Draft Wildlife Resource Report

Transcription

1 United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service March 2017 Draft Wildlife Resource Report Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project Happy Camp/Oak Knoll District, Klamath National Forest Siskiyou County, California For Information Contact: Chad Bell 1711 S. Main Street Yreka, CA

2

3 In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C ; (2) fax: (202) ; or (3) program.intake@usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

4

5 Table of Contents Wildlife Resource Report... 1 Introduction... 1 Methodology... 1 Analysis Indicators... 3 Measures... 4 Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed under Endangered Species Act... 4 Northern Spotted Owl (NSO)... 4 Regional Forester s Sensitive Species Bald Eagle Northern Goshawk Fisher, Marten, and Wolverine Pallid Bat, Townsend s Big-eared Bat, and Fringed Myotis Willow Flycatcher Great Gray Owl Siskiyou Mountains Salamander Tehama Chaparral Snail Western Bumble Bee Management Indicator Species Snag and Hardwood Habitat Associations Survey and Manage Species Migratory Bird Species Affected Environment Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed under Endangered Species Act Northern Spotted Owl Regional Forester s Sensitive Species Bald Eagle Northern Goshawk Fisher, Marten, and Wolverine Townsend s bat, Pallid bat, and Fringed Myotis Willow Flycatcher Siskiyou Mountains Salamander Tehama Chaparral Snail Western Bumble Bee Survey and Manage Species Migratory Birds Summary of Habitat and Species Analyzed Environmental Consequences Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed under Endangered Species Act Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects i

6 Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Regional Forester s Sensitive Species Bald Eagle Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Alternative 2, 3, and Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Northern Goshawk Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Alternative 2, 3, and Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Fisher, Marten, and Wolverine Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects ii

7 Cumulative Effects Townsend s bat, Pallid bat, and Fringed Myotis Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Alternative 2, 3, and Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Willow Flycatcher Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Alternative 2, 3, and Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Great Gray Owl Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Siskiyou Mountains Salamander Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Alternative 2, 3, and iii

8 Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Tehama Chaparral Snail Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Alternative 2, 3, and Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Western Bumble Bee Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Alternative 2, 3, and Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Management Indicator Species Snag Associated and Hardwood Associated Species Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Survey and Manage Species Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects iv

9 Alternatives 2, 3, and Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Migratory Birds Alternative Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Alternative 2, 3 and Direct and Indirect Effects Cumulative Effects Comparison of Alternatives Literature Cited List of Tables Table 1. Forest Service Sensitive (FSS) Species and northern spotted owl analyzed for this project and the corresponding analysis indicator Table 2. Criteria used for NSO risk to reproduction analysis indicator Table 3. Criteria for eagle disturbance analysis indicator Table 4. Criteria for risk to future nest trees for known eagle nests analysis indicator Table 5. Criteria for goshawk disturbance analysis indicator Table 6. Criteria for risk to goshawk reproduction analysis indicator Table 7. Habitat characteristics for fisher, marten, and wolverine habitat types Table 8. Criteria for fisher, marten, and wolverine connectivity analysis Table 9. Criteria for fisher home range Table 10. Risk of disturbance to bat hibernaculum or maternity Table 11. Level of habitat alteration for willow flycatcher habitat Table 12. Level of Risk to Siskiyou Mountains salamander habitat Table 13. Likelihood of dispersal for Tehama chaparral snail Table 14. Level of disturbance for western bumble bee v

10 Table 15. The level of risk to NSO reproduction given the current condition of the core and home range for known activity centers Table 16. Current number of NSO Critical Habitat acres for Analysis Indicator Table 17. Threatened, endangered, or prosed ESA species, sensitive species, MIS, and survey and manage species in that likely occur within the project area, based on known occurrences or presence of suitable habitat Table 18. Management Indicator Species relevant to the Project Table 19. Change in Critical Habitat Acres for Alternative 2 (Analysis Indicator 2) Table 20. Change in Critical Habitat Acres for Alternative 3 (Analysis Indicator 2) Table 21. Change in Critical Habitat Acres for Alternative 4 (Analysis Indicator 2) Table 22. Comparison of all alternatives for risk to NSO reproduction (Analysis Indicator 1) Table 23. Comparison of all alternatives for change NSO critical habitat (Analysis Indicator 2) Table 24. Level of risk to goshawk reproduction for Alternative Table 25. Current level of fisher, marten, and wolverine habitat connectivity (analysis indicator 1) Table 26. Comparison of management indicator species associations for each alternative Table 27. Summary of action alternatives effects on each sensitive species Table 28. Determination for survey and manage species that may occur within the project area vi

11 Wildlife Resource Report Introduction This report briefly describes the existing conditions of the analysis area and the project area relative to the desired conditions for wildlife habitat outlined in the Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (USDA Forest Service 1995) and the Endangered Species Act. The (hereafter project ) was analyzed for its potential effects on wildlife species listed as endangered, threatened, or proposed under the Endangered Species Act; designated critical habitat for endangered or threatened species; Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive Species; survey and manage species (under current consideration), management indicator species, and migratory birds (MOU 2008). Forest sensitive species and MIS are analyzed in more detail within the project Wildlife Biological Evaluation (BE) and MIS report respectively. This wildlife resource report synthesizes the information for Forest Service sensitive species, management indicator species, survey and manage species, and migratory bird species; a more detailed assessment is available in the corresponding reports, except the species listed under the Endangered Species Act. This report provides an analysis for threatened, endangered, and proposed species for all alternatives in the project. Although threatened, endangered, or proposed species under the Endangered Species Act will be analyzed in a biological assessment (BA) that is submitted to the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service; the BA will cover only one alternative in the analysis. In order to present the effects for all alternatives (Forest Plan pg and FSM ), this report contains an analysis for threatened, endangered, or proposed species for all alternatives. The BA will be available once the BA is accepted by the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service for consultation. Methodology Methodology for the analysis included field review, review of the latest scientific research and literature, GIS analysis, and local expertise for the consideration of direct, indirect and cumulative effects. The Treatment Units boundaries reflect the physical project footprint where proposed vegetation and prescribed fire would occur. The Project Area is represented by the legal descriptions within which treatments are proposed and described in the project DEIS. The Analysis Area represents the biologically relevant area that could be directly and indirectly affected by the action. The analysis area is typically different for each species. Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species per the Endangered Species Act The threatened, endangered, and proposed species were identified using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service website called Information for Planning and Conservation to identify the species possibly occurring in or be affected by the project (IPaC Trust Resource Report #08EYRE E-00069); accessed most recently on January 14, After review of this list of species, the northern spotted owl along with its critical habitat may be affected by the project actions. Regional Forester s Sensitive Species 1

12 The Region 5 Sensitive Species list (File Code 2670; USDA Forest Service, Forest Sensitive Species list (updated September 2013) provided the species to consider for this analysis. Species were assessed for whether the species range overlapped the project area and habitat is likely to exist in the project area. If both were true, then the species is analyzed for the project. Known locations of Forest Service Sensitive Species were identified from the Natural Resource Information Systems database (NRIS) and the California Natural Diversity database (CNDDB). Habitat analysis used EVEG 2007 database (Remote Sensing Data) (for vegetation prior to the wildfire), in conjunction with aerial photography (using the 2009/2010 and 2012 National Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP) imagery), field verification, remotely sensed data for burned vegetation (Rapid Assessment of Vegetation condition, RAVG) and knowledge and expertise of district and forest personnel. Field reconnaissance of habitat conditions was conducted during the fall/winter of Forest Sensitive Species are plant and animal species identified by a Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern. This concern is based on 1) a significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density and 2) a significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species' existing distribution (FSM ). Management Indicator Species Each species association is intended to represent a particular habitat type and even though some species many occur in more than one habitat type, each species will only be analyzed for the association it is representing. It is not the intent of this analysis to fully analyze all the needs for each species within an association; rather this analysis will present the potential effects to the habitat type. For example, the snag association was intended to represent the varying use of snags (e.g., size class and decay class) by a range of bird species and maintaining a specific level of snags by size and decay class will provide sufficient habitat for many snag associated species not analyzed here. Survey and Manage Species Survey and manage species list covers the entire Northwest Forest Plan planning area so not all species on the list occur on the Klamath National Forest and not all species on the Forest occur in the project area. In order to determine whether any survey and manage species may be affected by the proposed activities a step-wise process was used and the process is described in the survey and manage resource report. Migratory Birds On December 12, 2008, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS) and the U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI FWS) to promote the conservation of migratory birds; this MOU has been extended to December 31, This MOU directs agencies to evaluate the effects of proposed actions on migratory birds, focusing first on species of management concern, considering their priority habitats and key risk factors. For the Forest, the migratory bird species of management concern include species listed under the Endangered Species Act as threatened or endangered, species designated by the Regional Forester as sensitive species, and species listed under Standard and Guidelines 8-21 through 8-34 of the Forest Plan as management indicator species for project level assessment. 2

13 Rapid Assessment of Vegetation Condition (RAVG) after wildfire and habitat data For the post-fire assessment of habitat, we used rapid assessment of vegetation condition after wildfire (RAVG) data to estimate the level of fire effects to habitat. RAVG is a vegetation burn severity modeling approach to assess the change in vegetation condition. The RAVG data shows the tree basal area loss due to fire throughout the burned area. Therefore, in any given spot in the fire perimeter, we can estimate the fire effects to the vegetation using the RAVG level of basal area loss. For this analysis the RAVG data was split into five classes. We interpreted these five classes into no burn (zero percent), very low (less than 0 to 25 percent), low (25 to 50 percent), moderate (50 to 75 percent), and high (75 to 100 percent basal area loss) to represent the fire severity. Using the RAVG data and the habitat GIS data, we can identify each area of habitat with a specific level of basal area loss using RAVG. Then we compared the GIS habitat layer and RAVG accuracy through multiple field visits in The field review resulted in determining these data were sufficient for estimating the potential effects of the project. Forest Plan Guidance One of the primary purposes of the Forest Plan is to guide land management through the adherence to the Forest-wide and management area standards and guidelines. The desired condition represents the general goal for which the project will strive for. Forest Plan standards and guidelines (both forest-wide and specific to management areas) were developed to assure compliance with law, regulation and policy and to minimize impacts during Forest Plan implementation. Forest Plan implementation is accomplished through site-specific projects. Information from the Forest Plan that is pertinent to Forest Sensitive Species occurring in the Horse Creek Project is displayed below; this information was used in developing analysis indicators. Analysis Indicators The following analysis indicators were developed using the Forest Plan standards and guidelines and the best available science to estimate the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for each Forest Service sensitive species, survey and manage, management indicator species, migratory birds, and northern spotted owl analyzed in this project. 3

14 Table 1. Forest Service Sensitive (FSS) Species and northern spotted owl analyzed for this project and the corresponding analysis indicator. Threatened and Endangered Species Northern spotted owl and critical habitat (Endangered) Regional Forester s Sensitive Species Bald eagle Northern goshawk Fisher, Marten, and Wolverine Pallid bat, Townsend s big-eared bat, and Fringed myotis Willow flycatcher Great gray owl Siskiyou mountain salamander Tehama chaparral snail Western bumble bee Management Indicator Species Snag associated and hardwood associated species Survey and Manage All survey and manage species that may occur in the project area Migratory Birds All relevant bird species Analysis Indicator Risk to reproduction Change in critical habitat Analysis Indicator Level of disturbance to nest sites Risk to future potential nest trees Level of disturbance to nest site Risk to reproduction Level of habitat connectivity Change in fisher home range Risk of disturbance Level of habitat alteration Level of habitat alteration Risk of habitat disturbance Risk of habitat disturbance Level of habitat disturbance Analysis Indicator Level of habitat change Analysis Indicator Level of site disturbance Analysis Indicator Consistency with migratory bird memorandum of understanding Measures Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed under Endangered Species Act Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) NSO Habitat types: Suitable NSO habitat is commonly separated into nesting/roosting, foraging, and dispersal habitat; these habitat types are described in detail in the NSO Recovery Plan (USDI FWS 2011). Nesting/roosting is generally described as mid- to late-seral forests that contain stands of large trees with high canopy cover, multilayered canopies, and nesting platforms. Foraging habitat can be described as slightly reduced canopy cover, fewer large trees, and enough space for NSO to maneuver through the trees for hunting prey when compared to 4

15 nesting/roosting habitat. Dispersal habitat contains a moderate level of canopy closure and trees large enough to provide shelter and potential foraging opportunities for traveling NSO, but does not contain adequate amounts of other essential habitat components for long term NSO occupation, reproduction or survival. Determination of NSO habitat suitability also considers many factors including size of stand and adjacency to other habitat types which owls may use. For this analysis, suitable habitat is defined as stated above in this paragraph and is generally referencing nesting/roosting and foraging habitat unless otherwise specified. For the pre-fire suitable habitat that burned at moderate and high fire severity, an additional category is identified called post-fire foraging (PFF). PFF was delineated in order to capture the potential for continued use by NSO of previously suitable habitat, at least until the ultimate deterioration of the burned habitat and loss of standing dead trees. Even with the loss of canopy cover and key habitat components generally associated with suitable habitat, moderate and high severity burned areas can still provide foraging opportunity for NSO after the fire, depending on many factors including patch size, edge type, burn severity, and proximity to suitable unburned habitat and known owl sites (Bond et al. 2002, Bond et al. 2009; Clark 2007, Clark et al. 2011, and Clark et al. 2013). The EVEG GIS layer provided the baseline of suitable habitat that existed prior to the fire (a.k.a. pre-fire NRF). Post-fire foraging habitat was then determined by applying the RAVG data to the pre-fire NRF. Post-fire foraging was delineated where moderate fire severity (grid code 3) or high fire severity (grid code 4) occurred in pre-fire nesting/roosting and foraging habitat. Because a large portion of PFF is forest that burned at the highest severity and therefore contains minimal amounts of structure or cover, it was anticipated that NSO would be less likely to use PFF when compared to suitable habitat. Analysis Indicator #1 Risk to reproduction: Reproduction is one of the primary elements of a species existence and effects to reproduction can have a significant effect on any population. The amount of suitable habitat within both the home range and core has been shown to influence NSO productivity and survivorship (Bart 1995, Franklin et al. 2000, Dugger et al. 2005). Based on results of these studies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has concluded that significant effects to reproduction are not likely to occur if management activities retain a higher proportion (at least half, or 250 acres) of the core area s high quality habitat and 1,086 acres of suitable habitat in the home range (outside the core) (USFWS 2009). Core areas falling below these habitat acre levels may affect the productivity and survival of NSO. Older forest is more likely than other vegetation classes to provide NSO with suitable structures for perching and nesting, a stable, moderate microclimate at nest and roost sites, and visual screening from both predators and prey. Recent research has argued the value of fire affected nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat in NSO activity centers (Bond et al. 2009, Roberts et al. 2011, Lee et al. 2012, and Lee et al. 2013). The research indicates variability and a high level of uncertainty in the degree to which spotted owls use post-fire landscapes, but the research does suggest that fire affected habitat could be used for foraging. Despite these uncertainties and the fact that fire affected NSO habitat does not meet the described habitat characteristics in the 2011 NSO Recovery Plan, 2012 NSO Revised Critical Habitat Rule, or many other research documents, fire affected habitat is assessed within the NSO activity center as potential foraging opportunity. 5

16 This analysis calculates the change in NSO habitat (nesting/roosting, foraging, or dispersal habitat) within the nesting core and home range resulting from all alternatives. The changes in NSO habitat are analyzed and compared to the suggested levels of habitat as described by the USFWS (USFWS 2009), published research, and professional judgement. Assumptions Occupancy and reproduction success is based on the amount and quality of habitat in the activity center; Habitat burned at low (less than 50 percent basal area removed per RAVG data) severity still functions as it did pre-fire; Pre-fire nesting/roosting and foraging habitat that burned at moderate severity (50 to 75 percent basal area removed) and high severity (75 to 100 percent basal are removed per RAVG data) is typed as post-fire foraging; Even though the value of fire-affected habitat (PFF) to spotted owls is unclear when compared to foraging habitat, the research shows PFF may be used for foraging opportunity; Roadside treatment in existing NSO habitat would result in degrading habitat thus habitat remains functioning at the current habitat type after treatment; Roadside plus fuels treatment in existing NSO habitat would result in downgrading habitat thus habitat would drop down one habitat type level. For example, an area of nesting/roosting habitat that receives a roadside and fuels treatment would result in this area becoming foraging habitat after treatment; Landing construction would result in the loss of habitat for the footprint of the landing. Spatial and Temporal Bounds For NSO territories, NSO habitat is evaluated at two spatial scales: 1) home range and 2) core areas. Based on the median home range estimate for NSO pairs in the Klamath Province, we are using a 1.3 mile radius home range and 0.5 mile radius core for evaluating habitat conditions of and potential impacts to home ranges and core around the nest location (Thomas et al. 1990; USFWS 1992, 2009). The core and home range analysis is limited to the activity centers where the home ranges overlap possible project actions. The effects analysis temporal bounding is presented as short-term and long-term. The short-term (five years) covers the time during implementation and the period of time when the majority of the snags would likely remain standing. The long-term (greater than 20 years) includes the time when the snags would likely start falling resulting in changes to the physical structure in areas that burned at moderate and high fire severity. 6

17 Criteria for assessing risk to NSO reproduction The desired condition for this analysis indicator is to minimize the amount of NSO habitat affected by the project actions. The amount of NSO habitat is assessed for all known activity centers and these acres of habitat are interpreted into four categories based on the criteria below. Table 2. Criteria used for NSO risk to reproduction analysis indicator. Risk to Reproduction Criteria 1 Very Low In the core, >400 acres of NRF and PFF ( 250 NR must occur in the core), AND In the home range, >935 acres of NRF and PFF Low In the core, >250 acres being NRF and PFF ( 150 NR must occur in the core), AND In the home range, >1,086 acres NRF and PFF Moderate High In core and home range, 665 to 1,336 acres of NRF and PFF ( 500 acres NRF must occur in core and home range combined) In core and home range, <665 acres of NRF and PFF 1 Core 0.5 mile radius from the center of the activity center. Home range 0.5 to 1.3 mile radius from the center of the activity center. Risk to reproduction is split into four categories representing the relative levels of effects resulting from the alternatives. Using the existing quality and amount of habitat within the activity center (composed of core and home range), the acres of nesting/roosting and foraging were calculated as the existing condition and the activity center is placed into one of the four categories. Then each alternative s effects on habitat is calculated and compared to the existing condition. Note that an activity center cannot have a reduction in risk. For example, an activity center that meets the conditions of a moderate level given the existing habitat condition can only remain as moderate or increase to high risk based on the actions of each alternative. However, an activity center currently at high risk would continue to be at high risk regardless of the level of effects resulting from each alternative. A high risk means that reproduction is not likely to occur in the activity center because the low number of habitat acres occurring in the core and home range. Moderate level represents the activity center that are likely to have difficulty in finding resources and would likely need to transverse openings (areas without overstory tree canopy) or use areas of low habitat quality to find enough resources. These challenges may result in lower survival or reproduction potential for the pair occupying moderate level activity centers. However, moderate level activity centers may shift to high risk regardless of this project because of delayed tree mortality. Delayed tree mortality may reduce the amount of tree canopy that would result in current habitat being reduced in quality to the point that suitable habitat may become PFF. However, for this analysis, habitat is assessed based on the current conditions and not on potential delayed tree mortality. Low level activity centers have enough habitat in the core and home range to likely support reproduction, but the habitat may not be distributed in large patches. Generally, many of the active activity centers on the Forest can be described as containing similar amount of habitat as 7

18 described for the low level category. The final category, very low, represents the quality and distribution habitat that has been associated with successful reproduction over the species range, but these conditions are not common on the Forest typically because the patches of nesting/roosting are relatively small and are spatially separated. Analysis Indicator #2 Changes to Critical Habitat The California Klamath Province is considered a fireprone area because of its frequent fire return intervals and existing vegetation condition that likely elevates the potential of fire (USDI FWS 2012). Within fire-prone areas, resource agencies planning vegetation management in critical habitat for the northern spotted owl (NSO) are encouraged to ameliorate current threats of on-going habitat loss from uncharacteristic fires and vegetation change that are largely related to past fire exclusion (USDI FWS 2012). Resource agencies are also encouraged to work toward maintaining or enhancing the characteristics of older forest and providing large habitat blocks and associated interior forest conditions. Regional variations should be taken into account; in the Klamath Province this means providing mosaics of interior habitats and edges to provide for the diversity of prey for NSO. Critical habitat is generally described as the specific geographic area occupied by the species at the time of listing plus areas that contain the physical and biological features that are essential to the conservation of endangered and threatened species and may need special management or protection. Instead of providing general recommendations that cover the entire critical habitat area, critical habitat was split into units and subunits to provide specific recommendations because units or subunits may provide different functions to aid in the recovery of the species. For the spotted owl, the Horse Creek Project overlaps a portion of the Klamath East 6 and 7. KLE6 and KLE7 are intended to enhance or protect existing essential biological or physical features, reduce the loss of habitat to wildfire, reduce change in habitat as a result of fire exclusion, and buffer competition with barred owls, but the primary function for these subunits is to support the survival, reproduction, and dispersal (USDI FWS 2012). Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) are the physical and biological features that provide the essential life history requirements of the species. The 2011 CHU designation identifies the primary constituent elements for NSO as those physical and biological features that support nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal. Specifically the PCEs for the NSO are summarized (USFWS 2012): 1. Forest types that support the northern spotted owl across its geographic range. Within the Klamath Province, these include mixed conifer/mixed conifer-hardwood, mixed evergreen, Douglas-fir, white fir, and Shasta red fir. These forest types may be in early-, mid- or late-seral stages; 2. Nesting, roosting; 3. Foraging habitat; and 4. Dispersal habitat. These PCEs are quoted from the critical habitat rule. In the following analysis, PCE categories as PCEs 1, 2, 3 and 4 with subdivisions are discussed as appropriate. This document only evaluates project effects in relation to the 2012 critical habitat ruling and supersedes, as appropriate, any previous analysis of critical habitat effects. 8

19 PCE 1, Forest Type: These activities can occur in early-, mid-, or late-seral forest types identified in the PCEs in the final rule. On the Forest, PCE 1 includes the mixed conifer and mixed evergreen type, the Douglas-fir type, the Shasta red fir type and a small amount of the moist end of the ponderosa pine, coniferous forest zones. PCE 2, Nesting and Roosting habitat Klamath/Northern California Interior Coast Ranges Stands for nesting and roosting that are generally characterized by: a) moderate to high canopy closure (60 to over 80 percent); b) Multilayered, multispecies canopies with large (20 to 30 inches or greater diameter at breast height) overstory trees; c) High basal area (greater than 240 square feet per acre); d) High diversity of different diameters of trees; e) High incidence of large live trees with various deformities (e.g., large cavities, broken tops, mistletoe infections, and other evidence of decadence); f) Large snags and large accumulations of fallen trees and other woody debris on the ground; and g) Sufficient open space below the canopy for northern spotted owls to fly. PCE 3, Foraging habitat in the Klamath/Northern California Interior Coast Ranges Foraging habitat is generally characterized by: a) Stands of nesting and roosting habitat; in addition, other forest types with mature and oldforest characteristics; b) Presence of the conifer species, incense-cedar, sugar pine, Douglas-fir, and hardwood species such as bigleaf maple, black oak, live oaks, and madrone, as well as shrubs; c) Forest patches within riparian zones of low-order streams and edges between conifer and hardwood forest stands; d) Brushy openings and dense young stands or low-density forest patches within a mosaic of mature and older forest habitat; e) High canopy cover (87 percent at frequently used sites); f) Multiple canopy layers; g) Mean stand diameter greater than 21 inches; h) Increasing mean stand diameter and densities of trees greater than 26 inches increases foraging habitat quality; i) Large accumulations of fallen trees and other woody debris on the ground; and j) Sufficient open space below the canopy for northern spotted owls to fly. 9

20 PCE 4, Dispersal (also-known-as transience and colonization ) habitat Klamath/Northern California Interior Coast Ranges Dispersal habitat is generally characterized by: a) Stands with adequate tree size and canopy cover to provide protection from avian predators and minimal foraging opportunities; in general this may include, but is not limited to, trees with at least 11 inches diameter at breast height and a minimum 40 percent canopy cover; and b) Younger and less diverse forest stands than foraging habitat, such as even-aged, polesized stands, if such stands contain some roosting structures and foraging habitat to allow for temporary resting and feeding during the transience phase. c) Habitat supporting the colonization phase of dispersal, which is generally equivalent to nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat as described in PCEs (2) and (3), but may be smaller in area than that needed to support nesting pairs. Assumptions Roadside treatment in existing NSO habitat would result in degrading habitat thus habitat would remain functioning at the current habitat type after treatment; Roadside plus fuels treatment in existing NSO habitat would result in downgrading habitat thus habitat would drop down one habitat type level. For example, an area of nesting/roosting habitat that receives a roadside and fuels treatment would result in this area becoming foraging habitat after treatment; and Landing construction would result in the loss of habitat for the footprint of the landing. Spatial and Temporal Bounds The spatial bound for this analysis is the portion of the critical habitat unit that overlaps with the project actions plus a 1.3 miles buffer of project actions. The effects analysis temporal bounding is presented as short-term and long-term. The short-term (five years) covers the time during implementation and the period of time when the majority of the snags would likely remain standing. The long-term (greater than 20 years) includes the time when the snags would likely start falling resulting in changes to the physical structure in areas that burned at moderate and high fire severity. Criteria for assessing NSO Critical Habitat analysis The desired condition for this analysis indicator is to minimize the effects to NSO critical habitat. The analysis estimates the number of critical habitat acres affected by each alternative. Given the types of treatment proposed for this project, we focus the reporting of effects on habitat as degrade, downgrade, or remove. Degrade means the effects on the habitat are minimal and the habitat remains functional at the same level prior to treatment. Downgrade means the habitat has been affected to the point where it would not continue to function at its initial level and it would drop down one level in habitat type. For example, foraging habitat receives treatments that results in removing canopy cover and structure to the point that the foraging habitat functions as dispersal habitat. Removal means the once functional habitat is not habitat after treatment. 10

21 Regional Forester s Sensitive Species Bald Eagle Analysis Indicator #1 Level of Disturbance Assumptions for eagle disturbance analysis All eagle nests have been found in the project area. Nesting eagles would respond to the same level of noise equally. Noise disturbance is a function of distance from the nest site. Roadside hazard and salvage treatment can remove potential future nest snags. Spatial and Temporal Bounds The spatial bound is the known eagle nests plus 1,500 feet buffer. The temporal bounds for the short-term is the time during implementation (about five years) during the reproductive period (January 1 to August 1) and long term is 20 years. Criteria for assessing eagle disturbance The desired condition is a low level of disturbance to eagle nests. The level of disturbance appears to be related to the distance from a nest site. Loud noises further from the nest site should have lower disturbance than the same noise closer to the nest. Disturbance is assessed as a distance from the known nest sites. Any treatment unit that overlaps the buffers presented below is given a level of disturbance. Table 3. Criteria for eagle disturbance analysis indicator. Level of Disturbance High Moderate Low Distance from nest site Less than 1,000 feet of nest site 1,000 to 1,500 feet of nest site Greater than 1,500 feet of nest site For this analysis, a high level of disturbance would likely result in an eagle pair abandoning the nest. Moderate level of disturbance would result in the adults leaving the nest for a short period of time and may result in delayed feeding of young or not incubating the egg(s). Low level of disturbance may result in the adult eagles displaying behavior of acknowledging the human activity, but the adults continue to incubate the egg(s) or feed offspring. 11

22 Analysis Indicator #2 Risk to future nest trees for known eagle nest sites Assumptions for risk to future nest trees for known nest sites All eagle nests have been located in the project area. All nesting habitat within the analysis area has equal distribution and quality of potential nest trees. Nest tree selection is contained within the analysis area (see below in spatial and temporal bounds section). Roadside hazard and salvage treatments remove the size class trees that may provide for future nest trees. Criteria for assessing risk to future nest trees for known eagle nests The desired condition is a low level of risk to potential future nest trees. Eagles in the project area have nested in the same drainage for many years, but these drainages typically contain only a few trees that meet the physical requirements for supporting a nest. Trees that meet the characteristics of potential future nest trees typically occur in dense mature forest or somewhat isolated individual trees. Spatial and Temporal Bounds The spatial bounds for selecting the eagle nests for this analysis are those nests within the project area plus 0.5 mile buffer and the area between the buffer and the Klamath and Scott rivers. This bounding provides an analysis area for each nest by encompassing the nest tree and the area likely to contain a future nest tree. The temporal bounds for the short-term is the time during implementation (about five years) and long term is 20 years. Table 4. Criteria for risk to future nest trees for known eagle nests analysis indicator. Level of Risk Low Moderate High Criteria Less than 10 percent removal of nesting habitat Greater than or equal to 10 to 25 percent removal of nesting habitat Greater than 25 percent removal of nesting habitat A low level of risk to future nest trees would result in a distribution of potential nest trees that would likely provide ample opportunity for a new nest site. Moderate level of risk would result in fewer potential nest trees. High level of risk may result in the eagle possibly not finding another nest tree within the near area of the current nest tree thus the eagles may need to move to another drainage to find a nest tree. 12

23 Northern Goshawk Analysis Indicator #1 Level of Disturbance Little information is available about the direct effects of disturbance on nesting goshawks. However, goshawks generally exhibit a high level of vulnerability during the incubation stage. Logging and roadbuilding were identified as the possible reason for five nest failures that were within 60 meters of the disturbance (Toyne 1997). The Forest Plan standards and guidelines recommend a noise disturbance buffer of 0.25 mile buffer around nest sites (pg. 4-29). Assumptions for goshawk disturbance analysis All goshawk territories have been located in the project area. Nesting goshawk respond to the same level of noise equally. Noise disturbance is a function of distance from the nest site. Spatial and Temporal Bounds The spatial bound is a 0.25 buffer around known nest sites. The short-term temporal bound is the time including implementation (about five years), but only during the annual reproductive period (March 1 to August 31). The long-term temporal bound is 20 years. Criteria for assessing goshawk disturbance The desired condition is no disturbance to goshawk nests but for the purposes of this analysis a low level of disturbance is representing a range between no disturbance and a low level of disturbance. The level of disturbance appears to be related to the distance from a nest site. Loud noises further from the nest site should have lower disturbance than the same noise closer to the nest. Disturbance is assessed as a distance from the known nest sites. Any treatment unit that overlaps the buffers presented below are given a level of disturbance. Table 5. Criteria for goshawk disturbance analysis indicator. Level of Disturbance High Moderate Low Distance from nest site Less than 500 feet of nest site 500 feet to 0.25 mile of nest site Greater than 0.25 mile of nest site Low level of disturbance means that the nesting goshawk would likely not respond to the noise thus the noise would likely not reduce the likelihood of the success of the nest. Moderate level of disturbance would likely result in one of the adults alarm calling and possibly fly toward the noise thus reducing the time spent foraging to feed the offspring or incubating egg(s). A high level of disturbance would likely result in both adults moving towards the disturbance and displaying aggressive behavior. High level of disturbance could result in the nest being abandoned. 13

24 Analysis Indicator #2 Risk to reproduction Assumptions for eagle disturbance analysis Goshawk habitat that burned at high severity doesn t contain the habitat attributes associated with goshawk nesting (e.g. dense tree canopy cover) or foraging habitat (e.g. understory for prey species habitat); thus, this area is classified as non-habitat. Level of risk categories presented below accurately represent the effects to goshawk nesting success. Spatial and Temporal Bounds The spatial bound for this analysis indicator is limited to known goshawk territories (one mile buffer) in the project area. The short-term temporal bound is the time including implementation (about five years) and the long-term temporal bound is 20 years. Criteria for assessing the risk to goshawk reproduction The desired condition is a low level of risk to reproduction. A small amount of habitat or a reduction in habitat quality can influence the success of nest or the future occupancy of the nest. However, there is no minimum level of habitat to describe the point where a nest would no longer provide the necessary resources. The recommended habitat quality and distribution in the Forest Plan provides estimates based on successful nests but this doesn t mean that territories with less habitat cannot produce offspring. 14

25 Table 6. Criteria for risk to goshawk reproduction analysis indicator. Level of Risk High Moderate Low Amount of habitat Primary nest zone (0.5 mile radius around nest site) Maintain 100 to 199 acres of nesting habitat with greater than or equal to 60 percent canopy cover Maintain greater than equal to 204 acres of forested habitat with greater than or equal to 40 percent canopy cover and small openings Foraging habitat zone (0.5 to 1.0 mile radius around nest side) Maintain the 1,506 acres can be a mix of opening and forested age classes Primary nest zone (0.5 mile radius around nest site) Maintain 200 to 300 acres of nesting habitat with greater than or equal to 60 percent canopy cover Maintain greater than or equal to 100 acres of forested habitat with greater than or equal to 40 percent canopy cover and small openings Foraging habitat zone (0.5 to 1.0 mile radius around nest side) Maintain greater than or equal to 750 acres of forested habitat with greater than or equal to 40 percent canopy cover The remaining 756 acres can be a mix of opening and forested age classes Primary nest zone (0.5 mile radius around nest site) Maintain greater than or equal to 300 acres of nesting habitat with greater than or equal to 60 percent canopy cover Maintain greater than or equal to 204 acres of forested habitat with greater than or equal to 40 percent canopy cover and small openings Foraging habitat zone (0.5 to 1.0 mile radius around nest side) Maintain greater than or equal to 900 acres of forested habitat with greater than or equal to 40 percent canopy cover The remaining 606 acres can be a mix of opening and forested age classes A high level of risk may result in a nesting pair of goshawks not finding enough resources to successfully produce offspring and contribute to the population. A moderate risk may provide enough habitat to raise offspring, but the pair may spend more time foraging for food which may still affect nests. A low level of risk should provide enough habitat and diversity of habitat to find sufficient resources to produce a successful nest. 15

26 Fisher, Marten, and Wolverine Assumptions for fisher, marten, and wolverine habitat use Fisher, marten, and wolverines appear to use similar habitat characteristics given the differences in elevation range and subsequent plant species differences. Table 7. Habitat characteristics for fisher, marten, and wolverine habitat types. Habitat type 1 Denning/resting Foraging Movement Habitat Characteristics Greater than 50 percent canopy cover Large live and dead trees Large woody debris Greater than or equal to 40 to 50 percent canopy cover May lack denning trees Greater than or equal to 20 percent overhead cover regardless of tree size 1 Habitat types are a nested hierarchal scheme with denning/resting habitat at the highest quality followed by foraging and movement. For example, movement can occur in denning/resting and foraging, but denning/resting activities are not expected to occur in movement habitat. Analysis Indicator #1 - Habitat Connectivity Assumptions for fisher, marten, and wolverine connectivity analysis Fisher, marten, and wolverine habitat is used as described above. Large openings (areas with no overhead cover) between habitat patches reduces habitat connectivity. Fisher, marten, and wolverine likely avoid crossing openings without snags and coarse woody debris greater than 600 feet in width. Fisher, marten, and wolverine likely avoid crossing openings without physical structure (e.g. trees, snags, or coarse woody debris) greater than 160 feet in width. Pre-fire denning/resting and foraging habitat that burned at moderate and high severity (greater than 50 percent basal area loss) becomes movement habitat for the purposes of this analysis. Movement habitat that burned at moderate and high severity (greater than 50 percent basal area loss) is considered non-habitat. Spatial and Temporal Bounds The spatial bound is the 7th field watersheds that overlap the project area. Depending on the sex, the fisher s average home range is 4.7 to 36 square miles, the marten s home range is 1 to 6 square miles, and the wolverine s home range is 38 to 347 square miles with the closest located 16