WILDLIFE SURVEY AND MANAGE REPORT

Transcription

1 WILDLIFE SURVE AND MANAGE REPORT Trinity Post-Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project South Fork and Trinity River Management Units Shasta-Trinity National Forest Trinity County, California Prepared by: Mark Goldsmith Date: December 13,

2 Non-Discrimination Policy The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.) To File an Employment Complaint If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can be found online at To File a Program Complaint If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) to request the form. ou may also write a letter containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C , by fax (202) or at program.intake@usda.gov. Persons with Disabilities Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) or (800) (in Spanish). Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact us by mail directly or by . If you require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) (voice and TDD). 2

3 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMAR... 2 Introduction... 2 COMPLIANCE WITH LAW, REGULATION, POLIC, AND THE FOREST PLAN... 2 Proposed Actions and Alternatives Analyzed... 3 Methodology... 3 Affected environment... 4 Environmental Consequences... 4 Alternative 1 Proposed Action... 6 Direct and Indirect Effects... 6 Alternative 2 Consistent Buffer and Fuelbreaks Alternative... 8 Alternative 3 Wider Buffer Alternative... 9 Alternative 4 Northern Spotted Owl Alternative... 9 Alternative 5 Minimum Impact Alternative Alternative 6 No Action Alternative Cumulative Effects References List of Tables Table 1. Effects to wildlife Survey and Manage species 4 List of Figures Figure 1. H. talmadgei and V. pressleyi Alternative 3 Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 2. H. talmadgei and V. pressleyi - Alternative 2 15 Deleted: Deleted: Deleted: i

4 EXECUTIVE SUMMAR This project is in compliance with the Survey and Manage program requirements in the 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines (USDA and USDI 2001), the April 25, th Circuit Court Order in Conservation Northwest [and others] v. Sherman, No No JCC (W.D. Wash) and the February 18, 2014 District Court Order in Conservation Northwest [and others] v. Robert Bonnie [and others], No. C JCC (W.D. Wash.). Project activities are unlikely to have a meaningfully measurable effect on the life requirements of any Survey and Manage wildlife species in the project area, their habitat suitability, or their likelihood of persistence. Conditions do not warrant additional field surveys for any of these species. INTRODUCTION Survey and Manage requirements were established to address little-known species that were believed to be associated with old-growth and late-successional forest micro-habitats, and for which species experts were unsure whether the Late-Successional Reserve (LSR) system was sufficient to provide for their conservation. The purpose of this report is to assess potential effects of the proposed Trinity Post-Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Project in sufficient detail to determine whether it is consistent with current Survey and Manage requirements. Table 1 and the analysis following it address all Survey and Manage wildlife species assessed, requirements for pre-disturbance surveys and/or protecting known sites, and determinations of potential effects of project activities. Eight wildlife Survey and Manage species analyzed in this report are also designated as Forest Service Sensitive species. These species are addressed in this document using the criteria that apply to Survey and Manage species, and addressed in the project Wildlife Biological Evaluation using the criteria that apply to Forest Service Sensitive species. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW, REGULATION, POLIC, AND THE FOREST PLAN Forest Service guidance under the Northwest Forest Plan and the Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) requires the agency to analyze projects for potential impacts to Survey and Manage Species. The Survey and Manage program is a result of the 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2001). The species listed in the 2001 Survey and Manage Record of Decision (ROD) were selected to more efficiently provide the level of species protection intended in the Northwest Forest Plan...for the management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl (p. 1). Modifications to the requirements in the ROD included a Settlement Agreement filed on July 6, 2011, in Conservation Northwest [and others] v. Sherman, Case No. C JCC (W.D. Wash). 2

5 On April 25, 2013 the 9 th Circuit Court reversed the District Court's approval of the 2011 Settlement Agreement, concluding that "Because the consent decree allows for substantial, permanent amendments to Survey and Manage, it impermissibly conflicts with laws governing the process for such amendments" (Conservation Northwest [and others] v. Sherman [and others], No [9 th Cir.] No JCC [W.D.Wash]). The 9 th Circuit Court remanded the decision to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The District Court issued a remedy order on February 18, 2014 (Conservation Northwest v. Bonnie, W.WA No. C JCC). As a result, the 2011 Settlement Agreement is invalid and the order issued by Judge Coughenour (Conservation Northwest [and others] v. Rey [and others] No ) on December 17, 2009 is still valid. Consequently, the Forest Service Pacific Southwest and Pacific Northwest Regions are currently working under the 2001 Survey and Manage Record of Decision and the December 2003 species list (USDA Forest Service 2014). PROPOSED ACTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES ANALZED For a detailed description of the alternatives considered for this analysis, please see Chapter 2 of the Trinity Post-Fire Hazard Reduction and Salvage Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). METHODOLOG This analysis is based on species occurrence data documented in National Forest wildlife databases (Shasta-Trinity and Six Rivers National Forests) and the California Natural Diversity Database, maintained by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. For this analysis, potential effects were assessed based primarily on the likelihood and intensity of effects to habitat characteristics favorable for these species, such as high canopy cover levels and moist microhabitats. The Survey and Manage program requires pre-disturbance field surveys for some species where appropriate (Table 1). Line officers have discretion to determine whether or not conditions warrant additional surveys. The ROD Standards & Guidelines (p. 22) stipulate that The line officer should seek specialists recommendations to help determine the need for a survey based on site-specific information. In making such determination, the line officer should consider the probability of the species being present on the project site, as well as the probability that the project would cause a significant negative effect on the species habitat or the persistence of the species at the site. Three evaluation criteria were used to determine whether a proposed project triggers the need for field surveys: 1. species range, 2. habitat suitability, and 3. the potential for project activities to degrade habitat or cause disturbance (Duncan and others 2003). Evaluation of these criteria is presented in Table 1 and the analysis following it. Additional surveys were determined to be unwarranted for the following reasons: 1.) Areas where intensive treatments are proposed have been heavily affected by wildfire, and habitat suitability for Survey and Manage mollusk species is very low; and 2.) Areas that are highly suitable for Survey and Manage mollusk species will have low-intensity treatments and extensive resource protection measures, and these treatments are unlikely to have a meaningfully measurable effect on habitat suitability or persistence of these species. 3

6 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The analysis area covers a large portion of the South Fork and Trinity River Management Units, and vegetative communities are highly variable across this area. The most common vegetation types are typified by mixed conifers in the overstory, oaks and other hardwoods in the understory, and shrubs, forbs and grasses comprising the ground cover. The mixed conifer forests in the action area are typically dominated by Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine and incense cedar. Higher elevation sites provide favorable conditions for white fir, and the high-elevation sites on South Fork Mountain support forests dominated by red fir. Common hardwood trees in the understory of conifer forests in the action area include Pacific madrone, California black oak, canyon live oak, Oregon white oak and alder. Many sites with shallow, rocky soils and southerly and westerly aspects have harsh growing conditions. As a result, the primary vegetation in many of these areas consists of oaks, shrubs, forbs and grasses rather than coniferous trees. Proposed treatments are spread widely across this area, with highly variable vegetative conditions ranging from old-growth conifer forest to high-severity fire areas with little living vegetation. Mixed conifer forests dominate this area, and where sufficient canopy cover was present, some of the mature stands of mixed conifer forest in the project area likely supported the habitat conditions necessary for Survey and Manage mollusk species. The wildfires of 2015 burned approximately 144,000 acres on Shasta-Trinity National Forest lands. All proposed treatment areas are within the perimeters of these wildfires. These fires removed an estimated 21,237 acres of late-successional forest habitat, including approximately 1,675 acres within the Survey and Manage cumulative effects analysis area. Fire severity was generally lower in areas dominated by late-seral vegetation, and higher in early-seral habitats. As a result, the areas most likely to support Survey and Manage mollusk species were generally affected the least by wildfire. Canopy cover reduction was lower, and the microclimates favorable to Survey and Manage mollusk species are more likely to have survived the wildfires. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES Table 1 displays the management requirements for the wildlife Survey and Manage species on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. The majority of these species do not occur in the project area, and thus will not be affected by proposed activities under any of the project alternatives. The discussion following Table 1 describes effects to the two species potentially affected by project activities. Alternative 1 (the Proposed Action) includes a detailed assessment of potential effects to these species. The other alternatives also address potential effects, primarily by referencing the Alternative 1 discussion and describing differences in effects compared to that alternative. Table 1. Effects to wildlife Survey and Manage species. Common name INVERTEBRATES Scientific name Predisturbance survey requirement? Manage known sites requirement? Determination of effects & rationale for determining need for pre disturbance surveys Also a USFS Region 5 Sensitive species? Nugget pebblesnail Fluminicola seminalis No effect: The project area is 4

7 Common name Scientific name Predisturbance survey requirement? Manage known sites requirement? Determination of effects & rationale for determining need for pre disturbance surveys occur in or near the project area. Also a USFS Region 5 Sensitive species? Klamath shoulderband snail Helminthoglypta talmadgei N1 2 (See analysis following Table 1). N Siskiyou sideband snail Monadenia chaceana N No effect: The project area is occur in or near the project area. N Shasta sideband snail Monadenia troglodytes troglodytes No effect: The project area is occur in or near the project area. Wintu sideband snail Monadenia troglodytes wintu No effect: The project area is occur in or near the project area. Shasta chaparral snail Trilobopsis roperi No effect: The project area is occur in or near the project area. Tehama chaparral snail Trilobopsis tehamana No effect: The project area is occur in or near the project area. Pressley (Big Bar) hesperian snail Vespericola pressleyi (See analysis following Table 1). Shasta hesperian snail Vespericola shasta No effect: The project area is occur in or near the project area. AMPHIBIANS Shasta salamander Hydromantes shastae No effect: The project area is occur in or near the project area. BIRDS Great grey owl Strix nebulosa N N No effect: The project area is N 1 Formerly a Category A species requiring pre disturbance surveys, it is now a Category D species not requiring pre disturbance surveys. 2 High priority sites only. 5

8 Common name Scientific name Predisturbance survey requirement? Manage known sites requirement? Determination of effects & rationale for determining need for pre disturbance surveys occur in or near the project area (Ziener and others 1990). Also a USFS Region 5 Sensitive species? Alternative 1 Proposed Action This alternative allows treatments of a 300-foot total width buffer (up to 275 feet on one side of the road, and a minimum of 25 feet on the other side). The width of the buffer on either side of the road could change but would not exceed 300 feet; i.e. if conditions lend to a wider treatment on the uphill side, the uphill side may be treated up to 275 feet from the road and the downhill side would be treated 25 feet from the road. The minimum treatment area along either side of the road will be 25 feet. The maximum area of treatment is approximately 8,000 acres. Because the exact location of treatment at any given point along a road is unknown, this analysis considers treatment impacts to the entire 600-foot width buffer to ensure that any suitable habitat or known locations of Survey and Manage species are addressed in this analysis (Figure 1). This will result in roughly twice the number of acres analyzed as will actually be treated, and as a result this analysis greatly overestimates the potential effects to Survey and Manage wildlife species. Direct and Indirect Effects Helminthoglypta talmadgei (Klamath shoulderband snail) H. talmadgei is classified as a Category D Survey and Manage species. The management objective for these species is to Identify and manage high-priority sites to provide for a reasonable assurance of species persistence. Pre-disturbance surveys are not required for Category D species (ROD S&G p. 11). H. talmadgei occurs in stable rock talus and rockslides in limestone substrates, especially near springs or streams. On moist, north-facing slopes they can also occur under woody debris, moss and leaf mold. This species feeds on herbaceous plants, and overhead vegetative cover appears to be an important habitat element for shading and food (Duncan and others 1999; USDI Bureau of Land Management 1999). This species is common and well-distributed across the South Fork and Trinity River Management Units, and observations have been recorded near and within proposed treatment areas (Figure 1). Project activities have the potential to affect H. talmadgei by directly impacting individuals during project implementation, or modifying habitat in ways that reduce its suitability for this species. However, the following factors will greatly reduce potential effects to this species: Only dead vegetation is targeted for treatment. The sites with the most intensive treatments will therefore be those with the greatest extent of fire-induced mortality. These sites are least likely to support habitat conditions favorable to H. talmadgei and other late-successional forest species. As a result, potential effects to these species are very limited in the areas that were most heavily affected by wildfire. Areas where fire severity was low are most likely to still support habitat conditions favorable to H. talmadgei (where conditions were favorable pre-fire). However, since 6

9 proposed treatments target dead vegetation only, areas with low fire-induced mortality will have much less treatment than areas heavily affected by high-severity wildfire. Treatments in areas that survived largely intact may reduce woody debris to some extent, but post-fire levels of woody debris are much higher than pre-fire levels, and project resource protection measures limit removal of woody debris (see below). Also, removal of dead vegetation will have little effect on canopy cover. As a result, in the areas that were least affected by wildfire and are likely to be most suitable to H. talmadgei, effects to this species will be very limited. Project resource protection measures include a prohibition on timber salvage in northern spotted owl (NSO) nesting/roosting habitat in High-Value Wildlife Conservation Areas (HVWCA s). These late-successional forested habitats are also likely to be high-quality habitats for H. talmadgei, and this protective measure will further reduce potential effects to H. talmadgei in these valuable habitats. Project resource protection measures include limitations on timber salvage in NSO foraging habitat in HVWCA s. Salvage in these areas will be restricted to hazard trees only. This measure will further reduce potential effects to H. talmadgei habitat quality in habitats high in value to this species. Project resource protection measures include requirements to leave 15 tons of coarse woody debris (CWD) per acre in suitable NSO habitats in HVWCA s. Except where it poses a hazard to operations or haul routes, all CWD in advanced states of decay (snag and log decay classes 3-5) will be retained in these areas. This measure will benefit H. talmadgei by ensuring retention of large amounts of this important habitat feature in HVWCA s. Outside HVWCA s, 10 tons CWD/acre will still be retained. Numerous project resource protection measures restrict operations in riparian habitats. These include equipment exclusion zones for all wet meadows, seeps, fens and springs. Riparian habitats are valuable to H. talmadgei, and these measures will further reduce potential effects to this species. The project s connected actions will occur in existing roadbeds and culvert sites. These sites have been highly disturbed, and have limited potential value to this species. Ground disturbance at sites with some potential to support this species (e.g., riparian habitats at culvert replacement sites) will be very limited in spatial extent. Proposed treatments are specifically designed to reduce the occurrence and extent of high-severity wildfires. They will thus likely reduce the devastating impacts these wildfires have on H. talmadgei habitats and populations. Replanting treatments will accelerate re-establishment of high-quality habitats for H. talmadgei and other wildlife Survey and Manage species where high-severity fire has occurred. As a result of these project design features and resource protection measures, project activities are unlikely to have any meaningfully measurable effect on the life requirements or habitat suitability for this species, or on its persistence in the project area. Vespericola pressleyi (Pressley [Big Bar] hesperian snail) This species occurs in conifer and/or hardwood forest habitats in permanently damp areas within 200 m. of seeps, springs, and stable streams, and uses woody debris and rock refugia near water during dry and cold periods. Recommended protection measures include conserving favorable canopy cover, woody debris and herbaceous vegetation in suitable habitats (Duncan and others 1999; USDI Bureau of Land Management 1999). This species is known primarily from the Big Bar area of the Trinity River Management Unit, but has also been found on the South Fork 7

10 Management Unit. It appears to be less common than H. talmadgei, but observations have been recorded near and within the boundaries of proposed treatment units (Figure 1). Extensive protection measures for riparian habitats have been incorporated into the project design. These measures protect the permanently damp areas that are key landscape features for this species, and greatly decrease the potential for negative effects to habitat conditions around these features. The project s connected actions include removal or replacement of culverts to improve overall hydrologic conditions in the watersheds affected by project activities. Ground disturbance at sites with some potential to support this species (e.g., riparian habitats at culvert replacement sites) will be very limited in spatial extent. The other resource protection measures cited above for H. talmadgei will also greatly reduce the potential for negative effects to V. pressleyi. As a result, project activities will not have any meaningfully measurable effect on the life requirements or habitat suitability for V. pressleyi, or on its persistence in the project area, and conditions do not warrant additional field surveys for this species. Alternative 2 Consistent Buffer and Fuelbreaks Alternative This alternative is similar to Alternative 1, with three exceptions: 1. The buffer width is consistent throughout treatment areas (150 feet on either side of the road). 2. Both dead and dying hazard trees are subject to removal. 3. Approximately 16 miles of treated roads will be subject to fuelbreak treatments, which have a wider treatment zone than the other treatment types (600 feet on either side of the road). The fuelbreak treatments include removing live small-diameter trees (up to 10 DBH), and pruning live trees to remove lower branches. Helminthoglypta talmadgei (Klamath shoulderband snail) The effects of Alternative 2 on H. talmadgei in the non-fuelbreak areas will be similar to those of Alternative 1. The same types of treatments will occur, and approximately the same number of acres will actually be affected. Removal of dying hazard trees in addition to dead trees will increase the potential for minor effects to habitat suitability somewhat compared to Alternative 1 by potentially affecting canopy cover and removing some sources of future CWD. The potential effects to canopy cover are limited due to the weakened condition of the living hazard trees that will be removed under this alternative, and the likelihood that they will die in the near future regardless of the proposed treatments. The CWD retention measures incorporated into the project design will ensure retention of large amounts of CWD. Fuelbreaks: Observations of H. talmadgei have been recorded within proposed fuelbreak areas (Figure 2), and the potential for effects to this species may be greater within the fuelbreak areas than in the other treatment areas. Removal of small-diameter trees in fuelbreaks has a greater potential to affect canopy cover. However, the restriction of live tree removal to trees 10 DBH or less will greatly limit the potential reduction in canopy cover, especially in the late-successional forests that are most suitable for this species. The canopy in these stands is dominated by largediameter trees, and removal of small-diameter trees has a very limited potential to affect overall canopy cover levels. Pruning lower branches of live trees is expected to have no measurable effect on canopy cover or any other habitat element important to H. talmadgei. Because this alternative includes fuelbreaks on approximately 16 miles of roads, tree removal will occur on more acres than under Alternative 1. As a result, CWD will be reduced on a larger number of acres. However, the project resource protection measures detailed under Alternative 1, including the CWD retention measures, will also apply to the fuelbreak treatment areas. These 8

11 measures will ensure retention of large amounts of CWD, an important habitat element for this species. In summary, although Alternative 2 has a greater potential to affect H. talmadgei than Alternative 1, project design features and resource protection measures will provide for a reasonable assurance of species persistence in fuelbreaks as well as the non-fuelbreak areas. Overall, project activities are unlikely to have a meaningfully measurable effect on the life requirements or habitat suitability for this species, or on its persistence in the project area. Vespericola pressleyi (Pressley [Big Bar] hesperian snail) The effects of this alternative on V. pressleyi in the non-fuelbreak treatment areas will be very similar to those of alternative 1. The same types of treatments will occur, and approximately the same number of acres will be affected. Fuelbreaks: Observations of V. pressleyi have been recorded near proposed fuelbreaks. The closest observation was approximately 1 mile to the east (Figure 2). The extensive riparian protection measures protecting permanently damp areas will protect these habitats in fuelbreaks as well as other treatment areas. The many resource protection measures cited above for H. talmadgei will also greatly reduce the potential for negative effects to V. pressleyi, both within and outside of fuelbreaks. As a result, project activities will not have any meaningfully measurable effect on the life requirements or habitat suitability for V. pressleyi, or on its persistence in the project area under this alternative, and conditions do not warrant additional field surveys for this species. Alternative 3 Wider Buffer Alternative This alternative allows treatment of a 600-foot total width buffer, rather than the 300-foot buffer allowed under Alternative 1. However, because the exact location of treatment at any given point along a road is unknown under Alternative 1, the analysis for that alternative assumes treatment of the entire 600-foot width within which treatments may occur. As a result, the analysis for Alternative 1 assumes effects to the same acres that will be subject to treatment under Alternative 3, and the potential effects to Survey and Manage wildlife species are very similar to those analyzed under Alternative 1. Removal of dying hazard trees in addition to dead trees will increase the potential for minor effects to habitat suitability somewhat compared to Alternative 1 by potentially affecting canopy cover and removing some sources of future CWD. The potential effects to canopy cover are limited due to the weakened condition of the living hazard trees that will be removed under this alternative, and the likelihood that they will die in the near future regardless of the proposed treatments. The CWD retention measures incorporated into the project design will ensure retention of large amounts of CWD. Alternative 4 Northern Spotted Owl Alternative This alternative is similar to Alternative 1, but treatments will be greatly restricted inside suitable NSO habitats. Treatments in these habitats will be limited to hazard tree mitigation, targeting dead trees only; no tree removal or fuels reduction will occur. As a result, potential effects to Survey and Manage wildlife species will be similar to but more limited than those of Alternative 1. Salvage treatments will occur on fewer acres, so the extent of tree removal will be more limited than Alternative 1. Fuels treatments will also occur on fewer acres, so more CWD will be retained in the project area. In summary, overall effects will be less than Alternative 1, and project activities will not have any meaningfully measurable effect on the life requirements or habitat suitability for Survey and Manage wildlife species, or on their persistence in the project area. 9

12 Alternative 5 Minimum Impact Alternative This alternative is similar to Alternative 4, but treatments will be even more restricted. The areas where restrictions will apply include all suitable NSO habitats, plus riparian reserves, inventoried roadless areas, and at-risk watersheds. Treatments in these habitats will be limited to hazard tree mitigation, targeting dead trees only, and no tree removal or fuels reduction will occur. Outside of these areas, treatments proposed are the same as Alternative 4, with the exception that no commercial timber sale removal will be allowed in any treatment areas. Potential effects to Survey and Manage wildlife species will be similar to, but more limited than, those of Alternative 4. Fewer acres will be subject to fuels treatments, so more CWD will be retained in the project area. In summary, overall effects will be the least compared to all other action alternatives, and project activities will not have any meaningfully measurable effect on the life requirements or habitat suitability for Survey and Manage wildlife species, or on their persistence in the project area. Alternative 6 No Action Alternative Under this alternative, no vegetation will be treated. Trees and vegetation impacted by the wildfires will continue to decay and fall without human influence. No reduction in fuel loading levels or fire hazard will be achieved. Long-term effects of this alternative on Survey and Manage wildlife species include continued limitations on use of existing road system for wildfire suppression due to safety concerns, and a higher risk of widespread loss of suitable habitats to high-severity wildfire. Cumulative Effects Analysis of cumulative effects under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) addresses the impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the proposed action when added to other past, present and reasonable foreseeable future actions, regardless of which agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes these actions (40 CFR ). The cumulative effects analysis is bound in space and time to properly evaluate if there would be any overlap of effects caused by this project with effects of other foreseeable actions. To encompass potentially affected individuals of the species analyzed in this report, this analysis is bounded in space to include any area within 375 feet of all treatment areas, and bounded in time to include the time needed for substantial re-establishment of key habitat components such as large woody debris and canopy cover. The estimated time for this to occur, relative to the habitat needs of the species addressed in this analysis, is approximately 40 years. These bounding parameters are based on species information on H. talmadgei and V. pressleyi in Duncan and others (1999). Reasonably foreseeable future actions are described in the project EIS. Past effects are assumed to be expressed within the current habitat conditions shown in the analysis, including the effects of the 2015 wildfires. On the Shasta-Trinity and Six Rivers National Forests, there are 660 and 35 known H. talmadgei and V. pressleyi sites, respectively. Fifty known H. talmadgei sites are within the cumulative effects analysis area for this project, and 30 are within potential treatment units. Six known V. pressleyi sites are within the cumulative effects analysis area, and 2 are within the boundaries of potential treatment units. Approximately 1.1% of the known H. talmadgei sites (7 sites total) were directly affected by moderate- or high-severity wildfire in No known V. pressleyi sites were directly affected. This analysis assumes private lands that burned at moderate or high severity may be salvage logged. Because H. talmadgei and V. pressleyi are associated with late successional conditions, 10

13 and areas that burned at high and moderate severity no longer provide habitat for this species, salvage logging operations on private lands are not expected to affect H. talmadgei or V. pressleyi. Other federal actions in the analysis area include vegetation management and fuels reduction projects that will affect existing vegetation. Like the proposed project, these projects incorporate extensive resource protection measures for riparian areas and other wildlife habitats. As a result, these projects are unlikely to result in meaningfully measurable effects to V. pressleyi, or effects to the life requirements or habitat suitability for H. talmadgei that would affect its persistence in the project area in a meaningfully measurable way. In summary, neither the proposed activities (under all alternatives) nor the other future foreseeable actions are expected to have any meaningfully measurable effect on the life requirements or habitat suitability for H. talmadgei or V. pressleyi, or on their persistence in the project area, and they will not result in significant cumulative effects for either of these species. 11

14 REFERENCES California Department of Fish and Wildlife A status review of the black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) in California. Report to the Fish and Game Commission. March 13, Conservation Northwest v. Bonnie, W.WA No. C JCC (W.D. Wash. Feb. 18, 2014). Conservation Northwest [and others] v. Rey [and others]. No (W.D. Wash. Dec. 17, 2009). Conservation Northwest [and others] v. Sherman [and others]. No , 2013 WL , Opinion (9th Cir. Apr. 25, 2013). Conservation Northwest [and others] v. Sherman [and others]. No. C JCC, Parties Stipulation and Order (W.D. Wash. Jul. 5, 2011). Duncan, Nancy; Tom Burke; Steve Dowlan; and Paul Hohenlohe Survey Protocol for Survey and Manage Terrestrial Mollusk Species from the Northwest Forest Plan, Version 3.0. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 70 pp. Duncan, Nancy (Editor); Thomas E. Burke; John S. Applegarth; and Ted R. Weasma Management Recommendations for Survey and Manage Terrestrial Mollusks. Version 2.0. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. October pp. International Union for the Conservation of Nature, and NatureServe Global Amphibian Assessment. IUCN and NatureServe. Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA. Available: Jennings, Mark R; Hayes, Marc Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California. Report to California Department of Fish and Game. 255 pp. Northwest Ecosystem Alliance [and others] v. Mark E. Rey [and others]. No. C04-844P, Stipulation and (Proposed) Order Re: Injunction (W.D. Wash. Oct. 11, 2006). Northwest Ecosystem Alliance [and others] v. Mark E. Rey [and others]. No P, Order on Plaintiff s Motion for Injunctive Relief (W.D. Wash. Jan. 9, 2006). Olson, Deanna H. (Editor) Survey Protocols For Amphibians Under the Survey and Manage Provision of the Northwest Forest Plan. USDI Bureau of Land Management. Version 3.0. Roth, Barry A new species of Vespericola (Gastropoda: Pulmonata: Polygyridae) from the Klamath Mountains, California. Wasmann Journal of Biology, Volume 42 [for 1984], number 1-2, pp USDA Forest Service Direction Regarding the Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines. Pacific Southwest and Pacific Northwest Regions. May 13, USDA Forest Service Shasta-Trinity National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan. Shasta-Trinity National Forests, Redding CA. USDA Forest Service; USDI Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines. USDA Forest Service; USDI Bureau of Land Management Survey and Management Recommendations Aquatic Mollusks. USDA Forest Service; USDI Bureau of Land Management Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the 12

15 Range of the Northern Spotted Owl; Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. USDA Forest Service; USDI Bureau of Land Management Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on management of habitat for late successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. USDI Bureau of Land Management Field Guide to Survey and Manage Terrestrial Mollusk Species from the Northwest Forest Plan. BLM Oregon State Office. Wilson, Randolph A.; Amy J. Lind; Hartwell Welsh, Jr Trinity River Riparian Wildlife Survey, final report. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Experiment Station Redwood Sciences Laboratory, Arcata, CA. 98pp. Zeiner, David C.; William F. Laudenslayer, Jr.; Kenneth E Mayer; Marshall White (Editors) California's Wildlife. Vol. 2 - Birds. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. (Map updated 1997). 13

16 Figure 1 H. talmadgei and V. pressleyi Alternative 3 14

17 Figure 2. H. talmadgei and V. pressleyi - Alternative 2 15