Light Restoration Project

Transcription

1 Prepared by: Matt Marsh Wildlife Biologistfor: Tonasket Ranger District Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest April 13, 2016

2 Contents Regulatory Framework... 2 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences... 3 Environmental Consequences Other Relevant Mandatory Disclosures Degree to Which the Purpose and Need for Action is Met Other Agencies and Individuals Consulted References Cited Appendix A: Nest Platform Diagram Appendix B: Evaluation of Consistency with Migratory Bird Treaty Species Tables Table 1: Resources Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail... 3 Table 2: Resource Indicators and Measures for Assessing Effects... 6 Table 3: Species considered for Assessing Effects to Habitat Disturbance and Habitat Connectivity... 6 Table 4: Impact Intensities for Wildlife Resources... 8 Table 5: Resource Indicators and Measures for the Existing Condition... 9 Table 6: Project Design Features Table 7: Resource Indicators and Measures for Alternative Table 8: Resource Indicators and Measures for Alternative Table 9: Resource Indicators and Measures for Cumulative Effects Table 10: Cumulative Effects for Disturbance Due to Habitat Loss Table 11: Cumulative Effects Late Successional Old Forest Table 12: Cumulative Effects for Connectivity Table 13: Summary comparison of how the alternatives address the Purpose and Need i

3 Regulatory Framework The Okanogan National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) identifies management indicator species for mature and old growth forest habitat, dead and defective tree habitat, deciduous and riparian habitat, lodgepole pine forest habitat, and winter range habitat ((USDA-FS 1989) page III-77). Details on habitat use, ecology, and amount of each habitat on the Forest for these species are in Wildlife MIS Status Report (USDA-FS 2011). Forest-wide viability determination for each species is also included in that report. Management guidance for threatened and endangered species and their habitat is in Forest Service Manual 2670 and the Endangered Species Act, as amended. A biological assessment (BA) is required for all projects planned, funded, executed, or permitted by the USDA Forest Service (FSM , USDA Forest Service 2005b). If the BA concludes that the project may affect an endangered or threatened species, the Forest Service must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act makes it unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture, or kill migratory birds. Executive Order 13186, 66 Fed. Reg (2001) Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, along with the Memorandum of Understanding between the USDA Forest Service and the US Fish & Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds (USDA and USFWS 2008) require proposed federal actions to be evaluated for effects on migratory birds. Management guidance for all sensitive species and their habitat is in Forest Service Manual A biological evaluation must be prepared for all projects that are planned, funded, executed, or permitted by the USDA Forest Service (FSM ). A determination of the level of impact the project may have on each species listed as sensitive by the Regional Forester must be made. Land and Resource Management Plan The LRMP provides wildlife standards and guidelines applicable for restoration projects. Management Area 6-8: Manage disturbing activities so they occur outside of critical periods to protect wildlife. 6-10: Active raptor nest sites shall be protected through the nesting season (until young are fledged). 6-17: Threatened and endangered species shall be managed according to recovery plans. 6-18: Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service shall be initiated when threatened or endangered species may be affected by resource proposals. 6-19: Sensitive plants and animals should be protected. Special Area Designations A portion of the project area (268 acres) is within the 10,891 acre Bonaparte Inventoried Roadless Areas. 2

4 Federal Law Endangered Species Act National Forest Management Act Other Guidance or Recommendations The Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest Restoration Strategy: adaptive ecosystem management to restore landscape resiliency Regional Forester s Forest Plan Amendment #2 (Eastside Screens) Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Considered But Not Analyzed In Detail Table 1: Resources Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail Resource American Peregrine Falcon, ashthroated flycatcher, California bighorn sheep, California Wolverine, Harlequin ducks, fisher, Gray Flycatcher, Western Gray Squirrel, Sharp-tailed Grouse, Sandhill Crane (S) American marten, pileated woodpecker, Northern three-toed woodpecker, and the barred owl (MIS) Lewis s, pileated, Northern threetoed, black-backed, downy, hairy, and white-headed woodpeckers; rednaped and Williamson s sapsuckers; and Northern flicker (MIS) Rationale for Dismissing from Further Analysis The proposed project is not within or adjacent to suitable habitat for these sensitive species. The proposed project would have No Impact on these species. These are management indicator species for mature and old-growth mixed conifer forest. The proposed project would not result in the conversion of mature and old-growth mixed conifer forest into an early seral stage. The 789 acres of thinning and fuels reduction proposed within these stands would focus on maintaining and enhancing the Late Successional Old Forest by reducing the smaller ladder fuels and competing trees that are currently exposing the stands to catastrophic wildfires. The stands identified as old growth would be thinned to maintain the classification with no trees 21 inches in diameter and greater at breast height (dbh) being removed unless for safety reasons. The prescriptions would have a slight beneficial effect on mature and old-growth forest and would not affect the size or health of marten, pileated woodpecker, three-toed woodpecker, and barred owl populations. Because several species represent a similar habitat niche, for the purposes of this analysis the Northern Goshawk will be the species analyzed in detail for the mature, old-growth, and Late Successional Old Forest habitat. These are management indicator species for dead and defective tree habitat. Snag habitat does exist within the project area and snags are not a limiting factor within the project area (DecAID 2014); however, snag removal is not part of the proposed treatments unless dead trees are considered hazard to operators (in which case, they may be felled and left as large woody debris on site). The proposed project would have no measurable impact on dead and defective tree habitat. It would not affect the size or health of primary cavity excavator populations. 3

5 Resource Ruffed Grouse (MIS) Rationale for Dismissing from Further Analysis The ruffed grouse is the management indicator species of deciduous and riparian habitats. The proposed project would result in a temporary disturbance to riparian habitat because of project activity. Riparian Habitat Conservation Reserves (RHCA) operation limits would be followed. RHCA health, maintenance, and production would increase with either action alternative. Units (4,5,7,11,15,16,21,24,37,42,43,50,63,64,and 65) would treat portions of riparian areas with a prescription of thinning or ladder fuel reduction. Prescribed fire would be allowed to enter the RHCA s but active lighting within these zones will not be allowed. Selective thinning and prescribed fire would promote long term health and productivity of RHCA for Ruffed Grouse. These treatments would also reduce the potential for fire to carry throughout the length of the riparian zone and bring these stands back in line with their natural range of variability. The intensity of fire and fuel reduction would be light, so any decline in riparian cover and forage that provides ruffed grouse habitat would be minor. Due to the moist nature of the riparian zone fire generally only consumes the dead litter matter. In the long-term, it would have a moderate positive effect on ruffed grouse habitat and ruffed grouse populations by providing new regrowth and forage opportunity. Common Loon (S) Lynx Critical Habitat (T) Gray Wolf (S) The proposed project is adjacent to Bonaparte Lake which has suitable habitat for the common loons and has a known nesting pair. The action alternatives May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect the common loons due to adjacent noise and presence from project activities in the uplands. Loon nesting habitat would not be impacted. Stands directly adjacent to Bonaparte lake would have timing restrictions to avoid nesting and rearing periods when loons are more susceptible. Riparian habitat along the shoreline of the lake will not be impacted. The proposed project is not within a critical habitat unit for lynx. The proposed project would have no effect on lynx critical habitat. The project area is not known to have a resident wolf pack but there have been documented sightings of wolves that have moved through the area from other known packs. The area supports a forage base of deer, elk, and moose. There are no known den or rendezvous sites in the project area. The proposed project May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect gray wolves. Great Gray Owl (S) The proposed project area has and is adjacent to potential Great Gray owl habitat. No historic nests are known to be present. Pre-disturbance surveys (USFS 2006) and (Quintana-Coyer 2004) were not triggered due to the lack of natural openings within ¼ mile of suitable nesting habitat. Walk through stand surveys were conducted in spring of 2015 due to public comment by adjacent landowners that identified potential Great Gray owl activity near their property on Forest Service lands within the project area. The stands that held the best potential nesting habitat were visited; no owls or nests were located. The proposed project would not result in the conversion of mature and old-growth mixed conifer forest into an early seral stage. There would be 789 acres of thinning and fuels reduction within these stands. Prescriptions would focus on maintaining and enhancing the late successional old structure by reducing the smaller ladder fuels and competing trees that are currently exposing the stands to catastrophic wildfires. The stands identified as old growth (789 acres) would be thinned to maintain the classification with no trees 21 inches dbh or greater being removed unless for safety reasons. To mitigate a potential short term loss of potential nesting habitat, up to 12 artificial nest platforms would be placed in the best suitable habitat in the project area after project activities are completed. See Mitigation Section. The prescriptions in Alternative 2 and 3 would have a slight beneficial effect on mature, oldgrowth forest, and owl foraging habitat. The two action alternatives would not affect the size or health of Great Gray owl populations. The artificial nest platforms would have a beneficial effect on Great Gray owls. 4

6 Grizzly bear (T) Resource Migratory Landbirds (S) Rationale for Dismissing from Further Analysis The proposed project is outside of a grizzly bear recovery zone; currently grizzlies are not known to be present within the analysis area. The most recent verified occurrence in Washington State was approximately eight miles north of project area, near Chesaw WA in This occurrence was likely a sub adult bear that ventured out of Canada during its natural dispersal. The project area is not adjacent to any areas that are lush with berry shrubs or high alpine moth bolder fields. The top of Bonaparte Mountain has a small population of white bark pine but not enough to sustain bears. There are no grizzly denning opportunities in or adjacent to the project area. The area does support enough large ungulates to support large carnivores such as black bears and cougars. The potential for human-grizzly interaction is high because of a high volume of human recreation activities during non-denning season. The very limited seasonal food base, relatively small security habitat for a grizzly, and the year-round human presence would limit grizzlies to using this project area as a travel route between known habitat between the North Cascades, Canada, and the Selkirk Mountains. All Forest Service garbage receptacles have been updated to meet the 2009 Regional forester letter Storage of Food, Garbage, and Other Wildlife Attractants. Therefore, the proposed project May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect grizzly bears. Pertinent species of migratory landbirds are addressed in the Migratory Land Bird section in the project folder. Habitat removal and alteration would take place from the thinning, and prescribed fire treatments. There would be a short term reduction in nesting cover and foraging habitat but overall the restoration projects in the action alternatives would benefit the listed landbirds in the mid to long term. The project May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect these landbirds. Moose (S) Under the action alternatives, there would be 1,388 acres of fuels treatments and 4,004 acres of commercial timber harvests that would increase the forage base for moose in the mid and long term. The proposed 6,033 acres of prescribed fire treatments would lead to a flush of new woody shrubs along with hardwoods that support moose. The proposed project would have a slightly beneficial effect on moose habitat. It would have beneficial impact on moose. Little Brown Myotis, Pallid bat, and Townsend s Big-eared Bat (S) White-headed Woodpecker (S) The proposed project has small amounts of suitable habitat for the pallid and Townsend s Big-eared bats. In the project area the most common habitat for these bats would be defoliated bark from dry mixed conifer trees in the lowest elevations of the project area. The proposed project would have no impact on the pallid and Townsend s bats because dead trees that provide nesting and roosting would not be targeted for removal. Food (insects) availability would increase after canopies are opened and prescribed fire stimulates new shrub and plant growth. The proposed project would have no effect on snag habitat. It would increase the ponderosa pine stands along the forest boundary to Late Successional Old Forests and move stands towards being more resilient as climates become hotter and drier which would benefit white-headed woodpeckers. Less than 1% of the project area has mapped habitat due to the 4,000 foot elevation limitation preferred by the species. The proposed alternative would have no impact on the white-headed woodpecker in the short term. Although with climates becoming hotter and drier the treatments in the dry ponderosa pine and mixed conifer sites will add to potential habitat for the future. 12 Invertebrate Species (S) Due to the slight increase in riparian/hardwood habitat and creating openings 1 to 3 acres in size, the proposed project would have a slightly beneficial effect on butterfly and dragonfly habitats. Literature review of species and their habitats associated with forest related restoration projects comes from (Paulson 2009) and (James and Nunnallee 2011). The proposal would have beneficial impact on the Region 6 sensitive invertebrate species. 5

7 Aspen Resource (Focal)- Focal Species under the Forest Restoration Strategy (MIS)-Management Indicator Species (S)- Forest Service Region 6 Sensitive Species (SOI)- Species of Interest (T)- Federally Threatened Species Resource Indicators and Measures Rationale for Dismissing from Further Analysis Aspen stands are limited within the project area and are scattered in small patches. Most of the stands identified during field surveys showed signs of stress due to overcrowding by conifer trees. All aspen stands encountered within units will be treated to reduce conifer encroachment and release aspen sprouts. Units 62 and 64 are specifically identified for aspen release along with scattered small patches identified through field recon totaling 128acres. Overall, aspen would see a beneficial effect with the action alternatives which in turn would benefit species that depend on aspen. Table 2: Resource Indicators and Measures for Assessing Effects Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Used to address: P/N, or key issue? Wildlife Disturbance to TES and Focal, Species Goshawk Habitat and Disturbance Habitat Connectivity Disturbance due to habitat loss Late Successional Old Forest Facilitate movement by at least 2 different directions (North, South, East, and West) Acres of habitat altered, Percent Land (PL) Acres of habitat and Patch Density (PD) Yes/No Yes Yes Eastside Screens and Public comment issue Source Okanogan NF LRMP S&G 6-8. EMDS % Land value. Okanogan NF LRMP S&G 6-10 and Appendix B (USDA 1995) Okanogan NF LRMP S&G 6-10 and Appendix B (USDA 1995) Methodology & Intensity Level Definitions Species for this for this analysis will come from the Forest Service Region 6 Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES) and focal species list. Table 3: Species considered for Assessing Effects to Habitat Disturbance and Habitat Connectivity Species Northern Goshawk (R6 Sensitive, Focal) Canada lynx (MIS and T) Mule Deer (MIS) Resource Indicator: Disturbance Due to Habitat Loss The project area provides suitable habitat for a variety of species. The basis for effects analysis for habitat loss will be acres of suitable habitat altered and whether those amount of acres are within the Percent Land (PL) value for the Future Range of Variability (FRV) modeled through EMDS for that particular species. Species analyzed in detail for PL will be Northern Goshawk (NG). 6

8 Northern Goshawk Habitat was identified using EMDS modeling and ground verification. During 2014 and 2015 field surveys, goshawks were observed but no nests were found. Several northern goshawk observations have been made in analysis area over the last several years. Patch Density will be used as the index matrix when analyzing for this species and the associated habitat. Canada lynx will also be analyzed in detail with a slightly different approach. The EMDS model does not select for lynx habitat at this time so the best value to assess lynx habitat is the amount of understory structure in the cold/moist forest types. Lynx and snowshoe hares have a direct predator pray relationship and understory horizontal cover is the best measure of lynx habitat. Resource Indicator: Late Successional Old Forest The Northern Goshawk is a Region 6 Sensitive Species and a Focal Species for Late Successional Old Forests (LSOF) that is known to nest in the project area. LSOF makes up the core of Northern Goshawk (NG) habitat. For both Ecological Sub regions (ESR53 and 11) the Patch Density (PD) will be analyzed to compare it to the historic range of variability (HRV), which means that the habitat will be evaluated for distribution and fragmentation based on what was likely under historic conditions. The basis of effects analysis will be the amount of current PD compared to future PD, leading to habitat consolidated into larger patches to align with EMDS departures. The nesting season of the Northern Goshawk will be determined by a scientific literature review and local observations of the species on the Tonasket Ranger District. Resource Indicator: Facilitate Movement by At Least Two Different Directions (North, South, East, and West) The project area provides suitable conditions for species dispersal to facilitate connectivity north, south, east, and west. The proposed restoration activities would include removal of vegetation and reintroducing fire at the unit and landscape scale. The basis of effects analysis will be whether species listed in Table 3 can move across the landscape in a reasonable natural fashion considering their specific biological needs. Effects analysis will also consider the season and length of disturbance during project implementation, and whether adjacent undisturbed areas are available nearby. A University of Washington study by Wirsing and Dellinger Deer/Wolf interactions (Dellinger and Wirsing 2015) is looking at mule deer and white-tailed deer movements in and around the Bonaparte block. This study site is one of two control sites that does not currently have a resident wolf pack. With preliminary radio collar data, deer movements will be analyzed to see how deer are moving across this landscape over a 12 month period. Because the findings of this data have not been peer reviewed the data will only be used to verify current travel routes and presence to help effects determinations on deer related to habitat connectivity. 7

9 Based on the most current information and that mule deer is a region 6 MIS and sensitive species along with a focal species in WHCWG 2010 ((WHCWG) 2010) they will be the species analyzed in detail for habitat connectivity. Along with mule deer a separate analysis for connectivity will be conducted according to the regional forester (Appendix B- Eastside Screens). The associated connectivity map will be located in the project file. Type of Impacts for Wildlife Adverse Likely to result in unnatural changes in the abundance, diversity, and distribution of wildlife species. Changes could occur through direct disturbance or mortality, or through destruction or alteration of habitat. Beneficial Likely to protect and/or restore the natural abundance, diversity, and distribution of wildlife species. This would occur through protection and restoration of the natural structure, succession, and distribution of habitat. Duration of Impact for Wildlife Short term Immediate changes in the abundance, diversity, and distribution of wildlife, but a return to the original condition within 20 years, without further impacts. Long term Changes in the abundance, diversity, and distribution of wildlife that persist for more than 20 years. Intensity of Impact for Wildlife Table 4: Impact Intensities for Wildlife Resources Impact Intensity None Negligible Minor Moderate Major Threshold Definition No impact to wildlife resources Imperceptible or undetectable impacts. Slightly perceptible, and limited in extent. Without further impacts, adverse impacts would reverse and the resources would recover. Readily apparent, but limited in extent. Without further impacts, adverse impacts would eventually reverse and the resource would recover. Substantial, highly noticeable, and affecting a large area. Changes would not reverse without active management. Affected Environment The Light Restoration project area is located on the south and east side of a 50,000 acre area of land (Bonaparte block) managed by the Forest Service. The project area is comprised of dry savanna ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, boreal, and alpine forests. There are several major riparian corridors that provide habitat components suitable for a cluster of wildlife species. Bonaparte Lake itself is large enough to provide habitat for aquatic wildlife species such as beaver, muskrat, ducks, amphibians, and Common Loons. The lake also supports populations of several fish species therefore providing a food source for fish-eating wildlife like blue herons, ospreys, and bald eagles. The large diameter trees of a variety of 8

10 species, including those that require a riparian environment like aspen and cottonwood provide foraging, cover, and nesting structures for a variety of bird and mammal species. The Mt. Bonaparte Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) is 1 of 14 the Okanogan National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA-FS 1989) has identified. This 10,891 acre IRA is located on the western side of the project area and covers 268 acres within the project area. The majority of the boreal and all of the alpine forest types are located in the Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA). The IRA provides a variety of recreation opportunities, wildlife habitat, and large supplies of water. Past timber units were established within the IRA before the boundary was established. The Bonaparte Mountain area is outside the North Cascades Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone, considered peripheral lynx habitat, and outside the gray wolf federal listing zone in Washington. The project area would facilitate connectivity for two of the four large carnivores (lynx and gray wolf), addressed in Singleton et al The area has also been identified by the Washington Habitat Connectivity Working Group ((WHCWG) 2010) for modeled connectivity as an area to maintain connectivity for animal movement and ecological processes for 16 focal species. The species present in table 3 are not currently limited in movement according to Singleton et al. 2002, WHCWG 2010, and observations through field recon, surveys, and current academic studies (Dellinger and Wirsing 2015). Table 5: Resource Indicators and Measures for the Existing Condition Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Existing Condition Wildlife Disturbance to Disturbance due to Acres of habitat altered 0 acres TES and Focal, habitat loss. Percent Land (PL) ESR 53=14.4%, Species ESR 11= 3.5% Goshawk Habitat and Disturbance Habitat Connectivity Late Successional Old Forest Facilitate movement by at least 2 different directions (North, South, East, and West) Acres of habitat 603 Patch Density (PD) ESR 53= 97.8% ESR 11= 36.2% Yes/No Yes Resource Indicator: Disturbance Due to Habitat Loss The species in Table 3 that are present in the project area currently exist, as they have historically, throughout all seasons of the year. Through field observations the project areas current condition would facilitate normal life cycle processes. Recreation and typical public forest use is currently taking place and does not seem to be negatively effecting species during critical time periods. Generally winter travel in the area is restricted to snowmobiles on established roads and routes except Forest Roads , , and through private land. Wildlife are coexisting with winter recreation because there is an ample amount of 9

11 security habitat available. Snow-off recreation and public use includes, but is not limited to: woodcutting, hunting, hiking, fishing, camping, birding, use of recreation residences, use of organization camps, and motorized vehicle use. There has been no negative impact from these common public recreational uses during the snow-off season when nesting, foraging, and rearing offspring occurs. This is based on yearround field observations, species surveys, 2014 WDFW game reports, Audubon winter bird counts, and past project analyses. Past forest management activities have occurred over the entire project area. These activities include, but are not limited to: timber harvest, thinning, precommercial thinning, prescribed fire, wildfire, and firewood gathering. Across the project area stands are in various levels of stand structure and composition. See the Vegetation section for more specific details for existing stand conditions. Northern Goshawk is a Region 6 Sensitive Species and a Focal Species for Late Successional Old Forests (LSOF) that is known to nest in the project area. Historic nests are known but not active. Percent Land (PL) values for goshawk in ESR 53 are slightly above the HRV while ESR 11 is currently within HRV but on the low end of the spectrum. Lynx habitat on the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest has been mapped into 43 Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs). The proposed project is within the 44,135 acre Bonaparte LAU which is considered Peripheral habitat. The project area has suitable lynx habitat but lynx are not known to use the area. With the project area being considered peripheral, it is capable of supporting lynx movement and infrequent presence but not a resident or reproducing population. Currently there is approximately 768 acres of lynx habitat in the cold/moist forests in the project area. There are no current or historic records of lynx reproducing within the project area or in the larger Bonaparte area on National Forest Land. The Bonaparte Mountain area does support habitat and a forage base (snowshoe hare, red squirrel) if lynx were to move through the area but based on ILBT 2013 (USDA- FS and others 2013) this LAU would only be viable for infrequent lynx moving through on their way to other core areas. The focus of management is on providing a mosaic of forest structure to support snowshoe hare prey resources for individual lynx that infrequently may move through, or reside temporarily in, the area. Landscape connectivity should be maintained to allow for lynx movement and dispersal (USDA-FS and others 2013). Resource Indicator: Late Successional Old Forest Northern Goshawk is a focal species for LSOF in the Forest Restoration Strategy (USFS 2010). For the purpose of this analysis LSOF will be used to identify goshawk habitat. There are approximately 603 acres of LSOF habitat in the project area providing suitable nesting and foraging habitat for Northern Goshawks. For both ESRs the Patch Density (PD) is too high compared to HRV, which means that the habitat is too 10

12 widely distributed and highly fragmented than what was likely under historic conditions. Currently too many small patches of goshawk habitat are scattered across the landscape and the project area does not align with HRV. Strategies for reducing PD may include; promoting NG habitat conditions adjacent to existing large patches or near clusters of large patches of NG habitat; and reducing crown cover in isolated patches in hot dry sites that are currently providing habitat conditions but do not likely provide habitat conditions under the historical fire frequency. While there are no known active nest sites in the project area, there are historic records of Northern Goshawk presence and nesting in the project area, so it is presumed there are nests. Literature including Woodbridge and Hargis (Woodbridge and Hargis) and local district records indicate goshawks are very territorial and will defend a territory of approximately two square miles or 1,300 acres. Based on this, and the suitable habitat identified during field visits and EMDS modeling, there could be 2 to 4 territories within the project boundary and district records and field reconnaissance indicate there are likely no more than 3 territories within the area that is suited to management activities. A large portion of the analyzed watershed (Upper Bonaparte Creek) is within the Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) surrounding Bonaparte Mountain. Most past management has been deferred because of management restrictions. Since 1984, until 19889, approximately 2,600 acres have been impacted by roads and logging. This IRA has enough suitable habitat for up to 3 goshawks territories based on Woodbridge and Hargis ((Woodbridge and Hargis)2006). Resource Indicator: Facilitate Movement by At Least Two Different Directions (North, South, East, and West) The species in Table 3 that are present in the project area currently exist, as they have historically, throughout all seasons of the year. The project area is comprised of dry forest (6,095 acres), cold forest (2,000 acres), and non-forested (360 acres) habitat types. Movements by mule deer, according to field observations and Dellinger (unpublished), are occurring throughout the project area including stands harvested in the past 20 years. WHCWG 2010 shows this area currently has enough forest cover to support movements by mule deer. WHCWG 2010, Singleton et al. 2002, Dillinger and Wirsing ((WHCWG) 2010; Dellinger and Wirsing 2015; Singleton and others 2002), and personal observations have identified the entire project area as meeting requirements for movement as per the Forest Plan (USDA-FS 1995) Environmental Consequences Alternative 1 No Action 11

13 Except as indicated below, taking no action would result in a continuation of the existing condition as described in Affected Environment, above. Resource Indicator: Disturbance Due To Habitat Loss The project area would not receive any management in the form of timber harvest, pre commercial thinning, ladder fuel reduction, prescribed fire, changes to the road system, replacing culverts, moving snowmobile gates, replacing invasive plants with native species, etc. Existing Special Forest Products (firewood cutting) would likely continue with size restrictions that allow most large diameter snags to be available for nesting and foraging species. Loss of habitat and the less obvious phenomenon of habitat patch isolation are aspects of fragmentation that threaten the viability of wildlife populations, the components of biotic diversity (Lehmkuhl and Ruggiero 1991). Based on Lehmkuhl s science, having large trees and snags on the landscape is beneficial to wildlife. Under the No Action alternative, there would be no timber removed, allowing small trees to grow larger and large trees to slow their growth; becoming stressed due to overcrowding. This reduction of large trees and snags would not benefit wildlife. The current PL conditions for Goshawk and lynx would stay the same as the existing conditions above. Based on the Vegetation sections discussion on disease, the loss of habitat from current and future stand health by a No Action alternative would reduce the resiliency of all forest stands in the near and long term. This would be negative for analyzed wildlife species. The no action alternative increases the possibility of a large catastrophic fire on the landscape. Without active timber and fuels management over the project area, wildfire would have the potential to burn at unnatural rates and intensity. This would leave the project area and surrounding area void of quality wildlife habitat for many species in the foreseeable future. Based on recent fires in the last decade in the Okanogan region species such as Canada lynx may be negatively affected (Koehler and others 2008). Species such as Northern Goshawk would also be negativity affected by the loss of LSOF stands which provide the habitat they need for all critical life functions. Overall this alternative would have a minor negative impact on Goshawk in the mid to long term based on the foreseen stand health decline. Currently there are 4,996 acres that have above normal infestations of dwarf mistletoe; not likely to grow to the Late Successional stage that Goshawks prefer, limiting their ability to find suitable nesting and foraging habitat. There would be a neutral effect on lynx because the 10,891 acre Inventoried Roadless Area, where a large majority of the lynx habitat exists, would not see a change, nor would the 768 acres of habitat within the project boundary that classifies as lynx habitat. In North America, a high severity fire regime occurs in lynx habitat so it would be reasonable to project a stand replacing fire (Ruggiero and others 2000). 12

14 For roughly the last few decades, harvest data and population estimates for mule deer suggest a gradually declining population. This is likely a function of the reduced shrub diversity, declining productivity of aging shrubs (particularly bitterbrush and ceanothus), and the lack of recruitment of new shrubs under continued fire suppression regimes (WDFW 2013.). With No Action, this decline is expected to continue. Stands with patches of aspen would not be treated under this alternative. There are currently small scattered patches of aspen within the project area that would continue to show stress by conifer encroachment. Because there are only small aspen stands in the project area, this alternative would have a slight negative effect on the wildlife that use aspen. Resource Indicator: Late Successional Old Forest There are currently too many small patches of Northern Goshawk habitat scattered across the landscape and project area. With no management occurring, this would not improve the habitat and align it closer to the future range of variability. It would be difficult to tell how long term changes in untreated NG habitat would change Patch Density for NG habitat. Based on no action, the current scattered small patches of LSOF would persist and become less resilient. With climates becoming hotter and drier stands that have fewer resiliencies are more prone to disease and wildfire which could cause a loss of LSOF in the project area. Overall this alternative would have a minor negative effect on LSOF structure in the long term and lead to less large patches for goshawks in the future. Resource Indicator: Facilitate Movement by At Least Two Different Directions (North, South, East, and West) The project area would not receive any management in the form of thinning, prescribed fire, road decommissioning, Culvert right sizing, herbicide treatment, aspen enhancement, artificial nest platforms, and snowmobile gate placement. With no change from management activities, this area would continue to provide connectivity for mule deer specifically and for other wildlife in general. Overall with no management activities taking place this project area would see a decline in stand health and resiliency. Poor stand health would stress trees that provide the connectivity that mule deer and other wildlife prefer. Stress would lead to stands becoming susceptible to fire and diseases that could cause a decrease in this area s effectiveness as a connective route for mule deer to other habitats across the landscape. 13

15 Alternative 2 Proposed Action Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures Table 6: Project Design Features Number Design Feature Why Necessary 68 Dead trees (snags) cut for safety Provide snag purposes would be left in place near the habitat as per stump or returned to the stump Forest Plan S&G 6-5, 6-6, 6-7 for primary excavator bird populations 69 No mechanical harvest between March 1-August 15. Limited Operating Period (LOP) may be lifted by wildlife biologist if surveys indicated that stands are not being used for nesting (units 4-7, 15, 16, 24, 64, 71, 75, 77, Install up to 12 great grey owl nesting platforms, as needed, to improve nesting availability in forests near open meadows (see Appendix A for a nesting platform diagram) 71 No mechanical harvest within 500 feet of Bonaparte Lake between April 1st through August 31th (Limited Operating Period (LOP)). LOP may be lifted by the wildlife biologist or the signing official if surveys indicate that the loon nesting pair was unsuccessful after June 30th). General raptor nesting. Historic Goshawk nest areas and potential nesting habitat. Provide long term artificial nesting structure. Loon nesting period for Bonaparte Lake Efficacy High (Decade analysis 2014) High (Forest Plan S&G 6-8 and 6-10), (Washington State Priority Habitat Species recommendations) High (Bull and Henjum 1990) High (Forest Plan S&G 6-8 and 6-19) and Washington State Priority Habitat Species(PHS) Consequence of Not Applying Reduce nesting and foraging. Not in compliance with Forest Plan S&Gs Potential disturbance to pair bonding leading to avoidance and loss of nesting opportunity. Potential nest destruction. Reduced nesting structure availability after vegetation treatments. Potential disturbance to nesting Loon pair. Not in compliance with Forest Plan S&Gs and Washington State PHS Effects Project activities not included in the discussions below include road maintenance level changes, rehabilitating non-system roads, decommissioning roads, replacing culverts and moving a snowmobile gate. These activities would have a neutral to beneficial effect on the wildlife resources. Table 7: Resource Indicators and Measures for Alternative 2 Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Alternative 2 Wildlife Disturbance to TES and Focal, Species Goshawk Habitat and Disturbance Disturbance due to habitat alteration Late Successional Old Forest. Acres of habitat altered 6,491 Percent Land ESR % ESR % Acres of habitat 603 Patch density ESR ESR

16 Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Alternative 2 Habitat Connectivity Facilitate movement by at least 2 different directions (North, South, East, and West) Yes/No Resource Indicator: Disturbance Due To Habitat Loss Loss of habitat and the less obvious phenomenon of habitat patch isolation are aspects of fragmentation that threaten the viability of wildlife populations, the components of biotic diversity (Lehmkuhl and Ruggiero 1991). Based on Lehmkuhl s science, having large trees and snags on the landscape is beneficial to wildlife; making this alternative beneficial because there would be an effort to remove overcrowded timber stands that are currently showing signs of stress and high disease infestations. Although there would be a short-term reduction of canopy and horizontal cover across the project area, the long-term outcome would make the stands more resilient. Select timber removal would allow small trees to grow large and large trees to grow larger while providing long term habitat health and productivity. Based on the Vegetation section, there would be 1,007 acres of harvest treatments within the late successional old forest structure. The stand structure will be thinned from below to keep a mosaic of larger trees in each stand to promote resiliency from disease and wildfire. See the timber section for specific prescriptions in each unit. Overall, prescriptions will focus on promoting healthy medium and large trees. This would benefit wildlife species by making stands healthier to withstand current and future disease outbreaks and catastrophic fires while promoting higher quantity and quality forage for wildlife. With the proposed timber management and prescribed fire treatments, the possibility for a large catastrophic fire on the landscape would be reduced. Active timber and fuels management throughout the project area would allow fire to burn at natural rates and intensity, leaving the vegetation and soil highly productive into the future. This would open up the canopy and promote re-growth of grasses and forbs. Based on recent prescribed fires in the last decade on the Tonasket Ranger District, species such as Goshawk, Great Gray owls, and Canada lynx are not negatively affected. This is confirmed by field observations of Goshawks and Great Gray owls foraging in recent prescribed burns and nesting in dead, fire-killed snags. Canada lynx habitat has not generally seen much prescribed fire because the prescribed fire program is focused on lower elevation dry forests. Under the Okanogan National Forest Invasive Environmental Assessments (USDA-FS 2000) and Regional Invasive Environmental Impact Statement (USDA-FS 2005) effects to wildlife have been analyzed. Effects ranged from No Impact to May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect. The proposed herbicide treatments in the action alternatives would have the similar affect to wildlife addressed in the Forest EA and Regional EIS. In addition, the planned treatments would benefit wildlife species by reducing the invasive grasses Yes 15

17 that are currently present and allowing for native grasses and forbs species to grow. This treatment would align with the rest of the restoration projects and bring this area closer to HRV. 128 acres of small scattered aspen stands would be treated under this alternative. These small scattered patches of aspen would benefit from conifer removal and encroachment. Removal of conifers by thinning and prescribed fire would allow these patches to enlarge and re-sprout, having a slight positive effect on the wildlife that use these aspen stands. Northern Goshawk Species such as Northern Goshawk typically nest in LSOF stands with >50% canopy cover (Reynolds et all 1983 and Finn 1994) with multiple canopy layers. This alternative would results in reducing PL, bringing it above HRV by 0.2% in ESR 53 and within HRV (2.5%) ESR 11. Prescribed fire would generally reduce the understory layer in the short term in a patchy distribution while regenerating new growth of grasses and shrubs. Fire would be allowed at low intensities in NG stands with no active lighting within these stands. This would promote a mosaic of thick multi-layered and single story patches of LSOF favorable for nesting and foraging habitat. For Northern Goshawk, Alternative 2 would have a May Impact Individuals or Habitat, not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability Based on the PL for NG this alternative would move NG closer to its HRV in ESR 53 while remaining within HRV for ESR 11. There would be a minor temporary disturbance to wildlife species in general including NG dispersing them to other areas adjacent to the active units based on the foreseen human presence with mechanical equipment and fire. There are areas with similar habitat types in all directions for dispersal while management activities are ongoing. This would be short-term in nature and duration and there are no potential long-term negative impacts to wildlife species listed in Table 3. The overall effect to NG due to habitat loss is minor. Prescriptions would reduce tree densities, bio mass levels, and cover percentages but would not convert the habitat to an unsuitable state for NG. Stand health, forage productivity, and resiliency to processes such as climate change and fire would increase in the long term, having a minor beneficial impact on these specialist species. This alternative would have a beneficial impact on Goshawk in the mid to long term based on the current stand health decline of 4996 acres heavily infested with mistletoe acres that have above normal infestations of dwarf mistletoe would be treated by thinning and prescribed fire. This would likely increase the health of these acres to reach the Late Successional stage that Goshawks prefer, increasing their ability to find suitable nesting and foraging habitat in the future. Canada Lynx As a peripheral Lynx Analysis Unit (LAU) it is recommended that this area maintain a mosaic of lynx habitat, in varying successional stages, distributed across the LAU in a landscape pattern that is consistent 16

18 with historical disturbance processes (USDA-FS and others 2013). The lower elevations of the project area are dry mix conifer forests that do not provide quality lynx habitat. Within the dry forest type, understory structure will be treated with thinning, and prescribed fire. This alternative would not eliminate lynx habitat but would reduce the horizontal cover in dry forest areas where it was historically never present at its current level. Based on a habitat model in the cold/moist forest types, the proposed harvest and prescribed fire would reduce the understory structure on 487 acres. This reduction of understory structure within lynx habitat would be minor on the larger 44,000 acre LAU scale. No lynx are present within the area and the likelihood is small that lynx will use the area. Improving the lower elevation dry forests and 487 acres of cold/most habitat for the long term would benefit lynx more than this short term reduction of habitat. Alternative 2 would have a May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect on lynx. All three alternatives would not negatively affect Canadian lynx in the analysis area and therefore, would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Okanogan NF for Canadian lynx. Mule Deer Mule deer are the management indicator species for winter range. The proposed restoration activities would result in a reduction of quantity winter range habitat in the short term but increase the quality and quantity of winter range forage and habitat in the long term. Deer cover would likely fall below forest plan standards similar to all other restoration projects on the Tonasket District over the past decade. Previously, the retention or creation of winter thermal cover was deemed the most important habitat variable for winter survival of deer and elk. However, studies have shown that thermal cover is not as critical as other factors such as forage quality and quantity, and human disturbance (J.G. Cook and others 1998; J.G.Quinlin Cook, L.J. and others 1996). Lehmkuhl et al showed that dry forest restoration management to reduce fuel loads and restore resiliency to disturbance likely will increase forage for ungulates, especially in closed-canopy true fir and Douglas-fir stands. Therefore deer that have access to a high abundance of quality forage during spring and summer likely have enough fat reserves to survive winter months. WDFW 2013 reports show a gradual long-term decline in mule deer numbers. This decline is expected to continue unless steps are taken to revitalize shrub growth on the winter range. Fire, community planning, and habitat protection will likely be the most important tools in this effort (WDFW 2013.). In conclusion deer cover will decline due to timber harvest and prescribed fire while high quality deer forage will increase in the analysis area and move towards WDFW s deer habitat recommendations to meet the biological needs of mule deer. The alternatives would have a May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect on Mule Deer based on winter range habitat alterations. It would not affect the size or health of mule deer populations. 17

19 Resource Indicator: Late Successional Old Forest The effect of the proposed vegetation management in Alternative Two would be an overall reduction, in the short term, in northern goshawk habitat for both ESRs. Most of that reduction would take place in the lower elevations of dry forest, where ponderosa pine is common and multiple canopy levels and thick canopy cover is not sustainable under normal fire frequency. This reduction in outlying patches, together with the mid-term growth of patches adjacent to existing Northern Goshawk habitat, would result in a consolidation of NG habitat, thus decreasing the Patch Density in ESR 53 and ESR 11, bringing this metric into HRV. Thinning and sanitation within non-ng habitat would decrease the potential for wildfire to enter remaining NG habitat and decrease the potential for bark beetle populations to increase beyond endemic levels, thus potentially extending the time that these patches remain in NG habitat status Consolidating patches and making larger patches would improve the habitat and align it closer to the future range of variability. Strategies for reducing PD may include; promoting NG habitat conditions adjacent to existing large patches or near clusters of large patches of NG habitat; and reducing crown cover in isolated patches in hot dry sites that are currently providing habitat conditions but do not likely provide habitat conditions under the historical fire frequency. Based on this action alternative the current scattered small patches of NG habitat would be consolidated into two larger managed patches (territory) in the Henderson Creek area and north of Bonaparte Lake. There would be an unmanaged territory in the Lightning/Petti John creek area within the IRA that would connect the two managed territories. With climates becoming hotter and drier these stands would have more resiliency and be better adapted to survive disturbances such as disease and wildfire which could cause a dramatic loss of LSOF in the project area. Overall this alternative would have a moderate positive effect on PD in the mid and long term by creating large patches of goshawk habitat. Resource Indicator: Facilitate Movement by At Least Two Different Directions (North, South, East, and West) With the proposed prescriptions, this area would see a moderate change to forest cover and composition. The 4,004 acres of timber harvest would be scattered across the entire project area, leaving important features (riparian areas, saddles, and ridgetops) with adequate cover. These features are important to wildlife and Mule deer ((WHCWG) 2010; Singleton and others 2002), therefore maintaining suitable connectivity across the project and area and watershed. Mule deer are generalist and can adapt to habitat type disturbances as long as forest land is not converted to non-forest land. For instance this project would be a man-made short-term disturbance whereas climate change would be a natural long-term disturbance. As a generalist species, mule deer can more easily disperse to new locations, occupy habitats that are likely to be more resilient to climate change (Raymond and others 2014). EMDS outcomes indicated whether stands were within adequate ranges to adapt to disturbances such as climate change. This alternative would help to improve stand resiliency by 18

20 using thinning and/or prescribed fire to move stands more in line with HRV. The thinning and prescribed fire treatments would have a neutral impact to current population of mule deer by providing continued connectivity across the landscape. The small amount of new fence proposed in the action alternatives will have no effect on wildlife. Range fencing is common throughout the National Forest land in this project area and surrounding areas. Standards for fencing specifications are covered in all Range NEPA documents that are currently signed. These fence specifications allow for safe wildlife movement over, under, or through. Fencing hazards to wildlife in general are minor and unmeasurable if maintenance occurs on a yearly basis. Alternative 3 Alternative Three would implement most of the proposed action except that there would be no vegetation management above the northern segment of the road. Project activities not included in the discussions below include road maintenance level changes, rehabilitating non-system roads, decommissioning roads, replacing culverts and moving a snowmobile gate. These activities would have a neutral to beneficial effect on the wildlife resources. Table 8: Resource Indicators and Measures for Alternative 3 Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Alternative 3 Wildlife Disturbance Disturbance due to Acres of habitat altered 6,137 to TES and Focal, Species habitat loss Percent Land ESR % ESR % Goshawk Habitat and Disturbance Habitat Connectivity Late Successional Old Forest. Facilitate movement by at least 2 different directions (North, South, East, and West) Acres of habitat 603 Patch Density ESR ESR Yes/No Resource Indicator: Disturbance due to habitat loss. Timber harvest and/or fuel treatments would take place on 6,136 acres within the project area. 6,137 acres of prescribed fire in the form of under burning and pile burning would also take place. There would be 3,808 acres of harvest treatments, with 892 of those acres being within the late successional old forest Structure. The stand structure would be thinned from below to keep a mosaic of larger trees in each stand to promote resiliency from disease and wildfire. Yes 19

21 Northern Goshawk Based on the percent landscape for northern goshawk, this alternate would move NG closer to its HRV in ESR 53 while remaining within HRV for ESR 11. This alternative would reduce PL bringing it above HRV by 6% ESR 53. PL in ESR 11 would remain the same as Alternative 2 (2.5 % still within HRV). For Northern Goshawk, this alternative would have a May Impact Individuals or Habitat, not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability Under Alternative 3, thinning and prescribed burning would occur on 3969 acres of heavily infested mistletoe stands which would have a slightly less beneficial impact on Goshawk than Alternative 2, in the mid to long term. This would likely increase the health of these acres to reach the Late Successional stage that Goshawks prefer, increasing their ability to find suitable nesting and foraging habitat in the future. Canada Lynx This alternative would not eliminate lynx habitat (similar to Alternative 2) but would reduce the horizontal cover in areas where it was historically never present at its current levels. Based on a habitat model in the cold/moist forest types the thinning and prescribed fire would reduce the understory structure on 329 acres. This reduction of understory structure within lynx habitat would be minor and unmeasurable on the larger 44,000 acre LAU scale. The overall effect to NG and lynx due to habitat loss is minor. Alternative 3 would have a May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect on lynx. All three alternatives would not negatively affect Canadian lynx in the analysis area and therefore, would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Okanogan NF for Canadian lynx. Mule Deer Mule deer are the management indicator species for winter range. The proposed restoration activities would result in a reduction of quantity winter range habitat in the short term but increase the quality and quantity of winter range forage and habitat in the long term. Deer cover would likely fall below forest plan standards similar to all other restoration projects on the Tonasket District over the past decade. Deer cover would decline due to timber harvest and prescribed fire while high quality deer forage would increase in the analysis area and move towards WDFW s deer habitat recommendations to meet the biological needs of mule deer. Alternative 3 would have a May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect on mule deer based on winter range habitat alterations. It would not affect the size or health of mule deer populations. This Alternative would treat the same 128 acres of small scattered aspen stands as Alternative 2 and have the same beneficial effects to wildlife. 20

22 Resource Indicator: Late Successional Old Forest This action alternative would treat 354 acres less than alternative two; all to the west of the road within the IRA. The 603 acres of LSOF habitat in the project area provides suitable nesting and foraging habitat for Northern Goshawks. The effect of the proposed vegetation management in Alternative three would be an overall reduction, in the short term, in northern goshawk habitat for both ESRs. This reduction in outlying patches, together with the midterm growth of patches adjacent to existing NG, would result in a consolidation of NG habitat thus decreasing the Patch Density in ESR 53 and ESR 11, bringing these metrics into HRV. Overall this alternative would have a small difference in acres treated and would have the same moderate positive effect on PD in the mid- and long-term by creating large patches of goshawk habitat. Resource Indicator: Facilitate movement by at least 2 different directions (North, South, East, and West) This alternative would implement most of Alternative two except for any land above the northern segment of the road where the IRA is present. There would be 3,808 acres of timber harvest, 2,328 acres of fuels reduction and thinning not associated with timber units, and 6,137 acres of prescribed fire in the form of under burns and pile burns. Movements by mule deer would not change from what is addressed in alternative two. The small 354 acre difference between the two alternatives is unmeasurable with regards to connectivity. Maintaining suitable connectivity across the project and area and watershed would still be achievable in this alternative. The timber and prescribed fire treatments would have a beneficial impact to current populations of mule deer by providing connectivity across the landscape and increasing forage production. As with Alternative 2, the small amount of new fence proposed will have no effect on wildlife. Cumulative Effects for Both Action Alternatives Because the activities in Alternatives 2 and 3 are the same and similar in size (355 acre difference within the IRA), the cumulative effects section will cover both action alternatives. Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis Typically, this block of NFS lands or the HUC 10 watershed (Bonaparte Creek-Okanogan River, ) where this project is located were used for cumulative effects. The State and private lands adjacent to the National Forest were considered. Again, the habits of the individual species determined the size of the area used for cumulative effects analysis for that species. The analyses for lynx and grizzly bears included the appropriate management unit boundaries for those species. 21

23 All reasonably foreseeable projects that may occur within the next decade were included, although additional projects may arise in the future. This project, when considered cumulatively with the other projects, would not hinder the recovery goals for Canada lynx or grizzly bears within their respective management areas. This project, when considered cumulatively, would not result in a trend towards federal listing for the sensitive species analyzed in this document. Cumulative effects of this project would not contribute to a negative trend in viability for MIS species. Cumulative effect on Species of interest, and Migratory Birds would also be minor. Refer to tables below for cumulative effects to the resource indicators of associated species analyzed in detail. Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis Actions that were considered to have a potential cumulative effect include: timber sales; grazing; noxious weed management; and recreation. The list of present and reasonably foreseeable future activities developed by the interdisciplinary team was also considered but unlikely to have cumulative effects for the wildlife resource. Table 9: Resource Indicators and Measures for Cumulative Effects Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Alternatives 2 & 3 Wildlife Disturbance to TES and Focal Species Goshawk Habitat and Disturbance Habitat Connectivity Disturbance due to habitat loss Late Successional Old Forest (LSOF) Facilitate movement by at least 2 different directions (North, South, East and West) Past, Present, and Future Actions Acres of habitat altered 6, ,491 Percent Land ESR % % ESR % 0 2.5% Acres of habitat Patch Density ESR ESR Yes/No Yes Yes Yes Cumulative Impacts 22

24 Resource Indicator: Disturbance Due to Habitat Loss Table 10: Cumulative Effects for Disturbance Due to Habitat Loss Project Annie Restoration Project, DNR Forest Improvement Treatments Ongoing Recreation Activities (recreationalist, woodcutting, hiking, snowmobiling, ATV s, Hunting, and fishing) Grazing, noxious weed management Overlap In Time Space Measurable Cumulative Effect? Resource Indicator: Late Successional Old Forests Extent, Detectable? Yes No No There would be minor displacement in the short term. In the long term if trees are left to grow to a mature and old stage, Goshawks and lynx would have a moderate benefit from the Light project and other Forest Service projects within the watershed. On other lands, overall forest composition would not change to a degree where Goshawk and lynx habitat would be eliminated if present. Yes Yes No The cumulative effect of disturbance to Goshawks would be minor in the form of short term disturbance and are within the interim direction for management outlined in Appendix B (Eastside Screens) and the Forest Restoration Strategy. The cumulative effect to lynx would be negligible because of the rare possibility of a lynx being present. Plus the 10,891 acres Inventory Roadless area holds the majority of the lynx habitat in the Bonaparte mountain area and only 268 acres has proposed treatments, none of which would move the stands to an unsuitable condition for lynx. Based on the current analysis for special forest products there are minimal disturbance effects to wildlife due to habitat loss because fire wood cutting is scattered over the entire forest and limitations are placed on these activities to limit disturbance. Size restrictions for firewood allow most large diameter snags and trees to be available for nesting and foraging species. Yes Yes No Grazing, and noxious weed management will occur on all ownerships to varying degrees. Grazing has been a part of the landscape for the last decade to varying amounts. Goshawk and lynx would not see major cumulative effect from fire or grazing. Table 11: Cumulative Effects Late Successional Old Forest Project Annie Restoration Project, DNR Forest Improvement Treatments Overlap In Time Space Measurable Cumulative Effect? Extent, Detectable? Yes No No In the long term, LSOF would have a moderate benefit from the Light project and on other Forest Service projects within the watershed. On other lands, overall forest composition would not change to a degree where Goshawk habitat would be eliminated if present. 23

25 Project Ongoing Recreation Activities (recreationalist, woodcutting, hiking, snowmobiling, ATV s, Hunting, and fishing) Grazing, noxious weed management Overlap In Time Space Measurable Cumulative Effect? Extent, Detectable? Yes Yes No Ongoing recreational activities would not lead to a loss of LSOF. Firewood regulations are present on both State and Federal lands to protect large diameter snags and trees. The cumulative effects of the loss of unique nesting habitat would be minor. Yes Yes No Grazing has been a part of the landscape for the last decade to varying amounts. Cumulative effects of grazing and weed management would not be measurable within the watershed. Resource Indicator: Facilitate movement by At Least Two Different Directions (North, South, East, and West) Table 12: Cumulative Effects for Connectivity Project Annie Restoration Project, DNR Forest Improvement Treatments Ongoing Recreation Activities (recreationalist, woodcutting, hiking, snowmobiling, ATV s, Hunting, and fishing) Grazing and noxious weed management Overlap In Time Space Measurable Cumulative Effect? Extent, Detectable? Yes Yes No Because mule deer are generalist and will adapted to varying cover amounts while moving from one place to another the Light project and other Forest Service projects within the watershed would not add to a measurable cumulative effect. On other lands, overall forest composition would not change to a degree where mule deer would be hindered from movement across the landscape. Yes Yes No Ongoing recreational activities would not lead to a loss of connectivity. Recreation has been a part of this watershed for decades and species have adapted. There is suitable habitat in all directions from the project area throughout the watershed that would facilitate some level of connectivity. The cumulative effect of the ongoing recreational activities would be minor. Yes Yes No Grazing and weed management would not have a measurable cumulative effect on habitat connectivity effect. Other Relevant Mandatory Disclosures Compliance with LRMP and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans Action Alternatives 2 and 3 would be compliant with: 24

26 Okanogan Forest Plan and management indicator species (MIS) direction because they have only minor disturbance effects on any of the MIS and therefore do not reduce population viability for any of them. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order direction because they have no long term negative effects on migratory landbirds. FSM 2670 and the Endangered Species Act direction because they have a may affect, not likely to adversely affect (grizzly bear and Canada lynx) and that determination has been consulted on and concurred with by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. FSM 2670 direction for sensitive species because they have no negative impact on any of the sensitive species listed for Region 6. Summary Alternative 1 (No action) would have a May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect to all wildlife species or habitats in the project area. Alternatives 2 and 3 would have the potential to disturb species as indicated above with the project activities and added human presence. Alternatives 2 and 3 May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect to wildlife species indicated in table 3 above. Degree to Which the Purpose and Need for Action is Met Table 13: Summary comparison of how the alternatives address the Purpose and Need Purpose and Need Indicator/Measure Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Maintain and Promote Wildlife Habitat Disturbance due to habitat loss (Acres and Percent Land) Late Successional Old Forest (Acres and Patch Density) Facilitate Movement by at least 2 different directions (North, South, East and West) 0 acres 6,491 acres 6,137 acres ESR % ESR11 3.5% ESR % ESR11 2.5% ESR % ESR11 2.5% 603 acres 603 acres 603 acres ESR % ESR % ESR % ESR % ESR % ESR % Yes Yes Yes Other Agencies and Individuals Consulted US Fish & Wildlife Service will be consulted for a may affect, not likely to adversely affect determination for grizzly bear and Canada lynx. 25

27 References Cited (WHCWG), W.W.H.C.W.G Washington Connected Landscapes Project: Statewide Analysis. Olympia, WA.: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife & Washington Department of Transportation. Cook, J.G.; Irwin, L.L.; Bryant, L.D. [and others] Relations of forest cover and condition of elk: a test of the thermal cover hypothesis in summer and winter. Wildlife Monograph. 141 Cook, J.G.Q., L.J.; Irwin, L.L.; Bryant, L.D. [and others] Nutrition-growth relations of elk calves during late summer and fall. Journal of Wildlife Management. 60 Dellinger, J.A.; Wirsing, A Washington Wolf-Deer Project. School of Environmental and Forest Sciences.: University of Washington. Koehler, G.M.; Maletzke, B.T.; Von Kienast, J.A. [and others] Habitat fragmentation and the persistence of lynx population in Washington State. Journal of Wildlife Management. 72 Lehmkuhl, J.F.; Ruggiero, L.F Forest fragmentation in the Pacific Northwest and its potential effects on wildlife. In: Ruggiero, L.F. editor. Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir forests. Portland, OR: USDA-Forest Service. Raymond, C.L.; Peterson, D.L.; Rochefort, R.M Climate change vulnerability and adaptation in the North Cascades region, Washington. Portland, OR: 279 p. Ruggiero, L.F.; Aubry, K.B.; Busjirk, S.W. [and others] Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, CO: University Press of Colorado, Boulder, CO. 480 p. Singleton, P.H.; Gaines, W.L.; Lehmkuhl, J.F Landscape permeability for large carnivores in Washington: a geographic information system weighted-distance and least-cost corridor assessment. Usda Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station Research Paper.(549):

28 USDA; USFWS Memorandum of Understanding Between the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds.: USDA-FS. USDA-FS Land and Resource Management Plan. Okanogan National Forest. Okanogan, WA: Forest Service. 196 p. USDA-FS The Merge: Northwest Forest Plan and Okanogan National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Merger. USDA-FS Okanogan National Forest integrated weed management environmental assessment. USDA-FS Pacific northwest region invasive plant program, preventing and managing invasive plants. Final environmental impact statement. USDA-FS Status of management indicator species on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests, April Unpublished paper. 78 p. USDA-FS; Service, U.-F.a.W.; Management, U.-B.o.L.; Service, U.-N.P Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy, 3rd Edition. WDFW Game status and trend report. Wildlife program. Olympia, Washington.: Washinton Department of Fish and Wildlife. Woodbridge, B.; Hargis, C.D. Northern goshawk inventory and monitoring technical guide. Washington, D.C.: USDA-FS. 80 p. 27

29 Appendix A: Nest Platform Diagram 28