Wildlife Biological Evaluation for Green Mountain Environmental Impact Statement, Mckenzie River Ranger District, Willamette National Forest

Wildlife Biological Evaluation for Green Mountain Environmental Impact Statement, McKenzie River Ranger District, Willamette National Forest

Prepared by Ruby Seitz, Wildlife Biologist, McKenzie River Ranger District, Willamette National Forest March 5, 2016 Introduction This Biological Evaluation (BE) addresses the effects of the proposed Green Mountain Project on proposed and sensitive wildlife species on the Willamette National Forest. Species evaluated include TES fauna listed on the Regional Forester’s Special Status Species List (USDA Forest Service 2011) that may have suitable habitat identified, and have either been documented or have suspected occurrence within the project area.

Forest Service policy requires that a review of programs and activities, through a biological evaluation (BE), be conducted to determine their potential effect on sensitive species (FSM 2670.3). Under Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2672.41, the objectives for completing Biological Evaluations for proposed Forest Service programs or activities are: 1) To ensure that Forest Service actions do not contribute to loss of viability of any native or desired non- native plant or contribute to trends toward Federal listing of any species listed as sensitive by USDA Forest Service Region 6. 2) To provide a process and standard by which to ensure that threatened, endangered, proposed, and sensitive species receive full consideration in the decision making process, and to enhance opportunities for mitigation.

Description of Proposal The Purpose and Need and Proposed Actions are described in detail in the Green Mountain Project Environmental Impact Statement, as well as project files. Three alternatives are evaluated here: a) Alt. 1-No Action: No timber harvest or other actions are proposed. This alternative serves as a baseline for comparisons with the Action Alternatives. b) Alt. 2-Proposed Action c) Alt. 3: No Regeneration, No New Road Construction, and No Treatment in Stands Older Than 80 Years Old

The Green Mountain vegetation and road management project is located south of Highway 126, along Aufderheide Road, Forest Road 19, near the town of Blue River, Oregon within the Willamette National Forest. Consisting of approximately 99,051 acres, the project area is made up of the South Fork McKenzie River / Cougar Reservoir, Hardy Creek / Rebel Creek, Augusta Creek, Roaring River, and Elk Creek watersheds. The project area includes about 2,487 acres of private land. Elevations range from about 2000-4600 feet. Alternative 2 includes treating approximately 4,405 acres of stands ranging in age from 26-144 years old. Treatments include harvesting 3,326 acres of timber in 134 units, with about 1,086 acres of skips. There are approximately 447 acres of stands over 80 years old and 3,972 acres under 80 years old (see also Appendix A).

Alternative 2 would include:

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

Commercial thinning outside of riparian reserves on approximately 1,501 acres. Post-harvest thinning densities would range from approximately 30 to 111 trees per acre, with the average stand containing approximately 79 trees per acre. Commercial thinning within riparian reserves on approximately 902 acres. Post-harvest thinning densities would range from approximately 50 to 111 trees per acre, with the average stand containing approximately 84 trees per acre. Gaps or small openings outside of riparian reserves on approximately 310 acres. Gaps would be located within thinning units ranging in size from approximately one acre to approximately three acres. Gaps or small openings within the riparian reserves of stands that were previously harvested on approximately eight acres. Gaps would be approximately ¼ acre in size and would leave five trees in the gap. Non-commercial gaps of approximately 1/8 acre in the riparian reserves of two units that are associated with research being conducted by the Forest Service and Oregon State University. The gaps would not include removal of trees cut for the treatment. Those trees cut for the research will be felled and left on site. Dominant tree release (DTR) outside of riparian reserves on approximately 289 acres. DTR treatments would be a buffer of 66’ around a dominant tree, or group of five to ten trees. The DTR treatment would be placed within thinning units and would create small approximately ¼ to 1/3 acre openings. Skips, or un-harvested portions of stands, would occur on approximately 324 acres outside of riparian reserves and on approximately 762 acres within riparian reserves. Skips would be located in both thinning and regeneration units and would occur in both riparian and upland portions of the stands. Regeneration harvest with reserves would occur on approximately 324 acres. This type of treatment is also called a Shelterwood with reserves. About 25 trees per acre of the existing trees would be retained.

o Enhancement opportunities such as creating snags or down wood from these reserve trees would occur.

o About five snag trees per acre would be created from the reserved trees and at least 240 linear feet per acre of down wood would be retained or created in decay classes 1 and 2. Plant approximately 421 acres, composed of the acres associated with regeneration and approximately 100 acres of gaps with a combination of Douglas-fir, white pine, Sugar pine, and western red cedar. Natural regeneration will be utilized for DTRs and on approximately 210 acres of gaps. Reduce project generated fuels by underburning on approximately 795 acres. The remaining harvested acres would be evaluated for need of treatment. Treatments would include hand, or mechanical pile burning. Maintain approximately 132 miles of road. Road maintenance may include felling danger trees, clearing and grubbing, replacing drainage structures, and asphalt pavement patching, repairing holes in the roadbed, reconstructing ditches, and placement of aggregate surfacing. Temporary road construction of approximately 10.3 miles to be used for implementation. After all project activities area completed, temporary roads will be restored to their previous function and closed. Decommission approximately 7.8 miles and store approximately 21.3 miles of road. Roads being either stored or decommissioned would receive treatments to place them in a hydrologically stable condition. This may include water barring, re-seeding, sub-soiling, culvert removal, or slope stabilization. All treatments would include the roads being closed to vehicular traffic. The storage and decommissioning of these roads not associated with timber harvest activities and implementation of treatment would be contingent upon funding availability.

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

Remove seasonal closure Forest Service roads 1900-430 and 1900-431 and modify an existing road closure along Forest Service road 1927-240 to be year-round on only the uppermost 2.5 miles. Replace the bridge on Forest Service road 1980-204 where it crosses Hardy Creek. The existing bridge is unsafe to cross. The proposed action requires the connected action of expanding existing rock quarries. The development of rock quarries is needed for maintaining roads accessing the Green Mountain Project area. It is estimated that less than 15,000 cubic yards of crushed rock, rip rap and borrow material would be needed. Blasting would be part of the rock quarry development, resulting in noise impacts on wildlife to be considered in the analysis. Rock quarry development could occur within 5 years of the project decision at the following six quarries: Lowell Pass (aka HiYu pit), Upper Green Mountain, Boro, Hidden Lake, Blue Starr and Indian Ridge.

Alternative 3 would treat approximately 3,961 acres of stands ranging in age from 26-76 years old. Treatments include harvesting 3,190 acres of timber in 117 units, with about 1,014 acres of skips (see also Appendix A).

Alternative 3 would include:

Commercial thinning outside of riparian reserves on approximately 1,629 acres. Post-harvest thinning densities would range from approximately 50 to 121 trees per acre with the average stand containing approximately 84 trees per acre. Commercial thinning within riparian reserves on approximately 894 acres. Post-harvest thinning densities would range from approximately 50 to 111 trees per acre with the average stand containing approximately 84 trees per acre. Gaps or small openings outside of riparian reserves on approximately 253 acres. Gaps would be located within thinning units ranging in size from approximately one acre to approximately three acres. Gaps or small openings within the riparian reserves of stands that were previously harvested on approximately 8 acres. Gaps would be approximately ¼ acre in size with five trees left in the gap. Non-commercial gaps of approximately 1/8 acre in the riparian reserves of two units that are associated with research being conducted by the Forest Service and Oregon State University. The gaps would not include removal of trees cut for the treatment. Those trees cut for the research will be felled and left on site. Dominant tree release (DTR) outside of riparian reserves on approximately 211 acres. DTR treatments would be a buffer of 66’ around a dominant tree, or group of five to ten trees. The DTR treatment would be placed within thinning units and would create small approximately ¼ to 1/3 acre openings. Skips, or un-harvested portions of stands, would occur on approximately 264 acres outside of riparian reserves and on approximately 750 acres within riparian reserves. Skips would be located in both thinning and regeneration units and would occur in both riparian and upland portions of the stands. Plant approximately 53 acres of gaps with a combination of Douglas-fir, white pine, Sugar pine, and western red cedar. Natural regeneration will be utilized for DTRs and on approximately 214 acres of gaps. Reduce project generated fuels by underburning on approximately 282 acres. The remaining harvested acres would be evaluated for need of treatment. Treatments would include hand, or mechanical pile burning.

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

Maintain approximately 115 miles of road. Road maintenance may include felling danger trees, clearing and grubbing, replacing drainage structures, and asphalt pavement patching, repairing holes in the roadbed, reconstructing ditches, and placement of aggregate surfacing. Temporary road construction of approximately 8.6 miles to be used for implementation. After all project activities area completed, temporary roads will be restored to their previous function and closed. Decommission approximately 7.8 miles and store approximately 21.3 miles of road. Roads being either stored or decommissioned would receive treatments to place them in a hydrologically stable condition. This may include water barring, re-seeding, sub-soiling, culvert removal, or slope stabilization. All treatments would include the roads being closed to vehicular traffic. The storage and decommissioning of these roads not associated with timber harvest activities and implementation of treatment would be contingent upon funding availability. Remove seasonal closure on Forest Service roads 1900-430 and 1900-431 and modify an existing road closure along Forest Service road 1927-240 to be year-round on only the uppermost 2.5 miles. Replace the bridge on the Forest Service road 1980-204 where it crosses Hardy Creek. The existing bridge is unsafe to cross. The proposed action requires the connected action of expanding existing rock quarries. The development of rock quarries is needed for maintaining roads accessing the Green Mountain Project area. It is estimated that less than 15,000 cubic yards of crushed rock, rip rap and borrow material would be needed. Blasting would be part of the rock quarry development, resulting in noise impacts on wildlife to be considered in the analysis. Rock quarry development could occur within 5 years of the project decision at the following six quarries: Lowell Pass (aka HiYu pit), Upper Green Mountain, Boro, Hidden Lake, Blue Starr and Indian Ridge.

Mitigation measures for wildlife include seasonal restrictions to reduce disturbances to migratory birds, including threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (TES). While conservation recommendations include a seasonal operating restriction on helicopter yarding within disturbance distance of spotted owl activity center during the critical nesting season, USFWS consultation included a Likely to Adversely Affect when helicopters would be used and therefore, the action may proceed at any time. Timing of the use of helicopters will be tracked and reported to USFWS with the annual monitoring report. This will also allow some effects monitoring.

Proposed and Sensitive Species Considered and Analyzed The list of threatened, proposed and sensitive wildlife species on the Willamette National Forest is shown in Table 1. For the other species shown in Table 1, no impacts are expected to occur as a result of the proposed project, which is displayed in Table 2. Table 2 displays whether suitable habitat for each species is present which was determined by field visits to the project area, professional judgment, and a review of the scientific literature. Table 2 also displays whether the species has been documented or is suspected to occur in the project area. Seven sensitive species are either known or suspected to occur, or have suitable habitat present, and are evaluated in more detail in this report. The effects of the project on the threatened northern spotted owl and spotted owl Critical Habitat were addressed in separate Biological Assessments (BAs) and consultation with USFWS.

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

Table 1. Summary of Ecological Requirements for Animal Species on the Regional Forester's Special Status Species List for species with documented or suspected occurrence on the Willamette National Forest (December 2011). This list may be found at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/agency-policy/ under Region 6 Forest Service. THREATENED SPECIES HABITAT

Northern Spotted Owl Occur primarily in the interior of older timber stands with structure required for food, Strix occidentalis cover, nest sites, and protection from weather and predation. Reproductive habitat = Status: Threatened forest w/ canopy closure 60 – 80 percent; multi-layered, multi-species canopy dominated by large overstory trees (> 30”dbh); abundant large trees w/deformities (e.g. large cavities, broken tops, dwarf-mistletoe infections, decadence); abundant large snags/down logs; and sufficient open flying space below the canopy. Foraging habitat = forest w/ > 2 canopy layers; overstory trees > 21" DBH; abundant snags/down wood; and a 60-80 percent canopy closure. Dispersal habitat = forest w/ > 11" DBH trees and > 40 percent canopy closure. Numerous sightings recorded over many years on the McKenzie River RD.

Oregon Spotted Frog Favor lakes and slow moving streams associated w/a permanent water source w/ a soft Rana pretiosa and muddy bottom. A marsh specialist w/strong preference/requirement for warmer Status: Threatened waters; more aquatic than other ranids; often found in water or water’s edge floating on the surface or resting on aquatic vegetation. Diet is invertebrates caught above and below the surface. Early breeders: egg masses are typically deposited on top of one another in a communal fashion, not attached to vegetation, and deposited in warmer shallow water, making them susceptible to mortality due to freezing or drying. The only documented population on the McKenzie River RD occurs in and around Penn Lake in the Three Sisters Wilderness.

PROPOSED SPECIES HABITAT

Pacific Fisher Found in a wide variety of densely forested habitats at low to mid-elevations. Diet Martes pennanti consists of small and medium-sized forest mammals (porcupines, snowshoe hares, tree Status: Sensitive squirrels, mice, and voles most common). Also eat carrion, and will seasonally eat birds, bird eggs, amphibians, fish, and insects. Use ground burrows, tree cavities, witches’-brooms or other clumped growth, or occasionally bird or small mammal nests as resting sites. Tree cavities are used by most maternal females with young and ground burrows are used mostly in winter. Data suggests they do better in areas with minimized fragmentation of old growth, second-growth, and riparian area and in areas with abundant down and standing woody material important. There have been more than a dozen unconfirmed sightings of fisher on the forest over the years with a 2014 verified location on the Middle Fork Ranger District. Three credible documented sightings on the McKenzie River RD.

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

SENSITIVE SPECIES HABITAT

BIRDS

Northern Bald Eagle Use scattered old-growth conifer trees in proximity to rivers, lakes, and reservoirs with Haliaeetus plentiful prey. Feed primarily on fish, but will also eat waterfowl and carrion. On the leucocephalus McKenzie River RD, they currently nest only at Blue River Reservoir, and have Status: Sensitive historically nested at Clear Lake, and a pair was suspected nesting near Lost Lake. There have also been sightings at Trail Bridge, Cougar, and Smith Reservoirs, Fish and Linton

Lakes, and along the McKenzie River.

American Peregrine Preferred nesting sites are sheer cliffs 75 ft. or more in height with horizonal ledges or Falcon small caves. They forage within a variety of forest types. Many cliffs with nesting Falcon peregrinus potential, as well occupied habitat occurs on the McKenzie River RD. anatum Status: Sensitive

Bufflehead Summers on wooded lakes and rivers, winters on lakes and coastal waters. Nesting Bucephala albeola normally occurs near lakes in tree cavities 5-50 feet high. Dives underwater and eats Status: Sensitive small mollusks, fish, snail, and crustaceans. Also eats aquatic insects. Winter sightings are common at reservoirs and larger lakes, and nesting activity is suspected at high elevation lakes. Only documented wintering on McKenzie River RD with the exception of a higher elevation wilderness sighting documented during the summer of 2012. No nests were found and further investigations are needed.

Harlequin Duck During nesting (April-June) adults require fast-flowing water with midstream loafing Histrionicus sites nearby, dense shrub or timber/shrub vegetation on the bank, and an absence of histrionicus human disturbance. Nest on ground under vegetation, rocks, or large woody debris in Status: Sensitive close proximity to water. Broods prefer low gradient streams with adequate macroinvertebrate abundance. Recorded breeding/foraging in tributaries to the McKenzie River and foraging on the McKenzie River. Harlequin ducks winter on the Pacific Ocean.

Yellow Rail Yellow rail breeding distribution in Oregon is limited to one isolated population in Coturnicops southern Oregon. There are no other populations documented within the Pacific noveboracensis Northwest. They winter in the southeastern United States. Yellow rails feed in shallow Status: Sensitive water; eating snails, insects, and some seeds and grasses. They summer in wet meadows, and marshes. No documented presence on McKenzie River RD.

Northern Waterthrush Northern waterthrush distribution is very limited in Oregon and is disjunct from other Seiurus noveboracensis breeding populations. Typical habitat for the northern waterthrush is riparian thickets Status: Sensitive in forests, near rapidly flowing water. On occasion, it will use dense vegetation at the edges of lakes. They nest on the ground or in a hole in a stream bank. Their diet is mostly aquatic and includes terrestrial insects, spiders, mollusks, small fishes, and snails. Waterthrushes winter primarily in Mexico, Central America, and northern South America. There are a few records east of the Cascades. There is a small breeding population in riparian thickets along Crescent Creek and the Little Deschutes R., Klamath Co., and Salt Lake, Lane Co. The most recent sightings were in 2001 in Linn Co.

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

Black Swift Found near wet cliffs in mountainous regions. Feeds on-the-wing eating flying insects. Cypseloides niger Nests in small colonies on ledges or mountain crevices, often behind a waterfall. There Status: Sensitive are historical summer records in the Santiam Pass area, Linn County, which suggests breeding in that area. No current sightings on the McKenzie River RD, however there is a documented nest site on the Middle Fork RD.

Purple Martin Nest in tree cavities, crevices in rocks, and artificial cavities located near open habitats Progne subis such as savannah forestlands and meadows for foraging. They are often also associated Status: Sensitive with open water. They nest both singly and in colonies. Purple Martins eat mainly flying insects and lepidopterans. They are known to occur in the Willamette Valley and Coast Range of Oregon, however there is a disjunct population in Southern Oregon and thus, occurrence is suspected on the Willamette National Forest. A long distance migrant that winters in South America. Breeds in the western Cascades. Western population may be decreasing due to starling competition for nest sites. Occurs in the Upper Willamette and McKenzie watersheds but has not been documented on the McKenzie River RD.

Lewis’ Woodpecker There are limited records of Lewis’ woodpecker on the Willamette National Forest and Melanerpes lewis most of the observations have occurred outside of the breeding season and are most Status: Sensitive likely dispersing or migrating individuals. They are known to migrate along Cascades ridges in the fall (Marshall et al. 2003:352). This woodpecker is associated with open forests, often at lower elevations. In Oregon it nests in white oak woodlands, ponderosa pine woodlands, mixed oak-pine woodlands, and cottonwood riparian woodlands. Lewis’ woodpeckers are weak primary cavity nesters and most often secondary cavity nesters. In spring and summer, they eat mostly insects and spiders. In the fall, their diet turns to acorns and berries. They cache acorns under bark and in crevices of trees. Winters in oak savannah. Drastic decline in Oregon since the mid- 1960s speculated to be from destruction of lowland oak habitat and competition with European starling (Marshall et al. 2003). A regular transient in small numbers west of the Cascades, and most common in open habitats (e.g. burns) in and near Cascade forests.

White-headed There are occasional reports of white-headed woodpeckers on the Willamette National Woodpecker Forest, mostly at high elevations along the Pacific Crest, adjacent to the east-side Picoides albolarvatus ponderosa pine forests. The species is mainly associated with ponderosa pine or Status: Sensitive ponderosa pine-mixed conifer forests, however sightings on the forest have occurred in habitat with lodgepole pine, western white pine, and Engelmann spruce. It requires large trees for foraging and snags for nesting. In spring and summer, it eats mostly insects, and in winter and early spring, it mainly feeds on seeds of ponderosa pine. Locally occurs west of the Cascade crest in upper reaches of the Umpqua River basin, in the Siskiyou Mtns., and in the north part of the east slope of the Cascades. No documented locations on the McKenzie River RD.

MAMMALS

North American Found primarily in wilderness or remote country where human activity is limited. High Wolverine elevation areas appear to be preferred in summer, which may effectively separate Gulo gulo luscus wolverines and intensive human disturbance in most areas. In winter, wolverines move Status: Sensitive to lower elevations which are snowbound with very limited human activity. They do

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

not significantly use young, dense stands of timber or clearcuts. The majority of activity occurs in large expanses of scattered mature timber, with some use of ecotonal areas such as small timber pockets, and rocky, broken areas of timbered benches. Heavy use of openings w/ good winter populations of big game, a principal source of carrion which makes up much of the wolverine's diet. They also feed on marmots, snowshoe hares, various rodents, insects, insect larvae, eggs, and berries. Rare documented sightings on the McKenzie River RD, mostly at higher elevations. Between 1965 and 1999, 33 mostly unconfirmed sightings or evidence of wolverine were reported on or adjacent to the Willamette National Forest boundary. Aubry et al. (2006) report no confirmed wolverine anywhere within Oregon since 1995 and only a few sightings within the central Cascades prior to that.

Pacific Fringe-tailed Occurs in Oregon, however habitat use is poorly documented. Three captured in Bat, also referred to 1971 were associated with young coniferous forest. They are known to use caves, as Fringed Myotis mines, rock crevices, and buildings as both day and night roosts. Nothing is known Myotis thysanodes about habits in winter. Diet of moths, leafhoppers, lacewings, daddy-longlegs, vespertinu crickets, flies, true bugs, and spiders. Occurrence has been documented on the McKenzie River RD. Status: Sensitive

Townsend’s Big-eared Although widely distributed throughout western Oregon, these bats are seldom Bat abundant. They are characteristic dwellers of caves and abandoned mine tunnels, Corynorhinus where they can be found at any season. They are moth specialists with over 90 percent townsendii of their diet composed of lepidopterans. Only one maternity colony has been documented on the Willamette National Forest, on the Middle Fork Ranger District Status: Sensitive within an abandoned home. A few other locations exist on the Willamette National Forest and on the McKenzie River RD.

Pallid Bat Pallid bats are usually associated with desert areas in Oregon, however they do occur in Antrozous pallidus the drier interior valleys of west and southwestern Oregon. Occurrence has been Status: Sensitive documented in brushy/rocky terrain along the edges of conifer, deciduous, and open farmland habitat. They would most likely occur at low elevations adjacent to the Willamette Valley (Lowell area). They are gregarious; living in colonies of 12-100 individuals. Day roosts are primarily in trees and rock crevices. Night roosts have been found in abandoned mines, rock overhangs/crevices, and deserted buildings. Little is known about winter hibernacula. They are insectivorous feeders. There has been no documentation of this species on the Willamette National Forest. Incidental locations have occurred historically west of Eugene.

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

AMPHIBIANS

Foothill Yellow-legged Live in sections of low-gradient streams with exposed bedrock or rock and gravel Frog substrates. Attach eggs to the bottom of quiet scour-pools or riffles in gentle- Rana boylii gradient streams, often where there is only slight flow from the main river. Status: Sensitive Hatchlings cling to egg masses initially and then to rocks. Nearest known sightings on private land adjacent to the Sweet Home RD to the northwest, and there have been limited sightings in suitable habitat on the Middle Fork Ranger District within the Fall Creek Watershed. No documented habitat or sightings on the McKenzie River RD.

REPTILES

Pacific Pond Turtle Inhabits marshes, sloughs, moderately deep ponds, slow moving portions of creeks Actinemys marmorata and rivers. Observed in altered habitats including reservoirs, abandoned gravel Status: Sensitive pits, stock ponds, and sewage treatment plants. Occur from sea level to about 1,830 meters. Require basking sites, such as partially submerged logs, vegetation mats, rocks and mud banks, and may even climb a short way onto tree branches that dip into the water. They use uplands for egg laying, overwintering, and dispersal. They may move up to 500 meters and possibly more for overwintering where they burrow into leaf litter or soil. Nest distances from the water course ranges from 3 meters to over 402 meters. Most nesting areas are characterized by sparse vegetation, usually short grasses or forbs. Documented sightings on the McKenzie River RD are in lower elevation side-channels of the McKenzie River, and larger populations on the Middle Fork RD.

INVERTEBRATES

Mardon Skipper The Mardon Skipper is currently known to exist at seven, small, geographically Polites mardon disjunct areas in Washington, Oregon, and California. In the southern Washington Status: Sensitive Cascades, the mardon skipper is found in open, fescue grasslands within ponderosa pine savanna/woodland habitat at elevations ranging from 1,900 to 5,100 feet. South Cascade sites vary in size from small, ½-acre or less meadows, to large grassland complexes, and site conditions range from dry, open ridgetops, to areas associated with wetlands or riparian habitats. Within these environments a variety of nectar source plants are important. The short, open stature of native fescue bunchgrass stands allows mardon skippers to access nectar and oviposition plants. There are no known populations of this species on the Willamette National Forest. The USFWS latest review indicated this species occurs in the Puget Sound and southern Cascades area of Washington, in the Siskiyou Mountains of Oregon, and in isolated remnants on serpentine grasslands in Del Norte County, California. They generally occur in grassy openings in subalpine coniferous forests in mountain regions.

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

Johnson’s Hairstreak Johnson’s Hairstreaks are rare but documented on the Willamette National Forest. Callophrys johnsoni The current overall range is uncertain. It is considered to be very localized and Status: Sensitive scarce with a few “big” years. This butterfly depends on mostly old-growth coniferous forests that contain mistletoes of the genus Arceuthobium. The mistletoes occur mainly on western hemlock. Peak conditions for this butterfly exist in old-growth and late successional second-growth forests. Younger forests that contain dwarf mistletoe may also have the potential to support populations. Elevation ranges from sea level to 6,000 feet. This butterfly is typically located in the forest canopy.

Crater Lake Tightcoil Species may be found sparsely distributed throughout Oregon Cascades above Pristiloma arcticum 2000’ elevation associated with perennially wet environment in mature conifer crateris forests and meadows among vegetation or under rocks and woody debris. Suitable Status: Sensitive locations within 10 meters of open water generally in areas under snow for extended periods during winter. One documented site on McKenzie River RD along with a few sites on Mt Hood, Deschutes, Umpqua, Winema, and Rogue River National Forests.

Cascades Axetail Slug, This slug tends to inhabit Douglas fir stands with a vine maple understory. Areas formerly referred to as where vine maple leaves have dropped and formed a cover to hold moisture of a Salamander or Axetail Douglas fir needle litter/duff layer is the preferred microhabitat (Young et al. 2010). Slug In addition, areas where down wood has created pockets for leaf litter and Carinacauda stormi moisture to collect is also preferred. Limited information suggests that the Cascades Axetail Slug uses a fairly wide range of forest age classes (Young et al. Status: Sensitive 2010). Over 80 locations of this species were found in the Blue River Watershed on the McKenzie River Ranger District in stands 40 to 120 years old, and were also documented in 2008 in the southwest portion of the Sweet Home Ranger District in a 30 year old stand.

Evening Fieldslug This is one of the least known slugs in the western United States, and there are no Deroceras hesperium records of the Evening Fieldslug on the Willamette National Forest. Within Oregon, Status: Sensitive scattered sites have been documented for this species in several provinces, including both sides of the Cascades from Hood River to Klamath River basin. The majority of currently documented sites occur on the eastern slope of the Cascades. This species appears to have year-round high moisture requirements and suitable habitat may be considered to be limited to moist surface vegetation and cover within 30 meters of perennial wetlands, springs, seeps, and riparian areas. Limited 2012 strategic surveys for this species found fieldslugs to be associated with skunk cabbage patches, however the species of slug is believed to be the common Meadow Fieldslug and not the Evening Fieldslug. More information about the distribution and life needs of this slug are needed.

California Shield-backed This species in known in Oregon from just two collections, one in Hood River Bug County and the other from Lane County. This species has been documented on the Vanduzeenia borealis McKenzie River Ranger District and is a tall grass specialist at high elevations in californica natural balds and meadows (Applegarth 1995). Threats have been little studied but Status: Sensitive may include exotic grasses, road construction, and timber harvest.

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

Western Bumblebee Bumble Bees will visit a range of different plant species and are important Bombus occidentalis generalist pollinators of a wide variety of flowering plants and crops (Goulson 2003; Status: Sensitive Heinrich 2004). Although bumblebees do not rely on a single type of flower, some plants rely solely on bumblebees for pollination. Threats to bumblebees include: habitat alterations which could destroy or reduce the food supply produced by flowers, insecticides, invasive plants and insects, and global climate change.

Table 2. Presence and suitable habitat evaluation of Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Wildlife Species for the Green Mountain Project Area. Known or Suitable SPECIES suspected habitat Rationale if not carried forward for present present analysis THREATENED SPECIES Northern Spotted Owl Analyzed in BA with further discussion Strix occidentalis Yes Yes in EIS. Oregon Spotted Frog No No No suitable lake habitat is present, Rana pretiosa nearest known population is 7 miles east in the Three Sisters Wilderness. PROPOSED SPECIES Pacific Fisher No Potential Analyzed in more detail in BE. Martes pennanti (West Coast) SENSITIVE SPECIES No lakes or fish streams affected; Bald Eagle project would implement some No No Haliaeetus leucocephalus treatments that would benefit fish that eagles prey upon. American Peregrine Falcon Foraging Falco peregrinus anatum Yes and Analyzed in more detail in BE.

Nesting

Bufflehead No high-elevation lake breeding habitat No No Bucephala albeola present. No suitable stream habitat is present in Not in Harlequin Duck treatment areas. treatment No Histrionicus histrionicus areas

Yellow Rail No No No suitable marsh habitat is present. Coturnicops noveboracensis Northern Waterthrush No high-elevation willow habitat No No Seiurus noveboracensis present. Black Swift No No No suitable waterfall habitat is present. Cypseloides niger Purple Martin No No No suitable habitat is present. Progne subis

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

Known or Suitable SPECIES suspected habitat Rationale if not carried forward for present present analysis No ponderosa pine breeding habitat or Lewis’ Woodpecker No No high elevation fall dispersal habitat Melanerpes lewis present. White-headed Woodpecker No No No suitable habitat is present. Picoides albolarvatus North American Wolverine No No No suitable habitat present. Gulo gulo luscus Fringed Myotis Potential Potential Analyzed in more detail in BE. Myotis thysanodes Townsend’s Big-eared Bat Potential Potential Analyzed in more detail in BE. Corynorhinus townsendii Pallid Bat No No No suitable habitat is present. Antrozous pallidus Foothill Yellow-legged Frog No No No suitable stream habitat is present. Rana boylii Pacific Pond Turtle No No No suitable habitat is present. Actinemys marmorata Mardon Skipper No No No meadow grassland habitat present. Polites mardon Johnson’s Hairstreak Potential Potential Analyzed in more detail in BE. Callophrys johnsoni One location Analyzed in more detail in BE. from Potential wetland areas are buffered at Planning Crater Lake Tightcoil least 10m which will protect this Area, which is Yes Pristiloma arcticum crateris species. The exception is the Hardy outside of Creek bridge replacement which would treatment impact habitat. areas. Cascades Axetail Slug Yes Yes Analyzed in more detail in BE. Carinacauda stormi This species has not been found on the Evening Fieldslug Willamette National Forest and slugs No No Deroceras hesperium collected from suitable habitat were identified as the common meadow slug. California Shield-backed Bug Vanduzeeina borealis No No No meadow grassland habitat present. californica Western Bumble Bee No No No meadow grassland habitat present. Bombus occidentalis In addition to information in the Forest Service NRIS Wildlife database and general knowledge of the author, the following information aided in screening species for likely occurrence and suitable habitat: wolverine (USFWS 2013), birds (Marshall et al. 2003), pallid bat (Verts and Carraway (1998), mollusks (Duncan et al.

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

Known or Suitable SPECIES suspected habitat Rationale if not carried forward for present present analysis 2003), frogs (Corkran and Thoms 2006), mardon skipper (Seitz et al. 2007), pond turtle (Rosenberg et al. 2009), California shield-backed bug (Xerces Society 2009) and western bumble bee (Andrews 2010).

Effects of the Proposed Action and Effect Determinations The effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 are the direct and indirect effects of the proposed logging, yarding, underburning, snag and downed log creation, temporary road construction, bridge replacement across Hardy Creek, and related project activities including noise disturbance as described on page 3. No logging and other actions would occur in Alternative 1 which would allow the stands to continue to develop into older forests unless altered by natural disturbances, such as wildfire which cannot be reasonably predicted to occur in these specific forest stands in the near future.

American Peregrine Falcon Determination: Implementation of this project, with the recommended seasonal restrictions shown in Table 3, will have no impact on peregrine falcons.

Brief Ecological Overview: Preferred nesting sites for peregrines are sheer cliffs 75 feet or more in height having horizontal ledges or small caves. Foraging is associated with a variety of open and forested habitats, however is most closely associated with riparian settings. Numerous potential nest sites and occupied Peregrine Falcon. Photo by Tom Kogut. territories occur on the Willamette National Forest.

Pre-field Review/Field Reconnaissance: The four peregrine nest sites associated with the project area have been monitored annually throughout the breeding season since they have been known. Two of them have been known for about 20 years and the other 2 for less than 5 years.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Logging would result in a slightly different prey in and around the units, but the overall prey base for peregrine falcons is not expected to decline. Peregrine falcons forage in a variety of age classes, including early seral stands. The proposed logging and other activities occur outside a peregrine primary zone, however some proposed units do occur within the secondary zone which are recommended for seasonal operating restrictions. The use of helicopters is judged to have a higher degree of disturbance to nesting peregrine falcons and units were recommended for seasonal restrictions if they were located within the tertiary management zone.

There would be no effect to peregrine falcons from the other activities proposed with Alternatives 2 and 3 which include road maintenance, temporary road construction, road decommissioning, bridge replacement on Hardy Creek or road closure modifications.

If seasonal restrictions are applied to logging, yarding, and prescribed underburning during the breeding season, and the regeneration and thinning treatments are neutral to peregrine foraging habitat, it is my determination that Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would have no impact on peregrine falcons.

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

Cumulative Effects: Because there is no impact to peregrine falcons, the project does not contribute to any cumulative effects to the species.

Design Criteria/Recommendations: Implement seasonal operating restrictions from January 15-July 30 to protect nesting peregrine falcons as shown in Table 3.

Pacific Fisher Determination: Short-term impacts to Fishers from noise disturbance may occur. In the long-term, Pacific Fisher habitat quality may benefit from year-round road closures and possible large down wood placement.

Brief Ecological Overview: The Pacific fisher is a mustelid species that historically occupied forests in western Oregon (Verts and Carraway 1998). Contrary to limited results from past studies, Pacific Fisher. Photo by Washington contemporary research indicates that fishers in the western United State Department of Fish and Wildlife. States are not dependent on old-growth conifer forests for survival (Raley et al 2012). Instead fishers are associated with complex vertical (e.g., large trees and snags) and horizontal (large logs and dense canopy) structure characteristic of late seral mixed conifer or conifer- hardwood forests in low to mid-elevations (op cit.). Fisher home ranges are characterized by a mosaic of forest types and seral stages, including high proportions of mid to late seral conditions and low proportions of open and nonforested areas. In the West Coast region, fisher home ranges average about 4,600 acres for females and 13,000 for males (Lofroth et al. 2010).

This species inhabits widespread, continuous-canopy forests at relatively low elevations, and is most abundant in mountainous regions. It is less abundant in foothill regions. Fishers occupy a wide variety of densely forested habitats at low to mid-elevations (100-1800m). Typical habitats include subalpine Pacific fir (26 percent), western hemlock (54 percent), and Sitka spruce (20 percent). Aubry and Lewis (2003) suggest that habitat for Fishers can be enhanced by minimizing forest fragmentation, both in remaining old growth and second growth; maintaining a high degree of forest floor structural diversity in intensively managed plantations; preserving large snags and live trees with dead tops; maintaining continuous canopies in riparian areas; and protecting swamps and other forest wetlands.

Pre-field review: Until a camera station detected a fisher on the Middle Fork Ranger District in January 2014, this species had not been verified on the Willamette National Forest. There have been 3 fisher sightings on the McKenzie River Ranger District which appear to be valid, but none have collected photographic evidence. One of these sightings was in the French Pete drainage in wilderness, which is part of the broader Green Mountain planning area.

Field reconnaissance: Habitat for Pacific Fishers exists in the Green Mountain Project area to varying degrees. The highest quality habitat with the least amount of human disturbance is found in upper elevations where there is less human presence, and within the larger unfragmented mature/old-growth forest patches. In addition, the entire area past the closed and failing Hardy Creek bridge on Forest Service Road 1980-204 currently provides an approximately 1,000 acre area of seclusion with very little disturbance.

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

Direct and Indirect Effects: Under the no action Alternative 1, current seasonal gate closures on Forest Roads 1900430 and 431, as well as 1927240 would continue to provide fall and winter seclusion for the Pacific Fisher, if it occurs in the area. The area behind the currently closed Hardy Creek bridge would also offer a high level of seclusion to Pacific Fisher. Young stands would continue to develop on their current trajectory towards late successional forests and eventually provide forest structures preferred by this species.

Alternative 2 of the Green Mountain Timber sale units includes 447 acres of stands over 80 years old, some of which are up to 144 years old. The older stands contain higher quality potential habitat for this species. Alternative 1 would not affect these stands, which, barring high-intensity fire or other large scale disturbance, would continue to develop forest structure like tree cavities for resting and natal dens that would benefit fisher if they occurred in the watershed. Regeneration harvest proposed in Alternative 2 would degrade fisher habitat by reducing future snag and downed wood sources and by reducing forest canopy that could aid in thermoregulation (Raley et al. 2012). However some forest structure of value to fishers would remain with the 15 percent overstory tree retention that would be left and with the snags and downed wood that would be created. Alternative 2 would impact less than 1 percent to 8 percent of 3 hypothetical female fisher home ranges based on where units over 80 years of age are clustered. Less than 1 percent to 3 percent of 3 hypothetical male fisher home ranges may be impacted. Considering this project as well as past, present, and reasonably certain future projects, over 53 percent of the Green Mountain Project Area would remain in forest habitat greater than 120 years of age. Thus Alternative 2, considering direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, would retain sufficient habitat to provide for fishers should they reestablish in the area in the future. The management recommendation to leave and/or create large down wood may ensure habitat requirements of this species are met. If the Pacific Fisher does occur in the project area, there could also be some impacts due to noise disturbance from the logging operation and associated work, which could cause temporary or longer term displacement. Alternative 3 would not impact any stands over 80 years of age, and thus would be unlikely to have an impact on fisher. The only potential impact might be noise disturbance from the logging operation if they were using adjacent areas which could cause temporary displacement, but this would be somewhat less noise disturbance than Alternative 2 because there are reduced acres. The scale of proposed impacts is unlikely to preclude fisher from reestablishing in the Green Mountain Project Area, yet is judged to show some possible impacts from noise disturbance if the species is currently present. Thinning of the younger stands with subsequent down wood placement in Alternatives 2 and 3 may improve down wood habitat conditions and may thus provide a minor benefit to Pacific Fishers, if they occur in the area.

Both Alternatives 2 and 3 propose changes to road system access and a failing bridge replacement on Hardy Creek. All of these road systems generally receive low use with the exception of the fall hunting season, so in total any impacts to Pacific Fisher from opening these road systems are judged to be minor. A seasonal road closure has not been counted in terms of road density calculations and a year-round closure will be more effective and easier to implement. The following Table shows a summary of the roads management changes for Alternatives 2 and 3.

Forest Road Miles to be opened Miles to be closed Miles difference Habitat quality for or will remain in an Pacific Fisher undriveable condition 1980204 6.4 1 +5.4 Excellent

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

1900430 and 431 11.6 4.4 -4.4 Excellent Current seasonal winter closure only 1927240 Current seasonal 3.7 -3.7 Excellent winter closure only

Replacement of the currently closed Hardy Creek bridge on Forest Service Road 1980-204 would again open up approximately 6.4 miles of road in an ~1,000 acre area to vehicles that has been closed for about 5 years, which may reduce habitat quality for the Pacific Fisher if they occur in that area. About 1 mile of road behind that gate is not being managed as an open road and may already be brushy and non-driveable at this time or in the future.

Removing the seasonal winter closures of Forest Roads 1900-430 and 1900-431 (about 11.6 miles) would allow future year-round access on about 7.4 miles of road. Up to 4.4 miles of this road system is planned for future storage level 1 and is planned to be closed to vehicle access if funding is obtained.

Forest Road 1927-240 would have a year-round vehicle gate closure on the uppermost 3.7 miles, with the lower portion of this road open, compared to the current seasonal closure. The new year-round closure on the uppermost 1927240 road may benefit species such as the Pacific Fisher if they occur in the area.

Due to the scale of proposed impacts from Alternatives 2 and 3, it is my determination that Alternatives 2 and 3 may impact Fisher habitat quality in the short term (<10 years) due to disturbance from logging operations and associated work. This impact will not compromise the viability of the Pacific Fisher population across the Project Area. In the longer term (>10 years), with the successful year round road closures as described above and potential for large down wood creation, Alternatives 2 and 3 may benefit the Pacific Fisher. Alternative 1, which would do nothing, would have no impact on fisher.

Cumulative Effects: The scale of proposed impacts may adversely impact individuals due to possible noise disturbance, but would not result in a loss of viability in the Project Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. There may be long-term benefits to habitat due to year-round road closures and possible large down wood enhancement. The management recommendation to leave and/or create large down wood may ensure that habitat requirements of this species is met. For the Fisher considering direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, activities may impact individuals, but are expected to maintain viable populations within the Green Mountain Project Area, 6th field watersheds and at the Forest-scale, and are not likely to result in a trend towards federal Endangered Species Act listing.

Design Criteria/Recommendations: Retain down log habitat as described in the prescription. If it is not present after logging is completed, trees should be felled until the prescription has been met.

Implement road closures as planned, as soon as possible after logging is completed. Continue to conduct camera and hair snare surveys for this rare species to determine if it exists on the McKenzie River Ranger District, and continue to explore the idea of a reintroduction.

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

Fringed Myotis and Townsend’s-eared Bats

Determination: Alternatives 2 and 3 may adversely impact individuals, but would not likely result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.

Brief Ecological Overview: These two bat species are known to roost in tree and snag cavities and under loose bark (Lacki et al 2007), although both species have typically been associated with caves and buildings (Verts and Carraway 1998). On the westside Cascades, snags are thought to be the main roosting habitat for fringed myotis and a minor roosting component for Townsend’s big-eared bats (Ormsbee personal communication). No tree/snag roost Pacific Fringe-tailed Bat, also named Fringed Myotis. USDA Forest Service photo. sites have been documented by the Forest Service in the project area or on the Forest, but such sites are very difficult to detect.

Very little is known about fringed myotis habitat in Oregon. Occurrence has been documented on the Willamette National Forest, and three were captured in 1971, associated with young coniferous forest. They are known to use caves, mines, rock crevices, buildings, and trees as both day and night roosts. Nothing is known about their habits in winter. Their diet consists of moths, leafhoppers, lacewings, daddy-longlegs, crickets, flies, true bugs, and spiders.

Pre-field Review: Despite an overall lack of survey data and poorly documented habitat requirements and life-history accounts for this species, its’ presence has been documented on the McKenzie River Ranger District (Ormsbee pers. com., Verts and Carraway 1998). Single individuals of the Pacific Fringe-tailed Bat may use available forage and roost habitat throughout the summer and early fall in or adjacent to areas where the proposed Green Mountain project would occur.

Field Reconnaissance: Formal bat surveys within the project area have not been conducted. There are no caves, mines, or buildings that would serve as suitable hibernacula, nor are there known roost sites associated with other structures within 250 feet that would be affected by proposed activities. Some snags and decadent trees occurring primarily within the older stands proposed for treatment in Alternative 2 do contain features suitable for roosting use by bats. The old wooden bridge on the 1980-204 road where it crosses Hardy Creek, which is proposed for replacement in Alternatives 2 and 3 is not judged to be suitable bat roosting habitat because it is believed to be too moist and the wood too rotted.

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

Direct and Indirect Effects: The effects of the alternatives on these bats considered a) changes to foraging habitat, b) changes to roosting structures, c) potential for direct mortality to bats, and d) amount of roosting habitat affected.

Alternative 1 would have no direct effect on bat foraging or roosting habitat and no risk of direct mortality to bats. The 447 acres of stands over 80 years old are expected to begin transitioning into old-growth forests in about 50-100 years (FEMAT 1993:IX-24 old-growth conifer stand description) which should contain large snags and abundant decadent tree components that could potentially provide high-quality roosting forest habitat for these bats. The 4310 acres of younger stands under 80 years old would take over 100 years to begin the transition to old-growth forest.

In the project harvest units under 80 years of age in Alternatives 2 and 3, none or only very few potential roosting trees/snags that may be used by bats would be lost, because they currently contain little to no snag habitat. The 447 acres of older stands proposed for harvest in Alternative 2 do have higher levels of snag habitat which may be lost if they are a safety hazard during the logging or underburning operation. Loss of hazard trees larger than 12” diameter along the haul route may also impact individual roost trees/snags used by this species.

The current composition of habitat throughout the project area consisting of a mixture of older and young forested habitat, as well as open non-forested (meadows and rock outcrops) habitat creates a moderate amount of edge habitat, increasing the potential that individuals may use the area for foraging and either day or night roosting. Bats are known to use edge habitat more frequently than forests or open habitat, which is likely a function of avoiding dense clutter associated with forest habitat and areas where prey abundance may be reduced in open habitat (Lacki et al. 2007).

Bats readily fly, forage over large areas, and use a variety of habitats for foraging including open and forested areas. Alternatives 2 and 3 would create 931 and 472 acres, respectively, of open forested habitat with some larger trees and snags. An additional 2,403 and 2,523 acres would be thinned, respectively. The site-specific effect of this change on bat foraging habitat is uncertain and could range from negative to beneficial. The magnitude of the effects on foraging habitat at the landscape and forest level scales are insignificant, however, because both action alternatives affect 3 percent of the Green Mountain Project Area, and less than 0.2 percent of the Willamette National Forest.

The Green Mountain units contain some large snags and decadent features that might provide potential tree roost sites for bats, but at a lower abundance than would be found in old-growth forests. Proposed timber harvest in the stands over 80 years of age in Alternative 2 would retain some of the larger trees and a few large snags, but the harvest and possible subsequent underburn would largely degrade bat roosting tree habitat on 447 acres. Additional snags may also be created that might be used by bats after 10 or more years. Stands mapped as suitable spotted owl habitat were used as a proxy for potential bat tree roost habitat because they contain larger trees and snags. It is estimated that there are about 55,006 and 804,700 acres of potential bat tree roosting habitat in the Green Mountain Project Area and on the Willamette National Forest, respectively. On the Willamette National Forest, this makes up about 47.7 percent of the total forest acres. In the Green Mountain Project Area, it comprises 56 percent of the total acres. Alternative 2 would degrade about 0.8 percent of the estimated bat tree roosting habitat in the Green Mountain Project Area, and 0.003 percent of the total Willamette National Forest bat tree roosting habitat. Alternative 3 is not expected to degrade bat tree roosting habitat because the young stands contained very few or no snags.

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

Because about 25 trees/acre would be retained in the regeneration harvest units and additional snags and downed wood would be created, it is estimated that in about 80 years the proposed harvest units would regenerate to a two-layered stand that would begin to resemble old-growth as described by USFS (1986). These stands would still be lower quality bat roosting habitat at that time than the untreated stands in Alternative 1 because they would have fewer large snags and large decadent tree components.

Fringed myotis have strong fidelity to natal roost sites and pups are weaned by the end of July to the end of August depending on factors, such as lateness of spring (Ormsbee pers. comm.). If snags or trees used as natal sites are fallen prior to that time, it is likely that some or all the pups and adults would be killed. Mitigation measures would protect some snags, but some would be fallen for safety and operational reasons. Some logging may occur before pups are weaned in late summer, especially in years when parturition is delayed. Thus there is a possibility that direct mortality to bat pups could occur as a result of timber harvest in Alternative 2. For an uncommon species, loss of a natal colony could have significant impacts on the viability of the species at the Forest Level. I believe the possibility of a natal colony being directly harmed by logging is very low, however, because the bats are thought to be relatively uncommon and natal colonies are thought to occur at low densities on the landscape. The older stands in Alternative 2 up to 144 years old where activities are proposed have a lower amount of potential roost sites than old growth forests or forests with substantial numbers of 250-year old trees and are not the highest probability sites for bat roosts. The 447 acres of older forests harvested in Alternative 2 represents 0.8 percent of the estimated total potential bat tree roosting habitat for these species in the Green Mountain Project Area. Additional mitigation measures are proposed that would reduce the possibility of direct mortality further (see later section below). As the numbers of natal sites increases so does the possibility that impacting 447 acres of forest would impact a site. However, as the number of sites increases on the forest, the chance that loss of a single site would result in the species no longer maintaining a viable population on the Forest inversely diminishes because many unaffected natal sites would still exist.

Cumulative Effects: There are no other reasonably foreseeable activities in the 6th field watershed that would remove older forest habitat. Because viability would be maintained at the watershed level, the proposed actions are not expected to affect viability at the larger Forest scale. Alternatives 2 and 3 may adversely impact individuals, but would not likely result in a loss of viability in the project area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.

The evaluation above incorporates past Forest Service activities in the Green Mountain Project Area in the analysis of the current condition (e.g. estimate of potential bat roosting habitat available accounts for past timber harvest) and assumed all of the younger stands are unsuitable for bat tree roosting. The only other ongoing activities in the Green Mountain Project Area are 1) Road 19 Hazard Tree Project which would remove over 100 trees, about half of which may offer bat roosting habitat potential, and 2) the ongoing Hartz Young Stand Diversity Project which would thin stands of about 40 years of age which are considered unsuitable for bat tree roosting.

Current Standards and Guidelines governing management of the landscape in watersheds surrounding the project area provide direction that should provide for long-term maintenance of the amount and distribution of suitable habitat for Myotis thysanodes. Because of the range and location of land allocations in this area, it is unlikely that cumulative effects would influence the ability of local populations to persist, or become established, by eliminating demographic linkages beyond the species’ dispersal capabilities. Cumulative effects of this project on roosting or foraging habitat as it pertains directly to this species would be immeasurable on a landscape scale.

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

Because effects to bat foraging and potential tree roosting and natal habitat are minor at the watershed and Forest scale, and because the probability of falling a tree or snag containing a natal colony or family is low, it is my determination that, for Fringed Myotis and Townsend’s big-eared bats, Alternatives 2 and 3 may adversely impact individuals, but would not likely result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. Alternative 1 would have no impact on the bat species.

Design Criteria: Ensure that current large snag, defective tree, and down wood habitat is protected to the greatest extent feasible. For snag creation activities, one tree/acre is recommended to have crevice cuts to provide bat roosting habitat.

Johnson’s Hairstreak

Determination: Implementation of this project may impact individual Johnson’s Hairstreak, however impacts to the larger population are unlikely and would be insignificant if they were to occur.

Brief Ecological Overview: This butterfly species is associated with older western hemlock forests and relies on dwarf mistletoe on western hemlock trees as a host plant for its larval stage (Davis et al. 2011). The species is difficult to detect because it spends much time in the upper canopy. Twenty two locations comprised of 76 individuals have been recorded on the Willamette National Forest (US Forest Service NRIS database). It is considered to be very localized and scarce with a few “big” years. Peak conditions for this butterfly exist in old- growth and late successional second-growth forests. Younger forests that contain dwarf mistletoe may also have the potential to support populations. Elevation ranges from sea level to 6,000 feet. This butterfly is typically located in the forest canopy.

Pre-field Review/Field Reconnaissance: No dwarf mistletoe was seen during field reviews of the proposed Green Mountain units in 2011 and 2012. If it is present in the project area, it is much more likely to be within the stands over 80 years that are being considered for harvest with Alternative 2.

Direct and Indirect Effects: The 447 acres of stands over 80 years in Alternative 2 are potential habitat for this species. No dwarf mistletoe was located during stand exams (Rudisill pers. Comm.), nor was any detected during field surveys. The habitat in the harvest units is currently considered low-quality for the Johnson’s hairstreak. As the Green Mountain stands age, however, western hemlock will become more dominant and the possibility of dwarf mistletoe establishment should increase. Under Alternatives 1 and 3, no impacts would occur to Johnson’s hairstreak habitat and the value of the habitat for the butterfly species is expected to increase with time.

The regeneration harvest with leave trees proposed in Action Alternative 2 would negatively impact potential habitat for Johnson’s hairstreak by removing understory and overstory trees. Immediately following logging, fewer hemlock trees would remain so there would be fewer sites where dwarf mistletoe could establish. Also mistletoe spreads more rapidly in multistoried stands since the understory trees are showered by mistletoe seeds from plants in the overstory (USFS 2000). The regeneration harvest would remove the multi-storied canopies that currently exist in the stand. However, western hemlock would readily regenerate in the understory following treatment. By 80 years post-treatment and continuing as the stands age, it is expected that there would be a large component of western hemlock that would be suitable for dwarf mistletoe establishment and thus potential habitat for the Johnson’s hairstreak.

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

Thus, Alternative 2 would impact potential Johnson’s hairstreak butterfly habitat on 447 acres for about 80 years. An evaluation of stands greater than 80 years of age in the Green Mountain Project Area shows that about 60 percent is potential habitat for the Johnson’s Hairstreak. Currently there are about 58,935 acres of potential habitat for the butterfly species in the Green Mountain Project Area (or 60 percent), and 404,500 acres of potential habitat on the Forest (22.5 percent of total forest acres). Alternative 2 would impact 0.7 percent and 0.1 percent of the estimated potential Johnson’s hairstreak habitat in the Green Mountain Project Area and on the Forest, respectively. Alternative 3 would not impact Johnson’s Hairstreak habitat because all stands to be harvested would be under 80 years of age and thus the impacts would be immeasurable because the chances of these younger stands having any dwarf mistletoe are very low. Some individual trees containing dwarf mistletoe may be felled if they are hazard trees along the haul route. The other reasonably foreseeable harvest activity in the watershed that would affect some older trees is the Road 19 Hazard Tree Removal Project which would remove some old-growth trees that have become road safety hazards. The ongoing Hartz Young Stand Diversity Project is entirely within second growth plantations. Because the majority of the potential habitat would be unaffected by activities, Johnson’s hairstreak viability is expected to be maintained at the 6th field watershed level and within the broader Green Mountain Project area for both action alternatives, considering direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. Because viability would be maintained at the watershed level, the proposed actions are not expected to affect viability at the larger Forest scale.

Johnson’s Hairstreak is not a Survey and Manage species, so no surveys are required. Surveys were not conducted for this butterfly species because the lack of mistletoe precluded finding eggs and isolating larval stages on the host plant (Davis et al. 2011) and the chances of seeing adults in the upper canopy of the units is remote. Retaining all trees greater than 80 years of age would not fit the Purpose and Need of the Project and was not considered necessary to maintain species viability because only a very small percentage of potential habitat would be affected as indicated in the above discussion. Western hemlock will readily regenerate in the stands after treatment, and the alternatives as designed are expected to maintain Johnson hairstreak viability at the watershed scale.

Because the proposed action would only impact a very small amount of the total western hemlock habitat in the Project Area and at the Forest-scale and would occur in habitat that currently has no or very low dwarf mistletoe abundance, it is my determination that, for Johnson’s hairstreak, Alternatives 2 and 3 may adversely impact individuals, but would not likely result in a loss of viability in the Project Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. Alternative 1 would have no impact on this butterfly species.

Cumulative Effects: The other reasonably foreseeable harvest activity in the watershed is the Road 19 Hazard Tree Removal Project which would remove some old-growth trees that have become road safety hazards. Because the majority of the potential habitat would be unaffected by activities, Johnson’s Hairstreak viability is expected to be maintained at the 6th field watershed level and within the broader Green Mountain Project Area for both action alternatives, considering direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. Because viability would be maintained at the watershed level, the proposed actions are not expected to affect viability at the larger Forest scale. Alternatives 2 and 3 may adversely impact individuals, but would not likely result in a loss of viability in the project area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

Design Criteria: During sale layout, mark for retention any western hemlock trees that contain dwarf mistletoe.

Crater Lake Tightcoil

Determination: For harvest units, there will be no treatment within 10 meters of perennial wet areas, and there should be no impact on this mollusk. The Hardy Creek Bridge Replacement Project area was surveyed and no Crater Lake Tightcoil was found, thus no impacts are anticipated.

Brief Ecological Overview: The Crater Lake Tightcoil may be found sparsely distributed throughout the Oregon Cascades above 2,000’ elevation associated with perennially wet environments in mature conifer forests and meadows Crater Lake Tightcoil. Photo among vegetation or under rocks and woody debris. Suitable locations are taken by Evergreen State College. within 10 meters of open water and are generally in areas under snow for extended periods during winter. Essential habitat components include uncompacted soil, litter, logs, and other woody debris in a perennially wet environment (Duncan 2004).”

This species is among many organisms functioning as primary and secondary consumers that contribute to soil building and dissemination of spores and microbes. Having very limited dispersal capabilities on their own, they may be assisted in dispersal by other vectors capable of transporting mud that may contain eggs or adults across distances into suitable habitat (Duncan et al. 2003). An example of such dispersal could be individuals in mud transported on the hoof of a deer or elk.

Loss or degradation of suitable wetland habitat has been identified as the major threat to this species.

Status Background: The Crater Lake Tightcoil had been listed as a Survey and Manage species since the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan ROD (USDA, USDI 1994). Under the 2001 ROD (USDA, USDI 2001) it was classified as a Category B species. This requires pre-disturbance surveys if habitat will be impacted, and management of all known sites. The Crater Lake Tightcoil was added to the Regional Forester’s sensitive animal list in July 2004.

Pre-field Review: There is only one documented site of the Crater Lake Tightcoil on the Willamette National Forest in the Hardy Creek drainage of the McKenzie River Ranger District, which is located within the Green Mountain Project Area. This site was found on 10/24/2005, and is over 0.5 mile from the nearest proposed Green Mountain unit. The proposed Hardy Creek bridge replacement is about 3.5 miles downstream from the Crater Lake Tightcoil location.

As of August 2005 specimens had been confirmed at approximately 160 sites from very limited locations across this range (Duncan 2004, NatureServe 2009). Based on habitat described in an established survey protocol for this species (Duncan et al. 2003), suitable habitat for Crater Lake Tightcoil does exist across the project area above 2000 feet near riparian areas.

Field Reconnaissance: Mollusk surveys were conducted in some of the proposed thinning units when they were surveyed for the Hardy Thin Timber Sale in 2001, however, no Crater Lake Tightcoils were found. The Hardy Creek bridge replacement work area was protocol surveyed twice in the fall of 2014 (Young, Seitz) and no Crater Lake Tightcoils were found.

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

Direct and Indirect Effects: For all proposed Green Mountain Project units in Alternatives 2 and 3 , there will be no treatment within 10 meters of perennial wet areas, and there should be no impact on this mollusk. For this reason the persistence of the species if present in the proposed units should not be compromised by the logging and other associated work operations. Because measures will be taken to protect suitable habitat for this species against disturbance or modification from effects associated with the proposed activities, there are no recognized direct or indirect effects to this species or its’ habitat from the proposed activities in project units.

While the proposed Hardy Creek bridge replacement on Forest Road 1980204 would impact the riparian area within 10 meters of the stream, the Crater Lake Tightcoil was not found during 2014 surveys and thus, there would not be any impacts to this species which is extremely rare. Over 300 acres of mollusk surveys have been conducted in the Green Mountain Project area with only one Crater Lake Tightcoil location found (NRIS database 2014.

Cumulative Effects: Over 300 acres of mollusk surveys have been conducted in past projects and surveys in the Green Mountain Project Area. Only one Crater Lake tightcoil location has been found (NRIS database 2014) which indicates how rare this species is. The McKenzie River Ranger District has generally used a policy of buffering all suitable perennial water habitat by at least 10m which is considered adequate to maintain habitat conditions for this species which occurred in past projects. One future project that will not apply stream buffers is the Upper Southfork McKenzie River Enhancement Project which would have short-term (~5 years) impacts directly in the floodplain until the area is restored. The risk is judged to be very low because only one Crater Lake Tightcoil location is known on the Willamette National Forest, and this species is so rare. In the longer term (>5 years), additional habitat for the Crater Lake Tightcoil is likely to be created in future South Fork McKenzie River side channels, so the overall effects of the project would be beneficial. No impacts to the future persistence and viability of Crater Lake Tightcoil habitat are anticipated from the Green Mountain project.

Design Criteria: There is a project-specific design criteria prohibiting work within 10 meters of perennially wet areas to protect habitat for the Crater Lake Tightcoil. An exception to this is the proposed Hardy Creek bridge replacement on Forest Road 1980204 which would impact the riparian area.

Recommendations: Ensure that measures identified to prevent habitat disturbance within 10 meters of perennially wet areas are implemented during project activities. Continue to conduct surveys for this rare species.

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

Cascades Axetail Slug

Determination: May impact individuals or their habitat, but the action will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal Listing or loss of viability to the population or species.

Habitat/Pre-field review: The Cascades Axetail Slug is a recently described species that is endemic to the northern westside of the Oregon Cascade Range (Leonard et al. 2011). It occurs within a restricted range that includes portions of the Mt Hood National Forest, Cascades Axetail Slug. Photo Steve Dowlan 2006. Salem BLM, and the Willamette National Forest south to the northern part of the Middle Fork Ranger District (Burke 2013, Young and Doerr 2011). The slug is associated with needle litter duff in the western hemlock forest zone and has been found in forests ranging in age from about 30 years to old-growth (Young et al. 2010). Areas where vine maple leaves have dropped and formed a cover to hold moisture of a Douglas-fir needle litter/duff layer is the preferred microhabitat (Young et al. 2010). In addition, areas where down wood has created pockets for leaf litter and moisture to collect is also preferred. Although it has a regionally restricted range, it appears to be relatively common within its range on the Willamette National Forest (Doerr and Young 2009, Young et al. 2010). Limited information suggests that this slug uses a fairly wide range of forest age classes (Young et al. 2010). The Willamette NRIS database records 394 known locations of the species on the Forest totaling 572 individuals based on scattered project and systematic surveys. This species has been documented in the southwest portion of the Sweet Home Ranger District in a 30 year old stand and on the McKenzie Ranger District in stands 40 to 120 years old. While many of the proposed Green Mountain units in Alternatives 2 and 3 showed large amounts of moss present on the ground which is not habitat for the Cascades Axetail Slug, there is some suitable habitat present in many of the units.

The recorded upper elevational range of the species on the Forest is about 4600’ elevation. This species is not a Survey and Manage species.

Pre-field review/Field reconnaissance: Strategic surveys were conducted for this species in 2013 and 1 location was found in Unit 690 and another location just across the road from Unit 150 as shown below.

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

Location of slug in Unit 690: UTM 559 792; 487 7465 (NAD 1983), detected by Tiffany Young on 4/23/2013.

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

Location of slug in Unit 690: UTM 559 792; 487 7465 (NAD 1983), detected by Tiffany Young on 4/23/2013.

Location of slug outside of and across the road from Unit 150, detected by Tiffany Young on 4/23/2013.

Design Criteria/Recommendations: Protect the location in Unit 690 with a 180 foot no-harvest and no-burn buffer below Road 1980. The location near Unit 150 will not be impacted.

Direct and Indirect Effects: Impacts, if any, are expected to be minor due to the apparently wide range of habitat types this species may use and the relatively small size of this project within the larger South Fork McKenzie River Watershed/Green Mountain Project Area. Species viability on a large scale would continue to persist. It is unknown if localized populations may be temporarily impacted due to ground disturbance.

Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects on this species.

Regeneration harvest, underburning, temporary road construction and the bridge replacement in Alternative 2 would degrade habitat for Cascade Axetail Slugs and may result in loss of the species at those sites, although one individual was found at a site that recently burned indicating an ability to persist after low severity fires (Doerr and Young 2009). The species has been found in Douglas fir-western hemlock forests with a vine maple understory which is a common habitat type on the Willamette NF. Only a very small amount of the suitable Cascades Axetail Slug habitat on the forest and in the Green Mountain Project Area has been surveyed to date and the species has been detected at 394 sites on the Forest. This detection rate indicates that there are thousands of sites on the Forest where this species occurs.

Other cumulative effects in the Green Mountain Project Area include the ongoing Road 19 Hazard Tree Removal Project. This project would fall and remove about 120 individual trees along roadsides. One other ongoing project, the Hartz Young Stand Diversity Project would thin about 125 more acres of young plantations.

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

While impacts to the Cascades Axetail Slug cannot be excluded, they are expected to be very minor and cannot be measured. Some impacts could occur from ground disturbance.

Commercial thinning in Alternatives 2 and 3 may degrade habitat for Cascades Axetail Slugs, but is not expected to result in loss of the species at the stand level because the species occurs in a wide-range of forest age classes and thinning will retain some overhead forest canopy, leaf litter, and existing understory plant species. Because thinning could increase vine maple understory abundance, it could have potential benefits to slug habitat although this has not been studied. The proposed Green Mountain Action Alternatives would not impact any known documented site for Cascades Axetail Slugs.

Cumulative Effects: Other actions in the project area that may add, but are not expected to impact or lend towards cumulative effects on the slug species is the ongoing Road 19 Hazard Tree Removal Project. This project would fall and remove about 120 individual trees along roadsides. While impacts to the Cascades axetail slug cannot be excluded, they are expected to be very minor and cannot be measured. Some impacts could occur from ground disturbance.

Because the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the Action Alternatives would impact only a small percentage of the Cascades axetail slugs that occur in the Green Mountain Project Area, Alternatives 2 and 3 may adversely impact individuals, but would not likely result in a loss of viability in the Planning Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing. Alternative 1 would have no impact on this mollusk species.

Design Criteria/Recommendations:

Apply a 180-foot no harvest buffer (no harvest and no underburning) below Road 1980 on the Cascade Axetail location in unit 690. No specific management recommendations have been developed for this species; however the recommendations that were developed for the Oregon Megomphix are being used on the Willamette National Forest at this time. Protection of the one known site in unit 690 with a 180-foot no-harvest buffer will adequately protect it (Applegarth 2000).

Protect this species’ habitat and restore it when opportunities are presented.

Monitor activities and assess for impacts on the slug and its’ habitat.

Recommended Conservation Measures to Avoid, Minimize or Mitigate Adverse Effects Conservation measures for wildlife are recommended for consideration below:

To provide for Pacific Fisher habitat: a) Retain down log habitat as described in the prescription. If it is not present after logging is completed, trees should be felled until the prescription has been met. b) Implement road closures as planned, as soon as possible after logging is completed.

To provide for bat snag roosting habitat: c) Retain existing snags where possible, except those needed to be fallen for safety or operational reasons. d) One created snag/acre will have crevice cuts in the trunk to provide bat roost sites.

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

To reduce the impacts to Johnson’s Hairstreak Butterfly: e) During layout, mark for retention any western hemlock trees that are identified containing dwarf mistletoe.

To provide protection for Crater Lake Tightcoil habitat: f) Prohibit work within 10 meters of perennially wet areas.

To protect Cascades Axetail Slug habitat: g) Protect the location in Unit 690 with a 180 foot no-harvest and no-burn buffer below Road 1980. h) Monitor activities and assess for impacts on the slug and its habitat.

To protect nesting raptors and cavity nesters: i) Implement seasonal restrictions as shown below.

Recommended Seasonal Restrictions

Seasonal restrictions should be reviewed annually throughout the life of this project to determine if any additional seasonal restrictions are needed, or possibly existing ones may be lifted. May be waived if the pair is non-nesting or the area is unoccupied during the year of operation. NA=not applicable, activity is not planned so there is no restriction No=activity is or may be planned, but no seasonal restriction is needed

Note: Green Mountain helicopter units were consulted on for LAA for noise disturbance, and thus the seasonal restriction for spotted owls does not need to be implemented. It is being shown here as a conservation recommendation that may possibly reduce effects to nesting pairs. Other ground-based operational seasonal restrictions should be followed. If they cannot be implemented, this BE as well as the EIS and Decision Notice should be updated to reflect additional effects.

Table 3. Recommended seasonal restrictions for Green Mountain Project Alternatives 2 and 3. If seasonal restrictions cannot be implemented, impacts to species may increase. In the case of spotted owl seasonal restrictions, use of helicopters during the critical nesting season within 440 yards was consulted on in the BA and may occur. Seasonal restrictions shown in Column 2 are Conservation Recommendations to avoid effects to nesting pairs and their young during the Critical Nesting Season. The other seasonal restrictions for spotted owls are required, and those for peregrine falcons are recommended.

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

Unit # Spotted Owls: Spotted Owls: Spotted Owls: Peregrine Peregrine Chainsaw use Helicopter use Prescribed Falcons- Falcons- (65 yds around (440 yards burning (0.25 ground-based helicopter 300m nest around 300m miles around operations operations patch or other nest patch or 300m nest within within tertiary recent other recent patch or other secondary mgt mgt zone nest/pair nest/pair recent zone locations) locations nest/pair locations 40 No NA No January 15-July NA 30 41 No NA No January 15-July NA 30 60 No NA No NA NA 70 No NA No NA NA 80 No NA No NA NA 130 No NA No NA NA 140 No NA No NA NA 150 No NA March 1-July NA NA 15 160 No NA March 1-July NA NA 15 200 March 1-July NA March 1-July NA NA 15 east half 15 only 220 No NA March 1-July NA NA 15 230 No NA No NA NA 240 No NA No NA NA 250 No NA No NA NA 260 No NA No NA NA 290 No NA No NA NA 300 No NA March 1-July NA NA 15 310 March 1-July NA March 1-July NA NA 15 15 320 March 1-July NA March 1-July NA NA 15 15 330 No NA No NA NA 350 No NA No NA NA 380 No NA March 1-July NA NA 15 390 No March 1-July March 1-July NA NA 15 15 400 No NA March 1-July NA NA 15

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

Unit # Spotted Owls: Spotted Owls: Spotted Owls: Peregrine Peregrine Chainsaw use Helicopter use Prescribed Falcons- Falcons- (65 yds around (440 yards burning (0.25 ground-based helicopter 300m nest around 300m miles around operations operations patch or other nest patch or 300m nest within within tertiary recent other recent patch or other secondary mgt mgt zone nest/pair nest/pair recent zone locations) locations nest/pair locations 410 No NA March 1-July NA NA 15 west half only 420 No NA No NA NA 430 No NA No NA NA 440 No NA No NA NA 500 No NA No NA NA 530 No NA No NA NA 580 No NA No NA NA 600 No NA No NA NA 610 No NA No NA NA 630 No NA No NA NA 640 No NA No NA NA 650 No NA No NA NA 680 No NA No NA NA 690 No NA No NA NA 720 No NA No NA NA 740 No NA No NA NA 750 No NA No NA NA 760 No NA No NA NA 770 No NA No NA NA 780 No NA No NA NA 790 No NA No NA NA 800 No NA No NA NA 820 No NA March 1-July NA NA 15 830 No NA No NA NA 840 No NA March 1-July NA NA 15 850 No NA No NA NA 860 No NA March 1-July NA NA 15 890 No NA No NA NA 980 No NA No NA NA 990 No NA No NA NA 1020 No NA No NA NA

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

Unit # Spotted Owls: Spotted Owls: Spotted Owls: Peregrine Peregrine Chainsaw use Helicopter use Prescribed Falcons- Falcons- (65 yds around (440 yards burning (0.25 ground-based helicopter 300m nest around 300m miles around operations operations patch or other nest patch or 300m nest within within tertiary recent other recent patch or other secondary mgt mgt zone nest/pair nest/pair recent zone locations) locations nest/pair locations 1030 No NA No NA NA 1040 No NA No NA NA 1060 No NA No NA NA 1070 No NA March 1-July NA NA 15 north half only 1090 No NA March 1-July NA NA 15 1100 No NA March 1-July NA NA 15 1110 No NA March 1-July NA NA 15 1120 No NA No NA NA 1130 No NA No NA NA 1160 No NA No NA NA 1190 No NA No NA NA 1200 No NA No NA NA 1240 No NA No NA NA 1290 No No No NA January 15-July 30 1310 No NA No NA NA 1320 No NA No January 15-July NA 30 1330 No NA No NA NA 1340 No NA No NA NA 1350 No NA No January 15-July NA 30 1360 No NA No January 15-July NA 30 1370 No NA No January 15-July NA 30 1380 No NA No January 15-July NA 30 1410 No NA No NA 1430 No NA March 1-July January 15-July NA 15 30

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

Unit # Spotted Owls: Spotted Owls: Spotted Owls: Peregrine Peregrine Chainsaw use Helicopter use Prescribed Falcons- Falcons- (65 yds around (440 yards burning (0.25 ground-based helicopter 300m nest around 300m miles around operations operations patch or other nest patch or 300m nest within within tertiary recent other recent patch or other secondary mgt mgt zone nest/pair nest/pair recent zone locations) locations nest/pair locations 1450 No NA March 1-July January 15-July NA 15 30 1490 No NA No NA NA 1500 No NA No NA NA 1540 No Western 1/3 Western 1/3 NA January 15-July only March 1- only March 1- 30 July 15 July 15 1570 No NA No NA NA 1610 No NA March 1-July NA NA 15 1830 No No No NA NA 1840 No NA No NA NA 1850 No NA No NA NA 1880 No NA March 1-July NA NA 15 1890 No NA No NA NA 1910 No NA No NA NA 1920 No NA No NA NA 1930 No NA No NA NA 1940 March 1-July NA March 1-July NA NA 15 15 1950 No NA No NA NA 1960 No NA No NA NA 1980 No No No January 15-July January 15-July 30 30 5030 No NA March 1-July NA NA 15 5040 No NA No NA NA 5050 No NA No NA NA 5080 No NA No NA NA 5090 No NA No NA NA 5100 No NA No NA NA 5120 No NA No NA NA 5130 No NA No NA NA 5140 No NA No NA NA 5150 No NA No NA NA 5160 No No No NA NA

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

Unit # Spotted Owls: Spotted Owls: Spotted Owls: Peregrine Peregrine Chainsaw use Helicopter use Prescribed Falcons- Falcons- (65 yds around (440 yards burning (0.25 ground-based helicopter 300m nest around 300m miles around operations operations patch or other nest patch or 300m nest within within tertiary recent other recent patch or other secondary mgt mgt zone nest/pair nest/pair recent zone locations) locations nest/pair locations 5170 No NA No NA NA 5180 No NA No NA NA 5190 No NA No NA NA 5230 No NA No NA NA 5260 No NA No NA NA 5300 No NA March 1-July NA NA 15 5320 No NA No NA NA 5360 No NA No NA NA 5370 No NA No January 15-July NA 30 5380 No NA No January 15-July NA 30 5390 No NA No January 15-July NA 30 5400 No NA No NA NA 5410 No NA March 1-July January 15-July NA 15 30 5420 No NA March 1-July January 15-July NA 15 30 5430 No NA No NA NA 5440 No NA March 1-July January 15-July NA 15 30 5450 No NA No January 15-July NA 30 5460 No NA No NA NA 5470 No NA March 1-July NA NA 15 5480 No NA No NA NA 5510 March 1-July NA March 1-July NA NA 15 15 5530 March 1-July NA March 1-July NA NA 15 15 5600 No No No NA NA 5610 No No No NA January 15-July 30

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

Unit # Spotted Owls: Spotted Owls: Spotted Owls: Peregrine Peregrine Chainsaw use Helicopter use Prescribed Falcons- Falcons- (65 yds around (440 yards burning (0.25 ground-based helicopter 300m nest around 300m miles around operations operations patch or other nest patch or 300m nest within within tertiary recent other recent patch or other secondary mgt mgt zone nest/pair nest/pair recent zone locations) locations nest/pair locations 5620 No No No NA January 15-July 30 5630 No No No NA January 15-July 30 5640 No No No NA January 15-July 30 5650 No NA No NA NA 5710 No NA No NA NA 5720 No NA March 1-July NA NA 15 5730 No NA No NA NA 5740 No NA No NA NA 5770 No NA No NA NA 5780 No NA No NA NA 5800 March 1-July NA March 1-July NA NA 15 15 5810 March 1-July NA March 1-July NA NA 15 15 New road NA NA NA NA NA construction Bridge NA NA NA NA NA replacement Hazard Tree Implement outside the critical nesting seasonal restriction period for cavity nesters Felling from April 1-June 30

Rockpit development and roadwork that lasts over 4 hours in one location: Lowell Pass (aka HiYu pit), Upper Green Mountain, Boro, Hidden Lake, Blue Starr and Indian Ridge and Green Mountain Project associated roadwork that lasts over 4 hours in one location will require a seasonal restriction between January 15- September 30. The seasonal restriction may be waived if the location and timeframe are reviewed by the wildlife biologist and meet the criteria of the Biological Opinion for the northern spotted owl. Recommendations for seasonal restrictions for sensitive species and raptors should be reviewed and decided on by the district ranger.

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

Summary of Effects to Proposed and Sensitive Species For 6 sensitive species that have habitat or potential habitat in the project area, the proposed action would likely have no impact on one species, and may adversely impact individuals, but would maintain the viability of the remaining 5 species (Table 4).

Table 4. Summary of Effects of Alternatives 2 and 3 for 6 Sensitive Species that Occur or Have Potential Habitat in the Green Mountain Project Area. Effect Determination For SPECIES Alts. 2 and 3* Rationale For Determination No activities planned in primary home range. Seasonal restrictions recommended in American Peregrine Falcon No Impact secondary and tertiary home ranges during breeding season. Proposed harvest treatments would be neutral to falcon foraging habitat. Fishers are unlikely to occur in the project area and the scale of the alternatives, which would impact between <1 percent to 8 percent of 3 hypothetical female home ranges, would not preclude them from reestablishing in the MAII** short-term Pacific Fisher watershed. However, due to the scale of this Long-term beneficial impact project, short-term impacts to Fishers from noise disturbance may occur. In the long-term, Pacific Fisher habitat quality may benefit from year-round road closures and possible large down enhancement. Effects to foraging habitat and potential tree roosting and natal habitat is minor at the Fringed Myotis and Townsend’s project area, watershed and Forest scale. MAII** Big-eared Bats Probablility that an occupied roost or natal site would be fallen during logging or hazard tree felling operations is low. Only a very small amount of western hemlock habitat would be affected by project activities Johnson’s Hairstreak MAII** and the Green Mountain Units currently have no identified dwarf mistletoe. Survey data has only detected this species at a single location on the Willamette National Forest and streamside buffers will exceed the Crater Lake Tightcoil MAII** recommended 10m in suitable habitat. The exception is the bridge replacement project on Hardy Creek which may impact individuals. Survey data indicates that this endemic species is relatively abundant within its’ restricted range. Proposed activities, plus other past, Cascades Axetail Slug MAII** present, and reasonably forseeable actions, would impact only a small portion of the known and likely occupied sites in the project area, watershed and on the Forest. *Alternative 1 would have No Impact on any Sensitive Species.

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

Effect Determination For SPECIES Alts. 2 and 3* Rationale For Determination **MAII: may adversely impact individuals, but would not result in a loss of viability in the Project Area, nor cause a trend toward federal listing.

Literature Cited Andrews, H. 2010. Species fact sheet for western bumblebee. Unpublished Fact Sheet, Interagency Special Status Species Program (USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service), Portland, OR. [accessed 6/3/2013 from http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna- invertebrates.shtml]

Applegarth, J.S. 1995. Invertebrates of special status or special concern in the Eugene District. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.

Aubry, Keith B., Kevin S. McKelvey, and Jeffrey P. Copeland. 2006. Distribution and broadscale habitat relations of the wolverine in the contiguous United States. The Journal of Wildlife Management: 71(7).

Aubry, K.B. and J.C. Lewis. 2003. Extirpation and reintroduction of fishers (Martes pennanti) in Oregon: implications for their conservation in the Pacific states. Biological Conservation 114 (2003) 79-90.

Burke,T. E. 2013. Land snails and slugs of the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. 344 p.

Corkran, C. C., and C. Thoms. 2006. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia: a field identification guide-2nd edition. Lone Pine Publishing, Edmonton, Alberta.

Davis, R., D. McKorkle, and D. Ross. 2011. Survey protocol for Johnson’s hairstreak butterfly (Callophrys johnsoni) in Washington and Oregon (v.1.2). Unpublished Report, Interagency Special Status Species Program (USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service), Portland, OR. [accessed 6/3/2013 from http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna-invertebrates.shtml]

Doerr, J. and T. Young. 2009. FY2009 ISSSP surveys for salamander slug[aka Axetail Slug] (Gliabates oregonius) in the Upper Blue River drainage of the McKenzie River Ranger District, Willamette National Forest. Unpublished Report, Interagency Special Status Species Program (USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service), Portland, OR. [accessed 7/22/2013 from http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna-invertebrates.shtml]

Duncan, N. 2004. Conservation Assessment for Pristiloma arcticum crateris, Crater Lake Tightcoil – originally issued as management recommendations, October 1999, Darryl Gowan and Thomas E. Burke, Authors. reconfigured September 2004 by Nancy Duncan.

Duncan, N., T. Burke, S. Dowlan, and P. Hohenlohe. 2003. Survey protocol of survey and manage terrestrial mollusk species from the Northwest Forest Plan. Version 3.0. ISSSP publication. Bureau of Land Management, Roseburg, Oregon. 70 p.

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. Multi-agency report, USDA Forest Service, Portland, Oregon. N.p.

Goulson, D. 2003. Bumblebees: their behavior and ecology. Oxford University Press, Oxford, England.

Hayes, J.P. 2003. Habitat ecology and conservation of bats in western coniferous forests. pp. 81-119 in: C.J. Zabel and R.G. Anthony, eds. Mammal community dynamics: management and conservation in the coniferous forests of Western North America. Cambridge University Press. 2003.

Heinrich, B. 2004. Bumblebee economics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 245 pp.

Lacki, M. J., J. P. Hayes, and A. Kurta, Eds. 2007. Bats in forests: conservation and management. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 329 p.

Leonard, W. P., L. Chichester, Casey H. Richart, and T. A. Young. 2011. Securicauda hermani and Carinacauda stormi, two new genera and species of slug from the Pacific Northwest of the United States (Gastropoda: Stylommatophora: Arionidae), with notes on Gliabates oregonius Webb 1959. Zootaxa 2746: 43─56.

Lofroth, E. C., and 13 others. 2010. Conservation of fishers (Martes pennanti) in South-Central British Columbia, Western Washington, Western Oregon, and California-Volume I: Conservation assessment. Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado. 163 p.

Marshall, D. B., M. G. Hunter, and A. L. Contreras, Eds. 2003. Birds of Oregon: a general reference. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. 768 p.

NatureServe. 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer Copyright © 2009 NatureServe, 1101 Wilson Boulevard, 15th Floor, Arlington Virginia 22209, U.S.A. All Rights Reserved.

Ormsbee, P. 2013. Region 6 Bat Center of Excellence Leader (retired), Willamette National Forest. Personal communication on July 19, 2013, to Joe Doerr, Forest Wildlife Biologist. Willamette National Forest, Springfield, Oregon.

Raley, C. M., E. C. Lofroth, R.L. Truex, J. S. Yaeger, and J. M. Higley. 2012. Habitat ecology of fishers in western North America. Pages 231-254. In Biology and conservation of martens, sables, and fishers: a new synthesis. Aubry, K. B., W. J. Zielinski, M. G. Raphael, G. Proulx, and S. W. Buskirk. (eds.). Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York. 580 p.

Rosenberg, D., and 8 others. 2009. Conservation assessment of the western pond turtle in Oregon (Actinemys marmorata). Unpublished Report, Interagency Special Status Species Program (USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service), Portland, OR. 80 p.

Rudisill, James. 2014. McKenzie River Ranger District Silviculturist, Willamette National Forest. Personal communication on June 18, 2014, to Ruby Seitz, McKenzie River Ranger District Wildlife Biologist, Willamette National Forest, McKenzie Bridge, Oregon.

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

Seitz, R., A. Potter, K. Van Norman, N. Barrett, and M. Wainwright. 2007. Survey protocol for the mardon skipper (Polites mardon). Unpublished Report, Interagency Special Status Species Program (USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service), Portland, OR. 31 p.

USDA Forest Service. 1994. Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl, and Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl, USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, 1994.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. Proposed rule to list wolverine as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. USFWS, Helena, Montana. 123 p.

U. S. Forest Service (USFS). 2000. Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe. Forest Insect and Disease Leaflet 54 (revised). Region 2, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 9 p.

U. S. Forest Service (USFS). 1986. Interim definitions for old-growth Douglas-fir and mixed-conifer forests in the Pacific Northwest and California. PNWS Research Note PNW-447. 7 p.

Verts, B. J., and L. N. Carraway. 1998. Land mammals of Oregon. University of California Press, Berkeley. 668 p.

Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. 2009. Species fact sheet for California shield-backed bug. Unpublished Fact Sheet, Interagency Special Status Species Program (USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service), Portland, OR. [http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna- invertebrates.shtml]

Young, T., J. Doerr, R. Price, and R. Davis. 2010. FY2010 ISSSP report on two salamander slug survey projects. Unpublished Report, Interagency Special Status Species Program (USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service), Portland, OR. [accessed 7/22/2013 from http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna-invertebrates.shtml]

Young, T., and J. Doerr. 2011. FY2011 ISSSP report for salamander slug and secondary mollusk and amphibian species purposive surveys on Middle Fork Ranger District of the Willamette National Forest and on the Cascade portion of the Eugene Bureau of Land Management. Unpublished Report, Interagency Special Status Species Program (USDI Bureau of Land Management and USDA Forest Service), Portland, OR. [accessed 7/22/2013 from http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna- invertebrates.shtml]

APPENDIX A Green Mountain Project Unit Treatments-Alternative 2. Acres shown are total unit acres, with skip areas not deducted from those acres. Stand Unit Age Acres QMD_GT_ Treatment heli_ac gb_ac sky_ac 9 1008033 40 108 25 20 thinning 0 0 25

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

1008034 41 125 10 21 thinning 0 0 10 1001529 60 30 21 12 thinning 0 0 21 1001560 70 46 55 14 thinning 0 33 22 1001570 80 36 24 13 thinning 0 0 24 1001614 130 45 61 16 regeneration 0 0 61 1001663 140 33 15 13 thinning 0 6 9 1001631 150 26 38 12 thinning 0 0 38 1003625 160 40 16 15 thinning 0 0 16 1001694 200 35 37 14 thinning 0 4 33 1001731 220 30 16 14 thinning 0 0 16 1003601 230 40 26 13 thinning 0 13 13 1003603 240 36 18 13 thinning 0 18 0 1003602 250 34 14 14 thinning 0 0 14 1001730 260 34 10 12 thinning 0 0 10 1001759 290 37 38 14 regeneration 0 0 38 1001769 300 33 66 14 thinning 0 0 66 1001824 310 42 22 13 thinning 0 0 22 1003596 320 48 36 16 thinning 0 15 21 1001735 330 37 25 15 thinning 0 10 15 1001758 350 38 14 15 thinning 0 0 14 1001917 380 32 40 13 thinning 0 5 35 1001900 390 43 57 14 thinning 15 0 41 1001878 400 29 22 14 thinning 0 0 22 1003626 410 33 34 15 thinning 0 10 24 1001832 420 45 53 18 thinning 0 17 36 1001826 430 33 29 13 thinning 0 16 13 1001777 440 32 25 14 thinning 0 8 17 1001869 500 28 17 14 thinning 0 0 17 1001915 530 30 12 12 thinning 0 0 12 1001884 580 34 45 15 thinning 0 0 45 1001912 600 36 92 15 thinning 0 27 66 1001939 610 35 39 13 regeneration 0 10 29 1001955 630 38 14 14 regeneration 0 14 0 1002018 640 36 45 13 thinning 0 15 30 1003556 650 34 19 12 regeneration 0 10 10 1002029 680 31 33 12 thinning 0 10 23 1003554 690 41 81 13 thinning 0 2 80 1002055 720 38 24 13 regeneration 0 0 24 1002100 740 43 43 13 regeneration 0 0 43

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

1002095 750 31 28 12 thinning 0 0 28 1002105 760 34 29 12 thinning 0 0 29 1001999 770 32 43 12 thinning 0 0 43 1002020 780 49 35 15 thinning 0 0 35 1002001 790 33 45 12 thinning 0 0 45 1006172 800 46 19 14 thinning 0 0 19 1001982 820 44 32 15 thinning 0 0 32 1002047 830 30 33 13 regeneration 0 0 33 1002040 840 31 36 13 thinning 0 0 36 1002049 850 35 35 14 regeneration 0 0 35 1001964 860 48 53 15 thinning 0 0 53 1001925 890 63 19 16 thinning 0 0 19 1002224 980 36 48 12 thinning 0 0 48 1002158 990 45 41 13 thinning 0 10 31 1002217 1020 45 49 11 thinning 0 0 49 1002190 1030 29 33 12 regeneration 0 13 20 1006157 1040 45 22 12 regeneration 0 0 22 1002128 1060 35 79 12 thinning 0 22 57 1005909 1070 46 34 16 regeneration 0 34 0 1002048 1090 31 17 12 thinning 0 5 12 1005908 1100 49 43 15 thinning 0 10 33 1002030 1110 33 14 13 thinning 0 0 14 1002089 1120 29 34 12 thinning 0 0 34 1004063 1130 46 35 17 regeneration 0 30 5 1002141 1160 35 29 14 thinning 0 4 25 1002161 1190 51 7 18 thinning 0 7 0 1002310 1200 31 30 14 thinning 0 5 25 1002238 1240 32 39 13 thinning 0 15 23 1002382 1290 44 51 13 thinning 10 18 23 1002386 1310 36 34 13 thinning 0 0 34 1004066 1320 47 54 15 thinning 0 31 23 1002320 1330 32 32 12 thinning 0 0 32 1002339 1340 39 8 12 thinning 0 0 8 1007112 1350 40 8 14 thinning 0 0 8 1003663 1360 39 10 14 thinning 0 0 10 1002298 1370 32 33 14 thinning 0 0 33 1002252 1380 47 19 14 thinning 0 4 15 1002215 1410 72 57 16 thinning 0 0 57 1002279 1430 33 27 12 thinning 0 4 23

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

1002354 1450 34 23 13 thinning 0 8 15 1002448 1490 34 29 10 thinning 0 0 29 1002435 1500 31 27 12 thinning 0 14 13 1002480 1540 43 58 12 thinning 7 11 40 1002605 1570 34 43 14 thinning 0 0 43 1002564 1610 27 18 12 thinning 0 0 18 1008040 1830 144 9 23 thinning 9 0 0 1008038 1840 144 14 23 thinning 0 0 14 1002714 1850 33 38 13 thinning 0 0 38 1008037 1880 144 2 23 thinning 0 0 2 1002743 1890 129 31 27 thinning 0 0 31 1002698 1910 40 17 14 thinning 0 14 3 1002612 1920 35 39 13 thinning 0 4 35 1002598 1930 36 36 13 thinning 0 15 21 1002591 1940 37 40 14 thinning 0 0 40 1002549 1950 35 44 13 thinning 0 22 22 1002547 1960 36 33 13 thinning 0 6 27 1002399 1980 41 46 13 thinning 46 0 0 1002779 5030 40 77 14 thinning 0 15 62 1002784 5040 38 36 15 thinning 0 10 26 1002826 5050 27 12 12 thinning 0 0 12 1002895 5080 38 25 13 thinning 0 0 25 1002882 5090 30 40 13 thinning 0 0 40 1002835 5120 36 18 13 thinning 0 18 0 1002855 5130 34 14 12 thinning 0 14 0 1002874 5140 36 30 14 thinning 0 26 4 1002913 5160 35 35 13 thinning 35 0 0 1002929 5170 34 34 12 thinning 0 17 17 1002935 5180 33 31 13 thinning 0 31 0 1002945 5230 36 58 13 thinning 0 0 58 1003021 5260 31 38 12 thinning 0 0 38 1003205 5320 33 35 14 thinning 0 40 30 1003235 5360 31 53 14 thinning 0 0 53 1003519 5370 38 10 15 thinning 0 10 0 1003520 5380 35 9 14 thinning 0 9 0 1002966 5390 34 52 12 thinning 0 12 40 1002975 5400 31 31 13 thinning 0 15 16 1002906 5410 36 23 14 thinning 0 23 0 1003005 5420 41 44 14 thinning 0 42 16

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

1003347 5430 27 20 12 thinning 0 16 4 1003348 5440 37 78 15 thinning 0 0 78 1003567 5450 33 34 14 thinning 0 0 34 1003129 5460 36 36 13 thinning 0 16 20 1003133 5470 37 24 14 thinning 0 24 0 1006091 5480 135 11 19 regeneration 0 11 0 1007023 5510 93 14 24 thinning 0 0 14 1003124 5530 112 64 27 thinning 0 0 64 1008028 5710 117 17 27 thinning 0 0 17 1003169 5720 96 40 23 thinning 0 40 0 1003206 5730 97 41 27 thinning 0 11 30 1006094 5740 90 30 23 thinning 0 0 30 1003258 5770 110 41 18 regeneration 0 41 0 1008032 5780 106 35 16 regeneration 0 35 0 1008030 5800 139 48 22 thinning 0 0 50 1007020 5810 122 13 19 thinning 0 0 13 TOTAL 4,405

Green Mountain Project Unit Treatments-Alternative 3. Acres shown are total unit acres with skip areas not deducted from total unit acres. Stand Unit Age Acres QMD_GT_ Treatment heli_ac gb_ac sky_ac 9 1001529 60 30 21 12 thinning 0 0 21 1001560 70 46 55 14 thinning 0 33 22 1001570 80 36 24 13 thinning 0 0 24 1001614 130 45 61 16 thinning 0 0 61 1001663 140 33 15 13 thinning 0 6 9 1001631 150 26 38 12 thinning 0 0 38 1003625 160 40 16 15 thinning 0 0 16 1001694 200 35 37 14 thinning 0 4 33 1001731 220 30 16 14 thinning 0 0 16 1003601 230 40 26 13 thinning 0 13 13 1003603 240 36 18 13 thinning 0 18 0 1003602 250 34 14 14 thinning 0 0 14 1001730 260 34 10 12 thinning 0 0 10 1001759 290 37 38 14 thinning 0 0 38 1001769 300 33 66 14 thinning 0 0 66 1001824 310 42 22 13 thinning 0 0 22 1003596 320 48 36 16 thinning 0 15 21 1001735 330 37 25 15 thinning 0 10 15

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

1001758 350 38 14 15 thinning 0 0 14 1001917 380 32 40 13 thinning 0 5 35 1001900 390 43 57 14 thinning 15 0 41 1001878 400 29 22 14 thinning 0 0 22 1003626 410 33 34 15 thinning 0 10 24 1001832 420 45 53 18 thinning 0 17 36 1001826 430 33 29 13 thinning 0 16 13 1001777 440 32 25 14 thinning 0 8 17 1001869 500 28 17 14 thinning 0 0 17 1001915 530 30 12 12 thinning 0 0 12 1001884 580 34 45 15 thinning 0 0 45 1001912 600 36 92 15 thinning 0 27 66 1001939 610 35 39 13 thinning 0 10 29 1001955 630 38 14 14 thinning 0 14 0 1002018 640 36 45 13 thinning 0 15 30 1003556 650 34 19 12 thinning 0 10 10 1002029 680 31 33 12 thinning 0 10 23 1003554 690 41 81 13 thinning 0 2 80 1002055 720 38 24 13 thinning 0 0 24 1002100 740 43 43 13 thinning 0 0 43 1002095 750 31 28 12 thinning 0 0 28 1002105 760 34 29 12 thinning 0 0 29 1001999 770 32 43 12 thinning 0 0 43 1002020 780 49 35 15 thinning 0 0 35 1002001 790 33 45 12 thinning 0 0 45 1006172 800 46 19 14 thinning 0 0 19 1001982 820 44 32 15 thinning 0 0 32 1002047 830 30 33 13 thinning 0 0 33 1002040 840 31 36 13 thinning 0 0 36 1002049 850 35 35 14 thinning 0 0 35 1001964 860 48 53 15 thinning 0 0 53 1001925 890 63 19 16 thinning 0 0 19 1002224 980 36 48 12 thinning 0 0 48 1002158 990 45 41 13 thinning 0 10 31 1002217 1020 45 49 11 thinning 0 0 49 1002190 1030 29 33 12 thinning 0 13 20 1006157 1040 45 22 12 thinning 0 0 22 1002128 1060 35 79 12 thinning 0 22 57 1005909 1070 46 34 16 thinning 0 34 0

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

1002048 1090 31 17 12 thinning 0 5 12 1005908 1100 49 43 15 thinning 0 10 33 1002030 1110 33 14 13 thinning 0 0 14 1002089 1120 29 34 12 thinning 0 0 34 1004063 1130 46 35 17 thinning 0 30 5 1002141 1160 35 29 14 thinning 0 4 25 1002161 1190 51 7 18 thinning 0 7 0 1002310 1200 31 30 14 thinning 0 5 25 1002238 1240 32 39 13 thinning 0 15 23 1002382 1290 44 51 13 thinning 10 18 23 1002386 1310 36 34 13 thinning 0 0 34 1004066 1320 47 54 15 thinning 0 31 23 1002320 1330 32 32 12 thinning 0 0 32 1002339 1340 39 8 12 thinning 0 0 8 1007112 1350 40 8 14 thinning 0 0 8 1003663 1360 39 10 14 thinning 0 0 10 1002298 1370 32 33 14 thinning 0 0 33 1002252 1380 47 19 14 thinning 0 4 15 1002215 1410 72 57 16 thinning 0 0 57 1002279 1430 33 27 12 thinning 0 4 23 1002354 1450 34 23 13 thinning 0 8 15 1002448 1490 34 29 10 thinning 0 0 29 1002435 1500 31 27 12 thinning 0 14 13 1002480 1540 43 58 12 thinning 7 11 40 1002605 1570 34 43 14 thinning 0 0 43 1002564 1610 27 18 12 thinning 0 0 18 1002714 1850 33 38 13 thinning 0 0 38 1002698 1910 40 17 14 thinning 0 14 3 1002612 1920 35 39 13 thinning 0 4 35 1002598 1930 36 36 13 thinning 0 15 21 1002591 1940 37 40 14 thinning 0 0 40 1002549 1950 35 44 13 thinning 0 22 22 1002547 1960 36 33 13 thinning 0 6 27 1002399 1980 41 46 13 thinning 46 0 0 1002779 5030 40 77 14 thinning 0 15 62 1002784 5040 38 36 15 thinning 0 10 26 1002826 5050 27 12 12 thinning 0 0 12 1002895 5080 38 25 13 thinning 0 0 25 1002882 5090 30 40 13 thinning 0 0 40

Green Mountain EIS Wildlife BE March 2016

1002835 5120 36 18 13 thinning 0 18 0 1002855 5130 34 14 12 thinning 0 14 0 1002874 5140 36 30 14 thinning 0 26 4 1002913 5160 35 35 13 thinning 35 0 0 1002929 5170 34 34 12 thinning 0 17 17 1002935 5180 33 31 13 thinning 0 31 0 1002945 5230 36 58 13 thinning 0 0 58 1003021 5260 31 38 12 thinning 0 0 38 1003205 5320 33 35 14 thinning 0 40 30 1003235 5360 31 53 14 thinning 0 0 53 1003519 5370 38 10 15 thinning 0 10 0 1003520 5380 35 9 14 thinning 0 9 0 1002966 5390 34 52 12 thinning 0 12 40 1002975 5400 31 31 13 thinning 0 15 16 1002906 5410 36 23 14 thinning 0 23 0 1003005 5420 41 44 14 thinning 0 42 16 1003347 5430 27 20 12 thinning 0 16 4 1003348 5440 37 78 15 thinning 0 0 78 1003567 5450 33 34 14 thinning 0 0 34 1003129 5460 36 36 13 thinning 0 16 20 1003133 5470 37 24 14 thinning 0 24 0 TOTAL 3,961