3, 9,568 acres of openings and early seral assemblage would be treated.

Salvage, roadside treatments, tree planting, and/or maintenance would occur (Table 5). No acres

would be converted from early seral to another assemblage habitat. CWHR tree size class would

not be changed as a result of this alternative because remaining trees would be characterized as

the size classes 0-4 after treatment, and these size classes are included under early seral

assemblage. In addition to removing/treating dead trees, Alternative 3 will remove or treat trees

that have a 60% probability of mortality. Canopy cover would be slightly reduced as a result of

the removal or treatment of dying trees. Fuels reduction treatments would treat/remove dying

trees and dying vegetation. In the future (within 15 years after implementation), maintenance

treatments may be prescribed to maintain desired fuel loading levels. These treatments may also

decrease the density of understory vegetation. As a result, although the treated stands would be

more open, they would continue to provide habitat for species associated with early seral stands.

There would not be acreage change or conversion into another assemblage directly as a result of

this alternative. Alternative 3 would impact a full 300 feet on each side of the road; therefore,

more acres of early seral/opening habitat would be impacted because its total project footprint is

larger than the Proposed Action’s. Compared to the Proposed Action, more acres would have a

decrease in canopy cover and understory density under Alternative 3. Decreasing canopy cover

would improve early seral/opening assemblage habitat because sparse to moderate canopy cover

is considered moderate to high quality habitat. Openings and early seral habitat would persist

after treatments, therefore the project area would continue to provide Nashville warbler habitat.

Alternative 3 is not likely to result in any meaningful change to population trends for the

Nashville warbler. Regrowth of shrubs and young trees both within and outside of treatment areas

would result in an increase in habitat suitability for Nashville warblers in the future.


Under Alternative 4, 9,568 acres of openings and early seral assemblage would be treated.

Salvage, roadside treatments (fuels reduction and dead tree removal or treatment), tree planting,

and maintenance would occur outside of areas identified as important for northern spotted owls

(NSO). Within these important areas (NSO nesting, roosting, foraging, and post fire foraging

habitat in NSO territories or Critical Habitat), hazard trees would be hand felled and left on site

and no removal, fuels reduction or maintenance treatments would occur (hazard mitigation only,

followed by tree planting) (Table 5).

Alternative 4 would only remove or treat trees and vegetation that are dead (no green limbs) at

the time of implementation, as well as during future maintenance. Fire-killed trees and vegetation

have few if any needles/leaves remaining, therefore canopy cover would not be changed as a

result of the removal or treatment of dead trees and vegetation. CWHR tree size class would not

be changed as a result of this alternative because remaining trees would be characterized as size

classes 0-4 after treatment, and these size classes are included under early seral assemblage. As a


29

result, although the treated stands would be more open in the understory and would have fewer

large dead trees, they would continue to provide habitat for species associated with early seral

stands. There would not be acreage change or conversion into another assemblage directly as a

result of this alternative. When the actual footprint of the Proposed Action and Alternative 4 are

considered, instead of 300 feet on each side of the road, Alternative 4 would impact about the

same number of acres of early seral/opening habitat and would have similar effects as the

Proposed Action. However, fuels reduction would occur on 246 fewer acres of early

seral/openings habitat under Alternative 4 (due to hazard mitigation only treatments); therefore, in

the long term, Alternative 4 would result in some early seral/open stands that are less resilient to

fire (Table 5). Future fires in those areas would likely burn with increased flame lengths and

intensities, resulting in increased mortality of vegetation and trees. Openings and early seral

habitat would persist after treatments, therefore the project area would continue to provide

Nashville warbler habitat. Alternative 4 is not likely to result in any meaningful change to

population trends and habitat availability for the Nashville warbler. Regrowth of shrubs and

young trees both within and outside of treatment areas would result in an increase in habitat

suitability for Nashville warblers in the future.


Under Alternative 5, 9,568 acres of open and early seral assemblage would be treated. No salvage

would occur in this alternative. Roadside treatments (fuels reduction and dead tree removal or

treatment, followed by tree planting and maintenance), would occur outside of sensitive areas

(northern spotted owl nesting, roosting, foraging, and post-fire foraging habitat, riparian reserves,

inventoried roadless areas, and at-risk watersheds). Within sensitive areas, hazard trees would be

hand felled and left on site and no removal, fuels reduction or maintenance treatments would

occur (hazard mitigation only, followed by tree planting) (Table 5).

Alternative 5 would only remove or treat trees and vegetation that are dead (no green limbs) at

the time of implementation, as well as during future maintenance. Fire-killed trees and vegetation

have few if any needles/leaves remaining, therefore canopy cover would not be changed as a

result of the removal or treatment of dead trees and vegetation. CWHR tree size class would not

be changed as a result of this alternative because remaining trees would be characterized as size

classes 0-4 after treatment, and these size classes are included under early seral assemblage. As a

result, although the treated stands would be more open in the understory and would have fewer

large dead trees, they would continue to provide habitat for species associated with early seral


result of this alternative. When the actual footprint of the Proposed Action and Alternative 5 are

considered, instead of 300 feet on each side of the road, Alternative 5 would impact about the

same number of acres of early seral/opening habitat. However, impacts would be less intense

because no salvage would occur and fuels reduction would occur on 3,473 fewer acres of early

seral/openings habitat under Alternative 5 (due to hazard mitigation only treatments). Therefore,

in the long term, Alternative 5 would result in some early seral/open stands that are less resilient

to fire (Table 5). Future fires in those areas would likely burn with increased flame lengths and

intensities, resulting in increased mortality of vegetation and trees. Openings and early seral

habitat would persist after treatments, therefore the project area would continue to provide

Nashville warbler habitat. Alternative 5 is not likely to result in any meaningful change to

population trends for the Nashville warbler. Regrowth of shrubs and young trees both within and

outside of treatment areas would result in an increase in habitat suitability for Nashville warblers

in the future.


30

Effects of Connected Actions (All Alternatives)

Under all alternatives, road restoration and reconstruction activities may impact the openings and

early seral assemblage. Some connected actions are located within the proposed project treatment

units, therefore the impacts to opening/early seral vegetation in those areas have already been

analyzed and included above. Additional impacts from connected actions located outside

treatment units are described below.

Road Restoration Road restoration activities that may impact openings/early seral assemblage habitat includes road

restoration. Approximately 4.7 miles of roads are proposed for restoration. Some of these

proposed roads may be partially overgrown, containing opening/early seral habitat; therefore,

approximately 8 acres of openings/early seral habitat may be impacted. Many of these roads lack

early seral vegetation, therefore this is an overestimation.

Road Reconstruction Road reconstruction activities that may impact opening/early seral habitat includes culvert

replacement. The project proposes replacement of 12 culverts that are undersized, worn, or

damaged to withstand 100-year peak flows and/or debris flows. Some minor excavation of

sediment depositions on the upstream side of the crossings near the culvert inlets may also be

required. Vegetation is generally limited or lacking on fillslopes above culverts; however, a small

amount of early seral vegetation may be present. As a result, approximately 0.6 acres of early

seral/openings habitat may be impacted.

Summary No acres would be converted from openings/early seral to another assemblage habitat. CWHR

tree size class would not be changed as a result of this activity because remaining trees would be

characterized as the same size classes after treatment, and the size classes present are included

under early seral assemblage. Connected actions are not likely to result in any meaningful change

to population trends for the Nashville warbler under any alternative. Openings and early seral

habitat would persist after treatments, therefore the project area will continue to provide Nashville

warbler habitat. Regrowth of shrubs and young trees within treated areas would result in an

increase in habitat suitability for Nashville warblers in the future.

Late Seral Stage Wildlife Assemblage (brown creeper) This assemblage is defined as: CWHR tree size medium/large (≥24 inches dbh) of blue oak-

foothill pine, closed cone pine-cypress, Douglas fir, eastside pine, Jeffrey pine, Klamath mixed

conifer, lodgepole pine, montane hardwood conifer, ponderosa pine, red fir, sierran mixed conifer,

and white fir CWHR habitat types.


The brown creeper occupies dense, mature stands of conifer and conifer hardwood habitats, with

a relatively closed canopy (primarily moderate to dense canopy cover for high quality habitat;

CDFG 2008). The species is strongly associated with large trees and the dense canopy cover that

is likely to be affected by the project. This species nests behind loose bark in large trees, and more

rarely in tree cavities (CDFG 2008). Preferred brown creeper nesting habitat includes CWHR tree

sizes 4 (11-24 inches dbh) and 5 (≥24 inches dbh), with moderate or dense canopy cover (CDFG

2008).


31

Project-level Effects Analysis – Late Seral Assemblage

This analysis discloses project effects on the amount of late seral assemblage habitat available

(quantitative), and effects of the project on the quality of assemblage habitat in relation to a

representative species (brown creeper).

Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis 1. Quantitative: Acres with changes in amount of late seral assemblage habitat.


3. Qualitative: Acres with changes in tree canopy cover.

Current Condition of the Habitat Factor(s) in the Project Area This alternative occurs on 4,310 acres of late seral stand conditions. The stands are Douglas fir,

Klamath Mixed Conifer, Montane Hardwood Conifer, Ponderosa Pine, Red fir, and White fir

CWHR types with large trees (size class 5) and dense canopy cover. The stands currently provide

high quality brown creeper reproductive habitat.


Direct and Indirect Effects to Assemblage Habitat The TPFHR&S Project proposes to conduct fire salvage, roadside treatments (fuels reduction and


of late seral assemblage habitat (Table 5). The treatment units now consist of habitat conditions

that meet the management indicator assemblage definition of late seral assemblage habitat. Due to

the variable width buffer proposed under the Proposed Action, all late seral assemblage habitat

within 300 feet of each side of the road was included in this analysis. In reality, the total buffer for

the Proposed Action would be 300 feet, not 600 feet. Total acres being treated under the Proposed

Action would only be 7,969, therefore the amount of late seral assemblage habitat within it would

be much lower than 4,310 acres (it would be approximately half). Due to Resource Protection

Measures (RPMs) for this project for all Alternatives, no salvage will occur within northern

spotted owl (NSO) nesting/roosting habitat within High Value Wildlife Conservation Areas

(HVWCAs), which is late seral habitat. Throughout this report, for all Alternatives, the acres of

treatment in late seral habitat reflect that fact and therefore, may not match the acres of salvage

treatment proposed in other reports, including the EIS.

The CWHR tree size class would not be changed as a result of this alternative because remaining

trees would be characterized as size class 5 after treatment, and this falls within the late seral

assemblage definition. The Proposed Action would only remove or treat trees and vegetation that

are dead (no green limbs) at the time of implementation, as well as during future maintenance.

Fire killed trees and vegetation have few if any needles/leaves remaining, therefore canopy cover

would not be changed as a result of the removal/treatment of dead trees and vegetation. This

would not result in a change in assemblage type because this assemblage habitat includes all

canopy closure classes of late seral trees. As a result, although the treated stands would be more

open in the understory and would have fewer large dead trees, they would continue to provide

habitat for species associated with late seral stands. There would not be acreage change or

conversion into another assemblage directly as a result of this alternative (Table 9).


32

Table 9. Direct effects on the late seral assemblage (Proposed Action)*

Analysis factors No Action* Proposed Action* Acres of late seral assemblage within treatment units 4,310 4,310

Tree Size Class 5 5

Acres of late seral assemblage with reduction in CWHR

tree size class

0 0

Acres of dense canopy cover 4,310 4,310

Acres of late seral assemblage with reduction in CHWR

canopy cover class

0 0

*Due to variable width buffer under Proposed Action, this acreage represents the total amount of late seral habitat within 300 feet of each side of road. In reality, these acreages would be much lower (approximately half).

Cumulative Effects to Assemblage Habitat There is no change in the amount of late seral assemblage habitat from this alternative (the project

does not convert any acres from this assemblage to another), so there would not be cumulative

effects on the assemblage habitat.

Influence of Project Effects to Habitat Status and Trends at the Forest scale Based on the best available data used to track Forest wide management indicator assemblage

habitat, 22 there are currently approximately 790,000 acres of late seral assemblage habitat on the

Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Within the last decade, the recorded trend for amount of late seral

assemblage habitat on the Forest is steady at 36% of habitat on Shasta-Trinity National Forest

lands. Table 10 summarizes the trend in late seral assemblage over the last decade on the National

Forest.

As described above for openings and early seral assemblage, Northwest Forest Plan effectiveness

monitoring findings report a net change over the last decade in the amount of older forests23 due

to the gradual growth of trees into the lower end of the 20 inch diameter class. Analysis in the

Northwest Forest Plan monitoring report found that areas of older forests are stable and

expanding, and expectations are for continued increases.24 Even though this trend reported at the

Northwest Forest Plan level is not reflected definitively in current Shasta-Trinity assemblage

habitat trends for early and late seral habitat, it is likely that Forest wide trends would show an

increase in late seral and associated decrease in openings and early seral assemblage habitat in the

near future (Haynes et al. 2006).

Table 10. Forest wide late seral assemblage over time.


Percent of Forest in late seral assemblage in 1994

Amount of assemblage habitat in 2007 (acres)

Percent of Forest in late seral assemblage in 2007

Late Seral 785,000 36% 790,000 36%

22 The Forest utilizes data layers developed for Northwest Forest Plan effectiveness monitoring to track Forest wide

assemblage habitat. More information is in Habitat Status and Trend section near beginning of this document.

23 Older forest encompasses both mature and old-growth stages and is defined differently than the Forest management

indicator assemblages. Older forests are defined in the Northwest Forest Plan by mean diameter of over 20 inches, and

the late seral assemblage is defined by mean diameter of over 24 inches. This analysis uses Northwest Forest Plan data,

but categorizes the data according to Forest management indicator assemblage definitions (Table 1).

24 See Haynes et al. (2006), Chapter 6 and Moeur et al. (2005).


33

To put the project’s influence into perspective, it affects less than 0.6% of the Forest wide

assemblage habitat. Due to the small scale, even if potential unforeseen indirect effects are

realized, these effects are not expected to meaningfully influence Forest level habitat trends for

management indicator assemblages.

Direct and Indirect Effects to Breeding Habitat for Brown Creeper Dense canopy cover in Douglas fir, Klamath Mixed Conifer, montane hardwood conifer,

ponderosa pine, red fir, and white fir CWHR habitat types with tree size class 5 (as occurs in the

project units before and after treatment) provides high suitability nesting habitat for brown

creepers. In the short term, this alternative would slightly decrease habitat suitability for the

brown creeper by reducing snag density by removing dead trees, but the habitat would continue to

be suitable after treatment. Habitat suitability for brown creepers would increase in quality over

time as the stand matures.

Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Larger Brown Creeper Population Trends As described above, Forest level trends show a steady trend in the amount of late seral

assemblage habitat (Table 10). In the long run, it is likely that early seral assemblage will decline

slightly and late seral assemblage will increase slightly due to forest practices of retaining and

encouraging development of late seral forest.

Alternative 1 impacts are expected to minimally impact brown creeper habitat as no changes to

tree size class or reductions in canopy cover class would occur. Densities of fire-killed snags

adjacent to the road system would decline, however snags will be abundant in untreated areas

within the fire perimeters. In addition, where it is available, at least 10 tons of coarse woody

debris (CWD) per acre will be retained for wildlife benefit (CWD=snags 15 inches or greater in

diameter and logs greater than 20 inches diameter and 10 feet long). Snags with deformities such

as cat faces, broken or forked tops, hollows, or cavities will be prioritized for retention. In the

long-term, this alternative’s impact would be beneficial to brown creeper habitat as the project is

designed to create more fire resilient late seral habitat. Typical practices on private timber land

will continue, therefore no significant contributions to late seral assemblage are likely to occur

outside of Forest boundaries. Alternative effects are consistent with a stable or increasing trend in

late seral assemblage and brown creeper habitat.

Population trends for the brown creeper are tracked and compiled at the Forest level. These data

indicate a fairly stable population within the BBS strata that overlap the Shasta-Trinity National

Forest, with a slight lean towards a decline, but the decline is not strongly supported by statistical

analysis (Sauer et al. 2008). In light of best available population data, project effects to habitat,

and Forest level habitat trends, the project is not likely to result in any meaningful change to

population trends and habitat availability for the brown creeper.


Under Alternative 2, 2,636 acres of late seral assemblage would be treated. Salvage, roadside

treatments (fuels reduction and dead/dying tree removal or treatment), fuelbreaks, tree planting,

and/or maintenance would occur (Table 5). The treatment units now consist of habitat conditions

that meet the management indicator assemblage definition of late seral assemblage habitat. The

CWHR tree size class would not be changed as a result of this alternative because remaining trees

would be characterized as size class 5 after treatment, and this falls within the late seral

assemblage definition. Fire killed trees have few if any needles remaining, therefore canopy cover

would not be changed as a result of the removal or treatment of dead trees. In addition to

removing/treating dead trees and vegetation, Alternative 2 would remove or treat dying


34

vegetation and trees that have a 60% probability of mortality. Canopy cover would be slightly

reduced as a result of the removal or treatment of dying trees. However, Alternative 2 would not

result in a change in assemblage type because this assemblage habitat includes all canopy cover

classes of late seral trees.

Within the proposed fuelbreaks, more intensive treatments would occur compared to the other

treatment units and other alternatives. Within the fuelbreaks, both live and dead trees and

vegetation would be removed or treated, with intensities varying by distance from the road.

However, removing small (<10 inch dbh) live trees in the fuelbreaks would not affect the late

seral assemblage because it would not affect late seral canopy cover or tree size class. As a result,

although the treated stands would be more open in the understory and would have fewer large

trees, which are predominantly dead, they would continue to provide habitat for species

associated with late seral stands. There would not be acreage change or conversion into another

assemblage directly as a result of this alternative. When the actual footprint of the Proposed

Action is considered, instead of 300 feet on each side of the road, Alternative 2 would impact

more acres of late seral habitat because its total project footprint is larger than the Proposed

Action’s. Under Alternative 2, more acres would have a decrease in canopy cover; however,

canopy cover is expected to remain moderate to dense due to removal of mostly dead trees.

Alternative 2 is not likely to result in any meaningful change to population trends and habitat

availability for the brown creeper.



treatments (fuels reduction and dead/dying tree removal or treatment), tree planting, and/or

maintenance would occur (Table 5). In addition to removing/treating dead trees and vegetation,

Alternative 3 would remove or treat dying vegetation and trees that have a 60% probability of

mortality. Canopy cover would be slightly reduced as a result of the removal/treatment of dead

and dying trees. However, Alternative 3 would not result in a change in assemblage type because

this assemblage habitat includes all canopy closure classes of late seral trees. As a result, although

the treated stands would be more open in the understory and would have fewer large trees, which

are predominantly dead, they would continue to provide habitat for species associated with late

seral stands. There would not be acreage change or conversion into another assemblage directly

as a result of this alternative. When the actual footprint of the Proposed Action is considered,

instead of 300 feet on each side of the road, more acres of late seral habitat would be impacted by

Alternative 3 and more acres would have a decrease in canopy cover. However, canopy cover is

expected to remain moderate to dense due to removal of mostly dead trees. The late seral

assemblage includes all canopy cover classes (sparse to dense), and moderate to high quality

brown creeper habitat includes moderate to dense canopy cover. Alternative 3 is not likely to

result in any meaningful change to population trends and habitat availability for the brown

creeper.



treatments (fuels reduction and dead tree removal or treatment), tree planting, and maintenance

would occur outside of areas identified as important for northern spotted owls (NSO) on 1,093

acres of late seral assemblage habitat. Within these important areas (NSO nesting, roosting,

foraging, and post fire foraging habitat in NSO territories or Critical Habitat), hazard trees would

be hand felled and left on site and no removal, fuels or maintenance reduction treatments would

occur (hazard mitigation only, followed by tree planting) on 3,217 acres (Table 5). NSO nesting,

roosting, and foraging habitat is all considered late seral assemblage habitat, therefore under this

alternative, most of the late seral habitat is subject to hazard mitigation only (and tree planting).


35



assemblage definition. Alternative 4 would only remove or treat hazard trees that are dead (no

green limbs) at the time of implementation. Fire-killed trees have few if any needles remaining,

therefore canopy cover would not be changed as a result of the removal or treatment of dead

trees. As a result, although the treated stands would be more open in the understory and would

have fewer large dead trees, they would continue to provide habitat for species associated with

late seral stands. There would not be acreage change or conversion into another assemblage

directly as a result of this alternative. When the actual footprint of the Proposed Action and

Alternative 4 are considered, instead of 300 feet on each side of the road, Alternative 4 would

impact about the same number of acres of late seral habitat. Compared to the Proposed Action,

fuels reduction and salvage would occur on 3,217 fewer acres of late seral habitat under

Alternative 4 (due to hazard mitigation only treatments) (Table 5); therefore, in the long term,

Alternative 4 would result in some late seral stands that are less resilient to fire. Future fires in

those areas would likely burn with increased flame lengths and intensities, resulting in increased

tree mortality, which would decrease the quality of late seral habitat.


Under Alternative 5, 4,310 acres of late seral assemblage would be treated. No salvage would

occur in this alternative. Within sensitive areas (northern spotted owl nesting, roosting, foraging,

and post-fire foraging habitat, riparian reserves, inventoried roadless areas, and at-risk

watersheds), hazard trees would be hand felled and left on site and no removal, fuels reduction or

maintenance treatments would occur (hazard mitigation only, followed by tree planting) (Table

5). Therefore, under Alternative 5, late seral assemblage (which is comprised of NSO

nesting/roosting and foraging habitat) would be subject to hazard mitigation only (and tree

planting).



assemblage definition. Alternative 5 would only remove or treat hazard trees that are dead (no

green limbs) at the time of implementation. Fire-killed trees have few if any needles remaining,

therefore canopy cover would not be changed as a result of the removal or treatment of dead

trees. As a result, although the treated stands would have fewer large dead trees, they would

continue to provide habitat for species associated with late seral stands. There would not be

acreage change or conversion into another assemblage directly as a result of this alternative.

When the actual footprint of the Proposed Action are Alternative 5 are considered, instead of 300

feet on each side of the road, Alternative 5 would impact about the same number of acres of late

seral habitat. However, no fuels reduction or salvage would occur within late seral habitat under

Alternative 5 (due to hazard mitigation only treatments); therefore, in the long term, Alternative 5

would result in late seral stands that are less resilient to fire. Future fires would likely burn with

increased flame lengths and intensities, resulting in increased tree mortality, which would

decrease the quality of late seral habitat.

Snags and Down Log Assemblage (red-breasted nuthatch)

This assemblage is defined as conifer and hardwood habitats with substantial snags and down

logs.


The red-breasted nuthatch is strongly associated with snags. This species nests in cavities that

they excavate in rotted wood, especially snags (CDFG 2008). Preferred red-breasted nuthatch


36

nesting habitat includes CWHR tree sizes medium/large (≥24 inches dbh) with sparse, open,

moderate or dense canopy cover (CDFG 2008).

Project-level Effects Analysis – Snag and Down Log Assemblage

This analysis discloses project effects on the amount of snag and down log assemblage habitat

available (quantitative), and effects of the project on the quality of assemblage habitat in relation

to a representative species (red-breasted nuthatch).

Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis 1. Quantitative: Acres with changes in amount of snag and down log assemblage habitat.

2. Qualitative: Acres with changes in density of snag and/or down logs.

Current Condition of the Habitat Factor(s) in the Project Area The project occurs within the 144,000 acre perimeter of the fires that burned on the west side of

the Shasta-Trinity National Forest in 2015. This project occurs on 14,409 acres of snag and down

log assemblage habitat. The snag and down log habitat in the project area is variable, including

openings and early seral, late seral, hardwood, and riparian assemblage habitats. The 2015 fires

burned at all severity levels. Some stands burned at very low or low intensity, and consequently

have few new fire created snags. Other areas burned under high intensity, resulting in total tree

mortality and high snag densities. Areas that burned at moderate severity also have a high

likelihood of deforestation or large pockets of snags. Given the mosaic pattern of fire severity

across the project area, combined with the various pre-fire tree densities, the full range of snag

density levels is present. The mature stands in the project currently provide high quality red-

breasted nuthatch habitat, with large trees and numerous snags.




of snag and down log assemblage (Table 5). These actions would impact the snag and down log

assemblage habitat. Within 6,831 of these acres, fuels reduction would occur and snags would be

salvaged (felled and removed from the landscape). Within the remaining 7,578 acres, fuels

reduction would occur and snags would be felled and left on site as logs. Within those acres,

wood products may be utilized for commercial or personal firewood, or biomass removal.

Intermittent salvage may also occur in areas outside of northern spotted owl (NSO)

nesting/roosting habitat within High Value Wildlife Conservation Areas (HVWCAs). Trees felled

may also be treated for fuels reduction purposes. Due to the variable width buffer proposed under

this alternative, all snag and down log assemblage habitat within 300 feet of each side of the road

was included in this analysis. In reality, the total buffer for this alternative is 300 feet, not 600

feet. Total acres being treated under this alternative would only be approximately 7,969, therefore

the amount of snag and down log assemblage habitat within it would be much lower than 14,409

acres (it would be approximately half).

Due to Resource Protection Measures (RPMs) for this project, no salvage will occur within

northern spotted owl (NSO) nesting/roosting habitat within High Value Wildlife Conservation

Areas (HVWCAs). Throughout this report, the acres of treatment in snag and down log habitat

reflect that fact and therefore, may not match the acres of salvage treatment proposed in other

reports, including the EIS. RPMs also include retention of snags and logs. Within NSO

nesting/roosting, foraging, and post-fire foraging type 1 (PFF1) areas in HVWCAs, at least 15


37

tons of coarse woody debris (CWD) per acre would be retained for wildlife benefit, where it is

available (CWD = snags 15 inches or greater in diameter and logs greater than 20 inches diameter

and 10 feet long). Snags and logs in advanced states of decay (snag and log decay classes 3-5)

and/or with deformities such as cat faces, broken or forked tops, hollows or cavities would be

prioritized for retention. Within NSO nesting/roosting, foraging, and post-fire foraging type 1

(PFF1) areas outside of HVWCAs, an average of at least 10 tons of CWD per acre will be

retained for wildlife benefit, where it is available. Within Riparian Reserves, 20 tons/acre of large

woody debris would be retained, when possible.

The Proposed Action would only remove or treat trees that are dead (no green limbs) at the time

of implementation, as well as during future maintenance. The treatment units are long thin units

along roadsides and snags and down logs are abundant just outside of the treatment units and

throughout the fire perimeter. The snag and down log density would be reduced as a result of this

alternative. As a result, although the treated stands would be less densely stocked with snags, this

alternative would continue to provide habitat for species associated with snag and down log

assemblage (Table 11).

Table 11. Direct effects on the snag component of assemblage habitat (Proposed Action)1

Habitat Component No Action (Pre-implementation)1

Proposed Action (Post-implementation)1

Snag and down log assemblage 14,409 acres 14,409 acres

Salvage & Fuels Treatment (6,831 acres) Average Snag Density >15”dbh

within salvage units

10 snags/acre 2 snags/acre

Fuels Treatment (7,578 acres)2

Average Snag Density >15”dbh

within fuels treatment units


1Due to variable width buffer under Proposed Action, these acreages represent the total amount of snag and down log habitat within 300 feet of each side of road. In reality, these acreages will be much lower (approximately half). 2 Fuels treatment includes felling trees and leaving on site, and potential utilization of wood products for commercial or personal firewood, biomass removal etc. Within these areas, intermittent salvage may occur in areas outside of northern spotted owl (NSO) nesting/roosting habitat within High Value Wildlife Conservation Areas (HVWCAs).

Cumulative Effects to Assemblage Habitat There is no change in amount of snag and down log assemblage from this alternative (the project


effects on amount of snag and down log assemblage.

Influence of Project Effects to Habitat Status and Trends at the Forest scale The snag and down log assemblage is defined as conifer and hardwood habitats with substantial

snags and down logs. The habitat components defining the assemblage (snags and down logs)

also occur within the other assemblages and are evaluated at the project level using site-specific

data (forest stand data). At the Forest level, the amount of assemblage habitat is tracked using

annual aerial survey data which provides information about forest mortality due to insect and

disease, and wildfire data. Because snags and down logs are habitat components found within the

other assemblages, the amount of snag and down log assemblage tracked at the Forest level is

known to represent only a portion of the habitat that provides snags and down logs throughout the

Forest.


38

Since 1994 snags have been recruited in large pulses by disease mortality and fire on 591,100

acres of National Forest System lands in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Snags are not

permanent features on the landscape (Cluck and Smith 2007, Landram et al. 2002), and when

they fall they contribute to the log component and continue to provide snag and down log

assemblage habitat. Snags and logs are known to be deficient in plantations due to past

management practices; therefore, there is a deficiency of snags on 67,700 acres of National Forest

System Lands. Also, snags and logs are not usually retained on private timber land, so snag and

down log assemblage is likely restricted to National Forest System lands.

Table 12. Forest wide trends in snag and down log assemblage habitat.

Assemblage Total amount of assemblage

contributed since 1994

(acres)

Gain due to wildfire since 1994

(acres)

Gain due to disease since 1994

(acres)

Acres of Snag Deficiency

Snag and Down

Log

591,100 177,300 413,800 67,700

As shown in Table 12, snag and down log assemblage habitat continues to increase over time due

to wildfire events and insect and disease outbreaks. Contributing forces to the recruitment of

snags involves the overall health and flammability of forests. The Forest Service monitors forest

health through field reconnaissance and annual aerial surveys. Aerial surveys report areas

containing current-year conifer and hardwood mortality, defoliation, and other damage; more

information is found at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/spf/fhp/fhm/aerial/index.shtml.

Any decreases in the snag habitat component would be localized and due to vegetation and fuels

management actions such as linear fuel management zones or private forestry where Forest Plan

snag retention guidelines do not apply. The amount of snag and down log habitat may also be

reduced due to intense wildfires that consume snags and logs, and slowly due to natural

decomposition.

Implementation of this alternative would not meaningfully reduce the amount of snag and down

log assemblage habitat at the Forest level. While snags would be removed under this alternative,

in most areas snag felling would be limited to roadside hazard trees. There are abundant snags

and down logs directly adjacent to the project area throughout the fire perimeter. To put the

project’s influence into perspective, it affects only 3% of the Forest wide assemblage habitat.

Typical practices on private timber land would continue to create a lack of snags and logs on

private lands. The occurrence of disease outbreaks and wildfire are likely to continue at the

current rate because there are still large areas with high fuel loading (due to fire suppression), and

management of diseased stands occurs at small scales. Extensive areas within the 2015 fire

complexes adjacent to the project area would remain untreated, and abundant snags and logs

would be available and recruited in the future as trees continue to die.

Direct and Indirect Effects to Breeding Habitat for Red-breasted Nuthatch In the short term, this Alternative would decrease habitat suitability for the red-breasted nuthatch

by reducing the density of snags in treatment units. Douglas fir, Klamath mixed conifer,

Ponderosa pine, Red fir, and White fir CWHR habitat types with tree size classes 4 and 5 and

sparse to dense canopy cover (as occurs within units before and after this alternative) provides

moderate and high suitability nesting habitat for red-breasted nuthatches as long as the stands

include snags (Table 13). Felling and removing snags and logs may reduce quality habitat for the

red-breasted nuthatch.


39

Table 13. Summary of treatments within moderate and high quality nesting habitat for the

red-breasted nuthatch (Proposed Action)1

Treatment Prescription Acres of Treatment within High and Moderate Quality Nesting Habitat1

Salvage & Fuels Treatment High – 2,099

Moderate – 2,970

Fuels Treatment2 High – 2,502

Moderate – 2,749

1 Due to variable width buffer under Proposed Action, these acreages are based upon the total amount of snag and down log habitat within 300 feet of each side of road. In reality, these acreages will be much lower (approximately half).

2 Fuels treatment includes felling trees and leaving on site, and potential utilization of wood products for commercial or personal firewood, biomass removal etc. Within these areas, intermittent salvage may occur in areas outside of northern spotted owl (NSO) nesting/roosting habitat within High Value Wildlife Conservation Areas (HVWCAs).

While a relatively large number of acres may be impacted by this alternative, not all snags would

be felled and/or removed within the treatment units. In many areas, only trees identified as hazard

trees25 would be felled and/or removed. RPMs would also retain some snags (where they are not

hazardous) and down logs on site for wildlife benefit.

In the long term, tree planting would accelerate growth of forest stands and development of old

growth conditions more quickly than the no action alternative. This would cause habitat

suitability for red-breasted nuthatches to increase in quality over time as the stand matures. Under

the no action alternative, trees impacted by the wildfires would continue to decay and fall without

human influence.

Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Larger Red-breasted Nuthatch Population Trends Alternative effects to red-breasted nuthatch habitat include decreases in habitat suitability due to

reduced snag density. Forest wide snag and down log assemblage habitat continues to increase

over time, and late seral habitat (which provides recruitment of snags and down logs) has a

current trend of steady with potential for future increases. Because this alternative affects only a

small fraction of the red-breasted nuthatch habitat available Forest wide, it is not likely to have

any meaningful influence on Forest wide habitat trends.

Population trends for the red-breasted nuthatch are tracked and compiled at the Forest level.

These data indicate a potential increase in species occurrence within the BBS strata that overlap

the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, and this increase is supported by statistical analysis in the Pitt-

Klamath strata and the South Pacific Rainforest strata that occur on the Forest, as well as range-

wide (Sauer et al. 2008). In light of best available population data, project effects to habitat, and

Forest level habitat trends, the project is not likely to result in any meaningful change to

population trends and habitat availability for the red-breasted nuthatch.


Under Alternative 2, 9,238 acres of snag and down log assemblage would be treated. Salvage,

roadside treatments (fuels reduction and dead/dying tree removal or treatment), fuelbreaks, tree

planting, and/or maintenance would occur. These actions would impact the snag and down log

assemblage habitat. Within 4,873 of these acres, dead/dying trees that are felled would be

salvaged (removed from the landscape) and fuels reduction and/or fuelbreaks would occur.

25As identified in Hazard Tree Guidelines for Forest Service Roads and Facilities in the Pacific Southwest Region

(Angwin et al 2012).


40

Within the remaining areas (4,365 acres), dead/dying trees would be felled and fuels reduction

and/or fuelbreak treatments would occur. Within these areas, wood products may be utilized for

commercial or personal firewood, or biomass removal. Intermittent salvage may also occur in

areas outside of northern spotted owl (NSO) nesting/roosting habitat within High Value Wildlife

Conservation Areas (HVWCAs). Trees felled may also be treated for fuels reduction purposes

(Table 5), but 10 to 20 tons/acre (depending on the location) of downed logs would be retained.

In addition to felling dead trees, Alternative 2 would fell trees that have a 60% probability of

mortality. As a result, this alternative’s effects to this assemblage would be greater than those of

the Proposed Action, which would only fell trees that are completely dead at time of

implementation. The density of snags and down logs would be reduced as a result of Alternative

2, however the project units would continue to provide habitat for species associated with the

snag and down log assemblage. RPMs, as described above under the Proposed Action, include

retention of snags and logs on site for wildlife benefit. As a result, this alternative’s effects would

not result in the loss of any acres of this assemblage. When the actual footprint of the Proposed

Action is considered, instead of 300 feet on each side of the road, Alternative 2 would impact

more acres of snag and down log habitat because its total project footprint is larger than the

Proposed Action’s (Table 14).

Table 14. Direct effects on the snag component of assemblage habitat (Alternative 2)

Habitat Component No Action (Pre-implementation)

Alternative 2 (Post-implementation)



within project units






Fuelbreak, Salvage & Fuels Treatment (1,768 acres) Average Snag Density >15”dbh



Fuelbreak & Fuels Treatment (391 acres)1




1 Fuels treatments and fuelbreaks include felling trees and leaving on site, and potential utilization of wood products for commercial or personal firewood, biomass removal etc. Within these areas, intermittent salvage may occur in areas outside of northern spotted owl (NSO) nesting/roosting habitat within High Value Wildlife Conservation Areas (HVWCAs).


Under Alternative 3, 14,409 acres of snag and down log assemblage habitat would be treated.

Salvage, roadside treatments (fuels reduction and dead/dying tree removal or treatment), tree

planting, and/or maintenance would occur. These actions would impact the snag and down log

assemblage habitat. Within 6,831 of these acres, fuels reduction would occur and snags would be

salvaged (felled and removed from the landscape). Within the remaining 7,578 acres, fuels

reduction would occur and snags would be felled and left on site as logs. Within those acres,

wood products may be utilized for commercial or personal firewood, or biomass removal.

Intermittent salvage may also occur in areas outside of northern spotted owl (NSO)

nesting/roosting habitat within High Value Wildlife Conservation Areas (HVWCAs). Trees felled

may also be treated for fuels reduction purposes (Table 5).

In addition to removing/treating dead trees, Alternative 3 would fell trees that have a 60%

probability of mortality. As a result, this alternative’s effects to this assemblage would be greater


41

than those of the Proposed Action, which would only fell trees that are completely dead at time of

implementation, as well as during future maintenance. The density of snags and down logs would

be reduced as a result of Alternative 3, however the project units would continue to provide

habitat for species associated with the snag and down log assemblage. RPMs, as described above

under the Proposed Action, include retention of snags and logs on site for wildlife benefit. As a

result, this alternative’s effects would not result in the loss of any acres of this assemblage. When

the actual footprint of the Proposed Action is considered, instead of 300 feet on each side of the

road, Alternative 3 would impact more acres of snag and down log habitat because its total

project footprint is larger than the Proposed Action’s (Table 15).

Table 15. Direct effects on the snag component of assemblage habitat (Alternative 3)

Habitat Component No Action Pre-implementation)







Average Snag Density >15” dbh



1 Fuels treatments include felling trees and leaving on site, and potential utilization of wood products for commercial or personal firewood, biomass removal etc. Within these areas, intermittent salvage may occur in areas outside of northern spotted owl (NSO) nesting/roosting habitat within High Value Wildlife Conservation Areas (HVWCAs).


Under Alternative 4, 14,409 acres of snag and down log assemblage would be treated. Salvage,

roadside treatments (fuels reduction and dead tree removal or treatment), tree planting, and

maintenance would occur outside of areas identified as important for northern spotted owls.

Within these important areas, hazard trees would be hand felled and left on site and no removal,

fuels reduction or maintenance treatments would occur (hazard mitigation only, followed by tree

planting) (Table 5).

Alternative 4 would only remove or treat trees that are dead (no green limbs) at the time of






the actual footprint of the Proposed Action and Alternative 4 are considered, instead of 300 feet

on each side of the road, Alternative 4 would impact about the same number of acres of snag and

down log habitat as the Proposed Action. The effects of Alternative 4 would be less intense than

the Proposed Action because on 3,496 acres of snag and down log habitat, snags would be felled

and left on site as logs (hazard mitigation only, no fuels reduction or other removal) (Table 16).

Table 16. Direct effects on the snag component of assemblage habitat (Alternative 4)1








42

Fuels Treatment (5,841 acres) Average Snag Density >15” dbh



Hazard Mitigation Only (3,496 acres) Average Snag Density >15” dbh



1 Due to variable width buffer proposed under Alternative 4, these acreages are based upon the total amount of snag and down log habitat within 300 feet of each side of road. In reality, these acreages will be much lower (approximately half).


Under Alternative 5, 14,409 acres of snag and down log assemblage would be treated. No salvage

would occur in this alternative. Outside of sensitive areas (northern spotted owl nesting, roosting,

foraging, and post-fire foraging habitat, riparian reserves, inventoried roadless areas, and at-risk

watersheds), roadside treatments (fuels reduction and dead tree removal or treatment, followed by

tree planting and maintenance) would occur. Within sensitive areas, hazard trees would be hand

felled and left on site and no removal, fuels reduction or maintenance treatments would occur

(hazard mitigation only, followed by tree planting). (Table 5).

Alternative 5 would only remove or treat trees that are dead (no green limbs) at the time of






the actual footprint of the Proposed Action and Alternative 5 are considered, instead of 300 feet

on each side of the road, Alternative 5 would impact about the same number of acres of snag and

down log habitat as the Proposed Action. The effects of Alternative 5 would be less intense than

the Proposed Action because on 7,984 acres of snag and down log habitat, snags would be felled

and left on site as logs (hazard mitigation only, no fuels reduction or other removal) (Table 17).

Table 17. Direct effects on the snag component of assemblage habitat (Alternative 5)1




Fuels Treatment (6,425 acres) Average Snag Density >15” dbh



Hazard Mitigation Only (7,984 acres) Average Snag Density >15” dbh



1 Due to variable width buffer proposed under Alternative 5, these acreages are based upon the total amount of snag and down log habitat within 300 feet of each side of road. In reality, these acreages will be much lower (approximately half).

Hardwood Wildlife Assemblage (white-breasted nuthatch) This assemblage is defined as all tree sizes and all canopy cover classes of Montane hardwood,

blue oak woodland, and valley oak woodland CWHR habitat types.


43


The white-breasted nuthatch occupies hardwood habitats and hardwood-conifer habitats

(primarily CHWR tree size 4 and 5 for high quality habitat; CDFG 2008). The species tends to be

associated with large oaks. This species nests in cavities in large trees or snags excavated by

themselves or by woodpeckers (CDFG 2008). Preferred white-breasted nuthatch nesting habitat

includes CWHR tree sizes 4 (11-24 inches dbh) and 5 (≥24 inches dbh) in hardwood woodland or

hardwood conifer stands (CDFG 2008).

Project-level Effects Analysis – Hardwood Assemblage

This analysis discloses project effects on the amount of hardwood assemblage habitat available


representative species (white-breasted nuthatch).

Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis 1. Quantitative: Acres with changes in amount of hardwood assemblage habitat.


3. Qualitative: Acres with changes in hardwood canopy cover.

Current Condition of the Habitat Factor(s) in the Project Area This project occurs on 426 acres of montane hardwood assemblage habitat. The hardwood

assemblage habitat in the project area consist of montane hardwood woodland with all CWHR

tree size classes and all canopy cover classes. The project area provides some moderate and high

quality nesting habitat for the white-breasted nuthatch.



dead tree removal or treatment), tree planting, and/or maintenance on approximately 426 acres of

hardwood assemblage habitats (Table 5). Some habitat within the treatment units now consist of

habitat conditions that meet the management indicator assemblage definition of hardwood

assemblage habitat. Due to the variable width buffer proposed under the Proposed Action, all

hardwood assemblage habitat within 300 feet of each side of the road was included in this

analysis. In reality, the total buffer for the Proposed Action would be 300 feet, not 600 feet. Total

acres being treated under the Proposed Action would only be 7,969, therefore the amount of

hardwood assemblage habitat within it would be much lower than 426 acres (it would be

approximately half).

Treatment of hardwood trees would be limited to hazard tree abatement and fuels treatments (no

hardwoods would be commercially salvaged). Some hardwood stands have a minor conifer

component; therefore, within hardwood stands, scattered dead conifer trees may be felled. These

conifers would mostly be left on site (removal and salvage would be very limited). Although there

is a slight possibility that hardwoods would be impacted by felled conifer trees, the impacts are

expected to be minimal. For the proposed action, only trees and vegetation that are completely

dead (no green limbs) at the time of implementation, as well as during future maintenance would

be treated or removed. The CWHR tree size class would not be changed as a result of this

alternative, thus the project would not result in a change in assemblage because all hardwood tree

size classes are included in the hardwood assemblage. Hardwood density would not be reduced as

a result of this alternative, and this alternative would not result in a change in assemblage type

because assemblage habitat includes all densities of hardwood trees. Changes in hardwood


44

canopy cover are expected to be negligible. Fire killed hardwoods have few if any leaves

remaining, therefore canopy cover would not be changed as a result of the removal or treatment

of dead trees. As a result, the treated stands would continue to provide habitat for species

associated with hardwood stands (Table 18). There would not be acreage change or conversion

into another assemblage directly as a result of this alternative.

Table 18. Direct effects on the hardwood assemblage at the project scale (Proposed Action)*

Analysis factors No Action* Proposed Action* Acres hardwood assemblage

within treatment units

426 426

Acres of change in CWHR

habitat tree size

0 0

Acres of change in hardwood

canopy cover

0 0

*Due to variable width buffer under Proposed Action, this acreage represents the total amount of hardwood habitat within 300 feet of each side of road. In reality, these acreages would be much lower (approximately half).

Cumulative Effects to Assemblage Habitat

There is no change in the amount of hardwood assemblage habitat from this alternative (the

project does not convert any acres from this assemblage to another), so there would not be

cumulative effects on the assemblage habitat.

Influence of Project Effects to Habitat Status and Trends at the Forest scale There are currently 323,000 acres of hardwood assemblage habitat on National Forest System

lands in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Within the last decade, the trend for hardwood

assemblage on the Forest is steady at 15% of habitat on National Forest system lands (Table 19).

In the long term, this proposed action would not affect Forest wide trends in hardwood

assemblage habitat because it would not affect the amount of hardwood assemblage habitat

available.

Table 19. Forest wide hardwood assemblage over time.

Assemblage

Amount of assemblage

habitat in 1994 (acres)

Percent of Forest in hardwood

assemblage in 1994


habitat in 2007

(acres)

Percent of Forest in hardwood

assemblage in 2007

Hardwood 334,000 15% 323,000 15%

Direct and Indirect Effects to Breeding Habitat for White-breasted Nuthatch The hardwood assemblage habitat in the project units consists of montane hardwood habitat of all

CWHR size classes and canopy covers. The hardwood habitat would maintain these

characteristics after treatments, thus the hardwood habitat would continue to provide moderate

and high quality habitat after implementation. The proposed action would not decrease habitat

suitability for the white-breasted nuthatch because only dead trees and vegetation would be

treated/removed and hardwood tree size class and canopy cover would not be affected (Table 18).

Regrowth of young trees both within and outside of treatment areas would result in an increase in

habitat suitability for white-breasted nuthatch in the future. There would not be acreage change or

conversion into another assemblage directly as a result of this alternative.


45

Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Larger White-breasted Nuthatch Population Trends As described above, the hardwood assemblage habitat Forest level trend is steady (Table 19).

Implementation of this project would not affect the Forest wide steady trend in hardwood

assemblage habitat, because no change in amount of assemblage habitat would occur. Project

effects are consistent with Forest level trends that indicate hardwood assemblage habitat is being

maintained over time. Typical practices on private timber land would continue, so no significant

contributions to hardwood assemblage are likely to occur outside of Forest boundaries. To put the

project’s influence into perspective, it affects 0.1% of the Forest wide hardwood assemblage

habitat and it would continue to provide this type of habitat post-project.

Population trends for the white-breasted nuthatch are tracked and compiled at the Forest level.

These data indicate a potentially increasing population within the BBS strata that overlap the

Shasta-Trinity National Forest. This increase is supported by statistical analysis in the Pitt-

Klamath BBS strata (Sauer et al. 2008). In light of best available population data, project effects

to habitat, and Forest level habitat trends, the project is not likely to result in any meaningful

change to population trends and habitat availability for the white-breasted nuthatch.


Under Alternative 2, 378 acres of hardwood assemblage habitat would be treated. Salvage,

roadside treatments (fuels reduction and dead/dying tree removal or treatment), fuelbreaks, tree

planting, and/or maintenance would occur. Some of the treatment units now consist of habitat

conditions that meet the management indicator assemblage definition of hardwood assemblage

habitat. Treatment of hardwood trees would be limited to hazard tree abatement and fuels

treatments (no hardwoods would be commercially salvaged) (Table 5). Scattered dead/dying

conifer trees felled within hardwood stands would mostly be left on site (removal and salvage

would be very limited). Although there is a slight possibility that hardwoods would be impacted

by felled conifer trees, the impacts are expected to be minimal.

The CWHR tree size class would not be changed as a result of this alternative, thus this project

would not result in a change in assemblage because all hardwood tree size classes are included in

the hardwood assemblage. Fire killed trees have few if any leaves remaining, therefore canopy

cover would not be changed as a result of the removal or treatment of dead trees. In addition to

removing/treating dead trees and vegetation, Alternative 2 would remove or treat trees that have a

60% probability of mortality, as well as dying vegetation. Hardwood canopy cover and density

would be slightly reduced as a result of the removal or treatment of dead or dying trees and

vegetation.

Within the fuelbreaks, live trees up to 10 inch dbh (tree size 1-3) would be thinned. Canopy cover

and hardwood density would be slightly reduced as a result of the removal or treatment of live

trees in the fuelbreaks. However, Alternative 2 would not result in a change in assemblage type

because this assemblage habitat includes all canopy cover classes and all densities of hardwood

trees. As a result, although the treated stands would be slightly more open and less densely

stocked with trees, they would continue to provide habitat for species associated with hardwood


result of this alternative. When the actual footprint of the Proposed Action is considered, instead

of 300 feet on each side of the road, Alternative 2 would impact more acres of hardwood habitat

because its total project footprint is larger than the Proposed Action’s. Compared to the Proposed

Action, more acres would have a decrease in canopy cover and density under Alternative 2.


46


Under Alternative 3, 426 acres of hardwood assemblage would be treated. Salvage, roadside

treatments, tree planting, and/or maintenance would occur. Treatment of hardwood trees would be

limited to hazard tree abatement and fuels reduction (no hardwoods would be commercially

salvaged) (Table 5). Scattered dead/dying conifer trees felled within hardwood stands would

mostly be left on site (removal and salvage would be very limited). Although there is a slight

possibility that hardwoods would be impacted by felled conifer trees, the impacts are expected to

be minimal.

The CWHR tree size class would not be changed as a result of this alternative, thus this

alternative would not result in a change in assemblage because all hardwood tree size classes are

included in the hardwood assemblage. In addition to removing/treating dead trees and vegetation,

Alternative 3 would remove or treat trees that have a 60% probability of mortality, as well as

dying vegetation. Canopy cover would be slightly reduced as a result of the removal or treatment

of dying trees. However, Alternative 3 would not result in a change in assemblage type because

this assemblage habitat includes all canopy cover classes and all densities of hardwood trees. As a

result, although the treated stands would be slightly more open and less densely stocked with

trees, they would continue to provide habitat for species associated with hardwood stands. There

would not be acreage change or conversion into another assemblage directly as a result of this

alternative. When the actual footprint of the Proposed Action is considered, instead of 300 feet on

each side of the road, Alternative 3 would impact more acres of hardwood habitat because its total

project footprint is larger than the Proposed Action’s. Compared to the Proposed Action, more

acres would have a decrease in hardwood canopy cover and density under Alternative 3.


Under Alternative 4, 426 acres of hardwood assemblage would be treated. Salvage, roadside

treatments (fuels reduction and dead tree removal or treatment), tree planting, and/or maintenance

would occur. Treatment of hardwood trees would be limited to hazard tree abatement and fuels

reduction (no hardwoods would be commercially salvaged) (Table 5). Scattered dead conifer trees

felled within hardwood stands would mostly be left on site (removal and salvage would be very

limited). Although there is a slight possibility that hardwoods would be impacted by felled conifer

trees, the impacts are expected to be minimal. Only trees and vegetation that are completely dead

(no green limbs) at time of implementation, as well as during maintenance would be treated

and/or removed. There would not be acreage change or conversion into another assemblage

directly as a result of this alternative. The effects of this alternative to hardwood assemblage

habitats would be about the same as the Proposed Action. When the actual footprint of the

Proposed Action and Alternative 4 are considered, instead of 300 feet on each side of the road,

Alternative 4 would impact about the same number of acres of hardwood habitat.


Under Alternative 5, 426 acres of hardwood assemblage would be treated. Fuels reduction

(treatment and/or utilization) and hazard tree mitigation (treatment and/or removal) would occur,

but not commercial salvage. Treatment of hardwood trees would be limited to hazard tree

abatement and fuels reduction (Table 5). Scattered dead conifer trees felled within hardwood

stands would mostly be left on site. Although there is a slight possibility that hardwoods would be

impacted by felled conifer trees, the impacts are expected to be minimal. Only trees and

vegetation that are completely dead (no green limbs) at time of implementation, as well as during

future maintenance would be treated and/or removed. There would not be acreage change or

conversion into another assemblage directly as a result of this alternative. The effects of this

alternative to hardwood assemblage habitats would be about the same as the Proposed Action.


47

When the actual footprint of the Proposed Action and Alternative 5 are considered, instead of 300

feet on each side of the road, Alternative 5 would impact about the same number of acres of

hardwood habitat.

Riparian Wildlife Assemblage (yellow warbler) This assemblage is defined as all tree sizes and all canopy cover classes of Montane riparian,

valley foothill riparian, and aspen CWHR habitat types.


The yellow warbler occupies streamside riparian habitats with shrubby, open canopied structure

(CDFG 2008). The species is strongly associated with riparian vegetation such as willows,

cottonwoods and alders that are not likely to be affected by the project. This species nests in

shrubby understories of riparian habitat (CDFG 2008). Preferred yellow warbler nesting habitat

includes CWHR tree sizes 2 (1-5 inches dbh), 3 (6-10 inches dbh), and 4 (11-24 inches dbh) in

riparian vegetation, with CWHR canopy cover classes P (open) and M (moderate) (CDFG 2008).

Project-level Effects Analysis – Riparian Assemblage

This analysis discloses project effects on the amount of riparian assemblage habitat available


representative species (yellow warbler).

Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis 1. Quantitative: Acres with changes in amount of riparian assemblage habitat.


3. Qualitative: Acres with changes in canopy cover.

Current Condition of the Habitat Factor(s) in the Project Area This project occurs on approximately 105 acres of montane riparian habitat with size 1-4 trees

and all canopy covers. Due to the steep terrain of the vast majority of the project area, riparian

vegetation is very limited and highly restricted to the immediate edges of streams, when present

at all. The amount of riparian vegetation calculated and analyzed likely overstates the actual

amount within the project area.



dead tree removal or treatment), tree planting, and/or maintenance on approximately 105 acres of

riparian assemblage habitats (Table 5). Some habitat within the treatment units now consist of

habitat conditions that meet the management indicator assemblage definition of riparian habitat.

Due to the variable width buffer proposed under the Proposed Action, all riparian assemblage

habitat within 300 feet of each side of the road was included in this analysis. In reality, the total

buffer for the Proposed Action would be 300 feet, not 600 feet. Total acres being treated under the

Proposed Action would only be 7,969, therefore the amount of riparian assemblage habitat within

it would be much lower than 105 acres (it would be approximately half).

Treatment of riparian species would be limited to hazard tree abatement (no riparian tree species

would be salvaged). For the proposed action, only trees and vegetation that are completely dead

(no green limbs) at time of implementation, as well as during future maintenance would be


48

treated and/or removed. This project contains resource protection measures (RPMs) for Riparian

Reserves which would protect the riparian habitat assemblage. Within Riparian Reserves,

Equipment Exclusion Zones (EEZs) exist along perennial and intermittent streams and wetlands

(Riparian Reserve boundaries and EEZs are much wider than the actual riparian assemblage

vegetation). Hand treatments that may occur within EEZs would not treat green vegetation or

disturb riparian plant species such as big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), willow (Salix spp.)

and alder (Alnus spp.). Snags felled in riparian areas will typically be left on site unless there is a

site specific reason for removing them, such as heavy fuel loading (greater than 20 tons/acre).

Changes in riparian canopy cover are expected to be negligible. Fire killed trees have few if any

leaves remaining, therefore canopy cover would not be changed as a result of the removal or

treatment of dead trees. The CWHR tree size class and riparian canopy cover would not be

changed as a result of this alternative, and this alternative would not result in a change in

assemblage because all riparian tree size classes and canopy cover classes of riparian vegetation

are included in the riparian assemblage. As a result, the project area would continue to provide

habitat for species associated with riparian vegetation (Table 20). Although there is a slight

possibility that trees felled within riparian areas may fall on riparian vegetation, there would not

be acreage change or conversion into another assemblage directly as a result of this alternative.

Table 20. Direct effects on the riparian assemblage at the project scale (Proposed Action)*

Analysis factors No Action* Proposed Action* Acres riparian assemblage


105 105


habitat tree size

0 0

Acres of change in canopy

cover

0 0

*Due to variable width buffer under Proposed Action, this acreage represents the total amount of riparian habitat within 300 feet of each side of road. In reality, these acreages would be much lower (approximately half).

Cumulative Effects to Assemblage Habitat There is no change in the amount of riparian assemblage habitat from this alternative (the project


effects on the assemblage habitat due to this alternative.

Influence of Project Effects to Habitat Status and Trends at the Forest scale According to Forest level estimates, there are currently 1,500 acres of riparian assemblage habitat

mapped on National Forest System lands in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. 26 Within the last

decade, the trend for riparian assemblage on the Forest is steady at 0.07% of habitat on National

Forest lands. The steady trend in amount of Forest wide riparian assemblage habitat would be

expected due to implementation of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy since 1994, which focuses

on maintaining and restoring aquatic and riparian ecosystems on National Forest lands (Table 21).

Table 21. Forest wide riparian assemblage over time.

Assemblage Amount of assemblage habitat

in 1994 (acres)

Percent of Forest in riparian

assemblage in 1994


habitat in 2007 (acres)

Percent of Forest in riparian assemblage in

2007

Riparian 1,500 0.07% 1,500 0.07%

26 Since this assemblage is narrowly defined and difficult to track at the Forest level due to the fine resolution required

to detect the occurrence of streamside vegetation, the Forest wide acreage figure is likely an underestimate of actual

riparian assemblage habitat on the Forest.


49

Due to the small amount of riparian habitat potentially impacted by the project, even if potential

unforeseen indirect effects are realized, these effects are not expected to meaningfully influence

Forest level habitat trends for management indicator assemblages. Effects of this proposed action

are consistent with the steady Forest wide trend for riparian assemblage habitat as the action

would not result in a change in the amount of riparian habitat. The project would make the

riparian assemblage habitat more resilient to fire damage, and thus more sustainable over time.

Direct and Indirect Effects to Breeding Habitat for Yellow Warbler The riparian habitat in the project units is characterized as Montane riparian CWHR type, with

CWHR tree sizes 1-4 and sparse to dense canopy cover. This habitat provides moderate and high

quality yellow warbler nesting habitat, which would persist after treatments because the project is

designed to avoid impacts to riparian vegetation. In the long term, there would be little difference

in the quality of riparian assemblage habitat between the proposed action and no action because

of the minimal effects of the proposed action to riparian assemblage habitats.

Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Larger Yellow Warbler Population Trends As described above, the Forest level trend for riparian assemblage habitat is steady (Table 21).

Project effects are consistent with the steady Forest wide trend in riparian assemblage habitat.

Implementation of this project would not affect the Forest wide trend because it would not

increase or decrease the amount of riparian assemblage habitat available. Qualitative effects to

yellow warbler habitat are expected to have no measurable effect on habitat quality in the short

term or the long term.

Population trends for the yellow warbler are tracked and compiled at the Forest level. These data

indicate a potentially decreasing population within the BBS strata that overlap the Shasta-Trinity

National Forest. This decrease is supported by statistical analysis in the California foothills BBS

strata (Sauer et al. 2008). In light of best available population data, project effects to habitat, and

Forest level habitat trends, the project is not likely to result in any meaningful change to

population trends and habitat availability for the yellow warbler.


Under Alternative 2, 55 acres of riparian assemblage habitat would be treated. Salvage, roadside

treatments, fuelbreaks, tree planting, and/or maintenance would occur (Table 5). Treatment of

riparian vegetation would be limited to hazard tree abatement (no riparian tree species would be

salvaged).

Within the fuelbreaks, live trees up to 10 inch dbh (tree size 1-3) would be thinned and live

vegetation would also be removed or treated (pruned). In addition to removing/treating dead

trees, Alternative 2 would remove or treat dying vegetation and trees that have a 60% probability

of mortality. However, within all treatment units, riparian species would not be removed or

treated unless they are completely dead at time of implementation (as well as during future

maintenance) or are considered hazardous. Per the RPMs (see description under Proposed Action

above), hand treatments that may occur within EEZs would not treat green vegetation or disturb

riparian plant species such as big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), willow (Salix spp.) and alder

(Alnus spp.), unless considered hazardous. Snags felled in riparian areas will typically be left on

site unless there is a site specific reason for removing them, such as heavy fuel loading (greater

than 20 tons/acre).

Overstory canopy cover (above riparian vegetation) would be slightly reduced as a result of the

removal or treatment of dying non-riparian species hazard trees, as well as live non-riparian trees

and vegetation in the fuelbreaks. Only four acres of riparian vegetation exists within the

fuelbreaks. Canopy cover of riparian species would be slightly reduced because hazardous


50

riparian tree species would be treated/removed. However, fire-killed trees would have few if any

leaves left. The CWHR tree size class would not be changed as a result of this alternative, and

this alternative would not result in a change in assemblage because all riparian tree size classes

and canopy cover classes of riparian vegetation are included in the riparian assemblage. As a

result, although the treated stands would be slightly more open and less densely stocked with

trees, they would continue to provide habitat for species associated with riparian vegetation.

Although there is a slight possibility that trees felled within riparian areas may fall on riparian

vegetation, there would not be acreage change or conversion into another assemblage directly as a

result of this alternative. When the actual footprint of the Proposed Action is considered, instead

of 300 feet on each side of the road, Alternative 2 would impact more acres of riparian habitat

because its total project footprint is larger than the Proposed Action’s. Compared to the Proposed

Action, more acres would have a decrease in canopy cover and density under Alternative 2.


Under Alternative 3, 105 acres of riparian assemblage would be treated. Salvage, roadside

treatments, tree planting, and/or maintenance would occur (Table 5). Treatment of riparian

species would be limited to hazard tree abatement (no riparian tree species would be salvaged). In

addition to removing/treating dead trees and vegetation, Alternative 3 would remove or treat trees

that have a 60% probability of mortality, as well as dying vegetation. However, within all

treatment units, riparian species would not be removed or treated unless they are completely dead

at time of implementation (as well as during future maintenance) or are considered hazardous. Per

the RPMs (see description under Proposed Action above), hand treatments that may occur within

EEZs would not treat green vegetation or disturb riparian plant species such as big-leaf maple

(Acer macrophyllum), willow (Salix spp.) and alder (Alnus spp.), unless considered hazardous.

Snags felled in riparian areas will typically be left on site unless there is a site specific reason for

removing them, such as heavy fuel loading (greater than 20 tons/acre).

Overstory canopy cover (above riparian vegetation) would be slightly reduced as a result of the

removal or treatment of dying non-riparian species hazard trees. Canopy cover of riparian species

would be slightly reduced in some areas because hazardous riparian tree species would be

treated/removed. However, fire-killed trees would have few if any leaves left. The CWHR tree

size class would not be changed as a result of this alternative, and this alternative would not result

in a change in assemblage because all riparian tree size classes and canopy cover classes of

riparian vegetation are included in the riparian assemblage. As a result, although the treated

stands would be slightly more open and less densely stocked with trees, they would continue to

provide habitat for species associated with riparian vegetation. Although there is a slight

possibility that trees felled within riparian areas may fall on riparian vegetation, there would not

be acreage change or conversion into another assemblage directly as a result of this alternative.

When the actual footprint of the Proposed Action is considered, instead of 300 feet on each side

of the road, Alternative 3 would impact more acres of riparian habitat because its total project

footprint is larger than the Proposed Action’s. Compared to the Proposed Action, more acres

would have a decrease in canopy cover and density under Alternative 3.


Under Alternative 4, 105 acres of riparian assemblage habitat would be treated. Salvage, roadside

treatments, tree planting, and/or maintenance would occur (Table 5). Treatment of riparian

species would be limited to hazard tree abatement (no riparian tree species would be salvaged).

Under Alternative 4, only trees and vegetation that are completely dead (no green limbs) at time

of implementation, as well as during future maintenance, would be treated and/or removed.

Within all treatment units, riparian species would not be removed or treated unless they are

completely dead at time of implementation. Per the RPMs (see description under Proposed Action


51

above), hand treatments that may occur within EEZs would not treat green vegetation or disturb

riparian plant species such as big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), willow (Salix spp.) and alder

(Alnus spp.).

The CWHR tree size class and riparian canopy cover would not be changed as a result of the

alternative, and this alternative would not result in a change in assemblage because all riparian

tree size classes and canopy cover classes of riparian vegetation are included in the riparian

assemblage. As a result, the project area would continue to provide habitat for species associated

with riparian vegetation. There would not be acreage change or conversion into another

assemblage directly as a result of this alternative. The effects of this alternative to the riparian

assemblage would be similar to the Proposed Action. When the actual footprint of the Proposed

Action and Alternative 4 are considered, instead of 300 feet on each side of the road, Alternative

4 would impact about the same number of acres of riparian habitat.


Under Alternative 5, 105 acres of riparian assemblage habitat would be treated (Table 5). No trees

of any species would be salvaged under this alternative. While this alternative includes fuels

reduction treatments, treatments within Riparian Reserves are limited to hazard tree mitigation

only (hand felling trees identified as hazardous and leaving on site as well as tree planting; no

removal or fuels reduction treatments, no maintenance). Therefore, treatment and effects to the

riparian assemblage would be limited to hazard tree mitigation only (and planting). Only trees

and vegetation that are completely dead (no green limbs at time of implementation) would be

identified as hazardous. The same Riparian Reserve RPMs under the Proposed Action apply to

Alternative 5. Tree planting may occur on all acres.


alternative, and this alternative would not result in a change in assemblage because all riparian

tree size classes and canopy cover classes of riparian vegetation are included in the riparian

assemblage. As a result, the project area would continue to provide habitat for species associated

with riparian vegetation. There would not be acreage change or conversion into another

assemblage directly as a result of this alternative. When the actual footprint of the Proposed

Action and Alternative 5 are considered, instead of 300 feet on each side of the road, Alternative

5 would impact about the same number of acres of riparian habitat. In the short term, the impacts

would be less under Alternative 5 because treatments are less intense within Riparian Reserves.

However, in the long term, since fuels reduction, including removal of felled hazard trees, would

not occur within Riparian Reserves, Alternative 5 may result in riparian areas that are less

resilient to fire.

Effects of Connected Actions (All Alternatives)

Under all alternatives, road reconstruction activities, specifically culvert replacement, may impact

the riparian assemblage. Some connected actions are located within the proposed project

treatment units, therefore the impacts to riparian vegetation in those areas have already been

analyzed and included above. Additional impacts from connected actions located outside

treatment units are described below. Due to the steep terrain of the vast majority of the project

area, riparian vegetation is very limited and highly restricted to the immediate edges of streams,

when present at all. The amount of riparian vegetation calculated and described below is likely an

overestimate.

Road Restoration

The project proposes to restore approximately 4.7 miles of roads. Beyond the road closures,

measures would be implemented, as necessary, to reduce sediment delivery from the road surface

to make it hydrologically neutral. These measures may include removing all structures including


52

culverts. The majority of the proposed roads are in dry upland areas, far from waterways. Two of

the proposed roads cross an intermittent creek, however riparian vegetation is not expected to be

present due to lack of consistent or perennial flow. None of the proposed roads cross perennial

creeks; therefore, impacts to riparian vegetation are not expected.

Road Reconstruction

The project proposes replacement of 12 culverts that are undersized, worn, or damaged to

withstand 100-year peak flows and/or debris flows. Some minor excavation of sediment

depositions on the upstream side of the crossings near the culvert inlets may also be required.

Vegetation is generally limited or lacking on fillslopes above culverts; however, a small amount

of riparian vegetation within and outside of the fillslope may be present. As a result,

approximately 0.4 acres of riparian habitat may be impacted.

Road Maintenance

The project proposes maintenance activities at 35 culverts, including clearing culvert inlets and

outlets of debris or installing riprap to remediate erosion. These activities will be conducted by

equipment from the roadway, or by hand, therefore, impacts to riparian vegetation will be very

minimal.

Summary


Connected Actions, and these activities would not result in a change in assemblage. All riparian

tree size classes and canopy cover classes are included in the riparian assemblage. Impacts to

riparian vegetation will be very minimal; therefore, connected actions are not likely to result in

any meaningful change to population trends or habitat availability for the yellow warbler. The

project area would continue to provide habitat for species associated with riparian vegetation.

Chaparral (chamise-redshank, mixed, and montane chaparral) Wildlife Assemblage (wrentit) This assemblage is defined as: all shrub sizes and all shrub density classes of chamise-redshank

chaparral, mixed chaparral, and montane chaparral CWHR habitat types.


The wrentit occupies chaparral habitats with dense structure (CDFG 2008). The species is

strongly associated with dense chaparral vegetation that is likely to be affected by the project.

This species nests in dense shrubs (CDFG 2008). Preferred wrentit nesting habitat includes

CWHR shrub sizes 2 (young shrub), 3 (mature shrub), and 4 (decadent shrub) in chaparral

vegetation, with CWHR shrub density classes M (moderate) and D (dense) (CDFG 2008).

Project-level Effects Analysis – Chaparral Assemblage

This analysis discloses project effects on the amount of chaparral assemblage habitat available


representative species (wrentit).

Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis 1. Quantitative: Acres with changes in amount of chaparral assemblage habitat.

2. Qualitative: Acres with changes in shrub size class.

3. Qualitative: Acres with changes in shrub density.


53

Current Condition of the Habitat Factor(s) in the Project Area This alternative occurs on 539 acres of montane and mixed chaparral habitat of all CWHR shrub

size classes and sparse to moderate densities. The 2015 fires burned at all severity levels,

however approximately 60% of the chaparral habitat within the project area burned at moderate to

high severity (25-100% basal area mortality). As a result of the fires, chaparral densities have

decreased; however the project area provides some moderate quality nesting habitat for the

wrentit.


Direct and Indirect Effects to Assemblage Habitat The TPFHR&S Project proposes to conduct roadside treatments (fuels reduction) and

maintenance on approximately 539 acres of chaparral assemblage habitats (Table 5). Some

habitat within the treatment units now consist of habitat conditions that meet the management

indicator assemblage definition of chaparral habitat. Due to the variable width buffer proposed

under the Proposed Action, all chaparral assemblage habitat within 300 feet of each side of the

road was included in this analysis. In reality, the total buffer for the Proposed Action would be

300 feet, not 600 feet. Total acres being treated under the Proposed Action would only be 7,969,

therefore the amount of chaparral assemblage habitat within it would be much lower than 539

acres (it would be approximately half).

Effects to chaparral would be limited to fuels reduction treatments and maintenance and only

shrubs dead at the time of implementation (as well as during future maintenance) would be

treated. Dead shrubs would be reduced by 50-100%. The CWHR shrub size class would not be

changed as a result of this alternative, and this alternative would not result in a change in

assemblage because all chaparral shrub size classes are included in the chaparral assemblage.

Chaparral density would not be reduced as a result of this alternative because only dead shrubs

would be treated. Chaparral assemblage habitat includes all shrub density classes of chaparral

vegetation. As a result, the project area would continue to provide habitat for species associated

with chaparral vegetation (Table 22). There would not be acreage change or conversion into

another assemblage directly as a result of this alternative. There would likely be an overall

increase in chaparral habitat within the project area (and within the fire footprint outside of the

project area) due to the effects of the fires.

Table 22. Direct effects on the chaparral assemblage at the project scale (Proposed Action)*

Analysis factors No Action* Proposed Action* Acres chaparral assemblage


539 539


habitat shrub size

0 0

Acres of change in shrub

density

0 0

*Due to variable width buffer under Proposed Action, this acreage represents the total amount of chaparral habitat within 300 feet of each side of road. In reality, these acreages would be much lower (approximately half).

Cumulative Effects to Assemblage Habitat There is no change in the amount of chaparral assemblage habitat from this alternative (the

project does not convert any acres from this assemblage to another), so there would not be

cumulative effects on the assemblage habitat.


54

Influence of Project Effects to Habitat Status and Trends at the Forest scale There are currently 58,000 acres of chaparral assemblage habitat mapped on National Forest

System lands in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Within the last decade, the trend for chaparral

assemblage on the Forest is steady at 3% of habitat on National Forest lands (Table 23).

Table 23. Forest wide chaparral assemblage over time.


Percent of Forest in chaparral assemblage in 1994

Amount of assemblage habitat in 2007(acres)

Percent of Forest in chaparral assemblage in 2007

Chaparral 58,000 3% 58,000 3%

In the long term, this proposed action would not affect Forest wide trends in chaparral habitat

because it would not change the amount of habitat at the project level. To put the project’s

influence into perspective, it affects less than 1% of the Forest wide assemblage habitat. Due to

the small scale, even if potential indirect effects are realized, these effects are not expected to

meaningfully influence Forest level habitat trends for management indicator assemblages.

Direct and Indirect Effects to Breeding Habitat for Wrentit The chaparral assemblage habitat in the project units consists of montane and mixed chaparral

habitat of all CWHR size classes and sparse to moderate densities. The areas of this habitat that

burned at low severity likely still provide some moderate quality nesting habitat for the wrentit.

The areas that burned at moderate to high severity likely had high shrub mortality and do not

currently have enough cover to be suitable for nesting. Most chaparral species are adapted to fire,

responding to moderate to high severity fires by sprouting from the root collar within one year of

the burn (McElroy, 2017), therefore in the long-term, chaparral densities are expected to recover.

This alternative’s treatments would not reduce shrub density because only dead shrubs would be

treated, thus habitat quality for the wrentit would not be reduced. In untreated parts of the project

area (and within the fire footprint outside of the project area) there would likely be an overall

increase of nesting habitat for wrentit due to the effects of the fires.

Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Larger Wrentit Population Trends As described above, Forest level trends show a steady trend in chaparral habitat (Table 23).

Implementation of this project would likely not affect the Forest wide steady trend in chaparral

assemblage habitat. Minor effects caused by this alternative are not likely to meaningfully impact

Forest level habitat trends.

Population trends for the wrentit are tracked and compiled at the Forest level. These data indicate

a fairly stable population within the BBS strata that overlap the Shasta-Trinity National Forest.

Most of the BBS strata that occur on the Forest show a slight decline, but these declines are not

statistically supported. The population appears to be increasing in the Pitt-Klamath BBS strata,

and this increase is statistically supported (Sauer et al. 2008). In light of best available population

data, project effects to habitat, and Forest level habitat trends, the project is not likely to result in

any meaningful change to population trends and habitat availability for the wrentit.


Under Alternative 2, 284 acres of chaparral assemblage habitat would be treated (Table 5). Some


indicator assemblage definition of chaparral habitat. Effects to chaparral would be limited to

roadside treatments (fuels reduction) and fuelbreak treatments, along with maintenance activities.


55

Within fuels reduction treatments, dead and dying shrubs would be treated/removed. Within

fuelbreaks, live vegetation would also be removed or treated. Treatment within fuelbreaks could

include pruning to raise canopy base heights (cbh) to 10 feet cbh within 200 feet of the road, 8

feet cbh from 201-400 feet from the road, and 6 feet cbh from 401-600 feet from the road. Within

the fuelbreaks, there are only 19 acres of chaparral habitat (Table 5).

The CWHR shrub size class would not be changed as a result of this alternative, and this

alternative would not result in a change in assemblage because all chaparral shrub size classes are

included in the chaparral assemblage. Chaparral density would be reduced, but this would not

result in a change in assemblage type because assemblage habitat includes all shrub density

classes of chaparral vegetation. As a result, although the treated stands would be more open, they

would continue to provide habitat for species associated with chaparral vegetation. There would

not be acreage change or conversion into another assemblage directly as a result of Alternative 2.

Although treatments may reduce the density of chaparral, there would likely be an overall

increase in chaparral habitat in untreated parts of the project area (and within the fire footprint

outside of the project area) due to the effects of the fires. When the actual footprint of the

Proposed Action is considered, instead of 300 feet on each side of the road, Alternative 2 would

impact more acres of chaparral habitat because its total project footprint is larger than the

Proposed Action’s. Compared to the Proposed Action, more acres would have a decrease in shrub

density, due to the treatment of dying vegetation, as well as live vegetation within the fuelbreaks.


Under Alternative 3, 539 acres of chaparral assemblage would be treated (Table 5). Some habitat

within the treatment units now consist of habitat conditions that meet the management indicator

assemblage definition of chaparral habitat. Effects to chaparral would be limited to fuels

reduction treatments and maintenance. Dead and dying vegetation would be treated/removed,

therefore, chaparral density would be reduced. However, there would not be acreage change or

conversion into another assemblage directly as a result of this alternative because this assemblage

habitat includes all shrub density classes of chaparral vegetation. Although the treated stands

would be more open, they would continue to provide habitat for species associated with chaparral

vegetation. There would not be acreage change or conversion into another assemblage directly as

a result of Alternative 3. Treatments may reduce the density of chaparral, however, there would

likely be an overall increase in chaparral habitat in untreated parts of the project area (and within

the fire footprint outside of the project area) due to the effects of the fires. When the actual

footprint of the Proposed Action is considered, instead of 300 feet on each side of the road,

Alternative 3 would impact more acres of chaparral habitat because its total project footprint is

larger than the Proposed Action’s. Compared to the Proposed Action, more acres would have a

decrease in shrub density, due to the treatments of dying vegetation.


Under Alternative 4, 539 acres of chaparral assemblage habitat would be treated (Table 5). Some


indicator assemblage definition of chaparral habitat. Effects to chaparral would be limited to

roadside treatments (fuels reduction) and maintenance activities and only dead shrubs would be

treated. There would not be acreage change or conversion into another assemblage directly as a

result of this alternative and the effects of this alternative to chaparral assemblage habitats would

be the same as the Proposed Action. When the actual footprint of the Proposed Action and

Alternative 4 are considered, instead of 300 feet on each side of the road, Alternative 4 would

impact about the same number of acres of chaparral habitat.


56


Under Alternative 5, there are 539 acres of chaparral assemblage habitat within the treatment

units (Table 5). Some habitat within the treatment units now consist of habitat conditions that

meet the management indicator assemblage definition of chaparral habitat. Effects to chaparral

would be limited to roadside treatments (fuels reduction) and maintenance activities and only

dead shrubs would be treated. Of the total chaparral assemblage within Alternative 5 units, 146

acres of chaparral would not be affected because it is within units that would only undergo hazard

mitigation (no removal or fuels reduction treatments). Thus, 393 acres of chaparral may be

treated. There would not be acreage change or conversion into another assemblage directly as a

result of this alternative and the effects of this alternative to chaparral assemblage habitats would

be the same as the Proposed Action. However, fewer acres of chaparral would be impacted by

Alternative 5 due to the hazard mitigation only treatments.


57

REFERENCES CITED

Angwin, P.A., D.R. Cluck, P.J. Zambino, B.W. Oblinger, and W.C. Woodruff. 2012. Hazard Tree

Guidelines for Forest Service Facilities and Roads in the Pacific Southwest Region.

USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Protection, Pacific Southwest Region, Report # RO-

12-01: 40 p.

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2008. California Department of Fish and

Game and California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. California Wildlife Habitat

Relationships (CWHR) version 8.2 personal computer program. Sacramento, California.

Grubb, T. C. Jr. and V. V. Pravosudov. 2008. White-breasted Nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), The

Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology;

Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online:

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/054

Haynes, Richard W.; Bormann, Bernard T.; Lee, Danny C.; Martin, Jon R., tech. eds.2006.

Northwest Forest Plan—the first 10 years (1994-2003): synthesis of monitoring and

research results. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-651. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 292 p.

McElroy, Keli. 2017. Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project Forest Vegetation

Report.

Moeur, Melinda; Spies, Thomas A.; Hemstrom, Miles; Martin, Jon R.; Alegria, James; Browning,

Julie; Cissel, John; Cohen, Warren B.; Demeo, Thomas E.; Healey, Sean; Warbington,

Ralph. 2005. Northwest Forest Plan–The first 10 years (1994-2003): status and trend of

late-successional and old-growth forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-646. Portland,

OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 142 p.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2008. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results

and Analysis 1966 - 2007. Version 5.15.2008. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center,

Laurel, MD

Smith, S.L, and Cluck, D.R. 2011. Marking Guidelines for Fire-Injured Trees in California.

USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Protection, Pacific Southwest Region, Report #RO-

11-01: 15p.

Williams, J. M. 1996. Nashville Warbler (Vermivora ruficapilla), The Birds of North America

Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from The Birds of

North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/205

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

Plan.

USDA Forest Service. 2017. Trinity Post Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project

Environmental Impact Statement.


58

APPENDIX A

California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) System Reference: CDFG 2008. California Department of Fish and Game and California Interagency

Wildlife Task Group. 2008. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships version 8.2 personal

computer program. Sacramento, California.

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.asp.

CWHR Overview. The California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) is a wildlife

information system and predictive model for California's regularly-occurring birds, mammals,

reptiles and amphibians and is considered “a state-of-the-art information system for California's

wildlife.” It contains life history, geographic range, habitat relationships, and management

information on 692 species of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals known to occur in the

state. It provides the most widely used habitat relationships models for California’s terrestrial

vertebrate species. CWHR is operated and maintained by the California Department of Fish and

Game in cooperation with the California Interagency Wildlife Task Group (CIWTG). CWHR

Version 8.2 is used in the management indicator assemblage representative species accounts.

CWHR contains the following components:

a complete species list of California’s 1000+ terrestrial vertebrates;

life history information and geographic range data by season on 692 regularly-occurring

species;

a standardized habitat classification scheme for California, containing 59 habitats,

structural stages for most habitats, and 124 special habitat elements (A Guide to Wildlife

Habitats of California (1988); Edited by Kenneth E. Mayer and William F. Laudenslayer,

Jr., State of California, Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento,

CA. 166 pp.);

a community-level matrix model associating 692 wildlife species to these standard

habitats and stages and rating suitability for reproduction, cover, and feeding; and

A software application containing all system components.

CWHR Utility. CWHR has been used for several large wildlife resource conservation

efforts including California's GAP effort, the Legislatively-authorized Timberland Task Force

effort, and the Sierra Nevada Framework and Forest Plan Amendment efforts. It is one of the

primary biological data sets used in an assessment of California's biodiversity for the “Atlas of

the Biodiversity of California.” CWHR is used in sustained yield planning efforts by several large

private timber companies and is part of regulations adopted by the California Board of Forestry.

CWHR Validation. The information in CWHR is based on current published and

unpublished biological information and professional judgment by recognized experts on

California's wildlife. Research to improve the CWHR System is ongoing and is focused in the

areas of model and validation standards, field validation studies, and interpretation of model

output. Some examples of these studies are presented below.

Model and Validation Standards

Barrett, R.H. and M. White (authors) and M. Parisi (editor). 1999. Guide for Designing Field

Validation Studies of the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. Technical Report No.

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.asp


59

30. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Department of Fish and Game.

Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game and California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. 2000.

Standards and Guidelines for CWHR Species Models. Technical Report No. 31. California

Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento,

CA.

Field Validation Studies of CWHR Predictions

Avery, M.L. and C. Van Riper. 1990. Evaluation of wildlife-habitat relationships data

base for predicting bird community composition in central California chaparral and blue

oak woodlands. California Fish and Game 76(2):103-117.

Baad, M.F. 1992. Plant and Wildlife Resources Inventory of Boggs Mountain

Demonstration State Forest, Lake County, California. Unpublished Report. California

State University, Sacramento. Sacramento, CA. 69 pp.

Block, W.M., M.L. Morrison, J. Verner, and P.N. Manley. 1994. Assessing wildlife-

habitat-relationships models: a case study with California oak woodlands. Wildlife

Society Bulletin 22:549-561.

Dedon, M.F., S. A. Laymon, and R.H. Barrett. 1986. Evaluating models of wildlife-

habitat relationships of birds in black oak and mixed-conifer habitats. In J. Verner, M.L.

Morrison, and C.J. Ralph (editors). Wildlife 2000: Modeling Habitat Relationships of

Terrestrial Vertebrates. University of Wisconsin Press. Madison, WI. 470 pp.

England, A.S. and D.W. Anderson. 1985. Avian Community Ecology in Northern

California Chaparral: Evaluation of Wildlife-Habitat Relationship Matrix Models for

Chamise-Redshank and Mixed Chaparral. Report prepared for USDA Forest Service

Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station under Agreement No. PSW-83-

0022CA. Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, University of California. Davis,

CA.

Hejl, S.J. and J. Verner. 1988. Evaluating avian-habitat relationships in red fir forests of

the Sierra Nevada. Transactions of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society 24:121-

134.

Howell, J.A. 1993. Wildlife Habitat Inventory and Monitoring, Golden Gate National

Recreation Area, California: a Pilot Study. Ph. D. Dissertation. University of California.

Berkeley, CA. 195 pp.

Laymon. S.A. 1989. A test of the California Wildlife-Habitat Relationship System for

breeding birds in valley-foothill riparian habitat. Pages 307-313 in Abell, D.A. (technical

coordinator) USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment

Station Technical Report PSW-110, . 544 pp. Berkeley, CA

Purcell, K.L, S.J. Hejl, and T.A. Larson. 1992. Evaluating avian-habitat relationships

models in mixed-conifer forests of the Sierra Nevada. Transactions of the Western

Section of The Wildlife Society 28:120-136.

Raphael, M.G. and B.G. Marcot. 1986. Validation of a wildlife-habitat-relationships

model: vertebrates in a Douglas-fir sere. Pages 129-138 in J. Verner, M.L. Morrison, and

C.J. Ralph (editors). Wildlife 2000: Modeling Habitat Relationships of Terrestrial

Vertebrates. University of Wisconsin Press. Madison, WI. 470 pp.

Verner, J. 1980. Bird communities of mixed-conifer forests of the Sierra Nevada. Pages

198-223 in DeGraff, R.M. (technical coordinator) USDA Forest Service Intermountain

Forest and Range Experiment Station General Technical Report INT-86. Ogden, UT. 535

pp.


60

Welsh, H.H., Jr., and A.J. Lind. 1988. Old growth forests and the distribution of the

terrestrial herpetofauna. Pages 439-455 in Szaro, R.C., K.E. Severson, and D.R. Patton

(technical coordinators). USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station General Technical Report RM-166. Fort Collins, CO. 458 pp.

Welsh, H.H., Jr., and A.J. Lind. 1991. The structure of the herpetofaunal assemblage in

the Douglas-fir/hardwood forests of northwestern California and southwestern Oregon.

Pages 394-413 in Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, A.B. Carey, and M.H. Huff (technical

coordinators). USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment

Station General Technical Report PNW-GTR-285. Portland, OR. 533 pp.

Interpretation of Model Output

Garrison, B.A. 1994. Determining the biological significance of changes in predicted

habitat values from the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. California Fish

and Game 80:150-160.

Garrison, B.A., R.A. Erickson, M.A. Patten and I.C. Timossi. 1999. California Wildlife

Habitat Relationships System: effects of county attributes on prediction accuracy for bird

species. California Fish and Game 85(3)87-101.

Garrison, B.A. and T. Lupo. 2002. Accuracy of bird range maps based on wildlife habitat

relationships models. Pages 367-375 in Scott, J.M., P.J. Heglund, M.L. Morrison, J.B.

Haufler, M.G. Raphael, W.A. Wall, and F.B. Samson (editors). Predicting Species

Occurrences: Issues of Accuracy and Scale. Island Press. Washington, D.C.

CWHR Vegetation Classification System. There are 59 wildlife

habitats in the CWHR System to be used with the predictive models for terrestrial vertebrate

wildlife species (27 tree, 12 shrub, 6 herbaceous, 4 aquatic, 8 agricultural, 1 developed, and 1

non-vegetated) (Table 1). In addition, stages and special habitat elements are defined.

Stages are defined for virtually all habitats. A stage is a combination of size and cover class for

tree-dominated habitats (Tables 2 and 3), age and cover class for shrub habitats, height and cover

class for herb habitats, and depth and substrate for aquatic habitats. A field sampling protocol is

well-established for determining stages in all vegetated habitats.

CWHR Predictive Models. The predictive model for each species has expert-

applied suitability ratings for three life-requisites: breeding, cover, and feeding. For each species,

each habitat stage is rated as high, medium, low, or unsuitable for each of these life requirements,

as well as a composite rating:

High: Habitat suitability rating where habitat is optimal for species occurrence; habitat

can support relatively high population densities at high frequencies. Suitability index

value = 1.00.

Medium: Habitat suitability rating where habitat is suitable for species occurrence;

habitat can support relatively moderate population densities at moderate frequencies.

Suitability index value = 0.66.

Low: Habitat suitability rating where habitat is marginal for species occurrence; habitat

can support relatively low population densities at low frequencies. Suitability index value

= 0.33.

Unsuitable: Habitat stage is unsuitable for species occurrence, and the species where

habitat is rated unsuitable is not expected to reliably occur in the habitat. Suitability index

value = 0.00.


61

Table 1. CWHR Habitat Types (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988).

Tree-Dominated Habitats

Subalpine Conifer (SCN)

Red Fir (RFR)

Lodgepole Pine (LPN)

Sierran Mixed Conifer (SMC)

White Fir (WFR)

Klamath Mixed Conifer (KMC)

Douglas Fir (DFR)

Jeffrey Pine (JPN)

Ponderosa Pine (PPN)

Eastside Pine (EPN)

Redwood (RDW)

Pinyon-Juniper (PJN)

Juniper (JUN)

Aspen (ASP)

Closed-Cone Pine-Cypress (CPC)

Montane Hardwood-Conifer (MHC)

Montane Hardwood (MHW)

Blue Oak Woodland (BOW)

Valley Oak Woodland (VOW)

Coastal Oak Woodland (COW)

Blue Oak-Foothill Pine (BOP)

Eucalyptus (EUC)

Montane Riparian (MRI)

Valley Foothill Riparian (VRI)

Desert Riparian (DRI)

Palm Oasis (POS)

Joshua Tree (JST)

Shrub-dominated Habitats

Alpine Dwarf-Shrub (ADS)

Low Sage (LSG)

Bitterbrush (BBR)

Sagebrush (SGB)

Montane Chaparral (MCP)

Mixed Chaparral (MCH)

Chamise-Redshank Chaparral (CRC)

Coastal Scrub (CSC)

Desert Succulent Shrub (DSS)

Desert Wash (DSW)

Desert Scrub (DSC)

Alkali Desert Scrub (ASC)

Herbaceous Dominated Habitats

Annual Grassland (AGS)

Perennial Grassland (PGS)

Wet Meadow (WTM)

Fresh Emergent Wetland (FEW)

Saline Emergent Wetland (SEW)

Pasture (PAS)

Aquatic Habitats

Lacustrine (LAC)


62

Estuarine (EST)

Marine (MAR)

Developed Habitats

Cropland (CRP)

Dryland Grain Crops (DGR)

Irrigated Grain Crops (IGR)

Irrigated Hayfield (IRH)

Irrigated Row and Field Crops (IRF)

Rice (RIC)

Orchard - Vineyard (OVN)

Deciduous Orchard (DOR)

Evergreen Orchard (EOR)

Vineyard (VIN)

Urban (URB)

Non-vegetated Habitats

Barren (BAR)


63

Table 2. Size Class Breakdown for Tree Habitat Types (excluding Desert Riparian, Joshua

Tree, Palm Oasis, and Orchard types) (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988).

CHWR Size Class CWHR Code

Conifer Crown Diameter (ft.)

Hardwood Crown Diameter (ft.)

Quadratic Mean dbh (inches)

Seedling Tree 1 n/a n/a <1.0”

Sapling Tree 2 n/a <15.0’ 1.0”-5.9”

Pole Tree 3 <12.0’ 15.0’-29.9’ 6.0”-10.9”

Small Tree 4 12.0’-23.9’ 30.0’-44.9’ 11.0”-23.9”

Medium/large Tree 5 > 24.0’ > 45.0’ > 24.0”

Multi-layered Tree 6 A distinct layer of size class 5 trees over a distinct layer of size

class 4 and/or 3 trees, and total tree canopy closure of the layers

>60.0% (layers must have >10.0% canopy cover and distinct

height separation)

Table 3. Canopy Closure Classes for Tree and Shrub Terrestrial Habitats (excluding desert-

tree and desert-shrub habitat types) (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988).

CWHR Canopy Closure Class CWHR Code Vegetation Canopy Closure Sparse Cover S 10.0% - 24.9%

Open Cover P 25.0% - 39.9%

Moderate Cover M 40.0% - 59.9%

Dense cover D > 60.0%

Appendix A References CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2005. California Department of Fish and

Game and California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. California Wildlife Habitat

Relationships (CWHR) version 8.1. personal computer program. Sacramento, California.

On-Line version. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.asp. (Accessed:

January 3, 2008).

CDFG 2008. California Department of Fish and Game and California Interagency Wildlife Task

Group. 2008. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships version 8.2 personal computer

program. Sacramento, California. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.asp.

Mayer, K.E., and W.F. Laudenslayer, eds. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento, CA. 166pp.



project-level management indicator assemblage...

Documents