Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action

Transcription

1 Final Environmental Impact Statement Plumas National Forest Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action Document Structure The Forest Service has prepared this Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This FEIS discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized as follows (40 CFR ): Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action: This chapter briefly describes the proposed action, the need for that action, and other purposes to be achieved by the proposal. This chapter also describes how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposed action and addressed the issues that prompted the formation of alternatives (40 CFR ). Chapter 2. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This chapter is the heart of the EIS and presents the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives in comparative form, thus sharply defining the issues and providing a clear basis for choice among alternatives. The alternatives are described in substantial detail so that reviewers may evaluate the comparative merits of each alternative. This chapter also includes the appropriate design criteria (mitigation measures) that were not included in the proposed action or alternatives (40 CFR ). Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter describes the existing environment of the area that would be affected by the proposed alternatives. The data and analysis in this chapter are commensurate with the importance of the impact, with less important material summarized, consolidated, or simply referenced. The environmental consequences presented in this chapter are the scientific and analytic basis for the comparison of alternatives and are discussed in the context of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. Other sections in this chapter include the relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity, unavoidable adverse effects, and any irreversible or irretrievable commitments of resources (40 CFR ). Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination: This chapter identifies the preparers and agencies consulted during the development of this EIS (40 CFR ) and lists the agencies, organizations, and persons who were mailed a copy of this EIS. Acronyms, Glossary, Index, References: Please note that technical terms are shown in italics the first time they are used; the glossary contains definitions of the technical terms. Scientific names are italicized but do not appear in the glossary. Appendices: The appendices provide detailed facts and data that substantiate the analyses fundamental to the EIS and relevant to the decision to be made (40 CFR ). Chapter 1 Purpose and Need for Action 1-1

2 Plumas National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement To reduce bulk without impeding the review of this EIS, material has been incorporated by reference, cited in this document, and its content briefly described. The materials incorporated by reference are reasonably available for inspection (40 CFR ) by contacting Gary Rotta Leader Highway 70 Quincy, CA (530) Background Management proposals by the Plumas National Forest are determined by programmatic direction contained in the Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, which was amended by the 1999 Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Record of Decision; the 2001 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement; and the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) and Record of Decision. The other plans and acts that have contributed to the (Empire Project) proposed action include the National Fire Plan (2000), Cohesive Strategy (2000), A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: A 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy, Healthy Forest Restoration Act (2003), and Mount Hough Landscape Assessment (2004). Summaries of these documents are provided below. Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group EIS Record of Decision (1999) In October 1998, President Clinton signed the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act (HFQLG Act) into law. The HFQLG Act incorporates the 1993 Quincy Library Group Community Stability Proposal and is intended to test the benefits of a locally conceived forest management strategy for reducing forest fuels in order to provide safe locations for fire suppression, reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires, promote forest health, and restore economic stability to rural communities. The HFQLG Act requires the Forest Service to implement a pilot project (the HFQLG Pilot Project) and demonstrate the effectiveness of certain resource management activities on federal lands in the Plumas and Lassen National Forests and the Sierraville Ranger District of the Tahoe National Forest. The following are the resource management actions described in section 401(d) of the HFQLG Act: 1. Fuelbreak Construction Construct a strategic system of Defensible Fuel Profile Zones (including shaded fuel breaks) that use thinning, individual tree selection, and other methods of vegetation management consistent with the 1993 Quincy Library Group Community Stability Proposal, on not less than 40,000 acres, but not more than 60,000, acres per year. 1-2 Chapter 1 Purpose and Need for Action

3 Final Environmental Impact Statement Plumas National Forest 2. Group Selection and Individual Tree Selection Use group selection and individual tree selection uneven-aged forest management prescriptions described in the Quincy Library Group Community Stability Proposal to achieve a desired condition of uneven-age, multistory, fire-resilient forests as follows: Use group selection based on an average acreage of 0.57 percent of the pilot project area land each year of the pilot project. Individual tree selection may be used in the pilot project area. In August 1999, the Forest Supervisors for the Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe National Forests selected alternative 2 of the HFQLG Act EIS because it implements the Congressional direction prescribed in the HFQLG Act. This decision establishes (1) fuel reduction through the construction of a strategic system of DFPZs, (2) group selection and individual tree selection harvests, and (3) a riparian management program. As required in the HFQLG Act, the HFQLG Record of Decision established areas where no resource management activities listed above could take place. These areas or land allocations are labeled Off Base and Deferred Lands, California spotted owl Protected Activity Centers, Spotted Owl Habitat Areas, and highly ranked (4 and 5) late-successional old-growth forests. The Record of Decision also established a mitigation measure stating that no resource management activities (listed above), except riparian restoration, would be permitted in suitable California spotted owl habitat because of the potential for negative impacts on the owl. This owl habitat protection strategy was not predicted to last for the duration of the pilot project. The HFQLG FEIS Record of Decision determined that when a new California spotted owl habitat management strategy is implemented, the Forest Service would remove the mitigation measure. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final EIS (2001) In January 2001, the Regional Forester issued a Record of Decision for the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) FEIS. The plan amendment implemented a new owl conservation strategy and replaced the mitigation measure imposed by the HFQLG Record of Decision; it also established additional standards and guidelines related to other facets of the forest. The standards and guidelines adopted by the 2001 SNFPA Record of Decision limited the implementation of the HFQLG Pilot Project. This decision determined that the entire level of management activity specified in the HFQLG legislation could not be implemented without degrading owl habitat and increasing risk to owl viability. DFPZ construction was limited by upper diameter limits (based on land allocations) and canopy cover retention. Group selection was limited to no more than 4,000 acres per year and only allowed under the auspices of the Plumas-Lassen Administrative Study (2001 SNFPA Record of Decision, p ). Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Supplemental EIS (2004) In January 2004, the Regional Forester signed the Record of Decision on the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SNFPA FSEIS). The 2004 Chapter 1 Purpose and Need for Action 1-3

4 Plumas National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision replaced the 2001 Record of Decision and changed management direction to allow full implementation of the Pilot Project consistent with the goals identified in the HFQLG Act. The 2001 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement is incorporated by reference in the SNFPA FSEIS Record of Decision. National Fire Plan (2000) In August 2000, in response to a series of severe wildland fires, President Clinton directed the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to develop a plan that would reduce fire impacts on rural communities and ensure effective firefighting capacity in the future. The resulting National Fire Plan contains the following five key points: 1. Firefighting ensure adequate preparedness for the coming fire season 2. Rehabilitation and Restoration restore landscapes and rebuild communities damaged by wildfire 3. Hazardous Fuel Reduction invest in projects to reduce fire risk 4. Community Assistance work directly with communities to ensure adequate protection 5. Accountability be accountable and establish adequate oversight and monitoring for results Cohesive Strategy (2000) In October 2000, the Cohesive Strategy was developed to respond to a Government Accounting Office report that identified the need for a cohesive strategy to address catastrophic wildland fire threats. This strategy established a framework to restore and maintain ecosystem health of fireadapted ecosystems in priority areas across the interior West, with the intent of improving the resilience and sustainability of forests and grasslands at risk conserving priority watersheds, species, and biodiversity reducing wildland fire costs, losses, and damages ensuring better public and firefighter safety Priorities for hazardous fuel reduction identified in the Cohesive Strategy are areas of Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) readily accessible municipal watersheds threatened and endangered species habitat maintenance of existing low-risk Fire Condition Class 1 areas A 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy (2001) In August 2001, the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture joined the Western Governors Association, National Association of State Foresters, National Association of Counties, and the 1-4 Chapter 1 Purpose and Need for Action

5 Final Environmental Impact Statement Plumas National Forest Intertribal Timber Council to endorse A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: A 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy. The four goals of the comprehensive strategy are to 1. improve fire prevention and suppression 2. reduce hazardous fuels 3. restore fire-adapted ecosystems 4. promote community assistance Its three guiding principles are 1. priority setting that emphasizes the protection of communities and high-priority watersheds at risk 2. collaboration among governments and broadly representative stakeholders 3. accountability through performance measures and monitoring for results In 2003, the Undersecretaries of the Interior and Agriculture established the following three performance measures for assessing success in meeting the goal of reducing hazardous fuels: 1. Treated acres that are in WUI zones or Fire Condition Classes 2 or 3 in Fire Regime Groups I, II, or III outside of WUI areas and identified as high priority through collaboration consistent with a local implementation plan for the 10-year comprehensive strategy 2. Such acreage treated per million dollars of gross investment 3. Percent of prescribed fires where smoke emissions were consistent with all federal, state, tribal, and local smoke management requirements Healthy Forest Restoration Act (2003) The Healthy Forest Restoration Act, signed by President Bush in 2003, contains a variety of provisions aimed at expediting the preparation and implementation of hazardous fuels reduction projects on federal land and assisting rural communities, states, and landowners in restoring healthy forest conditions on state and private lands. The act encourages collaboration between federal agencies and local communities in the preparation of community-based fuels treatment plans designed to treat hazardous fuels that threaten those communities and their sensitive watersheds. As a result, the Plumas County Fire Safe Council, working with the Forest Service, published two documents: Plumas County Communities Wildland Fire Mitigation Plan and Plumas County Hazardous Fuel Assessment and Strategy. Chapter 1 Purpose and Need for Action 1-5

6 Plumas National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement In February 2005, the Wildland Fire Mitigation Plan was completed in collaboration with the Plumas and Lassen National Forests, Plumas County Fire Chiefs Association, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and the city of Portola. The plan developed mitigation strategies as they relate to hazardous fuels by zones. Listed in priority, the zones are Home Ignition Zone, Community at Risk Zone, Adjacent WUI Zone, and the Extended WUI Zone. The mitigation measures identified in the Wildland Fire Mitigation Plan that were addressed in the development of the Empire Project s proposed action include assessing public land in the Community at Risk Zone for fuel reduction treatment proposing to complete the DFPZ network identified in the HFQLG EIS and expanding the network, where feasible developing fuel treatments that will focus on reductions in surface, ladder, and canopy fuels on public lands for the purpose of improving public and firefighter safety and reducing damage to natural resources In June 2004, the Hazardous Fuel Assessment and Strategy analyzed fire hazard, risk of fire occurring, and fuel treatment feasibility within 0.5 mile of Plumas County communities considered at risk. The at-risk communities listed in the Federal Register that fall within the sphere of influence for the Empire Project are Keddie and Quincy/East Quincy. In their assessment, the Plumas County Fire Safe Council also identified Greenhorn, Massack, and Butterfly Valley as communities at risk. The assessment showed that forested areas around these communities consist of patches where fire behavior potential ranges from cooler burning surface fires to active crown fires. Although the entire landscape did not have heavy accumulation of fuels and densely stocked stands, historically large, destructive fires have nonetheless occurred in the past. The risk to communities from catastrophic wildland fire, and the subsequent association with landscape-scale fire behavior, are also included in the Hazardous Fuel Assessment and Strategy. The assessment points out that the actual threat of homes being lost to wildfire is not equal in all the communities because of topographic locations. The original settlements in Plumas County are at less risk of a fire burning into the community than outlying developments and newer developments that typically are not located in the center of open valleys. The Empire Project is expected to reduce hazardous fuels, provide more effective control points, and improve suppression effectiveness. Mount Hough Landscape Assessment (2004) In March 2004, the Mount Hough Ranger District completed a 103,000-acre assessment to define needs and opportunities in the proposed Empire Project area. Public meetings were held in Taylorsville and Quincy in partnership with the Plumas County Fire Safe Council. The Mount Hough District Ranger also made presentations to the Plumas County Fire Safe Council and the Quincy Library Group. These meetings provided opportunities for developing design elements and introducing them into this EIS. The data collected during this process, along with public comments, 1-6 Chapter 1 Purpose and Need for Action

7 Final Environmental Impact Statement Plumas National Forest were used to develop the proposed action described in Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action. Purpose and Need for Action The purpose and need for the proposed action are based on three actions: actions 1 and 2 were derived from the mandates contained in the HFQLG Act, and action 3 was developed to facilitate implementation of actions 1 and 2. These actions are described in detail under each of the six proposed alternatives presented in Chapter 2: Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action. Action 1: Implement Fuel Treatment Strategies Would meet the need for changing fire behavior and providing safe locations for firefighters to suppress wildland fire. Action 2: Implement Group Selection and Individual Tree Selection Harvests Would meet the need for testing the effectiveness of an uneven-aged silvicultural system in achieving an uneven-aged, multistory, fire-resilient forest; providing an adequate timber supply that contributes to the economic stability of rural communities; and improving and maintaining ecological health of the forest. Action 3: Implement Transportation System Changes Would meet the need for reducing impacts of the transportation system on forest resources and providing the necessary access for fuel treatments and group selection and individual tree selection harvests. Action 1: Implement Fuel Treatment Strategies Purpose to implement fuel treatment strategies to reduce fire potential in the WUI zones, reduce the potential size and intensity of wildfires, and provide fire-suppression personnel with safe locations for taking action against wildfires. (This is part of the larger HFQLG fuel treatment strategic network as called for by the HFQLG Act (section 401 [b][1], [d][1], and [e]) and the HFQLG amendment to the Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.) The Empire Project not only proposes implementation of a strategic network of DFPZs, it also proposes implementation of fuel treatments adjacent to private lands (WUI zones) within communities at risk because the fuel treatments would support some of the goals identified in the National Fire Plan. The fuel treatments in residential areas along Chandler Road and Massack, around Butterfly Valley and Greenhorn Ranch subdivision, and in the Keddie-Cascades trailhead areas are in the WUI. The National Fire Plan promotes a collaborative approach for reducing wildland fire risks to communities and the environment through a 10-year comprehensive strategy. The areas included in the proposed Empire Project contribute to the National Fire Plan s hazardous fuel reduction goals, specifically by ensuring that communities most at risk in the WUI receive Chapter 1 Purpose and Need for Action 1-7

8 Plumas National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement priority for hazardous fuels treatment. The Mount Hough District Ranger collaborated with the Plumas County Fire Safe Council and the public to identify the highest priority areas. The Empire Project DFPZs are designed to be part of a larger strategic system of DFPZs that provide fire-suppression personnel with relatively safe locations from which to take action against wildfires. The proposed DFPZs are the next link in the emerging HFQLG DFPZ network. They are intended to provide strategic areas where wildfires can be safely suppressed during 90th percentile weather conditions. The treatments are intended to inhibit the spread of fire that may approach adjacent communities, and they would protect National Forest lands from wildfire originating on private land. The existing conditions in the proposed Empire Project include moderate to high fuel loads throughout the project area. Currently, approximately 70 percent (4,645 acres) of the 6,636 total acres of proposed fuel treatment contain surface fuels in the less-than-3-inch diameter size class that are greater than 10 tons per acre. This surface fuel would result in flame lengths greater than 7 feet during a fire under 90th percentile weather conditions. Desired conditions for flame lengths are an average of less than 4 feet. Existing ladder fuels in the project area are relatively dense, and live canopy base heights average between 2 and 8 feet. The desired condition of live canopy base heights is a minimum of 15 to 25 feet, depending on stand characteristics. With the current combination of surface fuel conditions and low canopy base heights, wildfire during the 90th percentile weather condition would transfer easily from the surface to the forest canopy. The current fuel conditions do not allow for safe fire suppression efforts nor do they provide sufficient protection from wildfire. The proposed action is intended to achieve desired conditions on the areas treated by reducing surface fuels and removing ladder fuels, thereby raising canopy base heights and reducing canopy fuels. The treatments are also intended to strategically connect and maintain areas that currently meet desired conditions. The remaining 30 percent (1,991 acres) of the 6,636 total acres of proposed fuel treatments would be treated to provide connectivity between disparate sections of the proposed DFPZs. Connectivity would enhance the strategic network of DFPZs on the landscape. The desired conditions in the proposed DFPZ are described below. Residual surface fuel (less than 3 inches in diameter) does not exceed 5 tons per acre. Where down logs exist, 10 to 15 tons per acre of the largest down logs have been retained. Fuel conditions allow for efficient and safe suppression of wildland fire and, when necessary, safe evacuation of forest visitors, residents, and firefighters. Fires are controlled through initial attack under 90th percentile weather conditions. Wildland fire behavior in treated areas generates flame lengths less than 4 feet. 1-8 Chapter 1 Purpose and Need for Action

9 Final Environmental Impact Statement Plumas National Forest Canopy base height would be raised to between 15 and 25 feet. Stands have been moved from Fire Condition Classes 2 and 3 towards Fire Condition Class 1. Hazards to firefighters are minimized by reduced snag levels. The threats of crown fire and stand-replacing fire have been lessened by reducing surface fuels, ladder fuels, and canopy fuels. The Empire Project Interdisciplinary (ID) Team has determined that the retention levels for snags and large down wood would not pose an excessive safety hazard to firefighters and would meet wildlife needs, future dead and down material needs, and soil cover and nutrient requirements. Action 2: Implement Group Selection and Individual Tree Selection Provisions of the HFQLG Act Purpose to implement group selection and individual tree selection as directed in the HFQLG Act (section 401[(b] [1] and [d] [2]) and the HFQLG amendment to the Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan; test the effectiveness of an uneven-aged silvicultural system in achieving an uneven-aged, multistory, fire-resilient forest; provide an adequate timber supply that contributes to the economic stability of rural communities; and improve and maintain the ecological health of the forest. Through the HFQLG Act, Congress mandated the development of a pilot project to test and demonstrate the effectiveness of specific vegetative management activities in meeting certain ecologic, social, economic, and fuel-reduction objectives, consistent with applicable federal law. Accomplishing the mandates of the HFQLG Act requires group selection timber harvest on 8,700 acres each year in the pilot project area. In the 2004 Record of Decision on the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, the Regional Forester directed full implementation of the HFQLG Pilot Project, subject to several specific constraints. The Empire Project, which is part of the HFQLG Pilot Project, is intended to implement both this Congressional mandate and direction in the amended Forest Plan. Accordingly, the purposes of project implementation are to contribute a proportional share (see below) of the harvest of 0.57 percent of the pilot project land area each year by group selection promote an adequate timber supply that contributes to the economic stability of rural communities improve and maintain forest and ecological health employ treatments using the most cost-effective means available Chapter 1 Purpose and Need for Action 1-9

10 Plumas National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement move the project area towards a fire-resilient forested landscape maintain and restore riparian plant communities by removing encroaching conifers (using individual tree selection) The Empire Project area is divided into 24 planning areas that range in size from 92 acres to 5,162 acres. Group selection harvest units would be located in the planning areas and would comprise about 1,347 acres. These 1,347 acres of proposed group selection are a proportional share of the 8,700-acre maximum group selection harvest allowed for the entire pilot project area. Detailed information about the total land base acres and group selection acres can be found in the chapter 2 section titled Alternative A: The Proposed Action. The areas that are proposed for group selection harvest are generally comprised of Sierra mixed conifer and white fir, with small amounts of ponderosa pine and red fir stands scattered throughout the planning areas. The planning areas that have been selected for treatment are classified further into California Wildlife Habitat Relationship size classes (4 and 5) and canopy cover (M and D). The trees in these stands are generally larger than 10 inches in diameter at breast height. The stands have moderate and dense canopy cover, where tree density has increased over decades of growth and development as a result of past management activities. In some cases, high stand densities have led to disease and insect infestations. Stands in the vicinity of the group selection harvest units would be considered for individual tree selection, which would provide cost-effective opportunities to create suitable conditions for growth and healthy forest development. Stands that are suitable for access by ground-based equipment would be considered for biomass treatments (see chapter 2 for a discussion of the various treatment methods) together with individual tree selection. Small material and individual trees would also be removed from the forest area, thus reducing ladder fuels. Action 3: Implement Transportation System Changes Purpose to reduce impacts of the transportation system on forest resources and provide the necessary access for fuel treatments and group selection and individual tree selection harvests. The transportation system for the Empire Project area was evaluated through a roads analysis, which is part of the Mount Hough Landscape Assessment. The following access needs were identified based on the roads analysis: Road reconstruction and maintenance are needed to bring existing National Forest System roads into compliance with current maintenance standards and to provide access to the fuel reduction, group selection, and individual tree selection treatment areas. Reconstruction and road maintenance are also necessary to reduce erosion and sedimentation and to provide for public and firefighter safety. Road decommissioning is needed to reduce erosion, sedimentation, soil compaction, road density, and wildlife impacts Chapter 1 Purpose and Need for Action

11 Final Environmental Impact Statement Plumas National Forest Spur road closure is needed to reduce erosion, sedimentation, soil compaction, and impacts on wildlife. Culvert replacement is needed to allow fish passage at three locations. Temporary road construction is needed to access fuel treatment units where existing access is inadequate. New system road construction is needed to provide access to some fuel treatment units. Rather than temporary road construction in this area, system road construction is needed to meet design criteria for location and future need. Harvest landing construction and reconstruction is needed to facilitate removal of wood products. Proposed Action A detailed description of the proposed action and alternatives is in chapter 2, and all maps for the proposed action and alternatives are located in appendix A. The boundary for the proposed Empire Project is the 103,000-acre area described in the March 2004 Mount Hough Landscape Assessment and shown on figure A-1 in appendix A. The following summarizes the proposed action. The proposed action includes 6,636 acres of fuel treatments: approximately 2,494 would be in WUIs, and approximately 4,142 acres of DFPZs would be constructed. In both cases, the proposed treatments would include reduction in surface fuels, ladder fuels, and canopy fuels. Trees larger than 30 inches dbh would not be cut, except as needed for operability. Various fuel treatment methods would be used, depending upon site-specific conditions. The site-specific fuel treatment units are summarized in Appendix B: Fuel Reduction Existing Condition and Proposed Treatment by Treatment Unit. The treatment methods and actions would include ground-based whole-tree mechanical harvest, skidding, slash chipping, and removal of sawlogs and biomass; a small amount of aerial-based mechanical harvest; chainsaw thinning; mastication of brush and small trees; machine piling/handpiling and piling and burning; containment fire-line construction; and prescribed underburning. As noted above, group selection harvest is proposed on approximately 1,347 acres; it would involve removal of all conifer trees less than 30 inches dbh. The group selection harvest units would be 0.5 acre to 2 acres in size, and the resulting openings would be reforested with shade-intolerant species such as pine. A specified number of black oak and snags (dead trees) would remain in the group selection units. The group selection harvest would occur in some of the fuel treatment units and 24 planning areas. The 24 planning areas are summarized in Appendix C: Group Selection and Individual Tree Selection by Planning Area, and shown on figure A-2 in appendix A. In addition, harvest of Chapter 1 Purpose and Need for Action 1-11

12 Plumas National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement individual trees is proposed on approximately 4,000 acres; harvest would take place amid the group selection units. Individual tree selection harvest would focus on thinning to provide for improved health and vigor. The intent of some of these harvests would be to remove conifers encroaching upon riparian areas and aspen stands. Within the 4,000 acres of individual tree selection harvest, approximately 350 acres of biomass removal (removing 3 feet tall to 10 inches dbh trees) is proposed. About 3 miles of new National Forest System roads would be constructed (but closed upon project completion) in order to provide access for Empire Project implementation and reduce impacts of the existing road system on key resources. Six miles of temporary roads would be constructed, then decommissioned; typical decommissioning methods would include removing culverts, removing stream-crossing fills, and re-grading the road bed to restore natural slope and the structure of the watercourse. Seventeen miles of existing roads would be closed; road closure methods would include gates, guardrails, and earthen barriers. Fifteen miles of existing roads would be decommissioned, and 113 miles of existing roads would be reconstructed and remain open to sustain project use and reduce impacts on water quality. The site-specific road treatments are summarized in Appendix D: Proposed Actions for Each Road in Each Watershed. Also, refer to maps A-6 to A-15 in appendix A. Decision Framework The responsible official for this project, Forest Supervisor James M. Peña, will decide whether to implement the as identified in the proposed action, implement the project based on alternatives to the proposal, or not implement the Empire Project at this time. Forest Plan Direction The Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (also referred to as the Forest Plan ), as amended by the 1999 HFQLG FEIS Record of Decision, and as amended by the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision, guides the proposed action and alternatives. The Record of Decision on the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (p. 68) displays the standards and guidelines applicable to the HFQLG Act Pilot Project area. Land allocations that apply to this proposal include Off Base and Deferred Lands, late-successional old-growth stands, California spotted owl Protected Activity Centers (PACs), California Spotted Owl Habitat Areas (SOHAs), and National Forest System lands outside these allocations that are available for vegetation and fuels management activities Chapter 1 Purpose and Need for Action

13 Final Environmental Impact Statement Plumas National Forest Public Involvement Scoping Process The Mount Hough Ranger District conducted a public scoping process for the Empire Project environmental assessment from June 30 to July 30, It was initiated by publishing notices in the Feather River Bulletin, Quincy, CA; and mailing a statement of the proposed action to 635 agencies, organizations, federally recognized tribes, Native American communities, nonprofits and groups, adjacent landowners, and individuals who expressed an interest in the Empire Project. At two open houses in Quincy and Taylorsville, District Forest Service representatives gave presentations to the Plumas County Fire Safe Council and Quincy Library Group. Four field trips were conducted to explain the proposed action. The purpose of the scoping process was to inform the public about the proposed action and to seek public views on the proposed action and issues to be addressed during the project analysis period. Written or verbal scoping comments or requests for additional information were submitted by 3 agencies, 6 organizations, and 19 individuals. Summaries of public comments and Forest Service responses to comments are contained in appendix I. Several field trips and office meetings took place in the summer of 2004 with members of the public and the Empire Project ID Team. These trips involved adjacent landowners and a member of the Greenhorn Subdivision volunteer fire department. Concerns were raised about the proposal in general; potential effects on a recreational trail, road access, tree thinning on public lands immediately adjacent to private ownership; and proposed road improvements on fire evacuation routes. After evaluating responses to the initial scoping effort, a decision was made by the Forest Service Responsible Official (the Forest Supervisor) to proceed with preparation of an EIS. A Notice of Intent to prepare this EIS for the Empire Project was published in the Federal Register on February 9, 2005, and a second public scoping period was held from February 10 to March 11, Fifty-three interested parties received a 31-page document describing the proposed action, purpose and need for action, and decision to be made. A total of 640 interested parties received a summary of the proposed action. The interested parties include organizations and persons who are adjacent landowners, interested and affected parties, and those who responded to the Schedule of Proposed Action notice and had previously asked to be notified of such actions. The distribution list also included federally recognized tribes, Native American communities, nonprofits and groups, the Plumas County Board of Supervisors, and agencies including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of the Interior, California Department of Fish and Game, and the Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District. One agency, four organizations, and seven individuals submitted written or verbal scoping comments or requested additional information. Chapter 1 Purpose and Need for Action 1-13

14 Plumas National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement The scoping comments and responses are contained in appendix I of this EIS and in the Empire Project Record, which is located at the Mount Hough Ranger District office in Quincy, CA. Scoping Issues The Forest Service Responsible Official and the Empire Project ID Team reviewed the comments from the first scoping effort (summaries of public comments and Forest Service responses to comments are contained in appendix I) and examined the data collected during the 2004 and 2005 field seasons. The Responsible Official approved the issues identified by the Empire Project ID Team and the range of alternatives to be analyzed. The Empire Project ID Team developed the alternatives to the proposed action based on the following issues identified from public input, data analysis, and field reconnaissance: Proposed Action Issues 1. Economic feasibility and volume / net value (alternative C). The proposed action does not provide the highest possible amount of group selection harvest, which in turn, does not provide the greatest economic value in terms of sawlog and biomass production. The proposed action utilizes a land base (called planning areas) available for group selection and individual tree selection that will not facilitate economically feasible harvest operations in terms of access, stand conditions, and topography. As a result of dropping the economically infeasible land base and increasing the number of group selection harvest acres, there would be more group selection units located over a smaller land base. Thus, the density (number of groups per planning area) of group selection harvest units would be greater, and there would be a greater number of openings across the landscape. This issue was analyzed in the development of alternative C. Net value and volume harvested are indicators that were used to measure this issue, as well as show comparisons between the alternatives. 2. Watershed effects and California spotted owl, Northern goshawk, and mesocarnivore (American marten and Pacific fisher) habitat protection (alternative D). The proposed action uses a land base (called planning areas) available for group selection and individual tree selection within subwatersheds that exceed the threshold of concern and are at a high level of risk for cumulative effects. As above, the proposed action used planning areas available for group selection and individual tree selection that will not facilitate economically feasible harvest operations in terms of access, stand conditions, and topography. The proposed action distributed the group selection harvest units with inconsistent densities that ranged from 4 to 17 percent of the planning areas. To reduce the risk and uncertainty of the impacts on wildlife in terms of connectivity and forest interior habitat, the Empire Project 1-14 Chapter 1 Purpose and Need for Action

15 Final Environmental Impact Statement Plumas National Forest ID Team identified a group selection density or distribution across the planning areas to be at or below 11.4 percent. This issue was remedied in the development of alternative D. Wildlife habitat (for the California spotted owl, Northern goshawk, and mesocarnivores [American marten and Pacific fisher], as well as forest interior habitat for old-forest-dependent species) in terms of acres, and watershed cumulative effects in terms of percent threshold of concern, are indicators that were used to measure this issue, as well as show comparisons between the alternatives. 3. Compliance with the current Plumas National Forest off-highway vehicle (OHV) route designation process (action alternatives C, D, E, and F). The proposed action does not take into account the findings from the 2004 field season as a result of the OHV route designation process that the Plumas National Forest is currently undertaking. This issue was remedied by including the OHV route designation information in all action alternatives. Miles of road decommissioning and closure were used to measure this issue, as well as show comparisons with the proposed action. Two alternatives suggested by the public were carried forward for detailed analysis in this EIS; the Empire Project ID Team identified the following issues and measures for these two alternatives: 1. Modify fuel treatments to retain all trees greater than 20 inches dbh, and maintain a 50 percent canopy in habitat for the California spotted owl, Northern goshawk, and mesocarnivores (alternative E). Predicted fire behavior (in terms of flame length, crowning and torching index, height to live crown, and resistance to control) is an indicator that was used to measure this issue, as well as show comparisons between the alternatives. Wildlife habitat (in terms of acres for the California spotted owl, Northern goshawk, and mesocarnivores and forest interior habitat for old-forest-dependent species) is an indicator that was used to measure this issue, as well as show comparisons between the alternatives. 2. Implement fuel treatments, retain trees greater than 20 inches dbh, and maintain a 50 percent canopy cover in habitat for the California spotted owl, Northern goshawk, and mesocarnivores. Do not implement group selection or individual tree selection harvests (alternative F). Community stability and economic value expectations, with regard to implementing the intent of the HFQLG Act, were used to show comparisons between the alternatives. Predicted fire behavior (in terms of flame length, crowning and torching index, height to live crown, and resistance to control) is an indicator that was used to measure this issue, as well as show comparisons between the alternatives. Chapter 1 Purpose and Need for Action 1-15

16 Plumas National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement Wildlife habitat, in terms of acres, is an indicator that was used to measure this issue, as well as show comparisons between the alternatives. Public Comment Period on the Draft EIS In May 2005, the draft Empire Project EIS (DEIS) was mailed to 21 federal, state, and local agencies; five federally recognized tribes; 10 organizations; and 22 individuals who either specifically requested a copy of the document, submitted substantive comments during scoping, or was an interested or affected person. The 45-day comment period on the DEIS occurred from May 20 through July 5, The Empire Project public involvement plan for the DEIS is incorporated by reference and located in the Empire Project Record. In early June, the Forest Service contacted 11 group leaders or individuals to request an audience with their organization to provide a Forest Service presentation about the Empire Project DEIS. Of the 11 contacts, three briefings took place. The Plumas County Fire Safe Council was not meeting again until after July 5. The Plumas Forest Project group was not available to meet before July 5. The off-highway vehicle (OHV) enthusiast who commented during scoping was not available. The Quincy Soroptomists, the Greenhorn Ranch Subdivision Association, the Greenhorn Volunteer Fire Department, the Plumas County Board of Supervisors, and the Coordinated Resource Management group did not respond to telephone or messages. On June 16, 2005, an Empire Project DEIS presentation was given to the Quincy Lions Club; 13 people attended the briefing, and no written comments were received. On June 20, 2005, a presentation was given to the Quincy Rotary Club; 23 people attended the briefing, and no written comments were received. The last presentation was given to the Quincy Library Group; 26 people attended the briefing, and no written comments were received. When the 45-day comment period ended, 3 government agencies, 5 groups, and 7 individuals sent comment letters for a total of 15 comment letters received on the DEIS. Summaries of public comments on the DEIS and Forest Service responses to comments are contained in appendix I Chapter 1 Purpose and Need for Action