Biological Evaluation of the Dorset-Peru Integrated Resource Projecta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · 2013-04-12 · Figure 1. The Dorset-Peru Integrated Resource

Biological Evaluation of the Dorset-Peru Integrated Resource Project

on Federally-Listed Endangered and Threatened Species

and on Regional Forester Sensitive Species

I. Introduction and Affected Environment

This Biological Evaluation (BE) was prepared in accordance with policy provided in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2672.42 and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to determine the effects and impacts that the proposed Dorset-Peru Integrated Resource Project might have on federally-listed threatened and endangered (T&E) species, Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS), or their habitats. The Dorset-Peru Project Area is located in the Battenkill River, Mettawee River, West River, and Otter Creek watersheds, primarily within the Towns of Dorset and Peru, Vermont. Small portions along the project area’s southern boundary lie within the Towns of Winhall and Manchester (Figure 1). The project area encompasses approximately 41,699 acres; of these, about 14,770 acres (35 percent) are National Forest System (NFS) lands administered by the Green Mountain National Forest (GMNF). Approximately 25,910 acres (62 percent) of the project area is in private ownership, 834 acres (2 percent) are managed by the State (Emerald Lake State Park, and Hapgood State Forest), and 212 acres (<1 percent) are in town ownership.

Vegetation and wildlife habitats on GMNF lands within the Dorset-Peru project area are dominated by northern hardwood forest types (approximately 78%), with small areas of mixedwood (9%), softwood (4%), aspen-birch (6%), and 1% or less each of oak, upland openings, and wetlands. Compared to the desired future condition described in the GMNF Forest Plan (GMNF 2006a), this existing condition represents a relative overabundance of hardwood forest types, and under representation of mixedwood, softwood, and upland openings. The affected environments for each resource area (e.g., habitat diversity, timber, soil and wetlands, visual Quality, heritage, etc.) are described in detail in Section 3 of the Preliminary Environmental Assessment (GMNF 2012: pp.51-130).

II. Proposed Management Action and Alternatives

Alternative A: No Action

Under Alternative A, the “no action” alternative, none of the actions proposed in the Dorset-Peru Integrated Resource Project Preliminary Environmental Assessment (GMNF 2012) would be implemented. Management activities that have been previously approved under other NEPA decisions still would be implemented, and other ongoing routine management activities associated with existing infrastructure (e.g., road and trail maintenance) would continue. This no action alternative provides a baseline to compare the environmental effects from the action alternatives.

Alternative B: Proposed Action

Alternative B, the Proposed Action, includes a variety of management activities within the Dorset-Peru Project Area designed to meet goals and objectives and to move towards the desired future condition for a wide range of resources, in accordance with provisions of the

2

Figure 1. The Dorset-Peru Integrated Resource Project area in Bennington County, Vermont,

showing boundary for the project area and GMNF lands proposed for timber harvest and habitat management treatments under the Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C. Also shown are the Appalachian/Long Trail, Emerald Lake State Park, and other Green Mountain National Forest lands.

3

GMNF Forest Plan (GMNF 2006a). These resources include habitat diversity, fisheries, non-native invasive plants, soil and water, timber, recreation, scenery, transportation, and heritage. Proposed habitat treatments include creation of new permanent upland openings (224 acres), restoration for existing openings (26 acres), regeneration of aspen-birch (49 acres), and maintenance of apple trees (4 acres). The project also proposes habitat treatments on a larger scale through timber management, ranging from single-tree or group selection harvests to shelterwood and clearcut regeneration harvests, on 2,047 acres, as well as stand improvement treatments on an additional 89 acres (Figure 1). Other proposed activities include restoration and enhancement of hiking trails, closing or restoring existing skid roads and trails to protect soil and water resources, and maintaining heritage sites, such as foundations and other remnants of historic mills, kilns, and farmsteads. The Proposed Action is described in detail in Section 2.1.2 of the Preliminary Environmental Assessment (GMNF 2012: pp.26-41). Alternative C

Alternative C includes a variety of timber harvest treatments on a total of 1,943 acres, a reduction of 104 acres from the Proposed Action (Figure 1). For other resources, including habitat management and stand improvement treatments, Alternative C is identical to the Proposed Action (see GMNF 2012: Section 2.1.3, p.42).

III. White-nose Syndrome and Bats in Vermont

Populations of cave- and mine-hibernating bats in the Northeast are experiencing unprecedented mortality due to a disease condition identified as “white-nose syndrome” (WNS). The name derives from a white, dusty film that accumulates on the muzzles, ears, wings, and occasionally on other body parts of infected bats. The primary disease agent is Geomyces destructans, a psychrophilic (cold-loving) fungus (Blehert et al. 2009, Gargas et al. 2009, Warnecke et al. 2012), although additional research is necessary to determine if other disease agents are involved. WNS was first documented in eastern New York State during the winter of 2006, and quickly spread to Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut. By summer 2012, confirmed occurrence of WNS included sites in Maine, Ohio, Indiana, North Carolina, Kentucky, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario, and Quebec (WNS 2012), and the US Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that at least 5.7 million to 6.7 million bats had died from white-nose syndrome across eastern North America (USFWS 2012). Continually updated WNS information and links are available online (USGS 2012, WNS 2012).

Bat species known to be affected by WNS that occur in the central Vermont region are the little brown bat (Myotis lucifugus), northern long-eared bat (M. septentrionalis), Indiana bat (M. sodalis), eastern small-footed bat (M. leibii), tri-colored bat (Perimyotis subflavus), and big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus) (Langwig et al., 2009, USGS 2012, WNS 2012). Darling and Smith (2011) estimated that as a consequence of WNS, little brown bats in Vermont had declined by 75% to 99%, and northern long-eared bats had declined by 93% to 99% state-wide. Indiana bats, eastern small-footed bats, and tri-colored bats also are susceptible and vulnerable to WNS. These species have never been abundant or wide-spread in Vermont, however, and documenting declines in abundance for these species is difficult. Big brown bats appear to be more resistant to WNS mortality (Darling and Smith 2011).

Five species of bats are included in the analyses in this BE. The Indiana bat is federally-listed as endangered under the ESA. The eastern small-footed bat, little brown bat, northern long-

4

eared bat, and tri-colored bat are Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS) on the GMNF. The State of Vermont lists Indiana bat, little brown bat, and northern long-eared bat as endangered, and eastern small-footed bat as threatened; endangered listing is pending for the tri-colored bat (VNHIP 2011a,d).

IV. Species Evaluated – Threatened and Endangered Species

This BE evaluates the effects and impacts that the proposed Dorset-Peru Integrated Resource Project might have on four federally-listed threatened and endangered (T&E) species and their habitats:

Common Name Scientific Name ESA Status Status on GMNF

Likelihood of Occurrence in Project Area

Gray wolf Canis lupus Endangered Historic only Low

Eastern mountain lion Puma concolor couguar Endangered Historic only Low

Canada lynx Lynx canadensis Threatened Historic only Low

Indiana bat Myotis sodalis Endangered Current Moderate

The Likelihood of Occurrence (LOO) for each of the federally-listed threatened or endangered species for the GMNF is summarized in Appendix 1, which provides their status and rank, as well as summaries of each species’ habitat requirements and regional status. As described in Appendix 1, the GMNF in general, and the project area in particular, may include some elements of the kinds of habitats occupied by the gray wolf, eastern mountain lion, and Canada lynx; however, these species are considered extirpated on the GMNF and the project area. None of these species is likely to occur in the Project area in the foreseeable future (Tumosa 2001a,f,i; GMNF 2006b), and they are not included in detailed analysis of impacts.

Indiana Bat

Indiana bats have occurred in small numbers in two hibernacula located in the immediate area; Aeolus (Dorset) Cave is located within the Dorset-Peru project area, Skinner Hollow (Little Skinner Hollow) is located about four miles south of the project area boundary (Trombulak et al. 2001, Tumosa 2001h, Darling and Smith 2011, VTFWD, unpublished data). Female bats generally leave the hibernation sites in March and April, migrating to maternal roost colonies that may be located near hibernacula or 300 or more miles away. Indiana bats require a diverse landscape for summer foraging habitat, with 20% to 60% forested cover interspersed among a mosaic of wetlands, agricultural fields, and early-successional habitats (Tumosa 2001h, GMNF 2006b). A wide variety of tree species provide suitable roost sites. In Vermont, shagbark hickory (Carya ovata) and American elm (Ulmus americana) are most frequently used for maternal roost trees (Tumosa 2001h, GMNF 2006b).

Very little is known about Indiana bats in Vermont during the non-hibernation period. Summer roost habitat can be found throughout the GMNF landscape, as an abundance of large trees, both live and dead, exist in all ecological land types. To date, however, this species has been found primarily at low elevations in the Lake Champlain Valley. Temperature may be a limiting factor (Watrous et al. 2006). Most of the GMNF is situated at higher elevations in the Green and Taconic Mountains where temperatures may be too cool for Indiana bats (GMNF 2006b).

5

Prior to infection by WNS (see Section III, above), the Indiana bat was considered rare on the GMNF, and rarely encountered except at hibernacula or known summer roosting sites (Tumosa 2001h, GMNF 2006b). Langwig et al. (2009) estimated mortality of Indiana bats in WNS-infected hibernacula in the Northeast at 57%, but after additional winters, mortality at these sites may be greater (Darling and Smith 2011; VTFWD, unpublished data). Although the current status of Indiana bats in Vermont is uncertain, for the purposes of this BE it is assumed that Indiana bats continue to occur in the known hibernacula and are likely to roost in the project area, especially within 5 miles of the hibernacula during the fall swarming period. Much of the Dorset-Peru project area is unlikely to include suitable maternity roosting habitat because of elevation.

The 2006 Forest Plan (GMNF 2006a) includes specific Standards and Guidelines, as well as other management direction intended to protect Indiana bats and to minimize likelihood of adverse impacts resulting from any management actions authorized by the Forest Plan. The BE prepared during Plan Revision (GMNF 2006b) determined that implementation of management actions authorized and prescribed in the revised Forest Plan may affect Indiana bats, but they are not likely to adversely affect Indiana bats (GMNF 2006b). This determination was based on the following (GMNF 2006b: p.E-46):

• the revised Forest Plan includes management direction in standards and guidelines to restricting removal or damage to trees or snags when Indiana bats might be roosting in them, thus preventing or minimizing the likelihood of direct impacts to Indiana bats;

• the revised Forest Plan includes standards and guidelines emphasizing retention of existing, potential, and future roost trees in areas where Indiana bats are likely to occur, thus protecting potential roosting habitat for Indiana bats in areas where they are likely to occur;

• although Indiana bats may be present on the GMNF, they are likely to occur in a limited geographical area, at extremely low density, and the likelihood of incidental take is low to the point of being negligible;

• Best Management Practices and GMNF standards and guidelines that provide direction for management in riparian corridors will protect potential foraging habitat along streams, which are important for Indiana bats in the Northeast;

• upland openings (both natural and managed), wetland openings, roads, and other travel corridors that could serve as foraging areas for Indiana bats will continue to exist on the GMNF, therefore these resources will not be considered limiting; and

• although there currently are no known Indiana bat hibernacula on the GMNF, all known Indiana bat hibernacula near the GMNF shall be considered as smoke-sensitive areas when planning for prescribed burns to be conducted from October to May.

Areas of particular management concern for Indiana bats on the GMNF, as identified in the GMNF Forest Plan (GMNF 2006a) and the Plan Revision BE (GMNF 2006b), include lands that could provide suitable maternity roost habitat and all lands within 5 miles of a known Indiana bat hibernaculum. The GMNF Forest Plan includes the following Standards for Indiana Bat Maternity Roosting Areas (GMNF 2006a: pp.27-28):

6

S-3: Potential Indiana bat maternity roosting habitat shall be defined as

• Lands adjacent to the Champlain Valley or in the Valley of Vermont (adjacent to Route 7) that are below 800 feet elevation, and

• Other areas specifically identified by the US Fish and Wildlife Service

S-4: Timber harvest shall not take place within potential Indiana bat maternity roosting habitat or within 3 miles of a known maternity roost site from April 15 through October 30 unless appropriate surveys, conducted in accordance with standards and protocols identified by the Indiana Bat Recovery Plan and the US Fish and Wildlife Service, have failed to detect the presence of Indiana bats in the proposed project area during the previous two years.

S-5: Management activities other than timber harvest within potential Indiana bat maternity roosting habitat from April 15 through October 30 shall not result in the loss or damage of potentially occupied roost trees unless exitcount, ecolocation, or other appropriate surveys indicate to the maximum extent possible that Indiana bats are not present....

The Dorset-Peru project area includes approximately 91 acres of GMNF lands at elevations below 800 feet (Figure 2). Another 463 acres of GMNF lands below 800 feet in elevation are located within about 8 miles north or south of the project area boundary. The only GMNF lands below 800 feet in elevation for which habitat management treatment is proposed in the Dorset-Peru project, in both the Proposed Action and in Alternative C, is a 9.4-acre farm field that currently is managed for hay under a Special Use Permit.

The Forest Plan (2006a: p.28) also includes a Standard for Indiana Bat Hibernacula:

S-1: Timber harvest within 5 miles of a known Indiana bat hibernaculum … from April 15 through October 30 shall be in accordance with provisions of a Forest Service management plan for that hibernaculum, which was developed in consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department. Timber harvest shall not take place within 5 miles of a known Indiana bat hibernaculum from April 15 through October 30 until such a management plan is in effect.

About 20,000 acres of GMNF lands are located within 5 miles of Aeolus Cave or Skinner Hollow Cave (Figure 2). The Proposed Action (Alternative A) for the Dorset-Peru IRP proposes timber or habitat management activities on 1,416 acres of GMNF lands that lie within 5 miles of the Aeolus and Skinner Hollow hibernacula. Alternative C proposes timber or habitat management activities on 1,312 acres of GMNF lands within 5 miles of the hibernacula (a reduction of 104 acres from the Proposed Action. A management plan for timber harvest within 5 miles of the Aeolus and Skinner Hollow Caves is being developed by GMNF staff (GMNF, in preparation). Because the 5-mile zones surrounding these two hibernacula intersect, a single plan addresses management for FS lands within 5 miles of either hibernaculum. This management plan emphasizes prevention of harm to roosting bats to the greatest extent possible, retention of suitable roost trees, and retention or enhancement of suitable foraging habitat. As stipulated in Indiana Bat Hibernacula Standard S-1, this management plan is being developed in consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department (VFWD). Timber harvest will not take place on GMNF lands within 5 miles of either hibernaculum until this hibernaculum management plan is completed and approved by the FWS, VFWD, and the GMNF Forest Supervisor.

7

Figure 2. Indiana bat hibernacula at Aeolus Cave and Skinner Hollow, and management-sensitive areas including 1) lands within 5 miles of hibernacula and 2) GMNF lands below 800 feet in elevation located along US Route 7. Also shown are the boundary for the Dorset-Peru project area, GMNF lands proposed for timber harvest and habitat management treatments under the Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C.

8

Determinations for Threatened and Endangered Species

This Biological Evaluation has determined that the Proposed Action or Alternative C of the Dorset-Peru Integrated Resource Project would have no effect on the following TE species:

� Gray wolf � Eastern cougar � Canada lynx

Rationale

The gray wolf, eastern mountain lion, and Canada lynx are not known to occur within the Project area on the GMNF, they are not likely to occur within the Project area in the foreseeable future, and no critical habitat for any of these species is located within the Project area.

The Proposed Action or Alternative C of the Dorset-Peru Integrated Resource Project may affect the following species, but neither alternative is likely to adversely affect the species:

� Indiana bat

Rationale

Management direction inherent in the 2006 GMNF Forest Plan (GMNF 2006a), as described above, includes numerous standards and guidelines that prevent direct harm to Indiana bats to the greatest extent possible, and at the same time retain high-quality roosting and foraging habitat on GMNF lands. The only GMNF land proposed for timber or habitat management that might include maternal roost habitat (below 800 feet in elevation) is a 9.4-acre farm field that currently is managed for hay under a Special Use Permit. This is the same in both the Proposed Action and in Alternative C. Timber harvest will not take place on GMNF lands within 5 miles of Indiana bat hibernacula or on potential maternity roosting habitat from April 15 through October 30 unless such harvest conforms to the provisions of a harvest management plan approved by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department, and the GMNF Forest Supervisor. This management plan emphasizes prevention of harm to roosting bats to the greatest extent possible, retention of suitable roost trees, and retention or enhancement of suitable foraging habitat. With adherence to all the protective measures included in the GMNF Forest Plan and the management plan for timber harvest within 5 miles of the Aeolus and Skinner Hollow Caves, as described above, the likelihood of adverse impact to Indiana bats or their habitats would be negligible.

9

V. Species Evaluated – Regional Forester Sensitive Species

This section of the BE evaluates the effects and impacts that the proposed Dorset-Peru Integrated Resource Project might have on 22 Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS), or their habitats:

Common Name Scientific Name State Conservation Rank1/Status2

Likelihood of Occurrence in Project Area

Eastern small-footed bat Myotis leibii S1/Threatened Moderate

Little brown bat Myotis lucifugus S1/Endangered High

Northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis S1/Endangered High

Tri-colored bat Perimyotis subflavus S1/Proposed Endangered Moderate

Common loon Gavia immer S3B Low

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus S1B/Endangered Low

Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum S3B Low

Sedge wren Cistothorus platensis S2B/Endangered Low

Bicknell’s thrush Catharus bicknelli S2B/Special Concern Low

Rusty blackbird Euphagus carolinus S3B/Special Concern Moderate

Wood turtle Clemmys insculpta S3/Special Concern High

Jefferson salamander Ambystoma

jeffersonianum S2/Special Concern High

Blue-spotted salamander Ambystoma laterale S3/Special Concern Moderate

Four-toed salamander Hemidactylium scutatum S2/Special Concern Moderate

Brook floater Alasmidonta varicosa S1/Threatened Low

Creek heelsplitter Lasmigona compressa S2 Moderate

Boulder-beach tiger beetle

Cicindela ancocisconensis S1 Low

West Virginia white Pieris virginiensis S3S4/Special Concern Moderate

Harpoon clubtail Gomphus descriptus S3 Moderate

Southern pygmy clubtail Lanthus vernalis S3 Moderate

Forcipate emerald Somatochlora forcipata S2S3 Moderate

Gray petaltail Tachopteryx thoreyi SU3 Moderate 1 Conservation ranks provide an assessment of extinction risk based on factors like abundance, distribution, population trends,

and threats. State ranks are assigned by the Vermont Nongame and Natural Heritage Program to reflect the rarity of the species within the state of Vermont. For avian species, the ranks apply to breeding status only. S1 = critically imperiled; S2 = imperiled; S3 = vulnerable to extirpation or extinction; S4 = apparently secure (VNHIP 2011a,b,c,d);

2 Vermont State Status has two categories afforded legal protection under the Vermont Endangered Species Law (10 V.S.A. Chapter 123), endangered and threatened. The additional informational category of “special concern” is not established by law, but used to track rare species (VNHIP 2011a,b,c,d).

3 SU = status uncertain (NatureServe 2012).

The Likelihood of Occurrence (LOO) for each of the RFSS for the GMNF is summarized in Appendix 2, which provides their status and rank, as well as summaries of each species’ range and habitat requirements. As described in Appendix 2, several RFSS are unlikely to occur in the project area, either because the project area does not provide suitable habitat or, although the species may occur in Vermont, there are no current or recent records of its presence near the project area: sedge wren (Kibbe 1985, Herkert et al. 2001, VBBA 2011), brook floater (Marchowsky 2001a), and boulder beach tiger beetle (Chandler 2001a). The common loon (Tumosa 2001e), bald eagle (Tumosa 2002), and peregrine falcon (Tumosa 2001d) are unlikely to occur in the project area as more than occasional transient individuals.

10

Bicknell's thrush is an RFSS for the GMNF, although the US Fish and Wildlife Service is evaluating its status and considering listing the species as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (CBD 2010b, 77 FR 48934). The likelihood of occurrence for Bicknell's thrush in the project area is low. The elevations on Bromley Mountain and Dorset Peak (also called Danby Mountain or Dorset Mountain) exceed 3,000 feet, which is the approximate lower elevation threshold for this species (Rimmer et al. 2001, 2005; Tumosa 2001b). At present, however, suitable dense spruce-fir habitat is limited and Bicknell’s thrush is not known to occur at these locations or elsewhere within the project area. Breeding bird surveys initiated on Dorset Peak in 2010 to target high-elevation songbirds did not detect Bicknell’s thrush there in 2010, 2011, or 2012 (Scarl 2012).

The species described above as unlikely to occur in the project area, and actions proposed by the Dorset Peru IRP would have no impacts of on these species or their habitats. Consequently, these species are not included further for more detailed analysis of impacts.

Ten RFSS with moderate to high likelihood of occurrence in the project area occur primarily in wetland or riparian habitats, venturing to varying degrees into the immediately-adjacent terrestrial habitats: rusty blackbird (Tumosa 2001c, Avery 1995), wood turtle (Marchowsky 2001b, Andrews 2005, VRAA 2012a), Jefferson salamander (Wright 2002a, Andrews 2005, VRAA 2012b), blue-spotted salamander (Wright 2002b, Andrews 2005, VRAA 2012c), four-toed salamander (Sweeney 2002, Andrews 2005, VRAA 2012d), creek heelsplitter (Marchowsky 2003c), and four dragonflies: harpoon clubtail (Coletti 2002d), southern pygmy clubtail (Coletti 2002a), forcipate emerald (Coletti 2002b), and gray petaltail (Coletti 2002c, NYNHP 2010b). Impacts to these species from actions proposed in the Dorset Peru IRP, either as direct impacts to individual animals or as indirect impacts to habitats, likely would be negligible, for several reasons:

The 2006 Forest Plan (GMNF 2006a) includes specific Standards and Guidelines, as well as other management direction, intended to protect and restore soil and water resources. The Forest Plan places particular emphasis on maintenance of vegetated protective zones around riparian and other wetland habitats, and stabilization of soils to prevent erosion. Consequently, impacts to actual wetland habitats and the species that occur in those habitats from direct disturbance, from siltation from erosion on adjacent lands, or from other types of habitat degradation from project actions would be negligible.

Individual RFSS animals that venture onto terrestrial habitats adjacent to wetlands could be exposed to direct impacts from timber or habitat management activities. However, most timber-harvest activities proposed by the Dorset Peru project would be conducted during the winter harvest season, with frozen-ground and snow-covered conditions, to minimize impacts to soil and water resources. The 10 wetland RFSS listed above are not active on the landscape during winter; they are hibernating in stream banks, in river bottoms, or underground, overwintering as larvae in wetlands, or have migrated out of the area entirely. The project does include proposed timber and vegetation management on 410 acres (24 stands) on which summer logging would be suitable. An additional 205 acres (12 stands, for a total of 615 acres in 36 stands) could become suitable for summer timber harvest if wet areas in access roads can be avoided or properly mitigated (GMNF 2012: pp.A-3 to A-5, B-4). This is the same in the Proposed Action and in Alternative C. Compared to the acreage of all timber and habitat management activities proposed in the project, lands suitable for summer timber harvest would be 20% or less of all affected lands for either Alternative. The emphasis on winter harvest would reduce the likelihood of project-related impacts to wetland species. [Note: Stands

11

suitable for summer operation frequently will be harvested during winter. The Forest Service typically allows the operator to choose between summer or winter operation, based on factors such as scheduling conflicts with other jobs, timber markets, weather, funding, etc.]

The likelihood of impacts would be even less for Jefferson, blue-spotted, and four-toed salamanders and the wood turtle. Although these species may occur in terrestrial habitats several hundred meters away from wetlands, they are unlikely to occur on the GMNF at elevations greater than 1,000 to 1,200 feet (Marchowsky 2001b; Wright 2002a,b; Sweeney 2002; Andrews 2005). The Proposed Action and Alternative C include few acres of timber or habitat management on lands below 1,200 feet: maintenance on two existing permanent openings (9.4 acres of hay land and 10.4 acres of meadow), 17.5 acres converted to permanent upland opening, 10.5 acres of shelterwood harvest, and 33.8 acres of single-tree or group selection harvests, for a total of 81.6 acres at or below 1,200 feet elevation. Also, the 10.5 acres of shelterwood would take place during winter, when turtles and salamanders are not active on the landscape. Thus, most of the proposed management actions would take place on lands where or during times of year when these species are unlikely to occur.

The West Virginia white is a butterfly that occurs in rich, intact, deciduous mesic forests. The species also occurs in mixed woods, hardwood swamps, and riparian woodlands (Chandler, 2001b, NYNHP 2010a). The Forest Service uses site index of 60 or greater as an indicator for rich forest lands that might provide suitable habitat for the West Virginia white. These rich stands may include either of two species of toothwort (Cardamine diphylla and C. concatenata), which are obligate host plants for West Virginia white larvae. Larvae cannot pupate successfully on other host plants (Chandler 2001b, NYNHP 2010a). West Virginia white adults do not occur in open habitats and will not cross un-shaded roads, water bodies, or power lines where there is a break in the forest canopy. Forest roads and trails with a closed forest canopy do not appear to present a barrier (Chandler 2001b, GMNF 2006b).

Although no surveys have been conducted for the West Virginia white in the project area, it is known to occur in Peru, as well as several towns adjacent to the project area (VBS 2012). The project area does include rich northern hardwood stands that could provide appropriate habitat (Deller 2012; GMNF, unpublished data). Therefore, this analysis assumes that the West Virginia white could occur in these rich hardwood stands. The project includes timber and habitat management actions on 1,409 acres of stands with a site index of 60 or greater in the Proposed Action and 1,309 acres in Alternative C. Single-tree selection harvest, thinning, and stand improvement treatments (960 acres in the Proposed Action, 905 acres in Alternative C) may not alter canopy closure sufficiently to impact the West Virginia white. Proposed timber and habitat management prescriptions, ranging from group selection (17 acres) to regeneration harvests and clearing to create permanent upland openings (total of about 430 acres in Alternative B and 387 acres in Alternative C) would make substantial portions of these stands unsuitable for the West Virginia white. However, abundant suitable habitat would continue to exist in the project area and on the GMNF in general, and proposed actions would not create impassable barriers to prevent movement of West Virginia whites in the area. Some suitable habitat may be lost, but the proposed actions would not cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area for this species.

Four RFSS are bats that occur on and near the GMNF: eastern small-footed bat, little brown bat, northern long-eared bat, and tri-colored bat. All four species have been identified in the two hibernacula in the region (Aeolus and Skinner Hollow Caves). The little brown bat occurred historically in these caves in large numbers, the other species in much lower numbers

12

(Trombulak et al. 2001; Darling and Smith 2011; VTFWD, unpublished data). The project area provides suitable foraging and roosting habitat for all four species.

The Eastern small-footed bat is the smallest and rarest bat in eastern North America, but perhaps among the hardiest with respect to winter temperatures and preferred hibernating conditions. Habitat for small-footed bats is mostly in hilly or mountainous terrain where it roosts in fractures and cracks in exposed rock on exposed ridges, rock faces, and outcrops. Summer roost sites also include caves, mines, and buildings. It has been observed foraging over ponds and streams (Best and Jennings 1997, Tumosa 2001g, Amelon and Burhans 2006a).

The little brown bat was abundant and common across most of North America from Alaska to Nova Scotia and south to Florida and central Mexico. The little brown bat inhabits a wide variety of habitats, ranging from margins and openings along forests to fragmented agricultural landscapes to suburban areas. Little brown bats roost during summer in barns or attics, tree cavities, and other places that remain dark throughout the day. These bats generally feed over open water, at the margins of bodies of water and forests, in clearings, and along open forest roads (Fenton and Barclay 1980, Kunz and Reichard 2010).

Northern long-eared bats are more closely associated with forested lands than the other RFSS bats. These bats typically roost in cavities in live or dead hardwood trees and under the loose bark of dead standing trees. Northern long-eared bats forage primarily in forested areas, below the tree canopy, in openings, and around water bodies where flying insects congregate (Caceres and Barclay 2000, Amelon and Burhans 2006b).

Tri-colored bats hibernate in parts of hibernacula where temperatures are warmer and more stable. They are among the first bats to enter hibernation each fall and among the last to emerge in spring. During summer, tri-colored bats roost in rock crevices, caves, barns and other buildings, and tree foliage, frequently in edge habitats near open water and areas of mixed agricultural use. This species has a relatively slow, erratic pattern of flight, implying that they are adapted to foraging in canopy gaps, over water, and in forest edge habitats (Fujita and Kunz 1984, Hamlin and Myers 2004, Amelon 2006).

Prior to WNS (see Section III, White-nose Syndrome and Bats in Vermont, above), little brown bats were common on the GMNF and surrounding areas, and in New England in general, ranked as “common” and “secure” in Vermont. The northern long-eared bat was considered locally common, scattered, or uncommon in Vermont, whereas the eastern small-footed and tri-colored bats have always been considered uncommon or rare (Fenton and Barclay 1980, Tumosa 2001g, VNNHP 2008, Kunz and Reichard 2010, Darling and Smith 2011).

Both hibernacula in and near the project area (Aeolus and Skinner Hollow Caves ) and all four bat species are affected by WNS. Langwig et al. (2009) estimated mortality of little brown and northern long-eared bats in WNS-infected hibernacula at 93%, eastern small-footed bats at 78%, and tri-colored bats at 86%. After additional winters, mortality at these sites appears to be greater (Darling and Smith 2011; VTFWD, unpublished data). Little brown bats may be in danger of local or regional extinction in the Northeast within the next two decades (Frick et al. 2010, Kunz and Reichard 2010). The US Fish and Wildlife Service currently is evaluating and considering listing the eastern small-footed bat and northern long-eared bat as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act (CBD 2010a, 76 FR 38095). The State of Vermont lists little brown bat and northern long-eared bats as endangered and the eastern small-footed bat as threatened; the tri-colored bat is proposed for listing as endangered in Vermont (VNHIP 2011a,d).

13

Analysis of the impacts that management actions might have on bats focuses on habitats essential to four major aspects of the species’ natural history: summer roosts, summer foraging habitat, roosting and foraging habitat near hibernacula where bats swarm prior to hibernation, and the hibernacula themselves. Aeolus and Skinner Hollow Caves are not located on GMNF lands and none of the actions proposed in either Alternative of the Dorset Peru IRP would have any direct impact on the hibernacula. Timber or habitat management actions could injure bats roosting in harvested or felled trees and could alter roosting and foraging habitat. The following analyses focus on these proposed habitat-changing actions.

For the purposes of this BE, it is assumed that all lands within the project area, including GMNF lands, provide suitable summer roosting and foraging habitat for all four bat RFSS. Important roosting and foraging areas may be located within lands surrounding hibernacula. The Dorset Peru project area includes more than 35,000 acres within 5 miles of the two bat hibernacula, of which about 11,600 acres are GMNF lands. The Proposed Action includes timber and habitat management treatments on 1,416 acres within 5 miles of the two hibernacula, Alternative C includes these treatments proposed for 1,312 acres.

The GMNF Forest Plan (GMNF 2006a: pp.12, 27-29) includes management direction that specifically protects and benefits Indiana bats, but which similarly provides protections and benefits to other forest-dwelling bats, as well (see Section IV, above). Specific examples are retention of wildlife trees and snags that are suitable as roosts for bats (as well as providing dens and nests for other wildlife), protection of wetlands and riparian corridors, and retention of permanent upland openings. Retention of roost trees and snags minimizes likelihood of direct impact to bats and retains roosting habitat; wetlands and openings provide foraging habitat.

A Forest Plan Standard (GMNF 2006a: p.28) provides that timber harvest within five miles of a known Indiana bat hibernaculum from April 15 through October 30 shall be in accordance with provisions of a management plan for that hibernaculum. The Forest Service is developing a hibernaculum management plan for Aeolus and Skinner Hollow Caves in collaboration with the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife (GMNF, in preparation); this plan must be approved by the US Fish and Wildlife Service prior to any timber management activity within five miles of the cave entrances. The intention of this standard is that potential roosting habitat would be identified prior to any timber harvest, and that any harvest plan would minimize to the greatest extent possible any adverse impact on Indiana bats, but it would prove equally beneficial for the four RFSS bats, as well.

Direct impacts to bats would take place only during summer, not during winter while bats are in the hibernacula. The general emphasis on winter timber harvest greatly diminished the likelihood of direct impacts to bats. As described above, the project could include summer timber and vegetation management on a maximum of 615 acres, 341 acres of which lie within 5 miles of Aeolus and Skinner Hollow hibernacula. Under “normal” circumstances, regeneration harvests would be considered beneficial for most bats, as they create improved foraging conditions compared to dense, unbroken forest. During recent years, however, bat mortality from WNS has severely reduced local populations of bats. Consequently, suitable bat roosting and foraging habitat is “under-occupied.” It is therefore unlikely that habitat-altering activities would have a measurable beneficial or detrimental effect on TES bat species.

14

Determinations for Regional Forester Sensitive Species

This Biological Evaluation has determined that the Proposed Action or Alternative C of the Dorset-Peru Integrated Resource Project would have no impact on the following RFSS species:

� Common loon � Bald eagle � Peregrine falcon � Sedge wren

� Bicknell’s thrush � Brook floater � Boulder beach tiger beetle

Rationale

These species are unlikely to occur in the project area (e.g., sedge wren, brook floater, boulder beach tiger beetle), or likely to occur only as occasional and transient individuals (e.g., common loon, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, Bicknell’s thrush). No critical or important habitat for any of these species is located within the Project area.

The Proposed Action or Alternative C of the Dorset-Peru Integrated Resource Project may affect individuals of the following species, but actions included in either alternative are not likely to cause a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability within the planning area for any species:

� Eastern small-footed bat � Little brown bat � Northern long-eared bat � Tri-colored bat � Rusty blackbird � Wood turtle � Jefferson salamander � Blue-spotted salamander

� Four-toed salamander � Creek heelsplitter � West Virginia white � Harpoon clubtail � Southern pygmy clubtail � Forcipate emerald � Gray petaltail

Rationale

Impacts to wetland habitats should be negligible, considering Standards and Guidelines in the Forest Plan that protect wetlands and riparian habitats. Most of the proposed timber and habitat management actions would take place during winter, when the RFSS are not active on the landscape. The likelihood of direct impacts to the wood turtle and the four salamander species, or to their terrestrial habitats adjacent to wetlands, during summer management actions is low because of the limited activity proposed to take place at elevations below 1,200 feet. The proposed actions would make some lands no longer suitable for the West Virginia white, but abundant suitable habitat would continue to exist in the project area and on the GMNF in general, and proposed actions would not create impassable barriers to prevent movement of the species across the landscape. Standards and guidelines contained in the Forest Plan that address retention of roost trees, protect wetlands, and maintain open habitats, development of a timber harvest management plan for lands within 5 miles of Aeolus and Skinner Hollow hibernacula, and the emphasis on winter timber management substantially reduce the likelihood of adverse impacts to RFSS bats.

15

Appendix 1. Likelihood of Occurrence for Federally-Listed Endangered and Threatened Species in the Dorset Peru Integrated Resource Project Area.

SPECIES HABITAT REQUIREMENTS

ARE THERE EXTANT OR

HISTORIC OCCURRENCES IN

ANALYSIS AREA?

HABITAT

SUITABILITY OF THE ANALYSIS AREA FOR

THIS SPECIES

WERE SURVEYS CONDUCTED IN

ANALYSIS AREA FOR THIS SPECIES? WHY

OR WHY NOT?

LIKELIHOOD OF

OCCURRENCE DETERMINATION1

Canis lupus Gray wolf

ESA Endangered

G4/N4/SX2

Requires large tracts of wild lands in coniferous and mixed

hardwoods-coniferous forests with suitable abundance of

prey and low human density.

None documented. Not known to be present on the

GMNF or in Vermont. Extirpated in northeastern

US.

Project area includes

some elements of

suitable habitat, but no connectivity to existing

populations or core range.

No, because of the

extremely low likelihood of occurrence.

Low - Unlikely to

occur in analysis area.

Puma concolor couguar Eastern cougar

ESA Endangered

G5THQ/NH/S1?

Requires large, remote

hardwood or mixed forests or wooded watercourses with an

availability of deer-sized prey and some isolation from

humans.

None documented.

Unsubstantiated sightings every year from across the

State, but an extant, manageable population does

not exist in Vermont.


some elements of suitable habitat, but no

connectivity to existing populations or core

range.

No, because of extremely

low likelihood of occurrence.

Low - Unlikely to


Lynx canadensis Canada lynx

ESA Threatened G5/N4?/SH

Requires boreal (coniferous)

forest with significant early-successional component,

deep snow cover, and good snowshoe hare habitat.

None documented.

Historical records only from the GMNF. Recent records

for Vermont only from the northeastern part of the

State.

Potentially suitable habitat in project area is

fragmented, sparse, and generally of low quality

for lynx. No connectivity to existing populations or

core range.

No, because of extremely low likelihood of

occurrence.

Low - Unlikely to occur in analysis

area.

Myotis sodalis Indiana bat

ESA Endangered

G2/N2/S1

Hibernates in limestone caves or mines in winter. Optimal

summer habitat is landscape-level patchwork of 20-60%

forest cover with roost trees, abundant flying insects, and

open water. Roosts in trees in cavities or under exfoliating

bark, esp. shagbark hickory, maples, green ash, and elm.

Documented occurrence in project area at Aeolus

(Dorset) and Skinner Hollow (Little Skinner Hollow) Caves

during hibernation in winter. No known maternity roost

sites and no known non-hibernation occurrences in

project area. Post-WNS3 status in area not known.

Project area includes a major hibernation site

and a second smaller site near the area. Only

small areas of potentially suitable maternity roost

habitat (below 800-foot

elevation in Valley of Vermont along Route 7).

Regular hibernaculum

surveys by VT ANR and FWS prior to extensive bat

mortality from WNS3. Mist-net surveys in 2007

did not capture Indiana

bats.

Moderate - May


16

Notes: 1 Any species determined unlikely to occur in the analysis area will not be carried forward into the effects analysis of this Biological Evaluation.

The determination for these species is that the Proposed Action and alternatives would have no effect on these species. 2 For each species, the conservation ranks are provided in the following order Global Rank/National Rank/State Rank. Conservation ranks provide an informational assessment of extinction risk based on factors such as abundance, distribution, population trends, and threats. Ranks are

assigned to reflect the rarity of the species globally, with the US, or within the state of Vermont. For avian species, the ranks apply to breeding

status only. G = global; N = national; S = state; 1 = critically imperiled; 2 = imperiled; 3 = vulnerable to extirpation or extinction; 4 = apparently secure; 5 = demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure; U = status uncertain; X = presumed extirpated; H = possibly

extirpated; NR = not ranked (NatureServe 2012). 3 WNS = White-Nose Syndrome, a lethal fungal infection of cave- and mine-hibernating bats.

17

Appendix 2. Likelihood of Occurrence for Regional Forester Sensitive Species in the Dorset Peru Integrated Resource Project Area.

SPECIES HABITAT

REQUIREMENTS

ARE THERE EXTANT OR


PROJECT AREA?

HABITAT

SUITABILITY OF THE PROJECT AREA FOR

THIS SPECIES

WERE SURVEYS

CONDUCTED IN PROJECT AREA FOR

THIS SPECIES?

LIKELIHOOD OF OCCURRENCE

DETERMINATION1

MAMMALS

Myotis leibii Eastern small-footed bat

G1G3/N1N3/S12,3

Hibernate in cool, dry,

caves & mines. Occur in or near woodlands, upland

openings, and wetlands up to ≈2,000 feet elevation.

Summer roosts in rock crevices, but also in hollow

trees, bridges, buildings, or other structures.

Documented historically

hibernating in low numbers in area caves at Aeolus and

Skinner Hollow. Summer foraging and roosting

habitat, distribution, and habits poorly known in VT.

Prior to WNS6 uncommon, current status uncertain.

Project area includes suitable hibernation sites.

Limited summer cliff-rock roosting habitat in

project area. Foraging habitat available in

project area.

Regular hibernaculum surveys by Vermont

ANR and FWS prior to WNS population decline.

mist-net surveys in 2007 did not capture

this species. Acoustic surveys 2010-2012

detected myotid bats, but this species not

confirmed.

Moderate - May occur in project area

Myotis lucifugus Little brown bat

G3/N3/S52S13

Hibernate in humid caves and mines. Pregnant

females roost in groups in warm dry places incl. attics

and barns; males and non-pregnant females roost

elsewhere singly or in small groups. Forage in open

areas, esp. near water, in forest openings, forest

roads or trails, and where flying insects congregate.

Documented historically hibernating in large numbers

in area caves at Aeolus and Skinner. Prior to WNS was

common and abundant in region. Results from state-

wide post-WNS surveys suggest that little brown

bats are now almost completely absent from the

Vermont landscape. Current & future status uncertain.


suitable hibernation sites. Abundant suitable

foraging and roosting

habitat in project area.



Limited mist-net surveys in 2007 captured little

brown bats. Acoustic

surveys 2010-2012 detected myotid bats,

but species presence not confirmed.

High - Likely or known to occur in

project area

MAMMALS

Myotis septentrionalis Northern long-eared

bat

G1G3/N1N3/S4S52

S13

Hibernate in humid caves

and mines, possibly in rock outcrops, singly or in small

groups. Summer roosts in cavities or under loose bark

in hardwood trees or snags, also in bridges or

like structures. Forage primarily in forested areas

below canopy, in openings, and near water where

flying insects congregate.


hibernating in low numbers in area caves at Aeolus and

Skinner Hollow. Prior to WNS locally common across

the region although not abundant. State-wide post-

WNS surveys suggest north-ern long-eared bats almost

completely absent from the Vermont landscape. Current

& future status uncertain.

Project area includes suitable hibernation sites.

Abundant suitable foraging and roosting

habitat in project area.

Regular hibernaculum

surveys by Vermont ANR and FWS prior to

WNS population decline. Limited mist-net surveys

in 2007 did not capture northern long-eared

bats. Acoustic surveys 2010-2012 detected

myotis-like bats, but species presence not

confirmed.

High - Likely or

known to occur in project area

18

SPECIES HABITAT

REQUIREMENTS

ARE THERE EXTANT OR


PROJECT AREA?

HABITAT


THIS SPECIES

WERE SURVEYS


THIS SPECIES?

LIKELIHOOD OF


Perimyotis subflavus Tri-colored bat

G3/N3/S2S32S13

Hibernates individually or in

very small groups in the deepest parts of hiber-

nacula where conditions

are warm, moist, and stable. During summer

roosts in rock crevices, caves, barns, and other

buildings. Forages in open areas and along the edge

of high canopies along fields, clearcuts, or rivers.


hibernating in low numbers

in area at Aeolus and Skinner Hollow Caves. Never

considered common in Vermont. Post-WNS status in

Vermont and project area not known.


suitable hibernation sites. Abundant suitable

foraging and roosting habitat in project area.



Limited mist-net surveys in 2007 did not capture

tri-colored bats. Acoustic surveys 2010-

2012 detected myotid bats, but species

presence not confirmed.

Moderate - May

occur in project area

Gavia immer Common loon

G5/N4/S22S34

Large and small freshwater lakes in open or forested

areas for breeding; lakes can be as small as 10

acres, typically 50 acres or

more. Winters on coastal bays and inlets from

Maritime Provinces south.

None documented. Known to occur on several lakes

and large ponds on and

adjacent to GMNF.

Only two water bodies (Emerald Lake, Griffith

Lake) of sufficient size in

project area.

No, due to the lack of

suitable habitat.

Low - Unlikely to


Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle

G5/N5/S12,4

Nests in tall trees or on

cliffs near large rivers or lakes.

None documented. Only known as occasional

transient on GMNF. May nest in Vermont, but not on

the GMNF.

The project area contains

no suitable nesting habitat, and no large

bodies of water likely to be used by foraging

eagles.


suitable habitat.

Low - Unlikely to


Falco peregrinus Peregrine falcon

G4/N4/S22S34

Requires high cliffs with

clear views of surrounding areas for nesting. Can also

be found nesting on tall buildings or bridges, or the

ground.

None documented. Known from cliff sites on the Forest

in Addison and Rutland Counties to the north of the

project area. Historic occurrences on other cliff

sites within the GMNF and adjacent mountains.

No suitable cliff nesting sites known in the

project area.


suitable habitat.

Low - Unlikely to


19

SPECIES HABITAT

REQUIREMENTS

ARE THERE EXTANT OR


PROJECT AREA?

HABITAT


THIS SPECIES

WERE SURVEYS


THIS SPECIES?

LIKELIHOOD OF


Cistothorus platensis Sedge wren

G5/N4N5/S12S24

Nests among dense, tall

growths of sedges and grasses in wet meadows,

hayfields, retired croplands,

upland margins of ponds and marshes, sphagnum

bogs, etc. Usually avoids short, sparse, or open

vegetative cover, flooded areas, and cattail wetlands.

None documented. Known

to occur west of GMNF, especially in Champlain

Valley.

Project area may provide suitable-appearing

habitat, but much of the area likely is too high

elevation and too cool.

No, due to low likely-hood of suitable habitat

and distance to nearest known or likely

occurrences.

Low - Unlikely to occur in project area

BIRDS

Catharus bicknelli Bicknell's thrush

G4/N4/S32S24

Dense coniferous forests

above ≈3,000 feet elevation; spruce-fir

krummholtz.

No recent records of occurrence in area.

Marginally suitable

habitat near Dorset Peak (Danby Mountain).

Yes. Breeding bird surveys in 2010 through

2012 on Dorset Peak failed to find Bicknell’s

thrush.

Low - Unlikely to occur in project area

Euphagus carolinus Rusty blackbird

G4/N4/S32,4

Isolated coniferous wet-lands and coniferous or

mixed boreal forest. Prefers edge habitats of beaver

ponds, open wetlands, lakes, streams, or small

clearcuts or disturbed areas in mature dense coniferous

forest. Usually nests in spruce or fir near/over

water.

None documented. Local uncommon resident

statewide in northeast highlands, central region,

and Green Mountains. Sighted at Stratton on

GMNF.

Suitable habitat,

especially wetlands and beaver ponds, in project

area.

No surveys targeting rusty blackbird.


REPTILES

Clemmys insculpta Wood turtle

G3/N3/S32,5

Requires slow-moving,

meandering streams with

sandy bottoms and overhanging alders. Moves

from water sources during summer months to fields,

woods, and roadsides.

Species known to occur in

project area. Most likely below ≈1,000-1,200 ft.

elevation.


suitable habitat, primarily in non-Forest Service

lands at lower elevations in valley bottoms.

No surveys targeting wood turtle.


project area

20

SPECIES HABITAT

REQUIREMENTS

ARE THERE EXTANT OR


PROJECT AREA?

HABITAT


THIS SPECIES

WERE SURVEYS


THIS SPECIES?

LIKELIHOOD OF


AMPHIBIANS

Ambystoma jeffersonianum Jefferson salamander

G4/N4/S22,5

Requires undisturbed

damp, shady deciduous or mixed woods, bottomlands,

swamps, ravines, moist

pastures, or lakeshores. Adults spend most time

hidden in ground or under leaf litter. Requires vernal

pools or temporary ponds for breeding. May not

travel more than a mile in its lifetime.

Species known to occur in project area (Town of

Dorset). Most likely below ≈1,000-1,200 ft. elevation.




No surveys targeting

Jefferson salamander.


project area

AMPHIBIANS

Ambystoma laterale

Blue-spotted salamander

G5/N5/S32,5

Mix of terrestrial and wet-land habitats in moist,

mature hardwood or mixed upland forest or open areas

near bogs and marshes.

Adults spend most time hidden in the ground or

under leaf litter, rotting logs. Requires vernal pools

or temporary ponds for breeding (shared with

Jefferson salamanders and wood frogs).

None documented. Species

known to occur near (Town of Danby) but not in project

area. Most likely below ≈1,000-1,200 ft. elevation.




No surveys targeting blue-spotted

salamander.


Hemidactylium scutatum Four-toed salamander

G5/N5/S22,5

Mix of terrestrial and wet-land habitats, esp. hard-

wood, oak-hickory,

hemlock, and mixed forests and open areas. Eggs

deposited in edge of small ponds, swamps, slow

streams, vernal pools, forested wetlands. Acidic

wetlands preferred.

None documented. Species

not known to occur in project area. Most likely

below ≈1,000-1,200 ft. elevation.





four-toed salamander.

Moderate - May


21

SPECIES HABITAT

REQUIREMENTS

ARE THERE EXTANT OR


PROJECT AREA?

HABITAT


THIS SPECIES

WERE SURVEYS


THIS SPECIES?

LIKELIHOOD OF


MOLLUSKS

Alasmidonta varicosa Brook floater

G3/N3/S12

Requires firmly packed sand and gravel stream

bottoms of small rivers and streams.


in VT only from the West River in Windham County

along the proclamation

boundary of the Forest.

Project area could

include suitable habitat but only one known

occurrence, which is not

near project area.


brook floater.

Low - Unlikely to


Lasmigona compressa Creek heelsplitter

G5/N5/S22

Occurs in headwater of

small to medium rivers, esp. in St. Lawrence River

drainage, on substrate of fine gravel or sand.


on Otter Creek headwaters

in Mt. Tabor, near project area.

Project area could

include suitable habitat.


creek heelsplitter.

Moderate - May


INSECTS

Cicindela ancocisconensis Boulder beach tiger

beetle

G3/N3/S12

Occurs in sandy areas of

cobblestone islands and deltas of clear, clean,

permanent streams and mid-sized to large rivers.

None documented.

Statewide is known only from the Connecticut,

Winooski, and White Rivers. Edge of range in Vermont.

Suitable habitat could be

present in small amounts in project area, but no

current records near project area.

No surveys targeting boulder beach tiger

beetle.

Low - Unlikely to


Pieris virginiensis West Virginia white

G3/N3N4/SU2

Restricted to well-shaded,

rich, deciduous woodlands (site index ≥60) esp. maple

or beech, also in hardwood swamps or riparian wood-

lands with box elder.

Toothwort is the obligate host. Completely absent

from large open areas.

None documented. Found

in Rutland and Bennington counties, including Towns of

Peru and Manchester. Northern edge of range on

GMNF.

The project area includes

stands with a site index of 60 or greater, which

could provide suitable habitat for the West

Virginia white.


West Virginia white.

Moderate - May


Gomphus descriptus Harpoon clubtail

G4/N4/S32

Requires fast-moving

streams and rivers with rocky or sandy substrates.

Adults forage in fields, forest openings, or along

forest edges.

None documented. One record from Manchester

District of the GMNF on Deerfield River.

Some suitable habitat

likely located within project area.

No surveys targeted any

odonates.

Moderate - May


INSECTS

Lanthus vernalis Southern pygmy

clubtai

G4/N4/S32

Prefers small, cold, spring-fed brooks with heavy

shading. Is also associated with brook trout streams.

None documented. One record from Manchester

District of the GMNF on Bourn Brook. At edge of

range in no. New England.

Some suitable habitat

likely located within project area.


odonates.

Moderate - May


22

SPECIES HABITAT

REQUIREMENTS

ARE THERE EXTANT OR


PROJECT AREA?

HABITAT


THIS SPECIES

WERE SURVEYS


THIS SPECIES?

LIKELIHOOD OF


Somatochlora forcipata Forcipate emerald

G5/N4/S32

Small spring-fed streams or

shallow puddles in wooded bogs or fens, or fen-like

areas that form upstream

of beaver dams. May occur in wet areas that are only

small pools around flowing groundwater.

None documented. Two

recent records from Manchester District of the

GMNF at Grout Pond and near Lost Pond shelter.

Some suitable habitat likely located within

project area.


odonates.

Moderate - May


Tachopteryx thoreyi Gray petaltail

G4/N4/SNR2

Requires permanent, spring-fed, sunny, hillside

seeps in deciduous forests. Sparse forest canopy with

dense understory. Also uses bogs and seeps in

deciduous forests.

None documented. Single

Vermont record is from Grout Pond. At edge of

range in northern New England.

Some suitable habitat likely located within

project area.


odonates.

Moderate - May


Notes: 1 Any species determined unlikely to occur in the project area will not be carried forward into the effects analysis of the Biological Evaluation. The

determination for these species is that the Proposed Action and alternatives would not impact these species, and would not therefore threaten

their continued viability on the GMNF, nor result in a trend towards Federal listing of these species. 2 For each species, the conservation ranks are provided in the following order Global Rank/National Rank/State Rank. Conservation ranks provide

an informational assessment of extinction risk based on factors such as abundance, distribution, population trends, and threats. Ranks are assigned to reflect the rarity of the species globally, with the US, or within the state of Vermont. For avian species, the ranks apply to breeding

status only. G = global; N = national; S = state; 1 = critically imperiled; 2 = imperiled; 3 = vulnerable to extirpation or extinction; 4 =

apparently secure; 5 = demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure; U = status uncertain; X = presumed extirpated; H = possibly extirpated; NR = not ranked (NatureServe 2012).

3 Rankings by State of Vermont for mammals (VNHIP 2011a). 4 Rankings by State of Vermont for birds (VNHIP 2011b). 5 Rankings by State of Vermont for reptiles and amphibians (VNHIP 2011c). 6 WNS = White-Nose Syndrome, a lethal fungal infection of cave- and mine-hibernating bats.

23

Literature Cited

76 FR 38095. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 90-day finding on a petition to list the eastern small-footed bat and the northern long-eared bat as threatened or endangered. Federal Register 76 (125):38095-38106. 29 June 2011.

77 FR 48934. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 90-day finding on a petition to list the Bicknell’s thrush (Catharus bicknelli) as endangered or threatened. Federal Register 77 (158): 48934-48947. 15 August 15 2012

Amelon, S. 2006. Conservation Assessment: Pipistrellus subflavus (Eastern Pipistrelle) in the Eastern United States. Pages 11-29 in Frank R. Thompson III, ed., Conservation assessments for five forest bat species in the Eastern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-260. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 82 pp.

Amelon, S. and D. Burhans. 2006a. Conservation Assessment: Myotis leibii (Eastern Small-Footed Myotis) in the Eastern United States. Pages 57-68 in Frank R. Thompson III, ed., Conservation assessments for five forest bat species in the Eastern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-260. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 82 pp.

Amelon, S. and D. Burhans. 2006b. Conservation Assessment: Myotis septentrionalis (Northern Long-Eared Bat) in the Eastern United States pages 69-82 in Frank R. Thompson III, ed., Conservation assessments for five forest bat species in the Eastern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-260. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station. 82 pp.

Andrews, J. 2012. Research Herpetologist, Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT. Personal Communication to GMNF Forest Plan Revision Team, review of the affected environment and effects analysis for reptile and amphibian species of potential viability concern in the Green Mountain National Forest proposed plan, 17 July 2005.

Avery, M.L. 1995. Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus. The Birds of North America, No. 200, pp 1-15.

Best, T.L. and J.B. Jennings. 1997. Myotis leibii. Mammalian Species 547: 1-6.

Blehert, D.S., A.C. Hicks, M. Behr, C.U. Meteyer, B.M. Berlowski-Zier, E.L. Buckles, J.T.H. Coleman, S.R. Darling, A Gargas, R. Niver, J.C. Okoniewski, R.J. Rudd, and W.B. Stone. 2009. Bat white-nose syndrome: an emerging fungal pathogen? Science, 323: 227.

Caceres, M.C., and R.M.R. Barclay. 2000. Myotis septentrionalis. Mammalian Species 634: 1-4.

CBD (Center for Biological Diversity). 2010a. Petition to list the eastern small-footed bat Myotis leibii and northern long-eared bat Myotis septentrionalis as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Center for Biological Diversity, Richmond, Vermont, 21 January 2010.

CBD (Center for Biological Diversity). 2010b. Before the Secretary of Interior: Petition to list the Bicknell’s thrush (Catharus bicknelli ) as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act. Center for Biological Diversity, Richmond, Vermont, 24 August 2010

24

Chandler, D.S. 2001a. Species Data Collection Form for Cicindela ancocisconensis. Unpublished, Green Mountain National Forest, Rutland, VT.

Chandler, D.S. 2001b. Species Data Collection Form for Pieris virginiensis. Revised by S. Lemieux, 2002. Unpublished, Green Mountain National Forest, Rutland, VT.

Coletti, C. 2002a. Species Data Collection Form for Lanthus vernalis. Revised by S. Lemieux, 2003. Unpublished, Green Mountain National Forest, Rutland, VT.

Coletti, C. 2002b. Species Data Collection Form for Somatochlora forcipata. Revised by C. Persichilli, 2002. Unpublished, Green Mountain National Forest, Rutland, VT.

Coletti, C. 2002c. Species Data Collection Form for Tachopteryx thoreyi. Revised by T. Gokee, 2003. Unpublished, Green Mountain National Forest, Rutland, VT.

Coletti, C. 2002d. Species Data Collection Form for Gomphus descriptus. Revised by T. Gokee, 2003. Unpublished, Green Mountain National Forest, Rutland, VT.

Darling, S. & R. Smith. 2011. Assessment of Vermont cave bat populations and proposal to list bat species. Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department. Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department, February 2011. 19 pp.

Deller, M.B. 1012. Botanist and Non-native Invasive Plant Program Coordinator, Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forest, personal communication with J. Sease, Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forest, 3 February 2012.

Fenton, M., and R.M.R. Barclay. 1980. Myotis lucifugus. Mammalian Species 142: 1-8.

Frick, W.F., J.F. Pollock, A.C. Hicks, K.E. Langwig, D.S. Reynolds, G.G. Turner, C.M. Butchkoski, and T.H. Kunz. 2010. An Emerging Disease Causes Regional Population Collapse of a Common North American Bat Species. Science 329: 679-682

Fujita, M.S. and T.H. Kunz. 1984. Pipistrellus subflavus. Mammalian Species No. 228. American Society of Mammalogists. 6 pp.

Gargas, A., M.T. Trest, M. Christiansen, T.J. Volk, and D. S. Blehert. 2009. Geomyces destructans sp. nov. associated with bat white-nose syndrome. Mycotaxon 108: 147–154.

GMNF (Green Mountain National Forest). 2006a. Green Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service. Rutland, VT.

GMNF (Green Mountain National Forest). 2006b. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Appendix E – Biological Evaluation of the Green Mountain National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Revision on federal endangered, threatened, and proposed species and Regional Forester sensitive species. USDA Forest Service. Rutland, Vermont.

GMNF (Green Mountain National Forest). 2012. Dorset Peru Integrated Resource Project. Preliminary Environmental Assessment: 30 Day Comment Document. USDA Forest Service. Rutland, Vermont.

GMNF (Green Mountain National Forest). In Preparation. Hibernaculum management plan for forest management within five miles of Aeolus (Dorset) Cave and Skinner Hollow/Little Skinner Hollow Cave. Green Mountain National Forest. Rutland, Vermont.

Hamlin, M. and P. Myers. 2004. Pipistrellus subflavus. (On-line), Animal Diversity Web (Accessed 16 August 2011).

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Pipistrellus_subflavus.html.

25

Herkert, J.R., D.E. Kroodsma, and J.P. Gibbs. 2001. Sedge wren (Cistothorus platensis), The birds of North America online (A. Poole, Ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/582, (Accessed March 2011).

Kibbe, D.P. 1985. Sedge Wren. Pages 228-229 in S.B. Laughlin and D.P. Kibbe, eds. The atlas of breeding birds of Vermont. University Presses of New England, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA.

Kunz, T.H. and J.D. Reichard. 2010. Status Review of the Little Brown Myotis (Myotis lucifugus) and Determination that Immediate Listing under the Endangered Species Act is Scientifically and Legally Warranted. Boston University’s Center for Ecology and Conservation Biology, Boston, MA. 30 pp.

Langwig, K., A. Hicks, R. von Linden, C. Herzog, S. Darling, T. French, and J. Armstrong. 2009. White nose syndrome related declines of hibernating bat species in the Northeast. Presentation at 2009 North American Society for Bat Research Symposium: Portland, Oregon.

Marchowsky, K. 2001a. Species Data Collection Form for Alasmidonta varicosa. Revised by T. Gokee, 2003. Unpublished, Green Mountain National Forest, Rutland, VT.

Marchowsky, K. 2001b. Species Data Collection Form for Glyptemys insculpta. Revised by T. Gokee and J. Smith, 2003. Unpublished, Green Mountain National Forest, Rutland, VT.

Marchowsky, K. 2003c. Species Data Collection Form for Lasmigona compressa. Revised by T. Gokee, 2003. Unpublished, Green Mountain National Forest, Rutland, VT.

NatureServe. 2012. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available online at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed: 3 October 2012.

NYNHP (New York Natural Heritage Program). 2010a. Online Conservation Guide for Pieris virginiensis. Available at: http://www.acris.nynhp.org/guide.php?id=7830 (Accessed November 29, 2010).

NYNHP (New York Natural Heritage Program). 2010b. Online Conservation Guide for Tachopteryx thoreyi. Available at: http://www.acris. nynhp.org/guide.php?id=8177 (Accessed November 29, 2010).

Rimmer, C.C., K.P. Mcfarland, W.G. Ellison, and J.E. Goetz. 2001. Bicknell's Thrush (Catharus bicknelli), 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/592.

Rimmer, C.C., J.D. Lambert, and K.P. McFarland. 2005. Bicknell’s thrush (Catharus bicknelli) conservation strategy for the Green Mountain National Forest. VINS Technical Report 05-5. Vermont Institute of Natural Science, Woodstock, VT. 27 pp.

Scarl, J. 2012. Vermont Center for Ecostudies, personal communication with J. Sease, Green Mountain and Finger Lakes National Forest, 25 October 2012.

Sweeney, J. 2002. Species Data Collection Form for Hemidactylium scutatum. Revised by M. Marchand, 2002. Unpublished, Green Mountain National Forest, Rutland, VT.

26

Trombulak, S.C., P.E. Higuera, and M. DesMeules. 2001. Population Trends of Wintering Bats in Vermont. Northeastern Naturalist 8(1): 51-62.

Tumosa, J. 2001a. Species Data Collection Form for Canis lupis. Revised by M.A. Stevens, 2002. Unpublished, Green Mountain National Forest, Rutland, VT.

Tumosa, J. 2001b. Species Data Collection Form for Catharus bicknelli. Revised by A. Gokee, 2002. Unpublished, Green Mountain National Forest, Rutland, VT.

Tumosa, J. 2001c. Species Data Collection Form for Euphagus carolinus. Revised by C. Persichilli, 2002. Unpublished, Green Mountain National Forest, Rutland, VT.

Tumosa, J. 2001d. Species Data Collection Form for Falco peregrinus anatum. Revised by C. Persichilli, 2002. Unpublished, Green Mountain National Forest, Rutland, VT.

Tumosa, J. 2001e. Species Data Collection Form for Gavia immer. Revised by M. Boehme, 2002. Unpublished, Green Mountain National Forest, Rutland, VT.

Tumosa, J. 2001f. Species Data Collection Form for Lynx canadensis. Revised by D. Batchelder, 2002. Unpublished, Green Mountain National Forest, Rutland, VT.

Tumosa, J. 2001g. Species Data Collection Form for Myotis leibii. Revised by J. Belwood, 2002, and S. Lemieux, 2003. Unpublished, Green Mountain National Forest, Rutland, VT.

Tumosa, J. 2001h. Species Data Collection Form for Myotis sodalis. Revised by S. Lemieux, 2003. Unpublished, Green Mountain National Forest, Rutland, VT.

Tumosa, J. 2001i. Species Data Collection Form for Puma concolor couguar. Revised by M.A. Stevens, 2002. Unpublished, Green Mountain National Forest, Rutland, VT.

Tumosa, J. 2002. Species Data Collection Form for Haliaeetus leucocephalus. Revised by M. Boehme, 2002. Unpublished, Green Mountain National Forest, Rutland, VT.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2012. North American bat death toll exceeds 5.5 million from white-nose syndrome. News Release. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Communications, 17 January 2012. Available online at http://www.fws.gov/whitenosesyndrome/pdf/WNS_Mortality_2012_NR_FINAL.pdf.

WNS (White-Nose Syndrome.ORG). 2012. North America's response to the devastating bat disease. [Updating website - http://whitenosesyndrome.org/]

USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2012. Bat White-Nose Syndrome: An Emerging Fungal Pathogen? [Updating website - http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_information/white-nose_syndrome/]

VBBA (Vermont Breeding Bird Atlas). 2011. Breeding bird atlas explorer: Vermont 2003-2007, Sedge Wren (Cistothorus platensis). Available online: http://www.vtecostudies.org/vbba/accounts/SEWR.html (Accessed 17 August 2011).

VBS (Vermont Butterfly Survey). 2012. Vermont Butterfly Survey 2002-2006, species distribution: current evidence for West Virginia white (Pieris virginiensis). Available online: http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bba/VtBfly/Species_Distribution.cfm (Accessed 30 Oct. 2012).

VNHIP (Vermont Natural Heritage Information Project). 2011a. Mammals of Vermont. Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department. 15 July 2011.

VNHIP (Vermont Natural Heritage Information Project). 2011b. Birds of Vermont. Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department. 15 July 2011.

27

VNHIP (Vermont Natural Heritage Information Project). 2011c. Reptiles and amphibians of Vermont. Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department. 15 July 2011.

VNHIP (Vermont Natural Heritage Information Project). 2011d. Rare and uncommon animals of Vermont. Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department. 15 July 2011.

VNNHP (Vermont Nongame and Natural Heritage Program). 2008. Mammals of Vermont. Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department. 21 November 2008.

VRAA (Vermont Reptile and Amphibian Atlas). 2012a. Glyptemys insculpta, wood turtle. Available online: http://community.middlebury.edu/~herpatlas/ (30 October 2012).

VRAA (Vermont Reptile and Amphibian Atlas). 2012b. Ambystoma jeffersonianum, Jefferson salamander. Available online: http://community.middlebury.edu/~herpatlas/ (30 October 2012).

VRAA (Vermont Reptile and Amphibian Atlas). 2012c. Ambystoma laterale, blue-spotted salamander. Available online: http://community.middlebury.edu/~herpatlas/ (30 October 2012).

VRAA (Vermont Reptile and Amphibian Atlas). 2012d. Hemidactylium scutatum, four-toed salamander Available online: http://community.middlebury.edu/~herpatlas/ (30 October 2012).

Warnecke L., J.M. Turner, T.K. Bollinger, J.M. Lorch, V. Misra, P.M. Cryan, G. Wibbelt, D.S. Blehert, and C.K.R. Willis. 2012. Inoculation of bats with European Geomyces destructans supports the novel pathogen hypothesis for the origin of white-nose syndrome. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA. 109:6999-7003.

Watrous, K.S., T.M. Donovan, R.M. Mickey, S.R. Darling, A.C. Hicks, S.L. von Oettingen. 2006. Predicting Minimum Habitat Characteristics for the Indiana bat in the Champlain Valley. Journal of Wildlife Management 70: 1228-1237.

Wright, K. 2002a. Species Data Collection Form for Ambystoma jeffersonianum. Revised by T Gokee and J. Smith, 2003. Unpublished, Green Mountain National Forest, Rutland, VT.

Wright, K. 2002b. Species Data Collection Form for Ambystoma laterale. Revised by T Gokee and J. Smith, 2003. Unpublished, Green Mountain National Forest, Rutland, VT.

Documents

Biological Evaluation of the Dorset-Peru Integrated Resource Projecta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · 2013-04-12 · Figure 1. The Dorset-Peru Integrated Resource