DRAFT Management Indicator Species

The Ringo project area contains habitat for a number of candidate and sensitive species, Management Indicator Species (MIS), and landbirds. The proposed actions would increase habitat quantity or quality for some species while reducing habitat quantity or quality for others. Some of the effects are magnified by other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions within the project area.

Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures Refer to the Resource Protection Measures in the Wildlife Introduction section of the Draft Ringo Wildlife Report and at the front of the Draft Ringo EIS Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures for full list of Resource Protection Measures. Mitigation Measures are site-specific, usually have a specific unit(s) assigned to them, and are used to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or compensate an impact (40 CFR 1508.20).

Raptor Nesting Seasons The Deschutes National Forest Plan provides Standards and Guidelines (S&G) specifying the following periods for limiting disturbance to specific nesting raptors (LRMP, WL-3) as shown in MIS Table 1. The nesting periods for the remaining species are the commonly accepted dates used by the Deschutes National Forest.

MIS Table 1. Seasonal restrictions on disturbing activities near active nest sites. Species Buffer Distance Restricted Season Northern spotted owl ¼ mile or ½ mile (blasting and helicopter operations) March 1 - September 31 (nest) Oregon Spotted Frog Occupied habitat during the frog active season March - September 30 (breeding/rearing habitat) Northern bald eagle ¼ or ½ mi from disturbing activates within the line- January 1 – August 31 (nest) of-sight Northern bald eagle To be determined by district wildlife biologist November 1 - April 30 (winter roost) Golden eagle ¼ mile February 1- July 31 (nest) Osprey ¼ mile April 1 - August 31 (nest) Northern goshawk ¼ mile March 1 - August 31 (nest) Cooper’s hawk ¼ mile April 1 - August 31 (nest) Sharp-shinned hawk ¼ mile April 15 - August 31 (nest) Red-tailed hawk ¼ mile March 1 - August 31 (nest) Great gray owl ¼ mile March 1 - June 30 (nest) Great blue heron ¼ mile March 1 - August 31 (nest) Deer and Elk To be determined by district wildlife biologist May 1 - June 30 (fawning/calving habitat)

MIS-1

Management Indicator Species During the preparation of the Deschutes LRMP (USDA LRMP 1990), a group of wildlife species were identified as Management Indicator Species (MIS). Certain wildlife species have been identified in the Deschutes National Forest Final Environmental Impact Statement Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP1990) and selected as MIS because their populations are believed to be influenced by forest management activities. They were chosen because they: (1) are designated as Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive on Federal or Oregon state lists, or; (2) have special habitat needs that may be influenced significantly by planned management activities, or; (3) are popular for hunting or trapping, or; (4) are nongame species of special interest, or; (5) indicate the effects of management for other species within major biological communities (LRMP 1990 p. 3-14). Indicator species can be used to assess the impacts of management actions on a wide range of other wildlife with similar habitat requirements, listed in MIS Table 2 under the ‘Indicator For’ column.

A Forest-wide assessment for MIS identified in the Deschutes LRMP was completed for the entire Deschutes NF (USDA 2012). Suitable habitat for each species was defined as habitat that could potentially be utilized for reproduction. An exception to this is associated with species specific standards and guides within the Deschutes LRMP, not associated with reproductive habitat, although essential to the viability of that species population within its range. An example is hiding cover standards and guides for mule deer summer range. An assessment was completed for each species based on the amount of potentially suitable habitat that occurs across the Deschutes NF, associated threats, and population trend data where it was available. The assessment used the best available science and guidance such as research found in books, scientific journals, and scientific websites.

NatureServe, an international non-profit conservation organization whose mission is to provide the scientific basis for effective conservation action was a major contributor to population trend data. NatureServe and its network of natural heritage programs, including Oregon State Heritage Program, are the leading source of information about rare and endangered species and threatened ecosystems. Their website, http://www.natureserve.org/, compiles historic and current information from The Nature Conservancy and other conservation groups, U.S. government agencies, private sector partnerships, international agencies, and data cooperators.

NatureServe conservation status rankings have been included in MIS Table 2. The rankings given were assigned by NatureServe scientists or by a designated lead office in the NatureServe network. The ranking is designated by a number from 1 to 5 preceded by a letter reflecting the geographic scale of the assessment. Rankings given here for the state of Oregon are S or subnational on the geographic scale. The numbers have the following meaning: 1 = Critically Imperiled—At very high risk of extirpation in the jurisdiction due to very restricted range, very few populations or occurrences, very steep declines, severe threats, or other factors. 2 = Imperiled—At high risk of extirpation in the jurisdiction due to restricted range, few populations or occurrences, steep declines, severe threats, or other factors. 3 = Vulnerable—At moderate risk of extirpation in the jurisdiction due to a fairly restricted range, relatively few populations or occurrences, recent and widespread declines, threats, or other factors. 4 = Apparently Secure—At a fairly low risk of extirpation in the jurisdiction due to an extensive range and/or many populations or occurrences, but with possible cause for some concern as a result of local recent declines, threats, or other factors. 5 = Secure—At very low or no risk of extirpation in the jurisdiction due to a very extensive range, abundant populations or occurrences, with little to no concern from declines or threats.

MIS-2

Additional qualifiers are given for breeding status only for species that have distinct breeding and/or non- breeding populations in the state/province: B = Breeding—Conservation status refers to the breeding population of the species in the nation or state/province. N = Nonbreeding—Conservation status refers to the non-breeding population of the species in the nation or state/province. M = Migrant—Migrant species occurring regularly on migration at particular staging areas or concentration spots where the species might warrant conservation attention. Conservation status refers to the aggregating transient population of the species in the nation or state/province.

For those MIS species which are also hunted or furbearing species (e.g. big game, waterfowl, and American marten), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) provided population trend data for big game, data relative to trapping for marten, and monitoring data for waterfowl. Habitat definitions were developed and modeled for each MIS species. Information from the species assessments formed the baseline for the Ringo project area. The Ringo project analysis tiered to those assessments. Management Indicator Species in the Deschutes LRMP are discussed within this document if they were known to or potentially could occur within the proposed treatment areas.

For the detailed assessment on MIS species for the Deschutes NF, see the Forest-wide Species Assessments (USDA 2012).

MIS Table 2. MIS Wildlife Species for the Ringo Project Area. If Habitat Species or Present, NatureServe Project Species MIS Indicator For Habitat Habitat Present Affected by Status Impact Analysis Area Project (Further Considered) Large open areas No Habitat S4 Apparently Elevated nest sites in Golden eagle with cliffs and within Project - N secure open country rock outcrops Area Large trees S4 Apparently Lakeside with large adjacent to fish- Potential habitat Bald Eagle Yes M secure trees bearing lakes and in Project Area rivers Dense Mature and Old Growth Ponderosa Pine, also Mature and old- Lodgepole Pine, growth forests; Northern Potential habitat S3 Vulnerable Mixed-Conifer especially high Yes B/M goshawk in Project Area Forests canopy closure (Biological and large trees Community Barometer Species) Similar to goshawk, can also use mature S4 Apparently Potential habitat Cooper’s hawk Dense Forest Species forests with high Yes B/M secure in Project Area canopy closure/tree density Similar to goshawk in Sharp-shinned S4 Apparently Potential habitat Dense Forest Species addition to Yes B/M hawk secure in Project Area young, dense, even-aged stands

MIS-3

If Habitat Species or Present, NatureServe Project Species MIS Indicator For Habitat Habitat Present Affected by Status Impact Analysis Area Project (Further Considered) Large snags, Red-tailed Non-Game Species open country Potential habitat S5 Secure Yes B hawk of Special Interest interspersed with in Project Area forests Mature and old growth forests Potential habitat Great gray owl S3 Vulnerable Edge Species associated with Yes B/M in Project Area openings and meadows Riparian edge habitats including Great blue S4 Apparently Estuaries, Streams, Potential habitat lakes, streams, Yes B/M heron secure Marshes, Lakes in Project Area marshes and estuaries Large snags S4 Apparently Non-Game Species associated with Potential habitat Osprey Yes M secure of Special Interest fish bearing in Project Area water bodies Waterfowl Species: SHB, S5N – Possibly Edges of remote No Habitat Extirpated- Popular for Hunting Common loon freshwater ponds within Project - N Breeding, or viewing and lakes Area Secure Non- breeding Ponds, lakes, channels and No Habitat Pied-billed Popular for Hunting S5 Secure sloughs with within Project - N grebe or viewing emergent Area vegetation S2B, S5N – Open lakes and Imperiled No Habitat Popular for Hunting ponds with Horned grebe breeding, within Project - N or viewing emergent Secure –non- Area vegetation breeding S1B, S4N – Critically imperiled No Habitat Red-necked Popular for Hunting Lakes and ponds breeding, within Project - N grebe or viewing in forested areas Apparently Area secure nonbreeding Shallow open alkaline lakes No Habitat S4 Apparently Popular for Hunting Eared grebe and ponds with within Project - N secure or viewing emergent Area vegetation S3B, S2S3N – Marshes with Vulnerable open water and No Habitat breeding, Popular for Hunting lakes and Western grebe within Project - N Imperiled/Vuln or viewing reservoirs with Area erable- emergent nonbreeding vegetation

MIS-4

If Habitat Species or Present, NatureServe Project Species MIS Indicator For Habitat Habitat Present Affected by Status Impact Analysis Area Project (Further Considered) Variety of habitat: shores of lakes, rivers, and No Habitat Popular for Hunting Canada goose S5 Secure reservoirs within Project - N or viewing especially with Area cattails and bulrushes No Habitat S4 Apparently Popular for Hunting Wood duck Cavity nester within Project - N secure or viewing Area Concealed No Habitat Popular for Hunting clumps of grasses Gadwall S5 Secure within Project - N or viewing in meadows and Area tall grasslands Wetlands in prairies, No Habitat American Popular for Hunting S5 Secure parklands, river within Project - N wigeon or viewing deltas and ponds Area with grasslands Open water with Popular for Hunting Potential habitat Mallard* S5 Secure emergent Yes B or viewing in Project Area vegetation Marshes, lakes, No Habitat Blue-winged S4 Apparently Popular for Hunting ponds, slow- within Project - N teal secure or viewing moving streams Area Cover of No Habitat Popular for Hunting Cinnamon teal S5 Secure vegetation near within Project - N or viewing shoreline Area No Habitat Northern Popular for Hunting Grassy areas near S5 Secure within Project - N shoveler or viewing water Area No Habitat Northern Popular for Hunting Open areas near S5 Secure within Project - N pintail or viewing water Area Non-Breeding Freshwater Habitat, Green-winged S5 Secure Popular for Hunting marshes with Seasonal Yes B teal* S4 Breeding or viewing emergent Migrant to vegetation Project Area No Habitat S4 Apparently Popular for Hunting Emergent Canvasback within Project - N secure or viewing vegetation Area Non-Breeding Freshwater Habitat, S4 Apparently Popular for Hunting marshes and Redhead* Seasonal Yes B secure or viewing lakes concealed Migrant to in vegetation Project Area Thick emergent No Habitat Ring-necked Popular for Hunting S3 vulnerable vegetation on within Project - N duck or viewing shorelines Area

MIS-5

If Habitat Species or Present, NatureServe Project Species MIS Indicator For Habitat Habitat Present Affected by Status Impact Analysis Area Project (Further Considered) S3B, S4N – Vulnerable breeding, Dry grassy areas No Habitat Popular for Hunting Lesser scaup apparently near lakes at least within Project - N or viewing Secure 10 ft. deep Area nonbreeding

Cavity nester; No Habitat Common S4 Apparently Popular for Hunting uses ponds, lakes, within Project - N goldeneye Secure or viewing rivers and costal Area bays S3B, S3N – Cavity nester; Vulnerable No Habitat Barrow’s Popular for Hunting uses lakes, rivers, breeding, within Project - N goldeneye or viewing estuaries and Vulnerable- Area bays nonbreeding Cavity nester; No Habitat Hooded S4 Apparently Popular for Hunting found on wooded within Project - N merganser Secure or viewing ponds, lakes, and Area wooded wetlands Cavity nester; No Habitat Common S4 Apparently Popular for Hunting found on large within Project - N merganser Secure or viewing bodies of water Area Freshwater No Habitat S4 Apparently Popular for Hunting marshes, lakes, Ruddy duck within Project - N Secure or viewing ponds in dense Area vegetation Big Game Popular for Hunting Potential habitat Mule deer S5 Secure or viewing Mixed habitats Yes M in Project Area in close proximity Popular for Hunting Potential habitat Elk S5 Secure Mixed habitats Yes M or viewing in Project Area Dead Wood Associated Species Mixed conifer or high elevation American Late successional late-successional Potential habitat S3 Vulnerable Yes M marten forest forests with in Project Area abundant down woody material E. Cascades: Mid –high elevation, mature or old growth mixed Potential habitat Williamson’s S4 Apparently Snags conifer- within Project Yes B/M sapsucker Secure deciduous forest Area with open canopy cover and snags; weak excavator Potential habitat Red-naped S4 Apparently Riparian Snags within Project No N sapsucker Secure hardwood forests Area

MIS-6

If Habitat Species or Present, NatureServe Project Species MIS Indicator For Habitat Habitat Present Affected by Status Impact Analysis Area Project (Further Considered) Aspen within Potential habitat Red-breasted S4 Apparently Snags ponderosa pine within Project No N Sapsucker Secure forests Area Potential habitat Downy S4 Apparently Riparian Snags within Project No N woodpecker Secure hardwood forest Area Mixed conifer Potential habitat Hairy S4 Apparently Snags and ponderosa within Project Yes B/M woodpecker Secure pine forests Area Mature and Old Growth Lodgepole Pine Forest, also Forests with High elevation Potential habitat Three-toed S3 Vulnerable Engelmann Spruce or and lodgepole within Project Yes B/M woodpecker Mtn. Hemlock pine forests Area (Biological Community Barometer Species) Lodgepole pine Potential habitat Black-backed S3 Vulnerable Snags forests, burned within Project Yes M woodpecker forests Area Variety of forest Potential habitat Northern types but more S5 Secure Snags within Project Yes M flicker associated with Area forest edges Mature to old- Potential habitat Pileated S4 Apparently Snags growth mixed within Project Yes M woodpecker Secure conifer forests Area (Abbreviations: Deschutes National Forest = Deschutes NF, Crescent Ranger District = Crescent RD and Ringo Project = PA). *See Waterfowl discussion **N=No Impact; B=Beneficial; M=May Impact

Rationale for Species Not Considered In Detail Analyses of potential effects to the bald eagle, white-headed woodpecker, Lewis’ woodpecker, and wolverine have been fully analyzed in the TES section of this document.

The following provides the rationale and clarification to the species within MIS Table 2. In this section conclusions are made as to the presence or absence of the species based on habitat availability and suitability. Those species that have suitable habitat within or in the vicinity of the proposed treatment areas are further analyzed/discussed (the “Yes” in “If Habitat Present, Effected by Project” column) of in the following sections.

Generally, golden eagles occur in grass-shrub, shrub-sapling, and young woodland growth stages of forested areas, or in forest with open lands nearby for hunting. Essentially it needs only a favorable nest site, usually a large tree or cliff, a dependable food supply, primarily medium to large mammals and birds, and broad expanses of open country for foraging. It especially favors hilly or mountain country, where take off and soaring are facilitated by updrafts; deeply cut canyons rising to open sparsely treed mountain slopes and crags represent ideal habitat (Johnsgard 1990). The project area does not provide any cliffs for potential nest sites, or broad expanses of open country for foraging. The Ringo project would not contribute to a negative trend in viability for this MIS species on the Deschutes National Forest.

MIS-7

The following species are waterfowl that do not have habitat in the project area: Common loon, Pied- billed grebe, Horned grebe, Red-necked grebe, Eared grebe, Western grebe, Canada goose, Wood duck, Gadwall, American wigeon, Blue-winged teal, Cinnamon teal, Northern shovler, Northern pintail, Canvasback, Ring-necked duck, Lesser scaup, Common goldeneye, Barrow’s goldeneye, Hooded merganser, Common merganser, and Ruddy duck. Habitat for these species include larger bodies of water, rives, marshes, dry grasslands, etc. (see MIS Table 1). The habitat types associated with these species are not found within the project area. Other waterfowl, including green-winged and redhead, are non-breeding seasonal migrants to the project area. As such breeding habitat for these two species would not be affected with implementation of the Ringo project. The Ringo project would not contribute to a negative trend in viability for these MIS species on the Deschutes National Forest.

The red-naped sapsucker inhabits a variety of coniferous forest communities within which, there are stands of quaking aspen. In mountains, it also uses riparian woodlands of willow and other deciduous trees (Csuti et al. 2001). Aspen and alder stands are very limited on the district. In 2004 the Crescent Ranger District prepared a NEPA document (Aspen Stand Enhancement, USDA 2004) for the enhancement of 28 acres of aspen stands scattered across the district through conifer removal and fencing. The project area contains small isolated pockets of quaking aspen. It is not known if there is or would be sufficient habitat to support red-naped sapsuckers within the project area. The selection of any alternative would have no impact on the red-naped sapsucker habitat directly, indirectly, or cumulatively because no active management would occur within hardwoods or mixed hardwood and conifer forest. Action Alternatives do not propose treatment of aspen stands. The Ringo project would not contribute to a negative trend in viability for this MIS species on the Deschutes National Forest.

Little information is available for the red-breasted sapsucker east of the Cascade crest. It was considered at one time the same species as the red-naped sapsucker and inhabits similar habitat. It nests in aspen-ponderosa pine forest in Central Oregon (Marshall et al. 2003). It forages over a wide variety of tree species preferring deciduous tree species from early spring through late fall. Aspen and alder stands are very limited on the district. The project area contains small isolated pockets of quaking aspen. It is not known if there is or would be sufficient habitat to support red-breasted sapsuckers within the project area. Action Alternatives do not propose treatment of aspen stands. The Ringo project would not contribute to a negative trend in viability for this MIS species on the Deschutes National Forest.

Downy woodpeckers are often associated with deciduous and mixed deciduous-coniferous forests or riparian areas (Marshall et al. 2003; Csuti et al. 2001). The project area contains small isolated pockets of this kind of riparian habitat. Though Action Alternatives propose to treat (HIM) lodgepole pine encroachment into riparian habitat creating openings, these openings would be small and isolated. The Action Alternatives would not create nor affect downy woodpecker habitat. The Ringo project would not contribute to a negative trend in viability for this MIS species on the Deschutes National Forest.

Species Discussed and Analyzed in Detail The following analysis provides species specific to augment those effects for Alternatives A, B, and C and Cumulative Effects found in the Wildlife Introduction (Wildlife Intro.) discussion.

Management Direction The following sections meet the direction provided by the Forest Service Manual FSM 2600, the Deschutes National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP; USDA Forest Service 1990) as amended by the Regional Forester’s Plan Amendment 2, Interim Riparian, Ecosystem, and the North West Forest Plan (eastside Screens). It specifically addresses the project’s effects upon Management Indicator Species (MIS), ecological indicators (FSM, species and/or habitats), and Species of Concern [Fish and Wildlife Service designation, (SOC)] and the components of these species’ habitats.

MIS-8

This report has considered and applied the best science available; including papers, reports, literature reviews, review citations, peer reviews, science consistency reviews, and results of ground-based observations. The best available science and professional judgment was used to determine the analysis area, species, or habitat presence and effects. A complete list of the science used can be found in the Literature Cited section of this document.

Generally the following three documents provide species to consider and guide management on federal lands: Deschutes National Forest LRMP (Management Indicator Species), the US Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern, and a Conservation Strategy for Landbirds of the East-Slope of the Cascade Mountains in Oregon and Washington. Species listed in these documents overlap with each other as well as the federal threatened, endangered and sensitive species lists (MIS Table 2). For example, the white-headed woodpecker, Lewis’ woodpecker, and wolverine are species that are not only Management Indicator Species for the Deschutes National Forest but also species on the Region 6 threatened, endangered, or sensitive species list (white-headed woodpecker, Lewis’ woodpecker and the wolverine are sensitive species. These three species have been analyzed in the threatened, endangered and sensitive species section of the Biological Evaluation for this project.

Management Indicator Species Northern Goshawk Ecology The northern goshawk is the largest member of the accipiter family and is distributed across most of Canada, the northern and western United States, and into Mexico. Reynolds et al. (1978) located goshawk nests in Oregon from 580 meters elevation on the west slopes of the Cascades to 1,860 meters (1,903 feet to 6,102 feet). Reynolds et al. (1992) stated preferred nest stands have a minimum of 40 percent canopy cover and the nest sites within these stands have greater than 60 percent canopy cover. Greenwald et al. (2005) reviewed goshawk nesting data and found that a majority of studies found a selection for stands with greater than 40 percent canopy as suitable goshawk nesting habitat. Vegetation plot data collected from Deschutes National Forest goshawk nest sites showed canopy cover ranging from 49-94 percent (USDA 1993). For these reasons, nesting habitat is thought to be the limiting factor when looking for habitat. Foraging areas are typically 4,900-5,900 acres, comprised of a forest mosaic that must support a wide range of suitable prey including ground dwellers or those occurring near the forest floor (e.g. birds, ground squirrels, and other small mammals) (Marshall et al. 2003).

Breeding bird surveys provided insufficient data to determine population trends within any state or physiographic province in the Interior Columbia Basin because of low detection rates. However, sufficient data was available to indicate a stable trend in numbers between the years 1966-1995 for western North America. The Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center maintains a list of the most current information available on the distribution and abundance of animals native to Oregon. For the state of Oregon, they rank the northern goshawk population in Oregon as S3, ‘Vulnerable’, but nationally they are demonstrably wide-spread, abundant, and secure, or G5 (NatureServe 2016; USFS 2012).

Wildlife Interim Standards (Eastside Screens) (LRMP USDA 1990) for northern goshawks designates: “…(a) 30 acres of the most suitable nesting habitat surrounding all active and historical nest tree(s) and that these acres will be deferred from harvests; (b) a 400 acre ‘Post Fledging Area’ (PFA) will be established around every known active nest site. Harvest activities can occur within the PFA, but the LOS stands will be retained and younger stands will be enhanced towards LOS condition, as possible.”

In the Ringo project area, the amount of ponderosa pine and dry mixed-conifer open LOS stands is below HRV (Draft Ringo Forested Vegetation Report). Per Eastside Screens, “…when late and old structural

MIS-9

(LOS) stands are below HRV, timber harvest outside LOS can occur only if (a) 30 acres of the most suitable nesting habitat surrounding nest tree(s) are maintained and (b) a 400 acre post-fledging area (PFA) is established around every known active goshawk nest site” (LRMP USDA 1990). Dense ponderosa pine and dry mixed-conifer LOS stands exceed HRV and both single story and multistory, and lodgepole pine LOS stands are within HRV for the project area (Chapter 3 Forested Vegetation). Eastside Screens state, “…when LOS stands exceed or are within HRV timber harvest can occur as long as (a) the harvest activity does not drop LOS levels below HRV and (b) a 400 acres goshawk PFA is established around every known active nest site, with 60 percent of the area retained in un-harvested LOS stage” (LRMP USDA 1990).

Existing Condition The intent for selecting northern goshawk as a terrestrial MIS was for the mature and old growth ponderosa pine forest community. It is provided for in various designated Management Areas (WL-6- 12). Standard and guidelines (S&G) WL-6 states: provide for 40 nesting pairs of goshawks in mixed conifer, mountain hemlock, and ponderosa pine forests outside of Wilderness and the Oregon Cascades Recreation Area (OCRA).

For the detailed assessment on the northern goshawk for the Deschutes National Forest, see the Forest- wide Species Assessment (USFS 2012).

Deschutes NF northern goshawk observation records total 381 detections and 113 recorded nests. From this total, the Crescent RD wildlife records show 96 observations of northern goshawks and 12 nest sites. However, only 18 of the 96 observations occurred since 2000. In addition, two of twelve nest sites were observed since 2000; one in 2001 and the other in 2010. District records from wildlife surveys and incidental observations show one documented nest and 18 documented observations for the northern goshawk within the project area, scattered in the northern half of the project area (NRIS Wildlife Database). The one documented nest no longer exists and have been field verified. Nesting habitat would continue to be provided for goshawk in this area as proposed treatment adjacent to the historic nest is SDT.

Surveys conducted within 2015 included all viable nesting habitat within the Ringo project boundary, as well as all viable nesting habitat within a ¼ mile of the boundary. During the summer of 2015, Ringo surveys for northern goshawk resulted in finding of one active nest of one adult and 1 juvenile; a family group of a female and 2 juveniles - no nest found; a single female - no reproduction evident; and one female with a subadult - no nest found. All are located within the NWFP, as such Eastside Screens would not apply. A 400 acre established area of use was delineated for each reproductive group; the active nest, family group and female with subadult. No established area of use was delineated for the single female. The active nest and the family group establish use areas are within or partially overlap the Ringo Project Area. A nesting and foraging area was established around the activity area, within the most constant and best nesting habitat. Within these established areas seasonal restrictions (March 1st to August 31st) would apply when the territory is active. In addition, treatments move stand development towards late and old stand structure.

Although the Eastside Screens were applied to the Ringo project area, there were no goshawks found east of the NWFP, no designated goshawk nest trees stands and/or Post Fledgling Areas. If an active nest is found during project implementation, Eastside Screen management guidelines will be followed and seasonal restriction would apply. (MIS Table 1)

Through the Forest-wide assessment completed for MIS, northern goshawk reproductive habitat was mapped across the entire Deschutes NF. Potential suitable northern goshawk nesting habitat was modeled

MIS-10

using the Viable Ecosystem Model resulting in an estimated 13,251 acres or 36 percent of the Ringo project area. Refer to MIS Figure 1 for a map of the modeled potential habitat within the Ringo project area. This habitat is scattered across the project area, with large gaps in the Davis Fire area, the dry mountain hemlock PAG, and the lava flow area (MIS Figure 1). The modeled potential nesting habitat is predominantly within the mixed conifer PAGs. The habitat within the Ringo project area encompasses only three percent of the total goshawk nesting habitat on the Deschutes NF MIS Figure 1 and MIS Table 3).

MIS Figure 1. Modeled Potential Northern Goshawk Nesting Habitat, Established Area, and Eastside Screens in the Ringo Project Area (National Forest Lands Only).

MIS-11

MIS Table 3. Modeled Potential Northern Goshawk Nesting Habitat Acres and Percent in the Ringo Project Area and Forest Wide (National Forest Lands Only).

Area Goshawk Habitat Acres Percent in Deschutes NF

Deschutes NF 446,402 100%

Ringo PA 13,251 3%

Vegetative conditions in the project area are becoming similar to those described in the Interior Columbia Basin assessment (Wisdom et al. 2000). This assessment found there has been large transitions from shade-intolerant ponderosa pine/Douglas fir (fire-tolerant) to shade-tolerant true fir (fire-intolerant) tree species leading to possible unsustainable conditions of old forests resulting from fire exclusion. This has resulted in an increased susceptibility to stand-replacing fires. With fire suppression, stands quickly grow in density while species mix shifted to white fir, and lodgepole pine which are fire-intolerant species. Within the Ringo project area open late and old structure (LOS) mixed-conifer and ponderosa pine PAG stands are below HRV, whereas dense ponderosa pine PAG stands exceed HRV (Draft Ringo Forested Vegetation Report). The mid and understories of these dense mixed-confer and ponderosa pine stands are almost exclusively comprised of true fir and lodgepole pine. The few ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir in the mid and understories are currently suppressed with little potential for release from competition and grow to dominant overstory size. The mid seral medium to large tree dense stands within this PAG are overstocked within stands and are encroaching upon historic/current ponderosa pine stands and meadows (Draft Ringo Forested Vegetation Report).

Dense multi-story forest conditions that currently exist in Ringo are providing goshawk nesting habitat beyond that which historically existed. However, these increased density levels have also excluded goshawk foraging habitat with in stands. Reynolds et al. (1992 cited in Wisdom 2000) found a high density of small diameter trees may be detrimental to foraging and nesting aspects of goshawk ecology in at least three ways: (1) by obstructing flight corridors used by goshawks to obtain forest-associated prey; (2) by suppressing tree growth needed to produce large diameter trees for nest sites; and (3) by reducing the growth of an herbaceous understory that supports potential prey species.

Reynolds et al. (1982) found northern goshawks commonly nested in trees with deformities caused by dwarf mistletoe in eastern Oregon. The mistletoe induced deformities (e.g. witches brooms, doubled trunks, or heavy foliage) were used as nesting structures. Although some of the changes induced by mistletoe infestation on ponderosa or lodgepole pine stands benefits a variety of wildlife, over time, mistletoe related changes can be detrimental to some goshawk prey species, and are not desirable in large infestations in post-fledging family and foraging areas (Schmitt 1996). Severely infected stands may cease developing and not develop into late and old structure (LOS). The risk of stand replacement fire is much greater in severely-infected stands and should be a primary concern where wildlife use values are high (Schmitt 1996).

Within the Ringo project area there are pockets of dense stands infected with mistletoe. Mistletoe infection slows down tree growth producing dwarfed trees that may not have the structure, e.g. limb strength and size, to support nests, can make quality trees more susceptible to insect infestation, or may eventually kill the host tree. By not treating infected trees, mistletoe would spread to other trees, reducing the quality habitat.

For the Ringo project, there are LPD and PPD PAGs which also have evidence of bark beetle infestations, with some scattered pockets of dense mistletoe infestation. Beetle infestation kills trees, usually those with a larger diameter, reducing the amount of quality trees and overstory needed to support optimal

MIS-12

nesting habitat. Mortality tends to occur in various sized pockets that center around the largest, most stressed trees in a stand. Density is consistently identified as a primary factor in beetle risk (Fettig et al. 2007 in Draft Ringo Forested Vegetation Report).

Current conditions for multi-storied mixed conifer and ponderosa pine PAGs are above HRV and would continue to become denser without treatment. Bark beetle risk would continue to increase over time. The small amount of small diameter thinning scheduled would not appreciably affect landscape risk. From the Forested Vegetation Repot (2016), currently, “…60% of the federal forested land within the Ringo planning area that is at risk of bark beetles would grow to 96% by 2067. This shows resiliency will continue to diminish over time.”

Direct and Indirect Effects to Alternatives A Measure: Acres of proposed treatment within potential nesting habitat Proposed Treatments: No Treatment

No direct impacts would occur within potential suitable nesting habitat with the implementation of this alternative. In the short term nesting and foraging habitat are not static and may be reduced in quality or lost due to environmental factors such as insects and/or wildfires. Much of the existing habitat is overstocked. With no action, densities of all PAG type stands within the Ringo project area would not be reduced. With continued stand density, current potentially suitable nesting habitat stands would grow denser rendering them undesirable.

In the long term, this trend would continue over time converting more suitable stands unsuitable for nesting, rearing young, and foraging. Within the mixed conifer stands large ponderosa pine would continue to be lost and replaced by lodgepole and white fir. Canopy closure may be sufficient for goshawks, however large structure would be sparse over the landscape and may reduce potential nesting habitat.

Direct and Indirect Effects to Alternatives B and C Measure: Acres of proposed treatment within potential nesting habitat Proposed Treatments: HTH, HIM, MLT (Alternative C only), MDW, SDT, UB and Pile and Burn; Maintenance Level (ML) Road Changes - ML 1to ML 2 and ML2 to ML1.

For both Action Alternatives, the established 30 acre goshawk nest stand/activity area would receive no treatments. Acres within the designated use areas are scheduled for treatment. Treatments would move mid-seral lodgepole pine and ponderosa pine stands towards Late and Old Structure (LOS). Commercial thinning (HTH) treatments would result in an uneven distribution of groups of multi aged trees with openings in between the groups creating a variation in age, size class, and group size. In the plantation thinning (SDT) within the designated use area, prescriptions would have groupings emphasized throughout the stand while opening the stand up around the leave groups. All treatments proposed were designed to maintain current LOS and/or move younger stands toward LOS. Although habitat may improve with both Action Alternatives, some potential nesting habitat outside of designated areas would decline in the short term due to a reduction in canopy cover. Stand densities would continue to increase within these areas, resulting in less conducive dense habitat which is at higher risk of mortality. To note proposed Action Alternative treatment units within these areas would comply with established Resource Protection Measures, refer to the beginning of this MIS section and in the Wildlife Intro. section.

MIS Figure 2 depicts existing modeled nesting habitat for northern goshawk at the project level by Action Alternative as well as established areas for goshawk territories. In MIS Figure 2, existing habitat is

MIS-13

symbolized by gray, Alternative B is symbolized by black diagonal lines marks, and Alternative C is symbolized by blue.

MIS Figure 2. Modeled Potential Goshawk Nesting Habitat and Alternative B and C in the Ringo Project Area (National Forest Lands Only).

MIS Table 4 illustrates existing modeled nesting habitat for northern goshawk by alternative at the project level and on the Deschutes NF level. The Ringo project area includes three percent of the total amount of nesting habitat for the Deschutes NF. Proposed treatments would occur on 1 percent of the Deschutes NF (MIS Table 4). Alternative C would treat the most of nesting habitat, 3,264 acres (25 percent of nesting habitat), where Alternative B would treat 3,108 acres (23 percent of nesting habitat; MIS Table 4).

MIS-14

MIS Table 4. Modeling of Northern Goshawk Nesting Habitat Acres within Ringo PA and Deschutes NF by Alternative (National Forest System Lands Only). Ringo Project Acres and Percent in Deschutes Goshawk Nesting Habitat Percent NF 13,254 Alternative A Existing Acres 3% 100% 3,108 Alternative B Treated Acres 1% 23% 3,264 Alternative C Treated Acres 1% 25%

HTH, HIM, MLT, SDT, Pruning, Prescribed Fire (underburning) and Pile and Burn Project treatments in goshawk nesting habitat would remove a portion of nesting habitat, and retain some in overlapping leave areas, depending on intensity of treatment. Improvement Cuts (HIM), HTH, and MLT (Alternative C only) treatments allow stands to increase growth rates and return to denser habitat with a larger tree component faster, e.g. spotted owl dispersal habitat. MIS Table 5 compares proposed treatments and treatment acres within this Ponderosa Pine Focal Species nesting habitat for the Action Alternatives. Not all proposed treatments would remove nesting habitat. Commercial Thinning (HTH) with a basal area (BA) of at least 80, SDT above 109 trees per acre (TPA) and UB treatments would not remove canopy cover, thus retaining nesting habitat. Alternative C proposes to treat the most nesting habitat on 3,264 acres, of this 1,979 acres would be removed, 15 percent of nesting within the project area. Alternative B proposes a total of 3,108 acres of treatment, of this only 1,706 acres of nesting habitat would be removed, 13 percent of nesting within the project area. For both Action Alternatives, HTH treatment would remove the most nesting habitat when compared to other treatment types, 1,112 acres with Alternative B and 1,006 acres with Alternative C.

MIS Table 5. Alternative B and C Proposed Treatments in Northern Goshawk Nesting Habitat. Northern Goshawk Potential Nesting Habitat Alternative B and C Habitat Alternative B Habitat Alternative C Habitat Habitat Remaining Removed Habitat Remaining Removed Fuels Treatment1 Prescription2 Acres Habitat Habitat Acres Habitat Habitat Treatments3 Treated Acres Acres Treated Acres Acres PB 280 0 280 271 0 271 HIM - PB, UB 160 0 160 - - - HIM Total 440 0 440 271 0 271 40 BA PB, UB 98 0 98 98 0 98 PB, UB 74 0 74 74 0 74 50 BA UB 4 0 4 4 0 4 HTH PB 31 0 31 57 0 57 60 BA PB, UB 905 0 905 773 0 773 PB 190 190 0 125 125 0 80 BA PB, UB 572 572 0 395 395 0 HTH Total 1874 762 1112 1526 520 1006 PB - - - 73 0 73 MLT - PB, UB - - - 431 0 431

MIS-15

Northern Goshawk Potential Nesting Habitat Alternative B and C Habitat Alternative B Habitat Alternative C Habitat Habitat Remaining Removed Habitat Remaining Removed Fuels Treatment1 Prescription2 Acres Habitat Habitat Acres Habitat Habitat Treatments3 Treated Acres Acres Treated Acres Acres MLT Total - - - 504 0 504 PB 4 0 4 4 0 4 MDW - PB, UB ------MDW Total 4 0 4 4 0 4 PB 113 0 113 137 0 137 109 tpa PB, UB 37 0 37 58 0 58 SDT PB 295 295 0 307 307 0 134 tpa PB, UB 51 51 0 51 51 0 222 tpa PB 212 212 0 210 210 0 SDT Total 708 558 150 762 567 194 UB - UB 82 82 0 198 198 0 UB Total 82 82 0 198 198 0 Grand Total 3108 1402 1706 3264 1285 1979 1 HIM = Improvement Cutting; HTH = Commercial Thinning; MLT = Multi-Aged Management; MDW = Meadow Enhancement; SDT = Small Diameter Thin (8in. dbh and below); UB = Underburn. 2 BA = Basal Area; TPA = Trees Per Acre. 3 PB = Pile Burn; UB = Underburn.

Commercial Thinning (HTH) and Small Diameter Thinning (SDT) Stands within HTH and SDT treatment units would become more open due to the thinning from below, removing the smallest trees first until the desired density is achieved. After 20 or 30 years understory and overstory density would begin to increase, turning units into more suitable goshawk habitat, a more open understory with a dense canopy cover. Action Alternative units proposed for HTH (below 80 BA) and SDT (109 tpa) would remove overlapping potential suitable nesting habitat in ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, and lodgepole pine stands due to a reduction in canopy closure, stand structure, and more overall open conditions post implementation (refer to MIS Table 5 for acres). Units with a density prescription of 80 BA for HTH and 109 tpa for STD treatments would continue to provide habitat, though habitat would be more open compared to untreated areas.

With Action Alternatives proposed HTH and SDT treatments, habitat within the unit would increase and grow faster when compared to Alternative A. Commercial Thinning treatments outside of goshawk nesting habitat would create foraging habitat by opening the understory and portions of the overstory.

Post implementation treated stands would have more variability, individual tree growth (taller and/or larger trees), decreased tree density, and a decreased risk of a stochastic event. Refer to the Wildlife Appendix A for the modeled Action Alternative treatments analysis graphs of stand, snag, and down wood for existing, post-harvest, and long term stand trends. The reduction in risk of stochastic events would be achieved by reducing ladder fuels, overall stand density, and less fire resilient tree species such as lodgepole pine and white fir would.

The long term trend post treatment for both Action Alternatives would decrease the amount snag and down wood levels when compared to Alternative A for ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, and lodgepole

MIS-16

pine stands. The reduction in snag and down wood would be due to a reduction in recruitment from competition based mortality. Alterative B and C treatment would increase overall stand health due to a reduction in stand density, individual tree competition and an increase in tree vigor and growth. Within 30-50 years the number of large trees (greater than 20 in dbh) would increase at a rate greater than Alternative A. Within in this time frame, proposed treatment units’ canopy cover would be close to those levels in Alternative A. However, treated stands would have increased overall stand vigor, health, resiliency than Alternative A.

Improvement Cut (HIM) Action Alternative units proposed for HIM would remove nesting habitat within the units due to a reduction in canopy closure, stand structure, and more overall open conditions post implementation (refer to MIS Table 5 for acres). In these lodgepole pine stands, HIM treatment would remove damaged diseased or otherwise unhealthy trees. The majority of these stands have previously suffered high mortality from bark beetle attack. There are no HIM treatments within nesting habitat comprised of mixed conifer or ponderosa pine dominated stands. In the long term removing these damaged or unhealthy overstory trees would accelerate growth in the understory. Nesting habitat within HIM treated lodgepole pine stands would take longer to develop, but would provide additional suitable nesting habitat in the long term. In the short term stands would still provide foraging habitat.

Meadow Enhancement (MDW) Within MDW treated stands, four acres of potential modeled nesting habitat would be lost. The treatment would return the lodgepole pine stands back to historic conditions of wet/dry meadows. Though potential nesting habitat would be lost, foraging habitat would increase and well as potential prey habitat.

Underburning (UB) Underburning is expected to create a mosaic of conditions that are favorable for goshawks. Studies on the impacts of prescribed fire on forest structure observed increases in snag densities, including large diameter snags (Saab et al., 2006). This increase could increase potential prey within the Ringo project area.

Multi-Aged Management (MLT) Alternative C Only Multi-Aged Management treatment would result in similar effects as HTH treatments within and outside of goshawk nesting habitat. Action Alternative units proposed for MLT treatment would remove overlapping potential suitable nesting habitat in lodgepole pine and mixed conifer stands due to a reduction in canopy closure, stand structure, and more overall open conditions post implementation (refer to MIS Table 5 for acres). Conversely, MLT treatments outside of goshawk nesting habitat would create habitat by opening the understory and portions of the overstory, creating a stand structure more conducive to foraging habitat.

The openings MLT treatments create in each unit would increase prey habitat by opening the understory and overstory allowing more brush to grow. With MLT, skips and tree clumps would retain a more dense structure, which may not provide suitable nesting habitat. If these areas overlap nesting habitat, the nesting habitat would be retained. In the long term, after 20 or 30 years understory and overstory density would begin to increase, turning units into suitable goshawk nesting habitat, a more open understory with a dense canopy cover. Multi-Aged Thinning would return mixed conifer stands to a dense canopy quicker when compared to all other proposed treatments and Alternative A. In addition Alternative C proposed MLT treatments, in conjunction with HIM, HTH, SDT, and UB, would increase the number of large trees available for nest trees in the future.

MIS-17

Roads Refer to the Wildlife Introduction section and the Draft Ringo Transportation Report for road re- designation location maps, existing road condition photos, and more discussion on the road analysis for the Ringo project. No new system roads would be constructed to implement the Ringo project, only administratively re-designated to different maintenance levels (ML). ML 1 roads are intermittent service roads, but are closed to non-authorized vehicular traffic, whereas ML 2 roads are open for use by high clearance vehicles. These open road densities would still be constant with LRMP regulations and guidelines for road densities Forest and project wide. The re-designation of ML roads would not include any ground disturbing activities outside of the already disturbed footprint of the existing road, e.g. the roads would not become wider. No snags are proposed to be removed with the administratively re- definition of the roads, except for safety reasons

Proposed re-designation of approximately 2.8 miles would partially overlap potential nesting habitat. The proposed re-designated ML 1 roads are currently being heavily used as access routes from private lands to Forest lands by the public. The proposed re-designated ML 2 roads are physically closed by tank traps and/or vegetation re-seeding, rendering these roads unusable by motorized vehicles. In total, there would be a net gain of 0.10 miles of open roads with re-designations. A portion of the net gained would overlap potential habitat, however this would be minor.

Overall Effects to Northern Goshawk Areas outside of the designated nest stand/activity center and nesting habitat is expected to improve for goshawks. This would be due to increased open foraging conditions created with HTH, HIM, SDT (plantation thinning), and UB activities. In addition to these proposed treatments, Alternative C proposes multi-aged management (MLT) treatments, which would increase open condition and increase the number of large trees over time greater than Alternative A and B. Reynolds et al. (1992) found goshawks preferred more open canopy stands, as such foraging areas do not need to provide hiding cover for fledging goshawks. Goshawk foraging habitat consists of forests with relatively open understories and large trees (Reynolds et al., 1991), which is the desired condition for most of the forested areas that contain a large tree component under this alternative. Large trees are required for hunting perches, and open areas provide opportunities for detection and capture of prey. Foraging habitat would also be improved with the riparian treatments (MDW and SDT) which would encourage hardwood regeneration and the expansion of riparian vegetation that provides habitat desirable for prey species.

Nesting habitat treated with prescriptions of HIM, HTH (below 80 BA), MLT, MDW (lodgepole pine dominate stands), and SDT (109tpa) may not provide nesting habitat due to a reduction in canopy closure, stand structure, and more open conditions, Alternative B-1,706 acres and Alternative C 1,979 acres. Conversely, treatment units outside of nesting habitat has potential to increase habitat if the treated stand is overstock and unsuitable for nesting habitat. Treatments would open the under and overstory providing more conducive nesting habitat and prey habitat. For HTH and MLT treatment units, skips and clumps of trees would be left providing connectivity through the unit to adjacent untreated stands. If nesting habitat overlaps there areas, nesting habitat would remain as unmanaged. Within MDW treatment units the majority of lodgepole pine is proposed to be removed, returning the area to a meadow. Goshawk nesting habitat loss from MDW is approximately four acres for both Action Alternatives.

In the long term HIM, HTH, MLT, and SDT treatments units would provide suitable nesting habitat as trees become larger and canopy closure increases. Treatments are designed to keep tree densities at desired levels for 20 or 30 years. Proposed treatments would also reduce fire and insect risk by reducing ladder fuels and overall stand density.

Through Resource Protection Measures, treatments have been designed to maintain residual habitat in treatment units as well as the retention of untreated stands throughout the project providing habitat

MIS-18

connectivity. Also, Resource Protection Measures would be established as well as a 10-acre no treatment area around any newly discovered nest site. Mitigation Measures have also been incorporated in the event a new nest site is discovered prior to or during implementation. Mitigation Measures implement seasonal restrictions within ¼ mile of on any existing and/or newly discovered nest site from 3/1 to 8/31.

The variability incorporated into the alternatives would provide a better assurance of maintaining habitat for goshawks in the long term. Overall, variability is expected to increase from current conditions with more of a mosaic of shrub/grass vegetation, open/dense structure, and open/closed canopy. This variability would increase vertical structure for nesting habitat, increase overall species diversity for prey habitat, and create more of a diverse mosaic of conditions for a variety of species.

Roads The configuration of the re-designated closed to open roads and open to closed would reroute vehicle traffic to already disturbed areas resulting in larger undisturbed blocks of habitat.

Cumulative Effects The Wildlife Intro. Table 6 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions in the EIS was reviewed for cumulative effects. The Region 6 Invasive Plant EIS (2005) and Invasive Plant Treatments for the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests and the Crooked River National Grassland – Final Supplemental EIS (2012), Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests and Crooked River National Grassland Travel Management Project EIS (2011), Seven Buttes EA (December 1996), Seven Buttes Return EA (July 2001), BLT EIS (2008), and Davis Fire Restoration Project (2003) are all part of existing condition and as such there would be no cumulative effects. The Small Diameter Tree Thinning (2013), Crescent Lake Wildland Urban Interface Fuels Reduction (2004), and Actions from the Marsh EA (2016) do not overlap the Ringo project area and as such would have no cumulative effects.

The Five Buttes (2007) and Three Trails OHV (2010) projects do overlap the Ringo project area and have yet to be fully implemented. The Five Buttes project has completed all but one timber sale, Sky, which is not within the project area. Commercial harvesting within the Ringo project area has been completed and the vegetation modification is shown in the modeled nesting habitat. Ongoing Five Buttes fuels post sale treatments may disturbed goshawk habitat. Burn Plan Resource Protection Measure are in place to protect potential habitat and nests. Resource Protection Measures would protect snags, down wood, and would not remove large trees. In addition, there would be ample habitat outside of units goshawk could utilize while burning operations are occurring. The Three Tails OHV project would not remove potential habitat, would not remove snags, down wood, or large trees. Resource Protection Measures are in place to protect potential habitat, nests, snags, down wood, and would not remove large trees. These projects would add very limited noise or activity impacts to the Ringo project for goshawk. As no habitat would be removed and Resource Protection Measures are in place to mitigate disturbance to these species, there would be little noise disturbing cumulative effects.

The 2012 Crescent Roadside Firewood Strategy project is an ongoing rotation of units to provide a continuous supply for firewood for the public outside of the NWFP. Project design criteria for that project include: firewood cutting units are limited to removal of dead and down wood only; off-road motorized travel is only within the 200 foot personal use firewood cutting areas; all green trees and other vegetation is required to be protected; no standing dead or green trees are to be cut; and no firewood cutting areas or off-road travel would be permitted within Riparian Habitat Conservations Areas, Old Growth Management Areas, BEMAs, the little Deschutes River Wild and Scenic river corridor and/or other areas of cultural concern. Minimum down wood requirements would follow DLRMP standards and guidelines, and are the same as those proposed for the firewood cutting areas within those areas overlapping Ringo are opened on a rotating basis depending on availability of wood and/or conflict with other resource extraction such as timber sales.

MIS-19

The 2012 Crescent Roadside Firewood area overlaps 1,615 acres of the Ringo project area east of the NWFP boundary; overlapping 97 Ringo Action Alternative proposed units. Not all overlapping Ringo units allow firewood gathering due to Resource Protection Measures. However the Crescent Roadside project would remove firewood from 200 ft. of an open road, but not within the entire unit. Neither projects allow for the removal of green trees or snags within a firewood gathering unit and as such would not reduce green tree nor snag levels. As no green trees or snags would be removed, no nesting habitat would be loss inside or outside of the Ringo units. Habitat within 712 acres (Alt. B) and 814 acres (Alt. C) of overlapping Ringo proposed units and Crescent Roadside Firewood areas would be already be impacted. Crescent Roadside Firewood would not add to these affects.

Northern goshawk habitat overlaps all or portions of these units. However, the project does not remove green trees, goshawk habitat. There could be additional noise disturbance additional acres within potential nesting habitat outside of the Ringo project units from the Crescent Roadside Firewood project. Project resource protection measures/mitigation measures would be in place for species seasonal restriction if an active nest is within/adjacent to the project area and to maintain the Deschutes LRMP stands of dead wood levels for prey speceis. Refer to the wildlife resource protection measures/mitigation measures restrictions and the DecAid report for cumulative effects for dead wood. As no green trees would be removed only affects would be from noise disturbance. There is ample adjacent habitat that can be utilized during firewood gathering operations. The firewood gathering would be in small areas for short duration at a time, rotating across the Crescent Roadside Firewood areas. The Crescent Roadside Firewood Strategy would only affect northern goshawk with noise disturbance during the short duration of firewood gathering. As the Crescent Roadside Firewood Strategy overlaps potential nesting habitat within the Ringo project and could add to noise disturbance outside of Ringo proposed units, there would be little noise disturbance cumulative effects to the northern goshawk.

Forestwide Firewood CE would be implemented in the future, 2017. A letter requesting public input for the Deschutes National Forest’s personal use firewood proposal was sent to the public April 14, 2016. The purpose of the project is to improve the availability of fuelwood as a renewable energy resource for personal use. It would be implemented in in 2017. The project area encompasses the entire NWFP portion of the Deschutes National Forest. Although the Firewood CE would overlap the project area, no green trees would be removed. Standing and down dead trees of all species could be cut and removed within 150 ft of open roads. Standing dead would be limited to less than 20 in. dbh. Areas of exclusion from the personal firewood collection program would include, but not limited to: Late Successional Reserves, Riparian Reserves, Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, any management allocations of the Deschutes Forest Plan that prohibits firewood collection, active timber sales, research plots, Federal Highway Safety Act roads, and other sensitive locations to protect resources such as wildlife and cultural resources.

The firewood proposal area overlaps 1,805 acres of the Ringo project area that is within the boundary of the NWFP, overlapping portions of 154 Ringo Action Alternative proposed units. Approximately 1,175 (Alt C) to 1,187 acres (Alt B) are outside of units and 618 (Alt B) to 630 (Alt C) acres inside units would be affected by the Forest wide Firewood proposal. Not all overlapping Ringo units allow firewood gathering due to Resource Protection Measures and Ringo project does not allow for the removal of snags within overlapping proposed units. However, the Forest wide project would remove standing dead as well as down within 150 ft of the open road of these units as well, but not within the entire unit. Though the Forest-wide Firewood CE project overlaps within the species habitat, no habitat would be removed. The project would remove dead standing, less than 20 in. dbh, and down trees, no green trees would be removed per Resource Protection Measures. Since no green trees would be removed, potential habitat, only noise disturbance would impact the goshawk. Seasonal restriction and Resource Protection Measures would be in place to protect known nests. As no habitat would be removed with

MIS-20

implementation of the Forestwide Firewood CE, there would be only disturbance effects within nesting and foraging habitat. Therefore there would be little cumulative effects from noise disturbance for the goshawk.

For the Ringo project there are no overlapping projects which would remove goshawk nesting habitat. Five Buttes fuels treatments, Three Trails OHV, 2012 Crescent Roadside Strategy, and future Forest-wide Firewood CE activities could cause noise disturbance to goshawks. However, there are Resource Protection Measures, seasonal restrictions, and project mitigations to minimize disturbance to known territories and habitat. Therefore, there would be no cumulative effects for the goshawk.

Conclusions In Oregon, the northern goshawks population is not decreasing (NatureServe 2016). It is listed as S3 ‘Vulnerable’ by the Oregon Natural Heritage program, due to degradation and loss of habitat (NatureServe 2016).

In the short-term, Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, would provide the most habitat due to no treatments and increased stand densities. However, with continued density growth and encroachment stands would be at an increased risk of stand replacing events. The No Action Alternative could affect northern goshawk and their habitat due to the ongoing loss of large trees and multi-storied dense stands, along with the unsustainable conversion of stands to fire intolerant species.

Recent Deschutes NF analysis shows there are 446,402 acres of modeled nesting habitat for the northern goshawk. The Ringo project area provides 13,251 acres or three percent of goshawk nesting habitat on the Deschutes NF (36 percent of the Ringo project area). This analysis incorporates all past management activities forest-wide. No other districts have overlapping project boundaries with the Ringo project and projects listed on the cumulative effects table would not reduce potential nesting habitat, there are no cumulative effects.

The Ringo project impacts approximately 23-25 percent of goshawk nesting habitat across the project area. Of this, proposed treatments would remove 13-15 percent due to overstory reduction. The loss of habitat would be negligible at the scale of the Forest. The portion of Proposed Action Alternative treatments, which are outside of nesting habitat, would reduce stand densities creating more foraging habitat. The Ringo project would contribute a negative trend of habitat to the viability of northern goshawk on the Deschutes National Forest.

Consistency Implementation of the Ringo project is consistent with the Standards and Guidelines for the Deschutes National Forest Land Resource Management Plan (LRMP WL-6-12). Resource Protection Measures are in place to protect active nests and nest stands (see Chapter 2). The project would contribute, maintain and improve nesting habitat, complying with LRMP WL-6. Minimal amounts of northern goshawk habitat would be altered, and as a result treatments would promote the long-term habitat viability for this species.

As of August 2016, no known nests have been documented within the Eastside Screen potions of the Ringo project area. If an active nest is found during project implementation, Eastside Screen management guidelines will be followed.

MIS-21

Cooper’s and Sharp-Shinned Hawks The sharp-shinned hawk and the Cooper’s hawk are two accipiter hawk species as MIS that represent dense-forest species within young-forest stands of mixed conifer or ponderosa pine for nesting. Sharp- shinned hawks prefer even-aged stands of 40-60 year-old trees with a canopy-cover of 65 percent or greater. The Cooper’s hawk uses slightly more open stands of pole-sized or second-growth trees (50-80 years old; average height of 30 feet) with a 60 percent or greater canopy-cover.

Several studies have compared nesting habitat use between co-existing accipiters in North America (Fischer 1986; Kennedy 1988; Moore and Henny 1983; Reynolds et al. 1982; Reynolds 1983; Siders and Kennedy 1996; Trexel et al. 1999; Wiggers and Kritz 1991). Where these species coexist, a relationship occurs in which tree height and dbh of nest trees increases in proportion to accipiter body size with northern goshawk being the biggest and sharp-shinned being the smallest (Kennedy 1988; Reynolds et al. 1982; Siders and Kennedy 1996). For example, sharp-shinned hawk nest sites in Oregon were characterized as dense, 40 to 60-year-old even-aged conifer stands while Cooper’s hawk nest sites were 50 to 80 year-old conifer stands with somewhat larger, more widely spaced trees, and goshawk nest sites were dense, mature conifer stands with varying densities of mature, overstory trees (Reynolds et al. 1982). However, high interspecific overlap occurs between the species in the use of nest site characteristics such as basal area, canopy cover, and tree density (Kennedy 1988; Moore and Henny 1983; Siders and Kennedy 1996). Siders and Kennedy (1996) observed large overlaps between Cooper’s hawk and goshawk nest site characteristics while Moore and Henny (1983) reported large overlaps between Cooper’s hawk and sharp-shinned hawk nest site characteristics (USFS 2012).

Cooper’s Hawk In Oregon, Reynolds and Wight (1978) studied Cooper’s hawk distribution, nest density, and productivity. The analysis concluded that this species nests in stands that resembled the even-aged, 2nd- growth stands in larger older trees (30-60 years old in the northwestern Oregon and 50-70 years old in eastern Oregon), and have deep crowns. In northwestern Oregon, all nests except one (ponderosa pine) were in Douglas-fir stands, whereas in eastern Oregon ten nests were in ponderosa pine stands, five were in white fir stands, and three were in Douglas-fir stands. Also, Cooper’s hawk nests in both regions were on horizontal limbs against the trunk (a few were out on limbs or in crotches of double trunks) and were either immediately below the nest-tree crown or in the lower portion of the crown. Nests in eastern Oregon were commonly in deformed trees infected by dwarf mistletoe and that had heavy foliage, witches brooms, or double trunks. Nest height and nest-tree height were nearly the same in both regions.

Based on the literature reviews for the state of Oregon, there are many similarities in the vegetation on the Deschutes NF and nest-site selections of these characteristics are occurring. Differences are also apparent between study areas (i.e. the study area in eastern Oregon has more streams and creeks and the topography is steeper versus some areas on the Deschutes NF whereas southern Oregon has large expanses of oak where it is non-existent on the Deschutes NF), but similarities in forest composition occur. It is important to take this variability into account when making inferences about habitat use on the Deschutes NF from studies at other locations (USFS 2012).

Only a few studies have investigated the foraging habitat of Cooper’s hawks (Fischer 1986; Mannan and Boal 2000; Murphy et al. 1988). There is little known of preferences for stands of differing densities, ages, tree sizes, or edge versus deep forests by Cooper’s hawks (Reynolds 1989). However, they appear to use available forests opportunistically, provided the available types are not too dense for flight below or within the canopy (Reynolds 1989; USFS 2012). Primary prey for Cooper’s hawks are medium sized birds such as starlings, flickers, and thrushes. Supplemental food include small birds, small mammals, reptiles, amphibians and insects (NatureServe 2016).

MIS-22

NatureServe (2016) identified Cooper’s hawk as secure at the global and national scale, and apparently secure in the state of Oregon. It has not been identified on the Federal and State Sensitive species list, Birds of Conservation Concern list, Oregon Conservation Strategy, or the Partners in Flight lists (USFS 2012).

Sharp-shinned Hawk As part of Reynolds and Wight’s study from 1978, and Reynolds et al. (1982) nest sites in eastern Oregon were in even-aged stands of white fir (seven nests), Douglas-fir (one nest), ponderosa pine (one nest), or aspen (one nest). The vegetative structure was essentially the same as in the even-aged nest sites in northwestern Oregon, with the exception that tree density and diameter were less uniform in eastern Oregon. The analysis concluded that this species nested in stands of three different vegetative structures: most nests (81 percent) were in young (25-50 years), even-aged conifer stands with single-layered canopies; two nests (13 percent) were in old-growth (200+ years) stands of conifers with multilayered canopies; and one nest was in a dense stand of stunted quaking aspen. Sharp-shinned hawk nests in both regions were placed in the denser portion of the lower canopy against the trunk or in a crotch of a double or split trunk (USFS 2012).

Based on the literature reviews for the state of Oregon there are many similarities in the vegetation on the Deschutes NF, including the characteristics of nest-site selections. Differences are also apparent between study areas (i.e. the study area in eastern Oregon has more streams and creeks with steeper topography versus some areas on the Deschutes NF whereas southern Oregon has large expanses of oak -it is non- existent on the Deschutes NF), but similarities in forest composition occur. It is important to take this variability into account when making inferences about habitat use on the Deschutes NF from studies at other locations (USFS 2012).

Few telemetry studies have been performed on sharp-shinned hawks, therefore little information is available on foraging habitat. From observations of prey deliveries to nests, Reynolds and Meslow (1984) estimated that sharp-shinned hawks foraged primarily in the upper canopy zone. However, Clarke (1984) and Joy (1990) observed that sharp-shinned hawks foraged near the ground. Joy et al. (1994) reported that of 11 sharp-shinned hawk nest sites, mature aspen was the most common (8 of 11) vegetation within a 494 acre circle (two km) around the nest, mixed aspen-conifer was the most common “secondary” habitat (9 of 11), and conifer forest was the most “limited” habitat type. Platt (1973) monitored a male sharp-shinned hawk with radio-telemetry and observed that the male primarily hunted in a clonal-oak grassland community. The author suggested the males’ attraction to this community was related to high food availability (USFS 2012). Primary prey for sharp-shinned hawks include small to medium sized birds. Occasionally this species will also prey upon small mammals, insects and lizards. Nestling and fledgling birds are common prey items when these hawks are feeding young (NatureServe 2016)

NatureServe (2016) identified sharp-shinned hawk as secure at the global and national scale, and apparently secure in the state of Oregon. It was not identified on the Federal and State Sensitive species list, Birds of Conservation Concern list, Oregon Conservation Strategy, or the Partners in Flight lists (USFS 2012).

For the detailed assessment on the sharp-shinned hawk for the Deschutes National Forest, see the Forest- wide Species Assessment (USFS 2012).

Existing Condition Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks territories on the Crescent RD have been wide spread, located within the mixed conifer PAGs containing multi-storied highly complex stands, and ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine PAGs with high canopy closure. Due to the dominance of lodgepole pine, the mixed

MIS-23

conifer PAG has experienced moderate to heavy mortality with the insect and disease outbreak over the last 10 to 15 years over the Deschutes Forest. The majority of the outbreak occurred in the pure lodgepole pine PAG in the higher elevations, but the intensity of the outbreak was such that it spread into the mixed conifer stands at lower elevations. Although the majority of the outbreak has subsided, beetle activity continues to occur in areas with dense trees.

Crescent RD records from other wildlife surveys, e.g. northern goshawk survey, and incidental observations show nine Cooper’s hawk observations and four historic nests within the project area. However, after field checks two of the Cooper’s hawk nests have fallen out of the tree. For sharp-shinned hawk, there were four observations and no nest within the project area (NRIS Wildlife Database). No surveys were conducted for the Cooper’s or sharp-shinned hawk. However, historic raptor nest occupancy checks were done in 2014-2015, which included nests checks for Cooper’s hawk. Within in the Ringo project area, no Cooper’s hawk nests were found, nor were accipiters were observed during the nest checks.

The Forest-wide assessment completed for MIS, Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawk potential reproductive habitat was mapped across the entire Deschutes NF. For Cooper’s hawk approximately 275,340 acres of potential nesting habitat was mapped for the Deschutes NF and approximately 426,138 acres for the sharp-shinned hawk. Within the Ringo project area there is approximately 4,765 acres of potential Cooper’s hawk nesting habitat and approximately 9,152 acres for the sharp-shinned hawk habitat. Potential nesting habitat for both species is scattered across the project area. MIS Table 6 and MIS Table 7 show modeled Copper’s and sharp-shinned hawk potential nesting habitat acres and percent the for the Deschutes NF and the Ringo project area on National Forest Lands only. The Cooper’s and sharp- shinned hawks nesting habitat within the Ringo project area encompasses only 2 percent of the total Cooper’s hawk nesting habitat on the Deschutes NF and two percent of sharp-shinned nesting habitat.

MIS Table 6. Modeled Cooper’s Hawk Nesting Habitat Acres and Percent in the Ringo Project Area and Forest Wide. Area Cooper’s Hawk Potential Habitat Acres Percent in Deschutes NF Deschutes NF 275,340 100% Ringo PA 4,765 2%

MIS Table 7. Modeled Sharp-shinned Hawk Nesting Habitat Acres and Percent in the Ringo Analysis Area and Forest Wide. Area Sharp-shinned Hawk Potential Habitat Acres Percent in Deschutes NF Deschutes NF 426,138 100% Ringo PA 9,152 2%

MIS Figure 3 illustrates the potential Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawk nesting habitat the within the Ringo project area. Within MIS Figure 3 Cooper’s hawk potential habitat is represented by the color green, the sharp-shinned hawk is represented by the color purple, and both overlapping habitat is represented by the color orange.

MIS-24

MIS Figure 3. Modeled Potential Cooper’s and Sharp-shinned Hawk Nesting Habitat in the Ringo Project Area

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A Measure: Acres of proposed treatment within potential nesting habitat Proposed Treatments: No Treatment

No direct impacts would occur within potential suitable nesting habitat with the implementation of this alternative within the short term. However, nesting and foraging habitats are not static and may be reduced in quality or lost due to environmental factors such as insects and/or wildfires.

Currently, multi-story stands of ponderosa pine and mixed conifer are above HRV. This has provided more habitat for both species than may have existed with frequent fire. However, these stands are not of

MIS-25

high quality and are more susceptible to beetle infestation and stand replacing fire events. Much of the existing habitat is overstocked. With no action, densities of all PAG type stands within the Ringo project area would not be reduced. With continued stand density, current potentially suitable nesting habitat stands would grow denser rendering them undesirable.

In the long term, this trend would continue over time converting more suitable stands unsuitable for nesting, rearing young, and foraging. Within the mixed conifer stands large ponderosa pine would continue to be lost and replaced by lodgepole and white fir. Canopy closure may be sufficient for Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks, however large structure would be sparse over the landscape and may reduce potential nesting habitat. The No Action Alternative could affect Coopers’ and sharp-shinned hawk and their habitat due to the ongoing loss of multi-storied dense stands, and the unsustainable conversion of stands. Additionally, with continued density growth within the project area, stands would be at an increased risk of stand replacing events.

Direct and Indirect Effects to Alternatives B and C Measure: Acres of proposed treatment within potential nesting habitat Proposed Treatments: HTH, HIM, MLT (Alternative C only), MDW, SDT, UB and Pile and Burn; Maintenance Level (ML) Road Changes - ML 1to ML 2 and ML2 to ML1.

As of August 2016, there are no proposed treatment units overlapping known Cooper’s or sharp-shinned hawk nest stands for either Action Alternative. If an active nest is found active, a 15 acre retention area around the nest would be implemented as well as seasonal restrictions for those units within 0.25 miles of a nest area, per Resource Protection Measures. From District records, Unit 62, for both Action Alternatives, overlapped a historic Cooper’s hawk nests. However, a search for the nest was conducted and no nest was found, no accipiters were observed, and no other possible hawk nests were found. Unit 62 is proposed for small diameter thin, which would not remove nest trees or reduce the quality of nesting or foraging habitat. Small diameter thin treatments would increase a nest stand quality of habitat in the short and long term though decreasing small tree density allowing larger trees to grow into preferred nest trees. The health of the overall stand would also increase and become more resilient to beetle attack and fire events.

MIS Figure 4 illustrates the potential Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawk nesting habitat and Action Alternatives within the Ringo project area. The Cooper’s hawk potential habitat is represented by the color green, the sharp-shinned hawk is represented by the color purple, and both overlapping habitat is represented by the color orange.

MIS-26

MIS Figure 4. Modeled Potential Cooper’s and Sharp-shinned Hawk Nesting Habitat and Alternative B and C in the Ringo Project Area (National Forest Lands Only).

MIS Table 8 illustrates existing Viable modeled nesting habitat for Cooper’s hawk by alternative at the project level and on the Deschutes NF level. The Ringo project area includes two percent of the total amount of Cooper’s hawk nesting habitat for the Deschutes NF. Proposed treatments within Cooper’s hawk nesting habitat would occur on less than 1 percent of the Deschutes NF (MIS Table 8). Alternative C would treat the most of nesting habitat, 1,180 acres (25 percent of nesting habitat in Ringo project area), where Alternative B would treat 1,150 acres (24 percent of nesting habitat in Ringo project area).

MIS-27

MIS Table 8. Alternative B and C Proposed Treatments in Modeled Potential Cooper’s Hawk Nesting Habitat Acres. Cooper's hawk Nesting Habitat Ringo Project Acres and Percent Percent in Deschutes NF 4,765 Alternative A Existing Acres 2% 100% 1,150 Alternative B Treated Acres >1% 24% 1,180 Alternative C Treated Acres >1% 25%

MIS Table 9 illustrates existing Viable modeled nesting habitat for sharp-shinned hawk by alternative at the project level and on the Deschutes NF level. The Ringo project area includes two percent of the total amount of sharp-shinned hawk nesting habitat for the Deschutes NF. Proposed treatments within sharp- shinned hawk nesting habitat would occur on 1 percent of the Deschutes NF (MIS Table 9). Alternative C would treat the most of nesting habitat, 2,438 acres (27 percent of nesting habitat in Ringo project area), where Alternative B would treat 2,383 acres (26 percent of nesting habitat in Ringo project area).

MIS Table 9. Alternative B and C Proposed Treatments in Modeled Potential Sharp-shinned Hawk Nesting Habitat Acres. Sharp-shinned hawk Nesting Habitat Ringo Project Acres and Percent Percent in Deschutes NF 9,152 Alternative A Existing Acres 2% 100% 2,383 Alternative B Treated Acres >1% 26% 2,438 Alternative C Treated Acres 1% 27%

HTH, HIM, MLT, SDT, and Underburning Project treatments would remove nesting habitat, or retained it in some proposed treatments and in overlapping leave areas. Improvement Cuts (HIM), HTH, and MLT (Alternative C only) treatments allow stands to increase growth and return to denser habitat with a larger tree component faster. MIS Table 10 and 11 compares proposed treatments and treatment acres within potential nesting habitat for the Action Alternatives. Not all proposed treatments would remove nesting habitat. Commercial Thinning (HTH) with a basal area (BA) of at least 60, SDT above 109 trees per acre (TPA) and UB treatments would not remove canopy cover, thus retaining potential nesting habitat.

For Cooper’s hawk Alternative C proposes to treat the most nesting habitat on 1,180 acres, of this 450 acres would be removed, 9 percent of nesting within the project area. Alternative B proposes a total of 1,150 acres of treatment, of this only 363 acres of nesting habitat would be removed, 8 percent of nesting within the project area. For both Action Alternatives, HIM treatment would remove the most nesting habitat when compared to other treatment types, 223 acres with Alternative B and 221 acres with Alternative C.

MIS-28

MIS Table 10. Alternative B and C Proposed Treatments in Modeled Potential Cooper’s Hawk Nesting Habitat. Cooper's Hawk Potential Nesting Habitat Alternative B and C Habitat Alternative B Habitat Alternative C Habitat Habitat Remaining Removed Habitat Remaining Removed Fuels Treatment1 Prescription2 Acres Habitat Habitat Acres Habitat Habitat Treatments3 Treated Acres Acres Treated Acres Acres PB 221 0 221 221 0 221 HIM - PB, UB 3 0 3 - - - HIM Total 223 0 223 221 0 221 40 BA PB, UB 32 0 32 32 0 32 PB, UB 35 0 35 35 0 35 50 BA UB 1 0 1 1 0 1 HTH PB 6 6 0 20 20 0 60 BA PB, UB 263 263 0 230 230 0 PB 103 103 0 82 82 0 80 BA PB, UB 169 169 0 129 129 0 HTH Total 609 542 68 528 461 68 PB - - - 24 0 24 MLT - PB, UB - - - 63 0 63 MLT Total - - - 87 0 87 PB 2 0 2 2 0 2 MDW - PB, UB - 0 0 - - - MDW Total 2 0 2 2 0 2 PB 49 0 49 49 0 49 109 tpa PB, UB 21 0 21 24 0 24 SDT PB 67 67 0 66 66 0 134 tpa PB, UB 3 3 0 3 3 0 222 tpa PB 151 151 0 156 156 0 SDT Total 291 220 70 298 225 73 UB - UB 24 24 0 44 44 0 UB Total 24 24 0 44 44 0 Grand Total 1,150 786 363 1,180 730 450 1 HIM = Improvement Cutting; HTH = Commercial Thinning; MLT = Multi-Aged Management; MDW = Meadow Enhancement; SDT = Small Diameter Thin (8 in. dbh and below); UB = Underburn. 2 BA = Basal Area; TPA = Trees Per Acre 3 PB = Pile Burn; UB = Underburn.

For sharp-shinned hawk Alternative C proposes to treat the most nesting habitat on 2,438 acres, of this 827 acres would be removed, 9 percent of nesting within the project area. Alternative B proposes a total of 2,383 acres of treatment, of this only 574 acres of nesting habitat would be removed, 6 percent of nesting within the project area. For Alternatives C MLT treatment would remove the most nesting habitat when compared to other treatment types, 253 acres with Alternative C, MLT treatments are not proposed

MIS-29

with Alternatives B. For Alternative B HIM treatment would remove the most nesting habitat when compared to other treatment types, 242 acres with Alternative B.

MIS Table 11. Alternative B and C Proposed Treatments in Modeled Potential Sharp-shinned Hawk Nesting Habitat. Sharp-shinned Hawk Potential Nesting Habitat Alternative B and C Habitat Alternative B Habitat Alternative C Habitat Habitat Remaining Removed Habitat Remaining Removed Fuels Treatment1 Prescription2 Acres Habitat Habitat Acres Habitat Habitat Treatments3 Treated Acres Acres Treated Acres Acres PB 227 0 227 227 0 227 HIM - PB, UB 14 0 14 - - - HIM Total 242 0 242 227 0 227 40 BA PB, UB 82 0 82 82 0 82 PB, UB 66 0 66 66 0 66 50 BA UB 10 0 10 10 0 10 HTH PB 33 33 0 40 40 0 60 BA PB, UB 737 737 0 615 615 0 PB 162 162 0 137 137 0 80 BA PB, UB 300 300 0 213 213 0 HTH Total 1,390 1,232 158 1,163 1,005 158 PB - - - 53 0 53 MLT - PB, UB - - - 200 0 200 MLT Total - - - 253 0 253 PB 3 0 3 3 0 3 MDW - PB, UB ------MDW Total 3 0 3 3 0 3 PB 91 0 91 94 0 94 109 tpa PB, UB 80 0 80 91 0 91 SDT PB 207 207 0 206 206 0 134 tpa PB, UB 39 39 0 39 39 0 222 tpa PB 206 206 0 201 201 0 SDT Total 623 452 171 632 446 186 UB - UB 125 125 0 160 160 0 UB Total 125 125 0 160 160 0 Grand Total 2,383 1,809 574 2,438 1,612 827 1 HIM = Improvement Cutting; HTH = Commercial Thinning; MLT = Multi-Aged Management; MDW = Meadow Enhancement; SDT = Small Diameter Thin (8in. dbh and below); UB = Underburn. 2 BA = Basal Area; TPA = Trees Per Acre

3 PB = Pile Burn; UB = Underburn.

MIS-30

Thinning (HTH and SDT) In the short term, treatments would decrease overstory canopy closure, which depending on treatment density could diminish the suitability of nesting habitat in these areas or enhance nesting habitat (MIS Table 10 and 11). Small diameter thinning (SDT) of small trees (up to eight inch dbh) may be needed as a pre-treatment to fire. Underburning would occur in stands with a more fire resistant overstory (refer to Draft Ringo Forested Vegetation Report).

In the short and long term, by clumping of trees, retention areas, and adjacent habitat outside of units would provide potential nesting habitat and provide perch sites and habitat. Patches of 15-20 percent retained habitat within these treatment units would maintain habitat connectivity. The retention areas, skips, clumps, and those density treatments which would maintain habitat would maintain connectivity within stands, over the project area, and adjacent untreated habitat.

Improvement Cut (HIM) The majority of stands proposed for HIM treatment have previously suffered high mortality from bark beetle attack. The current condition of these stands have decreased the quality of potential nesting habitat for Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks. The overstory in some stands have become less dense, less suitable for canopy cover, while the understory have become overstocked. Treatments within HIM stands would return stands closer to HRV. The increased density in historically open stands would benefit both the Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawk currently, however the quality of overstory habitat has decreased, providing less nesting opportunities. With the increasing density trend the understory and high mortality in the canopy cover, nesting habitat would become less suitable for rearing young and hunting.

Removing some overstory trees within the HIM units would accelerate growth in the understory to achieve dispersal habitat faster (refer to Draft Ringo Forested Vegetation Report). In mixed conifer areas HIM treatment would primarily involve removing white fir and other damaged and diseased trees along the edges of the Davis fire. In ponderosa pine stands and ponderosa pine dominated mixed conifer stands lodgepole pine would be completely removed. The resulting stands may reduce the canopy cover below suitable habitat for Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks in the short term. However, after 30-50 years, per Draft Ringo Forested Vegetation Report, canopy cover would return. Moreover, the stand would be higher quality nesting habitat comprised of larger, heathier and more risk resistant trees. In lodgepole pine dominate stands the overstory would be almost entire removed due to treatment goals. Within these stands the treatment goals is to return the area to historic condition of wet/dry meadow or riparian habitat.

In the short term some habitat would be decreased, review MIS Table 10 and 11, due to removing quality canopy cover. In the long term, the understory would develop into larger trees with an increase in beetle and fire reliance. More canopy cover would be open for trees to grow larger trees and for trees to develop a larger limb structure for nests. In the long term the understory would be more open, closer to historic condition, more conducive to Cooper’s and sharp-shinned nesting and foraging habitat.

Meadow Enhancement (MDW) Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks do not prefer dense wet mixed conifer or dense small diameter lodgepole as nesting habitat. This habitat might be used as foraging though. There are approximately two acres of Cooper’s and approximately three acres sharp-shinned nesting habitat within overlapping MDW treatments. Overlapping habitat occurs in isolated patches and does not provide a connective corridor to other habitat areas. Treating this small area of habitat would not affect habitat availability within the analysis area. Proposed treatments of SDT within the riparian areas would open up the understory providing more hunting opportunities to Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks.

MIS-31

Underburning (UB) These treatments would reduce both fuels associated with thinning and overall fuel loadings to acceptable levels. Fuels treatments would reduce fire risk and competition to established trees, further increasing the stands resiliency to wildfire. Underburning would be utilized as a primary stand treatment as well as a secondary follow up treatment to thinning where it is needed. Underburning objectives would include burning in a mosaic pattern across the stands, leaving unburned areas. Fuels treatments would also reduce the understory complexity which may result in a change or reduction in potential prey species habitat. However, adjacent untreated areas would be able to provide the structural complexity for prey species that would provide potential foraging opportunities. Underburning would open up the understory providing more hunting opportunities to Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks. Additionally, underburning may result in increased snags, thus providing for potential hunting perches for Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks and other birds of prey.

In units that are wet or seasonally wet, burning would be conducted in the fall when vegetation is dry enough to carry fire. Spring burning would displace Neotropical migrant species or destroy nesting habitat (Gaines et al. 2010; Fiedler et al. 2010). This is especially so if the burning is conducted in May or June because this is when the most nesting activity occurs (Bagne and Purcell 2009). Fall burning would occur during the dry months starting in August, September, October, and November for proposed treatments in and on the edges of wet meadows and riparian areas when grounds are not as saturated, whereas spring or fall burning could occur for upland treatments where there is little ground moisture. Fall burning would displace species that are at the end of the breeding season or migrating. Within the treatment units there would still be pockets and patches of unburned and retained areas. These areas along with adjacent untreated stands would continue to provide habitat in the Ringo project area.

Multi-Aged Management (MLT; Alternative C only) Multi-Aged Management treatment would result in similar effects as HTH treatments within and outside of Copper’s and sharp-shinned hawk modeled nesting habitat. Action Alternative units proposed for MLT treatment would remove overlapping potential suitable nesting habitat in lodgepole pine and mixed conifer stands due to a reduction in canopy closure, stand structure, and more overall open conditions post implementation (refer to MIS Table 10 and 11 for acres). Conversely, MLT treatments outside of nesting habitat would create habitat by opening the understory and portions of the overstory, creating a stand structure more conducive to nesting habitat.

The openings MLT treatments would create in each unit would increase prey habitat by opening the understory and overstory increasing habitat diversity. With MLT, skips and tree clumps would retain a more dense structure, which may not provide suitable foraging habitat. If these areas overlap nesting habitat, the nesting habitat would be retained. Post MLT treatment, in the long term, after 20 or 30 years, understory and overstory density would begin to increase, turning units into more suitable Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawk habitat, a more open understory with increasing canopy cover. Multi-Aged Thinning would return mixed conifer stands to increased canopy cover quicker when compared to all other proposed treatments and Alternative A. In addition Alternative C proposed MLT treatments, in conjunction with HIM, HTH, SDT, and UB, would create or return stands quicker to nesting habitat.

Roads Refer to the Wildlife Introduction section and the Draft Ringo Transportation Report for road re- designation location maps, existing road condition photos, and more discussion on the road analysis for the Ringo project. No new system roads would be constructed to implement the Ringo project, only administratively re-designated to different maintenance levels (ML). ML 1 roads are intermittent service roads, but are closed to non-authorized vehicular traffic, whereas ML 2 roads are open for use by high clearance vehicles. These open road densities would still be constant with LRMP regulations and guidelines for road densities Forest and project wide. The re-designation of ML roads would not include

MIS-32

any ground disturbing activities outside of the already disturbed footprint of the existing road, e.g. the roads would not become wider. No snags are proposed to be removed with the administratively re- definition of the roads, except for safety reasons

Proposed re-designation of approximately 2.8 miles would partially overlap potential nesting habitat. The proposed re-designated ML 1 roads are currently being heavily used as access routes from private lands to Forest lands by the public. The proposed re-designated ML 2 roads are physically closed by tank traps and/or vegetation re-seeding, rendering these roads unusable by motorized vehicles. In total, there would be a net gain of 0.10 miles of open roads with re-designations. A portion of the net gained would overlap potential habitat, however this would be a minor. Moreover, the configuration of the re-designated closed to open roads and open to close would reroute vehicle traffic to already disturbed areas resulting in larger undisturbed blocks of habitat.

Overall Effects to Cooper’s and Sharp-shinned Hawks In the short-term, Alternative B affects the fewest number of acres of habitat for sharp-shinned hawk and the Cooper’s Hawks. Alternative C provides a complexity of treatment types to develop more fire resistant stands and roadsides, while retaining both nesting and foraging habitat. Over the long-term, these treatments will aid in retaining multi-storied mixed conifer stands with complex structure and residual second growth ponderosa pine stands that provide habitat for Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks. Potential nesting habitat for both species would most likely develop within proposed units within 20-40 years.

The Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks are smaller accipiters and therefore can utilize younger stands that offer seclusion and structure for nest support than the much larger goshawk which needs larger trees for nest support and overhead canopy. In the short-term, the designated cover clumps and untreated stands would provide dispersal, foraging, and potential nesting habitat in addition to the untreated nesting habitat. Approximately 75-76 percent of Copper’s hawk nesting habitat and 73-74 percent of sharp- shinned hawk nesting habitat would remain untreated. Patches of 15-20 percent retained habitat within these treatment units would maintain habitat connectivity. The clumping of trees, retention areas, and adjacent habitat outside of units would provide nesting habitat in both the short and long-term. The retention areas, skips, clumps, and those density treatments which would maintain habitat would maintain connectivity within stands, over the project area, and adjacent untreated habitat.

In the long term, after 20 or 30 years, understory and overstory density would begin to increase, turning units into more suitable hawk habitat, with a more open understory with a dense canopy cover. Multi- Aged Thinning would return mixed conifer stands increase canopy cover quicker when compared to all other proposed treatments and Alternative A. In addition Alternative C proposed MLT treatments, in conjunction with HIM, HTH, SDT, and UB, would create or grow nesting habitat in a shorter time frame.

Within the Eastside Screens boundaries, no nesting habitat would be removed (i.e. trees greater than 21 in. diameter). Thinning from below would increase foraging areas for these hawks by removing trees (under 21 in. diameter) and potentially increase the access to prey on 874 acres. Action Alternatives, would decrease the stress on the larger overstory trees the most, therefore helping retain potential nest sites in the long-term (greater than 20 years). Treatments to second growth stands would promote and accelerate the development of late and old structure.

For both Action Alternatives, the reduction of shrubs and small trees from fuel removal activities can impact prey species through simplification of habitat reducing foraging and/or nesting for small to medium sized birds. ). However only 5-6 percent of potential nesting habitat, as well as only 8-9 percent of the total project area would be affected.

MIS-33

Roads The configuration of the re-designated closed to open roads and open to closed would reroute vehicle traffic to already disturbed areas resulting in larger undisturbed blocks of Cooper’s and Sharp-shinned hawk habitat.

Cumulative Effects The Wildlife Intro. Table 6 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions in the EIS was reviewed for cumulative effects. The Region 6 Invasive Plant EIS (2005) and Invasive Plant Treatments for the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests and the Crooked River National Grassland – Final Supplemental EIS (2012), Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests and Crooked River National Grassland Travel Management Project EIS (2011), Seven Buttes EA (December 1996), Seven Buttes Return EA (July 2001), BLT EIS (2008), and Davis Fire Restoration Project (2003) are all part of existing condition and as such there would be no cumulative effects. The Small Diameter Tree Thinning (2013), Crescent Lake Wildland Urban Interface Fuels Reduction (2004), and Actions from the Marsh EA (2016) do not overlap the Ringo project area and as such would have no cumulative effects.

The Five Buttes (2007) and Three Trails OHV (2010) projects do overlap the Ringo project area and have yet to be fully implemented. The Five Buttes project has completed all but one timber sale, Sky, which is not within the project area. Commercial harvesting within the Ringo project area has been completed and the vegetation modification is shown in the modeled nesting habitat. Ongoing Five Buttes fuels post sale treatments may disturbed Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks habitat. Burn Plan Resource Protection Measure are in place to protect potential habitat and nests. Resource Protection Measures would protect snags, down wood, and would not remove large trees. In addition, there would be ample habitat outside of units Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks could utilize for foraging while burning operations are occurring. The Three Tails OHV project would not remove potential habitat, would not remove snags, down wood, or large trees. Resource Protection Measures are in place to protect potential habitat, nests, snags, down wood, and would not remove large trees. These projects would add very limited noise or activity impacts to the Ringo project for Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks. As no habitat would be removed and Resource Protection Measures are in place to mitigate disturbance to these species, there would be little noise disturbing cumulative effects.

The 2012 Crescent Roadside Firewood Strategy project is an ongoing rotation of units to provide a continuous supply for firewood for the public outside of the NWFP. Project design criteria for that project include: firewood cutting units are limited to removal of dead and down wood only; off-road motorized travel is only within the 200 ft. personal use firewood cutting areas; all green trees and other vegetation is required to be protected; no standing dead or green trees are to be cut; and no firewood cutting areas or off-road travel would be permitted within Riparian Habitat Conservations Areas, Old Growth Management Areas, BEMAs, the little Deschutes River Wild and Scenic river corridor and/or other areas of cultural concern. Minimum down wood requirements would follow DLRMP standards and guidelines, and are the same as those proposed for the firewood cutting areas within those areas overlapping Ringo are opened on a rotating basis depending on availability of wood and/or conflict with other resource extraction such as timber sales.

The 2012 Crescent Roadside Firewood area overlaps 1,615 acres of the Ringo project area east of the NWFP boundary; overlapping 97 Ringo Action Alternative proposed units. Not all overlapping Ringo units allow firewood gathering due to Resource Protection Measures. However the Crescent Roadside project would remove firewood from 200 ft. of an open road, but not within the entire unit. Neither projects allow for the removal of green trees or snags within a firewood gathering unit and as such would not reduce green tree nor snag levels. As no green trees or snags would be removed, no nesting habitat

MIS-34

would be loss inside or outside of the Ringo units. Habitat within 712 acres (Alt. B) and 814 acres (Alt. C) of overlapping Ringo proposed units and Crescent Roadside Firewood areas would be already be impacted. Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks habitat overlaps all or portions of these units. However, the project does not remove green trees, Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawk habitat. There could be additional noise disturbance within potential nesting habitat outside of the Ringo project units from the Crescent Roadside Firewood project. Project resource protection measures/mitigation measures would be in place for species seasonal restriction if an active nest is within/adjacent to the project area and to maintain the Deschutes LRMP stands of dead wood levels. Refer to the wildlife resource protection measures/mitigation measures restrictions and the DecAid report for cumulative effects for dead wood.

As no green trees would be removed only affects would be from noise disturbance. There is ample adjacent habitat that can be utilized during firewood gathering operations. The firewood gathering would be in small areas for short duration at a time, rotating across the Crescent Roadside Firewood areas. The Crescent Roadside Firewood Strategy would only affect Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks with noise disturbance during the short duration of firewood gathering. As the Crescent Roadside Firewood Strategy overlaps potential nesting habitat within the Ringo project and could add to noise disturbance outside of Ringo proposed units, there would be little noise disturbance cumulative effects to the Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks.

Forest-wide Firewood CE would be implemented in the future, 2017. A letter requesting public input for the Deschutes National Forest’s personal use firewood proposal was sent to the public April 14, 2016. The purpose of the project is to improve the availability of fuelwood as a renewable energy resource for personal use. It would be implemented in in 2017. The project area encompasses the entire NFWP portion of the Deschutes National Forest. Although the Firewood CE would overlap the project area, no green trees would be removed. Standing and down dead trees of all species could be cut and removed within 150 ft of open roads. Standing dead would be limited to less than 20 in. dbh. Areas of exclusion from the personal firewood collection program would include, but not limited to: Late Successional Reserves, Riparian Reserves, Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, any management allocations of the Deschutes Forest Plan that prohibits firewood collection, active timber sales, research plots, Federal Highway Safety Act roads, and other sensitive locations to protect resources such as wildlife and cultural resources.

The firewood proposal area overlaps 1,805 acres of the Ringo project area that is within the boundary of the NWFP, overlapping portions of 154 Ringo Action Alternative proposed units. Approximately 1,175 (Alt C) to 1,187 acres (AltB) are outside of units and 618 (Alt B) to 630 (Alt C) acres inside units would be affected by the Forest wide Firewood proposal. Not all overlapping Ringo units allow firewood gathering due to Resource Protection Measures and Ringo project does not allow for the removal of snags within overlapping proposed units. However, the Forest wide project would remove standing dead as well as down within 150 ft of the open road of these units as well, but not within the entire unit. Though the Forest-wide Firewood CE project overlaps within the species habitat, no habitat would be removed. The project would remove dead standing, less than 20 in. dbh, and down trees, no green trees would be removed per Resource Protection Measures. Since no green trees would be removed, potential habitat, only noise disturbance would impact the Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks. Seasonal restriction and Resource Protection Measures would be in place to protect known nests. As no habitat would be removed with implementation of the Forest-wide Firewood CE, there would be only disturbance effects within nesting and foraging habitat. Therefore there would be little cumulative effects from noise disturbance for the Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks.

For the Ringo project there are no overlapping projects which would remove Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks nesting habitat. Five Buttes fuels treatments, Three Trails OHV, 2012 Crescent Roadside Strategy, and future Forest-wide Firewood CE activities could cause noise disturbance to Cooper’s and sharp-

MIS-35

shinned hawks. However, there are Resource Protection Measures, seasonal restrictions, and project mitigations to minimize disturbance to known territories. Therefore, there would be little additive cumulative effects for the Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks.

Conclusions Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks are both ranked S4, “Apparently Secure” in the state of Oregon (NatureServe 2016).

The No Action Alternative could affect Coopers’ and sharp-shinned hawks and their potential nesting habitat due to the ongoing loss of multi-storied dense stands, and the unsustainable conversion of stands. With continued density growth and encroachment stands would be at an increased risk of stand replacing events. The No Action Alternative could affect Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks and their habitat due to the ongoing loss of multi-storied dense stands, and the unsustainable conversion of stands.

Ponderosa pine and mixed conifer multi-storied stands are above HRV. This has provided more habitat for both species than what historically existed. However, these stands are not of high quality and are more susceptible to beetle infestation and stand replacing fire events. Proposed Action Alternative treatments are mostly smaller diameter thinning with the goal of reducing risk to large-scale disturbance processes. Since these species nesting habitat is associated with dense stand conditions, these actions have been assumed to convert nesting to foraging habitat. However, interspersed within activity units, Resource Protection Measures require 15-20 percent of the area in a condition where no active management occurs to provide stand diversity for species such as the sharp-shinned and Cooper’s hawks.

On the Deschutes National Forest a series of stand replacement fires have occurred over the last two decades including the Two Bulls, B and B, Davis, Booth, Pole Creek, Eyerly, Shadow Lake, Rooster Rock, and Black Crater. The distribution of nesting Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks on the forest has been diminished as a result of these events. Over the next 1-2 decades, thousands of acres of forest within the older fire areas will reach the age and structural requirements that sharp-shinned and Cooper’s hawks tend to select as nesting habitat. This will help offset the loss from more recent wildfires which will be 3- 5 decades until they provide suitable nesting habitat once again.

Overall the Ringo project reduces nesting habitat by 5-6 percent within the Ringo project. This is less than half of a percent on the forest. Implementation or the Ringo project would contribute to a negligible negative trend to the viability of these species on the Deschutes National Forest.

Consistency Nesting habitat for both the Cooper’s hawk and the sharp-shinned hawk have been identified through forest-wide modeling (WL-16, 17, 25, 26) Although 24-25 percent of Cooper’s hawk potential nesting habitat would be treated in the Ringo project area, only 8-9 percent of Copper’s hawk potential nesting habitat would be removed. Similarly, 26-27 percent of sharp-shinned hawk potential nesting habitat would be treated, 6-9 percent of sharp-shinned hawk potential nesting habitat would be removed within the Ringo project.

Over 70 percent of Cooper’s and sharp-shinned hawks potential nesting habitat would remain untreated, and existing nest stands would be protected with appropriate restrictions (WL 19, 20, 28). In addition, 15-20 percent of each unit would be retained providing a diversity of habitat for prey species. In addition if these retained areas overlap nesting habitat, the habitat would remain. Implementation of Action Alternatives would be consistent with the Standards and Guidelines for the Deschutes National Forest Land Resource Management Plan.

MIS-36

Red-tailed Hawk Ecology The red-tailed hawk is an abundant species occupying a variety of open to semi-open habitat types and can tolerate elevations ranging from alpine to sea level. Preferred habitats are open to semi-open coniferous, deciduous and mixed forests, forest edges, grasslands, parklands, rangelands, river bottomlands, and agricultural fields with scattered trees (Gilligan et al. 1993; Johnsgard 1990; Timossi and Barrett 1995; DeGraaf and Rappole 1995; Marshall et al. 2003; NatureServe 2011). Forest clearings, alpine meadows, estuaries, marshes, agricultural lands, clear cuts, sagebrush plains, and high elevation environments are also used, though less commonly (Gilligan et al. 1993; Timossi and Barrett 1995; Marshall et al. 2003; NatureServe 2011; USFS 2012).

Limiting factors in preferred habitat selection are availability of suitable perches and hunting grounds open enough to locate and catch ground prey (NatureServe 2011; Fitch et al. 1946; Janes 1984; Janes 1994). Perches can be any object that provides an unobstructed view of a red-tailed hawk territory. These objects are usually high and can be natural (e.g. tree, snag, cliff, rock) or man-made (e.g. utility pole, tower, fence; Janes 1984; Janes 1994; Fitch et al. 1946; NatureServe 2011). In the Fitch et al. (1946) study, perches were an essential aspect in red-tailed hawk territories. The perches were used for foraging, roosting, resting, mating, and defending a territory. The Janes (1984) study found pairs that establish territories with more perches tend to rear more young (USFS 2012). Red tailed hawks are opportunistic hunters. Rodents, lagomorphs, birds and reptiles are common in their diet.

Nesting occurs in large mature trees, usually at a forest edge or near an opening in the canopy (Fitch et al. 1946; Moorman et al. 1996; Timossi and Barrett 1995; DeGraaf and Rappole 1995). Nests are usually placed higher in trees verses other raptors, and are generally in the largest, tallest tree available or smaller deformed trees where branch structure supports this higher placement (DeGraaf et al. 1991; Timossi and Barrett 1995; DeGraaf and Rappole 1995; La Sorte et al. 2004). Red-tailed hawks seem to prefer nest trees with open crowns. The placement of a nest is usually next to the trunk of a tree in a crotch or fork from 30 to 90 feet (9-27 m) above the ground (DeGraaf et al. 1991; Verner and Boss 1980; Timossi and Barrett 1995). Nests are often reused from year to year provided the nest is not occupied by earlier nesting raptors and is in suitable condition (Fitch et al. 1946; DeGraaf and Rappole 1995; Tesky 1994). In treeless areas, nests are built on artificial nest structures, the crossbars of utility poles, and towers (Timossi and Barrett 1995; DeGraaf and Rappole 1995; Marshall et al. 2003; NatureServe 2011). Occasionally, red-tailed hawks use and add material to an existing raven, crow, gray squirrel, or large accipiter nest. La Sorte et al. (2004) found steep slopes are an important factor for a nest site. The steep slope allows for easy entry to the nest from above the canopy layer, allowing for unobstructed views of surrounding area and protection from the slope. Red-tailed hawks use the same nest for multiple years, particularly if the nest is in suitable location and suitable condition (Fitch et al. 1946; Young 1989 in Tesky 1994; USFS 2012).

The red-tailed hawk is not on any federal, state, or other conservation list. Globally, the population is increasing and has no significant threats (NatureServe 2016). Nationally, the population is increasing or stable in most areas (NatureServe 2016). In Oregon, the red-tailed hawks are secure; the population is not decreasing (NatureServe 2016; USFS 2012).

For the detailed assessment on the red-tailed hawk for the Deschutes National Forest, see the Forest-wide Species Assessment (USFS 2012).

MIS-37

Existing Condition Red-tailed hawks territories on the Crescent RD have been wide spread, located within all PAGs. However, mid to large trees, percent canopy cover, and seral stage are seen to be limiting factors within potential habitat for the Deschutes NF. Past forest harvest activities have produced favorable habitat conditions for red-tailed hawks through improvement cuts or clear-cutting stands adjacent to mature and late-seral stands. This provided open areas for foraging adjacent to potential roosting and nesting habitat. Due to the age of the clear cuts, many have grown in with trees and shrubs diminishing foraging availability of the red-tailed hawk. Additionally, because of the lodgepole pine dominance, the mixed conifer PAG has experienced moderate to heavy mortality with the insect and disease outbreak over the last 10 to 15 years over the Deschutes Forest. The majority of the outbreak occurred in the pure lodgepole pine PAG in the high elevations, but the intensity of the outbreak was such that it spread into the mixed conifer stands at lower elevations. Although the majority of the outbreak has subsided, beetle activity continues to occur in small pockets of dense trees.

No surveys have been completed for red-tailed hawks. A review of the NRIS wildlife database confirmed 4 historic nest sites located within the project area and 14 incidental observations. Through the Forest- wide assessment completed for MIS, red-tailed hawk modeled potential reproductive habitat was mapped across the entire Deschutes National Forest. Approximately 10,389 acres of habitat exists within the project area and approximately 192,492 acres of habitat occurs across the Deschutes National Forest. MIS Table 12 shows the modeled nesting habitat acres and percent for the Deschutes NF and the Ringo project area on National Forest Lands only. The red-tailed hawk potential nesting habitat within the Ringo project area encompasses approximately five percent of the total red-tailed hawk nesting habitat for the Deschutes NF.

MIS Table 12. Modeled Red-tailed Hawk Nesting Habitat Acres and Percent in the Ringo Project Area and Forest Wide (National Forest System Lands Only).

Area Red-tailed Nesting Habitat Acres Percent in Deschutes NF

Deschutes NF 192,492 100% Ringo PA 10,389 5%

MIS Figure 5 illustrates potential red-tailed hawk nesting habitat scattered throughout the project area. Concentrated areas of potential habitat occur in the northwest section of the project area and around Odell and Hamner Buttes.

MIS-38

MIS Figure 5. Modeled Potential Red-tailed Hawk Nesting Habitat in the Ringo Project Area (National Forest Lands Only).

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A Measure: Acres of proposed treatment within potential nesting habitat Proposed Treatments: No Treatment

Alternative A would result in no immediate change in the 10,389 acres of habitat for red-tailed hawks in the analysis area (MIS Figure 5). Potential nesting habitat in the planning area would remain in open to mid canopy cover with mid to large trees. However, this alternative would be at greatest risk to a disturbance event which could remove the largest trees and suitable nesting habitat.

MIS-39

The No Action Alternative could affect red-tailed hawks and their habitat due to the ongoing loss of large trees and open to semi-open habitat due to encroachment, dense stands, insects, and disease. Over time, without treatment, the amount of quality habitat would be reduced. The dense canopy cover and added competition, due to encroachment, would not allow for sunlight to reach the floor and the needed nutrients for stand and vegetation vigor and growth. Moreover, dense stands limit flight ability for red- tailed hawks, which is an important feature of nesting habitat. New tree structure that could support larger nests would take more time to develop due to over-crowded stands. With no treatment, exiting conditions would continue to be divergent from historic conditions, reducing available nesting habitat, foraging habitat and prey species habitat, while increasing the risk of a disturbance event, i.e. wildlife, insect, and/or disease.

Direct and Indirect Effects to Alternatives B and C Measure: Acres of proposed treatment within potential nesting habitat Proposed Treatments: HTH, HIM, MLT (Alternative C only), MDW, SDT, UB and Pile and Burn; Maintenance Level (ML) Road Changes - ML 1to ML 2 and ML2 to ML1.

MIS Table 13 illustrates existing Viable modeled nesting habitat for red-tailed hawk by alternative at the project level and on the Deschutes NF level. The Ringo project area includes three percent of the total amount of nesting habitat for the Deschutes NF. Proposed treatments would occur on 1 percent of the Deschutes NF. Alternative C would treat the most of nesting habitat, 1,852 acres (18 percent of nesting habitat), where Alternative B would treat 1,711 acres (16 percent of nesting habitat).

MIS Table 13. Modeling of Red-tailed Hawk Nesting Habitat Acres within Ringo PA and Deschutes NF by Alternative (National Forest System Lands Only). Red-tailed Hawk Ringo Project Acres and Percent Percent in Deschutes NF Nesting Habitat 10,389 Alternative A Existing Acres 5% 100% 1,711 Alternative B Treated Acres 1% 16% 1,852 Alternative C Treated Acres 1% 18%

MIS Figure 6 depicts existing modeled nesting habitat for red-tailed hawk at the project level by Action Alternative. In MIS Figure 6, potential nesting habitat is symbolized by gray, Alternative B is symbolized by black diagonal lines marks, and Alternative C is symbolized by blue.

MIS-40

MIS Figure 6. Modeled Potential Reds-tailed Hawk Nesting Habitat and Alternative B and C in the Ringo Project Area (National Forest Lands Only).

Some proposed treatments would remove nesting habitat. However, nesting habitat would be retained in treatments which do not remove all overstory and in overlapping leave areas. Not all proposed treatments would remove nesting habitat. Commercial Thinning (HTH) with a basal area (BA) of at least 50, SDT and UB treatments would not remove canopy cover, thus retaining potential nesting habitat (MIS Table 14). For MLT (Alternative C only) proposed openings, less than two acres in size, would remove overstory and thus potential nesting habitat. Proposed treatments Improvement Cuts (HIM), HTH, and MLT (Alternative C only) treatments allow stands to cycle quicker and return to denser habitat with a larger tree component faster. Though these treatments would grow larger trees, in the long term the stand density would return to a more unsuitable dense stands, e.g. spotted owl habitat. MIS Table 14 compares proposed treatments and treatment acres within potential nesting habitat for the Action Alternatives. No MDW treatments are proposed within potential red-tailed nesting habitat.

MIS-41

MIS Table 14. Alternative B and C Proposed Treatments in Modeled Potential Red-tailed Hawk Nesting Habitat. Red-tailed Hawk Potential Nesting Habitat Alternative B and C Habitat Alternative B Habitat Alternative C Habitat Habitat Remainin Removed Habitat Remaining Removed Fuels Treatment1 Prescription2 Acres g Habitat Habitat Acres Habitat Habitat Treatments3 Treated Acres Acres Treated Acres Acres PB 42 0 42 42 0 42 HIM - PB, UB 144 0 144 - - 0 HIM Total 186 0 186 42 0 42 40 BA PB, UB 45 0 45 45 0 45 PB, UB 31 31 0 31 31 0 50 BA UB ------HTH PB 20 20 0 55 55 0 60 BA PB, UB 514 514 0 428 428 0 PB 72 72 0 45 45 0 80 BA PB, UB 372 372 0 216 216 0 HTH Total 1054 1008 45 820 775 45 PB - - - 17 0 17 MLT - PB, UB - - - 341 0 341 MLT Total - - - 358 0 358 PB 117 117 0 124 124 0 109 tpa PB, UB 22 22 0 31 31 0 SDT PB 188 188 0 199 199 0 134 tpa PB, UB 56 56 0 56 56 0 222 tpa PB 28 28 0 26 26 0 SDT Total 410 410 0 434 434 0 UB - UB 60 60 0 198 198 0 UB Total 60 60 0 198 198 0 Grand 1711 1479 232 1852 1406 445 Total 1 HIM = Improvement Cutting; HTH = Commercial Thinning; MLT = Multi-Aged Management; MDW = Meadow Enhancement; SDT = Small Diameter Thin (8 in. dbh and below); UB = Underburn. 2 BA = Basal Area; TPA = Trees Per Acre

3 PB = Pile Burn; UB = Underburn.

As red-tailed hawks use open stands, in the short and long term, more red-tailed habitat would be created or enhanced when compared to Alternative A. The proposed treatments would open dense stands in the understory and overstory enhancing and making more potential suitable nesting habitat.

Alternative B proposes a total of 1,711 acres of treatment, of this only 232 acres of nesting habitat would be removed, four percent of nesting within the project area. Proposed treatments of HIM would remove the most potential habitat across 186 acres in this alternative. Refer to MIS Table 14 for acres treated for each proposed treatment.

MIS-42

For the red-tailed hawk Alternative C proposes to treat the most nesting habitat on 1,852 acres, of this 445 acres would be removed, two percent of nesting within the project area. Proposed treatments of MLT would remove the most potential habitat across 358 acres. There would be retained habitat in overlapping retention areas and outside of the proposed created opening. Refer to MIS Table 14 for acres treated for each proposed treatment.

Thinning (HTH and SDT) In the short and long term proposed HTH treatments would decrease overstory canopy and understory closure, resulting in enhancing and/or creating suitable nesting habitat (MIS Table 14). Small diameter thinning (SDT) would prolong open stand densities. Underburning would occur in stands with a more fire resistant overstory (refer to Draft Ringo Forested Vegetation Report). Burning within the understory would prolong an open understory needed for red-tailed hawk foraging and nesting habitat. Underburning also has the opportunities to create snags, which are used by red-tailed hawks as hunting perches.

Patches of 15-20 percent retained habitat within treatment units would maintain habitat connectivity. The retention areas and those density treatments which would maintain habitat (HTH 50 BA and above) would maintain connectivity within stands, over the project area, and adjacent untreated habitat. However, these areas would soon become dense reducing the suitability of the existing habitat. In addition, in the long term, approximately over 50 years, stand densities would begin to return, thus reducing open stand conditions and suitable habitat.

Improvement Cut (HIM) The majority of stands proposed for HIM treatment have previously suffered high mortality from bark beetle attack. The current condition of these stands have decreased the quality of potential nesting habitat for red-tailed hawks. The overstory in some stands have become more open, while the understory have become overstocked. Treatments within HIM stands would return stands closer to HRV. The increased density in historically open stands provide red-tailed hawk potential nesting habitat currently, however the quality of overstory habitat has decreased, providing less nesting opportunities. With the increasing density trend the understory and high mortality in the canopy cover, nesting habitat would become less suitable for rearing young and hunting.

Removing some overstory trees within the HIM units would accelerate growth in the understory to achieve dispersal habitat faster (refer to Draft Ringo Forested Vegetation Report). In mixed conifer areas (224 acres), HIM treatment would primarily involve removing white fir and other damaged and diseased trees along the edges of the Davis fire. In ponderosa pine stands and ponderosa pine dominated mixed conifer stands lodgepole pine would be completely removed. The resulting stands may reduce the canopy cover below suitable habitat for red-tailed hawks in the short term. However, suitable canopy cover would return before 30 years. Moreover, the stand would be higher quality nesting habitat comprised of larger, heathier and more risk resistant trees. In lodgepole pine dominate stands the overstory would be almost entire removed due to treatment goals. Within these stands the treatment goals is to return the area to historic condition of wet/dry meadow or riparian habitat. Within these units, red-tailed hawk potential nesting habitat would be removed, but foraging opportunities would increase.

In the short term some habitat would be decreased, review MIS Table 14, due to removing lesser quality canopy cover. In the long term, the understory would develop into larger trees with an increase in beetle and fire reliance. More canopy cover would be open for trees to grow larger trees and for trees to develop a larger limb structure for nests. In the long term the understory would be more open, closer to historic condition, more conducive to red-tailed hawk nesting and foraging habitat.

MIS-43

Underburning (UB) These treatments would reduce both fuels associated with thinning and overall fuel loadings to acceptable levels. Fuels treatments would reduce fire risk and competition to established trees, further increasing the stands resiliency to wildfire. Underburning would be utilized as a primary stand treatment as well as a secondary follow up treatment to thinning where it is needed. Underburning objectives would include burning in a mosaic pattern across the stands, leaving unburned areas. Fuels treatments would also reduce the understory complexity which may result in a change or reduction in potential prey species habitat. However, adjacent untreated areas would be able to provide the structural complexity for prey species that would provide potential foraging opportunities. Underburning would prolong open understory conditions enhancing foraging and nesting habitat. Additionally, underburning may result in increased snags, thus providing for potential hunting perches for red-tailed hawks and other birds of prey.

Multi-Aged Management (MLT; Alternative C only) Multi-Aged Management treatment would result in similar effects as HTH treatments within and outside of red-tailed hawks modeled nesting habitat. Action Alternative units proposed for MLT treatment would enhance overlapping potential suitable nesting habitat in lodgepole pine and mixed conifer stands due to a reduction in canopy closure, stand structure, and more overall open conditions post implementation (refer to MIS Table 14 acres). Proposed treatments outside of nesting habitat would create habitat by opening the understory and portions of the overstory, creating a stand structure more conducive to nesting habitat. However, the proposed openings, less than two acres in size, would completely remove overlapping red- tailed hawk nesting habitat.

The openings MLT treatments would create in each unit would increase prey habitat by opening the understory and overstory allowing more brush to grow. With MLT, skips and tree clumps would retain a more dense structure, which may or may not provide suitable habitat. If these areas overlap nesting habitat, the nesting habitat would be retained in the short term. In the long term, after 20 or 30 years understory and overstory density would begin to increase, reducing the open stand suitable red-tailed hawk nesting and foraging habitat. Multi-Aged Thinning would return mixed conifer stands to a more dense canopy quicker when compared to all other proposed treatments and Alternative A.

Roads Refer to the Wildlife Introduction section and the Draft Ringo Transportation Report for road re- designation location maps, existing road condition photos, and more discussion on the road analysis for the Ringo project. No new system roads would be constructed to implement the Ringo project, only administratively re-designated to different maintenance levels (ML). ML 1 roads are intermittent service roads, but are closed to non-authorized vehicular traffic, whereas ML 2 roads are open for use by high clearance vehicles. These open road densities would still be constant with LRMP regulations and guidelines for road densities Forest and project wide. The re-designation of ML roads would not include any ground disturbing activities outside of the already disturbed footprint of the existing road, e.g. the roads would not become wider. No snags are proposed to be removed with the administratively re- definition of the roads, except for safety reasons

Proposed re-designation of approximately 2.8 miles would partially overlap potential nesting habitat. The proposed re-designated ML 1 roads are currently being heavily used as access routes from private lands to Forest lands by the public. The proposed re-designated ML 2 roads are physically closed by tank traps and/or vegetation re-seeding, rendering these roads unusable by motorized vehicles. In total, there would be a net gain of 0.10 miles of open roads with re-designations. A portion of the net gained would overlap potential habitat, however this would be a small effect. Moreover, the configuration of the re-designated closed to open roads and open to closed would reroute vehicle traffic to already disturbed areas resulting in larger undisturbed blocks of habitat.

MIS-44

Overall Effects to Red-tailed Hawk The red-tailed hawks are habitat generalists and therefore can utilize a variety of stands types. The will utilize younger and older stands that offer seclusion and structure for nest support. Potential nesting habitat would most likely develop within proposed units post implementation within 30 years. In the short-term, the designated cover clumps and untreated stands would provide dispersal, foraging, and potential nesting habitat in addition to the 82-84 percent of nesting habitat not treated. Although treatments impact16-18 percent of nesting habitat, only 2-4 percent of the total potential nesting habitat within the project area would be removed.

In the short-term, Alternative B affects the fewest number of acres of habitat for red-tailed hawks. Alternative C provides a complexity of treatment types to develop more fire resistant stands and roadsides, while retaining both nesting and foraging habitat. Over the long-term, these treatments will aid in retaining multi-storied mixed conifer stands with complex structure and residual second growth ponderosa pine stands that provide habitat for red-tailed hawks to stand replacing fire or insects and disease.

The openings MLT treatments would create in each unit would increase prey habitat by opening the understory and overstory allowing more brush to grow and increasing in stand diversity. With MLT, skips and tree clumps would retain a more dense structure, which may or may not provide suitable habitat. If these areas overlap nesting habitat, the nesting habitat would be retained in the short term. In the long term, after 20 or 30 years understory and overstory density would begin to increase, reducing the open stand suitable red-tailed hawk nesting and foraging habitat. Multi-Aged Thinning would return mixed conifer stands to a more dense canopy quicker when compared to all other proposed treatments and Alternative A.

For both Action Alternatives, the reduction of shrubs from fuel removal activities can impact prey species of ground dwelling small mammals (ground squirrels, cottontails, voles, and pocket gophers). These ground species depend on shrubs for cover for hiding from predators and the forbs for food. This activity would reduce the amount of available habitat for red-tailed hawk prey species, potentially reducing areas utilized by them for foraging as well as minimizing the availability of prey within nesting areas (see Resource Protection Measures).

Patches of 15-20 percent retained habitat and prey habitat within these treatment units would maintain habitat connectivity adjacent to created opening. The clumping of trees, retention areas, and adjacent habitat outside of units would provide nesting habitat in both the short term. The retention areas, skips, clumps, and those density treatments which would maintain habitat would maintain connectivity within stands, over the project area, and adjacent untreated habitat.

Roads Moreover, the configuration of the re-designated closed to open roads and open to closed would reroute vehicle traffic to already disturbed areas resulting in larger undisturbed blocks of habitat.

Cumulative Effects The Wildlife Intro. Table 6 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions in the EIS was reviewed for cumulative effects. The Region 6 Invasive Plant EIS (2005) and Invasive Plant Treatments for the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests and the Crooked River National Grassland – Final Supplemental EIS (2012), Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests and Crooked River National Grassland Travel Management Project EIS (2011), Seven Buttes EA (December 1996), Seven Buttes Return EA (July 2001), BLT EIS (2008), and Davis Fire Restoration Project (2003) are all part of existing condition and as such there would be no cumulative effects. The Small Diameter Tree Thinning (2013), Crescent

MIS-45

Lake Wildland Urban Interface Fuels Reduction (2004), and Actions from the Marsh EA (2016) do not overlap the Ringo project area and as such would have no cumulative effects.

The Five Buttes (2007) and Three Trails OHV (2010) projects do overlap the Ringo project area and have yet to be fully implemented. The Five Buttes project has completed all but one timber sale, Sky, which is not within the project area. Commercial harvesting within the Ringo project area has been completed and the vegetation modification is shown in the modeled nesting habitat. Ongoing Five Buttes fuels post sale treatments may disturbed red-tailed hawk habitat. Burn Plan Resource Protection Measure are in place to protect potential habitat and nests. Resource Protection Measures would protect snags, down wood, and would not remove large trees. In addition, there would be ample habitat outside of units red-tailed hawk could utilize while burning operations are occurring. The Three Tails OHV project would not remove potential habitat, would not remove snags, down wood, or large trees. Resource Protection Measures are in place to protect potential habitat, nests, snags, down wood, and would not remove large trees. These projects would add very limited noise or activity impacts to the Ringo project for red-tailed hawk. As no habitat would be removed and Resource Protection Measures are in place to mitigate disturbance to these species, there would be little noise disturbing cumulative effects.

The 2012 Crescent Roadside Firewood Strategy project is an ongoing rotation of units to provide a continuous supply for firewood for the public outside of the NWFP. Project design criteria for that project include: firewood cutting units are limited to removal of dead and down wood only; off-road motorized travel is only within the 200 foot personal use firewood cutting areas; all green trees and other vegetation is required to be protected; no standing dead or green trees are to be cut; and no firewood cutting areas or off-road travel would be permitted within Riparian Habitat Conservations Areas, Old Growth Management Areas, BEMAs, the little Deschutes River Wild and Scenic river corridor and/or other areas of cultural concern. Minimum down wood requirements would follow DLRMP standards and guidelines, and are the same as those proposed for the firewood cutting areas within those areas overlapping Ringo are opened on a rotating basis depending on availability of wood and/or conflict with other resource extraction such as timber sales.

The 2012 Crescent Roadside Firewood area overlaps 1,615 acres of the Ringo project area east of the NWFP boundary; overlapping 97 Ringo Action Alternative proposed units. Not all overlapping Ringo units allow firewood gathering due to Resource Protection Measures. However the Crescent Roadside project would remove firewood from 200 ft. of an open road, but not within the entire unit. Neither projects allow for the removal of green trees or snags within a firewood gathering unit and as such would not reduce green tree nor snag levels. As no green trees or snags would be removed, no nesting habitat would be loss inside or outside of the Ringo units. Habitat within 712 acres (Alt. B) and 814 acres (Alt. C) of overlapping Ringo proposed units and Crescent Roadside Firewood areas would be already be impacted. Crescent Roadside Firewood would not add to these affects.

Red-tailed hawk habitat overlaps all or portions of these units. However, the project does not remove green trees, red-tailed hawk habitat. There could be additional noise disturbance within potential nesting habitat outside of the Ringo project units from the Crescent Roadside Firewood project. Project resource protection measures/mitigation measures would be in place for species seasonal restriction if an active nest is within/adjacent to the project area and to maintain the Deschutes LRMP stands of dead wood levels for prey speceis. Refer to the wildlife resource protection measures/mitigation measures restrictions and the DecAid report for cumulative effects for dead wood. As no green trees would be removed only affects would be from noise disturbance. There is ample adjacent habitat that can be utilized during firewood gathering operations. The firewood gathering would be in small areas for short duration at a time, rotating across the Crescent Roadside Firewood areas. The Crescent Roadside Firewood Strategy would only affect northern red-tailed hawk with noise disturbance during the short duration of firewood gathering. As the Crescent Roadside Firewood Strategy overlaps potential nesting

MIS-46

habitat within the Ringo project and could add to noise disturbance outside of Ringo proposed units, there would be little noise disturbance cumulative effects to the northern red-tailed hawk.

Forestwide Firewood CE would be implemented in the future, 2017. A letter requesting public input for the Deschutes National Forest’s personal use firewood proposal was sent to the public April 14, 2016. The purpose of the project is to improve the availability of fuelwood as a renewable energy resource for personal use. It would be implemented in in 2017. The project area encompasses the entire NWFP portion of the Deschutes National Forest. Although the Firewood CE would overlap the project area, no green trees would be removed. Standing and down dead trees of all species could be cut and removed within 150 ft of open roads. Standing dead would be limited to less than 20 in. dbh. Areas of exclusion from the personal firewood collection program would include, but not limited to: Late Successional Reserves, Riparian Reserves, Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, any management allocations of the Deschutes Forest Plan that prohibits firewood collection, active timber sales, research plots, Federal Highway Safety Act roads, and other sensitive locations to protect resources such as wildlife and cultural resources.

The firewood proposal area overlaps 1,805 acres of the Ringo project area that is within the boundary of the NWFP, overlapping portions of 154 Ringo Action Alternative proposed units. Approximately 1,175 (Alt C) to 1,187 acres (AltB) are outside of units and 618 (Alt B) to 630 (Alt C) acres inside units would be affected by the Forest wide Firewood proposal. Not all overlapping Ringo units allow firewood gathering due to Resource Protection Measures and Ringo project does not allow for the removal of snags within overlapping proposed units. However, the Forest wide project would remove standing dead as well as down within 150 ft of the open road of these units as well, but not within the entire unit. Though the Forestwide Firewood CE project overlaps within the species habitat, no habitat would be removed. The project would remove dead standing, less than 20 in. dbh, and down trees, no green trees would be removed per Resource Protection Measures. Since no green trees would be removed, potential habitat, only noise disturbance would impact the red-tailed hawk. Seasonal restriction and Resource Protection Measures would be in place to protect known nests. As no habitat would be removed with implementation of the Forestwide Firewood CE, there would be only disturbance effects within nesting and foraging habitat. Therefore there would be little cumulative effects from noise disturbance for the red- tailed hawk.

For the Ringo project there are no overlapping projects which would remove red-tailed hawk nesting habitat. Five Buttes fuels treatments, Three Trails OHV, 2012 Crescent Roadside Strategy, and future Forestwide Firewood CE activities could cause noise disturbance to red-tailed hawk. However, there are Resource Protection Measures, seasonal restrictions, and project mitigations to minimize disturbance to known territories and habitat. Therefore, there would be little additive cumulative effects for the red- tailed hawk.

Conclusions In the state of Oregon, the red-tailed hawk is listed as S5 ‘Secure’ through the Oregon Natural Heritage program (NatureServe 2016). In Oregon, the red-tailed hawks are secure; the population is not decreasing (NatureServe 2016).

The No Action Alternative could affect red-tailed hawks and their habitat due to the ongoing loss of large trees and open to semi-open habitat due to encroachment, dense stands, insects, and disease.

The Action Alternatives incidentally remove large trees within HIM and MLT treatments and remove minimal numbers of large trees in HTH treatments. Trees targeted for removal contain disease that could jeopardize other large trees. Impacts to red-tailed hawk nesting habitat would be minimal, but treatments

MIS-47

would promote the development of LOS stands promoting large tree production and habitat in the long- term. Proposed SDT and underburning and meadow treatments would open stands, increasing red-tailed hawk foraging habitat and enhancing nesting habitat.

Although treatments would occur in suitable habitat there would be little removal of primary reproductive habitat elements and would not preclude use by the red-tailed hawk. These areas would still provide foraging and nesting opportunities, as well as maintaining Forest habitat connectivity. As August 2016 there are no known active red-tailed hawk nests within the project area. No impacts would occur to known occupied territories as a result of any action alternative. Mitigation Measures provide for implementation of seasonal restrictions from 3/1 to 8/31 on any active nest site found, and establishes a 300 ft. protected area around the nest site.

One percent of red-tailed hawk habitat on the Deschutes NF would be treated through project implementation (MIS Table 12). Of this, less than one percent of habitat on the Deschutes NF would be removed. The loss of habitat would be negligible at the scale of the Forest. The overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects would contribute in a small negative trend of habitat to the viability of red-tailed hawks on the Deschutes National Forest.

Consistency The project resource protection measures provide for protection of active nest sites. By reducing stand densities treatments promote open habitat, retaining at least an average of four dominate trees per acre for potential nesting habitat. Implementation of the Ringo project is consistent with the Standards and Guidelines for the Deschutes National Forest Land Resource Management Plan.

Nesting habitat for the red-tailed hawk have been identified through forest-wide modeling (WL-16, 17, 25, 26) Although one percent of red-tailed hawk potential nesting habitat is treated, approximately 99 percent of nesting habitat would be retained, and existing nest stands are protected with appropriate restrictions (WL 2, 3). No new roads are being constructed and no roads re-designated to ML 2 (closed to open road) are located within nest stands (WL-18, 27). Implementation of either Action Alternative (B or C) would be consistent with the Standards and Guidelines for the Deschutes National Forest Land Resource Management Plan (1990).

Great Gray Owl Ecology The great gray owl is an indicator species for other edge species that prefer habitat in mature to old growth coniferous and mixed conifer/lodgepole pine forests adjacent to openings in forests, usually meadows.

This species is associated with mature stands of mixed conifer/lodgepole pine/mountain hemlock near meadow complexes. Great gray owls do not build their own nests, but rely mainly on other raptor or raven nests, mistletoe platforms, broken topped snags, or artificial nest platforms. Bull and Henjum (1990) study in northeast Oregon found that great gray owls tended to nest in unlogged, mature or older stands with a fairly open understory and dense overstory. However, the amount of canopy cover in a nest stand varies between studies from 11 percent to 75 percent (Bull and Henjum 1990, Fetz et al 2003, Bryan and Forsman 1987).

Bryan and Forsman (1987) study, which included portions of the Deschutes National Forest south of La Pine, Oregon, suggested that forest/meadow associations are a preferred habitat. In fact, their research located 63 sites with great gray owls, of which 60 sites were in forests less than 0.2 mi (0.3 km) from meadows and three were in forest areas 0.2 - 0.5 mi. (0.30-0.8 km) from the nearest meadow. Fifty-nine

MIS-48

sites were dominated by lodgepole pine or mixtures of lodgepole pine and ponderosa pine. Four sites were in mixed coniferous forests. Bryan and Forsman (1987) stated all sites where great gray owls were located were in old-growth (45 sites) or mature (15 sites) habitat characterized by large overstory trees. They defined old-growth lodgepole pine as any stand greater than 70 years of age and old-growth ponderosa pine or mixed coniferous forests as any stand over 200 years of age. Elevations at occupied sites ranged from 4,167 to 5,413 ft. (1,270 to 1,650 m), although great gray owls have been documented to occur at elevations up to 6,200 ft. (1,890 m) in eastern Oregon.

Great gray owls forage primarily in open habitats. Suitable foraging habitats include natural meadows, open forest stands, early successional forests, recent clearcuts, montane meadows, grassy habitats, bogs, fens, muskegs, and peatlands (Nero 1980; Winter 1986; Bryan and Forsman 1987; Atkinson 1989; Stepnisky 1997). Foraging habitat is typically defined as natural meadows greater than 10 acres in size, riparian areas, and clear-cut or selectively logged areas where they forage on voles, pocket gophers, shrews, chipmunks, squirrels, and snowshoe hares. In Oregon, great gray owls select montane meadows, as well as open stands of mature forest with grass as the dominant ground cover, as preferred hunting areas (Winter 1986; Bryan and Forsman 1987; Bull et al. 1988a, Fetz et al. 1999). Old growth and late successional forests, as well as selectively logged and clearcut forests, are used for foraging, but not as often as natural forest openings (Nero 1980; Mikkola 1983; Winter 1986; Bull et al. 1988b; Atkinson 1989; Goggans and Platt 1992). Additionally, down wood and snags seem to be important components of foraging habitat. In northeastern Oregon, downed wood was found within 3 ft. (1 m) of where prey was caught or attempted to be caught 80 percent of the time (Bull and Henjum 1990). Snags are used for nesting, as perches while foraging, and by juveniles for climbing (Schaeffer 1993). While hunting, great gray owls perch in both live trees and in snags adjacent to open areas. Home ranges for breeding adults in northeastern Oregon averaged 1,112 acres, ranging from 324 acres to 1,606 acres. However, they have been observed foraging up to two miles from the nest (Bull and Henjum 1990).

For the detailed assessment on the great gray owl for the Deschutes National Forest, see the Forest-wide Species Assessment (USFS 2012).

Existing Condition There is one known great gray owl nest on the Crescent Ranger District near Refrigerator Creek, outside the Ringo project area, however as of summer 2015 it was not an active nest site. District nest checks or surveys of the area have been completed in 2010 through 2015. In August 2015 surveys elicited responses from one great grey owl within the project area on the west lower slopes of Odell Butte and two outside of the project area on the east lower slope of Royce Butte, on the FS 4682100 rd. Follow-up surveys did not elicit another response from these areas. For survey year 2016, ongoing, there has been one response on the lower west slopes of Odell Butte, northeast of the 2015 response. If an active great grey nest is found Resource Protection Measures would protect the nest stand.

There is approximately 1,884 acres of great gray owl nesting habitat in the Ringo project area, refer to MIS Figure 7 for illustrated modeled potential nesting habitat. The modeled habitat is an overestimation as it does not include constraints on canopy cover, tree size, understory density or location of nest stands and includes areas along Crescent Creek unconducive to nesting or foraging habitat due to steep rocky slopes or dense small diameter lodgepole pine stands. There are areas throughout the modeled habitat for the analysis area which do not meet canopy cover estimates and provide little if any nesting habitat. The model is a better estimation of the combination of nesting and foraging habitat.

MIS-49

MIS Figure 7. Modeled Potential Great Gray Owl Nesting Habitat in the Ringo Project Area (National Forest Lands Only).

MIS Table 15 shows the modeled habitat acres and percent for the Deschutes National Forest (Deschutes NF) and the Ringo project area on National Forest Lands only. For the existing modeled great gray owl habitat, the Ringo project area contains less than one percent of the total amount of habitat acres for the Deschutes NF.

MIS-50

MIS Table 15. Modeling of Great Gray Owl Nesting Habitat Acres within Ringo PA and Deschutes NF by Alternative (National Forest System Lands Only). Great Gray Owl Area Percent in Deschutes NF Habitat Acres Deschutes NF 197,929 100% 1,884 Ringo PA >1% 100% 627 Alternative B >1% 33% 627 Alternative C >1% 33%

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A Measure: Acres of proposed treatment within potential nesting habitat and PAG types Proposed Treatment: No Treatment

Alternative A would result in no immediate change in the 1,884 acres of habitat for great gray owls in the analysis area. Nesting habitat in the planning area would be maintained in late- and old- structure stands with broken topped trees and where other species have created nests suitable for great gray owl nesting use. However, this alternative would be at a greatest risk to a disturbance event that could remove the largest trees and suitable nesting habitat.

Stands would continue to be divergent from historical conditions (Draft Ringo Forested Vegetation Report), thus increasing the risk for a stand replacement event. Compared to historical conditions, most stands currently have fewer areas of grasses and shrubs and a denser understory. Additionally, meadows and open areas used by great gray owls and their prey species would become encroached upon by lodgepole pine and mixed conifer stands, thus reducing habitat.

Resulting factors of degraded marsh, riparian and upland areas include fire suppression, lodgepole and conifer encroachment and competition and loss of floodplain interaction. Along Crescent Creek and the Honker Bay seasonal wet meadow, lodgepole pine and conifer encroachment do not allow for brush and early-seral vegetation to occur. (See Draft Ringo Forested Vegetation Report). The dense canopy cover, depletion of resources and added competition does not allow for sunlight to reach the floor and the needed nutrients for stand and vegetation vigor and growth. Moreover, dense stands limit maneuverability for great gray owls, which are an important feature of nesting habitat. Great gray owls need to have an open understory for foraging and predator protection.

Over time, without treatment the amount of quality habitat would be reduced in both the riparian habitat and adjacent forested stands. Riparian/meadow areas in the analysis area would continue to be encroached upon by lodgepole pine and conifer stands. Stand densities would increase, decreasing the availability of open understory nesting habitat. New tree structure that could support larger nests would take more time to develop due to over-crowded stands. With no treatment, exiting conditions would continue to be divergent from historic conditions, reducing available nesting habitat, foraging habitat and prey species habitat, while increasing the risk of a disturbance event, i.e. wildlife, insect and/or disease.

MIS-51

Direct and Indirect Effects to Alternatives B and C Measure: Acres of proposed treatment within potential nesting habitat and PAG types Proposed Treatments: HTH, HIM, MLT (Alternative C only), MDW, SDT, UB and Pile and Burn; Maintenance Level (ML) Road Changes - ML 1to ML 2 and ML2 to ML1.

MIS Figure 8 depicts existing modeled nesting habitat for great gray owl at the project level by Action Alternative. In MIS Figure 8, potential great gray nesting habitat is symbolized by gray, Alternative B is symbolized by black diagonal lines marks, and Alternative C is symbolized by blue.

MIS Figure 8. Modeled Potential Great Gray Owl Nesting Habitat and Alternative B and C in the Ringo Project Area (National Forest Lands Only).

MIS Table 16 compares Action Alternatives by the amount of habitat treated, remaining, and removed by each proposed treatment. Action Alternatives would treat the same amount of potential nesting habitat for

MIS-52

the great gray owl, 627 acres. Alternative B would treat the most habitat through HTH proposed treatments, whereas Alternative C would treat the most with proposed HIM. Alternative C would also treat 31 acres with MLT, which would create opening within units not larger than 2 acres. Both Action Alternatives would remove the same amount, 467 acres, with HIM, HTH, MLT (Alternative C only) and SDT, only less than 109 tpa (MIS Table 16). Proposed meadow enhancement treatments (HIM) would reduce overstory and understory, due to prescription for Action Alternatives. All listed proposed treatments would increase foraging habitat in and adjacent to historic meadow and adjacent to riparian habitat.

MIS Table 16. Alternative B and C Proposed Treatments in Modeled Potential Great Gray Owl Hawk Nesting Habitat. Great Gray Owl Potential Nesting Habitat Alternative B and C Habitat Alternative B Habitat Alternative C Habitat Habitat Remaining Removed Habitat Remaining Removed Fuels Treatment1 Prescription2 Acres Habitat Habitat Acres Habitat Habitat Treatments3 Treated Acres Acres Treated Acres Acres HIM - PB 194 0 194 194 0 194 HIM Total 194 0 194 194 0 194 HTH - PB, UB 205 0 205 173 0 173 HTH Total 205 0 205 173 0 173 MLT - PB, UB - - - 31 0 31 MLT Total - - - 31 0 31 MDW - PB 54 0 54 54 54 MDW Total 54 0 54 54 0 54 109 tpa PB 14 0 14 14 0 14 SDT >134 tpa PB 160 160 0 160 160 0 SDT Total 175 160 14 175 160 14 Grand Total 627 160 467 627 160 467 1 HIM = Improvement Cutting; HTH = Commercial Thinning; MLT = Multi-Aged Management; MDW = Meadow Enhancement; SDT = Small Diameter Thin (8 in. dbh and below); UB = Underburn. 2 BA = Basal Area; TPA = Trees Per Acre 3 PB = Pile Burn; UB = Underburn.

Proposed meadow enhancement treatments (HIM) would reduce overstory and understory. The objectives of these treatment types are to aid in returning vegetation types back to a dry/wet meadow, riparian vegetation type. These treatment areas are located in areas dominated by dense small diameter lodgepole pine, which are encroaching on riparian/meadow areas. There would be 194 acres of Meadow treatments with Alternative B and Alternative C. Where the overstory would be completely removed, the area would no longer serve as nesting habitat, but rather as foraging habitat. Post treatment, the openings created from the proposed treatments would increase meadow areas. These areas would increase prey habitat providing for increased foraging opportunities for great gray owls. Resource Protection Measures also ensure 15-20 percent of the proposed unit would be left untreated providing patches of nesting habitat.

Roads Refer to the Wildlife Introduction section and the Draft Ringo Transportation Report for road re- designation location maps, existing road condition photos, and more discussion on the road analysis for

MIS-53

the Ringo project. No new system roads would be constructed to implement the Ringo project, only administratively re-designated to different maintenance levels (ML). There are no proposed road re-designation within great gray owl habitat. Re-designation of ML roads would not impact the great gray owl.

Overall Effects to Great Gray Thinning and underburning treatments indirect effects would include increasing open ground allowing for more brush and plants to develop and thus increasing potential habitat. Treatments within historic wet/dry meadows and adjacent to riparian areas would increase open ground the most. These treatments would move the stands back to historic conditions, open early serial stage wet/dry meadows and/or riparian habitat. Proposed treatments of HTH and MDW would overlap approximately two acres of the 110 acres of meadow PAG habitat within the project area, treating two percent of Ringo meadow PAG type. These treatments would increase prey and foraging habitat by approximately two acres. Other proposed treatments which would create openings are those associated with MLT (Alternative C only) and within some HTH units with prescribed varied density thinning. These proposed treatment types would create opening within stands no greater than two acres resulting in increased prey and foraging habitat.

Roads Re-designation of ML roads would not impact the great gray owl.

Cumulative Effects The Wildlife Intro. Table 6 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions in the EIS was reviewed for cumulative effects. The Region 6 Invasive Plant EIS (2005) and Invasive Plant Treatments for the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests and the Crooked River National Grassland – Final Supplemental EIS (2012), Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests and Crooked River National Grassland Travel Management Project EIS (2011), Seven Buttes EA (December 1996), Seven Buttes Return EA (July 2001), BLT EIS (2008), and Davis Fire Restoration Project (2003) are all part of existing condition and as such there would be no cumulative effects. The Small Diameter Tree Thinning (2013), Crescent Lake Wildland Urban Interface Fuels Reduction (2004), and implementation actions from the Marsh EA (2016) do not overlap the Ringo project area and as such would have no cumulative effects. The Three Trails OHV (2010), 2012 Crescent Roadside Firewood Strategy, and Forestwide Firewood CE (Future) do not overlap great gray habitat.

The Five Buttes (2007) project does overlap the Ringo project area and have yet to be fully implemented. The Five Buttes project has completed all but one timber sale, Sky, which is outside of Ringo project area. Commercial harvesting within the Ringo project area has been completed and are part of existing condition. Ongoing Five Buttes fuels treatments would overlap potential habitat. Underburning would not propose to remove overstory habitat, though incidental green tree loss may occur. However, those trees would become snags and potential perch trees used for foraging. In addition, underburning would remove brush habitat, which could remove small patches of prey habitat. Five Buttes and burn plan resource protection measures would require the retention of unburned patches including acreage with shrubs and forbs. Monitoring has shown these requirements to be generally effective, given changing environmental conditions. Usually 30-40 percent of each burn unit’s shrub cover would be left untreated for big game browse, nesting cover for birds, and as host plants for butterflies. The Five Buttes project would not add to the impact of the Ringo project to potential habitat. Therefore they would not have cumulative effects.

As discussed above, there would be no past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects which overlaps the Ringo project area that would remove great gray habitat. Cumulatively there would be no

MIS-54

adverse impacts to the great gray as a result of Ringo project area. Therefore cumulative effects are the same as direct and indirect effects for the great gray owl.

Conclusion In the state of Oregon, the great gray owl is listed as S3 ‘Vulnerable” through Oregon Natural Heritage program (NatureServe 2016).

Action Alternatives proposed to treat 627 acres of great gray potential nesting habitat. Where proposed treatments (HIM, HTH, MLT, and SDT (less than 109 tpa)) overlap great gray owl habitat, nesting habitat would be altered and potentially reduced in the short term by approximately 467 acres (33 percent of Ringo nesting habitat and less than one percent of Deschutes NF habitat) in both Alternative B and Alternative C (MIS Table 15 and 16). These treatments would treat overstory, in some units removing nesting overstory trees. However, these treatments would open the understory enhancing movement through the stands. Over time, by opening the overstory and understory proposed treatments would increase limb structure and canopy cover increasing potential nesting habitat, while increasing shrub, grass and forb growth developing prey habitat. Small Diameter Thinning increase foraging habitat for great gray owls by opening up the understory allowing movement through the stand and increasing prey habitat. Proposed treatments that reduce stand density, reduce riparian encroachment and reduce ladder fuels would reduce the risk of insects, disease and fire. See Draft Ringo Forested Vegetation Report and Draft Ringo Fuels Report.

Meadow treatments would completely remove or reduce lodgepole pine overstory, and increase meadow/ shrub habitat and riparian areas. These early seral stage areas would be important foraging habitat for great gray owls. Meadow treatments within great gray owl habitat are proposed in 54 acres (three percent of Ringo potential nesting habitat) for Alternative B and Alternative C, occurring along Crescent Creek and in a seasonally wet meadow south of Wickiup Reservoir (Honker Bay).

The Ringo project includes Resource Protection Measures to protect and maintain nesting habitat in the following ways: (1) seasonal restriction within a ¼ mile of an active nest site, (2) seasonal nesting restrictions, (3) 15-20 percent retention of untreated habitat within treated acres as well as untreated suitable nesting habitat within the project area, (4) leaving at least 2 of the largest trees per acre in riparian encroachment treatments, and (5) maintain Forest snag and down wood levels per DLRMP.

Project implementation would only affect small portions of nesting habitat within the project area and Forest wide. Deschutes National Forest analysis shows there are an estimated 197,929 acres of modeled nesting habitat for the great gray owl. The Ringo project encompasses less than 1 percent of this habitat. Project implementation would treat less than one percent of Forest wide nesting habitat and remove less than once percent to increase wet meadow/shrub and riparian areas. These areas would still provide foraging and nesting opportunities, as well as maintaining Forest habitat connectivity. The overall direct, indirect and cumulative effects would result in a contribution of a small negative trend of habitatto the viability of great gray owl would be expected on the Deschutes National Forest.

Consistency Deschutes LRMP The Ringo project would be consistent with DLRMP WL 30-34, as amended by the NWFP, through Resource Protection measures which would protect active or newly found nests. Consistency would also be met through maintaining and improving nesting habitat, as well as improving and creating foraging habitat. Implementation of the Ringo project is consistent with the Standards and Guidelines for the Deschutes National Forest Land Resource Management Plan (1990).

MIS-55

Consistency with 2001 ROD, 2011 Consent Decree, and 2014 Letter of Direction Surveys for great gray owl were initiated on spring of 2015 and are currently ongoing. Surveys routes were established and calling was completed following “Survey Protocol for the Great Gray Owl within the Range of the Northwest Forest Plan,” Version 3.0, January 12, 2004. All suitable habitat found within the Ringo project area as well as a 0.10 mile buffer around the planning area was surveyed. Within the habitat of the three survey and manage species (great gray owl, Crater Lake tightcoil, and evening field slug) the following proposed actions HTH, HIM, MLT, SDT, and UB treatments are within stands younger than 80 years old (exemption a) and (exemption b). The Ringo Project is January 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines as altered by the 2011 Consent Decree and the May 13, 2014 Letter of Direction.

Great Blue Heron Ecology The intent for selecting great blue heron as a terrestrial management indicator species (MIS) was to provide for other riparian species that prefer habitat in estuaries, streams, marshes, and lakes (DLRMP WL-35-36).

The great blue heron is one of the most wide-spread waterbirds in Oregon (Marshall et al. 2003). It is highly adaptable and is found along estuaries, streams, marshes, and lakes throughout the state. The great blue heron migrates to breeding grounds generally in February to early May and migrates south in the fall usually September through October (NatureServe 2016). During the breeding season, herons forage in wetlands, water bodies, and water courses of all shapes and sizes, but can also be found occasionally in upland areas as well. In Oregon, nest locations were determined primarily by proximity and availability of food, however nest-site fidelity is weak (Marshall et al. 2003). They prefer to nest in vegetation on islands or in swamps, probably to avoid ground predators. They nest in colonies, rookeries, in shrubs, trees, and river channel markers where there is little disturbance (Marshall et al. 2003). Tree species they utilize in the analysis area include ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir. While the average preferred diameter of nest trees is 4.5 feet, they use a wide range of sizes from 1.5 to 6 feet in diameter (Marshall 2003). They forage around shallow waters of lakes and streams, and wet or dry meadows, feeding on fish, amphibians, aquatic invertebrates, reptiles, mammals and birds.

Suitable breeding habitat for the great blue heron is present on all ranger districts of the Deschutes National Forest. The Deschutes LRMP identifies heron rookeries as the limiting factor for this species. Herons can build nests on a variety of substrates, but known rookeries on the Deschutes National Forest occur in trees. The Oregon Conservation Strategy identifies rookeries as the species concentration area, with the important habitat features being large trees near foraging areas (open grassy and wetland habitats) and low levels of human disturbance during the nesting season. The body of scientific literature supports this strategy, notably the sensitivity to disturbance (USFS 2012).

For the detailed assessment on the great blue heron for the Deschutes National Forest, see the Forest-wide Species Assessment (USFS 2012).

Existing Condition Habitat for the great blue heron on the Crescent RD includes meadows, streams, lakes, and wetlands. Nest trees include western hemlock, ponderosa pine, and Douglas-fir. Recent records (1981-2011) for great blue heron rookeries on the Deschutes NF suggest that there are up to 9 to 10 known heron rookeries on or adjacent to the Forest. The data suggests there were at least 1-3 rookeries active in this 30 year timeframe. Foraging habitat on the Crescent RD includes the shallow water of Big Marsh, Davis Lake, Odell Creek, Ranger Creek, Crescent Creek and their associated marshes and riparian habitat.

MIS-56

No surveys were conducted for the great blue heron for the Ringo project. Though there have been no great blue heron observations within the analysis area, nor are there any known active heron rookeries (NRIS Wildlife Database). There is only one documented rookery on the Crescent District, located in the Moore Creek drainage west of Davis Lake, outside the project area (NRIS Wildlife Database). This site however, has not been active since 2003 when nesting red-tailed hawks moved into the rookery (USFS 2012).

Nesting habitat will be over-estimated for the modeling and analysis for the great blue heron. All lakes, ponds, wet meadows, streams, and rivers were buffered by ½ mile to develop a preliminary habitat layer. Wildfire areas and areas with recent (five yrs.) activities were excluded. Although referred to as nesting habitat the modeling includes both the wetland or water body and the associated buffer encompassing both nesting and foraging habitat. Modeling for the great blue heron potential nesting habitat over estimates acres. Overestimation of modeled habitat is due from the following: areas may not include appropriate tree sizes necessary for nesting, preferred diameter of nest trees is 4.5 ft.; includes unsuitable nesting habitat, they prefer to nest in vegetation on islands or in swamps; modeling does not discern between steep terrain, tree species, and tree size; and portions of Crescent Creek run though a steep sided, (over 30 percent slope) slopes which offer no riparian habitat and is comprised of small to medium sized predominately lodgepole pine. It is unlikely great blue herons would use the above listed unsuitable habitat.

For the great blue heron, the Ringo analysis area encompasses approximately 1,982 acres, or one percent, of the Deschutes NF modeled nesting habitat. MIS Table 17 shows the modeled nesting habitat acres and percent for the Deschutes NF and the Ringo project area on National Forest Lands only. For the existing modeled nesting great blue heron habitat, the Ringo project area includes one percent of the total amount of habitat acres for the Deschutes NF; refer to MIS Figure 9 for mapped modeled potential nesting habitat.

MIS Table 17. Modeling of Great Blue Heron Nesting Habitat Acres within Ringo PA and Deschutes NF by Alternative (National Forest System Lands Only). Great Blue Heron Area Percent in Deschutes NF Habitat Acres Deschutes NF 211,201 100% Ringo PA 1,982 1%

MIS-57

MIS Figure 9. Modeled Potential Great Blue Heron Nesting Habitat in the Ringo Project Area (National Forest Lands Only).

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A Measure: Acres of proposed treatment within potential nesting habitat and PAG types Proposed Treatment: No Treatment

Implementation of Alternative A would result in no immediate change to existing potential habitat condition within the project area. In the short-term, areas providing potential habitat would continue to provide habitat. Over time, without treatment, the amount of quality habitat would be. Riparian and wet meadow areas in the analysis area would continue to be encroached upon by lodgepole pine and conifer stands. Stand densities would increase, decreasing the availability of open understory nesting habitat. New tree structure that could support larger nests would take more time to develop due to over-crowded

MIS-58

stands. With no treatment, existing conditions would continue to be divergent from historic conditions, reducing available nesting habitat, foraging habitat, and prey species habitat while increasing the risk of a disturbance even, i.e. wildfire, insect and/or disease.

Direct and Indirect Effects to Alternatives B and C Measure: Acres of proposed treatment within potential nesting habitat and PAG types Proposed Treatments: HTH, HIM, MLT (Alternative C only), MDW, SDT, UB and Pile and Burn; Maintenance Level (ML) Road Changes - ML 1to ML 2 and ML2 to ML1.

MIS Table 18Error! Reference source not found. illustrates existing modeled nesting habitat for great blue heron by alternative at the project scale and on the Deschutes NF scale. The Ringo project area includes 1 percent of the total amount of great blue heron nesting habitat for the Deschutes NF. Alternative B would treat 24 percent of the modeled potential nesting habitat within the Ringo project area and less than one percent for the Forest. Alternative C would treat 49 percent of the modeled potential nesting habitat within the Ringo project area and less than one percent for the Forest.

MIS Table 18. Great Blue Heron Nesting Habitat Acres within Ringo PA and Deschutes NF by Alternative (National Forest System Lands Only).

Ringo Project Acres Great Blue Heron Nesting Habitat Percent in Deschutes NF and Percent

1,982 Alternative A Existing Acres 1% 100% 470 Alternative B Treated Acres >1% 24% 976 Alternative C Treated Acres >1% 49%

MIS Figure 10 depicts existing modeled nesting habitat for great blue heron at the project level by alternative. In MIS Figure 10 potential nesting habitat is symbolized by gray, Alternative B is symbolized by black diagonal lines marks, and Alternative C is symbolized by blue.

MIS-59

MIS Figure 10. Modeled Potential Great Blue Heron Nesting Habitat and Alternative B and C in the Ringo Project Area (National Forest Lands Only).

Project treatments would remove nesting habitat in some proposed treatments retained in other proposed treatments and in overlapping leave areas. Improvement Cuts (HIM), HTH, and MLT (Alternative C only) treatments open stands and enhance growth resulting in larger tree component and increasing canopy cover over time. MIS Table 19 compares proposed treatments and treatment acres within potential great blue heron nesting habitat for the Action Alternatives. Not all proposed treatments would remove nesting habitat. Commercial Thinning (HTH) with a basal area (BA) of at least 60 and UB treatments would retain nesting habitat characteristics (MIS Table 19). Alternative C would treat the most potential nesting habitat 976 acres, but would remove 88 acres of potential nesting habitat. Alternative C removed acres is 4 percent of nesting habitat within the Ringo PA and less than one percent of the Forest wide potential nesting habitat for great blue herons. Alternative B would treat 470 acres of potential nesting habitat, and remove only 27 acres. Alterative B removed acres is one percent of nesting

MIS-60

habitat within the Ringo PA and less than one percent of the Forest wide potential nesting habitat for great blue herons.

MIS Table 19. Alternative B and C Proposed Treatments in Modeled Potential Great Blue Heron Nesting Habitat. Great Blue Heron Potential Nesting Habitat Alternative B and C Habitat Alternative B Habitat Alternative C Habitat Habitat Remaining Removed Habitat Remaining Removed Fuels Treatment1 Prescription2 Acres Habitat Habitat Acres Habitat Habitat Treatments3 Treated Acres Acres Treated Acres Acres PB 4 - 4 20 - 20 HIM - PB, UB - - - - - 0 HIM Total 4 0 4 20 0 20 40 BA PB, UB - - 0 0 - - PB, UB 19 0 19 27 0 27 50 BA UB 0 0 0 0 0 0 HTH PB 0 - 0 0 - - 60 BA PB, UB 106 106 0 323 323 0 PB 0 0 0 0 0 - 80 BA PB, UB 148 148 0 217 217 0 HTH Total 273 254 19 566 539 27 PB - - - 0 0 0 MLT - PB, UB - - - 34 0 34 MLT Total - - - 34 0 34 PB 4 4 7 7 MDW - PB, UB ------MDW Total 4 0 4 7 0 7 PB 23 23 0 23 23 0 109 tpa PB, UB - - - 49 49 0 SDT PB 7 7 0 24 24 0 134 tpa PB, UB ------222 tpa PB 148 148 0 231 231 0 SDT Total 178 178 0 327 327 0 UB - UB 12 12 0 21 21 0 UB Total 12 12 0 21 21 0 Grand Total 470 443 27 976 888 88 1 HIM = Improvement Cutting; HTH = Commercial Thinning; MLT = Multi-Aged Management; MDW = Meadow Enhancement; SDT = Small Diameter Thin (8 in. dbh and below); UB = Underburn. 2 BA = Basal Area; TPA = Trees Per Acre 3 PB = Pile Burn; UB = Underburn.

MIS-61

Alternative C would treat the most habitat through HTH proposed treatments, 566 acres. Of this however, only 27 acres of habitat would be removed due to intensity of density treatments. For HTH, treatment units with a target density of 50 BA and below would remove nesting habitat (MIS Table 19). Alternative C would also treat 34 acres with MLT, which would create opening within units not larger than 2 acres. This treatment would remove nesting habitat throughout the unit and within the openings, except within retained areas. Proposed meadow enhancement treatments (MDW) would reduce overstory and understory. However, these treatments were designed to return stands to historic conditions of early serial areas, e.g. wet/dry meadows and riparian habitat. These areas would provide foraging habitat for the great blue heron. Proposed UB would not remove habitat and would open the understory of units for possible forage in units adjacent to meadows and riparian areas.

Roads Refer to the Wildlife Introduction section and the Draft Ringo Transportation Report for road re- designation location maps, existing road condition photos, and more discussion on the road analysis for the Ringo project. No new system roads would be constructed to implement the Ringo project, only administratively re-designated to different maintenance levels (ML). There are no proposed road re-designation within great blue heron habitat. Re-designation of ML roads would not impact the great blue heron.

Overall Effects to Great Blue Heron Alternatives B and C propose approximately 4-20 acres meadow treatment (MIS Table 19). Proposed meadow enhancement (MDW) treatments would significantly reduce overstory and understory. The treatments would increase the amount of open riparian and meadow areas, which great blue herons utilize for foraging. The treatment units along Crescent Creek would occur in lodgepole pine stands which currently provide no nesting habitat and little foraging habitat. The stands are over grown with small lodgepole pine trees which have and continue to encroach in upon dry/wet meadows and riparian areas.

The Oregon Conservation Strategy identifies large trees near foraging areas (open grassy and wetland habitats) and low levels of human disturbance during the nesting season as being important habitat features. The meadow enhancement treatment units are lodgepole dominated stands, but do have scattered large trees which could be potential nest trees. Prescriptions would thin the stands from below removing the understory and retaining the larges trees. These newly created areas of foraging habitat would remain until encroaching, growing trees change the habitat type to forest. Post-implementation, great blue heron forging habitat would increase in treated areas and nesting habitat would be retained. Resource protection measures also ensure 15-20 percent of the proposed unit would be left untreated providing patches of potential nesting habitat.

During implementation, available habitat would be disturbed by project activities. Treatment activities would be conducted when units are dry and objectives could be met, mainly in August, September, October and November. This time would be outside great blue heron breeding season and would not affect brooding and rearing. The two month overlap with the fall migration (September, October) could potentially displace great blue heron within treatment units. However, with treatments removing 1 to 4 percent of potential nesting habitat across the Ringo project area, there would be nesting habitat available adjacent to treatment units and within the project area.

Roads Re-designation of ML roads would not impact the great blue heron.

Cumulative Effects The Wildlife Intro. Table 6 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions in the EIS was reviewed for cumulative effects. The Region 6 Invasive Plant EIS (2005) and Invasive Plant Treatments

MIS-62

for the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests and the Crooked River National Grassland – Final Supplemental EIS (2012), Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests and Crooked River National Grassland Travel Management Project EIS (2011), Seven Buttes EA (December 1996), Seven Buttes Return EA (July 2001), BLT EIS (2008), and Davis Fire Restoration Project (2003) are all part of existing condition and as such there would be no cumulative effects. The Small Diameter Tree Thinning (2013), Crescent Lake Wildland Urban Interface Fuels Reduction (2004), and implementation actions from the Marsh EA (2016) do not overlap the Ringo project area and as such would have no cumulative effects.

The Five Buttes (2007) and Three Trails OHV (2010) projects do overlap the Ringo project area and have yet to be fully implemented. The Five Buttes project has completed all but one timber sale, Sky, which is outside of Ringo project area. Commercial harvesting within the Ringo project area has been completed and are part of existing condition. Ongoing Five Buttes fuels treatments would overlap potential habitat. Underburning would not propose to remove overstory habitat, though incidental green tree loss may occur. However, those trees would become snags and potential perch trees used for foraging. In addition, underburning would remove brush habitat, which could remove small patches of prey habitat. Five Buttes and burn plan resource protection measures would require the retention of unburned patches including acreage with shrubs and forbs. Monitoring has shown these requirements to be generally effective, given changing environmental conditions. Usually 30-40 percent of each burn unit’s shrub cover would be left untreated for big game browse, nesting cover for birds, and as host plants for butterflies. Small portions of Three Trails OHV project area overlaps the Ringo Project area in the Rivers segments (approximately 10 miles of trail). The Three Tails OHV project would not remove trees, except for safety reasons, and as such would not remove habitat. The Five Buttes and Three Trails OHV projects would not add to the impact of the Ringo project to potential habitat. Therefore they would little have noise disturbance cumulative effects.

2012 Crescent Roadside Firewood Strategy Implementation. Firewood areas are open to the public on a rotating basis to ensure continuous supply of firewood for the public. The project would remove dead down wood along roads only, snags and green trees would not be removed. The 2012 Crescent Roadside Firewood area overlaps 1,615 acres of the Ringo project area east of the NWFP boundary; overlapping 97 Ringo Action Alternative proposed units. Not all overlapping Ringo units allow firewood gathering due to Resource Protection Measures. However the Crescent Roadside project would remove firewood from 200 ft. of an open road, but not within the entire unit. Neither projects allow for the removal of green trees or snags within a firewood gathering unit and as such would not reduce green tree nor snag levels. As no green trees or snags would be removed, no nesting habitat would be loss inside or outside of the Ringo units. Habitat within 712 acres (Alt. B) and 814 acres (Alt. C) of overlapping Ringo proposed units and Crescent Roadside Firewood areas would be already be impacted.

There could be additional affects from noise disturbance within potential nesting habitat outside of the Ringo project units from the Crescent Roadside Firewood project. Project resource protection measures/mitigation measures would be in place for species seasonal restriction if an active nest is within/adjacent to the project area. Refer to the wildlife resource protection measures/mitigation measures restrictions. The project would remove dead down wood along roads only, snags and green trees would not be removed. As the Crescent Roadside Firewood Strategy overlaps great blue heron within the Ringo project, additive effects would be from noise disturbance outside of Ringo proposed units. There would be little noise disturbance cumulative effects to the great blue heron.

Forestwide Firewood CE (Future) would be implemented in the future. A letter requesting public input for the Deschutes National Forest’s personal use firewood proposal was sent to the public April 14, 2016. The purpose of the project is to improve the availability of fuelwood as a renewable energy resource for personal use. It would be implemented in in 2017. The project area encompasses the entire NWFP portion of the Deschutes National Forest. Although the Firewood CE would overlap the project area, no

MIS-63

green trees would be removed. Standing and down dead trees of all species could be cut and removed within 150 ft of open roads. Areas of exclusion from the personal firewood collection program would include, but not limited to: Late Successional Reserves, Riparian Reserves, Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, any management allocations of the Deschutes Forest Plan that prohibits firewood collection, active timber sales, research plots, Federal Highway Safety Act roads, and other sensitive locations to protect resources such as wildlife and cultural resources.

The firewood proposal area overlaps the portion of the Ringo project area that is within the boundary of the NWFP. There would be no firewood gathering within wet/dry meadows. No green trees or deadwood larger than 21 in. dbh would be removed. Impacts would only be within 150 ft. of open roads. There would be no firewood gathering areas within great blue heron nesting habitat. Therefore, there would be noise disturbance cumulative effects to in the great blue heron.

For the Ringo project there are no overlapping projects which would remove great blue heron nesting habitat. Five Buttes fuels treatments, Three Trails OHV, 2012 Crescent Roadside Strategy, and future Forestwide Firewood CE activities could cause noise disturbance to great blue heron. However, there are Resource Protection Measures, seasonal restrictions, and project mitigations to minimize disturbance to known territories and habitat. Therefore, there would be little additive cumulative effects for the great blue heron.

Conclusions For the state of Oregon, great blue herons are listed as S4, ‘Apparently Secure’ (NatureServe 2016). Within the Ringo project area, there are no known active rookeries.

Recent Deschutes National Forest analysis shows there are 211,201 acres of modeled nesting habitat for the great blue heron. The Alternative B proposes treatments on 470 acres (less than one percent) and would remove 27 acres (less than one percent) of Forest potential nesting habitat. The Alternative C proposes treatments on 976 acres (less than one percent) and would remove 88 acres (less than one percent) of Forest potential nesting habitat. Post treatment there would be an increase in foraging habitat while maintaining nesting habitat. The Ringo project would not contribute to a negative trend in viability of great blue heron would be expected on the Deschutes National Forest.

Consistency The Ringo project would be consistent with LRMP WL 35-36 through Resource Protection measures to protect newly found rookeries and maintain the vegetation character of the rookery site. Consistency is also met through maintaining and improving potential nesting. Implementation of the Ringo project is consistent with the Standards and Guidelines for the Deschutes National Forest Land Resource Management Plan (1990).

Osprey The osprey is specialized for catching fish and nesting occurs primarily along rivers, lakes, reservoirs, and seacoasts. They have relatively long wings for their body mass and require very open nest sites which they access both for landing and an unobstructed view from the nest (Poole 1989, Van Daele and Van Daele 1982, Richardson and Miller 1997). They build large bulky stick nests, which are often reused in subsequent years. Preferred nest sites are usually snags or large green trees with dead tops, near or surrounded by water, presumably to deter mammalian predation (Ewins 1997). However, cliffs and rock pinnacles and even bare ground on predator-free islands are also used. They also nest on a wide variety of artificial structures including utility poles, wharf pilings, windmills, microwave towers, chimneys, cell towers, off-shore duck blinds, buoys, and channel markers (Marshall et al. 2003, NatureServe 2011; USFS 2012).

MIS-64

Osprey nest trees and snags over water may be considerably shorter than those on land whereas they tend to choose trees taller than the surrounding canopy in forested areas (Vana-Miller 1987). The tree species used for nesting does not appear to be important (Vana-Miller 1987). Rather, preferred structural components include large-diameter dead or live trees (broken top) that provide a flattened basket at least 12 inches (0.3 meters) at diameter breast height (dbh) with at least one strong branch close to the nest to support perching and fledglings (Lind 1976). The nest is usually at or a few feet below the top of the snag/tree. Some ospreys maintain one or more alternate or “frustration nests” in addition to their main nest, either nearby or up to 1.24 miles (2 km) away (Vana-Miller 1987, Anderson 1985). These nests likely provide an alternate location for nest-building if the main nest tree fails or if the nest is occupied, such as by Canada geese. (USFS 2012) The NatureServe (2016) status for osprey is secure at the global level (G5), secure for breeding (N5B) and apparently secure for non-breeding (N4B) at the national level, and secure (S5) at the Oregon state level. The global status was last reviewed on November 22, 1996. Although pesticide-related problems still exist in some areas, it is considered secure at the global level due its large range, increasing population trend in many areas where it was formerly depleted by effects of pesticides, and benefits from active management.

Ospreys were selected as a Management Indicator Species because they are considered a species of special interest (LRMP WL 2-5), due to its dependence on fish species and use of snags and trees surrounding large lakes. Key habitat components for management include retaining large-diameter snags and dead-topped live or dead trees in or near clear, unobstructed fish-bearing large lakes and rivers. The LRMP Standard and Guideline WL-3 requires active nest sites to be protected from disturbing activities within 0.25 miles of the nest, resulting in a 274-acre territory around the nest.

For the detailed assessment on the osprey for the Deschutes National Forest, see the Forest-wide Species Assessment (USFS 2012).

Existing Condition Potential habitat was mapped by utilizing a broad brush approach that included all potential habitat conditions on the Deschutes National Forest. It included buffering fish bearing lakes and streams by 1 mile, and within that 1 mile buffer reproductive habitat was mapped where 4 snags or green trees per acre greater than or equal to 21 inches in diameter exist. Ospreys prefer to nest near large, fish bearing bodies of waters, which is adjacent to the Ringo project area. The closest preferred habitat would be Wickiup Reservoir, adjacent to the project area. There are four historic osprey nests within the analysis area and three incidental observations in the norther portion of the project area, adjacent to Wickiup Reservoir (NRIS Database). No surveys have been completed for Osprey. Historic nest checks for raptors was completed in 2014-2015, resulting in no active historic osprey nests.

Through the Forest-wide assessment completed for MIS, osprey reproductive habitat was mapped across the entire Deschutes National Forest. Approximately 8,263 acres of habitat exists within the project area; refer to MIS Figure 11 for mapped modeled potential osprey nesting habitat. Across the Deschutes National Forest there are approximately 496,233 acres of Viable modeled nesting habitat.

MIS-65

MIS Figure 11. Modeled Nesting Osprey Nesting Habitat in the Ringo Project Area (National Forest System Lands Only).

MIS Table 20 shows the modeled nesting habitat acres and percent for the Deschutes National Forest (Deschutes NF) and the Ringo project area (Ringo PA) on National Forest Lands only.

MIS Table 20. Modeling of Osprey Nesting Habitat Acres within Ringo PA and Deschutes NF by Alternative (National Forest System Lands Only). Area Osprey Habitat Acres Percent in Deschutes NF Deschutes NF 496,233 100% Ringo PA 8,263 2%

MIS-66

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A Measure: Acres of proposed treatment within potential nesting habitat Proposed Treatment: No Treatment

There would be no immediate change in the 8,263 acres of habitat in the analysis area. Implementation of this alternative would result in no short-term effect to the osprey since no vegetative manipulations would occur. The seasonal occurrence of ospreys would still be expected with nesting habitat provided on lands surrounding Wickiup Reservoir. This alternative would also preclude the need to fall hazard trees due to safety concerns from project activities. This would favor the retention of potential osprey nest trees.

This alternative would be at a greatest risk to a disturbance event that could remove the largest tree, which would be the recruitment of nest trees, and suitable nesting habitat. Without treatment within stands the overstocking, increased density, of trees would continue to more towards more fire prone species (e.g. white fir and lodgepole pine) instead of the fire tolerant species (e.g. Doug-fir and ponderosa pine). Overtime suitable habitat for current species could change, thus changing the habitat and species type. The increasing density trend would also decrease the amount of space needed to grow large trees, reducing large trees and future snag and down wood within the stands.

Direct and Indirect Effects to Alternatives B and C Measure: Acres of proposed treatment within potential nesting habitat Proposed Treatments: HTH, HIM, MLT (Alternative C only), MDW, SDT, UB and Pile and Burn; Maintenance Level (ML) Road Changes - ML 1to ML 2 and ML2 to ML1.

Ospreys prefer to nest in snags or large green trees with dead tops near large, fish bearing bodies of waters. Proposed Action Alternative treatments would retain snags and the largest trees within each unit, keeping osprey nest trees where they occur within each unit. The exception is when snags would be felled due to safety concerns.

For Alternatives B and C treatment units within the osprey habitat would be similar. Proposed treatments include HTH, MLT (Alternative C only), MDW, SDT, and underburning (ponderosa pine dominated stands). Not all proposed treatments would remove nesting habitat. Meadow Enhancement (MDW), SDT, and UB treatments would not remove large trees which would support an osprey’s nest, thus retaining nesting habitat, thus retaining all potential osprey nest trees.

MIS Table 21 illustrates existing modeled nesting habitat for osprey by alternative at the project level and on the Deschutes NF level. For the Ringo project area, Alternative C would treat the most acres 1,976 acres (24 percent) of potential nesting habitat, whereas Alternative B would treat 1,769 (12 percent). Proposed treatments would occur on less than one percent of the 496,233 acres on Deschutes NF nesting habitat. For the osprey, on Deschutes National Forest level only a nominal amount of nesting habitat would be treated with the Ringo project, less than one percent.

MIS-67

TES Table 21. Osprey Nesting Habitat Acres within Ringo PA and Deschutes National Forest by Alternative (National Forest System Lands Only).

Ringo Project Acres Osprey Nesting Habitat Percent in Deschutes NF and Percent

8,263 Alternative A Existing Acres 2% 100% 1,796 Alternative B Treated Acres >1% 22%

1,976 Alternative C Treated Acres >1% 24%

Implementation of either Alternative B or C would result in similar effects to ospreys. Stand density reductions are scheduled on lands adjacent to the Crescent District side of Wickiup Reservoir. The trees to be removed are generally less than 21 inches in diameter and no snags would be removed unless they are determined to be a safety issue or where a temporary road may be placed. Over the long-term this will result in forested stands with larger diameter live trees and limbs capable of supporting a nest structure. Proposed Action Alternative Units 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 are within ¼ mile of a known osprey nests currently unoccupied; a seasonal restriction would apply in these units as described in Wildlife Intro. Project Design Criteria. The restriction would be waived if surveys determine the site(s) are not occupied by nesting ospreys in the year activities are proposed.

MIS Figure 12 depicts existing modeled nesting habitat for osprey at the project level by Action Alternative. In MIS Figure 12, existing potential nesting habitat is symbolized by gray, Alternative B is symbolized by black diagonal lines marks, and Alternative C is symbolized by blue.

MIS-68

MIS Figure 12. Modeled Nesting Osprey Nesting Habitat in the Ringo Project Area (National Forest System Lands Only).

MIS Table 22 compares proposed treatments and treatment acres within osprey nesting habitat for the Action Alternatives. Since no snags are proposed to be felled and the largest trees within each treatment unit would be retained, proposed Action Alternative treatments would reduce nesting habitat in the short term. Meadow Enhancement (MDW), SDT, and UB treatments would not remove large trees which would support an osprey nest, thus retaining nesting habitat. Proposed Action Alternative treatments would retain the largest trees within each unit, keeping osprey nest trees where they occur within each unit. Alternative C proposes to treat the most nesting habitat on 1,976 acres (24 percent of Ringo nesting habitat). Alternative B proposes a total of 1,796 acres of treatment (22 percent of Ringo nesting habitat). For both Action Alternatives, HTH would treat the most potential nesting habitat when compared to other treatment types, 885 acres for Alternative B and 840 acres for Alternative C. Alternative B and C would treat less than one percent for the all osprey nesting habitat on the Forest.

MIS-69

MIS Table 22. Proposed Treatments in Potential Osprey Nesting Habitat for Alternatives B and C for the Ringo Planning Area. Osprey Potential Nesting Habitat Proposed Treatment Alternative B Habitat Alternative C Habitat Habitat Acres Habitat Acres Treatment1 Prescription2 Fuels Treatments3 Treated Treated HIM - PB 366 366 HIM Total 366 366 PB, UB 27 27 50 BA UB 6 6 HTH 60 BA PB, UB 519 519 PB 11 - 80 BA PB, UB 323 289 HTH Total 885 840 PB - 11 MLT - PB, UB - 34 MLT Total - 45 MDW - PB 64 64 MDW Total 64 64 PB 76 109 109 tpa PB, UB 11 73 SDT 134 tpa PB 38 38 222 tpa PB 279 331 SDT Total 404 550 UB - UB 78 111 UB Total 78 111 Grand Total 1,796 1,976 1 HIM = Improvement Cutting; HTH = Commercial Thinning; MLT = Multi-Aged Management; MDW = Meadow Enhancement; SDT = Small Diameter Thin (8 in. dbh and below); UB = Underburn. 2 BA = Basal Area; TPA = Trees Per Acre 3 PB = Pile Burn; UB = Underburn.

Roads Refer to the Wildlife Introduction section and the Draft Ringo Transportation Report for road re- designation location maps, existing road condition photos, and more discussion on the road analysis for the Ringo project.No new system roads would be constructed to implement the Ringo project, only administratively re-designated to different maintenance levels (ML). ML 1 roads are intermittent service roads, but are closed to non-authorized vehicular traffic, whereas ML 2 roads are open for use by high clearance vehicles. These open road densities would still follow LRMP regulations and guidelines for road densities Forest and project wide. The re-designation of ML roads would not include any ground disturbing activities outside of the already disturbed footprint of the existing road, e.g. the roads would not become wider. No large trees would or snags are proposed to be removed with the administratively re-definition of the roads. The exception is felling of snags due to safety reasons. No habitat would be removed.

MIS-70

Overall Effects to Osprey The proposed Action Alternative HIM, HTH, MLT (Alternative C only), MDW, SDT and fuels treatments are not anticipated to have direct effects to osprey nesting structure, largest trees and snags. The structure desired by the proposed prescriptions within overlapping osprey nesting habitat is the same as that used by osprey. Project objectives for proposed treatments promote the development of large tree structure and to return stands closer to HRV. In the long term, proposed treatments would promote the creation of future osprey nest trees. This would be achieved by reducing overall stand density, increasing stand health, and increasing stand resiliency.

For mixed conifer dominated stands within Action Alternative treatment (HIM, HTH, and MDW) would result in less dense, heathier, more resilient stands when compared to Alternative A. Treated mixed conifer trees would grow quicker, have an increase in tree diameter, tree height, canopy cover, limb structure, multi-ages, and multi-canopy. Alternative C proposes MLT treatment in addition to HIM and HTH treatments. In the long term, stands within MLT treatment units would respond more quickly compared to Alternative A and B. Individual trees would grow faster increasing tree dbh, limb structure, and canopy cover quicker. Wildlife Appendix A for graphed trends of mixed conifer dominated stand illustrates higher individual tree diameter especially for trees over 10 and 20 inch dbh, and higher amounts of snags over 20 inch dbh when compared to Alternatives A and B. When compared to Alternative A, Alternative C treatment would have fewer smaller trees, less small down wood, and fewer small diameter snags.

Proposed treatments would allow for heathier, larger trees providing higher quality habitat longer on the landscape. In the long term, both Alternatives B and C would increase the amount of large dead wood within treated stands when compared to Alternative A. Alternative C would result in higher amounts of larger trees and snags when compared to Alternatives A and B. Action Alternatives could necessitate the falling of hazard trees along haul routes and where activity units border the road system or a developed recreation area.

Small diameter thinning and fuels treatments would not remove any large trees. The fuels treatments would break up the fuel continuity and reduce the risk of a landscape scale fire event, which should reduce the risk to individual large snags and trees. The integrity of nesting habitat components would not be changed. Underburning may kill large green trees which would create snags. These snags are potential nesting trees for osprey and bald eagles. During underburning operations all snags are to be protected per resource protections measures of the Ringo project and District Burn Plans. Alternative C proposes possible underburning within 1,059 acres of potential osprey habitat containing nesting structure, the most out of Action Alternatives. Alternative B proposes 964 acre of potential osprey habitat containing nesting structure.

The project promotes fuels reduction and forest health in the short-term and in the long-term promotes the longevity of large tree structure and a fire resistant landscape. This is especially advantageous in areas with high recreational use such as Wickiup Reservoir and the surrounding areas. For the Ringo project, burning prescriptions and pre-ignition fuels reduction would reduce the chance of losing large snags. However, it is assumed that a very small percentage of large snags would be affected by prescribed burning. Resource Protection Measures would be followed to reduce the loss of down wood and snags during burning operations. Generally, large snags would be avoided during treatments, but due to OSHA regulations snags posing a hazard may be removed. Standard and Guidelines (WL-2 & 3, and Eastside Screens direction) would protect these trees, and if active, a seasonal restriction would be placed ¼ mile around the tree (refer to Wildlife Intro. for Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures).

MIS-71

Roads No large trees would or snags are proposed to be removed with the administratively re-definition of the roads. The exception is felling of snags due to safety reasons. No habitat would be removed.

Cumulative Effects The Wildlife Intro. Table 6 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions in the EIS was reviewed for cumulative effects. The Region 6 Invasive Plant EIS (2005) and Invasive Plant Treatments for the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests and the Crooked River National Grassland – Final Supplemental EIS (2012), Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests and Crooked River National Grassland Travel Management Project EIS (2011), Seven Buttes EA (December 1996), Seven Buttes Return EA (July 2001), BLT EIS (2008), and Davis Fire Restoration Project (2003) are all part of existing condition and as such there would be no cumulative effects. The Small Diameter Tree Thinning (2013), Crescent Lake Wildland Urban Interface Fuels Reduction (2004), and implementation actions from the Marsh EA (2016) do not overlap the Ringo project area and as such would have no cumulative effects.

The Five Buttes (2007) and Three Trails OHV (2010) projects do overlap the Ringo project area and have yet to be fully implemented. The Five Buttes project has completed all but one timber sale, Sky, which is outside of Ringo project area. Commercial harvesting within the Ringo project area has been completed and are part of existing condition. Ongoing Five Buttes fuels treatments would overlap potential habitat. Underburning would not propose to remove overstory habitat, though incidental green tree loss may occur. However, those trees would become snags and potential nest trees. Small portions of Three Trails OHV project area overlaps the Ringo Project area in the Rivers segments (approximately 10 miles of trail). The Three Tails OHV project would not remove trees, except for safety reasons, and as such would not remove habitat. The Five Buttes and Three Trails OHV projects would not add to the impact of the Ringo project to potential habitat. Therefore they would little have noise disturbance cumulative effects.

2012 Crescent Roadside Firewood Strategy Implementation. Firewood areas are open to the public on a rotating basis to ensure continuous supply of firewood for the public. The project would remove dead down wood along roads only, snags and green trees would not be removed. The 2012 Crescent Roadside Firewood area overlaps 1,615 acres of the Ringo project area east of the NWFP boundary; overlapping 97 Ringo Action Alternative proposed units. Not all overlapping Ringo units allow firewood gathering due to Resource Protection Measures. However the Crescent Roadside project would remove firewood from 200 ft. of an open road, but not within the entire unit. Neither projects allow for the removal of green trees or snags within a firewood gathering unit and as such would not reduce green tree nor snag levels. As no green trees or snags would be removed, no nesting habitat would be loss inside or outside of the Ringo units. Habitat within 712 acres (Alt. B) and 814 acres (Alt. C) of overlapping Ringo proposed units and Crescent Roadside Firewood areas would be already be impacted.

There could be additional affects from noise disturbance within potential nesting habitat outside of the Ringo project units from the Crescent Roadside Firewood project. Project resource protection measures/mitigation measures would be in place for species seasonal restriction if an active nest is within/adjacent to the project area. Refer to the wildlife resource protection measures/mitigation measures restrictions. The project would remove dead down wood along roads only, snags and green trees would not be removed. As the Crescent Roadside Firewood Strategy overlaps osprey within the Ringo project, additive effects would be from noise disturbance outside of Ringo proposed units. There would be little noise disturbance cumulative effects to the osprey.

Forestwide Firewood CE (Future) would be implemented in the future. A letter requesting public input for the Deschutes National Forest’s personal use firewood proposal was sent to the public April 14, 2016. The purpose of the project is to improve the availability of fuelwood as a renewable energy resource for personal use. It would be implemented in in 2017. The project area encompasses the entire NWFP

MIS-72

portion of the Deschutes National Forest. Although the Firewood CE would overlap the project area, no green trees would be removed. Standing and down dead trees of all species could be cut and removed within 150 ft of open roads. Areas of exclusion from the personal firewood collection program would include, but not limited to: Late Successional Reserves, Riparian Reserves, Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, any management allocations of the Deschutes Forest Plan that prohibits firewood collection, active timber sales, research plots, Federal Highway Safety Act roads, and other sensitive locations to protect resources such as wildlife and cultural resources.

The firewood proposal area overlaps the portion of the Ringo project area that is within the boundary of the NWFP. There would be no firewood gathering within wet/dry meadows. No green trees or deadwood larger than 20 in. dbh would be removed. Impacts would only be within 150 ft. of open roads. There would be no firewood gathering areas within osprey nesting habitat. Therefore, there would be noise disturbance cumulative effects to in the osprey.

For the Ringo project there are no overlapping projects which would remove osprey nesting habitat. Five Buttes fuels treatments, Three Trails OHV, 2012 Crescent Roadside Strategy, and future Forestwide Firewood CE activities could cause noise disturbance to osprey. However, there are Resource Protection Measures, seasonal restrictions, and project mitigations to minimize disturbance to known territories and habitat. Therefore, there would be little additive cumulative effects for the osprey.

Conclusions Alternative A would be at a greatest risk to a disturbance event that could remove the largest tree, which would be the recruitment of nest trees, and suitable nesting habitat. Without treatment within stands the overstocking, increased density, of trees would continue to more towards more fire prone species (e.g. white fir and lodgepole pine) instead of the fire tolerant species (e.g. Doug-fir and ponderosa pine). Overtime suitable habitat for current species could change, thus changing the habitat and species type. The increasing density trend would also decrease the amount of space needed to grow large trees, reducing large trees and future snag and down wood within the stands. The No Action alternative could impact osprey habitat by perpetuating the loss of large structure. All treatments would reduce the potential risk of stand-replacing fire.

Proposed treatments would not remove snags or dead topped trees within the analysis area. As such proposed treatments would not decrease osprey nesting trees. Proposed Action Alternative treatments would promote individual tree growth, increasing potential nest trees in the long-term. Action Alternative treatments would allow for heathier, larger trees providing higher quality habitat longer on the landscape. In the long term, both Alternatives B and C would increase the tree diameter resulting in larger snags within treated stands when compared to Alternative A. Alternative C would result in higher amounts of larger trees and snags when compared to Alternatives A and B.

Treatments would retain large trees and snags which could potentially provide future nesting habitat. SDT would promote the development of future large tree structure in the long-term for osprey habitat. The project activities promote fuels reduction and forest health in the short-term and in the long-term promotes the longevity of large tree structure and a fire resistant landscape.

Resource Protection Measures are in place to further protect found osprey nests with disturbance restrictions during the nesting period. Resource Protection Measures to conduct activities within ¼ mile of an active nest to outside of the osprey nesting season (April 1 – Aug 31st) would avoid disturbance effects (WL-2, 3). Large snags would be avoided during treatments, but due to OSHA regulations snags posing a hazard may be removed. Additionally, trees with high value to wildlife would remain on site in

MIS-73

treatment units, continuing to provide possible habitat and connectivity for the project, District and Forest.

The Ringo project would not reduce or eliminate osprey nesting habitat. Therefore the Ringo Project would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Deschutes National Forest for the osprey.

Consistency Implementation of the Ringo project is consistent with the Standards and Guidelines for the Deschutes National Forest Land Resource Management Plan for areas outside Osprey Management Areas. Nest sites would be protected and there would be very little habitat altered or removed in the short-term and in the long-term would promote habitat within the project area (DLRMP WL-2 and 3).

Waterfowl Some of the MIS waterfowl may have habitat within the Ringo project area, however they are seasonal migrant visitors. As such they would not be found within the Ringo project area during nesting periods: green-winged teal and redhead. The following species of waterfowl have habitat within the project: Mallard

Habitat for waterfowl within the project area would be dependent on higher water levels, which have the ability to greatly expand small ponds of water. With high water levels, the small intermittent ponds and oxbows along Crescent Creek and in Black Rock Pond could provide seasonal habitat. Additionally, the small wetland, Honker Bay, south of Wickiup Reservoir, which feeds the small wetland and when flooded could provide a larger, shallow body of water for habitat. This area would be dependent on Wickiup Reservoir, which frequently has low water levels year round, and would not provide the consistent, large body of water needed for nesting habitat.

NatureServe (2016) identified green-winged for the state of Oregon as S4, ‘Apparently Secure’ for breeding habitat and S5 “Secure” for non-breeding habitat, as well as “Secure” at the national and global level; redhead as “Secure” at the global and national scale, and S4, ‘Apparently Secure’ in the state of Oregon.; and mallards as “Secure” at the global and national scale, and in the state of Oregon.

For a detailed assessment on waterfowl for the Deschutes National Forest, see the Forest-wide Species Assessment (USFS 2012).

Existing Condition For the Forest, waterfowl are an indicator species for those species that are a popular hunting or viewing species (LRMP WL-39).

Open ponds, streams, rivers, and wet/dry meadows provide foraging habitat for most waterfowl species. Some species utilize large snags for nesting, while others utilize open grassy areas near the water’s edge. Most waterfowl diets consist primarily of vegetation although some animal matter (caddisflies, crustaceans, and mollusks) may be consumed (Csuti et. al 1997 pp. 66, 84-87, 89, 96, 99-102).

Twenty-seven game species of waterfowl, including ducks, coots, geese, and swans are found within the Forest. The larger lakes and reservoirs provide summer nesting or emigrational stop-over habitat, with Crane Prairie Reservoir, Wickiup Reservoir, and Davis Lake being especially productive. The estimated summer population for the Forest is estimated to number about 2,600 pairs. Relatively few waterfowl remain to overwinter, as most water bodies ice over. Waterfowl that do remain are often prey species for wintering bald eagles (Deschutes National Forest EIS, pages 3-18 to 3-19; USFS 2012). Although some habitat improvements, primarily nesting structures, have been accomplished, substantial opportunities

MIS-74

remain at such locations as Wickiup Reservoir and Big Marsh (Deschutes National Forest EIS, page 3-19; USFS 2012).

The amount of potential or suitable waterfowl habitat at the Forest-wide scale is difficult to determine. Different species of waterfowl require specific and/or diverse habitats and can be highly influenced by annual weather. The habitat analysis of the smaller lakes and hundreds of miles of streams would be complex given the diversity of their locations, physical characteristics, elevations and forested matrix situations. Those lakes in wilderness and roadless areas at higher elevations for example would most likely provide the best potential nesting habitats for species such as goldeneyes. This is further compounded by the diversity of habitats utilized by the individual species and the variability (i.e. foraging) for each from the spring nesting season to the fall migration (USFS 2012).

With variability in habitat, broad modeling for potential waterfowl nesting habitat was conducted. As such, nesting habitat will be over-estimated for because the modeling does not discern between steep terrain, sections of Crescent Creek with no adjacent riparian area, or when water levels are too low to provide open water. Portions of Crescent Creek run though a steep sided, over 30 percent slope, slopes which offer no riparian habitat, as well as portions with no adjacent riparian habitat. It is unlikely waterfowl would use these sections along Crescent Creek as habitat. Black Rock Pond water levels fluctuate because pond is fed by spring. Water levels are high in the spring, but begin to recede through the summer. Honker Bay water levels also fluctuate due to water levels from Wickiup Reservoir; i.e. if Wickiup is full, the overflow water will flood the Honker Bay area.

Approximately 71,027 acres of waterfowl habitat occurs across the Deschutes National Forest. With approximately 856 acres of this habitat exists within the Ringo project area. MIS Table 23 shows the overestimated modeled nesting habitat acres and percent for the Deschutes National Forest (Deschutes NF) and the Ringo project area (Ringo PA) on National Forest Lands only. For the existing Viable modeled nesting waterfowl habitat, the Ringo PA includes one percent of the total amount of habitat acres for the Deschutes NF. Within the Ringo project area Black Rock pond, Honker Bay, Crescent Creek, and surrounding wet/dry meadows provide foraging habitat for most waterfowl species. The modeled habitat is an overestimation as it does not include constraints on canopy cover, tree size, understory density or location of nest stands and includes areas along Crescent Creek unconducive to nesting or foraging habitat due to steep rocky slopes or dense small diameter lodgepole pine stands. There are areas throughout the modeled habitat for the analysis area which do not meet canopy cover estimates and provide little if any nesting habitat.

MIS Table 23. Modeled Waterfowl Nesting Habitat Acres and Percent in the Project area and the Deschutes NF (National Forest System Lands only). Area Waterfowl Habitat Acres Percent in Deschutes NF Deschutes NF 71,206 100% Ringo PA 856 1%

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A Measure: Acres of proposed treatment within potential nesting habitat Proposed Treatment: No Treatment

Alternative A would have no immediate effect on existing species. Under the existing condition, forest stands continue to be divergent from historic conditions. Forest succession would continue to increase stand densities as well as increase encroachment into riparian areas, and decrease meadow, shrub, riparian and grasslands (Ringo Draft EIS Forested Vegetation Report). Existing riparian and meadow

MIS-75

communities, like sedges, rushes, and willows, would become less abundant. These areas provide nesting and foraging habitat for waterfowl, neotropical migrants, and other riparian, wet shrub, and grass dependent species, as well as fawning/calving habitat for big game. The riparian areas in the analysis area would continue to be encroached upon by conifer and lodgepole pine stands, reducing high quality habitat and forage. The succession in the project area would increase dense understories and overcrowded stands, reducing breeding and seasonal migration habitat for species.

Direct and Indirect Effects to Alternatives B and C Measure: Acres of proposed treatment within potential nesting habitat Proposed Treatments: HTH, HIM, MLT (Alternative C only), MDW, SDT, UB and Pile and Burn; Maintenance Level (ML) Road Changes - ML 1to ML 2 and ML 2 to ML 1.

MIS Table 24 shows the modeled habitat acres and percent for the Deschutes National Forest (Deschutes NF) and the Ringo project area on National Forest Lands only. For the existing modeled waterfowl habitat, the Ringo project area contains one percent of the total amount of potential nesting habitat acres for the Deschutes NF.

MIS Table 24. Modeled Waterfowl Potential Nesting Habitat Acres within Ringo PA and Deschutes National Forest by Alternative (National Forest System Lands Only). Waterfowl Habitat Area Percent in Deschutes NF Project Acres and Percent 856 Ringo PA 1% 100 167 Alternative B >1% 20% 155 Alternative C >1% 18%

Available habitat would be disturbed by project activities. Activities adjacent to Black Rock Pond and Honker Bay would be conducted when units are dryer and objectives could be met. Depending on water level fluctuation (flooding to dry), implementation of activities could be outside the waterfowl breeding season and would not affect brooding and rearing. For all meadow enhancement, treatment activities could potentially displace fall migration waterfowl. However, habitat adjacent to units and water would be available for waterfowl to utilize.

MIS Table 25 compares proposed treatments and treatment acres within waterfowl nesting habitat for the Action Alternatives. After implementation the proposed treatments adjacent to Crescent Creek, Black Rock Pond, and Honker Bay, for both Action Alternatives, would increase open and early seral stages/habitat types (i.e. open dry/wet meadows, grass and wet shrub areas) along with increased shallow open water. These effects would be most pronounced in the Honker Bay area. Within this area, decreasing encroaching lodgepole pine into the pond/wet marsh would result in an increase of open water habitat availability, as well as an increase in wet/dry meadow vegetation. Post-implementation, waterfowl nesting habitat would expand wet/dry meadows and riparian areas adjacent by approximately 167 acres with Alternative B and 155 acres with Alterative C. These newly created areas of habitat would remain until encroaching, growing trees change the habitat type to forest. MIS Table 25 shows those units that could become nesting habitat post-implementation.

MIS-76

MIS Table 25. Proposed Treatments in Potential Waterfowl Habitat for Alternatives B and C for the Ringo Planning Area. Waterfowl Potential Nesting Habitat Alternative B and C Habitat Alternative B Habitat Alternative C Habitat Treatment1 Fuels Treatments2 Habitat Acres Treated Habitat Acres Treated HIM PB 57 57 HTH PB, UB 6 6 MDW PB 60 60 SDT PB 44 32 Grand Total 167 155 1 HIM = Improvement Cutting; HTH = Commercial Thinning; MDW = Meadow Enhancement; SDT = Small Diameter Thin (8 in. dbh and below). 2 PB = Pile Burn; UB = Underburn.

Roads Refer to the Wildlife Introduction section and the Draft Ringo Transportation Report for road re- designation location maps, existing road condition photos, and more discussion on the road analysis for the Ringo project. No new system roads would be constructed to implement the Ringo project, only administratively re-designated to different maintenance levels (ML). There are no re-designated of roads overlapping waterfowl habitat. No habitat would be removed.

Cumulative Effects The Wildlife Intro. Table 6 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions in the EIS was reviewed for cumulative effects. The Region 6 Invasive Plant EIS (2005) and Invasive Plant Treatments for the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests and the Crooked River National Grassland – Final Supplemental EIS (2012), Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests and Crooked River National Grassland Travel Management Project EIS (2011), Seven Buttes EA (December 1996), Seven Buttes Return EA (July 2001), BLT EIS (2008), and Davis Fire Restoration Project (2003) are all part of existing condition and as such there would be no cumulative effects. The Small Diameter Tree Thinning (2013), Crescent Lake Wildland Urban Interface Fuels Reduction (2004), and implementation actions from the Marsh EA (2016) do not overlap the Ringo project area and as such would have no cumulative effects.

2012 Crescent Roadside Firewood Strategy Implementation. Units are open to the public on a rotating basis to provide a constant supply of firewood. The project would remove dead down wood along roads only, snags and green trees would not be removed. However, the project does not overlap waterfowl potential nesting habitat. It would not impact habitat, therefore would be no cumulative effects.

The Five Buttes (2007) and Three Trails OHV (2010) projects do overlap the Ringo project area and have yet to be fully implemented. The Five Buttes project has completed all but one timber sale, Sky, which is outside of Ringo project area. Commercial harvesting within the Ringo project area has been completed and are part of existing condition. Ongoing Five Buttes fuels treatments would not overlap potential habitat. Small portions of Three Trails OHV project area overlaps the Ringo Project area in the Rivers segments (approximately 10 miles of trail). The Three Tails OHV project does not overlap waterfowl potential nesting habitat. The Five Buttes and Three Trails OHV projects would not add to the impact of the Ringo project to potential habitat. Therefore they would not have cumulative effects.

Forestwide Firewood CE (Future) would be implemented in the future. A letter requesting public input for the Deschutes National Forest’s personal use firewood proposal was sent to the public April 14, 2016. The purpose of the project is to improve the availability of fuelwood as a renewable energy resource for

MIS-77

personal use. It would be implemented in in 2017. The project area encompasses the entire NWFP portion of the Deschutes National Forest. Although the Firewood CE would overlap the project area, no green trees would be removed. Standing and down dead trees of all species could be cut and removed within 150 ft of open roads. Areas of exclusion from the personal firewood collection program would include, but not limited to: Late Successional Reserves, Riparian Reserves, Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, any management allocations of the Deschutes Forest Plan that prohibits firewood collection, active timber sales, research plots, Federal Highway Safety Act roads, and other sensitive locations to protect resources such as wildlife and cultural resources.

The firewood proposal area overlaps the portion of the Ringo project area that is within the boundary of the NWFP. There would be no firewood gathering within wet/dry meadows or riparian areas. There would be no firewood gathering areas within waterfowl nesting habitat. Therefore, there would be no cumulative effects to in the waterfowl.

As discussed above, there would be no past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future projects which overlaps the Ringo project area that would remove waterfowl habitat. Cumulatively there would be no adverse impacts to the waterfowl as a result of Ringo project area. Therefore cumulative effects are the same as direct and indirect effects for the waterfowl.

Conclusion Riparian vegetation restoration treatments restore early seral vegetation and the restoration of natural flows increases water levels in specific areas. Project actions would have the potential to increase waterfowl nesting habitat within riparian areas by approximately 167 acres for Alternative B and 155 acres for Alternative C. The Deschutes National Forest currently has approximately 71,027 acres of waterfowl nesting habitat, the Ringo project would improve conditions for waterfowl within the project area by approximately 155-167 acres. Post implementation treatments would increase waterfowl habitat by 18-20 percent (MIS Table 25). The increase would be negligible at the Forest scale, less than one percent overall. Activities impacts resulting from the Action Alternatives would be minimal because of the small amount of habitat affected and the ability of these species to use a variety of habitats. Standards and Guidelines outlined in the Deschutes LRMP (1990) have been met for this group, including: WL-39. The project will generally benefit this group of waterfowl by improving habitat thereby attracting foraging resident and migratory waterfowl. Therefore, implementation of the Ringo Project would not contribute to a negative trend in viability on the Deschutes National Forest for waterfowl.

Consistency Deschutes National Forest Land Resource Management Plan WL-39 states: “Waterfowl production will be increased where possible with appropriate habitat enhancement, and continued maintenance of waterfowl nesting boxes and platforms”. The Ringo project increases habitat and maintains useable areas for nesting. Implementation of the Ringo project would be consistent with the Standards and Guidelines for the LRMP.

MIS-78

MIS - Big Game – Deer and Elk Assumptions used in the big game analysis:

 Big Game (mule deer and elk) hiding cover was modeled in GIS using the definition of ‘six acres or larger’ described in the Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan (DLRMP USDA 1990). This likely under-estimates the actual amount of hiding cover present in each of the subwatersheds. The Deschutes LRMP (WL-54) also defines hiding cover patches as small as ½ acre in size with advance regeneration of trees with residual larger trees present.

 Big Game (mule deer and elk) hiding cover was modeled in GIS removed all habitat within the Davis Fire area which currently provides hiding cover. Regenerated thick, tall brush in combination with saplings and reaming tree provide hiding cover per Deschutes LRMP standards. Affect areas within the Ringo project include Hamner Butte, Middle Crescent Creek, and Wickiup Reservoir-Deschutes River subwatersheds (MIS Figure 13 and MIS Figure 14).

 There is only mule deer and elk summer range habitat on Crescent Ranger District. Within this limited range, elk will utilize deer habitat.

 No new system roads would be constructed to implement the Ringo project, although temporary roads would be constructed and then returned to hydrological conditions after the completion of all project actions.

 Mule deer and elk hiding cover overlap and are collectively referred to as big game habitat or just hiding cover.

 The Ringo project area is 36,659 acres NF lands only, 37,377 acres including private lands. However, the 71,587 acre big game analysis area (referred as analysis area) incorporates National Forest lands only in 7 subwatersheds spanning across the Crescent and Bend-Fort Rock Ranger Districts: Upper Little Deschutes River, Middle Little Deschutes River, Crescent Creek, and Browns Creek-Deschutes River watersheds, Bunny Butte, Cryder Butte-Little Deschutes River, Hamner Butte, Little Odell Creek, Lower Crescent Creek, Middle Crescent Creek, and Wickiup Reservoir-Deschutes River subwatersheds. The 71,587 acre analysis area, the combined 7 subwatersheds, excludes any private lands and any unforested lands, e.g. streams, rock, etc. All references to the analysis area in this big game section as well as all effects described refer to this 71,587 acre area. Refer to MIS Figure 13 for illustration of Big Game analysis area and overlapping hiding cover.

MIS-79

MIS Figure 13. Modeled Big Game Hiding Cover in the Ringo Project Area (National Forest System Lands Only).

MIS-80

Direction The DLRMP provides habitat management direction for big game animals. Mule deer (DLRMP WL 52- 58, 60) and elk (DLRMP WL 44-50) were designated as Management Indicator Species in the DLRMP and management objectives were developed with ODFW because of their status as game animals MIS Table 28).

The DLRMP addresses forest management practices which will assist ODFW in achieving their MOs for elk populations by providing adequate habitat within Key Elk Habitat Areas (KEHAs) and riparian areas (USDA 1990). There are no KEHAs within the Ringo analysis area; as such further analysis for KEHAs is not needed. Ringo project would be consistent with Deschutes LRMP WL 44-50 for elk. Effects to elk will be analyzed and discussed in conjunction of mule deer in the Big Game section of this document.

Existing Condition Key Indicators for Big Game Habitat Effects to big game will be displayed at the analysis area and the combined Bunny Butte, Cryder Butte- Little Deschutes River, Hamner Butte, Little Odell Creek, Lower Crescent Creek, Middle Crescent Creek, and Wickiup Reservoir-Deschutes River subwatersheds scale and the following indicators will be used to compare the effects of alternatives on big game:  Acres and percent of National Forest land within the project area providing hiding cover and Acres greater than 1 mile from an open motorized route.

The Ringo analysis area provides summer range habitat for mule deer and Rocky Mountain elk. Both mule deer and elk are popular big game species and contribute thousands of recreational visitor days to this area during hunting seasons and for general wildlife viewing opportunities outside the hunting periods. In October summering mule deer in the Ringo area scatter to various winter ranges off the Crescent Ranger district. Some migrate north towards Wickiup Reservoir and the Deschutes River, or west to the Willamette National Forest and/or south to the Umpqua National Forest. Larger groups of mule deer migrate easterly across Highway 97, detouring north or south around Walker Rim to winter ranges in the desert beyond the district and Deschutes National Forest boundary. The few Rocky Mountain elk that summer in the project area also scatter to several winter ranges including moving northerly following the Deschutes River downstream of Wickiup Reservoir and some move westerly into the Umpqua and Willamette River drainages, and/or easterly into the desert. Depending on weather conditions, the animals usually return to summer range beginning in March and April.

Mule Deer The mule deer was chosen as a terrestrial MIS identified in the Deschutes Land and Resource Management Plan (DLRMP) for its socio-economic importance to the hunting community within Central Oregon as well as other neighboring communities. During the Ringo external values mapping hunting opportunities were expressed as a high value by our public and partners within the Ringo project area. Sportsman groups requested that mule deer populations be increased, some as high as maximum potential. However, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) established herd management objectives (MOs) based on winter populations; annual herd composition conducted by ODFW was used to set these objectives for the DLRMP. For the detailed assessment on the mule deer for the Deschutes National Forest, see the Forest-wide Species Assessment (USDA 2012).

The approximate 71,587 acre Ringo analysis area is located within the 1,133,551 acre Ft. Rock big game management unit. The analysis area represents roughly six percent of the entire management unit acreage with 250,494 acres of the management unit located on the Deschutes National Forest, all on the Crescent District. The remaining Ft. Rock unit landscape is either managed by the Fremont-Winema National Forest, Gilchrist State Forest, Bureau of Land Management, or is privately owned. Deer population trend data for the Ft. Rock Management Unit is displayed in MIS Table 26.

MIS-81

MIS Table 16. April (2006-2010) Mule Deer Trend Data on the Ft. Rock Management Unit. Winter Range Expressed as a Percentage of the Management Objective.

Management Unit 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Ft. Rock 8,600 – 77% 5,800 – 52% 7,800 - 70% 5,616 – 50% 5,300 - 47% (MO 11,200 animals)

Within the Ft. Rock unit, mule deer fawn production is considered to be good, but fewer fawns are surviving to reach winter ranges due to predation, disease, highway crossing mortality, and decreasing forage quality (Hedricks ODFW pers. comm. 2010). Hedricks also stated that buck ratios per 100 does seems to be consistent with historical figures, although there are fewer animals overall. Preliminary data through November 2010 on radio collared adult mule deer mortality (total 156 animals) in central Oregon suggests that of the known mortality factors, illegal harvest (14 percent), legal harvest (13 percent), cougar kills (13 percent), and vehicle collisions (8 percent) are the primary mortality causes. Fawning deaths, coyote predation, disease, and fences collectively contribute another 6 percent of the known mortalities (Ardt ODFW pers. comm. 2011). However, 46 percent of the known deer mortalities of the study animals were not attributable to a specific cause. Over time, as more data becomes available in this study, percentages assigned to the various causes of mule deer mortality could change (USDA 2012).

There is no official estimate on numbers of mule that summer in the analysis area. However, the Bend Field Office of ODFW estimated approximately 300 to 450 mule deer summer in the Ringo project area (ODFW 2015).

Elk Elk management objectives were established during a public review process that occurred prior to the adoption of “Oregon’s Elk Management Plan” in 1992. ODFW manages elk based on management objectives (MOs) for winter population size and post-season bull ratios in each Wildlife Management Unit (WMU) in the state. MOs established in 1981 were utilized for the DLRMP elk objectives. MIS Table 27 lists population objectives for the Ft. Rock WMU on lands only associated with the Deschutes National Forest, which includes the Crescent Ranger District and the Ringo project area. There is no official estimate on numbers of elk that summer in the analysis area. However, the Bend Field Office of ODFW estimated approximately 150 elk summer in the Ringo project area (ODFW 2015). For the detailed assessment on the elk for the Deschutes National Forest, see the Forest-wide Species Assessment (USDA 2012).

MIS Table 27. Elk Population MO’s for WMU’s associated with National Forest System Lands. Wildlife Management Unit Summer Population Winter Population Fort Rock 400 20

Mule Deer Hiding Cover Hiding cover must be present over at least 30 percent of each National Forest implementation unit (DLRMP WL 54), generally a subwatershed. The big game analysis includes the seven subwatersheds across Deschutes National Forest Lands only: Bunny Butte (8,459 ac.), Cryder Butte-Little Deschutes River (787 ac), Hamner Butte (12,118 ac.), Little Odell Creek (9,360 ac.), Lower Crescent Creek (7,650 ac.), Middle Crescent Creek (16,074 ac.), Wickiup Reservoir-Deschutes River (17,138 ac.), found in the Upper Little Deschutes River, Middle Little Deschutes River, Crescent Creek, and Browns Creek- Deschutes River watersheds. These have been used to represent the implementation units for analysis (MIS Figure 13, MIS Table 29). To be a suitable hiding area, forested stands must meet one of several conditions including: being six acres or larger and capable of hiding 90 percent of a standing adult deer from view of a human at a distance of 200 feet; being six acres or larger with an average tree height of 6 feet and which has not been thinned in 15 years; or residual clumps of one half acre or larger stands

MIS-82

within units with advanced regeneration (trees including whips up to 7 inch diameter) and at least 12 trees per acre with a diameter greater than seven inches dbh remaining after harvest (DLRMP WL 54). Hiding cover was modeled using a definition of all forested stands with at least 190 trees per acre between 1-10 inches dbh, at least 6.6 feet tall (two meters) and in blocks greater than six acres in size. The following table addresses Standards and Guides for summer range outside of Deer Management Area 7 (Mule Deer Summer Range) specific to the management of summer range habitat.

MIS Table 28. Deschutes LRMP Summer Range Standards and Guidelines. Open Road Hiding Cover: Suitable hiding cover must meet one of the following criteria. Densities Six acre or larger stand capable of hiding 90% of a standing adult deer at 200 feet. Six acres or larger stand with an average height of 6 feet and has not been thinned in 15 years < 2.5 mi. per sq. Residual clumps of ½ acre or larger within units with advanced regeneration and at least 12 mile greater than 7” dbh per acre remaining after harvest. Clumps should be located away from roads.

Mule deer modeled hiding cover habitat (big game hiding cover) was mapped across the entire Deschutes National Forest. Approximately 39,817 acres (five percent) of the total hiding cover exists within the Ringo big game analysis area and approximately 741,150 acres of hiding cover occurs across the Deschutes National Forest. MIS Table 29 shows the modeled hiding cover acres and percent for the Deschutes National Forest (Deschutes NF) and the Ringo big game analysis area (Ringo AA) on National Forest lands only. The Ringo project area encompasses only two percent of the total mule deer hiding cover habitat for the Deschutes NF.

MIS Table 29. Modeled Mule Deer Hiding Cover Habitat Acres and Percent in the Ringo Analysis Area (AA) and Forest Wide (National Forest System Lands Only). Area Hiding Cover Habitat Acres Percent in Deschutes NF Deschutes NF 741,150 100% Ringo AA 39,817 5% Error! Reference source not found. MIS Table 30 displays the current amount of hiding cover present in the Ringo analysis area by subwatershed. However, the numbers shown likely under-represent the total amount of hiding cover present for mule deer because the model utilizes six acres as a minimum patch size and mule deer will utilize cover patches less than one acre. Moreover, hiding cover was not modeled within the Davis Fire area which currently provides hiding cover. Regenerated thick, tall brush (ranging from ground height to over 5.5ft) in combination with saplings and remnant plantations stands and trees across the majority of the fire area provide hiding cover per Deschutes LRMP standards. Subwatersheds within the Ringo analysis area that overlap the Davis Fire include Hamner Butte, Lower Crescent Creek, and Wickiup Reservoir-Deschutes River subwatersheds (MIS Figure 13).

The Ringo analysis area has approximately 56 percent big game hiding cover, well above the DLRMP S&G’s minimum of the 30 percent threshold. In addition, existing big game hiding cover occurs within the overlapping 20,407 acres of the Davis Fire which would further increase the existing percentage (MIS Table 30).

MIS-83

MIS Table 30. Existing Big Game Hiding Cover within the Ringo Analysis Area by Subwatersheds (National Forest System Lands Only). Ringo Big Game Analysis Area 71,587 Acres

Total Acres National Forest Total Acres National System Big Game Hiding Cover in Acres Forest System Lands Inside Davis Fire and Percent of Subwatershed Subwatershed Only (Hiding Cover not calculated)

acres acres/percent acres percent 0 Bunny Butte 8,459 5,256 62% 0% Cryder Butte-Little Deschutes 0 787 596 76% River 0% 7,277 Hamner Butte** 12,118 5,108 42% 60% 0 Little Odell Creek 9,360 6,015 64% 0% 385 Lower Crescent Creek** 7,650 4,545 59% 5% 137 Middle Crescent Creek** 16,074 10,356 64% 1% Wickiup Reservoir-Deschutes 12,608 17,138 7,940 46% River** 74% 20,407 Total Acres 71,587 39,817 56% 29% **Overlaps with Davis Fire and under represents existing hiding cover for big game

Even without accounting for the hiding cover provided within the Davis Fire, all subwatersheds are above the 30 percent threshold for hiding cover (MIS Table 30). As seen in MIS Figure 14, the remnant trees and plantations occur on the south and east sides of Hamner Butte and on the south, east, and west sides of Davis Mountain, as well as, along the edges of the fire boundary. Additively, the existing hiding cover within the Davis Fire and the modeled hiding cover within the big game analysis area would provide more acres of hiding cover within the Wickiup Reservoir-Deschutes River, Hamner Butte, Lower Crescent Creek, and Middle Crescent Creek Subwatersheds than reported. MIS Figure 14 illustrates existing hiding cover within the Davis Fire (red boundary) and the overlapping subwatersheds for the big game analysis area (grey boundary), as well as the Ringo project boundary (blue boundary) and modeled big game hiding cover (blue areas).

MIS-84

MIS Figure 14. Davis Fire and Ringo Big Game Analysis Area Subwatersheds with Modeled Big Game Hiding Cover (National Forest System Lands Only).

Open Motorized Route Banding for Mule Deer and Elk Big Game Roads have long been identified as having impacts on big game populations. Recent studies at the Starkey Project in northeast Oregon (Wisdom 2005) have disclosed even more information on the effects of roads and road densities on deer and elk. Rowland et al. (2005) summarized the direct impacts of roads and associated traffic on elk, in addition to outright mortality from vehicular collisions, as follows: (1) Elk and deer avoid areas near open roads with variability in response to traffic rates; (2) Elk vulnerability to mortality from hunter harvest, both legal and illegal, increases as open road density increases; and (3) In areas of higher road density, elk exhibit higher levels of stress and increased movement rates. Rowland (2005) also noted that elk use increased as distance from open roads increased and suggested that judicious closing of certain road segments, particularly road spurs, may retain or create blocks of habitat that serve as security areas for elk while allowing sufficient road access for other management needs. The Rowland et al. (2000) study at Starkey showed elk response to open roads diminished markedly at a distance of 1,969 yards (1.1 miles). Deer also avoid roads except where there is adequate hiding cover. Other research at Starkey found strong evidence, although observational, that

MIS-85

mule deer avoided elk and tended to select areas near roads as a means of avoiding elk (Johnson et al. 2000; Coe et al. 2001). However, Wisdom et al. (2005) cautioned against inferring these results to areas where elk are absent or sparse. In the Ringo project area, mule deer are much more common than elk and there is no evidence to suggest that deer would selectively utilize lands adjacent to roads.

Because the literature listed above has shown big game animals are known to be sensitive to motorized disturbance, a distance banding analysis was conducted for this project. Two distances of 660ft and one mile were selected to measure edge effects based on research by Forman (2000), Hillis et al. (1991), and Rowland et al. (2000). MIS Table 31 displays the banding distance for National Forest land for the Ringo big game analysis area. The 660 foot buffer zone was chosen because of increased animal vulnerability to legal and illegal harvest adjacent to open roads and motorized trails. One mile was selected to show where motorized disturbance diminished markedly for big game, elk specifically, which would provide the greatest security. The Ringo analysis concluded there was no National Forest acreage greater than one mile from an open route due to existing roads and motorized trails open for public travel. For the Ringo big game analysis area, all big game hiding cover is within one mile of an open motorized route. This means there is no existing high quality security habitat for big game, especially elk, in the project area. An assumption used in the analysis is that acreage within 660 feet of an open road or motorized trail is unavailable for consistent elk use as cover or foraging areas at least during daylight hours when motorized traffic is more likely to occur. The analysis completed and shown in MIS Table 31 illustrates that 52 percent of the existing hiding cover in the analysis area is outside 660 feet from an open motorized route. There is no hiding cover outside the 1 mile band, it is all within one mile of an open motorized route.

MIS Table 31. Hiding Cover Outside of 660 ft and 1 mi. Banding Distance for the Ringo Analysis Area and Open Motorized Route Densities Expressed in Miles per Square Mile for National Forest System Roads Only. Ringo Analysis Area 71,587 Acres Forest Service Hiding Cover Outside Hiding Cover Total Hiding Cover Open Road of 660 ft. Outside of 1 mi. Subwatershed Density Acres Acres Percent Acres mi./sq. mi.

Bunny Butte 5,256 2,507 48% 0 1.4

Cryder Butte-Little 596 123 21% 0 0.17 Deschutes River

Hamner Butte 5,108 2,689 53% 0 1.79

Little Odell Creek 6,015 3,649 61% 0 1.92 Lower Crescent Creek 4,545 1,952 43% 0 1.24 Middle Crescent Creek 10,356 5,979 58% 0 1.88 Wickiup Reservoir- 7,940 3,974 50% 0 1.52 Deschutes River Total Acres 39,817 20,873 52% 0 1.62

MIS-86

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative A Measure: Acres and percent of hiding cover on National Forest land within the analysis area and acres greater than 1 mile from an open motorized route. Proposed Treatment: No Treatment

Big Game Cover Implementation of Alternative A would result in no immediate change in the current cover/forage condition within each sixth-field subwatershed. Within a ten year period, there would be a gradual increase in the amount and distribution of cover present within most subwatersheds. This is the result of tree growth in young forested plantations and older stands with multiple canopy layers that would provide increased capability to hide deer and elk from view. In addition, brush growth and tree regeneration will continue to provide hiding cover. This is especially true for the Davis Fire area. Approximately 12,700 acres of the Davis Fire was planted with conifer seedlings.

Without treatment, it is expected hiding cover would increase in the short-term with increasing stand densities resulting in a decrease in forage. In the long-term, as stands mature and stand densities increase so does the risk of insects, disease, and wildfire which has been identified as a major factor contributing to the loss of hiding cover across the Forest. Over the last 12 years, more than 100,000 acres of stand replacing fire has occurred on the Deschutes National Forest, severely impacting cover in the short-term. An example of this is the 2003 Davis Fire that burned approximately 21,135 acres, which is partially within the Ringo project area. Disturbance species, such as ceanothus, provide an increased forage opportunity. This forage is only beneficial to deer for approximately 10-15 years after which nutrient levels diminish and the forage is no longer beneficial. However, large shrubs dominating burned stands provide hiding cover, except in areas with broken terrain. In these areas shrubs are not robust enough to provide viable cover. In the long-term, viable forage in these burned areas can be drastically reduced if fire is not utilized to promote a continuous cycle of regenerating shrubs.

Under Alternative A, the existing condition, forest stands are diverging from historic conditions seen with the 2003 Davis Fire, increased stand densities and encroachment throughout the project area, but especially in mature ponderosa pine stands, riparian areas and meadows. With the suppression of the frequent fire regime and ingrowth of the understories in stands or encroachment within meadows, open ponderosa pine and mixed conifer stands, as well as riparian and meadow communities are becoming less abundant. Riparian areas are important because they provide nutrient rich early-seral grasses and forbs. The upland vegetation also provides much needed nutrients derived from palatable brush, grasses and forbs. These types of drier vegetation are more readily available in the Ringo project area. High quality forage is essential in the summer, providing nutrients for antler growth, milk production for lactating does and cows, providing energy for breeding season in late summer and maintaining reserves to assist with winter survival. This type of high quality forage is provided by the development of nutrient rich early seral grasses and forbs. Forage is produced from thinning and prescribed fire that open up stands, reducing shading and shrub competition and enhancing grass and forb production.

Without treatment and prescribed burning, riparian shrub diversity and grass and forb production will continue to decrease as it continues to be encroached upon by lodgepole pine and other conifer. Stand densities would increase, resulting in a reduction of available high quality forage and cover for big game especially during fawning/calving periods. In the event of a fire, key areas would become dominated by shrubs (primarily manzanita and/or ceanothus) and would not provide sufficient foraging opportunities or shade during summer months. Concentrations of down wood would accumulate from stressed stands contributing to increased fuel loadings and resulting in more intense fire. In addition, high downed wood concentrations could potentially restrict movement in the area.

MIS-87

With Alternative A, there would be no short-term loss of brush, grass, or forbs continuing to provide the existing levels of forage base for big game in the project area for the short term. Based on these conditions, it is expected the mule deer and elk herds for this portion of the Ft. Rock WMU would be maintained at current levels. However, quality hiding cover, fawning/calving habitat, and important summer foraging within the project area would decrease overtime due to increased stand densities, encroachment, and possible stochastic events. In addition, these animals would still be subject to mortality factors including winter range habitat conditions located off the Crescent District, as well as extreme weather conditions, highway crossing mortality, predation, and disease.

Open Motorized Route Densities Big Game The signing of the Three Trails OHV Record of Decision (ROD) in December 2010 resulted in a lowering of road densities and combined road and trail densities, some of which overlap with the Ringo analysis area and are displayed in MIS Table BG 32. Small portions of Three Trails OHV project area overlaps the Ringo Project area. The Three Trails OHV Project (2010) is currently being implemented. Approximately 10 miles of open roads and trail densities shown below has been incorporated within the open mototrized (roads and trails) density for the Ringo big game analysis area. This is the same for all project alternatives. Implementation of the Ringo project would be consistent with the Deschutes LRMP Standards and Guidelines (S&G’s) as current road densities are lower than the 2.5 mi/mi2 (currently at 1.6 mi/mi2). The road closures implemented with the Three Trails OHV decision benefited deer and elk by restricting motorized access to designated roads and trails and eliminated cross-country motorized travel in the Ringo analysis area.

The selection of this alternative would result in no change in the number of miles of existing open road densities within each subwatershed of the project area. The DLRMP S&Gs for road densities has a target level of 2.5 miles per square mile to achieve deer summer range habitat effectiveness, unless impacts on deer can be avoided or the proposed project would result in a net benefit to deer habitat. MIS Table 32 displays the motorized route densities of roads open for public use. Refer to Draft Ringo Transportation Report the completed analysis on open roads (including designated motorized trails) analysis for the Ringo project. The overall open road density averaged across the analysis area is 1.6 mi/mi2, well below the 2.5 mi/mi2 target threshold as described in the DLRMP.

MIS Table 32. Open Road Densities Expressed in Miles per Square Mile for National Forest System Roads Only. Subwatershed Acres and Mule Deer Hiding Cover on National Forest Lands Only for the Analysis Area. Ringo Analysis Area 71,587 Acres Total Acres Forest Service Open National Forest Big Game Hiding Cover Subwatershed Road Density System Lands Only mi./sq. mi. acres acres percent Bunny Butte 1.4 8,459 5,256 62% Cryder Butte-Little 0.17 787 596 76% Deschutes River Hamner Butte 1.79 12,118 5,108 42% Little Odell Creek 1.92 9,360 6,015 64% Lower Crescent Creek 1.24 7,650 4,545 59% Middle Crescent Creek 1.88 16,074 10,356 64% Wickiup Reservoir- 1.52 17,138 7,940 46% Deschutes River Total Acres 1.62 71,587 39,817 56%

MIS-88

Direct and Indirect Effects to Alternatives B and C Measure: Acres and percent of hiding cover on National Forest land within the analysis area and acres greater than 1 mile from an open motorized route. Proposed Treatments: HTH, HIM, MLT (Alternative C only), MDW, SDT, UB and Pile and Burn; Maintenance Level (ML) Road Changes - ML 1to ML 2 and ML2 to ML1.

As seen in MIS Figure 14 the remnant trees and plantations occur on the south and east sides of Hamner Butte and on the south, east, and west sides of Davis Mountain, as well as, along the edges of the fire boundary. Additively, the existing hiding cover within the Davis Fire and the modeled hiding cover within the big game analysis area would provide more acres of hiding cover within the Wickiup Reservoir-Deschutes River, Hamner Butte, Lower Crescent Creek, and Middle Crescent Creek Subwatersheds than reported.

MIS Table 33 illustrates existing modeled hiding cover for mule deer (big game) by alternative at the Ringo big game analysis area and on the Deschutes NF level. The analysis area includes five percent of the total hiding cover habitat for the Deschutes NF. Both Action Alternative proposed treatments would occur on less than one percent of the Deschutes NF (MIS Table 33).

MIS Table 33. Modeled Mule Deer Hiding Cover Habitat Acres and Percent in the Ringo Analysis Area (AA) and Deschutes National Forest by Alternative (National Forest System Lands Only).

Ringo Project Acres Big Game AA Cover Habitat Percent in Deschutes NF and Percent

39,817 Alternative A Existing Acres 5% 100% 4,348 Alternative B Treated Acres >1% 11%

4,482 Alternative C Treated Acres >1% 11%

MIS Figure 15 depicts existing modeled hiding cover for mule deer (big game) at the analysis area by Action Alternative. In MIS Figure 15, existing hiding cover (potential habitat) is symbolized by gray, Alternative B is symbolized by black diagonal lines, and Alternative C is symbolized by blue.

MIS-89

MIS Figure 15. Modeled Potential Big Game Hiding Cover Habitat and Alternative B and C in the Ringo Project Area (National Forest Lands Only).

MIS-90

Implementation of either Action Alternative would reduce big game hiding cover in the analysis area. To mitigate Action Alternative affects to hiding cover the Resource Protection Measures include, but are not limited to: 15-20 percent of each treatment unit would be retained, seasonal restrictions would be in place during calving/fawning season, roadside screens would be maintained in units adjacent to heavily traveled roads, riparian buffers would be in place to project natural resources as well as protecting important calving/fawning areas within, and within Eastside Screens area, corridors have been established to maintain connection to LOS type stands, which includes hiding cover. For the full list of Resource Protection Measure refer to the Wildlife Intro. Section of this document.

MIS Table 34 illustrates existing modeled hiding cover for mule deer (big game) by alternative for each subwatershed. All but one of the seven subwatersheds, Hamner Butte, would have hiding cover levels above 30 percent post treatment (MIS Table 34). Hiding cover is under-represented because a large portion of the Hamner Butte subwatershed was burned over in 2003, but now provides additional hiding cover. Also refer to MIS Figure 14, which shows existing hiding cover, and MIS Figure 15 which shows modeled hiding cover and proposed treatments.

MIS-91

MIS Table 34. Modeled Mule Deer Hiding Cover Habitat Acres and Percent in the Ringo Analysis Area by Subwatershed (National Forest System Lands Only). Ringo Big Game Analysis Area 71,587 Acres (National Forest Lands Only)

Total Acres of National Forest System Mule Deer Hiding Lands inside Cover Acres and Davis Fire Percent of Hiding Treated and Untreated Mule Deer Hiding Cover Acres and Percent of Hiding Cover (Acres of Cover by Hiding cover Subwatershed Subwatershed NOT calculated)

Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Acres *T. *T. *Ut. Percent *T. *T. *Ut. Percent Acres Percent Percent Acres Percent Acres Remain Acres Percent Acres Remain 0 Bunny Butte 5,256 62% 28 1% 5,228 61% 28 1% 5,228 61% 0%

Cryder Butte- Little 0 596 76% 114 19% 482 57% 116 20% 480 56% Deschutes 0% River

Hamner 7,277 5,108 42% 1,629 32% 3,479 10%** 1,663 33% 3,445 11%** Butte** 60%

Little Odell 0 6,015 64% 449 7% 5,566 57% 449 7% 5,566 57% Creek 0% Lower 385 Crescent 4,545 59% 710 16% 3,835 43%** 705 16% 3,840 43%** 0% Creek** Middle 137 Crescent 10,356 64% 1,207 12% 9,149 52%** 1,207 12% 9,149 52%** 1% Creek** Wickiup Reservoir- 12,608 7,940 46% 211 3% 7,729 43%** 313 4% 7,627 42%** Deschutes 74% River**

Total Acres 20,407 39,817 56% 4,348 11% 35,469 45% 4,482 11% 35,335 45% (subwatersheds 29% total 71,587 ac) Deschutes Hiding Cover - 741,150 40% 4,348 0.60% 736,802 39% 4,482 0.60% 736,668 39% (subwatersheds total 1,875,151 ac) *T.=Treated Acres; Ut.=Untreated Acres ** Modeled hiding cover under-represented existing hiding cover within the Davis Fire, hiding cover in Davis Fire not calculated

Treated acres in MIS Table 34 do not factor in the placement of 15-20 percent retention areas for each proposed unit, (Resource Protection Measures). Where the 15-20 percent retention areas overlap hiding cover, the hiding cover would remain. Alternative C would treat the most hiding cover, approximately 4,482 acres (11 percent of project hiding cover habitat), where Alternative B would treat approximately 4,348 acres (11 percent of nesting habitat; MIS Table 34). For all hiding cover habitat on the Deschutes

MIS-92

NF the Action Alternatives would treat less than one percent of the habitat (MIS Table 34). Both Action Alternatives would reduce the subwatersheds hiding cover levels from 40 percent to 39 percent, still above the 30 percent Deschutes LRMP S&G’s for mule deer.

Part of the Purpose and Need for this project is to reduce the risk of large-scale loss of forests to disturbance processes and the proposed activities address the Purpose and Need as well as the ecosystem service of managing big game habitats for the long-term. Maintaining a well distributed mix of forage and cover blocks for the long-term in each subwatershed is a desired objective, as is reducing risk of losing these habitat components in a large event, e.g. the Davis Fire. Currently, much of the forage base is located hundreds of yards from the nearest security cover though topographic features provide some screening. The project, while converting some stands from hiding and security cover to a more open forest condition, would reduce the likelihood of another event of this magnitude from occurring. Both Action Alternatives would provide balanced habitat conditions for deer and elk on their summer range.

MIS Table 35 displays Alternative B proposed treatments and treatment acres within mule deer (big game) hiding cover for the big game analysis area (by subwatershed). Alternative B proposes to treat 4,348 acres of hiding cover (11 percent of hiding cover within the analysis area). Hamner Butte subwatershed would receive the most proposed treatment with 1,629 acres (32 percent of the subwatershed), the majority being treated by HTH – 1,199 acres. Once again, not all 1,199 acres would be removed due to the prescription, fuels treatment, and the 15-20 percent retention for each unit.

MIS Table 35. Acres of Modeled Big Game Hiding Cover Treated by Alternative B by treatment and subwatershed (National Forest Lands Only). Big Game Analysis Area: Alternative B Treatment of Hiding Cover in Acres Cryder Wickiup Lower Middle Treatment Fuels Bunny Butte-Little Hamner Little Odell Reservoir- Grand Crescent Crescent Treatment Butte Deschutes Butte Creek Deschutes Total Creek Creek River River PB 0 0 86 0 113 203 22 424 HIM PB, UB 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 HIM Total - 0 0 86 0 113 203 23 425 PB 0 10 142 31 70 39 292 HTH PB, UB 19 25 1058 220 341 407 74 2,145 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 HTH Total - 19 35 1,199 252 411 407 121 2,444 MDW Total PB 0 0 0 0 0 54 6 60

PB 9 80 338 58 180 384 49 1,098 SDT

PB, UB 0 0 0 113 5 70 0 188 SDT Total - 9 80 338 171 185 454 49 1,286 UB Total - 0 0 6 26 89 12 133 Grand Total - 28 114 1,629 449 710 1,207 211 4,348 1HIM = Improvement Cutting; HTH = Commercial Thinning; MLT = Multi-Aged Management; MDW = Meadow Enhancement; SDT = Small Diameter Thin (8 in. dbh and below); UB = Underburn. 2PB = Pile Burn; UB = Underburn.

MIS Table 36 displays Alternative C proposed treatments and treatment acres within mule deer (big game) hiding cover habitat for the big game analysis area (by subwatershed). Alterative C proposes the

MIS-93

most treatment between alternatives - 4,482 acres (11 percent of hiding cover within the analysis area). Hamner Butte subwatershed would receive the most proposed treatment with 1,663 acres (33 percent of the subwatershed), the majority being treated by HTH - 921 acres. Not all 1.663 acres would be removed due to prescription, fuels treatment, and the 15-20 percent retention for each unit.

MIS Table 36. Acres of Modeled Big Game Hiding Cover Treated by Alternative C by treatment and subwatershed (National Forest Lands Only). Big Game Analysis Area: Alternative C Treatment of Hiding Cover in Acres Cryder Lower Middle Wickiup Fuels Bunny Butte-Little Hamner Little Odell Grand Treatment1 Crescent Crescent Reservoir- Treatment2 Butte Deschutes Butte Creek Total Creek Creek Deschutes River River HIM Total PB 0 0 86 0 104 203 22 414 PB 0 0 128 31 68 0 0 227 HTH PB, UB 0 25 793 144 317 374 72 1,725 UB 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 HTH Total - 0 25 921 175 385 374 80 1,960 MDW Total PB 0 0 0 0 0 54 6 60 PB 10 24 0 11 0 18 64 MLT PB, UB 19 264 77 19 33 3 416 MLT Total - 19 10 288 77 30 33 22 479 PB 9 80 318 58 180 384 146 1,175 SDT PB, UB 0 0 0 113 5 70 35 223 SDT Total - 9 80 318 171 185 454 181 1,398 UB Total - 0 2 50 26 0 89 2 170 Grand - 28 116 1,663 449 705 1,207 313 4,482 Total 1HIM = Improvement Cutting; HTH = Commercial Thinning; MLT = Multi-Aged Management; MDW = Meadow Enhancement; SDT = Small Diameter Thin (8 in. dbh and below); UB = Underburn. 2PB = Pile Burn; UB = Underburn.

HIM, HTH, MLT (MLT only in Alternative C) Each action alternative proposes a combination of commercial thinning and post-sale activities including small-tree thinning, post and pole sales, and fuels activities that would change the vegetative character of affected stands. Overstory treatments of HIM, HTH, MLT (Alternative C only), and MDW would benefit foraging habitat by opening the canopy thus influencing the growth and density of understory shrubs and grasses. Conversely, each proposed Action Alternative treatment (HIM, HTH, MLT (Alternative C only), MDW, SDT, and UB) also has the potential to reduce hiding cover. This is due to, in most instances, the reduction in tree densities which would open the forested stands resulting in increased visibility and loss of hiding cover for big game. Opening these stands would increase the amount of sunlight reaching the forest floor and result in increased growth potential to forage species in the short term and small trees in the long term. This would include brush (e.g. antelope bitterbrush and manzanita) and, where prescribed burning would occur, an increase in native bunch grasses. In HIM, HTH, and MLT units where the desired condition is to move toward a late-successional single story habitat, viewing distances into affected stands would generally be greater than in multi-story prescriptions. These treatments would mainly occur within ponderosa pine dominated stands, resulting in stand characteristics closer to HRV. Units proposed for MLT treatment would retain more hiding cover than other treatments, due to the goal of maintaining a multi-story stand in the short and long term. These treatments would mainly occur in

MIS-94

ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir dominated stands. Single story objectives would mainly apply to treatment units within lodgepole pine plant associations. Single story treatments (HIM and MDW) would result in stands being reclassified as foraging habitat in place of hiding cover.

Meadow Enhancement Proposed meadow enhancement treatments (MDW) would reduce both the overstory and understory. The objective of this treatment is to return vegetation types back to a dry/wet meadow, or a riparian vegetation type. These treatment areas are located in areas dominated by dense small diameter lodgepole pine, which are encroaching on riparian/meadow areas. There would be approximately 60 acres of MDW treatments with Alternative B and Alternative C. Resource Protection Measures ensure 15-20 percent of the proposed unit would be left untreated providing patches of hiding cover habitat within foraging habitat. For meadow treatments over lapping hiding cover there would be no proposed underburning in order to retain the hiding cover (MIS Table 35 and 36). Post treatment, the openings created from the proposed treatments would increase meadow areas, increasing important fawning and calving habitat. These areas would also provide additional high quality foraging opportunities, which are important during fawning/calving season and throughout the summer. Within these areas big game can gain high quality nutrients needed for winter migration and to sustain them in to the winter. Seasonal Restriction are in placed to minimize disturbance from project activates during fawning/calving season.

Underburning Underburning would generally be conducted in ponderosa pine dominated stands, which are present in each of the seven subwatersheds of the project area. Approximately 803 acres of UB treatments would be a reentry into stands that have been previously treated with other projects (see Draft Ringo Fuels Report). UB could occur in the spring or fall depending on conditions favorable for burning. UB would decrease brush in the short term, however, most species would resprout, in some cases increase, enhancing and improving foraging and hiding cover habitat. With repeat entry brush density would diminish. It would also result in a short-term loss of forage and cover currently provided by dense patches of ceanothus and manzanita. Busse and Reigel (2008) conducted a study on the Deschutes National Forest on the response of bitterbrush to repeated prescribed burning in ponderosa pine forests. Their study had several major conclusions, including that low- to moderate-intensity spring burning killed the majority of the bitterbrush plants on replicate plots. The initial burns resulted in a short-term collapse in bitterbrush cover followed by a fairly rapid recovery period. A repeat underburning was accomplished and although it did not eliminate bitterbrush from the forest understory, it did substantially reduce seedling recruitment and total cover. They concluded that repeated burning is an effective tool to reduce the presence of bitterbrush and modify its function as both a wildlife browse and a ladder fuel.

The disturbance associated with prescribed burns would be a short-term localized effect normally limited to one or two days while timber sales could be in operation for several months up to two years. This has the potential for deer to avoid these disturbance areas during spring and fall migrations (April-June) and (October-November). Daytime avoidance of these areas would probably occur but animals could still move through the burn or timber sale areas after dark. There should be no long-term changes to mule deer migration through the Ringo project area.

For proposed treatments by both Action Alternatives, hiding cover would be restricted to treatment unit retention areas and untreated stands in the project area. Several mitigation measures have been proposed that would lessen effects on deer and elk. A number of treatment units would have a limited operating period applied during the deer fawning/elk calving period of May 1 – June 30 (refer to Resource Protection Measure for the list). Disturbance activities such as spring burning and timber harvest would be restricted on units near water sources to reduce the potential of fawn and calf mortality from abandonment. Other Resource Protection Measures include:

MIS-95

 Placement of no treatment retention clumps would be preferentially directed near open roads and trails where feasible providing screening and cover.  15-20 percent of each unit would be retained (untreated); a minimum six acre hiding cover clump would be left surrounding guzzlers.  Underburning activities include burning in a mosaic pattern and the retention of 30-40 percent of the shrub communities including bitterbrush in unburned islands for the benefit of big game, small mammals, and songbirds. The last measure has been shown to be effective based on past burning operations and would help maintain bitterbrush distributed across each treatment unit.

In addition, Project Design Features include a provision for the retention of untreated acreage for various resource concerns including big game hiding cover, dense canopied stands, raptor nest stands, heritage sites, dense concentrations of snags and down wood, shrub patches for foraging or nesting, or other desired features. In all action alternatives it is reasonable to assume some shift in big game distribution within the project area may result from the reduction in bitterbrush cover. Those stands not selected for thinning and burning and lodgepole pine dominated stands may experience greater mule deer use because of the greater availability of bitterbrush.

Open Motorized Route Densities Big Game

Roads Refer to the Wildlife Introduction section and the Draft Ringo Transportation Report for road re- designation location maps, existing road condition photos, and more discussion on the road analysis for the Ringo project. No new system roads would be constructed to implement the Ringo project, roads will only be administratively re-designated to different maintenance levels (ML). ML 1 roads are intermittent service roads, but are closed to non-authorized vehicular traffic, whereas ML 2 roads are open for use by high clearance vehicles. These open road densities would still be consistent with LRMP standards and guidelines for road densities Forest and project wide. The re-designation of ML roads would not include any ground disturbing activities outside of the already disturbed footprint of the existing road, e.g. the roads would not become wider. No snags are proposed to be removed with the administratively re-definition of the roads, except for safety reasons.

Proposed re-designation of approximately 2.8 miles would partially overlap hiding cover habitat. ML 1 roads are currently being heavily used as access routes from private lands to Forest lands by the public. The proposed ML 2 roads are physically closed by tank traps and/or vegetation, rendering these roads unusable by motorized vehicles. In total, there would be a net gain of 0.10 miles of open roads with the re-designations. Alternative B and C would increase the open road density by 0.02 miles per square mile (MIS Table 37). The increase in open road density is nominal. The configuration of the re-designated closed to open roads and open to closed would reroute vehicle traffic to already disturbed areas resulting in larger undisturbed blocks of habitat.

MIS Table 37 compares subwatershed open road densities by alternative. The re-designation of roads would change open road density in three subwatersheds, Hamner Butte, Lower Crescent Creek, and Wickiup Reservoir-Deschutes River. Re-designation of roads within the Hamner Butte subwatershed would not increase overall open road density. Re-designation of roads within the Lower Crescent Creek subwatershed would decrease overall open road density from 1.24 miles per square mile to 1.22 miles per square mile. Re-designation of roads within the Wickiup Reservoir-Deschutes River subwatershed would increase overall open road density from 1.52 miles per square mile to 1.54 miles per square mile. With implementation of the Action Alternatives, the overall open road density averaged across the analysis area

MIS-96

would be a nominal change to 1.64 miles per square mile from 1.62 miles per square mile, well below the 2.5 target threshold as described in the DLRMP.

MIS Table 37. Open Road Densities Expressed in Mile per Square Mile for National Forest System Roads Only Ringo Analysis Area 71,587 Acres

Alternative A Alternative B and C Forest Service Open Forest Service Open Subwatershed Road Density Road Density

mi./sq. mi. mi./sq. mi. Bunny Butte 1.4 1.4 Cryder Butte-Little 0.17 0.17 Deschutes River Hamner Butte* 1.79* 1.79* Little Odell Creek 1.92 1.92 Lower Crescent Creek* 1.24* 1.22* Middle Crescent Creek 1.88 1.88 Wickiup Reservoir- 1.52* 1.54* Deschutes River* Density 1.62 1.64 *Subwatersheds with Proposed Re-designation of ML Roads.

Open Motorized Route Banding for Mule Deer and Elk Big Game The intent is to show the distribution of hiding cover across the analysis area and how the amount of hiding cover adjacent to roads changes between alternatives. Generally speaking, more hiding cover adjacent to roads equals more screening for deer and elk foraging or traveling through the area and a decreased risk of animal mortality from legal and illegal harvest. However, topographic features such as hills, draws, and/or high shrub cover where available, may partially compensate for low amounts of hiding cover. As previously mentioned, the hiding cover amounts listed represent only blocks equal to or greater than six acres in size. This would likely under-represent the actual amount of hiding cover present within the 660 foot disturbance zone analyzed.

Banding analysis for the analysis area showed that 20,873 acres (52 percent) of hiding cover is located greater than 660ft from an open motorized route (MIS Table 38). For both Action Alternatives, only four percent of hiding cover outside of the 660ft band would be treated. The quality of habitat within this four percent would be diminished due to the removal of hiding cover through the removal of vegetation. For the Ringo big game analysis area, all big game hiding cover is within one mile of an open motorized route. As there is no existing high quality security habitat for big game in the project area and since the Action Alternatives would not change open motorized routes, (MIS Table 37) there would be no change between project alternatives.

MIS-97

MIS Table 38. Hiding Cover Outside of the 660 ft and 1 mi. Banding Distance for the Ringo Analysis Area, but within Alternative B and C Treatment Units and Open Motorized Route Densities Expressed in Miles per Square Mile for National Forest System Roads Only. Ringo Analysis Area 71,587 Acres Acres of AA Subwatershed Mule Forest Inside Davis Alternative B Alternative C Deer Service Fire Hiding Cover Treated Hiding Treated Acres of Open (portions of Outside of 660 ft. Cover Outside Hiding Cover Hiding Road Subwatershed existing mule 660ft. Outside 660ft. Cover Density deer hiding cover) Perce mi./sq. Acres Acres Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres nt mi.

Bunny Butte 0 5,256 2,507 48% 5 0% 5 0% 1.4 Cryder Butte- Little Deschutes 0 596 123 21% 30 5% 30 5% 0.17 River Hamner Butte** 7,277 5,108 2,689 53% 609 12% 615 12% 1.79 Little Odell 0 6,015 3,649 61% 205 3% 205 3% 1.92 Creek Lower Crescent 385 4,545 1,952 43% 327 7% 322 7% 1.24 Creek** Middle Crescent 137 10,356 5,979 58% 506 5% 506 5% 1.88 Creek** Wickiup Reservoir- 12,608 7,940 3,974 50% 87 1% 108 1% 1.52 Deschutes River** Total Acres 20,407 39,817 20,873 52% 1,769 4% 1,791 4% 1.62 ** Modeled hiding cover under represent existing hiding cover within the Davis Fire

Cumulative Effects The big game analysis area was the area of consideration for this analysis. The Wildlife Intro. Table 6 Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions in the EIS was reviewed for cumulative effects. The Region 6 Invasive Plant EIS (2005) and Invasive Plant Treatments for the Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests and the Crooked River National Grassland – Final Supplemental EIS (2012), Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests and Crooked River National Grassland Travel Management Project EIS (2011), and Marsh EIS (2017) do not overlap the big game analysis area. The Seven Buttes EA (December 1996), Seven Buttes Return EA (July 2001), BLT EIS (2008), and Davis Fire Restoration Project (2003), Small Diameter Tree Thinning (2013 and prioir) are all part of existing condition and as such there would be no cumulative effects.

The Five Buttes (2007) project overlaps the Ringo big game analysis area and is not fully implemented. The Five Buttes project has completed all but one timber sale, Sky1, which is outside of analysis area.

1 Since this report was written the Sky Units were dropped from harvest consideration due to proximity of an northern spotted owl detection.

MIS-98

Commercial harvesting within the Ringo project area from Five Buttes has been completed and is part of existing condition. Ongoing Five Buttes fuels treatments would overlap potential habitat. Underburning would not propose to remove overstory habitat, though incidental green tree loss may occur. Underburning would remove brush habitat, which could remove small patches of hiding cover. The Five Buttes and subsequent burn plan resource protection measures would require the retention of unburned patches including acreage with shrubs and forbs. Monitoring has shown these requirements to be generally effective, given changing environmental conditions. Usually 30-40 percent of each burn unit’s shrub cover would be left untreated for big game browse and hiding cover. The underburning within the Five Buttes project may have a short impact on potential mule deer (big game) hiding cover. However, with project and burn plan resource protection measures and/or mitigations measures of retaining 30-40 percent of brush within each unit and seasonal restrictions, effects would be minimal. The Five Buttes project would have additional impacts in addition to the Ringo project to potential big game foraging and hiding cover habitat. There would be a decrease of 422 additional hiding cover acres and an increase of that same amount in forage habitat.

Three Trails OHV Project (2010) has been previously discussed within existing condition of the Big Game analysis. The Three Trails OHV Project (2010) is being implemented. The purpose of the project was to implement a sustainable OHV trail system on the Crescent Ranger District. Small portions of Three Trails OHV project area overlaps the Ringo Project area in the Rivers segments (approximately 10 miles). These miles have been accounted for in existing condition for the roads analysis, refer to Draft Ringo Transportation Report. There are 17 Ringo Action Alternative which are adjacent or partially contain portions of the Three Trails OHV trails; Units: 220-224, 226-230, 234-2347, and 239-241. Big game summer hiding cover habitat overlaps all or portions of these units.

Associated actions with the Three Trails OHV project include the closure and rehabilitation of user- created roads and trails not needed for the trail system. There is the potential to create additional very short-term noise disturbance while work is on-going but result in long-term benefits of reducing overall motorized travel within the area. Resource Protection Measures and Mitigation Measure for the Three Trails OHV and Ringo project protect big game and big game habitat. The effects for big game on the preferred Alternative (E), from the Three Trails OHV EIS, concluded that road and user-created trail closures would benefit deer and elk by increasing the amount of undisturbed habitat available to the animals, by increasing the number of large block security areas greater than 250 acres in size, clustering OHV trails where possible to minimize the amount of lands subject to motorized disturbance, and reducing road densities. The road and trail system open for motorized use as identified in the Record of Decision (ROD) for Three Trails OHV EIS was used as the existing condition for determining road and trail densities for the Ringo big game effects.

The 2012 Crescent Roadside Firewood Strategy project is an ongoing rotation of units to provide a continuous supply of firewood for the public outside of the NWFP. Project design criteria for that project include: firewood cutting units are limited to removal of dead and down wood only; off-road motorized travel is only within the 200 foot personal use firewood cutting areas; all green trees and other vegetation is required to be protected; no standing dead or green trees are to be cut; and no firewood cutting areas or off-road travel would be permitted within Riparian Habitat Conservations Areas, Old Growth Management Areas, BEMAs, the little Deschutes River Wild and Scenic river corridor and/or other areas of cultural concern. Minimum down wood requirements would follow DLRMP standards and guidelines, and are the same as those proposed for the firewood cutting areas within those areas overlapping Ringo are opened on a rotating basis depending on availability of wood and/or conflict with other resource extraction such as timber sales. The 2012 Crescent Roadside Firewood area overlaps 1,615 acres of the Ringo project area east of the NWFP boundary; overlapping 97 Ringo Action Alternative proposed units. Not all overlapping Ringo units allow firewood gathering due to Resource Protection Measures. However the Crescent Roadside project would remove firewood from 200 ft. of an

MIS-99

open road, but not within the entire unit. Neither projects allow for the removal of green trees within a firewood gathering unit and as such would not reduce green tree levels. As no green trees would be removed, no hiding cover habitat would be lost outside of the Ringo units. Habitat within 712 acres (Alt. B) and 814 acres (Alt. C) of overlapping Ringo proposed units and Crescent Roadside Firewood areas would be already be impacted. Crescent Roadside Firewood would not add to these affects.

As the Crescent Roadside project does not remove hiding cover, the only additive affect would be from noise disturbance. There could of additional noise within potential habitat outside of the Ringo project units from the Crescent Roadside Firewood project. From reviewed literature on mule deer and elk, would not utilize roadside hiding cover and foraging habitat when traffic and activities is present. The Starkey project found higher frequency of elk and mule deer use areas away from roads opened to motorized vehicles; elk were found greater distances away than deer (Wisdom 2000). Through the Starkey experiment and other literature mule deer and elk would not be utilizing areas where there are activities from firewood cutting. The noise from the Crescent Roadside Firewood may disturbed big game causing them to flee a short distance from the firewood gathering activities. Within the overlapping project areas, big game have ample hiding cover adjacent to the units they could utilize. In addition, through project design features of seasonal restrictions for fawning and calving restrictions and no firewood cutting within Riparian Habitat Conservations Areas, Old Growth Management Areas, the little Deschutes River Wild and Scenic river corridor areas of important rearing and foraging big game habitat as well as hiding cover and foraging would not be effected. There is ample adjacent habitat that can be utilized during firewood gathering operations. The firewood gathering would be in small areas for short duration at a time, rotating across the Crescent Roadside Firewood areas. The Crescent Roadside Firewood Strategy would only affect big game with noise disturbance during the short duration of firewood gathering on approximately 903 (Alt B) to 801 (Alt C) additional acres.

Forestwide Firewood CE would be implemented in the future. A letter requesting public input for the Deschutes National Forest’s personal use firewood proposal was sent to the public April 14, 2016. The purpose of the project is to improve the availability of fuelwood as a renewable energy resource for personal use. It would be implemented in in 2017. The project area encompasses the entire NWFP portion of the Deschutes National Forest. Although the Firewood CE would overlap the project area, no green trees would be removed, hiding cover removed. Standing and down dead trees of all species could be cut and removed within 150 ft of open roads. Standing dead would be limited to less than 20 in. dbh. Areas of exclusion from the personal firewood collection program would include, but not limited to: Late Successional Reserves, Riparian Reserves, Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas, any management allocations of the Deschutes Forest Plan that prohibits firewood collection, active timber sales, research plots, Federal Highway Safety Act roads, and other sensitive locations to protect resources such as wildlife and cultural resources.

The Forestwide Firewood CE proposal area overlaps 1,805 acres of the Ringo project area that is within the boundary of the NWFP, overlapping 154 Ringo Action Alternative proposed units. Approximately 1,175 (Alt C) to 1,187 acres (Alt B) are outside of units and 618 (Alt B) to 630 (Alt C) acres inside units would be affected by the Forestwide Firewood proposal. Not all overlapping Ringo units allow firewood gathering due to Resource Protection Measures and Ringo project does not allow for the removal of snags within overlapping proposed units. However, the Forestwide project would remove standing dead as well as down within 150 ft of the open road of these units as well, but not within the entire unit. Resource Protection Measures and Mitigation Measure protect big game and big game habitat. Specifically fawning and calving restrictions are part of the design features for the project. The firewood proposals would not remove any green trees in these units that are within 150 from an open road.

The overlapping Forest-wide Firewood CE and Ringo project would have a noise disturbance cumulative effect to mule deer and elk. The noise from the Forest-wide Firewood CE may disturbed big game

MIS-100

causing them to flee a short distance from the firewood gathering actives. However, big game have ample hiding cover adjacent to the units they could utilize. The Crescent Roadside Firewood Strategy would only affect big game with noise disturbance during the short duration of firewood gathering on approximately 1,187 (Alt B) to 1, 175acres (Alt C) additional acres.

All projects referred to above list Resource Protection Measures and/or Mitigation Measure which protect big game and big game habitat. Specifically, projects have seasonal restriction during fawning and calving periods in ordered to protect needed habitat from project activities. For the Ringo big game analysis area the Five Buttes underburning, Crescent Roadside Firewood Strategy and the Forestwide Firewood CE would have a minimal impact to mule deer and elk (big game) summer habitat for the Deschutes National Forest. The Five Buttes project and burn plan have resource protection measures and/or mitigations measures would retain 30-40 percent of brush within each unit and would implement needed seasonal restrictions, resulting in minimal impacts to mule deer and elk forage and hiding cover. Post-treatment brush would grow back increasing big game hiding cover and foraging habitat, adding to the ample existing potential summer habitat for mule deer and elk. Five Buttes underburning projects would have a short duration of cumulative effects of reduced forage with the Ringo project for mule deer and elk. The Crescent Roadside Firewood Strategy and Forestwide Firewood CE may have a noise disturbance cumulative effect to mule deer and elk for the duration of the firewood season.

From reviewed literature mule deer and elk, specially, would not utilize roadside hiding cover and foraging habitat when traffic and activities is present. However, there would be noise disturbing effects within the Ringo project area, but outside the proposed Ringo units. The Five Buttes underburning project, 2012 Crescent Roadside Firewood Strategy, and the Forestwide Firewood CE would have a short duration of cumulative effects with the Ringo project for mule deer and elk.

Conclusions Big Game Limiting factors for the mule deer population as identified within the MIS Assessment for Mule Deer is providing quality forage and cover. Summer range habitat is important for mule deer, where large areas of early seral browse in areas of limited disturbance is extremely important to build fat reserves needed to get deer through the rut and the directly following winter months. In addition the elk population is steady to increasing with the Upper Deschutes herd Ft. Rock WMU. (USFS 2012)

The No Action Alternative could affect mule deer and elk and their habitat due to lack of early seral forage within the project area and in the big game analysis area (subwatersheds). In the event of a wild fire, areas of early seral forage could be created, but hiding cover would be lost.

Post-treatment, the selection of either Action Alternatives would result in an improvement to foraging habitat where commercial thinning is proposed, particularly in denser stands of lodgepole pine. Immediately after treatment, there would be a reduction in forage and cover due to opening the canopy cover, small diameter thinning, and/or underburning. Antelope bitterbrush is expected to favorably respond as a result of increased sunlight reaching the plants. Post-implementation, meadow treatments would open stands creating earl seral vegetation providing new areas of high quality forage important during fawning/calving season. Other proposed treatments would increase foraging and cover by open the canopy and/ or create openings within the canopy allowing sunlight and more nutrients increasing shrub and native grass growth.

For the long term, treatments would increase and stimulate vegetation growth, thus increasing big game hiding cover and foraging habitat. Proposed thinning or underburning would stimulate vegetation growth, by increased sunlight reaching the stand floor, increased soil nutrients and less competition of resources. Brush, grasses and forbs are expected to favorably respond as a result of increased sunlight reaching the

MIS-101

plants. Conversely, SDT and UB would result in a reduction of big game hiding cover, though levels would not be reduced below the minimum levels stated in the DLRMP S&G’s for mule deer and elk. Proposed Action Alternative treatments would result in a small reduction of big game hiding cover for the analysis area, from 40 percent down to the 39 percent. This percentage is above the DLRMP S&G of 30 percent. Hiding cover would be maintained through project design, maximizing forage production and providing screening cover for animals to disperse through the project area. Where regular prescribed burning is planned, the loss of bitterbrush as a forage species would be a long-term event with multiple re-entries. New analysis would be done for each re-entry specifically analyzing the effects to big game cover. Treatments are designed to provide long-term foraging opportunities, while retaining existing hiding cover and developing future hiding cover throughout summer habitat.

Mule Deer For each action alternative, summering mule deer populations would be maintained, though there may be some adjustment of animals moving where cover and forage are available in close proximity to each other in the analysis area. The Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures collectively, would help lessen negative effects to deer. As previously mentioned, mule deer are subject to numerous mortality factors including events such as extreme weather and habitat conditions on winter ranges that are located outside the analysis area and off the Deschutes National Forest. Therefore, the relatively modest amount of hiding cover removed and increase in forage with the Ringo project as compared to the overall size of the 1,133,551 acre Ft. Rock management unit and the hiding cover acreage available on the Deschutes National Forest would be almost negligible regardless of the alternative selected for implementation. The Ringo project would not contribute to a negative trend in mule deer viability on the Deschutes National Forest.

Elk Since the Ringo project does not overlap with any Key Elk Management Areas, there would be no effect to elk thermal and hiding cover for the Deschutes National Forest. As such, elk thermal and hiding cover would remain untreated by the project and would be consistent with the Deschutes LRMP S&G’s. The Ringo project would not contribute to a positive or negative trend in elk viability on the Deschutes National Forest.

Consistency Executive Order 13443 This order was signed by President Bush on August 13, 2007 and is intended to enhance hunting opportunities on federal public lands. The stated purpose of the Executive Order is to “…direct federal agencies that have programs and activities that have a measurable effect on public land management, outdoor recreation, and wildlife management, including the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture, to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities and the management of game species and their habitats.” The selection of any alternative of the Ringo vegetation project would result in no loss of hunting land acreage and motorized hunting access would be maintained within the National Forest System lands.

Mule Deer The Ringo project would be consistent with Deschutes LRMP WL 52-59, 60 for mule deer. Hiding cover would continue to be present over 30 percent of each subwatershed within the analysis area, meeting and/or exceeding the DLRMP S&G’s 30 percent for mule deer (MIS Table 32 and MIS Table 38). Open road densities would remain at approximately 1.6 miles per square mile, below the DLRMP S&G’s 2.5 miles per square mile for mule deer (MIS Table 37). Post implementation, the hiding cover would meet requirements outlined in MIS Table 39. Implementation of the Ringo project is consistent with the mule deer Standards and Guidelines for the Deschutes LRMP.

MIS-102

MIS Table 39. Ringo Project Consistency with Deschutes LRMP Standards and Guidelines for Summer Range. Do Not Meet, Meets, or Standard and Guideline Rationale Not Applicable to DLRMP Meets in retained and untreated areas. Six acre or larger stand capable of hiding Meet Approximately 38% of the project area remains 90% of a standing adult deer at 200 feet. untreated in patches >6 acres Six acres or larger stand with an average Untreated areas (> 6 acres patches) have not height of 6 feet and has not been thinned Meet been treated in over 15 years. in 15 years Residual clumps of ½ acre or larger stands Clumps of regenerating understory and retention within units with advanced regeneration areas in seed-tree units will be retained to and at least 12 greater than 7 dbh per Meet provide screening in stands. Untreated areas acre remaining after harvest. Clumps within project area will continue to provide should be located away from roads. cover. Re-designation of ML Roads would increase open < 2.5 mi. per sq. mile of Open road density Meet road density by 0.10 mile, post-activity open road density would still be 1.6 mi per sq. mile

Elk Since there are no Key Elk Management Areas within the Ringo project area, the Ringo project would be consistent with Deschutes LRMP WL 44-50 for elk.

MIS-103