Wildlife-Management Indicatir Species and Migratory Bird Report

EDITOR’S NOTE: This report was submitted as a draft for the NEPA writer’s use in incorporating relevant information into Chapter 3 of the Draft EIS-Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences. Subsequent reviews, corrections, and additional information, some of which are a result of the response to comments on the Draft EIS, to the Chapter 3 Wildlife, Fish, and Rare Plants Resources section were completed in the Final EIS, rather than in this report.

Southwest Jemez Mountains Restoration Project

Management Indicator Species Analysis And Migratory Bird Analysis

USDA Forest Service Santa Fe National Forest Jemez Ranger District Sandoval County, New Mexico

Management Indicator Species We have reviewed the list of Management Indicator Species (MIS) for the Santa Fe National Forest. MIS were selected to represent certain plant communities and seral habitats which proposed management activities could affect. This analysis is being done for effects of proposed activities for the Southwest Jemez Mountains Restoration Project. Seven of the eight MIS identified in the Environmental Impact Statement from the Santa Fe National Forest Land Management Plan (USDA 1987) occur or have habitat in or adjacent to the project area (Table 2).

Table 1 shows the acreage of major vegetation communities for the project area compared to the Santa Fe National Forest for vegetation types.

Table 1. Vegetation Community Project Forest Area Aspen 755 38,233 Big sagebrush 6,180 43,731 Blue grama 0 11,430 Deciduous shrub mix 4,345 61,316 Juniper 15,209 129,666 Perennial grass mix 374 61,115 Pinyon, pinyon-juniper 34,497 198,386 Ponderosa pine mix 43,591 500,378 Sparsely vegetated 325 9,226 Spruce-fir 606 147,333 Upper deciduous-evergreen forest tree mix 17,018 347,146 Upper forb mix 0 5,188 Grand Total 109,311 1,553,148

Table 2 shows the habitat association for each MIS in the project area based on information in the Forest Plan EIS (USFS 1987). The table also shows the total acres of each habitat association forestwide and within the project area, and population and habitat trends, based on the Forest’s latest MIS Assessment (USFS 2012). Acres of habitat available for each species, both forestwide and in the project area, were calculated using the dominate vegetation identified in the Forest’s Terrestrial Ecological Unit Inventory (TEUI) database.

Table 2. MIS Habitat Association and Potential for Occurrence within Project Area

Species Habitat Forestwide Project Population Habitat Species or Association Acres/ Area Trend on Trend on Habitat in Stream Miles Acres SFNF SFNF project area

Rocky Mid-elevation 1,287,640 109,686 Increasing Stable Yes Mountain elk (generally less Cervis elaphus than 9000’) nelsoni grasslands, meadows and forest Merriam’s Mature ponderosa 603,235 44,810 Stable Stable Yes turkey pine forest Meleagris gallopavo

Mourning dove Mid and low 581,419 56,094 Stable Stable to Yes Zenaida elevation increasing macroura grasslands, woodlands and ponderosa pine

Hairy Mature forest and 80,174 7,258 Stable to Increasing Yes woodpecker woodland increasing Picoides villosus

Pinyon jay Piñon-juniper 232,204 34,497 Stable Declining Yes Gymnorhinus woodlands cyanocephalus

Mexican Late seral stage 630,191 31,590 Stable Slightly Yes spotted owl mixed conifer declining Strix occidentalis lucida

Rio Grande Riparian and 128.7 stream 11 stream Precariously Declining Yes Cutthroat Trout stream habitat; miles miles upward Oncorhynchus good water quality clarki virginalis

Rocky Mt. Alpine meadow 7,810 0 Declining Stable No bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis canadensis

General habitat information for each of the MIS species which could occur within the project area is included below. The Santa Fe National Forest Management Indicator Species Assessment (USFS 2012) contains more detailed habitat information and population trends for each species.

Elk: Populations of this game species are regulated by the State through hunting regulations and licensing. Although elk in New Mexico were extirpated by 1909, the elk population throughout its range

is secure and common, widespread, and abundant (NatureServe 1997). Elk are commonly seen in all forest types in the project area on slopes less than 40%. They use higher elevations on the Valles Caldera during warmer months, breed in the fall, move to lower elevations in deep winter snows, and calve in the spring. The lack of openings, water and forage vegetation limit elk habitat in the area, but hiding and thermal cover is plentiful. Livestock compete for forage. Cover-to-forage ratio is estimated at 90:10, compared to a desired 40:60 (Skovlin 1982). The excess road density in the area further reduces elk habitat quality. Natural predators in the area include coyotes, mountain lions, and bears.

Table 3. The comparison of alternatives by treatment type for elk habitat. Treatment Type Alt1 Alt2 Alt3 Alt4 Alt 5 Harvest 31,265 843 29,430 31,265 31,237 Prescribed Fire 75,168 18,297 75,168 43,732 74,661 Aspen 11,938 - 11,938 11,938 11,937 Meadow 6,969 171 6,969 6,969 6,958 PJ 1,000 - 1,000 1,000 1,000 Riparian 3,706 12 3,706 3,706 3,648 JMS 92 - 92 92 92 OldGrowth- MC 4,966 - 4,966 4,966 4,792 OldGrowth- PP 8,667 - 8,667 8,667 8,384 Invasives 1,202 1,202 1,202 1,202 1,202 Headcuts 853 - 853 853 842 Rec Sites (#) 137 64 137 137 137 Road Decom (mi) 97 2.06 97 97 95 Landings (#) 1116 - 1005 1116 1,114 Roads Needed (mi) 373 - 350 373 372

Merriam’s turkey: Populations of this game species are regulated by the State through hunting regulations and licenses. Turkeys use a wide variety of habitat types, preferring mature and old growth ponderosa pine forests. Important habitat components are water, roost trees, ground nest sites, and summer brood area (Kamees 2002). Trees are used for roosting and provide food, escape, and resting cover. Turkeys breed in the spring. Nests are built on the ground, and often in branches at the base of large trees and in proximity to water. Turkeys forage in open forest interspersed with shrubs, tall grasses, and forbs. They range widely, often moving 5-20 miles between summer and winter habitats. The project area provides adequate nesting and roosting habitat but foraging and water are limited. The lack of vegetative diversity limits the food supply.

Table 4. The comparison of alternatives by treatment type for turkey habitat Treatment Type Alt1 Alt2 Alt3 Alt4 Alt5 Harvest 15,472 346 14,356 15,472 15,467 Prescribed fire 40,437 7,497 40,437 24,903 40,117 Aspen 7,763 - 7,763 7,763 7,762 Meadow 2,678 27 2,678 2,678 2,676 PJ 1,000 - 1,000 1,000 1,000 Riparian 1,200 5 1,200 1,200 1,168

JMS 89 - 89 89 89 OldGrowth- MC 3,297 - 3,297 3,297 3,185 OldGrowth- PP 4,075 - 4,075 4,075 3,903 Invasives 132 132 132 132 132 Headcuts 360 - 360 360 360 Rec Sites (#) 48 23 48 48 48 Road Decom (mi) 50 0.90 50 50 48 Landings (#) 488 - 438 488 488 Roads Needed (mi) 162 - 151 162 162

Pinyon jay: This species nests in piñon or juniper trees that supply seeds and nuts. Pinyon jays prefer younger forests with an abundance of nut-producing plants. The declining habitat trend is due to the beetle-caused piñon tree mortality in the early 2000s.

Table 5. The comparison of alternatives by treatment type for pinyon jay habitat. Treatment Type Alt1 Alt2 Alt3 Alt4 Alt5 Harvest 1 - - 1 1 Prescribed fire 119 - 119 118 119 Aspen - - - - 0 Meadow 485 - 485 485 485 PJ 1,000 - 1,000 1,000 1,000 Riparian 103 - 103 103 103 JMS - - - - OldGrowth- MC - - - - OldGrowth- PP 216 - 216 216 216 Invasives 3 3 3 3 3 Headcuts 4 - 4 4 4 Rec Sites (#) - - - - - Road Decom (mi) 6 - 6 6 6 Landings (#) - - - - - Roads Needed (mi) 2 - 2 2 2

Mourning dove: Mourning dove serves as a management indicator of healthy, mid and low elevation grasslands, woodlands and ponderosa pine habitats; however, abundant food and water must be available nearby. Habitat for this species in the project area is limited by the lack of water and foraging habitat. They can be found in higher elevation communities but are typically regarded as casual above 7,000 feet. They nest in a variety of habitats including shrub lands and forests. Project activities that improve food availability and distribution have a positive influence on mourning doves.

Table 6. The comparison of alternatives by treatment type for mourning dove habitat. Treatment Type Alt1 Alt2 Alt3 Alt4 Alt 5 Harvest 9,833 289 9,199 9,833 9,821 Prescribed fire 25,157 8,460 25,157 15,245 25,056 Aspen 1,837 - 1,837 1,837 1,837 Meadow 4,919 99 4,919 4,919 4,918 PJ 1,000 - 1,000 1,000 1,000 Riparian 2,808 10 2,808 2,808 2,762 JMS - - - - - OldGrowth- MC 539 - 539 539 523 OldGrowth- PP 3,448 - 3,448 3,448 3,366 Invasives 762 762 762 762 762 Headcuts 375 - 375 375 368 Rec Sites (#) 33 20 33 33 33 Road Decom (mi) 61 - 61 61 61 Landings (#) 336 - 312 336 335 Roads Needed (mi) 135 - 128 135 134

Hairy woodpecker: This forest generalist and cavity nesting species prefers large mature snags and large aspen trees for nesting. It forages in large tree trunks and down logs that provide insects. Hairy woodpecker was selected as an indicator for snags in ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, and spruce-fir forest types. This species is common in ponderosa pine forests as well as other forest and woodland types on the both forest.

The hairy woodpecker is widely distributed wherever there are mature forests with substantial snags. The species is also strongly associated with burned areas, an important historical component of forests resulting from a frequent fire interval. As a primary cavity nester, this woodpecker is dependent on dead and dying portions of live trees and snags for nesting.

Table 7. The comparison of alternatives by treatment type for hairy woodpecker habitat. Treatment Type Alt1 Alt2 Alt3 Alt4 Alt5 Harvest 2,189 25 2,159 2,189 2,189 Prescribed fire 6,310 1,185 6,310 4,111 6,293 Aspen 588 - 588 588 588 Meadow 1,318 19 1,318 1,318 1,316 PJ 695 - 695 695 695 Riparian 156 5 156 156 156 JMS 1 - 1 1 1 OldGrowth- MC 92 - 92 92 92 OldGrowth- PP 523 - 523 523 517 Invasives 50 50 50 50 50 Headcuts 37 - 37 37 37 Rec Sites (#) 17 1 17 17 17

Road Decom (mi) 8 0.77 8 8 8 Landings (#) 92 - 91 92 92 Roads Needed (mi) 39 - 39 39 39

Mexican spotted owl: Mexican spotted owls serve as a management indicator for late seral stage mixed conifer habitat. Changes in MSO habitat capability result primarily from changing the seral stage of mixed conifer habitat. Mexican spotted owls may be found in other vegetative communities, but on the Santa Fe NF, they are closely linked to the mixed conifer and riparian vegetative types. In addition to the forested areas, MSO within the Jemez Mountains also occupy canyon habitats and are cliff nesters. These canyon habitats range from those with a high degree of forest structure on at least one of the slopes above the canyon wall, to little or no tree cover present; although, typically mixed conifer habitat is in very close proximity.

The rate of occupancy of surveyed PACs has fluctuated, but it does not necessarily indicate a change in MSO population on the Santa Fe NF. Our ability to detect owls from year to year can vary depending on survey routes, local conditions, and whether owls are responsive at the time of survey. The current loss of habitat through catastrophic fire could affect population on the forest, though a more intense annual survey effort would be needed to make that determination. There is still ample habitat that appears unoccupied that fire-displaced owls could occupy. For now, the population trend for the MSO is rated as stable on the Santa Fe NF.

Table 8. The comparison of alternatives by treatment type for Mexican spotted owl habitat. Treatment Type Alt1 Alt2 Alt3 Alt4 Alt5 Harvest 12,297 313 11,224 12,297 12,297 Prescribed fire 29,893 3,829 29,893 17,550 29,590 Aspen 7,016 - 7,016 7,016 7,015 Meadow 1,100 7 1,100 1,100 1,099 PJ 1,000 - 1,000 1,000 1,000 Riparian 876 0 876 876 844 JMS 87 - 87 87 87 OldGrowth- MC 2,780 - 2,780 2,780 2,668 OldGrowth- PP 2,946 - 2,946 2,946 2,781 Invasives 78 78 78 78 78 Headcuts 310 - 310 310 310 Rec Sites (#) 17 10 17 17 17 Road Decom (mi) 35 0.13 35 35 34 Landings (#) 365 - 314 365 365 Roads Needed (mi) 111 - 101 111 111

Rio Grande Cutthroat trout (RGCT): In New Mexico, RGCT exist in mountain streams primarily within the Sangre de Cristo and Jemez Mountain ranges within the Carson and Santa Fe National Forests. Isolated populations persist in southern New Mexico on the Gila National Forest in the Black Range (Sublette et al. 1990) and on the Mescalero Apache Indian Reservation in the Tularosa Basin. Conservation populations of RGCT occupy approximately 10 percent of their historical habitat (Alves et

al. 2008). Within the project area, four streams are stocked with surplus RGCT fingerlings from NM Department of Game and Fish Seven Springs Hatchery. These streams include the East Fork Jemez River, San Antonio Creek, Rio Cebolla, and Rio Guadalupe. This experimental stocking began in 2009 to see if recreational populations of RGCT can be established in these streams, which also have brown and rainbow trout.

Analysis of Effects on MIS

Overall determination: There will be no reduction in number of acres of available habitat for any MIS species or potential for population declines for any alternative. Although there will be temporary disturbance from project activities in Alternatives 1, 3, 4 and 5, there will be long-term benefits of habitat enhancement for all MIS. Because Alternative 2 will not work toward decreasing risks of uncharacteristic large wildfires, that alternative could have more potential for reducing available acres of habitat for some MIS in the event of a large wildfire. Because of reduction in thinning in MSO PACs and target threshold areas, Alternative 5 could have lower effect on reducing future impacts of large fires in MSO PACs.

Alternative 1 There will be no reduction in number of acres of available habitat for any MIS and no potential for population decline. Long-term benefits are expected because of increased forage and water, and decreased potential for uncharacteristic wildfire.

All proposed activities would have temporary effects including noise and visual disturbance (i.e., heavy equipment use, chainsaws), human activity, and smoke from prescribed burns. MIS may temporarily avoid areas where activities are being conducted. Thinning, prescribed burns, meadow restoration will result in opening of canopy producing increased forage for elk, turkey, and mourning dove over a large portion of the project area. There will be no reduction in overstory canopy within the MSO core areas. Forage plant palatability and nutrient content would be expected to improve. With increased forage, competition with livestock for forage will decrease. The current abundance of thermal and hiding cover for elk and turkey would be modified. Remaining clumps of dominant and co-dominant trees would provide reduced cover until New Mexico locust, Gambel oak and other tree/shrub species move into open areas. Understory trees killed by prescribed fire would gradually fall over in a random pattern, so hiding cover would remain quite variable across the area until all the understory trees are down. Thinning in piñon-juniper will reduce numbers of trees per acre for nesting, food, roosting for the Pinyon jay over about 1,000 acres (about 3% of available piñon-juniper in the project area), but piñon-juniper will still be available on these sites and on approximately 33,500 acres on which piñon-juniper will not be treated. It is expected that thinning of piñon-juniper stands would reduce competition among trees for water and increase vigor of remaining trees, leading to more seed production.

All land-based MIS will benefit from increased availability and distribution of water from enhancement of seeps and streams, new artificial water sources (earthen dams and trick-tanks), and screening of water sources from human disturbance.

Opening of existing roads (about 20 miles) or creation of new temporary roads (about 12 miles) will increase disturbance along those roads for all land-based MIS. Disturbance is expected to extend up to about .3 mi. from either side of roads during project activity periods (USDA 2011, based on disturbance tolerance threshold for elk). Following projects, even though roads will be closed to vehicles, there still can be increased use by recreationists for hiking or mountain biking.

Proposed activities would maintain desired habitat components such as large snags, trees, and down wood which would benefit turkey and hairy woodpecker, and increase habitat for prey of spotted owl. Although thinning treatments will reduce numbers of trees per acre, large trees will still be present to provide nest sites, and the number of snags for the woodpecker would increase, as prescribed fire would be expected to create more snags in the project area.

Mitigations designed to minimize soil temperatures and the acreage of high intensity fire in the watershed will protect aquatic ecosystems from soil loss and run-off resulting from large wildfires. In addition, prescribed fires will not be set within riparian areas, but will be allowed to creep into the area for a low- intensity burn. These burns will increase and enhance understory herbaceous vegetation, which in the long-term, will improve water quality in streams. Some projects could produce temporary sediment into streams. Harvest operations will include mitigations designed to minimize roads and skid trails and keep them out of riparian areas to reduce run-off. In addition, this alternative also seeks to actively improve riparian and stream channel conditions. These improvements will increase the amount and diversity of in- stream habitat and overstory vegetation, which will improve habitat conditions for RGCT. Turkey will also benefit from increased nesting habitat in riparian areas. Although in-stream restoration activities may negatively impact some individuals or their habitat for a short period of time, overall the result will be a beneficial effect.

The effects of the Forest Plan amendments related to MSO PACs would be the ability to treat vegetation in PACs and target threshold habitat resulting in lower tree densities with more canopy gaps, more large trees in the long term, and increased understory vegetation and prey habitat resulting in enhanced habitat for most MIS, including elk, turkey, MSO, hairy woodpecker, and mourning dove. The greatest benefit would be the reduction in risk of wildfire causing widespread loss of forested habitat across these acres, especially in areas such as Virgin Canyon where a wildfire could burn through three adjoining PACs.

The effects of the Forest Plan amendment to allow treatments in goshawk PFAs, peregrine falcon and turkey nesting habitat during the breeding season would remove the protection that some MIS nesting birds (turkey, mourning dove, and woodpecker) would have been afforded within these acres, which could result in increased unintentional take of nesting MIS birds.

The effects of the Forest Plan amendment to allow goshawk interspaces will be beneficial to turkey, mourning dove, and elk by creating additional canopy opening, increasing ground vegetation for seeds and insects, and shrubs for food, cover and nesting. Because these treatments will be done in conjunction with other silvicultural management in same areas, there will be no appreciable increase in direct disturbance effects. Long-term, the treatments will result in more large trees across the landscape that would enhance habitat for the hairy woodpecker.

The effects of the Forest Plan amendment to change the Visual Quality Objectives in Management Area M from preservation to retention will allow some management activities, but these will not be visually evident. It is expected that these minimal changes in vegetation would have negligible effects on MIS habitat.

Alternative 2 There will be no reduction in number of acres of available habitat for any MIS and no potential for population decline. Because this alternative does not work to reduce potential for uncharacteristic wildfire, future wildfire could result in reduction of habitat acres for some MIS species. There will be no benefits of increased forage and water, and no enhancement of riparian quality.

This alternative would result in no project effects on MIS population or habitat trends because the proposed activities would not be implemented. This alternative avoids the potential for proposed activities to cause noise or visual disturbance. Insects and fungi for turkeys and other birds would increase due to increasing insect or disease outbreaks, and premature tree mortality would increase snags for the hairy woodpecker. However, habitat conditions would not improve overall due to the continued lack of diversity. Large size trees, snags and down logs would continue to be lacking, affecting hairy woodpecker and other species that need these components. The abundance and quality of shrubs, seeds, nuts, acorns, fruits, berries, and tall young grasses and forbs would all continue to decline and reduce habitat quality for all MIS. There would be no treatments in MSO habitat to enhance prey numbers and distribution.

Alternative 3 There will be no reduction in number of acres of available habitat for any MIS and no potential for population decline. Long-term benefits are expected because of increased forage and water, and decreased potential for uncharacteristic wildfire.

The reduction of treating 1,580 acres by eliminating temporary roads would reduce soil compaction at sites planned for temporary roads in Alternative 1, retaining vegetation growth on those acres for MIS habitat. Disturbance from project activities will be less than Alternative 1; potential for increased recreation use further into the forest on closed temporary roads will be eliminated. Those acres not treated mechanically would be treated by prescribed fire only. Effects of prescribed fire would be similar to Alternative 1. The intensity of the activity disturbance would be less than doing both mechanical treatment and burning in the same footprint. All other project level effects to MIS habitat would remain the same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 4 There will be no reduction in number of acres of available habitat for any MIS and no potential for population decline. Long-term benefits are expected because of increased forage and water, and decreased potential for uncharacteristic wildfire.

No prescribed burning would occur in the mechanical treatment areas. The slash would be removed using other methods such as wood chippers, creating some increased noise disturbance over Alternative 1. Long-term benefit such as recycling of nutrients and snag creation would not occur in these areas. The short-term adverse effects of fire (smoke, soil heating) would still occur in areas outside of the mechanical treatment areas. All other project level effects to MIS would remain the same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 5 There will be no reduction in number of acres of available habitat for any MIS and no potential for population decline. Long-term benefits are expected because of increased forage and water, and decreased potential for uncharacteristic wildfire.

Project level effects to MIS habitat would be the same as Alternative 1 with the following exceptions:

Within MSO Protected Activity Centers (PACs), no trees over 9” will be cut. There will be a 100 acre “no treatment” area in the core area surrounding known or best estimated nest site, where no cutting or burning will occur. There will be temporary disturbance from construction of hand line around core areas. Hand lines are about 2-3 feet wide. Depending on fuel types in area, there could be an additional removal of ladder fuels, dead and down with potential for rolling across hand line, and small trees/shrubs

in an area 10 to 15 feet on either side of the hand line. This would have a temporary impact on understory vegetation over a small area with negligible effect to MIS species. MSO target threshold areas will be maintained at a higher tree density. This will result in reduced opening in the overstory canopy in the PACs and target threshold acres as compared to Alternatives 1, 3 and 4. These reduced treatments could result in somewhat less reduction in risk of wildfire hazards within the MSO PACs as compared to other alternatives. Because of higher canopy, there will be somewhat less potential to enhance shrub, grass, and forb ground vegetation, thus, lower potential to improve prey habitat.

Lighter treatments in the PACs, core areas and target threshold areas would reduce potential for improvements in forage for elk, turkey, and mourning dove over acres within the project area within PACs and target threshold areas compared to other alternatives. This reduction is negligible when compared to overall number of acres that will have improved foraging throughout the restoration project area. More detailed information on acres treated within MSO PACs and target threshold areas are in the Biological Assessment.

Cumulative Effects All Alternatives No significant cumulative impacts to population or acres of available habitat would be expected to result from the proposed action in combination with other projects or activities. Foreseeable future SW Jemez Mountains project restoration activities in combination with restoration activities in adjacent forested land would add to the beneficial effects for MIS predicted to result from the project actions.

Project activities will be spread across the project area, occurring in different locations at different times with no resulting permanent cumulative effects on MIS species or habitat. Foreseeable future forest restoration in the SW Jemez Mountains is expected to alter the current trend of increasingly large and severe crown fires. Future projects including harvest, riparian, in-stream habitat, stand improvement, and burning activities would magnify the improvements to habitat expected from the proposed actions and expand those benefits in a broader landscape. Habitat conditions would become increasingly more structurally complex and biologically diverse, with abundant herbaceous plants in scattered openings and greater dominance by large, fire-adapted trees. Improvements in nesting, roosting, prey base and foraging habitat would be better distributed across the landscape. The primary cumulative effects would be the reduced probability of a large, severe crown fire and the return of periodic low to moderate intensity surface fires that improve habitat for species that evolved in these fire-adapted forests. Treatments are expected to increase forest resiliency and sustainability. This increased resiliency would help increase ability of forests to survive potential changing weather conditions associated with climate change.

There could be some temporary cumulative effects where SWJ projects occur in conjunction with other SWJ projects, or activities other than SWJ projects, such as pumice mining. There could be temporary increased vehicle activity on roads, and increased noise and visual disturbance. These temporary effects would not be expected to impact overall populations or habitat trends.

Migratory Birds

On January 17, 2001, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13186 placing emphasis on conservation of migratory birds.

The Forest Service, Southwestern Region, currently analyzes effects (impacts) in the following manner: • effects to Highest Priority species listed by NM Avian Conservation Partners; • effects to Important Bird Areas (IBAs); • effects to important overwintering areas.

Migratory birds and their habitats are protected under the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. NM Avian Conservation Partners considers eight risk factors in identifying conservation priority species: Global Abundance, NM Breeding Abundance, Global Breeding Distribution, NM Breeding Distribution, Threats to Breeding in NM, Importance of NM to Breeding, Global Winter Distribution, and Threats on Wintering Grounds. Species with the highest risk factors are classified as “highest priority” for conservation action. This evaluation addresses general effects to migratory birds, and effects to Highest Priority species for the main habitat types found in the project area (New Mexico Partners in Flight, 2013). New Mexico Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan lists priority species of concern by vegetation type. All highest priority species were reviewed for vegetation types found in the project area for spruce/fir, mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, piñon-juniper, montane riparian, wet meadows/montane grasslands, middle-elevation riparian, and cliff/caves (New Mexico Partners in Flight, 2013). These include: Spruce/Fir: Blue grouse, band-tailed pigeon, Mexican spotted owl, northern pygmy owl, boreal owl, broad-tailed hummingbird, red-naped sapsucker, olive-sided flycatcher, Cordilleran flycatcher, warbling vireo. Mixed conifer: Blue grouse, band-tailed pigeon, flammulated owl, Mexican chickadee*, northern pygmy-owl, Mexican spotted owl, whip-poor-will*, Magnificent hummingbird*, broad- tailed hummingbird, red-naped sapsucker, Williamson’s sapsucker, olive-sided flycatcher, greater pewee*, Cordilleran flycatcher, plumbeous vireo, warbling vireo, olive warbler*, Virginia’s warbler, Grace’s warbler, painted redstart*, red-faced warbler*, yellow-eyed junco*. Ponderosa pine: Blue grouse, Montezuma quail*, band-tailed pigeon, flammulated owl, plumbeous vireo, warbling vireo, pinyon jay, Mexican chickadee*, northern pygmy-owl, Mexican spotted owl, whip-poor-will*, Magnificent hummingbird*, broad-tailed hummingbird, Lewis’s woodpecker, red-naped sapsucker, Williamson’s sapsucker, olive-sided flycatcher, greater pewee*, Cordilleran flycatcher, Cassin’s kingbird, western bluebird, olive warbler*, Virginia’s warbler, Grace’s warbler, red-faced warbler*, yellow-eyed junco*. Piñon-juniper: Ferruginous hawk, Montezuma quail*, bridled titmouse*, juniper titmouse, western bluebird, mountain bluebird, broad-tailed hummingbird, Cassin’s kingbird, loggerhead shrike, gray vireo, plumbeous vireo, western scrub-jay, pinyon jay, Bendire’s thrasher, Crissal thrasher*, Virginia’s warbler, black-throated gray warbler, vesper sparrow, black-chinned sparrow*. Montane riparian: Whiskered screech-owl*, Mexican spotted owl, black swift, broad-tailed hummingbird, elegant trogon*, belted kingfisher, Lewis’ woodpecker, red-naped sapsucker, willow flycatcher*, western bluebird, mountain bluebird, veery*, Wilson’s warbler, red-faced warbler*, Cordilleran flycatcher, plumbeous vireo, warbling vireo, painted redstart*.

Wet meadows/Montane grasslands: Broad-tailed hummingbird, mountain bluebird, vesper sparrow, bobolink*. Middle Elevation Riparian: Neotropic cormorant*, snowy egret, Mississippi kite, bald eagle, common black-hawk*, Bell’s vireo*, warbling vireo, bank swallow, yellow-billed cuckoo, black- chinned hummingbird, Lewis’ woodpecker, red-headed woodpecker, willow flycatcher*, Cassin’s kingbird, Crissal thrasher*, Lucy’s warbler*, summer tanager*, lazuli bunting, painted bunting*, hooded oriole*, Bullock’s oriole. Cliff/Cave: Golden eagle, prairie falcon, peregrine falcon, Mexican spotted owl, white-throated swift, black swift. *Not considered because habitat does not occur in the project area, or species range does not include northern New Mexico.

Important Bird Areas There is no designated Important Bird Area (IBA) affected by the project. The IBAs on or adjacent to the Santa Fe National Forest are the Chama River Gorge/Golondrino Mesa (SFNF and BLM) - >20 mi., Caja del Rio (FS and BLM) - >10 mi., Valles Caldera National Preserve (VCNP) - <1 mi., Bandelier National Monument (NPS) – 2 mi., Randall Davey Center (NAS) - >25 mi., and Santa Fe Canyon Preserve (TNC) - >25 mi (Audubon NM 2013). There is no association or important link between the bird communities in this project area and these IBAs. There could be some smoke effects to the VCNP which is adjacent to the project area. If this occurred during nesting season, there could be some unintentional impacts to nesting birds; however, the majority of prescribed burns and pile burning occur during fall and winter. No other IBA is affected by the project.

Overwintering Areas

Many important overwintering areas are large wetlands. Important overwintering areas recognized on the Forest include: Rio Chama, Rio Grande corridor and Pecos Canyon. The project area is not recognized as an important overwintering area because significant concentrations of birds do not occur here nor do unique or a high diversity of birds winter here.

Affected habitat: Habitat conditions for migratory birds have been altered from historic conditions and are degraded, primarily due to long-term fire exclusion. Frequent surface fires once maintained healthy and diverse fire-adapted ecosystems, and migratory birds using this area evolved under frequent surface fire regimes. Many of the birds listed above require surface plant cover underneath the conifer trees or as edge habitat in openings next to clumps of trees for either their use or to provide habitat for prey species. The existing condition of thickets of small trees in many areas limits the grass, forb, and shrub component which in turn reduces the quality of migratory bird habitat. Conservation recommendations for thinning dense pine stands, timber harvest practices that leave snags and some older trees, and restoring a cool burning, low intensity fire regime would improve conditions significantly (NMPIF 2013). Water is not abundant in the project area. Small, narrow patches of riparian plants occur in a few drainage bottoms. Some historic meadows have been encroached by conifer trees. The high density of roads and the associated motor vehicle use further contribute to the limited habitat effectiveness for migratory birds.

Analysis of Effects on Migratory Birds Table 9. Acres of Habitat Types Treated in Each Alternative by Project Type

Habitat affected Project description #acres #acres #acres #acres #acres Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Ponderosa pine Mechanical 24,500 430 22,900 24,500 24,500 treatments, thinning, burning Dry mixed conifer Mechanical 5,380 250 5,130 5,380 5,380 treatments, thinning, burning Wet mixed conifer Mechanical 1,150 0 1,150 1,150 1,150 treatments, thinning, some burning Aspen/conifer with aspen Treatments to 1,800 0 1,800 1,800 1,800 mix maintain or increase aspen cover type Piñon-juniper Thinning, burning 1,000 0 1,000 1,000 1,000 Meadows/grassland Cutting of 5,500 171 5,500 5,500 5,500 encroaching conifer Old Growth Maintain old growth 860 0 860 860 860 habitat Riparian/instream/seeps/ Restore riparian 325 82 325 325 325 springs habitat Temporary roads Construct roads 12 mi. 0 0 12 mi. 12 mi. necessary for project implementation Road decommissioning Reduce # of miles of Up to 2 Up to Up to Up to roads 100 100 100 100 mi. mi. mi. mi.

Alternative 1 Acres of habitat types treated are shown in Table 9. Spruce-fir habitat will have only minimal project effects, so there will be few direct impacts to birds in this habitat. Smoke from prescribed burning could have temporary effects.

All proposed activities would have temporary effects of noise and visual disturbance (i.e., heavy equipment use, chainsaws), human activity, and smoke from prescribed burns. Adult birds would avoid these disturbances during project periods. There could be unintentional take of some individuals, especially to ground dwelling species, or to nesting species if activities would take place during the breeding season. Following mitigation measures below when and where possible would help minimize

those impacts. Thinning, prescribed fire, and meadow restoration will create opening of canopy resulting in increased ground cover, shrubs, and increased distribution of aspen. There will be no reduction of overstory canopy in MSO core areas. Birds will benefit from increase in foods (berries, seeds, insects), nesting sites, and cover over a large portion of the project area. Prey should increase for owls and hawks with enhancement of habitat.

Birds will benefit from increased availability and distribution of water from enhancement of seeps and streams, new artificial water sources (earthen dams and trick-tanks), and screening of water sources from human disturbance. Various riparian enhancement projects will increase nesting and foraging habitat along streams and rivers for riparian species.

Thinning in piñon-juniper will reduce numbers of trees per acre for nesting, food, roosting for species such as the gray vireo over about 1,000 acres, but piñon-juniper will still be available on these sites and on approximately 33,500 acres on which piñon-juniper will not be treated. It is expected that thinning of piñon-juniper stands would reduce competition among trees for water and increase vigor of remaining trees.

There would be no impacts to cliff or cave dwelling birds other than temporary effects of smoke from prescribed burns, or some possible noise disturbance depending on distance from project activities.

Opening of existing roads (about 20 miles) or creation of new temporary roads (about 12 miles) will increase disturbance along those roads, possibly disrupting some nesting behavior. Disturbance is expected to extend up to about .3 mi. from either side of roads during the project period (USDA 2011, based on disturbance tolerance threshold for elk). Following projects, even though roads will be closed, there still can be increased disturbance because of use by recreationists for hiking, mountain biking, hunting, or unauthorized off-road vehicle use.

Long-term benefits are expected because of decreased potential for uncharacteristic wildfire and reduction of risk of widescale loss of habitat. The effects of the Forest Plan amendments related to MSO PACs would be the ability to treat vegetation in PACs and target threshold habitat resulting in lower tree densities with more canopy gaps, more large trees in the long term, and increased understory vegetation and prey habitat resulting in more widespread food sources, prey, and nesting cover. The greatest benefit would be the reduction in risk of wildfire causing widespread loss of forested habitat across these acres.

The effects of the Forest Plan amendment to allow treatments in goshawk PFAs, peregrine falcon and turkey nesting habitat during the breeding season would remove the protection that migratory birds would have been afforded within these acres, which could result in increased unintentional take of some migratory birds.

The effects of the Forest Plan amendment to allow goshawk interspaces will be beneficial to migratory birds by creating additional canopy opening, increasing ground vegetation for seeds and insects, and shrubs for cover and nesting. Because these treatments will be done in conjunction with other silvicultural management in same areas, there will be no appreciable increase in direct disturbance effects. Long-term, the treatments will result in more large trees across the landscape that would enhance nesting and foraging habitat.

Alternative 2 This alternative would result in no project effects on birds because the proposed activities would not be implemented. This alternative avoids the potential for proposed activities to cause noise or visual disturbance. Insects for woodpeckers, flycatchers and other birds would increase due to increasing insect or disease outbreaks, and premature tree mortality would increase snags for cavity nesters. However, habitat conditions would not improve overall due to the continued lack of diversity. Large size trees, snags and large down logs would continue to be lacking. The abundance and quality of shrubs, seeds, nuts, acorns, berries, and tall young grasses and forbs would all continue to decline and reduce habitat quality, and reduce potential for increases in prey numbers and distribution for raptors.

This alternative would not implement projects that could reduce risks of large wildfires. Stand replacing wildfires could result in long-term loss of habitat acres for some species, and habitat conversion that influences migratory bird communities.

Alternative 3 The reduction of 1,580 project acres by eliminating temporary roads would reduce equipment use. Disturbance from projects activities will be less than Alternative 1; potential for increased recreation use further into the forest on closed temporary roads will be eliminated. Those acres not treated mechanically would be burned instead of being cut, then burned as in Alternative 1. The intensity of the activities would be less than doing both mechanical treatment and burning in the same footprint. The area not being treated by temporary road is not large in comparison to the total number of acres planned for harvest in Alternative 1. All other project level effects to migratory birds would remain the same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 4 No prescribed burning would occur in the mechanical treatment areas. The slash would be removed using other methods such as wood chippers, creating some increased noise disturbance over Alternative 1. Long-term benefit such as recycling of nutrients and snag creation would not occur in these areas. The short-term adverse effects of fire (smoke, soil heating) would still occur in areas outside of the mechanical treatment areas. All other project level effects to birds would remain the same as Alternative 1.

Alternative 5 Project level effects to migratory bird habitat would be the same as Alternative 1 with the following exceptions:

migratory birds. MSO target threshold areas will be maintained at a higher tree density. This will result in reduced opening in the overstory canopy in the PACs and target threshold acres as compared to Alternatives 1, 3 and 4. These reduced treatments could result in somewhat less reduction in risk of wildfire hazards within the MSO PACs as compared to other alternatives. Because of higher canopy, there will be somewhat less potential to enhance shrub, grass, and forb ground vegetation, thus, lower potential to improve prey habitat for hawks and owls.

Lighter treatments in the PACs, core areas and target threshold areas would reduce potential for improvements in understory vegetation for seeds, insects and cover over treated acres within PACs and target threshold areas compared to other alternatives. This reduction is negligible when compared to overall number of acres that will have increased shrub/forb/grasses throughout the restoration project area. Summary Determination of Effects on Migratory Birds

Although unintentional take of some individuals may occur in Alternatives 1, 3, 4 and 5, no long-term impacts to bird populations are expected. Bird communities may shift on specific sites where habitat modifications occur; i.e., meadow restoration may increase populations of open grassland bird species; riparian enhancement may increase riparian species. Restoration projects are anticipated to benefit birds in many areas by reducing thickets of small trees, which will result in future growth of shrubs, forbs, and grasses resulting in increased food (seeds, berries, insects) and cover.

Because Alternative 2 will not implement projects that could result in reduction of risk of large wildfires, there could be long-term impacts to bird populations because of widespread loss of forest stands in the event of a large wildfire.

Cumulative Effects Foreseeable future SW Jemez Mountains project restoration activities in combination with restoration activities in adjacent forested land would add to the beneficial effects for migratory birds predicted to result from the project actions. Project activities in all alternatives (except Alternative 2) will be spread across the project area, occurring in different locations at different times with no resulting permanent cumulative effects on migratory birds. Foreseeable future forest restoration in the SW Jemez Mountains is expected to alter the current trend of increasingly large and severe crown fires. Future projects including harvest, riparian, and in-stream habitat, stand improvement, and burning activities would magnify the improvements to habitat expected from the proposed actions and expand those benefits in a broader landscape. Habitat conditions would become increasingly more structurally complex and biologically diverse, with abundant herbaceous plants in scattered openings and greater dominance by large, fire-adapted trees. Improvements in nesting, roosting, prey base and foraging habitat would be better distributed across the landscape. The primary cumulative effects would be the reduced probability of a large, severe crown fire and the return of periodic low to moderate intensity surface fires that improve habitat for species that evolved in these fire-adapted forests. Changing weather conditions associated with climate change could result in shifts in bird communities as habitats may change over the landscape. Restoration projects are aimed at increasing resilience of populations to adjust to these changes.

There could be some temporary cumulative effects where SWJ projects occur in conjunction with other SWJ projects or activities other than SWJ projects, such as pumice mining. There could be temporary increased vehicle activity on roads, and increased noise and visual disturbance. These temporary effects would not be expected to impact overall populations or habitat trends.

Conservation Measure

When designing site specific projects, consider avoiding vegetation disturbance during the peak breeding season for migratory birds:

May 15 through July 31 (estimated peak bird breeding season at higher elevations in this project area).

Document Prepared by:

This document was initially prepared by Raul Sanchez, NEPA Team Wildlife Biologist, Southwestern Regional Office. I reviewed, edited, and finalized the report.

/s/ Jo Wargo

Jo Wargo Wildlife Biologist, Jemez Ranger District

Date: 6 February 2014

References

Alves, J.E., K.A. Patten, E. Brauch, and P.M. Jones. 2008. Range-wide status of Rio Grande cutthroat trout (Onchorhynchus clarki virginalis): 2008. Unpublished report and Access database.

Audubon New Mexico (ANM). 2013. New Mexico Important Bird Area (IBA) Program. http://netapp.audubon.org/IBA/IBAList/US-NM

Kamees, L. 2002. Long-range plan for the management of wild turkey in New Mexico 2001-2005. Santa Fe, NM: New Mexico Department of Game and Fish.

NatureServe. 1997. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life {web application}. Version 6.2 NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed: May 2011.

New Mexico Partners in Flight (PIF) web site. 2013. Bird Conservation Plan, Appendix D. Last accessed November 2013. http://www.nmpartnersinflight.org/bcp.html

Skovlin, J.M. 1982. Habitat requirements and evaluations. In: Thomas, J.W. and D.E. Toweill (eds.). Elk of North America: Ecology and management. Harrisburg, PA: Stackpole Books. Pp. 384-387.

Sublette, J.E., M.D. Hatch, M. Sublette. 1990. The Fishes of New Mexico. University of New Mexico Press. Pp. 51-57

USDA Forest Service (USFS). 1987. Environmental Impact Statement, Santa Fe National Forest Plan. Santa Fe, NM: USDA Forest Service. Pp. 146-148

USDA Forest Service (USFS). 2011. Standard procedures for reporting USFS terrestrial wildlife program accomplishments. Fiscal Year 2011. Prepared by National and Regional Wildlife Staff. Page 9.

USDA Forest Service (USFS). 2012. Santa Fe National Forest Management Indicator Species assessment. February 2012 Update. Santa Fe, NM: Santa Fe National Forest.