Terrestrial Wildlife
Biological Assessment and Evaluation Whittington Forest Health Restoration Project
USDA Forest Service Lassen National Forest Hat Creek Ranger District P.O. Box 220 29688 Highway 299 Fall River Mills, CA (530) 336-5521
T32N R02E S24, 25 E1/2 sections T33N R03E S 4 NW1/2; S 1 NW1/4, S2 NE ¼ T33N R04E S30 NW ¼ T34N R03E S 19-23, S 25-36
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
______DATE______Karen S. Harville District Supervisory Wildlife Officer
Contact Person: Mary Price Phone Number: 530-336-5521
Email: [email protected]
1 Whittington BE TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTERS Page #
Chapter I Introduction 5 A. Document Overview 5 B. Project Overview. 5 C. Species Considered and Species Evaluated 12 D. Species Excluded from Further Evaluation. 16 E. Analysis Process 17
Chapter II Consultation to Date 18
Chapter III Regulatory Setting 18 A. Management Direction and Regulations 18 B. Wildlife Management Areas 20 C. Standards and Guidelines 21
Chapter IV Project Description 22 A. Purpose and Need for the Project 22 B. Alternatives 23 1. Alternative 1 – Proposed Action Alternative 23 2. Alternative 2 – No Action Alternative 31 3. Alternative 3 Non-Commercial Fuels Reduction 32 4. Integrated Design Features for Alternatives 1 and 3 36 Chapter V Existing Environment and Environmental Consequences 41 A. Current Habitat Account 41 1. Mixed conifer forest 40 2. Burney Springs 42 3. Plantation and Brush 43 4. Baker Cypress 43 B. Effects on Whittington Area Habitat 44 1. Habitat in General 44 2. Other Species Habitat 46 3. Mid to Late Seral Habitat 48 C. Sensitive Species Habitat Accounts 52 1. Pallid Bat 52 2. Pacific Fisher and American Marten 56 3. Northern Goshawk 72 4. California Spotted Owl 83
Chapter VI References 99
APPENDICES Appendix 1 Activities Contributing to Cumulative Effects in the Project Area 105
FIGURES Figure 1 Burney Springs Condition 1938 and 2004 43 Figure 2 Location of Lassen Study areas with Respect to the Whittington Project ` 85
2 Whittington BE MAPS Map 1 Location of Project 7 Map 2 Alternative 1 Proposed Action Treatments 8 Map 3 Alternative 3 Non-Commercial Fuels Treatments 9 Map 4 Resources and Wildlife Analysis Area 10 Map 5 Transportation Plan 11
TABLES
Species Selected for Analysis Table 1 – Regional Forester’s (R5) List of Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Sensitive Species for the Lassen National Forest 12 Table 2 – Species Project Analysis Worksheet 15
Alternatives Table 3 – Treatment Acres in the Whittington Project 27 Table 4 – Summary of Road Management for the Whittington Project 29 Table 5 – Alternative 1 Project/Analysis Vegetation Changes Post Treatment/ After 20 years 29 Table 6 – Alternative 1 Project/Analysis Acres Current Condition/ After 20 years 31 Table 7 – Alternative 3 Non Commercial Fuels Treatments 34 Table 8 –Alternative 3 Project/Analysis Vegetation Changes Post Treatment / After 20 years 35
Existing Environment Table 9 – Trees per Acre Present vs 1883 42 Table 10 – Comparison of Habitat between Alternative 1 – 3 after Treatment 45 Table 11 – Comparison of Habitat between Alternative 1 – 3 after 20 years 46 Table 12 – Current Condition Late Seral Habitat Project / Analysis Area 49 Table 13 – Comparison of Changes in Project area between Alternatives 50 Table 14 – Comparison of Change in Analysis Area between Alternatives 50 Table 15 – Past Treatments Conducted in the Whittington Project Area 51
Fisher and Marten Analysis Table 16 – Mid- to Late Seral Fisher and Marten Habitat 61 Table 17 –Habitat Changes in the Whittington Project Area Between Alt 1 – 3 After Implementation 62 Table 18 – Alt 1 vs Alt 2 and 3 for Suitable Habitat (i total acres And Percent Change) for the Analysis Area 62 Table 19 – Habitat changes between Alternative 1-3 after 20 Years 63 Table 20 – Comparison of Alternative 1 vs Alternative 2 and 3 on Suitable Habitat (Total acres and Percent Change) after 20 Years 63 Table 21 – Changes of suitable Habitat between Alternative 2 after Treatment and after 20 years) Alternatives 1 – 3 64 Table 22 – Reduction/Addition of Roads to FS System 67
3 Whittington BE
Tables (continued) Page #
Northern Goshawk Analysis Table 23 – Goshawk gPACs and Detections within the Analysis Area 75 Table 24 – Nesting/Foraging Habitat for the Goshawk Pre- and Post- Treatment 76 Table 25 – Comparison of Alternative 1 vs Alternative 2 and 3for Suitable Habitat (Acres and Percent Change) for the Analysis Area 76 Table 26 –Nesting/Foraging Habitat for the Northern Goshawk Pre- and Post- Treatment within the Project and Analysis Area after 20 years 77 Table 27 –Alternative 1 vs Alternative 2 and 3 Suitable Habitat (Acres and Percent Change) for the Analysis Area after 20 years 77 Table 28 Project Area Acres Alternative 2 for the Whittington Project Current Condition and modeled for 20 years After 82
California Spotted Owl Analysis Table 29 – Spotted Owl Habitat within the Wildlife Analysis / Project Area 88 Table 30– Wildlife Management Areas for the California Spotted Owl 88 Table 31 – HRCA Acres Affected by the Whittington Project 91 Table 32 – Habitat Changes between Alternatives 1 – 3 California Spotted Owl 91 Table 33 – Alt 1 vs Alt 2 and 3 Suitable Habitat (Acres and Percent Change) for the Analysis Area 92 Table 34 – Habitat Changes between Alternatives 1 – 3 after 20 years 92 Table 35 – Alt1 vs Alt 2 and 3 Suitable Habitat (Acres and Percent Change) For the Analysis Area after 20 years 92 Table 36 – Alt 2 Acres Current Condition and modeled for 20 years 97
4 Whittington BE I. INTRODUCTION
A. PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT AND SPECIES ADDRESSED The purpose of this Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation (BA/BE) is to evaluate the potential effects of the U.S.D.A. Forest Service (FS), Lassen National Forest (LNF), Hat Creek Ranger District (District) proposed action, the Whittington Forest Health Reforestation Project (hereafter called Whittington Project), on federally designated terrestrial wildlife species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has designated species as protected, threatened, endangered or proposed; and the U. S. Forest service has designated terrestrial species of concern as ―sensitive‖ (Forest Service Regional Forester’s Species List (USDA 12/07)).
This BA/BE would determine the proposed actions’ effects on threatened, endangered and proposed species and/or their critical habitats as part of determining whether formal or informal consultation is needed and to comply with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. The Act requires that actions of Federal agencies would not jeopardize or adversely modify critical habitat of federally listed species. It would determine whether the proposed action would result in a trend toward listing or loss of viability for sensitive species. This document is prepared in accordance with legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act [16 U.S.C. 1536 (c), 50 CFR 402] and standards established in Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 2672.4) and LNF Forest Plan.
This particular BA/BE assesses the effects of fuels management strategies that are proposed for the Whittington Project, on wildlife species. A separate document entitled Terrestrial Wildlife Management Indicator Species Report for the Whittington Forest Health Restoration Project assesses the proposed Whittington Project on Forest Service Management Indicator Species (MIS). MIS are animal species identified in the SNF MIS Amendment Record of Decision (2007). These species are monitored Region wide and are used as indicators of habitat health.
In addition to MIS, there are species that are listed as ―species of concern‖ in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan (2004). If habitat is present these species will be analyzed in the sensitive species section. There are also wildlife species managed under federal law. These laws cover species that have special management requirements and include: the Neotropical Migratory Bird Act (Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 as amended (16U.S.C.668-668d); 2000 USDA Forest Service (FS) Landbird Conservation Strategic Plan, followed by Executive Order 13186 in 2001 in 2008, a Memorandum of Understanding between the USDA Forest Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds) promotes the protection of neotropical migratory birds. These species will be addressed in Chapter V section B subsection 2; Other Species Habitat.
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended in 1962 (16 U.S.C. 668(a); 50 CFR 22) requires the management of Bald and golden eagles; these species will be addressed with sensitive species, in this document (see Tables 1 and 2).
The State of California also lists species of concern. These species are similar to the above species of concern and are already addressed in this document. The California Department of Fish and Game has designated Deer Management Areas under their Deer Management Plan (1976). Deer Herd Management Areas will be addressed in Chapter V section B subsection 2; Other Species Habitat.
5 Whittington BE
B PROJECT OVERVIEW The Lassen National Forest (LNF), Hat Creek Ranger District (District), proposes to complete a forest fuels/thinning project. The purpose of the proposed project as stated in the Whittington Project EA (2012) is to restore habitats to a more ecological resilient condition while reducing the potential effects of severe wildfire on 5,500 acres of Forest Service land. The proposed project includes the creation of a Defensible Fuel Profile Zone (DFPZ). A DFPZ is a strategically located strip of land on which fuels, both living and dead, have been modified to reduce the potential for a crown fire and to allow fire suppression personnel a safer location from which to take action against a wildfire (HFQLG FEIS, page 2-19). DFPZs are part of the Herger Feinstein Quincy Library Group (HFQLG) Recovery Act (1999) which implemented a Pilot Project to demonstrate the effectiveness of fire management resource activities on the Forest.
The Whittington Project goals are to reduce the effects of drought, insect infestation, and disease through a combination of multi-age treatments and construction of DFPZs (Whittington Project EA 2012). The Whittington Project would not enter California spotted owl and northern goshawk Protected Activity Centers (SoPACs and gPACs) and Spotted Owl Habitat Areas (SOHAs). Over time (approximately 20 years) some proposed project activities would protect and improve habitat for late-successional (late-seral) habitat for sensitive species.
Project activities would include commercial timber removal, by thinning; small tree (noncommercial) removal; and prescribed underburning. In total the proposed project would: Develop DFPZs in strategic areas to limit the size of large-scale wildfires on the landscape and to provide a safe place for firefighters to initiate fire suppression tactics. Reduce surface and ladder fuels in the project area Thin plantations and decadent brushfields Thin the general forest area and accomplish hardwood, aspen, Baker Cypress, and Legacy Tree (old trees that have been spared during harvest or have survived stand- replacing natural events. Legacy trees have achieved near-maximum size and age, which is significantly larger and older than the average trees on the landscape (Mazurek and Zielinski 2004)) release. Disturbances release, in order to provide for diversification of the landscape. This would be accomplished by: . Conifer forest thinning and plantation release . Radial release of legacy trees, hardwoods, and Baker Cypress . Aspen release. . Brush removal . Group selections (removal of trees from ½ acre to 2 acres)
The Whittington Project (Maps 1-5) is comprised of 5500 acres that are located from 4,200 up to 5,600 feet in elevation. Each of the above actions would address forest health conditions in concert with design measures developed to mitigate the impacts of the treatments. These maps show the location of the project, resources, Alternative treatments, and Transportation Plan.
6 Whittington BE
7 Whittington BE
8 Whittington BE
9 Whittington BE
10 Whittington BE
11 Whittington BE C. SPECIES CONSIDERED AND SPECIES EVALUATED The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species and Species of Concern that are federally protected, the Lassen Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP 1992), and United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Regional Forester’s (R5) Sensitive Species (December 2007) lists the following special status species as potentially occurring in the Lassen National Forest (Table 1).
TABLE 1 – REGIONAL FORESTER’S (R5) LIST OF THREATENED, ENDANGERED, PROPOSED AND SENSITIVE SPECIES FOR THE LASSEN NATIONAL FOREST Species (common name/scientific Status Habitat on Lassen* name) Mammals Habitats range from rocky arid deserts to grasslands to higher elevation coniferous forests. Most common in open dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting. Most abundant below Pallid bat (Antrozous Sensitive 6000 feet in elevation in the Sonoran life zones but have been pallidus) recorded up to 10,000 feet in the Sierra Nevada. Roosts consist of caves, crevices, mines, and hollow trees and buildings. Forage on ground. Within range Western big-eared bat Caves or cave-surrogates. Require specific microclimatic (Corynorhinus Sensitive conditions to roost successfully. Forage on the wing. Within townsendii) range Highly associated with intact riparian habitat, particularly willows, cottonwoods, and sycamores. Roosts in tree foliage and occasionally shrubs along edge habitats adjacent to Western red bat streams, fields, or urban areas that are protected from above, Sensitive (Lasiurus blossevillii) open below, and located above dark ground cover and generally from 2 to 40 feet above the ground; prefer edge or habitat mosaics that have trees for roosting and open areas for foraging on the wing. Within range Coniferous forest types, but their significant use of non-forest alpine habitats distinguishes them from the fisher and marten. Use diverse vegetation types, but are selective about two habitat elements; natal dens. (occur in high-elevation rocky North American substrates often associated with wood or boulders in cirque wolverine (Gulo gulo Sensitive basins on north and east slopes where snow persists into the luteus) spring and may also occur in large woody debris piles, associated with the base of avalanche chutes); and human disturbance (select areas free from significant human disturbance, esp. during the denning period. Within range Coniferous forest habitat with large diameter trees and snags, large down logs, moderate-to-high canopy closure, and an interspersion of riparian areas and meadows. Important habitat attributes are: vegetative diversity, with predominately American marten Sensitive mature forest; snags; dispersal cover; and large woody debris. (Martes americana) Selected stands with 40 to 60% canopy closure for both resting and foraging and avoided stands with less than 30 percent canopy closure. Avoid habitats that lack overhead cover. Within range Sensitive; Coniferous forests; dense canopies, large trees, snags, and Fisher (Martes Federal down logs. Vegetated understory and large woody debris pennanti pacifica) Candidate appear important for prey species. These California Wildlife Species (C1) Habitat Relationships (CWHR) types are important to fishers:
12 Whittington BE Species (common name/scientific Status Habitat on Lassen* name) structure classes 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D and 6 (stands with trees 11‖ diameter at breast height or greater and greater than 40% cover) in ponderosa pine, montane hardwood-conifer, mixed conifer, montane riparian, aspen, red fir, Jeffrey pine, lodgepole pine, subalpine conifer, and eastside pine. Within range. Prefers red fir and lodgepole pine forests in the subalpine zone and alpine fell fields of the Sierra Nevada. Does not Sierra Nevada red fox appear to require dense canopy closure; however, it uses (Vulpes vulpes Sensitive forested areas in proximity to meadows, riparian areas, brush necator) fields. Usually above 5,000 feet. Within range
Birds Breeds in ponderosa pine/mixed-conifer, red fir and lodgepole pine vegetation types, and in eastside pine forests on the east Northern goshawk Sensitive slope: also may nest in aspen stands occurring within shrub (Accipiter gentilis) vegetation types on the eastern slopes of the Sierra Nevada. Habitat varies depending upon vegetation. Within range. Lives in mountainous areas, prairie coulees, and other places Federal where rugged terrain creates abundant updrafts. Prefers to Golden eagle (Aquila protection Bald nest on rocky crags or steep cliff faces, although they would chrysaetos) and Golden occasionally build a nest in a tree, often returning annually to Eagle Act the same nest. Territory very large, 20-30 sq.kilometers. (http://www.baldeagleinfo.com/). Within range Nesting territories are normally associated with lakes, reservoirs, rivers, or large streams and are usually within two Sensitive; miles from water bodies that support an adequate food supply Federal Most nesting territories in California occur from 1,000 to 6,000 Bald Eagle protection Bald feet elevation, but nesting can occur from near sea level to (Haliaeetus and Golden over 7,000 Bald eagle nests are usually located in uneven- leucocephalus) Eagle Act ; listed aged (multi-storied) stands with large, old trees (Anthony and in LRMP as others 1982). Most nests in California are located in Endangered ponderosa pine and mixed-conifer stands. Within range
This hawk prefers open grasslands and desert-like habitats; Swainson’s hawk Sensitive common to see perched on a fence post in a prairie or open (Buteo swainsoni) range (Stabler, Animal Diversity Web 2009). Within range. Breeds in shrubby vegetation in meadow and riparian communities. Are consistently associated with meadows Willow flycatcher where high water tables resulted in standing water and (Empidonax traillii riparian shrubs (specifically willow) were abundant. Shrub Sensitive brewsteri and E. t. layer 6.5 to 13 feet in height, with the lower 6.5 feet comprised adastus) of dense woody vegetation. Foliage density is moderate to high and uniform from the ground to the shrub canopy. Within range Listed in LRMP Peregrine Falcon Species now delisted; Nesting territories associated with sheer as Endangered; Falco peregrinus cliffs within ½ mile of water. Within range. listed in HFQLG Primarily birds of open freshwater wetland and shallow Greater Sandhill crane marshes, but utilize a broad range of habitat types, from bogs, (Grus canadensis Sensitive sedge meadows, and fens to open grasslands, pine tabida ) savannahs, and cultivated lands. Within range
13 Whittington BE Species (common name/scientific Status Habitat on Lassen* name) Listed in LRMP’; Common on shorelines of waterway Unique among North Osprey (Pandion HFQLG species American raptors for its diet of live fish and ability to dive into haliaetus of concern water to catch them, Within range. Found in mature red fir, mixed conifer, or lodgepole pine forests near wet meadows. Average canopy closure of the Great gray owl (Strix Sensitive stands is greater than 70% and the meadows range in size nebulosa) from 17 to 100 acres (Rotta, 1999). Within range
**Northern spotted owl Range n. of Hwy 299 and Pit River. Primarily utilizes mixed- (Strix occidentalis Threatened conifer forest type Requires late successional forest (large caurina) trees>30‖dbh, > 50% cc, decadence. Not within range The mixed-conifer forest type is the predominant type used by spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada: about 80 percent of known California spotted owl sites are found in mixed-conifer forest, also in red fir forest, (Strix occidentalis Sensitive ponderosa pine/hardwood and in foothill riparian/hardwood occidentalis) forest and eastside pine. Requires late successional forest (large trees>30‖dbh, > 70% cc, decadence) for nest sites. Within range Reptiles/Amphibians Sacramento valley floor wetland areas (Federal Register Vol. **Giant garter snake Threatened 58 No. 201 pg. 54053). Not within range (Thamnophis gigas) Not within range Invertebrates **Valley elderberry longhorn beetle(Desmocerus Threatened Federal Register Vol. 45 No. 155 pg. 52803. Not within range californicus dimorphus) Restricted to isolated locations along the immediate damp margins of streams, seeps, springs, marshes, moist bottomlands or mouths of caves where perennial dampness Shasta hesperian snail Sensitive and cover can be found in the Pit River drainage. It has also (Vespericola shasta) been found associated with upland, moist microclimates within the Chalk Mountain Late Successional Reserve, north of the Pit River. Within range *Based on habitat accounts found in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (2001), except where noted
**Outside range of Hat Creek Ranger District; no analysis conducted
Table 2 analyzes those species with distributions that are within the range of the proposed project, for occurrence or the potential to occur in the Whittington Project analysis area (within ½ mile of proposed project boundaries; see map 4).
14 Whittington BE
TABLE 2 – SPECIES PROJECT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Project Name: Whittington Project (5,500 acres) Project Area Elevation: 4,200 - 5,600 Project Area Vegetation Habitat: Mixed Conifer Forest, Aspen, Meadowland, Hardwood
Project/Analysis Species found Area includes in Project Area SPECIES potential Comments; reasons for exclusion or surveys or breeding/Roosting Common name documented in inclusion in BE/BA or other restrictive literature habitat needs WILDLIFE Foraging, potential roost sites present Pallid bat yes Yes in snags and rocky crevice areas. Analyzed Foraging habitat only; No roost sites Western big-eared No No (mines, caves, bridges, lava tubes) bat close by. Not analyzed No habitat; requires hardwood leaf litter and hollow hardwood snags for Western red bat No No roosting; also requires riparian vegetation. Not analyzed No verifiable observations reported historically or currently within or North American some yes adjacent to the project area; and no wolverine potential habitats have been identified within the analysis area. Not analyzed Foraging habitat; corridor habitat present; no known denning sites; historical sightings; negative results American marten yes yes from 2004-2010 surveys; some fragmented denning, resting habitat in analysis area. Analyzed Fragmented denning, resting sites in analysis area; some unverifiable Pacific fisher some No historical sightings; negative results from 2004-2010 surveys. Analyzed in late-successional habitat section. Foraging habitat present; meadow area; however, elevation low; no Sierra Nevada red subalpine habitat; no historical some No fox sightings; habitat analyzed in late- successional habitat section. Not analyzed. Nesting habitat present in analysis Northern goshawk yes yes area; gPACs in project area; sightings from surveys. Analyzed
15 Whittington BE Project/Analysis Species found Area includes in Project Area SPECIES potential Comments; reasons for exclusion or surveys or breeding/Roosting Common name documented in inclusion in BE/BA or other restrictive literature habitat needs No Nesting habitat potentially within ¼ mile, species has wide foraging range, Golden eagle No No project would not change habitat nor change activities. Not analyzed Observed flying overhead, perhaps Bald Eagle No Yes from one foraging area to another. Not analyzed. No habitat (open grasslands); not Swainson’s hawk No No analyzed. No habitat; requires thick swampy Willow flycatcher No No thickets for nesting. Not analyzed. No Foraging and potential nesting Greater Sandhill No No habitat present not present within crane analysis area. Not analyzed Only overhead flights seen within the project area; and no critical or essential Bald eagle No yes habitat found within the project area. Not analyzed No observations; and no critical or Peregrine Falcon No No essential habitat. Not analyzed. PACs; sightings and vocal detections; California spotted Yes yes habitat present in proposed project owl Area. Analyzed Osprey No No No large waterways One large meadow surveyed; no Great gray owl yes No detections. Not analyzed Shasta Hesperian No appropriate habitat; species located No No snail at Hat Creek. Not analyzed.
D. SPECIES EXCLUDED FROM FURTHER EVALUATION After further review of the species and their habitat requirements, all of the federally listed endangered or threatened on the USFWS’s Species List (see Tables 1, 2) were excluded from further analysis because there is no habitat for these species in the project area or the project area is outside the species’ range. Some of the Forest Service Sensitive Species were also excluded from further evaluation for the same reasons. A summary of the species excluded from further evaluation is provided below.
1. Sensitive Species Based upon Tables 1 and 2, wildlife sensitive and species of concern that would not be analyzed within this document include: the western red bat, Townsend’s western big-eared bat, wolverine, Sierra Nevada red fox, great gray owl, greater Sandhill crane, bald and golden eagles, peregrine falcon, Swainson’s hawk, willow flycatcher, and Shasta Hesperian snail.
16 Whittington BE Species that have potential habitat and are within the range that are analyzed within this document include the pallid bat, California Spotted owl, American marten, Pacific fisher, and northern goshawk. The fisher and marten are analyzed together, as they share similar habitat features (mid- to late successional habitat).
2. Fish and Wildlife Service Species of Concern The Threatened northern spotted owl (NSO) was excluded from further analysis because the project area is outside the range of this species. The NSO range within the Eastern Cascades is located north of California State Highway 299, 10 miles north of the proposed project area. The proposed action and its alternatives would not affect this species.
The Threatened giant garter snake was excluded from further analysis because the project area is outside the current known range of this species. This species is only found in wetland areas in the Sacramento Valley. The proposed action and its alternatives would not affect this species.
The Threatened valley elderberry longhorn beetle is found below 3000 feet in elevation in the Sierra Nevada Mountains (Barr 1991). The project area is at and above 4200 feet. The proposed action and its alternatives would not affect this species.
Bald eagles (Bald and Golden Eagle Act) typically roost and nest within close proximity to large bodies of water. Bald eagle was excluded from further analysis because there is no breeding or foraging habitat within the analysis area of the proposed project. The proposed action and its alternatives would not affect this species.
Golden eagles (Bald and Golden Eagle Act) nest in places where rugged terrain creates abundant updrafts. They prefer to nest on rocky crags or steep cliff faces, although they will occasionally build a nest in a tree. There are no sightings of this species in the area, nor or there any steep rocky cliffs within the analysis area. The proposed action and its alternatives would not affect this species.
E. ANALYSIS PROCESS This document summarizes species habitat requirements and the rationale for considering or eliminating a particular species from consideration. The following analysis process was conducted: Species literature research (hardcopy library on Hat Creek, as well as literature searches on the internet. R5 project files research (Search of BEs/Bas, EAs, etc. of past projects within the project area IDT meetings from fall 2010 – July 2011. General site species scouting and informal inventory of general species in the project area. Species databases (FS and Fish and Game species databases) Use of the Cal Veg Data Base and modeling vegetation system to determine habitat types within the area. Site surveys and habitat typing for furbearers, goshawks, great gray owl, and California spotted owls conducted in 2004 - 2011.
The total area analyzed for wildlife included a buffer of 1/2 mile around the proposed project boundaries (Maps 1, 4). This wildlife analysis area is comprised of approximately 8500 acres.
17 Whittington BE
II. CONSULTATION TO DATE
Formal consultation was not required for the Whittington project because no Federal Threatened or Endangered species, or their associated habitat, would be affected by project activities. An official list of listed species for the proposed project area was acquired from the USFWS website on February 10, 2010.
III REGULATORY SETTING
A. CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION Current management direction and requirements on desired future conditions for Sensitive and other species of concern on the Lassen National Forest can be found in the following documents on file at the District Office: Forest Service Manual (FSM) and Handbooks (FSM/H 2670) – contents of BE/BA National Forest Management Act (NFMA) – Guidance for species viability across the landscape and the writing of LRMPs (Land and Resource Management Plans) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) – analysis of a proposed action on designated resources Endangered Species Act (ESA) – requires analysis and consultation for listed species Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, as amended in 1962 (16 U.S.C. 668(a); 50 CFR 22) Regional Forester (Region 5) policy and management direction Regional Forester (Region 5) Sensitive Plant and Animal Species List (June 10, 1998), with subsequent updates up through December, 2007 – List of current sensitive species General Management Plan for the Lassen National Forest (LRMP) – Direction for Desired future conditions USFWS Endangered and Threatened Species List (updated December 2009) Lassen National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP 1992) Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act (HFQLGFRA) and its implementing Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), Record of Decision (ROD), August 1999 amending the LRMP Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) and its implementing Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), Record of Decision (ROD), January 2001 Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act (HFQLGFRA) and its implementing Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS), Record of Decision (ROD), July 2003 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA 2001) and its implementing Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS), Record of Decision (ROD), January 2004 Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 as amended (16U.S.C.668-668d)‖- Guidance for Neotropical migratory birds. 2000 USDA Forest Service (FS) Landbird Conservation Strategic Plan, followed by Executive Order 13186 in 2001 in 2008, a Memorandum of Understanding between the USDA Forest Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds
The NFMA requires well-distributed and viable populations of native species on National Forest System Lands. As part of this direction, the FSM requires a Biological Assessment/Evaluation for all permitted activities to determine any potential impacts on federally listed Threatened,
18 Whittington BE Endangered, Proposed, or Sensitive species. The NFMA also requires the designation of Management Indicator Species (MIS) to determine the effects of activities on these wildlife species’ habitats; as noted previously, these species are addressed in the separate MIS report for this project.
The LRMP (1992) management direction for Forest Service sensitive species is to develop and implement management practices, referred to as Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs), to ensure sensitive species do not become threatened or endangered because of Forest Service actions. The LRMP also requires federally listed Threatened and Endangered species be managed according to their recovery plans (USDA Forest Service 1992). The LRMP Forest-Wide Goals and Objectives for Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive species are: Manage fish, wildlife, and plant habitats to maintain viable populations of all resident fish, wildlife, and plant species. Manage habitat for state and federally listed Threatened and Endangered fish, wildlife, and plant species to meet the objectives of their recovery plans. Emphasize habitat improvement for Sensitive, Threatened, Endangered, and harvest species. Manage habitat for Forest Service Sensitive fish, wildlife, and plant species in a manner that prevents any species from becoming a candidate for Threatened or Endangered status.
The Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act (HFQLG 1998) and its implementing Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), Record of Decision (ROD), August 1999 and ROD 2003 was developed as a resource management program promoting ecological health on the Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe National Forests lands while also promoting economic health for communities in the northern Sierra Nevada that are associated with these Forests. Management recommendations were adopted and amended the LRMP (1992). These Standards and Guidelines are applicable to a variety of wildlife species including furbearers, California spotted owls, northern goshawk, and others. Standards and Guidelines in the HFQLG that are wildlife related include: The establishment of DFPZs and other fuels management practices The adoption of management areas recommended in the California Spotted Owl Sierran Province Interim Guidelines EA (1993), called Spotted Owl Habitat Areas (SOHAs). The adoption of Protected Activity Centers for owls and goshawks as recommended in the SNFPA (2001; amended in 2004) Restricted activities within goshawk and owl PACs. Retaining all trees equal to or greater than 30 inches Retention of specified amounts of dead snag/down woody logs Surveys for all species of concern mentioned in the HFQLG.
On January 12, 2004, the Record of Decision (ROD) was signed for the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SNFPA FSEIS) (USDA 2004). The standards and guidelines from the SNFPA (USDA 2004) are applicable to a variety of wildlife species, such as California spotted owl, northern goshawk, and Pacific fisher; and are also incorporated by reference. If there are standards and guidelines that are not listed in the ROD, but are more constraining in the LRMP or HFQLG, those more constraining standards and guidelines would take precedence and are the direction for the species. The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision (USDA 2004) replaces the January 2001 ROD (2001d) for the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPa) in its entirety.
19 Whittington BE
Standards and guidelines applicable to wildlife for the proposed project as described in the SNFPA ROD 2004 include: surveying for sensitive and other designated species; Establishment and maintenance of Protected Activity Centers (PACs), Home Range Core Areas (HRCAs), fisher and marten den sites, great gray owl nest sites and other species habitats; Maintaining all trees greater than 30 inch dbh; Retention of hardwoods; Preservation of designated amounts of snags and down wood; Treating sensitive species habitat for fire resiliency in a cautious manner as described within the SNFPA Standards and Guidelines.
B. DESIGNATED WILDLIFE AREAS WITHIN THE WHITTINGTON PROJECT (SNFPA-ROD 2001 and 2004; HFQLG 1999 and 2003) (MAP 4)
Numbers and types of Management Areas are under their associated Species Accounts section in this BE. Note that management for Home Range Core Areas (HRCAs) (SNFPA 2004) is superseded in the QLG (2003), by management for Spotted Owl Habitat Areas (SOHAs). After 2012, the Whittington project area will be managed under the SNFPA strategy, and so HRCAs are mentioned and briefly analyzed in this BE.
1. California Spotted Owl Home Range Core Area (HRCA) California spotted owl home range core areas (HRCAS) encompass the best 2,400 acres of spotted owl habitat, all within national forest lands, in the closest proximity, and within 1.5 miles, to a territorial owl activity center. Best habitat is defined as (in descending order of priority), CWHR classes 6, 5D, 5M, 4D and 4M and other stands with at least 50 percent tree canopy cover (including hardwoods), and includes a 300-acre spotted owl PAC.
2. Spotted Owl Habitat Area (SOHA) SOHAs are managed to maintain suitable spotted owl habitat. The SOHA system uses a fairly large number of small reserves; each SOHA is capable of supporting 1-3 nesting owl pairs. If single, they may be no more than 6 miles from at least two others edge to edge; if pairs or triplets they may be up to 12 miles apart. Management direction is to maintain at least 1,000 acres of suitable habitat within a 1.5 mile radius of a known or potential nest site. Also included are 650 additional acres of suitable or near-suitable habitat acres for replacement purposes, making a total of 1,650 acres that are supposed to be within a SOHA. However, not all SOHAs in the project area have this total. Suitable habitat is described as mature timber stands having multistoried canopies with 70percent or greater total cover; 40 percent or more of the total canopy in trees at least 21 inches in dbh; and extensive decadence – cavities, broken tops, snags, etc. Lassen NF has 40 SOHAs, and manages them as ―no scheduled harvest‖ zones.
3. California Spotted Owl Activity Center (PAC) SoPACs are designated for all territorial owls based on: 1) the most recent documented nest site; 2) the most recent known roost site when a next location remains unknown, and 3) a central point based on repeated daytime detections when neither nest or roost locations are known. PACs are delineated to: 1) include known and suspected nest stands, and 2) encompass the best available 300 acres of habitat in as compact a unit as possible. Stands in each PAC have: 1) at least two tree canopy layers; 2) dominant and co-dominant trees with average diameters of at least 24 inches dbh; 3) at least 60-70 percent canopy cover; 4) some
20 Whittington BE very large snags (greater than 45 inches dbh); and 5) snag and down woody material levels that are higher than average.
4. Goshawk Protected Activity Center (PAC) GPACs are designated for the latest documented nest site and location(s) of alternate nests. If the actual nest site is not located, the gPAC is designated based on the location of territorial adult birds or recently fledged juvenile goshawks during the fledgling dependency period. PACs are delimited to: 1) include known and suspected nest stands and 2) encompass the best available 200 acres of forested habitat in the largest contiguous patches possible. Best available forested stands for PACs have the following characteristics: 1) trees in dominant and co-dominant crown closure classes average 24 inches dbh or greater; 2) conifer stands have at least 70 percent canopy cover. Stands in each PAC have: 1) at least two tree canopy layers; 2) dominant and co-dominant trees with average diameters of at least 24inches dbh; 3) at least 60- 70 percent canopy cover; 4) some very large snags (greater than 45 inches dbh); and 5) snag and down woody material levels that are higher than average.
C. STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES WITHIN THE AMENDED LRMP PERTAINING TO WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREAS Spotted Owl Mechanical Thinning (S&G # 7) -Within Home Range Core Areas: Where existing vegetative considerations permit, design projects to retain at least 50% canopy cover averaged within the treatment unit. Exceptions are allowed in limited situations where additional trees must be removed to adequately reduce ladder fuels, provide sufficient spacing for equipment operations or minimize re-entry. Where 50% canopy cover retention cannot be met for reasons described above, retain at least 40% canopy cover averaged within the treatment. Outside Home Range Core Areas: Where existing vegetative conditions permit, design projects to retain at least 50% canopy cover within the treatment unit. Exceptions are allowed where project objectives require additional canopy modifications (such as the need to adequately reduce ladder fuels, provide for safe and efficient equipment operations, minimize re-entry, design cost efficient treatments, and/or significantly reduce stand density.). Where canopy cover must be reduced below 50%, retain at least 40% canopy cover averaged within the treatment unit. Within California spotted owl PACs: Where treatment is necessary, remove only material needed to meet project fuels objectives. Focus on removal of surface and ladder fuels. PACs (S&G # 71): When designing treatment unit intersections with PACs, limit treatment acres to those necessary to achieve strategic placement objectives and avoid treatments adjacent to nest stands whenever possible. If nesting or foraging habitat in PACs is mechanically treated, mitigate by adding acreage to the PAC equivalent to the treated acres using adjacent acres of comparable quality ..According to the HFQLG (2004) no DFPZs, group selections, individual tree selection, or other timber harvesting may be located within SoPACs. PACs (S&G # 72): Mechanical treatments may be conducted to meet fuels objectives in protected activity centers (PACs) located in WUI defense zones. In PACs located in WUI threat zones, mechanical treatments are allowed where prescribed fire is not feasible and where avoiding PACs would significantly compromise the overall effectiveness of the landscape fire and fuels strategy. Mechanical treatments should be designed to maintain habitat structure and function of the PAC. PACs (S&G # 73): While mechanical treatments may be conducted in protected activity centers (PACs) located in WUI defense zones and, in some cases, threat zones, they are prohibited within 500-foot radius buffer around a spotted owl activity center within the
21 Whittington BE designated PAC. Prescribed burning is allowed within the 500-foot radius buffer. Hand treatments, including hand line construction, tree pruning, and cutting of small trees (less than 6 inches dbh), may be conducted prior to burning as needed to protect important elements of owl habitat. Treatments in the remainder of the PAC use the forest wide standards and guidelines for mechanical thinning. According to the HFQLG (2004) no mechanical treatment is to be allowed within a 500 foot radius of any gPAC nest tree Great Gray Owl PACs (S&G # 84): In meadow areas of great gray owl PACs maintain herbaceous vegetation at a height commensurate with site capability and habitat needs of prey species. Follow regional guidance to determine potential prey species and associated habitat requirements at the project level. Manage vegetation in designated riparian areas so existing Forestwide diversity is maintained in all periods. (S/G #74) Maintain or enhance productivity of Forest meadows to accommodate wildlife and range resources. (S/G #75)
Additional Direction from Lassen National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP 1992) The proposed project is within the Logan Management area and includes prescriptions E (early successional), K (Rocky/Sparse timber), L (late-successional) T (timber) and V (view/Timber)
The prescriptions in the Logan Management Area related to the proposed project include: Regeneration of old brushfields to improve summer range for the Cow Creek mule deer herd. Management of fuels to improve habitat and forage production for wildlife Maintenance of winter deer range Maintain high habitat capability for species dependent on snags and hardwoods.
IV PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Purpose and Need and Description of Alternatives are excerpted from the Whittington Project EA (2012).
A. PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose of the Whittington Project is to aid in the restoration of both a fire-resistant and fire- resilient forest ecosystem through thinning treatments, release, and prescribed fire. The Whittington project would begin restoration of a fire-adapted, healthy, heterogenic, and sustainable forest, providing a range of ecological services (wood, fiber, water quality, biodiversity, etc.). (Region 5 Ecological Restoration, Leadership Intent).
The Whittington Project is designed to achieve the following desired conditions for vegetation, which would meet the purpose as set forth above: A resistance to fire induced mortality (i.e. Ponderosa/Jeffrey Pine); or vegetation that is resilient to fire and can regenerate either through sprouting from the root crown (manzanita) or from seed released following a fire (Baker Cypress). Maintenance of surface fuels utilizing DFPZs, protecting forest duff, litter, and large down woody material and providing benefits to soils, wildlife, and other resources, supporting a mosaic of fire severity and burn patterns. Provide areas from which wildfire could be more safely fought. Decrease the intensity of potential wildfire and the likelihood of a surface fire developing into a damaging crown fire. Improve firefighter and public safety.
22 Whittington BE Diversity of cover with a range of brush and tree species in varying size and age classes, and vertical and lateral structural diversity. Vertical and lateral structural diversity would include small openings or ―gaps‖ in forest cover, thickets of trees, and variable spacing between trees and shrubs. Healthy forest conditions encouraged by limiting inter-tree competition for water and soil nutrients, encouraging drought tolerant vegetation, disease and insect resistant trees, receptive seedbed and viable reproduction. A diverse landscape characterized by a variety of wildlife habitats that provide hiding, foraging, nesting, and denning benefits for multiple species.
Current ecological conditions in the Whittington Project area are inconsistent with desired conditions described above. The need for action can be characterized by two primary concerns: the need to restore fire-resistance/fire-resilience, and the need to restore forest health and diversity.
B. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES The proposed action was developed to achieve the purpose and need based on issues identified through public comment, earlier proposals, and ongoing collaboration. The no action alternative, along with the proposed action, are described below, and further described in the Environmental Analysis developed for this project.
1. Alternative 1- Proposed Action
This Alternative has a treatment strategy that emphasizes structural restoration using uneven- aged management. Structural restoration involves mechanically treating stands before reintroducing fire into the ecosystem. Under the proposed action stand treatment applications would concentrate on reducing stand densities by harvesting trees less than 30‖ dbh within the treatment area. a. Proposed Action Mechanical tree removal, mechanical treatment of brush, piling of fuels, and prescribed burning would be used to implement the action. Although most of the mechanical treatments would be accomplished using contracts (timber sale, service, and stewardship), some treatments would be completed using Forest Service personnel. The following treatments would be implemented to meet the purpose and need (See Map 2): b. Defensible Fuel Profile Zones A Defensible Fuel Profile Zones (DFPZs) is a strategically located strip of land on which fuels, both living and dead, have been modified to reduce the potential for a crown fire and to allow fire suppression personnel a safer location from which to take action against a wildfire (HFQLG FEIS, page 2-19). DFPZs would be developed along the following Forest System roads (FS roads): FS road 34N19 (26 road) from the Twin Buttes west to the Forest boundary FS road 34N60 from the junction with FS road 34N19 southwest approximately 0.7 miles. FS roads 34N23/34N74 from the junction with FS road 34N19 west to the Forest boundary. Boundary between private and National Forest lands along the western edge of the project area.
23 Whittington BE The total DFPZ acreage would be approximately 2,540 acres. c. Treatments
Treatment A – Mixed conifer forest thinning with hardwood, and Legacy Trees release Up to 1,395 acres would be thinned to improve fire resistance, lateral and vertical structural diversity, and move forested areas towards a more historic species composition by releasing healthy desirable trees (ponderosa/Jeffrey pine, sugar pine, Douglas fir, hardwoods) and reducing inter-tree competition for site resources. The average desired stocking level (basal area) would range from 120 square feet to 180 square feet per acre, based on species composition and location. Tree spacing would be variable and would include small openings and clumps of denser trees throughout the stands. Trees less than 30.0‖ would be removed.
The following post-treatment canopy cover percentages are based upon the standards and guidelines described in the SNFPA 2004 FEIS and ROD. Within the DFPZs, an average canopy cover of 40 percent would be retained in areas designated as California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) 5M, 5D, or 6. Outside of DFPZs, but within areas classified as CWHR 4D, 4M, 5D, 5M, and 6, canopy cover would be retained at a minimum of 50 percent, unless the desired conditions listed on pages 4 and 5 cannot be met. A minimum of 40 percent canopy cover would be retained throughout the mixed conifer forest areas.
Where available, radial release would be implemented around ―legacy‖ trees, which can be generally defined as ponderosa/Jeffrey pine, sugar pine, or Douglas fir approximately 24‖ diameter at breast height (dbh) or greater in good physical condition and healthy. Treatment would include the removal of other conifers less than 30.0 inches dbh within 40 to 60 feet of the tree trunk. The exact distance of release would vary depending on the physical condition of the tree (i.e. crown width) and site conditions (i.e. aspect).
Black oak and Scouler willow with the highest potential to benefit from release would have conifers removed within 50 feet to 75 feet similar to the legacy treatment described above. Hardwoods that are found to be in poor health (spindly boles with few or no leaves) would be cut and radial released to stimulate root sprouting.
Roughly 10-20 percent of the mixed conifer forests would be kept as retention islands. Retention islands would retain both horizontal and vertical diversity, where possible, and provide habitat elements for California spotted owls and forest carnivores. Retention islands would vary in size and bolster stand habitat canopy cover, but would be not smaller than 1 acre. Locations of each retention island would be determined in conjunction with Forest Wildlife Biologists. Preferred areas would include several of the following characteristics; the densest canopy of larger trees, large snag (>24 inches dbh), multiple large logs or evidence of oblong or keyhole shaped cavities.
Treatment B – Group Selections Up to 80 acres of group selections in the mixed conifer forests would be used to create openings that would range in size from ½ to 2.5 acres. These treatments would improve structural and age class diversity, while at the same time improving the species composition and restoring a more fire resistant species, such as pine. These treatments would be focused in areas with the following characteristics: low structural diversity (homogeneous white fir areas, trees generally the same diameter and height, etc.)
24 Whittington BE increased insect activity and disease infestation (i.e. dwarf mistletoe, bark beetle activity, root disease pockets)
Group selections would not be placed in riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs) established around Burney Springs or Eiler Gulch. Group selections would not be placed within the plantations or healthy pine areas.
Within these group selections, most or all conifers except Baker Cypress that are less than 30.0‖ dbh would be removed to create space for a new generation of conifer trees. All trees greater than or equal to 30.0‖ would remain regardless of species and condition.
Mechanical site preparation could be completed to reduce slash and prepare the seedbed for either natural regeneration or planting. Slash would be piled and burned.
To ensure conifer reforestation success within group selections, site preparation would be followed by tree planting. Planted seedling composition would be diverse, with the majority consisting of ponderosa pine mixed with some Jeffrey pine, sugar pine, incense cedar, Douglas- fir. First, third, and fifth year stocking examinations would be completed to monitor seedling survival and stocking, natural regeneration, and animal damage. Within 5 years of planting, manual seedling release for survival could be completed to reduce competition from grass, forbs, and brush. Control of this vegetation would increase the chance for seedling survival and growth. Manual release methods could include hand grubbing and/or brush cutting.
Treatment C – Burney Springs Enhancement In order to restore the size of the Burney Spring grassland and wetland, the following treatments would be implemented:
Within 200 feet of the northern and eastern boundaries (approximately 30 acres), the edge between the forest and grassland would be defined using topographical features. The size of conifer stand (approximately 27 acres) within the bounds of the meadow would also be reduced. Conifer stand and grassland edge treatment would consist of thinning conifers to approximately 40 square feet of basal area. To achieve the desired condition, the focus in both areas would be to re-establish an open environment with occasional clumps of large, healthy ponderosa and Jeffrey pine.
A second treatment would consist of either masticating or hand-thinning and removing small lodgepole and other pines scattered throughout the grassland and shrubland. Hand-cut trees would be piled and the piles burned. Five acres of grassland and shrubland would be underburned. If monitoring results after 2 years show an increase in native perennial grass cover and no increase in lodgepole establishment relative to control plots, up to 35 additional acres of grassland and shrub land may be underburned.
To protect the spring and adjacent meadow area a barrier (e.g. buck and pole fencing) would be constructed along the edge of the grassland. User-created vehicle trails that cross the Burney Spring Meadow would be blocked and signed. The road alongside the meadow may need to be upgraded for resource protection purposes
Treatment D – Baker Cypress Restoration Across 89 acres within mixed conifer forest, Baker cypress trees would be radially released by removing other conifer species within 50 feet of cypress trees or stands. Surface fuels would be maintained around Baker cypress trees except on two acres of Baker cypress regeneration
25 Whittington BE plots where brush crushing, brush mastication, brush piling, and/or pile burning would occur at the base of selected cypress trees. Where Baker cypress do not occur, healthy desirable trees (ponderosa/Jeffrey pine, sugar pine, Douglas fir, hardwoods) would be released, with an average desired stocking level (basal area) ranging from 120 square feet to 180 square feet per acre based on species composition and location. Tree spacing would be variable and would include small openings and clumps of denser trees throughout the stands. Only trees less than 30.0‖ would be removed.
Treatment E - Plantations These are old brush field conversions that were developed in 1930s through 1960s. On approximately 3,275 acres, treatments would consist of thinning the trees until the desired stocking level has been reached (100 to 120 square feet of basal area per acre). The emphasis would be on leaving the healthiest conifers, regardless of size and spacing, and on retention of all Baker cypress. After the thinning has been completed, brush would be masticated or machine piled and burned.
Within the DFPZ (1,458 acres), all of the trees and brush would be treated as described above. Plantation areas (1,362 acres) would be treated until the desired stocking level of 100-120 square feet of basal area per acre has been reached, except for areas as described below as ―skips‖ and ―gaps‖.
Outside of the DFPZs (1,817 acres), the plantation would be treated using a ―skip‖ and ―gap‖ approach. For the brush component, up to 25 percent (455 acres) would be left in ―skips‖, which are areas where the brush would not be treated to protect Baker cypress and provide wildlife refugia. For the tree component, up to 5 percent (91 acres) would be treated as gaps, in which most of the trees and brush would be removed. These gaps could range from ¼ to ½ acre in size and would be scattered throughout the plantation. The gaps would be placed in areas that have poor stocking because of insects, disease, or poor soils. The remainder of the plantation (1,362 acres) would be treated until the desired stocking level of 100-120 square feet of basal area per acre has been reached.
Within the plantations, approximately two acres would be treated for Baker cypress regeneration. Several disturbance-based treatments would be applied to individual Baker cypress trees to encourage seed release. Baker cypress would be radially released by removing pine and other conifer species within 50 to 75 feet of the cypress. To create bare mineral soil needed for regeneration, brush and other surface fuels would be burned or removed using crushing, brush mastication, brush piling, broadcast burning, and/or pile burning. Treatments of high/moderate intensity fire could be used to encourage seed release and prepare the soil for seed germination.
Treatment F – Brushfields Brushfields would be masticated or machine piled and piles burned on approximately 132 acres, Up to 15% of these areas would not be treated to maintain diversity and provide cover for wildlife.
Treatment G – Surface Fuel Treatments, including prescribed fire After mechanical thinning and group selection treatments have been completed, the mixed conifer forest, approximately 1504 acres, would be evaluated to determine the type of surface fuel treatment needed. In areas with heavy fuels, slash would be machine-piled and the piles burned. After this action, burning is completed and the area would be evaluated for prescribed fire or underburning to further reduce surface fuels and re-introduce fire into the area.
26 Whittington BE Table 3 summarizes all treatments for Alternative 1.
Table 3 – Alternative 1 – Proposed Treatments and Acres in the Whittington Project Area DFPZ acres Outside DFPZ Total Treatments (up to) acres (up to) Acres Treatment A – Mixed Conifer Thin, Legacy Tree, 795 600 1,395 Hardwood, and Baker cypress Treatments Treatment B – Group Selections 50 30 80 Treatment C Burney Springs Enhancement 110 0 110 Burney Springs Buffer 30 0 30 Treatment D – Baker Cypress Release 0 89 89
Treatment E- Plantation Treatments 1458 1817 3275
Treatment F- Brushfield Treatment 109 21 131
Treatment G- Surface Fuel Treatments 840 755 1595 d. Summary of Treatment types: Masticate Only – Brushfield: Brush reduction through mastication in old, decadent brush. Surface Fuel Treatments: Prescribe underburning, grappling piling of surface fuels and pile burning, or machine piling and pile burning. Type of treatment would depend on the existing fuels and other elements, such as conifer types. Thin and Masticate Plantations: Decadent brush would be masticated. Overstocked plantations would be thinned. There may be some groups within some areas because of existing bark beetle problems Diversity Thin and Treat Surface Fuels: thinning to reduce ladder fuels and improve forest health. This treatment would be a strict thin from below, either within the DFPZ or Area Treatment areas. Other treatments within these areas could include thinning around old legacy trees (Pine, Doug Fir, Sugar Pine), treating to reduce the amount of white fir and maintain or increase the representation of more desirable species (sugar pine, ponderosa pine, Douglas fir). Retention islands could be identified to help maintain structural diversity. These would probably be located outside of the DFPZs. Lodgepole Treatment: This area is located in the middle of dry part of Burney Springs Meadow. Lodgepole would be thinned to reduce stocking and reduce size of the pocket. Meadow Enhancement: Burney Springs Meadow. Treatments would include the reduction of encroaching pines along the meadow’s edge and within the middle. Group Selections/Pine Restoration: The placement of the groups on the ground would depend of our goals. Groups could be as big as 2 acres or as small as ¼ acre. Groups would be placed in areas of heavy white fir to re-introduce pine, sugar pine, and Douglas-fir. They could also be placed in areas where structural diversity is lacking and most of the trees are the same age. Pine restoration groups may happen in areas where there is a pine component and there is the need to reduce the white fir. Baker’s Cypress: radial release by removing other conifer species within 50 feet of cypress trees or stands. Surface fuels maintained around trees except on two acres of Baker cypress regeneration plots where brush crushing, brush mastication, brush piling, and/or pile burning would occur at the base of selected cypress trees.
27 Whittington BE e. Transportation The following is a summary of the proposed improvements to the Lassen National Forest transportation system needed to accomplish the treatments above (Map 4 roads).
System and Non-system road decommissioning and rehabilitation 1. Approximately 0.8 miles of existing National Forest System Roads would be decommissioned and rehabilitated. Four existing non-system/unauthorized routes totaling approximately 0.8 mile would be used to implement planned activities and would be decommissioned and rehabilitated after treatment. 2. In addition to these roads, another 2.0 of non-system/unauthorized would also be decommissioned and rehabilitated.
Additions to the permanent National Forest Road System 1. Approximately 3.8 miles of new construction would be needed to provide access to complete the proposed treatments and for continued management of NFS lands. 2. Approximately 6.1 miles of existing non-system/unauthorized routes would be added to the forest transportation system. These roads currently exist on the landscape but are missing from the current transportation system. 3. Approximately 2.7 miles would be maintained as maintenance level two roads. These roads would be open to public use and maintained for high-clearance vehicle traffic. 4. Approximately 3.4 miles would be maintained as maintenance level one. Maintenance level one (ML 1) roads are closed to all motor vehicle traffic. Maintenance level one roads remain on the National Forest transportation system in order to facilitate future management activities.
Acquire Legal Access National Forest lands in the project area lie adjacent to large sections of private lands. Most of these private lands are owned by timber management companies which have their own transportation system. These roads were designed and constructed to accommodate log trucks and chip vans and are suitable for haul. In order to access certain treatment areas there would be a need to use roads located on private land.
The Forest Service would need to acquire legal access to use the roads at the following locations: 34N14 at T34N R3E NE ¼ Sec. 19 (approximately 0.4 mile). 34N19M at T34N R3E NW ¼ Sec. 27 (approximately 300 feet).
Reduce Maintenance Level About 1.7 miles of existing National Forest System maintenance level 2 roads would be reduced to maintenance level 1 and closed to motor vehicle traffic once project activities are complete.
Temporary Road Construction Four existing unauthorized routes totaling approximately 1.0 mile would be used as temporary roads to implement planned activities and would be decommissioned and rehabilitated after treatment. An additional 1.0 miles of temporary road might be needed to access plantation areas. Any additional temporary roads needed would be decommissioned and rehabilitated after treatment.
Table 4 summarizes the changes that would occur in the transportation system as a result of proposed project activities.
28 Whittington BE
Table 4 – Summary of Road Management Prescriptions and Miles for the Whittington Project Road Treatments Miles Decommission and rehabilitate 3.6 New permanent road construction (ML 2) 3.8 Unauthorized routes added to system, open 2.7 to public ML2 Unauthorized routes added to system closed 3.4 to public ML1 Reduce maintenance level (ML2 to ML 1) 1.7 Temporary road construction 2.0 Acquire legal access 0.5
Water source development/Dust abatement The only existing water source for dust abatement during project activities is the Hat Creek Work Center, which is at least six miles from the project boundary. If feasible, to facilitate both existing and future water needs, a new source could be developed near Horse Heaven Buttes.
There is a potential water source on Hat Creek, north of the Hat Creek Work Center that is a disturbed and hardened site previously used as a campground. If this is needed as a water source, it would be brought up to standard to meet Best Management Practices before use. f. Results of Treatments for Alternative 1 Table 5 shows the summary of the resultant vegetation after treatments, both post-treatment and 20 years later for Alternative 1.
The California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) System is the preferred methodology for the Classification of habitat types and contains the California species data base. Definitions of vegetation codes for all CWHR habitat types are found after Table 5
Table 5 – Whittington Project Area Acres, Pre- and Post-Treatment for Alternative 1 Analysis Area Project / Analysis Areas Project Area (Acres) (Acres) Post 20 Post 20 CWHR treatment years Treatment years Shrub/Grassland BAR 8 8 325 325 MCP 90 90 96 96 PGS 10 10 12 12 SGB 2 2 2 2 Total Shrub (no shrub component 110 110 435 435 of early seral conifer)
29 Whittington BE Analysis Area Project / Analysis Areas Project Area (Acres) (Acres) Post 20 Post 20 CWHR treatment years Treatment years Early Seral (1 – 3D) ASP 1 1 1 1 MHC 3M 5 0 5 0 JPN/PPN 1-2D 260 21 260 21 SMC 1-2D 2 1 2 1 JPN/PPN3S-3D 2451 238 2455 242 SMC 3S-3D 98 4 513 419 Total Early Seral 2817 265 3236 684 Mid – Seral Open (4S – 4P) MHC 4P 27 27 28 28 JPN/PPN 4S, 4P 133 2584 137 2588 SMC 4S, 4P 136 147 184 195 Total Open mid-seral 296 2758 349 2811 Mid- Seral Closed (4M – 4D) MHC 4M 3 8 3 8 JPN/PPN 4M 174 174 174 174 LPN 4M 0 0 0 0 SMC 4M 1613 1465 1776 1628 LPN4D 0 0 0 0 JPN/PPN 4D 0 0 1 1 SMC 4D 166 255 1800 1889 WFR 4D 0 0 0 0 Total Mid-Seral Closed 1956 1902 3754 3700 Late Seral Open (5S – 5P) SMC 5S 14 14 14 14 SMC5P 8 0 8 0 Total Late-Seral Open 22 14 22 14 Late Seral Closed (5M – 6D) SMC 5M, 160 267 160 267 SMC 5D 18 62 192 236 SMC 6 13 13 316 316 Total: 191 342 668 819 Total Acres Treated 5392 5391 8464 8463
30 Whittington BE CWHR (California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Database classification) Vegetation Type Codes Vegetation type Herbaceous/wet BAR = barren PGS = perennial grassland WTM = wet meadow Shrub MCP=montane chaparral SGB= sagebrush Tree: LPN = lodgepole MHC = mixed hardwood/conifer JPN = Jeffrey pine PPN = Ponderosa pine SMC = Sierra mixed conifer WFR = white fir Tree Size (diameter breast height, or dbh) 1 = seedling < 1‖dbh, 2 = sapling < 6‖ dbh 3 = pole tree < 12‖dbh 4 = small tree 12 – 24‖ 5 = medium/large trees > 24‖ Canopy Closure (%) S= sparse<25% P = open (25 – 39%) M = moderate (40 – 59%) D = dense (60 – 100%)
2. Alternative 2 – No Action
Under this alternative, none of the treatments proposed under either action alternatives would be implemented. Current conditions would continue to exist. Current management practices such as road maintenance and fire suppression would continue, but no other activities would occur. Table 6 shows the summary of the current condition vegetation and 20 years later. See above for definitions of CWHR terms.
Table 6 – Alternative 2 No Action Current VS 20 Years Later Whittington Project Alternative 2 – No Analysis Project Area (Acres) Analysis Area** (Acres) Action Acres* Current After 20 Outside Current After 20 CWHR Condition years project Condition years Shrub/Grassland BAR 8 8 317 325 325 PGS 10 10 2 11 11 MCP 90 90 6 96 96 SGB .... 2 2 0. 2 2 Total Shrub 110 110 434 434 Early Seral Conifer/Hardwood (1S – 3D) ASP 1 1 0.0 1 1 MHC 3M 5 0 0.0 5 0 JPN/PPN 1-2D 292 21 0.1 293 21 JPN/PPN 3S-3D 2418 2365 4 2422 2369 SMC 1-2D 2 .....1 0.0 2 1 SMC 3S-3D 153 71 415 568 486 Total 2871 2457 3122.8 2877 Mid-Seral Open Canopy (4S-4P) MHC 4P 27 27 1 28 28 JPN / PPN 4S, 4P 17 326 4 21 330 SMC 4S, 4P 112 147 48 160 195 Total 156 501 209 553
31 Whittington BE Alternative 2 – No Analysis Project Area (Acres) Analysis Area** (Acres) Action Acres* Current After 20 Outside Current After 20 CWHR Condition years project Condition years Mid Seral Closed Canopy (4M – 4D) MHC 4M 3 8 0.0 3 8 JPN / PPN 4M 194 36 0.0 194 36 LPN 4M 24 0 0.0 24 0 SMC 4M 761 384 163 924 547 LPN4D 0 24 0.0 0 24 JPN / PPN 4D 95 269 1 96 270 SMC 4D 953 1279 1634 2587 2913 WFR 4D 114 114 0.0 114 114 Totals 2144 2114 --- 3942 3912 Late Seral Open Canopy (5S – 5P) SMC 5S 14 14. 0.0 14.0 14.0 SMC 5P 0 0 0 0 0 Total 14 14. --- 14.0 14.0 Late Seral Closed (5M – 6D) SMC 5M 48 103 0.0 48 103 SMC 5D 32 76 174 206 249 SMC 6 13 12 303 316 315 Total: 93 191 --- 570 667.0 All acres treatment 5388 5388 --- 8461 8460 total
*Only acres of CWHR outside project area within ½ mile of project boundary
**Acres within project area + acres outside project area within ½ mile of project boundary
3. Alternative 3 – Non-commercial Funding, Fuels Reduction only
The sole purpose of this alternative would be to achieve the fuels reduction element of the purpose and need. Proposed treatments would reduce hazardous fuels primarily through thinning and surface treatments. The DFPZ proposed in Alternative 1 would be established.
Other treatments, such as group selection, hardwood and legacy tree release, Baker cypress restoration, aspen enhancement, and other treatments within the Burney Springs grassland would not be implemented. Plantations would be treated to reduce surface and ladder fuels, but skip and gap treatments would not be implemented.
Alternative 3 was developed based on direction in the Memorandum and Order dated 11/03/2009 from Judge Morrison C. England, United States District Court, during the remedy phase in the complaint of Sierra Forest Legacy vs. Mark Rey. This direction requires that a detailed consideration of a non-commercially funded (fuels reduction) alternative be included for all new fuel reduction projects not already evaluated and approved as of the date of the Memorandum and Order. The requirement to develop this alternative is in effect until the
32 Whittington BE agency remedies the deficiencies of the programmatic 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment or a supplemental EIS is completed, whichever comes first.
The intent of this alternative is to reduce surface, ladder, and crown fuels to a point where fire behavior objectives would be met. Desired fuels conditions include reduction of surface, and ladder, and crown fuels in order to reduce predicted flame lengths, probability of crown fire initiation or spread, and predicted mortality within the stand. Desired fuel conditions would be achieved through a combination of thinning, brush mastication or machine piling, and surface fuel treatments. Ladder and canopy fuels would be reduced by thinning from below to raise the canopy base height to a level that would prevent or greatly reduce the likelihood of a surface fire transitioning into the canopy and to decrease canopy bulk density and reduce crown continuity.
Under this alternative, implementation of fuel reduction treatments would be accomplished utilizing service contracts and Forest Service personnel.
The following treatments described under Alternative 1 would not be implemented: Legacy tree and hardwood release (Treatment A) Group selections (Treatment B) Removal of small conifers scattered throughout Burney Springs grassland (Treatment C) Barrier construction along the edge of the Burney Springs grassland (Treatment C) Baker cypress restoration (Treatment A, D) Skips and gaps within the plantation (Treatment E would be modified) Retention islands in the mixed conifer and brush fields (Treatment A, F modified) a. Proposed Action To meet the purpose of the non-commercial alternative, the treatments listed below would be implemented:
Defensible Fuel Profile Zones A Defensible Fuel Profile Zones (DFPZs) is a strategically located strip of land on which fuels, both living and dead, have been modified to reduce the potential for a crown fire and to allow fire suppression personnel a safer location from which to take action against a wildfire (HFQLG FEIS, page 2-19). DFPZs would be developed along the following National Forest System roads (FS roads): FS road 34N19 (26 road) from the Twin Buttes west to the Forest boundary FS road 34N60 from the junction with FS road 34N19 southwest approximately 0.7 miles. FS roads 34N23/34N74 from the junction with FS road 34N19 west to the Forest boundary. Boundary between private and Forest lands along the western edge of the project area.
The total DFPZ acreage would be approximately 2,540 acres, the same as for Alternative 1.
Treatment H – Mixed Conifer forest thinning (modified Treatment A) Up to 1,460 acres would be treated to reduce ladder fuels and raise canopy base height. Treatment would consist of thinning from below (removing the smallest diameter trees) to raise the canopy base height to a level that would prevent or greatly reduce the likelihood of a surface fire transitioning into the canopy. The resultant effective tree spacing would range from 16 feet to 20 feet to accommodate mechanical surface fuel treatments. Modeling indicates that in most cases harvesting trees up to 14.0 dbh would meet the fuel reduction objectives. However, to
33 Whittington BE accommodate mechanical surface fuel treatments, some trees 14 inches dbh and larger may need to be removed.
Within the DFPZs, an average canopy cover of 40 percent would be retained in areas designated as CWHR 5M, 5D, or 6. Outside of the DFPZs, but within the areas classified as CWHR 4D, 4M, 5D, 5M, and 6, canopy cover would be retained at a minimum of 50 percent, unless the desired 20 foot spacing cannot be met.
Treatment I – Plantations (modified Treatment E) On approximately 3,275 acres, the thinning treatments would be similar to mixed conifer treatments. Trees would be cut and removed until an effective spacing between 16 and 20 feet has been reached. After the trees have been thinned, the brush would be masticated or machine piled and burned. Some larger brushfield areas in the plantations would be thinned and retained as a habitat element for birds and small mammals (see treatment J below)
Treatment J – Brushfields (modified Treatment F) Brushfields will be masticated or machine piled and piles burned on approximately 131 acres.
Treatment K - Surface Fuel Treatments, including prescribed fire (modified Treatment G) After mechanical thinning has been completed, the mixed conifer forest, approximately 1,660 acres, would be evaluated to determine the type of surface fuel treatment needed. In areas with heavy fuels, slash would be machine-piled and the piles burned. After machine piling and pile burning is completed, the area would be evaluated for prescribed fire or underburning needs to further reduce surface fuels and re-introduce fire into the area. In areas with lighter fuels and the appropriate species mix, prescribed burning would be used to reduce surface fuels. Table 7 summarizes all treatments and acres for Alternative 3.
Table 7 – Treatment Acres - Alternative 3 Whittington Project DFPZ acres Outside of DFPZ Total Treatments (up to) acres (up to) Acres Treatment H – Mixed Conifer Thin 936 524 1,460 Treatment I- Plantation 1,455 1,820 3,275 Treatment J- Brushfield 109 22 131 Treatment K- Surface Fuel 981 679 1,660
Table 8 shows the summary of the resultant vegetation after treatments, both post-treatment and 20 years later. Definitions of CWHR terms for the table are found after Table 5.
34 Whittington BE
Table 8 – Vegetation Acres after Treatment Alternative 3 Whittington Project Alternative 3- Fuels Project Area (Acres) Analysis Area (Acres) Only Action After After 20 After After 20 CWHR Action years Action years Early Seral (Shrub/tree) BAR 8 8 325 325 PGS 10 10 12 12 MCP 90 90 96 96 SGB ....2 2 2 2 Total Shrub 110 110 435 435 Early Seral Conifer/Hardwood (1S – 3D) ASP 1 1 1 1 MHC 3M 5 0 5 0 JPN/PPN 1-2D 260 22 260 22 JPN/PPN 3S-3D 2451 239 2455 243 SMC 1-2D 2 1 2 1 SMC 3S-3D 39 5 454 420 Total Early Seral 2758 268 3177 687 Mid-Seral Open Canopy (4S-4P) MHC 4P 27 27 28 28 JPN / PPN 4S, 4P 133 2584 137 2588 SMC 4S, 4P 112 147 159 195 Total Mid-Seral 271 2758 324 2811 Open Mid Seral Closed Canopy (4M – 4D) MHC 4M 3 8 3 8 JPN / PPN 4M 174 108 174 108 LPN 4M 0 0 0 0 SMC 4M 1679 1562 1842 1725 LPN4D 0 0 0 0 JPN / PPN 4D 0 66 1 67 SMC 4D 213 232 1847 1866 WFR 4D 0 0 0 0 Total Mid-Seral 2069 1976 3867 3774 Closed
35 Whittington BE Alternative 3- Fuels Project Area (Acres) Analysis Area (Acres) Only Action After After 20 After After 20 CWHR Action years Action years Late Seral Open Canopy SMC 5S 14 14. 14.0 14.0 SMC 5P 0 Total Late-Seral 14 14. 14.0 14.0 Open Late Seral Closed SMC 5M, 138 124 138 124 SMC 5D 18 132 192 306 SMC 6D 13 13 316 316 Total Late-Seral 169 269 646 746 Closed treatment total 5391 5394 8463 8453
L. Road Management: Treatments for road management will be the same as those described under the Proposed Action.
4. Integrated Design Features (IDFs) for Alternatives 1 and 3 Mitigations would include a combination of measures to avoid, minimize, reduce, or eliminate negative impacts to project area resources (40 CFR 1508.20). The following mitigation measures include standards and guidelines and IDFs. IDFs are implementation parameters that would be incorporated into treatments, contracts, or used to guide Forest Service personnel in conducting implementation. IDFs are developed by resource specialists to assure the avoidance and minimization of impacts from implementation of the action. a. Wildlife The largest downed-woody material greater than 15 inches in diameter would be retained with an average of 10-15 tons of large down wood/acre. If this standard cannot be met, provide additional trees where available. Avoid disturbing large down wood where possible. If available, the 4 largest snags per acre larger than 15 inches dbh would be retained, except within primary corridors of DFPZs (1 tree height from road). In addition, 2 to 3 trees per acre with unique branching, spike or multiple tops would be retained (when available). Snags larger than 15 inches would not be cut unless they are within falling distance of roads, located near landings, or would pose a safety or operability problem during operations. Cut snags would be left as down wood. Oaks greater than 8 inches in diameter will be retained. A Limited Operating Period (LOP) would be in effect from February 15 through August 31st within 1/4 mile of documented spotted owl nests. If the nest site cannot be determined, the LOP would be within ¼ mile of the protected activity center.
36 Whittington BE A LOP would be in effect from February 15th through September 15th within 1/4 mile of Goshawk Protected Activity Centers (GPACs). When thinning in or near the GPACs, no mechanical treatment would be allowed within a 500-foot radius buffer around any nest tree. An additional 200-acre GPAC would be established around nesting sites if a new territorial goshawk is located during implementation. b. Aquatic Resources Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be implemented to meet water quality objectives and to maintain and improve the quality of surface waters on the Forest (LRMP-page 4-31). BMPs are described in Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in California, Best Management Practices (2000). Water drafting sites used for the project would meet BMPs prior to use. Lassen National Forest Wet Weather Operations and Wet Weather Haul Agreement would be followed during logging operations. Large downed woody material, existing prior to treatments, would be maintained, at least 5 logs per acre (LRMP 4-27), representing all decay stages. Logs would be at least 20 inches in diameter at mid-point and at least 10 ft in length. Preference would be given to maintain logs located along the slope contours rather than pointed up or down slope. The logs kept in place to meet this requirement would be avoided to prevent disturbance. In accordance with the 2004 SNFPA FSEIS and ROD, as well as Scientific Analysis Team (SAT) guidelines (HFQLG FEIS, Appendix L), Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) would be designated along Eiler Gulch and Burney Springs grassland area. Along Eiler Gulch, the RHCA width would be 100 feet. For the Burney Springs the RHCA width would be 150 feet. In addition to the above Integrated Design Features (IDF), the following IDFs would be implemented to meet Riparian Management Objectives (RMO) within RHCA areas. . Restoration work within the RHCAs could require the building of temporary roads, landings and staging areas within RHCA boundaries due to operational restrictions, such as topography, wildlife habitat constraints. Temporary roads, landings, and staging areas would be sized and placed to minimize impacts to the RHCA. . Skid trails would be kept to a minimum and no water bars would be installed after treatment. . One-end suspension would be required when using ground-based equipment for tree removal. . Dust palliatives would be applied according to manufacturer’s directions, and under direction of a project-specific Dust Abatement Plan to include a 25’ no-treatment buffer surrounding water features (creeks, lakes, ponds, wetlands, and springs). . Logging slash, tree limbs and tops, and other surface fuels would be hand-piled for burning and would not be stacked within RHCA boundaries. . Riparian species (alder, aspen, etc.) would not be cut or removed. . Trees near streams that provide stream bank stability would be retained. For stream bank stability, trees with their root masses in the channel bank or trees with their crown over the channel bank would not be cut and removed. . All machinery would be kept off slopes greater than 20 percent within RHCAs. . Vehicle access to non-system roads in RHCAs would be restricted. The unauthorized road that crosses Eiler Gulch would be added to the system. It would be designed and constructed to provide passage of storm/run-off flow and debris, as well as minimize sediment input.
37 Whittington BE c. Botany
Baker Cypress . Baker cypress and juniper trees, saplings, and seedlings would be avoided where practicable during layout of Spur 27 and Spur 2, prior to project implementation. . Where possible, Baker cypress would be avoided by ground-disturbing activities and excluded from surface fuel treatments (including brush mastication, brush pile burning and prescribed fire). The exception would be within the 4 acres of Baker cypress regeneration plots, where surface fuel treatments may occur.
Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive (TES) Plants . The known occurrence of Penstemon heterodoxus var. shastensis within the Burney Springs meadow would be flagged and avoided by all project activities and displayed as a control area on all contract maps. . New occurrences of Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive plant species discovered before or during ground-disturbing activities would be protected through flag an avoid methods. . No piles would be placed in the grass or shrub dominated portions of the Burney Springs meadow complex. . No mastication or hand-thinning of conifers will occur within Burney Meadow underburn plots or control plots until monitoring has been completed.
Noxious Weeds . All off-road equipment would be weed-free prior to entering the forest. Equipment would be staged in weed free areas. Mulch or fill required for the project would be certified weed free. . Known noxious weed infestations would be identified, flagged where possible, and mapped for this project. Identified sites within or adjacent to the project area containing isolated patches with small plant numbers would be treated (hand pulled or dug) prior to project implementation. Any larger or unpullable infestations would be avoided by harvesting equipment to prevent spreading weeds project. . New small infestations identified during project implementation would be evaluated and treated according to the species present and project constraints and avoided by project activities. If larger infestations are identified after implementation, they would be isolated and avoided by equipment, or equipment used would be washed after leaving the infested area and before entering an uninfested area. . Post project monitoring for implementation and effectiveness of weed treatments and control of new infestations would be conducted as soon as possible, and for a period of multiple years after completion of the project. d. Fuels Utilize whole tree yarding in harvest units where necessary to minimize additional fuel accumulation in the stands. Small woody fuels (less than 3‖ diameter), would not exceed 3-5 tons/acre to protect against potential future fire behavior, as these are the fuels that critically affect fire rates of spread, flame length, fire line intensity, and the ability of suppression forces to safely attack and suppress any ignitions. Logging debris in excess of 3-5 ton/acre (larger than 3‖ diameter) created by yarding should be piled in the treatment area or yarded to landings.
38 Whittington BE e. Soils Soil quality standards and appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP) that protect forest soils would be implemented for the entire project. BMPs are described in Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in California, Best Management Practices (2000), Lassen National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) (1992), and the 2004 SNFPA ROD. Within plantations, windrowed soils may be re-distributed in an effort to improve soil conditions and productivity, and determine the efficacy of mitigating the effects of past actions from the 1930s and 1960s. In treatment units outside of RHCAs, soil moisture conditions would be evaluated using Forest established visual indicators before equipment operations proceed. Lassen National Forest Wet Weather Operations and Wet Weather Haul Agreements would be followed to protect the soil and transportation resources. Arial extent of detrimental soil disturbance would not exceed 15 percent of the area dedicated to growing vegetation. Soil porosity would not decrease by 10 percent or more and soil bulk density would not increase by 10 percent or more when compared to natural or undisturbed conditions. To the extent possible, existing landings and skid trails would be utilized. Landings and skid trails utilized during operations as well as any areas having legacy soil compaction would be evaluated by the forest soil scientist on a site-specific basis to determine if detrimentally compacted ground is suitable for and would benefit from subsoiling. For landings and skid trails that need subsoiling and are not needed for long- term management, and for areas having legacy compaction a winged ripper would be used for subsoiling to lift and fracture the soil in place leaving it loose and friable. Where landing construction involves cut and fill, the feature would first be subsoiled, then re- contoured to match the existing topography. Following treatment, a minimum of 60 percent ground cover consisting of rocks and organic material would be maintained. f. Cultural Resources Archaeological survey to modern standards has been completed on the accessible portions of the project area, with the exception of small areas added in 2011. The added areas would receive survey to modern standards prior to project implementation. Portions of the project area have vegetation too dense to provide for effective survey; these areas would require post-implementation survey (within one year of treatment) according to the Interim Protocol as cited below. Except as discussed below, Standard Resource Protection Measures identified in the Region 5 Programmatic Agreement (2001) between the U. S. Forest Service, State Historic Preservation Officer, and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and/or its annex the Interim Protocol for Non-Intensive Inventory Strategies for Hazardous Fuels and Vegetation Reduction Projects (2004), would protect sites. Specific protection measures include: . Except as otherwise provided in this section, sites would be flagged and avoided. . Buffer zones would be designed and flagged as needed to protect individual sites. . No piling of biomass, or pile burning, would occur within sites. . No equipment staging would occur within sites. Some site types, such as historic utility lines, may at present include discontinuous site elements (such as poles not connected by line). Where appropriate, discontinuous site elements may be flagged separately for avoidance, an approach which in contrast to continuous flagging can improve access for project work.
39 Whittington BE Although the District would continue to explore options for site avoidance, it appears that the project as planned cannot avoid one historic/prehistoric site. For this cultural resource, National Register Eligibility would need to be determined (project funding would be applied to accomplish this) in consultation with the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). Should the site be determined eligible, consultation with the SHPO would be required regarding any needed mitigations (such as data recovery). To the extent possible, any identified values would have the relevant site components preserved in place. Initial tribal consultation, including a field trip, has been completed. Information collected during the field trip and continuing tribal consultation would be taken into account in addressing the prehistoric site component. For all other cultural resources: should applied protection measures prove inadequate or if the project cannot be modified to protect sites, any potentially affected sites would, prior to project-related impacts, be evaluated for eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Mitigation plans (such as data collection) would be developed as appropriate. The preference is to protect values in place, once these are fully identified. Where existing roads cross a site, no road maintenance or reconstruction would occur within the site boundaries. Individual exceptions for maintenance may be identified if the archaeologist determines that the type of maintenance would not damage site attributes (such as artifacts, features, and setting) of a site determined eligible, or potentially eligible, for listing in the National Register. Should previously unknown cultural resources be discovered in the project area during project implementation, work would immediately stop within, minimally, 20 meters (about 65 feet) of the resource. It would not resume until a qualified archaeologist had examined the site and identified and implemented any needed protection measures. g. Transportation Before the non-system road near Burney Springs (340327UC03) is added to the National Forest road system, the following would be implemented: . The area would be signed to keep vehicles on the road and off the meadow/grassland/shrubland. . ―Leave no trace‖ and ―light on the land use ethics‖ signs would be posted. . Barriers would be installed to keep vehicles out of the meadow. . A seasonal wet weather closure would be implemented.
40 Whittington BE V. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
A. CURRENT HABITAT ACCOUNT The proposed 5,500 acre Whittington project is south of Burney Mountain and located about 10 miles south of the town of Burney in eastern Shasta County, California (Map 1). It is bounded by privately owned timberlands on the east, west, and south, and Burney Mountain (USFS) on the north. The area is within the mid-montane zone of the southern Cascade Range. The climate is characterized by cold wet winters and warm dry summers. Average precipitation is 35 to 45 inches with most of it falling as snow between November and April. The project area overlaps the Hat Creek and Burney Creek watersheds. Soils in the area are gravelly sandy loam with lava rock. Slopes within the project area are generally less than 15 percent with the exception of Whittington Butte. The elevation ranges from 4,200 to 5,600 feet.
The proposed project area is comprised of two distinct forest types: mixed conifer forest (approximately 35 percent) and pine plantations with brush and Baker cypress (approximately 60 percent). The remaining 5% is brush (as mapped within CWHR, includes manzanita, deerbrush, and chinquapin), grasslands, and lava/rock (Table 6).
Alternative 2 (Table 6) is the no treatment alternative for Current Condition vegetation types within the Whittington project area. Tables 5 and 8 show the vegetation changes as a result of the actions of Alternatives1 and 3. Tables 5, 6 and 8 show the resultant vegetation growth after 20 years.
1. Mixed Conifer Forest Mixed conifer forests are located along the outside edges of the project area, surrounding large plantations, and comprise approximately 35 percent of the project area. Coniferous tree species include combinations of white fir, ponderosa and Jeffrey pine, Douglas fir, sugar pine, incense cedar, and Baker cypress. The area also contains minor components of several species of hardwoods, including Scouler willow in the Whittington Butte area, and black oak on the west side of the project area. Analysis area acres (the ½ mile buffer around the project area boundary) outside the project area are comprised of this type of forest.
Past management practices, including fire suppression, have changed tree species composition, structure, and density within the mixed conifer forests of the project area. Information gathered from surveyors’ notes collected for the General Land Offices (GLO) from 1881 - 1883 describes a more open landscape with a different species composition. In the 1880s, ponderosa and Jeffrey pine (yellow pine) were the most prominent conifers. These conifers comprised approximately 49 percent and sugar pine comprised approximately 12 percent of the species composition. White fir accounted for approximately 26 percent of the species composition (Table 9).
Stand surveys conducted in 2009 and 2010 indicate that the amount of white fir has increased while the amount of yellow pine has decreased (Table 9). Today, white fir composes 64 percent of the species composition, while yellow pine (both ponderosa and Jeffrey pine) now comprises approximately 23 percent. Although sugar pine is present within the project area, there were no recordings of it during the re-measurement; hence it is not represented within the species composition as shown in Table 9, both past and present.
41 Whittington BE
Table 9 – Trees per Acre and Species Composition of the Proposed Whittington Project area Present vs 1883 2009 Contemporary 1883 Historic Species *Average % TPA Average TPA %TPA TPA White Fir 101 64 9 27 Red Fir 0 None 1 3 Yellow Pine 36 23 16 49 Sugar Pine 0 None 4 12 Incense Cedar 15 9 3 9 Douglas-Fir 7 4 0 0 Total 159 100 33 100 *TPA = Trees per Acre
Approximately 60 percent of the conifer seedlings found during stand surveys was white fir, which are able to survive under the shade of other conifers or brush. Two percent of the seedlings are Jeffrey or ponderosa pine, which are shade intolerant. Pine needs both sunlight and bare mineral soil to regenerate successfully. The remainder of the species encountered was incense cedar (29 percent) and sugar pine (8 percent).
Based on historic GLO surveys, there were approximately 33 trees per acre throughout the mixed conifer area in the late 1800s. Current estimates indicate there are approximately 159 trees per acre within the project area, almost five times more than the historic average. Today, the average density of white fir is almost 11 times more that than the historic average. This change in species composition and density influences the sustainability of the forest by reducing resiliency to fire, drought, insect and disease.
Black oak trees are scattered throughout the northwestern and western edge of the project area. This is a fire-enhanced, shade-intolerant hardwood that requires sunlight to flourish and reproduce. Most of these hardwoods are struggling to grow underneath the canopy of surrounding conifers.
Scouler willow is located near Whittington Butte on the south side of the project area. This species can reach 35 to 65 feet in height and thrive in sunlight. Scouler willow trees within the project area are struggling to survive beneath the canopy of dense conifers. These suppressed trees have slender boles with little or no leaves or crown. Willows with healthy crowns are limited to areas where there are gaps or openings in the canopy.
2. Burney Springs The Burney Springs area is characterized by grassland, shrubland, wet meadow, lodgepole and an aspen stand located on the west end of the meadow area adjacent to the springs. A comparison of aerial photos taken in 1939 and 2004 shows a reduction in the size of the meadow (see figure 1) due to an increase in the number of conifers.
42 Whittington BE
Figure 1 Burney Springs Condition 1938 and 2004
1939 2004
3. Plantations and Brush Two large plantations make up 60 percent of the project area. Whittington plantation (1,490 acres) is located on the west side of the project area in the Burney Creek watershed. Cypress plantation (1,865 acres) is located on the east side of the project in the Hat Creek watershed. These plantations were established by converting montane chaparral (manzanita with chinquapin and snowbrush) and Baker cypress stands in the 1930s. Brush was pushed into rows and pine seedlings were planted. Much of the initial planting failed and the area was replanted with a mix of ponderosa and Jeffrey pine, along with sugar pine and some giant sequoia, in the 1950s and 1960s. Since this time, pine, cypress, and brush have become well established and dense throughout the plantation area.
Dispersed throughout the plantations are brushfields that are dominated by manzanita, deerbrush, and some chinquapin. These brushfields are generally old and decadent with a large dead component.
4. Baker Cypress Baker cypress (Hesperocyparis bakeri) is a rare conifer endemic to southern Oregon and Northern California, where it occurs at 11 widely scattered sites (Rentz and Merriam 2009). On the Lassen National Forest, it is a special interest plant species. Baker cypress has serotinous cones and generally relies upon high-intensity fire to open cones on mature trees and to prepare the seedbed for successful regeneration by exposing bare mineral soil.
Baker cypress occurs across roughly 10 square miles within and adjacent to the Whittington project area on public and private lands (Rentz and Merriam 2009). Within the project area, Baker cypress occurs as a component of both mixed conifer forests and pine plantations. Cypress stands within 88 acres of mixed conifer forest north of Horse Heaven Buttes likely established following high-intensity fire in the early 20th century, with many trees approaching 100 years of age.
Long-term fire suppression has resulted in encroachment and over-topping by other conifer species, and an overall decline in the health of cypress stands. By contrast, cypresses that occur within the 1,865 Cypress Plantation represent the youngest stands of this species across its range (Merriam and Rentz 2009). Most cypress was cleared as the plantation was established in the 1930s, but then a new cohort was able to establish following ground- disturbing activities and prescribed fire used as site preparation for the plantation. Cypress
43 Whittington BE within the plantation currently occur as dense thickets along windrows, and as scattered, individuals representing a range of age classes within a matrix of montane chaparral. Most are young and relatively healthy, though some are overtopped by competing conifers.
B. EFFECTS ON WHITTINGTON AREA HABITAT
1. Habitat in general Areas to be treated are a mix of Sierran mixed conifer, some white fir, cypress, brushfields and grasslands. As can be seen from Table 10, and Tables 5, 6 and 8, most of the conifer habitat in all seral stages would be treated, except for early seral (1-3D) habitat). Studies on fuels treatment projects (Hutto 2006) and the proposed alternatives descriptions indicate operations would reduce habitat for cavity and other snag dependent species by cutting standing dead trees for safety and operational needs. Treatments would also reduce existing large dead/down wood through mechanical timber harvest and prescribed fire. This would be offset by retaining snags that are cut (see last sentence). Shade reduction due to harvest activities would be minimal as harvest activities would not reduce canopy cover by more than 30 percent (see next paragraph). Treatments would not reduce total habitat below 40 percent canopy cover in any stand.
Based on the Whittington Project Soil Report (2012) there is a low level of detrimental residual compaction in the Whittington Project area (3%). The level of detrimental disturbance would be kept within allowable limits (<15% areal extent) using existing BMPS. The proposed activities therefore would have minimal soil compaction allowing for unimpeded tree growth, with fewer new skid trails (hence less vegetation disturbance) and most impacts would be as a result of new road construction.
Stand typing information collected for various projects (North 49, South Station, and Old Station WUI) and stored at the District indicates that standards for large snags greater than 15 inches and down wood greater than 15 inches in the range of 10-15 tons/acre overall are not met on the District, except in areas of insect or fire kill (North 49 Project BE (2007). The Soils report (2012) and silvicultural data retained on the District indicates that snags and dead/down are also deficient in the Whittington area. The retention of new-killed snags (Class1-2 snags) created by some project activities and down wood retention (see Design Features Section) from snags felled for safety and other reasons, would provide snags and dead/down logs for future habitats.
Within the DFPZ, direct effects to habitat consists of removing the lower layers of vegetation (fuel ladder) composed of small trees, reducing the ground fuels, reducing the amount of snags, and opening up stands. The removal of trees providing canopy cover in this treatment would result in a post treatment canopy cover provided by conifers to 40%. As an example 4M, 4D, would become 4M and 4P, 5D would become 5M. Approximately 2540 acres of the project area would be treated as DFPZ in Alternatives 1 and 3. This would cause the removal of all groups of early seral understory conifers that provide habitat for prey and predator alike. Area thin treatments are similar to DFPZs, except they would be interspersed with group selections and conifer leave islands and overall would reduce stand canopy covers to about 50 percent, providing for diversity of CWHR densities and tree sizes. Approximately 600 acres in Alternative 1 would be treated as area thins. About 524 acres are called area thin treatments in Alternative 3, and would reduce canopy cover to 50 percent, without being interspersed with other treatments.
44 Whittington BE
Eighty acres of group selection harvesting would occur in Alternative 1. The major direct effect to habitat is creating gaps or openings within continuous forested stands. These groups would range in size from ½ to 2.5 acres. For the first few years after implementation, these gaps or openings result in early seral herb/grass and seedling shrub types, replaced through planting of larger openings or natural seed establishment into seedling tree stages. These actions would help to replace small groups of early-seral understory conifers that are lost in area thin treatments as noted above.
Table 10 shows the changes in acres in habitat between all three alternatives in the project and analysis areas after completion, and Table 11 compares the treatment results after 20 years.
Table 10 Total Habitat Changes in the Whittington Project Area Between Alternative 1 – 3 Project / Analysis Areas Project Area (Acres) Analysis Area (Acres)
CWHR Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3
Early Seral – Mid Seral Open
Shrub 110 110 110 435 434 435
Early Seral 2817 2871 2758 3236 3177 3122.8 Mid-Seral Open 297 156 271 350 209 324 Mid- Seral Closed
4M Moderate 1790 982 1856 1953 1145 2019
4D Dense 166 1162 213 1804 2797 1847 Mid-Seral 4M-4D Totals 1956 2144 2069 3757 3945 3867
Late Seral Open
SMC 5S Sparse 14 14 14 14 14 14
SMC5P 8 0 0 8 0 0
Late Seral Open 5S-5P 22 14 14 22 14.0 14.0
Late Seral Closed
Moderate 5M, 6M 170 48 148 170 48 148
SMC5, 6D Closed 21 45 21 498 522 498 Late Seral Total: 191 93 169 668 570 646
Total Acres Treated 5393 5388 5391 8468 8461 8463
45 Whittington BE Table 11 – Total Habitat Changes in the Whittington Project Area Between Alternatives 1 – 3 after 20 Years Project / Analysis Areas Project Area (Acres) Analysis Area (Acres) CWHR Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Early Seral – Mid Seral Open Shrub 110 110 110 435 434 435 Early Seral 265 2457 268 684 2877 687 Mid-Seral Open 2758 501 2758 2811 553 2811 Mid-Seral Closed 4M Moderate 1647 428 1678 1810 591 1841 4D Dense 255 1686 298 1893 3321 1933 Mid-Seral Total 1902 2114 1976 3703 3914 3774 Late Seral Open SMC 5S 14 14. 14. 14 14.0 14.0 SMC5P 0 0 0 0 Late-Seral Open Total 14 14. 14. 14 14.0 14.0 Late Seral Closed Moderate 5M, 277 103 134 277 103 134 Dense 5D, 6 65 88 135 542 564 612 Late-Seral Total: 342 191 269 819 668.0 746 Total Acres Treated 5391 5388 5394 8466 8460 8453
2. Other Species Habitats a. Ungulates The habitat in the analysis area is considered by the California Department of Fish and Game to be summer habitat for the Cow Creek Deer Herd. The proposed project would not decrease the forage and would maintain the resiliency of the habitat to fire through fuels treatment in a portion of the area. For analysis of deer habitat (MHC, HWD), see the Management Indicator Species (MIS) report for the Whittington Project. Conifer islands would be left in Alternative 1 and would provide cover and shade and oak enhancement would provide for foraging opportunities. Alternative 3 would retain current oak features but would not provide for oak enhancement. There are a few areas in the Whittington Project that are suitable for fawning, and some of these areas might be affected by area thins in both Alternatives 1 and 3 that remove conifer thickets. b. Impacts to Migratory Bird Species Under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the Forest Service is directed to ―provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives (P.L. 94-588, Sec 6 (g) (3) (B))‖. The January 2000 USDA Forest Service (FS) Landbird Conservation Strategic Plan, was followed by Executive Order 13186 in 2001, and, in addition to the Partners in Flight (PIF) specific habitat Conservation Plans for birds and the January 2004 PIF North American
46 Whittington BE Landbird Conservation Plan, reference goals and objectives for integrating bird conservation into forest management and planning.
In late 2008, a Memorandum of Understanding between the USDA Forest Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds was signed regarding the issue of ―take‖ (mortality of adults, young or eggs). The intent of the MOU is to strengthen migratory bird conservation through enhanced collaboration and cooperation between the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service as well as other federal, state, tribal and local governments. Within the National Forests, conservation of migratory birds focuses on providing a diversity of habitat conditions at multiple spatial scales and ensuring that bird conservation is addressed when planning for land management activities.
In 2002 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service compiled lists of the Birds of Conservation groups.
NABCI Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs): The following bird species were listed to be of conservation concern in the Sierra Nevada province (BCR 15): Peregrine Falcon (within range) Flammulated Owl (detected on District) Spotted Owl (detected on District) (occidentalis ssp. only) Black Swift (no nesting habitat) Rufous Hummingbird (nests further north; incidental migratory sightings) Williamson's Sapsucker (not recorded on district) Tricolored Blackbird (no habitat)
The following species may nest in cavities within the project area. Lewis's Woodpecker (within range; eastside, needs open Ponderosa pine) White-headed Woodpecker (within range) Olive-sided Flycatcher (within range)
Effects Opportunities to promote conservation of migratory birds and their habitats in the project area were considered during development and design of the proposed project (MOU Section C: items 1 and 11 and Section D: items 1, 3, and 4). Likely impacts to habitats and select migratory bird populations resulting from the proposed project have been assessed in detail within the project MIS report and impacts to goshawks and their habitats have been analyzed in this document.
The proposed activities would occur in nesting habitat for the California spotted owl and flammulated owl. Effects of the project activities are analyzed for spotted owl under the Species Account section, below. As Flammulated owl habitat is similar, effects would be similar, except flammulated owls are known to utilize understory small conifer thickets for daytime roosting opportunities. Retention islands would provide for these species under Alternative 1 treatments, but not under alternative 3, which is in essence an understory removal.
The peregrine falcon was analyzed in Tables 1-2 and it was determined that the proposed project would not affect this species.
The project as a whole may impact some individuals that nest in brushy areas and utilize snags for nesting. Green retention islands would provide for a diversity of habitats for birds and other wildlife species. In some cases, such as Williamson’s woodpecker, Lewis’s woodpecker, and
47 Whittington BE Rufous hummingbird, the preferred habitat is open woodland, which proposed project activities would not impact negatively.
The Whittington project would not adversely impact migratory land bird species as a whole or their associated habitats. Potential impacts to migratory species within the project area would be minimized through the adherence of LRMP Standards and Guidelines for snags/down woody debris and the retention of brush areas. Habitat would maintain functional habitat elements (snags, dead/down wood, shrub fields). Vegetation species diversity and composition would be maintained through a variety of treatments.
3. Mid- to Late-Seral Habitat Dependent Wildlife Species Habitat requirements for mid- to late-successional habitat dependent species can be found in California WHR (Zeiner et al, 1990a and b), habitat capability models (Freel, 1991) and in Ruggerio et al (1994) and are further described within the SNFPA EIS (2001). a. Mesocarnivores Approximately 50% of the LNF has been systematically surveyed, by the Pacific Southwest Research Station (PSW), District Biologists/Wildlife Technicians, and Contractors, to protocol (―American Marten, Fisher, Lynx and Wolverine: Survey Methods for Their Detection‖ (Zielinski and Kucera 1995)) for mesocarnivores using track plates and camera stations (LNF GIS database). There have been approximately 6,550 trap-nights of camera and/or track plate work across the Hat Creek Ranger District at 237 locations. In excess of 14,000 additional trap- nights have occurred on the Eagle Lake Ranger District and in excess of 3,200 trap-nights have occurred on the Almanor Ranger District. To date, there have been no fisher or California wolverine detections associated with these survey efforts.
The Whittington wildlife analysis area was surveyed twice for mesocarnivores using camera stations and surveyed to protocol (―American Marten, Fisher, Lynx and Wolverine: Survey Methods for Their Detection‖ (Zielinski and Kucera 1995)) using baited photo stations in 2009- 2010. In addition all areas south of the project area were surveyed in 2002 and 2003 for the North 49 Project. Two target mesocarnivores (Sierra Nevada red fox and marten) were detected in the North 49 analysis Area using these methods.
A small population of Sierra Nevada red fox exists on the Lassen NF primarily located within/adjacent to the Lassen Volcanic National Park (LVNP). Sierra Nevada red foxes have not been detected anywhere else on the Lassen for 10 + years. Based on known detections of Sierra Nevada red fox on the LNF, no changes in Sierra Nevada red fox occupancy or distribution on the LNF would occur as a result of the Whittington project. There have been no sighting reports of this species within or near the wildlife analysis area. As the elevation at the proposed site is below where this subspecies of red foxes are located, this species will not be further discussed.
Wolverines are wide ranging species with very large home ranges. Researchers have generally agreed that wolverine ―habitat is probably best defined in terms of adequate year-round food supplies in large, sparsely inhabited wilderness areas, rather than in terms of particular types of topography or plant associations" (Ruggerio et al 1994). The current wolverine range in California is unknown, largely because it has been over 50 years since verifiable evidence has been collected in California (USDA Forest Service 2001) and incidental sightings are unreliable.
48 Whittington BE The Whittington analysis area is well roaded, has been logged in the last 50 years, receives a high degree of human use, and essentially does not provide ―sparsely inhabited wilderness‖. The wolverine will not be further discussed within this document.
The Pacific fisher has a large home range. The LNF has suitable habitat and could contribute to the population within the Sierra Nevada mountain areas of the District. Numerous systematic surveys using various accepted methodologies, spatially conducted over 50% of the LNF, indicate that the Lassen does not now contribute to the Sierra Nevada populations of this forest carnivore; the species is either non-existent or in such small numbers that the known detection methodologies are inadequate to determine presence. However in 2011, a fisher was detected on a camera in the snow mountain area, approximately five miles west of the project area boundary. Fishers have also been captured on camera 15 miles north of Snow Mountain, 3 miles south of the Pit River. While it is unlikely that fishers are within the project area because of the lack of detections, this species will be analyzed within the context of the presence of mid- late successional habitat within the analysis area of the Whittington project in the Sensitive Species Habitat Account section of this document.
Marten populations have been detected within the Thousand Lakes Wilderness and on the Lassen NF 5 miles south of the proposed project. There is a potential for them to occur within the proposed project area. This species will also be analyzed in the species account section. b. Mid- to Late-Seral Habitat related Birds In addition to mesocarnivores, protocol surveys were also completed for goshawk, California spotted owl and great gray owl from 2009-2011. California spotted owls and northern goshawks were detected during these surveys.
The great gray owl was surveyed for in 2009 according to protocol, with negative results. As habitat is minimal, and no great gray owls have ever been found within 100 miles of this area, this species will not be discussed further.
California spotted owls and northern goshawks utilize mid- to late-successional habitats for both foraging and nesting; the species will be analyzed in more depth in the species accounts section. c. Current Condition Mid- to Late Seral Habitat Table 12 itemizes the total mid to late closed canopy seral habitat currently existing within the Whittington project and ½ mile analysis area. Percentages of habitat in project and analysis areas are shown.
Table 12 – Mid- to Late Seral Habitat Within the Proposed Whittington Project Area % Habitat in Project Area Analysis Area Analysis Area CWHR (Acres) (Acres) Distributed in Project Mid-Seral Closed Canopy 4M 982 1145 85 5M 48 48 100 Total: 1030 1193 86
49 Whittington BE % Habitat in Project Area Analysis Area Analysis Area CWHR (Acres) (Acres) Distributed in Project Late Seral Open Canopy 5S 14 14 100 Mid and Late-Seral Closed Canopy (4D, 5 – 6D) 4D 1162 2797 42 5D 32 205 16 6D 13 316 4 Total: 1207 3318 36 Total Suitable 2251 4526 50
Tables 13-14 show the change in mid-late seral habitat in the project and analysis areas relative to the total acres for each alternative and after 20 years.
Table 13 - Comparison of Suitable Acres for All Alternatives in the Project Area in the Whittington Project Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative 1 1 20 years Alternative CWHR 2 No 2 After 20 3 After After After 3 20 years Action years Treatment Treatment Treatment 4M, 5M, 1960 1924 1030 531 2004 1812 Foraging 4D,5D,6D 187 320 1207 1774 234 433 Denning Total 2147 2244 2237 2305 2238 2245 Suitable
Table 14 – Comparison of Suitable Acres for all Alternatives in the Analysis Area for the Whittington Project Alternative Alternative 1 Analysis Alternative Alternative Alternative 1 – 20 Alternative CWHR Area 2 - 3 – after 3 – 20 years after 2 – 20 After Untreated Treatment years Treatment years treatment 4M, 5M 2123 2087 1193 694 2167 1975 Foraging 4D,5D,6D 2302 2435 3318 3885 2346 2545 Denning Total 4425 2522 4511 2244 4513 4520 Suitable
There is a decrease in late seral closed canopy habitat acres and overall as a result of proposed project activities within both Alternative 1 and 3.
50 Whittington BE Change in acres is relative to the project area because it was modeled using the Forest Service Vegetation Simulator Model (FVS). A vegetation profile and treatment are input into the model and the output shows the possible outcome of vegetation growth in x amount of years. The model and its output are discussed in detail in the Silvicultural Report for the proposed Whittington Project (2012). The analysis acres outside of the project area were not modeled and as a result, the figures for the increase/decrease in habitat in the total area are a conservative estimate, based on analysis area acres outside of the project area remaining constant.
Much of the project area has been treated in the past. Table 15 shows the acres and types of treatments conducted in the past by the District. Also see Appendix 1 for a complete listing.
Table 15 – Past Treatments Conducted in the Whittington Project Area Treatment Acres
Sanitation/Salvage 285
Salvage Harvest Only 472
Commercial Thin/Salvage 237
Mechanical Thin 1,041
Regeneration Harvesting (clearcut) 3
Plantation brush mastication 2,045
Most of the changes in the project area have been in the diameter and density of mid-late seral habitat. Over 50 percent of the Whittington area is comprised of early to mid seral stage plantations with little structural features such as snags and large down wood and vertical diversity.
C. SENSITIVE SPECIES ACCOUNTS
1. Pallid Bat a. Status The pallid bat is listed as USDA Forest Service sensitive species and species of special concern by CDFG. b. Habitat Account Pallid bats are found in a variety of habitats below 6,000' elevation throughout California. Some of the habitats pallid bats use include: grasslands, shrubland, woodlands, and forests from sea level up through mixed conifer forest. In the Lassen National Forest, pallid bats can be associated with oak woodlands, ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, and rock crevice habitats. Tree roosting has been documented in large conifer snags (e.g., ponderosa pine) and boles in oaks (Sherwin 1998).
51 Whittington BE The pallid bat is a roosting habitat generalist that utilizes many different natural and manmade structures (USDA Forest Service 2001). Pallid bats commonly roost under bridges at night, but can also use caves, lava tubes, and mines. Day roosts are more varied and include rock outcrops, tree hollows, buildings, bridges, caves, and mines. Roost temperatures are important and must be below 40 degrees Celsius. Foraging habitat requirements appear to be more restrictive.
The pallid bat is large, as California bats go, weighing as much as one ounce and having a wingspan of 14 or 15 inches. The females are larger than the males. Both sexes have broad wings, big ears, and large eyes. The fur is light yellow on the back and creamy or almost white on the underparts (Hicks 1984). Mating takes place between late October and February. Pallid bats reproduce in nursery colonies of up to several hundred females, but generally fewer than 100. After a period of delayed fertilization, gestation occurs between April and June. They normally have 2 young per year between April and June. The young wean at about 7 weeks of age, generally in mid to late August. Maternity colonies disband between August and October (Sherwin 1998). Male bats may roost with the nursery colony or separately. c. Diet The pallid bat forages close to the ground, preying on large, ground dwelling arthropods such as beetles, scorpions, and Jerusalem crickets. Large moths and grasshoppers are consumed to a lesser degree. Pallid bats appear to forage within edges, open stands, particularly hardwoods, and open areas without trees (page 55 in USDA Forest Service 2001). The pallid bat is unique among bats in that it forages entirely on the ground. It detects its prey by listening for its footsteps and swoops in to capture it. d. Occurrence in Project Area No surveys have been conducted for bats in or near the project areas. There is the assumption that bats are within the project area as most of the area could be considered foraging and there are potential roost sites in the form of protected conifer snags throughout the project and analysis area and large oak snags in the northwest portion of the analysis area. In addition, this is a wide-ranging species, and the project area has roosting and breeding habitat just north of the project boundaries. No potential caves have yet been identified within analysis areas, although there are probably lava tubes associated with Burney Mountain and there are rocky outcrops scattered throughout the area. To date, the only caves that are known are located in the wilderness south of the proposed project area. According to the FEIS (2001a) for the SNFP, the habitat types within the project area represent low – high quality reproductive, cover, and feeding habitat for pallid bats. e. Risk Factors Biological Evaluations for many of the past projects in the LNF were reviewed to help inform this analysis. Review of these documents revealed the following basic information about effects to pallid bats from these activities.
Fuels reduction, hazard tree removal, thinning, and underburning were the proposed activities that were most often represented in the sample of BEs in which the pallid bat was analyzed for fuels treatments.
Relative to ―May Affect‖ projects, the described impacts to pallid bats most often fell in the following categories: Loss of roosting trees/snags Displacement because of smoke from underburning
52 Whittington BE Noise disturbance
Several risk factors were identified for pallid bats in the SNFPA (USDA 2001): (1) removal of hardwoods and subsequent reduction in foraging habitat, (2) thick understory vegetation between the ground and eight feet in height, (3) prey reduction resulting from heavy grazing, (4) renewed exploration or closure of mines, (5) recreational caving, and (6) loss of tree roosting sites.
Effects of Alternative 1 (Proposed Project) and Alternative 3 (Fuels Reduction Only)
Direct Effects
1. Behavioral Impacts Chain saw activity or the use of heavy equipment causing ground vibrations may cause noise and tremor disturbance enough to cause temporary or permanent roost abandonment resulting in lowered reproductive success. These effects would be most severe during the breeding season (May 20 to August 15) when the potential exists for disturbance to active breeding females and maternity colonies. If the species breed in the area, project activities during the breeding season could affect individual bats, including direct mortality as a result of bats abandoning breeding areas and their pups. As the species is ubiquitous and no surveys have been conducted, a limited operating period is not feasible for the species.
Bats may, in general, leave roost sites during the day when logging occurs due to noise disturbance or due to smoke from underburning. This may make them more vulnerable to predation, and uses energy that is needed for foraging.
2. Structural Habitat Impacts The pallid bat tends to be a roosting habitat generalist that utilizes many different natural and manmade structures. Foraging requirements appear to be more restrictive. Because they are insectivores, removal of logs may reduce the amount of microhabitat available for wood boring beetles and other invertebrates that may be utilized as prey. Pallid bats appear to be more prevalent within edges, open stands, particularly hardwoods, and open areas without trees. Therefore management activities that create small openings would be beneficial for foraging.
Immediate effects in the form of the loss of snag roost sites would be expected from the dropping of snags in the construction of two miles of temporary roads and 3.8 miles of permanent ML1 class roads.
Pallid bats may roost in tree hollows or under loose bark in snags, which may be burned when prescribed underburning occurs, or cut down for safety or for operation’s needs. Presently, snags are deficient (less than 3 snags/acre) in the project area, so activities would result in further decrease of roosting and natal habitat. In Alternative 1 and 3 all snags would be retained, except for the above reasons. Small snags less than 15 inches might be removed for fuels reduction (see IDFs under Proposed Action section). Both alternatives would result in a small reduction of snag numbers (see discussion under cumulative effects to fisher) and as a result reduce potential roost trees and foraging opportunities. Snags and down wood would be retained as required under the IDFs for both proposed actions
Pallid bats are especially sensitive to the removal of hardwoods (USDA 2001). Currently, montane hardwoods and montane hardwood conifers within the proposed project area in CWHR size classes 2 and higher are scatted mostly throughout the northern area of the
53 Whittington BE proposed project. The protection and enhancement of such montane oaks are expected to benefit pallid bats by ensuring the continued availability of these kinds of roosting sites. The reduction of hardwoods, both from manual removal and competition from conifers, reduces foraging habitat for pallid bats. In Alternative 1, the proposed action would treat and enhance hardwoods and reduce competition from conifers. Therefore, there should be a beneficial effect to the species roosting habitat resulting from improved hardwood conditions. In addition as these bats prefer to forage around edges, the creation of small openings as a result of Alternative 1 group selections would benefit foraging opportunities for this species. Alternative 3 would avoid hardwoods over 8 inches, but would not target them for treatment, nor would this alternative create openings.
Indirect Effects One of the purposes of Alternatives 1 and 3 is to reduce the severity of fire and restore a fire resilient forest structure. As part of a strategic system of defensible fuel profile zones, this project would reduce the potential for high-severity wildfires, which could eliminate vast tracts of habitat for these species. A smaller fire might open more edges for bat foraging. Therefore, post fire conditions of less intense fire may increase the forage base available to bats.
Prey base for bats (insects and other invertebrates) may have some site-specific short-term reductions post underburning due to direct mortality of eggs, larvae, pupae and adults from fire. However, post fire conditions have been shown, in many instances, to increase plant vigor (Stein et al. 1992) and as a result increase insect habitat. It has also been shown that many herbivore insects preferentially feed on and have increased reproductive success and fitness on more vigorous plants and plant parts, ―the plant vigor hypothesis‖ (Spiegel and Price 1996). An indirect beneficial effect of Alternatives 1 and 3 is the reduction of the threat of wildfire to those snags and down would that would be maintained as part of the proposed action. Therefore effects are similar for both alternatives.
The No Action Alternative would maintain snags at the present level, and over time, as a result of insect mortality, disease, and drought, snags and down wood would be replaced or increase, as the area trends from a mid- to late successional habitat.
Cumulative Effects The area considered in determining the cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities on pallid bats encompasses the watershed (list them) for the proposed project. Since activities under the proposed action would have a small direct and a beneficial indirect effect from proposed management activities within the boundary of the project, there are potential cumulative effects that could result from the past, present and foreseeable actions listed in Appendix 1.
Overall, increases in urbanization, loss of habitat by fire, drought and disease, increases in recreational use of Forest Service system lands, and the utilization of natural resources on state, private and federal lands may contribute to habitat loss for this species. Presently, there are no urban centers within several miles of the project area (see Map 1), so this effect will not be discussed.
The incremental loss of the quantity and/or quality of habitat for this species has been ongoing on both public and private lands as past overstory removal has overall decreased the diameter of trees and the presence of mature trees with roosting hollows. The project area is surrounded by private timber lands with numerous past clearcuts and presently ongoing sales. There would be a small amount of cumulative effects associated with the loss of class 4, 5 and 6 snags
54 Whittington BE (dead and green) in the project area, as most of the private lands no longer have large mature legacy trees.
When a wildfire would occur affecting the Whittington area is not certain. There is a cumulative loss that fire poses to pallid bat habitat throughout its range, especially combined with the loss of roosting trees on private lands. High intensity stand replacement fires, and the firefighting practices (dozer lines, etc.) used by land managers to control them, have contributed and would also continue to contribute to loss of habitat. Construction and strategic placement of DFPZ’s can reduce the threat of large scale habitat altering, stand replacing fires, thus providing some protection to residual habitat attributes like large trees, large snags and down wood across the landscape for bat species use. Alternatives 1 and 3 would be a benefit to all bat species through some protection of the residual habitat attributes.
Cumulative effects discussed in the SNFPA stated that there have been no recent changes in the range or distribution of the pallid bat (USDA 2001). For these reasons, and given the long- term objective for increasing the number of large trees across the landscape, the intention of reducing fuels, and the foregoing discussion of effects, the cumulative effects of vegetation management activities in the Whittington units taken together with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities on the Forest would not result in a loss of viability for the pallid bat.
Determination for Alternatives 1 and 3 for the Pallid Bat
Based on the above information, Alternatives 1 and 3 of the Whittington Project action alternatives may affect individuals, but are not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for the pallid bat because: Upon the potential for the project to remove trees used for roosting, destroy large down woody material used for foraging. Individuals may leave the area because of smoke during underburning activities. There would also be noise disturbance to the bats while logging occurs, which leads to abandonment of roost sites. Short term, there may be a loss of the prey base due to burning, but long-term, there would probably be an increase in the prey base.
Effects of Alternative 2 (No Action)
Direct Effects Under Alternative 2, the current management under the LRMP would continue. There would be no land disturbing activities. There would be no new direct effects to pallid bat.
Indirect Effects Alternative 2 authorizes no new actions. There are no non-wildfire related indirect effects. However, under Alternative 2 if no action is taken and a wildfire occurred in the area, there would be greater risk of the habitat being severely burned because it would be harder to control because of the dense ladder fuels and high surface fuel loading that is currently in the area. . Current LRMP standards include full suppression of wildfire. Full suppression could affect pallid bat habitat through the construction of fire line with the use of mechanical equipment. Because of existing fuel loads, Alternative 2 would require greater ground disturbance and would affect more pallid bat habitat during fire suppression activities than either Alternatives 1 or 3.
55 Whittington BE Trees would still be close together and over time would increase the crown fuels, ladder fuels as well as ground fuels. As a result of the no-action alternative, stands would continue to increase in higher tree density and less growing space; leading to smaller clumped trees.
When a wildfire occurs, the loss of habitat would contribute to the cumulative loss that fire poses to such habitat throughout the National Forest. A large wildfire would likely result in the loss of snags and larger trees with cavities, which would reduce roosting habitat for pallid bats.
With the current LNF woodcutting program, the project area would be open to public woodcutting 12 months a year, limited only by available access. Uncontrolled public use within the areas used by bats, especially during the breeding season (maternity roosts), could cause disturbance that could disrupt and preclude successful recruitment of young.
Cumulative Effects There are no direct effects of the proposed action. Indirectly, in failing to reduce stand density, drought stress and subsequent insect and disease mortality would increase the threat of uncharacteristically severe wildfire. Furthermore, the high probability of increasing stand replacement fire (high severity fire) potentially further compounds these effects. A stand replacing fire, in combination with past activities on private lands would further contribute to the loss of large roosting snags within the two watersheds where the project is located.
Determination for Alternative 2 for the Pallid Bat Based on the above assessment of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, the no-action alternative of the Whittington project would not affect the pallid bat. There would be no direct effects to the pallid bat if Alternative 2 is selected as no fuels treatments would occur and the continued immediate threat of severe wildfire would remain unabated.
2. Pacific Fisher and American Marten a. Species and Habitat Accounts
Pacific Fisher
Status of the Pacific Fisher The USFWS completed an initial 90-day review of a petition submitted by 20 groups seeking to list the Pacific fisher as endangered in Washington, Oregon and California. After reviewing the best available scientific information, the USFWS found that substantial information indicated that listing the pacific fisher as endangered in its West Coast range may be warranted (USFWS news release July 10, 2003)and, after a 12-month status review, the West Coast population of the fisher was designated as a candidate species by USFWS (Federal Register April 8, 2004 Volume 69, #68), but listing under the Endangered species Act was precluded by other, higher priority listing actions.
Habitat Habitat selection by fishers occurs at multiple spatial scales, ranging from microsite conditions to landscape in scope. In the southern Sierra Nevada pacific fisher most often occur at elevations between 4000-8000 feet (Freel 1991, USDA Forest Service 2004). It was once thought that distribution of fisher within California was apparently fragmented into two areas separated by a distance (over 200 miles) that exceeded reported fisher dispersal ability. Methodologies used to detect fisher in numerous survey efforts failed to detect this species in an area between Mount Shasta and Yosemite National Park (Zielinski et al, 1995). Until 2008,
56 Whittington BE there were been no detections or confirmed sightings of fisher within this gap between the southern Cascade Mountains and the Sierra Nevada Mountains. However in the last three years there have been several fisher detections within this area.
Home ranges for male and female fishers average 9,960 ac and 2,456 ac, respectively. The 2004 SNFPA FSEIS ROD identifies large trees, large snags, and large down wood and higher than average canopy closure as habitat attributes important to fisher. CWHR types 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D and 6 are identified as being important to fisher. A vegetated understory and large woody debris appear to be important for their prey species. Preferred fisher forest types include montane hardwood conifer, mixed conifer, Douglas fir, redwood, montane riparian, Jeffrey pine, ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, subalpine conifer, aspen, eastside pine and possibly red fir. The higher elevation forests are less suitable for fishers because of the deep snowpacks (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2004). Table 16 displays the acres of suitable fisher habitat present in the Whittington Project and analysis area.
Size class 4 types, dense stands (60% canopy closure), and the Sierra Mixed Conifer type composed the greatest proportion of home ranges. It was rare for home ranges to have less than 15% Sierran Mixed Conifer, less than 5 percent size class 5, or less than 53 percent of dense stands. It was also rare for home ranges to exceed 3 percent size class 2 types (2.6– 15.2 cm diameter), 10 percent open canopy closure, or 21 percent red fir type (Zielinski et al 2004). Table 16 shows CWHR suitable habitat for marten within the project and analysis areas.
The physical structure of the forest and prey associated with forest structures are thought to be the critical features that explain fisher habitat use. Numerous studies, as referenced in the 2004 SNFPA FSEIS, indicate that canopy closure over 60 percent is important, and fishers preferentially select home ranges to include high proportions of dense forested habitat (see above summation of past habitat preferences). These habitats provide security cover from predators, increase snow interception, lowers the energetic costs of traveling between foraging sites, and preferred prey species may be more abundant and vulnerable (Ibid). Fishers avoid areas with little forest cover or significant human disturbance and prefer large areas of contiguous interior forest (Ibid).
The majority of fisher resting sites are cavities or platforms in live trees or snags, usually above 25 feet (Zielinski, et al 2004). Other rest site structures used by fishers include: hollow logs, fallen trees, canopies of live trees, broken top trees, and platforms formed by mistletoe or large and deformed branches. Trees used for resting were among the largest diameter trees available, including conifers, snags and hardwoods, although fishers seldom use dead oak snags for resting. Most oaks used by fishers are live trees, although dead portions of otherwise healthy trees are important. Standing trees (live black oak) was the most frequent species used in a Sierra study (Zielinski, et al, 2004a). Most den sites are found in live trees. Of 19 tree den sites documented in California, the average diameter was 45-inch dbh for conifers and 25-inch dbh for hardwoods (April 8, 2004 Federal Register).
Maternal dens, where kits are raised, may be in cavities closer to the ground so active kits can avoid injury in the event of a fall from the den (Lewis and Stinson 1998). Most natal dens are in large conifers (white fir in southern Sierra) or oaks (black oak in southern Sierra) at least 25 feet up, and trees may be live or in snag form (SNFPA 2001). Protection of these reproductive sites is essential to prevent degradation of habitats used by reproductive females and to minimize disturbance of females during the reproductive period. Microhabitat features around the den site should reflect structural diversity in the canopy and dense cover
57 Whittington BE Diet Fishers in the Pacific States appear to be dietary generalists and may be flexible in their requirements for foraging habitat (Ibid). Stands supporting a complex of down woody material including large down logs and multi-layered vegetative cover are important in foraging habitat. This high structural diversity is associated with prey species richness and abundance. Shrubs also provide food (fruits and berries) for both prey and for fishers. Fishers can be found where the shrub cover is 40-60%, but fishers can also avoid areas with too much low shrub cover because it may adversely affect their hunting success (Ibid).
Occurrence in Project and Analysis Area Camera detections from 2009-2011 show that there are fishers inhabiting sites south of Mount Shasta and north of Snow Mountain (3 miles west of the proposed project) north to, and past of, the Pit River, into the Chalk Mountain Northern Spotted owl Late Successional Reserve. There are a least 3 verified camera photos of fisher in this area within the last 4 years: Pit3, 4, 5 Carnivore Survey in 2009; located just north of the Pit River a camera detection placed 3 miles south of the Pit River and Goose Project (Goose BE/BA 2010) as a result of sightings by FS personnel Camera survey detection, conducted by California Fish and Game (D. Burton, USFS Wildlife Biologist, pers. Comm. Brett Furnas CDFG Wildlife Biologist) in 2011 at Green Mountain, northeast of the Snow Mountain area, and 3 miles west of the proposed project.
Reintroduction of fisher to the northern Sierra has occurred in Butte County, California on Sierra Pacific Company private lands and has strong support in the scientific and research community. The Pacific Southwest Region Research Station of the Forest Service supports reintroduction and has actively pursued partnerships in this effort as a feature of the SNFPA management strategy (USDA Forest Service 2004).
Risk Factors The loss of structurally complex forest, the loss and fragmentation of suitable habitat by roads and elimination of late-successional forest from large portions of the Sierra Nevada and Pacific Northwest has probably significantly diminished the fisher’s historical range on the west coast (USFWS 2004). Habitat fragmentation has contributed to the decline of fisher populations because they have limited dispersal distances and are reluctant to cross open areas to re- colonize historical habitat. Factors identified in the range reduction of fisher include a combination of legal trapping in the first half of the 20th century and occasional incidental trapping since 1954, timber harvest and associated road building, development of trans-Sierran highways, increased recreational use of the Sierra Nevada and porcupine poisoning campaigns conducted during the 1950’s and 1960s.
Biological Evaluations for many of the past projects in the LNF were reviewed to help inform this analysis. Review of these documents revealed the following basic information about effects to fisher from these activities.
Fuels reduction, road construction, hazard tree removal, thinning, and underburning were the proposed activities that were most often represented in the sample of BEs in which the species was analyzed for fuels treatments management.
Relative to ―May Affect‖ fuels related projects, the described impacts to the fisher most often fell in the following categories:
58 Whittington BE Loss of resting/natal denning trees, snags and down logs for foraging and denning Displacement because of smoke from underburning Noise disturbance Reduction in canopy cover Reduction in understory cover (hiding cover)
Risk factors outside the control of the Forest Service include rural or recreational development that may fragment habitat, increases in non-Forest Service road density and traffic levels, and increases in human access to fisher habitat. Non-habitat based risk factors outside the control of the Forest Service include disease (rabies, distemper) and climate change (USDA 2001).
American Marten
Status In most western States and Canadian Provinces where it occurs, the marten is managed as a furbearer. Although the marten is classified as a furbearer in California, there has been no open trapping season for marten in California since 1954; cessation of trapping coincided with a period when timber harvest and human population in California were dramatically increasing (USDA 2001). Trapping however is allowed for other species, and marten would be vulnerable to these traps. The marten is managed in Region 5 of the USFS as a sensitive species and is also a management indicator species.
Habitat Habitat selection occurs at multiple spatial scales, ranging from microsite conditions (resting, denning) to landscape configuration (foraging). The preferred habitat for marten includes mature red fir, red/white fir mix, lodgepole pine, and Sierran mixed conifer. Although other habitat includes montane hardwood-conifer, Douglas fir, montane riparian, Jeffrey pine, ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, and subalpine conifer, aspen and possibly red fir, mixed conifer is the preferred habitat of marten in the Sierra Nevada (Freel 1991). Radio telemetry studies in the southern Sierra Nevada found marten most often in mixed conifer and true fir habitats while fisher were found in montane hardwood and mixed hardwood/conifer habitats more than martens (Zielinski et al 2004, 2004a and 2004b).
Resting and denning habitats are the most restrictive requirement for martens. High canopy cover (greater than 60 percent) and large trees and snags are important components in marten habitat. Trees, down logs, and snags used as rest sites are typically among the largest available, often >35 in diameter at breast height (dbh) (Ibid).
In the winter, logs provide martens with access to subnivean (under snow) areas for foraging and resting (Ruggiero, et al. 1994). Selection of den sites may depend on ambient air temperatures. Subnivean (below the snow surface) sites and logs used as winter dens may reduce thermo-regulatory stress. Subnivean structures utilized by martens are created by coarse down wood debris.
Martens use riparian areas extensively. Marten prefer riparian lodgepole pine associations and meadows for foraging (Spencer et al. 1983). Using CWHR classification, suitable marten/fisher habitat includes the 4M, 4D, 5M, and 5D CWHR size and canopy classes; marten may also utilize the 3S and 3P CWHR size and canopy classes (USDA Forest Service 2006), although this would only be for dispersal and occasional foraging as marten are vulnerable to predation
59 Whittington BE because of a lack of canopy cover (see next paragraph). Table 16 displays marten habitat within the project and analysis area.
Martens have home ranges that average 1,413 ac (572 ha) and 877 ac (355 ha) for males and females, respectively. Despite requiring large home ranges, the marten remains well-distributed throughout its current range in the Sierra Nevada (Zielinski et al. 2005), which continues to resemble its historical range.
Diet Douglas squirrels (Tamias ciurus douglasi) are an important prey species for marten. Conifer seeds and fungi are the primary food source of Douglas squirrels (Spencer et al 1983).
Occurrence in Project and Analysis Area Marten typically are found at elevations between 4,000 – 10,000 foot elevations (Buskirk and Powell 1994), which is within the Whittington project area (4200-5600 foot elevation), thus this area would be expected to be used by martens for sustained, long-term use, as well as for dispersal and foraging.
Risk Factors Forest Data from the SNFPA (USDA 2001) identified habitat risk factors for this species include: (1) removal of overhead cover, large diameter trees, and coarse woody debris, (2) conversion of mesic to xeric sites, (3) grazing, and (4) fire suppression.
Low quality marten habitat is characterized by 40 percent canopy closure and by single or multi- storied timbered stands. Moderate quality habitat is characterized by single or multi-storied timbered stands with 41-70 percent canopy closure, and high quality habitat has greater than 70 percent canopy closure. The latter two usually have a high number of large snags (2-3 per acre) and down logs (Freel 1991). Marten often occur at elevations of approximately 4,000 to 13,000 feet with an average of 8,300 feet. This habitat preference puts the marten mostly outside the area of the proposed project area for denning; however, it is possible that they may forage and den at the lower altitudes in the area.
See Table 17 and 18 for the Existing Condition and modeled 20 years later if proposed actions did not occur within the Whittington project area.
Habitat risk factors according to the SNFP FEIS include: Conversion of mesic to xeric sites; Removal of large diameter trees, snags and coarse woody down debris Grazing and fire suppression in meadow habitats where foraging occurs; Use of roads
Non Habitat Risk factors include: Road and recreational development Climate change Of the above risk factors, grazing will not be discussed as there is none occurring within the project area.
Relative to ―May Affect‖ projects, the described impacts to marten most often fell in the following categories: Temporary disturbances
60 Whittington BE Foraging area may be burned if underburning gets out of control Removed hazard trees could serve as resting or denning sites Habitat altered or removed Reduction of habitat quality (e.g., reduction in canopy cover) Habitat would be entered Noise disturbance
Effects of Alternatives 1 (Proposed Action) and Alternative 3 (Fuels Reduction only) Table 16 displays the acres of suitable marten and fisher habitat present in the Wildlife Project and Analysis Area.
Table 16 – Mid- to Late Seral Fisher and Marten Habitat Within the Proposed Whittington Project and Analysis Area % Habitat CWHR Project Area Analysis Area Distributed in project Foraging Habitat Mid-Seral Closed Canopy (4M, 5M) (Acres)
4M, 5M 1030 1193 86 Denning and Reproductive habitat Mid and Late-Seral Closed Canopy (4D, 5D – 6) (acres) 4D, 5D 6 1207 3319 36
Total Suitable 2237 4512 50 CWHR: 4=small 11-24"dbh, 5=medium/large >24"dbh, 6=multilayer tree >24 inches D= Dense Canopy Cover > 60%, M= Moderate Canopy 40-59%.
Very little is known about the effects of management activities on important fisher and marten prey species, and foraging behavior. Information about reproductive site characteristics for these species, including their requirements for den trees and denning habitat at multiple spatial scales is also lacking (Martin 1987). As a result, foraging and denning habitat analysis is based on the California Wildlife Habitat Relations (CWHR, see Table 5 and Table 16) model for the classification of vegetation. The CWHR model for vegetation composition unfortunately generally fails to account for different spatial and temporal scales at which species may respond to forest conditions and doesn’t assess habitat features other than large trees, density, and canopy cover.
Direct effects Possible vegetation management activities consist of modification or removal of habitat or habitat components, especially in regards to denning/resting habitat and secondarily, foraging/travel habitat. Additional direct effects include possible behavioral disturbance to denning from logging, road-building, or other associated activities (USDA Forest Service 2001).
1. Behavioral Impacts Chain saw activity or the use of heavy equipment causing ground vibrations may cause noise and tremor disturbance significant enough to cause temporary or permanent den abandonment resulting in lowered reproductive success. These effects would be most severe during the breeding season (March1 – June 30) when the potential exists for disturbance to active
61 Whittington BE breeding females and their natal and older kits. Presently, there are no known denning or natal sites known for either species in the analysis area.
Roads may cause behavioral changes in that fishers are highly reluctant to cross open spaces. This may affect not only foraging of individuals but also dispersal of juveniles, as roads could be a barrier to dispersal.
Because the species found in both fisher and marten diets occur in a wide variety of habitats, the alternatives would have differential effects on prey species. However, when viewed as a whole, negative effects to the suite of species would be negligible under all alternatives, and there may be some benefits associated with increased habitat complexity. Habitat adequate for foraging fishers and martens is conserved (Table 19).
2. Acre Changes (Tables 17 - 20)
Table 17 – Total Habitat Changes in the Whittington Project Area Between Alternatives 1 – 3 after Implementation for Marten and Fisher Project / Analysis Areas Project Area (Acres) Analysis Area (Acres) CWHR Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Foraging Only 4M, 5M Mid-Seral Total 1950 1030 1994 2113 1193 2157 Denning/Foraging 4D, 5D, 6D Late-Seral Total: 197 1207 244 2312 3319 2356 Total Acres Treated 2147 2237 2238 4425 4512 4513
Table 18 – Comparison of Alternative 1 vs Alternative 2 and 3 for Suitable Habitat (in terms of total acres and Percent Change) for the Analysis Area Change in Change in Acres Post post Current Acres Alt 2/Alt 1 Alt2/Alt 3 CWHR Treatment treatment (Alt 2) (Alt 1) %Change (ratio of (Alt 3) %Change Change)* (Ratio of change)* 4,5,6 M +930 +974 1193 2123 2167 (foraging) +78% (178%) +82 % (182%) 4,5,6 D -1017 -973 (denning, 3319 2302 -31% (69% 2346 -29% (70% resting) remaining) remaining)
For all Percentage Tables: percentage is a fraction or ratio expressed as part of 100. Percentage change is that action over time, long term, or short. Percentage change from one number to another number is determined by dividing the difference of the two numbers by the original number. There are two types of change, increase (+) and decrease (-).
62 Whittington BE Table 19 – Total Habitat Changes in the Whittington Project Area Between Alternatives 1 – 3 after 20 Years for Marten and Fisher Project / Analysis Areas Project Area (Acres) Analysis Area (Acres) CWHR Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Foraging Only 4M, 5M 6M Mid-Seral Total 1914 531 1802 2077 694 1965 Denning/Foraging 4D, 5D, 6D Late-Seral Total: 330 1774 443 2445 3885 2555 Total Acres Treated 2244 2305 2245 4422 4579 4520
Table 20 – Comparison of Alternative 1 vs Alternative 2 and 3 on Suitable Habitat (in terms of total acres and Percent Change) after 20 Years within the Whittington Analysis Area Change in Acres Alternative 3 Change in Acres No Alternative 1 Alt 2/Alt 1 Fuels Only Alt 3/Alt 1 CWHR treatment Post-treatment Treatment 20 20 years 20 years %Change (Ratio %Change (Ratio years of Change)* of Change)* +1383 +1272 4,5, 6 M 694 2077 +200% (300% 1965 +183 (284% habitat increase) habitat increase) -1440 -1330 4, 5, 6 3885 2445 2555 D -37 (62% habitat -35 (65% of remains) habitat remains) *current condition change
In Alternative 1 foraging-only habitat (4M) in the wildlife analysis area would increase from 1193 acres (Alternative 2) to 2,113 acres, a total of 920 acres after treatment (an 82 percent increase after treatment). Alternative 3 treatments would increase foraging-only habitat from 1193 acres to 2,157 resulting in an addition of 964 acres (an 81 percent increase after treatment). Alternatives 1 and 3 would have similar effects on suitable foraging habitat; that is there would be an increase in foraging acres. The difference between the two treatments is negligible.
Of the 1030 acres of foraging-only habitat in the project area, there are 86 acres of mid- to late- seral habitat with moderate canopy (4M, 5M) habitat (eight percent of the total habitat treated in the project ; almost all as 4M) that are within project area plantations. This area is only minimally suitable for foraging as there is little cover for marten and fisher and their prey species. If these acres are considered marginal to unsuitable then the actual suitable foraging habitat increase would be 834 acres for Alternative 1 and 878 acres for Alternative 3
Under Alternative 1, denning/foraging habitat (4D, 5D, and 6 or dense canopied habitat) in the analysis area would decrease from 3,319 to 2,312 acres, a decrease of 1,007 acres (30 percent decrease of mid- to late-seral dense habitat). Under Alternative 3, denning/foraging habitat (4D, 5D, and 6 or dense canopied habitat) in the analysis area would decrease from 3,319 to 2,356 acres, a decrease of 963 acres (29 percent decrease of mid- to late-seral dense habitat). There
63 Whittington BE is only a one percent difference in the change of denning acres, so the effects of Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 are similar, and the difference in these effects would be negligible.
For both alternatives, of 3,319 acres of denning/foraging habitat in the analysis area, 343 acres are plantation acres which are structurally unsuitable for denning because of lack of structurally complex trees with hollows, large snags and dead down wood. All of these acres are inside the project area and would be treated. There are 1207 acres inside the project area, so approximately 28 percent of the project area is comprised of marginal to unsuitable 4D stands because of the lack of structural complexity. If these acres are considered unsuitable then the actual suitable foraging habitat decrease would be 664 acres for Alternative 1 and 620 acres for Alternative 3. Both Alternatives 1 and 3 would reduce denning habitat, but overall the project area would remain suitable for foraging and within the analysis area denning habitat remains.
Most of the project area does not contain suitable denning habitat because most located within plantations (approximately 60 percent). The analysis area remains suitable for denning.
After 20 years for Alternative 1 treatment, some of the foraging only habitat in the project area would grow into late seral habitat (197 acres to 330 acres in the project area). This would leave the area with a net increase over time of 133 acres of denning/foraging habitat since Alternative 1 treatment of the project area. This is still a decrease of 887 acres of mid to late-seral acres, of which there were 1207 acres in the original project area, and after 20 years Alternative 2 would have grown out to 1774 acres of denning/foraging habitat. The total acres cumulatively would be 1444 acres of denning/foraging habitat less than if the area had not been treated under Alternative 1. However, the new mid-seral, dense canopy (4D) denning and nesting acres would be more structurally complex as the area grows into this habitat over time (20 years) in the project area
After 20 years for Alternative 3 treatment, there would be 443 acres of denning/foraging habitat, an increase of 199 acres from the time of treatment. This is a cumulative loss of 764 acres of denning/foraging habitat, over time, since there were 1,207 acres in the original project area. After 20 years Alternative 2 would have grown out to 1,774 acres of denning/foraging habitat. The total acres cumulatively for Alternative 3 would be 1,331 acres of denning/foraging habitat less than if the area had not been treated. The structure of the forest would not be as diverse as for Alternative 1, as there are no diversity treatments.
Table 21 – Total changes of suitable Habitat Acres between Alternative 2 (after Treatment and after 20 years) Alternatives 1 – 3 within the Whittington Analysis Area Alt 1 after Alt 2 Alt 2 after Alt3 after CWHR Alt 1 Alt 3 20 years Untreated 20 years 20 years Total Suitable 4425 4522 4511 4579 4513 4520 4M-4D; 5M-6
Percent Change +0.3% -1% 0% -0.24% +0.1 +0.2
This action removes denning habitat. The overall effect of the management is to create greater forest heterogeneity and move the forest into a greater ecological resiliency. The loss of denning habitat must be weighed against the maintenance of a habitat that is better capable of sustaining low intensity wildfire, as well as surviving other threats from insects, disease, and
64 Whittington BE drought. If fuels are not reduced, denning habitat could be lost within the next few years as a result of severe stand changing fire.
For total suitable habitat for Alternative 1 there is a 1 percent decrease over 20 years and for Alternative 3 there is a 0.2 percent gain (Table 21). In both cases the difference in total suitable habitat between these two alternatives and the no action alternative is negligible.
Both alternatives over 20 years would have a net loss of mid to late-seral habitat compared to the ―No Action‖ alternative. After 20 years, modeling shows that habitat would progress into 1774 acres of this habitat, an overall increase of 567 acre, versus a loss of 887 acres for Alternative 1 and 774 acres for Alternative 2. The effective loss of overall late-seral habitat would be similar for both alternatives.
3. Structural Changes Various treatments, especially the creation of isolated conifer groups and road construction could increase the edge to interior ratio of forest land; that is the stand provides less continuous forest cover and interior habitat and becomes a stand of multiple edges, beneficial to species that prefer edges to the detriment of forest interior species (Harris, 1984; Forest Fragmentation website). Overall the proposed actions would decrease closed canopy species habitat suitability for reproductive and resting activities.
Edge effects on both the microclimate and on wildlife can extend into the forested patches beyond what is actually created by the group (Harris, 1984; Hunter, 1990; Forest Fragmentation website). Fisher and marten may be negatively affected by management practices that fragment larger patches of habitat into smaller patches with numerous edges (i.e. 5+ acre clearcuts). Marten are more sensitive to the creation of openings than fisher. Some of the continuous forested area would be subjected to skid trails, DFPZ, group treatments and Area Thinning treatments in both alternatives, reducing the amount of continuous forest cover. There are no openings that are planned in groups of that size. These activities, however, would create a mosaic of forest that may be suitable for fishers that forage in varied habitats. This effect would be less noticeable in Alternative 3 as there would be no group treatments.
Snags and logs are important habitat elements for forest carnivores and their prey and are used for cover and denning as well as foraging. High densities of snags and down logs are unfavorable for fuels management. Larger snags and logs provide more habitats per piece and last longer (Ruggiero et al 1994). The LRMP as amended provides guidelines which calls for the retention of 4 snags per acre over 15"dbh and maintaining between three large down logs per acre (eastside) or 10-15 tons of large downed woody material per acre which means a portion of this structural habitat component would be retained. Both Alternatives 1 and 3 would maintain at least 4 large snags/acre where available as prescribed. Alternative 2 would retain all structural elements of the habitat, but would remain at risk of severe fire (see Fuels and Silvicultural Reports 2012).
All hardwoods over 8 inches would be retained and some would be enhanced by clearing around large mature oaks, providing future resting and denning sites. Alternative 1 would enhance oak areas and reduce conifer competition. Alternative 3 would have no oak enhancement activities although all oaks over 8 inches would be retained. Black oaks require openings for regeneration (McDonald 1990), so the creation of small openings around mature productive trees would aid establishment of young trees needed to replace dying oaks.
65 Whittington BE Other changes to suitable habitat as a result of implementing Alternative 1 and 3 DFPZ treatments would occur due to the removal of vertical layering components and reduction in canopy cover to below 50%. DFPZ treatments would bring canopy cover down to 40%, with little structural variation in canopy cover, the minimum to be classified as ―M‖, therefore the minimum to be considered foraging habitat. The removal of other important habitat components such as snags and down wood, as well as shrub species, diminish habitat value and render it unsuitable for extensive for denning and resting habitat and increases the vulnerability of fishers to predators during foraging. There may also be some additional risk associated with isolated torching events during prescribed fire that could kill additional trees thus further opening up the canopy, and reducing suitable habitat. However, creating snags could also have the opposite effect, providing resting and denning structures as the habitat returns to a more suitable canopy cover, long term.
Area thin treatments outside DFPZs in Alternative 1 would retain the minimum canopy cover (about 50 percent) for suitable habitat as well as some of the needed structural components (snags, vertical and horizontal layering, down woody debris, etc.). However, these treatments would result in a decrease in habitat value with some decrease of these habitat components (woody down, snags, dense understory). In Alternative 1, structural habitat retention would be accomplished through dense retention islands, open growing large overstory trees (large tree radial thin), moderately dense stand and open group selections of young regeneration stands. This action would not occur in Alternative 3 and some habitat variability would be lost as a result of ―thin from below‖ treatments.
With the action alternatives no trees over 30‖ dbh would be removed, Some conifers would be retained possessing one or more of the following characteristics that are of value for wildlife: large limbs extending into the openings and meadows; mistletoe brooms higher than 20’ from the ground; multiple tops; bole sweep; broken tops; heart rot.
Alternative 1 would both increase fisher habitat in the project area and provide for a more resilient forest structure, although it would not provide as much denning habitat if the area were not treated. This alternative would protect fisher habitat through their provisions for retaining and recruiting large trees, snags and coarse woody debris; providing habitat diversity; retaining forest structure in the canopy; and promoting hardwoods on conifer sites.
This alternative would protect fisher habitat through their provisions for retaining and recruiting large trees, snags and coarse woody debris; providing habitat diversity; retaining forest structure in the canopy; and promoting hardwoods on conifer sites.
4. Road Densities mid-late seral habitat Open roads and improperly closed roads adversely affect fisher and marten (Zielinski et.al 2008; Reed 2007) by: allowing access to areas and cause disturbance to these animals from human intrusion and removal of snags and downed logs through wood gathering activities; increasing vehicle/animal encounters resulting in roadkill; fragmenting habitat and affect the ability of animals to use otherwise suitable habitat on opposing sides of the road (behavioral barriers to movement) The presence of vehicles and humans, can cause wildlife to modify their behavior in the vicinity of roads;
66 Whittington BE There may be a threshold value for road density (miles of open road per square mile) above which the habitat cannot sustain certain wildlife species but studies specifically addressing these effects on marten or fisher have not yet been addressed (USDA Forest Service 2001). Early habitat models (Freel, 1991) indicated that to provide high habitat capability for marten, open road densities should be less than 1mile/square mile, while 1-2 miles/square mile provided moderate habitat capability; more than 2 miles was providing low-no habitat capability. Models indicate that open road densities should be less for fisher.
The current road density within the project and Wildlife Analysis Area is presently less than 1.0 miles of open road per square mile. Both action alternatives call for the decommissioning of 0.8 miles of existing ML 1 system road and removal of 2.8 miles of non-system road. About 3.4 miles of non-system road would be added to the system but closed to the public (Table 22). In addition another 2.7 miles of unauthorized road would be added to the transportation system (ML 2) and would be open to the public. One mile of new temporary road would be constructed, which would be closed at project completion. In addition 3.8 miles of ML 1 road would be constructed through plantation areas
Table 22 shows an overall increase in ML 2 roads (1 mile) within the project area, and an overall increase of 8.3 miles of ML 1 roads. Addition of the 8.3 miles of ML 1 road would have little effect on fisher, as these roads would be closed to the public and only used occasionally for plantation maintenance, so their major impact would be in the form of exposure to predation in an open area. In addition almost all but 0.7 miles of road added are not located in suitable fisher habitat, and this 0.7 miles is in the form of an ML 1 road (closed to the public). Of more concern is the 0.6 miles added to the system in the form of ML 2 roads (open to the public) that are located within suitable habitat, as this could cause additional human impacts in the form of woodcutting, and disturbance at potential den sites. Decommissioning of 2.8 miles of usable non-system road would reduce use overall, partially compensating for the above impacts.
Table 22 – Whittington Project Reduction/Addition of Roads to FS System Road Treatment Miles 3.6; 0.8 existing decommission Decommission and Rehabilitate 2.8 non-sys decommission New Permanent Road Construction (ML 1) 3.8 ML 1 Unauthorized Routes Added to System, Closed 3.4 ML 1 to Motor Vehicles (ML 1) 1.7 + 7.4 - 0.8 = total of 8.3 Reduce Maintenance Level (ML 2 to ML 1) miles of ML 1 roads added to system Non-System/Unauthorized Routes Added to 2.7 – 1.7 = 1 mile of ML 2 road System, Open to the Public (ML 2) added to the FS system Acquire Legal Access 0.5 Temporary Road Construction 2.0
The above changes in road usage would only slightly impact fishers and marten which utilize mid to late successional habitat, as added roads except 0.6 miles are primarily in early successional areas such as plantations, and deletions are in areas of mid-late successional
67 Whittington BE forested area, except 0.7 miles (Map 4) that are located in plantations. Overall road density would remain a less than one mile of open road per square mile.
Of the three Alternatives, Alternatives 1 and 3 would reduce road densities as road closures would exceed roaded areas open to the public. In Alternative 2 numerous unauthorized roads would remain and probably would be used for recreational purposes.
Indirect effects Results are prelimary as to how some of the important prey species preferred by marten and fisher (small mammals, birds) would respond to group selection harvest units. There have been several short term studies completed but few long term monitoring efforts have occurred.
For birds, the first-cutting cycle of a group-selection timber harvest creates patches of early successional habitat that are similar to the small openings created most frequently by natural disturbance. These patches provide ephemeral habitat for early successional species and have little effect on the abundances of mature closed-canopy bird species (Campbell et. al. 2007), unless late-seral habitat is removed in tandem with this treatment. So there might be a change in the species of bird, and it would likely be more difficult to hunt in an early successional environment which marten and fisher avoid.
For mammals and birds, In general, arboreal species associated with closed forest canopies decline following crown fires, and species associated with open forest conditions and snags increase (Hutto 1995, Pilliod et al. 2006). Terrestrial species dependent on shrub and herb understories for food and cover (e.g., small mammals) generally benefit from increased diversity of understories following fire, although species associated with woody debris may decrease in the short term until new down wood is recruited (Pilliod et al. 2006).
The increased diversity and edges created by small groups vs clear cut areas within forested stands may provide increased foraging opportunities for fisher, as they will hunt close to, but not in, edges. Marten especially will not enter open spaces, as they become vulnerable to predation because of their size. Tree thinning practices proposed for all action alternatives are not expected to significantly change mesic sites to xeric sites and hence will not have a negative effect on prey.
One of the major purposes of the proposed project is to reduce forest fuel buildup that accumulates without the historic fire frequency of 15-20 years for the area. If a wildfire were to occur in the project area following the implementation of the proposed action, there would be less of an impact on habitat than if a fire were to occur without implementation of this alternative (refer to the Fire and Fuels Management Specialist report for further details).
Cumulative effects The existing condition reflects the changes of all activities that have occurred in the past. The analysis of cumulative effects of the action alternatives evaluates the impact on TES wildlife from the existing condition within the wildlife analysis area and for dispersal purposes the watershed level is used. There is a great deal of uncertainty around predicting impacts on marten and fisher habitat, particularly cumulative effects. This is largely because knowledge of how habitat change influences survival and reproduction is limited, and because it is not yet understood what the importance of landscape heterogeneity is to these species (USDA 2012). However, management that decreases dense canopy structure, dead and down, (late-seral) etc. in the past, present, and future would have an impact overall as to whether these species can move into, and thrive within, an area.
68 Whittington BE
Broad-scale habitat connectivity is critical to population viability for species with specialized habitat preferences and limited dispersal abilities, such as the American marten. Their habitat specialization, dispersal strategy, and small populations with limited distributions make them particularly vulnerable to habitat loss and fragmentation (Kirk and Zielinski 2010).
Cumulative effects on marten and fisher occurs because of an incremental reduction of the quantity and/or quality of habitat for this species and increasing fragmentation between suitable habitat areas. Overall, increases in recreational use of Forest Service system lands, and the utilization of natural resources on state, private and federal lands contributes to habitat loss. High intensity stand replacement fires, and the firefighting practices (dozer lines, etc.) used by land managers to control them, have contributed and would continue to contribute to loss of habitat for these species.
The greatest concern for Pacific fishers in the Sierra Nevada range and for other species that utilize late-successional habitat is the risk of further fragmentation due to large stand replacing fire (Miller and Urban 1999; Truex and Zielinski 2005; 2008). Interactions between climate and fire generate further changes in projected vegetation (see Safford et al. this volume). Climate- driven changes in fire regimes are projected to include increases in fire frequency, area, and intensity (Flannigan et al. 2000). Changes in fire regimes are expected to result in loss of late- seral habitat, increasing the probability of local extinction of species—such as fishers and martens—associated with these habitats (McKenzie et al. 2004). Decreases in the density of large conifer and hardwood trees and canopy cover are projected as fire severity increases. As these factors are closely related to fisher rest site and home range use in the southern Sierra Nevada (Zielinski et al. 2004, 2005), the expectation is for an overall decrease in the availability of fisher and marten habitat. As a result in an effort to reduce fire hazards, management practices have occurred that reduce habitat suitability for marten and fisher.
The primary functions of DFPZs are to provide safety zones for firefighters and to reduce the potential for large stand replacing fires. They are not designed to maintain habitat in an ideal condition. As a result, the Whittington project Action Alternatives potentially contribute to a cumulative reduction in suitable fisher and marten habitat over a 20 year period. If fuels treatments (i.e. DFPZs) are maintained at the original treatment levels, this habitat would be permanently lost, as understory vegetation treatments would exclude hiding habitat for both species and their prey. These various reductions in habitat would restrict future fisher and marten movements to late-succession habitat and occupancy within the Wildlife Analysis Area, to PACs and SOHAs. Presently there is the existence of a network of SOPACs, SOHAs (soon to be HRCAs), and gPACs that maintain habitat connectivity across the Forest north to south from Lassen Volcanic National Park to Burney Mountain (Map 3). As a result the habitat connectivity in a north south direction at these sites would be maintained.
The incremental loss of the quantity and/or quality of habitat for this species is ongoing on both public and private lands within the watersheds where the project would occur. Past overstory removal has overall decreased the dbh of trees and the presence of mature trees with denning hollows, resting sites, and natal den sites, which are critical to the species presence. The project area is surrounded by private timber lands with numerous past clearcuts and presently ongoing sales. As a result of project activities for both alternatives 1 and 3 there would be cumulative effects associated with the loss of class 4, 5 and 6D denning habitat, snags, (dead and green) in the project area, as most of the private lands no longer have large mature legacy trees, late-seral habitat, and mature forest structure.
69 Whittington BE East and west movement of fisher to and from the analysis area is presently constrained by patches of natural unsuitable habitat (lava fields, brushfields) and private property that has been extensively logged. The proposed project may incrementally add to this fragmentation as DFPZ treatments are located directly west of the network of wildlife management areas. As a result of past forest fires and private logging activities, there is a lack of suitable dispersal habitat running approximately 10 miles north from Snow Mountain, and 3 miles east to the project boundaries. Presently the one sighting of fisher within 3 miles is within a fragmented patch of FS land to the west of the project (Snow Mountain), surrounded by private lands that are mostly unsuitable as a result of logging activities.
Additional past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities are outlined in Appendix 1. Some of the roadside hazard tree removal and recreation activities may cause disturbance to fisher and marten that may be in the area but not have significant changes in their habitat.
Marten Given the marten’s continued occupancy of a range similar to its historical distribution, the small percentage of suitable habitat being affected (compared to what is available in the watershed), the retention of the inherent structure of the forest, the intention of reducing fuels, and the discussion of cumulative effects, the alternative, although not without risk, is not likely to result in a loss of viability for the marten. American martens typically have a large home range size; averaging about 1 square mile (males average 807 acres, or 1.26 square miles, and females average 254 acres, or 0.40 square miles (USDA 2001). Both alternatives would retain minimal home range size habitat patches in the wildlife analysis area suitable for marten.
Fisher Fishers were reintroduced into northern California in 2009; however it would probably be several years after reintroduction before available habitats would become fully occupied (SNFPA FEIS 2001 Chapter 3, part 4.4, page 4).
Based on the home range and stand size reported in the April 8, 2004 Federal Register, it appears as if the Whittington Wildlife Analysis Area supports blocks of contiguous suitable habitat (Map 3). The fisher requires approximately 60 percent canopy cover over approximately 53 – 84 percent of their home range area (FSEIS 2004). Rest areas must have at least 0.1 acre of high canopied habitat, although surrounding areas may be less (ibid). Based on studies of home range sizes referenced in the above-mentioned Federal Register and the FSEIS 2004, estimates of potentially suitable and contiguous habitat that must be present before an area can sustain a population of fishers are approximately 3,900 acres for females and 11,000 acres for males in California.
Based on the vegetation layer and GIS, it appears as if the Whittington project analysis area is slightly short of the acreage figures for males, but within the range for females under existing conditions (approximately 4500 acres of 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D habitats scattered in the wildlife analysis area with most contained within PACs and SOHAs). Additional patchy habitat occurs within 5 miles to the south and east of the proposed project where Habitat Management Areas (HMAs) were once designated. Thus the project area and especially the wildlife analysis area may support habitat attributes needed to contribute to the potential for recovery of the species in this area of the LNF.
70 Whittington BE
Determination Alternatives 1 and 3 for the Fisher and Marten
It is my determination that the Whittington Project may affect the habitat of, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for Pacific fisher; and American marten, because of the following:
Retention of all > 30 inch dbh trees and preserving structural components of National Forest lands within the Wildlife Analysis Area would mitigate effects Creation of a network of fuel reduction areas are designed to reduce the loss of habitat due to wildfire. The proposed alternatives would not create ―xeric‖ sites Fisher and marten are not know to presently utilize the project area There is a potential decrease in late-successional denning habitat by about 30 percent in Alternatives 1 and 3, retaining 70% of the existing suitable denning habitat within the Wildlife Analysis Area. However there would be an increase in mid-successional 4M habitat that would be suitable for foraging. Overall the amount of suitable foraging and denning habitat would remain the sale for both fisher and marten, taking into account both D and M habitats. Road densities would remain constant, having no effect on fisher and marten, because new roads would only be built in plantation areas and overall road density remains the same. Implementation of the action involves a level of risk of fragmentation, limiting dispersal opportunities for fisher to occupy the area, as a result of private logging and large fires to the east and north of the proposed project, as well as the presence of naturally occurring unsuitable habitat to the north of the Whittington area.
Effects of Alternative 2 (No Action)
Direct Effects Alternative 2 authorizes no new actions. All previously approved management activities would continue to be implemented. There would be no new direct effects to the Pacific Fisher, and no changes to the risk factors as described above. In Alternative 2 (no action) after 20 years there would be a total of 1207 acres in the project area of late seral habitat and the area would retain its suitability. Overall the analysis area would increase suitable habitat from 3318 acres to 3885, a gain of 567 acres (Table 21).
If the Whittington project area is operated under its current management direction, the modeling shows that natural ecological processes would decrease 4M, 5M, AND 6M (foraging, resting) habitat from 1193 acres to 693 acres and increase 4D, 5D, and 6D (denning) habitat from 3320 acres to 3887 acres over the next 20 years (Table 10, 21) in the analysis area. Thus it can be said that if no action is taken, the Whittington project area would continue to grow into a high canopied, structured late-successional habitat, suitable for denning fisher.
Indirect Effects Under Alternative 2, if no action is taken and a wildfire occurred in the area, there would be greater risk of the habitat subjected to a severe fire because wildfire would be harder to control due to dense ladder fuels as a result of a heavy understory and high surface fuel loading that is currently in the area. This would increase the potential for crown and ladder fuel ignition in the upper canopy. As a result of the no-action alternative, stands would have higher tree density,
71 Whittington BE and less growing space; therefore, leading to smaller diameter clumped trees, and less foraging habitat and be prone to disease and fire, especially during droughts (see Fuels and Silvicultural Reports for the Whittington Project 2012).
The indirect effect of the continued immediate threat of severe wildfire would remain unabated. Failing to reduce stand density would increase future drought stress and subsequent insect and disease mortality would increase the threat of severe fire. This alternative would not provide protection of carnivore habitat from catastrophic fire.
Cumulative Effects Alternative 2 would not produce impacts to the marten and fisher that add to other events in the environment as described in the Mid – Late-successional section of this document. There would be no actions designed to reduce the risk of high intensity wildfire.
As with the pallid bat, the incremental loss of the quantity and/or quality of habitat for this species has been ongoing on both public and private lands. Past overstory removal has overall decreased the dbh of trees and the presence of mature trees with denning hollows, resting sites, and natal den sites, which are critical to the species presence. The project area is surrounded by private timber lands with numerous past clearcuts and presently ongoing sales. If a severe wildfire occurred, there would be cumulative effects associated with the loss of class 4, 5 and 6 snags (dead and green) in the project area, as most of the private lands no longer have large mature legacy trees, late-seral habitat, and mature forest structure.
This alternative would not contribute to the fragmentation of marten and fisher habitat as no action would occur.
Determination Alternative 2 for Fisher and Marten Based on the above assessment of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, it is has been determined that the no-action alternative of the Whittington project would not affect the Pacific Fisher or American Marten. Alternative 2 would benefit these species by retaining denning habitat and increasing it in the long run.
3. Northern Goshawk a. Status
The northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) is a Forest Service Sensitive and Management Indicator Species (MIS). Northern goshawks are currently being managed under the LNF LRMP guidelines as amended by the SNFPA FSEIS ROD (2004), pages 66-67 and Table 2. b. Habitat Northern goshawks occupy boreal and temperate forests throughout the Holarctic zone (Squires and Reynolds 1997). This broad range of forested communities includes mixed conifer, true fir, montane riparian, Jeffrey pine, ponderosa pine, and lodgepole pine forests (USDA 2004). Within California, this species occurs in the Sierra Nevada, Klamath, Cascade, Inyo-White, Siskiyou, and Warner Mountains, and the North Coast Ranges. Habitat requirements for this species can be found within the SNFPA FEIS and summarized below. The latest published information regarding the goshawk, in terms of population status, distribution, population and habitat trends, and species requirements can be found within SNFPA FEIS 2001 (Chapter 3,
72 Whittington BE Part 4.4.2.2), and in Chapter 3.2.2.4 of the SNFPA FSEIS 2004. A total of 588 northern goshawk-breeding territories were reported from Sierra Nevada National Forests as of 2007.
Population trends of northern goshawks in the Sierra Nevada are unknown, although numbers are suspected to be declining due to habitat reductions and loss of territories to timber harvest (SNFPA FEIS). Based on several studies (Squires and Reynolds 1997, USDA Forest Service 2001) there is concern that goshawk populations and reproduction may be declining in North America and California due to changes in the amount and distribution of habitat or reductions in habitat quality.
Within-stand, nest-site habitat structure and composition are among the best-studied aspects of northern goshawk habitat relationships (Squires and Reynolds 1997). As stated in the SNFPA, although absolute differences in structural characteristics may differ between vegetation types and geographical regions, relative habitat use patterns are consistent such that northern goshawks use nest-sites with greater canopy cover, greater basal area, greater numbers of large diameter trees, and lower shrub/sapling/understory cover and numbers of small diameter trees, and gentle to moderate slopes relative to non-used, random sites. High canopy cover is the most consistent structural feature similar across studies of northern goshawk nesting habitat. This habitat provides large trees for nest sites, a closed canopy for protection from predators and thermal cover, and open understories that provide for maneuverability and detection of prey below the canopy.
Breeding and foraging habitat is described within the SNFPA FEIS 2001. Generalized habitat models based on best professional opinion contained in the CWHR database rate the following affected vegetation types and strata as providing high nesting habitat capability: Sierran Mixed Conifer, Lodgepole Pine, White Fir, Montane Hardwood Conifer, and Montane Riparian (6, 5D, 5M, 4D, 4M). Moderate nesting habitat includes Aspen (6, 5D, 5M, 4D, 4M); Eastside pine (5D, 5 M, 4D, 4M, 3D, 3M); red fir (4D, 4M); lodgepole pine and subalpine conifer (3D, 3M). There are no moderate nesting habitat types within the proposed project area.
High quality foraging habitat within the analysis area includes 5S, 5P mixed conifer (SMC), ponderosa pine (PPN), Jeffrey Pine (JPN), and hardwood/conifer (MHC). There are no moderate foraging habitat (size class 3M-3D red fir, lodgepole, subalpine conifer and eastside pine) types within the proposed project area (see nesting habitat).
Overall, goshawks breed in older-age coniferous, mixed conifer, and deciduous forest habitat located in middle to high elevations. Northern goshawk nesting habitat at the nest stand scale has consistently greater canopy cover, greater basal area, greater numbers of large diameter trees, fewer small diameter trees, less understory cover, and gentle to moderate slopes relative to non-used, random sites (USDA 2001). Habitat provides large trees for nesting, a closed canopy for protection and thermal cover, and open space-allowing maneuverability below the canopy. Nest sites are frequently associated with meadows, riparian areas, gentle to moderate slopes (0 to 50 percent), and north to east aspects. Frequently, nest sites have an open understory, and are adjacent to, or include small openings. Sixty to 100 percent canopy closure is optimal, 50 percent is suitable, and 30 to 49 percent closure is marginal for nest sites. Habitat that is suitable for spotted owls is also suitable for goshawks (Beier and Drennan 1997)
Nesting activities are initiated in March, with egg laying and incubation completed by early June. Hatching and fledging occurs in June and July. Young become independent in late August. Post fledgling areas are dense stands possibly over 400 acres in size that are adjacent to the nest site, provide cover, are defended by the adults, and are surrounded by foraging habitat.
73 Whittington BE
Openings, snags, down logs, woody debris, and duff and litter layers are important components in all habitat types used by goshawks. These components provide the habitat needed to provide a diverse and sustainable population of prey. Foraging areas may be over 5,000 acres in size, and consist of a mosaic of vegetative seral stages including meadows, and other openings. Foraging habitat preferences of goshawks are poorly understood, although limited information from studies in conifer forests indicate that goshawks seem to prefer to forage in mature forest (summarized in Squires and Reynolds 1997).
Fire, the primary disturbance mechanism throughout the Western United States, has historically provided landscapes that contained and maintained goshawk populations (Graham et al. 1995). Forest types and their respective fire regimes provide context for developing desired conditions for sustaining northern goshawks, including home ranges for building and maintaining nests, a place for their young to learn to hunt, and an area that provides food. c. Occurrence in the Lassen and within the Proposed Project Area As of 2007, the Lassen NF corporate GIS coverage includes 113 goshawk PACs, which is the recommended capacity as stated in the 1992 LRMP to provide for the viability of goshawks. These numbers represent goshawks that have been found as a result of both individual project inventories to standardized protocols, as well as nest locations found by other incidental methods. It is uncertain as to whether this figure is accurate; the Forest has been developing territories (pre-SNFPA) and now 200 acre gPACs (USDA Forest Service 2004) for all newly discovered goshawk-breeding sites, and while some have entered the system, others have been deleted due to destruction of habitat by fire and non-occupancy. It is believed that the current density of goshawk territories is contributing to goshawk viability within the LNF.
The proposed project is within the summer and winter range of the Northern Goshawk (Accipter gentilis). Goshawks are distributed on the Hat Creek Ranger District and known nest sites are protected. As of 2011, all territories except one have been incorporated into the NRIS database. Goshawks have been detected in the area during protocol surveys conducted from 2004 – 2010. One new nest was identified and a gPAC established.
Northern goshawk surveys have occurred within the wildlife analysis area. A total of 4 gPACs exist in this area. Table 23 provides the gPAC history for Northern goshawks within the Wildlife Analysis Area.
Table 23 – Goshawk gPACs and Detections within the Analysis Area for the Whittington Project* Date Incidentals Associated gPAC Detections Reproduction Established with gPAC 1995 1996, Horse 1995 nest 2000 S 0.2 mile SE Horse 2/28/2002 2002 2009 Heaven Butte 2010; fledgling Heaven 2010 (3) Unknown; Off Burney 2010 single; 1.4 miles Ne 02/07/2005 2004 (pair) forest Center, in Plantation of gPAC off 34N19J pvt property 1979 S 0.8 mile NE Burney 1981 S; 1 mile e Burney 02/07/2005 1999 Single 2004 Fledgling Springs Spring 2002 S; analysis area at
74 Whittington BE Date Incidentals Associated gPAC Detections Reproduction Established with gPAC least 2 miles SE from Burney Spring 2004, S 0.5 mi ne 2009 single; 2010 – 2011 2 2011 S Fledgling 0.2 New 09/06/2011 2010 Single; fledglings miles S 2011 adult
Surveys for goshawks were conducted in the wildlife analysis area following the USFS, Region 5 Northern Goshawk Inventory and Monitoring Technical Guide protocol (USDA 2001a) in 2008 and 2009, and were repeated in 2010 and 2011. Several detections were made. As a result of surveys a new goshawk pair was detected in the north portion of the project area and a new PAC was established.
In addition to the above, a long term goshawk survey history (20+ years) exists in the wildlife analysis area. The results of the project-specific, relevant concurrent and historic surveys are considered in this analysis. d. Diet Goshawks hunt in forested areas and use snags and dead topped trees to scout for prey and for prey plucking posts. Open understory in forested habitat facilitates detection and capture of prey. Prey consists mostly of birds "from robin to grouse in size," with mammals from "squirrel to rabbit size" also taken (Ziener et al. 1990a). Goshawks hunt prey using a combination of speed and cover. They will often forage along the edges of woodland habitats. e. Risk Factors Habitat risk factors according to the SNFP FEIS include: Changes to habitat composition and structural diversity Change in nesting and foraging habitat Changes in Habitat suitability for prey species
Non-habitat Risk factors include: Disturbance at nest sites (recreation, development, roads) Chemicals (rodenticides) (not an issue on LNF)
Frequent, low-intensity surface fires which characterize a nonlethal fire regime often kill small trees but rarely kill overstory trees. The mixed fire regime has a mixture of surface fires and stand-replacement fires. These fires kill susceptible species in the overstory. In most of the understory, fire-resistant trees often survive. The result is a mosaic landscape of different fire intensities (Graham et al. 1995). In forests with variable and mixed fire regimes, a high interspersion of forest structural stages could lead to fragmentation of home ranges. To sustain goshawk habitat, adjustments may then be needed. For example, concentrating openings only in portions of a home range mimics disturbance patterns caused by fire (Graham et al. 1995).
Effects of Alternative 1(Proposed Action) and Alternative 3 (Non-Commercial Fuels Only)
Direct Effects Effects to northern goshawk from both Alternatives 1 and 3 include noise from mechanical vegetation clearing, fire and smoke from controlled burns, and direct loss of potential habitat.
75 Whittington BE Both foraging and nesting activities could be affected by these actions. The Project-level LOP’s, would reduce those potential impacts by not allowing mechanical activities from February 1 to September 15 within ¼ mile of nest sites (Sierra Nevada Forest Plan 2008), which would avoid disturbance during the sensitive nesting period. Spring underburning also would not occur from February 1 to about April 1, as access to the area is limited and burning is too slow to remove finer fuels.
Fuels reduction, harvest, hazard tree removal, thinning, and underburning were the proposed activities that were most often represented in the sample of BEs in which the Northern Goshawk was analyzed.
Relative to ―May Affect‖ projects, the described impacts to Northern Goshawks most often fell in the following categories: Noise disturbances to nesting cores Loss of foraging area if underburn gets out of control Habitat quality reduction including loss of plucking posts A reduction in canopy cover
Table 24 shows the differences in vegetation for each alternative after implementation occurs in the Project and Analysis Areas. Table 26 shows the same for each alternative in the after 20 years. Tables 25 and 27 shows the percent change for the total analysis areas after implementation and after 20 years.
Table 24 – Nesting/Foraging Habitat for the Northern Goshawk Pre- and Post- Treatment within the Project and Analysis Area for the Whittington Project Project / Analysis Areas Project Area (Acres) Analysis Area (Acres CWHR Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Foraging 5S, 5P, Totals 22 14 14 22 14 14 Nesting 4D, 5M, 5D, 6 Totals 2147 2237 2238 4422 4512 4513 Total Suitable Foraging and Nesting 2169 2251 2252 4444 4526 4527
Table 25 – Comparison of Alternative 1 vs Alternative 2 and 3 for Suitable Habitat (in terms of total acres and Percent Change) for the Analysis Area in the Whittington Project Current Proposed Change in Fuels only Change in Acres Condition action Post Acres Alt 2/Alt 1 post Alt2/Alt 3 CWHR (CC) (Alt Treatment (Alt treatment (Alt %Change (ratio %Change 2) 1) 3) of Change)* (Ratio of change)* 4M ,5S, +8 0 5P, 6 14 22 14 (foraging) +57 (increase) No change
4,5,6 D 90 +1 4512 4422 4513 (nesting) -2% +0.02% increase
76 Whittington BE
Table 26 – Nesting/Foraging Habitat Pre- and Post- Treatment within the Project and Analysis Area for the Whittington Project after 20 years Project / Project area Analysis Area Analysis Areas CWHR Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Foraging 4M, 5S, 5P 5M, Totals 14 14 14 14 14 14 Nesting 4D, 5D, 6 Totals 2244 2305 2245 4519 4579 4520 Total Suitable Foraging and Nesting Total 2258 2319 2259 4533 4593 4534
Table 27 – Comparison of Alternative 1 vs Alternative 2 and 3 for Suitable Habitat (in terms of total acres and Percent Change) for the Analysis Area After 20 years for the Whittington Project Current Proposed Change in Fuels only Change in Acres Condition action Post Acres Alt 2/Alt 1 post Alt2/Alt 3 CWHR (CC) (Alt Treatment (Alt treatment %Change (ratio of %Change 2) 1) (Alt 3) Change)* (Ratio of change)* 4M ,5S, 0 0 5P, 14 14 14 (foraging) No change No change
4,5,6 -60 59 4579 4519 4520 (nesting) 1% decrease 1% decrease * Current condition change
1. Changes in Suitable Habitat Acres (Reduction in Canopy) The major risk factors identified by the SNFPA (USDA 2001) for goshawks are the effects of vegetation management and wildfires on the amount and distribution of quality habitat.
Alternative 1 would reduce nesting/foraging habitat from 4512 acres to 4422 acres, a loss of 90 acres or two percent of this habitat. Alternative 1 would increase foraging-only habitat from 14 acres to 22 acres (eight acres or 57 percent increased habitat) in the wildlife analysis area. Alternative 3 would increase nesting/foraging habitat from 4512 acres to 4513 acres (0.02 percent) and foraging-only habitat remains at 14 acres. Some of nesting/foraging habitat (429 acres) is found in plantations in the project area and does not contain the structural diversity of natural nesting/foraging habitat. Goshawks are more tolerant than other species that use 4M and 4D habitat, so while this is not prime nesting habitat it still might be used for that purpose.
Nesting/foraging habitat (2275 acres or 51 percent of this habitat) retained outside of the project but in the wildlife analysis area is primarily located within Spotted Owl Habitat Areas (SOHAs), GPACs and Spotted Owl Protected Activity Centers (SOPACs). For Alternative 1 and the
77 Whittington BE amount nesting/foraging habitat within the project area (2237 acres) would be reduced by four percent and foraging habitat affected would be negligible. For Alternative 3, after implementation, acres of nesting/foraging habitat in the project area would essentially remain the same (1 acre difference, which could be statistical error). Foraging only habitat would remain the same. Overall, for Alternatives 1 (two percent loss of habitat, 90 out of 4512 acres in the wildlife analysis area) and 3 (no loss of habitat), nesting/foraging habit reduction would be negligible.
Twenty-year regrowth of vegetation would increase nesting/foraging habitat. Under Alternative 1, after 20 years, nesting/foraging habitat would have increased by 84 acres, from 4425 to 4522 acres. In Alternative 2, current condition, there would be an increase from 4512 acres to 4579, a gain of 67 acres of nesting/foraging habitat, if the stand remains untreated. From the treated Alternative 1, after 20 years, the 4522 acres would be less than the acres under Alternative 2 after 20 years (4579 acres vs 4522 acres) or 57 acres of nesting/foraging habitat that would convert to foraging only habitat. This results in a one percent decrease in future nesting/foraging habitat as a result of treatments. However this new nesting/foraging habitat would contain more of the structural elements of a natural stand.
Under Alternative 3, after 20 years (Table 23), nesting/foraging habitat would have increased from 4513 to 4520 acres over time, a gain of 7 acres. From the treated Alternative 3, after 20 years, the 4520 acres would be less than the acres under Alternative 2 after 20 years (60 acres of nesting/foraging habitat that would be converted to foraging only habitat). This would be a one percent decrease in future nesting/foraging habitat as a result of implementation of Alternative 3. For Alternatives 1 and 3 the habitat change is minimal.
Nest sites in GPACs would remain, along with blocks of nesting habitat within project and wildlife analysis areas. Alternatives 1 and 3 would retain almost the same amount of total habitat. Implementing either alternative would result in a long-term reduction in wildfire hazards, while retaining important habitat features for the goshawks.
Acreage is compensated for by the area recovering to at least a foraging (4M-5M) stage so it is not completely lost (Table 23 Total Suitable Foraging and Nesting). As stated above, this habitat would be more structurally suitable, as 4D plantations (now 4M) advance in age. The comparisons of the effects of Alternative 1 and Alternative 3 on nesting habitat show that their effects are similar with regards to acres (4447 vs 4527 total acres in analysis area after treatment, an 80 acre difference). In the long-term, 20 years, this habitat in the Whittington area lost as nesting habitat would become foraging habitat, and the nesting sites in the form of gPACs will remain, along with some small blocks of nesting habitat within project areas. Overall, Alternative 1 would result in 4536 acres of suitable foraging and nesting habitat, approximately 57 acres less than if the area had remained untreated and the Alternative 3 treatment would result in 4534 total acres of foraging and nesting habitat. Both alternatives would retain almost the same amount of total suitable foraging and nesting habitat over 20 years.
The purpose of implementing either action alternative is to result in a long-term reduction in wildfire hazards. IDFs retain important habitat features for the goshawks; the project treatments create forest conditions that are overall more ecological resilient. This management, along with the relatively stable geographic distribution and population levels of goshawks in the area and Lassen NF would not significantly reduce goshawk habitat or populations when also considering past, present, or foreseeable future events in the cumulative effects analysis area.
78 Whittington BE 2. Changes in Structural Features Although the modeled habitat shows a decline in nesting habitat, key habitat features would be retained or enhanced, such as large trees and snags, as well as maintaining an average minimum canopy cover of 40-50 percent with a higher percent cover, and generally higher basal area, in portions of the area, such as steeper slopes, PACs, SOHAs, and riparian areas. By opening up the overstory canopy and clearing some of the decadent understory vegetation, the understory vegetation would become more diverse in age and structure, with a greater amount of new growth, leading to greater prey species abundance along treatment edges and a more open understory for goshawk foraging.
Based on CWHR modeling, it is known that several bird species respond favorably to either less dense forested stands and/or openings within forested stands, while some do not (HFQLGFRA FEIS, Appendix I). The increased diversity and edges created by groups within forested stands may provide foraging habitat that would increase use of the landscape by goshawks.
With all action alternatives no trees over 30‖ dbh would be removed. Four of the largest snags per acre, where available, would be retained and hardwoods would be retained. Conifers retained possessing one or more of the following characteristics that are of value for wildlife: large limbs extending into the openings and meadows; mistletoe brooms higher than 20’ from the ground; multiple tops; bole sweep; broken tops; heart rot; snags; etc. would decrease the risk of deleterious effects to old-forest related wildlife over the project area in the long term (Dunk, 2005). Some of the 4D habitat (mid-seral) is in plantations so some of these structural elements may not be presently available.
There would be an increase in foraging habitat with the average minimum canopy cover of 40- 60 percent. There is a higher percent cover (a minimum of 45 percent) in the project area, and generally higher basal area in the analysis area, where there are PACs, and in Alternative 1, project area retention islands. By opening up the overstory canopy and clearing some of the decadent understory vegetation, and retaining down wood over 15 inches in diameter, eventually the understory vegetation would become more diverse in age and structure. This results in greater biodiversity, providing new growth for prey species hiding and cover and foraging habitat. Goshawks prefer to forage in areas of high canopy cover, but low understory, which will be the results of treatments.
Under Alternative 3 there would be no retention islands; however a 40 percent canopy cover would remain. The understory that remained in Alternative 3 would still be suitable for goshawk movement as the treatment is a ―thin from below‖ and would have no retention islands within the canopy. A reduction in hiding cover would lead to a greater vulnerability of species prey items by reducing hiding cover, and thus decreasing prey species diversity; however it would open up understory hunting opportunities.
3. Roads Evidence suggests that human disturbance and road and trail development negatively impact goshawk occupancy of an area overall (Morrison et.al. 2011). Human disturbance includes the construction of roads, recreation, timber sales and other management activities. Many of these disturbances include the effects of noise, intrusion, and an increase in roaded areas through goshawk territories. Although some goshawks appear to tolerate certain types and intensities of human disturbance, it can cause goshawks to abandon territories even with suitable forest structure (Reynolds et al. 1992; Squires & Reynolds 1997).
79 Whittington BE Research findings (Morrison et.al. 2009) suggest that goshawk protection has been insufficient in some regions and actions that will reduce anthropogenic disturbance should be initiated, including reducing and re-routing human activity, and reducing the extent of roads and trails within territories. There would be no new roads constructed within goshawk territories; however there would be an increase in activity along some currently existing roads, particularly in the new Burney Mountain PAC as the known nest site is within ¼ mile of hauling roads. This may have a temporary negative effect on nesting for the goshawk during implementation
Indirect Effects This action removes nesting habitat, but may increase under canopy hunting opportunities. Goshawks apparently do not select foraging sites based on prey abundance; and abundances of some prey are lower on foraging plots than in other areas. Goshawks select foraging sites that had higher canopy closure, greater tree density, and greater density of large diameter trees (Beier and Drennan 1997). This indicates that structural aspects of foraging habitat are as important as nesting habitat and both need to be managed.
The purpose of the proposed action is to create greater forest heterogeneity and move the Whittington area into a more resilient condition as the potential would be for a lower intensity wildfire, as well as lowered threats from insects, disease, and drought from climate change. If a wildfire were to occur in the Whittington project area following the implementation of the proposed action, there would be less of an impact on northern goshawk habitat than if a fire were to occur without implementation of one of these alternatives (refer to the Fire and Fuels Management Specialist report for further details).
Cumulative Effects The existing condition reflects the changes of all activities that have occurred in the past. The analysis of cumulative effects of the action alternatives evaluates the impact on TES wildlife from the existing condition within the wildlife analysis area and for dispersal purposes the watershed level is used.
Increased forest heterogeneity and resiliency would provide long-term wildlife habitat diversity for both nesting and foraging activities, including a number of wildlife niches and eco-tones providing greater diversity and abundance of prey species. The maintenance of SoPACs, HRCAs and gPACs will allow for the continuance of nesting habitat over the long term. Management measures designed to retain and enhance key wildlife habitat features, such as retaining and promoting large trees, retaining large snags, maintaining minimum canopy cover and coarse woody debris, as well as creating greater understory vegetation diversity and riparian area conservation, would help ensure habitat outside these areas remains suitable for both foraging for this species over the long term, and will still provide some nesting habitat.
The incremental loss of the quantity and/or quality of habitat for this species has been ongoing on both public and private lands within the watersheds where the project would occur. Past overstory removal has overall decreased the dbh of trees and the presence of large treed, high density areas for nesting and roosting sites, critical to the species presence. The project area is surrounded by private timber lands with numerous past clearcuts and presently ongoing sales. As a result of project activities for both alternatives 1 and 3 there would be cumulative effects associated with the loss of class 4, 5 and 6D nesting habitat, snags, (dead and green) in the project area, as most of the private lands no longer have large mature legacy trees, late-seral habitat, and mature forest structure (snags and down wood).
80 Whittington BE The Whittington project primarily contributes to a cumulative reduction in goshawk nesting habitat, but retains and increases foraging habitat. What influences these various changes in habitat would do to goshawk occupancy within the wildlife analysis area would have to be determined by future monitoring of the occupancy of the project area. It is not anticipated that this cumulative habitat reduction would result in loss of occupancy or productivity of known goshawk PACs, based on the location of project activities to known gPACs and the distribution of known gPACs across the wildlife analysis area, because of the protection of nest sites and retention of available suitable nesting habitat post project implementation.
The northern goshawk has a continuous distribution throughout the Lassen NF with a network of at least 113 managed territories. Given the scope and scale of the Whittington project relative to the size of the Sierra Nevada and the goshawk’s overall North American distribution, the area considered in determining the cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities on the northern Goshawk would focus on the Lassen NF.
The SNFPA (USDA Forest Service 2001) was reviewed for their analysis of northern goshawks, and that evidence suggests the low number of goshawk breeding territories has remained relatively stable since some of the earliest data were reported by Grinnell and Miller (1944 – as cited in USDA Forest Service 2001). During this same period of time there also has been no apparent change in the geographic distribution of northern goshawks in the Sierra Nevada.
The major risk factors identified by the SNFPA (USDA 2001) for goshawks are the effects of vegetation management and wildfires on the amount and distribution of quality habitat. This slight decrease in habitat is off-set by the fact that implementing this alternative would result in a long-term reduction in wildfire hazards, retain important habitat features for the goshawks, and create forest conditions that are overall more ecological resilient, which helps sustain goshawk habitat on the landscape. This management, along with the relatively stable geographic distribution and population levels of goshawks in the area and Lassen NF would not significantly reduce goshawk habitat or populations when also considering past, present, or foreseeable future events in the cumulative effects analysis area.
Determination for Alternatives 1 and 3 for the Northern Goshawk It is my determination that the proposed action, of the Whittington Project, may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for the northern goshawk. This is because: There is an initial and long term loss of nesting habitat, Noise disturbance from mechanical and prescribed fire activities, road traffic, and smoke from controlled burns could cause nest abandonment. Short term negative impacts would be off-set by reducing the susceptibility of this habitat to wildfire, insects, disease, and drought. Key habitat features needed by northern goshawks, such as snags and dead/down logs would be retained. The goshawk has the SNFPA recommended amount of gPACs which are providing for the viability of the species across the Lassen National Forest.
Alternative 2 (No Action)
Direct Effects No direct impacts would occur to the northern goshawk, as a result of implementing the no- action alternative because no additional actions would take place.
81 Whittington BE
Indirect Effects
Table24 and 26 itemize the current condition of goshawk suitable habitat and how it will change in 20 years.
Under this alternative, the Whittington project area would not be treated. Through natural ecological processes, nesting habitat would be increased by 67 acres over the next 20 years within the analysis area after treatment.
Alternative 2 would lead to greater fuels buildup. Management has resulted in stands with high fuel loading that are susceptible to wildfire; drought, insects, and disease (Fire/Fuels and Silvicultural Specialist Reports for this project). If wildfire were to occur under current conditions, it could alter, reduce or eliminate goshawk habitat. Wildfire would be harder to control because of dense ladder fuels and high surface fuel loadings. This would increase the potential for crown fire (see Fuels Report for the Whittington Project 2012).
Current LRMP standards include full suppression of wildfire. Full suppression could affect goshawk habitat through the construction of fire line with the use of mechanical equipment. Because of existing fuel loads, Alternative 2 would require greater ground disturbance and would have greater effects on goshawk habitat during fire suppression activities than either Alternative 1 or 3.
Cumulative Effects This alternative is not expected to have direct cumulative effects on the environment because Alternative 2 would not have direct cumulative effects on the environment because there would be no actions added to the past, present and foreseeable actions in the wildlife analysis area. Although there would be no direct effects to the northern goshawk if Alternative 2 were selected, there also would be no fuels treatments and the continued threat of severe wildfire would remain unabated.
Failing to reduce stand density and surface and ladder fuels, drought stress and subsequent insect and disease mortality would increase the threat of severe wildfire. This could eliminate large portions of this species’ habitat over time. Past overstory removal has decreased the average diameter of trees and reduced the presence of mature trees with roosting hollows in the private timber lands. This habitat has been replaced by early seral forest.
Determination for Alternative 2 for the Northern Goshawk Based on the above assessment of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, it is has been determined that the no-action alternative of the Whittington project would not affect the northern goshawk.
82 Whittington BE
4. California Spotted Owl a. Status The Regional Forester of the Pacific Southwest Region has identified the California Spotted Owl as a Sensitive species. On October 12, 2000, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced a 90-day finding on the petition to list the California spotted owl as threatened or endangered (Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 198, 60605-60607). The USFWS found that the petition presents substantial information indicating that listing the species may be warranted. The USFWS 12-Month Findings for ―a Petition to List the California Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) (Federal Register Volume 68, No. 31, 7580-7608)‖ stated: that after the USFWS reviewed the best available science and commercial information available the USFWS found that the petitioned action was not warranted. The Finding statement leaned heavily on the fact that the original SNFPA FEIS and ROD (2001) and its associated California Spotted Owl strategy set management direction to be implemented across the Sierra Nevada.
The USFWS went on to conclude that the scale, magnitude, or intensity of effects on the California Spotted Owl resulting from fire, fuels treatments, timber harvest, and other activities did not rise above the threshold necessitating protection of the species under the Endangered Species Act. Therefore, the California Spotted Owl’s status remains unchanged. The California Spotted Owl is neither listed under the federal Endangered Species Act, nor currently is it a candidate for listing.
Changes to the 2001 SNFPA spotted owl strategy were brought about by the 2004 SNFPA ROD. The 2004 SNFPA owl strategy includes the 5-year HFQLG pilot project, as implemented and directed on pages 66 – 69 of the 2004 ROD. Per that direction, the HFQLG Forests would consider owl PACs, SOHAs, Offbase/Deferred, LSOG 4 and 5, and CWHR classes 5M, 5D, and 6 in project design and implementation of HFQLG vegetation projects. SNFPA standards and guidelines for Home Range Core Areas (HRCAs) do not apply to the Pilot Project Area and vegetation projects. The HFQLG Act however will expire in 2013, the year when actual project proposal actions of this project would begin, and so proposed activities will have cumulative effects in spotted owl habitat within HRCAs which will be impacted long term.
Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project (SNAMP) on the California Spotted Owl Demographic Study Results Released in 2011
In 2011, the CASO Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project (SNAMP) released their preliminary results on their California Spotted Owl demographic study. SNAMP is a joint effort by the University of California, University of Minnesota, University of Wisconsin, the Forest Service, other state and federal agencies, and the public. SNAMP conducted four demographic studies of California spotted owl (CSO), ongoing for a number of years within the Sierra Nevada, including one begun in 1990 located on the Lassen National Forest. One of the primary objectives of demographic studies is to monitor the rate of change in owl populations. The 2010 meta-analysis concluded that within the Lassen study area, owl populations were estimated to be undergoing a steady annual decline of 2 – 3% between 1990 and 2005.
The presentation by SNAMP did not suggest that Forest Service actions have caused this decline or could create a decline in the California spotted owl population. Vegetation management projects on private lands do not include the same protections for wildlife that exist on public lands. R. J.Gutierrez stated, although there may be declines, the demographic studies do not examine the source of the decline. It should also be noted that none of these
83 Whittington BE demographic studies are designed to identify causal factors of the observed population changes. Although loss of habitat is generally considered among the leading candidates for declines in spotted owl populations, Gutierrez points out that the actual cause of the potential decline is unknown (Ibid). In responding to whether fuels treatments on federal lands might be responsible, Gutierrez stated that he ―did not know because there were other factors that might be involved such as clear cutting on private land. By logical extension, this would apply to home development as well‖ (http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/discussion/post/416).
The Whittington project was designed to balance habitat requirements with the need to reduce both short and long-term threats, such as fire (See Purpose and Need Section of this document) and disease. Mitigation measures included in the project, such as SNFPA Standard and Guidelines (S&Gs) for down woody debris, and retention of snags would retain structural components of the project areas. There is a l limited operating period (LOP), prohibiting vegetation treatments within approximately ¼ mile of CASO activity centers discovered during the project duration, Surveys presently confirm the absence of nesting California spotted owls.
The proposed project maintains a 45 percent or higher canopy cover for all treatment areas. Retention islands are designated in CASO suitable habitat, and diversity treatments maintain vertical diversity. All SOHAs and SOPAC remain untreated. Skip and gap treatments within brushfields and plantations are designed to enhance prey species’ habitats and diversify plantation habitat over time. Thinning around legacy trees would increase their girth, and over 20 years, would increase the diversity of the remaining trees. See the California Spotted Owl analysis for all effects and benefits of the proposed action.
The Whittington Project is located approximately 25 miles from the Lassen Study Area, located on the Almanor Ranger District see Figure 2, below. The Lassen Study area receives has higher snow and rainfall totals and hence more continuous habitat that the Whittington Project Area. The Whittington area is bisected by lava fields and habitat for the spotted owl is patchy in distribution. For additional information see section below on Areas of Special Concern.
84 Whittington BE
Figure 2 – Location of Lassen Study Area Sites on the Almanor Ranger District
b. Habitat Account The California spotted owl still occurs throughout its historic range in California, from the southern Cascades, south of the Pit River, to the entire Sierra Nevada Province, all mountainous regions of the Southern California, and central coast ranges as far north as Monterey County (SNFPA 2001). There are no reliable total population estimates for the
85 Whittington BE California spotted owl and so the number of California spotted owl territories has been used as an index to illustrate the range of the species and jurisdictions in which it occurs.
Spotted owls select habitat at multiple scales, with less flexibility in the nesting and roosting habitat requirements, and more flexibility in the foraging habitat. California spotted owls use or select habitats for nesting, roosting, or foraging that have structural components of old forests, including large-diameter trees that are typically greater than 24 inches dbh (diameter breast height), high tree density, multi-layered canopy/complex structure, and high canopy cover (Gutierrez et al. 1992). About 80 percent of known sites are found in mixed-conifer forest.
Gutierrez et al. (1992) found that spotted owls preferentially use areas with at least 70 percent canopy cover for nesting and foraging, use habitats with 40 to 69 percent canopy cover in proportion to their availability, and spend less time in areas with less than 40 percent canopy cover than expected if habitat were selected randomly. California spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada prefer stands with significantly greater canopy cover, total live-tree basal area, basal area of hardwoods and conifers, and snag basal area for nesting and roosting. Stands suitable for nesting and roosting have: (1) Two or more canopy layers; (2) dominant and co-dominant trees in the canopy averaging at least 24 inches dbh; (3) at least 70 percent total canopy cover (including the hardwood component); (4) higher than average levels of very large, old trees; and (5) higher-than-average levels of snags and downed woody material (Gutierrez et al. 1992).
Spotted owl pairs have large home ranges that may overlap those of other spotted owls (Verner et al. 1992b). Estimates of California spotted owl home-range size are extremely variable. All available data indicate that they are intermediate in size in conifer forests in the central Sierra Nevada, and largest in the true fir forests in the northern Sierra Nevada (USFS 2001). Based on an analysis of data from radio telemetry studies of California spotted owls, mean home-range sizes of breeding-season pairs were estimated at 9,000 acres in true fir forests on the Lassen National Forest, 4,700 acres in mixed conifer forests on the Tahoe and Eldorado National Forests, and 2,500 acres in mixed conifer forests in the Central Sierra Province (USFS 2001).
Verner et al (1992) report that micro habitats used for nesting typically have greater than 70 percent total canopy cover (all canopy above 7 feet), except at very high elevations where canopy cover as low as 30-40 percent may occur (as in some red fir stands of the Sierra Nevada). Nest stands typically exhibit a mixture of tree sizes and usually at least two canopy layers, and some very large, old trees are usually present. Often these have large, natural cavities, broken tops, and/or dwarf mistletoe brooms. Nest stands in conifer forests usually have some large snags and an accumulation of fallen logs and limbs on the ground; downed woody debris is not a major component of nest sites in lower-elevation riparian/hardwood forests. Cavity nests dominate nest types of California spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada. Nest trees are typically large (dbh of about 45 inches) for nest trees in Sierra conifer forests and decadent.
Verner et al (1992) found that stands used for roosting are similar to those used for nesting, with relatively high canopy cover, dominated by older trees with large diameters, and with at least two canopy layers. Studies of roosting northern spotted owls indicate that they respond to variation in temperature and exposure by moving higher or lower within the canopy, or around the roost tree, to access more comfortable microclimates (Forsman et al. 1984). The structure of multistoried stands characteristic of roost sites facilitates this movement.
86 Whittington BE
c. Diet Among the variety of taxa on which they prey, California spotted owls tend to select a few key species (Verner et al. 1992). Both flying squirrels and woodrats occur in the diets of owls in the central Sierra Nevada (Verner et al. 1992b). Other prey items include gophers (Thomomys spp.), mice (Peromyscus spp.), diurnal squirrels (Tamiasciurus douglasii, Sciurus griseus), ground squirrels, (Spermophilus spp.), and chipmunks (Eutamias spp.) and a variety of other rodents, shrews (Sorex spp.), moles (Scapanus spp.), bats (Myotis spp.), birds, frogs, lizards, and insects (Verner et al. 1992, Gutierrez et al. 1995). Predators and closest competitors to spotted owls are great horned owls (Bubo virginianus) (Forsman et al. 1984) and barred owls (Strix varia) (Leskiw and Gutierrez 1998, Hamer et al. 2001, Kelly et al. 2003). d. Occurrence in Project Area There are 2 spotted owl Protected Activity Centers (PACs, 4 Home Range Core Areas (HRCAs) and 3 Spotted Owl Habitat Areas (SOHAs) located within the Analysis Area. Only the HRCA is located within the project area. Presently the area is not managed for HRCAs as it is under the HFQLG Forest Recovery Act (1999); however, as noted above the HFQLG Act will expire in 2013, and activities will have an effect on HRCA suitable habitat, so habitat changes will be briefly analyzed within this document. At the same time the SOHA will also no longer be managed, and most will become HRCAs.
Spotted owl surveys have occurred within the Wildlife Analysis Area over a period of several years. In 2003 and 2004 the area was surveyed as part of the now defunct Backbone project. In 2009 and 2010, the Whittington Project was surveyed to the two-year protocol standards (―Protocol for Surveying for Spotted Owls in Proposed Management Activity Areas and Habitat Conservation areas‖, 1991, revised 1993). No new SoPACs were developed based on these survey efforts.
Surveys are also utilized to monitor reproductive status. There are three reproductive outcomes of the surveys: Presence – a single owl is located, Occupancy – a pair of owls are located, and Reproductive – young or an active nest are located. Surveys may also fail to detect spotted owls. Only one single spotted owl was detected in the two year survey. The detections were in the same area, in the Whittington Butte SOHA.
Table 29 shows high capability suitable California spotted owl habitat in the Wildlife Analysis Area (8,465 acres). Within the Wildlife Analysis Area there is approximately 4,511acres of suitable spotted owl nesting/foraging habitat (CWHR 6D, 5D, 5M, 4D, and 4M), of which 2,237 acres (49 percent) are located within the project area.
87 Whittington BE
Table 29 – Acres of High Capability Suitable California Spotted Owl Habitat within the Wildlife Analysis Area of the Proposed Whittington Project Area % Habitat Distributed CWHR Project Area Analysis Area in project Foraging 4M 982 1145 85 4D 1162 2797 42 Total: 2144 3942 54 Nesting 5M 48 48 100 5D 32 205 16 6D 13 316 4 Total: 93 569 16 Total Suitable 2237 4511 50
PACs, SOHAs and HRCAs for spotted owl Minor adjustments of the spotted owl protected activity centers (PACs) and home range core areas (HRCAs) were made to minimize overlap with areas that may be subject to management such as road buffers and urban interface. This follows direction in the SNFPA (2004). These areas already have high impacts due to human use and proximity. As such, it makes sense to move areas managed for owl nesting and core use away from areas of high human impact and potential management.
To the extent possible, boundaries follow logical geographic or manmade features to facilitate finding the locations in the field and thus avoiding inadvertent management intrusion. The HRCAs and included PACs are focused around the central location of the owl territory and meet or exceed the full intent of incorporating 600 acres or more of moderate to highly suitable habitat (CWHR size classes 4 and 4, density classes M and D). Table 30 displays the acreage of PACs, HRCAs, and SOHAs. Both PACs are outside the project boundaries but within the analysis area. HRCAs are both inside and outside.
Table 30 – Management Areas for the California Spotted Owl In the Whittington Project Area NAME Acres Spotted Owl HRCA HC3 383 Spotted Owl HRCA HC4 214 Spotted Owl HRCA HC5 723 Spotted Owl HRCA HC9 175 Spotted Owl PAC (HC02) 314 Spotted owl PAC (HC06) 339 Spotted Owl SOHA (Burney Springs 378) 1133 Spotted Owl SOHA (Burney Springs 81) 359
88 Whittington BE Spotted Owl SOHA (Whittington Butte 4) 347
See Table 31 for total acres of HRCA within project boundaries in the analysis section. e. Risks and Threats Threats to spotted owl viability include loss of habitat continuity, structure, and amount because of human activities and natural factors such as predation by barred owls and catastrophic wildfire. Presently, unlike northern spotted owls, California spotted owls are not presently being displaced by barred owls, but there have been isolated instances of barred owls and one recorded incidence of predation (Leskiw 1998)
According to the FEIS for the SNFPA (2001) wildfire effects especially large stand replacing wildfires ―...are a major risk‖ to spotted owl populations. Effects from fire include loss and degradation of habitat, creation of habitat gaps and lengthy time periods for habitat reestablishment. The FEIS (2001) also states that fuels reduction projects that reduce the intensity of fires would be expected to benefit the spotted owl, long term.
The CASPO Technical Report (Verner et. al 1992) identified Areas of Concern (AOC) within the range and distribution of the California spotted owl. AOC’s were identified simply to indicate potential areas where future problems may limit owl populations and where future problems may be greatest if the owl's status were to deteriorate. One AOC identified in the CASPO Report is within the boundaries of the LNF (page 45-49 of CASPO Report), within the Hat Creek Ranger District and mapped as overlapping the project area (CASPO Report Figure 3A, p 47).
AOCs are habitat areas that are bottlenecks that are caused by discontinuous, naturally fragmented habitat that is poor in quality due to drier conditions and lava-based soils, with low spotted owl populations. This area makes successful dispersal more difficult and reduces the likelihood of replacement of owls in vacated habitat. The project area meets the conditions for an AOC.
The project area is the second most northerly detections for the California spotted owl and is located within the transition zone between the northern spotted owl and California spotted owl subspecies. The position of the boundary between these taxa, and their associated taxonomic rank has important biogeographical, management, and political implications. In 2011, Barrowclough et.al. showed that the genetic composition of northern spotted owl total haplotypes fell below 50% approximately 15 miles south of the Pit River; and the zone of hybridization extended from just south or' the Pit River to just north of Lassen Peak. This hybrid zone was estimated to be 58 miles and the center of the zone was 16 miles south of the Pit River and did not appear to be closely associated with any obvious physical barrier to gene flow.
The precise boundary between the two subspecies may be important in where they are to be managed. Determining the exact boundary between most subspecies is difficult because historically, subspecies are often based on attributes such as size or color that vary gradually over distance. The Whittington project area owls are California spotted owls under the SNFPA and this analysis will be conducted to establish the potential reduction of genetic flow between the populations due to fragmentation and other issues.
89 Whittington BE
Effects of Alternatives 1 and 3
Direct Effects
1. Behavior Stand treatments may directly affect owls in any of three areas of primary behavior: nesting and roosting, foraging, and dispersal. Although the ¼ mile buffer around known nesting trees should protect nesting owls from direct mechanical effects, direct noise disturbance is possible under certain circumstances.
Typical buffers applied to known owl sites are likely to minimize disturbance. It is not completely known, however, how stress may affect owls (Wasser et. al. 1997). Although they may not flush from a roosting site, continued disturbance in the area may trigger stress responses that could increase foraging time or decrease foraging efficiency and disturb typical behavioral patterns. Noise attenuation in a forest depends on a range of factors including forest density, topography, air density, air moisture, and profile of the sound generator including pitch, amplitude, and duration. Even with the imposed buffer, some portion of the PACs would have some possibility of being disturbed by neighboring operations. Given sufficient disturbance, nesting owls may flush from the nest, exposing adult and juvenile owls to heat stress (Barrows 1981) and disrupting rest time. Stressed owls may also hunker down in their nest, waiting for the disturbance to pass. Alternatively they may disperse away from the disturbance, leaving the area permanently if there is no other suitable nesting area to go to. There is some evidence to indicate that owls under regular disturbance stress may not forage as efficiently as non-stressed owls (Wasser et. al. 1997).
Owls are crepuscular and nocturnal feeders and are generally inactive during the portion of the day when activities take place, thus minimizing potential direct impacts from falling trees or other mechanical treatments (Gutierrez et al 1995). Foraging owls are highly mobile and would presumably (although there is no more than anecdotal evidence for this) avoid areas of active, high disturbance and forage elsewhere. Alternatively, site activities could produce a short-lived flush of prey species that are disturbed from their dens, thus leaving them more exposed and possibly increasing the foraging success of owls. If this is the case, owls may find a short term advantage to foraging in these areas at night or early evening when site activities are shut down.
Short term disturbances from prescribed fire include the possibility of owls leaving the area due to smoke or noise disturbance associated with the activities. While most bird species do leave their habitat while it is burning, many return within hours or days. In some cases, spotted owls have continued nesting during wildfire and returned to the nest the following year. Others emigrate because the food and cover they require are not available in the burn. The length of time before these species return depends on how much fire altered the habitat structure and food supply. Studies are currently underway at the location of the 2000 Storrie fire in Plumas County, California to determine answers to these questions and to observe the long term effect of the fire on the California spotted owl (see website: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/plumas/home/?cid=STELPRDB5299495
2. Changes in Suitable Habitat Acres (Reduction in Canopy) The major risk factors identified by the SNFPA (USDA 2001) for spotted owls are the effects of vegetation management and wildfires on the amount and distribution of quality habitat. The spotted owl habitat within the project area is shown in Table 29. Some of the 4D habitat is
90 Whittington BE found in plantations in the project area and does not contain the structural diversity of natural 4D habitat. Over time, however this habitat would improve naturally as the result of snag and down log creation and increased vegetation structural complexity.
Some of the proposed project activities would occur in HRCAs. Table 31 shows the foraging and nesting habitat in HRCAs that would be subject to treatments located in the project area.
Table 31 – HRCA Acres Located within the Whittington Project Area Alternatives 1 CWHR Acres and 3 4M, 4D Foraging 798 798 (4M)
5M, 6M 0 58
5D, 6D Nesting 58 0
There are no DFPZ treatments within HRCA acres for either Alternative 1 or 3. Treatments in HRCAs would be thinning (Treatment A) and Group Selections (Treatment B) for Alternative 1 and Mixed Conifer Thinning (Treatments H) and surface fuels treatment (Treatment K). Both treatments would not reduce foraging below 40 percent. They will convert the 5D and 6D to 5M and 6M; this remains suitable nesting habitat although it would be moderate 50 to 69 percent) and not prime (>70 percent) nesting habitat.
California spotted owl total habitat changes for all alternatives are shown in Tables 32 and 34. Tables 33 and 35 shows the acre changes, percent changes, and total percent of habitat, within the analysis area.
Table 32 Total Habitat Changes in the Whittington Project Area Between Alternative 1 – 3For the Whittington Project area Project / Analysis Areas Project area Analysis Area CWHR Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Foraging Mid-Seral 4M Moderate 1790 982 1856 1953 1145 2019 Mid-Seral 4D Dense 166 1162 213 1804 2797 1847 Mid-Seral 4M-4D Totals 1956 2144 2069 3757 3945 3867 Nesting Late Seral Moderate 5M, 6M 170 48 148 170 48 148 SMC5, 6D Late Seral Closed 21 45 21 498 522 498 Late Seral Total: 191 93 169 668 570 646 Total Suitable Acres Treated 2147 2237 2238 4425 4515 4513
91 Whittington BE Table 33 – Comparison of Alternative 1 vs Alternative 2 and 3 for Suitable Habitat (in terms of total acres and Percent Change) for the Analysis Area for the Whittington Project Area Current Proposed Change in Fuels only Change in Acres Condition action Post Acres Alt 2/Alt 1 post Alt2/Alt 3 CWHR (CC) (Alt Treatment treatment %Change (ratio of %Change 2) (Alt 1) (Alt 3) Change)* (Ratio of change)* -188 -78 acres 4M, 4D 3945 3757 3867 (foraging) -5% (95 % habitat -2% (98% habitat remaining remaining) 5M, 5D, +98 +76 6M, 6D 570 668 +17%(117% habitat 646 +13% (113% (nesting) remaining) habitat remaining) *compared to current condition
Table 34 – Total Habitat Changes in the Whittington Project Area Between Alternatives 1 – 3 after 20 Years Project / Analysis Areas Project area Analysis Area CWHR Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 foraging Mid-Seral 4M Moderate 1647 428 1678 1810 591 1841 Mid-Seral 4D Dense 255 1686 298 1893 3321 1933 Mid-Seral Total 1902 2114 1976 3703 3914 3774 Late Seral Closed Late-Seral Moderate 5M, 6M 277 103 134 277 103 134 Late-Seral Dense 5D, 6D 65 88 135 542 564 612 Late-Seral Total: 342 192 269 819 668.0 746 Total Suitable Acres Treated 2244 2306 2245 4522 4582 4520
Table 35 – Comparison of Alternative 1 vs Alternative 2 and 3 for Suitable Habitat (in terms of total acres and Percent Change) for the Analysis Area After 20 years for the Whittington Project Area Current Proposed Change in Fuels only Change in Acres Condition action Post Acres Alt 2/Alt 1 post Alt2/Alt 3 CWHR (CC) (Alt Treatment treatment %Change (ratio %Change 2) (Alt 1) (Alt 3) of Change)* (Ratio of change)* -211 -140 4M, 4D 3914 3703 3774 (foraging) -5% (94% habitat -4% (96% habitat remaining) remaining 5M, 5D, +151 +78 6M, 6D 668 819 +23% (123% of 746 +12% (112% of nesting habitat) habitat) *compared to current condition
92 Whittington BE Alternative 1 treatments result in nesting habitat increases from 570 acres to 668 acres, an increase of 98 acres, or a 17 percent increase of this habitat. There is a decrease of 4M and 4D foraging habitat, a change of 188 acres, from 3945 acres to 3757 acres or a 5% decrease of this habitat in the analysis area. This is because of the addition of 5 and 6 M habitats as a result of thinning 6D, 4M, and 4D habitats.
Alternative 3 increases nesting habitat from 570 acres to 646 acres, an increase of 76 acres or 14 percent increase. The treatment decreases foraging quality from 3945 acres to 3867 acres, a 78 acre increase and a 2 percent decrease in habitat, again as a result of thinning prescriptions for 6D, 5D and 4D habitats.
Alternative 2 is the no action alternative and there are 570 acres of nesting habitat within the analysis area. Over 20 years the habitat will have increased from 570 nesting acres to 668 acres an increase of 98 acres over time, or a 17 percent increase in habitat.
Comparing Alternative 1 and 3 shows that there is little percentage difference between the two treatments and effects on acres of habitat would be similar directly after treatment Both treatments would improve nesting habitat immediately by 98 acres resulting from Alternative 1 treatments, and 76 acres resulting from Alternative 3 treatments
Twenty years later, as a result of the Alternative 1 treatments the habitat has increased to from 668 acres to 819 acres an increase of 151 acres. This means a total gain, over time 211 acres of nesting habitat. Compared with Alternative 2 the No Action, which has a gain of 91 acres, the overall nesting habitat has improved more over 20 years as a result of Alternative 1 treatments. This gain is in the form of an extra 53 acres over what would exist if the treatment was not done.
In 20 years, Alternative 3 nesting habitat acres have increased from 646 to 746 acres, a gain of 100 acres. Compared with Alternative 2, there is also a gain of acres, although less than compared to Alternative 1 treatments. There is a gain of 9 acres from Alternative 3 treatments whereas there is a gain of 211 acres from Alternative 1 treatments. This shows that immediately and over time, Alternative 1 would be the preferred alternative for the retention and enhancement of nesting habitat.
Total suitable acreage remains constant after treatment over time with nesting and foraging proportions changing (Table 32 and 34, last row in both tables). The purpose of implementing either alternative is to result in a long-term reduction in wildfire hazards, retain important habitat features for owls, and create forest conditions that are overall more ecological resilient, which helps sustain suitable habitat on the landscape. This management, along with the relatively stable geographic distribution and population levels of owls in the area and Lassen NF would not significantly reduce spotted owl habitat or populations when also considering past, present, or foreseeable future events in the cumulative effects analysis area.
3. Changes in Structural Features Key habitat features would be retained or enhanced, such as large trees and snags, as well as maintaining an average minimum canopy cover of 40-50 percent with a higher percent cover, and generally higher basal area, in portions of the Wildlife Analysis Area such as lower slopes and riparian areas. This action would retain and enhance habitat structure for the spotted owl. DFPZs would decrease foraging habitats and reduce nesting habitat from high quality 5D-6D to 5M-6M moderate habitat; however nesting habitat as a whole would not decrease, and would only decrease 4M-4D foraging habitat minimally.
93 Whittington BE With all action alternatives no trees over 30‖ dbh would be removed. Four of the largest snags per acre, where available, would be retained and hardwoods would be retained. Conifers retained possessing one or more of the following characteristics that are of value for wildlife: large limbs extending into the openings and meadows; mistletoe brooms higher than 20’ from the ground; multiple tops; bole sweep; broken tops; heart rot; snags; etc. would decrease the risk of deleterious effects to old-forest related wildlife over the project area in the long term (Dunk, 2005). Some of the 4D habitat (mid-seral) is in plantations so some of these structural elements may not be presently available.
Generally, spotted owl survival increases with increasing area of late-successional forest (Franklin et al. 2000) and decreases with increasing area of early successional forests (Dugger et al. 2005). Because owls use a variety of habitats for foraging and nesting, forest heterogeneity across the landscape can improve spotted owl viability. Spotted owl survival and reproductive rates were higher in owl territories that included a mosaic of vegetation types infused within late-successional forest (Franklin et al. 2000), because there was a greater diversity or abundance of prey within this mosaic (in Verner et al 1992 pp 149-163).
There would be an increase in foraging/dispersal habitat with the average minimum canopy cover of 40-60 percent over time. Foraging overall would increase as 5M and 6M habitats would also be used for foraging. Dense understory of regenerating trees can interfere with owl foraging. By opening up the overstory canopy and clearing some of the decadent understory vegetation, and retaining down wood over 15 inches in diameter, eventually understory vegetation would become more diverse in age and structure, with a greater amount of new non- tree growth, thus helping lead to greater prey species hiding cover, and increasing prey species numbers and diversity. Masticating brush fields will promote higher valued young brushfields that provide more desirable food sources and denser protection for prey species. There is a higher percent cover, and generally higher basal area in the analysis area, where there are PACs and in Alternative 1 project area retention islands.
Under Alternative 3 there would be no retention islands; however a 40 percent canopy cover would remain. The understory that remained in Alternative 3 would not be ideal for dispersal movement as the treatment is a ―thin from below‖ and would have no retention islands within the canopy. A reduction in hiding cover would lead to a greater vulnerability of the dispersing young owls by reducing hiding cover, and decreasing prey species diversity.
Spotted owls prefer nesting cavities in decadent white fir and black oak that average 48‖ dbh. The project would retain all trees in existing PACS and all trees greater than 30 inches in other areas. Thus there would be no direct impacts to potential nest trees under both action alternatives, and through oak enhancement, there would over time be some benefit for nesting habitat.
4. Connectivity and Dispersal: Dispersal is unlikely to be strongly directly affected by these operations. Dispersing owls are even more mobile and can easily avoid areas of high disturbance. As stated above, landscape level effects are possible where projects increase the fragmentation of the forest and limit to some extent, the ability of owls to move through the forest area.
Given that the average home range of a spotted owl in this area is 2500 acres and no PAC or SOHA habitats would be impacted, movement across PACs would be unaffected (see Map 2).
94 Whittington BE Indirect Effects PACs and HRCAs: Map 2 shows the location of spotted owl PACs and HRCAs in the analysis area.
The main indirect effect of both action alternatives would be the reduction of wildfire hazard and enhancement of the overall inherent forest structure and health. The purpose of the project is to ―...promote greater forest heterogeneity, which promotes greater forest resilience to wildfire, insect, disease and drought (Project EA 2012). Benefits would counter balance the short-term negative effects of fuel treatments (due to immediate partial loss of some snags and large down woody debris biomass, as well as prey foraging / hiding cover). New understory growth within the first few years after treatment, by herbaceous vegetation and shrubs, would lead to habitat enhancement for a variety of wildlife, including prey species, providing new forage and hiding/thermal cover for prey. Without these fuel reduction treatments, the chances of large scale wildfire would remain high, and if it occurs, sever losses of mid to late-seral forest habitat could occur and, habitat recovery would take considerably longer (i.e. >100 years), then with using incremental fuels reduction management, as proposed with these alternatives.
Maintenance of foraging and nesting suitability in untreated areas would retain higher canopy cover, such as riparian Management Areas and non-mechanized zones such as steep and rocky slopes and canyons. Heterogeneous treatments in Alternative 1 would also enhance the habitat, overall by providing structural diversity, hence a larger prey base and nesting areas.
Hazard tree removal projects would not change potential California spotted owl habitat, as snags are in areas of human usage and not likely to be utilized as nest trees. These trees would remain on site as down logs, increasing prey cover and providing foraging opportunities. Under the action alternatives of the Whittington project, the average number of snags per acre would increase through time through attrition of older trees as a result of prescribed fire, drought, and other natural hazards.
Edge effects on both the microclimate and on wildlife can extend into the forested patches beyond what is actually created by the group (Forest Fragmentation website). Some of the continuous forested area would be subjected to skid trails, DFPZs, group treatments and Area Thinning treatments in both action alternatives, further reducing the amount of continuous forest cover. These activities would create a mosaic of forest that may not be suitable for spotted owls. This effect would be similar in Alternative 3 as there would thin from below treatments. Studies completed in 2011 shows that California spotted owl, like northern spotted owl nest sites are negatively correlated with high contrast edges and that owls would not benefit from increased forest fragmentation around nest stands, at least with respect to nest-site selection (Casey et al 2011).
Cumulative effects Both action alternatives are expected to result in long-term positive effects to the California spotted owl by: 1) reducing the potential for severe stand eliminating wildfires; and 2) promoting the growth and re-growth of understory vegetation, which provides forage for prey species, as well as hiding and thermal cover.
Appendix 1 itemizes actions that have occurred in project areas over time.
While there are short-term effects (loss of 5, 6D habitats, some loss of snags and down woody material), the horizontal and vertical diversity of forest vegetation structure and species would be improved over time, in some sites as a result of partially opening the forest overstory. Past
95 Whittington BE activities have led to a homogenous environment in the form of plantations and ―thin from below‖ stands in Forest Service lands, and a pattern of clearcuts and early seral plantations in most of the private lands surrounding the project area. Alternative 1 would promote long-term structure into FS lands by promoting greater biodiversity, including greater prey species abundance and diversity, by introducing the different kinds of treatments interspersed with one another and by retaining leave islands. Some treatments promote the establishment and improved growing conditions of black oak, large > 30 inch trees, and down wood (an inevitable result of the cutting of safety snags) which are important components of California spotted owl habitat. Snags presently are, and will continue to be deficient in plantations (Soils Report), but may increase over time as the area grows into a more late-seral condition. Dead and down would also increase over time, continuing to contribute to large logs on the landscape as trees get older and die.
These factors, combined with the project measures implemented to sustaining spotted owls to reduce effects, would reduce the potential for a large scale, high severity wildfire. Without fuels reduction, large scale, stand replacing wildfires would most likely cause serious and significant impacts to the population (SNFPA 2001).
The temporary disturbance of California spotted owl habitat due to vegetation management from both action Alternatives would not fragment spotted owl dispersal habitat as canopy cover would not be reduced overall below 40 percent. Movement of late-seral dependent species to and from the analysis area to the north, east and west is presently constrained by patches of natural unsuitable habitat (lava fields, brushfields) and private property that has been extensively logged. As a result of past forest fires and private logging activities, there is a lack of suitable dispersal habitat running approximately 10 miles north from Snow Mountain, and 3 miles east from Snow Mountain to the project boundaries. Burney Mountain to the north is a cinder cone with no habitat, and beyond this are a series of privately maintained meadows, and fields.
The proposed area is within the most northernmost corridor for genetic flow between the California spotted owl and the northern spotted owl Barrowclough et. al. 2011).
In its 12-month finding in which it decided to not list the California Spotted Owl as Threatened or Endangered, the USFWS (USDI FWS 2006) concluded that the scale, magnitude, or intensity of effects on the California spotted owl resulting from fire, fuels treatments, timber harvest, and other activities did not rise above the threshold necessitating protection of the species under the Endangered Species Act (USFWS 2006). The USFWS reached this conclusion after considering the impacts of the Forest Service’s implementation of the SNFPA ROD and HFQLG pilot project. The USFWS’ (2006) conclusion is indicating that California Spotted Owl populations in the Sierra Nevada are stable. These activities embrace those described by both management documents. For all of these reasons, viability of the owl in the Whittington project area is not a concern.
Determination for Alternatives 1 and 3 for the California Spotted Owl Based on the above assessment of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, it has been determined that implementing Alternative 1 and 3 may affect individuals, but are not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for the California Spotted Owl. This determination is based on:
Although operations may affect individual owls or an owl pair through changes in forest structure and disturbance, the overall reduction in fire risk, and an emphasis on restoring
96 Whittington BE forest structure and ecological functions, would help maintain and increase California spotted owl habitat. Almost all of the suitable spotted owl habitat (with more than 40% canopy closure) is within spotted owl Protected Activity Centers (PACs), Home Range Conservation Areas (HRCAs) and SOHAs within the analysis area, outside of the project . These area would remain protected and project implementation would help to protect them from catastrophic fire Some amount of high quality (5D, 6D habitat) would be lost initially. The amount of high quality forest habitat (classes 5M and 5D) would increase over time, after treatment has been completed, due to forest growth from lower quality habitats (classes 4M and 4D, 5M, 6M). There would be a small amount of reduction in nesting habitat, short-term. This is a result of the of proposed project thinning activities in suitable habitat in the project area (see CWHR tables, above).
Alternative 2 – No Action
Table 36 shows the changes in acres between the current condition and 20 years later.
Table 36 – Alternative 2 Acres Current Condition and modeled for 20 years for the Whittington Project Project Acres Analysis Area Acres After 20 Acre CWHR No Action Acre Change No Action 20 years years Change 4M, 4D 2144 2114 -30 (-1%) 3945 3914 -31 (-1%) Foraging 5M, 5D, 6M, 6D 93 192 +99 (106%) 570 668 +98 (+17%) nesting Total 2237 2306 +69 (+3%) 4515 4582 +67 (+2%) Suitable
As can be seen the acre changes for all suitable habitat are minimal with a maximum 3 percent change, over time.
Direct Effects Alternative 2 authorizes no new actions. All previously approved management activities would continue to be implemented. There would be no new direct effects to California spotted owl. Spotted owl nesting would increase overall by 17 percent in the analysis area.
Indirect Effects Under the no action alternative, the Whittington project area would not be treated. This is not consistent with current management direction. Through natural ecological processes spotted owl habitat is increase by 99 acres over the next 20 years (Table 36). Alternative 2 would not produce impacts that add to other events in the environment (Appendix 1). For comparison with Alternative 1 and 3 see the above analysis on pp 77- 84.
Under the no action alternative, no treatments would be applied and the forest would continue to increase fuel loading and come under increasing threats from severe wildfires. Additionally, in
97 Whittington BE failing to reduce fuels build-up and stand density, drought stress and subsequent insect and disease mortality would exacerbate the threat of uncharacteristically severe wildfire.
Although there would be no direct effects to the California spotted owl, there also would be no fuels treatments and the continued threat of severe wildfire would remain unabated. In failing to reduce stand density and other fuels, drought stress and subsequent insect and disease mortality would increase the threat of uncharacteristically severe wildfire which could eliminate large portions of this species’ habitat.
Determination for Alternative 2 for the California Spotted Owl Based on the above assessment of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, it is has been determined that the no-action alternative of the Whittington project would not affect the California Spotted Owl, as no action would be implemented, and current management would continue.
98 Whittington BE VI. REFERENCES
Allen, A.W. 1987. The Relationship between habitat and furbearers. Pages 164-179 in: M.Novak, J.A. Baker, M.E. Obbard and B.Mallock, eds. Wild Furbearer Management and Conservation in North America. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources. Canada. Aubrey, K.B. and C.M. Raley. 2006. Ecological characteristics of fishers (Martes pennanti) in the Southern Oregon Cascade Range. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Olympia Forestry Sciences Laboratory, Olympia, WA. Barrows, Cameron W. 1981. Roost selection by spotted owls: an adaptation to heat Stress. Condor 83: pp 302-309. Bart, J. 1995. Amount of suitable habitat and viability of Northern Spotted Owls. Conservation Biology 9: 943-946. Beier, Paul and Joseph Drennan. 1995. Forest Structure and Prey Abundance in Foraging Areas of Northern Goshawks. Ecological Applications, 7(2), 1997, pp. 564–571 Bloom, P.H., G.R. Stewart and B.J. Walton. 1986. The status of the northern goshawk in California, 1981-1983. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish & Game, Wildlife Management Branch, Administrative Report 85-1. 26pp. Bond, Monica L. R. J. Gutierrez, Alan B. Franklin, William S. LaHaye Christopher A. May, and Mark E. Seamans. 2002. Short-term effects of wildfires on spotted owl survival, site fidelity, mate fidelity, and reproductive success. Wildlife Society Bulletin 2002, 30(4):1022-1028 Bond, M.L., R.J. Gutierrez, A.B. Franklin, W.S. LaHaye, C.A. May, and M.E. Seaman. 2004. Short-term effects of wildfire on spotted owl survival, site fidelity, mate fidelity, and reproductive success. Journal of Wildlife Management. Bowman, J., G.J. Forbes, and T.G. Dilworth. 2001. The spatial component of variation in small- mammal abundance measured at three scales. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:137- 144. Bowman, J., J.A.G. Jaeger, and L. Fahrig. 2002. Dispersal distance of mammals is proportional to home range size. Ecology 83:2049-2055. Buck, S., C. Mullis, A. Mossman., I. Show, and C. Coolahan. 1994. Habitat use by fishers in adjoining heavily and lightly harvested forest. pp 368-376, in Buskirk, S. W., A. S. Harestad, M. G. Raphael, and R. A. Powell, eds. Martens, sables, and fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, NY. 484 pp. Buskirk, S.W. and R.A. Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens. pp 283-296, in Buskirk, S. W., A. S. Harestad, M. G. Raphael, and R. A. Powell, eds. Martens, sables, and fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, NY. 484 pp. Campbell, Steven P., Jack W. Witham, and Malcolm L Hunter, Jr. 2007. Long-Term Effects of Group-Selection Timber Harvesting on Abundance of Forest Birds. Conservation Biology, Vol 21, No 5. PP 1218-1229. Carey, A.B. 2000. Effects of new forest management strategies on squirrel populations. Ecol. Appl. 10, 248–257. Carey, A.B., Johnson, M.L. 1995. Small mammals in managed,naturally young, and old-growth forests. Ecol. Appl. 5, 336–352. Casey E. Phillips, Douglas J. Tempel, and R. J. Gutiérrez. 2010. Do California Spotted owls Select Nest Trees Close to Forest Edges. Journal of Raptor Research, 44(4):311-314. 2010. Pub. By The Raptor Research Foundation CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2011. California Department of Fish and Game and California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) version 8.2. personal computer program. Sacramento, California.
99 Whittington BE Dugger, K.M.; Wagner, F.; Anthony, R.G.; Olson, G.S. 2005. The relationship between habitat characteristics and demographic performance of northern spotted owls in southern Oregon. Condor. 107: 863–878. Federal Register. Department of Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90 day Finding for a Petition to List a Distinct Population segment of the Fisher in West Coast Range as Endangered and to Designate Critical Habitat. Vol. 68, No. 132, Thursday, July 10, 2003. Forsman, E.D., E.C. Meslow, and H.M. Wight. 1984. Distribution and biology of the Spotted Owl in Oregon. Wildlife Monograph 87. 64 pp. Flannigan, M.D.; Stocks, B.J.; Wottom, B.M. 2000. Climate change and forest fires. Science of the Total Environment. 262: 221–229. Franklin, A.B.; Gutiérrez, R.J.; Burnham, K.P. 2000. Climate, habitat quality, and fitness in northern spotted owl populations in northwest California. Ecological Monographs. 70: 539–590. Freel, Maeton. 1991. A literature review for management of the marten and fisher on national forests in California. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Cover letter to Forests is dated 1992. Golightly, R.T., S.J. Dark, S.M. Wisely, and A. Seglund. 1997. Rest site use by Pacific fisher on Shasta-Trinity National forest, 1992-1996. Final report to USDA Forest Service, Shasta-Trinity National Forest, Redding, CA. Unpublished. Graham T.R., T.B. Jain, R.T. Reynolds and D.A. Boyce. 1995. The Role of Fire in Sustaining Northern Goshawk Habitat in Rocky Mountain Forests. in Proceedings: First Conference on Fire Effects on Rare and Endangered Species and Habitats. Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. November 13-16. Grenfell, W.E. and M. Fasenfest. 1979. Winter food habits of fishers, Martes pennanti, in northwestern California. Calif. Fish and Game 65:186-189. Gutiérrez , R.J., J. Verner, K.S. McKelvey, B.R. Noon, G.N. Steger, D.R. Call, W.S. LaHaye, B.B. Bingham, and J.S. Senser. 1992. Habitat relations of the California spotted owl. Pp. 79–98 (Chapter 5) in The California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its current status (J. Verner, K.S. McKelvey, B.R. Noon, R.J. Gutiérrez, Gutiérrez, R.J., A.B. Franklin, and W.S. LaHaye. 1995. Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis). No. 170 in The birds of North America (Poole, A. and F. Gill, editors). Academy of Natural Science, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. Hamer, T.E., D.L. Hays, C.M. Senger, and E.D. Forsman. 2001. Diets of northern barred owls and northern spotted owls in an area of sympatry. Journal of Raptor Research 35(3):221–227. Harris, Larry D. 1984. The Fragmented Forest, Island Biogeography Theory and the Preservation of Biotic Diversity. Univ of Chicago Press. Chicago & London, 211 pp Heinemeyer, K.S., and J.L. Jones. 1994. Fisher biology and management: a literature review and adaptive management strategy. Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service Northern Region. 108 pp. Hicks, Jane. 1984. Bats not so bad after all. Outdoor California. September-October. Hoffman, A.A., and M.W. Blows. 1994. Species borders: ecological and evolutionary perspectives. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 9:223-227. Hunter, Malcolm L. Jr. 1990. Wildlife, Forests, and Forestry, Principles of Managing Forests for Biological Diversity. Prentice-Hall, Inc. New Jersey. Hutto, R.L. 1995. Composition of bird communities following stand-replacement fires in northern Rocky Mountain (USA) conifer forests. Conservation Biology. 9: 1041–1058. Hutto, Richard L. 2006. Toward meaningful snag-Management guidelines for postfire salvage logging in North American conifer forests. Conservation Biology Volume 20, No. 4, 984– 993
100 Whittington BE Kelly, J.E. and N.L. Stephenson. 2000. Restoring natural fire regimes to the Sierra Nevada in an era of global change. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-15-Vol-5. Kelly, E.G, E.D. Forsman, and R.G. Anthony. 2003. Are barred owls displacing spotted owls? Condor 105(1):45–53. Kilpatrick, H.J., and P.W. Rego. 1994. Influence of season, sex, and site availability on fisher (Martes pennanti) rest-site selection in the central hardwood forest. Canadian Journal of Zoology 72: 1416-1419. Kirk, Thomas A and William J Zielinski. 2010. Functional Habitat Connectivity of the American Marten (Martes americana) in Northeastern California Using Least-cost Corridor Modeling. USDA Forest Service, Lassen NF and Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences Laboratory. Krohn, W.B., W.J. Zielinski, and R.B. Boone. 1997. Relations among fishers, snow, and martens in California: Results from small-scale spatial comparisons. pp 211-232. In Proulx, G., H.N. Bryant, and P.M. Woodard, editors. Martes: taxonomy, ecology, techniques and management. Provincial Museum of Alberta, Alberta, Canada. Leskiw, T., and R.J. Gutiérrez. 1998. Possible predation of a spotted owl by a barred owl. Western Birds 29:225–226. Malakoff, David. 1997. Droppings give the lowdown on spotted owls. Science. Vol. 277no 5328 p. 901 Martin, S.K. 1987. The ecology of the pine marten (Martes americana) at Sagehen Creek, California. Berkeley, CA: University of California. 223 p. Ph.D. dissertation. Mazurek, M. J. and William Zielinski. 2004. Individual legacy trees influence vertebrate wildlife diversity in commercial forests. Forest Ecology and Management 193 (2004) pp 321- 334 McKenzie, D., Z. Gedalof, D.L. Peterson, and P. Mote. 2004. Climatic change, wildfire, and conservation. Conservation Biology 18: 890-902. Miller, J. D., H. D. Safford, M. Crimmins, and A. E. Thode. 2009. Quantitative evidence for increasing forest fire severity in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Mountains, California and Nevada, USA. Ecosystems 12: 16-32 Morrison, Michael, Richard J. Young, J. Shane Romsos, and Richard Golightly. 2011. Restoring Forest Raptors: Influence of Human Disturbance and Forest Condition on Northern Goshawks. Restoration Ecology Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 273–279 North, M., P. Stine, K. O’Hara, W. Zielinski, S. Stephens. 2009. An ecosystem management strategy for Sierran mixed-conifer forests. GTR PSW-GTR-220. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 49p. Paragi, T.F., S.M. Arthur, and W.B. Krohn. 1996. Importance of tree cavities as natal dens for fishers. National Journal of American Foresters. 13:79-83. Pilliod, D.S.; Bull, E.L.; Hayes, J.L.; Wales, B.C. 2006. Wildlife and invertebrate response to fuel reduction treatments in dry coniferous forests of the Western United States: a synthesis. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-173. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 34 p. Powell RA. 1993. The fisher: life history, ecology and behavior. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press Powell, R.A. 1994. Structure and spacing of Martes populations. Pp. 101-121 in Martens, sables and fishers: biology and conservation (S.W. Buskirk, A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael, and R.A. Powell, eds.), Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. Reed, Sara. 2007. Influences of motorized route networks on fisher (Martes pennanti habitat quality in the Sierra National Forest. Report submitted to the Wilderness Society, Center for Landscape analysis. On file at HatCreek RD, Lassen NF. Reynolds, R. T., R. T. Graham, and M. H. Hildegard. 1992. Management recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in the southwestern United States. General Technical Report
101 Whittington BE RM-217. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ft. Collins, Colorado. Reynolds, R. T., J. D. Wiens, and S. R. Salafsky. 2006. A review and evaluation of factors limiting Northern Goshawk populations. Studies in Avian Biology 31:260–273. Rentz, E. and Merriam, K. 2009. Restoration and management of Baker Cypress in Northern California and Southern Oregon. Proceedings of the California Native Plant Society Workshop, Sacramento, CA, January 2009. In press. Rich, T. D., C. J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P. J. Blancher, M. S. W. Bradstreet, G. S. Butcher, D. W. Demarest, E. H. Dunn, W. C. Hunter, E. E. Iñigo-Elias, J. A. Kennedy, A. M. Martell, A. O. Panjabi, D. N. Pashley, K. V. Rosenberg, C. M. Rustay, J. S. Wendt, T. C. Will. 2004. Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY. Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L. J. Lyon and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores -American Marten, Fisher, Lynx and Wolverine in the Western United States. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, CO. GTR RM254. Self, S.E., and S.J. Kerns. 2001. Pacific fisher use of a managed forest landscape in northern California. SPI Wildlife Research Paper 6. Sierra Pacific Research and Monitoring and Sierra Pacific Industries Redding, California, USA. 32p. Sherwin, Rick. 1998. Pallid bat information in Ecology, Conservation and Management of Western Bat Species. Bat Species Accounts. Simon, T. L. 1980. An ecological study of the marten in the Tahoe National Forest, California. M.S. Thesis, California State University, Sacramento. 140pp. Spiegel, L. H., and P. W. Price. 1996. Plant aging and the distribution of Rhyacionia neomexicana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Environ. Entomol. 25: 359Ð365. Spencer, W.D., R.H. Barrett, and W.J. Zielinski. 1983. Marten habitat preferences in the northern Sierra Nevada. Journal of Wildlife Management 47:1181-1186. Squires, J.R., and R.T. Reynolds. 1997. Northern Goshawk (Accipter gentilis). In The Birds of North America, No. 298. (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and the American Ornithologists Union, Washington, D.C. Stein, S. J., P. W. Price, W. G. Abrahamson, and C. F. Sacchi. 1992. The effects of fire on stimulating willow regrowth and subsequent attack by grasshoppers and elk. Oikos 65: 190-196. Timossi, I. 1990. California’s statewide wildlife habitat relationships system. Calif. Dept. of fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. Computerized database. Truex, R.L. and W.J. Zielinski. 2005. Short-term Effects of Fire and Fire Surrogate Treatments On Fisher Habitat in the Sierra Nevada. August 1. Final Report Joint Fire Science Program Project JFSP 01C-3-3-02. USDA Forest Service. 1992. Forest Land Resource and Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Lassen National Forest. USDA Forest Service. 2001. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Chapter 3. Part 4. Volume 3 of 6. USDA Forest Service. 2001a. Survey Protocol for the Northern Goshawk in the Pacific Southwest Region. USDA Forest Service. 2003a. GIS layers for Hat Creek Ranger District. Lassen National Forest. USDA Forest Service. 2003b. Sightings database and maps for Hat Creek Ranger District. Lassen National Forest. USDA Forest Service. 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Record of Decision and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo, CA. 492pp + 72 pp (ROD).
102 Whittington BE USDA Forest Service. 2005. Sierra Nevada forest plan accomplishment monitoring report for 2004. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region R5-MR-026. 8pp. USDA Forest Service. 2006a. Sierra Nevada forest plan accomplishment monitoring report for 2005. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region R5-MR-000. 12pp. USDA Forest Service. 2007. Sensitive Animal Species by Forest. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, last updated 2010. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Memorandum of Understanding between the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service to promote the conservation of migratory birds. FS Agreement #08-MU-1113- 2400-264. Washington, D.C. USDA Forest Service. 2011. Forest Inventory Analysis (FIA) Data. USDA Forest Service. 2012. Fuels Report for the Whittington Project. On file at Lassen NF, Hat Creek RD USDA Forest Service. 2012. Soils Report for the Whittington Project. On file at Lassen NF, Hat Creek RD. USDA Forest Service. 2012. Managing Sierra Nevada Forests. Malcolm North, Editor. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-237 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, California USDA Forest Service Manual. 1991. Wildlife, Fish and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management. WO Amendment 2600-91-3. Chapter 2670 – Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants and Animals. 2672.4. USFWS. 2002. Birds of Conservation Concern 2002. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 99 pp. USFWS. 2004. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-month Finding for a Petition to List the West Coast Distinct Population Segment of the Fisher (Martes pennant); Proposed Rule. Federal Register 69:18770-18792. USDI FWS. 2006. 12-month finding for a Petition to List the California Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) as Threatened or Endangered. Federal Register 71 (100): 29886-29908. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 2011. Species of Concern. http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/ES_Species/Accounts/Species-Concerns/es species- concerns.htm. Last accessed October 2011. USDI FWS. 2011. USFWS list of federal endangered and threatened species that occur in or may be affected by projects in Lassen National Forest. Available:
103 Whittington BE Zeiner, David C., William F. Laudenslayer Jr., Kenneth E. Mayer and Marshall White. 1990a. California's Wildlife, Volume II, Birds. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. November. Zeiner, David C., William F. Laudenslayer Jr., Kenneth E. Mayer and Marshall White. 1990b. California's Wildlife, Volume III, Mammals. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. April. Zielinski, W.J. and T.E. Kucera. 1995. American Marten, Fisher, Lynx and Wolverine: Survey Methods for Their Detection. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. General Technical Report PSWGTR-157. Zielinski, W.J., and N.P. Duncan. 2004. Diets of sympatric populations of American martens (Martes americana) and fishers (Martes pennanti) in California. J. Mammal. 85(3):470- 477. Zielinski, W.J., R.Truex, G.A. Schmidt, F.V. Schlexer, K.N. Schmidt, R.H. Barrett. 2004a. Resting Habitat Selection by Fishers in California. Journal of Wildlife Management 68(3):475-492. Zielinski, W.J., R.L.Truex, G.A. Schmidt, F.V. Schlexer, K.N. Schmidt, R.H. Barrett. 2004b. Home Range Characteristics of Fishers in California. Journal of Mammalogy 85(4): 649- 657. Zielinski, W.J., R.L. Truex, F.V. Schlexer, L.A. Campbell and C. Carroll. 2005. Historical and contemporary distributions of carnivores in forests of the Sierra Nevada, California, USA. Journal of Biogeography (J.Biogeor.) (2005) 32, 1385-1407. Zielinski, W. J., Keith Slauson, and Ann Bowler. 2008. Effectsof Off-Highway Vehicle Use on the American Marten. Journal of Wildlife Management 72 (7). pp 1558-1571.
104 Whittington BE
APPENDIX 1 – ACTIVITIES CONTRIBUTING TO CUMULATIVE EFFECTS IN THE WHITTINGTON PROJECT AREA
Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions -List of Cumulative Actions This report summarizes the analysis area and the temporal scale (time) considered for the cumulative effects analysis. Each resource analysis has disclosed the specific cumulative effects for that particular resource area. Refer to the applicable EA sections for a specific discussion of cumulative effects.
Scope of the Cumulative Effects Area The cumulative effects area would be at a minimum the project area. In addition, some resources would use a larger cumulative effects area such as subwatersheds. The time period used for including past actions is 30 years (1981-2011) for federal actions and 20 years (1991- 2011) for private lands.
Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions The following list of cumulative effects actions is considered for this project. Maps showing these activities in relationship to the project area follow the tables. The tables summarize those past, ongoing and foreseeable future actions, with a description of the activity and the acres affected. Guidance on cumulative effects, in particular, past actions, was considered, based on Connaughton (2005), here by incorporated by reference.
105 Whittington BE
Table 1. List of past vegetative management actions - (see Map 1) Activity Name Year Activity Description Chunk TS 1975 Commercial Thin on 863 acres Tamarack Salvage 1979 Sanitation/Salvage on 866 acres TS Browns Sanitation 1980 Sanitation Salvage on 163 acres Salvage Butte Salvage TS 1981 Sanitation/Salvage on 1102 acres North Dutch TS 1983 Overstory Removal/Single Tree Selection on 739 acres Horse Thinning TS 1984 Timber harvest on 408 acres using the following silviculture treatment: Commercial Thin on 402 acres and Clearcut on 3 acres Cinder 1989 Sanitation/Salvage on 836 acres Sanitation/Salvage TS Eiler Insect 1990 Sanitation/Salvage on 167 acres Sanitation/Salvage TS Tamarack SSTS 1990 Overstory Removal/Single Tree Selection on 483 acres Opdyke Hill 2006 Invasive weed treatment on less than 1 acre Klamathweed Buttes Helicopter 1990 Sanitation/Salvage on 899 acres Sanitation/Salvage Sale Boyle Insect 1995 Timber harvest on 1,048 acres using the following Salvage TS silviculture treatment: Precommercial Thin on 557 acres, Sanitation Salvage on 268 acres, Commercial Thin/Sanitation Salvage on 223 acres Tropical Insect 1995 Sanitation/Salvage on 170 acres. Sanitation/Salvage TS Heavenly Insect 1996 Timber harvest on 752 acres using the following Salvage TS silviculture treatment: Commercial Thin on 525 acres, Commercial Thin with Sanitation/Salvage on 188 acres, Sanitation/Salvage on 39 acres. Wilcox Salvage/Thin 1998 Timber harvest on 859 acres using the following Resale silviculture treatment: Commercial Thin/Salvage Harvest on 87 acres, Salvage harvest on 772 acres. Boyle Brush 2007 Brush Mastication on 459 acres. Mastication Brown’s Fire 2009 Brown’s fire created reforestation need on 51 acres that were too steep to be salvage harvested. Brown’s Fire TS 2011 Timber harvest on 1 acre using the following silviculture treatment: fire salvage harvest and mechanical site preparation for planting.
106 Whittington BE
Table 2. List of past vegetative management actions on Private Lands- (see Map 2) Landowner Year Activity 2001 Commercial Thin on 3 acres. Timber harvest on 2,379 acres using the following silviculture treatment: Commercial Thin on 103 acres, 2004 Clearcut on 249 acres, Shelterwood Removal/Sanitation Salvage on 1887 acres, Sanitation Salvage on 140 acres Timber harvest on 2,592 acres using the following silviculture treatment: Clearcut on 181 acres, Commercial Fruit Growers Supply 2005 Thin on 1,000 acres, Selection Cut/Individual Tree Selection on 469 acres, Shelterwood Removal on 336 acres, Co. Shelterwood Removal with Commercial Thin on 606 acres Timber harvest on 2,882 acres using the following silviculture treatment: Clearcut on 149 acres, Sanitation 2007 Salvage on 81 acres, Selection Cut/Individual Tree Selection on 77 acres, and Shelterwood Removal/Sanitation Salvage on 2,575 acres Timber harvest on 2,338 acres using the following 2008 silviculture treatment: Clearcut on 315 acres, Shelterwood Removal on 779 acres, Sanitation Salvage on 1,244 acres Sierra Pacific Industries 2008 Clearcutting on 563 acres WM. Beatty & 2008 Commercial Thinning on 24 acres Associates Source: Hat Creek Ranger District FACTS database and California Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection database/records
Table 3. Summary past vegetative management actions by treatment type Treatment Type Acres Treated Forest Service Activities Mechanical Thin (commercial and pre-commercial) 2,434 Commercial Thin & Sanitation/Salvage 411 Sanitation/Salvage 4,510 Salvage 772 Overstory Removal/Single Tree Selection 1,222 Clearcut 3 Weed Treatment 1 Reforestation Need Created by Fire (No Harvest) 51 Fire Salvage 1 Brush Mastication 459 Total Acres 9,864 Private Activities Commercial Thin 1,130 Clearcut 1,457 Shelterwood Removal with Commercial Thin 606
107 Whittington BE Treatment Type Acres Treated Shelterwood Removal 1,115 Shelterwood Removal/Sanitation Salvage 4,462 Sanitation Salvage 1,465 Selection Cut 546 Total Acres 10,781
Table 4. List of ongoing actions Activity Name Year Activity Description Post-fire regeneration ongoing Planting on 405 acres. (Brown’s Fire) Thousand Lakes Wilderness. This work is Trail Maintenance ongoing generally accomplished force account crews during the spring and summer Annual road maintenance, grading of roads and Road Maintenance ongoing ditches, culvert cleanout, hazard tree removal, maintaining and installing signs... Post Poles; Christmas Tree; ongoing Use is common in project area. Fuel Wood Use OHV, Mountain Bikes, Hiking, ongoing Recreation use by the public is common. Hunting,Dispersed Camping, Source: Hat Creek District Records
Table 5 Summary of acres of ongoing vegetative management by treatment type Treatment Type Acres Treated Commercial Thinning (thin from below) 34 Post-Fire Restoration and Regeneration 1,700 Shelterwood cut 235
Table 6. List of reasonably foreseeable future actions - (2013-+) Activity Name Year Activity Description Sierra Pacific 2013+ Clearcut on 407 acres Industries Timber harvest on 986 acres using the following silviculture treatments: Fruitgrowers 2012+ Clearcut on 679 acres and Sanitation/Salvage on 307 acres
Table 7. Summary of acres of reasonably foreseeable future actions by treatment type (see Map 3) Treatment Type Acres Treated Sanitation/Salvage 307 Clearcut 1,096
108 Whittington BE
Map #1
109 Whittington BE
Map #2
110 Whittington BE
Map #3
111 Whittington BE