Biological Evaluation (Wildlife Portion Only) Deer Jasper Project …a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · 2016-12-07 · 1 Biological Evaluation (Wildlife Portion

1

Biological Evaluation

(Wildlife Portion Only)

for the

Deer Jasper Project

Environmental Assessment

14 July 2014

Updated 29 February, 2016

Post 2015 Stickpin Fire

Three Rivers Ranger District

Colville National Forest

2

Table of Contents

Table of Contents 2 List of Figures 3 List of Tables 3

I. Introduction 4 A. Birds 4

B. Mammals 4 C. Invertebrates 4

1. Butterflies 4 2. Dragonflies/damselflies 5 3. Mollusks 5

D. Analysis comments 6 II. Area Description 6

Project Location 6 III. Short Project Description 6

IV. Existing Situation, Effects of Implementation, and Risk Assessment for Birds and Mammals 7 A. Birds 7

1. Great Gray Owl (Strix nebulosa) 7 2. White-headed woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus) 14 3. Lewis’ woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) 18

B. Mammals 21 1. Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) 21

2. Gray wolf (Canis lupus) 34 3. Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) 49 4. Wolverine (Gulo gulo) 59

6. Pacific Western (Townsend's) Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) 65

7. Moose (Alces americanus) 67 C. Invertebrates 69

1. Meadow fritillary (Boloria bellona) 69

3. Rosner’s hairstreak (Callophyrys nelsoni rosneri or C. grynea plicateria) 70 4. Eastern tailed blue (Cupido comyntas) 72

5. Peck’s and Tawny-edged skipper (Polites peckius and P. themistocles) 73 6. Fir Pinwheel (Radiodiscus abietum) 74 7. Magnum Mantleslug (Magnipelta mycophaga) 76

V. Literature Cited 80

VI. Personal Communication 85 VII. Detailed Project Description 85

A. Proposed Vegetation Treatments 85 1. Commercial Treatments 86 2. Non-Commercial Vegetation Treatments 88 3. Other Treatments 91

B. Roads 94

1. Temporary Road Construction 94 2. Road Reconstruction 95 3. Road Decommissioning 96

C. Danger Tree Management 98

3

VIII. Design Elements in the Proposed Action 98

A. Wildlife 98 B. Noxious Weeds 103 C. Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas 104

Three Zones of the RHCA: 104 D. Aquatics 105 E. Soils 110 F. Soils 114

IX. Monitoring Required by the Proposed Action 118

List of Figures

Figure 1. Location of Deer Jasper Project Area. .................................................................................... 7

Figure 2. Potential great gray owl habitat in the Deer Jasper Project area. White areas are not

habitat. ............................................................................................................................................ 9 Figure 3. Harvest in great gray owl nesting habitat that would reduce or eliminate the stand’s

potential to provide nesting habitat. ............................................................................................. 11 Figure 4. All proposed treatment in potential great gray owl habitat. .. Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 5. White-headed woodpecker habitat in Deer Jasper............................................................... 15 Figure 6. Existing Lewis’ woodpecker habitat in Deer Jasper............................................................ 20 Figure 7. Core area/secluded habitat and cover within it in Deer Jasper. ........................................... 23

Figure 8. Travel corridors and cover in Deer Jasper. ........................................................................... 24 Figure 9. Effects of prescribed fire and harvest on cover in corridors. ............................................... 26

Figure 10. Distribution of forage on big game summer range in Deer Jasper. ................................... 37 Figure 11. Big game winter range in Deer Jasper. ............................................................................... 38 Figure 12. Cover and forage on winter range in Deer Jasper. Inset lies along the western border. ... 38

Figure 13. Proposed activities in deer winter range in Deer Jasper. .................................................... 41

Figure 14. Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) and habitat in and near Deer Jasper. ................................... 53

List of Tables

Table 1. Great gray owl habitat conditions in Deer Jasper. 10 Table 2. Condition of white-headed woodpecker habitat in Deer Jasper. 15 Table 3. Roads Requiring Gate Closures for Post-Harvest Projects 33

Table 4. Number of units proposed for management in big game winter range. 43 Table 5. Lynx habitat within the 2 LAUs that contain Deer Jasper. Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 6. Acres affected by and habitat remaining after management in lynx habitat in Deer Jasper. 55

4

I. Introduction

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, requires federal agencies to "ensure"

that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them are not likely to jeopardize the continued

existence of endangered (E), threatened (T) or proposed (P) species, or result in the destruction or

adverse modification of their critical habitats. Also, the Forest Service established direction (Forest

Service Manual 2670) to guide habitat management for endangered, threatened, proposed and

sensitive species to ensure that these species receive full consideration in the decision-making

process. That direction establishes the process, objectives, and standards for conducting Biological

Assessments (BA) and Biological Evaluations (BE).

The R-6 supplement to FSM 2672.4 identifies a four-step procedure for conducting a BA or BE. The

steps are:

1. Pre-field review of existing information,

2. Field reconnaissance of the project area,

3. Risk assessment if species or habitat is present,

4. Biological investigation if data sufficient to complete step 3 do not exist.

This BE contains the analyses of the effects of the proposed Deer Jasper Project (Figure 1 and

attached project map) after the 2015 Stickpin fire on endangered, threatened, or proposed wildlife

species listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as having the potential to occur within

or adjacent the project project area. The USFWS stated that the following species might occur within

or adjacent the area (letters from USFWS on file at the Colville National Forest’s (CNF) Supervisor’s

Office):

US Fish and Wildlife Service Threatened or Endangered species

Woodland caribou

(Endangered)

Grizzly bear

(Threatened)

Canada lynx

(Threatened)

US Forest Service sensitive wildlife species (US Forest Service 2011).

A. Birds

Bald eagle

American peregrine falcon

Common loon

Sandhill crane

Harlequin duck

Great gray owl

White-headed woodpecker

Lewis’ woodpecker

B. Mammals

Gray wolf

Moose

Wolverine

Red-tailed chipmunk

Townsend’s big-eared bat

Pygmy shrew

Mountain goat

C. Invertebrates

1. Butterflies

Great Basin fritillary (Argynnis (Speyeria) egleis)

5

Meadow fritillary (Boloria bellona)

Rosner’s hairstreak (Callophyrys nelsoni rosneri aka Callophyrys grynea plicateria)

Eastern tailed blue (Cupido comyntas)

Peck’s skipper (Polites peckius)

Tawny-edged skipper (Polites themistocles)

2. Dragonflies/damselflies

Zigzag darner (Aeshna sitchensis)

Subarctic darner (Aeshna subarctica)

Subarctic bluet (Coenagrion interrogatum)

Delicate emerald (Somatochlora franklinii)

Whitehouse emerald (Somatochlora whitehousei)

3. Mollusks

Fir Pinwheel (Radiodiscus abietum)

Magnum Mantleslug (Magnipelta mycophaga)

Habitat does not exist in the project area for the following species, this project would either have

no effect or no impact to them or their habitat, and they will not be discussed further in this

document:

Common loons, bald eagles and eared grebes nest on large bodies of water, which do not

occur in the project area.

Sandhill cranes occupy open, wetland habitat which does not occur in the project area.

Harlequin ducks reproduce on cold, high-gradient streams, which do not occur in the

area. Harlequin ducks do migrate through the area, the most recent record coming from

northeast of the project area (Pierre Lake) on April 25, 2008, and others dating from the

early 2000s on Sherman Creek, about 10 miles east of the project area.

American peregrine falcon nests have been documented only in the Pend Oreille Valley.

The project area does not contain suitable nesting or foraging habitat.

Bald eagles nest near large bodies of water containing abundant fish or waterfowl, neither

of which occur in the project area. Roosting occurs near nesting areas.

Woodland caribou: the nearest recovery area is over 2 mountain ranges and 2 rivers from

the project area.

Mountain goats occupy higher elevation, primarily rocky and open areas, which do not

occur in or near the project area.

Red-tailed chipmunks and pygmy shrews occupy dense, more mesic coniferous forests

east of the Columbia River and do not occur in the project area (Washington Department

of Fish and Wildlife’s Gap Analysis Program).

Great Basin fritillary occurs far to the south of the CNF. The single individual caught

just south of the CNF boundary was misidentified (J. Pelham, pers .comm.)

Zigzag darner, Subarctic darner, Subarctic bluet, Delicate emerald, and Whitehouse

emerald. All these odonates occupy high-elevation open-water wetlands, which do not

occur in or near the project area.

6

D. Analysis comments

We conduct unit-by-unit analysis by computerized mapping. Computerized mapping can give a

false sense of accuracy and precision for 3 main reasons. First, the computer provides inflated

precision and accuracy, far greater than that of our mapping. Second, maps project a 3-

dimensional surface onto a flat, 2-dimensional medium. Third, computer-generated maps look

very accurate, but the resulting data are only as good as the map information entered into the

computer. To prevent ourselves from portraying a false sense of accuracy, we round the acreage

values for each unit's effects to the nearest acre, round the total effects of all units in an

alternative to the nearest 5 acres, and the totals for non-units to the nearest 10 acres.

II. Area Description

Project Location

The approximately 25,130 acre Deer Jasper project area is located in Ferry County, Washington

on the Three Rivers and Republic Ranger Districts on the Colville National Forest in Northeast

Washington. The project area is located approximately 10 miles northwest of the town of Kettle

Falls, Washington and crosses the Kettle Crest (Figure 1). Elevations in the project area range

from approximately 1,800 feet near the Kettle River to approximately 6,100 feet along Taylor

Ridge. The Boulder-Deer highway bisects the project area.

III. Short Project Description

See Section VII for a detailed description of activities related to the Deer Jasper project.

The original project proposed to treat approximately 70 percent of the 25,130 acre project area.

Approximately 17,240 acres would have received treatment including about 5,875 acres of

commercial thinning; 370 acres of small pole thinning; 2,519 acres of regeneration openings

within thinning units; 11 acres of shelterwood removal; 673 acres of pre-commercial treatment,

and 12,059 acres of ladder fuel reduction treatments (some areas are affected by more than one

treatment). Approximately 9.5 miles of existing Forest system roads would have been

decommissioned. About 93 miles of light and moderate road reconstruction would have

occurred, with a very small amount of heavy reconstruction at one crossing. About 21 miles of

existing temporary roads would have been reused, and 0.8 miles of new temporary road would

have been constructed. All roads opened for the project would have been closed shortly after

their use in order to prevent use by the public from becoming established. [LCO-1]

In late summer of 2015, the 49,490-acre Stickpin fire burned through more than 55% of the

planning area, affecting the western half. About 35% of the planning area was severely burned

(>75% overstory tree mortality). Much of the severely burned areas consisted of cool to cold

biophysical environments at mid and high elevations, interspersed with warmer sites on southern

exposures. Many projects associated with minimizing the impact of the fire will occur in the

project area and cumulative effects area over the next few years. These projects generally

involve road work (installing drainage dips, blading, and upgrading culverts), trail stabilization,

noxious weed treatment and aerial mulching. These projects will occur on or near existing roads

and trails, so will not negatively affect any of the species analyzed in this document. All design

elements remain the same as in the original project, though needn’t be applied to units dropped

due to the fire.

7

Figure 1. Location of Deer Jasper Project Area.

IV. Existing Situation, Effects of Implementation, and Risk Assessment for

Birds and Mammals

A. Birds

1. Great Gray Owl (Strix nebulosa)

Status: Sensitive (US FS Region 6 List).

a. Introduction

The Forest Plan does not contain specific standards and guidelines or management direction

pertaining to great gray owls. Great gray owls nest in many types of forested habitats. Forest

Service General Technical Report RM-253 Flammulated, Boreal, and Great Gray Owls in the

United States: A Technical Conservation Assessment (Hayward and Verner 1994) lists nesting

habitat from several studies:

In British Columbia, Douglas fir with patches of aspen was reported as the type most

often used;

In southeastern Idaho and northwestern Wyoming, most of the nest sites were in the

lodgepole pine/Douglas-fir/aspen zone;

In northeastern Oregon, all forest types sampled had nests, but nests were most common

in Douglas fir/grand fir, followed by lodgepole pine/western larch, then ponderosa

pine/Douglas-fir, and least in ponderosa pine;

In central Oregon, meadow systems associated with coniferous forests were used.

The nests reported in southeastern Idaho and northwestern Wyoming were found in mid-

to late-successional forests;

Nests have been reported in broken-top snags, in old corvid or raptor (often goshawk) nests, on

platforms formed by dwarf-mistletoe, on artificial platforms and on other sites. Most often,

nesting habitat was associated with proximity to good foraging opportunities-openings such as

meadows, pastures, marshes, lakes, young clear-cuts, or open forests that support small rodents,

8

their main prey (Johnsgard 2002). Nest proximity to forage habitat may be more important than

nest structure or support.

Another habitat feature that seems to be important is the availability of structure that the young

can use to escape predators. After leaving the nest but before they are capable of quick or

sustained flight, fledglings are vulnerable to terrestrial predators and need structure such as

leaning trees to climb to perches off the ground and away from possible predators. Dense cover

also helped protect young.

Maintaining great gray owl habitat can be compatible with forest management (Whitfield and

Gaffney 1997). Natural meadow systems and other openings can be maintained and restored

with fire or other management. Timber harvest units can provide temporary open foraging

habitat (the single nest on the Colville NF was adjacent to a large clearcut in which the adults

hunted). Retention of large trees with suitable nesting platforms is important for maintaining

nesting habitat, though great gray owls will nest in younger forest stands with residual older

forest components if suitable nesting structure remains.

The Forest Service Region 6 added great gray owls to its updated sensitive species list in 2000.

Great gray owls have been reported less than a dozen times on the CNF. Two nests have been

documented, one in Ferry County about 15 miles southwest of the project area boundary and the

other in central Stevens County. Average elevation of sightings is about 4,400 feet and range

from 2,700 to just over 6,000.

b. Affected Environment

No nests of great gray owls have been reported from within the project area. A single owl was

seen in the northwestern corner of the project area in the summer of 2010, but this area was

severely burned in 2015 and no great gray owl nesting habitat currently remains on NFS lands

within a mile of the sighting. During general resource surveys for this project that covered

several hundreds of person-days in the summer and autumn of 2011 and the spring of 2012 and

which covered a large part of the project area, neither the single bird nor other great gray owls or

their sign were observed.

Nearly all of the project area (25,130 acres) contains environments that could potentially support

great gray owl habitat, though the best habitat burned in the Stickpin fire. Prior to the Stickpin

fire, about 95% of the project area supported potential habitat of various qualities. Severe fire

eliminated about 10,030 acres of habitat, primarily in one large block, which would provide

habitat capable of supporting small mammal prey within a few years as forbs and grasses grow

back, but would not provide nesting habitat for decades. Moderate fire eliminated about 740

acres of nesting habitat, which would also provide foraging habitat within a few years.

Currently, sufficient nesting and foraging habitat exists to support great gray owls (Figure 2).

Existing habitat is contiguous with large tracts of good-quality habitat to the north and south,

with areas to the west having been burned. Slightly more than 55% of the potential habitat

currently provides habitat, with more than 75% providing conditions for combined nesting and

foraging, and slightly less than 25% providing conditions for foraging only.

9

Prior to the fire, interspersion of forage and nesting was poor south of the Boulder-Deer highway

primarily because the sea of marginal and open foraging habitat was not broken up by good

foraging habitat, which would primarily have been created due to disturbance. Foraging habitat

in this area could have been created by opening stands via fire or timber harvest. This happened,

but at a magnitude greater than desired, so the pendulum will swing to a glut of foraging habitat

and dearth of nesting habitat in the next few decades as open foraging conditions dominate and

large, live trees for nesting remain scarce.

Figure 2. Potential great gray owl habitat in the Deer Jasper Project area. White areas are not

habitat.

c. Environmental Consequences

The No Action alternative will not directly affect potential nest sites or other great gray owl

habitat components in the short term. Over the long term, the No Action alternative presents a

greater risk from wildfire because many stands are overstocked and the habitat is not capable of

maintaining those conditions over a long period of time. This could result in a loss of any

existing great gray owl habitat and a reduction in potential habitat for many years. Additionally,

lack of disturbance in foraging habitat results in in-growth by trees and shrubs, which reduces or

eliminates habitat for their small mammal prey.

Slightly more than 80% of the great gray owl habitat in the project area is proposed to be

affected by management activities, either commercial treatment, non-commercial treatment or

prescribed fire, thus has the potential to negatively affect nesting habitat by altering nest site

availability and/or affecting unknown nests, and positively enhance foraging habitat by creating

10

openings. This magnitude of effects seems sufficiently large to negatively affect great gray owls.

However, the treatments vary widely, from single-tree selection to prescribed fire to heavy

harvest in small patches, so the negative effects to great gray owl nesting habitat are considerably

less.

About 16% of the nesting habitat in the project area would be opened to the point where it would

be too open to serve as nesting habitat. Creating leaning trees for juvenile owls and reducing the

understory trees while retaining the overstory trees would retain suitable nesting habitat

characteristics while enhancing foraging habitat within these stands. Harvest in other nesting

habitat would primarily remove understory trees and not those that great gray owls use for

nesting. Sufficient nesting habitat remains scattered throughout the project area.

Table 1. Great gray owl habitat conditions in Deer Jasper.

Current habitat conditions Acres % of existing

Foraging (all) 3,143 23%

Natural 1,430

Due to harvest 1,710

Nesting (all) 10,780 77%

Dense 2,070

Open 5,870

Marginal 2,850

Current habitat 13,920 100%

Potential habitat conditions Acres % of potential

Current habitat 13,920 57%

Not habitat due to fire 10,030 41%

Not habitat: too young and dense 270 1%

Potential habitat 24,220 100%

The remaining commercial and non-commercial treatments and prescribed fire would occur in

marginal nesting habitat or foraging habitat and would improve the foraging habitat by opening

the stands, improving conditions for small mammals, and allowing owls to more easily access

prey on or close to the ground.

If a nest is located, we would adjust the project according to CT clauses to minimize impacts.

The probability of directly affecting a great gray owl nest is very low.

i. Effects to nesting habitat

Harvest would occur on about 85% of the good and fair nesting cover in the project area. Most

of the harvest consists of thinning the understory, which would not remove the larger trees in

which great gray owls nest and could improve the juxtaposition of nesting and foraging habitat.

11

However, harvest in portions of 11 units totaling about 1,280 acres of good and fair nesting

habitat would open the canopy more than about 40%, which would severely reduce the quality as

nesting habitat, but would improve it as foraging habitat. This decrease amounts to a loss of

about 16% of the good and fair nesting habitat in the project area (Figure 3). Loss of this nesting

habitat would not preclude great gray owls from nesting in the project area because suitable

amounts of nesting habitat remain near all but 2 units (63 and 67), and if prey is abundant in

open areas, great gray owls would generally find a suitable site in which to nest.

Figure 3. Harvest in great gray owl nesting habitat that would reduce or eliminate the stand’s

potential to provide nesting habitat.

Harvest in other nesting habitat would primarily remove understory trees and not those that great

gray owls use for nesting. Sufficient nesting habitat for great gray owls remains scattered

throughout the unburned portions of the project area. The remaining commercial and non-

commercial treatments and prescribed fire would occur in marginal nesting habitat or foraging

habitat and would improve the foraging habitat by opening the stands, improving conditions for

small mammals, and allowing owls to more easily access prey on or close to the ground. In units

in nesting habitat that retains an area’s quality as nesting habitat, we would retain or create 2

leaning trees per acre to serve as escape for young great gray owls.

Harvest would not affect areas of aspen or cottonwood unless it is to remove encroaching

conifers and improve the condition of the aspen and cottonwood stands.

12

ii. Effects to foraging habitat and other habitat elements

The remaining commercial and non-commercial treatments and prescribed fire would occur in

marginal nesting habitat, foraging habitat, or in potential habitat that is currently too dense or

small to provide great gray owl habitat. The treatments would either not affect the quality of the

existing great gray owl habitat, or would improve it by opening the stands, improving conditions

for small mammals and allowing owls to more easily access prey on or close to the ground.

Commercial treatments would open stands and improve foraging opportunities for great gray

owls. Thinning the pre-commercial stands would extend the time that this transient, open habitat

would remain foraging habitat. The fuels reduction units would enhance habitat for small

mammals that depend on open conditions, thus for great gray owls.

The intent of management in nearly all the stands in potential great gray owl habitat is to manage

towards the historic range of variability in stand conditions, which would mean maintaining a

mix of successional stages, especially well-distributed mature and older forest stands that contain

platforms for nests, patches of dense canopy cover and escape perches for young owls.

d. Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects area for great gray owls consists of the NFS lands in Ferry County.

Across this area, nesting stands at lower elevations primarily outside of NFS lands have been

reduced or eliminated when large trees were harvested, though across the cumulative effects area

sufficient parcels of larger trees remain scattered to maintain great gray owl nesting and brood-

rearing habitat. The proposed harvest combined with past harvest in the county would not

reduce nesting habitat to the level where it would negatively affect great gray owls.

Outside of the valley bottoms, most of the non-forested areas in the county are open because of

harsh environmental conditions or natural wildfire rather than human activity, so activities

proposed in the Deer Jasper project, which would create relatively small openings, combined

with past harvest and fire would only slightly increase the amount of foraging habitat, and that

would only be temporarily (5-20 years, until trees begin to shade the forbs and grasses on which

their prey depend).

Exotic plant and animal species have successfully invaded the county and probably have shifted

prey species availability, though the extent and effects of this shift on great gray owls are not

known. An active noxious weed control program in the county has used a combination of

chemical and biological controls in an attempt to manage noxious weeds.

The No Action alternative does not contribute to the long-term maintenance of potential great

gray owl habitat because it allows foraging habitat to grow closed, which decreases or eliminates

its quality. It does retain all existing nesting habitat, which is not in short supply. The No

Action alternative creates a greater risk from wildfire which could result in a loss of any existing

great gray owl habitat in the project area and a reduction in potential habitat for many years. In

the scope of the cumulative effects area, the No Action alternative would not directly affect great

gray owl populations either positively or negatively.

13

The Proposed Action provides opportunities to maintain and improve existing habitat conditions

and restore under-represented habitat such as large trees and late and old stand structures as well

as promote healthier, more resilient forest conditions across the watershed. The Proposed Action

contains measures that are expected to perpetuate the type of habitat conditions reported as

suitable for great gray owl foraging and nesting and foraging (gaps in the forest from harvest and

opening of the forest due to prescribed fire and pre-commercial thinning). In the scope of the

cumulative effects area, the action alternative would slightly improve great gray owl habitat,

though the amount is negligible.

e. Design Elements (DE) and/or mitigations (MI)

Nests, roosts and fledging areas design elements or mitigation

Design element

Great gray owl escape trees: Retain at least two leaning live or dead trees per acre (pole sized

or larger) and as many snags as practicable to allow young great gray owls to escape

ground-based predators. If insufficient leaning trees remain, create a minimum of two

per acre. Leaning trees would have a minimum DBH of 4 inches, and a minimum length

of 20 feet. They should be angled between 30 and 60 degrees from vertical and each

should have its top propped against another tree’s bole or leaning into another tree’s live

crown if needed to provide support over time.

All pre-commercial thin and post and pole units, where trees exceed 4” dbh, to

include but not limited to:

SPT: 29

PCT (unless trees are < 4” dbh): 589, 824, 828, 834, 835, 855, 857, 860

Commercial units requiring leaning trees:

fHSL: 16, 26, 33, 36, 39, 900

HTH: 24, 27, 32, 34, 38, 41

Mitigation

Nests found PRIOR TO the awarding of a timber sale contract:

If a nest is found of great gray owls, protect it through the establishment of suitable

activity buffers and/or in accordance with existing Forest Service Timber Sale

Contract Clause CT6.25, Protection of Habitat of Endangered, Threatened and

Sensitive Species.

f. Conclusions

Before the Stickpin fire in 2015, nearly the entire Deer-Jasper project area contained potential

great gray owl habitat, but there were no known nests and only one recorded sighting. The area

from in the sighting occurred suffered severe fire behavior in 2015, which eliminated the area as

great gray owl habitat for the next few years, until sufficient forbs and grasses grow to support

small mammals and thus provide foraging habitat.

The No Action alternative does not alter any potential habitat over the short term and is expected

to have “no impact” to any existing great gray owls or their habitat in this area.

14

The action alternative proposes harvest in great gray owl habitat but would still provide for the

retention of suitable habitat characteristics over the short term. Because we have not

documented great gray owl activity in this area during the more than 2 years of non-targeted

surveys within the project area, the probability that owls nest within the project area is low.

Because of the above, the action alternatives “may impact individual great gray owls or their

habitat, but are not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability".

2. White-headed woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus)


a. Introduction

White-headed woodpeckers are also a bird of conservation concern (USDI Fish and Wildlife

Service 2008). They are primary excavators that depend on ponderosa pine. Throughout their

distribution, including in the interior Pacific Northwest, they are associated with large-diameter

ponderosa pine forests (Buchanan et al. 2003), though recent studies indicate that they might also

nest successfully in stands of smaller-diameter trees (Kozma 2011).

White-headed woodpeckers are considered weak primary excavators, requiring snags with

moderate to advanced stages of decay in order to excavate a nest cavity (Buchanan et al. 2003).

In summer, unlike many woodpeckers, white-headed woodpeckers usually forage by gleaning on

large, live trees and rarely excavate to reach their prey (Raphael and White 1984, Vierling et al.

2013).

In eastern Washington, historic old-growth ponderosa pine forests were maintained by frequent

fires. Effective fire exclusion and a long period of selective logging of large trees has

dramatically changed the structure and species composition of modern-day ponderosa pine

forests. Current ponderosa pine forests generally support a far higher tree density compared to

historic conditions, with the majority of trees being smaller (Harrod et al. 1999). Old forests

dominated by widely spaced, large ponderosa pine are now a minor or missing component of

forested landscapes (Franklin et al. 2008).

Habitat loss is the primary threat to White-headed woodpeckers. Logging practices that target

large ponderosa pine and snag removal contribute to declines in habitat, especially in the

northern half of the species range (Garrett et al. 1996). Management activities that open the

forest canopy and either re-create conditions similar to historic ponderosa pine forests or move

these forests closer to these conditions, and which retain larger, more decayed snags would

provide habitat for white-headed woodpeckers.

We modeled potential habitat using the warm, dry Douglas-fir/ponderosa pine biophysical

environments (Kozma 2011), and existing habitat by extracting a subset of potential habitat that

contained larger trees (Wightman et al. 2010). We did not consider natural openings of < 10%

canopy cover to provide potential or existing habitat (Wightman et al. 2010).

15


We did not record white-headed woodpeckers from the project area during non-targeted surveys

for the project during the spring, summer and autumn of 2011. They have been documented in

the Sherman watershed about 15 miles south of the project area boundary.

Table 2. Condition of white-headed woodpecker habitat in Deer Jasper.

Past harvest?

No Yes Total

Good habitat: large trees, open canopy 510 470 980

Fair habitat: canopy moderately closed 1,490 860 2,350

Not habitat: canopy too closed 390 210 600

Not habitat: canopy too open or trees too small 70 620 690

Not habitat, burned severe 50 850 900

Total potential habitat 2,510 3,010 5,520

Slightly more than 20% of the project area has the potential to support white-headed woodpecker

habitat (Figure 4). Deer Jasper area contains both nesting and foraging habitat. The Stickpin fire

in 2015 severely burned about 900 acres of white-headed woodpecker habitat in the northwest

part of the project area, thus eliminating it for several decades. About 3,300 acres, or about 60%

of the potential habitat, could support white-headed woodpecker foraging and nesting (Table 2).

Slightly more than a third of this has been previously harvested, which has reduced snags and

thus reduced the quality of the habitat for nesting. Because white-headed woodpeckers generally

forage on live trees, past harvest has not negatively affected the habitat for foraging. About

1,900 acres currently do not support white-headed woodpecker habitat because the trees are too

small, harvest has occurred sufficiently recently that the canopy is too open, or the area was

burned in 2015. About 600 acres could be improved for white-headed woodpecker habitat by

opening the closed overstory.


In the short term, the No Action alternative would not reduce white-headed woodpecker habitat

over current levels, thus would not affect white-headed woodpeckers. In the longer term,

allowing large trees to continue to compete with denser understory for light and moisture would

result in the earlier demise of these large trees that white-headed woodpeckers use than with

management, and would continue the downward trend of white-headed woodpecker habitat in

the project area.

Figure 4. White-headed woodpecker habitat in Deer Jasper.

16

Nearly all existing and potential white-headed woodpecker habitat is proposed for management

via harvest or prescribed fire. The proposed harvests, which would remove smaller trees, would

open stands an improve conditions for white-headed woodpeckers. The caveat to the

improvement of stand conditions is the number of large (> 14”) ponderosa pine snags retained or

created. Without snags, the more open conditions still would not support white-headed

woodpeckers.

About 2,120 acres in 21 units are proposed for non-commercial treatment to remove small,

understory trees. These treatments are proposed in all habitat conditions and would open the

stands, decrease tree competition for sunlight and moisture, and result in improved growth of

residual trees. These treatments, of which about 85% solely involve prescribed underburns,

would result in short-term maintenance of existing white-headed woodpeckers and long-term

improvement in units that currently do not but potentially could support white-headed

woodpecker habitat.

About 1,970 acres in 37 units are proposed for a variety of harvest treatments. Units 829 and

837 consist of trees too small to provide white-headed woodpecker habitat, and harvest would

open the stands and improve growing conditions for residual trees, thus over the long term

improving white-headed woodpecker habitat. Treatments in the other 35 units would reserve

larger trees, thus would not negatively affect white-headed woodpeckers via direct harvest of live

trees.

Proposed harvest on more than 1,450 acres in 33 units of habitat that currently are too closed to

provide good habitat, or are moderately closed and provide only fair habitat, would have

understory and smaller trees removed, opening the stands, and thus improving conditions for

white-headed woodpeckers.

17

The potential for proposed harvest to improve habitat for white-headed woodpeckers turns on the

ability of management activities to create or retain snags, particularly larger ponderosa pine

snags. Methods involving ground-based harvest and yarding usually retain more snags/acre than

aerial yarding. Units 34, 37, 42, 119, 126 and 127 propose cable harvest, thus more care should

be taken during layout and implementation to avoid snags, particularly large ponderosa pine

snags.


The cumulative effects area consists of the warm, dry habitats on either side of the Kettle Crest.

Past harvest in drier habitats that targeted larger trees and felled most or all snags has

dramatically reduced the number of large snags and live ponderosa pine trees available for white-

headed woodpecker nesting and foraging over much of the area, and has dramatically reduced

the available habitat for white-headed woodpeckers. Areas not harvested have grown more

closed due to decades of fire suppression, and Douglas-fir ingrowth into open ponderosa pine

stands has further reduced habitat quality and quantity.

Harvest trends in the past 2 decades have retained most live trees > 21” dbh, but not until

recently has snag retention been emphasized during harvest layout and subsequent activities.

Though snags would continue to be felled due to OSHA requirements for worker safety, Forest

Service layout and fire personnel, sale administrators, and the timber industry have begun to

recognize the need to leave large snags standing and have left more standing than previously.

Additionally, ponderosa pine snags are not favored by woodcutters in this area, so most left after

harvest remain standing.

Like in the project area, in the short term, the No Action alternative would not reduce white-

headed woodpecker habitat over current levels, thus would not affect white-headed

woodpeckers. In the longer term, allowing large trees to continue to compete with a denser

understory for light and moisture would result in the earlier demise of these large trees that

white-headed woodpeckers use than with management, and would continue the downward trend

of white-headed woodpecker habitat.

Given the above, the proposed project would probably not further reduce white-headed

woodpecker nesting habitat because large ponderosa pine snags would be retained, and proposed

harvest would improve foraging habitat.


Snags and down wood design elements

No snags larger than 30 inches DBH would be felled. If they exist near a landing or are to be

affected by harvest activities, the activity would be moved to avoid the snag. Rationale: very

large snags are extremely rare on the landscape and require more than 150 years to develop.

In areas CLOSED to firewood harvest, per the CNF firewood map (Rationale is the same for all:

snags, particularly those larger than 16 inches dbh, are uncommon on the landscape and provide

habitat for a wide variety of species. Past and ongoing harvest has reduced the number of larger

snags and continued loss has the potential to negatively affect viability of cavity-nesting species):

In all prescribed fire and timber harvest units:

18

Retain all standing snags and down woody material greater than 16 inches DBH (or 4 feet

from butt end if down wood) as practicable unless deemed a fire hazard. If a snag

greater than 16” DBH must be felled for safety reasons, high-top it where practicable

to retain a portion of the snag.

In cut-to-length units and other areas where a hot saw is used, if a snag must be felled and

cannot be high-topped, a similar-sized live tree must be high-topped above the 1st live

whorl.

If harvest-caused felling of standing snags results in levels fewer than 3 per acre overall,

snag levels would be increased to this level by creating snags.

In cable units, tops down to 10” could be removed to prevent hang-ups of cabled timber.

In prescribed fire units, prior to ignition, ensure fuel moistures are high enough to retard

consumption of large down woody material.

In situations where down or standing fuels are a concern close to private land or structures, or

sufficient snag numbers remain to allow for some loss, the above scenario can be

modified and would be dealt with on a case-by case basis with the wildlife biologist or a

representative.

In pine marten and pileated woodpecker MR areas (Rationale: post segments of open roads

that pass through these areas with signs indicating areas are closed to firewood cutting

and include all PMPs in no-harvest zones on the next CNF firewood map.

Road # 6100-601 6100-601 6100-455 6100-350 6100-350 6100-350 6100-300

Miles to post 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.5

In areas OPEN for firewood harvest, per the CNF firewood map:

Allow removal of up to 80% of existing snags and down wood less than 16” DBH.

f. Conclusions

The proposed project may impact but is not likely to lead in a trend towards federal listing or loss

of viability for white-headed woodpeckers.

3. Lewis’ woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis)


The information describing Lewis’ woodpecker habitats and conservation needs comes primarily

and often verbatim from reviews by Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish,

Wildlife and Parks (2013) and Vierling et al. (2013).

a. Introduction and Description of Analysis Elements

Lewis’ woodpeckers occur in eastern Washington only during the nesting season, migrating

south in the late summer or early autumn and returning in the spring. These birds prefer open

forests with brushy understories and snags for nesting. Because they are very weak excavators,

Lewis’ woodpeckers depend for nest sites on both standing hardwoods and coniferous trees that

contain either heartrot fungus or are in advanced stages of decay. They often occupy cavities

constructed by other woodpeckers. Unlike many woodpeckers that bore trees for insects, Lewis’

woodpeckers spend considerable time hawking and gleaning insects.

19

Lewis’ woodpeckers are strongly associated with drier, open ponderosa pine communities.

Important aspects of breeding habitat include an open canopy, a brushy understory offering

ground cover, dead or downed woody material, available perches, and abundant insects (Bock

1970, Linder 1994). Three principal habitats are open ponderosa pine forest, open riparian

woodland dominated by cottonwood, and logged or burned ponderosa pine forest (Bock 1970,

Raphael and White 1984, Siddle and Davidson 1991, Linder 1994, Tashiro-Vierling 1994,

Vierling 1997, Saab and Dudley 1996). In eastern Washington during the breeding season, birds

are also found in orchards and on ranchlands (pers. obs.). Open stands near water are preferred

habitat in the Blue Mountains (Thomas et al. 1979). Crown-burned ponderosa pine forest is a

key nesting habitat (Bock 1970, Block and Brennan 1987, Linder 1994, Saab et al. 2007) and

likely functions as source habitat (Saab and Vierling 2001, Saab et al. 2005, Gentry and Vierling

2007), although the suitability of burned areas to provide good habitat seems to vary

considerably (Bock 1970, Raphael and White 1984, Block and Brennan 1987, Linder 1994).

Crown-burned ponderosa pine forests do not occur in the project area. High nest survival and

productivity in aspen riparian woodlands suggests that these forests also provide high-quality

breeding habitat (Newlon and Saab 2011).

Habitat of Lewis’ woodpeckers has declined substantially over their range. Compared to earlier

conditions, very few open stands of larger ponderosa pine remain in eastern Washington (Everett

et al. 1994). Reasons for this in the project area include fire suppression and concomitant

ingrowth of Douglas fir, selective timber harvesting, felling of snags during harvest operations,

and replanting with closely spaced seedlings. At lower elevations in the cumulative effects

areas, loss of snags associated with past harvest and development of new home sites has

negatively affected available nesting habitat, though timber harvest probably has maintained or

enhanced foraging habitat.

Various authors have recommended the conservation of suitable nesting habitat, and specific

measures include not logging old-growth ponderosa pine forest or burned coniferous forest;

managing for open, parklike stands of ponderosa pine and burned forest using selective thinning

or periodic burns; and not densely replanting trees after cutting (Raphael and White 1984, Siddle

and Davidson 1991, Linder 1994). Cottonwood and aspen forests should also be managed to

preserve mature trees and snags (Tashiro-Vierling 1994, Vierling 1997).

Management in ponderosa pine to open stands can improve existing Lewis’ woodpecker habitat

and help develop future habitat if management activities. In both cases, snags for nesting have to

be created or retained for the foraging habitat to be useful. Management to improve aspen stands

would also enhance future habitat. Suitable habitat conditions include an open canopy,

availability of nest cavities and perches, abundant arthropod prey, and a shrubby understory

(Linder 1994, Saab and Dudley 1998).


Little habitat for Lewis’ woodpecker exists in the project area. Both potential and existing

habitat is concentrated in the lower elevations, primarily in the northeast. All stands that support

large ponderosa pine could, with intense thinning, support Lewis’ woodpecker habitat, and

stands of smaller ponderosa pine could, over time, support Lewis’ woodpecker habitat.

Currently, about 900 acres of existing Lewis’ woodpecker habitat exists in the Deer Jasper area

(Figure 5). Little existing or potential habitat exists on non-NFS land within the Boulder-Deer

20

watershed because the eastern, dry portion of the watershed narrows. Other existing and

potential Lewis’ woodpecker habitat exists to the north and south of the project area, on both

NFS and non-NFS land.

About 160 acres of existing habitat has been harvested in the past, and snag levels probably are

not sufficiently high to support the birds.

We have not documented Lewis’ woodpeckers in the project area.

Figure 5. Existing Lewis’ woodpecker habitat in Deer Jasper.


The No Action alternative would not result in improvements to Lewis’ woodpecker habitat

because stands with the potential to provide habitat would remain too dense for Lewis’

woodpecker to occupy.

Nearly all of the existing Lewis’ woodpecker habitat would be treated. Three harvest units, 0, 42

and 46, would affect about 180 acres of existing habitat. Most of Unit 46 consists of closed, late-

structural-stage stands that would be opened and underburned, moving the habitat closer to the

conditions favored by Lewis’ woodpecker. Unit 0 consists of open, late-structural-stage stands

that would be commercially thinned by removing smaller trees, then underburned. Unit 42

consists of a mid-structural-stage stand of trees that would be moderately opened, then

underburned. All but about 30 acres would be yarded with ground-based systems, which usually

results in more snags remaining standing. These units and another about 670 acres would be

underburned, opening the stands and creating about 1 snag/acre, though usually of smaller-sized

trees.

Other stands in ponderosa pine habitat that could support Lewis’ woodpeckers would also be

opened by harvest and post-harvest treated with underburns. The main concern is loss of snags.

C-6026100010

9500

873

61100

00

6100090

61100

20

US-395

61000169500880

C-5939500870

9500860

6100106

6110130

9500864

61

00

01

2

6100027

342

9

5

3435

33

1

8

11

10

32

36

12

28 27 2629

25

Open habitat

Section Lines

Open roads

Closed roads

Forest Boundary

21

If snags can be maintained within the harvest units, the proposed activities would benefit Lewis’

woodpeckers.


The cumulative effects area for Lewis’ woodpeckers consists of lower-elevation lands west of

the Columbia River. Most of the Lewis’ woodpecker habitat lies on non-NFS land outside of the

CNF boundary, at lower elevations. There, continued logging and development have decreased

the amount of large snags, thus degrading large portions of Lewis’ woodpecker habitat.

Concurrently, harvest on non-NFS land has maintained foraging habitat by keeping ponderosa

pine stands in an open condition favored by Lewis’ woodpeckers. The current project could

improve Lewis’ woodpecker habitat by opening stands and retaining snags, but the amount of

this habitat in the watershed, compared to the cumulative effects area, would not dramatically

improve Lewis’ woodpecker habitat. The No Action alternative would not result in

improvements to Lewis’ woodpecker habitat over the cumulative effects area for the same reason

that it would not in the project area: stands with the potential to provide habitat would remain too

dense for Lewis’ woodpecker to occupy.


Design elements for Lewis’ woodpecker are the same as for white-headed woodpecker

f. Conclusions

The proposed project may impact but is not likely to lead in a trend towards federal listing or loss

of viability for Lewis’ woodpeckers.

B. Mammals

1. Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos)

Status: Threatened - Federal


The CNF Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) standard and guidelines, appendix

H of the Forest Plan FEIS, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines (Interagency Grizzly Bear

Committee 1986), and the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (US Fish and Wildlife Service 1982b,

updated 1993) contain management direction for the CNF. The Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (US

Fish and Wildlife Service 1993a) identifies "grizzly bear ecosystems" which contain specific

recovery areas. The recovery plan classifies areas by "Management Situations" based on the

needs of the bears and the capabilities of the areas to supply those needs. The project area lies

within a Management Situation #5 which is not managed primarily as grizzly bear habitat.

Components of grizzly bear habitat for which we analyze are those parameters that could

threaten bears via human conflict or reduction in secure habitat:

Travel corridors and hiding cover: allow bears to move across landscapes,

Open, motorized routes: provides a measure of isolated or secluded habitat,

Forage: big game, eaten mainly as carrion, and berry fields.

Travel corridors consist of vegetation and physical features that bears use to move across a

landscape. These areas provide for either ease of travel or secure habitat or both. Examples of

22

physical travel corridors are ridges, saddles and, most importantly, riparian areas. Vegetation on

travel corridors ranges from open subalpine meadows to dense forests. Timber harvest and fuel

treatments can negatively affect cover causing bears to modify their use of that area.

Hiding cover consists of areas that an animal uses for security or to escape from danger. We

frequently define it as habitat capable of hiding most of an animal at some distance from an

observer (e.g. habitat that can hide 80% of a bear at 200 feet). Therefore, areas that probably do

not provide hiding cover are past regeneration harvest units less than about 10 years old, and

natural and other created openings.

Grizzly bear habitat consists of large tracts of relatively undisturbed land that provides security

from human depredation and competing use (roading, logging, recreation, etc., US Fish and

Wildlife Service 1993a). Grizzly bears usually adjust their movements to avoid areas of human

activity, which reduces the amount of habitat available to them. Additionally, human activities

in an area increase the probability of human-bear confrontations, often to the detriment of the

bear. Timber harvest and associated activities can negatively affect grizzly bear habitat by

increasing human access into an area.

We examine the effects of human disturbance indirectly by calculating the amount of core area

or secure habitat, which the IGCB defines as areas more than 0.3 miles from an open road or

motorized trail (IGBC 1994). For many species, we analyze road densities during different times

of the year. Because no roads in the project area are seasonally closed during the time that bears

are out of their dens (generally March through November), the amount of seclusion habitat

remains the same throughout this non-denning period. Spring habitat tends to be at lower

elevations, and increased potential exists for conflict between bears and humans due to greater

access into those areas by humans. We use the CNF’s road layer as the base with which to

determine the amount of core area within the project area boundary.

Diets of grizzly bears shift seasonally as different food sources become available. When they

emerge from their dens, bears tend to search for food in lower elevations, drainage bottoms,

avalanche chutes, and for carrion on ungulate winter ranges (US Fish and Wildlife Service

1993a). Timber harvest in riparian zones in spring has the potential to disrupt foraging bears. In

late spring and early summer they move towards higher elevations as berry patches and other

food becomes available. Some studies have documented that grizzly bears avoid logged areas

while other studies indicate no changes in grizzly populations as logging pressure increased.

Despite conflicting results as to whether grizzly bear numbers are affected by logging, it appears

that their behavior is modified. Timber harvest can positively affect the quality of grizzly bear

food and negatively affect the area’s value as cover (discussed above under Travel Corridors and

Hiding Cover). On the CNF, collared grizzly bears wandering in from Idaho and Canada have

shown a pattern of occupying berry fields created by past timber harvest. Big game, usually in

the form of carrion or young, also provide food for grizzly bears, and we include the conditions

on big game summer and winter range in our analysis for grizzly bear forage.


Transient grizzly bears have not been recorded from the area. The Natural Heritage Program

Database lists no verified grizzly sightings in or near the watershed. The closest documented

23

recent sightings are in in the Wedge , about 10 miles northeast of the project area boundary and

across the Kettle River.

i. Core Area/Secluded Habitat and cover within it

Road building from past harvest activities has reduced the amount of secluded area in the project

area. About 45% of the area (17.3 square miles) consists of habitat farther than 0.3 miles from

an open road (Figure 6). Of this, about 14.6 square miles lie in 3 blocks that are contiguous with

other large blocks of seclusion habitat outside the project area. These areas are of sufficiently

large size to be biologically significant for grizzly bear. The Bulldog-Cabin road and Boulder

Deer highway create the greatest impacts when examining core area.

Cover in the core area was very high until the Stickpin fire burned through much of the western

segments of core area. Now, rather than about 1% of the core area not providing cover as a

result of recent harvest or fire, about 35% would not until shrubs or trees grow tall enough to

provide security cover, about 5 years in areas that support shrubs and about 10 for areas that

support only trees. Forage conditions will be very good in the portion of the core area that

burned, and not as good in areas that have not been disturbed within the past few decades.

Figure 6. Core area/secluded habitat and cover within it in Deer Jasper.

24

ii. Travel Corridors and Hiding Cover

The area contains sufficient cover and past activities would not restrict grizzly bear movement

across the landscape (Figure 7). Cover is good on all the east-west trending ridges outside of the

area burned by the Stickpin fire, and within 5 years will again start to be on the north-south

trending area contiguous with the Kettle Crest. Travel corridors along streams and ridges

generally run east-west off the Kettle Crest, and cover along these remains good outside the

recently burned areas.

The project area grades from warmer, drier Douglas-fir/ponderosa pine habitats at lower

elevations on the east and west sides of the project area and or south-facing slopes. These dry

forests grade quickly into colder forests of subalpine fir at mid and higher elevations and on

more northerly facing slopes. Not surprisingly, hiding cover grows mainly where moisture is

higher and insolation lower. Many of the south-facing, dry slopes, especially in the east side of

the project area, contain poor, shallow soils are too open to provide cover. This environment

covers about 5% of the project area. Grizzly bears feed in and cross open areas so the natural

openings would not prevent bears from crossing these areas. Another 1% of the area consists of

permanent, created openings. Of the land that could support hiding cover, about 55% of it

currently does, and the openings caused by harvest and the Stickpin fire will again provide

hiding cover within a decade.

Figure 7. Travel corridors and cover in Deer Jasper.

25

iii. Forage

Past management in the project area did not target the creation of shrub fields to produce berry

crops. Disturbance in the past 15 years, primarily by timber harvest and often followed by

prescribe fire, opened stands at mid elevations in the project area and improved some berry

production. The major disturbance came from the Stickpin fire in 2015. Nearly 55% of the

project area burned with various intensities, and the response of berry-producing shrubs will vary

depending on site and fire intensity. However, regardless of fire intensity, forage quality and

quantity will increase over existing conditions.

Existing condition for big game winter and summer range are detailed in the section on the gray

wolf. Forest roads segment the project area but few if any deer are killed by vehicles on these

roads. The area supports white-tailed and mule deer, moose and elk. A WDFW study conducted

on the condition of doe mule deer in early spring on Vulcan Mountain, about 10 miles to the

northwest, indicates that the mule deer are in relatively poor condition (unpublished data,

WDFW). The project area does not contain any avalanche chutes that would provide early

forage habitat for grizzly bears.


i. Summary

The No Action alternative would not affect grizzly bears either positively or negatively. Because

of the varied densities of overstory trees, a catastrophic fire in the lower elevations would create

a mosaic of environments, though the area would become far more open than it is currently. The

very dry habitat that covers the eastern 2/3 or the north side and the lower elevations in the

project area still would not produce good grizzly bear habitat.

The proposed action would not create habitat conditions that would hamper bear movement or

preclude bears from using the area.

The No Action alternative does not propose any road construction thus would not affect travel

corridors or hiding cover. No new system roads are proposed, though one temporary road is

proposed in areas already influenced by roads. The proposed temporary road segment does not

eliminate much cover, is not located on ridges or along riparian areas, and sufficient cover

remains in the area to not restrict movement of bears within the watershed. The temporary road

would not negatively affect potential corridors or grizzly bear movement. Several roads

currently closed are proposed to be opened during the project, then effectively closed after

project activities are completed, generally in about 6 years. All roads that are currently closed

that are re-opened for project activities would be blocked from vehicle traffic that accomplishes

the goal of preventing established use until the road is to be used by the sale, and would only

allow project-related traffic on them. This would keep traffic to a minimum and maintain most

of the integrity of the core areas.

Projects in the severely burned areas to mitigate potential loss of soil and infrastructure would

not affect bears because they would not use the very open areas created by the fire.

26

Harvest in the Proposed Action would not reduce vegetation in riparian corridors to where the

areas would be too open for bears. Sufficient vegetation would remain in unharvested areas in

the uplands as well as harvested areas to allow grizzly bears to move across the project area.

About 10% of pre-commercial thinning units would be retained in un-thinned patches to

maintain sufficient cover to allow movement through those units. Pre-commercial thinning that

occurs along open roads would retain vegetation that disrupts the view into the unit.

Prescribed fire units would open the stands to more historic conditions, conditions in which bears

evolved, so would not negatively affect the ability of bears to move through the area.

All harvest would stimulate forage production, particularly in the more mesic mid and upper

elevations. Underburning, either by itself or following harvest, in the more mesic mid and upper

elevations might improve berry fields and would improve spring emergence habitat. Pre-

commercial thinning would reduce tree competition with berry-producing shrubs.

Proposed harvest in existing poor cover would improve long-term winter cover for deer as well

as open the area to improve summer forage habitat conditions. Prescribed fire would open the

understory, regenerate forage species, and maintain the large tree component that provides

important overstory cover.

The No Action alternative and the Proposed Action would not contribute to negative effects in

the cumulative effects analysis area.

ii. Effects to Travel Corridors and Hiding Cover

Most management prescriptions would retain overstory cover at levels between 20 and 80

percent. Lateral cover would be reduced over large areas because of the objective of reducing

ladder fuels, particularly on drier sites. No roads would be built along travel corridors.

Prescriptions for units that affect major riparian corridors would retain sufficient hiding cover.

Prescriptions along ridges primarily consist of prescribed fires, which would remove some of the

hiding cover but not eliminate it.

The No Action alternative does not propose any road construction or road closures, thus would

not affect travel corridors or hiding cover.

In the Proposed Action, hiding cover will be temporarily lost due to harvest, though no openings

larger than about 10 acres would be created (Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference.).

All harvest would consist of partial removal, using a skips and gaps scenario where openings

(gaps) of various sizes and tree densities are created and other areas are left untreated (skips).

Some skip/gap configurations would retain too little overstory cover to retain their usefulness as

corridors or hiding cover, but over the entire area, sufficient hiding cover would remain to allow

animals to continue to move through the project area. Most units would be yarded with ground-

based equipment, which often crushes understory vegetation, and the small understories of most

other stands would be cut to eliminate ladder fuels. The crushed vegetation probably would

regrow to provide lateral cover in less than 5 years. Sufficient vegetation would remain in

27

unharvested areas in the uplands, riparian areas and some harvested areas to allow grizzly bears

to move across the project area.

Figure 8. Effects of prescribed fire and harvest on cover in corridors.

Pre-commercial thinning units would retain patches of hiding cover, about 10% of the area in the

commercial thin units would be left in unthinned patches, and remaining overstory and

understory trees should retain sufficient cover to allow movement through those units. Pre-

commercial thinning that occurs along open roads would retain live vegetation to disrupt view

into the unit from the road.

The purpose of the prescribed fire units is not to create large openings but to reduce the amount

of understory vegetation and wood. They would open the stands to more historic conditions,

conditions in which bears evolved, so though they would reduce the amount of hiding cover,

they would not negatively affect the ability of bears to move through the area.

iii. Effects to Forage

The No Action alternative would not improve forage habitat. Without the proposed project,

forage conditions for grizzly bears would improve because of shrubs regenerated or initiated by

the Stickpin fire, though much of the unburned area consists of very dry habitats that don’t

support good berry-producing shrubs.

No units were designed to improve forage for bears, though all harvest would stimulate forage

production, particularly in the more mesic mid and upper elevations. Underburning, either by

itself or following harvest, in the more mesic mid and upper elevations might improve berry

28

fields and would improve spring emergence habitat. Pre-commercial thinning would reduce tree

competition with berry-producing shrubs. Harvest and prescribed fire units in warm, dry

biophysical environments, which don’t support good berry production, won’t dramatically

increase berry availability. Post-harvest underburning might improve berry fields and would

improve spring emergence habitat.

Pre-commercial thinning, especially in the few units that lie in more moist habitats, has the

potential to increase forage by reducing tree competition with berry-producing shrubs.

Grizzly bears prey on fawns and calves of all big game species, occasionally capturing and

killing adults, and scavenge and often feed on ungulate carcasses. The discussion under “gray

wolf” outlines the effects of each alternative to big game. Briefly, in the Proposed Action,

harvest in existing poor cover would improve long-term winter cover for mule deer as well as

open the area to improve summer forage habitat conditions. Prescribed fire in all biophysical

environments would open the understory, regenerate ungulate forage species (rather than only

berry-producing shrubs), and maintain large tree component that provides important overstory

cover for big game.

Grizzly bears spend considerable time grazing, particularly after emerging from their dens in

spring. Loss of quality forage due to noxious weed invasions can be decreased by pre-harvest

techniques such as controlling noxious weeds on existing haul roads in the watershed, starting a

few years before harvest activities, and re-seeding roads with species that will aggressively

compete with noxious weeds when the roads are built (D. Fagerlie, pers. comm.; US Forest

Service 2005). Noxious weeds would be treated on all haul routes before haul.

iv. Effects to Core Area/Secluded Habitat

Both harvest units and roads would affect secluded habitat. No new specification roads would be

built, and one short segment of new temporary road would be built, but this segment does not

enter any core area patches. Haul would not occur during the spring season when bears emerge

from their dens and spend considerable time grazing. The use of existing, open roads and those

re-opened and reconstructed would not negatively affect grizzly bears because public use would

be prohibited on the roads by either harvest-related activities or a barrier. Though harvest

activities would eventually be conducted along all the re-opened roads, harvest would be

concentrated in one area, then move to the next. Projects associated with the Stickpin fire

rehabilitation would occur outside of core areas. Therefore, sufficient seclusion habitat would

remain so that bears could still use the area.

The No Action alternative does not propose any harvest, road construction or reconstruction.

The proposed action proposes no new construction. It does propose the reconstruction of 71.5

miles of existing closed roads.

The reopened roads would affect seclusion habitat, but the impact would be limited. No public

motorized access would be allowed on roads reopened for this project or any other former

template improved for this project. Roads reopened would be closed by CFR and if harvest

activities do not commence shortly after their reopening, they would be closed with the most

practicable barrier and reopened when harvest activities start. At the end of harvest, the roads

29

would be assessed for the necessity of post-harvest treatment and if treatments are required the

road would be closed at that point, then reopened for post-harvest-related activity. Additionally,

all activities in a block of seclusion habitat, including road use, would be required to be

completed before operations moved to the next block.

About 9.2 miles in 17 segments are proposed for decommissioning. Decommissioning these

roads would not dramatically increase the amount of core area habitat because most are already

closed, but closing them would increase the quality of core area habitat because

decommissioning is more effective at preventing human travel than just closing a road.

Portions of 23 units covering about 2,140 acres are proposed for commercial harvest within core

area habitat. A large group of units near the center of the project area could temporarily restrict

that area’s use by grizzly bears. Harvest would disrupt bears from using the units in core area,

but because harvest would be concentrated in one area of seclusion habitat and not affect all

blocks simultaneously, not all the negative effects would occur concurrently. Sufficient core

area remains that temporary disruption would not negatively affect grizzly bears.

After harvest and post-harvest activities, we would close all new roads and roads currently

closed that were opened and reconstructed for the project. We recognize that road closures are

not 100% effective. Roads would be closed when post-harvest activities have been completed,

within 6 years after project activities start.

Non-motorized recreational use (hiking and mountain bike riding) currently occurs at low levels

in this area, and hunters pursue primarily big game and turkeys.

The measures listed in section e. Design Elements (DE) and/or mitigations (MI) would decrease

the effects of temporary roads and road reconstruction and harvest on habitat.


The area considered for cumulative effects analysis consists of the mid and upper elevations of

the Kettle Crest. More than 95% of this area is NFS land. A few small parcels managed by the

Bureau of Land Management and Washington Department of Natural Resources lie interspersed

on the edges of this area. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) manages about

10 square miles in the Sherman Creek drainage, about 15 miles east of the project area.

Little private land or land managed by other agencies lies in the cumulative effects area and that

which does primarily lies east of the Kettle Crest.

Grizzly bears have not been documented in the cumulative effects area within the last 50 years,

though they do occur within 15 miles of the northeastern edge of the cumulative effects area.

The main threat to bears comes not from timber harvest or activities associated with it but from

humans, primarily from poaching, misidentification during bear hunting, and highway traffic.

Timber harvest can be compatible with grizzly bear management because it increases forage,

primarily berries, and provides early-successional habitat for prey. Road construction can be

compatible if roads are effectively closed to vehicles.

30

By law, current and future projects on National Forest, Bureau of Land Management, WDFW

and Department of Natural Resources lands in the area will be planned to be compatible with

management for grizzly bears in Management Situation 5 in the Recovery Plan (US Fish and

Wildlife Service 1993a). Activities on non-governmental land do not have to follow this

direction.

Several projects have occurred in the recent past, especially in the wildland/urban interface west

of the Kettle Crest to the west and southwest of the Deer Jasper project area (Malo Eastlake and

Walker projects) and on the east side of the Kettle Crest south of the project area (the completed

Bangs project and the current Kettle Face project). Projects in the early stages of planning

include a project in the Sherman creek area to the south, and immediately to the north in the Deer

Creek watershed. Projects have also been planned and implemented on industrial and non-

industrial timberlands at lower elevations, on the nearly 10 square miles of WDFW-managed

land in the Sherman Creek drainage to the east of the project area, and on the small amount of

Washington Department of Natural Resources land. Projects on federal and state land have been

planned in accordance with guidelines of Management Situation 5. Additionally, 3 large fires

covering about 73,700 acres burned either on or adjacent to the Kettle Crest in 2015: Stickpin,

Graves and Renner.

i. Hiding Cover

Past, current and proposed projects in the cumulative effects analysis area have not eliminated

cover to the level that would preclude bears from using the area, though the Stickpin fire might

preclude bears from moving through portions of it until shrubs and trees grow tall enough to

provide hiding cover, starting in about 5 years. The entire cumulative effects area supports

considerably more cover than when bears inhabited it in the 1940s and 1950s, even after the fires

of 2015. Hiding cover throughout the Kettle Crest will probably not decrease dramatically

because recent trends in the Forest Service are that our projects propose few large regeneration

units but instead have moved to create pockets of smaller openings. Additionally, many

regeneration harvest units cut in the 1980s and early 1990s have grown into hiding cover and,

depending on the level of pre-commercial thinning in these units, can provide good hiding cover

adjacent to foraging patches. Nearly all land in the cumulative effects area is managed by the

Forest Service. Harvest on WDFW-managed land is managed for wildlife and commercial

harvests in these areas, if any, are generally forms of thinning. Harvest on the few parcels of

private or industrial timberland varies from heavy regeneration to light thinning and could

preclude the use of these parcels by grizzly bears. The on non-NFS lands projects to date have

not decreased hiding cover to the level that bears would not use the cumulative effects area. The

No Action alternative would retain all existing hiding cover and in the long term result in more

hiding cover resulting from the lack of disturbance.

ii. Travel Corridors

Neither the No Action alternative nor the Proposed Action would negatively affect travel

corridors, thus none would contribute to decreasing travel corridors in the cumulative effects

area. More than 95% of the potential grizzly bear habitat in the cumulative effects area is

managed by the Forest Service. The Forest Plan, as amended by the Eastside Screens in 1993,

lists guidelines to maintain travel corridors on lands it manages and all projects on NFS land

since then have retained cover on the landscape that would allow grizzly bears to move through

an area. On non-NFS land corridors remain, though have been considerably reduced in width

31

along Deadman and Little Boulder Creeks, south of the project area boundary. Analysis by

Singleton et al. (2002) showed landscape permeability was good to moderate over most of the

forested part of the Kettle Crest. The Stickpin fire on the Kettle Crest severely reduced cover on

the north-south corridors along either side of the ridgetop, but sufficient cover remains on the

corridors along most streams in the valley bottoms and at mid elevations.

iii. Forage

Management of wildland/urban interface areas, usually at lower elevations and rarely in riparian

areas, would have a minor positive effect to forage conditions, and because many of these sites

are in warm, dry environments, they don’t provide extremely good berry habitat for grizzly bears

would not negatively affect forage in the cumulative effects analysis area. No units in any

wildland/urban interface project were designed to improve forage for bears, though all harvests

would increase available forage by improving forage and cover conditions for big game. Four

natural wildfires larger than 1,000 acres have burned at higher elevations across the cumulative

effects area since the late 1980s and have created good forage conditions, especially for berry-

producing shrubs. The large fires of 2015 will provide very good foraging conditions within a

few years. Continued encroachment of noxious weeds will reduce palatable vegetation. An

active noxious weed control program in the county has used a combination of chemical and

biological controls in an attempt to manage noxious weeds, with variable success. The No

Action alternative would not improve forage and in the long term result in less forage resulting

from the lack of disturbance.

iv. Road Density and Core Area/Secluded Habitat

Considering that bears have not been recorded from the area for more than half a century, the

scattered level of harvest and post-harvest activity in this project, the reduced level of road

building compared with the past, and that newly built roads or roads reopened and reconstructed

for the project would be closed after harvest activities, the proposed project would not result in a

loss of core area habitat that would negatively affect grizzly bear movement in the cumulative

effects analysis area.

Reductions in core area habitat decrease habitat suitability for grizzly bears, mainly because the

greatest threat to bears is that of being shot by a poacher. Large amounts of core area exist in the

cumulative effects area, especially at higher elevations. These blocks are not contiguous with

forested habitat in Canada for 3 reasons: human habitation, the east-west-running highway just

north of the US border, and the large amount of naturally open, south-facing dry slopes just north

of the Kettle River. These blocks are also not directly connected to the block of core area in the

Wedge because of the highway and human habitation in the lower elevations along the Kettle

River. Current and future projects that construct or reopen roads would reduce core area habitat

for the length of the project.

The Forest Plan requires that new roads be closed at the end of harvest activities, so the most

severe negative impacts would be limited to the time during which the roads remain open to

vehicle traffic, usually a 3-to-6 year period. While restricting some vehicles, closed roads

without CFR orders still allow access by humans riding OHVs, so nearly all closed roads reduce

the amount of core area habitat until the road becomes too grown-over for vehicles to pass.

Recent changes in OHV management on the CNF that restricts OHV use to specific roads and

trails will improve conditions, assuming that people obey the new regulations.

32


i. Roads and seclusion design elements

In Big game winter range

Retain unharvested patches to maintain overstory and escape cover for big game, where

practicable, if not designed into the unit. Retain minimum of 10% of each

commercial harvest unit unless review by wildlife biologist determines would not

affect big game (see list below). The areas within the units would be identified by

district wildlife personnel or a designee.

Commercial units: 30, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 45, 46, 109, 127, 128, 130,

137, 829, 830, 833, 836, 837

Pre-commercial thin units: 589, 860, 858, 834, 835

In units that would be harvested in winter, start and stop harvest-related activities about

the same time each day, and restrict traffic to only those activities involved with the

logging operation.

In pre-commercial thin units

In units along open roads not identified as emergency escape routes, retain vegetation that

disrupts viewing into the entire unit.

In units > 5 acres in size, retain at least 10% of each unit in un-harvested patches to

maintain escape cover for big game and dense, early-successional habitat for a variety

of species. The areas within the units would be identified by district wildlife

personnel or a designee.

In blocks of seclusion habitat: To reduce the overall impact to seclusion habitat, harvest-

related activities should not concurrently affect all block of seclusion habitat to complete

activities before moving on to the next block of seclusion habitat.

On roads opened and/or reconstructed (including temp roads or system roads) for the project:

Prevent vehicle use from becoming established by restricting access on these roads to

administrative use and logging operations. In all situations install a barrier which

could be a gate, berm or any blockage that accomplishes the goal of preventing

established use on these roads. There are three time frames of concern:

1. From the onset of reconstruction to the start of logging operations;

2. After logging operations have ceased until when the other activities

completed; or

3. If logging operations are suspended.

Implement CFR road closures where needed to assist in assuring compliance with the

objective of preventing established use on these roads.

Table 1 lists roads that have a high probability of requiring a gate closure to allow for

post-harvest restoration projects including prescribed fire implementation,

reforestation, and noxious weed control. This list is intended to be refined prior to

implementation to add or remove roads from the list requiring a gate closure to

prevent established use and maintain administrative access to complete restoration

activities.

33

Table 3. Roads Requiring Gate Closures for Post-Harvest Projects

Route Number to Gate Closure Junction/Point

6100-016 6100-010 & 016

6100-050 East Closure Point

6100-090 Maintain Current Gate

6100-380 6100350 & 380

6113-040 6113000 & 040

6113-070 6113000 & 070

6113-085 6113000 & 085

6113-130 6113000 & 130

6120-050 6120000 & 050

6120-005 6120000 & 005

GB DE Monitoring 1 For at least 5 years post-closure, periodically monitor all roads closed in conjunction with this

project, for closure effectiveness. Promptly report and repair road closure violations.

f. Conclusions

The No Action alternative will not affect grizzly bears either positively or negatively. The

proposed action would not create habitat conditions that would hamper bear movement.

Some hiding cover would be temporarily reduced because land-based mechanized

equipment often nearly completely crushes understory vegetation in the area in which it

operates.

Pre-commercial thinning units would retain patches of hiding cover to allow movement

through those units.

Pre-commercial thinning that occurs along open roads would retain vegetation that

disrupts viewing into the entire unit and so provides screening for grizzly bears.

Prescribed fire would open the stands to more historic conditions, conditions in which

bears evolved, so would not negatively affect the ability of bears to move through the

area.

The No Action alternative will have no effect to grizzly bears.

The Proposed Action slightly increases the amount of forage available to bears via harvest, pre-

commercial thinning and prescribed fire. It proposes to harvest in existing poor cover and would

improve long-term winter and summer cover for deer, and concomitantly bears.

Several units would affect seclusion habitat by opening existing, closed roads. All roads

reopened for this project would be managed to prevent public access by motorized

vehicles, either by physically closing or timing activities. At the end of post-harvest

activities, usually 3 to 6 years, these roads would be closed by the most practicable

closure.

The Proposed Action would not contribute to negative effects in the cumulative effects

analysis area.

34

The Proposed Action has a low likelihood of adverse effects because bears have not been

documented from the project area or the cumulative effects area for more than 50 years. Because

of planned design elements, the action alternative would have low consequences. The Proposed

Action “may affect but is not likely to adversely affect” grizzly bears or grizzly bear habitat.

2. Gray wolf (Canis lupus)

Status: Sensitive (USFS Region 6 List)


The Forest Plan calls for wolf monitoring by recording location and determining validity of

reported sightings.

Components of wolf habitat listed in the Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan (US

Fish and Wildlife Service 1987) include providing:

1) a sufficient, year-long prey base of ungulates and alternative prey,

2) suitable and somewhat secluded denning and rendezvous sites,

3) sufficient space with minimal interaction with humans (core area habitat).

Ed Bangs, US FWS Gray Wolf Recovery Coordinator (retired), stated that recent research

indicates that 2 issues drive wolf recovery: 1. providing a wild ungulate prey base, and 2.

keeping wolves from getting killed by humans (E. Bangs, pers. comm.), which he translated into

keeping them from contact with domestic animals, particularly sheep. This has been borne out in

recent years on the CNF, with wolves staying away from humans continuing to reproduce, while

wolves harassing livestock eventually have been removed from the breeding pool.

Within the northern Rocky Mountains, wolves depend on big game as a year-round food source.

On a biomass basis, ungulates comprise more than 90% of wolves' diets.

The Forest Plan indicates that big game winter ranges should provide thermal cover and snow

intercept thermal cover. Since the Plan was written, research indicates that big game do not

obtain energetic efficiencies by using thermal cover (Cook et al. 1998). Though big game does

use these areas that were termed “thermal cover,” these areas do not reduce the need of big game

to expend energy to maintain body temperatures. Thus, we term the areas “cover” rather than

“thermal cover”. Cover consists of those stands in which canopy closure exceeds 60%. Snow-

intercept cover (SI cover) provides the best cover; it consists of several tree canopy layers that

catch and trap snow before it falls to the ground. An added twist occurs between the use of

habitats by mule and white-tailed deer. Mule deer occupy more open country and seem to

require an overstory of larger, more openly grown trees than white-tailed deer, which occupy the

type of habitat described in the Forest Plan’s winter range guidelines.

Wolf denning sites in the northern Rocky Mountains are characteristically located on southerly

aspects of moderately steep slopes in well-drained soils. The sites are usually within 0.25 miles

of surface water and at an elevation overlooking surrounding low-lying areas. In some areas,

wolf packs are sensitive to human disturbance near den sites and may abandon the den as a result

of disturbance. However, recent information suggests that wolves are becoming more adapted to

human activities. Wolves in southeastern British Columbia denned in railroad grades and near

35

restricted roads (M. Jimenez, pers. comm.), and Ed Bangs, US FWS Gray Wolf Recovery

Coordinator (retired), stated that recent research indicates that road density is not as important an

issue in maintaining wolf populations as previously thought: disturbance doesn’t seem to be the

issue, but them being shot along roads remains problematic.

Rendezvous sites usually consist of complexes of meadows and adjacent hillside timber, with

surface water nearby (stream corridors, bogs, abandoned and overgrown old beaver ponds). The

size of these areas may vary, but most are about 1 acre. The location of the rendezvous site

might move during the summer as the pups grow. Both den and rendezvous sites may be used

for several years. Wolves may be less affected by human disturbance at later rendezvous sites,

when pups are older, than they are at the first one or when pups are young.

The degree of seclusion (lack of exposure to humans) within an area depends on the road and

trail network within that area. From a management perspective, we provide core area habitat to

wildlife by restricting motorized vehicle traffic within an area, and we control motorized use by

managing open road densities. Exposure to humans increases when new roads enter unroaded

areas. Even when these roads are closed, until they grow closed with vegetation, they continue

to provide entryways to people on foot, OHVs, or horse, or increase the chance of illegal entry.

We determined core areas by buffering open roads and motorized trails by 0.3 miles, which

approximates the amount of seclusion habitat in the watershed. See the section on grizzly bears

for a description of the process and the results.


We recorded wolf tracks from the project area in spring, 2013. No denning as yet been

documented in but denning has been documented near the project area during the summer of

2015.

i. Ungulate Prey Base

We examined current conditions within the NFS lands in the project area and cumulatively on all

lands within several watersheds. Both contain fawning areas and summer and winter range for

big game, thus provide prey for wolves the entire year. The entire project area supports summer

range for big game. In general, forage has decreased across the project area and probably results

in a deer population lower than when the area was more open and under the influence of natural

disturbance processes (primarily fire). Moose and elk are more common than they were

historically. At the mid and lower elevations, the current forage conditions of summer and

autumn habitat in the study area could improve primarily by opening some of the more closed

canopy areas and stimulating forbs and browse through mechanical treatment or fire and

secondarily by managing noxious weeds. At the higher elevations, the Stickpin fire set the stage

for a flush of forage within the next few years. The low livestock density in this area probably

does not negatively affect forage for big game because livestock primarily graze grasses rather

than select herbs or woody browse. Broad-scale noxious weed management is beyond the scope

of this project.

Information about historical habitat conditions date from aerial photos taken in the mid 1940s,

which shows the area considerably more open than currently. Interim photos from 1973 show

some of the areas open in 1944 growing closed, with a marked change in the photos from 2006.

36

This change in habitat conditions from open to closed tends to favor white-tailed deer over mule

deer (Avey et al. 2003, Brunjes et al. 2006, Geist 1981).

a. Summer range

About 20% of the summer range contains fair to good herb and shrub forage in either naturally

or created (harvested) open areas (The area serves as a cattle grazing allotment, but current

livestock densities are too low to negatively affect forage availability for deer. Additionally,

cattle primarily graze grasses while deer browse forbs and shrubs, so competition remains low.

Competition between cattle and deer can occur during early spring greenup when pregnant does

in particular have exhausted their body fat and near starvation. However, cattle are not released

onto the CNF until May so this direct competition does not exist.

), and another nearly 10,000 acres should begin to produce good forage in the next few years. In

the past 15 years, a small portion of a fire licked the south part of the project area. The Stickpin

fire burned about 13,900 acres within the project area, much severely, which stimulated forage

on about 9,900 acres. These areas should start producing good forage within a few years. Only

about 720 acres (3% of the project area) have been harvested, primarily along the western edge,

so in the mid and low elevations, the project area lacks well-distributed patches of good forage

(palatable and available) caused by disturbance. About half of the openings consist of naturally

open stands in dry environments, on shallow soils, or both, that cannot support dense trees and

supply permanent forage of generally fair quality and quantity. The quality of this forage varies

by season (good quality from spring until mid-summer, when the leaves begin to cure and

nutrient values decrease).

Figure 9. Distribution of forage on big game summer range in Deer Jasper.

37

An increase in noxious weed species and their distribution has also decreased forage palatability

and availability, but the extent has not been measured. Noxious weeds constitute the greatest

threat to herbaceous and grassy forage. New noxious weed species continue to invade from

private land surrounding the project area and from the Boulder-Deer highway corridor. Vehicles

and wind are the major vectors that transfer weed seeds of many of these species, and the

greatest density of noxious weeds in both summer and winter range can be found in the disturbed

corridor along roads. Some recent arrivals grow in shadier conditions and wind carries their

seeds, so they have tremendous capability of reducing forage quality by outcompeting native

forage.

The area serves as a cattle grazing allotment, but current livestock densities are too low to

negatively affect forage availability for deer. Additionally, cattle primarily graze grasses while

deer browse forbs and shrubs, so competition remains low. Competition between cattle and deer

can occur during early spring greenup when pregnant does in particular have exhausted their

body fat and near starvation. However, cattle are not released onto the CNF until May so this

direct competition does not exist.

b. Winter range

i. Cover and forage

About 6% of the Deer Jasper project area (4,300 acres) was designated as big game winter range

(MA6 and MA8) during development of the Forest Plan. Robinson’s model (2007) identified

several areas outside the MA 6 and MA 8 that had the potential to provide winter range habitat

for mule deer and/or white-tailed deer. We photo-interpreted what we considered to be the most

likely winter range areas, primarily those somewhat-open areas with southerly exposures at low

and mid elevations in the north, middle and south ends of the project area (Figure 10). The MA6

and MA8 areas and the modeled white-tailed deer winter range areas fell within the area

identified as potential good and fair mule deer winter range so the discussion and analysis will

combine these areas, which constitute about 17% of the project area.

The relative amounts and distribution of forage and cover areas are key factors in determining

the usefulness of winter range to big game. Under the Forest Plan, management activities within

these areas should work toward creating forage:cover ratios approaching 50:50 (USDA Forest

Service 1988, pp. 4-98, 106), dispersed to provide for maximum utilization of forage. However,

these conditions favor white-tailed deer, which use habitat considerably differently than mule

deer, which select for more open habitats, and we would manage for more open habitat than a

50:50 cover:forage ratio.

The Stickpin fire in 2015 eliminated all cover in the western portion of winter range, but the fire

stimulated very good conditions for forage to regrow, and by the autumn of 2015 willow, grasses

and other forage were sprouting from root crowns. No overstory or lateral cover remains in or

near that portion of winter range.

The cover:forage ratio on the winter range in the eastern part of the project area is about 55:45

(Figure 12) and appears near optimum, though the high forage ratio doesn’t indicate the lack of

good forage. About 80% of the forage areas consists of open environments that provide

permanent forage because low moisture or poor soils will not support dense coniferous stands.

38

The remaining 20% of has been harvested and provides a mix of forage and poor cover. Only

about 25% of the harvested acres have been harvested within the past 15 years, so the quality and

quantity of forage in the older harvested areas has diminished.

Most of the stands of good cover could benefit from removal of some of the smaller understory

trees that have grown because fire has not visited them in decades to regenerate the brush and

kill the small trees. Many of the stands of forested forage on the drier sites probably are not

good candidates for intense overstory commercial timber harvest, which would open them too

severely, but could use disturbance to regenerate forage and kill (by fire or harvest) smaller trees.

Interspersion of cover and forage is good, with both distributed well across the winter range

areas.

Figure 10. Big game winter range in Deer Jasper.

Figure 11. Cover and forage on winter range in Deer Jasper.

Bulldog-Cabin road

Hwy 395Forest Plan MA 6 and 8

Modeled mule deer winter range

Modeled white-tailed deer winter range

39

ii. security in winter

Habitat security within winter range areas is managed primarily by regulation of open road

densities during winter months. Road closures were implemented since the completion of the

Forest Plan. Field surveys discovered that many of the road closures are not effective. Most of

the trespass occurs during summer for firewood cutting and autumn during hunting seasons,

before deep snow negatively affects movement of big game. To decrease road densities in

winter range, we close the 6100-010, 6100-050 and 6100-080 roads, which effectively close the

entire winter range north of the Boulder-Deer highway to vehicle traffic. These closures were

installed in the 1980s and 1990s and have remained effective as winter closures. The only open

roads that access winter range are small segments of these roads between the Boulder-Deer

highway and the closure devices, and the 6120 road on the west side of the project area and a

portion of the 6100-090, which remain open. No designated snowmobile routes exist in winter

range in the project area, and snowmobile use in big game winter range is incidental and

infrequent.

The road density in winter of open roads in winter range is 0.2 miles/square mile and is below

the Forest Plan requirement of 0.4 mi/mi2 of winter range in Ferry County (USDA Forest Service

1988, p. 4-108). During winter snow blocks the lower portion of the 6100-090, which lies

outside winter range, as well as the short road segments, so the effective road density is even

lower.

ii. Denning and Rendezvous Sites

Because recent information suggests that sensitivity to human disturbance may be less than

previously thought, we did not detail potential habitat for denning or rendezvous sites. We did

not find any denning or rendezvous sites during field reconnaissance.

40

iii. Minimal Exposure to Humans

See “i. Core Area/Secluded Habitat” under Grizzly Bears on page 23.


We assess the effects of planned activities on potential wolf habitat because wolves have been

documented in the project area. The USFS makes provisions to protect individual animals

and/or essential habitats, such as denning or rendezvous sites in timber contract clause CT6.25,

Protection of Habitat of Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species, a part of all timber sale

contracts on the CNF. This clause calls for protection of any essential habitat components

discovered during construction and harvest activities related to these projects.

i. Effects Summary

For ungulates (big game, in this case mule deer), the prey base for wolves, harvest treatments,

prescribed fire, and the combination of the two would result in more browse and forage and a

better distribution of cover and forage than currently exist and so improves the prey base for

wolves.

In the Proposed Action, commercial harvest treatments within deer winter range areas, in most

instances followed by prescribed fire, would open the stands, reduce competition from young

trees, retain older and larger trees on the landscape, and promote browse and forage for

ungulates. None of the treatments are designed to remove the larger overstory trees that create

good cover in winter and which help intercept snow and keep the areas around the boles snow-

free, so though the Proposed Action would result in some loss of cover, it would not create large

openings in winter range. Additionally, we would retain at least 10% of each unit (and up to

25% in LOS stands) in an unthinned condition to maintain ungulate escape/hiding cover

distributed throughout the unit.

In both ungulate summer and winter range areas, prescribed fire would open the understory and

regenerate browse species. This process would begin to move the area towards more historic

conditions, which suited mule deer better than current conditions, and thus would improve

habitat for wolves.

Pre-commercial thinning, which would occur in this project on very few acres, would improve

ungulate cover long-term by reducing tree competition and allowing remaining trees to grow

faster and retain wider crowns.

The low-intensity fires prescribed for fuels treatment would not affect overstory cover, though

would cause a short-term decrease in forage that would be offset by a long-term improvement in

ungulate forage conditions. The units in which prescribed fire is proposed have the potential to

further decrease forage because burned areas provide great seed beds for noxious weeds

(Freeman et al. 2007, Scherer et al. 2000), so prescribed fire must be accompanied by noxious

weed management.

The No Action alternative does not propose any road construction thus would not affect travel

corridors or hiding cover. No new system roads are proposed, though one temporary road is

41

proposed in areas already influenced by roads. The proposed temporary road segment does not

eliminate much cover, is not located on ridges or along riparian areas, and sufficient cover

remains in the area to not restrict movement of bears within the watershed. The temporary road

would not negatively affect potential corridors or wolf bear movement. Several roads currently

closed are proposed to be opened during the project, and then effectively closed after project

activities are completed, generally in about 6 years. All roads that are currently closed that are

re-opened for project activities would have gates installed on them, and would only allow

project-related traffic on them. This would keep traffic to a minimum and maintain most of the

integrity of the core areas.

The No Action alternative would not affect wolves. Under the No Action alternative, the

existing forage:cover ratio within winter range areas would not change. Habitat would not

improve, and conditions on summer and winter range for mule deer would continue to decline as

understory trees encroached into open stands and continue to reduce forage. Without adequate

forage, this area would not provide suitable ungulate habitat and would not contribute toward

meeting the Forest Plan objective for deer population levels. The No Action alternative would

not affect existing open road densities or habitat security. Without thinning, a stand-replacing

fire in the watershed could eliminate overstory cover but would also create the conditions for a

tremendous flush of forage.

This project would have no effect to opportunities for wolves to den or maintain rendezvous

sites.

Both harvest units and roads can affect secluded habitat. No new specification roads would be

built. One short segment of new temporary road would be built, but this segment does not enter

any core area patches. Haul would not occur during the spring season when bears emerge from

their dens and spend considerable time grazing. The use of existing, open roads and those re-

opened and reconstructed would not negatively affect wolves because public motorized traffic

would not occur on these roads. Though harvest activities would eventually be conducted along

all the currently closed roads that would be opened, harvest would be concentrated in one area,

then move to the next. Therefore, sufficient seclusion habitat would remain so that bears could

still use the area.

About 9.2 miles in 17 segments are proposed for decommissioning. Decommissioning these

roads would not dramatically increase the amount of core area habitat because most are already

closed, but closing them would increase the quality of core area habitat because

decommissioning is more effective at preventing human travel than just closing a road.

Portions of 55 units covering 3,060 acres are proposed for commercial harvest within core area

habitat. A large group of units near the center of the project area could temporarily restrict that

area’s use by wolves. Harvest would disrupt bears from using the units in core area, but because

harvest occurs serially, not all the effects would occur concurrently. Sufficient core area remains

that temporary disruption would not negatively affect wolves.

After harvest and post-harvest activities, we would close all new roads and roads currently

closed that were opened and reconstructed for the project. We recognize that road closures are

42

not 100% effective. Roads would be closed when post-harvest activities have been completed,

within 6 years after project activities start.

ii. Effects to Ungulate Prey Base

1. Effects to winter range

Effects to big game winter range will be analyzed over the winter range areas that deer occupy,

rather than just MA6 and MA8. Big game management in this area emphasizes improving mule

deer habitat.

Under the No Action alternative, the existing forage:cover ratio within winter range areas would

not change. Habitat would not improve, and conditions on summer and winter range for mule

deer would continue to decline as understory trees encroached into open stands and continue to

reduce forage. Without adequate forage, this area would not provide suitable ungulate habitat

and would not contribute toward meeting the Forest Plan objectives for big game population

levels. The No Action alternative would not affect existing open road densities or habitat

security. Without thinning, a stand-replacing fire in the watershed could eliminate overstory

cover but would also create the conditions for a great flush of forage.

Figure 12. Proposed activities in deer winter range in Deer Jasper.

Portions of 29 units covering about 1,170 acres are proposed for commercial harvest treatment in

deer winter range (Figure 12, and Pre-commercial thinning would open dense stands and

improve forage production, but some of these dense stands provide important lateral cover for

animals moving across the landscape. To decrease or eliminate this potentially negative effect in

Untreated areas

Prescribed fire

Ladder fuel reductions and PCT

Commercial harvest

Heavy thinning/openings

Moderate thinning/skips/gaps

Light thinning

43

pre-commercial thinning units, 10% of the units would be retained in an unthinned condition

(See list in Design Elements below.).

About 2,560 acres are proposed for underburn only, scattered in 7 units across winter range.

Additionally, all but about 50 acres of the commercial and non-commercial units are proposed to

be underburned after they have been treated. Prescribed fires are intended to reduce fuel loading

and would burn primarily in openings in existing stands rather than under dense canopies.

Prescribed fires typically improve forage conditions for big game but can also set the stage for an

increase in noxious weeds, which would decrease available forage. The benefit of improving

forage and reintroducing fire on a landscape whose shrubs have not experienced fire outweighs

the potential for noxious weed spread, which for many species will occur eventually regardless

of fire.

Table 4). Another 11 units covering about 330 acres are proposed for small pole thinning, ladder

fuel reduction or pre-commercial thinning. Commercial harvest would remove the smaller

understory trees and retain a portion of larger overstory trees (Table 1, and see list in Design

Elements below). The density of large trees remaining would not provide closed-canopy cover

but would provide open crowns that would intercept some snow and would result in winter

habitat more conducive to mule deer than white-tailed deer, which tend to use denser cover. This

minor loss of cover would not negatively affect the use of the area by big game.

In all commercial harvest units in big game winter range, at between 10% of the unit would be

left in unthinned patches, and in most of the LOS stands, 25% would be retained (see list of units

in Design Elements below). This would reduce but not eliminate the negative effects of the loss

of lateral cover but is not expected to deter big game from using the area. This loss of lateral

cover would benefit mule deer. Subsequent prescribed fire in these units might slightly reduce

the amount of lateral cover in the leave patches. This loss of lateral or hiding cover would be

short-term, 5 years or less depending on the shrub species and moisture available at a particular

site. Harvest would also retain the largest overstory trees that provide the best snow-intercepting

capabilities.

Pre-commercial thinning would open dense stands and improve forage production, but some of

these dense stands provide important lateral cover for animals moving across the landscape. To

decrease or eliminate this potentially negative effect in pre-commercial thinning units, 10% of

the units would be retained in an unthinned condition (See list in Design Elements below.).

About 2,560 acres are proposed for underburn only, scattered in 7 units across winter range.

Additionally, all but about 50 acres of the commercial and non-commercial units are proposed to

be underburned after they have been treated. Prescribed fires are intended to reduce fuel loading

and would burn primarily in openings in existing stands rather than under dense canopies.

Prescribed fires typically improve forage conditions for big game but can also set the stage for an

increase in noxious weeds, which would decrease available forage. The benefit of improving

forage and reintroducing fire on a landscape whose shrubs have not experienced fire outweighs

the potential for noxious weed spread, which for many species will occur eventually regardless

of fire.

44

Table 4. Number of units proposed for management in big game winter range.

# Units Acres

Acres

underburned

Mix of commercial thinning with a mosaic of openings and skips 8 499 All

Shelterwood removal cut (w/reserves) and pre-commercial thin 6 121 All

Commercial thinning 14 527 All

Commercial thinning with shelterwood 1 24 All

Commercial thinning of small trees 1 12 All

Ladder fuel reduction and/or understory thin 4 225 All

Pre-commercial thinning 6 95 Half

Underburn 7 2560 All

Total 47 4063 Nearly all

Underburning would enhance forage by removing dead material and, in some species,

stimulating new growth. See comments above about potential for noxious weed encroachment

as a result of prescribed fire. Though we would leave at least 10% of all units and 25% of most

LOS units in an unthinned condition, prescribed fire might burn through some of these patches

and reduce lateral cover somewhat.

In commercial harvest units, in addition to the unthinned leave patches (skips), between 30% and

60% of the existing overstory cover would be retained, primarily due to leaving larger trees, a

level which should retain sufficient overstory cover for big game.

In the winter range areas no new temporary roads are proposed.

v. security in winter

Because little human traffic crosses the big game winter ranges in winter, deer security during

winter in the project area is not expected to change as a result of the proposed action. If logging

operations start and finish about the same time each day and roads are closed to activity not

associated with timber harvest, winter logging creates minimal disturbance to mule and white-

tailed deer and provides some forage from either Douglas-fir needles or lichens that grow on

branches normally out of reach of big game.

Without adequate forage, the Deer Jasper area would not provide suitable big game habitat and

would not contribute toward meeting the Forest Plan objective for mule deer population levels.

The harvest prescriptions combined with prescribed fire would reduce habitat capability slightly

in the short term (less than 5 years) by removing some forage and decreasing the amount of

lateral (escape/hiding) cover, which mentioned above is used primarily by mule deer. The

proposed activities would yield long-term improvements in conditions for mule deer, once the

most common species in the area and the species for which management in this area is directed,

by opening the stands and improving forage.

The long-term concern continues to be noxious weeds replacing native forage.

45

2. Effects to summer range

Commercial harvest, pre-commercial thinning, and prescribed fire would open stands and allow

light to penetrate to the shrub and forb/grass layers, which would stimulate more forage.

Additionally, mechanical crushing and/or burning of dead and tall shrubs would either stimulate

sprouting, compact browse and allow big game to reach it, or both. Mechanical ground

disturbance or exposure of mineral soil by prescribed burning could also foster noxious weeds,

which would decrease available forage. The benefit of improved forage and reintroducing fire

on a landscape whose shrubs have not experienced fire outweighs the potential for noxious weed

spread, which for many species will occur eventually regardless of fire.

An increase in inedible noxious weeds decreases forage quantity for big game. Noxious weeds

will likely colonize newly disturbed areas, especially along roads. As road density increases, it is

more likely that noxious weeds will become established in formerly sparsely roaded areas. Most

of the project area is near a road and a variety of noxious weed species have become established.

No new system roads are proposed.

Commercial harvest would improve forage quality in the short-term by compacting browse, and

improve cover quality in the long-term. It would also decrease the probability that a fire in the

area would eliminate all cover.

Proposed prescribed fire, both in fire and harvest units, would improve forage quality for big

game though will decrease quantity in the short term. Excluding fire would contribute to a

decline of forage quality because overstory trees compete with forage species for moisture and

sunlight.

The greatest impacts from new roads would be in areas that currently do not contain roads. The

greatest indirect effects are the potential for noxious weeds to encroach (indirect loss of habitat),

vehicle traffic to increase (noxious weed vector, poaching potential, and disturbance), and cattle

to move in to areas that they previously did not access (noxious weed vector and competition for

forage). Because no new system roads would be built, the impacts would not affect the overall

big game population.

iii. Effects to Denning and Rendezvous Sites

Though wolves have been documented from the area, no denning or rendezvous sites were found

during more than 2 years of field reconnaissance, and WDFW, which attempts to track wolf

packs, does not think that they den in the project area (J. Shepherd, pers. comm.). Because

wolves den in a variety of habitats, we did not speculate about their location, thus did not attempt

to identify potential denning and rendezvous sites during the analysis of this project. This

project would have no effect to opportunities for wolves to den or maintain rendezvous sites.

iv. Effects to Core Area/Seclusion Habitat

Grizzly bears seem to be more negatively affected by disturbance than wolves are (though a

main cause of adult mortality for both is being shot), so we use the evaluation criteria for grizzly

bears to examine the potential effects to wolves: if a proposed activity does not negatively affect

grizzly bear seclusion habitat, it probably would not negatively affect seclusion habitat for

wolves. See discussion of the Effects to Core Area/Secluded Habitat within the Grizzly Bear

section above.

46


The area considered for cumulative effects analysis consists of the mid and upper elevations of

the Kettle Crest. More than 95% of this area is NFS land, so management on NFS land would

influence wolf use of these areas. A few small parcels managed by the Bureau of Land

Management and Washington Department of Natural Resources lie interspersed on the edges of

this area. WDFW manages about 10 square miles in the Sherman Creek drainage, about 15

miles south of the project area. Little non-NFS land occurs in the cumulative effects area.

Wolves would use the areas at lower elevations on either side of the cumulative effects analysis

areas, too, because these areas also supply good habitat for big game. Northeast Washington

contains the majority of wolf activity in Washington, and nearly all existing packs have denned

and conducted most of their activity on NFS land.

There is one current Forest Service timber sale project on NFS land (Kettle Face, just south of

the project area) and another is in its inception (in the East Deer Creek area, immediately north

of Deer Jasper), but many others have occurred in the past, including the recent Malo-Eastlake

WUI project to the west, the Deadman timber sale to the south, and the Bangs WUI project south

of Deadman. The Walker area, southwest of the Deer Jasper area, is planned for harvest starting

next year.

i. Ungulate Prey Base

More than 95% of the mid and upper elevation big game habitat lies on NFS lands. The lower

valley bottoms are primarily privately owned and are in agriculture, scattered homes, and small

communities. The completed Malo-Eastlake WUI project on NFS land on the west side of the

Kettle Crest, Bangs an Deadman on the east side and the Kettle Face project, currently being

harvested, contained or contain units that improved conditions on both summer and winter range

for big game, thus wolves. On non-NFS land timber harvest has improved forage to the

detriment of cover. Considering that mule deer, the species of management interest in Ferry

County, uses more open habitat and habitat at higher elevations than white-tailed deer, these

planned projects should benefit mule deer. The proposed action would move the landscape

towards a more open condition similar to historical conditions when mule deer populations were

higher. By following the mitigations and design elements, the proposed activities would

improve conditions for big game and thus for wolves.

1. Winter range

The long-term results of timber management on NFS land would result in more open stands

similar to a condition found in the early and mid-1900s when mule deer populations were also

higher. By following the mitigations and design elements the extent of the loss of cover would

not be detrimental. The long-term result of harvest on non-NFS land might improve cover, but

functions more to improve forage.

Forage quantity has increased as a result of the canopy being opened throughout the cumulative

effects area via planned projects and unplanned wildfire. Noxious weeds have severely impacted

winter ranges throughout the West, whether or not harvest activity has taken place, which

decreases and in many cases offsets the improved forage conditions that result from opening the

canopy. An active noxious weed control program in Ferry County has used a combination of

47

chemical and biological controls in an attempt to manage noxious weeds, with variable success.

Along road corridors, the FS will spray for noxious weeds, which might limit but will not

entirely prevent their spread. The level of forage reduction and consequent reduction in big

game populations is not known.

Most of the high quality mule deer winter range occurs on NFS land. Management projects on

other ownerships do not usually consider winter range but the presence of agricultural land in the

valley, particularly alfalfa, benefits deer. On NFS-managed land, older projects reduced cover

quantity and quality over the short term but improved forage. In the long term, these projects

would result in larger trees growing in more open conditions, which would improve overstory

cover. Lateral cover has already improved and will continue to do so. Forage quality has also

improved through

prescribed fires that stimulate new forage growth,

some timber harvest projects that reduce competition of trees,

stimulation from disturbance by timber activities, and

projects designed to reduce the spread of noxious weeds.

Harvest on non-NFS land has improved forage quality as a result of removing the overstory. The

conversion of forested land to agricultural land is not continuing because most suitable land has

been converted, and many fields are now fallow. The Stickpin fire of 2015 burned a large

amount of low-elevation winter range west of the Kettle Crest. Though little overstory cover

remains, a large flush of forage is expected within the next few years.

Fewer new specification roads are being proposed in projects. New roads constructed for harvest

on NFS lands will be closed after the projects are completed, so open road densities will increase

only during the life of a particular project. Some habitat improvement projects have closed open

roads to increase wildlife seclusion habitat. Because budgets related to roads continue to decline,

more roads not necessary for long-term forest management will be closed. Recent changes in

OHV management have prohibited overland OHV travel and upcoming restrictions OHV travel

will limit them to a subset of existing roads. These changes have and will continue to improve

security for both big game and wolves. Especially in wildland/urban interface areas, most of

which also provide winter range, roads have been and will continue to be constructed. New road

construction effects are primarily indirect (disturbance, poaching, weed spread, etc.) rather than

direct (habitat conversion), but still reduce winter range habitat quality.

2. Summer range

Past harvest has had varied effects to cover quality. Some parts of the forest will not be able to

meet optimal cover:forage conditions (Thomas et al. 1979) because the ground is not capable of

supporting dense tree habitats. Some timber harvest projects have reduced cover quality by

removing larger trees. Across the cumulative effects area, especially in the mid and upper

elevations to the west, fires in the 1910s and 1920s and subsequent logging initiated large tracts

of dense stands that have matured and whose value as summer cover has peaked and continues to

decrease as the stands age. In the very dense stands, or stands of lodgepole pine, dead trees that

have fallen create impediments to deer movement as well as blocking sunlight from reaching the

forest floor. Proposed harvest in this and other projects would harvest those stands, decrease this

marginal cover, increase forage, and move the cover:forage ratio closer to the optimum level,

48

thus improving summer range conditions. On summer range on non-NFS land, most timbered

land has been harvested at least once. Harvest decreases summer cover, though the

consequences are not negative for big game, thus wolves. Additionally, the agricultural lands

provide high-quality forage.

Roads contribute to noxious weed spread. The quality of forage decreases when these weeds

replace native forage species. Fire exclusion decreases forage quality as browse within reach of

big game becomes too woody, and prescribed fires have improved browse conditions. The

extent of prescribed fires to date is negligible but increasing as prescribed fires in the Malo-

Eastlake and Bangs WUI are implemented and those in Kettle Face and Walker would be in the

next few years. Increased focus on projects in the wildland/urban interface such as this project

would improve forage conditions. Prescribed fire projects on non-NFS land are minimal.

Changes in cover and forage distribution are within the historical range of variation for the area,

though patch sizes created by harvest are smaller than they have been historically.

Implementation of some of the skips and gaps concepts could change that, thus improve mule

deer habitat.

Road density has increased from activities on NFS and other lands and probably peaked on NFS

lands in the early 2000s. Road construction and reconstruction in past, planned and current

projects have little direct negative effects to summer range because few acres are directly

affected. Indirect negative effects depend on the effectiveness of control efforts and have not

been quantified, but noxious weeds grow along most roads. Road construction into areas that are

unroaded or have few roads has and continues to have a negative affect to wild ungulate

seclusion habitat. The CNF has embarked on a plan to manage OHV traffic that, when

completed within the decade and if enforced, should result in very low vehicle traffic off-road or

on closed roads.

ii. Denning and Rendezvous Sites

In the early 1990s we conducted howling surveys throughout the district to identify denning

activity. No wolves responded. Since then, wolf activity in Washington and particularly on the

CNF has increased. Wolves den in a variety of habitats, and we did not speculate about their

location, thus do not attempt to identify potential denning and rendezvous sites during the

analysis for a project. Current projects on NFS land and timber harvest on non-NFS land do not

preclude wolves from denning or maintaining rendezvous sites.

iv. Road Density and Core Area/Secluded Habitat

The proposed project would not result in a loss of core area habitat that would negatively affect

wolf movement in the cumulative effects analysis area. At least 2 wolf packs travel the

cumulative effects area, including through areas of managed stands.

Reductions in core area habitat decrease habitat suitability for gray wolves primarily by allowing

potential poachers access. Considerably large amounts of core area exist in the cumulative

effects area, especially at higher elevations. These blocks are not contiguous with forested

habitat in Canada because of the human habitation and east-west-running highway just north of

the US border. Though these blocks are not connected to the block of core area in the Wedge

because of the highway and human habitation in the lower elevations along the Kettle River,

49

wolves do not consider these as impediments to movement. Evidence exists that the pack that

occupied the western part of the Wedge also travelled on to the Crest, and two wolves from the

Smackout pack between the Pend Oreille and Columbia Rivers crossed the Columbia and Kettle

Rivers and travelled into Canada. Current and future projects that construct or reopen roads will

reduce core area habitat for the length of the project, but would not preclude wolves from using

an area.

The Malo-Eastlake, Deadman timber sale, Bangs WUI project and Kettle Face constructed,

reconstructed and reopened roads, and the Walker project will do the same. The current project

proposes no new system road, though does propose to reopen and reconstruct some roads for log

haul, and proposes 1 segment of new temporary road. The Forest Plan requires that new roads

be closed at the end of harvest activities, so the most severe negative impacts would be limited to

the time during which the roads remain open to vehicle traffic, usually a 3-to-6 year period. The

subsequent closure after harvest activities as well as the closure of additional roads in the

Deadman timber sale, and the Malo-Eastlake, Bangs and Kettle Face WUI projects increased the

amount of core area habitat. While restricting some vehicles, closed roads without CFR orders

still allow access by humans riding OHVs, so nearly all closed roads reduce the amount of core

area habitat until the road becomes too grown-over for vehicles to pass. Recent changes in OHV

management on the CNF that restricts OHV use to specific roads and trails will improve

conditions, assuming that people obey the new regulations.

Road building in conjunction with harvest activities on Washington DNR and other private

timber lands has caused an slight decrease in seclusion habitat on those lands because they

occupy < 5% of the cumulative effects analysis area. See discussion of the cumulative effects to

Core Area/Seclusion Habitat within the Grizzly Bear section (page 28). Current and future

projects that construct, reconstruct or reopen roads will reduce seclusion habitat for the portion

of time that the project remains active. Closed roads reduce disturbance from humans and

improve seclusion habitat, but road closures are not completely effective. Roads built into core

area habitat will influence human access until the road prism becomes too difficult to navigate.

No roads in this project affect core area habitat. Very few harvest units affect core area habitat

the areas affected are small and would not preclude wolves from using either the project or

cumulative effects analysis area.


Same as for grizzly bear (GB)

Use all design elements for big game listed in the Effects to Management Indicator Species for

this document.

f. Conclusions

The no-action alternative will not affect wolves either positively or negatively. The Proposed

Action has a slight, temporal negative affect to core areas but would not cause a measurable,

negative effect. The proposed action improves habitat conditions for big game, the primary prey

of wolves, via commercial timber harvest, prescribed fire and pre-commercial thinning. Neither

the proposed action nor the No Effect alternative would affect denning or rendezvous sites.

50

The Proposed Action will have low risk and consequences. The no-action alternative will have

no effect on wolves. The Proposed Action “may impact gray wolves but is not likely to lead in a

trend towards federal listing or loss of viability” for gray wolves or gray wolf habitat.

3. Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis)

Status: Threatened-Federal


In February, 2000, the USFWS and USFS signed the Lynx Conservation Agreement to formalize

the two agencies’ agreement to utilize Lynx Science Team’s report (Ecology and Conservation

of Lynx in the United States, Ruggiero et al. 2000) and The Lynx Conservation Assessment and

Strategy (LCAS (Interagency Lynx Biology Team 2013 and Ruediger et al. 2000) to plan and

analyze projects to ensure a comprehensive approach to conserving lynx. We conducted this

analysis using elements identified in the LCAS because that document contains the best available

science relating to lynx management.

Starting in 1991, along with the Washington Department of Wildlife (now Department of Fish

and Wildlife), we developed a primary lynx habitat map on the CNF (Washington Department of

Wildlife 1993). In late 1999, as guided by FS direction, the CNF refined this map and redefined

lynx analysis area (LAU) boundaries to better reflect areas that have the potential to support lynx

habitat. We used the best available information to determine potential lynx habitat. We did not

have good ground-based information available over the entire Forest, so in many cases we

enlarged the existing boundaries to ensure that we included all potential habitats. This led us, in

some instances, to include considerable non-lynx habitat. During individual project planning, we

conduct a more intense evaluation to identify areas with an LAU that do and do not support lynx

habitat. We also identify those areas outside of an LAU that might support lynx habitat. At this

time, we do not adjust the LAU boundaries, but note that areas of non-lynx habitat within an

LAU will not be managed for lynx. Within an LAU, we examine different aspects of lynx

habitat:

Non-lynx habitat within an LAU (permanent openings and patches of dry habitat types)

Connectivity habitat (habitat that allows lynx to move within and between LAUs)

Unsuitable habitat (which could at some point support lynx habitat, but currently does

not)

Foraging habitat (habitat for snowshoe hare, red squirrel and other alternative prey),

Denning habitat (areas with lots of down logs), and

Human access (roads, trails and snowmobile routes).

i. Non-lynx habitat

Non-lynx habitat consists of warm, dry biophysical environments or permanent openings within

an LAU. We do not include the acres of non-lynx habitat when determining the total amount of

lynx habitat in an LAU unless a patch of non-lynx habitat appears to serve as a short corridor

between two large patches of habitat.

ii. Connectivity habitat

Lynx often travel along physical features of the landscape such as major ridges, saddles and

riparian areas. Covered with sufficient vegetation, these landscape features provide corridors or

connectivity habitat for lynx to move within and between habitats.

51

iii. Unsuitable habitat

Unsuitable habitat consists of open areas that at some point could support lynx habitat, but

currently do not. These areas do not contain much above-snow vegetation, or the above snow

vegetation is far beyond the reach of snowshoe hares. In winter these areas tend to hold few if

any snowshoe hare. Sometimes, unsuitable habitat can consist of large blocks of trees that do not

support any prey species.

iv. Foraging habitat

Lynx prey mainly on snowshoe hare, and the well-being of lynx populations seems correlated

with snowshoe hare populations. Lynx also prey on red squirrels and other rodents, ruffed

grouse and other birds, and infrequently on deer (Ch. 13 in Ruggiero et al. 2000).

Snowshoe hare population densities reach their peaks in young, dense, moist coniferous forests

that provide cover, protection from predators, and browse during all seasons. Dense, young

forests provide boom-and-bust habitats for snowshoe hare, thus for lynx. After a few decades,

the stands grow taller and denser, and light does not reach the forest floor or lower branches.

Little food grows for the snowshoe hares, thus the population declines. The most dense

snowshoe hare populations seem to occur in young, dense stands of lodgepole pine, true firs and

spruce, but nearly all forest types within the cool or moist biophysical environments in the lynx

analysis unit support snowshoe hares at various densities, thus contain foraging habitat of various

qualities. Disturbance sets the stage for the development of young stands that provide foraging

habitat, and both fire and regeneration harvests are the primary agents of disturbance.

During times of hare scarcity, lynx still depend on snowshoe hare, but also exploit alternate food

sources. In the southern boreal forests, the major alternative prey seems to be red squirrels.

Populations of red squirrels seem to be highest in mature, closed-canopy forests with large

amounts of course woody debris and good cone production from the conifers. These mature

forests might provide a more stable prey resource of both hares and squirrels (though at a lower

density) over a longer time than the boom-and-bust of young stands peaking and declining in

quality of habitat for snowshoe hare.

It remains difficult to discretely categorize stands as anything but unsuitable habitat or a form of

foraging habitat because foraging habitat contains a wide variety of stand conditions, from very

good foraging habitat that supports many snowshoe hares to poor foraging habitat that supports

few snowshoe hares or alternative prey. Denning habitat also supports snowshoe hare and

alternate prey and thus can be considered a subset of foraging habitat.

High-quality foraging habitat cannot be immediately created by any natural or managed

methods; rather, this habitat develops after a disturbance regenerates a stand and usually takes

between 15 and 25 years, or until the regenerating trees grow into dense stands that provide

habitat for snowshoe hares in both summer and winter.

v. Denning habitat

Over the range of the lynx, the common component of denning habitat is large woody debris,

either down logs or root wads (Ch 11 in Ruggiero et al. 2000; Koehler 1990; G. Mowat pers.

comm.; B. Slough pers. comm.; J. Squires pers. comm.). B. Slough (pers. comm.) stated that in

52

lodgepole pine/spruce habitats in the Yukon, high densities of down logs caused mainly by wind-

throw appeared to be more important that overhead tree canopy, and that the high density of

down logs might protect the kittens from avian and terrestrial predators. The 4 denning sites

found in the Okanogan area were in mature timber stands dominated by spruce and subalpine fir

and which contained large amounts of down wood (Brittell et al. 1989). J. Squires (pers. comm.)

indicated that of 13 sites found in Montana, all were associated with down wood.

Managing lynx denning habitat on the CNF involves providing high densities of down logs or

larger-diameter stands on mesic, cooler sites.

vi. Human access

Though not a creature limited to roadless areas or wilderness, lynx might be affected by human

access into their habitat, especially during winter or the denning season. The extent and

magnitude of disturbance that would affect lynx is not known, but preliminary information

suggests that lynx do not avoid the types of roads or disturbance levels that occur in the project

area (Ch. 12 in Ruggiero et al. 2000). Though lynx might not avoid them, roads can still

negatively affect lynx by allowing human disturbance in denning habitat and increasing access

for incidental or illegal hunting or trapping. Plowing or packing snow on roads or snowmobile

trails in winter might allow competing carnivores to access lynx habitat thus increase

competition for prey. Roads also create disturbed soil that allows noxious weeds to reach

uninfested areas and reduce forage for snowshoe hares, whose summer diet consists primarily of

forbs.

vii. Miscellaneous

The LCAS suggests that management actions not change more than 15% of lynx habitat within a

LAU to an unsuitable condition within a 10-year period, and that no more than 30% of an LAU

should be in unsuitable condition. In these cases, unsuitable is created by disturbance, usually

timber harvest or fire.

We apply the LCAS information only to Federal land. However, we also include effects to non-

federal land that supports potential lynx habitat because the activities on private lands might

affect management activities on Federal land.


The Deer Jasper area contains the North Boulder LAU and part of the Long Alec LAU, though

we evaluated the entirety of both LAUs. These LAUs lie in the north central part of the string of

LAUs that hugs both sides of the Kettle Crest and forms the core of where lynx densities were

highest in northeast Washington during the 1970s. Together these 2 LAUs cover more than 45

square miles. About 1,250 acres lies on land not managed by the Forest Service. Though this

analysis will not affect how private landowners manage their lands, what they do could affect

how the Forest Service manages the remainder of the LAU.

Figure 13. Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) and habitat in and near Deer Jasper.

53

The varied aspects yield dramatic shifts in environments and during field examination we

identified extensive areas of warm, dry environments, primarily in the northern part of the Long

Alec LAU, which reduced the acres of potential habitat substantially. Only about 70% of the

LAUs either could or do support lynx habitat (Figure 14 and Table 5). We excluded the warm,

dry environments from consideration as lynx habitat and they will no longer be discussed during

this analysis. We also discovered about 200 acres of potential lynx habitat that lay outside an

LAU boundary and included that habitat in our analysis for lynx.

As in most LAUs that have not been subject to recent large wildfires, the LAUs do not contain

many young stands. Two fires affected parts of the LAUs, the Togo fire in 2003 that affected the

northern part of the Long Alec LAU and the Bulldog fire in 2007 that affected a small portion of

the south end of the North Boulder LAU. Both LAUs contain similar habitat conditions: higher-

elevation stands of lodgepole pine, spruce and subalpine fir cover the area, the species

composition and age reflecting the various fire disturbance events. Large fires swept through the

area between 1920 and 1934 and expanses of old lodgepole pine carpet much of the southern half

of the LAUs.

Both LAUs also exhibit somewhat convoluted pockets of habitat caused by extreme differences

in environmental conditions among the warm, dry south- and west-facing slopes that generally

Forest Boundary

LAUs in project area

Denning

Poor foraging

Good foraging

Unsuitable: harvested or burned

Open natural

Not lynx habitat

54

do not provide habitat for lynx; the moister, northerly facing slopes that generally do; and the

subalpine spine of the Kettle Crest where soils are thin and growing conditions harsh,

particularly in the northern part of the Long Alec LAU. Though the habitat is convoluted,

connectivity outside the northern portion of the Long Alec LAU is good and habitat generally

occurs in large blocks. Connectivity is good in the LAU east of the northern portion of the Long

Alec LAU, though this area falls outside the area analyzed for this project.

Since the 1980s, lynx populations have plummeted and lynx have not been definitively

confirmed from the area in the 2000s, though anecdotal sightings occur about every other year.

In 2009 we initiated a lynx hair snagging survey, following National Lynx Detection Survey

Protocol (McKelvey et al. 1999), to determine if a population of lynx remained in the Kettle

Range. We completed the survey in late summer of 2011 and no lynx were detected. Therefore,

the area does not have a sustaining, reproducing lynx population.

i. Non-lynx habitat

About 30% of the 2 LAUs (8,880 acres) consists of non-lynx habitat (warm, dry environments),

primarily on the south- and west-facing slopes, particularly in the northern part of the Long Alec

LAU. These areas will not be further discussed in regards to lynx.

ii. Connectivity habitat

This project straddles the lynx habitat on the Kettle Crest and follows the east-west ridges

coming off the Kettle Crest, primarily occurring on the cooler, moister, north faces of these

ridges. Except for the higher elevations, the south-facing slopes generally consist of natural

openings and warm, dry conditions. Connectivity habitat within the project area has not been

reduced much and remains in good condition. Outside the project area but within the Long Alec

LAU, connectivity is broken by natural openings on the north part of this LAU. No past

regeneration harvest units negatively affect connectivity habitat.

Connectivity from the project area to contiguous lynx habitat to the north and south is good. The

Boulder-Deer highway, in the center of the project, is the only permanent human-created

opening. Deer, snowshoe hare and smaller mammals have been observed crossing the Boulder-

Deer highway, so it probably does not prevent lynx from moving north and south.

iii. Unsuitable habitat

The Stickpin fire in 2015 burned with high severity over the majority of the LAUs, especially

within the project area, and will restart the successional clock towards providing high-quality

foraging habitat starting in about 15 years. The north end of the fire stopped near the boundary

of the Togo fire, which has begun to provide good potential foraging habitat.

Most of the burned habitat consisted of poor foraging habitat, most of which could have been

classified as naturally unsuitable habitat not because of disturbance from fire or logging but

because the structure of these stands was of marginal value for either denning or support of prey,

or both. These stands offered the greatest opportunities to regenerate lodgepole pine for future

foraging habitat, and the natural fire performed its historical role.

iv. Foraging habitat

One purpose for the Deer Jasper project includes protecting, enhancing or developing high-

quality lynx foraging habitat in areas where forage potential exists and is reflective of the natural

55

disturbance regime to meet the intent of the LCAS. The need for improving foraging habitat is

because high quality lynx foraging habitat is at the low end of the Historical Range of Variability

(HRV). Nearly all the existing good foraging habitat originated from regeneration harvest in the

past 15 years.

Most foraging habitat is marginal and little good foraging habitat exists. Nearly all the existing

foraging habitat stems from regeneration harvest in the past 15 years. About 6% of the 2 LAUs

contains high-quality foraging habitat, and another 9% will grow into foraging habitat within the

next decade. More than 70% of the lynx habitat within the project area consists of burned

environments, which provides little foraging habitat.

v. Denning habitat

Denning habitat is abundant and will become so as the trees killed by the Stickpin fire begin to

fall. At minimum, about 35% of the lynx habitat within the 2 LAUs consists of dense stands of

larger trees that could provide denning habitat. Additionally, more than 35% of the 2 LAUs

contain dense stands of smaller trees that provide poor foraging habitat, which also contributes to

denning habitat. We did not evaluate the amount of down wood in many of the areas defined as

denning or poor foraging habitat but used standing snag levels as a proxy, and about half of the

identified denning and poor foraging habitat supports patches of snags that will soon become

down wood. Additionally, if any these areas had been harvested in the past, the large, fire-

remnant trees were removed, so the medium-sized trees that would contribute to denning habitat

were not harvested.

vi. Human access

The area contains winter recreational trails, and human use is below that of trails in the Methow

that lynx frequently use and cross, so the existing conditions would not hamper lynx from using

the area. In winter, the Bulldog-Cabin road becomes an 8.9-mile-long groomed snowmobile

route that continues to the Albion Hill road and south to Sherman highway. A groomed cross-

country ski trail parallels the entire Long Alec/North Boulder LAU boundary on both sides of the

Boulder Deer highway. The section of the trail north of the Boulder-Deer highway and the 1st

1.8 miles south of the highway are open roads during the summer. The Taylor Ridge non-

motorized trail hugs the entire southern boundary of the North Boulder LAU.


i. Summary

The no action alternative would have no effect to lynx because it would not affect connectivity

habitat, foraging habitat, denning habitat or human access. In the long run it would either

decrease the amount of foraging habitat because of the lack of regeneration harvest and not meet

the purpose and need for the project. Prior to the Stickpin fire, the no action alternative could

have set the stage for a massive flush of forage habitat following a landscape-level fire due to

buildup of flammable material, and could have met the purpose and need for the project.

About 3,200 acres (2,410 by harvest and 780 by prescribed fire) of the lynx habitat within the

Deer Jasper project area boundary are proposed for management. None of the units fall in good

quality lynx foraging habitat. About 1,040 of the 3,200 acres would be unsuitable habitat after

treatment. Most of these acres will support good foraging habitat as they regrow in the next 2

decades. Management activities would not eliminate corridors to the point where lynx would not

56

have sufficient cover to move across the landscape.The proposed project meets the item in the

purpose and need statement regarding lynx foraging habitat by eventually moving the amount of

young stands into the HRV, and the Stickpin fire aided that decision.

iii. Connectivity habitat

Within the project area, in areas not severely burned by the Stickpin fire, management activities

would not eliminate corridors to the point where lynx would not have sufficient cover to move

across the landscape. In the severely burned areas, shrubby vegetation should provide sufficient

lateral cover in corridors within the next 5 years.

iv. Unsuitable habitat

Unsuitable habitat created by the project would support foraging habitat within the next 2

decades. Unsuitable habitat consists of habitat that does not contribute to lynx denning or

foraging. All proposed commercial harvest units would create some level of unsuitable habitat,

the amount varying by prescription. Silvicultural prescriptions contain estimates of the percent

of openings in a harvest unit. To estimate the amount of unsuitable habitat created by each

harvest prescription, by the prescription’s proposed harvest intensity, I added another 30% to

each unit’s estimate of its percent opening. For example, a commercial thin/shelterwood unit

that the silviculturist estimated would be 40% open would result in 70% of its acres being

unsuitable habitat. Due to the lower intensity of treatment, units proposed only for ladder fuel

reduction or prescribed fire would create a small amount of unsuitable habitat, about 10% of a

unit. Proposed harvest, prescribed fire and ladder fuel reduction in areas already unsuitable

would not change the existing lynx habitat designations.

Table 5. Acres affected by management in lynx habitat in Deer Jasper.

Affected

by harvest

Affected by

prescribed fire

Unsuitable

created

Denning 1,390 250 590

Denning/Poor forage 1,020 530 450

Total 2,410 780 1,040

About 2,400 acres of lynx habitat would be affected by harvest and another 780 by prescribed

fire (Table 5). About 700 acres are proposed for free selection, a mix of commercial thinning

with a mosaic of openings and skips. Openings would cover between 10 and 30% of a unit.

About 50 acres are proposed for commercial thin, with no large openings but general thinning of

a unit. About 1,650 acres are proposed for a mix of shelterwood and thinning, with openings

covering between 20 and 70% of a unit. Another about 780 acres are proposed for non-

commercial treatment, either prescribed fire only or ladder fuel reduction. Neither of these

prescriptions would create much open habitat.

Prior to the Stickpin fire, many of the stands proposed for openings covering greater than 40%

were partially designed to improve future foraging habitat by regenerating lodgepole pine on

cool, mesic sites that have good growing potential. Most of those units lay on the border with

the proposed wilderness area, a large expanse of formerly good lynx habitat that contained little

foraging habitat because of the lack of disturbance since the 1930s. The Stickpin fire burned

through many of those units, and those remaining would contain much unsuitable habitat post-

57

treatment; like the severely burned areas, they are expected to start to provide good lynx foraging

habitat within 2 decades.

v. Foraging habitat

Good foraging habitat would not be affected by the implementation of the proposed project: all

precommercial thin units were examined to see if they provide lynx foraging habitat and if they

did, were dropped from the project.

The proposed project meets the item in the purpose and need statement regarding lynx foraging

habitat by eventually moving the amount of young stands into the HRV, and the Stickpin fire

aided that decision.

About 1,020 acres of poor foraging habitat, consisting of larger trees that don’t support snowshoe

hares but could support red squirrels, are proposed for harvest. These stands are scattered

throughout lynx habitat in the project area. These are the same stands described in the previous

paragraph, which currently provide poor lynx habitat but could provide good foraging habitat

within 2 decades if treated during this project. Post-harvest treatment on about 70% of the acres

would involve fuel piling and burning and the other 30% would not be treated and residual

material would be allowed to decompose naturally. Neither of these would negatively affect

regeneration of lodgepole pine but the post-treatment burning should stimulate more

regeneration. Not treating these stands would continue their decline as foraging habitat as the

trees age and bark beetles kill the lodgepole pine component.

vi. Denning habitat

Harvest would affect the smaller understory in most of the units proposed in denning habitat but

nearly 30% of the lynx habitat in the 2 LAUs would continue to support denning, and the flush

of dead trees from the Stickpin fire that will begin to fall will result in an abundance of denning

habitat within 2 decades. We would retain concentrations of down wood in these areas to

provide future denning habitat, and smaller trees remaining in the skip areas would, as they die,

contribute to the down wood component important for lynx denning. Patches of denning habitat

remain in each section that currently contains denning habitat.

vii. Human access

The No Action alternative does not propose any harvest, road construction or reconstruction.

The proposed action proposes no new road construction in the LAU. It does propose the

reconstruction of 71.5 miles of existing closed roads. Sufficient cover would remain in the areas

near the existing closed roads so that movement of lynx within the watershed would not be

restricted.

The reopened roads would affect seclusion habitat, but the impact would be limited. No public

motorized access would be allowed on roads reopened for this project or any other former

template improved for this project. Roads reopened would be closed by CFR and if harvest

activities do not commence shortly after their reopening, they would be closed with the most

practicable barrier and reopened when harvest activities start. At the end of harvest, the roads

would be assessed for the necessity of post-harvest treatment. If treatments are required, the

road would be closed at that point, then reopened for post-harvest-related activity. Additionally,

58

all activities in a block of seclusion habitat, including road use, would be required to be

completed before operations moved to the next block.


The cumulative effects area consists of the LAUs on the Kettle Crest, which cover a total of

about 199,000 acres. Non-NFS land comprises less than 0.5% of this area and will not be

included in the cumulative effects analysis.

i. Future Harvest

In addition to this project, the Forest Service has planned and sold timber in several LAUs within

the cumulative effects analysis area. All future harvest activities would be planned using the

LCAS as the best available science. Two projects along Sherman Highway proposed harvest in a

small amount of high-quality foraging habitat (to provide human safety and protection of

structures), and the US Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with the results of analysis for those

projects. Future projects that provide for human safety and protection of structures might also

arise. Additionally, nearly 30% of the area has been designated as off-limits to timber

management under the current Forest Plan. Harvest in this project, combined with past and

foreseeable future projects, would not negatively affect lynx. The No Action alternative would

not result in any harvest thus would not affect lynx or lynx habitat.

ii. Unsuitable Habitat

Large fires within the past 20 years have created patches of unsuitable habitat that is growing

into good foraging habitat in some areas along the Kettle Crest: White Mountain, Leona

(immediately adjacent to the project area) and Copper Butter. The Stickpin fire in 2015 created a

large patch of unsuitable habitat that will grow into good lynx habitat within the next 2 decades.

The amount of unsuitable habitat created by regeneration harvest continues to decrease as stands

mature and as the Forest Service moves away from regeneration harvest. The growth of stands

in unsuitable condition to foraging habitat should have a minor positive effect in the short term.

In the long term, the lack of creating new unsuitable habitat, either via harvest or fire, would

result in a decline in foraging habitat, which could be detrimental to lynx. In parts of the district

that fall below historical conditions for late and old structure, regeneration harvests would be

limited and little unsuitable habitat would be created.

This project, along with projects in the past and foreseeable future, would not negatively affect

lynx by creating too much unsuitable habitat. The No Action alternative would not result in any

unsuitable habitat thus would have not affect lynx or lynx habitat.

iii. Foraging Habitat

The No Action alternative, like the proposed action, would not affect existing foraging habitat

and thus would not negatively affect lynx or lynx habitat. The proposed action, unlike the no

action alternative, would result in good foraging habitat in a few decades and thus slightly

improves the overall forage conditions in the cumulative effects area.

Large patches created by fires since 1988 have recently grown into and others will continue to

grow into high-quality foraging habitat. The area affected by the White Mountain Fire in 1988

and Copper Butte in 1996 provide excellent and good snowshoe hare habitat (Copper Butte

59

stands are still a bit young). The Stickpin fire in 2015 set the stage for a large patch of foraging

habitat to develop within the next 2 decades, so good patches of foraging habitat will exist along

much of the spine of the Kettle Crest. Because the majority of potential lynx habitat lies in

management areas that do not allow for timber harvest, the majority of foraging habitat in the

cumulative effects analysis area will be initiated by disturbance, primarily fire, as evidenced by

the Stickpin fire.

Cattle graze within some forage stands and reduce forage available to snowshoe hare, thus

reduce the quality of the foraging habitat, though the level of grazing in the very dense stands is

sufficiently low to preclude severe pruning by cattle. Pre-commercial thinning would not occur

in forage stands, which would retain their quality as foraging habitat.

Harvest in projects proposed after lynx were listed under the Endangered Species Act have not

and projects proposed in the foreseeable future would not negatively affect lynx because projects

are designed using the Lynx Conservation and Strategy as the best available science.

iv. Denning Habitat

In the cumulative effects analysis area, denning is scattered widely and is, in general, rather

abundant, and denning habitat will continue to increase as the trees killed by the fires fall.

Currently, down wood from the White Mountain Fire in 1988, the Copper Butte fire in 1996, and

the Togo and Mt. Leona fires subsequently created thousands of acres of denning habitat

structure, and the regenerating lodgepole pine is providing sufficient canopy for denning habitat.

The Stickpin fire will add to this acreage as the trees begin to fall and lodgepole pine begins to

regenerate. This project affects less than 1% of the denning habitat in the cumulative effects

area, so would not have a measureable effect, positively or negatively, to lynx. Though this

decreases the amount of denning habitat, it would not affect lynx use of the project area, much

less use of the cumulative effects analysis area. Along with projects in the past and foreseeable

future, this project does not negatively affect denning habitat to where lynx would not den in the

area. The No Action alternative would not affect denning habitat, and would allow currently

standing dead trees to fall and contribute to future denning habitat. However, the amount of

denning habitat exceeds that required by lynx to use the area, so the No Action alternative would

not positively affect lynx or lynx habitat.

v. Travel Corridors

Current and future projects would retain most existing corridor widths of at least 400 feet wide,

thus should retain their utility to lynx. Again, most of the higher-elevation corridors would

remain unharvested, because they lie in management areas that do not allow for timber harvest

(except for along major roads) and natural successional processes would continue to provide

cover. The No Action alternative would retain all existing travel corridors and would allow

currently standing dead trees to fall and contribute to future denning habitat.

vi. Road Density

Nearly all current sales temporarily increase road density, though in the past few projects, we

have proposed to construct fewer roads and that trend probably will continue outside wildland-

urban interface areas. New roads probably would not negatively affect lynx 2000). They might

negatively affect lynx because noxious weeds will follow the soil disturbed along the road

corridors and cause loss of snowshoe hare habitat. Most of the noxious weed species that

60

currently infest the area do not grow well in the cooler, moister habitats that lynx occupy.

Though the loss of habitat due to noxious weeds will occur, the extent of the effects on snowshoe

hare, thus lynx, is not known. The No Action alternative would not change road density and thus

would not contribute to changes in road density in the cumulative effects area.


Snags and down wood design elements

In areas CLOSED to firewood harvest, per the CNF firewood map

In lynx habitat (Rationale: lynx require concentrations of down wood in which to den):

Pockets of large down wood will remain on site in units in lynx habitat unless deemed

excess by the fuels specialist, soils specialist, or district wildlife biologist or designee.

Units in which this would occur are listed below.

fHSL: 16, 20, 23, 25, 63, 64, 66, 69, 84, 89, 93, 900

HTH: 27, 28, 94

HTH_HSH: 24, 30, 31, 67, 71, 73, 74, 80, 85, 87, 90, 91, 106, 125

SPT: 8

In areas OPEN for firewood harvest, per the CNF firewood map:

Allow removal of up to 80% of existing snags and down wood less than 16” DBH, including

in lynx habitat.

f. Conclusions

The no action alternative will have “no effect” to lynx.

The Proposed Action "may affect but is not likely to adversely affect" lynx because the project

does not affect foraging habitat, creates unsuitable habitat that would grow into future foraging

habitat, and does not reduce denning habitat below the levels that lynx need to reproduce. The

project has been planned using the best available science (Interagency Lynx Biology Team 2013

and Ruggiero et al. 2000). Conduct informal consultation.

4. Wolverine (Gulo gulo)

Status: Sensitive (USFS Region 6 List), Proposed for listing under ESA (Federal Register, 2013)


The Forest Plan provides no specific standards and guidelines or management direction

applicable to wolverines.

Wolverines are rare in northeastern Washington, but both confirmed and unconfirmed sightings

have been reported from a few areas on or near the CNF. We documented one wolverine from

near the Kettle River, south of Danville, about 7 miles north of the project area, in 2005 (Pilgrim

and Schwartz 2006). A wolverine was photographed in the Wedge in February of 2012. We

have set 2 run-pole and 2 hair pole sets for wolverine during the winters of 2010 and 2011 in the

project area but have not documented any animals. This area burned in the Stickpin fire of 2015.

The wolverine is highly mobile and travels through a very large home range. Estimates of home

range size vary by area, ranging to over 1,200 square miles for individual males (Krantz et al.

61

1991). Females generally have smaller home ranges (150-200 square miles). Home range size

and seasonal movements seem to be influenced by food availability, breeding activity, and

habitat conditions, including availability of denning sites and seclusion.

Wolverine move through and occupy a wide variety of habitat types, from wet and heavily

forested to dry and very open. In studies that contained habitats similar to those on the CNF,

researchers found that wolverines frequented boreal woodlands (Hornocker and Hash 1981,

Copeland 1996) but occupied almost any habitat type (Hatler 1989). In Montana wolverines

rarely crossed openings such as clearcuts or burned areas (Hornocker and Hash 1981) but in

Idaho wolverines frequently crossed openings and burned areas, including highways, at high

elevations (Copeland 1996).

In both Idaho and north central Washington, wolverine located their natal den sights at high

elevations, in cirque basins or talus slopes (J. Copeland and S. Fitkin, pers. comm. and 2006

capture; Magoun and Copeland 1998).

Wolverines are considered opportunistic scavengers that consume a wide variety of plant and

animal food, with carrion (especially big game animals) serving as the mainstay of their winter

diet. They often cache surplus food for later use.

Their abundance seems related to prey abundance (Banci 1994). Few studies have examined the

effects of timber harvest on wolverine, though Hornocker and Hash (1981) found no difference

between wolverine movements, habitat use, or behavior in wolverines that inhabited logged vs.

unlogged habitats in their study site. Wolverines do not appear to shun open areas: in

Washington wolverines have been found in sagebrush and in Oregon on the south side of the

Columbia River, across which they presumably swam. In Idaho wolverines commonly crossed

natural openings and areas with little overstory such as burned areas, meadows and alpine areas

(Copeland 1996).

Remote country with limited human activity appears essential to maintain viable wolverine

populations (Hornocker and Hash 1981), probably due mostly to what appear to be stringent

seclusion requirements of maternal females (Copeland 1996). However, timber management can

be compatible with wolverine habitat needs. Krantz et al. (1991) reported that management

actions to enhance or maintain wolverine habitat quality include the need to:

provide a variety of successional stages,

maintain travel corridors between managed and unmanaged areas,

provide relatively large units of habitat capable of supporting adequate prey populations

(mainly big game),

identify and protect essential habitat from disturbance or intrusion by humans and their

activities, particularly natal den sites. J. Copeland (pers. comm.) stressed that natal den

sites must not be disturbed.

Because of the wolverine's large territorial requirements, the Deer Jasper project area provides

wolverine habitat, though no denning habitat.

62


i. Successional Stages

The project area contains a diversity of tree sizes and ages, though in the dry biophysical

environments is skewed to middle structural stages, which are present in much higher

percentages than historically, and lacking in single-storied late structure. Elevations peak about

7,000 feet on the western part of the project area, and the project area contains part of the Kettle

Crest spine. The Stickpin fire in 2015 burned more than half of western part of the project area

and dramatically reduced or eliminated horizontal cover over more than 9,000 acres.

ii. Corridors

Many wildlife species travel along corridors on ridges and saddles or riparian areas, using cover

in these areas to provide security. We delineated corridors for the project area according to

guidelines in the Forest Plan (5 June, 1995, amendment). See discussion under the grizzly bear

section above.

Throughout the project area not burned by the Stickpin fire, cover is excellent and corridors have

not been compromised from harvest. Corridors affected by the fire will begin to provide lateral

cover within about 5 years, and standing dead trees still contribute somewhat to cover in the

corridor areas. Considering where wolverines have been recorded in Washington (Aubry et al.

2007, Johnson 1977), any open stretches encountered, including the Boulder-Deer highway,

would not prevent a wolverine from moving through the area. Sufficient cover remains along all

creeks outside the severely burned areas to allow riparian areas to also function as a corridor.

iii. Prey

Wolverine are primarily carnivores rather than omnivores, so big game carrion provides a large

portion of their diet. See the discussion under the wolf section above (page 35) for existing

conditions of big game summer and winter range.

iv. Core Area/Seclusion Habitat

Wolverines seem to respond to human disturbance in a manner similar to grizzly bears, and we

modeled seclusion habitat using the same criteria. See discussion of Seclusion Habitat within

the grizzly bear section on page 23.

During the natal denning period wolverine are very susceptible to disturbance at their den sites,

but the project area does not contain the high mountain cirques or talus slopes that they use for

denning.

V. Denning Areas

As mentioned above, the project area does not contain the high mountain cirques or talus slopes

that they use for denning.


i. Effects to Successional Stages

The project area contains a diversity of tree sizes and ages, though not in the percentages that

occurred historically. Most of the biophysical environments are below historical ranges of early

and late structural stages, vastly exceed the amount of middle structural stages in all biophysical

63

environments, and slightly exceeds the historical amount of late structure in closed conditions in

the warm, dry biophysical environments.

The no-action alternative will not change conditions of successional stages, and while no action

would not negatively affect wolverine, no action would not improve conditions for wolverine

feeding habitat.

The proposed management activities would open stands in all biophysical environments to create

more early successional conditions, open stands in dry environments, and allow some stands to

develop larger structure more rapidly than without management by reducing tree competition for

light and moisture. The proposed post-management conditions are those under which wolverines

evolved, and the proposed project will not negatively affect wolverine or their movements.

ii. Effects to Corridors

For more detail, see Effects to Corridors under the grizzly bear section (page 26). Briefly,

neither the No Action alternative nor the Proposed Action would negatively affect travel

corridors. No new system roads are proposed, and the proposed temporary opening of some

currently closed roads would not preclude wolverine from using the area. We would mitigate the

effects of opening currently closed roads by pulling slash and debris over them when they are re-

closed. Therefore, none of the roads would negatively affect potential corridors. Harvest would

not result in corridors being so restricted that wolverines would not use them.

iii. Effects to Prey

Proposed treatments of all units would result in more browse and forage for big game and a

better distribution of cover and forage than currently exists. In the Proposed Action, commercial

harvest treatments within winter range areas, in most instances followed by prescribed fire,

would open the stands, reduce competition from young trees, retain older and larger trees on the

landscape, and promote browse and forage. None of the treatments are designed to remove the

larger overstory trees. These trees provide good cover in winter because they help intercept

snow and keep the areas around the boles snow-free. Though the Proposed Action would result

in some loss of cover, management activities in winter range would not create large openings

that deer tend to avoid because of deep snow. Additionally, least 10% of each unit (and up to

25% in most LOS stands) would be retained in an unthinned condition to maintain escape/hiding

cover distributed throughout the unit.

In both summer and winter range areas that haven’t already burned in the Stickpin fire in 2015,

prescribed fire would open the understory and regenerate forage species. This process would

begin to move the area towards more historic conditions, which suited mule deer better than

current conditions, which favor white-tailed deer.

The No Action alternative does not begin to move cover in winter range to more desirable

conditions. It also keeps the project area at greater risk for large scale disturbances (insects,

disease, or wildfire) that could negatively affect game by eliminating cover availability for many

years.

64

Prescribed burning activities under the Proposed Action is expected to improve existing forage

quality and quantity within treatment areas, whereas the No Action alternative will continue the

overall decline in forage quality and quantity as the forest matures and closes.

iv. Effects to Core Area/Seclusion Habitat

See Effects to Core Area/Seclusion Habitat under grizzly bears (page 28).

v. Denning Areas

No denning habitat exists in the watershed, so denning areas would not be affected.


The area considered for cumulative effects analysis consists of the Kettle Range south of the

Canadian border. Several projects have occurred on NFS and non-NFS land at mid and low

elevations in this area in the past 2 decades, most of which have included timber harvest.

Planned and completed projects will affect or have affected wolverine habitat, though none have

affected denning habitat because the high elevation areas consist of NFS land managed as semi-

primitive non-wilderness, which does not allow for timber harvest. Activities at mid and low

elevations have modified habitat (timber harvest, prescribed fire) and increased both road

densities and human presence.

The No Action alternative would not contribute to cumulative effects to wolverine because the

No Action alternative does not affect wolverine.

i. Successional Stages

Several recent timber sales and associated prescribed fire projects occurred within the cumulative

effects area. All but one occurred in the wildland/urban interface, at lower elevations and

primarily in warmer, drier environments. We planned these projects using the concept of

managing towards historical ranges of variability for different structural stages, which should

maintain successional patterns and processes similar to those with which wolverine evolved.

Continued management under the concept of historic range of variability should benefit

wolverine, which mainly occupy mid and upper elevations. Management on non-NFS lands

usually must be done in accordance with Washington Forest Practices rules, which allows for

heavy harvest. Non-NFS land primarily occurs at lower elevations in warmer, drier

environments. In many of these non-NFS areas, successional stages are skewed towards younger

stands. Young stands provide forage for big game, one of the primary prey items of wolverine.

Except for closed-canopy stands in warmer, drier environments, the proposed activities on NFS

land, when added to harvest that has already occurred, would not dramatically change the

percentages of different successional stages across the cumulative effects analysis area, thus

would not negatively affect wolverines. Closed-canopied stands within the wildland-urban

interface have been opened by removing smaller understory trees, retained larger trees, and

opened stands to conditions present historically. The amount of harvest in the wildland-urban

interface has dramatically decreased the amount of closed-canopied stands, and proposed

projects would continue to do so. Wolverine generally do not occupy the warmer, drier

environments, so the shift in stand closure would probably not affect wolverine.

ii. Travel Corridors

On NFS land most corridors along the creeks remain forested. Nearly all non-NFS land lies at

lower elevations that wolverine might move through but would not reside. Along the Kettle

65

Crest, wolverines traveling along any corridor would meet little ground that was opened by

human activity. Considering their distribution in Washington (Aubry et al. 2007; Johnson 1977),

any open stretches encountered would not keep a wolverine from moving through the area,

especially as evidenced by the wolverine reported in 2005 from just northwest of the project area

(Pilgrim and Schwartz 2006).

The FS adopted guidelines to maintain corridors to connect late and old structural stands. All

current and future projects will retain these corridors. The FS does not have guidelines to

maintain cover on major ridges and saddles. Harvest on major ridges and saddles would restrict

movement but sufficient cover remains in riparian areas and on the more dense slopes to provide

cover for wolverine. Harvest on non-NFS land does not have to meet as stringent guidelines as

that on NFS land, thus riparian corridors on non-NFS land do not retain as many trees. Because

most of the better wolverine habitat in the Kettle Crest lies at higher elevations and nearly all of

this land is NFS land, sufficient habitat remains in the cumulative effects analysis area to allow

wolverine to move through the area. The proposed action would not negatively affect travel

corridors in the cumulative effects analysis area.

iii. Prey Summer and Winter Range

Both the Bangs and Kettle Face WUI projects and Deadman timber sale project on the east side

of the Kettle Crest and Malo Eastlake and Walker WUI projects on the west side were recently

implemented on NFS land and contained elements that improved conditions for big game, thus

wolverine. This trend will continue with future projects, including the Sherman and Orient

watershed proposed projects on the east side. Much of big game winter range lies within the

wildland/urban interface, and fuels reduction projects that include prescribed fire and opening

the canopy would improve forage conditions for big game, thus wolverine. Harvest on non-NFS

land, as mentioned above, has created many stands of early successional habitat. These stands

benefit big game, thus wolverines.

Noxious weeds have severely impacted big game habitat throughout the West, whether or not

harvest activity has taken place, which decreases and in many cases offsets the improved forage

conditions that result from opening the canopy. The level of forage reduction and consequent

reduction in big game populations is not known. Ferry County maintains an aggressive weed

control program that attempts to stop the spread of noxious weeds, with mixed results due to the

scope and magnitude of the issue. Along road corridors in the project area, we will spray and use

IPM for noxious weeds, which might limit but will not entirely prevent their spread.

iv. Core Area/Seclusion Habitat

The planned project would not contribute to loss of core area habitat. Many projects on both

NFS and non-NFS land have reduced seclusion habitat, thus decreased habitat quality for

wolverine. Current and future projects that construct, reconstruct or reopen roads will reduce

seclusion habitat for the portion of time that the project remains active. The Forest Plan requires

that new roads be closed at the end of harvest activities, thus the most severe negative effects

should be limited to the time during which the roads remain open to vehicle traffic. This varies

among sales, but often a road remains open for about 6 years (the time of construction through

treatment, plus a year of post-treatment firewood collection). Closed roads reduce disturbance

from humans and improve seclusion habitat, but road closures are not completely effective.

Roads built into seclusion habitat will influence human access until the road prism becomes too

66

difficult to navigate. More than 87 square miles of Management Area 10 and 11 areas provide

seclusion habitat primarily in the higher elevations of the cumulative effects analysis area. On

non-NFS land, little if any seclusion habitat remains.

vi. Denning Areas

Potential natal denning areas occur in the cumulative effects area at high elevations, nearly all in

MA10 and MA11 and are protected from motorized disturbance. Because this project does not

affect denning habitat, it would not contribute to cumulative effects to potential denning areas.


Same as for grizzly bear (GB)

f. Conclusions

The No Action alternative would have no effect to wolverine.

The Proposed Action would change structural stage distribution and begin to move some lower

and mid-elevation environments towards late and older structure and open stands on drier sites.

The Proposed Action would not reduce the amount of core area habitat. For prey habitat, the

Proposed Action would slightly improve conditions by improving forage. No denning areas

would be affected because that habitat does not exist in the project area.

Because potential habitat would be affected, though the habitat quality is marginal, the Proposed

Action “may affect” individual wolverine, but “will not lead in a trend towards federal listing or

loss of viability.”

6. Pacific Western (Townsend's) Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii)



Pacific western big-eared bats may occupy almost any type of habitat, from grasslands to mixed

conifer forest. This bat roosts and hibernates in caves or mine shafts but may also use cavities in

large trees or snags (Ormsbee et al. 1998, Perkins 1995, Perkins 1990). Maternity colony sites

are less well understood but require warmer conditions. These sites have primarily been found in

human-built structures or small caves in boulder fields or cracks in cliffs (Reid et al. 2010);

mines in this area are too cool to provide maternity sites.

The Forest Plan does not contain specific standards and guidelines or management direction

pertaining to Pacific western (Townsend's) big-eared bats. The objectives are to protect internal

microclimate conditions of mines, caves and structures associated with roosting, hibernating

and/or reproducing bats and to protect roosting, hibernating and/or reproducing bats from human

disturbance. Current management suggestions outline a suite of buffer options around mines or

buildings that support roosts, hibernating areas, or maternity colonies in order to retain the

microclimate characteristics of an occupied site. Management intent is to minimize or eliminate

disturbance at hibernating areas (from mid-October to May) and maternity colonies

(approximately May through August). To determine effects to Pacific western big-eared bats,

we examine effects to sites that support hibernacula (caves and mines) and maternal colonies

(old buildings).

67


Because Townsend’s big-eared bats have been recorded about 8 miles southeast of the project

area in summer and one of the largest hibernacula in northeast Washington occurs about 8 miles

northeast of the project area, the project area probably serves as foraging and roosting habitat.

No mines occur in the project area boundary so no hibernacula are expected. No human-built

structures, large cliffs, boulder fields or caves occur within the project area so no maternity

colonies are expected to occur. Many snags occur throughout the project area, particularly in the

area burned in the Stickpin fire in 2015, and big-eared bats could them as day roost sites.

Canopies in most environments are fairly closed, though areas of warm, dry conditions in which

big-eared bats would pursue their prey do exist, primarily at the lower elevations on the east side

of the project area.


No habitat for hibernacula or maternity colonies exists so there will be no effect to these primary

requirements of big-eared bats by the proposed project or the No Action alternative.

During harvest, all snags over 16” would be targeted for retention. Snags would be felled for

safety reasons, but most commercial thin units would use ground-based yarding so more snags

would be retained than with cable or helicopter yarding. Sufficient snags would remain to

provide day-roosting habitat for big-eared bats.

Harvest would open stands and presumably improve foraging conditions for Townsend’s big-

eared bats.


The area considered for cumulative effects analysis consists of the Kettle Crest. Planned projects

and treatments on other ownerships within the Forest boundary could contribute to cumulative

effects to Townsend’s big-eared bats because private landowners are not required to manage for

these bats and old buildings can be modified or destroyed. Most cliff faces and large boulder

fields on the west side of the Kettle Crest lie on NFS land and few if any management activities

take place on or near them.

Forest Service harvest treatments in this and other projects would not negatively contribute to

cumulative effects to either hibernacula or maternity sites because we buffer maternity colonies

and conduct prescribed fire and timber projects near mines outside the hibernation period.

Illegal use of historical structures that support Townsend’s big-eared bats potentially could cause

disturbance of roost sites and maternity sites during summer and hibernacula during late autumn

and winter, but few recreationists or miners explore mines during winter, and on NFS lands most

mines used by bats are closed by bat-friendly closures.

The No Action alternative would not contribute to cumulative effects to Townsend’s big-eared

bats because the No Action alternative does not affect them.


None.

68

f. Conclusions

The No Action Alternative is expected to have "no impact" to Townsend’s big-eared bats.

Because these bats have been documented southeast of the project area during in summer and

northeast of it during winter and they likely occupy the project area, the proposed activities “may

impact” individual Townsend’s big-eared bats but are "not likely to result in a trend toward

Federal listing or loss of viability".

7. Moose (Alces americanus)



Moose are the largest members of the deer family in North America. In the early 1990s moose

were extremely rare in northeastern Washington. Since then their population has grown

considerably to where they are a species hunted under permit by the public. At the time of his

retirement in 2007 Steve Zender, District Wildlife Biologist for WDFW, estimated that about

2,500 moose livedin NE Washington (S. Zender, pers. comm.). Since then, moose have

expanded to the Okanogan area, and within the past 2 years, at least one animal crested the

Cascades and was spotted on the west side of Washington. In the lower 48 states, Washington is

one of the few where the moose population appears stable or expanding; in most other states,

including former moose haven Minnesota, moose are declining. The reasons for their decline are

not fully understood.

In Washington, moose are hunted. About 130 permits are issued each year for moose hunting;

success rate is about 95% (R. Harris, pers. comm.). The vast majority of those permits are for

NE Washington, including the CNF.

Managing for moose involves providing

sufficient browse,

access to wetland areas,

protection from poaching, and

some cover to mitigate thermal issues related to warm temperatures.

Providing sufficient browse forage involves creating or maintaining early successional habitat

but withholding use of broadleaf herbicides, which kills browse on which moose depend. Moose

frequently occur in back yards so traverse a variety of areas and are not unduly influenced by

humans, so access to wetland areas is usually only restricted by physical barriers. Protection

from poaching involves managing road densities, though the level of poaching does not influence

moose populations. Some evidence exists that moose respond negatively to high temperatures,

primarily in the summer, so we include providing overstory cover as an element in their

management.


Moose occupy the Deer Jasper area and can be found throughout most of the project area,

particularly along the riparian areas. The subpopulation in the project area is probably restricted

from growing by lack of early successional forests. Few large stands of browse exist, and those

69

that do have mostly grown beyond the reach of even moose. The FS does not broadcast apply

broadleaf herbicides to control woody browse. The existing road density does allow access and

the remoteness does allow for the possibility of poaching, but the level of poaching probably

does not drive the moose numbers in the project area. No wetlands have been fenced or

otherwise barred from access by moose. Sufficient cover remains to allow moose to escape open

sun. The Stickpin fire in 2015 burned more than half the project area and set the stage for a flush

of browse that will positively affect foraging conditions for the moose in the project area.


The No Action alternative will continue to allow stands to grow closed as they develop along

their successional pathways, thus reducing habitat quality and quantity for moose.

The proposed action would improve moose habitat. The proposed action includes several

thousand acres of harvest and prescribed fires that would improve forage conditions for moose.

None of the areas would be treated with broadleaf herbicides in an attempt to reduce woody

plants that provide browse for moose. No wetlands would be fenced or otherwise barred from

access by moose. Though the road density would increase slightly during harvest activities, all

currently closed roads that will be opened for haul or other management activities would be

closed afterwards, thus maintaining the current road density. None of the openings created

would be more than several acres so cover would remain for moose to escape summer

temperatures, and in riparian areas, which generally are cooler than the surrounding uplands,

most overstory vegetation would remain intact.


The cumulative effects area for moose includes the area west of the Columbia River. Moose

occur throughout the area on both NFS and non-NFS lands. Though moose frequently swim

across the Columbia River, the habitat conditions east of the River are generally better than those

west of the River, probably because higher available moisture and better soils results in better

growing conditions for moose browse (The best habitat generally occurs east of the Pend Oreille

River.) Projects recently implemented, those currently being implemented, and those planned on

NFS lands will benefit moose because they will provide similar conditions to those in this

project. Projects on non-NFS land will benefit moose browse because they are frequently

involve more intense timber harvest than projects on NFS land. Projects on non-NFS land might

not retain sufficient overstory vegetation to allow moose to escape hot summer temperatures, but

areas nearby do. Unlike east of the Columbia River, few early successional stands on non-NFS

land are treated with broadleaf herbicides. Each year, several moose are poached, but the level

of poaching does not drive the population in the cumulative effects analysis area. WDFW issues

several permits to hunt moose.

The No Action alternative will not, when combined with actions on non-NFS land, result in a

change in moose habitat or moose numbers. The proposed action would improve moose habitat.


Same as for big game in the Effects to Management Indicator Species for this project.

f. Conclusions

The No Action alternative will not affect moose but will result in a continued decline in moose

habitat, and thus, over the long term, moose.

70

The proposed action will benefit moose.

C. Invertebrates

1. Meadow fritillary (Boloria bellona)



Though common in the eastern US in hayfields and human-disturbed habitats, in the west they

occur in higher-elevation meadows and openings in aspen or pine forests (Guppy and Shepard

2001). In Washington this species is known from about 16 sites in the Blue Mountains and SE

WA, and in Okanogan (Hinchliff 1996), Ferry, Spokane, Whitman, and Columbia counties. On

the Colville, meadow fritillaries have been captured at 8 sites, all west of the Kettle Crest

(though this probably is more an outcome of survey effort rather than their distribution). Some

of the southeastern populations are believed extirpated, potentially a result of heavy grazing by

cattle (Pyle 2002).

Adults fly between late May and late August. There are two generations of adults in a year.

Larvae of meadow fritillaries, like most species of fritillaries, feed on violets, purportedly the

Canadian white violet, Viola canadensis (Guppy and Shepard 2001). Viola canadensis is a fairly

common and widespread violet species with both rhizomatous and stoloniferous roots and which

requires disturbance for seed generation (K. Ahlenslager, pers. comm.). Larvae of the late

summer generation overwinter.

No particular management considerations are thought necessary on federal lands at this time

(Fleckenstein 2006a). Fritillaries are strong fliers and can probably colonize new sites within a

few miles of an existing population. Because the adults fly, fragmentation due to roads is not an

issue. Direct mortality from vehicles probably is not an issue because adults do not feed on

roads, and vehicle speeds on forest roads generally are low. Grazing is thought to be a threat,

though effects have not been documented. As is the case with most invertebrate species, the

number of individuals is usually less important than number of populations.


Several parts of the project area consist of open pine stands, and meadows occur on some of the

open, south-facing slopes. Many other areas of potential habitat have grown closed due to forest

succession. The Stickpin fire of 2015 opened several thousands of acres in the project area and

might have considerably improved conditions for meadow fritillaries.

We conducted general butterfly surveys in the area and across the northern fifth of Stevens, Ferry

and Pend Oreille Counties in late May through early June in 2009, in early summer 2010 and in

midsummer 2011. We did not capture any fritillary species in the project area but did capture 2

meadow fritillaries in northwestern Ferry County, about 9 miles west/northwest of the project

area.


Because no particular management considerations are thought necessary on federal lands at this

time, the project would not negatively affect meadow fritillaries. Grazing, thought to be an

71

action that could potentially negatively affect meadow fritillaries, is not part of this project. The

project does propose opening stands, which would create or enhance conditions in which

meadow fritillaries occur, so the project would improve potential habitat for meadow fritillaries.

The No Action alternative does not positively affect meadow fritillaries because it does not result

in more open stands in which meadow fritillaries can nectar, but it doesn’t negatively affect

them, either.


The cumulative effects area consists of potential habitat, primarily open, moist meadows, in

Ferry County. Because the project would not degrade meadow fritillary habitat, it would not

contribute to potential negative effects across the cumulative effects area. The project would

enhance potential habitat, though the small amount of habitat compared to the cumulative effects

area would have a minor, positive effect to meadow fritillary habitat in the cumulative effects

area. Because the No Action alternative does not affect meadow fritillaries, it would not

contribute to cumulative effects to this species.


None.

f. Conclusions

The project would have a beneficial impact to meadow fritillary habitat.

3. Rosner’s hairstreak (Callophyrys nelsoni rosneri or C. grynea plicateria)



Rosner’s hairstreak occupies Western redcedar forests and nectars in openings in the forest,

primarily on flowers in the composite family, particularly Antennaria and Senecio species.

When they are not nectaring, Rosner’s hairstreaks are difficult to detect because they occupy the

mid and upper levels of the Western redcedar canopy. Individuals over-winter as pupae, and

adults emerge and fly early in the season, from mid-May to late June, but peak in late May or

early June. Larval food is Western red cedar (Thuja plicata).

Hairstreaks are strong fliers and can colonize new sites within a few miles of an existing

population. The adults fly up to 2 miles in search of nectaring areas (J. Shepard, pers. comm.) so

fragmentation due to roads is not an issue. Direct mortality from vehicles probably is not an

issue because though adults “mud” on moist forest roads, the flight time does not coincide with

high use of the forest roads, and in general, vehicle speeds on forest roads are low.

In Washington prior to the summer of 2009, Rosner’s hairstreak was known from about 6

locations, which might have indicated that areas have not been adequately surveyed

(Fleckenstien 2006c). Known populations in Washington come from Ferry, Stevens, and Pend

Oreille counties (Pyle 2002, Guppy and Shepard 2001).

In late May through early June 2009 we conducted general butterfly surveys across the northern

fifth of Stevens, Ferry and Pend Oreille Counties, which coincided with what apparently was that

year’s peak of the flight period of Rosner’s hairstreak and perhaps a peak in annual numbers

72

because of the excellent spring conditions. We found them in nearly all appropriate habitat

(large cedar trees, especially adjacent to openings with flowers used for nectaring, primarily

Antennaria and Senecio species), adding nearly 80 new locations. General lepidopteran surveys

in 2010 and 2011 also added more sites. Surveys in 2012, a cold, wet spring, found only a few in

the same locations. Based on this information, and information in Guppy and Shepard (2001)

and comments by J. Shepard (pers. comm.) about their distribution and abundance just north of

the US/Canada border, we think that Rosner’s hairstreak can be a fairly common species in

appropriate habitat and exhibits rather wild swings in population numbers.

Intensive logging, especially of western red cedar, is the only noted potential threat to this

species (Fleckenstein 2006c). Negative impacts to individuals could occur from removal of

nectaring plants by roadside spraying, but the impact to the population of Rosner’s hairstreaks

would be negligible.


East of the Kettle Crest, western redcedar is a fairly common component of the landscape in

riparian and moist areas. These conditions are found primarily along stream corridors at lower

elevations in the project area. Rosner’s hairstreak were first documented in Ferry County by Jon

Shepard near the junction of Boulder-Deer 395 highways in the Deer Jasper area. During a

quick survey in 2009, he and I caught adults along the 6100-010 road. During surveys in 2012, I

caught an additional single Rosner’s hairstreak near where the South Fork Boulder Creek merges

with Boulder Creed. The flight period for Rosner’s hairstreaks in 2012 was dismal for

conditions conducive to adults, and areas outside the project area in which I previously found

dozens of them did not support any in 2012. Populations probably occupy the stringers of cedar

in the more moist environments, but we did not survey all available habitat for the project.


Harvest would retain large cedars so would not affect brood-rearing habitat.

Harvest would open up stands and result in more nectaring flowers, which would benefit

Rosner’s hairstreak.

Road reconstruction could physically remove Antennaria and Senecio species and noxious weed

control kill them. We supply the noxious weed specialist with a map of sightings so the crew

can attempt to avoid spraying Antennaria and Senecio species.

Because the No Action alternative does not affect Rosner’s hairstreak, it would not contribute to

cumulative effects to this species.


Projects on NFS land on the east flank of the Kettle Crest would affect few large cedars and most

would open stands and result in more nectar-producing flowers. Overall, actions on NFS land

would improve conditions for Rosner’s hairstreak. Projects on NFS land would slightly improve

conditions for Rosner’s hairstreak in the cumulative effects for this species, and could slightly

improve conditions by providing more nectaring habitat. Because the No Action alternative does

not affect Rosner’s hairstreak, it would not contribute to cumulative effects to this species.

73


RHS DE1:

A description of Antennaria and Senicio species (the butterfly’s nectary flowers) will be supplied

by the West Zone Biologist to the Noxious Weed coordinator prior to noxious weed spray

season. Contractors would be instructed to avoid spraying these plants in these areas if possible.

f. Conclusions

Because individual Rosner’s hairstreaks could be killed by activities related to road

reconstruction and loss of nectaring habitat, the proposed activities “may affect” individual

Rosner’s hairstreaks but are not likely to lead in a trend towards federal listing or loss of

viability. The project is likely to have a slight beneficial impact to Rosner’s hairstreak butterfly

habitat.

4. Eastern tailed blue (Cupido comyntas)



Eastern tailed blues inhabit a wide variety of open, brushy to lightly wooded, dry habitats and

weedy areas (Opler et al. 2010). Pyle (2002) describes the habitat in Cascadia as disturbed and

weedy sites where its larval host species, members of the pea family, grow. Adults fly from mid-

June until mid-to-late July (Guppy and Shepard 2001) and feed on flower nectar, including white

sweet clover, shepherd's needle, wild strawberry, winter cress, cinquefoils, asters, and others

(Opler et al. 2010).

On National Forests in Washington, they are known only from the Colville. We conducted non-

targeted roadside surveys for butterflies during planning for this project but did not capture

Eastern tailed blues. The nearest recorded location is from the Wedge, about 13 miles northeast

of the project area.

Eastern tailed blues are highly tolerant of human activity and thrive in disturbed areas. Habitat

loss, primarily from development, is the primary threat to this species.


Most of the open slopes in the project area could be considered potential habitat.


The proposed project would not negatively affect Eastern tailed blue butterfly populations

because the prime threat is habitat loss from development, which is not part of the proposed

action. Opening stands as proposed in the project would slightly improve habitat conditions for

Eastern tailed blues because the conditions created would favor their host plants, and these

butterflies are highly tolerant of human activity and thrive in disturbed areas. Individual Eastern

tailed blue butterflies might be killed during road reconstruction or during prescribed fire

operations, though the flight period for adults is after most prescribed fires occur. The loss

would not negatively affect the populations of Eastern tailed blue butterflies. The No Action

alternative does not positively affect Eastern tailed blue butterflies because it does not result in

more open stands in which they can nectar, but it doesn’t negatively affect them, either.

74


The cumulative effects area consists of open areas in Ferry County. The project would have a

very slight positive effect to Eastern tailed blues because it will open previously closed areas,

creating conditions favorable to them. Because the No Action alternative does not affect Eastern

tailed blue butterflies, it would not contribute to cumulative effects to this species.


None

f. Conclusions

Because individual Eastern tailed blue butterflies could be killed by activities related to road

reconstruction and prescribed fires, the proposed activities “may affect” individual Eastern tailed

blue butterflies but are not likely to lead in a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability.

The project will have a slight beneficial impact to Eastern tailed blue butterfly habitat.

5. Peck’s and Tawny-edged skipper (Polites peckius and P. themistocles)



Tawny-edged skippers inhabit a great variety of moist to dry grassy habitats, though in Cascadia,

the habitat is limited to moister areas at higher elevations, such as pond and marsh meadows,

moist meadows, and stream margins (James and Nunnallee 2011). Adults fly from late June to

early July (Guppy and Shepard 2001).

Peck’s skippers occupy undisturbed and less-disturbed environments, such as mountain

meadows, marshy edges of potholes, and roadsides (Pyle 2002). Adults fly from mid-June to

late July (Guppy and Shepard 2001).

Both species nectar from many species of flowering plants (James and Nunnallee 2011). Both

are also common in eastern North America and much rarer and patchily distributed in the West

(Pyle 2002). In Washington both have been found only in the northeast, including on the CNF

and Okanogan NF. Larvae of both species feed on a variety of grasses and sedges (James and

Nunnallee 2011).

Forest management is not identified as a threat to either species. Grazing poses a threat to both,

through trampling or ingestion of eggs or pupae on host plants (Jordan 2010). Though not a

threat in northeastern Washington, increased use of urban pesticides is thought to have

contributed to the decline of Tawny-edged skippers, which also occupy lawns, in some parts of

the United States (Pyle 2002). A new, potential threat to both is from the expansion of the

nonnative European skipperling (Thymelicus lineola, Jordan 2010), which unlike most skippers

winters as eggs, which can easily be transported in grassy hay. Forest succession and loss of

meadows also decreases habitat.

Both have been recorded from more than 10 locations on the CNF, but none near the project

area.

75


The project area does not contain many potholes or marsh meadows, but it does contain

roadsides and stream margins. The Stickpin fire of 2015 burned more than half the project area

and created the potential for a large amount of habitat. During surveys, we did not record either

species though did not survey during the peaks of their flight times. We assume that their habitat

is occupied.


Grazing is not part of the proposed project activities. Because forest management is not

identified as a threat, the proposed project will not negatively affect either species. The proposed

project would not move around hay, so would not potentially improve distribution of the

European skipperling. Individual skippers might be killed during road reconstruction or during

prescribed fire operations, because larvae live in grass along roadsides affected by reconstruction

or in meadows burned during the prescribed fire season in spring. The loss would not negatively

affect the populations of either species.

The proposed project could enhance some habitat by improving the distribution and abundance

of larval host and adult nectaring plants. The No Action alternative does not positively affect

skipper butterflies because it does not result in more open stands in which they can live, but it

doesn’t negatively affect them, either.


The cumulative effects area consists of open, grassy areas, stream edges and moist mountain

meadows in Ferry County. Because the proposed project will not negatively affect either

species, it will not contribute to negative impacts in the cumulative effects analysis area.

Because the No Action alternative does not affect skippers, it would not contribute to cumulative

effects to these species.


None

f. Conclusions

Because individual skippers could be killed by activities related to road reconstruction and

prescribed fires, the proposed activities “may affect” individual tawny-edged and/or Peck’s

skippers but are not likely to lead in a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability. The

project will have a slight beneficial impact to skipper habitat.

6. Fir Pinwheel (Radiodiscus abietum)



The following is taken from Duncan (2008a) and Hendricks and Maxell (2005). Fir pinwheels

are most often found in moist and rocky mixed-coniferous forests dominated by Douglas-fir and

sometimes western redcedar. They inhabit riparian forests, outside of the immediate floodplain,

in or near talus of a variety of rock types or under fallen logs. They seem to prefer moist sites,

low on slopes or near persistent water sources, but outside of floodplains. They feed on organic

detritus and microorganisms on leaf surfaces, such as molds and bacteria.

76


Though much of the project area consists of warm, dry Douglas fir or in the mid and higher

elevations subalpine fir, pockets of moist Douglas-fir environments are scattered throughout the

project area, primarily on north-facing slopes at mid elevations. We did not conduct surveys for

this species and its status remains unknown in the project area. We assume that appropriate

habitat, particularly near riparian areas, is occupied.


The proposed project contains 4 commercial harvest units in potential fir pinwheel habitat.

Riparian areas are generally protected though some ground-disturbing activity could occur in

them. Down wood would not be removed from riparian areas unless fuel loading vastly exceeds

acceptable levels. No new roads cross riparian areas so connectivity among populations would

not be affected over current levels. Prescribed fire units in potential habitat are planned for

implementation in spring and autumn when consumption of down wood in riparian areas would

not occur or would be minimal due to high fuel moisture in large down wood. The No Action

alternative does not positively or negatively affect fir pinwheels because it would not affect their

habitat.


The cumulative effects area consists of appropriate habitat between the Kettle/Columbia Rivers

on the east and the Kettle and San Poil Rivers on the west, which constitutes the Kettle Crest.

Current and future projects are expected to be planned similar to this project: riparian areas

generally being protected but with some ground-disturbing activity occurring; down wood

remaining in riparian areas; and rocky outcrops not being affected. Roads might cross riparian

areas, which could reduce movement and isolate populations. Because the current project is not

expected to create a substantive, negative effect on fir pinwheel, the project will not contribute to

cumulative negative effects for this species. Because the No Action alternative does not affect

fir pinwheels, it would not contribute to cumulative effects to these species.


FPW DE1:

Down wood will not be removed from riparian areas in the following units: 30, 105, 114, and

125

f. Conclusions

Because habitat within riparian areas would remain essentially intact, and no new roads would

cross riparian areas, activities “may impact” individual fir pinwheels but are not likely to lead in

a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability.

7. Magnum Mantleslug (Magnipelta mycophaga)



The following is taken from Duncan (2008b). Magnum mantleslugs prefer very moist habitats.

The presence of refugia in the form of rock talus, deep leaf and needle duff, large woody debris

and the association with permanent or persistent water sources seem to be the best habitat

77

microsite associations available. The species has been found at elevations between 762-1585 m

(2,500-5,200 ft) in Montana, and up to about 1829 m (6,000 ft) in northeastern Washington.

Other known sites are all at rather high elevations (4,500-7,500 feet). The type location is sub-

alpine pine forest with Abies lasiocarpus present. Sites in Washington are in the subalpine

fir/Menziesia ferruginea plant association. That association may have been changed to subalpine

fir/Rhododendron albiflorum as it has in all areas west of the Colville.


About 6,000 acres in the western half of the project area contains biophysical environments in

which subalpine fir is a component. No open-water wetlands are located in these areas though

streams and their associated riparian areas, which include forested, wet areas, cut through much

of them. Nearly all these areas burned in the Stickpin fire in 2015.


The proposed project contains 10 commercial harvest units in potential mantleslug habitat, some

of which could affect individual magnum mantleslug but the number and extent would be

sufficiently low that the proposed project would not lead in a trend toward federal listing or loss

of viability. Riparian areas are generally protected though some ground-disturbing activity could

occur in them. Down wood would not be removed from riparian areas unless fuel loading vastly

exceeds acceptable levels. No new roads cross riparian areas so connectivity among populations

would not be affected over current levels. Prescribed fire units in potential habitat are planned

for implementation in spring and autumn when consumption of down wood in riparian areas

would not occur or would be minimal due to high fuel moisture in large down wood. The No

Action alternative does not positively or negatively affect magnum mantleslugs because it would

not affect their habitat.


The cumulative effects area consists of appropriate habitat between the Kettle/Columbia Rivers

on the east and the Kettle and San Poil Rivers on the west, which constitutes the Kettle Crest.

Current and future projects are expected to be planned similar to this project: riparian areas

generally being protected but with some ground-disturbing activity occurring; down wood

remaining in riparian areas; and rocky outcrops not being affected. Roads might cross riparian

areas, which could reduce movement and isolate populations. Because the current project is not

expected to create a substantive, negative effect on magnum mantleslugs, the project would not

contribute to cumulative negative effects for this species. Because the No Action alternative

does not affect magnum mantleslugs, it would not contribute to cumulative effects to these

species.


MMS DE 1:

Down wood will not be removed from riparian areas in the following units:

24, 27, 31, 66, 67, 80, 84, 90, 93, and 900

f. Conclusions

Because habitat within riparian areas will remain essentially intact, and no new roads will cross

riparian areas, activities “may impact” individual magnum mantleslugs but are not likely to lead

in a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability.

78

USDA Forest Service (Region 6) Sensitive Species Listed

for the CNF (December 2011)

Vertebrate Occupancy

on CNF? Essential Habitats

Species

bald eagle

D

Nesting occurs in large trees within 1000 feet of rivers and large lakes with abundant

fish. Winter roosts may be in late & old structural stage stands with good overhead

canopy along water bodies that remain open in winter. They nest on and near the

CNF.

(Haliaeetus

leucocephalus)

American peregrine

falcon D

Foraging habitats include open marshes, river bottoms and seacoasts that provide

waterfowl, upland game birds, and larger passerine birds. Peregrines typically nest

on a ledge of a tall (150 foot +), sheer cliff face. One nest been confirmed on

Washington Rock in northern Pend Oreille County, near but not on the CNF. (falco peregrinus

anatum)

common loon D

Nesting occurs on larger lakes or rivers with abundant fish and adequate shoreline

vegetation to conceal a nest. Loons nest on several CNF lakes. (gavia imner)

sandhill crane D

Occupy large undisturbed marshes or meadows. They migrate through the valley

bottoms but nesting has not been confirmed on the CNF. (Grus canadensis)

harlequin duck

D

Breeding occurs on cold, fast-moving streams with dense shrub / timber nearby and

an absence of human disturbance. In NE WA, they nest only in northeastern Pend

Oreille County. They winter on sea coasts. (Histrionicus

histrionicus)

great gray owl

D

Foraging occurs in open, grassy habitat including open forest stands, selective and

clear-cut logged areas, meadows and wetlands. Nesting occurs in large, broken

topped snags or abandoned raptor nests in forest stands. Nesting has been confirmed

on the CNF. (Strix nebulosa)

white-headed

woodpecker D

Occupy mature, ponderosa pine or mixed-conifer, open forests. Foraging occurs on

large, live trees. (Picoides

albolarvatus)

Lewis' Woodpecker D

Occupy mature, very open ponderosa pine forests. Foraging occurs by hawking

from perches. (Melanerpes lewis)

gray wolf D

Denning occurs in a variety of habitats near prey (primarily big game). Rendezvous

sites include wetlands or small meadows with dense vegetation nearby. Wolves

occupy and den on the CNF. (Canis lupus)

79

Vertebrate Occupancy

on CNF? Essential Habitats

North American

moose D Occupy early successional habitats that contain woody browse interspersed with

cover. Also wetland and riparian areas. (Alces americanus)

North American

wolverine D

Foraging occurs in all forest habitats where carrion or prey can be found. Denning

occurs in higher elevation rock slides, often in glacial cirque basins. They require

seclusion from human disturbances when in the den. Denning has not been

confirmed on the CNF. (Gulo gulo)

red-tailed

chipmunk D

Occupies mid and higher elevation openings and forest edges on the eastern part of

the CNF. Westernmost occurrence is Little Twin Lakes east of Colville. (Tamias

ruficaudus)

Townsend’s big-

eared bat D

Hibernation occurs in caves or mines that are generally close to freezing. Nursery

colonies are typically located in very warm sites, often in old abandoned buildings.

Hibernacula occur on the CNF but maternity colonies have not been documented. (Corynorhinus

townsendii)

pygmy shrew D

Only found a few times in WA. Occupy conifer stands with dense ground

vegetation. May be associated with disturbed, seral habitats. In WA, pygmy shrews

have been captured in upland, even-aged second-growth conifer forests. (Sorex hoyi)

Mountain goat

(Oreamnos

americanus)

D Occupy high, craggy mountains. Rare on the CNF.

Invertebrate

Species Occupancy

on CNF? Essential Habitats butterflies

and moths

Great Basin

fritillary NA

Occupy mid to high elevation openings and edges in forest habitats, rocky ridges,

and hilltops. Immatures feed on variety of violets. Has not been documented from

on or near the CNF, and the closest record was a misidentified specimen. (Argynnis

(Speyeria) egleis)

Meadow fritillary D

Occupy mid and higher elevation in meadows and openings in forests. Immatures

feeds on violets, primarily Viola canadensis. Has been found on CNF in Ferry

County. (Boloria bellona)

Rosner’s hairstreak

D Occupy openings and edges in coniferous forest around mature western redcedar,

the host plant of the immatures. (Callophyrus

nelsoni rosneri)

Eastern tailed blue D

Occupy disturbed and weedy sites where its larval host species, members of the pea

family, grow. (Cupido comyntas)

Peck's skipper D

Occupy mountain meadows, marshy edges of potholes, and roadsides. Adults nectar

on wide variety of flowers. (Polites peckius)

Tawny-edged

skipper D

Occupy a great variety of moist grassy habitats, generally at higher elevations.

Adults nectar on wide variety of flowers. (Polites

themistocles)

80

Dragonflies and

damselflies

Zigzag darner

(Aeshna

sitchensis),

Subarctic darner

(Aeshna

subarctica),

Subarctic bluet

(Coenagrion

interrogatum),

Delicate emerald

(Somatochlora

franklinii),

Whitehouse

emerald

(Somatochlora

whitehousei)

D Occupy higher elevation bogs, fens and wetlands

Mollusks

Magnum

Mantleslug D

Most often found in moist and rocky mixed-coniferous forests dominated by

Douglas-fir and sometimes western redcedar. (Magnipelta

mycophaga)

Fir Pinwheel

D Prefers very moist habitats in rock talus, deep leaf and needle duff and large woody

debris. Occupies the subalpine fir/Rhododendron albiflorum plant association. (Radiodiscus

abietum)

The information included in this report is based upon personal field reviews of the project

area and/or my knowledge of local site conditions and species/habitat relationships.

Section 4.3.2 of the Environmental Management System for the CNF requires that

applicable legal requirements and other requirements are applied during project analyses.

By signature below, I certify that this analysis follows the applicable policy direction found

in Forest Service Manual 2620, 2630, and 2670.

/s/ Chris Loggers 29 February, 2016

West Zone Wildlife Biologist Date

81

V. Literature Cited

Aubry, K. B. and Houston, D. B. 1992. Distribution and status of the fisher (Martes pennanti) in

Washington. Northwest Naturalist 73:69-79.

Aubry, K. B., McKelvey, K. S. and Copeland, J. P. 2007. Distribution and broadscale habitat

relations of the wolverine in the contiguous United States. Journal of Wildlife Management

71:2147–2158.

Avey, Josh T., Ballard, Warren B., Wallace, Mark C., Humphrey, Mary H., Krausman, Paul R.,

Harwell, Fielding, and Fish, Ernest B. 2003. Habitat Relationships between Sympatric

Mule Deer and White-Tailed Deer in Texas. The Southwestern Naturalist 48(4):644-653.

Banci, V. A. 1994. Wolverine. Pages 99-127 in L. F. Ruggiero, K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, L. J.

Lyon, and W. J. Zielinski, eds. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores,

American marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine in the western United States. USDA For. Serv.

Rocky Mt. For. and Range Exp. Stn., Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254, Fort Collins, Colo.

Banci, Vivian. 1989. A fisher management strategy for British Columbia. British Columbia

Ministry of the Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Branch. Victoria, BC. Wildlife

Bulletin No. B-63. 117 pages.

Beauvais, G.P. and J. McCumber. (2006, November 30). Pygmy Shrew (Sorex hoyi): a technical

conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.

Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/pygmyshrew.pdf.

Block, W. M. and L. A. Brennan. 1987. Characteristics of Lewis's Woodpecker habitat on the

Modoc Plateau, California. West. Birds 18:209-212.

Bock, C. E. 1970. The ecology and behavior of the Lewis's Woodpecker (Asyndesmus lewis).

Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 92:1-100.

Brittell, J. D., R. J. Poelker, S. J. Sweeney and G. M. Koehler. 1989. Native cats of Washington,

Section III: Lynx. Olympia, Washington, Washington Department of Wildlife: 169.

Brunjes, Kristina J., Ballard, Warren B., Humphrey, Mary H., Harwell, Fielding, McIntyre,

Nancy E., Krausman, Paul R., and Wallace, Mark C. 2006. Habitat Use by Sympatric Mule

and White-Tailed Deer in Texas. Journal of Wildlife Management 70(5):1351-1359.

Buchanan, Joseph B., Russell E. Rogers, D. John Pierce and John E. Jacobson. 2003. Nest-Site

Habitat Use by White-Headed Woodpeckers in the Eastern Cascade Mountains,

Washington. Northwestern Naturalist 84(3): 119-128.

Buskirk, S. W., and R. A. Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens. Pages

283-296 in Buskirk, S. W., A. S. Harestad, M. G. Raphael, and R. A. Powell, editors.

Martens, sables, and fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca,

New York.

Cook, J. G.; Irwin, L. L.; Bryant, L. D.; Riggs, R. A., and Thomas, J. W. 1998. Relations of

Forest Cover and Condition of Elk: A Test of the Thermal Cover Hypothesis in Summer and

Winter. Wildlife Monographs No. 141. The Wildlife Society. Bethesda, MD. 61 pp.

Copeland, J. 1996. Biology of the wolverine in central Idaho. M.S. Thesis, University of Idaho,

Moscow. 138 pp.

Duncan, Nancy. 2008a. Species fact sheet: Fir pinwheel. Edited by Rob Huff 2009. 3 pp.

[<http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents/planning-docs/sfs-ig-radiodiscus-

abietum-2009-02.doc>]

Duncan, Nancy. 2008b. Species fact sheet: Magnum mantleslug. 3 pp.

[<http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/documents/planning-docs/sfs-ig-magnipelta-

mycophaga-2008-04.doc>]

82

Everett, R., P. Hessburg, J. Lekmuhl, M. Jensen, and P. Bourgeron. 1994. Old forests in dynamic

landscapes. J. For. 92(1):22-25.

Fleckenstein, John. 2006a. Species fact sheet: Meadow Fritillary Boloria bellona. Washington

Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program. 3 pp.

Fleckenstein, John. 2006b. Species fact sheet: Great Basin fritillary Speyeria egleis.

Washington Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program. 3 pp.

Fleckenstein, John. 2006c. Species fact sheet: Rosner’s hairstreak Callophrys nelsoni rosneri.

Washington Department of Natural Resources Natural Heritage Program. 2 pp.

Franklin, Jerry F., Miles A. Hemstrom, Robert Van Pelt and Joseph B. Buchanan. 2008. The

Case for Active Management of Dry Forest Types in Eastern Washington: Perpetuating and

Creating Old Forest Structures and Functions. Washington Department of Natural

Resources. Olympia, WA. 97 pp.

Garrett, Kimball L., Martin G. Raphael and Rita D. Dixon. 1996. White-headed woodpecker

(Picoides albolarvatus), 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

Geist, V. 1981. Behavior: adaptive strategies in mule deer. Pp. 157–224 in O. C. Wallmo (ed)

Mule and black-tailed deer of North America. University of Nebraska : Lincoln, NE.

Gentry, D. J. and K. T. Vierling. 2007. Old burns as source habitats for Lewis's Woodpeckers

breeding in the Black Hills of South Dakota. Condor 109(1):122-131.

Guppy, Crispin Spencer, and Shepard, Jon. 2001. Butterflies of British Columbia: Including

Western Alberta, Southern Yukon, the Alaska Panhandle, Washington, Northern Oregon,

Northern Idaho, Northwestern Montana. Royal British Columbia Museum. UBC Press.

414 pages.

Hansen, H. J. 1986. Wolves of Northern Idaho and Northeastern Washington. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Montana Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, University of Montana,

Missoula. 88pp.

Harrod, Richy J., Bradner H. McRae and William E. Hartl. 1999. Historical stand

reconstruction in ponderosa pine forests to guide silvicultural prescriptions. Forest Ecology

and Management 114: 433-446.

Hatler, D. F. 1989. A Wolverine management strategy for British Columbia. B. C. Ministry of

Environment, Wildlife Branch, Wildlife Bull. No. B-60, Victoria, BC. 124 pp.

Hayward, Gregory D. and Verner, Jon, technical editor. Flammulated, boreal, and great gray

owls in the United States: a technical conservation assessment. Fort Collins, CO: USDA

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station; 1994; General

Technical Report RM-253. 214 pages.

Heinemeyer, Kimberly S. and Jones, Jeffery L. Fisher biology and management in the western

United States: a literature review and adaptive management strategy. Missoula, MT: U.S.

Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Northern Region; 1994 108 pages.

Hendricks, Paul and Bryce A. Maxell. 2005. USFS Northern Region 2005 Land Mollusk

Inventory: a Progress Report (Agreement #05-CS-11015600-033). Montana Natural

Heritage Program. 52 pages.

Hinchliff, John. 1996. An atlas of Washington butterflies. Corvallis, WA: The Oregon State

University Bookstore, Inc.; 162 pages.

Hornocker, M. and Hash, H. 1981. Ecology of the wolverine in northwestern Montana. Can. J.

Zool. 59(7): 1286-1301.

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/252

83

Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. 1986. Interagency grizzly bear guidelines. 100pp.

Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. 1994. Grizzly Bear/Motorized Access Management. Task

Force report. 8 pp.

Interagency Lynx Biology Team. 2013. Canada lynx conservation assessment and strategy. 3rd

edition. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land

Management, and USDI National Park Service. Forest Service Publication R1-13-19,

Missoula, MT. 128 pp.

James, David G. and Nunnallee, David. 2011. Life Histories of Cascadia Butterflies. Oregon

State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 448 pages.

Johnsgard, Paul A. 2002. North American owls: biology and natural history. 2nd ed.

Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, DC. 298 pages.

Johnson, Richard E. 1977. An historical analysis of wolverine abundance and distribution in

Washington. The Murrelet. 58:13-16.

Jones, E. L, and E. O. Garton. 1994. Selection of successional stages by fishers in north-central

Idaho. Pages 377-387 in Buskirk, S. W., A. S. Harestad, M. G. Raphael, and R. A. Powell,

eds. Martens, sables, and fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, NY.

684 pp.

Jordan, Sarah Foltz. 2010. Species fact sheet: Tawny-edged skipper (Polites themistocles).

Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. 20 pp.

Koehler, Gary M. 1990. Population and habitat characteristics of lynx and snowshoe hares in

north central Washington. Canadian Journal of Zoology 68: 845-851.

Kozma, Jeffrey M. 2011. Composition of Forest Stands used by White-Headed Woodpeckers

for Nesting in Washington. Western North American Naturalist 71(1): 1-9.

Krantz, W. C., Tim J. Schommer and R. Johnson. 1991. Guidelines for monitoring California

wolverines in the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. Unpubl. US Forest Service

paper. 35pp.

Lewis, Jeffrey C. and Stinson, Derek W. 1998. Washington State status report for the fisher.

Wash. Dept. Fish and Wildl., Olympia. 64 pp.

Linder, K. A. 1994. Habitat utilization and behavior of nesting Lewis's Woodpeckers

(Melanerpes lewis) in the Laramie range, southeast Wyoming. Master's Thesis. Univ. of

Wyoming, Laramie.

Linder, K. A.; Anderson, S. H. 1998. Nesting habitat of Lewis’ woodpeckers in southeastern

Wyoming. Journal of Field Ornithology 69: 109-116.

Magoun, Audrey J. and Jeff. P. Copeland. 1998. Characteristics of Wolverine Reproductive

Den Sites. The Journal of Wildlife Management 62(4): 1313-1320.

McKelvey, Kevin, James J.Claar, Gregory W. McDaniel, and Gary Hanvey. 1999. National

Lynx Detection Protocol. Unpublished report. 11 pp.

Mellen, 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.

Mellen-McLean, K., B. G. Marcot, J. L. Ohmann, K. Waddell, S. A. Livingston, E. A. Willhite,

B. B. Hostetler, C. Ogden, and T. Dreisbach. 2012. DecAID, the decayed wood advisor for

managing snags, partially dead trees, and down wood for biodiversity in forests of

84

Washington and Oregon. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region and Pacific

Northwest Research Station; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office,

Portland. [Online.] http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/decaid/index.shtml

Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. 2013. Lewis's

Woodpecker - Melanerpes lewis In Montana Field Guide.

http://FieldGuide.mt.gov/detail_ABNYF04010.aspx.

Newlon, K. R. and V. A. Saab. 2011. Nest-site selection and nest survival of Lewis's

Woodpecker in aspen riparian woodlands. Condor 113(1):183-193.

Nilsen, Erland B., Ivar Herfindal and John D. C. Linnell. 2005. Can intra-specific variation in

carnivore home-range size be explained using remote-sensing estimates of environmental

productivity? Ecoscience 12(1): 68-75.

Opler, P.A., Lotts, K. and T. Naberhaus, coordinators. 2010. Butterflies and Moths of North

America. Bozeman, MT: Big Sky Institute. www.butterfliesandmoths.org.

Ormsbee, Pat; L. Becker, D. Ek, J. Nieland, and J. Villegas. 1998. Version 2.o Survey Protocols

and Management Recommendations Applicable to ROD Direction for Bats Associated with

the Northwest Forest Plan 12/23/98. Unpublished Forest Service document.

Perkins, J. M. 1990. Three year bat survey for Washington National Forests: Results of year

three-Wenatchee, Okanogan and Colville National Forests. Unpublished report. 41 p. plus

maps.

Perkins, J. Mark, 1995. Mine Searches for Plecotus Townsendii on the Colville Ranger District,

Colville National Forest, USFS.

Pilgrim, K., and Michael Schwartz. 2006, June 19. Letter to Chris Loggers re wolverine sample

near Danville, WA. 1 page.

Powell, R.A., and W.J. Zielinski. 1994, Fisher: Pages. 38–73. in L. F. Ruggiero, K. B. Aubry, S.

W. Buskirk, L. J. Lyon, and W. J. Zielinski, editors. American marten, fisher, lynx, and

wolverine in the western United States. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-

254.

Pyle, Robert Michael. 2002. The Butterflies of Cascadia: A Field Guide to All the Species of

Washington, Oregon, and Surrounding Territories. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, WA.

420 pages.

Raphael, Martin G. and Marshall White. 1984. Use of Snags by Cavity-Nesting Birds in the

Sierra Nevada. Wildlife Monographs 86: 1-66

Reid, Aaron; Hill, Thomas; Clarke, Ross; Gwilliam, John; Krebs, John. 2010. Roosting

Ecology of Female Townsend's Big-Eared Bats (Corynorhinus townsendii) in South-Eastern

British Columbia: Implications for Conservation Management. Northwestern Naturalist,

91(2):215-218.

Ruediger, Bill; Claar, Jim; Gniadek, Steve; Holt, Bryon; Lewis, Lyle; Mighton, Steve; Naney,

Bob; Patton, Gary; Rinaldi, Tony; Trick, Joel; Vandehey, Anne; Wahl, Fred; Warren,

Nancy; Wenger, Dick; Wiliamson, Al. 2000. Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and

Strategy. Unpubl. Report, January 2000. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region.

Missoula, MT. 199 pp.

Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, G. M. Koehler, C. J. Krebs, K. S. McKelvey and J.

R. Squires. 2000. Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States. USDA Forest

Service General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-30WWW. 480 pp.

http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/

85

Saab, V. A. and J. Dudley. 1996. Why do burned forests provide conditions for nest site

convergence among cavity-nesting birds? 114th Stated Meeting of the Amer. Ornithol.

Union, 13-17 August 1996. Abstract no 119. Boise, ID.

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. RMRS-

RP-11. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station,

Ogden.

Saab, V. A. and K. T. Vierling. 2001. Reproductive success of Lewis's Woodpecker in burned

pine and cottonwood riparian forests. Condor 103(3):491-501.

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. Condor 109(1):97-108.

Saab, Victoria A.; Powell, Hugh D. W.; Kotliar, Natasha B.; Newlon, Karen R. 2005. Variation

in fire regimes of the Rocky Mountains: implications for avian communities and fire

management. In: Saab, V.; Powell, H., eds. Fire and Avian Ecology in North America.

Studies in Avian Biology. 30: 76-96.

Scherer, G.; Zabowski, D.; Java, B., and Everett, Richard L. 2000. Timber harvesting residue

treatment: Part II. Understory vegetation response. Forest Ecology and Management.

126(1):35-50.

Siddle, C. and G. Davidson. 1991. Status of the Lewis's Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) in

British Columbia. Report commissioned by Wildlife Branch, Ministry of Environment,

Victoria, British Columbia.

Singleton, P. H., W. L. Gaines, and J. F. Lehmkuhl. 2002. Landscape permeability for large

carnivores in Washington: a geographic information system weighted-distance and least-cost

corridor assessment. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station. Research Paper PNW-RP-549. Portland, OR. 89 pages.

Stinson, D.W. and J.D. Reichel. 1985. Rediscovery of the pygmy shrew in Washington. Murrelet

66(2):59-60.

Tashiro-Vierling, K. Y. 1994. Population trends and ecology of the Lewis's Woodpecker

(Melanerpes lewis) in southeastern Colorado. Master's Thesis. Univ. of Colorado, Boulder.

Thomas, J. W., R. G. Anderson, C. Maser, and E. L. Bull. 1979. Snags. Pages 60-77 in Wildlife

habitats in managed forests: the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. (Thomas, J.

W., Ed.) U.S. Dept. Agric. For. Serv. Agric. Handbook 553.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Northern Rocky Mountain wolf recovery plan. U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 119pp.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982b. The grizzly bear recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Denver, Colo. 195pp.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993a. Grizzly bear recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Missoula, MT. 181 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States

Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management,

Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp. [Online version available at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/

US Forest Service. 1988. Final environmental impact statement and appendices, Land and

resource management plan, Colville National Forest, and appendices. Portland, OR, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.

US Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 2011, December. Update of the Regional

Forester’s Sensitive Species Lists and Transmittal of Strategic Species List. Portland, OR,

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/

86

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Letter plus 2

enclosures.

Vierling, K. T. 1997. Habitat selection of Lewis's Woodpeckers in southeastern Colorado.

Wilson Bull. 109:121-130.

Vierling, Kerri T., Victoria A. Saab and Bret W. Tobalske. 2013. 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/articles/introduction

Washington Department of Wildlife. 1993. Status of the North American lynx (Lynx canadensis)

in Washington. Unpubl. rep. Wash. Dept. Wildl., Olympia.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Gap Analysis Program. Red-tailed chipmunk

map retrieved April 2013 from http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/gap/mammals.html.

Whitfield, Michael B.; Gaffney, Maureen. 1997. Great gray owl (Strix nebulosa) breeding

habitat use within altered forest landscapes. Pp. 498-505 in: Duncan, James R.; Johnson,

David H., and Nicholls, Thomas H., editors. Biology and conservation of owls of the

Northern Hemisphere, second international symposium; Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada. U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station, St. Paul, MN.

635 pages.

Wightman, Catherine S., Victoria A. Saab, Chris Forristal, Kim Mellen-Mclean and Amy

Markus, 2010. White-Headed Woodpecker Nesting Ecology After Wildfire. The Journal of

Wildlife Management 74(5): 1098-1106.

VI. Personal Communication

Kathleen Ahlenslager, Forest Botanist, Colville National Forest

Ed Bangs, Western Gray Wolf Recovery Coordinator (retired), US Fish and Wildlife Service,

Helena, MT.

Jeff Copeland, Wildlife Biologist, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Scott Fitkin, Region 2 Wildlife Biologist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Richard Harris, Wildlife Biologist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Mike Jimenez, Wildlife Biologist, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Wyoming.

Garth Mowat, Wildlife Biologist, Nelson, BC.

Jon Shepard, Lepidopterist, Nelson, BC.

Brian Slough, Wildlife Biologist, Nelson, BC.

John Squires, Wildlife Biologist, US Forest Service, Missoula, MT.

Steve Zender, Wildlife Biologist (retired), Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

VII. Detailed Project Description

A. Proposed Vegetation Treatments

The following vegetation treatment definitions apply to the Deer Jasper proposed action. The

proposed treatments aim to restore resilience by maintaining or enhancing complexity at multiple

scales within the project landscape. Generally, unit-level vegetation treatments would consist of

four basic patch types:

Skips – these areas would have no commercial or non-commercial vegetation treatments

and would emulate areas “skipped” by a fire;

87

General thin areas – these areas would be commercially thinned to emulate low to

moderate severity disturbances and increase or maintain tree growth;

Heavy thin areas - these areas would be commercially thinned to emulate moderate

severity disturbances and release and increase growth of large fire resistant trees with

large crowns; and

Openings – these are areas where there are canopy gaps with enough light reaching the

ground that regeneration of new conifer trees would result. This would emulate high

severity disturbance patches and inhibit the spread of fire, insects and pathogens.

Some units are small enough that only one of the types would apply because the other patch

types are represented nearby within adjacent units. The exact mix of patch types in each unit

would vary.

1. Commercial Treatments

a. Commercial thinning

This treatment includes removing a portion of the commercial-sized trees to control density,

modify forest structure, and favor desired trees. The objectives include one or more of the

following: improve growth to accelerate the development of large trees; move multi-story late

structure to single story late structure on dry sites; improve health and vigor of residual trees;

shift species composition towards fire tolerant and early seral species; improve the resilience and

resistance to disturbances; stimulate understory productivity; and/or salvage dead and dying

trees.

Commercial thinning would result in a fully stocked stand with an average of over 35 trees per

acre larger than 6 inches DBH (Diameter-at-Breast Height). The average number of leave trees

within a unit would vary depending on the tree sizes, species composition, plant associations,

and the amount of suitable leave trees. As an example, stands of large trees and/or stands within

dry plant associations would have wider spacing than stands of small trees and/or within mesic

plant associations. Leave tree spacing would be irregular, resulting in a mix of single trees,

clumps of trees, small canopy openings (less than 2 acres in size), and no-thin skips. This would

generally follow the “individuals, clumps, openings” method described by Churchill et al. 2013.

Under this treatment, up to 10% of each unit would be in small openings less than 2 acres in size.

The general leave tree criteria include:

1. Leave all trees greater than 21 inches DBH, and all hardwoods;

2. Retain mostly high vigor trees, but leave some moderate and even low vigor trees to make up

clumps;

3. Outside of Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) favor (1) western larch, ponderosa

pine, (2) Douglas-fir, (3) western red cedar, Engelmann spruce, western hemlock, and (4)

lodgepole pine, grand fir, subalpine fir;

4. Within Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs) favor 1)western red cedar, Engelmann

spruce, western hemlock, 2) western larch, ponderosa pine, 3) Douglas-fir, and 4) lodgepole

pine, grand fir, subalpine fir

5. Retain green wildlife trees in most cases, unless they exceed five per acre over the entire unit.

88

There are approximately 5,875 acres of proposed commercial thinning.

b. Small Pole Thinning

This treatment is a type of commercial thinning within units that have diameters and volume

smaller than is found within a traditional commercial thinning. Small pole thinning generally

includes thinning trees from 4 to 12 inches DBH. There are approximately 370 acres of

proposed small pole thinning.

c. Commercial Thinning in combination with Regeneration Harvest

This treatment includes a combination of commercial thinning (as defined above) and one or

more of the following regeneration methods: group selection, single tree selection, and

shelterwood with reserves (definitions below). This treatment would create a mosaic of thinned

areas and regeneration openings. Regeneration harvest would be applied to those portions of

units that would not readily move towards a late structural stage due to conditions such as

disease, insect attack, low tree vigor, and storm damage. The remainder of the unit would be

thinned. The regeneration treatments would promote regeneration of an additional cohort of

shade-intolerant and fire-resilient species. A portion of the dead and dying trees less than 21

inches DBH would be salvaged. Dead and dying trees would be retained as scattered individual

trees and in clumps or small patches for structural diversity, future downed wood, and habitat

needs.

Group Selection – An uneven-aged regeneration method in which trees are cut in small

groups and new age classes are established. The width of groups is commonly less than

approximately twice the height of the mature trees.

Single Tree Selection – An uneven-aged regeneration method where individual trees of all

size classes are removed throughout the stand creating or maintaining a multiage structure to

promote growth of remaining trees and to provide space for regeneration.

Shelterwood with Reserves – A regeneration method that removes most trees while leaving

enough trees to provide seed, shelter for establishing seedlings, and structure for wildlife.

About 10 to 30 overstory trees per acre would be retained as a mix of single trees and clumps

of trees. Generally, the largest trees available would be left as green-tree replacements for

snags. Shelterwood with reserves would range from 5 to 40 acres in size, with the larger

regeneration openings of 15 to 40 acres applied to stands dominated by lodepole pine

overstory.

Units with the free selection prescription would include a mix of group selection, single trees

selection, and shelterwood with reserves as appropriate. However, the maximum size of

shelterwood with reserves for the free selection prescription would be 15 acres. There are

approximately 2,519 acres of proposed commercial thinning in combination with regeneration

harvest.

d. Shelterwood Removal with Reserves:

This treatment includes the removal of diseased or poor vigor shelterwood and seed trees within

plantations with established regeneration. The objective includes shifting species composition

89

toward favored species and improving the growth of established regeneration. This treatment

would also include a pre-commercial treatment. There are approximately 111 acres of proposed

shelterwood removal with reserves.

2. Non-Commercial Vegetation Treatments

a. Pre-commercial Thinning

This treatment includes thinning trees less than 7” DBH within plantations that do not have

enough commercial value to treat with a commercial harvest. Pre-commercial thinning may be

accomplished using mastication, hand thinning, or biomass removal as appropriate to the site.

The objectives of pre-commercial treatments include one or more of the following: improve

growth to accelerate the development of large trees; improve vigor; and/or improve the resilience

and resistance to disturbances. Generally, the units would be thinned to a spacing ranging from

12 feet by 12 feet to 20 feet by 20 feet depending on site conditions. Spacing would vary by up

to 50% to select for the best trees. The silvicultural prescriptions would favor ponderosa pine

and western larch while removing trees with signs of insects or disease. Disposal of activity

fuels may include removal as biomass, landing piles, lop and scatter, mastication or pile and

burn.

In addition, overstory trees that are spreading dwarf mistletoe may be girdled, felled or pruned to

reduce spread to the understory. Girdling and felling of dwarf mistletoe infected trees would not

be applied to trees over 21 inches DBH. There are approximately 673 acres of proposed pre-

commercial thinning.

b. Ladder Fuel Reduction

This treatment removes mostly understory non-commercial sized trees with the goal of removing

ladder fuels. Within this project, the treatment would remove small trees up to 10 inches in

diameter, some of which may be co-dominants in the stand. For the most part the trees would be

sub-merchantable, but in some locations where thinning is desired but the volume won’t support

a typical commercial treatment, larger trees that act as ladder fuels would be removed.

This treatment is prescribed in areas where ladder fuels exist that could aid in the spread of a

surface fire into the crowns of individual or groups of trees. The treatment is proposed as a

follow-up to commercial treatments, as well as a primary fuel treatment in areas where no

commercial treatments are proposed. The priority would be to retain healthy early seral species

and hardwoods. However, no spacing requirement is made of the remaining small trees. The

primary aim of this treatment is to remove the conduit for fire moving from the forest floor to the

canopy.

c. Non-mechanical fuel treatments

This treatment type consists of hand thinning by chainsaws. It is proposed in units where terrain,

access, or resource concerns restrict the use of mechanized equipment. In most cases the surface

fuels created by this activity are addressed by either hand piling or underburning.

d. Mechanical fuel treatments

This treatment type consists of reducing ladder fuels with the use of mechanized (wheel/track

based) equipment. There are two types of mechanical methods that may be used in the project

area.

90

Mastication: Mastication rearranges the fuel load by chipping the material on site. With

an articulating head, the machine can grind small trees up to about 15 feet in height into

small chips. These are typically left in place to decompose. The benefit to fuel reduction

is the manipulation of ladder fuels into compact surface fuels. The increase in surface

fuel loading can have the effect of increased severity that diminishes as the chips

decompose and break down.

Biomass Removal: Biomass removal treatment of ladder fuels removes fuels from the

stand to a landing where they may be utilized for firewood or ground and hauled to a co-

generation plant for energy production. If biomass removal of ladder fuels occurs in

stands being commercially treated, it typically occurs simultaneous with the commercial

treatment. This method of dual treatment can be a more economical way to treat ladder

fuels since the machine needed to remove the material is already on site. This also

decreases the soil impacts because a second entry is not required to accomplish removal

of the biomass material.

There are approximately 12,059 acres of proposed ladder fuels reduction.

e. Surface Fuel Treatments

i. Underburn

Underburning consists of igniting fuels at a measured pace during predetermined burning

conditions. Underburning may be referred to as “jackpot burning” when fuels are distributed in

patches and the patches are lit individually. The goals of underburning are to reintroduce fire

into the ecosystem, reduce surface fuel loading created from tree removal activities, prepare seed

beds for natural and planted regeneration, reduce natural fuel loadings and continuity, and/or

improve wildlife habitat and browse conditions.

When underburning’s main objective is to reduce surface fuels, a low intensity fire would be

prescribed that limits mortality of overstory trees across the landscape to approximately 10%.

Mortality caused by prescribed fire would typically occur in “clumps” or “patches” with

differing degrees of severity (Finney et al. 2005). For this project, mixed severity patches may

be up to 15 acres with mortality between 25 to 70%, while high severity patches would be less

than 2 acres in size with mortality over 70%, while still meeting the overall 10% mortality across

the landscape. Underburning would favor fire-tolerant species (such as ponderosa pine and

western larch) over fire intolerant species. This is in consideration that sudden wind gusts,

aspect changes, and slight differences in surface fuels loadings and arrangement across a unit

affect fire intensity and severity. There are approximately 4,793 acres of proposed underburning.

ii. Optional Underburns

Optional underburns are areas where underburning is the only fuel treatment proposed for a unit.

Though optional underburn units may be ignited separately from other proposed treatment units,

many are adjacent to units proposed for underburning as follow up to canopy or ladder fuel

treatments. Including optional burn areas allows for greater continuity and opportunity for

91

reintroducing fire on a larger landscape block, as opposed to several smaller and fragmented

units. Furthermore, burning in larger landscape blocks decreases the need for fireline

construction as there is a greater opportunity to use roads and natural features as fire breaks.

Many of these units lie in areas with limited to no road access and in rocky and broken terrain. If

ignited, this provides some surface and ladder fuel treatment in areas where no other fuel

treatment is proposed.

In some instances these units have densely forested areas of a moist stand type. If these units are

ignited, it would be under circumstances where only the more open forested areas would burn

and fire would not be expected to carry consistently through the dense areas, resulting in mosaic

burn patterns. There are approximately 4,433 acres of proposed optional burning.

iii. Piling of Fuels

Piling of fuels is a method of gathering limbs, tops, and whips (slash) from ladder fuel and

canopy fuel treatments and existing woody debris (natural fuels) for disposal. The piles are

burned under safe conditions when fire is unlikely to spread; generally in the fall after conditions

change to a damp weather pattern. Fuel piling may be done either with a machine, or by hand

and are ignited by hand. In most cases, fuel piling occurs when terrain, access, or economics

restrict the opportunity of fuel removal for biomass utilization and underburning is not feasible.

A certain amount of large logs and other woody debris are retained on site to meet wildlife

habitat and soil nutrient requirements.

Mechanical Piling: Also called grapple piling, it is done by a machine that can pick up

debris and place it on a heap. If piles are spaced throughout the treatment unit they

would not exceed 10 feet in diameter. If the piles are at designated landings, they can be

much larger. To protect the soil, grapple piling would not be done by a bulldozer pushing

debris into a pile (dozer piling). There is a maximum of approximately 5,941 acres of

proposed mechanical piling. The need for mechanical piling will be based on a post-

harvest exam of fuel loadings conducted by the fuels specialist or their designee.

Hand Piling: Fuels are hand piled where prescribed fire or machine piling is not feasible

due to slope steepness, resource concerns, or lack of access. Piles would not exceed 10

feet in diameter. There are approximately 569 acres of proposed hand piling.

f. Lop and Scatter (decompose)

In units where fuel piling is proposed, the fuels after canopy or ladder fuel treatment may be light

enough where piling and burning is not necessary. It is those instances where simply lopping the

surface fuels into smaller pieces and spreading them out to decompose is a sufficient and cost-

effective fuel reduction treatment. Lop and scatter may also be used in areas where fuels are too

light to carry an underburn. In these areas lop and scatter would provide additional fuel to carry

the fire. If not underburned, lop and scatter material would break down over time, providing soil

nutrients and retaining soil moisture similar to mastication. It would moderate fire behavior,

though it generally requires a few years to become flat enough on the ground for this to occur.

There are approximately 1,540 acres of proposed lop and scatter.

92

3. Other Treatments

In addition to stand treatments listed previously, there are other treatments included in the

proposed action that warrant description.

i. Aspen Enhancement

This treatment would apply as follows: in commercial harvest units, remove conifers less than

21 inches DBH within 30 to 200 feet of an aspen clump with the exception of healthy ponderosa

pine and western larch; and, within non-commercial units, remove conifers less than 7 inches

DBH within 30 feet of the aspen stand with the exception of healthy ponderosa pine and western

larch. Within or near aspen clumps and stands, biological legacies such as groups of large snags

or groves with large western red cedar would be retained using no-thin skips or leave tree

marking. Specific to commercial units, an aspen clump includes three or more live aspen trees

greater than 5 inches DBH that are within 15 feet of one another.

Where appropriate, follow-up treatments would include: prescribed fire, mechanical disturbance

of soil or partial cutting of the aspen overstory to stimulate suckering. In areas where the slope is

less than 40%, slash or other barriers may be constructed to protect suckers from excessive

browsing and grazing until they are greater than five feet in height. The aspen treatment would

not be applied within no-thin skips.

The objective of these treatments would be to reduce conifer competition and create aspen stands

that are more vigorous and self-perpetuating with multiple size aspen stems, young regeneration

around the edges and little mortality.

ii. Large ponderosa pine and western larch

This treatment would remove conifers smaller than 21 inches DBH, with the exception of

healthy ponderosa pine and western larch, within 50 feet of large (defined as trees over 21 inches

DBH) ponderosa pine and western larch. The objective of these treatments would be to increase

the vigor of large ponderosa pine and western larch and create small openings that stimulate

forage and browse species. This would apply within commercial units only.

iii. Salvage Relating to Mountain Pine Beetle

This treatment would cut and remove dead and dying trees resulting from mountain pine beetle

and it would apply only to units proposed for commercial harvest. Under this treatment,

lodgepole pine would be the primary tree species harvested, though some ponderosa pine would

be included, especially within plantations of ponderosa pine that include off-site stock. The

objectives of the salvage treatment include: reducing falling tree hazards near roads, trails and

recreation sites; reducing fire hazard within strategic areas; and using dead and dying trees for

products (such as saw timber, firewood, chip wood, etc.) to support local and regional

manufacturing infrastructure.

Snags greater than 16 inches DBH would be retained where safety allows. Where snags greater

than 16 inches DBH are felled for safety reasons, the snags would be retained on site unless they

are within an areas open to firewood cutting or they would create a hazardous fuel condition.

93

In areas over five acres in size with greater than 50 percent of the basal area in dead and dying

trees, the proposed salvage treatment would:

Retain dead/dying trees in “no-thin skips” (no treatment areas) ranging from 1/4 to 5

acres in size and making up 10 to 30 percent of a unit as appropriate to habitat needs.

Retain snags greater than 16” DBH by either excluding them from the unit boundary,

including them within no-thin skips, or marking a protective buffer of leave trees, to the

extent practicable.

Retain up to eight dead and dying lodgepole pine per acre as a mix of individuals and

clumps to provide for habitat needs. This retention would be in addition to the no-thin

skips.

Retain species other than lodgepole pine at an appropriate density within the understory,

mid-story, and overstory to encourage structural and species diversity post-outbreak.

iv. No-Thin Skips

This treatment would retain un-harvested areas within unit boundaries and across contiguous

block of stands. No-thin skips would emulate areas skipped by fire. The objectives of the no-

thin skips include: protect biological legacies; provide for future snags and downed wood from

insects, fire, and competitive mortality; provide habitat; and promote variable understory

response such as development toward late seral understory (Bauhus et al. 2009; Franklin et al.

2002). Within unit boundaries, no-thin skips would range from 1/4 to one acre in size and one

skip would be placed for each five to ten acres of vegetation treatment (commercial and non-

commercial).

Priority areas for no-thin skip include:

Riparian features, seeps, wet soils, or other microsites: draws, swales, outcrops;

Concentrations of snags and/or downed logs: especially >16” diameter. These may be

related to root rots, insect activity, or blow down;

Groves of large red cedar: overstory trees generally >21”. Large trees of other species

are often part of these groves and can be included;

Concentrations of green wildlife trees or single high value wildlife tree;

Multistory canopy: patches with high canopy cover that include understory, mid-story,

and overstory trees. These skips provide good hiding & overstory cover, plus visual

barriers;

Regeneration/sapling thickets: these provide hiding cover and visual barriers;

Dense overstory: Patches with high canopy cover that provide shade & cool microsites;

and/or

In-operable areas.

To the extent possible, no-thin skips would not be placed close to aspen clones or large (greater

than 21 inch DBH) ponderosa pine or western larch (except for no-thin skips that include large

western red cedar trees).

94

v. Site Preparation and Reforestation

Within five years after regeneration harvest, a combination of natural regeneration and plantings

would be used to achieve the desired stocking levels and species composition (FSM 1921.12g).

Planting would reintroduce species that may be absent or lacking in the stand as a result of past

disturbances. Planting helps to rapidly re-establish the next stand and move it towards the

desired future condition. Generally, planting would be restricted to regeneration openings over

two acres in size.

Planting would include a mix of species native to the forest type such as rust-resistant western

white pine, ponderosa pine, western larch, and Douglas-fir. The preferred species are generally

shade-intolerant and fire-tolerant. Natural regeneration would be used for subalpine fir,

Engelmann spruce, lodgepole pine, western red cedar, grand fir, quaking aspen, and cottonwood.

Regenerated areas would be evaluated if desired conditions were met for stocking levels and

species composition.

The need for site preparation would be analyzed on a case by case basis. As needed, site

preparation would include machine piling, brush raking, hand piling, whip felling, and, or

underburning to clear interfering activity slash and remove the competing, undesirable small

conifers. Mechanical site prep would only occur where mechanical non-commercial treatments

were also allowed.

Leave Tops Attached

Leave tops attached (LTA) is a form of surface fuel treatment in which the smaller tops of the

trees (tops < 3 inches in diameter), along with branch wood, are removed from the site with the

whole tree and piled at a landing. The primary intent is to not increase the surface fuel loading

with commercial canopy treatments. The opportunity exists for the material to be ground and

hauled away for biomass utilization purposes. If biomass utilization is not feasible, the landing

would be burned in early winter when fire spread potential is very low, and after they have been

made available for personal firewood removal. Stands were omitted from this treatment in

which low soil nutrient concerns were identified. There is a total of 9,775 acres proposed for

leave tops attached.

Fireline construction: A fireline is a break in the fuel bed which prevents the spread of fire. A

sufficient width may range from a few inches dug with a hand tool to a bull dozer line many feet

wide, depending on the fuel depth or arrangement, and anticipated fire behavior. Where needed,

fireline may be used around underburn units including next to private land. The kind of fireline

used depends on slope, access, and anticipated fire behavior. Hose lays may also be used to

reinforce fireline in areas where an escaped fire would have a high risk of causing damage to

resources and property. A hose lay is a series of lengths of hose hooked to a pump and a water

source that is strung along the constructed fireline with a lateral hose and nozzle every hundred

feet or so. This gives immediate water access along the fire perimeter for pre-treating the area as

well as for attack of any potential unwanted fire spread along the fire’s perimeter. Though

natural fuel breaks (like rocky areas and creeks) and roads would be used wherever possible to

contain prescribed fire.

95

Hand Fireline: On steeper ground and sensitive soils, crews would construct fireline by

hand. This type of control line is typically used in areas with light natural fuels and poor

road access. Hand line is generally 18-24 inches wide and down to mineral soil. A fuel

break would be constructed with hand fireline consisting of cutting and dispersing surface

fuels including brush, non-merchantable trees, and limbing of larger trees. The fuel break

would be 15 feet wide straddling the fireline with 10 feet of clearing inside the burn unit

and 5 feet outside the burn unit.

Machine Fireline: This type of control line uses a small bull dozer with a six-way blade

so that the blade can be angled to minimize the size of the fireline. The object is not to

create a scarring “catline”, but a minimal cut to expose mineral soil to a width of 18 to 36

inches, and a depth only sufficient to expose mineral soil. This method would not be

employed on slopes greater than 35 percent or in RHCAs. A fuel break would be

constructed by hand consisting of cutting and dispersing surface fuels including brush,

non-merchantable trees, and limbing of larger trees. The fuel break would be 15 feet

wide straddling the fireline, with 10 feet of clearing inside the burn unit and 5 feet outside

the burn unit.

B. Roads

What follows is a brief discussion of road needs and modifications by type.

1. Temporary Road Construction

Project implementation would require an estimated 21 miles of temporary road. Most temporary

road construction would be done over an existing but unauthorized road template; only 0.8 miles

would be new construction. To the fullest extent possible, existing unauthorized roads, old skid

trails, and other previously impacted areas would be reused during treatment implementation.

Temporary roads would not be maintained as part of the forest road system after project

completion. They are intended for short-term access to a small portion of ground. As soon as

possible after use they would be rendered unusable, and put back into resource production. The

following table (Table 2.1) and map (Map E) display the proposed temporary road construction.

Table 2.1 Proposed temporary road construction

Segment Miles

*18 0.8

*20 0.5

*21 0.2

*22 0.5

*24 0.4

*25 0.7

*34 0.5

*35 0.7

96

*36 0.7

*42 0.7

*52 0.7

*54 0.6

*55 0.9

*56 0.8

*65 0.7

*71 0.2

*72 0.8

*75 2.2

*79 0.9

*82 1.2

*84 1.0

*88 0.3

*89 0.7

*93 0.7

*102 0.3

*109 1.0

*110 0.5

*112 1.0

2010 0.8

Total 21

* Temporary road construction on an existing unauthorized road bed.

2. Road Reconstruction

About 108 miles of existing system road would require light to medium road reconstruction with

approximately 200 yards requiring heavy road reconstruction. All levels of reconstruction would

improve road safety by increasing site distances and widening curves in addition to reducing

resource damage such as sedimentation in creeks. All roads being reconstructed would be

brought up to Forest Service standards.

Reconstruction of the roads should result in a moderate beneficial effect over the longer term, as

sediment production from road templates decreases due to new armoring, drainage structure

placement, and re-vegetation. Many of these roads have drainage problems and are eroding into

streams. The reconstruction would stop this, particularly at stream crossings and on roads

parallel to streams.

The following are the definitions for the levels of road reconstruction included in the Deer Jasper

project:

Light Reconstruction: This includes minor work activities limited to the existing

roadbed. This category does not involve disturbing existing cut and fill slopes and is

97

normally performed by a motor grader or small rubber-tired backhoe. Typical work

activities may include: scarifying and shaping the roadbed or grading the surface to

remove ruts and reestablish proper surface drainage; cleaning or reestablishing ditches,

catch basins, culvert inlets and outlets; removing minor slumps or slides; brushing or

limbing existing vegetation to maintain required sight distances and clearances; and

incorporation of Best Management Practices (BMP’s). There are approximately 42 miles

of light reconstruction proposed in the Deer Jasper project.

Medium Reconstruction: This includes activities on an existing road that may involve

localized disturbance to the existing cut or fill slopes and additional clearing and

grubbing. Typical work activities include: widening existing roadbed; installation of

drainage features such as culverts, cross drains, and roadside ditches; or placement of

aggregate, riprap, or other erosion control features. Medium reconstruction may include

new disturbance occurring intermittently as needed and light reconstruction activities

along the entire length of the road. There are approximately 66 miles of medium

reconstruction proposed in the Deer Jasper project.

Heavy Reconstruction: This includes activities that would have impacts similar to new

road construction and may involve: widening and/or realignment along portions of, or the

entire road; substantial additions to, or replacement of, drainage structures including live

crossings; and/or new excavation, embankment, and surfacing. There are approximately

200 yards of heavy reconstruction proposed in the Deer Jasper project on the 6100-010

road. This piece of heavy reconstruction occurs at one drainage location.

3. Road Decommissioning

Also included in the proposed action are approximately 9.5 miles of system road that would be

decommissioned upon completion of post-harvest activities. These roads, and their use, are

generally linked to riparian, and, or hydrologic resource damage, or are deemed not necessary for

future activities.

In recent years, the road maintenance funding nationally has been on a steady decline and it has

become increasingly difficult to maintain all of our system roads. The Forest Service needs to

identify ways to more efficiently spend the limited road maintenance dollars by reducing or

eliminating expenditures on roads not necessary for the transportation system. A roads analysis

was conducted on all the roads in the project area. This analysis was completed by the

interdisciplinary team and the Forest engineers. During this analysis, consideration was given to

future management needs as well as the condition the roads were in. If the resource damage of

concern could not be mitigated and/or the road was no longer needed for management reasons,

the road was proposed for decommissioning. The following Table 2.2 and Map F display the

roads that would be decommissioned and moved to a hydrologically stable condition.

Table 2.2 Proposed Road Decommissioning in the Deer Jasper Restoration project

Road #

Maintenance

Level

Objective Level Length

(miles)

98

6100-016 1 1 0.6

6100-025 1 1 0.2

6100-027 1 1 0.3

6100-056 1 1 0.4

6100-065 1 1 0.3

6100-105 1 1 0.9

6100-106 1 1 1.1

6100-380 1 1 1.1

6100-400 1 1 0.2

6100-420 2 2 0.3

6100-600 1 1 0.2

6113-035 1 1 0.1

6113-045 1 1 0.7

6113-050 1 1 0.4

6113-070 1 1 0.9

6113-085 1 1 1.1

6113-130 1 1 0.5

6113-160 1 1 0.2

Total Miles 9.5

Roads would be decommissioned by reestablishing vegetation and, if necessary, initiating restoration of

ecological processes interrupted or adversely impacted by the road.

Decommissioning may incorporate various treatments, including one or more of the following:

Reestablishing former drainage patterns, stabilizing slopes, and restoring vegetation;

Blocking the entrance to a road or installing water bars;

Removing culverts, reestablishing drainages, removing unstable fills, pulling back road shoulders,

and scattering slash on the roadbed;

Completely eliminating the roadbed by restoring natural contours and slopes; and

Other methods designed to meet the specific conditions associated with the road.

The type of decommissioning is dependent on available funding, resource needs and associated risk, and

the public input received for each road. Decommissioned roads would be dropped from the Forest Road

Atlas as “existing” but retained as “decommissioned” for future monitoring of the effectiveness of

decommissioning efforts.

99

C. Danger Tree Management

On December 7, 2005 the Pacific Northwest (PNW) Region 6, Forest Service published FS

Manual PNW Supplement No. 7730-2005-1 providing direction for danger tree management

along roads in the National Forest. This supplement states that safety of forest users “is the

predominant consideration in road operation and maintenance and takes priority over biological

or other considerations.” It also recommends using the tools in Timber Sale and Stewardship

contracts to remove danger trees where possible. In the DJ project area, danger trees along haul

routes would be designated by a qualified person and the hazard removed (either by cut and

removal, or cut and left on the ground).

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analyses for proposed road construction and

reconstruction projects include danger tree removal as a connected action, and over the life of the

road, as a reasonably foreseeable action (including identification criteria and actions).

VIII. Design Elements in the Proposed Action

The following Design Elements apply to all treated areas and are an integral part of the DJ

project and would be carried out if the project is implemented. The effects analyses in Chapter 3

are based on implementation of these Design Elements and the Best Management Practices

(BMPs) listed. These BMPs refer to those in the USDA

Forest Service National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National

Forest system Lands document dated April 2012.

A. Wildlife

Meet viability requirements? Meet forest plan standards & guidelines?

1. No snags larger than 30 inches DBH will be felled. If they exist near a landing or are to

be affected by harvest activities, the activity will be moved to avoid the snag.

2. In the event a great gray owl is found within the project area, protect it through the

establishment of suitable activity buffers and/or accordance with existing Forest Service

Timber Sale Contract Clause CT6.25, Protection of Habitat of Endangered, Threatened

and Sensitive Species.

3. In the following commercial thin, small-pole treatment (SPT) and pre-commercial

thinning (PCT) units retain at least two leaning live or dead trees per acre (pole sized or

larger) and as many snags as practicable to allow young great gray owls to escape

ground-based predators. If insufficient leaning trees remain, create a minimum of two

per acre. Leaning trees would have a minimum DBH of 4 inches, and a minimum length

of 20 feet. They should be angled between 30 and 60 degrees from vertical and each

should have its top propped against another tree’s bole or leaning into another tree’s live

crown if needed to provide support over time.

All pre-commercial thin and post and pole units, to include but not limited to:

SPT: 2, 8, 29

PCT: 383, 389, 589, 800, 801, 804, 806, 818, 824, 828, 834, 835, 840, 847, 852, 855,

857, 860

100

Commercial units requiring leaning trees:

fHSL: 14, 16, 19, 20, 26, 28, 33, 35, 36, 39, 45, 51, 56, 900

HSH: 14

HTH: 0, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 21, 24, 25, 27, 29, 32, 34, 36, 38, 41, 43, 48, 50, 52,

58, 59

HTH_HSH: 20, 23, 45, 51, 56

4. Retain all aspen or cottonwood trees greater than 10 inches DBH.

5. Retain as many ponderosa pine snags greater than 14” DBH as practicable in units 0, 1, 2,

4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 21, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 45, 46, 72,

73, 81, 82, 109, 118, 119, 126, 127, 128, 130, 829, 830, 832, 833, 836, 837, and 900.

6. In prescribed fire units, avoid ponderosa pine snags greater than 14” DBH.

7. Retain as many ponderosa pine snags greater than 14” DBH as practicable, particularly in

units 0, 42, and 46.

8. Blocks of seclusion habitat will be affected by opening currently closed roads and by

harvest. To reduce the overall impact to seclusion habitat, harvest-related activities

should not concurrently affect all block of seclusion habitat to complete activities before

moving on to the next block of seclusion habitat.

9. Prevent vehicle use from becoming established on roads opened and/or reconstructed

(including temp roads or system roads) for the project. Restrict access on these roads to

administrative use and logging operations. There are three time frames of concern:

From the onset of reconstruction to the start of logging operations;

After logging operations have ceased until when the other activities completed; or

If logging operations are suspended.

In all situations install a barrier which could be a gate or a berm or any blockage that

accomplishes the goal of preventing established use on these roads.

Implement CFR road closures where needed on reopened roads to assist in assuring

compliance with the objective of preventing established use on these roads.

The following table lists roads that have a high probability of requiring a gate closure

to allow for post-harvest restoration projects including prescribed fire

implementation, reforestation, and noxious weed control. This list is intended to be

refined prior to implementation to add or remove roads from the list requiring a gate

closure to prevent established use and maintain administrative access to complete

restoration activities.

Table 2.4 Roads Requiring Gate Closures for Post-Harvest Projects

Route Number to Gate Closure Junction/Point

6100-016 6100-010 & 016

6100-050 East Closure Point

6100-090 Maintain Current Gate

101

6100-380 6100350 & 380

6113-040 6113000 & 040

6113-070 6113000 & 070

6113-085 6113000 & 085

6113-130 6113000 & 130

6120-050 6120000 & 050

6120-005 6120000 & 005

10. To reduce loss of hiding cover from pre-commercial thinning units, pre-commercial

thinning that occurs along open roads not identified as emergency escape routes will

retain vegetation that disrupts viewing into the entire unit.

11. Pockets of large down wood will remain on site in units in lynx habitat unless deemed

excess by the district wildlife biologist or his designee. Units in which this will occur are

listed below. Pockets of down wood in the fuels treatment units and commercial thins

near open roads could be removed if deemed a potential safety hazard. About 80% of the

wood in pockets of down wood within 200 feet of an existing open road can be removed.

Discussion of options would take place between the fuels specialist and wildlife biologist

or their designee.

fHSL: 16, 20, 23, 25, 48, 50, 51, 54, 59, 60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 69, 84, 89, 93, 900

HTH: 3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 21, 22, 27, 28, 47, 49, 52, 53, 55, 56, 58, 77, 78, 94

HTH_HSH: 0, 24, 30, 31, 67, 71, 73, 74, 80, 85, 87, 88, 90, 91, 106, 125

SPT: 2, 8

12. A description of Antennaria and Senicio species (the butterfly’s nectary flowers) will be

supplied by the West Zone Biologist to the Noxious Weed coordinator prior to noxious

weed spray season. Contractors will be instructed to avoid spraying these plants if

possible.

13. Down wood will not be removed from riparian areas in the following units: 7, 10, 13, 24,

27, 30, 31, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 54, 58, 59, 60, 61, 66, 67, 80, 84, 88, 90, 93, 105, 114, 125

and 900

14. In commercial harvest units and pre-commercial thin units in big game winter range,

either designated in the Forest Plan (Management Areas 6 and 8) or modeled, retain

unharvested patches to maintain overstory and escape cover for big game, where

practicable. Retain 10% of each commercial harvest unit and up to 25% in late and old

structure stands unless review by wildlife biologist determines would not affect big game.

The areas within the units will be identified by district wildlife personnel or their

designee.

Commercial thin units: 0, 2, 9, 11, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 56, 57, 58, 59,

818, 819, 821, 822, 825, 826, 913

102

Pre-commercial thin units: 820, 823, 824, 847, 848, 903

15. In units that fall in big game winter range that are harvested in winter, start and stop

harvest-related activities about the same time each day, and restrict traffic to only those

activities involved with the logging operation.

16. Follow the soils and noxious weed guidelines for seeding or other treatment of disturbed

areas. Review areas after the burn and seed large bare areas, particularly areas with a

high potential for sediment delivery to streams. The goal is to provide long-term soil

cover and reduce the risk of weed infestations. Native plant materials are the first choice

in re-vegetation, but non-native, non-invasive plant species may also be used (USDA

Forest Service 2005).

17. Snags and down woody material greater than 16 inches DBH (or 4 feet from butt end if

down wood) would be retained as practicable in all units unless deemed a fire hazard or

in areas identified on the Colville National Forest firewood map as open to firewood

harvest. Larger diameter down wood can also be removed from the portions of a unit that

fall within areas open on the firewood map (usually within 200 feet of an existing open

road).

In cable units, tops down to 10” could be removed to prevent hang-ups of cabled timber.

Adjust ignition patterns and if necessary pull back fuels from around the base of the

snags, especially those of ponderosa pine greater than 16”, and down logs to protect those

features. Prior to ignition, ensure fuel moistures are high enough to retard consumption

of large down woody material. The District Fire Management Officer is responsible for

ensuring this measure is met. Exceptions to this design element, primarily because of

large amounts of down wood presenting a fire hazard, would be on a unit by unit basis

with consultation by the wildlife biologist or their designee.

18. Within treatment units in Pine Marten and Pileated Woodpecker Management

Requirement areas (MRs) retain as practicable all standing snags and existing down trees

greater than 16 inches DBH. Where harvest-caused felling of snags greater than 16

inches DBH is unavoidable, downed snags will be retained on site. Within MR areas, if

harvest-caused felling of standing snags results in levels less than 4 per acre overall, snag

levels would be increased to this level by creating them, primarily by girdling the tops of

large, live trees. Exceptions to this design element, primarily because of large amounts

of down wood presenting a fire hazard, would be on a unit-by-unit basis with

consultation by the wildlife biologist or his designee. Units to which this applies are

listed below.

19. Post segments of open roads that pass through MR areas with signs indicating areas are

closed to firewood cutting and include all PMPs in no-harvest zones on the next CNF

firewood map.

20. Before applying prescribed fire in Pine Marten and Pileated Woodpecker MR areas,

minimize the loss of large snags by scraping back accumulated dead material around the

bases of ponderosa pine snags that are greater than 16” DBH.

103

21. Silviculture prescriptions and marking guidelines will retain at least 8 winter roost trees

per acre (largest ponderosa pine or Douglas-fir, including mistletoe-infested Douglas-fir)

in dusky grouse existing roosting habitat. This applies to the following units:

fHSL: 20, 23, 25, 50, 54, 59, 61, 63, 84

HTH: 3, 10, 12, 13, 14, 21, 22, 56, 58, 77, 78, 94

HTH_HSH: 24, 30, 31, 67, 73, 88

22. In all pre-commercial thin units > 5 acres, retain 10% of each unit in un-harvested patches

to maintain escape cover for big game and dense, early-successional habitat for a variety

of species. The areas within the units will be identified by district wildlife personnel or a

designee.

23. Allow removal of up to 80% of snags and down wood less than 14” DBH in areas on the

Colville National Forest open to firewood cutting.

24. Outside of areas open to firewood harvest on the Colville National Forest firewood map,

retain all large snags (greater than 16 inches DBH) where possible, and a minimum of 3

large snags per acre overall, when available.

25. In units harvested using ground-based equipment, if snags greater than 16” DBH have to

be felled for safety, high-top them where practicable to retain a portion of the snag.

26. Except in areas on the Colville National Forest open to firewood cutting, contracts for this

project will not allow removal of large non-merchantable trees below levels that the Forest

Plan or best available science indicates. If a snag greater than 16” DBH is felled for safety

reasons, it will remain as down wood and contribute to woodpecker foraging habitat unless

in specific situations where down or standing fuels are a concern close to private land or

structures, or sufficient snag numbers remain to allow for some loss. These situations will

be dealt with on a case-by case basis with the wildlife biologist or his representative.

27. If harvest-caused felling of standing snags results in levels less than 3 per acre overall, snag

levels would be increased to this level by creating snags.

28. In cut-to-length units and other areas where a hot saw is used, if a snag must be felled and

cannot be high-topped, a similar-sized live tree must be high-topped above the 1st live

whorl.

29. In the 30-acre buffer around the known goshawk nest, prohibit harvest-related activities.

30. In the goshawk post-fledgling area, restrict harvest activities to outside the March 1st to

September 1st timeframe unless deemed otherwise by the wildlife biologist or his

representative.

31. If another goshawk nest is found in the areas prior to the time of timber sale contract award,

the following 3 mitigations will be implemented: 1) Create a 30-acre no-harvest buffer

around the nest; 2) Identify the boundary of the post-fledgling areas and adjust activities in

the post-fledgling area and within ¼ mile of the nest to minimize direct negative effects to

goshawk; 3) Initiate timing restrictions within the post-fledgling area from March 1st

through September 30th of each year that extends to all activities that could disturb

goshawks. These activities may include, but are not limited to timber harvest, road location

or building, road use, underburning and other disturbing activities (unit layout and marking,

monitoring, planting, and others). Exceptions for specific that may be permitted during

this period may be made by the District Wildlife Biologist or a designee, on a case-by case

basis.

104

32. If a Cooper’s or sharp-shinned hawk nest is found prior to the time of timber sale contract

award, create a no-harvest buffer around the nest with a radius of 100 feet.

33. If a raptor nest is found after the sale contract is awarded, negotiate with the purchaser to

provide as much protection as is feasible. If a raptor nest is found in such an area prior to

the time of timber sale contract award, the following 2 mitigations will be implemented:

(1) Adjust activities in any new post-fledging area and within ¼ mile of any nest to

minimize direct negative effects to goshawk and (2) Initiate timing restrictions from

March 1 through September 30 of each year and extend to all activities that could disturb

goshawks. These activities may include, but are not limited to timber harvest, road

location or building, road use, underburning and other disturbing activities (unit layout

and marking, monitoring, planting, and others). Exceptions may be made by the District

Wildlife Biologist or their designee, on a case-by-case basis for specific activities that

may be permitted during this period.

B. Noxious Weeds

The goal is to provide long-term soil cover, reduce the risk of weed infestation, and reduce

opportunity for spread of noxious weeds.

34. Re-vegetate where soil is disturbed by harvest, fuel disposal, or road activities (typically

including tractor skid trails, cut-to-length trails where the slash has failed, landings, and

road cut and fill slopes). Review areas after a prescribed burn (underburning and

machine piling) and seed bare areas. Native plant materials are the first choice in re-

vegetation, but non-native, non-invasive plant species may also be used (USDA Forest

Service 2005a). As determined by the Botanist and Range Specialist, species improving

forage quality could be used in non-riparian (upland) areas.

35. Contract provisions would provide for cleaning of equipment prior to move in and use off

of roads and landings.

36. Noxious weeds that occur within the project area and on Forest Service routes used to

access the project area would be treated at least a season prior to any harvest or ground

disturbing activities. Post-disturbance noxious weed treatments need to occur where

weeds exist or have been introduced. The assessment of where this needs to occur will

take place 1 year prior to any road closures.

37. Purchasers will be required to seed all temporary and unauthorized roads that are re-

opened following the Colville National Forest Seeding Guidelines and camouflage to the

best of their ability the entrances to these roads where they meet existing system roads so

they are not obvious and are not accessible by Off Highway Vehicles (OHVs). If

contracting method does not allow for such a purchaser agreement, this would be done by

other means.

105

C. Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas

Three Zones of the RHCA:

38. The Fish Biologist, Hydrologist, and Soils Scientist met to discuss methods used in

RHCAs and developed the following Design Elements as described by their location in

the RHCA.

Zone 1 – Immediately around a stream, wetland, or other water body

Apply a 15 foot no-cut buffer in either side of the stream or creek.

Zone 2- Around Zone 1, as applies, the extent of the riparian vegetation or wet soils,

whichever is greater.

No mechanical treatment of vegetation would occur.

Fuels reduction may include hand treatment of vegetation, but no pile burning of

vegetation would occur.

Prescribed fire would be allowed to creep into this zone, but no active ignitions would

occur.

Zone 3a – Adjacent to Zone 2, the remainder of the RHCA containing upland vegetation

where a road occurs within Zone 3.

Upslope of Roads: Allow unit treatment as prescribed unless some other issue takes

precedent (sensitive soils, shade issues, headwaters, TMDL, sensitive plants etc.) that

resulted in a unit specific Design Element.

Downslope of Road: Follow unit specific Design Elements.

a) In units adjacent to, or containing TMDL streams, machinery would need to stay

back 50 feet from the slope break or inner gorge.

b) Treatment of Shade Fuel Breaks (SFB) along streams and wetlands where roads are

being protected would increase cattle access to RHCAs. To mitigate this, windrows

would be created between the RHCA and the SFB, or a fence would be installed to

keep cattle out of RHCAs.

c) If there are no outstanding unit specific issues the following applies:

i) Slope is relatively flat (less than 20% in any direction), and the area is beyond 50

feet of the inner gorge, canopy removal would be less than 25%. Harvest

allowable with consultation with the Fisheries Biologist, Hydrologist, or Soils

Scientist. Preferred treatment is cable winching from road. To prevent creating a

fuel problem, log with tops attached if possible.

ii) If the slope is greater than 20% in any direction, no commercial harvest would

occur. Apply treatments as per Zone 2 above.

Zone 3b – Adjacent to Zone 2, the remainder of the RHCA containing upland vegetation

where no roads occur within Zone 3.

a) Follow unit specific Design Elements. In units adjacent to, or containing Total

Maximum Daily Load listed streams, machinery would need to stay back 50 feet from

the slope break or inner gorge.

b) If there are no other concerns identified, single passes of harvest machinery are allowed

under the following conditions:

106

i) Slope towards stream is less than 20%

ii) Soil is not erosion sensitive. Units with soil sensitive to erosion are identified in

the Soils Report (Jimenez 2014).

iii) Grapple piling or Leave Tops Attached would be allowed with consultation with

the fisheries biologist, hydrologist, or soils scientist.

D. Aquatics

To meet INFISH? Meet state water quality standards? To implement National BMPs?

39. Non-System/Unauthorized routes/closed roads within the Riparian Habitat Conservation

Areas used for management activities will be rendered hydrologically stable.

a. The desired outcome is to reconnect the area groundwater and surface water

hydrology and floodplain, and to camouflage the entrance.

b. Applies to all activities within the Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas.

c. Applicable Best Management Practices:

Road 4 – Road Operations and Maintenance

Road 5 – Temporary Roads

Road 6 – Road Storage and Decommissioning

Road 7 – Stream Crossings

40. New Temporary Roads used for management activities will be evaluated for future need.

a. The desired outcome is to reconnect the groundwater and surface water

hydrology, or if deemed necessary, add to the transportation system of the Forest.

b. Applies to all temporary roads used for this project.

c. Applicable BMPs:

Road 1 – Travel Management Planning and Analysis

Road 2 – Road Location and Design


Road 5 – Temporary Roads


41. Roads designated for decommission will restore hydrologic connectivity by reconnecting

the ground water and surface water hydrology and improve infiltration.

o The desired outcome is to improve infiltration and reconnect the ground water and

surface water hydrology.

o Applies to roads designated for decommissioning.

o Applicable BMPs:

Road 1 – Travel Management Planning and Analysis


Road 7 – Stream Crossings

107

42. Dust abatement, in the form of water, will be used. If the use of chemicals is requested,

then a hydrologist or fisheries biologist will be consulted

o The desired outcome is to prevent a negative impact to fish and water quality

from the dust created from the haul trucks.

o Applies to all haul routes in RHCAs.

o Applicable BMPs:


Chem 3 – Chemical Use Near Waterbodies

Chem 5 – Chemical Handling and Disposal

Chem 6 – Chemical Application Monitoring and Evaluation

43. All refueling sites will be located outside the RHCA.

o The desired outcome is to minimize actions within the RHCA and prevent fuel

spills within the RHCA.

o Applies to all refueling sites.

o Applicable BMPS:

Road 10 – Equipment Refueling and Servicing

44. Prescribed fire will not be ignited within the RHCA. Piles will be located outside the

RHCA. The use of pumps will not involve any streambed alteration and will not pose any

barrier to fish movement. Delivery of foam to surface waters will be avoided. Any pump

used for withdrawing water from fish-bearing water bodies shall be equipped with a fish

guard to prevent passage of fish into the pump. The pump intake shall be screened with

3/32 inch or smaller mesh. Screen maintenance shall be adequate to prevent injury or

entrapment to juvenile fish and shall remain in place whenever water is withdrawn from

water bodies through the pump intake.

45.

o The desired outcome is to minimize the effects of prescribed fire on soil, water

quality, and riparian resources.

o Applicable to all burning within the RHCAs.

o Applicable BMPs:

Fire 1 – Wildland Fire Management Planning

Fire 2 - Use of Prescribed Fire

Road 10 – Equipment Refueling and Servicing.

46. Fire line construction would not occur within RHCAs.

o The desired outcome is to minimize the effects of prescribed fire on soil, water

quality, and riparian resources.

o Applicable to RHCA.

o Applicable BMPs:

Fire 1 – Wildland Fire Management Planning

108

Fire 2 - Use of Prescribed Fire

47. Parking, staging areas and landings will be located outside the RHCA unless there is no

other suitable location. In which case, a hydrologist or fisheries biologist will be

consulted on all proposed landing locations in RHCAs.

o The desired outcome is to minimize the effects of management activities on soils,

water quality, and riparian resources.

o Applicable to all parking, staging, and landing areas.

o Applicable BMPs:

Road 10 – Equipment Refueling and Servicing.

Veg 6 – Landings

48. Wetlands, springs, seeps and streams not previously identified during the inventory and

analysis will be delineated during unit layout with assistance from the hydrologist or fish

biologist when needed.

o The desired outcome is to minimize effects of management activities on wet

areas, and get an accurate database of the water systems in the area.

o Applicable to all wetlands, springs, seeps and streams.

o Applicable BMPs:

AqEco 2 – Operations in Aquatic Ecosystems

AqEco 3 – Ponds and Wetlands

AqEco 4 – Stream Channels and Shorelines

49. Follow RHCA guidelines from Zones 1 and 2 and buffer all units near ponds and

wetlands.

o Desired outcome to retain riparian habitat on at least 60% of the wetland edge.

o Applicable to all ponds and wetlands.

o Applicable BMPs:



50. Buffers of a minimum of 100 feet will be established around all headwaters.

o Desired outcome is to minimize the effects of management activities on the

headwaters of the streams.

o Applicable to all streams.

o Applicable BMPs:




51. Timber Management Activities will adhere to the Three Zones of the RHCA guidelines.

109

o The desired outcome is to minimize the effects of timber management activities

on soils, water quality, and riparian resources.

o Applicable to all treatment units.

o Applicable BMPs:

Veg 2 – Erosion Prevention and Control

Veg 3 – Aquatic Management Zones

Veg 4 – Ground-Based Skidding and Yarding Operations

Veg 7 – Winter Logging

Veg 8 – Mechanical Site Treatment

52. Wood will not be removed from the stream channels. At least 35 feet of all existing

downed trees of 12 inches or greater in diameter, within or overhanging the stream

channel would be left in place to meet INFISH large woody debris requirements. Trees

will be felled toward the stream.

o Desired outcome is to enhance the large woody debris within the stream channels

and RHCA.

o Applicable to RHCAs

o Applicable BMPs:

AqEco 1 – Aquatic Ecosystem Improvement and Restoration Planning



53. Hazardous tree removal in RHCA will keep the tree on site and be dropped perpendicular

to the stream.

o Desired outcome is to protect the stream channel and enhance the large woody

debris within the stream channels and RHCA.

o Applicable to hazardous trees within the RHCA.

o Applicable BMPs:


54. Monitor for increased cattle use on roads that were previously brushed in.

o Desired outcome is to minimize new cattle effects that may have been created due

to opening up previously brushed in roads.

o Applicable to previously brushed in roads.

55. Do not create openings larger than ½ acre or openings large enough for camping or

parking in RHCAs. This includes keeping fire intensity low to reduce the potential of

killing large patches of trees because firewood gatherers often remove the dead trees and

leave openings.

110

56. Allow low severity fire to back in to the RHCAs (including the 15 foot no-cut buffer)

where preparation to keep the fire out of the riparian areas would cause more damage

than letting the fire creep in. This is to avoid fire lines that run along the RHCA

boundary parallel to stream channels, using foam near stream channels, and running hose

lays. These activities are more harmful than letting the fire die out in the RHCA. This

would only be used where expected mortality is less than 10%, loss of large woody debris

(greater than 12 inches DBH) less than 20%, and no detrimental impact to the riparian

soil would occur. It is expected that there would be mortality of the shrubs and

herbaceous plant material; however these species typically regenerate from roots or seeds

quickly after low intensity burning. During or prior to burn plan development, the Fuels

Specialist would decide whether the RHCA needs hand piling in upland vegetation or

other treatment or can withstand a creeping ground fire.

57. Wood and/or brush in the Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA) would be hand

piled where more than a low creeping ground fire is expected due to high fuel loading.

Piles would be outside of Zone 2 and the 15 foot no treatment buffer. Piles would be

burned during late fall through early spring while fuel moisture levels are high enough to

limit fire spread. Raking around large trees and shade tolerant species to prevent

mortality is recommended. A minimum of 90% organic material (duff) would remain on

the ground in the RHCA(s) after pile burning in order to protect soil and minimize

sediment delivery to streams. Wood would not be removed from the stream channel. At

least 35 feet of all existing downed trees of 12 inches or greater in diameter within or

overhanging the stream channel (bankfull width) would be left in place to meet INFISH

Large Woody Debris requirements. Where possible, trees that need to be felled within

the RHCA(s) would be felled toward the stream. Where trees to be felled are leaning

toward the stream, leave at least 35 feet of each tree that falls across the stream’s bankfull

width.

58. Harvest in RHCAs will protect all tree and large shrub hardwoods and favor western

hemlock, Engelmann spruce, and western red cedar where present. Limit the removal of

dominant and co-dominant conifers in the overstory canopy on the south side of streams.

All RHCA units should be reviewed by the Hydrologist or Fish Biologist during presale

activities

o Desired outcome is to protect the stream channel, move the stand toward desired

conditions to enhance the large woody debris within the stream channels and

RHCA and prevent increases in water temperature by retaining shade.

o Applicable to Zone 3 of an RHCA.

o Applicable BMPs:


111

E. Soils

59. The total acreage of all detrimental soil conditions should not exceed 20% of the total

acreage within the activity area including landings and system roads.

The desired outcome is to limit detrimental soil conditions to

preserve soil productivity and comply with Regional Soil Quality

Guidelines and Forest Plan Standards.

Applies to all management activities: timber harvest, fuel

reduction, and prescribed fire.

Applicable Forest Service National BMPs:

Veg-1 – Vegetation Management Planning

Veg-4 – Ground-Based Skidding and Yarding Operations

Veg-6 – Landings

Veg-8 – Mechanical Site Treatment

60. Skid trail spacing must be specified in the timber sale/stewardship contract as follows:

a. Skid Trail Spacing for Contracts: 100 feet apart inside edge to inside edge except

when converging at landings or avoiding obstacles. b. Forwarder Trails Spacing for Contracts: 40 feet apart inside edge to inside edge except

when converging at landings or avoiding obstacles. Four to eight inches of un-compacted

slash should cover forwarder trails.

i. Applies to timber harvest and fuel reduction activities

ii. Applicable Forest Service National BMPs:


Veg-2 – Erosion Prevention and Control

Veg-4 – Ground-Based Skidding and Yarding


61. Skidding equipment must travel on designated trails. When feasible re-use old skid trails.

Feller-bunchers should concentrate use on skid trails and should travel off skid trails in an

efficient manner with limited passes.

a. The desired outcome is to limit detrimental soil conditions to preserve soil

productivity and comply with Regional Soil Quality Guidelines and Forest Plan

Standards.

Applies to timber harvest and fuel reduction activities






62. Slope limitations for ground based equipment as follows:

a. Ground based yarding with rubber tired skidders would be limited to slopes less than

35%. Slopes 35% to 45% in sections less than 200 feet maybe used for ground-based

yarding with rubber tired skidders.

112

b. Feller bunchers, harvester-forwarder systems, and other tracked heavy equipment would

be limited to slopes less than 45%. Short sections less than 200 feet in length may be

steeper.


preserve soil productivity and reduce erosion potential.

Applies to timber harvest and fuel reduction activities using

mechanical equipment.




63. Minimize compaction, rutting, and erosion by avoiding activities during wet conditions.

Ground based equipment will operate on relatively dry soils of high soil strength. The

Field Guide to Soil Moisture Conditions Relative to Operability of Logging Equipment

(Rust, 2005) should be used to determine soil trafficability.

The desired outcome is to limit detrimental soil conditions and

comply with Forest Plan and Regional Soil Quality Standards and







64. Logging with winter conditions requires that skid trails are buffered by at least 8 inches

of compacted snow or frozen ground or a combination of the two that exceeds 8 inches. If

cut to length equipment is used, a combination of slash, compacted snow, and/or frozen

ground that exceeds 8 inches is required to buffer skid trails.

The desired outcome is to limit detrimental compaction and rutting

to preserve soil productivity and comply with Regional Soil Quality

Standards and Guidelines and Forest Plan Standards.




Veg-7 – Winter Logging

65. Seed and scarify temporary roads, landings, main skid trails, and other areas where

mechanical treatments removed soil cover to less than 50%.

The desired outcome is to provide soil cover as well as

stabilization by root matter to prevent soil erosion and loss of soil

productivity to comply with Regional Soil Quality Standards and

Guidelines.

Applies to all timber harvest activities.




113

66. In units that have had commercial harvest, keep follow-up fuel treatment machinery to

designated skid trails except for limited passes off trail. Fuel reduction machinery (i.e.,

masticators and piling equipment) should be tracked equipment having a ground pressure

rating of 8 psi or less with an articulating arm capable of reaching 15 feet.

The desired outcome to prevent detrimental soil conditions and

prevent harvest/fuel treatment units from exceeding 20% detrimental soil

conditions per Regional Soil Quality Standards and Guidelines and Forest

Plan Standards.

Applies to fuel reduction and silvicultural activities.



67. Retain fine and course organic matter on top of the soil. Soil cover should exceed 35%,

preferably 50%.

The desired outcome is to maintain sufficient amounts of organic

matter to prevent short or long-term nutrient and carbon cycle deficits and

to avoid detrimental physical and biological soil conditions. Treatment

units should be maintained with between 6 to 20 tons per acre of coarse

woody material (defined as greater than three inches in diameter). Fuel

break units are exempted from soil design elements regarding coarse

woody material requirements. As well as complying with Regional Soil

Quality Standards and Guidelines and Forest Plan Standards.

Applies to all timber harvest, fuel reduction, and silvicultural

activities.


Veg-2 – Erosion Control and Prevention


Fire-2 – Use of Prescribed Fire

68. Target machine pile size to 15 feet in diameter and 10 feet in height outside of landings.

The desired outcome is to maintain sufficient amounts of organic matter and to

avoid detrimental physical and biological soil conditions. Smaller piles allow for

re-colonization by soil organisms and prevent excess tracking from mechanical

equipment, as well as complying with Regional Soil Quality Standards and


Applies to all fuel reduction and silvicultural activities.





69. Adequately drain fire lines including dozer and hand line. Waterbars will be installed

during fire line construction and to guidelines in Appendix C and will be described in

114

Element 5 and Element 9 of the burn plan(s). If feasible and practical, pull back litter,

duff, and topsoil back over fireline following completion of the prescribed burn.

The desired outcome is to prevent soil erosion from fire lines,

preserve soil organic matter, and allow for long term recovery of fire lines.

Applies to prescribed burn operations.



70. For ground based units with 10% Detrimental Soil Conditions (DSC) or greater, practices

were included for some units to ensure that cumulative DSC would remain at or below

20%. Practices include:

Conduct timber harvest when soil is covered by 8 inches of compacted snow or 8

inches of frozen soil or a combination of two that totals 8 inches. This condition

should be present on approximately 90% of the timber harvest unit or

Conduct timber harvest using cut to length logging systems where stand density

supports covering forwarder trails with 8 inches of un-compacted slash during the

summer dry period and

Reuse any existing skid trails, landings, and footprints of old roadbeds.

Units where these practices should be implemented: 2, 9, 18, 38, 75, 82, 89, 820, and 836.

71. For all units with 17% DSC or greater, practices were included for some units to ensure

that cumulative detrimental soil conditions would remain at or below 20%. The

cumulative detrimental effects of the project implementation and restoration must not

exceed the conditions prior to the planned activity and should move toward a net

improvement in soil quality. Practices that must be implemented to meet Regional Soil

Quality Standards:

Conduct timber harvest or thinning when soil is covered by 8 inches of snow or 8


should be present on approximately 90% of the timber harvest unit and

Main skid trails and landings should be de-compacted to restore hydrologic

function and reduce soil compaction and

Areas of legacy compaction will be identified and decompacted.

Units where these practices must be implemented: 12 and 831

Unit 12 – An old road network exists within the unit, decompaction and

restoration of that road network would be required to meet Regional Soil

Quality Standards.

Unit 831 – Consists of a 3.1 acre unit on flat ground, hand thinning without

the use of mechanized equipment would not increase detrimental soil

conditions and could be accomplished during non-winter conditions.

115

F. Soils

72. The total acreage of all detrimental soil conditions should not exceed 20% of the total

acreage within the activity area including landings and system roads.


preserve soil productivity and comply with Regional Soil Quality


Applies to all management activities: timber harvest, fuel

reduction, and prescribed fire.



Veg-4 – Ground-Based Skidding and Yarding Operations

Veg-6 – Landings


73. Skid trail spacing must be specified in the timber sale/stewardship contract as follows:

a. Skid Trail Spacing for Contracts: 100 feet apart inside edge to inside edge except

when converging at landings or avoiding obstacles. b. Forwarder Trails Spacing for Contracts: 40 feet apart inside edge to inside edge except

when converging at landings or avoiding obstacles. Four to eight inches of un-compacted

slash should cover forwarder trails.

iii. Applies to timber harvest and fuel reduction activities

iv. Applicable Forest Service National BMPs:





74. Skidding equipment must travel on designated trails. When feasible re-use old skid trails.

Feller-bunchers should concentrate use on skid trails and should travel off skid trails in an

efficient manner with limited passes.

a. The desired outcome is to limit detrimental soil conditions to preserve soil

productivity and comply with Regional Soil Quality Guidelines and Forest Plan

Standards.

Applies to timber harvest and fuel reduction activities






75. Slope limitations for ground based equipment as follows:

a. Ground based yarding with rubber tired skidders would be limited to slopes less than

35%. Slopes 35% to 45% in sections less than 200 feet maybe used for ground-based

yarding with rubber tired skidders.

116

b. Feller bunchers, harvester-forwarder systems, and other tracked heavy equipment would

be limited to slopes less than 45%. Short sections less than 200 feet in length may be

steeper.


preserve soil productivity and reduce erosion potential.






76. Minimize compaction, rutting, and erosion by avoiding activities during wet conditions.

Ground based equipment will operate on relatively dry soils of high soil strength. The

Field Guide to Soil Moisture Conditions Relative to Operability of Logging Equipment

(Rust, 2005) should be used to determine soil trafficability.

The desired outcome is to limit detrimental soil conditions and

comply with Forest Plan and Regional Soil Quality Standards and







77. Logging with winter conditions requires that skid trails are buffered by at least 8 inches

of compacted snow or frozen ground or a combination of the two that exceeds 8 inches. If

cut to length equipment is used, a combination of slash, compacted snow, and/or frozen

ground that exceeds 8 inches is required to buffer skid trails.

The desired outcome is to limit detrimental compaction and rutting

to preserve soil productivity and comply with Regional Soil Quality

Standards and Guidelines and Forest Plan Standards.




Veg-7 – Winter Logging

78. Seed and scarify temporary roads, landings, main skid trails, and other areas where

mechanical treatments removed soil cover to less than 50%.

The desired outcome is to provide soil cover as well as

stabilization by root matter to prevent soil erosion and loss of soil

productivity to comply with Regional Soil Quality Standards and

Guidelines.

Applies to all timber harvest activities.




117

79. In units that have had commercial harvest, keep follow-up fuel treatment machinery to

designated skid trails except for limited passes off trail. Fuel reduction machinery (i.e.,

masticators and piling equipment) should be tracked equipment having a ground pressure

rating of 8 psi or less with an articulating arm capable of reaching 15 feet.

The desired outcome to prevent detrimental soil conditions and

prevent harvest/fuel treatment units from exceeding 20% detrimental soil

conditions per Regional Soil Quality Standards and Guidelines and Forest

Plan Standards.

Applies to fuel reduction and silvicultural activities.



80. Retain fine and course organic matter on top of the soil. Soil cover should exceed 35%,

preferably 50%.

The desired outcome is to maintain sufficient amounts of organic

matter to prevent short or long-term nutrient and carbon cycle deficits and

to avoid detrimental physical and biological soil conditions. Treatment

units should be maintained with between 6 to 20 tons per acre of coarse

woody material (defined as greater than three inches in diameter). Fuel

break units are exempted from soil design elements regarding coarse

woody material requirements. As well as complying with Regional Soil

Quality Standards and Guidelines and Forest Plan Standards.

Applies to all timber harvest, fuel reduction, and silvicultural

activities.





81. Target machine pile size to 15 feet in diameter and 10 feet in height outside of landings.

The desired outcome is to maintain sufficient amounts of organic matter and to

avoid detrimental physical and biological soil conditions. Smaller piles allow for

re-colonization by soil organisms and prevent excess tracking from mechanical

equipment, as well as complying with Regional Soil Quality Standards and


Applies to all fuel reduction and silvicultural activities.





82. Adequately drain fire lines including dozer and hand line. Waterbars will be installed

during fire line construction and to guidelines in Appendix C and will be described in

118

Element 5 and Element 9 of the burn plan(s). If feasible and practical, pull back litter,

duff, and topsoil back over fireline following completion of the prescribed burn.

The desired outcome is to prevent soil erosion from fire lines,

preserve soil organic matter, and allow for long term recovery of fire lines.

Applies to prescribed burn operations.



83. For ground based units with 10% Detrimental Soil Conditions (DSC) or greater, practices

were included for some units to ensure that cumulative DSC would remain at or below

20%. Practices include:

Conduct timber harvest when soil is covered by 8 inches of compacted snow or 8


should be present on approximately 90% of the timber harvest unit or

Conduct timber harvest using cut to length logging systems where stand density

supports covering forwarder trails with 8 inches of un-compacted slash during the

summer dry period and

Reuse any existing skid trails, landings, and footprints of old roadbeds.

Units where these practices should be implemented: 2, 9, 18, 38, 75, 82, 89, 820, and 836.

84. For all units with 17% DSC or greater, practices were included for some units to ensure

that cumulative detrimental soil conditions would remain at or below 20%. The

cumulative detrimental effects of the project implementation and restoration must not

exceed the conditions prior to the planned activity and should move toward a net

improvement in soil quality. Practices that must be implemented to meet Regional Soil

Quality Standards:

Conduct timber harvest or thinning when soil is covered by 8 inches of snow or 8


should be present on approximately 90% of the timber harvest unit and

Main skid trails and landings should be de-compacted to restore hydrologic

function and reduce soil compaction and

Areas of legacy compaction will be identified and decompacted.

Units where these practices must be implemented: 12 and 831

Unit 12 – An old road network exists within the unit, decompaction and

restoration of that road network would be required to meet Regional Soil

Quality Standards.

Unit 831 – Consists of a 3.1 acre unit on flat ground, hand thinning without

the use of mechanized equipment would not increase detrimental soil

conditions and could be accomplished during non-winter conditions.

119

IX. Monitoring Required by the Proposed Action

Wildlife

For at least five years post-closure, periodically monitor all roads closed in conjunction

with this project, for closure effectiveness. Promptly report and repair road closure

violations.

Monitor prescribed fire areas for noxious weeds and treat if necessary.

Forest Vegetation

The Silviculturist, Wildlife Biologist, and Rangeland Management Specialist would

review a subset of treatments within Management Areas 6 and 8 to ensure that desired

forage and browse response occurs.

The Silviculturist, Wildlife Biologist, and Rangeland Management Specialist would

review a subset of aspen stands to determine the extent and intensity of impacts to aspen

resulting from browsing. Where concentrated browsing is found during monitoring, the

design element for aspen protection would be applied.

The Silviculturist and Fuels Assistant Fire Management Officer would review a subset of

the prescribed fire treatment units to ensure that residual leave trees are adequately

protected and that surface and ladder fuels are being reduced to an acceptable level. The

review would consider first and second order fire effects to large trees. Information from

this monitoring would feedback to make changes or corrections during implementation.

Documents

Biological Evaluation (Wildlife Portion Only) Deer Jasper Project …a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · 2016-12-07 · 1 Biological Evaluation (Wildlife Portion