Record of Decision Pilgrim Vegetation Management Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement

Location Record of Decision Pilgrim Vegetation Management Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement U.S. Forest Service Shasta-Trinity National Forest Shasta McCloud Management Unit Siskiyou County, California The Pilgrim Project is located northeast of the community of McCloud, California, in the area where Ash, Dry and Pilgrim Creeks cross the Pilgrim Creek Road. Legal Land Description: The legal locations (all within Mt. Diablo Meridian in Siskiyou County) are within Township 40 North, Range 1 West, Sections 2-5, 7-10, 14-18, 20-23 and 27; Township 41 North, Range 1 West, Sections 26, 27, and 31-35; and Township 40 North, Range 2 West, Section 12. Introduction The purpose of the supplement to the Pilgrim Vegetation Management Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is to address concerns related to monitoring obligations as outlined in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), as ordered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (Court) on May 13, 2008 [Conservation Congress and Klamath Forest Alliance v. United States Forest Service, No. Civ. S-07-2764 LKK/KJM]. The Court ruled that the Forest Service did not fully comply with its monitoring obligations for certain management indicators as outlined in the Forest Plan and remanded the matter to the agency for further action consistent with the order. More specifically, the Court found that the Forest Service did not fully meet its monitoring obligations for two of the three selected species - mule deer and red-breasted nuthatch. The Court found that, for those species, the data presented in the FEIS did not show a high correlation between habitat and the species population, resulting in the need for additional analysis. The Court did accept the habitat analysis for the white-breasted nuthatch. In response to the Court s order, additional analysis and supplemental information was developed to provide additional population monitoring information for the mule deer and redbreasted nuthatch. An extensive literature search was also conducted to obtain the most current information regarding the biology and status of mule deer and red-breasted nuthatch on the Forest and throughout their range. This supplemental analysis is documented in the Pilgrim Vegetation Management Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) Shasta McCloud Management Unit Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 1

and the Pilgrim Vegetation Management Project Level Management Indicator Assemblages Report as revised February 18, 2009. 1 As to the other National Forest Management Act (NFMA) claims brought by the plaintiffs, the Court upheld the Forest Service s selection of particular species to represent the habitat assemblages designated in the Forest Plan, agreed that the plan amendment granting a projectspecific variance from the 15 percent green tree retention standard over 255 acres was a nonsignificant plan amendment and found the project in compliance with the Forest Plan's snag retention requirements for cavity-dependent species. Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Court upheld the Forest's cumulative effects analysis for the northern spotted owl, finding that the analysis area was appropriate for the species and was properly selected so as to include potential cumulative impacts from other projects planned in the area. The Court further found that the Forest's analysis of short-term impacts to the owl was adequate. 2 Background / Purpose and Need for Action The purpose and need for action remain the same as described in the Pilgrim Vegetation Management Project FEIS - June 2007 (Chapter 1, pp 1-16). In summary, over the last decade the Forest Service has been monitoring the incidence of black stain and annosus root disease on the McCloud Flats through establishment of plots, field surveys and aerial surveys. The Pilgrim project area has been a known root disease activity zone for several decades and the spread of the disease has become more prevalent in recent years. As a result of this monitoring the Shasta- Trinity National Forest (Forest) proposed the Pilgrim Vegetation Management Project on approximately 3,800 acres within an 8,500-acre assessment area. Project activities were designed to address declining forest health including root disease and overstocking; loss of aspens, willows, oaks, and dry meadows; and increasing fuel loads. To fully understand the details of the proposed action, including the range of alternatives and environmental consequences for the Pilgrim Vegetation Management Project, the reader is advised to review the Pilgrim Vegetation Management Project FEIS (June 2007) and Record of Decision (ROD) dated June 1, 2007. Copies of these documents are available at the Mt. Shasta Ranger Station in Mt. Shasta, California, and the Shasta-Trinity National Forest Headquarters in Redding, California. These documents along with other relevant documentation can also be found on the Forest website at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/shastatrinity/projects/smmuprojects.shtml. Decision and Rationale for Decision It is my decision to affirm the 2007 Record of Decision for implementation of Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) as described in the Pilgrim Vegetation Management Project FEIS (June 2007). My decision is based on review of the supplemental analysis documented in the Pilgrim Vegetation Management Project FSEIS (), the revised Pilgrim Vegetation 1 Pilgrim Vegetation Management Project FSEIS,, Appendix L. 2 Conservation Congress v. Forest Service, Case No. 07-02764 (E.D. Cal., May 13, 2008). 2 - Shasta McCloud Management Unit Shasta-Trinity National Forest

Management Project Level Management Indicator Report (February 2009), comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS) and information in the project record. I believe the additional analysis and supplemental information is responsive to the Court s request for the Forest to provide additional population monitoring information for the mule deer and red-breasted nuthatch. I believe the Forest has met the monitoring obligations outlined in the Forest Plan. 3 In the case of the red-breasted nuthatch, the FSEIS has demonstrated that despite the complexity of its population changes since 1966, the species has shown a steady population increase since the late 1990s, paralleling the similar increases in late-seral and snag and down log assemblages on the Forest. Given the additional clarification, we believe that habitat-based analyses for the late-seral and snag and down log assemblages are appropriate and adequate. The analysis in the FSEIS and revised project level management indicator report provides additional analysis and reference material that more strongly supports similar trends in the local habitat and population trends of the red-breasted nuthatch. The FSEIS, at pages 23 through 35 and then again from pages 35 through 45, provides analysis of late seral and snag and downed log assemblages with the red-breasted nuthatch provided as an example species. These pages add additional population information on the red-breasted nuthatch including additional relevant life-history information, more discussion of the quality and quantity of habitat available for the species and additional discussion regarding the relationship between the assemblage habitat and population trends of the species. Additional information on population trends was added from several sources, including from authoritative sources such as the Cornell Lab of Ornithology. In 2008 and 2009, Forest wildlife biologists and volunteers conducted additional breeding bird surveys throughout the Pilgrim area. 4 In 2008, the nearest survey recorded 19 individual red-breasted nuthatches and in 2009 the same survey recorded 22 individuals. In 2008, the red-breasted nuthatch was the eighth most common species along this route. The original narrative in the FEIS is still relevant to the analysis and the additional material in the FSEIS indicates a stronger connection between habitat and population trends. The conclusion of the analysis was that project level habitat impacts will not alter or contribute to existing Forest-wide habitat or population trends for the red-breasted nuthatch. 5 Although an analysis of habitat components and their expected changes complies fully with the Forest Plan, additional population data supplied by the field surveys combined with the more extensive Breeding Bird Survey data enables us to monitor closely the population trends not only of those species selected as examples, but of many others as well. In the case of the mule deer, the FSEIS supplements the original analysis with the most currently available mule deer population monitoring data applicable to the Shasta-Trinity National Forest and the Pilgrim project area to assess, to a greater degree of certainty, population trends in the 3 Forest Plan (USDA 1995, page 5-16). 4 These surveys are conducted using Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) protocol but have not yet been incorporated into the larger BBS dataset. After one more year of piloting the route, we will petition the BBS for inclusion of this route into their dataset. At that point the BBS will accept the route and will take responsibility for maintaining it over the years. 5 Pilgrim Vegetation Management Project FSEIS,, Appendix L, page L-50 and L-61. Shasta McCloud Management Unit Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 3

project area (FSEIS, pp 17-23). The FSEIS also provides the results of a more detailed study of the relationship of mule deer habitat to its population trend (FSEIS, Appendix L, pp L-25 L- 32). By supplementing this analysis, the Forest provides further rationale that habitat-based analysis is appropriate for the mule deer. The supplemental analysis also clarifies the issue of whether or not documented mule deer declines throughout the State and in the Pilgrim project area are attributable to habitat declines or predator pressure. The strong link between habitat declines and mule deer population declines is further supported. The FSEIS includes both habitat analysis and an analysis of population data for the mule deer (FSEIS, pages L-26-L32) and notes the relationship between the loss of habitat at the larger scale and declining population trends. Although the proposed project is likely to improve conditions for the mule deer, the small scale of the operation relative to the range and extent of the species is unlikely to cause a measurable shift in either habitat or population trends. As the FSEIS states, the best available evidence indicates that mule deer decline is directly related to declines in open and early seral habitat. The conclusion of the analysis was that project-level habitat impacts will not meaningfully alter or contribute to existing forest-wide population trends of the mule deer. 6 In reaching my decision, I have carefully considered public comments received on the DSEIS and the analysis in the FSEIS. My response to public comments is documented in Appendix N of the FSEIS. My reasons for selecting Alternative 1 remain the same as those described in the 2007 Record of Decision. First, I believe that Alternative 1 best meets the purpose and need because it reduces stand density and fuel hazards and increases stand resistance to insects and disease on the largest acreage of forest of any alternative considered. My preference is to improve the condition of the forest on as many acres as feasible in the Pilgrim project area. I believe this approach best protects the forest and water resources of these watersheds from destruction by wildfire and insects and disease. Second, I believe this alternative will improve the biodiversity of the area by increasing the acres of early seral dry meadows, hardwoods and late-seral conifer forests. Third, I believe this alternative will improve overall road management by closing and decommissioning roads to the benefit of wildlife and the watershed. Alternative 1, the Preferred Alternative, will thin and sanitize about 2,275 acres of naturally occurring forest stands and about 785 acres of planted stands and will thin about 40 acres of mature pine stands to reduce ladder fuels and improve conditions for the older trees. This project will remove dead and dying knobcone pine trees from about 10 acres and replant the area with a mix of conifer species. Trees infested with root disease and insects will be removed from about 415 acres and replanted with a mix of conifer species. To decrease potential wildfire behavior, woody fuels will be reduced by underburning about 200 acres and tractor piling and burning or burning slash concentrations on up to 700 acres. The project will also remove conifers encroaching on oaks (scattered individuals) and aspens (about 20 acres) and remove encroaching conifers on about 275 acres of historic dry meadow areas. The project will require construction 6 Pilgrim Vegetation Management Project FSEIS,, Appendix L, page L-32. 4 - Shasta McCloud Management Unit Shasta-Trinity National Forest

of about 0.3 miles of new road and short lengths of temporary spur road. Approximately 10 miles of existing roads with be closed with guardrail barricades or earth berms. Approximately 2 miles of existing roads will be decommissioned and removed from the Forest road system. This decision affirms my prior approval of a non-significant amendment to the Forest Plan (2007 Record of Decision, pp 3). On 255 acres of the Pilgrim Project this amendment removes the requirement on Forest Plan page 4-61 to Retain at least 15 percent of the area associated with each cutting unit (stand) and to the extent possible, patches and dispersed retention should include the largest, oldest live trees, decadent or leaning trees and hard snags occurring in the unit. The amendment and analysis is fully described in the FEIS pages 122 to 124. Public Involvement The public has been involved on numerous occasions and through a variety of methods over the long history of environmental analysis for the Pilgrim Vegetation Management Project. A history of public involvement is detailed in Chapter 1 of the Pilgrim Vegetation Management Project FEIS - June 2007, (Chapter 1, pp 14-16). A Notice of Intent to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement was published in the Federal Register on August 8, 2008 (Federal Register/Vol. 73, No. 154/Friday, August 8, 2008/Notices, pp. 46236 46238). A copy of the Notice of Intent was sent to individuals, groups and agencies that received the FEIS. A legal notice was placed in the Mt. Shasta Herald on August 6, 2008, and Redding Record Searchlight August 7, 2008, stating: The Shasta-Trinity National Forest will prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) for the Pilgrim Vegetation Management Project to present additional information consistent with the court ruling in Conservation Congress v. Forest Service, Case No. 07-02764 (E.D. Cal., May 13, 2008). This action will require modification of the current Project Level Management Indicator Assemblage Report for the Pilgrim Vegetation Management Project dated February 15, 2007. A DSEIS was published for review and comment on March 20, 2009. The notice of availability was published in the Federal Register on March 20, 2009. The DSEIS was made available on the Forest s web site. A copy of the notice of availability was sent to individuals, groups and agencies that received the FEIS. A legal notice was placed in the Redding Record Searchlight on March 22, 2009 and in the Mt. Shasta Herald on April 1, 2009. The Forest received five timely comments. Comments and responses to comments are contained in Appendix N of the FSEIS. Alternatives Considered The supplemental analysis documented in the Pilgrim Vegetation Management Project FSEIS and the Pilgrim Vegetation Management Project Level Management Indicator Report, as revised February 18, 2009, documents the effects of the proposed action on the habitat of selected assemblages and/or their example species. This involved examining the impacts of the proposed action on management indicator assemblage habitat by discussing how direct, indirect and cumulative effects will change the distribution and quantity of assemblage habitat in the analysis Shasta McCloud Management Unit Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 5

area. These project-level impacts to habitat are then related to broader scale (generally National Forest and bioregional) population and/or habitat trends. The supplemental analysis revealed no new information that would result in a change of the comparison of alternatives considered in the original FEIS. Therefore, the alternatives considered remain the same as described in Chapter 2, pages 17 through 32, of the Pilgrim Vegetation Management Project FEIS - June 2007. In addition to the selected alternative, I considered three other alternatives in the original FEIS, which are discussed below. As noted, that analysis has not changed. Alternative 2 - Proposed Action modified to retain an average 60 percent canopy cover: This alternative was developed in response to a significant issue raised during scoping which was maintenance of habitat for the northern spotted owl within a critical habitat unit. This alternative would retain approximately 60 percent canopy closure on approximately 535 acres of overstocked stands. Research has shown that this stand density (about 200 square feet per acre in Ponderosa pine) is in the zone of imminent mortality from bark beetles (FEIS, pages 5, 7 & 38). This is currently the situation in these stands and others that have been thinned in the past to a 60 percent or greater canopy closure. With recent mortality from western pine beetle on the McCloud Flats on hundreds of acres, I did not select this alternative because it would leave these stands susceptible to future loss from insects or disease and subsequent higher than desired fuel loadings and fire hazard. Alternative 3 - Proposed Action modified to maintain 15 percent green tree retention in harvest and replant units: This alternative was developed to meet the current Forest Plan Standard and Guideline to maintain 15 percent of the area associated with each cutting unit (generally the largest and oldest trees) in areas to be regenerated. This alternative would leave approximately 295 acres with some root disease infested trees and would continue the root disease cycle (FEIS, page 45). I did not select this alternative because review of these areas by the forest entomologist and pathologist indicated that many, if not all, of the root disease retained trees will probably die within two to ten years and many of the trees that would be planted will become infected with root disease. Also, future fuel loading will be much higher than desired conditions on these acres (FEIS page 55). Alternative 4 - No Action: This alternative would implement no activity at this time, allowing the existing forest and watershed conditions, fuel loading and fuel ladder conditions to worsen over time. Currently about 3,400 acres in the analysis area are overstocked and have areas of high mortality from insects and disease. This is causing fuel loading to increase well beyond desired conditions, greatly increasing fire hazard. Dry meadows and hardwoods are being lost to encroaching conifers and riparian areas are losing vegetation cover to insects and disease. This alternative does not move the project area to desired conditions as described in the Forest Plan and the McCloud Flats Ecosystem Analysis. A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found on pages 29-33 of the Pilgrim Project FEIS. Also included in the FEIS Chapter 2, pages 23 through 27, are monitoring requirements and design criteria common to all action alternatives to minimize or eliminate 6 - Shasta McCloud Management Unit Shasta-Trinity National Forest

potential environmental effects. Alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study are discussed on pages 27 through 29 of the FEIS. Environmentally Preferred Alternative Alternative 1 is the environmentally preferred alternative. This alternative is environmentally preferred over other alternatives considered because it effectively reduces the likelihood of future insect and disease pathogens and reduces the risk of large catastrophic wildland fires. Alternative 1 would result in conditions that most benefit forest health, vegetation diversity and wildland fire hazard reduction. This will result in fewer acres of forest landscape being killed by insect and disease pathogens or severely burned by high intensity fires. High intensity fires have a high potential to cause loss of large areas of forest, damage soils and adversely affect critical wildlife habitat. Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations My decision is consistent with relevant law, regulations and agency policy. My conclusion is based on a review of the record that shows a thorough consideration of the proposal using best available science. I have determined that this action is consistent with the following legal requirements: NFMA, NEPA, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, National Historic Preservation Act, Environmental Justice - Executive Order 12898, Road Analysis as directed by the National Forest System Road Management Rule published in the Federal Register on January 12, 2001, and Interim Directive 7710-2001-3 published December 20, 2001, Survey & Manage January 9, 2006 court order regarding the protection of species under current Survey and Manage standards and guidelines. Administrative Review (Appeal) Opportunities This decision is subject to administrative review (appeal) pursuant to 36 CFR Part 215. As stated in 36 CFR 215.11(b), following supplementation of an environmental impact statement, only that portion of the decision that is changed as a result of the supplemental analysis is subject to appeal. Appeals, including attachments, must be filed within 45 days following the publication date of the legal notice of this decision in the Redding Record Searchlight. The publication date in the Redding Record Searchlight, newspaper of record, is the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an appeal. Those wishing to appeal this decision should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source. Individuals or organizations that provided comments or otherwise expressed interest in the proposal by close of the comment period are eligible to appeal the decision pursuant to 36 CFR 215.13. It is the appellant s responsibility to provide sufficient project-specific evidence and rationale to show why my decision should be reversed. The notice of appeal must meet the appeal content requirements at 36 CFR 215.14. The appeal must be filed (regular mail, fax, e-mail, hand-delivery or express delivery) with the Appeal Deciding Officer at: Attn: Appeal Deciding Officer, Randy Moore, Regional Forester, Shasta McCloud Management Unit Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 7

Record of Decision - Pilgrim Vegetation Management Project - Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 1323 Club Drive, Vallejo, CA 94592. Appeals may be faxed to (707) 562-9229 or emailed to: appeals-pacificsouthwest-regional-offi ce@fs.fed.us [Subject: Pilgrim Project FSEIS]. An automated response will confirm receipt of your electronic appeal. Electronic appeals must be submitted in plain text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf), or Word (.doc or.docx). Ifno identifiable name is attached to an electronic message, a verification ofidentity will be required. A scanned signature is one way to provide verification. If you wish to hand-deliver an appeal, office hours are: 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Implementation Date If no appeals are filed within the 45-day time period, implementation of the decision may occur on, but not before, five business days from the close of the appeal filing period. If appeals are filed, implementation may occur on, but not before, the fifteenth business day following the date ofthe last appeal disposition. In any event, implementation of the decision will only occur upon a ruling from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California which lifts the injunction on project implementation previously imposed on May 13,2008. Contact For additional information concerning this project and decision contact Emelia Barnum at the M t. Shasta Ranger Stati on, 204 W. Alma Street, Mt. Shasta, California 96067, (530) 926-9600. t Supervisor Shasta-Trinity National Forest DATE 8 - Shasta McCloud Management Unit - Shasta-Trinity National Forest