Terrestrial Wildlife

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.

Load more