Outlook Landscape Diversity Project Wildlife Survey and Manage Species Compliance Statement and Effects Analysis The Northwest Forest Plan was amended with standards and guidelines for conducting project surveys and managing known sites for certain rare or endemic species (botanical and wildlife) that were thought to be associated with late successional forest habitat (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2001). The species covered by this direction are referred to here as survey and manage species. The Outlook Landscape Diversity Project is consistent with the January 2001 Record of Decision (ROD) and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines(USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2001). This project utilizes the December 2003 species list. This list incorporates species changes and removals made as a result of the 2001, 2002, and 2003 Annual Species Reviews with the exception of the red tree vole (RTV), Arborimuslongicaudus. For the red tree vole, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in KSWC et al. v. Boody et al., 468 F3d 549 (9th Cir. 2006) vacated the category change and removal of the red tree vole in a portion of its range, and returned the red tree vole to its status as existed in the January 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines, which makes the species Category C throughout its range. In addition, there are 12 species (botanical and wildlife) receiving special consideration as directed in the May 13, 2014 Regional Forester letter. We reviewed the 2003 and 12 species lists, and determined there were only three survey and manage wildlife species needing evaluation (See Table 1). Table 1: Rationale for whether or not species requires surveys.(species compiled from the December 2003species list that occur on the Middle Fork Ranger District, Willamette National Forest). Survey Triggers Survey Results Species S&M Category Within Range of the Species? Project Area Contains Suitable habitat? Project may negatively affect species/habitat under Action Alternatives? Surveys Required? Survey Date (month/yr) Sites Known or Found? Site Management under Action Alternatives Vertebrates Great Gray Owl (Strixnebulosa) A Yes Yes No No 1 n/a No None Red Tree Vole (Arborimuslongic C Yes Yes Yes No 2 n/a No None audus) Mollusks Crater Lake Tightcoil (Pristilomaarctic umcrateris) A Yes Yes No No 1 n/a No None 1 Surveys are not required since the project would not affect species/habitat. There is very limited habitat for great gray owl in the project area and none of the project actions would impact great gray owls or their habitat. Crater Lake Tightcoilwould not be impacted as all perennially wet habitat within the project area would be buffered by 10 meters and/or the actions are not considered habitat disturbing. 2 Surveys are not required for the following reasons: 1.When thinning in stands younger than 80 years old, a 10/10/2006 court ruling known as the Pechman exemption releases the need for survey and manage; 2. For other habitat disturbingactions in the project area that do not meet number one above, they either a) fall within the non-reserve (i.e. matrix and adaptive management area) portions of a non-high priority pilot watershed for red tree voles, and are thereby Page 1 of 5
released from pre-disturbance surveys(usda Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2003), or b) are not considered habitat disturbing. Survey protocols referenced during consideration of survey requirements for species listed in Table 1include the following: Survey Protocol for the Great Gray Owl within the Range of the Northwest Forest Plan Version 3.0 (USDA and USDI 2004). Survey Protocol for the Red Tree Vole Arborimuslongicaudus Version 3.0 (USDA and USDI 2012a). Survey Protocol for Survey and Manage Terrestrial Mollusk Species from the Northwest Forest Plan Version 3.0 (USDA, USDI, and USFWS 2003). It should also be noted that there are no known sites for Megomphixhemphilli (Oregon megomphix) within the project area that would require management under the 2001 Record of Decision requirements. There is little potential for habitat within the project area to support occupancy or use by other species for which a standard, guideline, or management recommendation was addressed in the 2001 ROD. These species include whiteheaded woodpecker, black-backed woodpecker, pygmy nuthatch, and flammulated owl. Each of these species generally occurs on the eastern and southern periphery of the range of the northern spotted owl. This project s proposed action would not affect suitable habitat for these species, or influence their distribution or population numbers to any extent relative to this portion of the range for the northern spotted owl. Effects to Wildlife Survey and Manage Species Alternative A (Proposed Action), B, and DDirect and Indirect Effects Great gray owl (Strixnebulosa) Great gray owls are generally associated with meadow/open areas that are 10 acres or larger which have adjacent large snags for nesting. There are a few historic observations of great gray owls in the project area and most were incidental to northern spotted owl surveys in the 1990 s: 1) Cloverpatch Butte and Tire Mountain Area 2) North Shore Meadow 3) Buckhead Mountain Area 4) Patterson Mountain Area 5) Duvall Creek Area The nearest known nest site is about a mile from the southeast edge of the project area (outside the project boundary) adjacent to High Prairie. The High Prairie pair was observed nesting in 2009 but have not been monitored since. Prior to 2009, there was also a historic nest site near the Buckhead Seed Orchard which is on the southeast edge of the Outlook Project Area but there have been no protocol surveys at that site since the late 1990 s. There is a small amount of great gray owl nesting habitat in the project area surrounding meadows that are generally on the periphery of the project boundary,but there are no management prescriptions under any alternative that wouldnegatively affect this habitat and thus there is no potential to negatively impact great gray owlsand the project may benefit them by providing additional foraging habitatin several portions of the project area, including North Shore Meadow. Under all Action Alternatives, North Shore Meadow would be restored by setting back conifer encroachment via hand tools and prescribed burning which would benefit great gray owls. The North Shore treatment area is approximately 30 acres. Under Alternative A and D, 142 acres of early seral habitat would be created in nine plantations ranging from 40 to 66 years old which could serve as foraging habitat for great gray owls. Additionally under Alternative A and D, 64 acres of young plantations (< 20 years old) would be treated to open up these stands and maintain early seral Page 2 of 5
habitat benefiting owls. These early seral treatments are not proposed under Alternative B. However Alternative B does propose some mature stand harvest in 10 small units which would create early seral habitat on about 83 acres. With the exception of North Shore Meadow, treatments associated with early seral creation or maintenance under each Action Alternative is beyond 0.25 mile from natural openings and generally within two miles of any natural or manmade opening where great gray owls would be likely to nest within or adjacent to the project area. Red tree vole (Arborimuslongicaudus) Suitable habitat for red tree voles consists generally ofconifer stands 80 years oldwith canopy covers 60%. Often suitable spotted owl habitat is used as a surrogate. Red tree voles are an arboreal mammal whose diet in this part of their range is Douglas-fir needles. There is only one record of a historic active red tree vole nest in the northeastern portion of the project area approximately 0.25 miles west of Unit 1863. The observation occurred in 2003. Though there is limited existing knowledge of red tree voles in the project area, they do occur in similar habitats in adjacent watersheds so they are assumed to occur in Outlook. Seventy percent (32,817 acres) of the project area is suitable red tree vole habitat.most of the project treatments would be in stands < 80 years old which are generally not suitable habitat. There are only a few habitat-disturbingactivities that may occur: Alt B Mature Stand Harvest Thin to 30% Residual Canopy Cover (83 acres in 10 units), and Unit 2124Special Habitat Restoration (6 acres) Alternatives A, B, and D. These treatments would total up to 89 acres of suitable habitat modification under Alternative B which is less than 0.3% of all suitable habitat in the project area. The six acres of treatment under Alternatives A and D is essentially immeasurable at less than 0.02%. Other proposed project activities such as the late-successional snag creation and the in-stream wood placement are not considered habitat disturbing activities (2001 ROD Standards &Guidelines p.22). Additionally there are project design criteria that specify no trees with current potential RTV nests or structural defects providing current and future crown diversity would be selected for use in these treatments. There is limited new spur road construction under Alternatives A and B that could impact a small percent of suitable habitat. Only 0.3 miles of new spur road construction could occur in suitable habitat which would equate to about one total acre of impact spread across the Outlook project area. Thus implementation of the Outlook Project is expected to be inconsequential and unlikely to result in any meaningfulnegative effect on this species habitat or the ability of red tree voles to persist or become established in nearby habitat. Crater Lake Tightcoil (Pristilomaarcticumcrateris) The potential for this species to occur in the project area is considered extremely low. The species has been documented at one location on the Willamette National Forest (McKenzie River R.D.) and is thought to occur in perennially wet areas above 2,000 elevation. Due to spatial buffers and design criteria under all action alternatives, no direct/indirect effects to Crater Lake Tightcoil are anticipated as a result of Outlook project activities. Effects related to proposed activities on this species are fully addressed in the Outlook Project Biological Evaluation. Alternative A (Proposed Action), B, and D Cumulative Effects There are past actions in this project area that may have affected survey and manage species. Great gray owl (Strixnebulosa) Few natural openings > 10 acres in size occur in the project area, thus great gray owls were likely not affected by past timber harvesting. Page 3 of 5
Great gray owls have been negatively impacted by conifer encroachment into open meadows over time. They have benefited however from some early seral/meadow/powerline right-of-way habitat improvement projects over the past few decades, although the cumulative acres improved is less than 200. There are no reasonably forseeable future actions that may negatively affect great gray owls in the project area. Taking into account the past, present, and foreseeable future actions, the overall persistence of the species in the project area is not a concern. Red tree vole (Arborimuslongicaudus) Previous timber harvesting has likely affected red tree vole in this project area. Since the 1950 s approximately 14,446 acres of National Forest land has been harvested 31% of the project area sfederal forests; most of the harvest was clearcutting. This would have a negative effect on red tree vole which require conifer forests 80 years old with interconnecting canopies. Individual red tree voles would have been eliminated from the clearcut harvests and fragmentation could have limited movement of remaining voles and also stunted recolonization. The Lookout Point Dam was constructed in 1954 which floods the Middle Fork Willamette River and removed suitable vole habitat which is now under water (i.e. the Lookout Point Reservoir). The Reservoir is 1,885 acres and some portion of that must have been suitable, or capable of being suitable vole habitat, which is now not only non-habitat but has created a permanent barrier to movement between the north and south halves of the Lookout Point Watershed. Other past habitat impacts to red tree voles are the non-habitat corridors that exist along Highway 58, the Union Pacific Railroad, and the Bonneville Powerline Right of Way which all bisect the project area coincident with the Reservoir so generally, their effects can be lumped with the Reservoir impact.thus some negative effects due to habitat removal from timber harvest, wildfire, and infrastructure have likely occurred in the past which may continue to reduce habitat suitability for red tree voles. There are no reasonably foreseeable future actions that may negatively affect red tree vole in the project area. As stands mature, suitable habitat should increase with much more acreage and continuity across the watershed for red tree vole. Taking into account the past, present, and foreseeable future actions, the overall persistence of the species in the project area is not a concern. Crater Lake Tightcoil (Pristilomaarcticumcrateris) There are past actions such as road building and timber harvest adjacent to streams in portions of the project area that have affected potential habitat for Crater Lake Tightcoil. These effects are incorporated into the environmental baseline condition. There are nopresent or foreseeable future actions that are currently recognized as having potential to contribute to cumulative affects to this species or its habitat. Alternative C (No Action) Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Alternative C is the No Action alternative where the proposed project does not take place. No activities would take place in previously harvested stands to influence development of late-successional characteristics or promote elements of biodiversity. No SHAB restoration or enhancement would occur. No other actions that may benefit terrestrial wildlife species and their habitat would occur. The No Action alternative has no associated direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on great gray owls, red tree voles, or Crater Lake tightcoils. Itprovides a benchmark for current condition, or a point of reference for describing the environmental effects under the Action Alternatives. Prepared by: Cheron Ferland (Assistant Middle Fork District Wildlife Biologist) Richard F Davis (Middle Fork District Wildlife Biologist) Date: November 2015 Page 4 of 5
References USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management.2012a. Survey Protocol for the Red Tree Vole Arborimuslongicaudus Version 3.0.Region 6, Portland, Oregon. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2012b. Conservation Assessment for Great Gray Owl (Strixnebulosa). USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2004. Survey Protocol for the Great Gray Owl Within the Range of the Northwest Forest Plan. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management Memorandum Dated May 23, 2003. Red Tree Vole Protocol Revision, Version 2.2 - Release of Pre-Disturbance Survey Requirements in Six Watersheds. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management.2001. Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines (for the Northwest Forest Plan).Region 6, Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Survey Protocol for Survey and Manage Terrestrial Mollusk Species from the Northwest Forest Plan Version 3.0 Page 5 of 5