Terrestrial Wildlife

Biological Assessment and Evaluation Reading 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

T31N R04E S1, 2, 11, 12: T31N 05E S 1-12 T32N R05E S25-28, 31-36 All or portions thereof of Sections

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 Reading BE/BA TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTERS Page #

Chapter I Introduction 4 A. Purpose of Document And Species Addressed 4 B. Species Considered and Species Evaluated 7 C. Species Excluded from Further Evaluation. 12 D. Analysis Process 14

Chapter II Consultation to Date 14

Chapter III Regulatory Setting 14 A. Management Direction and Regulations 14 B. Wildlife Management Areas 17 1. California Spotted Owl Home Range Core Area (HRCA) 17 2. California Spotted Owl Activity Center (SOPAC) 18 3. Goshawk Protected Activity Center (PAC) 18 C. Standards and Guidelines 18

Chapter IV Alternatives 21 A. Proposed Action and No Action Alternatives 21 1. Alternative 1 – Proposed Action Alternative 22 2. Alternative 2 – No Action Alternative 31

Chapter V Existing Environment 31 A. Habitat Account 31 1. The Composite Burn Index 32 2. CBI Conversion to Basal Area 35 B. Effects on Reading Area Habitat 44 1. Habitat in General 44 2. Mid to Late Seral Habitat 47 C. Sensitive Species Habitat Accounts 50 1. Pallid Bat 50 2. American Marten 55 3. Northern Goshawk 64 4. California Spotted Owl 73 Chapter VI References 84

MAPS Map 1 Location of Project 5 Map 2 Alternative 1 Proposed Action Treatments 6 Map 3 Resources and Wildlife Analysis Area 20

TABLES

Species Presence and Absence from Project Area Table 1 – Regional Forester’s (R5) List of Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Sensitive Species for the Lassen National Forest 7 Table 2 – Species Project Analysis Worksheet 10

2 Reading BE/BA

Alternatives Table 3 – Treatment Acres in the Reading Project 22 Table 4 – Restoration on the Reading Fire 24 Table 5 – RCA Widths 28 Table 6 – Burn Severity Scale 33 Table 7 – Vegetation Acres Burned 34 Table 8 – Proposed Post-Fire Veg type Conversion Guidelines 36 Table 9 – Post-Fire Vegetation Acres Based on Basal Area 36 Table 10 – Pre and Post-Fire Vegetation Alternative 2 38 Table 11 – Pre- and Post-Habitat Change in the project area 40 Table 12 – Lassen Volcanic National Park Lands 42

Existing Environment Table 13 – Post-Project Analysis Acres 44 Table 14 – Mid to Late Seral Habitat remaining within the Reading Project 48 Table 15 – Mid-Late Seral Habitat Affected by the Reading Fire in the Analysis Area 49 Marten Analysis Table 16 – Marten Capable Habitat within Reading Project Boundaries 57 Table 17 –Reduction/Addition of Roads to FS System 60 Table 18 – Effects of the Reading Fire and Implementation 62

Northern Goshawk Analysis Table 19 – Goshawk GPACs and Detections within the Analysis Area 66 Table 20 – Goshawk Moderate and High Capability 67 Table 21 – Acres Burned at High or Moderately High Severity Class in GPACs 70

California Spotted Owl Analysis Table 22 – Burn Severity on Suitable Habitat for Spotted Owl within the Project Area 76 Table 23 – Habitat Comparison between HC 17 Old and New PACs 79

3 Reading BE/BA

I. INTRODUCTION

A. PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT AND SPECIES ADDRESSED

The purpose of this Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation (BA/BE) is to analyze and disclose the potential effects of the U.S.D.A. Forest Service (FS), Lassen National Forest (Lassen NF), Hat Creek Ranger District (District) proposed action, the Reading Project, on species (and/or their habitats) listed as endangered, threatened, candidate or proposed (Biological Assessment) under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended (ESA); and species designated as sensitive by the Regional Forester in Region 5 (Biological Evaluation).

The Reading Fire started from a lightning strike in the Lassen Volcanic National Park (LVNP) on July 23, 2012. On August 8, 2012, the fire burned from the LVNP onto the Lassen National Forest, Hat Creek Ranger District. The Reading Fire was contained on September 24, 2012, after burning approximately 28,079 acres, of which 11,071 acres falls under the jurisdiction of the Lassen NF. The Reading Project area is bounded by the Reading Fire perimeter to the north, west, and east (excluding Fruit Growers Supply Co. land) and the Lassen Volcanic National Park (LVNP) to the south (Map 1).

The BA provides a process through which potential effects of the proposed action 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]

The BE provides a process through which potential effects of the proposed action on sensitive species are evaluated and considered during the planning and review process. The analysis in the BE is completed to determine whether the proposed action would result in a trend toward the sensitive species becoming federally listed. This BE follows the standards established in Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 2672.4) and the Lassen NF Forest Plan.

This particular BA/BE assesses the effects of fire salvage activities that are proposed for the Reading Project (Map 2), on wildlife species. A separate document entitled Terrestrial Wildlife Management Indicator Species Report for the Reading Project assesses the proposed Reading Project on Forest Service management indicator species (MIS). MIS are 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.

4 Reading BE/BA

5 Reading BE/BA

6 Reading BE/BA Species lists are based on lists of federally threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species for the Lassen NF from the U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The U.S.D.A. Forest Service’s wildlife sensitive species list is based on the Pacific Southwest Region’s list of 1998, as amended. These lists are the most current versions for the Lassen NF.

The objectives of this document, as fulfilled by the biological assessment / biological evaluation (BA/BE), are to: describe the proposed project and the alternatives, including measures designed to minimize or avoid potential adverse effects on wildlife species and their habitats addressed within; summarize existing resource and species occurrence information for the project area; analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed action on species, habitats or thresholds addressed within; determine whether the proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally listed species and if formal consultation with USFWS is required (BA); and result in a trend toward federal listing of any sensitive species

B. TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE SPECIES CONSIDERED AND SPECIES EVALUATED Analysis is presented in this document to determine the effects of two alternatives (Alternative1= proposed action, and Alternative 2 = no action) for the Reading Project for the following threatened (T), endangered (E), proposed (P), candidate (C), and/or Forest Service sensitive (FSS) terrestrial wildlife species. 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 List (March 2013) lists the following special status species as potentially occurring in the Lassen NF (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 Pallid bat (Antrozous abundant below 6000 feet in elevation in the Sonoran life Sensitive pallidus) zones but have been 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 Caves or cave-surrogates. Require specific bat (Corynorhinus Sensitive microclimatic conditions to roost successfully. Forage townsendii) on the wing. Within range Highly associated with intact riparian habitat, particularly Western red bat willows, cottonwoods, and sycamores. Roosts in tree Sensitive (Lasiurus blossevillii) foliage and occasionally shrubs along edge habitats adjacent to streams, fields, or urban areas that are

7 Reading BE/BA Species (common name/scientific Status Habitat on Lassen* name) protected from above, 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 North American in high-elevation rocky substrates often associated with wolverine (Gulo gulo Sensitive wood or boulders in cirque basins on north and east luteus) slopes where snow persists into the 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 American marten diversity, with predominately mature forest; snags; Sensitive (Martes americana) dispersal cover; and large woody debris. 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 Coniferous forests; dense canopies, large trees, snags, and down logs. Vegetated understory and large woody debris appear important for prey species. These California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) types Sensitive; are important to fishers: structure classes 4M, 4D, 5M, Fisher (Martes Federal 5D and 6 (stands with trees 11” diameter at breast pennanti pacifica) Candidate height or greater and greater than 40% cover) in Species (C1) ponderosa pine, montane hardwood-conifer, mixed conifer, montane riparian, aspen, red fir, Jeffrey pine, lodgepole pine, subalpine conifer, and eastside pine. Within range. (Federal Register 2013) Prefers red fir and lodgepole pine forests in the subalpine zone and alpine fell fields of the Sierra Sierra Nevada red Nevada. Does not appear to require dense canopy fox (Vulpes vulpes Sensitive closure; however, it uses forested areas in proximity to necator) meadows, riparian areas, brush fields. Usually above 5,000 feet. Within range Birds Breeds in ponderosa pine/mixed-conifer, red fir and Northern goshawk Sensitive lodgepole pine vegetation types, and in eastside pine (Accipiter gentilis) forests on the east slope: also may nest in aspen stands

8 Reading BE/BA Species (common name/scientific Status Habitat on Lassen* name) occurring within shrub vegetation types on the eastern slopes of the Sierra Nevada. Habitat varies depending upon vegetation. Within range. Nesting territories are normally associated with lakes, reservoirs, rivers, or large streams and are usually within Sensitive; two miles from water bodies that support an adequate Federal food supply Most nesting territories in California occur Bald eagle protection Bald from 1,000 to 6,000 feet elevation, but nesting can occur (Haliaeetus and Golden from near sea level to over 7,000 Bald eagle nests are leucocephalus) Eagle Act ; usually located in uneven-aged (multi-storied) stands listed in LRMP with large, old trees (Anthony and others 1982). Most as Endangered nests in California are located in ponderosa pine and mixed-conifer stands. Within range This hawk prefers open grasslands and desert-like Swainson’s hawk habitats; common to see perched on a fence post in a Sensitive (Buteo swainsoni) prairie or open 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. Sensitive brewsteri and E. t. Shrub layer 6.5 to 13 feet in height, with the lower 6.5 adastus) feet comprised of dense woody vegetation. Foliage density is moderate to high and uniform from the ground to the shrub canopy. Within range Primarily birds of open freshwater wetland and shallow Greater sandhill marshes, but utilize a broad range of habitat types, from crane (Grus Sensitive bogs, sedge meadows, and fens to open grasslands, canadensis tabida ) pine savannahs, and cultivated lands. Within range Found in mature red fir, mixed conifer, or lodgepole pine Great gray owl (Strix forests near wet meadows. Average canopy closure of Sensitive nebulosa) the stands is greater than 70% and the meadows range in size from 17 to 100 acres. Within range Range n. of Hwy 299 and Pit River. Primarily utilizes **Northern spotted mixed-conifer forest type Requires late successional owl (Strix Threatened forest (large trees>30”dbh, > 50% cc, decadence. Not occidentalis caurina) within range The mixed-conifer forest type is the predominant type used by spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada: about 80 percent of known sites are found in mixed-conifer forest, California spotted also in red fir forest, ponderosa pine/hardwood and in owl (Strix Sensitive foothill riparian/hardwood forest and eastside pine. occidentalis Requires late successional forest (large trees>30”dbh, > occidentalis) 70% cc, decadence) for nest sites. Within range

9 Reading BE/BA Species (common name/scientific Status Habitat on Lassen* name) Reptiles/Amphibians Sacramento valley floor wetland areas (Federal Register **Giant garter snake Threatened Vol. 58 No. 201 pg. 54053). Not within range (Thamnophis gigas) Not within range Invertebrates **Valley elderberry longhorn beetle Barr, C. B. (1991); Federal Register Vol. 45 No. 155 pg. (Desmocerus Threatened 52803. Not within range californicus dimorphus)

*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 Reading Project analysis area (within the Reading Fire boundaries) (Map 1).

TABLE 2 – SPECIES PROJECT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Project Name: Reading Project (4700 Treatment acres) Project Area Elevation: 5,200 – 8,100 Project Area Vegetation Habitat: Pine, Mixed Conifer, True Fir Aspen, Meadow and wetland; mostly burned in varying degrees

Project/Analysis Species Area includes found in potential SPECIES Project Area Comments; reasons for exclusion breeding/Roosting Common name surveys or or inclusion in BE/BA or other documented restrictive habitat in literature needs 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 North American historically or currently within or some yes wolverine adjacent to the project area; and no potential habitats have been identified

10 Reading BE/BA Project/Analysis Species Area includes found in potential SPECIES Project Area Comments; reasons for exclusion breeding/Roosting Common name surveys or or inclusion in BE/BA or other documented restrictive habitat in literature needs within the analysis area. See further comments below table 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 Yes historical sightings; negative results from 2004-2010 surveys. See further comments below this table Foraging habitat present; meadow area; subalpine habitat; historical Sierra Nevada red sightings west of project. Not recorded some No fox in camera surveys completed in 2010- 2011 (see further comments below table) Nesting habitat present in analysis Northern goshawk yes Yes area; gPACs in project area; sightings from surveys. Analyzed Observed flying overhead, perhaps Bald Eagle No No 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 PACs; sightings and vocal detections; California spotted Yes Yes habitat present in proposed project owl Area. Analyzed Meadow surveyed; no detections. Not Great gray owl yes No analyzed (see existing environment section)

11 Reading BE/BA Species with potential habitat and are within the range of the project that are analyzed within this document include the pallid bat, California spotted owl, American marten, and northern goshawk.

C. 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 Species List (see Table 1) 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. Forest Service sensitive species were also excluded from further evaluation for similar reasons (Table 2). A summary of the species excluded from further evaluation is provided below.

1. Sensitive Species Based upon Tables 1 and 2, wildlife sensitive species that would not be analyzed within this document include:

The western red bat, bald eagle, Swainson’s hawk, willow flycatcher, and greater sandhill crane – because there is no habitat. Wolverine, fisher, Sierra Nevada red fox, great gray owl – these species do have habitat within proposed project boundary, but are not analyzed for the following reasons listed below.

Great Gray Owl Surveys specifically for great gray owls have been performed on the District with no detections made. No detections have occurred during 20 years of extensive surveys for California spotted owls on the Lassen NF; nor are there any reliable historic records for this species occurring on the District. Based on the lack of detections in the Lassen NF and the assumption that this species likely would have been detected if it were present, the District appears to be outside the current range of the great gray owl. Therefore, the Reading Project would not affect this species or its habitat, and no further analysis is necessary.

Sierra Nevada Red Fox: There are no recent detections of Sierra Nevada red fox within the project area. As cited in USDA (2006), Dr. W.J. Zielinski stated that Pacific Southwest survey data from 1996 through 2002 appear to support the conclusion that the LVNP is the last holdout for the Sierra Nevada red fox. The LRMP, as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA 2004), directs Forests to consider whether project activities have the potential to affect Sierra Nevada red fox within five miles of a detection, which is not associated with a den site, for a two year period. No detections of Sierra Nevada red fox or their den sites have occurred within five miles of the project area within the past two years during camera surveys for furbearers for the Badger project, which was to be located within the same area. For this analysis, suitable habitat for the Sierra Nevada red fox adheres to that described in the SNFPA 2001 FEIS, Volume 3 habitat appendices (USDA 2001). The Reading Project and its alternative would not encompass meadows, and forested habitat adjacent to these areas has been severely burned. The proposed project would not affect this species or its habitat, and no further analysis is necessary.

Wolverine Wolverines are habitat generalists and use diverse, coniferous forest types and nonforested alpine habitats (Banci 1994; Copeland 2007). Although wolverines historically been reported on

12 Reading BE/BA the District, this species is not known to currently occur in the Lassen NF. Extensive carnivore surveys were performed within the Lassen NF and on the District over the past 10 years, and the wolverine has not been detected in any of these surveys. Furbearer surveys using track plates and camera stations were conducted in the Sierra Nevada range from 1996 to 2002. No wolverines were detected and it is likely this species may be extirpated from the survey area, or present in very low densities (Zielinski et al 2005). The LRMP, as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA 2004), directs Forests to consider whether project activities have the potential to affect wolverines within five miles of a detection, which is not associated with a den site, for a two year period. No detections of wolverines or their den sites have occurred within five miles of the project area within the past two years. Suitable habitat for the wolverine adheres to that described in the 2001 SNFPA FEIS, Volume 3. The Reading Project and its alternative would not affect this species or its habitat, and no further analysis is necessary.

2. Fish and Wildlife Service Species of Concern Based on Table 1, USFWS listed and species that are currently under review that would not be analyzed in this document include the northern spotted owl, giant garter snake, valley elderberry longhorn beetle, and Pacific fisher.

Northern Spotted Owl 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, over 20 miles north of the proposed project area. The proposed action and its alternatives would not affect this species.

Giant Garter Snake 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.

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle 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 5200 feet. The proposed action and its alternatives would not affect this species.

Pacific Fisher: The Pacific fisher has been proposed for listing and remains a species of concern for the USFWS. Extensive carnivore surveys have occurred within the proposed project area in 2002 - 2004, and 2009 – 2010, as well as throughout the Sierra Nevada over the past 10 years. Fishers have not been detected in any of these surveys. Pacific fishers have been detected historically in the Lassen NF, and camera surveys have detected them on the District at least 25 miles north and west of the proposed project. The most recent record was in 2011 in the Snow Mountain area. It has been suggested that this species is now absent from the central Sierra Nevada (Zielinski et al. 2005). Suitable habitat for the fisher is detailed in the SNFPA FEIS volume 3 (USDA 2001). Because of the fire, suitable habitat no longer exists within unit and most of the project boundaries. Camera surveys in the area have not detected this species in the last 20 years. The proposed Reading project would not affect this species or its habitat, and no further analysis is necessary.

13 Reading BE/BA

D. 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 FS vegetation 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 project area is defined as the area where the Reading Project (alternative 1) would occur and encompasses the Reading Fire burn perimeter on National Forest lands, except a small amount (see Map 1), for the purposes of this BE/BA. The Reading Project includes the project area and the unit boundaries. The Lassen NF enforces a limited operating period (LOP) of a ¼ mile radius around active goshawk protected activity centers (PACs) and California spotted owl nests (USDA Forest Service 2004); and impacts to habitat as a result of the Reading Fire and the effects from cumulative actions within this burned landscape are not diluted by expanding the analysis area boundary to include larger parcels of unburned habitat outside the wildfire boundary. The project boundary includes locations that would be indirectly affected by the proposed project, such as tree removal, access roads, and staging areas, as well as areas where indirect impacts from these actions could occur on affected species.

Wildlife surveys were performed in and near the project area by Lassen NF biologists or contracted personnel in 2004- 2005 and 2009 - 2012. Survey methods include protocol surveys for California spotted owls, great gray owls and northern goshawks (Appendix C). Camera surveys have also occurred within suitable furbearer habitat over the past 5 years. Follow-up surveys for suitable habitat in the burned project area for these species are planned for 2013.

14 Reading BE/BA II. CONSULTATION TO DATE

Formal consultation was not required for the Reading project because no Federal threatened or endangered species, or their associated habitat, would be affected by project activities (see above analysis). The most recent list can be accessed at: http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es_species/Lists/es_species_lists-form.cfm)

III REGULATORY SETTING

A. CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION Current management direction and requirements on desired future conditions for sensitive species on the Lassen NF 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, 1992) – Direction for Desired future conditions USFWS Endangered and Threatened Species List (updated February 2013) Lassen National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP 1992) Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA 2001; 2004) 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 (BE/BA) for all permitted activities to determine any potential impacts on federally listed threatened, 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 a 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.

15 Reading BE/BA 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. 1. Provide “....densities of downed logs by vegetation type on lands comprised of 50 to 200 acres. Logs must be greater than 15 inches in diameter large end and at least 15 feet long” (4-37 LRMP (1992) Where possible provide snags in groups along meadow edges, in brushfields , near streams and lakes and riparian areas (4-37 LRMP 1992) Provide sufficient habitat for species dependent on snags, nest cavities and dead/down. (LRMP uses 1,000 – 5000 acres as base in Appendix O) LRMP 4-37

The proposed project is within the Lost Creek Management Area (MA17) of the Lassen NF. Prescriptions within the MA relating to wildlife include prescriptions A, B, F, K, L, T, and V. Presently, there is no prescription for burned snag forests. These prescriptions have been altered by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA 2004) to accommodate the presence of protected activity centers (PACs) for northern goshawks and California spotted owls; and home range core areas (HRCAs) for California spotted owls.

Prescriptions

Prescription A Non Timber Wildlife: Manage fuels to improve habitat and forage production Relocate roads where necessary to protect significant wildlife habitat Uniformly distribute escape cover in 10 to 40 acres, giving priority to edges of meadows and openings Where habitat is capable provide high habitat capability for species dependent on snags and hardwoods such as woodpeckers and gray squirrel (see Appendix 0)

Prescription B Range and Wildlife Provide sufficient quantities of suitable forage, cover, and water for wildlife needs

Prescription F Riparian/Fish Provide high habitat capability for riparian, hardwood and snag dependent species Promote diversity of vegetation and favor species and age classes that best meet wildlife and fishery needs. Favor riparian areas when designating old-growth stands, connecting corridors or wildlife nesting trees. Enhance vegetation cover around seeps, bogs, and springs. Maintain or improve riparian hardwood communities

Prescription K Rocky Sparse Timber Provide 8 – 10 downed logs/acre on lands comprised of 50 to 200 acres.

16 Reading BE/BA In unmanaged lands, accept occurring densities of down logs. Maintain high habitat capability for snag dependent species in green forest (see Appendix O)

Prescription L Late Successional No vegetation treatments in WL management areas without NEPA. Provide ....densities of downed logs by vegetation type on lands comprised of 50 to 200 acres. Logs to be at least 15 feet long, 20” diameter .Densities of snags by vegetation type on lands is comprised of 50 to 200 acres.

Prescription T (Timber), V (Visual) Provide at least “medium suitable habitat as identified ...for identified wildlife species

Specific Requirements for Management Area 17 Lost Creek Specifically, for MA17, standards and guidelines include: Regenerate aspen and cottonwood stands along Hat and Lost Creeks. Enhance critical fawning habitat (low shrubs, trees, downed logs, meadows, brushfields, and plantations). Maintain Hat Creek in natural free-flowing state. Investigate habitat improvement opportunities along Lost Creek and Hat Creek.

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, 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 (USDA 2001d) for the SNFPA in its entirety.

Standards and guidelines applicable to wildlife for the proposed project as described in the SNFPA ROD 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 (4 snags/acre; LRMP is more specific here so guidance is followed) Treating sensitive species habitat for fire resiliency in a cautious manner as described within the SNFPA Standards and Guidelines section. In large fires (over 1000 acres) leave at least 10 percent untreated. Salvage is prohibited in PACs unless BE shows catastrophic fire has destroyed the functionality of the PAC. Follow guidelines for all riparian areas Design projects to protect and maintain critical wildlife habitat. Avoid areas where vegetation is largely intact; provide sufficient large woody material and ground cover as

17 Reading BE/BA needed. Accelerate development of mature forest habitat through reforestation and other cultural means and provide for a mix of seral stages over time

B. DESIGNATED WILDLIFE AREAS WITHIN THE READING PROJECT (SNFPA-ROD 2001 and 2004; LRMP, 1992) (MAP 3) Descriptions, analysis, and the numbers and types of specific wildlife management areas are found within the associated Species Accounts section in this document. Management for HRCAs (SNFPA 2004) now supersedes management for spotted owl habitat areas (SOHAs, as managed under the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act (HFQLGFRA)). The Reading Project area is managed under the SNFPA strategy, and so SOHAs are not analyzed in this BE.

1. California Spotted Owl Home Range Core Area (HRCA) 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. California Spotted Owl Activity Center (SOPAC)

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 very large snags (greater than 45 inches dbh); and 5) snag and down woody material levels that are higher than average.

3. 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

18 Reading BE/BA 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. 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 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 Forest wide 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)

19 Reading BE/BA

20 Reading BE/BA IV ALTERNATIVES

The following information is summarized from the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Reading Project. Forest plan land allocations (through SNFPA ROD 2004 and the 1992 LRMP) within the project boundaries (see pages 14-15) are defined through prescriptions and standards and guidelines.

Forest plan management direction allows for salvage of standing and downed trees. In this project, the goals are driven by the need to reduce future fuel loads, and reforestation to accomplish goals set forth in the LRMP (1992). To accomplish this, salvage of dead trees is needed. A combination of burned tree removal and reforestation in the project area is proposed to reduce future fuel loads and restore a forested condition.

The purpose of removing dead trees is to reduce long-term fuel loading to reduce future fire severity. The purpose of reforestation is to expedite stand conditions (as described in the LRMP and SNFPA 2004) with forests that are dominated by larger, fire-tolerant trees such as Jeffrey pine and sugar pine, which are resistant and resilient to fire, drought, and insect outbreak. Meeting the desired conditions requires survival and growth of individual trees and forested stands over many years without the occurrence of another stand-replacing fire. Without removal of some of the standing dead trees, they would fall and contribute to high fuel loads in about 5 to 10 years.

A PROPOSED ACTION AND NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE

The Lassen National Forest (Lassen NF), Hat Creek Ranger District (District), proposes to complete a salvage project in the Reading Fire area. The Reading Project area is bounded by the Reading Fire perimeter to the north, west, and east and the Lassen Volcanic National Park (LVNP) to the south (See Figure 1). It encompasses the following legal description: T31N R04E S1, 2, 11, 12: T31N 05E S 1-12 T32N R05E S25-28, 31-36

The project area encompasses all or portions of the described sections (see Map 1). Elevation ranges from approximately 5,200 feet at Hat Creek to 8,100 feet at West Prospect Peak

Two alternatives are analyzed for the Reading Project EA. All alternatives are discussed in this BA/BE: the proposed action (alternative 1), and the no action alternative (alternative 2).

The Reading Project proposed action is to conduct salvage logging and reforestation on 2,508 acres of natural stands and 1,053 acres of plantations. A roadside danger tree removal project would occur on roads adjacent to units, with a harvest treatment on 49 acres and an individual tree selection on an additional 493 acres on roads leading to units. In addition reforestation only is planned on an additional 588 acres that burned at moderate to high intensity. Portions of some units in the West Prospect would be treated in accordance with a snag longevity project study (75 acres) to be conducted by the Pacific Southwest Research Station (PSW).

The Reading Project goals are to reforest portions of the Reading Fire that burned on National Forest lands that were habitat for several sensitive species known to inhabit the area, including northern goshawks, California spotted owls, and martens.

21 Reading BE/BA The Reading Project would not enter functioning California spotted owl and northern goshawk protected activity centers (SOPACs and GPACs). Over time (approximately 20 years) proposed project activities would begin to increase habitat for late-successional (late-seral) habitat for sensitive species. Surviving forested areas would move into later-seral stages, and would recover naturally Brush, particularly manzanita, and forbs are also expected to recover naturally, and these areas will be left to recover on their own.

1. Alternative 1- Proposed Action

The treatments below (Table 3) would be used in various combinations to address the need and achieve the desired condition as described above.

Table 3 – Reading Project Treatments Treatment Acres Removal of Fire-Affected Trees Natural Stands 2,508 Plantations 1,053 Total 3,561 Removal of Danger Trees Along Roads National Forest System roads and Snag Research Plots Harvest Treatment 49 Individual Tree Selection 493 Total Danger Tree Removal 542

Snag Research Plots 75 Total Mechanical Treatment Acres 4,178 Reforestation Reforestation Only 588 Total Reforestation 4,273

Under the proposed action, fire-affected trees would be removed using mechanical and manual treatments. There are several fundamental methods that would be used: mechanical harvest, manual tree felling, mechanical and hand piling of small trees and activity-generated fuels, pile burning and, if necessary, mastication. Reforestation would be done manually. Most of the mechanical treatments would be accomplished using contracts (service and/or stewardship contracts), and some treatments could be completed using Forest Service personnel. Upon completion of the mechanical and manual treatments, including piling of activity-generated fuels, Forest Service personnel would complete pile burning (See Map 2). a. Removal of Fire-Affected Trees Fire-affected trees would be harvested on approximately 2,508 acres of natural stands and 1,053 acres of plantation, generally where fire burned at a moderate to high severity. Fire- affected trees would be harvested in accordance with the guidelines set forth in Forest Health Protection Report #RO-11-01 (Smith and Cluck, April 2011) using a species-specific probability of mortality (Pm) threshold. A probability of mortality of 0.7 (Pm=0.7) was selected for this project to meet the management objectives of: 1) removing trees that were killed or that have a high probability of mortality to capture their economic value and prepare for reforestation, and 2) retaining those trees that have a moderate to high probability of survival to provide forest cover as a seed source for natural regeneration and wildlife habit. See the Reading EA for a further clarification of this methodology

22 Reading BE/BA

A ground-based logging system would be employed for all acres that are located in areas with slopes under 35 percent and would include the following procedures: Logging systems include the use of dozers, skidders, and other mechanical equipment Dead standing trees would be removed. All live trees would be retained Removal would include dead trees up to the maximum inches dbh. An average of four of the largest diameter snags in each unit would be retained. Snags would be at least 15 inches dbh in clumped and have irregular spacing, where possible. Following the removal of large and small standing trees, surface fuel loads created during harvest would be evaluated by specialists to determine the need for surface fuel treatments. Small activity fuels generated from tree removal would be lopped, scattered, and left up to 5 tons per acre. Amounts greater than this would be manipulated through whole tree removal, chipping, mastication of smaller trees, hand and machine piling/burning, leaving a maximum total of 15 tons per acre (total includes down logs for wildlife, below). Outside of wildlife habitat management zones, an average of 3 larger diameter logs per acre (>15 inches diameter) would be retained in various decay classes on the ground where they are available. Cut stumps of conifer trees greater than 14-inches (basal diameter) would be treated with an Environmental Protection Agency approved and California registered borate compound for the prevention of annosus root disease.

Fire-affected trees would be cut and removed through timber sales or service contracts. Within pre-fire plantations, small trees may be masticated rather than removed. Following the removal of fire-affected trees, remaining surface fuels would be evaluated to determine the need for treatment. When the need for treatment is indicated, surface fuel treatments would be completed using either mechanical piling or hand piling. Piles would be burned under suitable conditions for smoke management in accordance with an approved burn plan. These actions would also initiate site preparation for reforestation. b. Removal of Danger Trees along Roads A roadside danger tree removal project would occur on roads adjacent to units, with a harvest treatment on 49 acres and an individual tree selection on an additional 493 acres on roads leading to units (Map 2).

Trees within 200 feet of National Forest roads that are maintenance levels 2 and 3 located outside of harvest units would be evaluated using the Hazard Tree Guidelines for Forest Service Facilities and Roads in the Pacific Southwest Region set forth in Forest Health Protection Report #RO-12-01 (Peter A. Angwin, 2012) and Forest Health Protection Report #RO-11-01, (Smith and Cluck, April 2011) using a species-specific probability of mortality (Pm) threshold. A probability of mortality of 0.7 (Pm=0.7) was selected for this project to meet the management objectives. Trees within 200 feet of maintenance level 2 and 3 National Forest system roads that meet the criteria set forth in these guidelines are considered to have “high failure potential” and would be removed to ensure public, Forest Service personnel, and contractor safety. The treatment locations are primarily where moderate- to high-severity fire occurred along the above noted NFS roads, labeled as “Individual Tree Selection” and “Harvest”, respectively corresponding to the fire severity. There may be a small number of trees in low-intensity and unburned areas along roads that would be felled to meet standard safety and operability requirements. The location of these proposed treatment areas are estimated from Landsat

23 Reading BE/BA imagery to approximate where the highest concentration of danger trees are, though applying the criteria for danger trees would occur along the rest of the road system as well.

Following treatment, surface fuel loads created during harvest would be evaluated by specialists to determine the need for surface fuel treatments. When the need for treatment is indicated, surface fuel treatments would be completed using either mechanical piling or hand piling. Piles would be burned. c. Snag Research Plots A snag longevity study would be conducted by the Pacific Southwest Research Station within the Reading project area to evaluate long-term utilization by wildlife, fuel management indicators, and ecological responses. This research study includes 15 five-acre research plots arranged in three geographically distinct blocks, for a total of 75 acres. These blocks vary both spatially and by tree density. Each plot would be randomly assigned a treatment level. Treatment would vary retention levels at approximately 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent of the existing basal area. Treatments would be completed through timber sale contracts. d. Reforestation Reforestation would be accomplished through a combination of planting and natural regeneration through the use of planting seed trees where needed.

Site preparation would be completed through harvest and surface fuel treatments. Soil preparation, such as soil ripping, would not be conducted outside of windrowed plantations. Piling surface fuels as described above would contribute to the preparation of the seed bed. Within the burned plantations, soil windrows created during the establishment of the historic plantations may be spread to facilitate recovery and effectiveness of soil resources.

Tree planting would occur on approximately 4,273 acres that burned at high to moderate intensity to expedite reforestation following the loss of natural seed sources within the fire-killed overstory. Planting with a variety of site-appropriate species would contribute to composition diversity in areas that burned.

Ground that was forested prior to the fire but is too steep for mechanical harvest would be replanted where logistical support and soils allow. Approximately 1,260 acres could be planted on steep ground. Approximately 6,641 acres of the project area would be re-vegetated through natural regeneration because planting would be cost prohibitive or inconsistent with the purpose and need for the project.

Table 4 – Reforestation that would occur within burned areas Of the Reading Project Reforestation Area Acres Mechanically Treated Stands (roadside, natural 3,685 stands and plantations, research plots) Steep Ground, No Mechanical Treatment 588 Total Acres planted 4,273 Natural Re-vegetation 6,641

24 Reading BE/BA Seedlings would be planted at site-appropriate densities consistent with the Pacific Southwest Region stocking guides up to approximately 300 trees per acre. Seedling composition would be diverse and based on elevation, aspect, and native conifers. The majority would consist of Jeffrey pine and ponderosa pine, interspersed with incense cedar, sugar pine, and red fir. Minor components of mountain hemlock, Douglas fir, and western white pine would be included. Depending on the success of post-fire regeneration and wildlife habitat considerations, planting riparian trees (aspen, cottonwoods, willows, and alders) would be considered in select areas.

First, third, and fifth year stocking examinations would be conducted to monitor seedling survival and animal damage. Within five years of planting, manual seedling release from competition with grass, forb, and brush could be accomplished. Control of this vegetation would increase the chance for tree seedling survival and growth. Methods include hand grubbing and brush cutting. e. Roads, Landings and Staging Areas The existing forest transportation system would be utilized to provide access to treatment units. In addition, approximately 0.25 miles of existing unauthorized routes would be upgraded to Forest transportation standards and added as a Maintenance Level 1 NFS road. This route was determined to have long-term needs for future management and firefighting access. Up to two miles of temporary roads would be constructed to access areas with a moderate- to high- intensity burn where trees have been fire-affected, and approximately one mile of existing unauthorized route would be used as temporary roads. These roads would be decommissioned after all proposed treatments have completed.

Temporary roads would be constructed, including spurs, connected to existing system roads. Procedures would include incidental removal of live trees, if necessary, to allow for temporary road construction. Restoration may include subsoiling, spreading of chip or masticated material, placement of downed logs and rocks, and re-contouring.

Existing and new landings and staging areas would be utilized to facilitate removal of fuels for operations. This entails both new and existing landings and staging areas. Existing landings and skid trails would be utilized if at all possible.

Density of landings in each unit would be one landing per 30 to 40 acres. Procedures would include the incidental removal of live trees in new landings. Landings range from ¼ to 1½ acres in size to safely facilitate the processing and removal of sawlogs and biomass. Stump wads (stump and parts of the root system) resulting from landing construction would be split and piled to be burned or removed off site. Biomass that is not removed from landings would be piled, firelines constructed around the piles, and the piles burned.

Landings and staging areas would be rehabilitated following the completion of removal and pile burning. Restoration may include subsoiling to a minimum of 18 inches depth, reforestation, and spreading slash, chip, or masticated material.

Road maintenance would be performed as needed for project implementation. A dust abatement plan would be included in the timber sale contract to control fugitive dust from road use. National Forest System roads used for hauling products and equipment would receive pre-, during-, and post-haul maintenance as needed per Forest Service Road Maintenance T- Specifications for Timber Sale Contracts, hereby incorporated by reference. Water would be applied on road surfaces to decrease dust created by project activities. Magnesium chloride or other palliatives may be added to the water to improve the control of dust and reduce the

25 Reading BE/BA amount of water necessary for dust abatement. There are two approved water sources located on Lost Creek and Hat Creek for this project. Both sources conform to applicable Best Management Practices (BMP). f. Integrated Design Features Integrated design features (IDFs) include a combination of measures to avoid, minimize, reduce, or eliminate negative impacts to project area resources that could result from actions proposed. The following IDFs would be in addition to standards and guidelines from the Lassen LRMP, as amended, and BMPs. They are implementation parameters that would be incorporated into treatments, contracts, or used to guide Forest Service personnel in conducting implementation. Integrated design features are developed by resource specialists to ensure the avoidance and minimization of impacts from implementation actions and would be integrated as part of all action alternatives for this project.

Wildlife

Protected Activity Centers (PACs) 1. Harvest activities may occur in PACs that have been rendered unsuitable as determined by the wildlife biologist and documented within a Biological Evaluation. 2. Suitable habitat in the project area and within ½ mile of the project area would be surveyed in the spring of 2013 to determine occupancy and pair status for goshawks and owls, according to the survey protocol for each species. If repeated occupancy occur or a nest site is located, new PACS would be established in accordance with the SNFPA ROD 2004. 3. Treatment activities would not occur within suitable post-fire California spotted owl or goshawk habitat. 4. A Limited Operating Period (LOP) would be in effect from February 15th through August 31st within ¼ mile of detected spotted owls. If the nest site cannot be determined, the LOP would be within ¼ mile of an established PAC where repeated occupancy detections occur. 5. An LOP would be in effect from February 15th through September 15th within ¼ mile of active goshawk PACs.

Other sensitive wildlife species: 1. Detections for marten, golden eagle, and Sierra Nevada red fox have occurred within the project area within the past 10 years. However breeding has never been confirmed for these species. Surveys completed in 2011 and 2012 did not detect any of these species. If any sensitive species is detected during 2013 surveys, LOPs and management actions would apply, as set forth in the SNFPA ROD 2004. Snags 1. Snags picked within or on the edges of the units where Removal of Fire-Affected Trees would occur in Natural Stands would meet the following criteria: a. Snags, at a minimum, must be 20 feet tall and at least 15 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh). b. Snags 35 inches in diameter or more are the top priority for retention. Snags below this diameter may be selected over size if they have “defects” (unique branching such as large limbs, witches brooms, fork-tops, etc.; cavities, cat- faces, swollen boles, etc.). The largest trees with defects would be selected. If there are no trees with defects, then the largest trees in or adjacent to the units would be selected.

26 Reading BE/BA c. If there is a better pick of snags with structural defects or a greater size above 35 inches close to the unit, then locating two of the snags per acre within 200 feet of the unit is acceptable, so long as the four snags per acre based on a ten-acre average is met. 2. Snags would be distributed at four per acre averaged over each ten acres (i.e., a ten- acre unit needs 40 snags). They would be selected for longevity on the landscape. 3. If there are no snags within or adjacent to the unit (within 200 feet) that meet the below criteria, no snags would be marked for wildlife. All retained snags would be at least 200 feet away from utility lines, landings, and National Forest System roads. 4. Groups of snags would be retained around water areas, brush fields, and meadows to provide perches and cavities. 5. Snags could be in clumps of up to 10 snags per clump, with the exception of snag study plots. Downed Woody Material 1. Where available, three down logs greater than 15 inches in diameter and 15 feet in length would be retained. 2. Avoid disturbing existing large down wood, greater than 15” diameter and 15’ long. 3. Provide for additional down woody material by leaving felled cull trees (dead trees with less than 25 percent sound wood) on site as needed to meet the three logs per acre requirement for down wood.

Silviculture 1. Cut stumps of conifer trees greater than 14-inches (basal diameter) would be treated with an Environmental Protection Agency approved and California registered borate compound for the prevention of root disease. Borate compound would not be applied to stumps within 25 feet of ephemeral stream courses, springs, or known sensitive plant species.

Fuels 1. Activity-generated fuels would be treated to leave fuel conditions that produce a four-foot flame length under 90th percentile weather conditions. 2. All Activity-generated fuels within 50 feet of Forest Service road 32N12 would be piled and piles burned. 3. Burning would be conducted within the guidelines set by Shasta County Air Resource Board.

Botany Threatened, Endangered, Forest Service Sensitive and Special Interest Plant Species 1. New occurrences of Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive (TES) plant species discovered before or during ground-disturbing activities would be protected through flag- and-avoid methods. 2. All known occurrences of Erigeron nivalis and Penstemon cinicola would be protected through flag-and-avoid methods. Noxious Weeds 1. All off-road equipment would be weed-free prior to entering the project area. Staging of equipment would be done in weed free areas. 2. Known noxious weed infestations would be identified, flagged where possible, and mapped for this project. Locations would be displayed on contract maps. Identified noxious weed sites within or adjacent to the project area containing isolated patches with small plant numbers would be treated (hand pulled or dug) by forest botany staff prior to

27 Reading BE/BA project implementation. Any larger or unpullable infestations would be avoided by harvesting equipment to prevent spreading weeds within the project. 3. 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 un-infested area. 4. 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. 5. If project implementation calls for mulches or fill, they would be certified weed-free. Seed mixes used for re-vegetation of disturbed sites would consist of locally-adapted native plant materials to the extent practicable.

Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) Riparian Conservation Areas (RCA) would be established around hydrologic features to protect riparian function in the Project area in accordance with the 2004 SNFPA FSEIS and ROD. The IDFs developed for RCAs protect hydrologic and aquatic resources.

Table 5– RCA Widths

Stream Type RCA Width Project Water Feature

300 feet (each side of stream), Hat Creek and Lost Perennial Stream measured from bank-full edge of Creek stream Seasonally Flowing Streams 150 feet (each side of stream), (includes ephemerals with Scattered throughout measured from bank-full edge of defined stream channel and the project area stream evidence of scour) Wet meadow at Special Aquatic Features 300 feet from edge of feature or southern base of (includes lakes, meadows, riparian vegetation, whichever width Badger Mtn., Spring on bogs, fens, wetlands, springs) is greater northeastern base of Badger Mtn. Hydrologic Depressions 50 feet (each side of feature) This Scattered throughout (without a defined channel was determined through project level project area. and no evidence of scour) analysis.

1. No harvest activities or conifer planting would occur within the 300-foot RCAs for Hat and Lost Creeks or wetlands. 2. Ephemeral and intermittent channels and hydrologic depressions may be crossed with equipment when dry at agreed to crossing points. Crossings would be perpendicular to the channel, and chosen to minimize channel damage. Upon completion of use, all damage to the stream course, including banks and channels, would be repaired the extent practicable. Project generated debris would be removed from stream courses, unless otherwise agreed. Mechanical equipment would operate on a straight-in/straight- out pattern. Turning of equipment would be minimized.

28 Reading BE/BA 3. Prior to mechanical treatments, operability would be determined by the visual indicators using the Lassen National Forest Wet Weather Operations Guide. 4. Existing landings would be used only where soil movement could be prevented. 5. Temporary roads, new landings, and equipment staging areas would be located outside of RCA boundaries. Existing landings within RCAs may be used by agreement when the effects of sedimentation can be mitigated by erosion prevention measures. 6. Landings in RCAs would be evaluated post-treatment to ensure soil stability and erosion prevention. 7. With the exception of crossings, no skid trails would be allowed in RCAs. On skid trails with less than 90% ground cover, import material to meet 90% ground cover on skid trails. 8. Dust palliatives would not be used within 25 feet of streams and riparian vegetation. 9. Activity-generated fuels piled for burning would not be stacked within RCA boundaries, where possible. If piling must occur within a RCA: 1. Piles would not be stacked within 25 feet of riparian vegetation. 2. Piles would not cover more than 10 percent of the RCA. 3. Piles would be burned in the fall or winter.

Soils 1. Where available, approximately five tons per acre of slash, duff, wood chips, and woody debris would be left in the treatment areas. 2. Within 50 feet of the 32N12 NFS road, project-generated fuels may be piled and burned. 3. Where available, a minimum of five logs per acre, representing a range of decomposition classes, would be retained. This may include the three logs retained on the landscape for wildlife habitat. 4. When agreed to in advance, slash and/or woody debris may be placed on skid trails to reduce soil degradation. 5. Outside of RCAs, where available, retain forest floor cover at a minimum of 50 percent. 6. Mechanical equipment would not operate on slopes greater than 35 percent. 7. To the extent possible, existing landings and skid trails would be utilized. 8. Following treatment, landings and skid trails would be evaluated to determine if soil porosity is consistent with the LRMP standard of limiting detrimental soil disturbance over 15 percent of the area dedicated to growing vegetation. If the standard has been exceeded, appropriate remediation measures would be taken. 9. In all treatment units, 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. 10. To the extent practicable, burn piles would not be placed on severely burned soils. 11. To the extent practicable, piles would be burned during cold or wet weather.

Recreation and Visual Quality Recreation and Visual quality resources are managed in accordance with the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) and Visual Quality objectives (VQOs) as stated in the Lassen National Forest LRMP. In high severity burn areas, the landscape has been dramatically altered. It is unlikely that VQOs can be met in the traditional sense (e.g. that green trees would be maintained as the dominant visual feature). However, the VQOs for these areas would be kept in mind when treating burned vegetation and planning reforestation to minimize further impacts and to facilitate blending into the recovering landscape.

29 Reading BE/BA 1. Protect National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) Trails, including the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail, from damage during implementation of the proposed activities. 2. Equipment crossings would be limited to designated crossings. The trail tread would be restored at crossings. 3. Cut tree marking would be applied within 150 feet of NFTS trails falling within Retention (R) and Partial Retention (PR) VQO classes. 4. Stumps would be cut to a maximum of 8 inches within 50 feet of NFTS trails. 5. To minimize soil displacement, avoid turning equipment within 50 feet of NFTS trails. 6. Activity-generated fuels created within 150 feet of NFTS trails, viewpoints, and other high use areas would be piled and burned or removed within one year of operations. Piles would be located a minimum of 100 feet from trails and trailheads. 7. In areas of high recreational use, some vegetation, where available, would be left along the edge of trails and roads. Residual vegetation can act as a visual barrier to discourage future unauthorized routes.

Cultural Resources Federal laws, regulations and programmatic agreements between the Forest Service and the Office of Historic Preservation are strictly followed for the protection of cultural resources. Historic properties within the Reading project area of potential effect (APE) would be protected during project implementation utilizing the following protection measures: 1. All areas to be treated would be surveyed to modern standard in accordance with the regional programmatic agreement prior to implementation (see Heritage Effects section for full name of programmatic agreement). 2. Historic properties within or adjacent to treatment areas, activity areas (i.e., landings, water sources etc.) or access roads would have their boundaries flagged and tagged as non-entry zones for all project activities. No project-related activities would occur within site boundaries. 3. Historic properties located within the project APE but not in close proximity to identified treatment areas would be protected from indirect project impacts such as use of sites for staging equipment or vehicles (i.e., timber harvest equipment; water trucks; road construction, reconstruction or maintenance equipment; Forest Service vehicles etc.) or any other activities. Forest Service project managers would be informed of all site locations to insure protection from direct as well as indirect effects. 4. Linear sites such as historic roads, ditches and prehistoric quarries may be crossed on a limited basis in previously disturbed areas. All crossings would be made perpendicular to the site, and the site would be returned to its original design at project completion. All crossings would be designated by heritage personnel. 5. Hauling on main system roads that bisect archaeological sites would continue. Vehicles and equipment using these roads must stay on the road prism in areas that bisect heritage sites. New road construction, reconstruction, decommissioning or modification of the existing prism within site boundaries would not occur without additional review and/or consultation. 6. Historic properties within or adjacent to planned treatment areas, activity areas or roads would be monitored during and after project completion. 7. If heritage resources are identified during project implementation (unanticipated discovery) all work would cease immediately in that area until the situation is reviewed and an assessment and mitigation plan instituted to insure protection of the site.

30 Reading BE/BA 2. Alternative 2 – No Action

Under this alternative, none of the treatments proposed under the proposed action, except danger tree removal, would be implemented. Current conditions would continue to exist. Current management practices would continue, but no other activities would occur. There would be no removal of fire-killed trees, any road construction/reconstruction, and any site prep or reforestation.

The no action alternative would result in a continuation of current management practices within the proposed Reading Project area. This alternative provides a baseline for comparative analysis of the action alternative. Although reforestation and both vegetation and fuels treatments would not be implemented under this alternative, other on-going activities in the project area, such as hazard abatement for safety, road maintenance, fire suppression, firewood cutting, hunting, and OHV (off-highway vehicle) riding would continue. Under this alternative, fuels and safety issues would continue to exist and would worsen over time.

V. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

A. HABITAT ACCOUNT

The treatment units are defined as the areas to be treated with fire-killed or hazard tree removal and reforestation. The proposed project is located about 4 miles south of the town of Old Station in southeastern Shasta County, California (Map 1). It is bounded by forest service timberlands on the east, west, and north, and on the south by the LVNP.

The project area encompasses approximately 10,914 acres. Of that total, 41 miles are comprised of existing FS roads, and 2 miles of the Pacific Crest Trail. No private lands are encompassed within the project area.

Within the project boundaries, the treatment area, a total of approximately 4,750 acres would be treated under the proposed Reading Project, while a total of 6641 acres would not have any treatment (Map 2).

The analysis and cumulative effects area are defined as the 28,230 acre area (approximately 28,152 acres or 99 percent is federal lands) where the Reading Fire burned. In addition, the Hat Creek watershed boundary (350 square miles, 45 miles in length) will be used to help determine cumulative effects of fire on wide ranging species.

The Reading Fire perimeter was chosen as the analysis area because the proposed actions would treat and modify burned areas only. Therefore, selection of the total area that burned within the fire area for analysis provides a more appropriate context for reasonable determination of effects to habitat (and the species associated with this habitat) proposed for treatment. In addition, relevant cumulative effects, particularly other projects that have treated burned habitat resulting from the fire, are more effectively addressed. Also, the impacts to habitat as a result of the wildfires and the effects from cumulative actions within this burned landscape are not diluted by expanding the analysis area boundary to include larger parcels of unburned habitat outside the wildfire boundary.

For the purpose of the wildlife analysis, the temporal bounds include a 20-year horizon for future effects because modeling indicates that, within timeframe, the treated stands would approach

31 Reading BE/BA stocking levels corresponding with forest development (i.e. young forested stands could develop within this timeframe, and unburned stands could grow into denser and larger forest).

Forest-wide vegetation typing into California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) habitat classifications was done for the Plumas-Lassen Administrative Study in 2002 (Vestra 2002). This vegetation layer was updated after various fires and in 2008 updated again to reflect various fires on these forests.

The updated layer produced by this typing is used in this analysis. All vegetation information is displayed using the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) vegetation codes (known as seral stage codes) and serve as the baseline acres for analysis. The use of the CWHR seral stage mapping is limited in that it does not factor in the structural composition of forest lands and measures forest types in terms of stem width, density, and dominant tree type.

Other sources of information used in the assessment of effects were aerial photos, burn severity maps generated from satellite imagery, data generated from common stand exam plots and field reconnaissance.

Of the 11,071 acres of the Reading Fire that burned on National Forest lands, approximately 5,000 acres burned under moderate (pockets or individual dead trees interspersed with live trees) to high (most of the vegetation was killed) severity. This has resulted in a mosaic of severity that included unburned, low, medium, and high fire severity. As a result, there are areas where tree mortality is 100 percent while other areas still support a green tree component. Of the acres burned, approximately 5,000 acres were mixed conifer vegetation types and 2,070 acres were pine vegetation types. Within the 5,000 acres of mixed conifer, approximately 2,500 acres were considered suitable as late-seral habitat (see list of codes at the bottom of page 35) previous to the Reading Fire and included three northern goshawk protected activity centers (GPACs) and one California spotted owl protected activity center (SOPAC).

Over 7,000, acres were burned at moderate – high intensity. Of this amount 4,129 would be mechanically treated. Approximately 6641 acres would not be mechanically treated. Of this acreage 588 acres would be planted but dead trees would not be removed.

1. The Composite Burn Index The Composite Burn Index is used region-wide to determine the intensity of fires that have burned Forest Lands. Like the CWHR, it has limitations in determining structural effects of fire on the landscape.

The terms “moderate” and “high severity” are qualitative terms used by the Composite Burn Index (CBI). The index is used as a scale for fire severity, with 1 = low intensity and 4= the highest burn severity within a vegetation type. The Reading classes of burn intensities (CBI) are calculated from the burn severity scale which ranges from 0 to 3. The CBIs relate to this scale as follows: 0 = outside perimeter 1 = unchanged 0 <= CBI < .1 2 = low severity 1 <= CBI < 1.25 3 = moderate severity 1.25 <= CBI < 2.25 4 = high severity 2.25 <= CBI <= 3.0 The four category severity classification goes from subset to subset to perimeter. Table 6 describes the burn severity scale and how it is determined, where 0 = vegetation basically unchanged to 3 = vegetation completely consumed.

32 Reading BE/BA Table 6 – Burn Severity Scale (CBI)For the Reading Fire

33 Reading BE/BA The most intensely burned areas were the early-seral (1X – 3D) and mid-seral (size class 4 and above) closed canopy (density is M or D) conifer forests. Closed canopy mature (size class 5, 6) forest was also heavily burned and over 50 percent is within the high moderate class 3 to severely burned class 4. These acres are no longer early- to late-seral forest and would likely become brushfields (sage, manzanita or other brush species, depending upon the elevation and soils in the area) in the near future (10+ years out) without treatments. Table 7 shows the distribution of the pre-existing vegetation and how intensely it burned according to this index.

Table 7 – Vegetation Acres Burned on the Reading Fire Pre-Fire Pre-existing Vegetation CBI(Acres) (Pre-Existing) CWHR 1 2 3 4 Totals Shrub/ Grassland/Wetland/Riparian BAR 19.16 97.91 159.71 49.82 326.52 PGS 2.25 9.75 22.77 25.86 60.63 MCP 3.55 40.24 75.8 335.04 454.63 SGB 0.17 14.04 24.79 16 55.26 WTM 0 0 1.55 0.71 2.26 Total shrub 25.27 177.39 300.17 427.53 899.3 Early Seral Canopy MRI 0.14 15.45 15.55 0.1 31.15 JPN/PPN 1X-2D 6.9 78.69 213.63 171.6 470.82 SMC 1X-2D 0.03 16.61 14.16 11.76 42.59 WFR 1X-2D 1.35 8.46 1.98 0.4 11.78 JPN/PPN 3S-3P 13.25 129.43 176.04 282.24 601.38 SMC 3S-3P 16.45 174.04 188 198.9 577.42 WFR 3S-3P 0.84 10.29 11.31 1.1 23.54 LPN 3D 0 0.07 1.26 3.52 4.87 MHC 3D 0 0.04 1.37 0.95 2.36 PPN / JPN / EPN 3M-3D 208.94 248.20 179.11 364.76 1001.01 SMC 3M-3D 38.76 389.1 523.56 847.56 1798.98 WFR 3M-3D 8.04 66.63 65.49 92.69 232.85 Total Early Seral 294.7 1137.01 1391.46 1975.58 4,798.75 Mid-Seral Open Canopy JPN 4S, 4P 5.93 47.97 32.92 13.69 100.51 PPN 4S, 4P 0.03 6.14 0.8 0.29 7.26 RFR 4P 0 0 0.57 2.1 2.67 SMC 4S, 4P 18.06 135.37 121.08 94.86 369.37 WFR 4S-4P 0 13.48 14.91 14.45 42.84 Total Mid-Seral Open 24.02 202.96 170.28 125.39 522.65 Mid-Seral Closed Canopy JPN 4M 0.66 10.35 2 0 13.01 LPN 4M 0 0 1.13 6.73 7.86 PPN 4M 0.38 17.6 0.78 0 18.76

34 Reading BE/BA Pre-Fire Pre-existing Vegetation CBI(Acres) (Pre-Existing) CWHR 1 2 3 4 Totals SMC 4M 36.9 311.73 181.1 202.9 732.63 WFR 4M 0 0.54 7.12 24.73 32.39 JPN 4D 92.54 126.39 51.98 72.23 343.14 LPN4D 0 0 1.68 17.4 19.08 PPN 4D 0.08 35 48.7 28.36 112.14 RFR 4D 0 1.99 3.79 7.97 13.75 SMC 4D 41.8 578.9 455.95 548.96 1625.61 WFR 4D 51.24 269.9 175.3 225.53 721.97 Total Mid-Seral Closed 223.6 1352.4 929.53 1,134.81 3,640.34 Late-Seral Open Canopy JPN 5S 0 0 0.95 1.52 2.47 SMC 5S 0 0 0.77 0.75 1.52 JPN 5P 0 23.26 26.8 11.52 61.58 SMC 5P 2.11 69.8 23.1 19.96 114.97 Total Late-Seral Open 2.11 93.06 51.62 33.75 180.54 Late-Seral Closed Canopy JPN 5M 2.35 63.34 21 16.09 102.78 SMC 5M, 2 142.55 89.31 10.46 244.32 WFR 5M 3.12 5.43 1.08 0 9.63 JPN 6D 9.25 96.44 26.16 35.5 167.35 PPN 6D 0 2.02 3.24 6.75 12.01 SMC 6D 5.59 95.8 76.31 103.72 281.42 WFR 6D 8.81 37.77 8.31 0.51 55.4 Total Late-Seral Closed 31.12 443.35 225.41 173.03 872.91 Total Burned 489.45 3,513.05 3,197.05 3,794.46 10,914 CWHR (California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Database classification) (Mayer, et.al.1988) Vegetation Type Codes Used in all vegetation tables hereafter: Vegetation type Herbaceous/wet BAR = barren PGS = perennial grassland WTM = wet meadow MRI= montane riparian WAT = water AGS = annual grassland Shrub MCP=montane chaparral SGB= sagebrush Tree: ASP = aspen 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. CBI Conversion to Basal Area to determine Post-Fire Habitat The CBI is a descriptive index of burn and it can be translated into basal area which yields the approximate existing vegetation condition after the fire. Basal area lost is based upon converting CBI to basal area and then figuring habitat types lost. Table 8 describes how CWHRs were calculated to determine existing condition after the fire.

35 Reading BE/BA

Table 8 – Proposed Post-Fire Veg type Conversion Guidelines for the Reading Fire CWHR Veg Percent Basal Gridcode Post-fire Typing Convention Type Area Mortality

SMC, DFR, 1 0 – 25 No Change in CWHR Veg type, Size or Density No change in Veg type or size but CWHR Density WFR, RFR, 2 25 – 50% PPN, JPN, D/M → P, P → S No change in CWHR veg type or size class but LPN 3 50 – 75% CWHR Density D/M/P → S Change veg type to MCP, CWHR Size → 1, and 4 75 – 100% Density to “null”

MCP,WTM, No Change in Veg type or size class/density (b/c AGS, BAR, 1-4 0-100% these types often don’t have size class or density WAT associated with them)

No change in CWHR veg type, size class, or 1 0-25% density. No change in Veg type or size but CWHR Density 2 25-50% MRI, MHW, D/M → P, P stays P and S stays S ASP No change in CWHR veg type or size class but 3 50-75% CWHR Density D→P and M/P → S No change in CWHR veg type, but change Size 4 75-100% class and density to 1 and “null” respectively

Based upon Table 8, this would result in the following grouping of acres of vegetation types for percent basal area lost as a result of the fires.

Within all burn class 3 and 4, almost all trees were consumed, and the area would be converted to brushfield for at least 10 years before any conifers could reestablish themselves (pers comm. Forest Silviculturist). Table 9 shows the acres remaining post fire within the project area, based upon the above conversion.

Table 9 – Total Post-Fire Vegetation Acres Based on Basal Area Reading Project Basal Area Remaining Based Upon Pre-existing Vegetation Post-Fire Table 8 CWHR Pre-grouped CBI Early Seral (Shrub/tree) BAR 56.33 105.19 84.98 4491.03 4737.53 PGS 7.73 6.29 9.80 36.81 60.63 MCP 25.11 26.43 36.76 0 88.30 SGB 4.37 12.86 17.77 20.28 55.28 WTM 0 0 0.33 1.93 2.26 Total Shrub 98.06 169.21 157.57 4,550.05 4,944 Early Seral Conifer/Hardwood (1S – 3D)

36 Reading BE/BA Basal Area Remaining Based Upon Pre-existing Vegetation Post-Fire Table 8 CWHR Pre-grouped CBI MRI 4.52 18.44 7.93 0 30.89 1 2 3 4 PPN/JPN 1-2P 31.31 81.47 123.77 0 236.55 SMC 1-2P 3.38 16.33 7.30 0 27.01 WFR 1-2P 5.98 5.11 0.69 0 11.78 WFR 1-2D 0 0 0 0 0 PPN / JPN / 3S-3P 63.33 359.33 283.00 0 705.66 SMC 3S-3P 88.92 501.75 398.80 0 989.47 WFR 3S-3P 3.87 56.67 43.14 0 103.68 LPN 3S 0 0 0.44 0 0.44 LPN 3P 0 0.10 0 0 0.10 LPN 3D 0 0 0 0 0 MHC 3S 0 0 0.84 0 0.84 MHC 3P 0 0.10 0 0 0.10 MHC 3D 0 0 0 0 0 PPN/JPN/EPN 3M-3D 208.94 0 0 0 208.94 SMC 3M-3D 170.44 0 0 0 170.44 WFR 3M-3D 39.24 0 0 0 39.24 Total Early Seral 615.41 1,020.86 857.98 0.00 2525.14 Mid-Seral Open Canopy (4S-4P) JPN 4S, 4P 25.81 99.54 48.2 0 173.55 LPN 4S, 4P 0 0 0.71 0 0.71 PPN 4S, 4P 3.09 47.05 29.07 0 79.21 RFR 4S, 4P 0 1.07 1.61 0 2.68 SMC 4S, 4P 81.29 701.54 425.62 0 1208.45 WFR 4S, 4P 5.91 150.10 113.64 0 269.65 Total Mid-Seral Open 116.10 999.30 618.85 0.00 1,734.25 Mid Seral Closed Canopy (4M – 4D) JPN 4M 6.37 0 0 0 6.37 LPN 4M 0 0 0 0 0.00 PPN 4M 8.27 0 0 0 8.27 SMC 4M 225.91 0 0 0 225.91 WFR 4M 0 0 0 0 0.00 JPN 4D 174.54 0 0 0 174.54 LPN4D 0 0 0 0 0.00 PPN 4D 7.76 0 0 0 7.76 RFR 4D 0.89 0 0 0 0.89 SMC 4D 281.11 0 0 0 281.11 WFR 4D 215.41 0 0 0 215.41 Total Mid-Seral Closed 920.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 920.26 Late Seral Open Canopy JPN 5S 0 22.83 42.62 0 65.45 JPN 5P 5.65 102.18 0 0 107.83 PPN 5S 0 0 1.97 0 1.97 PPN 5P 0 2.68 0 0 2.68

37 Reading BE/BA Basal Area Remaining Based Upon Pre-existing Vegetation Post-Fire Table 8 CWHR Pre-grouped CBI SMC 5S 0 53.48 103.81 0 157.29 SMC 5P 28.96 187.44 0 0 216.40 WFR 5S 0 0 4.62 0 4.62 WFR 5P 0 22.00 0 0 22.00 Total Late-Seral Open 34.61 390.61 153.02 0.00 578.24 Late Seral Closed Canopy JPN 5M 31.90 0 0 0 31.90 SMC 5M, 43.23 0 0 0 43.23 WFR 5M 7.60 0 0 0 7.60 JPN 6D 52.99 0 0 0 52.99 PPN 6D 0.15 0 0 0 .015 SMC 6D 47.60 0 0 0 47.60 WFR 6D 29.26 0 0 0 29.26 Total Late- 212.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 212.73 Total Burned 1,991.57 2,580.86 1,791.85 4,550.36 10,914.62

From the table above and Table 11 below, we can summarize the pre and post fire habitat and what the project area looks like after treatments (Table 10)

Table 10 – Pre and Post-Fire Vegetation Alternative 2 and Acres Post project Reading Fire Project Post-fire Post Pre-existing Vegetation Change in Pre-Fire (Existing Project habitat CWHR Condition) treatment Shrub PGS/AGS 60.63 60.63 0 60.63 BAR/Burned 326.51 4,737.53 4411.02 464.53 MCP 454.64 88.3 -366.34 88.3 SGB 55.28 55.28 0 55.28 WAT 0 0 0 0 WTM 2.26 2.26 0 2.26 Total 899.322 4,944.89 4045.568 671.0 Early-Seral Conifer / Hardwood (1X – 3M) MRI 31.19 31.19 0 31.19 LPN 1X 0 0 0 4 LPN 3S, 3P 0 0.54 0.54 0.54 JPN / PPN 1-2D 470.8 236.55 -234.25 4509.55 LPN / JPN / 3S-3P 600.99 705.66 104.67 705.66 MHC 3S, 3P 0 0.94 0.94 0 RFR 1X 0 0 0 0 RFR 3S, 3P 0 0 0 0 SMC / WFR1-2D 54.37 38.79 -15.58 38.79 SMC, WFR 3S-3P 600.96 1093.15 492.19 1093.15

38 Reading BE/BA Post-fire Post Pre-existing Vegetation Change in Pre-Fire (Existing Project habitat CWHR Condition) treatment LPN 3D 4.87 0 -4.87 0 MHC 3D 2.36 0 -2.36 0 RFR 3M, 3D 0 0 0 0 JPN / EPN / PPN 3M-3D 1,001.01 208.94 -792.07 208.94 SMC 3M-3D 2,031.06 209.68 -1,821.38 209.68 WFR 3M-3D 39.24 0 -39.24 0 Total 4,797.61 2,525.14 -2,272.47 6801.5 Mid-Seral Open Canopy (4S-4P) JPN / PPN 4S, 4P 108.18 252.76 144.58 252.76 LPN 4S, 4P 0 0.71 0.71 0.71 RFR 4P 2.68 2.68 0 3.0 SMC 4S, 4P 369.36 1,208.45 839.09 1,208.45 WFR 4S-4P 42.84 269.65 226.81 269.65 Total 523.06 1,734.25 +1211.19 1,734.25 Mid Seral Closed Canopy (4M – 4D) LPN 4M 7.86 0.00 -7.86 0.00 JPN / PPN 4M 31.78 14.64 -17.14 14.64 RFR 4M 0 0 0 0 SMC 4M 732.63 225.91 -506.72 225.91 WFR 4M 32.39 0.00 -32.39 0.00 Total 4M 804.66 240.55 -564.11 240.55 LPN4D 19.08 0.00 -19.07 0.00 JPN / PPN 4D 455.28 182.3 -272.98 182.3 RFR 4D 13.75 0.89 -12.89 0.89 SMC 4D 1,625.61 281.11 -1,344.83 281.11 WFR 4D 721.97 215.41 -506.58 215.41 Total 4D 2835.69 679.71 -2156.35 679.71 Total Mid-Seral Closed 3,640.35 920.26 -2,720.46 920.26 Late Seral Open Canopy LPN 5S 0 0 0 0 JPN / PPN 5S 2.46 67.42 +64.96 67.42 RFR 5S 0 0 0 0 SMC 5S 1.53 157.29 +155.76 157.25 WFR 5S 0 4.62 +4.62 4.62 Total 5S 3.99 229.33 +225.34 229.29 LPN 5P 0 0 0 0 JPN / PPN 5P 61.59 110.51 +48.92 110.51 RFR 5P 0 0 0 0 SMC 5P 114.96 216.4 +101.44 216.4 WFR 5P 0 22.0 +22.00 22.0

39 Reading BE/BA Post-fire Post Pre-existing Vegetation Change in Pre-Fire (Existing Project habitat CWHR Condition) treatment Total 5P 176.55 348.91 +172.36 348.91 Total Late-Seral Open 180.54 578.24 397.7 578.24 Late Seral Closed Canopy JPN 5M 102.78 31.90 -70.97 31.9 RFR 5M 0 0 0 0 SMC 5M, 244.32 43.23 -201 43.23 WFR 5M 9.63 7.60 -2.03 7.60 TOTAL 5M 253.95 82.73 -171.22 82.73 5, 6D 0 0 0 0 LPN 5D 0 0 0 0 RFR 5D 0 0 0 0 SMC 5D 0 0 0 0 WFR 5D 0 0 0 0 JPN /PPN 6D 179.35 53.005 -126.345 53.01 SMC 6D 281.53 47.60 -233.93 47.6 WFR 6D 55.40 29.26 -26.14 29.26 Total 5D, 6D 516.28 129.865 -386.415 129.87 Total Late-Seral Closed 770.23 212.6 -660.41 212.6 Total Burned 10,914.64 10,914.62 10,917

Within the project boundaries there are 59 units set out for treatment, comprising approximately 2,508 acres; and 12 plantation areas, comprising 1,051.27 acres. In addition there are 588 acres that would be reforestation only with no treatment.

Table 11 shows the pre and post fire change in habitat after the proposed action, using the tables above to convert CBI to basal area and accounting for post-fire treatments.

Table 11 Pre- and Post-Habitat Change in the Treatment area after the Reading Fire Post Fire Acres Pre-Existing Post-Fire CWHR Vegetation (after Acres Acres Treatments) Shrub/Riparian AGS / PGS 4.47 4.5 4.47 BAR 24.66 24.66 24.66 BAR (BURNED FOREST) 0 2296.77 0 MCP 65.12 65.12 65.12 SGB 4.51 4.46 4.51 Total Shrub 98.84 2351.95 98.8 Early Seral Conifer/Hardwood (1S – 3D) MRI 0.92 0.92 0.92 JPN / PPN 1X 2D 45.02 175.33 3973

40 Reading BE/BA Post Fire Acres Pre-Existing Post-Fire CWHR Vegetation (after Acres Acres Treatments) SMC / WFR 1X-2D 14.42 10.67 300 PPN / JPN / 3S-3P 381 488.380 0 SMC / WFR 3S – 3P 3.0 617.62 0 MHC 3D 2.36 0 0 PPN / JPN / EPN 3M-3D 561.11 30.12 30.03 SMC 3M-3D 1,044.01 7.03 7.03 WFR 3M-3D 39.24 0 0 Total Early Seral 2,627.54 1330.32 4311.23 Mid-Seral Open Canopy (4S, 4P) PPN / JPN 4S, 4P 47.77 160.57 160.57 LPN 4S 0 0.1 0 RFR 4S, 4P 1.88 4.56 0 SMC 4S, 4P 135.45 599.23 27.99 WFR 4S-4P 19.37 93.77 1.71 Total Mid-Seral Open 204.47 858.42 190.27 Mid Seral Closed Canopy (4M – 4D) LPN 4M 1.82 0 0 JPN / PPN 4M 2.42 0 0 SMC 4M 258.06 0 0 WFR 4M 20.58 0 0 Total 4M 282.88 0 0 JPN / PPN 4D 217.16 9.67 9.670 LPN4D 4.04 0 0 RFR 4D 11.57 0 0 SMC 4D 792.19 4.03 4.03 WFR 4D 237.69 0.88 0.88 Total 4D 1262.65 14.58 14.58 Total Mid-Seral Closed 1545.53 14.58 14.58 Late Seral Open Canopy JPN 5S 0 6.12 6.12 SMC 5S 1.52 91.06 91.06 WFR 5S 23.42 1.33 1.33 Total 5S 24.94 98.51 98.51 SMC 5P 21.05 58.64 58.64 JPN 5P 0.85 11.72 11.72 WFR 5P 0 6.22 6.22 21.9 76.58 76.58 Total Late-Seral Open 46.84 175.09 175.09 Late-Seral Closed JPN 5M 19.56 0 0 SMC 5M, 97.48 1.5 1.5 Total 5M 117.04 1.5 1.5 PPN / JPN 6D 32.47 01.5 01.5 SMC 6D 118.78 0.47 0.47

41 Reading BE/BA Post Fire Acres Pre-Existing Post-Fire CWHR Vegetation (after Acres Acres Treatments) WFR 6D 7.81 0.26 0.26 Total 6D 159.06 2.23 2.23 Total Late-Seral Closed 276.1 2.23 2.23 Total Burned 4799.32 4792.05. 4792.17

The LVNP burned area is approximately 17,020 acres. Table 12 tabulates these acres. The total analysis area is calculated by adding the National Park (below) and National Forest Lands (Table 10) for post-fire habitat, to give a total of analysis acres.

Table 12 – Lassen Volcanic National Park Lands Burned in the Reading Fire Change In CWHR Pre-Fire Post Fire Habitat Shrub/Wetlands AGS 19.08 19.08 0 BAR Burned Forest 26.170 5924.75 5950.92 MCP 351.01 351.01 0 SGB 0 0 0 WAT 100.28 100.28 0 WTM 36.19 36.19 0 Total 532.73 6411.31 +5930 Early Seral MRI 0 0 0 LPN 1X 0 0 0 LPN 3S, 3P 0 14.53 14.53 JPN /PPN 1X – 2D 0 0 0 JPN / PPN 3S – 3P 0 0 0 MHC 3S , 3P 0 0 0 RFR 1X 181.37 177.03 -4.34 RFR 3S, 3P 28.01 67.06 +39.05 SMC 1X – 2D 4.22 3.11 -1.11 SMC 3S 3P 12.89 74.42 +61.53 LPN 3D 18.31 0.66 -17.65 MHC 3D 0 0 0 RFR 3M, 3D 73.11 29.27 -43.84 JPN/EPN/PPN 3M, 3D 0 0 0 SMC / WFR 3M, 3D 85.88 7.21 -78.67 ASP 3M, 3D 6.670 6.67 0 TOTAL Early Seral 410.46 379.96 -30.50

42 Reading BE/BA Change In CWHR Pre-Fire Post Fire Habitat Mid-Seral Open JPN 4S, 4P 0 0 0 LPN 4S, 4P 6.6 338.27 +331.67 RFR 4S, 4P 1388.95 2896.58 +1507.63 SMC 4S, 4P 159.03 2650.86 +2491.83 WFR 4S, 4P 8.90 226.71 +217.81 TOTAL 4P 1563.48 6112.42 4548.94 Mid-Seral Closed LPN 4M 50.38 0.06 -50.32 JPN / PPN 4M 0 0 0 RFR 4M 3235.13 208.37 -3026.8 SMC 4M 960.02 77.73 -882.29 WFR 4M 111.38 6.66 -104.72 Total 4M 4356.91 292.82 -4064.13 LPN 4D 467.37 9.02 -458.35 JPN / PPN 4D -0 0 0 RFR 4D 294.62 15.47 -279.15 SMC 4D 3852.51 269.34 -3583.2 WFR 4D 364.24 20.95 -343.29 Total 4D 4978.74 314.78 -4664 Total 4M, 4D 9335.65 607.6 -8728 Late-Seral Open LPN 5S 0 +4.72 +4.72 JPN / PPN 5S 0 0 0 RFR 5S 0.003 475.243 +475.24 SMC 5S 0 +724.32 +724.32 WFR 5S 0 +75.07 +75.07 Total 5S 0.003 1279.353 +1279.35 LPN 5P 0 8.9 +8.9 JPN /PPN 5P 0 0 0 RFR 5P 146.73 115.19 -31.54 SMC 5P 2.67 1217.96 +1215.29 WFR 5P 17.57 96.72 +79.15 Total 5P 166.97 1438.77 +1271.8 TOTAL ALL 166.973 2718.12 2551.15 Late-Seral Closed JPN 5M 0 0 0 RFR 5M 1861.98 524.84 -1337.1 SMC 5M 227.35 17.93 -209.42

43 Reading BE/BA Change In CWHR Pre-Fire Post Fire Habitat WFR 5M 55.96 3.76 -52.2 Total 5M 2145.29 546.53 -1598.8 LPN 5D 51.27 0.43 -50.84 RFR 5D 332.10 98.4 -233.7 SMC 5D 2261.26 126.58 -2134.7 WFR 5D 224.31 18.66 -205.65 JPN / PPN 6D 0 0 0 SMC 6D 0 0 0 WFR 6D 0 0 0 Total 5D, 6D 2868.94 244.07 -5822.4 Total All Late Seral 5014.23 790.6 -7421.2 Total all acres 17,019 17,020

B. EFFECTS ON READING AREA HABITAT

1. Habitat in general Areas to be treated, pre-fire, were a mix of Sierran mixed conifer, pine forest, red and white fir, brushfields and grasslands. Studies on fuels treatment projects (Hutto 2006; Hutto and Gallo 2006) and the proposed alternative 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. Some snags that are downed as culls may remain on site to replace down wood burned in the fire.

The above tables show the distribution of burned habitat within project, treatment, and analysis areas. Table 11 shows the Treatment Area only, pre- and post-fire, and after treatment. Table 13 subtracts these acres from the post-fire Analysis Area to give a total of all acres in the Reading fire area changed post-treatment. Acres changed by the proposed project are shown in the acres changed column. Table 13 is a summary of the post-fire National Park and National Forest Acres added together, to make up the analysis area. The treatment acre differences are included in the last column

Table 13 – Post-Project Analysis Acres Reading Fire Post- Pre-Project Project Habitat Type Acres Change Analysis Area Analysis Area Shrub / Wetland AGS 79.71 79.71 0 BAR Burned Forest 10662.3 6389.28 -4272.72 MCP 439.31 439.31 0 SGB 55.28 55.28 0 WAT 100.28 100.28 0

44 Reading BE/BA Post- Pre-Project Project Habitat Type Acres Change Analysis Area Analysis Area WTM 38.45 38.45 0 Totals 11375.33 7082.31 -4272.72 Early Seral MRI 31.89 31.19 -0.7 LPN 1X 4 4 0 LPN 3S, 3P 15.07 15.07 0 JPN /PPN 1X – 2D 236.55 4509.55 4273 JPN / PPN 3S – 3P 705.66 705.66 0 MHC 3S , 3P 0.94 0 -0.94 RFR 1X 177.03 177.03 0 RFR 3S, 3P 67.06 67.06 0 SMC / WFR 1X – 2D 41.9 41.9 0 SMC 3S 3P 1167.57 1167.57 0 LPN 3D 0.66 0.66 0 MHC 3D 0 0 0 RFR 3M, 3D 29.27 29.27 0 JPN/EPN/PPN 3M, 3D 208.94 208.94 0 SMC / WFR 3M, 3D 216.89 216.89 0 ASP 3M, 3D 6.67 6.67 0 TOTAL Early Seral -2910.1 7181.46 +4271.36 Mid-Seral Open JPN/ PPN 4S, 4P 252.76 252.76 0 LPN 4S, 4P 338.98 338.98 0 RFR 4S, 4P 2899.26 2899.58 0.32 SMC 4S, 4P 3859.31 3859.31 0 WFR 4S, 4P 496.36 496.36 0 TOTAL 4S, 4P 7846.67 7846.99 0.32 Mid-Seral Closed LPN 4M 0.06 0.06 0 JPN / PPN 4M 0 0 0 RFR 4M 14.64 14.647 0 SMC 4M 208.37 208.37 0 WFR 4M 303.64 303.64 0 Total 4M 526 526 0 LPN 4D 9.02 9.02 0 JPN / PPN 4D 182.3 182.3 0 RFR 4D 16.36 16.36 0 SMC 4D 550.45 550.45 0

45 Reading BE/BA Post- Pre-Project Project Habitat Type Acres Change Analysis Area Analysis Area WFR 4D 236.36 236.36 0 Total 4D 994.49 994.49 0 Total 4M, 4D 1,521.2 1,521.2 7.98 Late-Seral Open LPN 5S 4.72 4.72 0 JPN / PPN 5S 67.42 67.42 0 RFR 5S 475.243 475.243 0 SMC 5S 881.61 881.57 -0.04 WFR 5S 79.69 79.69 0 Total 5S 1508.683 1508.643 -0.04 LPN 5P 8.9 8.9 0 JPN /PPN 5P 110.51 110.51 0 RFR 5P 115.19 115.19 0 SMC 5P 1434.36 1434.36 0 WFR 5P -118.72 118.72 0 Total 5P 1787.68 1787.68 0 TOTAL ALL 4805.046 4804.966 -0.04 Late-Seral Closed JPN 5M -0 31.9 31.9 RFR 5M 524.84 524.84 0 SMC 5M 61.16 61.16 0 WFR 5M 11.36 11.36 0 Total 5M 597.36 629.26 31.9 LPN 5D -0 0.43 0.43 RFR 5D 98.4 98.4 0 SMC 5D 126.58 126.58 0 WFR 5D 18.66 18.66 0 JPN 6D / PPN 6D -53.01 53.01 0 SMC 6D 47.6 47.6 0 WFR 6D 29.26 29.26 0 Total 5D, 6D 267.49 373.94 -0.06 Total All Late Seral 864.85 1632.46 63.8 Total all acres 27,936 27,938.14 +-2 ac error

The acre change is the same within the project area. While the CWHR habitat designation does not change, project CWHR would have reduced structure because of the removal of snags in danger tree areas, and other areas within units where snags may be selectively taken.

46 Reading BE/BA Note in the above tables, shrub habitat remains constant, as it usually returns to the same vegetation type. Unplanted early seral turns to shrub, while mid- to late-seral habitat becomes a more open seral stage, early seral, or shrub habitat. This depends upon the burn class (see Table 8).

Within the proposed project area approximately 4,700 acres are to be treated (Map 2). Table 11 shows existing condition of these acres post-fire, after treatments and planting.

Stand typing information collected for various projects within the Hat Creek Watershed (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). Silvicultural data retained on the District indicates that snags and dead/down were also deficient in the Reading area. The retention of new-killed snags (Class1-2 snags) created by 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.

It should be noted that all changes in seral stages are as a result of the fire and not as a result of proposed project activities. Proposed project activities would however decrease structural diversity in these stands to a possible minimum of 4 snags/acre and 3 down logs/acre

2. 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 i(Ruggerio et al (1994)) and are further described within the SNFPA EIS (USDA 2001).

Surveys a. Mesocarnivores Approximately 50% of the Lassen NF has been systematically surveyed, by the Pacific Southwest Research Station (PSW), District biologists and wildlife technicians, and Contractors. have surveyed areas to a developed protocol (“American Marten, Fisher, Lynx and Wolverine: Survey Methods for Their Detection” (Zielinski and Kucera 1995)) for mesocarnivores using track plates and camera stations (Lassen NF GIS database).

The Reading wildlife analysis area was surveyed twice for mesocarnivores using camera stations and surveyed to protocol (Zielinski and Kucera 1995) using baited photo stations in 2009-2010. There were no detections in the Lassen NF Reading Fire area. In addition the project area was surveyed in 2002 and 2003 for the proposed Southbunch project. Two target mesocarnivores (Sierra Nevada red fox and marten) were detected in the Southbunch analysis area using these methods. Marten was the only species detected in the very southern portion of the Lassen NF Reading Fire area.

Marten populations have been detected within and 3 miles east of the Reading project area and the Lassen NP. They however have not been detected in the project area for 10 years. Most of the habitat that would support this species was burned in the Reading Fire. 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 2009-2012. California spotted owls and northern goshawks were detected during these surveys.

47 Reading BE/BA

California spotted owls and northern goshawks utilize mid- to late-seral 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 Prior to the Reading fire, the existing vegetation within the project area (CALVEG GIS layers for the Lassen National Forest 2010) was dominated by mid-seral stage pine and Sierran mixed conifer forest (see Table 713). Vegetation structure in conifer forests within and adjacent to the project action area was dominated by CWHR (California Wildlife Habitat Relationship system (CWHR v. 8.1) tree sizes class 3 (6-12 inches in diameter (dbh)) and 4 (11”-24” dbh), and by open (25-39%) to moderate (40-59%) overstory canopy cover.

In the areas of high vegetation burn severity and much of the areas that burned at moderate severity, the overall fuel loading on the ground is now very low (average of less than 7 tons per acre). However, as dead trees fall, over time surface fuels would increase. This, in combination with surface grass, forb, and shrub growth, would contribute to the potential for future high fire severity and would affect future fire behavior and suppression capabilities. Because of past drought, most trees within moderately burned stands are expected to succumb over the next three to five years.

Table 14 itemizes the total mid to late open/closed canopy seral habitat currently existing within the Reading project and implementation area. Acres of habitat pre and post fire are shown.

Table 14 – Mid- to Late Seral Habitat Remaining Within the Proposed Reading Project Area Post- Acres Pre-Fire Post- Acres Pre-Fire CWHR Fire Changed Acres Fire Changed Acres Acres + or - Acres + or - Project Area treatment Area Mid-Late Seral Closed Canopy (4M – 4D) JPN,LPN, PPN, SMC, WFR, RFR 4M 804.66 240.55 -564.11 282.88 0 -282.88 4D 2836 679.71 -2,156.35 1,262.65 14.58 -1,248.07 Total Mid-Seral 3,640.35 920.26 -2,720.66 1545.53 14.58 -1530.95 Late Seral Open Canopy (5S 5P) JPN, SMC, WFR 5S 3.99 229.33 +225.34 24.94 98.51 +73.57 5P 176.55 348.91 +172.36 21.90 76.58 +54.68 Total Late-Seral Open 180.54 578.24 397.7 46.84 175.09 +128.25 Late-Seral Closed Canopy (5M – 6D) JPN, PPN, SMC, WFR 5M 253.95 82.73 -171.22 117.04 1.50 -115.54 6D 516.28 129.87 -386.41 159.06 2.23 -156.83 Total Late-Seral closed 770.23 212.6 -660.41 276.1 3.73 -272.37 Total 3,050.66 1711.1 -2,983.37 1868.47 193.4 1386.83

There is a decrease in late-seral closed canopy habitat acres and overall as a result of the Reading fire, with an increased late-seral open canopy (5S, 5P), much of it in Late-seral open canopied habitat, low quality habitat for late-successional species. Much of the late-seral

48 Reading BE/BA vegetation was severely burned and will become brushfields unless they are planted under Alternative 1. Much of this habitat was formerly located in SOPACs and GPACs. Also note from Tables 10 and 11 that the proposed project does not change these habitat types. However treatment acres would remove snags from mid- to late-seral habitat. d. Cumulative Effects Area for Proposed Project Portions of the project area have been treated in the past (see the report, Past, Present and Foreseeable Future for the Reading Project Area, 2013). 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 Reading project area was comprised of early to mid seral stage plantations with little structural features such as snags and large down wood and vertical diversity. The Reading Fire rendered over 3,000 acres of mid to late seral closed canopied habitat unsuitable for species such as goshawks, spotted owls, and martens.

The cumulative effects area is the entire Reading Fire area. Table 14 shows the mid-late successional habitat affected by the fire within the LVNP. The LVNP has no plans to remove dead woody material so the existing environment post-fire and post Project are the same. Post fire figures were calculated using Table 8.

Table 15 – Mid-Late Seral Habitat Affected by the Reading Fire within the Analysis Area CWHR Pre-Fire Post Fire Acres Burned Mid-Seral Closed Mid-Seral 4M 5,161.57 533.37 -4,628 Mid-Seral 4D 7,814.43 994.49 -6,820 Total 12,976 1528 -11,449 Late Seral Open 5S 3.99 1,508.68 1,505 5P 343.52 1,787.68 1,444 Total 347.51 3,296 2,948.85 Late-Seral Closed 5M, 5D 5M 2,502.02 629.25 -1770 5D 3385.22 373.93 -4,781 Total 5,887.24 1003.18 -4781.33 Total All 19,211 5828 -13,281

The fire burned hot within the LVNP, and as a result, much more of the late seral habitat burned intensely. Of the 5,014 acres of late seral habitat, 791 late-seral acres or 15 percent survived. 1,655 acres of 5P, late seral open habitat acreage became late-seral open canopied red fir, lodgepole pine, mixed conifer and white fir, providing habitat still suitable for species such as marten, goshawk, and spotted owl (see Species Accounts, below). From the above two tables, the total analysis area (LNP and LNF) can be calculated.

49 Reading BE/BA C. SENSITIVE SPECIES ACCOUNTS

1. Pallid Bat

Status The pallid bat is listed as USDA Forest Service sensitive species and species of special concern by CDFG.

Habitat Account a. Habitat 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).

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. 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. b. 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. c. 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 habitat. There are also suitable loose-barked snags in the burned areas, and cracks and crevices in lava flows located within proposed project boundaries. This is a wide-ranging species, and there is roosting and breeding habitat all around the project boundaries. No potential caves have yet been identified within the project areas, although lava tubes are associated with Mt. Lassen and rocky lava outcrops are scattered throughout the area. To date, the only caves that are known

50 Reading BE/BA are located north of the proposed project area, in the form of lava tubes. 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. d. Risk Factors Biological Evaluations for many of the past projects in the Lassen NF 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 and hazard tree removal, 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 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) a. 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.

Because pallid bats usually begin foraging well after dark, and project activities would primarily occur during the day, little to no disturbance to foraging bats is expected

2. Structural Habitat Impacts There would be no habitat disruption or modification to rock outcrops, caves and mining adits. No man-made structures that could provide habitat for bats are planned for removal or modification, other than roads and culverts, both of which do not provide habitat.

The Reading fire created open habitats and large snags which are used by pallid bat. Insects invading dead trees in the fire area would provide prey for this species in the area. As the

51 Reading BE/BA montane chaparral matures and forms dense brush fields, foraging habitat quality would decline for pallid bats since they capture prey on the ground. The large snags would provide roosting habitat for pallid bats. Snag densities (> 15” dbh) with the no action alternative would be higher across the landscape than with the action Alternative

Trees utilized for roosting by this species typically have peeling bark. Most within the project boundaries were consumed by the fire or felled during the “mop-up” phase, reducing potential roost sites. Cutting of Class 1-2 snags on roads leading into the project area has the potential to directly kill bats if they are present within the snag when it is felled.

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 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. There are few hardwood stands within the project area, so this habitat type would not be affected. Overall, dead tree removal would have no effect on the residual live tree size, canopy cover or live-tree basal area, as live trees are not proposed for removal.

In Alternative 1, all large burned snags would be removed for fuels reduction (see IDFs under Proposed Action section). The alternative would result in a small reduction of snag numbers and as a result reduce potential roost trees and foraging opportunities. Snags and down wood would be retained as required under the IDFs for the proposed actions. b. Indirect Effects 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 is the reduction of the threat of wildfire to those snags and down would that would be maintained as part of the proposed action. c. Cumulative Effects The area considered in determining the cumulative effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities on pallid bats encompasses both the Hat Creek watershed for fire created snag habitat and the analysis area 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 in combination with actions as listed within the report, Past, Present and Foreseeable Future for the Reading Project Area, 2013.

The greatest impact on pallid bat habitat is the Reading Fire. A report by M. R. Buchalski (2013) studied bats following a 61,000 hectare wildfire area in the southern Sierra Nevada mountain range of California, USA. The wildfire burned with mixed-severity, leaving a mosaic of fire damage. The forests of this region supported communities of 16 species of bats. The

52 Reading BE/BA objective was to evaluate the effects of fire severity on bat activity in mixed-conifer forest. In this study it was found that bat activity in heavily burned areas was either the same or higher than in unburned areas, suggesting no negative landscape effect of fire on foraging site selection. The study shows that stand-scale conditions drive bat activity. Larger-bodied bats, adapted to more open habitat, showed no response to fire. Results from this fire in mixed- conifer forests of California suggest that bats are resilient to landscape scale fire and that some species are preferentially selecting burned areas for foraging, aided by reduced basal area of trees and the increased post-fire availability of prey and roosts.

The above study is encouraging because increases in urbanization, loss of habitat through 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. Fire may actually improve bat habitat for many species, by providing roosting and increased foraging opportunities.

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. There would be a small amount of cumulative effects associated with the loss of class 4, 5 and 6 snags in the project area, as most large mature legacy trees were burned severely and their bark lost.

Management of burned areas can reduce 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. Alternative 1 could be a benefit to bat species through some protection of the residual unburned habitat attributes and retention of some burned areas.

The Sugarloaf and Brown’s Fires (Hat Creek Complex fires, 2009), that are located within the Hat Creek watershed, created abundant fire-killed tree habitat. The Brown’s Fire occurred west of the community of Hat Creek, approximately 12 miles north of the Reading Fire area. The Sugarloaf fire was approximately 6 miles north of the proposed project. Both fires combined to burn a total of around 11,356 acres. Approximately 455 acres of dead tree removal occurred on these burned acres (about 4%of the total burned acres).As a result, the availability of snags for bat use in the Old Station area of the Hat Creek watershed is abundant.

The proposed project would harvest approximately 4,178acres of burned habitat, Approximately 6,100 acres of burned habitat would remain on the Lassen NF, of which almost all is size class 4 and above. Within the LVNP there are approximately 17,000 acres of habitat that remains in the form of burned snag habitat, of which over 13,000 acres are size class 4 and above, interspersed with meadow and shrub areas. Between the Lassen NF and the LVNP, This provides over 14,500 acres of class 4 roosting habitat, with the rest being foraging habitat. - Cumulatively (after all other hazard tree removal and fire salvage projects are included) this alternative would exclude salvage and roadside hazard logging entirely from the majority of public lands as most of the Reading Fire analysis area would be left untreated.

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 Reading 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.

53 Reading BE/BA

Determination for Alternatives 1 for the Pallid Bat

Based on the above information, Alternative1 of the Reading Project may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for the pallid bat because: There is 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 the initial burning, but after a year or two there would be an increase in the prey base.

Effects of Alternative 2 (No Action) a. Direct Effects Under Alternative 2, the current management would continue. There would be no land disturbing activities. There would be no new direct effects to pallid bat. 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 snag forest to an early-seral conifer forest habitat, and unburned areas grow into later seral stages. b. 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.

Fuel loading would remain and over time would increase the ground fuels. As a result of the no- action alternative, stands would recover over time, but not as quickly if they were planted. The burned habitat would remain as shrub vegetation for the foreseeable future (+100 years).

With the current Lassen NF 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. c. Cumulative Effects There are no direct effects of the proposed action; therefore there are no cumulative effects.

Determination for Alternative 2 for the Pallid Bat Based on the above assessment of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, Alternative 2 of the Reading 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.

54 Reading BE/BA 2. 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 Account a. Habitat High quality habitat includes close proximity to forested riparian corridors that are used as travelways and an interspersion of small (<1 acre) openings with good ground cover used for foraging (Aubry et al. 2012, Martin1987). Travelways between 300 to 600 feet in width are recognized by as the minimum for marten dispersal. Riparian corridors or other means for dispersal are necessary to martens to provide safe and frequent movements through poor habitat areas and between habitats. These travelways should be multistoried stands and should have a minimum canopy closure of 50-60%.

Variable sizes for home ranges within the Sierra Nevada are reported in the literature; male home ranges vary from 673 to 3,000 acres and females range from 427 to 1,075 acres.

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. Radio telemetry studies in the southern Sierra Nevada found marten most often in mixed conifer and true fir habitat).

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, large 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 downed woody debris.

Riparian areas are used extensively. Marten prefer riparian / lodgepole pine associations and meadows for foraging (Aubry et al. 2012). Using CWHR classification, suitable marten 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 because of a lack of canopy cover (see next paragraph). Table 16 displays marten habitat within the project and analysis area.

55 Reading BE/BA 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. b. Diet Martens forage at the edge of openings, especially natural meadows, but they avoid traveling across large openings. Prey species abundance is an important component of habitat. Their prey is primarily squirrels, but their diet varies seasonally and may include snowshoe hare, blue grouse, northern flying squirrels and other small rodents. Douglas squirrels (Tamias ciurus douglasi) are an important prey species for marten. Conifer seeds and fungi are the primary food source of Douglas squirrels.

Marten typically are found at elevations between 4,000 – 10,000 feet (Aubrey et al. 2012). This elevation is found in the Reading project area (5200-8100 feet in elevation), thus this area would be expected to be used by martens for sustained, long-term use, as well as for dispersal and foraging. c. Occurrence in Project Area The Reading wildlife analysis area was surveyed twice for martens 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. There were no detections in the Reading fire area. In addition the project area was surveyed in 2002 and 2003 for the Badger project. The marten was detected in the Badger Analysis Area using these methods, in the very southern portion of the Lassen NF Reading fire area. d. 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 large down logs (USDA 2001).

See Table 15 for the Existing Condition and post-fire conditions.

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.

56 Reading BE/BA

Relative to “May Affect” projects, the described impacts to marten most often fell in the following categories: Temporary disturbances 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

Important CWHR habitat types include red fir, lodgepole pine, subalpine conifer, mixed conifer- fir, Jeffrey pine, and eastside pine (USDA 2001). Moderate to highly important CWHR strata for marten are 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, and 6 (USDA 2001; USDA Forest Service 2004).

Effects of Alternative 1 (Proposed Project) a. Habitat Effects Based on CWHR Foraging and denning habitat analysis is based on the California Wildlife Habitat Relations (CWHR) 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. Table 16 summarizes Marten Capable Habitat.

Table 16 – Marten Capable Habitat within Reading Project Boundaries Treatment Area Total Project area Total Acres Outside Habitat Use Pre- Post- Acre Pre- Post- Acre Treatment Fire Fire Change Fire Fire Change Area High/Moderate 1674 16 -1658 3978.5 997.5 -2981 982 Denning Habitat High/Moderate 1975 213 -1762 5153.5 723.5 -3441 510.5 Resting Habitat High/Moderate 1184 209.5 891.5 3,531 1436 -2102 1226 Foraging Habitat

Denning Habitat High denning capability for marten includes lodgepole pine (4M, 4D, 5D, and 6), Montane Riparian (5D and 6), Red Fir (4M, 4D, and 5D), Sierran Mixed Conifer (6), and Subalpine Conifer (4M, 4D, and 5D). Moderate capability denning habitat includes Aspen (4M, 4D, 5D, and 6), Jeffrey Pine (4M, 4D, and 5D), Lodgepole Pine (4P and 5P), Montane Hardwood Conifer (4P and 5P), Montane Riparian (4M and 4D), Red Fir (4P and 5P), Sierran Mixed Conifer (4M, 4P, and 5D), Subalpine Conifer (4P and 5P), and White Fir (4M, 4D, 5D, and 6)

The project area contains Lodgepole Pine (4M, 4D), Red Fir (4M, 4D), Mixed Pine (4M, 4D and 5D), Sierran Mixed Conifer (4M, 4D, 6) AND White Fir (4M, 4D, 6). There are no other habitat types within the implementation or project area that are high or moderate capability habitat.

57 Reading BE/BA Direct Effects Within the project, but outside the treatment area there are 982 acres remaining of mid- to high capability habitat that would not be treated. The 16 acres within the treatment area would remain as suitable seral habitat but would have less structural complexity because of the removal of snags and down woody material for fuels purposes. Because of this modification the treated areas would be less suitable than that of the untreated areas. This is mitigated by the retention of a minimum of 4 snags per acre and 3 down logs per acre greater than 15 inches in diameter within all areas.

Resting Habitat High capability resting habitat includes Lodgepole Pine (4M, 4D, 5M, and 5D), Montane Hardwood Conifer (4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, and 6), Montane Riparian (5D, 5M, and 6), Red Fir (4M, 4D, 5M, and 5D), Sierran Mixed Conifer (6), and Subalpine Conifer (4M, 4D, 5M, and 5D). Moderate capability resting habitat includes Aspen (4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, and 6), Barren (all strata), Eastside Pine (5M, 5P, and 5D), Jeffrey Pine (4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, 6D), Lodgepole Pine (4P and 5P), Montane Hardwood Conifer (4P and 5P), Montane Riparian (4M and 4D), Red Fir (4P and 5P), Sierran Mixed Conifer (4P, 4M, 4D, 5M, and 5D), Subalpine Conifer (4P and 5P), and White Fir (4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, and 6).

High capability resting habitat within the proposed project includes Lodgepole Pine (4M, 4D), Red Fir (4D), Sierran Mixed Conifer (4D, 6D). Moderate resting habitat includes: Barren (all strata), Jeffrey Pine (4M, 4D, 5M,), Red Fir (4P), Sierran Mixed Conifer (4M, 4P, 5M, and 5D), and White Fir (4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, and 6).

Direct Effects There are a total of 723 acres of high to moderate resting habitat within proposed project boundaries. Of this, 213 acres are within treatment boundaries. The remaining 511 acres would not be treated for fuels reduction. Because fuels treatments will reduce snags and down wood that are structural components, treatment acres will have a diminished capability as resting habitat. This will be mitigated somewhat by retaining a minimum of 4 snags per acre and 3 down logs per acre greater than 15 inches in diameter within all treatment areas.

Foraging Habitat High capability foraging habitat includes Lodgepole Pine (4M, 4D, 5M, and 5D), Montane Hardwood Conifer (4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, and 6), Montane Riparian (5D, 5M, and 6), Red Fir (4M, 4D, 5M, and 5D), Subalpine Conifer (4M, 4D, 5M, and 5D), and Wet Meadow (all strata). Moderate capability foraging habitat includes Aspen (4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, and 6), Barren (all strata), Eastside Pine (5M and 5D), Jeffrey Pine (4M, 4D, 5M, and 5D), Lodgepole Pine (3S, 3P, 4S, 4P, and 5P), Montane Hardwood Conifer (4P and 5P), Montane Riparian (4M and 4D), Pasture (all strata), Perennial Grassland (all strata), Red Fir (3S, 3P, 4S, 4P, and 5P), Sierran Mixed Conifer (4M, 4P, 5M, 5D, and 6), Subalpine Conifer (3S, 3P, 4S, 4P, and 5P), and White Fir (4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, and 6).

High to Moderate foraging habitat within proposed project and implementation areas includes Lodgepole Pine (4M, 4D,), Red Fir (4D), and Wet Meadow (all strata), Barren (all strata), Jeffrey Pine (4M, 4D, 5M), Lodgepole Pine (3S, 3P), Red Fir (4P), Sierran Mixed Conifer (4P, 4M, 5M, 6,), and White Fir (4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, and 6).

Direct Effects Post-fire, there is a total of 1436 acres of high to moderate foraging habitat within proposed project boundaries. Of this, 1226 acres are outside treatment boundaries. These acres

58 Reading BE/BA would not be treated for fuels reduction. Because fuels treatments will reduce snags and down wood, the 210 treatment acres would have a diminished capability as foraging habitat, as prey species are dependent upon structural features. This will be mitigated somewhat by retaining a minimum of 4 snags per acre and 3 down logs per acre greater than 15 inches in diameter within all treatment areas.

As seen from the above analysis, fuels management activities would primarily consist of modification of habitat components, especially in regards to denning/resting habitat and secondarily, foraging habitat. Additional effects include possible behavioral disturbance to denning from logging, road-building, or other associated activities (USDA 2001). b. 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 breeding females and their natal and older kits. Presently, there is no known denning and/or natal sites known for the marten in the project area, and none have ever been discovered.

Roads may cause behavioral changes in that marten 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 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 the proposed action. Remaining post- fire habitat for foraging martens overall is conserved (Table 15), with a small decrease in structural complexity. c. Structural Changes High severity wildfire results in long term harmful effects to marten habitat due to reduction in existing large tree component and dense forested stand structure. In some moderate to moderately low severity burn areas still supporting live trees (25-50 percent basal area mortality) and low severity areas that support live trees and forested canopy (<25 percent basal area mortality), there could be some short term increase in snag and down wood component available for marten prey species and marten den structures.

Wildfires the size of the Reading Fire can result in habitat loss and large scale openings, fragmenting suitable denning, foraging and dispersal habitat. Overall the proposed actions would not decrease closed canopy species habitat suitability for reproductive, resting, and foraging activities. For effects from roads see section below on road densities

Alternative 1 would remove fire-killed or roadside hazard trees from high and moderate severity burned areas (up to 4,200 acres) that do not support habitat considered suitable for marten. This action would not reduce live tree canopy cover, but might degrade any denning, resting, and foraging habitat for marten. Snags and logs are important habitat elements for forest carnivores and their prey and are used for cover and denning as well as foraging. However, high densities of snags and down logs are unfavorable for fuels management. Larger snags and logs provide more habitats 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

59 Reading BE/BA woody material per acre which means a portion of this structural habitat component would be retained. Alternative1 would maintain 4 large snags per acre where available as prescribed and 3 large down logs greater than 15 inches in diameter. In addition there are at least 6,400 burned acres around treatment units that will remain structurally intact.

A total of 85 percent of the habitat for marten would remain unchanged within the proposed project area; the remaining 15 percent would be treated, and be less structurally complex, but would retain at minimum the largest snags within those units, and down woody material. The project activities are minimal with respect to those from the fire. d. Road Densities mid-late seral habitat Open roads and improperly closed roads adversely affect marten (Zielinski et al 2008) 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;

Early habitat models 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 (Zielinski et.al. 2008).

Presently there are 41 miles of system roads, 3 miles of non-system mapped roads, and approximately 2 miles of designated trail (Pacific Crest Trail) within project boundaries. The current road density within the project area is presently approximately 2.0 miles of open road per square mile. Two miles of new temporary road would be constructed, which would be closed at project completion. Table 17 summarizes these actions.

Table 17 – Reading Project Reduction/Addition of Roads to FS System Road Treatment Miles Unauthorized Routes Added to System, 0.25 Closed to Motor Vehicles (ML 1) Routes Added to System, Open to the 1.0 Public (ML 2) Temporary Road Construction 2.0

The above changes in road usage would only slightly impact marten which utilize mid to late successional habitat, as added roads already exist, or are primarily in burned or early successional areas such as plantations. Overall road density would remain constant.

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 (Fahrig 2003). Alternatives 1 would not increase road densities in the area because these roads already exist. Designation might encourage more recreational usage.

60 Reading BE/BA

The increased diversity and edges created by plantations within forested stands may provide increased foraging opportunities for marten, 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. The activities proposed are not expected to significantly change mesic sites to xeric sites and hence will not have a negative effect on prey. e 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 Hat Creek watershed and Reading Fire analysis area level is used. 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. Since activities under the proposed action would have a small direct and an indirect effect from proposed management activities within the boundary of the project, there are potential cumulative effects that could result from the proposed project and the past, present and foreseeable actions listed the report, Past, Present and Foreseeable Future for the Reading Project Area, 2013 (PORRFA Report, 2013).

The major contributor to cumulative effects on the Reading Project is the Reading Fire. The greatest concern for martens and other furbearers 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). Broad-scale habitat connectivity is critical to population viability for species with specialized habitat preferences and limited dispersal abilities, such as the American marten. This habitat specialization, dispersal strategy, and small populations with limited distributions make them particularly vulnerable to habitat loss and fragmentation (Kirk and Zielinski 2010), which has occurred as a result of the Reading Fire.

As mentioned under the Pallid Bat Species Account, the Sugarloaf and Brown’s Fires (Hat Creek Complex fires, 2009), combined to burn a total of around 11,356 acres. Approximately 455 acres was replanted, so vegetation will be shrub for the foreseeable future. In the Reading National Forest Lands over 11,000 acres burned and much of it was foraging, and 50 percent was resting and denning habitat. The proposed project activities would be negligible compared to the effects of fire and other activities that were listed as occurring in the 2013 PORRFA Report.

In summary, marten use large trees with high densities for denning and resting that are structurally complex. Table 18 summarizes the amount of this kind of habitat before and after fire, and acres that will remain untreated within the proposed project area:

61 Reading BE/BA Table 18 – Effects of the Reading Fire and Implementation on Marten Suitable Habitat within the Analysis Area Suitable Habitat (4M, 4D, Pre-Fire Post Fire Reduction in 5M, 6D) Acres Acres suitable habitat (%) -13,384 acres 90% Analysis Area 19,211 5,827 reduction -3,381 acres 75% Project Area 4,411 1132 reduction -1804 acres 99% Treatment Area 1,822 18 reduction Acres Unaffected by 58 percent late seral 6941 unmodified acres Treatments habitat untreated

Table 18 shows that over the analysis area, the effects of the proposed project would be minimal, compared to the overall fire area. The project area is surrounded by National Forest and National Park forestlands that have not been managed for several years. As a result of project activities for Alternative 1 there would almost no effects associated with the loss of class 4, 5 and 6D structural habitat components, because of the removal of snags, and cumulatively no loss of CWHR habitat.

Cumulative effects on marten occur because of an incremental reduction of the quantity and quality of habitat for this species and increasing fragmentation between suitable habitat areas. Overall, increases in recreational use of National Forest lands, and the utilization of natural resources on state, private and federal lands contributes to habitat loss. High-severity, stand- replacement fires and the firefighting practices such as building dozer lines have contributed and would continue to contribute to loss of habitat for these species.

The incremental loss of the quantity and quality of habitat for this species is ongoing on both public and private lands within the watersheds where the project would occur. As a result of project activities for Alternative 1 there would be slight cumulative effects associated with the loss of class 4, 5 and 6D structural habitat components, because of the removal of snags.

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 within the fire- affected area), the retention of still unburned 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.

Determination Alternative 1 Marten

The Reading Project may affect the habitat of, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for the American marten, because of the following:

Retention of all live trees and preserving some structural components of National Forest lands within the Implementation Area would mitigate effects Fuel reduction areas are designed to reduce the further loss of habitat due to wildfire. The proposed alternative would not create “xeric” sites Marten are not known to presently utilize the project area as denning habitat.

62 Reading BE/BA Overall post fire, the amount of suitable foraging and denning habitat would remain the same for marten, taking into account both D and M habitats. Road densities would remain constant, having no effect marten, because overall, road density remains the same. Implementation of the action involves a level of risk of removing structural components that marten need to occupy the area.

Effects of Alternative 2 (No Action) a Direct and Indirect 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 marten, and no changes to the risk factors as described above. In Alternative 2 (no action) the habitat would remain as brushfield at least for the next 100 years before conifers could

There would be no direct effects to individuals or marten habitat. The greatest impact to the marten and marten habitat was the Reading fire. Within the project area prior to the Reading Fire, there were 5,602 acres of public land that were high quality suitable marten denning habitat; after the fire there is currently approximately 1,278 acres of National Forest lands within the project area that are high capability suitable marten denning/resting/foraging habitat located across the fire landscape within the project area.

The majority of the burn area was considered unsuitable habitat for marten, and probably would remain unsuitable habitat for 125+ years. The Montane Chaparral type that would persist with the no action alternative does not provide any suitable habitat in all seral stages for marten. Since this species avoids areas of open canopy cover, if individuals are present they would likely avoid large areas of the Reading Fire until a dense conifer overstory develops. This would include the 1,398 acres of National Park land remaining suitable within the cumulative effects area since those acres are fragmented throughout the LVNP burn area.

The open road density within the project area is about 2 miles of open road/square mile. Open road density would remain the same with this alternative. According to early habitat models this road density provides moderate habitat capability for the marten and other forest carnivores. b. Cumulative Effects Alternative 2 would not produce impacts to the marten that add to other events in the environment as described in the mid – late-seral 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 diameter 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 National Forest lands to the north, east and west; to the south are National Park lands that are managed that are minimally for fuels reduction. 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 habitat as no action would occur.

63 Reading BE/BA

Determination Alternative 2 for Marten Based on the above assessment of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, there would be no effects on the American Marten. Alternative 2 would not benefit these species for at least 100 years, until the conifer forest begins to provide the structural component into the future.

3. Northern Goshawk

Status

The northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) is a Forest Service sensitive species. Northern goshawks are currently being managed under the Lassen NF LRMP guidelines as amended by the SNFPA FSEIS ROD (USDA 2004), pages 66-67 and Table 2.

Habitat Account a. 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, 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.

Fire, the primary disturbance mechanism throughout the western United States, has historically provided landscapes that contained and maintained goshawk populations. Forest types and their respective fire regimes provide context for developing desired conditions for sustaining

64 Reading BE/BA 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. b. Nesting 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. c. Foraging and Diet 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).

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. d. 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 Lassen NF.

The proposed project is within the summer and winter range of the northern goshawk. 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 National Forest database.

65 Reading BE/BA Goshawks have been detected in the area during protocol surveys conducted from 2004 – 2009.

A total of 3 GPACs existed in this area. Table 18 provides the gPAC history for Northern goshawks within the Reading Project Area.

Table 19 – Goshawk gPACs and Detections within the Project Area for the Reading Project* Date Incidentals Associated gPAC Detections Reproduction Established with gPAC Badger 2005 Pair Nest; 2 yng none

2004 Single Nest seen 3 singles 2004 Raker 2009 pair Nest and 1 young 1 incidental 2009

2004 Pair Nest; no young South Badger none Nest 2009 Pair seen

Surveys for goshawks were conducted in the project area following the USFS, Region 5 Northern Goshawk Inventory and Monitoring Technical Guide protocol (USDA 2001a) in 2008 and 2009. Two nest sites were discovered, at Raker, GPAC and Badger GPAC. Intense searches for the birds were conducted in 2013, with the Raker pair found relocated to the east of the burned PAC and nest tree, but still foraging along Hat Creek. A new PAC was formed around their most sighted locations (Activity Center) and is shown on Map 2 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 Lassen NF)

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

66 Reading BE/BA

Effects of Alternative 1

a. CWHR Types – Habitat Effects Table 19 shows the habitat remaining within the project and implementation area before and after the Reading Fire. Overall, the fire reduced suitable goshawk nesting (77 percent lost), perching (60 percent lost), and foraging habitat within the project area by an average of 61%. The effects varied widely by habitat capability (Table 20), with foraging habitat the highest remaining.

Table 20 – Moderate and High Capability Remaining for Goshawk in the Implementation and Project Area after the Reading Fire Treatment Area Total Project Area Total Acres Post-Fire Pre- Acre Acre outside Capability (after Pre-Fire Post-Fire Fire Change Change treatment treatment) area Total High/Moderate 2378 50 -2329 5450 1306 -4145 1256 Nesting Habitat Total High/Moderate 3668 915 -2753 8045.47 1554 -4758 639 Perching Habitat Total High/Moderate 4661 2377 -2238 9876 5366 -4079 2989 Foraging Habitat

Nesting High capability nesting habitat for this species: Jeffrey Pine, Lodgepole Pine, Montane Hardwood, and Subalpine Conifer (4M, 4D, and 5D); Montane Hardwood-Conifer, Montane Riparian, Sierran Mixed Conifer, and White Fir (4M, 4D, 5D, and 6); and Red Fir (5D). Within CWHR, size class 6 is only recognized for a subset of the forest vegetation types (Sierran Mixed Conifer, White Fir, Montane Hardwood-Conifer, Montane Riparian, and Aspen).

Moderate capability nesting habitat for goshawks: Aspen (4M, 4D, 5D, and 6), Eastside Pine (3M, 3D, 4M, 4D, and 5D), Lodgepole Pine (3M and 3D), Red Fir (4M and 4D), and Subalpine Conifer (3M and 3D).

The project area contains the following high and moderate capability nesting habitat: High capability nesting habitat for this species: Jeffrey Pine, Lodgepole Pine, (4M, 4D); Sierran Mixed Conifer, and White Fir (4M, 4D, 5D, and 6). Within CWHR, size class 6 is only recognized for a subset of the forest vegetation types (Sierran Mixed Conifer, White Fir).

Moderate capability nesting habitat includes Lodgepole Pine (3M and 3D), Red Fir (4M and 4D) and Eastside Pine 3M 3D).

Direct Effects Within the project area, but outside the treatment area there are 1256 acres remaining of mid- to high capability habitat that would not be treated. Effects are the same as for the marten analysis. The treated acres would remain as suitable seral habitat but would have less structural complexity because of the removal of snags and down woody material for fuels purposes. Because of the removal of woody material the treated areas would be less

67 Reading BE/BA suitable than that of the untreated areas. This is mitigated by the retention of a minimum of 4 snags per acre and 3 down logs per acre greater than 15 inches in diameter.

Perching Habitat High capability perching habitat for this species includes Jeffrey Pine, Lodgepole Pine, Montane Hardwood, Montane Hardwood-Conifer, Montane Riparian, Sierran Mixed Conifer, and White Fir (4M and greater size and density classes). Moderate capability perching habitat for this species: Jeffrey Pine, Lodgepole Pine, Sierran Mixed Conifer, and White Fir (3M, 3D, 4S, and 4P); Montane Hardwood, Montane Hardwood-Conifer, and Montane Riparian (4S and4P); and Red Fir (4M, 4D, 5S, and 5P).

Moderate capability perching habitat for this species includes Aspen and Eastside Pine (3M and greater size and density classes); Jeffrey Pine, Lodgepole Pine, Sierran Mixed Conifer, Subalpine Conifer, and White Fir (3M, 3D, 4S, and 4P); Montane Hardwood, Montane Hardwood-Conifer, and Montane Riparian (4S and4P); and Red Fir (4M, 4D, 5S, and 5P).

Within the project area perching habitat includes high capability habitat: Jeffrey Pine, Lodgepole Pine, Sierran Mixed Conifer, and White Fir (4M and greater size and density classes). Moderate capability perching habitat for this species includes Jeffrey Pine, Lodgepole Pine, Sierran Mixed Conifer, and White Fir (3M, 3D, 4S, and 4P); and Red Fir (4M, 4D, 5S, and 5P)

Direct Effects Post-fire, there is a total of 1554 acres of high to moderate perching habitat within proposed project boundaries. Of this, 915 acres are within treatment boundaries. The remaining 639 acres would not be treated for fuels reduction. Because fuels treatments will reduce snags and down wood, implementation acres will have a diminished capability as foraging habitat, as prey species are dependent upon structural features. This will be mitigated somewhat by retaining a minimum of 4 snags per acre and 3 down logs per acre greater than 15 inches in diameter within all treatment areas. 5P).

High capability foraging habitat for goshawk includes Alpine Dwarf-Shrub (all strata); Eastside Pine (4D, 5S, 5P, 5M, and 5D); Jeffrey Pine, Lodgepole Pine, Montane Hardwood, Montane Hardwood-Conifer, Montane Riparian, Sierran Mixed Conifer, Subalpine Conifer, and White Fir (4M and greater size and density classes); and Red Fir (5M and 5D).

Moderate capability foraging habitat for goshawks: Aspen (3M and greater size and density classes); Jeffrey Pine, Montane Hardwood, Montane Hardwood-Conifer, Montane Riparian, Sierran Mixed Conifer and White Fir (4P and below); Lodgepole Pine and Subalpine Conifer (1, 2S, 3S, 3P, 3M, 3D, 4S, and 4P); and Red Fir (3M, 3D, 4S, 4P, 4M, 4D, 5S, and 5P).

Within the proposed project area high foraging habitat includes Eastside Pine (4D, 5S, 5P, 5M, and 5D); Jeffrey Pine, Lodgepole Pine, Montane Hardwood-Conifer, Sierran Mixed Conifer, and White Fir (4M and greater size and density classes). Moderate capability foraging habitat for goshawks within the project area includes Mixed Pine, Montane Hardwood-Conifer, Montane Riparian, Sierran Mixed Conifer, and White Fir (4P and below); Lodgepole Pine (1, 2S, 3S, 3P, 3M, 3D, 4S, and 4P); and Red Fir (3M, 3D, 4M, 4D).

68 Reading BE/BA Direct Effects There is a total of 5,366 acres of high to moderate foraging habitat within proposed project boundaries, but outside the treatment areas. Approximately 2377 acres (82 percent) are within treatment boundaries. The remaining 976 acres would not be treated for fuels reduction. Because fuels treatments will reduce snags and down wood that are structural components for both prey and goshawk as hiding, hunting and post plucking of prey, the 538 acres will have a diminished capability as foraging habitat. This will be mitigated somewhat by retaining a minimum of 4 snags per acre and 3 down logs per acre greater than 15 inches in diameter within all treatment areas.

Fuels management activities would primarily consist of modification of habitat components, especially in regards to nesting habitat and secondarily, foraging habitat. Additional direct effects include possible behavioral disturbance to nesting from logging, road-building, or other associated activities (USDA Forest Service 2001). b. 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.

The greatest impact to the goshawk habitat was the Reading Fire. For total effects, see Marten Table 17, as acres are similar. Like marten goshawks can utilize large trees with high densities for nesting and perching. These areas are structurally complex. The major effects upon habitat are to the structure and not canopy cover. Unfortunately these effects are difficult to quantify.

Within the project area, prior to the fire, there was 4,411 acres of public land of suitable goshawk nesting habitat in the mid to late seral stages (CWHR 5D, 5M, 4D, and 4M); after the fire there is currently approximately 1,132 acres of public land that are this kind of suitable goshawk habitat located across the fire landscape within the project area.

As discussed above, there is a risk of direct effects to individuals because of the modification of a small amount of nesting/foraging habitat. Goshawks apparently do not select foraging and nesting sites based on prey abundance; and abundances of some prey are lower on foraging plots than in other areas. Goshawks select foraging and nesting 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 both foraging and nesting habitat are important and both need to be managed. In the burned PACs and other suitable habitat this structure no longer exists.

Alternative 1 would remove fire-killed or hazard trees from high and moderate severity burned areas, up to 4200 acres, which do not support habitat considered suitable for goshawk. This action would have a very minimal effect on live trees, and would not reduce live tree canopy cover, for goshawk. The present condition of late-seral forest habitat within the project area would not change from the existing condition created by the wildfire. However some dead and danger trees in goshawk habitat would be removed, which will impact the structural nature of suitable habitat (see marten analysis). As trees are removed from the 70th percentile of mortality, some remaining burned trees will probably die and contribute to the snag counts and down wood in these areas.

Removal of fire-killed trees that could be available for additional prey species if left on site may incrementally impose a decrease in habitat suitability for goshawks from pre and post treatment

69 Reading BE/BA conditions. Some suitable nesting or foraging habitat would be directly affected by fire-killed tree removal, as there are groups of fire-killed trees within some suitable habitat.

Although the project area provides less suitable habitat than existed compared to the pre-fire conditions, goshawks that are displaced from the Badger PAC could still find refuge in the remaining suitable habitat that is presently incorporated into the HC 17 owl PAC and HRCA (see spotted owl PAC analysis, below). Likewise, any goshawks in the project area associated with the South Prospect GPAC could find refuge eastward from proposed project activities. However, these areas are less suitable than the original PAC areas. c. GPACS Acres would be treated in areas formerly known as northern goshawks PACs. Approximately 401 acres of fire-killed tree removal would occur in areas formerly known as PACs. This fire- killed tree removal acreage is not suitable goshawk habitat due to fire effects (see above Tables).

The three GPACS within the proposed project boundary burned severely and are no longer functional. Table 20 describes these and the acres that burned within them.

Table 21 – Acres Burned at High or Moderately High Severity Class in Goshawk PACs Within the Reading Fire Project Area Remaining not Acres Burned % of PAC burned to low Nest site / PAC at High or burned at High severity PAC Activity center Acres Moderately or Moderately CWHR3M/6D status High Severity High Severity Acres in Project Area Burned PAC Badger 203.77 173.66 73 30.11 non-functional Burned/ new GPAC Raker 201.1 201.1 100 0 established east of old pac South burned 194 154 80% 17.24 Prospect New activity Raker 2 354 89 25 243 center. nest site still unknown

All three PACs were eliminated due to severe fire effects (Table 21). All known nest sites within these PACs were severely burned. Immediately after the fire, a northern goshawk auditory detection was recorded in the low to moderate vegetation burn severity area in one small patch of trees and shrubs along the waters of Hat Creek, near Hat Creek Falls, in winter, 2012. Goshawks were known to forage near this area prior to the fire. The pre-fire Raker PAC was initially remapped by GIS personnel to include the best habitat within the fire perimeter that had been analyzed under the CBI. This was a circle where the goshawk was detected foraging and perching that winter and included the best habitat remaining in burn class 1 and 2 at the time the CBI was calculated (2012). On April 24, 2013 the wildlife biologist remapped the GPAC to include potential nesting habitat discovered on the ground by surveyors and to exclude all CBI class 4 burn areas and most of the class 3 burned areas (Maps 2, 3),

70 Reading BE/BA

The Raker PAC pair was first detected in 2004 and the PAC was frequently occupied. Nests and fledglings were detected, so it is important to maintain a PAC for this pair.

The SNFPA ROD (2004) defines northern goshawk PAC land allocation and associated desired conditions. It also addresses what actions can be taken after a stand-replacing event, such as a wildfire. The SNFPA ROD states: “PACs may be removed from the network after a stand-replacing event if the habitat has been rendered unsuitable as a northern goshawk PAC and there are no opportunities for re- mapping the PAC in proximity to the affected PAC” (SNFPA ROD 2004, pg. 38). There doesn’t appear to be any opportunities to re-map Badger or South Prospect , based upon no large (200 acres or more), contiguous patches of suitable present within close proximity that are on FS lands to the PAC, except within the newly formed Spotted owl PAC. Therefore, goshawk PACs Badger and south Prospect has been rendered unsuitable by the wildfires and have been removed from the Lassen goshawk PAC network. If pairs are located during further surveys in 2013 around the burn area, new PACs will be designated around them. d. Behavioral effects Effects to northern goshawk from alternative 1 includes noise from mechanical vegetation clearing, fire and smoke from controlled burns, and direct loss of potential habitat. Both foraging and nesting activities could be affected by these actions. The project-level LOPs, 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, USDA 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. e. 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).

Research findings (Morrison et.al. 2011) 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, including particularly in the new Raker 2 PAC as the nest site is unknown. This may have a temporary negative effect on nesting for the goshawk during treatment. f. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects on goshawks include collective temporary displacement from project areas during project implementation, and loss of habitat as a result of project activities. Cumulative effects to goshawks have already occurred due to the Reading fire. The Raker PAC was remapped and the Badger and South Prospect PACS were removed. Thus, two PACs are lost from the Lassen goshawk PAC

71 Reading BE/BA network. There are also slight potential cumulative effects that could result from the past, present and foreseeable actions listed the PORRFA report (USDA 2013),

Within the project area, prior to the Reading Fire, there were 4,411 acres of FS land that were suitable goshawk high to moderate nesting/ foraging habitat (CWHR 5D, 5M, 4D, and 4M); after the fire there is currently approximately 1,132 acres of FS lands that are suitable goshawk nesting/foraging habitat located across the fire landscape within the analysis area.

The Reading Project primarily contributes to a slight modification in goshawk nesting habitat in combination with past projects, but retains 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.

No substantial impacts are expected to goshawk breeding activities as LOPs have been and would be implemented when necessary to avoid project impacts to nesting pairs. In addition, all projects would comply with the SNFPA framework, which would protect habitat conditions within goshawk PACs. Based on known information and as-needed implementation of a LOP, the projects should not disturb known nesting pairs and would not alter their current distribution across the Forest. In the long-term, cumulative effects of this alternative should be beneficial to goshawks and their habitat as (1) the risk of a stand replacing fire is reduced; (2) a potential increase in habitat quality and quantity due to the eventual development of reforested acres into suitable habitat; and (3) remaining habitat in the project area matures during the 20-year period following implementation of the Reading Project.

Determination for Alternative 1 for the Northern Goshawk It is my determination that Alternative 1 of the Reading 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 modification of a small amount of potential nesting habitat, Noise disturbance from mechanical and prescribed fire activities, road traffic, and smoke from controlled burns could cause nest abandonment. Key habitat features needed by northern goshawks, such as snags and dead/down logs would be retained at 4 snags/acre, and 3 large down logs/acre. 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) a. Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects There would be no effects or cumulative effects to individuals or goshawk habitat. The greatest impact to the goshawk and goshawk habitat was the Reading Fire.

The majority of the burn area is considered unsuitable habitat for goshawks, and probably would remain unsuitable nesting habitat for 125+ years. Intraspecific competition for quality nesting and foraging habitat outside the burn may increase between goshawks that may have used the project area prior to the fire.

The Montane Chaparral shrub vegetation type that would persist with the no action alternative provides some low suitability foraging habitat in all seral stages for goshawks (CWHR Version 8.0). Goshawks prey on small mammals as well as catch birds on the wing. They then perch on

72 Reading BE/BA plucking posts to feed. These plucking posts are usually located within forested stands, providing an element of security cover for feeding goshawks. The edges between unburned forest and low intensity burned patches within the interior of the burn are attractive edges to a variety of prey species for goshawk (jays, flickers, golden mantled ground squirrel). The small patches of forested habitat within the burn that burned at low intensity can serve as areas for plucking posts and where goshawks can perch and work the edges for foraging.

Determination for Alternative 2 for the Northern Goshawk It is my determination that Alternative 2 of the Reading Project would not affect the northern goshawk.

4. California Spotted Owl

Status The Regional Forester of the Pacific Southwest Region has identified the California spotted owl as a sensitive species. On October 12, 2000, the USFWS 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 they 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 included the 5-year HFQLG pilot project, as implemented and directed on pages 66 – 69 of the 2004 ROD. The HFQLG has expired and Forests now consider owl PACs, CWHR classes 5M, 5D, and 6 in project designs and implementation of projects. SNFPA standards and guidelines for home range core areas (HRCAs) now apply to the Reading Project Area and vegetation projects.

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 NF. 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.

73 Reading BE/BA Habitat Account a. Habitat Definitions of suitable habitat are derived from those listed in Verner et al (1992), SNFPA (2004), and 70 Federal Register, June 21, 2005. Based on these definitions the following CWHR types in the analysis area provide high nesting habitat capability: Sierran Mixed Conifer, White Fir, Red Fir, Ponderosa Pine, and Lodgepole Pine (5D, 5M). These CWHR types have the highest probability of providing stand structure associated with preferred nesting, roosting and foraging. Suitable foraging habitat is found in the same forest types listed above for nesting habitat (CWHR 5D, 5M) as well as 4D and 4M. Stands considered to be suitable for foraging have at least two canopy layers, dominant and co-dominant trees in the canopy averaging at least 12 inches in dbh, at least 40% canopy closure, and higher than average levels of snags and downed woody material (70 Federal Register, June 21, 2005). Although canopy cover down to 40% is suitable for foraging, they appear to be only marginally so (based on owl occurrence and productivity threshold at around 50% canopy cover, Ibid).

Spotted owls forage most frequently in intermediate to late-successional forest with greater than 40 percent canopy cover and a mixture of tree sizes, including some larger than 24 inches dbh. Although habitat characterized by canopy cover as low as 40 percent can be suitable for foraging, owls spend disproportionately less time in areas with canopy cover less than 40 percent. California spotted owl are year-round residents of the Lassen NF. They are nocturnal, foraging at night, and roosting during the day.

Forest Service management direction for spotted owls directs that a protected activity center (PAC) be delineated around 300 acres of the highest quality nesting habitat available. The PAC includes the most recent nest site or activity center within a spotted owl breeding territory (USDA 2004b). In addition to the PAC, a HRCA is delineated. 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 and includes the 300 acre PAC. The HRCA is composed of the best available contiguous habitat. The core area corresponds with 20% of a breeding pair home range plus one standard error. Home ranges vary substantially across the range of this subspecies.

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 with high canopy cover (Blakesley et al. 2005).

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.

74 Reading BE/BA b. 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. 1992). 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). 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, Kelly et al. 2003, Weins et al. 2010). c. Occurrence in Project Area There is one spotted owl PAC, HC 17, and two HRCAs located within the Project Area.

Spotted owl surveys have occurred within the project area over a period of several years. In 2003 and 2004 the area was surveyed as part of the Badger project. In 2009 and 2010, the Reading 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. Two pairs were detected in the two year survey. The detections were in two areas, one adjacent to HC 17 SOPAC, and the other north of this PAC. Pairs were detected in both cases but reproduction remained unconfirmed e. Risks and Threats 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 type, burn intensity, and post-fire logging affect spotted owl demographic and occupancy rates. Consistent with restoration goals, post-fire management in these areas should promote the development of habitat elements that support spotted owls and their prey, especially those which require the most time to develop or recover (e.g., large trees, snags, downed wood). Such management should include retention of large trees and defective trees, rehabilitation of roads and firelines, and planting of native species (Beschta et al. 2004, Hutto 2006). Forests affected by medium- and low severity fires are still often used by spotted owls and should be managed accordingly.

Spotted owls have been observed foraging in areas burned by fires of all severity categories (Clark 2007, Bond et al. 2009). While Clark (2007) found that spotted owls did not use large patches of high-severity burns for foraging, Bond et al. (2009) found spotted owls selecting burned areas, even high severity burns, when they were within 1.5 km of a nest or roost site. Results of several of these studies are confounded because of post-fire salvaging that occurred (e.g., King et al. 1997, Clark 2007). More research is needed to further understand the relationship between fire and spotted owl habitat use within burned areas.

75 Reading BE/BA

Other threats to spotted owl viability include loss of habitat continuity, structure, and amount because of human activities such as timber related activities and natural factors such as predation by barred owls. 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).

Effects of Alternative 1

a. CWHR Types: Structural Effects The major effect upon suitable spotted owl nesting (3,438 out of 4,504 acres lost), roosting (3,429 out of 4,575 acres lost) and foraging (1,711.26 out of 4,694 acres lost) within the project area was the Reading Fire.

Table 22 shows the pre-fire and post fire condition of nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat within the project and implementation area.

Table 22 – Burn severity effects of the Reading fire on Suitable Habitat for Spotted Owl within the Project Area Implementation Area Total Project area Acre Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Acre Chang Fire Fire Fire Fire Change e Total High/Moderate 1824 20 -1805 4505 2010 -3379 1990 Nesting Habitat Total High/Moderate 1308 72 -1237 3079 364 -2205 292 Roosting Habitat Total High/Moderate 1872 188 -1684 4742 1170 -3033 2845 Foraging Habitat

High capability nesting habitat includes Montane Hardwood (5D), Red Fir (5D), Montane Hardwood-Conifer (5D and 6), Montane Riparian (5D and 6), Sierran Mixed Conifer (5D and 6), White Fir (5M, 5Dand 6), and Pine Forest (5D). Moderate capability nesting habitat includes Eastside Pine (4M, 4D), Lodgepole Pine (5M, 5D), Ponderosa/Sierran Mixed Conifer (4M, 4D, and 5M) stands are considered moderate capability spotted owl nesting habitat.

Based on above definitions the following CWHR types in the analysis area provide high nesting habitat capability: Sierran Mixed Conifer, White Fir, Red Fir, Ponderosa Pine, and Lodgepole Pine (5D, 5M). High capability nesting habitat in the project area includes Sierran Mixed Conifer (5D and 6) and White Fir (5M, 5Dand 6). Moderate capability nesting habitat includes Eastside Pine and other Pine (4M, 4D, 5M 5D, 6), Lodgepole Pine (5M, 5D), Ponderosa/Sierran Mixed Conifer (4M, 4D, and 5M) stands

Effects Within the project, but outside the implementation area there are 1,990 acres remaining of mid- to high capability nesting habitat that would not be treated. The treated 20 acres would remain as suitable seral habitat but would have less structural complexity because of the removal of snags and down woody material for fuels purposes. Because of the removal of snags the treated areas would be less suitable for nesting than that of the untreated areas.

76 Reading BE/BA Within the Reading Project boundaries High capability roosting habitat includes Sierran Mixed conifer, and white fir (5M, 5D, and 6); Moderate capability roosting habitat includes; Red Fir (4D, 5S, and 5P); and Mixed Conifer and White Fir (5P, 4M and 4D).

Effects There are a total of 364 acres of high to moderate roosting habitat remaining post-fire, within proposed project boundaries. Of this, 72 acres are within treatment boundaries. The remaining 292 acres would not be treated for fuels reduction. Because fuels treatments will reduce snags that are structural components for roosting, the 72 acres will have a diminished capability as roosting habitat. This will be mitigated somewhat by retaining a minimum of 4 snags per acre and 3 down logs per acre greater than 15 inches in diameter within treatment areas.

High capability foraging habitat includes Red Fir (5M and 5D); Montane Hardwood-Conifer, Sierran Mixed Conifer, and White Fir (5M, 5D, and 6); and Montane Riparian (5D and 6). Moderate capability foraging habitat includes Lodgepole Pine (5M and 5D); Montane Hardwood (4M and 4D); Montane Hardwood-Conifer and Mixed Pine, Red Fir, Sierran Mixed Conifer, and White Fir (4M, 4D, 5S, and 5P); and Montane Riparian (3M, 3D, 4M, 4D, 5S, 5P, and 5M).

High capability foraging habitat within the project boundaries includes Sierran Mixed Conifer, and White Fir (5M, 5D, and 6); Moderate capability foraging habitat includes Mixed Pine, Red Fir, Sierran Mixed Conifer, and White Fir (4M, 4D, 5S, and 5P)

Effects Post-fire, there is a total of 1,170 acres of high to moderate foraging habitat within proposed project boundaries. Of this, 188 acres are within treatment boundaries. The remaining 2845 acres would not be treated for fuels reduction. Because fuels treatments will reduce snags and down wood, the 498 acres will have a diminished capability as foraging habitat, as both owls and prey species are dependent upon these structural features for hunting and hiding. This will be mitigated somewhat by retaining a minimum of 4 snags per acre and 3 down logs per acre greater than 15 inches in diameter within all treatment areas.

As with the other species discussed, fuels management activities would primarily consist of modification of habitat components, in regards to nesting, roosting and foraging habitat. Additional direct effects include possible behavioral disturbance from logging, road-building, or other associated activities (USDA 2001). b. 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 22 and described above. The Reading Project was designed to reduce both short and long-term fire threats. Mitigation measures included in the project, such as SNFPA Standard and Guidelines (S&Gs) for down woody debris, and retention of snags would retain some structural components of the project areas.

The proposed project maintains retention of green areas unaffected by the fire. The newly redrawn SOPAC would remain untreated.

Numerous project components in forested habitat could temporarily reduce prey availability in the area of direct impact (e.g., road construction, logging) through loss of habitat, mortality of

77 Reading BE/BA small mammals, or behavioral changes. Because prey species (e.g., woodrats, deer mice, flying squirrels) have relatively rapid reproduction rates, this effect would be expected to be short-term in duration.

Based on the Bond et al. (2009) study, all project activities could affect potential foraging habitat (all burn severities), roosting habitat (low burn severity), and nesting habitat (low and moderate burn severity). The proposed removal would reduce perch sites for roosting and foraging, and potential snag nest trees within suitable habitat. c. PACs and HRCAs for spotted owl Direction for evaluating a PAC for retention or removal after a stand replacing event is found on page 37 of the SNFPA 2004 ROD. The process is as follows: Evaluate habitat conditions within a 1.5-mile radius around existing 300 acre PACs. If opportunities exist (i.e. suitable habitat remains within a 1.5 mile radius) for re-mapping the PAC, re-map the PAC at a minimum of 300 acres. Based on SNFPA 2004, as well as GTR- 133 (Verner et al 1992), the PAC is 300 acres of the best possible owl habitat available, blocked up into as compact a unit as possible around an owl activity center (nest site or best roost or repeated daytime detections). The existing PAC number could be retained or a new PAC number could be established.

If opportunities do not exist (i.e. no suitable habitat remains within a 1.5 mile radius, or 300 acres of contiguous suitable not present, or suitable habitat scattered across the area and not arranged to logically create a compact unit, or an adjacent existing PAC already exists) for re- mapping, the PAC may be removed from the network. PAC may be removed after rationale has been documented for removal without the need to conduct owl surveys.

A study by Lee (Lee et al. 2012) suggests that fire that burnt up to an average of 32 percent of suitable habitat at high severity within a California spotted owl site, does not threaten its’ persistence on the landscape. The HC 17 PAC nesting habitat (5P – 6D habitat) was over 90 percent burned, and foraging habitat (4M – 5P habitat) was over 75 percent burned.

Adjustments of the spotted owl PACs and HRCAs were made to minimize overlap with areas that may be subject to management such as road buffers, and high fire activity that converted suitable nesting habitat to barren areas post fire. This followed the above direction in the SNFPA (2004).

To the extent possible, new boundaries followed logical geographic or manmade features to facilitate finding the locations in the field and thus avoiding inadvertent management intrusion. The location of the new HRCA and PAC was focused around the central location of the original owl territory and meet or exceed the full intent of incorporating 300 acres or more of moderate to highly suitable habitat (CWHR size classes 4 and 4, density classes M and D). Table 23 displays the acreage of the new and old PACs.

78 Reading BE/BA Table 23 – Habitat Comparison Between (1) HC 17 PAC before and after Reading Fire and (2) HC 17 New PAC HC 17 HC 17 HC 17 New PAC Old Old Seral Stage Post-Fire Post-fire Pre-Fire Early Seral and Shrub Shrub: BAR, MCP, SGB 2.08 97.98 12.49 Early Seral: JPN,PPN, 21.11 99.44 153.53 SMC, WFR, MRI 1X-3D mid-open Seral: JPN, SMC, WFR 4S, 4P JPN 4S 0.02 0 0 JPN 4P 0.01 0 0 SMC 4S 25.57 18.92 0.49 SMC 4P 0.03 31.92 1.65 WFR 4S 5.47 0 0 WFR 4P 0.02 0.93 0 Totals 31.12 51.77 2.14 Mid-Seral Closed SMC, WFR, 4M, 4D SMC 4M 19.71 5.36 29.05 SMC 4D 81.03 59.89 116.23 WFR 4D 198.24 0 0.92 Mid-Seral Closed: 298.98 65.25 146.2 Late-Seral Open Canopy JPN 5S 0.24 0 0 JPN 5P 1.65 0 0 SMC5S 2.75 0 0 SMC 5P 30.07 0 0 WFR 5S 1.08 0 0 WFR 5P 4.96 0 0 Totals 40.75 0 0 Late-Seral Closed JPN 5M 27.33 0 0 SMC 5M 29.19 0 0 WFR 5M 8.63 0 0 JPN 6D 32.62 0 0 SMC 6D 18.68 0 0 WFR 6D 43.39 0.01 0.01 mid-closed 159.84 0.01 0.01 Totals 553.87 314.44 314.37

Temporarily the designated new PAC is larger than 300 acres, until it can be seen if the resident owls utilize the designated new area. The new PAC contains better nesting habitat than the old PAC area did in that there is 159 acres of late-seral closed canopy habitat that was not within

79 Reading BE/BA the old PAC area, and there are fewer early successional elements. Once the habitation is confirmed, a HRCA would be designated around the core area of activity. Within this HRCA, as well as the PAC (Table 23, see shrub habitat),there would be acres of burned habitat for spotted owls to forage, as well as other early successional habitat areas.

Bond et al. (2009) found that four years post-fire, two pairs of spotted owls nested in moderate burn severity mixed conifer forest and one pair nested in low burn severity mixed conifer forest. During the breeding season, they also found that roosting spotted owls selected low severity burned forest and avoided moderate and high burn severity burned areas. Thus, the possibility exists that spotted owls could nest within the Reading Project low severity burned areas rather than in the post-fire, remapped PAC, although the owl pair was detected outside and adjacent to the burned area in 2011, before the fire burned. d. 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. Project-related activities within ¼ mile of nests or roosts during the breeding season (March 1 through August 15) could cause reproductive failure or increase mortality of young. Within the first year of a fire, owls have been recorded returning to PACs located in burned landscapes (Bond et al. 2002). Some studies show that long-term reproductive use does not occur in high intensity burned habitat (USDA 2011).

No disturbance to nesting owls is anticipated because it is assumed that any nesting owls would be detected during protocol surveys, which would be conducted in and near the project area prior to project activities. If nesting owls are found, a ¼ mile no-disturbance radius would be delineated around any active nest from March 1 through August 15.

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. 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. 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.

80 Reading BE/BA Owls could potentially forage in the pre-fire PAC or in other locations within the project area classified as suitable habitat using CWHR Classes 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D). According to CWHR, a total 1,170 acres of high to moderate foraging habitat remain within proposed project boundaries. Of this, 188 acres are within treatment boundaries, and these will also remain suitable for foraging. Studies examining how spotted owls use burned landscapes for foraging indicate that owls continued to use areas burned by understory (low severity) fire but avoided stand-replacement burns, probably because of reduced prey (Wasser et al. 1997). Thus, prey species preferred by spotted owls (i.e., flying squirrels) are likely to have already been reduced in number due to changes in project area habitat caused by the Reading Fire. However, woodrats are known to use earlier successional habitats and may recolonize the edges of shrub fields (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988). Flying squirrels are associated with mature conifers and are likely to be absent from portions of the project area until such conditions develop in the future.

In contrast to the above, Bond et al. (2009) found that four years post-fire, foraging owls selected burned areas for foraging over unburned forest, with the greatest selection for high- severity burned areas. The most likely explanation for their results was increased presence of prey (e.g., woodrats, deer mice) caused by enhanced habitat conditions, including increased shrub and herbaceous cover, and number of snags (Bond et al. 2009). Thus, the entire Reading Project area eventually could be considered suitable foraging habitat for spotted owls, once shrub species have a chance to grow and prey species increase within this habitat. Therefore removing burned habitat and the suppression of shrub species in favor of plantations would reduce potential foraging habitat. However plantations are their own form of early successional habitat, and over time would provide habitat for prey species.

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 e. Roads There would be no new system road construction so no long-term increases in human activities are expected as a result of this action. There would be approximately 2 miles of temporary road constructed to accommodate logging systems; these would be decommissioned upon completion of the project. Road density would remain the same within the project area as pre- fire conditions, which is 2 miles of open road/square mile. f. Connectivity and Dispersal Dispersal could be affected, as the fire area is now fragmented. However, dispersing owls are mobile and can easily avoid areas of high disturbance. Landscape level effects are possible where fire increases the fragmentation of the forest and limit to some extent, the ability of owls to move through the forest area. The proposed project would not contribute to this effect, as canopy cover overall in the area is below 40 percent and will not change.

Given that the average home range of a spotted owl in this area is 2500 acres and the new PAC habitat canopy cover would not be impacted, movement within PACs would be unaffected. Movement across PACs is still possible to the north of the fire, but more constrained southward because of the reduction in canopy cover.

81 Reading BE/BA

The main indirect effect of both action alternatives would be the reduction of wildfire hazard a faster replacement of forested area because of planting. 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 fuel reduction treatments, the chances of large scale wildfire would remain high, and if it occurs, severe losses of the remaining mid to late-seral forest habitat could occur and, habitat recovery would take considerably longer (i.e. >100 years), then with using fuels reduction management, as proposed with alternative 1.

Maintenance of foraging and nesting suitability in unburned areas would retain higher canopy cover and structural integrity of the habitat, such as within riparian management areas and non- mechanized zones such as steep and rocky slopes and canyons.

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. Under alternative 1 of the Reading Project, the average number of snags per acre would increase through time through attrition of older trees as a result of the delayed death of fire-killed trees that are still green that would not be removed, 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, further reducing the amount of continuous forest cover and decrease the suitability of existing forest for spotted owls. Studies in 2011 shows that California spotted owl, like northern spotted owl nest sites are negatively correlated with high contrast edges and owls would not benefit from increased forest fragmentation in forested stands, at least with respect to nest-site selection (Casey et al 2010). g Cumulative effects The PORRFA (2013) itemizes actions that have occurred within the project area over time. The cumulative effects area for the spotted owl includes the analysis area and the Hat Creek watershed.

The largest impact to spotted owl was the Reading Fire. Other fires within the watershed did not occur within primary suitable nesting areas (5M, 5D) habitat and so the Reading Fire is the greatest factor in the loss of nesting habitat within this area.

Over time, the remaining suitable habitat would improve naturally as the result of snag and down log creation and increased vegetation structural complexity, as well as higher canopy cover. After 20 years, remaining forest would become more suitable, and plantations would be in the early to mid-seral stage.

As was acknowledged in the Affected Environment section and documented in post-fire survey results, spotted owls can and do utilize unlogged severely burned forests. The cumulative removal of fire-killed or roadside hazard trees on approximately 4,200 acres of public land under this alternative does contribute to overall habitat modification due to the removal of fire-killed structures supporting habitat, and potential foraging habitat in the project area. These actions could potentially affect spotted owls if any are present in these areas due to disturbance and loss of the foraging habitat.

82 Reading BE/BA Based on the latest spotted owl survey information (from 2009 to the present) implementation of fire-killed or hazard tree removal would be subject to a LOP that would restrict tree removal during the nesting season (March 1 to August 30). Based on known information and as-needed implementation of a LOP, the fire-killed tree removal would not disturb known nesting pairs, and would not alter the distribution of discussed owl PACs across the Lassen NF.

The cumulative removal of fire-killed or roadside hazard trees would modify burned habitat with fire-killed tree structure removal, but would not reduce spotted owl PAC/HRCA occupancy, distribution, or the spotted owl population on the Lassen NF above that resulting from the wildfire. Fire-killed or hazard tree removal within the analysis area would not impact either habitat or population trends on the Forest. . While there are short-term effects (loss of snags and down woody material), the horizontal and vertical diversity of forest vegetation structure and species would be improved over time, in surviving sites with low intensity underburns. Snags presently are, and will continue to be deficient in burned early-seral plantations that are replanted. Down wood would also increase over time, continuing to contribute to large logs on the landscape as snags fall and trees get older and die.

The temporary disturbance of California spotted owl habitat due to the removal of dead burned trees on 4200 acres would not fragment spotted owl dispersal habitat as canopy cover as a result of the fire, in intensely burned areas is now below 40 percent canopy cover.

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 diameter of trees and the presence of mature trees with nesting sites, roosting areas, and foraging opportunities. The project area is surrounded by National Forest lands to the north, east and west; to the south are National Park lands that are managed that are minimally for fuels reduction. As a result of the Reading Fire and past fires some lands no longer have large mature legacy trees, late-seral habitat, and mature forest structure.

Because of cumulative effects from the Reading Fire, it is unlikely that there would be foreseeable actions within the near future (20 years) within the project area, and the LVNP has no plans for projects within the Reading Fire area. This means the retention of all burned areas within the park, except for danger trees along roaded areas.

Determination Based on the above assessment of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, it has been determined that implementing Alternative 1 may affect individuals, but is 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 disturbance, the overall reduction in fire risk, and an emphasis on restoring conifer forest would help maintain and increase California spotted owl habitat. Much of the suitable spotted owl nesting habitat (with more than 40% canopy closure) would be retained within spotted owl and goshawk PACs, within the project area. Project treatment might protect remaining suitable habitat from highly intense fire. Some structure within some suitable habitat would be lost initially. Foraging habitat would be lost.

83 Reading BE/BA Alternative 2 – No Action a. Direct and Indirect Effects This alternative would not contribute to the fragmentation of California spotted owl habitat as no action would occur other than normal ongoing management actions such as hazard tree removal and road maintenance. Potential project-related disturbance to breeding, roosting, and foraging spotted owls would not occur. No potential effects to prey species would occur. In the long-term, less suitable habitat for flying squirrel and woodrat prey species would be present compared to Alternative 1 as 4,700 acres would still be classified as shrub 20 years later, and the habitat would remain as brushfield at least for the next 100 years before conifers could establish themselves as part of the landscape. This would remain as some suitable foraging habitat for small rodents and insects for spotted owls

Within the analysis area prior to the Reading Fire, there were 19,000 high capability nesting acres After the fire, there is currently approximately 2531 acres in the analysis area (Table 15) that are high capability suitable spotted owl nesting/roosting /foraging habitat located across the fire landscape. Much of it remains within the new SOPAC on National Forest lands. b. Cumulative Effects of the Reading Fire The majority of the burn area is now considered unsuitable nesting habitat for the California spotted owl, and probably will remain unsuitable habitat for the foreseeable future. The Montane Chaparral type that would persist with the no action alternative does not provide any nesting or roosting suitable habitat for the spotted owl. Since this species avoids areas of open canopy cover, if individuals are present they would likely avoid large areas of the Reading Fire until a dense conifer overstory develops. This would include the 1,398 acres of National Park land remaining suitable within the cumulative effects area since those acres are fragmented throughout the LVNP burn area.

Alternative 2 would not produce impacts to the spotted owl that add to other events in the environment as described in the Mid – Late-Seral Habitat section of this document. There would be no actions designed to reduce the risk of high intensity wildfire.

Determination for Alternative 2 Based on the above assessment of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, it is has been determined that Alternative 2 of the Reading Project would not affect the California spotted owl, as no action would be implemented, and current management would continue.

84 Reading BE/BA

VI. REFERENCES

Angwn, Peter A., Daniel R. Cluck, Paul J. Zambino, Brent W. Oblinger, and William C. Woodruff. 2012. Hazard tree guidelines for forest service facilities and roads in the Pacific Southwest Region, Forest Health Protection Report #RO-12-01 Barrows, Cameron W. 1981. Roost selection by spotted owls: an adaptation to heat Stress. Condor 83: pp 302-309. Banci, V. 1994. Wolverine. In: Ruggiero, L.F., K.K. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyonand W.J. Zielinski (eds). The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores. American marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine in the western United States. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-254. Fort Collins, Colorado Barr, C.B. 1991. The distribution, habitat, and status of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus Fisher (Insecta: Coleoptera: Cerambycidae). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA 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: 564–571 Beschta, Robert L., Jonathan Rhodes, J. Boone Kauffman, Robert Gresswell, G Wayne Minshall, James R. Karr, David Perry, E. Richard Hauer, and Christopher A. Frissell. 2004. Postfire management on forested public lands of the western United States. Conservation Biology. 18(4), 11pp. Blakesley Jennifer A, Barry Noon, and David Anderson. 2005. Site occupancy, apparent survival, and reproduction of California spotted owls in relation to forest stand characteristics. Journal of Wildlife Management 69(4):1554–1564; 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, Monica, Derek Lee, Rodney Siegel, and James P Ward. 2009. Habitat use and selection by California spotted owls in a post-fire landscape. The Journal of Wildlife Management 73(7): 1116-1124 Buchalski, M. R., J. B. Fontaine, P.A. Heady, J.P. Hayes, and W.F. Frick. 2013. Bat response to differing fire severity in mixed-conifer forest California, USA. PLoSONE 8(3): e57884. Burnett, Ryan D. and Mel Preston. 2012. Plumas-Lassen Administrative Study 2011 Post-fire Avian Monitoring Report. Report to the USFS 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, 21 (5): 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. 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,

85 Reading BE/BA Copeland, J.P. 2006. Biology of the wolverine in central Idaho. M.Sc. thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow, USA Clark, Darren A. 2007. Demography and Habitat Selection of Northern Spotted Owls in Post- Fire Landscapes of Southwestern Oregon. Master’s Thesis submitted to Oregon State University. On file at Hat Creek RD, Lassen NF. Copeland, J.P, James M. Peek, Craig R. Groves, Wayne E. Melquist, Kevin S. McKelvey, Gregory W. McDaniel, Clinton D. Long, Charles E. Harris. 2007. Seasonal habitat associations of the wolverine in central Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(7):2201–2212; 2007 Donato, D. C., J.B. Fontaine, J. L. Campbell, W. D. Robinson, J. B. Kauffman, B. E. Law. 2006. Post-Wildfire Logging Hinders Regeneration and Increases Fire Risk. Science. 311: 352. 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. Fahrig, Lenore. 2003. Effects of habitat fragmentation on biodiversity. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 34:487–515 Federal Register. Department of Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Rules and Regulations. Determination of threatened status for the giant garter snake. Vol. 58, No. 201 pp 54053 – 54066 Federal Register, Department of Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Finding on a petition to list the California spotted owl as threatened or endangered. Vol. 65, pp 60605-60607. Federal Register. Department of Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding for a petition to list the California Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis). Vol. 68. No. 31. Page 7580-7608 Federal Register. Department of Interior. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. 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. 78 No. 53, Thursday, March 19,2013. 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. 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. 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, Haggard, Maryellen and William Gaines. 2001. Effects of Stand-replacement fires and salvage logging on a cavity-nesting bird community in eastern Cascades Washington. Northwest Science Vol.75. No. 4. Pp 387-396. 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

86 Reading BE/BA Hutto, R.L., Gallo, S.M., 2006. The effects of post-fire salvage logging on cavity nesting birds. Condor 108, 817–831. 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. Kotliar, N.B., S.J. Hejl, R.L. Hutto, V.A. Saab, C.P. Melcher, and M.E. McFadzen. 2002. Effects of fire and post-fire salvage logging on avian communities in conifer-dominated forests of the western United States. Studies in Avian Biology No.25:49-64. Lee, Derek E, Monica L Bond, and Rodney B. Siegel. 2012. Dynamics of breeding-season site occupancy of the california spotted owl in burned forests. The Condor 114(4):792–802. Leskiw, T., and R.J. Gutiérrez. 1998. Possible predation of a spotted owl by a barred owl. Western Birds 29:225–226. Mayer, Kenneth, William Laudenslayer, ed. 1988. A guide to wildlife habitats of California. 165 pp. Lindenmayer, D.B. and R.F. Noss. 2006. Salvage logging, ecosystem processes, and biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 20,(4): 949-958. 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, Carol and Dean I. Urban. 1999. Forest pattern, fire, and climatic change in the Sierra Nevada. Ecosystems (1999) 2: 76–87 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 19,(2): 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. Phillips, Casey, 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 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.

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

87 Reading BE/BA RM-217. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ft. Collins, Colorado. 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. Saab, V., R. Brannon, J. Dudley, L. Donohoo, D. Vanderzanden, V. Johnson, and H. Lachowski. 2002. Selection of fire-created snags at two spatial scales by cavitynesting birds. Pages 835-848, in P.J. Shea, W.F. Laudenslayer Jr., B. Valentine, C.P. Weatherspoon, and T.E. Lisle (editors), Proceedings of the symposium on the ecology and management of dead wood in western forests, 2-4 November 1999, Reno, Nevada. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report PSWGTR-181. Saab, V.A., Dudley, J.G., Thompson, W.L., 2004. Factors influencing occupancy of nest cavities in recently burned forests. Condor 106, 20–36. Saab, V.A., Russell, R.E., Dudley, J.G., 2007. Nest densities of cavity-nesting birds in relation to postfire salvage logging and time since wildfire. Condor 109: 97–108. Saab, Victoria A., Robin E. Russell, Jonathan G. Dudley. 2009. Nest-site selection by cavity- nesting birds in relation to postfire salvage logging. Forest Ecology and Management 257: 151–159 Sherwin, Rick. 1998. Pallid bat information in Ecology, Conservation and Management of Western Bat Species. Bat Species Accounts. Siegel, R.B. and D.F. DeSante. 1999. Version 1.0. The draft avian conservation plan for the Sierra Nevada Bioregion: conservation priorities and strategies for safeguarding Sierra bird populations. Institute for Bird Populations report to California Partners in Flight. Available on-line: http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/sierra.html. Smith, Sheri L., and Daniel R. Cluck. 2011. Marking Guidelines for Fire-Injured Trees in California. US Forest Service, Region 5, Forest Health Protection Report #RO-09-01 Smucker, Kristina M, Richard L. Hutto, and Brian M. Steele. 2005. Changes in bird abundance after wildfire: importance of fire severity and time since fire. Ecological Applications, 15(5): 1535–1549 Spiegel, L. H., and P. W. Price. 1996. Plant aging and the distribution of Rhyacionia neomexicana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Environ. Entomol. 25: 359Ð365. 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. Swanson, Mark E, Jerry F Franklin, Robert L Beschta, Charles M Crisafulli, Dominick A Della Sala, Richard L Hutto, David B Lindenmayer, and Frederick J Swanson. 2011. The forgotten stage of forest succession: early-successional ecosystems on forest sites. Frontiers Ecol. Environ. 2011; 9(2): 117–125, 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. Truex and Zielinski. 2008. Determining the gender of american martens and fishers at track plate stations. Northwest Science 82:185 - 198 USDA Forest Service. 1992. Forest Land Resource and Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Lassen National Forest.

88 Reading BE/BA USDA Forest Service. 2001. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Chapter 3. Part 4. Volume 3 of 6. USDA Forest Service. 2002. Survey protocol for the northern goshawk in the Pacific Southwest Region. USDA Forest Service. 2013. GIS layers for Hat Creek Ranger District. Lassen National Forest. USDA Forest Service. 2013a. 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). 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. 2006. Multiple Species Inventory and Monitoring Technical Guide. Gen. Tech. Report WO-73 August 2006. 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, 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. 2008a. Biological Assessment / Evaluation for the North 49 Project. On file at the Hat Creek Ranger District, Lassen National Forest. USDA Forest Service. 2008b. Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional Management Indicator Species (MIS) Report: Life history and analysis of Management Indicator Species of the 10 Sierra Nevada National Forests: Eldorado, Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Sequoia, Sierra, Stanislaus, and Tahoe National Forests and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. January 2008.128pp.i8 http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfmisa/pdfs/2008_Sierra_Nevada_Forests_MIS_Report_Januar y_2008.pdf USDA Forest Service. 2011. Status and trends of northern spotted owl populations and habitats. Raymond J. Davis, Katie M. Dugger, Shawne Mohoric, Louisa Evers, and William C. Aney. GTR 850. USDA Forest Service. 2011. Forest Inventory Analysis (FIA) Data. USDA Forest Service. 2012. Soils Report for the Reading 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. 2013. Fuels Report for the Reading Project. On file at Lassen NF, Hat Creek RD USDA Forest Service. 2013. Past, Present and Foreseeable Future for the Reading Project Area, 2013. On file at Lassen NF, Hat Creek Ranger District. USDA Forest Service. 2013. Sensitive Animal Species by Forest. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, last updated 2010. 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. USDI FWS. 2002. Birds of Conservation Concern 2002. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 99 pp.

89 Reading BE/BA USDI FWS. 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. Verner, J., and A.S. Boss, tech. Coords. 1980. California wildlife and their habitats: western Sierra Nevada. GTR PSW GTR 37. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, CA. 439 pages. Verner, J.K., S. McKelvey, B.R. N Noon, R.J. Guterrez, G.I. Gould, Jr., T.W. Beck. Technical Coordinators. 1992. The California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its current status. GTR PSW-GTR-133. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 285p. Wasser, Samuel K., Kenneth Bevis, Gina King and Eric Hanson. 1997. Noninvasive physiological measures of disturbance in the northern spotted owl. Conservation Biology.11 (4): 1019-1022. Weatherspoon, C. Philip, Susan J. Husari, and Jan van Wagtendonk. 1992. Fire and fuels management in relation to owl habitat in forests of the Sierra Nevada and Southern California in USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-133. Chapter 12, pp 247-260 Weins, J. David, Robert G. Anthony, Eric D. Forsman, and Mark R. Fuller. 2010. Competitive Interactions and Resource Partitioning between Northern Spotted Owls and Barred Owls in Western Oregon: 2009 Progress Report. USDI USGS Administrative Report. Woodbridge, B. and C. Hargis. 2006. Northern goshawk inventory and monitoring technical guide. Gen.Tech. Rep. WO-71. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 80 p. 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. http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/planning/gpu/2007_GPU_DEIR_Sept_2008/Text/Referenc es/Zeiner1990a.pdf 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. http://www.co.monterey.ca.us/planning/gpu/2007_GPU_DEIR_Sept_2008/Text/Referenc es/Zeiner-1990b.pdf 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. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/gtr-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.

90 Reading BE/BA 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.) 32, 1385-1407. Zielinski, W. J., Keith Slauson, and Ann Bowler. 2008. Effects of off-highway vehicle use on the American marten. Journal of Wildlife Management 72 (7): 1558-1571.

91 Reading BE/BA