Effects to Management Indicator Species (Wildlife Portion ...a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...July 7, 2015 . Three Rivers Ranger District . Colville National Forest

1

Effects to Management Indicator Species (Wildlife Portion Only)

for the

Sherman Pass Project

Environmental Assessment

July 7, 2015

Three Rivers Ranger District Colville National Forest

2

Table of Contents Figures................................................................................................................................................. 4 Tables .................................................................................................................................................. 4 I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 5 II. Design Elements and Mitigations .............................................................................................. 5

A. Design Elemements............................................................................................................ 5

B. Mitigations ....................................................................................................................... 12

III. Effects to Species .................................................................................................................... 13 A. Big Game ...................................................................................................................................... 13

1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 13

2. Affected Environment ....................................................................................................... 14

3. Environmental Consequences ........................................................................................... 22

4. Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................ 27

5. Design Elements (DE) and/or mitigations (MI) ................................................................ 30

B. Barred Owl, Pileated Woodpecker, American Marten and Northern (American) Three-toed Woodpecker .............................................................................................................................. 31

1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 31





C. Beaver............................................................................................................................................ 48 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 48



4. Cumulative Effects and Conclusion.................................................................................. 49


D. Dusky (Blue) Grouse .................................................................................................................... 49 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 49




5. Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 55


E. Spruce (Franklin's) Grouse ............................................................................................................ 55 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 55

3





F. Other Woodpeckers ....................................................................................................................... 59 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 59




G. Large Raptors (and Great Blue Herons) ....................................................................................... 64 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 64





H. Migratory Land Birds.................................................................................................................... 71 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 71





I. Waterfowl ....................................................................................................................................... 77 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 77

2 Affected Environment ........................................................................................................ 77

3 Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................ 77

4 Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................. 77

5 Design Elements (DE) and/or mitigations (MI) ................................................................. 78

III. Literature cited ........................................................................................................................ 78 IV. Appendix A. Viability Outcomes ........................................................................................... 82

4

Figures Figure 1. Distribution of forage on big game summer range in Sherman. .................................. 18 Figure 2. Big game winter range in Sherman. .............................................................................. 20 Figure 3. Cover and forage on winter range in Sherman. The smaller image lies in the western

part of the project area. ......................................................................................................... 20 Figure 4. Barred owl habitat in Sherman. .................................................................................... 35 Figure 5: American marten (PM) and pileated woodpecker (PW) MR areas in Sherman. .......... 36 Figure 6. Pileated woodpecker habitat in Sherman. .................................................................... 38 Figure 7. Existing American marten MR areas in Sherman. Scale is 1:22,000. ......................... 39 Figure 8. Potential American marten habitat in Sherman. ............................................................ 40 Figure 9. Three-toed woodpecker habitat in Sherman. ................................................................ 41 Figure 10. Effects of prescribed fire and harvest on cover in corridors. ..................................... 46 Figure 11. Dusky grouse nesting and brood rearing habitat in Sherman. ................................... 50 Figure 12. Existing and potential dusky grouse winter roosting habitat in Sherman. ................. 51 Figure 13. Potential spruce grouse habitat in Sherman................................................................ 56 Figure 14. Distribution of snag density classes (#/acre) for snags > 10” dbh (A) and > 20" dbh

(B) on both all plots (n = 181) and unharvested plots (n = 73) of the ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir, large tree vegetation condition in eastern Washington and Oregon. Graphs based on data in DecAid (Mellen et al. 2012), which expresses values as snags/ha................................................................................................................................................ 61

Figure 15. Distribution of snag density classes (#/acre) for snags > 10” dbh (A) and > 20" dbh (B) on both all plots (n = 729) and unharvested plots (n = 189) of the ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir, open vegetation condition in eastern Washington and Oregon. Graphs based on data in DecAid (Mellen et al. 2012), which expresses values as snags/ha. ........... 61

Figure 16. Goshawk habitat in Sherman. ..................................................................................... 66 Figure 17. Current and past Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawk habitat in Sherman. .................. 67

Tables Table 1. Roads to post in pine marten and pileated woodpecker MR areas. ................................. 7 Table 2. Roads Requiring Gate or other Barrier Closure for Post-Harvest Projects .................... 11 Table 3. Proposed treatments in big game winter range in Sherman........................................... 25 Table 4. Barred owl habitat conditions in Sherman. ..................................................................... 35 Table 5. Pileated woodpecker habitat condition in Sherman. ...................................................... 37 Table 6. American marten habitat conditions in the 17,970 acres of potential habitat in Sherman.

............................................................................................................................................... 40 Table 7. American three-toed woodpecker habitat condition in Sherman. .................................. 41 Table 8. Proposed harvest in marten habitat in the Sherman Pass project area. .......................... 43 Table 9. Winter dusky grouse habitat in Sherman. ...................................................................... 51 Table 10. Spruce grouse habitat conditions in Sherman. ............................................................. 56 Table 11. Current and past goshawk habitat in Sherman. ............................................................ 66 Table 12. Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawk habitat in Sherman. ............................................... 67 Table 13. USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern in the Sherman area. “DNO” = does not

occur in or near the project area. Species in bold text have been documented in the watershed. ............................................................................................................................. 73

5

I. Introduction Of the 14 Management Indicator Species (MIS) listed in the Colville National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), 13 might be found within the Sherman project area. The planning area contains potential grizzly bear habitat, and effects of proposed activities on this habitat are detailed in the Biological Evaluation for this project. The planning area is about 40 miles west of and across two major rivers from the woodland caribou recovery area, and caribou do not inhabit the planning area. We did not find any great blue heron rookeries or nest sites during field reconnaissance, thus excluded effects to great blue heron from analysis of great blue heron/large raptors. The Colville National Forest (CNF) based the habitat capability objectives listed in the Forest Plan (page 4-13) on 1980 populations. Because the Forest Service (FS) manages habitat and the State of Washington manages wildlife populations, the FS objective is to provide habitat capable of supporting the desired population of each management indicator species. We conduct unit-by-unit analysis with a computerized mapping system. Computerized mapping can give a false sense of accuracy or precision for three main reasons. First, the computer provides results to the nearest hundredth of an acre, but we cannot map nearly that accurately. Second, maps project a mostly 3-dimensional surface onto a flat, 2-dimensional medium. Third, computer-generated maps appear very precise, but the resulting data are only as good as the map information entered into the computer. To prevent ourselves from portraying a false sense of accuracy, we round the acreage values for each unit's effects to the nearest acre and round the total effects of all units in an alternative to the nearest 10 acres. The information included in this report is based upon my knowledge of local site conditions and species/habitat relationships and the best available science. I obtained this information via personal field reviews of the planning area and/or from information gathered by resource crews and other trained individuals starting primarily in the summer of 2012. Section 4.3.2 of the Environmental Management System for the Colville National Forest requires that applicable legal requirements and other requirements are applied during project analyses. By signature below, I certify that this analysis follows the applicable policy direction found in Forest Service Manual 2620, 2630, and 2670.

II. Design Elements and Mitigations A. Design Elemements The design elements listed below will be incorporated into the project and are referenced in sections above, where they pertain to particular species. A particular design element might be incorporated into management for more than one species, but one species might apply to units different than those for another species. Thus, the particular units to which a design element

6

applies are included in the analysis to that species. Some design elements that apply to all units of a particular type are so noted below. The intent of the design elements 1-9 is to protect snags, which include live trees with heart rot (particularly western larch, grand fir and western redcedar) and sapwood rot (particularly ponderosa pine) and dead trees, particularly those larger than 16 inches DBH. These trees are uncommon on the landscape and provide habitat for a variety of species. Past and ongoing harvest has reduced the number of larger snags and continued loss has the potential to negatively affect viability of cavity-nesting species. In situations where down or standing fuels were a concern because of their proximity to private land or structures, or there are sufficient snag numbers, modifications would be dealt with on a case by case basis by the wildlife biologist or their representative. The remaining snags and down wood would not create a continuous fuel bed. 1. In those portions of units open for firewood harvest (as shown on the CNF firewood map),

allow removal of up to 80% of existing snags and down wood less than 16” DBH. The intent is to leave some dead and down wood in areas that are both harvested and open for firewood cutting.

2. No snags larger than 30 inches DBH will be felled. If they exist near a landing or are to be affected by harvest activities, the activity will be moved to avoid the snag. The intent is to protect very large snags which are extremely rare on the landscape and require more than 150 years to develop. If they are in a harvest unit, leave islands of 1/2 to 1 tree length will be located around the snag to reduce removal for safety concerns.

3. In prescribed fire units, prior to ignition, ensure fuel moistures are high enough to retard consumption of large down woody material. The intent is not to consume all large down woody debris. This applies to all prescribed fire areas unless discussed on a case-by case basis with a fuels specialist and the wildlife biologist or a representative.

4. Retain all standing live trees > 16 inches DBH that exhibit signs of heartwood rot (often Indian Paint fungus is present) or sapwood rot (holes present in the tree bole), or broken tops, or that have injuries in the bole where new leaders formed a new trunk. In stands where the desired condition is to prevent the spread of pathogenic fungi, the silviculturist and wildlife biologist will determine the prescription to retain diseased trees. The intent is to retain sizes and species of trees that are most used for nesting and denning by animals listed as management indicator or sensitive species.

5. Retain all standing snags and down woody material greater than 16 inches DBH (or 4 feet from butt end if down wood) unless deemed as a fire hazard. Outside of the powerline corridor and open roads (200 feet from powerline, 200 feet from open roads).

6. In units harvested with ground-based equipment, if a snag greater than 16” DBH must be felled for safety reasons, high-top it, when practical, to retain a portion of the snag. If a snag must be felled and cannot be high-topped, a similar sized live tree must be high-topped above the 1st live whorl or as high as the equipment can safely reach. This applies to all prescribed fire and timber harvest units in areas closed to firewood harvest.

7. In design elements 1 through 6 where down or standing fuels are a concern close to private land or structures, or sufficient snag numbers remain to allow for some loss, the above scenario can be modified and would be dealt with on a case-by case basis with the wildlife biologist or a representative.

7

8. If harvest-caused felling of snags results in levels fewer than 3 per acre overall, snag levels would be increased to this level by creating snags. This applies to all timber harvest units in areas closed to firewood harvest.

9. In cable units, tops to 10” could be removed to prevent hang-ups of cabled timber. 10. In pine marten and pileated woodpecker MR areas and MA1s, before prescribed fire ignition,

scrape back accumulated dead material around the bases of ponderosa pine snags that are greater than 20” DBH. The intent is to minimize the loss of snags in Pine Marten and Pileated Woodpecker Management Requirement Areas. This applies to the portions of the following units that lie within MRs: 2270013, 2270097, 2260052, 2260051, 2260039, 62, 50, 2260159, 2280169, 2280172, 2290065, 2PM74AG, 2280069, 228060, 2280174, 2280073, 2270011, 2270098.

11. If harvest that occurs in pine marten or pileated woodpecker areas, buffer areas of snag concentrations to prevent the loss of snags. If felling of standing snags results in levels less than 4 per acre overall, snag levels would be increased to this level by creating them. The intent is to minimize the loss of snags in Pine Marten and Pileated Woodpecker Management Requirement Areas. This applies to the following units:

2260140, 2260149, 2260173, 2260173a, 2260174, 2260175, 2260159, 2280183, 2280049, 2281150, 2280069, 228060, 2280021, 2280174, 2280073, 2260142, 2260171, 2260153, 2280150.

12. Post segments of open roads that pass through Pine Marten and Pileated Woodpecker Management Requirement Areas with signs indicating that these areas are closed to firewood cutting. This applies to the following roads displayed in Table 1.

Table 1. Roads to post in pine marten and pileated woodpecker MR areas.

Forest Service Road Number

Length (in miles) to post


Length (in miles) to post

2000220 1.06 2020050 0.43 2030000 0.75 2000240 0.53 2050010 0.15 2000220 0.54 2000220 0.29 2000136 1.17 13. In lynx habitat, retain pockets of large down wood unless deemed to be excess by the fuels

specialist, soils specialist, or district wildlife biologist or designee. The intent is to retain concentrations of down wood which lynx require to den without creating a continuous fuel bed. This applies to the following units:

CT LFR

FPB: 2210092a, 2260064, 2260066, 2260082, 2260087, 2260103 FPB/FUB: 2210060, 2260051, 2260052 FUB: 2210063, 2260039

CT F LFR

FPB: 200120, 2210025, 2210089, 2260009, 2260011, 2260104, 2260108, 2260122a, 82 FUB: 2260047a

8

PCT FPB: 2210085

CT O LFR

DEC 2260083 FPB: 2260085

CT S LFR

FPB: 2210074, 2210076, 2210076a, 2210092, 2260003, 2260004, 2260004a FPB/FUB: 2260050 FUB: 2260049

SPT LFR

FPB: 2210061, 2260012, 2260053B:, 2260055, 2260058, 2260073, 2260079, 2260102, 2260149, 2260162

FUB: 2260159, 2260160, 2260161 None

FPB/FUB: 2260053a PCT

FUB: 2260054 14. Outside of lynx habitat, and in units in which post-harvest piling of slash will be conducted,

retain 2 piles per acre, more than 200 feet from a road, to provide structure for small mammals. Piles would be at least 10 feet wide and 3 feet high, but not more than 20 feet wide and 6 feet high. The intent is to provide habitat for small mammals and some birds.

CT FPB: 2210069a, 2210092a, 2210104, 2260064, 2260066, 2260082, 2260087, 2260103, 2260141b, 2260142, 2260153, 2260171, 2280021, 2280049, 2280148, 2280149, 2280183, 2280229, 2281098, 26, 48, 49, 76, 78, FPB/FUB, 2210060, 2260051, 2260052, 2270048

CT F FPB, 200120, 2210025, 2210085, 2210089, 2260009, 2260011, 2260104, 2260108, 2260122a, 2260133, 2280176, 4, 75, 82 FPB/FUB, 2270078, 2270079, 2270081, 2270096, 2270097, 2280021a, 2280077

CT O FPB, 1, 2260085, 28, 29, 30, 73, 74 FPB/FUB, 199, 33

CT S FPB, 2210074, 2210074a, 2210076, 2210076a, 2210092, 2260003, 2260004, 2260004a, 2260173, 2260173a, 2260174, 2260175, 27 FPB/FUB, 18, 2260050, 44, 47

Non-commercial FPB, 10, 11, 12, 15, 2210025b, 2210057, 2210058, 2210059, 2210071, 2210071c, 2210087, 2210087a, 2210088b, 2210093, 2210094, 2210096, 2210103, 2260007, 2260008, 2260009a, 2260015, 2260016, 2260019, 2260021, 2260022, 2260023, 2260024, 2260024a, 2260035, 2260061, 2260071, 2260073a, 2260074, 2260106, 2260106b, 2260118, 2260132, 2260155, 2260170, 2260172, 2260175a, 2260216, 2270018, 2270080, 2280178, 2280191,

9

2280219, 40, 41, 66, 68, 77, 79, 80, 81, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 89a, 9, 91, MA11c, Profanity2 FPB/FUB, 100, 143, 20, 21, 22, 2260109, 2260209, 2270013, 2270042, 2270063, 2270094, 2280087, 2280094, 2280095, 2280223, 2280225, 2280999, 24, 43, 46, 50, 65, 70

SPT FPB, 19, 2210061, 2210067, 2210071a, 2210072, 2260012, 2260053b, 2260055, 2260058, 2260073, 2260078, 2260079, 2260102, 2260140, 2260149, 2260162, 2280015, 2280019, 25 FPB/FUB, 2260053a, 2260112, 2260117, 2260163, 2260195, 2261209, 2263209, 2270003, 2270029, 2270030

15. In all PCT units, including those PCTed after commercial harvest, and in all units in big game winter range, retain a minimum of 10% of each unit in an un-harvested condition. In big game winter range this can be waived if a review by the wildlife biologist determines that harvest of these areas would not affect big game. The specific areas that will make up the 10% will be identified by district wildlife personnel or their designee. The intent is to retain un-treated patches to provide early successional habitat for species that depend on this condition, and in big game winter range provide overstory and escape cover for big game. This applies to the following units:

CT LFR

FPB: 2210104, 2260141b, 2260142, 2260153, 2260171, 2280021, 2280049, 2280148, 2280149, 2280183, 2280229, 2281098

FUB: 16, 17, 2210104a, 2260039, 2260131, 2270043, 2270060, 2270071, 2280075, 2280076, 2280164, 5

PCT FUB: 2280081

CT F LFR

FPB: 2280176 FPB/FUB: 2270078, 2270079, 2270081, 2270096, 2270097, 2280021a, 2280077 FUB: 2260043, 2260047a, 2270072a, 2270073, 2270074, 2270076, 2270077a, 2270083b,

2270089, 2280069, 2280073, 2280169, 2280175, 2290021 None

FUB: 2280173, 2280174 PCT

FPB: 2260133 CT O

LFR FPB: 1 FPB/FUB: 199, 33

CT S LFR

FPB: 2260173, 2260173a, 2260174, 2260175 FPB/FUB: 18, 44, 47

REC LFR

FPB: 2280177, 2280181, 2280182, CANYON CREEK

10

SPT LFR

FPB: 19, 2260078, 2260140 FPB/FUB: 2260163, 2260195, 2261209, 2263209, 2270029, 2270030, FUB, 2270020,

2270058, 2270085, 2270093, 22806 None

FUB: 2270026 Non-commercial

LFR FPB: 2210103, 2260024, 2260024a, 2260061, 2260132, 2260155, 2260170, 2260172,

2260175a, 2270018, 2270080, 2280178, 2280191, 2280219, 40, 9 FPB/FUB: 100, 143, 20, 2280087, 2280094, 2280095, 2280223, 2280225, 2280999, 43,

46, 50, 65, 70 FUB, 2, 2260040, 2260047, 2260048, 2270008, 2270017, 2270025, 2270033, 2270035,

2270059, 2270072, 2270075, 2270083a, 2280064, 2280069a, 2280082, 2280084, 2280167, 6, 8

None FUB: 2270067, 2270084, 2270086, 2270087, 2270090, 2270095, 2280054, 2280081a,

2280084b, 2280084c, 2280172, 2281215, 2290065, 35, 36, 37, 42, 45, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 58, 60, 62, 71

PCT DEC: 2260100, 2260195a FPB/FUB: 21, 22, 2260109, 2260209, 2270094, 24, FUB, 2270019, 2270031, 2270057,

2270069, 2270077, 2270083, 23 16. In big game winter range, when harvesting in the winter, start and stop harvest-related

activities at about the same time each day, and restrict traffic to only those activities involved with the logging operation. Deer frequently acclimate to temporally consistent disturbance, and the intent is to minimize disturbance. This applies to the following units: All units in Design Element 14.

17. In pre-commercial units in big game winter range along open roads that are not identified as emergency escape routes, retain vegetation to disrupt viewing into the entire unit. The intent is to provide big game some security cover while crossing open areas. This applies to the following units: This applies to the following units:

PCT: 21, 22, 23, 24, 2260100, 2260109, 2260133, 2260209, 2270019, 2270031, 2270057, 2270069, 2270077, 2270083, 2270094, 2280081, 2260195a

18. In big game winter range, harvest-related activities should be concentrated in adjacent units and implemented at the same time (done in blocks) rather than being spread out among disjointed units. The intent is to reduce the overall impact to big game habitat.

19. On roads opened or reconstructed for the project (includes temporary and system roads), restrict access on these roads to administrative use and logging operations. In all situations install a barrier which could be a gate, berm, or any other blockage. There are three time frames of concern: a) From the onset of reconstruction to the start of logging operations; b) After logging operations have ceased until post-harvest activities are completed; or c) If logging operation are suspended. d) The intent is to prevent vehicle use from becoming established on these roads.

11

20. Table 2 lists roads that have a high probability of requiring a gate or other closure to allow for post-harvest restoration projects. Roads may be added or removed prior to implementation. The intent is to maintain administrative access to complete restoration activities while preventing vehicle use from becoming established.

Table 2. Currently Closed Roads That Might be Opened For The Project And Could Require A Gate Or Other Barrier Closure To Prevent Unauthorized Post-Harvest Traffic.


Closure Junction/Point

2000-112 2000-110 2000-140 2000-136/Bangs Mountain Road 2000-232 2020-222 2000-244 Both ends of currently closed segment 2000-264 2000-220/Lane Creek Road

2000-270 2000-220/Lane Creek Road 2000-295 2000-220/Lane Creek Road 2000-300 2000-220/Lane Creek Road 2000-329 2000-220/Lane Creek Road

2000-390 2000-398/Bonneville Power Administration access road

2000-400 2000-400 at start of reopened segment 2000-401 2000-400 2000-415 2000-410 2000-418 2000-400 2000-425 2000-425 at start of reopened segment 2000-428 2000-420

2000-457 2000-457 at start of reopened segment or just north of powerline

2000-460 2000-450

2000-470 2020-000/South Fork Sherman AND 2000-000/Sherman Highway

2000-475 2000-000/Sherman Highway 2020-001 2020-000/South Fork Sherman 2020-140 2020-050/Scalawag Ridge Rd 2020-400 2020-000/South Fork Sherman 2050-020 Hall Creek Road/C-99 2050-113 2050-110; other end closed by barrier on 2050-113 2050-115 2050-114

12

21. Retain at least 8 trees per acre (largest ponderosa pine or Douglas-fir, including mistletoe-

infested Douglas-fir) in dusky grouse existing roost habitat. The intent is to ensure that there are a sufficient number of roosting trees for dusky grouse in roost habitat.

Applies to entire unit CT: 16, 17, 2210060, 2210063, 2210070a, 2270043, 2270044b, 2270048, 2270049, 2270056, 2270060, 2270061, 2270071 CT F: 2210085, 2270006, 2270039, 2270089 CT O: 199, 33, 74 CT S: 18, 44, 47

Applies to pockets in openings CT: 2260064 CT F: 2210025, 2260047a CT S: 2210076a, 2210092

22. Retain all aspen and cottonwood trees greater than 10” DBH. The intent is to maintain large-diameter hardwoods on the landscape. Large-diameter hardwoods provide nesting habitat for a large number of species.

23. Review the following units, at minimum, during or close to cruising or layout to determine methods to avoid or reduce the loss of snags:

1, 4, 5, 16, 17, 44, 47, 48, 49, 78, 199, 2210074, 2260043, 2260131, 2260133, 2260142, 2260171, 2260173, 2260174, 2270039, 2270043, 2270049, 2270060, 2270071, 2270079, 2270081, 2270096, 2270097, 2271200, 2280021, 2280049, 2280069, 2280073, 2280075, 2280076, 2280077, 2280081, 2280149, 2280164, 2280169, 2280174, 2280176, 2280177, 2280181, 2280183, 2280229, 2281098, 2210074a, 2210076a, 2210104a, 2260173a, 2260153,

24. Resurvey CT units: 2210060, 2210063, 2260082, 2260087, 2280229, 2281098, 2260039, 2260131, 2260142, 2260171, 2280183, 2280229, 2281098; CT F units: 2260043, 2260133, 2280174, 2260047a; and CT S units: 2260049, 2260050 during the timeframe appropriate for finding nesting goshawks.

B. Mitigations 1. If a goshawk nest is found, implement the following three measures (in accordance with

existing Forest Service Timber Sale Contract Clause CT6.25, Protection of Habitat of Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive Species):

1. Create a 30-acre no-harvest buffer around the nest; 2. Identify the boundary of the post-fledgling area and within ¼ mile of the nest,

minimize direct negative effects to goshawk. Activities that would cause negative effects include, but are not limited to timber harvest, road location or building, road use, underburning, unit layout and marking, monitoring, planting, etc.;

3. Initiate timing restrictions within the post-fledgling area from March 1st through August 15th of each year that extends to all activities that could disturb goshawks. Exceptions for specific activities that may be permitted during this period may be made by the district wildlife biologist or a designee on a case-by-case basis.

2. If a nest is found of cooper’s or sharp-shinned hawks, protect it through the establishment of a 1-tree length buffer around nests.

The intent for the mitigations is to retain each nest as a potential nesting site.

13

III. Effects to Species A. Big Game 1. Introduction Big Game (deer, elk and moose) were selected in the Forest Plan as Management Indicator Species because of the high level of public interest in these species and because they have special habitat needs (winter range) that may be influenced by management activities and programs. Two Management Area designations (MA 6 and MA 8) were established in the Forest Plan to identify and provide management direction for activities planned within big game winter range areas. Since then, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and Washington State University (WSU) concluded a multi-year program to study deer and cougars in northeast Washington and radio-collared several mule and white-tailed deer. Using these data, Robinson (2007) modeled potential winter range on the west side of the Colville National Forest (CNF). We used the model to identify potential deer wintering areas that might lie outside of the Forest-Plan-designated winter ranges. We used the combination of MA6, MA8 and the model results as the best available science to identify potential mule and white-tailed deer winter range. The maintenance of adequate quality and quantity of food and cover is an essential part of providing useable winter range habitat for deer and elk on the CNF. Equally important is the maintenance of adequate levels of habitat security during the winter months, when random disturbances by people on foot or by snowmobile can cause big game to use their stored nutrient reserves at higher-than-normal rates (Cassirer et al. 1992, Creel et al. 2002), with potential adverse effects on winter survival rates and fawn/calf survival. Therefore, the analysis of effects of management activities on winter range will focus primarily on these winter range habitat conditions. The condition of big game animals at the start of winter depends on the quality and quantity of forage available during the summer and early autumn (Cook et al. 1996). We assume the same dynamics operate for elk and moose: fat deposited during late summer and early autumn enhances their ability to survive the winter. A Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife study on mule deer in northeastern Washington showed that mule deer does emerged from winter in very poor condition, an indication of the stress of winter and also of the relatively poor physiological condition in which they enter winter (W. Meyers, pers. comm.). Because late summer forage conditions seem to be as important, or more so, than forage on winter range (Cook et al. 2004), we examine forage conditions for deer and elk on summer range, though the Forest Plan does not provide standards and guidelines specific to summer range habitat. During summer, the lack of recent wide-scale habitat changes from disturbance has allowed vegetation to grow rather dense, so habitat security and cover (vegetation dense enough to hide an animal) on summer range areas, essentially the entire CNF, are not considered to be limiting factors and were not analyzed. Mule deer were abundant on the Kettle Crest and in the “Wedge,” land between the Columbia and Kettle rivers during the 1960s and 1970s. Mule deer use more open habitats on winter and

14

summer ranges than white-tailed deer (W. Meyers, pers. comm.; Avey et al. 2003; Brunjes et al. 2006; Cook et al. 2004; Cook et al. 1996 and 1998), and this is reflected in the more open conditions available to mule deer after fire and harvest starting in the 1920s and extending through the 1970s, when the decrease in forage due to lack of disturbance, primarily in the form of fire suppression, and the loss of good winter overstory cover from harvest began to influence the local mule deer herd. Subsequently, as habitat grew more closed and became more favorable to white-tailed deer, this species has increased in number and is the most frequently encountered big game animal on much of the west zone of the CNF. Elk were once widely distributed across northeast Washington (Collier et al. 1942) but by the late 1800s commercial and subsistence hunting had eliminated Rocky Mountain elk from eastern Washington (WDFW 2011). Though no elk were released in the west zone of the CNF, the current small groups that occupy the area were likely reestablished from a series of reintroductions starting in 1915 by various groups, including the Colville Confederated Tribes to the south and British Columbia to the north (WDFW 2011). Moose were extremely uncommon in northeastern Washington until the 1990s, when their population in northeast Washington began to increase dramatically. Currently, they can be found in most available habitat, though at population densities far lower than those for either deer or elk.

2. Affected Environment The Sherman project area provides year-round habitat for mule deer, white-tailed deer, elk and moose. Within this area, mule and white-tailed deer are the most abundant ungulates. Under the Forest Plan, management within winter range areas (MA 6 and MA 8) emphasizes elk east of the Pend Oreille River, deer west of that river, and mule deer west of the Columbia River. Therefore, big game management in the Sherman area emphasizes mule deer. Information about historical habitat conditions comes from aerial photos taken in the mid 1940s, which shows the area considerably more open than currently. Interim photos from 1973 show some of the areas open in 1944 growing closed, with marked in-growth by conifers obvious in the 2011 aerial coverages. This change in habitat conditions from open to closed favors white-tailed deer over mule deer (Avey et al. 2003, Brunjes et al. 2006, Geist 1981).

a. Summary

i. summer range The entire project area supports summer range. In general, forage has decreased across the project area and probably results in a mule deer population lower than when the area was more open and under the influence of natural disturbance processes (primarily fire). About a third of the area provides cover, a third provides forested forage (a combination of both poor cover and poor forage) and the final third consists of open forage that provides good early season foraging but whose quality decreases over the summer as vegetation dries and dies. Within the past 20 years, harvest and fire, both of which improve forage conditions for big game, have affected less than 10% of the project area.

15

Distribution of cover and forage is relatively poor. In the lower elevations, the condition of cover is generally poor, consisting of larger overstory trees stressed by encroaching younger and smaller trees with which they compete for water and nutrients, or of smaller trees, primarily lodgepole pine, that offer adequate summer cover but poor winter cover because of narrow crowns. At higher elevations, cover dominates the landscape. Cover in summer isn’t as important for deer or elk as is forage. The current forage conditions of summer and autumn habitat in the study area could improve primarily by opening some of the more closed canopy areas in the higher elevations and stimulating forbs and browse in the forage and forested forage areas through mechanical treatment of smaller trees, by fire, and by managing noxious weeds. Broad-scale noxious weed management is outside the scope of this project. The condition of cover could be improved over the long term by reducing stress in existing overstory trees, primarily by removing the smaller conifers that compete with the larger trees for moisture and nutrients. Mule deer in the project area would benefit from more prescribed fire, particularly on the more moist sites capable of supporting higher browse densities, breaking up of the dense blocks of cover, and thinning of some of the forested forage areas (particularly by removing some of the smaller, encroaching trees). White-tailed deer, moose and elk habitat quality would decrease slightly initially, due to the more open conditions immediately post treatment, then improve as the shrubs regrew or spread. The area is part of four livestock allotments, though only two are currently active. About 935 acres of the Wapaloosie pasture in the Jungle Hill allotment lie inside the planning area boundary. About 3,370 acres of the Snow Peak and Quartz/Brown Mt. pastures in the Quartz allotment also lie within the planning area boundary. Management of cattle related to this project is beyond the scope of the wildlife analysis.

ii. winter range About 32% of the project area supports big game winter range. Under the Forest Plan, management activities within these areas should work toward creating forage:cover ratios approaching 50:50 (USDA Forest Service 1988, pp. 4-98, 106), dispersed to provide for maximum utilization of forage. However, these conditions favor white-tailed deer, which use habitat considerably differently than mule deer, the species that the Forest Plan emphasizes in this area and which select for more open habitats, and we will manage for far more open habitat than a 50:50 cover:forage ratio. About 40% of the winter range supports forested forage, which generally doesn’t provide either good cover or good forage. In these areas management could enhance conditions through understory thinning and/or prescribed fire. About a third of the area capable of growing trees that could provide cover has been harvested in the past, primarily via regeneration harvest that removed the large trees. Management in these stands could improve the ability of these stands to provide cover in the long term. Management in the 2/3 of the stands that have not been harvested should focus on retaining the large overstory trees, reduce competition from understory trees, retain clumps of smaller trees, and improve forage conditions.

16

Forested stands could benefit from removal of some of the smaller understory trees that have grown because fire has not visited them in decades to regenerate the brush and kill the small trees. Many of the stands of forested forage on the drier sites probably are not good candidates for intense overstory commercial timber harvest, which would open them too severely, but could use disturbance to regenerate forage and kill (by fire or harvest) smaller trees. Habitat security within winter range areas is managed primarily by regulation of open road densities during winter months. Road closures were implemented since the completion of the Forest Plan. To decrease road densities in winter range, we coordinate with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to close, with gates, all the main roads in winter range that access Sherman Highway: Trout Lake, Coyote Creek and Lane Creek (2000-020, 2000-085, and 2000-220). Some illegal access to the road that parallels the powerline occurs. No designated snowmobile routes exist in winter range in the project area, and snowmobile use in big game winter range is incidental and infrequent, though is apparently increasingly being accessed from areas to the northeast. The popular recreational and commercial activity of hunting for shed antlers appears to be increasing. Though no data exist on the effects of hunting for “sheds,” big game get moved about frequently, sometimes several times during a weekend, and each disturbance results in use of the stored energy that helps big game survive the winter. The regulation of this activity is outside the scope of this project.

iii. cumulative effects areas

• summer range The cumulative effects area for summer range consists of the CNF and surrounding area. Mule deer are considered secure (G5) through most of their North American range and are listed as secure (S5) in Washington State (NatureServe 2014). The species is hunted in Washington, and populations are managed by WDFW with management goals including: 1) Preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage deer and their habitat to ensure healthy, productive populations, and 2) Manage deer populations for a sustainable annual harvest. In the 1990s mule deer exhibited declines across most of the western United States. In Washington the decline was attributed to a deterioration of mule deer habitat due to succession and high winter mortality during the severe winter of 1996-97. The total deer population in Washington is approximately 300,000 to 320,000, and mule deer populations in northeastern Washington are below historic levels. Several projects within the cumulative effects analysis area by a variety of landowners have improved summer habitat conditions for mule deer. Over the past decade, the CNF alone has improved more than 10,000 acres of mule deer foraging habitat by opening stands, conducting prescribed fire, or a combination of these. Since 1993, live trees larger than 21” dbh have generally not been cut, and most projects on CNF-managed lands might harvest trees up to 18” dbh, which generally does not remove the important larger-canopied trees that provide good overstory cover. Post-harvest treatments often drive the extent of improvement to forage

17

conditions as a result of timber harvest management. More than 1,000 acres of timber harvest have had forage reduced by post-harvest herbicide treatments designed to eliminate shrub (big game browse) competition with young trees. Nearly all of these acres lie on industrial timberlands managed by one owner.

• winter range The cumulative effects area for winter range consists of areas on the CNF and surrounding area. The quantity and quality of ungulate winter range in northeast Washington in and around the CNF has varied considerably over time and has been dramatically reduced from historic levels. Much of what was historically winter range is now in private or other ownerships or is under water (Lake Roosevelt) and might not be managed with consideration for wintering needs of big game. Many of these lower elevation areas have been converted to agricultural uses and may provide some winter forage, depending on land use, distance to suitable cover, and landowner tolerance. Large fires that occasionally burned across this landscape also altered forage and cover availability. Settlement and the advent of various land management activities resulted in roads that affect habitat security as well as the introduction of several noxious weed species that affect forage availability. Fire suppression over this same time period has contributed to a decline in the amount and distribution of forage and an increase in the amount of cover, which has been particularly detrimental to mule deer, which require more open conditions that white-tailed deer. Much of what is currently managed on the CNF as winter range is a remnant of historical winter range and/or lands that served as secondary winter range areas prior to settlement and land conversions. Since signing of the Forest Plan in 1988, management projects on Forest Service administered lands have been designed to incorporate wild ungulate winter range requirements. Timber sales and other projects have been designed and analyzed according to Forest Plan direction. Timber management and prescribed fire projects have also been conducted, which increase forage quantity in many areas. On the east side of the Kettle Crest, the nearly completed Kettle Face and the completed Bangs timber and fire projects on NFS land within the Sherman project area and near the Deer Jasper planning area contained projects that improved conditions for winter range. On the west side the Vulcan and MaloEastlake projects have done the same, as will the recently sold Walker project. This trend will continue. Management on non-NFS lands usually must be done in accordance with Washington Forest Practices rules, which allows for heavy harvest, so timber harvest has improved forage to the detriment of cover. Non-NFS land primarily occurs at lower elevations in warmer, drier environments. In many of these non-NFS areas, successional stages remain skewed towards younger stands. Considering that mule deer, the species of management interest in Ferry County, uses more open habitat than white-tailed deer, those harvests might not have decreased habitat quality considerably.

iv. current viability Based on population trends, habitat assessment, and risk factors, the current viability for mule deer is “A” (see Appendix A). Populations and habitat are widely distributed and risk factors identified are being managed. WDFW is managing mule deer populations and the CNF, WDFW and other landowners are managing mule deer habitat to ensure healthy, productive populations at sustainable levels.

18

b. Summer range

The entire project area supports summer range. Most of the summer range was more open in the 1940s and 1970s, when mule deer were more common. The amount and quality of forage continues to decrease as a function of time since disturbance. Since the 1940s, fires have burned little of the summer range in the project area. Several fires were extinguished in the area since 1980. The FS has conducted several prescribed fires in the project area over the past 2 decades, but these have improved less than 3% of the project area. Throughout the planning area disturbance by fire or as a result of timber harvest would improve the condition and amount of forage. The project area lacks well-distributed patches of good forage (palatable and available) caused by disturbance. About 24,300 acres of the summer range (70% of the project area) contains fair or poor herb and shrub forage in either naturally or created (harvested) open areas (Figure 1). Since the 1990s about 1,900 acres (about 6% of the project area) have been harvested and instead of providing cover now provide forage or forested forage. Nearly all the forage and forested forage lie at the middle and lower elevations in the project area. About half of the forage areas consist of naturally open stands in dry environments, on shallow soils, or both, that cannot support dense trees and supply permanent forage of generally fair quality and quantity. The quality of this forage varies by season (good quality from spring until mid-summer, when the leaves begin to cure and nutrient values decrease). The remaining 30% of the area consists of dense stands of medium-sized or smaller trees whose understories provide nearly no forage for big game. Most of these stands lie at higher elevations. Cover in summer isn’t as important for deer or elk as is forage. The condition of cover could be improved over the long term by reducing stress in existing overstory trees, primarily by removing the smaller conifers that compete with the larger trees for moisture and nutrients. In the lower elevations, the condition of cover is generally poor, consisting of larger overstory trees stressed by encroaching younger and smaller trees with which they compete for water and nutrients, or of smaller trees, primarily lodgepole pine, that offer adequate summer cover but poor winter cover because of narrow crowns.

Figure 1. Distribution of forage on big game summer range in Sherman.

19

An increase in noxious weed species and their distribution has also decreased forage palatability and availability, but the extent has not been measured. Noxious weeds constitute the greatest threat to herbaceous and grassy forage. New noxious weed species continue to invade from private land surrounding the project area and from the Sherman highway corridor. Vehicles and wind are the major vectors that transfer weed seeds of many of these species, and the greatest density of noxious weeds in both summer and winter range can be found in the disturbed corridor along roads. Some recent arrivals grow in shadier conditions and wind carries their seeds, so they have tremendous capability of reducing forage quality by outcompeting native forage.

c. Winter range

i. cover and forage About 8% of the Sherman project area (2,600 acres) was designated as big game winter range (MA6 and MA8) during development of the Forest Plan. Robinson’s model (2007) identified that nearly half of the project area had the potential to provide winter range habitat for mule deer and/or white-tailed deer. We photo-interpreted what we considered to be the most likely winter range areas, primarily those somewhat-open areas with southerly exposures at low and mid elevations in the north, middle and south ends of the project area (Figure 2). The MA6 and MA8 areas and the modeled white-tailed deer winter range areas fell within the area identified as potential good and fair mule deer winter range so the discussion and analysis will discuss the combination of both areas, which constitute about 32% of the project area. The relative amounts and distribution of forage and cover areas are key factors in determining the usefulness of winter range to big game. Under the Forest Plan, management activities within these areas should work toward creating forage:cover ratios approaching 50:50 (USDA Forest Service 1988, pp. 4-98, 106), dispersed to provide for maximum utilization of forage. However, these conditions favor white-tailed deer, which use habitat considerably differently than mule deer, which select for more open habitats, and we will manage for more open habitat than a 50:50 cover:forage ratio. The MA6 and MA8 areas contain one very small patch of good cover, a consequence of primarily the harsh environmental conditions of much of the MA6 and MA8 areas but also due to past harvest and (Figure 3). Only about 40% of the MA6 and MA8 areas could support dense stands of trees; on the remaining areas, poor soils and a lack of moisture hinder tree development. About a third of the MA6 and MA8 areas support forested forage, about half of which could be considered cover. Therefore, the estimated cover:forage ratio for the MA6 and MA8 areas would be about 15:85. Forested forage generally doesn’t provide either good cover or good forage, and management could enhance conditions through understory thinning and/or prescribed fire. About a third of the area capable of growing trees that could provide cover have been harvested in the past, primarily via regeneration harvest that removed the large trees. Management in these stands could improve the ability of these stands to provide cover in the long term. Management in the 2/3 of the stands that have not been harvested should focus on retaining the large overstory trees, reduce competition from understory trees, retain clumps of smaller trees, and improve forage conditions.

20

Figure 2. Big game winter range in Sherman.

Figure 3. Cover and forage on winter range in Sherman. The smaller image lies in the western part of the project area.

21

The conditions on the modeled big game winter range are slightly better than those found on the MA6 and MA8, though more cover and forested forage exist because the moister conditions outside the harsh, primarily south-facing slopes in the MA6 and MA8 allow for better tree growth. Harvest has eliminated cover on about a third of the area capable of supporting trees. However, forested forage covers more than 40% of modeled winter range and some of these areas could, with removal of some trees combined with prescribed fire, provide better cover and forage in the future. In both areas, stands of could benefit from removal of some of the smaller understory trees that have grown because fire has not visited them in decades to regenerate the brush and kill the small trees. Many of the stands of forested forage on the drier sites probably are not good candidates for intense overstory commercial timber harvest, which would open them too severely, but could use disturbance to regenerate forage and kill (by fire or harvest) smaller trees.

d. Cumulative effects area

i. summer range The cumulative effects area for summer range consists of the CNF and surrounding area. Several projects within the cumulative effects analysis area by a variety of landowners have improved summer habitat conditions for mule deer. Over the past decade, the CNF alone has improved more than 10,000 acres of mule deer foraging habitat by opening stands, conducting prescribed fire, or a combination of these. Since 1993, live trees larger than 21” dbh have generally not been cut, and most projects on CNF-managed lands might harvest trees up to 18” dbh, which generally does not remove the important larger-canopied trees that provide good overstory cover. Post-harvest treatments often drive the extent of improvement to forage conditions as a result of timber harvest management. More than 1,000 acres of timber harvest have had forage reduced by post-harvest herbicide treatments designed to eliminate shrub (big game browse) competition with young trees. Nearly all of these acres lie on industrial timberlands managed by one owner.

2. winter range The cumulative effects area for winter range consists of areas on the CNF and surrounding area. The quantity and quality of ungulate winter range in northeast Washington in and around the CNF has varied considerably over time and has been dramatically reduced from historic levels. Much of what was historically winter range is now in private or other ownerships or is under water (Lake Roosevelt) and might not be managed with consideration for wintering needs of big game. Many of these lower elevation areas have been converted to agricultural uses and may provide some winter forage, depending on land use, distance to suitable cover, and landowner tolerance. Large fires that occasionally burned across this landscape also altered forage and cover availability. Settlement and the advent of various land management activities resulted in roads that affect habitat security as well as the introduction of several noxious weed species that affect forage availability. Fire suppression over this same time period has contributed to a decline in the amount and distribution of forage and an increase in the amount of cover, which has been particularly detrimental to mule deer, which require more open conditions that white-tailed deer. Much of what is currently managed on the CNF as winter range is a remnant of historical winter range and/or lands that served as secondary winter range areas prior to settlement and land conversions.

22

Since signing of the Forest Plan in 1988, management projects on Forest Service administered lands have been designed to incorporate wild ungulate winter range requirements. Timber sales and other projects have been designed and analyzed according to Forest Plan direction. Timber management and prescribed fire projects have also been conducted, which increase forage quantity in many areas. On the east side of the Kettle Crest, the nearly completed Kettle Face and the completed Bangs timber and fire projects on NFS land within the Sherman project area and near the Deer Jasper planning area contained projects that improved conditions for winter range. On the west side the Vulcan and MaloEastlake projects have done the same, as will the recently sold Walker project. This trend will continue. Management on non-NFS lands usually must be done in accordance with Washington Forest Practices rules, which allows for heavy harvest, so timber harvest has improved forage to the detriment of cover. Non-NFS land primarily occurs at lower elevations in warmer, drier environments. In many of these non-NFS areas, successional stages remain skewed towards younger stands. Considering that mule deer, the species of management interest in Ferry County, uses more open habitat than white-tailed deer, those harvests might not have decreased habitat quality considerably.

e. Current viability

Mule deer are considered secure (G5) through most of their North American range and are listed as secure (S5) in Washington State (NatureServe 2014). The species is hunted in Washington, and populations are managed by WDFW with management goals including: 1) Preserve, protect, perpetuate, and manage deer and their habitat to ensure healthy, productive populations, and 2) Manage deer populations for a sustainable annual harvest. In the 1990s mule deer exhibited declines across most of the western United States. In Washington the decline was attributed to a deterioration of mule deer habitat due to succession and high winter mortality during the severe winter of 1996-97. The total deer population in Washington is approximately 300,000 to 320,000, and mule deer populations in northeastern Washington are below historic levels. Based on population trends, habitat assessment, and risk factors, the current viability for mule deer is “A” (see Appendix A). Populations and habitat are widely distributed and risk factors identified are being managed (Youkey 2012). WDFW is managing mule deer populations and the CNF, WDFW and other landowners are managing mule deer habitat to ensure healthy, productive populations at sustainable levels.

3. Environmental Consequences a. Summary

i. no action alternative Under the No Action alternative, the existing forage:cover ratio within winter range areas would not change in the short term. Habitat would not improve, and conditions on summer and winter range for mule deer would continue to decline as understory trees encroached into open stands and continue to reduce forage. Competition and subsequent stress to larger trees that currently provide overstory cover from smaller trees would continue to decrease the quality and longevity of good winter cover. Without adequate forage, this area would not provide suitable ungulate habitat and would not contribute toward meeting the Forest Plan objectives for big game

23

population levels. The No Action alternative would not affect existing open road densities or habitat security. Without thinning, a stand-replacing fire in the watershed could eliminate overstory cover but would also create the conditions for a great flush of forage.

ii. proposed action The proposed activities will yield long-term improvements in conditions for mule deer, once the most common species in the area and the species for which management in this area is directed, by opening the stands and improving forage. About 70% of the big game winter range will experience some disturbance as a result of the proposed project (Table 3), which will take place over the course of several years. The sum of all the commercial and non-commercial treatments will be an immediate decrease of existing overstory cover and a stage set for dramatically improved forage conditions and, long-term, better overstory cover. None of the treatments are designed to remove the larger overstory trees, which provide good cover in winter because they intercept snow and keep the areas around the boles relatively snow-free. The immediate loss of overstory cover will not dramatically decrease habitat conditions for mule deer, the species targeted for management, but will decrease the heavier cover that white-tailed deer, and to some extent moose and elk, tend to favor. Sufficient cover remains for these species to continue to occupy the Sherman area, though the numbers of white-tailed deer occupying the more open areas probably will decrease. The most important short-term issue is loss of forage, which will be caused primarily by prescribe fire. The existing fire organization probably cannot burn more than 2,000 acres per year, so each year the loss of forage will result in a localized decline, but not complete elimination, of forage that will be offset by, the following year, improving forage conditions as a result of opening the stands.

iii. effects of disturbance on invasive plants The long-term concern continues to be invasive plants replacing native forage, with or without management. The proposed action would utilize tools outlined in the invasive plants writeup for this project, which notes that the project will “…comply with the Colville National Forest Noxious Weed Prevention Guidelines, the Colville National Forest Seeding and Planting Guide, the Pacific Northwest Invasive Plants Program Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision, and the Colville National Forest Integrated Noxious Weed Treatment Environmental Assessment. The overall risk of the Sherman Pass project significantly increasing invasive plant distribution and creating long lasting invasive plant related impacts is low. The anticipated increase in invasive plant populations would be adequately managed by following the standards and guidelines in the above mentioned documents, monitoring recommendations and mitigation measures.”

iv. cumulative effects In the cumulative effects area, several recent timber sales and associated prescribed fire projects have occurred, both on NFS land and on land managed by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). All but one occurred in the wildland/urban interface, at lower elevations and primarily in warmer, drier environments. Projects on NFS land were planned using the concept of managing towards historical ranges of variability for different structural stages, which should maintain successional patterns and processes similar to those with which big game, primarily

24

mule deer, evolved. Continued management under the concept of historic range of variability should benefit mule deer. Management on non-NFS lands usually must be done in accordance with Washington Forest Practices rules, which allows for heavy harvest. Management on the large tract of WDFW land east and north of the planning area emphasized mule deer habitat. Non-NFS land primarily occurs at lower elevations in warmer, drier environments. In many of these non-NFS areas, successional stages are skewed towards younger stands, and young stands provide forage for big game. Except for closed-canopy stands in warmer, drier environments, the proposed activities on NFS land, when added to harvest that has already occurred, would not dramatically change the percentages of different successional stages across the cumulative effects analysis area, thus would not negatively affect big game. Closed-canopied stands within the wildland-urban interface have been opened by removing smaller understory trees, retained larger trees, and opened stands to conditions present historically. The amount of harvest in the wildland-urban interface has significantly decreased the amount of closed-canopied stands, and proposed projects will continue to do so. This shift probably will benefit mule deer, and somewhat benefit elk, to the detriment of white-tailed deer and probably moose. Viability of any of the big game species will not be negatively affected by the project.

b. Effects of no action alternative to summer and winter range

Under the No Action alternative, the existing forage:cover ratio within winter range areas would not change in the short term. Habitat would not improve, and conditions on summer and winter range for mule deer would continue to decline as understory trees encroached into open stands and continue to reduce forage. Competition and subsequent stress to larger trees that currently provide overstory cover from smaller trees would continue to decrease the quality and longevity of good winter cover. Without adequate forage, this area would not provide suitable ungulate habitat and would not contribute toward meeting the Forest Plan objectives for big game population levels. The No Action alternative would not affect existing open road densities or habitat security. Without thinning, a stand-replacing fire in the watershed could eliminate overstory cover but would also create the conditions for a great flush of forage.

c. Effects of proposed action to summer range

Commercial harvest, precommercial thinning and prescribed fire will open stands and allow light to penetrate to the shrub and forb/grass layers, which will stimulate more forage, though the extent to which this occurs in the mid and upper elevations is limited: . Additionally, mechanical crushing and/or burning of dead and tall shrubs will either stimulate sprouting, compact browse and allow big game to reach it, or both. Mechanical ground disturbance or exposure of mineral soil by prescribed burning could also foster noxious weeds, which would decrease available forage. The benefit of improved forage and reintroducing fire on a landscape whose shrubs have not experienced fire outweighs the potential for noxious weed spread, which for many species will occur eventually regardless of fire. Additionally, the

d. Effects of proposed action to winter range

Effects to big game winter range will be analyzed over the winter range areas that deer occupy, rather than just MA6 and MA8. Big game management in this area emphasizes improving mule deer habitat.

25

i. effects of management activities to cover and forage on winter range The sum of all the commercial and non-commercial treatments will be an immediate decrease of existing overstory cover and a stage set for dramatically improved forage conditions and, long-term, better overstory cover. About 70% of the big game winter range will experience some disturbance as a result of the proposed project (Table 3), which will take place over the course of several years. About half of the treatments consist of removal of commercial timber products that will affect smaller-diameter trees but not the important large, snow-intercepting trees that provide the best overstory cover. The immediate loss of overstory cover provided by the smaller trees will not dramatically decrease habitat conditions for mule deer, the species targeted for management, but will decrease the heavier cover that white-tailed deer, and to some extent moose and elk, tend to favor. Sufficient overstory cover remains for these species to continue to occupy the Sherman area, though the numbers of white-tailed deer occupying the more open areas probably will decrease. Additionally, in all commercial harvest units in big game winter range, at least 10% of the unit would be left in unthinned patches (see list of units in Design Elements below). Leave patches would reduce but not eliminate the negative effects of the loss of horizontal cover but is not expected to deter big game from using the area. This loss of horizontal cover will benefit mule deer, which use more open habitats than white-tailed deer. Subsequent prescribed fire in these units might slightly reduce the amount of lateral cover in the leave patches. This loss of lateral or hiding cover would be short-term, 5 years or less depending on the shrub species and moisture available at a particular site.

Table 3. Proposed treatments in big game winter range in Sherman.

Commercial treatments # of units Acres Thinning Variable density 27 1200 Group openings 4 140 Species selection 7 190 Small pole 18 610 Fuels reduction 26 1510 Non-commercial treatments Recreation 4 130 Precommercial thinning 17 490 Ladder fuels reduction 53 2220 Underburning 33 1400 Totals 189 7890

Treatments are proposed in 4 units in areas associated with recreation sites in and near the Canyon Creek campground and Log Flume area. The units currently provide forested forage consisting of some larger overstory trees standing above a deteriorating mid and understory of lodgepole pine. The proposed treatments will remove standing dead and down and trees much of the lodgepole pine. The trees slated for removal provide marginal or no cover. Excess fuels will be piled and burned or the area underburned. These treatments will slightly improve long-term habitat conditions over the current condition, and the post-treatment burns will slightly improve

26

forage conditions. The areas will be managed with the long-term goal of sustaining overstory and campground vegetation and reducing fire danger. Small pole thinning, the removal of trees up to about 10” dbh, is proposed in 18 units covering about 610 acres, nearly all of which currently provide poor cover and marginal foraging conditions due to stands consisting of dense, smaller-sized trees. Small pole thinning will decrease marginal cover and improve long-term cover, and will improve forage conditions. All units are proposed to be optionally treated post-harvest by underburning on about 50% of the acreage, a combination of piling fuel and underburning on about 20% of the acreage, and piling fuels and burning piles on about 30% of the acreage. Units 2260140, 2240026 and 2270029 contain some larger overstory trees and these will be retained. About 10% of the area in each unit will remain untreated to retain lateral cover. All or parts of 27 units totaling about 1,200 acres are proposed for variable density commercial thinning in big game winter range. About 230 acres in 10 stands currently provide good cover, and the remaining acres consist of areas that do not provide good cover due to tree size, density or both. This treatment will target suppressed, intermediate and co-dominant trees. Existing clumps of healthy overstory would remain in the residual stand. Portions of the understory would be treated to isolate patches of multi-strata ladder fuels and open other areas to form single story structure. Opening the stands during this treatment type will improve forage conditions yet will in the short term reduce overstory cover. The trees targeted for removal compete with existing overstory trees and their removal will improve long-term overstory cover in these stands. Optional underburning, piling fuel and underburning, and piling fuels and burning piles would occur in about the same proportions as in small pole thinning. Post-harvest treatment in Unit 2280081 proposes precommercially thinning the remaining small, nonmerchantable trees, which will improve cover conditions long-term. Clumps in this unit will remain unthinned to retain horizontal cover and allow for big game to move through the unit. All or parts of 26 units totaling about 1,510 acres are proposed for commercial fuels units in big game winter range. About 50 acres provide overstory cover, with the remainder providing poor or no cover. These units are proposed in areas where past prescribed burning has occurred. Commercial value of these units is low, and some trees have grown to commercial size. Treatment objectives are to remove hazardous fuels. Few if any large overstory trees will be removed and condition of high quality overhead cover will not change. About half of the area is proposed for optional underburning post-harvest and the other half piling fuels and underburning. Post-harvest treatment in Unit 2260133 proposes precommercially thinning the remaining small, nonmerchantable trees, which will improve cover conditions long-term. Clumps in this unit will remain unthinned to retain horizontal cover and allow for big game to move through the unit. Both the proposed harvest and optional underburning would open the understories in these units and would improve forage conditions. All or portions of 4 units totaling about 140 acres are proposed for commercial thinning with group openings, all on the western side of the planning area. Small group openings will be created over up to 50% of the unit. The units consist of small and medium-sized, older trees with moderate-to-high levels of insect or disease. None of the units currently support good cover. Opening the stands and replanting will provide better cover in the longer term and will improve

27

forage conditions. About half of the acreage is proposed for optional underburning post-harvest and the other half piling fuels and underburning. The optional underburning would further open the understories in these units and would also improve forage conditions. After harvest and post-harvest activities, the openings will be replanted, primarily with ponderosa pine, which will improve cover conditions over the long term. All or portions of 7 units totaling about 190 acres are proposed for species selection thinning. This treatment would target for removal dead and dying trees and those susceptible to attack from mountain and western pine bark beetle, particularly lodgepole pine. Canopy openings could exceed 5 acres in size and if so, patches will be retained to provide horizontal cover that would provide some security for big game to traverse a unit. About half of the acreage is proposed for optional underburning post-harvest and the other half piling fuels and underburning. The optional underburning would further open the understories in these units and would also improve forage conditions. After harvest and post-harvest activities, the openings will be replanted, primarily with ponderosa pine, which will improve cover conditions over the long term. Precommercial thinning and ladder fuels reduction will occur in 70 units covering about 2,710 acres. These treatments will not affect overstory cover but will reduce lateral cover. In these units, 10% will remain unthinned to allow animals to move through or within the units. Potentially, the most important short-term issue is loss of forage caused by prescribed fire. More than 6,000 of the nearly 7,900 acres proposed for activities in winter range are slated for either a combination of piling fuels and underburning, or underburning alone. The existing fire organization probably cannot burn more than 1,500 acres per year, so each year the loss of forage will result in a localized decline, but not complete elimination, of forage that will be offset in the future by, the following year, improving forage conditions as a result of opening the stands. All but about 60 of the remaining acres are proposed for piling and burning piles, which will not have a great positive or negative effect to forage. Additionally, units are not completely burned, so unburned remnants will continue to provide both forage and lateral cover.

ii. effects of roads (security) in winter Because little human traffic crosses the big game winter ranges in winter, deer winter range habitat security during winter in the planning area is not expected to change as a result of the proposed action. If logging operations start and finish about the same time each day and roads are closed to activity not associated with timber harvest, winter logging creates minimal disturbance to mule and white-tailed deer and provides some forage from either Douglas-fir needles or lichens that grow on branches normally out of reach of big game.

4. Cumulative Effects a. Summer range

The cumulative effects area for summer range consists of the CNF and surrounding area. Several projects within the cumulative effects analysis area by a variety of landowners have improved summer habitat conditions for mule deer. Over the past decade, the CNF alone has improved more than 10,000 acres of mule deer foraging habitat by opening stands, conducting prescribed fire, or a combination of these. Since 1993, live trees larger than 21” dbh have

28

generally not been cut, and most projects on CNF-managed lands might harvest trees up to 18” dbh, which generally does not remove the important larger-canopied trees that provide good overstory cover. Post-harvest treatments often drive the extent of improvement to forage conditions as a result of timber harvest management. More than 1,000 acres of timber harvest have had forage reduced by post-harvest herbicide treatments designed to eliminate shrub (big game browse) competition with young trees. Nearly all of these acres lie on industrial timberlands managed by one owner. The proposed action for this project continues this trend and will result in improved forage conditions within this portion of the landscape and add cumulatively to the progress already made in other portions of the Forest. The proposed action will move the landscape towards a more open condition similar to historical conditions when mule deer populations were higher. By following the design elements, the proposed activities will improve conditions for mule deer. The No Action alternative does not contribute to this trend and places this area at greater risk for large scale disturbances (insects or disease problems and/or stand replacing wildfire) that would create a flush of forage but which would adversely affect cover for many decades.

b. Winter range

The cumulative effects area for winter range consists of areas on the CNF and surrounding area. The quantity and quality of ungulate winter range in northeast Washington in and around the CNF has varied considerably over time and has been dramatically reduced from historic levels. Much of what was historically winter range is now in private or other ownerships or is under water (Lake Roosevelt) and might not be managed with consideration for wintering needs of big game. Many of these lower elevation areas have been converted to agricultural uses and may provide some winter forage, depending on land use, distance to suitable cover, and landowner tolerance. Large fires that occasionally burned across this landscape also altered forage and cover availability. Settlement and the advent of various land management activities resulted in roads that affect habitat security as well as the introduction of several noxious weed species that affect forage availability. Fire suppression over this same time period has contributed to a decline in the amount and distribution of forage and an increase in the amount of cover, which has been particularly detrimental to mule deer, which require more open conditions that white-tailed deer. Much of what is currently managed on the CNF as winter range is a remnant of historical winter range and/or lands that served as secondary winter range areas prior to settlement and land conversions. Since signing of the Forest Plan in 1988, management projects on Forest Service administered lands have been designed to incorporate wild ungulate winter range requirements. Timber sales and other projects have been designed and analyzed according to Forest Plan direction. Timber management and prescribed fire projects have also been conducted, which increase forage quantity in many areas. On the east side of the Kettle Crest, the nearly completed Kettle Face and the completed Bangs timber and fire projects on NFS land within the Sherman project area and near the Deer Jasper planning area contained projects that improved conditions for winter range. On the west side the Vulcan and MaloEastlake projects have done the same, as will the recently sold Walker project. This trend will continue. Management on non-NFS lands usually must be done in accordance with Washington Forest Practices rules, which allows for heavy harvest, so timber harvest has improved forage to the detriment of cover. Non-NFS land primarily occurs at lower elevations in warmer, drier environments. In many of these non-NFS

29

areas, successional stages remain skewed towards younger stands. Considering that mule deer, the species of management interest in Ferry County, uses more open habitat than white-tailed deer, those harvests might not have decreased habitat quality considerably. Like in summer range, the proposed action will move thewinter range areas towards a more open condition similar to historical conditions when mule deer populations were higher. By following the design elements, the proposed activities will result in improved forage conditions within this portion of the landscape and add cumulatively to the progress already made in other portions of the Forest. The No Action alternative does not contribute to this trend and places this area at greater risk for large scale disturbances (insects or disease problems and/or stand replacing wildfire) that would adversely affect wintering ungulate habitat for many decades. The long-term results of timber management on NFS land, particularly in the wildland/urban interface, will result in more open stands similar to a condition found in the early and mid 1900s when mule deer populations were also higher. If the mitigations and design elements are followed, the extent of the loss of cover would not be detrimental over the long term to big game. The long-term result of harvest on non-NFS land might improve cover, but functions more to improve forage. Portions of Potential Wilderness Areas are in and adjacent to the planning area and some support small patches of high-elevation mule deer winter range. These areas generally are not treated by either harvest or fire, though many would benefit from disturbance that reduced the understory tree component. This project also does not propose treatment in these areas. Forage quantity has increased as a result of opening the canopy in projects throughout the cumulative effects area. Noxious weeds have severely impacted winter ranges throughout the West, whether or not harvest activity has taken place, which decreases and in many cases offsets the improved forage conditions that result from opening the canopy. An active noxious weed control program in the county has used a combination of chemical and biological controls in an attempt to manage noxious weeds, with variable success. Along road corridors, the FS will spray for noxious weeds, which might limit but will not entirely prevent their spread. The level of forage reduction and consequent reduction in big game populations is not known. Most of the high quality mule deer winter range occurs on NFS land in a north-south belt west of the Columbia and Kettle rivers, within, north and south of the planning area boundary. Most of the high quality white-tailed deer winter range lies east of the Kettle Crest and at the lower elevations primarily outside the NFS boundary. Management projects on other ownerships do not usually consider winter range but the presence of agricultural land in the valley, particularly alfalfa, benefits primarily white-tailed deer. On NFS-managed land, older projects reduced cover quality over the short term but improved forage and, in the long term, cover. Forage quality has also improved through

• prescribed fires that stimulate new forage growth, • some timber harvest projects that reduce competition of trees, • stimulation from disturbance by timber activities, and • projects designed to reduce the spread of noxious weeds.

30

The implementation of projects on NFS land similar to this one will continue this positive trend. Harvest on non-NFS land has generally improved forage quality as a result of removing the overstory, but large blocks of industrial timberland that were harvested in the past few years have recently been or are planned to be treated with herbicides that will dramatically reduce the amount of forage available over hundreds of acres of summer and winter range (S. Dotts, pers. comm.). The conversion of forested land to agricultural land probably won’t continue because most suitable land has been converted. Ground-disturbing activities, including timber harvest, road construction and reconstruction, and prescribed fire, can spread or increase noxious weed populations that consequently displace forage for wild ungulates (See noxious weed report for this project). Livestock, wildlife and motorized vehicles also help spread noxious weeds. Standardized practices on the CNF as well as specific mitigation measures prescribed for the action alternative in this project have been designed to contain or reduce this impact. Though the No Action alternative has no new ground disturbing activities, it also will not result in noxious weed control, thus would result in a cumulative increase in noxious weeds. Introduced invasive plants continue to vex management of good forage as species after species of noxious weeds become inadvertently introduced to NE Washington. Though the CNF and weed boards of all three NE Washington counties attempt to reduce the impact of noxious weeds, the increasing number of invasive plant species poses probably the greatest long-term threat to big game forage.

c. Post-project viability

The project will not affect viability of white-tailed or mule deer in the project area because treatments of all units in both summer and winter range:

• will result in more browse and forage, • will improve cover long-term with some short-term reduction in poor cover, • will not remove larger overstory trees that provide good cover in winter, • will not create large openings that deer tend to avoid because of deep snow, • will retain at least 10% of each unit in an unthinned condition to maintain hiding cover, • will begin to move the area towards more historic conditions, which suited mule deer.

Based on population trends, habitat assessment, and risk factors, the viability outcome for mule deer is “A”. Populations and habitat are widely distributed and risk factors identified are being managed. WDFW is managing mule deer populations and the CNF, WDFW and other landowners are managing mule deer habitat to ensure healthy, productive populations at sustainable levels.

5. Design Elements (DE) and/or mitigations (MI) Implement design elements 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20. The intent of these design elements are to retain overstory cover and escape or security cover and to minimize disturbance to big game.

31

B. Barred Owl, Pileated Woodpecker, American Marten and Northern (American) Three-toed Woodpecker 1. Introduction The barred owl, pileated woodpecker, American marten (formerly pine marten) and northern three-toed woodpecker (now American three-toed woodpecker, Banks et al. 2003) were selected during the development of the Forest Plan to represent species utilizing mature and old-growth forested habitats. To ensure that these habitats are maintained across the landscape, the Forest Plan established a hierarchical “grid” system consisting of Management Area 1 (old growth), Pileated Woodpecker Management Requirement Areas, and American Marten and American Three-toed Woodpecker Management Requirement Areas.

a. Management Area 1 (and Associated Barred Owl Foraging Area)

These areas were established during the Forest Plan and allocated as habitat for species that depend on old growth. Each area consists of a “core” area, at least 300 acres in size, delineated during the development of the Forest Plan, and adjacent “foraging” area containing mature or old growth trees. In combination, the “core” area and associated “foraging” area for each MA 1 should be at least 600 acres in size. These areas are distributed across the Forest at 10 mile intervals (approximately). Each area was expected to provide habitat that meet the breeding requirements of a pair of barred owls.

b. Barred Owl Habitat

Barred owls were first recorded in Washington in 1965 (Rogers 1966 in Taylor and Forsman 1976) at Blue Slide near the east side of the CNF and were considered very uncommon when the Forest Plan was drafted in the late 1980s. They have increased in both numbers and distribution since then (Livezey 2009) and now can be found distributed throughout the CNF in appropriate habitats. For nesting, they typically occupy more moist environments and stands of mature or old growth forests with high canopy closure. They seem somewhat plastic in their selection of nest sites, using both natural and human-made structures. In natural locations similar to those that barred owls would encounter on the CNF, about 75% of nests were in tree cavities, 13% in old hawk nests, 8% in broken-topped trees, and the remainder in various other substrates (Livezey 2007). The closest research on barred owls was conducted on the Wenatchee National Forest on the east side of the Cascades. Singleton et al. (2010) found that barred owls were associated with moist, structurally diverse, closed canopy forests on gentle slopes (< 11%), and low topographic position. Another study from the central Cascades found similar results: barred owls nested in bottomlands (70%) or other areas of low relief in stands with high canopy closure (Buchanan et al. 2004). We identify potential barred owl foraging habitat as areas in mesic or moist environments that support or are capable of supporting closed-canopied stands of large trees. Nesting habitat (which also provides foraging habitat) is the subset of these stands that lie on gentle slopes (< 20%).

32

c. Pileated Woodpecker Management Requirement Areas

Forest Plan established a network of Pileated Woodpecker Management Requirement (PW MR) areas interspersed across the Forest between the larger MA 1 areas, with each PWMR area intended to meet the habitat needs of a pair of pileated woodpeckers. Each PW MR area consists of at least 300 acres of older conifer habitat, with minimum specified snag densities. These areas are distributed at approximate 5 mile intervals (except where they overlap with the larger MA 1 areas) across the Forest. The MR designation does not change the underlying Management Area designation established in the Forest Plan. Timber harvest and other activities are allowed (but often deferred) as long as Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for pileated woodpeckers are followed.

d. Pileated Woodpecker Habitat

On the east side of the Cascades, pileated woodpeckers occupy late seral stages of all forested environments, particularly in areas where snags for nesting and foraging, down logs and large hollow trees are abundant (Wisdom et al. 2000). Pileated woodpecker density was best predicted by density of snags > 20” dbh (Bull and Holthausen 1993) and woodpecker abundance increased with the amount of unlogged forest with canopy closures that exceeded 60%. Pileated woodpeckers are large birds (up to 20” long, Bull and Jackson 2011) so require large snags in which to nest and roost: turning a pileated woodpecker sideways provides an approximate diameter of a tree needed to support a nest. Densities of nesting pileated woodpeckers were positively correlated with increasing amounts of late-structural-stage forest and negatively correlated with areas dominated by nearly pure stands of ponderosa pine, or regeneration harvest within the previous 30 years (Bull et al. 2007). Though pileated woodpecker numbers were negatively correlated with nearly pure stands of ponderosa pine, in the Blue Mountains of Oregon, typical nests were in ponderosa pine or western larch snags with broken tops and little remaining bark (Bull 1987). Nests, especially those in ponderosa pine, were primarily in mixed-conifer stands. Pileated woodpeckers will also nest in large hardwoods. The negative correlation with ponderosa pine stands might have stemmed from the lack of abundant snags and down wood necessary for foraging (Bull et al. 2007). Pileated woodpeckers forage on large live trees, snags and down logs (Bull 1987) and in the Blue Mountains preferred ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir and western larch (Bull and Holthausen 1993). We define potential foraging habitat as areas with the potential to grow large trees, generally on more moist sites. We define potential nesting habitat as areas with the potential to grow large trees of the size that pileated woodpeckers need for nesting. Existing conditions for both are less than potential and include snags levels and the effects of past disturbance.

e. American Marten and American Three-toed Woodpecker Management Requirement Areas

The American Marten and American Three-toed Woodpecker MR (PM MR) areas were combined during development of the Forest Plan and distributed at intervals of 2 to 2.5 miles across the Forest (except where overlapping with the larger areas described above). The intent was to insure that marten and three-toed woodpecker habitat needs were addressed across the

33

landscape. Each PM MR areas is to consist of 160 acres of mature or older coniferous forest. As with PW MR areas, PM MR designations do not change the underlying Management Area established in the Forest Plan, and management activities are permitted as long as other Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines are followed. In practice, PM MR areas are usually laid out and managed one of two ways, either a dedicated area, or in a three unit rotational scheme with the “A” block providing the best current habitat and the “B” and “C” blocks consisting of lesser quality habitat that could be managed to provide better conditions for the future. Although not prohibited under the Forest Plan, timber harvest and other activities are often deferred within the dedicated or “A” blocks of PM MR areas to ensure that the existing habitat conditions for American marten and American three-toed woodpeckers are maintained. Because of how the grid system was created, many PM MR locations fell in warm, dry habitats that do not support American marten or American three-toed habitat, both of which occupy colder, higher-elevation habitats. The PM MR areas in these warmer, drier environments are managed for general late and old stand characteristics of more xeric sites rather than for marten or American three-toed woodpeckers.

f. American Marten Habitat

Because the MR distributions would not assure viability of American marten across the landscape, we also analyze for effects to American marten habitat outside of the MRs. American marten are strongly associated with dense stands of older trees in colder, high-elevation habitats with abundant snags and down wood. Cavities in large trees and down logs provide natal and maternal den sites and resting sites. We define potential American marten habitat as areas in colder environments with dense stands of larger trees.

g. American Three-toed Woodpecker Habitat

American three-toed woodpeckers are widely distributed throughout the boreal forests of North America (Bock and Bock 1974). Old-growth spruce-fir and lodgepole pine forests appear to represent the core habitat for the American three-toed woodpecker (Wiggins 2004). American three-toed woodpeckers primarily feed on various stages of beetles, both bark and boring, in dead and decaying trees. Numbers of birds peak in areas where recent disturbance has caused widespread mortality of conifers, though individuals can occur wherever beetles have infested trees. The variety of trees on which they forage suggests that they respond to availability of forage rather than type of tree (Wiggins 2004). For nesting, American three-toed woodpeckers in western North America prefer unlogged, mature or old-growth coniferous forests (Leonard 2001), or forests that have been disturbed, other than by logging. They nest primarily in snags but also infrequently in live trees; nest trees generally are infected by heartrot (Goggans et al. 1988, in Leonard, 2001). A few nests have been found in ponderosa pine and aspen, which indicates that they can shift habitats to exploit food resources.

34

They occupy colder, high-elevation habitats similar to American marten but are not affected much by the understory, so much of the sea of lodgepole pine and larch that provides marginal marten habitat provides better American three-toed woodpecker habitat, provided sufficient snags exist for both nesting and foraging.

2. Affected Environment The Continuation of Interim Management Direction Establishing Riparian, Ecosystem and Wildlife Standards for Timber Sales (USDA Forest Service 1994) established additional direction to ensure that connectivity was maintained between these mature and old growth habitat areas (MA 1s and MRs) to facilitate species movements across the larger landscape of the CNF. For additional information regarding these areas, refer to the Forest Plan (Chapter 4 and Appendix F of the FEIS). Subsequent research provided insight that the MR system would not be adequate to maintain viable populations of woodpeckers or American marten. Therefore, in addition to analyzing conditions and effects to the MR grid, we also analyze for conditions in and effects to habitats that could support the above-listed species. Discussions of barred owl (MA 1) and PM MR and PW MR areas and planning-area-wide conditions are based on field observations and interpretation of aerial and satellite imagery. Barred owl habitat and MA 1 areas are shown in Figure 4 and pileated woodpecker and American marten/American three-toed woodpecker MRs within the project area are shown in Figure 5.

a. Existing MA 1 Area and Associated Barred Owl Foraging Area

Two MA 1 but no barred owl foraging areas exist in the project area. Neither of the areas could support more barred owl habitat than they currently do. The western-most MA1 does not contain any barred owl habitat in its 715 acres because it consists of colder, higher elevation environments that barred owls do not occupy. The eastern MA1 contains about 180 acres of foraging habitat in its nearly 870 acres. The remainder of this MA1 consists of environments that are too cold or too dry to provide barred owl habitat.

b. Barred Owl Habitat

Barred owls occupy the project area. We identified about 2,700 acres of potential barred owl habitat, primarily along the major creeks and associated uplands in the project area (Figure 4). About 85% of potential habitat currently provides foraging and/or nesting habitat, so adequate habitat exists in the project area. The areas that could but currently do not provide habitat have been harvested in the past. Because barred owls generally occupy stands with larger tree sizes and more closed canopies, it will be several decades before the harvested areas again provide habitat. Quality of habitat varies considerably. Of the 1,030 acres of nesting habitat, about 60% consists of good-to-adequate habitat (large trees with closed or relatively closed canopy) with the remaining 40% consisting of older stands of primarily lodgepole pine (Table 4). The lodgepole pine stands will not grow into good habitat and probably would provide better habitat over the long term if they were partially harvested.

35

Table 4. Barred owl habitat conditions in Sherman.

Habitats Acres % of potential habitat All Foraging 1,240 47% % of foraging Good 180 7% 15% Adequate 790 30% 64% Marginal 260 10% 21% All Nesting 1,030 39% % of nesting Good 220 8% 21% Adequate 430 16% 42% Marginal 380 14% 37% Not habitat due to harvest 350 13% Roads 40 2% Grand Total 2,660 100%

About 80% of the foraging habitat conditions are either good or adequate. Again, the marginal habitat primarily consists of even-aged, older lodgepole pine stands that might provide better habitat over the long term if they were partially harvested.

Figure 4. Barred owl habitat in Sherman.

c. Existing Pileated Woodpecker MRs

Portions of 3 pileated woodpecker MRs (PW MR) occur in the project area. All were placed during planning for previous projects and their locations were determined by the grid system used in the Forest Plan and 2 highlight the shortcomings of using the grid system to provide habitat to maintain the viability of pileated woodpeckers on the CNF. Neither the western-most PW MR (74), which consists of a reproduction area only, nor the northern PW MR (14), which consists of a foraging area (another foraging area and the reproduction area lie north of the project area) contain any pileated woodpecker habitat because they are located in environments that are too cold and dry. The nearest adequate habitat closest to the westernmost PW MR lies

36

more than a mile away. The nearest potential habitat in the northern PW MR lies just to the west, or to the north and outside the project area. Habitat for PW MR 18 Acres % Good nesting & foraging 140 25% Adequate nesting & foraging 220 39% Foraging, previously harvested 20 4% Foraging, small and/or open 180 32% Total 570

Nearly all of PW MR 18, in the southeast quarter of the project area, could support pileated woodpecker habitat, and nearly 70% provides good nesting and/or foraging habitat. The remaining 30% consists of smaller or more open stands that provide marginal habitat.

Figure 5: American marten (PM) and pileated woodpecker (PW) MR areas in Sherman.

One pileated woodpecker MR has not been established. It lies in a MA11, and area not scheduled for timber harvest in the Forest Plan, and this MR area will not be delineated during planning for this project. Additionally, the grid location places it in cold mesic or dry environments, which pileated woodpeckers do not inhabit.

d. Pileated Woodpeckers

Pileated woodpeckers inhabit the project area and their oblong excavations, but no nests, were recorded during surveys for this project. Nearly half of the project area (16,700 acres) contains stands that could support either nesting or foraging habitat; the remaining areas are too dry and open to support trees, or too high in elevation to support pileated woodpeckers (Figure 6 and Table 5). Habitat quality varies considerably: stands with a fairly closed canopy that also contain high numbers of large snags (> 21”) used for nesting are in short supply due to a combination of past fires and timber harvest. Most large snags created by stand-replacing fires of the last century

37

have since fallen. Nearly a third of the potential habitat of large, remnant trees has been harvested since the 1950s. Many of the remnant trees that survived past fires were removed with a variety of treatments and strategies, none of which attempted to maintain snags. The near-to-mid-term future potential to provide large snags has been considerably reduced because many of the past treatments removed large trees, which could have become large snags. Due primarily to past fires, areas that were not harvested support few large trees, and by extension few large snags, which is reflected in the low acreage of old growth in the project area. In the recent past and currently, Douglas-fir bark beetles have killed and continue to kill pockets of medium-sized and larger trees which could provide some nesting habitat, but usually these trees provide foraging habitat because trees killed by beetles generally die too quickly to develop heart-rot fungi. (A hollow tree is created from heartwood-decay fungi while the tree is alive. Once dead, the decaying fungus also dies and subsequent fungi species decompose the tree without creating a large mid-bold rot pocket.) Increasing mountain pine beetle mortality generally does not lead to snags used by pileated woodpeckers for nesting because lodgepole pines in this area generally do not grow sufficiently large. These trees are sometimes used for foraging, but usually not by pileated woodpeckers.

Table 5. Pileated woodpecker habitat condition in Sherman.

Habitat Acres % Best nesting & foraging 1,110 7% Adequate nesting & foraging 5,260 32% Foraging, previously harvested 3,300 20% Foraging, small and/or open 4,960 30% Unsuitable due to past harvest 1,890 11% Permanently unsuitable 170 1% Total acres of pileated habitat 16,690 100%

Less than 10% of the potential habitat consists of good nesting habitat, though adequate habitat capable of supporting snags covers nearly 40% of the potential habitat. A considerable amount of potential habitat consists of small, open, or small and open stands that provide marginal quality habitat for foraging, and nearly none for nesting. Much of the unharvested stands that contain smaller trees support lodgepole pine, which do not provide good foraging or nesting habitat. Improving this habitat would require management by fire, timber harvest or both that would retain the larger overstory trees, remove the smaller understory trees, and retain snags For American marten, PM MR 71 surrounds 200 acres, of which 180 acres (90%) could support marten habitat of some sort (Figure 7). Currently, about 25 acres support good habitat, another 160 support marginal habitat consisting of smaller trees, primarily lodgepole pine, and 15 acres consists of cover that providers corridors during the summer only. PM MR 73 surrounds 160 acres, of which 120 acres (75%) could support marten habitat. Currently, about 25 acres provide good habitat, another 80 acres provide good cover but have been harvested so the snag and down wood components are probably marginal, and another 10 acres consists of marginal, open stands of smaller trees. Neither of these probably contain sufficient habitat to support a breeding pair of marten on their own.

38

Figure 6. Pileated woodpecker habitat in Sherman.

For three-toed woodpeckers, about 190 acres (95%) of PM MR 71 could support three-toed woodpecker habitat, and nearly all does (Figure 7). Nearly 15% of the area consists of larger trees that provide nesting habitat, and nearly 80% contains stands of primarily lodgepole pine that provide foraging habitat. Less than 5% consists of habitat that is too open, due to past harvest, to provide habitat. About 120 acres (75%) of PM MR 73 could support three-toed woodpecker habitat and it all does: about 10 acres contain foraging habitat, 25 acres nesting habitat, and 85 acres foraging and nesting habitat that has been harvested so lacks snags for nesting. Two American marten MRs have not been established. Both lie in environments that provide marten and American three-toed woodpecker habitat. However, they also lie in areas not scheduled for timber harvest in the Forest Plan, and these MR areas will not be delineated during planning for this project.

f. American Marten

American marten had been trapped in the Kettle Crest for more than a century, though little trapping of them has occurred since the 1990s. Most of marten trapping occurred at higher elevations along the Crest proper, or on the moister, east side, particularly between Albian Hill and Mount Leona, north of Sherman Highway. Both the Forest Service and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife have conducted snow tracking surveys along the Albian Hill (2020) and Bulldog-Cabin (6113) roads between Sherman and Boulder/Deer highway since the early 1990s and recorded between 0 and 5 American marten tracks each survey. In the project area, marten do not occur in much of the available habitat, possibly because much of the habitat consists of drier, harsher environments that do not provide the tree size classes or support the habitat heterogeneity that marten require. Most marten tracks have been recorded from older stands adjacent to the 1988 White Mountain fire, though this is a result of most winter human traffic being in that area, which is a popular back-country skiing site, rather than this area supporting the best habitat. Nearly 18,000 acres, or slightly more than half of the project area consists of cooler or colder biophysical environments that could or do support marten habitat (Figure 8, Table 6). The large

39

fires that swept through the west in the early part of the last century destroyed large patches of American marten habitat, including swaths on the Kettle Crest with fingers into the Sherman project area. Since then, harvest of the large, remaining overstory trees in the mid elevations also negatively affected American marten habitat by removing large trees and snags that American marten use for feeding and reproducing. Additionally, snags created during those fires have mostly fallen or were harvested shortly afterwards, so these important elements of American marten habitat are rare or absent over large areas. However, forested stands have grown more closed and the trees larger, and currently much of the area burned in the early 1900s provides functional marten habitat, though remain low in both den trees and down wood.

Figure 7. Existing American marten MR areas in Sherman. Scale is 1:22,000.

American marten habitat

American three-toed woodpecker habitat Slightly more than 75% of the nearly 18,000 acres that could support marten habitat contains habitat of marginal but functional value to American marten. Much of it lies at the higher

40

elevations and in the MA4 and MA11 on both sides of the Kettle Crest. Distribution of patches of habitat is good.

Table 6. American marten habitat conditions in the 17,970 acres of potential habitat in Sherman.

Habitat types Unharvested Past harvest Total Good habitat, large trees 25% 2% 27% Marginal, medium-sized trees, closed canopy 37% 3% 40% Marginal, medium-sized trees, open canopy 5% 5% 10% Corridor, habitat in summer only 5% 3% 8% Burned, not habitat 9% N/A* 9% Harvested, not habitat N/A* 7% 7% Totals 73% 27% 100%

* Not applicable About 30% of the potential habitat contains trees of larger sizes that tend to provide the snag and down wood component for good marten habitat, and only about 10% of these larger-tree stands have been harvested (the large snag component is lacking in these stands). Nearly half of potential habitat is of marginal quality, primarily consisting of stands of smaller trees established during the fires of the previous century. About 80% of these stands are dense, which impedes growth, with the remainder being more open and supporting poorer habitat. Down wood in these stands varies greatly, and few large snags exist. Many of these stands would be good candidates for regeneration harvest, as most of these stands will not grow into good marten habitat.

Figure 8. Potential American marten habitat in Sherman.

Of the nearly 25% of the potential habitat that currently is not marten habitat, about a third has been harvested so intensely that it no longer supports marten habitat, another third burned in the White Mountain Fire in 1988, and the final third consists of stands of fairly open, large trees that

41

could act as corridors in summer but not winter. Though the burned area currently does not provide marten habitat, it will provide good marten habitat in the future as the stands mature; the down wood component is excellent in most of this area.

g. American three-toed woodpeckers

The amount and distribution of foraging and nesting habitat in the project area is good at higher elevations both north and south of Sherman highway, reflective of the continuous distribution of colder environments at higher elevations.

Table 7. American three-toed woodpecker habitat condition in Sherman.

Habitat condition Not HV HV Nesting 22% 2% Foraging 50% 7% Not habitat due to past harvest

6%

Not habitat, burned 14% Totals 85% 15%

Acres 11,310 1,970

Figure 9. Three-toed woodpecker habitat in Sherman.

About 13,300 acres, or 40% of the project area, have the potential to support American three-toed woodpecker habitat in the project area (Figure 9 and Table 7). Sufficient nesting and foraging habitat exists to maintain three-toed woodpeckers. Of potential habitat, slightly less than 25% consists of large, closed-canopy overstory trees that could provide nesting habitat; about 55% consists of closed-canopy medium- and pole-sized trees that could provide foraging habitat (potential nesting habitat also provides foraging habitat); and about 20% consists of stands that could support three-toed habitat but currently do not because of either past harvest or fire (about a third of these acres consist of past harvest and the other two-thirds of areas burned during the White Mountain fire).

42

3. Environmental Consequences a. Effects to Pileated Woodpecker habitat

The No Action alternative would not propose timber harvest, thus would not result in the loss of any snags. This alternative would also not thin the understories of dense stands, but would retain the intense competition by trees for resources, which stresses large trees, decreases growth rates, and increases mortality of large trees. This series of events would slightly increase habitat quality for pileated woodpeckers in the short term (increased mortality yields more snags) but decrease it in the long term as the flush of large snags fall and few large trees remain on the landscape. It would also set the stage for a large stand-replacing fire, which would create a flush of and then eliminate pileated woodpecker habitat for several decades. Nearly 60% of the potential nesting and foraging habitat would be affected by harvest or prescribed fire. Prescribed fire not associated with timber harvest and precommercial thinning would improve pileated woodpecker habitat by reducing understory smaller trees, which should allow residual trees more access to light and moisture, which should translate into faster growth into potential nesting trees. Prescribed fire would also create about 1-to-2 larger snags per acre, which would slightly improve foraging habitat. Ladder fuel reduction not associated with timber harvest or prescribed fire would not affect large trees, thus would not affect pileated woodpecker habitat. Commercial harvest in 74 units is proposed on about 40% of existing good and adequate nesting and foraging habitat. Of these, about 730 acres in 30 acres, or slightly more than 10% of the good and adequate nesting and foraging habitat, would be harvested using cable-based systems so would not be able to work around most snag pockets. Most of these acres, if snag pockets exist on them, would no longer support good nesting or foraging pileated woodpecker habitat. The remaining units in good and adequate nesting and foraging habitat would be harvested with ground-based systems. Harvest should be able to work around most snag pockets. Though snags in these units will be felled, the areas would still retain sufficient snags to support pileated woodpeckers. Any snags > 16” dbh felled for safety or other reasons would remain in the unit as down wood, unless the area is open to firewood harvest or if the fuel loading exceeds a threshold determined by the fuels specialist for the project. Though about 40% of the nesting and foraging habitat would be affected by harvest, harvest would retain live trees greater than 21” dbh so would not affect trees that will eventually die and could become nest trees. Important patches of large cedar, generally confined to stream bottoms, would not be harvested. Combined, the effects of commercial harvest, which would reduce but not eliminate large snags used for nesting and foraging because pockets of snags would be retained, and prescribed fire, which would slightly increase the number of snags for foraging, would not negatively affect the viability of pileated woodpeckers across the planning area (Youkey, 2012).

b. Effects to Pileated Woodpecker MRs

In the established pileated woodpecker MR in the southeast part of the planning area, commercial harvest consisting of commercial thinning with a mosaic of openings is proposed on about 210 acres, or slightly more than 10% of the good pileated woodpecker habitat in the MR.

43

The intent is to open the stand, retain patches of snags, and reduce competition for the residual larger trees. About 23 acres are proposed for cable yarding, which would probably eliminate most of the large snags on this acreage. Though the loss of these snags would not negatively affect pileated woodpecker populations, they do not meet the intent of management in the pileated woodpecker MR.

c. Effects to American marten habitat

In the short term, the No Action alternative would not affect American marten positively or negatively. In the long term, existing successional processes would continue and more of the single-story stands dominated by lodgepole pine would mature, die, and fall over, and in many places be replaced by spruce and subalpine fir. Once these stands grew to maturity, they would provide American marten habitat. Management activities will affect about 17% of the adequate American marten habitat in the planning area (Table 8). Non-commercial treatments will affect about 9% and commercial timber harvest about 8%. The non-commercial treatments consist of prescribed fire, ladder fuel reduction in the understory, precommercial thinning and small pole thinning. Because these activities affect smaller-diameter trees, they will not negatively affect marten’s use of the area because the larger down woody material that marten use for hunting and for cover will remain on site. Additionally, riparian areas along which marten travel will remain intact. Any snags > 16” dbh felled for safety or other reasons, and any down wood > 16” on the butt end, will remain in the unit unless the fuel loading exceeds a threshold determined by the fuels specialist for the project or the area is open to public firewood harvest (per the CNF Firewood Map).

Table 8. Proposed harvest in marten habitat in the Sherman Pass project area.

Adequate habitat only Commercial Non-commercial Total # of units proposed 27 42 69 Total acres proposed to harvest 1070 1250 2310 % of existing habitat 8% 9% 17% All habitat* Commercial Non-commercial Total # of units proposed 28 70 98 All potential marten habitat 1110 2950 4060 % of potential marten habitat 6% 16% 23% * Consists of Adequate, Marginal, Corridors only, and Unsuitable due to past harvest

This project attempts to provide defensible space during a landscape-level fire and as such does not attempt to mimic some of the natural disturbance patterns at the edge of the mixed-severity and high-severity zones. The mountain pine beetle outbreak is eliminating large expanses of mediocre American marten habitat at the higher elevations. Both commercial and non-commercial harvest along the

44

Sherman highway will dramatically open the stands when the dead lodgepole pine are removed. We surveyed the group of units near the large switchbacks just east of Sherman Pass in February, 2014, and did not record marten tracks in the area. The commercial units will vary in their effects, but most of the short-term effects will be negative because closed stands are being opened, and marten generally avoid openings. The proposed commercial harvests lie at the edge of areas both in the watershed and on the Kettle Crest that support marten habitat, which decreases but doesn’t eliminate the negative effects to marten of the large amount of American marten habitat being proposed for harvest. Nearly all proposed harvest will retain various-sized patches of unharvested trees, which will decrease the medium-term negative effects to American marten by providing islands of habitat in the matrix of young stands. Additionally, in the medium-term, lodgepole pine, spruce and subalpine fir that grow in the openings will begin to provide snowshoe hare habitat within a few decades, and because American marten eat snowshoe hares, the areas proposed for harvest could again support low-quality American marten habitat within a few decades. The effects of proposed commercial harvest units to adequate American marten habitat within the project boundary will not dramatically decrease available habitat for American marten, and the proposed project will not eliminate marten from the project area or threaten their viability on the Kettle Crest because sufficient habitat remains in the unroaded area within the project area boundary, the unroaded area is contiguous with marten habitat on the rest of the Kettle Crest, and riparian areas and other corridors will retain sufficient habitat so that marten can move through them.

d. Effects to American three-toed woodpecker habitat

The No Action alternative would not change American three-toed woodpecker use of the area over the existing condition. More snags would remain on the landscape on which they could forage compared to the proposed action. However, the abundance of beetles in the watershed in trees that will not be affected by harvest might exceed the ability of American three-toed woodpeckers to numerically respond. In either case, the increase would not change viability of American three-toed woodpeckers. Unlike effects to American marten, the effects of the proposed project on American three-toed woodpeckers would not be as severe. These birds nest in large snags (or live trees with heartrot), forage for the abundant beetles in the planning area, and can fly between habitat patches. Of the nearly 10,700 acres of habitat currently capable of supporting American three-toed woodpeckers, activities are proposed in 44 units that cover about 1,790 acres. We excluded effects to areas that currently do not support three-toed woodpecker habitat (generally areas previously harvested and older burned areas) and areas where management activities would not affect either foraging or nesting trees (precommercial thinning units and ladder fuels reduction units). The 29 proposed units in nesting habitat that would be yarded using ground-based equipment probably would not affect many nest trees because the larger live trees are not proposed for harvest and would remain on site, and equipment could move around patches of potential nest trees (snags) (though some snags would be felled). Habitat in these units would decline in quality but not be eliminated.

45

About 120 acres of nesting habitat in 7 proposed units would be yarded using aerial (generally cable) equipment. Nesting habitat in these units is expected to be nearly eliminated because though larger live trees are not proposed for harvest, cable yarding generally cannot move around patches of potential nest trees (snags). This loss amounts to about 4% of existing nesting habitat and would not negatively affect American three-toed woodpeckers. About 600 acres in 24 units in American three-toed woodpecker habitat have proposed treatments that include underburning. In these units, habitat quality will improve slightly. The targeted amount of burned area is about 70% of a unit, and underburning generally creates about 1 snag per acre. We estimated that at minimum about 50% of a unit would be burned, with snags being created on these areas, so at minimum about 300 acres of habitat would be improved. Additionally, the several thousand acres of lodgepole pine that are being killed by mountain pine beetle are providing a flush of foraging habitat for three-toed woodpeckers, and the majority of that habitat is not being harvested.

e. Effects to Pine Marten/American Three-toed Woodpecker MRs

Because no activities are proposed in the 2 American marten/American Three-toed Woodpecker MRs in the project area that actually contain habitat for either species, neither the no action alternative or the proposed action would affect habitat for either of these species in MRs 71 or 73.

f. Effects to Barred Owl Habitat

The No Action alternative will not affect barred owls. Over the long term, compared to the proposed action, the No Action alternative would retain young stands proposed for harvest and allow them to grow into larger-diameter stands that could support barred owls, though not as rapidly as had they been thinned as proposed. Management is proposed in 59 units covering about 1,740 acres that have the potential to support barred owl nesting or foraging habitat. Only 25 of these units, covering about 950 acres, are proposed in areas that currently support either foraging habitat or nesting habitat of marginal quality or better. The 9 units of small pole thinning that cover about 300 acres affect primarily foraging habitat. Another 4 units proposed for commercial thinning also primarily affect foraging habitat. Opening these stands would slightly decrease but not eliminate their quality as foraging habitat and would not negatively affect barred owl use of the project area. Six commercial thin units (2280149 and 2280229 in good nesting habitat and Units 2270081, 2270097, 2281098 and 2280174 in adequate nesting habitat) would affect about 140 acres of good and adequate nesting habitat and would result in stands probably more open than barred owls would use for nesting. Barred owls would use these stands for foraging. These stands comprise about 20% of the existing good and adequate nesting habitat in the project area. Most of these units lie just west of the Canyon Creek campground and are surrounded by other areas of existing nesting cover. Though the proposed units would decrease the amount of nesting cover, the amount remaining would be adequate to maintain barred owls in the project area.

46

g. Effects to Existing MA 1 Area and Associated Barred Owl Foraging Area

The no action alternative and the proposed action will have the same effects to MA 1 areas and associated barred owl foraging areas: no units area planned in either. All of the westernmost MA 1 and much of the eastern one cannot support barred owl habitat because the environments in which it lies are too cold.

h. Effects to Habitat Connectivity

We identified and mapped potential corridors between MRs and throughout the project area (Figure 10). The better corridors generally lie in cooler and moister environments along streams and the north faces of east-west-trending ridges, where higher moisture and generally better soils allow for more dense vegetation to grow. All corridors provide conditions that are sufficiently dense for mammals to move through during summer when deciduous leaves provide much of the lateral cover, but not all of them support dense cover in the autumn, after the leaves have fallen, or winter and early spring. Proposed prescribed fire will be allowed to burn through them, which could temporarily reduce their quality for mammals, but not birds. The No Action alternative does not propose any harvest, prescribed fire or other management, thus in the short term would not affect travel corridors. In the long term, lack of prescribed fire and thinning would increase the potential for a landscape-level fire, which would dramatically decrease or eliminate cover over a large area.

Figure 10. Effects of prescribed fire and harvest on cover in corridors.

In the Proposed Action, cover that serves to hide marten would be reduced over large areas along Sherman Highway and in the spotty habitat around Fritz Creek. The riparian corridor along Pass Creek would also lose some cover where the 2020 road intersects it. Within a few years after harvest the combination of regrowth and remaining down woody material would provide sufficient cover to allow marten to move across portions of the proposed harvest units along Pass Creek and Sherman highway during spring, summer and autumn, but aside from untreated dense habitat along the riparian stringers, the areas would remain too open for marten to move through during the snows of winter.

47

American three-toed and pileated woodpeckers can, of course, fly between habitat patches so are not affected by proposed harvest units.

4. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects area for these species consists of the Colville National Forest. The Forest Plan established a network of areas across the Forest designed to retain and promote the development of late and old forest habitat conditions that would provide habitat for barred owls, pileated woodpeckers, American marten and American three-toed woodpeckers. It recognized that these habitat conditions could not be provided or maintained everywhere within a managed forest landscape and that some suitable and existing habitat areas could be impacted by management activities. This network was designed to ensure the retention of suitable amounts of habitat, well distributed across the Forest, to provide for these species over the long term. Since then, the theory behind and practice of placing these areas has indicated that this network would not ensure the persistence of these species, primarily American marten and American three-toed woodpeckers, across the landscape. Thus, we also determine effects to these species by considering the impacts to each of their habitats. In the short term the No Action alternative does not negatively affect populations of pileated woodpecker, American three-toed woodpeckers, American marten or barred owls because no landscape would be altered. In the longer term, no action would provide better habitat for American marten than the proposed action by allowing succession to move smaller-diameter trees to grow into larger trees and shade-tolerant trees to replace early successional species (both of which produce better American marten habitat). On and near the Kettle Crest, it is imperative that habitats for American marten and, to a lesser extent, American three-toed woodpeckers (because they can fly between habitat patches) be linked to the source habitats on the Kettle Crest, in high-elevation areas that are not subject to timber harvest. The current project lies in the middle of the semi-primitive, unroaded management area on the Kettle Crest and habitats in the planning area are contiguous with those on the Kettle Crest. Though the proposed action would temporally reduce the effectiveness of the corridors on the Crest, the no action alternative would yield about the same results as the overstory lodgepole pine trees die and fall, with little understory to provide cover: the corridor would function in non-snow periods but would be too open for marten to use it during winter. Though the corridor would be reduced, it is one of several, and marten (the least mobile of these species) would still be able to move through the project and cumulative effects areas via other corridors. Under the current Forest Plan, the Colville National Forest has successfully protected and managed MR areas across a broad landscape. Implementation of the direction contained in the Eastside Screens (USDA Forest Service 1994) also helps insure that these habitat areas remain interconnected to facilitate species movement across the landscape. All these measures are designed to reduce any cumulative negative effects of management activities on barred owls, pileated woodpeckers, American marten and American three-toed woodpeckers and their habitats Forest-wide.

48

The Eastside Screens (USDA Forest Service 1994) directs most timber harvest activities on the Forest to retain LOS (late structure) stands and enhance younger stands toward LOS conditions. This helps insure the persistence of existing and development of other suitable habitat across the landscape for barred owls, pileated woodpeckers, American marten and American three-toed woodpeckers. The recent concentration on managing areas within the wildland/urban interface challenges managers to maintain habitat for those wildlife species that depend on late structure, and particularly those that depend on snags, while protecting private property from wildfire. In warm, dry habitats such as those found on the east and west sides of the project planning area, judicious timber harvest consisting of thinning smaller-diameter trees while leaving the larger, older canopy would either maintain or improve habitat conditions for pileated woodpeckers in the long term. However, they often will have a slightly negative short term effect to pileated woodpeckers due to loss of standing snags (assuming that those felled for safety during harvest would be left on site to contribute somewhat to foraging habitat). Several projects have recently been planned or are being implemented in the cumulative effects area. None of the existing and ongoing projects, nor any of the planned projects, proposes activities that would negatively affect the persistence of any of these species in each of the project areas, so no cumulative effects would negatively affect the viability of barred owls, pileated woodpeckers, American marten and American three-toed woodpeckers (Youkey, 2012).

5. Design Elements (DE) and/or mitigations (MI) Implement design elements 1 through 12, 19, 20 and 22. The intent of these design elements are to retain snags and large down wood, and retain important hardwoods.

C. Beaver 1. Introduction The USFS selected beaver as indicators of riparian areas dominated by aspen or willow. The habitat capability objective is improved habitat from 1980 conditions. The Forest Plan standards and guideline 4-40 (g) specifies that beaver habitat will be maintained or enhanced. Beavers generally occupy lower-gradient streams because dams on streams with steep gradients would not create large ponds and usually get blown out each year during the spring pulse of runoff. We modeled potential habitat based on lakes and streams with gradients less than 10 percent, though data from the Okanogan/Wenatchee NF indicate that most beaver habitations occur on locations with gradients less than 2% (K. Woodruff, pers. comm.). On the Kettle Crest, beaver periodically occupy most low-gradient streams that feed the Kettle and Columbia Rivers, flooding areas and creating habitat, eating most of the palatable forage, and then dispersing to other locations. The palatable trees and shrubs recover, the dams often degrade and blow out, the area becomes habitable again for beavers, and an immigrating beaver restart the cycle.

49

Unlike many species for which we analyze, beavers benefit from intense removal of conifers because these trees compete with the main food item of beavers: hardwoods, primarily cottonwoods, aspen and willow.

2. Affected Environment Beaver sign is present on all low-gradient sections of major streams of the project area, though beaver do not currently occupy all sections. Beaver trapping has become more common as fur prices rise and the beavers along Sherman Creek are susceptible to trapping because they are easy to access. Though beaver inhabit many stream sections, habitat is poor along most of the streams primarily because no large-scale disturbance has created conditions favorable to regeneration of aspen and cottonwood.

3. Environmental Consequences The No Action alternative would not allow removal of conifers in areas of aspen or cottonwood and would not create any disturbance, so would not set the stage for maintenance or regeneration of these hardwoods that are beneficial to beavers. The proposed project would have a very small, positive effect to beaver habitat in some of the riparian units but probably would not result in a measurable change in the beaver population. Harvest would retain aspen and cottonwood greater than 10 inches dbh. Prescribed fires would affect some of the area, which might stimulate some growth of either cottonwood or aspen.

4. Cumulative Effects and Conclusion The No Action alternative would not affect beaver or beaver habitat but would allow succession to proceed, which eventually would cause most early-successional hardwood species on which beaver depend to be replaced by conifers, thus would decrease beaver habitat quality. This project would not contribute to cumulative effects to beaver because it has little positive and no negative effects to beaver or beaver habitat, so viability of beavers would not be affected by this project (Youkey, 2012).

5. Design Elements (DE) and/or mitigations (MI) Implement design element 22. The intent of this design element is to retain hardwoods important to beaver.

D. Dusky (Blue) Grouse 1. Introduction In 2006, the American Ornithological Union split blue grouse into 2 species, dusky grouse (Cascades and eastward) and sooty grouse (Cascades and westward); the species that occurs in this area is dusky grouse (Banks et al. 2006). The USFS selected dusky grouse as a management indicator species due to its dependence on winter roost habitat and nesting habitat. The habitat capability objective is to maintain dusky grouse roosting and nesting habitat quality and quantity. Forest Plan standard and guideline 4-40 (e) states that dusky grouse habitat should be managed by providing a minimum of eight mature, “limby” Douglas-fir or subalpine fir trees per acre on

50

or near ridge-tops in park-like or open timber stands. It also states that hiding cover around at least 50 percent of the perimeter of springs or other water sources should be maintained with no break in cover exceeding 600 lineal feet along the edge of water. Nesting and brood habitat consists of open, park-like stands at mid elevations, generally above 2,500 feet. These park-like stands were often maintained by fire. In winter, dusky grouse tend to occupy open, park-like stands along ridgelines, where they roost in Douglas-fir or subalpine fir and feed on needles of coniferous trees (Pelren and Crawford 1997, Perkins et al. 1991). This habitat is important because winter is the “bottleneck” period when food resources usually are lowest but energy demands on the birds are greatest. Overlap exists between the upper elevation ranges of nesting/brood-rearing habitat and the lower elevations of winter roosting habitat. Elements used to determine effects to dusky grouse include:

Nesting and brood habitat, and Winter habitat

2. Affected Environment The entire project area except for a portion on the eastside, in the lowest elevations, could provide either summer or winter habitat for dusky grouse. The Kettle Crest was known to hold good populations of these birds and hunters considered a good area for these birds. The dusky grouse population throughout northeast Washington has declined in the past 2 decades, and though no single cause has been identified, in the project area lack of fire to keep stands open and noxious weed encroachment reduce habitat quality and quantity (S. Zender, pers. comm. 2006).

Figure 11. Dusky grouse nesting and brood rearing habitat in Sherman.

a. summer nesting/brood-rearing habitat

The entire project area, except for some of the driest sites primarily on the northeast side of the project area, could provide summer habitat. Most does not because it supports trees that are too dense to supply conditions for nesting or brood rearing. Currently, about 9,700 acres, or slightly less than a third of the potential habitat in the project area, consists of open, park-like stands that dusky grouse would use for nesting and brood rearing (Figure 11). About 4% of existing nesting and brood-rearing habitat are open due to past harvest and thus supply transitional habitat that will at some point grow too closed to provide this habitat. On the remaining two-thirds of the

51

potential habitat, the lack of disturbance, primarily fires, has allowed stands to grow into denser habitat, more suitable to ruffed grouse or spruce grouse. The upper elevations of nesting/brood-rearing habitat can also provide habitat for dusky grouse in winter.

b. winter roosting habitat

Habitat for dusky grouse in winter lies at mid and higher elevations, either in the subalpine fir zone generally above 4,500 feet elevation or down to about 4,000 feet on south- or west-facing open slopes. Using aerial photos, topographical maps and field surveys, we identified about 12,940 acres of area that could support roosting habitat (Figure 12). About 75% of the area consists of stands of smaller trees (primarily dense lodgepole pine or western larch) that are far too dense to support roosting habitat (Table 9) and is a result primarily of lack of fires at higher elevations combined with past harvest at mid elevations. Past harvest removed large overstory trees that dusky grouse use for roosting, and lack of fires to kill small trees and maintain open stands of larger trees have allowed small trees to crowd stands. About 930 acres of roosting habitat exist in the project area, of which about 60 acres have been previously harvested but retained enough trees to provide roosing habitat. More than 15% of the potential habitat burned during the White Mountain fire and no longer provides roosting habitat.

Table 9. Winter dusky grouse habitat in Sherman.

Habitat type Acres % of potential Previously harvested % previously harvested Roosting 930 7% 60 7% Dense 9,710 74% 0 0% Small/Young* 2450 19% 90 4% All 13,090

150

Figure 12. Existing and potential dusky grouse winter roosting habitat in Sherman.

52

Thinning of smaller understory trees and prescribed fire could open dense stands, and if the large overstory trees remained, could improve dusky grouse roosting habitat. Thinning some stands of smaller trees could move those stands more quickly towards stands that support larger trees in a more open condition than if the stands were not harvested. However, the vast majority of potential roost stands lie in the MA11, in which timber harvest cannot take place, so unless we just thin and drop trees for wildlife (permitted in the Forest Plan), we cannot manage these stands.

3. Environmental Consequences a. nesting habitat

The No Action alternative will not alter any dusky grouse habitat, nor will it improve any. It would not apply prescribed fire or harvest, thus would allow stands with large trees to continue to develop an understory and further reduce dusky grouse nesting habitat. A severe stand replacing fire resulting from the lack of treatment would remove suitable dusky grouse habitat nesting habitat in the short term, but in the long term would improve habitat by opening stands. Portions of 337 units affecting about 15,110 acres of summer habitat are proposed in the project area. All these will benefit dusky grouse because they either open closed stands or rejuvenate stagnant shrubs, grasses and forbs in already open areas. About 5,260 acres in 115 units are proposed for commercial harvest with a range of opening sizes and amounts. Though all the commercial units would improve dusky grouse habitat, harvest in about 4,050 acres of dense stands in 99 units would improve habitat the most compared to stands that already provide summer or brood-rearing habitat. About 9,850 acres in 222 units are proposed for non-commercial harvest, consisting of ladder fuel reduction, precommercial thinning, and post-and-pole units (all would be followed by mechanical piling of residue, which is then burned, or by general underburning). The about 3,860 acres ladder fuel reduction units would not dramatically improve dusky grouse summer habitat because the intent is not to open the forest canopy much. Both the post-and-pole and precommercial thinning units would improve dusky grouse summer habitat because they do open the forest canopy, though the canopy consists of smaller trees. Another about 2,240 acres of mostly open areas are proposed for underburning without any other treatment. Because fire hasn’t visited most of these sites in decades, the proposed prescribed fires would improve conditions for dusky grouse but not as much as the opening of stands during commercial harvest. Most prescribed fires are conducted during the spring, when the risk of an escape is low. Spring fires usually are conducted before onset of nesting. Those that are not might temporarily reduce dusky grouse numbers: nesting females would escape the flames but the clutch could be lost. If the loss occurred prior to about June first, the birds might renest (Zwickel 1965). If not, this loss would not dramatically affect the dusky grouse population (compensatory rather than additive mortality). Though prescribed fire generally improves habitat conditions for dusky grouse, it can also set the stage for the spread of noxious weeds (Scherer et al. 2000). The extent and potential spread of weeds after cooler prescribed fires has not been well documented on the CNF, though is considerably lower than the spread of noxious weeds after hotter wildfire when vast areas of bare soil are created (Freeman et al. 2007).

53

No known wetlands lie in any summer habitat. Wetlands found during the course of layout and harvest would be buffered according to RHCA guidelines. Noxious weed spread into unaffected habitat probably constitutes the greatest long-term threat to dusky grouse. No new system roads are proposed for this project. Roads would be treated for noxious weeds for several years post-harvest (See noxious weed report for this project) and would decrease but not eliminate the noxious weeds from the area.

b. winter roosting habitat

The No Action alternative would not affect dusky grouse habitat either positively or negatively in the short term. In the longer term it would retain conditions that would more easily allow an insect outbreak or stand-replacement fire to destroy the stands of large, live Douglas-fir that provide winter roosting habitat. Additionally, it would not manage the dense stands that have the capacity to provide winter roosting habitat if they were opened and if the trees were to grow larger. None of the harvest treatments in the Proposed Action would dramatically, negatively affect roost trees because live trees greater than 21” dbh would not be harvested. Portions of 5 units covering 40 acres are proposed for commercial harvest in existing roosting habitat. Harvest in these stands would also retain large ponderosa pine trees and mistletoe-infected Douglas-fir trees, if they occur. Another 27 units covering nearly 800 acres are proposed for non-commercial treatments and these treatments would not negatively affect potential roosting trees. Prescribed fire in these units could kill a few roost trees, but the current intent of the prescribed fire is to keep it to an underburn, not a stand-replacement event. Commercial harvest is proposed on nearly 1,000 acres in 23 units of denser cover. Opening these stands could improve roosting habitat in a few years by removing the dense understories and retaining the large overstory trees, as proposed. Harvest in these stands would also retain large ponderosa pine trees and mistletoe-infected Douglas-fir trees, if they occur. Another 48 units in dense cover are proposed for non-commercial treatments that would not improve most of the stands’ ability to provide roosting habitat because the treatments would not sufficiently open the stands. The 11 units proposed for small pole thinning would set the stage for future foraging habitat by increasing growth of residual trees. About 2,700 acres are proposed for treatment in stands containing younger or smaller trees that currently do not provide roosting habitat. Commercial harvest in 20 units covering about 800 acres and precommercial thinning and small pole treatments in another 16 units would set the stage for the long-term development of roosting habitat. Treatment in other units in these smaller and younger stands would slightly improve long-term cover but most of the treatments involve reducing ladder fuels and would not greatly influence tree growth or development.

4. Cumulative Effects The area considered for cumulative effects analysis consists of the north-south-running Kettle Crest and fingers of higher elevation ridges running east and west off the Crest. Nearly no dusky grouse habitat exists on non-NFS land in the area because most non-NFS lands lie at elevations generally too low for roosting dusky grouse. Planned and completed FS projects are expected to

54

have minimal negative effects to dusky grouse because roost trees would be retained and wetlands buffered per Forest Plan direction. Past regeneration harvest on all land ownerships in the area reduced some dusky grouse habitat by removing large ponderosa pine or Douglas-fir, especially mistletoe-infested Douglas-fir, on open, dry, south-facing slopes, but again most of this occurred at elevations too low to be dusky grouse roosting habitat. The extent of this loss and the impact to dusky grouse are not known. On NFS land, where most dusky grouse habitat occurs, fire suppression resulted in a loss of habitat by allowing more open habitats preferred by dusky grouse to grow closed and thus little used by dusky grouse. The area to the north of the project area had been known for good dusky grouse hunting into the mid-1990s but hunting success has declined. The primary reason postulated is the decrease of open habitat and loss of roost trees, though no research has occurred to determine the cause of the decline. The No Action alternative does not affect dusky grouse in the short term. It would have a longer-term negative effect by allowing stands to close (thus reducing the amount of open habitat that dusky grouse prefer), increase stress on larger roost trees because of competition for light and moisture (which leads to loss of these roosting trees), and sets the stage for a large stand-replacing fire that would eliminate roosting habitat. Though this project does not propose new roads, roads built into dusky grouse habitat would increase the amount of noxious weeds and would decrease forage for dusky grouse. With or without this project, several species of noxious weeds will continue to invade, primarily from the non-NFS land at lower elevations. Roads will continue to be treated for at least Class A and B noxious weeds for several years post-harvest (See noxious weed report for this project) and would decrease but not eliminate the noxious weeds from the area. Depending on landowner and area, noxious weed treatment on non-NFS land ranges from good to non-existent. Future prescribed fires on both NFS and non-NFS land would enhance dusky grouse habitat by opening the understory and reducing competition for light and moisture by killing smaller trees and retaining roost trees but also has the potential to spread noxious weeds. Prescribed fire use on NFS land would be expected to follow the Forest noxious weed guidelines which would slow this spread somewhat. Four large fires that have affected the Kettle Crest since the late 1980s eliminated large patches of roosting habitat and created large blocks of transitory nesting and chick-rearing habitat. Much of this transitory habitat has grown too closed and now provides conditions more suitable for Franklin’s grouse. Since 1988, commercial harvest in projects on NFS land in the cumulative effects area have followed Forest Plan direction and have generally positively affected dusky grouse nesting and chick-rearing habitat. Harvest on nearly 800 acres of non-NFS land in potential winter roosting habitat has created conditions that are currently unsuitable for dusky grouse winter roosting. Nearly 1,270 acres of non-NFS land have been harvested in dusky grouse nesting habitat, which has either improved conditions or not negatively or positively affected them. In the nearly complete Kettle Face project, dusky grouse nesting and brooding habitat is being improved on

55

about 4,330 acres by harvesting smaller trees from stands containing larger trees and on another 7,780 acres by opening stands and stimulating forage. About 320 acres in the same project will improve conditions for winter roosting and feeding habitat by removing smaller trees from stands that contain larger trees. In the Walker project, dusky grouse nesting and brooding habitat would be improved on about 1,290 acres by harvesting smaller trees from stands containing larger trees and on another 90 acres by opening stands and stimulating forage. About 140 acres in the same project will improve conditions for winter roosting and feeding habitat by removing smaller trees from stands that contain larger trees via prescribed fires. The planned Deer Jasper project would improve habitat conditions on about 2,430 acres of dusky grouse habitat. The Orient and Sanpoil projects, currently in the planning phase, will also be managed to improve dusky grouse habitat.

5. Conclusions The No Action alternative does not affect dusky grouse habitat but would set the stage for a potential stand-replacing fire, which would improve nesting and foraging habitat by dramatically opening stands, but would eliminate winter roost habitat by killing the large ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir trees. The Proposed Action positively affects dusky grouse habitat. All units in dusky grouse habitat would open the understory and will enhance the existing stands for dusky grouse. No harvest would remove live trees 21” dbh or larger, so larger roost and forage trees will not be affected. The positive effects of fuel treatments slightly outweigh the negative effects of possible noxious weed spread. Viability of dusky grouse will not be negatively affected by this project (Youkey, 2012).

6. Design Elements (DE) and/or mitigations (MI) Implement design element 21. The intent is to ensure that there are a sufficient number of roosting trees for dusky grouse in roost habitat.

E. Spruce (Franklin's) Grouse 1. Introduction The USFS selected spruce (Franklin's) grouse as an indicator species to represent lodgepole pine-dependent species. The habitat capability objective is to approximate 1980 spruce grouse habitat conditions. Spruce grouse generally occupy colder habitats, often above 4000’ elevation in Washington, consisting of large stands of lodgepole pine that often started as a result of stand-replacement fires, or spruce (Seattle Audubon Society 2008). The Forest Plan (page 4-40) directs that large areas dominated by lodgepole pine stands be managed to maintain 20% in young age classes. (less than about 30 years old). We model potential spruce grouse habitat by examining the cooler and cold biophysical environments, and existing habitat by determining the conditions in these environments. Good spruce grouse habitat contains stands of young (generally < 30 year old) lodgepole pine, spruce and subalpine fir.

56

2. Affected Environment Potential spruce grouse habitat lies scattered across the mid and upper elevations of the project area, separated by blocks of drier subalpine fir biophysical environments that do not provide adequate habitat for spruce grouse (Figure 13). About half of the project area could and did support spruce grouse habitat (16,590 acres), but as succession moved along various pathways, stands initiated during the large disturbances of the early 1900s grew taller and now do not provide much spruce grouse habitat. Currently, less than 10% of the potential habitat supports good spruce grouse habitat (Table 10), nearly all of which occurs in the area of the White Mountain fire, where one is likely to encounter a brood during a summer hike around Sherman Peak. Past harvest units opened about 1,000 acres, which will grow into spruce grouse habitat within the next decade.

Table 10. Spruce grouse habitat conditions in Sherman.

Habitat condition Acres % of potential Good 2,190 9% Potential future 1,000 4% Older, past prime 13,400 87% Total 16,590

Figure 13. Potential spruce grouse habitat in Sherman.

3. Environmental Consequences The No Action alternative does not open stands and decrease habitat quality for spruce grouse, nor does it create early-successional habitat for spruce grouse via disturbance. It would retain on site the cones of lodgepole pine, which would result in a dense flush of lodgepole pine when the next stand-replacing fire burns through the area, resetting the clock for spruce grouse habitat. The Proposed Action contains a variety of activities that would enhance spruce grouse habitat, though not immediately: the openings created by disturbance have to regrow into young, dense stands of trees, which will take at least 7 years.

57

In existing good or fair spruce grouse habitat, 16 units covering about 640 acres are proposed for treatment. Untreated plots covering about 10% of the 2 precommercial thin units would be retained, which would provide some dense habitat, but habitat quality in all 16 units would be dramatically reduced. In young stands that could provide marginal spruce grouse habitat now, but which would grow into better habitat without management, 8 units covering about 160 acres are proposed. The 3 commercial thin units would nearly eliminate any spruce grouse habitat because the areas would be too open. The 110 acres of proposed precommercial thinning in 4 units would retain 10% of each unit in unthinned patches so though habitat quality would decline, habitat wouldn’t be eliminated. The 9 acres of small pole thinning in 1 unit would eliminate any existing spruce grouse habitat. Each unit would be moved to an earlier successional stage and would begin to develop into spruce grouse habitat again, starting about 4 years after treatment. In stands that do not currently provide spruce grouse habitat but could start to within a few years, as the trees grow taller (primarily in areas burned during the White Mountain Fire but also in a few old harvest units), commercial thinning is proposed in portions of 2 units covering about 20 acres and non-commercial treatments are proposed in 10 units covering about 310 acres. In all units, treatments would set back development towards spruce grouse habitat by opening the stands. Past harvest and the White Mountain Fire created large amounts of spruce grouse habitat, and the amount lost to treatment in marginal stands and stands that would have provided habitat within a few years would not preclude spruce grouse from occupying the project area. The greatest effect would be positive and would be a result of treatments in the expanse of stands initiated by the Dollar Mountain fire in 1929. Most of these stands could support spruce grouse but currently do not because they are too old. Slightly more than 6,000 acres are proposed for treatment, 62 units covering about 2,400 acres of commercial treatments and 109 units covering about 3,640 acres of non-commercial treatments. The commercial treatments would reset the clock for spruce grouse habitat, moving stands to an earlier successional stage and establishing the conditions for the areas to become spruce grouse habitat within a few decades. The 21 units proposed for post-harvest treatment of underburning would be particularly beneficial. The non-commercial treatments in the 28 small pole and recreational area treatments would yield conditions similar to those of commercial treatment. However, the stands in the recreation areas probably wouldn’t be allowed to develop into dense stands, so their future potential as spruce grouse habitat would be poor. The remaining 76 units covering slightly more than 2,000 acres would yield mixed results. These stands are proposed for ladder fuel reduction or just underburning, so would not result in a flush of young trees that would grow into the dense stands that spruce grouse occupy. Aside from a 500-foot-wide strip to provide for public safety along Sherman Highway in case of a large fire, none of the young stands initiated during the White Mountain Fire that lie in the cooler environments that spruce grouse occupy would be precommercially thinned.

58

4. Cumulative Effects Spruce grouse habitat is distributed widely across the cumulative effects area (Kettle Crest), primarily along the higher elevations of the north-south running Kettle Crest and the ridges of moderate elevation that lie east and west from the spine of the Crest. Young, dense stands consisting primarily of lodgepole pine were created during fires in the 1920s and 1930s, though most of these are now too old to provide good habitat for spruce grouse. Fires in the past 3 decades have initiated new stands, the bulk of which lie within the boundary of the White Mountain Fire of 1988. Regeneration harvest also set the stage for future spruce grouse habitat. Young, dense stands of trees consisting primarily of lodgepole pine have decreased since the height of regeneration harvest in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In past regeneration harvest units and dense stands created by fire, spruce grouse habitat remains good until the areas are precommercially thinned, at which time they become too open. Many of the dense stands of young lodgepole pine at higher elevations lie within the boundaries of lynx analysis units. Like in the proposed project, except in those instances where providing for public safety outweighs maintaining habitat, these stands would not be precommercially thinned until they no longer support good snowshoe hare habitat, at which time their usefulness to spruce grouse also diminishes. So, most existing, good spruce grouse habitat will be retained. At mid elevations and in the wildland/urban interface, partial harvest and prescribed fire would continue to favor dusky grouse habitat to the detriment of spruce grouse habitat. The nearly completed Kettle Face project and the Walker project both affected very small amounts of spruce grouse habitat because both primarily affected warmer, drier habitats that do not support spruce grouse habitat. The Deer-Jasper project would create spruce grouse habitat in the gaps created in 49 units. Contrary to the norm, in the Walker project some good spruce grouse habitat along Sherman Highway was thinned. The intent was to open stands to allow for human escape in the event of a wildfire; the situation is unique to the highway corridor, and several thousand acres of spruce grouse habitat exists nearby. This is also proposed for the Sherman project. The Orient and Sanpoil projects, in the planning stages, would continue the trend of maintaining dense stands of young lodgepole pine and opening existing, older stands. The No Action alternative will continue the downward trajectory of spruce grouse habitat as stands continue to age and harvest does not regenerate stands to initiate future young, dense stands. The No Action alternative would retain large acreages of dead lodgepole pine which would set the stage for a stand-replacing fire that initiate conditions to develop into good spruce grouse habitat over large areas.

5. Design Elements (DE) and/or mitigations (MI) Implement design element 15. The intent is to retain un-harvested patches to provide habitat for species that depend on early successional stages.

59

F. Other Woodpeckers 1. Introduction Under the Forest Plan, woodpeckers as a group were selected as Management Indicator Species to represent snags and the species that depend on them. Snags and cavity trees were recognized as a special habitat component that could be dramatically influenced by planned management programs. Two woodpecker species, pileated and American three-toed, were also named individually as Management Indicator Species representing other species within specific timber stand conditions. Pileated and American three-toed woodpeckers are discussed above in Section B. Barred Owl, Pileated Woodpecker, American Marten, and American Three-toed Woodpecker. The Forest Plan established management objectives, expressed as habitat capability for woodpeckers, as maintenance of habitat (existing snags and green replacement trees) capable of supporting 60% of potential populations within areas where timber is harvested and 100% of potential populations everywhere else on the Forest. The Forest Plan recognized that snags may have to be created in some areas to meet this direction. This direction was subsequently changed by the Eastside Screens amendment (USDA Forest Service 1994) to provide snag and cavity tree capable of supporting 100% of potential populations within all areas of the Forest. The Environmental Analysis conducted for the Eastside Screens amendment (USDA Forest Service 1994) further identified the white-headed woodpecker to represent the effects of management activities on cavity nesting wildlife of open, park-like stands of ponderosa pine. White-headed woodpeckers are primarily associated with more open stands of mature and old growth ponderosa pine and mixed conifers and are relatively sensitive to habitat manipulation. Because they are now listed as a Forest Service Region 6 Sensitive Species, existing conditions and effects to them are discussed in the biological evaluation for this project. The effects of management activities on most woodpeckers are directly related to management-induced changes in the density and distribution of snags, and we use snags as surrogates of woodpecker populations. Studies of woodpecker requirements (summarized in DecAid (Mellen et al. 2012) indicate that most woodpeckers require large numbers of snags. Because a woodpecker requires a tree with a diameter at least as large as it is in which to nest or roost, larger snags support more woodpecker species than smaller snags. These large snags usually are rare, and thus valuable for cavity-dependent species. We model existing conditions based on areas that have and have not been harvested in the past, time since harvest, harvest prescription and method, and recent history of mortality in the project area.

2. Affected Environment Snags in the project area reflect the disturbance history. A flush of large snags was created during the stand-replacing fires that affected much of the project area in the early 1900s. Nearly all of these have fallen. In areas where trees escaped the fire, subsequent harvest, primarily overstory removal, removed most the large remnant trees that would have provided future large-

60

diameter snags as well as felled snags in the units. Large snags are an extremely scarce resource in much of the project area. Another fire in the late 1980s burned hundreds of acres in the higher elevations along the Kettle Crest and created a flush of small- and medium-sized snags that several species of woodpeckers that rely on this bonanza used for more than a decade. Most of these snags have fallen, though considerable numbers remain standing and provide foraging habitat for woodpecker species that excavate after boring beetles rather than glean beneath the bark, and nesting habitat for the smaller woodpeckers. In the past few years, an outbreak of pine beetles has killed hundreds of acres of lodgepole pine and provided a flush of foraging habitat on smaller and medium-sized snags. About 12% of the project planning area is too dry or rocky to support other than widely spaced trees, thus does not provide snags in the densities required by most woodpeckers. These portions of land are widely scattered through the project area and fairly proportionally split among the different biophysical environments. Of the areas capable of growing trees in densities required by most woodpeckers, the colder biophysical environments that cover about 40% of the project area can grow both dense and open stands of small and medium-sized trees (that several woodpecker species depend on for foraging and nesting) but generally are not capable of providing growing conditions for larger trees. Past harvest as affected about 13% of the nearly 13,900 acres of these colder biophysical environments. In 1988 the White Mountain fire created large patches of snags, including about 1,600 in the project planning area. About 200 acres were subsequently harvested and many snags have fallen in the unharvested areas, , though considerable numbers remain standing and provide foraging habitat for woodpecker species that excavate after boring beetles rather than glean beneath the bark, and nesting habitat for the smaller woodpeckers. In the past decade, about half of the lodgepole pine and many of the subalpine fir have been killed by pine beetles, fir engravers, or other pathogens so the amount of foraging habitat in small-to-medium sized trees is considerable. Presumably, because harvest has affected a small amount of this biophysical environment, sufficient nesting habitat also remains to support woodpeckers that depend on these habitat conditions.

Outside of the colder biophysical environments, the most important areas from the standpoint of snags are those areas capable of growing larger trees. About 12,800 acres provide conditions capable of supporting denser stands of larger trees. Past harvest has reduced or eliminated snags in about 40% of this area (5,100 acres). Of the about 7,600 that have not been harvested, growing conditions on about 1,700 are too poor to support dense stands of trees, thus potentially dense clumps of snags. Therefore, less than 50% of the area that potentially could support large snags might currently, and less than 20% of the area capable of growing snags regardless of density or size. Though sufficient snags exist in the more open habitats on which Lewis’ white-headed woodpecker depend, the amount of dense patches of snags borders on levels that might not support populations of some of the species that depend on this habitat condition. (Figure 14 and Figure 15, from Mellen et al. 2012).

61

Figure 14. Distribution of snag density classes (#/acre) for snags > 10” dbh (A) and > 20" dbh (B) on both all plots (n = 181) and unharvested plots (n = 73) of the ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir, large tree vegetation condition in eastern Washington and Oregon. Graphs based on data in DecAid (Mellen et al. 2012), which expresses values as snags/ha.

A. B.

Figure 15. Distribution of snag density classes (#/acre) for snags > 10” dbh (A) and > 20" dbh (B) on both all plots (n = 729) and unharvested plots (n = 189) of the ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir, open vegetation condition in eastern Washington and Oregon. Graphs based on data in DecAid (Mellen et al. 2012), which expresses values as snags/ha.

A. B.

The No Action alternative does not propose any timber harvest and would not result in the immediate loss of existing snags. However, the smaller trees that shade snags, keep the moisture content of snags higher, and result in faster decomposition of snags will cause a faster loss of snags over the longer term than if the trees were removed. Additionally, the increased risk of insect, disease and/or wildfire problems presented by this alternative could result in a pulse of all-sized snag numbers across the planning area, followed by a long period with few large snags on the landscape. Analysis of the existing conditions indicates that medium and large snags are extremely rare on the landscape and that outside of the colder biophysical environments, denser patches of snags in general might be scarce.

24

10

3

0 0 0 1 0

4

7

54

3

57

26

8

1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0

0-4

4-8

8-12

12-1

6

16-2

0

20-2

4

24-2

8

28-3

2

32-3

6

>36

Snags/acre > 10" dbh

% o

f are

a Unharvested

All plots

18

3 0 0 0 0 0 02

62

151012

76

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0

0-4

4-8

8-12

12-1

6

16-2

0

20-2

4

24-2

8

28-3

2

32-3

6

>36

Snags/acre > 20" dbh%

of a

rea Unharvested

All plots

13

1 3 0 1 0 0

4

10

68

1

71

15

7

2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0

0-4

4-8

8-12

12-1

6

16-2

0

20-2

4

24-2

8

28-3

2

32-3

6


% o

f are

a

Unharvested

All plots

11

0 2 0 0 0 0 01

6

81 84

11

4

0102030405060708090

0

0-4

4-8

8-12

12-1

6

16-2

0

20-2

4

24-2

8

28-3

2

32-3

6

>36


% o

f are

a

Unharvested

All plots

62

Non-commercial treatments are proposed on about 12,700 acres in 213 units. These treatments consist of ladder fuel reduction, percommercial thinning and small pole treatments that would either not affect larger snags or would create about 1 per acre as a result of fire on about 6,200 acres. These treatments would have a slight positive effect to species that depend on snags for foraging. In the colder biophysical environments, commercial thinning is proposed in 31 units covering about 1,300 acres. Most of these stands will treat the smaller, closed-canopied, even-aged stands to reduce the fire hazard of high fuel loading so are expected to remove or fall most of the dead trees. Considering the large number of beetle-killed trees in these biophysical environments and the large expanse of untreated stands that will remain, the proposed harvest might displace woodpeckers from the area in and near the harvest units but would not measurably reduce the woodpecker populations that occupy these biophysical environments. In the other biophysical environments, harvest is proposed on about 4,750 acres in 111 units. Of these, 59 units covering about 2,760 acres would occur in either past harvest units or other areas where densities of small snags are near or at zero per acre. Harvest in parts of 52 units totaling about 1,990 acres would affect areas that have not been harvested in the past and which have a high likelihood of supporting pockets of dense snags. Harvest prescriptions that call for tractor yarding would be marked and laid out to avoid patches of snags, but yarding with either cable or combination of tractor or cable could result in the loss of pockets of snags. Such yarding is proposed in 13 units covering about 480 acres. All the 52 units would be examined during layout and marking to determine if snag patches exist and how best to avoid them, if the result does not conflict with the management objective of protecting the highway or powerline. The following units would be examined: 1, 4, 5, 16, 17, 44, 47, 48, 49, 78, 199, 2210074, 2260043, 2260131, 2260133, 2260142, 2260171, 2260173, 2260174, 2270039, 2270043, 2270049, 2270060, 2270071, 2270079, 2270081, 2270096, 2270097, 2271200, 2280021, 2280049, 2280069, 2280073, 2280075, 2280076, 2280077, 2280081, 2280149, 2280164, 2280169, 2280174, 2280176, 2280177, 2280181, 2280183, 2280229, 2281098, 2210074a, 2210076a, 2210104a, 2260173a, 2260153, Minimizing the loss of larger snags while opening a stand would enhance habitat for those species that require more open grown, larger trees. The proposed harvest would also improve the longevity of existing snags because smaller trees would be cleared from around the larger snags. The smaller trees shade the snags, keeping the snags cooler and retaining moisture. The cooler, moister conditions cause the snag to decay more rapidly than if it were exposed to drying, and the snag falls more rapidly in these denser stands. Snags larger than 16 inches in diameter would be targeted to leave on site, unless the site is within 200 feet of an open road or is designated as a firewood area. If felled for safety reasons, these larger trees would be left for down wood. If the fire shop deems that the amount of large down wood left on site would constitute a fire hazard, they would consult with the wildlife

63

biologist or a representative to determine the amount of down wood that would meet both biological and fire safety objectives. If snags > 16” in units harvested using ground-based equipment have to be felled for safety, up to 6 per acre might be high-topped to retain a portion of the snag if practicable. Loss of snags would be mitigated by creating snags, if not possible during harvest operations. In units that contain late and old structural stages we will locate unharvested plots constituting at least 10% of the unit and would target snag retention. No snags larger than 16 inches diameter would be harvested in late and old structure stands. If snags are felled for safety they would remain on site. Exceptions to this would be allowed where the wildlife biologist has determined that the exception would cause no effect. In stands of trees where lodgepole pine mortality from mountain pine beetle is high, snags less than 16” dbh will be allowed to be available for removal because of the large number of smaller snags created in the project area during the beetle outbreak. Units in which this would occur would be part of larger areas of dead trees, and generally snags could be removed in groups. Maintaining large down wood on site is less of a problem than retaining snags. Contracts for this project would not allow removal of non-sawtimber greater than 16” dbh unless the amount is deemed excess by the wildlife biologist, soil scientist and the fuels planner. If a large snag is felled for safety reasons, it would remain as down wood and contribute to woodpecker foraging habitat unless in specific situations where down or standing fuels are a concern close to private land or structures, or sufficient snag and down log numbers remain to allow for some loss. These situations will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis with the wildlife biologist or his representative. Overall, the proposed harvest activities under the action alternative would follow the best available science on snags and down wood (Mellen et al. 2012). They are designed to meet the requirements in the Environmental Assessment for the Continuation of Interim Management Direction Establishing Riparian, Ecosystem and Wildlife Standards for Timber Sales and remaining snag levels, and are expected to be consistent with the Forest Plan requirements. The number of large snags across the landscape would remain extremely low. Though the proposed project would not result in the elimination of any snag-dependent species from the project area, when considered in light of the area’s past history of harvest and fire, this project would result in the lowest levels of large snags in any project analyzed in the past 20 years on the east side of the Kettle Crest.

4. Cumulative Effects The area considered for cumulative effects analysis consists of the Kettle Crest. In the low and mid elevations throughout the cumulative effects area, existing large snags were created primarily through major insect and disease outbreaks in the past decade and reduced primarily by firewood harvest and, depending on area, timber harvest (which has occurred in the Long Alec, St. Peter, Art, Aeneas, Lambert, Sherman, Nancy, Deadman, and Boulder drainages in the past decade, and is proposed for Boulder, Sanpoil and East Deer in the near future). Levels of snags

64

created by Douglas-fir bark beetles vary considerably, and decrease as conditions become cooler. In the higher elevations near the Kettle Crest proper, large fires have burned since 1988 and created large stands of small- and medium-diameter snags, with larger snags on the better growing sites. About half of these stands have been salvage harvested, and the remaining smaller snags have mostly fallen. A pine beetle outbreak that has dramatically affected large areas of western Canada and the eastern Cascades appeared in the lodgepole pine stands in the higher elevations and has created tens of thousands of snags in the 5”-to-12” range. Additionally, fir engraver and other pathogenic organisms have killed many other tree species in the higher elevations. Snags have developed and continue to develop primarily via root rot diseases, insect outbreaks and fire and post-fire mortality, and are reduced by timber harvest and firewood cutting. Planned and completed projects have reduced or will reduce standing snag densities. Past harvest has eliminated or reduced snags, especially large snags. Past road building and the firewood policy of allowing snags to be harvested within 200 feet of open roads eliminated or continues to suppress snag levels, though one tree species valuable to wildlife, ponderosa pine, is not favored by firewood harvesters on the CNF. A survey in 2014 of the effects of firewood harvest on snags in the Sanpoil drainage discovered that levels of ponderosa pine close to roads did not significantly differ from levels further from roads. That was not the case for Douglas-fir or larch. The No Action alternative would continue the processes currently influencing snag levels in the area and would not create a measureable positive or negative effect to woodpeckers in the cumulative effects area. The proposed project would add little to the cumulative negative effects of reduced snag levels because the existing levels are already extremely low. Design elements and mitigations would occur to reduce the loss of snags, and most non-merchantable trees will remain on site. No new roads would be built (so no new access to snag patches would be provided), roads opened for the sale would remain closed to traffic other than for administrative access and access associated with the timber sale. Based on the analysis above, viability of other woodpeckers and species that depend on tree cavities would not be negatively affected by this project (Youkey, 2012).

5. Design Elements (DE) and/or mitigations (MI) Apply the same design elements as those for pileated woodpeckers and three-toed woodpeckers, listed under those species. Additionally, implement design element 23.

G. Large Raptors (and Great Blue Herons) 1. Introduction The Forest Plan selected large raptors likely to be affected by proposed management activities, primarily the accipiter hawks (sharp-shinned, Cooper's and goshawk) and the great blue heron as indicator species to monitor effects to nest trees and nesting habitat. The habitat capability objective established in the forest Plan is the protection of existing nesting habitat and

65

maintenance of at least 75% of the habitat capability that existed in 1980. Although the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines require that raptor and great blue heron nest sites and surrounding areas will be managed to ensure their continued usefulness, the stated habitat capability objective recognizes that some losses of nesting habitat will occur within managed areas of the Forest. Analysis for these species focuses on potential and existing nesting habitat and protection of known nests. Great blue herons generally nest in colonies of two to several dozen nests, usually but not always near water. Although closely related, each accipiter species tends to prefer specific stand types. Goshawks most often nest in stands of mature tree, whereas Cooper's and sharp-shinned hawks prefer to nest in overstocked sapling, pole and small tree stands. All species will hunt in more open environments and at higher elevations than those in which they nest. In eastern Oregon and Washington, goshawks tend to nest in Dougas-fir, ponderosa pine or western larch (McGrath et al. 2003) trees and of 23 nests on the CNF for which we have tree species data, goshawks nested in Douglas-fir (14 nests) and western larch (9 nests). Though they nest in large trees, goshawks are not good indicators of old-growth forests (Whitford 1991, McGrath et al. 2003, Sampson 2006). Average elevation of goshawk nests found on the Three Rivers and Republic Ranger Districts is 3,560 feet and ranged from 2,685 to 4,880 feet, significantly lower than nests found in central Montana (average 5,946 feet, range 5,394 to 6,401 (Whitford 1991)), though the biophysical environments were similar to those found on the CNF. Nests found on the CNF were generally not in cold, dry subalpine environments, though nests above 4,000 feet generally occurred in microsites of drier habitats (e.g. south-facing slopes) nestled within colder environments. Nests did not occur in lower-elevation, dry or open environments that red-tailed hawks tend to prefer. We do not have adequate nest information for either Cooper’s or sharp-shinned hawks to adequately describe elevation ranges for nests. We use areas capable of growing dense stands of trees to identify potential accipiter habitat, and exclude areas of dry, open habitat, primarily at lower elevations, because they provide good habitat for red-tailed hawks rather than accipiters. Habitat for accipiters fluctuates due to succession: after a disturbance, young trees grow densely and after some time provide nesting habitat for Cooper’s or sharp-shinned hawks. Trees grow larger and move towards providing nesting habitat for goshawk. We use areas that currently support medium and large trees to describe existing goshawk nesting habitat and stands of smaller trees, usually even-aged, to describe existing Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawk habitat. Stands opened due to harvest do not currently provide nesting habitat for accipiters, but could in the future.

66

2. Affected Environment No lakes exist in the project area. Great blue heron nests have not been located in or near the project area and great blue herons have not been recorded from the project area. About 25,900 acres, or more than 75% of the project area, have the potential to support nesting habitat for one of the accipiters, and currently about 85% of potential habitat does. Goshawk nesting habitat is well-distributed in the project area outside most of the upper elevation, even-aged stands that were initiated during fires in the early part of the last century or were burned in the White Mountain fire in 1988. Existing goshawk nesting habitat covers nearly 10,000 acres (Table 11) and is generally of good or moderate quality (Figure 16), which is reflected in the nesting history of the project area: one goshawk nest has been documented in the north-northwest part of the project area and another lies just outside the project area to the east, in the same watershed as the project area. Both have been active in the past 5 years.

Table 11. Current and past goshawk habitat in Sherman.

Biophysical environment group

Habitat condition Douglas-fir/ grand fir

Spruce/ subalpine fir

Cedar/ hemlock

Total acres or %

Adequate habitat 4,360 2,900 1,460 8,720 Lower quality habitat due to past harvest 860 240 150 1,260 Existing goshawk habitat 5,230 3,140 1,610 9,980 Not habitat currently due to all past harvest 2,610 210 290 3,120 Harvested since 1980, no longer habitat 1,940 150 260 2,350 % of habitat remaining from 1980 73% 95% 86% 81%

Figure 16. Goshawk habitat in Sherman.

Since 1980, harvest has eliminated about 2,350 acres, leaving slightly more than 80% of habitat existing in 1980, which is above the 75% limit set in the Forest Plan. However, harvest in biophysical environments that provide the best goshawk habitat (cool, mesic and warm, dry

67

Douglas-fir/grand fir) has left only 73% of habitat available in 1980, so proposed harvest in these biophysical environments cannot further reduce goshawk habitat. Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawk habitat is well-distributed in the project area and concentrated at mid and upper elevations where past disturbance created a sea of even-aged trees (Figure 17). About 10,750 acres consist of smaller, more even-aged stands in which Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks will nest. Of the about 5,400 acres that have been harvested in the past 40 years, more than 40% continue to provide habitat for Cooper’s or sharp-shinned hawks because the harvests seemed to concentrate on removing larger trees (Table 12). Harvest since 1980 has not reduced overall available habitat below 75% of that which existed in 1980, so existing conditions are above those recommended in the Forest Plan. It is difficult to assess the effects of past harvest in the Douglas-fir/grand fir biophysical environments. In these biophysical environments, it appears that past harvest has dramatically reduced available habitat. However, many of these acres probably initially provided habitat for goshawk rather than sharp-shinned hawks, so the 53% of potential habitat remaining value is an artifact of poor historical records on pre-harvest conditions rather than a huge drop in available habitat. No sharp-shinned or Cooper’s hawk nests have been recorded from the project area.

Figure 17. Current and past Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawk habitat in Sherman.

Table 12. Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawk habitat in Sherman.

Biophysical environment group

Habitat condition Douglas-fir/ grand fir

Spruce/ subalpine fir

Cedar/ hemlock

Total acres or %

Adequate habitat 1,100 6,710 630 8,450 Lower quality habitat due to past harvest 1,120 1,050 140 2,310 Existing sharp-shinned/Cooper's habitat 2,220 7,770 770 10,750 Not habitat currently due to all past harvest 2,610 210 290 3,120 Harvested since 1980, no longer habitat 1,940 150 260 2,350 % of habitat remaining from 1980 53% 98% 75% 82%

68

3. Environmental Consequences The No Action alternative does not propose any vegetation treatments, therefore would have no immediate or short term impact on any known raptor nest or raptor habitat. Over the long-term, natural forest successional processes will continue to increase stem densities in many stands, potentially increasing nesting habitat availability for Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks, which require more dense stands than goshawks. However, this alternative also creates an increased risk for insect, disease and/or wildfire that could kill large trees and reduce available accipiter nesting habitat well below current levels for many years. Proposed treatments and their effects to the habitats of goshawk and Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks vary. Non-commercial treatments of ladder fuels reductions and fuels management would not result in the loss of overstory trees so would not negatively affect habitat for these birds unless activities disturbed them during the nesting season. No harvest would occur within ½ mile of the known goshawk nest in the project planning area, so activities would not affect the nest or its occupants. We will monitor this site from the nesting season of 2015 until at least 3 years post-harvest to determine if the birds continue to occupy the site. In existing goshawk habitat, commercial harvest, including harvest in the recreation areas and small pole thinning, is proposed on about 36% (3,550 acres of nearly 10,000 acres). Nearly 2,350 acres in 64 units are proposed for commercial harvest in the warmer, drier biophysical environments primarily east but also west of the Kettle Crest. Few potential nest trees would be lost because no live trees greater than 21” diameter will be harvested and goshawks generally use large trees in which to nest. Comparing current conditions to historic photographs, we found that current goshawk habitat in portions of all or parts of at the units in warm, dry environments were more open than they currently are and probably did not historically support goshawk habitat. Though harvest in these units could negatively affect goshawk nesting in the short term, the importance of restoring dry forest habitats for species of higher conservation (primarily sensitive species white-headed and Lewis’ woodpeckers) concern outweighs, in this case, management for goshawk. About 1,200 acres in 43 units are proposed for harvest in the more mesic and cooler sites on which goshawk nesting and hunting habitat tends to grow best. This amount affects about 25% of the better habitat. Harvest prescriptions vary, as do the amounts of anticipated openings. We consider harvest in units where the anticipated amount of openings would exceed 30% to be detrimental to maintaining goshawk nesting habitat. We also considered half the commercial thinning acres to be detrimental because no estimated percent opening was provided for them. The 19 units affecting about 500 acres that have the potential to create the greatest negative impacts to goshawk nesting habitat are CT units: 2210060, 2210063, 2260082, 2260087, 2280229, 2281098, 2260039, 2260131, 2260142, 2260171, 2280183, 2280229, 2281098; CT F units: 2260043, 2260133, 2280174, 2260047a; and CT S units: 2260049, 2260050. Though many of the commercially thinned stands would be too open to provide goshawk nesting habitat, goshawks do hunt these more open areas, and the openings would provide future foraging habitat for some of their main prey species. Several stands are proposed for commercial treatment in the colder biophysical environments in which goshawks hunt but usually do not nest. Harvest in

69

these areas would open stands and improve future foraging habitat by providing early successional habitat in which live several of the prey species of goshawks. In existing Cooper’s/sharp-shinned hawk habitat, commercial harvest, including harvest in the recreation areas and small pole thinning, is proposed on about 23% (2,500 acres of nearly 8,500 acres). Most of the units are scattered in the large blocks of existing habitat primarily on the more moist sites south of Sherman Highway. These units would not result in Cooper’s/sharp-shinned hawk habitat becoming so uncommon that sufficient habitat does not remain in the project area to maintain these accipiters. One block of proposed harvest west of the Kettle Crest consisting of units 26, 28, 49, 78 and 82 are proposed in 2 smaller blocks of habitat, both nearly surrounded by more open ground due to harvest on private land or land that’s not capable of producing denser stands of trees. Proposed harvest in these units would nearly eliminate these areas as habitat for Cooper’s/sharp-shinned hawks. Sufficient habitat remains in the project area, and south of the project area, to maintain the larger area’s use by these accipiters. Additionally, the stands initiated during the White Mountain Fire in 1988 have nearly grown to the stage that they are supporting good habitat for these raptors. About 200 acres of existing Cooper’s/sharp-shinned hawk habitat is proposed for precommercial thinning in 6 units. Precommercial thinning in these units would dramatically decrease the amount of habitat for these accipiters in these units. Unthinned patches covering 10% of each unit would be retained, which would continue to provide mediocre or poor habitat, but which would still serve as habitat. Another 1,100 acres in 26 units are proposed in habitat that currently does not provide Cooper’s/sharp-shinned hawk habitat, but which would grow into good habitat in a decade or two. These units are scattered throughout the project area and break up but don’t eliminate patches of habitat that though currently unsuitable, would grow into habitat for these accipiters within 20 years. Sufficient habitat would remain in the unthinned areas to provide future habitat for Cooper’s/sharp-shinned hawks. Most of the large blocks of habitat for Cooper’s/sharp-shinned hawks, and burned areas that will provide habitat within 20 years, would not be affected by the project. Though harvest in habitat for Cooper’s/sharp-shinned hawks would decrease in the project area, and would be nearly eliminated in a patch west of the Kettle Crest, Sufficient habitat in the project area remains that would be capable of supporting several nesting pairs of these species.

4. Cumulative Effects The Forest Plan established a habitat capability objective for raptors (and great blue heron) which recognized that raptor habitat conditions change over time and that 100% protection and maintenance of all existing raptor habitat is not possible across a managed landscape of the Colville National Forest. It also recognized that the dense, overstocked stands preferred by Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks are subject to insect and disease outbreaks and wildfires that can radically alter available nesting habitat. We have been quite successful in finding and protecting goshawk nests. Known nest sites for goshawks and other raptors have been and continue to be protected during timber harvest and other activities to minimize adverse impacts. In accordance with the Eastside Screens (USDA Forest Service 1994), goshawk nests are further protected by no-harvest buffer zones,

70

establishment of post-fledging areas, and temporal restrictions on activities when necessary. All these measures are designed to reduce any direct, indirect or cumulative negative effects of management activities on forest-dwelling raptors Forest-wide. Existing direction under the Eastside Screens (USDA Forest Service 1994) also directs most timber harvest activities on the Forest toward retention and establishment of LOS (late/old structure) stands and enhancement of younger stands toward LOS conditions. This helps ensure the persistence of suitable nesting habitat across the landscape for some raptors, especially goshawks, but this direction negatively affects potential sharp-shinned and Cooper’s hawk nest habitats because it emphasizes treatments in the types of habitat preferred by those species. Across the Forest, surveys are conducted to locate other raptor nests and protection measures are employed whenever nests might be affected by an activity. Most goshawk nests probably are found, and the surveying and nest protection does reduce the overall potential for negative effects to goshawks. We assume that Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks are more abundant, so do not focus surveys on their potential habitats, thus have recorded few of their nests. Within the Sherman Pass project planning area, attempts have been made to locate raptor nests. One was found, and another is known from just outside the project boundary. Timber harvest prescriptions under the proposed action have been designed to promote healthier, more resilient timber stand conditions that would continue to provide nesting opportunities for large raptors, primarily red-tailed hawks and to a lesser extent goshawks. Cumulatively, these actions contribute favorably to actions occurring on other parts of the Forest and contribute toward meeting Forest Plan direction. The No Action alternative contributes toward meeting Forest Plan direction for accipiters over the short term by avoiding any vegetative treatments that may negatively impact existing raptor habitat to the extent that these raptors would no longer occupy the project area. Over the long term, by increasing the risk of insect infestations, disease, or wildfire, the No Action alternative would not contribute toward development or maintenance of health diverse forest conditions that would continue to support raptors across the landscape. The Proposed Action would contribute to cumulative slight improvement in goshawk habitat and would contribute to a decrease in dense, mid-structural-stage stands that Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks inhabit. Viability of goshawk would not be negatively affected by this project. Though habitat for Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks would be reduced, because of the abundance of their habitat across the cumulative effects analysis area and the Colville National Forest, their viability would not be negatively affected by this project (Youkey, 2012).

5. Design Elements (DE) and/or mitigations (MI) Implement Design Element 25. Implement mitigation measures 1 and 2, if nests are located during all phases of the project.

71

H. Migratory Land Birds 1. Introduction Migratory birds were not selected as Management Indicator Species during the development of the Forest Plan. However, since that time, interest and concern over the status of several individual species, and migratory land birds as a group, has increased considerably because populations of several Neotropical migratory bird species have declined. These declines are most apparent for some grassland species and eastern forest-dwelling species. Factors thought to be responsible (Smith 2000) include

• habitat loss and fragmentation on wintering and breeding grounds, • predation, • cowbird parasitism, and • pesticide use.

Long-term monitoring of migratory birds in the western US indicates that the main area of concern relating to forest management is habitat fragmentation. The areas of concern related to forest management are habitat alteration or loss due to exotic species invasions and habitat alteration due to fire suppression. The proposed project will not include pesticide application and will not dramatically change the predator suite. A study investigating cowbird parasitism, conducted in similar habitats about 35 miles southeast of the project area, indicated that cowbird parasitism was not negatively affecting populations of host species (D. Beutler, pers. comm. 2007, based on Beutler 2000). These factors will not be further addressed. Concern grew for migratory birds to the point that, in 2000, the US Congress passed the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (US Congress 2000) and the USDA Forest Service issued the Landbird Strategic Plan (USDA Forest Service 2000). With this plan came direction to assess and disclose the effects of management action on landbirds in NEPA documents. On January 10, 2001, former-President Clinton signed an executive order that outlined responsibilities of Federal agencies in protecting migratory birds. Among the many requirements of this order were provisions directing agencies to:

• Support the conservation intent of the migratory bird conventions by integrating bird conservation principles, measures, and practices into agency activities, and by avoiding or minimizing, to the extent practicable, adverse impacts on migratory bird resources when conducting agency actions;

• Restore and enhance the habitat of migratory birds, as practicable; • Ensure that environmental analyses evaluate the effect of actions on migratory birds,

especially species of concern. A Memorandum of Understanding between USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (January 17, 2001) further directs that the Forest Service shall:

• Incorporate migratory bird habitat and population management objectives and recommendations into agency planning processes; and

• Strive to protect, restore, enhance, and manage habitats of migratory birds, and prevent the further loss or degradation of habitats on National Forest system lands.

Another Memorandum of Understanding between USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Forest Service 2008) strengthens

72

migratory bird conservation by identifying and implementing strategies that promote conservation or avoid or minimize adverse impacts to migratory birds (in coordination with State, Tribal and local governments). The MOU identifies points of focus:

• On bird populations rather than individuals, • On habitat restoration and enhancement, • On recognition that actions to benefit populations of one species might be detrimental to

populations of another, and • On recognizing that actions that could provide long-term benefits to populations might

have short-term negative ones to individual birds. This MOU also tasks the Forest Service to:

• Evaluate and balance long-term benefits of projects against any short- or long-term adverse effects when analyzing, disclosing, and mitigating the effects of actions.

• Pursue opportunities to restore or enhance the composition, structure, and juxtaposition of migratory bird habitats in the project area.

• Consider approaches, to the extent practicable, for identifying and minimizing take that is incidental to otherwise lawful activities, including such approaches as:

o altering the season of activities to minimize disturbances during the breeding season;

o retaining snags for nesting structures where snags are underrepresented; o retaining the integrity of breeding sites, especially those with long histories of use

and; o giving due consideration to key wintering areas, migration routes, and stop-over

habitats. o minimizing or preventing the pollution or detrimental alteration of the

environments utilized by migratory birds whenever practical by assessing information on environmental contaminants and other stressors relevant to migratory bird conservation.

Since this new direction was developed, the CNF has been involved with several other agencies and groups in the development of general guidelines for land bird conservation in eastern Oregon and Washington (Altman 2000, updated 2012). The USFWS (2008) developed Bird Conservations Regions (BCRs) based on similar geographic parameters and maintain lists of migratory Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) for BCRs of North America. BCRs are ecologically distinct regions in North America with similar bird communities, habitats, and resource management issues. The overall goal of the BCRs and BCC lists are to accurately identify the migratory and resident bird species (beyond those already designated as federally threatened or endangered) that represent the highest conservation priorities for the agencies involved, and are in need of additional conservation actions. For each project, we consult the lists (per Executive Order 13186) in order to meet the goal to prevent or remove the need for additional ESA bird listings by implementing proactive management and conservation actions.

2. Affected Environment The Sherman project area falls into the Northern Rockies BCR (BCR 10). Table 13 lists those bird species that can be found in northeastern Washington (Vial and Loggers 2001) and the habitats of those that do occur. Other migratory bird species that use the habitats present in the

73

project area are relatively common across the Forest and well distributed over much of northeastern Washington.

Table 13. USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern in the Sherman area. “DNO” = does not occur in or near the project area. Species identified with a ● have been documented in the watershed.

Bird Species Preferred Habitat

• Bald Eagle (ESA delisted)

Associated with large bodies of water, forested areas near the ocean, along rivers, and at estuaries, lakes and reservoirs. Documented as foraging in the project area, primarily scavenging on road-killed animals. Nesting habitat lies at lower elevations east of the project area.

• Calliope Hummingbird

Predominantly a montane species found in open shrub sapling seral stages (8-15 years) at higher elevations and riparian areas. Documented from Canyon Creek area along Sherman Creek (eBird, accessed February, 2014) and at higher elevations along the Kettle Crest (pers. observations).

• Cassin’s Finch

Open, mature coniferous forests of lodgepole and ponderosa pine, aspen, alpine fir, grand fir and juniper steppe woodlands. Documented from Sherman Pass and from Canyon Creek area along Sherman Creek (eBird, accessed February, 2014)

• Flammulated Owl

Associated with ponderosa pine forests and mixed conifer stands with a mean 67% canopy closure, open understory with dense patches of saplings or shrubs. Single bird seen in the early 1990s on the open, south-facing slopes between Trout Lake and Lane Creek roads (pers. observation).

Lewis's Woodpecker

Ponderosa Pine, Cottonwood riparian or Oak habitats with an open canopy, brushy understory, dead and down material, available perches and abundant insects.

• Olive-sided Flycatcher

Open conifer forests (< 40 % canopy cover) and edge habitats where standing snags and scattered tall trees remain after a disturbance. Documented from all four popular birding sites across the project area so are expected to occupy most available habitat (eBird, accessed February, 2014).

Peregrine Falcon (ESA delisted) Wide range of habitats, nests on cliff ledges, bridges, quarries.

• White-headed Woodpecker

Mixed conifer forests ( < 40 % canopy cover) dominated by old growth Ponderosa Pine and open habitats where standing snags and scattered tall trees remain. Found during surveys in 2014.

Williamson's Sapsucker

E. Cascades, mid to high elevation, mature open and mixed coniferous - deciduous forests. Snags are a critical component.

74

Bird Species Preferred Habitat Willow Flycatcher (non-listed subspecies or population of T&E species)

Associated with riparian shrub dominated habitats, especially brushy/willow thickets. In SE WA also found in xeric brushy uplands.

Brewer's Sparrow Does not occur Upland Sandpiper Does not occur Swainson's Hawk Does not occur Long-billed Curlew Does not occur Yellow-billed Cuckoo Does not occur

Loggerhead Shrike Does not occur Sage Thrasher Does not occur Sage Sparrow Does not occur McCown's Longspur Does not occur

Black Rosy-Finch Does not occur Ferruginous Hawk Does not occur Black Swift Does not occur

Migratory birds utilize a variety of habitats, including upland coniferous forests (in all stages of development), openings, and riparian zones. Of greatest concern from a management perspective are those habitats that, when compared to the rest of the Forest, contain unique characteristics, are naturally limited in abundance or distribution, or have experienced the greatest declines or changes over time. In general, bird species requiring these habitats have undergone greater population declines over time than other species that primarily use general coniferous forest habitats. Within the Sherman project area, these areas of concern would include wetlands, riparian areas, large snags and areas with deciduous trees. Within coniferous forest habitats, areas classified as structural stage 7 (open stand conditions dominated by large trees) SS7 are also important because this condition is more limited than other coniferous forest habitats. The Sherman area contained quite a bit of SS7, much of which was harvested starting in the 1950s. Additionally fire suppression has allowed understory trees to encroach on many remaining stands of SS7. Outside of riparian areas in the project area, no open-water wetlands exist. The project area does contain patches of aspen, some large. Small stands of aspen or cottonwood are located along more moist habitats and stringers throughout the project area, and some aspen patches are associated with soil slumps.

3. Environmental Consequences Timber harvest, prescribed fire and other activities associated with the Sherman Pass project would affect several of the migratory birds that occur on or near the Colville National Forest. Activities affect each species differently and at different levels (individual, population,

75

community and landscape), the response being driven by the interaction of each activity’s timing, intensity and extent with each individual’s mobility and escape strategies and a species’ population size and habitat requirements. Thus, management activities create, enhance or destroy habitat, depending on the species considered. Impacts to migratory birds will be assessed on an alternative’s effect on overall habitat conditions within the Sherman Pass project area. Generally, projects that improve riparian shrub and deciduous tree conditions, or promote the future development of large tree, single stratum (SS7) habitat will provide improved nesting and foraging opportunities for the land bird species of greatest concern (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). Proposed management activities (timber harvest, prescribed burning, non-commercial treatments) have the potential to affect other migratory land birds, both positively and negatively. The No Action alternative does not result in any management-induced changes to migratory land bird habitat conditions. Forest succession continues and in the absence of other disturbances, more existing openings, riparian areas and deciduous habitats would be expected to grow closed, and the local population levels of birds requiring these more open habitats would decline. Opportunities to develop large tree, single stratum (SS7) habitat in this area would not be realized. The area would be more susceptible to stand-replacing fire, which would eliminate habitat for a wide variety of birds that depend on large, live trees. The proposed activities affect a small amount of habitat relative to the overall ranges of the birds that use the environments that occur in the area, and none would significantly impact riparian areas. Nearly all the proposed commercial harvest outside of the colder biophysical environments experiencing mortality from pine beetles would move conditions in the watershed from the more closed, middle structural stands to a more diverse condition with openings and blocks of retained, untreated patches similar to what was present on the landscape historically. Several units, particularly on drier sites, are designed to open stands and move these middle-structure, multi-story stands to single-stratum SS7 stands. The underburning associated with commercial harvest would enhance the movement of these stands towards SS7, and the areas proposed for underburning only would yield stand conditions more in line with historic ranges of variability in stand structure and would enhance habitat for species that depend on open stands of large trees. The effects to white-headed woodpeckers, bald eagles and peregrine falcon are outlined in the biological evaluation for this project. Effects other woodpeckers are described above in section B (Barred Owl, Pileated Woodpecker, Pine Marten, American Three-toed Woodpecker) and section F (Other Woodpeckers). Flammulated owls benefit from opening stands and retaining snags and other trees with cavities, which are integral to this project. Calliope hummingbird, Olive-sided flycatcher and Cassin’s finch are fairly common in the planning area or in northeastern Washington and would benefit from the project. Calliope Hummingbirds use edges and forest openings and respond positively in the short term to logging. Olive-sided flycatchers often use areas that have been logged, which are superficially similar to post-fire stands. Their greatest declines have occurred in the eastern US. Willow Flycatchers occupy willow thickets and other brushy areas near streams and wetlands, and clear-cuts and other open areas with nearby trees or brush. Cassin's Finches prefer open forests and they use selectively logged

76

forests and small-scale clear-cuts; concern for them lies at lower elevations, where developments or agriculture creates better habitat for House Finches. We targeted the conservation and expansion of aspen clones, which are important for many migratory bird species, by removing conifers from within and adjacent to aspen clones. Prescribed fire in the Proposed Action is targeted to burn about 50% to 70% of a particular unit, with the unburned sections acting as refugia. Aside from destroying a few nests during the spring underburning season, the prescribed fires would improve habitat conditions for those species that occupy more open sites. Concerns about habitat loss or alteration for species that currently occupy the dry sites is generally not of conservation concern because historically they did not occupy these sites, they species affected are not of conservation concern in this habitat, the long-term benefit of habitat enhancement for target dry forest species outweighs the loss of habitat for non-target species, and restoring dry forest habitats is one of the highest priorities for bird conservation in western North America. Depending on timing, the prescribed fire could kill a few individual nestlings but would not result in a decrease in the population of any birds. Pre-commercial thinning would occur in the Proposed Action. In the pre-commercial thinning units, habitat for those species that prefer dense, younger stands would decrease. All pre-commercial stands would retain about 10% of their area in an un-thinned condition. Suitable and sufficient habitat remains on the landscape so that these species would not exhibit a population decline. None of these species are considered threatened by habitat loss and none are on any lists of species of concern.

4. Cumulative Effects Within and adjacent to the Sherman Pass project area, migratory land bird habitat conditions have been affected by a wide variety of management and activities and natural processes. The majority of the valley floor west of the planning area is held privately and has been converted to pasture or hay fields that benefit those relatively common species that depend on open habitats but may have contributed to the overall decline in Cassin’s finches. Forest Service management does not convert forested lands to pasture so this project would not contribute to cumulative effects to Cassin’s finches. Fire suppression has reduced much of the habitat diversity that occurred across the Sherman Pass project area when fires actively burned, especially on the lower elevations of the planning area. In the higher elevations of the project area and along the Kettle Crest, 3 medium-sized fires and 1 large fire have burned within the past 25 years. These burned areas provided a flush of snags for foraging, open conditions for nesting, and as succession progresses, conditions that favor species that depend on early-successional habitat. Within the cumulative effects area, livestock grazing occurs on both private and public lands; however most of the forested riparian conditions remain in fairly good condition. Grazing does not occur in most of the project area, particularly not in the important riparian area along Sherman Creek. The cumulative effects of the above activities have been proportionally greater in those habitats that historically have been transitory in nature and/or in limited supply such as openings, shrub fields, riparian habitat, early successional forests, and single stratum forest types than in the general coniferous forest environment. Current and future management activities that maintain

77

or improve these types of habitats contribute cumulatively to the perpetuation of bird species that require these conditions and the maintenance of the area’s bird species diversity. Activities that do not maintain or improves these habitats do not contribute cumulatively to maintenance of existing habitat and species diversity. The No Action alternative does not contribute to the long-term maintenance of diverse land bird habitats. The Proposed Action provides positive opportunities to restore under-represented habitat (especially SS7) via commercial thinning, maintaining openings and shrub fields via prescribed fire, and promoting healthier, more resilient forest conditions across the planning area. The viability of neotropical migratory birds would not be negatively affected by this project.

5. Design Elements (DE) and/or mitigations (MI) Apply the same design elements as those for pileated woodpeckers and three-toed woodpeckers, listed under those species. Additionally, implement design element 23 to retain large-diameter hardwoods on the landscape, which are important to neotropical migratory birds.

I. Waterfowl 1 Introduction Waterfowl are not a Management Indicator Species under the Forest Plan. However, Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines provide management direction to insure their habitat needs are considered in project planning.

2 Affected Environment A few very small (< 1 acre) wetlands exist in the project area, primarily along Sherman Highway (oxbow ponds created when highway construction straightened the creek and isolated sections of the creek). Broods of mallards and other puddle ducks have been recorded from those wetlands.

3 Environmental Consequences The no action alternative would not affect any wetland or upland, so would have no effect to waterfowl use of the project area. The proposed action would not affect any wetland area, so post-hatching areas would not be affected. Uplands in which waterfowl nest are proposed for both harvest and prescribed fire. Nesting starts early and eggs would have hatched by the time that harvest activities usually start (generally late June). Prescribed fire, often conducted during spring, has burned over nests in other projects and could affect nesting areas in this project. If a fire burns over a nest early into incubation, the hen often renests. Timing of fire is an uncontrollable variable in this project, and some nests are expected to be lost. The number of nests lost would be less than 5 because fewer than 5 broods have been seen on the ponds. Though management activities might affect a year’s productivity, they would not affect long-term use of the project area by waterfowl.

4 Cumulative Effects Because the no action alternative would not affect any wetland or upland and would have no effect to waterfowl use of the project area, it would not contribute to cumulative effects for this project.

78

The proposed action would not affect wetlands, so would not contribute to cumulative effects to wetlands, but would affect nesting habitat. Fewer than 5 nests would probably be lost to project-related activities so the number lost would be a small fraction of those nesting in the cumulative effects area and would not affect viability of waterfowl.

5 Design Elements (DE) and/or mitigations (MI) None

III. Literature cited Altman, B. 2012. Conservation strategy for landbirds in coniferous forests of estern Oregon and

Washington. Version 2.0. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. http://www.orwapif.org/pdf/western_forest.pdf.

Altman, Bob. 2000. Conservation strategy for landbirds of the east-slope of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon and Washington. Corvallis, OR: American Bird Conservancy. Prepared for Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. 121 pages.

Avey, Josh T., Ballard, Warren B., Wallace, Mark C., Humphrey, Mary H., Krausman, Paul R., Harwell, Fielding, and Fish, Ernest B. 2003. Habitat Relationships between Sympatric Mule Deer and White-Tailed Deer in Texas. The Southwestern Naturalist 48(4):644-653.

Banks, Richard.C.; Cicero, Carla; Dunn, Jon L.; Kratter, Andrew W.; Rasmussen, Pamela C.; Remsen, Jr., J.V.; Rising, James D.; Stotz, Douglas F. 2003. Forty-fourth supplement to the American Ornithologists’ Union check-list of North American birds. Auk 120: 923-931.

Beutler, Deborah K. 2000. Distribution of the brown-headed cowbird in northeastern Washington: local and landscape factors. PhD dissertation. Washington State University, Pullman, WA. 126 pp.

Bock, Carl E. and Jane H. Bock. 1974. On the geographical ecology and evolution of the Three-toed Woodpeckers, Picoides tridactylus and P. arcticus. American Midland Naturalist 92: 397-405.

Brunjes, Kristina J., Ballard, Warren B., Humphrey, Mary H., Harwell, Fielding, McIntyre, Nancy E., Krausman, Paul R., and Wallace, Mark C. 2006. Habitat Use by Sympatric Mule and White-Tailed Deer in Texas. Journal of Wildlife Management 70(5):1351-1359.

Buchanan, Joseph B., Tracy L. Fleming, and Larry L. Irwin. 2004. A comparison of barred and spotted owl nest-site characteristics in the Eastern Cascade Mountains, Washington. Journal of Raptor Research 38:231–237.

Bull, Evelyn L. 1987. Ecology of the pileated woodpecker in northeastern Oregon. J. Wildl. Manage. 51(2):472-481.

Bull, Evelyn L. and Jerome A. Jackson. 2011. Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/148. [Accessed: February, 2012]

Bull, Evelyn L., and Richard S. Holthausen. 1993. Habitat use and management of pileated woodpeckers in Northeastern Oregon. J. Wildl. Manage. 57(2):335-345.

Bull, Evelyn L., Nicole Neilsen-Pincus, Barbara C. Wales, and Jane L. Hayes. 2007. The influence of disturbance vents on pileated woodpeckers in Northeastern Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management 243:320-329.

79

Cassirer, E. Frances; Freddy, David J.; Ables, Ernest D. 1992. Elk Responses to Disturbance by Cross-Country Skiers in Yellowstone National Park. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20(4): 375-381

Collier, Donald; Hudson, Alfred E.; Ford, Arlo. 1942. Archaeology of the Upper Columbia Region. University of Washington Publications in Anthropology. Seattle. 9: 178 pp.

Cook, John G., Johnson, Bruce K., Cook, Rachel C., Riggs, Robert A., Delcurto, Tim, Bryant, Larry D., and Irwin, Larry L. 2004. Effects of summer-autumn nutrition and parturition date on reproduction and survival of elk. Wildlife Monographs 155(1):1-61.

Cook, John G., Quinland, Lonnie J., Irwin, Larry L., Bryant, Larry D., Riggs, Robert A., and Thomas, Jack Ward. 1996. Nutrition-growth relations of elk calves during late summer and fall. Journal of Wildlife Management 60: 528-541.

Cook, John G.; Irwin, Larry L.; Bryant, Larry D.; Riggs, Robert A., and Thomas, Jack Ward. 1998. Relations of forest cover and condition of elk: a test of the thermal cover hypothesis in summer and winter. Wildlife Monographs . Bethesda, MD. The Wildlife Society. 61 pages.

Creel, Scott; Fox, Jennifer E.; Hardy, Amanda; Sands, Jennifer; Garrott, Bob; Peterson, Rolf O. 2002. Snowmobile Activity and Glucocorticoid Stress Responses in Wolves and Elk. Conservation Biology, 16: 809–814.

Freeman, Jonathan P., Thomas J. Stohlgren, Molly E. Hunter, Phillip N. Omi, Erik J. Martinson, Geneva W. Chong, Cynthia S.Brown. 2007. Rapid assessment of postfire plant invasions in coniferous forests of the western United States. Ecological Applications 17(6):1656-1665.

Geist, Valerius. 1981. Behavior: adaptive strategies in mule deer. In: Mule and black-tailed deer of North America. (Ed. O. C. Wallmo.) p. 157–224. University of Nebraska : Lincoln, NE.

Goggans, R., R.D. Dixon, and L.C. Seminara. 1988. Habitat use by Three-toed and Black-backed Woodpeckers. Oregon Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Nongame Report 87-3-02. Referenced in: Leonard, 2001.

Leonard, David L., Jr. 2001. Three-toed Woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America, No. 588 The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. Available: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/588/articles/introduction. [Accessed February 2012]

Livezey, K. B. 2009. Range Expansion of Barred Owls, Part II: Facilitating Ecological Changes. American Midland Naturalist 161(2): 323-349.

Livezey, Kent B. 2007. Barred owl habitat and prey: A review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Raptor Research 41(3): 177-201.

McGrath, Michael T., DeStefano, Stephen, Riggs, Robert A., Irwin, Larry L., and Roloff, Gary J. 2003. Spatially explicit influences on Northern goshawk nesting habitat in the interior Pacific Northwest. Wildlife Monographs 154: 1–63.

Mellen-McLean, Kim, Bruce G. Marcot, Janet L. Ohmann, Karen Waddell, Susan A. Livingston, Elizabeth A. Willhite, Bruce B. Hostetler, Catherine Ogden, and Tina Dreisbach. 2012. DecAID, the decayed wood advisor for managing snags, partially dead trees, and down wood for biodiversity in forests of Washington and Oregon. Version 2.20. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region and Pacific Northwest Research Station; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office; Portland, Oregon. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/decaid/index.shtml

NatureServe. 2014. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available online at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (accessed November 17, 2014).

80

Pelren, Eric C. and Crawford, John A. 1997. Blue grouse Dendragapus obscurus recruiment and weather relationships in northeastern Oregon, USA. Wildlife Biology 3:274.

Perkins, Peter J.; Lindzey, Frederick G., and Gessaman, James A. 1991. Physical characteristics of blue grouse winter use-trees and roost sites. Great Basin Naturalist. 51(3):244-248.

Raphael, M.G., M.J. Wisdom, M.M. Rowland, R.S. Holthausen, B.C. Wales, B.G. Marcot, T.D. Rich. 2001. Status and trends of terrestrial vertebrates in relation to land management in the interior Columbia river basin. Forest Ecology and Management 153:63-88.

Robinson, Hugh. 2007. Mule and white-tailed deer model for northeastern Washington. Missoula, MT. 1 DVD.

Sampson, Barry A. and DelGuidice, Glenn D. 2006. Tracking the Rapid Pace of GIS-Related Capabilities and Their Accessibility. Wildlife Society Bulletin 34(5): 1446-1454.

Scherer, G., D. Zabowski, B. Java, and Richard L. Everett. 2000 Timber harvesting residue treatment: Part II. Understory vegetation response. Forest Ecology and Management 126(1):35-50

Seattle Audubon Society. Birdweb: Spruce Grouse [Web Page]. 2008; Accessed 2010 Jan 8. Available at: http://www.seattleaudubon.org/birdweb/bird_details.aspx?id=120.

Singleton, Peter H., John F. Lehmkuhl, William L. Gaines, and Scott A. Graham. 2010. Barred Owl Space Use and Habitat Selection in the Eastern Cascades, Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management 74(2): 285-294.

Smith, J. K. (ed). 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on fauna. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-41-vol. 1. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 83 pp.

Taylor, Avery L., Jr., and Eric D. Forsman. 1976. Recent range extensions of the barred owl in western North America, including the first records for Oregon. Condor 78:560–561.

U.S. Congress. 2000. Public Law 106-247, Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act. 107th Congress. Washington D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Forest Service. 2008. Memorandum of understanding between the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to promote the conservation of migratory birds. Washington, D.C. U.S. Forest Service. FS Agreemtn # 08-MU-1113-2400-264. 13 pages.

USDA Forest Service. 1994. Continuation of Interim Management Direction Establishing Riparian, Ecosystem and Wildlife Standards for Timber Sales (Eastside Screens amendment)

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Landbird Strategic Plan. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Washington, D.C. 21pp.

USDA Forest Service. 1988. Final environmental impact statement, Land and resource management plan, Colville National Forest, and appendices. Portland, OR, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp. [Online version available at <http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/>]

Vial, M. and Loggers, C. 2001. Wildlife of Northeastern Washington. Unpublished checklist. US Forest Service. 4 pp.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2011. Selkirk Elk Herd Plan. Wildlife Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 55pp.

81

Whitford, T. C. 1991. Defining old-growth Douglas-fir forests of central Montana and use of the Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) as a Management Indicator Species. Wildlife Biology. Missoula, University of Montana. Master's Degree. 62 pp.

Wiggins, David. 2004. American Three-toed Woodpecker (Picoides dorsalis): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/americanthreetoedwoodpecker.pdf [Accessed February 2012].

Wisdom, Michael J., Richard S. Holthausen, Barbara C. Wales, Christina D. Hargis, Victoria A. Saab, Danny C. Lee, Wendel J. Hann, Terrell D. Rich, Mary M. Rowland, Wally J. Murphy, and Michelle R. Eames. 2000. Source Habitats for Terrestrial Vertebrates of Focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: Broad-Scale Trends and Management Implications. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-485, Portland, OR. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr485/

Youkey, Don. 2012. Status of Management Indicator Species On the Colville National Forest, USDA Forest Service, Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. 91 pp.

Zwickel, Fred C., and Art N. Lance. 1965. Renesting in Blue Grouse. The Journal of Wildlife Management 29(2):402-404.

82

IV. Appendix A. Viability Outcomes Five viability outcomes (modified from Raphael et al. 2001) are defined below to describe the probability of the assessment area to support a population of the management indicator species (MIS) based on habitat and risk factors. These outcomes were evaluated for current conditions for each MIS within the planning area (Colville National Forest). The term ‘suitable environment’ refers to the combination of habitat and risk factors that influence the probability of occupancy and demographic performance of a MIS. The five viability outcomes used were: Outcome A – Suitable environments are broadly distributed and of high abundance. The combination of distribution and abundance of environmental conditions provides opportunity for continuous or nearly continuous intra-specific interactions for the MIS species. MIS species with this outcome are likely well-distributed throughout the planning area. Outcome B - Suitable environments are broadly distributed and of high abundance, but there are gaps where suitable environments are absent or only present in low abundance. However, the disjunct areas of suitable environments are typically large enough and close enough to permit dispersal among subpopulations and to allow the species to potentially interact as a metapopulation. Species with this outcome are likely well-distributed throughout most of the planning area. Outcome C – Suitable environments are distributed frequently as patches and/or exist at low abundance. Gaps where suitable environments are either absent or present in low abundance are large enough such that some subpopulations are isolated, limiting opportunity for intra-specific interactions. There is opportunity for subpopulations in most of the planning area to interact, but some subpopulations are so disjunct or of such low density that they are essentially isolated from other populations. For species for which this is not the historical condition, reduction in the species’ range in the planning area may have resulted. Species with this outcome are likely well-distributed in only a portion of the planning area. Outcome D – Suitable environments are frequently isolated and/or exist at very low abundance. While some of the subpopulations associated with these environments may be self-sustaining, there is limited opportunity for population interactions among many of the suitable environmental patches. For species for which this is not the historical condition, reduction in species’ range in the planning area may have resulted. These species are likely not well-distributed in the planning area. Outcome E – Suitable environments are highly isolated and exist at very low abundance, with little or no possibility of population interactions among suitable environmental patches, resulting in strong potential for extirpations within many of the patches, and little likelihood of recolonization of such patches. There has likely been a reduction in the species’ range from historical conditions, except for some rare, local endemics that may have persisted in this condition since the historical time period. Species with this outcome are not well-distributed throughout much of the planning area.

Documents

Effects to Management Indicator Species (Wildlife Portion ...a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...July 7, 2015 . Three Rivers Ranger District . Colville National Forest