united states wildlife report and biological...

Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation,

Addendum to the Starr HFRA Project Report

Starr Aspen Project

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Malheur National Forest

Blue Mountain Ranger District

_Dustin Hollowell____________ __01/29/2015__

Author/Prepared By: Date

Starr Aspen Project – Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation

of 20

Table of Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 4

Regulatory Framework ............................................................................................................................. 4

Summary of Effects .................................................................................................................................. 5

Affected Environment ................................................................................................................................... 5

Environmental Consequences ....................................................................................................................... 5

Methodology ............................................................................................................................................. 5

Incomplete or Unavailable Information ................................................................................................ 6

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis .............................................................................. 6

Alternative 1 – No Action ......................................................................................................................... 7

PETS ................................................................................................................................................. 7

MIS – Primary Cavity Excavators .................................................................................................... 7

MIS – Big Game ............................................................................................................................... 7

MIS – Old Growth ............................................................................................................................ 8

Featured Species ............................................................................................................................... 8

Landbirds, Including Neotropical Migratory Birds .......................................................................... 8

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ............................................................................................................... 9

Design Features and Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................ 9

PETS Species ...................................................................................................................................... 10

Direct and Indirect Effects to all PETS species .............................................................................. 10

Aspen and Riparian Treatments .................................................................................................. 10

Gray Wolf ................................................................................................................................... 12

Pygmy Rabbit .............................................................................................................................. 12

California Wolverine................................................................................................................... 12

Upland Sandpiper ........................................................................................................................ 12

Bufflehead ................................................................................................................................... 13

Greater Sage Grouse ................................................................................................................... 13

American Peregrine Falcon ......................................................................................................... 13

Bald Eagle ................................................................................................................................... 13

Lewis’s Woodpecker................................................................................................................... 14

White-headed Woodpecker ......................................................................................................... 14

Silver-bordered Fritillary ............................................................................................................ 14

Management Indicator Species ........................................................................................................... 15

Primary Cavity Excavators ............................................................................................................. 15

Big Game MIS ................................................................................................................................ 15

Rocky Mountain Elk ................................................................................................................... 15


of 20

Old Growth MIS (Pileated woodpecker, pine marten, American three-toed woodpecker) ............ 15

Featured Species (northern goshawk and blue grouse) ................................................................... 16

Landbirds Including Neotropical Migratory Birds ......................................................................... 16

Cumulative Effects to Wildlife Resources ...................................................................................... 16

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans ................ 17

Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species ............................................................ 17

Old-Growth (Management Area 13) ............................................................................................... 17

Regional Forester’s Eastside Forest Plan Amendment #2 (Eastside Screens) ................................ 17

Late and Old Structure ................................................................................................................ 18

Connectivity ................................................................................................................................ 18

Snags and Down Logs/Primary Cavity Excavators .................................................................... 18

Big Game Summer and Winter Range Cover (Forest-Wide Standards) ......................................... 18

Featured Species ............................................................................................................................. 18

Goshawk ..................................................................................................................................... 18

Landbirds .................................................................................................................................... 19

References ................................................................................................................................................... 20

List of Tables

Table 1. Project design criteria to be applied during implementation .......................................................... 9

Table 2. Effects determinations to proposed, endangered, threatened, and sensitive species by alternative

.................................................................................................................................................................... 11

Table 3. Federal listing status abbreviations ............................................................................................... 11

Table 4. Effects determinations abbreviations ............................................................................................ 11


of 20

Introduction The intent of this specialist report is to describe and document expected effects to applicable endangered

species, threatened species, sensitive species, management indicator species, featured species, and

landbirds (described below) from the implementation of the alternative 1 (no action) or alternative 2

(proposed action) in the Starr Aspen project planning area. The project planning area would include the

Starr subwatershed, collectively referred to as the Starr Aspen project planning area.

The aspen and meadow restoration treatments being proposed under this project were originally a

component of the Starr Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) Project completed in July 2012. Prior to

public scoping for that project in May 2011, the Deciding Official directed the interdisciplinary team

(IDT) not to analyze these restoration treatments other than to include aspen stands within conifer units

being proposed for treatment. This decision was made in order to best meet the purpose and need of the

planning project and to meet required timelines. As part of this decision, the restoration work was to be

analyzed under a separate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) project after the completion of the

Starr HFRA Project. The project planning area for both the Starr Aspen and Starr HFRA projects is

identical. The affected environment for terrestrial wildlife in the Starr Aspen project planning area is

disclosed in the Starr HFRA Project Wildlife Specialist Report & Biological Evaluation. This Addendum

to that report will disclose the specific impacts of the Starr Aspen Project.

Regulatory Framework The three principle laws most relevant to the Forest Service for wildlife management are the National

Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA), the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), and the Migratory

Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918. Direction relative to wildlife follows:

NFMA requires the Forest Service to manage fish and wildlife habitat to maintain viable populations

of all native and desirable non-native wildlife species and conserve all listed threatened or endangered

species populations (36 CFR 219.19).

ESA requires the Forest Service to manage for the recovery of threatened and endangered species and

the ecosystems upon which they depend. Forests are required to consult with the US Fish and

Wildlife Service if a proposed activity may affect the population or habitat of a listed species.

MBTA established an international framework for the protection and conservation of migratory birds.

This act makes it illegal, unless permitted by regulations, to “pursue, hunt, take, capture, purchase,

deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be carried by any means whatever, receive for shipment,

transportation or carriage, or export, at any time, or in any manner, any migratory bird.”

Forest Service Manual Direction provides additional guidance: identify and prescribe measures to prevent

adverse modifications or destruction of critical habitat and other habitats essential for the conservation of

endangered, threatened, and proposed species (FSM 2670.31 (6)). This manual directs the Regional

Forester to identify sensitive species for each National Forest where species viability may be a concern.

Regional Forester’s Amendment # 2 (Eastside Screens) established interim wildlife standards for old

growth, old growth connectivity, snags, large down logs, and northern goshawks. The Regional Forester

has periodically distributed letters clarifying direction in Amendment #2 (Regional Forester, October 2,

1997; October 23, 1997; June 11, 2003).

Additional management direction is provided for conservation of migratory landbirds. This direction is

consolidated in the Forest Service Landbird Strategic Plan and further developed through the Partners in

Flight Program. The Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in the

Northern Rocky Mountains of Eastern Oregon and Washington (Altman 2000) identifies priority bird

species and habitats for the Blue Mountains in Oregon.


of 20

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List (Update): On December 9, 2011, Regional Forester Kent

Connaughton released an updated Sensitive Species List that includes federally listed, federally proposed,

and sensitive species lists.

Summary of Effects There would No Impact/No Effect to any proposed, endangered, threatened, and sensitive species (PETS)

species except for the bald eagle where the Starr Aspen Project may impact individuals or habitat (MIIH)

due to increased activity, displacement, and potential nest abandonment in response to increased human

presence and activities.

There would be no adverse impacts to any primary cavity excavators, big game, or old-growth MIS.

Features species would also not be adversely impacted and the aspen treatments could potentially be a

beneficial impact for northern goshawks and blue grouse, although minor.

Affected Environment See the Starr HFRA Project Wildlife Specialist Report & Biological Evaluation for the affected

environment discussion. This report is also contained in the Starr Aspen project record.

Environmental Consequences

Methodology Rather than addressing all wildlife species, the Malheur Forest Plan focuses on three categories of

wildlife: proposed, endangered, threatened, and sensitive species (PETS); management indicator species

(MIS); and featured species. In addition, interest has been raised for landbirds including neotropical

migratory birds. Categories are summarized below:

Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species (PETS) – A proposed species is one

that is being considered for listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA. An endangered

species is an animal or plant species listed under the ESA that is in danger of extinction throughout all

or a significant portion of its range. A threatened species is an animal or plant species listed under the

ESA that is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant

portion of its range. Sensitive species are animal or plant species identified by the Forest Service

Regional Forester for which species viability is a concern because of a) significant current or

predicted downward trend in population numbers or density, or b) significant current or predicted

downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species existing distribution.

Management Indicator Species (MIS) – Management indicator species (MIS) are species of

vertebrates and invertebrates whose population changes are believed to best indicate the effects of

land management activities. Through the MIS concept, the total number of species found within a

project planning area is reduced to a subset of species that collectively represent habitats, species, and

associated management concerns. The MIS are used to assess the maintenance of populations (the

ability of a population to sustain itself naturally), biological diversity (which includes genetic

diversity, species diversity, and habitat diversity), and to assess effects on species in public demand.

Where population monitoring data are not available, due to lack of funding or feasibility of

monitoring populations, the amount and quality of habitat can be used as a proxy for determining

viability effects of projects on MIS (Lands Council v. McNair 2010). This analysis uses management

indicator species and direction identified on page IV-32 of the Malheur Forest Plan (1990). Forest-

wide standard 61 of the Malheur Forest Plan (page IV-32) directs land managers to “provide habitat

requirements for its selected management indicator species”.


of 20

Featured Species – Featured species are those identified in the Malheur Forest Plan as species that

require special protections. The Forest Plan provides direction (pages IV-30 to page IV-31, and

standards 50-55) for the protection of habitat for these species.

Landbirds including Neotropical Migratory Birds (NTMB) – Landbirds, including neotropical

migratory birds, have diverse habitat needs spanning nearly all plant community types and

successional stages. Long-term population data on many these species indicate downward population

trends.

Species presence/absence determinations were based on habitat presence, wildlife surveys, recorded

wildlife sightings, observations made during reconnaissance, non-Forest Service databases, and

status/trends and source habitat trends documented for the Interior Columbia Basin. Formal wildlife

surveys were not conducted for most species. There is a high confidence level that species discussed in

this document are currently present, or that habitat is present, in the area.

The no-action alternative is used as a benchmark to compare and describe the differences and effects

between taking no action and implementing action alternatives. The no-action alternative is designed to

represent the existing condition. Effects on species will be determined by assessing how each alternative

would affect the structure and function of vegetation relative to current, projected and historical

distributions. Effects on habitats are discussed with the assumption that if appropriate habitat is available

for a species, then that species occupies or could occupy the habitat. Cumulative effects have been

analyzed in respect to past, ongoing and foreseeable future activities that overlap the project area in time

and space.

Incomplete or Unavailable Information Since project timing only allowed for one year of survey work, data gaps may include; lack of on-the-

ground snag and dead and downed surveys (information for this analysis was based on CVS, DecAid and

other sources), project scale northern goshawk surveys (not required), and survey data for difficult to

access areas.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis Effects on wildlife species and habitat have been assessed within National Forest lands in the Starr Aspen

project planning area, focusing on the effects of activities within proposed treatment areas.

The duration of effects on the wildlife resource is described according to the following terms and

definitions:

Immediate – Approximately one growing season or several months or less

Short-term – 0 to 5 years

Mid-term – 5 to 25 years

Long-term – 25+ years

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of alternatives are identified and discussed.


of 20

Alternative 1 – No Action

PETS

Please refer to the silviculture report/section for the expected future vegetation conditions under the no-

action alternative.

Under alternative 1, no aspen stand treatments; fuels treatments; stream, meadow, and wetland restoration

activities; fish passage barrier removal; or associated road activities would occur. With alternative 1,

existing conditions for PETS species would likely remain the same in the short to mid-term.

Aspen would continue to be encroached on by conifers, leading to decline in vigor and numbers.

Reproduction would remain low due to the lack of fire and continued browsing by ungulates would

decrease sucker growth. If aspen stand treatments and riparian restoration activities do not occur, breeding

and foraging opportunities may not increase for PETS species such as Lewis’ woodpecker (although they

are tied mainly to riparian hardwoods) and the silver bordered fritillary.

With alternative 1, there is No Impact (NI)/No Effect (NE) expected to individuals and/or populations of

the following species: gray wolf, pygmy rabbit, California wolverine, tricolored blackbird, upland

sandpiper, bufflehead, greater sage grouse, bobolink, American peregrine falcon, bald eagle, Lewis’s

woodpecker, white-headed woodpecker, and silver-bordered fritillary.

MIS – Primary Cavity Excavators

Please refer to the silviculture report/section for the expected future vegetation conditions under the no-

action alternative.

Under the no-action alternative, existing levels of snags and downed wood would remain fairly constant

in the area. Since no management activities would be implemented, there would be no creation or loss of

existing snags or downed wood from project activities.

Under alternative 1, riparian habitat, including aspen, and hardwood shrub communities required by some

species would continue to be impacted by ungulate grazing and competition by conifers. Red-naped

sapsucker and downy woodpecker could be negatively impacted in the mid- to long-term by habitat loss

due to continued decline in riparian habitat, hardwood shrub communities, and aspen stand quality and

quantity. However, as mortality in aspen stands could increase and accelerate due to continued

encroachment of conifers, in the short- to mid-term, increased aspen snags may provide habitat for some

primary cavity excavators (PCEs) as mortality in aspen stands could increase and accelerate due to

continued encroachment of conifers. However, as these stands become more decadent and eventually

disappear, this habitat type could be completely lost in some instances.

MIS – Big Game

With no activities proposed under alternative 1, values utilized to evaluate habitat effectiveness for elk,

such as cover percentages, quantity and quality of forage, and open road densities, would remain in their

current condition in the short-term.

Aspen stands would remain in their current condition in the short- to mid-term. Grazing and browsing of

aspen stands could continue. Conifer encroachment into groves would remain and continue to increase.

The overstory of each stand could remain even aged and approach the end of their life cycle. Aspen

would continue to decline and stands would slowly disappear over the mid- to long-term. If riparian

restoration treatments are not implemented, forage conditions for big game species would continue to

decrease in quality in those identified areas.


of 20

MIS – Old Growth

Under alternative 1, no aspen stand enhancement treatments would occur. Mature aspen stands would

continue to decline and regeneration would be low or nonexistent. Several of the smaller, older, and more

decadent aspen sites could disappear from the watershed within 25 years. All aspen sites may disappear in

the long-term. Although species use occurs, this decline in aspen stands, and lack of riparian restoration

treatments would not impact marten, three-toed woodpeckers or white-headed woodpeckers as

aspen/riparian areas make up a small portion of their habitat use. However, some pileated woodpecker

nesting habitat would be lost as aspen stands, and therefore aspen snags, eventually disappear.

Featured Species

Under alternative 1, no aspen treatment or other activities would occur. With no activities proposed,

habitats would remain in their current condition in the short- to mid-term. During this time period, the use

and occupancy of habitats may not change, but some habitats such as aspen stands, may not be

sustainable into the future. Therefore, species’ presence, use and distribution across the project planning

area may be altered.

Landbirds, Including Neotropical Migratory Birds

Under alternative 1, no treatments would be implemented to enhance aspen stands. Healthy, resilient

aspen habitat would continue to be limiting in the project area. Many of these stands would eventually

disappear as mature aspens become more decadent and recruitment continues to be limited or non-

existent. Habitat diversity and species diversity would likely remain constant in the short- to mid-term

until aspen stands begin to disappear, then diversity would likely decrease. This would result in a further

limited or lack of habitat for species that prefer or require aspen stands for significant portions of their life

cycle (i.e., red-naped sapsucker).


of 20

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Design Features and Mitigation Measures

Table 1. Project design criteria to be applied during implementation

Project design criteria Applies to

In general, no activities are allowed within northern goshawk post-fledging areas (PFAs) or within ½ mile of an occupied goshawk nest site from April 1st -Sept 30. No timing restrictions apply to unoccupied nest sites. In order to accommodate the Fisheries Resource in-stream work window timeframe, goshawk timing restrictions will be adjusted for five (5) aspen treatment units located within two (2) goshawk PFAs. Units will be assessed by a staff wildlife biologist prior to treatment activities. Treatment timeframes for units within goshawk PFAs may also be adjusted after occupancy site visits, on a site-by-site basis.

All project activities

The district wildlife biologist will be consulted if any raptor nest is discovered prior to or during project implementation. Nests will be flagged and a ¼-mile disturbance buffer will be designated until species determination is validated. In addition, a nest stand will be delineated to protect nest site structure. Determination of restrictive periods and activity buffers will be species-specific and based upon current Forest and Regional guidance.


Project management restrictions for raptors

Timing – all activities prohibited

Timing restriction buffer – activities prohibited

Timing – activities permitted

Management restriction for all activities

Northern goshawk nest sites

April 1– Sept. 30

Within ¼ mile of nest site

October 1– March 31

No habitat removal or prescribed fire within 30 acres of nest stands

Occupied raptor nest sites (excluding eagles and great grey owls)

March 1– July 31

Within 660 feet (1/4 mile)

August 1– February 28

No management activities within 100 feet of nest sites


No activities are permitted within known elk calving/rearing areas from May 01 to July 01. All project activities

Any barbed wire fence construction will incorporate protective design modifications for wildlife following BMRD wildlife fencing guidelines (i.e. smooth bottom wire, total height <42 inches).

Fencing

Retain trees damaged during logging operations, harvest areas lacking in snag habitat, unless determined to be a safety hazard.


No downed logs will be marked for commercial removal. Harvest activities

Retain all snags not considered a danger to logging operations. Snags considered a danger to all project operations can be felled, but are to be left on site to meet wildlife and riparian restoration needs.


To provide for high quality habitat in bald eagle winter roosts. Where some aspen stands are located, protect all snags 21 inches DBH or greater. If large diameter snags located within the designated bald eagle winter roost are considered a danger to logging operations, district wildlife staff will be contacted for an on-site evaluation prior to removal. Removal of large diameter snags within the designated winter roost is prohibited without district line officer approval.



of 20

In order to create higher snag and dead and downed wood densities in treatment areas, the following may occur on a site-specific basis, jack-strawing of felled conifers, conifer girdling (including >21 inches DBH if appropriate to facilitate aspen regeneration), and felled conifers left on site.


If a waiver is requested to operate outside of the timelines and restrictions as described in the above measures, the District Wildlife Biologist and District Ranger will be consulted prior to approval.

Avoid ignition within 100 feet of standing dead trees (12 inch DBH or greater) and designated wildlife trees.

Prescribed burning

Most aspen treatments will be site-specific, but may include the following to protect wildlife habitat; burning within aspen stands will be avoided if extensive aspen suckering is already present, direct ignition in aspen stands on a case by case basis and for pile burning only, if direct ignition occurs with underburning, the stand must be fenced and wildlife breeding season restrictions will be applied.

Prescribed burning

PETS Species

Direct and Indirect Effects to all PETS species

Due to the lack of PETS wildlife species documented or suspected in the project planning area, and the

small proportion of the landscape actually being proposed for enhancement, adverse impacts from

proposed activities related to the Starr Aspen Project are not expected. Further, PETS species documented

in the project planning area generally do not use small aspen stands for major parts of their life cycles.

Riparian areas are well distributed throughout the project planning area and would provide refuge habitat

during implementation if species were to be temporarily dispersed.

Aspen and Riparian Treatments

The majority of aspen stands that have been located within the Starr Aspen project planning area are

proposed to have some form of treatment (see Forest Vegetation section of Starr Aspen EA for details).

Riparian enhancement activities are also being proposed in the project planning area (see Aquatics section

of Starr Aspen EA for details). Light prescribed fire would enhance natural regeneration and increase

native herbaceous components. Saplings would grow into larger size classes and become resistant to

ungulate browsing. Understory grass and forbs cover would increase, as would deciduous riparian shade,

root structure, and soil-holding capacity within the stands. Diversity of habitat would increase and provide

additional foraging and nesting opportunities for wildlife such as neo-tropical migrants, riparian obligates,

cavity nesters and invertebrates such as silver-bordered fritillary. Genetic diversity of the treated aspen

stands would be maintained and preserved (Swanson et al. 2010).

Table 2 describes effects determinations for threatened, endangered species, and sensitive species as they

relate to proposed activities.


of 20

Table 2. Effects determinations to proposed, endangered, threatened, and sensitive species by alternative

Common name Status Species/habitat

occurrence Alternative 1 (no action)

Alternative 2 (proposed action)

Canada Lynx T HN/N* NE NE

Gray Wolf (E of Hwy 395) S HD/S NI NI

Gray Wolf (W of Hwy 395)

E HD/S NE NE

Pygmy Rabbit S HD/N NI NI

California Wolverine S/C HD/S NI NI

Tricolored Blackbird S HN/N NI NI

Upland Sandpiper S HD/D NI NI

Bufflehead S HD/D NI NI

Greater Sage Grouse S HD/D NI NI

Bobolink S HN/N NI NI

American Peregrine Falcon

S, DL HD/D NI NI

Bald Eagle S, DL HD/D NI MIIH

Lewis's Woodpecker S HD/D NI NI

White-headed Woodpecker

S HD/D NI NI

Silver-bordered Fritillary S HD/S NI BI

*There is no designated or proposed critical habitat for Canada lynx in the affected area. Based upon the National Lynx Survey, the Malheur National Forest falls under the designation of “Unoccupied Mapped Lynx Habitat” (USFWS Memo, 2006). There is No Effect (NE) expected to Canada lynx.

Table 3. Federal listing status abbreviations

Status Species/habitat occurrence

E Federally Endangered HD Habitat documented or suspected within the project planning area or near enough to be impacted by project activities

T Federally Threatened HN Habitat not within the project planning area or affected by its activities

DL Federally Delisted D Species documented in general vicinity of project activities

S Regional Forester's Sensitive Species List S Species suspected in general vicinity of project activities

C Endangered Species Act Candidate Species N Species not documented and not suspected in general vicinity of project activities

Table 4. Effects determinations abbreviations

NE No Effect - Threatened and Endangered Species

NI No Impact

MIIH May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but Will Not Likely Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species

WIFV Will Impact Individuals or Habitat with a Consequence that the Action May Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species

BI Beneficial Impact


of 20

Gray Wolf

Although the Malheur National Forest has no verified gray wolf populations, denning, or rendezvous

sites, gray wolves may occasionally utilize the area. Individuals have been documented traveling through

Grant County (ODFW 2011).

Since gray wolves feed extensively on big game animals, project activities that affect big game species

could affect wolf survival and productivity. Increased or enhanced big game habitat such as aspen stands

and riparian areas could improve big game populations and therefore provide higher prey opportunities

for wolves. Although wolves traveling through the project planning area may be temporarily displaced by

activities associated with project activities, aspen treatment units are generally small and should not affect

wolves, big game, and other wildlife species’ movement across the project planning area and into

adjacent areas.

There would be No Effect (NE) to endangered gray wolf populations or their habitat on the west side of

U.S. Highway 395 and No Impact (NI) to FS Sensitive gray wolf populations on the east side of U.S.

Highway 395, from alternative 2, for the following reasons:

Although individuals have been documented, no gray wolf packs or occupied territories have been

verified on the Malheur National Forest. If wolves are present, they would most likely avoid the area

during project activities.

No denning or rendezvous sites have been verified on the Malheur National Forest.

Pygmy Rabbit

No activities are anticipated for sagebrush-dominated areas within the Starr Aspen project planning area.

Due to specific habitat requirements such as dense, tall stands of mature sagebrush, proposed project

activities would not be expected to impact pygmy rabbits, if they are actually present in any project area.

It is expected that there would be No Impact (NI) anticipated to pygmy rabbit populations or associated

habitat resulting from alternative 2.

California Wolverine

The greatest potential impacts to wolverines from alternative 2 would be a temporary increase in human

presence (displacement) associated with project activities. The proposed MA-13 (see Old Growth section

in Starr HFRA EA) network and connectivity corridors designated under the Starr HFRA EA are

expected to be fully functional and should facilitate wolverine dispersal, with associated elk, deer, and

other wildlife distribution.

Although the California wolverine is known to exhibit avoidance response to human presence and land

use activities, with the extensive Project Design Criteria (PDC) and generally small treatment areas the

determination for wolverine for alternative 2 is NI (No Impact).

Upland Sandpiper

Some project activities would occur in meadow habitats. Although upland sandpipers utilizing pastures

and hayfields in the vicinity of busy Forest Service roads are most likely habituated to some noise and

traffic from local ranching and recreation activities, an increase in traffic from project implementation

may result in breeding season disturbance. Increased traffic also increases potential mortality from impact

with vehicles as birds cross roads from feeding and nesting areas.

Because upland sandpipers do not appear to be utilizing habitat directly within the project area and are

utilizing foraging and nesting habitat in private lands, no direct or indirect impacts to sandpipers are

expected. However, if breeding areas are documented during project implementation, disturbance buffers

would be delineated immediately by Blue Mountain Ranger District wildlife staff and nest sites would be


of 20

protected. No Impact (NI) to upland sandpiper populations or associated habitat would be expected as a

result of alternative 2.

Bufflehead

Under alternative 2, any direct and indirect impacts to buffleheads would be related to post-breeding

habitat only. Effects would be expected to be short-term and most often associated with waterways where

buffleheads utilize free flowing waters outside of the breeding season. Although no direct habitat removal

or alteration is planned in potential habitat types, project activities are expected to occur within close

proximity to post-breeding areas. Increased traffic and activity levels along streams may temporarily

displace loafing or feeding bufflehead in or around the project planning area. However, this disturbance

would only be expected during implementation of treatments close to the stream. Therefore, the

determination for bufflehead is No Impact (NI).

Riparian restoration treatments and restoration activities along streams in the project planning area could

potentially increase preferred post-breeding habitat for bufflehead.

Greater Sage Grouse

The Malheur National Forest has a limited amount of habitat capable of sustaining sage grouse. One lek

(strutting area) documented in 2009 is outside of the project planning area and is located on private land.

No documented sightings of sage grouse males, hens, or hens with broods have been recorded within the

Starr Aspen project planning area. However, meadow openings throughout the subwatershed may provide

marginal habitat. Increased traffic on roads associated with the project may cause some disturbance;

however, no activities are proposed in sagebrush-dominated habitats. Prescribed burning activities may

back into meadows or sagebrush habitats, resulting in some impacts to potential sage grouse habitat and

native vegetation.

Malheur Forest Plan standards require protection of sagebrush habitat with documented or high potential

for use by sage grouse (USDA Forest Service 1990, page IV-31). Alternative 2 is not expected to alter

sagebrush habitat or potential late brood-rearing habitat. Although there is some potential for cumulative

impacts from thinning and prescribed burning treatments in adjacent areas (i.e., Starr HFRA, Damon, and

Soda Bear projects), No Impact (NI) to sage grouse populations or associated habitat is anticipated as a

result of the Alternative 2.

American Peregrine Falcon

Although no documented nest sites have been observed in the project planning area., the peregrine

falcon’s presence in the project planning area appears to be transitory in nature. Therefore, they are not

likely to be affected by project activities. There would be No Impact (NI) to peregrine falcons from

implementing alternative 2.

Bald Eagle

Due to known occupancy of winter roosts within the project planning area, potential effects to bald eagles

were analyzed at the subwatershed level. Two of the known bald eagle winter roosts in the Starr Aspen

project planning area may be indirectly affected by the proposed action. Because many of the winter roost

snags have not been identified, implementation of aspen stand treatments and prescribed fire activities

may result in some disturbance or displacement of eagles from wintering habitat.

Timing restrictions incorporated into the PDCs, as per National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines

(USFWS 2007) would also aid in mitigating possible project impacts. Bald eagle winter roosts in Bear

Valley have been monitored by federal and state wildlife biologists on a regular basis over the last decade

and will be monitored over the course of the project. If additional areas show occupancy, or additional

impacts are determined, further mitigations and restrictions will apply.


of 20

Due to the bald eagle’s known response to human disturbance and land use activities and the potential for

nest abandonment and failure related to accidental disturbance or displacement, the determination for bald

eagle for alternative 2 is MIIH (May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but Will Not Likely Contribute to a

Trend Towards Federal Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species).

Lewis’s Woodpecker

The MIS effects analysis for Primary Cavity Excavators provides further information relating to this

species.

Along with breeding habitat requirements, insect abundance is typically a key factor in determining if

areas provide suitable habitat for Lewis’s woodpecker. Nesting habitat consists of two distinct types in

eastern Oregon: riparian areas with large cottonwoods and fire maintained or burned old-growth

ponderosa pine forests (NatureServe 2014). Aspen stand treatments would increase habitat diversity,

especially foraging and nesting opportunities for neo-tropical migrants and cavity nesters including

Lewis’s woodpecker. Prescribed burning would be expected to enhance sucker recruitment in aspen

stands, eventually leading to an increase in aspen habitat. The determination for Lewis’s woodpecker is

No Impact (NI) to populations or associated habitat from alternative 2.

White-headed Woodpecker

During implementation, some white-headed woodpeckers may be temporarily displaced, especially those

directly within treatment areas. Nests are not commonly found so it is expected that some white-headed

woodpecker nests would be disturbed during implementation. However, design criteria are in place so that

snags, and therefore foraging areas and nest sites, lost during implementation would be minimal. There

would be No Impact (NI) to white-headed woodpecker populations or associated habitat from alternative

2.

Silver-bordered Fritillary

Alternative 2 does include activities in riparian areas and wet meadows. Although silver-bordered

fritillaries have not been documented in the project planning area, proposed treatments could temporarily

reduce habitat during and immediately after implementation. However, treatments proposed in riparian

meadow habitat would be implemented over short time periods. This would reduce disturbance, and

habitat would not be expected to substantially change; i.e. wet meadow habitat would remain wet

meadow habitat in the short- through long-term.

Activities such as driving or skidding associated with aspen stand and meadow restoration would take

place over dry or frozen ground, or would require the input of a biologist prior to implementation to

mitigate any potential effects. These activities are not expected to impact the silver-bordered fritillary.

Expansion of riparian hardwood and aspen stands also has the potential to recruit beaver (Castor

canadensis), which were historically abundant in the project planning area. Beaver occupation in the

subwatershed could benefit silver-border fritillary, if they are present in the area, by expanding the wetted

floodplain during dry periods and drought years. This would extend the amount and length of time that

active channels remained wetted within the RHCAs.

Although no populations or breeding areas have been verified, habitat may exist. If riparian habitat is

enhanced, and protection measures are followed, a Beneficial Impact (BI) would be anticipated to silver-

bordered fritillary populations and their habitat.


of 20

Management Indicator Species

Primary Cavity Excavators

Aspen and riparian treatment and protection would change overstory composition of aspen stands.

Understory grass and forb cover would increase, as would deciduous riparian shade, root structure, and

soil-holding capacity within the stands. Treating aspen stands would increase habitat diversity, especially

foraging and nesting opportunities for neo-tropical migrants and cavity nesters including Lewis’s

woodpecker and red-naped sapsucker. In addition, aspen restoration treatments, which include girdling of

some conifers, would also increase snag densities near aspen stands and along riparian zones in the short-

to mid-term.

Aspen and riparian restoration activities would be expected to benefit riparian-obligate species such as;

Williamson’s sapsucker, red-naped sapsucker, and downy woodpecker.

Big Game MIS

Rocky Mountain Elk

Rocky Mountain elk could potentially be impacted by proposed activities, primarily from disturbance

from increased human activity during implementation. In the mid- to long-term, aspen would be expected

to become a more resilient and viable component to the landscape increasing browse and cover for elk.

Resulting conditions would not be expected to substantially change values assessed for the HEI analysis

in Starr HFRA.

A large portion of suspected elk calving and rearing areas were deferred from harvest under the Starr

HFRA Project. Although prescribed burning associated with aspen treatments may take place within a

portion of the areas, it is not expected that there would be any adverse effects to elk calving as a result of

aspen treatments due to their relatively small spatial scale on the landscape.

Aspen Stand and Riparian Treatments

One-hundred and thirty-eight (138) aspen stands would be treated. In the first 10 years, many of these

stands and trees would essentially be off limits to elk due to protective fencing, negligibly reducing

available browse where suckers are present. As new regeneration becomes established and protective

fences deteriorate or are removed, available browse would eventually increase. Larger and healthier aspen

stands are more likely to become and remain a viable component of the landscape. High quality riparian

areas as a result of meadow and riparian enhancement treatments would be expected to benefit elk

populations utilizing the area in the long-term.

Prescribed Fire

Prescribed fire is already authorized over much of the project planning area under the Starr HFRA

Project. Aspen stands that would be treated outside of the Starr HFRA burn blocks would be pile burned

or swamper burned to treat activity fuels, rather than being underburned. Burning would improve forage

conditions by removing dead and decadent fuels and overstory. This would allow more sunlight to reach

the forest floor, thereby increasing productivity for native grasses and shrubs.

Old Growth MIS (Pileated woodpecker, pine marten, American three-toed woodpecker)

Aspen Stand Treatments

The proposed aspen stand treatments would not directly or indirectly affect Old Growth Habitat.

Therefore, it is not expected that the proposed aspen stand treatments would have any substantial effects


of 20

to pine marten, American three-toed woodpecker, pileated woodpeckers, or white-headed woodpeckers.

During project implementation, increased activities related to alternative 2 could temporarily displace

individuals from adjacent habitats.

With more healthy and resilient aspen stands, the high amount of some foraging habitat that would likely

exist under alternative 1 (future aspen snags) would likely not be as abundant under alternative 2 in the

short-term. However, the implications of alternative 1 could lead to complete stand disappearance and

loss of aspen foraging habitat all together. Therefore, alternative 2 does suggest the continued availability

of aspen foraging habitat long-term.

Featured Species (northern goshawk and blue grouse)

Aspen treatment and protection would change overstory composition of aspen stands. Understory grass

and forb cover could increase, potentially increasing prey availability and abundance for goshawks.

However, it is expected that the proposed aspen and riparian treatments would have an overall negligible

direct or indirect effect to goshawk individuals.

As overstory cover and composition changes, understory grass, forb, shrub, and downed wood cover

could increase in aspen stands and riparian areas selected for treatments. This would be anticipated to

increase potential nesting, feeding, hiding/loafing cover for blue grouse, as well as insects, an important

food source.

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for all Featured Species expected to occur in the area, including

osprey and pronghorn, were analyzed in the Starr HFRA document. It is not expected that any effects

above and beyond what has been previously analyzed would occur under the proposed Starr Aspen

planning project.

Landbirds Including Neotropical Migratory Birds

Many landbirds, including neotropical migrants, will use aspen and riparian habitats for some parts of

their life cycle. Conservation issues of concern for aspen habitat identified by Altman (2000) include:

Lack of recruitment of young aspen due to livestock grazing and fire suppression.

Reduced presence of large aspen trees and snags due to limited replacement.

Encroachment of conifer trees into aspen stands.

Alternative 2 aspen stand and riparian enhancement treatments would address these conservation issues,

and potentially eliminate these issues in the long-term. More resilient and vigorous aspen stands and

riparian habitat areas, and increasing available aspen habitat across the project planning area would likely

increase species diversity as vegetation diversity increases from the proposed action. Alternative 2 would

also create more and higher quality habitat for species that prefer, or rely on aspen stands and riparian

areas for nesting or foraging.

Cumulative Effects to Wildlife Resources

All of the activities proposed for the Starr Aspen Project were evaluated for possible cumulative effects to

wildlife resources beyond what has been previously analyzed in the Starr HFRA EA. The discussion

focuses on past, present, and foreseeable future activities that may contribute to positive or negative

effects to species at the project and subwatershed scale. Past activities such as timber harvest, road

construction associated with timber management, domestic grazing, wildfire, fire suppression, mining,

recreation, and firewood cutting have impacted the quantity, quality, and distribution of habitat and is the

basis for the existing condition.

The cumulative effects analyzed in the Starr HFRA EA are applicable and adequate for the Starr Aspen

Project and should be referenced for the disclosure of detailed cumulative effects. It is not expected that


of 20

the Starr Aspen Project would contribute to cumulative effects to wildlife resources. However, general

past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are discussed below.

Past timber harvest projects were fairly intensive, focusing on the removal of larger diameter and more

valuable ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and western larch trees (i.e., possible green tree replacements). The

Starr HFRA Project implementation began in 2013 and is located in the same project planning area as the

Starr Aspen Project and involves commercial thinning, noncommercial thinning, understory removal,

restoration of early seral species, biomass removal, campground hazard tree removal, and aspen

restoration in the Starr subwatershed. The Starr Aspen Project would increase successful aspen

regeneration and development and increase large/coarse wood in streams, wetlands, and meadows

The Damon WUI project implemented in 2011-2013, is located directly adjacent to the Starr Aspen

Project and involves commercial and precommercial thinning, biomass removal, aspen restoration, and

prescribed burning on roughly 19,400 combined acres in the Shirttail and VanAspen subwatersheds.

Past and future livestock grazing may reduce available forage for big game species and cover for avian

species. Recent studies from the USDA Starkey Project (2006) suggest that elk, deer, and cattle have

different forage preferences, with each species having a distinctive dietary niche that varies by season.

Ungulate diets for the domestic and wild species studied appear most similar in late summer, when forage

biomass and quality declines with summer drought, suggesting increased potential for competition.

Although the Starr Aspen Project would reduce access to some aspen stands, the project planning area is

located exclusively in summer range and forage would continue to be improved.

Mining activities within the Starr subwatershed are intermittent and localized to rock sources such as the

Starr Ridge and Izee rock sources. No cumulative impacts related to the Starr Aspen Project are

anticipated as a result of mining activities.

Invasive plants lead to habitat degradation by reducing quantity and quality of forage. Starr Aspen PDCs

mitigate for the spread of noxious and invasive plants. In addition, the Malheur National Forest is in the

process of preparing an Environmental Impact Statement for the control of invasive plants on National

Forest system lands. Future broad scale treatment of invasive species infestations would cumulatively

result in reduced invasive plant populations and thus improve big game forage.

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans

Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive Species

A Biological Evaluation (BE) and Wildlife Specialist Report has been prepared that evaluates the

potential effects of project activities on wildlife species and their associated habitat within the Starr Aspen

project planning area. Alternative 2 is consistent with the Endangered Species Act and is expected to have

No Effect on proposed, threatened, or endangered species and a combination of No Impact and MIIH

(May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but Will Not Likely Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing

or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species) on sensitive species. Based on these effects

calls, consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service was not considered necessary.

Old-Growth (Management Area 13)

Forest Plan, MA–13 provides for the management of old-growth through a system of DOG units and

ROG units. Each DOG/ROG is specifically managed for one of two MIS for old growth mainly OFMS

structured stands: pileated woodpecker and pine marten. None of the treatments proposed in the Starr

Aspen project will affect Management Area 13 (Old-Growth).

Regional Forester’s Eastside Forest Plan Amendment #2 (Eastside Screens)


of 20

Late and Old Structure

Amendment #2 (USDA Forest Service 1995) amended the Malheur Forest Plan to manage late and old

structure (LOS) stands within the historic range of variability (HRV). The HRV is a landscape level

assessment of structural stage; Amendment #2 applies to LOS stands both inside and outside of the

DOG/ROG network.

Under the Starr Aspen Project, alternative 2 includes timber harvest and is subject to Amendment #2

direction. Proposed activities of alternative 2 would meet Amendment #2 by:

Exhibiting no net loss of LOS stands. The Starr Aspen Project would not treat or alter LOS habitat.

Connectivity

The proposed Starr Aspen project would not alter any connectivity corridors established in the Starr

HFRA EA.

Snags and Down Logs/Primary Cavity Excavators

Snags and large down logs do not meet Malheur Forest Plan standards as a result of past management.

Snags would not be targeted for removal, although incidental snags may be lost to meet operational/safety

needs. In alternative 2, implementation criteria have been incorporated to protect existing snags and large

down logs that contribute to Malheur Forest Plan standards. Implementation criteria would help minimize

snag losses. Prescribed fire would result in a snag exchange with some being lost and some snags being

created. Some conifers would be girdled to create new snags. However, it is not expected that the Starr

Aspen project would considerably add-to or decrease the current deficit due to the relatively small

treatment areas.

Big Game Summer and Winter Range Cover (Forest-Wide Standards)

Thomas et al. (1988) developed the habitat effectiveness index (HEI) model for estimating elk habitat

effectiveness on the landscape. Overall habitat effectiveness (HEcsrf) incorporates four variables or

indices: cover quality (HEc), size and spacing of cover (HEs), density of roads traveled by vehicles (HEr),

and quality and quantity of forage (HEf). The Malheur Forest Plan establishes minimum standards for

these indices for both summer range (USDA 1990, pp. IV-27 to IV-29) and winter range (USDA 1990,

pp. IV-69 to IV-73). In addition, the Malheur Forest Plan identifies minimum standards for retention of

satisfactory cover, marginal cover, and total cover. The Malheur Forest Plan also establishes standards for

open road density.

Overall habitat effectiveness (HEcsrf) and road densities would remain consistent to what was reported in

the Starr HFRA EA analysis. The Starr Aspen planning project would not be expected to have any effect

on HEI or open road densities.

Featured Species

Goshawk

For northern goshawks, alternative 2 is consistent with the Malheur Forest Plan and Amendment #2

standards and guidelines. Every known active and historically used goshawk nest site would be protected

from disturbance. Seasonal restrictions, disturbance measures, and nest stand protections were

incorporated into the implementation criteria for new and existing nest sites identified within or

immediately adjacent to the planning project area. The proposed action would establish a 400-acre post

fledging area (PFA) around the known nest site. Activities occurring within known PFAs would retain

LOS and enhance younger stands towards LOS conditions.


of 20

Landbirds

Alternative 2 is consistent with the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and FS/FWS MOU #08-

MU-1113-2400-264 “To Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds”. The Proposed Action was

designed under current Forest Service policy for landbirds. The Northern Rocky Mountains Bird

Conservation Plan (Altman 2000) is used to address Executive Order 13186. Many of the birds identified

in this plan are also addressed in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Birds of Conservation Concern

(USFWS 2008). Vegetation management cannot completely avoid unintentional take of birds, no matter

what design measures are imposed on the activities. Implementation criteria proposed in this project

would minimize take of migratory birds.


of 20

References Altman, B. 2000. Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in the Northern Rocky Mountains of Eastern

Oregon and Washington. American Bird Conservancy and Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight

Available online at: http://cain.ice.ucdavis.edu/prbo/orwapif/pdf/northern_rockies.pdf

NatureServe. 2014. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. NatureServe, Arlington,

Virginia. Online: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2011. Oregon Wolf Management Report.

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wolves.

Swanson, David K., Schmitt, Craig L., Shirley, Diane M., Erickson, Vicky, Schuetz, Kenneth J., Tatum,

Micheal L., Powell, David C. 2010. Aspen biology, community classification, and management

in the Blue Mountains. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-806. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 117 p.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA

Forest Service, Malheur National Forest, John Day, Oregon. Available online at:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/malheur/landmanagement/planning

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Revised Environmental Assessment for the Revised Continuation of Interim

Management Direction Establishing Riparian, Ecosystem and Wildlife Standards for Timber

Sales. (Eastside Screens). USDA Forest Service, Region 6: Colville, Deschutes, Fremont,

Malheur, Ochoco, Okanogan, Umatilla, Wallowa-Whitman and Winema National Forests in

Oregon and Washington. Available online at:


USDA Forest Service. 2006. Elk, Deer, and Cattle: The Starkey Project. Pacific Northwest Research

Station Science Update, Issue 13.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007. National bald eagle management guidelines.

http://cain.ice.ucdavis.edu/prbo/orwapif/pdf/northern_rockies.pdf

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wolves



united states wildlife report and biological...

Documents