Biological Evaluation (Wildlife Portion Only) for the Deer Jasper Project Environmental Assessment 14 July 2014 Updated 29 February, 2016 Post 2015 Stickpin Fire Three Rivers Ranger District Colville National Forest 1 Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 List of Figures 3 List of Tables 3 I. Introduction 4 A. Birds 4 B. Mammals 4 C. Invertebrates 4 1. Butterflies 4 2. Dragonflies/damselflies 5 3. Mollusks 5 D. Analysis comments 6 II. Area Description 6 Project Location 6 III. Short Project Description 6 IV. Existing Situation, Effects of Implementation, and Risk Assessment for Birds and Mammals 7 A. Birds 7 1. Great Gray Owl (Strix nebulosa) 7 2. White-headed woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus) 14 3. Lewis’ woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) 18 B. Mammals 21 1. Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos) 21 2. Gray wolf (Canis lupus) 34 3. Canada lynx (Lynx canadensis) 49 4. Wolverine (Gulo gulo) 59 6. Pacific Western (Townsend's) Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) 65 7. Moose (Alces americanus) 67 C. Invertebrates 69 1. Meadow fritillary (Boloria bellona) 69 3. Rosner’s hairstreak (Callophyrys nelsoni rosneri or C. grynea plicateria) 70 4. Eastern tailed blue (Cupido comyntas) 72 5. Peck’s and Tawny-edged skipper (Polites peckius and P. themistocles) 73 6. Fir Pinwheel (Radiodiscus abietum) 74 7. Magnum Mantleslug (Magnipelta mycophaga) 76 V. Literature Cited 80 VI. Personal Communication 85 VII. Detailed Project Description 85 A. Proposed Vegetation Treatments 85 1. Commercial Treatments 86 2. Non-Commercial Vegetation Treatments 88 3. Other Treatments 91 B. Roads 94 1. Temporary Road Construction 94 2. Road Reconstruction 95 3. Road Decommissioning 96 C. Danger Tree Management 98 2 VIII. Design Elements in the Proposed Action 98 A. Wildlife 98 B. Noxious Weeds 103 C. Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas 104 Three Zones of the RHCA: 104 D. Aquatics 105 E. Soils 110 F. Soils 114 IX. Monitoring Required by the Proposed Action 118 List of Figures Figure 1. Location of Deer Jasper Project Area. .................................................................................... 7 Figure 2. Potential great gray owl habitat in the Deer Jasper Project area. White areas are not habitat. ............................................................................................................................................ 9 Figure 3. Harvest in great gray owl nesting habitat that would reduce or eliminate the stand’s potential to provide nesting habitat. ............................................................................................. 11 Figure 4. All proposed treatment in potential great gray owl habitat. .. Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 5. White-headed woodpecker habitat in Deer Jasper............................................................... 15 Figure 6. Existing Lewis’ woodpecker habitat in Deer Jasper............................................................ 20 Figure 7. Core area/secluded habitat and cover within it in Deer Jasper. ........................................... 23 Figure 8. Travel corridors and cover in Deer Jasper. ........................................................................... 24 Figure 9. Effects of prescribed fire and harvest on cover in corridors. ............................................... 26 Figure 10. Distribution of forage on big game summer range in Deer Jasper. ................................... 37 Figure 11. Big game winter range in Deer Jasper. ............................................................................... 38 Figure 12. Cover and forage on winter range in Deer Jasper. Inset lies along the western border. ... 38 Figure 13. Proposed activities in deer winter range in Deer Jasper. .................................................... 41 Figure 14. Lynx Analysis Units (LAUs) and habitat in and near Deer Jasper. ................................... 53 List of Tables Table 1. Great gray owl habitat conditions in Deer Jasper. 10 Table 2. Condition of white-headed woodpecker habitat in Deer Jasper. 15 Table 3. Roads Requiring Gate Closures for Post-Harvest Projects 33 Table 4. Number of units proposed for management in big game winter range. 43 Table 5. Lynx habitat within the 2 LAUs that contain Deer Jasper. Error! Bookmark not defined. Table 6. Acres affected by and habitat remaining after management in lynx habitat in Deer Jasper. 55 3 I. Introduction Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, requires federal agencies to "ensure" that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of endangered (E), threatened (T) or proposed (P) species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitats. Also, the Forest Service established direction (Forest Service Manual 2670) to guide habitat management for endangered, threatened, proposed and sensitive species to ensure that these species receive full consideration in the decision-making process. That direction establishes the process, objectives, and standards for conducting Biological Assessments (BA) and Biological Evaluations (BE). The R-6 supplement to FSM 2672.4 identifies a four-step procedure for conducting a BA or BE. The steps are: 1. Pre-field review of existing information, 2. Field reconnaissance of the project area, 3. Risk assessment if species or habitat is present, 4. Biological investigation if data sufficient to complete step 3 do not exist. This BE contains the analyses of the effects of the proposed Deer Jasper Project (Figure 1 and attached project map) after the 2015 Stickpin fire on endangered, threatened, or proposed wildlife species listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) as having the potential to occur within or adjacent the project project area. The USFWS stated that the following species might occur within or adjacent the area (letters from USFWS on file at the Colville National Forest’s (CNF) Supervisor’s Office): US Fish and Wildlife Service Threatened or Endangered species Woodland caribou Grizzly bear Canada lynx (Endangered) (Threatened) (Threatened) US Forest Service sensitive wildlife species (US Forest Service 2011). A. Birds Bald eagle Harlequin duck American peregrine falcon Great gray owl Common loon White-headed woodpecker Sandhill crane Lewis’ woodpecker B. Mammals Gray wolf Townsend’s big-eared bat Moose Pygmy shrew Wolverine Mountain goat Red-tailed chipmunk C. Invertebrates 1. Butterflies Great Basin fritillary (Argynnis (Speyeria) egleis) 4 Meadow fritillary (Boloria bellona) Rosner’s hairstreak (Callophyrys nelsoni rosneri aka Callophyrys grynea plicateria) Eastern tailed blue (Cupido comyntas) Peck’s skipper (Polites peckius) Tawny-edged skipper (Polites themistocles) 2. Dragonflies/damselflies Zigzag darner (Aeshna sitchensis) Subarctic darner (Aeshna subarctica) Subarctic bluet (Coenagrion interrogatum) Delicate emerald (Somatochlora franklinii) Whitehouse emerald (Somatochlora whitehousei) 3. Mollusks Fir Pinwheel (Radiodiscus abietum) Magnum Mantleslug (Magnipelta mycophaga) Habitat does not exist in the project area for the following species, this project would either have no effect or no impact to them or their habitat, and they will not be discussed further in this document: Common loons, bald eagles and eared grebes nest on large bodies of water, which do not occur in the project area. Sandhill cranes occupy open, wetland habitat which does not occur in the project area. Harlequin ducks reproduce on cold, high-gradient streams, which do not occur in the area. Harlequin ducks do migrate through the area, the most recent record coming from northeast of the project area (Pierre Lake) on April 25, 2008, and others dating from the early 2000s on Sherman Creek, about 10 miles east of the project area. American peregrine falcon nests have been documented only in the Pend Oreille Valley. The project area does not contain suitable nesting or foraging habitat. Bald eagles nest near large bodies of water containing abundant fish or waterfowl, neither of which occur in the project area. Roosting occurs near nesting areas. Woodland caribou: the nearest recovery area is over 2 mountain ranges and 2 rivers from the project area. Mountain goats occupy higher elevation, primarily rocky and open areas, which do not occur in or near the project area. Red-tailed chipmunks and pygmy shrews occupy dense, more mesic coniferous forests east of the Columbia River and do not occur in the project area (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Gap Analysis Program). Great Basin fritillary occurs far to the south of the CNF. The single individual caught just south of the CNF boundary was misidentified (J. Pelham, pers .comm.) Zigzag darner, Subarctic darner, Subarctic bluet, Delicate emerald, and Whitehouse emerald. All these odonates occupy high-elevation open-water wetlands, which do not occur in or near the project area. 5 D. Analysis comments We conduct unit-by-unit analysis by computerized mapping. Computerized mapping can give a false sense of accuracy and precision for 3 main reasons. First, the computer provides inflated precision and accuracy, far greater than that of our mapping. Second, maps project a 3- dimensional surface onto a flat, 2-dimensional medium. Third, computer-generated maps look very accurate, but the resulting data are only as good as the map information entered into the computer. To prevent ourselves from portraying a false sense of accuracy, we round the acreage values for each unit's effects to the