Loafer EA Supplemental Information for Wildlife...

Loafer EA Supplemental Information for Wildlife Section

April 20, 2015

The Loafer Timber Sale Project Effects to Terrestrial Wildlife Species of Interest report was prepared in

July, 2012. This report documents project effects to Umpqua Forest Plan Management Indicator Species

(MIS), Northwest Forest Plan Survey & Manage terrestrial wildlife species , 2001 Northwest Forest Plan

Record of Decision Species , “landbird” species, wildlife species dependant upon a coarse wood supply,

and the grey wolf ( per a scoping request for disclosure of effects). Since preparation of that report,

additional field survey has been conducted for several included species and a new regional format for

the landbird analysis has been released. This supplemental report documents this updated information

and provides additional clarification to the previous effects analysis where necessary.

In the Loafer EA (page 95) this analysis was originally titled “Landbird Conservation Plan Focal Species”.

The entirety of this text can now be replaced with the updated and current regional format:

Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Landbird Analysis

Existing Condition - Federal land management agencies are required by treaty and

executive order to consider the effects of their land management activities on a variety of

bird species.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA). - Implements various treaties and

conventions between the U.S., Canada, Japan, Mexico and the former Soviet Union for

the protection of migratory birds. Under the act, it is unlawful to pursue, hunt, take,

capture (or kill) a migratory bird except as permitted by regulation (16 U.S.C. 703-704).

The regulations at 50 CFR 21.11 prohibit the take, possession, import, export, transport,

sale, purchase, barter, or offering of these activities, or possessing migratory birds,

including nests and eggs, except under a valid permit or as permitted in the implementing

regulations (Director's Order No. 131).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is the lead federal agency for managing and

conserving migratory birds in the United States; however, under Executive Order (EO)

13186 all other federal agencies are charged with the conservation and protection of

migratory birds and the habitats on which they depend. In response to this order, the

Forest Service has implemented management guidelines that direct migratory birds to be

addressed in the NEPA process when actions have the potential to negatively or

positively affect migratory bird species of concern.

Executive Order 13186 (66 Fed. Reg. 3853, January 17, 2001)“Responsibilities of

Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds” - This Executive Order directs federal

agencies to avoid or minimize the negative impact of their actions on migratory birds,

and to take active steps to protect birds and their habitat. This Executive Order also

requires federal agencies to develop Memorandum of Understandings (MOU) with the

FWS to conserve birds including taking steps to restore and enhance habitat, prevent or

abate pollution affecting birds, and incorporating migratory bird conservation into agency

planning processes whenever possible. The Forest Service has completed, and is

currently implementing, their MOU’s with the USFWS.

Forest Service & FWS Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) - The purpose of this

MOU is, “to strengthen migratory bird conservation by identifying and implementing

strategies that promote conservation and avoid or minimize adverse impacts on migratory

birds through enhanced collaboration between the Parties, in coordination with State,

Tribal, and local governments.”

Under the MOU the Forest Service Shall:

Address the conservation of migratory bird habitat and populations when developing,

amending, or revising management plans for national forests and grasslands, consistent

with NFMA, ESA, and other authorities listed above. When developing the list of species

to be considered in the planning process, consult the current (updated every 5 years) FWS

Birds of Conservation Concern, 2008 (BCC), State lists, and comprehensive planning

efforts for migratory birds. Within the NEPA process, evaluate the effects of agency

actions on migratory birds, focusing first on species of management concern along with

their priority habitats and key risk factors. To the extent practicable:

a. Evaluate and balance long-term benefits of projects against any short- or long-term adverse effects when analyzing, disclosing, and mitigating the effects of

actions.

b. Pursue opportunities to restore or enhance the composition, structure, and

juxtaposition of migratory bird habitats in the project area.

c. Consider approaches, to the extent practicable, for identifying and minimizing

take that is incidental to otherwise lawful activities, including such approaches as:

1. altering the season of activities to minimize disturbances during the

breeding season;

2. retaining snags for nesting structures where snags are underrepresented;

3. retaining the integrity of breeding sites, especially those with long

histories of use and;

4. giving due consideration to key wintering areas, migration routes, and

stop-over habitats.

5. minimizing or preventing the pollution or detrimental alteration of the

environments utilized by migratory birds whenever practical by assessing

information on environmental contaminants and other stressors relevant to

migratory bird conservation.

As noted in the first paragraph, the consideration of these approaches (1-5), is called for

when developing, amending or revising forest management plans. The Loafer project is

not a forest plan revision, so these analysis efforts are not mandated for this analysis.

PIF Bird Conservation Regions (BCR’S) - Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) are

ecologically distinct regions in North America with similar bird communities, habitats,

and resource management issues. BCR’s are a hierarchical framework of nested

ecological units delineated by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC).

The CEC framework comprises a hierarchy of 4 levels of eco-regions. At each spatial

level, spatial resolution increases and eco-regions encompass areas that are progressively

more similar in their biotic (e.g., plant and wildlife) and abiotic (e.g., soils, drainage

patterns, temperature, and annual precipitation) characteristics. The Umpqua falls within

BCR 5 (Northern Pacific Forest) and the BCR 5 species, habitats and their occurrence on

the Umpqua are displayed in the following Table.

Bird of Conservation Concern in the Bird Conservation Region 5, Northern Pacific Rain forest.

Bird Species Preferred Habitat

Present

on the

Umpqua

Potential

Impact

from

Project

Yellow-billed Loon

Winters along the coast from AK to Baja

CA. Transients can be found on inland

bodies of water. No No

Marbled Godwit (nb)

Prefer coastal mudflats, sandy ocean

beaches, wet margins of large reservoirs or

brackish lakes and sewage ponds. No No

Red Knot (Roselaari ssp.)

(nb)

Found along the coast foraging in open

estuarine tide flats, inland on margins of

sewage ponds & at larger brackish lakes. No No

Short-billed Dowitcher

(nb)

A bird of wet mud or shallow water with

underlying mud. Common in tidal mudflats

and adjacent shallow water. No No

Aleutian Tern Primarily pelagic, coming to land only to

nest and roost. No No

Caspian Tern

Found in marine, coastal estuarine, salt

marsh brackish and freshwater habitats near

large bodies of water. Often nests on islands

in rivers and salt lakes. No No

Arctic Tern Found offshore migrating along the coast,

rarely near land. No No

Marbled Murrelet

Found in nearshore (within 5 km) waters and

within 50 miles inland in old growth forest

stands. No No

Kittlitz’s Murrelet Alaskan species. No No

Black Swift1

Nests on ledges or shallow caves in steep

rock faces and canyons, usually near or

behind waterfalls and sea caves. Forage over

forests and open areas in montane habitats. Yes No

Rufous Hummingbird1

Found in a variety of habitats, most likely in

brushy areas with flowers and forests with a

well-developed understory. Yes Yes


Present

on the

Umpqua

Potential

Impact

from

Project

Allen’s Hummingbird

Found in narrow, moist coastal fog zones in

open areas of coastal scrub. Nest in nearby

wooded areas. Yes No

Olive-sided Flycatcher1

Open conifer forests (< 40 % canopy cover)

and edge habitats where standing snags and

scattered tall trees remain after a

disturbance. Yes Yes

Willow Flycatcher (non

listed subspecies)

Associated with riparian shrub dominated

habitats, especially brushy/willow thickets.

In SE WA also found in xeric brushy

uplands. Yes Yes

Horned Lark (Strigata

ssp.) (ESA candidate)

Open fields with short herb dominated

ground cover < 31 cm tall and patches of

bare ground. Yes Yes

Oregon Vesper Sparrow

(Affinis ssp.) Lightly grazed pastures with scattered

shrubs and grass height < 30-60 cm) high Yes Yes

Western Grebe (nb) Marshes with open water and on lakes and

reservoirs supporting emergent vegetation. Yes No

Laysan Albatross (nb)

Nests on ledges or shallow caves in steep

rock faces and canyons, usually near or

behind waterfalls and sea caves. Forage over

forests and open areas in montane habitats. No No Black-footed Albatross

(nb) Pelagic, far offshore seabird No No Pink-footed Shearwater

(nb) Pelagic offshore seabird No No

Red-faced Cormorant Alaskan species No No

Pelagic Cormorant

(pelagicus ssp.)

Year round nearshore marine and estuarine

habitats, on ledges and vertical cliffs, on

rocky islands and headlands. No No

Bald Eagle (delisted

species)

Associated with large bodies of water,

forested areas near the ocean, along rivers,

and at estuaries, lakes and reservoirs. Yes No

Northern Goshawk

A habitat generalist that prefers to nest in

mature forests with large trees on moderate

slopes with open understories. Yes Yes

Peregrine Falcon (delisted

species) Wide range of habitats, nests on cliff ledges,

bridges, quarries. Yes No

Black Oystercatcher Rocky shores and sand/gravel beaches along

the coast. No No

Solitary Sandpiper (nb) Small and partly wooded patches of water,

and high altitude bogs and wet meadows No No


Present

on the

Umpqua

Potential

Impact

from

Project

Lesser Yellowlegs (nb)

Migrates through east of the Cascade crest.

A wader of shallow pools often found near

mudflats on seasonally flooded fields and

small isolated ponds. Maybe No

Whimbrel (nb)

Migrating through coastal estuarine mud

flats and on sandy ocean beaches. Inland on

fields or mud flats around lakes and ponds. No No

Long-billed Curlew (nb)

Short-grass or mixed-prairie habitats with

flat to rolling topography. Also found in

agricultural fields. No No

Hudsonian Godwit (nb) Rare migrant along the west coast. No No nb= non breeding within this BCR, 1species are also focal species identified in Altman and Alexander 2012.

The Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington

list of focal species (2012) and BCC species list for the project area was reviewed. Those species and

habitats that are within the project area are incorporated and effects disclosed in this analysis. Table XX

displays a list of focal landbird species identified in the 2012 PIF habitat conservation plan on the

Umpqua National Forest that are known or likely to be present in the Planning Area and could be affected

by the proposed actions. Only the Mature and Young forest stage (No Old-Growth) would be treated in

project activities.

Landbirds identified as Focal Species by the Partners In Flight document “Habitat Conservation for

Landbirds in the Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington” version 2.0 by Altman and

Alexander 2012.

Forest Stage Habitat Attribute Focal Species Potential

Impact from

Project

Old-Growth/Mature

Forest (Multi-

Layered/Late-

Successional)

Large snags Pileated Woodpecker Yes

Large trees Brown Creeper Yes

Deciduous canopy/sub-

canopy trees Pacific-slope Flycatcher Yes

Mid-story tree layers Varied Thrush Yes

Mature/Young Forest

(Multi-

Layered/Understory

Reinitiating)

Closed canopy Hermit Warbler Yes

Open mid-story Hammond’s Flycatcher Yes

Deciduous understory Wilson’s Warbler Yes

Forest floor complexity Winter Wren Yes

Young/Pole Forest

(Understory

Reinitiating/Stem

Exclusion) Deciduous canopy trees Black-throated Gray

Warbler Yes

Sapling/Seedling Forest Residual canopy trees Olive-sided Flycatcher Yes

(Stand Initiation/Early

Successional) Snags Northern Flicker Yes

Deciduous shrub layer Orange-crowned Warbler Yes

Unique Forest Habitats

or Conditions

Mineral springs Band-tailed Pigeon No

Wet meadows Lincoln’s Sparrow No

Alpine grasslands American Pipit No

Waterfalls Black Swift No

Nectar-producing plants Rufous Hummingbird Yes

Large hollow snags Vaux’s Swift Yes

Landscape mosaic forest Blue (Sooty) Grouse Yes

Klamath Mountains

Mixed Conifer/Mixed

Conifer-Hardwood

Forests

Pine-oak canopy/subcanopy

trees Purple Finch No

Dense shrub understory Nashville Warbler Yes

Shrub-herb interspersion

understory Hermit Thrush Yes

Forest canopy edges Western Tanager Yes

Montane brushfields Fox Sparrow Yes

Post-wildfire Lazuli Bunting Yes

Direct and Indirect Effects - Alternative 1 is the No Action alternative and would have no direct or indirect effects to any of the landbird species referenced above. Alternatives 2 and 3

include thinning, prescribed burning and other connected actions which will have potential effects

identified in the following tables:

Alternative 2 Impacts to Pertinent Landbird Species

Landbird

species

Effects of Alternative Implementation

Rufous

hummingbird

Commercial thinning (1430 acres) and prescribed burning (828 acres) are

expected to result in increased development of shrub and herbaceous

flowering species. This habitat impact is expected to yield a positive,

indirect effect.

Olive-sided

flycatcher

Commercial thinning units within the C4III Prescription area (654 acres )

will result in canopy closures below 40% desired by this species. This

habitat impact is expected to have a positive, direct effect.

Willow

flycatcher

The only suitable riparian areas would be found within prescribed burning

treatment units. These treatments may result in some increase in shrub

vegetation favored by this species. The scale of vegetative changes are

small and are not anticipated to be of a magnitude that would alter willow

flycatcher habitat quality in the area.

Horned lark Areas of commercial thinning in the C4III prescription and prescribed

burning (1,482 total acres) would produce enhanced habitat for the

horned lark. This is a direct, beneficial effect.

Oregon Vesper

sparrow

Areas of commercial thinning in the C4III prescription and prescribed


Oregon vesper sparrow. This is a direct, beneficial effect.

Northern

Goshawk

Commercial thin units (776 acres) outside of C4III Prescription are

expected to produce open understories and direct and indirect beneficial

impacts to this species.

Pileated

Woodpecker

See narrative under Management Indicator Species section

Brown Creeper All activities are designed to retain large diameter trees, with commercial

thinning units (1,430 acres) aiding development of larger diameter trees

when compared to no treatment. These prescriptions should have an

indirect benefit the brown creeper.

Pacific-slope

Flycatcher

Both commercial thinning and prescribed burning treatments (totaling

2,258 acres) are anticipated to increase the amount of deciduous or

broadleaved canopy or subcanopy trees. This is an indirect, beneficial

effect.

Varied Thrush Commercial thinning treatments (1,430 acres) are anticipated to increase

light penetration through the overstory and aid further development of

midstory tree layers. This is an anticipated indirect, beneficial effect.

Prescribed burning treatments are not expected to produce notable

changes compared to existing conditions.

Hermit

Warbler

Commercial thinning treatments (1,430 acres) will result in decreased

canopy closures and have a direct, adverse impacts to this species.



Hammond’s

Flycatcher

Commercial thinning treatments (1,430 acres) are expected to stimulate

development of a mid-story tree layer, which is generally not available

currently. This habitat improvement, however, is an indirect effect as it

will take time to develop. Prescribed burning treatments are not expected

to produce canopy closure changes on a scale large enough to change

existing conditions in burn only treatment units.

Wilson’s

warbler


development of a more developed deciduous understory. Prescribed

burning units (828 acres) are also expected to aid development of the

deciduous understory, but to a lesser degree than the commercial thinning

units. These are beneficial, indirect effects.

Winter Wren Both commercial thinning units (1,430 acres) and prescribed burn units

(828 acres) are expected to reduce the amount of down wood material on

the forest floor. These treatments will degrade winter wren habitat

conditions in treatment units and are indirect, negative effects.

Black-throated

gray warbler




effect.

Olive-sided

flycatcher

Commercial thinning units within the C4III Prescription area (654 acres)



Northern See Coarse Wood Analysis, EA. P. 102

Flicker

Orange-

crowned

warbler






Rufous

Hummingbird


development of a more developed deciduous understory which produces

the nectar for this species. Prescribed burning units (828 acres) are also

expected to aid development of the deciduous understory, but to a lesser

degree than the commercial thinning units. These are beneficial, indirect

effects.

Vaux’s Swift See Coarse Wood Analysis for impact to large snag habitat.

Blue (Sooty)

Grouse

Preferred habitat conditions for this species are an interspersion of

coniferous cover stands and open foraging areas. Both the commercial

thinning and prescribed burn treatments (totaling 2,258 acres) are

expected to promote this desired vegetative mixture. This is a beneficial,

but indirect effect.

Nashville

Warbler






Hermit Thrush The commercial thinning within the C4III Prescription area and prescribed

burning treatments have been developed to provide desired habitat of

shrub and herbaceous understories. These treatments will provide 1,482

acres of beneficial, indirect habitat benefit for this species.

Western

Tanager

Desired habitat conditions for this species are moderate canopy closures

(40-70%) with shrub understories. Commercial thinning treatments

outside of the C4III Prescription Area will promote these conditions.

These activities will result in 776 acres of indirect, beneficial effect.

Fox Sparrow Both prescribed burning and commercial thinning treatments in the C4III

Prescription area will stimulate the brushfield habitat desired by this

species. These treatments total 1,482 acres. Short-term (direct) adverse

effects may be anticipated on a minor subset of existing brushfield habitat

where burning intensities may consume existing shrubs. The long-term

(indirect) beneficial effects will be developed within the entirety of the

1,482 acres as treated areas develop more extensive shrub habitat.

Lazuli Bunting Habitat objectives for this species call for live conifer tree canopies less

than 20%. Some isolated patches of such habitat do occur within the

project area. None of the proposed treatments call for creation of

additional area with this low of a live canopy closure. Some small patches

(smaller than the stand scale) may be generated. This would be a direct,

beneficial effect, but the scale is expected to be very minor.

Alternative 3 Impacts to Pertinent Landbird Species

Landbird

species

Effects of Alternative Implementation

Rufous

hummingbird

Commercial thinning (1,312 acres) and prescribed burning (852 acres) are

expected to result in increased development of shrub and herbaceous

flowering species. This habitat impact is expected to yield a positive,

indirect effect.

Olive-sided

flycatcher




Willow

flycatcher

The only suitable riparian areas would be found within prescribed burning

treatment units. These treatments may result in some increase in shrub

vegetation favored by this species. The scale of vegetative changes are

small and are not anticipated to be of a magnitude that would alter willow

flycatcher habitat quality in the area.

Horned lark Areas of commercial thinning in the C4III prescription and prescribed


horned lark. This is a direct, beneficial effect.

Oregon Vesper

sparrow

Areas of commercial thinning in the C4III prescription and prescribed


Oregon vesper sparrow. This is a direct, beneficial effect.

Northern

Goshawk

Commercial thin units (674 acres) outside of C4III Prescription are

expected to produce open understories and direct and indirect beneficial

impacts to this species.

Pileated

Woodpecker

See narrative under Management Indicator Species section

Brown Creeper All activities are designed to retain large diameter trees, with commercial

thinning units (1,312 acres) aiding development of larger diameter trees

when compared to no treatment. These prescriptions should have an

indirect benefit the brown creeper.

Pacific-slope

Flycatcher

Both commercial thinning in the C4III prescription and prescribed burning

treatments (totaling 1,490 acres) are anticipated to increase the amount of

deciduous or broadleaved canopy or subcanopy trees. This is an indirect,

beneficial effect.

Varied Thrush Commercial thinning treatments (1,312 acres) are anticipated to increase

light penetration through the overstory and aid further development of

midstory tree layers. This is an anticipated indirect, beneficial effect.



Hermit

Warbler

Commercial thinning treatments (1,312 acres) will result in decreased

canopy closures and have a direct, adverse impacts to this species.



Hammond’s

Flycatcher


development of a mid-story tree layer, which is generally not available

currently. This habitat improvement, however, is an indirect effect as it

will take time to develop. Prescribed burning treatments are not expected

to produce canopy closure changes on a scale large enough to change

existing conditions in burn only treatment units.

Wilson’s

warbler






Winter Wren Both commercial thinning units (1,312 acres) and prescribed burn units

(852 acres) are expected to reduce the amount of down wood material on

the forest floor. These treatments will degrade winter wren habitat

conditions in treatment units and are indirect, negative effects.

Black-throated

gray warbler




effect.

Olive-sided

flycatcher




Northern

Flicker

See Coarse Wood Analysis, EA. P. 102

Orange-

crowned

warbler






Rufous

Hummingbird


development of a more developed deciduous understory which produces

the nectar for this species. Prescribed burning units (852 acres) are also

expected to aid development of the deciduous understory, but to a lesser

degree than the commercial thinning units. These are beneficial, indirect

effects.

Vaux’s Swift See Coarse Wood Analysis (EA p. 102) for impact to large snag habitat.

Blue (Sooty)

Grouse

Preferred habitat conditions for this species are an interspersion of

coniferous cover stands and open foraging areas. Both the commercial

thinning and prescribed burn treatments (totaling 2,164 acres) are

expected to promote this desired vegetative mixture. This is a beneficial,

but indirect effect.

Nashville

Warbler






Hermit Thrush The commercial thinning and prescribed burning treatments within the

C4III Prescription area have been developed to provide desired habitat of

shrub and herbaceous understories. These treatments will provide 1,490

acres of beneficial, indirect habitat benefit for this species.

Western

Tanager

Desired habitat conditions for this species are moderate canopy closures

(40-70%) with shrub understories. Commercial thinning treatments

outside of the C4III Prescription Area will promote these conditions.

These activities will result in 674 acres of indirect, beneficial effect.

Fox Sparrow Both prescribed burning and commercial thinning treatments in the C4III

Prescription area will stimulate the brushfield habitat desired by this

species. These treatments total 1,490 acres. Short-term (direct) adverse

effects may be anticipated on a minor subset of existing brushfield habitat

where burning intensities may consume existing shrubs. The long-term

(indirect) beneficial effects will be developed within the entirety of the

1,490 acres as treated areas develop more extensive shrub habitat.

Lazuli Bunting Habitat objectives for this species call for live conifer tree canopies less

than 20%. Some isolated patches of such habitat do occur within the

project area. None of the proposed treatments call for creation of

additional area with this low of a live canopy closure. Some small patches

(smaller than the stand scale) may be generated. This would be a direct,

beneficial effect, but the scale is expected to be very minor.

Cumulative effects – Past timber harvest and management, wildfire, fire

suppression, prescribed burning, soil and wildlife habitat management projects,

and infrastructure development have all influenced the amount and quality of

landbird habitats in the analysis area. Planned or foreseeable activities within the

analysis area that may contribute to cumulative effects with the Loafer project

include further wildlife habitat improvement activities, road maintenance, and

operational activities associated with the hydropower project. In whole, none of

these are expected to produce cumulative impacts notably different than those

described for the project.

All alternatives are compliant with agency direction and objectives for migratory

landbirds.

Crater Lake tightcoil text (EA p. 99) has been amended to clarify that proposed treatment sites were

field inspected and determined to be unsuitable as habitat for the Crater Lake tightcoil:

Crater Lake tightcoil (Pristiloma articum crateris)

Existing Condition - Suitable habitat for this species occurs within 10 meters of

permanent water of meadows and seeps. The species is documented on the Diamond

Lake District, generally at higher elevations in riparian areas comprised of sedges and

grasses with little or no overhead canopy closure. None of these known locations are

within the analysis area. Proposed treatment units with mapped riparian areas were field

inspected in summer of 2012. The riparian areas are deeply incised and dominated by

conifers and dense shrub vegetation. No sedge or herbaceous dominated seeps or springs

that comprise suitable Crater Lake tightcoil habitat were located. Proposed treatment

areas do not contain suitable habitat for this species.

Direct and Indirect Effects – There are no known populations of the Crater Lake

tightcoil within the project area and no suitable habitat within treatment areas. All

alternatives will have no direct or indirect effects to this species.

Cumulative Effects - The Crater Lake tightcoil is not known to be a resident of the

analysis area and none of the alternatives have direct or indirect effects. There are no

cumulative effects to the Crater Lake tightcoil from any of the alternatives. All

alternatives comply with regional direction regarding the Crater Lake tightcoil.

The Chace sideband narrative (EA p. 99) has been updated to include reference to regional taxa expert coordination of potential habitat definition.

Chace Sideband (Monadenia chaceana)

Like the Crater Lake tightcoil, the Chace sideband is a Survey and Manage mollusk species

that has also been added to the Sensitive Species List. This snail is a documented inhabitant

of the Diamond Lake District. After consultation with the regional taxa expert (T. Young,

Aug. 8, 2014), suitable habitat for this species on the Diamond Lake District has been

defined as rocky areas, talus and riparian areas associated with these rock features. Agency

survey protocol requires site specific surveys for cave, rock and talus species (such as the

Chace sideband) when suitable rock features are at least 1 acre in size. For the Loafer

project, all treatment units were evaluated for potential habitat using a combination of

office and field methods. Units that were identified from aerial photos as containing forest

gaps possibly caused by rock features, locations identified from topographical maps as

having steep aspects, and rocky areas reported by other resource specialists were evaluated

with field visits. No rocky habitat of suitable size or condition was located in any of the

proposed treatment units.

Direct and Indirect Effects – There are no known populations of the Chace sideband

within the project area. All alternatives will have no direct or indirect effects to this species.

Cumulative Effects – The analysis area does contain one other Chace sideband location.

This site is located over 2 ½ miles from the closest treatment site proposed with the Loafer

Project. Considering the low mobility of this snail species, this is considered a separate

population from the Loafer project area. There are no other past, present or foreseeable

actions that would combine with the Loafer proposed treatments to create cumulative effects

on the Chace sideband.

EA text (p. 100) may be updated with information on supplemental red tree vole surveys that were

conducted during the summer and fall of 2014, expanding the survey effort to units beyond those

mandated by agency protocol. This survey effort included stands below the minimum diameter

required by the protocol, stands that were less than 80 years of age and included approximately 85

additional climbed trees.

Red Tree Vole (Arborimus longicaudus)

Existing condition – Red tree voles are arborialrodents preferring to inhabitatmature

Douglas-fir stands where they feed predominantly on Douglas-fir needles. The agency survey

protocol calls for field inventory in stands that are equal or greater than 18 inches quadratic

mean diameter. All of these stands were inventoried according to established protocol. In

2014 supplemental surveys were also conducted. These supplemental surveys surveyed

stands of smaller quadratic mean diameter (qmd) and of younger age than required by

protocol, as well as resurveying some stands done earlier. The 2014 survey effort covered

574 acres. This includes 276 acres added to expand surveying beyond that required by

protocol and 298 acres of previously surveyed units. The 2014 survey effort also included

approximately 70 climbed trees, with the majority of these being located in the units just south

of Dread and Terror Ridge. The supplemental ground surveys located one active red tree

vole nest tree, confirmed by green resin ducts, located at the edge of unit 201. This stand is

below the diameter and age requirements where protocol surveys are mandated. Climbing of

this tree found only inactive nest material. Required surrounding area surveys did not locate

any further potential nest structures , or evidence of other active or inactive red tree vole nests.

No additional active red tree vole nests were discovered through the remainder of tree

climbing. Since the initiation of required Survey and Manage inventory protocols for this

species, several thousand acres of the analysis area have been searched for red tree voles (for

this and other projects). The minimal number of documented or suspected nests from these

surveys suggest that the analysis area is either above or just beyond the principle distribution

zone for the red tree vole.

Direct and Indirect Effects – The single active red tree vole nest located in project treatment

units will be managed following agency protocol. A minimum 10 acre habitat area with at

least a site tree buffer distance (200 feet for this project) will be applied around the nest tree.

With this mitigation measure in place, the project complies with agency direction. The 2,258

acres of commercial thinning and prescribed burning in Alternative 2 will reduce conifer

canopy closure which would negatively affect suitability as red tree vole habitat. In

Alternative 3, this would be reduced to 2,164 acres. This impact to potential habitat would

occur in a landscape where red tree voles are documented to be very limited in distribution.

Cumulative Effects – Red tree vole habitat within th analysis area has changed through as a

result of a variety of influencing factors. Fire suppression has resulted in the expansion of

Douglas-fir forests in the area, many of which are now approaching the size class that may

begin to provide desireable red tree vole habitat conditions. Historic timber harvest has

resulted in the loss of some historically suitable red tree vole habitat. There are no other

planned or scheduled timber sale activities within the analysis area. All alternatives comply

with regional direction regarding the red tree vole.

A request was made for the project file to contain a table identifying each unit and pertinent red tree

vole information. This table has been prepared and made part of the project record, but has not been

included in the EA text or MIS report in the interest of brevity.

Supplemental great grey owl surveys were also completed in 2014. This information and the deletion of

the Whitethorn Timber Sale in the cumulative effects section (it has been completed) is incorporated

into the following revised text.

Great grey owl (Strix nebulosa)

Existing condition - Great grey owls are large raptors most often associated with edges

of meadows, riparian zones and openings. They have also been documented to forage in

created openings including clearcuts and heavily thinned forest stands. The analysis area

contains a variety of large (10 acres or larger) natural openings that are suitable for great

grey owls. In Flammulated, Boreal, and Great Gray Owls in the United States: A

Technical Conservation Assessment (1994), Duncan and Hayward cite the two principle

factors which appear to limit great grey owl populations as the availability of suitable

nest sites and suitable abundance of small mammals as a forage base. Agency Survey

and Manage protocols call for surveys in potentially impacted nesting habitats. Surveys

were conducted for this species in 2010 and 2011, with supplemental surveys outside

proposed harvest areas also being conducted in 2014. Although no great grey owl

responses were received, and no nest locations have been documented, great grey owls

are known to inhabit the area based upon visual sightings.

Direct and Indirect effects – Alternative 1 would have no direct impacts to

nesting sites or foraging habitat, but would have indirect impacts as forest

succession continues to reduce suitable forest openings. As these areas continue

to become forested, the amount of nesting habitat and foraging habitat would be

reduced.

Alternatives 2 and 3 propose commercial thinning and prescribed burning that

would help restore historic great grey owl habitat. These benefits would extend to

both nesting habitat and foraging habitat. Using criteria contained within agency

survey protocol for the great grey owl, suitable nesting habitat is found within

mature forest stands within 200 meters of large openings. Currently this amounts

to an estimated 585 acres. With treatments in Alternative 2 this would increase to

1,670 acres; the result of restoration of large natural openings. Alternative 3

treatments in the Upper Mountain Meadows area retain higher canopy closures in

many stands. This alternative results in suitable nesting habitat of 1,367 acres.

These action alternatives would also have beneficial effects to foraging habitat

and the small mammal forage base. Early seral habitat availability is anticipated

to rise by 1,455 (Alt. 3) to 1,697 (Alt. 2) acres with action alternatives.

Cumulative effects – Fire suppression has had the largest impact on great grey owl

habitat condition in the analysis area. As a consequence of decreasing natural opening

size, nesting opportunities and foraging opportunities have declined. Past timber harvest

has had both positive and negative effects; potentially reducing large nesting sized trees

but also creating supplemental foraging habitat. Other planned and foreseeable activities

in the analysis area that may further influence great grey owl habitat include prescribed

burning units and small scale meadow/shrubland maintenance activities. These

additional activities are expected to help maintain foraging habitat on 410 acres. All

alternatives comply with regional direction regarding the great grey owl.

A request was made for the project file to contain a table identifying each unit and pertinent great grey

owl information. This table has been prepared and made part of the project record, but has not been

included in the EA text or MIS report in the interest of brevity.

The following species cumulative effects sections have also been updated to delete the Whitethorn

Timber Sale as a planned or scheduled activity. The Whitethorn Sale is now completed.

EA p. 68 &88 Northern spotted owl

Cumulative Effects –There are no other planned or scheduled activities in the

analysis area that are considered to have potential to impact the availability of

NRF habitat.

All alternatives retain enough mature forest habitat to meet Forest Plan objectives

for habitat availability and provide for continued species viability within the

project area and across the Forest. All alternatives comply with Forest Plan

direction and objectives for the northern spotted owl.

EA p. 72 California shield-backed bug

Cumulative Effects - There is one other planned projects within the subwatershed that will also influence the amount of available grassland/shrubland habitat. A prescribed burn is planned at the western end of Thorn Prairie that would treat 88 acres of mapped shield bug habitat, as well as help restore an additional 67acres of grassland/shrubland habitat. When combined with Loafer treatments, this activity would impact approximately 26% of existing shield-backed bug habitat, and recreate an additional 46.5%.

EA p. 80 Lewis’ and white-headed woodpeckers

Cumulative Effects –Two prescribed burning units are also planned within the analysis area, totaling 450 acres. These areas are already very open, with proposed treatments aiding in maintaining suitable canopy closures for the Lewis’ and white-headed woodpecker while creating additional snag habitat. Past commercial thinning harvest (Prairie Thin T.S.) and prescribed burning have reduced canopy closure on approximately 600 additional acres.

EA p. 83 Townsend’s big-eared bat

Cumulative Effects – Past regeneration harvest, commercial thinning, and prescribed fire have all influenced the availability and quality of snag and foraging habitat for the Townsend’s big-eared bat. Each produced some loss of hollow trees for roost site, but also generated foraging advantages. Within the analysis area, two planned prescribed burning units (totaling 464 acres) will have these same kinds of effects.

EA p. 85 Fisher

Cumulative Effects – Past timber harvest and wildfire have been the major past events that have influenced the amount of existing fisher habitat in the analysis area. Minor impacts have also been caused by hydropower generation facilities, recreational developments, and road and other infrastructure developments. Currently scheduled or planned activities include 2 prescribed burning units. Taken together these would impact an additional 99 acres of mapped habitat in the same ways as described for action alternatives. When combined with action alternatives, these actions would slightly raise the cumulatively impacted amount from 5% to 6% of the available mapped habitat in the analysis area.

EA p. 87 Pileated woodpecker

Cumulative Effects – Past timber harvest, road construction, hydropower

development and wildfires have all contributed to an overall decline in the amount

of available habitat for pileated woodpeckers. Currently, there are two planned

prescribed burning units that would impact an additional 78 acres of mapped

pileated woodpecker habitat. These are small incremental impacts given the large

volume of available habitat in both the project analysis area and Forest.

All alternatives retain enough suitable habitat to provide for continued species

viability within the project area and across the Forest. All alternatives comply

with Forest Plan direction and objectives for pileated woodpeckers.

EA p. 93 Roosevelt elk (Cervus elaphus) &

Black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus)

Cumulative Effects – Past timber harvest, road building, infrastructure

development, wildfires, fire suppression, prescribed burning and wildlife habitat

management activities have all contributed to the current conditions for deer and

elk in the analysis area. Past regeneration timber harvest, wildfires, prescribed

burning and habitat enhancement treatments have all had beneficial impacts to

habitat quality for these species. Road building, infrastructure development

(including hydropower) and fire suppression have had negative impacts. The

most substantial impact currently being experienced is the negative effects

associated with fire suppression. The resulting forest encroachment is the largest

contributing factor to declining herd population trends. Other planned or

foreseeable activities in the analysis area include big game forage enhancement

activities and prescribed burning. Each of these is expected to have positive

effects individually, and in concert with the proposed treatments in the Loafer

project. Additionally, the Forest is engaged in a Forest-wide evaluation of where

motorized vehicles will be permitted and prohibited. This project (the Motorized

Vehicle Use Plan or MVUM) may also result in changes to motorized use within

the analysis area. The degree of increase or decrease in motorized use, and the

subsequent increase or decrease in big game disturbance, is not known at present.

In the 1990 Umpqua Forest Plan, black-tailed deer and Roosevelt elk winter range

habitat components was envisioned to be managed largely through an intensive

regeneration timber management strategy. With the incorporation of the

Northwest Forest Plan and Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan and Recovery

habitat, this initial Forest Plan strategy has been constrained to the point where

attaining and maintaining these desired habitat conditions is not considered

possible. Providing foraging habitat conditions for desired populations of these

Management Indicator Species will require close management attention in areas

of the Forest that are within the Matrix allocation and outside spotted owl

recovery habitat. The 1990 Forest Plan noted that population levels for these

species was expected to undergo a slight decline compared to past (pre-1990)

levels. All alternatives follow Forest Plan standards, while Alternatives 2 and 3

implement management actions to minimize this decline.

EA p. 95 Cavity nesters

Cumulative Effects –Past timber harvest, wildfire, fire suppression and

infrastructure development have all had an influence on small snag levels within

the analysis area. Reasonably foreseeable activities that may combine with

Loafer Project effects include prescribed burning activities and road maintenance.

Prescribed burning units are expected to produce total snag numbers comparable

to those identified in project silvicultural modeling. Snag habitat loss from road

maintenance activities is considered to be of very minor relevance when

compared to these other actions in the analysis area.

Snag retention for all alternatives exceeds levels envisioned in the Forest Plan.

Each alternative has 100% of the analysis area in compliance with snag density

objectives for the hairy woodpecker. All alternatives provide for continued viable

populations of the hairy woodpecker for the project area and the Umpqua

National Forest.

EA p. 101 ROD Identified Snag Retention Species

Cumulative effects - Past timber harvest, infrastructure development, wildfire

and forest succession have all influenced snag availability within the analysis

area. Planned and foreseeable activities aside from the Loafer treatments that

may influence snag numbers in the analysis area are prescribed burning activities.

Each of these has been designed to restore shrubland habitat in much the same

way as Loafer project treatments. The impacts to snag numbers is expected to be

similar to the effects from the Loafer projects. All alternatives will retain

adequate snag amounts to meet ROD snag retention guidelines.

EA p. 106 Coarse Wood Analysis (the Coarse Wood Analysis heading is missing)

Cumulative Effects – Past activities and events that have influenced coarse wood debris

categories within the watershed are the same as described earlier in the pileated

woodpecker and “cavity nester” sections (timber harvest, wildfire, fire suppression and

infrastructure development). Reasonably foreseeable activities that may combine with

Loafer Project effects include prescribed burning activities and road maintenance. All of

these are small in scale and are not expected to yield any detectable difference in coarse

wood debris category amounts projected for the watershed.

EA P. 107 Grey Wolf

Cumulative Effects - Past road building, timber harvest, infrastructure

development and prescribed burning have all had impacts to the big game forage

base and amount of seclusion habitat in the analysis area. Currently planned and

foreseeable activities that may continue these impacts include prescribed burning,

and wildlife habitat management activities. These projects are expected to

produce improved conditions for both deer and elk that constitute the principle

forage base for wolves. As noted in the wolverine analysis, these beneficial

alternative impacts are unlikely to substantially change the quality of the analysis

area for large predators. The high density of roads and associated human

disturbance provide marginal conditions for grey wolves as well.

The following species direct & indirect and/or cumulative effects sections were revised to include a

complete sentence describing the lack of effects rather than a single word or sentence fragment.

EA p. 70 Oregon shoulderband

EA p. 73 Johnson’s hairstreak

EA p. 74 Gray-blue butterfly

EA p. 74 Mardon skipper

EA p. 75 Siskiyou short-horned grasshopper

EA p. 76 Foothill yellow-legged frog

EA p. 76 Oregon spotted frog

EA p. 77 Pacific pond turtle

EA p. 77 Bufflehead

EA p. 77 Yellow rail

EA p. 78 Black swift

EA p. 79 Bald eagle

EA p. 80 harlequin duck

EA p. 81 horned & red-necked grebe

EA p. 82 Purple martin

EA p. 82 Pallid bat

Review Comments and Corresponding Revision

Under the MIS section for Big Game

Document reviewers desired a determination statement for big game evaluating species viability. The

EA text and Species of Interest reports have been revised to add such a statement.

Document reviewers desired inclusion of additional text regarding current status of grey wolf

(specifically new information about the presence of OR-7 and the Rogue Pack to south of project area).

EA and Species of Interest documents were revised accordingly.

Document reviewers desired a sentence of compliance with the Bald and Golden Eagle Act of 1962. A

sentence stating this was included in the revised EA text and Biological Evaluation.

During review of consistency of new text with existing documentation, information on FWS

determinations of critical habitat from Biological Opinion was added.

During review of consistency of text with existing documentation the determination of “no Effect” was

missing. This was updated to include in both EA text and specialist report.

During review of project documentation, the Actin g Forest Wildlife Biologist recommended revising the

wolverine text to more closely align with the 2014 USDI, FWS Proposed Rule considering ESA status for

the species. The following text replaces the previous BE text, and the EA text for this species:

Wolverine (Gulo gulo)

A review of historical and recent wolverine locations (Aubrey, et al. 2007) determined

that almost all known wolverine siting in the Pacific States (which include Oregon) were

located in high elevation montane areas, areas containing alpine vegetation, or areas of

high probability of late spring (April 15 to May 14) snow cover. Of these, the study

concluded that a persistent late spring snow pack provided thed best accounting for

documented wolverine locations. In the Federal Register Proposed Rule (USDI 2014),

the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service described potential wolverine habitat in the

contiguous United States as “high elevation (6,888 ft to 8,528 ft) subalpine forests that

comprise the Hudsonian Life Zone (weather similar to that found in northern Canada).

None of the proposed Loafer Project treatment areas are at this elevation, nor would they

be categorized as having a high probability of late spring (April 15 to May 14) snow

cover. The Proposed Rule also concludes that in regard to impacts to human use and

disturbanace (including forest management activities) “Wolverines are not thought to be

dependent on specific vegetation or habitat features that might be manipulated by land

management activities, nor is there evidence to suggest that land management activities

are a threat to the conservation of the DPS (distinct population segment).

There are no documented wolverine locations within the analysis area in the

recent past. The Oregon Natural Heritage Program records contain an

historical report of a wolverine at the north end of Diamond Lake in 1956,

approximately 60 years ago. More recent helicopter surveys conducted on

the Umpqua National Forest in the last 20 years have not recorded any

documented sightings or sign of wolverines.

Direct and Indirect Effects – None of the alternatives propose activities in high elevation areas

with persistent spring snowcover required by wolverines. Consequently, there are no direct or

indirect effects to the wolverine.

Cumulative Effects – Given that there are no direct or indirect effects, there are no

cumulative effects from any alternative.

All alternatives will have “No Effect” to the wolverine.

Loafer EA Supplemental Information for Wildlife...

Documents

Transcript of Loafer EA Supplemental Information for Wildlife...