Wildlife Resources Report

Transcription

1 Wildlife Resources Report Butte Mountain Late Successional Reserve Habitat Restoration Project Goosenest Ranger District, Klamath National Forest Prepared by: Karen West, Wildlife Biologist, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service April 20, 2012 Updated: September 9, 2013 by: David Topolewski, Wildlife Biologist, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service

2 Table of Contents Executive Summary... 1 Wildlife Resource Report Overview Proposed Action and Alternatives Part 1: Analysis for Wildlife-Related Issues Raised During Scoping Affected environment Analysis Area Data and Analysis Methodology Direct and Indirect Effects of Treatments Tree Species Composition and Volume per Acre by Species: Part 2: Summary of the Wildlife Biological Evaluation Analysis Indicators and Analysis Area Environmental Effects: American Marten, Pallid Bat, Fringed Myotis and Northern Goshawk Part 3: Summary of the Management Indicator Species Report Analysis Indicators and Analysis Area Environmental Effects: Management Indicator Species Part 4: Effects of Project Alternatives on Federally Threatened or Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat Environmental Effects: Gray Wolf, Fairy Shrimp, Shortnose Sucker, or Lost River Sucker Environmental Effects: NSO and NSO Critical Habitat Part 5: Compliance with terrestrial wildlife Survey and Manage standards and guidelines Part 6: Project Compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act Literature Cited... 46

3 List of Tables Table S- 1: Federally-listed, Forest Service Sensitive, and Survey and Manage Species in or adjacent to the project area based on known occurrences... 2 Table S- 2: Comparison of effects from ground-based aspen enhancement Table S- 3: Summary of Effects to Federally-listed T&E, NSO Critical Habitat, Forest Service Sensitive, and Survey and Manage Species for all action alternatives Table 1: Forest vegetation simulator outputs for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 (no difference in outputs) Table 2: Effects determinations for all sensitive species Table 3: Comparison of effects from ground-based aspen enhancement Table 4: Existing habitat condition and effects to northern spotted owl cores and home ranges as a result of ground-based aspen enhancement treatments Table 5: Summary of effects to suitable northern spotted owl habitat in CA Table 6: KNF species of management concern per section D of the MOU... 43

4 Executive Summary Analysis Indicators and Methodology Analysis indicators of effects on species and habitat for all wildlife species within or adjacent to the Butte Mountain project area that are federally-listed, Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive species, Survey and Manage species, or Management Indicator Species (MIS) are quantified by acres affected and type of impact. For species that are federally listed as threatened or endangered, or proposed for listing, effects to species are disclosed here in summary and in detail in the Wildlife Biological Assessment (BA). Of the federally-listed species, only the northern spotted owl (NSO) is analyzed in detail because the other listed or proposed species do not occur or there is no habitat for them within project area. Indicators used for NSO effects analysis are effects to Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) of Critical Habitat, suitable habitat removed in NSO nest cores (0.5-mile radius) and home ranges (1.3-mile radius), and acres of degraded, downgraded, or removed suitable habitat PCEs. Effects to suitable habitat for Sensitive species, Survey and Manage species, and MIS are also analyzed. Additional information on Sensitive species is provided in the Wildlife Biological Evaluation (BE), Survey and Manage species in the body of this Wildlife resource report, and MIS are analyzed in the MIS Report, Parts I and II, all of which are available on the project website. Methodology used for this analysis is provided in detail in these reports. Spatial and Temporal Context The spatial analysis area varies by species and reflects the area within which the species could be directly and indirectly affected by action in the project area. For the NSO and goshawk, the analysis area consists of the treatment areas plus a distance representing a median home range (1.3 miles around NSO activity centers, 1.0 miles around goshawk nests). For other species, the analysis area is either the project area (marten, western bumble bee, pallid bat and fringed myotis) or a smaller area on which treatment is proposed in which direct effects to the species or habitat may occur. More information on the location of the analysis area for each species is provided in the BA, BE, the body of this Wildlife resource report, and the MIS report. Temporary bounding for the analysis is both short-term and long-term. Short-term consists of the time required for project implementation and the time in which vegetation begins to respond to treatments (usually within ten years of project implementation). Long-term extends to approximately 50 years following project implementation. Affected Environment The analysis area for NSO overlaps significantly with subunit 2 of the East Cascades South (ECS) unit of designated NSO Critical Habitat (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2012) and is within the Goosenest Late Successional Reserve (LSR). East Cascades South extends from the southern Oregon cascades region into California and is 368,380 acres. Subunit 2 (ECS 2) is 66,086 acres. A portion of ECS 2 is located in Oregon (approximately 20,754 acres). Critical habitat for the NSO in the analysis area excludes private lands, large meadow systems, and elevations greater than 6,800. The higher elevation White fir (WF) and Shasta red fir (SRF) communities that make up most of the project area portion of the Critical Habitat Unit (CHU) provide lower quality habitat for NSO than lower elevation mixed conifer communities. Douglas-fir (DF) sugar pine (SP) and ponderosa pine (PP) trees are valuable to many Page 1 of 49

5 wildlife species, including the NSO. Mistletoe-infected DF trees provide the preferred nesting opportunities (mistletoe brooms) for NSO in the area. Both SP and PP are important due to their large seed crops for small mammals (prey) and because of their ability to form large, decadent snags that may be used for nesting by NSOs or NSO prey items. On the Goosenest, NSOs occupy stands characterized as low quality due to the dry east cascades climate, gentle slopes, and fragmentation from past forest harvest including checkerboard ownership with private industrial timberlands. In addition, most of the nine productive NSO home ranges that are within or overlap the project area are located between the lower elevation mixed conifer and high elevation true fir zone. The high elevation zone isn t considered optimal nesting habitat due to harsh and long winter conditions that limit foraging opportunities into the heart of the breeding season. Spotted owl use declines above 6,000 when not associated with streams or mixed conifer trees. Habitat is considered low quality above 6,500 due to the deep snowpack through the early breeding season. Based on more than 20 years of survey history, and telemetry data from , it is known that NSOs make marginal use of areas higher than 6,500 in elevation. Barred owls, recognized as a substantial threat to the recovery of the NSO (USDI FWS 2011), have been frequently detected during surveys of the project area, especially in the SRF stands along the top of Butte Mountain and the ridge to the south. The project area supports several active barred owl territories. The structural and vegetation heterogeneity that was produced with historic fire is an important element in suitable NSO habitat that has been reduced by fire exclusion. More information regarding the effects of fire exclusion is provided in the Fire and Fuels resource report and Vegetation resource report, available on the project website. The Goosenest LSR Assessment (summarized and referenced here and in the BA) provides additional information about the wildlife habitat within the Goosenest LSR. The NSO, Forest Service sensitive species, and Survey and Manage species for which suitable habitat is found within or adjacent to the project area are listed in Table S-1. Table S-1: Federally-listed, Forest Service Sensitive, and Survey and Manage Species in or adjacent to the project area based on known occurrences Species Status Known to Occur in Analysis Area? General Habitat Description Northern spotted owl Federally-listed as Threatened Nine 1.3-mile radius NSO home ranges overlap Project Area of which seven 0.5-mile radius nest cores are in the Project Area designated Critical Habitat is within Project Area. Nests in complex forested habitats with multi-layered canopies, large overstory trees, snags, and downed wood. NSO show minimal use in elevations >6,500. Habitat above this elevation is marginal for NSO. Northern goshawk Forest Service Sensitive Five 1.0-mile home range overlap Project Area of which three 0.5-mile radius nest cores are in Project Area. Nests in dense, mature and late successional conifer forests. American marten Forest Service Sensitive A few historic (>20 years old) sightings outside the project boundary. High-elevation true fir stands; use large logs, snags and live trees for denning/resting. Pallid Bat Forest Service Sensitive No known locations, but occurrence is likely based on available snag habitat and Utilizes a variety of arid or wooded habitats often in association with caves for roosting; will use caves, large trees, mines, buildings and bridges for Page 2 of 49

6 Species Status Known to Occur in Analysis Area? geological feature Hole in the Ground. General Habitat Description roosting. Fringed myotis Forest Service Sensitive No known locations, but occurrence is likely based on available snag habitat and geological feature Hole in the Ground. Utilizes a variety of arid or wooded habitats often in association with caves for roosting; will use caves, large trees, mines, buildings and bridges for roosting. Western bumble bee Forest Service Sensitive Occurrence is likely in the project area based on the presence of suitable habitat. The species is associated with meadows and openings in forested areas. Habitat includes flowering plants for foraging and rodent burrows for nesting. Siskiyou Sideband Mollusk Survey and Manage One known location in Project Area. The species is associated with forested and open talus or rocky areas. Vegetation types include dry conifer and mixed conifer/hardwood forest communities as well as oak communities. The only terrestrial MIS for which habitat is found within the project area are snag-associated species. The analysis of aquatic MIS is addressed in the Fisheries BE, available on the project website. Environmental Effects: NSO and NSO Critical Habitat Alternative 1 Direct and Indirect Effects There are no direct effects to the NSO or to NSO critical habitat with Alternative 1. If no action is taken, stands will continue on their current trend. With no treatment, there is a low likelihood that the 129 acres of older plantations will provide suitable NSO habitat in the long-term. Failed plantations below 6,500 will continue to be dominated by off-site Jeffery pine (JP) or lodgepole pine (LP) and not by DF which is a more desirable tree for NSO suitable habitat. Above 6,500 elevation, failed plantations will remain sparsely vegetated and will not provide forested canopy important for dispersal. Overall, the indirect effect of Alternative 1 is valuable shade-intolerant species (DF, PP, SP, WWP) will continue to decrease in the project area with a loss in species diversity. Overall, Alternative 1 slightly increases the percentage of the project area at risk for loss of large trees from wildland fire in the longterm that may remove more of the desired structural components of this LSR. Areas that are currently low quality that do not experience wildfire will continue to provide low quality habitats due to high elevation and low structural and species diversity. However, the increased likelihood of high intensity wildfire is not substantial so effects to the NSO and NSO critical habitat are not measureable in the short term and likely to be nonexistent or minor in the long term. Barred owls will continue to populate the project area and deteriorating stand conditions in some areas may continually push NSO into lesser quality habitats; the effects of barred owl presence on NSO are included in the Wildlife BA, available on the project website. Cumulative Effects Page 3 of 49

7 There are no cumulative effects of Alternative 1 on NSO, as defined in the Endangered Species Act (ESA), because there are no effects to NSO individuals or critical habitat. No future Federal action is proposed in the analysis area. Other recent treatments within the Goosenest LSR include 261 acres of aspen treatment and 599 acres of plantation treatment in the Black Rock Project. Only about half of the plantation treatments will benefit the NSO due to high elevation. Shovel Salvage removed 226 acres of dying LP and thinned regenerating mixed conifers 4-8 diameter-at-breast height (DBH); only about half of these acres are considered future NSO habitat. In NEPA terms, there are indirect effects of noaction. On adjacent private timber lands, Timber Harvest Plans (THPs) do not include treatments that will positively affect NSO habitat. The Ike s Flat THP ( SIS) on adjacent private timberland includes units that are within the NSO analysis area for this project. These units total 105 acres, 70 of which are foraging habitat, 30 acres are dispersal habitat, four acres are non-habitat, and about one acre is nesting/roosting habitat. Harvest of these units is expected to remove habitat from the following overlapping 1.3-mile home ranges: Shovel Creek (30 acres of dispersal habitat); Upper Rock (62 acres of foraging habitat and one acre of nesting/roosting habitat); Ike s Creek (56 acres of foraging habitat and one acre of nesting/roosting habitat); and Harris Creek (58 acres of foraging habitat and one acre of nesting/roosting habitat). Home ranges will retain sufficient amounts of habitat at that scale. The Shoveler THP is currently being developed and going through Cal-Fire review and Technical Assistance with the Yreka Office of USFWS. It is located in the Ike s Creek, Shovel Creek, and Upper Rock territories. At this point in time it has yet to be approved by Cal-Fire and the final quantification of habitat affected by the THP is, therefore, uncertain. It is premature to include in this analysis. Based on the habitat values and indirect effects of Alternative 1, considered cumulatively with the above THPs, this alternative will not reach an adverse effect to any activity center. As expected, industrial timberlands will continue to provide limited habitat for NSO. Although not substantial, the cumulative effect of not treating vegetation to improve NSO habitat in the Butte project in addition to the effects of other projects and THPs that didn t treat vegetation for future NSO habitat is no restoration of valuable tree species, no restoration of failed plantations, decreased structural and species diversity and decreased desirable tree growth and vigor for future habitat. Alternative 2 Direct and Indirect Effects Northern Spotted Owl Implementation of PDFs will offset any potential negative direct effects. Table 2-1 of the Butte Mountain Environmental Assessment (EA) includes the PDFs that will protect breeding NSO in the event reproduction is presumed or confirmed (PDFs WL-4 and WL-5). Limited operating periods may be lifted if surveys confirm non-nesting status. Alternative 2 is designed to restore and maintain/improve habitat conditions for NSO as well as restore aspen, meadow and true fir habitats (plantations). Restoring failed plantations will reduce landscape fragmentation. Underburning and thinning treatments will result in improved habitat and structural diversity as well as improved conditions for prey. Aspen Enhancement Under Alternative 2, aspen enhancement using ground-based equipment will remove 187 acres of foraging habitat, distributed over 15 units and in patches that range in size from two to 42 acres Page 4 of 49

8 representing about 2% of the total foraging habitat in the analysis area. The majority of those acres, 156 acres, are in units that exceed 6,500 elevation. Thirty one acres are below 6,500 elevation and range in size from two to 17 acres. A total of 16 acres of dispersal habitat will be removed, in patches that range in size from one to five acres, representing <1% of the dispersal habitat within the analysis area. Habitat removal will not substantially alter the ability of the NSO to breed, feed, and shelter in the project area. Nesting/roosting habitat will not be removed or downgraded from any 0.5-mile core or 1.3-mile home range as a result of the using ground-based equipment for aspen regeneration in the project. The same four acres of foraging habitat will be removed from the Burnt Camp and Bear Wallow 0.5-mile cores from aspen stand enhancement using ground-based equipment (cores overlap each other). Sufficient amounts of habitat will be retained within the Burnt Camp 0.5-mile core following aspen enhancement ground-based harvest. Although the Bear Wallow core lacks sufficient amounts of habitat within the core, this change is minor because four acres is a relatively small amount of habitat and is low quality foraging habitat (high elevation, narrow edge of habitat). Alternative 2 moves toward a resilient forest even though it removes four acres of foraging habitat in the core. Nesting was not documented during the short period that Bear Wallow was occupied by NSOs, and the territory is marginal reflected in the fact that it has not been occupied by NSO in17 years. Although 91 acres of foraging habitat is removed in the outer 1.3-mile home range for East Bear Wallow, it and the other affected home ranges retain sufficient amounts of habitat following treatment. Approximately 5-10% of 489 acres of meadow and aspen stands will have lodgepole pine (LP), Shasta red fir (SRF), and white fir (WF) trees ranging from 4 to 9 DBH thinned by hand. Conifers within this size class will be removed where they are encroaching on meadows or aspen trees. In some treatment areas, cut trees will be hand-piled and burned while other areas will be subsequently underburned. Treatments will minimally affect foraging habitat because treatments are focused within and along the edge of meadow systems, minimally affecting the suitable habitat stands. Additionally, a Wildlife biologist will assist with the mark and, per WL-21, nesting/roosting habitat will be avoided. Thinning of Natural (Conifer) Stands In units of ground-based thinning in natural stands, totaling 149 acres, treatments are designed to improve habitat for NSO by enhancing structural diversity within stands, promoting maintenance of species of trees important to NSO habitat, and promoting development of larger trees. Only 35 acres (out of the 149 acres of treatment) of nesting/roosting habitat will be degraded through Individual Tree Mark (ITM) prescriptions which represents about 1% of the total nesting/roosting habitat in the analysis area. One hundred three acres of foraging habitat will be maintained in the short-term as a result of ground-based thinning in natural conifers stands. An additional 35 acres of nesting/roosting habitat and 58 acres of foraging habitat will be treated and maintained by hand-thinning of small-diameter trees. This is aimed at improving stand conditions for NSO because treatment is scattered in each stand, targeting small conifers (<10 DBH) around DF and PP trees. These treatments are expected to maintain/improve habitat, particularly in the ground-based treatment areas where habitat conditions are expected to continue to improve in the long-term. Creating small openings in conifer stands will improve structural and species diversity in the long-term as pockets of Douglas-fir become established in these spots and replace homogenous dense pockets of white and Shasta red fir. These openings will provide space for a new age-class of Douglas-fir trees to become established. Plantation thinning and other plantation treatments Page 5 of 49

9 Future habitat conditions for NSO are also expected to improve by thinning of older plantations and other plantation treatments on 322 acres that occur at lower elevations. An additional 385 acres of treated plantations occur at higher elevations. Plantation thinning and restoration will reduce fragmentation at both elevations and restore ecosystem functions, resulting in a beneficial effect to NSO. Underburning Low intensity fire is expected to create a mosaic of burned and unburned patches. For fall underburning, a total of 261 acres of nesting/roosting habitat and 878 foraging habitat are proposed for treatment out of a total 1,521 acres underburned. Fall burning is expected to maintain/improve suitable NSO habitat because it is designed to maintain the structural elements that comprise habitat including large overstory trees, many understory trees and large snags and downed logs. Torching is expected to be limited to <5% of the total burn area. Prescribed fire in the spring may occur in units of aspen stand enhancement if evaluation determines the need for spring burning. Of the 319 acres being evaluated for spring burning, there is no nesting/roosting habitat and 154 acres of foraging habitat. This treatment is designed to promote aspen regeneration after the 154 acres of foraging habitat is removed during aspen stand enhancement using ground-based equipment; therefore, the impacts to those 154 acres are already analyzed above (acres do not match the 187 acres above because some of the ground-based treated aspen stands have fall burn and are effects are disclosed in that section). Pasture Management Approximately 4.75 miles of temporary fence that will be built post-silviculture and fuels implementation will not affect NSO habitat and is not expected to disturb nesting NSOs, due to distance from known cores. Project design features will be incorporated to minimize the likelihood of incidental take of young from disturbance. Some minor effects to NSO prey may occur due to shifts in livestock grazing patterns. However, these effects are incalculable and not expected to measurably affect NSO. Access Two segments of new temporary road totaling 0.43 miles will be constructed in order to implement the project. Proposed locations are mostly in non-habitat/existing openings and young plantations. Approximately 0.15 acres of foraging habitat will be degraded as a result of temporary road construction. All estimated new landing locations are immediately adjacent to roads or other existing openings. Many will be constructed entirely within existing openings and will have no effect on suitable habitat. No new landings will be constructed within nesting/roosting habitat. An estimated 8 acres of foraging habitat (11 separate landings) will be degraded as a result of new landing construction. These represent minor effects to NSO habitat due to their small size and distribution across the project area. Closing Road 46N91Y to public motorized use will benefit NSO by reducing disturbance. Effects to prey species from underburning and thinning Additional indirect effects include effects to NSOs primary prey species (northern flying squirrels and woodrats) that may result from thinning and prescribed fire. Studies cited in the Wildlife BA suggest that although treatments similar to those in Alternative 2 (prescribed fire and thinning) may have a short-term negative effect on woodrats and flying squirrels, treatments in Alternative 2 incorporate measures that will minimize effects because treatments are expected to be patchy across the landscape (numerous untreated stands and patches of low intensity/unburned areas within underburning prescriptions) and of short duration (3-5 years). Page 6 of 49

10 Additionally, canopy gaps created in conifer stands and by aspen treatments will allow sunlight to the forest floor and improve ground vegetation (grasses, forbs, shrubs) for prey species. Aspen treatments are expected to improve conditions for prey and increase species diversity in the long term due to increases in grasses and forbs within treatment units. NSO Recovery Plan including effects to Barred Owls Alternative 2 is consistent with the intent of the NSO Recovery Plan (USDI FWS 2011) because it conserves the ecosystems upon which the species depends, works on promoting and developing future NSO habitat, and conserves high value NSO habitat within known activity centers and across the project area, consistent with the guidance provided in Recovery Actions 10 and 32, respectively. The project area currently supports several active barred owl territories. There is currently no evidence or literature that suggests that conifer thinning prescriptions, like those described above, create conditions favorable to barred owls or facilitate their movement into areas occupied by NSO. Foraging habitat proposed for ground-based aspen treatment are already occupied by barred owls, so some shift in home range may be logical. However, these treatments are primarily at high elevations and not within known use areas of occupied NSO territories. Results of a recent study (Dugger et al. 2011) suggest that in environments where the NSOs and barred owls compete directly for resources, maintaining larger amounts of older forest (nesting/roosting) may help NSOs to persist, at least in the short term. Conifer thinning is the only treatment within higher-quality habitats in the Butte project and is expected to create minor alterations that maintain the quality and function of NSO habitat. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Butte project will exacerbate competitive interactions between the two species in a way that will have a negative effect on NSOs. Cumulative Effects Although the past and reasonable foreseeable future actions discussed for Alternative 1 may have some effect on NSO, adding them to the effects of Alternative 2 discussed above will not reach a cumulative adverse effect to any NSO activity center. NSO Critical Habitat Aspen Enhancement Effects to the PCEs of critical habitat are generally described above in the direct and indirect effects to NSO habitat. The areas of foraging habitat to be removed are relatively small in size or are low value to for NSO. Ground-based aspen enhancement treatments will have the most measurable effect on PCEs because they will result in removal of 131 acres of foraging habitat of which the majority (100 acres) are above 6,500 elevation and not considered valuable habitat to NSO. The decrease in foraging habitat is a 2% decrease in foraging habitat within subunit ECS 2. Cumulative Effects There will be no substantial cumulative effects to NSO critical habitat because there are no reasonable foreseeable future federal actions and critical habitat in the analysis area does not include private, state, or tribal lands. Alternative 3 Direct and Indirect Effects Page 7 of 49

11 Northern Spotted Owl Effects are the same as Alternative 2 except as follows. Under Alternative 3, units and switch from receiving aspen hand treatment to ground-based aspen enhancement. Ground-based aspen enhancement increases the tree diameters for conifer removal from 26 DBH to 30 DBH within 75 of aspen and remains 26 DBH from 75 to 150. Also under Alternative 3, thinning of natural stands increases tree diameters to 25 DBH in the four ITM units ( , , , and ). Modeling of the effects of ITM treatments increases the removal of Shasta red fir and white fir in the understory (Vegetation Resource Report). For complete details, refer to Chapter 2 of the Environmental Assessment (EA). As described in Table 2-1 of the EA, Project Design Feature (PDF) WL-9 comes into effect, reducing the effects to valuable wildlife trees. WL-1 applies to four units, to allow increased treatment intensity within ground-based conifer thinning units , , , and Aspen Enhancement Under Alternative 3, aspen enhancement using ground-based equipment will remove approximately 214 acres of foraging habitat, distributed over 17 units, and in patches that range in size from two to 42 acres representing about 2.2% of the total foraging habitat in the analysis area. The majority of those acres, 183 acres, are in units that exceed 6,500 elevation, and 31 acres are below 6,500 elevation. A total of 16 acres of dispersal habitat will be removed, in patches that range in size from one to five acres representing 0.4% of the dispersal habitat within the analysis area. In addition to four acres of foraging habitat removed from Burnt Camp and Bear Wallow 0.5-mile cores described in Alternative 2, an additional 27 acres of foraging habitat will be removed in the Bear Wallow core and seven acres of foraging habitat will be removed from the Butte Mountain core. The 0.5-mile core with the greatest amount of habitat reduction is Bear Wallow, with a loss of 31 acres of foraging habitat from the existing 357 acres currently available. Although these additional acres are from stands >6,500 and are generally of lower quality, they occur immediately adjacent to the historical Bear Wallow roost stand and will further reduce the likelihood that this territory will become occupied again in the future, which will result in an adverse effect to the activity center. However, because the activity center is marginal as it occurs at high elevation; was only occupied at a time when the LSR was at a peak in spotted owl occupancy; has not been occupied since 1995; no breeding occurred during the time it was occupied; and it is now occupied by barred owls; take of NSO is not expected to occur. Although the Butte Mountain core lacks sufficient amounts of habitat, this change is not likely to have an adverse effect to the territory because seven acres is a relatively small amount of habitat, it is low quality foraging habitat (high elevation) and the territory is marginal; this is reflected in the fact that the last observation of spotted owls using the territory was in 1997 when a single spotted owl was detected. In summary, groundbased aspen enhancement treatments will remove foraging habitat from seven, 1.3-mile home ranges; the largest amount to be removed is 97 acres from East Bear Wallow home range. Thinning of Natural (Conifer) Stands The effects of the ground-based thinning in natural conifer stands on 149 acres will be similar to those described for Alternative 2. However, since trees up to 25 DBH will be removed in ITM units ( , , , and ) and removal of SRF and WF in the understory is modeled to increase, effects to NSO will be greater in Alternative 3. Eighteen acres of nesting/roosting habitat will be downgraded and 17 acres will be degraded. This represents about 1% of the total nesting/roosting habitat in the analysis area and primarily affects the core and home ranges of the Ike s Creek and Upper Rock Page 8 of 49

12 activity centers and the home ranges of Shovel Creek and Butte Mountain activity centers. The remaining 42 acres of foraging habitat within ITM units will be degraded instead of maintained within the core and home ranges of the Ike s Creek, Upper Rock, Shovel, and Butte Mountain activity centers in this alternative. As described in more detail in the BA, units and have not been historically used for nesting/roosting though may be used for infrequent foraging by the Ike s creek territory based on telemetry data and over a decade of surveys. Treatments will downgrade approximately 7 acres of nesting/roosting and degrade 38 acres that overlap the 0.5 mile core area within those two units. While this activity center has been significantly affected by private timber harvest in the past, the addition of these treatments is not expected to significantly exacerbate conditions. Therefore, actions will not result in adverse effects to this activity center. The Upper Rock territory has had significant private timber harvest in the core area such that the territory is marginally functional. Approximately 18 acres of nesting/roosting will be downgraded within the core and, taken in context of the available habitat in the core area, will result in adverse effects to this activity center. This activity center will not likely support a nesting pair in the near future. However, the female that used to occupy Upper Rock moved several years ago to the Ike s Creek territory. Access There will an additional landing in Alternative 3 to treat Units and that may affect up to one acre of NSO foraging habitat. Implementation of PDFs WL-1 and WL-6 on Table 2-1 of the Butte Mountain EA limits the negative effects of landings. NSO Recovery Plan including effects to Barred Owls Alternative 3 is not consistent with the intent of the NSO Recovery Plan (USDI FWS 2011). Although it conserves the ecosystems upon which the species depends and works on promoting and developing future NSO habitat, it will result in short-term adverse effects to valuable NSO activity centers, contrary to Recovery Action 10. While the territories affected are largely marginal, to meet Recovery Action 10 caution needs to be applied in an area with low density but high value spotted owls that serves as an important dispersal corridor along the east cascades. Vacant territories adjacent to the few remaining occupied territories serve an important recovery role as they are often the first areas colonized by dispersing juveniles. As the Butte Mountain LSR has experienced a decline in occupancy in the past decade, retaining vacant activity centers in a functional condition in the short- to mid-term is needed as that time frame may represent several generations of NSO. The effects of Alternative 3 are the same as for Alternative 2 except conifer thinning within higher-quality habitats in the Butte project will downgrade 18 acres of nesting/roosting habitat and degrade 42 acres of foraging habitat within cores and home ranges in this alternative. The Upper Rock and Ike s Creek territories are the most affected by this change. However, Upper Rock is a marginal territory currently and is not occupied by either species. Ike s Creek is an active NSO territory; however, this pair makes marginal use of the treated areas. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Butte project will exacerbate competitive interactions between the two species in a way that will have a negative effect on NSOs. NSO Critical Habitat Effects are the same as Alternative 2 except as described below. Aspen Enhancement Page 9 of 49

13 Ground-based aspen enhancement treatments will have the most measurable effect on PCEs because they will result in removal of 158 acres of foraging habitat of which the majority (127 acres) are above 6,500 elevation and not considered valuable habitat to NSO. The decrease in foraging habitat is a 2.4% decrease in foraging habitat within subunit ECS 2. Thinning of Natural (Conifer) Stands Four mixed conifer stands identified for ground-based habitat enhancement following an ITM will be treated more intensely under Alternative 3. Eighteen acres of nesting/roosting will be downgraded, 17 acres of nesting/roosting and 42 acres of foraging will be degraded, and 72 acres of foraging will be maintained. Due to fact that the increase in aspen enhancement treatments occurs above 6,500 and increased intensity within conifer thinning units occurs across several small, non-contiguous units, the alternative is not expected to have an adverse effect to critical habitat. Cumulative Effects Alternative 3 will have a greater effect to NSO habitat than Alternative 2, resulting in adverse effects to NSO. However, adding the effects of the reasonable foreseeable future actions discussed in Alternative 1 to the effects of this alternative will not substantially increase this adverse effect. Therefore, cumulative effects are minor relative to NSO. Because there is no critical habitat outside of federal lands within the action area, there are no cumulative effects to critical habitat. Alternative 4 Direct and Indirect Effects Northern Spotted Owl Effects are the same as Alternative 2 except as described below, such that the effects are less than for Alternative 2. Two aspen enhancement units that are treated by ground-based equipment in Alternative 2 will be underburned instead in Alternative 4 because this alternative does not propose new temporary roads so there will be no access to these units. The effects on NSO and NSO habitat will be reduced as compared to Alternatives 2 and 3. The high elevation foraging habitat within the East Bear Wallow territory will be variously maintained or degraded rather than removed. Aspen Enhancement A total of 163 acres of foraging habitat, in patches that range in size from two to 42 acres, will be removed. One-hundred twenty-eight (128) of these acres are above or overlap (within a single unit) 6,500 elevation and 31 acres are below 6,500 elevation. A total of 14 acres of dispersal habitat will be removed, in patches that range in size from one to five acres. Ground-based aspen enhancement treatments will remove foraging habitat from six, 1.3-mile home ranges; the largest amount of habitat to be removed is 79 acres from East Bear Wallow home range. Access No new temporary roads will be constructed in order to implement this alternative so no acres of foraging habitat will be degraded as a result. NSO Recovery Plan including effects to Barred Owls Page 10 of 49

14 The effects of Alternative 4 are the same as Alternative 2 for consistency with the intent of the NSO Recovery Plan and competition with barred owls. NSO Critical Habitat Effects are less than Alternative 2. Approximately 118 acres of foraging habitat will be removed under ground-based aspen enhancement treatments, approximately 31 acres of which are less than 6,500 in elevation. This represents a 1.8% reduction in foraging habitat in the analysis area for ECS 2. These treatments are approximately 13 acres less than described for Alternative 2. Like Alternative 2, Alternative 4 will not likely to adversely affect critical habitat. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are the same as for Alternative 2 even though the project itself will have fewer effects to critical habitat. Environmental Effects: Forest Service Sensitive Species Alternative 1 Direct and Indirect Effects There are no direct effects to Forest Service sensitive species with Alternative 1. For indirect effects, see Direct and Indirect Effects for NSO and NSO critical habitat because the Forest Service sensitive species analyzed for this project are also associated with late successional forest, structural diversity, large snags and coarse woody debris. For a more detailed analysis, the Wildlife BE is available on project website. Cumulative Effects There are no cumulative effects on Forest Service sensitive species with Alternative 1 because there are no direct effects to individuals or habitat without treatment. Alternative 2 Direct and Indirect Effects American marten Ground-based aspen enhancement will remove 39 acres of denning habitat for American marten, representing 2.8% of the total denning habitat in the project area, which is also the analysis area for marten. Natural conifer stand thinning using ground-based equipment will degrade or maintain 35 acres of denning habitat in the short term but will lead to beneficial effects in the long term as canopies fill back in and the number of large trees per acre increase. Prescribed underburning may degrade 573 acres of denning habitat in the short term due to reductions in CWD which is important to winter habitat for marten; however, in the long-term, habitat will recover with newly created snags and CWD due to prescribed fire. Pallid bat and fringed myotis Ground-based aspen enhancement will degrade 39 acres of roosting habitat in the project area. An estimated 8-to-10 large trees per acres will be retained in aspen treatment areas because no trees >26 DBH will be removed. Ground-based natural conifer stand thinning will have short-term beneficial effects Page 11 of 49

15 on the 35 acres of potential roosting habitat that will be treated because no trees >20 DBH will be removed. Treatments may result in an immediate benefit to the pallid bat and fringed myotis by reducing canopy in areas immediately surrounding large PP and DF. In the long term, these treatments may continue to benefit both species because the number of large trees per acres will increase. Western bumble bee Effects on bumble bees are measured based on the degree to which treatments may positively or negatively affect the presence of flowering plants and rodent burrows. Treatments that may affect western bumble bees and their habitat include removal of encroaching conifers from meadows and aspen stands (aspen enhancement which opens stands and provides foraging) including applying a pesticide (borax) to the cut stumps >14 DBH. In this alternative, conifers will be removed from 378 acres of aspen and meadows using ground-based equipment. This will increase foraging habitat and may decrease rodent burrows in the short term by a negligible amount. Conifer canopy cover will decrease to 23% of these stands. Hand treatments on 5% to 10% of 489 acres are expected to have beneficial effects of foraging habitat. No negative effect will occur from use of borax as a fungicide on cut stumps due to implementation of PDF VEG-1. Planting of failed plantations on up to 181 acres will not substantially affect bumble bees and their habitat; creating openings in conifer stands is expected to have a positive effect on foraging habitat. Prescribed fall underburning of 1,521 acres is not likely to have a short-term negative effect and is likely to have a positive long-term effect on foraging habitat. If spring underburning occurs after evaluation of the effects of other aspen regeneration treatments, some slightly negative effects may occur on flowering plants in the short-term but long-term beneficial effects will occur. Beneficial effects on the western bumble bee are expected from pasture management measures and, longterm, from other treatments in this alternative. Northern goshawk Limited operating periods will be implemented, as noted in PDFs WL-4 and WL-5 in Table 2-1 of the Butte Mountain EA, to prevent disturbance from habitat-modifying activities and activities causing loud or continuous noise in proximity to active goshawk nests during critical phases of the breeding season. Implementation of PDF WL-16 will prevent removal of three acres of foraging habitat in ground-based aspen enhancement unit Removal of conifers < 26 DBH that surround live aspen trees will alter 39 acres of nesting and 148 acres of foraging habitat to the degree that these habitats will no longer serve this function (removed). These amounts represent 1.6% and 3.0% of the total nesting and foraging habitat available in the analysis area, respectively. For Alternative 2, ground-based thinning in natural conifer stands will degrade suitable nesting habitat in the short-term, but will not remove habitat because canopies because all trees 20 DBH and larger will be retained and total stand canopy cover will be maintained at 60% and greater. Thinning treatments will likely be neutral to beneficial to foraging habitat. Lower density of trees, more open canopies, and creation of small openings could improve access to prey species. Overall, these treatments and predicted changes to stand structure will represent degradation to 35 acres of nesting habitat and will maintain/improve foraging habitat across 101 acres. Thinning on 129 acres of older plantation is expected to provide beneficial effects to goshawks in the short-term because the stands will be more open and will provide suitable foraging habitat. Cumulative Effects Page 12 of 49

16 Effects of past actions within the analysis area for the marten, pallid bat, fringed myotis and western bumble bee are accounted for within the affected environment. There are no current or future foreseeable federal or private land actions within the Project analysis area for marten that will contribute to effects of the action alternatives. For northern goshawk, combining the effects of this alternative with proposed actions on adjacent private lands will result in removal of 9 acres of habitat from Burnt Camp foraging management zone and 4 acres of habitat from Ike s Creek foraging management zone. These territories will continue to meet land management plan guidelines for habitat maintenance within the foraging zone. Because 20 acres of habitat are recently removed as a result of private land harvest within the Upper Rock foraging management zone, this alternative will not remove habitat from Upper Rock territory and will not cumulatively add to impacts. Alternative 3 Direct and Indirect Effects American marten Effects of Alternative 3 will be similar to those of Alternative 2 except 51 acres of denning habitat will be removed, representing 3.6% of the total denning habitat in the project area. Pallid bat and fringed myotis Ground-based aspen enhancement potentially will degrade 51 acres of roosting habitat because trees between 26 and 30 DBH will be removed. In mixed-conifer stands, there may be some loss of potential roost trees from within the 18 acres of late-successional habitat within the ITM stands because the small openings created in those stands can remove trees up to 25 DBH. Elsewhere in the ITM and thin/chip stands, within suitable habitat (35 acres total), treatments may have an immediate and short-term benefits to potential pallid bat and fringed myotis roost trees because thinning will reduce canopy and the number of trees immediately surrounding large Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine. In the long term, these treatments may benefit bat and fringed myotis roost habitat because the number of large trees (>26 DBH) per acre is predicted to increase. Western bumble bee Effects on western bumble habitat will be the same as for Alternative 2 except slightly more negative effect on rodent burrows (conifer encroachment on meadows and aspen will be removed on 413 acres using ground-based equipment) and slightly less positive effect on foraging habitat from hand treatments (453 acres treated). Conifer canopy cover will decrease to 17% for a beneficial effect to foraging habitat. Openings will have fewer conifers due to the size of conifers to be removed (up to 25 DBH) for a positive effect on foraging. Fall prescribed underburning will cover 1,372 acres for a slightly less positive effect on foraging habitat. Pasture management treatments will have a beneficial effect on foraging habitat but this may be delayed because these treatments will be implemented only if monitoring results indicate the need for them. Long-term effects will be beneficial. Northern goshawk Removal of conifers up to 30 DBH that surround live aspen trees will alter 51 acres of nesting and 164 acres of foraging habitat to the degree that these habitats will no longer serve this function (removed). Page 13 of 49

17 These amounts represent 2.1% and 3.4% of the total nesting and foraging habitat available in the analysis area, respectively. Treatments in ITM stands will result in a greater degree of nesting habitat degradation when compared to Alternatives 2 and 4 because canopies will be more open and basal area will be lower. In the 4 stands targeted for thin/chip treatment, trees to be removed will range in size from 4 to 9 DBH; treatment will be focused in areas surrounding Douglas-fir and pine, and in areas of dense white fir. Thinning treatments will likely be neutral to beneficial to foraging habitat. Lower density of trees, more open canopies, and creation of small openings could improve access to prey species. Overall, these treatments and predicted changes to stand structure will represent degradation to 35 acres of nesting habitat and will maintain/improve foraging habitat across 101 acres. Thinning on 129 acres of older plantation is expected to provide beneficial effects to goshawks in the short-term because the stand will be more open and will provide suitable foraging habitat. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects on marten, pallid bat and fringe-tailed myotis are the same as for Alternative 2. Combining the effects of this alternative on the northern goshawk with effects of proposed actions on adjacent private lands will result in removal of 36 acres of habitat from Burnt Camp foraging management zone and 4 acres of habitat from Ike s Creek foraging management zone. These territories will continue to meet land management plan guidelines for habitat maintenance within the foraging zone. Because 20 acres of habitat are recently removed as a result of private land harvest within the Upper Rock foraging management zone, this alternative will not remove habitat from Upper Rock territory and will not cumulatively add to impacts. Alternative 4 Direct and Indirect Effects American marten Effects will be similar to those of Alternative 2 except prescribed burning may degrade 584 acres of denning habitat in the short term from reduction of coarse woody debris. Pallid bat and fringed myotis Effects of treatments in this alternative are the same as for Alternative 2. Western bumble bee Effects on western bumble habitat will be the same as for Alternative 2 except short-term negative effects to rodent burrows and positive effects on foraging will occur on 324 acres treated for aspen regeneration. Positive effects on foraging due to hand-treatment will occur on 453 acres as in Alternative 3. Positive effects from fall underburning will occur on 1,446 acres. Short-term negative effects and long-term positive effects on flowering plants from the spring underburning will occur on 319 acres. Long-term effects will be beneficial. Northern goshawk Effects of treatments in this alternative are the same as for Alternative 2. Cumulative Effects Page 14 of 49