Addendum to the Marsh Project Wildlife...

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


Dispersal

63 Riparian

Encroachment Girdle/Burn LPU 10 0.4 4%

Dispersal

65 Riparian


Dispersal

66 Riparian


Dispersal

71 Riparian


Dispersal

72 Riparian

Encroachment Girdle/Burn LPU 12 0 0%

Not Habitat

73 Riparian

Encroachment LPO Remove 18 0 0%

Not Habitat

74 Riparian


Core/Dispersal

75 Riparian


Core/Dispersal

76 LP Density

Management HIM SDT 74 74 100%

Core/Dispersal

77 Riparian


Core/Dispersal

78 Riparian


Core/Dispersal

11

Alt C

Unit

Treatment

Overview Overstory Understory

Treatment

Acres

Acres

Dropped/or In

Leave Area

Percent

Modified

Modification

Rationale

79 Riparian


Core/Dispersal

80 Riparian


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


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



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





treatment.

17


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





treatment.

Big Game

Mule deer MIS, S5

Secure

Popular for Hunting or

viewing in close

proximity

Mixed habitats 1,400 1,200 200


hiding cover treated, also


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


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


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.

Addendum to the Marsh Project Wildlife...

Documents

Transcript of Addendum to the Marsh Project Wildlife...