addendum to the marsh project wildlife...
Post on 21-Apr-2020
6 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
1
Addendum
to the
Marsh Project Wildlife Analysis.
September 8, 2015
2
Biological Evaluation
Introduction
A Biological Evaluation (BE) was completed August 19, 2015 for the Marsh Project. The BE was
prepared in compliance with the requirements of Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2630.3/ FSM 2670-2671,
FSM 2672.4, FSM W.O. Amendments 2600-95-7, and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Subpart B:
402.12, Section 7 Consultation, as amended) on actions and programs authorized, funded, or carried out
by the Forest Service to assess their potential for effect on threatened and endangered species and species
proposed for federal listing (FSM 2670.1). Species classified as sensitive by the Forest Service are to be
considered by conducting biological evaluations to determine potential effects of all programs and
activities on these species (FSM 2670.32). The BE is a documented review of Forest Service activities in
sufficient detail to determine how a proposed action may affect sensitive wildlife species.
The Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests completed a Joint Terrestrial and Aquatic Programmatic
Biological Assessment (BA, USDA and USDI 2014) in May 2014 for Federal Lands within the
Deschutes and John Day River Basin’s administered by the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests. A
letter of concurrence was received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in June 2014 that
agreed with the effects determination in the programmatic document. Every project that meets the project
design criteria (PDCs) applicable to each affected species is covered by this document. If every PDC is
not followed, then additional consultation may be needed and an effects determination made to determine
the need for further consultation with the USFWS. The terrestrial portion of the BE covers the northern
spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) as a threatened species and the 2012 designation of Critical
Habitat. For this addendum, The Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests completed a Joint Terrestrial
and Aquatic Programmatic BA will be referred to as the 2014 Programmatic BA.
Addendum
Purpose of Addendum: This document provides additional information to the Biological Evaluation
prepared for the Marsh Environmental Assessment (EA) project area. The document becomes part of the
analysis file.
In June 24, 2015 a pair of northern spotted owls was detected while conducting northern spotted owl
surveys, per 2012 protocol, for the Marsh project. Three complete subsequent early morning to mid-
morning follow-ups (06/25, 06/30, 07/07), as well as an additional evening surveys (7/8, 7/21, 8/18) were
completed. The surveys did not result in any additional detections of northern spotted owl, nor was there
any evidence of owl activity within the survey area. A great gray owl was detected approximately 0.5
miles to the east (6/30) and a barred owl was detected approximately 1.5 miles to the north (8/18). Both
of which may inhibit a spotted owl from responding.
The 2012 Revision of the 2011 Protocol for Surveying Proposed Management Activities that May Impact
Northern Spotted Owl 16.1.1 (USFWS 2012) states, “Any one of the following criteria establishes
TERRITORIAL PAIR status: 1) A male and female are heard and/or observed (either initially or through
their movement) in close proximity (<1/4 mile apart) to each other on the same visit…” As a result a new
territory was established surrounding the area where the responses were heard from. The new territory is
called Chinquapin, which includes the home range and core area for the analysis within this document.
For the Marsh EA, dispersal habitat within the Chinquapin territory (home range) was excluded from
proposed treatments (Figure 1). As such, the proposed project activities within the home range will be
dropped, partially dropped or have a seasonal restriction in place in order to stay compliant with the 2014
Programmatic BA. The effects as stated with the Marsh BA and EA remain valid. The scale of impacts
is reduced due to the reduction of acres. This addendum provides the effects of Marsh EA Alternative C
(Alt C) modified.
3
Figure 1. Chinquapin Core Area and Home Range with NRF and Dispersal Habitat overlapping Marsh EA Alt. C.
4
Overall changes to Marsh Alternative C include a reduction of Riparian Restoration Treatments and
Upland Density Management Treatment acres, as well as the number of acres available for firewood
gathering. While roadside fuel reduction treatments are within the home range and contain dispersal
habitat, no treatment acres were dropped. Dispersal habitat in these units would be retained post
treatment. For these units there would be no pile burning within the core. Remaining units and portions
of units would have the northern spotted owl nesting seasonal restriction applied. Table 1 displays
Alternative C actions that have changed.
Table 1. Modified Alternative C by Treatment and Acres
Provisioning
and
Supporting
Services
High Quality
Plant and
Animal
Habitats,
Forest
Products
Overstory Under-
story
Prescri
bed
Fire
Pile and
Burn
Alterative
C
Treatment
Acres
Acres
Dropped
Modified
Alternati
ve C
Treatmen
t Acres
Riparian
Vegetation
Restoration
Lodgepole
Encroachment
Overstory
Treatment
LPO STD PF PB (GP) 264 73 191
Lodgepole
Encroachment
Understory
Treatment
Girdle or
Fire Kill
in Mosaic
LPU PF PB (HP) 352 150 202
Total Riparian Vegetation Restoration 616 223 393
Upland
Density
Management
LP Density
Management HIM SDT PB (GP) 245 74 171
Mixed Con
Density
Management
HIM SDT PB (GP) 141 0 141
Mixed Con
Density
Management,
Underburn
HIM SDT PF PB (GP) 39 0 39
HTH SDT PF PB (GP) 214 120 94
Total Upland Density Management 639 194 445
Upland Fuels
Management Total Upland Fuels Management 1,443 0 1,443
Total Acres Treated 2,698 417 2,281
Firewood
Gathering
All areas proposed for piling, except
for those in lodgepole encroachment
treatment areas (LPO or LPU) or
within NSO NRF habitat, or riparian
areas would have opportunities for
firewood removal.
Total Potential
Areas (subset of
above treatment
acres)
1,732 152 1,580
Effects within the EA are still valid and do not change except in scale (acres treated) where units or
portions of units are dropped. Table 2 outlines the changes in treatment of habitat of TES species and the
changes in effects if any.
5
Table 2. Changes in Habitat Treated for TES Species
Species
Alt C
Acres of
Habitat
Treated
Modified
Acres of
Habitat
Treated
Difference Effects
Further
Analysi
s
Threatened and Endangered
Northern Spotted Owl. 1,123 706 417
Difference is the reduction of
dispersal habitat treated. There
are no proposed treatments
overlapping NRF habitat within
the Chinquapin territory.
Yes
Oregon Spotted Frog 547 344 203
Difference is the reduction in
freshwater forest/shrub and
emergent vegetation habitat
treated, resulting in the reduction
of additional breeding/rearing
habitat gained and/or maintained
from treatment.
Yes*
Gray Wolf No change No
Pacific Fisher No Change No
Western Sage Grouse No Change No
R6 Sensitive
North American
Wolverine No Change No
Northern Bald Eagle No Change No
American Peregrine
Falcon No Change No
Bufflehead No Change No
Harlequin Ducks No Change No
Horned Grebe No Change No
Tule White-fronted
Goose No Change No
Yellow Rail 352 202 150
Reduce acres of riparian
vegetation restoration, reduces
amount of lodgepole pine
encroachment treated. This
reduces potential habitat created
by approximately 150 acres.
No
Tricolored Blackbird No Change No
Northern Waterthrush No Change No
Lewis’ Woodpecker No Change No
6
White-headed
Woodpecker No Change No
Townsend’s Big-eared
Bat No Change No
Pallid Bat No Change No
Spotted Bat No Change No
Fringed Myotis No Change No
Columbia Spotted
Frog No Change No
Crater Lake Tightcoil
616 393 223
Reduction in the amount of
lodgepole pine treated would
reduce amount of water available
for habitat. This would cut the
amount of potential habitat and
protection from predators, which
would have resulted from the 223
acres of treatment.
No
Evening Field Slug
Silver-bordered
Fritillary No Change No
Johnson’s Hairstreak 2,124 1930 194
The difference would be a 194
acre reduction in the most
potential habitat PAG stands and
foraging habitat created as a result
of treatment.
No
Western Bumblebee No Change No
*A separate biological analysis (BA) is being completed for the Oregon spotted frog for consultation.
This analysis is completed on Alternative C as modified.
NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL
Existing Condition: The Chinquapin territory is entirely within the Northwest Forest Plan, but
completely outside of any Critical Habitat Unit (CHU) or Late-successional Reserve (LSR).
As stated in the Marsh EA, nesting, roosting, and foraging (NRF) habitat stands are predominantly in
four locations in the Marsh Project area (Figure 2):
1. Northwest portion of the project area adjacent to Crescent Lake, along the FS Rds 6020 and 60
and Refrigerator Creek;
2. Central portion in the middle of the project area, below FS Rd 60 and down to Big Marsh;
3. Eastern portion of the project area above FS Rd 5825, on Beales Butte and Chinquapin Butte
within the analysis area; and
4. Southeast portion of the project area within the WSC 5 CHU and the two historic northern
spotted owl home ranges, Big Marsh and Cappy Mountain.
The Chinquapin territory overlaps the eastern consolidation area of NRF (number 3 listed above). It is
located on the west aspect of Chinquapin Butte and includes Chinquapin Butte, portions of Beales Butte
to the north, portions of Big Marsh to the west-southwest, and the FS 5825-090 road area to the south
(Figure 1). The NRF and dispersal habitat within the territory is comprised of higher elevation mixed
conifer on the buttes, transitioning to ponderosa pine dominated mixed conifer stands in mid-elevations to
7
lodgepole pine flats and then to spruce dominated stands lining the edges of the marsh. Nesting, roosting,
foraging habitat is mainly clumped on the mid- to higher- elevations of Beales and Chinquapine Buttes.
Dispersal habitat is scattered throughout the rest of the territory from the mid-elevations of the two buttes
down to the spruce dominated stands lining the marsh (Figure 2).
Figure 2 illustrates connectivity between NSO territories (including the Chinquapin territory), NRF
habitat, dispersal habitat, CHUs, and LSRs within the Marsh planning area. East-west connectivity from
ECN 9 across Willamette Pass to the Willamette NF consists of a narrow band of NRF habitat along the
Highway 58 corridor as well as dispersal habitat and NRF patches occurring along Trapper Creek to the
Diamond Peak Wilderness area, on the south side of Odell Lake. North-south connectivity from ECN 9
to WCS 5, including NRF and dispersal on the Umpqua National Forest, primarily occurs through
dispersal habitat and small patches of NRF. The ECN 9 CHU is connected to WCS 5 via dispersal and
NRF patches on Davis and Royce Mountains, around Crescent Lake, and throughout the Upper and
Lower Big Marsh subwatersheds to Cappy and Tolo Mountain (Figure 2).
North connectivity occurs primarily as a result of dispersal habitat between the ECN 9 blocks of CHU.
All these connections would be described as functional in allowing spotted owl dispersal. In the Marsh
project area NRF habitat is scattered throughout the higher elevations, but is still described as functional.
Nesting habitat connectivity would be described as somewhat fragmented because of the past
management activities conversion of NRF to foraging and dispersal habitat, encroaching lodgepole pine
stands capable of only providing dispersal habitat for the owl, and unsuitable areas including early seral
areas, rock outcrops, and water bodies.
The closest CHU to the Chinquapin territory is the WCS 5 CHU, southwest at a distance approximately 1
mile from boundary to boundary. For the core area, the CHU is approximately 2 miles to the southwest.
The WCS 5 CHU overlap two historic territories, Big Marsh and Cappy Mountain. For the Marsh project
area, this area entails the high consolidated blocks of NRF and dispersal habitat. The CHU also overlaps
with the Upper Big Marsh LSR. The closest LSR to the Chinquapin territory is the Lower Big Marsh
LSR, at approximately 0.2 miles from the territory and approximately 1 mile from the core. The Lower
Big Marsh LSR is comprised of lodgepole pine and only provides dispersal habitat for spotted owls.
Through NRF and dispersal habitat within and around the Chinquapin territory, there is connectivity to
the both CHUs (WCS 5 and ECN 9), and the two LSRs (Upper and Lower Big Marsh) (Figure 2). The
Marsh project does not proposed any treatment within the WCS 5 CHU, Lower Big Marsh LSR, or either
of the Big Marsh and Cappy Mountain historic territories
8
Figure 2. Connectivity Between Northern Spotted Owl, NRF and Dispersal Habitat, CHUs, and LSRs.
9
To elevate chances of northern spotted owl viability within a home range, the USFWS developed core
area and home range threshold percentages of NRF. The 2014 Programmatic BA cited Bingham and
Noon (1997), “…a spotted owl core area is the area that provides the important habitat elements
of nest sites, roost sites, and access to prey, benefitting spotted owl survival and reproduction.” A
reduction in of NRF within the core area or home range would reduce the chances of viability. The
thresholds within the 2014 Programmatic BA lists the core area of a northern spotted owl home range
should be comprised of greater than or equal to 50 percent (250 ac.) of NRF habitat. The Home Range
should be comprised of greater than or equal to 40 percent (1,158 ac.) of NRF Habitat. If vegetation
treatments propose to lower these thresholds or existing NRF, the activities would be considered a “Take”
by the USFWS and a formal consultation would be required before activities could occur.
The Chinquapin core area is comprised of 18 percent (89 ac.) NRF, while the Home Range is comprised
of 6 percent (170 ac.) NRF (Table 3). Currently, the territory does not meet the minimum required
threshold of NRF in the Core Area (50 percent) or the Home Range (40 percent) (Table 3). This territory
is similar to the majority of NSO territories on the Crescent Ranger District in that there is not enough
NRF to meet the thresholds. Northern spotted owls on the Crescent Ranger District have routinely nested
and reproduced in territories where NRF is less than the thresholds. In these territories dispersal habitat
plays a more important role in the viability of Core Area and Home Range. For Crescent, 2 out of the 14
territories known territories meet or exceed the USFWS NRF threshold for Core Areas and only one
territory meets the Home Range threshold. These established territories compensate for the lack of NRF
habitat by depending on dispersal habitat within the core area and home range.
Table 3 displays the NRF and dispersal habitat within the Chinquapin Territory and overlapping Alt C
units. The table illustrates the lack of NRF within the potential territory and the amount of dispersal
habitat available to compensate. Within this territory, dispersal habitat plays a crucial role in providing
needed habitat within the core area and home range.
Table 3. NRF and Dispersal Habitat within Chinquapin Territory and overlapping Alt C Units.
Marsh Alt. C
Proposed Treatment Modifications: The Marsh EA Alt. C proposed to treat mixed conifer stand density, riparian encroachment, and fuel
loading alongside the 5825 and 5826 road in the area which overlaps the new Chinquapin territory (Table
4 and Figure 1). Modifications to treatment units overlapping the territory were determined in order to
stay consistent with the 2014 Programmatic BA. These modifications include dropping specific units
within the core and all dispersal habitat within the remaining units. The modifications would not change
the proposed treatment prescriptions, but rather drop portions or the entire unit. Informal consultation for
the Marsh EA Alt. C modifications with the USFWS was conducted July 14th. The determination from
the consultation was that the proposed modifications would continue to allow the Marsh EA to be
consistent with the 2014 Programmatic BA. Outside of sharing information within this analysis with the
USFWS, further consultation is not necessary.
Area NRF Dispersal Combined NRF
and Dispersal Percent of NRF and
Dispersal in Alt C for
Entire Core Area and
Home Range Core Area (502.57 ac) 89 18% 247 49% 336 67%
Home Range (2895.10 ac) 170 6% 1,224 42% 1,394 48%
Alt C Core Area (233.99 ac) 0 0% 234 100% 131 56% 26%
Alt C Home Range (699.10 ac) 0 0% 329 47% 329 47% 11%
10
Table 4 lists Alt. C acre changes (from the modifications), by treatment unit number between current
Marsh EA Alt. C treatments and those modifications needed to remain consistent with the 2014
Programmatic BA; along with seasonal restrictions (Marsh 1-Septemeber 30) for project activities. In
total, there are approximately 417 acres of modification to Alt. C. The bolded acres in the below table
indicates Alt. C units which have been completely removed from the project. Units 44-48 and 76-80 were
dropped because they are located within the Chinquapin Core Area and/or overlap with needed dispersal
habitat. The dispersal habitat within the treatment unit is needed to support the territory and aid in
connectivity.
Table 4. Modification Rationale and Acre Change for Marsh Alt. C Treatments (Bold Acres are Completely
Removed Units).
Alt C
Unit
Treatment
Overview Overstory Understory
Treatment
Acres
Acres
Dropped/or In
Leave Area
Percent
Modified
Modification
Rationale
43 Road None SDT Prune 90 0* 0% Core
44
Mixed Con Density
Management,
Underburn
HTH SDT 18 18 100%
Core/Dispersal
45
Mixed Con Density
Management,
Underburn
HTH SDT 55 55 100%
Core/Dispersal
46
Mixed Con Density
Management,
Underburn
HTH SDT 19 19 100%
Core/Dispersal
47
Mixed Con Density
Management,
Underburn
HTH SDT 12 12 100%
Core/Dispersal
48
Mixed Con Density
Management,
Underburn
HTH SDT 16 16 100%
Core/Dispersal
49 Road None SDT 106 0* 0% Core
59 Riparian
Encroachment LPO Remove 20 11.6 58%
Dispersal
60 Riparian
Encroachment LPO Remove 22 0.3 1%
Dispersal
63 Riparian
Encroachment Girdle/Burn LPU 10 0.4 4%
Dispersal
65 Riparian
Encroachment LPO Remove 24 1.2 5%
Dispersal
66 Riparian
Encroachment LPO Remove 22 2.9 13%
Dispersal
71 Riparian
Encroachment Girdle/Burn LPU 23 0.8 3%
Dispersal
72 Riparian
Encroachment Girdle/Burn LPU 12 0 0%
Not Habitat
73 Riparian
Encroachment LPO Remove 18 0 0%
Not Habitat
74 Riparian
Encroachment Girdle/Burn LPU 76 61.7 81%
Core/Dispersal
75 Riparian
Encroachment LPO Remove 82 56.9 69%
Core/Dispersal
76 LP Density
Management HIM SDT 74 74 100%
Core/Dispersal
77 Riparian
Encroachment Girdle/Burn LPU 61 61 100%
Core/Dispersal
78 Riparian
Encroachment Girdle/Burn LPU 9 9 100%
Core/Dispersal
11
Alt C
Unit
Treatment
Overview Overstory Understory
Treatment
Acres
Acres
Dropped/or In
Leave Area
Percent
Modified
Modification
Rationale
79 Riparian
Encroachment Girdle/Burn LPU 9 9 100%
Core/Dispersal
80 Riparian
Encroachment Girdle/Burn LPU 8 8 100%
Core/Dispersal
Grand Total 2,697 417 15%
* No pile or burning within Core Area.
Recreation and Road Access
There are no proposed Recreation activities within the Core Area. Reopening the 5825-540 road and re-
establishing the Marsh Trail would provide public recreation access within the home range (Figure 3),
within dispersal habitat. Only 0.5 miles of the 5825-540 road would be open the remaining two miles
would remain closed. Major roads 5825 and 5826 also go through the home range. All other roads are
closed within the Chinquapin Territory. Construction activities would be restricted during the nesting
period.
Ditch work
Restoration work on the ditches occurs within the Chinquapin territory and adjacent to dispersal habitat.
The restoration work would not affect habitat for the northern spotted owl. Seasonal restrictions on
disturbing activities are in place.
Figure 3. Recreation/Road Access and Ditch Work in Chinquapin Territory
12
Without stand density and fuel reduction treatments, over the long-term, there would be no steps to
address the threats to the northern spotted owl. The trend of forest succession would continue, increasing
stand densities and restricting individual tree growth. Stands would remain at current levels of risk to a
wide-scale disturbance from insect and disease outbreaks, as well as fires, similar to past District fires.
Though there are modifications to Alternative C reducing treatment units, the proposed treatments within
the home range would lessen these effects compared to no treatment, Marsh EA Alternative A. The
proposed treatments in Alt. C would reduce the encroachment and tree density, thus reducing
susceptibility to landscape changing events. In addition to the modifications, the retention of 15-20
percent of each treatment unit would continue to provide dispersal habitat, when dispersal habitat
overlaps retention areas. The Marsh EA proposed treatments indirect and direct effects are still valid with
the addition of the modifications.
The Marsh EA still remains consistent with the 2014 Programmatic with the addition of modification to
Alternative C. No NRF habitat would be removed or degraded and connectivity between the scattered
NRF, CHU, and the Lower Big Marsh LSR through dispersal habitat would continue to be functional post
treatment.
For further, more in-depth, analysis of indirect and direct effects of no treatment and proposed Marsh EA
Alternative C treatments review the Marsh EA and Marsh BA.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE 2014 PROGRAMMATIC BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT PDCS
Refer to Appendix A of the Wildlife Report (BE) for the northern spotted owl Monitoring
Protocol per maintaining constancy with the 2014 Programmatic BA for the entire Marsh Project.
The proposed alterations to Marsh Alternative C would ensure the Marsh EA would remain
consistent with the 2014 Programmatic BA. There would still be no removal of NRF or dispersal
habitat within CHU, LSRs and core areas. The allowed small diameter thinning along roadsides
within the Chinquapin core area would not remove any dispersal habitat. In addition there would
be no piling or burning of the slash generated by this activity within the core area and seasonal
restriction would be put in place. All portions of treatment units except roadside, which overlap
the core area would be dropped. Finally, all treatment units, except roadside which overlap
dispersal habitat would be dropped.
Project Design Criteria for the Northern Spotted Owl and Critical Habitat: To remain consistent with the 2014 Programmatic Biological Assessment PDCs:
All NWFP Land Allocations and Critical Habitat
1. Disturbing work activities (i.e. chainsaw, heavy equipment, etc.) will not
take place within ¼ mile (see Table 38 within the Programmatic EA for
helicopter distances or 1.0 mile for blasting) of the nest site or activity
center of all known pairs or resident singles between March 1 and
September 30. If activities occur within the nesting period, further
consultation is required. The boundary of the ¼ mile area may be
modified by a District Wildlife Biologist based on topographic breaks or
other site-specific information (generally, a 125 acre area will be
protected). This condition may be waived in a particular year if nesting or
reproductive success surveys reveal that spotted owls are non-nesting or
13
that no young are present that year. Waivers are valid only until March 1
of the following year.
Project activities of small diameter thinning, which would not remove
dispersal habitat or NRF, within core areas would be subject to
seasonal restriction. All treatments within ¼ mile of the core area
would be subject to seasonal restrictions.
2. Work will occur outside restriction periods unless emergency work is
warranted (trees falling on powerlines, danger tree poses immediate threat
to people or facilities, etc.). Emergency consultation will be required at
this point.
Resource protection measures specifying seasonal restrictions are in
place to restrict disturbance activities around active nest sites.
3. Danger trees will not be removed unless down wood needs per the LSR
Assessment or LRMP as amended are met. Down wood assessments will
be made in the immediate project area to determine down log needs and
danger trees will be felled and left to meet goals for the vegetation type.
Resource protection measures are in place requiring felled hazard
trees to be retained as down wood and not removed from the site to
protect dead wood and to meet Forest dead wood requirements.
Matrix (outside of Critical Habitat Units)
1. Maintain 100 acres of NRF habitat (core area) around all known (as of
January 1, 1994) activity centers. Where adequate NRF habitat is not
available, retain all NRF habitat and the next best available habitat to meet
the 100-acre minimum.
The no project activities would remove dispersal or NRF habitat
within known spotted owl nest sites, existing NRF would be retained.
The Chinquapin territory currently does not include 100 acres of
NRF, as such dispersal habitat will be retained to compensate.
2. Landscape areas where little late-successional forest persists should be
managed to retain the remaining late-successional forest. Maintain all
late-successional patches in fifth field watersheds in which federally
managed forest lands are currently comprised of 15% or less late-
successional forests; this should be calculated using all land allocations
within the watershed.
Project treatments would not degrade late-successional forests.
3. Maintain dispersal habitat between 100-acre core areas and LSRs to
provide connectivity.
There are no treatments which will remove dispersal or NRF habitat
within the known spotted owl core sites, the Upper Big Marsh LSR or
adjacent dispersal habitat. Only 7-8 percent of dispersal habitat
would be treated within the project area and 2-3 percent would be
removed. Of the treated habitat, approximately 416 acres in
Alternative B and 362 acres in Alternative C would be removed from
dispersal habitat. Sufficient quantity and distribution of dispersal
14
habitat would remain maintaining connectivity between the Lower
Big Marsh LSR and known spotted owl core sites.
4. Maintain all existing NRF habitats for connectivity.
The only treatments within NRF stands would be thinning trees 6 in.
dbh and below and underburning. These project activities would not
remove or degrade NRF habitat.
5. Promote climatic-climax late-successional and old growth habitat within
those plant associations capable of sustaining NRF habitat.
Treatment prescriptions set stands on a trajectory of becoming late-
successional and old growth habitats for wildlife species, including the
northern spotted owl.
6. On lands not capable of becoming NRF, but capable of sustaining fire
climax late-successional and old growth habitats for other species than the
spotted owl, apply silvicultural treatments to promote that development of
habitat.
Treatment prescriptions favor fire climax tree species and set stands
on a trajectory of becoming late-successional and old growth habitats
for wildlife species other than the northern spotted owl.
7. Maintain 100 acres of NRF habitat (core areas) around all newly
discovered activity centers.
Resource protection measures are in place in so that if a new territory
is discovered all project activities will be halted until an evaluation is
done by a journey-level wildlife biologist to ensure the project will
meet all northern spotted owl PDCs found within the Joint
Terrestrial and Aquatic Programmatic Biological Assessment (BA,
USDA and USDI 2014) and/or consultation with the USFWS is
completed. In addition, resource protection measures are in place to
buffer disturbances ¼ to ½ mile away from all northern spotted owl
nests, known or discovered.
The modifications to Marsh EA Alternative C meet the 2014 Programmatic. The Marsh EA proposed
treatments indirect and direct effects are still valid with the addition of the modifications. Thus, the
Marsh EA with the aforementioned modifications to Alternative C (refer to Tables 1, 2. And 4) would
remain consistent with the 2014 Programmatic. For further, more in-depth, analysis of indirect and direct
effects of no treatment and proposed Marsh EA Alternative C treatments review the Marsh EA and Marsh
BA.
References Used, Literature Cited
USDA FS/USDI BLM. 2014. Joint aquatic and terrestrial programmatic biological assessment for lands within the
Deschutes Basin administered by the Bureau of Land Management Prineville Office and the Deschutes and Ochoco
National Forests
USDA Forest Service and USDI U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. A Conservation Strategy for the Northern
Spotted Owl. Report of the Interagency Scientific Committee To Address the Conservation of the Northern Spotted
Owl. Pp. 1, 19.
15
USDA FS (Forest Service). 2014. Marsh Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA). On file at the Crescent Ranger
District. Including Specialists Reports for the Marsh Draft Environmental Assessment: Marsh Aquatic Specialist
Report, Marsh Botanical Report, Marsh Forested Vegetation Report, Marsh Fuels Specialist Report, and Wildlife
Specialist Report.
USFWS. 2012. The 2012 Revision of the 2011 Protocol for Surveying Proposed Management Activities that May
Impact Northern Spotted Owl 16.1.1.
16
Survey and Manage, MIS, Focal Species.
Alternative C modifications change the scale (number of acres) of effects to non-TES wildlife species. Effects as stated within the Marsh EA are
still valid. The number of acres on which those effects occur changes for those species which utilize the mixed conifer or lodgepole pine habitat
type. Changes vary by species. Table 5 displays the changes for key species analyzed within the Marsh EA. For many species there are no
changes. Table 5 lists the difference in habitat acres between Alt. C proposed treatments and the modified Alt. C treatments for these species, as
listing the effects from the differences.
Table 5. Acre Changes Between Alternative C treatments and Modified Alternative C Teratments for key species.
Species Status Indicator For Habitat
Alt C
Acres of
Habitat
Treated
Alt C
Modified
Acres of
Habitat
Treated
Difference Effects
Northern
goshawk
MIS, S3
Vulnerable
Dense Mature and Old
Growth Ponderosa
Pine, also Lodgepole
Pine, Mixed-Conifer
Forests (Biological
Community Barometer
Species)
Mature and old-
growth forests;
especially high canopy
closure and large trees
645 462 183
Difference is the reduction in
nesting habitat treated, also
resulting in a loss of 183 acres of
foraging habitat gained from
treatment.
Cooper’s
hawk
MIS, S4
Apparently
secure
Dense Forest Species
Similar to goshawk,
can also use mature
forests with high
canopy closure/tree
density
445 281 164
Difference is the reduction in
nesting habitat treated, also
resulting in the loss of 164 acres
of foraging habitat gained from
treatment.
Sharp-
shinned
hawk
MIS, S4
Apparently
secure
Dense Forest Species
Similar to goshawk in
addition to young,
dense, even-aged
stands
592 418 174
Difference is the reduction in
nesting habitat treated, also
resulting in the loss of 174 acres
of foraging habitat gained from
treatment.
17
Species Status Indicator For Habitat
Alt C
Acres of
Habitat
Treated
Alt C
Modified
Acres of
Habitat
Treated
Difference Effects
Great gray
owl
MIS, Survey
and Manage
S3
Vulnerable
Edge Species
Mature and old growth
forests associated with
openings and
meadows
1,216 982 234
Difference is the reduction in
nesting habitat treated, also
resulting in the loss of 234 acres
of foraging habitat gained from
treatment.
Big Game
Mule deer MIS, S5
Secure
Popular for Hunting or
viewing in close
proximity
Mixed habitats 1,400 1,200 200
Difference is the reduction in
hiding cover treated, also
resulting in the loss of 200 acres
of potential forage habitat
gained.
Elk MIS, S5
Secure
Popular for Hunting or
viewing Mixed habitats No Change
Dead Wood Analysis and Associated Species
American
marten
MIS, S3
Vulnerable Late successional forest
Mixed conifer or high
elevation late-
successional forests
with abundant down
woody material
661 619 42
Difference is the reduction in
denning habitat treated, reducing
the loss of denning habitat by 42
acres.
Three-toed
woodpecker
MIS, S3
Vulnerable
Mature and Old Growth
Lodgepole Pine Forest,
also Forests with
Engelmann Spruce or
Mtn. Hemlock,
(Biological Community
Barometer Species)
High elevation and
lodgepole pine forests
698 661 37
Difference is the reduction of
nesting habitat treated, reducing
the loss of nesting habitat by 37
acres.
Black-
backed
woodpecker
MIS,
Landbird
focal species,
S3
Vulnerable
Snags Lodgepole pine
forests, burned forests
18
Species Status Indicator For Habitat
Alt C
Acres of
Habitat
Treated
Alt C
Modified
Acres of
Habitat
Treated
Difference Effects
Pileated
woodpecker
MIS, S4
Apparently
Secure
Snags Mature to old-growth
mixed conifer forests No Change
Without stand density and fuel reduction treatments, over the long-term, the trend of forest succession would continue, increasing stand densities
and restricting individual tree growth. Dense stands currently providing habitat would continue to become over grown and would no longer
provide habitat to those species. Stands which are currently open would become increasingly dense and no longer provide the needed habitat for
those species. In addition, stands would remain at current levels of risk to a wide-scale disturbance from insect and disease outbreaks, as well as
fires, similar to past District fires.
Though there are modifications to Alternative C reducing treatment unit acres, the proposed treatments within the home range would lessen the
effects of increasing stand densities and the risk of a wide-scale disturbance compared to no treatment, Marsh EA Alternative A. The proposed
treatments in Alternative C would reduce the encroachment and tree density, thus reducing susceptibility to landscape changing events. In
addition to the modifications, the retention of 15-20 percent of each treatment unit would continue to provide habitat, when habitat overlaps
retention areas. The Marsh EA proposed treatments indirect and direct effects are still valid with the addition of the modifications.
Refer to the Marsh EA and Marsh BA for a more in-depth analysis of effects on the listed species from Marsh EA Alternative A, the no action
alternative, and the proposed Alternative C treatments.
top related