a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · 2017. 11. 17. · BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION . And . WILDLIFE REPORT . LEX VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT . USDA

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION And

WILDLIFE REPORT

LEX VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT

USDA Forest Service

Deschutes National Forest Bend-Fort Rock Ranger District

Prepared by:

Shelley Borchert, Wildlife Biologist Deschutes National Forest, Bend-Fort Rock RD 63095 Deschutes Market Road, Bend, OR 97701

[email protected] (541)383-4716

Author’s Signature: _____________________________________

Shelley Borchert, Wildlife Biologist Date: _____________________________________

Reviewed By: _____________________________________ Brock McCormick, District Wildlife Biologist

Date: _____________________________________

mailto:[email protected]

vi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF EFFECTS The following table summarizes the species analyzed within this Biological Evaluation and Wildlife Report. It addresses the effects the actions associated with the Lex Vegetation Management Project would have on Threatened (T), Endangered (E), Proposed (P), Candidate (C), and Sensitive species (S), plus Management Indicator Species (MIS), Survey and Manage Species (S&M), Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC), and Landbird Focal Species that may occur within the project area. Table 1. Summary of All Species Analyzed, Status, and the Effects Associated with the Alternatives and the Rationale for the Effects.

Species

Status Alternative 1

(No Action)

Action Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Rationale

Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Gray wolf Canis lupus T NE NE The project area does not meet the

definition of occupied habitat.

Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis caurina T, MIS NE NLAA, SNI

There are no proposed treatments within suitable NRF habitat; treatments are proposed within dispersal habitat in all action alternatives.

Northern spotted owl 2012 designated critical habitat NE NE No critical habitat within the project

area. Oregon spotted frog Rana pretiosa T NE NE Riparian and aquatic habitats do not

occur within or near the project area.

Oregon spotted frog critical habitat NE NE

Riparian and aquatic habitats do not occur within or near the project area. The proposed actions do not overlap Critical Habitat.

North American wolverine Gulo gulo P, MIS NI NE, NI

There is no denning habitat within or adjacent to the project area. The project would not impede dispersal.

Candidate and Sensitive American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum S, BCC NI NI, = There is no cliff habitat within or

adjacent to the project area. Northern bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

S, MIS, BCC NI NI, = The project area is 5 miles away from a

suitable body of water for foraging.

Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis

S, MIS, BCC, CEFS

NI MIIH, SNI, +

Short-term loss of prey species habitat; potential disturbance during the nesting season from logging and fuels activities; long-term development of large tree structure.

White-headed woodpecker Picoides albolarvatus

S, MIS, BCC, CEFS

NI MIIH, SNI, +

Loss of nesting and foraging habitat plus possible loss of future and current snags; potential disturbance during the nesting season from logging and fuels activities; reduced predation risk from reduction in shrub understory; long-term development of large tree structure.

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola S NI NI Riparian and aquatic habitats do not

occur within or near the project area. Greater sage grouse Centrocercus urophasianus C, BCC NI NI, = Sagebrush habitat does not occur within

the project area. Harlequin duck Histrionicus histrionicus S NI NI Riparian and aquatic habitats do not


vii

Species


(No Action)


Rationale

Horned grebe Podiceps auritus S NI NI Riparian and aquatic habitats do not

occur within or near the project area. Northern waterthrush Parkesia noveboracensis S NI NI Riparian and aquatic habitats do not

occur within or near the project area. Tri-colored blackbird Agelaius tricolor S NI NI Riparian and aquatic habitats do not

occur within or near the project area. Tule goose Anser albifrons elgasi S NI NI Riparian and aquatic habitats do not

occur within or near the project area. Yellow rail Coturnicops noveboracensis S, BCC NI NI, = Riparian and aquatic habitats do not


Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes S NI MIIH

Potential disturbance or loss of individuals from impacts to roost trees from logging and prescribed burning; benefits to foraging capabilities by opening up stands.

Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus S NI MIIH


Spotted bat Euderma maculatum S NI NI Rocky canyons or outcrops do not occur

within the project area.

Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii S, MIS NI MIIH, SNI


Pacific fisher Pekania pennanti S NE MIIH

Reduction of denning, resting, and foraging habitat; potential loss of snags and down wood; potential loss of individuals during denning period from logging activities; road closures and user-created trail obliteration would reduce disturbance in suitable habitat.

Sierra Nevada red fox Vulpes vulpes necator S NI MIIH

Potential denning habitat would be impacted; mature, dense forest would be removed. Denning individuals could be disturbed or harmed during project activities. Road closures and user-created trail obliteration would reduce disturbance.

Columbia spotted frog Rana luteiventris S NI NI Riparian and aquatic habitats do not

occur within or near the project area. Crater Lake tightcoil Pristiloma crateris S NI NI Riparian and aquatic habitats do not

occur within or near the project area. Shiny tightcoil Pristiloma wascoense S NI NI Riparian and aquatic habitats do not


Johnson’s hairstreak Callophrys johnsoni S NI MIIH

Project activities may reduce the amount of mistletoe. Possible loss of individuals while spraying herbicides; short-term reduction of foraging plants.

Silver-bordered fritillary Boloria selene atrocostalis S NI NI Meadow habitat does not occur within

the project area.

viii

Species


(No Action)


Rationale

Western bumblebee Bombus occidentalis S NI MIIH

Project activities may disturb and/or crush nests and overwintering queens; possible loss of individuals while spraying herbicides, short-term reduction of foraging habitat.

Management Indicator Species

Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis caurina MIS, T NI SNI, MIIH

There are no proposed treatments within suitable NRF habitat; treatments are proposed within dispersal habitat in all action alternatives.

Northern bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

MIS, S, BCC NI NI, =

The project area is over 4 miles away from a suitable body of water for foraging.

American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus

MIS, S, BCC NI NI, = There is no riparian or cliff habitat

within or adjacent to the project area.

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentiles MIS NI SNI

Suitable habitat would be removed; potential disturbance or loss of individuals during the nesting season; reduced disturbance by closure of roads and obliteration of user-created trails.

Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperi MIS NI SNI


Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus MIS NI SNI


Great gray owl Strix nebulosa

MIS, S&M NI SNI

Potential loss of unmapped nesting habitat that occurs adjacent to openings created by logging; potential disturbance or loss of individuals during the nesting season.

Great blue heron Ardea herodias MIS NI NI Riparian and aquatic habitats do not


Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos

MIS, BCC NI NI, =

There are no large open areas with cliffs/outcrops within or adjacent to the project area.

Waterfowl (See Appendix B) MIS NI NI Riparian and aquatic habitats do not


Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis

MIS, S, BCC NI SNI, MIIH,

+



MIS, S, BCC NI SNI, MIIH, -

Loss of nesting and foraging habitat plus possible loss of future and current snags; potential disturbance during the nesting season from

ix

Species


(No Action)


Rationale

logging and fuels activities; reduced predation risk from reduction in shrub understory; long-term development of large tree structure.

Red-naped sapsucker Sphyrapicus nuchalis MIS NI No riparian or hardwood forests occur

within the project area. Red-breasted sapsucker Sphyrapicus ruber MIS NI No riparian or hardwood forests occur

within the project area. Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens MIS NI No riparian or hardwood forests occur


Black-backed woodpecker Picoides arcticus

MIS, CEFS NI SNI, -

Loss of nesting and foraging habitat plus possible loss of future and current snags; potential disturbance during the nesting season from logging and fuels activities.

Three-toed woodpecker Picoides dorsalis MIS NI SNI

Loss of nesting and foraging habitat plus possible loss of future and current snags; potential disturbance during the nesting season from logging and fuels activities.

Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus

MIS NI SNI

Loss of nesting and foraging habitat plus possible loss of future and current snags; potential disturbance during the nesting season from logging and fuels activities; long-term development of large tree structure.

Northern flicker Colaptes auratus

MIS NI SNI


Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus

MIS NI SNI


Williamson’s sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus

MIS NI SNI


Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis MIS NI SNI

Nest habitat degradation and potential disturbance during the nesting season.

Osprey Pandion haliaetus MIS NI NI


North American wolverine Gulo MIS, P NI NI Suitable denning habitat does not occur

within or adjacent to the project area.

American marten Martes americana MIS NI SNI

Potential denning, resting and foraging habitat would be removed; individuals could be impacted during

x

Species


(No Action)


Rationale

project activities during the denning period; road closures and user-created trail obliteration would reduce disturbance;

Elk Cervus elephas MIS NI SNI

No Key Elk Habitat occurs within the project area, only summer habitat. Loss of hiding cover; short-term loss of foraging habitat; reduced disturbance by closure of roads and obliteration of user-created trails.

Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus MIS NI SNI

The project occurs within deer summer range. Loss of hiding cover; short-term loss of foraging habitat; reduced disturbance by closure of roads and obliteration of user-created trails.

Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii MIS, S NI SNI, MIIH


Snag and down wood habitat

With type of treatments, futures reduction of small snags; possible loss of scattered down wood to piling; inadvertent loss of snags and down wood during logging and prescribed burning.

Survey and Manage Species

Great gray owl

S&M, MIS

NI SNI

Potential loss of unmapped nesting habitat that occurs adjacent to openings created by logging; potential disturbance or loss of individuals during the nesting season.

Crater Lake tightcoil S&M, S NI NI Riparian and aquatic habitats do not occur within or near the project area.

Evening field slug S&M, S NI NI Riparian and aquatic habitats do not occur within or near the project area.

Birds of Conservation Concern and Landbird Focal Species (Only species that would occur in the project are listed) Black-backed woodpecker Picoides arcticus

CEFS, MIS = - Loss of nesting and foraging habitat.

Brown creeper Certhia americana CEFS = - Loss of nesting and foraging habitat.

Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina CEFS = +

Increase in open stands dominated by ponderosa pine; reinitiating a new understory with ponderosa pine.

Flammulated owl Psiloscops flammeolus

BCC, CEFS = - Loss of nesting and foraging habitat.

Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus CEFS = - Loss of nesting and foraging habitat.

Lewis’ woodpecker Melanerpes lewis

BCC, CEFS, S, MIS

= + Increase in stands opened to promote large tree growth. Decrease competition on larger ponderosa pine.

Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi CEFS = + Increase in edge habitat adjacent to

open stands with larger trees.

xi

Species


(No Action)


Rationale

Pygmy nuthatch Sitta pygmaea CEFS = +

Increase in stands opened to promote large tree growth. Decrease competition on larger ponderosa pine.


BCC, CEFS, MIS, S

= - Loss of nesting and foraging habitat.


BCC, CEFS, MIS

= - Loss of nesting and foraging habitat.

SPECIES STATUS: (Federal Status) T=Threatened; E=Endangered; P=Proposed

Sensitive=S Management Indicator Species=MIS Birds of Conservation Concern=BCC

(Landbird Status) Cascades East Slope Focal Species=CEFS FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES DETERMINATIONS:

NE=No effect; BE=Beneficial effect, NLAA=May affect, not likely to adversely affect; LAA=May affect, Likely to adversely affect

SENSITIVE SPECIES DETERMINATIONS: NI=No impact; BI=Beneficial impact;

MIIH=May impact individuals or habitat but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species;

WIFV=Will impact individuals or habitat with a consequence that the action may contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species

MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES DETERMINATIONS: NI=No impact to viability on the Deschutes NF

IC=Improved conditions, will not contribute toward a negative trend in viability on the Deschutes NF SNI=Small negative impact, continued viability is expected on the Deschutes NF

LNI=Large negative impact with viability concern on the Deschutes NF BIRDS OF CONSERVATION CONCERN AND LANDBIRD FOCAL SPECIES:

Habitat increased (+); Habitat decreased (-); Habitat unchanged (=)

xii

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................... 1

Project Area Location and Description ............................................................................................................... 1

Purpose and Need for Action ............................................................................................................................... 3

Project Description ................................................................................................................................................ 4

Project Design Criteria ....................................................................................................................................... 14

Cumulative Effects .............................................................................................................................................. 18

Summary of Anticipated Effects from the Proposed Action ........................................................................... 22

Road and Trail Density ....................................................................................................................................... 22

Biological Evaluation .......................................................................................................................................... 27

Species Information and Effects Analysis......................................................................................................... 27

Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species ............................................................................................... 30

Grey Wolf ..................................................................................................................................................... 31

Northern Spotted Owl ................................................................................................................................... 33

Oregon Spotted Frog ..................................................................................................................................... 52

North American Wolverine ........................................................................................................................... 53

Sensitive Species ............................................................................................................................................... 53

Lewis’ Woodpecker ...................................................................................................................................... 58

White-Headed Woodpecker .......................................................................................................................... 62

Fringed Myotis .............................................................................................................................................. 68

Pallid Bat ....................................................................................................................................................... 68

Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat ........................................................................................................................... 68

Pacific Fisher................................................................................................................................................. 74

Sierra Nevada Red Fox ................................................................................................................................. 81

Johnson’s Hairstreak ..................................................................................................................................... 85

Western Bumble Bee .................................................................................................................................... 88

Wildlife Report .................................................................................................................................................... 93

Species Information and Effects Analysis......................................................................................................... 93

Management Indicator Species ......................................................................................................................... 97

Northern Goshawk ...................................................................................................................................... 100

Cooper’s Hawk ........................................................................................................................................... 106

Sharp-Shinned Hawk .................................................................................................................................. 106

Great Gray Owl ........................................................................................................................................... 114

Red-Tailed Hawk ........................................................................................................................................ 118

American Marten ........................................................................................................................................ 122

xiii

Elk/Mule Deer ............................................................................................................................................. 130

Snags/Down Wood ..................................................................................................................................... 141

Woodpeckers ............................................................................................................................................... 153

Black-Backed Woodpecker .................................................................................................................... 156

Three-Toed Woodpecker ....................................................................................................................... 163

Hairy Woodpecker ................................................................................................................................. 170

Northern Flicker ..................................................................................................................................... 176

Pileated Woodpecker ............................................................................................................................. 182

Williamson’s Sapsucker ......................................................................................................................... 189

Survey and Manage Species ............................................................................................................................ 195 Landbirds ......................................................................................................................................................... 197

Literature Cited ................................................................................................................................................. 204

Appendix A – Description of Activities ........................................................................................................... 216

Appendix B – Rational for Species Not Considered in Detail ....................................................................... 221

Appendix C – BCR Bird Species and Their Preferred Habitat .................................................................... 228

Appendix D – Monitoring Protocol ................................................................................................................. 230

1

INTRODUCTION The purpose of this Biological Evaluation (BE) and Wildlife Report is to address the effects/impacts of the Lex Vegetation Management Project on the following: ESA-listed species listed as endangered, threatened, or proposed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), or their designated critical habitat, as well as Region 6 sensitive species (USDA Forest Service 2015), Management Indicator Species (MIS), Survey and Manage Species (S&M), Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC), Focal Landbird Species, and High Priority Shorebirds. This Biological Evaluation and Wildlife Report has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of Forest Service Manual (USDA FS 1997) FSM 2630.3., FSM 2670-2671, FSM W.O. Amendments 2600-95-7, and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, and the Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan, USDA Forest Service 1990) for the Deschutes National Forest (Forest) as amended by the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the range of the Northern Spotted Owl (Northwest Forest Plan or NWFP) [1994]. Consultation obligations with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have been covered through the Joint Aquatic and Terrestrial Programmatic Biological Assessment for Federal Lands within the Deschutes and John Day River Basins Administered by the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests (USDA FS 2014). The proposed action is consistent with all applicable management direction for wildlife resources on the Deschutes National Forest as described within the Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Plan (USDA FS 1990), as amended. This Biological Evaluation and Wildlife Report has considered and applied the best science available, including papers, reports, literature reviews, review citations, peer reviews, science consistency reviews, and results of ground-based observations or surveys. The best available science was used to determine species or habitat presence and effects. A complete list of the science used can be found within the species discussions and in the Literature Cited section of this document. If the action is modified in a manner that causes effects not considered, or if new information becomes available that reveals the action may affect endangered, threatened, proposed, or sensitive species that in a manner or to an extent not previously considered, a new or revised Biological Evaluation will be required. PROJECT AREA LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The Lex Vegetation Management Project (hereinafter referred to as “project area”) is located approximately 10 miles south of Bend, Oregon. The project area is 11,934 acres and lies within the Fall River-Deschutes River Watershed (Dutchman Creek and Spring River Subwatersheds) and the North Unit Diversion Dam-Deschutes River Watershed (Benham Falls-Deschutes River Subwatershed and Town of Sunriver-Deschutes River Subwatershed). The Cascade Lakes Scenic Byway is generally the northern boundary of the project area. The Edison Ice Cave Road, connecting Sunriver to the Cascade Lakes Scenic Byway and Mt. Bachelor is generally the western boundary. The Kew vegetation management project borders Lex to the east, and to the north and west of the Lex Project Area are inventoried roadless areas. Special features include winter recreation sites at Kapka and Wanoga Snow Parks. The legal description is: Township 18 South, Range 9 East Sections 25, 26, 27, 34, 35, 36; Township 18 South, Range 10 East Sections 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34; Township 19 South, Range 9 East, Sections 1, 2, 11, 12, 13; and Township 19 South, Range 10 East, Sections 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 18, and 19, Willamette Meridian (See Figure 1). According to the soils report (Sussmann 2016), primary landforms within the area are volcanic cinder cones and glaciated uplands. Glacial deposits overlay igneous rocks of various ages on the relatively gentle uplands, which generally slope to the south/southwest between the buttes. Dutchman Creek, although not a perennial stream, is the only defined drainage-way within the project area due to the highly porous nature of the soils and bedrock in the area. Elevations range from approximately 6,100 at the top of buttes and in the northwestern portion of the project area to 4,900 feet along the southern extent.

2

Most of the project area is a mixed conifer and lodgepole pine forest. The southern end of the project area consists of a drier mixed conifer forest and transitions into a moister mixed conifer forest heading north. The mixed conifer forest is generally associated with a change in topography from the lodgepole pine pumice flats found throughout the area. The majority of mixed conifer forest is located on buttes and toe slopes of buttes or areas with some slope.

Figure 1. Locator Map of the Lex Vegetation Management Project

3

The following table describes the different land allocations that occur within the project area: Table 2. LRMP Management Area Acres in Lex Project Area

Management Area Northwest Forest Plan Allocation Acres Percent of Project

Area General Forest (MA-8) Matrix 8,788 74% Scenic Views (MA-9) Matrix 2,367 20% Winter Recreation (MA-13) Administratively

Withdrawn 660 6%

Old Growth (MA-15) Administratively Withdrawn 112 <1%

Intensive Recreation (MA-11) Administratively Withdrawn 7 <1%

Riparian Reserves* 170 NA Total Planning Area Acres 11,934 100%

*Riparian reserve allocation of the Northwest Forest Plan overlays other NWFP management allocations and therefore these acres are not counted toward the total acres. The two streams in the project area do not contain any water. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION Existing Forested Condition Within the Lex planning area, changes in forest structure, composition, and processes have occurred due to fire suppression and logging removal of large trees. Many of the mixed conifer stands containing ponderosa pine were logged in the 1960’s, removing roughly 25 to 50 percent of the stocking of large ponderosa pine. The natural regeneration that occurred in these areas has been mostly white fir, some lodgepole pine and to a lesser extent ponderosa pine. Currently, in denser stands, typical trees are slower growing, lose lower branches earlier through competition, and keep understory species depauperate due to high crown closure. These stands are currently showing mortality from bark beetles in the ponderosa and lodgepole pine and from root rots and mistletoe in the white fir (Ornberg 2017). About 67 percent of the Lex Planning area is dominated by lodgepole pine. Lack of fire in the area has kept older stands of lodgepole pine on the landscape for a longer period. The lodgepole pine flats in the project area can act as a fire sink adjacent to frequent fire areas and create areas of isolation with little brush and flammable litter accumulation. However, the cycles the lodgepole pine on this landscape would have experienced historically have been interrupted. Many stands have developed into stands of senescent lodgepole pine and have experienced bark beetle outbreaks in the 1980’s and more recently at the start of this century. Historically, dead and down wood accumulates and does not decompose. These fuels historically would have experienced a fire, which would have removed a majority of the down fuels and reinitiate a new lodgepole pine stand (Ornberg 2017). In the 1980’s and more recently much of the dead material has been removed with salvage, clear cutting or firewood cutting. The salvage has left many stands with what was mistletoe infected intermediate or understory trees as the current stand. Desired Condition From a study initiated by Andrew Merschel (2015), information gleaned includes the understanding that throughout the area fire was common in areas with both ponderosa pine and white fir. Fire return intervals being typically less than 20 years led to open stands with light brush and fuels allowing white fir and lodgepole pine

4

individuals to survive in low-density stands. The dominant large tree structure in the area seemed to develop in open stands allowing individual trees to develop large branch structure along with large diameters. In the Lex project area there is a desire to move the landscape toward a pattern similar to what may have occurred historically. Within the Lex project area patch size, and surrogates to fire are common themes. Patch size and variation in age in the lodgepole pine will be enhanced by initiating openings that will start a new cohort. This will allow a cycle of cohorts reaching diameters susceptible to bark beetle outbreak in different future decades. Larger areas will be identified as areas where fire can be managed, encompassing areas covered by fires similar to Merschel’s research. Some of the main roads will identify these areas. The fuels along these roads will be treated to safely manage possible large fires. In the isolated fire regime areas where ponderosa pine occurs, it will be enhanced through release from white fir competition and increased through starting a new ponderosa pine cohort. Ponderosa pine is important for restoration and habitat on this landscape due to the long life it can attain, compared to white fir or lodgepole pine. Ponderosa pine is a more long-lived species due to its resistance to fire mortality and most mortality causing diseases. This long life has been important for long lasting large tree forest structure (USDA 2016). PROJECT DESCRIPTION Commercial harvest would include commercial and small-tree thinning of ponderosa pine, white fir, and lodgepole pine and salvage of dead lodgepole pine. White fir will only be cut where it is removed to create openings to regenerate ponderosa pine that historically existed on the landscape. Commercial thinning could include products such as commercial firewood sales, post and pole sales, and traditional saw log material. Harvest would be conducted with mechanical surface logging methods to reduce tree stocking, control species composition and reduce the accumulation of dead, down woody material. Opportunities for small tree harvest could include biomass or personal use firewood, or both. Lodgepole pine treatments would include final or overstory removal or clear-cut with seed tree. A full description of the types of treatments that would occur within the project area can be found in Appendix A. Tables 3 through 7 provide a summary of the acres proposed for various treatment under Alternative 2 (Proposed Action), Alternative 3, and Alternative 4 for thinning/harvest and fuels treatments. Table 3. Summary of Treatment Footprint Acreage Differences by Alternative (some overlapping acres). Treatment Alternative 2 (Acres) Alternative 3 (Acres) Alternative 4 (acres) Commercial Harvest 5,465 5,993 4,806 Understory Treatments Only 1,357 966 1,368 Fuels Only 263 263 263 Total Footprint Acres 7,085 7,222 6,437

Table 4. Lex Proposed Overstory Tree Treatments by Action Alternative.

Treatment Alternative 2 Proposed Action

Alternative 3

Alternative 4

HFR - Final removal 2,071 2,071 1,776 GFR - Girdle overstory 0 0 295 HSL -Uneven-aged management 852 852 760 HSC - Selection cut uneven-aged 0 176 0 HOR - Overstory Removal 1,369 1,369 1,328 HIM & HSP – Special cut 232 232 232 HIM – Improvement cut 19 19 19

5

Treatment Alternative 2 Proposed Action

Alternative 3

Alternative 4

HCR - Seed Tree cut with reserves (includes Salvage) 587 939 356

HTH - Commercial thin 177 177 177 HSV - Salvage 158 158 158 Total 5,465 5,993 5,101

Table 5. Lex Proposed Understory and Fuels Treatments by Alternative.

Treatment- Fuels Alternative 2 Proposed Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4

LFR 677 638 684 PCT 4492 4668 4132 Whip 293 293 293 MST/Mow 2,044 2,213 766 Underburn/Jackpot burn 807 807 807 Piling (machine/hand) 3,524 3,661 2,374

Table 6. Lex Miscellaneous Treatment Acres.

Treatment-Planting Alternative 2

Proposed Action

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Tree planting 390 415 359 Natural regeneration 486 838 267 Gopher trapping 384 410 354 Herbicide treatments 98 108 86 Borax stumps 426-682 514-822 380-608

Table 7. Lex Proposed Road and Trail Actions.

Action Alternative 2 Proposed Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Existing temp roads to re-open and re-use then close

14.75 14.75 14.05

Temporary Road Construction 5.65 5.79 4.76

Level 2 changed to Level 1 (closed to public travel)

6.7 6.7 6.7

Trail Obliteration All user created trails within treatment units

All user created trails within treatment units

All user created trails within treatment units

Actions Common to All Alternatives: Uneven-aged management in mixed conifer stands, commercial thinning around recreation areas, Improvement cuts and special cuts to manage stands along cascade lakes highway and power line corridors. Harvest activities in lodgepole pine include seed tree cuts, overstory removal, final removal of seed trees, and salvage. Roadside fuels treatments to remove hazard trees and reduce fuel hazard adjacent to collector roads.

6

Actions to only Certain Alternatives Alternative 3–HSC selection cut with uneven-aged management, overstory treatments along roadsides in addition to fuels treatment to address dwarf mistletoe issues in lodgepole pine, plus an increase in HCR and PCT acres. Alternative 4–GFR, girdle overstory. Connected Actions Common to All Alternatives: Forest Plan Amendment to Burn over 5 acres in a Scenic View Partial Retention Foreground-For underburning acres and for areas of jackpot burning that create over 5 continuous acres of burn (although the jackpot burning is expected to be more patchy and discontinuous). Forest Plan Amendment to allow the visual effects of burning to remain longer than 1-2 years in a Scenic View Partial Retention Foreground. Forest Plan Amendment to allow for hiding cover to decrease below 30% within the Benham Falls Subwatershed. User created trail obliteration. Gopher trapping in areas that will be planted (about 100 acres). Herbicide use to reduce competing vegetation around trees that will be planted (about 100 acres). Boraxing stumps post-harvest to reduce the spread of annosous root rot. Apply the Minimum Road System recommendations – closes 5.9 miles of road, changes open road density from 2.9 mi2 to 2.5 mi2

Figures 2 through 8 show where overstory, understory, and fuels treatments would occur.

7

Figure 2: Lex Alternative 2 Overstory Treatment Units

8

Figure 3: Lex Alternative 2 Understory Treatment Units

9


10


11


12


13

Figure 8: Lex Alternative 2 – 4 Fuels Treatments

14

PROJECT DESIGN CRITERIA RAPTORS- To prevent disturbance of and/or loss of nesting raptors and their habitat during breeding season 1: No disturbing activities (thinning, mowing, burning, etc.) within ¼ mile and/or line of sight from any active nest of the following species during the listed periods. Northern spotted owl March 1 – September 30 Northern goshawk March 1 – August 31 (WL-11)(Units 51, 52, 57, 266, 268, 269, 276) Cooper’s hawk April 15 – August 31 (WL-19) (Units 59, 60, 275.1, 280.1, 281.1) Sharp-shinned hawk April 15 – August 31 (WL-19) Red-tailed hawk March 1 – August 31 (WL-3) Golden Eagle January 1 – August 31 (WL-3) Great gray owl March 1 – June 30 (WL-33) (Units 049, 051, 052, 266, 268, 269) Locating temporary roads within nest stands will be avoided. 2: Establish a 30-acre no treatment core area around a known goshawk nest site (will affect units 266, 268, and 269). Determine the activity centers for several northern goshawks and Cooper’s hawks sighted within the project area in 2015. Establish no treatment core areas (30 acres for northern goshawk and 15 acres for Cooper’s hawks) if these nest sites are found. This could affect units 029, 042, 043, 044, 281, and 317). 3: Determine the activity center of a great gray owl sighted in the project area in 2015. Establish a 30-acre no treatment core area around the nest site (may affect units 266, 268, and 269). The configuration would include the area between the nest and adjacent forested opening ecosystem. Maintain at least 300 feet of forest between the nest and an opening. 4: In the event that a northern spotted owl is detected during project implementation that results in a nest or resident status, all actions within 1.2 miles of the location would be halted and consultation with the local U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office would be re-initiated. A 100-acre nest core/ no treatment area around the nest or activity center would be identified (NWFP 1994). Northern spotted owl surveys will commence in the year 2017 for the 2-year protocol. 5: The project wildlife biologist will be contacted immediately if new, active raptor nests are discovered or raptors are sighted exhibiting territorial behavior during layout, implementation, or post-sale activities. All activities will cease for a radius of at least 375 feet around the nest site until a biologist evaluates the nest site. Appropriate restrictions will be applied before activities are permitted to continue. Core areas would be established around the new site if it were located. Core areas may be located both inside and outside of treatment unit boundaries. Overlap into unit boundaries can be counted toward the no-treatment areas. (All units) 6: Schedule burning operations to prevent smoke from affecting active nest sites during nesting season. The most recent active nests are within 1 mile north and/or east of the burn units. Coordinate with the district wildlife biologist to identify active nests prior to initiation of burning. This would occur within burn units 031, 031.1, 031.2, 035, 035.1, 036, 037, 038, 294, 295, 297, 298, 298.1, 299, 299.1, 300, 301, 302, 303.1, 305, 305.1, 307, 309, 309.1, 311, 311.1, 320, 321, 321.1, and 327. 7: If the specified restriction period must be compromised, project activity at the end of the period (i.e. the last month or two) is least likely to cause nest abandonment. This could occur in units 049, 051, 052, 057, 059, 060, 266, 268, 269, 275.1, 276, 280.1, and 281.1.

15

BATS 8: If any unknown caves are encountered during implementation, avoid treatments such as mowing, cutting of trees, or lighting within 300 feet of the cave entrance. This would help protect the vegetative structure for bats and prevent potential smoke inhalation (all units). Additionally, if bats are observed exiting a snag during prescribed burning, use preventative measures to protect the snag such as lining around the snag, back burning away from the snag, or cease lighting within 25 feet of the roost tree. The duff layer shall also be pulled away from the snag to protect the roost tree. This would occur within burn units 031, 031.1, 031.2, 035, 035.1, 036, 037, 038, 294, 295, 297, 298, 298.1, 299, 299.1, 300, 301, 302, 303.1, 305, 305.1, 307, 309, 309.1, 311, 311.1, 320, 321, 321.1, and 327. Standards and Guides WL-64 through WL-71 and CV-1 through CV-8 pertain to existing caves. There are no known caves within the project area, but if a cave were discovered, they would be addressed. OTHER MAMMALS 9: The project wildlife biologist will be contacted immediately if any canine species are observed other than coyote or domestic dog during project layout, implementation, or post-sale activities. All units LANDBIRDS - To prevent disturbance of and/or loss of nesting birds during breeding season 10: To minimize disturbance and direct impact to nesting landbirds, which includes Neotropical Migratory Bird species and woodpeckers, limit the amount of thinning and burning to the extent feasible during the time from April 15 to July 15. All burn and thinning units. RETENTION AREAS – to provide habitat for wildlife within treatment units and to assist meeting Forest Plan objectives for deer hiding cover. 11: For treatments including clearcut with reserves (HCR), overstory removal (HOR), shelterwood harvests (HSH), selection cut (HSC), uneven-aged management with selection cut (HSL), and thinning (HTH), 15% of the area associated with each cutting unit is to be retained and randomly scattered throughout the entire treatment unit. Include logs and rock outcrops in untreated areas where possible and include no treatment buffers of at least 25 to 30 feet around them (logs and rock outcrops). Include areas with high levels of down woody material and snags. Untreated leave areas will generally range from 2.5 to 6 acres in size. Retention size may exceed 6 acres when total treatment unit area exceeds 100 acres. All units 12: Coordinate location of leave areas with the project wildlife biologist. Leave areas will be the densest vegetation possible. If two or more leave areas are located within a unit, it is preferred to locate these areas to an average spacing ranging from 600 to 1,200 feet apart. All units SNAGS/DOWN WOODY MATERIAL/GTRs 13: Retain ALL snags (including soft) as wildlife trees for roosting and foraging except where impractical because of human safety in all units (Wildlife Tree and Log Implementation Strategy, LRMP WL-38) at the 100% population potential (NWFP Page C-46). These levels are minimums. Where appropriate, leave higher concentrations and leave larger sizes where available. All units At a minimum, snags are to be retained at the following levels per current direction: All units Deschutes Wildlife Tree and Log Guide (DWTLG)

For mixed conifer and ponderosa pine: >10” dbh 3 snags per acre >20” dbh 1 snags per acre

100% MPP Neitro et al.., 1985

16

Total 4 snags/acre (Developed for Green Stands)

For lodgepole pine: >10” dbh 3 snags per acre

14: No snags over 20” dbh would be cut, unless standardized definitions categorize it as a hazard tree (NWFP ROD, Page C-46, 1994). It is preferred not to mark trees for cutting adjacent to these types of snags where they would pose a hazard to those working on the ground, or possibly top these trees so they don’t pose as much a hazard. All units 15: In final removal units, where seed trees contain mistletoe, girdle trees to recruit as snags to meet stand level snag objectives. All HFR units 16: Do not include snags left for retention within 150 feet of opened roads. All units 17: During prescribed burning operations, use preventative measures (i.e. placing a line around) and/or light in a manner (i.e. back burning from the logs and snags) as to prevent the burning and consumption of snags and logs >20” dbh. This would be in all decay classes (WL-72). Coordinate with the project wildlife biologist when burning. This would occur within units 031, 031.1, 031.2, 035, 035.1, 036, 037, 038, 294, 295, 297, 298, 298.1, 299, 299.1, 300, 301, 302, 303.1, 305, 305.1, 307, 309, 309.1, 311, 311.1, 320, 321, 321.1, and 327. 18: Fallen trees and other woody debris would be retained in sufficient quantity, distribution, and physical characteristics to provide habitat for viable populations of dependent wildlife species over time (WL-72). Logs would not be salvaged unless they are in concentrations excess to wildlife and soils needs and where removal is necessary for fuels reduction needs because of excessive concentrations. Within all harvest and fuels treatment units, develop harvest and fuels treatment prescriptions to retain at least the existing CWM in the quantities as indicated by current direction (NWFP) minimum standards. This is 120 linear feet of logs per acre (all decay classes) >16”dbh and 16’ long (a minimum of 3 cull and an additional 3 in advanced stages of decomposition). More may be left if not presenting an excessive fuel hazard. Decay class 1 and 2 down logs could be left as part of these totals. CWM in advanced stages of decomposition (decay class 3-5) would be left in all harvest units where available. Down woody material already on the ground should be retained and protected to the greatest extent possible during activities (NWFP, Page C-40, 1994). All units 19: Retain all downed wood >20” at large end in its exisitng location (i.e. do not pile). All units 20: Retain slash piles or slash concentrations in units where down woody material levels are below LRMP or NWFP standards and guidelines utilizing material from logging operations. The number of piles per treatment unit would vary depending upon conditions prior to implementation. Designated piles should have a minimum 10 feet diameter and cover 100-200 square feet in area (WL-73). Concentrations incorporating high tree stumps, logs, or snags are especially desirable (WL-63). Do not locate leave piles within 50 feet of landings or within 200 feet of roads. Sign piles to prevent burning or other disposal. Do not create piles for wildlife within units that are scheduled for largescale underburning. The following units have been identified, (but is not limited to) as having the potential need for slash retention: 2, 2.2, 9-11, 12.1, 13, 13.1, 15, 15.1, 16, 19, 19.1, 20, 20.1, 22, 22.1, 40.1, 41, 46, 55, 58-61, 67, 67.1, 85, 96, 100, 103, 104, 113.1, 113.2, 115, 115.1, 115.2, 117, 117.1, 118, 118.1. These are all HFR units. Other potential units would be HCR and HOR units. 21: Do not burn old piles that have been left in units from previous logging entries. All units

17

22: In even-aged stands, leave green tree replacements to meet 100% of potential population levels (NWFP ROD, Page C-46, 1994). SHRUB HABITATS 23: Mowing/mastication of shrubs should be conducted in a mosaic pattern, generally leaving 10-30% of the shrub component. All mowing units 24: Maintain shrub heights of 6 inches or greater following completion of mowing. All mowing units

GENERAL 25: Equipment will be cleaned before and after project implementation to minimize the spread of invasive plants that could negatively affect food resources for the Johnson’s hairstreak and western bumblebee. All units 26: Conduct herbicide treatments prior to shrubs blooming to avoid inadvertently spraying insects foraging on blooming plants. All units with herbicide treatments 27: Close and obliterate temporary roads and re-close reopened roads upon completion of management activities in a manner that would not allow easy motorized or non-motorized recreational access. 28: To reduce/prevent incidental use of Level 1 roads by the public, and therefore keeping the actual road density higher, mark these roads with a carsonite signs as closed to motorized use. 29: User created trail obliteration should include the following and occur on the entire length of trail:

A. De-compaction of surface soils; B. Establish surface organics by using fine slash and needles. This would be good for the soil and

would make it unpleasant or impossible to ride on; C. Placement of large woody debris or rocks by burying about ¼ of the object into the soil to make it

difficult to dislodge; D. Where the trails traverse a side slope, the bench should be removed and the original slope restored; E. And obliteration will occur prior to or concurrent with new trail construction

Utilize choke points where there is not an easy place to go around such as a dense stand of trees or a rock outcrop. Monitoring should occur to determine if the obliterated trails are being reused or if new user created trails are being created in similar areas taking the place of the trails that have been obliterated. 30: Retain trees of high value to wildlife on site, except where a hazard. Examples include snapped-out tops, trees with cavities, true fir with conks that would indicate a future hollow log, non-lodgepole trees with multiple tops, and trees with very large limbs. All units 31: All ponderosa pine >22 inches dbh or “old trees” identified using the rating system for ponderosa pine in Van Pelt (2008) will be retained. All units

For ponderosa pine: Orange bark with bark plates at least 5 inches wide at breast height On open grown trees, large, lower limbs are persistent Old branch locations in lower 16 feet beginning to be covered up by bark Rounded crown Keen’s age class of at least two (age range 80 to 180 years) and vigor class 3 or 4.

18

Retain ponderosa pine trees with these characteristics except where they are either: 1) ladder fuels, which pose a threat to larger diameter trees, or 2) dwarf mistletoe infected and contribute to infection potential of desired understory trees. All white fir >30 inches dbh or with two or more of the following old tree characteristics (as described by Van Pelt 2008) will be retained. All units

For grand/white fir: Multiple forked tops evident Broken tops showing lateral branch dominance Wood decay fungi, and especially Indian paint fungus, conks present Epicormic branches present on lower bowl

32: Remove three parabolic guzzlers that have fallen into disrepair (Units 73, 231, and 257). Any other unknown guzzler found in a treatment unit will have a 100 foot no treatment buffer placed on it until a wildlife biologist determines if it is still functioning and needed. Monitoring Large Tree/Snag/Log/Slash Pile Retention This monitoring is proposed in order to ensure the project design criteria are properly implemented to achieve the desired results. Monitoring Element: Number, species, and size of individual trees, snags, and logs on plots established within various treatments, and number of piles left post pile burning. Type of Monitoring: Implementation and validation monitoring Methods/Thresholds: Stand exam procedures used during the establishment and data gathering pre-treatment and post treatment, plus visual examination. Frequency/Duration/Required Action: Once after completion of various aspects of treatments (i.e. pre and post logging, pre and post post-sale treatments, post piling, pre and post burning). Responsibility: Silviculturist, Wildlife Biologist, Fuels Planner CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Methodology for Cumulative Effects including Bounding The project area is 11,934 acres and lies within the Fall River-Deschutes River Watershed (Dutchman Creek and Spring River Subwatersheds) and the North Unit Diversion Dam-Deschutes River Watershed (Benham Falls-Deschutes River Subwatershed and Town of Sunriver-Deschutes River Subwatershed). For species in this report, potential cumulative effects were bounded by these watersheds. These large boundaries take in multiple territories of a majority of wildlife species and gives a landscape perspective in regards to management and human uses. Table 8 shows the breakdown of the amount of the project area that occurs within the watersheds and the subwatersheds.

19

Table 8. HUC 10 and HUC 12 Watersheds within the Lex Project Area and Treatment Acres from Each Alternative That Occur Within Them.

HUC 10 WATERSHED

Total HUC 10 Acres

HUC 12 SUBWATERSHED

INCLUDED IN ANALYSIS AREA

SUBWATERSHED ACRES ON FS LANDS

(% of TOTAL)

TREATMENT ACRES

PROPOSED (% OF TOTAL)

Fall River – Deschutes River 105,377

Deschutes Braid – Deschutes River 4,085 (4%) 0%

Dutchman Creek 21,109 (20%)

Alt. 2-2,962 (14%) Alt. 3-3,239 (15%) Alt. 4-2,722 (13%)

Fall River 38,489 (37%) 0% Pringle Falls – Deschutes

River 15,026 (14%) 0%

Siah Butte 10,921 (10%) 0%

Spring River 15,747 (15%)

Alt. 2-633 (4%) Alt. 3-715 (5%) Alt. 4-579 (4%)

TOTAL ACRES 105,377 (100%)

Alt. 2-3,595 (3%) Alt. 3-3,954 (4%) Alt. 4-3,301 (3%)

North Unit Diversion

Dam – Deschutes River

83,327

Benham Falls – Deschutes River 22,550 (27%)

Alt. 2–1,862 (8%) Alt. 3–2,007 (9%) Alt. 4–1,798 (8%)

Lava Island Falls – Deschutes River

11,093 (13%) 0%

Lockit Butte 8,220 (10%) 0% Overturf Butte – Deschutes

River 19,305 (23%) 0%

Town of Sunriver 9,585 (12%) 0% Town of Sunriver –

Deschutes River 12,574 (15%)

Alt. 2-12 (0.10%) Alt. 3–38 (0.30%) Alt. 4–5 (0.04%)

TOTAL ACRES 83,327 (100%)

Alt. 2–1,874 (2%) Alt. 3–2,045 (2%) Alt. 4–1,803 (2%)

Cumulative effects considered for this analysis are shown in Tables 9 through 11. Cumulative effects are those which result from the incremental, combined influences of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. In addition to federal actions, this includes state, local, private and tribal actions that may overlap in time and space with the potential impacts expected to result from this project. If there are no anticipated direct or indirect impacts, cumulative impacts are not considered. Cumulative effects may overlap both direct and indirect effects, and may include actions outside the footprint of proposed treatment units. For this cumulative effects analysis, actions were considered within the analysis boundary, which includes two watersheds. The zone of influence for species varies from project area to multiple subwatersheds depending on species and habitat characteristics or scale needed to determine effects of actions and may be referred to as the project area if it coincides with the Lex project area or analysis area if it is larger than the project area. Within the zone of influence, those actions considered in cumulative effects may change. For past actions that have been

20

completed, the resulting effects of these past actions are indistinguishable from each other and combined and have been considered as part of the existing condition and the suitability or quality of the habitat (Table 9). The timespan considered is based on the effect of the action. The effectiveness of treatments, like those proposed, are estimated to be 5 years for mowing, 10 years for underburning, 15 years for ladder fuels reduction/precommercial thinning and 30 years for commercial thinning. Projects to be covered under cumulative effects are those that have not been completely implemented such as those listed in Tables 10 and 11, are ongoing programs such as those that address invasive plants species or firewood collection, or those which are foreseeable to occur in the future. Where the Lex Vegetation Management Project would result in an incremental effect or impact when added to any of these projects or activities, it is discussed in the cumulative impacts analysis for that species or habitat. TABLE 9: Past Actions Contributing to the Current Condition (FACTS data source, Bend-Fort Rock District Files)

Action Timing Acres Within Analysis Area (% of Analysis Area) General Effect

Wildfires 1900-present 28,623 (13%) Effects variable, reduction in understory/overstory

structure, snag/log creation and/or loss Major Fires Included: Pringle, Three Trappers, Round Swamp, Edison Ice Cave 1 & 2, Awbrey Hall and Lost Man

Rx Underburn Within 10 years 6,742 (3%)

Reduction in understory structure, reduction in small downed wood, possible conversion of green trees to snags and snags to downed wood

Major Projects Included: West Bend, Katalo, Dilman, Fuzzy, Klak, East Tumbull, Fall, EXF and Sunriver

Commercial Thinning

Within 30 years 53,878(25%) Reduced overstory structure

Major Projects Included: Katalo, Katalo West, Dilman, Fuzzy, Klak, Charlie Brown, Fall, East Tumbull, Lavacast, Oz, Myst, Sunriver, Fall, Sparky, West Tumbull, EXF, Lucky Doily, and NNVM LFR/Pruning/PC

T Within 15

years 23,823(11%) Reduced understory and midstory structure

Major Projects Included: Katalo, Katalo West, Fuzzy, Charlie Brown, Dilman, Klak, East Tumbull, Fall, South Bend, Lava Cast, Myst, Sunriver, EXF, Sparky

Mowing Within 5 years 6,476 (3%) Reduced understory structure

Major Projects Included: EXF, East Tumbull, Lava Cast, Myst, Opine, Oz, South Bend, Sunriver, West Bend and Katalo, Fuzzy

NOTE: Many actions overlap resulting in some acres counted multiple times. TABLE 10: Cumulative Effects Considered for Lex Project Analysis – Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

Action Timing Acres Within Analysis Area (% of Analysis Area) General Effect

Rx Underburn Within 10 years 52,226 (24%)

Reduction in understory structure, reduction in small downed wood, possible conversion of green trees to snags and snags to downed wood

Major Projects Include: West Bend, UDR WUI, Kew, Rocket, Junction, Prescribed Burning Commercial

Thinning Within 30

years 40,600 (19%) Reduced overstory structure

Major Projects Include: West Bend, UDR WUI, Kew, Rocket, Junction LFR/Pruning/P

CT Within 15

years 41,022 (19%) Reduced understory and midstory structure

Major Projects Include: West Bend, UDR WUI, Kew, Rocket, Junction

Mowing Within 5 years 44,120 (20%) Reduced understory structure

Major Projects Include: West Bend, UDR WUI, Kew, Rocket, Junction

21

Table 11: Ongoing or Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions in the Lex Project Area, North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River and Fall River – Deschutes River Watersheds that May Contribute to Cumulative Effects. Project Name / Activity Status/Timing General Description of Activities

Miscellaneous / Special Uses

Bearwallow Firewood Ongoing (second year)

Accessed from the 4601 road. Outside West Bend project area. Firewood recreational removal; dead lodgepole within 150 feet of roads; no vehicles off roads.

City of Bend Waterline Replacement Project

Implementation 2015-2017

Implementation scheduled for 2013; involves replacing 10-mile water pipeline underground along Skyliner Road and upgrade of intake facility near Tumalo Falls.

Recreation

Snowmobiling Ongoing in winter Within and around the Lex project area. Motorized recreation and grooming of trails. Some tree cutting for trails and safety.

Cross-Country Skiing Ongoing in winter Within and around the Lex project area. Bipedal recreation and grooming of trails. Some cutting of trees for trails and safety.

Mountain Biking Ongoing Within and around the Lex project area. Wheeled and bipedal recreation of trails. Some cutting of trees for trails and safety.

Fat Biking (over snow mountain biking with large tired bikes)

Ongoing in winter Within the Lex project area. Bipedal recreation and grooming of trails. Some cutting of trees for trails and safety.

Developed and Dispersed Camping Ongoing Dispersed camping throughout project area. No developed campsites.

Welcome Station Trail Connections

Implementation 2016

Provide mountain bike connecting trails to the new Welcome Station on Highway 46.

Welcome Station Paved Path Re-Route Planning 3.5 mile paved path to connect the Welcome Station to the City of Bend

via the haul road trail Roads

Road Maintenance Ongoing Grading, ditching, and brushing out of roads Cascade Lakes Scenic Byway Use and Maintenance

Ongoing Paving, weed control, danger tree maintenance, snow removal, traffic

Vegetation Management

West Tumbull HFRA Project

Fuels work Ongoing

North of project area. Commercial thinning, understory thinning, fuels treatments (pile, mow, burn). Tree harvest understory thinning completed. Fuels treatments remaining

Sparky timber sale and hazard tree removal.

Fuels Work Ongoing

Along Cascade lakes highway. Commercial thinning, salvage, understory thinning, fuels treatments (pile, mow, burn).

Invasive Plant Control EIS Ongoing Within project area and across Forest. Herbicide and manual treatment

of invasive plant populations.

West Bend Ongoing Within the North Unit Dam-Deschutes River watershed, about 21,000 acres of commercial thinning, plus mowing and underburning.

Rocket Implementation 2016

Within the North Unit Dam-Deschutes River watershed, about 7,500 acres of commercial thinning, plus mowing and underburning. Approx. 40 miles of road closure and decommissioning.

Junction Implementation 2017

Within the Fall-River Deschutes River Watershed, about 9,800 acres of commercial thinning, plus mowing and underburning.

Kew Planning Common boundary to the east of the Lex project area, about 6,500 acres of commercial thinning, plus mowing and underburning.

Drink Planning Common boundary to the north of the Lex project area, developing proposed action.

22

SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED EFFECTS FROM THE PROPOSED ACTION Table 12 summarizes the projects actions and the anticipated effects to forested habitat structure or wildlife species. These anticipated effects were used to help analyze the potential effects/impacts to species and their habitat that occur within and adjacent to the project. Refer to the individual species analysis for details. Table 12. Actions Associated with the Proposed Project and Anticipated Effects.

Proposed Action Anticipated Direct/Indirect Effects

Overstory harvest – commercial thinning, uneven-aged management, shelterwood, final removal, overstory removal, seed-tree with salvage, whole tree yarding and skyline yarding

Reduction of canopy closure; multi-layer stands to single layer; reduction of dead wood density; delayed recruitment of small diameter (<15 inches dbh) snags and logs; increase in recruitment of larger trees (eventually larger snags and logs); fragmentation and edge creation; noise and ground disturbance.

Girdle the overstory Loss of live trees, snag creation.

Understory harvest – ladder fuels reduction, pre-commercial thinning, whipfelling, skid and deck

Reduction of multi-layers; reduction of hiding cover; increase in development of large trees; noise and ground disturbance.

Machine piling Inadvertent loss and reduction of larger down wood; noise and ground disturbance.

Hand piling Loss of smaller down wood; noise disturbance.

Mechanical shrub treatment, mastication Reduction of shrub habitat, with potential loss of individual snags, logs, and live trees; noise and ground disturbance.

Underburning/jackpot burning Reduction of shrub habitat with potential loss of individual snags, logs, and live trees; noise and ground disturbance (placing line).

Boraxing stumps Minor disturbance. Tree planting Minor disturbance. Gopher trapping Loss of prey species.

Herbicide application Potential reduction in flowering plants and possible direct spraying to insects.

User created trail obliteration Noise disturbance. Road closures Minor disturbance. Subsoiling Noise disturbance.

In summary, the proposed project effects wildlife habitat mostly through removing complexity in the overstory and understory structure and reducing the potential development of small snags and downed wood. These impacts occur in favor of the development of large forest structure, which will produce large snags and logs for future wildlife habitat. Also notable would be a decrease in the shrub layer through mechanical shrub treatments and mastication, and prescribed burning, along with some loss of downed woody material. These effects are amplified though similar past, present and reasonably foreseeable future treatments across the landscape. ROAD AND TRAIL DENSITY From the early 1900s, the road system was developed primarily to provide access for timber removal. Officially, there are currently 53.6 miles of open system road within the project area and 38.8 miles of closed system road (maintenance Level 1). Officially, all Level 1 roads are considered “closed” regardless of their actual status on the ground and they are not included in road density calculations. The current official open system road density is 2.9 miles per square mile.

23

There may be some discrepancies between specialist reports in regards to road mileage and densities within the project area. This is most likely a result of differences in GIS mapping. Typically, project boundaries are located on a road, however in GIS, there are areas of the boundary that weaves across portions of roads. In some cases, a road might be inside the boundary and another road is just outside of the boundary. Depending on how these boundary roads were considered (inside or outside the boundary) would cause differences in mileage totals. For this discussion within the wildlife report, only roads or portions thereof falling within the GIS boundary were used in determining total mileage and density. Table 13: Current Open Road and Trail Density in the Lex Project Area.

Roads Miles Density (Miles / Square Miles) Level 2 - 5 Roads 53.6 53.6/18.7 = 2.9 mi./sq. mi.

Trails Miles Density (Miles / Square Miles)

System Trails Non-motorized 14.8 14.8/18.7 = 0.79 mi./sq. mi. System Trails Motorized* 32.2 32.2/18.7 = 1.72 mi./sq. mi.

All Trails 47 47/18.7 = 2.51 mi./sq. mi. Total Miles Density (Miles / Square Miles) Open Roads and Trails 100.6 100.6/18.7 = 5.38 mi./sq. mi.

*Some snowmobile trails are located on open roads. Officially, the road density is the Lex project area is 2.9 mi. /sq. mi., which only counts roads that are Maintenance Level 2 and up. However, the reality on the ground is that when Level 1 roads are included, there are 129.5 miles of road within the Lex project boundary, which equates to 6.93 mi. /sq. mi. Roads that are categorized as maintenance level 1 will be utilized to the extent necessary to support project needs in addition to the expectation they will also be needed for future management activities. Upon project completion, these roads will be returned to level 1 status (i.e. closed to public use). Maintenance level 1 roads are considered closed roads to general travel. The travel exception for maintenance level 1 roads are for activities such as administrative purposes, permit administration, fire suppression, etc. or by permittees under permit such as for grazing access (Bigby 2016). There are approximately 6.7 miles of Level 2 roads identified for closure and conversion to Level 1 status. These roads were previously identified and documented in the Forest-Wide Minimal Road System (MRS) analysis (Bigby 2016).

Figure 9: Current Open Road and Trail Density in the Lex Project Area.

24

Table 14: Post Treatment Road and Trail Density in the Lex Project Area. Roads Miles Density (Miles / Square

Miles) Level 2 - 5 Roads 46.9 46.9/18.7 = 2.5 mi./sq. mi.

Trails Miles Density (Miles / Square

Miles) System Trails Non-motorized 14.8 14.8/18.7 = 0.79 mi./sq. mi.

System Trails Motorized 32.2 32.2/18.7 = 1.72 mi./sq. mi.

All Trails 47 47/18.7 = 2.51 mi./sq. mi.

Open Roads and Trails after Closure/Decommissioning/Obliterations 93.9 93.9/18.7 = 5.02 mi./sq. mi.

Figure 10: Post Treatment Road and Trail Density in the Lex Project Area

There are approximately 29 miles of potential temporary roads identified as being needed for treatment operations. This is an initial estimate based mostly on an in office GIS exercise. There is not likely to be a need for more, but it is likely that the final number of miles would be lower. Of these estimated 29 miles, only about 7 miles would be in new locations requiring actual new temporary road prism construction. The majority of the temporary road locations are located on existing historic road prisms used during previous historic project entries, Level 1 roads, user created trails, or “legacy” roads. These would still need some level of construction/maintenance to allow operations vehicles/machinery entry to an area, but there is already some degree of existing historic disturbance on the ground. Temporary roads would be decommissioned once project operations have been completed and there is no longer a need for them. Motorized use of these roads by the public will be prohibited while they are in existence.

25

Core Habitat In a landscape context, a good way to visualize trail impacts is through the concept of distance banding. Travel routes are buffered with an area of disturbance, which encompasses all potential locations that an animal may encounter and be influenced by people. The spaces that remain outside of this buffer, that also contain other suitable characteristics of a species habitat, are considered areas that wildlife can be expected to use without the disruption of human contact. These areas are referred to as ‘core’ or ‘refuge’ habitat. The disturbance buffers need to be considered cumulatively, and in some cases may overlap, creating an absence of core habitat. The distance buffer can depend on numerous factors, such as habitat type, terrain, type of recreational use, time of year, frequency of use, wildlife species being considered and individual animal tolerance levels. Depending on these factors, and the saturation of the landscape with disturbance potential, trail systems can become barriers and create ‘dead zones’ within otherwise suitable habitat. Another way to consider road and trail density is through the concept of Core Habitat. As supported by the best available science, all maintenance level 2-5 roads (open to the public) and motorized system trails were buffered at 200 meters and maintenance level 1 roads (administrative use only) and non-motorized system trails were buffered at 100 meters (Foreman et al. 2003). After removing large areas like water bodies and developed recreation sites, the remaining polygons were considered “core habitat”. Typically, route densities are described as miles of route per mile of area squared. Although this gives a general idea of the density of routes across the landscape, it provides limited use in determining actual effects. Temporary roads are not included in the Core Habitat discussion. Currently 3,476 acres (29%) of the 11,934 acres within the Lex project area meet the above definition of Core Habitat. All open system roads and trails were buffered using the above criteria and removed. Within the Lex project analysis area, 61,215 acres (28%) of the 218,765 acres meet the definition of Core Habitat. The amount of user created roads and trails for the two watersheds is unknown. Only user created roads and trails within the adjacent Kew project area were removed on this map. The map below shows the current core habitat within the North Unit Diversion Dam-Deschutes River watershed and the Fall River-Deschutes River watershed. After planned road closures, approximately 3,701 acres (31%) of the 11,934 acres within the Lex Project area would meet the above definition of Core Habitat.

Figure 11: Current mapped Core Habitat in the Lex Analysis Area.

26

Figure 12: Current mapped Core Habitat in the Lex Project Area.

Figure 13: Core Habitat in the Lex Project Area Post Treatment.

Core Habitat is not meant to be used to show where a certain species should or should not be found. The value and use is solely for showing the fragmentation of the forest based on potential disturbance from transportation systems (roads and trails) and from any developed recreation sites.

27

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION SPECIES INFORMATION & EFFECTS ANALYSIS Analysis Summary The following table (Table 15) summarizes the determinations to each of the species analyzed in detail, the rationale behind the determination, and any project design criteria (PDC) dependent on that determination. Table 15. Determinations Summary Table for All Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Species Considered in the Lex Vegetation Management Project Analysis.

Species Status Action

Alternatives (2-4) Determinations

Rationale Project Design Criteria

(Pages 14 – 18)

Gray wolf E NE The project area does not meet the definition of occupied habitat.

Northern Spotted Owl E NLAA

No NRF habitat would be removed and the project does not occur within critical habitat, but dispersal habitat would be removed and a reduction in connectivity.

PDC #4 - Maintain survey effort throughout project implementation. If owls are detected, protection measures will apply (PDC#1).

Northern Spotted Owl – Critical Habitat NE No critical habitat within the

project area.

Oregon spotted frog T NE Riparian and aquatic habitats do not occur within or near the project area.

Oregon spotted frog – Critical Habitat P NE

Riparian and aquatic habitats do not occur within or near the project area. The proposed actions do not overlap Critical Habitat.

North American Wolverine P NE

There is no denning habitat within or adjacent to the project area. The project would not impede dispersal.

American Peregrine Falcon S NI There is no cliff habitat within

or adjacent to the project area.

Northern Bald eagle S NI The project area is over 4 miles away from a suitable body of water for foraging.

Lewis’ woodpecker S MIIH

The project would not be treating current habitat. Although there may be a short-term reduction in prey species habitat (loss of shrubs) and potential disturbance to individuals, the long-term development of suitable nesting habitat would improve breeding and foraging opportunities for Lewis’ woodpecker.

PDC #’s 10, 13-17, 30, and 31. Minimize disturbance with timing restrictions. Maintain and protect large trees and snags.

28




(Pages 14 – 18)

White-headed woodpecker S MIIH

A reduction in shrub understory resulting from mowing and burning treatments would reduce predation risk and improve habitat quality for white-headed woodpecker. Additionally, treatments will encourage large tree growth to provide good foraging and nesting opportunity in the future. Project activities have the potential to cause disturbance during the nesting season.


Bufflehead S NI Riparian and aquatic habitats do not occur within or near the project area.

Greater sage grouse S NI Sagebrush habitat does not occur within the project area.

Harlequin duck S NI Riparian and aquatic habitats do not occur within or near the project area.

Horned grebe S NI Riparian and aquatic habitats do not occur within or near the project area.

Northern waterthrush S NI Riparian and aquatic habitats do not occur within or near the project area.

Tri-colored blackbird S NI Riparian and aquatic habitats do not occur within or near the project area.

Tule goose S NI Riparian and aquatic habitats do not occur within or near the project area.

Yellow rail S NI Riparian and aquatic habitats do not occur within or near the project area.

Fringed myotis S

MIIH

Impacts are small in scale and short-term, mostly focused on the reduction of ground level foraging opportunities and potential disturbance by logging and prescribed fire to hibernating bats, migrating bats and bats with young.

PDC #’s 8, and 13-17, 30, and 31. Maintain and protect caves that may be found, large trees, and snags.

Pallid bat S

Townsend’s big-eared bat S

Spotted bat S NI Rocky canyons or outcrops do not occur within the project area.

Pacific Fisher S MIIH

Denning, resting and foraging habitat would be removed. Project activities could disturb and potentially harm individuals during project

PDC #’s 13-22, and 27-31. Maintain and protect large snags and down wood within project units, closing roads and

29




(Pages 14 – 18)

activities. Road closures and user-created trail obliteration would reduce disturbance.

obliterating user-created trails, retention of large old trees.

Sierra Nevada Red Fox S MIIH

Denning habitat could be impacted; mature, dense forest would be removed. Project activities could disturb and potentially harm individuals during project activities. Road closures and user-created trail obliteration would reduce disturbance.

PDC #’s 13-22, and 27-31. Maintain and protect large snags and down wood within project units, closing roads and obliterating user-created trails, retention of large old trees.

Columbia spotted frog S NI Riparian and aquatic habitats do not occur within or near the project area.

Crater Lake tightcoil S NI Riparian and aquatic habitats do not occur within or near the project area.

Shiny tightcoil S NI Riparian and aquatic habitats do not occur within or near the project area.

Evening field slug S NI Riparian and aquatic habitats do not occur within or near the project area.

Johnson’s hairstreak S MIIH

Proposed treatments would reduce both host plant and adult nectar sources within treatment units. These impacts are expected to be small in scale and limited in duration.

PDC 25 and 26. Prevention of the spread of non-native plants and prevention of herbicide spraying during the bloom period.

Silver-bordered fritillary S NI Meadow habitat does not occur


Western bumblebee S MIIH

Proposed treatments have potential to disturb nesting bees and overwintering queens while reducing potential pollen and nectar sources in the short-term.

PDC 25 and 26 Prevention of the spread of non-native plants and prevention of herbicide spraying during the bloom period.

SPECIES STATUS: (Federal Status) T=Threatened; E=Endangered; P=Proposed

Sensitive=S FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES DETERMINATIONS:

NE=No effect; BE=Beneficial effect, NLAA=May affect, not likely to adversely affect; LAA=May affect, Likely to adversely affect; NLJ=Not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species

SENSITIVE SPECIES DETERMINATIONS: NI=No impact; BI=Beneficial impact;

MIIH=May impact individuals or habitat but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species;

WIFV=Will impact individuals or habitat with a consequence that the action may contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species

**Meeting with Level 1 Consultation team January 28, 2016 (Lauri Turner, Deschutes National Forest Wildlife Biologist; Jennifer O’Reilly, US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist; Brock McCormick, Bend Ft Rock District Biologist; and Shelley Borchert, Project Wildlife Biologist). It was determined that the proposed actions and predicted effects with mitigations have already been consulted under the most recent Programmatic Biological Assessment for the Ochoco & Deschutes National Forests. Relevant monitoring requirements from this document are attached in Appendix D.

30

Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species Table 16 includes those species that are federally listed or proposed. Those species that are in bold and/or highlighted are analyzed further and contain habitat that occurs within or adjacent to the project area and that the particular habitat and/or species may be negatively affected. Those species that are not in bold may or may not contain habitat within or adjacent to the project area, of which that habitat or species would not be impacted by the proposed projects. These species are addressed but not carried forward for analysis. Table 16. Federally Listed and Proposed Species Under the Endangered Species Act.

Federally Listed and Proposed Species Under the Endangered Species Act

Species Status &

NatureServe Ranking

Habitat Habitat/

Presence in Project Area

Effect

Gray wolf (Canis lupus)

Federal Endangered S1 Critically Imperiled

Areas of Known Wolf Activity Rendezvous, Pair or Den Site

No known denning or rendezvous sites

No Effect

Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina)

Federal Threatened, MIS S3 Vulnerable

Old growth mixed conifer forests

Nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat (NRF), dispersal in project boundary

May Effect Not Likely to Adversely Affect

Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) Critical Habitat

Federal Threatened, MIS


No designated critical habitat within project boundary

No Effect

Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa)

Federal Threatened S2 Imperiled Lakes, ponds No habitat in

project area No Effect

Oregon spotted frog Critical Habitat Federal Proposed Lakes, ponds None within the

project area No Effect

North American Wolverine (Gulo gulo)

Federal Proposed, Regional Forester Sensitive, MIS S1 Critically Imperiled

Mixed conifer high elevation forests; Alpine, Subalpine, Rock Talus, High Cirque Basins

No denning habitat within or adjacent to the project area. The project would not impede dispersal.

No Effect

Oregon Sensitive Species and Forest Service Species of Conservation Concern determined from the NatureServe database for Oregon (2015, S1 = critically imperiled, S2 = Imperiled, S3 = vulnerable).

31

GRAY WOLF, Canis lupus FS ENDANGERED Measure: Effects to denning habitat & rendevous sites Habitat Needs and Existing Condition The following is a summary from the Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan (ODFW 2010): Being highly social, gray wolves live in packs. Packs form when a pair bond develops between two mature wolves, who breed and produce pups. The breeding pair becomes the dominate alphas, who build their pack of previous year offspring, new pups and other non-related, non- breeding adults. Packs hunt, feed, travel, rest and rear pups together. Pack size can be variable, ranging from approximately 2 to 27. During the breeding season (peaking in mid to late February), wolves will limit their movements within close distance to a den site and become very susceptible to disturbance. Pups (varies from 1-9) are born in late April, and after approximately 8 weeks are moved to a series of rendezvous sites throughout the summer. Wolves are carnivorous, feeding mostly on ungulates, but are also opportunistic, scavenging carrion, eating vegetation and insects, or taking smaller prey such as rabbits, birds, rodents and coyotes. Wolf pups will begin hunting with their pack by the fall of their first year. At sexual maturity (approx. 22 months of age), wolves will either stay with their pack as non-breeders or may leave (called dispersers) to find a mate of their own and start a new pack. Dispersers may travel to suitable neighboring areas or move hundreds of miles to find unoccupied habitat, a mate or to join another pack. This movement creates a meta-population network and facilitates genetic exchange throughout the population. Expected dispersal movements of males are approximately 60 miles and 48 miles for females. Dispersal movements may range from approximately 10-168 miles or more. Peak seasons for dispersal are January-February and May-June. Pack movement and territory use varies from year to year as prey availability, disturbance, and intraspecific conflict with neighboring packs change. Habitat preferences (such as elevation, vegetation type, land use, land ownership, presence/abundance of prey species, etc.) are also highly variable between packs, showing a large range of tolerance and demonstrating the generalist tendencies of the species. Territory size is also variable, ranging between 24 and 934 square miles. Human caused mortality is the highest risk for wolves, including control actions in response to conflict, legal and illegal shooting, and car/train collisions. The only mortality source believed to be substantial enough to impact recovery goals are human caused. Natural-caused mortality sources include conspecific conflict between packs, hunting/accidental injuries, old age, disease and starvation. In 2011, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reissued the final rule to designate and removed the northern Rocky Mountains Distinct Population Segment (DPS) from the Endangered Species List. The northern Rocky Mountains DPS includes the eastern third of Oregon and Washington (Federal Register 2011). In the areas surrounding the northern Rocky Mountains DPS that do not currently have wolves, Endangered Species Act protections are still in place, including parts of Oregon and Washington. Currently, lands within the boundaries of the Deschutes National Forest are outside the DPS unit, and therefore, Endangered Species Act protection is still in place. Wolf dispersal from 2011-2015 shows four wolves traveling through Deschutes County, but none confirmed within the project area. In November 2011, OR7, from the Imnaha Pack in northeast Oregon was documented to have traveled through the Deschutes National Forest. OR7 is now in the Rogue Pack that established in 2014 in the southern Cascades (Klamath and Jackson Counties). Other dispersers include OR25 (currently using the Sprague and Silver Lake Wildlife Management Units), OR3 and OR28. In early November 2015, OR28

32

dispersed from the Mt. Emily pack in Umatilla County and established an Area of Known Wolf Activity (AKWA) in the Fort Rock and Silver Lake Wildlife Management Units of Klamath and Lake Counties. In the summer of 2016, OR28 was believed to have formed a new breeding pair with OR3 in this area, which is southeast of the Deschutes National Forest, approximately 50 miles from the project area. OR3 is an 8-year-old male originally from the Imnaha Pack that dispersed in 2011, and whose whereabouts have been largely unknown in recent years. At least one pup was documented (ODFW Wolf Program Updates, July 28, 2016). On October 6, 2016, OR28 was found dead near Summer Lake, Oregon (ODFW Wolf Program Updates, October 14, 2016). Because wolves are habitat generalists, disperse long distances and maintain very large home ranges, the following is used by USFWS to define occupied wolf range (J. Stephenson, Personal Communication, 07/07/16).

Occupied wolf range: Area of confirmed presence of resident breeding packs or pairs of wolves or area consistently used by > 1 resident wolf or wolves over a period of at least 1 month. Confirmation of wolf presence is to be made or corroborated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Exact delineation of the area will be described by (1) 5-mile radius around all locations of wolves and wolf sign confirmed as described above (non-radio monitored); (2) 5-mile radius around radio locations of resident wolves when < 20 radio locations are available (for radio monitored wolves only); or (3) 3-mile radius around the convex polygon developed from >20 radio locations of a pack, pair, or single wolf taken over a period of > 6 months (for radio monitored wolves).

The proposed Lex Project area does not meet the definition of occupied wolf range. There are no known wolf activity centers, established packs, den sites or rendezvous sites on the Deschutes National Forest. In addition, no dispersal has been documented within the project area. Another factor to consider when addressing suitability for wolves is the current road density. Three different sources state differing levels of road density. One source states “Our analysis suggested wolves did not currently occur in areas where road densities exceeded 3.5 km/km ²,” (ODFW 2015), while another source states “Roads result in poor habitat quality by facilitating fatal interactions with humans and displacement and fragmentation. High to very high road density is defined as 1.7 mi/mi² (Wisdom et al. 2000). The last source looks mostly at eastern/mideastern habitat, but states the threshold for wolves is one mi/mi² (USDI 2009). Currently, the Lex Project area is at 2.9 mi/mi² and expected to drop to 2.5 mi/mi² after project completion. The project area also receives a high number of recreationists throughout the year. Spring, summer and fall bring mountain bikers to the 11 miles of bike trail that occur within the project area (0.6 mi/mi²), while fall brings deer and elk hunters, and during the winter, snowmobilers enjoy31 miles of groomed snowmobile trails (1.7 mi/mi²) and cross country skiers, 2 miles of cross country ski trails (0.10 mi/mi²). The Lex Project area may potentially have wolves that would travel through, but the higher road density, high trail density (those numbers do not reflect the density of user created trails) and year-round use of the area by humans would most likely discourage the area from supporting a breeding pack. Therefore, the gray wolf is not carried forward for analysis. The proposed project would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects. Implementation of the proposed Lex Project would have No Effect on the gray wolf.

33

NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL, Strix occidentalis caurina THREATENED Measures: Effects to nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat, effects to dispersal habitat and connectivity, effects to designated critical habitat, and disturbance effects. Habitat Needs and Existing Condition A detailed account of the taxonomy, ecology, and reproductive characteristics of the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) is found in: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Status Reviews (USDI 1987, 1990a, and 2004); the Status Review Supplement (USDI 1989); the Interagency Scientific Committee (ISC) Report (Thomas et al. 1990); and the Final Rule designating the spotted owl as a threatened species (USDI 1990b). The northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis) is federally listed as threatened. The Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USDI 2011) also provides biological information and the framework for the steps needed to restore viable spotted owl populations. The Final Recovery Plan (USDI 2011) was released on June 28, 2011 and provides updated information on strategies and threats. The Final Critical Habitat Rule was revised and became effective January 3, 2013 (USDI 2012) and mirrors the 2011 Recovery Plan objectives. Northern spotted owls generally require mature or old growth coniferous forest with complex structure including multiple canopy layers, large green trees and snags, heavy canopy habitat, and coarse woody material on the forest floor. These types of forests usually contain the structures and characteristics required for nesting, roosting, foraging (NRF), and dispersal. Forest characteristics associated with northern spotted owls usually develop with increasing forest age, but their occurrence may vary by location, past forest practices, and stand type, history, and condition. Spotted owls will use younger, managed forests if key habitat components are available. These younger forests provide dispersal habitat for owls and foraging habitat if near nesting or roosting areas. Suitable habitat on the eastside of the Cascade Mountains is naturally confined to a narrow forested band below the high-elevation subalpine forests and above the low-elevation lodgepole/ponderosa pine forests (USDI 1992). Neither of these forest types are considered spotted owl habitat. NRF habitat for the northern spotted owl on the Deschutes National Forest includes stands of mixed conifer, ponderosa pine with white fir understories, and mountain hemlock with subalpine fir. Nest trees on the Deschutes have been predominantly large Douglas-fir trees. Dispersal habitat are stands with adequate tree size and canopy cover to provide tree protection from avian predators and at least minimal foraging opportunities; dispersal habitat provides important linkage function among blocks of nesting habitat both locally and over the owl’s range. According to the Final Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (May 2008), this species is at risk for continual decline, and the risk is substantial. Threats from the barred owl are expected to increase with or without active management, whereas threats from catastrophic fire are expected to increase absent active management. Environmental Baseline Nesting, Roosting, Foraging Habitat

The spotted owl inhabits mature to old-growth mixed coniferous habitats. They will occupy second growth forests if key components of mature forests are present; however, population density and reproductive success are usually lower than in old-growth forests (USDA 2014).

34

Functional nesting, roosting, and foraging (NRF) habitat for the spotted owl provides structural features for nesting protection from adverse weather conditions and cover to reduce predation risks for adults and young. Nest stands typically have canopy cover 60% or greater, are multi-layered with overstory trees greater than 30” diameter-at-breast- height (dbh), large trees with deformities, large snags, high amounts of fallen trees or other woody debris. Habitat that meets nesting and roosting requirements also provides foraging habitat, although a wider array of forest types are used for foraging (USDA 2014). There is approximately 64,468 acres of NRF habitat on the Deschutes National Forest. There are approximately 233 acres of NRF habitat total within the project area that occur in patches ranging from 15-62 acres. NRF habitat will not be treated (i.e. not part of any proposed unit under any action Alternative). Dispersal Habitat

Dispersal habitat is important for the movement of spotted owl young away from natal areas or adults moving from one territory to another or between Critical Habitat Units. Dispersal habitat is defined in the Deschutes and Ochoco Programmatic BA (USDA 2014) as a stand of trees with a minimum of 30%-40% canopy closure regardless of plant association and a minimum average diameter of 7 inches dbh for lodgepole pine stands, and 11 inches dbh for mixed conifer. NRF habitat also serves as high quality dispersal habitat. Dispersal habitat can be found throughout the project area (Figure 14). Spotted owl dispersal habitat, as well as NRF habitat, can also act de facto as corridors or movement habitat for a variety of other wildlife species that utilize mature forests. The Deschutes National Forest convened a Science Team of experts on local conditions to determine dispersal habitat in the mid 1990’s. The team determined a process by which local biological knowledge of sites would be used to describe dispersal habitat (USDA Letter 1996). The criteria displayed in Table 14 was developed using the prescribed process and used to define dispersal habitat for many of our recent planning projects. The Deschutes NF does not apply the “50%” standard when assessing the amount of dispersal habitat on the landscape but uses the “11-40”, “11-35”, and “7-30” standards alone. Table 17. Dispersal habitat definition developed by the Deschutes National Forest.

Plant Association Group Even-aged Stands Uneven-aged Stands Mixed Conifer Wet 11” dbh, 40% Canopy Cover 11” dbh, 40% Canopy Cover Mixed Conifer dry 8” dbh, 35% Canopy Cover 11” dbh, 35% Canopy Cover

Ponderosa Pine 8” dbh, 35% Canopy Cover 11” dbh, 35% Canopy Cover Lodgepole Pine 7” dbh, 30% Canopy Cover 7” dbh, 30% Canopy Cover

Mountain Hemlock 7” dbh, 30% Canopy Cover 7” dbh, 30% Canopy Cover Due to the release of the Final Critical Habitat Rule in December 2012, the Forest had a need to map dispersal habitat in order to be able to assess impacts consistently across the forest and ensure we are meeting the intent of the Final Critical Habitat Rule. Using the specifications developed for the Deschutes NF for dispersal habitat above, specific attributes were defined using the 2000 GNN layer and lidar to map dispersal habitat on forest. Lidar was used to calculate canopy cover, while GNN data was used to calculate the remaining attributes. There was no minimum patch size used. Table 18. Dispersal habitat attributes used for GIS mapping

PAG GNN PAG

Minimum Tree DBH (inches)

GNN Size Class Code

GNN Size Class* (inches)

Percent Canopy*

Mixed Conifer Wet MCW 11” 4-7 10” and greater 40 Mixed Conifer Dry MCD 8” 4-7 5” and greater 40 Ponderosa Pine PPD 8” 4-7 5” and greater 40

35

Lodgepole Pine LPD 7” 3-7 5” and greater 40 Mountain Hemlock MHD 7” 4-7 5” and greater 40

*Lidar was used to determine this attribute where there was lidar coverage. Where there was not coverage, GNN was used. Only Forest Service lands were included in this analysis. Mixed mortality and stand replacement fire areas were removed due to the lack of canopy cover, as well as a variety of activities implemented on the ground since 2001. Lidar data was collected ending in October 2010, therefore, activities for fiscal year 2011 were used to determine canopy cover where Lidar is used to calculate canopy cover. Where there was not any lidar coverage, GNN was used to calculate canopy cover. Activities that remove habitat include thinning, shelterwood harvest, and some burning. This was updated in January 2016 to reflect recent fires and other habitat removing activities. Dispersal habitat is mapped separate from and in addition to NRF habitat so these acres will not overlap. Table 19 displays the acres of dispersal habitat that occurs within the project area, watersheds and Forest. Table 19. Northern Spotted Owl Dispersal Habitat within the Lex Vegetation Management Project Area, North Unit Diversion Dam-Deschutes River, Fall River-Deschutes River, and Across the Deschutes National Forest.

Acres of Dispersal Habitat in the Lex Project Area

Acres of Dispersal Habitat in the North

Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River

Watershed

Acres of Dispersal Habitat in the Fall River – Deschutes River

Watershed

Acres of Dispersal Habitat on the Deschutes N.F.

3,665 acres

1% of all dispersal habitat on Forest

11,902 acres


22,288 acres


295,110 acres

18% of the entire Deschutes National Forest

The acres displayed do not include mapped NRF habitat that could also be used as dispersal habitat. Approximately 14% (11,902 acres) of the North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River Watershed is dispersal habitat while 21% (22,288 acres) of the Fall River – Deschutes River Watershed is dispersal habitat. Dispersal habitat is 94% (21,671 acres) mountain hemlock, ponderosa pine, and mixed conifer stands and 6% (1,350 acres) of the dispersal habitat consists of lodgepole pine stands. The project area contains approximately 3,665 acres (31% of the project area) of dispersal habitat (see Figure 14), which is 1% of the habitat available on the Forest. Dispersal habitat occurs on 18% of entire Deschutes National Forest.

36

Figure 14. Dispersal Habitat within the Lex Project Area (does not include NRF habitat, which also functions as dispersal habitat). Within the project area, dispersal habitat is found within both mixed conifer and lodgepole plant associations. Looking at Figure 14, dispersal habitat is dense around the buttes (black) and areas of mixed conifer stands (darker gray). The lighter gray areas are lodgepole pine stands. Mortality from beetle-killed trees has resulted in increased open stands of lodgepole pine within the past 10 years. Table 20 is a breakdown of the dispersal habitat distribution within the project area and the watersheds. Table 20. Existing Dispersal Habitat by Plant Association within the Lex Project Area.

Dispersal Habitat by Plant Association Group

Mixed Conifer Lodgepole

Pine Mt. Hemlock Ponderosa Pine Total

North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River

9,435 1,358 1 1,108 11,902

Fall river – Deschutes River 13,686 3,103 2,755 2,744 22,288

Lex Project Area 2,346 1,318 0 1 3,665 The acres displayed do not include mapped NRF habitat that could also be used as dispersal habitat.

37

Roads and Trails A baseline analysis was conducted to determine what the existing condition is for roads and motorized trails (there are no official motorized trails in Lex, only user created) within the project area, and if these roads and trails may be having an effect on spotted owls and NRF habitat. Roads and motorized trails are avenues of noise disturbance and fragmentation for these owls. There are no known spotted owl activity centers within the project area, thus there are no current or ongoing effects to this species from the current road density. Of the 53.6 miles of road that occur within the project area, 1.6 miles occur adjacent to NRF habitat. Although this NRF habitat is not currently occupied, the presence of a road could affect whether or not a spotted owl would utilize these areas. There are no designated motorized OHV trails within the project area, but there are several miles of user-created motorcycle trails. The total miles has not been determined, but some trail miles do occur within NRF and dispersal habitat. Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat The project area occurs outside of designated critical habitat and the project area occurs between two different subunits in Critical Habitat Unit ECN 9 (Figure 15).

Figure 15. Designated Critical Habitat Subunits of ECN 9 in Relation to the Lex Project Area.

This subunit is not a contiguous delineation but instead made up of four different areas. The Tumalo area is the smallest of the four and lies within the Tumalo Creek headwater area (near the Bend Municipal Watershed). It is found within an inventoried roadless area, is bounded on the north by the North Fork Tumalo Creek, and is found north of the Cascades Lakes Highway (FS Rd 46). It does not overlap any LSR. The Crane-Sheridan area is the largest of the four and is bounded on the west in part by the Three Sisters Wilderness boundary, on

38

the east by the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) boundary, and wraps around Crane Prairie Reservoir and follows the Sheridan LSR boundary. The Crane Sheridan area overlaps the majority of the Cultus, Sheridan, Browns Mountain, and Round Mountain LSRs. The Davis area is bounded on the east by the NWFP boundary, on the south by Highway 58, and on the west by the inventoried roadless area. It also has a narrow band wrapping around the north end of Odell Lake along the west shoreline. It overlaps the majority of the Davis LSR. Wickiup-Davis area is a small area located between Wickiup Reservoir and Davis Lake on the north flank of Davis Mountain. It encompasses part of a lava flow to the north and overlaps a small portion of the Davis LSR. The Lex project area lies between the Tumalo area of ECN 9 and the Crane-Sheridan area of ECN 9. Approximately 16% of the ECN 9 subunit is classified as NRF habitat (24,342 acres). It is distributed in generally small-scattered patches throughout the subunit with the majority of habitat occurring in the Wickiup-Davis and Davis areas. The exception is within the Tumalo area of ECN 9 where there are large patches of NRF habitat associated with the Bend Municipal Watershed. The majority of the remaining habitat is considered dispersal habitat except dense stands of lodgepole pine, recent thinning, and fire areas. The major plant association found in this subunit is white fir with moderate amounts of mountain hemlock and ponderosa pine. The existing habitat within the project area is representative of the larger landscape characterizations (sparse NRF; dispersal habitat largely a function of mixed conifer stands). Special management considerations or protection are required in subunit ECN 9 to address threats from current and past timber harvest, losses due to wildfire and the effects on vegetation from fire exclusion, and competition with barred owls. This subunit is expected to function primarily for demographic support to the overall population, as well as north-south connectivity between subunits and critical habitat units. It was determined that all of the unoccupied and likely occupied areas in this subunit are essential for the conservation of the species to meet the recovery criteria that calls for the continued maintenance and recruitment of northern spotted owl habitat. The increase and enhancement of northern spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide for viable populations of spotted owls over the long term by providing for population growth, successful dispersal, and buffering from competition with the barred owl. Spotted Owl Presence & Survey History in the Project Area The project area has been surveyed according to protocol (for years 2013-2014: Protocol for Surveying Proposed Management Activities That May Impact Northern Spotted Owls January 9, 2012 version). There have been no detections of northern spotted owls within the project area (Table 21). The Kew Project area was surveyed during the same time, and a barred owl was detected on the east side of the project in 2014. Table 21. Northern Spotted Owl Survey History for the Lex Project Area and Surrounding Areas.

Survey Area Years Surveyed Results

Drink 2014 - 2015 No responses. Barred owl detection and reproduction in 2015 (surveys ongoing). 65 stations.

EXF 2007 - 2014 Pair found in 2011, 2012 with young (became Lookout Mtn. Site), barred owl response in 2013. 39 stations.

Kapka Butte Sno-Park 2006 - 2014 No responses. 9 stations.

Lex/Kew 2013 - 2014 No responses; Barred owl detection in Kew in 2014. 36 stations

Ursus/Bearwallow 2010 - 2016 No responses (surveys ongoing). 18 stations Wanoga Bike 2008 No responses. 8 stations.

West Tumbull* 2006 - 2008 Strix sp. response 7/17/2008. No detections during follow-ups. Station #T5. 22 stations.

West Bend (portion north of 2010 - 2016

2011 – Two auditory detections of spotted owls on separate occasions. No response on follow-ups. No further detections since (surveys ongoing). 50 stations.

39

Survey Area Years Surveyed Results the Cascade Lakes Hwy)

*Completed using the USFWS 1995 Survey Protocol Of the 247 calling stations, spotted owls have been positively detected at two locations outside of the project area (within West Bend and EXF) and a Strix species at another location (within West Tumbull). A nest tree was found within the EXF project area, but in other project areas, no nest trees or any evidence of nesting has been detected under any of these survey efforts to date. Barred Owl Presence in the Project Area For a detailed life history, habitat needs and threats refer to the 2014 Deschutes and Ochoco Programmatic Biological Assessment. Based on early studies conducted on the west slope of the Washington Cascades (Hamer 1988), barred owls were thought by some to be more closely associated with early successional forests than spotted owls are, though even then they were known to use old-growth. Recent studies in the Pacific Northwest (Herter and Hicks 2000, Pearson and Livezey 2003, Hamer et al. 2007, Singleton et al. 2010) show that barred owls also use, and in some cases, appear to prefer old-growth forest and older forest. Diets of spotted and barred owls in the western Washington Cascades overlap by approximately 76 percent (Hamer et al. 2001). Barred owls reportedly have reduced probability of detection (response behavior), site occupancy, reproduction, and survival of spotted owls. In the eastern Cascades of Washington, probabilities of detecting any spotted owl or a pair of spotted owls were substantially lower when barred owls were detected during surveys than when no barred owls were detected (Kroll et al. 2010). There is strong evidence to indicate that barred owls are negatively affecting northern spotted owl populations. Barred owls displace spotted owls from high-quality habitat (Kelley et al. 2003; Pearson and Livezey 2003; Hamer et al. 2007; Dugger et al. 2011), reducing their survival and reproduction (Olson et al. 2004; Anthony et al. 2006; Forsman et al. 2011). Barred owl detections have occurred approximately 2 miles northwest of the Lex project boundary (in the Drink project area in ) with evidence of reproduction in 2015 (i.e. a barred owl fledgling seen), plus sightings within Kew in 2013, 2014, and 2016 (2 responses), and a sighting in EXF in 2013. Effects of the Alternatives Alternative 1 – No Action (Ecological Trend) Dispersal/Connectivity and Nesting, Roosting, Foraging (NRF) Habitat There is no proposed action under this alternative; therefore, there would be no changes from the existing conditions. Although no effects are expected to occur to spotted owls from this alternative, taking no action could have consequences to spotted owl habitat. Natural processes would continue to occur within the project area, including insects and diseases. Fuel loadings are known to be high within parts of the watershed, and may result in wildfire, which could burn at high severity in areas. This type of situation would reduce spotted owl NRF and dispersal habitat within the watershed. With no proposed action to add incrementally to the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable actions, there would be no cumulative effects.

40

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 - Direct and Indirect Impacts Nesting, Roosting, Foraging (NRF) Habitat There would be no direct impacts to NRF habitat as a result of implementation of any of the action alternatives. There are no actions proposed within any current suitable NRF habitat within the project area. Dispersal/Connectivity Actions are proposed within dispersal habitat within 1,258 acres in Alternative 2, 1,460 acres in Alternative 3, and 1,078 acres in Alternative 4. Table 22 shows the treatment acres by alternative and the percentage of habitat it effects in the project area, watersheds, and Forest, while Table 23 shows the dispersal habitat treated by alternative within the project area and analysis area (HUC10 Watersheds). Table 22. Lex Proposed Overstory Treatments in within Dispersal Habitat.

Alt.

Acres of Dispersal Habitat

Treated in Lex

% of Total Acres of Dispersal Habitat

Treated in the Project Area

% of Total Acres of Dispersal Habitat

Treated in the North Unit Diversion Dam –

Deschutes River Watershed

% of Total Acres of Dispersal

Habitat Treated in the Fall River - Deschutes River

Watershed

% Total Acres of Dispersal

Habitat Treated on the

Forest

Alt. 2 1,258

NUDD – 203 FR - 1,055

34% 2% 5% 0.4%

Alt. 3 1,460

NUDD – 267 FR – 1,193

40% 2% 5% 0.5%

Alt. 4 1,078

NUDD – 164 FR - 915

29% 1% 4% 0.4%

NUDD = North Unit Diversion Dam; FR = Fall River The Lex Project area proposes to treat 1,078 acres (Alt. 4), 1,258 acres (Alt. 2), or 1,460 acres (Alt. 3) of northern spotted owl dispersal habitat. This equates to 29% - 40% of the total mapped acres available within the project area. The amount of habitat treated across the landscape is low within the North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River Watershed at 1% - 2% and within the Fall River – Deschutes River Watershed at 4% - 5%, and minimal across the Forest at 0.4% - 0.5% of the mapped habitat. Table 23. Existing Dispersal Habitat by PAG in Relation to the Lex Project Area and Acres Treated by Each Alternative.

Acres of Dispersal Habitat by Plant Association Group

Mixed

Conifer Lodgepole

Pine Mountain Hemlock

Ponderosa Pine Total


Current Condition 9,435 1,358 1 1,108 11,902

Alt. 2 145 59 0 0 204 Alt. 3 191 76 0 0 267 Alt. 4 116 48 0 0 164

Fall river – Deschutes River

Current Condition 13,686 3,103 2,755 2,744 22,288

Alt. 2 457 597 0 0 1,054 Alt. 3 531 662 0 0 1,193

41

Acres of Dispersal Habitat by Plant Association Group

Mixed

Conifer Lodgepole

Pine Mountain Hemlock

Ponderosa Pine Total

Alt. 4 401 513 0 0 914

Lex Project Area

Current Condition 2,346 1,318 0 1 3,665

Alt. 2 602 656 0 0 1,258 Alt. 3 722 738 0 0 1,460 Alt. 4 517 561 0 0 1,078

The acres displayed do not include mapped NRF habitat that could also be used as dispersal habitat. Overstory Treatments of Dispersal Habitat in Lodgepole Pine Currently mapped dispersal habitat across the Deschutes National Forest were not updated for beetle mortality. Much of the dispersal habitat within the lodgepole pine habitat is severely reduced in quality due to beetle-kill. Some dispersal habitat, albeit patchy and lower canopy cover, still exists within these stands consisting of the remaining green trees and those infected with dwarf mistletoe. Within the project area, lodgepole pine dispersal habitat makes up 36% of the total dispersal habitat available. Within the Lex project area, 561 acres (Alt. 4), 656 acres (Alt. 2), and 738 acres (Alt. 3) of dispersal habitat are proposed for treatment within the lodgepole pine plant association group. Proposed overstory treatments within these stands along with the associated understory thinning would remove the available dispersal habitat. Alternative 2 would remove 50% of the available dispersal habitat within the lodgepole pine plant association group, whereas Alternative 3 would remove 56%, and Alternative 4 would remove 43%. The following table displays the types of treatments that would occur within the lodgepole pine habitat within the Lex Project area. All treatments would remove dispersal habitat, as they would reduce the canopy below 30% by removing the overstory. Table 24. Dispersal Overstory Treatments by Treatment Type in the Lodgepole Pine PAG in the Lex Project Area.

Alt.

Total Lodgepole

Pine Treatment

Acres

HCR Acres

HFR Acres

HIM Acres

HOR Acres

HSC Acres

HSL Acres

HSP Acres

HSV Acres

HTH Acres

GFR Acres

Alt. 2 656 225 37 7 256 0 67 9 53 2 0 Alt. 3 738 291 37 7 256 16 67 9 53 2 0 Alt. 4 561 131 29 7 256 0 67 9 53 2 7

See Appendix A for Treatment Type Definitions HCR = Clearcut with Reserve Trees HFR = Final Removal HIM= Improvement Cut HOR = Overstory Removal HSC = Selection Cut HSL = Uneven-aged Management – Selection Cut HSP = Special Cut HSV = Salvage HTH = Commercial Thinning GFR = Girdle the Overstory A majority of the lodgepole pine dispersal habitat would be treated by overstory removal (HOR) and clearcut with reserve trees (HCR). Both would remove the overstory trees, a majority of them with mistletoe, bringing the canopy cover below 30%. Overstory removal stands have an understory that would be thinned managing it as a single cohort, while the clearcut with reserve tree treatments (about 10 trees/acre) does not have an

42

understory. The focus of this treatment is to establish a new stand and return in 5+ years to remove the overstory. HSL, or uneven-aged management/selection cut, would maintain ponderosa pine as a long-term overstory and understory species. This would be accomplished by releasing the ponderosa pine, while removing the intermediate suppressed white fir and lodgepole pine. HSV, or salvage, would remove the dead standing and down lodgepole pine trees. These areas may already be below 30% canopy cover. The following table is a summary of the treatments in lodgepole pine dispersal habitat within the project area. Table 25. Dispersal Overstory Treatments w/in Lodgepole Pine for the Lex Project Area.

Alternative Total Lodgepole Pine Treatment Acres in Lex

% of Lodgepole Pine Dispersal Habitat treated in Lex

% of All Dispersal Habitat Treated in Lex

Alt. 2 656 50% 18% Alt. 3 738 56% 20% Alt. 4 561 43% 15%

Much of the lodgepole pine dispersal habitat is infected with mistletoe. Although it may be dispersal habitat now, the understory is being infected by the overstory, therefore potentially causing a delay in dispersal habitat development for future lodgepole pine stands. Agne et al. (2014) found that in stands within the Deschutes National Forest there was a decreasing canopy volume and tree height in stands with high mistletoe ratings. Therefore, the removal of the heaviest infected mistletoe trees would likely aid in the establishment of higher quality dispersal habitat in the long-term (>30 years). All alternatives would remove a high percentage of the lodgepole pine dispersal habitat within the project area. Alternative 3 would remove 56% of the available lodgepole pine dispersal habitat, while Alternative 2 would remove 50% and Alternative 4 would remove 43%. Although there is a reduction in lodgepole pine dispersal habitat currently, in the long-term dispersal habitat will develop more quickly due to the removal of the mistletoe overstory. Overstory Treatments of Dispersal Habitat in Mixed Conifer Dispersal habitat within the mixed conifer plant association within the project area is currently 64% of that which is available in the project area. Within the Lex Project area, 517 acres (Alt. 4), 602 acres (Alt. 2), and 722 acres (Alt. 3) of dispersal habitat is proposed for treatment within the mixed conifer plant association group. The following table displays the types of treatments that would occur within the mixed conifer habitat within the Lex Project area. Table 26. Dispersal Overstory Treatments by Treatment Type in the Mixed Conifer Plant Association for the Lex Project Area.

Alt.

Total Mixed

Conifer Treatment

Acres

HCR Acres

HFR Acres

HIM Acres

HOR Acres

HSC Acres

HSL Acres

HSP Acres

HSV Acres

HTH Acres

GFR Acres

Alt. 2 602 35 4 1 82 0 383 14 0 83 0 Alt. 3 722 78 4 1 70 89 383 14 0 83 0 Alt. 4 517 10 4 1 66 0 339 14 0 83 0

Mixed conifer dispersal habitat would be treated mainly by HSL, or uneven-aged management/selection cut, and would maintain ponderosa pine as a long-term overstory and understory species. This would be accomplished by releasing the ponderosa pine, while removing the intermediate suppressed white fir and lodgepole pine. HTH, or commercial thinning, would generally consist of thinning from below, in which the smallest trees in the stand and/or shortest trees are generally priority for removal. Overstory removal (HOR) would remove the

43

lodgepole pine overstory trees, a majority of them with mistletoe, leaving other species such as ponderosa pine and fir. Most likely, the canopy cover would fall below 30% for all these treatments. The overstory treatments that would occur within the HSL units along with the associated thinning of the understory is not expected to remove dispersal habitat entirely from the unit. With the type of treatments proposed, it is predicted that 25% - 50% of a given unit would remain as dispersal habitat (with the lower end being most likely), or that 50% - 75% of any given unit would not provide dispersal habitat (with the higher end being most likely). If there were areas within a unit with no ponderosa pine to release, the white fir would be left un-thinned. The size of dispersal patches that may be left within these units is unknown. The following table is a summary of the mixed conifer dispersal habitat treated within the project area. Table 27. Dispersal Overstory Treatments within the Mixed Conifer Plant Association for the Lex Project Area.

Alternative Total Mixed Conifer Treatment Acres in Lex

% of Mixed Conifer Dispersal Habitat treated in Lex

% of All Dispersal Habitat Treated in Lex

Alt. 2 602 26% 16% Alt. 3 722 31% 20% Alt. 4 517 22% 14%

Alternative 2 would treat 26% of the available dispersal habitat within the mixed conifer plant association group in the Lex Project area, whereas Alternative 3 would treat 31% and Alternative 4 22%. The number of acres of mixed conifer dispersal habitat treated makes up 14% - 20% of the total dispersal habitat available within the project area, with similar percentages overall as lodgepole pine within the project area (15% - 20%). Understory Treatments in Dispersal Habitat Understory treatments in dispersal habitat include: precommercial thinning (PCT), ladder fuels reduction (LFR), whip felling, and skid and deck. A description of these activities can be found in Appendix A. These treatments could further reduce canopy cover, but most acreages (with the exception of approximately 50 acres of roadside LFR units) already occur in units with overstory treatments. Proposed treatments would be followed by mastication and underburning or piling and burning of slash. Dispersal over the Landscape The following figures (Figures 16 thorugh 19) show the juxtaposition of dispersal habitat existing and after the proposed actions. Although dispersal habitat is reduced, the reduction does not result in a barrier to movement on the landscape scale. There are still patches of dispersal habitat (NRF habitat, OGMA’s and remaining untreated areas) that provide landscape linkage. This linkage would still provide north/south and east/west movement between Critical Habitat Units (see Figure 15).

44

Figure 16. Current Condition of Dispersal Habitat in Lex.

45

Figure 17. Alternative 2 and Dispersal Habitat in Lex.

46


47


The Forest began informal consultation in a Level 1 streamlining meeting with Jennifer O’Reilly with the FWS Pacific Region Ecological Services field office in Bend, Oregon, on January 28, 2016, to discuss the project. Discussions led to a consensus of the Forest Service call that this project meets applicable NSO PDCs of the 2014 Joint Aquatic and Terrestrial Programmatic Biological Assessment (BA) and is covered by the scope of this document. A BE, along with the necessary Compliance Checklist and Project Monitoring Form (Appendix

48

D) will be submitted to the Level 1 team for packaging and submission to the USFWS. No further consultation with the USFWS is necessary. Disturbance Roads and Trails Post-project, 0.85 miles of road adjacent to NRF would be reduced to Level 1 status, which would be closed to the public for travel, but open for administrative use for the Forest Service. Although this NRF habitat is not currently occupied, the presence of a road could affect whether or not a spotted owl would utilize these areas. Temporary roads would be constructed with this project, but would be closed following project activities. The Lex Project would not be increasing road or motorized trail density within the project area or watershed, and thus would not add to potential negative effects to northern spotted owls. Noise Disturbance from Project Activities The proposed actions under the action alternatives are not expected to have disturbance effects to spotted owls. Years of survey have not detected spotted owls within the project area. Surveys would continue throughout the duration of project activities. If any evidence of owl occupancy is detected, seasonal restrictions (March 15- September 30) would apply. Critical Habitat Since the project area is outside of designated critical habitat, there are no direct or indirect effects regardless of alternative because the activities associated with the action alternatives will not result in a barrier to movement of spotted owls across the landscape. Effects from Connected Actions The connected actions associated with the proposed overstory and fuels treatments proposed include: temporary road construction, mastication, piling, pile burning, tree planting, gopher trapping, herbicide treatments, stump boraxing, trail obliteration, and road closures. The acreage impacted by these connected actions vary for some of the activities and the acreages are shown on pages 4 and 5. These actions extend the duration of potential disturbance within the area to more than two seasons. They would not be additive to the direct or indirect effects to spotted owl habitat discussed previously, other than noise disturbance, because the overstory removal, ladder fuels reduction, PCT, and whipfalling portions of the project would have already occurred. These latter actions have direct and indirect impacts to spotted owl habitat. Surveys for spotted owl activity would continue throughout the duration of the project activities. Detection of a spotted owl may result in a seasonal restriction on the activity. Determination of a resident owl or pair would require re-consultation. With continued surveying, potential impacts from the connected actions are expected to be minimal. Cumulative Effects — Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 The proposed actions would be cumulative to other projects in the watersheds that propose similar actions affecting dispersal habitat. The Kew Vegetation Management Project shares the eastern boundary of the Lex Project in both the North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River Watersheds and the Fall River – Deschutes River watersheds. The West Bend Vegetation Management Project (currently being implemented) on the Bend-Fort Rock Ranger District overlaps the North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River Watersheds.

49

Table 28. Summary of the Cumulative Reduction of Spotted Owl Dispersal Habitat.

Lex Kew West Bend Within CHU? No Yes Yes

Acres of Dispersal Habitat Removed

1,460 (Alt. 3 greatest acreage proposed)

3,221 (Alt. 2 greatest

acreage proposed) (3,114 within CHU)

2,369 (28 within CHU)

Percent Reduction of Dispersal Habitat within the Analysis Watersheds (34,190 acres total)

4% (North Unit Diversion Dam-Deschutes River

and Fall River-Deschutes River)

9% (North Unit Diversion Dam-Deschutes River

and Fall River-Deschutes River)

7% (North Unit Diversion Dam-

Deschutes River)

Cumulative Reduction of Dispersal Habitat (%) on the Deschutes National Forest (295,110 acres – Feb 2016 Baseline)

0.5% 1% 0.8%

Since there are no direct or indirect effects to spotted owl NRF habitat and designated critical habitat, there would be no cumulative effects to NRF habitat or designated critical habitat as a result of the proposed actions under any of the action alternatives in the Lex project. The Lex Vegetation Management Project would add incrementally to ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions within the watersheds for dispersal habitat loss. The Lex Project would treat an additional 1,460 acres (using Alternative 3 with the largest acreage proposed for treating) of the available dispersal habitat within the watersheds depending on the alternative. Cumulatively, when the Lex Project acreage is combined with the other projects (an additional 4%), approximately 20% of the northern spotted owl dispersal habitat in the watersheds would be treated (7,050 acres). Although this is a cumulative loss of dispersal habitat, the proposed actions do not create a barrier to spotted owl movement across the landscape (see Figures 17 through 19). Each of the vegetation management projects listed in Table 28 were consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. For the West Bend project, a Letter of Concurrence was received and is located in the project’s analysis file. The Kew Project, like the Lex Project, meets applicable NSO PDCs of the 2014 Joint Aquatic and Terrestrial Programmatic Biological Assessment (BA) and is covered by the scope of this document. Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures—Alternatives 2 , 3, and 4 Northern spotted owl surveys occurred in 2017 for the start of the 2-year protocol. In the event that a spotted owl is detected during project implementation that results in a nest or resident status, all actions within 1.2 miles of the location would be halted and consultation with the local U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office would be re-initiated. A 100-acre nest core/ no treatment area around the nest or activity center would be identified (NWFP 1994). Other project design criteria or mitigation measures that would benefit the northern spotted owl are listed on pages 14 – 18 of this document and include 1, 4, 6, 7, 13-19, and 27-31.

50

Consistency Implementation of the Lex Vegetation Management Project is consistent with the Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan 1994 and the December 2012 Critical Habitat Rule. It is also consistent with recovery actions listed in the Final Recovery Plan for the spotted owl (USDI 2011). Determination/Conclusion (All Action Alternatives) No Effect would occur to northern spotted owl nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat as no treatment units occur within this habitat. All overstory treatments are expected to reduce the stand canopy cover to below 40%, which would result in a reduction of dispersal habitat. Although there would be a reduction of dispersal habitat in the project area, this would not likely cause a barrier to movement across the landscape due to the untreated areas interspersed throughout the project area and watersheds that would act like “stepping stones” for movement across the landscape. Alternative 4 would reduce the least amount of dispersal habitat (1,079 acres), while Alternative 3 would reduce the greatest amount (1,331 acres), and then Alternative 2 (1,259 acres). All three alternatives would affect similar amounts of lodgepole pine dispersal and mixed conifer dispersal in the total acreages treated. There has been no evidence of nesting within the project area during the years of survey; thus, the treatments are not likely to affect nesting owls. No nesting, roosting, or foraging habitat will be removed through the proposed actions. Project design criteria are in place to continue surveying in assurance that any potential occupation of the project area would be addressed. If an owl is found prior to treatment activities, seasonal restrictions would be implemented or treatment units may be dropped. If an owl is found during treatment activities, all actions in the area will be halted until a determination of the pair/nesting status of the owl is complete and consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been completed. After which, seasonal restrictions or removal of treatment units may occur. In conclusion, the Lex Vegetation Management Project, under all action alternatives, May affect but would not likely adversely affect the northern spotted owl. This project would not contribute to a downward trend of viability for the northern spotted owl at the Forest level. The northern spotted owl is considered to be “vulnerable” (S3) by NatureServe (2016). The proposed actions of the Lex Vegetation Management Project would have No Effect to Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat, as the project area does not occur within critical habitat. Critical Habitat does surround the project area (see Figure 15), but as described above, project activities would not cause a barrier to movement across the landscape between critical habitat. The Lex Vegetation Management Project meets applicable NSO PDCs of the 2014 Joint Aquatic and Terrestrial Programmatic Biological Assessment (BA) and is covered by the scope of this document (see Appendix D, Wildlife Project PDC Compliance Checklist). Informal consultation was conducted during the planning phase of the Lex Project. It was determined in a January 2016 meeting that the Lex Project is consistent with the Programmatic Biological Opinion and formal consultation is not needed. Consistency with the 2014 Programmatic Biological Assessment PDCs Refer to Appendix D for the northern spotted owl Monitoring Protocol per maintaining consistency with the 2014 Programmatic BA and Table 1 in this appendix for the Project Design Criteria Compliance Checklist.

51

Project Design Criteria for the Northern Spotted Owl and Critical Habitat: Spotted Owl All NWFP Land Allocations 1. Disturbing work activities (i.e. chainsaw, heavy equipment, etc.) will not take place within ¼ mile (see Table 38 for helicopter distances or 1.0 mile for blasting) of the nest site or activity center of all known pairs or resident singles between March 1 and September 30. If activities occur within the nesting period, further consultation is required. The boundary of the ¼ mile area may be modified by a District Wildlife Biologist based on topographic breaks or other site-specific information (generally, a 125 acre area will be protected). This condition may be waived in a particular year if nesting or reproductive success surveys reveal that spotted owls are non-nesting or that no young are present that year. Waivers are valid only until March 1 of the following year. Seasonal Restrictions are in place. (PDC 1)

2. Work will occur outside restriction periods unless emergency work is warranted (trees falling on powerlines, danger tree poses immediate threat to people or facilities, etc.). Emergency consultation will be required at this point. Project Design Criteria specifying seasonal restrictions are in place to restrict disturbance activities around active nest sites. (PDC 1)

3. Danger trees would not be removed unless down wood needs per the LSR Assessment or LRMP as amended are met. Down wood assessments would be made in the immediate project area to determine down log needs and danger trees will be felled and left to meet goals for the vegetation type. Project Design Criteria are in place requiring felled hazard trees to be retained as down wood and not removed from the site to protect dead wood and to meet Forest dead wood requirements. (PDC 14, 18, 19)

4. All projects that are within or adjacent to suitable nesting, roosting, and foraging (NRF) habitat will be surveyed to regional protocol (USFWS 2011) prior to habitat-disturbing activities or seasonal restrictions will be implemented. Project specific surveys were conducted, per regional protocol, for all NRF habitat within and adjacent to the project boundary. (PDC 4)

5. Prescribed fire managers need to use smoke management forecasts in order to minimize smoke entering into suitable habitat and to ensure that dissipation would be adequate during the nesting season. Schedule burning operations to prevent smoke from affecting active nest sites during nesting season. Coordinate with district wildlife biologist to identify active nests prior to initiation of burning. (PDC 6)

6. Options for reducing hazards will be explored: topping, closing or moving sites, etc. Resource protection measures are in place to retain integrity of hazard tree by topping where feasible or avoiding the area around the snag. (PDC 14). The project meets these PDCs. Spotted Owl Matrix 1. Maintain 100 acres of NRF habitat (core area) around all known (as of January 1, 1994) activity centers. Where adequate NRF habitat is not available, retain all NRF habitat and the next best available habitat to meet the 100-acre minimum. There are no project activities within known spotted owl nest sites or identified NRF.

2. Landscape areas where little late-successional forest persists should be managed to retain the remaining late-successional forest. Maintain all late-successional patches in fifth field watersheds in which federally managed forestlands are currently comprised of 15% or less late-successional forests; this should be calculated using all land allocations within the watershed. There is no LSR within the Project Area. Project treatments would not degrade late-successional forests.

52

3. Maintain dispersal habitat between 100-acre core areas and LSRs to provide connectivity. There are no treatments within the known spotted owl core sites or LSR. Dispersal habitat would remain across the project area to facilitate northern spotted owl movements north to south and east to west.

4. Maintain all existing NRF habitats for connectivity. There are no proposed treatments within NRF. These project activities would not remove or degrade NRF habitat.

5. Promote climatic-climax late successional and old growth habitat within those plant associations capable of sustaining NRF habitat. Treatment prescriptions set stands on a trajectory of becoming late-successional and old growth habitats for wildlife species, including the northern spotted owl, in the long-term.

6. On lands not capable of becoming NRF, but capable of sustaining fire climax late-successional and old growth habitats for other species than the spotted owl, apply silvicultural treatments to promote that development of habitat. Treatment prescriptions favor fire climax tree species and set stands on a trajectory of becoming late successional and old growth habitats for wildlife species other than the northern spotted owl.

7. Maintain 100 acres of NRF habitat (core areas) around all newly discovered activity centers. Project Design Criteria are in place so that if a new territory is discovered, all project activities will be halted until a journey-level wildlife biologist does an evaluation. This is to ensure the project will meet all northern spotted owl PDCs found within the Joint Terrestrial and Aquatic Programmatic Biological Assessment (BA, USDA and USDI 2014) and/or consultation with the USFWS is completed. In addition, resource protection measures are in place to buffer disturbances ¼ to ½ mile away from all northern spotted owl nests, known or discovered. (PDC 1 and 4) The project meets this PDC. OREGON SPOTTED FROG, Rana pretiosa FS THREATENED Measure: Effects to breeding habitat Habitat Needs and Existing Condition The Oregon spotted frog inhabits the margins of lakes, marshes, and pools in streams where there is an abundant growth of vegetation (Csuti et al. 2001). Literature cited in the Conservation Assessment (Cushman and Pearl, 2007) describes spotted frog breeding habitat as moderate to large wetlands with extensive emergent marsh coverage that warms substantially during seasons when Oregon spotted frogs are active on the surface (February to May). Sites always include some permanent water juxtaposed to seasonally inundated habitat. For a detailed life history, habitat needs and threats refer to the Final Rule (USDI Fed. Reg. 2014). No habitat exists for the Oregon spotted frog within the Lex project area. No Oregon spotted frog Critical Habitat exists within the Lex project area nor will the actions associated with the Lex project have an affect on critical habitat. The proposed project would have no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to this frog species. There is No Effect to the Oregon spotted frog or Oregon Spotted Frog Critical Habitat as a result of the Lex project. No further analysis is required.

53

NORTH AMERICAN WOLVERINE, Gulo gulo FS PROPOSED Measure: Effects to denning habitat and dispersal capability Habitat Needs and Existing Condition The wolverine (Gulo gulo) is proposed to be federally listed and is a Regional Forester Sensitive Species, and a Deschutes LRMP Management Indicator Species. For more detailed information about the wolverine’s taxonomy; life history; requirements for habitat, space, and food; densities; status in Canada and Alaska; geographic range delineation complexities; distribution; and habitat relationships and distribution, refer to the February 4, 2013, proposed listing rule at 78 FR 7864 (USDI Fed Reg. 2013). In the contiguous United States, wolverine year-round habitat is found at high elevations in conifer forests near tree line and in rocky alpine habitats such as cirque basins and avalanche chutes that have food sources such as marmots, voles, and carrion. They utilize high elevation (7,000 to 9,000 feet) alpine habitat where snow coverage remains well into the denning season (spring) with only slight variations in habitat use between summer and winter (Copeland et al. 2007). The elevation within the Lex project area ranges between 5,100 and 6,200 feet. Wolverines require habitats with near-arctic conditions wherever they occur. In the contiguous United States, wolverine habitat is restricted to high elevation areas in the West. Wolverines are dependent on deep persistent snow cover for successful denning and they concentrate their year-round activities in areas that maintain deep snow into spring and cool temperatures throughout the summer. Wolverines in the contiguous United States exist as small and semi-isolated subpopulations in a larger metapopulation that requires regular dispersal of wolverines between habitat patches to maintain itself. These dispersers achieve both genetic enrichment and demographic support of recipient populations. Climate changes are predicted to reduce wolverine habitat and range by 31% over the next 30 years and 63% over the next 75 years, rendering remaining wolverine habitat substantially smaller and more fragmented. It is anticipated by 2045, maintenance of the contiguous United States wolverine population in the currently occupied area may require human intervention to facilitate genetic exchange and to facilitate metapopulation dynamics by moving individuals between habitat patches if dispersers, or risk loss of the population no longer accesses them regularly. (USDI Fed Reg. 2013). A draft habitat assessment for the wolverine on the Deschutes National Forest was completed in 2012. Denning habitat was modeled from the Forest GIS Plant Association Group (PAG) layer including the alpine dry, alpine meadow, glacier and rock, north aspects of 0-22.5 degrees and 337.5-360 degrees. The results from this were clipped using only the acres above 5500 feet in elevation. Of the 1,656 acres of wolverine denning habitat modeled for the Deschutes National Forest, approximately 112 acres are in the Fall River-Deschutes River watershed and 0 acres in the North Unit Diversion Dam-Deschutes River watershed (a total of 7% of the total habitat within these two watersheds). The nearest mapped denning habitat is just over 1 mile from the project area. No denning habitat occurs in the project area. Several historic sightings have been documented on the Bend-Fort Rock Ranger District. Diebert et al. (1970) recorded wolverine observations in the area of Three-Fingered Jack (1965), Broken Top (1969), Many Lakes Basin (1972), and Willamette Pass (1973). Previous winter surveys for this species have occurred on the Forest. These have included two aerial flights in the Three Sisters, Mt. Washington, and Mt. Jefferson wilderness areas and adjacent roadless areas on the Sisters Ranger District in 1998 and 1999. There were no detections during the two flights. Baited camera systems placed near the wilderness boundary from 1997 through 1999 did not detect wolverine presence either.

54

Wolverine tracks were found in the Deschutes Bridge area, during winter track surveys by the Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife (ODFW; Glen Ardt, personal communication, 4/20/2007). During the winter of 2012/2013 and 2013/2014 a research monitoring project using motion-detection cameras at bait stations and a hair snag system to collect samples for genetic analysis occurred on the Deschutes and Willamette National Forests. Target forest carnivores included the wolverine, the American marten, and the Sierra Nevada red fox. No wolverines were detected during this six month study. Aubry et al. (2007) reported that virtually all of the wolverine records located in the Pacific states were within or near alpine areas. Wolverines appear to be extremely wide-ranging and unaffected by geographic barriers such as mountain ranges, rivers, reservoirs, highways, or valleys. On the Deschutes National Forest, wolverines may travel through and or forage infrequently at lower elevations on the district but utilize higher elevations for most of their needs. Potential dispersal habitat for east/west movements does occur within the project area. While there is potential for wolverines to travel through the Lex Project area, project activities would not create conditions to prevent the species from doing so. There is no wolverine denning habitat within the Lex Project area, nor do the action alternatives propose treatment within subalpine or alpine stands. As there would be no impact to wolverine habitat or populations on the Deschutes National Forest there are no direct, indirect or cumulative effects. Implementation of the Lex Project would have No effect to the North American wolverine and would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Deschutes National Forest. No further analysis is required. Sensitive Species The following table is derived from the updated Regional Forester’s Special Species List (USDA 2015). Those species that are in bold and/or highlighted are analyzed further and contain habitat that occurs within or adjacent to the project area and that the particular habitat and/or species may be negatively affected. Those species that are not in bold may or may not contain habitat within or adjacent to the project area, of which that habitat or species would not be impacted by the proposed project. These species may be addressed but not carried forward for analysis (see Appendix B). Table 29. Regional Forester Sensitive Species Occurring or Potentially Occurring on the Deschutes National Forest, Their Status (including NatureServe Ranking), Habitat and Presence, and Effect of the Project.

Regional Forester Sensitive Species

Species Status &

NatureServe Ranking

Habitat Habitat/


Effect

BIRDS

American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum)

Sensitive, Management

Indicator Species (MIS), S2B

Imperiled

Riparian, Cliffs No habitat No Impact

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Sensitive, MIS,

T5 Secure – state not available

Lakes, snags No habitat No Impact

55


Species Status &

NatureServe Ranking

Habitat Habitat/


Effect

Lewis’ woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis)

Sensitive, MIS,

S2 Imperiled

Open ponderosa pine snags, burned

areas

Very little mapped habitat occurs within the project area (8.2 acres). A Lewis’ woodpecker was observed in a previously treated stand. No mapped habitat would be treated.


White-headed woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus)

Sensitive, MIS,

S2 Imperiled

Large-diameter ponderosa pine

snags

Approximately 896 acres of mapped habitat occurs within Lex. This species has not been observed within the project area.


Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola)

Sensitive, MIS,

S2 Imperiled Lakes, snags No habitat No Impact

Harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus)

Sensitive, MIS,

S2 Imperiled

Rapid streams, Large trees No habitat No Impact

Horned grebe (Podiceps auritus)

Sensitive, MIS,

S2 Imperiled Lake No habitat No Impact

Tule goose (Anser albifrons)

Sensitive,

S2S3N Imperiled-Vulnerable

Nests on marshy ponds in the tundra;

winters in open country

No habitat No Impact

Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor)

Sensitive, S2 Imperiled

Lakeside, bulrush (cattails) No habitat No Impact

Northern waterthrush (Seiurus noveboracensis)

Sensitive,

S2 Imperiled

Riparian streambanks with

dense willows


Yellow Rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis)

Sensitive,

S1 Critically Imperiled

Marsh No habitat No Impact

Greater sage grouse

Sensitive, S3

Vulnerable

Sagebrush flats


56


Species Status &

NatureServe Ranking

Habitat Habitat/


Effect

(Centrocercus urophasianus)

MAMMALS

Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes

Sensitive, S2

Imperiled

Caves, mines, rock crevices, desert, grassland, woodland

Roosting and foraging habitat


Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus)

Sensitive, S2

Imperiled

Caves, mines, bridges, buildings, rock outcrops, snags in conifer forests, desert



Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum)

Sensitive; S2 Imperiled

Caves and rock crevices No habitat No Impact

Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii)

Sensitive, MIS,

S2 Imperiled

Caves, mines, bridges, buildings, rock outcrops, snags in conifer forests, desert



Pacific fisher (Pekania pennanti)

Sensitive, S2

Imperiled

Mixed conifer forests with large

downed wood

Mapped denning, foraging, resting, and dispersal habitat occur in Lex (264 acres). This species has not been sighted within the project area.

Reduction of denning, resting, and foraging habitat; potential loss of snags and down wood; potential loss of individuals during denning period from logging activities; road closures and user-created trail obliteration would reduce disturbance in suitable habitat.

Sierra Nevada red fox Vulpes necator

Sensitive, S1 Critically

Imperiled

High elevation forest, shrub and

meadow

Potential denning, foraging and 716 acres of mature dense habitat in the

Reduction of mature dense habitat; potential loss of individuals during denning period

57


Species Status &

NatureServe Ranking

Habitat Habitat/


Effect

project area. This species has been sighted within and adjacent to the project area.

from logging activities; road closures and user-created trail obliteration would reduce disturbance in suitable habitat.

AMPHIBIANS

Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris)

Federal Proposed, Sensitive,

S2 Imperiled

Shallow lakes, ponds No habitat No Impact

INVERTEBRATES Crater Lake tightcoil (Pristiloma articum crateris)

Sensitive, S2 Imperiled

Perennial riparian areas No habitat No Impact

Shiny tightcoil (Pristiloma wascoense)

Sensitive, SH Possibly Extirpated

Aspen stands within

ponderosa/Douglas- fir forest


Silver-bordered fritillary (Boloria selene)

Sensitive S2 Imperiled

Bogs and wet meadows No habitat No Impact

Johnson’s hairstreak (Callophrys johnsoni)

Sensitive S2

Imperiled

Mixed forests with dwarf mistletoe

Existing habitat occurs within the abundant mistletoe that occurs throughout the project area.

Project activities may reduce the amount of mistletoe; possible loss of individuals while spraying herbicides; short-term reduction of foraging plants.

Western bumblebee (Bombus occidentalis)

Sensitive Not Ranked

Forest edges, gardens, near

houses and urban areas

Nesting, foraging, and overwintering habitat occur throughout the project area.

Project activities may crush nests and overwintering queens; possible loss of individuals while spraying herbicides; short-term reduction of foraging habitat.

58

LEWIS’ WOODPECKER, Melanerpes lewis FS SENSITIVE Measure: Proportion of reproductive habitat acres impacted; disturbance during the nesting season. Habitat Needs and Existing Condition The following information is summarized from the Species Assessment for Lewis’ Woodpecker for the Deschutes National Forest (USDA FS 2012k). For a detailed assessment on the Lewis’ woodpecker, see this document. The Lewis’s woodpecker is an uncommon permanent resident in open forests and post-fire habitats on the east side of the Cascades. Habitat for the Lewis’s woodpecker is old-forest, single-storied ponderosa pine. Altman and Holmes (2000) identified the Lewis’s woodpecker as a focal species for riparian woodlands with large cottonwood snags for the Columbia Plateau Landbird Strategy. This habitat is extremely rare to absent on the Deschutes National Forest. Lewis’s woodpeckers have been termed “burn specialists” because the large majority of their nests are found in snags in burned pine forests. They are most abundant in recent burns (2 to 4 years) and older burns (10-30 years post-fire) (Saab and Dudley 1998, Saab et al. 2007). It is positively associated with large diameter and higher snag densities in ponderosa pine patches in more open or salvage logged areas (Saab et al. 2002, Saab et al. 2009). Suitable conditions for nesting and foraging include increased arthropod populations, shrubby understories, open canopies, and nest cavities created by strong excavators (Saab and Dudley 1998). Lewis’ woodpeckers feed on flying insects and are weak cavity excavators and require large nest snags in an advanced state of decay that are easy to excavate or they use old cavities created by other woodpeckers, primarily northern flickers and hairy woodpeckers (Wisdom et al. 2000, Marshall et al. 2003, NatureServe 2015). Linder and Anderson (1998) estimate that optimal canopy closure for Lewis’s Woodpeckers is less than 30%. Primary threats to the Lewis’s woodpecker include the loss of large snags, intensive grazing, timber harvest, salvage logging of burned ponderosa pine forests, loss of cottonwood trees, human development in breeding and wintering habitat, and human disturbance at nest sites (Tobalske 1997, Marshall et al. 2003, Abele et al. 2004, NatureServe 2015). Fire suppression in ponderosa pine forests has resulted in stands with increased stem densities (with more shade tolerant species), reduced shrub and grass understories, and increased canopy closures (Abele et al. 2004). Other threats include competition with invasive species, most notably European starlings. The Lewis’ woodpecker is identified in the Conservation Strategy for Landbirds of the East-Slope of the Cascades Mountains in Oregon and Washington as a focal species for ponderosa pine forests with patches of burned old forest (Altman 2000). It is thought to be declining throughout its range, possibly due to loss of suitable habitat, prospects for nest and food storage trees, and competition for nest holes. According to Altman (2000), this species is a focal species for patches of burned old ponderosa pine forest and conservation issues for this species relevant to the Fall river – Deschutes River Watershed and the North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River Watershed include: fire suppression, salvage logging of burned ponderosa pine trees, alteration of old ponderosa pine forest to young forest due to logging or fire suppression, increased competition with European starlings for nest sites, and lack of advanced decayed snags or ones with cavities already present. Many areas within the watershed are at high risk for catastrophic fire, which could create additional habitat for this species. In the assessment completed for MIS, Lewis’ woodpecker habitat was mapped using Viable modeling across the entire Deschutes National Forest. Lewis’ woodpecker nesting habitat was mapped using the drier ponderosa

59

pine forests in the early, mid and late seral stages. In addition, other plant association groups where ponderosa pine is the dominant species in the early and mid-seral stages was mapped as habitat. Stand size had to have a minimum diameter of 15”dbh or greater and have open stand characteristics (based on the canopy cover level thresholds for each PAG) to be mapped as potential habitat. Older fires (greater than 5 years old) were added as habitat. Recent (since 2002) forest management activities that resulted in conditions other than described above were removed from mapped potential habitat, then acres of potential nesting habitat were mapped by watershed and subwatershed. Habitat was not quantified by applying the DecAID tolerance levels as there was no information regarding snag densities in green stands for this species and snag densities in post-fire habitat were not modeled (USDA FS 2012k). The following table (Table 30) shows the acres of habitat available for the Lewis’ woodpecker within the project area, the two watersheds, and on the Forest based on Forest wide modeling (USDA FS 2012k). Table 30. Lewis’ Woodpecker Reproductive Habitat within the Lex Vegetation Management Project Area, North Unit Diversion Dam-Deschutes River and Fall River-Deschutes River Watersheds, and Across the Deschutes National Forest.

Acres of Lewis’ Woodpecker Habitat in

the Project Area

Acres of Lewis’ Woodpecker Habitat in

the North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River

Watershed

Acres of Lewis’ Woodpecker Habitat

in the Fall River – Deschutes River

Watershed

Acres of Lewis’ Woodpecker Habitat

on the Forest

8.2 3,472 484 122,727 acres

0.007% of all Lewis’ woodpecker habitat on the

Forest.

3% of all Lewis’ woodpecker habitat on the

Forest

0.4% of all Lewis’ woodpecker habitat on

the Forest 8% of the entire Forest

There are about nine patches of mapped habitat within Lex, totaling 8 acres. The largest patch is about 5 acres, with the other patch sizes ranging from 0.15 to 2 acres in size. The North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River Watershed contains 3,472 acres of habitat (more ponderosa pine habitat occurs here) while Fall River – Deschutes River Watershed contains 484 acres. There are 122,727 acres of potential Lewis’s woodpecker reproductive habitat across the Forest. Lewis’s woodpecker populations are not highly distributed across the Forest but are concentrated where large fire events have occurred. Minimal habitat occurs scattered in small patches across the remainder of the forest. This is mainly due to in-growth of shade-tolerant trees creating multi-canopy conditions, particularly in ponderosa pine dominated stands. There was an observation of a Lewis’ woodpecker in May 2015 within the Lex project area in a unit that had been heavily thinned in the 90’s. Residual trees left within the unit are fir trees that are either currently snags or in declining health. It was actively foraging within the opening, but no cavities were found. This area was not on the MIS map as suitable habitat. The project area has had no fires within the past 40 years. The most recent fires occurred in 1910 (Edison Ice Cave 2, burned 1,149 acres in Lex), and 1918 (Dutchman Creek, burned 216 acres in Lex). Conservation strategies suggested in Altman (2000) include: increase levels of acceptable opportunities to allow wildfires to burn, use prescribed burning and understory thinning to maintain existing old forest ponderosa pine stands and accelerate development of mid-successional stages to old forest, prohibit or limit salvage logging to retain both hard and soft snags in clumps, close roads where large ponderosa pine snags are present, retain standing dead or diseased trees where they occur, promote a shrubby understory, thin young pines in dense stands, and retain large living and dead trees. Several of these strategies are relevant to the proposed actions of this project.

60

The Lewis’ woodpecker is considered “imperiled” by NatureServe (2015). Because of this ranking and the listing of this species as sensitive, it is important to consider the necessary habitat constituents (snags) and protect them as much as possible. For more information on the effects to snags from this project, including DecAID analysis, see the snags and downed wood section of this report. Effects of the Alternatives Alternative 1 – No Action (Ecological Trend) There would be no direct impacts to Lewis’ woodpecker under Alternative 1 (No Action). Indirectly, continued high stand densities would reduce the longevity of residual large tree structure that could provide reproductive habitat in the project area. Root rot pockets would continue to be areas that would provide potential short-term nest habitat for Lewis’ woodpeckers in Lex, as fir snags do not stand for a long period of time due to rot throughout the tree. Wildfire threats from the high tree densities within stands would continue, which if it does occur, would provide habitat for the Lewis’ woodpecker. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 - Direct and Indirect Impacts There is no current Lewis’ woodpecker habitat proposed for treatment. The treatments that are proposed with the action alternatives may help to promote habitat (set the trajectory of some stands to more historic, open ponderosa pine conditions) by conducting overstory treatments including thinning and selective cuts that will open up stands, plus underburning which could scorch the boles of large trees to create snags. It is possible that if the project occurs during the breeding season (April 15 – July 15), commercial and non-commercial thinning and fuels projects could have direct, negative impacts to nesting woodpeckers that may be adjacent to active units (it is unknown without surveys if they are nesting adjacent to any units). Disturbance during this time could result in nest failure (noise disturbance) or direct loss of individuals (from adults away from the nest for too long). Road closures, trail obliteration, and soil restoration (where machinery is used) could also have disturbance impacts if conducted during the nesting season with similar results, although these activities are quicker to complete and may not disturb the birds as much as logging or burning activities. While timber harvest and fuels activities have the potential to disrupt nesting pairs of Lewis’s woodpeckers (which is highly unlikely, but possible, due to the small amount of habitat in the project area), this would be a short-term impact (1-3 years) and only where activities would occur during the spring nesting season. Since not all of the proposed activities would occur at the same time over the entire project area, undisturbed potential reproductive habitat would be still be available for the species within the project area. Connected activities (e.g. tree planting, gopher trapping, herbicide spraying [see the herbicide analysis discussion in the silvicultural report], and boraxing,) would likely have negligible impacts to individuals and habitat. Cumulative Effects– Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable vegetation treatments in the North Unit Diversion Dam–Deschutes River and Fall River – Deschutes River watersheds would occur in the following vegetation management projects: Kew, Rocket, West Bend, Junction, and the UDR WUI. The primary treatments for all projects include commercial thinning, mowing, and underburning. The Lex Vegetation Management Project would add incrementally to ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions within the watersheds. The Lex Project does not cumulatively treat current mapped Lewis’ woodpecker

61

habitat. The short-term negative cumulative impacts expected would be the disturbance the proposed treatments would have on potentially nesting pairs within the watershed. These cumulative impacts are variable, as treatment activities would take place at various times during the year, not just the nesting season, and take place over several years. Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures—Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 The following Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures are applicable to Lewis’ woodpecker and can be found in detail on pages 14 – 18 of this document: 10, and 13-17. Consistency To meet Forest Plan S&G’s for this species, the following would need to occur: Retain snags (including soft) as wildlife trees for roosting and foraging except where impractical because of human safety in all units (Wildlife Tree and Log Implementation Strategy, LRMP WL-38) at the 100% population potential (NWFP Page C-46). These levels are minimums. Where appropriate, leave higher concentrations and leave larger sizes where available. No snags over 20” dbh should be marked for cutting (NWFP Page C-46). At a minimum, snags are to be retained at the following levels per current direction: Mixed Conifer 3 snags/acre >10” dbh 1 snag/acre >20” dbh During prescribed burning operations, use preventative measures (i.e. placing a line around) and/or light in a manner (i.e. back burning from the log) as to prevent the burning and consumption of snags and logs >20” dbh. This would be in all decay classes (WL-72). This is written into this document as a Project Design Criteria and will further be addressed within the projects implementation plan. Maintaining these levels within areas that would be prescribed burned are not guaranteed. Monitoring should occur post project to determine what levels remain within project units. Determination/Conclusion (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) Implementation of the Lex Vegetation Management Project would not treat any mapped suitable Lewis’ woodpecker habitat within the project area, but the project could help to promote habitat (set the trajectory of some stands to more historic, open ponderosa pine conditions) by conducting overstory treatments including thinning and selective cuts that will open up stands, plus underburning which could scorch the boles of large trees to create snags. Some units may occur adjacent to stands that may provide suitable nesting habitat for this species, therefore potentially having a negative impact to nesting Lewis’ woodpeckers if project activities occur during the nesting season (April 15 to July 15). Therefore, this project, based on the above-described potential impacts, and that NatureServe (2015) considers this species Imperiled (S2), any of the action alternatives within the Lex Vegetation Management Project may impact individuals, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing for the Lewis’ woodpecker. The Lex Project will not impact Lewis’ Woodpecker habitat within the project area. The overall direct, indirect and cumulative effects will result in a small negative trend of increased disturbance to this species. This increase in disturbance will be insignificant at the scale of the Forest. The Lex Project is consistent with the Forest Plan, and thus continued viability of the Lewis’ woodpecker is expected on the Deschutes National Forest.

62

WHITE-HEADED WOODPECKER, Picoides albolarvatus FS SENSITIVE Measure: Proportion of reproductive habitat acres impacted; disturbance during the nesting season. Habitat Needs and Existing Condition White-headed woodpeckers are uncommon permanent residents in forests east of the Cascades. They use habitat with large open ponderosa pine, low shrub levels and large snags. Dixon (1995) found white-headed woodpecker densities increased with increasing old-growth ponderosa pine trees and showed a positive association with large ponderosa pine. The white-headed woodpecker is a primary cavity excavator of soft snags. This woodpecker is the only woodpecker species to rely heavily on seeds of ponderosa pine for food (Marshall et al. 2003). A long term study on the white-headed woodpecker occurred on the Deschutes and Winema National Forests from 1997-2004 with several Deschutes study sites occurring in the Metolius Basin area. Frenzel (2000) calculated the mean diameter for white-headed woodpecker nest trees to be 26.2”dbh while Dixon (1995) found similar results (mean diameter of 25.6”dbh). Frenzel (2003) found nests at sites with a high density of large diameter trees had a higher survival rate than nests in recently harvested sites. Unharvested sites or sites with greater than 12 trees per acre >21”dbh had a success rate of 63.1% while nests at previously harvested sites or lower densities of large trees had a success rate of 39.8%. Therefore, white-headed woodpeckers were positively associated with higher densities of large trees. On the Winema National Forest, white-headed woodpeckers were found to be using small-diameter trees, logs in a slash pile and upturned roots (6-13”dbh) where large snags were uncommon (Frenzel 2002). White-headed woodpeckers roost in ponderosa pine habitats with an average canopy closure of 57.4 + 1.9% canopy closure (Dixon 1995). In addition, most (65%) roost sites were located on flat ground and found on the lower one-third of the slope or bottom slope (89%) with slopes ranging from 0-40% and an average of 7 + 1% (Dixon 1995). Roost site elevations ranged from 2900-4311 feet with an average elevation of 3382 + 39 feet (Dixon 1995). Dixon (1995) found white-headed woodpeckers did not use the same kind of tree for nesting as they did for roosting. Nest trees were typically dead, had broken tops, were shorter in height, contained more cavities, and had a higher percentage of bark present than roost trees. She also found they used different decay stages for nesting than roosting. Foraging habitat is usually found in association with nesting habitat. Kozma (2011) surmised because white-headed woodpeckers are primarily bark gleaners and feed on ponderosa pine seeds throughout the winter, large diameter and old-growth ponderosa pine may be more important to white-headed woodpeckers because these trees have a greater bark foraging area, higher insect abundance, and greater and more frequent cone production than smaller trees. Loss of large diameter, old ponderosa pine from logging, planting of even-aged stands, fire suppression (which favors replacement of pines by firs), snag removal and forest fragmentation have contributed to local declines (Garrett et al. 1996, NatureServe 2015). Fire suppression has altered fire regimes so that ponderosa pine forests are no longer maintained by natural fire and are being replaced by fir species in the understory (NatureServe 2015) as well as leading to increased shrub densities. Increased shrub densities may be a factor leading to increased mammalian nest predation and increased risk of avian predation on adults (Frenzel 2000). This species does persist in burned or cutover forests with residual snags and stumps and populations are more tolerant than those species associated with closed-canopy forest (Garrett et al. 1996). Incidental disturbance at

63

nest and roost sites occurs around recreation sites but this species is tolerant of human activity in the nest vicinity as long as activity does not involve the nest tree (Garrett et al. 1996). The white-headed woodpecker is identified in the Conservation Strategy for Landbirds of the East-Slope of the Cascades Mountains in Oregon and Washington as a focal species for large patches of old ponderosa pine forest with large snags (Altman 2000). Conservation issues include: (1) the loss of large ponderosa pine trees and snags; (2) fire suppression resulting understory encroachment by shade tolerant species; a lack of recruitment of young pine and increased fuel loadings; and (3) fragmented habitat resulting in increased energy expenditures and increased risk of predation (Altman 2000). Several of these strategies are relevant to the proposed actions of this project. The following tables show white-headed woodpecker snag and down wood habitat data as defined by DecAID. The data compiled in the tables below is based on wildlife habitat types and structural condition. The numbers were derived from the distribution analysis completed for this species. Table 31: White-headed Woodpecker Preferred Snag Sizes.

White-headed WP Habitat Type

Snag Size (Small and Large) Tolerance Levels - Averages 30%

Snag Size (dbh in) 50%


Snag Size (dbh in) Eastside Mixed Conifer 21.5 26.6 34.6 Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir 19.9 24.7 32.0 Lodgepole Pine –no data Average for All Habitat Types 20.7 25.7 33.3

White-headed WP Use Type for all Habitat Types

Snag Size Tolerance Levels - Averages 30%



Snag Size (dbh in) Nesting 20.7 26.6 35.7 Roosting 19.9 23.8 29.6 Foraging – no data Average for All Use Types 20.3 25.2 32.7

White-headed WP All Habitat and Use Types




Snag Size (dbh in) Average Snag Size 20.5 25.5 33.0

Table 32: White-headed Woodpecker Preferred Snag Densities


Small Snag (10-20” dbh) Density Tolerance Levels – Averages 30%

Snag Density (#/acre) 50%


Snag Density (#/acre) Eastside Mixed Conifer 0.3 1.9 4.3 Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir 0.0 3.9 11.9 Lodgepole Pine –no data Average for All Types 0.3 2.9 8.1


Large Snag (20”+ dbh) Density Tolerance Levels – Averages 30%



Snag Density (#/acre) Eastside Mixed Conifer 0.0 1.5 3.8 Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir 05 1.8 3.8 Lodgepole Pine –no data Average for All Types 0.5 1.7 3.8

64

The above tables derived from the DecAID wildlife data suggest that white-headed woodpecker’s average preferred habitat at the 50% tolerance level are snags at 25.5” dbh with an average density of approximately 2.9 snags per acre. Within the analysis area, average snag densities for small and large snags are above reference conditions for the 30% and 50% tolerance levels. There is no information regarding white-headed woodpecker use of down wood within DecAID, nor in the species report (USDA 2012x). White-headed woodpecker habitat was mapped using Viable modeling across the entire Deschutes National Forest. White-headed woodpecker nesting habitat was mapped using ponderosa pine dominated forests which include all ponderosa pine plant association groups (PAGs) in all seral stages (early, mid, late) in addition to other PAGs (i.e. dry white fir) in the early and mid-seral stages where ponderosa pine is dominant. In addition, stand size had to be a minimum diameter of 10”dbh or greater and have open stand characteristics (based on the canopy cover level thresholds for each PAG) to be mapped as potential habitat. Recent fires (less than 5 years old) with stand replacement or mixed severity were also classified as habitat. Recent (since 2002) forest management activities that resulted in conditions other than described above were removed from mapped potential habitat. The following table shows the acres of habitat available for white-headed woodpeckers within the project area, the 2 watersheds, and the Forest based on Forest-wide modeling (USDA FS 2012x). Table 33. White-Headed Woodpecker Reproductive Habitat within the Lex Vegetation Management Project Area, North Unit Diversion Dam-Deschutes River and Fall River-Deschutes River Watersheds, and Across the Deschutes National Forest.

Acres of White-Headed Woodpecker Habitat in

the Project Area

Acres of White-Headed Woodpecker Habitat in


Watershed

Acres of White-Headed Woodpecker Habitat


Watershed

Acres of White-Headed Woodpecker Habitat on the Forest

896 10,504 10,258 171,804 acres

0.05% of all white-headed woodpecker habitat on the

Forest.

6% of all white-headed woodpecker habitat on the

Forest

6% of all white-headed woodpecker habitat on


There are 896 acres of mapped reproductive habitat within the Lex Project area (includes mostly areas previously treated), only 0.05% of that available on the Forest. The habitat is scattered throughout the project area, but the heaviest concentration occurs within the southwest portion of the project area. The North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River Watershed contains 10,504 acres of habitat while Fall River – Deschutes River Watershed contains 10,258 acres. There are 171,804 acres of potential white-headed woodpecker reproductive habitat across the Forest. This species has not been observed within the project area. Conservation strategies relevant to the proposed actions include: inventory to identify stands meeting desired conditions and stands that can be managed to meet desired conditions; conduct thinning, partial cuts, group selection cuts, shelterwood, planting, snag creation, or prescribed burning as appropriate to meet desired conditions but not clear cuts or overstory removal; manage for large diameter trees through wider tree spacing and longer rotation periods; retain all snags and high cut stumps >10” dbh, soft snags, broken-topped snags, leaning logs, high stumps, downed logs, and all ponderosa pine trees >17” dbh (Altman 2000). Several of these strategies are relevant to the proposed actions of this project. The white-headed woodpecker is considered “imperiled” by NatureServe (2015). Because of this ranking and the listing of this species as sensitive, it is important to consider the necessary habitat constituents (snags) and protect them as much as possible.

65

For more information on the effects to snags from this project, including DecAID analysis, see the snag and downed wood section of this report. Effects of the Alternatives Alternative 1 – No Action (Ecological Trend) There would be no direct impacts to white-headed woodpeckers under Alternative 1 (No Action). Indirectly, continued high stand densities would reduce the longevity of residual large tree structure that could provide reproductive habitat in the project area. Root rot pockets would continue to be areas that would provide potential nesting habitat for white-headed woodpeckers in Lex. Wildfire threats from the high tree densities within stands would continue, which if it does occur, would provide habitat for the white-headed woodpeckers. A stand-replacing fire would provide a large pulse of forage and nesting habitat in the short-term, but as snags began to deteriorate and fall, the amount of suitable habitat would drop and would not be replaced for many years until a new stand develops. Without a proposed action that would add incrementally to the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable actions, there would be no cumulative impacts. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 - Direct and Indirect Impacts Table 34 displays the acres of potential white-headed woodpecker habitat treated by the alternatives and the percentage of habitat impacted within the project area, watersheds, and Forest. Table 34. Lex Proposed Overstory Treatments in MIS Mapped White-Headed Woodpecker Habitat.

Alt.

Acres of White-Headed Woodpecker Habitat Treated in Lex

% of Total Acres of White-Headed Woodpecker Habitat Treated in the Project Area

% of Total Acres of White-Headed Woodpecker Habitat Treated in the North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River Watershed

% of Total Acres of White-Headed Woodpecker Habitat Treated in the Fall River - Deschutes River Watershed

% Total Acres of White-Headed Woodpecker Habitat Treated on the Forest

Alt. 2 250 NUDD – 34 FR - 216

28% 0.3% 2% 0.1%

Alt. 3 267 NUDD – 35 FR - 232

30% 0.3% 2% 0.2%

Alt. 4 250 NUDD – 34 FR - 216

28% 0.3% 2% 0.1%

Implementation of the Lex Vegetation Management Project would occur on 250 to 267 acres of the 896 acres of mapped white-headed woodpecker habitat (depending on the alternative chosen) available within the Lex project area (28 – 30%). The amount of habitat treated is minimal at the watershed and Forest scale. The overstory treatments, within mapped white-headed woodpecker habitat, are defined as uneven-aged management/selection cut, commercial thinning and other overstory removal treatments. The uneven-aged management/selection cut would maintain ponderosa pine as a long-term overstory and understory species. This would be accomplished by releasing the ponderosa pine, while removing the intermediate suppressed white fir and lodgepole pine. The goal of commercial thinning is primarily to maintain or improve tree growth, maintain or enhance forest health, and control species composition. Ponderosa pine are typically favored for retention

66

over lodgepole or true fir. The other overstory treatments will maintain the large overstory ponderosa pine. Levels of live tree retention in all treatments will provide adequate numbers of green tree replacements to provide future snag and down log levels. Any pre-commercial thinning treatments of ponderosa pine would accelerate the diameter growth of smaller ponderosa pine into trees and future snags into the size class this species requires having benefits well into the future by cycling large trees and snags over time. Generally, large snags would be avoided during treatments, but due to OSHA regulations snags posing a hazard may be removed. The purpose of fuels treatments is not to remove any large live trees or snags. The fuels treatments would break up the fuel continuity and reduce the risk of a landscape-scale fire event, which should reduce the risk to individual large snags and trees from fire. The integrity of nesting habitat components should not be changed with these treatments. There is always the possibility with prescribed burning (807 acres) of the potential loss of standing large snags (nesting habitat) to fire (and changing to down wood) and the possible consumption of down wood that has been left on site. Similarly, through burning operations, additional snags could be recruited to providing future reproductive habitat. Burning prescriptions and pre-ignition fuels reduction could reduce the chance of losing large snags and down wood, but it is assumed that a percentage of large snags and down wood would be lost, even with Project Design Criteria that may be followed to reduce this risk. Fuels treatments are expected to reduce the understory and brush components, which in turn would decrease habitat for mammalian predators of the white-headed woodpecker within suitable habitat. The project promotes fuels reduction and forest health in the short-term and in the long-term promotes the longevity of large tree structure and a fire resistant landscape. These treatments (besides the potential loss of snags posing a hazard) would not remove white-headed woodpecker habitat but would help to enhance current habitat and promote future habitat. It is possible that if the project occurs during the breeding season (April 15 – July 15), commercial and non-commercial thinning and fuels projects (and activities tied to these actions such as temporary road construction) could have direct, negative impacts to nesting woodpeckers that may be within or adjacent to active units (it is unknown without surveys if there are any active nests within a specific action area). Disturbance during this time could result in nest failure (noise disturbance) or direct loss of individuals (from tree removal or adults away from the nest for too long. While timber harvest and fuels activities have the potential to disrupt nesting pairs of white-headed woodpeckers, this is considered a short-term impact (1-3 years) and only where activities would occur during the spring nesting season. Because not all of the proposed activities would occur at the same time over the entire project area, undisturbed potential reproductive habitat would be still be available for the species within the project area. The Lex Project area proposes to treat 250 acres (Alt. 2 and 4), and 267 acres (Alt. 3), of mapped white-headed woodpecker habitat. This equates to 28% - 30% of the total mapped acres available within the project area. The treatments within white-headed woodpecker habitat would not completely eliminate potential habitat on those acres (nest trees and foraging habitat continue to be provided). The amount of habitat treated across the landscape is minimal at 0.3% within the North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River Watershed and 2% within the Fall River – Deschutes River Watershed, and across the Forest, 0.1% of the habitat. Connected activities including soil restoration, trail obliteration, and road closures that include the use of machinery could cause potential short-term disturbance impacts if these actions occur during the nesting season within suitable habitat. Other connected activities [e.g. tree planting, gopher trapping, herbicide spraying (see EA pages 161-165) and boraxing] would likely have negligible impacts to white-headed woodpecker individuals.

67

Cumulative Effects– Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable vegetation treatments in the North Unit Diversion Dam–Deschutes River and Fall River – Deschutes River watersheds would occur on approximately 9,062 acres of white-headed woodpecker habitat. These treatments primarily include the following vegetation management projects: Rocket, West Bend, Junction, Kew and the UDR WUI. The primary overlapping treatments for all projects include: commercial thinning, mowing, and underburning. The Lex Vegetation Management Project would add incrementally to ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions within the watersheds. The Lex Project would treat an additional 267 acres (using Alternative 3 with the largest acreage proposed for treatment) of the available reproductive habitat in the watersheds depending on the alternative. Cumulatively, when the Lex Project is added to the other projects (an additional 2.3%), approximately 45% of the white-headed woodpecker habitat in the watersheds would be treated (9,327 acres). In the long-term, these combined treatments would favor white-headed woodpecker habitat. None of the activities propose the removal of ponderosa pine snags that would provide reproductive habitat. A small number of snags could be lost during prescribed fire treatments, but new snags could also be created. Treatments that occur during the nesting season could occur within all projects, but treatments would not exclusively occur within this sensitive time-period but throughout the year. Along with the Rocket, West Bend, Junction, Kew, and UDRI WUI Vegetation Management Projects, the Lex Project may result in short-term negative cumulative effects to the white-headed woodpecker due to impacts to the potential loss of individuals during project activities and the loss/degradation of habitat in the watersheds from treatment activities. Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures—Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 The following Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures are applicable to white-headed woodpecker and can be found in detail on pages 14 – 18 of this document: 10, and 13-17. Consistency To meet Forest Plan S&G’s for this species, the following would need to occur: Retain snags (including soft) as wildlife trees for roosting and foraging except where impractical because of human safety in all units (Wildlife Tree and Log Implementation Strategy, LRMP WL-38) at the 100% population potential (NWFP Page C-46). These levels are minimums. Where appropriate, leave higher concentrations and leave larger sizes where available. No snags over 20” dbh should be marked for cutting (NWFP Page C-46). At a minimum, snags are to be retained at the following levels per current direction: Mixed Conifer 3 snags/acre >10” dbh 1 snag/acre >20” dbh During prescribed burning operations, use preventative measures (i.e. placing a line around) and/or light in a manner (i.e. back burning from the log) as to prevent the burning and consumption of snags and logs >20” dbh. This would be in all decay classes (WL-72). This is written into this document as a Project Design Criteria and will further be addressed within the projects implementation plan. Maintaining these levels within areas that would be prescribed burned are not guaranteed. Monitoring should occur post project to determine what levels remain within project units.

68

Determination/Conclusion (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) Implementation of the Lex Project would occur on 249 – 267 acres (28 – 30%) of the 896 mapped suitable white-headed woodpecker nesting habitat acres within the Lex project area. The total amount of mapped white-headed woodpecker nesting habitat acres treated within the Lex Project area is minimal compared to that available within the watersheds and Forest. The treatments for all alternatives within white-headed woodpecker habitat would not remove the larger trees that could be utilized for nesting. The project promotes fuels reduction and forest health in the short-term and in the long-term promotes the longevity of large tree structure, which is important for white-headed woodpeckers. In reference to the DecAID analysis, proposed treatments could cause short-term reductions in small snag (>10” diameter) numbers, but will allow for the long-term development in large snag structure (>20” diameter). This may move current conditions away from the reference figures in the short-term for small snag habitat, with an improved trajectory for the large snag component to move closer toward the reference condition in the long-term. Although some snag habitat may be lost during project implementation, it should be retained at lower tolerance levels for the white-headed woodpecker (30% - 50%). Some individuals may be negatively impacted during project implementation during the nesting season, but project activities would take place during various times of the year (and not just the nesting season) and in various habitats (such as lodgepole pine). This project, based on the above described impacts, and that this species is considered Imperiled (S2) by NatureServe (2015), any of the action alternatives within the Lex Vegetation Management Project May impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing for the white-headed woodpecker. Because this project impacts a minimal 0.1% of suitable habitat across the Forest, the overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will result in a small negative trend of habitat and increased disturbance. This loss of habitat and increased disturbance will be insignificant at the scale of the Forest. The Lex Vegetation Management Project is consistent with the Forest Plan, and thus continued viability of the white-headed woodpecker is expected on the Deschutes National Forest. FRINGED MYOTIS, PALLID BAT, AND TOWNSEND’S BIG-EARED BAT FS SENSITIVE Measure: Roosting and foraging habitat impacted The Northwest Forest Plan calls for retaining snags, decadent trees, and green tree recruitment for roosting bats in Matrix and Adaptive Management Areas (Page B-7, Stand Management): “Adequate numbers of large snags and green trees are especially critical for bats because these trees are used for maternity roosts, temporary night roosts, day roosts, and hibernacula. These should be well distributed throughout the matrix because bats compete with primary excavators and other species that use cavities. Day and night roosts are often located at different sites, and migrating bats may roost under bark in small groups. Thermal stability within a roost site is important for bats, and large snags and green trees provide that stability. Individual bat colonies may use several roosts during a season as temperature and weather conditions change. Large, down logs with loose bark may also be used by some bats for roosting.” Snag densities are poorly known for most species of bats but some research indicates that snag density requirements may be higher than those needed for woodpeckers (Lacki et al. 2007). Bats frequently switch roosts to escape predation and avoid parasites (Lewis 1994). Three sensitive bat species have the potential to utilize rock outcrops or snags within the project are for roosting.

69

FRINGED MYOTIS, Myotis thysanodes The fringed myotis is distributed patchily throughout the western U.S. It occurs from sea level up to 9,400 feet but is detected most often at elevations of 3,960 to 6,900 feet (Western Bat Working Group 2005). It is most common in oak, pinyon-juniper, and ponderosa pine but can also be found in desert scrub, mesic coniferous forest, grassland, and sage-grass steppe (Western Bat Working Group 2005). Summer roosts have been documented in rock crevices (Lacki and Baker 2007, Cryan 1997), human structures (O’Farrell and Studier 1980), and trees/snags (Chung-MacCoubrey 1996, Rabe et al. 1998, Weller and Zabel 2001). It is likely that structural characteristics (e.g. height, decay stage) rather than tree species play a greater role in selection of a snag or tree as a roost (Western Bat Working Group 2005). It is also known to roost in buildings, mines and caves, cliff faces, and bridges (Western Bat Working Group 2005). Like many bat species, the fringed myotis is adapted for foraging along forest edges (Western Bat Working Group 2005). Potential threats include disturbance at roost sites, loss or modification of roosting snag habitat, disturbance from recreational caving and mine exploration, replacement of buildings and bridges with non- bat friendly structures, loss of clean, open water, and loss of prey species due to pesticides/chemicals. No winter hibernation records of the fringed myotis occur on the Deschutes National Forest. One summer capture in a mist-net was recorded at a cave on the Bend-Ft. Rock Ranger District in 1992. The fringed myotis can be confused morphologically with the long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis), one of the more common bat species in Central Oregon, which may contribute to misidentification in the field. Potential roosting habitat in the project area exists in the mixed conifer stands that contain large snags, especially root rot pockets, ponderosa pine stands (sloughing bark and cavities) and rock outcrops. PALLID BAT, Antrozous pallidus Pallid bats day and night roosts include crevices in rocky outcrops and cliffs, caves, mines, trees (e.g., basal hollows of coast redwoods and giant sequoias, bole cavities of oaks, exfoliating ponderosa pine and valley oak bark, deciduous trees in riparian areas, and fruit trees in orchards), and various human structures such as bridges, barns, porches, bat boxes, and human-occupied as well as vacant buildings (Western Bat Working Group 2005). Roosts generally have unobstructed entrances/exits, and are high above the ground, warm, and inaccessible to terrestrial predators (Western Bat Working Group 2005). Although year-to-year and night-to-night roost reuse is common, they may switch day roosts on a daily (1 to 13 days) and seasonal basis (Western Bat Working Group 2005). Recent research in northern California in the Plumas National Forest showed that pallid bats used cavities in large diameter trees and snags (>21 inches dbh) in mixed coniferous forests at elevations greater than 3,800 feet (Baker et al. 2008), suggesting that they switch to non-rock crevices when in coniferous forests. The diet of pallid bats is varied including such insect taxa as beetles, centipedes, crickets, moths, scorpions, and termites. The pallid bat been documented on the Deschutes National Forest on the Sisters Ranger District and on adjacent Bureau of Land Management lands in the southeastern corner of the Bend-Ft. Rock Ranger District. Large white fir and ponderosa pine snags occur within the project area, providing potential roosting habitat for this species. TOWNSEND’S BIG EARED BAT, Corynorhinus townsendii The Townsend’s big-eared bat is a Regional Forester Sensitive Species and a Forest Plan Management Indicator Species. The following information is summarized from the 2012 forest wide habitat assessment for the Townsend’s big-eared bat (USDA FS 2012v). This species is dependent on cave or cave-like structures

70

(buildings) year-round in mixed conifer forests, deserts, and agricultural areas. Foraging associations include edge habitats along streams and in forested habitats, particularly in sagebrush steppe and open ponderosa pine stands. There are no known caves within the project area, but caves can be found within 0.5 miles of the project area. Surveys have been conducted, but no hibernacula have been found. Possible roosting habitat occurs within large trees and snags within the project area, plus foraging habitat can be found throughout the project area. Foraging habitat would be the forested portions of the project area, with the quality of this habitat varying, depending upon stand conditions and densities. All of these bat species are considered “imperiled” by NatureServe (2015). Because of this ranking and the listing of these species as sensitive, it is important to consider the necessary habitat constituents (snags) and protect them as much as possible. Effects of the Alternatives Alternative 1 – No Action (Ecological Trend) The selection of this alternative would result in no direct impacts to Townsend’s big-eared bat, pallid bat or fringed myotis because no vegetation management actions would occur to reduce foraging and potential roosting habitat. As seen in many areas within the project area, root rot and other diseases would open up additional stands improving foraging conditions for bats. Ponderosa pine trees within the mixed conifer stands would continue to be stressed by dense stand conditions reducing this trees ability to grow larger and be maintained on the landscape. These dense stand conditions would also make these stands increasingly susceptible to stand-replacement disturbances such as fire or insects and disease. This could result in the loss of foraging or roosting habitat within the short-term and with long-term implications. Without a proposed action that would add incrementally to the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable actions, there would be no cumulative impacts. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 - Direct and Indirect Impacts Table 35 summarizes the acres of bat habitat affected by alternative. The selection of any action alternative would result in commercial thinning, small diameter thinning, and prescribed underburning of forested stands that would open up stands for foraging. Prescribed underburning would occur on ponderosa pine dominated stands and may result in the reduction of shrub habitat for insects. The amount of area left unburned post-treatment varies depending upon the time of year the burn treatment occurs. On average 10-30% retention occurs, which would be 81 to 242 acres of the 807 acres not burned or 5%-6% of the project area, providing habitat for flying insects. This retention, plus leaving a number of acres within the project area untreated, would maintain the presence of host plants widely distributed across the project area. Temporary road construction and herbicide treatments would reduce/remove shrubs and forbs, while herbicide spraying also would have the potential to harm insects foraging in the area if the chemicals are sprayed during the spring and summer when plants are in bloom. Temporary roads and herbicide treatment could have a short-term impact to insect species due to the reduction in shrub/forb cover. Overall these impacts are expected to be limited because they are short-term and minimal in acreage compared to the amount of acres within the project area. The roads would be rehabilitated and herbicide treatments would occur adjacent to planted trees.

71

Table 35: Potential Bat Habitat Acres Impacted by Tree and Fuels Treatments, Temporary Roads and Herbicide Treatments by Alternative.

Potential Bat Habitat Acres Impacted by Alternative

Habitat

Project Area

Existing Condition

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Acres of Potential Bat Foraging Habitat Impacted (Percentage of Forested Area Impacted)

11,934

Overstory Harvest – 5,465 acres (46%)



Fuels - 807 acres (7%) Fuels – 807 acres (7%) Fuels – 807 acres (7%)

Openings Created HSL/HSC 144 acres

(1%) HOR/HCR/HIM 218

acres (2%)



acres (2%)



acres (2%) Temp Roads Constructed

5.65 miles/ 6.8 acres (0.06 %)

Temp Roads Constructed

5.79 miles/ 7.0 acres (0.06 %)


4.76 miles/5.8 acres (0.05 %)

Herbicide Treatment 97 acres (0.8%)

Herbicide Treatment

106 acres (0.9%)


Tree Treatments Bat species that roost in snags or trees often need abundant large trees and snags >21 inches dbh because they will often change individual roost sites but remain in a particular area (Ormsbee and McComb 1998). Retention of large diameter snags and trees (those that would provide sloughing bark and large chambers inside for roosts) within a given area is important for bat populations and species diversity in the project area. A variety of bat species will forage and hunt over open areas and this is not seen as limiting within the project area. Felling of trees during the spring and early summer reproductive period (April through early August) in the project area including felling of imminent danger trees could result in direct impacts to individuals (particularly non-mobile pups) roosting in snags. Minor disturbance from project operations within and adjacent to the harvest units could result in short-term displacement or abandonment of female adults from maternity roost sites (in snags or rock crevices) during the reproductive period (April through early August) which may indirectly result in mortality to pups that are not yet volant (mobile). Pups would be more mobile and able to escape felling operations later in the summer and fall. Winter hibernation sites are not known to occur in the project area; therefore, there are no anticipated impacts to bats during winter operations. Changes in forest structure are not expected to result in unsuitable conditions as prey availability and foraging opportunities will still be abundant after project implementation and roosting opportunities for species needing trees (both live and dead) will still be provided by retaining the largest trees currently available on the landscape. The proposed action will support the development of large tree structure (both live and dead) to provide future roosting habitat. Canopy habitat is likely to remain in a healthy condition and provide foraging opportunities for gleaning bats longer than if left untreated. Additionally, open forest structure will provide maneuverability within the stand to support successful foraging. Operations are not anticipated to disturb foraging behavior as bats forage at dusk and nocturnally when project operations would not occur. Alternative 3

72

would be treating the most forested overstory acres (5,993 acres), followed by Alternative 2 (5,465 acres), then Alternative 4 (5,101 acres). Townsend’s appear to avoid large clearcuts or regenerating stands in the early seral stages (Gruver and Keniath 2006). HOR/HCR/HIM stands may be considered larger openings (with seed trees) as some of these units are over 100 acres in size. All action alternatives are similar in acreage. Openings in HSL/HSC (selection cut) stands would be 1 to 6 acres in size and the number of openings would vary by unit because of their size (generally 15% of units). Alternative 3 would create the greatest amount of openings across 167 acres, followed by Alternative 2 at 144 acres, then Alternative 4 at 114 acres. These openings would already contain ponderosa pine of varying sizes. The units would be burned and planted afterwards. Although these stands would be planted with ponderosa pine to decrease the amount of time to become forested, these stands would provide foraging habitat due to the shrubs that would come in from the increased sunlight for up to 20 years. However, these acres may not provide foraging habitat when the stands reestablish into early seral stages of ponderosa pine (20+ years). This impact would be considered minor when considering these bats are foraging habitat generalists and the remaining acres within the project area can provide foraging habitat. Replanting on the 354 to 410 acres as opposed to allowing for natural regeneration will benefit bat habitat in the long term. By proposing to replant ponderosa pine, large tree habitat preferred by bats will potentially develop sooner, be more suitable (larger trees with thicker bark), and may be more resilient to disturbance events. Mowing/Mastication Mowing and mastication would occur in areas that would be prescribed burned at a later time. All treatment acreages would be the same in all action alternatives. Mowing would have a short-term impact on bat foraging habitat due to the reduction in shrub cover, thereby reducing the insect prey base. In areas that would be mowed, 10-30% of the shrub component across the unit would be retained. During mowing, the shrub height would be maintained at a sufficient height (usually a minimum height of 8 inches) to potentially provide some habitat for bat prey insect species. The effects of mowing are considered short-term, with shrubs returning to a comparable abundance within 5 to 10 years. Mastication would reduce both shrub and down wood habitat. This type of treatment would treat 70-90% of each unit, generally having similar short-term effects as mowing. It would also treat material 6-8 inches in diameter. Prescribed fire Bat species within Central Oregon evolved with wildfires. Although wildfires can occur in almost any month in Central Oregon, particularly in drier years, the typical fire season is May through September or early October, with most fires occurring in late summer. Negative direct impacts to tree-roosting bats include injury or mortality from skin burns, gas and smoke inhalation, temporary loss of insect prey, and displacement from roost and foraging habitat. Historically, low-intensity, mixed severity or small high-intensity fires likely contributed to open understories and small openings that benefitted foraging habitat for bats. Prescribed fires during later winter and spring may reduce bat insect prey during the critical period when bats are emerging from hibernation, are migrating, and when females are pregnant. Spring burning near maternity sites may cause females to abandon young. In areas with hibernacula and maternity sites, burning in early spring to avoid disturbing maternity colonies must be balanced against risk to hibernating bats (Dickenson et al. 2009). Prescribed fire would occur on 807 acres (all action alternatives) across the thinning units within several years after completion of thinning. Bole scorching may occur and result in some snag creation. The preferred season for prescribed fire that would have the least impacts to reproductive individuals is April 1 to July 31.

73

Temporary Roads Approximately 4.76 to 5.79 miles of temporary roads would be constructed (5.8 to 7.0), removing all shrub habitat within the road prism. Temporary roads could have a short-term impact to foraging habitat due to the reduction in shrub cover. Overall these impacts are expected to be limited because they are short-term and the roads would be rehabilitated. Approximately 6.7 miles of road closures will help maintain existing snags by removing the need for danger tree removal. Cumulative Effects – Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 Currently, habitat acres and home range acres for each of these bat species is unknown within the watersheds and across the Deschutes National Forest. The MIS analysis for the Townsend’s big-eared bat (USDA FS 2012v) is based on cave habitat across the Forest, not on roosting or foraging habitat acreages. Foraging habitat is assumed to be abundant because of these species’ wide-ranging foraging capabilities. Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable vegetation treatments in the North Unit Diversion Dam–Deschutes River and Fall River – Deschutes River watersheds would occur on approximately 40,600 acres of Townsend’s big-eared bat, pallid bat, and fringed myotis roosting and foraging habitat. These treatments primarily include the following vegetation management projects: Rocket, West Bend, Junction, Kew and the UDR WUI. The primary treatments for all projects include: commercial thinning, mowing, and underburning. The Lex Vegetation Management Project would add incrementally to ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions within the watersheds. The Lex Project would treat an additional 5,101 acres (Alt. 4), 5,465 acres (Alt. 2), or 5,993 acres (Alt. 3) of the available roosting and foraging habitat in the watersheds. Cumulatively, when the Lex Project is added to the other projects (utilizing Alternative 3 since it has the largest acreage, an additional 3%), approximately 27% of the potential bat roosting and foraging habitat in the watershed would be treated (46,593 acres). In the long-term, these combined treatments would favor habitat for these bat species. The activities do not propose the removal of large snags that would provide roosting habitat (i.e. maintaining open conditions for foraging and increasing tree growth for future roost trees). A small number of snags could be lost during prescribed fire treatments, but new snags could also be created. Treatments that occur while bats could be roosting in snags could occur within all projects, but treatments would not exclusively occur during this sensitive time-period but throughout the year. Along with the Rocket, West Bend, Junction, Kew, and UDRI WUI Vegetation Management Projects, the Lex Project may result in short-term negative cumulative effects to these bat species due to potential disturbance to roosting bats and reduction of foraging habitat within the watersheds from treatment activities. Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures—Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 The following Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures are applicable to bats and can be found in detail on pages 14 – 18 of this document: 8, and 13-17. Consistency To meet Forest Plan S&G’s for these species, the following would need to occur: Retain snags (including soft) as wildlife trees for roosting and foraging except where impractical because of human safety in all units (Wildlife Tree and Log Implementation Strategy, LRMP WL-38) at the 100% population potential (NWFP Page C-46). These levels are minimums. Where appropriate, leave higher

74

concentrations and leave larger sizes where available. No snags over 20” dbh should be marked for cutting (NWFP Page C-46). At a minimum, snags are to be retained at the following levels per current direction: Mixed Conifer 3 snags/acre >10” dbh 1 snag/acre >20” dbh During prescribed burning operations, use preventative measures (i.e. placing a line around) and/or light in a manner (i.e. back burning from the log) as to prevent the burning and consumption of snags and logs >20” dbh. This would be in all decay classes (WL-72). Coordinate with the project wildlife biologist when burning. Standards and Guides WL-64 through WL-71 and CV-1 through CV-8 pertain to existing caves. There are no known caves within the project area, but if a cave is discovered, they would be addressed. This is written into this document as a Project Design Criteria and will further be addressed within the projects implementation plan. Maintaining these levels within areas that would be prescribed burned are not guaranteed. Monitoring should occur post project to determine what levels remain within project units. Determination/Conclusion (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) All action alternatives would have both beneficial (opening stands up for foraging) and negative (potential disturbance to or loss of bats by logging or fuels activities) impacts to bats, their habitat, and their prey species. The impacts vary by alternative by percentage of habitat impacted across the project area. Variability of habitat would remain across the project area with all alternatives, with a 10-30% retention of shrubs that would remain after fuels activities and 50-57% of the project overstory remaining unchanged (depending upon the alternative chosen). It is assumed that species presence would still be maintained with any of these alternatives. Based on these impacts, the application of project design criteria, and the fact that these bat species are considered Imperiled (S2) by NatureServe (2015), the Lex Vegetation Management Project May impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing for the Townsend’s big-eared bat, the pallid bat, and the fringed myotis. The overall direct, indirect and cumulative effects will result in a small negative trend of habitat and increased disturbance to the Townsend’s big-eared bat, but would be insignificant at the scale of the Forest. The Lex Project is consistent with the Forest Plan, and thus continued viability of the Townsend’s big-eared bat is expected on the Deschutes National Forest. PACIFIC FISHER, Pekania pennanti FS SENSITIVE Measure: Acres of potential denning, resting, and foraging habitat impacted, impacts to connectivity, or areas without disturbance, miles of road closed. Habitat Needs and Existing Condition A detailed review of the taxonomy, genetics, habitat use, life history, range, distribution, and occurrence information for the fisher in the west coast States is presented in the Species Report (USFWS 2016), available on the Internet at http:// www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2014– 0041.

75

Fishers prefer closed-canopy (greater than 60%), late-successional forests with large physical structures (live trees, snags, and logs), especially if associated with riparian areas (Ruggiero et al. 1994, Csuti et al. 2001, Olson et al. 2014). Weir and Corbould (2010) found that fishers were limited by the openness of the stand; one reason being that escape cover (i.e. trees for climbing) are far apart making fishers further susceptible to terrestrial predators. Distribution of fishers is limited by elevation and snow depth (Krohn et al. 1997). Deep snowpack is also largely avoided by fishers (Olson et al. 2014). Fishers generally avoid areas of high human disturbance either from road density or recreational developments. Although fishers have been shown to avoid dry habitat types, which are frequently dominated by ponderosa and lodgepole pine, they are associated with montane mixed conifer and riparian habitat (Olson et al. 2014). Aubrey and Raley (2006) found in southwestern Oregon, fishers were found denning and resting at 4,000 feet elevation, more than 80% canopy closure, and more than 16 snags and 67 logs at least 20 inches dbh per acre. Denning and resting sites were also observed in large live trees (mostly Douglas-fir) with mistletoe brooms, limb clumping, rodent nests, or some other deformity. The fisher prefers to hunt in denser forests. Though an agile climber, most of its time is spent on the forest floor, where it prefers to forage around fallen trees (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_(animal). Zielinski et al. (2013) found that forest management activities such as thinning, selection harvest and clear cutting did not exclude fisher use of an area at a threshold of approximately 2.6% of the habitat treated (more than 2.6% of habitat managed resulted in less fisher use and connectivity of habitat was important. Although rare, fishers have been documented in the Three Sisters area, near Mt. Bachelor, Elk and Hosmer Lakes, and west of little Cultus Lake (Deibert et al. 1970). In 1999, a dispersing radio collared male travelled to the southern portion of the Crescent Ranger District from the Rogue River – Siskiyou National Forest. An unconfirmed sighting was reported within the Bridge Creek drainage in 2003. Ongoing carnivore monitoring is occurring across the Forest, and to date there have been no fisher detections. Currently the nearest documented population is on the Rogue River – Siskiyou N.F., over 100 miles from the Lex Project area. There are no known fisher populations on the Deschutes National Forest. Fisher habitat has not yet been modeled for the Deschutes National Forest. In order to conduct an analysis for potential impacts to fisher from the Lex Project, an interim model was developed (Lowe 2016). The model takes into account information from scientific literature and from the USFWS 2016 Final Species Report for Fisher, West Coast Population. The Final Species Report states that northern spotted owl habitat is a reasonable surrogate for fisher habitat. The Report also acknowledges that it is not equivalent to fisher habitat. The Report lists several components of spotted owl habitat that are likely beneficial to fisher. They include: moderate to high canopy closure (60 to over 80 percent), and basal area greater than 240 ft2/ac. The forest currently has GIS layers for these components. The Report also mentions that northern spotted owl NRF habitat was used to describe the trend of fisher habitat. Ruggiero et al. (1994) has also suggested that fishers prefer closed-canopy (greater than 60%). Plant associations also seemed to be a key factor for describing habitat. As mentioned earlier, Olson et al. (2014) states that fishers avoid dry habitat types, but are associated with mixed conifer and riparian habitat. The USFWS Report lists: Sitka spruce, western hemlock, mixed conifer, mixed evergreen, grand fir, Pacific silver fir, Douglas-fir, white fir, Shasta red fir, redwood/Douglas-fir, and moister ponderosa pine. Fisher habitat is identified for that part of the Forest within the range of the northern spotted owl only. Similar modeling components (specifically dispersal) for lands east of the spotted owl line/Northwest Forest Plan boundary are not currently available (see Figure 20). Using the above information, fisher habitat on the Deschutes National Forest was described and mapped using the following steps in GIS.

1. Mapped spotted owl dispersal habitat was the initial baseline. 2. Dispersal below 60% canopy closure was then removed. 3. Remaining dispersal in PAGs other than Hardwood, Riparian, Mixed Conifer (wet and dry),

Lodgepole wet, Ponderosa wet, and Mountain Hemlock Dry were then removed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_(animal)

76

4. Remaining dispersal below 240 square feet per acre basal area was then removed. 5. Mapped spotted owl NRF was then added, regardless of canopy closure, PAG, or basal area.

Nesting and roosting habitat identified for northern spotted owl likely provides more complex forest stands that may also provide structural features for resting and potentially for denning fishers (for example, trees with cavities and snags) (USFWS 2016).

Figure 20. Mapped Potential Fisher Habitat Across the Deschutes National Forest within the Range of the

Northern Spotted Owl.

77

Table 36. Fisher habitat within the Lex Vegetation Management Project Area, North Unit Diversion Dam-Deschutes River and Fall River-Deschutes River Watersheds, and Across the Deschutes National Forest.

Acres of Fisher Habitat in the Lex Project Area

Acres of Fisher Habitat in the North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River

Watershed

Acres of Fisher Habitat in the Fall River – Deschutes River

Watershed

Acres of Fisher Habitat on the Forest

264 494 2,574 72,615 53 % of fisher habitat within North Unit Diversion Dam Watershed and 10% of the fisher habitat within the Fall River Watershed. 0.4% of all Fisher habitat on the Forest.

0.7% of all fisher habitat on the Forest

3.5% of all fisher habitat on the Forest 5% of the Forest

The watersheds and Forest totals represent a minimum amount of habitat because lands east of the northern spotted owl range line were not included in the interim habitat modeling exercise. Amounts and distribution of potential fisher habitat for that portion of the Forest has not been determined. With the model, additional acres of habitat were added or deleted based on knowledge of what the habitat conditions are on the ground. Potential denning habitat occurs within the project area (264 acres), but the amount of human use and miles of roads and trails within the Lex Project area limit the quality of the potential habitat that occurs here (see the Roads and Trails discussion beginning on Page 22). It is possible the project area could be utilized as part of a larger home range. This species is considered “imperiled” by NatureServe (2015). Because of this ranking and the listing of this species as sensitive, it is important to maintain as much habitat connectivity as possible. Although not as wilderness dependent as wolverine, fishers are usually characterized as species that avoid humans (Douglas and Strickland 1987). Effects of the Alternatives Alternative 1 – No Action (Ecological Trend) The selection of this alternative would result in no immediate impact to Pacific fishers or their habitat because no vegetation management actions would occur to reduce canopy cover or down wood within the project area. Over time, areas that are currently dense will open up due to the presence of root rot within the stands, increasing down wood levels, but decreasing canopy cover. Fire risk would increase over time, as would the risk to loss of habitat from insects and disease. Without a proposed action that would add incrementally to the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable actions, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 - Direct and Indirect Impacts Table 37 displays the acres of potential fisher habitat treated by the alternatives and the percentage of habitat impacted within the project area, watersheds, and Forest.

78

Table 37. Lex Proposed Overstory Treatments in Fisher Habitat

Alt. Acres of Fisher

Habitat Treated in Lex

% of Total Acres of Fisher Habitat Treated

in the Project Area

Acres of Fisher Habitat on the Forest

Alt. 2 52 20% 0.07% Alt. 3 52 20% 0.07% Alt. 4 39 15% 0.05%

Table 38 summarizes the acres of potential Pacific fisher denning, resting, and foraging habitat that would be removed by the action alternatives and the acres of habitat impacted by temporary roads and road closures. Table 38: Potential Pacific Fisher Habitat Acres Impacted by Tree and Fuels Treatments, and Road Closures by Alternative.

Potential Pacific Fisher Habitat Acres Impacted by Alternative

Habitat

Project Area

Existing Condition


Potential denning habitat impacted 264 acres 52 acres (20%) 52 acres (20%) 39 acres (15%)

Miles of temp roads 0 5.65 miles 5.79 miles 4.76 miles Miles of road within the project area

53.6 miles (2.9 mi/mi²)

46.9 miles (2.5 mi/mi²)

46.9 miles (2.5 mi/mi²)

46.9 miles (2.5 mi/mi²)

Alternatives 2 and 3 would remove the most habitat at 52 acres, or 20% of the available habitat within the project area. Alternative 4 would remove the least amount of fisher habitat at 39 acres or 15% of the available habitat. All alternatives would retain large ponderosa pine >22” dbh and white fir >30” dbh, providing future denning habitat for fishers. All alternatives would treat within areas that provide denning, resting, and foraging habitat. The removal of dwarf mistletoes trees, especially large white fir 20-29 inches dbh, coupled with thinning and fuels treatments that would reduce the amount of downed woody material and canopy closure (below the needed 60%), contributes to the reduction of habitat. Actions that would eliminate habitat would have long-term effects to habitat treated because it is expected a stand would not meet habitat definitions for more than 20 years. Logging of the project area, if done during the denning months of February through July, could disrupt this process and/or harm adults and/or young that may be within the dens. Understory treatments would consist of Ladder Fuel Reduction and Pre-commercial Thinning. These types of treatments typically occur in stands that are not habitat for fisher or within units that have overstory treatments. Precommercial thinning within fisher habitat would be used to manage the understory of these stands where multi-layer canopy characteristics are desired. These treatments would space trees in a manner to increase growth potential . Similarly, ladder fuels reduction treatments are designed to reduce the potential for crown fire initiation and thus potential loss of the larger trees. Actions within the lodgepole pine stands (HCR, HFR, and HOR) would not affect fishers because this species is heavily tied to mixed conifer stands. Fishers may move through lodgepole pine stands, with the exception of overstory removal cuts with minimal understory, which is the current condition in many HFR units. Fuels treatments do not propose to specifically remove any large trees. The fuels treatments would break up the fuel continuity and reduce the risk of a landscape scale fire event, which should reduce the risk to individual large snags and trees. The integrity of denning habitat components should not be changed with these treatments. Prescribed burning could have the potential of burnng large snags and trees, which could weaken their bases and

79

cause them to fall, changing them into down wood. Prescribed burning could also consume down wood that has been left on site. Burning prescriptions and pre-ignition fuels reduction could reduce the chance of losing large snags and down wood, but it is assumed that a percentage of large snags and down wood would be lost, even with Project Design Criteria that may be followed to reduce this risk. Generally, within treatment units, large snags would be avoided during logging activities, but due to OSHA regulations snags posing a hazard may be removed. Retention of downed wood to standard and guidelines densities would continue to provide some log habitat for fishers in the project area under all action alternatives, which again may or may not be lost during post-sale activities (such as piling) or prescribed burning. Dead wood structure would be provided in the future due to the presence of large trees (larger than 20” dbh) that are not considered for thinning or removal, currently have decay agents, and will likely become snags or logs within a decade or sooner. These types of trees were often observed in the mixed conifer stands during field reconnaissance within the project area. Creation of temporary roads (4.76 to 5.79 miles) would open up access to areas not previously accessed by motorized vehicles, bicycles, and foot traffic (not typically opened to the public, but do get used). With this, 38.7 miles of Level 1 roads will be upgraded to allow for access for project implementation. Both of these would increase road density within the project area, which is already at 2.9 mi/mi2, and thus increase potential disturbance to fisher that may utilize the area. The impacts of this would be short-term as the temporary roads will be obliterated and the 38.7 miles of Level 1 roads would be returned to being closed to the general public following project completion. An additional 6.7 miles of open roads will be reduced to Level 1 use (administrative vehicle use only), which would reduce the amount of land acreage accessed and would benefit fisher/fisher habitat (see the see the Roads and Trails discussion beginning on Page 22). Depending on the alternative chosen, 50-57% (6,000 – 6,800 acres) of the project overstory is not proposed for any treatment. This retention, plus leaving 15% of the seed-tree harvest areas in untreated clumps, would maintain the presence of mature stands widely distributed across the project area. This project would change and reduce the current connectivity that occurs, but the fisher would still be able to move through the project area. Gopher trapping would occur within created openings where planting would occur (Alt. 2 – 384 acres, Alt. 3 – 410 acres, and Alt. 4 – 354 acres). This activity would be short-term (5-10 years), would only occur during spring and summer months, and until the trees become large enough (about 5-6 feet tall). Fisher do not typically forage in openings, so the trapping is not expected to affect the fishers current prey base within the project area. It is possible they will forage along the edges of the openings. Connected activities (e.g. soil restoration, tree planting, herbicide spraying, and boraxing) would likely have negligible disturbance impacts to individuals. Cumulative Effects— Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable vegetation treatments in the North Unit Diversion Dam–Deschutes River and Fall River – Deschutes River watersheds would occur on approximately 5 acres of fisher habitat within the Kew Vegetation Management Project. The primary treatments for the project includes: commercial thinning, mowing, and underburning. The Lex Vegetation Management Project would add incrementally to ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions within the watersheds (albeit to a small amount of acreage). The Lex Project would treat an additional 39 or 52 acres (depending on the alternative chosen) of the available fisher habitat in the watersheds. Cumulatively when Lex is added to the Kew Project (an additional 1.3% to 1.7%) approximately 1.4% to 1.8% of fisher habitat in the watersheds would be treated (44 - 57 acres). With the minimal amount of suitable habitat acres expected to be treated within the Kew Vegetation Management Project (up to 5 acres total) and the

80

maintenance of connectivity through the Kew project (units dropped for northern spotted owl and a percentage of units untreated), negative cumulative effects from the Lex Vegetation Management Project are not expected. Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures—Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 The following Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures are applicable to fisher and can be found in detail on pages 14 – 18 of this document: 13-22, and 27-31. Consistency This project would be consistent with the Forest Plan by adhering to the following for species associated with logs and downed woody debris: Fallen trees and other woody debris would be retained in sufficient quantity, distribution, and physical characteristics to provide habitat for viable populations of dependent wildlife species over time (WL-72). Logs would not be salvaged unless they are in concentrations excess to wildlife and soils needs and where removal is necessary for fuels reduction needs because of excessive concentrations. Within all harvest and fuels treatment units develop harvest and fuels treatment prescriptions to retain at least the existing CWM in the quantities as indicated by current direction (NWFP) minimum standards of 120 linear feet of logs per acre (all decay classes) >16”dbh and 16’ long (a minimum of 3 cull and an additional 3 in advanced stages of decomposition). More may be left if not presenting an excessive fuel hazard. Decay class 1 and 2 down logs could be left as part of these totals. CWM in advanced stages of decomposition (decay class 3-5) would be left in all harvest units where available. Down woody material already on the ground should be retained and protected to the greatest extent possible during activities (NWFP, Page C-40, 1994). This is written into this document as a Project Design Criteria and will further be addressed within the projects implementation plan. Maintaining these levels within areas that would be prescribed burned are not guaranteed. Monitoring should occur post project to determine what levels of down wood remain within project units. Determination/Conclusion (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) Alternatives 2 and 3 would have the greatest potential to impact the fisher (more potential denning, resting, and foraging habitat treated, more miles of temporary road needed) while Alternative 4 would have the least impact of the three action alternatives (less denning, resting, and foraging habitat treated and less need for temporary roads). If a fisher is denning within an area while logging activities are proceeding, this could negatively impact both the adults and their young. Although reduction in open roads within the project area would benefit the fisher, based on the above described potential impacts, and that this species is considered Imperiled (S2) by NatureServe (2015), any of the action alternatives within the Lex Vegetation Management Project May impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing for the fisher. A downward trend toward listing would not be expected because of the following: 1) the amount of habitat treated within the project area compared to that available within the watersheds and at the Forest level is minimal; 2) the road density and degree of human use of the project area limits the quality of habitat; and 3) down wood would continue to be available, but it would not continue to be managed at the levels needed for fisher in the project area.

81

SIERRA NEVADA RED FOX, Vulpes vulpes necator FS SENSITIVE Measure: Acres of denning habitat affected, acres of dense mature forest thinned, and miles of road closed. Habitat Needs and Existing Condition The Sierra Nevada red fox (SNRF) is one of three high-elevation montane subspecies referred to as mountain foxes (USDI Federal Register 2012). They are born into one of three color phases (red, black or cross) and are distinguishable from other native foxes by their black-backed ears and white-tipped tails (www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/mammals/Sierra Nevada red fox/natural history). It is found in alpine and subalpine habitats typically above 5,000 feet in elevation in the Sierra Nevada and Cascade ranges south of the Columbia River, including meadows (summer), talus (rocks accumulated at the base of a cliff, chute, or slope) (summer), fell fields (treeless rock-strewn area dominated by scattered plants or grasses), shrub lands (all in summer/fall months), and dense mature forests (during the winter and early spring) (USDI Fed. Reg. 2012). Den sites have been described as natural cavities in talus slopes or rockslides, and this fox may also use earthen dens, boulder piles or even the space beneath vacant cabins (NatureServe 2015). During the winter, generally November to June, they are associated with mature closed-canopy forests and preferentially select forested areas for travel, possibly to avoid deep snow. SNRF appear to be opportunistic predators and foragers, with a diet primarily composed of small rodents (USDI Fed. Reg. 2012). Other items in their diet include small mammals, fruit, birds, insects and carrion. SNRF breeding occurs between December and March. Mating and den construction occur in January and February; the fox is believed to be monogamous. Its gestation period is between 52 to 54 days; pups are born in early to mid-April, moving outside the den by June but not very mobile until later in the summer. The Sierra Nevada red fox’s relatively low reproductive capacity makes recovery from population decline more difficult than for other foxes (www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/mammals/Sierra Nevada red fox/natural history) . According to the Center for Biological Diversity, the fox has undergone drastic population declines due to heavy logging practices, grazing, poisoning, trapping and off-road and over-snow vehicles. Climate change is projected to shrink the fox’s habitat even more dramatically as warming pushes it farther up mountain slopes (http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/mammals/Sierra_Nevada_red_fox/index.html). Small population size, isolation plus hybridization with non-native red foxes are other serious threats to the SNRF. Carnivore bait station surveys have been conducted on the forest targeting Sierra Nevada red fox, wolverine, fisher, and marten. Scat surveys targeting SNRF are ongoing on the forest. Within the past few years, Sierra Nevada red foxes have been seen along the Cascade Lakes Highway from Meissner Sno-park west to Sparks Lake. The only known den sites on the Deschutes National Forest have been observed near Mt. Bachelor. It is unknown if Sierra Nevada Red Fox den within the Lex project area. It is assumed that denning habitat could occur within any portion of the project area via earthen dens, and in this area, near or under areas of large down wood. It is also assumed that the species, if seen in the Meissner Sno-park area, would utilize Lex and the habitat around Lex for foraging and dispersal. The Lex Project area is at or above 5,000 feet in elevation. The Lex project area does receive a lot of year round recreation use including mountain biking and snowmobiling. There is also motorcycle use in the project area on user-created trails. Although recreation use is fairly high year round, that does not seem to be a limiting factor for this species as it is commonly seen in areas near human use.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/mammals/Sierra%20Nevada%20red%20fox/natural%20history

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/mammals/Sierra%20Nevada%20red%20fox/natural%20history

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/mammals/Sierra_Nevada_red_fox/index.html

82

This species is considered “critically imperiled” by NatureServe (2015). Because of this ranking and the listing of this species as sensitive, it is important to maintain as much suitable habitat as possible. Effects of the Alternatives The USFWS identified “Potential Stressors on the Subspecies” in their Species Report (USFWS 2015a). Stressors are defined as: any human or natural activity/process that is causing or may cause in the future negative effects resulting in impacts or a possible decline of SNRF individuals or populations, or impacts to suitable habitat. For each stressor, they summarized the best available scientific information relating to its potential direct (e.g., mortality) and indirect (e.g., habitat effects) impacts on SNRF. If substantial information gaps existed, resulting in high levels of uncertainty in determining the scope and impact for particular stressors, they used best professional judgment. Two of the twelve identified potential stressors are relevant to the Lex Vegetation Project:

Logging and Vegetation Management – Discussion and Summary

Based on the best available information, we find that logging and vegetation management activities are not impacting SNRF (which is contradictory to the information from the Center for Biological Diversity, although the basis for their statements is not known), nor are they impacting habitat such that there will be effects to SNRF. Nor are they likely to do so in the future (within 50 years). Therefore, we conclude these activities are not stressors for the purposes of this evaluation.

Vehicles – Discussion and Summary

All of the SNRF sighting areas have moderate to extensive opportunities for OHV, snowmobile, and on-road vehicular traffic. Although no studies have been completed, the mere location of the SNRF sightings in these areas suggests that the SNRF are able to adjust to the noise involved, and that sufficient SNRF prey remain in such areas. Vehicles occasionally kill or injure individual SNRF, without rising to the level of affecting entire populations or the subspecies as a whole (now or in the future), we consider vehicles to constitute a stressor with a low-level impact on SNRF.

There has been no habitat modeling conducted for SNRF habitat due to a lack of local information and studies. Impacts will be addressed by reviewing habitat conditions from field reconnaissance and comparing them with known habitat needs of the species. Alternative 1 – No Action (Ecological Trend) The selection of this alternative would result in no immediate impact to Sierra Nevada red fox because no vegetation management actions would occur to impact potential denning habitat or habitat utilized during the winter (mature, dense forests). Over time, areas that are currently dense will open up due to the presence of root rot within the stands, increasing down wood levels, but decreasing canopy cover. Potential loss of dense forests to fire would increase over time, as would the risk to loss of habitat from insects and disease. Without a proposed action that would add incrementally to the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable actions, there would be no cumulative impacts. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 - Direct and Indirect Impacts

83

Table 39 summarizes the acres of potential SNRF denning habitat that could be impacted and mature dense habitat (utilizing northern spotted owl dispersal habitat at 60% canopy and greater) utilized in winter that would be treated. Table 39: Potential Sierra Nevada Red Fox Habitat Acres Impacted by Tree and Fuels Treatments and Road Closures by Alternative.

Potential Sierra Nevada Red Fox Habitat Acres Impacted by Alternative

Habitat Project Area

Existing Condition


Potential denning habitat impacted 11,934 acres

Total acres treated in project area –

7,085 acres (59%)


7,222 acres (61%)


6,437 acres (54%) Mature Dense Habitat treated 716 acres 244 acres (34%) 277 acres (39%) 200 acres (28%)

Miles of temp roads 0 miles 5.65 miles 5.79 miles 4.76 miles Miles of road within the project area

53.6 miles (2.9 mi/mi²)

46.9 miles (2.5 mi/mi²)

46.9 miles (2.5 mi/mi²)

46.9 miles (2.5 mi/mi²)

Potential denning habitat could occur anywhere within the project area. Overhead cover does not seem to be the overriding determining factor as they could den in rock, talus, under a large log or root wad, or even in an earthen den. The whole project area was looked at as potential denning habitat, although it is unlikely that a den would occur near snowmobile trails because of the noise disturbance (January and February are when den construction occurs). Although with the action alternatives 54% - 61% of the project area would be treated (overstory, understory, and fuels treatments), it would not necessarily prevent foxes from utilizing the area post-logging when all project activities are completed. However, the odds of disturbing a den are moderate. Logging of the project area, if done during the denning months of January through June, could disrupt this process and/or harm adults and/or young that may be within the dens. Mature dense habitat was determined by looking at areas that were at least 60% canopy cover (that could dissipate deep snow cover). Silvicultural treatments could reduce dense habitat that the foxes may use for ease of travel during the winter months. Alternatives 2 – 4 would treat 28% to 39% of this type of habitat available within the project area. Creation of temporary roads (4.76 to 5.79 miles) will open up access to areas not previously accessed by motorized vehicles, bicycles, and foot traffic (not generally open to the public, but they do get used). With this, 38.7 miles of Level 1 roads will be upgraded to allow for access for project implementation. Both will increase potential disturbance to SNRF that utilize the area, but the impacts would be short term as the temporary roads will be obliterated and the 38.7 miles of Level 1 roads would be returned to being closed to the general public following project completion. An additional 6.7 miles of open roads will be reduced to Level 1 use (administrative vehicle use only), which would reduce the amount of land acreage accessed and would benefit SNRF. User–created trail obliteration would also be occurring, the number of trail mile numbers is unknown, but would benefit SNRF. Both activities may potentially disturb denning SNRF if the obliteration occurs during the spring. Prescribed burning could have the potential of burnng large snags and trees, which could weaken their bases and cause them to fall, changing them into down wood. Prescribed burning could also consume down wood that has been left on site (potential denning habitat). Burning prescriptions and pre-ignition fuels reduction could reduce the chance of losing large snags and down wood, but it is assumed that a percentage of large snags and down wood would be lost, even with Project Design Criteria that may be followed to reduce this risk.

84

Gopher trapping would occur within created openings where planting would occur (Alt. 2 – 384 acres, Alt. 3 – 410 acres, and Alt. 4 – 354 acres). This activity would be short-term (5-10 years), would only occur during spring and summer months, and until the trees become large enough (about 5-6 feet tall). SNRF are opportunistic foragers, and trapping gophers within the created openings is not expected to have an effect on their current or future prey base. Connected activities (e.g. soil restoration, tree planting, herbicide spraying, and boraxing) would likely have negligible disturbance impacts to individuals. Cumulative Effects—Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 Although the Lex Vegetation Management Project “may impact” the SNRF, the project would not add incrementally to ongoing or reasonably foreseeable habitat removal actions within the watersheds. There are no other projects removing habitat for the SNRF. Therefore, no cumulative effects are expected to habitat. The Lex Vegetation Management Project would add incrementally to ongoing actions within the watersheds. There are ongoing recreational activities that occur within the watersheds at various times throughout the year. These include vehicle travel, snowmobiling, mountain biking, skiing, hiking, and hunting. Short-term negative cumulative impacts are expected with the disturbance that would occur from the proposed treatments within the project. These cumulative impacts are variable, as treatment activities would take place at various times during the year, not just the denning season, and take place over several years. Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures—Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 The following Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures are applicable to SNRF and can be found in detail on pages 14 – 18 of this document: 13-22, and 27-31. Consistency N/A Determination/Conclusion (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) Alternative 3 would have the greatest potential to impact the Sierra Nevada red fox (more potential denning habitat and dense tree habitat treated) while Alternative 4 would have the least impact of the three action alternatives (less habitat treated overall and less need for temporary roads). Since little is known about the SNRF and the determining factors of its presence or absence in an area, it is difficult to say that logging activities would have an impact to its use of the project area for foraging or denning purposes. If a SNRF is denning within an area while logging activities are proceeding, this could negatively impact both the adults and the pups. Foraging opportunities are not likely to substantially change during the implementation of treatments other than the potential avoidance of an area during those activities. Mature, dense habitat would also be reduced by 28% - 39% depending on the alternative chosen. Although reduction in open roads within the project area would benefit the SNRF, based on these potential impacts, and that this species is considered “critically imperiled” (S1) by NatureServe (2015), any of the action alternatives within the Lex Vegetation Management Project May impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing for the Sierra Nevada red fox.

85

JOHNSON’S HAIRSTREAK, Callophrys johnsoni FS SENSITIVE Measure: Acres of mistletoe habitat and foraging habitat impacted Habitat Needs and Existing Condition Johnson’s hairstreak occur along the western coastal states and provinces of North America from British Columbia to central California using conifer forests which contain parasitic mistletoe (Arceuthobium). April-October caterpillars feed on mistletoe and secrete a sugary solution which is used by ants that in turn provide protection from predators. Adult butterflies nectar feed on a number of species, including Actostophylos, Ceanothus, Cornus, Taraxacum, Fragaria, Rorippa and Sprague. They also utilize mud puddles to obtain additional moisture. Adults fly mid-May to early September, with shorter seasons at higher elevation sites. Threats include habitat loss from logging and both natural and prescribed fire. Sightings are infrequent, possibly due to the fact that Johnson’s hairstreak reside in the forest canopy, making surveys difficult and population estimates and trends largely unknown. In Oregon, it has been found sparsely in the Cascades, Coast Range, Siskiyou Mountains, Blue Mountains and Wallowa Mountains (Andrews 2010 and Kauffman and Brock 2003). There are no documented occurrences within the project area or the Forest. Suitable habitat for this species is present within the Lex Project Area with mistletoe commonly occurring in both lodgepole pine and ponderosa pine. Mistletoe in lodgepole pine, true fir, and ponderosa pine occur across an estimated 92% of the project area. This species is considered “imperiled” by NatureServe (2015). Because of this ranking and the listing of this species as sensitive, it is important to consider the amount of mistletoe habitat removed as well as the maintaining adequate foraging habitat. Effects of the Alternatives Alternative 1 – No Action (Ecological Trend) The selection of this alternative would result in no immediate impact to Johnson’s hairstreak because no vegetation management actions would occur to reduce mistletoe populations. Potentially suitable habitat would be maintained based on the widespread presence of mistletoe across the project area. Without a proposed action that would add incrementally to the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable actions, there would be no cumulative impacts. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 - Direct and Indirect Impacts The selection of any action alternative would result in the commercial thinning, small diameter thinning, and prescribed underburning of forested stands that include trees infected with western dwarf mistletoe. These actions would reduce but not eradicate mistletoe presence in the project area. Consequently, mistletoe infection would continue to exist within most actively treated stands within trees of all sizes (with exception of trees that could be girdled in Alternative 4), as well as forested stands not selected for treatment, which is approximately 52% - 58% of the project area (total overstory and understory treatments which vary depending on alternative). These treatment actions would be consistent with recommendations from Miller and Hammond (2007) that state that promoting the maintenance of mature and old-growth conifer forests would benefit this species. Prescribed underburning would occur on ponderosa pine dominated stands and may result in the reduction of nectar sources such as ceanothus and pussypaws within burn units. The amount of area left unburned post-

86

treatment varies depending upon the time of year the burn treatment occurs. On average, 10%-30% retention occurs after burning, which would be 81 to 242 acres of the 807 acres not burned or 5%-6% of the project area, providing nectar sources for butterflies. This retention, plus leaving a number of acres within the project area untreated, would maintain the presence of nectar sources widely distributed across the project area. Temporary road construction and herbicide treatments would reduce/remove shrubs and forbs, while herbicide spraying also would have the potential to harm butterflies foraging in the area if the chemicals are sprayed during the spring and summer when plants are in bloom. Temporary roads and herbicide treatment could have a short-term impact to host plants due to the reduction in shrub/forb cover. Overall these impacts are expected to be limited because they are short-term. The roads would be rehabilitated and herbicide treatments would occur adjacent to planted trees. Table 40 summarizes the acres of potential Johnson’s hairstreak habitat removed by alternative. Table 40: Potential Johnson’s hairstreak Habitat Acres Impacted by Tree and Fuels Treatments, Temporary Roads and Herbicide Treatments by Alternative.

Potential Johnson’s Hairstreak Habitat Acres Impacted by Alternative

Habitat

Project Area

Existing Condition


Acres of Potential Johnson’s Hairstreak Habitat Impacted (Percentage of Forested Area Impacted)

11,934

Total Project Footprint

7,085 acres (59%)


7,222 acres (61%)


6,437 acres (54%) Overstory/Understory and Understory only harvest – 6,822 acres

(57%)

Overstory/Understory and Understory only harvest – 6,959 acres

(58%)


(52%) Overstory harvest – 5,465 acres (46%)

Overstory harvest – 5,993 acres (50%)


Fuels - 807 acres (7%)

Fuels – 807 acres (7%)



5.65 miles/ 6.8 acres (0.06 %)


5.79 miles/ 7.0 acres (0.06 %)


4.76 miles/5.8 acres (0.05 %)


Herbicide Treatment

106 acres (0.9%)


Silviculture and fuels treatments (total project footprint) could temporarily reduce flowering plants by approximately 54%-61% (6,437 – 7,222 acres) across the project area. Alternative 3 would have the greatest impact. It has a larger treatment footprint creating a higher potential of removing trees with mistletoe, the greatest potential loss of a food source by crushing vegetation during harvest treatments and mastication during fuels treatments, and a higher potential of direct mortality of butterfly or caterpillar individuals (on 7,222 acres or 61% of the forested area). Alternative 2 disturbs less ground acreage than Alternative 3 at 7,085 acres (59% of the project acres). Alternative 4 has the smallest treatment footprint within the project acres (54% of the project area), having the least potential loss of the butterflies’ food source by crushing vegetation during harvest activities and mowing and loss during prescribed fire, and a decreased potential of direct mortality to individuals.

87

Approximately 4.76 to 5.79 miles of temporary roads would be constructed, removing all flowering shrub and forb habitat within the road prism. Fuels treatments would be the same for all alternatives at 807 acres or 7% of the forested acres. Depending on the alternative chosen, 39%-46% of the project area will be untreated. This retention, plus leaving 15% of the seed-tree harvest areas in untreated clumps, would maintain the presence of mistletoe, undisturbed ground, and flowering plants, widely distributed across the project area for Johnson’s hairstreaks. The impacts from the project may result in reduced reproductive success and survivorship for Johnson’s hairstreak, with habitat quality being reduced across the 11,934 acre project area. All impacts are expected to be short-term, as mistletoe would still persist across the project area, and shrubs and forbs reduced within fuels units and removed within the temporary road prism and by herbicide treatments would re-grow within 5-10 years to pre-disturbance condition. Connected activities (e.g. soil restoration, tree planting, gopher trapping, trail obliteration, road closures and boraxing) would likely have negligible disturbance impacts to individuals. Cumulative Effects—Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 Currently, habitat acres for the Johnson’s hairstreak are unknown within the watersheds and across the Deschutes National Forest. It is assumed to be widespread as mistletoe habitat is abundant across the Forest, so entire project and watershed acres are used to determine cumulative impacts. Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable vegetation treatments in the North Unit Diversion Dam–Deschutes River and Fall River – Deschutes River watersheds would occur on approximately 40,600 acres of potential Johnson’s hairstreak habitat. These treatments primarily include the following vegetation management projects: Rocket, West Bend, Junction, Kew and the UDR WUI. The primary treatments for all projects include: commercial thinning, mowing, and underburning. The Lex Vegetation Management Project would add incrementally to ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions within the watersheds. The Lex Project would treat an additional 7,085 acres (Alt. 2), 7,222 acres (Alt. 3), or 6,437 acres (Alt. 4) of potential habitat in the watersheds (affecting mistletoe and nectar sources). Cumulatively, when the Lex Project is added to the other projects (an additional 4%) approximately 28% of the potential habitat in the watershed would be treated (47,037 – 47,822 acres depending on the alternative chosen). All projects would retain various levels of mistletoe habitat within treated and untreated areas. All projects would also treat various levels of potential foraging areas with fuels treatments, having short-term impacts to adult nectar resources. Due to the long implementation timeframe of these projects, no substantial gap in suitability is expected as treatments would result in a mosaic of stand conditions and mistletoe is expected to continue to be prevalent across the landscape. Similarly, mowing and underburning, which may cause a short-term reduction in nectar source availability, is expected to occur over a large area. Due to the short lifespan of these treatments (approximately 5 – 10 years) and the long implementation timeframe of planned projects, these actions are expected to create a mosaic of understory conditions that will continue to provide foraging opportunity for Johnson’s hairstreak. Therefore, short-term cumulative impacts to the Johnson’s hairstreak population or its habitat are expected from proceeding with any of the action alternatives. Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures—Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 The following Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures are applicable to Johnson’s hairstreak and can be found in detail on pages 14 – 18 of this document: 25 and 26.

88

Consistency N/A Determination/Conclusion (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) Alternative 3 would have the greatest potential for mistletoe reduction and impact on host plants and food sources for the Johnson’s hairstreak, while Alternative 4 would have the least impact to this species. All alternatives would remove this habitat that could potentially be occupied by Johnson’s hairstreaks or their larvae. Species presence would be maintained while proceeding with any of the action alternatives because of the following: widespread occurrence of mistletoe within the project area, retention of fully stocked stands within the units (except openings within HSL, HFR and HOR units), a 10-30% retention of shrubs and forbs that remain after mowing and burning, and 39%-46% of the total project area remaining unchanged. Based on these assumptions and that this species is ranked “Imperiled” (S2) by NatureServe (2015), the Lex Vegetation Management Project May impact individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing for the Johnson’s hairstreak. WESTERN BUMBLEBEE, Bombus occidentalis FS SENSITIVE Measure: Acres of nesting and foraging habitat impacted Habitat Needs and Existing Condition Western bumble bees occur broadly across western North America from Alaska to central California using a variety of natural, agricultural, urban and rural habitats with abundant floral resources. They require suitable nesting and overwintering structure, such as rodent burrows, downed wood or bunchgrass. They are generalist foragers, but require sources of pollen/nectar spring thru fall. Habitat alterations including those that could destroy, fragment, alter, degrade or reduce the food supply produced by flowers, as well as destruction of nest sites and hibernation sites for overwintering queens, such as abandoned rodent burrows and bird nests, adversely affect these bees. Other threats include pathogens from commercial honey bees and environmental toxins. Population trends are declining, especially at the edges of its known range (Jepsen 2014). The western bumble bee has been observed at several sites on the Deschutes National Forest. Local observations have been as recent as 2014 within meadows in the areas of Sunriver, Sparks Lake, Todd Lake, Green Lakes, and Canyon Creek Meadow (on the Sisters Ranger District). Although this species has been observed on the District, there is currently no District or Forest data to determine acres of suitable habitat. For purposes of this document, it is assumed that potential habitat could occur anywhere within the project area. The western bumblebee needs a constant supply of flowers in bloom from spring to autumn. Since there are flowering plants within the project area from spring through fall, it is assumed that it may potentially provide both nest sites and hibernation sites as western bumblebee habitat. NatureServe has not rated this species yet. Effects of the Alternatives

89

Alternative 1 – No Action (Ecological Trend) The selection of this alternative would result in no immediate impact to western bumblebees because no vegetation management actions would occur to reduce flowering plant populations or alter or destroy nest and hibernation sites. Potentially suitable foraging habitat would be maintained based on the widespread presence of ceanothus and manzanita throughout the project area. Without a proposed action that would add incrementally to the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable actions, there would be no cumulative impacts. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 – Direct and Indirect Impacts Implementation of all treatments has the potential to disturb nesting bees or overwintering queens by modifying near-ground structure, or even crush them by heavy machinery use destroying burrows or loss while burning. Implementation of any of the proposed actions is anticipated to reduce some foraging potential for the western bumble bee, as large machinery would crush flowering plants and mowing will likely remove some sources of pollen and nectar for the western bumble bee – notably manzanita. Thinning, mowing and underburning treatments may also improve foraging habitat in some locations, maintaining conditions that will support a diversity of understory grasses, forbs, flowers, and shrubs in comparison to untreated, overstocked stands. Temporary road construction and herbicide treatments would reduce/remove shrubs and forbs, while herbicide spraying also would have the potential to harm bees foraging in the area if the chemicals are sprayed during the spring and summer when plants are in bloom. Table 41 summarizes the acres of potential western bumble bee habitat impacted by the action alternatives. Table 41: Potential Western Bumble Bee Habitat Acres Impacted by Tree and Fuels Treatments, Temporary Roads and Herbicide Treatments by Alternative.

Potential Western Bumble Bee Habitat Acres Impacted by Alternative

Habitat

Project Area

Existing Condition


Acres of Potential Western Bumble Bee Habitat Impacted (Percentage of Forested Area Impacted)

11,934 acres


7,085 acres (59%)


7,222 acres (61%)


6,437 acres (54%) Overstory/Understory and Understory only harvest – 6,822 acres

(57%)


(58%)


(52%) Overstory harvest – 5,465 acres (46%)



Fuels - 807 acres (7%)




5.65 miles/ 6.8 acres (0.06 %)


5.79 miles/ 7.0 acres (0.06 %)


4.76 miles/5.8 acres (0.05 %)


Herbicide Treatment

106 acres (0.9%)


90

Silviculture and fuels treatments (total project footprint) could temporarily reduce flowering plants by approximately 54%-61% (6,437 – 7,222 acres) across the forested acres of the project area. Alternative 3 would have the greatest impact. It has a larger treatment footprint at 7,222 acres (61% of the project area), creating a higher potential of disturbing or destroying nest/hibernation burrows, the greatest potential loss of a food source by crushing vegetation during harvest treatments, machine piling and mastication during fuels treatments, and a higher potential of direct mortality of bee individuals. This alternative presents the greatest potential of crushing or disturbing a nest or hibernation site. Alternative 2 disturbs less ground acreage than Alternative 3 at 7,085 acres (59% of the project acres). Alternative 4 having the smallest treatment footprint within the project acres at 6,437 acres (54% of the project area), would have a lower potential to destroy nest/hibernation burrows. It would also have the least potential of loss of the bumblebees’ food source by crushing vegetation during harvest activities and mowing and loss during prescribed fire, and a decreased potential of direct mortality to bee individuals. Prescribed underburning would be the same acreage for all alternatives. It would not all occur within the same year. Underburning would occur on ponderosa pine dominated stands and may result in the reduction of flowering plants within burn units. The amount of area left unburned post-treatment varies depending upon the time of year the burn treatment occurs. On average, 10%-30% retention occurs after burning, which would be 81 to 242 acres of the 807 acres not burned or 5%-6% of the project area, providing foraging plants for bumblebees. This retention, plus leaving a number of acres within the project area untreated, would maintain the presence of flowering plants widely distributed across the project area. Approximately 4.76 to 5.79 miles of temporary roads would be constructed, removing all flowering shrub and forb habitat within the road prism. This equates to about 5.8 to 7.0 acres of habitat or 0.05 to 0.06 % of the total forested habitat within the project area. Herbicide treatments could reduce the amount of foraging plants over 85 to 106 acres. This reduction could potentially occur for up to 5 years. Herbicide treatments are proposed at 1 application/year for up to 5 years. Spraying while bees are foraging may have a negative impact on the individuals or even the colonies. Overall, these impacts are expected to be limited because they are short-term. The roads would be rehabilitated and herbicide treatments would occur adjacent to planted trees during late spring or early summer for potentially up to 5 years. Depending on the alternative chosen, 39-46% of the total project area would remain untreated. This retention, plus leaving 15% of the seed-tree harvest areas in untreated clumps, would maintain the presence of undisturbed ground and flowering plants widely distributed across the project area for bumble bees. All impacts related to loss of habitat are expected to be short-term, as the potential to destroy a nest/hibernation burrow would diminish after project activities are complete and flowering shrubs and other flowering plants reduced within silviculture and fuels units should re-grow within 5-10 years to pre-disturbance conditions. Impacts related to the crushing of a nest would be longer term as this would be a loss of a whole colony, and the loss of future queen bees and young. Herbicide treatments could impact individuals and depending on if it were a worker, drone, or queen would determine the impact it would have on a colony. The loss of a queen could prevent the emergence of new queens from that colony the next year. User created trail obliteration would allow for these areas to once again support vegetation and potential foraging plants for the western bumble bee. The total number of trail miles is unknown, but expected to be high as they occur across the project area. The preferred method for achieving this goal is by subsoiling the entire trail to reduce compaction to encourage new growth and to discourage additional use of the trails. Subsoiling these areas, as well as any soil restoration, has the potential to disturb nesting bees (by churning of the soil with machinery) if this work occurs during the late spring and summer months.

91

Connected activities (e.g. tree planting, gopher trapping, road closures and boraxing) would likely have negligible disturbance impacts to individuals. Cumulative Effects—Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 Currently, habitat acres for the western bumble bee are unknown within the watersheds and across the Deschutes National Forest. It is assumed to be widespread, so entire project and watershed acres are used to determine cumulative impacts. Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable vegetation treatments in the North Unit Diversion Dam–Deschutes River and Fall River – Deschutes River watersheds would occur on approximately 40,600 acres of potential western bumblebee habitat. These treatments primarily include the following vegetation management projects: Rocket, West Bend, Junction, Kew and the UDR WUI. The primary treatments for all projects include: commercial thinning, mowing, and underburning. The Lex Vegetation Management Project would add incrementally to ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions within the watersheds. The Lex Project would treat an additional 7,085 acres (Alt. 2), 7,222 acres (Alt. 3), or 6,437 acres (Alt. 4) of potential habitat in the watersheds. Cumulatively, when the Lex Project is added to the other projects (an additional 4%) approximately 28% of the potential habitat in the watershed would be treated (47,037 – 47,822 acres depending on the alternative chosen). Much of this acreage could provide areas that contain burrows suitable for hives and overwintering queens and flowering shrubs for foraging (minus roads, lava flows, and water). Potential disturbance to nesting bees and wintering queens are possible over a large portion of the analysis area, plus, there would be a reduction in pollen sources currently providing foraging sources for bumble bees. The proposed action would contribute to this by modifying near-ground structure. Due to the short lifespan of these treatments (approximately 5 – 10 years) and the long implementation timeframe of planned projects, these actions are expected to create a mosaic of understory conditions that will continue to provide foraging opportunities for western bumble bees. Due to the amount of habitat available in the watersheds and across the Forest, and the short-term reduction of habitat, the site specific nature of the treatments for all action alternatives would result in minor overall cumulative impacts to the western bumblebee and its habitat. Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures—Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 The following Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures are applicable to Western bumblebees and can be found in detail on pages 14 – 18 of this document: 25 and 26. Consistency N/A Determination/Conclusion (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) Alternative 3 would have the greatest potential to impact western bumblebees because of the larger acreage of forested habitat that would be treated by harvest and fuels activities, creating a higher potential to destroy nest/hibernation burrows and reducing the amount of food source available by crushing the plants during harvest treatments, mowing the shrubs, and loss during prescribed burning, mastication and herbicide spraying. The flip side of opening up stands from logging and crushing the shrubs and other plants currently available is opening up the stand to allow for more shrub and plant species to establish once project activities are completed. Alternative 2 would have the next greatest potential impact, while Alternative 4 would have the least impact. However, 39 - 46% of the project area (including harvest and fuels activities and depending upon the alternative

92

chosen) would remain unchanged, plus it is expected that after mowing and prescribed fire, 10-30% of shrubs and forbs within those units would be retained; it is assumed species presence would still be maintained with any of these alternatives. Based on these assumptions, the Lex Vegetation Management Project May impact individuals or habitat (MIIH), but would not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing for the western bumblebee. Proposed treatments have potential to disturb nesting bees and overwintering queens while reducing potential pollen and nectar sources in the short-term.

93

WILDLIFE REPORT SPECIES INFORMATION & EFFECTS ANALYSIS Analysis Summary The following table (Table 42) summarizes the findings of the species analyzed in detail, the rationale behind the determination, and any project design criteria (PDC) dependent on that determination. Table 42. Findings Summary Table for All Management Indicator Species, Survey & Manage Species, Birds of Conservation Concern, and Landbird Focal Species Considered in the Lex Vegetation Management Project Analysis.


Alternatives (2-4) Findings

Rationale Project Design Criteria (Pages 14 - 18)

Management Indicator Species

Northern spotted owl*

T, MIS SNI

No NRF habitat would be removed and project does not occur within critical habitat, but dispersal habitat would be removed and connectivity reduced.

PDC #4 - Maintain survey effort throughout project implementation. If owls are detected, protection measures would apply.

Northern bald eagle* S, MIS NI


American peregrine falcon*

S, MIS NI

There is no riparian or cliff habitat within or adjacent to the project area.

Northern goshawk MIS SNI


PDC #’s 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, and 27-31. Determine activity center of known nest; minimize disturbance with timing restrictions during the nesting season near known nests. If a new goshawk nest is detected, protection measures would apply.

Cooper’s hawk MIS SNI


PDC #’s 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, and 27-31. If a new Cooper’s hawk nest is detected at any time during project implementation, protection measures, including timing restrictions, would apply.

Sharp-shinned hawk MIS SNI Suitable habitat would be removed; potential

PDC #’s 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, and 27-29.

94




disturbance or loss of individuals during the nesting season; reduced disturbance by closure of roads and obliteration of user-created trails.

If a new sharp-shinned hawk nest were detected at any time during project implementation, protection measures, including timing restrictions, would apply.

Great gray owl MIS, S&M SNI

Potential loss of unmapped nesting habitat that occurs adjacent to man-made openings; potential disturbance or loss of individuals during the nesting season.

PDC #’s 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, and 27-31. Determine activity center of known site; minimize disturbance with timing restrictions during the nesting season if a nest is found. If a new great gray owl nest is detected elsewhere at any time during project implementation, protection measures would apply.

Great blue heron MIS NI

Riparian and aquatic habitats do not occur within or near the project area.

Golden eagle MIS NI

There are no large open areas with cliffs/outcrops within or adjacent to the project area.

Waterfowl (See Appendix B for a list of species on the

DNF)

MIS NI


Woodpeckers (See Page 153, Table 82 for a list of species

on the DNF)

S (2 species) MIS

SNI to species with habitat within the

project area.

Loss of nesting and foraging habitat; potential disturbance and loss of individuals during the nesting season.

PDC #’s 10, 13-19, 30, and 31. Minimize disturbance with timing restrictions. Maintain and protect large trees, snags and down wood.

Red-tailed hawk MIS SNI


PDC #’s 1, 5, 6, 7, 30 and 31. If a new red-tailed hawk nest were detected at any time during project implementation, protection measures, including timing restrictions, would apply.

95




Osprey MIS NI


North American wolverine*

Proposed, MIS NI

Suitable denning habitat does not occur within or adjacent to the project area.

American marten MIS SNI

Potential denning, resting and foraging habitat would be removed; individuals could be impacted during project activities during the denning period; road closures and user-created trail obliteration would reduce disturbance;

PDC #’s 13-22, and 27-31. Maintain and protect large snags and down wood within project units, closing roads and obliterating user-created trails, retention of large old trees.

Elk MIS SNI

No Key Elk Habitat occurs within the project area, only summer habitat. Loss of hiding cover; short-term loss of foraging habitat; reduced disturbance by closure of roads and obliteration of user-created trails.

PDC #’s 11, 12, 23, 24, 27-29, and 32. Retain 15% of lodgepole pine overstory removal units for cover; shrub retention; road closures and user-created trail obliteration.

Mule deer MIS SNI

The project occurs within deer summer range. Loss of hiding cover; short-term loss of foraging habitat; reduced disturbance by closure of roads and obliteration of user-created trails.

PDC #’s 11, 12, 23, 24, 27-29, and 32. Retain 15% of lodgepole pine overstory removal units for cover; shrub retention; road closures and user-created trail obliteration.

Townsend’s big-eared bat* S, MIS SNI


PDC #’s 8, 13-17, 30, and 31. Minimize disturbance with timing restrictions; maintain and protect snags.

Snag and down wood associated species &

habitat SNI

With type of treatments, futures reduction of small snags; possible loss of scattered down wood to piling; inadvertent loss of snags and down wood during

PDC #’s 13-22. Maintain and protect snags and down wood.

96




logging and prescribed burning.

Survey and Manage Species Great Gray Owl S&M SNI See above See above

Evening Fieldslug S&M NI


Crater Lake Tightcoil S&M NI


Birds of Conservation Concern and Landbird Focal Species

Black-backed woodpecker CEFS - Loss of nesting and

foraging habitat.

PDC #’s 10, and 13-22. Minimize disturbance with timing restrictions. Maintain and protect snags and down wood.

Brown creeper CEFS - Loss of nesting and foraging habitat.

PDC #’s 10, 13, 14, 30, and 31. Minimize disturbance with timing restrictions. Maintain and protect large trees and snags.

Chipping sparrow CEFS +

Increase in habitat by opening up dense stands of mixed conifer. Maintaining ponderosa pine as a long-term overstory and understory species.

PDC #’s 10, 30, and 31. Minimize disturbance with timing restrictions. Maintain and protect large trees.

Flammulated owl CEFS, BCC - Loss of nesting and foraging habitat.


Hermit thrush CEFS - Loss of nesting and foraging habitat.


Lewis’ woodpecker CEFS, BCC +



Olive-sided flycatcher CEFS +

Increase in habitat by creating more edge habitat.

PDC #’s 10, 13-17, 30, and 31. Minimize disturbance with timing restrictions.

97




Maintain and protect large trees and snags.

Pygmy nuthatch CEFS +



White-headed woodpecker CEFS, BCC - Loss of nesting and

foraging habitat.


Williamson’s sapsucker CEFS, BCC - Loss of nesting and

foraging habitat.


SPECIES STATUS:

(Federal Status) T=Threatened; E=Endangered; P=Proposed Sensitive=S

MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES DETERMINATIONS: NI=No impact to viability on the Deschutes NF

IC=Improved conditions, will not contribute toward a negative trend in viability on the Deschutes NF SNI=Small negative impact, continued viability is expected on the Deschutes NF

LNI=Large negative impact with viability concern on the Deschutes NF BIRDS OF CONSERVATION CONCERN AND LANDBIRD FOCAL SPECIES DETERMINATIONS:

Habitat increased (+); Habitat decreased (-); Habitat unchanged (=) Species also analyzed as federally listed or sensitive. For all species, Alternative 3 would treat more acres of habitat. Management Indicator Species The Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) (USDA 1990) identified a group of wildlife species as management indicator species (MIS). These species were selected because they represent other species with similar habitat requirements. Management indicator species can be used to assess the effects of management activities for a wide range of wildlife species with similar habitat needs (FSM 2620.5). Those species selected for the Deschutes National Forest include the bald eagle, northern spotted owl, golden eagle, red-tailed hawk, osprey, northern goshawk, Cooper’s hawk, sharp-shinned hawk, great gray owl, great blue heron, woodpeckers (cavity nesters), peregrine falcon, wolverine, elk, mule deer, American marten, Townsend’s big-eared bat, and waterfowl (see Table 43). In addition, habitats and wildlife species identified in the Northwest Forest Plan are addressed. Table 43 includes those species that are Forest Plan Management Indicator Species. Those species that are in bold are analyzed further and contain habitat that occurs within or adjacent to the project area and that the particular habitat and/or species may be negatively affected. Those species that are not in bold may or may not contain habitat within or adjacent to the project area, of which that habitat or species would not be impacted by

98

the proposed projects. These species may be addressed in the table but not carried forward for analysis (see Appendix B). Table 43. Deschutes National Forest Management Indicator Species .

Deschutes National Forest Management Indicator Species

Species Status &

NatureServe Ranking

Habitat Habitat/


Effect

MIS BIRDS

Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina)

T, MIS S3 Vulnerable


Nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat (NRF), dispersal in project area

No Effect to NRF, reduction in dispersal and connectivity (see further analysis).

Northern bald eagle* Haliaeetus leucocephalus

S, MIS, T5 Secure – state not available

Lakeside or riverside with large trees

No habitat within the project area No Effect

American peregrine falcon* Falco peregrinus anatum

S, MIS S2B Imperiled

Riparian & cliff habitats


Northern goshawk Accipiter gentiles

MIS S3 Vulnerable

Mature & old growth forest

Nesting and foraging habitat (3,184 acres). One known active nest site occurs within the project area.

Loss of nesting habitat; potential disturbance or loss of individuals during the nesting season.

Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperi

MIS S4 Apparently Secure

Forest with high canopy closure & density

Nesting and foraging habitat (2,611 acres). Two sightings occurred during field reconnaissance in 2015. No nests were found.


Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus


Forest, variety of conditions suitable

Nesting and foraging habitat (5,132 acres). One known active nest site within the project area. Several sightings have occurred during surveys since 2013.


Great gray owl Strix nebulosi

MIS, S&M, S3 Vulnerable

Mature & old growth forest with openings & meadows

Nesting and foraging habitat. There is one known single within the project area. No active nest has been found to date.


Great blue heron Ardea herodias


Riparian edge – lakes, streams and marshes


Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos

MIS S3 Vulnerable

Large open areas with cliffs/outcrops


Waterfowl (See Appendix B) MIS

Riparian edge, marshes, lakes, ponds & rivers


99


Species Status &

NatureServe Ranking

Habitat Habitat/


Effect

Woodpeckers (See page 153, Table 82)

S (2 species) MIS

Variety of forest types with snags

Nesting and foraging habitat. Many listed have been sighted within the project area.


Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis

MIS G5 Secure

Open country with forest edge

Nesting and foraging habitat (1,101 acres). Sightings have occurred during field reconnaissance, but no active nests have been found.


Osprey Pandion haliaetus


Large snags near fish bearing water bodies


North American wolverine* Gulo gulo

P, MIS S1 Critically Imperiled

High elevation mixed conifer forest

No denning habitat occurs within the project area.

No Effect

MIS MAMMALS

American marten Martes americana

MIS S3 Vulnerable

Mixed conifer or high elevation late successional forest with down wood

Denning, resting, and foraging habitat (1,035 acres)

Loss of denning, resting, and foraging habitat; potential disturbance or loss of individuals during the denning period. Benefits to habitat from road closures and trail obliteration.

Elk Cervus elephas

MIS S5 Secure

Mixed habitats Summer range habitat

Loss of hiding cover and impacts to foraging habitat; Benefits to habitat from road closures and trail obliteration.

Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus

MIS S5 Secure

Mixed habitats Summer range habitat

Loss of hiding cover and impacts to foraging habitat; Benefits to habitat from road closures and trail obliteration.

Townsend’s big-eared bat* Corynorhinus townsendii

S, MIS S2 Imperiled

Caves, mines, bridges, rock crevices and old buildings


Potential disturbance or loss of roosting individuals while logging or prescribed burning; increase in foraging capabilities.

MIS OTHER

Snag and down wood associated species & habitat

Snag and down wood

Snags and down wood occur across the project area. Highest concentrations are in older lodgepole pine

Loss of snags and down wood during project implementation.

100


Species Status &

NatureServe Ranking

Habitat Habitat/


Effect

stands and root rot pockets in mixed conifer stands.

*Species also analyzed as federally listed or sensitive Some of the MIS species have been discussed in the Threatened, Endangered, or Sensitive (TES) Species report. Effects of the project to TES species can be located in the Lex Vegetation Management TES Analysis (BE). Species discussed in the BE that are also MIS are the northern spotted owl, wolverine, northern bald eagle, peregrine falcon, Lewis’ woodpecker, white-headed woodpecker, and Townsend’s big-eared bat. These species will not be re-analyzed in this MIS section, but the effects as MIS species are summarized as follows: 1) The Lex Vegetation Management Project would have no impact to the wolverine, northern bald eagle, and American peregrine falcon because these species do not have suitable habitat within the project area. Therefore, the Lex Vegetation Management Project will not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Deschutes National Forest for these species; 2) The Lex Vegetation Management Project would have a small negative impact to the northern spotted owl, Lewis’ woodpecker, white-headed woodpecker, and the Townsend’s big-eared bat, from the loss of habitat constituents necessary for these species life history needs and/or the possibility of disturbance during the breeding season. With these species, the overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will be insignificant at the scale of the Forest. The Lex Vegetation Management Project is consistent with the Forest Plan, and thus continues viability of these species is expected on the Deschutes National Forest. NORTHERN GOSHAWK, Accipiter gentiles MIS Measures: Effects to nesting and foraging habitat and disturbance effects. Habitat Needs and Existing Condition The northern goshawk is the largest member of the accipiter family and is distributed across most of Canada, the northern and western United States, and into Mexico. Reynolds et al. (1978) located goshawk nests in Oregon from 580 meters elevation on the west slopes of the Cascades to 1,860 meters (1,903 feet to 6,102 feet). Reynolds et al. (1992) stated preferred nest stands have a minimum of 40 percent canopy cover and the nest sites within these stands have greater than 60 percent canopy cover. Greenwald et al. (2005) reviewed goshawk nesting data and found that a majority of studies found a selection for stands with greater than 40 percent canopy as suitable goshawk nesting habitat. Vegetation plot data collected from Deschutes National Forest goshawk nest sites showed canopy cover ranging from 49-94 percent (USDA 1993). For these reasons, nesting habitat is thought to be the limiting factor when looking for habitat. Foraging areas are typically 4,900-5,900 acres, comprised of a forest mosaic that must support a wide range of suitable prey including ground dwellers or those occurring near the forest floor (e.g. ground squirrels, birds, small mammals (Marshall et al. 2003). From Wisdom et al. (2000) “Goshawks nest in various forest structural conditions …nest stands are generally characterized by large trees and the densest canopy cover available within the area (Reynolds et al. 1992 in USDA FS 2012n) but are occasionally located in small-diameter trees (Hayward and Escano 1989 and Squires and Ruggiero 1996 in USDA FS 2012n).” Foraging occurs in various cover types and structural stages, and the juxtaposition of several habitats may enhance the quality of foraging habitat around nest sites (USDA FS 2012n).

101

In general, goshawk nest areas are unique in structure, with large trees, dense canopies, and high canopy closure. Goshawk nesting habitat in eastern Washington and Oregon is generally composed of mature and older forests. Nest stands are typically composed of a relatively high number of large trees, high canopy closure (>50%), multiple canopy layers, and a relatively high number of snags and downed wood (USDA FS 2012n). Breeding bird surveys provided insufficient data to determine population trends within any state or physiographic province in the Interior Columbia Basin because of low detection rates. However, sufficient data was available to indicate a stable trend in numbers between the years 1966-1995 for western North America. The Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center maintains a list of the most current information available on the distribution and abundance of animals native to Oregon. For the state of Oregon, they rank the northern goshawk population in Oregon as S3, “Vulnerable”, but nationally they are demonstrably wide-spread, abundant, and secure, or G5 (NatureServe 2015; USDA FS 2012n). The following is a potential list of threats relevant to the proposed actions due to habitat alteration (USDA FS 2012n):

●Timber harvest is the principal threat to breeding goshawk populations due to their use of mature and old-growth timber, especially for nesting.

●Fire suppression may lead to increased susceptibility of stand-replacing fire and insect and disease outbreaks, which can result in the deterioration or loss of nesting habitat.

●Loss of foraging habitat due to dense conifer understory as a result of fire suppression. Dense understories may obstruct flight corridors used by goshawks to hunt prey.

In addition to habitat alteration, threats from disturbance due to logging activities conducted near nests during the incubation and nestling periods can cause nest failure due to abandonment. Also, high road densities may result in loss of snag and down wood habitat important to goshawk prey (USDA FS 2012n). For a detailed assessment of the northern goshawk on the Deschutes National Forest, see the Forest-wide Species Assessment (USDA FS 2012n). Through the Forest-wide assessment completed for MIS, goshawk reproductive habitat was mapped across the entire Deschutes National Forest. Table 44 summarizes this data. Some of these acres may not be currently meeting the definition of nesting habitat for goshawk because of insect mortality, disease (root rot), and several small wildfires within the watersheds. However, this acreage may still serve as post-fledging and/or foraging habitat. Table 44. Northern Goshawk Reproductive Habitat within the Lex Vegetation Management Project Area, North Unit Diversion Dam-Deschutes River and Fall River-Deschutes River Watersheds, and across the Deschutes National Forest.

Acres of Goshawk Habitat in the Project

Area

Acres of Goshawk Habitat in the North


Watershed

Acres of Goshawk Habitat in the Fall River – Deschutes River Watershed

Acres of Goshawk Habitat on the Forest

3,184 29,755 29,059 428, 556 acres

0.7% of all northern goshawk habitat on the Forest.

7% of all northern goshawk habitat on the

Forest

7% of all northern goshawk habitat on the

Forest 26% of the entire Forest

Approximately 3,184 acres of goshawk reproductive habitat exists within the analysis area, which is 27% of the total project acres. Within the watersheds, approximately 29,755 acres occurs within the North Unit Diversion

102

Dam – Deschutes River Watershed and 29,059 acres within the Fall River – Deschutes River Watershed. Across the Deschutes National forest, approximately 428,556 acres of reproductive habitat occurs. Although surveys are not required, surveys were completed in the project area in 2013, 2014, and 2016 using the 2006 Northern Goshawk Inventory and Monitoring Technical Guide (GTR WO-71). No goshawks were found in 2013 or 2014. In 2015, during field reconnaissance for units proposed for the Lex project, two visuals occurred in separate areas of single goshawks. No active nests were found. During 2016 surveys, one active nest was discovered that fledged two young. Effects of the Actions Alternative 1 - No Action (Ecological Trend) The selection of this alternative would result in no direct impacts to northern goshawk as there would be no vegetation management actions that would change the existing habitat conditions. Although no impacts are expected to occur to northern goshawks from this alternative, taking no action could have consequences to goshawk habitat. Fuel loadings are known to be high within parts of the watershed, and there is little doubt that a wildfire in the watershed would result in many acres of high severity burns. This type of situation would reduce goshawk habitat. Also, if left untreated, areas that currently provide suitable nesting habitat would most likely have increased mortality due to tree stress. Tree mortality is already noticeable in these stands. This would not reduce suitable nesting habitat as quickly as mechanical treatments (by creating a more open stand), but would possibly occur within the short-term (<20 years). Foraging habitat would likely improve across the project area, as the understory in stands that have previously been thinned would continue to grow. An overstory of larger trees with dense young understory can be foraging habitat for goshawks. With this alternative, no road closures or restoration of user-created motorized trails in goshawk habitat would occur. These open roads and trails will continue to contribute to disturbance and reduced habitat security for the goshawk in the project area. With no proposed action to add incrementally to the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable actions, there would be no cumulative impacts. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 - Direct and Indirect Impacts Table 45 displays the acres of potential northern goshawk habitat treated by the alternatives and the percentage of habitat impacted within the project area, watersheds, and Forest. Table 45. Lex Proposed Overstory Treatments in MIS Mapped Northern Goshawk Habitat.

Alt.

Acres of Goshawk Habitat

Treated in Lex

% of Total Acres of Goshawk Habitat





% of Total Acres of Goshawk


Watershed

% Total Acres of Goshawk


Forest

Alt. 2 1,290

NUDD – 224 FR - 1,066

41% 0.7% 4% 0.3%

Alt. 3 1,459 46% 0.9% 4% 0.3%

103

Alt.

Acres of Goshawk Habitat

Treated in Lex






% of Total Acres of Goshawk


Watershed

% Total Acres of Goshawk


Forest NUDD – 275

FR - 1,184

Alt. 4 1,119

NUDD – 176 FR - 943

35% 0.6% 3% 0.3%

The Lex Project area proposes to treat 1,119 acres (Alt. 4), 1,290 acres (Alt. 2), or 1,459 acres (Alt. 3) of mapped northern goshawk habitat. This equates to 35% - 56% of the total acres available within the project area. The treatments within northern goshawk habitat eliminate nesting habitat constituents (i.e. dense canopies, multiple canopy layers, mistletoe) on those acres. The amount of habitat treated across the landscape is minimal at 0.6% - 0.9% within the North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River Watershed and low at 3% - 4% within the Fall River – Deschutes River Watershed, and minimal across the Forest, 0.3% of the habitat. Table 46 displays the acres of mapped northern goshawk habitat treated by the alternatives and the treatment types that would be impacting habitat within the project area. Table 46. Overstory, Understory, and Fuels Treatments within MIS Mapped Northern Goshawk Habitat.

Understory Treatments Acres Fuels Treament Acres

Alternative Overstory Treatment

Acres LFR PCT WHIP PILE MOW/MAST. BURN

Alt. 2 1,290 159 1,133 182 1,321 157 249 Alt. 3 1,459 159 1,133 182 1,374 157 249 Alt. 4 1,119 159 1,133 182 1,374 157 249

The primary overstory treatments, within mapped goshawk habitat are selection cut, overstory removal and commercial thinning. The uneven-aged management/selection cut would maintain ponderosa pine as a long term overstory and understory species. This would be accomplished by releasing the ponderosa pine, while removing the intermediate suppressed white fir and lodgepole pine. Regeneration would occur within 15% of these stands and planted with ponderosa pine. The overstory removal would occur in lodgepole pine stands and would remove a majority of the overstory trees from the stands. Commercial thinning would generally consist of thinning from below, in which the smallest trees in the stand and/or shortest trees are generally priority for removal. The goal of commercial thinning is primarily to maintain or improve tree growth, maintain or enhance forest health, and control species composition. Ponderosa pine are typically favored for retention over lodgepole or true fir. The other overstory treatments would maintain the large overstory ponderosa pine. All commercial overstory treatments would impact goshawk habitat by reducing canopy cover to below 40%, eliminating preferred stand densities for nesting. Generally, large snags would be avoided during treatments, but due to OSHA regulations snags posing a hazard may be removed. The clearcut treatments (HCC/HCR) would occur in lodgepole pine stands of trees typically less than 12” dbh, which are generally too small for goshawk nesting, but would maintain foraging capabilities. Foraging habitat within these treatments would be opened up to allow for or improved flight corridors. Ladder fuels reduction would simplify and reduce the understory making it easier for this species to fly through, although also making adults and juveniles more vulnerable to other predator species because there is less mid-story cover.

104

All three action alternatives propose fuels underburn treatments (249 acres) associated with overstory treatments. Fuels treatments would not directly remove any large trees. The fuels treatments would break up the fuel continuity and reduce the risk of a landscape scale fire event, which should reduce the risk to individual large snags and trees. The integrity of nesting habitat components should not be changed. Burning prescriptions and pre-ignition fuels reduction would reduce the chance of losing large snags (change to down wood), however, it is assumed that a small percentage of large snags would be affected by prescribed burning. Prescribed burning could also have the potential to create additional snags. Project Design Criteria would be incorporated to reduce the loss of down wood and snags during burning operations. The project promotes fuels reduction and forest health in the short-term and in the long-term promotes the longevity of large tree structure and a fire resistant landscape. Impacts from treatments occurring after the initial commercial harvest are expected to be less intensive to goshawks. Any of the treatments that include overstory removal directly impacts nesting habitat, whereas the latter actions (post-sale tree treatments and connected activities such as mastication, piling, burning, road/trail closures, etc.) may cause disturbance to remaining habitat in adjacent untreated areas. The other activities that would remove additional tree, shrub, and down wood habitat would have an impact on foraging habitat, as it would be removing habitat for goshawk prey species. This species preys on a number of bird species also contained within this analysis (e.g. woodpeckers), and small mammals. Negative effects of the proposed actions on goshawks and their habitat (e.g. mowing, burning or removal of dead wood) would indirectly have negative effects to some goshawk prey species and their habitat. Because these are very indirect effects and this accipiter species can prey upon a variety of species, it is anticipated that the effects on prey and foraging are low. Temporary roads will not be placed in areas that are not being treated and road and trail closures within areas of suitable habitat would benefit habitat security and reduce disturbances to goshawks. Alternative 3 proposes the greatest amount of habitat loss for goshawks (46%), followed by Alternative 2 (41%), then Alternative 4 (35%). Although it is a large amount of habitat loss for the project area, compared to the habitat available within the watersheds, the loss is anywhere from 0.6% to 0.9% within the North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River Watershed and 3 to 4% within the Fall River – Deschutes River Watershed. The loss Forest-wide is 0.3%. Alternative 4 impacts fewer acres of goshawk reproductive habitat (1,119 acres) than Alternatives 2 or 3. However, in the long-term, treatments in Alternative 4 accelerates the development of fewer acres of more fire resistant mixed conifer stands. Existing habitat will diminish in the short-term, and as a result will not promote the fire resilient ponderosa pine within these stands that are a key component of goshawk habitat on eastside forests. For the known active nest site within the project area, a 30-acre nesting core will be left untreated plus a seasonal restriction will be placed to avoid disturbing activities during the nesting period. There could be disturbance to other individuals during implementation of the project. If a nest is found prior to treatment activities, seasonal restrictions will be enacted or portions of treatment units may be dropped. If a nest is found during treatment activities, all actions in the area will be halted until a determination of the nesting status is complete. After which, seasonal restrictions or removal of portions of treatment units may occur. It is possible that if the project occurs during the breeding season (March 1 – August 31), commercial and non-commercial thinning and fuels projects could have direct, negative impacts to nesting goshawks that may be within or adjacent to active units. Disturbance during this time could result in nest failure (noise disturbance) or direct loss of individuals (from tree removal or adults away from the nest for too long).

105

Cumulative Effects— Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable vegetation treatments in the North Unit Diversion Dam–Deschutes River and Fall River – Deschutes River watersheds would occur on approximately 21,483 acres of northern goshawk habitat. These treatments primarily include the following vegetation management projects: Rocket, West Bend, Junction, Kew and the UDR WUI. The primary treatments for all projects include: commercial thinning, mowing, and underburning. These treatments would have negative short-term impacts due to a reduction in stand densities and canopy cover and long-term positive benefits by reducing the risk of habitat loss due to high intensity and/or stand replacing fire. The Lex Project would treat approximately an additional 1,119 acres (Alt. 4), 1,290 acres (Alt. 2), or 1,459 acres (Alt. 3) of the available northern goshawk reproductive habitat in the watersheds depending on the alternative selected. Cumulatively, when Lex is added to the other projects (using Alternative 3 since it would treat the largest acreage), approximately 39% of the northern goshawk habitat in the watersheds would be treated (22,942 acres). Along with the Rocket, West Bend, Junction, Kew, and UDRI WUI Vegetation Management Projects, the Lex Project may result in short-term negative cumulative effects to northern goshawks due to the loss/degradation of habitat in the watersheds from treatment activities. Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures—Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 The following Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures are applicable to the northern goshawk and can be found in detail on pages 14 – 18 of this document: 1, 2, 5-7, 11, 12, and 27-31. Consistency Wildlife standards and guidelines WL-6, WL-10, and WL-11 will be assessed. This project would be consistent with the Forest Plan by adhering to the following Standards and Guidelines: Table 47. Standards and Guides for Northern Goshawk from the Forest Plan.

Standard and Guideline Does Not Meet,

Meets, Applicable, Not Applicable

Rationale

WL-6 – Nesting habitat for at least 40 goshawk pairs will be provided in mixed conifer, mtn. hemlock, and ponderosa pine forests outside wilderness.

Meets

Habitat is available across the Forest.

WL-10 – Locating new roads within nest site stands will be avoided. Applicable

No new road construction is proposed for this project; Temp roads should not be placed within suitable goshawk habitat or other stands that would not be treated; re-opened roads and temp roads will be closed.

WL-11 – Nests will be protected within ¼ mile from disturbing activities from March 1 – August 31.

Applicable Project Design Criteria would include a seasonal restriction around known nest sites and in the event a new nest site is found.

This is written into this document as a Project Design Criteria and will further be addressed within the projects implementation plan.

106

Determination/Conclusion (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) Thinning in suitable goshawk reproductive habitat will occur in older dense lodgepole pine stands and mixed conifer stands containing residual old growth trees. In lodgepole pine stands, the overstory would be removed throughout the majority of the stands and in mixed conifer stands, thinning will favor ponderosa pine and healthy white-fir. Thinning from below will decrease stand densities and canopy cover resulting in more open stands. Negative impacts to goshawk reproductive habitat will result from a loss of dense forests which goshawks prefer. A reduction in dense forests is anticipated to impact prey species habitat and hiding cover areas for protection of fledglings. Alternative 3 would remove the greatest amount of goshawk habitat (46%), followed by Alternative 2 (41%), then Alternative 4 (35%). This is a moderate amount of habitat removal for the project area. Treating a larger amount of suitable habitat would have a greater negative impact to the northern goshawk in the short-term by directly removing dense forest habitat. Many acres of this habitat have been impacted by root-rot, and are going through the natural process of loss of trees and opening of the canopy. This in turn has removed it as nesting habitat but it is still functioning as foraging habitat with the numerous snags and down wood that occur. In the long-term, treating current habitat would increase the opportunity for the treated stands to develop into healthier stands of late seral/old growth habitat dominated by ponderosa pine that would last longer on the landscape than the true firs being impacted by root rot and other diseases. These stands, in order to be used by goshawks in the future, would need to once again be characterized by higher basal area and canopy cover (most of which is not characterized as healthy stands). There is currently one active nest within the project area and this nest site would be protected by a nest core area and a seasonal restriction, but others are suspected as sightings have occurred throughout the project area. If any active nest sites are discovered during any aspect of project implementation, these sites would be protected by a seasonal restriction, forested retention area, or both. Although the amount of suitable northern goshawk nesting habitat that would be removed with all action alternatives within the project area is moderate (35-46%), the amount removed would be minor compared to that available within the watersheds and Forest (habitat for these species is not considered limited on the Forest). Based on these impacts and that this species is ranked Vulnerable (S3) by NatureServe (2015), the Lex Vegetation Management Project would have a small negative impact to the northern goshawk and its habitat. Because this project impacts less than 0.5% of suitable habitat across the Forest, the overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will result in a small negative trend of habitat and increased disturbance. This loss of habitat and increased disturbance will be insignificant at the scale of the Forest. The Lex Vegetation Management Project is consistent with the Forest Plan, and thus continued viability of the northern goshawk is expected on the Deschutes National Forest. COOPER’S HAWK, Accipiter cooperi SHARP-SHINNED HAWK, Accipiter striatus MIS Measures: Effects to nesting and foraging habitat and disturbance effects. Habitat Needs and Existing Condition The Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks are considered MIS species in the Deschutes LRMP. They often use dense cover in which to hunt and nest. Several studies have compared nesting habitat use between coexisting accipiters in North America. Where these species coexist, a relationship occurs in which tree height and DBH of nest trees increases in proportion to accipiter body size. For example, sharp-shinned hawk nest sites in Oregon were characterized as dense, 40 to 60-year-old even-aged conifer stands while Cooper’s hawk nest sites were 50

107

to 80-year-old conifer stands with somewhat larger, more widely-spaced trees, and goshawk nest sites were dense, mature conifer stands with varying densities of mature, overstory trees. However, high interspecific overlap occurs between the species in the use of nest site characteristics such as basal area, canopy cover, and tree density (USDA FS 2012t and 2012f). For a detailed assessment on the Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawk for the Deschutes National Forest, see the Forest-wide Species Assessment (USDA FS 2012t and 2012f). Cooper’s Hawk The vegetative and physiographic characteristics of nest sites conclude that Cooper’s hawks nest in stands of even-aged, older trees (50-70 years old in eastern Oregon), with deep crowns. In eastern Oregon, ten nests were in ponderosa pine stands, white fir stands, and in Douglas-fir stands. Nests in eastern Oregon were commonly in deformed trees infected by dwarf mistletoe and that had heavy foliage, witches brooms, or double trunks. Based on the literature reviews in the state of Oregon, there are many similarities in the vegetation on the Deschutes National Forest (DNF) and nest-site selections with these characteristics. Differences are also apparent between study areas. The study area in eastern Oregon has more streams and creeks, and the topography is steeper versus some areas on the DNF; but similarities in forest composition occur. It is important to consider this variability when making inferences about habitat use on the DNF from studies at other locations (USDA FS 2012f). Only a few studies have investigated the foraging habitat of Cooper’s hawks. They appear to use available forests opportunistically provided that the available types are not too dense for flight below or within the canopy (USDA FS 201f). NatureServe identified the Cooper’s hawk as secure at the global and national scale, and “apparently secure” (S4) in the state of Oregon. It was not identified as a species of concern on the Federal and State species list, Birds of Conservation Concern list, Oregon Conservation Strategy, nor the Partners in Flight lists (USFS 2012f). The following is a potential list of threats due to habitat alteration for the Cooper’s hawk relevant to the project area (USDA FS 2012f):

●Timber harvest - Treatments such as commercial and non-commercial thinning, shelterwood and clearcut harvesting, where it reduces crown cover and dense forest. Impacts to habitat will be unique from site to site due to the varying structure of the forest.

●Recreation - Habitat loss from developed and dispersed recreation, as well as new transportation routes. Temporary roads are proposed in addition to the existing mountain bike and snowmobile trails, which could also be a source of disturbance. User created trails throughout the project area are another source of disturbance.

●Fire suppression - Results of fire suppression include an increase in tree density and an increased likelihood of crown fires. If tree density is too high, it could interfere with the ability of the Cooper’s hawk to fly and hunt. However, increased tree density in some areas might improve the quality of the habitat for nesting. High-intensity crown fires are presumed to be the most deleterious consequence of fire suppression. Crown fires result in vast stand-replacing disturbances with substantial habitat loss in ponderosa pine cover types, but especially in lodgepole pine cover types and in mixed conifer.

●Fuelwood harvest - Fuelwood harvest could adversely affect habitat if snags are removed that are used as perch sites or by prey species or cause disturbance during the breeding season.

108

In addition to habitat alteration, threats from disturbance due to logging activities conducted near nests during the incubation and nestling periods can cause nest failure due to abandonment. Also, high road densities may result in loss of snag and down wood habitat important to accipiter prey (USDA FS 2012f). Sharp-shinned Hawk Nest sites in eastern Oregon were in even-aged stands of white fir, Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, or aspen with the exception that tree density and diameter were less uniform. This species nested in stands of 3 different vegetative structures: most nests (81%) were in young (25-50 years), even-aged conifer stands with single-layered canopies; 2 nests (13%) were in old-growth (200+years) stands of conifers with multilayered canopies; and 1 nest was in a dense stand of stunted quaking aspen. Sharp-shinned hawk nests were placed in the denser portion of the lower canopy against the trunk or in a crotch of a double or split trunk. (USDA FS 2012t) Based on the literature reviews for the state of Oregon there are many similarities in the vegetation on the DNF, including the characteristics of nest-site selections. Differences are also apparent between study areas (i.e. the study area in eastern Oregon has more streams and creeks, and the topography is steeper versus some areas on the DNF), but similarities in forest composition occur. It is important to take this variability into account when making inferences about habitat use on the DNF from studies at other locations (USDA FS 2012t). NatureServe identified sharp-shinned hawks as secure at the global and national scale, and “apparently secure” (S4) in the state of Oregon. It was not identified as a species of concern on the Federal and State species list, Birds of Conservation Concern list, Oregon Conservation Strategy, or the Partners in Flight lists (USDA FS 2012t). Threats to the sharp-shinned hawk are similar to those addressed for the Coopers’ hawk (USDA FS 2012t). Through the Forest-wide assessment completed for MIS, Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawk reproductive habitat was mapped across the entire Deschutes National Forest. Tables 48 and 49 summarizes this data. Some of these acres may not be currently meeting the definition of nesting habitat for Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks because of insect mortality and several small wildfires within the watersheds. However, this acreage may still serve as post-fledging and/or foraging habitat. Table 48. Cooper’s hawk reproductive habitat within the Lex Vegetation Management project area, North Unit Diversion Dam-Deschutes River and Fall River-Deschutes River Watersheds, and across the Deschutes National Forest.

Acres of Cooper’s Hawk Habitat in the Project

Area

Acres of Cooper’s Hawk Habitat in the North


Watershed

Acres of Cooper’s Hawk Habitat in the

Fall River – Deschutes River Watershed

Acres of Cooper’s Hawk Habitat on the

Forest

2,611 26,312 16,398 252,976 acres

1% of all Cooper’s hawk habitat on the Forest.

10% of all Cooper’s hawk habitat on the Forest

6% of all Cooper’s hawk habitat on the Forest 16% of the entire Forest

Approximately 2,611 acres of Cooper’s hawk reproductive habitat exists within the analysis area, which is 22% of the total project acres. Within the watersheds, approximately 26,312 acres occurs within the North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River Watershed and 16,398 acres within the Fall River – Deschutes River Watershed. Across the Deschutes National forest, approximately 252,976 acres of reproductive habitat occurs. In 2015, there were two separate sightings of Cooper’s hawks during the breeding season. Both were showing aggressive behavior as if a nest were nearby, but no nests were found.

109

Table 49. Sharp-Shinned Hawk Reproductive Habitat within the Lex Vegetation Management Project Area, North Unit Diversion Dam-Deschutes River and Fall River-Deschutes River Watersheds, and across the Deschutes National Forest.

Acres of Sharp-Shinned Hawk Habitat in the

Project Area

Acres of Sharp-Shinned Hawk Habitat in the North Unit Diversion

Dam – Deschutes River Watershed

Acres of Sharp-Shinned Hawk Habitat


Watershed

Acres of Sharp-Shinned Hawk

Habitat on the Forest

5,132 33,873 31,310 396,632 acres

1% of all sharp-shinned hawk habitat on the

Forest.

9% of all sharp-shinned hawk habitat on the Forest

8% of all sharp-shinned hawk habitat on the


Approximately 5,132 acres of sharp-shinned hawk reproductive habitat exists within the project area, which is 43% of the total project acres. Within the watersheds, approximately 33,873 acres occurs within the North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River Watershed and 31,310 acres within the Fall River – Deschutes River Watershed. Across the Deschutes National forest, approximately 396,632 acres of reproductive habitat occurs. Sharp-shinned hawks have been seen during northern goshawk surveys since 2013, but no active nests have been found Effects of the Actions Alternative 1- No Action (Ecological Trend) There is no proposed action under this alternative; therefore there would be no changes from the existing conditions. Although no impacts are expected to occur to Cooper’s hawks or sharp-shinned hawks from this alternative, taking no action could have consequences to current habitat. Fuel loadings are known to be high within parts of the watershed, and there is little doubt that a wildfire in the watershed would result in many acres of high severity burns. This type of situation would reduce habitat for accipiters over a large area. With no proposed action to add incrementally to the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable actions, there would be no cumulative impacts. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 - Direct and Indirect Impacts Tables 50 and 51 display the acres of potential Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawk habitat treated by the alternatives and the percentage of habitat impacted within the project area, watersheds, and Forest. Table 50. Lex Proposed Overstory Treatments in MIS Mapped Cooper’s Hawk Habitat.

Alt.

Acres of Cooper’s Hawk Habitat Treated in Lex

% of Total Acres of Cooper’s Hawk Habitat Treated in the Project Area

% of Total Acres of Cooper’s Hawk Habitat Treated in the North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River Watershed

% of Total Acres of Cooper’s Hawk Habitat Treated in the Fall River - Deschutes River Watershed

% Total Acres of Cooper’s Hawk Habitat Treated on the Forest

Alt. 2 1,045 NUDD – 166 FR - 879

40% 0.6% 5% 0.4%

Alt. 3 1,179 45% 0.8% 6% 0.5%

110

Alt.

Acres of Cooper’s Hawk Habitat Treated in Lex

% of Total Acres of Cooper’s Hawk Habitat Treated in the Project Area

% of Total Acres of Cooper’s Hawk Habitat Treated in the North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River Watershed

% of Total Acres of Cooper’s Hawk Habitat Treated in the Fall River - Deschutes River Watershed

% Total Acres of Cooper’s Hawk Habitat Treated on the Forest

NUDD – 213 FR - 966

Alt. 4 918 NUDD – 128 FR - 790

35% 0.5% 5% 0.4%

Table 51. Lex Proposed Overstory Treatments in MIS Mapped Sharp-Shinned Hawk Habitat.

Alt.

Acres of Sharp-Shinned Hawk Habitat Treated in Lex

% of Total Acres of Sharp-Shinned Hawk Habitat Treated in the Project Area

% of Total Acres of Sharp-Shinned Hawk Habitat Treated in the North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River Watershed

% of Total Acres of Sharp-Shinned Hawk Habitat Treated in the Fall River - Deschutes River Watershed

% Total Acres of Sharp-Shinned Hawk Habitat Treated on the Forest

Alt. 2 1,798 NUDD – 366 FR - 1,432

35% 1% 5% 0.4%

Alt. 3 2,116 NUDD – 473 FR – 1,643

41% 1% 5% 0.5%

Alt. 4 1,516 NUDD - 307 FR – 1,209

30% 1% 4% 0.4%

Alternative 3 proposes the greatest amount of habitat loss for both species (41-45%), followed by Alternative 2 (35-40%), then Alternative 4 (30-35%). Although it is a large amount of habitat loss for the project area, compared to the habitat available within the watersheds, the loss is anywhere from 0.5% to 1% within the North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River Watershed and 4 to 6% within the Fall River – Deschutes River Watershed. The loss Forest-wide is 0.4-0.5%. Tables 52 and 53 displays the acres of mapped Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawk habitat treated by the alternatives and the treatment types that would be impacting habitat within the project area. Table 52. Overstory, Understory, and Fuels Treatments within MIS Mapped Cooper’s Hawk Habitat.

Understory Treatments Acres Fuels Treatment Acres



Alt. 2 1,045 116 865 175 1,046 81 145 Alt. 3 1,179 89 948 175 1,056 81 145 Alt. 4 918 118 738 175 726 81 145

111

Table 53. Overstory, Understory, and Fuels Treatments within MIS Mapped Sharp-Shinned Hawk Habitat.




Alt. 2 1,798 317 1,666 225 1,816 136 241 Alt. 3 2,116 285 1,807 225 1,906 136 241 Alt. 4 1,516 329 1,383 225 1,359 136 241

The primary overstory treatments, within mapped Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawk habitat are selection cut, overstory removal within lodgepole pine (including HCR), and commercial thinning. The uneven-aged management/selection cut would maintain ponderosa pine as a long term overstory and understory species. This would be accomplished by releasing the ponderosa pine, while removing the intermediate suppressed white fir and lodgepole pine. The overstory removal would occur in lodgepole pine stands and would remove a majority of the overstory trees from the stands. Commercial thinning would generally consist of thinning from below, in which the smallest trees in the stand and/or shortest trees are generally priority for removal. The goal of commercial thinning is primarily to maintain or improve tree growth, maintain or enhance forest health, and control species composition. Ponderosa pine are typically favored for retention over lodgepole or true fir. The other overstory treatments would maintain the large overstory ponderosa pine. All overstory treatments would reduce the stand canopy cover to below 40%, thus removing suitable nesting habitat. Ladder fuels reduction would simplify and reduce the understory making it easier for these species to fly through, although also making adults and juveniles more vulnerable to other predator species (especially the small sharp-shinned hawk) because there is less mid-story cover. All three action alternatives propose fuels underburn treatments (145 acres) associated with overstory treatments. Fuels treatments would not directly remove any large trees. The fuels treatments would break up the fuel continuity and reduce the risk of a landscape scale fire event, which should reduce the risk to individual large snags and trees. The integrity of nesting habitat components should not be changed. Burning prescriptions and pre-ignition fuels reduction would reduce the chance of losing large snags (change to down wood), however, it is assumed that a small percentage of large snags would be affected by prescribed burning. Prescribed burning could also have the potential to create additional snags. Project Design Criteria would be incorporated to reduce the loss of down wood and snags during burning operations. The project promotes fuels reduction and forest health in the short-term and in the long-term promotes the longevity of large tree structure and a fire resistant landscape. Impacts from treatments occurring after the initial commercial harvest are expected to be less intensive to Cooper’s hawks or sharp-shinned hawks. Any of the treatments that include overstory removal directly impacts nesting habitat, whereas the latter actions (post-sale tree treatments and connected activities such as mastication, piling, burning, road/trail closures, etc.) may cause disturbance to remaining habitat in adjacent untreated areas. These other activities that would remove additional tree, shrub, and down wood habitat would have an impact on foraging habitat, as it would be removing habitat for accipiter prey species. There would likely be an impact to Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawk foraging habitat due to the proposed actions. These species prey on a number of bird species also contained within this analysis (e.g. woodpeckers), and on small mammals. Negative effects of the proposed actions on these accipiters and their habitat (e.g. mowing, burning or removal of dead wood) would indirectly have negative effects to some of their prey species and their habitat. Because these are very indirect effects and these accipiter species can prey upon a variety of animals, it is anticipated that the effects on prey and foraging are low. Temporary roads will not be placed in areas that are not being treated and road and trail closures within areas of suitable habitat would benefit habitat security and reduce disturbances to these accipiter species.

112

Although the nesting habitat would be lost, treatments in current habitat would maintain larger trees and a healthy canopy cover by reducing the susceptibility of forest stands to fire and insect damage and by removing competition between trees for space and nutrients. This should result in reducing the risk of habitat degradation (loss of canopy cover) in existing suitable habitat and facilitating the development of future nesting habitat. Through this process, it could still function as foraging habitat. There could be disturbance to individuals during implementation of the project. If a nest is found prior to treatment activities, seasonal restrictions will be enacted or portions of treatment units may be dropped. If a nest is found during treatment activities, all actions in the area will be halted until a determination of the nesting status is complete. After which, seasonal restrictions or removal of portions of treatment units may occur. Cumulative Effects— Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable vegetation treatments in the North Unit Diversion Dam–Deschutes River and Fall River – Deschutes River watersheds would occur on approximately 18,263 acres of Cooper’s hawk habitat and 23,732 acres of sharp-shinned hawk habitat. These treatments primarily include the following vegetation management projects: Rocket, West Bend, Junction, Kew and the UDR WUI. The primary treatments for all projects include: commercial thinning, mowing, and underburning. These treatments would have negative short-term impacts due to a reduction in stand densities and canopy cover and long-term positive benefits by reducing the risk of habitat loss due to high intensity and/or stand replacing fire. The Lex Project would treat an additional 918 acres (Alt. 4), 1,045 acres (Alt. 2), or 1,179 acres (Alt. 3) of the available Cooper’s hawk and 1,516 acres (Alt. 4), 1,798 acres (Alt. 2), or 2,116 acres (Alt. 3) of sharp-shinned hawk reproductive habitat in the watersheds depending on the alternative selected. Cumulatively, when the Lex is added to the other projects (using Alternative 3 since it would treat the largest acreage), approximately 46% of the Cooper’s hawk habitat and 40% of the sharp-shinned hawk habitat in the watershed would be treated (19,442 and 25,848 acres respectively). Along with the Rocket, West Bend, Junction, Kew, and UDRI WUI Vegetation Management Projects, the Lex Project may result in short-term negative cumulative effects to sharp-shinned and Cooper’s hawks due to the loss/degradation of habitat in the watersheds from treatment activities. Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures—Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 The following Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures are applicable to Cooper’s hawks and sharp-shinned hawks and can be found in detail on pages 14 – 18 of this document: 1, 2, and 5 – 7, 11, 12, and 27-31. Consistency Wildlife standards and guidelines WL-13, WL-17, WL-18, WL-19, WL-21, WL-25, WL-27, and WL-28 will be assessed. This project would be consistent with the Forest Plan by adhering to the following Standards and Guidelines:

113

Table 54. Standards and Guides for Cooper’s and Sharp-Shinned Hawks from the Forest Plan.

Standard and Guideline

Does Not Meet, Meets, Applicable,

Not Applicable

Rationale

WL-13/21 – Nesting habitat for at least 60 pairs of Coopers hawks and 60 pairs of sharp-shinned hawks will be provided in mixed conifer and ponderosa pine forests outside wilderness.

Meets Habitat is available across the

Forest to provide for these amounts.

WL-17/25 – Nest sites of at least 15 acres for Cooper’s hawks and 10 acres for sharp-shinned hawks.

Applicable No known nest sites are within treatment units, but sites occur

adjacent to proposed units.

WL-18/27 – Locating new roads within nest site stands will be avoided. Applicable

No known nest sites are within the project area. No new road construction is proposed for this project; Temp roads should not be placed within suitable Cooper’s or sharp-shinned hawk habitat or other stands that would not be treated; re-opened roads and temp roads will be closed.

WL-19/28 – Nests will be protected within ¼ mile from disturbing activities (1/4 mile radius = 125 acres around the nest).

Applicable

Project Design Criteria are in place for seasonal restrictions for sites outside of treatment units and in

the event a new nest site is found. This is written into this document as a Project Design Criteria and will further be addressed within the projects implementation plan. Determination/Conclusion (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) Alternative 3 would remove the greatest amount of Cooper’s (45%) and sharp-shinned hawk (41%) habitat, followed by Alternative 2 (Cooper’s hawk 40% and sharp-shinned hawk 35%), then Alternative 4 (Cooper’s hawk 35% and sharp-shinned hawk 30%). This is a moderate amount of habitat removal for the project area. Although treatments would promote fuels reduction and forest health in the short-term and in the long-term promotes the longevity of large tree structure and a fire resistant landscape, it would take years for the type of habitat to develop of which these species utilize (dense stands with high basal area and canopy cover) most of which is not characterized as healthy stands. The treatments would help to protect adjacent stands of suitable habitat. There are currently no known active nests for either of these species within the project area, but they are suspected as sightings have occurred throughout the project area. If any active nest sites are discovered during any aspect of project implementation, these sites would be protected by a seasonal restriction, forested retention area, or both. Although the amount of suitable Cooper’s hawk and sharp-shinned hawk nesting habitat that would be removed with all action alternatives within the project area is moderate (30-45%), the amount removed would be minor compared to that available within the watersheds and Forest (habitat for these species is not considered limited on the Forest). Based on these impacts and that this species is ranked Apparently Secure (S4) by NatureServe (2015), the Lex Vegetation Management Project would have a small negative impact to the Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks and their habitat. Because this project impacts 0.5% or less of suitable habitat across

114

the Forest, the overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will result in a small negative trend of habitat and increased disturbance. This loss of habitat and increased disturbance will be insignificant at the scale of the Forest. The Lex Vegetation Management Project is consistent with the Forest Plan, and thus continued viability of the Cooper’s hawk and sharp-shinned hawk is expected on the Deschutes National Forest. GREAT GRAY OWL, Strix nebulosi MIS, S&M Measures: Effects to nesting habitat and disturbance effects. Habitat Needs and Existing Condition The great gray owl is an indicator species for other edge species that prefer habitat in mature to old growth coniferous and mixed conifer/lodgepole pine forests adjacent to openings in forests, usually meadows. This species is associated with mature stands of mixed conifer/lodgepole pine/mountain hemlock near meadow complexes. Great gray owls do not build their own nests, but rely mainly on other raptor or raven nests, mistletoe platforms, broken topped snags, or artificial nest platforms. Bull and Henjum’s (1990) study in northeast Oregon found that great gray owls tended to nest in unlogged, mature or older stands with an open understory and dense overstory. However, the amount of canopy cover in a nest stand varies between studies from 11 percent to 75 percent (Bull and Henjum 1990; Bryan and Forsman 1987). The Bryan and Forsman (1987) study, which included portions of the Deschutes National Forest south of LaPine, Oregon, suggested that forest/meadow associations are a preferred habitat. In fact, their research located 63 sites with great gray owls, of which 60 sites were in forests less than 0.2 mi (0.3 km) from meadows and three were in forest areas 0.2 - 0.5 mi. (0.30-0.8 km) from the nearest meadow. Fifty-nine sites were dominated by lodgepole pine or mixtures of lodgepole pine and ponderosa pine. Four sites were in mixed coniferous forests. Bryan and Forsman (1987) stated all sites where great gray owls were located were in old-growth (45 sites) or mature (15 sites) habitat characterized by large overstory trees. They defined old-growth lodgepole pine as any stand greater than 70 years of age and old-growth ponderosa pine or mixed coniferous forests as any stand over 200 years of age. Elevations at occupied sites ranged from 4,167 to 5,413 ft. (1,270 to 1,650 m), although great gray owls have been documented to occur at elevations up to 6,200 ft. (1,890 m) in eastern Oregon. Great gray owls forage primarily in open habitats. Suitable foraging habitats include natural meadows, open forest stands, early successional forests, recent clearcuts, montane meadows, grassy habitats, bogs, fens, muskegs, and peatlands (Nero 1980; Winter 1986; Bryan and Forsman 1987; Stepnisky 1997). Foraging habitat is typically defined as natural meadows greater than 10 acres in size, riparian areas, and clear-cut or selectively logged areas where they forage on voles, pocket gophers, shrews, chipmunks, squirrels, and snowshoe hares. In Oregon, great gray owls select montane meadows, as well as open stands of mature forest with grass as the dominant ground cover, as preferred hunting areas (Winter 1986; Bryan and Forsman 1987). Old growth and late successional forests, as well as selectively logged and clearcut forests, are used for foraging, but not as often as natural forest openings (Nero 1980; Mikkola 1983; Winter 1986; Goggans and Platt 1992). The Lex project area has openings created by logging (1980’s to early 2000’s) that great gray owls have used for foraging. Along with their open canopies, the ground cover consists more of grass than shrub. Additionally, down wood and snags seem to be important components of foraging habitat. In northeastern Oregon, downed wood was found within three feet (one meter) of where prey was caught or attempted to be caught 80 percent of the time (Bull and Henjum 1990). Snags are used for nesting, as perches while foraging, and by juveniles for climbing (Schaeffer 1993). While hunting, great gray owls perch in both live trees and in snags adjacent to open areas. Home ranges for breeding adults in northeastern Oregon averaged 1,112 acres, ranging from 324 acres to 1,606 acres. However, they have been observed foraging up to two miles from the nest (Bull and Henjum 1990).

115

For the detailed assessment on the great gray owl for the Deschutes National Forest, see the Forest-wide Species Assessment (USFS 2012i). Great gray owl (GGO) nest stands vary in stand type ranging from mixed stands of ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine to mixed conifer. Within these stands, optimum nesting habitat canopy cover ranges from 50-70%. Nest stands are generally associated with open forest containing canopy closure that ranges from 11-59% dominated with grasses, open grassy habitat, including bogs, selective and clear-cut logged areas, and natural meadows (Bull and Henjum 1990). The LRMP defines this owl’s habitat as being: lodgepole pine dominated overstory, overstory tree density of 67 trees per acre for trees greater than 12 inches diameter at breast height, canopy cover of 60% (50-70%), and distance to nearest meadow 440 (63-1,070ft.) feet (LRMP WL-31). The NWFP states “the great gray owl, within the range of the northern spotted owl, is most common in lodgepole pine forests adjacent to meadows. However, it is also found in other coniferous forest types. Specific mitigation measures for the great gray owl, within the range of the northern spotted owl, include the following: provide a no-harvest buffer of 300 ft. around meadows and natural openings and establish ¼ mile protection zones around known nest sites” (Page C-21). This species was identified in the NWFP as a survey and manage species requiring surveys in 2001. A Regional survey protocol was developed in 1995 and was updated in January of 2004 (Version 3.0). An amendment to the NWFP occurred in 2001 which moved the great gray owl from a protection buffer species to a Category C species. This category contained uncommon species for which pre-disturbance surveys are practical. Through the Forest wide assessment, potential great gray owl nesting habitat was mapped across the Forest using forested habitat with high canopy closure within 0.3 miles of an opening (wet meadows, riparian zone or forested opening <5 years old). This mapping effort resulted in no acres of potential habitat (see Table 55) in the project area (USDA 2015). Table 55. Great Gray Owl Reproductive Habitat within the Lex Vegetation Management Project Area, North Unit Diversion Dam-Deschutes River and Fall River-Deschutes River Watersheds, and Across the Deschutes National Forest.

Acres of Great Gray Owl Habitat in the

Project Area

Acres of Great Gray Owl Habitat in the


Watershed

Acres of Great Gray Owl Habitat in the Fall

River – Deschutes River Watershed

Acres of Great Gray Owl Habitat on the

Forest

0 4,243 6,815 194,742 acres

0% of all great gray owl habitat on the Forest.

2% of all great gray owl habitat on the Forest

3% of all great gray owl habitat on the Forest 12% of the entire Forest

There is no habitat within the project area that requires pre-disturbance surveys according to the protocol (“suitable nesting habitat adjacent to natural openings smaller than 10 acres is not necessary to be surveyed,” page 5 Survey Protocol for the Great Gray Owl Ver. 3.0, Quintana et al. 2004). There are no natural openings in the Lex project area 10 acres or larger. The Lex project area does contain openings that were created through previous logging activities. However, through previous surveys conducted in 1997 and 1998, great gray owls were observed utilizing these openings for foraging. No nests were found during these surveys. Although surveys are not required and since this species is known to occupy habitats within the project area, surveys were conducted in 2015 and 2016 for the Lex Project near historic sighting locations and adjacent to man-made openings. A response of a great gray owl occurred in 2015 in the Katalo Butte area. A response occurred in the same vicinity in 2016 and there was a visual during the day in the same area. To this day, an active nest has not been observed. This species is considered vulnerable (S3) by NatureServe (2015).

116

Effects of the Actions Alternative 1 - No Action (Ecological Trend) There is no proposed action under this alternative; therefore there would be no changes from the existing conditions. Although no effects are expected to occur to great gray owls from this alternative, taking no action could have consequences to great gray owl nesting habitat adjacent to man-made openings and foraging areas. Current foraging habitat areas would eventually revegetate, reducing great gray owl foraging capabilities within the project area. Natural processes would continue within nesting habitat, including insects and diseases. Fuel loadings are known to be high within parts of the watershed, and there is little doubt that a wildfire in the watershed would result in many acres of high severity burns. This type of situation would reduce great gray owl nesting habitat within the watershed. With no proposed action to add incrementally to the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable actions, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 - Direct and Indirect Impacts The project area does not include any mapped suitable habitat, but this species appears to be utilizing manmade openings for foraging habitat. Approximately 50 acres of potential great gray owl nesting habitat (surrounding manmade openings) will be treated in mixed conifer and lodgepole pine habitats. The single bird that has been utilizing habitat adjacent to Katalo Butte, may be impacted by project activities. Surveys would not continue in this project area, but actions would be taken to find an active nest in the Katalo Butte area. Any other sightings of great gray owls within the project area would have follow-up surveys to determine nesting status. Any active nest discovered would be protected (nest core/no treatment area) and subsequent changes to harvest units or timing restrictions for harvest would be determined at that time. Foraging habitat would increase by implementation of HCR units that would create openings, which currently have minimal understories, and in HSL units that would be creating openings for planting. This would be an additional 715 acres (Alt. 4), 977 acres (Alt. 2), and 1,354 acres (Alt. 3) of foraging habitat added to the current 2,071 acres (HFR units). This foraging habitat is expected to provide habitat for great gray owl prey species short-term. As the understory comes in and becomes more dense, it decreases the quality of habitat for prey species and reduces the owl’s ability to hunt for species on the ground. Gopher trapping would occur within planting units on 359 acres in Alt. 4, 390 acres in Alt. 2, and 415 acres in Alt. 3. Although trapping may reduce the availability of prey in these new openings, the impact project wide would be minimal as the opportunity for foraging is not limited. Connected activities (e.g. understory treatments, fuels treatments, road/trail closure and restoration, soil restoration, herbicide spraying and boraxing) would likely have negligible disturbance impacts to individuals. It is the overstory treatments that have the larger impact (deteriorating or removing habitat). Cumulative Effects— Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable vegetation treatments in the North Unit Diversion Dam–Deschutes River and Fall River – Deschutes River watersheds would occur on approximately 1,400 acres of great gray owl habitat. These treatments primarily include the following vegetation management projects: Rocket, West Bend, Junction, Kew and the UDR WUI. The primary treatments for all projects include: commercial thinning, mowing, and underburning. The Lex Project does not cumulatively treat current mapped great gray owl habitat, but does remove habitat surrounding man-made openings. The short-term negative cumulative impacts expected would be the disturbance the proposed treatments would have on potentially nesting pairs within the watersheds.

117

These cumulative impacts are variable across the watersheds as treatment activities would take place at various times during the year, not just the nesting season, and take place over several years. Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures—Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 The following Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures are applicable to the great gray owl and can be found in detail on pages 14 – 18 of this document: 1, 3, 5-7, 11, 12, and 27-31. Consistency Wildlife standards and guidelines WL-30, WL-31, WL-32, WL-33, and WL-34 will be assessed. This project would be consistent with the Forest Plan by adhering to the following Standards and Guidelines: Table 56. Standards and Guides for the Great Gray owl from the Forest Plan.

Standard and Guideline Does Not Meet,


Rationale

WL-30 – Nesting habitat for at least 8 nesting pairs of great gray owls will be provided.

Meets Habitat is available across the Forest.

WL-31/32 – Active nests will be protected by maintaining forested stand of at least 30 acres of forest adjacent to riparian or meadow. At least 300 feet of forest between the nest and an opening will be maintained.

Applicable There is a site within the project area where a great gray owl is suspected of having an active nest, but no nest has been found.

WL-33 – Nests will be protected within ¼ mile from disturbing activities (1/4 mile radius = 125 acres around the nest) during March 1-June 30.

Meets Project Design Criteria are included in this document for a seasonal restriction in the event that an active nest is found.

WL-34 – Specified restriction period may be waivered during the last 2 months of the restriction. A nest can be considered inactive for the year if nesting not evident by May 15.

Meets Project Design Criteria are included in this document for a seasonal restriction in the event that an active nest is found.

This is written into this document as a Project Design Criteria and will further be addressed within the projects implementation plan. Determination/Conclusion (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) It is expected that nesting habitat would be removed with treatments adjacent to current man-made openings and that a nesting pair may be impacted by project activities. Although unmapped nesting habitat would be removed (approximately 50 acres), the amount removed would be minor compared to that available within the watersheds, and Forest. Based on these impacts and that this species is ranked Vulnerable (S3) by NatureServe (2015), the Lex Vegetation Management Project is expected to have a small negative impact to the great gray owl and its habitat. Because this project impacts a minimal amount of suitable great gray owl habitat across the Forest, the overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will result in a small negative trend of habitat and increased disturbance. This loss of habitat and increased disturbance will be insignificant at the scale of the Forest. The Lex Vegetation Management Project is consistent with the Forest Plan, and thus continued viability of the great gray owl is expected on the Deschutes National Forest.

118

RED-TAILED HAWK, Buteo jamaicensis MIS Measures: Effects to nesting habitat and disturbance effects. Habitat Needs and Existing Condition The red-tailed hawk is an abundant species occupying a variety of open to semi-open habitat types and can tolerate ranging elevations, alpine to sea level. However, they generally avoid tundra and dense, unbroken forests (USDA FS 2012r). Preferred habitats are open to semi-open coniferous, deciduous and mixed forests, forest edges, grasslands, parklands, rangelands, river bottomlands, and agricultural fields with scattered trees (USDA 2012). Forest clearings, alpine meadows, estuaries, marshes, agricultural lands, clear cuts, sagebrush plains, and high elevation environments are also used, though less commonly. Limiting factors in preferred habitat are availability of suitable perches and hunting grounds open enough to locate and catch ground prey (USDA FS 2012r). Perches can be any object that provides an unobstructed view of a red-tailed hawk territory. These objects are usually high and can be natural, e.g. tree, snag, cliff, rock, or man-made, e.g. utility pole, tower, fence (USDA FS 2012r). Nesting occurs in large mature trees, usually at a forest edge or near an opening in the canopy (USDA FS 2012r). Nests are usually placed higher in trees verses other raptors, and are generally in the largest, tallest tree available or smaller deformed trees where branch structure supports this higher placement (USDA FS 2012r). Nests are often reused from year to year provided the nest is not occupied by earlier nesting raptors and is in suitable condition (USDA FS 2012r). For the detailed assessment on red-tailed hawks for the Deschutes National Forest, see the Forest-wide Species Assessment (USDA FS 2012r). The red-tailed hawk is not on any federal, state, or other conservation list. Globally, the population is increasing and has no substantial threats (NatureServe 2015). Nationally, the population is increasing or stable in most areas (NatureServe 2015). In Oregon, red-tailed hawks are secure; the population is not decreasing (NatureServe 2015, USDA FS 2012r). Through the Forest-wide assessment, red-tailed hawk reproductive habitat was mapped across the entire Deschutes National Forest, keying in on mature trees, usually at a forest edge or near an opening in canopy with open crowns. Table 57 summarizes this data. Table 57. Red-Tailed Hawk Reproductive Habitat within the Lex Vegetation Management Project Area, North Unit Diversion Dam-Deschutes River and Fall River-Deschutes River Watersheds, and Across the Deschutes National Forest.

Acres of Red-Tailed Hawk Habitat in the

Project Area

Acres of Red-Tailed Hawk Habitat in the North Unit Diversion


Acres of Red-Tailed Hawk Habitat in the

Fall River – Deschutes River Watershed

Acres of Red-Tailed Hawk Habitat on the

Forest

1,101 11,770 11,251 168,126 acres

0.7% of all red-tailed hawk habitat on the

Forest.

7% of all red-tailed hawk habitat on the Forest

7% of all red-tailed hawk habitat on the Forest 10% of the entire Forest

119

Approximately 1,101 acres of red-tailed hawk reproductive habitat exists within the project area, which is 0.7% of the total Forest acres. Within the watersheds, approximately 11,770 acres occurs within the North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River Watershed and 11,251 acres within the Fall River – Deschutes River Watershed. Across the Deschutes National forest, approximately 168,126 acres of reproductive habitat occurs. Red-tailed hawks were seen on occasion during northern goshawk surveys, but no active nests have been found. Effects of the Alternatives Alternative 1 – No Action (Ecological Trend) Under the no action alternative, habitat conditions would remain unchanged in the short-term. As insect and disease killed lodgepole and white fir begin to fall, fuel loading in the area would increase as would the risk of a high intensity fire that would likely spread into nesting habitat. A stand-replacing fire would remove potential red-tailed hawk habitat over a large area. Natural succession of increased stand densities would prolong future development of larger nesting trees by increasing competition for water and soil nutrients, which may result in some level of large tree loss. An effect of high stand densities would be the gradual loss of the existing large-tree component/nesting habitat that is likely to be much faster than if the stand densities had been reduced to more healthy levels. In the long-term, tree mortality from fire, insects, disease, and subsequent overstory canopy loss would have the greatest influence on red-tailed hawk habitat due to the reduction of canopy cover. With no proposed action to add incrementally to the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable actions, there would be no cumulative impacts. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 - Direct and Indirect Impacts Table 58 displays the acres of potential red-tailed hawk habitat treated by the alternatives and the percentage of habitat impacted within the project area, watersheds, and Forest. Table 58. Lex Proposed Overstory Treatments in MIS Mapped Red-Tailed Hawk Habitat.

Alt.

Acres of Red-Tailed

Hawk Habitat

Treated in Lex

% of Total Acres of Red-Tailed Hawk

Habitat Treated in the Project Area

% of Total Acres of Red-Tailed Hawk

Habitat Treated in the North Unit Diversion


% of Total Acres of Red-Tailed Hawk Habitat Treated in the

Fall River - Deschutes River

Watershed

% Total Acres of Red-Tailed Hawk Habitat Treated on the

Forest

Alt. 2 186

NUDD – 6 FR - 180

17% 0.05% 2% 0.1%

Alt. 3 217

NUDD – 10 FR - 207

20% 0.08% 2% 0.1%

Alt. 4 167

NUDD – 5 FR - 162

15% 0.04% 1% 0.1%

The Lex Project area proposes to treat 167 acres (Alt. 4), 186 acres (Alt. 2), or 217 acres (Alt. 3) of mapped red-tailed hawk habitat. This equates to 15 – 20% of the total acres available within the project area. Overstory treatments would not eliminate nesting and foraging habitat. Large trees would be retained that would provide nesting habitat, and stands would be opened up to provide more open conditions that red-tailed hawks could forage in. The amount of habitat treated within the project area is low, and at the landscape scale is minimal at 0.04% - 0.08% of the North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River Watershed and 1% - 2% of the Fall River –

120

Deschutes River Watershed, and across the Forest, 0.1%. There could be disturbance to individuals during implementation of the project. If a nest is found prior to treatment activities, seasonal restrictions would be enacted or portions of treatment units may be dropped. If a nest is found during project activities, all actions in the area would be halted until a determination of the nesting status is complete. After which, seasonal restrictions or removal of portions of treatment units may occur. Table 59 displays the acres of mapped red-tailed hawk habitat treated by the alternatives and the treatment types that would be affecting habitat within the project area. Table 59. Overstory, Understory, and Fuels Treatments within MIS Mapped Red-Tailed Hawk Habitat.

Understory Treatments Acres Fuels Treatments Acres



Alt. 2 186 56 297 2 227 110 82 Alt. 3 217 56 305 2 232 110 82 Alt. 4 167 56 278 2 206 110 82

The primary overstory treatment within mapped red-tailed hawk habitat is selection cut. This uneven-aged management/selection cut would maintain ponderosa pine as a long term overstory and understory species. This would be accomplished by releasing the ponderosa pine, while removing the intermediate suppressed white fir and lodgepole pine. Where treated, this would reduce the stand canopy cover to below 40%. Small group openings created within the selection cut units would provide suitable red-tailed hawk nesting and foraging habitat by retaining large trees and snags in association with open habitat. Burning within these stands (82 acres for all action alternatives) would not remove large trees available for nesting, but would help to break up the fuel continuity and reduce the risk of a landscape scale fire event, which should reduce the risk to individual large snags and trees. The integrity of nesting habitat components would not be changed. The project promotes fuels reduction and forest health in the short-term and in the long-term promotes the longevity of large tree structure and a fire resistant landscape. The negative aspect of fuels treatments is the reduction of shrubs from mowing, burning and mastication which can impact prey species of ground-dwelling small mammals. They depend on the shrubs for hiding cover, the forbs for food, and down wood for digging their burrows under. This activity would reduce the amount of available habitat for prey species, potentially reducing areas utilized by them for foraging as well as minimizing the availability of prey in nesting areas. However, impacts from mowing and burning are short in duration (<10 years) and long-term, a higher diversity of prey habitat (grasses, forb and shrubs) is anticipated. Connected activities (e.g. piling, road/trail closure and restoration, soil restoration, gopher trapping, herbicide spraying and boraxing) would likely have negligible disturbance impacts to individuals. Cumulative Effects— Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable vegetation treatments in the North Unit Diversion Dam–Deschutes River and Fall River – Deschutes River watersheds would occur on approximately 9,366 acres of red-tailed hawk habitat. These treatments primarily include the following vegetation management projects: Rocket, West Bend, Junction, Kew and the UDR WUI. The primary treatments for all projects include: commercial thinning, mowing, and underburning. These projects will result in short-term negative impacts to prey habitat (foraging) due to fuels treatments. These projects will have positive impacts to habitat post-treatment by opening up stands, and long-term by accelerating the development of future large tree structure and reducing the risk of habitat loss of existing habitat to high intensity and/or stand-replacing wildfire.

121

The Lex Project would treat an additional 167 acres (Alt. 4), 186 acres (Alt. 2), or 217 acres (Alt. 3) of the available reproductive habitat in the watersheds depending on the alternative selected. Cumulatively, when the Lex Project is added to the other projects, approximately 42% of the red-tailed hawk habitat in the watershed would be treated (9,583 acres). In the long-term, these combined treatments would favor red-tailed hawk habitat. Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures—Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 The following Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures are applicable to the red-tailed hawk and can be found in detail on pages 14 – 18 of this document: 1, 5-7, 30, and 31. Consistency Wildlife standard and guidelines WL-2 and WL-3 will be assessed. This project would be consistent with the Forest Plan by adhering to the following Standards and Guidelines: Table 60. Standards and Guides for the Red-Tailed Hawk from the Forest Plan.

Standard and Guideline

Does Not Meet, Meets,

Applicable, Not

Applicable

Rationale

WL-2 – Maintain forested character at least 300 feet surrounding active nest sites.

Not applicable at

this time

There are no known nests within the project area. If a nest is located, measures will be incorporated to meet this standard.

WL-2 – While timber management may occur, maintain at least 4 dominant overstory trees per acre suitable for nest and perch trees, favoring ponderosa pine.

Meets Thinning guidelines favor the retention of larger overstory, especially in ponderosa pine.

WL-3 – Seasonal restrictions will be in effect for disturbing activities within ¼ mile of active nests from March 1 – August 31.

Not applicable at

this time

Project Design Criteria are incorporated into this document if an active nest is discovered at any time during the implementation of this project.

This is written into this document as a Project Design Criteria and will further be addressed within the projects implementation plan. Determination/Conclusion (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) Implementation of the Lex Vegetation Management Project would occur on 167 to 217 acres of the 1,101 mapped suitable red-tailed hawk nesting habitat acres within the Lex project area. The alternatives treat less than 0.1% available within the North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River Watershed, 1-2% of the habitat available within the Fall River – Deschutes River Watershed, and 0.1 % available on the Forest. Alternative 3 would treat more overstory than Alternatives 2 and 4, however, regardless of the alternative, the treatment prescription promotes large tree retention. The project promotes fuels reduction and forest health in the short-term and in the long-term promotes the longevity of large tree structure and a fire resistant landscape, which are important components of habitat for this species. At minimum, 7% of the mapped red-tailed hawk habitat would have fuels treatments that would impact small mammal habitat and thus prey species for red-tailed hawk, but these impacts are expected to be short-term.

122

Although suitable red-tailed hawk nesting habitat and prey species habitat would be impacted, the amount would be minor compared to that available within the project area, watersheds, and Forest. There are currently no known active nests within the project area. If any active nest sites are discovered during any aspect of project implementation, these sites would be protected by a seasonal restriction, forested retention area, or both. Based on these impacts and that this species is ranked Globally Secure (G5) by NatureServe (2015), the Lex Vegetation Management Project is expected to have a small negative impact to the red-tailed hawk and its habitat. Because this project impacts a minimal 0.1% of suitable red-tailed hawk habitat across the Forest, the overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will result in a small negative trend of habitat and increased disturbance. This loss of habitat and increased disturbance will be insignificant at the scale of the Forest. The Lex Vegetation Management Project is consistent with the Forest Plan, and thus continued viability of the red-tailed hawk is expected on the Deschutes National Forest. AMERICAN MARTEN, Martes Americana MIS Measures: Acres of denning, resting, and foraging habitat impacted, miles of road closures. Habitat Needs and Existing Condition Please refer to the American Marten Management Indicator Species Assessment for detailed information on its biology, status, threats, and habitat modeling on the Forest (USDA FS 2012a). Martens are closely associated with forested habitats that have complex physical structure near the ground (Bull et al. 2005, Slauson 2003, and Slauson et al. 2007). Open areas, such as regeneration logging units, recent severely burned areas, and natural openings are avoided, especially during the winter. Martens cross and re-cross their own tracks to investigate micro habitat features, such as stumps, logs, and brush piles that might contain food. They often use fallen logs as runways (Clark et al. 1987). Marten diet consists of small mammals, birds, insects, and carrion with berries and other plant matter eaten in season (NatureServe 2015). Forested riparian habitats are used at disproportionately higher rates than they are available, indicating their importance as travel corridors (Bull et al. 2005 and Buskirk et al. 1989). Martens tend to be wide-ranging within their home range during the snow-free portions of the year, using a variety of habitats. They also are more active during summer than winter (Bull and Heater 2001), but they do not hibernate. Summer rest sites may be in hollow trees, squirrel nests, mistletoe brooms, ground burrows, and stumps (Clark et al. 1987). During winter, martens are highly associated with late-successional forest habitat (Buskirk and Ruggerio 1994 and Bull and Heater 2005). Denning and Foraging Habitat Marten use a variety of structures for resting and denning sites. Resting and denning sites offer protection from predation and thermal stress; thus, availability of quality denning sites likely increases the rates of survival and fecundity in marten (Raphael and Jones 1997). Buskirk and Ruggiero (1994) state two types of dens are recognized in the literature: natal dens, in which parturition takes place, and maternal dens, which are occupied by the mother and young but are not whelping sites. A variety of structures are used for dens, with trees, logs, and rocks accounting for 70 percent of the reported den structures. In virtually all cases of dens in trees, snags, or logs, dens were found in large structures characteristic of late-successional forests. Raphael and Jones (1997) found that down wood and slash piles were important resting and denning structures in the eastern Cascades of central Oregon. Forests in their study area were dominated by lodgepole pine. A key component for marten foraging is the structural complexity that supports a diverse prey base, providing opportunities for marten to be successful in capturing prey, and allows for marten to hunt while minimizing their

123

exposure to predation. Large down woody material, multiple canopy layers, high canopy closure, and overall higher structural complexity contribute to effective foraging habitat for marten. Martens’ primary prey includes voles, particularly redbacked voles, squirrels, and herbaceous meadow or riparian associated mice and voles (Ruggiero et al. 1994). Other prey species include deer mice, squirrels, birds, shrews, chipmunks, bushytailed woodrats, snowshoe hares, and mountain cottontail rabbits (Bull 2000; Ruggiero et al. 1994). Martens rely heavily on the cover of structurally complex forest stands to hunt for food while avoiding predators. During the marten’s summer breeding and kit-rearing season, Moriarty (2016) found that the odds of detecting a marten was 1,200 times less likely in openings and almost 100 times less likely in areas treated to reduce fuels, compared to structurally-complex forest stands. In the winter, heavy snow provides protection in open areas, essentially adding connectivity between stands. However, in areas with a low snowpack, there was virtually no difference in the martens’ movement from summer to winter (Moriarty et al. 2016). The Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan (1990) established Old Growth Management Areas (OGMA) (MA-15) to provide habitat for the marten and other old growth associated species. In all, 32,800 acres were allocated with the intention to maintain landscape ecology needs, preserve aesthetic or social old growth values, and provide old-growth habitat for wildlife. It was estimated that over the long-term (projected as remaining after 5 decades) old-growth forest would amount to approximately 270,200 acres (USDA FS 1990). There is one Old Growth Management Areas within the Lex project area, totaling 112 acres. There are no proposed treatments within the OGMA. The following tables show American marten snag and down wood habitat data as defined by DecAID. The data compiled in the tables below was based on wildlife habitat types and structural condition. Snags and down wood are discussed more in-depth beginning on page 141. Table 61. American Marten Preferred Snag Sizes.

American Marten Habitat Type


Snag Size (dbh in)

50% Snag Size (dbh in)


Eastside Mixed Conifer 23.9 30.6 40.5 Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir 9.8 27.6 53.3 Lodgepole Pine 12.3 28.7 51.9 Average for All Habitat Types 15.3 29.0 48.6

American Marten Use Type for all Habitat Types


Snag Size (dbh in)



Denning 20.8 31.6 46.6 Resting 3.81 25.7 57.11 Average for All Use Types 12.3 28.7 51.9

American Marten All Habitat and Use Types


Snag Size (dbh in)



Overall Average Snag Size 13.8 28.9 50.3

1 The 30% and 80% tolerance level are likely a result of high variance in the sample. It is not physically possible for a marten to rest inside a 3.8 inch dbh snag.

124

Table 62. American Marten Preferred Snag Densities.

American Marten Habitat Type

Snag Size (Small and Large) Density Tolerance Levels – Averages

30% Snag Density

(#/acre)

50% Snag Density

(#/acre)

80% Snag Density

(#/acre) Eastside Mixed Conifer 7.8 8.4 9.5 Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir –no data

Lodgepole Pine 11.8 12.8 14.4 Average for All Types 9.8 10.6 12.0

The above tables derived from the DecAID wildlife data suggest that American marten preferred habitat at the 50% tolerance level are snags at an average of 28.9” dbh with an average density of approximately 10.6 snags per acre. According to DecAID, snag density levels are below the 30% tolerance level for marten in the project area. The following table displays tolerance level information for down wood relative to the American marten for denning and resting in montane mixed conifer (MMC) and lodgepole pine (LPP). Table 63. Tolerance levels (T.L.) for American marten as Reported in DecAID for Down Wood Size and Density.

Type of Use

30% T.L. Down Wood Diameter

and % Cover


and % Cover


and % Cover Denning

and resting

MMC - 20.7 “ dbh – 0% LPP – 15.5” dbh – 11.3%

MMC - 26.1” dbh – 8.1% LPP – 20.7” dbh – 24.7%

MMC - 33.2” dbh – 0% LPP – 28.5”dbh – 44.6%

This table suggests that 50% of the individuals within a population of American marten utilize down wood <26.1 inches dbh in MMC and <20.7 inches dbh for LPP for denning and resting and 50% of the individuals within the population of American marten utilize areas with down wood >26.1 inches dbh in MMC and >20.7 inches dbh in LPP. According to DecAID, within the analysis area, percent of down wood cover is at or just below the 30% tolerance level. Through the Forest-wide assessment, American marten denning habitat was mapped across the entire Deschutes National Forest. Denning habitat was modeled in Wildhab using all plant association groups (PAGs) except juniper and ponderosa pine without the presence of lodgepole pine. Only dense stands were considered denning habitat except in the lodgepole pine and dry, cold white fir PAGs where open and dense were deemed suitable for denning. Those PAGs where lodgepole pine is an early seral species were also considered suitable denning habitat. Minimum dbh was defined as equal to or greater than 5 inches (Class 3) for lodgepole pine and equal to or greater than 15 inches (class 5) for the other PAGs. Table 64 summarizes this data.

125

Table 64. American Marten Reproductive Habitat within the Lex Vegetation Management Project Area, North Unit Diversion Dam-Deschutes River and Fall River-Deschutes River Watersheds, and Across the Deschutes National Forest.

Acres of American Marten Habitat in the

Project Area

Acres of American Marten Habitat in the North Unit Diversion


Acres of American Marten Habitat in the Fall River – Deschutes

River Watershed

Acres of American Marten Habitat on the

Forest

1,035 6,954 29,414 420,340 acres 0.2% of all American marten habitat on the

Forest.

2% of all American marten habitat on the

Forest

7% of all American marten habitat on the


Approximately 1,035 acres of mapped marten habitat occurs within the project area, which is 9% of the total project acres and 0.2% of the habitat available on the Forest. Across the Forest, marten habitat covers approximately 26% of the entire Deschutes National Forest. There are no observation records within the project area. There are seven observation records within the two watersheds, the most recent and nearest being adjacent to the project area in the Edison Area west of Lex. There were two observations at this site, which was a camera bait station targeting forest carnivores. Effects of the Actions Alternative 1 – No Action (Ecological Trend) The selection of this alternative would result in no immediate impact to the American marten or its habitat because no vegetation management actions would occur to reduce canopy cover or down wood within the project area. Over time, areas that are currently dense will open up due to the presence of root rot within the stands, increasing down wood levels (beneficial to marten habitat), but decreasing canopy cover (not beneficial to marten habitat). With an increase in fuel loading in the area, the risk of high intensity stand replacing fire increases. In other areas without root rot, tree densities would continue to increase, placing stress on the stand and inducing declining tree growth and health. These stands would not provide habitat for marten in the long-term. With no proposed action to add incrementally to the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable actions, there would be no cumulative impacts. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 - Direct and Indirect Impacts Table 65 displays the acres of potential marten habitat treated by the alternatives and the percentage of habitat impacted within the project area, watersheds, and Forest. Table 65. Lex Proposed Overstory Treatments in MIS Mapped American Marten Habitat.

Alt.

Acres of Marten Habitat

Treated in Lex

% of Total Acres of Marten Habitat





% of Total Acres of Marten


Watershed

% Total Acres of Marten


Forest

Alt. 2 536

NUDD – 89 FR - 447

51% 1% 2% 0.1%

Alt. 3 580 56% 1% 2% 0.1%

126

Alt.

Acres of Marten Habitat

Treated in Lex






% of Total Acres of Marten


Watershed

% Total Acres of Marten


Forest

NUDD – 92 FR - 488

Alt. 4 528

NUDD – 89 FR - 439

51% 1% 1% 0.1%

The Lex Project area proposes to treat 528 acres (Alt. 4), 536 acres (Alt. 2), and 580 acres (Alt. 3) of mapped American marten habitat. This equates to 51-56% of the total acres of mapped habitat available within the project area. The amount of habitat treated across the landscape is minimal at 1% within the North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River Watershed and 1-2% within the Fall River – Deschutes River Watershed, and across the Forest, 0.1% of the habitat. Table 66 displays the acres of mapped marten habitat treated by the alternatives and the treatment types that would be affecting habitat within the project area. Table 66. Overstory, Understory, and Fuels Treatments within MIS Mapped American Marten Habitat.




Alt. 2 536 44 381 77 523 9 83 Alt. 3 580 23 414 77 534 9 83 Alt. 4 528 45 373 77 362 9 83

The primary overstory treatments, within mapped American marten habitat are defined as lodgepole pine treatments (HOR/HCR) and uneven-aged management/selection cut, all of which will remove suitable habitat (dense canopy cover, multiple canopy layers, and structural complexity). Actions within the lodgepole pine stands (HCR and HOR) would be removing much of the lodgepole pine overstory and thinning the understory if there is one. The uneven-aged management/selection cut would maintain ponderosa pine as a long-term overstory and understory species. This would be accomplished by releasing the ponderosa pine, while removing the intermediate suppressed white fir and lodgepole pine. The goal of commercial thinning is primarily to maintain or improve tree growth, maintain or enhance forest health, and control species composition. Ponderosa pine are typically favored for retention over lodgepole or true fir. Generally, within treatment units, large snags would be avoided during logging activities, but due to OSHA regulations snags posing a hazard may be removed. Retention of downed wood to standard and guideline densities would continue to provide some log habitat for marten in the project area under all action alternatives, which may or may not be lost during post-sale activities (such as piling) or prescribed burning. Dead wood structure would be provided in the future due to the presence of large trees (larger than 20” dbh) that are not considered for thinning or removal, currently have decay agents, and will likely become snags or logs within a decade or sooner. These types of trees were often observed in the mixed conifer stands during field reconnaissance within the project area. Understory treatments would consist of Ladder Fuel Reduction and Pre-commercial Thinning. These types of treatments typically occur in stands that would not be habitat for marten or within units that have overstory treatments. Precommercial thinning within marten habitat would be used to manage the understory of these

127

stands where multi-layer canopy characteristics are desired. These treatements would space trees in a manner to increase growth potential. Similarly, ladder fuel reduction treatments are designed to reduce the potential for crown fire initiation and thus potential loss of the larger trees.These actions would set the stage for future habitat. Fuels treatments do not propose to remove any large trees. The fuels treatments would break up the fuel continuity and reduce the risk of a landscape scale fire event, which should reduce the risk to individual large snags and trees. The integrity of denning habitat components (for future use) should not be changed with these treatments. Prescribed burning could have the potential of changing large snags and trees into down wood and consume down wood that has been left on site. Burning prescriptions and pre-ignition fuels reduction could reduce the chance of losing large snags and down wood, but it is assumed that a percentage of large snags and down wood would be lost, even with Project Design Criteria to reduce this risk. Piling may occur in the lodgepole pine stands that are treated which would benefit this species by simulating habitat and cover in an open stand. Tables 67 and 68 show the preferred down wood diameter and density for marten prey species. Table 67. American Marten Prey Species Types Preferred Down Wood Diameter.

American Marten Prey Species and Analog by Habitat

Type

Down Wood Diameter (Small and Large) Tolerance Levels – Averages

30% DW Diameter

dbh (in.)

50% DW Diameter

dbh (in.)

80% DW Diameter

dbh (in.) Eastside Mixed Conifer – Small and Large

Southern Red-backed Vole 5.1 8.6 13.9 Deer Mouse 4.9 9.2 15.9

Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir – no data Lodgepole Pine – no data Average for All Types 5.0 8.9 14.9

Table 68. American Marten Prey Species Types Preferred Down Wood Density.

American Marten Prey Species Types by Habitat Type

Down Wood Density (Small and Large) Tolerance Levels – Averages

30% Snag Density

(% cover)

50% Snag Density

(% cover)

80% Snag

Density (% cover)

Eastside Mixed Conifer – no data NA Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir – Small and Large NA Golden-mantled Ground Squirrel 0.8 4.7 10.0 Lodgepole Pine – no data Average for All Types 0.8 4.7 10.0

The tables show data compiled from DecAID suggesting that 50% of potential marten prey species prefer downed wood to be on average of 9.2 inches diameter with coverage of 4.7 % of an area. Fuels treatments would likely have a detrimental impact to small mammals and insects that use downed fuels as habitat. These prey species make up approximately 84% of the marten’s prey (Bull 2000). All alternatives would treat within areas that provide denning, resting, and foraging habitat. The removal of dwarf mistletoes trees, especially large white fir (all alternatives would retain large white fir >30” dbh, providing future denning/resting habitat for marten) coupled with thinning and fuels treatments that would

128

reduce the amount of downed woody material and canopy closure contributes to the reduction of habitat. The reduction in ground cover and down wood from post-treatment activities would result in less physical structure near the ground that contributes to protection from raptor predation and would degrade marten foraging habitat since these actions reduce the quantity of cover habitat for marten prey species, thus a corresponding decrease in prey densities. Actions that would eliminate habitat would have long-term effects to marten populations that may utilize the habitat within the particular units treated because it is expected a stand would not meet habitat definitions for more than 20 years. Logging of the project area, if done during the denning months of March through July, could disrupt this process and/or harm adults and/or young that may be within the dens. Creation of temporary roads (4.76 to 5.79 miles) will open up access to areas not previously accessed by motorized vehicles, bicycles, and foot traffic. With this, 38.7 miles of Level 1 roads will be upgraded to allow for access for project implementation. Both will increase potential disturbance to marten that may utilize the area, but the impacts would be short term as the temporary roads will be obliterated and the 38.7 miles of Level 1 roads would be returned to being closed to the general public following project completion. An additional 6.7 miles of open roads will be reduced to Level 1 use (administrative vehicle use only), plus the obliteration/removal of user created trails (the number of miles is currently unknown) which would reduce the amount of land acreage accessed. See pages 22-26 of this report for a discussion on current road and trail densities within the project area and analysis area. Core habitat as it relates to disturbance is also discussed in this section. These road and trail closures would benefit marten by decreasing potential disturbance from humans. Depending on the alternative chosen, 39%-46% of the project area is not proposed for any treatment. This retention, plus leaving 15% of the seed-tree harvest areas in untreated clumps, would maintain the presence of mature stands widely distributed across the project area. This project would change and reduce the current connectivity that occurs, but the marten would still be able to move through the project area. Gopher trapping would occur within created openings where planting would occur. This activity would be short-term (5-10 years), would only occur during spring and summer months, and until the trees become large enough (about 5-6 feet tall). Marten do not typically forage in openings, so the trapping is not expected to affect the marten’s current prey base within the project area. It is possible they may forage along the edges of the openings. Connected activities (e.g. soil restoration, herbicide spraying and boraxing) would likely have negligible disturbance impacts to individuals. It is the overstory and understory treatments that have the larger impact (degrading or removing habitat). Cumulative Effects— Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable vegetation treatments in the North Unit Diversion Dam–Deschutes River and Fall River – Deschutes River watersheds would occur on approximately 8,454 acres of marten habitat. These treatments primarily include the following vegetation management projects: Rocket, West Bend, Junction, Kew and the UDR WUI. The primary treatments for all projects include: commercial thinning, mowing, and underburning. These treatments would have negative short-term (20-30 years) impacts due to a reduction in stand densities and canopy cover and down wood (some would be lost during prescribed burning) which would reduce marten denning and foraging habitat, and long-term positive benefits by accelerating the development of future larger tree structure and reducing the risk of habitat loss due to high intensity and/or stand replacing fire. The Lex Project would treat an additional 528 acres (Alt. 4), 536 acres (Alt. 2), or 580 acres (Alt. 3) of the available reproductive habitat in the watersheds depending on the alternative selected. Cumulatively, when the Lex Project is added to the other projects (using Alternative 3 since it would treat the largest acreage), approximately 25% of the marten habitat in the watershed would be treated (9,034 acres).

129

Along with the Rocket, West Bend, Junction, Kew, and UDRI WUI Vegetation Management Projects, the Lex Project may result in short-term negative cumulative effects to marten due to the loss/degradation of habitat in the watersheds from treatment activities. Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures—Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 The following Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures are applicable to marten and can be found in detail on pages 14 – 18 of this document: 13-22, and 27-31. Consistency Wildlife standard and guideline WL-63 will be assessed. This project would be consistent with the Forest Plan by adhering to the following Standards and Guidelines: Table 69. Standards and Guides for American Marten from the Forest Plan.

Standard and Guideline Do Not Meet,


Rationale

WL-63 – In preferred forest types, concentrations of down woody material will be left at an average of approx. one per acre after any timber harvest. Concentrations incorporating high tree stumps, logs, or snags are especially desirable. This structure would simulate naturally occurring debris in uncut forests.

Applicable

This project does not target large snags for removal. One slash pile or slash concentration per acre may need to be left for retention in specified treatment units.

This is written into this document as a Project Design Criteria and will further be addressed within the projects implementation plan. Maintaining these levels within areas that would be prescribed burned are not guaranteed. Monitoring should occur post project to determine what levels of down wood remain within project units. Determination/Conclusion (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) All action alternatives propose to treat a large amount of the available marten habitat within the project area. The selection and implementation of any action alternative would result in a long-term reduction of potential denning habitat due to a reduction in tree density and canopy closure. Alternative 3 (580 acres or 56% of available habitat) would have the greatest potential to impact the American marten (more potential denning, resting and foraging habitat treated and more miles of temporary road needed), then Alternative 2 (536 acres or 51% of the available habitat) while Alternative 4 (528 acres or 51%) would have the least impact of the three action alternatives (less potential denning, resting and foraging habitat treated overall and less need for temporary roads). It is assumed that marten would continue to be able to move through the project area with adjacent stands of habitat and untreated areas still providing these areas of connectivity. Overall, these treatments within Lex would be minor on a landscape scale, treating only 1-2% of marten habitat available within the North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River and Fall River – Deschutes River Watersheds, and 0.1% across the Forest. There would be a reduction in ground cover or down wood from the post-treatment activities, resulting in less physical structure near the ground that contributes to protection from raptor predation. Additionally, the action alternatives may degrade marten foraging habitat since these actions reduce the quantity of cover habitat for marten prey species, thus a corresponding decrease in prey densities. Project Design Criteria would be

130

incorporated to retain existing snags and down wood within Lex. Planned temporary roads would add short-term increased disturbance into marten habitat, and planned road and trail closures would decrease potential disturbance from humans. If a marten is denning within an area while logging activities are proceeding, this could negatively impact both the adults and their young. Based on these impacts and that this species is ranked Vulnerable (S3) by NatureServe (2015), the Lex Vegetation Management Project is expected to have a small negative impact to the American marten and its habitat. Because this project impacts aminimal 0.1% of suitable habitat across the Forest, the overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will result in a small negative trend of habitat and increased disturbance. This loss of habitat and increased disturbance will be insignificant at the scale of the Forest. The Lex Vegetation Management Project is consistent with the Forest Plan, and thus continued viability of the American marten is expected on the Deschutes National Forest. ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK, Cervus elephas AND MULE DEER, Odocoileus hemionus MIS Measures: Acres of hiding cover affected and miles of open road densities. Habitat Needs and Existing Condition Rocky Mountain Elk For a detailed assessment on elk biology, status, and habitat modeling for the Deschutes National Forest, please refer to the Species Assessments for Elk for the Forest (USDA FS 2012s). The elk was identified in the Forest Plan as a management indicator species (MIS) due to its socio-economic importance to the hunting community in Central Oregon and other neighboring communities. Elk management objectives (MOs) were developed with ODFW. The Forest and ODFW will cooperate in determining the level of habitat effectiveness needed to meet these objectives. Population objectives for both summer populations and winter populations are identified; annual monitoring is conducted by ODFW to determine the annual hunted population associated with the Deschutes National Forest Plan WL-42. The Forest tends to produce an understory dominated by shrubs consisting of bitterbrush, snowbrush (Ceanothus), and or manzanita. Bitterbrush occurs within the lower elevation more xeric ponderosa pine stands or lodgepole pine stands with well-drained soil types. Snowbrush and manzanita are associated with higher elevation ponderosa pine and mixed conifer stands. Over the last 20 years timber harvest on the Forest has changed from clear cutting/regeneration harvests to thinning from below with objectives of reducing stand densities, minimize the risk of stand replacing wildfire, and outbreaks of insects and disease. Generally, timber harvests reduce tree canopy cover which reduces shading and can favor the growth of snowbrush, manzanita, and at lower elevations, bitterbrush. These shrubs are not preferred forage by elk and many of these areas are avoided. Subsequently, prescribed fire with frequent reentry can reduce shrub densities and promote forage such as Idaho fescue, elk and Ross’s sedge. Reentry with fire can reduce shrub competition with grasses, sedges, and forbs. Grasses and forb production on the Forest typically occurs along streams and stringer meadows and as a result the majority of elk and key elk habitat areas (KEHAs) are associated with these areas (USDA FS 2012s). Elk herds are small and transient, moving long distances between suitable habitats across the Forest. Summer range for elk on the Bend/Ft. Rock includes the upper Deschutes River and Fall River Corridor and associated stringer meadows. As calves become more mobile in mid to late summer, these small herds begin to move out

131

of the drainages to higher elevations to find cooler and well-shaded areas. Typically, these higher elevations are where breeding takes place beginning in late summer or early fall. Elk travel large distances throughout these high elevation areas utilizing the Cascades and the various buttes west of Highway 97. Fewer elk occur east of Highway 97 and move greater distances between cover, from Walker Mountain on the southern end of the Forest, moving north using various buttes along the eastern fringe as well as Newberry Crater. Elk will continue to use these high elevation areas throughout the fall and into winter until snow accumulations force them to lower elevation habitats. Due to the size and hardiness of elk, they are not as susceptible to snow accumulation as mule deer and can sometimes overwinter without making drastic elevation changes (USDA FS 2012s). Roads and off-road recreational activities, such as ATV use and mountain biking, have substantial direct and indirect effects on herd productivity (Rowland et al. 2005). Hunting, in fact, is the main source of mortality for adult elk (Wisdom et al. 2000) outside national parks (Hal Salwasser, personal communication as cited in USDA FS 2012s) and in the absence of predator populations. Elk are more vulnerable to hunters in roaded areas than in unroaded areas. Roads also break large tracts of habitat into smaller blocks, reduce vegetative cover used by elk for security and act as a vector for exotic plant species. Elk exhibit higher stress levels and increased movement rates near roads. In addition, off-road recreation, which is increasing rapidly on public lands, also has a pronounced effect on elk behavior, causing them to flee to avoid ATVs, mountain bikes, and equestrians. Elk can spend a substantial amount of energy avoiding pervasive human disturbances. This energy cost may not be adequately accounted for in conventional assessments of elks’ nutritional condition (Johnson et al. 2005). Roads, mountain bike trails, and user-created motorcycle trails all occur within the Lex project area and are avenues for disturbance to the elk that do occur here (see the roads and trails analysis on pages 22-26.) Within the Lex project area, there are no Key Elk Habitat Areas and no known elk calving locations. Elk do utilize habitats within the Lex Project Area and their sign is seen often throughout the spring, summer, and fall. Both archery and rifle hunters can be found in the project area during the hunting season. The Lex project area occurs between two KEHAs, the Kiwa Key Elk Area and the Tumalo Mountain Key Elk Area. A study conducted by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in 1988 on collared elk revealed that elk will travel between these two KEHAs as well as the Ryan Ranch Key Elk Area further to the east throughout the year, with the Tumalo Key Elk Area used mostly during late summer when temperatures are higher in the lower elevations. Elk will continue to use these high elevation areas throughout the fall and into winter until snow accumulations force them to lower elevation habitats. The conservation status based on the NatureServe (2015) ranking indicate elk are “secure” (S5). Mule Deer Mule deer are primarily browsers, with a majority of their diet comprised of forbs and browse (leaves and twigs of woody shrubs). Shrubs make up a substantial portion of the mule deer dietary needs. Shrubs occur in mostly early successional habitats; those recently disturbed and going through natural process of maturing to a climax state. Presence and condition of the shrub component is an important factor affecting suitability of mule deer habitat. Mule deer populations may be entirely residential, entirely migratory, or contain both migratory and residential deer. Residential deer may shift areas of activity within their home ranges seasonally and may share winter range areas with migratory deer. Migratory deer make movements from high-elevation summer ranges to low-elevation winter ranges. Distance traveled by deer between summer and winter ranges have been recorded to range from 4 to 115 km. Studies completed by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) (Unpublished reports) in the late 1950’s indicated most deer in south-central Oregon winter in desert habitats and then migrate to forested habitats in the summer. There are four ODFW Wildlife Management Units (WMU) associated with the Deschutes National Forest: Metolius, Upper Deschutes, Paulina, and Ft. Rock. The Lex project area is located within the 882,474 acre

132

Upper Deschutes Management Unit. The project area represents roughly six percent of the entire management unit acreage. The conservation status based on the NatureServe ranking indicate the mule deer is secure globally, nationally, and state wide (USDA FS 2012l). The overall trend for mule deer populations for the state of Oregon and the Deschutes National Forest has been declining, and is currently below management objectives (M.O.). As a direct response, there has also been a decline in allowable harvest for both antlered and antlerless portions of the population in the Paulina and Metolius units. In the Upper Deschutes WMU, buck to doe ratios continue to meet M.O. and therefore allowable harvest has not changed from 2,200 available tags. However in all three hunt units, due to drastic declines in the population and low fawn recruitment, minimal antlerless harvest occurs. Fluctuations in mule deer populations can be attributed to several factors that directly or indirectly affect habitat. Drought conditions reduce forage and cover values, while severe winter weather conditions can result in large losses of deer. In 2005, ODFW began a study focusing on mule deer habitat selection between summer and winter range (East Slope Cascades Mule Deer Project). The study specifically looked at habitat selection between summer and winter range as it relates to various land use, such as major highways (specifically Hwy 97), urban development, open road densities, OHV activity, vegetative treatments, and other human related alterations to the landscape. Results from data gathered October 2005 to November 2010, showed the three primary factors that directly removed deer from the total number of deer collared (excluding legal harvest) #1 - poaching associated with open road densities, #2 – was predation from cougars and #3 -high traffic volumes and high deer mortality on Highways 97 and 31. Stankowich (2008) specifically identified humans on foot as more disturbing to ungulates than humans on horseback, on bicycles, or in cars. Other human activity impacts directly tied to increased roadways include increased poaching of mule deer, unregulated off-highway travel, and ignition of wildfires. Roads also serve as corridors for dispersal of invasive plants that degrade habitats (White and Ernst 2003). For the detailed assessment on the mule deer for the Deschutes National Forest, see the Forest-wide Species Assessment (USDA FS 2012l). The mule deer was chosen as a terrestrial MIS in the Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan (1990) (DLRMP) for its socio-economic importance to the hunting community within Central Oregon as well as other neighboring communities. The primary demand for wildlife within the DLRMP focuses on mule deer. Sportsman groups requested that mule deer populations be increased, some as high as maximum potential. The conservation status based on the NatureServe ranking indicate the mule deer is “secure” (S5) globally, nationally, and state wide (USDA FS 2012l). The Forest Plan established Management Area 7 (MA 7) to manage vegetation to provide optimum habitat conditions on deer winter and transition ranges, considering the optimum productivity of the land. MA -7 was identified to maintain optimum winter habitat for deer when they are conserving energy and in need of highly nutritious forage. Specific constituent elements consist of forage availability due to snow depth, hiding cover to avoid disturbance, and thermal cover to escape snow depth and cold temperature. Management of deer habitat outside of MA7 is designed to provide adequate habitat quantity and quality to meet MO’s. This requires a mosaic of forested conditions incorporating the concepts of security and thermal cover, travel corridors, visual screens, and harassment reduction from other activities, e.g. roads, hunting pressure, and other recreation use. Deer habitat outside of MA7 is considered summer range. The Lex Project area is not located within MA7 identified lands, therefore the entire project area is considered deer summer range. Deer summer range was identified within the Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan to provide management direction in forested stands at higher elevations that mule deer occupy from late spring to late fall. High quality forage is essential in summer range, providing nutrients for antler growth, milk production for lactating does, providing energy for the breeding season in late fall and maintaining reserves to assist with

133

winter survival. This type of high quality forage is provided by the development of nutrient rich early seral forbs and shrubs. High quality forage is produced by prescribed and wildfires and tree thinning which open stands enhancing shrub and forb production by reducing shading. Two primary standard and guidelines (S&G’s) which are associated with summer range, includes hiding cover and open road densities. Hiding cover is a habitat attribute that provides escapement from predation as well as avoidance from harassment potential by hunters and other recreation use. Road densities are used to mitigate habitat impacts from vegetation management (i.e. where hiding cover S&G’s cannot be met, road densities are used to further eliminate disturbance from an area). To assist in limiting disturbance to mule deer in summer range, the road densities objective should not exceed 2.5 miles per square mile. The guidelines for hiding cover states, “Hiding areas must be present over 30% of National Forest Land in each implementation unit, resulting in 70% of each implementation unit existing as a hiding area or within 600 feet of a hiding area. Black bark stands will not be used to measure conformance”. A separate set of guidelines are used to address “Black Bark Pine Management” which are second growth pine stands 60-80 years old. These stands provide very poor quality hiding cover due to the lack of horizontal structure and a single age class of trees (USDA FS 2012l). There are no black bark ponderosa pine stands within the Lex Project area. Summer range habitat was quantified by 10th field watersheds (Table 70) to correlate habitat on a larger landscape scale and 12th field subwatersheds (Table 71) to correlate habitat to a similar scale as a Forest vegetation management project and the implementation units that were once used for habitat analysis. Analyzing the 12th field subwatersheds also depicts a picture of where within that larger landscape the abundance or deficit in hiding cover may be and why, such as an abundance of black bark stands or fires to name a few. Table 70. Summer Range Hiding Cover Assessment by Watershed (HUC 10).

Watershed (HUC 10) Acres of Watershed (included in analysis) Acres of Hiding Cover % in Hiding Cover by

Watershed North Unit Diversion Dam-Deschutes River 78,459 22,294 28%

Fall River-Deschutes River 105,377 64,938 62%

As shown above, the current condition for the North Unit Diversion Dam–Deschutes River Watershed is already below (28%) Forest Plan S&G’s of 30% cover due to several subwatersheds (not within the Lex Project area) currently below 30% hiding cover (see Table 72). Hiding cover is abundant in the Fall River-Deschutes River Watershed at 62%. Table 71. Summer Range Hiding Cover Assessment by Subwatershed (HUC 12).

Watershed (HUC 10)

Subwatershed (HUC 12)

Acres of Subwatershed

Acres of Hiding Cover

% in Hiding Cover by Subwatershed

North Unit Diversion Dam-Deschutes River

Benham Falls-Deschutes River 18,337 5,629 31% Lava Island Falls-Deschutes

River 11,093 3,001 27%

Lockit Butte 8,220 4,691 57% Overturf Butte-Deschutes River 19,305 1,494 8%

Town of Sunriver 9,585 1,601 17% Town of Sunriver-Deschutes

River 11,919 5,878 49%

Deschutes Braid-Deschutes River 4,085 993 24%

Dutchman Creek 21,109 15,324 73%

134

Watershed (HUC 10)


Acres of Subwatershed

Acres of Hiding Cover

% in Hiding Cover by Subwatershed

Fall River-Deschutes River

Fall River 38,489 22,326 58% Pringle Falls-Deschutes River 15,026 8,544 57%

Siah Butte 10,921 9,466 87% Spring River 15,747 8,285 53%

The acre totals from the Species Assessment for the Benham Falls and Town of Sunriver Subwatersheds were updated during field reconnaissance of the Kew Vegetation Management Project. Four subwatersheds occur within the Lex Project area. A Forest Service biologist updated the acre totals from the Species Assessment for two of the three 12th field subwatersheds within the project area during the hiding cover analysis process as a result of field verification and GIS review while working on the Kew Vegetation Management Project. There were no updates for the Spring River acre totals, since field verification of hiding cover did not take place and non-forested acres were not originally included. The Benham Falls-Deschutes River Watershed acres for determining hiding/thermal cover is actually 18,337.42 acres. Cinder, Lava, Meadow and Water from plant association layers total 4,212.58 acres. These were included and used to determine cover percentages in the Species Assessment. Hiding cover was updated using the 2015 version of MIS in GIS. Elk hiding cover within the Ryan Ranch KEHA area of Kew was ground verified. Those acres not overlapping the deer hiding cover were added. The idea being if the vegetation is sufficient to provide hiding cover for elk, then it also provides cover for a smaller mule deer. This ended up totaling 5,629.40 acres of deer hiding cover, which is actually 30.7% of the watershed. The Town of Sunriver – Deschutes River acres for determining hiding/thermal cover is actually 11,919.19 acres. Cinder, Lava, Meadow and Water from plant association layers total 654.81 acres. Hiding cover was updated using the 2015 version of MIS in GIS. Elk hiding cover within the Ryan Ranch KEHA area of Kew was ground verified. Those acres not overlapping the deer hiding cover were added. This ended up totaling 5,877.94 acres of deer hiding cover, which is actually 49.3% of the watershed. The highlighted subwatersheds occur within the project area. Habitat modeling approximates 35,116 acres or 52% of hiding cover in the highlighted subwatersheds or 5% of the Forest-wide total. There are approximately 6,365 acres of hiding cover in the Lex Project Area. Three of the subwatersheds (Town of Sunriver – Deschutes River, Dutchman Creek and Spring River) are above the 30% hiding cover Forest Plan standard, while the Benham Falls – Deschutes River Subwatershed is currently at 31% hiding cover standard. The Standard and Guide for road density in relation to mule deer is 2.5 miles per square mile in order to limit disturbance in summer range. Current road densities within the watersheds are displayed in the table below. Three of the four subwatersheds are currently above the Forest Plan standard of 2.5 miles per square mile.

135

Table 72. Open Road Density in Deer Summer Range of the Subwatersheds within the Lex Project Area. Watershed (HUC 10)


Miles of Open Roads

Open Road Density mi./sq. mi

Fall River-Deschutes River Dutchman Creek 74.76 1.86

Fall River-Deschutes River Spring River 105.25 3.64


Benham Falls-Deschutes River 121.63 3.34


Town of Sunriver-Deschutes River 89.06 2.91

A detailed discussion of open road density and trail density, along with related actions within the Lex Project area can be found beginning on page 22 of this document. The current open road density within the Lex Project area is 2.9 mi. /sq. mi. The current trail density within the Lex Project area is 2.51 mi. /sq. mi. (this figure does not include the user created trail density). The total open road and trail density within the Lex Project area is 5.38 mi. /sq. mi. Three guzzlers within the project area are all in some form of disrepair and would need to be removed. Effects of the Actions Alternative 1 – No Action (Ecological Trend) There is no proposed action under this alternative; therefore, there would be no change from the existing condition. There would be no direct impacts to elk or mule deer habitat under this no action alternative. Over time, hiding cover would increase in the short-term with increasing stand densities (especially within the lodgepole pine stands). In the long-term, as stands mature and stand densities increase so does the risk of insects, disease, and wildfire which has been identified as a major factor contributing to the loss of hiding cover and thermal cover across the Forest. Development of new hiding cover patches would be dependent on disturbance events, such as fire and beetle outbreaks, creating conditions suitable for the development of a new age class of ponderosa pine. Disturbance species, such as ceanothus, provide an increased forage opportunity. This forage is beneficial to deer for approximately 10 to 15 years following a disturbance, after which nutrient levels diminish. Shrubs then begin to dominate burned stands and provide cover, but in many areas with broken terrain and low precipitation, shrubs are not robust enough to provide viable cover. No road closures, decommissioning, or restoration of user-created motorized trails within the project area would occur with the no action alternative. These open roads and trails would continue to contribute to disturbance and reduced habitat security for the elk and deer in the Lex project area. With no proposed action to add incrementally to the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable actions, there would be no cumulative impacts.

136

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 - Direct and Indirect Impacts Tables 73 and 74 display the current hiding cover conditions within the watersheds and subwatersheds that occur within the Lex Project area and the post-treatment conditions from each action alternative. Table 73. Lex Proposed Treatments in Deer Hiding cover by Watershed (HUC 10).

Watershed Name

Total Acres

Existing Mapped Hiding Acres

Existing % in

Hiding Cover

Treatment Acres within Mapped Deer Hiding Cover

Hiding Acres Post-Treatment

Post-Treatment Hiding Cover %


78,459 22,294 28% Alt. 2 - 615 Alt. 2 - 21,679 Alt. 2 – 27% Alt. 3 - 743 Alt. 3 - 21,551 Alt. 3 – 27% Alt. 4 - 548 Alt. 4 - 21,746 Alt. 4 – 27%

Fall River-Deschutes River 105,377 64,938 62%

Alt. 2 – 1,959 Alt. 2 – 62,979 Alt. 2 – 60% Alt. 3 – 2,205 Alt. 3 – 62,733 Alt. 3 – 60% Alt. 4 – 1,701 Alt. 4 – 63,237 Alt. 4 – 60%

When looking at the reduction in hiding cover within summer range by watershed, the North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River, which is already below Forest Plan S&G’s is reduced further by 1%. The Fall River – Deschutes River Watershed has a 2% reduction in cover, but remains above Forest Plan S&G’s. Table 74. Lex Proposed Treatments in Deer Hiding cover by Subwatershed (HUC 12).

Subwatershed Name

Total Acres

Existing Mapped Hiding Acres

Existing % in

Hiding Cover

Treatment Acres within Mapped Deer Hiding Cover

Hiding Acres Post-Treatment

Post-Treatment Hiding Cover %

Benham Falls-Deschutes River

18,337 5,629 31% Alt. 2 - 607 Alt. 2 - 5,022 Alt. 2 - 27% Alt. 3 - 724 Alt. 3 - 4,905 Alt. 3 - 27% Alt. 4 - 546 Alt. 4 - 5,083 Alt. 4 - 28%

Town of Sunriver-Deschutes River

11,919 5,878 49%

Alt. 2 - 8 Alt. 2 - 5,870 Alt. 2 - 49% Alt. 3 - 19 Alt. 3 - 5,859 Alt. 3 - 49%

Alt. 4 -2 Alt. 4 - 5,876 Alt. 4 - 49%

Dutchman Creek 21,109 15,324 73%

Alt. 2 - 1,578 Alt. 2 - 13,746 Alt. 2 - 65% Alt. 3 - 1,764 Alt. 3 - 13,560 Alt. 3 - 64% Alt. 4 - 1,369 Alt. 4 - 13,955 Alt. 4 - 66%

Spring River 15,747 8,285 53% Alt. 2 - 381 Alt. 2 - 7,904 Alt. 2 - 50% Alt. 3 - 441 Alt. 3 - 7,844 Alt. 3 - 50% Alt. 4 - 332 Alt. 4 - 7,953 Alt. 4 - 51%

Of the four subwatersheds considered in this analysis, only one, the Benham Falls – Deschutes River Subwatershed (within the North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River Watershed) would be below Forest Plan Standards & Guides of 30% cover post-treatment. Table 75 displays the acres of mapped deer hiding cover habitat treated by the alternatives and the treatment types that would be affecting habitat within the project area.

137

Table 75. Overstory, Understory, and Fuels Treatments within MIS Mapped Deer Hiding Cover Habitat. Understory Treatments Acres Fuels Treatment Acres



Alt. 2 2,574 427 2,397 259 2,364 366 505 Alt. 3 2,948 398 2,542 259 2,459 366 505 Alt. 4 2,249 436 2,073 259 1,859 366 505

Overstory treatments are not expected to impact current hiding cover for elk and mule deer because by definition hiding cover is determined at the height of an animal (which is well below the overstory) and the understory growth/density (i.e. tree regeneration, shrub growth). The overstory can have impacts to the future of hiding cover by influencing the growth and density of the understory. In the mixed conifer stands, thinning of the overstory may promote growth of an understory, however the subsequent precommercial thinning and ladder fuels reduction would reduce this density. In the lodgepole stands, seed-tree cutting to reduce dwarf mistletoe would aid in the development of the understory and thus hiding cover. Whipfalling would reduce this development, but retention guidelines (15% retained within units) would minimize the impacts of whipfalling. Mastication would also remove hiding cover. Precommercial thinning would be used to manage the understory of those stands where multi-layer canopy characteristics are desired. Similarly, ladder fuel reduction treatments are designed to reduce the potential for crown fire initiation. Whip falling removes any silviculturally undesirable small trees remaining after overstory treatments. Fuels treatments consisting of mastication is usually followed by underburning. The fuels treatments would break up the fuel continuity and reduce the risk of a landscape scale fire event. Mastication is used to reduce the height of live brush and/or prepare units for underburning. This consists of mowing brush in and around stands typically to facilitate underburning using prescribed fire. The targeted brush species are bitterbrush, ceanothus and manzanita and may include natural regeneration that is not desired for stand stocking. Prescribed burning would likely remove shrub species and remaining seedling/sapling size trees. Fuels treatments would likely remove remaining hiding cover left after understory treatments and would remove any browse from the area. Those areas that receive both treatments would have diminished amounts of browse available for approximately 10 years following treatment. Since the project area is higher elevation and has a short-growing season, hiding cover is not expected to return quickly. For the long-term hiding cover will remain patchy within this small portion of the watersheds. The loss and slow return of hiding cover would negatively impact elk and mule deer within the Benham Falls – Deschutes River Subwatershed, as it is at or below Forest Plan Standards and Guides. For elk, overstory treatments would reduce the canopy cover in stands to allow for grass and forb growth. Fuels treatments including burning would help to keep brush cover down within these units. These actions would benefit elk and the vegetation they prefer. Table 76 displays the current open road densities within the subwatersheds and what the densities would be post-project.

138

Table 76. Current Open Road Density in Deer Summer Range for the Subwatersheds that Occur Within the Lex Project Area and the Road Density Post-Project.


Miles of Open Roads

Open Road Density

mi./sq. mi

Miles of Open Roads Post-Project

all Alternatives

Miles of Open Road Density Post-Project

all Alternatives Dutchman Creek 68.67 2.08 68.17 2.07 Spring River 105.25 4.28 102.98 4.19 Benham Falls-Deschutes River 121.63 3.45 117.88 3.35

Town of Sunriver-Deschutes River 89.06 4.53 89.06 2.91

Creation of temporary roads (4.76 to 5.79 miles) will open up access to areas not previously accessed by motorized vehicles, bicycles, and foot traffic. Temporary roads are generally closed to public access, but they do get used. With this, 38.7 miles of Level 1 roads will be upgraded to allow for access for project implementation. Both of these would temporarily increase road density within the project area, which is already at 2.9 mi/mi2, and thus increase potential disturbance to elk and mule deer that may utilize the area. The impacts of this would be short-term as the temporary roads will be obliterated and the 38.7 miles of Level 1 roads would be returned to being closed to the general public following project completion. An additional 6.7 miles of open roads will be reduced to Level 1 use (administrative vehicle use only), which would reduce the amount of land acreage accessed and would benefit elk and mule deer habitat (See Table 14). Reduction in road density helps to offset the loss of hiding cover and reduces a vector of human disturbance on big game in the project area. There are also user-created motorized trails within the project area that are contributing to the overall disturbance to these animals (the number of miles is unknown). Where these trails occur within units, they will be obliterated. Without obliterating all of the trail system, it is likely that trails will return in or near their current locations. See pages 22-26 of this report for a discussion on current road and trail densities within the project area and analysis area. User-created trail densities are not included in this analysis. Core habitat as it relates to disturbance is also discussed in that section. Currently 3,476 acres (29%) of the 11,934 acres within the Lex Project area meets the definition of Core Habitat. After planned road closures, approximately 3,701 acres (31%) of the 11,934 acres within the Lex Project area would meet the above definition of Core Habitat. Herbicide spraying is not expected to have a negative impact on deer or elk. The total acres of potential vegetation impacted would be 85 acres (Alt. 4), 97 acres (Alt. 2), or 107 acres (Alt. 3). This is minimal compared to the overall foraging capability of these species across the project area. Connected activities (e.g. piling, soil restoration, gopher trapping and boraxing) would likely have negligible disturbance impacts to individuals. It is the treatments that impact hiding cover and forage that have the larger impact (deteriorating or removing habitat). Cumulative Effects— Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 Improvements to ungulate foraging habitat across the analysis area may occur to varying degrees through mowing, underburning and thinning treatments. These will likely occur over a large portion of the analysis area (commercial thinning expected over 15% of the analysis area, precommercial thinning 6%, underburning 25% and mowing 11%) could result in improved forage quality/quantity and improved small openings/edge habitat. The proposed action would contribute to these effects, although implementation is likely to be staggered and occur over a long period – resulting in a mosaic of conditions across the analysis area. Impacts expected as a result of foreseeable future treatments in the analysis area are largely focused on a loss of hiding cover. This will result mostly from midstory treatments (notably ladder fuel reduction/precommercial thinning, expected on

139

6% of the analysis area). Impacts to hiding cover are particularly noteworthy due to a high potential for disturbance in this area from year-round recreation use and high route densities. Disturbance may cause additional stress and energy expenditure from animals, and result in altered movement patterns, and reduced reproduction and survival rates. Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable vegetation treatments in the Benham Falls – Deschutes River, Town of Sunriver – Deschutes River, Dutchman Creek and Spring River Subwatersheds would occur on approximately 3,810 acres of summer range hiding cover. These treatments primarily include the following vegetation management projects: Rocket, West Bend, Junction, Kew and the UDR WUI. The primary treatments for all projects include commercial thinning, mowing, and underburning. The Lex Vegetation Management Project would add incrementally to ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions within the watersheds by treating up to an additional 2,249 acres (Alt. 4), 2,575 acres (Alt. 2), or 2,948 acres (Alt. 3) of the existing summer range hiding cover in the watersheds depending on the alternative chosen. Hiding cover for summer range across the Forest exceeds Forest Plan standards and guidelines with 45% of the entire summer range area providing hiding cover. Commonly, those watersheds that are below hiding cover standards forest-wide have typically received landscape scale stand-replacing fire in the last 10 years or are dominated by black-bark ponderosa pine stands. The ongoing projects, in combination with the proposed Lex Project are expected to result in small negative short-term cumulative effects due to the reduction in hiding cover. Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures—Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 The following Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures are applicable to mule deer (and therefore benefit elk) and can be found in detail on pages 14 – 18 of this document: 11, 12, 23, 24, 27-29, and 32. Consistency Wildlife standards and guidelines WL-53 - WL-58 will be assessed. This project would be consistent with the Forest Plan by adhering to the following Standards and Guidelines:

140

Table 77. Summer Range S&G’s.

Standard and Guideline Do Not Meet, Meets, Not Applicable Rationale

WL-53 - < 2.5 mi. per sq. mile of Open road density Moves towards

With proposed road closures, the post-activity project area open road density would be 2.5 mi per sq. mile.

WL-54 –Hiding areas must be present over at least 30 percent of National Forest Lands within each implementation unit (watershed/subwatershed).

Does not meet

The North Unit Diversion Dam Watershed is already 2% below Forest Plan S&G’s. The project would drop it down by another 1%.

WL-54 - Six acre or larger stand capable of hiding 90% of a standing adult deer at 200 feet. WL-54 - Six acres or larger stand with an average height of 6 feet and has not been thinned in 15 years

Applicable

Untreated areas (> 6 acres patches) that have not been treated in over 15 years would be left within treatment units and throughout the project area. Many of these areas are denser and can hide an adult deer from view. Approximately 50-57% of the project area remains untreated in patches >6 acres.

WL-54 - Residual clumps of ½ acre or larger stands within units with advanced regeneration and at least 12 greater than 7 dbh per acre remaining after harvest. Clumps should be located away from roads.

Applicable

Regenerating understory and retention areas in seed-tree units would be retained to provide screening in stands. Untreated areas within project area would continue to provide cover.

WL-55 – Hiding areas will be dispersed throughout the implementation unit. WL-56 – Travel corridors will be provided where needed.

Meets

Untreated areas are dispersed throughout the project area; these areas would provide travel corridors as well.

WL-57 – Hiding areas are assumed to provide suitable thermal cover on summer range.

Applicable

Hiding areas that would be left would provide anywhere from 30% to >60% overstory canopy cover.

WL-58 – If possible, a narrow strip of trees should be left along roads to reduce view distances.

Applicable

Some treatment units may leave strips of trees along roadways, but a majority of treatments would not as part of the roadside fuels treatments.

This is written into this document as a Project Design Criteria and will further be addressed within the projects implementation plan.

141

Determination/Conclusion (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) The Lex Project alternatives will impact hiding cover in summer range at the watershed and subwatershed level. One of the two watersheds that occur within the project area, the North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River Watershed, is already below Forest Plan S&G’s at 28%. By implementing the Lex project, this standard and guide would be reduced by 1%. The combined total hiding cover for the four subwatersheds in Lex would be reduced to varying degrees based on the alternative selected. Regardless of which alternative is selected, three of the four subwatersheds stay above the Forest Plan Standard and Guide for hiding cover. Benham Falls – Deschutes River would fall below the standard and guide by 2% with Alternative 4 and 3% with Alternatives 2 and 3. Forage opportunities within units receiving mastication and underburn treatments would be reduced or removed for approximately 5 to 10 years until browse species return. This may impact deer where it would benefit elk that would utilize areas more dominated by grasses instead of shrubs. Untreated areas within the project boundary would continue to provide forage for both species. Sufficient habitat exists to maintain the viability of these species in the watersheds and across the Forest and the project area would continue to provide habitat to meet the Forest Plan objectives by retaining hiding cover and maximizing foraging opportunities. Over time, approximately 10-20 years after completion, treatments in the Lex Project would result in the future development of hiding cover while maintaining viable foraging habitat in the project area and in the watersheds. Implementation of the Lex Project is consistent with the Forest Plan standards and guidelines for mule deer hiding cover in the Town of Sunriver, Dutchman Creek, and Spring River Subwatersheds, but is not consistent within the Benham Falls Subwatershed. All three-action alternatives would reduce the total open road density in summer range in the North Unit Diversion Dam-Deschutes River watershed, and the Fall River – Deschutes River Watersheds. The open road density reduction and user created trail removal would greatly reduce human caused disturbance to mule deer and elk. Implementation of the Lex Project is consistent with the Forest Plan standard and guideline for mule deer open road densities (road density is not increasing). Based on the impacts described above and that these species are ranked “secure” (S5) by NatureServe (2015), the Lex Vegetation Management Project is expected to have a small negative impact to elk and mule deer and their habitat. Although hiding cover would be reduced below standards and guides within one subwatershed the project occurs within, the open road densities within the project area decrease from 2.9 mi/mi² to 2.5 mi/mi² and core habitat should increase from 26% to 31%. The overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will result in a small negative trend of habitat and increased disturbance. This loss of habitat and increased disturbance will be insignificant at the scale of the Forest. The Lex Vegetation Management Project is consistent with the Forest Plan, and thus continued viability of elk and mule dee is expected on the Deschutes National Forest. SNAGS AND DOWN WOOD Measure: Consistency with the Deschutes LRMP (USDA FS 1990), Deschutes Wildlife Tree and Log Implementation Strategy (USDA FS 1994), snag guidelines and the Northwest Forest Plan down wood guidelines (USDA USDI 1994). Dead wood (standing or down) plays an important role in overall ecosystem health, soil productivity and habitat for numerous wildlife species. Many bird and mammal species rely on dead wood for dens, nests, resting, preening, roosting, perching, courtship, drumming, hibernating and/or feeding for all or parts of their life cycle.

142

A snag is defined as a dead tree that is over 10 inches dbh and taller than 10 feet. Snags come in all sizes and go through breakdown and decay processes that change their characteristics and potential uses for wildlife through time. Not every stage of the snag’s decay is utilized by the same species, but rather a whole array at various stages or conditions. The most notable species that use snags are the primary cavity nesters (e.g. woodpeckers and nuthatches) that excavate nest cavities in decayed wood in standing trees. Vacated cavities are subsequently used by many other birds and small mammals (i.e. secondary cavity users). The American marten is known to use larger cavities for resting, and some bat species roost underneath bark sloughing off from snags. Snags are the main contributors to down wood which provide organic and inorganic nutrients in soil development, microhabitats for invertebrates, plants, amphibians, and other small vertebrates, and structure for riparian associated species in streams and ponds. Down woody material is considered to be dead and down material that is greater than 5 inches in diameter (Mellen-McLean et al. 2012). Down woody material (DWM), or logs, can be considered as either places animals forage or places that afford them protection. Besides hiding cover and protection, logs provide physically complex structures where animals find stable temperatures and moisture for nesting, denning, feeding, and food storage (Bull et al. 1997). Size, distribution, and orientation may be more important than tonnage or volume. The smaller logs can benefit small mammals, amphibians, and reptiles, for which they function primarily as escape cover and shelter when the animal can get inside or under the log. Large diameter logs, especially hollow ones, also benefit a variety of other vertebrates lake martens, minks, coyotes, bobcats, cougars, and black bears. Bears will use hollow logs for winter dens, and forage for invertebrates in logs during the summer and fall. Fishers are known to use hollow logs for denning, along with decaying or dead trees (Bull et al. 1997). Small mammals use logs extensively as runways, making these areas important for birds of prey or other mammals that feed on these small mammals. Large numbers of downed trees (i.e. “jackstraw condition”) can provide critical structure for some mammals. Marten, mink, and cougar hunt in them; when snow covers the logs, a complex array of snow-free spaces and runways provide important habitat for protection and foraging by martens, fishers, and small mammals under the snow. Tree squirrels also spend much of the winter in this type of environment, feeding on seeds from stashed cones (Bull et al. 1997). The Deschutes National Forest Wildlife Tree and Log Implementation Strategy (WLTL) provides guidance and options for meeting the snag, green tree replacements (GTRs), and down log objectives on the forest, regardless of management direction (USDA FS 1994). This strategy focuses on the treatment unit as the area of accountability for meeting WLTL objectives. It states that “Snags, GTRs, and down logs will not be provided on every acre in the forested ecosystem. A mosaic distribution of WLTL resources on the landscape maintaining viable populations and ecological functions is the desired condition.” Current literature and research at the time, as well as incorporating the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) and the Eastside Screen amendment, were used to develop the number of hard snags (recent dead standing snag) needed by each species to support various percentages of their population. Habitat requirements, including snag and down woody material levels, were described in the LRMP and amended Eastside Screens (1994) for a variety of wildlife species using information known at the time. However, more recent empirical studies indicate that snag numbers and sizes selected by some wildlife species are far higher than those calculated using the maximum potential population method (Bull et al. 1997, Rose et al. 2001). This suggests that the LRMP direction (WL-37 S&G) for primary excavators may not represent the most current knowledge of managing for cavity nesters and that these snag levels, under certain conditions, may not be adequate for some species, particularly for secondary cavity nesters and post-fire conditions. DecAID DecAID is used in this analysis as a reference and resource to display affects. It is not used to set snag or down wood levels for the project area. DecAID is a web-based dataset, it is not a model. It is a synthesis of all of the best available research on dead wood. DecAID does not provide information on all life needs of a given

143

species. It integrates current research/studies on wildlife use of dead wood (snags, down wood, dead portions of live trees) in various habitat types, and from this, tolerance levels are generated. Tolerance level is the percent of the studied wildlife population that would use a density of snags or down wood. For example, the following table shows the tolerance levels for white-headed woodpeckers. For a population of 100 individual white-headed woodpeckers, at the 50 percent tolerance level, 50 of them would use habitat with at least 1.7 snags per acre greater than or equal to 10 inches in diameter. Basically, the higher the tolerance level, the more assurance that you are providing habitat to meet the needs of more individuals in the population (Mellen-McLean et al. 2012). Tolerance intervals were used to determine habitat levels in the planning area. A tolerance interval includes the range of snag density between tolerance levels. Using the example below, the 30-50 percent tolerance interval would be habitat with more than 0.3 snags per acre and less than or equal to 1.7 snags per acre. The 0-30 percent category is included (where 0 values are actually greater than 0) as it provides habitat for a few individuals. A zero category is included in the analysis showing what acreage does not provide habitat. For all tables that express a range such as in Table 78 and later in HRV analysis, the lower range is greater than that value and the upper number is less than or equal to the higher value. For example, for the tolerance level 0-30% the values in that category represent values greater than zero and less than or equal to 30%, 30%-50% are values greater than 30%, less than or equal to 50%, and 80% + are values equal to or greater than 80%. Table 78. Example of Tolerance Levels and Intervals Developed from DecAID Information.

Habitat type and Table used from DecAID: Table PPDF_S/L.sp-22; Species: White-headed Woodpecker

Minimum DBH ≥10" ≥20"

Tolerance Level

30% 50% 80%

30% 50% 80%

Snag Density (#/acre)

0.3 1.7 3.7

0.5 1.8 3.8

Tolerance Interval 0-30% 30-50% 50 -80% 80%+ 0-30% 30-50% 50 -80% 80% +

Snag Density (#/acre) >0-0.3 0.3 - 1.7 1.7-3.7 3.7+ >0-0.5 0.5-1.8 1.8-3.8 3.8+

Often times, DecAID only has one study available to base tolerance levels on. While applying findings from a single research site to another area is not always wholly applicable, at this time DecAID provides the best available science to determine effects to a species. Used as a comparison for effects across all alternatives, it can be a useful tool. Tolerance levels do not equate to population potential, nor imply viability, but they are assumed to indicate habitat at varying snag densities. More information on DecAID can be found on the website at: www.fs.fed.us/wildecology/decaid/decaid_background/decaid_home.htm Dead Wood HRV Analysis Besides data from wildlife studies, DecAID also uses vegetation data. DecAID defines habitat types utilizing existing condition not potential vegetation. Forest vegetation described as plant association groups (PAGs) are defined by potential vegetation. These do not necessarily equate to each other. Ponderosa pine dominated mixed conifer sites would be in the ponderosa pine habitat type for DecAID, but as mixed conifer PAG in discussions on vegetation. The DecAID habitat types are applied only in the dead wood analysis. The DecAID Advisor (Mellen-McLean et al 2012) was used as the best available science for the Lex Vegetation Management Project snag analysis. DecAID is a web-based advisory tool that helps managers evaluate effects of forest conditions and existing or proposed management activities on organisms that use snags and down

http://www.fs.fed.us/wildecology/decaid/decaid_background/decaid_home.htm

http://www.fs.fed.us/wildecology/decaid/decaid_background/decaid_home.htm

144

wood. It is a summary, synthesis, and integration of published scientific literature, research data, wildlife databases, forest inventory databases, and expert judgment and experience. DecAID is used to estimate sizes and densities of dead wood that provide habitat for many species and ecological processes. It presents information on the range of natural conditions (as represented by unharvested plots within the plots sampled), current conditions (all plots sampled, including both unharvested and harvested plots), and wildlife use. The terms Historical Range of Variability (HRV), Natural Conditions, and Historical Conditions in DecAID are sometimes used interchangeably to indicate conditions which occurred on the landscape prior to the influence of European settlement. Because it is difficult to determine the actual snag and down wood levels prior to European settlement, the term Reference Condition is used in DecAID when referring to the use of vegetation inventory data reported in DecAID based on data from unharvested plots. When using the natural condition of snag and down wood distribution represented by the summary of forest inventory data from unharvested inventory data in DecAID, caution should be used due to years of fire exclusion. The vegetation data can help determine the natural range of variability for dead wood, which can be used as a proxy for HRV. It is assumed that adequate habitat will be provided because species which survived those levels of habitat in the past are present today. The more that current conditions deviate from HRV, the less likely it is that adequate habitat occurs on the landscape to sustain those species. Snag and down wood levels are best analyzed at scales of subwatersheds or greater (Mellen-McLean et al. 2012). Snags and down wood will be addressed as they relate to size, density, and distribution by habitat type for the entire analysis area, which is considered the zone of influence for measuring cumulative effects. DecAID uses vegetation inventory plots to approximate “natural” or “historic” levels of dead wood. This data was used to develop dead wood density HRV at the Forest-level and used for this analysis. Because the DecAID data is from a regional landscape level, the minimum land area needed for using this data is at least 12,800 acres (Mellen-McLean et al. 2012). The Lex project area is located within two HUC 12 watersheds, the North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River and Fall River – Deschutes River Watersheds. These watersheds are analyzed together as approximately 61% of the project area occurs within the North Unit Diversion Dam Watershed and approximately 39% of the project occurs within the Fall River Watershed. As a minimum, 12,800 acres of each habitat type should occur to meet the best available science criteria for describing the project effects to dead wood using the DecAID tool. The analysis area (both watersheds) is composed of four major wildlife habitat types (WHTs): eastside mixed conifer/east Cascades/Blue Mountains (EMC_ECB), lodgepole pine (LP), montane mixed conifer (MMC), and ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir (PPDF), as shown below in Table 79. These are generally distributed as low elevation (PPDF), mid-elevation (LP) and high elevation (EMC_ECB and MMC) within the watersheds. Although the ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir (PPDF) and montane mixed conifer (MMC) habitat type is found in the analysis area, it was not analyzed further in the DecAID Analysis. Within the project area, these acres are low, at 789 acres for MMC and 80 acres for PPDF. These habitat types are either not proposed for treatment or past treatments have already occurred. Table 79. Proportion of Habitat Types in the Analysis Area and the Lex Project Area.

Habitat Type

Acres in the North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River

Watershed

Acres in the Fall River – Deschutes River Watershed

Acres in Project Area

Eastside Mixed Conifer (EMC) 14,717 (21%) 19,765 (19%) 3,530 (31%) Lodgepole Pine (LP) 15,405 (22%) 47,406 (47%) 7,085 (62%) Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir (PPDF) 40,323 (57%) 27,306 (27%) 80 (0.7%) Montane Mixed Conifer (MMC) 427 (0.6%) 6,912 (7%) 789 (7%)

Total 70,872 (100%) 101,389 (100%) 11,484 (100%)

145

The total acres do not include non-forested or lands other than Forest Service. Snags Existing Condition Small Snags in the Analysis Area Figures 21 and 22 show the averages for all snags (EMC and LP) >10 inches dbh within the North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River Watershed (NUDD) and the Fall River – Deschutes River Watershed.

Figure 21. NUDD/Fall River Small Snags within EMC. Figure 22. NUDD/Fall River Small Snags within LP. For eastside mixed conifer snags >10 inches dbh within the analysis area, the current condition has approximately 7% greater area within the habitat type with no snags as compared to the reference condition. The notable conditions are the 0-6 and 6-12 snags/acre categories, which are 8% and 5% above reference respectively; and the 12-24 snags/acre category, which is 8% below the reference condition. The 24-36 snags/acre category is only 2% below the reference condition and the >36 snags/acre is right at reference condition. To summarize, the analysis area for all EMC snags is predominantly characterized by 34% of the habitat type with 0-6 snags/acre, 19% of the habitat type with 6-12 snags/acre, 9% of the habitat type with 12-24 snags/acre, 5% of the habitat type with 24-36 snags/acre, and 6% of the habitat type with >36 snags/acre. 27% of the habitat type does not have any snags within the analysis area. For lodgepole pine snags >10 inches dbh within the analysis area, the current condition has 24% more area within that habitat type without snags compared to the reference condition. Notably, only the 0-6 snags/acre category is above reference conditions (by 3%), while all other categories are 7% below reference conditions. To summarize, the analysis area for all lodgepole pine snags is predominantly characterized by 22% of the habitat type with 0-6 snags/acre, 10% of the habitat type with 6-12 snags/acre, 8% of the habitat type with 12-24 snags/acre, 1% of the habitat type with 24-36 snags/acre, and 1% of the habitat type with >36 snags/acre. 58% of the lodgepole pine habitat type does not have any snags within the analysis area. Large Snags in the Analysis Area Figures 23 and 24 show the averages for large snags (EMC and LP) >20 inches dbh within the North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River Watershed and the Fall River – Deschutes River Watershed.

0 0-6 6-12 12-24 24-36 >36Reference 20 26 14 17 7 6Current 27 34 19 9 5 6

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

% o

f WHT

in W

ater

shed

Snags/acre

NUDD/Fall River-Deschutes River WatershedEastside Mixed Conifer WHT; Snags >10"

Comparison of reference & current conditions and wildlife 50% TLs

Black-backed WP13.6 snags/acre

Pileated WP30.1 snags/acre

Williamson's sapsucker28.4 snags/acre

White-headed WP1.9 snags/acre

American marten12.8 snags/acre

Black-backed WP (PF)81.1 snags/acre

Northern flicker (PF)48.0 snags/acre

Hairy WP (PF)63.3 snags/acre

White-headed WP (PF)40.0 snags/acre

0 0-6 6-12 12-24 24-36 >36Reference 34.4 18.6 17.4 14.6 7.8 7.9Current 58 22 10 8 1 1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

% o

f the

WHT

in W

ater

shed

Snags/acre

NUDD/Fall River-Deschutes River Watershed Lodgepole Pine WHT; Snags >10"

Comparison of reference & current conditions and wildlife TLs

American Marten30% TL - 50% TL - 80% TL

11.8 spa - 12.8 spa - 14.4 spa

146

Figure 23. NUDD/Fall River Large Snags within EMC. Figure 24. NUDD/Fall River Large Snags within LPP. For eastside mixed conifer snags >20 inches dbh within the analysis area, the current condition has approximately 12% greater area with no snags as compared to the reference condition. The notable conditions are the 0-2 snags/acre category, which is 7% above reference condition and the 6-10 snags/acre category, which is 11% below the reference condition. The other categories are 2% below (>=18 snags/acre), 4% below (4-6 snags/acre), 6% below (10-18 snags/acre), and 4% above (2-4 snags/acre). To summarize, the analysis area for large EMC snags is predominantly characterized by 22% of the habitat type with 0-2 snags/acre, 20% of the habitat type with 2-4 snags/acre, 7% of the habitat type with 4-6 snags/acre, 1% of the habitat type with 6-10 snags/acre, and 0% of the habitat type with 10-18 or >=18 snags/acre. 50% of the EMC habitat type does not have any large snags within the EMC habitat type. For lodgepole pine snags >20 inches dbh within the analysis area, which are now and have historically been rare, the current condition has approximately 5% greater area with no snags as compared to the reference condition. The notable conditions are the 2-4 snags/acre category, which is 6% below reference condition. To summarize, the analysis area for large lodgepole pine snags is predominantly characterized by 10% of the habitat type with 0-2 snags/acre, 3% of the habitat type with 2-4 snags/acre, 1% of the habitat type with 4-6 snags/acre, and 0% of the habitat type with 6-10, 10-18, or >+18 snags/acre. 85% of the lodgepole pine habitat type does not have any large snags within the analysis area. Down Wood Existing Condition It is estimated that about 90% of all snags are likely to fall within 14 years (Mitchell and Preisler 1998). This influx of snags to down wood will increase the amount of down wood in the area. In the mixed conifer areas, where there are trees other than lodgepole pine killed by insects, these trees will be able to provide a more consistent supply of dead wood material because the greater tree species diversity has retained a larger amount of green trees for later downed wood recruitment. Down wood abundance on the Deschutes National Forest is highly variable due to many factors. The Deschutes National Forest lies on the eastside of the Cascades where there is a limited availability of water and nutrients as compared to the west side of the Cascades. Plant associations groups that tend to be drier (i.e. ponderosa pine) tend to have lower levels of down wood. Small Down Wood in the Analysis Area Figures 25 and 26 show the averages for all down wood (EMC and LP) >5 inches dbh within the North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River Watershed and the Fall River – Deschutes River Watershed.

0 0-2 2-4 4-6 6-10 10-18 >=18Reference 38 15 16 11 12 6 2Current 50 22 20 7 1 0 0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

% o

f WHT

in W

ater

shed

Snags/acre

NUDD/Fall River-Deschutes River WatershedEastside Mixed Conifer WHT; Large Snags >20"

Comparison of reference & current conditions and wildlife 50% TLs

Black-backed WP1.4 snags/acre

Pileated WP7.8 snags/acre

Williamson's sapsucker8.6 snags/acre

White-headed WP1.5 snags/acre

Cavity-nesters2.4 snags/acre

Cavity-nesters (PF)8.4 snags/acre

Lewis's woodpecker (PF)6.2 snags/acre

Northern flicker (PF)17.4 snags/acre

0 0-2 2-4 4-6 6-10 10-18 >=18Reference 80 7 9 3 1 0 0Current 85 10 3 1 0 0 0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

% o

f the

WHT

in W

ater

shed

Snags/acre

NUDD/Fall River-Deschutes River Watershed Lodgepole Pine WHT; Large Snags >20"


American Marten30% TL - 50% TL - 80% TL3.7 spa - 4.0 spa - 4.5 spa

147

Figure 25. NUDD/Fall River all Down Wood within EMC. Figure 26. NUDD/Fall River all Down Wood within LPP. For eastside mixed conifer down wood >5 inches dbh within the analysis area, the current condition is showing that down wood occurs on more acreage than the reference condition (11% of WHT as opposed to 27% of WHT). The notable conditions are the 0-2% cover category, which is 14% below the reference condition, the 4-6% cover category, which is 10% above the reference condition and the >=8% cover category which is 21% above reference conditions. To summarize, the analysis area for EMC down wood >5 inches dbh is predominantly characterized by 15% of the habitat type with 0-2% cover, 20% of the habitat type with 2-4% cover, 19% of the habitat type with 4-6% cover, 10% of the habitat type with 6-8% cover, and 25% of the habitat type with >=8% cover. 11% of the EMC habitat type contains 0% down wood cover >5 inches dbh within the analysis area, which is 16% below the reference condition of 27% of this habitat type which would normally be without down wood. For lodgepole pine down wood >5 inches dbh within the analysis area, the current condition is below reference conditions in only two categories, the 0-2% cover (5% below), and 2-4% cover (9% below) categories. To summarize, the analysis area for lodgepole pine down wood >5 inches dbh is predominantly characterized by 23% of the habitat type with 0-2% cover, 18% of the habitat type with 2-4% cover, 21% of the habitat type with 4-6% cover, 16% of the habitat type with 6-10% cover, and 11% of the habitat type with >=10% cover. 10% of the lodgepole pine habitat type contains 0% down wood cover >5 inches dbh within the analysis area. Large Down Wood in the Analysis Area Figures 27 and 28 show the averages for down wood (EMC and LP) >20 inches dbh within the North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River Watershed and the Fall River – Deschutes River Watershed.

Figure 27. NUDD/Fall River Down Wood >20” dbh within EMC. Figure 28. NUDD/Fall River Down Wood >20” dbh within LP.

0 0-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 >=8Reference 27 29 24 9 7 4Current 11 15 20 19 10 25

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

% o

f WHT

in W

ater

shed

Percent Cover

NUDD/Fall River - Deschutes River WatershedEastside Mixed Conifer WHT; Down Wood >5"


Black-backed Woodpecker30% TL - 50% TL - 80% TL

4.7 % - 13.0% - 25.1 %

Three-toed Woodpecker30% TL - 50% TL - 80% TL

6.5 % - 17.0% - 32.0 %

Pileated Woodpecker30% TL - 50% TL - 80% TL

4.0 % - 4.5% - 5.1 %

Fungi50% TL Sm/Med - 50% TL - Large

13% - 21.0%


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

% o

f the

WHT

in W

ater

shed

Percent Cover

NUDD/Fall River - Deschutes River WatershedLodgepole Pine WHT; Down Wood >5"


American Marten30% TL - 50% TL - 80% TL

11.3 % - 24.7% - 44.6 %

Black-backed Woodpecker30% TL - 50% TL - 80% TL

4.7 % - 13% - 25.1 %

Three-toed Woodpecker30% TL - 50% TL - 80% TL

6.5 % - 17.0% - 32.0 %


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

% o

f WHT

in W

ater

shed

Percent Cover

NUDD/Fall River - Deschutes River WatershedEastside Mixed Conifer WHT; Down Wood >20"Comparison of reference and current conditions


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

% o

f the

WHT

in W

ater

shed

Percent Cover

NUDD/Fall River - Deschutes River WatershedLodgepole Pine WHT; Down Wood >20"

Comparison of reference and current conditions

148

For eastside mixed conifer down wood >20 inches dbh within the analysis area, the current condition is not too far off of any reference figures for 4 of the categories. The notable conditions are the 0% cover category, which is 11% below the reference condition, and the 1-2% cover category which is 9% above the reference condition. To summarize, the analysis area for EMC down wood >20 inches dbh is predominantly characterized by 12% of the habitat type with 0-1% cover, 22% of the habitat type with 1-2% cover, 4% of the habitat type with 2-3% cover, 3% of the habitat type with 3-4% cover, and 1% of the habitat type with >=4% cover. 57% of the EMC habitat type contains 0% down wood cover >20 inches dbh within the analysis area. For lodgepole pine down wood >20 inches dbh within the analysis area, which is a rare size for lodgepole pine, the 0-2% cover category is 7% above the reference condition. To summarize, the analysis area for lodgepole pine down wood >20 inches dbh is predominantly characterized by 18% of the habitat type with 0-2% cover, 1% of the habitat type with 2-4% cover, and 0% of the habitat type with 4-6% cover. 80% of the lodgepole pine habitat type contains 0% down wood cover >20 inches dbh within the analysis area. Below is a summary of both snags and down wood current conditions in comparison to reference conditions. Small snags are analyzed as >10” dbh; large snags are >20” dbh; small downed wood is >5”; and large downed wood is >20”. Eastside mixed conifer stands within the analysis area exhibit conditions where:

●Areas without snags have increased ●Patches of snags occur but not in extreme high density patches ●Areas with downed wood is increasing ●Small downed wood is occurring in excess at the higher percent coverages ●Large downed wood occurs more at the lower percentage cover categories

Lodgepole pine stands within the analysis area exhibit conditions where:

●The absence of small and large snags has increased ●Large snags do occur, but are rare ●High density patches of small snags are lacking ●Small downed wood is more abundant at the higher cover levels; but there is a shortage in the lower- percent coverages ●Large logs occur, but are not abundant

Effects of the Actions Alternative 1 – No Action (Ecological Trend) There are no known direct impacts to snags, down wood, or green tree replacements (GTRs) under the no action alternative. Currently, large snags occur on the landscape, but are limited and seem to be most abundant in root rot pockets. Increased fuel loadings and continuity from fire suppression has increased the risk of large fires. These large stand replacement events create snags; however, this pulse of snags is short lived (less than 25 years) followed by a long lag time until snags are again available on the landscape (Mellen-McLean et al. 2012). Without fire disturbance, snags are expected to increase over time as insects and disease in overly dense stands continue to cause tree mortality consistent with increasing levels of inter-tree competition. Down wood levels are expected to increase as snags continue to fall in the future in the absence of fire. Although a steady recruitment of new snags and logs are expected, they would generally be <20 inches dbh, which creates lower quality habitat for some wildlife species compared to large logs and snags. Green tree replacements would also remain at existing levels across the landscape and all trees would continue to be available for use as green tree replacements. Large trees ≥ 21inches dbh are available for future large down wood recruitment, with many of these trees located on the buttes and in the southern portion of the project area within mixed conifer stands. Increased stand densities perpetuate the problem of losing large structure over time, which many wildlife species

149

require for suitable nesting and foraging habitat. In dense stands, increased competition for nutrients will require a longer period of time for the smaller trees to become large trees and become suitable habitat for some wildlife. Fewer large snags and logs could result in more competition for existing sites between species, and generally lead to greater predation risks and less survivorship and recruitment. With no proposed action to add incrementally to the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable actions, there would be no cumulative impacts. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4- Direct and Indirect Effects Tables 80 and 81 summarize the different treatments that would occur within the Lex Project area. Table 80. Overstory Treatments by Type within the Lex Project Area That Could Affect Snags and Down Wood.

Alt. Total

Treatment Acres

HSL HSP HSV HTH HCR GFR HFR HIM HOR HSC

Alt. 2 5, 465 852 232 158 177 587 0 2,071 19 1,369 0 Alt. 3 5,993 852 232 158 177 939 0 2,071 19 1,369 176 Alt. 4 5,101 760 232 158 177 356 295 1,776 19 1,328 0

The uneven-aged management/selection cut (HSL) would maintain ponderosa pine as a long term overstory and understory species. This would be accomplished by releasing the ponderosa pine, while removing the intermediate suppressed white fir and lodgepole pine. Within these stands, 15% of each unit would have regeneration cutting and then planting of ponderosa pine. Ponderosa pine >22 inches dbh and white fir >30 inches dbh would not be cut, providing future large snag and down wood structure. Many of these acres contain large snags and down wood from the root rot pockets that occur within these stands. Snags would not be removed unless a hazard. Larger down wood may be removed in the stands where regeneration cuts would occur (retention PDCs would apply). Selection cut (HSC) would be similar to HSL treatments, but these stands contain less ponderosa pine trees. This would occur on 6% - 9% of the project acres. It is expected that with these treatments there would be a reduction in future small snags, but this would occur in favor of the development of future large snags and logs. Some small and large down wood may be lost, which currently (all down wood >5 inches dbh) are occurring on the landscape above reference conditions in the higher cover percentages. Stands with special cut (HSP) would be removing hazard trees along the power line, recreation areas, and Cascade Lakes Highway. Treatments on these acres would be removing dead standing and down wood, most likely lodgepole pine and white fir (retention PDCs would apply). This would occur on 2% of the project acres. Salvage (HSV) would be removing dead standing and down wood (lodgepole pine) (retention PDCs would apply). This would occur on 1% of the project acres. The goal of commercial thinning is primarily to maintain or improve tree growth, maintain or enhance forest health, and control species composition. Ponderosa pine are typically favored for retention over lodgepole or true fir. The commercial thinning would generally consist of thinning from below, in which the smallest trees in the stand and/or shortest trees are generally priority for removal. Snags and down wood are not expected to be removed during these treatments unless a hazard or in excess, and in these cases most likely the smaller snags and down wood provided by lodgepole pine. This would occur on 1% of the project acres. Clearcutting (HCR) would remove dead standing and down lodgepole pine and live lodgepole pine except for approximately 10 trees per acre to serve as a seed source for natural regeneration (retention PDCs would apply). All other species would be left on site, which include some larger diameter trees including western hemlock, white fir, ponderosa pine, and western white pine. After the regeneration is established, in about 5 years, the

150

seed trees would be killed (by girdling) or removed. This would occur on 3% of the acres with Alternative 4, 5% of the acres with Alternative 2, and 8% of the acres with Alternative 3. Tree girdling (GFR) would occur in the overstory instead of removing the trees. This process would eventually kill the tree providing snags for these acres that would be promoting a healthy future stand of lodgepole pine. This would create snags across 2% of the total project acres with Alternative 4. Final removal (HFR) and overstory removal (HOR) would be removing the entire live overstory lodgepole pine trees, except in HOR stands where some overstory may be left if the understory has not yet developed. Salvage of dead down trees would also occur (retention PDCs would apply). Both of these actions would occur on 26% of the total project acres with Alternative 4, and 29% with Alternatives 2 and 3. Improvement cut (HIM) would occur along the Cascade Lakes Highway and would manage stands for scenic, safety and forest health. Removal of dead standing and down trees would occur (retention PDCs would apply). This would occur on 0.2 acres of the total project area. In all other treatments (outside of HSL and HSC) large snags would not be proposed for removal as part of any treatments unless they are a hazard. A majority would be removing lodgepole pine, thus future smaller snags. Smaller snags in both mixed conifer and lodgepole pine occur above reference conditions in the lower densities, but are below reference conditions at the higher densities. The action alternatives may bring the lower density numbers closer to reference conditions, and may increase the number of acres within lodgepole pine that are without snags. Alternative 4 has less acres of treatments in older lodgepole pine stands that could provide avenues for insects and disease and thus future higher densities of snags. Alternative 4 would also girdle live lodgepole pine providing up to 10 trees/acre on these acres. For down wood, it would be removed from these other treatment types and possibly bring areas of higher down wood coverages closer to reference conditions. Table 81. Other Treatments by Alternative that Would Effect Current Down Wood and Future Large Tree Developent.

Alternative Other Treatments* PCT LFR Piling Mastication Mowing Underburning

Alt. 2 4,492 4,492 3,524 2,044 2,044 866 Alt. 3 4,668 4,668 3,661 2,213 2,213 866 Alt. 4 4,132 4,132 2,374 766 766 866

*Treatments overlap in most cases. Proposed treatments such as non-commercial thinning and ladder fuel reduction (35% - 39% of project acres) across all habitat types may have some beneficial impacts to these habitat components in the long-term by creating stand conditions that would accelerate and develop larger tree structure and future snags and logs, than if these small trees were not thinned. In areas identified for thinning, canopies would be opened up and stand densities reduced to lessen the risk of a large-scale disturbance events (insects, disease, or fire). Thinning is expected to reduce down wood and small snag recruitment in the short-term; however in the long-term it is anticipated that there would be more large trees that could eventually become large snags and large down wood. Small snags would continue to be lacking in high density patches for all habitat types (mixed conifer and lodgepole pine). This would occur in favor of the development of future large snags and logs in mixed conifer and healthier stands of lodgepole pine. Acreages that would have piling are at risk for loss of smaller (<15 inches dbh) down wood inadvertently included in piles (20% of the project area with Alternative 4, 30% with Alternative 2, and 31% with Alternative 3). Some piles may need to be left in units that lack down wood. These may inadvertently be burned during pile burning operations. Within the areas that have prescribed fire treatment proposed (approximately 866 acres, or 7% of the project acres, in the southern portion of the project area), there is also potential of changing green trees into snags and

151

snags into down wood. Burning prescriptions and pre-ignition fuels reduction should reduce the chance of this occurrence; however, it is likely that torching will occur. In addition, down wood that is on the ground is at risk of being consumed by the proposed prescribed fire treatments. Mechanical Shrub Treatments (mastication) will likely remove 70% to 80% of specified units (6% of the project area with Alternative 4, 17% of the project area with Alternative 4, and 19% of the project area with Alternative 3). This is less likely to affect large logs, which are of greater concern due to their usefulness as wildlife habitat. Reductions in the high abundance of small downed wood in lodgepole pine and eastside mixed conifer would move current conditions into closer alignment with reference conditions. The amount of existing downed wood would likely be reduced during piling operations and burning treatments. Torching during prescribed burning operations would provide a small amount of down wood replacement. Although desired for wildlife, unburned piles from previous vegetation treatment projects would likely be consumed during planned fuels treatments, especially in units that would be burned. Cumulative Effects— Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 Extensive harvest activities, primarily clearcutting, occurred in the analysis area during the 1920s and 1930s followed by thinning and other harvest activities thru the 1990s. These activities removed most or all overstory trees and likely retained minimal snag and down wood habitat. Sales planned west of the spotted owl line after 1994 utilized the Northwest Forest Plan standards and guidelines and followed Late-Successional Reserve Assessment guidelines by plant association group. These guidelines ranged from 4 to 13 snags per acre depending on the plant association group, and 120 linear feet of down wood at least 16 inches in diameter and 16 feet long. The NWFP standards and guidelines are applicable to the analysis area. Ongoing vegetation management projects in the analysis area generally focus on reducing understory vegetation to reduce risk of loss from wildfire. It is assumed that existing large snags and large down wood would not be commonly impacted as a direct result of these projects. However, small snags and down wood may be reduced depending on treatments proposed. Fuels reduction projects include mowing, burning, and thinning stands from below. Burning varies but may include underburning, jackpot burning of concentrations, pile burning, or some combination of these activities. A reduction in down woody material is usually associated with these activities with some incidental snag loss. Material impacted primarily includes smaller size classes (<15inches DBH) and those in more advanced decayed stages (Decay Classes 3-5). These treatments, however, may reduce the risk of loss to existing large snags and logs by reducing ground and ladder fuels. Other actions considered to affect snags and down wood habitat within the analysis area include insect and disease damage, firewood cutting and danger tree removal along roads, high use recreation areas, and facilities. Danger tree removal occurs approximately 150 feet (one site potential tree height) on either side of roads and from high use areas. Snag levels continue to decline around these facilities. Danger tree removal has increased in recent years due to an increase in recreational trails, facilities, and parking areas. Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable vegetation treatments in the North Unit Diversion Dam–Deschutes River and Fall River – Deschutes River watersheds would occur within the following vegetation management projects: Rocket, West Bend, Junction, Kew and the UDR WUI. The primary treatments for all projects include: commercial thinning, mowing, and underburning. These treatments would have negative short-term (20-30 years) impacts due to a reduction in stand densities and canopy cover (creating healthier stands) and down wood (some would be lost during prescribed burning and possibly piling), and long-term positive benefits by accelerating the development of future larger tree structure and thus larger future snags and down wood. Along with the Rocket, West Bend, Junction, Kew, and UDRI WUI Vegetation Management Projects, the Lex Project would result in short-term negative cumulative effects to snag and down wood habitat in the watersheds from treatment activities.

152

Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures—Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 The following Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures are applicable for snags and down wood and can be found in detail on pages 14 – 18 of this document: 13-22. Consistency Wildlife standards and guidelines will be assessed. This project would be consistent with the Forest Plan by adhering to the following Standards and Guidelines: Retain snags (including soft) as wildlife trees for nesting, roosting and foraging except where impractical because of human safety in all units (Wildlife Tree and Log Implementation Strategy, LRMP WL-38) at the 100% population potential (NWFP Page C-46). These levels are minimums. Where appropriate, leave higher concentrations and leave larger sizes where available. No snags over 20” dbh should be marked for cutting (NWFP Page C-46). At a minimum, snags are to be retained at the following levels per current direction: Mixed Conifer 3 snags/acre >10” dbh 1 snag/acre >20” dbh Lodgepole pine 3 snags/acre > 10”dbh During prescribed burning operations, use preventative measures (i.e. placing a line around) and/or light in a manner (i.e. back burning from the log) as to prevent the burning and consumption of snags and logs >20” dbh. This would be in all decay classes (WL-72). Fallen trees and other woody debris would be retained in sufficient quantity, distribution, and physical characteristics to provide habitat for viable populations of dependent wildlife species over time (WL-72). Logs would not be salvaged unless they are in concentrations excess to wildlife and soils needs and where removal is necessary for fuels reduction needs because of excessive concentrations. Within all harvest and fuels treatment units develop harvest and fuels treatment prescriptions to retain at least the existing CWM in the quantities as indicated by current direction (NWFP) minimum standards of 120 linear feet of logs per acre (all decay classes) >16”dbh and 16’ long (a minimum of 3 cull and an additional 3 in advanced stages of decomposition). More may be left if not presenting an excessive fuel hazard. Decay class 1 and 2 down logs could be left as part of these totals. CWM in advanced stages of decomposition (decay class 3-5) would be left in all harvest units where available. Down woody material already on the ground should be retained and protected to the greatest extent possible during activities (NWFP, Page C-40, 1994). Retain slash piles or slash concentrations in units where down woody material levels are below LRMP or NWFP standards and guidelines utilizing material from logging operations. The number of piles per treatment unit would vary depending upon conditions prior to implementation. Designated piles should have a minimum 10 feet diameter and cover 100-200 square feet in area (WL-73). Concentrations incorporating high tree stumps, logs, or snags are especially desirable (WL-63). In even-aged stands, leave green tree replacements to meet 100% of potential population potential levels (NWFP ROD, Page C-46, 1994). These are written into this document as a Project Design Criteria and will further be addressed within the projects implementation plan. Maintaining these levels within areas that would be prescribed burned and/or piled are not guaranteed. Monitoring should occur post project to determine what levels of down wood remain within project units.

153

Determination/Conclusion (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) The proposed action would result in a small negative impact locally with limited effect across the analysis area and Forest-wide. The action alternatives would mostly reduce future small snags and small downed wood within treatment units in favor of future large snags and large downed wood and could bring numbers closer to reference conditions. Fuels treatments could inadvertently reduce current down wood components and possibly increase snags within underburn units.

WOODPECKERS (CAVITY NESTERS)/DEAD WOOD DEPENDENT MIS SPECIES The woodpecker group was chosen as terrestrial management indicator species (MIS) on the Deschutes National Forest (see Table 82). This group was chosen to represent all wildlife species that use cavities for nesting. On the Deschutes National Forest, eleven woodpecker species excavate cavities that are utilized by other species of hole-nesters incapable of excavating their own nest site, known as secondary cavity nesters. The woodpeckers, as well as many of the secondary cavity nesters, consume forest insects thereby contributing a valuable suppression influence on destructive forest pests (USDA 1990). Table 82: Occurrence of MIS Woodpeckers for the Lex Project Area.

Species (NatureServe State

Ranking)

Basic Habitat Description

Known or Suspected to be Present in/near

Project Area

Suitable Habitat Present in/near

Project Area Determination

Lewis’ woodpecker* Melanerpes lewis (S2 Imperiled)

Ponderosa pine, burned forest Y Y SNI

White-headed woodpecker* Picoides albolarvatus (S2 Imperiled)

Mature ponderosa pine N Y SNI

Red-naped sapsucker Sphyrapicus nuchalis (S4 Apparently Secure)

Riparian hardwood forest N N NI

Red-breasted sapsucker Sphyrapicus ruber (S4 Apparently Secure)


Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens (S4 Apparently Secure)


Black-backed woodpecker Picoides arcticus (S3 Vulnerable)

Lodgepole pine, burned forest Y Y SNI

Three-toed woodpecker Picoides dorsalis (S3 Vulnerable)

High elevation lodgepole pine forest Y Y SNI

Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus (S4 Apparently Secure)

Mixed conifer & ponderosa pine forests Y Y SNI

Northern flicker Colaptes auratus (S5 secure)

Variety of forest types with edge habitat Y Y SNI

154

Species (NatureServe State

Ranking)

Basic Habitat Description


Project Area


Project Area Determination

Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus (S4 Apparently Secure)

Mature/old growth mixed conifer Y Y SNI

Williamson’s sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus (S4 Apparently Secure)

Mature/old growth conifer forest with open

canopy Y Y SNI

*Species also analyzed as federally listed or sensitive NI=No impact to viability on the Deschutes NF IC=Improved conditions, will not contribute toward a negative trend in viability on the Deschutes NF SNI=Small negative impact, continued viability is expected on the Deschutes NF LNI=Large negative impact with viability concern on the Deschutes NF Lewis’ woodpecker and white-headed woodpecker were addressed earlier in the Sensitive Species section. “Biological Potential” Current direction for snag management is based on “biological potential”. The goal of management for species richness is to insure that most native wildlife species are maintained in viable numbers and that habitat requirements for all species must be accounted for (Thomas 1979). Habitat requirements, including snag and down woody material levels, were described for a vast array of wildlife species using information known at the time in Thomas (1979) and Brown (1985). However, Bull et al. (1997) states current direction for providing wildlife habitat on public forest lands does not reflect the new information available which suggests to fully meet the needs of wildlife, additional snags and habitat are required for foraging, denning, nesting, and roosting. Rose et al. (2001) also states that several major lessons have been learned in the period 1979 to 1999 that have tested critical assumptions of earlier management advisory models, including some assumptions used to develop current recommendations in the LRMP Standards and Guidelines. Some assumptions include:

1. Calculation of numbers of snags required by woodpeckers based on assessing their “biological (population) potential” is a flawed technique (Rose et al. 2001). Empirical studies are suggesting that snag numbers in areas used and selected by some wildlife species are far higher than those calculated by this technique (Rose et al. 2001).

2. Numbers and sizes (dbh) of snags used and selected by secondary cavity nesters often exceed those of

primary excavators (Rose et al. 2001).

This suggests the current direction of managing at a certain percent population level for primary excavators may not represent the most current knowledge and that snag levels, under certain conditions, may not be adequate for some species. In addition, the current direction provides recommendations for green stands only when studies show that cavity-nesting birds require higher snag densities in post-fire conditions (or stand-replacing events) versus green stands for nesting and productivity. This is may be due to cavity nesting birds requiring more snags for foraging, cover, and protection from predators in post-fire/ stand-replacing environments. Snag Modeling Process & Explanation of the DecAID advisory tool and how it was applied to the Lex Vegetation Management Project The use of DecAID is a culmination of the most recent science and data available. As stated by Rose et al. (2001), DecAID is based on a thorough review of the literature, available research and inventory data, and expert judgment.

155

To utilize DecAID data, snag numbers across the analysis area (watersheds) needed to be modeled. During the Lex Vegetation Management Project, vegetation conditions were determined using Gradient Nearest Neighbor (GNN) for the landscape scale. There is more to viability of populations than the dead wood habitat component. DecAID can help managers decide how much, and what sizes, of dead wood to provide for this part of species’ habitat needs. Wildlife data within DecAID is derived from a thorough review of published literature and other available data on wildlife use of snags and down wood, primarily in Oregon and Washington. DecAID provides a statistical synthesis of data showing levels of use by individual wildlife species of snags and down wood. For this portion of the analysis the wildlife data will be used. Use of DecAID Wildlife Data The wildlife data in DecAID is provided in the form of tolerance levels of 30 percent, 50 percent, or 80 percent. A tolerance interval is similar to a confidence interval but with a key difference: tolerance intervals are estimates of the percent of all individuals in the population that are within some specified range of values. Levels are one-sided intervals with the lower limit of the interval being zero. Thus, an 80% tolerance level indicates 80% of the individuals in the population have a value for the parameter of interest between 0 and the value for the 80% tolerance level. Or conversely, 20% of the individuals in the population have a value for the parameter of interest greater than the 80% level. DecAID tolerance levels “may be interpreted as three levels of “assurance”: low (30% tolerance level), moderate (50% tolerance level), and high (80% tolerance level)” (Mellen-McLean et al. 2012). The higher the tolerance level, the higher the “assurance” that snag habitat is being provided at levels utilized by the particular wildlife species. Often this level of assurance was used a surrogate for quality of the habitat (i.e. low quality habitat = low level of assurance = 30% tolerance level). Referring to the array of wildlife data collected DecAID notes: “The wildlife studies, on which the wildlife portion of DecAID is based, were conducted in a variety of landscapes and site conditions. Typically, the studies (a) did not report how the general study areas and specific study sites were chosen relative to others, and (b) did not describe how the vegetation conditions within the general study areas and specific study sites differed from conditions within a broader area, especially within the wildlife habitat and vegetation condition classes used in DecAID. Thus, there is no way to know to what degree the study areas and sites varied from conditions generally present, and thus no way to gauge the bias in study area and site selection. In turn, this means there is no way to estimate the degree of bias in the wildlife data summarized in DecAID (Mellen-McLean et al. 2012). DecAID goes on to suggest that this unknown bias can be reduced to acceptable levels by either 1) examining the underlying data and evaluate whether the component studies either pertain to their locations or vegetation conditions of interest, or 2) by determining if the number and breadth of studies may adequately capture the range of conditions within a wildlife habitat and structural condition. DecAID was used to assist with the analysis of impacts on snag dependent wildlife species. DecAID was used as a:

1. Thorough review of published literature and other available data on wildlife use of decayed wood elements, primarily in Oregon and Washington.

2. Statistical synthesis of data showing levels of use by individual wildlife species of decayed wood elements.

3. Summary of the patterns of use of decayed wood elements by wildlife species in Oregon and Washington (number of species using specific snag or down wood sizes or amounts).

4. Helpful tool for making informed decisions.

156

DecAID was not used (as a): 1. To determine forest stand structure and composition of snags for the Kew Project Area. 2. To model snag and down wood recruitment. 3. To simulate populations or as a viability analysis. 4. Substitute for making professional decisions based on experience.

BLACK-BACKED WOODPECKER, Picoides arcticus MIS Measure: Proportion of reproductive habitat acres impacted; disturbance during the nesting season. Habitat Needs and Existing Condition The black-backed woodpecker is a unique species. Altman (2000) identified it as a focal species for old-growth lodgepole pine for the East Cascades Landbird Strategy. However, it is also highly associated with post-fire environments. Black-backed woodpeckers are highly associated with stand replacement fire and local irruptions may occur after fire or insect outbreaks (Dudley and Saab 2007). Saab et al. (2004) found black-backed woodpeckers rapidly colonize stand replacement burns within 1-2 years post-fire but are rare within 5 years which may be due to a decrease in prey of larval bark and wood boring beetles. Recently dead trees (<2 years) were used most often (68%) for foraging in Central Oregon while this species foraged equally on both live and dead trees in northeastern Oregon, preferring lodgepole pine (Bull et al. 1986). High density burned stands may provide greater foraging opportunities as this species feeds primarily on bark and wood boring beetles (Harris 1982, Saab et al 2002, and Saab et al 2004). Black-backed woodpeckers selected moderate to heavily burned trees where beetles were very abundant (Murphy and Lehnhausen 1998). It has been decades since a stand replacement fire has occurred within the project area. Any habitat being utilized within the project area is from mountain pine beetle outbreaks and other insect and disease factors. Within Lex, a majority of the lodgepole pine stands can be categorized as either young or old. Having a combination of young, mid, and old stands of lodgepole pine helps to distribute the cycle of stands of lodgepole pine that are available on the landscape for black-backed woodpeckers. It is assumed that older stands of lodgepole pine would provide the habitat needed by this species. Having these stands provided in larger blocks of habitat are also beneficial (>300 acres). Currently, 42% of the lodgepole pine stands could be considered young, 1% mid, and 57% older (see the Lex Silvicultural Report for an in-depth discussion on lodgepole pine in the project area). For a detailed assessment of life history and status of the black-backed woodpecker on the Deschutes National Forest, see the Forestwide Species Assessment (USDA FS 2012c). The following tables show black-backed woodpecker snag and down wood habitat data as defined by DecAID. The data compiled in the tables below was based on wildlife habitat types and structural condition. Table 83. Black-Backed Woodpecker Preferred Snag Sizes.

Black-backed Woodpecker Habitat Type


Snag Size (dbh in)



Eastside Mixed Conifer 8.8 12.3 20.4 Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir 8.0 12.7 19.4 Lodgepole Pine 9.2 12.1 16.4

157

Average for All Habitat Types 8.6 12.4 18.7

Black-backed Woodpecker Use Type for all Habitat

Types


Snag Size (dbh in)



Nesting 8.6 12.0 16.9 Roosting 6.8 10.9 16.7 Foraging 10.3 13.6 18.8 Average for All Use Types 8.6 12.2 17.5

Black-backed Woodpecker All Habitat and Use Types


Snag Size (dbh in)



Average Snag Size 8.6 12.3 18.1

Table 84. Black-Backed Woodpecker Preferred Snag Densities.




50% Snag Density

(#/acre)

80% Snag Density

(#/acre) Eastside Mixed Conifer 2.5 13.6 29.2 Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir 2.5 13.6 29.2 Lodgepole Pine –no data

Average for All Types 2.5 13.6 29.2




50% Snag Density

(#/acre)

80% Snag Density

(#/acre) Eastside Mixed Conifer 0.0 1.4 5.7 Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir 0.0 1.4 5.7 Lodgepole Pine –no data

Average for All Types 0.0 1.4 5.7 The above tables derived from the DecAID wildlife data analysis show that black-backed woodpecker’s average preferred habitat at the 50% tolerance level are snags 12.3” dbh with an average density of approximately 13.6 small snags per acre and 1.4 large snags per acre. Within the analysis area, black-backed woodpecker snag size and density appear to be at the 50% tolerance levels. According to DecAID, the analysis area is currently providing snag size and density above reference conditions for the 30% tolerance level for snags >10 inches dbh, but below the 50% tolerance levels, and above reference conditions at the 50% tolerance level for large snags. The following table displays tolerance level information for down wood relative to the black-backed woodpecker for down wood >5” dbh in Eastside Mixed Conifer, small and large trees (EMC_S/L) and Lodgepole Pine, small and large trees (LP_S/L).

158

Table 85. Tolerance Levels (T.L.) for the Black-Backed Woodpecker as Reported in DecAID for Down Wood Cover.

Log Size 30% T.L. Down Wood Cover (%)

50% T.L. Down Wood Cover

(%)

80% T.L. Down Wood Cover (%)

>5” dbh 4.7 13 25.1 This table suggests that 50% of the individuals within a population of nesting black-backed woodpeckers utilize areas with a down wood percent cover of <13.0% and 50% of the individuals within the population of nesting black-backed woodpeckers utilize areas with a down wood percent cover of >13.0%. According to DecAID, the analysis area is currently providing down wood cover above reference conditions at the 30% and 50% tolerance levels for the black-backed woodpecker. For the Forest-wide assessment, black-backed woodpecker habitat was mapped using Viable modeling across the entire Deschutes National Forest. Black-backed woodpecker nesting habitat was mapped using lodgepole pine dominated forests which include all lodgepole pine plant association groups (PAGs) in all seral stages (early, mid, late) in addition to other PAGs (i.e. mixed conifer and ponderosa pine) in the early and mid-seral stages where lodgepole pine is dominant. In addition, stand size had to range from 5-20” dbh and be open or closed (based on the canopy cover level thresholds for each PAG) to be mapped as potential habitat. Recent fires (less than 5 years old) with stand replacement or mixed severity were also classified as habitat. Recent (since 2002) forest management activities that resulted in conditions other than described above were removed from mapped potential habitat. Table 86 summarizes this data. Table 86. Black-Backed Woodpecker Reproductive Habitat within the Lex Vegetation Management Project Area, North Unit Diversion Dam-Deschutes River and Fall River-Deschutes River Watersheds, and across the Deschutes National Forest.

Acres of Black-Backed Woodpecker Habitat in

the Project Area



Watershed


the Fall River – Deschutes River

Watershed

Acres of Black-Backed Woodpecker Habitat

on the Forest

935 14,991 36,181 501,678

8% of poject habitat acres. 0.2% of all black-

backed woodpecker habitat on the Forest.

3% of all black-backed woodpecker habitat on the

Forest

7% of all black-backed woodpecker habitat on


Approximately 935 acres of black-backed woodpecker habitat exists within the project area, which is 8% of the total project acres and 0.2% of the habitat available on the Forest. Black-backed woodpecker habitat occurs on 31% of entire Deschutes National Forest. During field reconnaissance in 2015, a black-backed woodpecker was observed in a root rot pocket on Katalo Butte. The black-backed woodpecker is considered “vulnerable” (S3) by NatureServe (2015). Effects of the Actions Alternative 1 – No Action (Ecological Trend) Under the no action alternative, habitat conditions would remain unchanged in the short-term. As trees infected with disease and those attacked by insects begin to succumb, forage and nesting habitat will increase. Fuel loading in the area would also increase, as would the risk of a high intensity fire that would likely spread throughout the area. A stand-replacing fire would provide a large pulse of forage and nesting habitat in the

159

short- term, but as snags began to deteriorate and fall, the amount of suitable habitat would drop and would not be replaced for many years until a new stand develops. Within the younger stands of lodgepole pine with an overstory infected with dwarf mistletoe, these upcoming stands would remain suppressed by these overstory trees and mistletoe infections would continue to spread to these understory trees which would affect their growth and their ability to provide future habitat for this species. With no proposed action to add incrementally to the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable actions, there would be no cumulative impacts. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4- Direct and Indirect Effects Table 87 displays the acres of mapped black-backed woodpecker habitat treated by the alternatives and the percentage of habitat impacted within the project area, watersheds, and Forest. Table 87. Lex Proposed Overstory Treatments in MIS Mapped Black-Backed Woodpecker Habitat.

Alt.

Acres of Black-Backed

Woodpecker Habitat

Treated in Lex

% of Total Acres of

Black-Backed Woodpecker


% of Total Acres of Black-Backed

Woodpecker Habitat Treated in the North Unit Diversion Dam –


% of Total Acres of Black-Backed

Woodpecker Habitat Treated

in the Fall River - Deschutes River

Watershed

% Total Acres of Black-Backed

Woodpecker Habitat

Treated on the Forest

Alt. 2 517

NUDD – 71 FR - 446

55% 0.5% 1% 0.1%

Alt. 3 542

NUDD – 71 FR - 476

58% 0.5% 1% 0.1%

Alt. 4 517

NUDD – 71 FR - 446

55% 0.5% 1% 0.1%

The Lex Project area proposes to treat 517 acres (Alternatives 2 and 4) or 542 acres (Alternative 3) of mapped black-backed woodpecker habitat. This equated to 55-58% of the total acres available within the project area. The amount of habitat treated within the project area is high, but at the landscape scale is minimal at 0.5% of the North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River Watershed and 1% of the Fall River – Deschutes River Watershed, and across the Forest, 0.1%. The following table displays what the treatments would do to the age class diversification of lodgepole pine across the Lex Project Area. Table 88. Current Age Class Percentage of Lodgepole Pine within the Lex Project Area and the Changes to the Age Class Diversity From the Proposed Alternatives.

Age Class Existing Condition Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Early 42% 58% 62% 55% Mid 1% <1% 0% 1% Late 57% 41% 38% 44%

The mid-age class of lodgepole pine would continue to be lacking within the project area. The late age class would decrease with all of the alternatives, with Alternative 3 decreasing this age class the most (19%). Along with this decrease in age-class would be the increase in the early age class. These early age-classes are the

160

stands that will be providing future habitat for this species, with many of these treatments located in such a way as to create larger contiguous blocks (>300 acres) of future habitat for the black-backed woodpecker. Alternative 4 would treat the least amount of late age-class lodgepole pine, keeping larger blocks of current suitable habitat available for the black-backed woodpecker. Tables 89 and 90 displays the acres of mapped black-backed woodpecker habitat treated by the alternatives and the treatment types that would be affecting habitat within the project area. Table 89. Overstory Treatments by Type within MIS Mapped Black-Backed Woodpecker Habitat.

Alt. Total

Treatment Acres


Alt. 2 517 50 32 38 25 71 0 22 10 269 0 Alt. 3 542 50 32 38 25 71 0 22 10 269 25 Alt. 4 517 50 32 38 25 71 12 10 10 269 0

The primary overstory treatments within mapped black-backed woodpecker habitat would occur in the lodgepole pine stands as overstory removal (HCR/HFR/HOR). These treatments, with the exception of HCR acres, would remove all of the overstory trees and thin the understory, if there is one. This would remove all potential nest and foraging trees. If there is not an understory available within HOR units, 10 trees/acre would be left, which would also be left within the HCR units. Only alternative 4 would retain trees within HFR units and these would be girdled and left to provide snags and future down wood on 12 acres. Salvage (HSV) of lodgepole pine would occur on 38 acres, which would remove a majority of dead and down wood on these acres. HIM and HSC would retain an overstory but may thin the overstory and understory plus remove some dead and down wood. Other treatments within mixed conifer stands include uneven-aged management/selection cut, special cut, and commercial thinning. These would thin stands releasing and favoring ponderosa pine, removing suppressed white fir and lodgepole pine, adding resilience of these stands to fire and insect attack. Potential nesting and foraging habitat could still occur within these treatments. Generally, large snags would be avoided during treatments, but due to OSHA regulations snags posing a hazard may be removed. Smaller snags would most likely be removed in lodgepole pine stands proposed for treatments where the snag numbers are higher than Forest Plan Standards and Guideline recommendations. Table 90. Overstory, Understory, and Fuels Treatments within Mapped Black-Backed Woodpecker Habitat.




Alt. 2 517 23 435 70 556 0.5 48 Alt. 3 542 4 462 70 556 0.5 48 Alt. 4 517 23 435 70 408 0.5 48

Understory treatments including ladder fuels reduction, precommercial thinning, and whip falling treatments would be setting these stands up for developing into future stands of habitat for black-backed woodpeckers quicker by creating a healthier stand more resilient to insects and disease. These future stands may provide the size of habitat needed sooner, but increased resilience reduces the amount of black-backed woodpecker prey, indirectly impacting their populations. All three action alternatives propose fuels underburn treatments (48 acres) associated with overstory treatments. Fuels treatments would not directly remove any large trees. The fuels treatments would break up the fuel continuity and reduce the risk of a landscape-scale fire event, which should reduce the risk of loss to individual

161

large snags and trees. The integrity of nesting habitat components should not be changed. Burning prescriptions and pre-ignition fuels reduction would reduce the chance of losing large snags (change to down wood), however, it is assumed that a small percentage of large snags would be affected by prescribed burning. Prescribed burning could also have the potential to create additional snags. Project Design Criteria would be incorporated to reduce the loss of down wood and snags during burning operations. The project promotes fuels reduction and forest health in the short-term and in the long-term promotes the longevity of large tree structure and a fire resistant landscape. Areas where piling would occur may remove the down wood component that this species prefers. This would likely be more of an issue in the lodgepole pine treatment areas. Project Design Criteria would be incorporated to reduce the amount of wood placed in these piles post-treatment. Connected activities (e.g. piling, soil restoration, gopher trapping, herbicide spraying and boraxing) would likely have negligible disturbance impacts to individuals. It is the overstory/understory/fuels treatments that have the larger impact (degrading or removing habitat). It is possible that if the project occurs during the breeding season (April 15 – July 15), commercial and non-commercial thinning and fuels projects could have direct, negative impacts to nesting woodpeckers that may be within or adjacent to active units (it is unknown without surveys if there are any active nests within a specific action area). Disturbance during this time could result in nest failure (noise disturbance) or direct loss of individuals (from tree removal or adults away from the nest for too long). While timber harvest and spring underburning have the potential to disrupt nesting pairs of black-backed woodpeckers, this is considered a short-term impact (1-3 years) and only where activities would occur during the spring nesting season. Since not all of the proposed activities would occur at the same time over the entire project area, undisturbed potential reproductive habitat would still be available for the species within the project area. Although a large amount of habitat would be treated within the project area (55% - 58% of mapped habitat within Lex), the amount treated across the landscape and Forest would be minimal. Cumulative Effects— Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable vegetation treatments in the North Unit Diversion Dam–Deschutes River and Fall River – Deschutes River watersheds would occur on approximately 15,017 acres of black-backed woodpecker habitat. These treatments primarily include the following vegetation management projects: Rocket, West Bend, Junction, Kew and the UDR WUI. The primary treatments for all projects include: commercial thinning, mowing, and underburning. In the lodgepole pine stands, these treatments would have short-term negative impacts by the loss of older stands prime for beetle attack that would provide foraging and nesting habitat. Long-term, treatments would reduce lodgepole pine mistletoe in the overstory to produce a healthier understory that would grow faster and larger for future nesting and foraging habitat. The Lex Project would treat approximately an additional 517 acres (Alt. 2 and 4), or 542 acres (Alt. 2) of the available black-backed woodpecker reproductive habitat in the watersheds depending on the alternative selected. Cumulatively, when Lex is added to the other projects (using Alternative 3 since it would treat the largest acreage), approximately 30% of the black-backed woodpecker habitat in the watershed would be treated (15,559 acres). Along with the Rocket, West Bend, Junction, Kew, and UDRI WUI Vegetation Management Projects, the Lex Project may result in short-term negative cumulative effects to the black-backed woodpecker. This would be due to impacts from the potential disturbance/loss of individuals during project activities and the loss of large acreages of older lodgepole pine habitat in the watersheds from treatment activities, with long-term benefits to future habitat.

162

Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures—Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 The following Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures are applicable for snags and down wood and can be found in detail on pages 14 – 18 of this document: 10 and 13-22. Consistency To meet Forest Plan S&G’s for this species, the following would need to occur: Retain snags (including soft) as wildlife trees for nesting, roosting and foraging except where impractical because of human safety in all units (Wildlife Tree and Log Implementation Strategy, LRMP WL-38) at the 100% population potential (NWFP Page C-46). These levels are minimums. Where appropriate, leave higher concentrations and leave larger sizes where available. No snags over 20” dbh should be marked for cutting (NWFP Page C-46). At a minimum, snags are to be retained at the following levels per current direction: Mixed Conifer 3 snags/acre >10” dbh 1 snag/acre >20” dbh Lodgepole pine 3 snags/acre > 10”dbh This is written into this document as a Project Design Criteria and will further be addressed within the projects implementation plan. Maintaining these levels within areas that would be prescribed burned are not guaranteed. Monitoring should occur post project to determine what levels remain within project units. Determination/Conclusion (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) Implementation of the Lex Project would occur on 517-542 acres of the 935 acres of the mapped black-backed woodpecker nesting habitat available within the project area (55-58%). Project treatments would increase the number of acres of early age class lodgepole pine and decrease the late age class lodgepole pine. Alternatives 2 and 4 would treat the same acreage of habitat, but Alternative 4 was designed to block up larger acreages of habitat in the late age class for the benefit of this species. The total amount of mapped black-backed nesting habitat acres treated within the Lex Project area is minimal compared to that available within the watersheds and Forest. This project impacts 0.5% (NUDD) to 1% (FR) of the suitable habitat in the watersheds and 0.1% of the suitable habitat across the Forest (Table 87). The overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects would result in a negative trend of habitat, but the loss would be small with benefits to future habitat. In reference to the DecAID analysis, proposed treatments could cause short-term reductions in small snag (>10” diameter) numbers, but would allow for the long-term development in large snag structure (>20” diameter). This may move current conditions away from the reference figures in the short-term for small snag habitat, with an improved trajectory for the large snag component to move closer toward the reference condition in the long-term. Although some snag habitat may be lost during project implementation, within the watersheds it is currently above 30% tolerance levels for this species. Snags are expected to continue to be available in adjacent untreated habitat and could potentially be created during prescribed burning activities. Although over half of the mapped black-backed woodpecker habitat would be impacted within the project area, the amount would be minor compared to that available within the watershed and Forest. Snags would continue to be available within treatment units plus untreated habitat within and adjacent to the project area (i.e. wilderness to the north and unroaded areas to the west). Some individuals may be negatively impacted during project implementation during the nesting season, but project activities would take place during various times of the year (and not just the nesting season) and in various habitats and treatments. Based on these impacts and that this species is ranked Vulnerable (S3) by NatureServe (2015), the Lex Vegetation Management Project is

163

expected to have a small negative impact to black-backed woodpeckers and their habitat. Because this project impacts a minimal 0.1% of suitable black-backed woodpecker habitat across the Forest, the overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will result in a small negative trend of habitat and increased disturbance. This loss of habitat and increased disturbance will be insignificant at the scale of the Forest. The Lex Vegetation Management Project is consistent with the Forest Plan, and thus continued viability of the black-backed woodpecker is expected on the Deschutes National Forest. THREE-TOED WOODPECKER, Picoides dorsalis MIS Measure: Proportion of reproductive habitat acres impacted; disturbance during the nesting season. Habitat Needs and Existing Condition The three-toed woodpecker has been identified as a “bark beetle specialist” found in high elevation forests near the Cascade crest (Marshall et al. 2003). The three-toed woodpecker is highly associated with post-fire environments but is also found in unburned forests. Goggans et al. (1989) found three-toed woodpeckers to forage in mixed conifer, mixed conifer dominated by lodgepole pine, and lodgepole pine forest types while Bull et al. (1986) found this woodpecker foraging in grand fir forest types containing lodgepole pine. The three-toed woodpecker feeds primarily on bark beetle larvae (Murphy and Lehnhausen 1998). This species is associated with post-fire habitats and Fayt et al. (2005) found three-toed woodpeckers were substantially more abundant in recently burned forests than in unburned forests. It has been decades since a stand replacement fire has occurred within the project area. Any habitat being utilized within the project area is from mountain pine beetle outbreaks and other insect and disease factors. For a detailed assessment of life history and status of the three-toed woodpecker on the Deschutes National Forest, see the Forestwide Species Assessment (USDA FS 2012u). The following tables show three-toed woodpecker snag and down wood habitat data as defined by DecAID. The data compiled in the tables below was based on wildlife habitat types and structural condition. Table 91. Three-Toed Woodpecker preferred Snag Sizes.

Three-Toed Woodpecker Habitat Type





Three-Toed Woodpecker Use Type for all Habitat Types




Snag Size (dbh in) Nesting 8.8 10.8 14.0 Roosting 10.0 11.9 14.5 Foraging 9.5 12.1 15.9 Average for All Use Types 9.4 11.6 14.8

Three-toed WP All Habitat and Use Types




Snag Size (dbh in)

164


The three-toed woodpecker and black-backed woodpecker are sympatric and have overlapping ranges (Goggans et al. 1989). One way this woodpecker competes with other woodpecker species, specifically the black-backed woodpecker, is by utilizing higher elevation habitat (Bull et al. 1986). Goggans et al. (1989) found the three-toed woodpecker to occupy areas between 4500-5600’ elevation while the black-backed woodpecker occupied lower elevations. Green stand data for three-toed woodpeckers in DecAID is limited, therefore, snag density tolerance level information for the black-backed woodpecker from DecAID was used, as these two species have similar habitat requirements. Table 92. Three-Toed Woodpecker preferred Snag Densities.





Snag Density (#/acre) Eastside Mixed Conifer 2.5 13.6 29.2 Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir 2.5 13.6 29.2 Lodgepole Pine –no data






Snag Density (#/acre) Eastside Mixed Conifer 0.0 1.4 5.7 Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir 0.0 1.4 5.7 Lodgepole Pine –no data

Average for All Types 0.0 1.4 5.7 The above tables derived from the DecAID wildlife data analysis show that three-toed woodpecker’s average preferred habitat at the 50% tolerance level are snags 11.3” dbh with an average density of approximately 13.6 small snags per acre and 1.4 large snags per acre. According to DecAID, the analysis area is currently providing snag size and density above reference conditions for the 30% tolerance level for snags >10 inches dbh, but below the 50% tolerance levels, and above reference conditions at the 50% tolerance level for large snags. The following table displays tolerance level information for down wood relative to the three-toed woodpecker for down >5” dbh in Eastside Mixed Conifer, small and large trees (EMC_S/L) and Lodgepole Pine, small and large trees (LP_S/L). Table 93. Tolerance Levels (T.L.) for the Three-Toed Woodpecker as Reported in DecAID for Down Wood Cover.




>5” dbh 6.5 17 32 This table suggests that 50% of the individuals within a population of nesting three-toed woodpeckers utilize areas with a down wood percent cover of <17.0% and 50% of the individuals within the population of nesting three-toed woodpeckers utilize areas with a down wood percent cover of >17.0%. According to DecAID, the analysis area is currently providing down wood cover above reference conditions at the 30% and 50% tolerance levels for the three-toed woodpecker. For the Forest-wide assessment, three-toed woodpecker habitat was mapped using Viable modeling across the entire Deschutes National Forest. Three-toed woodpecker nesting habitat was mapped using lodgepole pine

165

dominated forests which include all lodgepole pine plant association groups (PAGs) in all seral stages (early, mid, late) in addition to other PAGs (i.e. mixed conifer and mtn. hemlock) in the early and mid-seral stages where lodgepole pine is dominant. In addition, stand size had to range from 5-15” dbh and be open or closed (based on the canopy cover level thresholds for each PAG) to be mapped as potential habitat. Recent fires (less than 5 years old) with stand replacement or mixed severity were also classified as habitat. Recent (since 2002) forest management activities that resulted in conditions other than described above were removed from mapped potential habitat. Table 94 summarizes this data. Table 94. Three-Toed Woodpecker Reproductive Habitat within the Lex Vegetation Management Project Area, North Unit Diversion Dam-Deschutes River and Fall River-Deschutes River Watersheds, and across the Deschutes N.F.

Acres of Three-Toed Woodpecker Habitat in

the Project Area



Watershed



Watershed

Acres of Three-Toed Woodpecker Habitat

on the Forest

817 10,590 29,186 428,723 7% of project habitat

acres. 0.2% of all three-toed woodpecker habitat

on the Forest.

2% of all three-toed woodpecker habitat on the

Forest

7% of all three-toed woodpecker habitat on


Approximately 817 acres of mapped three-toed woodpecker reproductive habitat exists within the project area, which is 7% of the total project acres and 0.2% of the habitat available on the Forest. Mapped habitat for this species occupies 27% of the entire Deschutes National Forest. Three-toed woodpeckers were not observed within the project area during field reconnaissance, but it is expected they would occur in stands with ongoing insect and disease outbreaks. The three-toed woodpecker is considered vulnerable (S3) by NatureServe (2015). Effects of the Actions Alternative 1 – No Action (Ecological Trend) Under the no action alternative, habitat conditions would remain unchanged in the short-term. As trees infected with disease and those attacked by insects begin to succumb, forage and nesting habitat will increase. Fuel loading in the area would also increase, as would the risk of a high intensity fire that would likely spread throughout the area. A stand-replacing fire would provide a large pulse of foraging and nesting habitat in the short-term, but as snags begin to deteriorate and fall, the amount of suitable habitat would decrease and would not be replaced for many years until a new stand develops. With no proposed action to add incrementally to the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable actions, there would be no cumulative impacts. Alternatives 2 and 3- Direct and Indirect Effects Table 95 displays the acres of potential three-toed woodpecker habitat treated by the alternatives and the percentage of habitat impacted within the project area, watersheds, and Forest.

166

Table 95. Lex Proposed Overstory Treatments in MIS Mapped Three-Toed Woodpecker Habitat.

Alt.

Acres of Three-Toed Woodpecker

Habitat Treated in

Lex

% of Total Acres of

Three-Toed Woodpecker


% of Total Acres of Three-Toed

Woodpecker Habitat Treated in the North Unit Diversion Dam –


% of Total Acres of Three-Toed Woodpecker


Watershed

% Total Acres of Three-Toed Woodpecker


Forest

Alt. 2 444

NUDD – 71 FR - 373

54% 0.7% 1% 0.1%

Alt. 3 473

NUDD – 71 FR - 402

58% 0.7% 1% 0.1%

Alt. 4 444

NUDD – 71 FR - 373

54% 0.7% 1% 0.1%

The Lex Project area proposes to treat 444 acres (Alternatives 2 and 4) and 473 acres (Alternative 3) of mapped three-toed woodpecker habitat. This equates to 54-58% of the total acres available within the project area. The amount of habitat treated within the project area is high, but at the landscape scale is minimal at 0.7% of the North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River Watershed and 1% of the Fall River – Deschutes River Watershed, and across the Forest, 0.1%. The three-toed woodpecker will utilize mixed conifer habitats with a component of lodgepole pine, but, similar to the black-backed woodpecker, lodgepole pine and the various age classes that occur are also important for the three-toed woodpecker. The following table displays what the treatments would do to the age class diversification of lodgepole pine across the Lex Project Area. Table 96. Current Age Class Percentage of Lodgepole Pine within the Lex Project Area and the Changes to the Age Class Diversity From the Proposed Alternatives.

Age Class Existing Condition Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Early 42% 58% 62% 55% Mid 1% <1% 0% 1% Late 57% 41% 38% 44%

The mid-age class of lodgepole pine would continue to be lacking within the project area. The late age class would decrease with all of the alternatives, with Alternative 3 decreasing this age class the most (19%). Along with this decrease in age-class would be the increase in the early age class. These early age-classes are the stands that will be providing future habitat for this species, with many of these treatments located in such a way as to create larger contiguous blocks (>300 acres) of future habitat for the three-toed woodpecker. Alternative 4 would treat the least amount of late age-class lodgepole pine, keeping larger blocks of current suitable habitat available for the three-toed woodpecker. Tables 97 and 98 displays the acres of mapped three-toed woodpecker habitat treated by the alternatives and the treatment types that would be impacting habitat within the project area. Table 97. Overstory Treatments by Type within MIS Mapped Three-Toed Woodpecker Habitat.

Alt. Total

Treatment Acres


Alt. 2 444 48 29 33 25 64 0 24 8 213 0

167

Alt. Total

Treatment Acres


Alt. 3 473 48 29 33 25 68 0 24 8 213 25 Alt. 4 444 48 29 33 25 64 12 12 8 213 0

The primary overstory treatments within mapped three-toed woodpecker habitat would occur in the lodgepole pine stands as overstory removal (HCR/HFR/HOR). These treatments, with the exception of HCR acres, would remove all of the overstory trees and thin the understory, if there is one. This would remove all potential nest and foraging trees. If there is not an understory available within HOR units, 10 trees/acre would be left, which would also be left within the HCR units. Only alternative 4 would retain trees within HFR units and these would be girdled and left to provide snags and future down wood on 12 acres. Salvage (HSV) of lodgepole pine would occur on 33 acres, which would remove a majority of dead and down wood on these acres. HIM and HSC would retain an overstory but may thin the overstory and understory plus remove some dead and down wood. Other treatments within mixed conifer stands include uneven-aged management/selection cut, special cut, and commercial thinning. These would thin stands releasing and favoring ponderosa pine, removing suppressed white fir and lodgepole pine, adding resilience of these stands to fire and insect attack. Potential nesting and foraging habitat could still occur within these treatments. Generally, large snags would be avoided during treatments, but due to OSHA regulations snags posing a hazard may be removed. Smaller snags would most likely be removed in lodgepole pine stands proposed for treatments where the snag numbers are higher than Forest Plan Standards and Guideline recommendations. Table 98. Overstory, Understory, and Fuels Treatments within Mapped Three-Toed Woodpecker Habitat.




Alt. 2 444 23 400 64 483 0.5 46 Alt. 3 473 4 426 64 491 0.5 46 Alt. 4 444 23 400 64 374 0.5 46

Understory treatments including ladder fuels reduction, precommercial thinning, and whip falling treatments would be setting these stands up for developing into future stands of habitat for three-toed woodpeckers quicker by creating a healthier stand more resilient to insects and disease. These future stands may provide the size of habitat needed sooner, but increased resilience reduces the amount of three-toed woodpecker prey, indirectly impacting their populations. All three action alternatives propose fuels underburn treatments (46 acres) associated with overstory treatments. Fuels treatments would not directly remove any large trees. The fuels treatments would break up the fuel continuity and reduce the risk of a landscape scale fire event, which should reduce the risk to individual large snags and trees. The integrity of nesting habitat components should not be changed. Burning prescriptions and pre-ignition fuels reduction would reduce the chance of losing large snags (change to down wood), however, it is assumed that a small percentage of large snags would be affected by prescribed burning. Prescribed burning could also have the potential to create additional snags. Project Design Criteria would be incorporated to reduce the loss of down wood and snags during burning operations. The project promotes fuels reduction and forest health in the short-term and in the long-term promotes the longevity of large tree structure and a fire resistant landscape.

168

Areas where piling would occur may remove the down wood component that this species prefers. This would likely be more of an issue in the lodgepole pine treatment areas. Project Design Criteria would be incorporated to reduce the amount of wood placed in these piles post-treatment. Connected activities (e.g. piling, soil restoration, gopher trapping, herbicide spraying and boraxing) would likely have negligible disturbance impacts to individuals. It is the overstory/understory/fuels treatments that have the larger impact (degrading or removing habitat). It is possible that if the project occurs during the breeding season (April 15 – July 15), commercial and non-commercial thinning and fuels projects could have direct, negative impacts to nesting woodpeckers that may be within or adjacent to active units (it is unknown without surveys if there are any active nests within a specific action area). Disturbance during this time could result in nest failure (noise disturbance) or direct loss of individuals (from tree removal or adults away from the nest for too long). While timber harvest and spring underburning have the potential to disrupt nesting pairs of three-toed woodpeckers, this is considered a short-term impact (1-3 years) and only where activities would occur during the spring nesting season. Since not all of the proposed activities would occur at the same time over the entire project area, undisturbed potential reproductive habitat would be still be available for the species within the project area. Although a large amount of habitat would be treated within the project area (54% - 58% of mapped habitat within Lex), the amount treated across the landscape and Forest would be minimal. Cumulative Effects— Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable vegetation treatments in the North Unit Diversion Dam–Deschutes River and Fall River – Deschutes River watersheds would occur on approximately 10,652 acres of three-toed woodpecker habitat. These treatments primarily include the following vegetation management projects: Rocket, West Bend, Junction, Kew and the UDR WUI. The primary treatments for all projects include: commercial thinning, mowing, and underburning. In the lodgepole pine stands, these treatments would have short-term negative impacts by the loss of older stands prime for beetle attack that would provide foraging and nesting habitat. Long-term, treatments would reduce lodgepole pine mistletoe in the overstory to produce a healthier understory that would grow faster and larger for future nesting and foraging habitat. The Lex Project would treat approximately an additional 444 acres (Alt. 2 and 4), or 473 acres (Alt. 2) of the available three-toed woodpecker reproductive habitat in the watersheds depending on the alternative selected. Cumulatively, when the Lex Project is added to the other projects (using Alternative 3 since it would treat the largest acreage), approximately 28% of the three-toed woodpecker habitat in the watershed would be treated (11,125 acres). Along with the Rocket, West Bend, Junction, Kew, and UDRI WUI Vegetation Management Projects, the Lex Project may result in short-term negative cumulative effects to three-toed woodpeckers. This would be due to impacts from the potential disturbance/loss of individuals during project activities and the loss of large acreages of older lodgepole pine habitat in the watersheds from treatment activities, with long-term benefits to future habitat. Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures—Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 The following Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures are applicable for snags and down wood and can be found in detail on pages 14 – 18 of this document: 10 and 13-22.

169

Consistency To meet Forest Plan S&G’s for this species, the following would need to occur: Retain snags (including soft) as wildlife trees for nesting, roosting and foraging except where impractical because of human safety in all units (Wildlife Tree and Log Implementation Strategy, LRMP WL-38) at the 100% population potential (NWFP Page C-46). These levels are minimums. Where appropriate, leave higher concentrations and leave larger sizes where available. No snags over 20” dbh should be marked for cutting (NWFP Page C-46). At a minimum, snags are to be retained at the following levels per current direction: Mixed Conifer 3 snags/acre >10” dbh 1 snag/acre >20” dbh Lodgepole pine 3 snags/acre > 10”dbh This is written into this document as a Project Design Criteria and will further be addressed within the projects implementation plan. Maintaining these levels within areas that would be prescribed burned are not guaranteed. Monitoring should occur post project to determine what levels remain within project units. Determination/Conclusion (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) Implementation of the Lex Project would occur on 444-473 acres of the 817 acres of the mapped three-toed woodpecker nesting habitat available within the project area (54-58%). Project treatments would increase the number of acres of early age class lodgepole pine and decrease the late age class lodgepole pine. Alternatives 2 and 4 would treat the same acreage of habitat, but Alternative 4 was designed to block up larger acreages of habitat in the late age class for the benefit of this species. The total amount of mapped three-toed woodpecker nesting habitat acres treated within the Lex Project area is minimal compared to that available within the watersheds and Forest. Since this project impacts 0.7% (NUDD) to 1% (FR) of the watersheds and 0.1% of the suitable habitat across the Forest (Table 95), the overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects would result in a negative trend of habitat, but the loss would be small with benefits to future habitat. In reference to the DecAID analysis, proposed treatments could cause short-term reductions in small snag (>10” diameter) numbers, but would allow for the long-term development in large snag structure (>20” diameter). This may move current conditions away from the reference figures in the short-term for small snag habitat, with an improved trajectory for the large snag component to move closer toward the reference condition in the long-term. Although some snag habitat may be lost during project implementation, within the watersheds it is currently above 30% tolerance levels for this species. Snags are expected to continue to be available in adjacent untreated habitat and could potentially be created during prescribed burning activities. Although over half of the mapped three-toed woodpecker habitat would be impacted within the project area, the amount would be minor compared to that available within the watershed and Forest. Snags would continue to be available within treatment units plus untreated habitat within the project area (i.e. wilderness to the north and unroaded areas to the west). Some individuals may be negatively impacted during project implementation during the nesting season, but project activities would take place during various times of the year (and not just the nesting season) and in various habitats and treatments. Based on these impacts and that this species is ranked Vulnerable (S3) by NatureServe (2015), the Lex Vegetation Management Project is expected to have a small negative impact to three-toed woodpeckers and their habitat. Because this project impacts a minimal 0.1% of suitable three-toed woodpecker habitat across the Forest, the overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will result in a small negative trend of habitat and increased disturbance. This loss of habitat and increased disturbance will be insignificant at the scale of the Forest. The Lex Vegetation Management Project is

170

consistent with the Forest Plan, and thus continued viability of the three-toed woodpecker is expected on the Deschutes National Forest. HAIRY WOODPECKER, Picoides villosus MIS Measure: Proportion of reproductive habitat acres impacted; disturbance during the nesting season. Habitat Needs and Existing Condition The hairy woodpecker is a primary cavity nester that is able to adapt to a wide variety of habitats. It is found in deciduous or coniferous forest, well-wooded towns and parks, and even open situations with scattered trees (Sousa 1987). This species is also associated with post-fire environments. Bull et al. (1986) found hairy woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon foraged primarily in ponderosa pine forest types and also used grand fir types. Hairy woodpeckers use both live and dead trees for foraging (Bull et al. 1986, Lundquist 1988). Live lodgepole pine and western larch were preferred in northeastern Oregon as well as ponderosa pine >10”dbh (Bull et al. 1986). Hairy woodpeckers are abundant in recently post-fire burned areas. Murphy and Lenhausen (1998), Harris (1982), and Covert-Bratland et al. (2006) found hairy woodpeckers were abundant 1-2 years post-fire and then decreased where Kriesel and Stein (1999) found hairy woodpeckers were the most abundant woodpecker regardless of year post-fire (monitored for 4 years). For a detailed assessment of life history and status of the hairy woodpecker on the Deschutes National Forest, see the Forestwide Species Assessment (USFS 2012j). The following tables show hairy woodpecker snag habitat data as defined by DecAID. The data compiled in the tables below was based on wildlife habitat types and structural condition. Table 99. Hairy Woodpecker Preferred Snag Sizes.

Hairy Woodpecker Habitat Type





Hairy Woodpecker Use Type for all Habitat Types




Snag Size (dbh in) Nesting 9.2 16.7 26.6 Roosting – no data Foraging 8.3 11.7 17.0 Average for All Use Types 8.8 14.2 21.8

Hairy Woodpecker All Habitat and Use Types




Snag Size (dbh in)


171

Table 100. Hairy Woodpecker preferred Snag Densities. Hairy Woodpecker

Habitat Type




Snag Density (#/acre) Eastside Mixed Conifer – no data

Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir 0.0 17.0 44.4 Lodgepole Pine –no data


Hairy Woodpecker Habitat Type





Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir 0.0 17.0 44.4 Lodgepole Pine –no data

Average for All Types 0.0 17.0 44.4 The above tables derived from the DecAID wildlife data analysis show that hairy woodpecker’s average preferred habitat at the 50% tolerance level are snags at 14.4” dbh with an average density of approximately 17.0 snags per acre. Within the analysis area, hairy woodpecker snag size and snag density appear to be below the 30% tolerance level. There is no information regarding hairy woodpecker use of down wood within DecAID, nor in the species report (USDA FS 2012j). For the Forest-wide assessment, hairy woodpecker habitat was mapped using Viable modeling across the entire Deschutes National Forest. Hairy woodpecker nesting habitat was mapped using mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, and lodgepole pine plant association groups (PAGs) in early, mid and late seral stages. In addition, stand size had to range from 11-20”dbh in mixed conifer and ponderosa pine and range from 5-20”dbh in lodgepole pine and have open stand characteristics (based on the canopy cover level thresholds for each PAG) to be mapped as potential habitat. Recent fires (less than 5 years old) with stand replacement severity were added as habitat. Recent (since 2002) forest management activities that resulted in conditions other than described above were removed from mapped potential habitat. Table 101 summarizes this data. Table 101. Hairy Woodpecker Reproductive Habitat within the Lex Vegetation Management Project Area, North Unit Diversion Dam-Deschutes River and Fall River-Deschutes River Watersheds, and across the Deschutes N.F.

Acres of Hairy Woodpecker Habitat in

the Project Area



Watershed



Watershed

Acres of Hairy Woodpecker Habitat

on the Forest

2,582 45,602 33,029 585,609 acres 22% of project acres.

0.4% of all hairy woodpecker habitat on the

Forest.

8% of all hairy woodpecker habitat on the

Forest

6% of all hairy woodpecker habitat on


172

Approximately 2,582 acres of hairy woodpecker reproductive habitat exists within the project area, which is 22% of the total project acres and 0.4% of the habitat available on the Forest. Across the Forest, hairy woodpecker habitat is abundant, covering approximately 36% of the Forest. During field reconnaissance in 2015 and 2016, hairy woodpeckers were seen utilizing mixed conifer stands with live trees and within root rot pockets. The hairy woodpecker is considered “apparently secure” (S4) by NatureServe (2015). Effects of the Actions Alternative 1 – No Action (Ecological Trend) Under the no action alternative, habitat conditions would remain unchanged in the short-term. As trees infected with disease and those attacked by insects begin to succumb, foraging and nesting habitat will increase. Fuel loading in the area would also increase, as would the risk of a high intensity fire that would likely spread throughout the area. A stand-replacing fire would provide a large pulse of foraging and nesting habitat in the short-term, but as snags begin to deteriorate and fall, the amount of suitable habitat would decrease and would not be replaced for many years until a new stand develops. With no proposed action to add incrementally to the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable actions, there would be no cumulative impacts. Alternatives 2 and 3- Direct and Indirect Effects Table 102 displays the acres of potential hairy woodpecker habitat treated by the alternatives and the percentage of habitat impacted within the project area, watersheds, and Forest. Table 102. Lex Proposed Overstory Treatments in Mapped Hairy Woodpecker Habitat.

Alt.

Acres of Hairy

Woodpecker Habitat

Treated in Lex

% of Total Acres of Hairy Woodpecker


% of Total Acres of Hairy Woodpecker



% of Total Acres of Hairy



Watershed

% Total Acres of Hairy

Woodpecker Habitat


Alt. 2 908

NUDD – 83 FR - 825

35% 0.2% 2% 0.2%

Alt. 3 1,011

NUDD – 110 FR - 901

39% 0.2% 3% 0.2%

Alt. 4 887

NUDD – 80 FR - 807

34% 0.2% 2% 0.2%

The Lex Project area proposes to treat 887 (Alt. 4), 908 (Alt. 2), and 1,011 (Alt. 3) acres of mapped hairy woodpecker habitat. This equates to 34% - 39% of the total acres available within the project area. The treatments within hairy woodpecker habitat would not completely eliminate potential habitat on those acres. The amount of habitat treated across the landscape is minimal at 0.2% within the North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River Watershed and 2-3% within the Fall River – Deschutes River Watershed, and across the Forest, 0.2% of the habitat. Tables 103 and 104 displays the acres of mapped hairy woodpecker habitat treated by the alternatives and the treatment types that would be impacting habitat within the project area.

173

Table 103. Overstory Treatments by Type within Mapped Hairy Woodpecker Habitat.

Alt. Total

Treatment Acres

HSL HSP HSV HTH HCR GFR HFR HOR HSC

Alt. 2 908 175 19 42 13 77 0 280 302 0 Alt. 3 1,011 175 19 42 13 160 0 280 302 20 Alt. 4 887 175 19 42 13 56 155 125 302 0

The primary overstory treatments, within mapped hairy woodpecker habitat, would occur in the lodgepole pine stands as overstory removal (HCR/HFR/HOR). These treatments, with the exception of HCR acres, would remove all of the overstory trees and thin the understory, if there is one. This would remove all potential nest and foraging trees. If there is not an understory available within HOR units, 10 trees/acre would be left, which would also be left within the HCR units. Only alternative 4 would retain trees within HFR units and these would be girdled and left to provide snags and future down wood on 132 acres. Salvage (HSV) of lodgepole pine would occur on 42 acres, which would remove a majority of dead and down wood on these acres. Other treatments within mixed conifer stands include uneven-aged management/selection cut, special cut, and commercial thinning. These would thin stands releasing and favoring ponderosa pine, removing suppressed white fir and lodgepole pine. Potential nesting and foraging habitat could still occur within these treatments. Hairy woodpeckers have been shown to prefer unlogged areas, so they may select the areas within the project area that are not proposed for logging, however Cahall (2007) recommends leaving large snags within the units to provide foraging habitat. The snag retention strategy would retain all snags greater than or equal to 20 inches dbh, and unlogged habitat would be provided on over 50% over the project area. Other actions that impact hairy woodpeckers include the removal of large white fir with mistletoe (20-30 inches dbh) and thinning. Both actions have the potential to remove future nesting, and perhaps current foraging habitat. All alternatives retain white fir >30”dbh regardless of condition. This size has been shown to be rare on the landscape and an important habitat feature for this and other species that utilize habitat within the project area. Generally, large snags would be avoided during treatments, but due to OSHA regulations snags posing a hazard may be removed. Smaller snags would most likely be removed in lodgepole pine stands proposed for treatments where the snag numbers are higher than Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines recommendations. Table 104. Overstory, Understory, and Fuels Treatments within Mapped Hairy Woodpecker Habitat.




Alt. 2 908 158 1,043 19 598 347 280 Alt. 3 1,011 156 1,063 19 613 347 280 Alt. 4 887 158 1,022 19 565 347 280

Understory treatments including ladder fuels reduction, precommercial thinning, and whip falling treatments would be setting these stands up for developing into future stands of nesting and foraging habitat by reducing competition around larger trees, reducing potential loss by catastrophic fire, and increasing stand resiliency from insects and disease. These future stands may provide the size of habitat needed sooner, but increased stand resilience reduces the amount of hairy woodpecker prey (insects), wich could indirectly impact their populations.

174

All three action alternatives propose fuels underburn treatments (280 acres) associated with overstory treatments (and mowing/mastication – 347 acres). Fuels treatments would not directly remove any large trees. The fuels treatments would break up the fuel continuity and reduce the risk of a landscape scale fire event, which should reduce the risk to individual large snags and trees. The integrity of nesting habitat components should not be changed. Burning prescriptions and pre-ignition fuels reduction would reduce the chance of losing large snags (change to down wood), however, it is assumed that a small percentage of large snags would be affected by prescribed burning. Prescribed burning could also have the potential to create additional snags. Project Design Criteria would be incorporated to reduce the loss of down wood and snags during burning operations. The project promotes fuels reduction and forest health in the short-term and in the long-term promotes the longevity of large tree structure and a fire resistant landscape. Connected activities (e.g. piling, soil restoration, gopher trapping, herbicide spraying and boraxing) would likely have negligible disturbance impacts to individuals. It is the overstory/understory/fuels treatments that have the larger impact (deteriorating or removing habitat). It is possible that if the project occurs during the breeding season (April 15 – July 15), commercial and non-commercial thinning and fuels projects could have direct, negative impacts to nesting woodpeckers that may be within or adjacent to active units (it is unknown without surveys if there are any active nests within a specific action area). Disturbance during this time could result in nest failure (noise disturbance) or direct loss of individuals (from tree removal or adults away from the nest for too long). While timber harvest and spring underburning have the potential to disrupt nesting pairs of hairy woodpeckers, this is considered a short-term impact (1-3 years) and only where activities would occur during the spring nesting season. Since not all of the proposed activities would occur at the same time over the entire project area, undisturbed potential reproductive habitat would be still be available for the species within the project area. Although a moderate amount of habitat would be treated within the project area (34% - 39% of mapped habitat within Lex), the amount treated across the landscape and Forest would be minimal. Larger trees would be retained as well as large snags and down wood, and mapped habitat would continue to be available adjacent to treatment units. Minimal negative impacts are expected for the hairy woodpecker and its habitat. Cumulative Effects— Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable vegetation treatments in the North Unit Diversion Dam–Deschutes River and Fall River – Deschutes River watersheds would occur on approximately 38,427 acres of hairy woodpecker habitat. These treatments primarily include the following vegetation management projects: Rocket, West Bend, Junction, Kew and the UDR WUI. The primary treatments for all projects include: commercial thinning, mowing, and underburning. The Lex Project would treat approximately an additional 887 acres (Alt. 4), 908 acres (Alt. 2), or 1,011 acres (Alt. 3) of the available hairy woodpecker reproductive habitat in the watersheds depending on the alternative selected. Cumulatively, when the Lex Project is added to the other projects (using Alternative 3 since it would treat the largest acreage), approximately 50% of the hairy woodpecker habitat in the watershed would be treated (39,438 acres). Along with the Rocket, West Bend, Junction, Kew, and UDRI WUI Vegetation Management Projects, the Lex Project would improve habitat conditions in the short and long-term for the hairy woodpecker by accelerating the development of more fire and disease resistant open stands containing large tree structure and reducing the risk of loss of existing habitat from high intensity and/or stand-replacing fire. None of the activities propose the removal of large snags that would provide reproductive habitat. A small number of snags could be lost during prescribed fire treatment. The short-term negative cumulative impacts expected would be the disturbance the proposed treatments would have on potentially nesting pairs within the watershed. These cumulative impacts

175

are variable, as treatment activities would take place at various times during the year, not just the nesting season, and take place over several years. Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures—Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 The following Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures are applicable for snags and down wood and can be found in detail on pages 14 – 18 of this document: 10, 13-17, 30, and 31. Consistency To meet Forest Plan S&G’s for this species, the following would need to occur: Retain snags (including soft) as wildlife trees for nesting, roosting and foraging except where impractical because of human safety in all units (Wildlife Tree and Log Implementation Strategy, LRMP WL-38) at the 100% population potential (NWFP Page C-46). These levels are minimums. Where appropriate, leave higher concentrations and leave larger sizes where available. No snags over 20” dbh should be marked for cutting (NWFP Page C-46). At a minimum, snags are to be retained at the following levels per current direction: Mixed Conifer 3 snags/acre >10” dbh 1 snag/acre >20” dbh Lodgepole pine 3 snags/acre > 10”dbh This is written into this document as a Project Design Criteria and will further be addressed within the projects implementation plan. Maintaining these levels within areas that would be prescribed burned are not guaranteed. Monitoring should occur post project to determine what levels remain within project units. Determination/Conclusion (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) Implementation of the Lex Vegetation Management Project would occur on 887 (Alt. 4), 908 (Alt. 2), and 1,011 acres (Alt. 3) of the mapped 2,582 acres of hairy woodpecker habitat available within the project area (34%– 39%). All alternatives would remove potential nesting and foraging habitat, with the treatments in lodgepole pine having the greatest impact to this species within the project. Alternative 4 would girdle, instead of remove, the overstory lodgepole pine, which could provide potential foraging habitat for this species. Although Alternative 3 would treat more acres than Alternatives 2 and 4, treatments proposed for all alternatives would not remove the larger trees that could be utilized for nesting. The project promotes fuels reduction and forest health in the short-term and in the long-term promotes the longevity of large tree structure, which is important for hairy woodpeckers. Alternative 3 proposes the greatest amount of habitat loss for hairy woodpeckers (39%), followed by Alternative 2 (35%), then Alternative 4 (34%). Although it is a moderate amount of habitat loss for the project area, compared to the habitat available within the watersheds, the loss is 0.2% within the North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River Watershed and 2 to 3% within the Fall River – Deschutes River Watershed. The loss Forest-wide is 0.2%. The overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects would result in a slight negative trend of habitat. In reference to the DecAID analysis, proposed treatments could cause short-term reductions in small snag (>10” diameter) numbers, but would allow for the long-term development in large snag structure (>20” diameter). This may move current conditions away from the reference figures in the short-term for small snag habitat, with an improved trajectory for the large snag component to move closer toward the reference condition in the long-term. Although some snag habitat may be lost during project implementation, within the watersheds

176

it is already below 30% tolerance levels for this species. Snags are expected to continue to be available in adjacent untreated habitat and could potentially be created during prescribed burning activities. Although over one-third of the mapped hairy woodpecker habitat would be impacted within the project area, the amount would be minor compared to that available within the watershed and Forest, plus, treatments would not eliminate all habitat available within project units for nesting and foraging. It is expected that some individuals may be negatively impacted during project implementation during the nesting season, but project activities would take place during various times of the year (and not just the nesting season) and in various habitats and treatments. Based on these impacts and that this species is ranked “apparently secure (S4) by NatureServe (2015), the Lex Vegetation Management Project is expected to have a small negative impact to hairy woodpeckers and their habitat. Because this project impacts a minimal 0.2% of suitable hairy woodpecker habitat across the Forest, the overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will result in a small negative trend of habitat and increased disturbance. This loss of habitat and increased disturbance will be insignificant at the scale of the Forest. The Lex Vegetation Management Project is consistent with the Forest Plan, and thus continued viability of the hairy woodpecker is expected on the Deschutes National Forest. NORTHERN FLICKER, Colaptes auratus MIS Measure: Proportion of reproductive habitat acres impacted; disturbance during the nesting season. Habitat Needs and Existing Condition Northern flickers are perhaps the most common resident woodpecker in Oregon, and can use a variety of habitat types from wilderness to backyards. They can be found in a range of terrestrial habitats but are generally abundant in open forests and forest edges adjacent to open country (Marshall et al. 2003). They typically avoid dense forest (Marshall et al. 2003). This species is also associated with post-fire environments. Northern flickers require open space for nesting and foraging (Marshall et al. 2003). Open space or open habitat has been lost due to fire suppression leading to over-stocked stands of trees and shrubs. In addition, this leads to increased risk of loss of large trees (future snags) and snags from wildfire. Forest management activities also result in the loss of large, decayed snags which reduces potential nesting habitat and could lead to further population declines. The northern flicker is a unique species as it forages almost exclusively on the ground during the summer specializing on ants and beetle larvae (Bull 1980, Bull et al. 1986, Elchuk and Wiebe 2002, and Weibe and Moore 2008). Although over 80% of the ground foraging and pecking occurred in the summer, Bull (1980) found foraging changed to excavating in dead and down woody material in the fall. This reflects a decrease in ground insect availability. Bull et al. (1986) also reported flickers excavated, pecked, gleaned, and harvested seeds in live and dead trees, down woody material, and stumps. For a detailed assessment of life history and status of the northern flicker on the Deschutes National Forest, see the Forest-wide Species Assessment (USDA FS 2012m). The following tables show northern flicker snag and down wood habitat data as defined by DecAID. The data compiled in the tables below was based on wildlife habitat types and structural condition. Table 105. Northern Flicker Preferred Snag Sizes.

Northern Flicker Habitat Type




Snag Size (dbh in) Eastside Mixed Conifer 17.9 34.2 33.0 Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir 17.2 21.8 28.8

177

Lodgepole Pine –no data Average for All Habitat

Types 17.6 28.0 30.9

Northern Flicker

Use Type for all Habitat Types




Snag Size (dbh in) Nesting 17.5 22.8 33.6 Roosting – no data Foraging 18.2 21.8 30 Average for All Use Types 17.9 22.3 31.8

Northern Flicker All Habitat and Use Types





Note: Snag density data in green stands was not available for the northern flicker in DecAID. Data provided for “various species” under “Cavity Nesting Birds” was used in lieu of northern flicker data. Table 106. Northern Flicker Preferred Snag Densities.






Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir 1.2 4.7 10.0 Lodgepole Pine –no data Average for All Types 1.2 4.7 10.0





Snag Density (#/acre) Eastside Mixed Conifer 0.0 2.4 0.0 Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir 0.0 1.0 2.8 Lodgepole Pine –no data Average for All Types 0.0 1.7 2.8

The above tables derived from the DecAID wildlife data analysis show that northern flicker preferred habitat at the 50% tolerance level are snags at an average of 25.2” dbh with an average density of approximately 4.7 snags per acre for small snags and 1.7 large snags per acre. Within the analysis area, snag densities appear to be above reference conditions for the 80% tolerance level. There is no information regarding northern flicker use of down wood within DecAID, nor in the species report (USDA FS 2012m). For the Forest-wide assessment, northern flicker habitat was mapped using Viable modeling across the entire Deschutes National Forest. Northern flicker nesting habitat was mapped using plant association groups from juniper, lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, grand/white fir, and Douglas-fir in all seral stages. In addition, stand size had to be a minimum diameter of 10”dbh or greater in lodgepole pine and 15” dbh in all other PAGs and

178

have open stand characteristics (based on the canopy cover level thresholds for each PAG) to be mapped as potential habitat. Recent fires (less than 5 years old) with stand replacement or mixed severity were also classified as habitat. Recent (since 2002) forest management activities that resulted in conditions other than described above were either removed from or added to mapped potential habitat depending on the resulting outcome of the treatment. Table 107 summarizes this data. Table 107. Northern Flicker Reproductive Habitat within the Lex Vegetation Management Project Area, North Unit Diversion Dam-Deschutes River and Fall River-Deschutes River Watersheds, and Across the Deschutes N.F.

Acres of Northern Flicker Habitat in the

Project Area

Acres of Northern Flicker Habitat in the North Unit Diversion


Acres of Northern Flicker Habitat in the Fall River – Deschutes

River Watershed

Acres of Northern Flicker Habitat on the

Forest

935 17,928 10,531 239,505 8% of project acres. 0.4%

of all northern flicker habitat on the Forest.

7% of all northern flicker habitat on the Forest

4% of all northern flicker habitat on the


Approximately 935 acres of northern flicker reproductive habitat exists within the project area, which is 8% of the total project acres and 0.4% of the habitat available on the Forest. Across the Forest, northern flicker habitat would not be considered abundant at 15% of the Forest. During field reconnaissance in 2015 and 2016, northern flickers were seen utilizing previously harvested stands with large trees and within root rot pockets. NatureServe (2015) rates the northern flicker “secure” S5. Effects of the Actions Alternative 1 – No Action (Ecological Trend) Under the no action alternative, habitat conditions would remain unchanged in the short-term. As trees infected with disease and those attacked by insects begin to succumb, forage and nesting habitat will increase. Fuel loading in the area would also increase, as would the risk of a high intensity fire that would likely spread throughout the area. A stand-replacing fire would provide a large pulse of forage and nesting habitat in the short-term, but as snags began to deteriorate and fall, the amount of suitable habitat would drop and would not be replaced for many years until a new stand develops. With no proposed action to add incrementally to the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable actions, there would be no cumulative impacts. Alternatives 2 and 3- Direct and Indirect Effects Table 108 displays the acres of mapped northern flicker habitat treated by the alternatives and the percentage of habitat impacted within the project area, watersheds, and Forest.

179

Table 108. Lex Proposed Overstory Treatments in MIS Mapped Northern Flicker Habitat.

Alt.

Acres of Northern Flicker Habitat

Treated in Lex

% of Total Acres of Northern Flicker Habitat


% of Total Acres of Northern Flicker



% of Total Acres of Northern

Flicker Habitat Treated in the

Fall River - Deschutes River

Watershed

% Total Acres of Northern

Flicker Habitat


Alt. 2 250

NUDD – 33 FR - 217

27% 0.2% 2% 0.1%

Alt. 3 265

NUDD – 33 FR - 232

28% 0.2% 2% 0.1%

Alt. 4 250

NUDD – 33 FR - 217

27% 0.2% 2% 0.1%

The Lex Project area proposes to treat 250 acres (Alt. 2 and 4), and 232 acres (Alt. 3), of mapped northern flicker habitat. This equates to 27% - 28% of the total mapped acres available within the project area. The treatments within northern flicker habitat would not completely eliminate potential habitat on those acres (nest trees and foraging habitat continue to be provided). The amount of habitat treated across the landscape is minimal at 0.2% within the North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River Watershed and 2% within the Fall River – Deschutes River Watershed, and across the Forest, 0.1% of the habitat. Tables 109 and 110 displays the acres of mapped northern flicker habitat treated by the alternatives and the treatment types that would be impacting habitat within the project area. Table 109. Overstory Treatments by Type within MIS Mapped Northern Flicker Habitat.

Alt. Total

Treatment Acres


Alt. 2 250 6 3 4 7 2 0 224 4 0 Alt. 3 265 6 3 4 7 15 0 224 4 2 Alt. 4 250 6 3 4 7 2 132 92 4 0

The primary overstory treatments, within mapped northern flicker habitat, would occur in the lodgepole pine stands as overstory removal (HCR/HFR/HOR). These treatments, with the exception of HCR acres, would remove all of the overstory trees and thin the understory, if there is one. This would remove all potential nest and foraging trees. If there is not an understory available within HOR units, 10 trees/acre would be left, which would also be left within the HCR units. Only alternative 4 would retain trees within HFR units and these would be girdled and left to provide snags and future down wood on 132 acres. Salvage of lodgepole pine would occur on 4 acres, which would remove a majority of dead and down wood on these acres. Other treatments within mixed conifer stands include uneven-aged management/selection cut, special cut, and commercial thinning. These would thin stands releasing and favoring ponderosa pine, removing suppressed white fir and lodgepole pine. Potential nesting and foraging habitat could still occur within these treatments. Generally, large snags would be avoided during treatments, but due to OSHA regulations snags posing a hazard may be removed.

180

Table 110. Overstory, Understory, and Fuels Treatments within Mapped Northern Flicker Habitat. Understory Treatments Acres Fuels Treatment Acres



Alt. 2 250 18 210 1 107 113 106 Alt. 3 265 18 212 1 109 113 106 Alt. 4 250 18 209 1 106 113 106

Understory treatments including ladder fuels reduction, precommercial thinning, and whip falling treatments would be setting these stands up for developing into future stands of nesting and foraging habitat for northern flickers. These future stands may provide the size of habitat needed sooner, but increased stand resilience reduces the amount of northern flicker prey (insects), wich could indirectly impact their populations. All three action alternatives propose fuels underburn treatments (106 acres) associated with overstory treatments (and mowing/mastication). Fuels treatments would not directly remove any large trees. The fuels treatments would break up the fuel continuity and reduce the risk of a landscape scale fire event, which should reduce the risk to individual large snags and trees. The integrity of nesting habitat components should not be changed. Burning prescriptions and pre-ignition fuels reduction would reduce the chance of losing large snags (change to down wood), however, it is assumed that a small percentage of large snags would be affected by prescribed burning. Prescribed burning could also have the potential to create additional snags. Project Design Criteria would be incorporated to reduce the loss of down wood and snags during burning operations. The project promotes fuels reduction and forest health in the short-term and in the long-term promotes the longevity of large tree structure and a fire resistant landscape. Connected activities (e.g. piling, soil restoration, gopher trapping, herbicide spraying and boraxing) would likely have negligible disturbance impacts to individuals. It is the overstory/understory/fuels treatments that have the larger impact (deteriorating or removing habitat). It is possible that if the project occurs during the breeding season (April 15 – July 15), commercial and non-commercial thinning and fuels projects could have direct, negative impacts to nesting woodpeckers that may be within or adjacent to active units (it is unknown without surveys if there are any active nests within a specific action area). Disturbance during this time could result in nest failure (noise disturbance) or direct loss of individuals (from tree removal or adults away from the nest for too long). While timber harvest and spring underburning have the potential to disrupt nesting pairs of northern flickers, this is considered a short-term impact (1-3 years) and only where activities would occur during the spring nesting season. Since not all of the proposed activities would occur at the same time over the entire project area, undisturbed potential reproductive habitat would be still be available for the species within the project area. Due to the relatively low amount of habitat impacted by the project, 250 - 265 acres of treatment (0.1 % of forest-wide habitat) that retains the largest trees, retains snags and down wood, and available mapped habitat occurs adjacent to treatment units, there would be a small negative impact to the northern flicker and its habitat. Cumulative Effects— Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable vegetation treatments in the North Unit Diversion Dam–Deschutes River and Fall River – Deschutes River watersheds would occur on approximately 14,176 acres of northern flicker habitat. These treatments primarily include the following vegetation management projects: Rocket, West Bend, Junction, Kew and the UDR WUI. The primary treatments for all projects include: commercial thinning, mowing, and underburning.

181

The Lex Project would treat approximately an additional 250 acres (Alt. 2 and 4), or 265 acres (Alt. 3) of the available northern flicker reproductive habitat in the watersheds depending on the alternative selected. Cumulatively, when the Lex is added to the other projects (using Alternative 3 since it would treat the largest acreage), approximately 51% of the northern flicker habitat in the watershed would be treated (14,441 acres). Along with the Rocket, West Bend, Junction, Kew, and UDRI WUI Vegetation Management Projects, the Lex Project would improve habitat conditions in the short and long-term for the northern flicker by accelerating the development of more fire and disease resistant open stands containing large tree structure and reducing the risk of loss of existing habitat from high intensity and/or stand-replacing fire. None of the activities propose the removal of large snags that would provide reproductive habitat. A small number of snags could be lost during prescribed fire treatments. The short-term negative cumulative impacts expected would be the disturbance the proposed treatments would have on potentially nesting pairs within the watershed. These cumulative impacts are variable, as treatment activities would take place at various times during the year, not just the nesting season, and take place over several years. Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures—Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 The following Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures are applicable for snags and down wood and can be found in detail on pages 14 – 18 of this document: 10,13-17, 30, and 31. Consistency To meet Forest Plan S&G’s for this species, the following would need to occur: Retain snags (including soft) as wildlife trees for nesting, roosting and foraging except where impractical because of human safety in all units (Wildlife Tree and Log Implementation Strategy, LRMP WL-38) at the 100% population potential (NWFP Page C-46). These levels are minimums. Where appropriate, leave higher concentrations and leave larger sizes where available. No snags over 20” dbh should be marked for cutting (NWFP Page C-46). At a minimum, snags are to be retained at the following levels per current direction: Mixed Conifer 3 snags/acre >10” dbh 1 snag/acre >20” dbh Lodgepole pine 3 snags/acre > 10”dbh This is written into this document as a Project Design Criteria and will further be addressed within the projects implementation plan. Maintaining these levels within areas that would be prescribed burned are not guaranteed. Monitoring should occur post project to determine what levels remain within project units. Determination/Conclusion (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) Implementation of the Lex Vegetation Management Project would occur on 250 acres (Alt. 2 and 4) and 265 acres (Alt. 3) of the mapped 935 acres of northern flicker habitat available within the project area (27% - 28%). All alternatives would remove potential nesting and foraging habitat, with the treatments in lodgepole pine having the greatest impact to this species within the project. Alternative 4 would girdle, instead of remove, the overstory lodgepole pine, which could provide foraging habitat for this species. All alternatives would leave the larger trees that could be utilized for nesting. The project promotes fuels reduction and forest health in the short-term and in the long-term promotes the longevity of large tree structure, which is important for northern flickers.

182

The total amount of mapped northern flicker nesting habitat acres treated within the Lex Project area is minimal compared to that available within the watersheds and Forest. Since this project impacts 0.2% (NUDD) to 2% (FR) of the watersheds and 0.1% of the mapped suitable habitat across the Forest (Table 108), the overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will not result in a slight negative trend of habitat. In reference to the DecAID analysis, proposed treatments could cause short-term reductions in small snag (>10” diameter) numbers, but will allow for the long-term development in large snag structure (>20” diameter). This may move current conditions away from the reference figures in the short-term for small snag habitat, with an improved trajectory for the large snag component to move closer toward the reference condition in the long-term, which would benefit northern flickers. Although some snag habitat may be lost during project implementation, within the watersheds it is above the 80% tolerance levels for this species. Snags are expected to continue to be available in adjacent untreated habitat and could potentially be created during prescribed burning activities. A minor amount of acres of mapped northern flicker habitat is proposed for treatment within the project area, watersheds and Forest. Treatments would not eliminate all habitat available within project units for nesting and foraging. It is expected that some individuals may be negatively impacted during project implementation during the nesting season, but project activities would take place during various times of the year (and not just the nesting season) and in various habitats and treatments. Based on these impacts and that this species is ranked “secure” (S5) by NatureServe (2015), the Lex Vegetation Management Project is expected to have a small negative impact to northern flickers and their habitat. Because this project impacts a minimal 0.1% of suitable northern flicker habitat across the Forest, the overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will result in a small negative trend of habitat and increased disturbance. This loss of habitat and increased disturbance will be insignificant at the scale of the Forest. The Lex Vegetation Management Project is consistent with the Forest Plan, and thus continued viability of the hairy woodpecker is expected on the Deschutes National Forest. PILEATED WOODPECKER, Dryocopus pileatus MIS Measure: Proportion of reproductive habitat acres impacted; disturbance during the nesting season. Habitat Needs and Existing Condition The pileated woodpecker is considered a keystone habitat modifier in the Pacific Northwest (Aubry and Raley 2002). A keystone habitat modifier is a species whose activities substantially alter the physical structure of the environment influencing both available habitat for other species and various ecosystem processes (Aubry and Raley 2002). The pileated woodpecker is a keystone habitat modifier because of the effects of its excavations on habitat for many other species. This species provides nesting and roosting habitat for secondary cavity users through the excavation of nest cavities and cavity starts, excavation of openings into roost cavities, and foraging excavations (Aubry and Raley 2002). Over 20 species of secondary cavity users in the Pacific Northwest have been documented nesting and roosting in old cavities or openings excavated by pileated woodpeckers (Aubry and Raley 2002). The pileated woodpecker forages on logs, live trees, and snags (Bull 1980, Madsen 1985, Bull et al. 1986, Bull 1987, Raley and Aubry 2005). Raley and Aubry (2005) found that these woodpeckers foraged extensively on downed structures with the average diameter and length with recent excavations ranged from 20-22cm dbh (7.8-8.6” dbh) and 5-9 meters (16-29.5 feet) long respectively. They also reported pileated woodpeckers selected for larger and longer logs and logs greater in diameter and length provide better habitat for wood-dwelling arthropods over a longer period than smaller logs (Raley and Aubry 2005). For a detailed assessment of life history and status of the pileated woodpecker on the Deschutes National Forest, see the Forestwide Species Assessment (USDA FS 2012p).

183

The following tables show pileated woodpecker snag and down wood habitat data as defined by DecAID. The data compiled in the tables below was based on wildlife habitat types and structural condition. Table 111. Pileated Woodpecker preferred Snag Sizes.

Pileated Woodpecker Habitat Type


Snag Size (dbh in)



Eastside Mixed Conifer 22.1 27.4 33.7 Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir 19.2 25.0 33.6 Lodgepole Pine –no data Average for All Habitat Types

20.7 26.2 33.6

Pileated WP Use Type for all Habitat

Types


Snag Size (dbh in)



Nesting 25.4 29.8 36.4 Roosting 25.1 30.0 34.3 Foraging 12.9 19.9 30.4 Average for All Use Types 21.1 26.6 33.7

Pileated WP All Habitat and Use Types


Snag Size (dbh in)




Table 112. Pileated Woodpecker preferred Snag Densities.

Pileated WP Habitat Type



50% Snag Density

(#/acre)

80% Snag Density

(#/acre) Eastside Mixed Conifer 14.9 30.1 49.3 Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir 14.9 30.1 49.3 Lodgepole Pine –no data Average for All Types 14.9 30.1 49.3

Pileated WP Habitat Type



50% Snag Density

(#/acre)

80% Snag Density

(#/acre) Eastside Mixed Conifer 3.5 7.8 18.4 Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir 3.5 7.8 18.4 Lodgepole Pine –no data Average for All Types 3.5 7.8 18.4

184

The above tables derived from the DecAID wildlife data analysis show that pileated woodpecker’s average preferred habitat at the 50% tolerance level are snags at 26.4” dbh with an average density of approximately 30.1 small snags per acre and 7.8 large snags per acre. Within the analysis area, the data shows that for small snag densities, the 30% and 50% tolerance levels occur on the landscape, but below reference conditions (especially at the 30% tolerance levels); for large snag densities, the 30% tolerance levels occur above reference conditions, but the 50% tolerance levels occur below reference conditions and are rare on the landscape. The following table displays tolerance level information for down wood relative to the pileated woodpecker for down wood >5.5” dbh in Eastside Mixed Conifer, small and large trees (EMC_S/L). Table 113. Tolerance Levels (T.L.) for the Pileated Woodpecker as Reported in DecAID for Down Wood Cover.




>5” dbh 4 4.5 5.1 This table suggests that 50% of the individuals within a population of nesting pileated woodpeckers utilize areas with a down wood percent cover of <4.5% and 50% of the individuals within the population of nesting pileated woodpeckers utilize areas with a down wood percent cover of >4.5%. Within the analysis area, the data shows that for down wood, percent cover occurs at the 80% tolerance levels, above reference conditions. This may be from the numerous acres of root rot pockets that occur in the mixed conifer habitat types dominated by true firs. For the Forest-wide assessment, pileated woodpecker habitat was mapped using Viable modeling across the entire Deschutes National Forest. Pileated woodpecker nesting habitat was mapped using mixed conifer dominated forests which include all mixed conifer and mountain hemlock plant association groups (PAGs) in mid and late seral stages. In addition, stand size had to be a minimum diameter of 15”dbh or greater and have dense stand characteristics (based on the canopy cover level thresholds for each PAG) to be mapped as potential habitat. Recent fires (less than 5 years old) with stand replacement severity were removed as habitat. Recent (since 2002) forest management activities that resulted in conditions other than described above were also removed from mapped potential habitat. Table 114. Pileated Woodpecker Reproductive Habitat within the Lex Vegetation Management Project Area, North Unit Diversion Dam-Deschutes River and Fall River-Deschutes River Watersheds, and Across the Deschutes N. F.

Acres of Pileated Woodpecker Habitat in

the Project Area



Watershed



Watershed

Acres of Pileated Woodpecker Habitat

on the Forest

381 535 5,578 146,402 3% of the project acres.

0.3% of all pileated woodpecker habitat on the

Forest.

0.4% of all pileated woodpecker habitat on the

Forest

4% of all pileated woodpecker habitat on


Approximately 381 acres of mapped pileated woodpecker reproductive habitat exists within the project area, which is 3% of the total project acres and 0.3% of the habitat available on the Forest. Across the Forest, pileated woodpecker habitat would not be considered abundant at only 9% of the Forest. During field reconnaissance in 2015 and 2016, although the species was not seen, recent pileated woodpecker foraging sign was visible in abundance within root rot pockets and stands adjacent to these areas. This species has been ranked “apparently secure” (S4) by NatureServe (2015).

185

Effects of the Actions Alternative 1 – No Action (Ecological Trend) Under the no action alternative, habitat conditions would remain unchanged in the short-term. As additional trees infected with disease and those attacked by insects begin to succumb, forage and nesting habitat would increase. Fuel loading in the area would also increase, as would the risk of a high intensity fire that would likely spread throughout the area. A stand-replacing fire would would not benefit this species as it does not commonly utilize open, burned stands. With no proposed action to add incrementally to the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable actions, there would be no cumulative impacts. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 - Direct and Indirect Effects Table 115 displays the acres of mapped pileated woodpecker habitat treated by the alternatives and the percentage of habitat impacted within the project area, watersheds, and Forest. Table 115. Lex Proposed Overstory Treatments in MIS Mapped Pileated Woodpecker Habitat.

Alt.

Acres of Pileated

Woodpecker Habitat

Treated in Lex

% of Total Acres of Pileated

Woodpecker Habitat


% of Total Acres of Pileated Woodpecker Habitat Treated in the North Unit Diversion


% of Total Acres of Pileated



Watershed

% Total Acres of Pileated

Woodpecker Habitat


Alt. 2 85

NUDD – 36 FR - 49

22% 7% 0.9% 0.1%

Alt. 3 96

NUDD – 39 FR - 57

25% 7% 1% 0.1%

Alt. 4 78

NUDD – 36 FR - 42

20% 7% 0.9% 0.1%

The Lex Project area proposes to treat 78 acres (Alt. 4), 85 acres (Alt. 2), or 96 acres (Alt. 3) of mapped pileated woodpecker habitat. This equates to 20% - 25% of the total mapped acres available within the project area. Treatments in suitable habitat are distributed across the project area. The treatments within pileated woodpecker habitat would not completely eliminate nesting and foraging habitat structure, but the density of trees would be reduced enough that it may not be useable for this species. The amount of mapped habitat treated across the landscape is low within the North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River Watershed at 7%, minimal within the Fall River – Deschutes River Watershed at 0.9% - 1%, and across the Forest, 0.1% of the mapped habitat. Tables 116 and 117 display the acres of mapped pileated woodpecker habitat treated by the alternatives and the treatment types that would be impacting habitat within the project area. Table 116. Overstory Treatments by Type within Mapped Pileated Woodpecker Habitat.

Alt. Total

Treatment Acres


Alt. 2 85 17 1 1 7 7 0 4 48 0

186

Alt. 3 96 17 1 1 7 18 0 4 48 1 Alt. 4 78 14 1 1 7 3 0 4 48 0

Activities proposed under each alternative can directly remove potential foraging habitat (smaller snags and logs) and potential nesting sites (removal of larger white fir). The primary overstory treatments, within mapped pileated woodpecker habitat, would occur in the lodgepole pine stands as overstory removal (HCR/HFR/HOR). Pure stands of lodgepole pine are not pileated woodpecker habitat. It does show up as habitat as these stands may have a higher componenet of white fir. These treatments, with the exception of HCR acres, would remove all of the overstory trees and thin the understory, if there is one. If there is not an understory available within HOR units, 10 trees/acre would be left, which would also be left within the HCR units. White fir or other tree species that occurs within the lodgepole pine stands that were mapped as pileated woodpecker habitat would not be removed, leaving these potential nest and foraging trees on the landscape. Other treatments within mixed conifer stands include uneven-aged management/selection cut, special cut, and commercial thinning. These would thin stands releasing and favoring ponderosa pine, removing suppressed white fir (<30 inches) and lodgepole pine. By cutting white fir (<30 inches) out of these stands, current and future nesting and foraging habitat is removed. Ponderosa pine >22 inches dbh and white fir >30 inches dbh would not be removed, retaining these larger trees for habitat. Generally, large snags would be avoided during treatments, but due to OSHA regulations snags posing a hazard may be removed, impacting pileated woodpecker nesting and foraging habitat. Table 117. Overstory, Understory, and Fuels Treatments within MIS Mapped Pileated Woodpecker Habitat.




Alt. 2 85 16 99 4 82 8 9 Alt. 3 96 16 99 4 83 8 9 Alt. 4 78 16 94 4 73 8 9

Understory treatments including ladder fuels reduction, precommercial thinning, and whip falling treatments would be setting these stands up for developing into future stands of nesting and foraging habitat for pileated woodpeckers by spacing the understory to allow for maximum growth and reducing wildfire risk. Minimal mowing/mastication and underburning would occur within pileated woodpecker habitat. Fuels treatments would not directly remove any large trees. The fuels treatments would break up the fuel continuity and reduce the risk of a landscape scale fire event, which should reduce the risk to individual large snags and trees. The integrity of nesting habitat components should not be changed. Burning prescriptions and pre-ignition fuels reduction would reduce the chance of losing large snags (change to down wood), however, it is assumed that a small percentage of large snags would be affected by prescribed burning. Prescribed burning could also have the potential to create additional snags. Project Design Criteria would be incorporated to reduce the loss of down wood and snags during burning operations. The project promotes fuels reduction and forest health in the short-term and in the long-term promotes the longevity of large tree structure and a fire resistant landscape. Connected activities (e.g. piling, soil restoration, gopher trapping, herbicide spraying and boraxing) would likely have negligible disturbance impacts to individuals. The overstory treatments have the larger impact by removing white fir (current and future habitat) and reducing canopy cover. It is possible that if the project occurs during the breeding season (April 15 – July 15), commercial and non-commercial thinning and fuels projects could have direct, negative impacts to nesting woodpeckers that may be within or adjacent to active units (it is unknown without surveys if there are any active nests within a specific

187

action area). Disturbance during this time could result in nest failure (noise disturbance) or direct loss of individuals (from tree removal or adults away from the nest for too long). While timber harvest and spring underburning have the potential to disrupt nesting pairs of pileated woodpeckers, this is considered a short-term impact (1-3 years) and only where activities would occur during the spring nesting season. Since not all of the proposed activities would occur at the same time over the entire project area, undisturbed potential reproductive habitat would be still be available for the species within the project area. This project would have a small negative impact to the pileated woodpecker and its habitat. Although the project treats 20-25% of the available habitat within the project area, large trees will remain within the project area within treatment units (white fir >30 inches dbh would be retained as well as ponderosa pine >22 inches dbh) and snags and down wood would be available at minimum at Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. Mapped habitat would also still be available across the project area and adjacent to treatment units. Cumulative Effects— Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable vegetation treatments in the North Unit Diversion Dam–Deschutes River and Fall River – Deschutes River watersheds would occur on approximately 250 acres of pileated woodpecker habitat. These treatments include the following vegetation management projects: Rocket, West Bend, Junction, Kew and the UDR WUI. The primary treatments for all projects include commercial thinning, mowing, and underburning. The Lex Project would treat an additional 78 acres (Alt.4), 85 acres (Alt. 2), or 96 acres (Alt. 3) of the available mapped reproductive habitat in the watersheds depending on the alternative. Cumulatively, when the Lex Project is added to the other projects, approximately 6% of the pileated woodpecker habitat in the watershed would be treated (346 acres) causing negative minor cumulative impacts. In the long-term, these combined treatments would favor pileated woodpecker habitat. None of the activities proposes the removal of snags that would provide reproductive habitat. It is possible that a small number of snags could be lost during prescribed fire treatments. Short-term negative cumulative effects could occur from the disturbance the proposed treatments would have on potentially nesting pairs within the watershed. These cumulative impacts are variable, as treatment activities would take place at various times during the year, not just the nesting season, and take place over several years. Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures—Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 The following Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures are applicable for snags and down wood and can be found in detail on pages 14 – 18 of this document: 10, 13-19, 30, and 31. Consistency To meet Forest Plan S&G’s for this species, the following would need to occur: Retain snags (including soft) as wildlife trees for nesting, roosting and foraging except where impractical because of human safety in all units (Wildlife Tree and Log Implementation Strategy, LRMP WL-38) at the 100% population potential (NWFP Page C-46). These levels are minimums. Where appropriate, leave higher concentrations and leave larger sizes where available. No snags over 20” dbh should be marked for cutting (NWFP Page C-46). At a minimum, snags are to be retained at the following levels per current direction: Mixed Conifer 3 snags/acre >10” dbh

188

1 snag/acre >20” dbh Lodgepole pine 3 snags/acre > 10”dbh This is written into this document as a Project Design Criteria and will further be addressed within the projects implementation plan. Maintaining these levels within areas that would be prescribed burned are not guaranteed. Monitoring should occur post project to determine what levels remain within project units. Determination/Conclusion (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) Implementation of the Lex Vegetation Management Project would occur on 78 acres (Alt. 4), 85 acres (Alt. 2), or 96 acres (Alt. 3) of the mapped 381 acres of pileated woodpecker habitat available within the project area (20% - 25%). Although Alternative 3 would treat more acres than Alternatives 2 and 4, treatments proposed for all alternatives would not remove the larger trees that could be utilized for nesting. The project promotes fuels reduction and forest health in the short-term and in the long-term promotes the longevity of large tree structure, which is important for pileated woodpeckers. The total amount of mapped pileated woodpecker nesting habitat acres treated within the Lex Project area is minimal compared to that available within the watersheds and Forest. This project would affect 7% of the NUDD Watershed, 1% of the Fall River watershed, and 0.1% of the mapped suitable habitat across the Forest (Table 115), the overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects would result in a slight negative trend of habitat. In reference to the DecAID analysis, proposed treatments could cause short-term reductions in small snag (>10” diameter) numbers, but would allow for the long-term development in large snag structure (>20” diameter). This may move current conditions away from the reference figures in the short-term for small snag habitat, with an improved trajectory for the large snag component to move closer toward the reference condition in the long-term, which would benefit pileated woodpeckers. Although some snag habitat may be lost during project implementation, the watersheds are above the 30% tolerance levels for this species. Snags are expected to continue to be available in adjacent untreated habitat and could potentially be created during prescribed burning activities. Down wood may be reduced in treatment units where burning and piling occur, but larger wood (>20 inches dbh) would not be piled and should remain even during prescribed fire. Root rot pockets would continue to be a source of down wood for this species. A small amount of acres of mapped pileated woodpecker habitat is proposed for treatment within the project area, watersheds and Forest. Treatments would not eliminate all habitat available within project units for nesting and foraging, but the habitat may not be dense enough to be utilized. It is expected that some individuals may be negatively impacted during project implementation during the nesting season, but project activities would take place during various times of the year (and not just the nesting season) and in various habitats and treatments. Based on these impacts and that this species is ranked “apparently secure” (S4) by NatureServe (2015), the Lex Vegetation Management Project is expected to have a small negative impact to pileated woodpeckers and their habitat. Because this project impacts a minimal 0.1% of suitable pileated woodpecker habitat across the Forest, the overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will result in a small negative trend of habitat and increased disturbance. This loss of habitat and increased disturbance will be insignificant at the scale of the Forest. The Lex Vegetation Management Project is consistent with the Forest Plan, and thus continued viability of the pileated woodpecker is expected on the Deschutes National Forest.

189

WILLIAMSON’S SAPSUCKER, Sphyrapicus thyroideus MIS Measure: Proportion of reproductive habitat acres impacted; disturbance during the nesting season. Habitat Needs and Existing Condition Altman (2000) identified the Williamson’s sapsucker as a focal species for mixed conifer late-successional forests with large snags. This species breeds in mid to high elevation mature or old growth conifer forests with fairly open canopy cover (Thomas 1979). Douglas-fir and western larch were found to be preferred for foraging by Williamson’s sapsuckers (Madsen 1985, Bull et al. 1986, and Bevis and Martin 2002). Live or live defective trees were used more frequently and diameters ranged from 9-27” dbh (Madsen 1985, Bull et al. 1986). Bull et al. (1986) reported Williamson’s sapsuckers fed at sap wells three quarters of the time and pecked or gleaned on live trees the remainder of the time. For a detailed assessment of life history and status of the Williamson’s sapsucker on the Deschutes National Forest, see the Forestwide Species Assessment (USDA FS 2012y). The following tables show Williamson’s sapsucker snag and down wood habitat data as defined by DecAID. The data compiled in the tables below was based on wildlife habitat types and structural condition. Table 118. Williamson’s Sapsucker Preferred Snag Sizes.

Williamson’s Sapsucker Habitat Type




Snag Size (dbh in) Eastside Mixed Conifer 16.0 24.4 37.0 Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir 19.3 24.2 31.7 Lodgepole Pine –no data Average for All Habitat Types

17.7 24.3 34.4

Williamson’s Sapsucker Use Type for all Habitat Types




Snag Size (dbh in) Nesting 17.7 24.3 34.4 Roosting – no data Foraging – no data Average for All Use Types 17.7 24.3 34.4

Williamson’s Sapsucker All Habitat and Use Types





190

Table 119. Williamson’s Sapsucker Preferred Snag Densities.




50% Snag Density

(#/acre)

80% Snag Density

(#/acre) Eastside Mixed Conifer 8.7 18.5 33.2 Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir 8.5 18.5 33

Lodgepole Pine –no data Average for All Types 8.6 18.5 33.1




50% Snag Density

(#/acre)

80% Snag Density

(#/acre) Eastside Mixed Conifer 8.7 18.5 33.2 Ponderosa Pine/Douglas-fir

8.5 18.5 33

Lodgepole Pine –no data Average for All Types 8.6 18.5 33.1

The above tables derived from the DecAID wildlife data analysis show that Williamson’s sapsucker average preferred habitat at the 50% tolerance level are snags at 24.3” dbh with an average density of approximately 18.5 snags per acre. Within the analysis area, the data shows that for small snag densities, the 30% tolerance levels occur above reference conditions for Williamson’s sapsucker. The 50% tolerance levels occur on the landscape, but below reference conditions. For large snag densities, the 30% tolerance levels occur above reference conditions, but the 50% tolerance levels occur below reference conditions and are rare on the landscape. There is no information regarding Williamson’s sapsucker use of down wood within DecAID, nor in the species report (USDA FS 2012y). For the Forest-wide assessment, Williamson’s sapsucker habitat was mapped using Viable modeling across the entire Deschutes National Forest. Williamson’s sapsucker nesting habitat was mapped using ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, grand fir, and white fir dominated forests which include all plant association groups (PAGs) in all seral stages (early, mid, late). In addition, stand size had to be a minimum diameter of 20”dbh or greater and have either open or dense stand characteristics (based on the canopy cover level thresholds for each PAG) to be mapped as potential habitat. Both open and dense canopy thresholds were used to capture most habitat as the threshold mentioned in the literature didn’t fit with the Viable thresholds. It is assumed there will be some over-estimation of habitat due to this. Recent fires and forest management activities (since 2002) that resulted in conditions other than described above were removed from mapped potential habitat.

191

Table 120. Williamson’s Sapsucker Reproductive Habitat within the Kew Vegetation Management Project Area, North Unit Diversion Dam-Deschutes River and Fall River-Deschutes River Watersheds, and Across the Deschutes N. F.

Acres of Williamson’s Sapsucker Habitat in

the Project Area

Acres of Williamson’s Sapsucker Habitat in the


Watershed

Acres of Williamson’s Sapsucker Habitat in


Watershed

Acres of Williamson’s Sapsucker Habitat on

the Forest

2,255 16,185 16,065 254,116 19% of the project acres. 0.9% of all Williamson’s sapsucker habitat on the

Forest.

6% of all Williamson’s sapsucker habitat on the

Forest

6% of all Williamson’s sapsucker habitat on the


Approximately 2,255 acres of mapped Williamson’s sapsucker reproductive habitat exists within the project area, which is 19% of the total project acres and 16% of the habitat available on the Forest. Across the Forest, Williamson’s sapsucker habitat would not be considered abundant at only 16% of the Forest. No sightings of Williamsons’ sapsuckers occurred during field reconnaissance in 2015 and 2016. It is assumed that with suitable habitat occurring within the project area that the species also occurs. NatureServe (2015) ranks this species “apparently secure” S4. Effects of the Actions Alternative 1 – No Action (Ecological Trend) Under the no action alternative, habitat conditions would remain unchanged in the short-term. As trees infected with disease and those attacked by insects begin to succumb, forage and nesting habitat will increase. Fuel loading in the area would also increase, as would the risk of a high intensity fire that would likely spread throughout the area. A stand-replacing fire would provide a large pulse of forage and nesting habitat in the short term, but as snags began to deteriorate and fall, the amount of suitable habitat would drop and would not be replaced for many years until a new stand develops. With no proposed action to add incrementally to the ongoing or reasonably foreseeable actions, there would be no cumulative impacts. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 - Direct and Indirect Effects Table 121 displays the acres of mapped Williamson’s sapsucker habitat treated by the alternatives and the percentage of habitat impacted within the project area, watersheds, and Forest. Table 121. Lex Proposed Overstory Treatments in Mapped Williamson’s Sapsucker Habitat.

Alt.

Acres of Williamson’s

Sapsucker Habitat

Treated in Lex

% of Total Acres of

Williamson’s Sapsucker


% of Total Acres of Williamson’s

Sapsucker Habitat Treated in the North Unit Diversion Dam –



Sapsucker Habitat Treated


Watershed

% Total Acres of Williamson’s

Sapsucker Habitat


Alt. 2 602

NUDD – 86 FR - 516

27% 0.5% 3% 0.2%

192

Alt.

Acres of Williamson’s

Sapsucker Habitat

Treated in Lex

% of Total Acres of

Williamson’s Sapsucker



Sapsucker Habitat Treated in the North Unit Diversion Dam –



Sapsucker Habitat Treated


Watershed

% Total Acres of Williamson’s

Sapsucker Habitat


Alt. 3 683

NUDD – 96 FR - 587

30% 0.6% 4% 0.3%

Alt. 4 547

NUDD – 83 FR - 464

24% 0.5% 3% 0.2%

The Lex Project area proposes to treat 547 acres (Alt. 4), 602 acres (Alt. 2), or 683acres (Alt. 3) of mapped Williamson’s sapsucker habitat. This equates to 24% - 30% of the total mapped acres available within the project area. The treatments within Williamson’s sapsucker habitat would not completely eliminate nesting and foraging habitat structure within the units. The amount of mapped habitat treated across the landscape is minimal within the North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River Watershed at 0.5% - 0.6% and within the Fall River – Deschutes River Watershed at 3% - 4%, and across the Forest, 0.2% - 0.3% of the mapped habitat. Tables 122 and 123 display the acres of mapped Williamson’s sapsucker habitat treated by the alternatives and the treatment types that would be impacting habitat within the project area. Table 122. Overstory Treatments by Type within Mapped Williamson’s Sapsucker Habitat.

Alt. Total

Treatment Acres


Alt. 2 602 141 4 27 18 67 0 244 101 0 Alt. 3 683 141 4 27 18 131 0 244 101 17 Alt. 4 547 129 4 27 18 24 139 106 100 0

The primary overstory treatments, within mapped Williamson’s sapsucker habitat, would occur in the lodgepole pine stands as overstory removal (HCR/HFR/HOR). Pure stands of lodgepole pine are not Williamson’s sapsucker habitat. It does show up as habitat as these stands may have a higher componenet of white fir. These treatments, with the exception of HCR acres, would remove all of the overstory trees and thin the understory, if there is one. If there is not an understory available within HOR units, 10 trees/acre would be left, which would also be left within the HCR units. HSV units would be removing dead standing and down lodgepole pine. White fir or other species of tree that occurs within the lodgepole pine stands that were mapped as Williamson’s sapsucker habitat would not be removed, leaving these potential nest and foraging trees on the landscape. Other treatments within mixed conifer stands include uneven-aged management/selection cut, special cut, and commercial thinning. These would thin stands releasing and favoring ponderosa pine, removing suppressed white fir (<30 inches) and lodgepole pine. By cutting white fir (<30 inches) out of these stands, current and future nesting and foraging habitat is removed. Ponderosa pine >22 inches dbh and white fir >30 inches dbh would not be removed, retaining these larger trees for habitat. Generally, large snags would be avoided during treatments, but due to OSHA regulations snags posing a hazard may be removed, impacting Williamson’s sapsucker nesting and foraging habitat.

193

Table 123. Overstory, Understory, and Fuels Treatments within Mapped Williamson’s Sapsucker Habitat.




Alt. 2 602 92 664 8 419 266 207 Alt. 3 683 92 680 8 430 266 207 Alt. 4 547 91 610 8 359 266 207

Understory treatments including ladder fuels reduction, precommercial thinning, and whip falling treatments would be setting these stands up for developing into future stands of nesting and foraging habitat for Williamson’s sapsuckers by spacing the understory to allow for maximum growth and reducing wildfire risk. Mowing/mastication (266 acres) and underburning (207 acres) would occur within Williamson’s sapsucker habitat in all alternatives. Fuels treatments would not directly remove any large trees. The fuels treatments would break up the fuel continuity and reduce the risk of a landscape scale fire event, which should reduce the risk to individual large snags and trees. The integrity of nesting habitat components should not be changed. Burning prescriptions and pre-ignition fuels reduction would reduce the chance of losing large snags (change to down wood), however, it is assumed that a small percentage of large snags would be affected by prescribed burning. Prescribed burning could also have the potential to create additional snags. Project Design Criteria would be incorporated to reduce the loss of down wood and snags during burning operations. The project promotes fuels reduction and forest health in the short-term and in the long-term promotes the longevity of large tree structure and a fire resistant landscape. Connected activities (e.g. piling, soil restoration, gopher trapping, herbicide spraying and boraxing) would likely have negligible disturbance impacts to individuals. The overstory treatments have the larger impact by removing white fir (current and future habitat). It is possible that if the project occurs during the breeding season (April 15 – July 15), commercial and non-commercial thinning and fuels projects could have direct, negative impacts to nesting woodpeckers that may be within or adjacent to active units (it is unknown without surveys if there are any active nests within a specific action area). Disturbance during this time could result in nest failure (noise disturbance) or direct loss of individuals (from tree removal or adults away from the nest for too long). While timber harvest and spring underburning have the potential to disrupt nesting pairs of Williamson’s sapsuckers, this is considered a short-term impact (1-3 years) and only where activities would occur during the spring nesting season. Since not all of the proposed activities would occur at the same time over the entire project area, undisturbed potential reproductive habitat would be still be available for the species within the project area. Within the project area 24% - 30% of the available mapped habitat is proposed for treatment. On a landscape scale, the amount treated is minimal. Alternative 3 proposes to treat more acres than Alternatives 2 and 4, however, the alternatives would not remove all trees that could be available for nesting and foraging (ponderosa pine >22 inches dbh and white fire >30 inches dbh would be retained). These woodpecker species can withstand more open stands. Snags and down wood would be available at minimum at Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. Mapped habitat would continue to be available across the project area and adjacent to treatment units. Cumulative Effects— Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable vegetation treatments in the North Unit Diversion Dam–Deschutes River and Fall River – Deschutes River Watersheds would occur on approximately 12,651 acres of Williamson’s

194

sapsucker habitat. These treatments include the following vegetation management projects: Rocket, West Bend, Junction, Kew and the UDR WUI. The primary treatments for all projects include: commercial thinning, mowing, and underburning. The Lex Project would treat an additional 547 acres (Alt. 4), 602 acres (Alt. 2), or 683 acres (Alt. 3) of the available reproductive habitat in the watersheds depending on the alternative chosen. Cumulatively, when the Lex project is added to the other projects, approximately 41% of the Williamson’s sapsucker habitat in the watershed would be treated (13,334 acres). In the long-term, these combined treatments would favor Williamson’s sapsucker habitat. None of the activities propose the removal of snags or large decadent live trees (>22 inches dbh for ponderosa pine and >30 inches dbh for white fir) that would provide reproductive habitat. A small number of snags could be lost during prescribed fire treatments. Along with the Rocket, West Bend, Junction, Kew, and UDRI WUI Vegetation Management Projects, the Lex Project may result in short-term negative cumulative effects to Williamson’s sapsucker due to impacts to the potential disturbance/loss of individuals during project activities and the loss/degradation of habitat in the watersheds from treatment activities. Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures—Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 The following Project Design Criteria/Mitigation Measures are applicable for snags and down wood and can be found in detail on pages 14 – 18 of this document: 10, 13-17, 30, and 31. Consistency To meet Forest Plan S&G’s for this species, the following would need to occur: Retain snags (including soft) as wildlife trees for nesting, roosting and foraging except where impractical because of human safety in all units (Wildlife Tree and Log Implementation Strategy, LRMP WL-38) at the 100% population potential (NWFP Page C-46). These levels are minimums. Where appropriate, leave higher concentrations and leave larger sizes where available. No snags over 20” dbh should be marked for cutting (NWFP Page C-46). At a minimum, snags are to be retained at the following levels per current direction: Mixed Conifer 3 snags/acre >10” dbh 1 snag/acre >20” dbh Lodgepole pine 3 snags/acre > 10”dbh This is written into this document as a Project Design Criteria and will further be addressed within the projects implementation plan. Maintaining these levels within areas that would be prescribed burned are not guaranteed. Monitoring should occur post project to determine what levels remain within project units. Determination/Conclusion (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) Implementation of the Lex Vegetation Management Project would occur on 547 acres (Alt. 4), 602 acres (Alt. 2), or 683 acres (Alt. 3) of the mapped 2,255 acres of Williamson’s sapsucker habitat available within the project area (24% - 30%). Although Alternative 3 would treat more acres than Alternatives 2 and 4, treatments proposed for all alternatives would not remove the larger trees that could be utilized for nesting and foraging. The project promotes fuels reduction and forest health in the short-term and in the long-term promotes the longevity of large tree structure, which is important for Williamson’s sapsuckers.

195

The total amount of mapped Williamson’s sapsucker nesting habitat acres treated within the Lex Project area is minimal compared to that available within the watersheds and Forest. This project would impact 0.5% - 0.6% of the NUDD Watershed and 3% - 4% of the Fall River watershed and 0.2% - 0.3% of the mapped suitable habitat across the Forest (Table 121), the overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects would result in a slight negative trend of habitat. In reference to the DecAID analysis, proposed treatments could cause short-term reductions in small snag (>10” diameter) numbers, but would allow for the long-term development in large snag structure (>20” diameter). This may move current conditions away from the reference figures in the short-term for small snag habitat, with an improved trajectory for the large snag component to move closer toward the reference condition in the long-term, which would benefit Williamson’s sapsuckers. Although some snag habitat may be lost during project implementation, within the watersheds it is above the 30% tolerance levels for this species. Snags are expected to continue to be available in adjacent untreated habitat and could potentially be created during prescribed burning activities. A small amount of acres of mapped Williamson’s sapsucker habitat is proposed for treatment within the project area, watersheds and Forest. Treatments would not eliminate all habitat available within project units for nesting and foraging. It is expected that some individuals may be negatively impacted during project implementation during the nesting season, but project activities would take place during various times of the year (and not just the nesting season) and in various habitats and treatments. Based on these impacts and that this species is ranked “apparently secure” (S4) by NatureServe (2015), the Lex Vegetation Management Project is expected to have a small negative impact to Williamson’s sapsuckers and their habitat. Because this project impacts 0.2 – 0.3% of suitable Williamson’s sapsucker habitat across the Forest, the overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will result in a small negative trend of habitat and increased disturbance. This loss of habitat and increased disturbance will be insignificant at the scale of the Forest. The Lex Vegetation Management Project is consistent with the Forest Plan, and thus continued viability of Williamson’s sapsucker is expected on the Deschutes National Forest. Survey and Manage Species In 1994, the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) developed a system of reserves, Aquatic Conservation Strategy, and various standards and guidelines for the protection of old growth associated species. Mitigation measures were also included for species that were rare, or thought to be rare due to a lack of information about them. It was unknown whether the major elements of the NWFP would protect these species. These species were categorized under Survey and Manage with standard and guidelines for survey, protection and management. Subsequent analysis was completed with the 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines (USDA FS et al. 2001) (2001 ROD). Additional analysis and decisions for modifications to the 2001 ROD were completed in 2004 and 2007. Both were litigated and RODs were set aside to return to the 2001 ROD with settlement agreements providing updates to the species lists and exemptions. On February 18, 2014, the District Court vacated the 2007 ROD. Vacatur of the 2007 ROD has the result of returning the Forest Service to the status quo in existence prior to the 2007 ROD. A memorandum dated May 13, 2014 provided direction for implementation of the 2001 ROD based on the 2014 District Court decision. The 2011 Consent Decree updated the species list and included species specific mitigations as well as retained exemptions from a previous settlement agreement. The four categories of projects exempt from the Survey and Manage standards and guidelines as stipulated by Judge Pechman (October 11, 2006, “Pechman exemptions”) are:

a) Thinning projects in stands younger than 80 years old; b) Replacing culverts on roads that are in use and part of the road system, and removing culverts if the road is temporary or to be decommissioned; c) Riparian and stream improvement projects where the riparian work is riparian planting, obtaining material for placing in-stream, and road or trail decommissioning; and where the stream improvement

196

work is the placement of large wood, channel and floodplain reconstruction, or removal of channel diversions; and d) The portions of projects involving hazardous fuel treatments where prescribed fire is applied. Any portions of a hazardous fuel treatment project involving commercial logging will remain subject to the survey and manage requirements except for thinning of stands younger than 80 years old under subparagraph (a) of this paragraph.

Survey and Manage Species under the 2001 ROD and December 2011 Species List The following table displays those species from the 2011 species list that are present or suspected to be present on the Deschutes National Forest. Table 124. 2011 Survey and Manage Vertebrate and Mollusk Species on the Deschutes National Forest.

Species Included in Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines and Category Assignment (From Attachment 1, Settlement Agreement 07/06/2011)

TAXA GROUP Species Note: Where taxon has more than one name indicated, first name is current accepted name, second one (in parentheses) is name used in NFP (Table C-3). Category

VERTEBRATES Great Gray Owl Strix nebulosa C3 MOLLUSKS Evening Fieldslug Deroceras hesperium B4 Crater Lake Tightcoil Pristoloma articum crateris A Footnotes Category A Species are Rare, Pre-Disturbance Surveys are Practical, Category B Species are Rare, Pre-Disturbance Surveys Not Practical, Category C Species is uncommon, Pre-Disturbance Surveys Practical C3: Although the great gray owl is within management Category C (which indicates that only high-priority sites require management) all known sites will require management and be considered high-priority. The Category C designation indicates however, that not all sites need to be discovered through surveys, and allows for a reduced survey effort as identified below. Pre-disturbance surveys: Pre-disturbance surveys will follow Version 3.0 of the Great Gray Owl Survey Protocol (or future revisions/amendments), except only 1 year of surveys are required. Pre-disturbance surveys of suitable nesting habitat area required only for proposed activities:

• that fall potential nest trees within 600 feet of natural openings that are 10 acres or greater and provide suitable conditions for great grey owl nesting (good foraging base); Or

• where disturbance above ambient levels (or other activities that may impact potential nesting owls) will occur within 300 feet (or up to 1-mile for blasting) of suitable nesting habitat associated with natural openings 10 acres or greater between March 1st and July 31st.

Management Recommendations: Until new Management Recommendations are developed, the following serves as management requirements for this species. Around known (see Protocol definition) and future sites provide:

• A 30 acre management area encompassing the best available nest trees. Within the 30 acre area, management treatments are limited to protection or improvement of nesting habitat,

• A 0.25 mile radius protection zone. Within the protection zone, o Provide a 300 foot buffer around natural openings greater than 10 acres that have nesting

habitat associated with them. Within this 300 foot buffer, treatments are limited to protection or improvement of nesting habitat.

o Prohibit disturbance from management activities within 300 feet of nesting habitat (1mile radius for blasting) from March 1st-July 31st, or until fledging, whichever is later, unless surveys of the nesting habitat indicate no presence or no nesting.

B4: Based upon direction contained in the ROD, equivalent-effort pre-disturbance surveys are required for these mollusk species.

197

A: Based upon direction contained in the ROD, pre-disturbance surveys are required for these mollusk species.

These survey and manage species have been covered under previous analysis. The great gray owl analysis can be found in the MIS section. Both the evening fieldslug and Crater Lake tightcoil are within the TES section. Surveys were conducted for the great gray owl, a Category C3 species. Habitat for the Crater Lake tightcoil (Category A species) and the evening field slug (Category B4 species) does not occur in the project area. This project conforms with the January 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines (2001 ROD S&Gs). Landbirds TABLE 125. Landbird Species with Suitable Habitat In/Near the Lex Project Area.

Species Status Basic Habitat Description

*Consistent with

Conservation Strategy (Y/N/NA)

Habitat Increased, Decreased,

or Unchanged

(+/-/=) Black-backed woodpecker Picoides arcticus CEFS Old growth lodgepole pine Y (Alt. 2, Alt. 4)

N (Alt. 3) -

Brown creeper Certhia americana CEFS Mixed conifer with large trees N -

Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina CEFS Open understory ponderosa pine

with regeneration N +

Flammulated owl Psiloscops flammeolus CEFS, BCC Mixed conifer with grassy

openings and dense thickets N -

Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus CEFS Mixed conifer, Multi-layer mixed

conifer with dense canopy N -

Lewis’ woodpecker Melanerpes lewis CEFS, BCC CEFS – Patches of old burned

ponderosa pine forest Y +

Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi CEFS Mixed conifer with edges and

openings created by wildfire Y +

Pygmy nuthatch Sitta pygmaea CEFS Large ponderosa pine N +

White-headed woodpecker Picoides albolarvatus CEFS, BCC Large patches of old ponderosa

pine forest with large snags N -

Williamson’s sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus CEFS, BCC Mixed conifer – Large snags N -

CEFS – Cascades East Slope Focal Species BCC – Birds of Conservation Concern

*APPLICABLE TO PIF BIRD CONSERVATION FOCAL SPECIES ONLY (CEFS) Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) In January 2001, President Clinton issued an executive order on migratory birds directing 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. Within two years, federal agencies were required to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to conserve migratory 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. Toward meeting this end the U.S. Fish and

198

Wildlife Service developed the Birds of Conservation Concern in 2002 (updated in 2008) and released the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan in 2004 (updated in 2007). The “Birds of Conservation Concern 2008” (BCC) identifies species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory non-game birds that without additional conservation protection actions are likely to become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. While all of the bird species included in the BCC are priorities for conservation action, the list makes no finding with regard to whether they warrant consideration for ESA listing. The goal is to prevent or remove the need for additional ESA bird listings by implementing proactive management and conservation plans. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (USFWS 2004, revised 2007) updated the 2001 Plan with new information and developed a list of U.S. and Canadian shorebirds considered highly imperiled or of high conservation concern. Conservation measures were not included but these lists should be consulted to determine reasons for conservation concern. Bird Conservations Regions (BCRs) were developed based on similar geographic parameters (Figure 29). One BCR encompasses the analysis area – BCR 9, Great Basin.

Figure 29. USFWS Bird Conservations Regions Landbird Conservation Strategy and Landbird Focal Species The Forest Service has prepared a Landbird Strategic Plan (January 2000) to maintain, restore, and protect habitats necessary to sustain healthy migratory and resident bird populations to achieve biological objectives. The primary purpose of the strategic plan is to provide guidance for the Landbird Conservation Program and to focus efforts in a common direction. On a more local level, individuals from multiple agencies and organizations within the Oregon-Washington Chapter of Partners in Flight participated in developing a publication for conserving landbirds in this region. A Conservation Strategy for Landbirds of the East-Slope of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon and Washington (CEFS) was published in June 2000 (Altman 2000). The appropriate Bird Conservation Plan and BCC species list for the project area was reviewed. Those species and habitats that are within the project area have been incorporated into this report with effects disclosed below in Table 126. Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) have been developed based on similar geographic parameters

199

as shown above in Figure 29. One BCR encompasses the project area, BCR9 – Great Basin. The Conservation Strategy for Landbirds of the East-Slope of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon and Washington (Altman 2000) has been reviewed with project consistency noted below in Table 126. Appendix C, Table 1 lists all of the species within BCR 9 and their preferred habitats. The following Landbird species do not have suitable habitat in the Lex project: bald eagle, black rosy-finch, black swift, black-chinned sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, calliope hummingbird, Clark’s nutcracker, sooty grouse, eared grebe, ferruginous hawk, golden eagle, greater sage grouse, green-tailed towhee, loggerhead shrike, long-billed curlew, marbled godwit, peregrine falcon, pinyon jay, sandhill crane, snowy plover, tricolored blackbird, Virginia’s warbler, willow flycatcher, yellow rail, yellow-billed cuckoo, and yellow-billed loon. TABLE 126. Landbirds Considered for Analysis and Disclosure of Effects.


Consistent with CEFS

Conservation Strategy

(Y/N/NA)


or Unchanged

(+/-/=) Black-backed woodpecker

Picoides arcticus CEFS Lodgepole pine, burned forest Y(Alt.2 and 4) N (Alt. 3) -

CONSERVATION STRATEGY:

(Old Growth Lodgepole Pine) Maintain 40% unsalvaged in burns and beetle killed forest. Exempt areas from commercial or salvage timber management and manage these areas to retain any late successional characteristics as long as possible.

POTENTIAL EFFECTS:

Stands of older lodgepole pine would be treated within the project area (38%-44% would remain after logging, depending on the alternative chosen). The proposed actions would result in a short-term loss of available nesting and foraging habitat with long-term improvement in habitat quality expected as healthier stands of lodgepole pine forests are encouraged through removal of mistletoe overstory and pre-commercial thinning of the understory. Project design criteria that would benefit this species include 10 and 13-22.

Brown creeper Certhia americana CEFS Mixed conifer with large trees N -


(Mixed Conifer) Use understory prescribed burning and/or thinning when and where appropriate to reduce fuel loads and accelerate development of late seral conditions; retain all large trees, especially ponderosa pine >18 in dbh; initiate snag creation and recruitment where necessary; retain all snags and broken top trees >10 in dbh in harvest units; implement road closures where necessary to limit access to snags; minimize actions that increase susceptibility to invasion of exotic and noxious weeds and erosion; discontinue firewood cutting or restrict to trees <15 in dbh where snag objectives are not being met; permit stand-replacing wildfires to burn where possible. (Large Trees) Manage for large diameter trees through wider tree spacing and longer rotation periods; eliminate or restrict fuelwood cutting in suitable or potential habitat; retain all snags >10 in dbh and all ponderosa pine trees >18 in dbh.

POTENTIAL EFFECTS: Treatments that open up suitable habitat may impact nesting habitat for this species. Ponderosa pine trees up to 21” dbh could be removed in some units as well as white fir up to 29” dbh. Snags are not expected to be removed if they are not a hazard. The proposed action may result in short-term disturbance to individual birds but result in improved long-term habitat quality by accelerating large tree growth in the remaining stands. PDC that would benefit this species include 10, 13, 14, 30, and 31.

Chipping sparrow Spizella passerina CEFS Open understory ponderosa pine

with regeneration N +

200




(Y/N/NA)


or Unchanged

(+/-/=)

CONSERVATION STRATEGY: (Ponderosa Pine) Use understory prescribed burning and/or thinning when and where appropriate to reduce fuel loads and accelerate development of late-seral conditions; Retain all large trees, especially ponderosa pine >20 in dbh; initiate snag creation and recruitment where necessary; retain all existing snags and broken top trees >10 in dbh in harvest units; implement road closures where necessary to limit access to snags; where mechanized harvest activities are occurring, minimize actions that increase susceptibility to invasion of exotic and noxious weeds and erosion; discontinue firewood cutting or restrict to trees <15 in dbh where snag objectives are not being met; permit stand-replacing wildfires to burn where possible.

(Open Understory/Regenerating Pines) Evaluate historical plant communities and current landscape conditions when assessing where restoration activities should occur; conduct understory removal and burning outside the nesting season; conduct thinning and/or overstory removal to provide suitable open conditions.

POTENTIAL EFFECTS: Although the proposed action will result in open stand conditions favorable to chipping sparrow, mowing and burning may occur during the nesting season and result in localized disturbance that may cause reduced nesting success and survivorship for 1-2 breeding seasons at any given location. PDC that would benefit this species include 10, 30, and 31.

Flammulated owl

Psiloscops flammeolus CEFS, BCC

Mixed conifer with grassy openings and dense thickets N -


(Mixed Conifer) Use understory prescribed burning and/or thinning when and where appropriate to reduce fuel loads and accelerate development of late seral conditions; retain all large trees, especially ponderosa pine >18 in dbh; initiate snag creation and recruitment where necessary; retain all snags and broken top trees >10 in dbh in harvest units; implement road closures where necessary to limit access to snags; minimize actions that increase susceptibility to invasion of exotic and noxious weeds and erosion; discontinue firewood cutting or restrict to trees <15 in dbh where snag objectives are not being met; permit stand-replacing wildfires to burn where possible. (Grassy Openings & Mixed Thickets) Target conservation efforts near grassland or dry meadow openings; avoid insect control spraying near known nest areas or suitable habitat; in restoration efforts, leave patches of dense sapling thickets to function as roost sites; retain large >12in dbh snags during silvicultural practices; where snags with nesting cavities are a limiting factor and the habitat is otherwise suitable, create snags by fungal, inoculation, topping, girdling, etc.; where dense roosting thickets are limited within potential or suitable habitat, avoid forest practices that remove brush from the understory; where grassy openings in potential or suitable habitat are being encroached on by shrubs and trees, initiate actions such as manual removal and prescribed fire to maintain these openings; eliminate or restrict fuelwood cutting and application of pesticides in suitable or potential flammulated owl habitat; use nest boxes as a short-term supplement where restoration activities are occurring.

POTENTIAL EFFECTS:

The flammulated owl does have the potential to occur within the project area. The proposed action may result in short-term disturbance to individual birds. Although ponderosa pine >18 in dbh would be removed in areas, the largest trees would be retained in most instances, while snags and damaged trees would be retained unless deemed a safety concern. Stand replacing fire prevention is part of the purpose and need. The majority of the treatment acres would include mastication of brush and then prescribed fire treatments. PDC that would benefit this species include 10, 13-17, 30, and 31.

Hermit thrush Catharus guttatus CEFS Multi-layered conifer with dense

canopy N -

201




(Y/N/NA)


or Unchanged

(+/-/=)

CONSERVATION STRATEGY: (Mixed Conifer) Use understory prescribed burning and/or thinning when and where appropriate to reduce fuel loads and accelerate development of late seral conditions; retain all large trees, especially ponderosa pine >18 in dbh; initiate snag creation and recruitment where necessary; retain all snags and broken top trees >10 in dbh in harvest units; implement road closures where necessary to limit access to snags; minimize actions that increase susceptibility to invasion of exotic and noxious weeds and erosion; discontinue firewood cutting or restrict to trees <15 in dbh where snag objectives are not being met; permit stand-replacing wildfires to burn where possible. (Multilayered & Dense Canopy) Retain tracts of forest as unmanaged or lightly managed to ensure structural diversity.

POTENTIAL EFFECTS: Hermit thrush does have the potential to occur within the project area. The proposed action may result in short-term disturbance to individual birds, and the proposed action will not improve habitat quality for hermit thrush within treatment units, as the proposed treatments will reduce multi-layered structure and dense canopy conditions. Although ponderosa pine >18 in dbh would be removed in areas, the largest trees would be retained in most instances, while snags and damaged trees would be retained unless deemed a safety concern. PDC that would benefit this species include 10, 13-17, 30 and 31.

Lewis’ woodpecker

Melanerpes lewis CEFS, BCC

Ponderosa Pine– Patches of old burned forest Y +


(Large Conifer Trees & Snags) Eliminate or minimize pesticide spraying near nesting birds which may reduce insect prey base; prohibit salvage logging of fire-burned trees where they occur; if snags are limiting, create suitable snags through girdling, topping, etc.; if nest cavities are limiting, initiate fungal inoculations to provide nest sites; use underburning or other techniques to promote a shrubby understory for insect production – minimize brush control; use thinning of young pines in dense stands to open canopy and encourage development of large trees; selective logging can be used to increase suitability of habitat as long as sufficient large living and dead trees are retained; limit or prohibit fuelwood cutting in areas where Lewis’ woodpecker is known or suspected of nesting.

POTENTIAL EFFECTS: Lewis’ woodpecker does have the potential to occur within the project area. In mixed conifer stands, the proposed action is expected to produce large tree and snag structure for (focusing on ponderosa pine) future nesting habitat. This would produce high quality habitat long-term, but short-term impacts to prey populations are expected through mowing and burning actions. PDC that would benefit this species include 10, 13-17, 30, and 31.

Olive-sided flycatcher

Contopus cooperi CEFS Mixed conifer with edges and openings created by wildfire Y +


(Mixed conifer edges and openings created by wildfire) Use prescribed fire along with manual understory clearing where appropriate to create a patchy mosaic of burned forest. Increase the level of acceptable opportunities to allow wildfires to burn or ignite fires when conditions and opportunities exist. Where possible, prohibit salvage logging to occur in post-fire habitat. For protection of snags: close roads or restrict fuel wood permits in areas where large snags are present, and actively enforce fuel wood regulations to minimize removal of snags. Eliminate or minimize pesticide spraying near nesting pairs, which may reduce insect prey base. Retain standing dead or diseased trees where they occur. If snags are limiting, create suitable snags through girdling, topping, etc. Use underburning or other techniques to promote a shrubby understory for insect production; minimize brush control.

202




(Y/N/NA)


or Unchanged

(+/-/=) Selective logging can be used to increase suitability of habitat as along as sufficient large living and dead trees are retained.

POTENTIAL EFFECTS: The proposed action may result in a short-term, localized disturbance to individual birds using the area during project implementation. Edge habitat would increase by treatments in mixed conifer habitats while large live and dead trees would remain after logging activities. Underburning would occur to decrease fuels on the landscape, but this would be a short-term impacts as brush conditions in these areas should return in 5-10 years after burning. PDC that would benefit this species include 10, 13-17, 30, and 31.

Pygmy nuthatch Sitta pygmaea CEFS Mature ponderosa pine N +


(Ponderosa Pine) Use understory prescribed burning and/or thinning when and where appropriate to reduce fuel loads and accelerate development of late-seral conditions; Retain all large trees, especially ponderosa pine >20 in dbh; initiate snag creation and recruitment where necessary; retain all existing snags and broken top trees >10 in dbh in harvest units; implement road closures where necessary to limit access to snags; where mechanized harvest activities are occurring, minimize actions that increase susceptibility to invasion of exotic and noxious weeds and erosion; discontinue firewood cutting or restrict to trees <15 in dbh where snag objectives are not being met; permit stand-replacing wildfires to burn where possible. (Large Trees) Manage for large diameter trees through wider tree spacing and longer rotation periods; eliminate or restrict fuelwood cutting in suitable or potential habitat; retain all snags >10 in dbh and all ponderosa pine trees >17 in dbh.

POTENTIAL EFFECTS: Pygmy nuthatch does have potential to occur within the project area. The proposed action may result in short-term disturbance to individual birds. The proposed action would improve habitat quality for the pygmy nuthatch within treatment units. Although trees >17 inches dbh could be cut, ponderosa pine > 22 inches dbh would be retained and openings created to plant and maintain ponderosa pine as future stands on the landscape. Fuels treatments would occur to reduce fuel loadings and to help accelerate late seral conditions. Snags and damaged trees would be retained unless deemed a safety concern. Stand replacing fire prevention is part of the purpose and need. PDC that would benefit this species include 10, 13-17, 30, and 31. White-headed woodpecker Picoides albolarvatus

CEFS, BCC Mature ponderosa pine N -


(Ponderosa Pine) Use understory prescribed burning and/or thinning when and where appropriate to reduce fuel loads and accelerate development of late-seral conditions; Retain all large trees, especially ponderosa pine >20 in dbh; initiate snag creation and recruitment where necessary; retain all existing snags and broken top trees >10 in dbh in harvest units; implement road closures where necessary to limit access to snags; where mechanized harvest activities are occurring, minimize actions that increase susceptibility to invasion of exotic and noxious weeds and erosion; discontinue firewood cutting or restrict to trees <15 in dbh where snag objectives are not being met; permit stand-replacing wildfires to burn where possible. (Old Forest with Large Snags) Inventory and identify stands meeting desired conditions and stands that can be managed to meet desired conditions within the next 25 years; where aforementioned stands occur on private lands, initiate actions to provide incentives for conservation; conduct management such as thinning, planting, snag creation or prescribed burning as appropriate to meet desired conditions; appropriate timber harvests to achieve desired conditions might include partial cuts, group selection cuts and shelterwood prescriptions, but not clearcuts

203




(Y/N/NA)


or Unchanged

(+/-/=) or overstory removal; manage for large diameter trees through wider tree spacing and longer rotation periods; eliminate or restrict fuelwood cutting in suitable or potential white-headed woodpecker habitat; retain all snags and high cut stumps >10 in dbh and all ponderosa pine trees >17 in dbh; where snags are targeted for removal for safety reasons, cut them high enough to allow for their potential use by white-headed woodpeckers; all soft snags that are not hazards should be retained; retain broken topped snags, leaning logs and high stumps for potential nesting; retain or provide downed woody debris for foraging sites.

POTENTIAL EFFECTS: The proposed action may result in a short-term, localized disturbance to individual birds using the area during project implementation, but will encourage the future development of large tree and snag structure to improve habitat quality for white-headed woodpecker. Current habitat would be impacted by removal of ponderosa pine trees up to 21 inches dbh. PDC that would benefit this species include 10, 13-17, 30, and 31.


CEFS, BCC

Mature/old growth conifer forest with open canopy N -


(Mixed Conifer) Use understory prescribed burning and/or thinning when and where appropriate to reduce fuel loads and accelerate development of late seral conditions; retain all large trees, especially ponderosa pine >18 in dbh; initiate snag creation and recruitment where necessary; retain all snags and broken top trees >10 in dbh in harvest units; implement road closures where necessary to limit access to snags; minimize actions that increase susceptibility to invasion of exotic and noxious weeds and erosion; discontinue firewood cutting or restrict to trees <15 in dbh where snag objectives are not being met; permit stand-replacing wildfires to burn where possible. (Large Snags) In managed forests, extend rotation ages to provide snags of sufficient size - retain these snags and recruit replacement snags in each harvest entry; in harvest units and riparian buffer zones, retain the largest live trees, particularly dying or defective trees, through rotations as recruitment snags for potential nest sites if nesting is documented in logged stands; retain known or suitable nesting and roosting snags from all harvest and salvage activities and restrict access for fuelwood cutters; if snags have not been retained or are insufficient in number, create snags through blasting tops or inoculation with heart rot if size of trees meets species requirements.

POTENTIAL EFFECTS: Williamson’s sapsucker does have potential to occur within the project area. Some ponderosa pine trees >18 inches dbh may be cut, but the largest trees would not likely be impacted by the proposed action. Ponderosa pine trees >22 inches dbh and white fir >30 inches dbh would not be cut. The proposed action may result in a short-term, localized disturbance to individual birds using the area during project implementation, but will encourage the future development of large tree and snag structure to improve habitat quality for Williamson’s sapsucker. PDC that would benefit this species include 10, 13-17, 30, and 31.

CEFS – Cascades East Slope Focal Species; BCC – Birds of Conservation Concern

204

LITERATURE CITED Abele, S. C., V. A. Saab, and E. O. Garton. 2004. Lewis’s woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis): A technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Altman, B. June 2000. Conservation strategy for the landbirds of the east-slope of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon and Washington. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. Altman, B. and A. Holmes. 2000. Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in the Columbia Plateau of Eastern Oregon and Washington. Version 1.0. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. 136 pp. Andrews H. 2010. Johnson’s hairstreak species factsheet. Interagency special status and sensitive species program. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna-invertebrates.shtml Anthony, R.G., E.D. Forsman, A.B. Franklin, D.R. Anderson, K.P. Burnham, G.C. White, C.J. Schwarz, J.D. Nichols, J.E. Hines, G.S. Olson, S.H. Ackers, L.S. Andrews, B.L. Biswell, P.C. Carlson, L.V. Diller, K.M. Dugger, K.E. Fehring, T.L. Fleming, R.P. Gerhardt, S.A. Gremel, R.J. Gutiérrez, P.J. Happe, D.R. Herter, J.M. Higley, R.B. Horn, L.L. Irwin, P.J. Loschl, J.A. Reid, and S.G. Sovern. 2006. Status and trends in demography of Northern Spotted Owls, 1985–2003. Wildlife Monographs 163:1–48. Aubry, K.B. and C.M. Raley. 2002. The pileated woodpecker as a keystone habitat modifier in the Pacific Northwest. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-181. Aubry, K. and C. Raley. 2006. Update to the study Ecological Characteristics of Fishers (Martes pennanti) in the Southern Oregon Cascade Range. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Res. Sta. Olympia, WA. 30 pages. Aubry, K. B., K. S. McKelvey, and J. P. Copeland. 2007. Distribution and broadscale habitat relations of the wolverine in the contiguous United States. J. Wildl. Manage. 71(7): 2147-2158. Baker, Michael D., Lackil, Michael J., Falxa, Gregg A., Droppelman P. Lee, Slack Ryan A., and Scott A. Slankard. 2008. Habitat Use of Pallid Bats in Coniferous Forests of Northern California. Cascadia Research.org. Beedy, E.C., and W.J. Hamilton III. 1999. Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor). In: The Birds of North America, No. 423 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds). The Birds of N. Am., Philadelphia, PA. p. 580 In: Marhsall, D.B., M.G. Hunter, and A. L. Contreras, Eds. 2003. Birds of Oregon: A General Reference. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 768 pp. Bevis, K.R. and S.K. Martin. 2002. Habitat preferences of primary cavity excavators in Washington’s East Cascades. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-181. Pacific Southwest Research Station. 14 pp. Bigby, Steve. 2016. Lex Transportation Report. USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest. Brown, E.R. 1985. Management of wildlife and fish habitats in forests of western Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, Oregon. Bryan, T. and E. D. Forsman. (1987). Distribution, abundance, and habitat of Great Gray Owls in south central Oregon. The Murrelet, 68, 45-49. Bull. E.L. 1980. Resource portioning among woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. Idaho, Moscow. 109 pp.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna-invertebrates.shtml

205

Bull. E.L. 1987. Ecology of the pileated woodpecker in northeastern Oregon. J. Wildl. Manage. 51(2):472-481. Bull, E.L., 2000. Seasonal and sexual differences in American marten diet in northeastern Oregon. Northwest Science 74, 186–191. Bull, Evelyn L., and Thad W. Heater. 2001. Home range and dispersal of the American marten in northeastern Oregon. Northwestern Naturalist 82:7-11. Bull, E. L. and M. G. Henjum. 1990. Ecology of the Great Gray Owl. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-265. Portland, Oregon: United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific NorthwestResearch Station. 39 p. Bull, E.L., C.G. Parks, and T.R. Torgersen. 1997. Trees and logs important to wildlife in the interior Columbia River basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-391. Portland, OR. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 55p. Bull, E.L., S.R. Peterson, and J.W. Thomas. 1986. Resource partitioning among woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon. Research Note PNW-444, Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. Forest Service, Portland, Oregon. Bull, Evelyn L., Thad W. Heater, and Jay F. Shepard. 2005. Habitat selection by the American marten in northeastern Oregon. Northwest Science 79(1):37-43. Buskirk, S.W., S.C Forrest, Martin G. Raphael, and H.J. Harlow. 1989. Winter resting site ecology of marten in the central Rocky Mountains. Journal of Wildlife Management 53(1):191-196. Buskirk, L.J., and L.F. Ruggiero. 1994. Chapter 2 – American marten. Pgs 7-37 In. Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski. (Technical editors). The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the Western United States. General technical report RM-254. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ft. Collins CO. 184 p. Cahall, R. E. 2007. Influences of Salvage Logging on Forest Birds after Fire in the Eastern Cascades, Oregon. Master’s of Science. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. Center for Biological Diversity. Natural history of the Sierra Nevada Red Fox. http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/mammals/Sierra_Nevada_red_fox/natural_history.html Chung-MacCoubrey, A.L. 1996. Bat species composition and roost use in pinyon-juniper woodlands of New Mexico. Pages 118-12 in R.M.R. Barclay and R.M. Brigham, editors. Bats and forests symposium. British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Victoria, Canada. Clark T. W., E. Anderson, C. Douglas, and M. Strickland. 1987. Martes americana. Mammalian Species 289. Copeland, J. P., J. M. Peek, C. R. Groves, W. E. Melquist, K. S. McKelvey, G. W. McDaniel, C. D. Long, and C. E. Harris. 2007. Seasonal habitat associations of the wolverine in central Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(7):2201-2212. Cryan, P.M., M.A. Bogan, and G.M. Yanega. 2001. Roosting habits of four bat species in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Acta Chiropterologica 3:43-52. Csuti Blair, Oneil T.A., Shaughnessy M.M., Gaines E.P., Hak J.C. 2001. Atlas of Oregon Wildlife Distribution, Habitat, and Natural History. Oregon State University, Corvallis Oregon. 525 pp.

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/species/mammals/Sierra_Nevada_red_fox/natural_history.html

206

Cushman, K. A. and C. A. Pearl. 2007. A Conservation Assessment for the Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 6 and U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington: 46 pages. Dickinson, M.B., M.J. Lacki, and D.R. Cox. 2009. Fire and the endangered Indiana bat. Proceedings of the 3rd Fire in Eastern Oak Forests Conference. GTR-NRS-P-46 51-75. Diebert, W. J., M. J. Griffith, and K. Zahl. 1970. Fieldbook of Selected Wildlife. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region. 97pp. Dixon, R.D. 1995. Ecology of white-headed woodpeckers in the central Oregon Cascades. Master’s Thesis. Univ. Idaho. 148 pp. Douglas, C.W.; Strickland, M.A. 1987. Fisher. In Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, J.L. Lyon, and W.L. Zielinski, tech eds. 1994. American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. 184pp. Dudley, J.G. and V.A. Saab. 2007. Home range size of black-backed woodpeckers in burned forests of southwestern Idaho. Western North American Naturalist 67(4):593-600. Duncan, N. 2008. Pristiloma wascoense. Species Fact Sheet. Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species Program. Unpublished document. Available on ISSSSP intranet site. Duncan, N., T. Burke, S. Dowlan, and P. Hohenlohe. 2003. Survey protocol for survey and manage terrestrial mollusk species from the Northwest Forest Plan. Version 3.0. USDI Bureau of Land Management, USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. Available from USDA Forest Service, Rogue River National Forest, Medford, OR. Durking, Patrick. 2010. Strychnine Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment, Final Report. Syracuse Environmental Research Associated, Inc., New York. Submitted to USDA Forest Service, Southern Region. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/pdfs/052-17-03b_Strychnine.pdf. Elchuk, C.L. and K.L. Weibe. 2002. Food and predation risk as factors related to foraging locations of northern flickers. The Wilson Bulletin 114(3):349-357. E-mail of personal communication between Jon Stephens of the USFWS and Lauri Turner, Deschutes National Forest Wildlife Biologist, July 7, 2016. Endangered Species Act of 1973. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 et seq. (2002), available at <http://endangered.fws.gov/esa.html> Fayt, P., M.M. Machmer, and C.Steeger. 2005. Regulation of spruce bark beetles by woodpeckers – a literature review. Forest Ecol. and Mgmt. 206:1-14. Forman, R.T., D. Sperling, J.A. Bissonette, A.P. Clevenger, C.D. Cutshall, V.H. Dale, L. Fahrig, R. France, C.R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J.A. Jones, F.J. Swanson, T. Turrentine, and T.C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology: Science and Solutions. Island Press. 481 pp. Forsman, Eric D., et al. 2011. Population Demography of Northern Spotted Owls. Studies in Avian Biology; No. 40. University of California Press, Berkley and Los Angeles, California.

http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/pdfs/052-17-03b_Strychnine.pdf

http://endangered.fws.gov/esa.html

207

Frenzel, R.W. 2000. Nest-sites, nesting success, and turn-over rates of white-headed woodpeckers on the Winema and Deschutes National Forests, Oregon in 2000. In USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest. 2012B. White-headed Woodpecker Species Assessment. Frenzel, R.W. 2003. Nest-site occupancy, nesting success, and turn-over rates of white-headed woodpeckers on the Winema and Deschutes National Forests, Oregon in 2003. Unpubl. Report submitted to the Oregon Natural Heritage Program, The Nature Conservancy of Oregon. 49 pp. Garrett, K.L., M.G. Raphael, and R.D. Dixon. 1996. White-headed Woodpecker (Picoides albolarvartus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/252 Gilligan, J, M. Smith, D. Rodgers, and A. Contreras. 1994. Birds of Oregon: Status and Distribution. Cinclus Publications, McMinnville. 330 pp. Goggans, R., R.D. Dixon, and L.C. Seminara. 1989. Habitat use by three-toed and black-backed woodpeckers, Deschutes National Forest, Oregon. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Nongame Wildlife Program, Tech. Rep. #87-3-02. 43pp Goggans, R. and M. Platt. 1992. Breeding season observations of Great Gray Owls on the Willamette National Forest, Oregon. Oregon Birds, 18, 35-41. Gruver, J.C. and D.A. Keinath. 2006. Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/townsendsbigearedbat.pdf Greenwald, D. N., Crocker-Bedford, D. C., Brobert, L., Suckling, K. F., and Tibbitts, T. 2005. A review of northern goshawk habitat selection in the home range and implications for forest management in the western United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33 (1):12-=129. Hamer, T.E. 1988. Home range size of the northern barred owl and northern spotted owl in western Washington. MS Thesis, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA, 86 pp Hamer, T.E., D. L. Hays, C. M. Singer, and E. D. Foreman. 2001. Diets of Northern Barred Owls and Northern Spotted Owls in an area of sympatry. Journal of Raptor Research 35:221-227. Hamer, T.E., E.D. Forsman, and E. M. Glenn. 2007. Home range attributes and habitat selection of barred owls in an area of sympatry. Condor:109:750-768. Harris, M.A. 1982. Habitat use among woodpeckers in forest burns. University of Montana. Master Thesis. 63 pp.

Hayward, G.D., and R.E. Escano. 1989. Goshawk nest-site characteristics in western Montana and northern Idaho. In USDA Forest Service. Deschutes National Forest. 2012n. Northern Goshawk Species Assessment. Herter, D.R., and L.L. Hicks. 2000. Barred owl and spotted owl populations and habitat in the central Cascade Range of Washington. Journal of Raptor Research 34:279–286. Jackson, J.A. and H.R. Ouellet. 2002. Hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, ed). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/702

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/252

http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/townsendsbigearedbat.pdf

208

Jepsen, S. 2014. Western bumblebee species factsheet. Interagency special status and sensitive species program. Available at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna-invertebrates.shtml Johnsgard , Paul A. 1990. Hawks, Eagles, and Falcons of North America. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C. pp. 164-182. Johnson, Bruce K., Michael J. Wisdom, and John G. Cook. 2005. Issues of elk productivity for research and management. Pp. 81-93 in Wisdom, M.J, tech. ed., The Starkey Project: a synthesis of long-term studies of elk and mule deer. Reprinted from the 2004 Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources conference, Alliance Communications Group, Lawrence, KS. IN. Oregon Forest Resources Institute. 2007. Wildlife in Managed Forests. Elk. Portland, Oregon. USA. Kaufman K. and Brock J.P. 2003. Field guide to butterflies of North America. Houghton Mifflin Company: New York, NY. 392pp. Kelly, E.G., E.D. Forsman, and R.G. Anthony. 2003. Are barred owls displacing spotted owls? Condor 105:45–53. Kozma, J.M. 2011. Composition of forest stands used by white-headed woodpeckers for nesting in Washington. Western North American Naturalist 71(1):1-9. Kreisel, K.J. and S.J. Stein. 1999. Bird use of burned and unburned coniferous forests during winter. Wilson Bull. 111(2):243-250. Krohn, W.B., W.J. Zielinski, and R.B. Boone. 1997. Relations among fishes, snow, and martens in California: results from small-scale spatial comparisons. Pages 211-232 In Martes: taxonomy, ecology, techniques, and management, G. Proulx, H. N. Bryant, and P. M. Woodard, editors. 1997. Provincial Museum of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Kroll, A. J., T. L. Fleming, and L. L. Irwin. 2010. Site occupancy dynamics of northern spotted owls in the Eastern Cascades, Washington, USA, 1990–2003. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:1264–1274. Lacki, M.J. and M.D. Baker. 2007. Day roosts of female fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) in xeric forests of the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Mammalogy 88(4):967-973. Lewis, S. E. 1994. Night roosting ecology of pallid bats (Antrozous pallidus) in Oregon. In NatureServe. 2012. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1 NatureServe, Arlington, VA. Available at http:www.natureserve.org/explorer Linder, K.A. and S.H. Anderson. 1998. Reproductive habitat of Lewis’ woodpeckers in southeastern Wyoming. Journal of Field Ornithology 69(1):109-116. Lowe, John. 2017. Kew Vegetation Management Project BE/Wildlife Report. USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest. Lundquist, R.W. 1988. Habitat use by cavity-nesting birds in the southern Washington Cascades. Masters Thesis. University of Washington. 168 pp. Lundsten, S., and Popper, K. J. 2002. Breeding Ecology of Yellow Rails at Fourmile Creek, Wood River Wetland, Mares Egg Spring, and additional areas in Southern Oregon, 2002. Report submitted to Bureau of Land Management, Klamath Falls Resource Area.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna-invertebrates.shtml

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer

209

Madsen, S.J. 1985. Habitat use by cavity-nesting birds in the Okanogan National Forest, Washington. Masters Thesis. University of Washington. 113 pp. Marshall, D. B., M. G. Hunter, and A. L. Contreras, Eds. 2003. Birds of Oregon: A General Reference. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 768 pp. Mellen-McLean, Kim, Bruce G. Marcot, Janet L. Ohmann, Karen Waddell, Susan A. Livingston, Elizabeth A. Willhite, Bruce B. Hostetler, Catherine Ogden, and Tina Dreisbach. 2012. DecAID, the decayed wood advisor for managing snags, partially dead trees, and down wood for biodiversity in forests of Washington and Oregon. Version 2.20. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region and Pacific Northwest Research Station; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office; Portland, Oregon. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/decaid/index.shtml Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds. (December 08, 2008) Merschel, Andrew. 2015. Kew Stand Reports May 12, 2015. Mikkola, H. (1983). Owls of Europe. Buteo Books, Vermillion, South Dakota. Miller, Jeffrey C. and Paul C. Hammond. 2007. Butterflies and Moths of Pacific Northwest Forests and Woodlands: Rare, Endangered, and Management Sensitive Species. Forest Health Technology Team, Technology Transfer Species Identification. USDA Forest Service Publication FHTET-2006-07. Mitchell R.G. and H. K. Preisler. 1998. Fall rate of lodgepole pine killed by mountain pine beetle in central Oregon. Wester11 Joumal of Applied Forestry, 13, 23-26. Moriarty, K.M.; Epps, C.W.; Zielinski, W.J. 2016. Forest thinning for fuel reduction changes movement patterns and habitat use by Pacific marten. Journal of Wildlife Management. 80: 621–633. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/53170 Murphy, E.C. and W.A. Lehnhausen. 1998. Density and foraging ecology of woodpeckers following a stand-replacement fire. J. Wildlife Managemet 62(4):1359-1372. NatureServe. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. Nero, R. W. (1980). The Great Gray Owl – phantom of the northern forest. Smithsonian Inst. Press, Washington, D.C. O'Farrell, M.J. and E.H. Studier. 1980. Myotis thysanodes. Mammalian Species No. 137:1-5. Olson, G.S., E.M. Glenn, R.G. Anthony, E.D. Forsman, J.A. Reid, P.J. Loschl, and W.J. Ripple. 2004. Modeling demographic performance of northern spotted owls relative to forest habitat in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:1039–1053. Olson, L. E., J. D. Sauder, N. M. Albrecht, R. S. Vinkey, S. A. Cushman, and M. K. Schwartz. 2014. Biological Conservation 169:89-98. Opler, Paul A., Harry Pavulaan, Ray E. Stanford, Michael Pogue, coordinators. 2006. Butterflies of North America. Bozeman, MT: Mountain Prairie Information Node http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/ .

https://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/decaid/index.shtml

http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/53170

http://mammalogist.org/PDF/reprints/Pub044.pdf

http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/

210

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1988. 1988 Central Oregon Roosevelt Elk Monitoring Project. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Central Region Administrative Report No. 88-3. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2003. Oregon’s Elk Management Plan. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon, USA. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2007. Barbara Webb’s personal communication with Glen Ardt and the discovery of wolverine tracks near the Deschutes Bridge area during winter track surveys (April 20, 2007). Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2010. Oregon Wolf Conservation and Management Plan. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon, USA. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2015. Updated mapping potential gray wolf range in Oregon. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, 4034 Fairview Industrial Drive SE. Salem, OR 97302. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Wolf Program Updates. www.dfw.or.us/wolves/wolf_program_updates.asp. Ormsbee, P. C., and W. C. McComb. 1998. Selection of day roosts by female long-legged myotis in the Central Oregon Cascade Range. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:596–603. Ornberg, Anders. 2017. Lex Vegetation Management Silviculture Report. USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest. Pearson, R.R. and K.B. Livezey. 2003. Distribution, numbers, and site characteristics of spotted owls and barred owls in the Cascade Mountains of Washington. Journal of Raptor Research 37:265-276. Popper, Kenneth J. 2001. Abundance and distribution of Yellow Rails in the Deschutes and Northern Great Basins of Southcentral Oregon, 2000. Popper, Kenneth, J. 2004. Yellow Rail Surveys in Southcentral Oregon, 2003-2004. Unpublished report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath Falls and Portland, Oregon Offices and to the Deschutes National Forest, Crescent Ranger District, Crescent, Oregon. Rabe, M.J., T.E. Morrell, H. Green, J.C. DeVos, Jr., and C.R. Miller. 1998. Characteristics of ponderosa pine snag roosts used by reproductive bats in northern Arizona. Journal of Wildlife Management 62: 612-621. Raley, C.M. and K.B. Aubry. 2005. Pileated woodpecker foraging ecology on Sun Pass State Forest, Oregon. Final Report. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. Raphael, Martin G., and L.L.C. Jones. 1997. Characteristics of resting and denning sites of American martens in central Oregon and western Washington. pp.146-165 in G. Proulx, H.N. Bryant, and P.M. Woodard, eds., Martes: taxonomy, ecology, techniques, and management. Provincial Museum of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Reynolds, R. T. and H. M. Wight. 1978. Distribution, density, and productivity of accipiter hawks breeding in Oregon. Wils. Bull. 90:182-96. Reynolds, R.; R. Graham; M. Hildegard; R. Bassett; P. Kennedy; D. Boyce; G. Goodwin; R. Smith; and E. Fisher. 1992 Management recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in the southwestern United States. U.S.D.A., Forest Service, Rocky Mtn Forest and Range Experiment Station. General Tech. Rep. RM-217. Ft. Collins, CO. 184 pp.

http://www.dfw.or.us/wolves/wolf_program_updates.asp

211

Rose, C.L., B.G. Marcot, T.K. Mellen, J.L. Ohmann, K.L. Waddell, D.L. Lindley, and B. Schreiber. 2001. Decaying wood in Pacific Northwest forests: concepts and tools for habitat management. Pp. 580-623 IN: D.H. Johnson and T.A. O'Neil, eds. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis OR. http://www.nwhi.org/nhi/whrow/chapter24cwb.pdf Rowland M. M., M. J. Wisdom, B. K. Johnson, and M. A. Penninger. 2005. Effects of road on elk; Implications for management in forested ecosystems. Pages 42-52 in Wisdom, M. J., technical editor, The Starkey Project: a synthesis of long-term studies of elk and mule deer. Reprinted from the 2004 Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference, Alliance Communications Group, Lawrence, Kansas, USA. Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, J.L. Lyon, and W.L. Zielinski, tech eds. 1994. American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. 184pp. Saab, V.A. and J.G. Dudley. 1998. Responses of cavity-nesting birds to stand-replacement fire and salvage logging in ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests of southwestern Idaho. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-11. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 17 p. Saab, V.A., R. Brannon, J. Dudley, L. Donohoo, D. Vanderzanden, V. Johnson, and H. Lachowski. 2002. Selection of fire-created snags at two spatial scales by cavity-nesting birds. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-181. Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service. 14 pp. Saab, V.A., J. Dudley, and W.L. Thompson. 2004. Factors influencing occupancy of nest cavities in recently burned forests. Condor 106:20-36. Saab, V.A., R.E. Russell, and J.G. Dudley. 2007. Nest densities of cavity-nesting birds in relation to postfire salvage logging and time since wildfire. The Condor 109:97-108. Saab, V.A., R.E. Russell, and J.G. Dudley. 2009. Nest-site selection by cavity-nesting birds in relation to postfire salvage logging. Forest Ecology and Management 257:151-159. Schaeffer, B. 1993. Crater Lake National Park: Great Gray Owl (strix nebulosa) survey protocol: protection, strategies and nest site habitat evaluation procedures. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Crater Lake National Park. Singleton, P.H., J.F. Lehmkuhl, W.L. Gaines, and S.A. Graham. 2010. Barred owl space use and habitat selection in the eastern Cascades, Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:285-294. Slauson, Keith M. 2003. Habitat selection by American martens (Martes Americana) in coastal northwestern California. M.S. Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis. 112 p. Slauson, Keith M., William J. Zielinski, and John P. Hayes. 2007. Habitat selection by American martens in coastal California. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:48-468. Sousa, P.J. 1987. Habitat suitability index models: hairy woodpecker. U.S. FWS Biol. Rep. 82(10.146). 19 pp. Squires, John R. and L. Ruggiero. 1996. Nest-site preference of northern goshawks in south central Wyoming. In USDA Forest Service. Deschutes National Forest. 2012n. Northern Goshawk Species Assessment. Stepnisky, D. P. 1997. Landscape features and characteristics of Great Gray Owl (Strix nebulosa) nests in fragmented landscapes of central Alberta. USDA USFS General Technical Report NC, 601-609.

http://www.nwhi.org/nhi/whrow/chapter24cwb.pdf

http://www.nwhi.org/nhi/whrow/chapter24cwb.pdf

212

Stalmaster, M. V. 1987. The bald eagle. Universe Books, New York. Stankowich, T. 2008. Ungulate flight responses to human disturbance: A review and meta-analysis. Biological Conservation 141:2159–2173. Sussmann, Peter. 2017. Lex Vegetation Management Soils Report. USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest. Thomas, J.W. 1979. Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests: the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington, ed. USDA Forest Service. Agriculture Handbook 553. 512 pp. Timm, D. E., M. L. Wege, and D. S. Gilmer. 1982. Current status and management challenges for Tule White-fronted Geese. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 47:453-463. Tobalske, B.W. 1992. Evaluating habitat suitability using relative abundance and fledging success of red-naped sapsuckers. The Condor 94:550-553. Tobalske, B.W. 1997. Lewis’s Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/284. Trombino, C. 1998. Species interactions in the hybrid zone between red-breasted (Sphyrapicus ruber) and red-naped (Sphyrapicus nuchalis) sapsuckers: fitness consequences, reproductive character displacement, and nest site selection. Ph.D. Dissertation, Northern Illinois Univ., Dekalb, Illinois. 154 pp USDA Forest Service. 1990. Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service. 1993. Region 6 Interim Old Growth Definition. Internal document. USDA Forest Service, Deschutes National Forest. 1994. Deschutes National Forest Wildlife Tree and Log Implementation Strategy. USDA Forest Service, Region 6. 1995. Revised Environmental Assessment for the Continuation of Interim Management Direction Establishing Riparian Ecosystem and Wildlife Standards for Timber Sales. USDA FS. 2011. Update of the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Lists and Transmittal of Strategic Species List. December 10, 2011. Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service. Deschutes National Forest. 2012a. American Marten Species Assessment. USDA Forest Service. Deschutes National Forest. 2012b. Bald Eagle Species Assessment. USDA Forest Service. Deschutes National Forest. 2012c. Black-backed Woodpecker Species Assessment. USDA Forest Service. Deschutes National Forest. 2012e. California Wolverine Species Assessment. USDA Forest Service. Deschutes National Forest. 2012f. Cooper’s Hawk Species Assessment. USDA Forest Service. Deschutes National Forest. 2012g. Downy Woodpecker Species Assessment. USDA Forest Service. Deschutes National Forest. 2012h. Great Blue Heron Species Assessment. USDA Forest Service. Deschutes National Forest. 2012i. Great Gray Owl Species Assessment.

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/284

213

USDA Forest Service. Deschutes National Forest. 2012j. Hairy Woodpecker Species Assessment. USDA Forest Service. Deschutes National Forest. 2012k. Lewis’ Woodpecker Species Assessment. USDA Forest Service. Deschutes National Forest. 2012l. Mule Deer Species Assessment. USDA Forest Service. Deschutes National Forest. 2012m. Northern Flicker Species Assessment. USDA Forest Service. Deschutes National Forest. 2012n. Northern Goshawk Species Assessment. USDA Forest Service. Deschutes National Forest. 2012o. Osprey Species Assessment. USDA Forest Service. Deschutes National Forest. 2012p. Pileated Woodpecker Species Assessment. USDA Forest Service. Deschutes National Forest. 2012q. Red-breasted Sapsucker Species Assessment. USDA Forest Service. Deschutes National Forest. 2012r. Red-tailed Hawk Species Assessment. USDA Forest Service. Deschutes National Forest. 2012s. Rocky Mountain Elk Species Assessment. USDA Forest Service. Deschutes National Forest. 2012t. Sharp-shinned Hawk Species Assessment. USDA Forest Service. Deschutes National Forest. 2012u. Three-toed Woodpecker Species Assessment. USDA Forest Service. Deschutes National Forest. 2012v. Townsend’s Big-eared Bat Species Assessment. USDA Forest Service. Deschutes National Forest. 2012w. Waterfowl Species Assessment. USDA Forest Service. Deschutes National Forest. 2012x. White-headed Woodpecker Species Assessment. USDA Forest Service. Deschutes National Forest. 2012y. Williamson’s Sapsucker Species Assessment. USDA Forest Service, Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests. 2014. Joint Terrestrial and Aquatic Programmatic Biological Assessment for Federal Lands within the Deschutes and John Day River Basin’s Administered by the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests. USDA Forest Service. 2015. Update of the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Lists and Transmittal of Strategic Species List. July 21. Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. USDA Forest Service. 2017. Lex Vegetation Management Environmental Assessment. USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. January 2001. RECORD OF DECISION for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.

214

USDI Bureau of Land Management, et al. 2000. Management Guidelines for Sage Grouse and Sagebrush-Steppe Ecosystems. 42 pages w/Appendix. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. The northern spotted owl status review. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. The northern spotted owl; a status review supplement. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990a. The 1990 status review: northern spotted owl: Strix occidentalis caurina. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 95 pp. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: determination of threatened status for the northern spotted owl. Federal Register 55:26114–26194. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Final Draft Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl, Volumes 1 & 2. Portland, Oregon. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Northern spotted owl: Five Year Review Summary and Evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (2004). High priority shorebirds – 2007. Unpublished report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Dr., MBSP 4107, Arlington, VA, USA. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, VA. 85 pp. http://www.fws.gev/migratorybirds/ USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Reissuance of Final Rule To Identify the Northern Rocky Mountain Population of Gray Wolf as a Distinct Population Segment and To Revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Volume 76, Number 87. Pages 25590-25592. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. xvi + 258 pp. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Federal Register, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Sierra Nevada Red Fox as Endangered or Threatened Species. Vol. 77, No. 1, Pages 45-52. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Federal Register, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Revised Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl; Final Rule. Vol. 77, No. 233 (50 CFR Part 17), Pages 71876 – 72068. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Protocol for Surveying Proposed Management Activities that May Impact Northern Spotted Owls. Revised protocol January 9, 2012. 42 pages. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 6-Month Extension of Final Determination for the Proposed Listing of the Distinct Population Segment of the North American Wolverine Occurring in the Contiguous United States as a Threatened Species.

http://www.fws.gev/migratorybirds/

215

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Federal Register. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status for Oregon Spotted Frog; Final Rule. Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2013–0013; 4500030113, Volume 79, Number 168. Pages 51658 – 51710. USDI (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2015a. Species Report – Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator). Sacramento Field Office, California. 78 pp. USDI (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2015b. 50 CFR (17), Federal Register. October 2, 2015. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as an Endangered or Threatened Species; Proposed Rule USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Proposed Rule, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Listing of the West Coast Distinct Population Segment of Fisher; Withdrawal. Docket I.D. FWS-R8-ES-2014-0041. Pages 22709-22808. Walters, E.L., E.H. Miller, and P.E. Lowther. 2002. Red-naped Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus nuchalis), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/663b. Weller, T. and C. Zabel. 2001. Characteristics of fringed myotis day roosts in Northern California. Journal of Wildlife Management 65: 489-497. Wiebe, K.L. and W.S. Moore. 2008. Northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/166a Weir R.D., Corbould F.B. 2010. Factors affecting landscape occupancy by fishers in north-central British Columbia. Journal of Wildlife Management. Volume 74: 405-410. Western Bat Working Group. 2005. Species Accounts: Fringed Myotis. http://wbwg.org/western-bat-species White, P. A., and M. Ernst. 2003. Second nature: improving transportation without putting nature second. Defenders of Wildlife,Washington, D.C., USA. IN. Western Association of Fish and Agencies, Mule Deer Working Group. 2009. Habitat Guidelines For Mule Deer Intermountain West Ecoregion. Wikipedia. Fisher. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_(animal) Winter, J. 1986. The status, distribution and ecology of the Great Gray Owl and the flammulated owl in California. In: Shaeffer, P. P. and S. M. Ehlers eds. Owls of the west: their ecology and conservation. National Audubon society, Proceedings of a symposium, Tiberon, California. Wisdom, M.J., R.S. Holthausen, B.C. Wales, C.D. Hargis, V.A. Saab, D.C. Lee, W.J. Hann, T.D. Rich, M.M. Rowland, W.J. Murphy, M.R. Eames. 2000. Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the interior Columbia basin: broad-scale trends and management implications. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-485. Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 3 Vol. Zielinski, W. J. and C. M. Thompson, K. L. Purcell, and J. D. Garner. 2013. An assessment of fisher (Pekania pennant) tolerance to forest management intensity on the landscape. Forest Ecol. And Mgmt. 310: 821-826.

https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R8-ES-2014-0041

https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FWS-R8-ES-2014-0041

http://wbwg.org/western-bat-species

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher_(animal)

216

APPENDIX A - Description of Activities Overstory Treatments Commercial Thinning (HTH) A commercial thinning (HTH) is a harvest which removes a portion of the standing trees to control the species composition and density of the remaining trees. This is an intermediate treatment and leaves a stand with at least the minimum stocking required in the LRMP over at least 80% of the stand. Uneven-aged Management-Selection Cut (HSL) Uneven-aged management (HSL) will meet desired conditions in some of the mixed species stands by maintaining ponderosa pine as a long-term overstory and understory while having some development of lodgepole pine and white fir in the interim. Stands selected for this have at least half of minimum stocking of ponderosa pine on 80% of the proposed treated acres. The intent is to have the stand in multiple age groups or cohorts instead of a single cohort and to move to a more historical species composition. Actions will include releasing the ponderosa pine in the stand by cutting lodgepole and white fir within 35-40 feet of an acceptable ponderosa pine. Thinning the ponderosa pine where necessary to maintain more than two inches of diameter growth per decade for the next two decades. Cutting regeneration openings where the young and mature white fir in one to six acres will occur through these stands. Root rot pockets and younger dense portions of stands will receive most of this emphasis to increase ponderosa pine. These openings generally will not exceed two acres except where circumstances warrant it such as ponderosa/ lodgepole ecotone areas and root disease centers that exceed two acres. Regeneration typically with tree planting will be needed on about 15% of the uneven-aged management area in order to stock the open areas with ponderosa pine moving the stand towards a more historical level of species composition. Selection cut (HSC) Selection cut (HSC) will meet desired conditions in some of the mixed species stands which have less stocking of ponderosa pine (less than minimum stocking) by maintaining ponderosa pine as a long term overstory and understory while having some development of lodgepole pine in the interim. The intent is to have the stand in multiple age groups or cohorts instead of a single cohort and to increase the amount of early seral species, moving to a more historical species composition and structure. Actions will include releasing the ponderosa pine in the stand by cutting lodgepole and white fir within 35-40 feet of an acceptable ponderosa pine. Thinning the ponderosa pine where necessary to maintain more than two inches of diameter growth per decade for the next two decades. Cutting regeneration patches where the young and mature white fir in one to six acres will occur through these stands. Root rot pockets and younger dense portions of stands will receive most of this emphasis to increase ponderosa pine. These openings generally will not exceed two acres except where circumstances warrant it such as ponderosa/ lodgepole ecotone areas and root disease centers that exceed two acres. Regeneration typically with tree planting will be done on about 15% of the uneven-aged management area in order to stock the open areas with ponderosa pine. Shelterwood Harvest (HSH) Shelterwood Harvest (HSH) is a regeneration method which leaves an overstory of trees to provide seed and a less severe microclimate for establishment of another cohort of trees. Following establishment of the regeneration, the remaining overstory trees will be removed.

217

Final Removal (HFR) Harvest Final Removal (HFR) is used where the past treatment was a regeneration treatment to establish another stand. The intent of the original treatment was to remove the overstory lodgepole pine seed trees especially if there was mistletoe present. Since the removal of lodgepole pine overstory with mistletoe is a main objective and white fir or other species in the overstory not affecting the health of the regeneration will be left. These treatments will generally be followed by management of the regeneration with precommercial thin (PCT), in these treatments species diversity will be encouraged through favoring some stocking of other conifers found with the lodgepole pine regeneration (i.e. white fir, mountain hemlock, white pine and white bark pine). Overstory Removal (with salvage) (HOR) Harvest Overstory Removal (HOR) is different from final removal in that it is a removal of the overstory or just the lodgepole pine portion of the overstory, where previous treatments which managed the overstory produced understory regeneration, even though that was not the intent. The intent of this harvest is to remove the overstory lodgepole pine and take advantage of the advanced regeneration. Previous management in these stands included commercial thinning, salvage and sanitation harvest or just overstory mortality due to mountain pine beetle. Removal of the overstory lodgepole pine will remove the overstory infection source of mistletoe and generally manage the stands as single cohort stands. Where healthy overstory trees other than lodgepole pine are present they will generally be left to give longer term overstory structure. Salvage will be of lodgepole pine and will remove only down dead lodgepole pine. These treatments will generally be followed by management of the understory regeneration with precommercial thinning (PCT). Clearcut with Seedtrees (with salvage) (HCR) Harvest Clearcutting (HCR) will remove the dead standing and down lodgepole pine and standing live lodgepole pine except for approximately 10 trees per acre to serve as seed providers for natural regeneration. Salvage will be of firm lodgepole pine and will remove all firm dead lodgepole pine. Since the removal of lodgepole pine overstory with mistletoe is a main objective and white fir or other species in the overstory not affecting the health of the regeneration will be left. These treatments will generally be followed by management of the regeneration with precommercial thin (PCT), in these treatments, species diversity will be encouraged through favoring some stocking of other conifers found with the lodgepole pine regeneration (i.e. white fir, mountain hemlock, western white pine and white bark pine). After the regeneration is established, in about 5 years, the seed trees will be killed or removed. For variability in composition other species in the overstory will be left, while other species in the understory will be managed to assist the future stand to be multi-species. Girdle Overstory (GFR) On about 155 acres of lodgepole regeneration, remaining seed trees are too few to economically removal. Girdling the overstory lodgepole pine will kill dwarf mistletoe infection sources. This will meet the objective of eliminating overstory mistletoe and promoting a healthy stand. Most of these treatments will be followed by precommercial thinning. Improvement Cut (HIM) Improvement cutting (HIM) will be managing a few stands along Cascade Lakes Highway for various scenic, safety and forest health objectives.

218

Special Cut (HSP) Special Cut (HSP) will be managing stands along the power line, cascade lakes highway and recreation sites. Objectives in these stands will include removing hazard trees and also managing stands for scenic, recreation, and forest health objectives. Understory Treatments Precommercial Thinning (PCT) Precommercial thinning (PCT) would leave trees on 11 to 25 foot spacing in order to increase growth and may be followed with fuels treatments to increase the chance of surviving fires. PCT with some type of mechanical removal may be necessary where fuels build up and piling would not be socially acceptable. Precommercial thinning would also be used to manage the understory through stands which have multi-storied canopy characteristics. This thinning leaves the biggest trees, which are not competing with each other or acting as ladder fuels. The remaining trees could be left on 20 to 30 foot spacing Ladder Fuels reduction (LFR) Ladder Fuels Reduction (LFR) involves mechanically cutting understory trees 7” dbh and less at a predetermined spacing. The desired residual stocking of trees under 7” dbh varies and is dependent on the overall stand density and structure. LFR treatments are designed to reduce ladder fuels, thus reducing the potential for crown fire initiation. A minimum of 15 foot spacing is acceptable; 21 foot spacing is preferred. Whip felling Whip falling is used in stands to remove the non-merchantable trees left which are not desired due to disease or poor condition including small crowns, bole damage or very poor growth. Whip falling is planned in the stands which will have a seed tree shelterwood, overstory removal or commercial thin harvest Skid and Deck This will be done in plantations with large enough material for utilization as biomass but not large enough for sawlog material. Biomass removal will use similar technologies as ground based logging except for landings which may not sort logs but chip onsite the material for removal. Within plantations, landings and skid trails will be required. Fuels Treatments Lop and Scatter (LOP) Lop and scatter commonly occurs in units where light thinning slash is created and fuel concentrations do not exceed LRMP standards. Prescribed fire could be used as a final fuels treatment. An exception to this is lodgepole pine units that call for lopping and scattering. These units are not underburned. Lopping consists of cutting the limbs off of thinned trees and rearranging the fuel bed to 15” or less off the ground. Lopped slash located beneath residual trees will be manually scattered out from below tree canopies to ensure low fire intensities in these areas during prescribed fire operations.

219

Hand Piling Hand piling consists of piling natural and activity-created fuels (slash) by hand. Completed pile dimensions will be approximately 6’ long by 6’ wide by 5’ high. The amount of piles per acre will fluctuate along with fuel loadings and are expected to occur at a rate of 18 to 24 piles per acre. Piles will be burned in the late fall or early winter season when moisture levels minimize fire spreading to surrounding areas. Machine Piling Machine piling consists of piling natural fuels and activity created fuels, utilizing mechanized equipment such as a grapple piler. Pretreatment fuel loading will generally be greater than 16 tons per acre where machine piling occurs. Completed pile dimensions will be approximately 12’ long by 12’ wide by 8’ high, and will occur at a rate of 6 to 10 piles per acre. Piles will be burned in the late fall or early winter season when surrounding fuel moisture levels minimize fire spreading to surrounding areas. Mechanical Shrub Treatment or “Mowing” (MST) Mechanical Shrub Treatment consists of mowing shrubs within forested stands. This utilizes a rubber tired tractor, or tracked piece of equipment (i.e. ASV), equipped with a rotary mower. Rubber tired tractors may be utilized on slopes up to 25% and tracked equipment may be utilized on slopes up to 35%. The targeted shrub species are bitterbrush, ceanothus, and manzanita. Mechanized equipment will mow, cut, or otherwise reduce the shrub vertical structure to a height of less than 8” and may occur on up to 80% of the area within a unit. If underburning is delayed after mowing, the unit may need to be masticated again before the underburning occurs. Mastication Masticate Shrub and Fuels Treatment consists of grinding vegetation and down woody fuels. This usually occurs on a tracked machine with a front mounted grinding unit. The targeted brush species are bitterbrush, ceanothus and manzanita and may include regeneration that is not desired for stand stocking. Brush and down fuels are included and may occur on up to 70% to 80% of the area within specified units. Mastication is an option in preparing units for underburning. If underburning is delayed after mastication, the unit may need to be masticated again before the underburning occurs. Underburning (Prescribed Fire) Underburning consists of burning natural fuels and activity produced fuels. Ignition occurs under predetermined weather conditions in order to meet desired conditions. Underburning in the Flat EA area will be done in combination with other treatments developed to meet fuel reduction objectives, and possibly other resource objectives. Season of burning is determined by the post-sale stand conditions and the desired condition of the unit. More than one entry with fire may be needed to meet the desired condition. Once the desired condition is obtained, additional treatments may be necessary to maintain the desired conditions. Regular reentries of maintenance burning can be used to sustain the reduced fuel loadings. Any future maintenance proposals would be assessed through the NEPA process. Fireline construction If fireline construction is needed, it could be constructed using a range of construction levels. The least impacting is a hand type fireline, which would be approximately 20” wide or a large tracked piece of equipment (i.e. D-7 bulldozer) where the line would be approximately 5’ wide. Fire lines are necessary to keep fire from spreading outside of unit boundaries, when other trails or roads are not available. Fire lines would be

220

rehabilitated following fire activities. This includes pulling displaced surface material back over them: including soil berms, rocks, and woody material. Description of Reforestation Methods Tree planting (plant) Reforestation through planting is planned in the ponderosa pine stands and mixed conifer stands where openings are greater than 2 acres due to removal of trees or through the prescribed fire mortality. These areas will be evaluated before planting to identify the need. If minimum stocking greater than 100 trees per acre, 35 SDI or the equivalent is present there will be no need for reforestation. Where an area does not have the minimum stocking or the desired species composition, the evaluation will look at the possibility of natural regeneration possibilities from nearby seed sources and whether cone production or signs of previous regeneration are present. Tree planting will be done with hand tools and possibly with hand operated augers. Scalping of the planting spot will be done by hand clearing a space of vegetation and litter up to 4’ wide. Trees planted will be grown from local seed. Animal Damage Control Planting will require protection of seedlings from browse usually with vexar tubing and Big Game Repellent. In many places seedlings will need protection from gopher depredation which will require trapping of gophers to reduce populations. Trapping will involve the placement of kill-traps into active pocket gopher tunnel systems. Evaluations will be conducted to determine the need for trapping prior to planting and to assess the need for continued trapping to prevent plantations from falling below minimum stocking levels. Seedling release with herbicide The herbicides hexazinone and glyphosate will be used to control competing vegetation within a 3’-5’ radius of planted seedlings. Herbicides will be applied via backpack sprayer or hand held spreader (if granular or pelletized formulations are available) following planting. No more than one application of either or both chemicals would occur in a given year. Hexazinone would be applied either in the spring after the ground thaws or in the fall before snowfall. Glyphosate would be applied while plants are actively growing in late spring/early summer, most likely months of May or June. If Glyphosate and Hexazinone is applied as a mix it would likely be in late spring in anticipation of rains. Evaluations will be conducted to determine the need for follow up applications up to 5 years post planting. Natural regeneration Natural regeneration is expected in seed tree and shelterwood treatments. Stocking levels will be monitored to ensure these treatments are meeting reforestation requirements. Description of Other Actions Road Decommission - Temporary roads would be decommissioned by subsoiling the temporary roadbed. Trail Obliteration - User created trail obliteration should would occur with a combination of de-compaction of surface soils by subsoiling the trail and by actions that occur within the treatment units such as using heavy equipment moving over the trail and movement of slash into the trail bed.

221

APPENDIX B - Rationale for Species Not Considered in Detail Sensitive Species The following Sensitive Species were not considered for analysis due to a lack of habitat in or near the Lex project area. A lack of habitat assumes a lack of presence. Therefore, the Lex proposed action and alternatives would have no impact and would not contribute to a trend towards federal listing for these species. American Peregrine Falcon: Peregrine falcons often nest on ledges or holes on the face of rocky cliffs or crags. They are commonly situated on ledges of vertical cliffs, commonly with a sheltering overhang. For Oregon, NatureServe (2015) lists them as S2B, Imperiled Breeding. Habitat for the peregrine falcon does not occur within the project area. There is one historical nest record from 1961 over 5 miles east of the project area. There are no other known or historical nest sites occurring on the Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District. Implementation of proposed actions would have “no impact” on peregrine falcons. Northern bald eagle: A permanent resident in Oregon. Suitable habitat for the bald eagle is characterized by the presence of large (mature) trees generally greater than 32 inches dbh (species is variable). However, on the Deschutes National Forest, ponderosa pine and Douglas fir trees with large open limb structures are preferred for nesting. Other habitat attributes are the availability of prey, usually within one mile of their nesting territory (typically a large water body, generally greater than 90 acres if a lake). Typical prey for this species during the nesting season and summer is fish. They will also consume waterfowl and other birds, mammals up to approximately rabbit size and a variety of carrion. (Stalmaster 1987). Nesting habitat for the bald eagle does not occur within the project area, as the nearest body of water is approximately 5 air miles to the east of the project. A lack of habitat assumes a lack of presence and therefore any actions or no action within the proposed project area would have “no impact” and therefore not contribute to a trend towards federal listing for this species. Bufflehead: Buffleheads are the smallest diving ducks in North America. For Oregon, NatureServe (2015) lists them as S2B, Imperiled Breeding and S5N, Secure Non-breeding. They are local uncommon breeders in the central Cascades. Buffleheads utilize lakes, ponds, rivers, and seacoasts. Known nesting locations include Hosmer Lake, Crane Prairie Reservoir, Twin Lakes, Wickiup Reservoir, Davis Lake and along the Little Deschutes River (Marshall et al. 2003 p. 124-125). Buffleheads nest at high elevation forested lakes in the central Cascades using natural cavities (abandoned northern flicker holes) and artificial nest boxes in mixed coniferous/deciduous woodlands near lakes and ponds (Gilligan et al. 1994 in Marshall et al. 2003 p.124-125). Females often nest in the same site in successive years (NatureServe 2015). This duck eats both animal and plant material. However, during the breeding season, aquatic insects and larvae are the most important item in their diet. They also eat seeds of pondweeds and bulrushes (Csuti et al. 2001). Buffleheads winter throughout Oregon in open waters (Marshall et al. 2003). Habitat for the bufflehead does not occur within the project area. Implementation of the proposed actions would have “no impact” on bufflehead. Greater Sage Grouse: A detailed review of the taxonomy, genetics, habitat use, life history, range, distribution, and occurrence information for the Greater sage grouse is presented in the Proposed Rule (Federal Register 2015b), available on the Internet at http:// www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2015–0146. Sage grouse are found in foothills, plains, and mountain slopes where sagebrush is present and the habitat contains a mixture of sagebrush, meadows, and aspen in close proximity. Winter habitat (palatable sagebrush) is probably the most limited seasonal habitat in some areas (NatureServe 2015). Sage grouse are closely associated with big sagebrush habitat types and are commonly referred to as “sagebrush obligates” (USDI 2000). During the spring and summer months they may use the fringes of open forest habitat types with good herbaceous understories. In winter, they depend upon low elevation big sagebrush habitats for survival. The project area is outside the known range for Greater sage grouse, therefore, implementation of the project would have “no impact” on greater sage grouse or its habitat.

222

Harlequin Duck: Harlequin ducks winter in rough coastal waters, especially along rocky shores or reefs; summering non-breeders also occur in this habitat. Harlequins also nest along fast-moving rivers and mountain streams on rocks or banks. (NatureServe 2015). This specific habitat type does not occur in the project area therefore implementation of the Proposed Action would have “no impact” on harlequin ducks. Horned Grebe: Horned grebes utilize open lakes and ponds (approximately ¼ acre or larger) with emergent vegetation and occasionally occur along sluggish streams for breeding. The highest breeding densities occur in pothole marshes of aspen woodlands (NatureServe 2015). The horned grebe is uncommon to common east of the Cascades and is a rare breeder on the eastside with no records for central Oregon (Marshall et al. 2003). Outside the breeding season, horned grebes are found on bays, estuaries, and seacoasts, and in migration commonly in inland freshwater habitats, especially lakes and rivers (NatureServe 2015). Declining water levels during the breeding season may strand nests (Marshall et al. 2003). For Oregon, NatureServe (2015) lists them as S2B, Imperiled Breeding and S5N, Secure Non-breeding. This specific habitat type does not occur within the project area. Implementation of any Proposed Actions would have “no impact” on the horned grebe. Northern Waterthrush: Northern waterthrush breeding takes place in cool, wooded swamps, ponds and slow-moving rivers; thickets of bogs, and rivers bordered with willow and alder (Nature Serve 2015). Surrounding forests on the Deschutes National Forest is comprised of lodgepole and ponderosa pine, but can also contain Engelmann spruce and Douglas fir. Although this habitat type occurs on BFR Ranger District it does not occur within the project area. Therefore implementation of the Proposed Action will have “no impact” on the Northern waterthrush. Tri-colored Blackbird: Tricolored blackbirds are a highly gregarious colonial breeder largely endemic to California. However, breeding colonies are scattered and intermittent in Oregon. In Oregon, they breed most consistently in southern Klamath County in the southern part of the state. In migration and winter they are found in open cultivated lands and pastures (NatureServe 2015). Nesting occurs in fresh-water marshes of cattails, tules, bulrushes and sedge, or in thickets of willows or other shrubs. Most birds in Oregon migrate to California for the winter. Threats to this species include habitat loss due to drainage of wetlands and conversion of former nest and roost sites to agriculture. Human disturbance has also been implicated in nesting colony abandonment or failure (Marshall et al. 2003). The Oregon population was estimated to have declined by 22 percent in the 1980’s but the Oregon population represents only one percent of the total tricolored blackbird population (Beedy et al. 1999). NatureServe (2015) ranks the species in Oregon as SP-Sensitive (peripheral or naturally rare) and by the Natural Heritage program as G3 Vulnerable – either rare throughout its range or found locally in a restricted range. There is no habitat in proposed treatment units for the project area. Implementation of the project would have “no impact” to the tricolored blackbird. Tule Goose: This very small greater white-fronted goose subspecies population nests in Cook Inlet, Alaska, and winters in the Sacramento and Suisun marshes of central California, has been named A. a. elgasi and is commonly known as Tule goose. Tule geese use Oregon as a stopover location during migration. They prefer marshes and feed more in lower elevation wetland habitat and less in agriculture fields. Known locations in Oregon occur on wetland areas such as Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and Summer Lake Wildlife Area. In the winter, Tule geese frequent marshes dominated by tules and bulrushes (Scirpus spp.) and cattails (Typha spp.), more so than any other goose (Timm et al 1982). This specific habitat type does not occur within the project area. Implementation of any Proposed Actions will have “no impact” on Tule goose. Yellow Rail: For the Deschutes National Forest, the only known occurrence of yellow rails is in Big Marsh. A very small breeding population of yellow rails (2-5 pairs annually) is known to occur on Big Marsh on the Crescent Ranger District based on information gathered since 1997 (Popper 2004). Based on information gathered from studies focused in Southern and Central Oregon, nesting habitat for the yellow rails has been described as marshes or wet meadows which have an abundance of thin-leaved sedges, rushes, and grasses with a layer of senescent vegetation to conceal nests (Popper 2001, 2004; Lundsten and Popper 2002). Proper water depth is a strong determining factor for rail presence. Preferred nesting habitat has

223

water levels of moist soils to 2.5 in (Lundsten and Popper 2002). The studies also found male calling yellow rails in wet meadows around 4,100 to 5,000 ft. elevation with water depths averaging 2.9 inches (Popper 2001, 2004; Lundsten and Popper 2002). In addition, nests were partially or completely covered by sedge vegetation, more often with senescent vegetation compared to live vegetation. The yellow rail is currently a Species of Concern by the USFWS, classified as Sensitive Critical under Oregon's Sensitive Species Rule as developed by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and a Sensitive Species by the Pacific Northwest Region of the Forest Service. There are no proposed activities in marshes or wet meadows. Implementation of the project would have “no impact” to the yellow rail. Spotted Bat: Spotted bat habitat ranges from desert to sub-alpine meadows, including desert-scrub, pinyon-juniper woodland, ponderosa pine, mixed conifer forest, canyon bottoms, rims of cliffs, riparian areas, fields, and open pasture. Elevations range from sea level to 8,900 feet. Prominent rock features appear to be a necessary feature for roosting. Winter range and hibernacula are unknown for most its range, though the species has been captured year-round in the southern part of its range and it may be year-round in central Oregon with the exception of December and January. During summer, bats may travel from roosts in desert-scrub to forage in high elevation meadows, returning to roosts within an hour of dawn. These specific habitat types and landscape features do not occur within the project area. Implementation of any proposed actions will have “no impact” on the spotted bat. Columbia Spotted Frog: Columbia spotted frogs are highly aquatic and associated with vegetated shorelines of ponds, springs, marshes, and slow-flowing streams and prefer water with a bottom layer of dead and decaying vegetation. They are found in a variety of vegetation types from grasslands to forests. Oregon, NatureServe (2015) lists them as S2, Imperiled and S3, Vulnerable. In Oregon, the Columbia spotted frog potentially occurs in Baker, Crook, Grant, Harney, Jefferson, Lake, Malheur, Umatilla, Union, Wallowa, and Wheeler counties. Monitoring surveys for the Oregon spotted frog on the Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District have not produced any incidental observations of Columbia spotted frog. The project area is not within the Columbia spotted frog’s known range and would have “no impact” to the Columbia spotted frog. Crater Lake Tightcoil: This snail can be found in suitable wet habitat on the undersides of woody debris, among wet mosses, rushes, and other low vegetation at the edges of wetlands, springs, seeps, and streams in perennially damp forest floor litter, especially where it has accumulated at the bases of shrubs and against logs (Duncan et al. 2003). Suitable wet habitat would be considered as almost exclusively very stable, perennially wet riparian edges around wetlands, springs, seeps, streams, and damp forest floor. Areas that are temporarily wet habitat such as stream borders that may change location (up and down the stream bank) or are seasonally underwater then dry during other seasons, are not suitable habitat for this species. Only areas with constant water levels that create perennially saturated habitat year-round are suitable and may be occupied. These specific habitat types and landscape features do not occur within the project area. Implementation of any proposed actions will have “no impact” on the Crater Lake tightcoil. Shiny tightcoil: Shiny tightcoil is a terrestrial land snail that occupies moderate to high elevation ponderosa pine and Douglas fir forest habitat with deciduous components and riparian influence. Individuals are entirely terrestrial, but seek refugia sites where the humidity level is relatively high and temperature is constant, such as deep within rock talus or under permanently moist vegetation. Species in this genus feed by scraping algae, yeast, bacteria and diatoms from rock and woody surfaces (Duncan 2008). This species is known to occur on the Deschutes National Forest. The specific habitat types and landscape features this species needs do not occur within the project area. Implementation of any proposed actions will have “no impact” on the shiny tightcoil. Silver-bordered Fritillary: Silver-bordered fritillary has a holarctic range extending from northern Canada southward into the United States and as far south as New Mexico (NatureServe 2015). While the species is common and widespread in northeastern Washington and northern Idaho, colonies are extremely local and isolated southward, and are particularly vulnerable to local extinctions. Only two primary colonies are found in

224

Oregon, one at Big Summit Prairie on the Ochoco National Forest and one in the Strawberry Mountains Wilderness on the Malheur National Forest (Miller and Hammond 2007). Suitable habitat for this species is described as open mostly wet meadows, marshes, riparian areas, bogs, and more open parts of shrubbier wetlands dominated by Salix and larval food plants (marsh violet; bog violet; NatureServe 2015; Miller and Hammond 2007). This species is dependent on the maintenance of open and wet meadow habitats (Miller and Hammond 2007). Food sources for the adults include nectar sources such as composite flowers, including goldenrod and black-eyed Susans (Opler et al. 2006). Eggs are laid singly near host plants and caterpillar hosts are violets including Viola glabella and Viola nephrophylla (Opler et al. 2006). NatureServe (2015) lists the Oregon state ranking as S2, Imperiled. This type of habitat does not occur in the project area, therefore, implementation of the project will have “no impact” on silver-bordered fritillary. Management Indicator Species The following Management Indicator Species were not considered for analysis due to a lack of habitat in or near the Lex Project area. A lack of habitat assumes a lack of presence. Therefore, the Lex proposed action and alternatives would have No Impact to the species or its viability on the Deschutes National Forest. The American peregrine falcon and northern bald eagle are addressed above in the sensitive species section. Great blue heron: The great blue heron is one of the most wide-spread waterbirds in Oregon (Marshall et al. 2003). It is highly adaptable and is found along estuaries, streams, marshes, and lakes throughout the state. The great blue heron migrates to breeding grounds generally in February to early May and migrates south in the fall usually September through October (NatureServe 2015). They prefer to nest in vegetation on islands or in swamps, probably to avoid ground predators. They nest in colonies, rookeries, in shrubs, trees, and river channel markers where there is little disturbance (Marshall et al. 2003). This type of habitat does not occur within the project area. Implementation of the project would have No Impact to the great blue heron or its viability on the Deschutes National Forest. Golden eagle: Golden eagles occur in grass-shrub, shrub-sapling, and young woodland growth stages of forested areas or in forests with open lands nearby for hunting. Essentially, it needs only a favorable nest site, usually a large tree or cliff, a dependable food supply, mainly of medium to large mammals and birds, and broad expanses of open country for foraging. It especially favors hilly or mountain country, where take off and soaring are facilitated by updrafts; deeply cut canyons rising to open sparsely treed mountain slopes and crags represent ideal habitat (Johnsgard 1990). The Lex Project does not provide and cliff or open expanses for foraging, therefore, implementation of the project would have No Impact to the golden eagle or its viability on the Deschutes National Forest. Red-naped sapsucker: Red-naped sapsuckers are primarily found in riparian areas or coniferous forests that include aspen (Trombino 1998, Marshall et al. 2003, NatureServe 2015). However, it is also found in cottonwood, alder, and pine forests and less frequently in mixed conifer forests (Marshall et al. 2003), as well as aspen-fir parklands, montane conifer forests, and subalpine forest edges (Walters et al. 2002). They will use logged areas however, unlogged coniferous forests surrounding harvest units is likely essential for adult survival and productivity (Tobalske 1992). Little information exists on the foraging habitat requirements for the red-naped sapsucker. Reports are general in nature and focuses on where the birds drill for sap. The presence of sap wells is generally associated with conifers like Douglas-fir, lodgepole pine, white spruce and western larch (Walters et al. 2002, NatureServe 2015). Deciduous trees are also used once these species leaf out (aspen, cottonwood, willow, and birch) (Walters et al. 2002, NatureServe 2015). Foraging techniques include sap feeding at wells (includes drilling), feeding on aspen buds, gleaning insects, and fly-catching (Walters et al. 2002). For the Forest-wide assessment completed for MIS, red-naped sapsucker habitat was mapped using Viable modeling across the entire Deschutes National Forest. Nesting habitat was mapped using the hardwood layer

225

which was developed from the forest-wide aspen layer as well as using vegetation information in GIS that was coded as aspen or hardwoods. Mixed mortality fires were removed from mapped potential habitat. Acres of potential nesting habitat was then mapped by watershed and subwatershed. Habitat was not quantified by applying the DecAID tolerance levels as there was no information regarding snag densities. There is no mapped habitat for the red-naped sapsucker within the Lex Project area. There would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to the red-naped sapsucker as a result of implementation of any action alternatives. The Lex Project would have No Impact to the red-naped sapsucker or its viability on the Deschutes National Forest. Red-breasted sapsucker: The red-breasted sapsucker is found in moist coniferous coastal forests and mixed deciduous coniferous forests west of the Cascade crest and aspen-ponderosa pine forests east of the Cascade crest (Trombino 1998, Marshall et al. 2003, NatureServe 2015). The red-breasted sapsucker forages over a wide variety of tree species with the majority of foraging occurring on live, old-growth trees (Lundquist 1988, Walters et al. 2002, Marshall et al. 2003). A variety of foraging techniques are utilized from pecking, probing, gleaning, and sapsucking (Lundquist 1988) with most activity occurring on tree trunks (Walters et al. 2002). A variety of tree species have been documented to have sap wells from western hemlock, subalpine fir, red alder, Pacific silver fir, lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, broadleaf maple, aspen, willow, red fir, and white fir (Walters et al. 2002). For the Forest-wide assessment completed for MIS, red-breasted sapsucker habitat was mapped using Viable modeling across the entire Deschutes National Forest. Nesting habitat was mapped using the hardwood layer which was developed from the forest-wide aspen layer as well as using vegetation information in GIS that was coded as aspen or hardwoods. Mixed mortality fires were removed from mapped potential habitat. Acres of potential nesting habitat was then mapped by watershed and subwatershed. Habitat was not quantified by applying the DecAID tolerance levels as there was no information regarding snag densities. There is no mapped habitat for the red-breasted sapsucker within the Lex Project area. There would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to the red-naped sapsucker as a result of implementation of any action alternatives. The Lex Project would have No Impact to the red-breasted sapsucker or its viability on the Deschutes National Forest. Downy woodpecker: The downy woodpecker is the smallest and one of the most widespread woodpeckers found in North America (Marshall et al. 2003, Jackson and Ouellet 2002). This woodpecker varies in size and plumage color and pattern but is most similar in appearance to the hairy woodpecker (Marshall et al. 2003, Jackson and Ouellet 2002). It is found in both green and burned forests. For the Forest-wide assessment completed for MIS, downy woodpecker habitat was mapped using Viable modeling across the entire Deschutes National Forest. Nesting habitat was mapped using the hardwood layer which was developed from the forest-wide aspen layer as well as using vegetation information in GIS that was coded as aspen or hardwoods. Mixed mortality fires were removed from mapped potential habitat. Acres of potential nesting habitat was then mapped by watershed and subwatershed. Habitat was not quantified by applying the DecAID tolerance levels, as there was no information regarding snag densities. There is no mapped habitat for the downy woodpecker within the Lex Project area. There would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to the downy woodpecker as a result of implementation of any action alternative. The Lex Project would have No Impact to downy woodpeckers or to viability of this species on the Deschutes National Forest. Osprey: Osprey historically nested only in forested regions of Oregon because of its selection for large live trees (broken top) or dead trees (snags) for nest sites. Nests in Oregon are usually located within 2 mi of water with an accessible fish population. Nest sites on utility poles are common due to land clearing for agriculture

226

and lack of suitable habitat for nesting. They will also use nest platforms developed for Canada geese, which was noted to occur at wildlife refuges (Marshall et al. 2003). The Lex Project is over 2 miles from water. A lack of nesting habitat near a body of waterer assumes a lack of presence and therefore any actions or no action within the proposed project area would have No Impact to osprey or its viability on the Deschutes National Forest. North American wolverine: In the contiguous United States, wolverine year-round habitat is found at high elevations in conifer forests near treeline and in rocky alpine habitats such as cirque basins and avalanche chutes that have food sources such as marmots, voles, and carrion. They utilize high elevation (7,000 to 9,000 feet) alpine habitat where snow coverage remains well into the denning season (spring) with only slight variations in habitat use between summer and winter (Copeland et al. 2007). The elevation within the Lex Project area ranges between 5,100 and 6,200 feet. No denning habitat occurs within the Lex Project. A lack of habitat assumes a lack of presence and therefore any actions or no action within the proposed project area would have No Impact to wolverine or its viability on the Deschutes National Forest. Waterfowl: The following species are waterfowl that rely heavily on habitat adjacent to an actual body of water (often a marsh or lake): common loon, pied-billed grebe, horned grebe, red-necked grebe, eared grebe, western grebe, Canada goose, wood duck, gadwall, American widgeon, mallard, blue-winged teal, cinnamon teal, northern shoveler, northern pintail, green-winged teal, canvasback, redhead, ring-necked duck, lesser scaup, harlequin duck, common goldeneye, bufflehead, Barrow’s goldeneye, hooded merganser, common merganser, and ruddy duck. The project area does not occur within 300-600 feet of water, it does not contain habitat, nor is it adjacent to habitat for these species. A lack of habitat assumes a lack of presence and therefore any actions or no action within the proposed project area would have No Impact to waterfowl or their viability on the Deschutes National Forest. Table 1 lists the waterfowl species and their specific habitat needs (USDA 2012w). Table 1: Occurrence of MIS Waterfowl for the Lex Project Area.

Species Basic Habitat Description


Project Area


Project Area

Divers Common loon Gavia immer

Riparian edge of freshwater ponds & lakes No No

Pied-billed grebe Podilymbus podiceps

Edge of open water on lakes, ponds, slow rivers & marshes

No No

Horned grebe Podiceps auritus

Open water with emergent vegetation No No

Red-necked grebe Podiceps grisegena

Lakes & ponds in forested areas No No

Eared grebe Podiceps nigricollis


Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis

Marshes with open water, Lakes with emergent vegetation

No No

Canvasback Aythya valisineria

Waters with emergent vegetation No No

Redhead Aythya americana

Marshes and lakes with vegetative cover No No

Ring-necked duck Athya collaris

Shoreline with thick emergent vegetation No No

Lesser scaup Aythya affinis

Grassy areas near deep water No No

227

Species Basic Habitat Description


Project Area


Project Area

Harlequin duck Histrionicus

Shoreline of low gradient streams No No

Common goldeneye Bucephala clangula Nesting cavities near water No No

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Nesting cavities near water No No

Barrow’s goldeneye Bucephala islandica Nesting cavities near water No No

Hooded merganser Lophodytes cucullatus Nesting cavities near water No No

Common merganser Mergus merganser Nesting cavities near water No No

Ruddy duck Oxyura jamaicensis

Freshwater marshes, lakes & ponds with dense vegetation No No

Dabblers Canada goose Branta canadensis Mixed habitats near water No No

Wood duck Aix sponsa Nesting cavities near water No No

Gadwall Anas strepera

Meadow or shrub habitat near water No No

American wigeon Anas americana

Grass/vegetation clumps near water No No

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos


Blue-winged teal Anas discors

Marshes, lakes, ponds & slow rivers No No

Cinnamon teal Anas cyanoptera

Shoreline with vegetative cover No No

Northern shoveler Anas clypeata Grassy areas near water No No

Northern pintail Anas acuta Open areas near water No No

Green-winged teal Anas crecca

Freshwater marshes with emergent vegetation No No

228

APPENDIX C – BCR Bird Species and their Preferred Habitat Table 1. BCR 9 Bird Species and their Preferred Habitat.

BCR 9 (Great Basin, U.S. portion only) Bird Species Preferred Habitat

Yellow-billed Loon

Winters along the coast from AK to Baja CA. Transients can be found on inland bodies of water.

Greater Sage-Grouse (Columbia Basin DPS)

(a) ESA candidate

Sagebrush obligate, found E. of the Cascades. They require large expanses of sagebrush with healthy native understories of forbs.

Eared Grebe (nb) non-breeding in this BCR

Found on shallow alkaline lakes and ponds where open water is intermixed with emergent vegetation.

Black Swift Nests on ledges or shallow caves in steep rock faces and canyons, usually near or behind waterfalls and sea caves. Forages over forests and open areas in montane habitats.

Calliope Hummingbird Predominantly a montane species found in open shrub sapling seral stages (8-15 years) at higher elevations and riparian areas.

Lewis’s Woodpecker Ponderosa Pine, Cottonwood riparian or Oak habitats with an open canopy, brushy understory, dead and down material, available perches and abundant insects.

Williamson’s Sapsucker E. Cascades, mid to high elevation, mature open and mixed coniferous - deciduous forests. Snags are a critical component.

White-headed Woodpecker Mixed conifer forests ( < 40 % canopy cover) dominated by old growth Ponderosa Pine and open habitats where standing snags and scattered tall trees remain.

Willow Flycatcher (c) non-listed subspecies or population of T or E species.

Associated with riparian shrub dominated habitats, especially brushy/willow thickets. In SE WA also found in xeric brushy uplands.

Loggerhead Shrike Inhabits grasslands, pastures with fence rows, ag. fields, sagebrush with scattered juniper and open woodlands. Requires elevated perches throughout for hunting and nesting.

Pinyon Jay In OR, Pinyon-juniper woodland, sagebrush, and scrub oak habitats.

Sage Thrasher A sagebrush obligate dependent on large patches and expanses of sagebrush steppe and bitterbrush with shrub heights in the 30 -60 cm height. Prefers bare ground over grassy understories.

Virginia’s Warbler In OR likes high elevation steep-sloped, xeric, pinion- juniper and oak woodland habitats.

Green-tailed Towhee In OR prefers vigorous shrub stands with high shrub species diversity interspersed with trees.

Brewer’s Sparrow A sagebrush obligate found in shrublands of contiguous big sagebrush, greasewood, rabbitbrush, and shadescale habitats.

Black-chinned Sparrow Erratic presence in ceanothus and oak hillsides in Southwest OR.

Sage Sparrow Found in se. and c. OR Associated with semi-open evenly spaced shrubs 1-2 m high in big sage up to 6,800 ft.

Tricolored Blackbird OR colonies occur in hardstem bulrush, cattail, nettles, willows, and Himalayan blackberries.

Black Rosy-finch Rare in OR found above timberline among bare rock outcroppings, cirques, cliffs, and hanging snowfields.

Bald Eagle (b) ESA delisted

Associated with large bodies of water, forested areas near the ocean, along rivers, and at estuaries, lakes and reservoirs.

229

BCR 9 (Great Basin, U.S. portion only) Bird Species Preferred Habitat

Ferruginous Hawk Occupy habitats with low tree densities and topographic relief in sagebrush plains of the high desert and bunchgrass prairies in the Blue Mountains.

Golden Eagle Inhabits shrub-steppe, grassland, juniper and open ponderosa pine and mixed conifer/deciduous habitats preferring areas with open shrub component for foraging.

Peregrine Falcon (b) ESA delisted

Wide range of habitats, nests on cliff ledges, bridges, quarries.

Yellow Rail Found in shallowly flooded sedge meadows at 4,100 – 5,000 ft. with a cover of senescent and live vegetation ~50%.

Snowy Plover (c) non-listed subspecies or population of T&E species

E. of OR Cascades a summer resident breeding on alkali flats and salt ponds. On the S. OR coast they nest on open sand areas along the upper beach and on un-vegetated spits at mouths of small estuaries.

Long-billed Curlew Open grassland areas E of the Cascades. Found in small numbers in estuaries along the coast.

Marbled Godwit (nb) non-breeding in this BCR

Migrant along the coast prefer coastal mudflats, sandy beaches, wet margins of large reservoirs or brackish lakes and sewage ponds.

Yellow-billed Cuckoo (w. U.S. DPS)

No known breeding population in OR. Found in large expanses of riparian forest, particularly black cottonwood, Oregon ash and willow

Flammulated Owl Associated with ponderosa pine forests and mixed conifer stands with a mean 67% canopy closure, open understory with dense patches of saplings or shrubs.

(a) ESA candidate, (b) ESA delisted, (c) non-listed subspecies or population of Tor E species, (d)

MBTA protection uncertain or lacking, (nb) non-breeding in this BCR.

230

APPENDIX D – Monitoring Protocol Monitoring Protocol Monitoring of this biological evaluation (BE) or biological assessment (BA) is critical to its ongoing success. Monitoring provides the needed link between projects, project design criteria, and baseline habitat information and is the main feedback loop for changing and updating the PDC. The three designed pathways for monitoring the BE/BA are discussed below including PDC compliance, project monitoring for changes in baseline habitats, and random Level I review of projects. Project Design Criteria Compliance/Checklist (to be filled out for each project): Each project will have a PDC Compliance/Checklist form filled out and attached to the project BE/BA (Tables 1 and 2). This form will track all applicable PDC and if the project complies with the PDC. Included on the bottom of the form are four questions to monitor and modify the BE/BA as a result of project implementation. The questions cover implementation and effectiveness of the PDC, recommendations for changes to the PDC, and if there is a need to modify a PDC to address any issues. The purpose of the form is to determine project compliance and applicability of the BE/BA. It must be filled out both before and after project implementation. Project Monitoring of Baseline Changes: A Project Monitoring Form for each project that results in a change in baseline habitat conditions will be completed and attached to the project BE/BA. Activities that change the baseline habitat may include both adverse effects to habitats (e.g. reduction of spotted owl habitat) and beneficial effects (e.g., addition of wood debris within a stream for bull trout or steelhead.) The purpose of this form is to track yearly changes in baseline conditions as a result of implementation of the programmatic BA or document the result of a project that is outside of the programmatic BA. Baseline information will be updated by January 31st of each year. Level I Review of Projects: Each year the Level I team will review randomly selected projects across the area covered by the BE/BA. Projects will be reviewed to determine BE/BA compliance, PDC effectiveness, and any need to change or drop a PDC. This yearly review will provide the opportunity for the Level I team to hear and discuss concerns with field units about any PDC or project area and overall, how the BE/BA is working. Monitoring of the BE/BA will provide the needed feedback loop to determine effectiveness and needed changes to the BE/BA, along with keeping the baseline habitat information for the various species up to date.

231

Table 1. Wildlife Project PDC Compliance Checklist. Project Design Criteria Compliance Checklist

(attach to BE/BA) Applies

to project (Yes/No)

Project Complies

(Yes/No) Spotted Owl (all land allocations) A.1. Do not work disruptively w/in ¼ mile (1 mi. for blasting) of spotted owl activity center 3/1-9/30 N A.2. Do not work outside of restriction period unless emergency work is warranted N A.3. Do not remove hazard trees unless DWD needs are met in project area as in LRMP or LSRA Y Y A.4. Only remove hazard trees if they pose a liability to recreation residences, private landowners, campgrounds, or special use permittees Y Y

A.5. Survey projects with NRF to Regional Protocol or implement seasonal restriction Y Y A.6. Use smoke management forecasts in order to minimize smoke entering into suitable habitat Y Y A.7. Options for reducing hazards trees should be explored: topping, closing or moving sites, etc. N Spotted Owl (CHU’s, LSR’s, and Core Areas) B.1. Do not remove, downgrade, or degrade constituent elements of critical habitat N B.2. Promote LSOG conditions where plant associations are capable of sustaining NRF N B.3. DWD objectives are met by plant association as described in the desired LSR condition N B.4. Stands not capable of becoming NRF should be managed to provide for dispersal habitat N Spotted Owl (Matrix) C.1. Maintain 100 acres of NRF habitat (core area) around all known activity centers N C.2. Maintain all late-successional patches in fifth field watersheds currently comprised of 15% or less late-successional forests N

C.3. Maintain dispersal habitat between 100-acre core areas and LSRs Y Y C.4. Maintain all existing NRF habitats for connectivity Y Y C.5. Promote climatic climax LSOG habitat in plant associations capable of sustaining NRF habitat N C.6. On lands not capable of becoming NRF promote that development of habitat for other LSOG dependent species Y Y

C.7. Maintain 100 acres of NRF habitat (core areas) around all newly discovered activity centers N

Table 2. Spotted Owl Baseline Project Monitoring Form for NLAA Program Activities. Spotted Owl Project-level effects as determined by: Shelley Borchert Date: March 9, 2017

Biological Evaluation: X

Biological Assessment______

Programmatic Version: 2014

Forest: Deschutes District: Bend/Ft. R.D.

Project Name: Lex Vegetation Management Program Type: Timber and Fuels

Did we implement PDC, recommendations, or minimization measures per the BA? Yes

Were the PDC and/or recommendations effective relative to the effect conclusions? Yes

What, if any, PDC, recommendations were particularly difficult to implement? --------

Is there a need to modify or create a new PDC to address a new or existing issue or impact? No

232

Consultation: Informal

Total Project Acres: 11,934 Geographic Area: North Unit Diversion Dam – Deschutes River and Fall River – Deschutes River Watersheds R.D.

Land Allocation

Total Acres Project Area

Planned Habitat Effects NRF

Degrade (Remains

NRF)

Degrade Dispersal

NW Forest Plan 11,934 AWD LSRname: LSRname: CR

Matrix 11,934 Alt. 2 – 1,258 acres Alt. 3 - 1,460 acres Alt. 4 – 1,078 acres

Critical Habitat CHU#: CHU#: CHU#: TOTAL

11,934 Alt. 2 – 1,258 acres Alt. 3 - 1,460 acres Alt. 4 – 1,078 acres

Total as of (date): Total as of (date):

Land Allocation

Actual Habitat Effects Actual Habitat Effects NRF

Degrade (Remains NRF)

Dispersal Degrade

NRF Degrade (Remains NRF)

Degrade Dispersal

NW Forest Plan AWD LSRname: LSRname: CR Matrix

Critical Habitat CHU#: CHU#: CHU#: TOTAL

233

Describe the purpose of the project.

The purpose of this project is to improve and maintain ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine resilience to the disturbance agents of wildfire, insects, and disease.

Describe the purpose of treating NRF habitat?

No NRF would be treated.

Describe the purpose of treating dispersal?

In lodgepole pine dispersal, to reduce the risk of loss to insects and disease and set the understory on a trajectory to a healthier future stand of dispersal habitat. In Mixed conifer dispersal, to maintain ponderosa pine as a long-term overstory and understory species for long-term health of stands.

Did the project achieve your objective?

Project Completion Date: Signature: