Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Green Diamond Forest Habitat Conservation Plan

July 2018

Prepared by the U.S. Department of the Interior; Fish and Wildlife Service

Estimated EIS Preparation Costs: Consultant contract : $1.2 million Fish and Wildlife Service staff: $480,000

Cover Sheet Proposed Action: Green Diamond Forest Habitat Conservation Plan, proposed issuance of an incidental take permit for northern spotted owl, fisher, Sonoma tree vole, and red tree vole covered species for 50 years.

Type of Statement: Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

Lead agency: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Cooperating Agencies:

For further Dan Everson, Field Office Supervisor Information: Attn: Kathleen Brubaker Supervisory Fish and Wildlife Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521 707 822 7201

Abstract: This EIS evaluates the environmental consequences of issuing an incidental take permit under the Federal Endangered Species Act under Section 10(a)(1)(B) and implementing timber harvest and related activities, within Humboldt and Del Norte counties, California, pursuant to a proposed Forest Habitat Conservation Plan (FHCP). Green Diamond has prepared a multispecies FHCP to conserve the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina; NSO), fisher (Pekania pennanti), Sonoma tree vole (Arborimus pomo), and red tree vole (Arborimus longicaudus) on its managed California timberlands. The FHCP, if and when approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), would replace Green Diamond’s current NSO HCP and be implemented for 50 years. Additionally, if approved the Service would also issue a Migratory Bird Scientific Collecting Permit (50 Code of Federal Regulations 22.21) under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in support of research to determine the effects of removal of barred owls on NSO. Thus, net benefits to the Covered Species are expected to no action alternative. In addition, the Preferred Alternative, we have evaluated alternatives that include just coverage of NSO and different potential harvest regimes (Alternative A would be even-aged harvests and Alternative B would be uneven-aged management). These alternatives would not assess the potential benefits of removing barred owls.

Send Comments to: Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, California 95521-4573 Email: [email protected].

Executive Summary

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has received applications from Green Diamond Resource Company (Green Diamond) for incidental take permits (ITPs) in accordance with section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), as amended. Green Diamond is seeking this authorization so that activities associated with implementing the Green Diamond Forest Habitat Conservation Plan (FHCP or Proposed Action) comply with the ESA, while providing protection for four species that are either listed under the ESA or could become listed during the permit term: northern spotted owl (NSO), fisher, red tree vole, and Sonoma tree vole. Because the proposed issuance of ITPs would be a federal action that may affect the human environment, this issuance is subject to review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA provides an interdisciplinary framework for federal agencies to evaluate environmental consequences of programs and projects over which they have discretionary authority. The Service is the Lead Agency under NEPA for proposed issuance of the ITPs. This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) evaluates the impacts of issuing the ITPs and implementing the FHCP. The applicant is requesting coverage for potential incidental take of covered species for a term of 50 years. This term is necessary to fully implement the FHCP Conservation Program and maximize ecological benefits under the FHCP. ES.1.1 Purpose and Need The purpose of the Proposed Action is to respond to a request from Green Diamond for an ITP and related Migratory Bird Treaty Act permits. Green Diamond currently implements the Habitat Conservation Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl on the California Timberlands of Simpson Timber Company (NSO HCP) (Simpson, 1992) on its California timberlands to conserve NSO while conducting specific timber harvest and land management activities that may result in incidental take of NSO (i.e., HCP-covered activities). Green Diamond also currently implements its Aquatic Habitat Conservation Plan and Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (AHCP/CCAA) (Green Diamond, 2006) primarily for the benefit of aquatic species and their habitats.1 Information gained by Green Diamond since 1989 while implementing these HCPs, and by complying with other conservation plans and permits, has been incorporated into Green Diamond’s proposed FHCP. Within its FHCP, Green Diamond proposes a conservation program that will conserve NSO and other sensitive species better than the current NSO HCP, while at the same time allowing Green Diamond to continue profitable timber harvesting and land management practices on its California forestlands. ES.1.2 Alternatives This EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative, Proposed Action, Alternative A, and Alternative B. A brief summary of each alternative is provided in the following subsections. Section 2 provides detailed descriptions of the four alternatives. ES.1.2.1 No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, Green Diamond would continue its land management and timber harvesting practices, as currently shaped by adherence to Forest Practice Rules (FPR) and several

1 The NSO HCP (Simpson, 1992) covers all of Green Diamond’s California timberlands (currently approximately 411,000 acres), while the AHCP/CCAA covers a slightly smaller area of such timberlands (approximately 365,152 acres). These and all planning area acreages were frozen in 2010 to allow consistent analyses during the preparation of this document.

PR0105180936SAC III EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

existing land use conservation plans, including Green Diamond’s existing NSO Habitat Conservation Plan (Simpson, 1992) which provides coverage for NSO only. Under the No Action Alternative, no new permit would be issued by the Service in response to Green Diamond’s ITP application and FHCP submittal, and no additional species would be covered. NSO would continue to be covered by Green Diamond’s NSO HCP until 2022, unless modified otherwise. Listed aquatic species would continue to be covered by Green Diamond’s AHCP/CCAA until 2057, unless modified otherwise. ES.1.2.2 Proposed Action As a result of ongoing research, analysis, and review, Green Diamond has proposed a new multi-species FHCP to cover incidental take of four terrestrial species (including NSO). The FHCP, if approved, would replace the NSO HCP. The fundamental premise of the FHCP is that Green Diamond would create and maintain a mosaic of high-quality habitat for Covered Species during a 50-year permit term. The mosaic would be achieved by retaining some habitat elements, and regrowth of other habitat components temporarily lost through timber harvest. This central conservation strategy is augmented by specific landscape commitments (e.g., the Terrestrial Retention of Ecosystem Elements) and through measures that mitigate potential impacts to Covered Species individuals. Upon FHCP ITP issuance, the NSO HCP would be superseded by the FHCP, and all provisions of the FHCP and ITP would be implemented as scheduled over the new permit term. NSO, fisher, Sonoma tree vole, and red tree vole are proposed for coverage in the FHCP. The permit term for the FHCP would be 50 years. Following ITP expiration in 50 years, no take of NSO would be permitted, unless permitted otherwise. Listed aquatic species would continue to be covered by Green Diamond’s AHCP/CCAA until 2057, unless modified otherwise. ES.1.2.3 Alternative A Under Alternative A, Green Diamond would establish no-harvest or limited-harvest static reserves around select NSO sites and high-value habitats. Green Diamond would identify and preserve nine large static terrestrial reserves ranging in size from approximately 3,700 to over 16,000 acres2 and totaling approximately 72,000 acres. This alternative would protect high-quality NSO nesting habitat similar to conservation strategies implemented in the past for late-successional forest associated species (Thomas et al., 1990; FEMAT, 1993; USDI and USDA, 1994; USFWS, 2012). The ITP permit term for Alternative A would be 50 years. The new ITP would supersede the 1992 NSO HCP ITP upon issuance. The new ITP under Alternative A would cover NSO only. Following ITP expiration in 50 years, no take of NSO would be permitted, unless permitted otherwise. Listed aquatic species would continue to be covered by Green Diamond’s AHCP/CCAA until 2057, unless modified otherwise. ES.1.2.4 Alternative B Under Alternative B, Green Diamond would transition away from even-aged management in forest stands capable of supporting selection harvesting, but some stands would continue to be clearcut either because they are currently under-stocked with conifers or lack sufficient forest site class growth potential to support stands of conifers capable of being selectively harvested. Green Diamond would use a combination of single tree selection and group selection as allowed under the FPRs. The spatial arrangement and exact amount of group selection harvest is unknown.

The ITP permit term for Alternative B would be 50 years. The new ITP would supersede the 1992 NSO HCP ITP upon issuance. The new ITP under Alternative B would cover NSO only. Following ITP expiration

2 Each reserve would be sized sufficiently to support seven NSO home ranges

IV PR0105180936SAC EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

in 50 years, no take of NSO would be permitted. Listed aquatic species would continue to be covered by Green Diamond’s AHCP/CCAA until 2057, unless modified otherwise. ES.1.3 Potential Effects of Alternatives The following resources and resource categories may be affected by the Service’s issuance of an ITP and are analyzed in detail in this EIS:

• Covered Species • Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice • Climate and Climate Change • Aquatic Resources and Hydrology

The potential environmental effects on these resource categories that may be affected by the Service’s issuance of an ITP are summarized in Table ES-1 and are described in detail in Section 4.

PR0105180936SAC V EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Table ES-1. Summary of Potential Impacts Category No Action Alternative Proposed Action Alternative A Alternative B

Covered Species

Northern Spotted Owl Northern spotted owl habitat Beneficial effect compared to No Adverse effect compared to No Action Adverse effect compared to No fitness modeled to increase Action because of improved because in approximately 40 years, all Action because in under a between 2010 and 2022 on Green habitat management and barred stands in the reserves will be selection/group selection harvest Diamond ownership. No barred owl owl control. Barred owls would be homogeneous mature stands with no scenario, habitat heterogeneity is removal would occur. Adverse experimentally removed from the open edge density that promotes dramatically reduced at the effects to spotted owls from barred FHCP Plan Area during the 50-year habitat heterogeneity. No barred owl landscape scale. No barred owl owl interactions would continue to permit term, which would allow removal would occur. Adverse effects removal would occur. Adverse occur. spotted owls to respond favorably to spotted owls from barred owl effects to spotted owls from to increasing habitat fitness. interactions would continue to occur. barred owl interactions would continue to occur.

Fisher Under the No Action Alternative, Beneficial effect compared to No Similar to or more beneficial than No Similar to No Action. Potential for there is no conservation strategy Action, with measures to avoid Action because unmanaged reserve increased displacement of fisher and there are no specific fisher entrapment in tanks. Fisher areas under this alternative would due to timber harvest on a larger commitments directed at fisher dens identified will be buffered develop over time and provide more area. No commitment to retain conservation. However, potential and avoided until the den is acres of mature stands with late-seral and recruit resting and denning fisher denning and resting habitat vacant. Implementing the TREE forest elements in these areas. structure, so occupancy over the would continue to develop within plan as firm commitment will Presumably, this will result in an long term could decline. RMZs as a result of continued increase the likelihood that overall increase in potential denning implementation of the AHCP/CCAA. denning and resting structures are and resting habitat for fishers. Outside Green Diamond may elect to maintained on the landscape. The of the reserves, potential displacement continue to voluntarily retain FHCP includes a process for would be less than under the No Action coarse, woody debris on the monitoring the fisher population due to timber harvest on a smaller landscape for the benefit of fishers. in the Plan Area, refinement area. Wood retention would be similar and/or validation of the to No Action. occupancy model, and adaptive management for fishers.

VI PR0105180936SAC EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Table ES-1. Summary of Potential Impacts Category No Action Alternative Proposed Action Alternative A Alternative B

Red and Sonoma Tree No measures to identify or protect Beneficial effect compared to No Similar to or more beneficial than No Similar to or more beneficial than Vole tree vole nests on Green Diamond Action because the local Action because the large reserve areas No Action because the transition managed lands. Tree vole nests population tracked through a tree would not be harvested and would to selection silviculture as the located in RMZs would be largely vole monitoring program. Adaptive develop into mature stands with late- predominant technique to manage avoided. Tree vole habitat in RMZs Management and corrective seral forest elements. Outside of the commercial conifer timber stands largely protected by AHCP/CCAA actions would be taken should reserves, potential displacement would under this alternative would lead measures. monitoring demonstrate decline. be less than under the No Action due to to development of a higher Trees harboring tree vole nests will timber harvest on a smaller area. percentage of mature stands not be harvested. Trees retained across the landscape. Potential for under the TREE plan may provide increased displacement of tree vole additional nest sites for voles. The due to timber harvest on a larger landscape management area. commitments in the FHCP will provide a dendritic network of intact and increasingly older stands across the landscape.

Socioeconomics and Timber harvest levels are expected Similar to No Action. Local tax Relative to No Action, harvest levels Harvest volume would be similar Environmental Justice to remain about the same as current revenues are expected to remain (volume) would be reduced under to No Action, but Green Diamond conditions; therefore, employment similar to current conditions. Alternative A (terrestrial reserves) would be forced to operate over a levels and yield tax revenues are Population growth is expected to because fewer acres are available on greater acreage under uneven- expected to remain similar to remain similar to current which to harvest timber within the aged management to achieve current conditions with no increase conditions. Effects on Native Plan Area. Local tax revenues would desired harvest levels. Local tax in population growth. Native Americans similar to No Action. be reduced relative to the No Action revenues are expected to remain Americans dependent on Alternative. Population growth is similar to current conditions. subsistence and commercial fishing expected to remain similar to current Population growth is expected to in the region could benefit from conditions. Effects on Native remain similar to current implementing measures included in Americans similar to No Action. conditions. Effects on Native the AHCP/CCAA to the extent that Americans similar to No Action. they benefit the aquatic Covered Species. However, resulting incremental improvements in Native American socioeconomic conditions would be minor.

PR0105180936SAC VII EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Table ES-1. Summary of Potential Impacts Category No Action Alternative Proposed Action Alternative A Alternative B

Climate and Climate Change Green Diamond would continue to Similar effects as the No Action Similar effects as the No Action Similar effects as the No Action practice forest management in the Alternative Alternative Alternative although uneven-aged Action Area. Maintaining the forest silvicultural practices have the landscape in the region is expected potential to produce more to positively contribute to overall hydrocarbons than even-aged trends in sustaining the forest management. Therefore, landscape for carbon hydrocarbon production under sequestration. Alternative B may increase relative to the No Action Alternative and other action alternatives.

Aquatic Resources and Continued implementation of the Marginally beneficial effect as No Similar to No Action Similar to No Action Hydrology AHCP/CCAA and similar Action because AHCP/CCAA conservation measures in the benefits would be extended for a Master Agreement for Timber 50-year period consistent with the Operations, plus continued FHCP permit term. Assuming adherence to the Forest Practice FHCP permit issuance in 2019, Rules, would provide benefits to AHCP/CCAA implementation aquatic species in the Plan Area benefits would be extended until until 2057 through improvements 2069. in sediment input, hydrology, water quality, fish passage, and aquatic habitats.

Notes: AHCP = Aquatic Habitat Conservation Plan CCAA = Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances FHCP = Forest Habitat Conservation Plan Green Diamond = Green Diamond Resource Company RMZ = Riparian Management Zone TREE = Terrestrial Retention of Ecosystem Elements

VIII PR0105180936SAC

Contents

Chapter Page Executive Summary ...... iii ES.1.1 Purpose and Need...... iii ES.1.2 Alternatives ...... iii ES.1.2.1 No Action Alternative ...... iii ES.1.2.2 Proposed Action ...... iv ES.1.2.3 Alternative A ...... iv ES.1.2.4 Alternative B ...... iv ES.1.3 Potential Effects of Alternatives ...... v Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... xii 1 Introduction ...... 1-1 1.1 Introduction and Background ...... 1-1 1.2 Proposed Action ...... 1-1 1.2.1 Purpose of the Proposed Action ...... 1-2 1.2.2 Need for the Proposed Action ...... 1-2 1.3 Management Setting for Green Diamond’s Lands ...... 1-2 1.4 Rationale for and Elements of Green Diamond’s Proposed FHCP...... 1-3 1.4.1 First Comprehensive Review of the NSO HCP ...... 1-3 1.4.2 Second Comprehensive Review of the NSO HCP ...... 1-6 1.5 NEPA Action Area ...... 1-8 1.6 Regulatory Setting...... 1-8 1.7 Summary of the Public Scoping Process ...... 1-8 1.8 Consultation with Local Tribal Organizations and National Historic Preservation Act– Section 106 Compliance...... 1-9 1.8.1 Consultation with Local Tribal Organizations ...... 1-9 1.8.2 National Historic Preservation Act–Section 106 Compliance ...... 1-9 1.9 Resources Considered ...... 1-10 2 Proposed Forest HCP and Alternatives ...... 2-1 2.1 Alternatives Considered in Detail ...... 2-1 2.1.1 No Action (No New HCP/No New Permit) ...... 2-1 2.1.2 Green Diamond’s Multispecies FHCP ...... 2-9 2.1.3 Alternative A: New NSO HCP with Late-Seral Static Reserve Strategy ...... 2-23 2.1.4 Alternative B: New NSO HCP with Uneven-aged Forest Management ...... 2-25 2.2 Alternatives Not Considered in Detail ...... 2-27 2.2.1 Multispecies FHCP with Humboldt Marten Conservation ...... 2-27 2.2.2 Multispecies FHCP with Different Permit Terms ...... 2-28 2.2.3 Multispecies FHCP with Alternative Barred Owl Management Approaches .... 2-29 3 Affected Environment ...... 3-1 3.1 Geology, Geomorphology, and Mineral Resources ...... 3-1 3.2 Air Quality ...... 3-1 3.3 Recreational Resources...... 3-1 3.4 Aesthetics (Visual Resources) ...... 3-2 3.5 Cultural Resources ...... 3-2 3.6 Land Use ...... 3-3

PR0105180936SAC IX CONTENTS Chapter Page 3.7 Climate and Climate Change ...... 3-3 3.8 Aquatic Resources and Hydrology ...... 3-4 3.9 Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitats ...... 3-4 3.9.1 Terrestrial Vegetation ...... 3-4 3.9.2 General Vegetative Character ...... 3-5 3.9.3 CWHR Classifications ...... 3-6 3.9.4 Streams/Aquatic Habitat ...... 3-7 3.10 Covered Species ...... 3-8 3.10.1 Northern Spotted Owl ...... 3-8 3.10.2 Fisher...... 3-16 3.10.3 Sonoma Tree Vole and Red Tree Vole ...... 3-23 3.11 Other Special-status Species ...... 3-27 3.11.1 Special-status Plant Species ...... 3-28 3.11.2 Other Special-status Species ...... 3-28 3.12 Social and Economic Conditions ...... 3-29 3.12.1 Social Factors ...... 3-29 3.12.2 Economic Factors ...... 3-30 4 Environmental Consequences ...... 4-1 4.1 Analytical Framework for the Analysis ...... 4-1 4.1.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts ...... 4-1 4.1.2 Cumulative Impacts ...... 4-2 4.2 Resources Affected by the Federal Action ...... 4-7 4.2.1 Covered Species ...... 4-7 4.2.2 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice ...... 4-35 4.2.3 Climate and Climate Change ...... 4-37 4.2.4 Aquatic Resources and Hydrology ...... 4-38 5 List of Preparers ...... 5-1

Tables ES-1. Summary of Potential Impacts ...... vi 2-1. Characteristics of NSO Terrestrial Reserves Under Alternative A ...... 2-31 3-1. Definitions of CWHR Habitat, Size Class, and Canopy Closure Class Codes ...... 3-33 3-2. Percent Composition of CWHR Habitat Types within the Plan Area (2010) ...... 3-34 3-3. Percent of FHCP Plan Area by Age Class and CWHR Size Class (2010) ...... 3-35 3-4. Percent of FHCP Plan Area by Canopy Closure Class and by CWHR Size Class in 2010...... 3-36 3-5. CWHR Size Class Distribution by CWHR Forest Type in the Plan Area (2010) ...... 3-37 3-6. NSO Dietary Composition from the Plan Area (1989-2004) ...... 3-38 3-7. Summary of Trends in NSO Demographic Parameters (1985 to 2013) ...... 3-39 3-8. Actual (1991, 2016) and Modeled (1996, 2001, 2011) Forest Stand Age Composition on Green Diamond Lands from NSO HCP and Current Accounting...... 3-40 4-1. Age Composition of Forest Stands Within RMZs in 2010 and Age Projections by Decade (expressed as percent of total RMZ acreage) (2010 to 2060) ...... 4-43 4-2. Comparison of Key Elements of NSO HCP Set-Asides with FHCP DCAs ...... 4-44 4-3. Summary of Potential Impacts on NSO...... 4-45 4-4. Summary of Potential Impacts to Fisher...... 4-47 4-5. Summary of Potential Impacts to Tree Voles ...... 4-49 4-6. Summary of Effects for Socioeconomics ...... 4-51

X PR0105180936SAC CONTENTS Chapter Page 4-7. Summary of Potential Impacts to Climate and Climate Change ...... 4-52 4-8. Summary of Potential Impacts to Aquatic Resources and Hydrology ...... 4-53

Appendix A Figures 1-1. Green Diamond’s Land Ownership in and near California in 2018 1-2. NEPA Action Area 2-1. NSO HCP Set-Asides and Special Management Area 2-2. Proposed Dynamic Core Areas and Owl Management Units 3-1. Distribution of NSO Sites At and Near the Action Area 3-2. Abundance of NSO Sites Within and Near the Plan Area, 1994-2015 3-3. Abundance of Barred Owl Sites in the Plan Area, 1993-2015 3-4. Fisher Detections In and Near the Action Area, 1994-2011 3-5. Tree Vole Detections In and Near the Action Area, 1994-95 and 2001-05 3-6. Land Ownership In and Near the Action Area, 2018

Appendix B Additional Tables 1-1. Summary of Laws and Regulations Applicable to Timber Harvest within the Action Area 3-9. Special-status Plant Species Occurring or Potentially Occurring within the Action Area 3-10. Special-Status Non-aquatic Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring within the Green Diamond Action Area 3-11. Special-status Aquatic Species with Potential to Occur in the Green Diamond Action Area 3-12. Del Norte and Humboldt Counties Population, January 1991 to 2015 3-13. Del Norte and Humboldt Counties Employment by Industry, 2015

Appendix C Rationale for Excluding Alternative Barred Owl Management Approaches Appendix D References

PR0105180936SAC XI

Acronyms and Abbreviations

°C degrees Celsius °F degrees Fahrenheit AFWO Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office AHCP Aquatic Habitat Conservation Plan AMRA Adaptive Management Reserve Account APE area of potential effects BLM Bureau of Land Management CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CCAA Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CESA California Endangered Species Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CO2 carbon dioxide CWD coarse, woody debris CWHR California Wildlife Habitat Relationship dbh diameter at breast height DCA Dynamic Core Area DPS distinct population segment DSA demographic study area EEZ equipment exclusion zone EIS Environmental Impact Statement ESA Federal Endangered Species Act ESU evolutionarily significant unit FHCP Forest Habitat Conservation Plan FMP Forest Management Plan Forest Practice Act Z’Berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973 FPR Forest Practice Rule GHG greenhouse gas GIS geographic information system Green Diamond Green Diamond Resource Company HCP Habitat Conservation Plan HPA Hydrographic Planning Area HRA Habitat Retention Area HRC Humboldt Redwood Company ITP incidental take permit km2 square kilometers LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan MATO Master Agreement for Timber Operations MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NSO Northern Spotted Owl NWFP Northwest Forest Plan OMU Owl Management Unit

PR0105180936SAC XII ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

PCT precommercial thinning RMZ Riparian Management Zone ROCA Reserved Owl Core Area RSMZ Riparian Slope Stability Management Zone Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service SMA Special Management Area SMZ Slope Stability Management Zone SPCP Sensitive Plant Conservation Plan SRNF Six Rivers National Forest SSS steep streamside slopes TDWMP Terrestrial Dead Wood Management Plan Ten-Year Report Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Conservation Plan Ten-Year Review Report THP Timber Harvest Plan TMDL total maximum daily load TPZ Timber Production Zone TREE Terrestrial Retention of Ecosystem Elements USFS U.S. Forest Service YHCP Yurok Habitat Conservation Plan

PR0105180936SAC XIII CHAPTER 1 Introduction 1.1 Introduction and Background Green Diamond Resource Company (Green Diamond) owns and manages, for the primary purpose of growing and harvesting timber, approximately 357,412 acres of commercial timberland in Del Norte and Humboldt Counties in northwestern California (Appendix A, Figure 1-1). Green Diamond’s California timberlands consist primarily of forests dominated by coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), located on the west slope of the Coast Ranges and Klamath Mountains. Portions of these California timberlands are used or may be used by several wildlife species that are listed as threatened or endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), or that could be listed under the ESA in the future. Green Diamond conducts timber operations and other activities on its forestlands in accordance with the California Forest Practice Rules (FPRs), the 1973 Z’Berg-Nejedly Forest Practice Act of 1973 (Forest Practice Act), Green Diamond’s existing Aquatic Habitat Conservation Plan and Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (AHCP/CCAA; Green Diamond, 2007), Green Diamond’s Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Conservation Plan (NSO HCP; Simpson, 1992; see Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office [AFWO] website3), applicable State and Federal laws, and Green Diamond’s internal management policies and practices. Green Diamond currently implements its 1992 NSO HCP to conserve NSO while conducting specific timber harvest and land management activities that may result in incidental take of NSO (i.e., HCP- covered activities). Green Diamond also currently implements its 2007 AHCP/CCAA primarily for the benefit of aquatic species and their habitats. However, information gained by Green Diamond since 1989 while implementing the 1992 NSO HCP and AHCP/CCAA, and by complying with other conservation plans and permits, has now been incorporated into a multispecies Forest Habitat Conservation Plan (FHCP). Green Diamond has prepared a multispecies FHCP (see AFWO website) to conserve the NSO (Strix occidentalis caurina), fisher (Pekania pennanti), Sonoma tree vole (Arborimus pomo), red tree vole (Arborimus longicaudus), and other sensitive species on its managed California timberlands. The FHCP, if and when approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), would replace the current Green Diamond’s NSO HCP. This chapter defines the Proposed Action to be considered in this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and establishes the Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action. This chapter also introduces the proposed FHCP, which is described in detail in Chapter 2. 1.2 Proposed Action Green Diamond submitted a multispecies FHCP to the Service as an application for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the ESA, and related applications for take permits under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Service issuance of permit(s) to Green Diamond is a major Federal action subject to consideration under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Issuance of permit(s) to Green Diamond, for the FHCP proposed alternative or another alternative, is the Proposed Action evaluated in this EIS.

3 The AFWO website is www.fws.gov/arcata

PR0105180936SAC 1-1 CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION 1.2.1 Purpose of the Proposed Action The purpose of the Proposed Action is to respond to a request from Green Diamond for an ITP and related MBTA permits. Under Section 10 of the ESA, the Service must issue an ITP if an applicant prepares an HCP and the HCP satisfies the following criteria: • Demonstrates that the proposed “take” of listed species is incidental to the implementation of otherwise lawful activities • Minimizes and mitigates the impacts of take to the maximum extent practicable • Demonstrates that the estimated level of take does not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of listed species in the wild • Ensures that adequate funding and procedures are provided to implement the plan, which includes changed circumstances • Ensures that such other measures required by the Secretary of the Interior Department will be met In addition, the Service will consider the following actions/decisions as part of the ITP approval process: • Terminate the NSO HCP and its associated ITP • Issue a Migratory Bird Scientific Collecting Permit (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 21.23) under the MBTA in support of research to determine whether removal of barred owls can be scaled up to the Plan Area level for the benefit of NSO 1.2.2 Need for the Proposed Action Green Diamond seeks to continue timber harvest practices while extending its incidental take coverage under the ESA. The Service’s need is to improve protection and conservation of NSO, fisher, red tree vole, and Sonoma tree vole on approximately 357,412 acres of Green Diamond private timberlands in northwestern California. This is in part because the barred owl is expanding its breeding range and competing with the NSO for resources in northern California. At the same time and in the same area, NSO habitat occupancy and reproduction rates are declining. In response to removal of barred owls during a controlled study on approximately half of the Green Diamond lands, NSO occupancy and reproduction rates increased. NSO conservation may be improved with an expanded study of systematic barred owl removal. 1.3 Management Setting for Green Diamond’s Lands The management plans currently implemented on Green Diamond lands are described in Chapter 2, and include the following key documents (see AFWO website): • Habitat Conservation Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl on the California Timberlands of Simpson Timber Company (NSO HCP; Simpson, 1992) • Amendments to the Habitat Conservation Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl for Green Diamond Resource Company Lands in Northern California (Green Diamond, 2006). The amendments, which modified some conditions and incidental take provisions of the 1992 NSO HCP, were implemented following evaluation in an Environmental Assessment (USFWS, 2007) • Aquatic Habitat Conservation Plan and Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances (AHCP/CCAA; Green Diamond, 2007) • Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Conservation Plan Ten-Year Review Report (Ten-Year Report). This report, issued April 7, 2010, fulfilled a condition of the NSO HCP to support further assessment of

1-2 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION

NSO habitat and an understanding of future approach adjustments to conserve and enhance owl habitat • Master Agreement for Timber Operations (MATO), No. 1600-2010-0114-R-1 (CDFG, 2010a) • Waste Discharge Requirements for Forest Management Activities, Order No. R1-2012-0087 (North Coast RWQCB, 2012) • Waste Discharge Requirements for Road Management and Maintenance, Order No. R1-2010-0044 (North Coast RWQCB, 2010) Concurrent with Green Diamond’s site-specific conservation strategies, the Service and others have been studying and monitoring NSOs. The following documents, published by the Service, support Green Diamond’s FHCP conservation strategy: • Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS, 2011a) • Final EIS evaluating the Experimental Removal of Barred Owls to Benefit Threatened Northern Spotted Owls (USFWS, 2013) • Designation of Revised Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl (USFWS, 2012) Collectively, these and other plans and regulations guide Green Diamond’s land stewardship and business operations in a way designed to protect important resources on its lands. The proposed FHCP functions as both the required 20-year NSO HCP assessment report, and as the basis for making substantive revisions to the NSO HCP. If adopted, the FHCP would include both an improved conservation strategy for NSO and conservation benefits for fishers, red tree voles, and Sonoma tree voles, based on the findings of substantial research and monitoring prior to and during the first 20 years of implementation of the NSO HCP. 1.4 Rationale for and Elements of Green Diamond’s Proposed FHCP Over a 24-year period, Green Diamond has conducted research and monitoring of several terrestrial wildlife species. Information within the research and monitoring reviews from the NSO HCP suggest that Green Diamond’s existing NSO HCP could be refined to potentially better conserve NSO and allow Green Diamond additional operational flexibility. Through an adaptive management approach, Green Diamond has also identified opportunities to build upon conservation measures adopted under its AHCP/CCAA that could provide conservation benefits to NSO and other terrestrial species that currently occupy Green Diamond timberlands. As a result of this research, analysis, and review, Green Diamond has proposed a new multispecies FHCP to cover incidental take of four terrestrial species (including NSO). The FHCP, if approved, would replace the NSO HCP. The FHCP forms the basis of Green Diamond’s application for an ITP under Section 10 of the ESA. The conservation strategy of the FHCP is described in detail in Chapter 2. The following subsections summarize the technical reviews completed by Green Diamond to support its FHCP proposal. 1.4.1 First Comprehensive Review of the NSO HCP The ITP for the NSO HCP issued to Green Diamond in 1992 authorized take of up to 50 pairs of NSOs during the first 10 years of the 30-year permit term based on an estimated take rate of five pairs displaced per year. The incidental take authorization was limited to the first 10 years of HCP implementation because additional take authorization was planned to be addressed through a comprehensive review scheduled to occur after the first 10 years of HCP implementation. The intent of

PR0105180936SAC 1-3 CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION

the review was to evaluate the overall workings of the NSO HCP and the fundamental biological premise on which the conservation strategy was based. In 2006, Green Diamond and the Service completed the first comprehensive review of the NSO HCP (Ten-Year Report, see AFWO website). This review assessed the effectiveness of the NSO HCP in conserving NSO. The findings in the Ten-Year Report form the basis for the new management strategy in the FHCP. The following five objectives listed in the 1992 HCP were designed to guide the Ten-Year Report: • Comparison of actual and estimated levels of owl displacement • Comparison of actual and estimated distribution of owl habitat • Reevaluation of the biological basis for the conservation strategy based on the data collected through the research program and other sources • Analysis of efficacy of and continued need for the set-asides and of the long-term viability of the owl population on Green Diamond’s (formerly Simpson’s) property • Estimate of annual owl displacement for the remainder of the permit period Green Diamond’s analyses showed that the dusky-footed woodrats (Neotoma fuscipes) are the primary prey for NSOs on Green Diamond’s lands, and thus NSOs benefit from land management practices that create woodrat habitat (early-seral stages following harvesting) near stands of mature timber. Green Diamond’s modeling predicted that the amount and quality of suitable NSO habitat would continue to improve on Green Diamond property through time. Furthermore, some no-harvest set-aside areas established by the NSO HCP for NSO conservation purposes were never used by NSOs and barred owls (Strix varia) were determined to be a significant threat to NSO survival and recovery. 1.4.1.1 Northern Spotted Owl Displacement Take Due to Harvest Green Diamond’s 1992 ITP allowed for a maximum of 50 owl pairs to be taken through displacement due to harvest in the first 10 years of the 30-year permit term. Timber harvest triggered reporting of 63 displacements from 1992 to 2002, but 20 of the displacements met the criteria to be “returned” (based on continued occupancy or normal nesting behavior) by 2002. From 1992 to 2008, timber harvest triggered reporting of 75 displacements with 45 being thought to have resulted in take. The 2007 NSO HCP amendment authorized an additional eight owl pairs to be taken due to harvest through 2022. Through 2017, Green Diamond’s harvest activities are thought to have displaced 55 owl pairs total. NSO may abandon nest sites when harvest activities occur adjacent to the nest site (displacement). However, Green Diamond’s monitoring has suggested that site abandonment is not consistently related to harvest. Review of occupancy data indicated 33 of 50 sites abandoned (66 percent) had no timber harvest within 0.5 mile. Modeling of the proximate factors associated with NSO site abandonment indicated that abandonment was lowest when timber harvesting had created small patches of approximately equal amounts of younger and older forests. Conversely, Green Diamond also reported that harvest adjacent to nest sites negatively influenced adult NSO survival, female fecundity, and the rate of population change (Ten-Year Report, see AFWO website). 1.4.1.2 Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Suitability Research conducted by Green Diamond during the first 14 years of the NSO HCP resulted in the development of a site-specific model of habitat use and habitat fitness for the survival and reproduction of NSOs on Green Diamond’s lands. Research revealed that NSO benefit from habitat that provides a mature timber nesting stand with edges where young forests grow after timber harvest and where their primary prey, woodrats, thrive.

1-4 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION

Without substantial data at the time the NSO HCP was developed, it was assumed that stands less than 7 years old (recently regenerating) were of no direct value to NSO, thus defined suitable habitat as forest stands of a specific age (greater than 30 years old equals foraging habitat and greater than 45 years equals roosting and nesting habitat; Simpson, 1992). Since then, site-specific evaluations developed a more comprehensive model of NSO habitat. More specifically, Green Diamond conducted a radio-telemetry study from 1998-2000 to develop a resource selection function for NSO nighttime activity. The best model from this study indicated that NSO tended to be found low on the slope in areas composed of approximately 70 percent age class 41+ years with a high percentage of hardwood. Furthermore, site selection was highest if the nearest stand to the owl’s location was either 6 to 20 or 21 to 40 years of age, and lower if the nearest stand was either 0 to 5 or 41+ years old. At night, NSO on Green Diamond’s ownership were most likely to be found in older, more complex forest stands that were in close proximity to younger stands (i.e., stands with more potential prey; Ten-Year Report, see AFWO website). Additionally, Green Diamond developed a resource selection function to characterize the habitat of an “average” successfully nesting NSO, which was based on the locations of 182 successful nests (fledged at least one young). The best model for managed timberlands indicated that the relative probability of locating a successful nest increased with age of the stand and open edge density within 600 m of the nest. In addition, selection was greatest in stands with approximately 55 percent basal area of residual older trees, 30 percent hardwood basal area, and a large amount of nighttime activity habitat within 400 meters. This indicated that for nesting, NSO were selecting older, more complex stands that were in fairly close proximity to potential foraging areas. Suitable NSO habitat was better characterized by a habitat mosaic that provided for stable core nesting/roosting habitat within a matrix of managed, younger forestlands for prey production (Ten-Year Report, see AFWO website). The Ten-Year Report (see AFWO website) also included a review of all known studies conducted within Green Diamond’s ownership or other studies within the range of the NSO that were relevant to the FHCP. Included in this review was a seminal study located just adjacent to Green Diamond lands on the “Willow Creek Study Area” (U.S. Forest Service [USFS] land), which results suggested that NSO survival was positively associated with the amount of interior older forest, while reproductive output was negatively associated with the amount of interior older forest and was positively associated with the amount of edge between older forest and other vegetation types (Franklin et al., 2000). This suggested that there was a trade-off between the benefits to survival within interior older forest and potential benefits to reproduction within less interior older forest and more edge between the two habitat categories. Thus, the greatest habitat fitness potential for NSO sites were suggested to have approximately an equal mixture of older and other forest types (i.e., greater habitat heterogeneity). Two other studies (Olson et al., 2004; Dugger et al., 2005) generally followed the methods of Franklin et al. (2000) for NSO in the Oregon Coast Range and Oregon Cascades, respectively. In general, Olson et al. (2004) results were consistent with Franklin et al. (2000), while Dugger et al. (2005) suggested survival and reproduction were positively associated with the amount of old growth forest within the owl’s home-range core. These differences in results between studies might be explained by differences in NSO prey within the northern and southern portions of the NSO’s range. For instance, NSOs in the southern portion of their range (northern California) prey heavily on the nocturnal dusky-footed woodrat, therefore, forest management practices that increase woodrat abundance would likely positively influence NSO populations. Practices such as even-aged harvesting may enhance woodrat habitat more than selective harvest or thinning, as selective harvest techniques can promote understory vegetation, which does not attract woodrats. Woodrat studies on Green Diamond’s ownership in both redwood and Douglas-fir zones indicated that woodrats were in greatest abundance in stands <40 years of age. 1.4.1.3 Timber Harvesting Effects on Northern Spotted Owl To investigate the effects of take on survival, Green Diamond conducted a post-hoc analysis in which they constructed a “take” covariate (i.e., NSOs taken at some time during the study versus those not

PR0105180936SAC 1-5 CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION

taken) and placed it in the best survival model resulting from analysis conducted as part of the meta- analysis. The results indicated that take did not have a statistically significant effect on survival and the effect of take was estimated to change survival of adults by 0.11 percent. Green Diamond conducted a similar analysis by placing the take covariate in the best fecundity analysis for the meta-analysis. Inclusion of take lowered fecundity of adult females associated with take sites by 15.2 percent. Finally, lambda (rate of NSO population change) was estimated using survival and fecundity values both with and without take. When take was included, lambda decreased by 1.4 percent, suggesting that lambda would have been approximately 1.4 percent higher if take sites had not been included (Ten-Year Report, see AFWO website). 1.4.1.4 Northern Spotted Owl Set-Asides The set-aside commitment in the NSO HCP was intended to provide areas where stands could age sufficiently to develop into NSO habitat. Forty set-asides were initially established as no-harvest reserves for the protection of NSO. However, Green Diamond’s research suggested that many no-harvest reserves established by the NSO HCP were never or rarely occupied by NSOs, while other sites within and outside set-asides were more useful and productive for NSOs. A post-hoc analysis of survival, reproduction, and lambda was then conducted with a “set-aside” covariate (owls in or associated with a set-aside/reserves versus those away from set-asides). The survival of NSOs associated with set-asides was slightly lower than that of other birds, but it was not statistically significant. Both the fecundity and lambda analyses showed no difference between set-aside versus non-set-aside owls. From this analysis, there was also no evidence that demographic parameters were influenced by an owl being associated with a set-aside (Ten-Year Report, see AFWO website). Monitoring of NSO nesting sites under the NSO HCP showed that set-aside occupancy was variable over time and space (Ten-Year Report, see AFWO website). In 2015, 19 of the 40 set-asides supported no active NSO sites, and 8 of these 19 have not supported an occupied site since 1992. Other set-asides have consistently supported active sites since 1992 (FHCP, Table 5-2; see AFWO website). Green Diamond’s monitoring has shown that NSO sites adjacent to set-asides performed similar to or better with respect to apparent survival and fecundity than sites within set-asides. Green Diamond concluded that set-asides appear to provide stable core nesting and roosting habitat, and that adjacent (approximately within 2,000 feet) regenerating forestlands provide a productive prey source (specifically, woodrats) for foraging owls. 1.4.1.5 Barred Owls In the early 1990s, barred owls, a congener to the NSO, began to colonize more northerly areas in the northwestern United States. Since then, barred owls have rapidly expanded southward and their numbers have increased on Green Diamond’s ownership. Barred owls continue to be detected during NSO surveys, with detections increasing exponentially in recent years, which may threaten NSOs. 1.4.2 Second Comprehensive Review of the NSO HCP Following the first comprehensive review, Green Diamond and the Service recognized that more information was needed on the barred owl threat to NSOs. In 2006, Green Diamond applied to the Service for an amendment of the NSO HCP and associated ITP. Among other things, the amendment increased the amount of incidental take by adding take of up to eight additional NSO pairs, adjusted the NSO nest site survey protocol to account for the masking effect of barred owl presence, and added research activities on interactions between barred owls and NSOs. The amendment scheduled a second comprehensive review for 2012. In 2010, Green Diamond and the Service began the second comprehensive review of the NSO HCP. This second comprehensive review also included a comparison of actual versus estimated take of NSO and a reporting of progress on the growth of suitable NSO habitat. The assessment of take and habitat

1-6 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION

development could then be used to re-evaluate the NSO HCP conservation strategy, the efficacy and need for set-asides, and the likely future level of incidental take that would be authorized by the Service. Unlike the first comprehensive review, the second comprehensive review incorporated an analysis of the effect of barred owls on NSO conservation in the NSO HCP Plan Area, and potential adjustments to the NSO conservation strategy. The findings of these analyses are summarized in the following subsections. 1.4.2.1 Rangewide NSO Status and Condition Green Diamond participated in rangewide NSO demographic studies conducted from 1985 to 2003 (Anthony et al., 2006), from 1985 to 2008 (Forsman et al., 2011), and from 1985 to 2013 (Dugger et al., 2016) to contribute to the Service’s understanding of species-level NSO status and condition. Declining NSO populations were apparent in all study periods and in most geographies (including Green Diamond lands). The NSO population in the Green Diamond demographic study area was apparently stable or increasing until 2001, when it began to decline (Forsman et al., 2011). Although NSO abundance varies in response to many factors, analyses completed under Green Diamond’s NSO HCP have suggested that competition with barred owls is the most important stressor influencing NSO declines through time on Green Diamond lands (USFWS, 2008). In 2009, Green Diamond began removing small numbers of barred owls from portions of its ownership, with NSOs shown to quickly reoccupy available sites following removals. 1.4.2.2 Barred Owl Research and Management In 2009, Green Diamond proposed a pilot study with the following objectives: (1) determine the feasibility of lethally removing barred owls; (2) estimate the impact of barred owls on NSO occupancy, fecundity, survival, and rate of population change; and (3) assess the effectiveness of barred owl removal to allow recovery of NSOs in the Plan Area of the proposed FHCP, then being drafted. Green Diamond conducted this pilot study from February 2009 to 2014. The results of this pilot experiment were presented in two peer-reviewed manuscripts (Diller et al., 2014, 2016) and are described in the following sections. Effort and Feasibility In total, 73 of 81 territorial barred owls were lethally removed from Green Diamond lands during the pilot study. The eight owls not collected were not detected after two or three visits to the site, indicating they had abandoned the site or were no longer exhibiting territorial behavior. It took an average of 2 hours and 23 minutes to collect each barred owl from the time of arrival at a site to the time a collected bird was completely processed for field data. In subsequent years when intensive field data collection was not conducted, most barred owls were collected within one-half hour of arrival at a site. It was concluded that lethal removal of barred owls was rapid, technically feasible, and cost-effective (Diller et al., 2014). Demographic Response of NSO to Barred Owl Removal Some of the most important demographic results were that barred owls caused more than a four-fold increase in the estimate of NSO site extinction (i.e., probability that a NSO site will be abandoned), but following barred owl removal, the extinction rate in the treated areas returned to normal levels and NSO site occupancy was greater in treated than untreated areas. Furthermore, apparent survival and the rate of population change (lambda) were both in decline prior to removal, but these demographic parameters showed significant increases following removal. Mean fecundity did not show a significant increase following treatment due to high annual variation, but the greater number of occupied spotted owl sites on the treated areas resulted in greater productivity in the treated areas based on empirical counts of fledged young. The primary conclusion from this initial experiment was that barred owls have

PR0105180936SAC 1-7 CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION

a substantial negative influence on NSO occupancy, and barred owl removal has a rapid, beneficial effect on NSOs (Diller et al., 2016). Other studies have also demonstrated the negative influence of barred owls on NSO (Dugger et al., 2011, 2016), and barred owl control is recommended in the 2011 Revised Recovery Plan for the NSO (USFWS, 2011a). However, the extent to which barred owls should be controlled, and the degree to which barred owls and NSOs may be able to coexist, is unknown. Therefore, studies proposed in the FHCP are designed to address these and other questions related to interactions between NSOs and barred owls. 1.4.2.3 Adjustments to the NSO HCP Conservation Strategy Building on the first comprehensive review, the second comprehensive review identified conservation measures and strategies requiring adjustment, addition, or improvement. In consultation with the Service, Green Diamond considered extending the NSO HCP term and adjusting its NSO conservation measures based on extensive site-specific research done to date. Green Diamond also identified opportunities to build on conservation measures provided in Green Diamond’s AHCP/CCAA to conserve additional terrestrial species found on Green Diamond timberlands that may become listed under the ESA in the future. The result of the second comprehensive review of the NSO HCP is the proposed multispecies FHCP covering four terrestrial species including the NSO. 1.5 NEPA Action Area The Action Area evaluated in this EIS is approximately 1,034,623 acres in size, which consists of 357,412 acres of Green Diamond-owned lands,4 339,670 acres of non-Green Diamond-owned lands from which future land acquisitions could be made,5 plus a 0.7-mile buffer on the total of these lands to accommodate the foraging distance of NSO in coastal redwood environments (USFWS, 2011b; Appendix A, Figure 1-2). This defined Action Area bounds the geographical extent of direct and indirect impacts that may result from implementation of any alternative described in this EIS. Approximately 7,700 acres of forestlands owned by Green Diamond and managed under the NSO HCP are not proposed for FHCP enrollment. These lands (Appendix A, Figure 1-2) will be managed as no-NSO-take lands, are not proposed for coverage in the FHCP, and are not included in the defined Action Area.6 1.6 Regulatory Setting Forest management in the Action Area is subject to a wide range of legal and regulatory requirements that cover many resource and social values (Appendix B, Table 1-1). 1.7 Summary of the Public Scoping Process The Service conducted public scoping to identify issues and concerns about issuing the ITP and the content of this EIS. The Service published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register on April 16, 2010, to advertise the intent to prepare an EIS and describe the process for receiving public comments. The Notice of Intent provided preliminary information on the background and purpose of the Proposed Action and the process for soliciting public comments. The scoping process was also advertised in local newspapers and mailings to members of the public who had expressed interest in the process. The Service also solicited responses from other agencies, tribal groups, and organizations. The public scoping

4 Synonymous with the FHCP Initial Plan Area. 5 Synonymous with the FHCP Adjustment Area 6 Referred to in the FHCP as Peripheral Area Lands.

1-8 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION

period of 30 days was open from April 17 to May 17, 2010. No comments were received during the public scoping period. 1.8 Consultation with Local Tribal Organizations and National Historic Preservation Act–Section 106 Compliance 1.8.1 Consultation with Local Tribal Organizations To seek local Native American Tribes active participation in the planning process that have the potential to affect properties of traditional cultural and religious, the Service held informational meetings with the following Tribes and Rancherias to discuss the FHCP and draft EIS: • Yurok Tribe (January 29, 2018) • Hoopa Tribe (March 16, 2018) • Blue Lake Rancheria (March 30, 2018) • Wiyot Reservation (March 30, 2018) • Bear River Band of the Rohnerville Rancheria (April 27, 2018) • Karuk Tribe (June 5, 2018) The Service also contacted the Tolowa Dee-ni’ Nation, Elk River Rancheria, Resighini Racheria, and Trinidad Rancheria to discuss the FHCP and draft EIS, but were unable to meet with them prior to the publication date. 1.8.2 National Historic Preservation Act–Section 106 Compliance 1.8.2.1 Overview The goal of evaluation under the Section 106 process pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA; 16 United States Code § 470-470w-6) Section 106 and the potential for effects of the proposed action on historic properties is “to identify historic properties potentially affected by the undertaking, assess its effects and seek ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse effects on historic properties” 36 CFR § 800.1(a). Historic preservation in the United States is governed by numerous Legislative Acts including the NHPA and Executive Order 13287. Section 106 of the NHPA (16 United States Code § 470f) requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties [36 CFR § 800.1]. “Historic property” means any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places (the “National Register”) maintained by the Secretary of the Interior. The term includes artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties and includes properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to an Indian tribe and that meet the National Register criteria (36 CFR § 800.16). Section 800.3(b) of the NHPA regulations provide that, where consistent with NHPA procedures “…the [federal] agency official may use information developed for other reviews under Federal, State or Tribal law to meet the requirements of Section 106.” Accordingly, the Service has used information developed for reviews pursuant to the State of California’s historic preservation review processes in conducting this NHPA review. This integration of the State Review Processes with NHPA compliance is consistent with Executive Order 13287, which requires Federal agencies to maximize efforts to integrate the policies and procedures and practices of the NHPA into program activities in order to efficiently and effectively advance historic preservation objectives in the pursuit of their missions.

PR0105180936SAC 1-9 CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION

Historic preservation in California is governed by numerous legislative and regulatory acts including, the California Environmental Quality Act and implementing guidelines, the California FPRs, and the Governor’s Executive Order W-26-92 that have resulted in the development of State plans and programs for the preservation and enhancement of historic and cultural resources. 1.8.2.2 Process The Service has determined that issuance of an ITP based on Green Diamond’s FHCP is, an “undertaking” as specified in section 301(7) of the NHPA and 36 CFR Section 800.16(y) [36 CFR § 800.3(a)] and, therefore, the Service has evaluated the potential for effects to historic properties pursuant to NHPA Section 106. Identification of Historic Properties and Assessment of Potential Effects An area of potential effects (APE) is the “geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist. The [APE] is influenced by the scale and nature of an undertaking and may be different for different kinds of effects caused by the undertaking.” 36 CFR § 800.16(d). The Service has determined that the nature and effect of the Permit as an undertaking is limited to the authorization of take of NSO, fisher, and tree voles incidental to Covered Activities. The Service’s undertaking cannot be equated with authorization of the existing and ongoing Covered Activities that are non-Federal actions regulated by the State of California. The Service has determined and documented the APE for this undertaking as the area where take may occur incidental to land disturbing Covered Activities within the FHCP Area. The Service has evaluated the historic significance of historic properties, determined whether identified sites are eligible for inclusion in the National Register and made a determination of potential effects. As reflected in the findings below, the Service has found that the undertaking includes only the authorization of take incidental to the Covered Activities and that the State Review Processes, to which many of the Covered Activities are subject, identify a broad scope of archeological, historic, and cultural sites, including sites that may not be included or may not be eligible for inclusion on the National Register because they do not meet the eligibility criteria. The Service’s review reflects that the State Review Processes have mitigated or avoided potential impacts to this broad group of archeological, historic, and cultural sites and will continue to do so effectively as they are applied to Covered Activities in the future. For this reason, the Service makes the finding of No Potential Effect regarding of the Covered Activities since they are all subject to the State Review Processes. The following documents discuss the protection of archeological, cultural, and historical sites (see AFWO website): • California Forest Practice Rules for Protection of Archaeological, Historical, and Cultural Sites (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, California Board of Forestry, and California State Office of Historic Preservation, July 18, 2008). • California State Office of Historic Instructions for Recording Historical Resources • Master Agreement for Timber Operations by and between California Department of Fish and Game and Green Diamond Resource Company Attachment 3: Protocols and Procedures for Protection of Cultural Resources (May 20, 2010) • California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 – 15387 1.9 Resources Considered Resource categories evaluated in this EIS include geology, geomorphology, and mineral resources; air quality; climate and climate change; hydrology and water quality; biological resources; cultural

1-10 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION

resources; land use; social and economic conditions; aesthetics (visual resources); and recreation. A number of resource categories are unlikely to be affected by the Service’s issuance of an ITP and are not analyzed further in this EIS. Chapter 4 provides a detailed analysis of those resource categories that could be affected by changes in management activities and the conservation measures that would be implemented under the FHCP or an action alternative, relative to the No Action Alternative.

PR0105180936SAC 1-11 CHAPTER 2 Proposed Forest HCP and Alternatives

NEPA (40 CFR 1502.14) directs Federal agencies to consider a reasonable range of alternatives that could accomplish the agency’s Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action. Agencies are directed to present the alternatives comparatively to define the issues and provide a clear basis for decision makers to choose among options. 2.1 Alternatives Considered in Detail The four alternatives considered in this EIS are: • No Action Alternative • Multispecies FHCP • Alternative A: NSO-only HCP with Late-seral Static Reserve Strategy • Alternative B: NSO-only HCP with Uneven-aged Forest Management The four alternatives are described in this chapter. Service-issuance of a new permit would be required for implementation of the FHCP, Alternative A, or Alternative B. No new permitting action would be required from the Service for Green Diamond’s continued implementation of its NSO HCP. The description of the alternatives includes details of the conservation and management measures that are being implemented or would be implemented under each alternative. These measures, and the projected environmental conditions that would result from their implementation, provide the basis for the comparative analysis of effects of each alternative in Chapter 4. 2.1.1 No Action (No New HCP/No New Permit) Under the No Action Alternative, Green Diamond would continue its land management and timber harvesting practices, as currently shaped by adherence to FPRs and several existing land use conservation plans. A new ITP would not be approved or issued and a MBTA Scientific Collecting Permit for barred owl research, including removal would not be issued. The following subsections describe how Green Diamond’s practices and procedures would be carried out under the No Action Alternative in the absence of a new, approved ITP. 2.1.1.1 Permit Term Green Diamond’s 30-year NSO HCP permit term will expire in 2022, unless modified otherwise. The 50-year agreement/permit terms for Green Diamond’s MATO and AHCP/CCAA will expire in 2057, unless modified otherwise. 2.1.1.2 NSO HCP Plan Area The NSO HCP Plan Area includes approximately 365,152 acres of Green Diamond’s California land holdings. 2.1.1.3 HCP-Covered Species Green Diamond’s NSO HCP provides coverage for NSO only. Under the No Action Alternative, no new permit would be issued by the Service in response to Green Diamond’s ITP application and FHCP submittal, and no additional species would be covered. Take of NSO will continue to be covered by Green Diamond’s NSO HCP until 2022, unless modified otherwise.

PR0105180936SAC 2-1 CHAPTER 2 – PROPOSED FOREST HCP AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1.1.4 Anticipated Take of Covered Species The NSO HCP, as amended, allows the incidental take of 58 NSO pairs. As of 2017, 55 NSO pairs have been taken. 2.1.1.5 Timber Harvesting and Land Management Activities The major activities associated with Green Diamond’s land management include growing, harvesting, and transporting timber; timber stand regeneration and improvement; retention of trees and wood; road and landing construction, reconstruction, and maintenance; and monitoring and research activities. Each category of activities is discussed in detail in Green Diamond’s NSO HCP, and are briefly described below. Growing, Harvesting, and Transporting Timber Green Diamond manages its forestlands for the primary purpose of growing and harvesting timber. The timber is transported to facilities inside and outside of the Action Area. Most land within Green Diamond’s Northern California ownership is harvested using even-aged silvicultural prescriptions. These areas are replanted with seedlings, or naturally regenerated by coppice sprouting of redwood or seed from residual trees left onsite. In accordance with the FPRs and Green Diamond’s operating guidelines, even-aged regeneration harvest areas are limited to 30 acres. Exceptions to the FPRs can allow up to 40-acre even-aged regeneration harvest areas. Green Diamond uses hand fallers with chainsaws and mechanical feller-bunching and processing machines for tree felling and log bucking activities. Ground-based yarding and cable yarding systems are used to move logs to the roads. Ground-based yarding systems include traditional tractor or skidder equipment in commercial thinning harvest areas and shovel yarding systems in evenage harvest areas. Cable yarding systems are used where slopes are too steep for ground-based systems (generally over 35 percent for shovel systems or 45 percent for tractor systems). Use of ground-based yarding equipment depends on proximity to environmentally sensitive areas (e.g., stream protection zones or unstable slopes). Helicopter-yarding systems are used to harvest isolated harvest units where road and landing access is otherwise difficult or hazardous. Pursuant to the FPRs, timber operations occurring during the extended wet weather period (October 15 to May 1) are subject to limitations as defined in a winter period operating plan. Heel-boom loaders are used in conjunction with log yarding, sorting, and loading activities on landings. Log trucks are used to transport logs to a mill for further processing. Timber Stand Regeneration and Improvement Green Diamond’s current management practices for regenerating harvested stands and promoting their growth, consistent with existing management plans, include the following activities: • Site preparation • Tree planting and occasional seeding • Pre-commercial and commercial thinning • Herbicide use (not a covered activity) • Fertilization of trees (not a covered activity) • Pruning and cone collection • Fire prevention and suppression • Stand re-entry requirements The level and degree to which these practices are used depends on the following: • Silvicultural prescription for a particular harvest unit (e.g., even-aged versus uneven-aged harvest) • Amount of basal area remaining after harvesting • Proximity to special treatment areas • Post-harvest existence of special elements (e.g., large trees) requiring protection

2-2 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 2 – PROPOSED FOREST HCP AND ALTERNATIVES

Site Preparation. Site preparation on Green Diamond forestlands entails pile burning to remove concentrations of logging slash and/ or reduce herbaceous competition. Green Diamond also implements measures for stand regeneration contained in the AHCP/CCAA that focus on minimizing surface erosion from site preparation operations through minimizing bare soil exposure within harvest units and fireline construction, maintaining a nearly continuous forest floor layer of duff and woody material, and preventing drainage failures and sediment delivery from firelines. Tree Planting. Green Diamond replants even-aged harvesting units with approximately 300 redwood and/or Douglas-fir seedlings per acre in the first planting season (winter) after harvesting is completed. For uneven-aged regeneration units where small group openings are created, the openings are planted with tree species representative of the original stand and in numbers necessary to meet stocking requirements. Pre-commercial and Commercial Thinning. A precommercial thinning (PCT) treatment may occur when the stand is 10 to 15 years old. The PCT treatment is specific to each stand with a general target of leaving approximately 250 to 350 trees per acre. Timber stands are assessed at approximately 35 years old to determine if a commercial thinning harvest is desirable to adjust stocking level to promote stand growth. Herbicide Use. Herbicides are used on Green Diamond lands; however, herbicide use is not a covered activity under the FHCP. Green Diamond currently applies herbicides to approximately 1 to 3 percent of its California ownership in any given year. This level of treatment covers a range of 4,500 to 13,700 acres per year. Additionally, 50 to 100 miles of rights-of-way may be treated annually to control roadside vegetation. Typically, Green Diamond applies herbicides using field crews and backpack sprayers rather than aircraft, resulting in a targeted and efficient application only where needed. Fertilizers. Fertilizers are used on Green Diamond lands; however, fertilizer use is not a covered activity under the FHCP. Fire Prevention and Suppression. Green Diamond practices fire prevention and suppression when and where necessary. This includes removing or treating logging slash from forestlands within 100 feet of public roads, limiting or suspending harvesting activities during periods of high fire danger, undertaking prescribed burns, constructing firelines by hand or bulldozer, lighting backfires, applying aerial fire suppressants, felling trees or snags, and controlling public access. Harvest Stand Sizing and Stand Re-entry Requirements. Under the FPRs for even-aged harvest, stands up to 40 acres in size may be harvested. Re-entry to these harvested stands may not occur until restocked trees are at least an average of 5 feet tall, or are at least 3 years old. Riparian Management Zone (RMZ) Re-entry Requirements. During the 50-year AHCP/CCAA permit term, Green Diamond may enter a Class I or Class II RMZ no more than one time to conduct light harvesting. The single entry must coincide with scheduled harvesting of the forest stand adjacent to the Class I or Class II RMZ. There are no re-entry frequency limitations for Class III drainages under the AHCP/CCAA. Following expiration of the AHCP/CCAA in 2057, RMZ entry restrictions will be applied as outlined in the current FPRs. Tree and Wood Retention The NSO HCP and subsequently developed the Terrestrial Dead Wood Management Plan (TDWMP; Green Diamond, 2005)identified ways to retain patches of hardwoods and conifers, hard and soft snags, and standing live culls to provide for future nesting/roosting habitat components. The TDWMP is currently a voluntary part of Green Diamond’s habitat management program, and is implemented through individual Timber Harvest Plans (THPs) in which tree retention objectives are quantified. Guidelines for retention of snags, green trees, and coarse, woody debris (CWD) are provided in the TDWMP. Green Diamond foresters use a scorecard to track and value trees to be retained, and company

PR0105180936SAC 2-3 CHAPTER 2 – PROPOSED FOREST HCP AND ALTERNATIVES

biologists conduct annual training to foresters to comply with conditions of implementing the TDWMP. Following expiration of the NSO HCP in 2022, Green Diamond may elect to continue to voluntarily implement the TDWMP, or may abandon the TDWMP and meet tree and wood retention objectives consistent with FPRs. Snag Retention. Green Diamond’s goal is to retain all snags (defined as standing dead, or mostly dead trees) on its ownership, unless snag retention creates a safety or fire hazard. Green Tree Retention. Green Diamond typically does not retain green trees if 15 percent or more of a harvest unit is not-harvested (typically a result of RMZ restrictions, road buffers, park buffers, etc.), but will do so on a tree-by-tree basis if lower commercial value trees have high potential wildlife value (e.g., deformed hardwoods). In circumstances where more than 85 percent of a harvest unit is harvested, green tree retention is typically performed. Habitat Retention Areas (HRAs) are groups of trees 0.5 acre or more in size within a THP harvest unit. HRAs typically do not include retained trees in RMZs. HRAs are commonly co-located with unique habitat features such as snags and decadent hardwoods. To meet the green tree retention goals noted above, Green Diamond currently retains at least one tree per acre in even-aged harvest areas with significant amounts of eligible green wildlife trees. Green Diamond retains on average two trees per acre in even-aged harvested areas with special wildlife value, or where past harvesting has reduced most snags and green wildlife trees. CWD Retention. Green Diamond currently has a policy to retain all non-saleable CWD. In some cases, down redwood logs without internal rot may be removed from outside of RMZs. Road and Landing Construction, Reconstruction, and Maintenance New road and landing construction can involve timber felling and removal in the road or landing right- of-way. Roadway and landing construction and major reconstruction activities potentially include excavating, filling, realigning, and recontouring roads; or installing erosion control structures, dust abatement, and road surface enhancements (e.g., rocking and soil stabilization). All new roads and landings are constructed in accordance with practices specified in the FPRs, the terms and conditions of the AHCP/CCAA (described later in this section), and additional Green Diamond operational policies and guidelines. Other Operations and Activities In addition to the forest management operations noted previously, the following activities are also undertaken by Green Diamond and third parties pursuant to Green Diamond authorization (for example, leases, easements, and licenses). • Commercial and noncommercial development and use of local rock pits and quarries • Water use • Harvesting and transporting minor forest products • Public recreation activities • Watershed, fish, and wildlife enhancement and monitoring, including all measures required to implement conservation measures under Federally approved HCPs • Maintenance and administrative use of roads • Livestock grazing THPs Prepared under the California FPRs Green Diamond manages and harvests its forestlands according to THPs pursuant to FPRs (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Chapters 4, 4.5 and 10), implemented by California Department of

2-4 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 2 – PROPOSED FOREST HCP AND ALTERNATIVES

Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) under the 1972 Forest Practice Act. THPs are reviewed and approved by CAL FIRE, and they include the following, required standard prescriptions: • Protection measures for watercourse zones (minimum buffer sizes, canopy closure requirements, and equipment limitations) • Restrictions on construction, use, and maintenance of roads, trails, landings, and watercourse crossings • Snag retention requirements 2.1.1.6 Management of Aquatic and Riparian Resources In 2007, the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Service approved Green Diamond’s AHCP/CCAA (Green Diamond, 2007) and issued an ITP and an Enhancement of Survival Permit with a term of 50 years. These permits allow incidental take of listed and non-listed fish and amphibian species. RMZs The AHCP/CCAA conservation measures include identification of and management prescriptions for RMZs. Buffers (RMZs) of at least 150 feet wide are established on all Class I watercourses within the AHCP/CCAA Plan Area. Depending on the streamside slope, each Class I RMZ contains an “inner zone” of 50 to 70 feet, with the remaining portion termed the “outer zone.” The outer zone extends from the outside limit of the inner zone edge to at least 150 feet from the channel edge plus any additional floodplain buffer. During the AHCP/CCAA 50-year permit term, Green Diamond will carry out only one harvest entry into Class I RMZs, which will coincide with the even-aged harvest of the adjacent stand. Green Diamond will retain at least 85 percent canopy closure within the inner zone and at least 70 percent canopy closure in the outer zone, except where the RMZ is adjacent to a Steep Streamside Slope. Class I RMZs are equipment exclusion zones (EEZs), except for existing roads and landings, construction of new spur roads to extend operations outside the RMZ, road watercourse crossings, skid trail watercourse crossings, and designated skid trail intrusions. RMZs at least 75 to 100 feet wide are established on each side of Class II watercourses. These RMZs also contain an inner zone (30 feet) and outer zone (45 to 70 feet). Timber harvest in Class II RMZs and equipment exclusion is managed the same as in Class I RMZs. EEZs of 30 to 50 feet wide (depending on streambank slope) are established on each side of Class III watercourses. Trees may be harvested in EEZs to facilitate the skid trail crossings of the watercourse if feasible alternatives do not exist (e.g., insufficient proximity to skid trails outside of EEZs). Large woody debris is left on the ground following harvesting within Class III RMZs. Where Class III watercourse banks are relatively steep (greater than 60 to 70 percent), Green Diamond retains (i.e., does not harvest) hardwoods and non-saleable trees within the EEZ. Green Diamond retains conifers if they contribute to bank or channel stability. A minimum average of one conifer with a diameter at breast height (dbh) of 15 inches or greater for every 50 feet of Class III watercourse length is retained within the EEZ. Geologically Unstable Areas During THP layout, Green Diamond identifies all steep streamside slopes (SSS) leading to Class I or II watercourses and creates SSS zones that are 150 to 475 feet-wide on each side of Class I watercourses and 75 to 200 feet wide on each side of Class II watercourses. The SSS zone consists of an inner zone (termed the Riparian Slope Stability Management Zone [RSMZ]) and an outer zone (termed the Slope Stability Management Zone [SMZ]). The width of the RSMZ is the same as the applicable RMZ described above. Green Diamond does not harvest within RSMZs located in the Coastal Klamath and Blue Creek Hydrographic Planning Areas (HPAs). For all other HPAs, Green Diamond does not harvest within the inner zone of the RSMZ and there will be 85 percent overstory canopy retention in the outer zone of the

PR0105180936SAC 2-5 CHAPTER 2 – PROPOSED FOREST HCP AND ALTERNATIVES

RSMZ along Class I watercourses and relatively steep-banked Class II watercourses. Green Diamond will retain 85 percent overstory canopy in the inner zone of the RSMZ and 75 percent overstory canopy in the outer zone of other RSMZs along Class II watercourses. Harvesting within SMZs is conducted by single-tree selection. Trees within SMZs may be harvested to facilitate the construction of cable corridor routes. All hardwoods are retained in SMZs. Road construction within RSMZs and SMZs is avoided where feasible. Mitigation, Management, and Monitoring Measures Under the AHCP/CCAA, Green Diamond also implements the following ownership-wide mitigation, management, and monitoring measures: • Implementing an ownership-wide Road Management Plan that provides for the following: − Selective and road-related fish passage enhancement (barrier removal) − Practices designed to minimize sediment discharge to Class I, II, and III stream − Decommissioning some roads • Protecting unique geomorphic features, such as channel migration zones and floodplains • Adopting various slope stability and ground disturbance mitigation measures • Monitoring effectiveness and compliance, plus adaptive management and structured feedback loops, subject to available funding through an adaptive management account The Service assumes that all conservation measures described in the AHCP/CCAA will remain in effect until 2057. When the AHCP/CCAA expires or is terminated, barring an extension, Green Diamond would then manage its California timberlands in accordance with the FPRs and ESA take prohibitions for listed aquatic species that may be in place at that time. 2.1.1.7 Conservation of Northern Spotted Owls This subsection describes the practices and procedures currently implemented, and those that would be implemented in the future, to achieve NSO conservation under the No Action Alternative. Management of NSO Sites Located in Matrix Lands7 Under the NSO HCP, Green Diamond conducts surveys for NSOs within a harvest area defined in a THP, including a 0.5-mile buffer around this defined harvest area (collectively, the “survey area”) to determine if take of owls is anticipated. THP surveys are most useful in locating “new” or previously undetected NSO sites on the ownership. If active NSO nest sites are located within the survey area, harvesting within the THP area may be completed, providing no timber falling or yarding is completed within a 0.25-mile radius (buffer) of the nest tree. The buffer may be decreased to 500 feet when owlets have fledged, and may be removed when young owls have dispersed or if it is determined that the nest has failed. Under the NSO HCP, active NSO sites are managed within a 502-acre area defined by a 0.5-mile radius centered on an owl site or activity center. Displacement take of NSOs under the NSO HCP is considered to have occurred if: • Harvest occurs within 500 feet of an active NSO site during the NSO breeding season. • Following harvest, less than 233 acres of NSO nesting/roosting habitat (i.e., greater than or equal to 31-year-old stand age) is maintained within a 0.5-mile radius of an owl site.

7 “Matrix Lands” are defined in this EIS as Plan Area lands available for planned harvest, and not constrained by preserve designations, RMZ restrictions, or NSO site avoidance considerations.

2-6 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 2 – PROPOSED FOREST HCP AND ALTERNATIVES

• Following harvest, less than 89 acres of NSO nesting habitat (i.e., greater than or equal to 46-year- old stand age) is maintained within a 0.5-mile radius of an owl site. NSO sites associated with displacement take are monitored for three to five breeding seasons after displacement. Such incidental take may be removed from Green Diamond’s cumulative take allowance (currently at 58 pairs/sites under the NSO HCP), based on specific site occupancy and reproductive criteria, and when a “take” site is used by NSOs during the post-displacement monitoring period. Following expiration of the NSO HCP in 2022, no take of NSO would be permitted. Active NSO sites would be managed within a 985-acre area defined by a 0.7-mile radius on an owl site or activity center with the following restrictions: • No harvest occurs within 1,000 feet of an active NSO site during the NSO breeding season. • Following harvest, maintain at least 512 acres of NSO roosting and nesting habitat (i.e., ≥ 31-year- old stand age) is maintained within a 0.7-mile radius of an owl site. • Following harvest, less than 204 acres of NSO nesting habitat (i.e., ≥ 46-year-old stand age) is maintained within a 0.7-mile radius of an owl site. Management of NSO Sites Located in Preserve Lands (Set-asides and Special Management Area) The NSO HCP designated 39 set-asides8 as no-harvest reserves to allow the development and persistence of stable NSO nesting and roosting habitat within the matrix of Green Diamond’s working landscape. The set-asides were originally selected based on their [then] current and potential future function as NSO roosting and nesting habitat, their size, and their relationship to planned timber harvests. Combined, the 39 (now 40) set-asides total 13,243 acres, and range from approximately 60 to 2,000 acres each. Green Diamond is currently committed, under the terms of the NSO HCP, to maintain the set-asides as no-harvest zones until 2022 (Appendix A, Figure 2-1). Take of NSO within set-asides is not expressly prohibited by the NSO HCP. Timber harvest within stands adjacent to set-asides is allowed, and displacement take of NSOs within set-asides may therefore occur from harvesting in adjacent stands. Displacement take of NSO within set-asides would be calculated as described for matrix lands under the NSO HCP until 2022 (i.e., within 502-acre owl circles). Following expiration of the NSO HCP in 2022, set- asides would no longer be a commitment for NSO conservation, and set-aside lands would be made conditionally available for harvest, subject to no-take restrictions within the FPRs and other Green Diamond conservation plans and policies. The amended NSO HCP (Green Diamond, 2006) also prohibits take of NSO within an 18,566-acre conditional-harvest Special Management Area (SMA).9 Several set-asides overlap with the SMA (Appendix A, Figure 2-1), and harvest and take of NSO are prohibited in these overlapping areas. The SMA would be terminated at the expiration of the NSO HCP in 2022, or when Green Diamond has used all allowable takes under the NSO HCP (i.e., 58 pairs), whichever comes first (USFWS, 2004b). Former SMA lands, if not restricted otherwise (e.g., as RMZs or SSS zones), would be managed as matrix lands. NSO habitat within and near owl sites will be managed to avoid take within 985-acre owl circles (0.7-mile radius onsite or center).

8 There are currently 40 set-asides totaling 13,243 acres in the NSO HCP Plan Area. In 2009, one set-aside was split into two set-asides, but the total set-aside acreage did not change. 9 The SMA established in the NSO HCP was initially 36,500 acres. It expired in 2002, but was reinstated in 2007 with the NSO HCP amendment for the 20,310 acres remaining in Green Diamond ownership. In 2018, the SMA acreage was 18,566 acres due to additional land divestments.

PR0105180936SAC 2-7 CHAPTER 2 – PROPOSED FOREST HCP AND ALTERNATIVES

Management of NSO Sites Associated with RMZ or SSS Zones Green Diamond currently manages habitat areas within RMZs and SSS zones by implementing its 2007 AACP/CCAA. While the AACP/CCAA is primarily intended to benefit aquatic species and their habitats, conservation measures in the AACP/CCAA also provide benefits to NSO. RMZs and SSS zones are essentially managed as no-harvest or limited-harvest reserves under the AHCP/CCAA. Entry restrictions and harvest limitations within RMZs and SSS zones are described above and in the AHCP/CCAA. Incidental take of NSO within RMZs or SSS zones would be conditionally allowed until 2022 following NSO HCP and AHCP/CCAA prescriptions. Thereafter, harvest within RMZs and SSS zones would be subject to NSO no-take provisions of the FPRs, and AHCP/CCAA re-entry provisions until 2057. NSO Research Under the NSO HCP, Green Diamond is obligated to conduct a broad-based NSO monitoring research program that includes monitoring and banding NSOs to facilitate population estimates, determine demographic information, assess NSO habitat selection, and evaluate key prey species for NSO. After NSO HCP expiration in 2022, this research would not be conducted under the No Action Alternative. NSO Surveying and Monitoring Green Diamond conducts NSO monitoring activities on its ownership, including site status surveys to determine occupancy, nesting, and reproductive status (NSO HCP; Simpson, 1992; see AFWO website). Unoccupied sites are considered abandoned after surveys document 3 consecutive unoccupied years. All known NSO sites in the NSO HCP Plan Area must be surveyed over a 5-year period. Green Diamond currently attempts to visit all sites. Green Diamond conducts pre-harvest NSO surveys in all harvest units planned for timber harvest during the period when NSOs may be incubating eggs, brooding nestlings, or caring for recently fledged juveniles (under the 1992 NSO HCP, March 1 to 31 August) and avoids timber harvest in those units during that period if breeding NSOs are detected and activities have the potential to harm, kill, or injure NSOs. Following NSO HCP expiration in 2022, surveys and monitoring tasks would continue to be implemented as requirements under the FPRs. Barred Owl Research Under this alternative, no barred owl removal would be authorized by the Service. The barred owl occupancy and colonization rates will likely continue to increase (Diller et al., 2016, p.11, figures 2A and 2B). It is expected that under this alternative, the NSO site occupancy rate will continue to decrease and the extinction rate will continue to be higher than sites without barred owls (Diller et al., 2016, p. 11, figures 3A and 3B). 2.1.1.8 Conservation of Other Sensitive Species and Habitats California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) issued the MATO to Green Diamond in 2010 (CDFG, 2010a). Green Diamond currently implements MATO measures to protect water quality and biological resources in streams, as well as other biological resources in the NSO HCP Plan Area. The MATO will expire on June 30, 2057, concurrent with the expiration date of the AHCP/CCAA. Species that are specifically addressed in the MATO are non-fish aquatic vertebrates (pond turtles and amphibians), bald eagle, golden eagle, great blue heron, great egret, marbled murrelet, northern goshawk, NSO, osprey, peregrine falcon, white-tailed kite, little willow flycatcher, and Trinity bristle snail. Avoidance and minimization protocols and measures are prescribed for these resources in the MATO. Under the MATO, Green Diamond also implements measures in its Sensitive Plant Conservation Plan (SPCP), as agreed to between Green Diamond and CDFW. Green Diamond’s botanist is responsible for implementing the program. Green Diamond foresters are trained on sensitive plant and habitat recognition.

2-8 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 2 – PROPOSED FOREST HCP AND ALTERNATIVES

The Service assumes that all conservation measures described in the MATO and SPCP will remain in effect for its full term regardless of the decision on the FHCP described in this EIS. MATO- and SPCP- mandated activities would continue under any of the alternatives until expiration of the MATO in 2057. 2.1.2 Green Diamond’s Multispecies FHCP Over a 24-year period, Green Diamond has conducted extensive research and monitoring of several terrestrial wildlife species. Data acquired during these activities identified opportunities to build upon conservation measures that could benefit NSO and other species. Green Diamond has developed the FHCP to cover incidental take of four terrestrial species (including NSO). The fundamental premise of the FHCP is that Green Diamond would create and maintain a mosaic of high-quality habitat for Covered Species during a 50-year permit term. The FHCP, if approved, would replace the NSO HCP. Green Diamond’s FHCP includes the following key elements: • Landscape management commitments promoting development of a mosaic of suitable habitat across the Plan Area, with an emphasis on protecting highly productive NSO nesting sites • Habitat element commitments to retain, recruit, or develop targeted habitat elements necessary for nesting, breeding, resting, or denning of Covered Species • Extension of specific riparian and geological management measures from the AHCP/CCAA to benefit terrestrial species, including Covered Species • Covered Species protection commitments to minimize harm to NSO, fisher, red tree vole, and Sonoma tree vole • Long-term barred owl removal research commitments to benefit NSO • Monitoring, model validation, and adaptive management commitments • Commitments to FHCP implementation, reporting, and status reviews 2.1.2.1 Permit Term The permit term for the FHCP would be 50 years. The permit term for the Migratory Bird Scientific Collecting permit would be up to 3 years, and would be renewable. 2.1.2.2 FHCP Plan Area The Plan Area for the FHCP consists of private commercial timberlands that are owned by Green Diamond or on which Green Diamond possesses harvesting rights (Appendix A, Figure 1-2). As of early 2018, the Plan Area was 357,412 acres in size. Green Diamond’s FHCP proposes that the Plan Area may vary in size over the permit term by no more than +/- 15 percent, relative to the Plan Area size at the time of ITP issuance. Variations in Plan Area size over time would result from land divestments and/or land acquisitions during the permit term. 2.1.2.3 Covered Species NSO, fisher, Sonoma tree vole, and red tree vole are proposed for coverage in the FHCP. 2.1.2.4 Anticipated Take of Covered Species NSO Green Diamond has requested coverage for incidental take (within the Plan Area) of 3 NSO sites per year if there are 100 active NSO sites, 2 NSO sites per year if there are 75 to 100 active sites, or 1 NSO site per year if there are 48 to 74 active NSO sites. No incidental take of NSO sites would be allowed if there are 47 or fewer active NSO sites in the Plan Area.

PR0105180936SAC 2-9 CHAPTER 2 – PROPOSED FOREST HCP AND ALTERNATIVES

Fisher Green Diamond cannot reliably estimate the number of fishers in the Plan Area that could be taken by its timber harvest and land management activities. However, the FHCP reports that approximately 6.7 fishers per year could be exposed to covered activities, which is 2 percent of the estimated population of fishers (n = 335) in the Plan Area. This estimate is based on an average annual harvest rate of 2 percent of Green Diamond’s forestlands. Tree Voles Green Diamond cannot reliably estimate the number of tree voles in the Plan Area that could be taken by its timber harvest and land management activities. However, the FHCP reports that approximately 237 tree voles per year could be exposed to covered activities, or 2 percent of the estimated population of tree voles (n = 11,833) in the Plan Area. 2.1.2.5 Timber Harvesting and Land Management Activities Green Diamond’s timber harvesting and land management activities would be the same as those described under the No Action Alternative, with the following differences: • Under the FHCP, timber stands adjacent to Dynamic Core Areas (DCAs, as described below) will not be re-entered for harvest until restocked trees are at least an average of 10 feet tall or are at least 6 years old. This doubles the FPRs requirement for restocked trees to an average of 5 feet tall or 3 years old before re-entry. • Under the FHCP, Green Diamond would replace its voluntary implementation of the TDWMP with a commitment to implement the Terrestrial Retention of Ecosystem Elements (TREE) for the permit term of the FHCP. Snag retention, green tree retention, and CWD retention in the TREE are the same as those of the TDWMP.. 2.1.2.6 Management of Aquatic and Riparian Resources Under the AHCP/CCAA, aquatic and riparian resources will be managed until 2057 as described under the No Action Alternative, unless modified otherwise. After 2057, the FHCP commits Green Diamond to extending RMZ entry limitations (i.e., only once per permit term to conduct light harvesting) and select geological conservation measures to the full permit term of the FHCP or if the AHCP is relinquished by either Green Diamond or the Service. 2.1.2.7 Conservation of Northern Spotted Owls The primary conservation strategy for conserving NSOs under the FHCP is designation and management of DCAs. DCAs are intended to be dynamically-located within the Plan Area’s managed landscape, in contrast to the static reserve (set-asides) concept currently being implemented under the NSO HCP. The DCA approach is based on knowledge gained from Green Diamond’s monitoring and research conducted while implementing its NSO HCP. Management of NSO Sites Located in Matrix Lands (Non-DCA Lands) NSO sites located in matrix lands (i.e., sites not located within DCAs) will be managed the same as currently under the NSO HCP. Habitat within a 0.5-mile radius of each site or activity center will be managed and evaluated to ensure sufficient nesting and roosting habitat persists after harvesting near NSO sites, or Green Diamond will evaluate the site for potential incidental take. Management of NSO Sites Located in Preserve Lands (DCAs) Green Diamond’s FHCP will replace static NSO set-asides with DCAs. The number of DCAs will not be less than 44 over the permit term.

2-10 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 2 – PROPOSED FOREST HCP AND ALTERNATIVES

Designation, Relocation, and Addition of DCAs. Green Diamond will designate 44 DCAs within the FHCP Plan Area (Appendix A, Figure 2-2). The initial DCAs have a minimum no-harvest core area of 89 acres except in rare cases where the site lacked suitable nesting habitat to create a core area of this size (mean core area equals 86 acres). In total, 3,776 acres within the Plan Area will be designated as no- harvest, no-take DCA cores. Because DCAs are no take, timber harvest would not occur unless at least 233 acres of habitat exists around the site and that equates to 10,252 acres. DCAs will generally represent the most productive NSO sites in the Plan Area, based on Green Diamond’s historical and current monitoring. DCAs will be distributed among different Owl Management Units (OMUs) in the Plan Area. OMUs are planning-level areas that are generally aligned with drainage basins10 within the Plan Area (Appendix A, Figure 2-2), which are 20,000 to 60,000 acres in size, and are large enough to potentially support 10 to 15 NSO sites. The total number of DCAs will not be less than 44 over the term of the HCP; however, Green Diamond may change the locations of DCAs in the Plan Area based on specific biological, economic, or operational criteria. Replacement DCAs must include sufficient nesting and roosting habitat, and must be demonstrated to perform better (with respect to occupancy and fecundity) than the DCA being replaced. DCAs will be relocated with respect to their distribution among OMUs to provide a broad distribution of protected sites. For economic or operational replacements, locational criteria must be met and the new DCA must be demonstrated to biologically outperform the DCA being replaced. Once a DCA has been replaced, it would be eligible for timber harvest pursuant to take availability. Green Diamond will not replace any DCAs for at least 5 years after the FHCP has been signed. The FHCP includes an adaptive management provision to designate additional DCAs, or to increase the size of existing DCAs, if future monitoring indicates that NSO occupancy is not meeting FHCP projections. Some currently identified DCAs have less than 89 acres of nesting/roosting habitat that is 46 years or older in age. In these cases, the oldest available forest habitat (even if not currently meeting age/structure conditions conducive to NSO nesting, roosting, or foraging) contiguous with the DCA will be reserved from harvest to ensure that each DCA includes a total of 89 acres of habitat. Harvest of trees in the 31+ year age class (i.e., nesting, roosting, or foraging habitat) would be permitted within a 0.5-mile radius surrounding a DCA, provided that suitable habitat does not fall below the minimum thresholds for habitat (233 acres). Disposition of Former Set-aside Lands. Upon approval of the FHCP and ITP issuance, most NSO HCP set- asides will be retired and available for harvest; however, some NSO sites located within former set- asides will be designated as DCAs under the FHCP. Management of NSO Sites Associated with RMZ or SSS Zones Green Diamond currently manages habitat areas within RMZs and SSS zones by implementing its 2007 AACP/CCAA. While the AACP/CCAA is primarily intended to benefit aquatic species and their habitats, conservation measures in the AACP/CCAA also provide benefits to NSO. RMZs and SSS zones are essentially managed as no-harvest or limited-harvest reserves under the AHCP/CCAA. Incidental take of NSO within RMZs or SSS zones would be conditionally allowed but the entry restrictions and harvest limitations within RMZs and SSS zones as described above and in the AHCP/CCAA would be extended beyond 2057 to the full permit term of the FHCP. Calculating Displacement Take of NSO Green Diamond will annually monitor all NSO sites in the Plan Area. Take of NSO will be assessed in the same manner as is currently done under the NSO HCP (i.e., take will not occur if there is no harvest in the nesting core area and a minimum of 502 acres of NSO nesting and roosting habitat will remain around the site). Take of NSO will be initially debited from Green Diamond’s take limit under the FHCP;

10 OMUs are generally aligned with HPAs in the AHCP/CCAA.

PR0105180936SAC 2-11 CHAPTER 2 – PROPOSED FOREST HCP AND ALTERNATIVES

however, as in the NSO HCP, take may be credited back to Green Diamond’s take limit, if monitoring reveals NSO occupy the site post-harvest. Following the initial 10 years of FHCP implementation, and after Service review and approval of the two models, Green Diamond will estimate annual displacement take of NSO using their habitat fitness and site occupancy models (FHCP, Appendix H), and will no longer physically monitor habitat all NSO sites in the Plan Area. These models will be used to quantify the relationships between these parameters and NSO abundance. NSO Research Green Diamond will compare the estimated number of occupied NSO sites in the three NSO regions to overall habitat fitness values. Validation of the habitat fitness model will be achieved when the overall observed long-term trend in occupied owl sites is statistically shown to be stable or increasing (P = 0.95) as predicted by the average of all OMUs within the NSO regions, as agreed upon by Green Diamond and the Service. Within 3 years of FHCP permit issuance, Green Diamond will construct an initial multi-state site occupancy model. The model will be used to develop projections of NSO occupancy and fecundity. The comparison of expected versus observed occupied NSO sites with successful nesting will not be used as a threshold or trigger for achieving FHCP model validation. However, it will be a requirement to have successfully completed an NSO multi-state site occupancy model before the new FHCP conservation measures contingent on model validation will be implemented, because it will be used to predict where an NSO site is likely to occur for estimating take following model validation. It may also lead to a more useful habitat model for management purposes and thresholds for estimating when take may occur. If the NSO population increases in the Plan Area, as predicted, and Green Diamond validates the projections of the habitat fitness model, then direct monitoring of the entire NSO population across the Plan Area will be replaced by monitoring habitat conditions projected by the multi-state site occupancy or some other improved future model along with monitoring all DCAs and at least 12 additional spatially stratified randomly selected sites. Furthermore, at least 20 percent of the potential NSO take sites will be monitored annually and site occupancy surveys will continue throughout the Plan Area. Unless and until Green Diamond validates a habitat fitness model, Green Diamond will continue the NSO surveys and mark-recapture data collection. As a barometer to ensure the NSO population remains healthy, all DCAs and a minimum of 12 other sites meeting the criteria for determining occupancy and reproduction, and selected by a stratified random sample designed to achieve spatial balance, will be assessed annually to estimate mean fecundity in the Plan Area. Green Diamond will compare mean fecundity at the monitored sites with the trend since the initiation of barred owl removal. The trend in fecundity over the last 6 years within the Plan Area will be compared to the trend in comparable regional fecundity estimates over the same time interval. A trend in estimated mean fecundity from the Plan Area statistically lower (p ≤ 0.05) than the regional mean will trigger adaptive management to assess the problem and provide corrective actions if warranted. NSO Surveying and Monitoring It is anticipated that for the first 10 years of FHCP implementation or until model validation, Green Diamond will continue to survey and monitor for NSO associated with harvest planning and THP preparation, as it currently does under the NSO HCP. This effort will also support completion and validation of Green Diamond’s habitat fitness and site occupancy models, which are intended to estimate NSO abundance in the Plan Area following the initial 10 years of FHCP implementation. If there is any lapse in the Migratory Bird Scientific Collecting Permit for experimental barred owl removal, Green Diamond will continue or resume (if in post-model validation phase of FHCP) full demographic surveys at NSO sites within the Plan Area (FHCP, Appendix F).

2-12 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 2 – PROPOSED FOREST HCP AND ALTERNATIVES

Barred Owl Research and Management Under the FHCP, Green Diamond will conduct barred owl research and removal experiments to help ensure that any habitat benefits to spotted owls provided under the FHCP would not be negated by widespread barred owl presence and competition in the Plan Area. The FHCP includes a three-phase program to better understand and manage the influences of barred owls on NSOs in the Plan Area, and regionally. Phase 1 of the barred owl experimental program has been completed (Diller et al., 2016). With the FHCP implementation, Green Diamond will also implement the remaining two phases of barred owl experiments to include Plan Area-wide barred owl removal (Phase 2), and barred owl invasion and coexistence (with NSO) experiments (Phase 3). Phase 1 demonstrated the effects of barred owl removals from portions of the NSO HCP Plan Area. Phase 2 work would determine the feasibility of larger-scale barred owl removal and would track the recovery of NSO populations that have been suppressed by barred owls. Barred owl removals under this phase will require MBTA authorization from the Service through its permitting authorities. Phase 2 is anticipated to be implemented for approximately 10 years.11 Following completion and evaluation of the results of the Plan Area-wide Phase 2 removal experiment, Green Diamond will design and seek necessary Service and CDFW permits to implement an approved invasion and coexistence experiment. The Phase 3 experiment will strive to determine if there are barred owl densities at which this species can coexist with NSOs in the Plan Area without undermining the goals and objectives of the FHCP. Under this alternative, the Service will authorize take of barred owls for a study to determine whether removal of barred owls can be scaled-up to a Plan Area level for the benefit of NSOs. In this alternative, the target would be 100 percent removal of barred owls within the HCP Plan Area. This would mean that using a two-person crew working full-time year-round, could potentially remove between 100 to 150 barred owls each year over the life of the EIS (Diller et al., 2014). There will be no limit placed on the number of people working to remove barred owls and there will be no limit on the number of barred owls that can be removed. Diller et al. (2014) assess the feasible and cost- effectiveness of lethal removal of barred owls within 3 areas totaling 85,205 hectares in northern California. The authors collected 73 of 81 territorial barred owls detected from 2009 to 2012 during 122 field visits (Diller et al., 2014). It took an average of 2 hours 23 minutes to collect each barred owl from the time of arrival at a site to the time a collected bird was completely processed for field data (Diller et al., 2014). The success rate for removal of barred owls was lower and slower in an ongoing study in Washington and Oregon (Wiens et al., 2017, p.13). Diller et al. (2016) discusses the benefits of barred owl removal to NSO at a local scale. Barred owl removal decreased NSO territory extinction rates but did not affect territory colonization rates (Diller et al., 2016). NSO occupancy increased where barred owls were removed, but continued to decline in the areas without barred owl removal (Diller et al., 2016). NSOs fledged more young where barred owls were removed than in areas with no barred owl removal (Diller et al., 2016). In this study, removal of barred owls had a rapid positive effect on NSO rates of survival and population change, suggesting that such removal may be able to help slow or reverse declines at least on localized scales (Dugger et al., 2016, p.99). Barred owl removal will be achieved in most cases by people working in pairs to visually and audibly identify targets, then shooting them with shotguns. A well-placed shotgun shot is widely considered a humane euthanasia method according to the American Veterinary Medical Association’s Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals (AVMA, 2013, p. 82-83). All other methods used under the preferred alternative, including the use of physical methods (e.g., cervical dislocation), or gases (e.g., isoflurane), or drugs (e.g., barbituric acid derivatives), will kill barred owls in a way that induces the most rapid and

11 Phase 2 could be halted sooner than 10 years if Green Diamond’s NSO take estimation model is validated.

PR0105180936SAC 2-13 CHAPTER 2 – PROPOSED FOREST HCP AND ALTERNATIVES

painless and distress-free death possible in keeping with the AVMA guidelines on euthanasia (AVMA, 2013). As the AVMA points out, the need for humane treatment of animals is well recognized. Barred owl removal may take place at any time of the year. The details of Phase 2 and Phase 3 barred owl removal studies can be found in the FHCP (see AFWO website). 2.1.2.8 Conservation of Other Sensitive Species This subsection describes specific FHCP conservation commitments for fishers, red tree voles, and Sonoma tree voles, and general commitments for all covered species. Conservation of Fishers In general, conservation measures for NSO will also provide conservation for fisher. Green Diamond will identify and retain, to the extent practicable, potential fisher denning and resting trees through the TREE program and by tree retention targets within RMZs and geologically unstable areas.12 Any active fisher dens within a 0.25-mile-radius, no-harvest buffer will be protected until the den has been abandoned, or until the fisher kits have been moved more than 0.25 mile from the harvest area. Green Diamond will ensure that all water tanks and pipes used for timberland management in the Plan Area are fisher-proofed to prevent entrapment or drowning. Green Diamond will ensure that any such facility or structure found not to be secure in the future will be repaired, retrofitted, or replaced in a timely manner to ensure its inaccessibility to fishers. Finally, Green Diamond may cooperate in any Service- and CDFW-approved fisher capture and relocation/reintroduction recovery project that may occur on the FHCP-covered lands. Conservation of Red Tree Voles and Sonoma Tree Voles The FHCP suggests that Green Diamond will identify and retain, to the extent practicable, potential vole nesting trees through the previously described TREE program and by tree retention targets within RMZs and geologically unstable areas. Additionally, Green Diamond activities will avoid felling trees containing evident tree vole nests when conducting authorized harvesting and other covered activities within RMZs and geologically unstable areas. Foresters will inspect potential harvest trees for tree vole nests prior to marking trees for harvest to avoid felling or damaging trees with active or remnant vole nests. Measures to Protect All Covered Species Public and private timberlands in and around the Plan Area have experienced an epidemic of unauthorized entry and use for cultivating marijuana crops. Excessive and unlawful use of pesticides (particularly rodenticides) is associated with many marijuana grow sites where woodrats and other fauna may feed on marijuana crops. When pesticides are ingested by woodrats and other fauna, these poisons enter the food chain, where they persist and may be indirectly consumed by Covered Species such as NSO and fisher. Recent research has confirmed the presence of rodenticides in the livers of deceased NSOs, barred owls, and fishers (Gabriel et al., 2012). Impacts to NSO and fisher may be prevented by discouraging, detecting, and removing unauthorized marijuana cultivation and associated pesticide use in the Plan Area. The FHCP includes the following measures to discourage and prevent unauthorized marijuana cultivation and associated abuse of pesticides in the Plan Area: • Green Diamond will maintain a system of controlled access for the Plan Area using locked gates on roads, security patrols, and written permits for authorized use of the Plan Area. To detect and remove unauthorized activities, Green Diamond will maintain security patrols for the Plan Area, conduct at least one annual aerial surveillance for marijuana cultivation hot spots where Covered

12 All potential fisher den trees may not be identified before timber management occurs.

2-14 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 2 – PROPOSED FOREST HCP AND ALTERNATIVES

Species are likely to be exposed to pesticide use in the Plan Area, and provide annual safety training for field employees on detecting and reporting suspicious and unauthorized use of the Plan Area. • When unauthorized marijuana cultivation or pesticide abuse is detected by Green Diamond, it will be reported to local law enforcement. If Green Diamond finds evidence of pesticide abuse that may take Covered Species, it will report the circumstances to the Service for investigation and possible prosecution. 2.1.2.9 Monitoring and Model Validation for NSO Approximately 20 years of research and monitoring data were used to develop a model of NSO habitat fitness that was projected onto Green Diamond’s future forested landscapes. The data collected were analyzed within the Ten-Year Report (see AFWO website). This led to the development of a model of habitat fitness that projects future landscape suitability for NSOs. The future projections of habitat fitness indicate an overall increasing trend in the best habitat (i.e., greatest fitness values), which suggests that if the non-habitat covariates (e.g., weather and barred owls) are within the median values under which the habitat fitness model projections were made, the NSO population can increase in the Plan Area. However, the model is limited in that it cannot ever completely capture an ecological system’s entire complexity and inherent nuance. Further, it is a deterministic model when both future habitat and non-habitat variables are in fact highly stochastic, particularly as those projections are made further into the future. While this habitat fitness model was based on extensive site-specific data and state-of-the-art statistical models, all statistical models require verification or validation and initially should be viewed as testable hypotheses. The term “model validation” can have a variety of meanings, but as Green Diamond is using the term, the habitat fitness model will be considered validated when Green Diamond verifies that the conclusions and predictions from the models are both reliable (i.e., predictions of increasing habitat quality manifests in stable or increasing NSO population) and helpful in understanding and designing conservation measures that promote future stable or increasing populations of NSO. One primary objective of the effectiveness monitoring program for NSOs is to validate the habitat fitness model through independent verification of the model predictions in terms of overall NSO population response. Measuring habitat fitness directly is problematic (i.e., fecundity can be estimated for an area, but survival cannot since the NSOs contributing to survival often move during their lifetime) so the closest approximation will be to correlate resident NSO abundance within some designated area. Green Diamond assumes NSOs occupying an area with predicted high habitat fitness (λH > 1.0) should have sufficiently high survival and fecundity so the area’s resident NSO population could potentially increase assuming non-habitat variables are within median past values. Using future survey results from throughout the Plan Area, the estimated number of occupied NSO sites in the three NSO regions (spatially grouped OMUs that represent different physiographic regions in the Plan Area) will be compared to the estimated number of NSO sites at the initiation of the Phase 2 (Plan Area-wide) barred owl removal experiment. Green Diamond will validate the overall predictions of the habitat fitness model by a comparison of trends in estimated NSO abundance as indicated by the regionwide estimated number of paired and single occupied NSO sites and the predicted trend in Plan Area’s habitat quality. In general, since the highest category of habitat fitness (λH > 1.05) is projected to increase dramatically averaged across the three NSO regions, validation will be achieved when NSO abundance has a similar upward trend through time. However, given the many factors in addition to habitat quality (e.g., weather, competition from barred owls, fluctuations in prey base abundance, and stochastic demographic factors) that can influence NSO populations, it is not expected that the trajectories between observed and predicted NSO numbers will be in precise concordance within some predetermined statistical limits for all OMUs. Following the necessary time interval described below (approximately 7 years), model validation with all FHCP ramifications for monitoring and take will be achieved as long as the overall observed long-term trends in estimated occupied NSO sites for each of

PR0105180936SAC 2-15 CHAPTER 2 – PROPOSED FOREST HCP AND ALTERNATIVES

the three NSO regions are shown to be stable or increasing as predicted by the regionwide upward trend in habitat quality. The full details of model validation are described in the FHCP. Green Diamond anticipates that it will take approximately 10 years of implementing the FHCP to demonstrate (validate) that the predictive model results are consistent with actual (observed) habitat fitness development in the Plan Area and the model is, therefore, reliable and useful. Green Diamond’s existing program of NSO surveys and mark-recapture studies will continue until the habitat fitness model is validated. Once validated and approved by the Service, the intensive Plan Area demographic NSO surveys and data collection will be suspended and instead use the occupancy model to determine and quantify “take” of NSOs while implementing the FHCP. Validating the habitat fitness model will not be possible if NSOs within the Plan Area decline from barred owl interactions. However, Adaptive Management actions would be triggered if the NSO population declines despite barred owl removal and the potential for increased quantity and quality of NSO habitat in the Plan Area. If, after 10 years of FHCP implementation (including Phase 2 barred owl removals), the NSO population is determined to be declining in the Plan Area (Population Trend), Green Diamond would conclude that the habitat fitness model is unlikely to be validated. In that event, Green Diamond would continue to implement the full monitoring protocol currently implemented under the NSO HCP for NSOs throughout the Plan Area (Simpson, 1992). NSO Site Occupancy Model Validation The habitat fitness model was developed to analyze all habitat (including timber harvest, set-asides, and take) and non-habitat variables influencing NSO population trends, and as such, was partly a heuristic model to help understand and design conservation measures that promote future stable or increasing populations of NSO. The validation of this model was based on the ability to affirmatively answer the question: “Do future trends in NSO abundance match habitat fitness model predictions of increasing overall habitat quality?” A second modeling approach, popularized in the wildlife field by MacKenzie and his colleagues (Mackenzie et al., 2002, 2003, 2006), will be used to address the question: “Are NSOs found in areas where the model predicts occupancy should be high?” This second type of model will be a site occupancy model, which will be used to estimate the number of occupied NSO sites in the three NSO regions as a threshold or trigger for achieving FHCP model validation. As part of the NSO HCP First Comprehensive Review, Green Diamond developed an NSO abandonment model, but data were lacking to construct an NSO site occupancy model. Green Diamond has begun to assimilate data that can be used for development of an occupancy model, and within 3 years of the signing of the FHCP, a first draft of a site occupancy model will be developed. Occupancy models are based on the premise that detectability of an individual is imperfect and that repeat surveys can be used to determine what proportion of non-detections are false negatives (i.e., individual present but not detected). The repeat surveys generate detection histories for each site from which detection probabilities can be estimated. In addition, the detection histories can be used to estimate other model parameters including site occupancy, colonization, and extinction rates. Further developments of occupancy models have led to the development of multi-state occupancy models (Nichols et al., 2007, 2008). As implied by the name, instead of a single state (species detected/not detected), multiple states can be modeled. In the case of the NSO surveys for the Plan Area, the multiple states will likely include detection/non-detection of NSO and detection/non-detection of fledglings. A full suite of covariates, both biologically meaningful and readily implemented by management, will be included in this occupancy model. Along with providing estimates of site occupancy and reproduction, the habitat covariates associated with this multi-state occupancy model will potentially provide a new, more management-useful definition of NSO habitat and thresholds of take. For example, the habitat fitness model integrated model inputs from separate nesting, nighttime activity, survival, and fecundity models. Included in these models were a variety of spatially explicit covariates (e.g., edge density and mean patch density) produced by complex computer intensive

2-16 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 2 – PROPOSED FOREST HCP AND ALTERNATIVES

geographic information system (GIS) analyses using FRAGSTATS. While useful to understand how the various habitat elements function to meet the needs of NSO, and how overall forest management strategies influence Plan Area-wide habitat quality, the complex habitat fitness model does not lend itself to predicting how site-specific management actions (i.e., harvest units) may influence habitat quality for a specific NSO site. The goal of the multi-state occupancy model will be to include management covariates that are more easily calculated and interpreted, which potentially can then be used to provide a simpler definition of NSO habitat and the thresholds likely to result in take. Following its development, the site occupancy model will be tested and refined so that future spatially explicit projections of NSO occupancy and reproduction can be made. Testing of the model will be done through comparisons of expected versus observed occupied NSO sites with successful nesting and the results will be used to continue to improve the predictability of the model. Maximizing predictability of the model will be important, because it will be used as one component for estimating take of NSO sites following model validation (FHCP, Appendix H). To support validation and development of both models, Green Diamond would do surveys for NSOs throughout the Plan Area and annually attempt to locate all individual territorial NSOs. Following model validation, Green Diamond would stop intensive Plan Area demographic NSO surveys and data collection. However, Green Diamond would continue NSO surveys to protect individual nesting NSOs, to monitor DCAs, and to monitor NSO fecundity in the Plan Area as described below. Green Diamond’s FHCP suggests that model validation should be possible within 10 years following approval of the FHCP and implementation of Phase 2 of the barred owl removal experiment. Instead of simply needing more data, if the overall NSO population is declining relative to the baseline 6 years after FHCP approval and initiation of barred owl removal, it may indicate that the projections of improving habitat quality may not be met and model validation may not be achieved. This will initiate a preliminary analysis in conjunction with the Service to attempt to understand the potential causes and consider corrective actions without necessarily triggering adaptive management. As described below under Population Trend, 10 years following signing of the FHCP, an adaptive management assessment will be triggered if the NSO population has shown evidence of decline despite barred owl removal and predictions of increases in the quantity and quality of NSO habitat. NSO Population Trend Green Diamond predicts the NSO population will increase within the Plan Area when the FHCP is implemented and barred owl removal is initiated. Green Diamond will evaluate the number of occupied NSO sites after starting barred owl removal for any specific area as it relates to estimates of habitat fitness for the area. The baseline for assessing trends in the NSO population will be the first NSO breeding season after the FHCP is approved and the Phase 2 removal experiment is initiated. If the NSO population does increase in the Plan Area as predicted and the habitat fitness model has been validated, Green Diamond will no longer directly monitor the entire NSO population across the Plan Area. Instead, Green Diamond will monitor all NSO sites associated with DCAs and at least 12 additional spatially stratified randomly selected sites associated with obtaining a fecundity estimate for the Plan Area NSO population. Furthermore, at least 20 percent of the potential take sites will be monitored annually, and site occupancy surveys will continue throughout the Plan Area. However, if the overall NSO population continues to decline 6 years after FHCP approval and initiation of Phase 2 barred owl removal, the habitat fitness model may not be validated and Green Diamond, in collaboration with the Service, will assess the likely cause of the decline and may undertake Adaptive Management actions. NSO Fecundity Assessments Green Diamond will annually assess the average reproductive success (fecundity) of NSOs in the Plan Area at all DCAs. Green Diamond also will assess a minimum of 12 additional (non-DCA) NSO sites selected to achieve spatial balance in the Plan Area. The 12 additional sites will be randomly selected at

PR0105180936SAC 2-17 CHAPTER 2 – PROPOSED FOREST HCP AND ALTERNATIVES

a rate of one per OMU, as feasible. Sites in adjacent OMUs may be substituted where deficiencies exist in other OMUs. The trend in fecundity over the prior 6 years within the Plan Area will be compared to the trend in the regional averages of fecundity over the same time interval. If the Plan Area’s estimate of mean fecundity from the prior 6 years is statistically lower than the regional average, Adaptive Management may be triggered. 2.1.2.10 Monitoring and Model Validation for Fisher Green Diamond has developed a fisher occupancy model that can be used to estimate the probability that a fisher will occupy foraging and dispersal habitat in the Plan Area. Within 5 years of FHCP approval, Green Diamond will use non-invasive surveys to validate the fisher occupancy model. Validation will be based on demonstrating high fisher occupancy in areas that are predicted to have high probability of occupancy. Following this initial validation effort, further refinement would require surveys of at least half of the Plan Area at 5-year intervals. During each 5-year period, half of the current (as of the date of the survey) Green Diamond ownership will be surveyed. In alternate 5-year periods, the remaining half of the ownership will be surveyed so that during each decade, 100 percent of the Green Diamond ownership will have been surveyed and data contributed toward the fisher modeling effort. This will enable either validation or refinement of the fisher occupancy model at 10-year intervals to determine whether an Adaptive Management action is needed. Fisher Population Trend Although Green Diamond predicts that sufficient habitat will exist to support a stable or increasing fisher population, the population may be highly sensitive to non-habitat factors such as disease. Therefore, it is likely that the fisher population will oscillate through time around some stable or increasing trend. Green Diamond will test this hypothesis using fisher occupancy rates as a surrogate for fisher abundance. If there is statistically significant evidence (p ≤ 0.05) that fisher occupancy rates have declined in all or a major portion of the Plan Area, Green Diamond, in collaboration with the Service, will assess the likely cause of the decline and may undertake Adaptive Management actions. 2.1.2.11 Monitoring for Sonoma and Red Tree Vole Because no data are available to compute a tree vole habitat model, monitoring of tree voles will not include a model validation component. Given the lack of any direct survey method for tree voles, the primary approach to monitoring property-wide trends in tree vole populations will be through evaluating presence of tree voles in NSO pellets collected during demographic monitoring.13 Green Diamond may also include genetically based tree vole monitoring using the pellet material described previously if a valid approach can be identified. Within 3 years following approval of the FHCP, Green Diamond will develop an occupancy model to detect changes in tree voles in NSO pellets. Although analyses may reveal patterns in tree vole occupancy that merit different metrics, the anticipated default thresholds for assessing trends in tree vole occupancy will be a statistically significant (p=0.05) decrease in occupancy estimates for a major portion of the plan area for three consecutive years. Green Diamond, in collaboration with the Service, will assess the likely cause of the decline and may undertake Adaptive Management actions. 2.1.2.12 Adaptive Management Adaptive Management is a tool for managing uncertainty associated with the implementation of HCPs. (USFWS, 2017). The following subsection summarizes management actions and range of Operating Conservation Program adjustments that Green Diamond will implement to address uncertainties or HCP

13 An owl pellet is a regurgitated mass of undigested parts of a bird’s food items that typically includes bones, fur, teeth, claws, bills, or feathers, depending on a bird’s diet.

2-18 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 2 – PROPOSED FOREST HCP AND ALTERNATIVES

performance deficiencies. Details of the Adaptive Management Program can be found in FHCP Section 5.3. FHCP Adaptive Management Triggers Green Diamond’s FHCP includes an Adaptive Management Program that identifies early warning (yellow light) and critical warning (red light) triggers of urgent issues, such as declines in the number or distribution of Covered Species related to management practices. NSO Adaptive Management Triggers. Adaptive Management actions to adjust the conservation and management approach for NSOs will be implemented if the following indicators or conditions are triggered: • “Yellow Light” trigger: If 6 years following approval of the FHCP the NSO population declines relative to a defined baseline NSO population, Green Diamond will initiate a preliminary review with the Service. This preliminary review would attempt to understand the potential causes of decline, and would consider corrective actions without necessarily triggering adaptive management. • “Red Light” trigger 1: If 10 years following approval of the FHCP the NSO population continues to decline relative to the NSO population at the initiation of barred owl removal, Green Diamond will implement its FHCP adaptive management process. • “Red Light” trigger 2: If the trend in mean NSO fecundity estimate from the Plan Area, as determined from Green Diamond’s annually estimates of NSO fecundity, is lower than a comparable regional trend, the full adaptive management program will be implemented. Fisher Adaptive Management Triggers. Adaptive Management triggers for fishers are: • “Yellow Light” trigger: If, 5 years after Green Diamond’s validation of its fisher occupancy model, fisher occupancy is estimated to have decreased for a major portion (e.g., approximately 50,000 acres) of the Plan Area. Such areas would be resurveyed for occupancy during the next 5-year interval (in addition to routine monitoring of half of the Plan Area). • “Red Light” trigger: If, 10 years following model validation, fisher occupancy is estimated to continue to decline in areas that previously triggered a “yellow light,” full Adaptive Management would be implemented. Tree Vole Adaptive Management Triggers. Adaptive Management triggers for tree voles are: • “Yellow Light” trigger: If, for 3 consecutive years, tree vole occupancy is shown by Green Diamond to have declined for a major portion (e.g., approximately 50,000 acres) of the Plan Area. This trigger may conditionally be replaced with a genetic metric such as decline in the effective population size. • “Red Light” trigger: If, for 5 or more consecutive years, tree vole occupancy is shown to have declined in the same yellow light trigger area. Range of Adaptive Management Changes The Adaptive Management process addresses scientific uncertainties through monitoring of Covered Species to determine whether FHCP conservation measures have intended effects. Different monitoring outcomes for the Covered Species could trigger corrective action under Adaptive Management. If this occurs, Green Diamond will initiate an Adaptive Management process identifying appropriate change in the conservation measures if they are warranted. The Adaptive Management process will include an assessment identifying the potential cause behind any negative monitoring result, its potential management activity relationship, and any appropriate management changes. Green Diamond will notify the Service within 30 days after an analysis indicates a problem exists, requesting technical

PR0105180936SAC 2-19 CHAPTER 2 – PROPOSED FOREST HCP AND ALTERNATIVES

assistance from the Service in determining the cause of the negative result(s). All available information will be used to make this determination, including results from other monitoring or research projects throughout the region where applicable. To establish a framework within which Adaptive Management responses can be considered, Green Diamond has included several options in the FHCP that will be considered in response to apparent, unacceptable declines in the Covered Species. These potential options represent actions that Green Diamond may implement to address specific causes of those declines. They do not represent a complete array of options that may be considered in the future. The actual Adaptive Management response, and the options available to implement that response, can only be determined in the future when issue- specific information is available regarding a species decline, should it occur. NSO Adaptive Management. For NSO, the Adaptive Management account provides for additional habitat protection based on objective performance triggers and empirical understanding of NSO habitat use. An Adaptive Management Reserve Account (AMRA) will be credited with an opening balance of 1,068 acres for any combination of expansion of existing DCAs or creation of additional DCAs. Any modification of the current NSO measures, described in FHCP Section 5.3 (see AFWO website), will debited from the AMRA. Debits will be reflected in the account on an ongoing basis, and the account will be summarized annually. The following Adaptive Management measures/actions are examples of what could be implemented for NSO: • Green Diamond may, with Service approval, designate up to a maximum of 12 additional DCAs across the Plan Area that meet the criteria for mean annual occupancy and mean fecundity if there is evidence that more DCAs are required to achieve NSO objectives. The location and spacing of additional DCAs will depend on availability (NSOs will demonstrate the suitability of a site by their presence) and where new DCAs would provide the greatest demographic support and add continuity among existing NSO sites. • Green Diamond may, with Service approval, modify the size and/or silvicultural prescriptions of the core or surrounding foraging habitat associated with DCAs if there is evidence that either or both factors are limiting the biological effectiveness of DCAs. The upper limit of such changes will be equivalent to not more than the 1,068 fully stocked acres in the AMRA. • Green Diamond, in consultation with the Service, may modify the circular buffer size or acreage threshold of nesting/roosting habitat to assess take avoidance of NSO in DCAs. For example, additional data collected may show that a circular buffer larger or smaller than 0.5 mile, or a watershed oriented polygon, improve thresholds for take or that different amounts or spatial configurations of nesting/roosting habitat within the buffer improve predictions for take of NSO. If these take avoidance measures are shown to be effective, they would also become the new thresholds for assessing take of base (non-DCA) NSO sites throughout the Plan Area upon concurrence by the Service. • Green Diamond, in consultation with the Service, will evaluate the authorized rate of NSO take and adjust if warranted in response to a population decline detected through monitoring. • Green Diamond may evaluate specific sets of variables that show the influence of partial thinning silvicultural methods, specifically to determine the influence that those methods may have on post- harvest occupancy and reproduction by NSO. Fisher Adaptive Management. Green Diamond will establish an AMRA for fishers in the amount of $500,000. The AMRA would be expended at a rate of no more than $100,000 per year. Up to $250,000 may be used to research causes for having reached the Adaptive Management trigger. Up to $250,000 may be applied toward changing or adding FHCP conservation measures that benefit fishers. If Adaptive

2-20 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 2 – PROPOSED FOREST HCP AND ALTERNATIVES

Management is triggered, Green Diamond will consider the following Adaptive Management measures/actions could be implemented for fisher: • Green Diamond, in consultation with the Service, may modify the TREE Plan to include provisions to retain additional low-value trees with hollows and other structural features favorable to fishers, especially through the life of the future stands. Such modifications may include changes to the scoring method to increase the number of trees ranking as a “7,” or committing to retaining one or more of the highest scoring trees per acre, even if no tree scores as high as “7,” using the current scorecard method. For harvest units that contain no or few trees likely to develop hollows or other structures favorable to fishers, Green Diamond will consider taking proactive measures to promote long-term development of those features. Methods may include topping to promote “candelabra” tops, inducing heart rot, or physically creating hollows. • Within RMZs or geologically unstable areas, Green Diamond may promote the development of a minimum of 1 hollow tree per 100 meters (328 feet) of stream for all Class 1 and 2 watercourses. When working within geologically unstable areas, Green Diamond may promote the development of a minimum of one hollow tree for each hectare of area. • If the fisher population within the Plan Area declines, as documented through the prescribed monitoring, it may prove beneficial to both the species and Green Diamond to redirect committed resources. Green Diamond would redirect from continued monitoring toward research or other management focused on understanding the causes of the decline, and taking appropriate action to address the problem. Green Diamond may choose to re-allocate funding or other committed resources to address the decline. The re-allocated funds may be applied toward in-house research, or to third-party researchers, so long as the research is directed and analyzed by experienced, qualified persons in the field of wildlife science. Sonoma and Red Tree Vole Adaptive Management. Green Diamond will establish an AMRA for tree voles in the amount of $500,000. This amount would be expended at a rate of no more than $100,000 per year, of which up to $250,000 may be directed at researching the causes for having reached the Adaptive Management trigger. Up to $250,000 may be applied toward changing or adding FHCP conservation measures that benefit tree voles. If Adaptive Management is triggered and it has been concluded that the decline is directly or indirectly related to one of the covered activities, Green Diamond will add one or a combination of both of the following conservation measures for tree voles that are judged to be beneficial for tree voles: • Should vole re-occupancy of regenerating stands not occur as predicted, as documented through the proposed vole monitoring strategy, Green Diamond will promote improved recolonization through consideration of options, including the following: – Conduct research to better estimate tree vole dispersal conditions and distances through which voles typically move when expanding their distribution into forest stands regenerating after harvest – Conduct research to better evaluate the effects of stand thinning on dispersal and habitat use by voles • Should monitoring of tree voles demonstrate a reduction in vole numbers or distribution due to a future lack of stand structural complexity, Green Diamond will evaluate and implement, as appropriate, one or more of the following Adaptive Management options. These options will address habitat limiting factors determined to directly or indirectly result from implementation of the FHCP (see AFWO website): – To promote retention and development of structurally complex Douglas-fir trees in the future landscape, Adaptive Management will consider modifying provisions of the TREE to include one

PR0105180936SAC 2-21 CHAPTER 2 – PROPOSED FOREST HCP AND ALTERNATIVES

or more trees per acre, of the highest score. This measure is intended to provide source trees that develop, or can be manipulated to develop, complex structure during their lifespan in the regenerating stand. – RMZ prescriptions could be modified to further develop complex trees through direct or indirect manipulation of individual trees or groups of trees. – When thinning or applying similar partial-harvest silvicultural practices, Green Diamond would consider options to avoid or reduce the harvest of Douglas-fir with obvious “candelabra” structure, to conserve habitat features important to tree voles. Adaptive Management Changes Related to Riparian and Geologically Unstable Areas Several o Adaptive Management provisions described above for fishers and tree voles are relevant to management of riparian and geologically unstable areas (such as SSS zones) under the FHCP. In addition, there may be Adaptive Management changes under the existing AHCP/CCAA that would have implications in these areas under the FHCP. Should Green Diamond propose any Adaptive Management change in the RMZ width and prescriptions under the AHCP/CCAA, such a proposal will also be deemed to be a proposed Adaptive Management measure under the FHCP and would require analysis of effects to Covered FHCP species as well. It would require approval by the Service under both the AHCP/CCAA and the FHCP before it will be implemented by Green Diamond. The intent of this provision is that no Adaptive Management measures will be taken under the FHCP unless they are judged by mutual agreement between Green Diamond and the Service, or the assessment of the Scientific Review Panel, to be either neutral or beneficial to the conservation program for the Covered Species. 2.1.2.13 Implementation, Reporting, and Review Commitments This subsection summarizes the measures and processes that Green Diamond will implement to ensure that implementation of the FHCP is integrated with implementation of THPs and report compliance with requirements of the FHCP. These commitments include the structure and function of an FHCP Compliance Team, the process by which Green Diamond will notify the Service of its intent to implement covered activities that may affect Covered Species, the information to be provided to the Service in annual reports, and the timing and purpose of scheduled field reviews of FHCP implementation. FHCP Compliance Team Upon approval of the FHCP, Green Diamond will establish and maintain an FHCP Compliance Team consisting of a Plan Coordinator working in conjunction with Green Diamond’s internal forestry and wildlife staff. The Plan Coordinator will be an academically trained and experienced wildlife biologist with specific knowledge of forest management. The Plan Coordinator will, among other tasks, ensure that a pre-harvest checklist is completed during THP development, and are consistent with HCP commitments (e.g., DCA adjacency requirements or take assessment accounting). Following THP review and approval by CAL FIRE, Green Diamond will implement the THPs, prepare a THP post-harvest completion form documenting THP compliance with the FHCP provisions, and submit this form to the Green Diamond’s Plan Coordinator whom will be responsible for reviewing the form and its supporting information to ensure compliance with the FHCP. Green Diamond would also budget and expend any necessary funds required to fulfill its obligations under the FHCP Operating Conservation Program and would promptly notify the Service of any material change in its financial ability to fulfill FHCP obligations. Green Diamond would provide financial assurances to perform these obligations in the form of a letter of credit with a principal sum equivalent to the inflation-adjusted Adaptive Management financial account balances for fishers and voles after credits have been applied for any eligible Green Diamond expenditures on Adaptive Management responses.

2-22 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 2 – PROPOSED FOREST HCP AND ALTERNATIVES

THP Notice of Filing and Area Map When submitting any proposed THP within the Plan Area to CAL FIRE, Green Diamond will provide an informational copy of the THP filing notice and a THP area map to the Service. The THP filing notice and its cover letter will be modified from those currently provided to the Service to include specific information relevant to Covered Species under the FHCP, similar to the information already provided for species covered under the AHCP/CCAA. By including information on potential take of FHCP Covered Species, the THP filing notice will function as the notification to the Service regarding anticipated or potential take of listed species and implementation of FHCP conservation measures intended to reduce the level and effects of anticipated take. During the first year of implementation, Green Diamond will coordinate with the Service regarding specific additions to Green Diamond’s current THP filing notice format. Reporting Green Diamond will prepare and submit annual reports to the Service on or before March 1 following the first full calendar year after the effective date of the FHCP. Specific reporting commitments are listed in FHCP Section 5.3.7 (see AFWO website). Annual reports would also disclose necessary Green Diamond expenditures for implementing the FHCP’s Operating Conservation Program during the prior calendar year, Adaptive Management account balances, and Green Diamond’s current-year budget for implementing the Operating Conservation Program. Scheduled Reviews Over the first 5 years of the FHCP, beginning approximately 1 year after issuance of the ITP, Green Diamond would schedule annual meetings with the Service to discuss issues that may have arisen during initial implementation of the FHCP. In the second and fourth years, annual meetings would precede a field review of conservation measures that have been implemented to date to allow for their technical evaluation. In the event that the Service determines from a field review that conservation measure implementation does not conform to the FHCP Operating Conservation Program, Green Diamond will develop recommendations with the Service regarding implementation and may schedule additional field reviews. 2.1.3 Alternative A: New NSO HCP with Late-Seral Static Reserve Strategy Under Alternative A, Green Diamond would establish no-harvest or limited-harvest static reserves around select NSO sites and high-value habitats. Green Diamond would designate nine large blocks of forested land in the Plan Area, based on historical NSO site occupancy, reproductive status, and habitat condition. The reserves will support or will be capable of supporting a minimum of 44 NSO sites within all designated blocks. Each reserve will be spaced a maximum of 12 miles from the nearest reserve, or from Federal or State ownership of comparable conservation intent (e.g., Redwood National and State Parks). This alternative would protect high-quality NSO nesting habitat similar to conservation strategies implemented in the past for late-successional forest associated species (Thomas et al., 1990; FEMAT, 1993; USDI and USDA, 1994). Displacement take of NSOs within reserves would not be permitted. 2.1.3.1 Permit Term The ITP permit term for Alternative A would be 50 years. The new ITP would supersede the 1992 NSO HCP ITP upon issuance. 2.1.3.2 HCP Plan Area The Plan Area for Alternative A would be the same as that described for the FHCP.

PR0105180936SAC 2-23 CHAPTER 2 – PROPOSED FOREST HCP AND ALTERNATIVES

2.1.3.3 HCP-Covered Species The new ITP under Alternative A would cover NSO only. Following ITP expiration in 50 years, no take of NSO would be permitted, unless permitted otherwise. Displacement take of NSO would not occur with reserve areas. NSO sites within the matrix would be evaluated for potential displacement take similar to criteria under the No Action prior to expiration in 2022. Displacement take of NSO under Alternative A is anticipated to be less than the No Action prior to expiration in 2022 because the reserve areas reduce the acres of Plan Area available for timber harvest and the number of NSO sites that could be affected by Covered Activities. In addition, the lack of barred owl removal under Alternative A is anticipated to result in further suppression of the NSO population and consequently fewer NSO sites could be taken by Covered Activities. 2.1.3.4 Anticipated Take of NSO Under Alternative A, the NSO take would likely be similar to the FHCP. This is suggested because within this Alternative the reserves are expected to support a minimum of 44 NSO sites. These reserves would be no-harvest/no-take areas. Management outside of the reserves would be similar to that described under the FHCP. 2.1.3.5 Timber Harvesting and Land Management Activities Evenaged timber harvest would occur on a reduced harvest landscape area (matrix lands) due to the increase in the spatial extent of no-harvest reserves. Timber harvest and land management practices under Alternative A would be the same as practices described under No Action, except Green Diamond may elect to continue retention of CWD on its landscape, as it currently practices under the TDWMP, for the benefit wildlife habitat. 2.1.3.6 Management of Aquatic and Riparian Resources Under Alternative A, aquatic and riparian resources will be managed under the AHCP/CCAA until 2057, as described under the No Action Alternative. AHCP/CCCA riparian and geologic conservation measures would not be extended by this alternative past the Permit Term of the AHCP/CCAA (i.e., 2057) 2.1.3.7 Conservation of Northern Spotted Owls NSO would be conserved in the Plan Area as described under the No Action Alternative, with the following exceptions: Management of NSO Sites Located in Matrix Lands NSO sites located in matrix lands (i.e., those not located within the static reserves, RMZs, or areas protected by geological conservation measures) will be managed as described under the FHCP. Management of NSO Sites Located in Preserve Lands (Late-seral Static Reserves) Under Alternative A, Green Diamond would identify and preserve nine large static terrestrial reserves ranging in size from approximately 3,700 to over 16,000 acres14 and totaling approximately 72,000 acres. These large reserves would be located to protect a minimum of 44 productive NSO sites. Reserve locations have been conceptually identified (Table 2-1). As provisionally designed, the static reserves would include nearly 7,700 acres of areas currently designated as NSO HCP set-asides. A total of 99 NSO sites would be protected by static reserves, with 67 of these sites active in 2014. Newly designated large reserves would be managed as no-harvest and no-take reserves. Unlike NSO HCP set-asides, displacement take of NSOs within reserves would not be permitted. NSO sites within current set-asides that are not designated as reserves under Alternative A (or protected in RMZs or

14 Each reserve would be sized sufficiently to support seven NSO home ranges

2-24 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 2 – PROPOSED FOREST HCP AND ALTERNATIVES

areas protected by geological conservation measures) will be managed as described for NSO sites located in matrix lands. Management of NSO Sites Associated with RMZ or SSS Zones As described above, Green Diamond currently manages habitat areas within RMZs and SSS zones by implementing its 2007 AACP/CCAA. RMZs and SSS zones are essentially managed as no-harvest or limited-harvest reserves under the AHCP/CCAA. Incidental take of NSO within RMZs or SSS zones would be conditionally allowed under Alternative A; however, the entry restrictions and harvest limitations within RMZs and SSS zones as described above and in the AHCP/CCAA would not be extended beyond 2057. NSO and Barred Owl Research NSO and barred owl research would not be conducted by Green Diamond under Alternative A. Under this alternative, no barred owl removal would be authorized by the Service. The barred owl occupancy and colonization rates will likely continue to increase. It is expected that under this alternative, the NSO site occupancy rate will continue to decrease and the extinction rate will continue to be higher than sites without barred owls. 2.1.3.8 Conservation of Other Sensitive Species and Habitats Conservation of other sensitive species would be accomplished through practices and permits as described under the No Action Alternative. Green Diamond would not implement conservation measures, monitoring, or research for fishers or voles under Alternative A. 2.1.4 Alternative B: New NSO HCP with Uneven-aged Forest Management The new ITP under Alternative B would cover NSO only. Under the uneven-aged management alternative, Green Diamond would transition away from even-aged management in forest stands capable of supporting selection harvesting, but some stands would continue to be clearcut either because they are currently understocked with conifers or lack sufficient forest site class growth potential to support stands of conifers capable of being selectively harvested. Green Diamond would use a combination of single tree selection and group selection as allowed under the FPRs. The spatial arrangement and exact amount of group selection harvest is unknown.

2.1.4.1 Permit Term The ITP permit term for Alternative B would be 50 years. The new ITP would supersede the 1992 NSO HCP ITP upon issuance.

2.1.4.2 HCP Plan Area The Plan Area for Alternative B would be the same as that described for the FHCP.

2.1.4.3 HCP-Covered Species The new ITP under Alternative B would cover NSO only. Following ITP expiration in 50 years, no take of NSO would be permitted.

2.1.4.4 Anticipated Take of NSO Displacement take of NSO would not occur within Reserved Owl Core Areas (ROCA). NSO sites outside of ROCAs would be evaluated for potential displacement take similar to criteria under the No Action prior to expiration in 2022. Displacement take of NSO in the short term under Alternative B is anticipated to be similar to or greater than the No Action prior to expiration in 2022 because Green Diamond may have to conduct timber harvest over an increased area to meet economic objectives. Timber harvest that

PR0105180936SAC 2-25 CHAPTER 2 – PROPOSED FOREST HCP AND ALTERNATIVES

occurs over a larger acreage to meet economic objectives could result in more NSO sites being affected by Covered Activities than under the No Action. Over the longer term, the lack of barred owl removal under Alternative B is anticipated to result in further suppression of the NSO population and consequently fewer NSO sites could be taken by Covered Activities. 2.1.4.5 Timber Harvesting and Land Management Activities Green Diamond will develop and implement a forest management strategy based on uneven-aged, selection harvest management as the primary silvicultural technique for growth and harvest of timber. Selection harvest is often chosen where a forest of multiple aged trees is desired, the regenerating trees are suited to growth in shaded settings, and maintenance of larger trees in the overstory is a desired condition. Uneven-aged forest management is perceived as a lighter touch on other forest resources that may be impacted by timber harvest because the removal of trees is less intensive for each harvest event. However, uneven-aged forest management also entails more frequent entry into timber stands for harvest purposes and more active road use across a managed forest. Uneven-aged forest management also would likely result in larger annual disturbance areas to achieve Green Diamond’s timber volume objectives.

Under this alternative, Green Diamond would continue to retain snags and green wildlife trees to comply with FPRs, and may elect to continue retention of CWD on its landscape, as it currently practices under the TDWMP, for the benefit of wildlife habitat. 2.1.4.6 Management of Aquatic and Riparian Resources Under Alternative B, aquatic and riparian resources will be managed under the AHCP/CCAA until 2057, as described under the No Action Alternative. AHCP/CCCA riparian and geologic conservation measures would not be extended by this alternative past the Permit Term of the AHCP/CCAA (i.e., 2057) 2.1.4.7 Conservation of Northern Spotted Owls Under Alternative B, Green Diamond would manage NSO habitat within both riparian and upland areas of its ownership pursuant to the alternative and several existing agreements and permits. NSO would be conserved in the Plan Area as described under the No Action Alternative, with the exceptions noted below. Management of NSO Sites Located in Matrix Lands Green Diamond harvests timber on most of its ownership outside of the AHCP/CCAA conservation areas, and the current set-asides using even-aged regeneration silvicultural techniques. Under this alternative, over time, Green Diamond would transition to selection silviculture as the predominant technique to manage commercial conifer timber stands. Other silviculture techniques would continue to be used where conifer stocking levels are inadequate to apply unevenage management. Harvesting would be planned to minimize the potential for displacement (take) of NSOs. Management of NSO Sites Located in Preserve Lands (ROCAs) The conservation strategy under Alternative B would replace static NSO set-asides with ROCAs where the most productive NSO sites are identified and protected over the permit term through enhanced retention selection harvest designed to promote development of late-seral conditions around these sites. Within habitat buffer of ROCAs, forest management would increase the quadratic mean diameter and canopy cover through selective removal of smaller diameter trees. No NSO set-asides or static reserves other than the ROCAs are proposed under Alternative B. Under Alternative B, Green Diamond would initiate harvest in former set-asides subject to NSO take restrictions as described in the 1992 NSO HCP. Green Diamond would develop and implement a forest management strategy based on uneven-age, selection harvest management as the primary silvicultural

2-26 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 2 – PROPOSED FOREST HCP AND ALTERNATIVES

technique for growth and harvest of timber. Green Diamond would implement harvest prescriptions around NSO activity centers to retain sufficient suitable habitat and avoid disturbing nesting spotted owls in accordance as described in the 1992 NSO HCP. Management of NSO Sites Associated with RMZ or SSS Zones As described above, Green Diamond currently manages habitat areas within RMZs and SSS zones by implementing its 2007 AACP/CCAA. RMZs and SSS zones are essentially managed as no-harvest or limited-harvest reserves under the AHCP/CCAA. Incidental take of NSO within RMZs or SSS zones would be conditionally allowed under Alternative B; however, the entry restrictions and harvest limitations within RMZs and SSS zones as described above and in the AHCP/CCAA would not be extended beyond 2057. NSO and Barred Owl Research NSO and barred owl research would not be conducted by Green Diamond under Alternative B. Under this alternative, no barred owl removal would be authorized by the Service. The barred owl occupancy and colonization rates will likely continue to increase. It is expected that under this alternative, the NSO site occupancy rate will continue to decrease and the extinction rate will continue to be higher than sites without barred owls. 2.1.4.8 Conservation of Other Sensitive Species and Habitats Conservation of other sensitive species would be accomplished through practices and permits as described under No Action. Green Diamond would not implement conservation measures, monitoring, or research for fishers or voles under Alternative B. 2.2 Alternatives Not Considered in Detail The Service considered the alternatives in the following subsections in addition to those described in Section 2.1. The Service did not complete detailed analyses of these alternatives because they do not meet the Purpose and Need (Section 1.2), are considered infeasible, the conservation strategy cannot be biologically supported and/or is inconsistent with regulatory authorities provided for in Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. 2.2.1 Multispecies FHCP with Humboldt Marten Conservation This alternative would include all the components of the FHCP, but would include Humboldt marten (Martes caurina humboldtensis) as a Covered Species. The permit term (50 years) and the Plan Area under this alternative would be the same as the FHCP. Humboldt marten are known to occur within the Rattlesnake Mountain portion under Green Diamond’s ownership. In addition to the elements of the FHCP, this alternative would include the following measures: • Establish an approximately 2,100-acre no-harvest, special management area for marten on Rattlesnake Ridge in Del Norte County as part of the mitigation for incidental take of marten elsewhere in the Plan Area • Participate with multi-agency and other cooperators in a marten capture and assisted dispersal program designed to translocate martens and attempt to establish a viable population in existing late-seral habitat within Redwood National and State Parks • Monitor translocated martens to improve scientific understanding of their habitat needs and the success of dispersal to late-seral forests on public lands or to adjacent managed timberlands • Expand the monitoring and research scope of Covered Species presence and habitat use to include marten, and interspecies interaction between martens and fishers

PR0105180936SAC 2-27 CHAPTER 2 – PROPOSED FOREST HCP AND ALTERNATIVES

• Evaluate whether maturing timber stands in RMZs and geologically unstable areas, combined with DCAs distributed throughout the Plan Area, contribute to successful marten dispersal into or across the Plan Area • Evaluate measures that provide for retention of standing defective green trees, snags, and complex downed woody debris (described in detail in the TREE guidelines) to determine whether those structures contribute to successful marten survival and dispersal into or across the Plan Area The Service did not include this alternative as a fully analyzed alternative in the EIS for the following reasons: • Limited data exist on the size and demographics of the existing marten population inhabiting the northeast margin of the Plan Area and the suitability of Green Diamond’s commercial timberlands as dispersal habitat for martens. This limited information makes determining the appropriate conservation measures and estimating the amount of take to be authorized in the ITP infeasible. • This alternative does not meet the issuance criteria for an ITP since the alternative does not include measures to minimize take to the maximum extent practicable. While the special management area on Rattlesnake Ridge is offered as mitigation for potential future take of marten, the Service cannot determine the conservation value this area would have for marten nor the amount or extent of take likely to occur during the 50-year implementation of the FHCP. The Service concludes that insufficient information was available to consider the full range of take circumstances, assess the effect of take as a factor in the jeopardy standard, or develop effective means by which take resulting from covered activities could be minimized. It is difficult to predict whether the marten’s present range will expand, remain stable, or contract over the 50-year permit term. At this time, the available data contain significant gaps in knowledge regarding the species’ distribution, population size, and habitat needs within the Plan Area, making long-term conservation commitments speculative. Although martens have not been detected on much of their ownership, Green Diamond would be subject to a no-take approach to ESA compliance wherever the species may occur in the Plan Area if the Service lists the marten as threatened or endangered. 2.2.2 Multispecies FHCP with Different Permit Terms One of the actions assessed in this EIS is the issuance of a 50-year ITP by the Service to Green Diamond, supported by implementation of a multispecies FHCP. This permit term was selected because it corresponds closely to the management rotation length of timber stands on the Green Diamond ownership. A 50-year term provides ample time for the timberlands included in this EIS to achieve a regulated condition of seral stages when considered at a landscape scale. Achieving a regulated condition would result in a well-distributed patchwork of seral stages, within an extensive network of older forest stands in RMZs and protected geologically unstable areas. This pattern of early- and mid- seral-stage forest stands is anticipated to be more beneficial to long-term conservation of the Covered Species than the current pattern of seral stages that resulted from an early “wave” of intensive harvest prior to Green Diamond acquisition of the timberlands in the Plan Area. Different terms for the ITP (other than 50 years) were considered but not carried forward for detailed analysis. The Service considered a shorter-term permit (25 years) as well as a longer-term permit (75 years). A 25-year term would not allow adequate time for the conservation measures to be implemented and assessed for effectiveness under the conservation and monitoring provisions of the FHCP or other action alternatives. Conversely, if the term was 75 years, the data used to assess possible modifications to prescriptive measures would be outdated or invalid and, therefore, inadequate to rely on for decisions made so far into the future. Furthermore, a longer term would not provide significant, additional benefits to Covered Species that are reasonably foreseeable based on the anticipated

2-28 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 2 – PROPOSED FOREST HCP AND ALTERNATIVES

regulated forest condition achieved under a 50-year term. The Service believes that a 50-year term is a balance that promotes the conservation objectives within a timeframe consistent with achievable biological results and economic feasibility. Therefore, the Service does not include an alternative in this EIS with a longer or shorter term of permit issuance. 2.2.3 Multispecies FHCP with Alternative Barred Owl Management Approaches In developing the alternatives for the Proposed Action, the Service considered several additional approaches to barred owl management under the FHCP including site-specific and partial barred owl lethal and nonlethal removal, studies of food supplementation, species interaction, habitat manipulation, and captive propagation of NSO. Some approaches have been considered in the scientific literature (Johnson et al., 2008) as potentially feasible means to study the effects that the barred owl may have on the NSO. These approaches and the reasons for not analyzing them in detail as alternatives are provided in Appendix C.

PR0105180936SAC 2-29

Tables

Table 2-1. Characteristics of NSO Terrestrial Reserves Under Alternative A

Total Width at Area # of Total NSO active NSO narrowest point # Set Asides Reserve name (acres) DCAs sites sites (miles) (acres)

Hunter-Wilson 3,719.23 3 5 4 0.32 0 (0)

Turwar 5,899.89 2 6 4 0.78 0 (0)

B-Line 4,559.59 0 5 1 0.47 1 (497.13)

Williams Ridge 8,673.05 6 10 5 0.48 2 (1,265.3)

Upper Redwood Creek 15,934.65 8 17 10 0.52 5 (735.66)

Redwood Creek 12,725.33 3 9 7 1.5 2 (571.04)

Mad River 8,707.85 7 25 17 0.86 6 (2,217.35)

Upper Mad River 7,261.41 6 14 12 0.95 1 (1,964.35)

Salmon Creek 3,681.12 2 8 7 0.53 3 (448.02)

Totals: 71,162.12 37 99 67 0.32-1.5 20 (7,698.85)

Notes: DCA = Dynamic Core Area NSO = Northern Spotted Owl

PR0105180936SAC 2-31 CHAPTER 3 Affected Environment

This chapter describes the affected environment for resources potentially affected by implementing the Proposed Action or other action alternatives. Unless otherwise noted within specific resource sections, the affected environment described in the following subsections refers to the Action Area for this EIS. In addition to the Action Area lands analyzed in this EIS, the regional setting as presented in some of the following subsections to provide an overall context for the analysis of the Action Area in Chapter 4. 3.1 Geology, Geomorphology, and Mineral Resources The Action Area is located mostly within California’s Coastal Range geologic province. The eastern margin of the northern part of the Action Area is within the Klamath Mountains geologic province. This province includes a complex of various geologic terranes that collectively are within the convergent margin of the North American plate. Within the individual provinces and terranes, geomorphic conditions vary widely. The topography of the Action Area is highly variable and consists of landforms ranging from steep terrain with deeply incised narrow drainages, to rolling landscapes with less deeply incised drainage networks. The region has experienced high rates of uplift, deformation, and accompanying channel down cutting. Parallel to these processes, the area has experienced relatively high rates of denudation and the upper reaches of many drainages have been sculpted over geologic time by repeated shallow landslides. At present, landslides are common throughout the Action Area and continue to be a major force shaping the modern landscape. Green Diamond operates numerous rock quarries (borrow pits) within the Action Area. These mining operations are used to supply surfacing or fill material for purposes of road construction and maintenance associated with timber harvesting and forest management The FHCP, Alternative A, and Alternative B are not expected to affect the existing geology, geomorphology, or mineral resources compared to the No Action Alternative in the Plan Area and will not be discussed further. 3.2 Air Quality The Action Area is located in the North Coast Air Basin, under the authority of the North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District. The District’s legal boundaries are coterminous with the county boundaries for Humboldt, Del Norte, and Trinity counties. However, these counties are part of the larger North Coast Air Basin, which also includes Mendocino County and part of Sonoma County. The air quality of a region is determined by the quantities and types of pollutants emitted, and by the concentrations and accumulations of those pollutants under the influences of local meteorology and topography. The North Coast Air Basin is considered to have good air quality. The FHCP, Alternative A, and Alternative B are not anticipated to contribute significantly to air pollution compared to the No Action Alternative and are unlikely to change the overall air quality conditions in the air basin. Therefore, effects on air quality would be the same as the No Action Alternative and will not be discussed further. 3.3 Recreational Resources Green Diamond provides recreational opportunities on its forestlands to groups and individuals, subject to written permit authorization. These activities are permitted on a limited basis within specified areas,

PR0105180936SAC 3-1 CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

and include hunting, fishing, camping, picnicking, hiking, motorcycle use, and shooting. The Action Area is also adjacent to several national and State parks and recreation areas. All alternatives would result in variations in the type and extent of harvest activities. These variations do not change the primary use of the Plan Area as productive timberland. Because all alternatives involve continued timber harvest and related transport activities, substantial changes to the existing environment for recreational purposes are not anticipated to occur under any alternative. Recreational resources will not be discussed further. 3.4 Aesthetics (Visual Resources) This subsection identifies areas where the Action Area may be visible to the general public, and focuses on adjacent public lands and nearby roadways. The Action Area is interspersed among several public recreation areas, including Six Rivers National Forest (SRNF) (containing the recreation-oriented Smith River unit) and the Redwood National and State Parks complex. Adjacent land use is described in Section 3.6. The primary public recreation areas with views of the Action Area are the Redwood National and State Parks. U.S. Highway 101 is the primary roadway in the Action Area. Highway 101 is a designated scenic highway, all other highways in the vicinity of the Green Diamond ownership (U.S. Highway 199, U.S. Highway 299, and State Route SR 36) are considered eligible for scenic highway designation (Caltrans, 2017). As Highway 101 proceeds south through Del Norte and Humboldt counties, it is likely that travelers will be able to view the Action Area in various locations, primarily in the area north of Crescent City, near the Klamath River confluence, and north of McKinleyville. In portions of this area, panoramic views of the Action Area are possible from Highway 101, depending on topography in the vicinity. Views of the Action Area from Highway 101 south of Eureka are limited. Highway 299 passes through a portion of the Action Area east of Arcata. Views of the Action Area from Highway 199 and State Route 36 are limited. Timber harvesting can result in adverse impacts to visual resources depending on the visibility of the harvest area. Each alternative would result in variations in the type and extent of harvest activities. These variations do not change the primary use of the Action Area as productive timberland. Potential visual impacts associated with implementing individual THPs (or multiple THPs over the landscape) are mitigated by the FPRs and Green Diamond guidelines and procedures during the THP preparation and review process. Because all alternatives involve continued timber harvest activities in the Action Area, changes to the visual setting along publicly-accessible visual corridors are not anticipated to occur under any alternative. Therefore, aesthetics will not be discussed further. 3.5 Cultural Resources Local tribal groups represented in the Action Area include the Tolowa, Yurok, Wiyot, Hupa, Chilula, and Whilkut tribes. Federal agencies have a duty under the NHPA to consider potential effects on cultural resources listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (Historic Properties) for actions that are determined to be undertakings. The Service has determined that issuing an ITP to Green Diamond under an action alternative constitutes an undertaking to the limited extent that they authorize take incidental to non-Federal actions. These actions are not themselves Federal undertakings, but may result in take of Covered Species and, in such an instance, would require Federal authorization to lawfully proceed. Timber harvesting and other management operations can result in effects, both to individual historical or archaeological sites (or resources) and to linear historical resources such as trails, old wagon roads, and railroad grades. Effects on cultural resources could be significant if Green Diamond did not comply

3-2 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

with existing regulations for protecting cultural resources. However, incidental take under all alternatives has no potential effect on historic properties due to existing procedures and standards for protection of cultural resources. Under all alternatives, Green Diamond would continue to implement ownership-wide mitigation, management, and monitoring measures for protection of cultural resources in accordance with the requirements of the FPRs during the preparation of THPs. Also, under a Memorandum of Agreement with the Service created for implementation of the AHCP, Green Diamond must survey for cultural resources prior to developing new rock pits in the Plan Area. Implementation of any alternatives would not result in impacts to cultural resources that differ from those that would occur under existing regulations. The current FPRs contain measures for protecting cultural resources that would minimize the effects of timber harvesting. Cultural resources will not be discussed further. 3.6 Land Use The Action Area is located within Del Norte, Humboldt, and Trinity counties, which contain significant amounts of land (both Federal and private) in timber production. Land ownership within and near the Action Area is identified on Figure 3-6 (Appendix A). The General Plans of Del Norte and Humboldt counties designate the Green Diamond forestlands and other private forestlands in the Action Area as suitable for timber production. Because the alternatives involve the continued production of timber on the Green Diamond forestlands, they are consistent with past and intended future use of these areas. Therefore, land use would not be affected by the FHCP or any action alternatives. There would be no substantial changes to the existing environment for land use under any alternatives. Land use will not be discussed further. 3.7 Climate and Climate Change The climate in the Action Area varies depending on elevation, distance inland from the ocean, and slope orientation (direction), and is generally representative of the climates found in Northern California. Along the coast, the summer climate is moderated by coastal fog, which reduces solar radiation and contributes moisture by fog drip. The dense, often persistent, band of marine fog usually extends 20 to 30 miles inland. In the interior areas, the climate generally follows the pattern of hot, dry summers and cool, wet winters. Most precipitation falls as rain, although snowfall occurs at the higher elevations. Between 2,400 and 5,000 feet in elevation, precipitation occurs as both rain and snow. Precipitation varies among the many watersheds intersected by the Action Area, ranging from average values of 20 inches to more than 125 inches, and generally increases with increasing elevation. Approximately 90 percent of rainfall within the Action Area falls between October and March. Climate change refers to any significant change in measures of climate (such as temperature, precipitation, or wind) lasting for an extended period (decades or longer). Future projections of climate change under the Fourth Assessment of the International Panel on Climate Change indicate that by late in this century (2080s), average annual surface temperatures in California will rise from current levels by 2 to 5 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) (1 to 3 degrees Celsius [°C]) assuming relatively low greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Special Report on Emissions Scenarios Emissions Scenario B1) and 5 to 8°F (3 to 4.5°C) assuming relatively higher emissions (Special Report on Emissions Scenarios Emissions Scenario A2).15

15 Emissions scenarios are defined in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (2000) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios and are currently also used for the IPCC Fourth Assessment. Scenarios are run using multiple global circulation models including BCCR-BCM2.0, CGCM3.1 (T47), CNRM-CM3, CSIRO-Mk3.0, GFDL-CM2.0, GFDL-CM2.1, GISS-ER, INM-CM3.0, IPSL-CM4, MIROC3.2 (medres), ECHO-G, ECHAM5/MPI-OM, MRI- CGCM2.3.2, CCSM3, UKMO-HadCM3 UK, as well as a multimodel ensemble average. Data accessed via The Nature Conservancy’s Climate Wizard on September 11, 2009 (http://www.climatewizard.org/).

PR0105180936SAC 3-3 CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Regional differences in California climate change projections are apparent, with the greatest average air temperature increases along the South Coast and Sacramento-Delta climate regions, and the lowest increases along the North Coast region (Anderson, 2009; Abatzoglou et al., 2009). The Action Area is located primarily within the North Coast climate region. GHGs are defined as any gases that absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere. GHGs include, but are not limited to, water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrochlorofluorocarbons, ozone, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride (CARB, 2017). Ongoing research contends that anthropomorphic (human-induced) GHG emissions, primarily CO2, are the main cause of accelerated climate change (IPCC, 2013). Emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere occur as a result of a variety of land use activities associated with forest management. Management activities that release CO2 involve fossil fuel combustion and/or prescribed burning. The biggest non-biological contributors to GHG emissions are harvesting, site preparation, and fertilization (Sonne, 2006). However, GHG emissions from forestry operations represent only a fraction of carbon sequestered by tree growth. In general, forestlands act as atmospheric carbon sinks whereby CO2 is captured from the atmosphere and fixed, through the process of photosynthesis, in wood fiber (OFRI, 2006; EPA, 2005). It is estimated that carbon removal by California forests is about one-and-one-half times greater than carbon emissions; that is, forest lands function as net sinks, rather than sources, for carbon (CARB, 2011). 3.8 Aquatic Resources and Hydrology Logging, mining, road building, and grazing during the last 100 years, combined with the local existence of steep slopes, unstable geologic formations, and seasonally intense precipitation, have produced runoff and erosion concerns for portions of the Action Area. As noted in previous sections, the north coast of California receives some of the heaviest precipitation in the state in the form of rain, snow, or both, depending on elevation. Enhanced runoff, erosion, sedimentation, suspended sediments, and temperature are the chief water quality concerns of these coastal drainages. Some stream reaches and watersheds have been listed as impaired water bodies by the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, and as such are subject to development of total maximum daily load (TMDLs). TMDLs will provide guidance for regulating suspended sediment concentrations or loads within certain project watersheds. Within the Action Area, Green Diamond implements its Federally-approved AHCP/CCAA for the benefit of aquatic habitat and species (Green Diamond, 2007). The AHCP/CCAA was approved in 2007 and contributes to protection and improvement in water quality and other aquatic habitat conditions (connectivity and complexity) through a variety of measures including riparian management zones, road repair, road removal, and improved stream crossings. For further information on watershed characteristics, surface hydrology, and water quality refer to the AHCP/CCAA. 3.9 Terrestrial and Aquatic Habitats This subsection provides descriptions of terrestrial and aquatic habitats within the Action Area. The habitat summary includes a description of vegetation characteristics within the Action Area using California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) Classifications. 3.9.1 Terrestrial Vegetation This subsection describes vegetation contained within the Plan Area, and relies on data made available from Green Diamond, the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), CDFW, and the Service. The frequency, composition, and spatial distribution of habitat types within the Plan Area has also been characterized using data provided by Green Diamond, based on a cover type classification system that focuses on merchantable timber for timber management purposes. Aerial interpretation and ground-

3-4 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

truthing is performed according to the established criteria of this system. Green Diamond developed a computer algorithm that converts the merchantable timber cover type classification system into the CWHR System (Mayer and Laudenslayer, 1988). The habitat codes, size classes, and canopy closure classes in the CWHR system are defined in Table 3-1. Current and potential wildlife use and habitat conditions within the Plan Area are further described below according to CWHR classifications. Unclassified land represents areas that Green Diamond has never surveyed because most of these areas are lands where some other entity has cutting rights. Barren lands are areas where vegetation is absent, either naturally or due to past or current management, for various reasons. These lands are mostly a collection of bare rock outcrops, major landslides, and rock pits (i.e., areas being mined for rock to use on roads). The areas that have been classified as Riverine rather than Riparian are generally open-water areas, consisting of large enough bodies of flowing water and their associated beds/bars (submerged in winter, exposed in summer). These areas are classified in the Green Diamond GIS system as “nonforested waterways.” 3.9.2 General Vegetative Character Productive soils, moderate temperatures, and seasonally abundant moisture support a mixed cover of dense forest and prairie vegetation within the Action Area. Coast redwood is the dominant tree on the relatively moist floodplains, low stream terraces, and lower hillslopes adjacent to the main channel. On the upper slopes, Douglas-fir is the dominant conifer, and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), tanoak (Lithocarpus densifloris), and Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii) also occur. Areas of natural prairie and woodland vegetation are interspersed with forested areas throughout much of the Action Area. The most common communities of non-forest vegetation are grass prairies, grass- bracken-fern prairies, oak-grass woodlands, oak-poison oak-grass woodlands, and oak-madrone-brush woodlands. Table 3-2 provides a breakdown of the distribution and abundance of the forested and non-forested habitat types within the Plan Area in 2010. Ten CWHR habitat types are present within these areas. While it is unlikely, additional CWHR habitat types may be present on lands within other portions of the Action Area. Of the 10 habitat types that are present, however, only four are considered forested: Redwood, Douglas-fir, Montane Hardwood-Conifer, and Montane Hardwood. Three non-forested vegetative habitat types are present and intermixed within the forested habitat types: Perennial Grassland, Coastal Scrub, and Wet Meadow. Three additional habitat types classified by Green Diamond within their ownership are Riverine, Urban, and Barren. Redwood is the most common forest habitat type and is also the most common habitat type of all habitats present. Redwood is followed in relative abundance by Douglas-fir, Montane Hardwood- Conifer, and Montane Hardwood. Douglas-fir and Montane Hardwood are found primarily within the eastern portion of the Green Diamond ownership. In contrast, Redwood and Montane Hardwood- Conifer are found primarily in the western portion of the Green Diamond ownership, closer to the coast. Montane Hardwood-Conifer is found only in the northwestern portion of the Green Diamond ownership. Hardwood species that are represented within the Montane Hardwood and Montane Hardwood-Conifer habitat types include red alder, tanoak, Pacific madrone, Oregon white oak, and black oak. Red alder is the dominant overstory species in the riparian areas. Tanoak and Pacific madrone occur along ridge lines and mid-slope areas and are intermixed with conifers. Oregon white oak and black oak occur in the drier transition zones between Douglas-fir forests and prairies. A long history of timber management in the region has resulted in a mixture of even-aged stands. The general stand composition and structure within the Green Diamond ownership were determined using

PR0105180936SAC 3-5 CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

GIS data and CDFW’s CWHR criteria. Most older vegetation is located within the drainage basins in the Coastal Lagoons, Mad River, and Little River areas. Table 3-3 provides a summary of forest age classes and corresponding CWHR size classes for forestlands in the Plan Area. Table 3-4 shows canopy closure statistics by CWHR size class in the Plan Area. 3.9.3 CWHR Classifications This sub section describes the most abundant CWHR habitat types found in the Plan Area. Known or potential wildlife use within defined habitat types is described primarily using the CWHR system (Mayer and Laudenslayer, 1988). 3.9.3.1 Redwood This habitat type refers to the mixed conifer forests that occur in the moist coastal environments at elevations ranging from sea level up to 3,000 feet. Coastal redwoods are found throughout this range, but are only dominant in a narrow band within 10 miles of the coast. Further inland, Douglas-fir becomes the dominant canopy species. Common associated species include Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis), grand fir (Abies grandis), Pacific madrone, and tanoak. Western red cedar (Thuja plicata) and western hemlock are present, but are not significant species in the canopy. The moist climate and fertile soils result in a generally lush understory growth of shrubs, ferns, herbs, and grasses. Common understory species include Oregon-grape (Mahonia aquifolium), salal (Gaultheria shallon), coast rhododendron (Rhododendron macrophyllum), ocean spray (Holodiscus discolor), huckleberry (Vaccinium parvifolium), snowbrush ceanothus (Ceonothus velutinus), western sword fern (Polystichum munitum), deer fern (Blechnum spicant), and salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis). This habitat type typically recovers rapidly from disturbance. Within 10 years, the early herbaceous vegetation is replaced by shrubs and redwood sprouts. Within 30 to 60 years, the shrub stage is followed by a mixture of conifers and hardwoods, with persistent shrubs remaining in the understory. A mature stand dominated by redwoods with a second canopy layer of Douglas-fir requires at least 150 years to develop. Over 64 percent of the Redwood habitat type within the Plan Area is characterized as having a dense canopy (Table 3-5). The Redwood habitat type supports a high diversity of wildlife species. Nearly 200 species of wildlife use redwoods for food, cover, and other habitat needs including the Covered Species and their prey. 3.9.3.2 Douglas-fir This habitat type is widespread throughout northwestern California, including Del Norte and Humboldt counties, at elevations ranging from 500 to 4,500 feet. Most Douglas-fir habitat type is found within the eastern portion of the Green Diamond ownership, and very little is found in the southern areas of Green Diamond ownership. About 60 percent of this habitat type is characterized as having a dense canopy within the Plan Area (Table 3-5). Douglas-fir is the characteristic dominant species, and associated species of conifers and hardwoods vary depending on soils, moisture, topography, and disturbance history. Snags and downed logs, an important structural component of this habitat, increase in density or volume with stand age. In the absence of fire or other disturbance, western hemlock may occur as a co-dominant with Douglas-fir and tanoak in areas transitional to redwood forests. In the absence of disturbance, climax stands typically develop in 80 to 250 years. The Douglas-fir habitat occurs within a matrix of habitat types and supports a high diversity of wildlife species, including the Covered Species and their prey 3.9.3.3 Montane Hardwood-Conifer This habitat type occurs throughout California and occurs extensively in both Del Norte and Humboldt counties on coarse, well-drained soils, at elevations ranging from 1,000 to 4,000 feet. Approximately 57 percent of Montane Hardwood-Conifer in the Del Norte County portion of the Plan Area and

3-6 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

approximately 33 percent of Montane Hardwood-Conifer in the Humboldt County portion the Plan Area is characterized as having a dense canopy (Table 3-5). This habitat type is a transition between the conifer dominated forests and the montane hardwood habitat (described below), and is distinguished by having at least one-third of the canopy species comprised of hardwoods and at least one-third conifers. Typical canopy species include ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), black oak, tanoak, Pacific madrone, and golden chinquapin (Chrysolepis chrysophylla). The multilayered dense canopy precludes much understory vegetation; however, shrubs often become abundant following disturbance. Immediately after disturbance, resprouting hardwoods dominate with a tall stand of mixed conifers and hardwoods developing within 15 to 20 years. The conifers generally grow faster, reaching moderate size in 30 to 50 years, while the hardwoods require 60 to 90 years to fully recover. Older trees and snags provide important habitat for cavity nesters, and many hardwoods are masting (seed-/nut-producing) species characterized by periodic prolific seed production. The seeds provide food resources for birds and mammals. 3.9.3.4 Montane Hardwood This habitat ranges throughout California mostly west of the Cascade-Sierra Nevada crest. A typical montane hardwood habitat is composed of a pronounced hardwood tree layer, with an infrequent and poorly developed shrub stratum, and a sparse herbaceous layer. Tree heights tend to be uniform at most ages in mature stands where hardwoods occur, but subordinate to conifers. Snags and downed woody material generally are sparse throughout the montane hardwood habitat. Over 30 percent of this habitat type within the Plan Area is considered to have a dense canopy (Table 3-5). Bird and animal species characteristic of this habitat type include disseminators of acorns and other species that use acorns as a major food source. 3.9.3.5 Perennial Grassland Perennial grassland habitat type, including coastal prairie, is restricted to the central and northern coastal areas. This habitat type often occurs on ridges and south-facing slopes intermixed with forest and scrub habitats. Grasslands provide important habitat for numerous wildlife species. 3.9.3.6 Riverine, Barren, and Wet Meadows Riverine is a non-forested classification refers strictly to waterways. Barren is a non-forested land cover type includes rock pits, slides, and outcrops. Wet meadows occur extensively throughout the Klamath Mountain ranges at elevations ranging from 4,600 to 6,000 feet on soils saturated throughout the growing season. Wet meadows provide important habitat for numerous bird species, including waterfowl, as well as mammals. Long-term succession eventually leads to replacement of wet meadows with forests; however, significant disturbance, such as overgrazing or altered hydrology, is generally required to allow tree invasion to occur. 3.9.4 Streams/Aquatic Habitat Green Diamond manages special-status aquatic resources through implementation of its 2007 AHCP/CCAA (Green Diamond, 2007). The AHCP/CCAA (Green Diamond, 2007) presents in detail the aquatic habitats and open drainage features within the AHCP/CCAA Primary Assessment Area (which is roughly equivalent to the Plan Area under the FHCP) harboring or potentially harboring special-status aquatic species. Green Diamond’s fee-owned lands contain more than 2,500 miles of Class I and II streams, 86 percent of which are Class II watercourses. Class I streams are fish-bearing drainages, while Class II streams are those drainages that provide habitat for aquatic nonfish species (e.g., amphibians and turtles).

PR0105180936SAC 3-7 CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The AHCP/CCAA targets the conservation of aquatic species and resources within a defined Plan Area (roughly equivalent to the Plan Area) and provides protection of riparian forest stands and geologically unstable areas. Because of Green Diamond’s implementation of the AHCP/CCAA, very little to no timber harvesting activities occur within riparian management zones and unstable areas (together comprising approximately 25 percent of the ownership). 3.10 Covered Species This subsection describes species proposed for coverage under the Proposed Action and the other action alternatives within the Plan Area. 3.10.1 Northern Spotted Owl 3.10.1.1 Species Ecology, Life History, and Regulatory Status For details on the ecology, life history, and regulatory status of the NSO, refer to the listing notice, recovery plan, and revised critical habitat for the NSO (USFWS, 1990, 2011a, 2012). The NSO was listed under the ESA as threatened in 1990. Critical habitat was revised in 2012. The recovery plan for the NSO was completed in 2011. The stated goal of the recovery plan is “to improve the status of the species so it can be removed from protection under the ESA.” Specific recovery objectives within the Recovery Plan are: • Spotted owl populations are sufficiently large and distributed such that the species no longer requires listing under the ESA. • Adequate habitat is available for NSO and will continue to exist to allow the species to persist without the protection of the ESA. • The effects of threats have been reduced or eliminated such that NSO populations are stable or increasing and spotted owls are unlikely to become threatened again in the foreseeable future. 3.10.1.2 Suitable Habitat When the NSO HCP was developed by Green Diamond (Simpson, 1992), suitable NSO nesting and roosting habitat on the Green Diamond ownership was defined as coastal redwood and Douglas-fir forests greater than 30 years old. Specifically, stands 31 to 45 years old were used primarily for foraging and roosting, and nesting occurred occasionally in these stands. Stands greater than 45 years old were considered “prime” nesting and roosting habitat, as well as foraging habitat. An NSO telemetry study conducted by Green Diamond from 1998 to 2000 showed that owls at night tended to be found low on slopes (as opposed to near ridge tops) in areas composed of forest stands where approximately 70 percent of trees were at least 41 years old, with a high percentage of hardwoods (e.g., tanoak). Nocturnal habitat selection/use was highest where the nearest forest stand to the marked owl’s location consisted of trees 6 to 20 years old or 21 to 40 years old. Nocturnal habitat selection/use was lower if the nearest stand was either 0 to 5, or at least 41 years old. Green Diamond concluded that, at night, NSOs on the Green Diamond ownership were most likely to be found in older, more complex forest stands that were in proximity to younger stands with abundant prey. The reasons for selection of lower slope positions were not readily apparent (Ten-Year Report, see AFWO website). To further refine its understanding of NSO habitat, Green Diamond conducted a study from 1990 to 2003 of the habitat selected for nesting on its managed timberlands. Based on analyses of the locations of 182 successful nests (i.e., nests that fledged at least one young), Green Diamond found that the relative probability of locating a successful NSO nest increased with increasing stand age and proximity (within 600 meters) of the nest to an early successional (younger) forest stand. The probability was greatest in stands with approximately 55 percent basal area of residual older trees, 30 percent

3-8 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

hardwood basal area, and nocturnal habitat within 400 meters. This result suggested that nesting NSOs were selecting older, more complex forest stands in close proximity to potential foraging areas. Modeling runs over the 1992 NSO HCP term, projected that the “best” nesting habitat would increase from 20 percent in 1992 and 26 percent in 2002, to 42 percent in 2012, and to 54 percent of Green Diamond’s ownership by 2022. The “drivers” of these future increases in high quality spotted owl nesting habitat on Green Diamond’s ownership appear to be primarily related to continued use of clear cut harvest areas of a smaller size and maturing of timber stands growing in larger riparian areas produced through implementation of Green Diamond’s AHCP/CCAA (Green Diamond, 2007), both of which are projected to increase habitat heterogeneity in future managed landscapes within the Green Diamond ownership. 3.10.1.3 Diet Studies investigating the dietary composition of NSOs within Northern California have shown woodrats as a dominant item in the NSO prey base (i.e., Barrows, 1980; Zabel et al., 1995; Schmidt, 2005). Green Diamond NSO dietary studies suggest that woodrats are widespread across the Plan Area, and that they provide a relatively stable prey base for NSO (Ten-Year Report, see AFWO website). Within the Plan Area, NSOs eat a wide variety of prey, but nocturnal, arboreal, or semi-arboreal small mammal species generally dominate their diets (Table 3-6). Studies of woodrat abundance and habitat use on Green Diamond lands (Hamm, 1995; Hughes, 2006) indicated that woodrats were present in all stand ages represented on the Green Diamond ownership, but were most abundant in the young seral stages (5 to 30 years) of redwood and Douglas-fir forest. These results were noted by Green Diamond as consistent with the findings of Sakai and Noon (1993), where dusky-footed woodrat abundance was greatest in association with the sapling brushy pole timber stage (15 to 40 years) of Douglas-fir forests in northwest California. Sakai and Noon (1993) also reported that woodrats were absent in small sawtimber (approximately 21 to 60 years) and large sawtimber (approximately 61 to 80 years), which is similar to the two older age classes of forest assessed in the Green Diamond woodrat studies. Hughes (2006) in the Douglas-fir region of the Green Diamond ownership found a similar pattern in abundance where woodrats were uncommon in age 0 to 5 years, most abundant in stands 5 to 20 years old, moderately abundant in stands 21 to 40 years old, and rare or absent in stands more than 41 years old. As shown in Table 3-6, tree voles (Arborimus spp.) are also a very important component of the diet of NSOs on Green Diamond lands. Red tree voles and Sonoma tree voles are both found within the Action Area. Additional information on tree vole’s presence and habitat on Green Diamond lands, within the Action Area, can be found in the following subsections. Prey availability associated with heterogeneous habitats is thought to positively influence the demographic responses of NSOs (Meyer et al., 1998; Anthony et al., 2000, 2002; Franklin et al, 2000; Franklin and Gutierrez, 2002). The positive relationship between habitat edge and NSO reproductive success in the Klamath Province of California may reflect availability of dusky-footed woodrats (Neotoma fuscipes) (Ward et al., 1998), which are found in high densities in early seral or ecotonal habitats (Sakai and Noon, 1993, 1997; Hamm and Diller, 2009), as well as in older forests (Carey et al., 1999; Raphael, 1988). However, even where northern flying squirrels are the dominant prey, some habitat heterogeneity may provide access to a wider range of potential prey species, such as bushy-tailed woodrats (Neotoma cinerea), pikas (Ochotona princeps), and snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus) that occupy edge habitats (Courtney et al., 2004). Home range size is also reportedly related to the primary prey species consumed by spotted owls, with larger home ranges occurring where flying squirrels dominated the diet and smaller home ranges where woodrats dominated the diet (Courtney et al., 2004). 3.10.1.4 Rangewide Population Status and Management This subsection describes the historical and current population status of the NSO throughout its geographic range, and discusses factors influencing its demographic responses.

PR0105180936SAC 3-9 CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Conservation Planning The Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP), signed in 1994, established a forest reserve based system, primarily on Federal lands, designed to address the conservation needs of the species by providing for suitable habitat managed across a variety of ecological conditions within the spotted owl’s range to reduce risk of local or widespread extirpation. The primary expectation for private land is for it to contribute demographic support to and/or connectivity with NWFP lands. In California, the FPR governs timber harvest on private lands and require NSO surveys in suitable habitat and provide for protection of habitat around nest areas. Population Estimates and Trends Three commonly reported indices to measure population estimates and trends are fecundity, apparent survival, and annual rate of population change. Fecundity is a measure of the reproductive performance of a species or individual. Fecundity as used in NSO analyses is typically defined as the average annual number of female offspring produced and fledged per female owl. Annual estimates of fecundity and number of young fledged vary due to precipitation and temperature, every other year nesting patterns of spotted owls, age of female, habitat, and influence by barred owls. The long-term average fecundity for adult (3 years and older) NSO females throughout the U.S. range is 0.309 (Dugger et al., 2016). Apparent Survival is defined as the probability that a non-juvenile owl that is alive and on the ownership currently will survive to some later time and be available for detection on the ownership. Survival rates for spotted owls are high with low annual variability, compared to fecundity, which is highly variable from year to year. Sensitivity analyses conducted on population dynamics of NSOs indicated that annual rates of population change were most influenced by changes in adult survival (Noon and Biles, 1990; Lande, 1991). Annual Rate of Population Change essentially considers the combined effects of apparent survival and recruitment to produce an estimate of population stability or change. A lambda of 1.0 represents a stable population, while values greater than 1 and less than 1 represent increasing and declining populations, respectively. Lambda values can be converted to a proportional change in estimated population size (= realized population change), relative to population size in the initial year of analysis. An estimate of the annual rate of population change can be used to determine if territorial NSOs are being replaced in a geographically open population (Anthony et al., 2006). An NSO demographic study recently completed at 11 demographic study areas (DSAs) in Washington, Oregon, and California from 1985 to 2013 (Dugger et al., 2016) indicates that declining NSO population trends and demographic parameters documented earlier analyses (i.e., Franklin et al., 1999; Anthony et al., 2006; Forsman et al., 2011) are continuing (Table 3-7). Important facts and findings from the recent rangewide NSO demographic study (Dugger et al., 2016) include: • NSO demographics were estimated within a total area of 19,813 square kilometers (km2), which represents about 9 percent of rangewide NSO habitat. • NSO fecundity declined through time at 8 of 11 DSAs. • NSO Apparent Survival declined through time at 8 of 11 DSAs. • The annual rate of NSO population change (lambda) declined at 7 of 11 DSAs, with the average rate of annual change estimated at -3.8 percent (range of -1.2 to -8.4 percent). • Competition with barred owls was the single, biggest factor in declines of rangewide NSO demographic parameters. Harvest-related changes in habitat composition, and poor weather, also influenced NSO demographic parameters. However, habitat improvements realized through forest

3-10 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

management may now be overshadowed and rendered less effective, or ineffective, by barred owl competition. Loss of Suitable Habitat The NSO was listed under the ESA as threatened throughout its range primarily due to loss and adverse modification of suitable habitat as a result of timber harvesting and exacerbated by catastrophic events such as fire, volcanic eruption, disease, and wind storms. The Service estimated that NSO habitat, as understood at that time (i.e., old growth forest), had declined anywhere from 60 to as much as 88 percent since the early 1800s (USFWS, 1990). This loss was concentrated mostly at lower elevations and in the Coast Ranges, attributed primarily to timber harvest and land conversion activities, and to a lesser degree to natural perturbations. At the time of listing, habitat loss due to timber harvest ranged from 1 to 1.5 percent per year on National Forests in California and in Oregon and Washington, respectively (USFWS, 1990). The Service indicated an overall decline of approximately 2.11 percent in the amount of NSO suitable habitat on Federal lands due to range-wide management activities from 1994 to 2003. Over 75 percent of this realized loss occurred in Oregon. The Service reported that similar range-wide habitat trends on non-Federal lands were not available (USFWS, 2004a). Effects of Wildfires, Insects, and Disease on NSO Suitable Habitat From 1994 to 2003, approximately 3 percent of range-wide NSO suitable habitat was lost to natural events, including wildfire (75 percent) and insects/disease (25 percent) (USFWS, 2004a). Data summarizing suitable habitat losses from natural events on non-Federal lands was not reported by USFWS (2004a). The effects of wildfire on NSOs appear to be variable across its range, and variable with the severity/intensity of the burn. In general, severe fire appears to adversely affect more substantially the species in the northern part of its range where northern flying squirrels comprise a larger portion of its diet. In contrast, intense fires occurring near the southern portion of the NSO range, where dusky- footed woodrats form a major component of NSO diet, appear to affect NSOs to a lesser extent. This appears to reflect the preference of early seral habitat by woodrats, as opposed to the preference of closed-canopy forestland habitat by flying squirrels. Overall, the effects of fire, insects, and disease on NSO roosting and nesting habitat have been relatively insubstantial on non-Federal lands, totaling -0.6 percent from 1994 to 2007. During the same time period, losses to NSO roosting and nesting habitat on Federal lands totaled -2.8 percent (USFWS, 2011a). Sudden oak death was listed by the Service as having the potential to substantially modify NSO suitable habitat structure (USFWS, 2004a). Sudden oak death is a fungus-like pathogen (Phytopthora ramorum) that kills important tree species comprising NSO suitable habitat, including Douglas-fir, coast redwood, tanoak, Pacific madrone, Canyon live oak, and California black oak. The Service did not specifically quantify the effects or potential effects of sudden oak death to NSO suitable habitat. However, the Revised Recovery Plan for NSO (USFWS, 2011a) continues to recognize sudden oak death as a potential stressor to NSO recovery, but does not expand on the information or argument presented by the Service (USFWS, 2004a). West Nile virus (reportedly having arrived in the U.S. around 1999) has the potential to adversely affect NSOs. The Service reported that 150 native bird species, including NSOs, have been affected by this pathogen. West Nile virus was not present at large within the range of the NSO at the time of the 5-year review (USFWS, 2004a), and is not discussed as a major stressor of NSOs in the Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS, 2011a). Barred Owl Effects on NSOs The Service now considers competition from the barred owl to pose a significant threat to the NSO. Within the Implementation Schedule of the Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS, 2011a), management of barred owls within the range of the NSO is considered a “Priority 1” action. Priority 1 actions are those that

PR0105180936SAC 3-11 CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT …must be taken to prevent extinction or prevent the species from declining irreversibly in the foreseeable future. Managing the potential negative effects of barred owl competition is an essential component of the recovery of the NSO (Buchanan et al., 2006; Gutierrez et al., 2007; Livezey, 2007). The Service has developed an EIS (USFWS, 2013) to assess the effects of barred owl removal experiments, which are proposed in the Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS, 2011a). Barred owls are slightly larger and more aggressive than spotted owls, and compete for the same habitat. Because barred owls may compete with spotted owls and may exclude them from substantial amounts of otherwise useable habitat (Hamer et al., 2007), safeguarding habitat alone may not be sufficient for spotted owl recovery, as barred owls may prevent or limit use of this habitat by NSOs. Barred owls are generalist predators, able to eat a much wider variety of food than NSOs (Livezey, 2007). Thus, barred owls are able to occupy habitat in much higher densities than spotted owls and tend to occupy smaller home ranges (Singleton et al., 2010). Because they also eat the prey of spotted owls, barred owls likely affect the food supply of the remaining spotted owls. In addition, barred owls are aggressive and may attack, or even kill, spotted owls. The competition for food and the aggressive nature of barred owls may explain why spotted owls are less likely to remain in their territories in the presence of barred owls. The range of the barred owl in the western U.S. now completely overlaps with the range of the NSO. Increased detections of barred owls in historical NSO territories is associated with a decrease in the number of spotted owls detected, a pattern that holds true across the range of the NSO (Olson et al., 2005; Forsman et al., 2011). NSO populations have declined at the greatest rate where barred owls have been present the longest. This pattern is consistent with a north to south expansion. Although NSO populations have been declining for many years, the presence of barred owls likely exacerbates the decline. Earlier demographic studies (Anthony et al., 2006) did not detect clear negative relationships between barred owl presence and declines in spotted owl populations, and modeling of co-occurrence of the two species in Oregon by Bailey et al. (2009) provided no evidence that barred owls excluded spotted owls from territories. However, more recent studies (Olson et al., 2005; Forsman et al., 2011) have established negative relationships between barred owl presence and declines in NSO population performance across the range of the subspecies. The most recently completed NSO meta analysis (Dugger et al., 2016) concludes that barred owls are the single most important factor influencing the rangewide decline of NSO demographic parameters. Currently in the HCP Plan Area, there could be 175-250 barred owls based on sites determined through auditory field detections of these owls during surveys for both barred and NSOs (Hamm, 2018). In the EIS area of analysis, which is approximately double the Plan Area, there could be as many as 450 barred owls based on the amount of potential habitat (Hamm, 2018), but without verification by field surveys. Climate and Climate Change Effects on NSOs Climate change, along with the effects of past land management practices, is exacerbating changes in forest ecosystem processes and dynamics to a greater degree than originally anticipated in the NWFP. This includes patterns of wildfire, insect outbreaks, drought, and disease (USFWS, 2011a). Current climate models project warmer, drier summers and warmer, wetter autumns and winters for the Pacific Northwest (Halofsky et al., 2017). While some studies suggest that changes in climate may benefit northern forestlands by lengthening the growing season, patterns of predicted change may increase the risk of wildfire and the incidence of insect and pathogen outbreaks, negatively affecting NSOs (Ager et al., 2007). On a shorter-term scale, climate and weather was shown to account for 84 and 78 percent of variation in annual NSO population change in the Tyee and Oregon Coast Range study areas of Glenn (2009).

3-12 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Drought or hot temperatures during the previous summer have been shown to reduce spotted owl recruitment and survival (Franklin et al., 2000; Glenn, 2009). Drier, warmer summers and drought conditions during the growing season strongly influence spotted owl food availability and the population sizes of small mammals (Glenn, 2009). Northern flying squirrels, for example, forage primarily on ectomycorrhizal fungi (truffles), many of which grow better under mesic, or moist, conditions (Lehmkuhl et al., 2004). Drier, warmer summers, or high-intensity fires, which such conditions support, may change the range or availability of these fungi, affecting northern flying squirrels and the spotted owls that prey on them. Periods of drought are associated with declines in annual survival rates for other raptors due to a presumed decrease in prey availability (Glenn, 2009). Survival, recruitment, and reproduction of NSOs have been shown to increase with precipitation in the late spring or summer (Olson et al., 2004; Glenn, 2009). Olson et al. (2004) found that while survival decreased with early-nesting season precipitation, it increased with late nesting season precipitation. This is probably due to an associated reduction in the potential for drought to occur. In addition to effects on habitat, the heat itself may have physiological effects on NSOs. Weathers et al. (2001) suggest California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) is less heat-tolerant than other owls responding to temperatures of 30 to 34°C (86 to 93°F) with increased breathing rates, fluffing of feathers, and wing drooping. NSOs in an earlier study (Barrows, 1981) showed signs of heat stress at even more modest temperatures of 27 to 31°C (81 to 88°F). The Service acknowledged that they had no current information on how heat stress affects survival or reproduction, but added that the presence of high-quality habitat appears to buffer the negative effects of cold, wet springs and winters on survival of spotted owls as well as mitigate the effects of heat (USFWS, 2011a). High-quality spotted owl habitat was defined in a Northern California study area as a mature or old growth core within a mosaic of different seral stages (Franklin et al., 2000). The high-quality habitat might help maintain a stable prey base, thereby reducing the cost of foraging during the early breeding season when energetic needs are high (Carey et al., 1992; Franklin et al., 2000). NSO Status and Management on the Green Diamond Ownership and Vicinity (Action Area) Since 1989, Green Diamond has surveyed all main contiguous land blocks and was able to locate virtually all known resident spotted owls by 1994. The results further indicated that NSOs were located throughout the ownership, but that notable differences in the density of NSOs sites existed. In general, densities were highest in regions with a mixture of mature second growth and young regenerating stands (high diversity of habitats). There was also a pattern of high density of NSO sites distributed lower on slopes along rivers and major creeks. A study based on 1990 to 1997 surveys indicated two regions (Korbel and Mad River) had the highest densities reported anywhere within the species’ range (Diller and Thome, 1999). Green Diamond’s surveys as part of the NSO HCP extend onto adjacent ownerships and additional NSO sites are located outside of the Plan Area. NSO sites outside of the Plan Area may also be affected by Green Diamond’s Covered Activities. The empirical counts of NSO sites within the Plan Area and a 0.5- mile buffer of the Plan Area are shown in Figure 3-2 (Appendix A). Suitable Habitat and Habitat Fitness Suitable foraging habitat was defined in the 1992 NSO HCP as forest stands greater than 30 years old, and suitable nesting and roosting habitat was defined as forest stands greater than 45 years old. The Environmental Assessment prepared by the Service for the NSO HCP projected that suitable habitat for NSOs (forest stands greater than 30 years old) would increase through time due to forest management practices and implementation of its proposed NSO HCP. As defined, suitable NSO habitat was modeled to increase from 38 to 61 percent of the ownership between 1991 and 2011. The actual abundance of NSO suitable habitat was 60 percent of the Green Diamond ownership in 2010, correlating very closely to the abundance of NSO habitat modeled in 1992(USFWS, 1992; Table 3-8).

PR0105180936SAC 3-13 CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Green Diamond notes that increases in riparian buffers associated with Class I (fish bearing) and Class II (provides habitat for non-fish aquatic life) streams since 1992, and increased protection of geologically unstable areas will result in more patches of older forests and increases in residual structure within Green Diamond’s ownership. Green Diamond estimates that mature trees associated with riparian management zones and geologically unstable areas occupy approximately 25 percent of Green Diamond’s future forested landscape (Ten-Year Report; see AFWO website). In some areas with multiple drainage tributary junctions and/or unstable inner gorges, these areas may contribute to the habitat suitable of core areas for NSO roosting and nesting habitat. In other areas, the linear structure associated with watercourses will most likely serve as foraging corridors and residual structure within younger stands. By 2005, 58 NSO sites were documented within the 39 set-asides (USFWS, 2004b). Currently, 22 active NSO sites are located within 17 of 40 set-asides (i.e., 23 set-asides vacant) totaling approximately 13,229 acres. Set-asides have provided mixed benefits to NSOs since establishment in 1992. Green Diamond’s Ten-Year Report (see AFWO website) showed that areas adjacent to set-asides performed better (with respect to fecundity, apparent survival, and population change) than sites within set-asides. One set- aside has never had NSO occupancy or use. Green Diamond has characterized the condition of habitat for NSOs on its ownership by estimating NSO habitat fitness. Habitat fitness measures the contribution of an area to NSO survival and reproduction. It is calculated as a function of fecundity and apparent survival. Areas with greater habitat fitness are capable of supporting stable, or increasing, “source” populations, while those areas of low habitat fitness are associated with habitat “sinks,” or declining populations (FHCP Effects Analysis of EIS Alternatives on NSO Habitat, see AFWO website). NSO Population Trends Green Diamond initiated mark-recapture studies throughout its owned-land in 1990 to estimate key demographic parameters and trends in the population. Along with 11 other range-wide demographic studies of NSO, Green Diamond participated in four meta-analyses in 1998, 2004, 2009, and 2014. The Green Diamond DSA has the largest NSO dataset with 982 non-juvenile NSO banded, 4,733 total encounter histories, and 1,998 assessments of nesting (fledging) success (Dugger et al., 2016). Territory occupancy rates were declining in all study areas throughout the range of the NSO. The probability of territory occupancy declined from 92 percent in 1999 to 55 percent in 2013 within Green Diamond’s study area (FHCP, see AFWO website). The most consistent pattern in NSO territory occupancy dynamics was the strong positive association between the presence of barred owls and territory extinction rates of NSO in all 11 study areas (Dugger et al., 2016). There was high annual variation in reproduction for NSO throughout their range (Dugger et al., 2016). For many study areas, this annual fluctuation took on an even-odd year pattern as can be seen for the California study areas during the 1990s, but aside from this, the covariates associated with the variation in fecundity among the different study areas tended to be highly variable and complex. For the Green Diamond study area, mean minimum winter temperature (lower = lower fecundity) and total winter precipitation (higher = lower fecundity) were included in the competitive fecundity models. The Green Diamond study had a negative slope indicating an overall decline in fecundity. Because of this overall decline, apparently driven primarily by weather effects, mean estimates of fecundity derived from the first 18 years of the study (0.308) were greater than the estimates from the last 5 years of the study (0.182). Barred Owls Between 1993 and 2005, 43 barred owl sites were located on Green Diamond lands (Ten-Year Report, see AFWO website). These sites were based on barred owl responses incidental to spotted owl surveys. The maximum number of barred owl sites appeared to peak at 78 in 2015 (Appendix A, Figure 3-3), but

3-14 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Green Diamond’s FHCP notes that estimate should be viewed conservatively, since “floating” (non- territorial) barred owls may be more inclined to vocalize, while nesting individuals remain relatively silent. Barred owls had a significant adverse effect on NSO fecundity and apparent survival within the Green Diamond demographic study area (Forsman et al., 2011), and rangewide (Dugger et al., 2016). Green Diamond initiated a barred owl removal experiment in 2009 that involved removal of barred owls from approximately one-half of the ownership (treatment area). This focused effort followed initial barred owl collection efforts in 2006 (seven barred owls from four historical NSO sites) that showed NSOs were relatively quick to recolonize available sites. In 2010, the Service and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) (now CDFW) permitted Green Diamond to implement a barred owl removal study within the Green Diamond ownership. A detailed review of the barred owl removal experiment with complete references is provided in the FHCP and Diller at al. (2016). Some important demographic results were that NSO site occupancy was declining in both treated and untreated areas, but following treatment, occupancy stabilized and began to increase in the treated areas while it continued to decline in the untreated areas (FHCP, Figure 4-8A; see AFWO website). Potentially, the cause for this was that barred owls caused more than a four-fold increase in the estimate of NSO site extinction (i.e., probability that a NSO site will be abandoned), but following barred owl removal, the extinction rate in the treated areas returned to a level comparable to sites where barred owls were never present. This provides further evidence that barred owls are contributing to the increases in spotted owl extinction rates and that removal efforts, at least in the short term, were effective. Apparent survival in both treated and untreated areas was declining 2 percent per year prior to removal, but following treatment, mean apparent survival increased to 0.859 in the treated areas, but not significantly different than the 0.822 for the untreated areas. The mechanism by which barred owls affected apparent survival in NSO is not known, but Green Diamond believes it was unlikely that it was due to direct effects on NSO mortality rates. It is known that barred owls can displace NSO from their territory (Wiens et al., 2014). Green Diamond also made anecdotal observations of spotted owls that no longer vocalized following occupation by barred owls at or near their territory core, but Green Diamond still observed them when they flew up to take a proffered mouse. Therefore, Green Diamond hypothesizes that release from barred owl influence creates the appearance of increasing apparent survival by allowing displaced spotted owls in the floater population to regain a territory and become more readily detected. Green Diamond has empirical observations of spotted owls recolonizing sites within as little as 13 days provides support for this hypothesis. The most dramatic demographic result was that prior to treatment, mean lambda was declining 3.6 percent for all areas, but post treatment, mean lambda was 1.029 (2.9 percent annual increase) and 0.87 for treated and untreated areas, respectively (FHCP, Figure 4-9; see AFWO website). Just as with survival, the mechanism by which the treatment effect influenced lambda is not known. If the sharp increase in lambda seen in this study were the result of increases in fecundity and actual survival within the treated population, Green Diamond could have expected a delay or lag of several years in the lambda response. Instead, the immediate increase suggested that similar to the effect on survival, much of the increase was probably due to displaced NSOs in the floater population regaining territorial status and being detected. Furthermore, creating an area free of barred owls may have increased the probability that floater NSOs rebuffed in adjacent untreated areas could colonize the treated areas. Fecundity was the only demographic parameter for which there was no significant treatment response. The lack of evidence of an effect of barred owl removal on NSO fecundity was likely to be at least partly caused by the high annual variation in fecundity. Furthermore, the competitive interaction between barred owls and spotted owls often results in the displacement of NSOs (Wiens et al., 2014), and when this occurred, Green Diamond was generally unable to detect the female NSO. This manifested itself as a reduction in occupancy in the untreated versus treated areas, but females that were not detected in

PR0105180936SAC 3-15 CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

each year were excluded from an estimate of fecundity by protocol. Although Green Diamond did not find evidence of a change in the number of young fledged per breeding female that they could detect, the total productivity may have changed in the treated compared to the untreated areas. Empirical counts of the number fledged at active NSO sites post treatment (2009 to 2014) indicated that only 36 fledglings were documented from an annual mean of 49.8 active owl sites in the untreated areas. In contrast, during the same period, 133 fledglings were observed from an annual mean of 104.2 active sites in the treated areas. Although based on a small number of case studies (n = 7) (Diller et al., 2016), the empirical observations of NSO recolonization suggested that NSOs were likely to recolonize their former territories following removal of barred owls. The rapid recolonization of four sites by the original resident NSOs also indicated that, at least in some cases, the resident owls apparently remain in the vicinity of, or regularly investigate their former territory for years after being displaced by barred owls. These results also suggest that barred owls are not simply colonizing areas vacated by declining NSO populations, but rather that barred owls are actively displacing NSOs, as described by Wiens et al. (2014). The high, and sometimes rapid, rate of recolonization by both original and new NSOs following barred owl removal suggests that at least in some cases, barred owls were keeping the NSOs from preferred sites. The sites that were colonized by barred owls also had high continuous occupancy by pairs of NSOs with high reproductive success before barred owls invaded, which is further evidence that these sites were in high demand by NSOs. For Green Diamond’s study area, which is located within an intensively managed landscape where many of NSOs occupy young-growth sites that differed relative to other demographic study areas, barred owls tend to occupy the sites with more classic late-seral habitat elements. 3.10.2 Fisher 3.10.2.1 Species Description and Life History Fishers (Pekania pennanti) (along with weasels, martens, mink, otters, badgers, and wolverine) belong to the family Mustelidae. They have a slender body with relatively short legs and a long well-furred tail. Fishers are dark to light brown over most of their bodies with white or cream patches distributed on their undersurfaces, but they appear uniformly black from a distance. They have a relatively short muzzle with small rounded ears, which gives their head a somewhat bear-like appearance. Fisher females are smaller than males, with females weighing up to 5.5 pounds and males weighing up to 12 pounds. Distribution Fishers are found in the northern coniferous and mixed forests of Canada and northern contiguous U.S., from the mountainous areas in the southern Yukon and Labrador Provinces in Canada southward to central California and Wyoming, the Great Lakes, New England, and Appalachian regions (Graham and Graham, 1994; Powell, 1993). Historically, in western North America, the range of fishers extended from northern British Columbia to central California, and east through northern Idaho, Montana, and likely into portions of Wyoming. Throughout the Pacific states, they were historically found most often in low to mid-elevation forests, up to 8,200 feet (2,500 meters) (Grinnell et al., 1937; Schempf and White, 1977; Aubry and Houston, 1992). In California specifically, fishers were once thought to be distributed throughout most of the Sierra Nevada, southern Cascades, and northern Coast Ranges (Grinnell, 1933). The current distribution of fishers is much reduced from the historical distribution (Gibilisco, 1994). The distribution has recovered since the 1950s in some of the central and northeastern areas, a change attributed to factors such as trapping closures and reintroductions (Brander and Books, 1973; Powell and Zielinski, 1994). Goldman (1935) recognized three subspecies of fishers in North America and more recent genetic studies have supported this with evidence of population subdivision in fishers, especially in the western U.S. and Canada (Drew et al., 2003; Aubry and Lewis, 2003; Wisely et al., 2004). In further contrast to

3-16 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

historical research (Grinnell, 1933; Hagmeier, 1956) that determined subspeciation was not warranted and all fishers in North America should be considered as one group (Martes pennanti), Wisely et al. (2004) demonstrated that genetic diversity (in the west coast population) follows a latitudinal gradient from British Columbia to the southern Sierra Nevada, with diversity increasing in a northerly direction. Two disjunct populations of fishers are known to occur in California. One occupies the west slope of the southern Sierra Nevada Mountains and the other is found approximately 270 miles north in the Klamath Mountains and Coast Ranges of northwestern California (430 kilometers) (Zielinski et al., 1995). The northern population of fisher differs strongly in genetic makeup from the southern Sierra population (Drew et al., 2003; Schwartz, 2010) and preliminary analyses suggests these two California populations have been separated for thousands of years (Schwartz, 2010). Much of the Coast Range, including habitats in Marin, Sonoma, and most of Mendocino County, no longer appear to support fishers. They are generally absent between the Pit River in the northern Sierra Nevada/Cascades to the Merced River in the southern Sierra Nevada Mountains (CDFG, 2010b) as well. Future genetics work may likely provide additional information regarding the current distribution and distinction of fisher populations in California. Reproduction Fishers have low annual reproductive capacity (Heinemeyer and Jones, 1994; Lewis and Stinson, 1998) and due to delayed implantation, females cannot give birth for the first time until they reach at least 2 years of age. In a meta-analysis of regional fisher studies, Truex et al. (1998) found that reproductive success appeared to vary from year to year, with various studies reporting from 14 to 73 percent of females lactating during various years. Additionally, a study in the Hoopa Valley of Northern California reported that 62 percent of denning opportunities resulted in the weaning of at least one kit from 2005 to 2008 (Higley and Mathews, 2009). 3.10.2.2 Suitable Habitat The fisher is considered a late-successional forest habitat specialist (Buskirk and Zielinski, 2003). Throughout its range, fishers are associated with conifer and mixed conifer forests, mature forests with large decadent trees that provide resting and den sites, such as platforms and cavities. In California, fishers have been found to select late-successional forest structures for resting and denning, while they may select younger forests for foraging (Zielinski et al., 1999). Forest habitats suitable for resting and denning do not necessarily have to be late-successional, but may be younger forests which contain remnant structures suitable for denning or resting (Klug, 1997; Thompson, 2008). Forest cover likely provides many benefits to fishers, including protection from predators, reduced energy expenditures due to proximity of foraging and resting sites, favorable microclimates, and increased prey abundance and vulnerability (Buskirk and Powell, 1994; Powell and Zielinski, 1994). Fishers use a variety of forest types in California, including redwood, Douglas-fir, Douglas-fir – tanoak, white fir, mixed conifer, mixed conifer-hardwood, and ponderosa pine (Klug, 1997; Truex et al., 1998; Zielinski et al., 2004b). Buskirk and Powell (1994) note that forest structures providing successful foraging habitat, while still providing resting and denning habitat, may be of greater importance than actual tree species composition. The important function of forest structures is to support a high diversity of prey, lead to increased vulnerability of prey to fishers, and provide denning and resting sites (Powell and Zielinski, 1994). Forest canopy cover appears to be one of these important structural components, as moderate and dense canopy cover has been an important predictor of fisher occurrence at the landscape scale (Truex et al., 1998; Carroll et al., 1999; Zielinski et al., 2004b; Davis et al., 2007). Dark (1997) evaluated 1-kilometer radial plots at sample stations in the Eastern Klamath region. Results from this study indicate that fishers prefer habitats consisting of Douglas-fir with greater than 50 percent canopy cover, few barren areas, and greater density of low use roads. The work of Carroll et al.

PR0105180936SAC 3-17 CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

(1999) using data from trackplates and cameras in the Klamath region and adjacent coastal areas supports the conclusions of Dark (1997). Several studies report the disproportionate use of riparian areas by fishers (Buck et al., 1983; Rosenberg and Raphael, 1986; Aubry and Houston, 1992; Jones and Garton, 1994; Zielinski et al., 2004b). Although the reasons for this association are unclear, it is likely fishers select riparian areas because they typically contain a greater abundance of the structural features and other attributes that fishers use (such as large trees, higher volumes of downed woody debris, dense canopy, and a more abundant/accessible prey base). Rest Sites Rest sites have structures that provide protection from unfavorable weather and predators. Numerous studies in the western U.S. demonstrate that fishers select resting habitat containing stands with large trees and snags, coarse woody-debris, dense canopy cover with multiple layers, large diameter hardwoods, and steep slopes near water (Dark, 1997; Truex et al., 1998; Self and Kerns, 2001; Mazzoni, 2002; Zielinski et al., 2004b). Fishers use a variety of habitat features for resting which include, but are not limited to, live tree cavities (preferred for maternal or natal den sites), tree canopies, mistletoe platforms, snags, hollow logs, fallen trees, and ground cavities (Heinemeyer and Jones, 1994; Self and Kerns, 1995; Aubry et al., 2002; Mazzoni, 2002; USFWS, 2004b; Zielinski et al., 2004b). These resting and denning structures typically consist of larger diameter trees and are often atypical within a patch (Weir and Harestad, 2003). Several studies have documented mean tree diameters used for rest sites ranging from 76 to 110.1 centimeters for conifers, and 74.6 to 107 centimeters for hardwoods (Higley et al., 1998; Self and Kerns, 2001). The majority of these sites were found in mistletoe of live Douglas-fir, with fewer rest sites occurring in snags or hardwoods. On other industrial landscapes in northwestern California, dwarf mistletoes in western hemlocks, large branches and mammal nests in Douglas-fir, and cedar cavities were primarily selected by fishers for resting sites (USFWS, 2004b). Mazzoni (2002) documented the mean diameter of fisher rest sites in the southern Sierra Nevada range as 95 centimeters for live trees, and 116 centimeters for snags. According to Powell and Zielinski (1994), canopy coverage plays a major role in the selection of rest sites. Self and Kerns (2001) frequently found resting sites in areas exhibiting canopy cover exceeding 60 percent. Mazzoni (2002) found canopy cover at rest sites of fisher averaged 73 percent, while canopy cover at random sites averaged 56 percent. Aubry and Raley (2006) found mean canopy cover at denning and resting sites in Oregon to be 80 percent or greater. Dark (1997) found no significant differences between fisher rest sites and where fishers were detected using track plates and found that fisher rest site buffers had greater amounts of 50 to 75 percent canopy cover and a greater amount of Douglas-fir than stations where fishers were not detected. In addition, Dark (1997) noted that fishers tend to occupy areas with less habitat fragmentation and less human activity. Den Sites Rest sites used by fishers are relatively more numerous and more easily located than natal and maternal den sites, and therefore, better understood. In contrast to rest sites, which may occur in live trees, snags, logs, and other structures, dens are almost always located in large, live trees or snags (Powell and Zielinski, 1994) with cavities large enough for kits to be born and raised. Aubry and Raley (2006) found that female fishers typically selected live trees or snags with openings to hollows created by heartwood decay. Most openings were likely excavated by pileated woodpeckers, while naturally occurring access was attributed to small knot holes and/or narrow cracks in trees. Self and Callas’s (2006) work supported these findings and found that all dens were located in cavities of standing trees, primarily in black oak and, to a lesser extent, in live oak and Douglas-fir. All den sites occurred solely in live trees, except for those in Douglas-fir.

3-18 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Aubry and Raley (2006) noted that natal den sites averaged 92-centimeter dbh and 40-meter heights in live trees, while snags selected had an average dbh and height of 89 centimeters and 26 meters, respectively. Higley and Matthews (2006) found fisher dens in the North Coast region to occur primarily in smaller hardwood trees and, to a lesser extent, in Douglas-fir trees with a mean dbh of 137 centimeters. The estimated dbh for nine presumed natal and maternal den sites located in California ranged from 53.3 to 147.3 centimeters (Zielinski and Barrett, 1995; Zielinski et al., 1995). In 1998, Truex et al. documented 19 tree dens across 3 study areas in California and found the average dbh of trees containing dens was 115 centimeters for conifers and 63 centimeters for hardwoods. Other studies of natal den sites on managed timberlands in northwestern California found relatively even distribution between cavities in hardwoods and conifer snags (USFWS, 2004b) with dbh ranging from 62.5 to 295 centimeters. The height at which a cavity-opening is located is important for protection from potential predators. Lewis and Stinson (1998) found that natal dens were most commonly selected in tree cavities at heights exceeding 6 meters, while maternal dens also occurred in cavities closer to the ground, likely to facilitate exploration by active kits. Studies in Oregon identified the mean height of den trees to be 16 meters (Aubry et al., 2002). Foraging Habitat Track-plates and telemetry data have provided insight into the selection of foraging habitat characteristics for fishers. Many researchers suggest that selection of resting habitat by fishers is more specific than selection of habitat for foraging, although Dark (1997) found no relative distinction in her work between resting and foraging habitat. Buck et al. (1983, 1994) determined fishers prefer mature, closed-conifer forest for foraging. Other studies suggest that fishers seasonally use a broader range of forest successional stages for foraging. In Idaho, fishers demonstrated a similar preference for older growth forests during the summer, but during the winter months they used primarily younger forest stands, albeit in areas with more readily available access to large diameter trees, snags, and logs (USFWS, 2004b; Jones and Garton, 1994). Although the use of early-successional stands for foraging and travel has been observed during the summer (Powell and Zielinski, 1994; Self and Kerns, 2001), fishers are still considered sensitive to canopy cover and tend to avoid open areas in general (Jones and Garton, 1994; Weir and Harestad, 1997; Self and Kerns, 2001). Klug (1997) and Weir and Harestad (2003) correlated greater densities of downed logs and structural complexity with use of habitat by fishers. While dense shrub cover provides food (fruits and berries) and habitat for fishers and their prey (Klug, 1997), areas with shrub densities exceeding 80 percent were avoided by fishers (Weir and Harestad, 2003), suggesting that extremely high shrub densities potentially reduce the vulnerability of prey species to capture by fishers and in turn provide less productive areas for forage (Buskirk and Powell, 1994). Fishers are adept climbers and are known for their arboreal habits and use of the canopy. Despite this, the majority of their hunting occurs on the ground in association with their prey base (Douglas and Strickland, 1999). Fishers are relatively opportunistic and have a diverse diet including mammalian and avian prey, carrion, vegetation, fruits, berries, insects, and fungi (Grenfell and Fasenfest, 1979; Powell, 1993; Martin, 1994). Although fishers across North America exhibit generally similar diets, in California they tend to consume an even broader array of foods than described elsewhere (Golightly et al., 2006). Unlike fishers elsewhere that often specialize on porcupine and/or snowshoe hares, reptiles comprise a regular component of fisher diets in California (Powell, 1993; Martin, 1994; Zielinski et al., 1999; Weir et al., 2005; Zielinski and Duncan, 2004; Golightly et al., 2006). Additionally, fishers in coastal regions of California appeared to have a greater diversity in their diet than individuals occupying interior regions of California (Martin, 1994; Zielinski et al., 1999; Zielinski and Duncan, 2004; Golightly et al., 2006). In Northern California, fisher diets appeared to vary with proximity to the coast, with squirrels and related

PR0105180936SAC 3-19 CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

rodents favored at interior sites and woodrats (Neotoma sp.) favored at coastal sites (Golightly et al., 2006). 3.10.2.3 Home Range Fishers have large home ranges, with those of males considerably larger than those of females. Mean estimates of fisher home ranges from seven study areas in California ranged from 1.7 to 23.5 km2 for females and 7.4 to 58.1 km2 for males (Buck et al., 1983; Self and Kerns, 2001; Mazzoni, 2002; Zielinski et al., 2004a; Yaeger, 2005). In one southern Oregon study area (Rogue River), Aubry and Raley (2006) reported an average home range size of 25 km2 for females, and 62 and 147 km2 for males during the nonbreeding and breeding seasons, respectively. Truex et al. (1998) found that home range sizes were largest in their eastern Klamath study area (in Northern California) where habitat quality was generally considered poor as compared to habitat quality in other study areas. According to Zielinski et al. (2004a) females in their Northern California Coast Range study area displayed home ranges almost three times larger than females in their southern Sierra Nevada study area. Both Truex et al. (1998) and Zielinski et al. (2004a) recognized an inverse relationship between home range size and habitat quality/prey availability. This relationship was supported by Yaeger (2005), who concluded that smaller home ranges for females in the Hoopa study area (1.68 km2), than females in the Shasta-Trinity area (23.47 km2) or any reported for western fishers, was likely indicative of better habitat conditions occurring in the Hoopa area. In the southern Sierra region, Mazzoni (2002) characterized forest classes within home ranges compared to random areas. She determined that female home ranges had a significantly higher proportion of habitat, characterized by tree cover of 60 to 100 percent and consisting of trees greater than 28 centimeters dbh, and a lower proportion of habitat characterized by tree cover of 10 to 24 percent and consisting of trees greater than 28 centimeters dbh, as compared to random areas. Zielinski et al. (2004a) characterized home ranges of fishers in a manner that compared findings between North Coast and Southern Sierra areas. Stand composition of home ranges in the Coastal study area included mid-seral Douglas-fir (approximate mean of 24. percent), mid-seral true fir (approximate mean of 18.3 percent), late-seral Douglas-fir (approximate mean of 14.0 percent); late-seral true fir (approximate mean of 13.97); other conifer types/seral stages (16.8 percent); and mixed oak-pine type of all seral stages (5.7 percent). Composition of home ranges in the Sierra study area included Sierran mixed conifer type (40.4 percent), ponderosa pine type (32.9 percent), and montane hardwood (12.3 percent). Rarely did home range sites exhibit compositions of less than 15 percent Sierran mixed conifer, less than 5 percent CWHR size class 5, or less than 53 percent dense (D) stands. 3.10.2.4 Regulatory Status In 2014, the Service proposed to list the West Coast distinct population segment (DPS) of the fisher. At the completion of its 12-month species status review, the Service decided to not list the fisher under the ESA (USFWS, 2016). The Service’s decision to not list the fisher is currently being challenged in court. Fishers on Green Diamond lands are currently considered a California Species of Special Concern by CDFW. In 2015, CDFG received a species status review that designated two fisher evolutionarily significant unit (ESU): Northern California ESU and Southern Sierra Nevada ESU. The Northern California ESU consists of those fishers that occur within California in the Klamath Mountains, Coast Range, southern Cascades, and northern Sierra Nevada. The Southern Sierra Nevada ESU consists of those fishers that occur within California south of the Merced River. In August 2015, the Commission found that Northern California ESU fishers did not merit listing under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and found that the Southern Sierra Nevada ESU fishers warrant listing under the CESA as threatened.

3-20 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.10.2.5 Rangewide Population Status The range of fishers throughout North America was dramatically reduced during the 1800s and 1900s, primarily due to trapping, logging, and conversion of forests for agriculture and development (Douglas and Strickland, 1987; Powell, 1993; Powell and Zielinski, 1994; Lewis and Stinson, 1998). A shift in land use practices and policies, which led to trapping closures, changes in forested habitats, and reintroduction programs, has allowed fishers to recover in some portions of their historical range throughout the central and eastern U.S. (Brander and Books, 1973; Powell and Zielinski, 1994). In western portions of their range, however, the distribution of fishers appears to remain restricted relative to historical conditions. Powell and Zielinski (1994) have noted continued population declines for fishers in the west, and the scarcity of detections in Washington, Oregon, and the northern Sierra Nevada over recent decades indicate that the fisher has been extirpated or reduced to very low numbers in much of this area (Aubry and Houston, 1992; Zielinski et al., 1995; Aubry and Lewis, 2003). The Service estimates fishers may occupy as little as 20 percent of their historical range throughout Washington, Oregon, and California. They are also believed to have been extirpated from lowland areas of British Columbia, although they still occur in higher elevation areas (USFWS, 2004b). 3.10.2.6 Fisher Status on the Green Diamond Ownership and Vicinity (Action Area) Klug (1997) conducted a master’s degree study on Green Diamond lands and found that although fishers were generally well distributed throughout the landscape, detections occurred more frequently at higher elevations (and farther from the coast), and in forests with a predominant Douglas-fir component, greater amounts of hardwood, and a greater volume of downed logs. The mean age of forests in which fishers were detected was 42.3 years. However, there was no difference in forest age between areas with and without fisher detections. Green Diamond’s unpublished telemetry data on rest and den sites used by fishers indicated that live decadent conifers (particularly hemlock) were most commonly used for rest sites, while live decadent hardwoods and whitewood snags were used for den sites. Past and current telemetry work on fishers indicates that fishers readily move throughout the landscape and, with the possible exception of recent clearcuts, there is no evidence that they avoid younger stands. A second master’s degree study using telemetry and remote camera sets was initiated in 2002. This project estimates the abundance of fishers and continued work on rest and den sites. The work done to date on Green Diamond’s ownership indicates that fishers in the coastal redwood zone use managed forests in a manner similar to spotted owls (Ten-Year Report, see AFWO website). Fisher resting and denning habitat studies were conducted by Simpson in 1996 and 1997(Green Diamond, 2009) in two portions of its ownership: the North Fork Mad River Sub-basin, and a ridge to the east of this area within the Redwood Creek watershed. Twenty-four fishers were collared and tracked to locate resting and denning sites, and habitat characteristics were described around these habitats when located (FHCP, see AFWO website). In summary, larger hardwoods and conifers with cavities were particularly important to fishers for den sites. Fishers used a wider range of structures for rest sites and these were found in a broader range of tree sizes than den trees. In contrast to den sites that occur in cavities, rest sites tended to be in open structures such as mistletoe or debris platforms. In general, fishers used the same types of structures in trees for den and rest sites as those used by NSOs for roosting and nesting on Green Diamond’s ownership. The primary difference is that fishers showed a strong selection for cavities for reproductive sites, while spotted owls show relatively little use of cavities for nesting. Nine den sites were located for five of six collared females. The dens occurred in four “highly decadent” live hardwoods, one “sound” hardwood, and four conifer snags. All the dens were in cavities, with natal dens in two tanoaks, one chinquapin, and one Douglas-fir snag (with a mean dbh of 76.5 centimeters), and maternal dens in two tanoaks, two Douglas-fir snags, and one western red cedar snag with a mean dbh of 112 centimeters. Den trees tended to be the largest trees available in the stand. Another study by Thompson (2008) identified seven maternal or natal dens on Green Diamond land during a

PR0105180936SAC 3-21 CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

population density study. These were also in cavities of tanoaks (n=2), chinquapins (n=2), and redwoods (n=3, mean dbh = 185.7 centimeters). Resting habitat for fishers was quantified and characterized by Simpson coincident with the above-noted denning study completed in 1996 and 1997. Thirty-five rest sites were located in a variety of tree species and structures with live hemlock being the most common tree species, followed by live Douglas-fir, and cedar. The most common structures used as rest sites were dwarf mistletoe clumps in hemlocks (n=10), lateral branches and other mammal nests in Douglas-fir trees (n=7), and cavities in cedars (n=6). Although specific data was not collected on resting habitat use versus availability, general observations throughout the Plan Area indicated that hemlock with dwarf mistletoe do not represent a major component of most stands. This suggests that fishers were showing high selectivity for hemlock with its propensity to be infected with dwarf mistletoe. Other rest sites were found in fir snags and logs, a variety of structures in hardwood species, and broken-top redwoods. The mean size of trees with rest sites was 33.3 inches dbh. Trees with rest sites spanned the full range of available size classes, but smaller trees were less likely to have suitable rest structures than larger trees (Ten-Year Report, see AFWO website). The track plate data collected by Simpson in 1994 and 1995, and later by Green Diamond in 2004 and 2006, were analyzed in 2009 to characterize suitable foraging habitat for fishers. Presence/absence data from these studies were used to create site occupancy models to characterize foraging habitat affinities of an “average” fisher on Green Diamond lands. Constructed models were also used to predict the probability of occupancy by a fisher at locations where fishers were not detected or where surveys were not conducted. Results of foraging habitat modeling showed that the probability of occupancy by a fisher increased with increasing elevation at the site, decreased with increasing amounts of 6- to 20-year-old forest stands in the 800-meter buffer around a track plate, and increased with increasing percentage of whitewood tree species within the stand where the track plate was located. Green Diamond notes that for logistical reasons, track plate stations were located along roads within its ownership, and cautioned that statistical inferences might be limited to unsampled areas along similar roads on its ownership. However, given the high density of roads on the managed Green Diamond landscape, it may be concluded that the area of inference probably applied to most of its ownership. Green Diamond concluded that the positive relationship between probability of fisher detection (occupancy), elevation, and amount of whitewood tree species was consistent with previous studies on Green Diamond lands that detections were positively correlated to elevation and amount of Douglas-fir forest (Klug, 1997). This is likely a result of various factors such as increased prey diversity, and a potentially greater abundance of sites for resting and denning. Studies of the fisher prey base have not been completed locally to document this assumption, but anecdotal observations by Green Diamond suggest a wider variety of potential prey species occur at higher elevations in Douglas-fir/hardwood areas. The whitewood stands on the Green Diamond ownership are also represented by a greater hardwood and hemlock/cedar component, which has been shown to be important for denning and resting sites (Green Diamond, 2009). Fishers have been detected throughout Green Diamond’s ownership, with the exception of coastal areas near Humboldt Bay and in the Eel River drainage (Appendix A, Figure 3-4). The greatest number of incidental sightings occurred in areas that had experienced higher levels of timber management activity (e.g., surveys for spotted owls, timber harvest layout and preparation, etc.). In 1994 and 1995 Klug (1997) detected 99 and 139 fishers, respectively, within the Green Diamond ownership. Nearly all survey segments that occurred in more interior Douglas-fir and mixed redwood- Douglas-fir habitats had detections, while the more coastal redwood areas and southern regions near Humboldt Bay and the Eel River drainage had relatively fewer detections. There were also few

3-22 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

detections in the northern portion of the ownership near the Oregon-California border, which included coastal redwood stands. In 2004 and 2005 Green Diamond repeated Klug’s (1997) study, and reported detection ratio results, rather than absolute detections. Detection ratios were calculated using the station as the sample unit and dividing the number of stations with greater than or equal to 1 (≥1) fisher detections by the total number of stations sampled (percentage [expressed as decimal value] of stations where fishers were detected). Green Diamond also calculated detection ratios based on segments by the same means. These detection ratios were used to assess trends in detection ratios over time and by region. While detections varied both spatially and temporally at the site-specific scale, overall distribution of fishers across Green Diamond lands did not appear to vary substantially over time. Variation in detection ratios relative to specific regions of Green Diamond’s ownership could not be analyzed meaningfully due to insufficient data. Records kept by Green Diamond biologists of incidental sightings from 1993 to 2008 (Green Diamond, n.d.) reflect a pattern of relatively few sightings from 1993 to 1999 (0 to 3 sightings per year), with an increase during the period of 2000 to 2004 (4 to 10 sightings per year), and a further increase during 2005-2008 (8 to 15 sightings per year) and 2009 to 2001 (7 to 21 sightings per year). Camera station surveys conducted by Green Diamond from September 2010 to June 2011 showed fisher presence at 45 of 75 stations located within its ownership (FHCP, see AFWO website). Analysis of Green Diamond’s site occupancy models (MacKenzie et al., 2006) indicates a decrease in fisher occupancy in 2004. This suggests the fisher population was reduced in 2004 relative to other years, which corresponds to an apparent reduction in the fisher population on the Hoopa Reservation immediately to the east of the Green Diamond ownership. On the Hoopa Reservation, Higley and Matthews (2009) estimated that the fisher population density in 2004 to 2005 was less than half the previous estimate during 1998 and 1999. They also noted a change in the sex ratio from approximately 2:1 (female to male) to 0.6:1 (female to male). They hypothesized this may have been in response to an increase in predator numbers, disease, or reduced prey populations. Consistent with population estimates on Green Diamond lands, Higley and Matthews (2009) also reported that the fisher population rebounded since the declines in 2004 and 2005. A mark-recapture study conducted in 2002 and 2003 at two 100-km2 study areas within the Green Diamond ownership estimated female fisher densities at 0.11 to 0.17 fisher/km2, and male fisher densities at 0.07 to 0.11 fisher/km2 (Thompson, 2008). These density estimates are similar to fisher density estimates reported from Massachusetts (Thompson, 2008). Home range sizes were estimated at 6.0 km2 (1,487 acres) and 8.8 km2 (2,179 acres) for female and male fishers, respectively. These home range areas fall within the lower end of the size of ranges reported by other researchers, as described previously. 3.10.3 Sonoma Tree Vole and Red Tree Vole 3.10.3.1 Species Description and Life History Tree voles are small arboreal rodents found primarily in Douglas-fir forests of the Pacific Northwest (Carey, 1991). They are nocturnal and canopy dwelling, and feed primarily on conifer needles (Huff et al., 1992). Tree voles exhibit long, soft pelages that vary in color from a rich brown to bright reddish orange, with underbodies that are generally light gray in color. They have small eyes, a long, hairy tail, and pale (almost hairless) ears (Howell, 1926). Voles range in length from approximately 158 to 206 millimeters (6 to 8 inches), and generally weigh between 25 and 47 grams (Maser et al., 1981). Tree voles are an important food source for several forest predators, including the NSO (Forsman et al., 1984). An analysis of regurgitated NSO pellets collected by Green Diamond within the Plan Area from 1989 to 2004 indicated that tree voles comprised approximately 16 percent of the owl’s diet in

PR0105180936SAC 3-23 CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

frequency and 3 percent in biomass. Tree voles are also an important source of food for NSOs in the Central and South Coast regions of Oregon where they represent greater than 20 percent of the prey base in some owl territories (Forsman et al., 2004a, 2004b). Distribution Taxonomists disagree about the genus of tree voles, and genetic studies have yet to resolve this debate (Murray, 1995; Bellinger et al., 2005). Some place tree voles in the genus Phenacomys and the subgenus Arborimus. Others have elevated the subgenus Arborimus to the genus level (Bellinger et al., 2005). In this EIS, categorization as the genus Arborimus is assumed, following Johnson and George (1991), who first proposed the species Arborimus pomo (the Sonoma tree vole), which is found in California as distinct from the red tree vole (Arborimus longicaudus), which is found in Oregon and Northern California. Due to the similar ecological niches of the various tree vole species and the historical variation in taxonomy of the tree voles, they will commonly be discussed together and referred to as “tree voles” in this EIS. Within the Green Diamond ownership, the Klamath River is thought to be the demarcation in the geographic distribution of the red tree vole, which largely occurs north of the river, and the Sonoma tree vole, which largely occurs south of the river. Voles of the genus Arborimus have a limited geographical distribution, ranging from the Columbia River in northern Oregon south to Sonoma County, California (Taylor, 1915; Maser et al., 1981). The red tree vole occurs throughout western Oregon, from the Columbia River south into northwestern California to approximately the Klamath River (Bellinger et al., 2005; Johnson and George, 1991). Until recently, it was believed that red tree voles only occurred west of the Cascade Crest. However, Forsman et al. (2009) documented red tree voles in the headwaters of the Lake Branch of the Hood River, on the eastern slope of the Cascade Range. The Sonoma tree vole occupies the region immediately south of the red tree vole in California, extending south along the Coast Range to Sonoma County, California (Bellinger et al., 2005; Johnson and George, 1991). Home Range Size Swingle and Forsman (2009) provide estimates of tree vole mean and median home range size of 1,732 and 760 square meters, respectively. Although there was considerable variation in home range size, little of it was explained by gender, age of voles, or by forest age. However, females occupied fewer nests and made fewer movements between nest trees than males. Male home ranges were larger than females during late winter and spring during the peak breeding period (Swingle and Forsman, 2009). In Oregon, Swingle and Forsman (2004) fitted 61 red tree voles with radio-transmitters and followed the voles for 3 to 307 days (with a mean of 76 days) to observe daily and seasonal movements, and found that home range sizes averaged 1,100 square meters. Zeiner et al. (1988) summarized that the home range of tree voles probably encompasses one to several trees, with females often living in one tree and males visiting several trees. Reproduction Tree voles are solitary animals and typically one adult vole occupies a nest, except for periods of mating when females are receptive (Howell, 1926; Maser, 1966; Forsman et al., 2009). Swingle and Forsman (2009) determined that the majority of individuals occupied a single nest tree and adjacent foraging trees that had interconnecting branch pathways with the nest tree. A smaller portion of tree voles used two or more nests that were a mean distance of 45 meters apart. Tree voles typically breed within 24 hours of giving birth, which may occur anytime throughout the year (Benson and Borell, 1931; Maser et al., 1981; Forsman et al., 2009). Litter sizes vary from one to four young, with two or three being the norm (Maser et al., 1981). Young are altricial and develop slower than ground-dwelling voles, remaining in their nursery nests until they disperse at 1 to 2 months of age (Hamilton, 1962; Maser et al., 1981; Swingle, 2005; Forsman et al., 2009).

3-24 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Suitable Habitat Despite being considered one of the most specialized small mammals in North America (Maser et al., 1981), tree voles’ secretive habits make them one of the most poorly understood (Forsman et al., 2004b). Although detailed studies of tree vole habitat requirements are limited, some general habitat requirements may be gleaned from numerous studies that have focused on other aspects of tree vole ecology and occurrence. Tree voles primarily build nests in Douglas-fir trees, but they may also use a variety of other tree species (Maser et al., 1981; Thompson and Diller, 2002), and occasionally build nests on the ground (Thompson and Diller, 2002). Active tree vole nests are generally located within the live canopy of the nest tree, typically situated against the bole of the tree on a whorl of branches in younger trees and away from the bole on larger branches in older trees (Maser, 1966; Thompson and Diller, 2002). Although tree voles do occur and nest in younger forests, they are generally believed to be more abundant in older forests (Corn and Bury, 1986, 1991; Aubry et al., 1991; Thompson and Diller, 2002). Most nests are constructed by the vole itself from small twigs it cuts from the nest tree and surrounding canopy, yet voles are known to occupy nests abandoned by birds, squirrels, and woodrats. The inner chamber of a nest is lined with the resin ducts which remain after the vole consumes the non-resinous portions of the conifer needles which make up its diet (Maser, 1966). In California, red tree voles are associated with open stands of Douglas-fir (Jameson and Peeters, 1988), but also are found using grand firs in Mendocino County and along the Mad River (Maser, 1966). Nests have been found in redwood trees (Maser, 1966), but the voles do not eat redwood needles and therefore are not found in pure redwood stands (Williams, 1986). Meiselman (1987) suggested that the moist, cool habitats in which red tree voles were found in Northern California could be attributed to the climatic buffering of a dense, multilayered canopy provided by older, riparian Douglas-fir forests. However, she noted that red tree vole nests have been found in young, mature, and old growth stands in that area. Trees that contain tree vole nests tend to be larger than the surrounding trees that do not contain nests, both in girth (dbh) and height (Gillesberg and Carey, 1991; Meiselman and Doyle, 1996; Thompson and Diller, 2002). Although tree voles have been captured and documented on the ground (Corn and Bury, 1986, 1991; Raphael, 1988; Gilbert and Allwine, 1991; Swingle and Forsman, 2009), data suggest that they do not spend extensive amounts of time on the ground, and move quickly along the ground from tree to tree when interconnecting branches are not available (Swingle and Forsman, 2009). Howell (1926) suggested that considerable expanses of land without suitable trees could be a barrier to tree vole movements. More recent data of occurrences in early successional forest stands (Corn and Bury, 1986; Verts and Carraway, 1998), and observations of animals on the ground (Swingle, 2005) suggest that small gaps in the forest, however, may not necessarily impede tree vole movements. Meiselman and Doyle (1996) studied Sonoma tree voles in young (less than 100 years old), mature (100 to 200 years old), and old-growth (more than 200 years old) Douglas-fir forests in Mendocino County, California. Vole nests were most abundant in old-growth forests. Tree diameter was greater for nest trees than for unoccupied trees, and nests were patchily distributed. All vole nests found were in Douglas-fir trees. Jones (2004) compared tree vole nest abundance among stands of three size classes on Pacific Lumber Company land in Humboldt County, California in 2000. Mature stands (greater than 61 centimeters dbh) contained approximately six times the number of nests found in either pole stands (15 to 28 centimeters dbh) or unthinned young stands (28 to 61 centimeters dbh). Jones (2004) also studied habitat associations of Sonoma tree voles in Redwood National and State Parks, Humboldt Redwoods State Park, and Angelo Coast Range Reserve, in Humboldt and Mendocino counties, respectively, from 2001 to 2002. Using transect sampling, 531 nests were found; 93 percent of nest trees were Douglas-fir.

PR0105180936SAC 3-25 CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Diet Tree voles have a very specialized diet and feed primarily on Douglas-fir needles (Maser et al., 1981), often from the same tree in which they have built their nest. In addition to Douglas-fir needles, tree voles will also consume the needles of other conifers, and will eat the tender bark and sometimes the center of fresh twigs (Forsman et al., 2009; Maser, 1966). Recent studies indicate that tree voles may spend very little time foraging away from their nest, with most twigs harvested during short foraging bouts and promptly delivered to the nest for later consumption (Forsman et al., 2009). Tree voles cut fresh conifer twigs at night, and although they may feed some while away from the nest, most twigs are promptly brought back to the nest and stockpiled (Maser et al., 1981; Forsman et al., 2009). When feeding, tree voles bite individual needles off at their bases, then one at a time stripping the resin ducts from each side of the needle prior to consuming the remainder of the needle (Benson and Borell, 1931; Maser et al., 1981). After consuming the fleshy part of the needles, voles discard the resin ducts (Benson and Borell, 1931). Their behavior of first stripping resin ducts from the needles can create large masses of discarded hair-like resin ducts. Vole nests are easily identified by the presence of these resin ducts in the nest or on the ground below the nests. Due to the diet of the tree voles, it is likely they obtain most of their required moisture from their food. However, they may also lick moisture off foliage when available (Taylor, 1915; Maser, 1966). 3.10.3.2 Regulatory Status Neither red tree vole nor Sonoma tree vole are currently federally listed or proposed for Federal listing under the ESA, however, CDFW classifies the Sonoma tree vole as a Species of Special Concern (CDFW, 2017). In October 2011, the Service completed a 12-month species status review of the North Oregon Coast DPS of red tree vole located from the Siuslaw River (Lane County) north to the Columbia River, and concluded that while listing under the ESA is warranted, it is precluded by higher priority listing actions (USFWS, 2011c). This DPS is therefore considered a candidate for listing, but does not occur on Green Diamond-owned land discussed in this document. 3.10.3.3 Rangewide Population Status There is no current range-wide management strategy for either tree vole species. Empirical information on the abundance of Sonoma tree voles and red tree voles throughout their geographic ranges does not exist. Forsman et al. (2004a, 2004b) examined the proportion of tree voles in spotted owl pellets as one index of the distribution and relative abundance of tree voles in different parts of Oregon. They found that tree voles were most common in the diet of spotted owls in the central and southern Coastal regions of Oregon and were least common in the diet in the North Coast ranges, North Cascades, and the dry interior region of southwestern Oregon. Based on their analysis, Forsman et al. (2004a, 2004b) concluded, “Although our data indicate that tree voles are widespread in Oregon, and fairly common in some regions, it is likely that tree vole populations have declined in areas where logging, fire, and human development have produced landscapes dominated by young forests.” They noted, however, that their data were not randomly collected and that they disproportionately sampled old forests (Forsman et al., 2004a, 2004b). As such, they cautioned that their results could not be generalized to younger forest areas. In reviewing focused survey work for red tree voles (e.g., Dunk and Hawley, 2009), Forsman et al. (2016) concluded that red voles probably are present in much of their historical range, but are patchily distributed in all parts of their range.

3-26 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.10.3.4 Status of Tree Voles on the Green Diamond Ownership and Vicinity (Action Area) Green Diamond does not have empirical estimates of tree vole abundance on its ownership. However, several studies have been conducted on Green Diamond lands for purposes of better understanding tree vole distribution and relative abundance. Green Diamond conducted a study from 2001 to 2004 to investigate the distribution and abundance of Sonoma tree vole nests within Douglas-fir forests on the Green Diamond ownership in northwestern California. Forest habitats and other landscape attributes associated with areas used and not used by Sonoma tree voles were investigated. Results of the study and analysis indicated that tree voles were rare or absent from the coastal portions of the study area and increased in abundance with increasing distance from the coast. Interior regions of the Green Diamond study area were out of the coastal redwood zone and dominated by Douglas-fir and grand fir (Abies grandis). This observation is consistent with the findings of Forsman (2004a, 2004b), discussed previously. Although tree voles were present in a wide range of forest ages, abundance of nests was positively related to increasing forest age. Tree vole detections in and near the Action Area are shown on Figure 3-5 (Appendix A). Thompson and Diller (2002) studied the abundance, nest characteristics, and nest dynamics of Sonoma tree voles on the Green Diamond ownership from 1994 to 1996. To estimate the abundance of tree vole nests, they sampled 6 stand age classes from 46 stands in the Mad River and Redwood Creek drainages. They found 185 Sonoma tree vole nests in the five oldest stand age classes sampled and no nests in the youngest stand age class (10 to 19 years old). Unrelated to this study, vole nests had been occasionally observed in 10- to 19-year-old stands elsewhere on the Green Diamond ownership. Density of active tree vole nests increased with stand age among the five oldest age classes, ranging from 1 nest per hectare in 20- to 29-year-old stands to 6.21 nests per hectare in 60-year-old stands. It is unknown if the number of vole nests accurately reflects the number of voles, because tree voles may have multiple nests. However, assuming the number of nests used does not vary with nest density or stand age, the density of active nests likely indicates the relative abundance of tree voles in different aged stands (Thompson and Diller, 2002). Vole nests were found in eight species of tree and one nest on the ground (Thompson and Diller, 2002). Eighty percent of nests were in Douglas-fir trees, and tanoak was the next most common tree species used for nesting by voles. Most nests found in tanoaks appeared to have been constructed initially by squirrels. As stand age increased, vole nests were located in larger trees, higher in trees, and farther from the bole of the tree. Nest trees were similar in size to surrounding trees in younger stands, but became disproportionately larger than surrounding trees as stand age increased (Thompson and Diller, 2002). In contrast to other studies, vole nests were most frequently located adjacent to the trunk, as opposed to farther from the tree bole, similar to results found by Meiselman and Doyle (1996) in Mendocino County. Nest persistence did not differ among stand age classes. Estimated median persistence time for vole nests was 28.6 months (95 percent CI = 25.8 to 34.8 months). Thompson and Diller (2002) found unusually high proportions of destroyed nests during different sampling periods among different aged stands and hypothesized that this observed pattern was consistent with predation, wherein a predator that discovered one nest would likely discover other nests in the area. 3.11 Other Special-status Species This subsection describes other special-status aquatic, plant, and wildlife species that may potentially occur within the Action Area (excluding the proposed Covered Species; Appendix B, Tables 3-9, 3-10, and 3-11). Special-status species potentially occurring within the Action Area were identified through a December 2017 query of the CNDDB, by Green Diamond, resource staff observations, and discussions with the Service and CDFW. The CNDDB was queried for the defined Action Area (748,942 acres) plus a

PR0105180936SAC 3-27 CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

0.7-mile buffer around the Action Area. The buffer was established consistent with the accepted radius of an NSO home range area (USFWS, 2011b). Special-status species for the purposes of the CNDDB query, plus the CNDDB label identifiers, are: • Species currently listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing under the ESA and/or CESA • Species considered by the CDFW as Species of Special Concern • Species listed as Fully Protected under the California Fish and Game Code • California Rare Plant Rank 1 or 2 plant species • Species considered sensitive by the California Board of Forestry • Species considered sensitive by USFS 3.11.1 Special-status Plant Species Special-status plant species of concern were identified using a December 2017 query of the CNDDB for the buffered Action Area, as described previously. Eighty-nine special-status plant species were identified as occurring or potentially occurring within the Action Area. Of these, seven are non-vascular mosses and club mosses; none of these non-vascular plants is listed under either the ESA or CESA. Five of the seven non-vascular special-status plants have a moderate potential to occur within the Action Area as some suitable habitat is present, and the other two nonvascular plant species are unlikely to occur in the Action Area because suitable habitat is uncommon or is not found in the Action Area (Appendix B, Table 3-9). Of the 82 vascular plants occurring or potentially occurring within the Action Area, six are Federal and/or State listed as endangered or rare. These include McDonalds rock-cress, leafy reed grass, Tracy’s eriastrum, beach layia, western lily, and Kneeland Prairie pennycress. Table 3-9 (Appendix B) discusses the likelihood of occurrence of these six species within the Green Diamond Action Area. Of the remaining 76 special-status non-ESA listed plant species listed in Table 3-9 (Appendix B), 18 are known to occur in the Action Area, 34 have a high to moderate potential to occur in the Action Area due to the presence of suitable habitat, and 24 species are unlikely to occur in the Action Area due to the absence or rarity of suitable habitat. A qualitative assessment was conducted that focused on the potential for disturbance of individual plants or groups of plants by timber harvesting activities on Green Diamond’s managed forestlands. Most non-forested natural habitat types in the Plan Area are either protected under existing regulations or would not be otherwise affected by Green Diamond’s activities. 3.11.2 Other Special-status Species The December 2017 query of CNDDB and review of relevant literature identified 35 non-aquatic wildlife species of special concern that occur, or have the potential to occur, within the Action Area (excluding NSO, fisher, Sonoma tree vole, and red tree vole, discussed previously). Of these 35 species, 10 species are listed or are candidates for listing under the ESA and/or CESA as endangered or threatened. These include the marbled murrelet, western snowy plover, little willow flycatcher, bald eagle, bank swallow, Mardon skipper (butterfly), Oregon silverspot butterfly, Behren’s silverspot butterfly, and Humboldt marten (Appendix B, Table 3-10). Of the nonlisted special-status wildlife species listed in Table 3-10 (Appendix B), 10 are unlikely to occur within the Action Area due to the lack or rarity of suitable habitat, while 7 species have a moderate potential to occur in the Action Area. Seven species are known to occur in the Action Area, and specifically within the Plan Area. Other than the species that would be covered by the FHCP or an action alternative (i.e., NSO, fisher, and tree voles), 50 special-status wildlife species are known to occur or have at least a moderate potential to occur within the Action Area (Appendix B, Table 3-10). Six of these species are listed or are under review for possible listing under the ESA or CESA.

3-28 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Table 3-11 (Appendix B) lists the common and scientific names of special-status fish amphibian, reptiles, and invertebrate species and their current regulatory statuses. The designation in Table 3-11 (Appendix B) of individual ESUs and DPSs for steelhead, and for coho and Chinook salmon, are included within the term “species” in the ESA. Resident rainbow trout are considered “markedly separated” from the anadromous form and are not included in the current steelhead DPS listings (NMFS, 2006). Five of the 15 special-status species shown in Table 3-11 (Appendix B) are listed under the ESA and/or CESA. All but one of these five species occur or have a high to moderate potential for occurring in the Action Area. The assessment of effects on other wildlife species (including special-status species) is based on information contained in the FHCP, widely accepted ecological principles of natural succession, and the most recent understanding of forest succession in managed timberlands. The number and acreage of stands with saplings and small-diameter trees within RMZs will continue to decrease over time. Wildlife species in these stands would be those that feed and breed in early successional riparian habitats (e.g., thrushes, warblers, and sparrows). However, these species also use adjacent upland forests and should be able to adapt to these relatively minor habitat changes. Continued forest management practices may lead to increased age class and size in the RMZs, as well as increased total acreage with more canopy closure across the Green Diamond ownership relative to existing conditions. These trends within RMZs are expected to occur under any alternatives over the term of the AHCP/CCAA. The accelerated development of stands with mid-seral and later seral forest elements as a result of implementing the AHCP/CCAA conservation measures is anticipated mostly within riparian and geologically unstable areas. By the end of the term of the AHCP/CCAA, it is anticipated that riparian areas would contain more mature trees, compared with existing conditions. These trends are expected to benefit wildlife species that use these stands with mid- and later-seral elements. Under any alternatives, Green Diamond would remain subject to FPR requirements to protect wildlife including species listed or proposed for listing under the CESA. These practices include adhering to measures contained in the FPRs through THP-specific measures for certain sensitive and listed species and measures identified in Section 11 of the MATO (CDFG, 2010a). Species-specific avoidance measures are identified in the MATO for bald eagle, golden eagle, great blue heron, great egret, marbled murrelet, northern goshawk, osprey, peregrine falcon, white-tailed kite, willow flycatcher, and Trinity bristle snail. Environmental effects of actions and measures contained in the AHCP/CCAA and MATO (included in the No Action Alternative and common to all action alternatives) were described in the EIS prepared for the AHCP/CCAA (NMFS and USFWS, 2007). In summary, the environmental effects on special-status plants and wildlife with the exception of covered species would be substantially the same under any action alternative. These species will not be analyzed. 3.12 Social and Economic Conditions Timber management activities within the Action Area can influence local social and economic conditions. Potential socioeconomic impacts within Trinity County are minimal to non-existent. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, the geographic area of influence and the affected environment with regard to socioeconomic effects is focused on the Plan Area, considered to be Del Norte and Humboldt counties. 3.12.1 Social Factors As shown in Table 3-12 (Appendix B), both Del Norte and Humboldt counties have experienced relatively steady population growth over the past decade. For example, during the 1990s, Del Norte County’s population grew by 11 percent while Humboldt County’s grew by 6 percent. These are both slightly less than the State’s growth rate over the same period of 13 percent. As shown in Table 3-12 (Appendix B),

PR0105180936SAC 3-29 CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

the population of both Del Norte and Humboldt counties continued to increase for the period from 2000 to 2011 and then declined slightly over the next few years. Because of the rural character of the two counties, the lifestyles of its residents are closely tied to the land. In the EIS for the SNRF Forest Management Plan (FMP), four social groups were identified based on values and behaviors relating to natural resource management. Members of the “amenity emphasis” and “environmental priority” groups place a high value on maintaining the natural resources of the region, although for different reasons. “Commodity dependent” residents are economically linked to the utilization of natural resources, and are very closely tied to their resource-based lifestyle. The “Native American” group is linked to the biological resources of the forest area for cultural and social reasons, including subsistence and commercial fishing. Members of the “Native American” group may also be employed in the forest products sector and thus are economically dependent on the industry. Membership in these groups is not mutually exclusive; it is common for members to identify with more than one social group at a time (USFS, 1995). 3.12.2 Economic Factors Employment data for Del Norte and Humboldt counties by industry sectors is shown in Table 3-13 (Appendix B). The employment distribution is similar for both counties with Service Providers (particularly Trade, Transportation and Utilities, and Educational and Health Services categories) with the greatest percentage of employment. Del Norte County has a significantly higher percentage of Government employment at 42.4 percent compared to 23.7 percent for Humboldt County. The relatively large percentage of State employees in Del Norte County is attributable to the Pelican Bay State Prison. Historically, lumber and wood products manufacturing have been important industries in Del Norte and Humboldt counties. The forest products industry reached a high point in the north coast region of California during the post-World War II housing boom in the 1950s. The industry has seen a significant decrease in employment since that time when it dominated the region’s economy (USFS, 1995). Average annual unemployment in the two counties, as well as the State of California, is shown in Table 3-13 (Appendix B). Both counties typically experience higher unemployment rates than the State average. Del Norte County spent most of the 1990s in double-digit unemployment, ranging from 3 to 5 percentage points higher than the State average. Humboldt County’s unemployment was only slightly over the State average for the past decade. As of July 2017, the number of Green Diamond employees in California was approximately 206. Work activities performed by these employees includes secretarial, bookkeeping, and accounting; planning and logistics associated with resource management operations, including road construction and maintenance, site preparation, planting, vegetation control, pruning, PCT, commercial timber harvesting, and cone collection; and mechanical and repair activities. All activities are conducted over the entire year; consequently, the 200 jobs are year-round. In addition to work conducted by Green Diamond employees themselves, many of the forest management activities (e.g., tree planting, PCT, and logging) are contracted directly to other firms. The mills dependent on Green Diamond timber in the region employ approximately 350 to 400 people. Additional contributions of the Green Diamond lands to local economic conditions include the indirect effect of employee wages on the purchase of goods and services from local businesses, and the contribution of yield taxes on timber purchases, which are distributed to Del Norte and Humboldt counties.

3-30 PR0105180936SAC

Tables

CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Table 3-1. Definitions of CWHR Habitat, Size Class, and Canopy Closure Class Codes Code/Class Definition

Habitat Codes

BAR Barren

CSC Coastal Scrub

DFR Douglas-fir

LAC Lacustrine

MHC Montane Hardwood-Conifer

MHW Montane Hardwood

MRI Montane Riparian

PGS Perennial Grassland

RDW Redwood

RIV Riverine

UNCL Unclassified

URB Urban

WTM Wet Meadow

Size Classes

1 Stand has a quadratic mean diameter of < 1 inch

2 Stand has a quadratic mean diameter of 1 to 5.9 inches

3 Stand has a quadratic mean diameter of 6 to 10.9 inches

4 Stand has a quadratic mean diameter of 11 to 23.9 inches

5 Stand has a quadratic mean diameter of 24 to ≥ 32 inches

6 Stand has Size Class 5 trees over a distinct layer of Size Class 4 or 3 trees; total canopy closure is at least 60 percent

Canopy Closure Classes

S (sparse) Stand has 10 to 24.9 percent total canopy closure

P (open) Stand has 25 to 39.9 percent total canopy closure

M (moderate) Stand has 40 to 59.9 percent total canopy closure

D (dense) Stand has 60 to 100 percent total canopy closure Note: CWHR = California Wildlife Habitat Relationships

PR0105180936SAC 3-33 CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Table 3-2. Percent Composition of CWHR Habitat Types within the Plan Area (2010) CWHR Classification Total Plan Area Acreage (percent)

Redwood (RDW) 54.04

Douglas-Fir (DFR) 24.23

Montane Hardwood-Conifer (MHC) 10.72

Montane Hardwood (MHW) 7.69

Perennial Grassland (PGS) 1.65

Coastal Scrub (CSC) 0.86

Riverine (RIV) 0.48

Urban (URB) 0.16

Barren (BAR) 0.15

Wet Meadows (WTM) <0.01

Source: Green Diamond (n.d.) Notes: The composition of CWHR habitat types within the plan area has not changed since 2010 CWHR = California Wildlife Habitat Relationships

3-34 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Table 3-3. Percent of FHCP Plan Area by Age Class and CWHR Size Class (2010) CWHR Size Class Grand Age NF 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total (%)

Plan Area 0-19 N/A 5.16 13.23 1.87 0.08 -- -- 20.33 20-30 N/A -- 2.95 6.74 5.94 0.01 0.01 15.64 31-45 N/A -- 0.07 10.07 18.10 0.08 0.05 28.37 46-59 N/A -- 0.01 4.50 15.13 0.12 0.1 19.9 60-79 N/A -- 0.02 1.57 6.38 0.41 0.04 8.43 80-99 N/A -- -- 0.08 1.69 0.36 0.01 2.13 100+ N/A -- -- 0.08 1.43 0.23 0.13 1.86 NF 3.32 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.32 Totals 3.32 5.16 16.29 24.89 48.76 1.20 0.38 100.00

Notes: -- = not present N/A = Not Applicable CWHR = California Wildlife Habitat Relationships FHCP = Forest Habitat Conservation Plan NF = non-forest See Table 3-1 for CWHR size classes. Percent of FHCP Plan Area by Age Class and CWHR Size Class has not changed since 2010

PR0105180936SAC 3-35 CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Table 3-4. Percent of FHCP Plan Area by Canopy Closure Class and by CWHR Size Class in 2010. CWHR Canopy Closure Class Size Class NF Sparse Open Moderate Dense Total

Plan Area

1 N/A 5.02 ------5.16

2 N/A 8.09 2.79 4.22 0.78 16.29

3 N/A 0.08 2.11 5.35 17.15 24.89

4 N/A 0.04 6.43 2.81 39.31 48.76

5 N/A -- 0.45 0.11 0.63 1.20

6 N/A -- 0.14 0.01 0.23 0.38

NF 3.32 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Total 3.32 13.23 11.92 12.76 58.09 100.00

Notes: -- = not present N/A = Not Applicable CWHR = California Wildlife Habitat Relationships FHCP = Forest Habitat Conservation Plan NF = non-forest See Table 3-1 for CWHR size classes. Percent of FHCP Plan Area by Canopy Closure Class and by CWHR Size Class has not changed since 2010

3-36 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Table 3-5. CWHR Size Class Distribution by CWHR Forest Type in the Plan Area (2010) CWHR Size Class (percent) Dense Canopy Forest Type 1 2 3 4 5 6 (percent)

Redwood 8.0 21.4 12.3 56.2 1.7 0.4 64.5

Douglas-Fir 3.2 19.5 45.8 30.9 0.5 0.1 59.6

Montane Hardwood-Conifer -- 0.1 41.2 58.3 0.2 0.2 56.7

Montane Hardwood 0.7 0.1 35.7 60.6 1.6 1.3 35.8

Notes: = -- =not present CWHR = California Wildlife Habitat Relationships FHCP = Forest Habitat Conservation Plan See Table 3-1 for CWHR size classes. CWHR Size Class Distribution by CWHR Forest Type has not changed since 2010

PR0105180936SAC 3-37 CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Table 3-6. NSO Dietary Composition from the Plan Area (1989-2004) Glaucomys Neotoma Sylvilagus (flying Arborimus Aves Peromyscus (woodrat) (rabbit) squirrel) (tree vole) (birds) (mouse) OSRI Othera

Percent prey 48.4 2.7 10.0 16.3 4.0 5.0 11.1 2.5 frequency

Percent prey 73.9 8.9 7.7 2.9 1.8 0.7 3.9 0.2 biomass

Percent location 89.8 24.9 53.5 50.2 ND 33.9 ND ND frequency

a Other (Insecta, Chiroptera, Mustelidae, Teleolstei, Reptilia) Notes: ND = No data reported NSO = Northern spotted owl OSRI = Other Small Rodent or Insectivore

3-38 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Table 3-7. Summary of Trends in NSO Demographic Parameters (1985 to 2013) Population Study Area Fecundity Apparent Survival Occupancy Change

Washington

Cle Elum Declining Declining Declining No Trend

Rainier No Trend Declining Declining No Trend

Olympic Peninsula No Trend No Trend Declining No Trend

Oregon

Coast Ranges Declining No Trend Declining Declining

H.J. Andrews Declining Declining Declining Declining

Tyee Declining Declining Declining Declining

Klamath Declining No Trend Declining Declining

South Cascades No Trend Declining Declining No Trend

California

Northwest California Declining Declining Declining Declining

Hoopa Reservation) Declining Declining Declining Declining

GDR-CB Declining Declining Declining Declining

GDR-TB Declining Declining Declining Declining

GDR-CA Trend not calculated Trend not calculated Declining Trend not calculated

GDR-TA Trend not calculated Trend not calculated Trend not calculated Trend not calculated

Source: Duggar et al., 2016 Notes: NSO = Northern spotted owl GDR-CA= Green Diamond control areas after barred owl removal. GDR-CB= Green Diamond control areas before barred owl removal GDR-TA= Green Diamond treatment areas after barred owl removal GDR-TB= Green Diamond treatment areas before barred owl removal

PR0105180936SAC 3-39 CHAPTER 3 – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Table 3-8. Actual (1991, 2016) and Modeled (1996, 2001, 2011) Forest Stand Age Composition on Green Diamond Lands from NSO HCP and Current Accounting. Actual Modeled Actual (percent) (percent) (percent) Stand Age (years) 1991 1996 2001 2011 2016

0–7 10.6 9.1 9.2 8.7 7.3

8–30 41.1 36.7 30.4 22.2 26.2

31–45 20.2 27.1 33.1 29.5 24.9

46+ 17.5 17.8 19.1 31.5 40.1

ROG/MIX 4.6 3.4 2.4 2.3 <0.1

Non-Forested 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 1.6

NSO Habitat 37.8 44.9 52.1 60.9 64.9

Total (acres) 383,106 383,106 383,106 383,106 370,252

Sources: Table 3-14 of USFWS (2007) and Green Diamond Modeling (Green Diamond’s FHCP Effects Analysis of EIS Alternatives on NSO Habitat, see AFWO website) Notes: ROG/MIX = hardwood and brush cover types with minor old-growth residual component, and remnant old-growth cover types. Not included in NSO habitat shown above. Acreages converted to percent of ownership in this table to standardize values through time. NSO Habitat is the total of 31- 45 and 46+ year stands. AFWO = Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office EIS = Environmental Impact Statement FHCP = Forest Habitat Conservation Plan HCP = Habitat Conservation Plan NSO = Northern Spotted Owl

3-40 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 4 Environmental Consequences

This chapter describes the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on resources potentially affected by implementing the FHCP16 or an action alternative, relative to the Service taking no action (i.e., the No Action Alternative). Section 4.1 defines the analytical scope of the analyses, including the approach to the cumulative impact analysis. Section 4.2 focuses on those resources that could be affected by changes in management activities and the conservation measures that would be implemented under the FHCP or an action alternative, relative to the No Action Alternative. A key premise of this assessment is that under the No Action Alternative, lands in the Plan Area would continue to be managed in accordance with existing regulations, other applicable laws, the Amended NSO HCP (Green Diamond, 2006), the AHCP/CCAA (Green Diamond, 2007), and Green Diamond operational policies and guidelines (e.g., MATO) through their respective permit terms (e.g., 2022 for the NSO HCP, and 2057 for the ACHP/CCAA). Green Diamond would continue to comply with these same regulations, laws, and terms of the AHCP/CCAA and MATO for the FHCP or Action Alternatives, but the Amended NSO HCP would be terminated and superseded by the FHCP, Alternative A, or Alternative B. 4.1 Analytical Framework for the Analysis As discussed in Chapter 2, it is important to note that the Proposed Action (issuance of the permits) does not include authorization or regulation of future timber harvesting operations on Green Diamond lands. Future THPs will be authorized by CAL FIRE, and the conservation measures developed in the proposed FHCP to protect and improve habitat for the covered species will be incorporated directly into future THPs. Under the No Action Alternative, Green Diamond would continue to prepare THPs in accordance with the requirements of the FPRs, other applicable laws, and Green Diamond’s NSO HCP, AHCP/CCAA, MATO and other management policies. In contrast, under the FHCP, Green Diamond would prepare THPs in accordance with the same requirements as the No Action Alternative (i.e., FPRs, other applicable laws, and Green Diamond’s AHCP/CCAA, MATO and other management policies) but also with the requirements of the FHCPs Conservation Program. By incorporating the components of the FHCP’s conservation program into the analysis of the Proposed Action, this EIS addresses both the impacts of issuing the Permits and implementing the conservation measures as well as the potential direct and indirect environmental impacts of future timber harvesting actions on Green Diamond lands within the Action Area. 4.1.1 Direct and Indirect Impacts Direct effects are caused by the Proposed Action and occur at the same time and place as the action (Bass et al., 2001). Direct effects commonly result from construction activities on landscapes or habitats (e.g., harvesting trees occupied by nesting NSOs could kill or injure NSOs). Indirect effects are reasonably foreseeable effects caused by the Proposed Action that may occur later in time or distant from the location of the immediate action. An example of an indirect effect would be a decline in NSO site fecundity in an unharvested unit due to nearby harvesting activities.

16 The “Proposed Action” in this EIS is Service issuance of an ITP to Green Diamond to implement the FHCP. In this chapter, the Service evaluates the impacts of implementing the proposed FHCP, Alternative A, or Alternative B, relative to the No Action Alternative (i.e., not issuing a new ITP).

PR0105180936SAC 4-1 CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.1.2 Cumulative Impacts The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA define a “cumulative impact” for purposes of NEPA as follows: Cumulative impact is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time (40 CFR Section 1508.7) CEQ (1997) also requires developing a baseline (or benchmark) “against which to compare predictions of the effects of the proposed action and reasonable alternatives.” 4.1.2.1 Approach to Cumulative Effects Analysis in This EIS General Approach Potential cumulative impacts (both beneficial and adverse) are assessed relative to the No Action Alternative for each of the resource category sections in this chapter. For the No Action Alternative, potential changes are described in terms of trends and future conditions anticipated to occur from continuing to implement until 2022 the existing 1992 NSO HCP (Simpson, 1992), AHCP/CCAA (Green Diamond, 2006), MATO (CDFG, 2010a), FPRs, other local, State and Federal laws and regulations, plus other Green Diamond forest management practices. These are described in detail in Chapter 1. For an impact to be considered cumulatively considerable, incremental project impacts must be related in space and time, so that they are either capable of combining, or have combined, with past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions. Baseline CEQ requires that a baseline (or benchmark) be used for assessing incremental impacts to resource areas. CEQ cites the No Action Alternative as the appropriate benchmark (CEQ, 1997). The benchmark used in this EIS is the No Action Alternative, as described in Chapter 2. Geographic Scope of Cumulative Assessment The CEQ guidelines state that cumulative effects analyses should be limited to the effects that can be evaluated meaningfully by the decision makers. The guidelines further state that the area to use in defining the cumulative impacts geographical boundary should extend to the point at which the resource is no longer affected significantly (CEQ, 1997). The area for conducting the cumulative impact assessment for the NSO is the California Coast Physiographic Province, which extends from the Oregon border south to San Francisco Bay, and from the Pacific Ocean eastward to the California Klamath Province border. The geographical boundary of the cumulative impact area for other resource areas (e.g., aquatic resources) described in this EIS is noted later in this chapter, as appropriate. Actions That Could Have Associated Cumulative Effects Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions that have the potential to combine with incremental effects of the proposed FHCP (or another action alternative) to result in cumulative impacts, are those actions that: • Have an application for operations pending before an agency with permit authority • Are of a similar character, could affect similar environmental resources, or are located in geographic proximity to the geography affected by the Federal action (CEQ, 1997) Using the description of NEPA requirements for cumulative effects analysis, this subsection describes the other actions that are considered. The other actions are presented as general categories of activities

4-2 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

that can affect the same resources that may be affected by the alternatives considered in Chapter 2. These general categories are as follows. • NSO Management • Timber and Resource Management • Public Lands Preservation and Recreation • Land Development Each of these general categories has affected regional environmental conditions as summarized in the following subsections. Regulations and programs that minimize and mitigate the ongoing effects of these activities also are described. 4.1.2.2 Other Actions Assessed in the Cumulative Impacts Analysis NSO Management Revised Recovery Plan. In 1990, NSO was listed under the ESA as threatened because of widespread loss of suitable habitat across the NSO’s range and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to conserve the spotted owl. The Revised Recovery Plan for the NSO (USFWS, 2011a) acknowledges the important role of State, private, and tribal lands in recovering the NSO. Contributions from non-Federal lands are recognized as important to the range-wide goal of achieving conservation and recovery of the species. Although the Recovery Plan recommends retaining all occupied sites and unoccupied, high- quality NSO habitat on all lands to the greatest extent feasible, the Service recognized that this goal will be especially difficult to meet on non-Federal lands. Relevant recovery actions are as follows. • Recovery Action 10: Conserve spotted owl sites and high-value habitat to provide additional demographic support to the spotted owl population. • Recovery Action 14: Encourage applicants to develop Habitat Conservation Plans that are consistent with the recovery objectives. • Recovery Action 29: Design and implement large-scale control experiments to assess the effects of barred owl removal on spotted owl site occupancy, reproduction, and survival. • Recovery Action 30 (Manage to reduce the negative effects of barred owls on spotted owls) and Recovery Action 31 (Develop mechanisms for landowners and land managers to support barred owl management). • Recovery Action 32: Land managers should maintain and restore well distributed, older, and more structurally complex multi-layered conifer forests. Critical Habitat Designation. In 2012, the Service released a final rule revising designated critical habitat for the NSO (USFWS, 2012). The revision relies heavily on an extensive and “state-of-the-science” modeling process that integrated a spotted owl habitat model, a habitat conservation planning model, and a population simulation model that collectively allowed the Service to compare estimated spotted owl population performance among alternative habitat conservation network scenarios under a variety of potential conditions including establishing assumptions regarding maximum thresholds of barred owl encounter rates (the probability that a given spotted owl territory also has barred owls present). The following is stated in the Draft Revised Critical Habitat for Northern Spotted Owl: “Absent such an assumption, it would not be possible to identify those areas essential to the conservation of the owl, as the negative effect of barred owls would essentially mask the positive effect of habitat on spotted owl populations” (USFWS, 2012). Barred owl encounter rates were set at a maximum of 0.375, because above that level, spotted owl populations declined regardless of the habitat available.

PR0105180936SAC 4-3 CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Barred Owl Removal Research. In 2013, the Service finalized an EIS evaluating its proposal to experimentally remove barred owls to improve NSO site occupancy and population trends (USFWS, 2013), consistent with Recovery Action 29 of the Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS, 2011a). The purposes of the proposed barred owl removal experiment are as follows: • Obtain information regarding the effects of barred owls on NSO vital rates of occupancy, survival, reproduction, and population trend through experimental removal of barred owls • Determine the feasibility of removing barred owls from an area and the amount of effort required to maintain reduced barred owl population levels for the study period • Estimate the cost of barred owl removal in different forested landscapes • Develop timely information necessary to inform future decisions about the need for long-term management of barred owls Lethal and non-lethal removals of barred owls began in late 2013, and have continued through 2017. Experimental study areas include the Hoopa tribal forestlands in northern California, the Cle Elum District of the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest in Washington State, the northern portion of the Oregon Coast Range, and the Klamath/Union/Myrtle area of southern Oregon. Barred owls are removed on less than one-twentieth of one percent of the range of the species. If the experimental removal of barred owls results in improved spotted owl populations, the Service may consider proposing wider- scale treatments as part of a barred owl management strategy. Preliminary analyses of data collected from three of the four study areas (all but Hoopa) showed equivocal reactions of spotted owls in the first year following barred owl removals (Wiens et al., 2017). The authors cautioned that their early results were likely influenced by small, and potentially insufficient, sample sizes. Timber and Resource Management. Forests within and near the Action Area have been managed for commercial timber production since the 1850s. Extensive new road development and reconstruction of existing roads by private timber companies and USFS began in the late 1950s and continued to the mid- 1980s, primarily for timber harvest. Through 1971, timber harvest concentrated on old-growth stands, resulting in a decline in old-growth forest stands and old-growth-dependent species. Since passage of the State of California Forest Practice Act in 1973, timber management has focused on younger, more productive forests, and mandatory protective measures for natural resources have been implemented. The measures include designated stream protection zones, canopy retention standards, stream crossing standards, and other protective best management practices. Timber and Resource Management on Private and Tribal Timberlands. Private timberland owners adjacent to Green Diamond lands include Humboldt Redwood Company (HRC) and Sierra Pacific Industries. HRC conducts its timberland management operations pursuant to an HCP originally adopted in 1999 by Pacific Lumber Company (PALCO, 1999). The Action Area also borders Hoopa Valley Tribal lands in northeastern Humboldt County, which also has a forest management program that operates under a revised FMP covering management from 2011 to 2026. In addition, the Yurok Tribe owns and manages more than 48,000 acres of forest within their traditional territory consisting of a 24,000 acre timberland preserve at Blue Creek, and 24,000 acres of timberland managed under the Yurok HCP (YHCP) approved in 2011. Timber harvest operations on Sierra Pacific Industries’ and other private lands follow the FPRs and other laws and regulations governing timber harvesting in California. HRC HCP. HRC conducts timberland management operations pursuant to a functioning HCP inherited from Pacific Lumber Company that went into effect in 1999. The HRC HCP includes multiple measures for protecting and conserving wildlife and wildlife habitat on the landscape. Seventeen species are currently covered by the HRC HCP including NSO, fisher, Sonoma tree vole, and the same aquatic species covered by Green Diamond’s AHCP/CCAA (HRC, 2012). The protections consist of operating restrictions organized into Operating Conservation Plans for each covered species, including a comprehensive road and hillslope conservation plan designed to reduce sediment inputs into streams. In addition to the

4-4 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

operating restrictions, the HRC HCP requires long-term monitoring of forest and stream conditions to ensure that the conservation measures are accomplishing the desired effects (HRC, 2012). HRC’s HCP provides guidelines for retaining snags, hardwood, green trees, and live cull green trees. Where well-stocked conifer stands occur, HRC uses selection harvest to retain the structure and function of the forest stand and to promote the development of a complex, high-value, uneven-aged stand structure. The HRC HCP contains provisions for recruiting and retaining large woody debris and burned- out basal cavities (“goosepens’) that provide habitat for bats, birds, and mammals. The HRC HCP and ITP authorizes incidental take of NSOs over approximately 211,000 acres of commercial timberland in Humboldt County. The conservation strategy for the NSO contained in the HRC HCP uses a habitat- and performance-based approach that includes the harvest, retention, and recruitment of requisite habitat types and elements within watershed assessment areas and around individual owl activity sites. The strategy also includes requirements to retain a specific number of owl activity sites on the covered lands (108 activity sites for the remainder of the permit term), with occupancy and reproductive performance criteria for those activity sites. Harvest of owl habitat is permitted in and around activity sites that are not among the 108 designated sites. The HRC strategy is complemented by activities that include minimizing disturbance to NSO activity sites, monitoring to determine whether these efforts maintain a high-density and productive population of spotted owls on the ownership and applying adaptive management techniques when HRC, the Service, CDFW, and the scientific community learn more about the biology of the NSO and assess how well management objectives of the HCP are being met. HRC’s NSO strategy also relies on other conservation elements of the HCP for retention and recruitment of potential foraging, roosting, and nesting habitat in watersheds across the HRC ownership. Specifically, HRC has established a series of Marbled Murrelet Conservation Areas that are large, contiguous areas of second growth and old growth incorporating approximately 6,500 acres with significant amounts of residual old-growth trees. Timber harvesting within the Marbled Murrelet Conservation Areas is limited to habitat enhancement projects for murrelet. The HRC HCP also establishes RMZs that extend out to 170 feet and 75 to 100 feet on Class I and Class II streams, respectively. The RMZs include an inner no- cut area and an outer band of selective harvest. The conservation strategy for fisher within the HRC HCP is similar to the approach in Green Diamond’s FHCP. Management objectives strive to maintain sufficient suitable habitat in the HCP Plan Area to contribute to a sustainable population of fishers in the northern California coastal province. Conservation measures include retention of late-seral stands, aquatic resource protection, measures to retain and recruit habitat structural components, and protection of old growth habitat reserves. HRC determined that fishers are broadly distributed on its ownership, but at apparently low densities (HRC, 2013, 2015). Sonoma tree voles are managed by retaining, through selection harvest, large Douglas-fir trees in harvest stands, in riparian zones, and in association with NSO nest sites. Large trees with complex structures are also maintained on HRC’s working landscape to provide tree vole habitat, as are old- growth trees meeting HRC’s old-growth policy. HRC HCP road management measures include limitations on wet weather use of roads, progressive storm-proofing of existing logging roads, and special timber harvesting restrictions on potentially unstable areas and steep slopes. Restrictions on unstable areas and steep slopes are designed to minimize the potential for sediment delivery to streams as a result of forest management operations. Hoopa Valley Tribe FMP. The Hoopa Valley Tribe has a Forestry Division within its Natural Resources Department that administers forest management on Tribal lands. The Tribe has recently adopted a revised FMP in effect from 2011 to 2026. While implementing the Tribe’s FMP from 1994 to the present, the amount of old growth stands on the reservation has declined from 34,082 acres (37.5 percent) to

PR0105180936SAC 4-5 CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

28,387 acres (31.3 percent). However, all stands cut retained at least some large trees, snags, and down wood. This change in extent of old growth was primarily due to timber harvest, but some old growth was lost to wildfires during 2008 and 2009 (Hoopa Valley Tribe, 2012). The FMP includes several guidelines to meet the objectives of the plan, including those for management (rotation and stand/unit selection) and silviculture (stocking standards, harvest prescriptions, retention of downed woody material, retention of high-value wildlife trees, reforestation, regeneration, and tree stand improvement). The FMP also includes guidelines for logging practices, including winter period operations, erosion control, site preparation, road/landing construction and use, stream crossing, riparian management, and protection of geologically unstable lands. In addition, there are guidelines to protect wildlife and plant species of concern and cultural and visual resources. Yurok HCP. The Yurok Tribe owns and manages more than 48,000 acres of timberland within their traditional territory north and east of the Klamath River and downstream from its confluence with the Trinity River. The timberlands were formerly owned and managed by Green Diamond and were included within the Plan Area of Green Diamond’s AHCP/CCAA. In 2011, the Service approved the YHCP for managing former Green Diamond lands under the same management prescriptions used in Green Diamond’s AHCP/CCAA and conservation benefits and incidental take coverage for the same aquatic species as Green Diamond’s AHCP/CCAA. In addition to the YHCP, Yurok timberlands are subject to management under Bureau of Indian Affairs regulations and additional objectives and limitations enacted under Yurok tribal law. Timber and Resource Management on Public Lands NWFP. The NWFP (USDI and USDA, 1994) establishes land use objectives for Federal lands in the Pacific Northwest under the jurisdiction of USFS and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). As such, the NWFP adds to the management direction of existing adopted USFS Land and Resource Management Plans (LRMPs) and BLM Resource Management Plans. The NWFP supersedes management direction contained in existing plans where it differs for specific resources or areas. The NWFP protects large blocks of late-successional forest from commercial timber harvest and provides habitat for species that depend on these forests, including the NSO. Late-Successional Reserves were designated to contain significant amounts of the “best” late-successional forests. Management of the Late-Successional Reserves emphasizes retention of the existing late-successional forests and uses silvicultural practices to speed development of beneficial structural conditions in younger forest stands. The NWFP includes extensive provisions for restricting timber operations in forested environments to protect terrestrial habitats and a wide variety of species (including the NSO). SNRF LRMP. A large portion of the Green Diamond ownership is adjacent to the SRNF. The SRNF is managed for multiple uses including recreation, fish and wildlife habitat, timber harvest, and visual resources. Approximately 87,700 acres (9 percent of the forest) was determined to be capable, available, and suitable for sustained timber production. Timber harvest is prohibited on the remaining forest, which consists of other congressionally designated areas and administratively withdrawn areas. Late-Successional Reserves and Riparian Reserves from the NWFP comprise about 458,600 acres, or 48 percent of the SRNF. Large reserves with restricted management activities provide contiguous blocks of late-seral habitat for many species. BLM Resource Management Plans. BLM land management activities are required to comply with NWFP requirements. The BLM Arcata Field Office has completed several Resource Management Plans for areas under its jurisdiction, including the Headwaters Forest Reserve, the Lacks Creek Management Area, and the King Range Conservation Area. No areas are immediately adjacent to the Plan Area for the Forest HCP. Public Lands Preservation and Recreation. Redwood National and State Parks consist of four units: Redwood National Park, Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park, Del Norte Coast Redwoods State Park, and

4-6 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Jedediah Smith Redwoods State Park. These four units encompass a total of 131,983 acres of land. Collectively, park lands contain 38,982 acres of ancient coast redwood forest. This is approximately 35 percent of all ancient/old-growth forests remaining in California (NPS, 2014). Land Development. Land development projects can result in permanent conversion of forest land to other uses. Projects can also affect wildlife habitat, cultural resources, wetlands and water bodies, and water and air quality. Humboldt, Trinity, and Del Norte counties are still relatively undeveloped; however, as population pressure increases, agricultural and forest land at the fringe of urban areas, such as Eureka in Humboldt County, is most likely to experience land development pressure. In California, development is regulated under local comprehensive plans and land use zoning and development regulations. Most commercial forest lands are zoned and regulated as Timber Production Zone (TPZ) where alternative forms of development are limited. In addition, the intensity of development on forest lands in California is limited by the Map Act, which regulates subdivision of property and tends to conserve existing larger parcels managed for timber production. Under this regulatory framework, development pressure at the urban-forest fringe is limited and directed by local land use planning, which allows for some growth in areas where it is appropriate because of available infrastructure and compatibility with adjacent development. In 2017, Humboldt County adopted a General Plan update. The Trinity County General Plan was last updated in 2012. The Del Norte County General Plan was last updated in 2003. 4.2 Resources Affected by the Federal Action The following resources and resource categories may be affected by the Service’s issuance of an ITP for the reasons explained below. 4.2.1 Covered Species Species proposed for coverage in the FHCP and other action alternatives include NSO, fisher, and tree voles (i.e., red tree vole and Sonoma tree vole). This subsection analyzes the effects of the Service’s issuance of an ITP for one or more Covered Species. 4.2.1.1 Northern Spotted Owl Unintended direct harm to NSOs may occur when they are not detected during pre-harvest surveys, and their nest stand is cut during the breeding season without knowledge of their presence. Adult NSOs likely abandon these stands and avoid direct physical harm, but harvesting their nest stand may kill eggs, nestlings, or fledglings with limited or no ability to fly. The likelihood of direct effects on NSOs is evaluated based on provisions for protecting nesting/fledging owls against harm due to felling nest trees or disturbance during the nesting season. Effects on NSOs associated with timber harvesting can also result from modifying NSO foraging, roosting, and nesting habitat around activity centers (nest trees). The likelihood of effects on NSOs due to habitat modification is evaluated according to the potential changes in forest characteristics within a 0.5-mile radius around known NSO activity centers. Currently, indirect displacement of NSOs of a site because of habitat modification is assumed to occur if timber harvest causes either of the following: (1) the area of stands aged 31 years or older within the 502-acre owl circle (centered around the NSO nest tree) is reduced below 233 acres, or (2) the area of stands aged 41 years or older within the 502-acre owl circle is reduced below 89 acres. In addition, direct displacement of owls is assumed to occur if trees are harvested within 500 feet of an activity center, regardless of the amount or age structure of habitat present within the larger circle. In the following analysis, modifying forest characteristics to this extent is conservatively assumed to cause abandonment of NSO activity centers.

PR0105180936SAC 4-7 CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Specific structural elements like snags, large hardwood trees, and decadent or defective trees provide habitat complexity to NSO roost and nest sites. Older forest stands in the redwood region develop trees with complex structures such as cavities, broken tops, and debris accumulations. Green Diamond showed that the probability of successful nesting increased with the age of the stand along with having high levels of residual older structure and being located near good foraging habitat (Ten-Year Report, see AFWO website). Effects of forest management on the development of structural elements are evaluated against the likelihood that these structural elements are retained. Effects on NSO habitat related to timber harvesting also include altering the forest landscape outside of the circles around owl sites or activity centers, such that demographic parameters (e.g., survival, fecundity) may increase or decrease, leading to a change in the overall habitat fitness potential for NSOs. Green Diamond’s modeling of NSO Habitat Fitness was developed as a multivariate tool using projections of harvest and land management activities aligned with the FHCP proposal. To allow a comparison of habitat fitness among the various alternatives analyzed in this EIS, Green Diamond identified three variables that may be used as a surrogate in for comparing the alternatives potential habitat fitness, using variables that are influenced by harvest at the timber stand level. These variables are: (1) percent of 41+-year old trees, (2) percent of 0-5-year old trees, and (3) overall stand age. Site fitness improves linearly for percent of 0-5-year old trees and curvilinearly for overall stand age. That is, with increasing percentages of each, site fitness improves. The relationship between percent 41+-year old trees and site fitness is asymptotic, with optimum site fitness realized when stands support between 40 and 60 percent of trees that are 41+ years old. Moreover, Green Diamond’s modeling indicates that greater than 60 percent of trees that are 41+ years old has no added fitness value. As such, Green Diamond suggests that percent CWHR Age Class 4 (41+ years) is the single variable that best predicts site fitness, and therefore habitat fitness, for comparison among alternatives (Green Diamond’s FHCP Effects Analysis of EIS Alternatives on NSO Habitat, see AFWO website). The impact analysis is organized by the following types of effects due to forest management activities evaluated at various spatial scales: • Direct effects on NSOs related to felling nest trees, cutting nesting stands, or disturbing nesting/fledging owls • Effects on NSOs related to changes in their habitat on the Green Diamond ownership in the following contexts: – Areas protected by riparian and geological conservation measures (e.g., RMZs) – Special conservation areas referred to as “set-asides” under the No Action Alternative, “Dynamic Core Areas” under the FHCP, “Reserves” under Alternative A, and “Reserved Owl Core Areas” under Alternative B – “Matrix Lands” available for harvest, and not constrained by special conservation areas, RMZ restrictions, or NSO site avoidance considerations • Effects on NSO demographic parameters related to changes in their habitat on the Green Diamond ownership • Effects related to displacement of NSOs on the Green Diamond ownership as a result of timber harvesting activities • Effects on NSOs related to barred owls and their management on the Green Diamond ownership The discussion of potential effects of implementation of the FHCP or action alternative is focused on the effects of management or conservation actions that differ from those that would occur under the No Action Alternative.

4-8 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, existing management activities would continue to be implemented in accordance with the Amended NSO HCP (Green Diamond, 2006), until 2022; the AHCP/CCAA (Green Diamond, 2007) until 2057; MATO (CDFG, 2010a) until 2057; and THPs formulated in accordance with the FPRs and Green Diamond’s operational policies and guidelines. After expiration of the NSO HCP in 2022, Green Diamond would implement harvest prescriptions (i.e., selection harvest) around NSO activity centers to retain sufficient suitable habitat and avoid disturbing nesting spotted owls in accordance with FPRs and the Service’s guidelines that may be in place at that time. Take of NSOs would not be permitted. Harvest would be allowed in the 40 set-asides subject to the same no-take restrictions as would exist on the remainder of Green Diamond’s ownership. Direct Effects. Under the No Action Alternative, Green Diamond would be required to survey during the NSO breeding and nesting season (March 1 to August 31), any areas with planned timber harvest following provisions in the NSO HCP. If NSO are present, seasonal and spatial harvest restrictions would be implemented to prevent take of nesting NSO adults, eggs, nestlings, or fledglings. After expiration of NSO HCP in 2022, Green Diamond would continue to conduct protocol-level surveys on all THP units. Direct harm to NSOs is very unlikely because Green Diamond’s survey protocols are designed to achieve a minimum 95 percent detection probability. Since Green Diamond began pre-harvest surveys in 1990, there are no known instances of harvesting an occupied nest stand that pre-harvest surveys had concluded was unoccupied by NSOs. Furthermore, Green Diamond documented five instances since 1990 (less than 0.156 percent of surveys) where early season occupancy surveys failed to detect NSOs at a given site. However, fledged juveniles were detected later in the breeding season at these sites (Ten- Year Report, see AFWO website). Since 1992, an annual average of approximately 17 percent of active NSO sites had some timber harvest within 0.5 mile. The number of NSO sites that could be subjected to direct harm from timber harvest over a 50-year term was estimated using the cumulative NSO site-years, the percentage of sites having harvest within 0.5 mile, and the non-detection percentage (0.156 percent). It is estimated that approximately 2.5 NSO sites could be subjected to direct harm from timber harvest over a 50-year term. In 2015, 119 active NSO sites were documented within the proposed FHCP Plan Area; 99 of these were occupied. Directly harming approximately 2.5 NSO sites over the 50-year permit term is expected to have little effect on the overall NSO population in the Action Area. Potential Changes in NSO Habitat on the Green Diamond Ownership. Under the No Action Alternative, Green Diamond would continue to manage timber within both riparian and upland areas of its ownership pursuant to several existing agreements and permits. The following paragraphs describe the anticipated trends in NSO habitat under the management prescriptions and strategies employed under these agreements and permits. These trends are described for areas protected by riparian and geological conservation measures, special conservation areas, and “Matrix Lands” subject to intensive forest management. RMZs and Areas Protected by Geological Conservation Measures. Areas with limited harvesting under the riparian and geological conservation measures mandated by the AHCP/CCAA are expected to create a future landscape in which an estimated 25 percent (99,000 acres) of the landscape will be retained (i.e., primarily from Class I and II RMZs and SSS zones) (Green Diamond, 2006). Using the 2010 ownership as the baseline, Table 4-1 shows Green Diamond’s projected proportion of forest lands in each age class within RMZs over time. Consistent with the NSO HCP definition, forest stands greater than 30 years old were considered suitable NSO nesting and roosting habitat. Model projections show that by the year 2040, all forest stands within RMZs would be greater than 30 years old. The abundance of RMZ forest stands at least 100 years old would increase from 2.5 percent in 2010 to 36.6 percent in 2060 under the No Action Alternative.

PR0105180936SAC 4-9 CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Green Diamond projected that the average age of forest stands currently within RMZs will increase from approximately 42 years in 2010 to 91 years in 2060 (Ten-Year Report, see AFWO website). Although not considered old growth, forest stands averaging at least 90 years old in the redwood region develop trees with complex structures such as cavities, broken tops, debris accumulations, and nests built by species other than NSO that can and do serve as NSO nest sites. The trend toward riparian stands of this age with the typical hardwood component also provides roosting habitat for adult NSOs and their young. Although some RMZs may be too narrow or linear to provide stable core nesting habitat for NSOs, areas with multiple tributary junctions or unstable inner gorges may develop into core habitats for NSO roosting and nesting. In other areas along the linear network of RMZs associated with watercourses, the RMZ, combined with adjacent stands of less than harvestable age, may provide functional nesting habitat for NSOs. At the same time, some portions of the linear RMZ network will be surrounded by early seral stands as a result of timber harvest and will most likely serve as foraging habitat and dispersal corridors within the younger stands. Managing riparian and geologically unstable areas under the AHCP/CCAA, along with small adjacent clear-cuts mandated by the FPRs, is expected to result in a trend toward greater overall open edge density and a higher overall level of habitat heterogeneity. These conditions appear to be beneficial to NSOs in managed forests within the redwood region (Diller et al., 2007; Ten-Year Report, see AFWO website). NSO HCP Set-Asides. Under the No Action Alternative, Green Diamond would maintain all set-asides established under the NSO HCP until 2022. There are no restrictions on timber harvesting around the unoccupied set-asides. After expiration of the NSO HCP in 2022, harvest would be allowed in the 40 set-asides subject to the same no-take restrictions as would exist on the remainder of Green Diamond’s California timberlands. Green Diamond would implement harvest prescriptions around NSO activity centers to retain sufficient suitable habitat and avoid disturbing nesting spotted owls in accordance with the FPRs and Service guidelines that may be in place at that time. Harvest within and around the former large set-aside areas could result in an increase in foraging habitat close to NSO sites with a concomitant increase in habitat heterogeneity. Areas Subject to Intensive Forest Management (Matrix Lands). Green Diamond harvests timber on most of its ownership outside of the AHCP/CCAA conservation areas, and the current set-asides using even-aged regeneration silvicultural techniques. Harvesting currently is planned to minimize the potential for displacement (take) of NSOs within the incidental take allowance specified in the NSO HCP while providing for adequate timber volume to be harvested. The timing and distribution of past harvesting activity over the Green Diamond ownership has resulted in the current mosaic of age classes dominated by forest types less than 60 years old, with approximately 85 percent of the Plan Area supporting forests in these age classes (Chapter 3). The proportion of the area in the older age classes are expected to remain at the current levels or increase over time for the following reasons: • FPR adjacency constraints that are applied to even-aged harvesting units result in retaining many stands past Green Diamond’s planned rotation age. If harvesting a tract of mature timber is initiated around age 50, the harvesting of much of that tract will be constrained into the following decade, and the harvest of a few stands will be constrained past 70 years of age. This trend has been demonstrated in Green Diamond’s long-term sustainability and operating plan (i.e., Option [a] plan). • Current rules and regulations, interacting with provisions of the Amended NSO HCP (Green Diamond, 2006) and AHCP/CCAA (Green Diamond, 2007), result in harvesting restrictions or prohibitions on approximately 25 percent of the Plan Area.

4-10 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Under the No Action Alternative, it is anticipated that the development of additional acreage in mid-age stands with later seral forest elements would continue as a result of continued implementation of measures included in the AHCP/CCAA. The development of these stand types is anticipated to be most pronounced within riparian areas. In addition, the NSO HCP identified ways to retain patches of hardwoods and conifers, hard and soft snags, and standing live culls to benefit NSOs (Simpson, 1992). Under the No Action Alternative, these measures would be implemented through 2022. After 2022, Green Diamond would have no legal obligation to retain these structural elements beyond what is required in the FPRs. NSO Demographic Parameters. As described in Chapter 1, review of the NSO HCP led to a more robust and spatially explicit definition of NSO habitat based on survival, fecundity, and ultimately, habitat “fitness.” Green Diamond’s FHCP Effects Analysis of EIS Alternatives on NSO Habitat (see AFWO website, Figure 8) presents projections of forest age on Green Diamond’s ownership from 2015 to 2060 under No Action as a predictor of future NSO habitat fitness. The amount of forest stands aged 41+ ranges from approximately 51 to 56 percent, which falls within the optimum range suggested for NSO habitat fitness. The small clear-cut sizes mandated by the FPRs and the amount of area in riparian corridors under Green Diamond’s AHCP/CCAA are anticipated to result in a higher degree of habitat heterogeneity (relative to existing conditions and continuing beyond 2022) with a mixture of relatively large amounts of edge habitat between forest stands of different ages, contributing to increased habitat fitness for NSO over time. However, habitat fitness within NSO site buffers may decline under the No Action Alternative due to harvest restrictions minimizing amount of edge habitat (Green Diamond’s FHCP Effects Analysis of EIS Alternatives on NSO Habitat, see AFWO website, Figure 9). Displacement of Owls. Under the No Action Alternative, Green Diamond would continue to manage its lands and conduct its timber harvesting pursuant to the FPRs, its NSO HCP (until 2022), and the AHCP/ CCAA (through 2057). Prior to expiration of the NSO HCP in 2022, the trends of displacement on the number of NSO sites and on NSO survival and fecundity are expected to be similar to those documented to date (Ten-Year Report, see AFWO website). After 2022, displacement of NSOs will not occur because of the no-take restrictions that would be in effect. Green Diamond provided evidence that the level of displacement authorized by the NSO HCP had a limited influence on NSO abundance for the initial 8 years of HCP implementation (1992 to 2000). Instead, Green Diamond noted that the increase in barred owl abundance on its ownership since approximately 2000 was more likely responsible for declines in number of NSO sites through time (Ten- Year Report, see AFWO website). Ironically, without experimental removal of barred owls under the No Action Alternative, take and its negative influence on NSO fecundity would diminish over time due to having fewer active NSO sites on the landscape. The Service estimated that the barred owl current level, averaged among study areas, may ultimately result in a 50 percent reduction in the NSO population (USFWS, 2011a). This may be a conservative estimate because it does not account for a likely increase in the barred owl population. Regardless, the consequences of barred owl invasion under the No Action Alternative would likely exceed displacement by timber harvest. Barred Owls and Their Research. As described in Chapter 1, Green Diamond has conducted research into barred owl interactions with NSOs. In addition, a Phase One barred owl removal experiment was initiated in 2009 and completed in 2014. Under the No Action Alternative, no future research of barred owls would occur on the Green Diamond ownership. However, research concerning the interactions between barred owls and NSOs would be conducted by Green Diamond as specified by the Amended NSO HCP, which expires in 2022. Without direct experimental removal of barred owl, the barred owl population will continue to increase on Green Diamond lands, likely resulting in rapid declines in the number of NSOs.

PR0105180936SAC 4-11 CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Green Diamond’s Proposed Multispecies FHCP As a result of ongoing research, analysis, and review, Green Diamond has proposed a new multispecies FHCP to cover incidental take of four terrestrial species (including the NSO). The FHCP, if approved, would replace the NSO HCP. The FHCP will promote a habitat mosaic across the Plan Area and retain and recruit targeted habitat elements that will promote a well distributed population of NSOs throughout the Plan Area. Conservation measures in the FHCP will minimize harm to individual NSOs. Under this alternative, Green Diamond will conduct a series of barred owl removal experiments, and gather additional data to refine and validate the NSO habitat model and adapt the FHCP as new information becomes available. With implementation of the FHCP, some NSO sites may be displaced and conditionally taken. Direct Effects. Direct effects under the FHCP for the 50-year term would be the same as under the No Action Alternative until the NSO HCP expires in 2022. It is estimated that approximately 2.5 NSO sites could be subjected to direct harm from timber harvest over a 50-year term. Green Diamond would be required to survey during the breeding season any areas with planned timber harvest. If NSOs are present, seasonal and spatial harvest restrictions would be implemented to prevent take of nesting NSO adults, eggs, nestlings, or fledglings. These are the same survey requirements and harvest restrictions that are currently implemented under the No Action Alternative. With a minor change in the date for the start of the NSO breeding season moved to February 21 from the current March 1 start date. Effects Related to Changes in NSO Habitat on the Green Diamond Ownership. Under the FHCP, Green Diamond would manage NSO habitat within both riparian and upland areas of its ownership pursuant to the FHCP and several existing agreements and permits. The following sections describe the effects of the management prescriptions and strategies employed under the FHCP on NSO habitat in areas protected by riparian and geological conservation measures, special conservation areas, and “Matrix Lands” subject to intensive forest management. RMZs and Geologically Unstable Areas. Areas managed under the riparian and geological conservation measures would be the same as under the No Action Alternative, except for increasing the length of time in which such measures would be legally enforceable from 2057 (when the AHCP/CCAA expires) to the end of the Permit Term for the FHCP. The RMZ and geological area habitat management provisions in the FHCP are the same as those in the AHCP/CCAA. DCAs. As described in Chapter 2, the conservation strategy for NSO under the FHCP is to establish DCAs intended to be dynamic within the Plan Area’s managed landscape. This contrasts with the static reserve concept of set-asides established under the NSO HCP. The original (current) set-asides and the proposed DCA approach are compared in Table 4-2. Timber harvest would not be allowed within DCAs but, by design, some harvest may occur adjacent to DCAs to facilitate development of well-distributed NSO foraging habitat. Timber harvest adjacent to DCAs would be subject to doubling of FPRs adjacency and timing rules. These harvest restrictions are designed to improve foraging habitat conditions in forest stands adjacent to DCAs by providing time for recolonization by woodrats; one stand would start supporting large numbers of woodrats before the next stand is cut. After meeting established biological standards and spacing requirements, new DCAs could replace existing DCAs. This will ensure that the 44 DCAs maintained throughout the Plan Area are highly productive NSO nest sites over the permit term. Green Diamond does not propose to replace DCAs within the initial 5 years of the FHCP implementation. Areas Subject to Intensive Forest Management (Matrix Lands). Under the FHCP, Green Diamond would manage its harvestable lands outside of RMZs and DCAs pursuant to measures specified in the FHCP and FPRs. Timber volume harvested is expected to be greater than that harvested under the No Action Alternative. Green Diamond would plan and implement timber harvest to create or enhance habitat

4-12 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

heterogeneity in a dynamic pattern across future landscapes. NSO HCP set-asides not converted to DCAs would be become part of Green Diamond’s lands available for timber harvest with operations being implemented to delay take of any existing NSO sites within the former set-aside for a period of 5 to 15 years. The habitat mosaic in upland areas under the FHCP would be similar in many areas to the No Action Alternative, but high-quality habitat would be protected around the most productive owl sites associated with DCAs. In addition, implementing the TREE program under the FHCP may help to preserve and recruit specific structural habitat elements like snags, large hardwood trees, and decadent or defective trees. These structural habitat elements provide habitat complexity conducive to NSO roost and nest sites over time. Therefore, implementing the FHCP is anticipated to provide benefits to NSOs that would not be realized under the No Action Alternative. Effects on NSO Demographic Parameters. Green Diamond’s FHCP Effects Analysis of EIS Alternatives on NSO Habitat. Figure 3 (see AFWO website) presents projections of forest stand age composition on Green Diamond’s ownership from 2015 to 2060 under the FHCP as a predictor of future NSO habitat fitness. The amount of forest stands aged 41+ ranges from 47 to 56 percent, which falls within the optimum range suggested for NSO habitat fitness. Based on Green Diamond’s modeling projections for the dominant parameters of NSO habitat fitness, this alternative would result in the greatest amount of habitat heterogeneity as evidenced by the creation of open edge (0 to 5 years) and young stands (6 to 40 years) supporting high densities of available prey adjacent to older, stable core areas located within RMZs ,and other protected areas. Another important aspect of open edge is the relationship with percent of old stands (41+ years). A more dispersed arrangement of older stands with greater open edge density increases site fitness for NSO. Green Diamond’s management for NSO habitat that have high fitness values under the FHCP may produce a positive trend in the NSO population within the Plan Area. In addition, tree retention associated with the TREE plan and maintenance of the productive owl sites associated with DCAs could lead to demographic benefits not realized in the No Action Alternative. Perhaps most importantly, implementing the proposed barred owl removal experiments may allow the demographic benefits of increasing habitat fitness to be realized under the FHCP. Effects Related to Displacement of Owls. Under the FHCP, displacement of NSOs as a result of timber harvest would be prohibited within the DCAs. Research indicates that reducing spotted owl displacement at these highly productive sites may result in greater annual owl production (fledged owls) relative to the No Action Alternative, where vacant or low-productivity owl sites are currently protected as set-asides. Effects Related to Barred Owls and Their Research. Implementing the phased, long-term barred owl research program under the FHCP is anticipated to result in benefits to NSO site occupancy and demographic parameters (Diller et al., 2016). The research program also is consistent with recommendations within the Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS, 2011a) and current CDFW policy described in the MATO (CDFG, 2010a). The Service suggests that NSOs will continue to decline in abundance through time without active barred owl research (USFWS, 2011a, 2012). Without the long-term barred owl program to be implemented under the FHCP, the conservation and recovery of NSOs on Green Diamond lands and range-wide is likely to be seriously jeopardized. Based on written documents available at the time of this EIS, no other removal of barred owls will take place within the EIS area of analysis. Outside of the EIS area of analysis, 3,603 number of owls are expected to be removed under the Service Barred Owl Removal Study in Washington, Oregon, and in a small portion of northern California, and 300 barred owls are likely to be removed on private lands (permit application currently under review). Cumulatively, these removals combined with the proposed removal of 100 percent of barred owls from

PR0105180936SAC 4-13 CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

the Plan Area still represent an insignificant portion of the North American population of barred owls (less than 1 percent). Alternative A: New NSO HCP with Late-Seral Static Reserve Strategy Under Alternative A, Green Diamond would establish no-harvest or limited-harvest static reserves around select NSO sites and high-value habitats. Green Diamond would designate nine large blocks of forested land in the Plan Area as no-harvest reserves, capable of supporting a minimum of 44 NSO sites within all designated blocks. This alternative would protect high-quality NSO nesting habitat similar to conservation strategies implemented in the past for late-successional forest associated species (Thomas et al., 1990; FEMAT, 1993; USDI and USDA, 1994). Displacement take of NSOs within reserves would not be permitted. Direct Effects. Direct effects under Alternative A would be the same as under the No Action Alternative. Green Diamond would be required to survey during the breeding season any areas with planned timber harvest. If spotted owls are present, seasonal and spatial harvest restrictions would be implemented to prevent take of nesting NSO adults, eggs, nestlings, or fledglings. These are the same survey requirements and harvest restrictions that are currently implemented under the No Action Alternative. Effects Related to Changes in NSO Habitat on the Green Diamond Ownership. Under Alternative A, Green Diamond would manage NSO habitat within both riparian and upland areas of its ownership pursuant to the Alternative and several existing agreements and permits. The following paragraphs describe the effects of the management prescriptions and strategies that would be employed under Alternative A on NSO habitat in areas protected by riparian and geological conservation measures, late- seral static reserves, and Matrix Lands subject to intensive forest management. RMZs and Areas Protected by Geological Conservation Measures. Areas protected by riparian and geological conservation measures would be the same as under the No Action Alternative. The RMZ and geological conservation management provisions are those in the AHCP/CCAA until 2057, then FPRs. Late-seral Static Reserves. As described in Chapter 2, the conservation strategy for NSO under Alternative A is to establish static reserves totaling approximately 72,000 acres. This contrasts with the set-asides established under the NSO HCP by increasing the individual size and overall acreage contained in the static reserves. Timber harvest would not be allowed within reserves but, by design, some harvest may occur adjacent to the reserves to facilitate development of accessible, well-distributed NSO foraging habitat. Timber harvest adjacent to reserves would be subject to the FPRs adjacency and timing rules. Areas Subject to Intensive Forest Management. (Matrix Lands). Under the FHCP, Green Diamond would manage its harvestable lands outside of RMZs and the reserves pursuant to measures specified in the new NSO HCP and FPRs. Timber harvest volume is expected to be the same as under the No Action Alternative. Green Diamond would plan and implement timber harvest to create or enhance habitat heterogeneity in a dynamic pattern across future landscapes. Set-asides not converted to reserves would be become part of Green Diamond’s lands available for timber harvest. Future increases in NSO sites will likely be within RMZs and areas protected by geological conservation measures under the AHCP/CCAA until 2057, then FPRs. Harvesting would be planned to minimize the potential for displacement (take) of NSOs within the incidental take allowance specified for this alternative while providing for adequate timber volume to be harvested. Effects on NSO Demographic Parameters. Under the large Terrestrial Reserve Alternative, approximately 72,000 acres (approximately 19 percent of the Plan Area) will be placed in no-harvest static reserves. The lack of harvest within the reserves would have a much more dramatic effect on habitat heterogeneity relative to the No Action Alternative. In approximately 25 years, all stands in the large terrestrial reserves will be homogeneous mature stands with no beneficial buffer areas and no

4-14 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

open edge density that promotes habitat heterogeneity (Green Diamond’s FHCP Effects Analysis of EIS Alternatives on NSO Habitat, see AFWO website, Figure 11),reducing habitat fitness for NSO. NSO site fitness outside of the reserves would be similar to the No Action Alternative because forest management activities would be similar. Habitat quality in the remainder of the Plan Area outside the large reserves should continue on an increasing trend, but much of the potential gains will be offset by the loss of almost 19 percent of the Plan Area transitioning into low-quality habitat. The NSOs at sites outside of the reserves would be able to take advantage of high-quality habitat produced by application of the FPRs and implementation of the riparian and geologic conservation measures under the AHCP/CCAA. Green Diamond’s FHCP Effects Analysis of EIS Alternatives on NSO Habitat (see AFWO website, Figure 10) presents the projections of forest age composition on Green Diamond’s ownership from 2015 to 2060 under Alternative A as a predictor of future NSO habitat fitness. The amount of forest stands aged 41+ ranges from approximately 53 to 63 percent, which exceeds the optimum range suggested for NSO habitat fitness. Effects Related to Displacement of Owls. Under Alternative A, displacement of NSOs as a result of timber harvest would be prohibited within the reserves. Timber harvest around unprotected sites (FPRs and Service Guidelines) outside of the reserves may be similar to the No Action Alternative, which could lead to about the same amount of displacement outside of the reserve areas. Alternative B: New NSO HCP with Uneven-aged Forest Management The conservation strategy under Alternative B would replace static NSO set-asides with ROCAs where the most productive NSO sites are identified and protected over the permit term through enhanced retention selection harvest designed to promote development of late-seral conditions around these sites. Within the 233-acre buffer of ROCAs, forest management would increase the quadratic mean diameter and canopy cover through selective removal of smaller diameter trees. Outside of the ROCAs and RMZs, Green Diamond would transition away from even-aged management in forest stands capable of supporting selection harvesting, but some stands would continue to be clear- cut either because they are currently understocked with conifers or lack sufficient forest site class growth potential to support stands of conifers capable of being selectively harvested. Green Diamond would use a combination of single tree selection and group selection as allowed under the FPRs. The spatial arrangement and exact amount of group selection harvest is unknown, so Green Diamond conducted 50-year harvest forecasts with single tree and another with single tree and group selection harvest set to 15 percent because the maximum allowable amount of group selection at each entry is 20 percent under the FPRs. Some areas may receive less or more than the 15 percent rate set in the analysis. Since allowable size of group selection harvests range from 0.25 to 2.5 acres, it is virtually impossible to predict where these diminutive clearcuts would occur. Green Diamond would begin selectively harvesting at about 45 years of age and would remove basal area to meet retention requirements under the FPRs and sustained yield. In practice over time, selection harvest could commence before 45 years of age as long as the forest stand could support selection harvest, but the age was held constant in this analysis. In the modeling exercise, stands that would not support selection harvest were deferred until conifer growth supported selection harvest. Other understocked stands would be clearcut using rehabilitation harvest. Rehabilitation harvest is sporadic and driven by economic conditions supporting a hardwood chip market. It is not known how this portion of harvest would be spatially arranged, but in general, the poorer site classes are associated with ridges and south-facing slopes, while the higher site classes are in the lower slopes and valley bottoms. This would indicate that the forest areas managed through even-aged through rehabilitation harvest would be dispersed throughout the Plan Area and

PR0105180936SAC 4-15 CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

would be limited through time based on amounts of understocked stands and the economic limitations at converting these stands to adequately stocked stands of conifer. Direct Effects. Direct effects under Alternative B would be the same as the No Action Alternative. Green Diamond would be required to survey during the breeding season any areas with planned timber harvest. If spotted owls are present, seasonal and spatial harvest restrictions would be implemented to prevent take of nesting NSO adults, eggs, nestlings, or fledglings. These are the same survey requirements and harvest restrictions that are currently implemented under the No Action Alternative. Effects Related to Changes in NSO Habitat on the Green Diamond Ownership. Under Alternative B, Green Diamond would manage NSO habitat within both riparian and upland areas of its ownership pursuant to a new HCP for NSO and several existing agreements and permits. The following paragraphs describe the effects of the management prescriptions and strategies employed under Alternative B on NSO habitat in areas protected by riparian and geological conservation measures, reserved owl core areas, and areas subject to intensive forest management. RMZ and Areas Protected by Geological Conservation Measures. Areas protected by riparian and geological conservation measures would be the same as under the No Action Alternative. The RMZ and geological conservation management provisions are those in the AHCP/CCAA until 2057, then FPRs. ROCAs. The conservation strategy under Alternative B would replace static NSO set-asides with ROCAs where the most productive NSO sites are identified and protected over the permit term through enhanced retention selection harvest designed to promote development of late-seral conditions around these sites. Within the 233-acre buffer of ROCAs, forest management would increase the quadratic mean diameter and canopy cover through selective removal of smaller diameter trees. Under Alternative B, Green Diamond would initiate harvest in all former set-asides subject to NSO take standards in the new HCP developed for this alternative. Green Diamond would develop and implement a forest management strategy based on uneven-aged, selection harvest management as the primary silvicultural technique for growth and harvest of timber. Green Diamond would implement harvest prescriptions around NSO activity centers to retain sufficient suitable habitat and avoid disturbing nesting spotted owls in accordance with the FPR's and Service guidelines that may be in place at that time. Areas Subject to Intensive Forest Management (Matrix Lands). Green Diamond harvests timber on most of its ownership outside of the AHCP/CCAA conservation areas, and the current set-asides using even-aged regeneration silvicultural techniques. Timber harvest volume is expected to be the same as under the No Action Alternative. Under this alternative, over time, Green Diamond would transition to selection silviculture as the predominant technique to manage commercial conifer timber stands. Other silviculture techniques would continue to be used where conifer stocking levels are inadequate to apply uneven-aged management. Green Diamond would increase selection harvest around NSO activity centers and throughout the Plan Area based on the assumption that uneven-aged forest stand structure across the Plan Area is beneficial for the conservation of NSO. Harvesting would be planned to minimize the potential for displacement (take) of NSOs within the incidental take allowance specified for this alternative while providing for adequate timber volume to be harvested. Future increases in NSO sites will likely be within RMZs and areas protected by geological conservation measures under the AHCP/CCAA. Effects on NSO Demographic Parameters. The results of the harvest forecast for uneven-aged management indicate that nearly 75 percent of the Plan Area transitions to CWHR age class 4 (age 41+) by 2045 which exceeds the optimum range suggested for NSO habitat fitness from Green Diamond’s modeling exercise. During the same period, habitat heterogeneity declines due to reductions in the youngest age classes (Green Diamond’s FHCP Effects Analysis of EIS Alternatives on NSO Habitat, see

4-16 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

AFWO website, Figure 12). Essentially, this is opposite to the relationship with habitat fitness projected through time under the No Action Alternative. The forest stands subject to selection timber harvesting would also become more open and may lose quality as roosting and nesting stands so that the juxtaposition of older selectively harvested and young even-aged stands would not carry the benefit of habitat heterogeneity observed on landscapes with even-aged management. The only exception where high -quality nesting and roosting habitat would be retained on the shorter term is in the ROCAs around existing NSO sites. But given that most NSO sites occur on the lower third of a watershed where the higher site classes tend to occur (and more selection harvest), the ROCAs will generally be surrounded by uneven-aged stands lacking in an abundant prey base. Under this alternative, virtually all NSO habitat in the Plan Area would be degraded at 3 percent per decade, and the NSO population would be projected to decline at approximately the same rate that stands are converted to an uneven-aged stand condition. Based on a study of the impacts of partial harvest of mature forest stands on dusky-footed woodrat populations in the Little River Drainage (Hamm and Diller, 2009), the uneven-aged stands did not support populations of woodrats because of a lack of the early seral sunlight-dependent plant forage species. Under this alternative, having approximately 75 percent of the ownership in uneven-aged management would not support the abundant prey base associated with young forest stands, but forest stands with good foraging potential would still be regenerated on the lower site classes in the rehabilitation harvest areas over the short term. In addition, the small patch cuts under group selection may not provide the same beneficial effects to dusky-footed woodrats under the proposed FHCP. The small group selection harvests will not provide the same growing conditions as clearcuts under the No Action or the FHCP Alternatives due to shading effects of the surrounding older stands and these stands will provide less overall prey biomass at the NSO home range and landscape scales. Effects Related to Displacement of Owls. This would have approximately the same effects as under the No Action Alternative. Under Alternative B, displacement of NSOs as a result of timber harvest would be prohibited within the ROCAs. Timber harvest around unprotected sites (subject to Service approved and allocated take) outside of the ROCAs may be greater than under the No Action Alternative because Green Diamond would need to increase harvest rates outside the ROCAs, but still would be uneven-aged forest management. Summary of Effects on NSO Table 4-3 summarizes key measures associated with the No Action, FHCP, and other action alternatives, and potential impacts on NSOs associated with implementing the alternatives. Cumulative Effects on NSO The assessment area for cumulative effects on NSOs consists of the Green Diamond ownership as well as other lands within the California Coast Physiographic Province, 1 of 12 provinces identified within the range of the NSO (USFWS, 2011a). As climate changes, the abundance and distribution of wildlife species, including NSO, in the Province are expected to change. Many current climate projections for the Pacific Northwest suggest that the spotted owl and its habitat probably will be affected by climate change through several pathways. These include, but not limited to, changes in fire regime; patterns of rain and snowfall; wildlife diseases; and abundance and distribution of native and non-native species of fish, wildlife, and plants (USFWS, 2011a). However, the effects of climate change are expected to be the same under all alternatives. Effects on NSOs would result primarily from displacement (i.e., abandonment of occupied NSO sites or activity centers) due to timber harvesting and associated habitat changes and through competition with barred owls. Under all alternatives, Green Diamond would implement various avoidance measures contained in the NSO HCP (Simpson, 1992) or the FHCP, or under a “no take” management scenario where HCP coverage would not apply, that makes directly killing or injuring of NSOs very unlikely.

PR0105180936SAC 4-17 CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

However, isolated, unintentional instances of direct harm may potentially occur through time. Similar measures would be implemented on other private commercial timberlands within the California Coast Physiographic Province (e.g., the HRC HCP and FPRs), as well as tribal (e.g., Hoopa Valley Tribe FMP) and public lands (NWFP, SRNF LRMP, and Redwood National and State Parks). Within the California Coast Physiographic Province, it is anticipated that continued implementation of measures associated with the 1992 NSO HCP and AHCP/CCAA, in conjunction with ongoing activities on other private, tribal, and public lands, would result in improved habitat conditions for NSOs under all alternatives. Overall, implementing these alternatives would contribute to an increasing trend in habitat quantity and quality for NSOs. Barred owls have and will continue to displace NSOs from nest sites within designated DCAs and elsewhere in the Plan Area, which would undermine the effectiveness and potential for success of the No Action Alternative and Alternatives A and B with respect to spotted owls. Without implementation of the long-term barred owl program, the conservation and recovery of NSOs on Green Diamond lands is likely to be compromised. Conditions would be further improved under the Proposed Action and each of the other action alternatives. Under the Proposed Action, establishing DCAs around the most productive NSO sites that will be dynamic as habitat conditions and owl occupancy change will ensure that at least 44 highly productive NSO sites are maintained in the Plan Area, contributing positively to owl demographics locally and within the Province. In addition, implementing the TREE measures under the proposed Forest HCP is anticipated to benefit NSOs by preserving and recruiting specific structural habitat elements like snags, large hardwood trees, and decadent or defective trees. Implementing the phased long-term barred owl research program (including barred owl removal) under the proposed Forest HCP is anticipated to result in benefits to NSO demographic parameters, and should complement the Service’s proposed experimental removal of barred owls. Monitoring and adaptive management will ensure that the biological objectives of the proposed Forest HCP will be achieved. For these reasons, it is anticipated that under the Proposed Action, implementation of measures associated with the FHCP, along with ongoing activities on other private, tribal, and public lands, would result in additional benefits to the NSO, compared to the No Action Alternative and other action alternatives. This would be considered a beneficial cumulative effect. 4.2.1.2 Fisher The fisher was assessed using recent research related to their distribution and habitat associations on Green Diamond lands and the surrounding landscape. Because fishers and NSOs have similar habitat associations, effects analyzed in this subsection will mirror those described previously for NSOs to some extent. Unintended direct harm to fishers may occur if natal or maternal denning trees are cut during the denning period without knowledge of their presence. Another potential form of direct harm is from being struck on a road with a vehicle. Green Diamond has also documented fisher deaths at abandoned or unmaintained water tanks. The likelihood of direct effects on fishers is evaluated against provisions (if any, depending on the alternative) for protecting denning fishers against harm due to felling denning trees or disturbance during the denning season, the likelihood of fishers being struck by vehicles during timber operations, and provisions to prevent entrapment in water tanks. Unlike for NSOs, data or models are not available to estimate habitat fitness for fisher. However, it is assumed that the best denning habitat occurs in older stands with large residual trees that develop cavities used by fishers for natal and maternal dens. Rest structures, such as debris accumulations and dwarf mistletoe infestations, can develop in relatively young conifer stands. Like NSOs, fishers are likely to benefit from retaining and recruiting older forest stands with late-seral forest habitat elements within a mosaic of younger stands and edges that provide an abundant prey base and foraging opportunities.

4-18 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Effects on fishers due to habitat modification are evaluated based on the potential availability of resting and den sites on the ownership and the level of retention (if any) of later seral habitat elements. Habitat modification due to timber harvesting can affect fishers through displacement of individuals from their home range. However, fishers are more able to adapt to management activities because they use multiple denning sites and, unlike the NSO, reproduction is not dependent on a single nest site that is not easily re-established after disturbance. The likelihood of effects on fishers due to displacement is evaluated with respect to the proportion of fisher habitat harvested each year. Another effect of timber harvesting is modification of foraging habitat that reduces occupancy (or potential occupancy) of forest stands. Green Diamond used repeated track-plate surveys to estimate the probability of fisher occupancy associated with various habitat and physiographic variables (Ten-Year Report, see AFWO website). The occupancy projections are based on harvest scheduling that is the result of forest age classes, FPRs, and implementing riparian management measures. Effects of habitat alteration on occupancy are evaluated with respect to the distribution and abundance of habitat that would have a high probability of being occupied by fishers. Effects on fishers at the regional- and rangewide scales are evaluated based on the overall effect on displacement and occupancy from forest management in the Action Area, and whether the alternatives will affect fisher abundance regionally or range-wide. The analysis of the alternatives evaluates the following effects on fishers: • Direct effects • Effects related to changes in fisher habitat on the Green Diamond ownership: – Areas protected by riparian and geological conservation measures – Special conservation areas referred to as “set-asides” under the No Action Alternative, “Dynamic Core Areas” under the FHCP, “Reserves” under Alternative A, and “Reserved Owl Core Areas” under Alternative B – Matrix Lands available for harvest, and not constrained by special conservation areas, RMZ restrictions, or NSO site avoidance considerations • Effects related to displacement of fishers • Effects on fisher occupancy The discussion of potential effects of implementing the FHCP or other action alternative is focused on management or conservation actions that differ from those that would occur under the No Action Alternative. No Action Alternative Fishers are not currently listed under the ESA and there is no prohibition on take of fishers. Therefore, no species-specific conservation measures for protecting fishers were incorporated in the Amended NSO HCP (Green Diamond, 2006) or the AHCP/CCAA (Green Diamond, 2007). There are also no wildlife protection practices specific to fishers within the FPRs or MATO (CDFG, 2010a). Under the No Action Alternative, there is no conservation strategy for fishers and there are no specific commitments directed at fisher conservation. Direct Effects. It is highly unlikely that timber harvesting would result in direct harm to adult fishers under the No Action Alternative, but the risk to dependent kits (young fishers) is somewhat greater. Females successfully rearing at least one kit will use a natal den tree and may use different maternal den trees (Higley and Mathews, 2009). During the denning period, female fishers and their dependent kits are at greatest risk of direct harm. However, fishers are very sensitive to human activity and have a natural tendency to move their kits to new den sites, making it unlikely that timber harvesting activities

PR0105180936SAC 4-19 CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

would directly kill or injure fishers. Adult fishers would most likely abandon an area with any active timber falling, and even a female occupying a natal or maternal den tree would likely move her kits if tree falling began nearby. Any disturbance causing forced abandonment of a den tree would likely increase the risk of mortality to the female or her kits. Under the No Action Alternative, there are no provisions to locate fisher dens or protect a den if, and when, found. Fishers could be directly harmed from vehicle collisions. Green Diamond has documented fisher deaths on paved public highways, but no known instances of mortalities have occurred on logging roads where traffic speed and the vehicle use are much lower. Green Diamond has also documented fisher deaths at abandoned or unmaintained water tanks. Under the No Action Alternative, there are no provisions to maintain water tanks with permanent structures sealing the tank from inadvertent fisher entry. Therefore, it is possible that some fishers may be harmed at abandoned or unmaintained water tanks. Effects Related to Changes in Fisher Habitat on the Green Diamond Ownership. Under the No Action Alternative, Green Diamond would continue to manage timber within both riparian and upland areas of its ownership pursuant to several existing agreements and permits. The following paragraphs describe the anticipated trends in fisher habitat under the management prescriptions and strategies employed under these agreements and permits. These trends are described for areas protected by riparian and geological conservation measures, special conservation areas, and Matrix Lands subject to intensive forest management. RMZs and Areas Protected by Geological Conservation Measures. Management of areas with riparian and geological conservation measures mandated by the AHCP/CCAA is creating a landscape in which an estimated 25 percent of the landscape will be in some type of protected area (primarily from Class I and II RMZs and SSS zones) (Green Diamond, 2007). Riparian and geological management is anticipated to result in the development of greater amounts of mature stands with late-seral forest elements in these areas (Table 4-1). Presumably, this will result in an overall increase in potential denning and resting habitat for fishers, but it is an untested hypothesis that age alone is sufficient to create this type of habitat for fishers. The resulting mosaic of stands with later seral forest elements surrounded by patches of younger forest stands that provide a positive trend in NSO habitat fitness may provide similar benefits to fishers. Fishers forage in younger stands for many of the same prey species, but use more mature stands or late-seral elements in younger stands for denning and resting. In addition, these older forest stands in the redwood region will develop trees with complex structures such as cavities, broken tops, and debris accumulations that are collectively expected to provide higher-value resting and denning habitat for fishers than currently exists. NSO HCP Set-Asides. Under the No Action Alternative, suitable denning and resting habitat for fishers would continue to develop in the 40 set-asides until 2022. After the NSO HCP expires in 2022, forest lands within the set-asides would be eligible for harvest subject to FPR restrictions and pursuant to take avoidance requirements for NSOs under the ESA. Given the relatively small acreage involved (approximately 3.7 percent of the Plan Area) relative to riparian and other forms of protected areas (25 percent or more of the Plan Area), there likely will be a minimal decrease in habitat for fishers due to harvesting former NSO set-asides. Areas Subject to Intensive Forest Management (Matrix Lands). As described for NSO, the timing and distribution of past harvesting activity over the Green Diamond ownership has resulted in the current mosaic of age classes dominated by forests types less than 60 years old. The clear-cut sizes mandated by the FPRs and amount of area in riparian corridors by implementing Green Diamond’s AHCP/CCAA are anticipated to result in a trend toward a higher degree of habitat heterogeneity (relative to existing conditions and continuing beyond 2022).

4-20 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

As described previously, the NSO HCP identified ways to retain patches of hardwoods and conifers, hard and soft snags, and standing live culls to benefit NSOs (Simpson, 1992). These tree retention objectives would benefit fishers by retaining elements that are used as resting sites and trees that either currently provide denning opportunities or may develop cavities for fisher denning. Under the No Action Alternative, these measures would be implemented through 2022. After 2022, Green Diamond would have no legal obligation to retain these structural elements beyond what is required in the FPRs, which include snag and green tree retention elements. Green Diamond may elect to continue to retain CWD as it currently practices under the No Action Alternative. Effects Related to Displacement of Fishers. Unlike NSOs, fishers do not exist as territorial pairs, nor do they have well-defined activity centers where timber harvesting activity can displace them. Fishers are solitary and, although females may use a single natal den tree (where the kits are born), they have multiple maternal dens within a general area and many rest trees scattered throughout their home range. As a result, it is impossible to readily identify fisher displacement from their home range when it occurs. Presumably, however, timber harvesting may sufficiently modify fisher habitat to force individual fishers to attempt relocation to a new home range. This may decrease survival and fecundity as fishers attempt to find suitable habitat not already occupied by another resident fisher. Under the No Action Alternative, if the fisher becomes listed under the ESA, Green Diamond would implement take avoidance guidance once developed by the Service. Green Diamond (FHCP) estimated the ownership-wide population of fishers at 335 individuals using data from a 2002 and 2003 study (Thompson, 2008). Timber harvest is anticipated to occur on approximately 2 percent of the Plan Area per year, on average. Consequently, it is anticipated that timber harvesting could displace or otherwise harm an average of 6.7 fishers annually (2 percent of 335). It is expected that displacing or harming this small number of fishers could reduce the overall fisher population in the Plan Area. Effects on Fisher Occupancy. Using the same projection of future landscapes as for NSOs, Green Diamond modeled the probability of future fisher occupancy associated with foraging habitat on portions of its ownership (Ten-Year Report, see AFWO website). Variables that were related to fisher occupancy included increasing elevation (positive relationship), percent whitewood (positive), and amount of 6- to 20-year-old forest within an 800-meter buffer of the track station (negative relationship). Assuming that non-habitat variables such as elevation remain fixed, spatial projections of probability of occupancy for fisher in the study area were developed at 10-year intervals from 2010 to 2060 (Ten-Year Report, see AFWO website). Under the No Action Alternative, the pattern of timber harvesting across Green Diamond’s ownership will create a dynamic mosaic of areas with variable levels of occupancy through time. Fishers are apparently adaptable to such changes because there is still a well-distributed population across the ownership after a long history of timber harvesting in the plan area. Fisher foraging habitat and probability of occupancy trends will vary over time under the No Action Alternative. Green Diamond’s internal modeling suggests declining fisher occupancy trends in regions with higher harvesting levels, but there is high probability of fisher use once most of the stands are more than 20 years old. The overall trend indicates that the habitat associated with the highest projected occupancy would decline from 47 percent of the ownership in 2010 to 36 percent of the ownership in 2040 and then stabilizes for the next 20 years (Ten-Year Report, Figure A.6, see AFWO website). However, if the two highest categories of projected occupancy are combined, the proportion of the ownership in these two categories would decline a modest amount from 2010 to 2060. Because of diverse foraging habitats, fisher populations are unlikely to be limited by the changing habitat trends in the Plan Area. However, high-value denning and resting habitat is anticipated to increase within the RMZ network through the AHCP/CCAA permit expiration date of 2057, presumably benefitting fishers. Under the No Action Alternative, no fisher population monitoring would be

PR0105180936SAC 4-21 CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

conducted and no information on the population size or distribution of fishers on the ownership would be developed. Green Diamond’s Proposed Multispecies FHCP The conservation strategy implemented under the FHCP will promote a habitat mosaic across the Plan Area, retain and recruit targeted habitat elements, minimize harm to individual fishers, and gather additional data to refine and validate the fisher occupancy model and adapt the FHCP as new information becomes available. Direct Effects. As described for the No Action Alternative, it is highly unlikely that timber harvesting would result in direct harm to adult fishers, but the risk to dependent kits is somewhat greater. Adult fishers would most likely abandon an area with any active timber falling, and even a female occupying a natal or maternal den tree would likely move her kits if tree falling began nearby. Fisher data collected by Green Diamond and from nearby Hoopa Reservation indicate that fishers only den in cavities in relatively large conifers or hardwoods. Green Diamond will target these trees for retention under its TREE plan, minimizing the risk of direct harm. Green Diamond will not survey and locate all fisher dens, which would require capturing all females and fitting them with radio-transmitters. The stress to the animals associated with this would be potentially much greater than the threat from timber harvesting. However, if a den is incidentally discovered during wildlife monitoring or other forest management activities, Green Diamond would protect fisher dens from the effects of active timber harvest until the den is abandoned or the kits are moved to a new den more than 0.25 mile from timber harvest activities. This measure could be more beneficial than the No Action Alternative, which does not include protections for fisher den sites. Under the FHCP, Green Diamond would commit to fisher-proof and maintain water tanks with permanent structures, sealing the tanks against inadvertent fisher entry. Nevertheless, there is still some potential that a fisher may access a water tank and die, despite all efforts to minimize the potential for this to occur. This measure to maintain and seal the tanks would be beneficial relative to the No Action Alternative. Under the FHCP, Green Diamond may cooperate in any Service- and CDFW-approved fisher capture and relocation/reintroduction recovery project. Professional biologists would perform the capture, handling, and relocation of fishers in accordance with safeguards designed to minimize stress or injury to the animal; however, the potential remains that fishers will be affected by stress, injury, or even death. Because capture and relocation would only occur if a healthy fisher population in the Plan Area would persist, the potential harm to the fisher population in the Plan Area would be offset by the potential benefits of capturing and reintroducing/relocating fishers into other portions of its range. Effects Related to Changes in Fisher Habitat on the Green Diamond Ownership. Under the FHCP, Green Diamond would manage fisher habitat within both riparian and upland areas of its ownership pursuant to the FHCP and several existing agreements and permits (Chapter 2). The following paragraphs describe the effects of the management prescriptions and strategies employed under the FHCP on fisher habitat in areas protected by riparian and geological conservation measures (e.g., RMZs), special conservation areas (DCAs), and Matrix Lands subject to intensive forest management. RMZs and Areas Protected by Geological Conservation Measures. Areas managed under riparian and geological conservation measures would be the same as under the No Action Alternative, except for increasing the length of time in which such measures would be legally enforceable beyond 2057 to the expiration of the FHCP. The RMZ and geological conservation management provisions are the same as those in the AHCP/CCAA. Unlike the No Action Alternative, the FHCP includes a process for monitoring the fisher population in the Plan Area, refinement and/or validation of the occupancy model, and adaptive management for fishers (Chapter 2). Through adaptive management, RMZ prescriptions could be modified to promote the development of a minimum of 1 hollow tree per 100 meters (328 feet) of

4-22 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

stream for all Class I and Class II watercourses. Within geologically unstable areas, management prescriptions could be modified to promote the development of a minimum of 1 hollow tree for each hectare (2.47 acres).17 Monitoring, model validation, and adaptive management would provide additional benefits to fishers relative to the No Action Alternative. DCAs. The FHCP would immediately establish 44 DCAs. The DCAs were selected to provide higher-quality habitat for NSOs, but they may also provide denning, resting, and foraging opportunities for fishers. The DCA cores may provide and develop suitable resting and denning habitat for fishers since they would not be harvested, with the younger stands surrounding the core providing foraging habitat. In addition, the maintenance of the DCAs as no-take areas for NSOs ensures the maintenance of additional denning, resting, and foraging opportunities for fishers. The extended adjacency requirements for DCAs would also likely benefit fishers relative to the No Action Alternative. Set-asides not converted to DCAs would be eligible for harvest subject to restrictions in the FHCP. Harvest within former set-asides or portions of set-asides not selected as DCAs would be planned to maximize the temporal presence of suitable NSO habitat on the landscape (i.e., the identified core nesting habitat within a former set-aside would be harvested last). Given the acreage involved (approximately 3.7 percent of the Plan Area) relative to the area subject to riparian and other forms of protection (25 percent or more of the Plan Area), the potential effects on fishers of gradually harvesting former set-asides not protected as DCAs is unknown. The level of effect is likely similar to that under the No Action Alternative where these areas would be eligible for timber harvesting after the existing NSO HCP expires in 2022. Areas Subject to Intensive Forest Management (Matrix Lands). As under the No Action Alternative, small clear-cut sizes mandated by the FPRs and the amount of area in riparian corridors by implementing Green Diamond’s AHCP/CCAA are anticipated to result in a high degree of habitat heterogeneity, with relatively large amounts of edge habitat between forest stands of different ages. Although increased amounts of edge may not be beneficial to fishers, the increasing amount of older forest and heterogeneous stand conditions on Green Diamond’s lands are expected to benefit fisher resting, denning, and foraging habitat. The landscape management commitments in the FHCP will provide a dendritic network of intact and increasingly older stands throughout the life of the plan. Through the TREE plan, Green Diamond would implement measures providing for long-term retention and recruitment of later seral forest habitat elements beneficial to fishers. Habitat element commitments in the TREE plan would augment Green Diamond’s landscape strategy for fishers by retaining larger trees with existing cavities or other structural deformities. Green Diamond’s past fisher telemetry studies (FHCP) indicated that large residual trees with cavities are particularly important. Although the permit term may not be sufficiently long for cavities to develop in many conifers, many older hardwoods (e.g., tanoaks) may develop cavities usable by fishers. Rest structures are less specific than den sites and can occur in a variety of dead or live trees with deformities or platforms. Green Diamond’s studies indicate that structures used by fishers for resting and denning are often similar to NSO nesting structures. Fisher resting sites, such as debris accumulations and dwarf mistletoe infestations, tend to develop in relatively young conifer stands, and the Permit term will be long enough for fisher resting sites to develop in conifer stands. If adaptive management is triggered for fishers, and it has been concluded that decline is directly or indirectly related to one of the covered activities, Green Diamond would adjust the measures of the TREE plan or protect other fisher habitat or habitat structural elements up to the monetary commitment for changes to conservation measures or management practices. The provisions in the TREE plan may

17 Modification would be implemented after it has been concluded that decline is directly or indirectly related to one of the covered activities.

PR0105180936SAC 4-23 CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

also be modified as an adaptive management measure for tree voles. Any modifications to the TREE plan would need to meet the biological goals and objectives for fishers as well. This would provide minor additional benefits to fishers relative to the No Action Alternative. Effects Related to Displacement of Fishers. Fisher displacement under the proposed HCP is expected to be the same as under the No Action Alternative. The population of fishers on Green Diamond ownership is estimated at 335 individuals. Timber harvest is anticipated to occur on approximately 2 percent of the Plan Area per year, on average, and assuming fishers are dispersed evenly across the Plan Area, an average of 6.7 fishers could be displaced annually (2 percent of 335). Effects on Fisher Occupancy. The predicted likelihood of fisher foraging habitat being occupied is the same under the FHCP as under the No Action Alternative. As described for the No Action Alternative, foraging habitat is not likely to be a limiting factor for fishers on managed timberlands in the Plan Area. Denning and resting habitat is likely to be more of a limiting factor than foraging habitat during the permit term. However, implementing the TREE plan will increase the likelihood that denning and resting structures are maintained on the landscape. As with the No Action Alternative, increasing forest stand age and complexity within the RMZ network will provide nesting and denning habitat, with the benefit of additional years of RMZ protection under the FHCP. Under the FHCP, Green Diamond would attempt to validate the fisher occupancy model during the initial 5 years of FHCP implementation. The relevant question to be addressed by validating the model is: Are fishers found at specific areas where the model predicts that occupancy should be high? Green Diamond will estimate fisher occupancy over at least half the Plan Area at 5-year intervals using remote non-invasive surveys (e.g., camera stations). Monitoring, model validation, and adaptive management would ensure that the biological goals and objectives of the FHCP with respect to fishers are being met. This would provide increased monitoring benefits to fishers relative to the No Action Alternative. Alternative A: New NSO HCP with Late-Seral Static Reserve Strategy Under Alternative A, Green Diamond would establish no-harvest or limited-harvest static reserves around select NSO sites and high-value habitats. Green Diamond would designate nine large blocks of forested land in the Plan Area as no-harvest reserves, totaling approximately 72,000 acres. Under this alternative, there is no conservation strategy for fishers and there are no specific commitments directed at fisher conservation. Direct Effects. Direct harm to fishers from timber harvesting, vehicle collisions, or from water tanks would be the same under Alternative A as under the No Action Alternative. There are no provisions in Alternative A to locate and protect fisher dens or safeguard water tanks. Effects Related to Changes in Fisher Habitat on the Green Diamond Ownership. As with the No Action Alternative, under Alternative A, Green Diamond would continue to manage timber within both riparian and upland areas of its ownership pursuant to several existing agreements and permits. The following paragraphs describe the effects of the management prescriptions and strategies employed under this alternative on fisher habitat in areas protected by riparian and geological conservation measures (e.g., RMZs), late-seral static reserves, and Matrix Lands subject to intensive forest management. RMZs and Areas Protected by Geological Conservation Measures. Areas managed under riparian and geological conservation measures would be the same as under the No Action Alternative, The RMZ and geological conservation management provisions are the same as those in the AHCP/CCAA. Late-seral Static Reserves. The reserves established under this alternative may be more beneficial for fishers over time than the other alternatives analyzed in this EIS due to development of greater amounts of mature stands with late-seral forest elements in these areas. Presumably, this will result in an overall

4-24 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

increase in potential denning and resting habitat for fishers, but it is an untested hypothesis that stand age alone is sufficient to create this type of habitat for fishers. Areas Subject to Intensive Forest Management (Matrix Lands). Retention objectives for patches of hardwoods and conifers, hard and soft snags, and standing live culls would be similar to under the No Action Alternative. Green Diamond would have no legal obligation to retain these structural elements beyond what is required in the FPRs. Green Diamond may elect to voluntarily retain CWD as it currently practices under the No Action Alternative. Effects Related to Displacement of Fishers. Fisher displacement under Alternative A is expected to be similar to or less than under the No Action Alternative. Displacement of fisher as a result of timber harvest would not occur within the no-harvest reserves. Outside of the reserves, potential displacement would be less than under the No Action due to timber harvest occurring on a smaller area. Effects on Fisher Occupancy. The likelihood of fisher foraging habitat being occupied is likely to be the same as under the No Action Alternative. As described for the No Action Alternative, foraging habitat is not likely to be a limiting factor for fishers on managed timberlands in the Plan Area. The no-harvest reserves may benefit fisher by developing and providing denning habitat. Occupancy may decline over time outside of the reserves due the absence of a commitment to retain resting and denning structures. As under the No Action Alternative, increasing forest stand age and complexity within the RMZ network will provide nesting and denning habitat in these areas. Alternative B: New NSO HCP with Uneven-aged Forest Management Under the uneven-aged management alternative, Green Diamond would transition away from even- aged management in forest stands capable of supporting selection harvesting. Green Diamond would use a combination of single tree selection and group selection as allowed under the FPRs. The spatial arrangement and exact amount of group selection harvest is unknown. Under this alternative, there is no conservation strategy for fishers and there are no specific commitments directed at fisher conservation. Direct Effects. Direct harm to fishers from timber harvesting, vehicle collisions, or water tanks would be the same under Alternative B as under the No Action Alternative. There are no provisions in Alternative B to locate and protect fisher dens or safeguard water tanks. Effects Related to Changes in Fisher Habitat on the Green Diamond Ownership. As with the No Action Alternative, under Alternative B, Green Diamond would continue to manage timber within both riparian and upland areas of its ownership pursuant to several existing agreements and permits. The following paragraphs describe the effects of the management prescriptions and strategies employed under Alternative B on fisher habitat in areas protected by riparian and geological conservation measures, reserved owl core areas, and areas subject to intensive forest management. RMZs and Areas Protected by Geological Conservation Measures. Areas managed under riparian and geological conservation measures would be the same as under the No Action Alternative. The RMZ and geological conservation management provisions are the same as those in the AHCP/CCAA until 2057, then FPRs. ROCAs. Under Alternative B, the ROCAs may provide some benefit for fisher approximately equal to what is expected from set-asides in the NSO HCP under the No Action Alternative. Areas Subject to Uneven-aged Forest Management (Matrix Lands). Under this alternative, Green Diamond would transition over time to selection silviculture as the predominant technique to manage commercial conifer timber stands. Other silviculture techniques would continue to be used where conifer stocking levels are inadequate to apply unevenage management. Retention objectives for patches of hardwoods and conifers, hard and soft snags, and standing live culls would be similar to under the No Action Alternative. Green Diamond would have no legal obligation to

PR0105180936SAC 4-25 CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

retain these structural elements beyond what is required in the FPRs. Green Diamond may elect to voluntarily retain CWD as it currently practices under the No Action Alternative. Effects Related to Displacement of Fishers. Fisher displacement under Alternative B is expected to be similar to or greater than under the No Action Alternative. Outside of the ROCAs, RMZs, and areas protected by Geological Conservation Measures, potential displacement would be greater than under the No Action due to timber harvest occurring on a larger area. Effects on Fisher Occupancy. As under the No Action Alternative and Alternative A, there is no commitment to retain and recruit resting and denning structure, so occupancy over the long term could decline. Also, there would be more human disturbance (more acres harvested to meet volume goals) and fisher appear sensitive to human activity. As under the No Action Alternative, increasing forest stand age and complexity within the RMZ network will provide resting and denning habitat in these areas. Summary of Effects to Fishers. Table 4-4 summarizes key measures associated with the No Action Alternative, FHCP and action alternatives, and potential impacts on fishers associated with implementing the alternatives. Cumulative Effects on Fisher The assessment area for cumulative effects on fishers consists of the Green Diamond ownership as well as other lands within the coastal watersheds that contain the Action Area for the FHCP. Timber operations have the potential to alter forest characteristics and influence the availability and quality of habitat for fishers. The modification of forest stand conditions through timber harvest has the greatest potential to affect (adversely or beneficially) fishers because of the immediate and long-term effects it has on habitat conditions and prey availability. Silvicultural treatments such as thinning may benefit fishers by accelerating the development of suitable habitat conditions and dense prey populations, and by reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire. Other activities related to timber harvesting, such as road construction, maintenance, and use, can result in varying levels of habitat modification and disturbance. In general, habitat conditions for fishers are anticipated to improve under all alternatives, relative to existing conditions throughout Action Area. Management of riparian zones and geologically unstable areas is anticipated to result in greater amounts of mature and late-seral forest conditions in riparian areas, providing a more complex forest structure favored by fishers for denning and resting. The resulting mosaic of late-seral forest stands surrounded by patches of younger forest stands that provide a positive trend in NSO habitat fitness may provide similar benefits to fishers. Fishers forage in younger stands for many of the same prey species as NSOs, but use more mature stands for denning and resting. In addition, these older forest stands in the redwood region will develop trees with complex structures such as cavities, broken tops, and debris accumulations that are collectively expected to provide higher- value resting and denning habitat for fishers than currently exists. Although fishers are relatively scarce throughout many portions of their range, the Plan Area and regional population is relatively robust and may serve as a source population for reintroducing and recovering fishers in other areas where suitable fisher habitat is available. Overall, implementing the No Action Alternative, Proposed Action, or other action alternatives, in conjunction with ongoing activities on other private and public lands, would contribute to maintaining and conserving fishers within the assessment area. Conditions would be further improved under the Proposed Action; habitat element commitments in the TREE plan would augment Green Diamond’s landscape strategy for fishers by retaining larger trees with existing cavities or other structural deformities used for denning and resting. Foraging habitat with a high probability of occupancy would increase over time. Monitoring and validation of the fisher occupancy model will increase the likelihood that declines in the fisher population will be detected and

4-26 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

adaptive management actions implemented to assess and address the decline. Under the Proposed Action, fisher dens identified during occupancy surveys or other activities would be buffered (0.25 mile around den) and avoided until the den is vacant. Water tanks also would be fisher-proofed to avoid entrapment of fishers. These actions will help to avoid direct adverse effects on individual fishers in the Plan Area. Additionally, it is anticipated that Green Diamond’s management and participation in fisher recovery projects under the Proposed Action would lead to a beneficial effect on fishers in the Action Area, the Green Diamond ownership, and within the assessment area for cumulative effects. For these reasons, it is anticipated that under the Proposed Action, implementation of measures associated with the proposed FHCP, along with ongoing activities on other private, tribal, and public lands, would result in additional benefits to the fisher, compared to the No Action Alternative and other action alternatives. This would be considered a beneficial cumulative effect. 4.2.1.3 Tree Voles The analysis of the alternatives evaluates the following effects on Sonoma tree voles and red tree voles (collectively referred to as tree voles). Tree voles are vulnerable to the direct effect of timber harvesting if they reside in a tree felled during timber harvest. The likelihood of direct effects on tree voles is evaluated based on provisions (if any, depending on the alternative) that provide for protecting tree voles against harm from felling trees that are occupied by tree voles. Unlike for NSOs and fishers, data or models are not available to estimate habitat fitness or occupancy for tree voles. However, it is assumed that the best habitat occurs in older stands with more complex structures and with a higher component of Douglas-fir that are larger or more connected to other older stands. Assuming that tree voles are able to disperse at least 50 meters through marginal habitat (Swingle, 2005), Green Diamond projected the amount of potential tree vole habitat (>20 years-old with ≥20 percent Douglas-fir) in future landscapes using the same harvest forecasting as for NSO and fisher. The habitat projections are based on harvest scheduling that is the result of forest age classes, FPRs, and applying the riparian management measures. Like NSOs and fishers, tree voles are likely to benefit from retaining and recruiting mature and later seral forest habitat elements. Effects on tree voles due to habitat modification are evaluated against the amount of older forest stands on the ownership and the level of retention (if any) of late-seral habitat elements. Tree voles are vulnerable to disturbance through habitat modification caused by timber harvesting. On the scale of a tree vole’s home range, a clear-cut unit eliminates potential vole habitat for at least 20 years. A harvest unit treated with some form of uneven-aged silviculture may adversely modify their habitat by opening up the canopy. Until the canopy redevelops, the interlocking branches would be reduced, making foraging more difficult and voles likely more vulnerable to predation. The likelihood of effects on tree voles due to displacement is evaluated based on the proportion of suitable vole habitat harvested each year. There are no techniques by which tree voles can be readily captured or directly censused. Thus, there are no tree vole population data available on Green Diamond’s ownership or lands adjacent to the Action Area. Effects on the tree vole population in the Plan Area are evaluated based on provisions (if any, depending on the alternative) for monitoring tree vole populations and developing information on the population size or distribution of tree voles in the Plan Area. Effects on tree voles at the regional/range-wide scale are evaluated against the overall effect on displacement from forest management in the Action Area and whether the alternatives will affect vole abundance regionally or range-wide.

PR0105180936SAC 4-27 CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The analysis of the alternatives evaluates the following effects on tree voles: • Direct effects • Effects related to changes in vole habitat on the Green Diamond ownership: – Areas protected by riparian and geological conservation measures (e.g., RMZs) – Special conservation areas referred to as “set-asides” under the No Action Alternative, “Dynamic Core Areas” under the FHCP, “Reserves” under Alternative A, and “Reserved Owl Core Areas” under Alternative B – Matrix Lands available for harvest, and not constrained by special conservation areas, RMZ restrictions, or NSO site avoidance considerations • Effects related to displacement of voles • Effects on the tree vole population in the Plan Area • Effects on vole population trends at regional/range-wide scales No Action Alternative Tree voles are not currently listed under the ESA and there is no prohibition on take of voles. Therefore, no species-specific conservation measures for protecting tree voles were incorporated in the Amended NSO HCP (Green Diamond, 2006) or the AHCP/CCAA (Green Diamond, 2007). There are also no wildlife protection practices specific to tree voles within the FPRs or MATO (CDFG, 2010a). Under the No Action Alternative, there is no conservation strategy for tree voles and there are no specific commitments directed at tree vole conservation. Under the No Action Alternative, Green Diamond would not incorporate site-specific measures for tree voles into THPs except in rare instances where a State agency or public input warrants such actions. Direct Effects. Most tree voles live in one or several nest trees and make short forays into neighboring conifers using interlocking branches between trees or crossing short distances on the ground. They live their entire lives within a small home range and presumably have very limited dispersal abilities. Therefore, they are vulnerable to the direct effect of timber harvesting if they reside in trees felled during timber harvest. If voles survived this, it would force them to disperse and make them highly vulnerable to predation. Under the No Action Alternative, Green Diamond would not actively identify and protect potential or occupied tree vole nests during harvesting activities. However, Green Diamond would minimize potential harm to voles under the No Action Alternative through conservation measures for forested areas, under the AHCP and FPRs, within RMZs and other areas with minimal harvest activities (e.g., set- asides), and minimal human disturbance where voles may live. Effects Related to Changes in Tree Vole Habitat on the Green Diamond Ownership. Under the No Action Alternative, Green Diamond would manage timber within both riparian and upland areas of its ownership pursuant to several existing agreements and permits. The following paragraphs describe the trends of the management prescriptions and strategies employed under these agreements and permits on potential vole habitat in areas protected by riparian and geological conservation measures, set- asides, and Matrix Lands subject to intensive forest management. RMZs and Areas Protected by Geological Conservation Measures. Areas protected by riparian and geological conservation measures mandated by Green Diamond’s 2007 AHCP/CCAA will create a future landscape in which an estimated 25 percent of the landscape will be in some type of protected area (primarily from Class I and II RMZs and SSS zones). Using the 2010 ownership as the baseline, Green Diamond projected the proportion of forest lands in each age class within RMZs subject to AHCP/CCAA harvest restrictions over time (Table 4-1). Forest stands greater than 20 years old are considered

4-28 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

potential tree vole habitat. Model projections show that by the year 2030, 100 percent of all forest stands within RMZs would be greater than 20 years old. Although not considered old growth, these older forest stands in the redwood region develop trees with complex structures such as cavities, broken tops, debris accumulations, and nests built by species other than tree voles that can and do serve as tree vole nest sites. Although many older stands will be relatively linear with high proportion of edge, they may provide a source population and connectivity to younger stands that will develop into a suitable age for colonization by tree voles. The quantity and distribution of tree vole habitat within specific watersheds will vary over time from harvesting and the connectivity provided by protections afforded to RMZs and geologically unstable areas. It is anticipated that under the No Action Alternative, a landscape with a large complex network of older riparian stands connected to developing younger stands will provide better tree vole habitat than in the past when Green Diamond’s managed landscape lacked these intact riparian stands. NSO HCP Set-Asides. Under the No Action Alternative, forest stands currently preserved within the 40 set-asides would not be harvested until at least 2022, when the 1992 NSO HCP permit term expires. Timber harvest in set-asides might displace or harm individual tree voles that may occupy these areas. However, set-asides do not necessarily provide habitat for tree voles, because they may lack the necessary component of whitewoods (e.g., Douglas-fir). Harvesting in the set-asides would amount to about 3.7 percent of the Plan Area relative to riparian and other protected areas. Developing suitable vole habitat within RMZs will likely compensate for habitat loss as a result of harvesting in the set- asides. Areas Subject to Intensive Forest Management (Matrix Lands). Green Diamond projected the amount of potential tree vole habitat (older than 20 years old with greater than or equal to 20 percent Douglas- fir) in future landscapes using the same harvest forecasting used for NSO and fishers (FHCP). The projections included the areas in the riparian and geologically unstable areas mandated by the AHCP/CCAA. The quantity and distribution of vole habitat within specific watersheds would vary over time as a result of harvesting and the connectivity provided by riparian and geological conservation measures in the AHCP/CCAA. Vole habitat after projected timber harvest is anticipated to remain around 50 percent of the Plan Area over time (FHCP). This is a minimum estimate of suitable habitat for tree voles as Green Diamond observed vole nests in forest stands that do not meet the minimum criteria in its model. Maintaining approximately 50 percent of Plan Area lands as suitable vole habitat post- harvest under the No Action Alternative is anticipated to maintain a healthy population of tree voles. Effects Related to Displacement of Voles. Tree voles inhabit nests high in Douglas-fir and whitewood stands, making it impractical to survey for and locate vole colonies, and reducing harvest options to avoid or minimize affecting these colonies. Therefore, it is anticipated that the proportion of displacement resulting from timber harvest would be roughly equal to the proportion of suitable habitat harvested each year. Under the No Action Alternative, harvest is projected to average 2 percent of suitable vole habitat each year, with the same percentage of tree voles presumed displaced. Effects on the Tree Vole Population in the Plan Area. Because there are no methods by which tree voles can be readily captured or directly censused, there are no tree vole population data available on Green Diamond’s ownership or lands adjacent to the Action Area. Although population monitoring data for tree voles do not exist, the tree vole population on Green Diamond ownership has persisted for more than a century with periods of timber harvest that were more intensive than would be implemented under the No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, no monitoring of tree vole populations in the Plan Area would be attempted, and no information on the population size or distribution of tree voles on the ownership would be developed. Effects on Vole Population Trends at Regional/Range-wide Scales. Green Diamond’s land management strategy is anticipated to provide suitable, connected tree vole habitat sufficient to sustain a large

PR0105180936SAC 4-29 CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

population throughout the Plan Area that will allow for recolonizing harvested areas. The Plan Area tree vole population has persisted for more than a century and during historical periods of timber harvest that were more intensive than those currently implemented and to be implemented under the No Action Alternative. From harvest projections under the No Action Alternative, Green Diamond estimates a maximum of 2 percent of the Plan Area vole population may be displaced or harmed by timber harvest each year. Because tree voles have limited dispersal ability, the extent to which the population of tree voles in the Plan Area interacts with the regional population of tree voles is limited. Because of this limited dispersal, timber harvest in the Plan Area under the No Action Alternative is not expected to substantially impair tree vole populations at the regional or range-wide level. Green Diamond’s Proposed Multispecies FHCP The conservation strategy implemented under the FHCP will retain and recruit targeted habitat elements, minimize harm to individual voles, and gather additional data to develop a logistic regression model. The model may detect changes in the index of tree voles in NSO pellets and guide adaptive management of the vole strategy in the FHCP as new information becomes available. Direct Effects. The FHCP could provide additional protection to individual tree voles and their occupied nests relative to the level of protection afforded under the No Action Alternative. As described above, tree voles are vulnerable to the direct effect of timber harvesting if they reside in a tree felled during timber harvest. Under the FHCP, Green Diamond may protect the best potential nest trees (i.e., the largest trees with structural deformities and cavities) as part of the TREE plan. Green Diamond does not propose to actively identify and protect potential or occupied tree vole nests during harvesting activities except in RMZs and geologically unstable areas. Foresters would inspect potential harvest trees before marking to avoid felling trees with active or remnant vole nests. Effects Related to Changes in Tree Vole on the Green Diamond Ownership. Under the FHCP, Green Diamond would manage tree vole habitat throughout its ownership and under several existing agreements and permits (Chapter 2). The following paragraphs describe the effects of the management prescriptions and strategies employed under the FHCP on tree vole habitat in areas protected by riparian and geological conservation measures, special conservation areas (DCAs), and Matrix Lands subject to intensive forest management. RMZs and Areas Protected by Geological Conservation Measures. Areas protected by riparian and geological conservation measures would be the same as under the No Action Alternative, except for increasing the length of time in which such measures would be legally enforceable from 2057 to the end of the Permit Term of the FHCP. The RMZ and geological area habitat management provisions, while the same as those in the AHCP/CCAA, may help to develop productive habitat specifically for tree voles. Unlike the No Action Alternative, the FHCP includes a process for monitoring, model validation, and adaptive management for tree voles (Chapter 2). Should tree vole monitoring demonstrate a reduction in vole numbers or distribution due to a future lack of stand structural complexity, Green Diamond will consider adaptive management measures to promote stand structural complexity in RMZs. RMZ prescriptions could be modified to further develop complex trees through direct or indirect manipulation of individual trees or groups of trees.18 Monitoring, model validation, and adaptive management would ensure that the biological goals and objectives of the FHCP with respect to tree voles are being met. This would provide additional benefits to tree voles relative to the No Action Alternative. DCAs. As for NSOs, Green Diamond would immediately establish 44 DCAs upon approval of the FHCP. The DCAs were selected to provide higher-quality habitat for NSOs, but they may not provide high- quality habitat for tree voles. The DCA cores may provide and develop suitable nesting habitat for tree

18 After it has been concluded that decline is directly or indirectly related to one of the covered activities.

4-30 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

voles since they would not be harvested. DCA cores may develop large trees with cavities suitable for nesting by tree voles since they would not be harvested. However, the DCA core areas are expected to only total approximately 4,000 acres, less than 1 percent of the total Plan Area. In addition, most of these acres are currently protected under the AHCP/CCAA until 2057. Set-asides under the NSO HCP that are not converted to DCAs would be eligible for harvest subject to restrictions in the FHCP. Harvest within former set-asides or portions of set-asides not selected as DCAs would be planned to maximize the presence through time of suitable NSO habitat on the landscape (i.e., the identified core nesting habitat within a former set-aside would be harvested last). Because of the relatively small acreage involved (approximately 3.7 percent of the Plan Area) relative to the area subject to riparian and other forms of protection (25 percent of more of the Plan Area), the potential effects on tree voles of gradually harvesting former set-asides not protected as DCAs is likely to be minimal. The level of effect is similar to that under the No Action Alternative under which these areas would be eligible for timber harvesting after 2022. Areas Subject to Intensive Forest Management (Matrix Lands). Under the FHCP, the amount of tree vole habitat is anticipated to be the same, over time, as under the No Action Alternative. Landscape management commitments would provide a dendritic network of intact and increasingly older stands throughout the term of the FHCP. Trees in these stands that are particularly important to tree voles are those that develop structural deformities like candelabra tops and cavities. Implementing the tree retention guidelines described in the TREE plan would retain some large residual or old growth trees with existing structural deformities and cavities usable by tree voles for nest construction. Although tree voles can build their nests on open branches, nests in these protected structures are likely more stable and less vulnerable to predation. The TREE plan also incorporates a “vole nest factor” into the live tree retention scoring criteria used for identifying existing wildlife habitat elements. Under the vole nest factor, a tree containing an active or remnant tree vole nest having canopy connectivity with existing RMZs or geologically unstable areas get two points, and all other trees get one point. This factor increases the likelihood that a tree containing an active or remnant tree vole nest will be retained. Effects Related to Displacement of Tree Voles. Tree voles inhabit nests high in Douglas-fir and whitewood stands, making it impractical to survey for and locate vole colonies, which reduces harvest options to avoid or minimize effects on these colonies. As under the No Action Alternative, it is anticipated that an average of 2 percent of the tree vole population would be affected annually on the Green Diamond ownership under the FHCP. It is unlikely that this displacement of a small number of voles in the Plan Area would have a substantial adverse effect on the vole population in the Plan Area. In addition, protecting trees containing tree vole nests in RMZs would provide additional protection against displacing or harming tree voles. Effects on the Tree Vole Population in the Plan Area. Although population monitoring data for tree voles do not exist, the tree vole population on Green Diamond ownership has been sustained through several cycles of habitat loss and forest stand regeneration. Under the HCP, Green Diamond would begin to monitor property-wide tree vole populations. This would be through evaluating the presence of tree voles in NSO pellets collected during demographic monitoring. Green Diamond would develop a logistic regression model to detect changes in the index of tree voles in NSO pellets within 3 years of FHCP approval. Green Diamond may also include genetically based tree vole monitoring using the pellet material described previously if a valid approach can be identified. Should monitoring of tree voles demonstrate a significant decline (triggering adaptive management) and it has been concluded that decline is directly or indirectly related to one of the covered activities, Green Diamond will add one or a combination of the following conservation measures for tree voles:

PR0105180936SAC 4-31 CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

• To promote retention and development of structurally complex Douglas-fir trees in the future landscape, adaptive management will consider modifications to provisions of the TREE to include one or more trees per acre, of the highest score, intended to provide source trees that develop, or can be manipulated to develop, complex structure during their lifespan in the regenerating stand. • If entering RMZs or other limited harvest stands, projects will include provisions to develop complex trees through direct or indirect manipulation of individual trees or groups of trees. • When conducting thinning, or applying similar partial harvest silvicultural practices, Green Diamond will consider options to avoid or reduce the harvest of Douglas-fir with obvious “candelabra” structure, to conserve these habitat features important to tree voles. Monitoring, model validation, and adaptive management could ensure that the biological goals and objectives of the FHCP with respect to tree voles are being met. This may provide additional benefits to tree voles relative to the No Action Alternative. Effects on Vole Population Trends at Regional/Range-wide Scales. Green Diamond’s land management strategy under the FHCP is anticipated to provide suitable, connected tree vole habitat sufficient to sustain a large population throughout the Plan Area that will allow for recolonizing harvested areas. As under the No Action Alternative, Green Diamond estimates a maximum of 2 percent of the Plan Area vole population may be displaced or harmed by timber harvest each year. Because tree voles have limited dispersal ability, the extent to which the population of tree voles in the Plan Area interacts with the regional population of tree voles is limited. Because of this limited dispersal, timber harvest in the Plan Area under the FHCP is not expected to substantially impair tree vole populations at the regional or range-wide level. Alternative A: New NSO HCP with Late-Seral Static Reserve Strategy Under Alternative A, Green Diamond would establish no-harvest or limited-harvest static reserves around select NSO sites and high-value habitats. Green Diamond would designate nine large blocks of forested land in the Plan Area as no-harvest reserves, totaling approximately 72,000 acres. Under this alternative, there is no conservation strategy for tree voles and there are no specific commitments directed at tree vole conservation. Direct Effects. Direct harm to tree voles from timber harvesting would be the same as under the No Action Alternative. There are no provisions in Alternative A to locate and protect tree vole nests. Effects Related to Changes in Tree Vole Habitat on the Green Diamond Ownership. As with the No Action Alternative, under Alternative A, Green Diamond would continue to manage timber within both riparian and upland areas of its ownership pursuant to several existing agreements and permits. The following sections describe the effects of the management prescriptions and strategies employed under this alternative on tree vole habitat in areas protected by riparian and geological conservation measures (e.g., RMZs), late-seral static reserves, and Matrix Lands subject to intensive forest management. RMZs and Areas Protected by Geological Conservation Measures. Areas managed under riparian and geological conservation measures would be the same as under the No Action Alternative, The RMZ and geological conservation management provisions are the same as those in the AHCP/CCAA. Late-Seral Static Reserves. The persistence of large unmanaged reserves under this alternative may provide a benefit, over time, compared to the FHCP, Alternative B, and No Action Alternatives due to development of greater amounts of mature stands with late-seral forest elements in these areas. Although not considered old growth, these older forest stands in the redwood region develop trees with complex structures such as cavities, broken tops, debris accumulations, and nests built by species other than tree voles that can and do serve as tree vole nest sites. Although many older stands will be relatively linear with high proportion of edge, they may provide a source population and connectivity to younger stands that will develop into a suitable age for colonization by tree voles.

4-32 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Areas Subject to Intensive Forest Management (Matrix Lands). Retention objectives for patches of hardwoods and conifers, hard and soft snags, and standing “live culls” live culls under the NSO HCP would cease under Alternative A. Green Diamond would have no legal obligation to retain these structural elements beyond what is required in the FPRs. Green Diamond may elect to voluntarily retain CWD as it currently practices under the No Action Alternative. Effects Related to Displacement of Tree Voles. Tree vole displacement under Alternative A is expected to be similar to or less than under the No Action Alternative. Displacement of voles as a result of timber harvest would not occur within the no-harvest reserves. Outside of the reserves, potential displacement would be less than under the No Action due to timber harvest occurring on a smaller area. Effects on the Tree Vole Population in the Plan Area. Although population monitoring data for tree voles do not exist, the tree vole population on Green Diamond ownership has been sustained through several cycles of habitat loss and forest stand regeneration. As under the No Action Alternative, no monitoring of tree vole populations in the Plan Area would be attempted, and no information on the population size or distribution of tree voles on the ownership would be developed under Alternative A. Effects on Vole Population Trends at Regional/Range-wide Scales. Green Diamond’s land management strategy under Alternative A is anticipated to provide suitable, connected tree vole habitat sufficient to sustain a large population throughout the Plan Area that will allow for recolonizing harvested areas. Because tree voles have limited dispersal ability, the extent to which the population of tree voles in the Plan Area interacts with the regional population of tree voles is limited. Because of this limited dispersal, timber harvest in the Plan Area under Alternative A is not expected to substantially impair tree vole populations at the regional or range-wide level. Alternative B: New NSO HCP with Uneven-aged Forest Management Under the uneven-aged management alternative, Green Diamond would transition away from even- aged management in forest stands capable of supporting selection harvesting. Green Diamond would use a combination of single tree selection and group selection as allowed under the FPRs. The spatial arrangement and exact amount of group selection harvest is unknown. Under this alternative, there is no conservation strategy for voles and there are no specific commitments directed at vole conservation. Direct Effects. Direct harm to tree voles from timber harvesting under Alternative B would be the same as under the No Action Alternative. There are no provisions in Alternative B to locate and protect tree vole nests. Effects Related to Changes in Tree Vole Habitat on the Green Diamond Ownership. As with the No Action Alternative, under Alternative B, Green Diamond would continue to manage timber within both riparian and upland areas of its ownership pursuant to several existing agreements and permits. The following paragraphs describe the anticipated trends in tree vole habitat under the management prescriptions and strategies employed under these agreements and permits. RMZs and Areas Protected by Geological Conservation Measures. Areas managed under riparian and geological conservation measures would be the same as under the No Action Alternative, The RMZ and geological conservation management provisions are the same as those in the AHCP/CCAA. ROCAs. Under implementation of this alternative, the ROCAs may provide some benefit for voles approximately equal to what is be expected from set-asides in the NSO HCP under the No Action Alternative. Areas Subject to Uneven-aged Forest Management (Matrix Lands). Under this alternative, Green Diamond would transition over time to selection silviculture as the predominant technique to manage commercial conifer timber stands. Other silviculture techniques would continue to be used where conifer stocking levels are inadequate to apply uneven-aged management. The transition to selection silviculture as the predominant technique to manage commercial conifer timber stands under this

PR0105180936SAC 4-33 CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

alternative may benefit tree voles due to development of a higher percentage of mature stands across the landscape with late-seral forest elements in these areas. Retention objectives for patches of hardwoods and conifers, hard and soft snags, and standing “live culls” live culls under the NSO HCP would cease under Alternative B. Green Diamond would have no legal obligation to retain these structural elements beyond what is required in the FPRs. Green Diamond may elect to voluntarily retain CWD as it currently practices under the No Action Alternative. Effects Related to Displacement of Tree Voles. Tree vole displacement under Alternative B is expected to be similar to or greater than under the No Action Alternative. Outside of the ROCAs, RMZs, and areas protected by Geological Conservation Measures, potential displacement would be greater than under the No Action due to timber harvest occurring on a larger area. Effects on the Tree Vole Population in the Plan Area. Although population monitoring data for tree voles do not exist, the tree vole population on Green Diamond ownership has been sustained through several cycles of habitat loss and forest stand regeneration. As under the No Action Alternative, no monitoring of tree vole populations in the Plan Area would be attempted, and no information on the population size or distribution of tree voles on the ownership would be developed under Alternative B. Effects on Vole Population Trends at Regional/Range-wide Scales. Green Diamond’s land management strategy under Alternative B is anticipated to provide suitable, connected tree vole habitat sufficient to sustain a large population throughout the Plan Area that will allow for recolonizing harvested areas. Because tree voles have limited dispersal ability, the extent to which the population of tree voles in the Plan Area interacts with the regional population of tree voles is limited. Because of this limited dispersal, timber harvest in the Plan Area under Alternative B is not expected to substantially impair tree vole populations at the regional or range-wide level. Summary of Effects on Tree Voles Table 4-5 summarizes key measures associated with the No Action Alternative, FHCP, and other action alternatives, and potential impacts on tree voles associated with implementing the alternatives. Cumulative Effects on Tree Voles The assessment area for cumulative effects on tree voles consists of the Green Diamond ownership as well as other lands within the watersheds that contain the Action Area for the Forest HCP. Timber operations have the potential to alter forest characteristics and influence the availability and quality of habitat for tree voles. Modifying forest stand conditions through timber harvest has the greatest potential to affect (adversely or beneficially) tree voles because of the immediate and long-term effects it has on habitat conditions. These conditions particularly include removing trees that contain or would develop complex structures such as cavities, broken tops, debris accumulations, and nests built by species other than NSO, which serve as tree vole nest sites. Other activities related to timber harvesting, such as road construction, maintenance, and use, can result in varying levels of habitat modification and disturbance. In general, habitat conditions for tree voles are anticipated to improve under all alternatives, relative to existing conditions throughout the Action Area. Management of riparian zones and geologically unstable areas is anticipated to result in the development of greater amounts of mature forest stands in riparian areas, providing potential habitat for tree voles. In addition, these older forest stands will develop trees with complex structures such as cavities, broken tops, debris accumulations, and nests built by other species. These decadent and defective trees will provide more nesting sites for tree voles than currently exist. Green Diamond projections show that a large proportion of the Green Diamond ownership will be maintained as potential tree vole habitat through time under the No Action Alternative. Conditions would be further improved under the Proposed Action; habitat element commitments in the TREE plan would augment Green Diamond’s landscape strategy for tree voles by retaining larger trees

4-34 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

with existing cavities or other structural deformities used as nest sites by tree voles. Under the proposed FHCP, Green Diamond would avoid felling trees in riparian areas containing tree vole nests. Green Diamond’s proposal to monitor voles and develop a logistical model for tree vole abundance will increase the likelihood that declines in vole populations will be detected and adaptive management actions implemented to assess and address the decline. The resource management strategies on lands administered by USFS and BLM are expected to benefit tree voles by establishing Late-Successional Reserves for species that are associated with late-seral forests. The Riparian Reserves established under the NWFP and LRMPs are anticipated to provide additional suitable habitat for tree voles and enhance dispersal of the species by maintaining connectivity between areas of suitable habitat. Red tree voles are also a Survey and Manage species under the NWFP (USDI and USDA, 1994). Resource management strategies in adjacent national and State park lands generally do not allow commercial timber harvesting, although thinning of some timber stands may occur occasionally for stand improvement purposes. The low level of active land management practices within park lands would result in the development of late-seral forests. This is anticipated to benefit tree voles over time by providing refugia for tree voles and enhanced dispersal of the species by maintaining connectivity among areas of suitable habitat. While barred owls have a diverse prey base, it is not known to what extent barred owls prey on tree voles. Tree voles may be adversely affected from increased barred owl predation with the lack of barred owl removal under the No Action Alternative and Alternatives A and B. It is therefore anticipated that continued implementation of measures associated with the NSO HCP and AHCP/CCAA under all alternatives, in conjunction with ongoing activities on other private and public lands, could result in mixed cumulative effects to tree voles. These include improvements in habitat conditions and potential increases in barred owl predation on tree voles. The Service anticipates that, under the Proposed Action, the measures associated with the FHCP, in conjunction with ongoing activities on other private, tribal, and public lands, would result in additional benefits to tree voles compared to the No Action Alternative and other action alternatives. This is considered a beneficial cumulative effect of the Proposed Action. 4.2.2 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 4.2.2.1 All Alternatives Over the term of the permits, key socioeconomic indicators (e.g., Green Diamond employment) are likely to be affected by several internal (e.g., continued implementation of the NSO HCP [Simpson, 1992] or adoption of the FHCP) and external influences (e.g., market forces in the lumber and wood products sector). This analysis assesses the potential for changes in Green Diamond’s employment levels (and corresponding effects on local businesses supported by the indirect effects of Green Diamond employment) to occur under the alternatives. Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (February 11, 1994), requires Federal agencies to make the achievement of environmental justice part of their mission. This is accomplished by identifying and addressing disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. Executive Order 12898 further stipulates that the agencies conduct their programs and activities in a manner that does not have the effect of excluding persons from participation in, denying persons the benefits of, or subjecting persons to discrimination because of their race, color, or national origin. The Presidential Memorandum that accompanied the Executive Order states that a NEPA document should include analysis of “effects in minority communities and low-income communities.” Potentially affected minority populations in the

PR0105180936SAC 4-35 CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Action Area include the Yurok Nation and Hoopa Tribe. The proximity of Yurok and Hoopa lands to Green Diamond lands has resulted in close coordination among Green Diamond and the tribes regarding issues of shared concern, such as road use, timber harvesting, and wildlife. Key socioeconomic indicators are subject to several internal and external influences and regulatory requirements already in place. Some changes in socioeconomic conditions relative to current conditions could occur as Green Diamond continues to implement the 1992 NSO HCP and associated plans and policies. The ability to predict them, however, is subject to market indicators and influences that are not readily evident or are unknown. Timber harvesting activities would continue to occur on the Green Diamond forestlands and, therefore, the need would still exist for Green Diamond to employ timber management and support staff. Green Diamond estimates that timber harvest levels (volume) under the Proposed Action would be similar to the No Action Alternative. Relative to the Proposed Action, harvest levels (volume) would be reduced under Alternative A because fewer acres are available on which to harvest timber within the Plan Area. Under Alternative B, harvest volume would be similar to the Proposed Action, but Green Diamond would be forced to operate over a greater acreage under unevenage management to achieve desired harvest levels. Therefore, Green Diamond’s employment levels are expected to be at different levels depending on their projected harvest levels for each alternative. Thus, Green Diamond’s employment and yield taxes paid to Del Norte and Humboldt counties could change. Native Americans dependent on subsistence and commercial fishing in the region could benefit from implementing measures included in the AHCP/CCAA to the extent that they benefit the aquatic Covered Species. However, resulting incremental improvements in Native American socioeconomic conditions would be minor. No changes are anticipated to result in substantial population growth, housing construction, or activities that could significantly affect the environment. 4.2.2.2 Cumulative Effects on Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice The assessment area for cumulative effects on social and economic condition consists of the Green Diamond ownership as well as other lands within Del Norte, Humboldt, and Trinity counties. These counties were established around resource extraction, starting with gold mining and expanding to include timber and agriculture. Over time, the economy in the area has diversified to include other industries, and most of employment in the county is in government and private services. Forest management activities influence the local economy in a variety of ways. For example, forest management can provide year-round, full-time employment such as secretarial, bookkeeping and accounting, forestry, engineering, biology, tree felling and bucking, road construction, yarding and loading, milling, and mechanical and repair. It is anticipated that over the term of the permits, regulatory restrictions will continue to reduce the amount of timber harvest conducted on both private and Federal land in the Action Area and the assessment area for cumulative impacts. As a result, employment in forest management and forestry- related services is expected to decline. These regulatory actions are ongoing and are expected to continue into the future. Any reduction in timber harvest volume that occurs in the Plan Area would have social and economic consequences on Del Norte, Humboldt, and Trinity counties (i.e., reduction in the workforce). Given that the forest products industry has seen a significant decrease in employment since the 1950s and direct timber management jobs now represent a small fraction of employment in Del Norte, Humboldt, and Trinity counties, this reduction is unlikely to be a significant social or economic impact. Under the Proposed Action , the long-term sustainability of timber harvest operations in the Plan Area is expected to be preserved. This long-term sustainability would have a minor benefit on local socioeconomic conditions, which could result in a positive contribution to cumulative socioeconomic and environmental justice effects.

4-36 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Table 4-6 summarizes potential impacts on socioeconomics associated with implementing the No Action Alternative, FHCP, and other action alternatives. 4.2.3 Climate and Climate Change 4.2.3.1 All Alternatives For this resource, forest management and transportation of raw forest products to manufacturing centers (i.e., covered activities) are assumed to be directly and indirectly related to climate. Wood products manufacturing and biomass energy generation are assumed to be indirectly related to climate, although Green Diamond has no direct involvement in the latter consequences of their forestland management. Methods used to evaluate the potential for adverse or beneficial effects of the alternatives on climate are based on the extent to which the alternatives may increase or reduce GHG emissions as compared to the existing environmental setting, whether the alternatives’ emissions exceed a threshold of significance, and the extent to which the alternatives comply with regulations or requirements adopted to implement public policy to reduce or mitigate GHG emissions. Methods used to evaluate the potential for adverse or beneficial effects on climate change of the alternatives are qualitative and based on the apparent resistance and resilience of North Coast forests to ecological disturbances. In a study of timber harvest practices in the redwood region, uneven-aged silvicultural practices have the potential to produce more hydrocarbons then even-aged management (Han et al., 2015). Therefore, hydrocarbon production under Alternative B may increase relative to the No Action Alternative and other action alternatives. However, many factors, including reduced timber harvest volumes among alternatives, the effect of road building, and the assumption that uneven-aged silviculture practices may require increased reliance on helicopter logging, rendering an analysis of the differences among alternatives impractical. For all alternatives, Green Diamond would continue to practice forest management in the Action Area, including the covered forest management activities described in Chapter 2. Green Diamond manages its forestlands for the primary purpose of growing and harvesting timber. Green Diamond would continue to operate in compliance with and within the constraints of applicable forest practice regulations (unless forest operations become economically infeasible), which, in part, strive to avoid detrimental impacts on climate. Table 4-7 summarizes potential impacts on climate and climate change associated with implementing the No Action Alternative, FHCP, and other action alternatives. 4.2.3.2 Cumulative Effects on Climate Change The accumulation of GHG in the atmosphere is thought to be the product of both natural processes and anthropogenic sources that have emerged over several centuries and become detectable at a global scale. Human activities in the region, including the covered activities, probably contribute to the accumulation of GHG in the earth’s atmosphere, but the contribution is negligible in comparison to other regions of human activity and significant natural sources. Public, tribal, and private timberlands in the region make a significant contribution to carbon sequestration through the mechanisms described in Chapter 3. The result is more carbon being sequestered on these lands than being released to the atmosphere. To the degree that forest ecosystems can be maintained over other land uses, carbon sequestration will continue to occur in the area. Under the No Action Alternative, maintaining forest ecosystems is enhanced through the continued management of timberlands for the sustained yield of forest products and the continued restrictions on forestland conversions as a result of the TPZ and other zoning. In addition, other efforts to mitigate GHG generation (e.g., use of forests as carbon offset mitigation banks) may further contribute to the long-term sustainability of the forestry sector.

PR0105180936SAC 4-37 CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Maintaining the forest landscape in the region under all alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, is expected to positively contribute to overall trends in sustaining the forest landscape for carbon sequestration. This trend would result in a beneficial cumulative effect. 4.2.4 Aquatic Resources and Hydrology The assessment of effects on aquatic resources is based primarily on the potential for changes in aquatic habitats caused by altered hydrology, riparian conditions, water quality, and sediment production and delivery. Environmental effects of those actions and measures contained in the AHCP/CCAA (common to all alternatives) were described in the EIS prepared for the AHCP/CCAA (NMFS and USFWS, 2007). The following analysis of environmental consequences on aquatic resources focuses on the effects of the changes in management and additional measures that would be implemented under the alternatives. Implementation of the FHCP may have a slight positive benefit as it extends the aquatic protections and protections for unstable geologic areas from the AHCP/CCAA. Assuming FHCP permit issuance in 2019, the implementation benefits would be extended from the end of the AHCP/CCAA in 2057 until 2069, an additional 12 years. Table 4-8 summarizes potential impacts on aquatic resources and hydrology associated with implementing the No Action Alternative, FHCP, and other action alternatives. 4.2.4.1 Sediment Input Currently, sediment inputs to Action Area stream networks result from natural conditions, implementing THPs, and legacy conditions such as prior hillslope mass wasting and existing roads. Sediment, when delivered to streams, can reduce water quality and aquatic habitat values. Excess sediment delivery to Action Area streams has contributed in the past to limited aquatic habitat. In addition, several watersheds have been listed as impaired under Clean Water Act Section 303(d) relative to sediment (Chapter 3). Under the alternatives, continued implementation of the AHCP/CCAA and similar conservation measures in the MATO, plus continued adherence to the FPRs, will continue to reduce sediment production and delivery to Plan Area streams over time. 4.2.4.2 Hydrology Hydrology in forested areas can be affected by peak flows during storm events that can cause scour, alter channel morphology, and increase flooding. Increased runoff throughout timber harvest units or along roads, intercepting groundwater flows by roads, and altering evapotranspiration19 through changes in forest structure all have the potential to alter Action Area hydrology. Stream temperatures, which can significantly affect aquatic species, can be affected by changes to direct shading, reduced surface and groundwater flows, and sediment deposition. As described in the EIS prepared for the AHCP/CCAA (NMFS and USFWS, 2007), harvest-related ground disturbance measures could decrease the magnitude of peak flows and the volume of sediment available for runoff during such peak flow events. The accelerated repair of high- and moderate-risk sediment delivery sites under the existing Road Management Plan in the AHCP/CCAA (Green Diamond, 2007) will increase the rate at which road crossing sites are repaired and hydrologically disconnected from Action Area watercourses. 4.2.4.3 Water Quality Overall, the FPRs and the conservation measures contained in the AHCP/CCAA and implemented under the alternatives are expected to reduce harvest- and road-related sediment production and delivery to

19 Evapotranspiration is evaporation of water into the atmosphere through the process of water movement through a plant and its evaporation from leaves, stems, and flowers.

4-38 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Action Area streams, reduce water temperatures, and improve other water quality conditions for aquatic species relative to current conditions. 4.1.2.1 Aquatic Habitats Overall, the FPRs and the conservation measures contained in the AHCP/CCAA and implemented under the alternatives are expected to result in an improving trend in aquatic habitat conditions over time, relative to current conditions. The anticipated improvement (relative to existing conditions) in aquatic habitats would result from reduced sediment production and delivery to streams and improved riparian conditions such as stream shading, large woody debris recruitment, sediment filtration, streambank stability, and nutrient input. 4.1.2.2 Aquatic Species (Including Special-status Species) Changes to the stream environment include changes in the quality and quantity of spawning gravels, production of aquatic invertebrates, thermal conditions, habitat complexity, and connectivity. Habitat complexity refers primarily to instream habitat elements (undercut banks, pools, and other features) that define and add complexity to the stream channel. Connectivity refers to stream corridor connectivity, which is important to those species with developmental stages that entail movement and migration. Under the alternatives, water quality and substrates in Plan Area streams would continue to improve over time with AHCP/CCAA implementation because of reduced sediment loading and turbidity. In turn, these improvements increase the quantity and quality of salmonid spawning gravels, resulting in greater survival of salmonid eggs and fry in the gravels, and increased production of aquatic invertebrates that serve as food for fish and other species. Reduced sedimentation would continue to benefit salmonids that use Plan Area streams for spawning and rearing during the freshwater phase of their life cycle.20 A reduction in substrate embeddedness resulting from reduced sediment input would also continue to benefit two amphibian species covered by the AHCP/CCAA (southern torrent salamander and tailed frog) and other amphibian and reptile species. With continued implementation of the AHCP/CCAA under any alternative, improvements in overstory canopy closure, stream shading, sedimentation, and stream turbidity will continue, and will continue to improve thermal conditions for aquatic species.21 The AHCP/CCAA reported that Plan Area streams are generally suitable for anadromous and resident salmonids, and for covered amphibian species. Additionally, tailed frogs and southern torrent salamanders are present in most streams sampled in the Plan Area in stands ranging from recent even-aged harvesting units to mature second growth (Green Diamond, 2007). This suggests that water temperatures and microclimate variables are currently suitable for these and other amphibian species in most streams in the Plan Area and that these conditions may improve over time under all the alternatives. Under any alternative, with continued implementation of the AHCP/CCAA and MATO, potential fish passage problems at existing road crossings are documented during the road inventory process, and culverts that are impeding fish passage are prioritized for replacement with a bridge or other “fish- friendly” structures. As culvert replacements are implemented over time, fish passage problems at road crossings are reduced or eliminated. Continued implementation of the AHCP/CCAA would provide benefits to aquatic species in the Plan Area until 2057 under the No Action Alternative, Alternative A, and Alternative B. Under the FHCP, AHCP/CCAA benefits would be extended for a 50-year period consistent with the requested FHCP permit

20 Salmonids require streambeds with clean gravel that is not covered by finer sediments to deposit their eggs. 21 Salmonids and other aquatic species in the Plan Area require relatively cold, clean water and high oxygen content.

PR0105180936SAC 4-39 CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

term. Assuming FHCP permit issuance in 2019, AHCP/CCAA implementation benefits would be extended until 2069. 4.2.4.4 Cumulative Effects on Aquatic Resources and Hydrology With continued implementation of the AHCP/CCAA under any alternative, aquatic and riparian habitat conditions related to forest management activities are expected to continue to improve through time, especially for special-status aquatic species covered by the AHCP/CCAA. The anticipated improvement in riparian conditions and the reduction in sediment production and delivery to streams results in improved physical habitat for aquatic species. Activities under the AHCP/CCAA and MATO to improve fish passage improve stream connectivity in the Plan Area, and were designed to allow aquatic species access to potentially suitable, but formerly unavailable, habitat in some stream reaches. The improvements in aquatic habitat and connectivity realized by implementing the AHCP/CCAA under all alternatives would continue to benefit aquatic species, including special-status species covered by the AHCP/CCAA. This trend would result in a beneficial cumulative effect.

4-40 PR0105180936SAC

Tables

CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Table 4-1. Age Composition of Forest Stands Within RMZs in 2010 and Age Projections by Decade (expressed as percent of total RMZ acreage) (2010 to 2060) Area Projected by Year in RMZs by Stand Age (percent)

Age Class 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

0–19 12.6 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

20–30 14.0 9.1 5.3 0.0 0.0 0.0

31– 45 26.0 21.3 16.6 9.3 1.2 0.0

46–59 24.1 24.8 20.0 16.7 11.4 4.6

60–79 13.3 25.7 34.8 33.8 29.3 21.4

80–99 3.9 7.1 13.3 25.7 34.8 33.8

100 + 2.5 3.8 6.4 10.9 19.7 36.6

Non-forest 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.6

Total forest 96.4 96.4 96.4 96.4 96.4 96.4

NSO habitat 69.8 82.7 91.1 96.4 96.4 96.4

Source: Green Diamond Modeling (Green Diamond’s FHCP Effects Analysis of EIS Alternatives on NSO Habitat, see AFWO website) Notes: Non-forest is assumed to provide no suitable nesting or roosting habitat for NSO. NSO roosting and nesting habitat (NSO habitat) includes forest stands greater than 30 years old. Percentages shown are based on 92,784 total acres in 2010 held constant through time.

PR0105180936SAC 4-43 CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Table 4-2. Comparison of Key Elements of NSO HCP Set-Asides with FHCP DCAs NSO HCP Set-Asides FHCP DCAs

Commitment to maintain 40 set-asides in Plan Area until Commitment to maintain a minimum of 44 DCAs in the Plan 2022. Area. More DCAs may be established in the Plan Area if they meet specific demographic and spatial criteria or are deemed necessary through monitoring and adaptive management.

40 no-harvest set-asides in the Plan Area would be 44 DCAs with no-harvest core areas averaging 85 acres maintained through 2022, at which time this acreage would (range 56 to 130 acres) for a total of 3,775 acres. be released for harvest. Set-asides range in size from 61 to 1,988 acres, averaging 331 acres, and total 13,230 acres.

In 2015, 21 of 40 set-asides (53 percent) harbored 1 to 4 In 2015, 32 of 44 future DCAs (73 percent) harbored one active NSO sites (31 total active sites). Nineteen set-asides active NSO site each. 12 DCAs are currently unoccupied. are unoccupied, with 8 of these unoccupied since 1992.

Set-asides have produced an average of 11.9 fledglings DCAs have produced an average of 15.9 fledglings annually. annually.

Of 65 sites within 40 set-asides: Of 44 sites in 44 DCAs: Low fecundity (<0.14): n = 26 (40.0% of sites) Low: n = 1 (2.3%) Med fecundity (0.14-0.30): n = 21 (32.3%) Med: n = 22 (50.0%) High fecundity (>0.30): n = 18 (27.7%) High: n = 21 (47.7%)

The FPRs and NSO HCP govern management of lands Green Diamond will actively manage lands adjacent to DCAs adjacent to set-asides through 2022. Timber harvest following no-take guidelines and with FPRs adjacency adjacent to set-asides using the FPRs’ requirements for age requirements for age and tree regrowth effectively doubled. and tree regrowth may result in displacement of owls that is DCAs may move in time and space as some DCAs are authorized under the NSO HCP. Set-asides may not move in replaced by new DCAs with demonstrated higher survival and time or space but would be released for harvest following fecundity. termination of the Amended NSO HCP in 2022. Lands would be managed as “no take” under the FPRs following termination of the NSO HCP.

Overall: Sites within set-asides are protected by no-harvest Overall: High-quality owl sites available with spatial management, but timber harvest adjacent to the site can requirements that are protected by no-harvest and no-take lead to displacement take. Sites within set-asides have management. To maintain high quality sites, DCAs may be lower fecundities than DCA sites. Set-asides may not be “exchanged” for same or higher-productivity DCAs. Managed “exchanged” for other set-asides, even if current sites as the highest quality NSO sites within an array of other owl within set-asides are not producing NSOs. Set-asides would sites. DCAs maintained for 50-year permit term. be conditionally released for harvest in 2022.

4-44 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Table 4-3. Summary of Potential Impacts on NSO Category No Action Alternative FHCP Alternative A Alternative B

Direct effects Nesting NSOs in managed Similar to No Action. Nesting NSOs in Nesting NSOs in managed timberlands protected through Nesting NSOs in managed managed timberlands protected pre-harvest surveys and timberlands protected timberlands through the same survey mitigation measures under through the same survey protected through requirements and harvest existing the NSO HCP (Simpson, requirements and harvest the same survey restrictions that are 1992), then by FPRs and Service restrictions that are requirements and currently implemented take avoidance guidelines currently implemented harvest restrictions under the No Action following expiration of the NSO under the No Action that are currently Alternative. HCP in 2022. Alternative, with a minor implemented under change in the date for the the No Action start of the NSO breeding Alternative. season (February 21, compared to the current March 1 start date).

Habitat Suitable NSO roosting and Similar to No Action, but Same as No Action Same as No Action effects nesting habitat in riparian areas RMZ and geological is protected through 2057 under conservation measures AHCP/CCAA. Only single entry (including entry for light harvest (selection) restrictions) from the allowed within RMZs. AHCP/CCAA extended to FHCP permit term.

Suitable NSO roosting and Beneficial effect compared Suitable NSO NSO set-asides replaced nesting habitat within 40 set- to No Action because the roosting and nesting with ROCAs where the asides preserved through 2022 most productive NSO sites habitat protected most productive NSO under no-harvest provisions in are protected in DCAs. within sites are identified and the NSO HCP. Thereafter, Barred owl management approximately protected over the occupied spotted owl habitat is and removal may promote 72,000 acres of late- permit term. Selection protected under no-take NSO occupancy of the seral reserves under harvest would increase provisions. DCAs and other suitable no-harvest the quadratic mean habitat. Some NSO habitat provisions. diameter and canopy within 40 set-asides would cover through selective be subject to scheduled removal of smaller harvest under the FHCP. diameter trees.

The proportion of the area in the The habitat mosaic in Increase in the The proportion of the older forest age classes is upland areas would be proportion of older area in the older age expected to remain at the similar to the No Action in forest age classes, classes are expected to current levels or increase over many areas, but high- but reduction in increase over time due to time due to FPR adjacency quality habitat would be habitat mosaic by more uneven-aged constraints that are applied to ensured around the most designation of large selection harvest. The even-aged harvesting units productive owl sites reserves. Modeled forest stands subject to interacting with provisions of the associated with DCAs. habitat fitness would selection timber Amended NSO HCP and Implementing the TREE decline. Wood harvesting would also AHCP/CCAA. Green Diamond program may help to retention similar to become more open and would continue to retain green preserve and recruit No Action may lose quality as wood and snags as required specific structural habitat roosting and nesting under the FPRs, and may elect to elements like snags, large stands. Modeled habitat continue to retain CWD as hardwood trees, and fitness will decline. Wood practiced voluntarily consistent decadent or defective retention similar to No with the TDWMP. NSO habitat trees along with a Action. fitness modeled to increase commitment to retain between 2010 and 2022 on CWD. Green Diamond ownership using current harvest plans and re- growth estimates not related to any alternative.

PR0105180936SAC 4-45 CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Table 4-3. Summary of Potential Impacts on NSO Category No Action Alternative FHCP Alternative A Alternative B

Demographic Suitable NSO habitat, defined as Beneficial effect compared In approximately 40 Under a selection/group parameters habitat high in fitness value, is to No Action. The amount years, all stands in selection harvest projected to increase until 2057 of forest stands aged 41+ the reserves will be scenario, habitat under No Action, largely through ranges from 47 to 56 homogeneous heterogeneity is implementation of the Aquatic percent, which falls within mature stands with dramatically reduced at HCP and FPRs. The amount of the optimum range no open edge the landscape scale. forest stands aged 41+ ranges suggested for NSO habitat density that Nearly 75% of the Plan from approximately 51 to 56 fitness. This alternative promotes habitat Area transitions to age percent, which falls within the would also result in the heterogeneity. The 41+ years by 2045. During optimum range suggested for greatest amount of habitat amount of forest the same period, habitat NSO habitat fitness. However, heterogeneity. Barred owl stands aged 41+ heterogeneity declines lack of barred owl removal may management and removal ranges from 53 to 63 due to reductions in the prevent any of the habitat will help habitat benefits to percent, which youngest age classes. The benefits to be realized and the be realized and the NSO exceeds the lack of barred owl NSO population may decline. population may increase. optimum range removal may contribute suggested for NSO to NSO population habitat fitness. The decline. lack of barred owl removal may contribute to NSO population decline.

Displacement Green Diamond permitted under Under the FHCP, Displacement of Similar to the No Action. amended 1992 NSO HCP to displacement of NSOs as a NSOs as a result of Displacement of NSOs as displace or otherwise take up to result of timber harvest timber harvest a result of timber harvest 58 NSO pairs incidental to its would be prohibited within would be prohibited would be prohibited land management operations the DCAs. Displacement within the reserves. within the ROCAs. Timber until 2022. Thereafter, NSO take and other forms of NSO Timber harvest harvest around (including displacement) is not take outside of the DCAs around unprotected unprotected sites (subject permitted. Without barred owl would be permitted over sites outside of the to Service approved and removal, take and its negative the 50-year FHCP permit reserves would be allocated take) outside of influence on NSO fecundity term on a tiered scale that greater than the No the ROCAs may be would diminish over time due to is relative to the number of Action which could greater than the No fewer NSO sites on the active spotted owl sites in lead to greater Action. landscape. the FHCP Plan Area. No displacement take of NSOs allowed if outside of the there are fewer than 44 reserve areas. active owl sites in the FHCP Plan Area.

Barred owls Barred owls displace NSOs from Beneficial effect compared No research No research concerning suitable site locations, and to No Action. Green concerning the the interactions between barred owls would negatively Diamond would conduct a interactions barred owls and NSOs affect spotted owl demographic long-term removal between barred would be conducted by parameters, including experiment of barred owls owls and NSOs Green Diamond. No occupancy, fecundity, and to determine their impact would be conducted barred owl removal survival. Research concerning on NSOs. Barred owls by Green Diamond. would occur. Adverse the interactions between barred would be experimentally No barred owl effects to spotted owls owls and NSOs would be removed from the FHCP removal would from barred owl conducted by Green Diamond as Plan Area during the 50- occur. Adverse interactions would specified by the Amended NSO year permit term, which effects to spotted continue to occur. HCP, which expires in 2022., but would allow spotted owls owls from barred no barred owl removal would to respond favorably to owl interactions occur. Adverse effects to spotted increasing habitat fitness. would continue to owls from barred owl occur. interactions would continue under No Action.

4-46 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Table 4-4. Summary of Potential Impacts to Fisher Category No Action Alternative FHCP Alternative A Alternative B

Direct effects Under the No Action Beneficial effect compared Same as No Action Same as No Action Alternative, there is no to No Action, with measures conservation strategy to avoid fisher entrapment in and there are no specific tanks. Fisher dens identified commitments directed at will be buffered (0.25 mile fisher conservation. around den) and avoided However, it is highly until the den is vacant. unlikely that timber Under the FHCP, Green harvesting would result Diamond may cooperate in in direct harm to adult any Service- and CDFW- fishers. approved fisher capture and relocation/ reintroduction recovery project. Potential harm to the fisher population in the Plan Area would be offset by the potential benefits of capturing and reintroducing/relocating fishers into other portions of its range. Habitat effects Potential fisher denning Similar to No Action, but Same as No Action Same as No Action and resting habitat would RMZ and geological continue to develop conservation measures within RMZs as a result of (including entry restrictions) continued from the AHCP/CCAA implementation of the extended to FHCP permit AHCP/CCAA through term. 2057. Potential fisher denning The DCA cores may provide The unmanaged reserve The ROCAs may provide and resting habitat may and develop suitable resting areas under this some benefit for fishers continue to develop in 40 and denning habitat for alternative would approximately equal to set-asides under the NSO fishers since they would not develop over time and what is be expected from HCP through 2022. be harvested, with the provide more acres of set-asides under the No Thereafter, fisher habitat younger stands surrounding mature stands with late- Action Alternative. within the former set- the core providing foraging seral forest elements in asides could be habitat. Potential effects on these areas. Presumably, harvested, but the area fishers of gradually this will result in an involved is likely too harvesting former set-asides overall increase in small to have a not protected as DCAs is potential denning and measurable impact on likely similar to that under resting habitat for fishers fishers. the No Action Alternative. May be more beneficial than the other alternatives The small clear-cut sizes Similar to the No action or Similar to the No Action. Similar to the No Action. mandated by the FPRs incrementally better. The Retention objectives for Retention objectives for and the amount of area landscape management patches of hardwoods patches of hardwoods and in riparian corridors commitments in the FHCP and conifers, hard and conifers, hard and soft under Green Diamond’s will provide a dendritic soft snags, and standing snags, and standing “live AHCP/CCAA are network of intact and “live culls” would culls” would continue per anticipated to result in a increasingly older stands continue per FPRs. Green FPRs. Green Diamond may higher degree of habitat throughout the life of the Diamond may elect to elect to continue to heterogeneity (relative to plan. Wood retention continue to voluntarily voluntarily retain CWD on

PR0105180936SAC 4-47 CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Table 4-4. Summary of Potential Impacts to Fisher Category No Action Alternative FHCP Alternative A Alternative B

existing conditions and commitments in the TREE retain CWD on the the landscape for the continuing beyond 2022). plan would ensure continued landscape for the benefit benefit of fishers. Wood retention value to fishers by retaining of fishers. objectives in the FPRs larger trees with existing would continue to cavities or other structural benefit fishers by deformities, and CWD. retaining elements that are used as resting sites and trees through 2022. Green Diamond may elect to continue to voluntarily retain CWD on the landscape for the benefit of fishers. Displacement No measures to avoid Displacement of fishers are Displacement of fisher as Potential for increased displacement of fishers unlikely within DCAs; a result of timber harvest displacement of fisher due on the ownership. Green however, displacement will would not occur within to timber harvest on a Diamond estimates that otherwise be similar to the the no-harvest reserves. larger area. up to seven fishers may No Action. Outside of the reserves, be displaced or otherwise potential displacement harmed annually based would be less than under on displacement due to the No Action due to harvest across 2 percent timber harvest on a of the ownership smaller area. annually. Occupancy The probability of fisher Similar to the No Action, Similar to the No Action There is no commitment occupancy (associated foraging habitat is not likely and the preferred to retain and recruit with high-value foraging to be a limiting factor for alternative; however, the resting and denning habitat) on Green fishers on managed reserves may be structure, so occupancy Diamond ownership is timberlands in the Plan Area. beneficial to fisher over the long term could predicted to decline Implementing the TREE plan occupancy (by providing decline. modestly over time. as firm commitment will denning habitat) over the However, fishers are increase the likelihood that longer-term. apparently adaptable to denning and resting such changes because structures are maintained on there is still a well- the landscape. Under the distributed population FHCP, Green Diamond would across the ownership attempt to validate the fisher after a long history of occupancy model during the timber harvesting in the initial 5 years of FHCP plan area. Green implementation. Monitoring, Diamond would continue model validation, and to retain green trees and adaptive management would snags per FPR provide increased requirements, and may monitoring benefits to elect to voluntarily retain fishers relative to the No CWD for fisher habitat. Action.

4-48 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Table 4-5. Summary of Potential Impacts to Tree Voles Category No Action Alternative FHCP Alternative A Alternative B

Direct effects No measures to identify or The FHCP could provide Same as No Action Same as No Action. protect tree vole nests on additional protection to Green Diamond managed individual tree voles and lands. their occupied nests Tree vole nests located in relative to the level of RMZs would be largely protection afforded under avoided, but could potentially the No Action Alternative. be harmed by single, light Green Diamond will harvests through 2057. identify and protect potential or occupied tree vole nests within RMZs. Trees retained under the TREE plan may provide additional nest sites for voles.

Habitat effects Tree vole habitat in RMZs Same as the No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action largely protected by Alternative until 2057. AHCP/CCAA measures through Slight beneficial affect after 2057. 2057 by extending AHCP/CCAA provisions to FHCP permit term.

Potential tree vole habitat may No effect compared to No More beneficial The ROCAs may provide continue to develop in 40 set- Action. Area involved with than the No Action some benefit for tree asides under the NSO HCP set-asides and DCAs is not or the other voles approximately through 2022. Thereafter, tree necessarily suitable tree alternatives, as the equal to what is be vole habitat within the former vole habitat, and is too large reserve areas expected from set- set-asides could be harvested, small to have a measurable will not be asides under the No but the area involved is too impact on tree voles. harvested and will Action Alternative. small to have a measurable develop into impact on tree voles. mature stands with late-seral forest elements that may be beneficial for tree vole nesting.

The small clear-cut sizes Similar to No Action or Similar to the No Similar to or more mandated by the FPRs and the incrementally better. The Action. Retention beneficial than the No amount of area in riparian landscape management objectives for Action. The transition to corridors under Green commitments in the FHCP patches of selection silviculture as Diamond’s AHCP/CCAA are will provide a dendritic hardwoods and the predominant anticipated to result in a higher network of intact and conifers, hard and technique to manage degree of habitat increasingly older stands soft snags, and commercial conifer heterogeneity (relative to throughout the life of the standing “live culls” timber stands under existing conditions and plan. would continue per this alternative may continuing beyond 2022). Tree Wood retention FPRs. benefit tree voles due retention objectives in the NSO commitments in the TREE to development of a HCP would benefit tree voles plan might help tree vole higher percentage of by retaining elements that are populations by retaining mature stands across used as nesting sites and trees larger trees. the landscape. through 2022. Suitable tree Retention objectives for vole habitat anticipated to be patches of hardwoods provided on approximately 50 and conifers, hard and soft snags, and standing

PR0105180936SAC 4-49 CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Table 4-5. Summary of Potential Impacts to Tree Voles Category No Action Alternative FHCP Alternative A Alternative B

percent of the ownership “live culls” would between 2010 and 2057. continue per FPRs.

Displacement Approximately 2 percent of Similar to No Action in that Displacement of Potential for increased ownership harvested annually. approximately 2 percent of tree vole as a result displacement of tree It is assumed that ownership harvested of timber harvest vole due to timber approximately 2 percent of the annually. An additional would not occur harvest on a larger Green Diamond tree vole benefit compared to No within the no- area. population could be displaced Action is that harvest of harvest reserves. or otherwise harmed annually. tree vole nest trees in Outside of the RMZs avoided. reserves, potential displacement would be less than under the No Action due to timber harvest on a smaller area.

Plan Area No monitoring of tree vole Beneficial effect compared Same as No Action Same as No Action population populations in the Plan Area to No Action, with local would be attempted, and no population tracked by information on the population developing and size or distribution of tree implementing tree vole voles on the ownership would monitoring program. be developed. May have some Adaptive management and benefit as NSO population corrective actions taken decrease, should monitoring demonstrate decline.

Vole Land management strategy is Same as No Action Same as No Action Same as No Action Population at anticipated to provide Regional Scale suitable, connected tree vole habitat sufficient to sustain a large population throughout the Plan Area that will allow for recolonizing harvested areas.

4-50 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Table 4-6. Summary of Effects for Socioeconomics No Action Alternative FHCP Alternative A Alternative B

Employment Timber harvest levels are Similar to the No Relative to the No Action, Harvest volume would be expected to remain about Action harvest levels (volume) similar to the No Action, the same as current would be reduced under but Green Diamond conditions; therefore, Alternative A (terrestrial would be forced to employment levels are reserves) because fewer operate over a greater expected to remain similar acres are available on acreage under unevenage to current conditions. which to harvest timber management to achieve within the Plan Area. desired harvest levels.

Yield taxes Local tax revenues are Similar to the No Local tax revenues would Similar to the No Action expected to remain similar Action be reduced relative to the to current conditions. No Action Alternative.

Population Population growth is Similar to the No Similar to the No Action Similar to the No Action growth expected to remain similar Action to current conditions.

PR0105180936SAC 4-51 CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Table 4-7. Summary of Potential Impacts to Climate and Climate Change No Action Alternative FHCP Alternative A Alternative B

Green Diamond would Similar effects compared Similar effects Similar effects continue to practice forest to the No Action compared to the compared to the No management in the Action Alternative No Action Action Alternative Area. Maintaining the forest Alternative although uneven age landscape in the region is silvicultural practices expected to positively have the potential to contribute to overall trends in produce more sustaining the forest hydrocarbons then landscape for carbon even-age sequestration. management. Therefore, hydrocarbon production under Alternative B may increase relative to the No Action Alternative and other action alternatives.

4-52 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Table 4-8. Summary of Potential Impacts to Aquatic Resources and Hydrology No Action Alternative FHCP Alternative A Alternative B

Sediment Input Continued implementation of Marginally beneficial Similar effects Similar effects the AHCP/CCAA and similar effect compared to No compared to the compared to the No conservation measures in the Action because No Action Action Alternative MATO, plus continued AHCP/CCAA benefits Alternative adherence to the FPRs, will would be extended for a continue to reduce sediment 50-year period consistent production and delivery to with the FHCP permit Plan Area streams over time. term. Assuming FHCP permit issuance in 2019, AHCP/CCAA implementation benefits would be extended until 2069.

Hydrology The accelerated repair of Marginally beneficial Similar effects Similar effects high- and moderate-risk effect compared to No compared to the compared to the No sediment delivery sites under Action because No Action Action Alternative the existing Road AHCP/CCAA benefits Alternative Management Plan in the would be extended for a AHCP/CCAA (Green Diamond, 50-year period consistent 2007) will increase the rate at with the FHCP permit which road crossing sites are term. Assuming FHCP repaired and hydrologically permit issuance in 2019, disconnected from Action AHCP/CCAA Area watercourses. implementation benefits would be extended until 2069.

Water Quality The FPRs and the Marginally beneficial Similar effects Similar effects conservation measures effect compared to No compared to the compared to the No contained in the AHCP/CCAA Action because No Action Action Alternative are expected to reduce AHCP/CCAA benefits Alternative harvest- and road-related would be extended for a sediment production and 50-year period consistent delivery to Action Area with the FHCP permit streams, reduce water term. Assuming FHCP temperatures, and improve permit issuance in 2019, other water quality conditions AHCP/CCAA relative to current conditions. implementation benefits would be extended until 2069.

Aquatic The FPRs and the Marginally beneficial Similar effects Similar effects Habitats conservation measures effect compared to No compared to the compared to the No contained in the AHCP/CCAA Action because No Action Action Alternative are expected to result in an AHCP/CCAA benefits Alternative improving trend in aquatic would be extended for a habitat conditions over time, 50-year period consistent relative to current conditions. with the FHCP permit term. Assuming FHCP permit issuance in 2019, AHCP/CCAA implementation benefits would be extended until 2069.

PR0105180936SAC 4-53 CHAPTER 4 – ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Table 4-8. Summary of Potential Impacts to Aquatic Resources and Hydrology No Action Alternative FHCP Alternative A Alternative B

Aquatic Species With continued Marginally beneficial Similar effects Similar effects implementation of the effect compared to No compared to the compared to the No AHCP/CCAA, aquatic and Action because No Action Action Alternative riparian habitat conditions AHCP/CCAA benefits Alternative related to forest management would be extended for a activities are expected to 50-year period consistent continue to improve through with the FHCP permit time, especially for special- term. Assuming FHCP status aquatic species covered permit issuance in 2019, by the AHCP/CCAA. AHCP/CCAA implementation benefits would be extended until 2069.

4-54 PR0105180936SAC CHAPTER 5 List of Preparers

Agency/Contractor Name Title/Role Experience U.S. Fish and James Bond Project Manager Senior Fish and Wildlife Biologist Wildlife Service Lynn Roberts Senior Biologist Over 30 years of experience as a wildlife biologist Kathleen Endangered Species Over 25 years of experience as a wildlife Brubaker Program Lead biologist Jennifer L. Norris Acting Arcata Field Over 20 years of experience as a Fish and Supervisor Wildlife Biologist CH2M Jeff Tupen Project Manager 31 years experience with environmental assessments and regulatory permitting Neil Nikirk Senior Biologist 25 years experience with habitat conservation planning and environmental analyses David Fornander Fisheries Biologist Over 20 years of experience as a fisheries biologist Steve Mader Senior Biologist/Climate 35 years of experience integrating habitat Change Analyst and species considerations, and regulatory strategies, into site planning and civil engineering projects Matt Franck Senior Environmental 26 years of experience managing and Planner writing environmental impact assessment documents that comply compliance with NEPA and CEQA Katie Schwartz Editor 4 years of experience editing and coordinating technical documents Misty Schymtzik Editor Over 17 years managing and editing technical documents Clarice Ericsson Publishing Technician 24 years of experience producing technical documents in a variety of formats

PR0105180936SAC 5-1