MOUNT HOUGH DISTRICT PLANNING DOCUMENTS

Editor's Note: This page provided by the QLG as a service to the Forest Service and the interested public. These documents are a part of the Mount Hough District staff public outreach for "pre-NEPA" planning. Please send comments to Lou Anne Charbonier (530) 283-0555.

March 9, 1998 Mailing

Cover letter
Description of enclosures and rational for planning emphasis
Prioritization strategy rational and description of criteria
Map of possible project areas
Possible project matrix with criteria

April 8, 1998 Mailing

Cover letter
Prioritization strategy rational and description of criteria (revised)
Possible project matrix (revised) with criteria

COVER LETTER

File Code: 1900 Planning

Date: March 9, 1998

Announcement of Planning Meeting:

Wednesday, April 1st, 7:00 p.m., Catholic Church Annex, 176 Lawrence St., Quincy

Dear Friends:

Five years have passed since the Regional Forester issued a decision to implement the California Spotted Owl Interim Guidelines for the Sierran Province. One of the key provisions was to "reduce the threat of stand-destroying fires." The Mt. Hough Ranger District has been working toward that goal. In the past five years, more than 22,000 acres of fuel ladders and surface fuels have been treated, are under contract to be treated, or have signed decision notices authorizing treatment.

Much work remains to be done. We invite you to study the enclosed information and, if you can, attend a meeting on April 1st to further explore possible actions that could be taken. If you cannot attend the meeting, written or verbal comments will be received by fuels management specialists Lou Ann Charbonnier or Kent Swartzlander through the month of April.

The enclosures identify possible locations where thinning and/or prescribed burning may be effective in reducing the threat of stand-destroying fires. The list is by no means exhaustive. We encourage your participation to help us refine the list. We also expect to refine the preliminary ordering of priorities for scheduling projects, based on comments.

We want to emphasize that these possible projects are in a very early stage of planning. Please refer to the enclosure printed on yellow paper. We are at the "Possible Management Practices" step. Even if you cannot attend the meeting, and cannot find the time now to comment on the enclosures, there will be additional opportunities to participate. As long as you remain on our mailing list you will receive more information as the projects go through the analysis process.

The District Ranger will consider the preliminary ideas generated during this early planning stage, and will schedule specific projects for in-depth analysis. Many of you are familiar with this process and know it as NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act of 1969). Each project proposal must go through a site specific analysis which considers alternatives and identifies potential environmental effects. We will continue to keep you informed during the analysis phase, and you will have additional opportunities to offer alternatives for analysis.

Upon completion of each project analysis, you will automatically receive a copy of the environmental analysis document for review. The review period is 30 days, during which time verbal or written comments may be submitted to the District Ranger. The Ranger will consider the comments received, prepare written responses, select an alternative, and issue a decision. A notice of the decision will be published in the local newspaper, and if you have participated in the analysis, you will automatically receive a copy of the decision notice and the written responses to comments. The notice will indicate whether or not the decision may be appealed to the Regional Forester (all projects which involve timber harvesting are appealable.) After that the project could be implemented.

Analysis and implementation could span several years for each project, depending on the complexity of the projects. Normally, several projects are analyzed each year.

We look forward to seeing you at the meeting, and remember, please visit, call or write if you can't make the meeting.

Sincerely,

/s/
David Peters
District Ranger

Enclosures

Map, Table, and Rationale of possible Project Areas.

Tentative boundaries of possible project areas have been identified by Mt. Hough resource specialists considering some of the ideas put forth in the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) Report which was published in July of 1996. This study was commissioned by Congress in 1993 to be a “scientific review of the remaining old growth in the national forests of the Sierra Nevada in California, and ... a study of the entire Sierra Nevada ecosystem by an independent panel of scientists, with expertise in diverse areas related to this issue." (from SNEP Summary, p. 1.)

The SNEP Report identified three major fire related problems in the Sierra Nevada, (volume I, Chapter 4, p. 68.):

(1) Too much high-severity fire and the potential for much more of the same;

(2) Too little low-moderate fire, with a variety of ecological changes attributable at least in part to this deficiency, " and

(3) A large number of homes and other structures at risk due to both existing and continued rural development in areas with extreme fire hazards that are not reduced to acceptable levels

Having identified these problems, the SNEP scientists offered goals for fire and fuels management in the Sierra Nevada. (SNEP Volume 1. Chapter 4.1). 68):

• (]) Substantially reduce the potential for large high-severity wildfires in the Sierra Nevada in both wildlands and the wildland-urban intermix.
• (2) Restore historic ecosystem functions of frequent low- and moderate- severity fire.
• (3) Help communities understand and eliminate unacceptable fire hazards and risks that threaten the safety of people and homes in the wildland-urban intermix.
• (4) Aid counties, other local governments, and fire districts in attaining and maintaining fire-safe fuel conditions concurrent with all new development or in redirecting development to areas of lower fire hazard.

Possible solutions were identified in the SNEP Report (Volume I, Chapter 4, p. 69.). Several which are pertinent to our project planning are:

• (1) Prioritize fuel treatment acres to minimize the likelihood and spread of large, severe fires, based on broad, landscape-level analyses of risk and hazard to both human settlements and wildlands;
• (2) Develop a system of defensible fuel profile zones (DFPZs), initially using a variety of silvicultural treatments, to limit the spread of large, severe fires. Once developed, these DFPZ's will serve as entry into larger landscapes to facilitate more wide spread fuel treatments, such as prescribed fire, and will allow more widespread use of wildfire to meet management objectives;
• (3) Increase substantially the use of prescribed fire (natural or management ignition) in areas where restoration of natural processes is emphasized. "

Given these possible solutions, and widespread public support for managing fuels, the Mt. Hough resource specialists developed a table which displays our thoughts about possible priorities for treatment. The table is intended to initiate discussion and lead toward collaborative project proposals which will be analyzed in-depth under the NEPA process.

The Planning Triangle - Overview of the Planning Process from a Ranger District Perspective. The Federal environmental Tanning process is highly related and contains many steps. Opportunities for the public to participate are many, but it can be confusing. Whenever we ask for your participation, we try to let you know where we are in the planning process. The enclosure printed on yellow paper was developed to help you understand the process.

Rationale for Possible Project Areas

The possible project areas focus on locations where Defensible Fuel Profile Zones (DFPZ's) may be effective. Fuel treatment beyond the tentative DFPZ boundaries will be considered. DFPZs provide a relatively safe area for fire crews to take suppression actions, as well as minimize resource damage within the treated area. Once the fuel profile has been changed through treatment measures (reduction in fuel loading, crown spacing, ladder fuel elimination), then fire behavior will react accordingly, providing for a much safer firefighter environment. Combined with treatment in adjacent areas this can be an effective way to reduce the potential for large high-severity wildfires.

Table of Possible Project Areas

Several factors were considered in identifying possible locations of projects. The following numbered criteria are column headings in the table. The shaded areas in the table identify the combinations of factors which helped make an initial sorting of locations by priority. For example, if factors 3, 5, and 6 were associated with a location (Group 1), these might be the places to focus on first because historically a lot of fires have occurred there, they tend to develop into large fires, and the fires threaten communities.

#1. Start potential - In areas of high start potential, projects could be located so that if a start occurs, the fire would be highly likely to bum into a treated area. Potential is based upon the probability of man caused fires occurring from adjacent communities, high use recreation areas, or high-use woodcutting areas, with consideration of predominant wind direction and slope.

#2. Previous Construction - The possible project is located in an area where a shaded fuelbreak was constructed years ago. Maintenance probably is needed.

#3. Community & Recreation Area Protection - Fuel treatment near communities and heavily used recreation areas would help contain wildfire from continuing in the estimated spread direction which would threaten a community or recreation area. A lack of treatment in this situation may result in severe damage to property, and threaten lives.

#4. Product Removal/Suppression Attack - Identifies that a DFPZ which is in alignment with the road system would allow for ease in forest product removal in the treatment area as well as speed up the arrival times for suppression forces in the event of a wildfire.

#5. High Fire Frequency - Identifies that the area has a high potential of fire frequency based on historical records.

#6. Large Fire Area - Identifies that the area has the potential for a large fire to develop. This potential is based on historical fire records, aspect, slope, and fuel bed components. This adjacent area would have a combination of the following: (1) a hot aspect (slopes facing south to southwest where peak fuel temperatures and flammability is the greatest), (2) slope percentage is greater than 30% (reducing effectiveness of mechanized equipment in the event of a fire), (3) fuel bed is comprised of fuels conducive to fast rates of spread and/or high intensities, e.g., grass models, brush models, or presence of ladder fuels in timber models.

#7. Geographical Break - Identifies the need for breaking up large geographical areas with a fuel profile which would allow for successful suppression actions to be taken.

#8. Wildlife Threatened/Endangered Species Protection - Identifies the potential benefit that treatment may provide to help reduce fire intensity and contain fire spread which otherwise might jeopardize Threatened & Endangered species nest sites (bald eagle) and USFS Sensitive species habitat (goshawk nest territories and California spotted owl Protected Activity Centers).

#9. Botanical Threatened/Endangered Species Protection - Identifies the potential benefit that treatment may provide to help reduce fire intensity and contain fire spread which otherwise might jeopardize Sensitive Plant species and proposed and existing Botanical Special Interest Areas.

#10. Heritage Resources Protection - Treatment could provide effective protection to archaeological and historic sites in some areas.

3/9/98

POSSIBLE PROJECT AREAS

COVER LETTER

File Code: 1900 Planning

Date: April 8, 1998

Dear Friends:

On the evening of April 1st several members of the local-based public met with Mt. Hough Ranger District employees for a general discussion of possible future project areas. This meeting provided an opportunity for the local-based public to participate early in the planning process.

The focus was on possible projects which would reduce the threat of stand-destroying fires. Treatments would emphasize reducing ladder and surface fuels, and opening the forest canopy. Thinning and prescribed burning are expected to be the main methods of treatment.

We discussed the table of Possible Project Areas and the factors that were used in identifying the initial list of possible areas for treatment. As a result of the discussion, we revised the table (enclosed). Economics is an important factor that comes into play later in the planning process when we have site-specific information.

There was some discussion about the relative effectiveness of shaded fuelbreaks (defensible fuel profile zones) and dispersed treated areas. Both methods have a place in fire management and will be considered during site-specific planning. We plan to use the FARSITE fire behavior computer program as needed for comparative analysis of treatment methods during project analysis . This would occur during NEPA analysis (National Environmental Policy Act) .

There also was some discussion about two main methods of thinning: dispersed retention (even spacing) and aggregated retention (clumping). Both methods, and gradations between the two, are appropriate depending on site-specific conditions and management objectives.

The planning process provides opportunities for public participation in formulating and analyzing alternative treatments. We want to emphasize that anyone can propose treatments for consideration and analysis. This can be done before the Forest Service announces a proposed action, or during the scoping period. The proposed action is not a decision. It is a proposal which must be analyzed with public involvement, which always means consideration of alternatives. The decision point is at the end of the analysis.

There were several questions about project design.

Q. What would be done in high quality late-successional (including old growth) forest stands? (These areas were mapped from satellite imagery for the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project.)

A. At this time we have no pre-conceived ideas about treatment needs in late successional forest stands. During site-specific reconnaissance we would use the maps to make on-the-ground examinations and assess existing conditions in light of the objective to reduce the threat of stand-destroying fires. Any proposals for action would be subject to NEPA analysis with public involvement.

Q. Are the possible fuelbreak locations coordinated with other administrative units?

A. We have been meeting with planners on other units and coordination will continue.

Q. Defensible fuel profile zones are represented as long linear features on the map. Is the objective to treat all stands within the zone?

A. Past projects illustrate how site-specific conditions affect project design. Some stands do not need treatment, as they already have open canopies and little or no ladder or surface fuels. In some places natural openings provide defensible zones without any further treatment. In other situations protection of special resources by avoidance takes precedence over treatment. Examples are cultural heritage sites or the presence of threatened, endangered, or sensitive plant or animal species. In areas where we choose to avoid activity we are choosing to accept the risk associated with allowing the hazards to remain. We may treat surrounding areas to achieve some degree of mitigation.

Q. What is the status of fuel hazard reduction in Butterfly Valley?

A. In 1994 we looked at treatment opportunities on Forest Service land. The Ridge fuelbreak is being developed on the southwest, where fires are most likely to start and bum toward Butterfly Valley. Additional treatments within the valley itself are possible, but there are numerous "avoidance" constraints (of the type described above) which restrict the amount of acreage that can be treated. Some residents treated their land under a cooperative agreement with the California Division of Forestry and Fire Protection, and Soper-Wheeler treated large blocks of their land.

Q. How can the public participate in development of specific projects?

A. This meeting was an early opportunity for the local-based public to influence where and when future projects will occur. We expect to receive feedback from the interest-based (non-local) public as well as the local-based public through the end of April. After that the District Ranger will identify a schedule of areas to study in depth. The projects will be listed in the Plumas Forest's Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA), which is updated quarterly. A small scale map accompanies the schedule. You will need to let us know by telephone or in writing which projects are of special interest to you (on the average there are more than 50 projects on the SOPA for our ranger district alone, and we do not automatically send information about every project to everyone on the general mailing list). If we hear from you we will put you on the appropriate project mailing lists and send information throughout the planning process. As we focus on specific project areas there will be opportunities to meet on-site, share ideas, and review and comment on written documentation.

We thank the people who were able to commit the time to meet with us. We intend to provide opportunities for more of the same in the future. In the mean time, please call or write us about your ideas, questions, and concerns. Forest health continues to be emphasized both nationally and locally, and we need your involvement in developing sound projects.

Sincerely,

/s/

David Peters
District Ranger

Enclosures

April 6, 1998

Rationale for Possible Project Areas (Revised)

The possible project areas focus on locations where Defensible Fuel Profile Zones (DFPZ's) and area fuel treatment will be effective. Fuel treatment beyond the tentative DFPZ boundaries will be considered. DFPZs provide a relatively safe area for fire crews to take suppression actions, as well as minimize resource damage within and beyond the treated area. Once the fuel profile has been changed through treatment measures (reduction in fuel loading, crown spacing, ladder fuel elimination), then fire behavior will react accordingly, providing for a much safer firefighter environment. Combined with treatment in adjacent areas this can be an effective way to reduce the potential for large high-severity wildfires.

Table of Possible Project Areas

Several factors were considered in identifying possible locations of projects. For example, for the locations that sorted into Group 1, factors 1,2, and 7 were determined to be present. These locations might be the places to focus on first because historically a lot of fires have occurred there (factor #I), they tend to develop into large fires (factor #2), and the fires threaten communities or recreation areas (factor #7).

The following numbered criteria are column headings in the table.

#1. Historically High Fire Frequency - Identifies that the area has a high potential of fire frequency (natural and person-caused) based on historical records.

#2. Stand Replacement Fire Area - Identifies areas that have the potential for a large stand replacement fires to develop. This potential is based on historical fire records, aspect, slope, elevation and fuel bed components. This adjacent area would have a combination of the following: (1) a hot aspect (slopes facing south to west where peak fuel temperatures and flammability is the greatest), (2) slope percentage is greater than 30% (reducing effectiveness of mechanized equipment in the event of a fire), (3) elevation is less than 6500', (4) fuel bed is comprised of fuels conducive to fast rates of spread and high intensities, e.g., brush models, or presence of ladder fuels in timber models. Considering these factors, area may have high susceptibility for generation and growth of spot fires or long range spotting. This category would be expected to change following treatment, where others would not.

#3. High Person-caused Start Potential - Potential is based upon the probability of person-caused fires occurring from adjacent communities or high use recreation areas which would result in wildfire burning into the treated area based on prevailing wind direction and slope. Treated area in this case has good potential to reduce National forest acres burned, as well as increase suppression effectiveness. Fire is burning away from community in this case.

#4. Previous Construction - The possible project is located in an area where a shaded fuelbreak was constructed years ago. Maintenance probably is needed.

#5. Product Removal & Suppression Attack - Identifies that a DFPZ which is in alignment with the road system would allow for ease in forest product removal in the treatment area as well as speed up the arrival times for suppression forces in the event of a wildfire.

#6. Geographical Break - Identifies the need for breaking up large geographical areas with a fuel profile which would allow for successful suppression actions to be taken. These areas would incorporate ridges, man-made or natural barriers, that would be expected to alter fire behavior.

#7. Community & Recreation Area Protection - Fuel treatment near communities and heavily used recreation areas would help contain wildfire from continuing in the estimated spread direction which would threaten a community or recreation area. A lack of treatment in this situation may result in severe property damage (public/private), and threaten lives. Prescribed burning of treated fuels may have short term adverse impacts to the community (smoke intrusion). Fire is burning toward community in this case.

#8. Wildlife TES Protection - Identifies the potential benefit that treatment may provide to help reduce fire intensity and contain fire spread which otherwise might jeopardize Threatened & Endangered species' nest sites (bald eagle) and USFS Sensitive species' habitat (goshawk nest territories and California spotted owl Protected Activity Centers).

#9. Botanical TES Protection - Identifies the potential benefit that treatment may provide to help reduce fire intensity and contain fire spread which otherwise might jeopardize Sensitive Plant species and proposed and existing Botanical Special Interest Areas.

#10. Heritage Resources Protection - Treatment could provide effective protection to archaeological and historic sites in some areas.

POSSIBLE PROJECT AREAS (Revised)

Sunday, January ,(, /),( 0(:,(:,( AM