Program Timberland Environmental Impact Report

Transcription

DRAFT
Program Timberland Environmental Impact Report
for the
Weaverville Community Fuel Reduction Project
Lead Agency:
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
P.O. Box 944246
Sacramento, CA 94244-2460
Submitted By:
Trinity Resource Conservation and Development Council, Inc.
P.O. Box 2183
Weaverville, CA 96093-2183
Prepared For Trinity Resource Conservation and Development Council, Inc By:
Baldwin, Blomstrom, Wilkinson and Associates, Consulting Foresters
P.O. Box 2157
Weaverville, CA. 96093
Bbwassociates.com
_______________________________________________________________Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Chapter 1.0
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.10
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.3
Alternatives to Project
Environmental Setting
Overview of Environmental Setting
Surrounding Land Uses
Project Area Ownership
Roads and Streams
Vegetation/Habitat Types
Chapter 5.0
1
1
1
2
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
9
Alternatives Considered in Detail
Alternative 2 – No Project
Alternative 3 – Intensive Fuel Treatment
Alternative 4 – Understory Fuel Treatment
Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Analysis
Environmentally Preferred Alternative
Chapter 4.0
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
Project Description
Project Description
Vegetation and Treatment Area Description
Detailed Project Description- Moderate Fuel Treatment
Chapter 3.0
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
1
Project Description
Project Location
Project Background
Project Purpose and Project Objectives
Purpose of Program Timberland Environmental Impact Report
Decisions Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
How will the Proposed Project be Accomplished.
PTEIR and Project Duration
Role of Local Government in PTEIR Process
Relationship between PTEIR and State and Local Fire Plans
Relationship Between CDF Authority over Commercial Harvest and Landowner
Operations that are Non-Commercial
Chapter 2.0
2.0
2.1
2.2
Project Description
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Overview of Chapter
Analysis of Impacts Associated with Partial Implementation
Analysis of Impacts Associated with Activities Not Regulated by CDF
Potentially Significant Effects
i
9
9
18
38
38
34
38
43
47
47
51
51
51
52
54
55
57
57
57
57
57
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.10
5.11
5.12
5.13
5.14
5.15
5.16
5.17
5.18
5.19
5.20
5.21
5.22
5.23
5.24
Visual Aesthetics
Agricultural Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural, Archaeological and Historic Resources
Geology and Soils
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Mineral and Energy Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Projected Wildland Fire Severity
Projected Wildland Fire Intensity
Create Pre-Planned Safety Zone Firebreaks within the Project Area to Provide for
Fire Fighter and Citizen Safety if the Fire Overruns the Fire Fighting Force.
Cumulative Impacts from Reasonably Foreseeable Known Projects
Treatment Maintenance
Chapter 6.0
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.3
196
203
207
217
Initial Scoping for Project Location
Outreach to Project Area Landowners
Scoping of Public
Outreach to State and Local Agencies
Chapter 7.0
7.0
Public Scoping
58
68
71
77
105
111
128
131
146
149
153
156
158
163
171
176
181
191
217
217
217
218
List of Preparers
221
List of Preparers
221
ii
Appendices
(separately paged, follows page 221 of document)
Appendix A
Literature Cited
Appendix -1
Appendix B
Detailed Prescriptions
Appendix -3
Appendix C
Methods and Procedures
Appendix 3
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
Appendix D
1.0
2.0
3.0
Treatment Area Delineation
Climate Modeling for Fire Behavior Prediction
Growth and Yield Modeling
Fire Behavior Modeling
Economic and Planning Cost Analysis
Appendix - 4
Appendix - 12
Appendix - 15
Appendix - 16
Appendix - 18
Planning Costs for Fuel Reduction Projects
Appendix - 18
Generate Income from the Harvest of Commercial Timber Products Appendix - 23
Generate Potentially Value-Added Materials
Appendix - 31
iii
this page intentionally blank
_______________________________________________________________1.0 Introduction
Chapter 1.0 Introduction
1.0
Summary of Project
The Proposed Project will treat vegetative fuels on private forestland in the Weaverville Basin in
Trinity County, California. Specifically, the project is proposed to reduce horizontal and vertical
fuel continuity on up to 320 parcels of private, non-industrial forestland comprising about 4,275
acres by:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Removing and/or treating existing ground fuels,
Pre-commercial thinning to reduce ladder fuels,
Commercial harvesting to reduce ladder fuels and overstory crown density,
Initiating a system of fuel breaks, and
Where necessary, conducting no treatment where the benefits are outweighed by adverse
effects.
A detailed description of the project is found in Chapter 2. Activities resulting from the project
could include commercial timber harvesting-related activities, including: skid trail and landing
construction; road construction; road reconstruction; road maintenance; construction and/or use
of stream crossings; prescribed burning, slash piling, and treatment of sub-merchantable material
through harvesting; chipping and/or other treatments. The project will be designed and
implemented to be consistent with the Z'berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973 (Forest
Practice Act) requirements, utilizing the Program Timber Harvest Plan (PTHP) process detailed
in the California Forest Practice Rules.
1.1
Project Location
The project area consists of approximately 4,275 acres of private, non-industrial forested parcels
near the community of Weaverville in Trinity County (see Figures 1 and 2). The unincorporated
community of Weaverville is both the largest population center in the County (pop. 3,420) and
the County seat. State Highway 299 is the main east-west route through the project area, while
State Highway 3 provides access from Weaverville to Trinity Dam, Trinity Lake, and Siskiyou
County. See maps on pages 3 and 4 for the location of the project area and its relationship to the
rest of Northern California.
1.2
Project Background
The majority of stands (groups) of forest trees below 4,000’ elevation in the Weaver Creek basin
developed after removal of the original forest cover by mining, fires, and logging between
approximately the 1850’s-1930’s. Trees in the succeeding “second growth” stand range from
70-110 years old. Many of these stands were partially logged in the 1950’s-70’s. On National
Forest lands some clearcutting was begun in the East and West Weaver Creek watersheds in the
1980’s and on Sierra Pacific Industries lands in the late 1990’s. Due to fire suppression and
exclusion over the last 95 years, these areas developed into dense, slow-growing forests with
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
1
Weaverville Community Fuel
June 1, 2004
Reduction Project Draft EIR
inter-laced crowns. Tree diameters are much smaller than would normally be found in stands
that were either thinned through logging or naturally disturbed by fire. The continuous
interlaced crowns have been recognized as a significant threat for rapid-fire spread.
On August 28, 2001 that threat was realized when the Oregon Fire ignited at 3:00 p.m. on the
west side of Oregon Summit on Highway 299. In the space of 4 hours the fire burned 1,700
acres, reaching the community of Weaverville, CA within 2 hours of the fire start. Thirteen
homes were lost, but the potential existed for many more to be lost. In 1994 another wildfire, the
Browns Fire, consumed 1,600 acres in the Little Browns Creek watershed, a tributary to Weaver
Creek, and the watersheds to the east. The most destructive fire however, was the July 2, 1999
Lowden Fire in Lewiston (8 miles east of Weaverville), which destroyed more than 40 homes,
trailers, and other buildings while consuming 2,000 acres. Other fires during the past ten years
in Trinity and Shasta Counties have included the Fountain, Barker, Jones, Happy Valley,
Meagram, and Big Bar fires, which destroyed more than 800 buildings and burned more than
200,000 acres.
These fires have focused the community on the need to change wildland fire behavior in the
project area to help reduce the potential for future catastrophic losses to life and property. Given
existing fuel loads, fire risk, and forest conditions in the Weaverville wildland-urban interface
area; the risk of catastrophic loss is very high without a concerted effort to treat fuels in a
coordinated manner. Various fuels reduction projects have been completed in Trinity County
within the last few years and others are in the planning stages. Some of these treated areas are
confirmed to have dramatically modified fire behavior during wildland fires, including the
Oregon Fire.
1.3
Project Purpose and Project Objectives
The project purpose is to reduce the effects of wildland fire on the community of Weaverville.
In order to achieve the purpose of the project, the following objectives will need to be
accomplished:
1. Reduce wildland fire severity in the project area through treatments that reduce fireinduced tree mortality,
2. Reduce wildland fire intensity in the project area through treatments that reduce flame
lengths,
3. Reduce planning costs for fuel reduction projects in the project area,
4. Generate income from the harvest of commercial timber products that can be used to
implement fuel reduction treatments,
5. Generate other potentially value-added materials that result from implementation of
projects tiered to the PTEIR, and
6. Create shaded fuel breaks, safe zones, helicopter landing locations, etc., within the
project area to help with wildland fire containment and control, and to provide for fire
fighter and citizen safety.
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
2
June 1, 2004
_______________________________________________________________1.0 Introduction
______________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
3
June 1, 2004
_______________________________________________________________1.0 Introduction
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
4
June 1, 2004
The following criteria will be used to measure how well the Proposed Project and a range of
reasonable alternatives reach the goals and objectives in the project area:
1. Mortality of standing vegetation throughout the project area from a simulated fire
occurring 5 years (e.g., 2008), 15 years, and 50 years in the future after project
implementation (measured in stems/acre, volume, etc.).
2. Average flame length throughout the project area for a simulated fire occurring 5 years
(e.g., 2008), 15 years, and 50 years after project implementation.
3. Total planning costs associated with each alternative.
4. Gross and net logging revenue generated from treatments tiered to the PTEIR.
5. Total cubic foot volume generated from alternatives.
6. Acres of fuel breaks, safe zones, helicopter landing pads, etc. created.
1.4
Purpose of Program Timberland Environmental Impact Report
A Program Timberland Environmental Impact Report (PTEIR) is prepared for an agency
program or series of actions that can be characterized as one large project, which in this case is
the ongoing management of timberlands, including timber operations and related land
management practices on multiple ownerships [see the California Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection Forest Practice Rules (14 CCR 1092.01) for information on PTEIR content and
intent]. In this case, the PTEIR is being prepared to provide guidance to landowners wishing to
implement fuel reduction projects by filing a Program Timber Harvest Plan (PTHP) with the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Program EIRs generally analyze broad
environmental effects of the program; with the acknowledgement that site-specific
environmental review may be required for particular aspects or portions of the program (see
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15168).
This PTEIR, like other program EIRs, documents the environmental impacts of the Proposed
Project and alternatives to the Proposed Project in order to:
•
•
•
•
1.5
Inform decision makers and the public about a project’s significant environmental effects
and ways to enhance or reduce such effects.
Demonstrate to the public that the environment is being protected during project
implementation.
Discuss mitigation measures designed to minimize significant effects
Ensure political accountability by disclosing to citizens the environmental values held by
their elected and appointed public officials.
Decisions Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
As required by regulation, the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) is
the lead agency for this project. The Trinity Resource Conservation and Development Council,
Inc. (TRC&D) is preparing the PTEIR for CDF under letter agreement. The PTEIR process and
CEQA require the preparation and circulation of a draft PTEIR. Approval of a final PTEIR by
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
5
June 1, 2004
the CDF Director is expected approximately in March 2004. At the time of project approval the
lead agency will adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (PRC 21081.6; MMRP).
The monitoring plan is an important component of the PTEIR process. It ensures that the Forest
Practice Rules and mitigation measures contained in the PTEIR are in fact carried out in
subsequent projects.
The Director will use the certified PTEIR to review proposed individual PTHPs undertaken in
conformance with the mitigation measures in the PTEIR. The Forest Practice Rules (FPRs)
require PTEIRs to contain a checklist to determine whether practices within individual PTHPs
are within the scope of the analysis of the PTEIR. This checklist will be used by CDF as the
agency evaluates these individual projects.
1.6
How will the Proposed Project be Accomplished?
CDF regulates commercial timber harvesting on private lands in California. Harvesting for
commercial purposes is defined as: “(1) the cutting or removal of trees which are processed into
logs, lumber, or other wood products and offered for sale, barter, exchange, or trade, or; (2) the
cutting or removal of trees or other forest products during the conversion of timberlands to land
uses other than the growing of timber which are subject to the provisions of Section 4621,
including, but not limited to, residential or commercial developments, production of other
agricultural crops, recreational developments, ski developments, water development projects,
and transportation projects.” (PRC 4527) The Weaver Basin is within a state responsibility area
and CDF has wildland fire suppression responsibility. CDF depends on the voluntary
cooperation of private landowners to implement local fuel reduction measures. (For areas
immediately around structures, state law PRC 4291 requires fuels management.)
Individual landowners who are willing to harvest timber and reduce fuels in order to reduce
wildland fire severity are the key to implementing the proposed action. In order to commercially
harvest timber under a community fuel reduction plan (or for any other purpose) landowners
need approval from the CDF through either:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
An approved Timber Harvesting Plan (THP) (14 CCR 1032)
An approved Modified THP (14 CCR 1051)
A Non-Industrial Timber Management Plan (NTMP) (14 CCR 1090)
An Emergency Notice (14 CCR 1052)
A Notice of Conversion Exemption Timber Operations (14 CCR 1104.1)
A THP exemption (14 CCR 1038)
An approved Program THP (PTHP) (14 CCR 1092)
Generally these landowner actions are taken individually, without community involvement, and
without assessing the wildland fire behavior consequences on the landscape.
PTHPs filed by individual landowners or groups of landowners are tiered to the PTEIR, which
analyzes the consequences of the proposed action at the landscape scale. The PTEIR contains an
array of forest management practices developed and analyzed at the project level. When the
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
6
June 1, 2004
PTEIR is approved, individual landowners may, at their discretion, submit a PTHP to CDF in
lieu of a standard THP, as long as it is within the scope of the PTEIR. In this case landowners
are potentially afforded a significantly reduced approval process, including potentially reduced
costs for preparation of the PTHP (compared to a THP not tiered to the PTEIR).
1.7
PTEIR Duration
A PTEIR remains in effect until such time as substantial changes in conditions occur or
significant environmental impacts are identified that were not previously addressed in the
PTEIR. When either of these situations occurs the PTEIR may be amended or supplemented to
address such new information (14 CCR 1092.28). Thus, landowners could file PTHPs well into
the future – perhaps as long as 10-20 years into the future--as long as the conditions within the
project area do not change substantially beyond the conditions described in the document.
However, in order to calculate the environmental impacts of the proposed project and its
alternatives, it was assumed that all project activities would be completed within the next 10
years.
1.8
Role of Local Government in PTEIR Process
In 1990, the Trinity County Board of Supervisors adopted the Weaverville Community Plan as a
part of the Trinity County General Plan. These plans guide new development by way of goals,
policies, and implementation measures. These plans also establish a policy framework for
reducing the hazards of wildland fire through fuel reduction measures. A prominent policy
direction is a desire to perpetuate the existing forested condition while recognizing that the area
has significant fire dangers that must be addressed. The projects proposed for implementation
will be consistent with the Trinity County General Plan.
The Trinity Fire Safe Council recommended the Weaverville Basin as the location for a
community fuel reduction PTEIR at its June 27th, 2002 meeting. The Trinity Resource
Conservation and Development Council, Inc. (TRC&D) endorsed the Fire Safe Council
recommendation at its July 26th, 2002 Board Meeting. The PTEIR is consistent with the Trinity
Fire Safe Council priorities and their recommended set of projects, as they existed in July of
2002.
1.9
Relationship between PTEIR and State and Local Fire Plans
The PTEIR tiers to the CDF Shasta Trinity Unit Fire Plan, which was approved in 2003. An
update is slated for the plan in 2004, however the changes are mostly associated with improved
statistical data (personal communication, Rick Hartley, CDF)
The PTEIR will also tier to the State Fire Plan. The California Fire Plan was adopted by the
Board of Forestry in 1996 and is still in the formative stages. The overall goal of the plan is to
reduce total costs and losses from wildland fire in California by protecting assets at risk through
focused pre-fire management prescriptions and increasing initial attack success.
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
7
June 1, 2004
The California Fire Plan has five strategic objectives:
•
•
•
•
•
to create wildfire protection zones that reduce the risks to citizens and firefighters.
to assess all wild lands, not just the state responsibility areas.
to identify and analyze key policy issues and develop recommendations for changes in
public policy.
to have a strong fiscal policy focus and monitor the wildland fire protection system in
fiscal terms. This will include all public and private expenditures and economic losses.
to translate the analyses into public policies.
The pre-fire management initiative of the Plan, when completed:
•
•
•
1.10
addresses the components of fuel loading, fuel arrangement, land-use patterns, building
construction standards, and ignition management;
gives priority to high-risk, high-value areas most likely to burn under severe fire weather
conditions; and
focuses efforts by more aggressively emphasizing fire prevention, vegetation
management, and land-use planning and forest health programs.
Relationship Between CDF Authority over Commercial Harvest and Landowner
Operations that are Non-Commercial
Many of the proposed fuels treatments are outside of the realm of authority of the CA Forest
Practice Rules and of the PTEIR/PTHP process. Treatments that are not under CDF jurisdiction
include brush removal, thinning of non-commercial trees, bole pruning, and removal of oaks and
gray pine for non-commercial use. Although these activities are not regulated, required, or
tracked by any government agency, by checking the checkboxes in the checklist required to be
filed along with the PTHP, the landowner makes a voluntary agreement to undertake the
specified treatments. In order to take advantage of the cost savings of the PTHP process, an
intent to apply the full suite of treatments in the adopted alternative must be specified by the RPF
preparing the THP. It has been noted that other funding sources such as EQIP (USDA-NRCS)
and CFIP (CDF) may potentially be accessed to help fund the fuels treatments. Landowners are
encouraged to investigate supplemental funding opportunities. However, the primary intent of
the PTEIR is for landowners who harvest commercial timber under a PTHP to direct timber
harvest receipts toward funding the PTEIR-specified fuels treatments.
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
8
June 1, 2004
___________________________________________________________2.0 Project Description
Chapter 2.0 Project Description
2.0
Project Description
Throughout the 4,275-acre project area, private forestland owners would implement a range of
treatments, dependent upon existing vegetation, slope position, and proximity to streams or
improvements. Treatments could be implemented over a 10-20 year period or perhaps longer if
conditions do not change (see section 1.7 for more detail on project duration). The treatment on
ridges and upper slopes would create shaded fuel breaks, where a substantial volume of
commercial and non-commercial timber could be removed. On lower and mid slopes, thinning,
individual tree selection, or group selection harvest with openings of up to 2 ½acres, would allow
harvesting of a moderate volume of commercial and non-commercial timber. In Class I and II
WLPZs no commercial harvesting or planned fuel treatments would occur.
Landowners would also treat logging-created slash through such practices as hand or tractor
piling and burning, tractor crushing or mechanical mastication, lopping to within 18” of the
ground and scattering, and/or chipping, depending on the density of the fuels after harvest.
Existing ground fuels would be reduced in some areas where their current configuration could
create adverse wildfire behavior.
After treatment, medium-sized and large trees would generally be evenly spaced and groups of
advanced regeneration, poles and small saw timber would be retained in a configuration designed
to reduce fire intensity and rate of spread. This would be in contrast to the high wildfire hazard
created by the existing, nearly continuous forest cover. Commercial timber harvesting could
include skid trail and landing construction, construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of
roads, and possibly installation of stream crossings.
Due to the complexity of the vegetation, slope position, stream location and other physiographic
factors, the project area was subdivided into treatment areas as described in the following
sections. After the descriptions of the treatment areas a detailed project description describes the
various treatments and how they would be applied to each of the vegetation-treatment areas.
2.1
Vegetation and Treatment Area Description
The Proposed Project prescribes various silvicultural treatments to unique combinations of
vegetation and treatment areas. The vegetation and the treatment area delineations are described
first, followed by the summary of the prescriptions and treatments of the Proposed Project.
2.1.1
Description of Vegetation in Project Area
The project area contains a diversity of vegetation types. Generally there are three broad
categories of vegetation within the project area: commercial forest types, non-commercial forest
types, and vegetation that is either not forest, or if forested is not being treated (see discussion
below). There are about 2,830 acres of commercial forest types, 960 acres of non-commercial
types and 480 acres of non-forested types within the project area.
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
9
June 1, 2004
The predominant commercial forest types within the project area are Douglas-fir and ponderosa
pine forests. Forest types considered non-commercial include montane hardwood and gray pine
stands. Many of these stands originated after logging and fires that occurred near the turn of the
century. In addition, most of these private parcels have been harvested at least once since the
1950’s, with many entered multiple times.
2.1.2
Description of Treatment Areas in Project Area
Treatment areas are located within the project area based on a combination of the physiographic,
riparian, slope, homesite, and road attributes that can define a unique wildland fire condition and
fuel treatment prescription. Appendix C contains a detailed description of the process and
rationale for delineation of the treatment areas. For analysis and field application purposes, the
following treatment areas were delineated.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Road treatment area: 100’ on each side of all “public” (see Glossary) roads.
Middle slope treatment areas: lower and middle slopes of less than 50% slope gradient.
Middle slope treatment areas > 50% slope: lower and middle slopes of 50% and steeper
gradient.
Upper slope treatment areas: upper slopes, ridge tops, and fuel management zones
described by the Resource Advisory Committee (RAC).
Upper slope treatment areas > 50% slope: same as above, but on 50% and steeper
gradients.
Watercourse and Lake Protection Zone (WLPZ) areas: no treatment stream buffers that
vary in width depending on the type of stream. A 150’-wide non-treatment zone is
placed on either side of streams if it has fish in it or it provides people’s domestic water
needs. The 150’-wide band consists of two sub-areas: the first 75’ from the stream edge
is a designated WLPZ in the Forest Practice Rules (14 CCR 936.5). The next 75’ wide
band is established under the Threatened and Impaired Watershed rules of 14 CCR 936.9
et. seq. On year round streams which do not have fish or domestic water uses, a 100’
WLPZ is established, and on intermittent streams that have riparian vegetation and
support non-fish aquatic species (Class II) streams a 75’ WLPZ is required.
Homesite treatment areas: areas within a 200’ radius of improved and permitted
structures within the project area.
The location of the parcels containing homesites/improvements and the map of all of the
treatment areas are shown on pages 12 and 13, respectively. Homesite treatment areas are not
shown on maps, as they are so small and numerous that they are difficult to map and display at
scales of less than 1:24,000.
2.1.3
Description of Vegetation-Treatment Areas
In order to prescribe treatments and assess effects, the treatment areas were combined with the
vegetation types, which created 120 unique combinations of vegetation-treatment areas. The
acreage by WHR vegetation type and the treatment areas described above is shown in Table 1.
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
10
June 1, 2004
TABLE 1
TREATMENT AREA AND VEGETATION TYPE ACREAGES
TREATABLE AREA
NOT TREATABLE STREAMS
MID
UPPER
TOTAL
TOTAL HOME ROAD MID
UPPER
SLOPE
SLOPE
PEREN INTERMIT TOTAL I, II,
ACREA SITE SIDE SLOPE
SLOPE
TREATABLE COHO DOMESTIC
>50%
>50%
NIAL
TENT
III
TA
GE
TA
TA
TA
ACREAGE
TA
TA
Commercial And Non Commercial Vegetation Types
DFR3
74
6
17
21
17
62
10
2
12
DFR4
133
21
25
47
25
117
4
3
9
15
GPP4
87
6
30
48
84
4
4
KMC3
445
31
38
144
70
115
25
422
4
18
22
KMC4
1,538
147
162
519
114
377
45
1,363
22
31
30
91
175
MHC3
385
22
65
157
43
70
14
372
1
0
8
4
13
MHC4
134
10
16
40
11
54
130
4
4
PPN4
42
13
13
12
38
4
4
Subtotal 2,837
255
366
988
238
657
83
2,588
27
45
41
135
249
MHW2
139
2
31
94
127
12
12
MHW3
830
36
33
434
36
211
14
764
6
0
2
59
67
Subtotal 970
37
65
528
36
211
14
890
6
0
2
71
79
Vegetation Types Not Treated
MCP
24
5
2
8
2
7
0
24
MRI
57
4
8
16
28
11
10
8
29
OREG
182
11
16
84
39
151
14
16
31
PGS
71
4
19
35
4
1
63
2
1
5
8
NON
136
25
29
44
0
20
1
119
3
6
3
5
17
Subtotal 469
50
73
186
6
68
1
385
30
7
12
35
84
Total Acres 4,276
342
504 1,703
280
936
98
3,863
63
53
56
241
412
Treatable
Acres 3,807
293
431 1,516
274
868
97
3,479
33
46
43
206
328
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
11
June 1, 2004
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
12
June 1, 2004
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
13
June 1, 2004
2.2
Detailed Project Description- Moderate Fuel Treatment
(Removes some understory and overstory trees)
The project includes three categories of treatment, (1) Establishment of a Shaded Fuel Break, (2)
Commercial Thinning/Individual Tree Selection/Group Selection/Transition (one treatment, see
below), and (3) Non-Commercial Fuels Treatment. Additionally, no treatment is proposed for
some areas, such as Class I and II Watercourse and Lake Protection Zones (WLPZs).
The three categories of active treatments are allocated across two types of timber stands, (1)
Commercial Conifer and (2) Hardwood/Gray Pine stands, and across two areas of treatment,
Upper slopes, major ridgelines, within 200 ft. of homes and improvements, and within 100 ft. of
public roads (including Class III Equipment Limitation or Exclusion Zones (ELZs or EEZs) and
Lower and Middle Slopes, including Class III ELZs or EEZs, but not including areas within 200
ft. of dwellings and 100 ft. of public roads, and finally, all Class I and II WLPZs.
The allocation of treatments to timber stands and specific areas is shown in Table 2 and
described in detail below. The map on page 15 shows the distribution of the various
prescriptions.
TABLE 2
SUMMARY OF TREATMENTS BY TREATMENT AREA AND
MAJOR FOREST TYPE
Upper Slopes, Major Ridgelines,
Adjacent to Roads, Dwellings, etc.
Lower and Middle Slopes, Class III
Stream Zones
Class I and Class II Stream Zones
COMMERCIAL
CONIFER STANDS
HARDWOOD/GRAY
PINE STANDS
Fuel Break to 80 sq. ft.
Fuel Break to 80 sq. ft.
Thinning /Individual
Tree and/or Group
Selection/
Transition
None
Non-Commercial Fuel
Treatment
None
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
14
June 1, 2004
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
15
June 1, 2004
2.2.1
Commercial Conifer Timber Types Except Class I & II WLPZs
These types are dominated by the Douglas-fir and Klamath Mixed-Conifer forest types, as well
as minor acreages of the ponderosa pine type and the gray pine phase of the pine type. These
types can often have a significant component of hardwoods, including California black oak,
Pacific madrone and canyon live oak. These types are distinguished from the hardwood and gray
pine types because they do not have significant amounts of Oregon white oak present. There are
about 2,575 acres of these types (does not include the Class I and Class II WLPZs within these
commercial types).
*For all prescriptions listed in this section, the following minimum retention requirements for WLPZs
apply: within Class III EEZs or ELZs, at least 50% of the understory vegetation present before harvest
must be left living and well distributed in order to maintain soil stability.
2.2.1.1
Upper Slopes, Major Ridgelines, within 200’ of homes or 100’ of public
roads, and in Class III ELZs or EEZs.
*Note: Treatment of slash and other vegetation within specified distances of homes and public roads is
specific to each private parcel for which a PTHP is prepared. Treatments will stop at the property line
unless agreements have been reached between adjacent property owners to continue the treatment onto
adjoining parcels.
On upper slopes, major ridgelines, within 200’ of homes and improvements, and within 100’ of
“public” roads (including; Class III ELZs or EEZs) the prescription would be:
Intensive Fuel Treatment: Fuel break Establishment—Reduce Basal Area to 75-90 sq. ft./acre
(or to about 65% of the pre-harvest stocking density in well-stocked stands), reduce and remove
understory vegetation, project-created slash, ground fuels, and ladder fuels, and prune residual
trees.
Objectives of the Prescription: Create a shaded fuel break, within which crowns of trees (or
groups of trees – see below) are regularly spaced across the area and provide shade that will
reduce the potential for rapid re-growth of brush and sprouting hardwoods. Reduce horizontal
and vertical connectivity of the understory and shrub layers. Around dwellings, dense clumps of
trees and other vegetation that provide visual buffers between neighbors can be retained, but
must be physically separated from other trees and vegetation to avoid fire spread. After
harvesting operations are completed, crown closure across the treated area will average
approximately 60%. Approximately the same proportion, by size class, of existing conifer and
hardwood trees will be removed to achieve the target basal area. Existing conditions and
treatment effects are shown in Table 3, below.
Fuels reduction treatments, as recommended below for logging slash, understory vegetation, and
existing fuels, must be site-specific in order to achieve the desired conditions. Consultation
between CDF and the Registered Professional Forester (RPF) during the PTHP pre-harvest
inspection will identify slash treatment levels for specific projects and sites. Slash reduction
treatment responsibility shall be specified in PTHPs tiered to this PTEIR. Typically the Licensed
Timber Operator is responsible for slash treatment, but the timberland owner or others, when
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
16
June 1, 2004
specified in the PTHP, may assume this responsibility. In some instances, programs such as
CFIP or other cost share programs may fund treatment of non-PTHP generated fuel loads as part
of forest stewardship efforts. In these cases, the LTO may not be the only person doing fuels
treatment.
Computer generated “pictures” of the proposed treatment are shown below. The picture titled
“Inventory conditions” illustrates the current average conditions within a typical timber stand.
“Post cutting” shows the same stand with trees to be harvested felled but not removed, and
“Beginning of cycle” shows the stand with a shaded fuel break created by timber harvest and
other treatments.
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
17
June 1, 2004
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
18
June 1, 2004
Trees to be Retained: Retained trees will have a full crown, be capable of seed production and
representative of the best phenotypes available in the pre-harvest stand. In some instances dead,
dying or decadent trees may be left where they will not significantly affect fire suppression needs
(for example snags that are not located where they will throw embers across a fuel break may be
retained for wildlife value).
Pruning: Within 200’(is this right? Consistent with above) of dwellings and 100’ of public
roads, all trees exceeding 20’ in height will have the lower limbs pruned to a minimum of 6’
from the ground surface (on shorter trees the live crown will be reduced from the ground surface
retaining at least 30% live crown). Slash generated by pruning will be treated along with that
created by logging and other treatments (see below).
Understory Vegetation/Ladder Fuels: Understory vegetation, including brush and small trees
5”-11” diameter, whose foliage provides horizontal or vertical continuity, will be reduced by
cutting, or uprooting with heavy equipment, and treated in the same manner as the logging slash
(removed, piled, burned, etc.). Understory fuel treatment specifications are as follows: either (a)
or (b) are acceptable treatments. Develop vertical separation and low horizontal continuity of
vegetation that is taller than 1 ½’ in height and shorter than 20’, across 50% of the project area,
by (a):
• Creating a horizontal separation between shrubs of 3 to 5 times their height,
plus
• Creating a vertical separation between residual shrubs and other vegetation that form fuel
ladders of at least 4 times the height of the lower fuel ladder.
Or (b)
• Removing all shrub species over 1 ½’ tall from areas where the overstory canopy is
retained.
Above specifications were adapted from the Natural Resource Conservation Service Conservation
Practice Specification 394B – Fuel Break: NRCS, CA July 2000.
Seedlings, Saplings and Poles: In some areas hardwood and conifer seedlings and saplings
(trees 1” to 4” in diameter) and poles (trees 5” – 10” dbh) are so dense that their continued
growth would negatively affect target goals for fuels reduction. The RPF developing projects
tiered to this EIR will determine the desired after-project stocking of seedlings, saplings and
poles needed to replace trees that die or are harvested over time, and to meet required FPR
stocking levels. Trees in excess of this desired stocking number will be reduced during the
PTHP operations to meet target objectives.
Where seedlings, saplings and poles are to be retained in the treated stand, the PTHP shall list the
anticipated post harvest point count for trees in these size classes by treatment area. The point
count shall be based on the methods of 932.7(b)(1) and sampling procedures of 1072 of the
Forest Practice Rules, when determined necessary by CDF. The RPF shall consider proposed
seedling, sapling and pole retention levels based on the anticipated post harvest stand conditions,
shade tolerance of trees, topography, ground fuel continuity, and other site specific objectives.
While site specific objectives can not be determined in a programmatic document, stand
inventory data indicate that there are on average approximately 1,500 trees per acre in the
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
19
June 1, 2004
seedling, sapling and pole size classes and that hardwoods account for 83% of that total.
Preference in thinning should be to increase conifers in the seedling, sapling and pole size classes
to approximately 50% where such disproportionate numbers of hardwoods exist. It is expected
that on an average acre approximately 300 saplings and poles of all species in the stand would be
retained to meet fuel behavior objectives. [For example, in the Klamath Mixed Conifer
vegetation type on upper slopes (see Appendix B), conifer seedlings/saplings average 262
trees/acre, and hardwood seedlings/saplings 1,236 trees/acre. An acceptable target density after
treatment for seedlings/saplings within this vegetation type might be around 150 conifers and
150 hardwoods per acre.]
Slash Treatment: The goal of slash treatment is to reduce the connectivity and density of slash
remaining after treatment so it will not carry fire across the treated area under average August
fire conditions. Remove, chip, or pile and burn project slash within 100’ of homes. Lop,
remove, chip, and/or pile and burn within 100-200’ of homes and within 100’ of public roads.
Outside of the 100’-200’ perimeter around houses and 100’ of public roads, the slash treatment
method and extent shall be specified in the PTHP and reviewed by CDF during the pre-harvest
inspection. The RPF shall base fuel treatment levels on expected slash levels created by logging,
pre-harvest ground fuel loads, and distribution, slope, erosion hazard, and surrounding values at
risk. Lopping to 18” and scattering of slash is acceptable if it will meet the goals of reducing
fuels height and connectivity. On slopes greater than 50%, tractor piling and burning are often
ineffective but hand piling and burning, prescribed broadcast burning, or jackpot burning
(burning concentrations of slash) may be used in some instances. On slopes less than 50%,
tractor or mechanical piling is often the most effective and affordable method, but other methods
may be used if they meet landowner goals. The target residual stocking of 75-90 sq ft. BA/acre
will limit the ability of large equipment to work between residual trees to pile or crush slash.
Use of equipment that can maneuver between residual trees [for example, a small tractor (D3
size) or excavator] without causing excessive damage to residual trees may be specified in the
PTHP or by CDF. After slash treatment is completed, the total fuel load of the remaining
logging slash is anticipated to be in the range of 5-10 tons/acre.
Ground Fuel Treatment: Existing ground fuels, such as dead and down limbs and trees,
excepting forest floor litter and duff, in many cases will be treated concurrent with the logging
slash and ladder fuels; however, in some instances cost share projects such as pre-commercial
thinning, pruning and fuel reduction (not required as part of commercial harvest under the Forest
Practice Act) will be done separately from commercial timber harvest. After treatment, ground
fuels are anticipated to be reduced to 5 tons or less/acre on average. The method with which to
access ground fuel loads at the completion of operations will be included in each PTHP, as will
the expected tons per acre at that time.
Where a PTHP will only treat logging slash levels, the PTHP will state: the expected fuel levels
at the time of completion of operations; when post PTHP fuels reductions are to be
accomplished; and the final fuel load level targets. CDF will assess the proposed fuel load levels
at the time of the pre-harvest inspection. The most likely assessment method to measure fuel
loads will be to review treated areas against existing Forest Service or research photo series,
which quantify fuel loads.
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
20
June 1, 2004
Snags: Snags (dead, standing trees) are often incompatible with fuel break function because
they tend to ignite and throw embers that can spread fire. They are however a natural and vital
component to forest habitats. Snags that can be safely removed will be felled under this
prescription and treated along with the slash, or retained for wildlife habitat where this is
compatible with fuel reduction and other objectives (e.g., away from ridges, public roads, home
sites, safety areas, heli-pads, etc.).
Wildlife Habitat Structures: Opportunities to retain or develop wildlife habitat structures or
features will be considered in all harvest operations. In particular, fuel break areas shall be
considered for habitat improvement opportunities compatible with fuels reduction objectives.
Habitat structures such as sprung root wads, large wood and cull log decks, basal cavity dens,
slash piles and other potential structures may be developed where appropriate.
There are opportunities for stewardship or cost share programs to assist in wildlife habitat
improvement and landowners may consider such programs in addition to PTHPs.
Treatment Maintenance: While fuel break maintenance is not a regulated activity under the
Forest Practice Act it is a necessary component of any long-term successful fuels and fire
program. The creation of shaded fuel breaks under a PTHP will allow for frequent low intensity
ground treatments, including in some instances prescribed broadcast burning. Fuel break
effectiveness will decrease over time, as tree crowns grow together and vegetation fills cleared
openings (though this may be inhibited by shade from overstory trees in many treated areas).
Maintenance of fuel reduction treatments will likely be needed on 5-15 year intervals. These
entries in some areas may include commercial harvesting that could supplement funding for fuel
reduction maintenance costs. Fuel break maintenance treatments may include:
• Removal of commercial-size trees to reduce crown interlacing and closure.
• Salvage of dead, dying or weather damaged, broken or split topped trees.
• Pruning lower branches that may have died.
• Removing and/or burning accumulations of ground fuels.
• Pruning or removing vegetation that is increasing horizontal or vertical continuity of
fuels.
• Broadcast burning, jackpot burning, manual treatments, or mechanical treatments.
Volume Harvested: The amount of timber removed will vary greatly depending on timber
volumes present before harvest. In the Klamath Mixed-Conifer vegetation type on upper slopes
(see Appendix B) about 3,200 net conifer board feet per acre of commercial sawtimber, 84 cubic
feet per acre of pole size conifer, and 120 cubic feet per acre of hardwood (on average), could be
removed through construction of fuel breaks.
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
21
June 1, 2004
TABLE 3
FUEL BREAK PRESCRIPTION ON UPPER SLOPES, WITHIN 200’ OF
DWELLINGS AND 100’ OF PUBLIC ROADS,
IN COMMERCIAL CONIFER TIMBER STANDS
STAND COMPONENT
BEFORE
TREATMENT
AFTER
TREATMENT
REMOVED BY
TREATMENT
Commercial Conifer Sawtimber, Bd. Ft./Ac.
Commercial Conifer Sawtimber, Cu. Ft./Ac.
Commercial Conifer Sawtimber, BA/Acre
Commercial Conifer Sawtimber, Trees/Ac.
Pole Size Conifers, Bd. Ft./Acre
Pole Size Conifers, Cu. Ft./Acre
Pole Size Conifers, BA/Acre
Pole Size Conifers, Trees/Acre
Hardwood Sawtimber, Cu. Ft./Acre
Hardwood Sawtimber, BA/Acre
Hardwood Sawtimber, Trees/Acre
Hardwood Poles, Cu. Ft./Acre
Hardwood Poles, BA/Acre
Hardwood Poles, Trees/Acre
Total Conifer/Hardwood BA/Acre
Conifer Seedlings/Saplings, #/acre
Hardwood Seedlings/Saplings, #/acre
Understory Vegetation, % Cover/Acre
Dead Ground Fuel, Tons/Acre (Ex. Duff & Litter)
Logging Slash, Tons/Acre
8,750
1,680
76
76
869
169
20
78
370
15
10
106
13
54
124
262
1,194
40
12
40
5,560
1,105
48
54
435
85
10
41
292
14
8
65
8
33
80
150
150
10
3
7
3,190
575
28
22
434
84
10
37
78
1
2
41
5
21
44
112
1,044
30
9
33
2.2.1.2
Lower and Middle Slopes and Class III ELZs or EEZs
On lower and middle slopes, including Class III ELZs or EEZs, but excluding areas near
dwellings and public roads that would be treated under the fuel break prescription as described
above, the prescription would be:
Moderate Fuel Treatment—Commercial Thinning Selection/Group Selection, or Transition to
100-140 sq. ft. basal area per acre. (All of these silvicultural treatments have similar goals for
timber harvest and retention levels as well as fuels reduction treatments and their effects are
considered identical for purposes of analysis.)
Non-industrial timberland owners who do not actively or routinely engage in forest management,
but wish to meet goals to retain a continuous forest cover while improving forest health often
prefer these silvicultural methods.
One intent of the silvicultural prescriptions in this alternative is to reduce crown continuity and
alter stand structure and fuel composition so that the normal return interval fire (7-10 years),
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
22
June 1, 2004
burning with low/moderate intensity, can pass through these stands with the following effects:
•
•
•
•
Minimal crown fire
Capable of dropping the fire from crown to ground
Capable of slowing the fire to a slow rate of spread
Capable of retaining significant portions of the organic soil horizon
Objectives of the Prescription
The Commercial Thinning Prescription will be applied where even-aged management is the
landowner’s goal. This prescription will maintain or increase the average diameter of the
residual crop trees, improve stand health, and promote the growth of commercial timber.
Existing conditions and treatment effects are shown in Table 4 below, also see “picture” below.
The Selection or Group Selection Prescription will be applied where uneven-aged management is
the landowner’s preferred strategy. This prescription will establish or maintain a multi-aged,
balanced stand structure, promote growth on leave trees across a broad range of size and age
classes, and encourage natural regeneration.
In addition, the Transition Method may be used to develop an uneven-aged stand structure from
a currently unbalanced, irregular or even-aged structure. This method may be used no more than
twice for a stand, and must increase stocking and improve the balance of age classes so that
continued selection management is feasible.
The intent of each of these prescriptions is to reduce crown continuity and alter stand structure
and fuel compositions so that the normal return interval fire (7-10 years), burning with
low/moderate intensity, can pass through the stands with the following effects:
•
•
•
•
Minimal crown fire
Capable of dropping the fire from crown to ground
Capable of slowing the fire to a slow rate of spread
Capable of retaining significant portions of the organic soil horizon
After application of any of the prescriptions, crowns of overstory trees or groups of trees will be
separated spatially so that a crown fire will not (under normal August fire conditions) spread
across more than a small portion of the treated area, but will instead drop to the ground.
Trees to be Retained
Retained trees would generally be those with full crowns, capable of seed production, and
representative of the best phenotypes available in the pre-harvest stand. However, some snags or
decadent or dying trees may be included for wildlife habitat (refer to 14 CCR 932.7(1)(b) (2) and
(3) for stocking standards for these silvicultural systems).
Pruning
No pruning is proposed in thinning/selection/transition areas.
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
23
June 1, 2004
Immediately After Thinning
Vegetation 5 years after treatment
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
24
June 1, 2004
Understory Vegetation/Ladder Fuels
The vertical and horizontal continuity of understory vegetation will be reduced by thinning pole
size conifers and hardwoods where they are overstocked and where their foliage has high vertical
and horizontal continuity. Brush and saplings knocked down or otherwise damaged by logging
operations will be treated along with the slash from logging. After treatment, areas where the
horizontal and vertical fuels continuity of the understory vegetation remains intact will cover no
more than 25% of the treatment area.
Seedlings, Saplings, and Poles
In areas where seedlings and saplings of hardwoods or conifers exceed the density (in trees/acre)
needed to achieve future stocking goals, a deliberate attempt (in conjunction with other
operations) will be made to reduce the number and density of such seedlings in order to achieve
and maintain fuels reduction goals over time. The target density of conifer seedlings/saplings
after harvesting ranges from 300 – 500 trees/acre. That of hardwoods ranges from 100 – 350
trees/acre. Where seedlings, saplings and poles are to be retained in the treated stand, the PTHP
shall list the anticipated post harvest point count or basal area for trees in these size classes by
treatment area. The point count shall be based on the methods of 932.7(b)(1) and sampling
procedures of 1072 of the Forest Practice Rules, when determined necessary by CDF. The RPF
shall consider proposed seedling, sapling, and pole retention levels based on the anticipated post
harvest stand conditions, shade tolerance of trees, topography, ground fuel continuity and other
site specific objectives.
Slash Treatment
Post harvest treated fuel loads in this type will be 10 tons or less per acre on average. Slash
Treatment in this slope position is similar to that discussed above in the fuel break prescription,
in Section 2.2.1.1.
Understory Vegetation Treatment
Where the foliage of pole or sapling-size trees has high vertical or horizontal continuity, and/or
where future crop trees would benefit in health or vigor from thinning, they will be reduced in
density by cutting or uprooting with heavy equipment, so that a fire cannot travel across the
entire treated area or into the crowns of adjacent overstory trees. Slash created from this
treatment will be treated in the same manner as that from other treatments (removed, piled,
burned, etc.). After treatment, understory fuels connectivity should remain in the pre-harvest
condition on no more than 30% of the treated area.
Ground Fuel Treatment
Existing ground fuels, such as dead and down limbs and trees, excepting forest floor litter and
duff, in many cases will be treated concurrent with the logging slash and ladder fuels; however,
in some instances cost share projects such as pre-commercial thinning, pruning and fuel
reduction (not required as part of commercial harvest under the Forest Practice Act) will be done
separately from commercial timber harvest. After treatment, ground fuels are anticipated to be
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
25
June 1, 2004
reduced to 6 tons or less/acre on average. The method with which to access ground fuel loads at
the completion of operations will be included in each PTHP, as will the expected tons per acre at
that time.
Where a PTHP will only treat logging slash levels, the PTHP will state the expected fuel levels at
the time of completion of operations, when post PTHP fuels reductions are to be accomplished,
and the final fuel load level targets. CDF will assess the proposed fuel load levels at the time of
the pre-harvest inspection. The most likely assessment method to measure fuel loads will be to
review treated areas against existing Forest Service or research photo series, which quantify fuel
loads.
Snags
Snags (dead, standing trees) are often incompatible with fuel break function because they tend to
ignite and throw embers that can spread fire. They are however a natural and vital component to
forest habitats. Snags that can be safely removed will be felled under this prescription and
treated along with the slash or retained for wildlife habitat where this is compatible with fuel
reduction and other objectives (e.g., away from ridges, public roads, home sites, safety areas,
heli-pads, etc.).
Wildlife Habitat Structures
Opportunities to retain or develop wildlife habitat structures or features will be considered in all
harvest operations. In thinning/selection/transition areas the RPF shall consider for habitat
improvement opportunities compatible with fuels reduction objectives. Habitat structures such
as sprung root wads, large wood and cull log decks, basal cavity dens, slash piles and other
potential structures may be developed where appropriate.
There are opportunities for stewardship, or cost share programs to assist in wildlife habitat
improvement and landowners may consider such programs in addition to PTHPs.
Volume Harvested
The amount of timber that may be removed under a thinning or group selection harvest varies
greatly depending on how much existed before the harvest. (Within the Klamath Mixed Conifer
vegetation type on mid- and lower slopes about 1,000 net conifer board feet per acre could be
harvested, along with 138 cubic feet per acre of hardwoods, on the average.)
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
26
June 1, 2004
TABLE 4
COMMERCIAL THINNING OR GROUP SELECTION PRESCRIPTION
ON LOWER AND MIDDLE SLOPES, > 200’ FROM HOMESITES
AND >100’ FROM PUBLIC ROADS,
IN COMMERCIAL CONIFER TIMBER STANDS
STAND COMPONENT
Dead Ground Fuel, Tons/Acre (Ex. Duff &
Litter)
2.2.2
BEFORE
TREATMENT
AFTER
TREATMENT
REMOVED BY
TREATMENT
10,400
1,860
71
57
1,500
270
26
89
360
15
15
207
9,404
1,860
64
52
1,500
270
26
89
360
14
15
69
996
0
7
5
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
138
24
104
136
263
477
50
16
68
120
150
150
40
8
36
16
113
327
10
12
3
9
20
3
17
Timber Stands Dominated by Hardwood or Gray Pine
These vegetation types are dominated by mixed stands containing substantial amounts of Oregon
white oak, often mixed with gray pine. There are about 880 acres of these vegetation types (not
including about 80 acres that are in class I and II WLPZs, which are described below) within the
project area. The hardwood and gray pine-dominated timber stands often do not contain
economically valuable stocks of commercial timber. Implementation of proposed treatments
described below may depend on landowner motivation and ability to pay using their own or
supplemental funds.
For all prescriptions listed in this section, the following minimum retention requirements for WLPZs
apply: within Class III ELZs or EEZs, at least 50% of the understory vegetation present before harvest
must be left living and well distributed in order to maintain soil stability.
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
27
June 1, 2004
2.2.2.1
Upper Slopes, Major Ridgelines, within 200’ of homes, 100’ of roads, and in
Class III ELZs or EEZs.
On upper slopes (including Class III ELZs or EEZs), major ridgelines, within 200’ of homes and
improvements, and within 100’ of public roads, the prescription would be:
Fuel Break—Reduce Basal Area to 80 square feet per acre.
Create a shaded fuel break similar to that described for the commercial timber types. Basic
objectives of the prescription include reducing the horizontal continuity of fuels from high to low
and removal of ladder fuels. Brush removal may also be necessary to achieve fuels reduction
goals. Existing conditions and treatment effects are shown in Table 5, below.
Trees to be Retained
Retained trees should be vigorous and healthy, with good root systems (to minimize blow-down)
and/or should have high potential commercial value or high wildlife value.
Seedlings and Saplings
In areas where the retention of seedlings and saplings of hardwoods would negatively affect
goals for reduction of understory continuity, a deliberate attempt (in conjunction with other
operations) will be made to reduce the number and density of such seedlings. The target density
of conifer seedlings/saplings after harvest ranges from 300 – 500 trees/acre, and that of
hardwoods from 100 – 150 trees/acre.
Slash Treatment
The goal of slash treatment is to reduce the connectivity and density of slash remaining after
treatment so fuels will not carry fire across the treated area under average August fire conditions.
Post harvest treated fuel loads in this type will be 10 tons or less per acre on average. Slash
treatment in this slope position and stand type is similar to that discussed under Section 2.2.1.1
(refer to that section for discussion) except that lopping to 30” may be done rather than to 18”
where it meets fuels reduction goals of the PTEIR. Within these stand types, the RPF shall
indicate in the PTHP where lopping to 30” is proposed and CDF shall inspect such areas at the
time of the pre-harvest inspection to determine if the treatment is adequate to meet the PTEIR
goals based on site specific location, hazards, and other local factors.
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
28
June 1, 2004
reduced to 10 tons or less/acre on average. The method with which to access ground fuel loads
at the completion of operations will be included in each PTHP, as will the expected tons per acre
at that time.
at the time of completion of operations; the projected completion date for post PTHP fuels
reductions; and the final fuel load targets. CDF will assess the proposed fuel load levels at the
time of the pre-harvest inspection. The most likely assessment method to measure fuel loads will
be to review treated areas against existing Forest Service or research photo series, which quantify
fuel loads.
Snags
heli-pads, etc.).
harvest operations. In particular, fuel break areas shall be considered for habitat improvement
opportunities compatible with fuels reduction objectives. Habitat structures such as sprung root
wads, large wood and cull log decks, basal cavity dens, slash piles and other potential structures
may be developed where appropriate.
improvement and landowners may want to investigate such programs.
Volume Harvested
Many of these hardwood/gray pine dominated timber stands already meet or contain less than
the target basal area, and no treatment is prescribed for such stands. However, field data (see
data for Montane Hardwood vegetation types on upper slopes in Appendix B) indicate that
within some of the deciduous hardwood-dominated timber types up to 3,200 net board feet per
acre of commercial conifer sawtimber, 84 cubic feet per acre of conifer poles, and 120 cubic feet
per acre of hardwood could potentially be harvested under this alternative.
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
29
June 1, 2004
TABLE 5
FUEL BREAK PRESCRIPTION ON UPPER SLOPES, ETC.,
IN HARDWOOD/GRAY PINE STANDS
STAND COMPONENT
MHW2U
2.2.2.2
BEFORE
TREATMENT
AFTER
TREATMENT
REMOVED BY
TREATMENT
4,286
816
34
24
249
27
20
108
1,078
34
16
426
73
387
161
1,069
1,417
30
12
10
2,764
439
18
13
187
20
15
81
459
14
6
214
33
206
80
500
300
10
3
2
1,522
377
16
11
62
7
5
27
619
20
10
212
40
181
81
569
1,117
20
9
8
Lower and Middle Slopes and in Class III ELZs or EEZs.
On lower and middle slopes, including Class III ELZs or EEZs but excluding areas near
dwellings and public roads that would be treated under the fuel break prescription as described
above, the prescriptions are as follows:
1. Within 200’ of Homesites and 100’ of Public Roads—Fuel Break Establishment
2. Areas not Within 200’ of Homesites or 100’ of Public Roads—Non-Commercial Fuels
Treatment
Note: The fuel reduction treatments described below will produce no commercially valuable sawtimber,
although they may produce a quantity of firewood. Firewood production from lands not defined as
“timberlands” according to FPR 895.1 (e.g., hardwood savannahs) is not subject to the CA Forest
Practice Rules (FPR).
However, a small percentage of this category of timber stands meets the definition of timberland. Most of
these areas are along or adjacent to Class II or III streams where soils are deeper and have more
moisture holding capacity. Because these areas are too small for analysis as a separate unit and may
have other stream and water quality limitations, they are included in non-commercial areas.
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
30
June 1, 2004
Reduce green and dead fuels in areas of high hazard and property value by creation of a shaded
fuel break. Across the treatment area, reduce horizontal and vertical connectivity of fuels so as
to slow fire spread and facilitate establishment of perimeters for fire fighting and defense of
property. Heavily thin or remove entire aggregations of hardwood poles to reduce fuel
ladders/connectivity. Retain the majority of commercial conifer stocking for potential timber
management.
Fuel Break Establishment
The Fuel Break prescription for upper slopes, etc., as described in 2.3.2.1 above (including
pruning, understory vegetation treatment, etc.), will be applied within 200’ of dwellings and 100’
of public roads. This treatment is estimated to remove about 5% of the existing conifer pole
stocking of 62 trees/acre.
Non-Commercial Fuel Treatment
Fuels treatment of non-commercial forestlands is not required under the Forest Practice Act.
However, identification and implementation of recommended treatments in these areas are
important due to the area’s proximity to commercial forest lands, homes, fuel breaks, etc. To the
extent that treatments specified in the PTEIR can be used as components to a Forest
Management Plan for cost share programs, it is also important to develop recommended
standards. In areas more than 200’ from dwellings and over 100’ from public roads, mechanical
and hand treatments (including felling, uprooting brush with tractor blades, piling and burning),
as well as prescribed fire, are recommended to reduce horizontal and vertical fuel connectivity.
In general, the vegetation components being targeted for removal by the fuels treatment are the
large quantities of hardwood poles and saplings, as described below: Existing conditions and
treatment effects are shown in Table 6, below. A “picture” of the treatment is shown on page 24
based on the same vegetation as that described in the fuel break prescription above (KMC4M).
Overstory Trees
Stocking of hardwood and conifer overstory trees in these timber types is low, averaging about
28 trees/acre, 12” diameter and greater. Generally such trees will be retained during fuel
reduction treatments as they pose little risk of carrying a crown fire.
Understory Vegetation Treatment
Dense stocking of poles and saplings, particularly of hardwoods, is common within these timber
types. Where understory vegetation, including poles, saplings, and brush, provides horizontal or
vertical continuity, it can be reduced by cutting or uprooting with heavy equipment and treated in
the same manner as the logging slash (removed, piled, burned, etc.).
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
31
June 1, 2004
Seedlings and Saplings
In areas where the current stocking of hardwood and conifer seedlings and saplings would
negatively affect target goals for reduction of understory continuity, they should be reduced
Within the areas where hardwood poles are being felled and removed, concentrations of ground
fuels, including dead and down limbs and trees, should be treated along with cut ladder fuels and
other slash (removed, piled and burned, etc.).
Slash Treatment
Slash created by mechanical and/or manual treatments should be crushed or lopped/scattered so
as to reduce fuel connectivity. If crushing or lopping for fuels reduction will not achieve the
desired treatment goals, tractor piling (on slopes less than 50%) is likely the most effective and
affordable method, but hand piling or jackpot burning may also be effective and consistent with
landowner objectives for visual resources, noise, etc. Tractor crushing or lopping of slash to 30”
and scattering could be used if it meets the goals of reducing fuel connectivity.
Snags
heli-pads, etc.).
harvest operations. Non-commercial fuel treatment areas shall be considered for habitat
improvement opportunities, compatible with fuels reduction objectives. Habitat structures such
as sprung root wads, large wood and cull log decks, basal cavity dens, slash piles and other
potential structures may be developed where appropriate.
improvement, and landowners are encouraged to investigate such programs.
Volume Harvested
The non-commercial removal of hardwood pole-size timber by non-commercial fuels treatments
could generate up to 226 cubic feet per acre (4 cords/acre) of firewood (see Appendix D).
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
32
June 1, 2004
TABLE 6
NON-COMMERCIAL FUELS REDUCTION PRESCRIPTION
ON LOWER AND MIDDLE SLOPES, IN
HARDWOOD/GRAY PINE STANDS
STAND COMPONENT
MHW2M
2.2.3
BEFORE
TREATMENT
AFTER
TREATMENT
REMOVED BY
TREATMENT
5,620
1,052
42
24
1,386
234
20
62
85
8
4
319
48
252
118
830
402
30
12
20
5,620
1,052
42
24
1,317
222
19
62
85
8
4
93
13
73
83
500
102
10
3
2
0
0
0
0
69
12
1
0
0
0
0
226
34
179
35
330
300
20
9
8
Class I and II WLPZs within Entire Project Area on all Slopes/Types
These areas are defined not by their vegetation, but by their distance from a Class I or II stream.
Within all of the Class I and II WLPZs and Threatened and Impaired Watersheds, the Weaver
Creek basin is classified as sediment impaired under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.
The prescription for Class I and II WLPZs is No Treatment in order to meet water quality and
fisheries objectives. WLPZs for Class I and II streams pose little danger of fire starts because
they tend to stay green longer and retain more moisture throughout the year. Under the design
project fire WLPZ vegetation does not tend to “crown out” or burn with very high intensity.
However, under extreme weather conditions, stream canyons can serve as chimneys, funneling
hot gases and winds, which can increase damage to vegetation and soils. Nevertheless,
implementation of the PTEIR should lessen the potential for such extreme fire behavior.
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
33
June 1, 2004
________________________________________________________________3.0 Alternatives
Chapter 3.0 Alternatives
3.0
Alternatives Considered in Detail
In accordance with Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, the PTEIR must analyze a range of
reasonable alternatives to the Proposed Project that could feasibly attain most of the objectives of
the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any significant efforts of the project. The
CEQA Guidelines provide the following direction for analysis of the alternatives:
•
•
•
•
•
Describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project.
Evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.
If there is a specific Proposed Project, as in the case of the Weaverville Community Fuel
Reduction Project, explain why other alternatives were rejected in favor of the proposal.
Focus on alternatives capable of avoiding or substantially lessening significant adverse
environmental effects or reducing them to a level of less than significant, even if these
alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or
would be more costly.
If an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that
would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative shall
be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed.
Alternatives to the Proposed Project are based on knowledge of the local area, discussions with
landowners about the intensity of treatments that they would undertake, discussion with the
TRC&D and the Trinity Fire Safe Council, and discussion with local resource professionals and
the interested public. A meeting was conducted on October 18, 2002 with resource professionals
from local, state and federal agencies and with interested public citizens to help define
prescriptions for reducing the severity of wildland fire effects to non-industrial private forested
parcels from a wildfire assumed to occur on an average hot August day.
3.1
Alternative 2: No Project - Continue Status Quo
Under the No Project alternative, the PTEIR/PTHP process would not be used to implement
vegetation management projects. Individual landowners could continue to clear vegetation for
defensible space and defensible landscape purposes, with some potential for assistance from
local or state agencies. On designated burn days the air district would permit burning of
removed vegetative material. Shaded fuel breaks would be implemented by local and state
agencies and private property owners, on a voluntary basis, with funds as they become available.
If commercial timber harvesting were proposed as part of the vegetation management process,
then the existing THP process would be pursued on an individual basis.
Under the No Project Alternative, very little fuel treatment is likely to be undertaken, but some
commercial timber harvest would be conducted. Based on THPs filed in the last 10 years, an
average of 75 acres of harvest would be conducted yearly within the 4,275-acre project area
during the 50-year analysis period. The majority of this harvest would be conducted using
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
34
June 1, 2004
________________________________________________________________3.0 Alternatives
overstory removal of most commercial conifers, except those with low value, such as white fir,
incense cedar, and gray pine. Timber harvest in the WLPZs of Class I and II stream zones (e.g.,
coho bearing streams, domestic supply streams, and perennial and intermittent streams) could
conceivably include harvest of up to 50% of the overstory. Within the ELZs and EEZs of Class
III streams (ephemeral streams) harvest could include removal of all of the overstory, while
leaving 50% of the understory. Harvest in Class IV streams would be based on the function of
the Class IV structure. The distribution of harvest by vegetation type and treatment area is
summarized in Table 7 below and shown on the map on page 36.
After harvest operations are completed, crown closure (across the approximately 75 acres
projected to be logged each year) is estimated at 20 – 40%. Overstory trees and groups of trees
will usually be separated by 75’ – 25’ (10 – 90 trees per acre).
Logging slash, cut brush, and other sub/non-commercial material generated by implementation
of this prescription within 100’ of dwellings will be removed, chipped, or piled and burned.
Between 100’ and 200’ of dwellings, within 100’ of the traveled surface of public roads, and
within 50’ of private roads open for public use, slash could be lopped to 18” from the ground
surface and scattered, removed, chipped, or piled and burned. Within these areas post-treatment
slash loads would be about 2-3 tons/acre. Outside of these special treatment areas, tractor piling
and burning is a common method used by individual landowners to reduce fire hazard, but
lopping and scattering or leaving slash in place is generally consistent with the FPRs. After slash
treatment, the total dead and live fuel load within the treatment area would be in the range of 2 ½
– 12 tons/acre.
The amount of timber removed depends on the stocking of the property before harvest.
Estimates of harvest volumes range from 1,200-8,400 net board feet per acre of conifer logs,
approximately 334 cubic feet per acre of hardwood logs, and 434 cubic feet per acre of pole-size
conifers.
Timber harvesting operations could include: skid trail and landing construction; road
construction, reconstruction, and maintenance; and possibly installation of stream crossings.
This alternative reduces the adverse visual and auditory impacts of the Proposed Project in areas
of dense housing and small parcel sizes by leaving more vegetation intact during the next 50
years. However, this alternative maintains the landscape in a more densely stocked condition,
with less biological diversity, especially in regard to late seral stages.
This alternative would harvest about 75 acres per year, about 90% of which would be harvested
by overstory removal and 10% by harvest within stream zones. There is an estimated 1,440
acres that would never be harvested, either due to poor site quality or lack of forest cover. All of
the harvesting would occur within about 50 years.
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
35
June 1, 2004
________________________________________________________________3.0 Alternatives
TABLE 7
TREATMENTS BY VEGETATION AND TREATMENT AREAS
ALTERNATIVE 2
WHR
HOME
VEGETATION
SITE
TYPES
ROAD
DFR3
DFR4
GPP4
KMC3
KMC4
PPN4
MHC3
MHC4
Subtotal Ac.
OR 11"+
OR 11"+
OR 11"+
OR 11"+
OR 11"+
OR 11"+
OR 11"+
OR 11"+
255
OR 11"+
OR 11"+
OR 11"+
OR 11"+
OR 11"+
OR 11"+
OR 11"+
OR 11"+
366
MHW2
MHW3
Subtotal Ac.
NT
NT
37
NT
NT
65
Chaparral
Riparian
Oregon Fire
Grass
Non-Forest
Subtotal Ac.
Total
n/a
NT
NT
NT
NT
50
342
n/a
NT
NT
NT
NT
73
504
TREATMENT AREAS
MID
UPPER
MID
UPPER
SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
SLOPE
50%+
50%+
Commercial Forest Types
OR 11"+
n/a
OR 11"+
n/a
OR 11"+
n/a
OR 11"+
n/a
OR 11"+
n/a
n/a
n/a
OR 11"+ OR 11"+ OR 11"+ OR 11"+
OR 11"+ OR 11"+ OR 11"+ OR 11"+
OR 11"+
n/a
n/a
n/a
OR 11"+ OR 11"+ OR 11"+ OR 11"+
OR 11"+ OR 11"+ OR 11"+
n/a
988
238
657
83
Non-Commercial Forest Types
NT
n/a
n/a
n/a
NT
NT
NT
NT
528
36
211
14
Forest Types Not Considered in PTEIR
NT
n/a
NT
n/a
NT
n/a
n/a
n/a
NT
n/a
NT
n/a
NT
n/a
n/a
n/a
NT
n/a
NT
n/a
186
6
68
1
1,703
280
936
98
ALL
TOTAL
CLASS I, II
ACRES
STREAMS
CT 50%
CT 50%
CT 50%
CT 50%
CT 50%
CT 50%
CT 50%
n/a
249
74
133
87
445
1,538
385
134
42
2,837
NT
NT
79
139
830
970
n/a
NT
NT
NT
NT
84
412
24
57
182
71
136
469
4,276
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
36
June 1, 2004
________________________________________________________________3.0 Alternatives
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
37
June 1, 2004
________________________________________________________________3.0 Alternatives
3.2
Alternative 3: Intensive Fuel Treatment
(Removes large portion of existing vegetation)
Throughout the 4,275 acre project area the private forestland owners would commercially
harvest a large portion of the timber on each parcel on all treatment areas (except within the
WLPZs of streams) using the fuel break prescription described in the Proposed Project, per
Section 933.4(c) of the Forest Practice Rules. In this alternative there would be no timber
harvesting in the WLPZs of Class I and II stream zones (e.g., coho bearing streams, domestic
supply streams, and perennial and intermittent streams). Within the ELZs or EEZs of Class III
streams (ephemeral streams) harvesting could include removal of all of the overstory, while
leaving 50% of the understory. Harvest in Class IV streams would be based on the function of
the Class IV structure. The distribution of harvesting by vegetation type and treatment area is
summarized in Table 8 and shown on the map on page 41.
After application of this prescription, the treated area will take on the characteristics of a shaded
fuel break, within which crowns of trees (or groups of trees - see below) are regularly spaced
across the area and provide shade that will reduce the potential for rapid re-growth of brush and
sprouting hardwoods. The majority of the understory and shrub layers will be removed to create
an open, park-like environment. Around dwellings, dense clumps of trees and other vegetation
that provide visual buffers between neighbors could be retained, but would have to be kept
physically separated from other trees and vegetation to avoid fire spread. After harvesting
operations are completed, crown closure across the treated area will average approximately 60%.
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
38
June 1, 2004
________________________________________________________________3.0 Alternatives
The goal of slash treatment under this alternative is to reduce the connectivity and density of
slash remaining after treatment, so it will not carry fire across the treated area under average
August fire conditions. Remove, chip, or pile and burn project slash within 100’ of homes. Lop,
remove, chip, and/or pile and burn within 100-200’ of homes and within 100’ of public roads.
Outside of the 100’-200’ perimeter around houses and 100’ of public roads, the slash treatment
method and extent shall be specified in the PTHP and reviewed by CDF during the pre-harvest
inspection. The RPF shall base fuel treatments levels on expected slash levels created by
logging, pre-harvest ground fuel loads and distribution, slope, erosion hazard and surrounding
values at risk. Lopping to 18” and scattering of slash is acceptable if it will meet the goals of
reducing fuels height and connectivity. On slopes greater than 50%, tractor piling and burning
are often ineffective but hand piling and burning, prescribed broadcast burning, or jackpot
burning (burning concentrations of slash) may be used in some instances. On slopes less than
50%, tractor or mechanical piling is often the most effective and affordable method, but other
methods may be used if they meet landowner goals. After slash treatment is completed, the total
fuel load of the remaining logging slash is anticipated to be in the range of 5-10 tons/acre.
reduced to 5 tons or less/acre on average. The method with which to access ground fuel loads at
the completion of operations will be included in each PTHP, as will the expected tons per acre at
that time.
at the time of completion of operations;, the expected completion date for post PTHP fuels
reductions; and the final fuel load level targets. CDF will assess the proposed fuel load levels at
the time of the pre-harvest inspection. The most likely assessment method to measure fuel loads
will be to review treated areas against existing Forest Service or research photo series, which
quantify fuel loads.
Snags
heli-pads, etc.).
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
39
June 1, 2004
________________________________________________________________3.0 Alternatives
harvest operations. In particular, fuel break areas shall be considered for habitat improvement
opportunities compatible with fuels reduction objectives. Habitat structures such as sprung root
wads, large wood and cull log decks, basal cavity dens, slash piles and other potential structures
may be developed where appropriate.
improvement and landowners may consider such programs.
While fuel break maintenance is not a regulated activity under the Forest Practice Act it is a
necessary component of any long-term successful fuels and fire program. The creation of shaded
fuel breaks under a PTHP will allow for frequent low intensity ground treatments, including in
some instances prescribed broadcast burning. Fuel break effectiveness will decrease over time,
as tree crowns grow together and vegetation fills cleared openings (though this may be inhibited
by shade from overstory trees in many treated areas). Maintenance of fuel reduction treatments
will likely be needed on 5-15 year intervals. These entries in some areas may include
commercial harvesting that could reduce fuel reduction maintenance costs. Fuel break
maintenance treatments may include:
• Removal of commercial-size trees to reduce crown interlacing and closure.
• Salvage of dead, dying or weather damaged, broken or split topped trees.
• Pruning lower branches that may have died.
• Removing and/or burning accumulations of ground fuels.
• Pruning or removing vegetation that is increasing horizontal or vertical continuity of
fuels.
• Broadcast burning, jackpot burning, manual treatments, or mechanical treatments.
During the 50-year analysis period, landowners would need to treat regeneration through
mechanical methods and/or prescribed fire to keep forests open and “fire resistant”.
Commercial timber harvesting could include: skid trail and landing construction; road
construction, reconstruction, and maintenance; and possibly installation of stream crossings.
This alternative generates higher revenues than the Proposed Project, thereby increasing the
ability of landowners to more fully treat fuels. In addition, tree crowns in area of low-moderate
slopes would be further apart after treatment than in the Proposed Project, potentially reducing
wildland fire severity.
Within the first ten years of the initiation of the project, up to 3,460 acres of fuel break
prescriptions might be applied and about 810 acres would never be treated, either because the
land is in stream zones or there is no forest cover to treat.
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
40
June 1, 2004
________________________________________________________________3.0 Alternatives
TABLE 8
PRESCRIPTIONS BY VEGETATION AND TREATMENT AREA
ALTERNATIVE 3
WHR
HOME
VEGETATION
SITE
TYPES
DFR3
DFR4
GPP4
KMC3
KMC4
PPN4
MHC3
MHC4
Subtotal Ac.
ROAD
FB 80
FB 80
FB 80
FB 80
FB 80
FB 80
FB 80
FB 80
255
FB 80
FB 80
FB 80
FB 80
FB 80
FB 80
FB 80
FB 80
366
MHW2
FB 80
MHW3
FB 80
Subtotal Ac.
37
FB 80
FB 80
65
Chaparral
Riparian
Oregon Fire
Grass
Non-Forest
Subtotal Ac.
Total
n/a
NT
NT
NT
NT
50
342
n/a
NT
NT
NT
NT
73
504
TREAMENT AREAS
MID
UPPER
ALL
MID
UPPER
TOTAL
SLOPE
SLOPE CLASS I, II
SLOPE
SLOPE
ACRES
50%+
50%+
STREAMS
FB 80
n/a
FB 80
n/a
NT
74
FB 80
n/a
FB 80
n/a
NT
133
FB 80
n/a
n/a
n/a
NT
87
FB 80
FB 80
FB 80
FB 80
NT
445
FB 80
FB 80
FB 80
FB 80
NT
1,538
FB 80
n/a
n/a
n/a
NT
385
FB 80
FB 80
FB 80
FB 80
NT
134
FB 80
FB 80
FB 80
n/a
n/a
42
988
238
657
83
249
2,837
FB 80
n/a
n/a
n/a
NT
139
FB 80
FB 80
FB 80
FB 80
NT
830
528
36
211
14
79
970
NT
n/a
NT
n/a
n/a
24
NT
n/a
n/a
n/a
NT
57
NT
n/a
NT
n/a
NT
182
NT
n/a
n/a
n/a
NT
71
NT
n/a
NT
n/a
NT
136
186
6
68
1
84
469
1,703
280
936
98
412
4,276
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
41
June 1, 2004
________________________________________________________________3.0 Alternatives
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
42
June 1, 2004
________________________________________________________________3.0 Alternatives
3.3
Alternative 4: Understory Fuel Treatment
(Removes majority of trees 11“ or less in diameter)
Landowners in the 4,275-acre project area would remove and/or treat the majority of the
traditionally non-commercial (or pre-commercial) timber to greatly lessen the density of ladder
fuels. This treatment would be applied in all treatment areas except in the WLPZs for Class I
and II streams (e.g., coho bearing streams, domestic supply streams, perennial streams, and
intermittent streams). Within the WLPZ of class III streams (ephemeral streams) harvest could
include removal of understory trees up to 11” in diameter.
Besides the removal of the understory trees, landowners would also treat existing ground fuels
and all logging-created slash through such practices as hand or tractor piling and burning, tractor
crushing, lopping and scattering, and/or chipping. The distribution of harvesting by vegetation
type and treatment area is summarized in Table 9 and shown on the map on page 46.
The treated area would retain the vast majority of all overstory trees greater than 11” in diameter
while removing most of the trees 0-11” in diameter. Fuel ladders would be greatly reduced so
that transition of a ground fire to a crown fire would be significantly lowered. Crowns of
overstory trees would still be connected and, depending on crown interlacing, a crown fire could
still carry across the harvest area. Overstory trees would continue to grow and increase in
volume and size. The majority of the understory and shrub layers would be removed to reduce
fire intensity and flame length. Retention of the overstory would provide moderate to dense
shade, reducing the potential for seedlings and sprouting brush to occupy the understory and
reestablish vertical and horizontal fuel connectivity.
After treatment, a range of conditions would occur throughout the project area, depending on the
number of commercial size trees present on each parcel. Most commercial size trees would be
retained. For parcels with a moderate to large number of commercial size trees and little
understory, the conditions after treatment would not differ greatly from the pre-project
conditions. Based on dead and dying exemptions and emergency notices filed with CDF, tree
mortality results from snow and wind breakage, frost damage, insect attacks, root diseases, and
general malaise. Individual tree mortality and overall stand decline would not be addressed by
salvage or other commercial harvest and some increase in fuel loading would likely occur.
For parcels where most of the trees are less than 11” in diameter, the post harvest condition
would more closely resemble a shaded fuel break and would require more landowner
maintenance to maintain this condition.
Logging slash would be substantially less than that created by the other alternatives, and
treatment costs would be correspondingly less. Within 150’ of dwellings, slash would be
removed, chipped, or piled and burned (except within WLPZs) and the total dead and live fuel
load would be in the range of 1-2 tons/acre. On upper slopes and ridgelines, lopping of slash to
18” and scattering could be used if it met the goals of reducing fire intensity and rate of spread,
otherwise hand piling and burning, broadcast burning, or jackpot burning (burning
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
43
June 1, 2004
________________________________________________________________3.0 Alternatives
concentrations of slash) could be used on steep slopes and tractor piling on low to moderate
slopes. The goal of slash treatment in these areas is a reduction to 3 tons/acre.
On the conifer-dominated stands within the project area, conifer harvest volumes of pole size
timber would range from 0 to 2,865 cubic feet per acre. Board feet per acre harvest levels for the
same pole size timber would range from 0 to 9,507. Hardwood pole size timber harvested would
range from 0 to 280 cubic feet per acre. Some of this material could potentially be sold as hog
fuel, for poles or firewood, or processed into boards by equipment designed for this (e.g., the
Economizer located in Hayfork). Under current prices, the treatment would have to be
financially subsidized, but revenues could offset some percentage of the costs.
The “non-commercial” timber harvest associated with this alternative could include skid trail and
landing construction; road construction, reconstruction, and maintenance; and possibly
installation of stream crossings – but not likely to the extent associated with typical commercial
logging.
This alternative may reduce public controversy associated with the limited commercial timber
harvesting proposed under the Proposed Project, while meeting many of that project’s objectives.
It may generate somewhat fewer adverse effects to visual quality than would the other
alternatives. Under this alternative, fire intensity can be expected to be lower in many areas due
to greater shade canopy on ground fuels, higher fuel moisture, and relative humidity levels in the
understory, because the overstory is not modified. In addition, ground wind speeds will be
somewhat lower than in more open stands. Under this alternative, however, the lack of adequate
open safe areas for fire fighters and potential continuous crown conditions will provide fewer
opportunities for aggressive direct attack, a key to limiting fire spread. The lack of continuous
shaded fuel breaks could prevent efforts to contain a fire within a logical topographic
compartment.
Within five years after initiation of the project, up to 3,460 acres might be pre-commercially
thinned. About 810 acres would never be treated due to lack of forest cover or because they lie
within WLPZs where no treatment is proposed.
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
44
June 1, 2004
________________________________________________________________3.0 Alternatives
TABLE 9
PRESCRIPTIONS BY VEGETATION AND TREATMENT AREA
ALTERNATIVE 4
TREATMENT AREAS
WHR
HOME
VEGETATION
SITE
TYPES
ROAD
MID
SLOPE
MID
SLOPE
50%+
UPPER
SLOPE
UPPER
SLOPE
50%+
DFR3
PCT 0-11" PCT 0-11" PCT 0-11"
n/a
PCT 0-11"
n/a
DFR4
PCT 0-11" PCT 0-11" PCT 0-11"
n/a
PCT 0-11"
n/a
GPP4
PCT 0-11" PCT 0-11" PCT 0-11"
n/a
n/a
n/a
KMC3
PCT 0-11" PCT 0-11" PCT 0-11" PCT 0-11" PCT 0-11" PCT 0-11"
KMC4
PPN4
PCT 0-11" PCT 0-11" PCT 0-11"
n/a
n/a
n/a
MHC3
MHC4
PCT 0-11" PCT 0-11" PCT 0-11" PCT 0-11" PCT 0-11"
n/a
Subtotal Ac.
255
366
988
238
657
83
MHW2
PCT 0-11" PCT 0-11" PCT 0-11"
n/a
n/a
n/a
MHW3
Subtotal Ac.
37
65
528
36
211
14
Chaparral
n/a
n/a
NT
n/a
NT
n/a
Riparian
NT
NT
NT
n/a
n/a
n/a
Oregon Fire
NT
NT
NT
n/a
NT
n/a
Grass
NT
NT
NT
n/a
n/a
n/a
Non-Forest
NT
NT
NT
n/a
NT
n/a
Subtotal Ac.
50
73
186
6
68
1
Total
342
504
1,703
280
936
98
ALL
CLASS I, TOTAL
ACRES
II
STREAMS
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
n/a
249
74
133
87
445
1,538
385
134
42
2,837
NT
NT
79
139
830
970
n/a
NT
NT
NT
NT
84
412
24
57
182
71
136
469
4,276
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
45
June 1, 2004
________________________________________________________________3.0 Alternatives
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
46
June 1, 2004
________________________________________________________________3.0 Alternatives
3.4
Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Analysis
An alternative considered but eliminated from detailed consideration was suggested by several
local advisory committees, including the Trinity County Resource Conservation District (see
letter from Patrick Frost, District Manager, to Allen Robertson, CDF, 1/31/03). The proposed
alternative focuses on creating a shaded fuel break along roadsides. The reasons stated for
creating such a fuel break include: data show there is a high incidence of fire starts along
roadways; the Trinity County Resource Advisory Council priorities include roadside shaded fuel
breaks; and roadside shaded fuel breaks are highly visible to the public and provide excellent
public education on the importance of conducting fuel reduction.
The FPRs at 937.2(b) state that if a THP is filed, “…slash created and trees knocked down by road
construction or timber operations shall be treated by lopping for fire hazard reduction, piling and
burning, chipping, burying or removal from …within 100 feet of the edge of the traveled surface of public
roads, and within 50 feet of the edge of the traveled surface of permanent private roads open for public
use where permission to pass is not required.”
The Proposed Project and Alternatives 2 and 3 have already incorporated treatments along many
of the public roads. The road treatment area includes a shaded fuel break prescription which
would be applied within a strip 100’ wide on each side of the 22 miles of “public” roads (see
description of the road treatment area in Section 2.1.2) in the project area. These 22 miles of
public roads include about 40% of all of the roads within the project area and represent about
20% of all of the acreage within the project area. In addition, much of the remaining road system
is located on upper slope positions where the shaded fuel break prescription would also be
applied. Because much of the road system is already proposed for treatment in each of the
alternatives, including the Proposed Project, the goals of this proposed alternative would be met
by implementation of the Proposed Project. Therefore this proposed alternative is not being
analyzed in detail.
3.5
Environmentally Preferred Alternative
Table10 provides a comparison between the project, and alternatives to the project, toward
meeting the six Project Objectives listed in Section 1.3. Per CEQA Guidelines 15126.6(e)(1) the
Status Quo alternative (Alternative 2) may serve as the baseline condition for determining
project impacts if it is identical to the existing environmental setting. The discussion in this
section compares the No Project alternative (Alternative 2, Continue Status Quo) to the Proposed
Project (Moderate Fuel Treatment), Alternative 3 (Intensive Fuel Treatment) and Alternative 4
(Understory Fuel Treatment).
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
47
June 1, 2004
________________________________________________________________3.0 Alternatives
The scoring system for Table 10 is shown below, while quantifiable data is shown in parentheses
after the score:
2 = Optimizes Objective
1 = Meets Objective at Moderate Level
0 = Meets Objective at Acceptable Level
-1 = Does Not Meet Objective
- 2 = Counteracts Objective
TABLE 10
COMPARISON OF PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES
TO PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Objective 1/
Acres Thinning (CT 120)
Acres Fuel Breaks (FB 80)
Acres Non-Commercial Fuel
Treatment (NCFT)
Acres Not Treated (NT)
Acres Overstory Removal (OR)
Acres Commercial Thin (CT50)
Acres Precommercial Thinned
(PCT)
Acres of Fuel Treatment
Mortality from Simulated Fire, 15
Years Post-Treatment
Average Flame Length of
Simulated Fire, 15 Years PostTreatment
Planning Costs for Fuels
Reduction
Logging Revenue from
Commercial Forest Land
Cubic Foot Volume Harvested
Proposed
Project
Alternative 2
1,226
1,361
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
3,460
891
798
1,440
2,588
249
797
797
3,460
2
(3,540 ac.)
1
(8.8%)
-2
(0 ac.)
-2
(26.0%)
2
(3,460 ac.)
1
(8.2%)
2
(3,460 ac.)
1
(9%)
1
(2.8 ft.)
1
(2.8 ft.)
1
(2.5 ft.)
0
(3.1 ft.)
1
(Moderate cost)
0
($664,000)
1
(2,476,400 cf)
-1
(High cost)
2
($1,742,600)
2
(4,766,667 cf)
1
(Moderate cost)
2
($1,048,000)
1
(2,889,387 cf)
2
(Negligible cost)
-2
(-$250,800)
1
(1,626,720 cf)
1/ Prescriptions are defined in the Proposed Project or its alternatives: CT 120 = Commercial thin, FB 80 = Shaded
fuel break, NCFT = non-commercial types fuel treatment, NT = no treatment, OR is overstory removal of merchantable
conifers, CT 50 is commercial thin not to exceed 50% overstory removal and PCT is remove trees 0-11”.
2/ In Alternative 2 only, both the overstory and CT 50 acreages are based on 40 years of harvest.
Table 11 compares the 19 categories of Potential Environmental Effects analyzed in Sections 5.4
– 5.23. The scoring system is:
1 = Enhances Affected Resource
0 = No Adverse Impact
-1 = Moderate Adverse Impact
- 2 = High Adverse Impact
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
48
June 1, 2004
________________________________________________________________3.0 Alternatives
TABLE 11
OVERALL COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
OF IMPLEMENTING THE PROPOSED PROJECT OR PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Sec. #
Affected Resource
3.4
3.5
3.6
Visual Aesthetics
Air Quality, 15 years after
treatment
Cultural, Archaeological,
and Historic Resources
Geology and Soils
Hazards and Hazardous
Material
Hydrology and Water
Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral and Energy
Resources
Noise
Public Services
Recreation
Utilities and Service
Systems
Projected Wildland Fire
Severity
Projected Wildland Fire
Intensity
Create Pre-Planned
Firebreaks
Cumulative Impacts from
this and Foreseeable
Projects
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12
3.13
3.14
3.15
3.16
3.17
3.18
3.19
3.20
3.21
3.22
3.23
Prop. Project
Alt. 2
Alt. 3
Alt. 4
-1
0
-2
0
-1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
-2
-1
0
0
0
0
0
-1
-1
-1
0
0
0
0
0
-1
-1
-1
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1
0
0
-1
-1
0
0
0
-1
-1
-1
0
0
-1
-1
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
-2
1
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
As discussed in detail in Section 3.1, the No Project alternative (Alt. 2) would provide no
inducement for landowners to apply silvicultural treatments that facilitate reduction of hazardous
fuels on their properties. Although the impacts of this reduction will not be optimized until and
unless a fire occurs, the likelihood of such an occurrence is high, and sooner or later if the status
quo persists and no fuels reduction treatments are implemented, a substantial acreage can be
expected to experience severe damage from wildfire similar to the Lewiston and Oregon Fires,
including environmental and property loss. Although continuance of the status quo theoretically
generates more income for landowners compared to the other alternatives, these benefits will
only be recognized if the effects of wildfire can be minimized, and this alternative makes no
provision for treatment of existing fuels. Although the short term effects of implementing the
Proposed Project or Alternatives 3 or 4 will create more short term impacts from logging,
thinning, smoke, etc. than Alternative 2, these impacts can be demonstrated to be less than
significant after mitigation measures are applied (See chapter 5), and are therefore preferable to
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
49
June 1, 2004
________________________________________________________________3.0 Alternatives
the no project/existing condition scenario with its potential for catastrophic fires, loss of property
(and possibly life), degradation of sensitive habitats, etc. In other words, at least for this type of
project, doing something to the environment is better than not doing anything.
Alternative 4, Understory Thinning, minimizes effects to several resources compared to the
Proposed Project or Alternatives 2 or 3. However, as it does not produce any commercial
timber, its implementation would amount to a massive subsidized project, which far exceeds any
projected funding. In this sense, Alternative 4 does not meet the objectives of the PTEIR
framework, in terms of providing income from the sale of commercial timber to landowners,
which can then be used to fund prescribed fuels treatments.
Alternative 3, Intensive Fuels Treatment, creates a more intensive network of fuelbreaks across
substantially more acres than the Proposed Project or Alternative 4. Implementation of
Alternative 3 would generate more income than the Proposed Project, but correspondingly more
funds would have to be spent in order to treat the higher volume of slash produced from the
massive fuelbreak construction. The residual basal area proposed under Alternative 3, while
creating a somewhat less fire-conducive conditions than the Proposed Project, reduces timber
stocking to marginally commercial levels, reducing potential landowner income over time, which
income could offset the costs of future fuel break maintenance.
3.5.1.
Selection of Environmentally Preferred Alternative
The Proposed Project is considered to be the Environmentally Preferred Alternative. Its
implementation will generate substantial income for landowners who have commercial timber,
income that can then be used to supplement the prescribed fuels reduction treatments. Areas
with a high chance of fire starts or potential for property damage, e.g., adjacent to well-traveled
roads and dwellings, will have fuel breaks constructed to minimize the risk of fire start and
spread. Areas from which fire can more easily be fought or its rate of spread slowed, including
upper slopes and main ridgelines, will also have fuel breaks constructed along them. Lower and
middle slopes, unlike under Alternative 3, will be treated with a less-intensive but still substantial
fuels treatment. The chance of a crown fire starting or spreading into these areas will be much
reduced, while they will remain well stocked with commercial timber (on suitable sites) and can
provide substantial income over time if well managed.
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
50
June 1, 2004
________________________________________________________4.0 Environmental Setting
Chapter 4.0 Environmental Setting
4.0
Overview of Environmental Setting
The following overview and environmental setting provide a brief description of the project area
and the surrounding landscape. A detailed description of the environmental setting precedes each
environmental impacts subchapter.
The 43,500-acre analysis area includes the Upper Rush Creek (1063106), East Weaver, Little
Browns Creek, West Weaver and Weaver Creek drainages (all 1063201) and the Oregon Gulch
(1061506) drainage, all of which are part of the mid-Trinity portion of the Trinity River
drainage.
Precipitation is highly seasonal, with 90 percent falling between October and April. A portion of
the annual precipitation falls as snow at the higher elevations (generally higher than about
2,500’). Annual precipitation is about 39” in Weaverville and probably more at higher
elevations.
The predominant forest vegetation types are Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine forests and montane
hardwood stands. Many of the forest stands originated after logging and fires near the turn of the
20th century. Most private lands have been harvested at least once since the 1950’s, with many
entered multiple times. Fires occur in the area, but most are quickly suppressed. In 1987, a
series of lightning fires threatened to burn into the watersheds, but were contained along the
ridge dividing Canyon and Weaver Creeks. In 1994, the Browns Fire burned 1,650 acres in the
Little Browns Creek tributary to Weaver Creek. Approximately 90% of the area was burned
intensely enough to kill the entire forest. In 2001, the Oregon Fire, which started at Oregon
Mountain summit on Highway 299, burned due east into the northern portion of Weaverville,
consuming 13 homes. The Oregon and Browns Fires were the largest fires in the watershed in
the past 50+ years.
Several major streams drain the analysis area, including East and West Weaver Creeks, Sidney
Gulch, Garden Gulch, Little Browns Creek, Democrat Gulch, Oregon Gulch, and Rush Creek.
All of these streams provide domestic water to individual homes. The Weaverville Community
Services District draws its water from West and East Weaver Creeks and services approximately
3,200 residents of Weaverville and Douglas City. East and West Weaver Creeks, Little Browns
Creek, Sidney Gulch, Garden Gulch, Oregon Gulch, and Rush Creek currently support
anadromous salmonid species, including coho salmon, steelhead and Pacific lamprey. Natural
and man-made barriers limit the range of anadromous species within all sub-watersheds.
4.1
Surrounding Land Uses
Land uses in the project area are predominantly open space, forest and timber management, rural
residential use, and recreation. The community of Weaverville occupies approximately three
square miles within the center of the Weaver Creek basin. Within the community, urban and
semi-urban development patterns predominate. Land ownership is composed of about 12%
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
51
June 1, 2004
BLM administered lands, 46% USFS administered lands, 17% Sierra Pacific Industries, and the
balance (24% or 10,440 acres) is owned by small private landowners.
Industrial timberlands are actively managed for timber growth and harvest. National Forest
lands are either within the Hayfork Adaptive Management Area, the Trinity Alps Wilderness, or
the Clear Creek Late Successional Reserve (which lies north of the project area). Bureau of
Land Management lands are in the Trinity Management Area within the Redding Resource Area.
4.2
Project Area Landownership
The project area is composed of numerous non-industrial, private forestland parcels located in 10
discrete sub-areas. Table 12 below shows the distribution of the parcels by their project area
location.
TABLE 12
ACRES WITHIN PROJECT SUB-AREAS
PROJECT AREA
Bear Creek
Browns Mtn.
Browns Mtn./China Gulch
Democrat Gulch
East Branch
Lance Gulch
Musser Hill
Oregon Mtn.
Ten Cent Gulch
Timber Ridge
Total
ACRES
623
251
177
536
113
117
472
989
839
155
4,272
The project area parcels were selected through an assessment of the forested conditions within
the Weaverville area, valuation for tax purposes, location near proposed fuel breaks, and
evaluation of other criteria (BBW Associates, 2002a). The map on page 53 shows the general
ownership pattern of the land adjacent to the project area in relation to the proposed fuel break
system recommended by the Trinity County Resource Advisory Committee at its 6/02 meeting.
Table 13 shows the number of parcels and total acreage by parcel size class.
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
52
June 1, 2004
______________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
53
June 1, 2004
TABLE 13
DISTRIBUTION OF PARCELS BY PARCEL SIZE
SIZE CLASS OF
ACREAGE NUMBER OF PARCELS
PARCELS
0-5 acres
355
133
5-10 acres
619
80
10-20 acres
938
64
20 acres +
2,360
95
Total
4,272
372
4.3
Roads and Streams
Within the analysis area and the project area are a large number of roads and streams. Table 14
below shows the number of miles of road-by-road type and the number of miles of streams by
stream type within the analysis area and the project area.
TABLE 14
ROAD AND STREAM CLASSIFICATION WITHIN THE
ANALYSIS AREA AND PROJECT AREA
Stream System
PROJECT
ANALYSIS
AREA
AREA
STREAM TYPE
MILES OF STREAMS
Coho and Steelhead Present
25.5
1.6
Steelhead Only Present
2.4
0.0
Domestic
4.2
1.4
Perennial
23.2
2.5
Intermittent
179.4
17.7
Ephemeral
70.5
11.9
Total
305.1
35.2
Road System
ANALYSIS
PROJECT
AREA
AREA
ROAD TYPE
MILES OF ROADS
Highway 299 and 3
24.3
1.0
Improved - Paved (generally
county)
34.0
3.1
Improved - Rocked
103.3
19.6
Improved - Dirt
73.4
7.3
Unimproved - Dirt
84.1
18.9
Trails
28.2
1.5
Total 1/
319.1
49.9
Public Roads
22.3
1/ Total does not include trails.
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
54
June 1, 2004
4.4
Vegetation/Habitat Types
Forest vegetation communities and wildlife habitats were identified and characterized through
aerial photo interpretation along with ground checking and field inventories. Habitat typing was
based on the CDFG 1988 California Wildlife-Habitat Relationships (WHR) model which
provides timber strata mapping with the ability to model wildlife uses in resource management
decisions. Description of wildlife habitat types can be found in the WHR model (CDFG 1988).
Vegetation within the project area has been previously described in section 2.1.3. There is a
higher percentage of acreage in stands of larger average diameter in the assessment area
compared to the project area, primarily due to the extent of lands managed by the Shasta-Trinity
National Forest, Weaverville Ranger District. This includes portions within the Trinity Alps
Wilderness Area.
TABLE 15
VEGETATION WITHIN ANALYSIS AREA
WHR
AGS
BAR
BOP
BOP
BOP
DFR
DFR
DFR
KMC
KMC
KMC
MCH
MCP
MHC
MHC
MHC
MHW
MHW
MHW
DESCRIPTION
Agriculture
Barren (rock etc.)
Blue Oak-Foothill pine
Douglas-fir
Douglas-fir
Douglas-fir
Klamath mixed conifer
Mixed chaparral
Chaparral
Montane hdwd-conifer
Montane hardwood
Montane hardwood
Montane hardwood
SIZE
CLASS
ACRES
WHR DESCRIPTION
N/A
N/A
Seeds-saps.
Medium saw
Large saw
Seeds-saps.
Medium saw
Large saw
Seeds-saps.
Medium saw
Large saw
Seeds-saps.
Brush
Seeds-saps.
Medium saw
Large saw
Seeds-saps.
Medium saw
Large saw
Subtotal Acres
322
691
124
409
22
515
12,878
7,801
248
1,394
3,075
1,997
2,400
37
1,100
288
349
5,488
122
39,259
MRI
MRI
PPN
PPN
PPN
RFR
RFR
RFR
SCN
SCN
SCN
URB
WAT
WFR
WFR
WFR
WTM
SIZE
ACRES
CLASS
Riparian
Seeds-saps.
Riparian
Medium saw
Pine
Seeds-saps.
Pine
Medium saw
Pine
Large saw
Red fir forest
Seeds-saps.
Red fir forest
Medium saw
Red fir forest
Large saw
Subalpine conifer Seeds-saps.
Subalpine conifer Medium saw
Subalpine conifer Large saw
Urban
Seeds-saps.
Water
N/A
White fir forest
Seeds-saps.
White fir forest
Medium saw
White fir forest
Large saw
Wet meadow
N/A
Subtotal Acres
Total Acres
14
74
90
1,256
49
86
572
190
141
252
65
188
36
5
520
639
22
4,199
43,458
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
55
June 1, 2004
This page intentionally blank
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
56
June 1, 2004
_______________________________________________________________________5.0 Environmental Impacts
Chapter 5.0
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
5.0
Chapter Overview
This chapter describes the environmental impacts of the proposed project and alternatives to the
project as well as the mitigation measures intended to reduce potentially significant effects.
Each resource analysis section contains a more detailed description of the environmental setting
than found in Chapter 4. The environmental setting section is followed by a description of the
various planning documents, goals, and forest practice regulations that might affect the resource.
Following the description of the regulatory environment is a section describing the significance
criteria that are used to evaluate whether the impacts might be significant. The main focus of
each resource analysis section is a description of the impacts common to the project and the
alternatives as well as a description of the impacts specific to the project and/or alternatives.
Each resource analysis section also contains a description of potential mitigation measures and a
discussion of whether the project impacts are possibly significant.
5.1
Analysis of Impacts Associated with Partial Implementation
The analysis of the effects to fire behavior of these treatments is tied to their full implementation.
Partial implementation may not accomplish objectives, and in some cases could create higher
fire hazards than currently exist. However, the analysis of the impacts assumes that all of the
treatments are fully implemented. The basis for assuming that all projects are implemented is
that since landowners implementing projects under the PTEIR have to meet all of the PTHP
checklist requirements, including items not normally regulated by CDF, it is assumed that the
proposed project will be fully implemented.
5.2
Analysis of Impacts Associated with Activities Not Regulated by CDF
The analysis of the impacts includes analysis of actions not regulated by CDF, such as fuel
treatments in gray pine stands or oak woodland areas. As a result, impacts are not expected to be
greater than that described here, since all of the proposed project effects, including those on noncommercial forest land, have been assessed.
5.3
Potentially Significant Effects
Based on the Project Initial Study – Environmental Checklist and Evaluation Of Environmental
Impact study (Notice of Preparation, January 21, 2003 SCH# 2003012074, BBW Associates,
2002), the following potentially significant effects could result from implementation of the
proposed action. These effects are described in the PTEIR in the following sections, as noted
below:
•
There is a potential impact to deer winter range thermal cover due to timber harvesting
and fuels treatment associated with timber harvesting for community-wide fuel reduction
purposes. (See section 5.7 – Biological Resources, below.)
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
57
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
5.4
There is potential impact to air quality from smoke generated from fuel treatments
associated with timber harvesting for community-wide fuel reduction purposes. (See
section 5.6 – Air Quality, below.)
There may be impacts to air quality from dust created by timber harvesting, site
preparation, and fuel treatments associated with timber harvesting for community-wide
fuel reduction purposes. (See section 5.6 – Air Quality, below.)
There is a potential impact to water quality in Weaver, East Weaver, West Weaver, and
Rush Creeks due to timber harvesting and site preparation associated with timber
harvesting for community-wide fuel reduction purposes. (See section 5.11, Hydrology
and Water Quality, below.)
There is potentially an impact to visual quality associated with timber harvesting for
community-wide fuel reduction purposes. (See section 5.4, Aesthetics, below)
There may be impacts associated with conversion of forestland and loss of timberland
productivity due to installation of fuel and fire breaks associated with timber harvesting
for community-wide fuel reduction purposes. (See section 5.12, Land Use and Planning,
below.)
There may be potential for cumulative watershed effects due to logging, road building
and installation of fuel and firebreaks associated with timber harvesting for communitywide fuel reduction purposes. [The issue here is that PTEIR-associated timber harvesting
might compound the watershed effects resulting from the proposed new Weaverville
Airport construction, and from the Oregon Fire, as well as from “connector road”
construction in the Weaverville basin]. (See section 5.11, Hydrology and Water Quality,
below.)
There may be increases in traffic due to hauling logs associated with timber harvesting
for community-wide fuel reduction purposes. (See section 5.18, Traffic and
Transportation, below.)
There may be forest health impacts due to untreated logging slash associated with timber
harvesting for community-wide fuel reduction purposes. (See section 5.7, Biological
Resources, below)
There may be potential for impacts to cultural and historical resources associated with
timber harvesting for community-wide fuel reduction purposes. (See section 5.8,
Cultural, Archaeological and Historic Resources, below.)
There may be significant impacts to listed plant or animal species. (See section 5.7,
Biological Resources, below.)
Visual Aesthetics
This section summarizes the impacts to visual aesthetic values within the Weaverville Basin as a
result of implementing either the Proposed Project or any of its alternatives.
5.4.1
Affected Environment
The northern portion of the Weaver Creek watershed contains an aesthetically pleasing variety of
steep slopes blanketed with rich forests and crisscrossed with swift cold streams draining to the
south. The prevailing landscape consists of moderate to steep hillsides and ridges vegetated with
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
58
a variable mosaic of coniferous forest, oak woodlands, riparian vegetation, and brush. Several
miles north of Weaverville and well outside the project area, a series of sub-alpine mountains
and granite peaks including Weaver Bally, Monument, Red Mountain, and Granite Peak provide
a visual backdrop to the project area. Below these peaks, rock outcrops and ridges such as
Glenison Gap, Rocky Point, and unnamed spires between East and West Weaver drainages are
significant focal points. To the south and west, Timber Ridge and Oregon Mountain dominate
the view. Views to the east are framed by Musser Ridge, with the higher Browns Mountain in
the background. Other peaks in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest and Trinity Alps Wilderness
to the north and northwest may be seen from Weaverville on a clear day.
Trinity County’s natural beauty is often cited as a contributing factor to the high quality of life
experienced by residents of the County, recreationists visiting the County, and small businesses
seeking to relocate here. There are no state-designated scenic highways in Trinity County.
Within the assessment area there are no county-designated County Scenic Roadways or
Recreation District #1 Overlay zones, both of which establish visual quality goals (Trinity
County Planning Department, 1990). State Route 299 is a Forest Service Scenic Byway (Trinity
Byway), but the federal byway designation is not binding on private land management and
therefore would not affect this project.
The landscape of the area has been dominated by human activity for at least the past 1,000 years.
Prior to the arrival of Europeans, the basin is estimated to have experienced frequent low
intensity fires, both natural and human-set, which maintained more open conifer stands and areas
with larger oaks and other hardwoods than exist today. Conifer stands of all sizes and ages also
occupied this landscape and ranged from dense Douglas-fir forests on north slopes and in wet
areas, to widely spaced stands of “yellow-bellied” ponderosa pine, to gray pine/brush stands
much like those that seen today.
Beginning in the 1850’s the Weaverville Basin landscape underwent a drastic transformation: the
removal of much of the forests to supply timber for fuel for homes and businesses; to run
sawmills, stamp mills, and other equipment; and construction lumber for buildings, mines,
trestles, flumes, etc. Intense wildfires also defined the period. These fires were either
intentionally set to remove brush and slash or were accidental, but the results were the nearremoval of trees in the majority of the basin (see photo below). The 1994 Browns Fire and the
2001 Oregon Fire may be reminiscent of some of the views residents or visitors to the area
experienced in the early 1900’s.
In 1908 the U.S. Forest Service established an office in Weaverville and, over the next several
decades, implemented a very effective fire control program that greatly reduced new fires. Trees
were allowed to re-seed and formed very dense closed stands that are now representative of the
area. With the maturing of these relatively young, dense forests, the potential for crown fire has
increased.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
59
Historical photo possibly taken from the south end of Timber Ridge area looking north at the
confluence of East and West Weaver Creeks and Sidney Gulch. Large portions of the
mountains in the background as well as in town are much more open than today. (Photo
provided by Mark Arnold, USFS. Date and photographer unknown.)
Most of the Proposed Project occupies forested areas that have been developed to varying
degrees for human habitation, recreation, and timber-management activities. Roads, both used
and abandoned, interlace the project area. In the project area 192 of the 372 private parcels
comprising the project area contain permitted structures, many of which are nestled into small
clearings within the relatively dense forest. Many of the rural subdivisions that make up much of
the project area are composed of clusters of homes strung out along access roads, ridges and/or
watercourses. Most dwellings and other structures within the project area have some cleared
space around them, including some that could most likely be successfully defended during a
wildfire.
Although the majority of private parcels have been somewhat developed and many are occupied
year-round, the overall viewshed is nevertheless dominated by natural vegetation that from a
distance appears relatively undisturbed. Even the more developed properties usually contain a
foreground view of undeveloped woodland from at least one direction. Visual aesthetics are an
important resource to landowners within the project area (BBWA field visits, 2002-03), many of
whom have become residents of the area over the last 10 years, and highly value the
forested/wooded ambience of their near, middle, and distance viewsheds. All the streams within
the project area are important visual resources to residents and visitors.
The project is not located in a Wild and Scenic River corridor. Unique or visually outstanding
natural features that can be viewed from within the project area, such as sub-alpine areas and
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
60
granite peaks, lie within the Trinity Alps Wilderness Area and are protected from human
disturbance under the Federal Wilderness Preservation Act. Visually outstanding man-made
features, such as the historic downtown and its tree-lined streets, are mostly outside of the project
area viewshed. However, many of the forested backdrops to neighborhoods include proposed
PTEIR fuel treatment sites. Within these areas, both natural and man-made visual elements are
prevalent and relatively uniform. The stand-replacing fires of the past 10 years have introduced
an early-successional vegetation element that now forms a significant backdrop to views north
and east of Weaverville.
The portion of the project area located on Oregon Summit is readily visible from SR 299 as it
crosses Oregon Summit and drops toward Weaverville from the west. Additionally, portions of
the project area within the Musser Hill, Browns Mountain, Browns Mountain/China Gulch, and
Bear Creek areas are visible from a vehicle traveling north on State Route (SR) 3 from
Weaverville between 3-10 miles from town, but views of potential PTEIR treatment areas are
fleeting due to the constantly changing viewpoint from the highway. The majority of the project
area, however, is not visible from SR 3 or SR 299 due to intervening ridgelines, development in
downtown Weaverville, and intervening vegetated areas.
Planning Documents, Goals, Objectives, Forest Practice Rules
Many of the more significant natural visual resources areas are preserved as scenic land or
recreation land by various public agencies (especially the USFS and BLM which control over
70% of the County).
In 1990, the Trinity County Board of Supervisors adopted the Weaverville Community Plan as its
General Plan for the community. The Community Plan included the following relevant visual
quality Goals and Objectives:
Natural Resources Goal #3: To strive to conserve those resources of the County that are important
to its character and economic well being.
Objective 3.1
Objective 3.5
Encourage timber harvesting activities within the basin area that are consistent
with the visual quality objectives of the Shasta-Trinity Land Resources
Management Plan.
Provide for resource production on the steep lands surrounding the developable
portion of the Weaverville basin consistent with goals for visual quality and
environmental protection.
Land Use and Community Design Goal #7: To encourage the retention and utilization of resource
lands for timber production and wildlife use within the context of protecting viewsheds from a
significant permanent departure.
The following CA Northern Forest District rules (Subchapters 4, 5, and 6, Article 3, Silvicultural
Methods) are particularly relevant for visual resources for portions of managed areas.
Specifically, the following rules were incorporated into the design of the silvicultural methods
used in the Proposed Project and Alternatives 3 and 4 of the PTEIR:
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
61
“Special consideration for aesthetic enjoyment shall be given to selection of silvicultural treatments
and timber operations within 200 feet of the edge of the traveled surface of any permanent road
maintained by the County or the State. [933.1(a)(6)]
“Special consideration for aesthetic enjoyment and protection of adjacent stand vigor shall be given
to the selection of silvicultural methods and timber operations within 200 feet of adjacent non-federal
lands not zoned TPZ. [933.1(a)(7)]
“The Director shall approve an alternative prescription if in his judgment it complies with 14 CCR
898 and if, considering the entire area to which the alternative is to be applied, it would not create a
significant adverse change in range and forage and recreation and aesthetic values. [933.6(e)(1)]
5.4.2
Significance Criteria
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines: the CEQA Environmental Checklist, poses the following
questions to be considered in determining whether the project would cause significant impacts to
aesthetics:
Would the project:
a) Have an adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and
historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
c) Degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
d) Create a new source of light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area?
5.4.3
Impacts Common to All Alternatives
As noted there are neither state scenic highways nor County-designated Scenic Roadways within
the project vicinity. None of the proposed or envisioned treatments under any of the analyzed
alternatives would create new sources of light or glare.
Scenic vistas, including the proposed treatment sites and their surroundings, might be altered
under implementation of any of the proposed alternatives, including the status quo (Alt.2).
Forest management activities, including timber harvest and fuel break development, have the
potential to open forest vistas as seen from individual homes and the community of Weaverville,
as well as to break up continuous forest canopies as seen from local primary and secondary
roads. These changes are viewed differently based on individual preferences. Most people seem
to approve of small clearings that open up views to surrounding vistas, but tend to be less
approving of large openings that expose bare ground or neighboring homes or buildings. Forest
landowners often prefer moderate sized clearings near their homes when these openings create a
more diverse landscape (including lawn, meadow and forest stands) and when they enhance fire
protection, especially where their viewscapes are also enhanced.
Some residents and visitors have expressed opposition to timber harvesting that modifies the
viewshed. In the 1980s, the Forest Service modified proposed clear-cut units in the East and
West Weaver Creek Timber Sales to reduce visual effects to Weaverville. In 1999, a clear-cut
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
62
unit located in the Garden Gulch watershed was cited in Letters to Editor in the Trinity Journal,
and in written and oral comments to CDF and the Trinity County Board of Supervisors, as an
undesirable change in scenic vistas by some residents. The 2001 Oregon Fire significantly
altered viewsheds north and west of Weaverville and the visual results are viewed as negative
throughout the community. The Browns Fire area remains highly visible eight years after most
of the stand was consumed by fire, with young trees and brush only slowly re-colonizing the
area.
While there are concerns in the community about changes in views resulting from forest
management, there are greater concerns about the visual effects of stand-replacing fire and large
clear-cuts. Potential changes to visual aesthetic resources vary by alternative, but none would
tend to substantially degrade visual quality across a broad acreage visible a mile or more from
any treated area. Stand modifications, including timber harvest and fuels reduction, especially
along well-traveled secondary roads, would be noticeable to local residents and visitors. Haul
roads, yarding corridors, skid trails, and landings may be visible to near and far viewers in some
locations, but for most areas, intervening ridges, vegetation, and lack of access by a large number
of viewers will make unpleasant visual impacts from such areas uncommon.
Timber harvesting is a common feature of the project area and its viewshed. The duration of
visual impacts of harvest and related activities depends upon the distance from the site, but
ranges from one year for lighter stand treatments such as thinnings to three years for skid trails,
yarder corridors, etc. Large openings with little residual vegetation, such as those created by a
stand-replacing fire or clear-cut harvest, may take up to 30 or more years to fully regenerate and
begin to blend into the surrounding landscape. These openings are consistent with the visual
effects of forest management in the basin for the past 100+ years, but the area is nevertheless
highly valued for its scenic value. Large openings (100+ acres) were less common within the
project vicinity prior to the Browns Fire and have mostly been fire-caused in the last 20 years.
Since 2001 the Bureau of Land Management has undertaken a series of understory thinnings in
the Democrat Gulch/Timber Ridge area that are positively viewed by most area residents. Some
Timber Ridge residents have contacted BBWA to indicate that they feel the BLM efforts should
be increased to include overstory thinning. The U.S. Forest Service is developing a series of
fuels modification projects to reduce the potential for large stand-replacing fires in the Weaver
Bally, Musser Ridge and Browns Mountain areas. These projects range from brush removal to
thinning of inter-laced overstory canopies. When fuel modifications are implemented, the
potential for large stand-replacing fires will be reduced, providing a higher probability that more
acres will remain in a vegetated state, and stand-replacing fires that create large openings will
affect fewer acres.
An unrelated potential project has been identified that has the potential to permanently affect
visual resource qualities to significant numbers of people. An EIR is being prepared by Trinity
County to analyze the effects of relocating the Weaverville Airport to the Musser Hill area north
of the town of Weaverville. If approved and funded, this would require the leveling of a long
ridge segment, potentially changing visual characteristics for residents throughout the basin. The
development of the airport should not affect forest stand management analyzed under the PTEIR.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
63
5.4.4
Impacts of Proposed Project and Alternatives
5.4.4.1
Proposed Project: Moderate Fuel Treatment
Over a ten-year span the Proposed Project is estimated to include fuel break construction on
1,260 acres. An additional 1,350 acres would be commercially harvested under a limited range
of prescriptions including commercial thinning, single tree or group selection harvest, and
transition from even-aged to uneven-aged management. Non-commercial treatment is proposed
for 930 acres of non-commercial vegetation types while 730 acres comprised largely of WLPZs
would not be treated.
Fuel break construction would occur in areas with a high likelihood of carrying a fire or causing
damage to property or life, including:
•
•
•
•
major ridgelines (potentially from base to summit)
upper slopes
within 100’ of public roads, and
within 200’ of dwellings and other permitted structures (defensible space construction)
Impacts to visual quality from fuel break construction would range from short to long-term. The
immediate view from the most populous areas of the community and from county roads and state
highways will be limited as most of these roads are near stream bottoms or well away from
project areas. The ridge-top homes in the Weaver Basin are along Oregon Street as well as
Easter, Ridge, Ridge Top, and Timber Ridge Roads, and are too far from the PTEIR project areas
to have an immediate view of project implementation activities. Many of these roads are private
un-gated roads that access multiple homes or landowners and are not typically used by the
general public (e.g., East Branch Road of East Weaver Creek, Blue Rock Road on Browns
Mountain, Bear Gulch Road at Rush Creek and Black Bear Road off Weaver Bally Road).
Others are within mixed public and private lands (Weaver Bally Road, Democrat Gulch Road,
and Browns Mountain Road). Travelers along these roads would observe modified stands, but
these changes would be localized and of relatively short duration. Fuel breaks with complete
disposal of slash adjacent to roads are often considered by the viewing public to be, with their
park-like appearance, positive additions to the near viewshed. Up to 485 acres of fuel breaks
within 100’ of public roads could be constructed under this alternative.
Fuel within 200’ of dwellings and adjacent structures would be treated with a defensible
space/fuel break prescription under implementation of the Proposed Project. Within 100’ of
houses project-related slash and existing ground fuels would largely be removed or otherwise
completely disposed of. Trees over 20’ tall would be pruned to reduce the potential for vertical
fire spread. By separating flammable sources of vegetation openings would be created that could
change the view from home sites, making dwellings and occupants more visible from roads or
other dwellings. This effect could be significant, and mitigation measures (see 2.3.1.1 and 5.4.5)
are proposed for strategic retention of vegetation that offers important visual screening,
consistent with fuel continuity reduction.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
64
Under implementation of this project fuel breaks could be constructed on up to 1,030 acres
located on upper slopes and major ridgelines away from roads and home sites. Because these
areas are not adjacent to public roads the primary visual impact would be to viewers from
opposite ridgelines or other vantage points. The more open appearance of a fuel break running
along a visible ridgeline might be viewed by some as a negative change from that of the dense
second growth forest that commonly occupies such areas. Mitigation measures are likewise
proposed for retention of a range of vegetation that will soften the visual impact of fuel break
construction in these areas, while still meeting fuels treatment objectives (see 2.3.1.1 and 5.4.5).
The overall visual effect of the Proposed Project would be to create a partially modified
viewshed that, because of retention of vegetation specified in the mitigations below and inherent
in the proposed silvicultural prescriptions, would complement and blend into the surrounding
visual complex.
5.4.4.2
Alternative 2: Maintenance of Status Quo
Under the status quo 75 acres per year within the project area are estimated to be harvested under
an overstory removal prescription in which the majority of the commercial timber would be
removed. The California Forest Practice Rules require treatment of slash adjacent to public
roads and dwellings. Otherwise slash treatment is at the discretion of the landowner, and in
many cases slash is left in place to decompose naturally. Visual impacts from this activity are
generally considered negative in nature. The significance of impacts to visual aesthetics would
be evaluated for each proposed harvest by CDF, which could impose site-specific mitigation
measures. Over a 40-year span, 2,575 acres are estimated to be treated by overstory removal,
and 260 acres by commercial thinning/selection management, under the status quo. Deliberate
retention of understory and overstory vegetation for visual mitigation is not projected to occur on
the areas harvested under Alternative 2. The impacts from these treatments would be initially
and locally significant to visual resources. But because they occur at wide intervals in time and
space, the visual effect would be to retain tree cover across the landscape in approximately the
same proportion and density in which it occurs today. The impacts to visual resources caused by
equipment operation inherent to the fuels reduction treatments and timber harvest operations of
the Proposed Project as well as those of Alternatives 3 and 4 would have more substantial effects
to visual resources than would Alternative 2, particularly within the next 10 years.
However, under Alternative 2 fuel concentrations would tend to increase from their current
concentrations, which already range in many areas from moderate to dense. The vast majority of
un-harvested areas would retain a high potential for fire spread and a high potential for fire starts
adjacent to roads and in populated areas. When wildfires occur, as history indicates they will, in
the right location under the right conditions wildfires (including arson fires) can develop into
stand-replacing fires that could negatively affect the near, middle, and long-range views across
much of the project area. In effect, the Proposed Project and Alternatives 3 and 4 are designed to
avoid significant impacts from such a fire, including degradation of visual aesthetics that would
be more likely to occur under maintenance of the status quo.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
65
5.4.4.3
Implementation of Alternative 3 could include construction of fuel breaks on up to 3,460 acres
over the next 10 years. Under this alternative not only would approximately 1,260 acres on
upper slopes and near roads and home sites be treated under a fuel break prescription, but 1,350
acres on lower and middle slopes—that would receive a less intensive treatment under the
Proposed Project—would also be treated with a fuel break prescription. The visual impacts of
removing substantially more vegetation from an additional 1,350 acres would create more open
views from almost any vantage point, and more heavily impact views from the fore and middle
ground than any of the other alternatives, including the Proposed Project. The treated landscape
might be somewhat similar visually to pre-European settlement forest conditions when the Wintu
people tended the area through cultural burning. Over time, if the shaded fuel break created
under this alternative was maintained and the retained trees grew larger, the “look” of the heavily
thinned forest could gain broader acceptance from the public. But creation of it over the next 10
years from the dense second-growth forests that exist today could create significant visual
impacts that would be difficult to mitigate for broad public acceptance. On the other hand, the
local public is receiving much information from many media these days regarding fuel hazard
reduction, and public perceptions of fuel reduction treatment areas such as fuel breaks could
change from negative to positive as the benefits of the treatments are appreciated. Any impacts
created by implementation of this alternative are likely to be less negative than those created by a
large stand-replacing wildfire.
5.4.4.4
Under Alternative 4, 3,460 acres would be treated by removing the vast majority of ‘pole size’
trees ranging from 5”-10” in diameter. The stocking of timber of this size varies greatly across
the project area. In many cases this stocking is quite heavy, especially of pole-size hardwoods.
In such areas removal of several hundred stems per acre, along with their foliage, would
substantially open the stand compared to its present dense visual configuration. The need to
manipulate large quantities of vegetation, and to dispose of it by means such as burning, could
create negative short-term visual impacts to the foreground viewpoint across a substantial
acreage, especially where such operations are concentrated. In stands with fewer small trees
visual impacts would be much less substantial. After re-vegetation over a few years reduces
immediate impacts from skid trails, landings, burn pile areas, etc., the more open appearance of
the stand (which would retain the vast majority of trees over 11” diameter) could be quite
visually pleasing. As time passes the residual large tree canopy would continue to close and
shade out the understory vegetation and the forest would become park-like, open but well
stocked with mature trees. The view from afar would be little affected by implementation of
Alternative 4 due to retention of most of the tree canopy.
Implementation of Alternative 4 would create less immediate negative impact to visual resources
than those of the Proposed Project or Alternative 3, due to less disturbance of standing trees
combined with fewer skid trails, landings, etc. This alternative would affect more acreage than
the status quo, but the understory-thinned stands might be considered more aesthetically positive
than the mosaic of dense, brushy stands and near clear cuts (heavy overstory removal areas) that
tend to dominate the landscape under the status quo. As in the Proposed Project and Alternative
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
66
3, short and long term negative effects from Alternative 4 to visual resources in the near, middle
and foreground are less than those likely after a wildfire in an untreated stand typical of
Alternative 2.
Over the long term, Alternative 4 would have less negative visual effect than the Proposed
Project or Alternative 3 since a more closed-canopy stand dominated by larger trees is
maintained indefinitely. In fact, given the positive response to the BLM firebreak construction
on Timber Ridge, the public might consider implementation of this alternative more favorable in
terms of visual effects than Alternative 2, especially as the acreage treated by regeneration
harvest under the status quo would accumulates across the landscape over time.
5.4.5
Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project
As noted in the Weaverville Community Plan, road building, logging, and other activities on
resources within lands hidden from view can often take place with minimal noticeable visual
impacts. On slopes visible from the community, vegetation retention can be used to minimize
the visibility of such activities (Trinity County Planning Department, 1990).
Construction of fuel breaks along ridges and public roads, in conjunction with establishment of
defensible spaces around permitted structures, could significantly modify views ranging from the
immediate foreground to several miles’ distance, if not mitigated. The following mitigations are
proposed for the Proposed Project:
Mitigation measures for the Proposed Project:
1. Utilize silvicultural practices that maintain moderately-dense to more open “park-like”
overstory and understory tree canopies that: 1) provide aesthetic enjoyment; 2) consider
impacts to visual aesthetics of neighboring home sites and non-appurtenant roads within
200’ of project areas; 3) retain a variety of size classes of vegetation including an
overstory stand; 4) protect adjacent stand vigor; and 5) meet the fire behavior objectives
for the area for the design fire, slope position, fuels, and forest vegetation type.
2. Retain a variety of size classes of vegetation in defensible space areas around home sites,
including clumps of vegetation that provide visual screening, while meeting the design
objectives of Technical Rule Addendum No. 4: “Minimum Distances required by Law
for Fire Safe THP Vegetation Treatment of the CA Forest Practice Act”.
3. Retain a variety of size classes of vegetation in shaded fuel break areas, while providing
an adequate disruption of fuel continuity for fuel break function.
4. Treat slash and organic debris in defensible space areas by chipping, removing, burning,
or lopping for fire hazard reduction, as approved on a site-specific basis by CDF.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
67
5.4.6
Level of Significance
Impacts to visual resources from implementation of the Proposed Project will be reduced by
implementation of silvicultural practices that maintain moderate to “park-like” overstory and
understory tree canopies based on the fire treatment/silvicultural objectives of each treatment
area. A variety of sizes of vegetation will be retained within fuel breaks. Understory vegetation
will be selectively retained around dwellings so as to maintain privacy. Treatment of slash in a
timely manner will reduce visual impacts related to implementation of treatment prescriptions.
These measures will reduce impacts from implementation of the Proposed Project on 2,610 acres
over a 10-year period to a less than significant level.
5.5
This section summarizes the impacts to agricultural resources within the Weaverville Basin as a
result of implementing either the Proposed Project or any of its alternatives. Forest management
and timber harvesting are two of the principal agricultural activities in Trinity County.
5.5.1
The 43,500-acre analysis area includes the Upper Rush Creek, East Weaver, West Weaver and
Weaver Creek, Sidney Gulch, Little Browns Creek, Democrat Gulch, and Oregon Gulch
drainages. Land ownership in these drainages is about 12% BLM administered lands, 46%
USFS administered lands, 17% Sierra Pacific Industries lands, and 24% (10,440 acres) private,
non-industrial lands. The community of Weaverville occupies approximately three square miles
within the middle of the Weaver Creek basin. Within the community, urban and semi-urban
development patterns predominate. Land uses are predominantly open space, forest and timber
management, rural residential, and recreation, with minor amounts of mining, agricultural and
commercial uses.
Management on BLM lands, which are primarily located in the south one-half of the project
area, is primarily focused on protecting their integrity and value until they can be disposed of
(see Planning Documents, Goals, Objectives, Forest Practice Rules below for a more in depth
discussion of planning goals). These lands are predominantly forested, with intermingled
brushfields, grasslands, and riparian areas.
U.S. Forest Service lands are primarily located in the north half of the analysis area. Most of
these lands are within the Hayfork Adaptive Management Area and are primarily allocated to
Matrix, which are lands with forest and wildlife management as the primary activities. These
lands are predominantly forested, with intermingled brushfields. See Planning Documents,
Goals, Objectives, Forest Practice Rules for a more in depth discussion of management direction.
Sierra Pacific lands, which are primarily located in the north and east one-half of the project area,
are predominantly forested. Most of these lands are managed for forestry and are zoned Timber
Production Zone (TPZ). The 540 acres of SPI land on Musser Hill in Section 5, T33N, R9W,
MDB&M) are not zoned TPZ and were recently annexed into the Weaverville Community
Services District. The area would have to be rezoned and infrastructure extended to it before it
could be converted to non-forestry uses.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
68
The 4,275 acres of small private parcels included in the project area are predominantly forested.
Timber management, harvesting, and milling contribute significantly to the economy of Trinity
County. Due primarily to the steady decline in National Forest timber sales over the past two
decades, the only mill of any size left in Trinity County is located in Weaverville. A small
“Economizer” mill is located in Hayfork and some small, portable mills are scattered throughout
the county.
Only two parcels (APN 024-410-06 and -07) in the Weaverville Basin are zoned for agriculture
(AG). These parcels, located on Brown’s Ranch Road about one-half mile from the nearest
parcel in the Proposed Project, are used primarily for sheep grazing. The project will not impact
the agricultural use of these parcels.
Much of the project area is zoned Unclassified, Timberland Production Zone, Ag-Forest, Rural
Residential, Single Family Residential (R1-A), and Critical Water Resources (overlay on parcels
in the Little Browns Creek watershed). Forest management and timber harvesting are permitted
activities under Unclassified, Timberland Production Zone, Ag-Forest and Rural Residential
zoning districts. Tree harvesting is allowed in any of the applicable districts.
In 1990, the Trinity County Board of Supervisors adopted the Weaverville Community Plan and
implemented basin-wide rezoning consistent with the Community Plan. The Community Plan
included the following relevant natural resources Goals and Objectives:
•
•
•
•
Natural Resources Goal #3: To strive to conserve those resources of the County that are
important to its character and economic well being.
Objective 3.1: Encourage timber-harvesting activities within the basin area that are
consistent with the visual quality objectives of the Shasta-Trinity Land Resources
Management Plan.
Objective 3.5: Provide for resource production on the steep lands surrounding the
developable portion of the Weaverville basin consistent with goals for visual quality and
Land Use and Community Design Goal #7: To encourage the retention and utilization of
resource lands for timber production and wildlife use within the context of protecting
view sheds from a significant permanent departure.
The 1990 Weaverville Community Plan contains policies to retain all federal lands in the
community plan area in public ownership to assure protection of wildlife habitat and support
timber management, consistent with resources protection standards. These polices are in direct
conflict with adopted BLM policies to trade these lands to private ownership (refer to the
following discussion regarding BLM management objectives).
Management of BLM lands in the Trinity Management Area is outlined in the Redding Resource
Management Plan and Record of Decision (June 1993). The forest management program on
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
69
these lands is operating under the Timber Management Environmental Assessment for Sustained
Yield Unit 15 (SYU-15). Lands within the Weaverville Basin are available for exchange. Until
they are disposed of they are classified as “restricted management”. Permitted management
actions are those required to protect or maintain the current or potential value of the resources.
These actions include, but are not limited to, pre-commercial thinning, tree planting, seedling
protection and release, and sanitation/salvage harvesting (but no sales of green timber).
Management of USFS on the Trinity National Forest is outlined in the Shasta-Trinity National
Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1981), which includes management direction
from the Record of Decision for the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on
Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species within
the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (FSEIS). Management varies by land allocation, with the
primary management activities for timber and wildlife on Matrix lands, recreation in the Trinity
Alps Wilderness, and habitat for old-growth dependent species in the Clear Creek LSR.
Within Riparian Reserves on both BLM and USFS lands, permitted uses are only those that
maintain or improve the riparian ecosystem and protect stream courses and water quality.
Riparian Reserves in general are removed from scheduled timber harvesting and other stand
disturbance activities within 300’ of the high water mark on fish bearing streams, 150’ on
streams with no fish, and 100’ on seasonal or intermittent streams. The only timber harvesting in
Riparian Reserves will be salvage and fuel wood cutting when that will meet aquatic
conservation objectives.
The California Forest Practice Rules protect the forest and associated resources on non-Federal
lands from depletion and degradation through specific rules applicable to timber harvest planning
and operations. These rules are quite detailed and apply whenever forest products are sold,
bartered, exchanged, or traded.
5.5.2
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the CEQA Environmental Checklist poses the following
aesthetics:
Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
in the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for timber production (TPZ)?
d) Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could
individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
70
5.5.3
There are no Prime Farmlands, unique farmland, or farmlands of statewide significance within
the assessment area. Nor are there any Williamson Act contracts within the assessment area
(TCPD, 2002). Portions of the PTEIR area are zoned Agriculture or Agriculture-Forest. Within
these zoning districts forest management and timber harvesting are activities permitted, which do
not require a Use Permit per the Trinity County Zoning Ordinance.
All proposed alternatives are consistent with the Timberland Production Zoning (TPZ) District of
the Trinity County Zoning Ordinance. Implementation of the project could have a positive effect
on maintaining timber stocking on TPZ lands by reducing the potential for stand replacing fires
through the implementation of fuels modification projects that contribute to reducing fire
intensity and rate of spread.
There are no farmlands within the assessment area that are affected by the implementation of any
of the proposed alternatives.
5.5.4
There are no significant or permanent impacts to forest/agricultural management or agricultural
activities under the Proposed Project or any alternatives. Agricultural activities are dictated by
local land use regulations and the PTEIR does not allocate land to uses. Nor does the PTEIR
limit the agricultural and timber and forest management options available to landowners. The
PTEIR only analyzes and prescribes a series of actions that landowners may choose to
implement. A landowner may choose not to participate in the PTHP process that implements the
PTEIR. In those instances, the landowner/timber owner would comply with appropriate local,
state, and/or federal requirements in fulfillment of agricultural activities.
5.5.5
The Proposed Project is likely to have a positive effect to agricultural resources by maintaining
timber stocking, improving forest health, and reducing losses from wildfire, so no mitigations are
necessary as impacts from the Proposed Project are less than significant.
5.5.6
Impacts to agricultural resources resulting from implementation of the Proposed Project are less
than significant.
5.6
Air Quality
This section summarizes the impacts to air quality within the Weaverville Basin as a result of
implementing either the Proposed Project or any of its alternatives.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
71
5.6.1
The project area consists of a broad basin, or bowl, surrounded on all sides by mountain ridges.
Approximately 4,000 people live in the valley and surrounding hills. Wood stoves for heating
and burning of vegetation are common practices and sources of smoke. State Highway 299 and
local roads bisect the valley area and are minor sources of NOx, SOx, particulates, and other
vehicle emissions. The basin can serve as a sink for some air pollutants when temperature
gradients develop, forming an inversion layer. Typical spring-fall winds prevent the formation
of inversion in these seasons.
Air quality monitoring in Trinity County is done by the North Coast Unified Air Quality
Management District (NCUAQMD), which has been monitoring the Weaver basin since1987.
Monitoring is ongoing. Air quality in the basin can be described as being good overall; however,
it is non-attainment for fine particulate (<=PM10) when winter inversion layers form. The
source of PM10 during the winter is typically smoke from wood stoves, vegetation debris, and
trash burning.
The air board has been implementing a wood stove buy back program over several years to
replace inefficient stoves. Beginning in 2004, they will implement a ban on dooryard trash
burning in the community as part of an effort to further reduce smoke from trash and debris
burning.
Weaverville is immediately adjacent to a Class I Air shed (Trinity Alps Wilderness).
The following Forest Practice Rules are particularly relevant for air resources. Most of these
Rules are found in the Forest Practice Rules, Subchapters 4, 5, and 6, Article 7, Hazard
Reduction. As part of the project description, these Rules will reduce many potential impacts to
a less than significant level.
“The local representative of the Director shall be notified in advance of the time and place of any
burning of logging slash. Any burning shall be done in the manner provided by Law. [(937.6)]
“During timber operations, road running surfaces in the logging area shall be treated as necessary
to prevent excessive loss of road surface materials by, but not limited to, rocking, watering,
chemically treating, asphalting or oiling. [(943.3(h)]”
5.6.2
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the CEQA Environmental Checklist, poses the following
aesthetics:
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
72
Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality
violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
f) Otherwise degrade the atmospheric environment?
g) Substantially alter air movement, moisture, temperature or other aspects of climate?
5.6.3
a). All forestry-related fuel burning must comply with the regulations of the NCUAQMD
regarding timing of burning and quantity of smoke and particulate matter.
b & c). Increased burning and smoke production could result from fuels treatment projects as
compared to no projects, but treatment areas would produce less smoke than the
equivalent acres of wildland fire if air board mitigations to burn dry fuels under proper
conditions are followed. While the overall quantity of smoke could be less under PTEIR
fuels reduction alternatives than under wildland fire, the timing of smoke production
would be substantially different. Fuels reduction involving piling and burning, “jackpot”
burning or other burning would be done during the Fall to Spring period when
surrounding fuels are too moist to sustain fire spread, but treated fuels are dry enough to
burn. Burning to meet fuel reduction objectives could generate smoke and particulate
matter (≤PM10) in the winter months when smoke can settle into the Weaverville basin.
The basin often exceeds ≤PM10 standards of the North Coast Air Quality Management
District during winter inversion conditions of stable air masses and cool temperatures.
A small portion of the project area contains serpentine soils. Serpentine soils within this
area are known to contain asbestos, a known carcinogen. Tractor or ground disturbing
activities in dry serpentine soils could create dust that could present health concerns. In
July 2002, The Air Resources Control Board adopted Final Regulation Order Section
93105 for asbestos airborne toxic control for construction, grading, quarrying and surface
mining operations. Under this measure requirements for road construction and
maintenance and any grading in ultramafic soils must have a grading and dust control
plan. Proposed exemptions to these requirements may be submitted to the Air Resource
Board for activities in remote locations (more than a mile from a home, campground and
other developments).
d). Potential pollutants resulting from operations are smoke, dust, and diesel exhaust that are
of a short duration and will not accumulate over time. For a discussion of smoke
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
73
potential see above. Dust and diesel exhaust production will be small scale and
intermittent and will be localized in areas where they will dilute and dissipate. When soil
conditions are dry, road-related watering can reduce dust.
e). There are no potential odor sources resulting from forest treatments.
f & g). There are no permanent sources of particulates or other emissions or conversion of
vegetation types that are likely to alter air movement, moisture, temperature or other
aspects of the climate.
5.6.3.1
Impacts to Air Quality Specific to Alternatives from Implementing the
Proposed Project
There are two types of air quality impacts associated with the Proposed Project that are not
discussed above. The first impact is that associated with burning of slash created by the
Proposed Project or the alternatives to the Proposed Project. The second impact is that
associated with a wildland fire burning through the project area immediately after treatment, 15
years after treatment, and 40 years after treatment. These air quality impacts take place in an
extremely short amount of time (e.g., 1-3 days) whereas the impacts associated with the burning
of slash occur over a period of 1-3 months in the fall or winter at any time during the expected
10-year implementation period for the Proposed Project.
Air quality impacts associated with burning of slash created by the Proposed Project or its
alternatives are roughly related to the acreage that is tractor piled. Thinning slash created by the
Proposed Project and the pre-commercial thinning associated with Alternative 4 are expected to
be treated by lop and scatter methods and not require burning. Treatment in and around homes
and along roads is expected to create hand piles that could be burned. Thus, the alternative with
the highest potential for air quality impacts is Alternative 3 where most of the area would be
tractor piled and the piles burned in the fall or early winter. Very little burning is expected to be
undertaken if Alternative 2 is implemented. Virtually no burning is expected to be undertaken if
Alternative 4 were implemented, as the difficulty of under-burning stands with a moderate slash
load from felling 0-11” trees is likely to be beyond the capability of most landowners. Under the
Proposed Project a substantial amount of the landscape in the project area would be tractor piled
in shaded fuel breaks and the piles would be burned in the fall or early winter. Some hand piles
are likely to be created in and near homes in all alternatives and these are likely to produce
smoke when they are burned. Overall, implementing either the proposed action or Alternative 3
is expected to result in a low to moderate impact to air quality during the fall over the next 10
years as the projects are implemented. Implementing Alternatives 2 and 4 is not expected to
affect air quality, as neither of these alternatives is likely to generate sufficient hand pile burning
to be noticeable over the 10-year implementation period of the project.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
74
5.6.3.2
Impacts to Air Quality Specific to Alternatives Resulting From Future
Wildland Fires
Air quality associated with a wildland fire occurring on a hot August day can be seriously
degraded compared to the air quality with no fire at all. In this analysis, a comparison is made
between the air quality impacts associated with a wildland fire burning in 2008, 2023, and 2048
associated with each of the alternatives and the proposed action compared to a wildland fire
burning within the project area as if none of the project area had been treated. The FVS Fire and
Fuel Effects simulator was used to predict the tons of particulate matter resulting from a wildland
fire burning under hot August weather conditions (see Appendix C for a description of the
weather conditions and the FVS FFE model prediction capabilities).
Immediately after implementation of the Proposed Project or Alternatives 2 or 4, potential
impacts to air quality resulting from a fire burning in 2008 are worse than no project at all, due
entirely to the amount of treated slash on the ground. Predicted particulate matter 2.5
micrograms and larger increases after treatment from 491 tons for a wildland fire burning
through out the entire project area to 908 tons under the Proposed Project down to 523 tons
associated with Alternative 4. Particulate matter output is directly associated with both the tons
of slash on the ground and the amount of standing green vegetation that is consumed during the
fire. Until either the slash decays or is removed through burning, chipping etc., expected impacts
to air quality from a wildland fire are likely to exceed the impacts of no treatment.
Within 5 years after treatment, predicted air quality impacts are predicted to be less than if no
treatment were initiated at all. In 2013, predicted tons per acre of particulate matter produced
from a fire burning in the KMC4 vegetation type is reduced by 12 % from 0.18 tons per acre of
particulate matter to 0.16 tons per acre of particulate matter. Overall, the KMC4 vegetation type
would be expected to produce 218 tons of particulate matter in 2013, the same as no treatment in
2008.
Over time, the Proposed Project and the alternatives are predicted to produce less particulates
from a wildland fire than if the project area were not treated. In 2023, 15 years after treatment,
the Proposed Project might produce 602 tons of particulates while Alternative 3 would only
produce 389 tons of particulates. Alternative 3 has the lowest predicted particulate output since
much of the area would be tractor piled and the piles burned, thus removing substantial amounts
of slash from being burned in subsequent wildland fires. All of the other alternatives maintain
some to a lot of slash on site (albeit most of the slash is lopped to within 20” of the ground),
which produces particulate matter when it burns.
By the end of the projection period in 2048, the proposed action and all of the alternatives
produce substantially less particulate matter than no treatment at all. Again, Alternative 3
produces the least amount of particulate matter, at 389 tons, if a wildland fire burned on a hot
August day in 2048. Alternative 4 would produce 470 tons of particulate matter while the
Proposed Project would produce 573 tons and Alternative 2 would produce 703 tons of
particulate matter. No treatment at all would result in the production of 897 tons of particulate
matter if a wildland fire burned in the project area in 2048.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
75
TABLE 16
TOTAL TONS OF PARTICULATE MATTER GENERATED FROM A
WILDLAND FIRE BURNING ACROSS THE PROJECT AREA AS A
RESULT OF IMPLEMENTING THE PROPOSED PROJECT
PROJECT YEAR 2008, IMMEDIATELY AFTER TREATMENT
NO TRT PROPOSED PROJECT
ALT 2
ALT 3
Total Tons of Particulate Matter >= 2.5 Micrograms
DFR3
11
20
13
17
DFR4
28
35
21
27
GPP4
4
14
7
3
KMC3
52
75
59
65
KMC4
218
225
273
168
MHC3
93
90
78
79
MHC4
31
40
21
24
PPN4
8
3
8
5
Subtotal
446
502
479
387
MHW2
33
57
33
39
MHW3
12
349
191
72
Subtotal
45
406
224
111
Total
491
908
703
498
Project Year 2023, 15 years after Treatment
DFR3
25
12
12
10
DFR4
34
22
20
20
GPP4
5
11
6
3
KMC3
69
49
48
34
KMC4
261
166
204
148
MHC3
97
80
73
71
MHC4
64
25
25
22
PPN4
10
2
6
3
Subtotal
565
368
395
312
MHW2
37
33
37
27
MHW3
15
201
237
51
Subtotal
52
234
274
77
Total
617
602
668
389
Project Year 2048, 45 years after Treatment
DFR3
31
12
11
11
DFR4
32
20
19
18
GPP4
6
4
5
3
KMC3
88
56
48
34
KMC4
301
172
204
163
MHC3
112
77
73
65
MHC4
60
23
23
17
PPN4
18
2
6
3
Subtotal
648
365
389
314
MHW2
88
29
39
27
MHW3
161
178
275
46
Subtotal
249
207
314
73
Total
897
573
703
387
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
76
ALT 4
13
25
4
48
255
52
20
5
422
38
63
101
523
13
19
4
48
204
55
19
4
366
29
52
81
447
13
17
4
54
218
63
20
2
392
27
52
78
470
5.6.4
Mitigation
In order to reduce the effects of smoke produced from the burning of slash associated with the
Proposed Project or its alternatives the following mitigation measures are required.
1. Evaluate alternative disposal methods to burning and use burning only where there is no
other feasible alternative or if prohibiting burning would cause substantial financial
hardship.
2. Burn only on designated burn-days stipulated by the North Coast Unified Air Quality
Management District and with all necessary burn permits.
3. Reduce pre-burn fuel loading by using other treatments.
4. Require material to dry before piling or allow sufficient time after piling for material to
dry before burning. Piles that contain little soil and are constructed to allow air
movement will result in a burn that consumes significantly more debris and produces less
smoke. More efficient burning and greater heat output will lift smoke higher, reducing
smoke concentration near the ground.
5. Use mass-ignition techniques that produce a short duration fire thereby increasing
combustion efficiency and flow of smoke into the convection column.
6. Prevent stumps from burning and smoldering.
5.6.5
With the mitigation measures above, the Proposed Project will have less than a significant effect
on air quality.
5.7
This section summarizes the impacts to biological resources within the Weaverville Basin as a
5.7.1
Vegetation
Vegetation on the project area parcels can be described using a number of different vegetation
classification methods. For the Weaverville Community Fuel Reduction Project the California
Wildlife Habitat Relationships (WHR) classification system was used (California Department of
Fish and Game, 1999). WHR vegetation types within the project area were mapped using a
combination of aerial photography analysis (using 1:12,000 aerial photos from 2000) and
“ground-truthing” of the vegetation polygons. After reviewing the aerial photo delineation, the
vegetation polygons were delineated onto digital ortho quad sheets, digitized, and then
aggregated into 15 vegetation categories by dropping the density classes of each of the WHR
codes to create what were called ‘whrmodel’ vegetation codes in the ARC/VIEW coverage of the
same name. (For more information on the development of the WHR classification system see
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
77
Treatment Area Delineation, BBW Associates, 2003b). The WHR vegetation mapping and
classification resulted in the following distribution of vegetation by WHR category. (For more
information about the size classes, etc. of the WHR classifications refer to California Department
of Fish and Game 1999.) Table 17A below shows the distribution of vegetation within the
project area, and the map below shows the distribution of the WHR types. The 15 vegetation
types above were classified into 10-forested types where treatments are proposed. The five types
noted below are not proposed for treatment:
•
•
•
•
•
Chaparral dominated lands (MCP)
Riparian areas (MRI)
Portions of the project within the area burned by the Oregon Fire (OREG)
Grass dominated types (PGS)
Non forested areas (NON)
TABLE 17A
VEGETATION ON PROJECT AREA PARCELS
WHR
CODE
DFR3
DFR4
GPP4
KMC3
KMC4
MCP
MHC3
MHC4
MHW2
MHW3
MRI
OREG
PGS
PPN4
NON
VEGETATION DESCRIPTION
Douglas-fir dominated forests
Douglas-fir dominated forests
Gray Pine phase of Ponderosa Pine forests
Klamath Mixed-Conifer forests
Klamath Mixed-Conifer forests
Montane Chaparral dominated lands
Montane Hardwood-Conifer forests
Montane Hardwood-Conifer forests
Montane Hardwood forests (includes gray pine)
Montane Hardwood forests (includes gray pine)
Montane Riparian forests
Area burned by Oregon Fire
Perennial Grassland
Ponderosa pine dominated forests
Non-forested
VEGETATION
SIZE 1/
6-11" diameter
11-24" diameter
11-24" diameter
6-11" diameter
11-24" diameter
> 25% 3 years old
6-11" diameter
11-24" diameter
1-6" in diameter
6-11" diameter
Not differentiated
Not differentiated
Dense
11-24" diameter
Not forested
ACRES
74
133
87
440
1,542
24
385
134
139
830
57
182
71
42
131
4,272
1/ Based on the quadratic mean diameter of stands – see (California Department of Fish and Game, 1999).
There are 24 acres of chaparral, 57 acres of riparian forests, 70 acres of grass, 131 acres of nonforested lands (e.g., highway and road rights-of-way, gravel bars, etc.), and 182 acres of severely
burned areas within the Oregon Fire where no treatments are being considered. ‘Riparian’ areas
were not analyzed because in all cases these areas are classified as Class I streams, which usually
contain fish species such as rainbow or steelhead trout or coho salmon, or are people’s water
supplies. No treatment is being considered on grass and non-forest areas because these areas
either won’t burn (non-forest areas) or would have low fire intensities and high fire containment
potential when burning (grass types). The Oregon Fire area is not being considered for treatment
because it has already burned. There is little remaining commercial value in the burned timber
and the private landowners within the fire area have already completed many of the proposed
treatments.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
78
The 10 forest vegetation types proposed for treatment were surveyed and inventoried by
installing 92 plots throughout the project area. The 10 vegetation types were allocated to 16
forest vegetation/slope position treatments because optimal treatments are expected to be
substantially different on upper slopes than on lower and mid-slopes. Not all forest types have
sufficient acreage within the project area to be classified into both slope positions. For instance,
the gray pine type (GPP4) was only located on mid-slopes in the western portion of the Oregon
Mountain area, KMC3 was found only on mid and lower slopes, MHC4 was found generally
only on lower and mid-slopes (mostly in the Timber Ridge area), etc.
After installing the inventory plots, the Inland Cascades-Northern California (ICASCA) variant
of the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) was used to calculate forest vegetation information.
FVS is a growth and yield simulator used extensively in the U.S., including use by various
government agencies such as the USFS, BLM, BIA, Washington Department of Natural
Resources, etc. FVS is a distance-independent, individual tree growth and yield model, which
treats a stand as the population unit and utilizes standard forest inventory or stand examination
data (Dixon, 2000). The resulting stand table data for the various vegetation and physiographic
locations (see subchapter 5.2.4 below) is shown below in Table 17B.
Fuel loading and fire modeling were calculated using the Westside Sierra variant of FVS because
the ICASCA variant of FVS does not have the fire effects simulator. Fuel loading was projected
based on the collected plot data, or, if insufficient information was collected, FVS was allowed
to predict the fuel loading based on the vegetation information from the plot data. In either case,
fuel loading is based on Anderson (1982) fuel models.
TABLE 17B
CHARACTERISTICS OF VEGETATION
BASAL TREES TREES TREES
TOTAL
VEG
CONIFER
SLOPE
NUM.
HARDWOOD AREA PER PER PER
TREES
TYPE
ACRES
BD.FT./
POSITION
PLOTS
CU.FT./AC. SQ.FT./ AC. AC. 6- AC.
PER ACRE
NAME
AC.
1-6”
10”
10”+
AC.
240
DFR3M Mid
50
1
0
750
580
130
1,460
21,400
DFR3U Upper
24
1
240
11,900
700
630
480
30
1,140
DFR4M Mid
1
96
10,300
0
120
930
200
50
1,190
DFR4U Upper
37
1
140
9,100
940
0
140
60
200
GPP4
Mid
87
2
60
7,600
310
250
0
20
270
KMC3M Mid
445
7
200 1,950
19,900
710
170
90
2,210
KMC4M Mid
1,020
40
143
570
740
190
60
990
11,900
KMC4U Upper
517
12
135
9,600
470
1,410
130
70
1,610
MHC3M Mid
268
4
195 1,270
14,300
1,770
200
90
1,560
MHC3U Upper
116
1
140
2,780
1,160
130
70
1,350
4,800
MHC4M Mid
63
2
250 3,900
9,700
2,430
430
90
4,420
MHW2M Mid
109
4
143
7,000
400
1,230
310
30
1,570
MHW2U Upper
29
3
173 2,490
4,500
1,500
490
40
3,020
MHW3M Mid
588
5
100
2,000
1,080
1,190
230
30
1,450
MHW3U Upper
242
5
224
9,200
960
540
470
80
1,090
PP4M
Mid
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
42
3,733
3
92
36,800
160
79
206 6,020
0
110
6,120
5.0 Environmental impacts
___________________________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
80
Wildlife
The combination of vegetation types and ecotones in the Weaver Basin provide habitat for a
diverse number of wildlife species. Species that have been observed in the assessment area by
the PTEIR consultants include: black bear, Columbia black tail deer, Roosevelt elk, mountain
lion, bobcat, beaver, spotted and stripped skunk, Pacific fisher, martin, ring-tailed cat, raccoon,
coyote, gray fox, gray squirrel, ground squirrel, northern flying squirrel, jack rabbit, brush rabbit,
yellow pine chipmunk, field mice, shrews, moles, bats, golden eagle, vulture, red tailed hawk,
northern goshawk, Cooper's hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, northern pygmy owl, northern saw whet
owl, great-horned owl, Steller's jay, common raven, blue grouse, California quail, mountain
quail, band tailed pigeon, acorn woodpecker, hairy woodpecker, pileated woodpecker, downy
woodpecker, yellow bellied woodpecker, northern flicker, varied thrush, American robin,
western tanager, dark eyed junco, pine siskin, black-headed grosbeak, hummingbirds, sparrows,
vireos, wrentits, chickadees, nuthatches, warblers, towhees, Pacific rattlesnake, California
mountain king snake, gopher snake, garter snake, Klamath ring-neck snake, fence lizard, foothill
yellow-legged frog, tree frog, western toad, bull frog, banana slug, tick, mosquito and other
species.
Similar species were reported in the East Connector Roadway Project Draft EIR (Trinity County
Department of Transportation, 2002). The East Connector assessment area is within the PTEIR
assessment area.
The assessment area is at the base of the southern portions of the Trinity Alps, which range
above 8,000’ in elevation. In the fall and winter, deer migrate out of the high elevation areas of
Rush Creek, Stuarts Fork, and other areas into the lower elevation forests of the assessment area
(McLaughlin, CDF&G 1989, pers. comm.). The CDFG identified approximately 9,700 acres
within the Weaverville Community Plan area as critical winter range for migratory deer
(elevations below 3,500’). The combination of conifer and hardwood stands also support a
significant resident deer herd.
As part of the planning for the Weaverville Community Plan, CDFG indicated that the loss of
17,000 acres of deer winter range from the construction of Trinity and Lewiston Lakes had a
significant impact on the Weaverville deer herd population. They determined that maintenance
and protection of remaining winter range habitat was an important consideration in development
of the Weaverville Community Plan (refer to Planning Documents, Goals, Objectives, Forest
Practice Rules for related policies of the County General Plan).
Wildlife: Threatened, Rare, Endangered, and Species of Special Concern
Threatened, rare, endangered and wildlife species of special concern utilize the mosaic of
habitats within the assessment area. There are several old growth stands at higher elevations and
within the Trinity Alps Wilderness portion of the assessment area. There are 12,107 acres (28%
of assessment area) of stands with average tree diameters of 25” or larger. Approximately 14%
(1,648 acres) of these larger diameter stands are on private parcels in the project areas. Not all
stands with average tree diameters of 25” or larger are old growth and there are no old-growth
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
81
stands of 20 acres or more within the private parcels that form the project area. Hardwood
densities in the assessment area and project areas are moderate (10-40 square feet basal area per
acre). Refer to Chapter 2 for more detailed description of hardwood densities and species
distribution by WHR habitat type.
Road densities, including skid trails, are estimated to be 4.3 miles per square mile for the
assessment area and 7.4 miles for the project areas (refer to Chapter 4, Environmental Setting).
A search of the CDF&G Natural Diversity Database (NDDB) was done for the presence of rare,
threatened or endangered species located within the watershed assessment areas. A Northern
Spotted Owl (NSO) Database search of the assessment area and 1.3 miles outside it was
completed in September 2002. The results of the NSO search are contained in an Appendix
(Confidential) that will be available in the project file.
US Forest Service Weaverville Ranger District wildlife, fisheries, and botanical records were
reviewed and a literature search of three DEIRs within the same general area was completed East
Connector DEIR, (Trinity County Department of Transportation, 2002); Trinity River Bridges
DEIR/DEA (Trinity County Planning Department, 2003); and the Weaverville Airport DEIR (in
development, Trinity County Planning Department, 2003). The results of database searches,
field inventories, and habitat typing were consistent with the information developed for this Draft
PTEIR.
The NDDB search indicated that the northern spotted owl (federally threatened species) and
Pacific fisher (state and federal species of special concern) occur within the area. The NSO
database search identified six NSO locations within 1.3 miles of the assessment area, consisting
of two pair locations and four single owl locations. Two of these sites were located within or
immediately adjacent to the assessment area, one within about half a mile, and the other two over
a mile away. Dates for the most recent sightings ranged from 1989 to 1998. Four NSO locations
were on federal public lands, one on industrial private land, and one on a non-industrial private
parcel.
Based on known species observed in the assessment area and species potentially using the habitat
types, the special status species considered for analysis are briefly described below:
•
Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti): The fisher ranges over a broad area containing dense
conifer or mixed conifer-hardwood forests which contain large woody debris and/or snag
components for nesting and dense overstory canopy. The fisher dens in snags or downed
logs and often appears to travel utilizing riparian corridors. A Pacific fisher was
observed traveling along the bottom of Garden Gulch in 1994. However, subsequent
smoke plate surveys in the area were performed by the Forest Service with only ringtail
cat and raccoon detections.
•
Del Norte Salamander (Plethodon elongatus): The Del Norte Salamander occurs in talus
slopes, including talus created from road cut slumps, in a variety of forest habitat types
up to approximately 2,500’ in elevation (CDF&G, 1988). The salamander habitat is
mostly associated with old growth or mature forests or adjacent to these forest types.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
82
This species has not been observed in the assessment area by the consultants or by
consultants preparing EIRs in the assessment area.
•
Southern Torrent Salamander (Rhyacortriton variegatus): Southern torrent salamanders
occur in small Class II watercourses, spring heads, and seeps in mixed conifer-hardwoods
forests with a closed canopy and moist microclimate up to 3,900’ in elevation. Small,
cold perennial streams with water seeping through moss-covered gravel are the preferred
habitat for these species. Typical habitats include the splash zones of rocky, tumbling
brooks and talus slopes in shady canyons. This species has not been observed in the
assessment area by the consultants or by consultants preparing other EIRs in the
assessment area.
•
Tailed Frog (Ascaphus truei): Tailed frog habitat has been characterized as perennial
mountain streams or steep-walled valleys with perennial, swift streams of low
temperatures and rocky substrates. This species has not been observed in the assessment
area by the consultants or by consultants preparing other EIRs in the assessment area.
•
Red-Legged Frog (Rana aurora): The red-legged frog lives near quiet, permanent pools
of streams, marshes, and ponds, usually below 3,936’ elevation. This species has not
been observed in the assessment area by the consultants or by consultants preparing other
EIRs in the assessment area.
•
Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylei): Yellow-legged frogs are found in a wide
variety of habitat types seldom far from perennial streams. These streams are
characterized as having riffles and rocky bottoms and being partly to well shaded with
sunning sites on the stream banks. Foothill yellow-legged frogs are relatively common
along streams in the assessment area.
•
Western Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata): Western pond turtles inhabit a wide variety
of habitat types with areas of perennial water. They utilize basking areas such as logs,
rocks and dense mats of vegetation. Western pond turtles have been observed in areas
near streams, ponds, and wetlands in the assessment area.
•
Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis): The spotted owl prefers multi-story canopies
dominated by big trees with cavities or broken tops; frequently in mixed conifer habitats
but also in mix of mature and old-growth stands. Spotted owls have been observed in the
assessment area (refer to NDDB discussion above).
•
Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos): The golden eagle lives in a variety of mountain
habitats preferring: large trees or cliff areas; dependable food supply of medium-sized
mammals such as jack rabbits and birds; and meadows, prairies or other open areas for
foraging. Golden eagles are known to use portions of the assessment area.
•
Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis): The goshawk tends to nest in dense stands of mature to
old-growth forests with open to sparsely vegetated understories. The goshawk will hunt
squirrels, rodents, grouse, and other small to medium-sized birds within the forest
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
83
canopy. They may hunt in meadows, brush and other open areas occasionally. Goshawk
nests and individual birds have been located by the consultants within the assessment
area.
•
Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperii): Cooper's hawks nest in patchy mixed-conifer and
conifer-hardwood stands, often near the edges rather than deep in the stands. These birds
often nest in young to mature stands near water sources. Some research indicates that the
primary preferred nesting sites are live oak trees. The Cooper's hawk preys on small
mammals and birds and is occasionally preyed on by other hawks, peregrine falcons, and
other species. Cooper’s hawks and nesting sites have been observed in the assessment
area.
•
Sharp-Shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus): The sharp-shinned hawk occupies a wide
variety of forest woodland habitat types and age classes. They also utilize riparian areas
and meadow edges. These birds prey on small mammals, birds, reptiles, and insects.
Sharp-shinned hawks have been observed in the assessment area.
•
Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias): These herons inhabit at a variety of freshwater and
associated habitats. They may breed and establish rookeries in secluded groves of tall
trees near shallow water feeding areas. Herons have been observed along streams and in
wetland areas within the assessment area.
•
Ruffed Grouse (Bonasa umbellus): The ruffed grouse occurs in areas with a variety of
habitat conditions including mixed conifer-hardwood stands in a variety of age classes.
The ruffed grouse preys on insects and forages for seeds. The consultants have not
observed ruffed grouse in the assessment area.
•
Townsend's Big Eared Bat (Plectotus townsendii): This bat occurs in Northern California
within limestone caves, lava tubes, buildings and other structures, conifer-hardwood
stands and in the 2,600’-3,900’ elevation range.
Fisheries
The Trinity River contains a variety of native and non-native fish species. Anadromous
salmonid fisheries are the primary focus of coldwater fisheries within the river system and the
Forest Practice Act. Anadromous salmonid species in the river include coho and chinook
salmon, steelhead, and Pacific lamprey. The coho salmon is listed as a federal Threatened
Species under the Endangered Species Act. It is also considered eligible for listing as a state
Threatened species. Green sturgeon utilizes the lower half of the river system and coastal
cutthroat trout are found near the mouth. Resident species include rainbow trout, brown trout
and other planted trout species, speckled dace, Klamath sucker, green sunfish, and other species.
The completion of the Trinity River portion of the federal Central Valley Project eliminated the
upper 112 miles of river spawning habitat and many additional miles of tributary habitat.
Lewiston Hatchery was constructed as a mitigation hatchery for spawning habitat lost behind the
dams. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and the Trinity River Restoration Program have
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
84
prepared a draft Environmental Impact Report for in-stream habitat restoration. However a court
injunction prohibits implementation until additional studies are completed.
The main stem and major tributaries of Weaver Creek support steelhead trout and Coho salmon,
resident rainbow and brown trout, speckled dace, Klamath sucker, and other species. Empirical
inventories of anadromous salmonid reaches within Weaver Creek and its larger tributaries has
been done by Trinity County (Lancaster, 2000-03, Taylor and Associates, 2000-03), CA Fish and
Game (Westermeyer, pers. comm., 2003, Aguilar, 2002), USFS (Everest, pers. comm., 2000-03),
and NRCS (Viel, pers. comm., 2001). An inventory of migration barriers in Weaver Creek was
completed by Trinity County (Taylor, 2002). Table 18 summarizes the upper limits of
anadromous salmonid reaches within the Weaver Creek watershed and its tributaries. In all
cases, except the natural waterfall in Garden Gulch, all barriers are man-made and restorable up
to the point that channel gradients, flows or other natural upper limits of the species are found.
•
Sidney Gulch begins at Rocky Point, drains the central portion of Weaverville, and
has a series of man-made barriers beginning at the USFS Forest Service compound’s
concrete flood channel. The channel creates a velocity and flow barrier except in
very high flows. Immediately upstream of the USFS channel, the Highway 299
culvert and stream re-alignment created partial velocity barriers (and a juvenile jump
barrier). Immediately above the Highway 299 obstacles are two jump and velocity
barriers (Memorial Drive and Bally View Roads). Approximately 1 mile north of
Bally View Road is a jump barrier on Forest Service Road 33N42 which prevents
upstream migration (Everest, pers. comm., 2002). Approximately 90 acres of project
area in the Sidney and Munger Gulch watersheds (Section 36, T34N, R10W,
MDB&M) are upstream of the last barrier watersheds.
•
Garden Gulch is the largest tributary to Sidney Gulch, with the confluence of the two
streams being at the lower end of the Forest Service compound. The first 300’ of
Garden Gulch (to the Highway 299 culvert) is a flood control channel similar to
Sidney Gulch. The modified channel is a partial velocity barrier. The 150’ long,
steep gradient culvert under Highway 299 is a complete barrier due to high stream
velocities. Approximately 0.5 miles upstream of that barrier, a culvert under Barbara
Avenue creates a jump and velocity barrier. During very high flows in which
steelhead have been observed upstream, but these have been rare. A natural 11’
waterfall barrier approximately 1.5 miles upstream of the Barbara Avenue culvert
demarcates the upper limits of anadromy (NE ¼. Section 36, T34N, R10W,
MDB&M). Approximately 360 acres within sections 36 and 25 drain into Garden
Gulch, 220 acres of which are above the waterfall.
•
East Weaver Creek has a complete barrier at the Weaverville Community Services
District intake diversion dams (NE ¼, Section 30, T34N, R9W, MDB&M). There are
no PTEIR project area parcels in East Weaver Creek. There are 120 acres of project
area within the East Branch of East Weaver Creek. This stream joins East Weaver
Creek below the diversion dam.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
85
TABLE 18
KNOWN REACHES OF ANADROMOUS SALMONIDS
WITHIN WEAVER CREEK WATERSHED
KNOWN ANADROMOUS
REACH
Weaver Creek to West Weaver
West Weaver Creek
Sidney Gulch
ANADROMOUS
SP.
Steelhead, Coho
Steelhead, Coho
Steelhead, Coho
PHYSICAL BARRIER 1/
None
Hwy 299 culvert
USFS compound#, Hwy 299 culvert/ Memorial Dr.
culvert/ Bally View. Rd culvert/33N42 Rd culvert
(NW ¼, Sec.1, T33N, R10W,)
Garden Gulch
Steelhead, Coho
USFS compound#/Hwy 299 culvert/ Barbara Ave
culvert/Waterfall (NE ¼ Sec.36, T34N R10W)
Five Cent Gulch
Steelhead, Coho
Hwy 3 culvert (NE¼, Sec.6, T33N R11W)
East Weaver Creek
Steelhead, Coho
Hwy 3 culvert/WCSD Intake Dam (NW ¼ Sec. 30,
T34N R11W)
East Branch, East Weaver
Steelhead, Coho
East Weaver Creek Rd culvert (SW¼, Sec.29, T34N
R11W)
Little Browns Creek
Steelhead, Coho
Roundy Road culverts (SW¼, Sec.29, T34N
R11W)
Democrat Gulch
Steelhead
None known
1/ Italics indicate either complete juvenile barrier or partial adult barrier depending on flows. Bold indicates a
complete barrier to adults and juveniles. Bold and Underline- indicates natural, non-restorable barrier. #
Indicates very rare flows allowing Coho to make it past barrier, but success rate is very low.
Plants
A search of the special status species lists of the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS)
electronic inventory of plants found 36 CNPS 1A, 1B and 2 listed species (refer to Table 19) in
Trinity County (CNPS, 2001 6th edition). The CNPS lists serve as a general guide to the rarity of
plant species. List 1A species are presumed extinct in California; list 1B species are rare,
threatened or endangered in their entire range, and list 2 species are rare, threatened or
endangered in California but are more common elsewhere. Trinity buckwheat is the only State
endangered plant species reported in Trinity County and is found in the vicinity of Mt Eddy. It is
restricted to serpentine and ultra basic peridotite soils and scree slopes below 7,000' elevation.
There is likely no suitable habitat for this species within the PTEIR area.
Within the assessment area there is one List 2 species and 5 CNPS List 1B species (refer to Table
19 below). Of the six CNPS plants, Dudley’s rush (CNPS List 2) was reported to occur along an
unspecified stream in Weaverville in 1879. There are no recorded sightings of this species
within the assessment area since that time. Heckner’s Lewisia occurs in various forest habitat
types within rock outcrop cliffs of various rock types on northern aspects, often near streams or
rivers in part to full shade. This species is purported to occur in scattered populations on Oregon
Mountain (Ed Horgan, pers. comm., 2003). Thread-leaved beardtongue is found in rocky
openings in lower montane hardwood and conifer areas on ultra-mafic soils and outcrops.
Suitable habitat exists in the project area. Tracy’s beardtongue is found only in the Trinity Alps
in exposed metamorphic rock crevices and cliffs. Regals’s rush occurs in meadows and wet
areas within higher elevation conifer forests. English Peak greenbriar is found in high elevation
(4,000’- 8,000’) alder thickets, lakesides, stream banks, and moist slopes. The project area is
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
86
within lower elevations and does not incorporate meadows and wet areas where these two
species occur (Nakamura and Nelson, 2001).
TABLE 19
CNPS CATEGORY 1A, 1B, AND 2 PLANTS IN TRINITY COUNTY
GENUS AND SPECIES
Lewisia cotyledon heckneri
Penstemon filiformis
Penstemon tracyi
Juncus regelii
Juncus dudleyi
Smilax jamesii
Balsamorhiza sericea
Chaenactis suffrutescens
Harmonia stebbinsii
Harmona doris-nilesiae
Raillardella pringlei
Anisocarpus scabridus
Arabis macdonaldiana
Draba carnosula
Campanula wilkinsiana
Minuartia decumbens
Sedum paradisum
Arctostaphylos klamathensis
Lupinus antoninus
Lupinus elmeri
Lupinus constancei
Swertia umpquaensis
Phacelia leonis
Clarkia borealis ssp. borealis
Epilobium nivium
Epilobium oreganum
Epilobium siskiyouense
Oenothera wolfii
Eriogonum alpinum
Lewisia stebbinsii
Montia howellii
Ivesia pickeringii
Galium serpenticum Ssp.
Scotticum
Picea engelmannii
Rhynchospora capitellata
Erythronium citrinum Var.
roderickii
COMMON NAME
1/
2/
Heckner's Lewisia
Thread-leaved beardtongue
Tracy's beardtongue
Regal's rush
Dudley's rush
English Peak greenbriar
Silky balsamroot
Shasta chaenactis
Stebbins's harmonia
Niles's harmonia
Showy raillardella
Scabrid alpine tarplant
McDonald's rock cress
Mt. Eddy draba
Wilkin's harebell
The Lassics sandwort
Canyon Creek stonecrop
Klamath manzanita
Anthony Peak lupine
South Fork Mtn. lupine
The Lassics lupine
Umpqua green-gentian
Siskiyou phacelia
Northern clarkia
Snow Mountain willowherb
Oregon fireweed
Siskiyou fireweed
Wolf's evening-primrose
Trinity buckwheat
Stebbins's lewisia
Howell's montia
Pickering's ivesia
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
3/
4/
FED CA.
LIST LIST
5/
LCFrs
LCFrs
UCFrs
UCFrs
LCFrs
BUFrs
LCFrs
LCFrs
LCFrs
LCFrs
UCFrs
UCFrs
LCFrs
UCFrs
UCFrs
LCFrs
BUFrs
LCFrs
LCFrs
LCFrs
LCFrs
LCFrs
UCFrs
LCFrs
UCFrs
LCFrs
UCFrs
LCFrs
UCFrs
LCFrs
NCFrs
LCFrs
1B
1B
1B
2
2
1B
1B
1B
1B
1B
1B
1B
1B
1B
1B
1B
1B
1B
1B
1B
1B
2
1B
1B
1B
1B
1B
1B
1B
1B
2
1B
Scott Mountain bedstraw
Engelmann spruce
Brownish beaked-rush
1 LCFrs
1 UCFrs
2 LCFrs
1B
2
2
Per
Per
Per
Herb
Tree
Herb
Scott Mountains fawn lily
1 LCFrs
1B
Per
Herb
FE
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Ann
Ann
Per
Per
CE Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Ann
Ann
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Per
Ann
Per
6/
Herb
Herb
Herb
Herb
Herb
Herb
Herb
Herb
Herb
Herb
Herb
Herb
Herb
Herb
Herb
Herb
Herb
Shrub
Herb
Herb
Herb
Herb
Herb
Herb
Herb
Herb
Herb
Herb
Herb
Herb
Herb
Herb
1/ Present in project area, 2/ # of populations, 3/ CNPS habitat code, 4/ CNPS list, 5/ perennial or annual, 6/ type of vegetation.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
87
Trinity County General Plan
The Land Use Element of the General Plan contains the following policies relating to wildlife,
fisheries and plants:
•
•
To strive to conserve those resources of the county that are important to its character and
economic well being.
By protecting not only rare and endangered species, but also required habitat for the more
plentiful species.
The Open Space and Conservation Elements contain the following related objective:
•
(Primary) To preserve and maintain open space as a means of providing natural habitat
for all species of wildlife.
o Recommendation 1: To maintain all species of fish and wildlife for their intrinsic and
ecological values as well as for their direct benefit to mankind.
o Recommendation 4: Any plans to alter the present environment should be considered
on the basis of protecting fish and wildlife and their habitat.
o Recommendation 7: Outstanding wildlife habitats that have an unusually high value
for fish and wildlife should be carefully considered before any development altering
this environment is permitted.
Weaverville Community Plan
The Weaverville Community Plan (Trinity County Planning Department, 1990) contains
numerous Natural Resources goals and policies related to wildlife management as follows:
•
Goal #1: To preserve and maintain open space as a means of providing natural habitat
for all species of wildlife.
o Objective 1.4: Encourage development and enhancement of wildlife habitat through
careful use of methods, such as controlled burning, planting, water development,
judicious livestock grazing, mechanical manipulation, and creation of ponds in
watercourses.
o Objective 1.5: Recognize and encourage the various appropriate uses of wildlife.
This includes such activities as bird watching, scientific studies, educational
purposes, hunting, and fishing.
•
Goal #2: To conserve and maintain streams and forest open space as a means of
providing natural habitat for all species of wildlife.
2.1 Retain riparian corridors, as portrayed in Exhibit “NR-1”, along the West Weaver,
Sidney Gulch, East Weaver, and Weaver Creeks.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
88
2.2 Plans to alter the present environment should be considered on the basis of protecting
fish and wildlife and their habitat.
•
Goal #3: To strive to conserve those resources of the County that are important to its
character and economic well being.
3.1 Encourage timber harvesting activities within the basin area that are consistent
with the visual quality objectives, which are defined in the Shasta-Trinity Land
Resource Management Plan.
3.2 Protect the basin’s air quality from deterioration through subsequent development
of a basin air quality maintenance plan.
3.4 Protect the scenic natural resources of Trinity County and preserve areas, which are
important as commercial natural resources for future generations.
3.5 Provide for resource production on the steep lands surrounding the development
portion of the Weaverville basin consistent with the goals for visual quality and
3.7 Monitor timber harvest plans and mining proposals within the Weaverville basin and
work with the Forest Service, BLM, and CDF to encourage operations compatible
with nearby urban development.
•
Goal #4: To maintain and protect the high water quality for domestic uses, fisheries, and
wildlife in the basin.
4.3 Prevent land use that results in siltation and pollution of lakes and streams. Such uses
should be carefully monitored, and if necessary corrected, to assure a clean and
productive habitat.
4.4 Encourage federal and private actions necessary to prevent degradation of water
quality in the East and West Weaver watersheds, which are the sources of
Weaverville’s domestic water.
4.6 Disapprove of any development, which may pollute the existing streams and lakes or
become the source of silt that washes down into water areas.
Federal and California Endangered Species Act
In 1997, the coho salmon was listed as a Federal Threatened species under the Endangered
Species Act. In 2000, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries branch
(formerly NMFS) determined that the steelhead did not warrant listing as a Threatened species
under the Federal act. In 2002, the California Fish and Game Commission determined that the
coho within the Trinity River watershed should be listed as a Threatened species under the
California Endangered Species Act.
In 2000, the California Board of Forestry adopted a series of additional rules designed to protect
fisheries habitat and water quality. The new rules (14 CCR 936.9 et. seq.) established wider
stream buffers with limited timber harvesting, retention of large trees to create future in-stream
pool structure, reduced use of roads, trails, and equipment in stream zones and treatment of road
related sediment sources. These rules are only applicable within watersheds placed on the
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
89
Section 303(d) list of the Federal Clean Water Act for a non-point source of pollution. The
Trinity River and its tributaries were included on the list in 1994 due to excessive sediment and
related impacts to cold-water fish species (particularly the federally listed coho). A sediment
Load Allocation was established in 2001 (refer to discussion under section 5.11, Hydrology).
The following rules are particularly relevant for biological resources. Most of them are found in
the California Forest Practice Rules (FPRs), Subchapters 4, 5, and 6, Article 9, Wildlife
Protection Practices. As part of the project description, they will reduce many potential impacts
to a less than significant level.
•
Sensitive species means those species designated by the Board of Forestry pursuant to 14
CCR 898.2(d). These species are the Bald Eagle, Golden Eagle, Great Blue Heron, Great
Egret, Northern Goshawk, Osprey, Peregrine Falcon, California Condor, Great Gray Owl,
Northern Spotted Owl, and Marbled Murrelet.
•
Forest Practice Rules Section 898.2 – Special Conditions Requiring Disapproval of Plans
– requires the Director to disapprove a plan if:
“Implementation of the plan as proposed would result in either a "taking" or finding of jeopardy
of wildlife species listed as rare, threatened or endangered by the Fish and Game Commission,
the National Marine Fisheries Service, or Fish and Wildlife Service, or would cause significant,
long-term damage to listed species. The Director is not required to disapprove a plan, which
would result in a "taking" if the "taking" is incidental and is authorized by a wildlife agency
acting within its authority under state or federal endangered species acts.
“Implementation of the plan would irreparably damage plant species listed as rare or
endangered by the Department of Fish and Game and when the timber owner fails to comply
with F&GC 1913.
“Implementation of the plan as proposed would result in the taking of an individual Northern
Spotted Owl prohibited by the Federal Endangered Species Act.”
•
Section 935.3 of the Forest Practice Rules – Protection of Natural Resources – requires
that site preparation activities comply with the wildlife and habitat protection provisions
of 14 CCR Article 9.and performed in a manner which does not deleteriously affect
species which are threatened, endangered, or designated by the Board as species of
special concern. The Director may allow exceptions to this standard in the plan, after
consultation with the Department of Fish and Game pursuant to the California
Endangered Species Act (F&G Code 2050-2098).
“Timber operations shall be planned and conducted to maintain suitable habitat for wildlife species.
These provisions are in addition to those directly or indirectly provided in other rules of the Board of
Forestry. (939)
“The PTHP shall contain a statement that no significant impacts would occur to any threatened or
endangered plant or animal species in the area of the PTHP. [1092.9(g)]
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
90
“Felling practices shall conform to requirements of 14 CCR 914.4 [934.4, 954.4] to protect bird
nesting sites. [934.1(d)]
“Slash and debris from timber operations shall not be bunched adjacent to residual trees required for
silvicultural or wildlife purposes, or placed in locations where they could be discharged into a Class
I or II watercourse, or lake. [934.2(e)]
“Site preparation activities shall comply with the wildlife and habitat protection provisions of 14
CCR Article 9. Site preparation shall be performed in a manner, which does not deleteriously affect
species which are threatened, endangered, or designated by the Board as species of special concern.
(935.3)
“Timber operations shall be conducted so as to minimize the build-up of destructive insect
populations or the spread of forest diseases as per 937.9 and Board of Forestry Technical Rule
Addendum Number 3.
“Timber operations shall be planned and conducted to maintain suitable habitat for wildlife species
as specified by the provisions of this Article. These provisions are in addition to those directly or
indirectly provided in other rules of the Board. (939)
“Within the logging area all snags shall be retained to provide wildlife habitat except as follows:
(939.1)
(a) If required by the Director during the review of a THP, snags over 20 ft. in height and 16 in.
dbh shall be felled in the following locations:
(1) Within 100 feet of main ridge tops that are suitable for fire suppression and delineated on
a THP map.
(2) For hazard reduction within 100 feet of all public roads, permanent roads, seasonal
roads, landings, and railroads.
(c) Within 100 feet of structures maintained for human habitation.
(d) Merchantable snags in any location as provided for in the plan, or
(e) Snags whose falling is required for insect or disease control.
“During timber operations, nest tree(s), designated perch trees(s), screening tree(s), and replacement
trees(s) of Sensitive species shall be left standing and unharmed except as otherwise provided in the
rules. (939.2)
“Buffer zones shall be established around all nest trees containing active nests. The buffer zones
shall be designed to best protect the nest site and nesting birds from the effects of timber operations.
In consultation with the Department of Fish and Game, and as approved by the Director, an RPF or
supervised designee shall flag the location of the boundaries of the buffer zone, and the configuration
of the buffer zone. Consultation with the Department of Fish and Game shall be required pursuant to
14 CCR 898. Consideration shall be given to the specific habitat requirements of the bird species
involved when configuration and boundaries of the buffer zone are established. [939.3(a)] Critical
periods are established for each species and requirements shall apply during these critical periods as
outlined in [939.3(d)].
“Where significant adverse impacts to non-listed species are identified, the RPF and Director shall
incorporate feasible practices to reduce impacts as described in 14 CCR 898. (939.4)
“Every proposed timber harvesting plan (including PTHPs), NTMP, conversion permit, Spotted Owl
Resource Plan, or major amendment located in the range of the northern spotted owl shall follow one
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
91
of the procedures required in 939.9(a)-(g) for the area within the boundary as shown on the map and
also for adjacent areas as specified within this section. The submitter may choose any alternative
(a)-(g) that meets the on-the-ground circumstances. The required information shall be used by the
Director to evaluate whether or not the proposed activity would result in the "take" of an individual
northern spotted owl. (939.9)
“Special provisions to protect any unique area within the area of timber operations shall be included
in the PTHP. [1092.9(i)]”
5.7.2
Under the Federal Endangered Species Act, activities may not result in the take, direct or
indirect, of a listed species. Direct take involves the killing of a list plant or animal. Indirect
take includes the alteration of habitat, harassment and any other activity that may contribute to
the reduction in numbers of a listed species.
biologic resources:
Would the project:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
Have an adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any
species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service?
Have an adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
Have an adverse effect on Corps of Engineers jurisdictional wetlands either
individually or in combination with the known or probable effects of other activities
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Interfere with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife
nursery sites?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
An additional question posed is whether the project would “otherwise degrade the biotic
environment”.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
92
5.7.3
Wildlife
Section 939.3 of the FPRs specifies protection standards for sensitive, rare, threatened or
endangered species within or adjacent to project areas. In addition, cumulative effect analysis
requirements of Technical Rule Addendum #2 require assessment and documentation of habitats
of sensitive and more common species during the timber harvest preparation. The FPRs also
require protection standards for species listed as Threatened or Endangered under the state or
federal Endangered Species Acts.
Threatened, Rare or Endangered Species
The Forest Practice Rule protection measures of 14 CCR 939.3 – Specific Requirements for
Protection of Nest Sites – are applicable to all alternatives. Buffer zones including acreage,
silvicultural limitations for designated nest trees, screening trees, perch trees, and replacement
trees are required for the following species: Great Blue Heron, Golden Eagle, Osprey, Goshawk,
Northern Spotted Owl, Bald Eagle and Peregrine Falcon. Within buffer zones designated trees
must be left standing and unharmed. Section 939.3 specifies harvest limitations and timing
restrictions. These standards will provide minimum standards for these species.
•
Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis): Federal Threatened Species. The project area
contains suitable foraging and roosting habitat for northern spotted owls (NSO). Timber
harvest within NSO habitat on private lands requires proposed timber harvesting plan,
NTMP, conversion permit, Spotted Owl Resource Plan, or major amendment located in
the range of the NSO to follow one of the procedures required in Forest Practice Rules
939.9(a)-(g). For PTEIR projects, a Technical Assistance consultation will be completed
for each PTHP with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) pursuant to 939.9(c)(1).
Presence and status surveys must be completed and submitted to the USFWS along with
an assessment of pre and post-harvest habitat. If NSO habitat is substantially reduced,
the USFWS may determine that the proposed harvest may result in take of the species.
Alternative actions may be required to avoid such take.
•
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus): Federal Threatened and State Endangered
Species. There is little potential for bald eagle nesting/roosting within the assessment
area. The nearest most likely suitable nesting habitat would be in the vicinity of the
Trinity River or Lewiston and Trinity Lakes, all well outside of the assessment and
project areas. However, if a nest site is detected in or near project areas, the PTHP(s) will
protect nest sites and surrounding areas as prescribed in 14 CCR 939.3.
•
Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus): State Threatened Species. There is no suitable
nesting habitat within the project areas. The nearest suitable rock outcrops or cliffs are at
Rocky Point or the upper peaks within the Trinity Alps Wilderness, more than a mile
from the nearest project area. Mature to late seral forest habitats are not critical for
falcon foraging and the harvest operations under any alternative should not negatively
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
93
impact this species. However, if a nest site is detected in or near project areas, the
PTHP(s) will protect nest sites and surrounding areas as prescribed in 14 CCR 939.3.
•
Wolverine (Gulo gulo): Federal Designated Threatened Species. There are no recorded
sightings of wolverines in the assessment or surrounding areas. There are no high
elevation forest and sub-alpine areas within project areas. Forested areas are important
components in their habitat, providing food shelter, cover, and denning opportunities.
Under all alternatives, structural characteristics used by wolverines including large green
conifer and hardwood cull trees, snags, large woody debris and canopy cover will be
retained. The implementation of PTHPs should not result in significant effects to
wolverine habitat.
Board of Forestry Listed Sensitive Species
•
Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti): Pacific fishers are expected to utilize habitat within
project areas. The fisher ranges over a broad area containing dense conifer or mixed
conifer-hardwood forests which contain large woody debris and/or snag components for
nesting and dense overstory canopy. The fisher dens in snags or downed logs and often
appears to travel utilizing riparian corridors. Under all alternatives, complex habitats and
WLPZs are retained, allowing for fisher dispersal and travel to other portions of the
assessment area. No significant effect to this species is likely.
•
Del Norte Salamander (Plethodon elongatus): The Del Norte Salamander occurs in talus
slopes, including talus created from road cut slumps, in a variety of forest habitat types
up to approximately 2,500’ in elevation (CDF&G, 1988). Springs and seeps will be
flagged as class II WLPZs, providing adequate protection for this species.
•
Southern Torrent Salamander (Rhyacortriton variegatus): The assessment area is east of
the mapped range of the southern torrent salamanders. This species occurs in small Class
II watercourses, springheads, and seeps in mixed conifer-hardwoods forests with a closed
canopy and moist microclimate up to 3,900’ in elevation. While no specific stream
amphibian surveys were done as part of the PTEIR preparation, the Class I and II streams
in the assessment area have some of the characteristics suitable for torrent salamanders,
but are outside of their mapped range. The WLPZ retention standards under all
alternatives will protect habitat if this species were found in the area in the future.
•
Tailed Frog (Ascaphus truei): Tailed frog habitat has been characterized as perennial
mountain streams or steep-walled valleys with perennial, swift streams of low
temperatures, and rocky substrates. The streams within the assessment area have some of
the characteristics suitable for tailed frogs. While no specific stream amphibian surveys
were done as part of the PTEIR preparation, the WLPZ retention standards of all
alternatives will contribute to maintaining water quality and suitable habitat for this
species. Harvest operations under all alternatives should not have a significant effect on
this species if any are found in the area.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
94
•
Red-Legged Frog (Rana aurora): The red-legged frog lives near quiet, permanent pools
of streams, marshes, and ponds, usually below 3,936’ in elevation. While no specific
stream amphibian surveys were done as part of the PTEIR preparation, the WLPZ
retention standards of all alternatives will contribute to maintaining water quality and
suitable habitat for this species. Harvest operations under all alternatives should not have
a significant effect on this species if any are found in the area.
•
Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylei): Yellow-legged frogs are found within
portions of the assessment and project areas. Streams supporting yellow-legged frogs are
characterized as having riffles and rocky bottoms and being partly to well shaded with
sunning sites on the stream banks. While no specific stream amphibian surveys were
done as part of the PTEIR preparation, the WLPZ retention standards of all alternatives
will contribute to maintaining water quality and suitable habitat for this species. Harvest
operations under all alternatives should not have a significant effect on this species if any
are found in the area.
•
Western Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata): Western pond turtles inhabit a wide variety
of habitat types with areas of perennial water. They utilize basking areas such as logs,
rocks, and dense mats of vegetation. No specific reptile surveys were done in the
assessment area as part of the PTEIR preparation. However, the WLPZ retention
standards of all alternatives will contribute to maintaining water quality and suitable
habitat for this species. Harvest operations under all alternatives should not have a
significant effect on this species if any are found in the area.
•
Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos): The assessment and project areas contain forest and
meadow conditions that are suitable foraging habitat for the Golden Eagle. Under all
alternatives, forest canopy and large downed woody debris that are suitable perching and
roosting habitat and habitat suitable for small to medium-sized mammals will be retained.
The structural elements retained contribute to a minimal effect to this species from
harvest operations. If a nest site is detected in the project area, the PTHP will protect it as
prescribed in 14 CCR 939.3. The post-harvest stand will not substantially affect foraging
or nesting opportunities.
•
Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis): The project area and adjacent stands may contain suitable
Goshawk habitat. Site-specific assessment will be done at the time that PTHPs are
prepared. If a nest site is detected in or near project areas, the PTHP(s) will protect nest
sites and surrounding areas as prescribed in 14 CCR 939.3. Under all alternatives, the
post-harvest stand should not substantially affect Goshawk foraging or nesting
opportunities.
•
Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperii): Cooper's hawks nest in patchy mixed-conifer and
conifer-hardwood stands, often near the edges rather than deep in the stands. These birds
often nest in young to mature stands near water sources. Some research indicates that the
primary preferred nesting sites are live oak trees. The Cooper's hawk preys on small
mammals and birds and is occasionally preyed on by other hawks, peregrine falcons, and
other species. If a nest site is detected in or near project areas, the PTHP(s) will protect
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
95
nest sites and surrounding areas as prescribed in 14 CCR 939.3. The post harvest stands
under all alternatives should have minimal effect, because the harvest and surrounding
areas should retain the necessary stand characteristics for this species.
•
Sharp-Shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus): The sharp shinned hawk occupies a wide
variety of forest woodland habitat types and age classes. It also utilizes riparian areas and
meadow edges. These birds prey on small mammals, birds, reptiles, and insects. If a nest
site is detected in or near project areas, the PTHP(s) will protect nest sites and
surrounding areas as prescribed in 14 CCR 939.3. The post harvest stands under all
alternatives should have minimal effect, because the harvest and surrounding areas
should retain the necessary stand characteristics for this species.
•
Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias): These herons inhabit a variety of freshwater and
associated habitats. They may breed and establish rookeries in secluded groves of tall
trees near shallow water feeding areas. No signs of herons were observed in the project
area during inventory and other fieldwork. If a rookery site is detected in or near project
areas, the PTHP(s) will protect these sites and surrounding areas as prescribed in 14 CCR
939.3. The post harvest stands under all alternatives should have minimal effect, because
the harvest and surrounding areas should retain the necessary stand characteristics for this
species.
•
Ruffed Grouse (Bonasa umbellus): The ruffed grouse occurs in areas with a variety of
habitat conditions including mixed conifer-hardwood stands in a variety of age classes.
The ruffed grouse preys on insects and forages for seeds. The mosaic of vegetation types
provides food cover, roosting, and nesting sites. Timber harvest generally maintains or
creates habitat conditions favorable to ruffed grouse and it is expected that this harvest
will not have a significant effect to grouse populations.
•
Townsend's Big Eared Bat (Plectotus townsendii): This bat occurs in Northern California
in areas with limestone caves, lava tubes, buildings and other suitable structures, coniferhardwood stands, and are often found in the 2,600-3,900’ elevation range. The project
area does not have caves or lava tubes and under all alternatives, PTHPs will retain
complex structure, snags, and large wood that may provide habitat for bats.
Deer Winter Range, Other Species, and Hardwood Stands
Deer, bear, grouse, quail, and many other species utilize early successional browse species such
as ceanothus, manzanita, mountain mahogany, grasses and oak mast. The exclusion of stand
disturbance (e.g., fire or logging) has reduced the amount of early seral stands in the assessment
and surrounding areas. Many species will benefit from stand manipulation associated with
timber management under all alternatives. Revegetation of shrubs and brush species will
maintain and enhance winter range browse.
Hardwoods provide an important element of habitat diversity in the coniferous forest and are
utilized as a source of food and/or cover by a large proportion of the state's bird and mammal
species. Productivity of deer and other species has been directly related to mast crops.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
96
Hardwood cover can be estimated using the basal area per acre provided by hardwoods of all
species. California Forest Practice Act Appendix Technical Rule Addendum #2 requires all
timber harvest plans to address oak and other hardwood retention levels.
There are no mapped migration corridors for deer within the assessment area, but as noted
earlier, migratory deer cross through the Trinity Alps to reach winter range within the assessment
area.
In 1988, Fish and Game identified loss of deer winter range from residential and other
development in combination with losses from the construction of Trinity and Lewiston Lakes as
a potentially significant impact to the migratory portion of the herd. Winter range for the
Weaverville deer herd was identified as an important habitat during the development of the
Weaverville Community Plan (TCPD, 1990). That plan includes an objective to encourage
development and enhancement of wildlife habitat through careful use of methods such as
controlled burning, planting, water development, judicious livestock grazing, mechanical
manipulation, and creation of ponds in watercourses.
While all alternatives are beneficial for deer and other browse species because they modify
existing stand conditions, the Proposed Project and Alternatives 2 and 3 are more beneficial than
is Alternative 4. Under the Proposed Project, fuel break construction will be done on 1,260
acres, while 1,350 acres would be commercially harvested under a limited range of prescriptions
including commercial thinning, single tree or group selection harvest, and transition from evenaged to uneven-aged management. This harvest will be completed in the first decade, creating a
mosaic of stand types with sprouting and new growth of early succession species and retention of
adequate thermal cover. Under Alternative 2, the gradual harvesting (75 acres of shelterwood
overstory removal) will result in small amounts of new browse annually while retaining thermal
cover. Under this alternative, the shelterwood removal harvest will prompt greater growth levels
of brush species within the harvest areas, somewhat offsetting the limited annual harvest levels
as compared to the Proposed Project.
Under Alternative 3 construction of fuel breaks on up to 3,460 acres over the next 10 years could
occur. The extensive fuel break harvest will create more browse opportunity and less thermal
cover than will the Proposed Project or Alternative 2, but given the amount of National Forest
and other lands within and adjacent to the project areas, thermal cover should be adequate. This
alternative may be the most beneficial to deer and other grazing species.
Alternative 4, while retaining dense thermal cover for deer and other species, does not establish
new browse species or areas.
Riparian Habitat
There are 730 acres of mapped riparian habitat and WLPZ buffers within the project area. Based
on empirical review and field inventorying, Class 1 streams have moderate to dense overstories
of a mix of conifers and hardwoods that meet or exceed the requirements of the CDF WLPZ
objectives for canopy closure within anadromous salmonid watersheds (936.9(g)). The FPRs
specify that within a WLPZ for Class I waters, at least 85% overstory canopy shall be retained
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
97
within 75’ of the watercourse or lake transition line, and at least 65% overstory canopy within
the remainder of the WLPZ. The overstory canopy must be composed of at least 25% overstory
conifer canopy post-harvest.
The requirements of Section 936 of the FPRs will minimize adverse effects on riparian habitat
and Corps of Engineers jurisdictional wetlands. Under The Proposed Project and Alternatives 3
and 4 there is no harvest or other disturbance within 75’ of the watercourse or lake transition line
of Class I waters, except as necessary for public safety and at approved stream crossings.
Recruitment of large woody debris for aquatic habitat in Class I anadromous fish-bearing or
restorable waters shall retain all trees in the zone. Under Alternative 2, the ten largest dbh
conifers (live or dead) per 330’ of stream channel length are the most likely to provide for the
beneficial functions of riparian zones. The retained conifers shall be selected from within the
plan area that lies within 50’ of the watercourse transition line. Substitution of smaller diameter
trees, trees that are more than 50’ from the watercourse transition line, or other alternatives on a
site-specific basis may be proposed under Alternative 2. The RPF must explain and justify in the
PTHP why the Proposed Project is more conducive to current and long-term Large Woody
Debris recruitment, shading, bank stability, and the beneficial functions of riparian zones.
Under all alternatives, the WLPZ standards will result in minimal known or probable effects on
Army Corps jurisdictional wetlands through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means.
Old Growth Stands
No old growth stands of 20 acres or more exist within the project area. There is very little old
growth remaining on industrial timberlands in the assessment area. Under current management
direction, old growth on National Forest lands will be retained. Under all alternatives there will
be minimal impact to old-growth stands.
Snags, Denning and Nesting Trees
Snags, denning, and nesting tree densities within the assessment area are highly variable.
Overall, there is a very high density of snags within the 1,700 acres of the Oregon Fire and the
1,600 acres of the Browns Fire. Within the National Forest lands in the assessment area, snag
densities are estimated to be moderate to high. There have been no timber sales to salvage dead
trees since the late 1990s. On private lands, the snag densities are estimated to be moderate to
low depending on whether or not homes are on the parcels. Large woody debris is estimated to
be low to moderate throughout the assessment area.
Under all alternatives the protection measures of Section 939.3, Technical Rule Addendum #2
and USFWS Technical Assistance contribute to minimizing adverse effects, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status
in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, the Proposed Project and Alternatives 3
and 4 specify silvicultural stands for project areas that retain forest overstory canopy and wider
WLPZs where disturbance is minimal.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
98
Fisheries
Under all alternatives, the Threatened and Impaired rule package of the California Forest
Practice Rules, Northern Forest District’s (FPR 14 CCR 936.9 et. seq.) establishes standards
calling for the retention of at least 85% total canopy within 75’ of an anadromous stream and
65% canopy cover for an additional 75’ corridor. Similar standards are established for Class II
streams that are tributaries to anadromous stream reaches. Under these rules, commercially
exempt timber harvesting may not occur within a Watercourse and Lake Protection Zone
(WLPZ), except where it is done for public safety purposes. Additional limits of forest
harvesting, road inventories, and sediment reduction are all established within 936.9. Refer to
riparian habitat discussion under Wildlife (above).
Botany
Section 939.3 of the FPRs specify protection standards for sensitive, rare, threatened or
endangered species within or adjacent to project areas. Within the assessment area there is one
List 2 species and 5 CNPS List 1B species.
Dudley’s rush (CNPS List 2) has not been observed in the area since 1879. This species occurs
within wetlands or other wet areas in montane coniferous forests. WLPZ retention standards of
all alternatives will contribute to maintaining water quality and suitable habitat for this species.
Harvest operations under all alternatives should not have a significant effect on this species if it
occurs in the area.
Heckner’s Lewisia occurs in various forest habitat types within rock outcrops cliffs of various
rock types on northern aspects, often near streams or rivers in part to full shade. WLPZ retention
standards of all alternatives will contribute to maintaining water quality and suitable habitat for
this species. If suitable habitat for this species outside of WLPZs is encountered, the RPF
preparing the PTHP will conduct appropriate inventory and/or implement protection measures as
specified by CDF in consultation with CDFG. Harvest operations under all alternatives should
not have a significant effect on this species if it occurs in the area.
Thread-leaved beardtongue is found in rocky openings in lower montane hardwood and conifer
areas on ultra-mafic soils and outcrops. Suitable habitat exists in the project area. The RPF
preparing PTHPs within ultra-mafic soil areas will conduct appropriate inventory and/or
implement protection measures as specified by CDF in consultation with CDFG. Harvest
operations under all alternatives should not have a significant effect on this species if it occurs in
the area.
Tracy’s beardtongue is found only in the Trinity Alps in exposed metamorphic rock, rock
crevices, and cliffs. This species does not occur within project areas. Harvest operations under
all alternatives should not have a significant effect on this species if it occurs in the area.
Regal’s rush occurs in meadows and wet areas within higher elevation conifer forest. WLPZ
retention standards of all alternatives will contribute to maintaining water quality and suitable
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
99
habitat for this species. Harvest operations under all alternatives should not have a significant
effect on this species if it occurs in the area.
English Peak greenbriar is found in high elevation (4,000’-8,000’) alder thickets, lakesides and
stream banks, and moist slopes. The project area is within lower elevation areas and does not
incorporate meadows and wet areas where these two species occur. WLPZ retention standards
of all alternatives will contribute to maintaining water quality and suitable habitat for this
species. Harvest operations under all alternatives should not have a significant effect on this
species if it occurs in the area (Nakamura and Nelson, 2001).
5.7.4
The reader is referred to the discussion of impacts common to all alternatives for a discussion of
effects to many sensitive or management species. Under all alternatives, the Threatened and
Impaired (T&I) rule package of the California Forest Practice Rules, Northern Forest District’s
(FPRs 14 CCR 936.9 et seq.) is incorporated therein as are the protection standards for habitat
for rare, threatened or endangered species. Under the T&I rules, at least 85% total canopy within
75’ of an anadromous stream must be retained and 65% canopy cover must be maintained for an
additional 75’ corridor. Similar standards are established for Class II streams that are tributary to
anadromous stream reaches. Under these rules, commercially exempt timber harvesting may not
occur within a Watercourse and Lake Protection Zone (WLPZ), except where it is done for
public safety purposes. Additional limits of forest harvesting, road inventories and sediment
reduction are all established within 936.9.
Areas within 200’ of dwellings and adjacent structures would be treated with a defensible
space/fuel break prescription. A portion of the existing home sites are within 150’ of Class I or
II streams, but none are adjacent to sections of streams containing anadromous fish.
Under the Proposed Project and Alternatives 3 and 4, additional wildlife and WLPZ standards
are incorporated into PTHPs.
5.7.4.1
There are no anticipated adverse impacts to wildlife, fisheries or botanical resources from
implementation of this Proposed Project. The Proposed Project area encompasses 4,270 acres, of
which 730 acres (17% of area) are mapped as Class I and II streams and associated WLPZ
buffers. Timber harvesting for fuels objectives will retain the existing species composition but
will reduce stand basal area and increase spacing between tree crowns.
Over a ten-year span, the Proposed Project is estimated to include fuel break construction on
1,260 acres. Within these areas the residual stands will average 75-90 sq ft basal area/acre (or
about 65% of the pre-harvest stocking density in well-stocked stands). Snags that present a risk
to spread embers across the width of the fuel break zone will be removed.
Fuel break construction will occur in areas with a high likelihood of carrying a fire or causing
damage to property or life, including:
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
100
•
•
•
•
major ridgelines (potentially from base to summit)
upper slopes
within 100’ of public roads, and
within 200’ of dwellings and other permitted structures (defensible space construction)
The proposed fuel break areas where there is the greatest amount of ground disturbance and
vegetation removal are primarily located on ridges and upper slopes (82% of all fuel break
areas), well away from streams or areas that have the potential to deliver sediment to streams.
The remaining fuel break areas are generally located along roads, power lines, and spur ridges.
The additional stand treatments within the area involve intermediate or uneven-aged stand
treatments on mid-slope and lower slope areas, outside of WLPZs.
The potential loss of some denning habitat within fuel break areas will be evaluated at the time
that a PTHP is prepared. The RPF and CDF may propose to offset such impacts by creating
denning sites, ground burrows, wildlife piles and large wood placement within the harvest areas.
An additional 1,350 acres would be commercially harvested under a limited range of
prescriptions including commercial thinning, single tree or group selection, and transition from
even-aged to uneven-aged management. Under these harvests, stand basal area will be reduced
to 100-140 sq ft basal area per acre. These densities are adequate to maintain thermal cover and
habitat for most species. The understory thinning may improve habitat for goshawks while still
providing foraging and roosting habitat for northern spotted owls.
Under this Proposed Project, post harvested stands will retain spotted owl foraging canopy of at
least 50% of all stands 11” dbh or greater with 40% or greater canopy (known as the “50-11-40”
rule). In actual practice, the Proposed Project would not reduce the canopy to 40% but to 6070% (higher).
No timber harvest or fuel reduction treatments are proposed for non-commercial vegetation types
or within WLPZs.
All of the requirements of 936.9 of the Northern Forest District rules are incorporated into this
proposal. This Proposed Project does not provide for commercial timber harvest within a Class I
WLPZ, which is a higher standard than contained in 936.9 of the FPRs. Class II WLPZs are
33% wider than required under the FPRs. In addition, the project precludes the use of even-aged
timber management, rather utilizing intermediate and uneven-aged silvicultural methods.
The treatment of fuels under this proposal would reduce the potential for stand-replacing fires
and creation of hydrophobic soils in burned areas. These factors can reduce potential soil loss on
slopes and sediment deposition into streams by unknown but significant quantities.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
101
Examples of two wildlife mitigation treatments:
Left photo shows a denning cavity cut into a standing Douglas-fir snag.
Right photo shows a wildlife pile created 12 years previously from limbs placed against a tree on the
outside edge of a skid trail.
5.7.4.2
Under the status quo, 75 acres per year within the project area are estimated to be harvested
under an overstory removal prescription in which the majority of the commercial timber would
be removed. The FPR requirements for WLPZs would be applicable allowing for some canopy
removal in a Class I or II WLPZ. Over a 40-year span 2,575 acres are estimated to be treated by
overstory removal and 260 acres by commercial thinning/selection management under the status
quo. The requirements of 936.9 would be followed to assure that minimum salmonid habitat and
water quality objectives are being met. Alternative 2 would continue at a harvest rate of 22.5%
of commercial acres per decade. The rate of harvest would be lower than that analyzed in the
Proposed Project, but there would be a somewhat higher potential for sediment delivery on a per
acre basis due to the greater removal of overstory canopy and tractor operations on slopes
precluded under the Proposed Project.
Under Alternative 2, overstory canopies would gradually be reduced via overstory removal
harvests. This would reduce habitat for mid to late seral dependent species such as northern
spotted owl, goshawks and Pacific fishers, but would favor early seral dependent species such as
deer, bear, small rodents, and sharp-shinned and Cooper hawks, which prey on small mammals.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
102
Under the status quo, fuel concentrations would tend to increase from their current levels, which
already range from moderate to dense in many areas. The vast majority of unharvested areas
would retain a high potential for fire spread and a high potential for fire starts adjacent to roads
and in populated areas. When wildfires occur, as history indicates they will, depending on the
specific location, some fires will likely spread into stand-replacing fires that could negatively
affect soils and water quality. For these reasons, Alternative 2 has the highest potential for fire
related impacts to fisheries, both from loss of riparian habitat and increased sediment potential.
This alternative meets all of the Forest Practice Rules requirements for riparian and stream
habitats and protection of species of special concern. It does not include the additional Class I
and II stream width and protection standards, fuels reduction, and silvicultural standards of the
other alternatives.
5.7.4.3
Implementation of Alternative 3 is similar to the Proposed Project, except that construction of
fuel breaks will occur on up to 3,460 acres over the next 10 years. Under this alternative, not
only will approximately 1,260 acres on upper slopes and near roads and home sites be treated
under a fuel break prescription, but also so will 1,350 acres on lower and middle slopes that
would receive a less intensive treatment under the Proposed Project.
Alternative 3 will create a much more open landscape than exists today, similar perhaps to preEuropean settlement forest conditions when understory tended to be reduced periodically by
cultural burning. This alternative will create additional early seral habitat benefiting deer and
other grazing species, but will reduce thermal cover in project areas. Cover habitat for small
mammals and many game birds will be reduced. Habitat for northern spotted owls will be
degraded, but overall spotted owl assessment areas would meet the 50-11-40 rule for foraging
habitat standards of the USFWS.
or within WLPZs.
alternative. This alternative does not provide for commercial timber harvest within any Class I
33% wider than required under the FPRs. In addition, the alternative precludes the use of evenaged timber management, rather utilizing intermediate and uneven-aged silvicultural methods.
The treatment of fuels under this alternative will reduce the potential for stand replacing fires and
creation of hydrophobic soils in burned areas. These factors can reduce potential soil loss on
slopes and sediment deposition into streams by unknown but significant quantities.
Mitigation to create denning, snag, ground burrows and wildlife piles will be required to provide
these habitat elements where they either do not exist or would be significantly degraded through
implementation of a PTHP.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
103
5.7.4.4
Implementation of Alternative 4 is similar to the Proposed Project except that 3,460 acres will be
treated by removing the vast majority of “pole size” trees ranging from 5”-10” in diameter,
leaving the overstory generally intact. The stocking of timber of this size varies greatly across
the project area. In many cases this stocking is quite heavy, especially that of pole-size
hardwoods. In such areas, removal of several hundred stems per acre, along with their foliage,
would substantially open the stand.
Alternative 4 will maintain a denser overstory canopy than would any other alternative. It will
not create early seral habitat that benefits deer and other grazing species but it will maintain
thermal cover in project areas. Cover habitat for small mammals and many game birds will be
reduced. Habitat for northern spotted owls will be maintained.
or within WLPZs.
alternative. This alternative does not provide for commercial timber harvest within any Class I
33% wider than required under the FPRs. In addition, the alternative precludes the use of evenaged timber management, and contains no provision for harvest of commercial-sized timber.
The treatment of fuels under this alternative would not significantly reduce the potential for
crown fires to spread, if they were to occur. In such situations there is the potential for stand
replacing fires and the creation of hydrophobic soils in burned areas. These factors can reduce
potential soil loss on slopes and sediment deposition into streams by unknown but significant
quantities.
The potential loss of some denning habitat within fuel break areas will be evaluated at the time
that a PTHP is prepared. The RPF and CDR may propose to offset such impacts by creating
denning sites, ground burrows, wildlife piles and large wood placement within the harvest areas.
5.7.5
Mitigation
(See also mitigation measures for Hydrology and Water Quality)
1. PTHPs shall comply with established protocols for threatened and endangered species
surveying requirements. Where the PTHP may have adverse effects on listed species, a
Technical Letter or appropriate consultation shall be completed prior to initiation of
operations.
2. PTHPs shall not reduce northern spotted owl 50-11-40 habitat for known territories to
levels below those established by the USFWS.
3. Avoid mechanical clearing in areas with CNPS 1B and 2 listed species.
4. Retain all vegetation within the WLPZ of all Class I streams except at designated road
crossings or as necessary to ensure safe equipment operations.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
104
5. The lack or potential loss of denning habitat within fuel break areas will be evaluated at
the time that a PTHP is prepared. The RPF and/or CDF may propose to offset such
impacts by creating denning sites, ground burrows, wildlife piles, and large wood
placement within the PHP area. For denning, mitigation shall be evaluated when there
are less than 3 potential denning sites per acre.
6. Basal denning structures should only be constructed within snags, cull trees, and/or
dying, deformed or diseased trees. Denning trees should be at least 18” dbh and den
construction should not remove more than 40% of area of the stem. Den opening heights
should not exceed three times the opening width. Denning sites should not be
constructed where such activity creates an unacceptable safety risk to the operator.
7. Ground cavities should be evaluated where there are less than three denning opportunities
per acre. Denning opportunities include existing root sprung trees, wind-thrown root
masses, large downed logs, cull decks, and similar habitats. Ground denning structures
can be created by placement of large logs, root springing stumps or small trees or other
techniques.
8. Wildlife piles: Every log over 18” dbh left may be counted as 2 habitat components (e.g.,
basal den and ground cavity) and should be constructed where ground cover is limited.
Place up to three piles per acre. Hand created piles should be a minimum of
approximately 3’ radius (or 3’x 3’) and 2’ height, constructed with larger logs (±6”
diameter) in the bottom to create small openings on two sides. Tractor piles should be
reasonably free of dirt.
9. Large wood placement may be used to create basal dens and ground denning
opportunities in lieu of wildlife piles. Every log over 18” dbh left may be counted as 2
habitat components (e.g., basal den and ground cavity).
5.8
Cultural, Archaeological and Historic Resources
This section summarizes the impacts to cultural, archaeological and historic resources within the
Weaverville Basin as a result of implementing either the Proposed Project or any of its
alternatives. The confidential archaeological report is available to qualified individuals on an asneeded basis at the Trinity Resource Conservation and Development Council, Inc. (TRC&D)
office in Weaverville.
5.8.1
Tribal Contact Notification
In mid-August 2002 BBWA sent a letter containing maps and a description of the PTEIR project
to each of the Native American groups or individuals listed by CDF as contacts for any proposed
projects subject to the California Forest Practice Rules. The contact persons were requested to
provide any information they had concerning the existence of any archaeological or historical
sites within the potential harvest/treatment boundaries, as described in the text of the letter and
delineated on the attached map. Copies of these letters are included in the planning files. No
responses were received in regard to this inquiry.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
105
Cultural Resources Research Methods
Records pertaining to the cultural resources of the project area that are on file at the CDF office
in Weaverville and at the Northeast Information Center (NEIC) in Chico were researched in
order to (1) gather information about the presence, location, and nature of any previously
recorded or described cultural resources within the project area, and (2) assess the potential that
the parcels could contain unrecorded cultural resources. All BBWA personnel involved in this
research meet CDFs qualifications for cultural resources survey and recording.
In August 2002, and January 2003, timber harvest plans (THPs) within and adjacent to the
project area were examined, at the Weaverville CDF office. Maps created through the use of
Geographic Information Services (GIS) data, as well as the comprehensive map of THPs filed
within the local CDF area of authority, were used to identify the relevant THPs.
In December 2002, a records check at the Northeast Information Center was conducted for
portions of the project area for which a records check was not on file under a previous THP
(Origer and Associates, 2003). The resulting information records were added to the Confidential
Cultural Resources Summary that is on file at the TRC&D office for use by qualified persons.
Review of records on file at the Weaverville Museum was done to determine if some historic site
records were held there that did not turn up in THP records. The records available in the
museum typically note the location of mining claims but not cultural sites associated with claims
such as flumes, ditches, or processing sites for ore. The vast majority of the project area had at
one time been within one or several mining claim boundaries (refer to photo in Visual Aesthetics
section for an example of mining activities in the area). The lack of specific site identification in
the museum records was noted but these records reinforce the assumption that much of the
project area has the potential to include historic sites relating to the gold mining era.
Local USFS and BLM offices were contacted regarding potential archaeological sites on
National Forest and BLM lands adjacent to project areas. No written responses were received.
The BLM archaeologist indicated that the project areas were potentially highly sensitive for
cultural resources and that field surveys should be conducted prior to any ground-disturbing
activities and that no directly pertinent information was likely to be obtained from BLM file
records (Eric Ritter, pers. comm. April, 2003). The BLM archaeologist noted that ethnographic
material on American Indian groups whose aboriginal territories included the project area was
available for review by qualified persons at the Redding BLM and USFS offices. Research of
this information could be useful for those preparing PTHPs tiered to the PTEIR.
Research Methodology
The overall goals of the cultural resources research were (1) to identify the most recent surveys
conducted in conjunction with THP preparation and any prehistoric or historic sites or features
recorded, and, (2) to examine the Archaeological Records Checks for the pertinent THPs and
delineate areas covered by these reports. RPFs preparing PTHPs tiered to the PTEIR (or other
plans within the area covered by this research) could use the record check and related
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
106
information to prepare the archaeological survey strategies of PTHPs. Where the most recent
survey or records check indicated particular archaeological features existed or that none were
known to exist, that information would be provided to the RPF in lieu of a new records check
that would only duplicate the information compiled during the PTEIR preparation.
Most of the project area is classified by the Northeast Information Center as having a high
likelihood of containing prehistoric or historic resources. Therefore PTHPs tiered to the PTEIR
would still require archaeological field surveys. The exception would be within areas surveyed
within the last five years, for which the last survey could be included for timber harvest plan
documentation.
Summary of Research and Records Check Data
Forty-eight discrete historic cultural sites or features, eleven discrete prehistoric cultural sites,
and three isolated artifacts were documented as occurring within or adjacent to the project areas
of the 39 THPs for which records were checked at the Weaverville CDF office. NEIC records
checks included in THP files additionally noted many sites occurring within a certain distance of
particular THP boundaries, but many of these cross reference the same sites, so their
quantification would be misleading. Several of the sites consist of mining ditches, old roads, or
trails, and being linear features they may occur within or adjacent to more than one THP area.
Of the sites within or adjacent to the THPs for which records were checked, one is listed as
unrecorded, 11 as insignificant (and therefore not recorded), and thirty-six were recorded either
under the CA state trinomial system or the USFS multinomial system, or both.
Fifteen of the THPs researched at the CDF office were located all or partly within the PTEIR
project area. Eleven additional THPs bordered PTEIR polygon boundaries, with the remaining
thirteen THPs within 1.5 miles of at least one PTEIR polygon.
The additional records check conducted by Origer and Associates identified an additional seven
historic sites within or immediately adjacent to the PTEIR project area. Six of these sites are
linear features and one is an historic mining district. The additional records check also identified
three non-recorded historical cultural resources, two linear features and one non-linear cultural
site. Although seven locations of these features were noted as occurring within six different
mapped sections, five of them are identified as an Old Road, and appear to be portions of the
same feature. All in all, ten discrete linear features have been identified as crossing some portion
of the project area.
The following Rules are particularly relevant for cultural resources. Most of these Rules are
found in the Forest Practice Rules, Subchapters 4, 5, and 6, Article 14, Archaeological and
Historical Resource Protection and in the Confidential Archaeological Addendum. As part of the
project description, these Rules will reduce many potential impacts to a less than significant
level.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
107
“A PTHP that covers 3.0 acres or more requires filing of either a Confidential Archaeological
Addendum, as defined in 895.1 [1092.9(f)(1)] or a statement by the RPF that the PTHP area has been
surveyed in accordance with current Forest Practice Rules and a Confidential Archaeological
Addendum was filed and approved as part of the PTEIR associated with the PTHP, or the area covered
by the PTHP is less than 3.0 acres. [1092.9(f)]
“Prior to submitting a plan, the RPF, or the RPFs supervised designee: [(949.1])
(1) Shall conduct an archaeological records check at the appropriate Information Center.
(2) Shall provide written notification to Native Americans of the preparation of a plan.
(3) Shall provide a professional archaeologist or a person with archaeological training (in
accordance with 14 CCR 949.4) to conduct a field survey for archaeological and historical
sites within the site survey area.
(4) Shall ensure that research is conducted prior to the field survey, including review of
appropriate literature and contacting knowledgeable individual, concerning potential
archaeological or historical sites occurring on the property.
“Provide Notification to Native Americans if a Native American Archaeological or Cultural Site is
located within the plan. [949.1(b)]
“The RPF shall describe in the separate Confidential Archaeological Addendum or Letter, measures
to be taken to mitigate or avoid substantial adverse change to any known significant archaeological
or historical sites. [949.2(a)(1)]
“The LTO shall not conduct timber operations within the boundaries of any archaeological or
historical site identified in the CAA unless such operations are described in the CAA and made part
of the plan approved by the Director. [949.2(d)]
“No person, except as otherwise permitted by law, who is involved in timber operations shall
excavate, collect artifacts from, vandalize or loot archaeological or historical sites located within the
THP, Emergency Notice or Exemption boundary. [(949.6)]”
5.8.2
aesthetics:
Would the project:
a) Cause an adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, as defined in Section
15064.5?
b) Cause an adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource, pursuant to
Section 15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique pale ontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
108
5.8.3
a-d): The PTEIR project area is rich in pre-historic and historic history and features. A check of
existing THPs within the PTEIR area indicates that there are numerous previously recorded prehistoric and/or historic sites. Many of the historic sites are directly related to early mining,
including ditches, trails, tailings, cabin sites, camps, tunnels, can dumps, bottles, jars, and similar
features. In addition, the area contains slope and topography features considered to be culturally
sensitive for Native Americans, including ridgetops, mid-slope benches, springs, ponds/lakes,
streams, ecotones, meadows and flat benches. Many PTEIR areas that have not had timber
harvest plans (and mandatory archaeological surveys) potentially contain unknown or
unrecorded cultural resources.
When a PTHP is to be prepared, a pre-project archaeological data search and an on the ground
archaeological survey of harvest areas must be done. Pre-field surveys include contacting Tribal
representatives and other Native Americans for information; contacting other individuals and
agencies, landowners, local archaeologists, and examining pertinent archaeological,
ethnographic, or historical literature (including records checks from the Northeast Information
Center at Chico State University or existing records check information available to consultants as
part of the PTEIR).
Using the information obtained in the PTEIR, the Registered Professional Forester preparing a
PTHP tied to the PTEIR will determine if more pre-field research and/or field surveying may be
needed on any given parcel. The implementation of the CA Forest Practice Act archaeological
protection measures, PTEIR mitigation measures, and any needed site-specific protection
measures will reduce potential impacts to known or located sites to less than significant (ref.
CCR Article 14 Archaeological and Historical Resource Protection).
Under all alternatives, stand disturbing activities occur to some degree. The differences between
alternatives relative to cultural resources protection are temporal rather than physical. In other
words, Alternative 2 would have the least rate of entry per year (75 acres) while Alternative 3
would have the most ground disturbance on the largest number of acres in the first decade.
While Alternative 3 would disturb more ground in a shorter time frame, it is assumed that the
same sites would be identified during archaeological reconnaissance under either alternative.
Assuming that all work is done incompliance with 14 CCR 895.1, 949, 1035.3d, 1037.5 and
1104.1 there would be no difference in cultural resource identification, evaluation, mitigation
and/or protection among alternatives.
While it is possible that under all alternatives the effects could be the same, the level of
disturbance and changing ground cover conditions have been considered factors in locating
cultural features. Often cultural artifacts are more readily observable after vegetation is removed
(for example in the Oregon Fire numerous artifacts and features were either located or relocated).
To the extent that one alternative would remove vegetation without significant ground
disturbance compared to another alternative, that former alternative has a greater potential to
allow for site recognition and protection as appropriate.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
109
5.8.3.1
As described in detail in Chapter 2, over a ten-year span the Proposed Project is estimated to
include fuel break construction, a ground-disturbing treatment, on 1,260 acres. An additional
1,350 acres would receive a less-intensive range of timber harvest and fuels management
treatments. Non-commercial treatment is proposed on nine hundred thirty acres of noncommercial vegetation types while 730 acres comprised largely of WLPZs would not be treated
Much of the project area has been surveyed for cultural resources prior to other grounddisturbing projects, mostly related to timber harvest planning. Several known sites and features
exist within potential treatment areas, and any PTHP or other project subject to the FPR would
have to contain measures for protection or mitigation of cultural resources. The Proposed
Project has a high potential to impact unknown cultural sites, features, or artifacts because of the
density of such sites (particularly gold mining era historic sites) within the Weaverville Basin
and the large number of acres proposed for treatment. However, compliance with the FPR,
including a field reconnaissance by a certified archaeological surveyor, and development of
mitigation measures for any sites subsequently discovered, will reduce any potential impact to
less than significant.
5.8.3.2
removed. Over the short term continuance of the status quo has less potential to negatively
impact cultural resources compared to the Proposed Project or Alternatives 3 and 4, due to the
limited acreage estimated to be affected. Over next 40 years an estimated 3,000 acres would
potentially be treated by overstory removal under the status quo, which would have a high
potential to negatively affect previously unrecorded prehistoric and historic cultural resources.
Any such projects subject to the FPR must have a current field survey for cultural resources, and
include site-specific mitigations to protect any resources having cultural significance.
5.8.3.3
Implementation of Alternative 3 could include construction of fuel breaks on up to 3,460 acres
over the next 10 years. This relatively intense ground-disturbing treatment has a high potential
to significantly affect cultural resources, exceeding that of the Proposed Project or Alternatives 2
and 4. However, if the FPR are followed, including field examination of the site by a qualified
archaeological surveyor prior to start of operations, no significant impact is likely to occur.
5.8.3.4
Under Alternative 4, 3,460 acres would be treated by removing the vast majority of “pole size”
trees ranging from 5”-10” in diameter. This treatment would cause less ground disturbance than
the removal of commercial timber from the same acreage as proposed under the Proposed Project
or Alternative 3, and therefore would be less likely to significantly affect cultural resources.
Because it would affect more acres over the next 10 years than under the status quo (Alt. 2) it has
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
110
a higher potential to negatively impact cultural resources compared to the status quo. Over the
next 40 years, as the estimated acreage treated with a more intensive harvest treatment under the
status quo continued to increase by 75 acres per year to approximately 3,000 acres, the effects of
the status quo would tend to exceed that of Alternative 4. But as long as the FPR are followed,
including field examination of the site by a qualified RPF prior to start of operations, no
significant impact is likely to occur.
5.8.4
Mitigations for Proposed Project
Since no significant effects are expected from implementation of the Proposed Project or any of
the alternatives, no mitigation measures are proposed. Site-specific mitigation measures may
need to be developed and applied on project specific basis for PTHPs tied to this PTEIR.
5.8.5
Adherence to the Forest Practice Rules for Archaeological and Cultural Resources as noted
above will reduce the impacts from the Proposed Project to a less than significant level.
5.9
Geology and Soils
This section summarizes the impacts to geology and soils within the Weaverville Basin as a
5.9.1
Geology
The project area is within the complex geology of the Klamath Mountain Range, lying primarily
within the Weaverville Formation. The Abrams and Salmon Hornblende schists, Bragdon
Formation and a narrow lens of ultramafic rock intrude between the Weaverville Formation and
the schist rock types. The Weaverville Formation is a large slice of Oligocene continental
material consisting of weakly consolidated mudstone, sandstone conglomerate, with an
impervious clay matrix. The Weaverville Formation tends to be unstable, particularly along
oversteepened road cuts and stream banks.
Abrams and Salmon Hornblende schist rocks underlie the area west of West Weaver Creek and
the lower portion of Little Browns Creek. Soils and slope stability in these types is highly
variable with Abrams derived soils being more stable than soils resulting from Salmon
Hornblende parent material. West of the schist rock types (Oregon Mountain and west) are
remnants of the Bragdon Formations’ slightly metamorphosed sedimentary rocks. Bragdon
parent materials are generally considered stable and erosion resistant. An ultramafic intrusion
separates the schists and Bragdon Formation rocks.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
111
Geomorphology
California Department of Water Resources mapped landslide occurrence within the analysis area
and project area in their investigation of the main stem Trinity River (DWR, 1980). However
there was no information about the likely cause of these slides, the delivery amount, or the type
of slide (GMA, 2001). Also, these slides were mapped from 1978 air photos. As part of the
sediment source analysis for the Trinity, Grahman Matthews and Associates (GMA) mapped
landslides from 1:20,000 air photos in the Upper Middle Trinity watershed, which includes the
project area. GMA found that 9 slides in the analysis area had occurred since 1944, with 7
identified on the 1944 air photos and 2 on the 2000 air photos. DWR mapping in the analysis
area found a total of 14 slides (many located in the wilderness area). However there is no
information as to the type of slide or the date of occurrence. Based on mapping of landslides and
the GMA landslide inventory there is an estimated 247 tons/sq mi of landslide material generated
annually from roads, 194 tons/sq mi generated annually from timber harvest, and 469 tons/sq
mi/year of “background” sliding within the Upper Middle Trinity River sub basin (GMA, 2001,
table 33). Using these figures the project area and the analysis area are producing the following
landslide volumes per year:
TABLE 20
LANDSLIDE VOLUMES (TONS/YEAR) WITHIN
PROJECT AREA AND ANALYSIS AREA 1/
Tons/sq. mi/yr
Analysis Area
Project Area
ROAD
247
16,788
1,650
HARVEST FOREST 1944 RATE
194
469
155
13,186
31,877
10,535
1,296
3,133
1,035
1/ GMA, 2001, Table 33
Although the GMA analysis is useful for predicting tons per square mile the work was never
intended to provide an estimate of slope stability prior to management. In order to describe
potential slope stability, Dietrich’s SHALSTAB ARC/VIEW model was run for the project area
to estimate the location of possibly unstable slopes (Dietrich, 2003). SHALSTAB has been
widely used in the Pacific Northwest and was used in developing Jackson Demonstration State
Forest Management Plan as well as by Mendocino Redwoods for their Sustained Yield Plan.
SHALSTAB computes a risk value based on three topographic features including a) drainage
area, b) outflow boundary length, and c) hill slope angle, and uses four soil/rainfall parameters
which include 1) soil bulk density, 2) slope internal angle of friction, 3) soil transmissivity, and
4) effective precipitation. Depending on the resolution of the digital terrain model used, unstable
slopes are predicted in a range of –2.2 to –2.8 while chronically unstable slopes are predicted at
values of –2.8 and above. Based on the SHALSTAB analysis, about 2.8% of the project area
and 27.8% of the analysis area could be considered chronically unstable. Hill slope angle, of
course, is a significant factor in the calculation of chronically unstable slopes, and thus while the
project area has a small area that is chronically unstable, SHALSTAB predicts a much larger
area of chronically unstable slopes in the analysis area, most of which are in the headwaters of
Weaver and Rush Creeks in the Trinity Alps Wilderness Area. The Mapped and Predicted
Unstable Areas in Project Areas map , shows the area predicted to be chronically unstable by
SHALSTAB as well as landslides mapped by GMA in 2001.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
112
Soils
There are two widely used soil surveys within the analysis area, one produced by the Shasta
Trinity NF in 1983 (USFS, 1983) in the north half of the analysis area and one produced by the
NRCS in 1998 (Howell, 1998) for the south half of the analysis area. Unfortunately, these soil
surveys do not overlap, and the soil names are entirely different.
There are four general soil units within the assessment area. Crefork-Musserhill soils units occur
in the Weaverville urban area and extend north to Weaver Bally and east to Musser Hill, as well
as encompassing the western half of the Little Browns Creek watershed. This type is found on
gentle to steep slopes and consists of moderately deep and very deep clay loam and gravelly
loams that formed in weakly consolidated sediments. The main limitations for harvesting wood
products are the clay subsoil of the Crefork soils, which results in low strength in wet conditions,
which can limit access.
The most extensive soils unit mapped within the project area is the Brownscreek-DougcityBarpeak unit, which forms a “U” shape surrounding the Crefork-Musserhill soils to the south,
west, and east. Areas within this soil unit include the Oregon Street area, the eastern half of the
Democrat Gulch watershed, the eastern half of the Little Browns Creek watershed up to
Highway 3, and the portion of Browns Mountain south of the Union Gulch tributary of Little
Browns Creek. The soil unit covers the entire Weaver Creek watershed south of its confluence
with Little Browns Creek. These soils occur on moderately to extremely steep slopes and are
moderately deep and very deep, well drained gravelly or very gravelly loams, formed in
weathered mica schist bedrock. The soils are dominated by conifer forest stands. Soil
limitations for forest management are primarily slope steepness, erosion hazard and low plant
available water holding capacity.
The western half of the Democrat Gulch watershed and much of Oregon Mountain and Oregon
Gulch areas are within the Brownbear-Bamtush-Weaverville soil unit. These soils are found on
sloping to steep areas, and are moderately deep and very deep well-drained loams to extremely
gravelly loams formed from weathered metavolcanic rocks and sediments. The predominate
cover is conifers, predominately Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine. Slope stability, available soil
moisture, and erosion hazard are limiting factors.
A narrow, but significant, soil unit formed from ultra-mafic parent material cuts a ¼ to ½mile
wide lens from Union Hill to Oregon Mountain along the western side of Democrat Gulch. This
unit, known as the Dubakella-Weitchpec unit, is formed from ultra-mafic, serpentinized rocks.
These soils support sparse stands of hardwoods, incense cedar, Jeffery pine, limited amounts of
other conifers, and brush species. Limitations in these soils are primarily associated with
asbestos content, a human health concern, and nutrient imbalance from the calcium-manganese
ratios, potential mass movement, erosion hazard, and low plant available water holding capacity.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
113
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
114
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
115
Overall, soils within the project area exhibit relatively low erosion hazard ratings prior to
disturbance. Erosion hazard rating was calculated for the project area soils using the California
State Board of Forestry Technical Rule Addendum Number 1, procedures on soils from the two
soil surveys?. The Technical Rule Addendum 1 process uses ratings for detachability,
permeability, soil depth; percent coarse fragments, 2-year one-hour rainfall intensity, slope and
percent cover remaining after operations. An example of the ratings for three of the 44 soil types
in the project area is shown below in Table 21. The acreage-weighted erosion hazard rating by
area is shown below in Table 22. The erosion hazard after project implementation is shown
below. Overall, there are 2,218 acres of soils rated as low erosion hazard rating and 2,045 acres
of soils rated as medium erosion hazard rating.
TABLE 21
CDF TECHNICAL RULE ADDENDUM 1 EXAMPLE SOIL RATINGS
COMMONNAME
Bamtush-Brownbear, 30-75%
Cargent-Demogul, 50-75%
Musserhill-Wvrvlle 30-50%
Neuns-Holland, 60-80%
DETACH PERM DEPTH COARSE SLOPE RAIN PREEHR
17
1
2
7
16
7
50
20
1
6
4
20
7
58
12
3
2
9
10
7
43
23
1
6
6
26
7
69
TABLE 22
EROSION HAZARD RATING BY PROJECT
AREA
AREANAME
Bear Creek
Browns Mtn.
Democrat Gulch
East Branch
Lance Gulch
Musser Hill
Oregon Mtn.
Ten Cent Gulch
Timber Ridge
Total
ACRES
623
251
177
536
113
117
481
971
839
155
4,263
E.H.R. 1/
50
56
55
42
44
43
43
45
55
53
48
RATING
M
M
M
L
L
L
L
L
M
M
L
1/ Acreage weighted erosion hazard rating based on CDF Technical Rule Addendum
1 procedures.
The following CDF Forest Practice Rules are particularly relevant for geology and soils. Most of
these Rules are found in the California Forest Practice Rules, Subchapters 4, 5, and 6, Article 4,
Harvesting Practices and Erosion Control and Article 12, Logging Roads and Landings. As part
of the project description, they will reduce many potential impacts to a less than significant level.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
116
“Map the location of erosion hazard rating areas, if more than one rating exists, on the PTHP map
submitted for review by CDF. [1092.9(I)(9)]
“Map all known unstable areas or slides on the PTHP map submitted for review by CDF.
[1092.9(l)(11)]
“Tractor roads shall be limited in number and width to the minimum necessary for removal of logs.
When less damage to the resources specified in 14 CCR 934 will result, existing tractor roads shall
be used instead of constructing new tractor roads. [934.2(c)] Where tractor roads are constructed,
timber operators shall use tractor roads only, both for skidding logs to landings and on return trips.
[934.2(g)]
“Heavy equipment shall not operate on unstable areas. If such areas are unavoidable, the RPF shall
develop specific measures to minimize the effect of operations on slope instability. 934.2(d)
“Tractor operations shall be subject to the following limitations:
(1) Heavy equipment shall be prohibited where any of the following conditions are present:
(i) Slopes steeper than 65%.
(ii) Slopes steeper than 50% where the erosion hazard rating is high or extreme.
(iii) Slopes over 50% which lead without flattening to sufficiently dissipate water flow and
trap sediment before it reaches a watercourse or lake.
(2) On slopes between 50 percent and 65 percent where the erosion hazard rating is moderate,
and all slope percentages are for average slope steepness based on sample areas that are 20
acres or less, if proposed by the RPF or required by the Director, heavy equipment shall be
limited to:
(i) Existing tractor roads that do not require reconstruction, or
(ii) New tractor roads that have been flagged by an RPF or supervised designee prior to use.
“Except as otherwise provided for in the rules:
(1) All water breaks shall be installed no later than the beginning of the winter period of the
current year of timber operations.
(2) Installation of drainage facilities and structures is required from October 15 to November 15
and from April 1 to May 1 on all constructed skid trails and tractor roads prior to sunset if
the National Weather Service forecast is a "chance" (30% or more) of rain within the next 24
hours. [934.6(a)]
“Water breaks shall be constructed concurrently with the construction of firebreaks and immediately
upon conclusion of use of tractor roads, roads, layouts, and landings which do not have permanent
and adequate drainage facilities, or drainage structures. [934.6(b)]
“Distances between water breaks shall not exceed the …. standards [described in]: [934.6(c)]
“Water breaks shall be installed at all natural watercourses on tractor roads and firebreaks
regardless of the maximum distances specified in this section, except where permanent drainage
facilities are provided. [934.6(e)]
“Water breaks shall be located to allow water to be discharged into some form of vegetative cover,
duff, slash, rocks, or less erodible material wherever possible, and shall be constructed to provide for
unrestricted discharge at the lower end of the water break so that water will be discharged and
spread in such a manner that erosion shall be minimized. Where water breaks cannot effectively
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
117
disperse surface runoff, including where water breaks on roads and skid trail cause surface run-off to
be concentrated on downslopes, roads or skid trails, other erosion controls shall be installed as
needed to comply with 14 CCR 934. [934.6(f)]
“Water breaks or any other erosion controls on skid trails, cable roads, layouts, fire breaks,
abandoned roads, and site preparation areas shall be maintained during the prescribed maintenance
period (one year) and during timber operations as defined in PRC Sections 4527 and 4551.5 so that
they continue to function in a manner which minimizes soil erosion and slope instability and which
prevents degradation of the quality and beneficial uses of water. [934.6(h)]
“Mechanical site preparation and timber harvesting shall not be conducted unless a winter period
operating plan is incorporated in the timber harvesting plan and is followed, or unless the
requirements of subsection 934.7(c) are met. Cable, helicopter and balloon yarding methods are
exempted. [934.7(a)]
“In lieu of a winter period operating plan, the RPF can specify the … measures in [934.7(c)]” be
incorporated into the PTHP.
“All logging roads shall be located and classified on the THP map as permanent, seasonal, or
temporary. Road failures on existing roads, which will be reconstructed, shall also be located on the
THP map. In addition to the requirements of 14 CCR 1034(x), the probable location of those
landings which require substantial excavation or which exceed one quarter acre in size, shall be
shown on the THP map. [943.1(a)]
“Logging roads and landings shall be planned and located, when feasible, to avoid unstable areas.
[943.1(c)]
“New logging roads shall not exceed a grade of 15% except that pitches of up to 20% shall be
allowed not to exceed 500 continuous feet. [943.1(e)]
“Roads and landings shall be planned so that an adequate number of drainage facilities and
structures are installed to minimize erosion on roadbeds, landing surfaces, sidecast and fills.
[943.1(f)]
“Road construction shall be planned to stay out of Watercourse and Lake Protection Zones.
[943.1(h)]
“If logging roads will be used from the period of October 15 to May 1, hauling shall not occur when
saturated soil conditions exist on the road. [943.1(j)]
In watersheds with Threatened or Impaired Values (T&I watersheds), which includes the Trinity
River watershed (impaired due to sediment), unless prohibited by existing contracts with the U.S.
Forest Service or other federal agency, new and reconstructed logging roads shall be no wider
than single-lane, compatible with the largest type of equipment specified for use on the road,
with adequate turnouts provided as required for safety. The maximum width of these roads shall
be specified in the plan. These roads shall be outsloped where feasible and drained with water
breaks or rolling dips (where the road grade is inclined at 7% or less), in conformance with other
applicable California Forest Practice Rules. [943.9(b)] This and other requirements in T&I
watersheds expire December 31, 2006, unless renewed. [943.9(g)]
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
118
“Watercourse crossing drainage structures on logging roads shall be planned, constructed,
reconstructed, and maintained or removed, according to the standards in 943.3.
“The location of all new permanent watercourse crossing drainage structures and temporary
crossings located within the WLPZ shall be shown on the THP map. If the structure is a culvert
intended for permanent use, the minimum diameter of the culvert shall be specified in the plan.
[943.3(a)]
“Drainage structures on watercourses that support fish shall allow for unrestricted passage of all life
stages of fish that may be present. [943.3(c)]
“All permanent watercourse crossings that are constructed or reconstructed shall accommodate the
estimated 100-year flood flow, including debris and sediment loads. [943.3(e)]
“Any new permanent culverts installed within class I watercourses shall allow upstream and
downstream passage of fish or listed aquatic species during any life stage and for the natural
movement of bedload to form a continuous bed through the culvert and shall require an analysis and
specifications demonstrating conformance with the intent of this section and subsection. [943.3(e)]
“Logging roads, landings, and associated drainage structures used in a timber operation shall be
maintained in a manner which minimizes concentration of runoff, soil erosion, and slope instability
and which prevents degradation of the quality and beneficial uses of water during timber operations
and throughout the prescribed maintenance period (three years in T&I watersheds) as per 943.4. In
addition, those roads, which are used in connection with stocking activities, shall be maintained
throughout their use even if this is beyond the prescribed maintenance period. (943.4)
“Routine use and maintenance of roads and landings shall not take place when, due to general wet
conditions, equipment cannot operate under its own power. Operations and maintenance shall not
occur when sediment discharged from landings or roads will reach watercourses or lakes in amounts
deleterious to the quality and beneficial uses of water. This section shall not be construed to prohibit
activities undertaken to protect the road or to reduce erosion. (943.6)
“Upon completion of timber operations, temporary roads and associated landings shall be
abandoned in accordance with 943.8. [943.4(b)]
“Abandonment of roads, watercourse crossings and landings shall be planned and conducted in a
manner which provides for permanent maintenance-free drainage, minimizes concentration of runoff,
soil erosion and slope instability, prevents unnecessary damage to soil resources, promotes
regeneration, and protects the quality and beneficial uses of water as per (943.8).
“Landings shall be constructed and “put to bed” following operations (or before October 15)
according to the standards in 943.5.
“Constructed landings shall be the minimum in width, size, and number consistent with the yarding
and loading system to be used. Landings shall be no larger than one-half acre (.202 ha) unless
explained and justified in the THP. [943.5(d)]
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
119
5.9.2
geology and soils:
Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury, or death involving:
i.) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology
Publication 42?
ii.) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii.) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv.) Landslides?
b) Result in soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a
result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
5.9.3
a. i-iii) Trinity County is within Zone 4, the least seismically active area in the state as
defined in the Alquist-Priolo Act. There are no known earthquake faults, based on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map within the PTEIR area. The
project will not result in increased housing or structural developments that could be
affected by earthquake activity. No activity within the scope of the PTEIR could activate
an earthquake fault or seismic-related ground failure, or liquefaction.
b) Refer to the soils discussion in the environmental setting. Forest management has been
documented to result in increased sediment into the Trinity River and its tributaries (EPA,
2001), and a Total Maximum Daily Load allocation for the basin has been established.
Primary sediment sources associated with forest management are related to the
silvicultural methods used; burning methods and intensity; road, skid trail, and landing
construction and reconstruction; and the timing of operations (refer to section 5.11,
Hydrology and Water Quality, for a discussion of roads, trails, landings, and related
sediment sources).
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
120
Potential erosion rates and topsoil loss from silvicultural and burning activities depend on
a number of complex factors including the underlying geologic parent material, the soil’s
inherent roadability, slope steepness, the amount and form of precipitation, and extent of
residual ground cover
The principle soils concerns within the PTEIR area are deformation in wet weather, slope
stability, plant available soil moisture, and erosion hazard on steep slopes. Within
ultramafic soils, limitations are also associated with asbestos content (a human health
concern), nutrient imbalance from high calcium-manganese ratios of the soil, and
potential mass movement.
a. iv & c) The Main Stem Trinity Erosion Investigation Report (DWR, 1980) and soils
information for the area indicate that landslides may occur in areas of steep slopes in
most soil types within the PTEIR area. A number of inactive landslides in the Weaver,
Rush and Oregon Gulch watersheds were mapped by DWR. A large active slide occurs
on Oregon Mountain. A series of small debris torrent slides occurred in these watersheds
during the 1997 “New Years Day” flood. The PTEIR will incorporate management
standards that avoid road and landing construction on steep slopes, areas that exhibit
slope instability, and areas where natural drainage patterns could be modified or diverted.
d & e) The project will not result in increased housing, structural development or sewage
treatment needs on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994) or on soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater.
5.9.4
Soils
Logging and fuel treatments can increase soil erosion due to use of tractors for moving logs,
construction of skid trails and for tractor piling. Roads are generally considered as the largest
source of potential erosion (SRP, 1999) and though in some instances roads account for only 4%
of the harvest area they can contribute 76% of the erosion (Durgin, et. al., 1989). The
monitoring study group reviewing THP compliance between 1996 and 1998 (MSG, 1999) found
that:
“Roads and their associated crossings were found to have the greatest potential for sediment delivery
to watercourses. Mass failures associated with current timber operations were mostly related to
roads and produced the highest sediment delivery to watercourse channels when compared to other
erosion processes. The majority of the road related mass failures were associated with fill slope
problems – indicating that proper road construction techniques are critical for protecting water
quality.”
On the other hand, broadcast burning of slash can also increase sediment transport into streams
by reducing the protective cover of duff, litter and slash after logging operations, as well as
reducing infiltration with consequent increases in overland flow (DeBano et. a., 1998). McNabb,
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
121
et. al. (1989) found that after broadcast burning (or wildland fire for that matter) on soils in
southern Oregon and Northwest California that water repellency can increase in soils. Fuel
treatments that create slash through lopping and scattering can actually reduce soil erosion
hazard potential by placing more cover closer to the ground.
The Sediment Source Analysis (GMA, 2001) shows that 28% of existing sediment discharge is
due to roads in the Upper Middle Trinity watershed area and that this amount is 159% above the
likely amount of sediment generated prior to 1944 when heavy road building began within the
sub-basin. The Sediment Source Analysis also shows that road erosion within the sub-basin is
estimated at 31.2 tons/mi./year (GMA, 2001, Table 41) and that of this amount 33.5% is from
cutbank erosion, 48.2% is from road surface erosion, and 18.3% is from other road erosion.
Based on these figures the analysis area currently generates about 10,825 tons of sediment from
roads yearly while the project area generates about 1,600 tons per year. The 2 miles of road
expected to be built under the Proposed Project would increase total sediment from new road
construction by 62 tons/year, which would increase total potential sediment yield from 73,666
tons/year for Rush Creek, Weaver Creek and Browns Creek to 73,728 tons/year or an 0.08%
increase (see GMA, 2001 Table 20). It is not possible to estimate the sediment yield from new
road construction on a project specific basis, as it is not possible to spatially locate where the
new road construction is likely to take place.
Erosion Hazard
In terms of erosion hazard for this analysis, the pre-project erosion hazard rating was calculated
and the after project E.H.R. calculated based on cover remaining after all logging and fuel
treatments were completed as shown in Table 23 below. For the shaded fuel break up to 75% of
the area is expected to be “bare” as a result of tractor piling and skid roads. However, since
tractor piling is limited to slopes under 40%, slash treatment on steeper slopes is expected to
create up to 50% bare ground after jackpot and broadcast burning. For the other treatments,
more cover is expected to remain after logging with the majority of the bare ground resulting
from skid trail and landing construction. Little or no tractor piling is expected to occur with the
commercial thin option as the remaining trees are expected to be too close to pile slash without
significant damage to the leave trees. Under the pre-commercial thin treatment, most of the
material would be removed from the site thus there are expected to be more skid trails and less
slash left than after commercial thinning.
No operations are proposed in any Class I or II WLPZ (other than in Alternative 2, the status
quo), which is expected to substantially lessen the amount of surface soil eroding into
watercourses than if harvest did occur in these WLPZs.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
122
TABLE 23
PERCENT GROUND COVER AND E.H.R.
RATING AFTER OPERATIONS
TYPE OF TREATMENT
Shaded Fuel Break (FB 80)
Shaded Fuel Break (FB 80) on slopes > 40%
Commercial Thin (CT 120)
Overstory Removal (OR 11”+
Pre-commercial thin (PCT 0-11”)
Non-Commercial Shaded Fuel Break
Non-Commercial “thin” (prescribed burn)
No Treatment
PERCENT COVER
REMAINING
25%
50%
95%
70%
80%
25%
50%
99%
E.H.R.
RATING
11
6
1
4
3
11
6
0
Landslide Potential
Based on the SHALSTAB analysis, Table 24 shows the amount of the project area where
operations might occur on slopes categorized as chronically unstable. The map below shows the
predicted location of chronically unstable slopes in the Oregon Mountain and Democrat Gulch
areas.
TABLE 24
ACRES BY MANAGEMENT TYPE ON LANDS
PREDICTED AS CHRONICALLY UNSTABLE
TREATMENT TYPE ALT 1 ALT 2 ALT 3 ALT 4
CT 120
FB 80
NCFT
OR 11"+
PCT 0-11"
NT
5.9.4.1
93
80
15
20
0
131
0
118
29
24
32
0
0
0
0
131
32
As a result of the Proposed Project, about 1,350 acres are commercially thinned, 1,260 acres are
treated under a shaded fuel break prescription, and 930 acres are treated with non-commercial
treatments. The resulting disturbance changes the erosion hazard rating post project from low to
medium on 550 acres. About 2 acres change from medium to high due to operations on 60-80%
slopes in the Bear Creek drainage. Most of the change in erosion hazard is in the Ten Cent
Gulch area where steep slopes combined with shaded fuel breaks lead to low cover on steep
slopes resulting in E.H.R.s changing from low to medium. Erosion hazard is expected to drop
back to pre-project levels within 1-3 years after treatment as a result of grass invasion, litter fall,
etc. No treatments are proposed in any Class I or II watercourse, which should help to reduce
water quality impacts from this alternative.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
123
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
124
Table 25 below shows the number of acres where the erosion hazard rating increases one
category due to project implementation.
TABLE 25
CHANGE IN E.H.R. DUE TO IMPLEMENTATION OF ALTERNATIVES
TREATMENT EFFECT
E.H.R. changes from low to medium
E.H.R. changes from low to high
E.H.R. changes from medium to high
PROPOSED
ALT 2
ALT 3
ALT 4
PROJECT
ACRES CHANGING CATEGORY
550 ac.
127 ac.
1,429 ac.
77 ac.
0 ac.
0 ac.
0 ac.
0 ac.
2 ac.
2 ac.
2 ac.
2 ac.
The map below shows the location of the 550 acres of land that change E.H.R. category as a
result of implementing the Proposed Project. The map also shows the 1,429 acres of ground that
change from low to medium erosion hazard as a result of implementing Alternative 3?.
The Proposed Project could potentially harvest up to 93 acres via commercial thinning, 80 acres
by shaded fuel break, and 15 acres in non-commercial types, all on land that is predicted to be
chronically unstable. However, most of this land is steep and would require cable yarding, also
the 93 acres of commercial thinning are not expected to generate sufficient volume to justify
bringing in a yarder on the vast majority of the parcels within the project area. With the
mitigation measures specified it is unlikely that implementing the Proposed Project would lead to
significant effects from landslides associated with operations on chronically unstable slopes.
5.9.4.2
Alternative 2 harvests approximately 750 acres per decade. Table 23 shows that just 127 acres
increase their E.H.R. hazard as a result of treating all 2,835 commercial acres within the project
area during the next 40 years. Standard CA Forest Practice rule implementation is expected to
reduce the effects of Alternative 2 to less than significant. In this alternative soil erosion could
potentially lead to deposition of sediment into class I and II watercourses as operations would
follow the California Forest Practice Rules, which allow operations (but not equipment) to occur
within these zones. However, given that the treatments in these instances are limited to harvest,
which removes no more than 15% of the canopy it, is unlikely that substantial amounts of eroded
material are likely to deposit into these watercourses.
Alternative 2 could potentially harvest up 118 acres on potentially unstable slopes using
overstory removal prescriptions while 24 acres would not likely be treated and up to 20 acres
might be commercially thinned. As with the Proposed Project, most of the chronically unstable
slopes are very steep and operations almost certainly would require use of a yarder. Given parcel
size and volumes per acre it is unlikely that many landowners would undertake operations in
these areas, save for the few number of landowners with sufficiently large parcels who might be
able to justify a yarder. At least some of the chronically unstable areas are located in Ten Cent
Gulch where parcel size is large enough to support traditional yarder operations. However, with
the FPR’s it is unlikely that implementing Alternative 2 would lead to significant effects from
landslides associated with potential operations on chronically unstable slopes.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
125
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
126
5.9.4.3 Alternative 3: Intensive Fuel Treatment
Alternative 3 harvests virtually the same amount of area as the Proposed Project and Alternative
4 (e.g., 3,460 acres). However Alternative 3 results in substantially more acreage affected by
high disturbance treatments such as tractor piling. After treatment, Alternative 3 results in 1,429
acres changing from low to medium E.H.R. These acres are expected to be invaded by grass and
forbs relatively quickly so that soil cover ought to be reestablished within 1-3 years after
treatment. No treatments are proposed in any class I or II watercourse, which should help to
reduce water quality impacts from this alternative.
Operations might occur on up to 163 acres of slopes predicted as chronically unstable, and of this
shaded fuel breaks might potentially occur on 131 acres. However, most of the chronically
unstable ground is very low in the watershed, particularly in the Ten Cent Gulch and Democrat
Gulch areas. In most of these cases yarders would have to be used due to slope steepness. Since
few parcels contain enough timber to justify bringing in a yarder it is unlikely that all 131 acres
would be harvested to a shaded fuel break prescription on these potentially unstable acres. With
the mitigation measures specified it is unlikely that implementing Alternative 3 would lead to
significant effects from landslides associated with potential operations on chronically unstable
slopes.
5.9.4.4
Alternative 4 also harvest about the same acreage as the Proposed Project, however all of the
treatments are understory treatments and the resulting disturbance is much less than for the
Proposed Project and is substantially less than for Alternative 3. After treating 3,460 acres with
a pre-commercial thin the resulting disturbance results in 77 acres changing E.H.R. from low to
medium. As in the other alternatives, grass and forb invasion within 1-3 years after treatment are
likely to result in complete ground cover which should reduce erosion back to approximately
pre-project levels. No treatments are proposed in any class I or II watercourse which should help
to reduce water quality impacts from this alternative.
Alternative 4 could possibly harvest up to 131 acres on chronically unstable slopes, but given the
low value of the material to be produced and the fact most of this material would have to be
skidded out using a yarder, the likelihood that any of these areas would be treated is extremely
low. Given these facts, it is unlikely that implementing Alternative 4 would lead to significant
effects from landslides associated with potential operations on chronically unstable slopes.
5.9.5
Mitigation
1. Prohibit timber operations on areas of high or extreme EHR or on slopes over 50%,
except where operations can be conducted on existing stable skid roads.
2. Require re-stocking in conformance with recommendations of the Registered
Professional Forester (RPF) as contained in the PTHP.
3. Avoid heavy equipment use on saturated soils.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
127
4. Conduct mechanical slash treatments along contours on areas of moderate to high erosion
hazard ratings. No mechanical slash treatments shall be conducted on slopes over 50%
that are rated high or extreme.
5. Do not conduct timber operations on unstable areas as defined by the CA Forest Practice
Rule 895.1.
5.9.6
Impacts to geology and soils resulting from implementation of the Proposed Project will be
reduced by following practices specified in the FPR, as well as the mitigation measures noted
above. These measures will reduce impacts from implementation of the Proposed Project to less
than significant.
5.10
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
This section summarizes the impacts to Hazardous Materials and to Hazards within the
Weaverville Basin as a result of implementing either the Proposed Project or any of its
alternatives.
5.10.1
Hazardous Waste/Hazardous Materials Regulations
Hazardous waste is defined as any waste material that is a potential threat to human health and
the environment, having the capacity to cause serious illness or death. Hazardous materials are
materials still in use that are dangerous to people or the environment. Numerous laws and
regulations, at all levels of government, regulate the use, transport, storage and disposal of
hazardous waste and hazardous materials.
The goal for hazardous materials/waste safety in the Hazardous Materials/Waste section of the
Safety Element of the Trinity County General Plan (Trinity County Planning Department, 2002b)
is to: “Reduce threats to the public health and the environment caused by the use, storage, and
transportation of hazardous materials and hazardous waste.” Objectives and policies that relate
to the proposed PTEIR project are as follow:
•
•
County Objective S.3.2: Ensure adequate cleanup of hazardous materials and hazardous
waste.
Policy S.3.1 (A): Encourage cooperation between all agencies involved in the cleanup
and regulation of hazardous materials.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
128
The Weaverville Community Plan (Trinity County, 1990) does not specifically address hazardous
material and hazardous waste management.
The California Forest Practice Rules require logging equipment to be serviced where no grease,
oil, or fuel will pass into lakes or watercourses (FPRs 934.5 & 936.3) and to dispose of nonbiodegradable refuse, litter, trash, and debris concurrently with timber operations (FPR 934.5).
5.10.2
Hazardous Materials and Hazards:
Would the project:
a) Create a hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Have hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) Be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, and consequently result in a
safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
f) Be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and consequently result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,
including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wildlands?
5.10.3
a) The only hazardous materials transport or use that would likely occur under
implementation of a PTHP would be diesel and gasoline fuels and hydraulic fluid used in
trucks and logging equipment and fuels used in slash burning. These materials are
routinely used in timber harvest operations and their transport and use will not create
other than a normal hazard to the public or environment. No disposal of these materials
will occur as part of the Proposed Project. Dust palliatives may be used in some
instances, but these materials properly applied are not considered a hazardous material.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
129
The California State Highway Patrol under CCR Section 1150-1194, and the Code of
Federal Regulations, Title 49, regulates transport of hazardous materials. When a
hazardous material/waste spill originates on a highway, the California Highway Patrol is
responsible for direction of cleanup and enforcement (CCR Section 2450-2454b).
“Highway” is defined as a way or place of whatever nature, publicly maintained and open
to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. Highway includes streets and
county maintained roads. A highway does not include a way or place under the
jurisdiction of a federal governmental agency, which lies on National Forest or private
lands, is open to public use, and for which the cost of maintenance of such way or place
is borne or contributed to directly by any users thereof (Trinity County Planning
Department, 2002b).
When a hazardous material/waste spill occurs on private lands, the property owner is
responsible for cleanup. The Trinity County Environmental Health Department is
contacted and ensures that proper cleanup and follow up is conducted according to
federal, state, and local regulations (Trinity County Planning Department, 2002b).
b) There always exists the potential for fuel or logging trucks or logging equipment to be
involved in accidents or to leak gasoline or diesel fuels.
c) No hazardous emissions will occur nor will hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste be handled within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school.
d) The Proposed Project is not located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5.
e) Portions of the Proposed Project are located within two miles of a public airport, the
Lonnie Pool Airport. Logging equipment and fuel trucks (usually pickups with fixed fuel
tanks in the bed) that may be used to implement the project are commonly found in the
area and do not impose a unique or added safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area.
f) The Proposed Project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
g) This project will not create home sites or result in industrial or other development of
lands for uses other than natural resources management. The project will not impair or
interfere with any emergency evacuation plan, but instead will complement and aid in
implementation of portions of such plans as they exist or are developed.
h) Implementation of the project will potentially result in a short-term increase in slash
during timber harvesting operations and non-commercial fuel treatments. However, slash
will be treated before completion of timber harvesting operations and during noncommercial fuel treatments, so implementation of the project will result in a substantial
decreased risk to people and structures through loss, injury or death if a wildland fire
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
130
were to burn across the treated areas. The degree to which risk is reduced is associated
with project treatments that change ladder fuels and crown continuity, which are expected
to substantially reduce wildland fire severity and fire intensity (see 3.20 Fire Severity and
3.21 Fire Intensity).
5.10.5
1. Inspect and maintain hydraulic and fuel hoses on equipment so as to prevent leaks or
breaks.
2. Maintain an on-site spill response kit capable of cleaning up 5 gallons, or more, of fuel,
hydraulic oil, or other fluids where grease, oil, fuel or other similar materials could pass
into lakes or watercourses.
3. Never leave the area while equipment is being fueled.
5.10.6
With application of the above mitigations, the potential impacts of the Proposed Project on
hazards and hazardous materials will be reduced to a less than significant level.
5.11
Hydrology and Water Quality
This section summarizes the impacts to hydrology and water quality within the Weaverville
Basin as a result of implementing either the Proposed Project or any of its alternatives.
5.11.1
The 4,275-acre PTEIR project area lies within the Upper Middle Reach (Lewiston Dam to North
Fork Trinity River) section of the Trinity River drainage and the project area is composed of six
Cal Planning Watersheds whose acreage and Cal Planning Watershed number are shown below
in Table 26. Chapter 4, section 3 has previously described the miles of stream by stream-class
and anadromous habitat status. Oregon Gulch, Upper Rush Creek and Weaver Creek are first
order watersheds of the Trinity River, while East and West Weaver Creeks and Little Browns
Creek are all 2nd order watersheds of the Trinity River.
TABLE 26
WATERSHEDS IN PROJECT VICINITY
NAME
CAL ID ACREAGE
Upper Rush Creek
East Weaver Creek
Little Browns Creek
West Weaver Creek
Oregon Gulch
Weaver Creek
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
1063106
1063201
1063201
1063201
1061506
1063201
Total Acreage
131
6,954
8,298
7,626
9,337
4,759
6,520
43,495
The map below shows the Analysis Area, the community fuel reduction project areas and the
various Cal Planning Watersheds all in the vicinity of Weaverville.
Hydrologic impacts that can result from implementation of the PTEIR are generally related to the
alternation of natural drainage patterns or increased runoff rates. These changes, in turn, can
affect water quality, water quantity and slope stability. Adverse impacts can result where natural
runoff is intercepted and concentrated down roads, trails and other non-watercourse areas or in
unstable areas.
Based on road erosion inventories in the Trinity River watershed, chronic road surface erosion
and stream crossing diversions, and cut and fill landslides are the most significant sources of
road erosion in the watershed. Chronic road erosion (ditch, cutback, road surface) accounts for
28% of potential road erosion. Stream crossing failures and diversions represent 71% of
potential road sediment delivery to streams and 1% of potential erosion is from slumps in road
cutback and fill slopes (TCPD, 2003). Roads which cross-large landslides were not included in
the county road erosion inventory. These sources of sediment potential are consistent with other
inventories (EPA, 2001, Mathews, 2000).
Table 27 below shows the road density and the road-stream crossing density in the analysis area
and the project area. Both road density and the road stream crossing density are important
measures of watershed health. Generally, road densities in forested watersheds in excess of 4.0
miles of road per square mile are considered as at risk of cumulative effects. Stream crossing
density is a relatively new methodology used to measure cumulative watershed effects. As the
number of crossings per square mile of area increases, the potential for adverse cumulative
effects increases, particularly as potential storm intensity increases.
While road density can lead to increases in disturbed areas and slope compaction, both indicators
of cumulative watershed effects, implementation of PTHPs or THPs can also reduce current
erosion problems from existing roads, landings and trails. Under the Forest Practice Rules, an
erosion inventory and treatment plan must be done as part of the timber harvest. Significant
road, landing and trail related erosion sources are identified and drainage or other corrections
prescribed. These existing erosion sources can be eliminated in many instances by installation of
rolling and critical dips, removing unnecessary stream crossing fills, placement of water breaks,
and/or excavation of unstable fills.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
132
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
133
TABLE 27
ROAD DENSITY AND ROAD-STREAM CROSSING DENSITY IN ANALYSIS AREA
AND PROJECT AREA
Road Density by Road Type
ANALYSIS AREA
Type Road
Not Classified
Highway
Paved
Graveled
Improved Dirt
Unimproved Dirt
Trails
Total
Density
Mi. Road
(mi./sq.mi.)
0.0
0.00
22.8
0.34
31.7
0.47
88.1
1.30
67.5
0.99
80.2
1.18
26.1
0.38
290.4
4.27
Road-Stream Crossing Density
PROJECT AREA
Density
Mi. Road
(mi./sq.mi.)
0.0
0.005
1.0
0.148
3.1
0.465
19.3
2.893
7.3
1.087
18.7
2.795
1.5
0.222
49.4
7.39
CROSSING
ACRES
MILES ROAD NUMBER STREAM
DENSITY
IN PROJECT AREA IN PROJECT AREA
CROSSINGS
(#/SQ.MI.)
Bear Creek
623
9.5
31
31.86
Browns Mtn.
251
4.4
11
28.09
177
1.2
9
32.60
Democrat Gulch
536
5.5
31
37.04
East Branch
113
0.4
2
11.29
Lance Gulch
117
0.3
Musser Hill
472
6.6
21
28.45
Oregon Mtn.
989
13.2
29
18.76
Ten Cent Gulch
839
5.6
12
9.15
Timber Ridge
155
2.7
0
0.00
Project Total
4,272
49.4
146
21.87
Analysis Area
43,500
290.4
336
4.94
PROJECT SUB AREA
A common approach to assessing cumulative watershed effects is the estimation of Equivalent
Roaded Area (ERA) using the USFS cumulative watershed effects analysis process (USFS,
1987). “The ERA method is essentially an accounting procedure for assessing the instantaneous
influence of past, present and planning activities on the potential for environmental change”
(Reid, 1993). In this process, areas disturbed by forest management activities are assessed
within the watershed and the sum of these assessments represents the percentage of the basin in
road surface that would produce the same effects as the existing or planned distribution of
management activities. Haskins (1987) produced indices for the Shasta Trinity National Forest.
More up to date figures have been developed in the Sierra Nevada by Carlson and Christiansen
(1993) and are used here.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
134
The ERA methodology assumes that actions recover over time, and that tractor logging generally
has a greater potential to create longer lasting cumulative effects than cable or helicopter
logging.
The project and analysis area pre-project ERA’s are shown below in Table 28. Road ERA is
based on calculating the road surface of all roads within the Analysis Area. Home ERA is based
on calculating only the homes within the project area based on a 75’ radius of equivalent roaded
area around the center of each home site. The existing ERA due to past timber harvest on 13,370
acres within the analysis area is based on THP data from 1981 to the present, including
silvicultural system, if known. All of the private timber harvest was assumed to be tractor
logged, as the THP information available did not include logging system. STNF logging ERA is
based on plantation information and, except for one timber sale, assumes that all logging was by
clearcutting. All coefficients for disturbance and recovery are based on Carlson and
Christiansen, 1993.
TABLE 28
PRE PROJECT CUMULATIVE WATERSHED EFFECTS
EQUIVALENT ROADED AREA STATUS
Acres
Analysis Area ERA Today
Post Project ERA (Yr 10)
ROAD ERA
HOME
ERA
1,203
2.77%
2.77%
2.77%
2.77%
2.77%
78
0.18%
0.18%
0.18%
0.18%
0.18%
THP
LOGGING
ERA
13,370
8.75%
7.50%
2.71%
1.90%
1.90%
STNF
ERA PRE
LOGGING
PROJECT
ERA
456
0.42%
12.12%
0.23%
10.68%
0.16%
5.82%
0.02%
4.87%
0.02%
4.87%
The Trinity River was listed on the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) as water quality
limited due to sediment and a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) of sediment allocation was
established by the EPA pursuant to court consent decree (Pacific Coast Federation of
Fishermen’s Associations, et al. v. Marcus, No. 95-4474 MHP, March 11, 1997).
The purpose of establishing a TMDL is to identify loading allocations that, when implemented,
are expected to result in the attainment of applicable water quality standards for sediment.
Sediment levels were judged to be exceeding the existing Water Quality Standards (WQS)
necessary to protect the cold-water fishery. Accelerated erosion from land use practices and
natural sources impacts the migration, spawning, reproduction, and early development of coldwater fish such as coho and Chinook salmon and steelhead trout.
The Main Stem Trinity River TMDL is based on an analysis of the rivers by sub-watershed units,
targeting sediment sources and effects to salmonids within each reach. The TMDL also
identified several flow and geomorphic effects that result in main stem impairment. Each of
these factors is associated with the operation of the CVP Trinity River Diversion, as well as from
other upslope activities. In-river impairment factors within the upper half of the Middle Reach
are:
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
135
A. Reduced Coarse Sediment Supply From the Upper Basin:
Below the confluence with Rush Creek, the annual coarse sediment supply from
downstream tributaries has continued at rates equal to or slightly higher than before CVP
Trinity River Diversion. Lower in-stream flows reduce main stem transport capacity (US
FWS and HVT 1999). Inadequate bed load mobility results in a decrease in substrate
complexity thereby reducing macro-invertebrate production and reducing pool depths
needed for adult fish cover and holding. Graham Mathews and Associates identified a
12-foot increase in channel bed elevation at a cross-section just below the confluence of
Indian Creek.
B. Limited Sediment Mobilization Below Lewiston Dam:
The main stem channel bed, since the completion of the CVP Trinity River Diversion,
has not been adequately mobilized, increasing sediment accumulation at the deltas of
tributaries and loss of habitat characteristics associated with alternate bar sequence. The
gravels delivered by the main stem tributaries below the dam have also not been
effectively mobilized and dispersed due to inadequate flood flows.
C. Reduced Main Stem Pool Depth:
Fine sediment has reduced the main stem pool depths, affecting the amount of deep pool
habitat important for adult salmonids holding over during the summer. After access to
the upper basin was eliminated due to dam construction, spring Chinook had to “summerover” in any available deep pools below the dam until spawning began in the fall. Since
many of these pools were historically occupied by summer-run steelhead, Chinook
salmon and steelhead were forced to compete for pool habitat below the dam.
D. Excessive Levels of Fine Sediment:
The dam-caused reduction of scouring flows in the main stem has contributed to fine
sediment infiltration of spawning gravels. This impact is greatest just below the
confluence with Grass Valley Creek. Deposition of sediment on exposed cobble bars and
lack of flushing flows has created “fossilized” berms or sediment accumulation around
riparian vegetation. This contributes to loss of open, shallow, low-velocity gravel bar
habitats for rearing salmonid fry.
In addition to the in-river habitat conditions, the TMDL study targeted tributary impairment.
Many of the Weaver Creek tributaries presently or historically contain salmonid habitat,
particularly in the lower gradient reaches; but aquatic habitat conditions and potential limiting
factors in the tributaries are not nearly as well studied as in the main stem Trinity River. De la
Fuente et al. (2000) determined that Weaver and Rush Creeks are impaired based on an analysis
of the stream and watershed condition indicators. The water quality and channel conditions in
Weaver and Rush Creeks were rated as “at risk” in terms of function and the watershed hazard
condition was high.
In other words, physical and biological conditions suggest that aquatic and riparian systems are
at risk of not being able to support dependent species and retain the beneficial uses of water. The
condition of aquatic habitat in the upper middle reach of the river was identified during the
TMDL study as being of particular importance in the Trinity River for two reasons: (1)
biologically, it is utilized more extensively for anadromous fish spawning and rearing than other
basins; and (2) the tributaries and main stem of the Middle Basin have been subjected to a high
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
136
level of habitat modification, due to the CVP Trinity River Diversion, natural slope processes,
and land management in the tributaries.
The following Rules are particularly relevant for hydrology and water quality. Most of these
Rules are found in the California Forest Practice Rules, Subchapters 4, 5, and 6, Article 6,
Water Course and Lake Protection. As part of the project description, these requirements will
reduce many potential impacts to a less than significant level.
“During and following timber operations, the beneficial uses of water, native aquatic and riparianassociated species, and the beneficial functions of riparian zones shall be maintained where they are
in good condition, protected where they are threatened, and insofar as feasible, restored where they
are impaired. Protection of the quality and beneficial uses of water shall comply with all applicable
legal requirements including those set forth in any applicable water quality control plan adopted or
approved by the State Water Resources Control Board. (936)
“The quality and beneficial uses of water shall not be unreasonably degraded by timber operations.
During timber operations, the timber operator shall not place, discharge, or dispose of or deposit in
such a manner as to permit to pass into the water of this state, any substances or materials, including,
but not limited to, soil, silt, bark, slash, sawdust, or petroleum, in quantities deleterious to fish,
wildlife, or the quality and beneficial uses of water. (936.3)
“The RPF or supervised designee shall conduct a field examination of all lakes and watercourses and
shall map all lakes and watercourses which contain or conduct Class I, II, III or IV waters.
[936.4(a)]
“As part of this field examination, the RPF or supervised designee shall evaluate areas near, and areas
with the potential to directly impact, watercourses and lakes for sensitive conditions including, but not
limited to, existing and proposed roads, skidtrails and landings, unstable and erodible watercourse
banks, unstable upslope areas, debris, jam potential, inadequate flow capacity, changeable channels,
overflow channels, flood prone areas, and riparian zones wherein the values set forth in 14 CCR
936.4(b) are impaired. The RPF shall consider these conditions, and those measures needed to
maintain, and restore to the extent feasible, the functions set forth in 14 CCR 936.4(b), when proposing
WLPZ widths and protection measures. The plan shall identify such conditions, including where they
may interact with proposed timber operations, that individually or cumulatively significantly and
adversely affect the beneficial uses of water, and shall describe measures to protect and restore to the
extent feasible, the beneficial uses of water. [936.4(a)(1)]
“As part of this field examination, the RPF or supervised designee shall map the location of spawning
and rearing habitat for anadromous salmonids, and the condition of the habitat shall be evaluated using
habitat typing that at a minimum identifies the pool, flatwater, and riffle percentages. The opportunity
for habitat restoration shall be described within the plan for each Class I watercourse, and for each
Class II watercourse that can be feasibly restored to a Class I. [936.4(a)(2)]
“The RPF shall map the location of proposed and existing landings in the watercourse and lake
protection zone, and landings outside the zone that are greater than 1/4 acre in size or whose
construction involves substantial excavation. [1092.9(l)(6)]
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
137
“The RPF shall map the location of road failures on existing roads to be reconstructed.
[1092.9(l)(7)]
“The RPF shall map the location of all watercourse crossings of classified watercourses except
temporary crossings of class III watercourses without flowing water during timber operations at that
crossing. [1092.9(l)(8)]
“The PTHP submitter shall provide notice by letter to all other landowners within 1,000 feet
downstream of the PTHP boundary whose ownership adjoins or includes a Class I, II, or IV
watercourse(s) which receives surface drainage from the proposed timber operations. The notice
shall request that the PTHP submitter be advised of surface domestic water use from the
watercourse(s), within the PTHP or within 1,000 feet downstream of the PTHP boundary. When
required to notice by letter, the PTHP submitter shall also publish the notice one time in a newspaper
of general circulation in the area affected by the proposed project. The letter and publication shall
request a response by the property owner within ten days of the post-marked date on the letter or the
date of publication as appropriate. If domestic use is noted, the PTHP shall contain mitigations
necessary to protect domestic water use. (1092.7)
“When proposed timber operations may threaten to degrade a domestic water supply, the Director
shall evaluate any mitigation measures recommended prior to the close of the public comment period
(PRC 4582.7) and shall require the adoption of those practices which are feasible and necessary to
protect the quality and beneficial use of the supply. [936.10(a)]
The timber operator shall not construct or reconstruct roads, construct or use tractor roads or
landings in Class I, II, III or IV watercourses, in the WLPZ, marshes, wet meadows, and other wet
areas unless when explained and justified in the THP by the RPF, and approved by the Director,
except as follows: [936.3(c)]
(1) At prepared tractor road crossings as described in 934.8(b).
(2) Crossings of Class III watercourses which are dry at the time of timber operations.
(3) At existing road crossings.
(4) At new tractor and road crossings approved as part of the Fish and Game Code process
(F&GC 1600 et seq.).
“Trees shall be felled in conformance with watercourse and lake protection measures incorporated in
timber harvesting plans and consistent with Article 6 of these rules. [934.1(c)]
“The accidental depositions of soil or other debris in lakes or below the watercourse or lake
transition line in waters classed I, II and IV shall be removed immediately after the deposition or as
approved by the Director. [936.3(b)]
“Removal of logging debris from Class III waterways is required by October 15 of the current year.
[936.4 (c)(3)]
“Recruitment of large woody debris for instream habitat shall be provided by retaining at least two
living conifers per acre at least 16 inches diameter breast high and 50 ft. tall within 50 ft. of all Class
I and II watercourses. [936.3(e)]
“Heavy equipment shall not be used in timber falling, yarding, or site preparation within the WLPZ
[936.4(d)] except at crossings described in [936.3(c)(1-4).
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
138
“Slash and debris from timber operations shall not be bunched adjacent to residual trees required for
silvicultural or wildlife purposes, or placed in locations where they could be discharged into a Class
I or II watercourse, or lake. [934.2(e)]
“The following standards shall be adhered to in servicing logging equipment and disposing of refuse,
litter, trash and debris: (934.5).
a. Equipment used in timber operations shall not be serviced in locations where servicing will
allow grease, oil, or fuel to pass into lakes or watercourses.
b. Non-biodegradable refuse, trash, and debris resulting from timber operations, and other
activity in connection with the operations shall be disposed of concurrently with the conduct
of timber operations.
“Watercourse crossing facilities on tractor roads shall be planned, constructed, maintained, and
removed according to the standards in 934.8.
“A prepared watercourse crossing using a structure such as a bridge, culvert, or temporary log
culvert shall be used to protect the watercourse from siltation where tractor roads cross a
watercourse in which water may be present during the life of the crossing. [934.8(b)] If the
watercourse crossing involves a culvert, the minimum diameter shall be stated in the THP and the
culvert shall be of a sufficient length to extend beyond the fill material. [934.8(e)]
“Watercourse crossing facilities not constructed to permanent crossing standards on tractor roads
shall be removed before the beginning of the winter period. [934.8(d)]
“Piling, burning, and other treatment of snags, slash and vegetative matter and protection of
desirable residual trees during site preparation shall comply with 14 CCR 937 through 937.7.
[935.2(a)] Broadcast burning shall not fully consume the larger organic debris which retains soil on
slopes and stabilizes watercourse banks. [935.2(b)]
“Site preparation activities shall comply with the watercourse and lake protection requirements in 14
CCR Article 6 and 937.3. (935.3)
“Where site preparation will occur on the logging area, the THP shall incorporate a site preparation
addendum which includes the information in 935.4.
“When necessary to protect the beneficial use of water, the RPF shall designate and the Director may
require a WLPZ or equipment limitation zone for Class III and Class IV waters. Required protection
measures may include surface cover retention, vegetation protection, equipment limitations, and
timber falling limitations. [936.4(c)(1)]
“Within the watercourse and lake protection zone adjacent to Class I and Class II waters, areas
where mineral soil exceeding 800 continuous square feet in size, exposed by timber operations, shall
be treated for reduction of soil loss. Treatment shall be done prior to October 15th except that such
bare areas created after October 15th shall be so treated within 10 days, or as agreed to by the
Director. Stabilization measures shall be included and explained in the THP or other required
notices. Stabilization measures shall be selected that will prevent significant movement of soil into
Class I and II water…” (936.7)
“Where mineral soil has been exposed by timber operations on approaches to watercourse crossings
of Class I or II waters, or Class III waters if an ELZ or WLPZ is required, the disturbed area shall be
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
139
stabilized to the extent necessary to prevent the discharge of soil into watercourses or lakes in
amounts deleterious to the quality and beneficial uses of water. [936.7(b)]”
In addition to all other district California Forest Practice Rules, the RPF must follow FPR
sections 936.9 a, b, d, j, k, l, m, n, o, p, q, r, s, and y; Protection and Restoration in Watersheds
with Threatened or Impaired Values. Sections 936.9 c, f, g, h and i do not apply since no
operations within Class I and II WLPZs are allowed under this PTEIR. Sections 936.9 t, u, v, w,
and x also do not apply because they refer to operations permitted under different CDF authority
such as in THP’s, HCPs etc.
5.11.2
hydrology and water quality:
Would the project:
a) Violate any applicable water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
b) Deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table
level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
c) Alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in erosion or siltation on- or
off-site?
d) Alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of
the course of a stream or river, or increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storm water drainage systems or provide additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
g) Place within a 100-year floodplain structures that would impede or redirect flood flows?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1)
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam, or 2) inundation
by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
i) Otherwise degrade water quality?
j) Change the amount of surface water in a water body?
k) Change currents or the course or direction of water movements?
5.11.3
Vegetation management activities associated with the Proposed Project and three alternatives
have the potential to result in short-term and long-term degradation of water quality in streams.
In addition to sedimentation, use of heavy equipment presents the potential for accidental spills
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
140
of pollutants such as gasoline, oil, and diesel fuel (refer to 5.10 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
for discussion).
The TMDL study as described in Section 5.11.1 above includes a series of watershed indicators
that would be used to document recovery of watershed function as it relates to human
disturbance. Watershed indicators for roads and timber management are:
•
Stream Crossings with Diversion Potential or Significant Failure Potential
Target: <1% of all stream crossings divert or fail as a result of a 100-year or smaller
flood. The potential to deliver sediment to the stream can be eliminated from almost all
stream crossings by eliminating inboard ditches, outsloping roads, or installing rolling
dips (US EPA 1998). Less than 1% of stream crossings have conditions where
modification is inappropriate because it would endanger travelers or where modification
is impractical because of physical constraints.
•
Hydrologic Connectivity
Target: Decreasing ditch length. A road is hydrologically connected to a stream when the
road drains water directly to the stream. A hydrologically connected road increases the
intensity, frequency, and magnitude of flood flows and suspended sediment loads in the
adjacent stream, which can result in destabilization of the stream channel.
•
Annual Road Inspection and Correction
Target: Decreasing road length next to streams, increasing proportion outsloped or hard
surfaced roads. EPA’s analysis indicates that in watersheds with road networks that have
not experienced excessive road-related sedimentation, roads are either (1) regularly
inspected and maintained; (2) hydrologically maintenance free (i.e., they do not alter the
natural hydrological function of the stream); or (3) decommissioned or hydrologically
closed (i.e., fills and culverts have been removed and the natural hydrology of the
hillslope has largely been restored).
•
Road Location, Surfacing, Side cast
Target: Prevent sediment delivery. This indicator is intended to address the highest risk
sediment delivery from roads not covered in other indicators and includes reducing road
density next to streams, increasing the percentage of outsloped and hard surfaced roads.
•
Activities In Unstable Areas
Target: Avoid and/or /eliminate subject to geological/geotechnical assessment to
minimize delivery and/or show that no increased delivery would result in minimizing
sediment delivery from management activities.
•
Disturbed Areas
Target: Decrease amount in impaired sub areas. Disturbed area is an area covered by
roads, landings, skid trails, agriculture.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
141
Relationship of PTEIR to TMDL Findings:
• Reduced Coarse Sediment Supply From the Upper Basin:
Forest management does not appear to relate to this effect for three reasons: a) Trinity
and Lewiston Dams prevent the migration of coarse materials; b) fine sediment (clay, silt
and sand) is the principle product of forest management-related erosion sources; and c)
the PTEIR area is in the upper third of the tributary watersheds, and coarse sediment,
when generated, tends to be less mobile and to stabilize within the tributary channels.
• Sediment Mobilization Below Lewiston Dam:
Inventory and treatment of sediment sources below the dam will reduce cumulative
impacts; however, until the existing bed load is mobilized, habitat levels will remain less
than optimal. The below-dam area does not fall within the project area.
• Main Stem Pool Depth Reduction:
Treating decomposed granite sediment from County roads lying between Lewiston Dam
and Grass Valley Creek is a priority. This area is outside of the area of the PTEIR.
The TMDL findings also indicated that water quality and channel conditions in Weaver and
Rush Creeks were rated as functioning at risk and the watershed hazard condition was high.
While neither the Proposed Project nor any of the alternatives is expected to create significant
impacts as described in the above, the Proposed Project includes mitigations designed to
minimize: surface erosion, extent of disturbed areas, water diversion potential, peak storm runoff
changes, and impacts from road construction/reconstruction.
5.11.4
The cumulative effects of implementing the Proposed Project or any of the alternatives based on
ERA analysis are shown below in Table 29.
TABLE 29
POST PROJECT EQUIVALENT ROADED AREA
CUMULATIVE WATERSHED EFFECTS
Acres
Analysis Area ERA Today
ERA PRE
PROPOSED
PROJECT
3,479
12.12%
12.12%
10.68%
13.50%
5.82%
8.17%
4.87%
6.73%
4.87%
5.10%
ALT 2
ALT 3
ALT 4
750
12.12%
11.54%
7.44%
7.14%
7.36%
3,479
12.12%
14.46%
9.12%
7.66%
5.30%
3,479
12.12%
12.55%
7.22%
5.80%
4.89%
Roads can be the single largest component of the ERA calculation and because they do not
recover, the initial starting condition often is a larger contributor to total ERA through time than
project effects. In this case, total road mileage within the analysis area is 290 miles and
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
142
represents about ¼ of the starting ERA before project initiation. In many projects, proposed road
construction can have a substantial effect on ERA outcomes. In this case, however, proposed
road construction is expected to be 2 miles or less, which represents less than 0.7% of the
existing total. The ERA equivalent of the 2 miles of road construction is about 4.8 acres or
0.01% ERA for the analysis area. Given the low amount of road proposed for construction and
the extremely small contribution to total ERA, road construction ERA was not included in the
following ERA effects analysis.
For ERA analysis purposes the Proposed Project and Alternatives 3 and 4 treat the same amount
of acres, although at different intensities. Alternative 2 harvests only 75 acres per year during
the next 10 years although as explained below the continuing harvest of 75 acres per year does
not lead to recovery as quickly as the Proposed Project or the other alternatives to the Proposed
Project. In addition, Alternative 2 retains the greatest amounts of logging residue and maintains
the highest potential for soil damage and increased hydrophobic soil conditions in the event of a
design fire.
5.11.4.1
Over a ten-year span the Proposed Project is estimated to include fuel break construction on
1,260 acres and 1,350 acres of other prescriptions (including commercial thinning, single tree or
group selection harvest, and transition from even-aged to uneven-aged management). Noncommercial treatments are proposed for nine hundred thirty acres of non-commercial vegetation
types while 730 acres comprised largely of WLPZs would not be treated.
As noted in Section 5.11.3 above, the Proposed Project and each of the three alternatives has the
potential to alter the hydrologic environment and/or to negatively affect water quality through
ground-disturbing activities such as commercial harvesting and fuels treatment. Compared to
Alternative 3, under which fuel breaks would be constructed on 3,610 acres, the Proposed
Project would likely have less impact to hydrological resources and water quality because less
timber and other vegetation would be removed from 1,260 acres and less ground would be
disturbed. Compared to Alternative 2, the status quo, the Proposed Project would have more
short-term impact because, although the stand treatment envisioned under the status quo –
intensive overstory removal – would cause more impact on a given acreage, it is estimated to
occur on 75 acres per year; whereas, on the average, 361 acres/year would be treated over a 10year period by the Proposed Project. Although under implementation of Alternative 4,
understory removal, the same number of acres would be treated as under the Proposed Project,
the less intensive nature of the treatment would presumably cause less impact to hydrological
function or water quality than the Proposed Project.
From a cumulative effects standpoint, this alternative would increase the pre project equivalent
roaded area by 11% from an ERA of 12.12 to an ERA of 13.50 at the end of project
implementation. Still, the resulting CWE is lower than typical thresholds of concern (TOC) used
in other forest projects such as in the Hearst PTEIR where TOCs ranged from 13-19% in nonurban areas. Over time, as the project area recovers, ERA declines (along with other private and
USFS timber harvest areas) until 35 years after harvest total ERA is 58% lower than present
compared to 60% lower if no project had been implemented.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
143
5.11.4.2
removed. Each THP filed for such a project would have to follow the FPRs and include, as
needed, measures to protect hydrological resources and water quality on a site-specific basis.
Although the intensive nature of the overstory removal harvest has the potential to negatively
impact hydrology and water quality, because these impacts are estimated to occur at wide
intervals in time and space, the short-term effects from continuance of the status quo would
create fewer short-term (i.e., within the next 10 years) impacts than the Proposed Project or other
alternatives. Over the long-term (i.e., within the next 40 years), as an estimated 3,000 acres were
cleared and regenerated under this scenario, impacts could be higher than those caused by the
less intensive treatments associated with the Proposed Project or other alternatives.
The cumulative effect of implementing Alternative 2 is the lowest among all alternatives as far
fewer acres of harvest are projected, although the harvest intensity per acre is higher than most of
the other alternatives. Total ERA at the end of 10 years is 5% less than pre-project due to the
large recovery associated with other private timber harvest conducted within the analysis area
within the last 15 years. Over time, this alternative does not recover as fast as other alternatives
because conventional timber harvest continues to occur at 750 acres per decade. Thus while
Proposed Project ERA at the end of 35 years is 5.10%, the ERA of Alternative 2 has declined to
only 7.36%. However, even with the projected timber harvest of 750 acres per decade, this
alternative still is substantially below 15% TOC.
5.11.4.3
Implementation of Alternative 3 includes construction of fuel breaks on up to 3,460 acres over
the next 10 years. Over the short-term this alternative would create the most impacts to water
quality and hydrological resources compared to the Proposed Project and other alternatives. It
would create more impact over the short-term than continuance of the status quo (Alternative 2),
although over time effects of this alternative would be less than the status quo.
If this alternative was chosen by the decision maker for implementation, additional mitigation
measures in addition to those tied to the Proposed Project (see 5.11.5 below) could be needed to
mitigate potentially significant impacts.
Alternative 3 has the highest cumulative watershed effects of any of the alternatives due to
substantial “heavy” timber harvest over most of the project area. ERA increases nearly 20% at
the end of alternative implementation from 12.12% to 14.46% approaching a threshold of
concern of 15%. However, over time this alternative recovers to 5.30% as a result of recovery of
the area affected by the project as well as recovery of past private and USFS timber harvest areas
within the analysis area.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
144
5.11.4.4
Implementation of Alternative 4, because of the less intensive treatment proposed under this
scenario, would likely cause less impact to water quality and hydrological function than the
Proposed Project or Alternative 3. It would create more impact over the short-term than
continuance of the status quo (Alternative 2), although over time effects of this alternative would
be less than the status quo.
If the decision maker chose this alternative for implementation, mitigation measures similar to
those for the Proposed Project (see 5.11.5 below) should be developed.
Implementing Alternative 4 would result in the lowest cumulative effects of any of the fuel
treatment alternatives (though this alternative would still have higher cumulative effects than
conventional timber harvest on 750 acres in the first decade). ERA increases a slight 3.55%
from 12.12% to 12.55% at the end of project implementation. Over time the effects of
implementing this alternative would have the lowest cumulative effects at the end of 35 years
with a resulting ERA of 4.89% compared to an ERA of 4.87% if no timber harvest were
conducted in the analysis area during the next 35 years.
5.11.5
Mitigation (See also Mitigation in Section 5.9, Geology and Soils)
Construction of skid trails, yarder corridors, and landings associated with the Proposed Project,
as well as removal of substantial amounts of vegetation, could have a negative effect on
hydrology and water quality. Each PTHP filed consistent with this PTEIR will contain a sitespecific evaluation of these resources. Compliance with the FPR related to these resources, as
described in Planning Documents, Goals, Objectives, Forest Practice Rules in 5.11.1 above,
would likely negate any potential for significant impacts. However, because of the sensitive
nature of hydrological and water resources in the Weaverville Basin, the following mitigations
will be followed during implementation of the Proposed Project:
1. Prohibit falling, skidding, and fuel treatment operations within the designated WLPZ of
all class I anadromous streams.
2. Prohibit operations in any non-anadromous Class I or II WLPZ except removal of
dead/dying trees for public safety purposes or construction of roads at designated
crossings. The width of the WLPZ is dependent on the adjacent hillside slope and
watercourse class as shown in Table 30 below:
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
145
TABLE 30
WATERCOURSE AND LAKE PROTECTION ZONE WIDTHS AND
ALLOWABLE PRACTICES
HILLSIDE
SLOPE
0-30%
30-50%
>50%
WLPZ WIDTHS EACH SIDE, (HORIZONTAL DISTANCE) 1/
Fish Bearing
Non-Fish Bearing
Intermittent
Class I
Class II
Class III
75’ no harvest
50’ no harvest
25’ 2/
100’ no harvest
75’ no harvest
50’ 2/
150’ no harvest
100’ no harvest
50’ 2/
1/ For cable operations on slopes over 50%, widths may be reduced by 50’ for Class I watercourses and by 25’ for class II
watercourses.
2/ Within Class III watercourses allowable practices include any described in section 2.3 (Proposed Project) as long as they do not
exceed the requirements in 936.4, 936.5 and 936.6.
3. Prohibit heavy equipment from entering WLPZs except at designated crossings.
4. Restrict new road construction within Class III watercourses to designated crossings.
5. Remove Humboldt crossings and/or rusting or failing culverts concurrent with operations
or as otherwise agreed to by CDF.
5.11.6
Impacts to hydrology and water quality resulting from implementation of the Proposed Project
will be reduced by following practices specified in the FPR, as well as the mitigation measures
noted above. These measures will reduce impacts from implementation of the Proposed Project
to less than significant.
5.12
Land Use and Planning
This section summarizes the impacts to Land Use and Planning within the Weaverville Basin as
a result of implementing either the Proposed Project or any of its alternatives.
5.12.1
drainages. Land ownership in these drainages is about 12% BLM administered lands, 46%
non-industrial lands. The community of Weaverville occupies approximately three square miles
within the middle of the Weaver Creek basin. Within the community, urban and semi-urban
development patterns predominate. Land uses in the project area are predominantly open space,
forest and timber management, rural residential, and recreation, with minor amounts of mining,
agricultural, and commercial uses.
The 4,275 acres of small private parcels included in the project area are predominantly forested
and most have been harvested at least once since the 1950’s, with many entered multiple times.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
146
Many of the parcels are occupied by one or more dwellings and assorted other structures and are
used primarily as home sites.
Sierra Pacific lands, which are primarily located in the east and north portions of the project area,
are managed for timber production, and are mostly zoned Timber Production Zone (TPZ).
On BLM lands, which are primarily located in the south one-half of the project area,
management is primarily focused on protecting their integrity and value until they can be
disposed of (see Planning Documents, Goals, Objectives, Forest Practice Rules below for a more
in depth discussion of planning goals). These lands are predominantly forested, with
intermingled brushfields, grasslands, and riparian areas.
U.S. Forest Service lands, which are primarily located in the north one-half of the project area,
are within the Hayfork Adaptive Management Area (AMA), the Trinity Alps Wilderness, and the
Clear Creek Late-Successional Reserve (LSR). Management varies by land allocation, with the
primary activities being forest and wildlife management in the AMA, recreation in the
Wilderness, and wildlife management in the LSR. These lands are predominantly forested, with
intermingled brushfields, grasslands, riparian areas, and rock outcrops (in the Wilderness).
General Plan for the community. The Community Plan included the following relevant land use
Goals and Objectives:
Natural Resources Goal #3: To strive to conserve those resources of the County that are important
to its character and economic well-being.
•
•
Objective 3.1 Encourage timber harvesting activities within the basin area that are consistent
with the visual quality objectives of the Shasta-Trinity Land Resources Management Plan.
Objective 3.5 Provide for resource production on the steep lands surrounding the
developable portion of the Weaverville basin consistent with goals for visual quality and
lands for timber production and wildlife use within the context of protecting view sheds from a
Management of BLM lands in the Trinity Management Area is outlined in the Redding Resource
Management Plan and Record of Decision (June 1993). The forest management program on
these lands is operating under the Timber Management Environmental Assessment for Sustained
Yield Unit 15 (SYU-15). Lands within the Weaverville Basin are available for exchange. Until
they are disposed of they are classified as “restricted management”, which means they will be
managed until transferred, but no long-term investments or commitments will be made. Actions
necessary to protect or maintain the current or potential value of the resources are allowed as
long as they do not diminish the ability of the land to be exchanged. These actions include, but
are not limited to, pre-commercial thinning, seedling protection and release, and
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
147
sanitation/salvage harvesting (but no green sales). Forest management will be accomplished
using temporary easements, limited road construction, and harvest methods that minimize the
need for reforestation. Restricted management requires a wide array of biological, visual,
cultural, and social controls beyond what is already required by law and therefore stand rotations
will be longer than considered optimum for strictly timber production.
Management of USFS lands within the Trinity National Forest is outlined in the Shasta-Trinity
National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1981), which includes management
direction from the Record of Decision for the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on
Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species within
the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (FSEIS). Management varies by land allocation, with the
primary activities being timber and wildlife management on AMA (Matrix) lands, recreation in
the Trinity Alps Wilderness, and management of wildlife habitat for old-growth dependent
species in the Clear Creek LSR.
Within Riparian Reserves on both BLM and USFS lands, permitted uses are only those which
maintain or improve the riparian ecosystem and protect stream courses and water quality.
Riparian Reserves in general are removed from scheduled timber harvesting and other stand
disturbance activities. The only timber harvesting in Riparian Reserves will be salvage and
fuelwood cutting when that will meet aquatic conservation objectives.
There are California Forest Practice Rules that are relevant to some aspects of land use and
planning, specifically permanent conversion of forested lands to non-timber uses, which requires
a conversion permit or exemption (Subchapter 7, Article 7) and timber harvest planning
(Subchapter 7, Articles 2, 6.5, and 6.8).
5.12.2
Land Use and Planning:
Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities’
conservation plan?
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
148
5.12.3
a) The project will not physically divide the community.
b) The project is in conformance with existing land use plans, zoning, policies, and
regulations.
c) The project will not conflict with any habitat or natural communities conservation plan.
5.12.4
The only activities anticipated by the Proposed Project and alternatives are commercial forest
harvesting operations and non-commercial fuel treatments. These activities are allowed under
existing land use plans, zoning, policies, and regulations and neither would change current land
uses or require any changes in zoning.
5.12.5
No mitigation measures are needed for the Proposed Project, as there will be no changes in
current land uses or zoning.
5.12.6
Impacts to land use and planning resulting from implementation of the Proposed Project are less
than significant.
5.13
Mineral and Energy Resources
This section summarizes the impacts to Mineral and Energy Resources within the Weaverville
5.13.1
The Weaverville Basin was extensively mined following the discovery of gold at Reading’s Bar
near Douglas City in the 1800s. Most of the mining was for placer deposits of gold, which
required the removal of large volumes of earth. This was done primarily with the use of water,
by hydraulic mining. While some gold undoubtedly remains at some locations, it is likely
neither of sufficient value, quantity, or concentration to warrant further mining. No other
commercially valuable, locatable mineral deposits are known to exist in the Weaverville Basin.
There is one sand and gravel operation in the basin, located in the Trinity Alps Industrial Park in
Weaverville. This operation must import its raw materials from Junction City and other areas.
There are no approved use permits for commercial gravel or rock mining within the Weaver
Creek watershed. There are a number of shale and gravel pits that are developed for local road
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
149
use and as part of forest management operations. Rock pits that are less than 1,000 yd3 and that
meet some additional criteria under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) are
exempt from that act. In addition, larger pits are exempt when they are used on forest roads in
the pit vicinity for forest management.
The potential for development of new quarry sites or use of existing ones, even those exempted
under SMARA, are limited due the potential for ultramafic rock content of rocks in such pits. In
2002, the CA Air Resources Board adopted a Final Regulation Order (Section 93105) that places
significant restrictions on the use of ultramafic rock materials. That order, the ‘Asbestos
Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining
Operations’, disallows mining of rocks containing asbestos.
There are no known commercially developed energy resources within the Weaverville Basin,
except biomass from wood waste. Wood waste is sold to power plants in Eureka or Anderson
when economically feasible (refer to economic section in Appendix D for related discussions).
The Trinity County Public Utilities District provides electrical power, purchased from the
Western Area Power Administration. Some home sites in outlying areas utilize water and/or
sunlight to produce electrical power. Propane, gasoline, diesel and other petroleum products are
trucked in from out of the area.
Many homes are still heated with wood stoves, although the use of wood for space heating has
been declining in recent years due in part to an aging population, increased wood cutting
restrictions on the National Forest and industrial timberlands, and declining air quality (refer to
5.6 Air Quality for related discussions). Firewood is a renewable energy resource that is
available from a variety of sources in and near the Weaverville Basin. It is likely that all of the
land and resource management agencies and entities will continue to grow trees on the majority
of their properties, so fuel wood will continue to be available in some quantity.
Planning Document Goals, Objectives and Policies, Forest Practice Rules
There are no Trinity County General Plan or Weaverville Community Plan goals or objectives
specific to mineral or energy resources.
There are no California Forest Practice Rules relevant to mineral or energy resources.
5.13.2
Mineral and Energy Resources:
Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral that would be of value to the region
and the residents of the state?
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
150
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
c) Result in the use of energy or non-renewable resources in a wasteful or inefficient
manner?
5.13.3
a) The project site is not located in an area with known existing or reasonably foreseeable
commercially valuable, locatable mineral deposits, excepting localized rock and gravel
sources. On-site sources of rock, such as exposed bedrock shoulders of ridges or
outcrops, will be developed for placement on forest roads. These sources can only be
developed where they comply with SMARA and Air Resources Board regulations and
local zoning requirements. No soil or minerals will be commercially removed during
timber operations or fuel reduction treatments and no added restrictions will be placed on
the availability of minerals.
b) No mineral resource recovery sites are delineated in the Trinity County General Plan or
the Weaverville Community Plan and the project will not result in the loss of availability
of a local mineral resource recovery site.
c) The project itself will not use any energy or non-renewable resources in a wasteful or
inefficient manner. It is expected that commercially valuable trees will be trucked to
mills for processing. Where feasible, with landowner permission, non-commercial sized
trees will be utilized for firewood. Depending upon economic feasibility, biomass may
be trucked for use in electrical generation plants.
5.13.4
The Proposed Project would treat 3,540 acres over the next ten years, 1,350 by commercial
thinning, single tree or group selection harvest, and transition from even-aged to uneven-aged
management, and 1,260 by selection harvesting to create shaded fuel breaks. Fewer acres (225)
would be commercially harvested than under Alternative 4, the same acreage as in Alternative 3,
and more acres than in Alternative 4. It is likely that most of the timber harvested would be of
commercial size, so utilization would be high. Non-commercial fuel treatments would produce
biomass that is likely to be utilized only if economic conditions are favorable. To the extent that
fuel breaks, thinned stands, and areas of fuel treatment are maintained in a more open condition
than at present, future wood and biomass energy resources would likely be somewhat less than at
present. This effect will be offset to a degree as residual trees capture more of the site resources
and subsequently grow larger in diameter, height, and volume.
Compared to Alternative 2, the status quo, the Proposed Project would commercially harvest
trees on 225 fewer acres but would treat 930 acres by non-commercial fuel treatments, which
would generate more biomass. Utilization of commercial timber would be comparable, but it is
likely that biomass would be utilized only if economic conditions are favorable. Under
Alternative 2, residual and regenerated trees on harvested areas would eventually occupy most of
the site, whereas stands would be maintained in a more open condition in the Proposed Project.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
151
The shorter rotations, denser stands, and larger harvested acreage in Alternative 2 may result in
greater future wood energy resources than in the Proposed Project with its longer rotations and
more open stands of larger trees with greater average volumes. But the fuel treatments on the
930 acres in the Proposed Project, which will not be treated in Alternative 2, will allow site
resources and growth increment to be captured on fewer trees, thus increasing utilizable wood
energy resources on those acres.
Compared to Alternative 3, under which shaded fuel breaks would be constructed on 3,460 acres,
the Proposed Project would remove fewer wood energy resources because fewer acres would be
harvested under the fuel break prescription, which has a lower residual basal area standard than
commercial thinning. Utilization of commercial timber would be comparable. To the extent that
fuel breaks are maintained in a more open condition than existing stands, future wood and
biomass energy resources would likely be less for both the Proposed Project and Alternative 3
than at present. Utilizable resources may be greater for both and the Proposed Project would
have more resources than Alternative 3. To the extent that non-commercial fuel treatments are
implemented in the Proposed Project, biomass removed would be comparable to or more than in
Alternative 3. Biomass is likely to be utilized only if economic conditions are favorable.
Under implementation of Alternative 4, understory removal, trees cut would be smaller than
under the Proposed Project and it is likely that few, if any, would be removed from the forest.
The less intensive treatments and the small tree sizes would likely mean that less biomass would
be trucked offsite for processing, especially if economic conditions were unfavorable. Few, if
any, commercial size trees would be harvested, so the residual stands would have a greater
canopy closure and basal area stocking. To the extent that stands are maintained in a more open
condition in the Proposed Project, future wood energy resources would be less than under
Alternative 4.
5.13.5
The only potential adverse impact from implementing the Proposed Project is a reduction in total
future wood energy resources due to maintaining fuel breaks at lower stocking levels than site
potential capabilities. Given the small total area of the project compared to the total available
forest lands in the Trinity River watershed on public, industrial and non-industrial lands, the
reduction of the total potential biomass is insignificant. In addition, the economic feasibility of
biomass is currently limited to the distance of travel to biomass power plants. No mitigation
measures are necessary.
5.13.6
Impacts to mineral and energy resources resulting from implementation of the Proposed Project
are less than significant.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
152
5.14
Noise
This section summarizes the impacts from noise within the Weaverville Basin as a result of
5.14.1
The draft noise element of the Trinity County General Plan contains an analysis of noise levels
produced by traffic on State Routes 299 and 3, aircraft at the airport, and industrial and
commercial operations, which include the Trinity River Lumber Company mill and the sand and
gravel operation on Industrial Way. The greatest observed noise levels during the study were
from vehicle traffic, aircraft over-flights, and construction. The study found that noise levels in
the Weaverville Basin are generally low.
The noise element of the Trinity County General Plan (Trinity County Planning Department,
2002b) is almost 30 years old and is in the process of being revised and updated. The revision
will include a noise ordinance, which will establish acceptable levels of noise within 50’ of
residences, schools, churches, the hospital, and the library. There will be an exemption for
timber operations.
There are no California Forest Practice Rules relevant to noise, other than the requirement to
include recreational resources impacts in the Cumulative Impacts Assessment and to mitigate the
impacts. (932.9 & Board of Forestry Technical Rule Addendum No. 2, Cumulative Impacts
Assessment.)
5.14.2
questions to be considered in determining whether the project would cause significant impacts
from noise:
Would the project:
a) Generate or expose persons to noise levels in excess of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Generate or expose persons to excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise
levels?
c) Result in a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project?
d) A temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
e) Be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, and consequently expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
153
f) Be within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and consequently expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
5.14.3
a) Implementation of projects identified in the PTEIR will not generate or expose persons to
noise levels in excess of standards established in the revised noise element of the Trinity
County General Plan and draft noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
The draft noise ordinance exempts timber operations.
b) Implementation of projects identified in the PTEIR will not generate or expose persons to
excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels.
c) Implementation of projects identified in the PTEIR will not result in a permanent increase
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
d) Most of the properties in the Proposed Project are far removed from schools, churches,
the hospital, and the library. Noise associated with the project will temporarily increase
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above noise levels further away from the
project. The severity of such impacts will be temporary and the effects are dependent on
the number of individual projects that might occur simultaneously.
e) This project will not result in the creation of homes, structures or other developments that
might be affected by aircraft noises. Some portions of the project site are located within
two miles of the county airport but are in rural areas where the infrequent aircraft takeoffs
and landings combined with the noise from harvest operations will not be noticeable to
large numbers of people.
f) The Proposed Project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip.
5.14.4
5.14.4.1
management, 1,260 by selection harvesting to create shaded fuel breaks, and 930 acres could be
treated by non-commercial fuel treatments. The Proposed Project would commercially harvest
225 fewer acres than in Alternative 2, the same acreage as in Alternative 3, and more acres than
in Alternative 4. It is likely that most of the timber harvested would be of commercial size,
which would primarily require tractor skidding of logs. Slash in fuel breaks would be mostly
tractor piled while slash in thinned areas would be lopped and scattered. Non-commercial fuel
treatments would be a combination of tractor removal and piling and chainsaw cutting and hand
piling. All of these activities would result in short-term increases in noise over ambient levels.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
154
Compared to Alternative 2, the status quo, the Proposed Project would create more prolonged
tractor and chainsaw noise in the short-term because more acres per year (354 acres/year) would
be treated over a shorter time period (10 years). Alternative 2 would harvest only 75 acres per
year over a 40-year period and fuel treatments, such as slash piling with tractors and lopping and
scattering of slash, would probably not occur to the same degree.
Compared to Alternative 3, under which shaded fuel breaks would be constructed on 3,460 acres
over a 10-year period, the Proposed Project would likely create similar levels of tractor and
chainsaw noise because harvesting would occur on the same acreage. But if non-commercial
fuel treatments were implemented on the 930 acres prescribed in the Proposed Project, there
would be more prolonged noise as, in total, 80 more acres would be treated than in Alternative 3.
If Alternative 4 were implemented, there would be little to no harvesting of commercial size
trees. The less intensive nature of the treatment and the small size of the trees cut would
significantly reduce the use of heavy equipment, so noise from that source would be absent or far
less prolonged than in the Proposed Project. Pre-commercial thinning and disposal of slash,
primarily by lopping and scattering, could create more prolonged chainsaw noise on more acres
than in the Proposed Project.
5.14.4.2
Under Alternative 2, 2,835 acres would be harvested within 40 years, but few stand alone fuel
treatments are anticipated. More commercial size trees would be harvested than in the Proposed
Project or Alternative 4, likely requiring more equipment time for skidding, loading, and hauling.
This would create more prolonged noise from heavy equipment than under the Proposed Project
and Alternative 4. Since harvests would be spread out over a much longer time period, noise
levels would be shorter-term in any given year. Increased tractor noise levels would likely be
more prolonged under the Proposed Project if non-commercial fuel treatments were implemented
on the prescribed 930 acres. Chainsaw noise levels would be more prolonged and on more acres
under Alternative 4 and both chainsaw and heavy equipment noise would be more prolonged and
on more acres under Alternative 3, than under the status quo.
5.14.4.3
Alternative 3 would create 3,460 acres of shaded fuel breaks within ten years. Probably the most
trees (commercial plus non-commercial size) would be harvested, likely requiring the most
equipment time for skidding, loading, and hauling, although there would be little difference
between this alternative and the Proposed Project. The most logging slash would be generated
under this alternative, which would mostly be tractor piled. This would likely create the most
prolonged heavy equipment noise levels, although there would be only a slight difference
between this alternative and the Proposed Project.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
155
5.14.4.4
Alternative 4 would treat 3,460 acres, all by pre-commercial thinning within ten years. The
small size of cut trees would likely result in few, if any, trees being utilized. Logging slash
would be substantially less than under the other alternatives. Equipment time for skidding,
loading, and hauling would be minimal, so heavy equipment noise would be substantially less
than for the Proposed Project or Alternatives 2 and 3. Slash from pre-commercial thinning
would be largely lopped and scattered, which could create slightly more chainsaw noise than the
Proposed Project or other alternatives.
5.14.5
Residents of the Weaverville Basin, where logging and wood collecting are common activities,
understand that noise from these activities occurs periodically and are of short-term duration.
The noise levels from implementation of the Proposed Project are what would normally be
expected from such a project, so no mitigation measures are needed.
5.14.6
Impacts to noise resulting from implementation of the Proposed Project are less than significant.
5.15
This section summarizes the impacts to population and housing within the Weaverville Basin as
a result of implementing either the Proposed Project or any of its alternatives.
5.15.1
Trinity County’s population was estimated at 13,022 for the year 2000. The average population
density in 1999 was 4.1 persons per square mile, significantly below the statewide average of
212.5 persons per square mile. Population growth slowed during the 1990s from what it was in
the previous two decades. There was a moderate increase in population between 1990 and 1996
and a decrease between 1996 and 2000. Population is predicted to gradually increase in the next
two decades, at a rate of less than 1% per year, to an estimated 15,026 by the year 2020.
The population of the community of Weaverville, which is the largest town in the county and the
County seat, is estimated at approximately 4,000 people, including residents in outlying areas
such as Rush Creek, Bear Creek and Democrat Gulch.
General Plan for the community. The Community Plan included the following relevant land use
Goals and Objectives:
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
156
lands for timber production and wildlife use within the context of protecting view sheds from a
There are no California Forest Practice Rules that are relevant to population and housing.
5.15.2
population and housing:
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
5.15.3
a-c) Activities analyzed under the PTEIR will not create any new housing or displace
existing housing or people. Since the Proposed Project is not expected to induce
significant residential, commercial, or industrial growth, population changes in the
project area are not expected. The Proposed Project will likely be implemented using the
local labor force.
5.15.4
Under the Proposed Project and Alternatives 2 and 3, a small amount of timber would be made
available for manufacture into lumber. It is unlikely that any timber would be available under
Alternative 4. The total volume available under the Proposed Project or any alternative will have
an undetectable effect on framing or construction lumber supply. Implementation of any
alternative will not result in significant changes to housing demand, locally or nationally.
5.15.5
Implementation of the Proposed Project will not adversely impact population and housing, so no
mitigation measures are necessary.
5.15.6
Impacts to population and housing resulting from implementation of the Proposed Project are
less than significant.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
157
5.16
Public Services
This section summarizes the impacts to Public Services within the Weaverville Basin as a result
of implementing either the Proposed Project or any of its alternatives.
5.16.1
Fire Protection
Fire protection services in the project area are provided by the Weaverville Fire Protection
District (WFPD) and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF), with the
U.S. Forest Service (USFS) providing backup as needed.
The WFPD provides seasonal wildland, structural, vehicle and medical emergency response
within the Weaverville area. The WFPD employs a full-time Fire Chief and a part-time
administrative secretary, with additional staffing provided by the Weaverville Volunteer Fire
Department (WVFD). The WVFD is the initial responder to structural fires and will assist CDF
with wildland fires. The WVFD maintains a roster of up to 50 fully trained and competent
firefighters or staff to meet the needs of a population of over 5,000. The WFPD operates two
stations, one adjacent to Lee Fong Park and one in the East Weaver Area. The Department
maintains five structural fire engines (including one Office of Emergency Services engine), one
structural/wildland engine, one rescue truck, one mobile air van, one water tender, and two utility
vehicles.
The Weaverville Basin is within the State Responsibility Area and the Direct Protection Area for
CDF, which is the initial responder on wildland fires. The Shasta-Trinity Unit of CDF maintains
a battalion chief (Bill Britton 623-5822), two fire captains, and two foresters at their Weaverville
Station on Washington Street. During fire season, a 500-gallon engine with a 3-4-person crew is
stationed there, with 2 engines 14 miles southeast at Fawn Lodge, 1 in Hayfork, and 2 in Shasta.
CDF engines are funded for use on wildland fires on private lands, but if staffed they respond to
any fire or other emergency year-around. The CDF Trinity River Conservation Camp at Trinity
Mountain has five 15-17 person crews that can cut fire line and mop-up fire. They are also
available year round to do project work.
The USFS will assist CDF in wildland fire suppression if needed. The USFS has a division
chief, battalion chief, and chief fire prevention technician stationed in Weaverville and a Model
42 engine with a 500 gallon tank stationed about 7 miles west at Junction City, with a 5 person
crew on duty 7 days a week, with a minimum of 3 people required for the engine. A Model 62
engine with a 500-gallon tank is stationed about 16 miles north at Mule Creek Guard Station and
a Model 61 engine with a 500-gallon tank is stationed about 34 miles north at Coffee Creek
Work Station. The latter two stations have a 7-person crew on duty 7 days a week from June 1st
to mid October, with a minimum of 5 people required for each engine. There is a 20 person,
Type I fire crew stationed at Hayfork. The USFS water tender at Big Bar can respond if needed
and in 2003 a tender will be stationed at Mule Creek.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
158
Aerial resources available for fire suppression include USFS 'Helitack 506', Forest Service and
CDF retardant air tankers, a USFS lead plane and CDF air attack, CDF helicopters based in
Tehama and Humboldt Counties, and the Forest Service Redding smoke jumper corps. The
Redding smokejumpers are not normally used on a fire where road access is readily available,
but they could be used in portions of the watershed with limited access. The Forest Service Type
II helicopter, located at Pettijohn Mountain (Trinity River Conservation Camp) in Trinity
County, can be on a fire in the Weaverville Basin within 5-10 minutes of detection. This
helicopter can deploy 2-5 fire fighters (14 total) on scene and begin water bucket drops (400gallon capacity) almost immediately. The retardant bombers, lead plane, air attack and smoke
jumper planes are all stationed at Redding Airport and can be on scene within 15-20 minutes of
dispatch. Additional retardant planes are located at Rohnerville Airport in Humboldt County and
Chico Airport. Planes from both of these airfields can respond within 35-45 minutes to this area.
The Forest Service lookout on Weaver Bally provides early fire detection and is generally staffed
from late May or early June (depending upon snow conditions) to late September or early
October (depending on budget constraints). Weaver Bally lookout is located on the northwest
edge of the plan area and looks directly into the basin. The lookout can spot a fire in the area
while it is still relatively small.
Police Protection
Police protection services in the project area are provided by the Trinity County Sheriff
Department (TCSD), with the California Highway Patrol (CHP) providing backup as needed.
The TCSD is staffed with 24 sworn peace officers (Sheriff, Under-sheriff, deputies, detectives,
narcotics investigators, and lake patrol), 21 non-sworn personnel (administrative assistants,
dispatchers, and correctional officers) and 2 reserve officers. The CHP is staffed with 16 patrol
officers, 2 sergeants, 1 lieutenant commander, 2 office staff, an auto technician, and a janitor.
The USFS maintains one armed patrol officer at the Weaverville Ranger District for enforcing
federal laws on the National Forest.
Schools
There are two public schools in Weaverville, Trinity High School and Weaverville Elementary
School. They are from to ¾of a mile from the nearest parcel in the project area.
Parks
The community of Weaverville occupies approximately three square miles within the center of
the Weaver Creek basin. Within the community are two developed parks, Lowden Park and Lee
Fong Park. These sites serve Weaverville Basin residents as well as visitors from within and
outside the region. They are from ½to ¾of a mile from the nearest parcel in the project area.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
159
Roads (see 5.18 Transportation)
There are two State Highways, SR 299 and SR 3, that traverse the analysis area and border some
of the parcels in the project area. These are heavily traveled highways, especially during the
summer tourist season. Truck traffic, including logging trucks and lowboys hauling logging
equipment, is common on these roads. These highways are maintained by Caltrans.
There are a number of County roads that access and traverse some of the parcels in the project
area. These are Oregon Street, Mill Street, Ransom Road, Martin Road, Little Browns Creek
Road, Browns Mountain Road, East Weaver Creek Road, China Gulch Road, North Roundy
Road, and Trinity Dam Boulevard. These are maintained by the Trinity County Road
Department. Most of these roads have been used in the past by log trucks and lowboys hauling
logging equipment.
There are several federal roads that access and traverse some of the parcels in the project area.
These are Democrat Gulch Road on BLM and Weaver Bally Road, Musser Hill Road, China
Road, and the north end of North Roundy Road on USFS. These are maintained by the
respective federal land management agencies. All of these roads have been used in the past by
log trucks and lowboys hauling logging equipment.
There are numerous private roads that access and traverse some of the parcels in the project area.
Some of these are Oregon Mountain Road, Oregon Mountain Ridge Road, Black Bear Road,
Bear Creek Road, East Branch Road, Tye Lane, and Elderberry Road. These are maintained by
the private landowners. All of these roads have been used in the past by log trucks and some
have been used by lowboys hauling logging equipment.
The “Weaverville Policies” section in the Land Use Element of the Trinity County General Plan
(Trinity County, 1988) contains the following policies regarding public services and utilities that
relate to the Proposed Project:
•
•
The County of Trinity will cooperate and coordinate its actions with the various special
districts and utilities servicing Weaverville.
Detailed plans should be prepared for the extension and improvement of services in the
Weaverville area, including water supply, fire protection, sewage disposal, traffic
circulation, education, and other essential services.
The Safety Element of the Trinity County General Plan (Trinity County, 2002b) notes that all
areas of Trinity County are at risk of wildland fire, with much of the county having a high to
extreme fire hazard severity. The Safety Element contains the following goals, objectives and
policies relevant to the Proposed Project:
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
160
•
Objective S.5.1: Ensure emergency accessibility to development through proper road
construction and signage.
• Policy A: Roads shall be constructed to provide adequate width, grade, and turn-around
space for emergency vehicles by complying with appropriate federal, state and local
adopted standards. Construction of roads shall protect water quality, slope stability and
threat to natural and cultural resources.
• Objective S.5.3: Educate the community on proper procedures in case of a catastrophic
fire.
• Policy B: Evacuation routes and safety zone location shall be kept at the Office of
Emergency Services, which is responsible for the evacuation process.
The following requirements of the Trinity County Fire Safe Ordinance (Ordinance No. 1162)
(Trinity County 1992) Article 2 “Emergency Access” are also applicable to the project:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Road and street networks, whether public or private, shall provide for safe access for
emergency wildland fire equipment and civilian evacuation concurrently, and shall
provide unobstructed traffic circulation during a wildfire emergency.
All roads shall be constructed to provide a minimum of two nine-foot traffic lanes
providing two-way traffic flow.
The surface shall provide unobstructed access to conventional drive vehicles, including
sedans and fire engineers ... and be capable of supporting a 40,000-pound load.
The grade for all roads, streets private lanes and driveways shall not exceed 16%.
No roadway shall have a horizontal inside radius of curvature of less than 50’ and
additional surface width of 4’ shall be added to curves of 50-100’ radius; 2’ to those from
100-200’.
The length of vertical curves in roadways, exclusive of gutters, ditches, and drainage
structures designed to hold or divert water, shall be not less than 100’.
The California Forest Practice Rules do not specifically address public services.
5.16.2
Public Services:
Would the project result in?
a) adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities?
b) the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
i.) Fire protection
ii.) Police protection
iii.) Schools
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
161
iv.) Parks
v.) Roads
vi.) Other public facilities
5.16.3
a-b) Project activities analyzed in the PTEIR will not affect public services in any way. No
existing infrastructure will need to be changed or upgraded in any way and public
services will continue to service the project area as they have already been doing.
5.16.4
5.16.4.1
The Proposed Project would treat 3,540 acres over the next ten years: 1,350 by commercial
management and 1,260 by selection harvesting to create shaded fuel breaks while 930 acres
could be treated with non-commercial treatments. To the extent that roads are used during
timber operations to haul logs or heavy equipment, there may be associated damage to road
surfaces. Such damage is normal for this type of road use and will not be significant. Road use
is not expected to affect or require any changes in current public services. The addition of 3,540
acres of safety zone fuel breaks within the project area within ten years should decrease the need
for firefighting resources and enhance firefighting success rates in the Weaverville Basin.
Under Alternative 2, the status quo, 2,575 acres would be treated by intensive overstory removal
on an estimated 75 acres per year over a 40-year period. As with the Proposed Project, this
alternative would not adversely affect nor require any changes in current public services.
Under Alternative 3, shaded fuel breaks would be constructed on 3,460 acres over a 10-year
period. As with the Proposed Project, this alternative would not adversely affect nor require any
changes in current public services.
Under implementation of Alternative 4, understory removal, trees cut would be smaller (under
11” dbh) than in the Proposed Project and it is likely that few, if any, would be removed from the
forest. As with the Proposed Project, this alternative would not adversely affect nor require any
changes in current public services.
5.16.4.2
Under Alternative 2 no fuel treatments would occur, but 2,835 acres would be harvested by
overstory removal (2,572 acres) and commercial thin (260 acres) within 40 years, at a rate of
about 75 acres per year. It is likely that more damage to road surfaces from hauling of logs and
heavy equipment would occur in this alternative, but over a longer time period, than in the
Proposed Project or Alternative 4, due to the larger acreage commercially harvested. Less
damage is likely to occur than in Alternative 3, which will have harvesting and fuel treatments
on more acres. Road use is not expected to affect or require any changes in current public
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
162
services. The addition of 2,835 acres of safety zone fuel breaks within the project area within
forty years should decrease the need for firefighting resources and enhance firefighting success
rates in the Weaverville Basin.
5.16.4.3
Alternative 3 would create 3,460 acres of shaded fuel breaks within ten years. It is likely that the
most damage to road surfaces from hauling of logs or heavy equipment will occur in this
alternative due to the larger acreage commercially harvested. Road use is not expected to affect
or require any changes in current public services. The addition of 3,460 acres of high quality
safety zone fuel breaks within the project area within ten years should decrease the need for
firefighting resources and enhance firefighting success rates in the Weaverville Basin.
5.16.4.4
Alternative 4 would treat 3,460 acres within ten years, all by pre-commercial thinning. Little to
no hauling of logs or heavy equipment is anticipated in this alternative, so damage to road
surfaces is expected to be minimal. Road use is not expected to affect or require any changes in
current public services. The addition of 3,460 acres of safety zone fuel breaks within the project
area within ten years should decrease the need for firefighting resources and enhance firefighting
success rates in the Weaverville Basin.
5.16.5
Implementation of the Proposed Project will not adversely impact public services or require
additional services, so no mitigation measures are necessary.
5.16.6
Impacts to public services resulting from implementation of the Proposed Project are less than
significant.
5.17
Recreation
This section summarizes the impacts to Recreation within the Weaverville Basin as a result of
5.17.1
Regional Setting
Trinity County’s open spaces provide visual beauty and abundant opportunities for outdoor
recreation. The Trinity Alps Wilderness is located just northwest of Weaverville and seven
miles to the northeast are Lewiston and Trinity Lakes and portions of the Whiskeytown ShastaTrinity National Recreational Area. Rafting the Trinity River is a popular summer activity and
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
163
fishing and hunting are major fall attractions in the area. Visitors who are attracted to the area by
the recreational opportunities contribute significantly to the County’s economy.
Analysis Area
drainages. Land ownership in these watersheds is about 12% BLM administered lands, 46%
non-industrial lands. The federally managed resource lands are available for primitive recreation
and dispersed motorized and non-motorized recreation and have sites suitable for recreational
developments.
There is an extensive, well-used network of hiking, biking, and equestrian trails in the East and
West Weaver Creek and Little Browns Creek watersheds (see map, below). This network of
trails, known as the Weaver Basin Trail system, has been developed as a cooperative effort of
local volunteers, the Trinity County RCD, Forest Service, and private landowners. Day hikers,
bikers, horseback riders, joggers, and others regularly use old mining trails that follow many of
the creeks and ditch lines between creeks. The annual La Grange Classic mountain bike race,
which draws hundreds of riders from outside the County, uses local roads and trails. These trails
are easily accessed from Weaverville. The Weaverville Community Plan recognizes their
contribution to the recreational, aesthetic, and historical values of the community.
There are no State-designated scenic highways, County-designated County Scenic Roadways, or
Recreation District #1 Overlay zones, all of which establish visual quality goals, within the
assessment area (Weaverville Community Plan, TCPD, 1990). Highway 299 is a Forest Service
Scenic Byway (Trinity Byway), but the federal byway designation is not binding on private land
management.
Community of Weaverville
The community of Weaverville occupies approximately three square miles within the center of
the Weaver Creek basin. Within the community, urban and semi-urban development patterns
predominate. Developed outdoor recreation sites in the Weaverville Basin include Lowden Park,
Lee Fong Park, and East Weaver Campground. These sites serve Weaverville Basin residents as
well as visitors from within and outside the region.
Project Area
Although the project area is on private lands, portions of it are traversed by, adjacent to, or in the
vicinity of public roads and existing and proposed trails. State Route 3 traverses parcels along
Little Browns Creek and Last Chance Gulch, Musser Hill Road runs through the upper corner of
a parcel in the Bear Creek drainage, Weaver Bally Road runs through parcels in Munger Gulch,
and Oregon Street runs through parcels in the West Weaver Creek drainage. Existing trails
traverse parcels in Garden Gulch and Ten Cent Gulch. A proposed trail extension up West
Weaver Creek is located southwest of the confluence of Grub Gulch. Land uses in the project
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
164
area are predominantly open space, forest and timber management, rural residential, and
recreation, with minor amounts of mining, agricultural and commercial uses.
The Open Space and Conservation Elements of the Trinity County General Plan (Trinity
County, 1973) also recognize the value of recreational land in Trinity County and the importance
of protecting this resource. A stated objective in the preservation of open space is “to reserve
land for recreational facilities, encourage private recreational development and other open uses
in categories characteristic and beneficial to the residents of Trinity County as well as to meet
tourist needs of the immediate future and the long-range future.” The following
recommendations from these elements also apply:
•
•
•
Recommendation 1. Provide for the orderly development and control of a comprehensive
recreation system on public lands where feasible and possible and on private lands where
necessary for the development of the recreation system for Trinity county.
Recommendation 2. Recreational resources on public and private land should be
protected for the future, as these resources are largely irreplaceable natural assets.
Recommendation 3. Encourage or provide recreational facilities and other open uses in
central locations near all living and working areas and in areas of outstanding beauty
sufficient to meet the needs of the residents of the county, as well as the visitors to be
served in the county.
The Parks and Recreation section of the Weaverville Community Plan (Trinity County, 1990)
contains the following relevant policies:
•
•
•
•
Goal 1. To ensure that future recreation development is designed to harmonize with the
landscape, thus creating a minimum of disturbance to the natural setting. The purpose of
this goal is to encourage recreation developments which emphasize natural conditions;
that is, pathways along creek areas, parking lots, or playing fields on flat areas.
Goal 2. To recognize and retain the trails around town.
Goal 3. To recognize and encourage the development of recreation facilities which serve
both local, regional, and tourist needs.
Goal 4. To recognize the importance of the basin’s creeks and encourage the
development of pathways along these creeks. To increase bicycle and pedestrian traffic
by developing a safe and convenient system of bicycle routes, trails, storage facilities,
and pedestrian walkways.
o
Objective 4.1: Encourage the development of pedestrian and bicycle trails
along Sidney Gulch, East Weaver, West Weaver, and Weaver Creeks as generally
located in the Recreation Plan, Exhibit “R-3”.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
165
The following California Forest Practice Rules (FPRs) are particularly relevant for visual
resources. These rules are found in the FPRs, Subchapters 4, 5, and 6, Article 3, Silvicultural
Methods. As part of the project description, they will reduce potential impacts to a less than
significant level.
“Special consideration for aesthetic enjoyment shall be given to selection of silvicultural treatments
and timber operations within 200 feet of the edge of the traveled surface of any permanent road
maintained by the County or the State.” [14 CCR 933.1(a)(6)]
“Special consideration for aesthetic enjoyment and protection of adjacent stand vigor shall be given
to the selection of silvicultural methods and timber operations within 200 feet of adjacent non-federal
lands not zoned TPZ.” [14 CCR 933.1(a)(7)]
“The Director shall approve an alternative prescription if in his judgment it complies with 14 CCR
898 and if, considering the entire area to which the alternative is to be applied, it would not create a
significant adverse change in range and forage and recreation and aesthetic values. [14 CCR
933.6(e)(1)]”
5.17.2
recreation:
Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
166
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
167
5.17.3
a) Projects analyzed by the PTEIR would not increase the use of existing neighborhood or
regional parks or recreation facilities, and would not require the construction of
additional facilities.
b) Limited portions of the project area contain existing and proposed trails that are (will be)
used for recreational hiking, jogging mountain biking, and horseback riding. Portions of
the existing trails may be used for skidding logs, or logs may be skidded across them.
This could cause a breakdown of existing drainage structures, increasing erosion on some
trails and adjacent areas.
There may be temporary, short-term closures of these trails for safety purposes if and
when timber operations and/or non-commercial fuel treatments occur. Such closures
should cause only minor inconveniences to trail users, as there are many more options for
trail use nearby.
Protection measures for trails will be included as prescribed practices where trails pass
through potential treatment areas. Potential impacts to the trail system are considered to
be less than significant.
c) A number of roads cross portions of the project area and are used for hiking, biking,
motorcycle riding, recreational driving, commercial hauling, and/or commuting. There
may be temporary, short-term closures of these roads and/or delays for safety purposes if
and when timber operations and/or non-commercial fuel treatments occur. There may
also be short-term increases in traffic, including logging trucks and lowboys hauling
equipment. Potential impacts to the road system are considered to be less than
significant.
d) Timber harvesting and/or non-commercial fuel treatments may reduce vegetation
adjacent to or in the vicinity of roads and trails. This could leave these areas looking
disturbed at first, lowering their desirability for recreational activities. Over time, regrowth of vegetation and fallen needles, leaves and limbs from trees will cover the
ground, ameliorating the visual effects. Depending upon a viewer’s aesthetic sensibilities
and the point in time of trail or road use, these changes could be positive, negative, or
neutral. Visual impacts to recreation are considered to be short term and less than
significant.
e) Slash burning in the vicinity of roads and trails may temporarily reduce visibility, causing
a hazard to driving and riding. If large quantities of smoke are generated, people in the
vicinity could have temporary respiratory problems. If quantities of poison oak are
burned, susceptible people could break out in a rash or have other unpleasant symptoms.
Potential impacts from smoke are considered to be short term and less than significant.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
168
5.17.4
5.17.4.1
treated by non-commercial fuel treatments. Fewer acres would be commercially harvested and
less logging related slash would be generated than in Alternative 2, the same as in Alternative 3,
and more than in Alternative 4. It is likely that most of the timber harvested would be of
commercial size. Slash related to non-commercial fuel treatments would be greater than in the
alternatives. More equipment time for skidding, loading, hauling, and slash treatment would be
required than in Alternatives 2 and 4, but less than in 4. This would likely require the next to
shortest road and/or trail closures, over a short time period. Less visual, smoke, and ground
disturbance would occur than in Alternative 2, about the same amount would occur as in
Alternative 3, and more would occur than in Alternative 4.
Only about 3 miles of trail are on private lands in the project area, with about ¾mile in or near
WLPZs. There will be no disturbances to vegetation in WLPZs under the Proposed Project and
no impacts to the trails and/or roads that run through them. Another 1 ½miles of trail runs
through areas where non-commercial fuel treatments, but no harvesting, will occur. Should these
treatments be implemented, it is likely that there will be disturbances to vegetation in these areas,
with consequent short-term impacts (temporary road and/or trail closures and visual, smoke, and
ground disturbance) to the trails that run through them.
Compared to the Proposed Project, Alternative 2, the status quo, would harvest 225 more acres
using a much more intensive harvest prescription (overstory removal), which would remove
more and, on average, larger trees. More logging slash would be generated, requiring more
equipment time for skidding, loading, hauling, and slash treatment. This would likely require
longer road and/or trail closures and create more visual, smoke, and ground disturbance than
under the Proposed Project. But the Proposed Project would have more short-term impacts
because more acres per year (361 acres/year) would be treated over a shorter time period (10
years). Although Alternative 2 would treat 2,575 acres by intensive, overstory removal, which
would likely cause more impact on any given acre, it is estimated to occur on only 75 acres per
year over a 40-year period. Also, the Proposed Project would potentially result in 930 acres
being treated by non-commercial fuel treatments, while such fuel treatments are not prescribed
under Alternative 2. To the extent these treatments are implemented under the Proposed Project,
their impacts would be greater on treated areas.
Under Alternative 3, which would construct shaded fuel breaks on 3,460 acres over a 10-year
period, more timber and other vegetation would be removed during commercial harvesting than
under the Proposed Project. This would likely require longer road and/or trail closures and
would create more visual, smoke, and ground disturbance. But the Proposed Project would
potentially result in 930 acres being treated by non-commercial fuel treatments, while 80 fewer
acres would be treated (by a fuel break prescription) in those same vegetation types under
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
169
Alternative 3. Thus road and/or trail closures would be longer on that acreage and visual, smoke,
and ground disturbance would be greater.
With implementation of Alternative 4, understory removal, trees cut would be smaller (under 11”
dbh) than in the Proposed Project and it is likely that few, if any, would be removed from the
forest. Most of the larger trees would be retrained. The less intensive nature of the treatment,
the small size of the trees cut, and the minimal thinning slash created would reduce the use of
heavy equipment and would likely require shorter road and/or trail closures and would create less
visual, smoke, and ground disturbance.
5.17.4.2
Under Alternative 2, no non-commercial fuel treatments would occur, but 2,835 acres would be
harvested by overstory removal (2,572 acres) and commercial thinning (260 acres) within 40
years, at a rate of about 75 acres per year. Most of the commercial size trees would be harvested,
more, and on average larger, commercial size trees would be harvested than in the Proposed
Project or in Alternatives 3 and 4, and more slash would likely be generated than in the Proposed
Project or in Alternative 4, but less than in Alternative 3. It is likely that more equipment time
would be required for skidding, loading, hauling, and slash treatment than in the Proposed
Project or in Alternative 4, but less than in Alternative 3. Somewhat longer road and/or trail
closures would be required than under the Proposed Project and Alternative 4, but less than in
Alternative 3. Closures in Alternative 2 would be spread out over a much longer time period (30
years more). It is likely that this alternative would create more visual, smoke, and ground
disturbance than the Proposed Project or Alternative 4, but less than Alternative 3. If the
Proposed Project non-commercial fuel treatments were implemented, visual, smoke, and ground
disturbance would be greater than for Alternative 2.
5.17.4.3
trees (commercial plus non-commercial size) of any alternative would be harvested, likely
requiring the most equipment time for skidding, loading, and hauling. More logging slash would
be generated than under the Proposed Project or other alternatives, which would require the most
equipment time for slash treatment. This would likely require the longest road and/or trail
closures, but over a 30-year shorter time period than Alternative 2. It is also likely that this
alternative would create the most visual, smoke, and ground disturbance.
5.17.4.4
Alternative 4 would treat 3,460 acres within ten years, all by pre-commercial thinning. Cut trees
would mostly be under 11” in diameter, which would likely result in few, if any, trees being
utilized, thus minimizing equipment time for skidding, loading, and hauling. Slash would be
substantially less than under the Proposed Project or other alternatives, minimizing equipment
time for slash treatment. This would likely require the shortest road and/or trail closures, over a
short time period. It is also likely that this alternative would create the least visual, smoke, and
ground disturbance.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
170
5.17.5
Timber harvest activities, including road building, logging, and slash treatments, and noncommercial fuel treatments will be visible from portions of some roads and trails used for
recreation and may physically obstruct or alter portions of some trails. If not mitigated, these
impacts could detract from the recreational experience of some users and cause a reduction in
use of some roads or trails. The following mitigations will minimize these impacts:
1. Re-establish any portion of the Weaver Basin trail system damaged or obliterated during
logging operations, including repairing trail tread and drainage structures, concurrent
with the cessation of harvesting or non-commercial fuel treatment operations.
2. Remove all slash, brush, logs, or other project-generated debris from trails that are part of
the Weaver Basin trail system.
3. Mitigation measure #1 for 5.4.5 (Aesthetics), requiring a variety of size classes of
vegetation to be retained in shaded fuel breaks, will also mitigate effects to recreation
from implementation of the Proposed Project.
5.17.6
With application of the above mitigation measures, impacts to recreation resulting from
implementation of the Proposed Project are less than significant.
5.18
This section summarizes the impacts to Transportation/Traffic within the Weaverville Basin as a
5.18.1
Existing Road System
In the existing road system, the primary access routes to the Proposed Project area are State
Route (SR) 299, SR 3, Weaver Bally Road, Oregon Street, Democrat Gulch Road, Mill Street,
East Weaver Road, China Road, Bear Creek Road, Little Browns Creek Road, and Browns
Mountain Road. Descriptions of SR 299, SR 3, and other roadways are as follow:
•
•
State Route 299 (SR 299) is a two-lane, east-west state highway connecting
Weaverville to Redding, to the east, and Eureka, to the west. SR 299 carries about
11,300 vehicles per day AADT (average annual daily traffic) near the downtown area
of Weaverville. Portions of SR 299 in Weaverville have center two-way left turn
lanes.
State Route 3 (SR 3) is a two-lane, north-south state highway connecting Weaverville
and Yreka. SR 3 carries approximately 4,100 AADT near downtown Weaverville,
with traffic volumes decreasing away from the downtown area.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
171
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Weaver Bally Road originates at SR 299 and is a two-lane, paved road to the turnoff
to Trinity High School. From there through the project area it is a 1 ½to 2 lane,
graveled road. It has a couple of limited sight curves where lowboys and logging
trucks could create a traffic hazard.
Oregon Street is a two-lane, paved collector road that originates at SR 299 and
accesses many project parcels north of Oregon Mountain. It has many limited sight
and short radius curves and the first mile is located in a densely populated residential
area where lowboys and logging trucks could create a traffic hazard.
Democrat Gulch Road is a single-lane, graveled road with turnouts that originates at
Oregon Street and accesses many project parcels in the Democrat Gulch area. It has
many-limited sight and short radius curves where lowboys and logging trucks could
create a traffic hazard and a few steep sections.
Mill Street is a two-lane, paved road that originates at SR 299 and accesses the project
parcels in the Timber Ridge subdivision. It has a couple of limited sight and short
radius curves where lowboys and logging trucks could create a traffic hazard. It is
located in a densely populated residential area where logging traffic could create a
hazard.
East Weaver Road is a two-lane, paved collector road that originates at SR 3 and
accesses project parcels in the East Branch of East Weaver Creek. It is located in a
densely populated residential area where logging traffic could create a hazard.
China Road is a single-lane, graveled road with turnouts that originates at China
Gulch Road and accesses project parcels on Browns Mountain. It has some limited
sight curves where lowboys and logging trucks could create a traffic hazard and there
are sections with very steep grades with limited turnouts.
Bear Creek Road is a single-lane, graveled road with turnouts that originates at SR 3
and accesses project parcels in the Bear Creek drainage. It has some limited sight and
short radius curves where lowboys and logging trucks could create a traffic hazard
and there are sections with steep grades.
Little Browns Creek Road is a two-lane, paved road that originates at SR 299 and
accesses project parcels in the Little Browns Creek drainage. It has some limited
sight curves where lowboys and logging trucks could create a traffic hazard.
Browns Mountain Road is a single-lane to lane-and-a-half, graveled road with
turnouts that originates at Little Browns Creek Road and accesses project parcels on
Browns Mountain. It has some limited sight curves where lowboys and logging
trucks could create a traffic hazard and there are sections with steep grades.
There are a number of other single lane and 1 ½lane dirt and graveled roads that access
individual and groups of parcels. Some of these roads are in the county road system and are
maintained by the Trinity County Road Department, while others are private roads maintained by
the property owners.
Congestion levels in downtown Weaverville have been increasing rapidly with population and
traffic growth and this increase is expected to continue. As a result, the operating performance
of intersections is expected to deteriorate and vehicle delays for turning (especially for left turns)
at the intersections of SR 3 and SR 299, and SR 299 and Washington Street, will continue to
increase.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
172
Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian System
Existing sidewalks and pedestrian and bicycle facilities are limited. Most of the sidewalks exist
only in the downtown area where there are shops and restaurants. Bicycle lanes are primarily
located away from the downtown area, along SR 299, SR 3, and Washington Street. Future
bikeways and pedestrian paths are expected to be mainly in the same locations.
The Circulation Element of the Trinity County General Plan contains the following findings,
goals, objectives and policies that are relevant to the Proposed Project:
•
•
•
Finding 1: Increasing seasonal traffic congestion in Weaverville creates potential safety
issues and adverse impacts to the community.
Finding 2: State Route 299 in Weaverville operates at Level of Service (LOS) “E”
during peak periods. During peak periods vehicle movements along SR 299 are slowed,
while movements onto the highway experience significant delay. Conflicting traffic
movements (ingress from side streets, parking ingress and egress, delivery vehicles, etc.)
cause additional delays.
Objective 1.14: Support and promote economic development through the efficient
movement of freight and tourist travel to, and through Trinity County.
Trinity County Regional Transportation Plan
The 2001 Regional Transportation Plan incorporates a series of countywide goals for
transportation and circulation purposes. The following goals, objectives, and policies from the
Trinity County Regional Transportation Plan are relevant to the Proposed Project:
•
Objective 1.2.3: Identify anticipated street and road congestion/capacity problems
before they become critical in order to program preventative measures and reduce the
cost of correction.
The Weaverville Community Plan (Trinity County, 1990) identifies a series of traffic and
roadway improvements intended to improve, or at least maintain, the basin’s circulation system
with the least disruption of Weaverville’s neighborhoods, with a goal specific to this project as
follows:
•
Goal #1: To provide a streets-and-highways system, which effectively, efficiently, and
safely serves the variety of transportation needs of the community.
There are no California Forest Practice Rules relevant to traffic and circulation, other than the
requirement to include vehicular traffic impacts in the Cumulative Impacts Assessment and to
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
173
mitigate the impacts. (932.9 & Board of Forestry Technical Rule Addendum No. 2, Cumulative
Impacts Assessment.)
5.18.2
Transportation/Traffic:
Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of
vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the
county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)?
h) Adversely affect rail, waterborne, or airborne transportation?
5.18.3
a) Implementation of projects analyzed under the PTEIR will result in short term increases
in traffic, particularly log truck and support vehicle traffic, during project
implementation. Such effects will be temporary and separated in time and location. Due
to these factors, the temporary increases in traffic are not expected to approach a
significant level. The PTEIR will address traffic signage, dust and related safety factors.
b) Implementation of projects analyzed under the PTEIR will not exceed, either individually
or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways.
c) Implementation of projects analyzed under the PTEIR will not result in a change in air
traffic patterns.
d-h) Implementation of projects analyzed under the PTEIR will not cause safety risks,
increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses, or create inadequate
emergency access or inadequate parking capacity. There will be no conflict with
alternative transportation policies, and rail, waterborne, and airborne transportation will
not be adversely affected.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
174
5.18.4
5.18.4.1
thinning, single tree or group selection harvest, and/or transition from even-aged to uneven-aged
treated by non-commercial fuel treatments. To the extent that roads are used during timber
operations to haul logs or heavy equipment, there would be an associated increase in traffic and
potential road hazards, especially from logging trucks and lowboys on narrow, winding roads.
These effects would be temporary and separated temporally and spatially. Implementation of the
Proposed Project would not cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system and would not exceed, either individually
or cumulatively, the level of service standard established by the Planning Department for
designated roads or highways.
and 260 acres by commercial thinning on an estimated 75 acres per year over a 40-year period.
This alternative would result in a greater short-term increase in traffic and potential road hazards
than the Proposed Project, because more commercial-size trees would be harvested on more
acres, but these effects would be spread out over a much longer time span (40 years) than in the
Proposed Project. Implementation of the 930 acres of fuel treatment in the Proposed Project
would slightly increase heavy equipment hauling to those acres, which are not treated in
Alternative 2.
period. This alternative would result in a slightly greater increase in traffic and potential road
hazards on more roads than in the Proposed Project as more acres would be harvested under the
fuel break prescription, which has a lower residual basal area, standard than commercial
thinning. These effects would be over the same time span (10 years) as in the Proposed Project.
Under implementation of Alternative 4, understory removal, trees cut would be smaller (under
11” dbh) than under the Proposed Project and it is likely that few, if any, would be removed from
the forest. This alternative would likely result in little increase in traffic and potential road
hazards as little to no log or heavy equipment hauling would be required.
5.18.4.2
Under Alternative 2, 2,835 acres would be harvested by overstory removal (2,575 acres) and
commercial thinning (260 acres) within 40 years, at a rate of about 75 acres per year. No noncommercial fuel treatments are prescribed nor is it anticipated that many would occur. It is
likely that a greater increase in traffic and potential road hazards from hauling of logs and heavy
equipment would occur in this alternative than in the Proposed Project or Alternative 4, but over
a longer time period, due to the larger acreage commercially harvested. Less traffic and fewer
potential road hazards are likely to occur than in Alternative 3, which would have harvesting and
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
175
non-commercial fuel treatments on more acres. Implementation of Alternative 2 would not
cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity
of the street system and would not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, the level of
service standard established by the Planning Department for designated roads or highways.
5.18.4.3
Alternative 3 would create 3,460 acres of shaded fuel breaks within ten years. It is likely that the
largest increase in traffic and potential road hazards from hauling of logs and heavy equipment
would occur in this alternative due to the larger acreage harvested and treated. Implementation
of Alternative 3 would not cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing
traffic load and capacity of the street system and would not exceed, either individually or
cumulatively, the level of service standard established by the Planning Department for
designated roads or highways.
5.18.4.4
Alternative 4 would treat 3,460 acres within ten years, all by pre-commercial thinning. Little to
no hauling of logs or heavy equipment is anticipated in this alternative, so it is likely that there
would be little increase in traffic and potential road hazards. Implementation of Alternative 4
would not cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and
capacity of the street system and would not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, the level
of service standard established by the Planning Department for designated roads or highways.
5.18.5
1. As needed, provide “log truck traffic” signs on Weaver Bally Road, Oregon Street,
Democrat Gulch Road, Mill Street, East Weaver Road, China Road, Bear Creek Road,
Little Browns Creek Road, and Browns Mountain Road during periods of log hauling.
Also sign intersections where haul roads intersect with County or State roads.
2. Obtain encroachment permits, as needed, for work in the CALTRANS or County rightsof-way.
5.18.6
With application of the above mitigations, impacts to transportation/traffic resulting from
5.19
Utilities and Service Systems
This section summarizes the impacts to Utilities and Service Systems within the Weaverville
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
176
5.19.1
Water Service
Although there are a number of residents who utilize individual wells, the Weaverville
Community Services District (WCSD) supplies treated water to most of the residents within the
Weaverville Basin. Most of the Weaverville Basin is within the WCSD boundaries and sphere
of influence. The WCSD’s Master Plan does not propose any expansion of the boundaries, or
extension of service into currently un-served areas. However, in June 2003, the Local Agency
Formation Commission approved the annexation of approximately 1,200 acres in the Musser
Ridge area to serve Tye Lane, the new CDF station, and a series of homes in the area.
The WCSD obtains water from three sources. There is a pumping station at Douglas City that
delivers water from the Trinity River, through an underground pipeline, to a storage tank at the
south end of Weaverville. Water is also obtained from East Weaver Creek ½ mile upstream
from the East Weaver Creek campground and stored in a water tank ¼ mile upstream from the
campground. Water is also obtained from West Weaver Creek on National Forest lands north of
State Route 299.
A new line is proposed to connect sections of Weaverville together to improve water circulation,
provide better gravity flow, and create redundancy. A new tank is proposed for installation at the
proposed Weaverville Airport, to provide improved pressure and better distribution to some
sections of Weaverville.
Sanitary Services
The Weaverville Sanitary District (WSD) boundaries and sphere of influence include most of the
developed areas within the Weaverville Basin. Parcels outside the WSD boundaries use on-site
sewage disposal systems. The WSD wastewater treatment facility is located on the southwest
edge of Weaverville just east of Weaver Creek.
Solid Waste
The Weaverville landfill dump is closed and has been replaced by a transfer station, which is
located next to the Lonnie Pool Airport. Solid waste is collected from transfer stations
throughout the county, transferred to the Weaverville facility, and finally transported by truck to
Anderson, California.
Storm Drainage Facilities
The Community of Weaverville and Trinity County have no comprehensive storm water
drainage system and no designated storm water utility agency.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
177
Electricity
The Western Area Power Administration (WAPA) provides power resources (exceeding 100
megawatts) to the Trinity Public Utility District (TPUD), which supplies electrical service to the
majority of the Weaverville Basin. Although most electrical distribution is through aboveground
lines, efforts to underground existing facilities are ongoing, as funding and opportunities arise.
The TPUD also operates and maintains street lighting for the Highway Lighting District.
Two high-tension power lines run southeast to northwest across the Weaverville Basin through
the south end of Weaverville. The northernmost line traverses some of the project area parcels in
the Martin Road area. Both lines traverse some of the project area parcels about one mile north
of Oregon Mountain.
Communications
Verizon provides telephone services to the majority of the Weaverville Basin. Although most
telephone lines are above ground, new lines are generally installed underground. Some parcels
do not have telephone service through landlines but instead rely on cell phones for
communication. Cellular service is provided via a repeater and microwave site on Oregon
Mountain.
The “Weaverville Policies” section in the Land Use Element of the Trinity County General Plan
(Trinity County, 1988) contains the following policies regarding public services and utilities that
relate to the Proposed Project:
•
The County of Trinity will cooperate and coordinate its actions with the various special
districts and utilities servicing Weaverville.
The Public Services and Facilities Element of the Weaverville Community Plan (Trinity County,
1997) contains policies regarding public services and utilities that relate to the Proposed Project
as follows:
•
Objective 4.2: Encourage the under grounding of utility lines, especially when such
under grounding can be accomplished in conjunction with road construction or other
improvements.
The only FPR relevant to utilities or service systems is that
“To the fullest extent possible and with due consideration given to topography, lean of trees,
landings, utility lines, local obstructions, and safety factors, trees shall be felled to lead in a direction
away from watercourses and lakes.” [14 CCR 934.1(a)]
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
178
5.19.2
Utilities and Service Systems:
Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new facilities or expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects, for any of the
following utilities?
i.) Water treatment or distribution facilities
ii.) Wastewater collection, treatment, or disposal facilities
iii.) Storm water drainage facilities
iv.) Electric power or natural gas
v.) Communications systems
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve
the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s
solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
5.19.3
a) None of the vegetation management-related projects analyzed under the PTEIR are
expected to affect wastewater treatment in any way. No wastewater will be generated by
such projects.
b) None of the vegetation management-related projects analyzed under the PTEIR are
expected to require or result in the construction of new facilities or expansion of existing
facilities for any utilities.
c) None of the vegetation management-related projects analyzed under the PTEIR are
expected to require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities.
d) There are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
179
e) No wastewater will be generated by any of the vegetation management-related projects
analyzed under the PTEIR.
f) None of the vegetation management-related projects analyzed under the PTEIR are
expected to affect solid waste treatment in any way. Solid waste material produced by
the projects will not be hauled to a disposal facility but will be disposed of on-site.
g) The project will comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to
solid waste.
5.19.4
5.19.4.1
treated by non-commercial fuel. To the extent that dirt or graveled roads are used during timber
operations, there will be a temporary, insignificant increase in the use of water for dust
abatement. Neither dust abatement nor prescribed vegetation management-related projects
would affect or require any changes in current utilities and service systems.
on an estimated 75 acres per year over a 40-year period. As with the Proposed Project, this
alternative would not affect nor require any changes in current utilities and service systems.
period. As with the Proposed Project, this alternative would not affect nor require any changes
in current utilities and service systems.
Under implementation of Alternative 4, understory removal on 3,460 acres, trees cut would be
smaller (under 11” dbh) than in the Proposed Project and it is likely that few, if any, would be
removed from the forest. As with the Proposed Project, this alternative would not affect nor
require any changes in current utilities and service systems.
5.19.4.2
commercial thin (260 acres) within 40 years, at a rate of about 75 acres per year. Some fuel
treatments may occur, but none are prescribed. To the extent that dirt or graveled roads are used
during timber operations, there will be a temporary, insignificant increase in the use of water for
dust abatement. Depending upon a number of factors, it is likely that more water would be used
for dust abatement, but over a longer time period, than in the Proposed Project or Alternative 4,
due to the larger acreage commercially harvested. Less water should be used than in Alternative
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
180
3, which will have harvesting on more acres. Neither dust abatement nor prescribed vegetation
management-related projects would affect or require any changes in current utilities and service
systems.
5.19.4.3
Alternative 3 would create 3,460 acres of shaded fuel breaks within ten years. To the extent that
dirt or graveled roads are used during timber operations, there will be a temporary, insignificant
increase in the use of water for dust abatement. It is likely that the most water would be used for
dust abatement in this alternative due to the larger acreage commercially harvested. Neither dust
abatement nor prescribed vegetation management-related projects would affect or require any
changes in current utilities and service systems.
5.19.4.4
Alternative 4 would treat 3,460 acres within ten years, all by pre-commercial thinning. To the
extent that dirt or graveled roads are used during timber operations, there could be a temporary
increase in the use of water for dust abatement. But as there would be little to no log hauling in
this alternative, it is likely that little to no water would be used. Neither dust abatement nor
prescribed vegetation management-related projects would affect or require any changes in
current utilities and service systems.
5.19.5
1. Trees will be felled away from power lines.
2. Before excavations are made for roads or landings, contact USA DIG to determine the
location of underground utility lines.
5.19.6
With application of the above mitigations, impacts to utilities and service systems resulting from
5.20
Projected Wildland Fire Severity
This section summarizes the effects on projected wildland fire severity associated with
implementing either the Proposed Project or any of its alternatives within the Weaverville basin.
5.20.1
The project area contains about 2,830 acres of commercial forest types and 980 acres of noncommercial forest types. In order to determine whether the Proposed Project and the alternatives
to the Proposed Project have a significant effect, wildland fire was simulated according to the
schedule noted above. Wildland fire was simulated using the FVS growth and yield Fire and
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
181
Fuel Effects Simulator (FFE) which uses Roethermels fire behavior calculations for predicting
flame lengths and mortality to the vegetation being modeled. For the purposes of the PTEIR the
fire weather conditions used were those conditions typical of a hot August day, which includes
high temperatures (94 degrees), low humidity and fuel moisture and a wind speed of 6 miles per
hour (see BBWA, 2003c for climate information). Generally, the weather and fuel moisture
conditions are based on data from the USFS Weaverville weather station, which in some cases
has temperature and other data extending back to 1948. For modeling purposes the average of
the maximum or minimum values (as appropriate) for august were used, e.g., the average of the
maximum daily temperatures, the average of the daily minimum relative humidity, the average
of the 1 hour fuel stick moisture content, etc. The actual values used are shown in the table 31
below:
TABLE 31
WEATHER DATA FOR FIRE MODELING PURPOSES
METRIC
SOURCE
WEAVERVILLE
95TH PERCENTILE
LOCAL DATA
SNEP 1/ 95TH
PERCENTILE
SNEP 75TH
PERCENTILE
Average
Maximum Air
Temp
Avg. July maximum
air temp 1948-2000
93.5
90
65
~ 6 mph
18
6
4.0%
10%
20%
None, use SNEP 95th
4%
6%
5.0%
6%
8%
8.2%
8%
10%
9.3%
none
none
None use SNEP 90%
90%
110%
Wind speed at
95% percentile
Average minimum
relative humidity
(applies to duff)
Average minimum
1 hour fuel
moisture (0-1/4”)
Average minimum
10 hour fuel
moisture (1/4-1”)
Average minimum
100 hour (1-3”)
Average minimum
1,000 hour fuel
(3”+)
Live woody fuel
Moisture
August 2000-2002
Average using 95%
percentile
Relative humidity
from August 19982002
Relative humidity
Average minimum
from August 2001
RAWS data
Average minimum
from August 2001
RAWS data
Average minimum
from August 2001
RAWS data
SNEP
1/ SNEP, page 1,159.
The following Rules are particularly relevant for fire protection. Most of these Rules are found
in the Forest Practice Rules, Subchapters 4, 5, and 6, Article 7, Hazard Reduction and Article 8,
Fire Protection. As part of the project description, these Rules will reduce many potential
impacts to a less than significant level. Please see 5.6 Air Quality for additional burning
restrictions.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
182
“Treatment of slash created by timber operations within the plan area and on roads adjacent to the
plan area, but excluding appurtenant roads will follow the standards in 937.2.
“Slash to be treated by piling and burning shall be treated not later than April 1 of the year following
its creation, or within 30 days following climatic access, or as justified in the plan. [937.2(a)]
“Within 100 feet of the edge of the traveled surface of public roads, and within 50 feet of the edge of
the traveled surface of permanent private roads open for public use where permission to pass is not
required, slash created and trees knocked down by road construction or timber operations shall be
treated by lopping for fire hazard reduction, piling and burning, chipping, burying or removal from
the zone. [937.2(b)]
“All woody debris created by timber operations greater than one inch but less than eight inches in
diameter within 100 feet of permanently located structures maintained for human habitation shall be
removed or piled and burned; all slash created between 100-200 feet of permanently located
structures maintained for human habitation shall be lopped for fire hazard reduction, removed,
chipped or piled and burned; lopping may be required between 200-500 feet where unusual fire risk
or hazard exist as determined by the Director or the RPF. [937.2(b)]
“Piling, burning, and other treatment of snags, slash and vegetative matter and protection of
desirable residual trees during site preparation shall comply with 14 CCR 937 through 937.7.
[935.2(a)] Broadcast burning shall not fully consume the larger organic debris which retains soil on
slopes and stabilizes watercourse banks. [935.2(b)]
“Broadcast burning may be prescribed for slash treatment subject to the following conditions:
(937.3)
(a) Such burning shall be done only after the first heavy fall rains and shall be completed before
April 1;
(b) It may occur within cleared firebreaks of not less than 10 feet in width;
(c) Use of the broadcast burning prescription of the Stream and Lake Protection Zone for Class
I, and lass II, is prohibited. Where necessary to protect downstream beneficial uses, the
Director may prohibit burning prescriptions in Class III watercourses;
“When burning piles or concentrations of slash to meet the slash treatment requirements, such
burning shall be done as follows: (937.5)
(a) Piles and concentrations shall be sufficiently free of soil and other noncombustible material
for effective burning.
(b) The piles and concentrations shall be burned at a safe time during the first wet fall or winter
weather or other safe period following piling and according to laws and regulations. Piles
and concentrations that fail to burn sufficiently to remove the fire hazard shall be further
treated to eliminate that hazard. All necessary precautions shall be taken to confine such
burning to the piled slash.
“The local representative of the Director shall be notified in advance of the time and place of any
burning of logging slash. Any burning shall be done in the manner provided by Law. (937.6)
Slash burning operations and fire hazard abatement operations shall be conducted in a manner
which will not damage residual trees and reproduction to the extent that they will not qualify to meet
the silvicultural and stocking requirements of the rules. (937.7)
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
183
“Timber operators shall keep all logging truck roads in a passable condition during the dry season
for fire truck travel until snag and slash disposal has been completed. (938.3)”
5.20.2
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the CEQA Environmental Checklist does not explicitly
raise questions to be considered in determining whether the project would effect projected
wildland fire severity associated with a simulated fire occurring at 5 years, 15 years and 50 years
into the future. However project criteria were developed to measure the effects of implementing
the project or any of its alternatives on wildland fire severity within the Weaverville basin by
evaluating the following question:
Would the project:
a) Reduce mortality of standing vegetation throughout the project area from a simulated fire
occurring 5 years (e.g., 2008), 15 years and 50 years after project implementation in
stems/acre, volume, etc.
5.20.3
Impacts Common to all Alternatives
Mortality from wildland fire is principally associated with the species of vegetation, flame length
and fire duration. All of these elements are considered during the prediction of mortality by the
FFE simulations as well as proposed treatments such as thinning, tractor piling, lopping slash,
etc. In addition, FFE predicts fire effects and mortality through time. FFE predicts flame
lengths based on fuel loading and the fuel model, with fuel model determined by the overstory
and understory vegetation from plot data collected within the project area. Predicted fuel loading
before and after treatment for the four alternatives and for doing nothing is shown below in table
32.
Over time, fuel loads change within the project area with or without treatment. The acreage
weighted change in fuel loading within the project area increases over time from about 9.7 tons
per acre in 2008 to 14.2 tons per acre in 2023 (15 years after project implementation) to 28.1 tons
of fuel per acre in 2048 (40 years after project implementation).
Fifteen years after treatment, fuel loads in most alternatives show less fuel than pretreatment
although fuel loads begin increasing immediately after fuel treatment as a result of normal
growth contributing branches, twigs, etc. to the fuel load. The proposed action shows a fuel load
of 21.3 tons per acre 15 years after treatment compared to fuels loads of 14.2 for Alternative 2,
11.3 for Alternative 3 and 8.9 tons per acre for Alternative 4. By the end of 40 years after
treatment, all alternatives including the proposed action show less fuel accumulation than with
no treatment.
Although fuel loading is a major component of the potential mortality associated with flame
length, fuel loading in and of itself does not predict mortality, as the size of the vegetation post
treatment is a substantial factor in determining mortality. Thus, while most of the treatments
show an increase in fuel load there are differing impacts associated with both the amount of fuel
on the ground and the size of the remaining vegetation after treatment.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
184
TABLE 32
FUEL LOADING PER ACRE AND
TOTAL FUEL LOADING WITHIN PROJECT AREA FOR ALL FUELS
FUEL LOADING IN TONS PER ACRE
TOTAL TONS OF FUEL
NO
ALT 3
PROJECT ALT 2 ALT 3 ALT 4 NO TRT PROJECT ALT 2
TRT
Project Year 2008, Immediately After Project
DFR3
12.3
33.0
18.7
21.4
18.2
760
2,040
1,159
1,321
DFR4
11.0
31.2
14.5
16.2
19.3
1,291
3,656
1,697
1,901
GPP4
5.4
5.3
10.8
2.7
5.4
453
446
906
226
KMC3
10.3
24.1
13.7
16.1
8.6
4,356
10,168
5,787
6,809
KMC4
11.6
23.4
16.1
14.0
12.1
15,823
31,857
21,915
19,143
MHC3
14.2
28.5
18.4
18.8
15.9
5,267
10,578
6,855
7,004
MHC4
18.5
40.1
12.6
22.5
11.6
2,407
5,214
1,639
2,926
PPN4
10.8
7.0
21.6
10.4
14.3
414
269
828
399
Subtotal 11.9
24.8
15.8
15.3
12.3
30,771
64,228
40,786
39,729
MHW2
15.8
54.0
15.5
19.5
22.1
2,005
6,848
1,967
2,475
MHW3
1.2
60.3
18.9
28.8
5.7
937
46,042
14,431
22,000
Subtotal
3.3
59.4
18.4
27.5
8.1
2,942
52,890
16,398
24,475
Total
9.7
33.7
16.4
18.5
11.3
33,713
117,118
57,184
64,203
Project Year 2023, 15 years After Project
DFR3
23.0
19.1
12.0
12.2
13.2
1,421
1,183
743
755
DFR4
15.3
17.1
8.5
8.9
9.8
1,795
2,011
1,000
1,040
GPP4
6.8
7.3
7.1
5.2
6.7
570
613
595
436
KMC3
16.6
19.3
8.7
12.6
9.4
7,009
8,131
3,670
5,321
KMC4
14.7
15.8
8.7
9.5
9.1
20,096
21,587
11,818
12,984
MHC3
24.1
22.9
14.8
14.2
17.2
8,959
8,501
5,505
5,289
MHC4
33.4
23.9
11.5
12.3
9.3
4,337
3,103
1,495
1,596
PPN4
22.7
4.1
11.2
6.1
12.9
871
158
430
234
Subtotal 17.4
17.5
9.8
10.7
10.4
45,059
45,288
25,255
27,655
MHW2
22.9
29.2
20.2
9.0
10.6
2,906
3,704
2,564
1,142
MHW3
1.8
32.7
28.3
13.9
3.6
1,403
24,979
21,608
10,622
Subtotal
4.8
32.2
27.1
13.2
4.6
4,309
28,683
24,172
11,765
Total 14.2
21.3
14.2
11.3
8.9
49,368
73,971
49,427
39,420
Project Year 2048, 50 years After Project
DFR3
45.8
21.6
12.9
14.1
20.4
2,830
1,335
795
871
DFR4
30.9
17.9
8.8
11.7
9.7
3,626
2,105
1,033
1,372
GPP4
7.9
7.7
6.0
5.7
6.6
663
650
503
478
KMC3
25.4
21.0
8.0
12.9
12.2
10,711
8,882
3,387
5,441
KMC4
22.9
19.3
8.8
12.6
12.0
31,271
26,254
12,038
17,148
MHC3
35.6
25.5
14.4
14.2
22.7
13,245
9,491
5,346
5,288
MHC4
52.6
21.6
13.6
10.5
10.6
6,827
2,801
1,761
1,360
PPN4
60.6
3.5
10.1
5.2
19.7
2,322
135
387
199
Subtotal 27.6
20.0
9.8
12.4
13.5
71,496
51,654
25,251
32,158
MHW2
67.2
24.8
28.9
8.6
8.2
8,532
3,147
3,668
1,092
MHW3
23.4
28.8
39.8
12.7
3.7
17,831
22,015
30,389
9,665
Subtotal 29.6
28.3
38.2
12.1
4.3
26,363
25,162
34,057
10,756
Total 28.1
22.1
17.0
12.3
11.2
97,859
76,816
59,308
42,914
WHR
TYPE
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
185
ALT 4
1,123
2,262
453
3,613
16,527
5,927
1,503
548
31,956
2,805
4,376
7,181
39,138
818
1,154
562
3,980
12,385
6,381
1,207
495
26,982
1,345
2,783
4,128
31,110
1,263
1,141
554
5,137
16,319
8,433
1,381
755
34,983
1,041
2,828
3,869
38,852
5.20.4
Table 33 below shows the predicted mortality in percent of total basal area. Predicted mortality
without treatment and under “hot” August weather conditions ranges from 99% mortality in the
DFR4 type to 2% in the MHW3 (Oregon White Oak) type. Overall, predicted mortality within
the project area would be expected to reach about 27.7% after wildland fire on a hot August day
in 2008, would increase to 31.3% predicted mortality in 2023 and would decline to about 18.2%
predicted mortality in 2048. Mortality tends to decline over time as stands become larger and as
less regeneration is present in the understory to act as a fuel ladder.
Immediately after logging, but before slash treatments, predicted mortality increases due to fuel
loadings and ranges from a low of 26% in Alternative 4 to a high of 38.9 in Alternative 2 (for
those stands harvested). The Proposed Project shows a projected mortality of 35.6%
immediately after harvest compared to a pretreatment predicted mortality of 27.7%. Fifteen
years after treatment, the Proposed Project and all alternatives show a substantial benefit from
treating the stands to reduce fuel ladder effects. The Proposed Project would likely only
experience about 8.8% mortality from a wildland fire occurring on a hot August day, compared
to the untreated stands where the predicted mortality would be expected to reach 31.2%
mortality. In addition, the highest predicted mortality for any vegetation type is at 18.7%
mortality for the DFR3 type post Proposed Project while untreated DFR3 stands are expected to
be completely killed due to wildland fire on a hot August day.
Projected mortality for the other alternatives ranges the lowest project mortality associated with
Alternative 3 at 8.2%, 9.0% for Alternative 4 and a relatively high-predicted mortality of 26%
for Alternative 2.
Predicted mortality declines substantially in the proposed action and in Alternatives 3 and 4
because fuel ladder material has been removed and the fuels have been treated to reduce fire
duration and intensity. Alternative 3 has the lowest predicted mortality since virtually the entire
project area is turned into a shaded fuel break. While flame lengths and wind speeds are
predicted to increase within the treated area of this alternative (as is true for the Proposed
Project), because so much of the small material has been removed mortality is less likely given
the increased tree sizes presented.
The Proposed Project has a predicted mortality of 8.8% in 2023 and there is a predicted 7.4%
mortality rate expected from wildland fire in 2048 (compared to untreated stands with 31.3% in
2023 and 18.2% in 2048). Although mortality is substantially less than in untreated stands it is
still somewhat above the lowest projected mortalities associated with Alternative 3. In this
alternative, trees less than 11” are felled and lopped in place on steeper slopes and in the
thinnings. However, a substantial amount of the project area is also tractor piled, thus
substantially reducing fuel loading.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
186
TABLE 33
PREDICTED MORTALITY BY ALTERNATIVE
AND YEAR OF TREATMENT
(PERCENT OF BASAL AREA)
PROP.
ALT 2
ALT 3
PROJECT
Project Year 2008, Immediately After Treatment
DFR3
32.0%
51.0%
31.2%
51.0%
DFR4
99.0%
78.9%
27.7%
79.3%
GPP4
4.0%
6.0%
3.0%
6.0%
KMC3
12.4%
9.2%
9.4%
15.0%
KMC4
24.7%
15.0%
65.0%
16.9%
MHC3
83.1%
23.3%
19.7%
32.7%
MHC4
22.0%
54.5%
10.5%
54.9%
PPN4
99.0%
6.0%
86.0%
5.0%
Subtotal
34.9%
20.6%
42.5%
23.9%
MHW2
38.0%
70.2%
38.0%
31.0%
MHW3
1.8%
80.9%
27.0%
90.2%
Subtotal
6.9%
79.4%
28.6%
81.7%
27.7%
35.6%
38.9%
38.7%
Project, Year 2023, 15 years After Treatment
DFR3
99.0%
18.7%
75.0%
10.0%
DFR4
99.0%
12.0%
44.3%
12.0%
GPP4
17.0%
5.0%
35.0%
5.0%
KMC3
16.3%
4.7%
14.0%
3.5%
KMC4
37.8%
10.6%
25.9%
9.4%
MHC3
29.5%
7.8%
23.9%
8.6%
MHC4
89.9%
4.7%
49.7%
4.6%
PPN4
98.0%
6.1%
85.0%
9.0%
Subtotal
40.2%
8.9%
28.1%
8.1%
MHW2
31.0%
13.6%
31.0%
21.0%
MHW3
1.2%
7.5%
18.0%
6.5%
Subtotal
5.4%
8.4%
19.9%
8.6%
31.3%
8.8%
26.0%
8.2%
Project Year 2048, 40 years After Treatment
DFR3
97.0%
41.3%
16.2%
60.0%
DFR4
17.0%
6.6%
27.7%
6.6%
GPP4
25.0%
11.0%
54.0%
11.0%
KMC3
11.6%
3.3%
18.1%
2.5%
KMC4
16.8%
7.8%
23.6%
7.1%
MHC3
17.1%
6.6%
19.0%
6.9%
MHC4
22.9%
3.3%
17.5%
3.0%
PPN4
93.8%
9.5%
50.0%
14.0%
Subtotal
19.6%
7.6%
23.1%
7.6%
WHR TYPE NO TRT
ALT 4
24.8%
16.9%
4.0%
6.7%
55.5%
8.7%
5.8%
6.0%
33.5%
15.0%
2.9%
4.7%
26.1%
40.5%
11.9%
4.0%
6.0%
12.5%
7.9%
5.3%
11.0%
10.7%
12.0%
2.6%
4.0%
9.0%
7.0%
7.8%
4.0%
4.0%
9.1%
7.1%
4.1%
6.0%
7.4%
MHW2
45.6%
13.6%
20.0%
21.0%
9.0%
MHW3
Subtotal
8.8%
14.0%
18.2%
5.9%
7.0%
7.4%
15.0%
15.7%
21.2%
5.6%
7.8%
7.6%
2.1%
3.0%
6.3%
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
187
Alternative 2 has relatively high projected mortality of 38.9% immediately after treatment and
26% in 2023 (compared to untreated stands with 27.7% in 2008, 31.3% in 2023 and 18.2% in
2048). Mortality in this alternative is higher after treatment and into the future because the
biggest and best trees are removed, leaving smaller trees, which are more prone to wind damage.
Also, slash treatment after harvest is governed by the forest practice rules rather than the more
intensive treatments associated with the Proposed Project or with Alternatives 3 and 4.
Alternative 4 has the highest predicted mortality of the action alternatives, although it is only
slightly higher than the Proposed Project in 2023. Immediately after logging, this alternative has
a slightly lower predicted mortality rate than in untreated stands, partly due to removal of
substantial amounts of small trees, which are felled in place and then lopped to 20”.
5.20.5
With the mitigation measures and project design implementing the Proposed Project will reduce
future mortality expected from a wildland fire burning on a hot August day. As a result, the
expected environmental impacts of implementing the Proposed Project are expected to be
positive with respect to predicted mortality.
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
188
______________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
189
______________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
190
5.21
Projected Wildland Fire Intensity
This section summarizes the effects on projected wildland fire intensity within the Weaverville
5.21.1
The project area contains about 2,830 acres of commercial forest types and 980 acres of noncommercial forest types. In order to determine whether the Proposed Project and the alternatives
to the Proposed Project have a significant effect, wildland fire was simulated using the FVS
growth and yield Fire and Fuel Effects simulator (FFE), which uses Roethermels fire behavior
calculations for predicting flame lengths and mortality to the vegetation being modeled.
Predicted flame length is principally associated with weather conditions and with fuel loading
and to a lesser extent by fuel model and vegetation type. All of these elements are considered
during the prediction of mortality by the FFE simulations as well as proposed treatments such as
thinning, tractor piling, lopping slash, etc. In addition, FFE predicts fire effects and mortality
through time. FFE predicts flame lengths based on fuel loading and the fuel model, with fuel
model determined by the overstory and understory vegetation from plot data collected within the
project area. Predicted fuel loading before and after treatments for the proposed project and the
three alternatives were previously described in section, 5.20.3, Project Wildland Fire Severity.
Please refer to section 5.20 for the various planning goals and objectives and the Forest Practice
Rules that apply within the project area and to the Proposed Project and its alternatives.
5.21.2
raise questions to be considered in determining whether project effects would cause a change in
wildland fire intensity and flame lengths associated with a simulated fire occurring at 5 years, 15
years and 50 years into the future. However project criteria were developed to measure the
effects of implementing the project or any of its alternatives on wildland fire intensity within the
Weaverville basin by evaluating the following questions:
Would the project:
a) Change the average flame length throughout the project area for a simulated fire
occurring 5 years (e.g., 2008), 15 years, and 50 years after project implementation?
5.21.3
Impacts Common to all Alternatives
Within the project area predicted flame lengths change over time with or without treatment due
to changes in fuel loading and vegetation condition. Table 34 below shows the predicted flame
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
191
lengths associated with the Proposed Project. Under the no treatment scenario, predicted flame
lengths associated with a wildland fire occurring on a hot August day in the project area range
from about 4.0’ in 2008, to 5.2’ in 2023 and back to 3.0’ in 2048. Flame lengths decline over the
long term as size of trees increases even though fuel loading also increases. Given the low wind
speeds of the 95th percentile condition of a hot August day, even though fuel loads increase
substantially (see section 5.20.3) over time, low wind speeds coupled with substantially larger
trees and little or no fuel ladder result in lower predicted flame lengths in 45 years than at
present. “Pictures” of predicted flame lengths for the two most common pre treatment
vegetation types, KMC4 and MHW3 are shown below.
5.21.4
After treatment in year 2008 Alternative 2 shows a substantially higher predicted flame length
immediately after logging compared to untreated stands. Alternative 4 shows predicted flame
lengths nearly the same as untreated stands while Alternative 3 has substantially lower flame
lengths than untreated stands. The proposed action has a predicted flame length of 5.3’ after
treatment of the slash, compared to 4.0’ for untreated stands. Part of the reason for the predicted
high flame lengths in the proposed action is associated with the type of vegetation being thinned
and the slope of the ground of the thinned acreage. In particular, the MHC4 vegetation type is
located principally near Timber Ridge on steep slopes. This vegetation type has a predicted
flame length after treatment of 7.8’. Because there are substantial acreages of this vegetation
type and because this type actually has a substantial volume of material being removed, fuel
loading after treatment is relatively high compared to other vegetation types. Because of the
high flame length, even though this vegetation type only represents 5% of the total acreage of
commercial vegetation types, it contributes nearly 20% of the predicted average flame length of
5.3’ for the proposed action and is the main reason for the predicted high flame length for this
alternative. Flame lengths drop substantially by 2013 for the Proposed Project KMC4 vegetation
type from an average of 4.7’ in 2008 to 2.7’-3.2’ in 2013 depending on whether the slash is
tractor piled or lopped and scattered.
All alternatives show substantially lower predicted flame lengths 15 years after treatment.
Untreated stands are expected to have flame lengths of approximately 5.2’ while the Proposed
Project has predicted flame lengths of 2.8’, as does Alternative 2. Alternative 3 has the lowest
predicted flame length (since most acres are tractor piled) at 2.5’. Alternative 4 has a slightly
higher predicted flame length of 3.1’ 15 years after treatment compared to 5.2’ predicted in
untreated stands.
______________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
192
TABLE 34
PREDICTED FLAME LENGTHS ASSOCIATED WITH THE
PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES
NO
PROPOSED
ALT 2 ALT 3
TREATMENT PROJECT
Project Year 2008, Immediately After Treatment
4.6
9.1
9.1
3.0
27.2
6.6
6.6
3.1
4.2
3.8
3.8
3.6
2.1
2.6
2.6
0.1
3.0
3.6
3.6
4.7
8.5
4.9
4.9
1.8
2.8
7.8
7.8
1.6
31.2
2.9
2.9
1.7
Subtotal
5.2
4.1
4.1
3.2
2.4
7.8
7.8
3.3
0.1
9.0
9.0
0.6
Subtotal
0.5
8.9
8.9
1.0
Total
4.0
5.3
5.3
2.6
Project Year 2023, 15 Years After Treatment
35.5
4.5
4.5
6.4
29.8
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.6
4.1
4.1
4.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
1.9
4.4
3.1
3.1
3.1
4.6
2.8
2.8
2.8
18.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
17.5
3.2
3.2
4.8
Subtotal
6.9
2.9
2.9
3.0
2.4
2.5
2.5
2.6
0.1
2.3
2.3
0.7
Subtotal
0.5
2.3
2.3
1.0
Total
5.2
2.8
2.8
2.5
Project Year 2048, 40 Years After Treatment
16.8
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.6
4.3
4.3
4.3
3.7
3.9
3.9
3.9
2.1
2.1
2.1
1.9
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.1
2.7
2.8
2.8
2.8
2.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
14.9
3.2
3.2
4.3
Subtotal
3.4
2.9
2.9
2.9
4.7
2.5
2.5
2.5
1.3
2.2
2.2
0.7
Subtotal
1.8
2.2
2.2
0.9
Total
3.0
2.7
2.7
2.4
WHR TYPE
DFR3
DFR4
GPP4
KMC3
KMC4
MHC3
MHC4
PPN4
MHW2
MHW3
DFR3
DFR4
GPP4
KMC3
KMC4
MHC3
MHC4
PPN4
MHW2
MHW3
DFR3
DFR4
GPP4
KMC3
KMC4
MHC3
MHC4
PPN4
MHW2
MHW3
ALT 4
4.5
4.4
1.3
2.1
5.8
3.6
2.2
9.3
4.5
2.4
2.2
2.2
3.9
8.3
5.8
5.0
1.9
3.1
3.3
4.8
9.9
3.4
2.4
2.2
2.2
3.1
4.4
4.2
4.1
1.9
3.0
2.8
1.8
4.2
2.9
2.4
2.2
2.2
2.7
______________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
193
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
194
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
195
Forty years after treatment (or 45 years into the future) all alternatives continue to show lower
predicted flame lengths than without treatment. Untreated stands are expected to have flame
lengths of 3.0’ while The Proposed Project and Alternatives 2 and 3 all have predicted flame
lengths of 2.7’. Alternative 3 continues to have the lowest predicted flame lengths even 45 years
into the future at 2.4’. While the difference in the average flame lengths may not appear to be
substantial, Alternative 3 flame lengths are 20% lower than untreated stands while Alternatives 2
and 4 and the proposed action all have predicted flame lengths which are 10% less than untreated
stands.
5.21.5
With mitigation measures described elsewhere being implemented to reduce fuel loading the
Proposed Project is expected to reduce future flame lengths from a wildland fire occurring on a
hot August day within the project area. As a result, there is expected to be a positive
environmental consequence from implementing the Proposed Project as predicted flame lengths
are expected to be lower with project implementation compared to no treatment.
5.22
Create Pre-Planned Safety Zone Firebreaks within the Project Area to
Provide for Fire Fighter and Citizen Safety if the Fire Overruns the Fire
Fighting Force.
This section summarizes the effects of implementing either the Proposed Project or any of its
alternatives on wildland fire containment, wildland fire control on fire fighter and citizen safety
within the Weaverville basin.
5.22.1
At least three fires have started in the Weaverville Basin in the past decade, all caused by
humans. The Oregon Fire that was started mid-afternoon on August 28, 2001 by a vehicle on
highway 299 just west of Oregon Mountain pass, burned over 1,100 acres during the first three
hours and went on to consume about 1,680 acres in five hours before it was fully controlled at
1,720 acres five days later. This fire, which destroyed 13 homes, burned into Weaverville and
threatened the high school, Sheriff department, hospital, USFS Ranger Station, and residential
areas. As the fire approached Weaverville, the western part of town was evacuated to the open
areas at the southeastern end of town. This was an extremely hazardous fire to firefighters and
citizens due to its very high intensity, rapid rate of spread, and lack of safety zones near the fire.
A small, human-caused fire that started southwest of the Mill Street bridge over West Weaver
Creek during August of 2000 had the potential to become a devastating fire, but for the
immediate response of Weaverville Volunteer Fire Department and CDF firefighters. This fire,
which burned about 2 acres, spread rapidly in an easterly direction pushed by afternoon winds.
Because there were many sparsely or non-vegetated areas in the immediate vicinity of the fire, as
well as several escape routes, the fire was only moderately hazardous to firefighters. But if it
had traveled southward into the heavier fuels below the Timber Ridge subdivision, it would have
presented an extremely hazardous situation to firefighters and citizens.
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
196
The Browns Fire, visible from Weaverville and Lewiston, started on a logging operation in the
Little Browns Creek drainage on July 15th, 1994. It burned almost 1,600 acres in a matter of
hours, moving eastward over the ridge between Little Browns Creek and the Trinity River,
threatening dozens of homes in its first day and burning forests on public and private lands. This
was an extremely hazardous fire to firefighters and citizens due to its very high intensity, rapid
rate of spread, and lack of safety zones.
The combination of moderate to high fuel hazard, high risk of fire starts, and the physical and
aesthetic values of the residents gives the Weaverville Basin a very high fire hazard severity
rating overall. The CDF Fire Hazard Severity map shows a very high fire hazard severity for the
planning area.
Land ownership in the 43,500 acre analysis area is about 12% BLM administered lands, 46%
non-industrial lands. The community of Weaverville, where urban and semi-urban development
patterns predominate, occupies approximately three square miles within the center of the Weaver
Creek basin. Except for the most urbanized portions of Weaverville and scattered grasslands and
brushfields, the analysis area is sparsely to heavily forested.
The 4,275 acres of small private parcels included in the project area are predominantly forested.
Many of the parcels are occupied by one or more dwellings and assorted other structures and are
used primarily as home sites.
There are a few areas on private lands with sparse enough vegetation over a large enough area to
be considered safety zones for firefighters and citizens. Two of these areas are between Oregon
Mountain and Oregon Mountain pass on SR 299. One is at the junction of Oregon Street and
Oregon Mountain Ridge Road and the other is at the old mine on Ward Placer Mine Road off of
Oregon Mountain Ridge Road. There are also some meadows on private lands along Little
Browns Creek and East Weaver Roads, at Rush Creek Estates, just southwest of Democrat Gulch
on Democrat Gulch Road, and in the Timber Ridge subdivision that would provide a measure of
protection.
The best safety zones for citizens and firefighters in the Weaverville Basin are at the Lonnie Pool
Airport, Trinity High School, Weaverville Elementary School, Trinity River Lumber company
mill, Tops Market and Ace Hardware parking lots, and the Industrial Park. The Airport, and the
Industrial Park in an emergency, could be used as heli-spots.
BLM lands, which are primarily located in the south half of the project area, are predominantly
forested, with intermingled brushfields, grasslands, and riparian areas. There are few areas with
sparse enough vegetation over a large enough area to be considered safety zones for firefighters
and citizens. Only two areas would be suitable, on SR 299 at the Oregon Mountain pass and
near the confluence of East and West Weaver Creeks east of Mill Street.
In 2002, 200 to 300-foot wide shaded fuel breaks were created on BLM and private lands
surrounding the Timber Ridge subdivision, with a portion on the ridge dividing the Democrat
Gulch and Weaver Creek drainages. An 80’ wide fuel break was also created through BLM
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
197
lands to the northwest of the subdivision along the main ridge and along Democrat Gulch Road
from Oregon Street to the ridge. Brush and trees less than 6” in diameter were cut and remaining
trees were pruned up 6’. These fuel breaks are adequate as control points for surface fires and
backfires but would be inadequate as safety zones for firefighters in the event of a crown fire.
U.S. Forest Service lands, which are primarily located in the north one-half of the project area,
are within the Hayfork Adaptive Management Area (AMA), the Trinity Alps Wilderness Area,
and the Clear Creek Late Successional-Reserve (LSR). These lands are predominantly forested,
with intermingled brushfields, grasslands, riparian areas, and rock outcrops (in the Wilderness).
There are few areas with sparse enough vegetation over a large enough area to be considered
safety zones for firefighters and citizens. Two suitable areas, at least until they revegetate, are in
the burned area of the Oregon Fire on both sides of SR 299 and West Weaver Creek northeast of
Oregon Mountain pass and in the Sidney Gulch area. Another area is at the Ranger District
office on SR 299 in Weaverville.
A 100 to150-foot wide, 1¼ mile long shaded fuel break is located north of State Route 3 on
Musser Hill, the ridge dividing the East Weaver and Little Browns Creek drainages. Brush and
tree ladder fuels have re-grown densely in many portions of this fuel break and it is in need of
maintenance. It is presently marginally useful as a control point for surface fires and backfires.
North of the existing Musser Hill fuel break, where brushfields dominate, are open areas that
would provide a measure of safety for firefighters in the event of a crown fire in the forest.
There are also a couple of locations that could be easily cleared to create emergency heli-spots.
As part of the ‘Browns Proposed Fuel Treatments’ the USFS proposes to lengthen the Musser
Hill fuel break, from State Route 3 north approximately 3 ½miles, and widen it to approximately
600’. Several spurs would connect with SR 3 to the east. The north end of the fuel break would
tie in with the Bear Creek parcels in the PTEIR project area. Mastication of brush or other fuel
treatments would be done east of Musser Hill Road and north of SR 3. These treatments would
tie in with fuel reduction harvests on SPI lands and with the PTEIR Proposed Project fuel
reduction harvests and treatments on parcels to the south of SR 3. The southernmost spur fuel
break would tie in with PTEIR parcels along SR 3 at the mouth of Finley Gulch.
Proposed USFS fuel treatments planned on both sides of SR 3 in the China Gulch area would tie
in with the PTEIR Proposed Project fuel reduction harvests and treatments on parcels at the
mouth of China Gulch and on the top of Browns Mountain. Existing pre-commercial and
commercial thinnings and selection, shelter wood removal, and clearcuts have already opened
the canopy and reduced ladder and surface fuels on portions of SPI and non-industrial private
lands on Browns Mountain.
Proposed USFS fuel and stand treatments planned on both sides of SR 3 in the upper Little
Browns Creek drainage and a shaded fuel break north of SR 3 along the ridge dividing the Little
Browns Creek and Rush Creek drainages would tie in with the PTEIR Proposed Project fuel
reduction harvests and treatments on parcels in the Bear Creek drainage.
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
198
A proposed USFS brush mastication fuel treatment planned for an area north of Trinity High
School in the Garden Gulch drainage would tie in with the PTEIR Proposed Project noncommercial fuel treatment on parcels north of it and would be within mile of parcels to the
east.
The USFS proposes to create a 600’ wide, 1 ¾ mile long shaded fuel break along the ridge
dividing the West Weaver Creek and Clear Gulch drainages, from SPI lands north of the Oregon
Mountain pass to the Wilderness boundary. This shaded fuel break would tie in with the SPI and
private lands that burned in the Oregon Fire, which tie in with the PTEIR Proposed Project fuel
reduction harvests and treatments on parcels south of SR 299.
Sierra Pacific lands, which are primarily located in the east and north portions of the project area
are managed for timber production. These lands are primarily forested, but there are extensive
areas of brush and scrub hardwoods just east of Weaverville. There are only a few areas suitable
as safety zones for firefighters. One area, at least until it revegetates, is the area burned by the
Oregon Fire north of Oregon Mountain pass. Another is a natural meadow ½ mile southwest of
Oregon Mountain. A road behind a locked gate runs through this meadow. Depending upon the
type and intensity of wildfire, some of the clearcuts in the China Gulch and Sidney Gulch areas
may provide some safety for firefighters.
The Safety Element of the Trinity County General Plan (Trinity County, 2002b) notes that all
areas of Trinity County are at risk of wildland fire, with much of the county having a high to
extreme fire hazard severity. The Safety Element contains the following goals, objectives and
policies relevant to the Proposed Project:
•
•
•
•
Objective S.5.1: Ensure emergency accessibility to development through proper road
construction and signage.
Policy A: Roads shall be constructed to provide adequate width, grade, and turn-around
space for emergency vehicles by complying with appropriate federal, state and local
adopted standards. Construction of roads shall protect water quality, slope stability and
threat to natural and cultural resources.
Objective S.5.3: Educate the community on proper procedures in case of a catastrophic
fire.
Policy B: Evacuation routes and safety zone location shall be kept at the Office of
Emergency Services, which is responsible for the evacuation process.
There are no California Forest Practice Rules that specifically address pre-planned safety zone
firebreaks. There are FPRs that address the treatment of logging slash to reduce fuel hazards (14
CCR 937.2) and fire protection measures during timber operations (14 CCR 938 to 938.10).
During the dry season, before completion of slash and snag disposal, logging truck roads are
required to be maintained in a passable condition for fire truck access (14 CCR 938.2).
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
199
5.22.2
raise questions to be considered in determining whether project effects would affect wildland fire
containment, wildland fire control, fire fighter safety and citizen safety within the Weaverville
basin. However project criteria were developed to measure the effects of implementing the
project or any of its alternatives on wildland fire containment, wildland fire control, fire fighter
safety and citizen safety within the Weaverville basin by evaluating the following question.
Would the project:
a) Increase the acres of fuel breaks safe zones; helicopter landing pads, etc. within the
project area?
b) Expose people or structures to increased fire hazards?
c) Substantially increase the demand for fire protection personnel or equipment?
d) Result in wildfire regimes outside of the normal range of natural variability?
5.22.3
a) By reducing fuel ladders, crown densities, and total woody biomass, all of the alternatives
are likely to increase the area of fuel break safe zones. None of the projects will
deliberately create helicopter-landing spots within the project area, but such spots may be
incidentally created when landings or ridge-top fuel breaks are created.
b) Following harvesting, all of the alternatives will temporarily increase ground fuel loads.
This is likely to increase fire hazards to different levels over different spatial and
temporal scales, depending upon the alternative and treatment. Potential increases in
hazard will be completely or in large part offset by slash and fuel treatments and the
opening of forest canopies anticipated in all alternatives.
c) Over the long term, all of the alternatives will reduce fuel ladders, crown densities, and
total woody biomass and will therefore likely reduce the intensity and rate of spread of
surface fires and the likelihood that they will become crown fires. This will likely reduce
the demand for fire protection personnel and equipment on treated acres in the project
area.
d) By creating forest conditions more like those that were found before fire suppression,
wildfires are likely to be within the normal range of natural variability.
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
200
5.22.4
5.22.4.1
treated by non-commercial fuel treatments. Fewer acres would be harvested under the Proposed
Project than under Alternative 2, the same amount as in Alternative 3, and more than under
Alternative 4.
Basal area stocking in fuel breaks would be reduced to 70 - 90 sq ft per acre of medium-sized
and large trees, which would generally be evenly spaced. Basal area stocking in thinnings would
be reduced to 100-140 sq ft per acre. Groups of advanced regeneration, poles and small saw
timber would be retained in a configuration designed to reduce fire severity. Depending upon
the type of harvest, overstory canopy closures following harvest or thinning would range from
10% (group selection) to 60% (single tree selection and commercial thin), with most of the
understory vegetation, project-created slash, ground fuels, and ladder fuels being removed and
trees being pruned. Slash in fuel breaks would be mostly tractor piled and burned while slash in
thinned areas would be lopped and scattered. Non-commercial fuel treatments would be a
combination of tractor removal and piling and chainsaw cutting and hand piling. In these areas,
basal area stocking would be reduced to 80 sq ft per acre and canopy closures would likely range
from 40-60%.
With full implementation of the Proposed Project, an additional 1,260 acres of high quality fuel
breaks would exist within the project area within ten years, to provide for enhanced wildland fire
containment and control and fire fighter and citizen safety if a fire overruns the fire fighting
force.
Compared to Alternative 2, the status quo, the Proposed Project would harvest more acres and
create more logging slash in the short-term because more acres per year (354 acres/year) would
be treated over a shorter time period (10 years). Alternative 2 would harvest only 75 acres per
year over a 40-year period and understory fuel treatments, such as slash piling with tractors and
lopping and scattering of slash, would probably not occur to the same extent. Depending upon
the type of harvest, overstory canopy closures following harvest or thinning would range from
20-40%, with some of the understory fuel ladders being removed. A limited, but unknown
number of non-commercial fuel treatments would probably be done. Full implementation of
Alternative 2 would create an additional 2,835 acres of semi-safety zone fuel breaks within the
project area within forty years.
Compared to Alternative 3, under which shaded fuel breaks would be constructed on 3,460 acres
over a 10-year period, the Proposed Project would create fuel breaks and treat fuels on 80 more
acres. Since Alternative 3 only creates shaded fuel breaks, basal area stocking would be reduced
to 70-90 sq ft per acre of medium-sized and large trees, with an average overstory canopy
closure of 60%. Groups of advanced regeneration, poles, and small saw timber would be
retained in a configuration designed to reduce fire severity. Most of the understory vegetation,
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
201
project-created slash, ground fuels, and ladder fuels would be removed and trees would be
pruned. Full implementation of Alternative 3 would create an additional 3,460 acres of high
quality safety zone fuel breaks within the project area within ten years.
If Alternative 4 were fully implemented by pre-commercial thinning to remove ladder fuels, 80
fewer acres would be treated than under the fully implemented Proposed Project. Little to no
overstory would be removed, so basal area stocking would be greater and canopy closures would
on average be denser than in the Proposed Project. The less intensive nature of the treatment and
the small size of the trees cut would significantly reduce the use of heavy equipment for slash
disposal, so lopping and scattering would likely be the preferred method of slash disposal. Most
of the understory vegetation and ladder fuels would be removed and trees would be pruned. Full
implementation of Alternative 4 would create an additional 3,460 acres of safety zone fuel
breaks within the project area within ten years. These zones would have a denser canopy and
more unburned slash than in the Proposed Alternative and would therefore provide less safety
under extreme fire conditions.
5.22.4.2
Under Alternative 2, 2,835 acres would be harvested by overstory removal within 40 years.
More commercial size trees would be harvested than in the Proposed Project or in Alternatives 3
and 4, but on substantially fewer acres, on an annual basis. Canopy closures would average 2040%, which is considerably lower than the Proposed Project or other alternatives. Understory
fuel treatments, such as slash piling with tractors and lopping and scattering of slash, would
probably not occur to the same extent. A limited number of non-commercial fuel treatments
would probably be done. Full implementation of Alternative 2 would create an additional 2,835
acres of safety zone fuel breaks within the project area within forty years. There would probably
be more ground and ladder fuels in these safety zones than in the Proposed Project or other
alternatives, but canopy closures, at least in the short term, would be considerably less.
5.22.4.3
Alternative 3: Intensive Fuels Treatment
trees (commercial plus non-commercial size) would be harvested of any alternative, generating
the most logging slash, which would generally be tractor piled and burned. Basal area stocking
would be reduced to 70-90 sq ft per acre of medium-sized and large trees and overstory canopy
closures would average 60%. Groups of advanced regeneration, poles and small saw timber
would be retained in a configuration designed to reduce fire severity. Most of the understory
vegetation, project-created slash, ground fuels, and ladder fuels would be removed and trees
would be pruned. Full implementation of Alternative 3 would create an additional 3,460 acres of
high quality safety zone fuel breaks within the project area within ten years.
5.22.4.4
Alternative 4 would treat 3,460 acres within ten years, all by pre-commercial thinning to remove
ladder fuels. Little to no overstory would be removed, so basal area stocking would be greater
and canopy closures would on average be denser than in the Proposed Project or Alternatives 2
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
202
and 3. The small size of harvested trees would likely result in few, if any, trees being utilized.
Logging slash would be substantially less than under the Proposed Project or other alternatives.
Slash would mainly be lopped and scattered. Most of the understory vegetation and ladder fuels
would be removed and trees would be pruned. Full implementation of Alternative 4 would
create an additional 3,460 acres of safety zone fuel breaks within the project area within ten
years. These zones would have a denser canopy and more unburned slash than in the Proposed
Project and would therefore provide less safety under extreme fire conditions that could support
crown fires.
5.22.5
1. Remove all logging slash in designated safety zones. All clean up and disposal of debris
shall be by chipping, removing, or burning. Chipping shall occur no later than 45 days
after creation. Piling for burning shall occur no later than 60 days after creation of the
debris, with burning no later than April 1 of the year following creation or one year from
date of creation, whichever comes first. Removal of debris shall occur no later than 60
days after its creation.
5.22.6
With application of the above mitigation measure, impacts to fire fighter and citizen safety
resulting from implementation of the Proposed Project are less than significant.
5.23
Cumulative Impacts from Reasonably Foreseeable Known Projects
Within the analysis area are several reasonably foreseeable known projects likely to be
implemented that might, in combination with the Proposed Project, result in cumulative effects
above and beyond those predicted as a result of implementing the Proposed Project or its
alternatives. To determine which projects might take place within the next five years, letters
were sent to the USFS, BLM, and Sierra Pacific Industries requesting information on projects
they propose implementing in the next five years. Letters were received back from the BLM.
From the letters and the contractors’ familiarity with the project area, the identified projects
within the analysis area include the USFS Oregon Fire Community Protection Project, the
proposed USFS Browns Fuel Treatment Project, the BLM Democrat Gulch Fire Break, and the
Trinity County East Branch Connector and Trinity County Airport Master Plan Relocation
projects.
USFS Oregon Community Protection Project
The Oregon Fire Community Protection Project would treat 400 acres of fuels along roads and in
other strategic locations. In addition fire-killed timber would be removed from about 230 acres.
All of the proposed treatments are located within the boundaries of the Oregon Fire and within
the project area.
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
203
The majority of the environmental effects to the landscape within the Oregon Fire area have
already taken place and/or been mitigated as a result of Oregon Fire suppression/mitigation
efforts. Additional effects are expected from the US Forest Service project. However, according
to the environmental assessment, none of these effects are expected to be significant.
USFS Browns Fuel Treatment Project
The USFS is developing the Browns Fuel Treatment Project in the upper Browns Creek drainage
about 3 air miles northeast of Weaverville. The Proposed Project is wholly within the analysis
area and the project area. The range of proposed treatments includes understory thinning,
“mastication” units, fuel breaks, etc. About one mile of road construction is proposed. The
project is proposed for implementation in 2005.
Because this Proposed Project is in the very early stages of development, it is difficult to
determine whether the USFS Browns project would cumulatively interact with the Proposed
Project and result in potentially significant results. Most of the USFS treatment area is located
on upper slopes. However, an estimated 4 miles of Browns Creek are within proposed treatment
units. There are potential effects to water quality and air quality from both timber operations and
from prescribed fire associated with the USFS fuel treatments. The Northwest Forest Plan
requires stream buffers of 100-300’ each side of perennial streams (depending on site quality)
and this is expected to result in little or no impact to Browns Creek.
The greatest potential cumulative effect associated with implementing both the Proposed Project
and the USFS Browns project is that resulting from the impact to visual quality associated with
treating several hundred acres of existing relatively dense vegetation in the Browns Creek area.
Combined with the Proposed Project, the USFS project could result in views from Highway 3
being altered as a result of shaded fuel break implementation.
About two thirds of the proposed private land fuel treatments in the Browns Creek area are
commercial thins. The balance of the treatments on the private land is a combination of shaded
fuel breaks and non-commercial fuel treatments. The greatest visual effect is likely to come
when fuel breaks are implemented on private land and adjacent USFS properties. Because State
Highway 3 is located in the valley of Browns Creek, the likelihood of car travelers being able to
see much of either project is relatively low. Most of the visual impacts will be those that can be
seen from private roads and/or from USFS roads 34N77 and 34N95. Views from USFS roads
34N77 and 34N95 are likely to be affected mostly by the proposed USFS project and not from
the private land fuel treatments associated with the Proposed Project. Overall, the potential to
have a substantial effect on visual quality by implementing the Proposed Project and the USFS
project is considered low to moderate.
BLM Oregon Fire Salvage Timber Sale and Timber Ridge-Democrat Ridge Shaded Fuel
Break
BLM proposes salvage logging approximately 60 acres of federal property on Oregon Mountain
summit immediately north of Highway 299 in the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 3, T33N, R10W.
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
204
In addition, the BLM proposes establishing the Timber Ridge Community Boundary Fuel Break
and the Democrat Ridge Fuel Break. The Timber Ridge Fuel Break is expected to be about 200’
wide and 1.75 miles long. The Democrat Ridge and Democrat Ridge Road Shaded Fuel Breaks
are expected to be 80’ wide (40’ each side of the road or ridgeline) and to extend about 3.25
miles north along the ridge on BLM land.
The proposed salvage logging would take place along the ridge and summit of Oregon Mountain.
About 1,000’ of road are proposed for construction, and about 2,000’ of road are proposed for
reconstruction. Since the proposed salvage is located close to or on the ridge, water quality
impacts are expected to be minor. Most of the timber is already dead from the Oregon fire.
Visually there may be some impact however, the project is uphill of the highway and mostly will
not be particularly noticeable given the already substantially altered view resulting from the fire
itself.
The community fuel breaks would treat about 70 acres and include cutting brush and small trees
up to 6” in diameter as well as removing limbs up to 6’ from the ground on the remaining trees.
Spacing of leave trees under 6” is expected to range between 10’-20’. No trees over 6” in
diameter are proposed for harvest. All of the slash over 3” in diameter will be hand piled.
Visually, the impact of these treatments is expected to be virtually unnoticeable to the casual
observer. No heavy equipment is expected to be used, thus erosion is not expected to increase
much over current sedimentation rates in the local area.
Trinity County East Connector Roadway Project
Trinity County is proposing to construct a new two lane, limited access arterial road around
Weaverville that would connect Highway 299 with Highway 3. The proposed route would skirt
the southeast and east sides of Weaverville, would require a new bridge over East Weaver Creek,
and would also include the installation of a stoplight on Highway 299 at Glen Road. The
environmental impacts of the East Connector Roadway Project are discussed in detail in the draft
environmental impact report issued by Trinity County on December 16, 2002.
The greatest effects expected from the East Connector Roadway project are those associated with
water quality impacts to East Weaver Creek. Construction of the bridge could require operations
within the high water line of the creek. In addition, the East Connector project could result in the
paving, and thus the creation of 6 acres of impermeable surface, that could, in concert with the
Weaverville Fuel Reduction Proposed Project, result in slightly increased peak storm runoff.
The effect of the fuel treatment project is expected to lessen dramatically over time, particularly
within the first 10 years, while the change in runoff associated with the East Connector Roadway
Project is expected to continue indefinitely. However, both projects contain mitigation measures
that are expected to reduce the effects on water quality and hydrology to less than significant on
an individual basis. Because the Weaverville Fuel Reduction Project is expected to return to
nearly the same equivalent roaded area status after project implementation, as before project
implementation, the cumulative impacts to the hydrologic functions of Browns Creek are not
expected to be significant.
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
205
Trinity County Weaverville Airport Master Plan Project
Trinity County is proposing to build a new airport to replace the existing Lonnie
Pool/Weaverville airport. The proposed airport project would require Trinity County to acquire
761 acres of land from Sierra Pacific Industries. The project would construct a 75’ wide by
5,000’ long runway and a 35’ wide by 5,000’ parallel taxiway to accommodate aircraft,
including jet aircraft, with wingspans of 79’ landing at speeds of up to 121 knots. The Airport
Project is being designed to include adequate land to extend the runway to 7,000’ at full buildout. In addition a 20-acre commercial development area would be created on the SE side of the
airport. About 40 acres of ridgetop land would be leveled east of the PTEIR Lance Gulch area to
accommodate the airport runway and commercial development area. About 5.7 million cubic
yards of material would be “graded” with the maximum cut and fill approximately 110’ and
112’, respectively. A new access road would also have to be built that would require 1.62 miles
of new road construction.
The EIR/EA prepared by Jim Wallace Consulting Services of Carson City, Nevada was issued
by Trinity County, acting as the Lead Agency, on June 17, 2002. The EIR/EA identified 7
significant unavoidable issues including short term and long-term visual impacts. As the EIR
states, “Tree-covered ridgelines will be irrevocably changed to flattened, paved developed areas.
The proposed mitigation measures will not completely mitigate the long-term effects (sic) of
ridgeline development.”
Generally, the visual impact of the proposed airport will far exceed the visual impacts associated
with fuel treatments on the Lance Gulch PTEIR parcel, which is the only PTEIR project area in
the vicinity of the proposed airport. The Lance Gulch parcel is composed entirely of noncommercial forestland and the likelihood of fuel treatment on these parcels is considered low. If
the non-commercial treatment prescription did take place, the existing vegetation density would
be reduced by about 25%, which is not considered potentially significant in comparison to the
drastic reduction at the Airport Project area about ¼ mile away.
The proposed Airport Project could result in nearly 20 acres of impermeable surface being
created by the runway, taxiways, and the commercial development area. Mitigation measures
designed to reduce the potential for erosion and runoff include the installation of settling ponds.
Since the proposed Airport Project is located on a ridge, runoff will be channeled into several
drainages including Lance Gulch and Browns Creek. Because the impacts of the proposed
PTEIR project in the Lance Gulch area are expected to be relatively minor, the cumulative
impact of the proposed PTEIR project in concert with the proposed Airport Project is not
expected to make the impacts from the Airport Project any greater than they are already
projected to be.
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
206
5.24
The Proposed Project and Alternatives 3 and 4 incorporate treatments designed to reduce fuel
loads. After initial reduction of much of the understory vegetation that could carry a wildfire,
vegetation (generally grass and sprouting brush species such as Ceanothus) will tend to reoccupy
the cleared areas, and for fuels reduction treatments to be effective over time some maintenance
(i.e., continued reduction of invading vegetation) will be necessary.
Alternative 2, Continuance of the Status Quo, contains no prescribed treatments for fuels
reduction. Therefore a discussion of the need to maintain such treatments is not germane to this
alternative and is not included for this Alternative. The subsequent discussion in this section
about herbicides does, however, apply to any such use by landowners under this alternative, for
control of vegetation for silvicultural or other objectives.
Under the Proposed Project 1,350 acres will be treated by commercial thinning, selection
harvest, or transition methods. These treatments retain a relatively dense overstory
(approximately 120 sq. ft. basal area per acre) across the treated area, which will tend to retard
the re-growth of understory vegetation, reducing the need for treatment maintenance. Also,
under the Proposed Project 1,260 acres along ridgelines, roads, etc, will be treated by reduction
of the basal area to 70-90 sq. ft./ac., establishing a shaded fuel break across which a crown fire is
not likely to carry. The open spacing between residual trees will create available spaces for
invasion by grass, herbaceous vegetation, brush, and tree seedlings. Under the proposed project
fuels reduction would also occur on 960 acres of non-commercial vegetation, where some
maintenance would be needed to maintain the more fire safe condition.
Under the implementation of Alternative 3, fuel breaks would be established on 3,460 acres,
where, just as on the 1,260 acres of fuel break proposed under the Proposed Project, reduction of
invading vegetation would be necessary to maintain the effects of the treatment over time.
Alternative 4 proposes to change wildland fire behavior by removal of understory, “ladder-fuel”
vegetation. Under implementation of this alternative the existing forest overstory would remain
intact, and in most cases would provide enough shade to retard re-growth of understory
vegetation. As long as this overstory is maintained, any needed reduction of invading vegetation
would be needed less often and would require far less effort, than under the Proposed Project or
Alternative 3.
5.24.1
Vegetation Types and Treatments
The necessity of reducing vegetation within fuel break areas is directly tied to the types of
vegetation that reoccupy openings. Although some predictions could be made about which areas
would be reoccupied by herbaceous species as opposed to conifers, hardwood sprouts or
seedlings, or by brush species on a site-by-site basis, the combination of possible treatments
together with the different plants that might reoccupy any particular site makes the prediction of
the environmental effects extremely speculative. .
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
207
Visual observation of cleared areas within and adjacent to the project area indicates that on many
sites grass and other herbaceous species would be the initial invading species, and may continue
to dominate the cleared areas for years or even decades. When dry, this vegetation can quickly
carry fire, but its height does not generally pose a threat of carrying into the crowns of
surrounding trees; therefore reduction of grass generally would not be necessary to maintain the
primary purpose of the fuel break. Around structures (where property damage is a possibility),
and along roads where fire starts are likely, landowners may decide to trim or mow grasses, etc.,
in order to slow the spread of fire and improve the likelihood that a fire that did start could be
controlled. Controlled burning would also be an effective method of reducing grass, etc., but its
use would be limited to areas where control was feasible, safe, and affordable. The small size of
individual parcels within the project area as well as the high percentage containing permitted
structures will likely limit the application of this treatment option.
Cleared areas may also encourage the re-sprouting of brush species or hardwoods such as Pacific
madrone, California black oak, etc., as well as the re-seeding of conifers or hardwoods. In such
areas it is likely that some reduction of this invading vegetation will be needed within ten years
after treatment to maintain the desired condition, and at least once every decade thereafter. The
fuel break prescriptions associated with the Proposed Project and Alternatives 3 and 4 contain
recommendations for recruitment of replacement trees for residual overstory trees that may die
or be harvested. These replacement trees would be treated the same way as residual trees, i.e.,
kept well spaced from other trees, pruned as necessary, etc. The remaining “undesirable” brush
and small trees would need to be kept from dominating the site by mechanical or hand cutting, or
potentially, use of herbicides. Small chain saws and brush cutting heads for trimmers are often
used for brush removal, and are generally effective and relatively affordable. Brush that is cut
should be piled and burned or at least lopped and scattered. Herbicides used on brush or saplings
can kill or greatly retard growth of many species, but unless the dead vegetation is removed it
can initially increase the fire hazard of a treated area. Cutting brush and subsequent application
of an herbicide to the cut stump can be effective and long lasting in terms of keeping down
unwanted vegetation. Prescribed fire is also an effective tool for controlling woody vegetation,
but is subject to the same limitations of cost, parcel size, and safety noted above.
5.24.2
Regulatory Oversight of Herbicides
Use of herbicides for maintenance of fuel breaks is not a design element or program goal of the
Proposed Project or any of the alternatives. The PTEIR/PTHP process does not authorize
herbicide use, and permitting of such use is not within CDFs responsibility. However, the
creation of fuel breaks as proposed under the Proposed Project and Alternative 3 facilitates a
situation where herbicide use might be implemented by private landowners. Although use of
herbicides is controversial in Trinity County, their use under certain conditions is legally
allowed, and they have been shown to be as or more effective and less costly than
hand/mechanical treatments or prescribed burning.
If some landowners were to apply herbicides as part of their maintenance of fuel breaks, this
application would likely occur in the spring when brush and hardwoods are sprouting. This use
would likely not occur until timber harvest and brush reduction activities specified by the PTHP
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
208
are carried out, which may well be subsequent to the period of CDF oversight of a PTHP (and in
any case is not under the authority of CDF, see below).
There are over 20 different herbicides registered for use on Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine
plantations alone in California. There are 197 herbicides registered for use on “brush”. New
herbicides are registered (or delisted) for use every year. For purposes of this analysis, the
herbicides most likely to be used within the project area are based on the herbicides applied in
Trinity and adjacent counties in 2002 as shown in the Table 35 below. Given the small size and
adjacency of the private parcels included in the project area, aerial spraying of herbicides is
unlikely. The most likely form of application would be by backpack sprayer that would be
specifically targeted to individual plants or stumps.
table 35
POUNDS OF HERBICDES APPLIED IN COUNTIES
ADJACENT TO TRINITY COUNTY IN 2002 1/
Trinity Humboldt Mendocino Del Norte Siskiyou Tehama
Pounds active ingredient
atrizine
5,041
1,307
165
2,4,-D isoctyl ester
4,860
313
1,264
302
1,808
87
2
2,002
652
2,4,-D, 2 ethylhexyl ester
319
2,4,-D, 2 butoxethanol ester
58
14
glyphosate, isopropylamine salt
4,152
2,482
49
imazapyr
1,243
356
5,368
triclopyr, butoxyethyl ester
1,251
9,068
153
716
960
hexazinone
6,965
21,807
5,584
2,884
29
5,504
1,069
11,459
1,895
1/ Source, Department of Pesticide Regulation web site,
http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/pur02rep/02_pur.htm
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates pesticide use nationwide and has
exclusive authority over pesticide labeling. Use of a pesticide is limited to the applications and
restrictions on the label, and the label restrictions are legally enforceable. The California
Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) regulates pesticides within the State of California and
has legal authority to adopt restrictions on pesticide use going beyond the regulations of the
EPA. (See 7 U.S.C.A. Sec. 136v.).
Under California law, pesticide products must be registered by DPR in order to be sold and used
in California. Before a substance is registered as a pesticide for the first time, DPR conducts a
thorough evaluation. If DPR determines that further restrictions need to be placed on the use of a
pesticide product to mitigate potential adverse effects including human health effects and
environmental effects, DPR classifies the pesticide as a restricted pesticide, and individual
applications need a permit from the county agricultural commissioner. After a pesticide is
registered for use in this state, DPR has an ongoing obligation to review new information
received about the pesticide that might show new problems beyond those identified in the
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
209
registration process. Where the review of new information shows that a significant adverse
impact has occurred or is likely to occur, DPR is required to reevaluate the registration.
DPR operates a statewide program of regulation and is the lead agency for regulating herbicide
use under CEQA. DPR has the greatest authority of any state agency for analyzing and
regulating herbicide use. Further, DPR acts before any other state or local agency can act
because a herbicide product must be registered by DPR before it can be used at all. This lead
agency role was confirmed in City of Sacramento v. State Water Resources Control Board (3d
Dist, 1992).
DPR does not prepare environmental impact reports (EIRs) but prepares other documents in the
place of EIRs. DPR’s registration process takes into consideration that most herbicides will be
used statewide. Because the registration evaluation process considers use of an herbicide in a
broad area and in a variety of conditions, the documents are the functional equivalent of a
program EIR for each pesticide. Site specific application and use of restricted pesticides is
evaluated by the county agricultural commissioner during the review of applications for
restricted materials permits. Not all pesticides are restricted, and only restricted pesticides
require a permit from the county agricultural commissioner, except that for a pesticide that DPR
has not designated as restricted, the commissioner can require a permit for its use if the
commissioner makes a finding that the pesticide will present an undue hazard when used under
local conditions.
Because DPR is responsible for pesticide regulation statewide, CDF is required in any
environmental analysis to find that any proposed use of herbicides will not have a significant
effect on the environment unless there is new information showing significant or potentially
significant effects not analyzed by DPR. In fact, the EPA/CAL-EPA has conducted studies and
analysis that concludes that registered herbicides are safe to use for the purpose of controlling
forest vegetation. As a responsible agency, CDF is barred from repeating the environmental
analysis conducted by the lead agency. Because the use of a DPR registered herbicide would not
have a significant effect on the human health or water quality, CDF is not required to analyze
these effects for THPs or PTHPs. On the other hand, CDF does need to consider the effects of
potential use of herbicides on listed plants, sensitive habitats, forage, ground cover, and the
potential for exposed soil leading to erosion.
If use of herbicides were described in a PTHP as an integral part of the timber operations, CDF
would need to review the proposed use and its possible environmental effects; but since no
herbicide use is proposed in the PTEIR, it could not be proposed in a PTHP tiered to the PTEIR.
Any subsequent use of herbicides is therefore considered a related but not integral part of the
timber harvest permitting process, and is therefore outside of CDF oversight. The use of
herbicides is subject to decisions of the timberland owner, a pest control advisor, and in the case
of restricted herbicides, the county agricultural commissioner.
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
210
5.24.3
Significance Evaluation of Treatment Maintenance Activities
Botanical Resources
Section 5.7 of this PTEIR contains an evaluation of the potential effects to sensitive, rare,
threatened or endangered plant species within or adjacent to project areas. Within the
assessment area there is one List 2 species and 5 CNPS List 1B species.
Dudley’s rush (CNPS List 2) has not been observed in the area since 1879. This species occurs
within wetlands or other wet areas in montane coniferous forests. WLPZ retention standards of
all alternatives will contribute to maintaining water quality and suitable habitat for this species.
Treatment maintenance operations under all alternatives should not have a significant effect on
Dudley’s rush since few if any wetlands will be subject to initial fuels treatments.
Heckner’s Lewisia occurs in various forest habitat types within rock outcrops cliffs of various
rock types on northern aspects, often near streams or rivers in part to full shade. WLPZ retention
standards of all alternatives will contribute to maintaining water quality and suitable habitat for
this species. If suitable habitat for this species outside of WLPZs is encountered, the RPF
preparing the PTHP will conduct appropriate inventory and/or implement protection measures as
specified by CDF in consultation with CDFG,. A mitigation measure is proposed so that any
effects to this species caused by treatment maintenance operations should not have a significant
effect on this species if it occurs in the area.
Thread-leaved beardtongue is found in rocky openings in lower montane hardwood and conifer
areas on ultra-mafic soils and outcrops. Suitable habitat exists in the project area. The RPF
preparing PTHPs within ultra-mafic soil areas will conduct appropriate inventory and/or
implement protection measures as specified by CDF in consultation with CDFG. A mitigation
measure is proposed so that any effects to this species caused by treatment maintenance
operations should not have a significant effect on this species if it occurs in the area.
Tracy’s beardtongue is found only in the Trinity Alps in exposed metamorphic rock, rock
crevices, and cliffs. This species does not occur within project areas, therefore treatment
maintenance operations under all alternatives will not have a significant effect on this species.
Regal’s rush occurs in meadows and wet areas within higher elevation conifer forest. WLPZ
retention standards of all alternatives will contribute to maintaining water quality and suitable
habitat for this species. Treatment maintenance operations under all alternatives should not have
a significant effect on this species if it occurs in the area.
English Peak greenbriar is found in high elevation (4,000’-8,000’) alder thickets, lakesides and
stream banks, and moist slopes. The project area is within lower elevation areas and does not
incorporate meadows and wet areas where these two species occur. WLPZ retention standards
of all alternatives will contribute to maintaining water quality and suitable habitat for this
species. Treatment maintenance operations under all alternatives should not have a significant
effect on this species if it occurs in the area (Nakamura and Nelson, 2001).
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
211
Sensitive Habitats
As discussed in detail in Section 3.1, the Proposed Project and Alternatives 3 and 4 are not likely
to create any significant effect to sensitive habitats through proposed operations. Given that any
effects from treatment maintenance would only maintain the conditions created by the initial
treatment, treatment maintenance as proposed for the Proposed Project or Alternatives 3 and 4
should not have a significant effect on sensitive habitats
As noted in Section 3.5, the No Project alternative (Alt. 2) would not provide any inducement for
landowners to apply silvicultural treatments that facilitate reduction of hazardous fuels on their
properties. Although the beneficial effects of hazardous fuel reduction will not be realized until
and unless a fire occurs, the likelihood of such an occurrence is high, and sooner or later if the
status quo persists and no fuels reduction treatments are implemented, a substantial acreage can
be expected to experience severe damage from wildfire similar to the Lewiston and Oregon
Fires, including potential effects to sensitive habitats. But since the No Project alternative
contains no provisions for treatment maintenance, such activities cannot be evaluated as to their
effects under this alternative.
Forage
Creation or diminution of forage for wildlife or livestock is not analyzed in this PTEIR. The
following California Forest Practice Rules (FPRs) section mentions forage as a resource to be
considered. These rules are found in the FPRs, Subchapters 4, 5, and 6, Article 3, Silvicultural
Methods. As CDF could require implementation of these rules as part of approval of any PTHP
tied to this PTEIR, they will reduce potential impacts from treatment maintenance under
implementation of any alternative to a less than significant level.
“The Director shall approve an alternative prescription if in his judgment it complies with 14
CCR 898 and if, considering the entire area to which the alternative is to be applied, it would not
create a significant adverse change in range and forage and recreation and aesthetic values. [14
CCR 933.6(e)(1)]”
Ground Cover and Potential for Erosion
Section 5.9.4 contains a detailed analysis of potential impacts from the Proposed Project and
Alternatives to soils, including potential for erosion. Logging and fuel treatments can increase
soil erosion, but roads and their associated crossings of water bodies create the greatest potential
for sediment delivery to watercourses. Treatment maintenance activities would be designed to
minimize or impede revegetation of areas where initial treatments were applied and should not
be affected by or affect roads in terms of erosion hazard.
5.24.3.1
As a result of the Proposed Project, about 1,350 acres are commercially thinned, 1,260 acres are
treated under a shaded fuel break prescription, and 930 acres are treated with non-commercial
treatments. The resulting disturbance changes the erosion hazard rating post project from low to
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
212
medium on 550 acres. About 2 acres change from medium to high due to operations on 60-80%
slopes in the Bear Creek drainage. Most of the change in erosion hazard is in the Ten Cent
Gulch area where steep slopes combined with shaded fuel breaks lead to low cover on steep
slopes resulting in E.H.R.s changing from low to medium. Erosion hazard is expected to drop
back to pre-project levels within 1-3 years after treatment as a result of grass invasion, litter fall,
etc. No treatments are proposed in any Class I or II watercourse, which should help to reduce
water quality impacts from this alternative. .
Since grass and forbs are not considered to require control (except potentially around dwellings)
to maintain the primary objectives of the fuels treatments under this alternative, their reoccupation will continue to reduce the soil erosion hazard from low to medium or medium to low
on many treated acres. Where brush and sprouting hardwoods reoccupy treated areas they many
need to periodically be treated to maintain the fuels reduction goals. Where these treatments
occur (likely no more often than once or twice in a ten-year period) these areas will return from a
low to medium EHR. However these effects are expected to be limited in space and time, as
they are tied to filing of PTHPs by willing landowners, and cannot be expected to be occur in
one concentrated area over a short time. Therefore the effects to ground cover that could lead to
soil erosion, from treatment maintenance, are considered to be less than significant.
5.24.3.2
Alternative 2 harvests approximately 750 acres per decade. Table 23 shows that just 127 acres
increase their E.H.R. hazard as a result of treating all 2,835 commercial acres within the project
area during the next 40 years. Standard CA Forest Practice rule implementation is expected to
reduce the effects of Alternative 2 to less than significant. Since no treatment maintenance
activities are projected to occur under the Status Quo, no additional erosion is likely to result
from such treatments under implementation of Alternative 2.
5.24.3.3
Alternative 3 harvests virtually the same amount of area as the Proposed Project and Alternative
4 (e.g., 3,460 acres). However Alternative 3 results in substantially more acreage affected by
high disturbance treatments such as tractor piling. After treatment, Alternative 3 results in 1,429
acres changing from low to medium E.H.R. Forbs and grasses will re-occupy some portion of
areas opened by fuels treatments within 1-3 years after treatment, reducing soil E.H.R. from low
to medium. No treatments are proposed in any class I or II watercourses, which should help to
reduce water quality impacts from this alternative.
As with the Proposed Project, grass and forbs that re-occupy treated sites are not considered to
pose a threat of transitioning a ground fire into a crown fire, and will not generally be treated
under maintenance activities, the exception being around homesites. Where brush and
hardwoods re-occupy constructed fuel breaks, they will likely be treated under a maintenance
program once or twice per decade. Thus, some portion of the 1,429 treated acres would
sporadically be returned from a low to medium EHR. However, these effects would be limited
over space and time, and the overall effect from maintenance activities over the project area is
considered to be less than significant.
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
213
5.24.4.4
Alternative 4 also harvests about the same acreage as the Proposed Project, however all of the
treatments are understory treatments and the resulting disturbance is much less than for the
Proposed Project, and is substantially less than for Alternative 3. After treating 3,460 acres with
a pre-commercial thin the resulting disturbance results in 77 acres changing E.H.R. from low to
medium.
As in the other alternatives, grass and forb invasion within 1-3 years after treatment is likely to
form ground cover that should reduce erosion back to approximately pre-project levels. No
treatments are proposed in any class I or II watercourse, which should help to reduce water
quality impacts from this alternative. Alternative 4 is not expected to require nearly as much
maintenance as the Proposed Project or Alternative 3, due to the high amount of shade that
would be retained after understory thinning was completed. Some portions of the 77 acres that
change from low to medium HER over time might require maintenance to sustain the effects of
the fuels treatment. These treatments would be very limited over space and time and are
considered unlikely to significantly affect soil erosion hazard rating
5.24.4
Mitigation
6. The RPF preparing PTHPs will conduct appropriate inventory and/or implement
protection measures for sensitive, rare or threatened plant species as specified by CDF in
consultation with CDFG. The RPF and CDF will inform landowners of the presence of
and need for protection of these species during treatment maintenance activities.
5.24.6
The potential significance for treatment maintenance activities to adversely affect the
environment is low, as long as the above mitigation measure is implemented. However, the
future prescription of herbicides for treatment maintenance purposes is too speculative under
CCR 15145 to make a determination as to significance. The uncertainty as to significance is due
to the fact that:
1. The decision to use herbicides is an individual landowners decision whether to treat
chemically or not and while landowners may be sensitive to herbicide use given the
contentiousness surrounding herbicides in Trinity County, it is impossible to predict whether
some, many or all of the landowners might use herbicides. Principal among landowner
decisions about herbicide use will be the amount of brush re-growth after treatment,
something that is virtually impossible to predict.
2. The particular herbicides registered for use at that time are impossible to predict. There are
currently 12,319 pesticides registered for use in California. There are over 20 herbicides
registered for use on plantations of Douglas-fir or ponderosa pine. Landowners have a variety
of herbicides to choose from and predicting the impacts from the range of herbicides
available for use is considered too speculative for projection purposes.
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
214
3. Besides the uncertainty associated with which species of vegetation would need to be treated
(e.g. widely different herbicides are prescribed for grass compared to sprouting brush
species), as well as the types of herbicides that would be prescribed, there is also substantial
uncertainty associated with the “prescription” recommendation of a certified Pest Control
Advisor (PCA) as to the timing (spring or fall) of the application, the type of herbicide
recommended (see 2 above), the number of treatments to be applied, the stage of vegetation
growth to be treated, and finally the spatial extent of the vegetation to be treated (e.g. ½acre,
5 acres, 40 acres, etc.). Ultimately, the PCA, if involved, would require that label directions
specify the requirements for safe herbicide usage, handling, exposure and disposal. Also, all
applications will be in accordance with label instructions and, where appropriate, per the
direction of a PCA and applied by qualified applicators.
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
215
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
216
6.0 Public Scoping
Chapter 6.0 Public Scoping
6.0
Initial Scoping for Project Location
Initial scoping for the project began with the Trinity Resource Conservation and Development
Council, Inc. (TRC&D) request to the consultants to recommend one or more communities
within Trinity County for preparation of the Fuel Reduction Project. The consultants prepared
an analysis of the major communities within Trinity County and presented their
recommendations to the Trinity County Fire Safe Council at its June 26, 2002 meeting at the
Trinity County PUD building in Weaverville. Because of substantial controversy with the
recommendation, the Board conducted further outreach within Trinity County and reaffirmed the
recommendation to select Weaverville for the Fuel Reduction Project at its July 19, 2002 board
meeting.
6.1
Outreach to Project Area Landowners
The 320 landowners within the project area were each notified about the project by an August
26, 2002 letter from the TRC&D. The three-page letter included a description of the goals of the
project as well as a general map of the project area showing the location of the individual project
areas (but not each landowner’s parcel).
On October 10, BBW Associates sent a letter to all 320 landowners within the project area
notifying them of the two-landowner meetings to be held at the Weaverville Fire Hall on October
22 and 25 to discuss the PTEIR with interested landowners. A total of 27 individuals attended
the two meetings.
During October, November, and early December 2002, BBW Associates met with approximately
25 different landowners within the project area with particular interest expressed in the Oregon
Mountain, Bear Creek, and 5 Cent Gulch areas.
6.2
Scoping of Public
Initial scoping of the public began with a press release issued by the TRC&D on August 26,
2002. The press release resulted in a quarter page article in the August 28, 2002 Trinity Journal,
the county’s weekly paper.
On October 5, 2002, representatives of BBW Associates attended the Salmon Festival in
Weaverville, manned a booth at the festival and provided information about the project to the
public. BBW Associates also prepared a poster display board in conjunction with the TRC&D
for the Festival.
A legal notice was filed and printed in the January 8, 2003 Trinity Journal announcing a public
meeting to be held on January 22, 2003 at the Weaverville Fire Hall to solicit input from the
public on the project. A follow up story was also printed in the Trinity Journal on January 15,
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
217
7.0 Public Scoping
2003 about the public meeting. Notices about the meeting were also posted at the Weaverville
Variety store and at the Post office on January15, 2003.
A total of 21 people attended the public hearing on January 22, 2003. The meeting generated
substantial discussion and resulted in a slight rearranging of the alternatives as well as a proposal
to develop one more alternative (treat fuels only along public roads). In addition to the hearing
one formal letter was submitted immediately after the hearing. A summary of the comments
from the hearing is contained in the files. The public hearing was video taped for the local
community access TV channel and shown on the January 23, 2003. Several people notified the
consultants and the TRC&D they had seen the video taped meeting on the local TV station.
The PowerPoint presentation made at the Public Hearing was repeated at the Trinity County Fire
Safe Council’s meeting of January 23, 2003.
6.3
Outreach to State and Local Agencies
Initial contact with the California Department of Forestry and Fire (CDF) was initiated with an
August 8 meeting with local CDF representatives. A subsequent meeting was held with
representatives from the Sacramento office of CDF on September 6, 2002. As a result of the
September 6 meeting a letter was sent from the consultants to the Director of the Division of
Forest and Fire Protection notifying CDF of preparation of the PTEIR. BBW Associates
received confirmation of CDF’s role as lead agency in a letter sent from the Director on October
4, 2002.
A resource professional tour took place on October 18, 2002 with interested local foresters and
resource professionals from the community and from local and state agencies likely to be
involved in the PTEIR. Fourteen individuals were invited from a set of diverse interests
including federal foresters from the US Forest Service (USFS), state agencies such as the North
Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Department of Fish and Game, and federal
agencies such as the National Marine Fisheries Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, and
Natural Resources Conservation Service.
A letter was sent to the USFS, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and to Sierra Pacific
Industries, Inc. (SPI) on October 26, 2002 requesting information about reasonably foreseeable
future projects within the project area. BLM responded with a letter on December 6, 2002
identifying projects.
On January 9, 2003, BBWA mailed off the final draft of the Notice of Preparation for CDF to
file with the state clearinghouse. The NOP was also placed on the BBW Associates web site on
January 8, 2003. The NOP was filed with the State Clearinghouse on Friday, January 17, 2003.
A letter was received from the Trinity County Resource Conservation District on January 31,
2003 commenting on the Notice of Preparation and suggesting the inclusion of the roadside
alternative noted above.
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
218
7.0 Public Scoping
The consultants presented the draft prescriptions for the Proposed Project to the TRC&D on
January 27, 2003. One comment was received back from Roger Jaegel on February 24, 2003.
An initial draft of the Proposed Project and the alternatives to the Proposed Project was
presented to the Trinity RC&D board at its March 31, 2003 board meeting in Hayfork.
BBW Associates met with local and Redding area CDF personnel to review the draft
prescriptions, the Proposed Project and the alternatives to the project. Their concerns were
captured in a document, which is a part of the files and is also on the consultant’s web site.
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
219
7.0 Public Scoping
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
220
7.0 Public Scoping
Chapter 7.0 List of Preparers
7.0
List of Preparers
Baldwin, Blomstrom, Wilkinson and Associates (BBWA), a local consulting forestry firm in the
Weaverville area, prepared the PTEIR. BBWA can be contacted at:
BBW Associates
P.O. Box 2157
Weaverville, CA 96097
530.623.3208
The primary authors of the document include the following:
1. Greg Blomstrom, RPF:
30 years general forestry experience in Northern CA. 20 years
experience in forest planning and NEPA. 10 years experience
in timber inventory, pest analysis.
2. Bill Wilkinson, RPF:
30 years general forestry experience in Northern CA. 20 years
experience in timber management, harvesting, and timber sale
preparation.
3. Kenneth Baldwin, RPF: 31 years general forestry experience in Northern CA. Four
years experience in fire planning.
4. Mark Lancaster, RPF
25 years of general forestry experience in Northern CA
including 10 years of Trinity County planning.
5. Ron Lawton, Consultant: 30 years experience as a fuels specialist. 30 years experience
in wildland fire behavior.
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
221
7.0 Public Scoping
this page intentionally blank
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
June 1, 2004
222
Appendix A: Literature Cited
Appendix A
Literature Cited
CNPS, 2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (sixth editions, electronic version).
Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, David P Tibor, Convening Editor. California Native Plant
Society. Sacramento, CA.
Carlson, J., and C. Christiansen, 1993. Eldorado National Forest cumulative offsite watershed
effects analysis procedure, Version 1.1. Eldorado National Forest. Placerville, CA.
Debano, L.F., D.G. Neary, and P.F. Efolliott. 1998. Fire’s effects on ecosystems. Wiley &
sons, New York.
California Department of Water Resources. 1980. Main Stem Trinity River Watershed Erosion
Investigation.
Dietrich, William, 2003. SHALSTAB. http://ist.Socrates.Berkeley.edu/~geomorph/shalstab/
Durgin, P.B., R.R. Johnson and A.M. Parsons. 1989. Critical sites erosion study. Volume I:
Causes of erosion on private timberland in northern California. Report of a cooperative
investigation by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and the USDA Forest
Service, Pacific Southwest forest and Range Experiment Station, Arcata, CA.
NWCG, 1982. Aids to Determining Fuel Models for Estimating Fire Behavior", prepared by Hal
Anderson for the National Wildfire Coordinating Group.
Mathews, Grahman and Associates. 2001. Sediment Source Analysis for the Main stem Trinity
River, Trinity County, CA. Volume 1: Text, Tables, and Figures.
Haskins D.M. 1987. A management model for evaluating cumulative watershed effects. In:
Proceedings of the Californian watershed management conference: 1986. Nov. 18-20. West
Sacramento, CA. Publ. 11. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Wildland Resources Center,
125-130.
Howell, David. 1998. Soil Survey of Trinity County, California, Weaverville Area. United
States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, in cooperation with
the regents of the University of California (Agricultural Experiment Station), the United States
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, and the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection, Soil Vegetation Survey.
Hearst Corporation, 1998. Combined Revised Draft and Final Program Timberland
Environmental Impact Report for Hearst Forests.
MSG (Monitoring Study Group of the California State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection).
1999. Hillslope monitoring program: Monitoring results from 1996-1998. Interim report to the
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix 1
June 1, 2004
Appendix A: Literature Cited
California State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. Sacramento, CA.
McNabb, D.H. F. Gaweda, and H.A. Froehlich. 1989. Infiltration, water repellency and soil
moisture content after broadcast burning of forest site in southwest Oregon. Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation. 44: 87-90.
NRCS, 2001. Four Fire Susceptibilities: Flame Length, Rate-of-Spread, Crown Fire Activity,
and Final Fire Size. A study of the East Fork Fire Management Plan Area of Trinity County.
Prepared by Byron A. Clark and Madalene M. Ransom, Watershed Planning Services, USDA
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Davis, CA. December 20, 2001.
Reid, Leslie. 1993. Research and cumulative watershed effects. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW GTR
141. Albany, CA. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. U.S. Forest
Service.
SNEP, 1996. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Report. Davis, University of California Centers
for Water and Wildland Resources, Report 39.
SRP, 1999. Report of the Scientific Review Panel on California Forest Practice Rules and
Salmonid Habitat. Prepared for The Resources Agency of California and the National Marine
Fisheries Service, Sacramento, CA.
US Forest Service, 1983. Soil survey of Shasta-Trinity Forest Area, California. United States
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and Soil Conservation Service in cooperation with
The Regents of the University of California (Agricultural Experiment Station).
Trinity County Department of Transportation, 2002. East Connector Roadway Project Draft EIR
Trinity County Planning Department, 1990. Weaverville Community Plan.
Trinity County Planning Department, 2003. Trinity River Bridges DEIR/DEA.
Trinity County Planning Department, 2003. Weaverville Airport DEIR (in development).
US Forest Service, 1987. Cumulative off-site watershed effects analysis. R-5 FSH 2509.22.
U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.
US Forest Service, 2003. Forest Vegetation Simulator. Forest Management Service Center.
http://www.fs.fed.us/fmsc/fvs/index.php
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix 2
June 1, 2004
Appendix B: Detailed Prescriptions
Appendix B
Detailed Prescriptions for all Alternatives
Detailed prescriptions for the Proposed Project and for the alternatives to the Proposed Project
are available for review at the Trinity Resource Conservation and Development office in
Weaverville, in the project files, and on the consultant’s web site at bbwassociates.com.
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix 3
June 1, 2004
Appendix C: Methods and Procedures
Appendix C
Methods and Procedures
1.0
Treatment Area Delineation
Wildland and prescribed fire are heavily influenced by the physiographic location of features on
the landscape as well as the slope angle of the land. Steeper slopes lead to preheating front of the
flame front at greater distances. From a wildland fire containment, firefighter, and citizen safety
standpoint, the location of fuel and firebreaks along ridges is often preferred. Finally, the
location of roads as fire breaks, evacuation routes, and ingress routes for firefighters are also
important.
Considering the above factors the following treatment areas were located within the project area
(for the purposes of this PTEIR, treatment areas are defined as: areas that exhibit a combination
of physiographic, riparian, slope, and road attributes that can define a unique wildland fire
condition and fuel treatment prescription):
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Road treatment area: 100’ on each side of all public roads.
Middle slope treatment areas: lower and middle slopes less than 50% slope.
Middle slope treatment areas > 50% slope: lower and middle slopes on 50% and steeper
side slopes.
Upper slope treatment areas: upper slopes, ridge tops and fuel management zones
described by the RAC.
Upper slope treatment areas > 50% slope: same as above, but on 50% and steeper side
slopes.
Stream treatment areas consist of: the 150’ WLPZ on each side of all coho and domestic
supply streams; 100’ WLPZs on all perennial streams; and 75’ WLPZs on all intermittent
streams.
Home site treatment areas: areas within 200’ radius of improved and permitted structures
within the project area.
These treatment areas were delineated based on the following systematic approach to land
classification:
•
Slope Position Classification
Upper slopes and ridges were created using a slope position GIS coverage from the
Trinity County Resource Conservation District that divided slopes into three equal
positions, lower, mid and upper. The upper slope position was augmented with proposed
RAC fuel breaks and fuel treatment areas adopted in June 2002. Additional ridgeline fuel
break areas were delineated by BBW Associates based on professional knowledge of the
area and after reviewing the project area on the ground. All of the ridgeline fuel breaks
were buffered 150’ on each side in ARC/VIEW to create ridgeline treatment areas that
are 300’ wide on major ridges. Together all of the upper slope areas from the RCD slope
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix 4
June 1, 2004
coverage, RAC proposed fuel breaks and consultant delineated fuel breaks were merged
into one upper slope coverage.
The lower slope and mid slope positions were combined into one middle slope position
category.
•
Slope Angle
After the upper slope coverage was created it was intersected with a slope angle
classification created from ARC/VIEW using spatial analyst. Spatial Analyst was used to
create slope angles at a variety of slopes consistent with CDF’s Technical Rule
Addendum No. 1 slope breaks for erosion hazard purposes. Treatment areas were
delineated into two slope categories after the above analysis, a treatment area on slopes
less than 50% slope where tractor operations would most likely occur, and a treatment
area with slopes in excess of 50% where tractors would be severely limited and or
prohibited and cable logging would be required. In some instances these slopes could be
tractor logged using end-lining where tractors are required to stay on established skid
trails or roads and skid logs up to 150’ along the ground without backing up on steep
slopes to reduce the amount of bull line to be pulled. The map on page A-6 shows the
project area by slope position.
•
Slope Position-Slope Angle
A combined slope position-slope angle coverage was created which resulted in four
categories of land, the two slope position categories and the two slope percent categories,
as described below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Upper slopes and ridges less than 50% slope
Upper slopes and ridges on slopes exceeding 50% slope
Middle and lower slopes exceeding 50% slope
Middle and lower slopes less than 50% slope
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix 5
June 1, 2004
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix 6
June 1, 2004
•
Watercourse and Lake Protection Zone Classification
Watercourse and Lake Protection Zone treatment areas were delineated based on
classification of the streams coverage as well as knowledge of the extent of anadromy
within the Weaverville Basin. The stream coverage was divided into class 1, 2 and 3
streams as described in FPR 916.5. Review of THP’s filed within the basin augmented
this classification. Streams were also classified into coho habitat, steelhead habitat and
domestic supply streams. The treatment areas were delineated using ARC/VIEW to
create 150’ buffers on each side of all coho and domestic supply streams. The 150’
buffer represents a conservative approach to the delineation of treatment areas, as it is the
widest possible zone prescribed in the FPA for this type of stream. All steelhead and
perennial streams were assigned WLPZ treatment areas of 100’ on each side of the
stream. WLPZ buffers of 75’ on each side of each stream were assigned to all
intermittent streams.
Ephemeral streams were not assigned into treatment areas; instead their treatment is
covered through each alternative’s prescriptions. Ephemeral streams are notoriously
difficult to map from air photos and maps and require field-based ground-truthing that
will occur during preparation of PTHP’s.
•
Road Fuel Management Zone Delineation
Because treatment along roads can help reduce the intensity of wildland fire, all
alternatives including the no-action alternative include treatments along “public” roads.
In this case, because the Proposed Project is located on private lands, there are a
substantial number of roads that are well traveled by the landowners in the project area,
but are not public. For this analysis, a road was considered a “public” road if it was
clearly public OR was an improved graveled road that serves as the MAJOR access route
into one of the ten project areas. An example of a private road classified to a public road
is the Bear Creek road system, the main road into Democrat Gulch, the continuation of
Oregon Street, etc. Once the road system was classified, a 100’ treatment area on each
side of the public road system was created. About 22 miles of the 51 miles of road within
the project area were classified as “public” roads.
•
Home Site Treatment Area Delineation
Home site delineation was completed in ARC/VIEW by searching for all parcels with
improvements in excess of $2,500. A total of 192 parcels with assessed improvements in
excess of $2,500 are located within the project area. These 1,820 acres have an assessed
value of about $13,550,000. Of the 192 parcels only 114 have a recorded homeowner
exemption with the balance having improvements consisting of barns, garages, out
buildings etc. The 114 parcels comprise 1,070 acres and have an assessed value of
$9,965,000 (based on assessor data from June, 2001).
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix 7
June 1, 2004
Once a parcel was selected, the actual location of the improvement (e.g., home) was
assumed to be in the middle of the parcel, even though for many parcels this is not the
location of the improvements. Unfortunately, even with relatively large-scale air photos
it is often not possible to locate houses under thick tree canopies, thus the assumed
location was used for acreage calculations of the effects of the treatments.
Once the parcel centroids were located, ARC/VIEW was used to create a 200’ radius
buffer around the centroid, which represents the distance of a standard CDF fire hazard
exemption. In many instances, successful fuel treatment can be accomplished by
landowner implementation of the fire hazard exemption, which allows the removal of
ground and ladder fuels and many or most trees within a 200’ (~3 acres) radius of a
permitted structure. The 3 acres situated around these home sites comprise about 575
acres of potential treatments. The map on page A-10 shows the location of the parcels
where improvements are located.
•
Final Treatment Area Delineation
The treatment area delineation process was accomplished in ARC/VIEW by intersecting
the slope position-percent slope coverage, the WLPZ coverage and the roads coverage
with the WHR coverage. The order of intersection is important in creating the treatment
areas. In this case the percent slope coverage was intersected with the slope-position
coverage first. The resulting coverage was then intersected with the roads coverage.
This coverage was then intersected with the WLPZ coverage last. This process results in
the last intersection taking precedence over the earlier intersections such that the WLPZs
(in this case) retain their classification ahead of slope position or road intersection. The
final part of the treatment area delineation was to intersect the treatment areas with the
WHR coverage to generate the treatment area-vegetation units where fuel treatments
could be prescribed and the wildland fire effects assessed. Table 1 on page A-9 shows
the acreage by vegetation type and treatment area. The map on page A-11 shows the
delineation of treatment areas within the project area.
_____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix 8
June 1, 2004
TABLE APPENDIX -1
ACREAGE BY VEGETATION TYPE AND TREATMENT AREA
WHR
TYPE
ROAD
TA’S
MIDSLOPE
TA’S
DFR3
DFR4
GPP4
KMC3
KMC4
PPN4
MHC3
MHC4
Subtotal
MHW2
MHW3
Subtotal
MCP
MRI
Oreg
PGS
Non
Subtotal
20
26
34
41
183
20
70
20
414
30
40
70
10
20
20
40
90
22
60
50
161
583
19
170
40
1,105
90
450
540
10
20
90
40
60
220
Total
574
1,865
MID-SLOPE
UPPER
UPPER
> 50%
SLOPE
W/COHO
SLOPE
SLOPE
>50%
HABITAT
TA’S
TA’S
SLOPE TA’S (CLASS I)
19
30
70
123
125
415
25
48
50
10
253
70
60
719
10
83
27
40
40
220
220
10
10
10
10
10
30
80
1,019
31
93
30
10
45
10
10
40
293
27
STREAM TYPES
PERENDOMESTIC
NIAL
SUPPLY
(CLASS IV) (CLASS I)
10
4
3
43
10
20
10
10
10
57
55
53
TOTAL ALL TOTAL
CLASS I, II ACREAGE
INTERAND IV
IN WHR
MITTENT
STREAMS
TYPE
CLASS II
2
12
73
11
18
134
4
4
88
19
19
441
101
189
1,541
4
4
43
10
380
130
141
256
2,830
10
10
130
60
70
830
70
80
960
20
10
30
60
20
30
180
10
10
70
10
20
150
50
90
480
261
426
4,270
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix -9
Weaverville Community Fuel Reduction
June 1, 2004
Project Draft EIR
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix -10
June 1, 2004
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix -11
June 1, 2004
2.0
Climate Modeling for Fire Behavior Prediction
The variables associated with fire behavior for a “hot August day” being considered are the
following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Average maximum monthly temperature
Average wind speed in the month with the highest average temperature
Average low relative humidity in month with the average maximum temperature
Average low 10-hour fuel moisture content in month with the average maximum
temperature
temperature
temperature
Average moisture content of live fuel
Selecting Temperature
The USFS Weaverville Ranger Station weather data was obtained from the web from the
Western Region Climate Center and used for calculation of the average maximum temperature.
The Weaverville Ranger Station has a full data set between 1948 and 2000, which shows the
monthly averages, the daily extremes and the monthly extremes. For modeling purposes, the
average of the highest temperatures recorded during the month was used.
Based on the above information, July has an average monthly maximum of 93.5 and August has
an average monthly maximum of 92.5. In addition, July has the highest number of days per
month where temperatures exceed 90 degrees (22.4 days in July versus 21.7 days in August).
Finally, July has the highest average low of the 12 months at 49.2 degrees versus 47.9 degrees
for August.
Selecting Wind Speed
An analysis of wind speeds for August used data from the Western Region Climate Center,
Weaverville station Wind Frequency Table for August 2000, 2001 and 2002. This information
shows the following:
Wind speed is calm (less than 1.3 mph) 78.5% of the time during august. Wind speed is 1.3-4
mpg 9.1% of the time with 23% of this wind from the west or west-south-west, and 11% of the
time these winds are from the east-south-east. About 10.6% of all winds in the data period
(August 200-August 2002) are blowing at 4-8 mph with the vast majority of these winds coming
from the west-south-west to the west-north-west. Finally during this 2-year time period highest
average speeds are achieved between 1200 and 1800 hours where the average wind speed is 2.3
to 2.4 mph. Average wind speed falls off dramatically on either side of this time span (e.g., wind
speed is 1.9 mpg at 1300 hours, 1.5 mph at 1200, 1.9 at 1900 and 1.2 mph at 2000 hours).
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix -12
June 1, 2004
TABLE APPENDIX - 2
PERCENTILE CALCULATION OF WIND
SPEED
SPEED
< 1.3 mph
1.3-4 mph
4-8 mph
8-13 mph
% OF TIME
78.5%
9.1%
10.6%
1.7%
CUMULATIVE
78.5%
87.6%
98.2%
99.9%
Smoothing the data to arrive at the 95% percentile average wind condition for August shows that the
average wind speed is 6 mph.
An analysis of average maximum wind speed was also carried out using the five Augusts between 2002
and 1998. These data show an average maximum wind speed of 14.3 mph.
TABLE APPENDIX - 3
AVERAGE AND MAXIMUM AUGUST WIND SPEEDS, FUEL TEMPERATURES AND
RELATIVE HUMIDITIES
AVERAGE
WIND
SPEED
Aug 02
Aug 01
Aug 00
Aug 99
Aug 98
Average
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.0
0.3
0.9
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM AVERAGE AVERAGE
MAX.
WIND
FUEL MAX FUEL
WIND
SPEED
TEMP
TEMP
SPEED
14.8
26
76.2
108.5
15.3
33
78.0
110.7
13.8
21
77.0
109.2
15.6
30
75.7
105.8
12.2
22
79.1
113.3
14.3
26
77.2
109.5
AVERAGE
MINIMUM MINIMUM
RELATIVE HUMIDITY
HUMIDITY
11
4
14
6
13
7
20
9
12
6
14
6.4
Relative Humidity
The average of the minimum daily humidity’s is reported in the Weaverville Station RAWS
Summaries for August 1998 through August 2002 and is noted in the table above. The minimum
was also reported and is shown in the table above.
Fuel Moisture
Data from Western Regional Climate Center Weaverville RD was used to calculate the 1, 10,100
and 1000-hour fuel stick moisture amounts. For 10-hour fuels the average 10-hour fuels for
August 2001 were a maximum of 20, an average of 5 and a minimum of 2. One-hour fuel
moisture contents can be represented by the relative humidity recorded during the day. For this
calculation the average minimum and the minimum were assessed. Average 1-hour minimum
relative humidity ranged between 11 and 20% while minimum humidity ranged between 9 and
4%. Relative humidity minimums tend to follow the maximum temperatures experienced during
the day such that at the daily maximum the daily minimum relative humidity (and thus 1 hour
fuel moisture content) is reached.
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix -13
June 1, 2004
RAWS data from 28 of the 31 days of August 2001 were collected from the WRCC web page,
which charts 10, 100 and 1000-hour fuels. These data were then averaged for the determination
of the average August hot day. These values are shown in the table below. However the RAWS
data shows only the fuel moisture contents at the time of reporting (typically 2PM) while the
monthly data analysis for 2001 from the WRCC includes hourly data. The hourly data is only
available, however for 10 and 100 hour fuels and not for 1000 hour fuels, nor for 1 hour fuels. A
summary of the RAWS and WRCC data all from August 2001 is shown below:
TABLE APPENDIX - 4
FUEL MOISTURE CONTENT DATA AND SOURCES
WEAVERVILLE, AUGUST 2001
1 hour fuels
10 hour fuels
100 hour fuels
1,000 hour fuels
WRCC HOURLY
DATA
No data
5.0
6.0
No data
RAWS 2 PM DATA
No data
3.4
8.2
9.3
Comparison to other Studies
The RAWS and WRCC data for Weaverville were compared to the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem
Project (SNEP, 1996) data used in their modeling of fire behavior at the 95th percentile. The
RAWS and WRCC data for the average hot August day fire in Weaverville compares fairly
closely to that used in the SNEP modeling. The data from RAWS and WRCC were also
compared to the fire weather information in the NRCS draft report of 12/10/01 (NRCS, 2001).
Summary
Both CDF and USFS have stated the worst fire weather conditions are generally the hot August
day. This analysis bears this out, although the average highest temperatures are usually in July
and not August. Conversely, relative humidity and more importantly 10-hour fuel moisture
contents are lower in August than in July.
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix -14
June 1, 2004
TABLE APPENDIX - 5
WEATHER DATA FOR FIRE MODELING PURPOSES
METRIC
Average
Maximum Air
Temp
Wind speed at
95% percentile
Average minimum
relative humidity
(applies to duff)
Average minimum
1 hour fuel
moisture (0-1/4”)
Average minimum
10 hour fuel
moisture (1/4-1”)
Average minimum
100 hour (1-3”)
Average minimum
1000 hour fuel
(3”+)
Live woody fuel
Moisture
SOURCE
SNEP 1/ 95TH
PERCENTILE
93.5
90
~ 6 mph
18
6.4%
10%
None, use SNEP 95th
4%
3.6
5.0%
6%
4.3
8.2%
8%
6.9
9.3%
None
8.3
None use SNEP 90%
90%
63.1%
Avg. July maximum
air temp 1948-2000
August 2000-2002
Average using 95%
percentile
Relative humidity
Relative humidity
Average minimum
from August 2001
RAWS data
Average minimum
from August 2001
RAWS data
Average minimum
from August 2001
RAWS data
SNEP
NRCS 2/
COVINGTON
MILL 95TH
PERCENTILE
WEAVERVILLE
95TH PERCENTILE
LOCAL DATA
7.6
1/ SNEP, page 1159.
2/ NRCS, page 21.
3.0
Growth and Yield Modeling
Projection of growth and yield of local area forest vegetation was completed using data from 96
variable radius plots installed within the project area on private lands where permission was
granted to collect data. All forest trees greater than 1” in diameter were measured for height and
diameter. Growth was collected by using increment cores to record past 5 and 10-year growth.
Site tree information was collected where site trees were available. Plots were stratified into 15
WHR strata depending on the vegetation on the site and whether the plot was located on a mid
slope or an upper slope. Vegetation with both mid slope plots and upper slope plots include
DFR3, KMC3, MHC3, MHW2 and MHW3. The balance of the vegetation was modeled using
either mid slope or upper slopes.
Growth and yield were modeled in the USFS Forest Vegetation Simulator (USFS, 2003) and the
FVSSTAND stand table program. The FVS variant for the Klamath Mountains was used to
project growth and yield. The FVS WESSIN (West side Sierra) variant was used to project fire
behavior.
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix -15
June 1, 2004
FVS uses both the vegetation data collected from the plots and the physiographic information
collected. Physiographic factors such as slope, aspect, stand age etc. were averaged within each
WHR strata. The average slope for each WHR type and slope position location was based on the
plot data, not on GIS data.
Projection of future stand conditions was modeled over a 50-year period beginning in 2003.
Projections of existing volumes and species distributions at 2008 were used in all assessments of
the standing volume and the harvest volume since 2008 is the mid point in the 10-year
implementation period between 2003 and 2013.
Harvest prescriptions for the Proposed Project and Alternatives 3 and 4 were based on the FVS
classic thinning from below prescription. In these prescriptions, FVS thins all trees within a
specified diameter range to a target basal area. For the shaded fuel break, commercial thin and
pre-commercial thin all trees greater than 10” were thinned to the target basal area (e.g., in the
case of the PCT treatment no trees were thinned in this diameter range) using the THINBBA
keyword (thin from below to a target basal area). For trees 5-10” in diameter all trees were
thinned to the projected basal area target, the same as for the 10” and larger trees. However, two
different scenarios were developed for these trees (as well as trees 0-5”). Since economics is an
important consideration, the YARDLOSS keyword was used for one set of runs and set so that
all trees 5-10” were removed from the stand. In the other set of runs, the YARDLOSS keyword
was set so that none of the trees were removed from the stand, thus simulating a pre-commercial
thin without removal.
In all cases, 50 trees per acre of 0-5” were left standing in all treatments, while the balance of
these trees were assumed to be knocked down by logging damage and left in the woods. This
latter treatment was accomplished using the THINBTA and YARDLOSS keywords. In the
THINBTA, FVS as told to thin all trees 0-5” to 50 trees per acre with the YARDLOSS keyword
set to leave all felled trees on site.
For Alternative 2, the THINABA keyword was used to thin all trees greater than 11” in diameter
from above. This keyword was set on a species-specific basis to leave all incense cedar, white
fir and hardwoods behind.
4.0
Fire Behavior Modeling
Fire behavior modeling was accomplished using FVS and the FFE (Fire and Fuel Effects)
processor in the WESSIN variant as noted above. Each of the 96 plots was assigned an FBPS
fuel model (NWCG, 1982), generally fuel models 8-10, based on vegetation and overstory
condition at each plot. The fire weather information for a “hot August day” was used for the
moderate fire behavior calculations while FVS-FFE was used for predicting the severe fire
weather conditions.
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix -16
June 1, 2004
FVS keywords were used to select a fuel output report, which reports on the amount of fuel
every 5 years. FVS was then told to simulate a potential wildland fire in 2009 and the model was
allowed to select its own fuel model class in order to determine flame length, mortality and
smoke output. With the FUELOUT, POTFIRE and BURNREPT keywords, the potential fire
was forced to burn every 5 years. Thus flame lengths, percent mortality, smoke output and fuel
loading were predicted at every five-year interval from 2003 through 2048 for all WHR classes
and slope positions and for each prescription (e.g., shaded fuel break, commercial thinning, precommercial thinning and overstory removal). Within each prescription different fuel treatments
were prescribed including no treatment, tractor pile, lop and scatter and tractor crush.
Simulations were run assuming that
1. All of the 10”+ trees were removed from the site and none of the 0-10” trees were
removed from the site
2. All of the 10” + trees were removed from the site, all of the 5-10” trees were removed
from the site and none of the 0-5” trees were removed from the site.
As a result of the modeling, there were 15 vegetation classes x 4 silvicultural treatments x 4 slash
treatments x 2 removal/non-removal treatments scheduled which resulted in 480 combinations to
be assigned to each of the 4 alternatives. The resulting output included flame lengths, percent
mortality, smoke output and fuel loading and these values were then assigned to each alternative
and the corresponding acreage associated with each alternative.
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix -17
June 1, 2004
Appendix D: Economic and Planning Cost Analysis
Appendix D
Economic and Planning Cost Analysis
1.0
Planning Costs for Fuel Reduction Projects
This section summarizes the effects on planning costs to landowners for fuel reduction projects
within the Weaverville Basin as a result of implementing either the Proposed Project or any of its
alternatives.
1.1
Forest resource management in California is regulated under the authority of the Z’Berg-Nejedly
Forest Practice Act of 1973 (Forest Practice Act). The California Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection (CDF) is the agency responsible for regulating timber harvesting. Every year it
issues the current California Forest Practice Rules (FPRs), which must be followed whenever
forest products are sold, bartered, exchanged, or traded. These rules are becoming increasingly
complex and restrictive, which is increasing the time and cost for preparation and approval of
harvesting plans. Depending on when a plan is initiated, the process can take six months to a
year or more. Costs for logging, hauling, road work, taxes, and fees are also increasing, while
timber value is decreasing.
Forestry services in California are required to be provided by or under the supervision of
registered professional foresters (RPFs), who are licensed in accordance with the Professional
Foresters Law. RPFs typically charge $50 to $100 per hour for their services.
Timber harvesting operations in California are required to be done by or under the supervision of
licensed timber operators (LTOs), who are licensed in accordance with the FPRs. LTOs
typically charge $50 to $120 per hour for their services. These rates include equipment and
operator. Landowners may obtain a license to operate on their own property by passing an
education course on the FPRs. They may also obtain limited licenses for commercial harvest or
removal of fuel wood, posts, split products, Christmas trees, tanbark, or root crown burls.
License fees are $75 for new LTO licenses ($50 annual renewal fee) and $35 for new Limited
LTO licenses ($25 annual renewal fee).
Under the FPRs, harvesting plans [Timber Harvest Plans (THPs), Modified Timber Harvest
Plans (Modified THPs), Program Timber Harvest Plans (PTHPs), or Non-industrial Timber
Management Plans (NTMPs),] are required to harvest and sell, barter, exchange, or trade forest
products. The cost of these plans can vary from $1,500 to well over $40,000. In some cases
harvesting is exempted from plan requirements, instead requiring notices of exemption or
emergency notices that can cost next to nothing up to $2,000. No permits are required to harvest
forest products that are used by the landowner for his/her own use.
A Modified THP (14 CCR 1051) can be used on ownerships of 100 acres or less, with
restrictions on silvicultural systems used, tree cover retained following harvest, stocking
requirements, areas where heavy equipment can operate, and length of new road construction.
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix -18
June 1, 2004
Preparation of this plan requires the services of an RPF. Depending upon the size and
complexity of the property and the extent of harvesting, Modified THPs can cost from$5,000 to
$10,000.
A THP (14 CCR 1032) can be used on any size ownership. It allows a wide range of
silvicultural and logging systems, requires protections for watercourses, soils, archaeological
sites, and wildlife, has stocking, road and landing, fire protection, and hazard reduction
standards, and requires a cumulative impacts assessment. Preparation of this plan requires the
services of an RPF. Depending upon the size and complexity of the property and the extent of
harvesting, THPs can cost from $5,000 to $25,000, with costs typically around $20,000 for a 40200 acre plan. Since the average size of a parcel in the Proposed Project is about 11 acres, THP
costs will be in the lower end of the range, from $5,000 to $7,500.
An exemption may be obtained from the THP process by submitting the appropriate “Notice of
Timber Operations That Are Exempt From Timber Harvesting Plan Requirements” with the CDF
Ranger Unit Headquarters in Redding. Preparation of these exemptions does not require the
services of an RPF, but such services are recommended to ensure compliance with the FPRs.
Depending upon the size and complexity of the property, the extent of harvesting, and whether
the services of an RPF are employed, exemptions can cost very little to several thousand dollars.
Exemptions (14 CCR 1038) are allowed for the following purposes:
a) Harvesting Christmas trees.
b) Harvesting dead, dying or diseased trees of any size, fuel wood, or split products in amounts less
than 10% of the average volume per acre when specified conditions are met. The 10% limit does
not apply when harvesting dead trees without merchantable sawlogs from substantially damaged
timberlands.
c) Harvesting or removing trees within one-hundred-fifty feet from any point of an
approved and legally permitted structure that complies with the California Building Code
to eliminate the vertical continuity of vegetative fuels and the horizontal continuity of
tree crowns for the purpose of reducing flammable materials and maintaining a fuel break
to reduce fire spread, duration, and intensity.
d) Removing woody debris and slash that is: (1) located outside the standard width
watercourse protection zone; (2) within the reach of loading equipment operating on
existing logging roads, and landings; (3) developed during timber operations; and (4)
delivered as combustion fuel for the production of energy.
When there is an emergency that requires harvesting without delay, an exemption may be
obtained from the THP process by submitting a “Notice of Emergency Timber Operations” with
the CDF Ranger Unit Headquarters in Redding. Preparation of this notice requires the services
of an RPF. Depending upon the size and complexity of the property and the extent of harvesting,
emergency notices can cost from $1,000 – $2,000+. Emergency Notices (14 CCR 1052) are
allowed for the following purposes:
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix -19
June 1, 2004
a) Trees that are dead or dying as a result of insects, disease, parasites, or animal damage.
b) Trees that are fallen, damaged, dead or dying as a result of wind, snow, freezing weather, fire,
flood, landslide or earthquake.
c) Trees that are dead or dying as a result of air or water pollution.
d) Cutting or removing trees required for emergency construction or repair of roads.
A “Notice of Conversion Exemption Timber Operations” may be used to convert an area of less than
three acres to a non-timber use. This exemption is mostly used around home sites. It requires some of the
same protections as a THP but has more stringent slash disposal requirements. Preparation of this
exemption requires the services of an RPF. Conversion exemptions can cost from$800 to $1,500.
A PTHP (14 CCR 1092) can be used when a Program Timberland Environmental Impact Report
(PTEIR) has been approved for an area that includes a property and for an activity in which a
landowner wishes to engage. The purpose of the PTHP is to provide guidance for
implementation of the standards and protective measures in the PTEIR. Preparation of this plan
requires the services of an RPF. Depending upon the size and complexity of the property and the
extent of harvesting, PTHPs can cost from$1,500 to $4,000.
A NTMP (14 CCR Ch. 4, SubCh. 6.5) is limited to ownerships of 2,500 acres or less and allows
only uneven-aged management. It is a long-term plan that enables flexibility by allowing
harvesting to commence within 3 days of filing a Notice of Timber Operations with CDF. It is
required to comply with the FPRs for a THP, with additional requirements to complete a forest
inventory, display timber stand characteristics, model growth and yield, develop a harvest
schedule, and discuss the management history and potential pest or protection problems. Since
these are long-term plans, they require more detailed information and are scrutinized in great
detail by CDF and other regulatory agencies. Preparation of these plans requires the services of
an RPF. Depending upon the size and complexity of the property and the extent of harvesting,
NTMPs can cost from $20,000 to $40,000 or more, with costs typically around $30,000 for a 400
acre plan.
Neither the Trinity County General Plan nor the Weaverville Community Plan contains goals or
objectives regarding planning costs for fuel reduction projects.
The California Forest Practice Rules do not address planning costs for fuel reduction projects.
They do address in detail requirements for timber harvest planning, as follow: Timber Harvest
Plans (14 CCR 1032 to 1050), Modified Timber Harvest Plans (14 CCR 1051), Program Timber
Harvest Plans (14 CCR 1092), Notices of Timber Operations That Are Exempt From Timber
Harvesting Plan Requirements (14 CCR 1038), Notices of Emergency Timber Operations (14
CCR 1052), Notices of Conversion Exemption Timber Operations (14 CCR 1104), and Nonindustrial Timber Management Plans (14 CCR 1090).
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix -20
June 1, 2004
1.2
Evaluation Criteria
raise questions to be considered in determining whether project effects would reduce the
planning costs to landowners for fuel reduction projects in the project area. However evalatuion
criteria were developed to measure whether planning costs for fuel reduction projects are
reduced within the project area due to implementing the project or any of its alternatives within
the Weaverville basin, by evaluating the following question.
Would the project:
a) Reduce total planning costs to landowners for fuel reduction projects compared to the standard
THP process?
1.3
a) Total planning costs to landowners for fuel reduction projects will vary depending upon
the alternative and/or treatment selected. But total-planning costs will be reduced under
all alternatives as compared to the standard THP process as the environmental analysis
and documentation in this PTEIR could be incorporated into any harvest planning
process.
1.4
1.4.1
management, 1,260 by selection harvesting to create shaded fuel breaks, and 930 by noncommercial fuel treatments. Approximately 2,600 acres would be commercially harvested under
this alternative and it is likely that most of the timber would be of commercial size. Commercial
harvesting would require the filing of PTHPs. The Proposed Project would have much lower
planning costs than Alternative 2, the same costs as Alternative 3, and much higher costs than
Alternative 4 (see below).
Under Alternative 2, approximately 200 more acres would be harvested than under the Proposed
Project. Harvesting within 150’ of residential structures could be done with exemptions, but
most harvesting would require filing of THPs or Modified THPs. The larger acreage harvested
and the higher costs of THPs would cause considerably higher total planning costs.
Under Alternative 3, the same acreage would be harvested as under the Proposed Project.
Probably the most trees (commercial plus non-commercial size) would be harvested, which
would require preparation of PTHPs. Total planning costs would be comparable to those for the
Proposed Project.
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix -21
June 1, 2004
Under implementation of Alternative 4, understory removal, trees cut would be smaller (under 11” dbh)
than in the Proposed Project and it is likely that few, if any, would be removed from the forest. If these
trees are all left on site, as anticipated, planning costs would be negligible as the FPRs would not apply.
Total planning costs would be much lower than under the Proposed Project.
1.4.2
commercial thin (260 acres) within 40 years, at a rate of about 75 acres per year. Most of the
commercial size trees would be harvested under this alternative and more commercial size trees
would be harvested than in the Proposed Project or Alternatives 3 and 4. Harvesting within 150’
of residential structures could be done with exemptions, but most harvesting would require filing
of THPs or Modified THPs.
Under Alternative 2, about 200 more acres would be harvested than under the Proposed Project
or Alternative 3. The larger acreage harvested and the higher costs of THPs would cause
considerably higher total planning costs. Although Alternative 4 would treat 625 more acres
than Alternative 2, it would not likely require PTHPs as it is anticipated that most, if not all, cut
trees would remain on site. Planning costs for Alternative 4 are negligible compared to this
alternative.
1.4.3
trees (commercial plus non-commercial size) would be harvested, which would require
preparation of PTHPs. Total planning costs would be comparable to the Proposed Project as the
same acreage would be harvested. This alternative would not only require plans for about 200
fewer acres than for Alternative 2, but the considerably lower costs of PTHPs as compared to
THPs would cause the total planning costs to be much lower. Planning costs for Alternative 4
are negligible compared to this alternative as few, if any, PTHPs would be required.
1.4.4
Alternative 4 would treat 3,460 acres within ten years, all by pre-commercial thinning.
Harvested trees would be less than 11” in diameter. If these trees are all left on site, as
anticipated, planning costs would be negligible, as the FPRs would not apply. In this case, totalplanning costs would be much lower than under the Proposed Project and Alternatives 2 and 3.
1.5
Landowner Considerations for the Proposed Project
No landowner considerations are necessary as planning costs for fuel reduction projects will be
lower under the Proposed Project than under the status quo.
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix -22
June 1, 2004
1.6
Evaluation Criteria Analysis
Planning costs for fuel reduction projects will be lower under the Proposed Project than under
the status quo.
2.0
Generate Income from the Harvest of Commercial Timber Products
This section summarizes the effects from the on monetary income that might be generated by the
harvest of commercial timber projects tied to fuel treatments within the Weaverville Basin as a
2.1
Currently there is one local mill in Weaverville that purchases “commercially sized” logs
(Trinity River Lumber Company). The Trinity River Lumber Company mill generally purchases
10” and larger (large end diameter) conifer logs. In addition, the Hayfork Watershed Resource
and Training Center runs a mill producing lumber from 5”-10” small end diameter logs. Other
than these two mills, landowners in the local area have to ship logs out of the area to either
Redding or Eureka for sale or commercial processing.
The current timber market in the Weaverville area, as well as the rest of California, and indeed in
the rest of the world, is extremely depressed. Log prices have been declining for the past 10
years, and even though local supply is substantially lower today than in the past (partially due to
less supply from the USFS), log prices are lower today than at any time in the past 10 years.
California State Board of Equalization (BOE) estimated stumpage prices that a landowner might
receive for medium sized Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine logs after logging costs are figured in
(but not including slash treatment and planting costs), are shown below for several time periods:
TABLE APPENDIX - 6
LOG PRICE TRENDS IN TRINITY COUNTY
PONDEROSA
PINE
YOUNG GROWTH STUMPAGE
VALUES IN $/MBF
$360
$370
$370
$420
$360
$410
$450
$400
$530
$470
DOUGLAS-FIR
TIME PERIOD
Proposed BOE July 2003 – December 2003
Actual BOE prices, January – June, 2003
Actual BOE prices, July 2002 - December 2002
Actual BOE, January 1995 - June 1995
Actual BOE, July 1994 - December 1994
In addition, due to restricted supply, mills in the local area are importing logs from British Columbia via
barge to Eureka and then trucking these logs to the mills.
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix -23
June 1, 2004
Logging costs in the local area vary widely depending on the size of the operation, the size and quality of
the timber being logged, the silvicultural prescription being implemented, and the terrain. For assessment
purposes, local logging costs are estimated as follows:
Table Appendix - 7
LOGGING COSTS IN PROJECT AREA
Delivery Point (DP)
Product
Unit of Measure
Delivery Point Value
Costs
Fall, buck, limb
Skid
Load
Haul
Subtotal Stump to DP
Yield Tax
Stumpage
Slash Treatment Meas. Unit
Lop and Scat
Tractor Pile
DOUGLAS-FIR
Weaverville
Sawlogs
MBF
$450.00
$30.00
$50.00
$30.00
$ 22.50
$132.50
$9.28
$308.22
$/Ac
$ 200.00
$250.00
PONDEROSA PINE
Weaverville
Sawlogs
MBF
$325.00
$30.00
$50.00
$30.00
$22.50
$132.50
$8.41
$184.09
$/Ac
$200.00
$250.00
Besides logging costs, there are other costs associated with the Proposed Project or the
alternatives. Road construction, road reconstruction, and road maintenance all have costs
associated with logging. In addition, depending on the alternative, there are THP or PTHP
preparation costs.
These costs are summarized below:
1. Road construction is estimated at $10,000/mile or $20,000 total for the expected two
miles of construction required under implementation of the Proposed Project or
Alternatives 2 and 4 (Alt. 4 has no associated road construction).
2. Road reconstruction of the existing 50 miles of road is estimated at $3,000/mile, or
$150,000 for the entire project area. These costs include such items as brushing and
surface reconditioning of existing roads, road grading, installation of rolling dips,
outsloping, pulling ditches, etc. In addition, rocking of stream crossings can be expected,
as well as replacement and/or upgrading of culverts. Based on 146 stream crossings,
there is an additional $125,000 of rocking costs assuming rock 8” deep is applied 100’ on
either side of all culvert crossings. Including crossings, total estimated road
reconstruction costs are expected to be in the order of $375,000.
3. Road maintenance, generally road watering during log truck hauling, is dependent to a
large extent of the frequency of log truck hauling. For the Proposed Project or
alternatives (except Alternative 2) production is expected to be on the order of 3-5 loads
per day. Typically, loggers will gang up loads so that hauling may only occur every other
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix -24
June 1, 2004
day. For cost purposes, it is estimated that a water truck working ½day every other day
would be required, and that 6 loads of logs would be shipped on these days. Road
maintenance costs are dependent on the volume of timber to be harvested and thus vary
between the alternatives.
4. THP or PTHP costs are discussed in Section 5.22. For economic analysis purposes these
costs are estimated at $7,500 for a THP on the average parcel for Alternative 2 and at
$3,000 for a PTHP on the average parcel for the Proposed Project or Alternative 3.
However, many of the parcels could be treated with a Fire Hazard Exemption or a “less
than 3 acre” Conversion Exemption. About 110 parcels are less than 3 acres and these
owners could file for permits that are substantially less expensive than a standard THP or
a PTHP. Total permit/THP costs for the 374 parcels would be expected to be in the range
of $1.9 million dollars assuming all parcels implemented some project, with 260 filing
THPs and 112 filing Fire Hazard Exemptions at $200/exemption. PTHP costs are
estimated at $800,000 based on the same assumptions but calculated at $3,000 for a
PTHP versus $7,500 for a THP.
2.2
Evaluation Criteria
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, the CEQA Environmental Checklist, does not explicitly
raise questions to be considered in determining whether project effects would generate income
from commercial timber harvest associated with fuel treatments. However evaluation criteria
were developed to measure the income generated from commercial timber harvest resulting from
fuel treatments as a result of implementing the Proposed Project or any of its alternatives within
the Weaverville basin by evaluating the following questions:
Would the project:
a) Generate gross and net logging revenue from the proposed fuel treatments?
2.3
The following analysis assumes that, due to the fact that skidding and removing material less
than 10” results in a net loss to the landowner even before slash treatment cost share is accounted
for, none of the material less than 10” in diameter is removed from the project area. Instead, cost
appraisals for all the silvicultural treatments that generate material 10” and less in size assume
that such material is felled and left in place treatment as slash. An assessment of the costs and
benefits of removing material 5”-10” in diameter is discussed in the Value-Added section, 5.24.
Sawtimber harvest by alternative and by WHR type for all four of the alternatives is shown
below totaled for the project area.
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix -25
June 1, 2004
TABLE APPENDIX - 8
TOTAL SAWTIMBER HARVEST AND
VOLUME PER ACRE HARVESTED
BY ALTERNATIVE
PROPOSED
PROPOSED
ALT 2 ALT 3 ALT 4 ACRES
ALT 2 ALT 3 ALT 4
PROJECT
PROJECT
Total MBF Scribner
MBF/Acre
DFR3
235
754
332
0
62
3.8
12.2
5.4
0
DFR4
183
705
197
0
117
1.6
6.0
1.7
0
GPP4
739
0
84
8.8
0
KMC3
610
4,357 1,169
0
422
1.4
10.3
2.8
0
KMC4
509
2,607
509
0
1,363
0.4
1.9
0.4
0
MHC3
372
3,587
701
0
372
1.0
9.6
1.9
0
MHC4
85
310
85
0
130
0.7
2.4
0.7
0
PPN4
716
1,227
837
0
38
18.7
32.0 21.8
0
Subtotal
2,710
14,286 3,831
0
2,588
1.0
5.5
1.5
0
MHW2
584
0
127
4.6
0
MHW3
114
2,062
114
0
764
0.1
2.7
0.1
0
Subtotal
114
2,646
114
0
890
0.1
3.0
0.1
0
WHR
Proposed Project
Total delivered log value for the Proposed Project is estimated at $1,100,000 for 2,700 MBF of
saw timber harvested. An additional 111 MBF of hardwoods are also generated. About 1,600
MBF of the volume is Douglas-fir and a little over 1,000 is pine and other low value species.
Total logging costs from stump to the mill are estimated at about $425,000. Based on the
delivered log values and the logging costs, stumpage return to landowners in the project area is
estimated at $664,000 from the commercial forestland.
Slash treatment costs are estimated at $200/acre for lop and scatter in the thinnings and on the
steeper yarder ground, tractor pile costs are estimated at $250/acre for the fuel break treatments
on the upper slopes, and hand pile costs for the fuel break treatment around homes is estimated at
$350/acre. Total slash treatment costs are estimated at $650,000 for the 2,588 acres of
commercial forestland in the project area and $222,000 for the 890 acres of non-commercial
forestlands.
Road construction, reconstruction, and road maintenance are estimated at $488,000 while the
costs to complete the PTHPs are estimated at $800,000. The total estimated costs and benefits to
implement the Proposed Project are shown below.
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix -26
June 1, 2004
TABLE APPENDIX - 9
COSTS AND BENEFITS
OF PROPOSED PROJECT
COST OF BENEFIT
ITEM
Delivered Log Value
Logging Costs
Stumpage
Slash Treatment Costs
Road Costs
PTHP or THP costs
Net return to all
landowners
COMMERCIAL
FORESTLAND AREA
COST OR BENEFIT
$1,092,945
$428,593
$664,352
$647,090
$485,000
$802,400
($1,270,471)
NON-COMMERCIAL
FORESTLAND AREA
COST OR BENEFIT
$37,053
$69,130
($32,076)
($222,615)
($222,615)
After completion of the Proposed Project, landowners would have had to invest about 1.3 million
dollars (about $300/acre) to complete all of the logging and slash treatment costs including road
reconstruction, road maintenance, and PTHP costs. While most landowners are not likely to pay
to remove timber and complete fuel treatments, individual landowners with small parcels who
can avoid the PTHP costs, as well as landowners with heavier volumes of timber, are likely to
either break even or make money implementing the Proposed Project.
A significant cost savings can be achieved if landowners group projects together under one
PTHP. If landowners grouped adjacent properties together such that the total number of parcels
were cut into one third as many PTHPs, total regulatory costs for PTHPs and fuel hazard
exemptions would fall from $802,000 to $292,000. Overall, landowner costs would drop to
approximately $50/acre as a result.
Alternative 2
Total delivered log value for Alternative 2 is estimated at $5,800,000 (net of inflation) for the
14,300 MBF of saw timber harvested on the commercial forestland. However, this value would
take nearly 50 years to accumulate given the 75 acres that are likely to be logged per year. An
additional 111 MBF of hardwoods are also generated. About 9,000 MBF of the volume is
Douglas-fir and a little over 5,000 is pine and other low value species. Total logging costs from
stump to the mill are estimated at about $1,900,000 (net of inflation) for the commercial
forestland (over 50 years). Based on the delivered log values and the logging costs, stumpage
return to landowners in the project area is estimated at $3,900,000 from the commercial
forestland over the 50-year period of harvest. At a nominal discount rate of 4%, the $3.9 million
of stumpage revenue over 50 years is estimated to be worth $1,742,600 today.
Slash treatment costs are estimated at $50/acre for treating accumulations of slash along roads,
near landings, and in other locations as required by the Forest Practice Rules. There is an
estimated $350/acre for hand pile costs around homes. Total slash treatment costs are estimated
at $130,000 for the 2,588 acres of commercial forestland in the project area.
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix -27
June 1, 2004
Road construction, reconstruction, and road maintenance are estimated at $870,000, while the
costs to complete the THPs are estimated at $1,975,000. Road costs include a substantial charge
for road maintenance due to the amount of timber being removed. The total estimated costs and
benefits to implement Alternative 2 are shown below.
TABLE APPENDIX - 10
COSTS AND BENEFITS
OF ALTERNATIVE 2
COST OF BENEFIT
ITEM
Delivered Log Value
Logging Costs
Stumpage
Road Costs
PTHP or THP costs
Net return to landowner
COMMERCIAL
FORESTLAND AREA
COST OR BENEFIT
$5,791,000
$1,892,000
$3,898,000
$129,400
$868,300
$1,972,000
$928,200
NON-COMMERCIAL
FORESTLAND AREA
COST OR BENEFIT
$1,000,900
$350,600
$650,000
$44,500
N/a
N/a
N/a
After completion of Alternative 2, landowners would have received about $900,000. The value
today of harvests over the next 50 years is estimated at $402,000, or about $179/acre on the
commercial forestland (discounted to today). Because of the non-intensive slash treatments and
intensive silvicultural prescriptions associated with this alternative, potential mortality associated
with future wildland fire would be substantially higher than in the other alternatives.
Alternative 3
Total delivered log value for Alternative 3 is estimated at $1,550,000 for the 3,800 MBF of saw
timber harvested. An additional 114 MBF of hardwoods are also generated. About 2,500 MBF
of the volume is Douglas-fir and a little over 1,300 is pine and other low value species. Total
logging costs from stump to the mill are estimated at about $617,000. Based on the delivered log
values and the logging costs, stumpage return to landowners in the project area is estimated at
$1,048,000 from the commercial forestland.
Slash treatment costs are estimated at $200/acre for lop and scatter in the thinnings and on the
steeper yarder ground, tractor pile costs are estimated at $250/acre for the fuel break treatments
and hand pile costs for the fuel break treatment around homes is estimated at $350/acre. Total
slash treatment costs are estimated at $647,000 for the 2,588 acres of commercial forestland in
the project area and $222,000 for the 890 acres of non-commercial forestlands.
Road construction, reconstruction and road maintenance are estimated at $521,000 while the
costs to complete the PTHPs are estimated at $800,000. The total estimated costs and benefits to
implement the Proposed Project are shown below.
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix -28
June 1, 2004
TABLE APPENDIX - 11
COSTS AND BENEFITS
OF ALTERNATIVE 3
COST OF BENEFIT
ITEM
Delivered Log Value
Logging Costs
Stumpage
Road Costs
PTHP or THP costs
COMMERCIAL
FORESTLAND AREA
COST OR BENEFIT
$1,556,200
$617,700
$1,048,700
$647,100
$521,700
$802,400
($1,032,700)
NON-COMMERCIAL
FORESTLAND AREA
COST OR BENEFIT
$37,000
$118,000
($81,200)
$222,600
N/a
N/a
($303,834)
After completion of Alternative 3, landowners would have had to invest about 1.0 million dollars
(about $250/acre) to complete all of the logging and slash treatment costs including road
reconstruction, road maintenance and PTHP costs. While most landowners are not likely to pay
to remove timber and complete fuel treatments, individual landowners with small parcels who
can avoid the PTHP costs, as well as landowners with heavier volumes of timber, are likely to
either break even or make money implementing Alternative 3.
Alternative 4
Essentially no commercial timber harvest is anticipated under this alternative; instead this
alternative removes trees 12” in diameter or less. Although this includes some commercial 12”
trees that could be removed, the quantity is so small on most parcels that it would not make sense
to bring in logging equipment. Thus, for this alternative there are no logging costs except for
falling costs of $45/MBF in order to put all of the 0-12” diameter trees on the ground. Total
falling costs are estimated at $250,800 for the commercial forestlands and $1,061,500 for the
non-commercial forestland. Falling costs are extremely high on the non-commercial forestland
due to the high number of small diameter hardwoods present. Since no logs are removed in this
alternative, no income is produced.
While there are no logging costs, there are slash treatment costs. In the case of Alternative 4,
these costs are substantially higher per acre than in the other alternatives since so much slash is
generated per acre with none of the slash being removed. For this alternative, slash treatment
costs (above and beyond the falling costs noted above) are estimated at $500/acre virtually
everywhere for lop and scatter. Some hand piling would likely take place around home sites,
which is estimated at $350/acre (generally the amount of <12” material around home sites is
much less than in other areas). Total slash treatment costs are estimated at $906,000 for the
2,588 acres of commercial forestland in the project area and $222,000 for the 890 acres of noncommercial forestlands.
Unlike the other alternatives and the Proposed Project there are no road construction,
reconstruction, or road maintenance costs associated with Alternative 4. In addition, no permits
are needed since no forest products are being sold and there are no PTHP costs.
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix -29
June 1, 2004
TABLE APPENDIX - 12
COSTS AND BENEFITS
OF ALTERNATIVE 4
COST OF BENEFIT
ITEM
Delivered Log Value
Logging Costs
Stumpage
Road Costs
PTHP or THP costs
COMMERCIAL
FORESTLAND AREA
COST OR BENEFIT
$0
$250,800
($250,800)
$905,900
$0
$0
($1,156,700)
NON-COMMERCIAL
FORESTLAND AREA
COST OR BENEFIT
$0
$1,061,500
($1,061,500)
$311,600
N/a
N/a
($1,373,200)
After completion of Alternative 4, landowners would have had to invest about 2.5 million dollars
(about $590/acre) to complete all of the falling and slash treatment costs.
Summary
Due to the depressed timber market, none of the alternatives generate a positive cash flow except
for Alternative 2. The Proposed Project would generate about $664,000 of stumpage, but with
the addition of slash treatment, road, and permitting costs, the project would wind up costing
landowners about $300/acre. However, the modification of fire behavior and avoidance of
mortality from wildland fire associated with implementation of the Proposed Project could
amount to a substantial financial benefit compared to no treatment.
Alternative 2 would generate about $402,000 of income ($179/acre, discounted to today).
However future fire behavior and potential mortality are predicted to be substantially worse than
implementing the Proposed Project or Alternatives 3 or 4.
Alternative 3 generates costs and benefits similar to the Proposed Project. Overall, stumpage
income to landowners would be about $1,048,600 (about $245/acre). However, once road
construction, reconstruction and road maintenance costs are accounted for as well as PTHP costs,
the overall cost to landowners would be about $250/acre. Alternative 3 has lower predicted
mortality due to the type of silvicultural prescription implemented and generates more revenue
than the Proposed Project, but creates higher cumulative watershed and visual impacts than the
Proposed Project.
Alternative 4 would have lower environmental impacts than the other alternatives, and in some
cases predicted wildland fire behavior would be better with this alternative than with the other
alternatives. However, landowner costs, at $590/acre, are substantially higher.
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix -30
June 1, 2004
2.4
The income producing capacity of the Proposed Project and each of the alternatives are heavily
influenced by current timber prices. The Proposed Project and Alternatives 3 and 4 all generate
negative income when the costs for road reconstruction, PTHP costs and slash costs are borne
solely by the landowner. Landowners may be able to reduce these costs to by seeking outside
sources of funds. Overall, the income produced by the Proposed Project or Alternatives 3 and 4
do not differ significantly among each other. Alternative 2 generates positive income without
treating slash. However, since Alternative 2 does not treat slash, fire intensity and fire severity
remain significantly higher than under the Proposed Project or the alternatives to the Proposed
Project.
3.0
Generate Potentially Value-Added Materials
This section summarizes whether the project generates potentially value-added materials within
the Weaverville Basin as a result of implementing either the Proposed Project or any of its
alternatives. In this context “value-added” means finding markets for material that is marginally
commercial, not manufacturing already commercial material into products with a higher value.
3.1
Much of the project area contains a dense stocking of “pole-size” (6”-10” diameter) conifers and
hardwoods. This type of material is known also as “sub-merchantable” or “small diameter” logs.
For instance, the Klamath Mixed-Conifer type Size Class 4 (KMC4) occupies, at 1,542 acres,
36% of the project area. On the average, an acre within this vegetation type will contain about
95 conifer poles and 80 hardwood poles, making up about 215 cubic feet of conifer poles and
153 cubic feet of hardwood poles per acre. In addition, the project area contains a substantial
stocking of hardwoods ranging from 6” to trees over 40” in diameter. Hardwoods are not
generally considered to be a commercial product within the project vicinity, and the entire
potential volume of hardwood is analyzed for each alternative for products it may be used for
(green chips and firewood).
Removal of hardwoods and reduction of the small-diameter conifer component are key elements
of the proposed fuels reduction treatments for the Proposed Project and Alternatives 3, and 4. If
this material is not removed for commercial purposes, or by the landowner for domestic use, it
will have to be disposed of along with the logging slash and severed understory vegetation – by
chipping, burning, etc. in order the meet the goals of the prescription(s).
One design element of the PTEIR is to investigate if production of a large volume of small
diameter material over the estimated implementation time for any adopted alternative could
generate enough volume of such material that it would improve the economies of scale and allow
for commercial sale of this material. If, for instance, fuels treatment projects were systematically
implemented across several ownerships within a neighborhood, substantially more material
could be produced at specific times than if projects were implemented on a piecemeal basis,
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix -31
June 1, 2004
parcel-by-parcel, over time as projected under the status quo. Conceivably a buyer might
become interested if a large enough supply could be guaranteed over one or more logging
seasons.
Firewood
A commercial market does exist for firewood. Firewood is the primary local commercial
product currently produced from hardwoods, small diameter conifers, and cull logs of
commercial sized conifers. Production of firewood for domestic use can provide landowners
with offsetting value. Hardwoods are generally preferred for firewood but fir and pine are often
sold for firewood as well.
Power Poles
A good market exists for power poles shipped to Anderson, where they sell for about $700/mbf.
However, the specifications for power poles are exacting and require a certain diameter,
relatively perfect form, few defects, and low taper. Most of the small diameter trees observed on
the project area during preparation of this plan would not meet power pole specifications, and
this market will not be analyzed below by alternative. Some landowners likely do have suitable
power pole trees on their properties, of sub-merchantable and merchantable size, and during
preparation of a PTHP tiered to this PTEIR, the RPF and landowner should evaluate the pole
market against the timber on the property.
Chips and “Hog” Fuel
Hardwoods and pole size material can also be ground into clean chips for paper production, or
“hog” (or a mix of bark, wood and debris) fuel for electricity generation. The green chip market
is a global commodity market and tends to fluctuate greatly depending on global market
conditions. In the local area the chip market has been depressed for several years. The hog fuel
market depends on the going price for electricity and is traditionally at the margins of
profitability for local producers. Because hog fuel is much less economical to produce and sell
compared to green chips, and the chip market produces a negative economic return, utilization of
material produced for hog fuel is not analyzed here. However hog fuel prices are volatile and
should be evaluated in the context of each PTHP.
Milling for Recovery
Proponents of local community development at the Watershed Research and Training Center
(WRTC) in Hayfork have attempted over the last few years to generate commercial value and
local jobs from the processing of small diameter conifer trees removed from fuels reduction
projects. The WRTC owns a whole-log processing machine, the – ‘Economizer’ – that can
produce boards in one pass from pole size logs, 7-11” in diameter, blowing most of the waste
into a chip van. The WRTC has been successful in producing flooring from suppressed Douglasfir poles, but supply from its original source, the USFS, has declined, and private lands have yet
to be accessed for this material. The WRTC currently purchases only suppressed (see Glossary)
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix -32
June 1, 2004
Douglas-fir. It will not take pine, hardwood, or younger, non-suppressed Douglas-fir logs >11”.
The project area does contain a substantial volume of suppressed Douglas-fir poles that could
easily be made into boards at the logging site or a local sorting/milling facility, or sorted on a
landing and shipped by the truckload to Hayfork.
Fence Posts
Another market for pole size conifers is for fence posts. Ponderosa pine is the preferred species
for pressure-treated posts, but the market price for raw material has declined steadily over the
last few years, partly due to increased production from thinnings in pine plantations in Oregon.
Currently harvest of local conifers for fence posts is a questionable economic proposition for
Trinity County landowners.
General Economics of Small Diameter Logs
Several aspects of the harvest of small diameter logs combine to keep it on the edge of
profitability. Logging equipment common to the local area is designed to process commercially
sized logs, not for skidding and loading small trees. The rugged terrain leads to more specialized
logging equipment and higher logging costs than for more gentle and level areas.
Values and uses of hardwoods and small diameter conifer logs vary by species, so each species
may have to be sorted and handled differently. Logging costs are higher for pole sized timber
than for merchantable sawtimber due to the small piece size. For instance, a typical truckload of
commercial second-growth conifer sawlogs may contain about 25 logs, whereas a truckload of
poles will usually contain well over 110 logs. Although the local forests contain an abundance
of hardwood species, these generally have poor form and a lower value than conifer poles; and
there is not a strong local market even for merchantable grade-quality hardwoods.
A design criterion for the PTEIR is to analyze utilization of receipts from the marketing of
merchantable sawlogs to offset the cost of conducting fuels reduction treatments. If small
diameter material or hardwoods can show a profit, harvest of them could further offset fuels
treatment. Even if the small diameter logs sell at a break-even or even slightly negative price, it
may still be the most efficient use of these logs.
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix -33
June 1, 2004
The potential value of hardwoods and small diameter conifers are analyzed as stand-alone
harvest activities. However, during PTHP implementation landowners will have equipment on
site to harvest commercial-sized timber, and the harvest of hardwoods and pole size conifers can
be combined with the logging of merchantable logs, improving the economic efficiency of the
overall operation.
No Trinity County planning documents contain goals or objectives regarding utilization of small
diameter logs. The California Forest Practice Rules (FPR) definitions shown below are the
primary documents applicable to this section, as they clarify to which lands and practices the
FPR apply:
4526. Timberland. "Timberland" means land, other than land owned by the federal government and
land designated by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of,
growing a crop of trees of any commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products,
including Christmas trees. Commercial species shall be determined by the board on a district basis
after consultation with the district committees and others.
45267. Timber operations. "Timber operations" means the cutting or removal or both of timber or
other solid wood forest products, including Christmas trees, from timberlands for commercial
purposes, together with all the work incidental thereto, including, but not limited to, construction and
maintenance of roads, fuel breaks, fire breaks, stream crossings, landings, skid trails, beds for the
falling of trees, fire hazard abatement, and site preparation that involves disturbance of soil or
burning of vegetation following timber harvesting activities conducted after January 1, 1988, but
excluding preparatory work such as tree-marking, surveying, or road-flagging. "Commercial
purposes" includes: (1) The cutting or removal of trees which are processed into logs, lumber, or
other wood products and offered for sale, barter, exchange, or trade, or; (2) The cutting or removal
of trees or other forest products during the conversion of timberlands to land uses other than the
growing of timber which are subject to the provisions of Section 4621, including, but not limited to,
residential or commercial developments, production of other agricultural crops, recreational
developments, ski developments, water development projects, and transportation projects. Removal
or harvest of incidental vegetation from timberlands, such as berries, ferns, greenery, mistletoe,
herbs, and other products, which action cannot normally be expected to result in a threat to forest,
air, water, or soil resources, does not constitute timber operations.
These definitions are important because it is possible to harvest material for sale from lands that
are not considered timberlands without filing a timber harvest plan or any other regulatory
document. For instance, a substantial volume of hardwood is harvested annually from oak
woodlands in the Central Valley of California and sold as firewood. The FPR do not currently
apply to such activities because this land is not considered timberland under the State’s
definitions. The definition of timberlands is flexible and ultimately up to the State Board of
Forestry.
However, for the PTEIR project area the local CDF office has indicated that stands of trees that
are dominated by tree species known to have commercial value such as ponderosa pine,
Douglas-fir, sugar pine, incense-cedar, etc., are considered timberlands, and stands dominated by
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix -34
June 1, 2004
gray pine and Oregon white oak, which do not support commercial conifers are not considered to
be timberlands as here defined (J. Knight and S. Gassoway, pers. comm., October 2002.).
A landowner could remove and sell firewood from areas not considered timberland, and
jurisdiction over this project would and not fall under FPR regulations or the specifications of
this plan. It is recommended, however, that before a landowner engages in such a project that
they contact Weaverville CDF to verify assumptions about FPR oversight.
A landowner on non-commercial timberland or commercial timberland may conduct a fuels
reduction project and utilize the material generated from the project for his/her personal use, and
if no products are sold, such a project would not be subject to the FPR and would not have to
adhere to the specifications for treatments in this EIR.
3.2
Evaluation Criteria
raise questions to be considered in determining whether the effects of implementing the project,
or any one of the alternatives, would generate potential value-added materials. Nevertheless, an
evalatuion criterion was identified to measure whether the project or any of its alternatives would
generate value-added material within the Weaverville basin, by answering the following
question:
Would the project:
a) Generate cubic foot volume of value-added products?
The key to answering this question lies in the phrase ‘value added.’ Clearly any of the
alternatives will generate material that can be measured in cubic feet or another appropriate
metric. The question is whether this material can be sold and at what price. ‘Value-added’
implies that a profit be generated to improve the economics of a particular treatment. On the
other hand, if a transaction broke even financially, the cost of handling the small diameter
material would be covered and a potentially substantial volume of potential slash could be
removed from a property, decreasing the subsequent costs for slash disposal. Sale of small
material that created a loss for the landowner might be borne if the loss was not too great to be
covered by supplemental funding.
3.3
Based on current price levels the only potential small diameter product to show value-added
potential is firewood. The CA Board of Equalization (4/03) lists a wholesale price for green
firewood of $35/cord. This is an estimated net ‘stumpage’ price representing potential profit to
the landowner after subtraction of logging and hauling costs. If the entire estimated volume of
small diameter material that could be produced from implementation of the Proposed Project
were sold as firewood at $35/cord it would generate a net profit of $689,500. This value could
not likely be maintained over time as the local firewood market became saturated and based on
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix -35
June 1, 2004
local prices a $5/cord stumpage value would be a more likely offer from a wholesale buyer
reselling to a non-local market. The total profit potentially realized at $5/cord (the price used for
the alternative comparison shown below) would be $98,508 from implementation of the
Proposed Project.
Green chips do not show a profit at current prices. Ten years ago chip logs could be sold at
$28/green ton delivered, but today range in the $20/ton area. At $30/ton, the estimated chip
volume that could be produced under the Proposed Project could be logged and sold for a profit
of $307,345. But at $20/ton the same activity would incur a loss of $165,493. This estimate
includes a 3-hour round trip haul to Anderson. If the logs could be sold at $20/ton in
Weaverville, there would be nearly a break-even rate considering the large amounts involved.
Small diameter logs shipped to the WRTC for milling show a substantial loss if shipped to
Hayfork and a much smaller loss if shipped to a milling facility in Weaverville. If the portion of
the harvest volume resulting from implementation of the proposed harvest, that was of the
species and grade acceptable to the WRTC, was shipped to the Economizer mill in Hayfork, the
seller would lose $28,896. But if the Economizer were located ½hour away from the project
area, the loss would decrease to nearly break even.
Fence posts appear to offer little economic incentive unless some local market can be developed.
The BOE values fence post at a net profit of 20 cents a foot, or $3.20 for a 16-foot log. However
the local market could not sustain such a price and the logging and processing costs used by the
BOE are not considered realistic for Trinity County. Based on local estimates the costs for
logging, processing, and hauling fence post material to a processing facility exceed the product
value by at least a factor of 3. Green fence posts would have to sell for at least a dollar a foot to
be profitable. However, fence posts have been profitable to produce from the local area in the
past, and continued monitoring of the market is justified as projects under the PTEIR get
underway.
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix -36
June 1, 2004
Metrics common to the economic analysis for each alternative are:
TABLE APPENDIX - 13
METRICS USED IN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Quantities
1 cubic foot
=
3 board feet
Cubic feet per log truckload
=
1,000
Board feet per log truckload
=
3,500
1 cord firewood
=
80 cubic feet
Average pole size conifer log
=
16’ long by 6” top diameter
“
“
“
“
“
=
3 cubic feet
“
“
“
“
“
=
17 board feet (from field measurements)
=
16’ long by 6” top diameter
=
2 cubic feet
=
60 lb.
Average pole size hardwood log
“
“
“
“
“
One cubic foot green hardwood
Costs
Log truck haul per hour
=
$50
Felling/bucking
=
$45/MBF, $135/MCF
Skidding
=
$100/MBF, $300/MCF
Loading
=
$40/MBF, $120/MCF
Values
Truckload of suppressed Douglas-fir to
WRTC in Hayfork
=
$600
Fencepost material, linear foot, BOE
=
$0.20*
Fencepost material per tree, BOE
=
$3.20
Firewood, green, BOE net value*
=
$35/cord
Firewood green, local estimated net value
=
$5/cord
Chip logs (hardwood or conifer) green
=
$20/ton*
*California Board of Equalization, April 2003
3.4
3.4.1
Compared to the analyzed alternatives, the Proposed Project produces the second highest volume
of firewood, the second highest volume of chip logs, the second highest volume of suppressed
Douglas-fir sawlogs appraised to be shipped to Hayfork, and the third largest volume of fence
post material.
Because each potential value-added use is analyzed independently, the values vary
proportionally to the volume produced. If firewood could be sold at $5/cord, the Proposed
Project is estimated to produce $98,508 worth of firewood. Harvest of chip logs, small sawlogs
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix -37
June 1, 2004
that are shipped to Hayfork, and fence posts have negative net returns under current conditions,
as shown in Table 14 below:
TABLE APPENDIX - 14
PRODUCT QUANTITY AND VALUE
PRODUCT CATEGORY
Green
Firewood/
Cords
Dry Firewood/
Cords
ChipLogs/
green tons
Sawlogs
toWRTC/
truckload
Fence
Posts/Linear
foot
3.4.2
Volume
PROPOSED
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 2
ALTERNATIVE 3
ALTERNATIVE 4
19,702
0
15,571
20,334
$98,508
0
$77,856
$101,672
Volume
Value
Volume
Value
19,705
$1,016,603
47,284
-$165,493
0
0
0
0
15,571
$803,473
37,371
-$130,798
20,334
$1,049,257
48,803
-$170,809
Number
525
0
415
542
-$28,896
0
-$22,838
-$29,824
Number
1,528,304
0
2,133,456
5,275,152
Value
-$704,453
0
-$983,390
-$2,431,515
Value
Value
Alternative 2 is not estimated to produce any volume of small material that would potentially be
used for commercial purposes. This is because the silvicultural prescription, a heavy overstory
removal, would retain most of the pole size timber, owing to its lack of value and its usefulness
for meeting stocking standards within the harvested area. In addition, since only 75 acres/year
are projected to be harvested under this alternative, the volume of small diameter material
produced from this acreage would generally not be commercial in the “value-added” sense.
3.4.3
Implementation of Alternative 3 would produce the lowest (but still substantial) volume of
firewood, chip logs, and suppressed Douglas-fir sawlogs shipped to Hayfork, and the second
largest volume of fence post material. If firewood can be sold at $5/cord, Alternative 3 is
estimated to produce $77,856 worth of firewood. Harvest of chip logs, small sawlogs to
Hayfork, and fence posts, are all money-losing enterprises under current conditions for
Alternative 3, as shown in Table Appendix - 15 below:
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix -38
June 1, 2004
TABLE APPENDIX - 15
PRODUCT CATEGORY
Green
Firewood/
Cords
Volume
Dry Firewood/
Cords
PROPOSED
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 2
ALTERNATIVE 3
ALTERNATIVE 4
19,702
0
15,571
20,334
$98,508
0
$77,856
$101,672
Volume
Value
19,705
$1,016,603
0
0
15,571
$803,473
20,334
$1,049,257
ChipLogs/
green tons
Volume
47,284
0
37,371
48,803
-$165,493
0
-$130,798
-$170,809
Sawlogs
toWRTC/
truckload
Truckloads
525
0
415
542
-$28,896
0
-$22,838
-$29,824
95,519
0
133,341
329,697
-$704,453
0
-$983,390
-$2,431,515
Value
Value
Value
Fence
Posts/Linear
foot
Volume
5.24.4.4
Value
Implementation of Alternative 4 would produce the greatest volume of firewood, chip logs,
suppressed Douglas-fir sawlogs shipped to Hayfork, and fence post material of any alternative.
It is estimated to produce $101,672 worth of firewood appraised at $5/ton. Harvest of chip logs,
small sawlogs to Hayfork, and fence posts are all money-losing enterprises under current
conditions for this alternative, as shown in Table Appendix - 16 below:
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix -39
June 1, 2004
TABLE APPENDIX - 16
PRODUCT CATEGORY
Green
Firewood/
Cords
Volume
Dry Firewood/
Cords
PROPOSED
PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE 2
ALTERNATIVE 3
ALTERNATIVE 4
19,702
0
15,571
20,334
$98,508
0
$77,856
$101,672
Volume
Value
19,705
$1,016,603
0
0
15,571
$803,473
20,334
$1,049,257
ChipLogs/
green tons
Volume
47,284
0
37,371
48,803
-$165,493
0
-$130,798
-$170,809
Sawlogs
toWRTC/
truckload
Truckloads
525
0
415
542
-$28,896
0
-$22,838
-$29,824
95,519
0
133,341
329,697
-$704,453
0
-$983,390
-$2,431,515
Fence
Posts/Linear
foot
Value
Value
Value
Volume
Value
Summary of Alternatives
Alternative 2 is not expected to produce hardwoods or small diameter material, and the cost of
processing or disposing of any such material produced, under the status quo, would be at the
discretion of the landowner. The appraisal indicates that firewood sold at ~$5/green cord, at a
location no more than ½ hour from the harvest area, would generate a modest profit.
Implementation of Alternative 4 produces the highest estimated return for firewood. If firewood
cannot be sold for a profit the cost of disposing of this material would create negative
consequences to the economics of the fuels treatment projects as outlined under the Proposed
Project and Alternatives 3 and 4.
3.5
Landowner Considerations
The cost to landowners of harvesting small diameter material will depend greatly upon the
amount of pole size material on a particular property. Sale of this material for any product other
than firewood at cord, at current prices, would add to the cost of implementing fuel reduction
projects. The following considerations are proposed for the Proposed Project or Alternatives 3
or 4 should one of them be chosen by the decision-maker as the proposed action.
a) If the cost of selling small diameter material to any existing market exceeds that of
disposing of it along with other slash, such disposal shall be implemented, at the
discretion of the landowner.
b) Since the profitability of selling small diameter material depends upon several factors,
including log haul distance, marginal value, species particular to a certain area, quality of
product, etc., each PTHP tiered to this PTEIR should contain an appraisal of the potential
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix -40
June 1, 2004
value that could be produced by the PTHP for this material, including firewood, chips,
etc.
3.6
The cost of disposing of small diameter material produced under implementation of the Proposed
Project or Alternatives 3 or 4 could be significant without landowner consideration. Allowing
landowners to choose the lowest cost alternative for disposal of this material will produce less
effect if any of these alternatives are implemented.
____________________________________________________________________________
BBW Associates
Appendix -41
June 1, 2004

Program Timberland Environmental Impact Report

Transcription

Similar documents

Las Conchas Fire Jemez Mountains, NM

Red Hill Lakefront Retreat - CaliforniaOutdoorProperties.com

Washington Redskins - Mid Atlantic Dairy Association

Window Sticker

Window Sticker

fia certified fuel cells

Pittsburgh Steelers - Mid Atlantic Dairy Association

Window Sticker - Pierson Ford

Window Sticker - FordDirect.com

2013 - Human Response Network