1

WILDLIFE REPORT SENSITIVE SPECIES, MIGRATORY BIRDS AND MIS SPECIES

DIVIDE RD – THREE SALES North Pool Salvage

Castor Salvage East Sheep Salvage

Rio Grande National Forest

Divide Ranger District

Prepared by: Dale Gomez Divide RD. Wildlife Biologist Rio Grande National Forest

13308 W. Hwy 160 Del Norte, CO.

Ph: (719) 657-6024 1/19/16

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART 1: INTRODUCTION, LOCATION AND PROPOSED PROJECT 3

PART 2: SPECIES CONSIDERED AND ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS 7

2.1 Sensitive Species 7

2.2 Management Indicator Species 34

2.3 Migratory Birds 41

PART 3: MONITORING RECOMMENDATIONS 47

PART 4: REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED 48

Appendix A: Project Design Criteria

Appendix B: North Pool Spruce Beetle Salvage – Habitat Connectivity Design

3

PART 1: INTRODUCTION, LOCATION AND PROPOSED ACTION

Introduction

The Rio Grande National Forest is evaluating the effects of three proposed salvage sales on the Divide Ranger District. The purpose of this Wildlife Report is to assess the potential influences of the proposed sales on Sensitive Species, Management Indictor Species and Migratory Birds located on the Rio Grande National Forest.

Purpose and Need for Action The purpose of the salvage projects is to utilize prior investments in the areas to cost-effectively retrieve economic value of the dead timber and to manage long-term forest conditions as prescribed by the Forest Plan Management Area Prescriptions (MAP) 5.11 and 5.13.

The sales have been initiated by the need for salvage of dead and insect damaged trees before they lose economic value. Following harvest, units will be monitored for tree stocking levels and, if needed, will be artificially regenerated to meet Forest Plan Standards.

This action responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the Forest Plan, and helps move the project area towards desired conditions described in that plan. For the purposes of this analysis, forest condition will be measured against Forest Plan Desired Conditions for MAPs 5.11 and 5.13 as all proposed management activities fall within these prescription, and actions are therefore dictated by it.

Proposed Action

The Rio Grande National Forest proposes to initiate salvage harvesting and where needed, artificially reforest areas within the analysis areas. The proposed action would contribute toward providing a sustained yield of forest products from the Rio Grande National Forest, would ensure meeting or moving toward Forest Plan Desired Conditions for MAP 5.13, and would maintain important wildlife habitat. Implementation of the salvage sales would begin in 2017 with activities lasting for approximately 3 years.

The proposed action would be accomplished through a variety of associated actions. Ground-based logging systems would be utilized for salvage harvest on approximately 1,500 acres from all three sales. Approximately 6.5 miles of old non-system road template may be re-opened (North Pool) and 3.5 miles of new temporary road may be constructed (North Pool – 2.5 and 0.5 miles each for Castor and East Sheep). Under the proposed action, trees 8 inches diameter at breast height and larger would be considered for commercial harvest. An exception to this may be in the North Pool Sale where removal of dead trees under 8” may occur in some units. These units consist almost entirely of dead trees and are considered to be unsuitable lynx habitat.

Table 1: Sale Summary North Pool Salvage Castor Salvage East Sheep Salvage

Total

Acres of Salvage 1,000 acres 250 acres 250 acres 1,500 acres Miles of old road reopened 6.5 miles 0 miles 0 miles 6.5 miles Miles of new temp road 2.5 miles .5 miles .5 miles 3.5 miles

4

A brief description of the salvage sales and current habitat conditions are as follows:

1). North Pool Salvage- This sale would salvage dead and dying spruce trees on approximately 1,000 acres north of Hanson’s Mill located 11 miles east of Creede. Approximately 6.5 miles of old non-system road template may be re-opened and 2.5 miles of new temporary road may be constructed.

The majority of the stands in this sale consist of a dead spruce overstory (>90% dead), contain little sub-alpine fir, with little understory (<35% DHC) and are considered to be Unsuitable Lynx Habitat. This project is located within the La Garita Wilderness LAU. Telemetry work and snow tracking efforts suggest that this area is not utilized by much extent by lynx.

5

2). Castor Salvage – This sale would salvage up to 250 acres of dead and dying spruce trees in the Beaver Mountain area approximately 6 miles southeast of South Fork. Up to 0.5 mile of temporary road may be constructed or re-opened.

All of these stands consist of a dead spruce overstory (>90% dead) component but contain a good mixture of live sub-alpine fir. Stands 1-3 contain a DHC component >35% while stands 4 and 5 contain DHC at a lower percentage and with expected damage, will be converted into temporarily unsuitable habitat (S1). Damage to DHC in stands 1-3 will contribute to the Forest’s incidental damage cap but will remain as suitable habitat (S6).

This project is located in the Trout-Handkerchief LAU. Telemetry work has demonstrated this this area receives some use by lynx but does not appear to be an area of high use.

6

3). East Sheep Salvage – This sale would salvage up to 250 acres of dead and dying spruce trees in the Rock Creek Drainage approximately 12 miles southwest of Monte Vista. Up to 0.5 mile of temporary road may be constructed or re-opened.

All of these stands consist of a dead spruce overstory (>90% dead) with some sub-alpine fir present. All stands contain good quality DHC in excess of >35%. Following salvage, all acres will remain as suitable habitat. All stands will contribute towards the Forest’s incidental damage cap.

The number of stands analyzed in this sale contain 340 acres. Final units selected for harvest will be determined during layout. However, the total acres to be harvested will be no more than 250 acres. All of the acres are similar as far as lynx habitat and only 250 acres are analyzed here.

This project is located in the Pinos-Rock LAU. Telemetry work has not demonstrated lynx use in this area, but due to adequate habitat being available, it is likely that lynx do utilize the area as part of a home range.

7

PART 2: SPECIES CONSIDERED and ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS

2.1 Sensitive Species

All species were analyzed at the Forest-Level or within the boundaries of the salvage sales as displayed in the location section of this document in Part 1.

Pre-field reviews and habitat surveys determined that suitable habitat exists for eleven sensitive species within the three Project Analysis Areas (wolverine, pine marten, hoary bat, bighorn sheep, boreal owl, northern goshawk, olive-sided flycatcher, boreal toad, leopard frog, Monarch butterfly and the Western bumblebee). These eleven species are further analyzed for the Three Salvage Sales Projects.

Species having no suitable habitat within the Analysis Area are not analyzed in further detail. This project will have NO IMPACT on these species which include: Townsends’s big-eared bat, fringed myotis, Gunnison’s prairie dog, river otter, burrowing owl, black swift, Ferruginous hawk, Flammulated owl, Sage sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, Lewis’s woodpecker, Loggerhead shrike, Northern harrier, Peregrine falcon, White-tailed ptarmigan, bald eagle, Mountain plover, Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout, Rio Grande Chub and Sucker and the Great basin silverspot butterfly.

Table 2. Sensitive Species, Rio Grande National Forest (January 4th, 2016)

Species Suitable Habitat within the Analysis Area?

Species Documented within the Analysis Area?

Basic Habitat Description

MAMMALS

Wolverine Gulo gulo luscus

Yes No Remote subalpine and spruce/fir forested areas. Overall, this species utilizes a wide range of habitat types as it is very mobile.

American marten Martes Americana

Yes Yes Spruce/fir and mixed conifer forests with complex physical structure.

Towsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii

No No Forages in semi-desert shrublands, pinyon-juniper woodlands and open montane forests. Roosts in caves, mines and mature forests.

Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes

No No Desert, grassland, and woodland habitats. Roosts in caves, mines, rock crevices, buildings, and other protected sites.

Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus

Yes No Primarily a solitary tree-foliage roosting bat; may be associated with any habitat type that contains trees, up to timberline.

8

Gunnsion’s prairie dog Cynomys Gunnison (Candidate)

No No High mountain valleys and plateaus at 1830-3660 m; open or slightly brushy country, scattered junipers and pines. Burrows usually on slopes or in hummocks.

Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep Ovis Canadensis

Yes-North Pool Only

Yes-North Pool Only High-visibility habitat dominated by grass, low shrubs, and rock cover, areas near open escape terrain, and topographic relief.

River Otter Lontra canadensis

No No Major river drainages, larger perennial streams with at least 10 cfs of stream flow (generally 4th order or larger); lakes and reservoirs.

BIRDS

Black swift Cypseloides niger

No No Nests behind or next to waterfalls and wet cliffs. Forages over forests and open areas.

Boreal owl Aegolius funereus

Yes No Mature spruce/fir and mixed conifer forested areas with preference for wet situations (bogs or streams) for foraging

Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia

No No Open grasslands associated with prairie dogs. Nests and roosts in burrows dug by mammals or other animals.

Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis

No No Open grasslands and shrub steppe communities. Nests in tall trees or shrubs along streams or on steep slopes

Flammulated owl Otus flamineolus

No No Depend on cavities for nesting, open forests for foraging, brush for roosting. Occupy open ponderosa pine or forests with similar features (dry montane conifer or aspen, with dense saplings).

9

Sage sparrow Amphispiza belli

No No Grasslands and open situations with scattered brush and riparian scrub; preferring to feed near woody cover; strongly associated with sagebrush for breeding. Positively correlated with big sagebrush, shrub cover, bare ground, above-average shrub height, and horizontal patchiness; negatively correlated with grass cover.

Brewer’s sparrow Spizella breweri

No No Strongly associated with sagebrush in areas with scattered shrubs and short grass; to lesser extent in mountain mahogany, rabbit brush, and bunchgrass grasslands with shrubs or large openings in pinyon-juniper.

Northern goshawk Accipter gentiles

Yes No Mature forest generalist. On the Rio Grande, often found in mixed conifer/aspen stands.

Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis

No No Open pine forests, burnt over areas with snags and stumps, riparian and rural cottonwoods, and pinyon-juniper woodlands.

Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus

No No Grassy pastures that are well grazed. Nests in shrubs or small trees, preferably thorny such as hawthorn.

Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus borealis

Yes Yes Mature spruce/fir or Douglas-fir forests with preference for natural clearings, bogs, stream and lake shores with water-killed trees, forest burns and logged areas with standing dead trees.

Northern harrier Circus cyaneus

No No Marshes, meadows, grasslands, and cultivated fields. Nests on the ground, commonly near low shrubs, in tall weeds or reeds, sometimes in bog; or on top of low bush above water, or on knoll of dry ground, or on higher shrubby ground near water, or on dry marsh vegetation.

American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum

No No Cliff habitat over 200 feet high with suitable ledges for nest construction.

White-tailed ptarmigan Lagopus leucurus

No No Alpine tundra, especially in rocky areas with sparse vegetation. Summer habitats - moist, low-growing alpine vegetation. Canopy cover of willow at winter feeding sites preferred.

Bald eagle Haliaeetus No No Nests and roosts are usually found in open-

10

leucocephalus branched trees near larger lakes, streams, rivers and reservoirs.

Mountain Plover Charadrius montanus

No No High plains/short grass prairie habitats, often associated with prairie dog towns. Nesting areas characterized by very short vegetation with significant areas of bare ground.

AMPHIBIANS and FISH

Boreal toad Bufo boreas boreas

Yes No Spruce/fir near water and alpine meadows.

Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens

Yes No Riparian and wetland areas generally below 9,000 feet.

Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchys clarkia viginalisis

Yes but species not present

No Streams, rivers and lakes. Most frequently found in headwaters.

Rio Grande Chub Gila pandora

Yes but species not present

No Flowing pools of headwaters, creeks, and small rivers, often near inflow of riffles and in association with cover such as undercut banks and plant debris.

Rio Grande Sucker Catostomus plebeuis

Yes but species not present

No Pools, runs, and riffles of small to moderately large streams, usually over gravel and/or cobble.

11

INSECTS

Great Basin silverspot butterfly Speyeria nokomis nokomis

No No Spring fed and/or subirrigated wetlands at low (7500 feet or less) elevation; larval food plant Viola nephrophylla; wet meadows interspersed with willows and other woody wetland species; adult nectar sources (mostly composites).

Monarch Butterfly Danaus p. plexippus

Yes No Milkweed is an essential feature of quality monarch habitat. Common places milkweed occurs include short and tall grass prairies, livestock patsures, agricultural margins, roadsides, wetland and riparian areas, sandy areas in addition to deserts, open forests and woodlands.

Western bumblebee Bombus occidentalis

Yes No The western bumble bee has three basic habitat requirements: suitable nesting sites for the colonies, nectar and pollen from floral resources available throughout the duration of the colony period (spring, summer and fall), and suitable overwintering sites for the queens.

Analysis of Effects – Sensitive Species

A) WOLVERINE 1). Species and Habitat Information

Generally, wolverines are restricted to the boreal forests, tundra, and remote mountains of North A merica (Banci 1994). In Idaho, suitable montane coniferous forests may only be useful if associated with subalpine cirque habitats needed for natal denning, security areas, and summer foraging. Female wolverines in Idaho prefer secluded subalpine talus sites for

natal and kit rearing dens. Post-weaning rendezvous sites for kits and adult females included large boulder talus and mature spruce/fir riparian sites with dense understory and forest floor wood complexes (Copeland and Hudak 1996).

Wolverines are generally described as opportunistic omnivores in summer and scavengers in winter. Diet studies display the importance of large mammals and carrion, primarily ungulates,

12

to the wolverine (Banci 1994). Wolverines have very large home ranges, with males and females in Idaho requiring over 770 and 270 square miles, respectively.

With respect to timber harvesting, the greatest potential effects are most likely due to road construction and increased human access. Copeland and Hudak (1996) suggest that road building near sub-alpine boulder talus sites might eliminate historical or potential wolverineforaging or denning habitat. They also felt that recreational activities such as backcountry skiing and snowmobiling might displace wolverines from potential denning habitat or cause abandonment. Human access on snowmobiles or all-terrain vehicles in winter and early spring may cause behavioral disturbances that could affect life history traits.

The Colorado Division of Wildlife considered the wolverine to be extirpated from Colorado. There are 22 records representing 25 animals documented in the literature that were collected between 1871 and 1919. Since that time, 3 more specimens have been reported in or near Colorado, the latest being a adult male trapped near Cheyenne, Wyoming in April 1996. Currently, one radio-collared wolvering that traveled from Wyoming remains in the state and is the first documented wolvering in Colorado since 1919.

Since 1979, 12 investigations have been conducted in the state with the goal of trying to document the presence of lynx or wolverine. After intensive efforts using snow-tracking (5,834 miles), hair snags (62 locations), remote cameras (110 locations), and snares (686 trap nights), only 10 sets of tracks that appeared to have a high probability of being wolverine were found. No evidence of wolverine was found on the Rio Grande National Forest.

Species Occurrence: Wolverine are believed to be extirpated from Colorado. There are no documented occurrences of wolverine in the Three Project Analysis Areas. Given the wide ranging habits of this species, there is a very slight chance that wolverine may periodically utilize the Analysis Areas.

2) Effects Analysis (direct, indirect and cumulative): Risk factors: Recent genetic work and modeling efforts indicate that wolverines in the southern periphery of their range are primarily threatened by genetic isolation and disturbance from humans. Most of this disturbance is associated with road densities and human recreation use in high-elevation mountains and basins, and may have profound impacts on wolverines if they occur near denning habitat. These habitats may be very limited across the landscape and are subject to abandonment if disturbed by humans. This in turn may lead to unused potential habitat, avoidance during dispersal, and further fragmentation of the population (Banci 1994). Although the Rio Grande National Forest has fewer visitor days than most other Colorado Forests, recreation is still the most likely local risk factor associated with wolverines since it is the primary management activity that occurs in their wilderness and backcountry habitats.

13

Salvage Harvesting Potential Effects Direct Effects on Species - The proposed work is planned in areas with existing road systems in place. It is unlikely that direct impacts upon wolverine by logging would have a great affect upon wolverine other than temporary avoidance during project activities. Kits are born during periods of heavy snow cover and are mobile by the time salvage operations would be occurring limiting the potential impacts upon young. Indirect Habitat Effects – Indirect effects include less woody debris available on the forest floor for wolverine prey species but this impact is not expected to be significant given the amount of debris that will be remaining. Removal of trees in the project site may degrade prey habitat (small mammals) for this species in the immediate area but may improve habitat for larger prey (large mammals). The spatial distribution and concentration of trees remaining will continue to provide suitable foraging habitat for this species within the surrounding forest matrix and project site. Harvest activities are not expected to impact movement of this species either within its home range or impact dispersal into other areas should one be present. b). Potential Effects from other activities (ie. tree planting, re-opening closed roads and new road construction).

Direct and Indirect Effects on Species – The effects of the other project activities upon wolverine are not expected to be significant. New temporary road construction would be the most disturbing to wolverine but it is doubtful that this activity would further impact wolverine use of the area. Cumulative Effects: There are no other known or expected cumulative effects anticipated upon wolverine as the result of the proposed sale or other state, federal, or private actions. 3). Conservation Measures Project Design Criteria are provided in Appendix A. 4). Effects Determination Rationale for the determination for Wolverine is summarized below: a). Wolverine are believe to be extirpated from Colorado. Even so, the possibility does exist that an unknown and undocumented individual could be in the area.

In Summary - Based on the analysis discussed above, it is determined that: The proposed actions May Impact Individual Wolverine, but is not likely to cause a trend towards Federal listing or result in loss of viability in the planning area.

14

B). AMERICAN MARTEN 1). Species and Habitat Information

The American marten is considered a fairly common resident in Colorado. Primary habitat i ncludes late-successional coniferous forests, especially those with complex woody structure near the ground (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). Both spruce-fir and mixed-conifer habitat comprise the primary habitat types for marten on the Rio Grande National Forest. Down woody material is considered an important element of suitable

marten habitat, and provides critical resting, denning, and hunting areas (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994, Bull and Blumton 1999). Down woody complexes are also readily used for subnivean sites during winter when marten readily use natural and made-made piles of wood for resting and hunting areas. Raphael and Jones (1997) found that 29% of denning areas is Oregon occurred in human-created slash piles.

Fitzgerald et al. (1994) felt that at least 30% canopy cover was necessary for suitable marten habitat, with an optimum of 40% to 60% for resting and foraging. Optimum habitat is described as having 30+% canopy cover, a well-established understory of fallen logs and stumps, and a lush shrub and forb vegetation. Mature and late successional conifer stands readily provide all of these components.

The most important prey of martens in the west during winter are forest dwelling species such as red-backed voles (Clethrionomys spp.) and pine squirrels (Tamiascurus spp.) and herbaceous or riparian species (Microtus spp.). In the western United States in winter, the distribution and abundance of these species provide some measure of the value of habitats for foraging. According to Buskirk and Ruggiero (1994) deer mice and shrews are generally eaten less than expected based on their numerical abundance.

The home range size for marten varies from less than one to almost six square miles (Fitzgerald et al. 1994). In one Wyoming study that is geographically closest to the Forest, average home ranges were 0.76-1.2 square miles for males and 0.3 square miles for females. Home range size has been shown to vary as a function of prey abundance and habitat type, with habitat modifications often increasing the amount of area required by individuals (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994). Most breeding occurs during late July to early September, with delayed implantation occurring thereafter. A litter of one to five young is born from mid-March through late April.

Species Occurrence: Marten appear to be fairly common in the Analysis Areas wherever suitable habitat occurs based on field surveys.

15

2). Effects Analysis (direct, indirect and cumulative):

Risk factors: The primary risk factors associated with American marten involve those activities that modify late-successional stand characteristics preferred by the species and/or its food resources. Activities that modify canopy closures, snag densities, and/or ground-level coarse woody debris may be particularly detrimental to the American marten. Timber harvest is considered the primary forest management activity that has the potential to affect American martens. The primary impacts include removal of the large tree and/or snag component, reduction in canopy closures, and alteration of ground-level coarse woody debris complexes that are associated with older forest stand conditions.

Salvage Harvesting Potential Effects Direct Effects on Species – It is unlikely that direct impacts upon marten by logging would have much affect other than temporary avoidance during project activities. Kits are born during periods of heavy snow cover and are mobile by the time logging operations would be occurring limiting the potential impacts upon young. Indirect Habitat Effects – Indirect effects include less woody debris available on the forest floor and consequent reduced foraging and denning opportunities for marten and their prey species. Removal of trees in the project site will degrade habitat for this species in the immediate area. However, the spatial distribution and concentration of trees remaining will continue to provide suitable habitat for this species within surrounding forest matrix and project site. Logging activities could result in limited disturbance to marten during project implementation. Salvage harvesting is not expected to impact movement of this species either within its home range or impact dispersal into other areas. b). Potential Effects from other activities (ie. tree planting, re-opening closed roads and new road construction).

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects – Direct and Indirect effects of the other activities upon Marten are similar to the salvage harvesting potential impacts. Cumulative Effects: There are no other known or expected cumulative effects anticipated upon marten as the result of the proposed salvage sales or other state, federal or private actions. 3). Conservation Measures Project Design Criteria are provided in Appendix A. 4). Effects Determination Rationale for the determination for Marten is summarized below:

16

C). HOARY BAT 1). Species and Habitat Information

The hoary bat is a solitary, wide-ranging species. It uses a variety of trees as roost sites. It appears to favor deciduous trees for roosts in the eastern United States, but in Colorado the species is frequently found in ponderosa pine forests where large deciduous trees are lacking. Roosts are located 4 to 5 m above ground, protected from above with good leaf cover and branches, but allowing a clear flight path below. Such trees are frequently associated with the margins of clearings or with windbreaks of the narrow fringe of deciduous trees along

irrigation canals on the plains. The species never seems to be abundant in any area and most collections are of single individuals unless small groups are encountered in migration. Males and females are segregated in summer, males tending to stay in Colorado while females continue north to bear and rear young. Hoary bats emerge well after dark, although migrants are known to emerge shortly after nightfall. Flight is straight and rapid. These bats make a distinctly audible chatter during flight, enabling researchers to detect their presence with relative ease. The diet is mostly moths, although other insects – including beetles and wasps-may also be taken, as are smaller bats such as pipistrelles. The hoary bat probably occurs throughout Colorado in suitable habitat from the eastern plains to elevation of 10,000 in the mountains.

Species Occurrence: There are no documented occurrences of Hoary Bat within the analysis areas. However, it is very likely that Hoary Bats are present in the general area but are poorly documented.

2). Effects Analysis (direct, indirect and cumulative):

Risk factors: The primary risk factors associated with Hoary Bat involve those activities that modify late-successional stand characteristics preferred by the species for roosting. Activities that modify canopy closures and snag densities may be particularly detrimental to the Hoary Bat.

In Summary - Based on the analysis discussed above, it is determined that: The proposed actions May Impact Individual Marten, but is not likely to cause a trend towards Federal listing or result in loss of viability in the planning area.

17

Salvage Harvesting Potential Effects Direct Effects on Species – There is a chance that Hoary Bats may be temporarily displaced or could suffer direct mortality during project activities. Indirect Habitat Effects – Indirect effects include fewer future snags being available for Hoary bats. However, given the scope of the current project and the number of trees/snags that will remain, it is doubtful that the project operations will have any measurable impact upon Hoary bats. The areas overall will continue to provide adequate habitat. b). Potential Effects from other activities (ie. tree planting, re-opening closed roads and new road construction).

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects – There is a chance that roosting bats may be temporarily displaced and could possibly roost sites as the result of these other activities. It is unlikely that adult bats would be impacted by these activities directly. The spatial distribution and concentration of snags remaining should continue to provide suitable habitat for this species throughout the Analysis Areas. Overall, the project should have little impact upon Hoary bats. Determination of impacts is more a result of the slight risk to roosting bats during harvest and other activities more so than habitat impacts. Cumulative Effects: There are no other known or expected cumulative effects anticipated upon marten as the result of the proposed salvage sale or other state, federal or private actions. 3). Conservation Measures Project Design Criteria are provided in Appendix A. 4). Effects Determination Rationale for the determination for Hoary Bats is summarized below:

In Summary - Based on the analysis discussed above, it is determined that: The proposed action May Impact Individual Hoary Bats, but is not likely to cause a trend towards Federal listing or result in loss of viability in the planning area.

18

D. ROCKY MOUNTAIN BIGHORN SHEEP

1). Species and Habitat Information Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep frequent high-visibility habitat dominated by grass, low shrubs, and rock cover, areas near open escape terrain, and topographic relief. Grasses, sedges and forbs are the preferred foods. Browse species are important foods during fall and winter. Bighorns are highly social animals and characteristically are separated into nursery bands comprised of ewes, lambs and sub adults and ram bands. The two groups come together primarily during the rut and again in the spring as sprouting vegetation appears. Species Occurrence: The North Pool analysis area encompasses Bighorn Sheep Unit 36. Currently this population appears to be slowly increasing and has a current estimated size of 45 animals. Bighorn utilize the Analysis Area all year and are often observed from the Pool Table Road. There are no bighorn sheep involved with Castor or East Sheep Salvage Projects. 2). Effects Analysis (direct, indirect and cumulative):

Risk factors: There are several threats mentioned in the literature that function as limiting factors on most bighorn populations. However, the common theme throughout the western United States including Colorado is the significance that infectious diseases can have on population performance and species abundance.

Salvage Harvesting Potential Effects Direct Effects on Species – There are no anticipated direct effects expected upon bighorn sheep from the salvage sales. On North Pool, there is some potential for interaction between bighorn sheep and log trucks. Adhering to the posted Forest Service Developed Road speed limit particularly the last 5 miles of the Pool Table Road during the fall and winter, would limit this potential. Indirect Habitat Effects – Indirect impacts from salvage harvesting (North Pool) would result in a positive impact upon bighorn sheep. Logging would remove some of the physical barriers created by dense trees. Improved opportunities for dispersal may result both from the spruce beetle influence and salvage project. b). Potential Effects from other activities (ie. tree planting, re-opening closed roads and new road construction).

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects – Direct and Indirect effects of the other activities upon bighorn are similar to the salvage harvesting potential impacts. Cumulative Effects: There are no other known or expected cumulative effects anticipated upon marten as the result of the proposed salvage sale or other state, federal or private actions.

19

3). Conservation Measures Project Design Criteria are provided in Appendix A. 4). Effects Determination Rationale for the determination for Rocky Mountain Bighorn Sheep is summarized below:

E). BOREAL OWL 1). Species and Habitat Information

Boreal owls are closely related with spruce/fir zone forests throughout their range. They are year-round residents that use similar habitats during all seasons. Mature forests are necessary for nesting due to their requirement for large-sized snags to serve as nesting cavities. The boreal owl is a secondary nester and is dependent upon woodpecker cavities and to a lesser extent on natural cavities in large trees for nesting.

Spruce is the preferred species but cavities have been found in Douglas-fir, lodgepole, aspen and high elevation ponderosa pine (Hayward and Verner 1994). Home range sizes in Colorado average 3600 acres with considerable overlap between males (Palmer 1986). They are very mobile predators and frequently traverse much of their home range in the course of 2-3 days or weeks (Hayward et al. 1993). Roosting generally occurs in mature spruce-fir forests along branches close to the boles of trees. They move little during the day but will frequently change to nearby roost trees. Winter roosts show little pattern, but summer roosts usually occur in cool micro-sites and there may be movement to higher elevations. Boreal owls frequently use pole-sized stands for hunting. They will also use openings where perches are available along the forest edge. This is especially true in spring when snow cover is still present under the forest canopy but openings have melted. Boreal owls forage using sit and wait tactics from perches, as opposed to pursuit hunting (Hayward et al. 1993). Small mammals are preferred prey items, especially the red-backed vole, which makes up 25 to 50 percent of their diet. Boreal owls are opportunistic hunters with a varied summer diet that includes insects, jumping mice, chipmunks, birds, pocket gophers, shrews, deer mice and voles. They are primarily nocturnal birds but will also actively hunt in daylight if bad weather has hampered nocturnal foraging. Their peak hunting activity occurs within 2 hours of sunset and sunrise. Boreal owls are generally tolerant of human activities that potentially cause direct disturbances in other raptor species.

In Summary - Based on the analysis discussed above, it is determined that: The proposed action May Impact Individual Bighorn Sheep, but is not likely to cause a trend towards Federal listing or result in loss of viability in the planning area.

20

Species Occurrence: There are no documented reports of Boreal Owls in the Analysis Areas. However, Boreal Owls are expected to be found throughout the Analysis Areas wherever their habitat is present. 2). Effects Analysis (direct, indirect and cumulative) Risk factors: The primary risk factors associated with the Boreal Owl involve those activities that modify late-successional stand characteristics preferred by the owl and its primary prey species - the red-backed vole. The boreal owl does not appear to be particularly susceptible to disturbance from human activities that do not alter habitat (Palmer 1986). Timber harvest is considered the primary management activity that has the potential to influence boreal owls on the Rio Grande National Forest. Primary influences include removal of the large tree and/or snag component, reduction in canopy closures, and alteration of the understory components associated with red-backed vole habitat. Salvage Harvesting Potential Effects Direct Effects on Species - There is a chance that nesting birds may be disturbed or suffer direct mortality as the result of tree felling activities. Indirect Habitat Effects - The proposed harvesting will result in fewer snags being available for nesting and less structure in the form of woody debris for boreal owl prey, in particular red-backed voles. Removal of beetle infested trees will reduce the effectiveness of the habitat for this species in the immediate project site and may make them more vulnerable to predation by predators such as goshawk and great horned owls. However, the spatial distribution and concentration of trees remaining should continue to provide areas of suitable habitat for this species within the area of influence. Logging activities could result in disturbance to boreal owls during project implementation. Habitat effectiveness including ability to disperse across the landscape may be impacted but overall the areas will continue to provide adequate habitat for boreal owls within the surrounding forest matrix. b). Potential Effects from other activities (ie. tree planting, re-opening closed roads and new road construction).

Direct and Indirect Effects on Species – There is a chance that nesting birds may be temporarily disturbed and could possibly abandon nests due to these activities Cumulative Effects: There are no other known or expected cumulative effects anticipated upon boreal owls as the result of the proposed sales or other state, federal, or private actions. 3). Conservation Measures Project Design Criteria are provided in Appendix A.

21

4). Effects Determination Rationale for the determination for Boreal Owl is summarized below: a). There remains some chance that boreal owls could be directly or indirectly impacted by salvage activities.

F) NORTHERN GOSHAWK 1). Species and Habitat Information

The northern goshawk is sometimes referred to as a forest generalist because it occurs in all major forest types (Reynolds et al. 1992). Nest areas often contain a relatively high tree canopy cover and a high density of large trees. Nest stands range in size from 20 to 25 acres and are often on slopes with northerly exposures or in drainages or canyon bottoms protected by such slopes. A post-fledging area (PFA) usually surrounds the nest site and represents a concentrated use and protection area for the family unit from fledging until the young are no longer dependant on the adults. PFA’s often resemble the nest area in stand structure but also

contain a greater mosaic of trees sizes and snags, small openings and large, downed logs. A concentrated use area used for foraging purposes extends beyond the PFA and usually consists of older age class forests and habitat components that support high densities of prey species. Large tree components (live trees, snags, and down woody material) are often scattered throughout the foraging area (Reynolds et al. 1992). Home range sizes often vary from 5,000 to 6,000 acres and may contain several alternate nests (Woodbridge and Detrich 1994). Nest sites in Colorado vary in respect to particular habitat types across different portions of the state. Colorado nests tend to occur on gentle north or east facing slopes or benches above 8,250 feet that contain a mixture of both pine and aspen. Nests were seldom farther than 907 ft from water. Nest sites on the San Juan National Forest primarily occurred in larger-sized aspen trees (< 14” dbh). Known nests on the Rio Grande National Forest have been found to occur in both aspen as well as mixed-conifer or rarely, spruce/fir stands. Goshawks in Colorado begin re-establishing breeding territories by early April. Egg-laying occurs by late April, with nestlings hatching by late May. Fledging occurs approximately 45 days thereafter, with the young using the post-fledging area through at least late July. Primary

In Summary - Based on the analysis discussed above, it is determined that: The proposed actions May Impact Individual Boreal Owls, but is not likely to cause a trend towards Federal listing or result in loss of viability in the planning area.

22

prey species include forest birds and mammals (e.g. robins, flickers, squirrels, cottontails) that reside mainly on the ground and in lower portions of the tree canopy (Reynolds et al. 1992). Species Occurrence: There are no documented goshawk nests within the Analysis Areas. Species specific surveys did not locate any goshawks. However, is likely that goshawk utilize the areas for nesting and hunting at least to a limited degree. On the RGNF, goshawk nests are typically located in mixed conifer and aspen stands more so than Spruce-fir forests. 2) Effects Analysis (direct, indirect and cumulative): Risk Factors: The primary risk factors associated with the northern goshawk involve activities that manipulate the type of forest structure needed for successful reproduction and foraging. The majority of these activities are primarily related to timber harvest, although wildfire, fire suppression, livestock grazing, and other factors may also be involved (Reynolds et al. 1992). Northern goshawks are sensitive to disturbance in or around the core nest area. Disturbance can cause the adult to come off the nest and lead to greater susceptibility of the young. Recreational activities, such as camping has also caused goshawks to abandon their nests. However, other goshawk pairs have apparently become adapted to certain human developments, so disturbance factors may vary between individual pairs and time within the nesting season. Salvage Harvesting Potential Effects Direct Effects on Animals – It is unlikely that harvesting will result in the accidental direct mortality of adult goshawks. Felling of nest trees could occur, killing young birds if felling occurs before birds fledge from the nest. Indirect Habitat Effects - Logging activities could result in limited disturbance to goshawk during project implementation if present. Indirect effects include fewer snags remaining in the area and less woody debris for goshawk prey species. Overall the areas will continue to provide adequate habitat for goshawk. b). Potential Effects from other activities (ie. tree planting, re-opening closed roads and new road construction).

Direct and Indirect Effects on Species – It is very unlikely that goshawk will be impacted by the other activities associated with the projects. The activities could result in limited disturbance to goshawk during project implementation if present. Cumulative Effects: There are no other known or expected cumulative effects anticipated upon goshawk as the result of the proposed activities or other state, federal, or private actions. 3). Conservation Measures Project Design Criteria are provided in Appendix A.

23

4). Effects Determination Rationale for the determination for Goshawk is summarized below: a). Although no documented occurrences of goshawks are known in any of the Analysis Areas, it is likely that goshawk utilize the areas as hunting territory. G) OLIVE-SIDED FLYCATCHER

1). Species and Habitat Information:

The olive-sided flycatcher is a montane summer resident in Colorado that occurs at elevations of 7,000 to 11,000 feet (Andrews and Righter 1992). It primarily occurs in mature spruce/fir or mixed-conifer forests but also occupies several other forest types such as aspen. Primary habitat is most closely associated with mature forest stands that contain natural or created openings adjacent to tall, spike-topped snag habitat. Habitats adjacent to water are also preferred. Olive-sided flycatchers return to the breeding grounds by mid to late April

and usually depart by early September. The olive-sided flycatcher has frequently been associated with forest edge habitat and openings that result from post-burn and forest management practices that also retained large, live and dead trees. The strong association with burned areas is likely due to creation of a more open forest with increased edge at the interface of live and dead forest. In west-central Colorado the olive-sided flycatcher occurred in higher densities in stands with low overstory canopy, and was absent as the over story coverage approached 100 per cent. A 1994 spruce/fir habitat-relationship study on the Rio Grande National Forest found that the flycatcher did not respond to particular patch sizes, shapes, or structural stages. It was assumed that the presence of snags was the most important habitat attribute. Nests most often occur on a horizontal branch along the forest edge. Nest heights in western North America are usually 4 to 67 feet. Limited data indicates strong site fidelity at the wintering and breeding grounds.

The olive-sided flycatcher is an aerial insectivore that forages from a high prominent perch mostly at the top of a snag or the dead tip or uppermost branch of the tallest trees where it flies out (sallying or hawking) to capture a flying insect, and then returns to the same or

In Summary - Based on the analysis discussed above, it is determined that: The proposed actions May Impact Individual Goshawk, but is not likely to cause a trend towards Federal listing or result in loss of viability in the planning area.

24

another prominent perch. Unlike other flycatchers it is entirely restricted to sallying or hawking for prey. Its foraging behavior requires exposed perches and unobstructed air space, thus tall trees and open canopy provide a better environment than closed canopy forest. Bees, wasps and flying ants make up a high percentage of their diet.

Species Occurrence: Prior to the beetle infestation, the Analysis Areas contained marginal habitat for flycatchers in that few snags for perching were available and the proximity of the project site to openings was not optimum. However, the infestation is providing improved foraging and nesting opportunities available for this species. 2). Effects Analysis (direct, indirect and cumulative): Risk factors: Information indicates that the olive-sided flycatcher is closely associated with post-fire habitats for nesting success and suggests a need to avoid or minimize salvage of burned trees in wildfire areas (Hutto 1995, Altman and Sallabanks 2000). Timber management activities may also create a habitat sink for olive-sided flycatchers, particularly when silvicultural prescriptions fail to mimic natural disturbance processes that retain structural legacies such as tall snags and trees (Hutto 1995).

Salvage Harvesting Potential Effects

Direct Effects on Species –There is a chance that nesting birds may be temporarily displaced or could suffer direct mortality during tree felling activities. Indirect Habitat Effects - Indirect effects include fewer future snags being available for olive-sided flycatchers to perch on. However, given the scope of the current project and the number of snags that will remain, it is doubtful that the harvest operations will have any measureable impact upon olive-sided flycatchers. The areas overall will continue to provide adequate habitat. b). Potential Effects from other activities (ie. tree planting, re-opening closed roads and new road construction).

Direct and Indirect Effects on Species – There is a chance that nesting birds may be temporarily displaced and could possibly abandon nests as the result of these other activities. It is unlikely that adult birds would be impacted by these activities directly. The spatial distribution and concentration of snags remaining should continue to provide suitable habitat for this species throughout the Analysis Areas. Overall, the projects should have little impact upon Olive-sided flycatchers. Determination of impacts is more a result of the slight risk to nesting birds during harvest and other activities more so than habitat impacts. Cumulative Effects: There are no other known or expected cumulative effects anticipated upon olive-sided flycatchers as the result of the proposed sales or other state, federal or private actions.

25

3). Conservation Measures Project Design Criteria are provided in Appendix A. 4). Effects Determination Rationale for the determination for Olive-Sided Flycatchers is summarized below: a). Existing suitable habitat suggests that it is likely this species utilizes the areas.

H. BOREAL TOAD

1). Species and Habitat Information:

The boreal toad occurs throughout most of the mountainous portion of Colorado and is most common between 8,500 – 11,000 feet (Hammerson 1999). Distribution is restricted to areas with suitable breeding habitat in spruce/fir and alpine meadows. Breeding habitat includes lakes, marshes, ponds, and bogs with sunny exposure and quiet, shallow water. Rarely are toads known to lay eggs in streams. During the summer adult toads may move

considerable distances from breeding sites. During the winter, however, they are primarily restricted to underground chambers, beaver dams, and other sites adjacent to water.

Species Occurrence: There are no known populations of Boreal Toad within the Analysis Areas. The Divide District has completed extensive surveys for boreal toads over the last decade throughout the district. Field surveys have not documented any toads nor are there any historical records of Boreal Toads within the Analysis Areas. The only known boreal toad populations in the Southern San Juan’s are in the Creede area.

2). Effects Analysis (direct, indirect and cumulative):

Risk factors: The primary reasons for the world-wide decline of amphibians as a whole, is largely thought to be due to the chytrid fungus. The fungus is present in the San Luis Valley amphibian populations and within most of the Forest’s known boreal toad populations. In

In Summary - Based on the analysis discussed above, it is determined that: The proposed actions May Impact Individual flycatchers, but is not likely to cause a trend towards Federal listing or result in loss of viability in the planning area.

26

general, all activities that may alter water quality and aquatic habitats may also influence boreal toads (Loeffler et al. 2001).

Salvage Harvest Potential Effects

Direct Effects on Species - Potential effects from harvest activities on boreal toads includes direct crushing of individuals from equipment, soil compaction (alteration of burrows), alteration of tree root systems (hibernacula), alteration of movement zones, and general influences on soil moisture and hydrology (Loeffler et al. 2001).

Indirect Habitat Effects - Removal of a significant amount of overstory will change site conditions on the ground and could impact boreal toad survival and reproduction by changing the microclimate in the understory. However, due to the spruce beetle, these conditions are already occurring. Harvest will result in more openings and less woody debris on the forest floor. More openings impacts toad habitat by increasing the risk of predation and decreasing surface moisture. Woody debris is used by toads as shelter.

b). Potential Effects from other activities (ie. tree planting, re-opening closed roads and new road construction).

Direct and Indirect Effects on Species – Effects could include direct mortality from these activities. However, this likelihood is extremely low given the amount of effort undertaken in the last few years to locate new toad populations and by the location of these activities not including any potential habitat for this species.

Cumulative Effects: There are no known or expected cumulative effects anticipated upon boreal toads as the result of the proposed activities or other state, federal or private actions. 3). Conservation Measures Project Design Criteria are provided in Appendix A. 4). Effects Determination Rationale for the determination for Boreal Toad are summarized below: a). There are no known Boreal Toad populations included within the project boundary of the Analysis Areas. There is a very slim chance that the Analysis Areas may contain an unknown population. b). Standards and guidelines are in place to protect riparian areas in the Forest Plan.

In Summary - Based on the analysis discussed above, it is determined that: The proposed actions May Impact Individual Boreal Toads, but is not likely to cause a trend towards Federal listing or result in loss of viability in the planning area.

27

I). NORTHERN LEOPARD FROG 1). Species and Habitat Information The Northern leopard frog is found throughout North America except on the West Coast. Leopard frogs prefer the banks and shallows of marshes, ponds, lakes, reservoirs, beaver ponds, streams and other permanent bodies of water, especially those with rooted vegetation. Species Occurrence: There are no recent or historical reports of leopard frogs in the Three Project Analysis Areas. Amphibian surveys on the district have not been able to locate any populations of this amphibian species. Leopard frogs appear to be extremely rare on the Forest and are more common on the San Luis Valley floor particularly in the Valley’s Refuges and Wetlands. 2). Effects Analysis (direct, indirect and cumulative):

Risk factors: Similar to toads, the chytrid fungus probably poses the highest risk to leopard frogs and is responsible for a decline in amphibian populations worldwide. In general, all activities that may potentially alter water quality and aquatic habitats may also influence leopard frogs.

Salvage Harvesting Potential Effects

Direct Effects on Species- Potential effects from harvest activities on leopard frogs are similar to toads and include direct crushing of individuals from equipment, soil compaction (alteration of burrows), alteration of tree root systems (hibernacula), alteration of movement zones, and general influences on soil moisture and hydrology. In general, unlike toads, frogs are rarely found very far from permanent water sources and are typically better protected from direct impacts by management activities due to standard wetland protection measures.

Indirect Habitat Effects – Similarly to toads, removal of a significant amount of overstory may change site conditions on the ground and could impact leopard frog survival and reproduction by changing the microclimate in the understory. However, due to the spruce beetle, these conditions are already occurring. An increase in the risk of predation and a decrease in surface moisture could result resulting in greater risk for this species.

b). Potential Effects from other activities (ie. tree planting, re-opening closed roads and new road construction).

Direct and Indirect Effects on Species – Effects upon leopard frogs are the same as boreal toad.

28

Cumulative Effects: There are no other known or expected cumulative effects anticipated upon leopard frogs as the result of the proposed activities or other state, federal or private actions. 3). Conservation Measures Project Design Criteria are provided in Appendix A. 4). Effects Determination Rationale for the determination for Leopard frog is summarized below: a). There are no documented reports of leopard frogs in the Project Analysis Areas but there is always a very slight chance that the Analysis Areas may contain an unknown population. b). Standards and guidelines are in place to protect riparian areas in the Forest Plan.

J. MONARCH BUTTERFLY 1). Species and Habitat Information

Monarchs undergo complete metamorphosis comprised of four stages: egg, larva (caterpillar), pupa (chrysalis), and adult. The cycle is completed in about 30 days. Caterpillars hatch from eggs laid on milkweed leaves after 3-5 days. Caterpillars undergo five instars (molts) over a period of 10-14 days, after which it will pupate and spend 9-14 days as a chrysalis. Once fully developed, it emerges as an adult butterfly, venturing in search of nectar, mating, and (if

female) laying eggs. In summer, adults live 2-6 weeks. Migrating monarch survive through the winter, approximately 6-9 months (Jepsen et al. 2015). Eastern populations (east of the Rocky Mountains) migrate to overwintering areas in south-central Mexico. Western populations (west of the Rocky Mountains) move to wintering grounds in coastal California and the northern tip of Baja California, Mexico, arriving from early September to mid-October (Hill et al. 1976, Leong 1990, both cited in Jepsen et al. 2015). In late-February or March, monarchs disperse from wintering areas to western states including interior California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and Arizona (Dingle et al. 2005 cited in Jepsen et al. 2015). No references to wintering location for populations breeding in Colorado have been identified in the literature.

In Summary - Based on the analysis discussed above, it is determined that: The proposed actions May Impact Individual Leopard Frogs, but is not likely to cause a trend towards Federal listing or result in loss of viability in the planning area.

29

Milkweed (Asclepias spp.) is an essential feature of quality monarch habitat. Common places milkweed occurs include short and tall grass prairies, livestock pastures, agricultural margins, roadsides, wetland and riparian areas, sandy areas, and gardens (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2015) in addition to deserts, open forests and woodlands (Jepsen et al. 2015). Monarch larvae feed exclusively on plant species in the milkweed family (Aslepiadoideae). A total of 27 milkweed species in the genus Asclepias, in addition to a few closely related genera, have been identified as monarch larval food plants (Malcolm and Brower 1986 cited in Jepsen et al. 2015). Adult monarchs utilize diverse nectar sources for food. Nectar plants are a key component to prime habitat for monarchs. Spring blooming nectar plants (approximately March 20 - June 1) fuel the monarch migration northward from Mexico and inland from the California coast. Without abundant nectar sources through the migratory corridors, monarchs are less likely to survive and may not be able to reproduce successfully. Summer blooming nectar sources (approximately June 2 - August 15) throughout the breeding range are vital to sustain a healthy breeding population. Fall blooming nectar plants (approximately August 16 - October 30) are important in allowing monarchs to store enough energy not only to survive the long journey to their overwintering sites, but also to survive winter with very minimal nectar availability (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service). Species Occurrence: Scott and Scott (1978) describe monarchs as common locally in south-central Colorado, occurring at elevations from 4,300 – 11,500 feet (rarely above 9,000 feet), mainly in lowlands near larval food plants (Asclepias spp. and rarely Apocynaceae). Review of available reference material revealed no status, distribution, or trend of monarch breeding occurrences for Colorado. In addition, identification of wintering areas used by monarchs breeding in Colorado is not known. No monarch occurrences have been reported for the Rio Grande Forest (NRIS database). No trend for the species in the planning area has been identified. 2). Effects Analysis (direct, indirect and cumulative):

Risk factors: Recent analyses and reviews including (Miller et al. 2012, Brower et al. 2012a, Pleasants and Oberhauser 2013, Flockhart et al. 2013, 2014, Butler 2014, Center for Biological Diversity et al. 2014, all cited in NatureServe 2015) conclude that the recent large-scale decline of North American monarchs is primarily the result of changes in the core breeding habitat, not the wintering habitat. Declines are attributed largely to the recent loss of milkweed (Asclepias spp.) as a result of two changes in agricultural practices: 1) widespread adoption of genetically modified herbicide-tolerant corn and soybeans and use of the herbicide glyphosate on these crops; and 2) placing approximately 25,000,000 additional acres of mostly Roundup Ready corn since 2007. In both cases threats remain substantial. Climate change is emerging as a current threat in Mexico, California, and Texas at least. North American populations can still respond quickly to temporarily good weather conditions (NatureServe 2015).

30

Jepsen et al. (2015) describe three factors that appear to explain the decline of eastern monarchs: 1) loss of milkweed breeding habitat due to increased use of herbicides on genetically modified herbicide-resistant cropland and land conversion, 2) logging at overwintering sites, and 3) climate change and extreme weather (Brower et al. 2012a cited in Jepsen et al. 2015). Factors affecting monarch dynamics of monarchs in the western U.S. are not completely understood. Stevens and Frey (2010 cited in Jepsen et al. 2015) hypothesized that increased drought frequency is an important factor in population decline. Other causes may be linked to loss of milkweed and changes in overwintering sites, but relative contribution of these factors has not been studied. Disease, parasitism, predation, and pesticide use constitute other potential threats to monarch western populations (Jepsen et al. 2015). Salvage Harvesting Potential Effects Direct Effects on Species – Potential effects from harvest activities on Monarch Butterfly are unlikely. No monarch occurrences have been reported for the Rio Grande Forest. Spruce fir forests do not currently contain the necessary habitat components needed for monarch butterfly, namely, a lack of milk weed species. Indirect Habitat Effects – Indirectly habitat for Monarch Butterfly are expected to improve as a result of a reduction of forest stand density. b). Potential Effects from other activities (ie. tree planting, re-opening closed roads and new road construction).

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects – It is very unlikely that Monarchs will be impacted by the other activities associated with the projects. Cumulative Effects: There are no known or expected cumulative effects anticipated upon Monarch Butterfly as the result of the proposed activities or other state, federal or private actions. 3). Conservation Measures: The following habitat management considerations are provided in the Conservation and Management of Monarch Butterflies: A Strategic Framework (USDA Forest Service 2015):

• Reduce forest stand densities to allow for development of herbaceous understory, which includes host and nectar plants.

• Accelerate restoration of prairies, savannahs, and woodlands on appropriate sites. • Develop local monarch-friendly seed mixes for restoration efforts, soil stabilization,

wildlife openings, and other resource opportunities. • Manage the landscape to provide host and nectar sources from spring to fall. • Maximize benefits to monarch butterflies without compromising their safety by

controlling the timing of mowing wildlife openings and roadsides (best mowing time is in late winter).

31

• Time prescribed burning so that it does not coincide with migration. This approach is extremely important in the Southern Region, where first-generation monarch butterflies migrate north and last-generation monarch butterflies migrate south into Mexico.

• Accelerate efforts to control nonnative invasive plant species to increase abundance and diversity of butterflies and native bees.

• Develop local milkweed seed production areas. • Reduce the amount of grass mowed by establishing pollinator gardens at administrative

and recreation sites. Ensure that interpretation signs are provided at these pollinator gardens for better public understanding.

4). Effects Determination Rationale for the determination for Monarch Butterfly is summarized below: a). No Monarch occurrences have been reported for the Rio Grande Forest.

b). Salvage should improve the development of an herbaceous understory which will increase host and nectar plants.

K. WESTERN BUMBLEBEE 1). Species and Habitat Information The western bumble bee has three basic habitat requirements: suitable nesting sites for the colonies, nectar and pollen from floral resources available throughout the duration of the colony period (spring, summer and fall), and suitable overwintering sites for the queens (Jepson et al. 2014). Nests occur primarily in underground cavities such as old squirrel or other animal nests and in open west-southwest slopes bordered by trees, although a few nests have been reported from above-ground locations such as in logs among railroad ties (Hobbs 1968, MacFarlane et al. 1994, Plath 1922, Thorp et al. 1983, all cited in Jepson et al. 2014). Bumble bees require plants that bloom and provide adequate nectar and pollen throughout the colony’s life cycle, which is from early February to late November for B. occidentalis (although the actual dates likely vary by elevation). Very little is known about the hibernacula, or overwintering sites (Jepson et al. 2014). Species Occurrence: Prior to 1998, the western bumble bee was both common and widespread throughout the western United States (including Colorado) and western Canada. Since 1998, this bumble bee has undergone a drastic decline throughout some areas of its former range. While

In Summary - Based on the analysis discussed above, it is determined that: The proposed actions will have No Impact upon Monarch Butterfly in the planning areas.

32

viable populations still exist in Alaska and east of the Cascades in the Canadian and U.S. Rocky Mountains, the once common populations of central California, Oregon, Washington and southern British Columbia have largely disappeared (Xerces 2015). Cranshaw (2010 cited in NatureServe 2015) reports the species in decline in Colorado, essentially its southeastern limit which suggests the decline of this subspecies has probably become range-wide. There are no occurrences documented in the NRIS database for the planning area. No status or trend has been identified for populations within the planning area. However, it just recently became a sensitive Species for USFS Region 2 (June 2015) and awareness of this species and most all pollinators has been rudimentary. 2). Effects Analysis (direct, indirect and cumulative):

Risk factors:

Declines in bumble bee species in the western U.S. appear to be related to a wide variety of factors including anthropogenic habitat change, nesting site availability, loss of overwintering habitat, and pesticide use (Kearns and Thomson 2001, Goulson et al. 2005, Evans et al. 2009, all cited in Kearns 2011). In North America, non-native parasites transmitted from commercially raised bumblebee pollinators have been implicated as well (Evans et al. 2009 cited in Kearns 2011). Most studies have focused on environmental factors as the cause of declines. Only recently has population genetics been employed to detect genetic vulnerability of bumblebees (Goulson et al. 2008, UN FAO 2008, Zayed 2009, all cited in Kearns 2011). Bumble bees are are particularly vulnerable to pathogens and parasites, notably the protozoans Nosema bombi Fartham & Porter (Microsporidia: Nosematidae) and Crithidia bombi Lipa and Triggiani (Kinetoplastida: Trypanosomatidae) and the tracheal mite Locustacris buchneri Stammer (Acari: Podapolipidae) (Shykoff and Schmid-Hempel 1991, Imhoof and Schmid-Hempel 1999, all cited in Rao and Stephen 2007). Bombus occidentalis was reared in the same rearing facility as other bumble bee species and Nosema and other pathogens infected the cultures (Thorp 2003 cited in Rao and Stephen 2007). Commercial rearing and export of B. occidentalis is speculated to have resulted in inadvertent transport of parasites and diseases, possibly causing its apparent local extinction from the west coast of the United States in recent years (NAS 2006 cited in Rao and Stephen 2007). Major threats that alter landscapes and habitat required by bumble bees include agricultural and urban development, livestock grazing (due to removal of flowering food sources, alteration of vegetation communities, and likely nest disturbance), and habitat fragmentation leading to decreased genetic diversity and increased risk of decline (Xerces Society 2015). Salvage Harvesting Potential Effects Direct Effects on Species – Potential effects from harvest activities on Western Bumblebee are unlikely. Spruce fir forests typically do not contain the best habitat for this species. Indirect Habitat Effects – Indirectly, habitat for bumblebees is expected to improve as a result of a reduction of forest stand density and an expected increase in herbaceous vegetation.

33

b). Potential Effects from other activities (ie. tree planting, re-opening closed roads and new road construction).

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects – It is very unlikely that Western Bumblebees will be impacted by the other activities associated with the projects. Cumulative Effects: There are no known or expected cumulative effects anticipated upon Western Bumble bee as the result of the proposed activities or other state, federal or private actions. 3). Conservation Measures Jepson et al. (2014) provide the following management considerations for western bumble bee:

• Protect known and potential sites from practices, such as livestock grazing, and threats such as conifer encroachment, that can interfere with the habitat requirements of this species (availability of nectar and pollen throughout the colony season and availability of underground nest sites and hibernacula).

4). Effects Determination Rationale for the determination for Western Bumblebee is summarized below: a). Salvage should improve the development of a herbaceous understory which will increase the availability of nectar and pollen.

Table 3: Sensitive Species Summary

Species Determination Rationale -American marten (S) Martes Americana -Wolverine (S) Gulo gulo -Bighorn Sheep (S) Ovis Canadensis

May Impact Individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend towards Federal listing or result in loss of viability in the planning area.

Project activities could result in limited disturbance to marten and bighorn sheep. Wolverine are believed to be extirpated from Colorado.

-Hoary Bat (S) Lasiurus cinereus

May Impact Individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend towards Federal listing

There is a chance that Hoary bats may be temporarily displaced or could suffer direct mortality during project activities.

In Summary - Based on the analysis discussed above, it is determined that: The proposed actions will have No Impact upon Western Bumblebee in the planning area.

34

or result in loss of viability in the planning area.

-Northern goshawk (S) Accipter gentiles -Boreal owl (S) Aegolius funereus -Olive-sided flycatcher (S) Contopus borealis

May Impact Individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend towards Federal listing or result in loss of viability in the planning area.

There is a remote possibility that nesting birds could be temporarily displaced and may possibly abandon nests due to project activities. There is some potential for direct mortality.

-Boreal Toad Bufo boreas boreas (S) -Northern leopard frog (S) Rana pipiens

May Impact Individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend towards Federal listing or result in loss of viability in the planning area.

The district has completed in-depth boreal toad surveys in the last decade. There are no known populations of either these species in the analysis area. However, in the instance of an unknown population being present, there is some potential for direct mortality.

-Monarch Butterfly Danaus p. plexippus (S) -Western Bumblebee (S) Bombus occidentalis

The proposed action will have No Impact upon these two species in the planning area.

Salvage should improve the development of a herbaceous understory which will increase the availability of host and nectar plants and pollen.

2.2 Management Indicator Species and Analysis of Effects

The Forest Plan, as amended, lists 9 species as MIS on the Forest. All MIS with habitat in the analysis areas which could be potentially impacted by the project were evaluated. MIS species not addressed either with no habitat in the area or in which have limited habitat, not expected to be impacted by the project, include Pygmy nuthatch, Wilson’s warbler, Lincoln’s and Vesper Sparrow and Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout.

The rationale for level of analysis of MIS for this project is summarized below, followed by a more detailed discussion. Field site visits to the areas occurred during summer and fall of 2015 to help examine habitat conditions and evaluate potential impacts of the projects upon MIS species.

Table 4 is a summary of the Forest’s MIS species and the rationale for the detail in which they were analyzed for these projects. Four MIS were evaluated in detail for this analysis: 1) Brown Creeper, 2) Hermit Thrush, 3) Elk, and 4) Mule Deer.

35

Table 4. Summary of the MIS Evaluation.

MIS Habitats

Represented Rationale for Selection in

Forest Plan

Rationale for Detailed Evaluation for the

Analysis Area

Rationale for Dismissal From

Detailed Analysis

Brown creeper

Mature to late successional spruce/fir and mixed conifer (LTAs 1, 3, 13;

Species has a close association with structural elements that occur under older forest conditions, including large tree diameters and older snag component. May respond to certain threats, management, and conservation activities in spruce/fir forests (Colorado Bird Conservation Plan).

To assist in monitoring whether Forest Plan standards and guidelines for biodiversity are being met, with an emphasis on snag management.

Further Analyzed

Hermit thrush

Mature to late successional spruce/fir and mixed conifer (LTAs 1, 3, 13;

Species primarily associated with spruce/fir and is commonly associated with, but not restricted to, older forest structure. May respond to certain threats, management, and conservation activities in spruce/fir forests (Colorado Bird Conservation Plan). Tied to complex structural forest elements; may represent mature to late successional forest floor characteristics. Timber and/or fire management may affect quantity and/or quality of habitat, such as coarse woody debris.

To assist in monitoring whether Forest Plan standards and guidelines for biodiversity are being met, with an emphasis on coarse woody debris and understory vegetation.

Further Analyzed

Elk Forest-wide (All LTAs)

Special interest locally (i.e., economic and recreational value). May be competing with other native ungulates and livestock. Sensitive to roads and related disturbance.

To assist in monitoring whether Forest Plan standards and guidelines are being met for wildlife, with an emphasis on roads.

Further Analyzed

Mule deer Forest-wide (All LTAs)

Special interest locally (economic and recreational value). Sensitive to roads and related disturbance. A habitat generalist but also associated with early successional stages for forage.

To assist in monitoring whether Forest Plan standards and guidelines are being met for wildlife, with an emphasis on forest management issues that influence the early successional stages of plant communities.

Further Analyzed

LTA = Landtype Association (defined in Appendix B and in the Forest Plan FEIS page 3-41).

36

SPECIES FURTHER EVALUATED

For avian MIS, project level population information is an estimate of potential densities, based on species biology and suitable habitat that is presumed to be occupied. Because MIS were fairly recently amended into the Forest Plan and avian MIS surveys specific to the Forest were only initiated in 2004, available trend data is derived from existing sources, such as the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (RMBO) Monitoring Colorado Birds (MCB) program, the Colorado Land Bird Conservation Plan, and the Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas project, which are currently the primary sources of multi-year monitoring data. Until Forest-wide trend data are established via Forest-wide monitoring protocols, avian MIS population data at the Forest level are of necessity, estimated from known acreages and distributions of habitat types and structural associations, and species habitat affinities, but are considered within the context of available trend data at larger scales. Project level surveys documented species presence and habitat occupancy for all four of these species.

For deer and elk, population trends are tracked by the Colorado Division of Wildlife at the Data Analysis Unit level. Specific habitat, risk factors and project potential effects for the four selected MIS is as follows.

Brown Creeper – Suitable habitat for the brown creeper on the Rio Grande National Forest occurs within mid to high elevation coniferous forests, particularly in late-successional mixed-conifer and spruce-fir habitat associations. Existing potential habitat in these two forest cover types occurs on approximately 634,000 acres, or about 51% of total forested land base. Studies conducted locally indicate that the brown creeper exhibits a strong preference for late-successional spruce-fir cover types. Brown creepers have also been noted in low densities in aspen stands on the Forest, where they occur in larger-sized stands in the mid to older structural stages. This association with

older forest stands is due to their requirement for snags in the latter stages of decay and large live trees for foraging.

The brown creeper has a moderately high relative abundance throughout its global range, but is found in relatively low abundance in the Southern Rocky Mountains. Its global population trend indicates a stable or undetectable population trend. Breeding Bird Survey trend data for the brown creeper from 1966 to 2002 suggests a slow population increase continent-wide, with a larger increase in Colorado and surrounding states. Local breeding population trends indicate a stable to slightly increasing trend within the Southern Rockies-Colorado Plateau Bird Conservation Region.

Brown creepers have been located on all districts of the Forest and the current information suggests that they are widely distributed and present wherever suitable habitat occurs.

37

Risk Factors for Brown Creeper

On the Rio Grande National Forest, the brown creeper is an indicator of late-successional conditions (Habitat Structural Stage 4b, 4c, and 5) within the spruce-fir and white-fir/Douglas-fir Land Type Associations. Other species that may be represented by brown creepers include the boreal owl, northern three-toed woodpecker, pine grosbeak, golden-crowned kinglet, hermit thrush, ruby-crowned kinglet, olive-sided flycatcher, Clark’s nutcracker, Hammond’s flycatcher, red squirrel, southern red-backed vole, snowshoe hare, Canada lynx, elk, and hoary bat. Risk factors considered in this analysis include reductions in the large green tree component required for foraging substrate, reductions in the type of snag component required for nesting, reductions in canopy closure and downed woody material, and disruptions in the natural disturbance processes, such as insects and disease factors, which create and maintain habitat components (USDA Brown Creeper MIS 2003). Project Potential Effects – Involves a total of 1,500 acres of salvage, all of which appears to provide brown creeper habitat but most likely in varying degrees of quality. Disturbance could occur from human activities associated with timber and fuels reduction activities. Some nest destruction could occur with the removal of dead trees. Sufficient snags will remain for brown creeper to nest and forage. Retained snags would exceed Forest Plan standards and guidelines.

Green trees not killed by beetles will remain, however, reductions in canopy closure and loss of large green trees killed by beetles may displace some brown creeper into adjacent, non-impacted and untreated habitats. Use of remaining habitat by brown creeper within the treated areas would be influenced by decreased stand quality as a result of a combination of beetles, salvage and prescribed fire.

This alternative is not expected to impact species viability. The acres involved with this alternative represent 0.024% of the potential habitat on the Forest and could provide habitat for approximately 300 pairs of Brown Creeper.

Hermit Thrush – Suitable habitat for the hermit thrush on the Rio Grande National Forest occurs in mid to high elevation coniferous forests, particularly in the mixed-conifer an spruce-fir habitat associations. Existing potential habitat is estimated to occur on approximately 634,000 acres, or about 51% of total forested landbase. Studies conducted locally in spruce-fir and mixed-conifer habitat associations indicate that the hermit thrush exhibits a preference for late-successional but will also frequent sapling-pole sized stands during the latter stages of development. This latter structural stage is defined by trees that vary in size from about 5 to 9 inches DBH and exhibit a canopy closure of greater than 40%. Hermit thrush detected on existing monitoring transects on the Forest achieve their highest densities in spruce-fir habitat

38

types. However, they have also been noted in fairly high densities in aspen stands, where they occur most frequently in larger-sized stands in the mid to older structural stages. This use of aspen may be related to the large amount of spruce-fir inclusions in aspen community types on the Forest. The key habitat components important to hermit thrush include maintenance of patchy understory conditions and coarse woody debris. This association with older forest stands and younger dense stands is due to their requirements for small, dense understory trees for nesting cover and their ground-foraging habits.

The hermit thrush as a moderately low relative abundance throughout its global range, but occurs in high relative abundance in the Southern Rockies. It is considered secure globally, although it may be quite rare in portions of its range. BBS trend data for the hermit thrush displays a small population increase continent-wide, but a possible decrease in Colorado and surrounding states. Local breeding population trends indicate a stable or increasing trend.

The hermit thrush is considered a common breeder on the Forest and is currently known to occur and reproduce in suitable habitat areas.

Risk Factors for Hermit Thrush

Risk factors considered for the Hermit Thrush in the analysis are similar to those described for the Brown Creeper, and involve manipulation of late-successional spruce-fir and white fir/Douglas fir habitats. For the Hermit Thrush, the risk factors also involve reductions in canopy closures and/or vegetative layering that provides cool moist forest floor conditions, reductions in downed coarse woody material, and disruptions in the natural disturbance processes such as blowdown which creates and maintains habitat components such as small openings that support dense clumps of understory firs (USDA Hermit Thrush MIS 2003).

Project Potential Effects - Involves a total of 1,500 acres of hermit thrush habitat. Disturbance could occur from human activities associated with project activities. Some nest destruction could occur with the removal of dead trees and through fuels reduction.

Harvest treatments may increase the rate of understory release which could benefit hermit thrush. Following salvage, sufficient coarse woody debris will remain for hermit thrush habitat and small, dense and green trees preferred by hermit thrush will remain.

Reductions in canopy closure and loss of large green trees for foraging and snag recruitment due to beetles and project treatments, may displace some hermit thrush into adjacent, untreated habitats. While spruce snags would be substantially reduced, overall numbers of retained snags would exceed Forest Plan standards and guidelines.

This alternative is not expected to impact species viability. The acres involved with this alternative represent 0.024% of the potential habitat on the Forest and could provide habitat for approximately 150 pairs of Hermit Thrush.

39

Elk – The Rocky Mountain elk is one of four subspecies of elk that is widely distributed throughout western North America. In Colorado, elk range over much of the western two-thirds of the state and are increasing in numbers. Elk use various seasonal habitats on the Forest with one of the most important being winter range. As early winter snows begin to accumulate, most elk move down to winter ranges where they usually remain in large herds from December through March. As winter begins to moderate in late March, elk start a gradual movement back up to their summer ranges and the cycle begins again.

There are approximately 300,000 acres of elk winter range on the Forest, most of which occurs at lower elevations. These areas are generally in poorer ecological condition than upland areas. Currently, there is no clear indication of habitat trend for winter range although grass and forb productivity is generally good while the trend of the shrub community is stable to declining in most areas. Currently, the estimated forage produced on all seasonal ranges of the Forest exceeds both livestock and wildlife forage demands by almost four times.

Elk use during the summer is generally well distributed across higher elevation ranges on the Forest. Most elk summer range is in good to excellent condition and exhibits a stable ecological trend concerning productivity, plant vigor, and species composition. Elk are primarily influenced by factors that affect hunter harvest rates, forage resources, and over-winter survival. Forest management activities primarily influence the quality, quantity and availability of forage and cover and thereby influence elk numbers, distribution, and habitat use. Timber harvest activities may produce more forage opportunities due to the relationship between forest canopy closures and plant growth. Open road densities can affect how elk use available habitats, and also influence their vulnerability during the hunting season(s). The annual harvest regulated by CDOW, however, most likely has the greatest influence on populations.

The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) has the responsibility of managing elk populations in the state and has established herd objectives based on individual Data Analysis Units (DAUs). DAUs are geographically defined areas which generally contain distinct big game populations. There are four DAUs on the Forest with a combined population of 13,950 elk. Currently, the total population is estimated at 23,900 elk and each of these DAUs has been exceeded since the late 1980’s.

Mule Deer – Mule deer are widely distributed in western North America. In Colorado, they occupy various habitats but achieve their highest densities in shrub lands that provide abundant

browse and cover. Mule deer also use various habitat types on the Forest, with one of the most important being winter range. The acreages and ecological conditions of mule deer winter range habitat overlaps with that described for elk winter range. During the summer, mule deer are generally

40

well distributed across the Forest and occur at various elevations within different plant communities. Most mule deer summer range is in good to excellent condition and displays a static trend.

Mule deer have broad diets and are considered to be intermediate feeders rather than browsers or grazers. Deer food habits are primarily influenced by availability of plant species rather than by selection. Diets are highly variable from year to year and between habitat types. Forage sites with an abundance of browse plants are most beneficial to mule deer. The use of browse species varies by season, but is most prevelant during winter and fall. Forbs and some grasses are particularly important during spring and summer. For maximum use by deer, forage areas should have no point farther than 600 feet from the edge of cover and openings should not exceed 30 acres in size.

As with elk, roads can influence deer vulnerability and how they utilize available habitats. Optimum use of habitat can be adversely influenced by the presence of open roads, their type and location, and the amount of vehicle use.

CDOW has the responsibility of managing mule deer populations in the state and has established herd objectives on the Forest based on the same individual DAUs used for elk. As with elk, winter range is considered a limiting factor for mule deer as with elk, none of the sales are located within winter range for mule deer. Migration out of the Analysis Area is dictated by snow and forage availability.

As with elk, mule deer are an indicator of habitat effectiveness relative to open road densities on the Forest. Additionally, mule deer are considered an indicator of the relative health of early successional stages of plant communities.

Risk Factors for Elk and Mule Deer (ie. big game)

Big game are primarily influenced by factors that affect hunter harvest rates, forage resources, and over-winter survival. Forest management activities primarily influence the quality, quantity and availability of forage and cover, and thereby influence big game numbers, distribution, and habitat use. Timber and prescribed fire harvest activities may provide for more forage opportunities due to the inverse relationship between forest canopy closures and plant growth. Open road densities can also affect vulnerability during the hunting season(s), although harvest, regulated by CDOW, most likely has the greatest influence on populations.

Roads densities influence the manner in which big game utilize their habitat, particularly when they are foraging in openings and vulnerable to disturbance. The ability of an area to receive optimum use can be adversely influenced by the presence of roads, especially those that are open to motorized traffic. This effect is markedly influenced by the type of road, its location, and degree of use. Researchers have documented that the type of road (i.e. level of use) influenced

41

the amount of avoidance by big game. They found that there was a greater avoidance of paved roads than of gravel roads.

Despite improvements in habitat, big game can be displaced from suitable habitat areas or use them less than expected due to negative interactions associated with open road densities or increased road use.

Project Potential Effects for Elk and Mule Deer (ie. big game)

Up to 10 miles of new temporary road will be constructed or old roads reopened as part of these projects. All roads will be closed following treatments within 2-3 years. Habitat use should return or exceed the pre-treatment condition after the roads are effectively re-closed.

Disturbances associated with the proposed treatments will most likely result in temporary displacement or temporary changes in the behavioral patterns of big game while activities are occurring. This displacement is expected to be short term (perhaps a matter of days) with big game use returning to the same or even greater level due to an increase in forage quality and quantity as a result of salvage activities opening up more areas to vegetation growth.

Open road density would increase during project activities in the short term. However, roads would not be open to the public limiting the amount of disturbance by vehicular traffic. Permanent open road density in the project analysis area would not increase. Project activities will not cause a discernable change in local big game population trends at the DAU level, nor risk to species viability in the DAU or planning area. Overall, no permanent roads will be added to the road system in any sale area. Post sale, all roads will be closed within 3 years.

2.3 Migratory Birds and Analysis of Effects

Neotropical migratory landbirds (NTMB) are those that breed in the U.S. and winter south of the border in Mexico, Central and South America. Resident landbirds include those that remain during the winter period, or move to winter habitats that occur primarily within the U.S. border. Direction concerning landbird conservation in Forest Service Region 2 is to reference the 2008 Birds of Conservation Concern list produced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) when completing NEPA evaluations for project activities. Furthermore, Forest Service units are encouraged to interface with the State and Bird Conservation Region working groups for actions and objectives to pursue concerning migratory bird conservation. Bird Conservation Regions consist of a hierarchical framework of nested ecological units that allow for the use of multiple scale-specific approaches to on-the-ground management. Bird Conservation Regions encompass areas that become progressively more ecologically similar as the units are stepped-down to a smaller scale. At the smallest and most local scale, the physiographic area is used for bird conservation efforts. State groups such as local Partners-In-Flight Chapters are the primary workforce involved with translating the BCR information into

42

conservation action at the local scales. There are 37 BCRs in North America with four of these occurring at least partially in Colorado. The Rio Grande National Forest occurs within the Southern Rockies Colorado Plateau Bird Conservation Region (BCR 16), which encompasses portions of Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah and Wyoming. Information from BCR 16 was synthesized for use in Colorado through the development of the Birds of Conservation Concern list and the Colorado Landbird Conservation Plan (Beidleman 2000). Thus At the finest scale of analysis, the Rio Grande National Forest occurs within the Southern Rocky Mountains Physiographic Area (Area 62) of the Southern Rockies Colorado Plateau Bird Conservation Region. The following table displays the Birds of Conservation Concern for BCR 16, their status within the project area, and projected influence from the Three Salvage Sales Analysis. Table 5. FWS Birds of Conservation Concern for BCR 16 and the anticipated influence of the action and no action alternatives upon their conservation needs (USFWS 2008).

Species General Habitat Occurrence in Analysis Area

Effect of Alternatives

Northern Harrier Grasslands No Evaluated as an R2 sensitive species; No Effect (No habitat present).

Swainson’s Hawk Grasslands No No Effect (No habitat present) Ferruginous Hawk Prairie No Evaluated as an R2 sensitive species; No

Effect (No habitat present) Golden Eagle Cliffs/grasslands No No Effect; No known nests. Peregrine Falcon Cliffs No Evaluated as an R2 sensitive species; No

Effect . Prairie Falcon Cliffs No No Effect. (No known nests near project

areas). Gunnison sage-grouse

Sagebrush No Evaluated as an R2 sensitive species; No Effect (No habitat).

Snowy Plover Shorelines No No Effect (No habitat present) Mountain Plover Prairie No Evaluated as an R2 sensitive species; No

Effect. (No habitat present). Solitary Sandpiper Shorelines No No Effect (No habitat present). Marbled Godwit Wetlands No No Effect (No habitat present). Wilson’s Phalarope

Waterbodies/Shorelines No No Effect (No habitat present).

Yellow-billed Cuckoo

Deciduous Riparian No Evaluated as an R2 sensitive species; No Effect. (No habitat present).

Flammulated Owl Ponderosa pine/snags No Evaluated as an R2 sensitive species; No Effect. (No habitat present)

Burrowing Owl Plains/grasslands No Evaluated as an R2 sensitive species; No Effect. (No habitat present)

Short-eared Owl Parks/grasslands No No Effect. (No habitat present). Black Swift Waterfalls/wet cliffs No Evaluated as an R2 sensitive species;

No Effect. (No habitat present) Lewis’s Woodpecker

Riparian Cottonwood No Evaluated as an R2 sensitive species; No Effect (No known occurrences.

Williamson’s Sapsucker

Montane forests/snags Possible May Effect. Potential for direct mortality and disturbance.

Gray Vireo Oak woodlands/scrub No No Effect. (No habitat present). Pinyon Jay Pinyon/Juniper No No Effect. (No habitat present).

43

Bendire’s Thrasher

Rare spp of arid areas No No Effect. (No habitat present).

Crissal Thrasher No records in CO. No No Effect. (No habitat present). Sprague’s pipit No records in CO. No No Effect. (No habitat present). Virginia’s warbler Riparian shrub No No Effect. Species occurrence unlikely

and no impact upon this habitat type. Black-throated gray warbler

Oak scrub/riparian No No Effect. (No habitat present).

Grace’s warbler Ponderosa pine No No Effect. (No habitat present). Sage sparrow Sagebrush No No Effect. (No habitat present). Chestnut-collared longspur

Plains No No Effect. (No habitat present).

The Colorado Landbird Conservation Plan (Beidleman 2000) identified priority species and habitats for each physiographic area in the state based on the Partners-In-Flight Species Prioritization Process. Priority habitats identified for the Southern Rocky Mountains Physiographic Area include alpine tundra, aspen, cliff/rock, high elevation riparian, lowland riparian, mixed-conifer, mountain shrubland, ponderosa pine, sagebrush shrubland, spruce-fir, and wetlands. Three of these habitat types occur within the Three Salvage Sales Analysis Area (aspen, high elevation riparian and spruce fir), with spruce-fir being the most extensive. The priority habitats and species that occur within the project areas are included below. Table 6: Priority habitats, and species of the Southern Rocky Mountains province and their relationship to the Three Salvage Sales Analysis.

Priority Habitat Type

BCP Priority Species

BCP Potential Issues(s)

Potential Influence from Project

Activities

Effect of

Alternatives

Alpine Tundra White-tailed ptarmigan American pipit Brown-capped rosy finch

Fragile habitats; Specialized Species.

N/A Priority habitat is not present in the Analysis Area.

Aspen

Red-naped sapsucker Purple martin Violet-green swallow

Grazing, snag habitat, Altered disturbance regimes

YES Decrease in snags and potential for direct mortality.

Cliff/Rock

Peregrine falcon Black swift

Rock climbing; mining

N/A Priority habitat is not present in the Analysis Area.

High Elevation Riparian

Cordilleran flycatcher American dipper MacGillivray’s warbler Wilson’s warbler

Grazing, Recreation impacts

No major issues identified from the proposed project.

Minimal influences anticipated overall because riparian areas are protected by PDC’s.

44

Lowland Riparian

Lewis’ woodpecker Lazuli bunting

Development, roads, grazing, recreation

N/A Priority habitat is not present in the Analysis Area.

Mixed Conifer Dusky grouse Williamson’s sapsucker

Altered disturbance regimes, snags, timber mgmt.

N/A Decrease in snags for sapsucker and potential for direct mortality.

Mountain shrubland

Virginia’s warbler Green-tailed towhee

Recreation, development, fire, grazing.

N/A Priority habitat is not present in the Analysis Area.

Ponderosa Pine

Band-tailed pigeon Flammulated owl Mexican spotted owl Lewis’s woodpecker Grace’s warbler

Timber mgmt, snags, altered disturbance regimes, prescribed fire

N/A Priority habitat is not present in the Analysis Area.

Sagebrush Shrubland

Sage-grouse Brewer’s sparrow Sage sparrow

Conversion of sagebrush, grazing.

N/A Priority habitat is not present in the Analysis Area.

Spruce/Fir

Boreal owl Olive-sided flycatcher Hammond’s flycatcher

Timber mgmt., snags, altered disturbance regimes

YES Boreal Owl and Flycatcher Evaluated as R2 sensitive species; May Impact individuals. Hammonds flycatcher = decrease in snags and potential for direct mortality.

Wetland Willet Short-eared owl

Wetland loss, development

N/A Priority habitat is not present in the Analysis Area.

Summary of Effects of Alternatives on Migratory Birds: There are no major issues identified to the High Elevation Riparian group as a result of the Three Sale Projects as most project activity does not occur in this habitat type and existing Project Design Criteria are in place protecting riparian areas. Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines are in place to further protect and provide guidance for migratory birds including Forest Plan Standard 21 – Consider the effects of proposed management activities (forest and rangeland management, prescribed and wildland fire use, recreation, etc.) on resident and migratory birds. Incorporate conservation measures and principles, as appropriate, from local bird conservation plans (NABCI) and/or other references into project designs so that adverse effects are minimized.

45

The Red-Naped sapsucker, Purple martin, Violet Green swallow, Dusky grouse, Williamson’s sapsucker and Hammond’s Flycatcher are species of migratory birds not already addressed in the Wildlife Report under another wildlife grouping. These species are typically found in aspen (Red-naped, purple martin and violet green swallow) and spruce fir (Hammond’s flycatcher) habitat types.

A decrease in snag habitat and potential for direct mortality mainly upon nestlings is likely for these species from salvage logging. Project Design Criteria are in place to protect snags and protect known active bird nests/cavities to reduce this potential threat. Activities associated with the projects - May Impact Individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend towards Federal listing or result in loss of viability in the planning area.

These species will continue to be tracked in the Monitoring Colorado’s Birds (MCB) Program, which includes transects on the Rio Grande National Forest, to determine population trends over time.

Cumulative Effects: Cumulatively, implementation of this project in relation to other future Federal, State or private land activities that are reasonably certain to occur would have minor incremental effects on Region 2 Designated Sensitive Species, Management Indicator Species, and Migratory Birds.

The impacts of any future proposed projects in the Upper Rio Grande Region will be addressed at that time the projects are brought forth. Relatively minor cumulative effects such as possible disturbance and/or displacement and loss of some individuals may occur but would not likely contribute to a loss of species viability of any animal species addressed in this analysis. Implementation of project design criteria will help to alleviate some of these potential impacts.

Within the past 10 years, there have been eleven projects impacting the quality and quantity of wildlife habitat in the general areas of the salvage sales. These acres are accounted for in Table 7 and are used part of the current lynx analysis unit (LAU) baseline analysis in the BA but are presented below as part of the larger cumulative impacts for all species. There are no other projects or activities planned on private or state land within the salvage areas, in the foreseeable future which might impact wildlife or their habitat.

46

Table 7: Projects impacting wildlife habitat in the last ten years in all three sale areas. PROJECT YEAR ACRES Willow Aspen 2006 55 acres Ruston Aspen 2007 110 acres Burro-Blowout Veg. Mgmt Projects 2008 1,662 acres Lost Aspen 2008 60 acres Del Norte Peak Blowdown 2009 75 acres Pool Table Hydro Axe/Rx 2011/2013 150 acres Pool Table Salvage 2012 145 acres Tucker Pond Campground Salvage 2014 12 acres Wolf Creek Ski Area – Elma Lift 2013 2 acres Village at Wolf Creek Land Exchange 2015 145 acres pending Poage Lake Salvage 2015 79 acres pending TOTAL 2,495 acres The West Fork Fire burned over 100,000 acres on the San Juan and Rio Grande National Forest in 2013. However, the fire did not burn within the general proximity of any of the three salvage sales Effects from Salvage harvest on habitat connectivity Within each of the salvage sales analysis areas, there exists relatively large areas of undisturbed habitat available for wildlife habitat connectivity. Overall, all of the areas are comprised of relatively contiguous forest habitat that is well-connected. Additionally, all live conifers and aspen where present, will not be harvested except where safety and operational conditions warrant. Riparian buffers are in place to protect riparian areas but may also help to facilitate movement. These measures will help to provide additional cover and security for wildlife movement across the area. Remaining live trees will help to provide some level of cover and habitat connectivity.

Specifically for the North Pool Salvage Project, three areas adjacent to and within the project area will continue to provide sufficient habitat for wildlife dispersion between undeveloped areas of the Forest as displayed in Appendix B, North Pool Spruce Beetle Salvage-Habitat Connectivity Design. These areas include 1) Bellows Creek Wildlife Corridor providing for east to west movement along East Bellows Creek 2) Bellows Peak Wildlife Corridor (buffer) providing east to west movement along the base of Bellows Peak and 3) Meadow/Stream Wildlife Corridor (buffer) along Units 6 and 12 which provides for south to north movement.

47

PART 3: MONITORING RECOMMENDATIONS

Monitoring is the gathering of information and data and observing the results of management activities to provide the basis for evaluation. Monitoring will include implementation monitoring and evaluation to assess if standards and guidelines are being incorporated during the project activities. Also included is effectiveness monitoring and evaluation to determine whether assumptions and objectives of the project are being met. Based on the analysis completed for the Three Salvage Projects, the following monitoring procedures are recommended for the wildlife resources due to the type and location of activities associated with the proposed project. Objective: To evaluate whether Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and project specific wildlife design criteria are being implemented. To examine if a need exists to modify specific wildlife design criteria for future projects. Method: Perform site inspections during and/or following the vegetative management activities to determine compliance with project design criteria. Items important to monitor include: Snag numbers, species and size Impacts to understory vegetation

Percentage of damage to Dense Horizontal Cover * Percentage of damage to developing understory * Skid trail designation Landing placement

TES species monitoring Timing of project activity Amount of large woody debris Riparian area buffers

* Post-harvesting monitoring will be implemented to assess actual incidental damage to the understory. This post-harvest monitoring will be useful for application to future vegetation management projects. Action: Take corrective action as needed to meet Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. Consult with the necessary managers as needed to take corrective measures if necessary.

48

PART 4: REFERENCES AND LITERATURE CITED

Altman and Sallabanks. 2000. Olive-sided Flycatcher in The Birds of North America, No. 502. Pp. 1-28. Andrews, R. and R. Righter. 1992. Colorado birds: a reference to their distribution and habitat. Denver Museum of Natural History. 442 p. Banci, V. 1994. Wolverine. Pp. 99-123 in Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, J.L. Lyon and W.J. Zielinski, eds.; the scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine in the western United States. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-254. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 151 p. + appendices. Beidleman. 2000. Partners in Flight Land Bird Conservation Plan. Version 1.0 Bull and Blumton. 1999. Effects of Fuels Reduction on American Martens and Their Prey. Pp. 1-35. USDA Research Paper PNW-RN-539. Pacific Northwest Research Station. Buskirk, S.W., and L.F. Ruggiero. 1994. American marten. Pp. 7-37 in Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, J.L. Lyon and W.J. Zielinski, tech. eds. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine in the western United States. USDA USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-254. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 151 p. + appendices. Buskirk, S.W., L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, D.E. Pearson, J.R. Squires, and K.S. McKelvey. 2000. Comparative ecology of lynx in North America. Pp. 397-417 in L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, S.W., G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey, and J.R. Squires, eds; Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, CO. Copeland. 1996. A Thesis, Biology of the Wolverine in Central Idaho. 131 p. Fitzgerald et al 1994. Mammals of Colorado. Denver Museum of Natural History and University Press of Colorado. 460 p. Hammerson, G.A. 1999. Amphibians and reptiles in Colorado, Second Edition; University Press of Colorado and Colorado Division of Wildlife. 475 p. Hayward et al. 1993. Ecology of Boreal Owls in the Northern Rocky Mountains, U.S.A. Wildlife Monograpahs, A Publication of the Wildlife Society, Number 125, 59 p. Hayward, G.D. 1994. Review of the technical knowledge: boreal owls. Pp. 92-127 in G.D. Hayward and J. Verner, Eds.; Flammulated, boreal and great gray owls in the United States: a

49

technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-253. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. Hutto, R.L. 1995. Composition of bird communities following stand-replacement fires in Northern Rocky Mountain (USA) conifer forests. Conservation Biology 9: 1041-1058. Loeffler, C. (Ed.). 2001. Conservation plan and agreement for the management and recovery of the southern Rocky Mountain population of the boreal toad (Bufo boreas boreas). Boreal Toad Recovery Team. 76 p. + append. Loeffler et al 2001. Boreal Toad Conservation Plan and Agreement. Prepared by the Boreal Toad Recovery Team and Technical Advisory Group. Palmer. 1986. Thesis, Habitat Selection, Movements and Activity of Boreal and Saw-Whet Owls. Raphael, M.G. and L.L.C. Jones. 1997. Characteristics of resting and denning sites of American martens in central Oregon and western Washington. Pp. 146-165 in G. Proulx et al., Eds; Martes: taxonomy, ecology, techniques, and management. Prov. Museum of Alberta. Edmonton, Canada. Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce, Jr., G. Goodwin, R. Smith, and E.L. Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-217. 90 p. Ruediger, B., J. Claar, S. Gniadek, B. Holt, L. Lewis, S. Mighton, B. Naney, G. Patton, T. Rinaldi, J. Trick, A. Vandehey, F. Wahl, N. Warren, D. Wenger, and A. Williamson. 2000. Canada Lynx Conservation Assessment and Strategy. USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and USDI National Park Service. USDA Forest Service Publication #R1-00-53, Missoula, MT. 142 p. Ruggiero et al 1999. Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, CO. 480 Pp. Ruggiero et al 1994. The Scientific Basic for Conserving Forest Carnivores, American Marten, Fisher, Lynx and Wolverine in the United States. Pp. 1-176. General Technical Report RM-254. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station. Shenk, T. 2001. Post-release monitoring of lynx reintroduced to Colorado: Annual report for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. December 2001. 33 pp.

Shenk, T. July 2005- June 2006. Colorado Division of Wildlife Lynx Update. 26 pp.

Shenk, T. July 2008-August 2009. Colorado Division of Wildlife Lynx Update. 28 pp.

50

Shenk, T. 6/24/2009. Lynx Kittens Found in Spring Survey. Colorado Division of Wildlife News Release. 2 pp. USDA Forest Service. 1996. Revised Land and Resource Management Plan: Rio Grande National Forest and appendices. USDA Forest Service. 2008. Southern Rockies Canada Lynx Amendment: Record of Decision and Environmental Impact Statement. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Denver, CO. January 2004. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Southern Rocky Mountain Section 7 Lynx Project Decision Screen. 6/2004 update by K. Broderdorp and N. Warren. USDA Forest Service. 2003. Species Assessments for Hermit Thrush, Brown Creeper, Elk, Mule Deer and Rio Grande Cutthroat Trout, Management Indicator Species. Supporting Analysis and Report to the Management Indicator Species, A Forest Plan Amendment to the Revised Land and Resource Management for the Rio Grande National Forest. Rio Grande National Forest. Monte Vista, CO. Woodbridge, B., and P.J. Detrich. 1994. Territory occupancy and habitat patch size of northern goshawks in the southern Cascades of California. Studies in Avian Biology 16: 83-87.

51

Appendix A: Project Design Criteria that specifically benefit wildlife are provided below.

Effects to understory vegetation and dense horizontal cover will be minimized to benefit snowshoe hare and lynx by utilizing existing skid trails or identifying skid trail locations away from dense understory and spacing skid trails at least 100 feet apart, allowing for topographic variation and skid trail convergence.

Place landings and slash piles in open areas if available, to protect understory.

Patches of dense understory are further protected by contractual specifications B6. 32 Protection of Residual Trees which states that Purchasers Operations shall not unnecessarily damage young growth or other trees to be reserved.

Avoid the harvest of isolated individual dead trees with high amounts of regeneration around them. These trees can be retained for snag requirements listed below.

Retain all green/live trees unless their removal is needed for safety or operational needs.

Winter logging is encouraged but harvest activities (felling, skidding, processing slash…) will not occur between the timeframe of April 15th to June 30th to minimize potential disturbance to lynx kittens when most vulnerable. Exceptions to these activities and timeframe may occur depending upon site conditions upon consultation with the District Ranger and District Biologist. This PDC also helps to protect mule deer fawns and elk calves when most vulnerable.

The project has been surveyed for TES/MIS species and will continue during project implementation. If a species is discovered, they will be protected as indicated in the Forest Plan with consultation with the USFWS as necessary.

Leave large woody debris (10-15 tons per acre in spruce fir) on harvested sites to retain moisture, trap soil movement, provide microsites for establishment of seedlings, and to provide habitat for small mammals.

Retain a minimum average of six snags/acre in various distributions within the cutting units in East Sheep and Castor. Preferably, these snags should be spruce and of a larger-than-average diameter for the stand where available. In North Pool, strive to retain six snags/acre but fewer than six may remain due to lack of larger sized standing trees present. Snags within North Pool will be further protected as described below.

In Units 5 and 10 in North Pool, wildlife snags retained will be posted with wildlife tree signs after salvage harvest. This will prohibit these trees from being cut for firewood after completion of commercial salvage harvest, and ensure wildlife needs are met.

Approximately 25% of the slash piles created from the timber sale will remain on site for small mammal habitat. A team consisting of the District Biologist, Forester and Fuels Specialist will jointly determine which piles to preserve.

Gated roads utilized during logging activities and following logging will remain closed to motorized public travel. An exception may be temporarily opening roads for public firewood collection.

Recommended Raptor Buffer Guidelines (Colorado Parks and Wildlife) will be reviewed for guidance in the instance of a raptor nest being identified during project implementation.

Trees with known active bird nests, any cavities, or those otherwise marked as wildlife trees will be designated for retention.

Several areas within the analysis area in North Pool are specifically designed to not be harvested to provide for habitat connectivity. See Appendix B. Large areas of untreated habitat will remain available within the East Sheep and Castor Sales for wildlife habitat connectivity.

52

APPENDIX B