WILDLIFE REPORT. for the. Lassen 15 Restoration Project Environmental Assessment WARNER MOUNTAIN RANGER DISTRICT MODOC NATIONAL FOREST

Transcription

1 WILDLIFE REPORT for the Lassen 15 Restoration Project Environmental Assessment WARNER MOUNTAIN RANGER DISTRICT MODOC NATIONAL FOREST Prepared by: /s/ Mary Rasmussen-Flores Date 14 July 2017 Mary Rasmussen-Flores, Wildlife Biologist

2 Introduction: This report describes the potential effects to selected terrestrial species by implementation of activities discussed in the Lassen 15 Restoration Project (Lassen 15). Prior to 2007, the species analyzed within this document were considered Management Indicator Species (MIS) under the Modoc National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Modoc LRMP; USDA FS, 1991). The Modoc LRMP was first amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA FS, 2004). The Modoc LRMP was further amended by the Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species Amendment Record of Decision (SNF MIS EIS; USDA FS, 2007). This document established a new set of Management Indicator Species, which are discussed in a separate report prepared for the Lassen 15. However, direction in the 2007 SNF MIS EIS retained the standards and guidelines delineated in the Modoc LRMP for Management Indicator Species. This wildlife report documents the compliance of the Lassen 15 project with the Modoc LRMP, as amended. The original Modoc MIS species were described in Life History and Analysis of Management Indicator Species of the Modoc National Forest, February 2007 (USDA FS, 2007a). Table 1 shows the original Modoc National Forest MIS and their current status. Table 1. Terrestrial wildlife MIS per the Modoc National Forest LRMP (USDA Forest Service 1991) that are analyzed in the Lassen 15 Restoration Project Wildlife Report. Taxonomic Group Species Analyzed in Wildlife Report Mammal California bighorn sheep, mule deer, pronghorn antelope, western gray squirrel Bird Canada goose, golden eagle, mallard, osprey, peregrine falcon, pileated woodpecker, prairie falcon, red-breasted sapsucker, rednaped sapsucker, Swainson s hawk Legislative Direction: The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C c) - Enacted in 1940, and amended several times since then, this Act prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from "taking" bald eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs. The Act provides criminal penalties for persons who "take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle... [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof." The Act defines "take" as "pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb." "Disturb" means: to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior." [2]

3 In addition to immediate impacts, this definition also covers impacts that result from humaninduced alterations initiated around a previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not present, if, upon the eagle's return, such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that interferes with or interrupts normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits, and causes injury, death or nest abandonment. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) - This act makes it illegal for anyone to take, possess, import, export, transport, sell, purchase, barter, or offer for sale, purchase, or barter, any migratory bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs of such a bird except under the terms of a valid permit issued pursuant to Federal regulations. The migratory bird species protected by the Act are listed in 50 CFR Public Law also ratified a treaty with the Soviet Union specifying that both nations will take measures to protect identified ecosystems of special importance to migratory birds from pollution, detrimental alterations, and other environmental degradations. Proposed Project: For the complete Proposed Action and Design Features, refer to the Lassen 15 Restoration Project Environmental Assessment. Design Features Institute limited operating periods around active nest sites of various raptors per Modoc LRMP direction (USDA FS, 1991), as amended (USDA FS, 2004). [3]

4 Species Accounts and Effects: CALIFORNIA BIGHORN SHEEP Modoc NF Standards and Guidelines: See pages 4-26 and 4-27 for the LRMP standards for California Bighorn Sheep Management actions to meet standard or guideline: No suitable habitat for California bighorn sheep is present within proposed units. Before the population of bighorn sheep on the Warner Mountain RD all died in the late 1980 s, only rare sightings were noted for the area north of Highway 299 and none were in the Lassen 15 project area (M. Yamagiwa, pers. comm.). Therefore, there would be no effect to bighorn sheep by either Alternative in the Lassen 15 EA. CANADA GOOSE and MALLARD Modoc NF Standards and Guidelines: Manage lake, perennial reservoirs, meadows, seeps, wetlands, springs and streamside management zones (including ephemeral and intermittent streams) to maintain or improve riparian dependent resources (LRMP 4-3). Management actions to meet standard or guideline: The road work and weir repair/replacement would decrease potential sediment input into creeks, thereby improving downstream water quality. Improved water quality would enhance the habitat for aquatic insects, which are a primary summer food for mallards. In general, water ways would be protected by the implementation of Best Management Practices for watershed management. Therefore, implementation of either the action or the no action alternative for Lassen 15 is consistent with the Modoc National Forest LRMP (USDA FS, 1991), as amended by the SNFPA (USDA FS, 2004) for these two species. These actions would also be consistent with the MBTA. GOLDEN EAGLE, OSPREY, PEREGRINE FALCON, and PRAIRIE FALCON Modoc NF Standards and Guidelines: Implement Pacific Coast American Peregrine Falcon Recovery Plan as applicable to the Modoc National Forest (LRMP 4-26). Disturbance from timber management activities within 1/4 to 1/2 mile of the [prairie falcon] nest may be detrimental to nesting and fledging during the reproductive period, March 1 to August 31. Disturbing activities will be restricted (LRMP 4-28). Disturbance from human activities, including foot traffic and OHV use within 1/4- to 1/2 mile of the [prairie falcon] nest may be detrimental to nesting and fledging during the reproductive period, March 1 to August 31. Disturbing activities will be restricted. (LRMP 4-28). [4]

5 Maintain all active nesting and feeding habitat so that at least 30 acres surrounding each nest are designated as an osprey nest area (LRMP 4-27). Within forested acres maintain an average of five trees per acre that are at least 24 inches in (DBH), and preferably ponderosa pine or sugar pine. Maintain two to three snags or spike-topped trees per acre, 16 to 24 inches DBH or larger, within ¼ mile of the [osprey] nest. Preferred nest trees are 24 to 40-inches DBH or larger and 75 to 125 feet high. Two platforms per 30 acre territory may be substituted in areas deficient of suitable nest trees or where green tree replacements are not adequate. Maintain 10 to 15 trees (snags and broken top live trees) >24 DBH, within 1/8 mile of the nest (30 acres), and maintain an additional 10 to 15 trees, >24 DBH, within 100 feet of the water edge and within foraging range for the birds. Disturbance from timber management activities and firewood cutting within 1/8- to 1/2 mile of the [osprey] nest may be detrimental to nesting and fledging during the reproductive period, March to August. Disturbing activities will be restricted (LRMP 4-28). Disturbance from human activities, including foot traffic and OHV use within 1/8- to 1/2 mile of the [osprey] nest may be detrimental to nesting and fledging during the reproductive period, March to August. Disturbing activities will be restricted. (LRMP 4-28). Nests located in forested vegetation types will be managed so that at least 25 acres surrounding the nest are designated as a golden eagle nest area. (LRMP 4-27). Disturbance from timber management activities and firewood cutting will be restricted within 1/4 to 1/2 mile of the [golden eagle] nest during the reproductive period, February to August, because they may be detrimental to nesting and fledging. Such activities as OHV use and maintenance or construction of facilities, trails, and roads within ¼ to ½ half mile of the [golden eagle] nest during the reproductive period, February to August, because they may be detrimental to nesting and fledging (LRMP 4-27). Management actions to meet standard or guideline: Falcons: No peregrine falcon nests are known on the Devil s Garden or Warner Mountain Ranger Districts. Although prairie falcons are found in cliff habitat surrounding the proposed project area, the closest nests are 1.4 miles from the southeastern units and 1.8 miles from the northeastern units. Since the project would have no potential impacts to either species, implementation of either the action or the no action alternative for Lassen 15 is consistent with the Modoc National Forest LRMP (USDA FS, 1991), as amended by the SNFPA (USDA FS, 2004) for the two falcon species. These actions also would be consistent with the MBTA. Osprey: Ospreys have been detected within the analysis area for a number of years. They have been sighted consistently foraging north from Harris Flat along Lassen Creek, although only one nest site has been detected over time. An historic osprey nest was adjacent to the eastern flank of Unit A territory houses the nest location. The territory is 43 acres in size, which is [5]

6 consistent with Modoc LRMP direction to have 30 acres surrounding each nest area designated as an osprey nest area (USDA Forest Service 1991, page 4-27). Suitable habitat for osprey includes a variety of nesting structures in close proximity to accessible fish (Poole et al., 2002). In addition, suitable nest sites are free from predators (especially mammalian); such sites are generally elevated (e.g. trees, large rocks, or bluffs) (Poole et al., 2002). Although there were no tree dimensions cited in their article, the authors noted that osprey nested in both live and dead trees and usually nested on or near the top where a large branch forms a crotch that can support a nest. Osprey nest trees on the Warner Mountain Ranger District varied in size but were usually the largest in the area. Although no thinning activities are planned within the osprey territory, there are plans to allow prescribed fire on 11 acres within it. Although prescribed fire would remove ladder trees, there could also be mortality of larger trees and snags used for nesting. Thies and Westlind (2012) found that 3-year post prescribed fire mortality rates in ponderosa pine ranged from 2.6 to 29.2 percent, with the median mortality being 11.9 percent of the seventeen prescribed fires studied. None of the trees that died due to prescribed fire would be removed. Since osprey use either green trees or snags, there would be little if any effect to the amount of potential nest trees, due to the Lassen 15 project. Pre-implementation surveys would be conducted to determine the need for a Limited Operating Period (LOP). Therefore, implementation of either the action or the no action alternative for Lassen 15 would be consistent with the Modoc National Forest LRMP (USDA FS, 1991), as amended by the SNFPA (USDA FS, 2004) for this species. Golden eagle: Habitat Account - Golden eagles are usually found in open and semi-open habitats from near sea level to 3,630 m (various authors in Kochert et al. 2002). The authors noted that golden eagles avoid heavily forested areas, which is consistent for most of the territories found on the Devil s Garden and Warner Mountain Ranger Districts. They are located in open pine dominated habitats and on cliffs. Various researchers have found that golden eagles likewise typically forage in open habitats; they preferred to forage in shrub habitat in southwestern Idaho and open grassland habitats in central California (various authors in Kochert et al 2002). Species Account - On the onset, it should be noted that there is no regional golden eagle protocol (P. Krueger, pers. comm.). Nor is there any requirement to survey for golden eagles for projects since they are categorized as previous MIS for the Modoc National Forest. Sightings have been turned in by various individuals throughout the Modoc NF. Doug Thayer, previous wildlife biologist for the California Department of Fish and Wildlife staff, sighted the golden eagle nest near Planter s Camp in There are no notes as to the type of survey he [6]

7 conducted. A second sighting on private land directly adjacent to a Modoc NF boundary was not attributed to an individual nor is there information on how the data was collected. The bulk of the golden eagle surveys on Devil s Garden and Warner Mountain Ranger Districts of the Modoc National Forest have been conducted by: 1) follow up searches after an incidental sighting occurs and 2) stand searches. George Studinski, retired Devil s Garden RD biologist of almost three decades on the Modoc National Forest, used follow up surveys of reported sightings for a majority of the nest sites found on the Devil s Garden RD. However, in preparation for projects, he would also utilize stand searches to determine occupancy (G. Studinski, pers. comm.). The majority of the golden eagle nest locations on both the Warner Mountain RD derived by both of these methods; in addition, multiple golden eagle cliff nests were detected during helicopter surveys to determine potential cross fostering areas for peregrine falcon. These surveys occurred during the development of the Modoc LRMP. The policy for wildlife biologists and technicians on the Warner Mountain RD, since the 1970s, has been to be identify any raptor detected during intensive stand searches to species (M. Yamagiwa, pers. comm.). Stand searches were utilized in preparation for the long-tenured Lassen 15 project. Two of the four nest locations in the Lassen 15 project area were located by wildlife staff during intensive stand searches. Additional areas of historic nest sites have been searched; no occupancy was detected (including the presence of white wash and feathers) during these searches. See Table 2 below concerning golden eagle occupancy. The fourth territory is located outside of the project area near Vaughn Canyon and will not be discussed further during this analysis. Table 2. Years of survey within golden eagle territories within the Lassen 15 Project Area. Territory Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Planter s Camp 1972 Active nest 2011 No nest 2015 No nest Private near Planter s Camp 1970 s Active nest Bear Valley Active nest 1980s (eastern portion of territory near nest) No nest 1993 No nest Active nest 1997 (eastern portion of territory near nest) No nest 2014 (southern portion) No nest 2014 No nest 2015 No nest 2015 No nest Completion of pre-implementation surveys to determine raptor occupancy in project areas is a standard practice for projects on the east zone of the Modoc NF. They have occurred consistently for the past 20 years and have been a part of the Design Criteria for all recent projects. The only exception to completing pre-implementation stand surveys would be to assume presence and extend the Limited Operating Periods for the full term. Pre-implementation [7]

8 surveys are conducted in areas with past raptor occupancy and in areas with potential habitat that are outside of the zone of influence of other nesting raptors of the same species as well as competitors. If an active golden eagle nest is found, a Limited Operating Period would be placed at the appropriate distance from the nest. The LRMP LOP diameter is variable to provide for on-site buffering characteristics, which would dampen noise to nest sites. The one quarter mile LOP would be used in areas with heavy vegetation and topographic feature that screen nests from roads and project related activities; the one half mile distance would be used when there is a direct line of site to nests without vegetative or topographic buffers. Three golden eagle territories occur within the proposed Lassen 15 project area; a fourth is directly adjacent to Units and Planter s Camp - Modoc National Forest data indicated Doug Thayer, previous California Department of Fish and Wildlife biologist, found a golden eagle nest at Planter s Camp in It has not been relocated during stand searches conducted in various years since that time (including June 2015). The habitat in the area of the old nest site would be considered atypical, due to the small size of the trees (Figure 1). Average golden eagle nest tree size on the Modoc National Forest is 38.3 inch DBH (see Appendix A for a table with golden eagle nest tree diameters). Better potential habitat with larger trees in close proximity to foraging habitat can be seen in the background of Figure 1. Figure 1. Typical tree size in area around Planter s Camp historic nest site. Note foraging habitat in the far background. This territory will be maintained during the implementation of Lassen 15 treatments. The territory encompasses 25 acres, which is consistent with LRMP direction. Currently, the trees within the territory are too small and do not provide suitable substrate for large stick nests. Stand [8]

9 exam data had one tree in the 28 to 30-inch dbh category; all the other trees were 24-inch dbh or smaller. The small amount of timber harvest proposed within the territory would retain the largest pine; no trees over 30 inch dbh would be removed so the best potential nest trees would stay on site. As with the osprey territory, the smaller residual trees would be released from competition enhancing their growth and future potential to serve as golden eagle nest substrate. Pre-implementation surveys would be used to determine whether LOPs are needed. If an alternate nest site is found during layout or thinning treatments, activities would be halted. The Wildlife Biologist, Vegetation Manager, and Sale Administration staff would be consulted. The new nest site would be protected by a Limited Operating Period and inclusion within an adjusted territory boundary. In addition, the silvicultural prescription(s) and contracts may be amended, if needed. A special contract clause (B(T) 6.24) in the Timber Sale contract allows for these changes during thinning activities. Weir construction and road work would not be completed within the area that would be designated for the LOP. Therefore, there would be no disturbance to nesting golden eagles. Private Land/Planter s Camp Interface - A second golden eagle territory is due north of Planter s Camp. It is 27 acres in size, which is consistent with the LRMP direction. This area has not had occupancy during the years when intensive stand searches were conducted. Although there are several pockets, which have larger trees, the majority of the stand is dominated by smaller than the average desired (38.3 inch DBH) trees. Based on stand exam data, there is one tree in the 26 to 28-inch dbh category, one tree in the 24 to 26-inch dbh category, and the rest of the trees are smaller than 24-inch dbh. Thinning would retain the larger trees that are present and release them; this action would allow for more nutrients and water to be available, thereby enhancing growing conditions for the remaining trees. The smaller trees that are left on-site would also benefit from the decrease in competition. Roy Cuzick, previous Supervisory Forester, anticipates average stand diameter in this territory would increase to approximately 25-inch dbh approximately 30 years after the proposed treatment year of 2020 (Cuzick, pers. comm.). Weir construction and road work would not be completed within the area that would be designated for the LOP. Therefore, there would be no disturbance to nesting golden eagles from these activities. Bear Valley - The last golden eagle territory within the Lassen 15 Project Area is located near Bear Valley. It is 39 acres in size. No golden eagles have been detected in the Bear Valley territory since 2006; however, survey has been sporadic within the area. The snag that housed the nest is no longer standing. No other nests or golden eagle presence has been detected in stand searches conducted during 2014 and [9]

10 The Bear Valley territory has a few more potential nest trees than the Planter s Camp territory. However, most of the trees are smaller than those used as nest trees at various locations within the Modoc NF. There are 21 acres within this territory that could have prescribed fire as a treatment. It is anticipated that prescribed fire could remove ladder trees, but there could also be mortality of larger trees and snags used for nesting. Thies and Westlind (2012) found that 3-year post prescribed fire mortality rates in ponderosa pine ranged from 2.6 to 29.2 percent, with the median mortality being 11.9 percent of the seventeen prescribed fires studied. None of the trees that died due to prescribed fire would be removed. Weir construction and road work would not be completed within the area that would be designated for the LOP. Therefore, there would be no disturbance to nesting golden eagles. Pre-implementation surveys would be used to determine whether LOPs are needed; see Planter s Camp discussion above. To summarize, thinning would have a beneficial effect on the maintenance and recruitment of nest trees in golden eagle territories; other activities would have little to no effect on nest trees. Known eagle nests would be identified prior to implementation of any treatment and protected during thinning or burning. Raptor nest areas would be surveyed prior to or during operations to determine whether LOP(s) would be needed. There would be no change in the amount of habitat within territories unless alternate nest sites are found. These would be included within refined territory boundaries. Therefore, implementation of either the action or the no action alternative for the Lassen 15 Project is consistent with the Modoc National Forest LRMP (USDA FS, 1991), as amended by the SNFPA (USDA FS, 2004) for golden eagle. These actions would also be consistent with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. MULE DEER and PRONGHORN Modoc NF Standards and Guidelines: Manage herbs and shrubs to provide a vigorous forage base with a diversity of forage species. (LRMP 4-97) Manage the [deer] summer and transition ranges for each herd to provide a 20/80 to 40/60 ratio of thermal cover to forage on each management area. Improve deer habitat through brushfield rejuvenation under prescribed fire and aspen stand management (Fandango Management Area Direction LRMP 4-154). Management actions to meet standard or guideline: Pronghorn - The closest pronghorn habitat is approximately 0.75 miles west of the proposed project. Therefore, implementation of either alternative for the Lassen 15 project would have no effect on pronghorn. Mule Deer - Although most of the project is not typed as deer habitat within the electronic corporate data, there are deer and elk sightings as well as sign throughout the project area. Coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife occurred for both habitat [10]

11 management and interagency elk helicopter surveys. The Nevada Division of Wildlife was consulted for the helicopter surveys for the BLM portions of the survey. One focus of the Modoc LRMP direction for mule deer is to provide for appropriate cover to forage ratios. For the purposes of this analysis, cover was assumed to be tree stands that had 40 percent or greater canopy cover and tree heights that were 40 feet or taller; these sideboards were derived in part by the recommendations from the Blue Mountains of Oregon (Thomas 1979). The current cover to forage ratio is 40:60 within the project area. Thinning will push this ratio to 37:63 in the short term, which is still within the value for desired conditions specified within the Modoc LRMP. There are currently no plans to burn adjacent shrub fields under the Lassen 15 EA. A change will not be noted in the number of acres of shrublands, since vegetation typing is based on the dominant species (which in this case would be the overstory trees). However, members of the Interdisciplinary Team have been coordinating with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and working with the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) to also plan and execute aspen improvement projects couched within the Lassen 15 EA. Aspen management is another focus for deer habitat improvement in the Modoc LRMP. There would still be the same number of acres post-treatment of aspen. However, the proposed activities would improve the stand condition and size class distribution within these stands (size class is used as a proxy for age class in this context). Aspen enhancement is consistent with the direction for the Fandango Management Area on page of the Modoc LRMP (USDA Forest Service 1991) Improve deer habitat through brushfield rejuvenation under prescribed fire and aspen stand management. The project is also consistent with the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 2004 page 64), which calls for, At either the landscape or the project-scale, determine if the age class, structural diversity, composition, and cover of riparian vegetation are within the range of natural variability for the vegetation community. If conditions are outside the range of natural variability, consider implementing mitigation and/or restoration actions that will result in an upward trend. Actions could include restoration of aspen or other riparian vegetation where conifer encroachment is identified as a problem. A large scale analysis for aspen condition was conducted under the Warner Mountain Rangelands Project Environmental Assessment (USDA Forest Service 2000). On page 3 of the Desired Conditions section of the Warner Mountain Rangelands Project Environmental Assessment EA, the following information was noted. The need for the WMRP was driven by the data showing that, although significant progress has been made, most riparian zones in the Project area are not at Desired Conditions, and under current management, will not move towards Desired Conditions at the appropriate rate based upon Forest monitoring and current scientific information. In addition, due to fire suppression activities in the past years, many sagebrush, sagebrush/juniper, sagebrush/mahogany, and aspen communities are in decadent condition, or are being lost due to encroachment by juniper and other conifer species. [11]

12 Therefore, implementation of the action or no action alternatives would be consistent with the Modoc National Forest LRMP (USDA FS, 1991), as amended by the SNFPA (USDA FS, 2004) for mule deer. The no action alternative foregoes the ability to treat vegetation to benefit deer. PILEATED WOODPECKER Modoc NF Standards and Guidelines: Within pileated woodpecker habitat, insure a viable population by developing a network of habitats for these species (LRMP 4-28). Manage for pileated woodpecker territories that are at least 600 acres On the Double Head and Warner Mountain Ranger Districts, overlap pileated woodpecker territories with pine marten territories (LRMP 4-28). Within suitable habitat, manage for a territory distribution of one every 13,000 acres. (LRMP 4-28) Reproductive areas should be maintained in a contiguous 300-acres block where possible. Manage seral stages within reproductive habitat for old-growth/mature (4b/c) seral stages. If not possible, habitat may be arranged in blocks no less than 50 acres. No more than ¼ mile apart, totaling 300 acres. Within pileated woodpecker reproductive territories, manage for two snags per acre; 1.7 snags/acre dbh (diameter at breast height), and 3 snags/acre >24. (LRMP 4-28) Foraging areas will be maintained in 300 acre contiguous blocks adjacent to reproductive areas. Feeding areas will not be more than ½ mile from reproductive areas. Manage foraging areas so that they meet standards and guidelines for seral stage diversity. (LRMP 4-29) Validate assumptions in the pileated woodpecker model for this forest. Where possible, overlay pileated woodpecker territories with other old-growth management indicator species (i.e. marten and goshawk) (LRMP 4-29). Management actions to meet standard or guideline: Pileated woodpeckers or their diagnostic cavities have been detected in late seral habitats (CWHR size 4 and 5 stands) throughout the Lassen 15 Project area. The following CWHR sizes and densities were considered as suitable for pileated woodpecker reproductive habitat: size class 5 with M and D densities. Foraging habitat consists of various CWHR types, sizes and densities per the table found on page 4-32 of the Modoc LRMP. See Appendix B for table concerning size and density categories. The CWHR vegetation types found in the Buck Mountain pileated woodpecker territory are found in Table 3. There are 1,710 acres within this pileated woodpecker territory. The total acreage in Table 3 is 1,707 since vegetation types that had less than 0.5 acres were not included. Reproductive areas are in patches of 50 acres in size or greater and within 0.25 miles apart or less. [12]

13 As can be seen in Table 3, the amount of old growth habitat exceeds desired conditions in the territory. Conversely, the territory is deficient in open conifer stands with size 3 and size 4 trees. The Lassen 15 project would not change the amount of habitat in any CWHR type. Table 3. CWHR habitats for the Buck Mountain Pileated Woodpecker territory. CWHR Habitat Acres CWHR Veg Types Combined Aspen 3 Barren 4 Eastside Pine 3 P &S 1 Size 3 all densities Combined Acres per Size Class Canopy Cover Percent Existing vs Desired Condition for Foraging % vs 5% Eastside Pine 4 P 5 Size 4 P&S 18 1% vs 5% Eastside Pine 4 D&M 17 Size 4 D&M % vs 5% Eastside Pine 5 D&M 8 Size 5 D&M % vs 5% Lodgepole Pine 4 D&M 2 Mixed Chaparral 2 Sagebrush 72 Sierran Mixed Conifer 4 6 P Sierran Mixed Conifer D&M Sierran Mixed Conifer D&M White Fir 4 P 7 White Fir 4 D&M 271 White Fir 5 D 217 Total 1,707 Snags - Data from snag surveys conducted throughout the Warner Mountain Ranger District are found in Table 4. These transects have been run for various projects including the Lassen 15 Project area. The current and project amount of snags per acre are above the Modoc LRMP, as amended, level of three snags per acre. [13]

14 Table 4. Snag transects data for the Warner Mountain District. Location Date Average snags/acre Average logs/acre Northern Portion of District Lassen Creek α No Data Franklin Creek * No Data Bolan Creek ** 22.6 Cedar Pass *** No Data Cave Lake/Bolan Creek ** No Data Lassen 15 Project (size class 5) No data 7 (size class 4) Southern Portion of District Blue Lake ** 11 Mahogany Ridge ** 14 Parsnip Springs ** 9 West Warner 1994 to *** 12.9 West Warner to 18.4** No Data α Snags 15 inch dbh and greater; * Snags greater than 10 inch dbh; **Snags greater than 7.9 inch dbh; *** Snags greater than 14 inch dbh. The following information is from Roy Cuzick, previous Silviculturist, Modoc NF. Based on estimated mortality rates associated with the current high stocking levels throughout the majority of the project area as well as ocular observations, it is anticipated that future snag levels will met or exceed Forest Plan Standards. Since the only removal of snags proposed in the Lassen 15 project is for safety, the Lassen 15 project would be consistent for snag standards in the LRMP, as amended. Proposed Thinning and stand structure- A pileated woodpecker territory was delineated as part of the objection process to show compliance with the Modoc LRMP. There is no thinning proposed in the pileated woodpecker territory. Since there would be no thinning within the territory, the implementation of the action alternative or the no action alternative would be consistent with the Modoc National Forest LRMP (USDA FS, 1991), as amended by the SNFPA (USDA FS, 2004) for pileated woodpecker. These alternatives would also be consistent with the MBTA. RED-BREASTED AND RED-NAPED SAPSUCKER Modoc NF Standards and Guidelines: Within red-breasted and red-naped sapsucker and yellow warbler habitat (primarily riparian areas), maintain viable populations through application of the Riparian Area Management Prescription. The objective in this habitat will be to maintain and improve the quality and quantity of the woody vegetation component (LRMP 4-29). [14]

15 Management actions to meet standard or guideline: Both species have been sighted within and adjacent to proposed treatment units. Red-breasted sapsuckers were selected as MIS for the Forest because of their affinity for snags or live trees with heart rot in or near riparian zones. This species prefers hardwoods for feeding and reflect the management of hardwood vegetation within riparian zones (USDA FS, 1991a, page 3-110). One of the management concerns determined locally on the Modoc NF (USDA FS, 1991a, Page 3-110) was conifer encroachment into the riparian zones. Red-naped sapsuckers were selected as MIS for the Forest for the same reasons as red-breasted sapsuckers. The Modoc LRMP (1991) direction for this species is based on the implementation of the Riparian Area Management Prescription to maintain viable populations (USDA FS, 1991a, page 4-29). Specifically, the Forest relies on implementation of the woody vegetation guidelines (e.g., willows and aspen) to maintain or improve habitat quality and quantity. Removal of encroaching conifers in aspen treatments would retain overstory aspen trees and stimulate regeneration, which would enhance potential habitat for both species. Therefore, implementation of the action would have beneficial effects to the sapsuckers and would be consistent with the Modoc LRMP (USDA FS, 1991), as amended by the SNFPA (USDA FS, 2004) for these two species. The no action alternative would have localized long-term negative effects, as conifer encroachment continues to displace aspen on the landscape. It would not be consistent with the Modoc LRMP (USDA FS, 1991), as amended by the SNFPA (USDA FS, 2004) for these two species. The action alternative would also be consistent with the MBTA; the no action alternative could have localized negative effects. SWAINSON S HAWK Modoc NF Standards and Guidelines: See page 4-27 for the LRMP standards for Swainson s Hawk Management actions to meet standard or guideline: There are no known Swainson s Hawk nests within the Lassen 15 Project Area. Units lack suitable habitat [open stands of grass-dominated vegetation, sparse shrublands, and small, open woodlands ( for Swainson s hawk. Therefore, implementation of either alternative would affect Swainson s hawk. They would also be consistent with the MBTA. WESTERN GRAY SQUIRREL Modoc NF Standards and Guidelines: See page 4-29 for the LRMP standards for Western Gray Squirrel Management actions to meet standard or guideline: [15]

16 No oak habitat exists within or adjacent to the proposed treatment units. Therefore, implementation of either the action or the no action alternative would be consistent with the Modoc National Forest LRMP (USDA FS, 1991), as amended by the SNFPA (USDA FS, 2004) for western gray squirrel. References/Personal Communications: Cuzick, Roy Personal communication. Previous Supervisory Forester. Modoc National Forest. Alturas, CA. Kochert, M. N., K. Steenhof, C. L. Mcintyre and E. H. Craig Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: Krueger, Patricia Regional Threatened and Endangered Species Coordinator, Pacific Southwest Region, Regional Office. Vallejo, CA. Poole, Alan F., Rob O. Bierregaard and Mark S. Martell Osprey (Pandion haliaetus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: Studinski, George Retired wildlife biologist on Devil s Garden Ranger District, Modoc NF. Alturas, CA. Thies, W. and D. Westlind Validating the Malheur model for predicting ponderosa pine post-fire mortality using 24 fires in the Pacific Northwest, USA. International Journal of Wildland Fire 21(5), pp Thomas, J. W Wildlife habitats in managed forests the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. USDA Agricultural Handbook pp. USDA Forest Service Modoc National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Modoc National Forest. Alturas, CA. USDA Forest Service. 1991a. Modoc National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement. Modoc National Forest. Alturas, CA. USDA Forest Service Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. January USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo, CA. USDA Forest Service Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species Amendment (SNF MIS Amendment) Record of Decision. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo, CA. [16]

17 USDA Forest Service. 2007a. Life History and Analysis of Management Indicator Species of the Modoc National Forest, February Modoc National Forest. Alturas, CA. Yamagiwa, Marty Ecosystem Manager, Fremont-Winema NF. Lakeview, OR. [17]

18 APPENDIX A Modoc NF Golden Eagle Nest Tree Data TREE_SP DBH TREE_HT NEST_HT REMARKS pine 29.6" 75' 60' nest in split of trunk pine 23.8" 100' 75' in mistletoe broom pine 40.9" 128' 4 trunks, now snag pine 49.6" 110' 80' on BLM, supporting branch broken <2000 pine 40.6" 90' 67' on private, catface on SE side pine 34.9" 105' 77' previously tagged, pruned? pine 31.0" 108' 74' pruned?, catface on NW side, on Allen Butte pine 39.0" 91' 54' pine 41.2" 92' 80' old lightning scar pine 42.1" 129' 113' slope affected by road fill; pitch tubes 2002 pine 37.3" 117' 107' in split, dying pine 43.2" 108' 87' pine 38.9" 115' 70' might be same as #1 pine 37.4" 103' 76' abandoned as it died pine 28.9" 80' 60' pine 37.4" 80' 50' on private/usfs/blm boundary pine 41.4" 105' 80' spike-top, catfaces on uphill & downhill sides pine 46.8" 135' 95' on mistletoe broom pine 52.1" 174' 110' pine 43.3" 87' 75' bearing tree, fenceline attached pine 34.1" 85' 65' pine 34.2" 92' 73' died, unsure of nest use pine 25.8" 75' 60' private pine 39.4" 112' 108' pine 42.2" 110' 70' pine 32.9" 110' 60' unsure of nest use pine 44.8" 150' 100' pine 38.6" 115' 88' pine 40.5" 134' 78' pine 26.9" 107' 66' larger pines nearby pine 50.5" 121' 113' catface on SSW side; next to hwy yellow pine 37.8" 115' 85' [18]

19 APPENDIX B CWHR Size and Density Classes with respect to the Modoc LRMP California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) vegetation data (a part of the 2004 Modoc National Forest electronic vegetation dataset), as validated by Common Stand Exam (CSE) plots, aerial photography, and stand data records, was used to assess the current condition within the Lassen 15 Project Area. The present CWHR categories have changed since the Modoc LRMP. The table below shows the two systems. CWHR size and density classes CWHR Size Modoc Current CWHR Size LRMP (page 4-32) 1 Plantation 1 Seedling tree (x<1 inch dbh) 2 Shrub, sapling, pole 2 Sapling tree (1-6 (1-11 inch dbh) inch dbh) 3 Small tree (11 to 24 3 Pole tree (6-11 inch inch dbh) dbh) 4 Medium to large 4 Small tree (11 to 24 tree (x> 24 inch dbh) inch dbh) 5 Medium/Large tree (x> 24 inch dbh) 6 Multi-layered tree (sized 5 over distinct layer of sized 4 or 3) CWHR Density- Modoc LRMP Current CWHR Density a 0% to 39% S 10% to 24% b 40% to 70% P 25% to 39% c 71% to 100% M 40% to 59% D 60% to 100% [19]