a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · biological evaluation ....

Biological Evaluation

APPENDIX C

FINAL BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION 2010 HONEY CREEK – PADUS

VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT

Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest

Lakewood/Laona Ranger District

Evaluation Conducted By: /s/ Scott Anderson

Scott Anderson, Wildlife Biologist Date

02/24/2010 .

Evaluation Conducted By: /s/ Steve Janke

Steve Janke, Plant Ecologist Date

02/24/2010 .

Reviewed: By: __/s/ Dan Eklund

Dan Eklund, Forest Biologist Date

01/19/2010 .

Reviewed: By: /s/ Matt St. Pierre ___

Matt St. Pierre, Planning Biologist Date

01/19/2010 .

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 52.0 DATA USED IN ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................. 63.0 LOCATION OF PROJECT ...................................................................................................................... 74.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................................... 95.0 SPECIES CONSIDERED AND STATUS OF FEDERALLY LISTED, PROPOSED AND

SENSITIVE SPECIES AND THEIR HABITATS .................................................................................. 96.0 ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS ..................................................................................................................... 19

6.1 ANIMALS ............................................................................................................................... 196.1.1 FEDERALLY THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ...................................... 24

6.1.2 EASTERN TIMBER WOLF (CANIS LUPIS) ......................................................................... 24

6.1.3 REGIONAL FORESTER SENSITIVE SPECIES - ANIMALS .......................................... 30

6.1.4 NORTHERN GOSHAWK (ACCIPITER GENTILIS) ............................................................... 30

6.1.5 RED SHOULDERED HAWK (BUTEO LINEATUS) ........................................................ 40

6.1.6 BALD EAGLE (HALIAEETUS LEUCOCEPHALUS) ................................................................. 47

6.1.7 AMERICAN MARTEN (MARTES AMERICANA) ........................................................... 50

6.1.8 SWAINSON’S THRUSH (CATHARUS USTULATUS) .................................................... 56

6.1.9 WEST VIRGINIA WHITE BUTTERFLY (PIERIS VIRGINIENSIS) ...................................... 61

6.2 PLANTS .................................................................................................................................. 666.2.1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 66

6.2.2 SURVEYS ............................................................................................................................ 67

6.2.3 BOUNDARY AND SCALE OF EFFECTS ANALYSIS ..................................................... 68

6.2.4 THRESHOLD OF EFFECTS ............................................................................................... 69

6.2.5 DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS ...................................................................................... 69

6.2.6 REGIONAL FOREST SENSITIVE SPECIES - PLANTS ................................................... 70

6.2.7 GOBLIN FERN (BOTRYCHIUM MORMO) ............................................................................. 70

6.2.8 BLUNT-LOBED GRAPEFERN (BOTRYCHIUM ONEIDENSE) ............................................. 73

6.2.9 WALKING SEDGE (CAREX ASSINIBOINENSIS) .................................................................. 76

6.2.10 AMERICAN GINSENG (PANAX QUINQUEFOLIUS) ............................................................. 79

6.2.1 NORTHERN WILD COMFREY (CYNOGLOSSUM VIRGINIANUM VAR. BOREALE) ............ 82

6.3 DESIGN FEATURES FOR RFSS PLANTS .......................................................................... 857.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................................................. 87

3

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Honey Creek-Padus Forest Type Composition for Upland and Lowland Forest Types. .................. 7

Table 2. Relevant management activities, by alternative, for the HCP Project. ............................................. 9

Table 3. Species considered: threatened, endangered, and Regional Forester Sensitive Species. ................ 11

Table 4. Likely-to-occur Regional Forester Sensitive Species. .................................................................... 14

Table 5. Determination for TES and RFSS. ................................................................................................. 16

Table 6. Habitat type composition of the non-federal lands within the HCP Project Area and the species which may find suitable habitat within these cover type categories. ..................................................... 21

Table 7. Habitat type composition of the non-federal lands within a 1 mile buffer outside the HCP Project Area and the species which may find suitable habitat within these cover type categories. ................... 22

Table 8. Acre totals of suitable habitat for TES and RFSS on non-FS lands from within the project area and the 1 mile buffer used for cumulative effects analysis. ......................................................................... 24

Table 9. Proposed actions in the HCP Project affecting road density. .......................................................... 29

Table 10. Nesting data for goshawks on the NNF, 1998 - 2008. .................................................................. 31

Table 11. Goshawk habitat within the HCP project, LKLN and NNF. For the 2010 and 2015 projections, the effects of all other projects within the analysis area are included. Values are in acres and the percent change is the change from current (2009) conditions. .............................................................. 37

Table 12. Red shouldered hawk nesting data for NNF, 1998 - 2008. ........................................................... 41

Table 13. Red-shouldered hawk habitat within the HCP Project, LKLN and NNF. For the 2010 and 2015 projections, the effects of all other projects within the analysis area are included. Values are in acres and the percent change is the change from current (2009) conditions. ................................................. 45

Table 14. Marten habitat within the HCP Project, LKLN and NNF. For the 2010 and 2015 projections, the effects of all other projects within the analysis area are included. Values are in acres and the percent change is the change from current (2009) conditions. ........................................................................... 54

Table 15. SWTH habitat within the HCP Project, LKLN RD and NNF. For the 2010 and 2015 projections, the effects of all other projects within the analysis area are included. Values are in acres and the percent change is the change from current (2009) conditions. .............................................................. 59

Table 16. West Virginia whites butterfly habitat within the HCP Project, LKLN RD and NNF. For the 2010 and 2015 projections, the effects of all other projects within the analysis area are included. Values are in acres and the percent change is the change from current (2009) conditions. .................. 63

Table 17. Acres of suitable RFSS plant habitat in the HCP Project Area. .................................................... 67

Table 18. Miles of road activities within the HCP Project Area with an equivalent of acres affected. ........ 69

Table 19. Summary of Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Vegetation and Transportation Management Activities within the HCP Project Area, the LKLN RD, and the NNF that were considered in the cumulative effects analysis of RFSS plants. .............................................................. 70

Table 20: Goblin fern habitat within the project area, the LKLN RD and Nicolet Landbase. For the 2010 and 2015 projections, the effects of all other projects within the analysis area are included. Values are in acres and the percent change is the change from current (2009) conditions. .................................... 72

Table 21: Blunt-lobed grapefern habitat within the project area, the LKLN RD and Nicolet Landbase. For the 2010 and 2015 projections, the effects of all other projects within the analysis area are included. Values are in acres and the percent change is the change from current (2009) conditions. .................. 76

4

Table 22: Walking sedge habitat within the HCP, the LKLN RD and Nicolet Landbase. For the 2010 and 2015 projections, the effects of all other projects within the analysis area are included. Values are in acres and the percent change is the change from current (2009) conditions. ........................................ 79

Table 23: American ginseng habitat within the project area, the LKLN RDand Nicolet Landbase. For the 2010 and 2015 projections, the effects of all other projects within the analysis area are included. Values are in acres and the percent change is the change from current (2009) conditions. .................. 82

Table 24: Northern wild comfrey habitat within the project area, LKLN RD and Nicolet Landbase. For the 2010 and 2015 projections, the effects of all other projects within the analysis area are included. Values are in acres and the percent change is the change from current (2009) conditions. .................. 85

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. HCP Existing Aspen Age Class Distribution. ................................................................................... 7

Figure 3. HCP Existing Forest Cover Types. .................................................................................................. 8

Figure 2. HCP Existing Northern Hardwood Age ............................................................................................ 8

Figure 4. Location of above vegetation management projects included in the cumulative effects analysis for the HCP Project. .................................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 5. Map of non-federal lands included in the cumulative effects analysis. .......................................... 20

Figure 6. Wolf population trends in Wisconsin since 1980 (packs and individuals) (Wydeven, A.P. et al. 2009). ..................................................................................................................................................... 25

Figure 7. Distribution of wolf territories in Wisconsin in 2008 (Wydeven, et al. 2009). ................................. 27

Figure 8. Northern goshawk habitat trends for Chequamegon and Nicolet landbases; all suitable forest types included. ....................................................................................................................................... 38

Figure 9. Northern goshawk habitat trends for CNNF; all suitable forest types included. ............................ 38

Figure 10. Red-shouldered hawk habitat trends for Chequamegon and Nicolet landbases. ....................... 46

Figure 11. . American marten distribution in Wisconsin. ............................................................................... 50

Figure 12. Marten habitat trends for Chequamegon and Nicolet landbases 2009-2015. ............................. 55

Figure 13. Swainson’s thrush habitat trends on the Chequamegon landbase. ............................................ 60

Figure 14. West Virginia white butterfly habitat trends on the Chequamegon landbase. ............................. 65

5

1.0 The purpose of Biological Evaluations and Assessments (BEs, BAs) are to "review all USDA Forest Service planned, funded, and executed, or permitted programs and activities for possible effects on endangered, threatened, proposed, or sensitive species" (FSM 2672.4).

INTRODUCTION

"Endangered” (E), "threatened” (T), and "proposed" (P) refer to those species covered by the Federal Endangered Species Act (19 USC 1536(c), 50 CFR 402.12(f) and 402.14(c) and listed by the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).

"Sensitive" species include "those plant and animal species identified by a Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern" (FSM 2670.5). The USDA Forest Service (FS) is responsible for protecting all federally proposed and listed species and the Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS). In addition, the FS is directed to "assist states in achieving their goals for conservation of endemic species" (FSM 2670.32). State-listed species are not addressed in the project environmental impact statement, BE or BA, unless they are also considered a RFSS, in which case they will be discussed in the BE with findings summarized in the environmental impact statement or environmental assessment as appropriate.

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires federal agencies to "… implement a program to conserve fish, wildlife, and plants . . . to insure their actions do not jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat." The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires national forests to maintain viable populations of "native and desired nonnative vertebrate species… well distributed in the planning area."

The Secretary of Agriculture's Policy on Fish and Wildlife (9500-4) directs the FS to "manage habitats for all native and desired nonnative plants, fish and wildlife species to maintain viable populations of each species; identify and recover threatened and endangered plant and animal species" and to avoid actions "which may cause species to become threatened or endangered."

Forest Service Sensitive Species Policy (FSM 2670.32) calls national forests to assist states in achieving conservation goals for endemic species; complete biological evaluations of programs and activities; avoid and minimize impacts to species with viability concerns; analyze significance of adverse effects on populations or habitat; and coordinate with states, FWS and NMFS. The FS M (2670.15) further defines sensitive species as those plant and animal species identified by a Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by significant current or predicted downward trend in numbers, density or habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution.

Endangered, threatened, and sensitive species are treated differently than other species. While most species are provided for by managing diverse habitats, endangered, threatened, and sensitive species require specific biological evaluations disclosing the effects of management activities on National Forest system land. Conservation measures are incorporated into project designs to protect these species, and the adverse effects of management activities are either eliminated or mitigated.

Many of the species that are on the RFSS list have viability concerns for the following reasons:

• Loss or degradation of suitable habitat (for both terrestrial and aquatic species) • The species is at the edge of its range • Little is known about the species and prudence dictates that the species be protected until more is known

about the viability of the species • Excessive harvest/exploitation or persecution • Disease or interactions with non-native species • Combination of the aforementioned factors

6

Wisconsin State-listed species are not addressed in the project BE unless they are also federally-listed or considered RFSS.

This BE will be reviewed upon obtaining any new information or species locations in the project area prior to or during completion of the project. The effects analyses and determinations will be reviewed and potential mitigation measures identified if necessary to protect new locations or populations.

2.0 DATA USED IN ANALYSIS Each RFSS was reviewed for new information. This review included consultation with local and state experts, new literature, and how the scientific information used in the development of the 2004 forest plan. Considering the best available and most recent scientific information, the relevant factors for each species were determined. Models were developed to apply available data to this science so that determination of suitable habitat could be spatially and temporally assessed (USDA, 2008). These models include a description of suitable habitat, both in qualitative terms and based on the FS combined data system (CDS) codes. CDS codes describe forest cover or vegetation type, size, and density. Age parameters were also included with most models. The habitat variables of forest type, age of the stand, and canopy cover were chosen because they are represent the larger suite of variables (including tree height, stand basal area, amount of large woody debris and snags) that have been shown to be related to the species’ habitat preferences. Different forest types are defined by the tree species diversity within the stand. The age of the stand is correlated with the height of the trees and is expected to be correlated with the amount of accumulated large woody debris (LWD) and snags within the stand such that older stands have more of these elements. It is recognized that the relationships between stand age and these other variables may not be linear but they are positive (height: (Carmean et al,1989, p.6 and 17); LWD in 40+ year old stands: (Gore and Patterson, 1986, p.337). The outcome of a review of the literature resulted in setting an age cut-off (50 years) by which time it is expected that the tree heights and diameters, and LWD accumulation have exceeded the minimums suggested in the literature for these species. Additional variables such as slope, the density of predators, the amount of tip-up mounds in the stand, a fragmentation metric, patch size, and proximity to water either could not be included in a habitat model because no data exists or, if included in the model, any threshold (e.g. minimum patch size) built into the model would have been poorly linked to the biology of these species on the CNNF. Furthermore, the potential gains in the accuracy of the models would have been undermined by our guesses at the values of these habitat components for which we have no data on the species’ minimum requirements or maximum tolerances. For goshawk, but particularly for red-shouldered hawks and American marten, canopy closure was an important variable in determining the suitability of habitat such that greater canopy closure is better for the species. In an analysis of the habitat currently being used by these species on the CNNF, 80% emerged as an appropriate threshold for canopy closure and it is consistent with the habitat use of these species elsewhere in North America. Since the completion of the above forest wide annual cumulative effects analysis and the HCP DEIS, an additional management proposal was developed on the adjacent Eagle River-Florence Ranger District (Phelps Project). The preliminary proposal for the Phelps Project was considered site-specifically for cumulative impacts with HCP. The incremental impacts to any RFSS habitat caused by the Phelps Project would not measurably change the intensity or context of HCP cumulative impacts, nor would they affect viability determinations found in the HCP BE; see individual species analysis for details.

Monitoring data collected by the FS and its partners and contractors was used to determine how much of this suitable habitat is currently occupied. In order to systematically analyze cumulative effects of this project and many other projects, a Forest-wide database was developed to maintain records of all major current and planned vegetation management projects on the Forest. This data was organized by species and by using their habitat models it displayed current habitat acres and changes to their suitable habitat types caused by the short and long-term effects of each management project. Projected changes to habitat types were evaluated by year through 2015. Where applicable, in growth and outgrowth of habitat (changes resulting from natural aging of stands) was

7

Figure E: Honey Creek-Padus Existing Aspen Age Class Distribution

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%

0-10 11-20 21-45 46+

Age Class

Perce

nt of

Total

ExistingDesired

Figure 1. HCP Existing Aspen Age Class Distribution.

also projected. This data could then be used for an efficient cumulative effects analysis for any Forest project and cumulative effects analysis boundary. Data used in the cumulative effects analysis for individual species can be found in the project record).

3.0 LOCATION OF PROJECT The Honey Creek – Padus (HCP) project area is located southwest and southeast of Laona, Wisconsin in the northwestern portion of the Lakewood/Laona Ranger District (LKLN RD). All areas of the project area are located in Forest County.

The HCP project area contains vegetative structure and composition that are the result of historical actions and more recent management activities that started in the late 1800’s and have continued to the present. Natural events such as fire and windstorms have also had an effect on the area. The primary upland forest types are northern hardwoods (51%) and aspen (28%). See Table 1 for the HCP forest type breakdown and Figure 3 for a graphical representation of forest cover types on FS lands in the project area. The majority of the upland forest is in a mid-age condition. A very little amount of the area is an old forest condition simply because not enough time has elapsed since the early 1900’s when most of the area was cut over. The lowlands in the HCP project area are about 72% conifer swamps and 25% openings.

Within the HCP Project Area, there are about 3,800 acres of aspen forest types. Aspen is a shade intolerant species and is considered a “pioneer” tree species on sites that are recovering from intense disturbance. Under natural conditions, aspen is regenerated by disturbances such as wildfires, windstorms followed by high intensity fires or other events.

There is an overabundance of aspen in the oldest age class and a lack of representation in the youngest age class (Figure 1). This is the case both within the HCP Project Area and at the Nicolet National Forest (NNF) level. It is for this reason that one of the HCP Project’s primary purposes is to regenerate older aspen stands in accordance with forest plan direction (p.2-5). To meet the desired future condition of 20% of the aspen in the young age class, about 530 acres of aspen should be regenerated. The majority of this acreage should be removed from the 46+ age class. Assuming a 14% reduction from that age class, 12% of the aspen would remain. This would be much more closely in line with the desired condition.

Table 1. Honey Creek-Padus Forest Type Composition for Upland and Lowland Forest Types.

FOREST TYPE ACRES %

Upland Types

Aspen 3,810 27.50%

Balsam 143 1.00%

Paper Birch 68 0.50%

Jack Pine 0 0%

Red and White Pine 1,768 12.70%

Northern Hardwood 7115 51.30%

Oak 0 0%

Upland Openings 787 5.70%

Other Types 176 1.30%

Summary Uplands 13,868 100.00%

Lowland Types

Lowland Conifer 1,011 72.10%

Lowland Hardwood 40 2.80%

Lowland Openings 352 25.10%

Summary Lowlands 1,402 100.00%

Total All Acres 15,270

8

Honey Creek-Padus Existing Northern Hardwood Age Class

Distribution

0.0%20.0%40.0%60.0%80.0%

100.0%

0-20 21-60 61-100 101+

Age Class

Perce

nt of

Total

Existing

Figure 2. HCP Existing Northern Hardwood Age

Northern hardwoods in the HCP project area are forest types that are dominated by sugar maple (Acer sacharum). These stands can also contain a wide variety of other tree species, including white ash, red maple, basswood, yellow birch, beech, and hemlock. Other associates may also be present, such as aspen, paper birch, and pine species. Because many of the constituent northern hardwood species are more shade tolerant, northern hardwood stands can be managed under a wide variety of silvicultural systems. Most commonly, though, they are managed under the uneven-aged single tree selection method or the even-aged shelterwood method. Since the majority of the HCP project area is designated Management Area 2A or 2C (both uneven-aged northern hardwood emphases), the intent is to move most of the hardwood stands toward uneven aged conditions through selection harvesting. Currently, within the project area, all northern hardwood stands are considered even-aged and fall within the age classes shown in Figure 2.

The desired future condition is for about 95% of these stands to be managed at an uneven aged condition. To accomplish this, it will take several decades and numerous entries to realize this goal. By convention, unevenaged stands have three or more distinct age classes that vary by at least 20%, based on the rotation age of the oldest trees in the stand. For example, a northern hardwood stand with a 100-year maximum tree age would have three or more distinct age groups that vary from each other by twenty years or more (for example, a stand with 20, 50, and 85 year age classes). Ultimately, the goal in these areas is to have stands with 7-10 separate age classes and to meet this goal the stands would need to be selectively cut every 10-15 years.

Figure 3. HCP Existing Forest Cover Types.

9

More details on the existing vegetation composition of the project area can be found in project file within the document; “Forest Vegetation Resource Report for the HCP Project”.

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES See Chapter 2 of the HCP Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a detailed description of the alternatives. Maps of the project area are also available in the EIS. A summary of the management activities, by alternative are provided in Chapter 2. Table 2. Relevant management activities, by alternative, for the HCP Project.

Activity Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Total Acres Harvested 0 6,702 6,702 6,517 Acres selection harvest 0 5,664 5,649 5,521 Acres thinning 0 567 336 633 Acres clear cut 0 366 612 262 Acres aspen regeneration 0 366 612 262 Acres shelterwood 0 105 105 101 Estimated volume (MBF) 0 31,343 32,800 30,634 Acres of release work 0 576 576 576 Acres of mechanical site prep 0 76 76 76 Acres planted 0 423 423 423 Acres fenced to protect hemlock 0 10 10 10 Deer repellent treatment 0 10 10 10 Miles of road construction 0 3.5 3.5 1.2 Miles existing road reconstructed 0 16.5 16.5 16.5 Miles of roads closed and kept on system 0 7.7 6 8.1 Miles of open roads decommissioned 0 15.3 15.3 15.7 Miles of new roads reclassified as trails 0 0 2.7 2.7

5.0 SPECIES CONSIDERED AND STATUS OF FEDERALLY LISTED, PROPOSED AND SENSITIVE SPECIES AND THEIR HABITATS

The FS is responsible for disclosing the effects of its actions on TES and RFSS where they occur within National Forest boundaries. Table 3 provides a list of all species considered in this evaluation and include their global ranking or “status” and “occurrence or habitat potential.” Species identified in Table 4 are species currently listed as “likely to occur,” (LRFSS) and are known to occur in Region 9, but have not been documented in the CNNF. Considering range and habitat, these species could potentially be found in the CNNF.

The species-by-species determination of expected impacts for each alternative is shown in Table 5. Species listed in Table 3 and Table 4 are currently on the RFSS per the October 5, 2006 revision. These species could potentially occur within or near the CNNF proclamation boundaries. Information about these plant and animals was obtained through the consultation with FS, and FWS and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). FWS response (08/03/09) indicated that the gray wolf (Canis lupus) was the only federally listed

10

threatened or endangered species that occur or had potential habitat within or near the project area or Forest County. Canada lynx was not identified by the FWS and thus was not included in this analysis.

Neotropical migratory birds are considered only if they have status as a TES or RFSS. The forest plan was prepared with Neo-tropical Migrant bird species as a focus. The Desired Future Condition within the plan provide for habitat throughout implementation. Therefore, implementation of this project as it pertains to neo-tropical migrants is consistent with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and MOU between FS and FWS. As it pertains to species analyzed in this document, the Kirtland’s warbler is the only federally listed Neotropical bird identified for analysis by the FWS beyond the anticipated outcomes from implementation of the CNNF forest plan. Because the species and its habitat does not exist within the HCP project area, it was not evaluated since there is no habitat for this species in the project area.

Butternut (Juglans cinerea) is a RFSS plant and is present within the project area but was not analyzed in detail. This is due to the forest plan provides guidelines for protecting individual butternut trees (USDA, 2004a) and the HCP project will follow them to protect the trees and seed sources. Also, the proposed timber harvest around butternut trees will be beneficial by providing regeneration opportunities (gaps), but the canker disease will continue to cause some mortality to individual trees. Butternut trees are a medium sized tree that is short-lived which is a mast-producing tree ranging throughout the central and eastern United States. It is a shade-intolerant species found mostly as scattered individuals usually within forest gaps found in hardwood stands. The primary threat to butternut is butternut canker, which has infected a large percentage of trees throughout its range and is nearly always fatal to the tree. A second threat is the lack of regeneration opportunities (USDA, 2003). Most of the butternut on the CNNF originated after the initial logging around the turn of the century, and are now 70-80 years old and considered mature. Wisconsin has the most remaining butternut stands in the United States, and the LKLN RD has the most trees on the CNNF.

11

Table 3. Species considered: threatened, endangered, and Regional Forester Sensitive Species.

Species Common Name Status Occurrence or Habitat Potential 2

Evaluated in Detail (Y)

TES

Canis lupis Eastern timber wolf G4, S2, ST M Y

Charadrius melodus Piping plover G3,S1,SE,FE N N

Dendroica kirtlandii Kirtland’s warbler G1,SNA,SC,FE N N

Lynx canadensis Canada lynx G5, SNA, SC N N

Lycaeides melissa samuelis Karner blue butterfly G5,S2S3,SC,FE N N

Oxytropis campestris var. chartacea

Fassett’s locoweed G5T1T2, S1S2,SE N N

RFSS - Animals

Accipiter gentilis Northern goshawk G5,S2B,S2N,SC Y C

Acipenser fulvenscens Lake sturgeon G3G4,S3,SC N N

Ammodramus leconteii Le Conte’s sparrow G4,S2B,SC N N

Bartramia longicauda Upland sandpiper G5,S2B,SC N N

Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered hawk G5,S3S4B, ST Y P

Catharus ustulatus Swainson’s thrush G5,S2B,SC Y P

Chlidonia niger Black tern G4,S3B,SC N M

Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter swan G4,S1B,SE N M

Dendroica cerulean Cerulean warbler G4,S2S3B,ST N N

Falcipennis canadensis Spruce grouse G5,S1S2B,ST N M

Glyptemys insculpta Wood turtle G4,S3,ST N N

Gomphus viridifrons Green-faced clubtail G3,S3,SC N M

Haliaetus leucocephalus Bald eagle G4,S3B,SC P Y

Incisalia henrici Henry’s elfin butterfly G5,S2,SC N M

Lycaeides idas nabokovi Northern blue butterfly G5,S1,SE N N

Martes americana American marten G5,S3,SE Y M

Moxostoma valenciennesi Greater redhorse G4,S2S3,ST N N

Notropis nogenus Pugnose shiner G3,S2S3,ST N N

Oeneis chryxus Chryxus arctic G5,S2,SC N N

Ophiogomphus anomalus Extra-striped snaketail G3,S1,SE N N

Ophiogomphus howei Pygmy snaketail G3,S3,ST N M

Oporornis agilis Connecticut warbler G4,S3B,SC M N

Phyciodes batesii Tawny crescent spot G4,S3,SC N N

Picoides arcticus Black-backed woodpecker G5,S2B,SC N M

Pieris virginiensis West Virginia white G3G4,S2,SC Y C

Stylurus scudderi Zebra clubtail G3G4,S3,SC N N

Tympanuchus phasianellus Sharp-tailed grouse G4,S2B,SC N N

Venustaconcha ellipsiformis Ellipse mussel G3G4,S2,ST N N

12



RFSS Plants

Amerorchis rotundifolia Round-leaved orchis G5, S2, ST N N

Arabis missouriensis var deamii Missouri rock cress G5?Q, S2, SC N N

Asplenium trichomanes-ramosum Green spleenwort G4, S1, SE N N

Astragalus alpinus Alpine milk vetch G5, S1, SE N N

Botrychium minganense Mingan’s moonwort G4, S2, SC M Y

Botrychium mormo Goblin fern G3, S3, SE C Y

Botrychium oneidense Blunt-lobed grapefern G4Q, S2, SC P Y

Botrychium rugulosum Ternate grapefern G3, S2, SC N N

Callitriche hermaphroditica Northern water-starwort G5, S2, SC N N

Caloplaca parvula A lichen G1 N N

Calypso bulbosa Calypso orchid - Fairy slipper

G5, S3, ST N N

Carex assiniboinensis Assiniboine sedge G4G5, S3, SC C Y

Carex backii Rocky Mountain sedge G4, S1, SC N N

Carex crawei Crawe’s sedge G5, S3, SC N N

Carex gynocrates Northern bog sedge G5, S3, SC N N

Carex livida var radicaulis Livid sedge G5T5, S2, SC N N

Carex michauxiana Michaux’s sedge G5, S2, ST N N

Carex sychnocephala Many-headed sedge G4, S2, SC N N

Carex vaginata Sheathed sedge G5, S3, SC N N

Ceratophyllum echinatum Spineless hornwort G4?, S2, SC N N

Cynoglossum virginianum var. boreale

Northern wild comfrey G5T4T5 C Y

Cypripedium arietinum Ram’s head lady’s slipper G3, S2, ST N N

Diplazium pycnocarpon Glade fern G5, S2, SC N N

Dryopteris expansa Spreading woodfern G5, S2, SC N N

Dryopteris filix-mas Male fern G5, S1, SC N N

Dryopteris fragrans var. remotiuscula

Fragrant fern G5T3T5, S3, SC N N

Eleocharis olivacea Capitate spike-rush G5, S2, SC N N

Eleocharis quinqueflora Few-flowered spike-rush G5, S2, SC N N

Epilobium palustre Marsh willow-herb G5, S3, SC N N

Equisetum palustre Marsh horsetail G5, S2, SC N N

Eriophorum chamissonis Rusty cotton-grass G5, S2, SC N N

Huperzia selago Fir clubmoss G5, S2, SC N N

Juglans cinerea Butternut G3G4, S3?, SC C Y

Juncus stygius Bog (moor) rush G5, S1, SE N N

13



RFSS Plants cont.

Leucophysalis grandiflora Large-flowered ground cherry

G4?, S1, SC N N

Littorella uniflora American shore-grass G5, S2, SC N N

Malaxis brachypoda White adder’s mouth G4Q, S3, SC N N

Moehringia macrophylla Large-leaved sandwort G4, S1, SE N N

Myriophyllum farwellii Farwell’s water-milfoil G5, S3, SC N N

Panax quinquefolius American ginseng G3G4, S4, SC C Y

Parnassia palustris Marsh grass-of-parnassus G5, S2, ST N N

Poa paludigena Bog bluegrass G3, S3, ST N N

Polemonium occidentale var. lacustre

Western Jacob’s ladder G5?T1Q, S1, SE N N

Piptatherum canadense Canada mountain-ricegrass

G5, S1, SC N N

Polystichum braunii Braun’s holly fern G5, S3, ST N N

Potamogeton confervoides Algae-like pondweed G4, S2, ST N N

Potamogeton hillii Hill’s pondweed G3, S1, SC N N

Pyrola minor Lesser wintergreen G5, S1, SE N N

Ranunculus gmelinii Small yellow water-crowfoot

G5, S2, SE N N

Rhynchospora fusca Brown beak-sedge G4G5, S2, SC N N

Streptopus amplexifolius White mandarin G5, S3, SC N N

Tiarella cordifolia Foamflower G5, S1, SE N N

Usnea longissima A lichen G4, S1 N N

Vaccinium caespitosum Dwarf huckleberry G5, S2, SE N N

Valeriana uliginosa Marsh valerian G4Q, S2, ST N N

State Element Rank: S1 – Critically imperiled S2 – Imperiled S3 – Rare or uncommon S#B – Long-distance migrant, breeding status S#N – Long-distance migrant, non-breeding status

State Status: SE – State endangered ST – State threatened SC – State special concern

Global Element Rank: G3 – Very rare and local throughout range G4 – Apparently globally secure, rare in parts of range G5 – Demonstrably secure globally, rare locally T# - Infraspecific Taxon

14

Table 4. Likely-to-occur Regional Forester Sensitive Species.

Species Common Name Status** Occurrence or Habitat Potential

Evaluated in Detail 2

Animals

Pipistrellus subflavus Eastern pipistrelle G5, S3S4, SC N N

Plethobasus cyphyus Bullhead mussel G3, S1, SE N N

Somatochlora forcipata Forcipate emerald G5, S2S3, SC N N

Plants

Cardamine maxima Large toothwort G5, S1, SC N N

Carex lenticularis Shore sedge G5, S2, ST N N

Disporum hookeri Fairy bells, Hooker’s mandarin G5 N N

Eleocharis engelmannii Engelmann’s spike-rush G4G5Q, S1, SC N N

Listera auriculata Auricled twayblade G3G4, S1, SE N N

Listera convallarioides Broad-leaved twayblade G5, S1, ST N N

Petasites sagittatus Arrow-leaved sweet colt’s-foot G5, S3, ST N N

Platanthera flava var herbiola Pale-green orchid G4T4Q, S2, ST N N

Potamogeton pulcher Spotted pondweed G5, S1, SE N N

Pterospora andromeda Giant pinedrops G5, S1, SE N N

Ranunculus lapponicus Lapland buttercup G5, S1, SE N N

The BE analysis conducted for this project considered the four alternatives described in the HCP Project EIS. More than 90 RFSS, including LRFSS, were considered in this BE. Field surveys were conducted specifically within the project area during years 2007 - 2009 for those species in which habitat was deemed suitable. Of the species identified in Table 3, six have been “confirmed” as occurring in habitat immediately within or adjacent (within 1-mile) to the project site. Those classified as “probable” have not been documented within the project area, but could occur where habitat is suitable.

No detailed discussions of effects are provided with regard to species having an occurrence potential of “minimal” or “none” since the likelihood of these species occurring within the project area was determined to be very low, except for American Marten due to special interest of this species by the public. Cumulative effects were considered for the various species listed for which habitat was deemed suitable in or near the project area. Details of this analysis are explained the “Process Paper: Habitat Models for Effects Analyses; Animal RFSS” (USDA, 2008). The possible effects to this habitat include impacts from other projects (recent past, present, and future) as identified in the Forest-wide effects tables contained in the species write ups below. Other District and Forest projects that were included in the cumulative effects analysis are displayed within Figure 4.

15

Figure 4. Location of above vegetation management projects included in the cumulative effects analysis for the HCP Project.

16

Table 5. Determination for TES and RFSS.

TES - Animals Common Name Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt 4

Canis lupis Eastern timber wolf NI NI NI NI

Charadrius melodus NI Piping plover NI NI NI

Dendroica kirtlandii NI Kirtland’s warbler NI NI NI

Lynx canadensis Canada lynx NI NI NI NI

Lycaeides melissa samuelis NI Karner blue butterfly NI NI NI

Oxytropis campestris var. chartacea Fassett’s locoweed NI NI NI NI

RFSS - Animals

Accipiter gentilis NI Northern goshawk NI NI NI

Acipenser fulvenscens NI Lake sturgeon NI NI NI

Ammodramus leconteii NI Le Conte’s sparrow NI NI NI

Bartramia longicauda NI Upland sandpiper NI NI NI

Buteo lineatus NI Red-shouldered hawk NI NI NI

Catharus ustulatus NI Swainson’s thrush NI NI NI

Chlidonia niger NI Black tern NI NI NI

Cygnus buccinator NI Trumpeter swan NI NI NI

Dendroica cerulean NI Cerulean warbler NI NI NI

Falcipennis canadensis NI Spruce grouse NI NI NI

Glyptemys insculpta NI Wood turtle NI NI NI

Gomphus viridifrons NI Green-faced clubtail NI NI NI

Haliaetus leucocephalus NI Bald eagle NI NI NI

Incisalia henrici NI Henry’s elfin butterfly NI NI NI

Lycaeides idas nabokovi NI Northern blue butterfly NI NI NI

Martes americana NI American marten NI NI NI

Moxostoma valenciennesi NI Greater redhorse NI NI NI

Notropis nogenus NI Pugnose shiner NI NI NI

Oeneis chryxus NI Chryxus arctic NI NI NI

Ophiogomphus anomalus NI Extra-striped snaketail NI NI NI

Ophiogomphus howei NI Pygmy snaketail NI NI NI

Oporornis agilis NI Connecticut warbler NI NI NI

Phyciodes batesii NI Tawny crescent spot NI NI NI

Picoides arcticus NI Black-backed woodpecker NI NI NI

Pieris virginiensis NI West Virginia white Mint Mint Mint

Stylurus scudderi NI Zebra clubtail NI NI NI

Tympanuchus phasianellus NI Sharp-tailed grouse NI NI NI

Venustaconcha ellipsiformis NI Ellipse mussel NI NI NI

17

RFSS-Plants Common Name Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt 4

Amerorchis rotundifolia Round-leaved orchis NI NI NI NI

Arabis missouriensis var deamii Missouri rock cress NI NI NI NI

Asplenium trichomanes-ramosum Green spleenwort NI NI NI NI

Astragalus alpinus Alpine milkvetch NI NI NI NI

Botrychium minganense Mingan’s moonwort NI NI NI NI

Botrychium mormo Goblin fern NI NI NI NI

Botrychium oneidense Blunt-lobed grapefern NI NI NI NI

Botrychium rugulosum Ternate grapefern NI NI NI NI

Callitriche hermaphroditica Northern water-starwort NI NI NI NI

Caloplaca parvula A lichen NI NI NI NI

Calypso bulbosa Fairy slipper NI NI NI NI

Cardamine maxima Large toothwort NI NI NI NI

Carex assiniboinensis Assiniboine sedge NI MINT MINT MINT

Carex backii Rocky Mountain sedge NI NI NI NI

Carex crawei Crawe’s sedge NI NI NI NI

Carex gynocrates Northern bog sedge NI NI NI NI

Carex lenticularis Shore sedge NI NI NI NI

Carex livida var radicaulis Livid sedge NI NI NI NI

Carex michauxiana Michaux’s sedge NI NI NI NI

Carex sychnocephala Many-headed sedge NI NI NI NI

Carex vaginata Sheathed sedge NI NI NI NI

Ceratophyllum echinatum Spineless hornwort NI NI NI NI

Cynoglossum virginianum var. boreale Northern wild comfrey NI MINT MINT MINT

Cypripedium arietinum Ram’s head lady’s slipper NI NI NI NI

Diplazium pycnocarpon Glade fern NI NI NI NI

Disporum hookeri Fairy bells, Hooker’s mandarin NI NI NI NI

Dryopteris expansa Spreading woodfern NI NI NI NI

Dryopteris filix-mas Male fern NI NI NI NI

Dryopteris fragrans var remotiuscula Fragrant fern NI NI NI NI

Eleocharis engelmannii Engelmann’s spike-rush NI NI NI NI

Eleocharis olivacea Capitate spike-rush NI NI NI NI

Eleocharis quinqueflora Few-flowered spike-rush NI NI NI NI

Epilobium palustre Marsh willow-herb NI NI NI NI

Equisetum palustre Marsh horsetail NI NI NI NI

Eriophorum chamissonis Rusty cotton-grass NI NI NI NI

Huperzia selago Fir clubmoss NI NI NI NI

Juglans cinerea Butternut NI NI NI NI

Juncus stygius Bog (moor) rush NI NI NI NI

18

RFSS – Plants cont. Common Name Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

Leucophysalis grandiflora Large-flowered ground cherry NI NI NI NI

Littorella uniflora American shore-grass NI NI NI NI

Listera auriculata Auricled twayblade NI NI NI NI

Listera convallarioides Broad-leaved twayblade NI NI NI NI

Malaxis brachypoda White adder’s mouth NI NI NI NI

Moehringia macrophylla Large-leaved sandwort NI NI NI NI

Myriophyllum farwellii Farwell’s water-milfoil NI NI NI NI

Panax quinquefolius Ginseng NI MINT MINT MINT

Parnassia palustris Marsh grass-of-parnassus NI NI NI NI

Piptatherum canadense Canada mountain-ricegrass NI NI NI NI

Petasites sagittatus Arrow-leaved sweet colt’s-foot NI NI NI NI

Platanthera flava var herbiola Pale-green orchid NI NI NI NI

Poa paludigena Bog bluegrass NI NI NI NI

Polemonium occidentale var. lacustre Western Jacob’s ladder NI NI NI NI

Polystichum braunii Braun’s holly fern NI NI NI NI

Potamogeton confervoides Algae-like pondweed NI NI NI NI

Potamogeton hillii Hill’s pondweed NI NI NI NI

Potamogeton pulcher Spotted pondweed NI NI NI NI

Pyrola minor Lesser wintergreen NI NI NI NI

Ranunculus gmelinii Small yellow water-crowfoot NI NI NI NI

Ranunculus lapponicus Lapland buttercup NI NI NI NI

Rhynchospora fusca Brown beak-sedge NI NI NI NI

Streptopus amplexifolius White mandarin NI NI NI NI

Tiarella cordifolia Heart-leaved foamflower NI NI NI NI

Usnea longissima A lichen NI NI NI NI

Vaccinium caespitosum Dwarf bilberry NI NI NI NI

Valeriana uliginosa Marsh valerian NI NI NI NI

‡

a) NI “No Impact” Determinations for Regional Forester Sensitive Species:

b) BI “Beneficial Impact” c) MINT “May impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability” d) MILT “May impact individuals and likely to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability”

19

6.0 ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS

6.1 ANIMALS The habitat tables and analysis are supplemented as necessary when new projects are proposed, as occurred with the Ruffed Grouse Management Area (RGMA) project that is just now in its initial discussion stage. This project would take place across the CNNF in designated RGMA demonstration sites that where established with the Ruffed Grouse Society over a decade ago. At the time all species models were run, the RGMA project was identified only in narrative form (draft) and those acres that maybe influenced by the future proposal are not yet well defined as of this analysis and thus were not included in the tables. This project was a proposal to harvest aspen in forest types of quaking aspen, big tooth aspen, and a mix of aspen-white spruce-balsam fir. As a result, the species habitat model outputs did not include the affected acres resulting from this project. Affects from this project will be evaluated as part of that projects analysis if such moves forward in the NEPA process to implementation.

Private lands were analyzed inside and within a 1 mile buffer outside the project area. The one mile extended analysis of adjacent property is specifically for goshawk and red shouldered hawks that required cumulative effects analysis. The 1 mile distance far exceeds the distance they are known to relocate following abandonment or disuse of a previously occupied nest site (Ennis et al, 1993, p.14), (Bosakowski, 1999, p.42) (Woodford , 2005). This provides context for the relative availability of habitat on adjacent and other ownership lands and CNNF lands. There are approximately 15,951 acres (Table 6) and 15,301 acres (Table 7) of non-Federal lands within and outside the project area respectively and these lands may be owned by private individuals, industrial groups or the state of Wisconsin.

The suitability of vegetation types for TES and RFSS on these non-FS lands was completed with the use of the “Characterization of Lands of Other Ownership within and adjacent to the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest” (Veen and Pierre, 2009). This land cover data for lands of other ownerships was created using manual delineation and classification based primarily on 2005 NAIP imagery. A GIS polygon layer was developed for in-holdings within the CNNF boundary and lands within a 5-mile buffer outside the CNNF boundary. Land covers were classified into 13 categories: Upland Opening, Upland Hardwoods, Aspen, Oak, Pine, Spruce/Fir, Lowland Hardwoods, Lowland Conifers, Lowland Opening, Water, Agriculture, Clear-cut, and Urban. Pine, aspen and upland hardwoods stands were also described as being young or mixed with other tree species.

20

Figure 5. Map of non-federal lands included in the cumulative effects analysis.

Habitat types of private lands within the project area are mostly forested, urban, agriculture, and lowland openings (Table 7). A majority of the forested lands (39%) are upland hardwoods with some stands containing a mix of conifer and hemlock. Most of these stands are located in the northeast and northwestern sections of the project area and adjoin other large non-FS hardwood stands outside the project area. There are also some private hardwood and aspen stands in the interior of the project area that border similar FS timber stands and these stands are potentially suitable habitat for some TES and RFSS. The one area of private lands within the interior

21

section that are fragmented and /or do not connect to potential TES and RFSS habitat outside the project area are near Silver Lake and the town of Laona, thus those areas were not included in the cumulative effects analysis.

Table 6. Habitat type composition of the non-federal lands within the HCP Project Area and the species which may find suitable habitat within these cover type categories.

Cover Type Acres % GOS RDSH Marten WVW SWTH

Agriculture 1,471 9% 0 0 0 0 0

Aspen 2,177 14% 2,177 0 2,177 2,177 2,177

Aspen - young 293 2% 0 0 0 0 00

Clear-cut 214 1% 0 0 0 0 0

Lowland Conifers 983 6% 0 0 0 0 983

Lowland Hardwoods 858 5% 0 858 0 0 0

Lowland Opening 883 6% 0 0 0 0 0

Pine 306 2% 0 0 0 0 0

Pine - young 57 0% 0 0 0 0 0

Pine - mix c/d 22 0% 22 0 0 0 0

Spruce/Fir 55 0% 0 0 0 0 55

Upland Hardwoods (hrdwds) 4,396 28% 4,396 4,396 4,396 4,396 4,396

Upland Hrdwds - mix c/d 1,596 10% 1,596 1,596 1,596 1,596 1,596

Upland Hrdwds - c/d hemlock 108 1% 108 108 108 108 108

Upland Opening 266 2% 0 0 0 0 0

Urban 1,416 9% 0 0 0 0 0

Water 850 5% 0 0 0 0 0

Total 15,951 100% 8,299 6,958 8,277 8,277 9,315

Private lands within the 1 mile buffer are mostly forested habitat (47% hardwoods and 12% aspen), lakes, agriculture and lowland conifer (Table 8). The largest blocks of this forested habitat is located northeast and northwest of the project area. The only area that contained unsuitable habitat for any sensitive species was west of the project in several stands of young aspen stands and around Silver Lake and the town of Laona; thus they were not included in the cumulative effects analysis.

22

Table 7. Habitat type composition of the non-federal lands within a 1 mile buffer outside the HCP Project Area and the species which may find suitable habitat within these cover type categories.


Agriculture 777 5% 0 0 0 0 0

Aspen 1,258 8% 1,258 0 1,258 1,258 1,258

Aspen - young 655 4% 0 0 0 0 0

Clear cut 144 1% 0 0 0 0 0

Lowland Conifers 805 5% 0 0 0 0 805

Lowland Hardwoods 621 4% 0 621 0 0 0

Lowland Opening 773 5% 0 0 0 0 0

Pine 145 1% 0 0 0 0 0

Pine - young 7 0% 0 0 0 0 0

Pine - mix c/d 7 0% 7 0 0 0 0

Spruce/Fir 64 0% 0 0 0 64 0

Upland Hardwoods 4,574 30% 4,574 4,574 4,574 4,574 4,574


Upland Hrdwds - c/d hemlock 1,232 8% 1,232 1,232 1,232 1,232 1,232

Upland Opening 217 1% 0 0 0 0 0

Urban 769 5% 0 0 0 0 0

Water 1,867 12% 0 0 0 0 0

Total 15,301 100% 8,457 7,813 8,450 8,514 9,255

Cover type acres identified as being suitable for TES and RFSS on non-FS lands within the project area and the 1 mile buffer, were totaled (minus harvest acres on private lands) for cumulative effects analysis (Table 8). Upland hardwood was the most common habitat and also had the most RFSS associated with it for cumulative effects analysis.

At the time of the DEIS BE, we made the following assumptions about timber harvesting on private lands. It was determined that large amount of remaining suitable habitat remained on non-FS lands even given past harvests on those lands.

1. The age structure of the forested lands is similar to the age structure of the same forest types on the CNNF.

2. All forested lands are enrolled within Wisconsin’s Managed Forest Law (MFL) program. For any adjacent and other ownership lands that are managed for timber production, there are tax incentives to enroll in this program therefore, it is logical that such an assumption is reasonable. While there are probably adjacent and other ownership lands that are not managed for timber, for the purposes of this analysis of cumulative effects of timber harvesting, assuming that all lands are managed for timber production presents a “maximum effect” scenario.

3. Adjacent and other ownership lands that are classified as northern hardwoods are treated on a 15-year re-entry cycle and are harvested when they reach approximately 120 ft2/ac and reduced to 80-90 ft2/ac basal area. This generally corresponds with a selection harvest with canopy gaps.

23

4. Aspen stands are clear-cut when they are approximately 45 years of age.

5. Lands that are currently aspen cover type will be maintained as aspen and lands that are currently hardwoods will be maintained as hardwoods. No adjacent and other ownership lands are converted to other forest types. The assumption is more likely to be broken by conversion of aspen to hardwoods than hardwoods to aspen.

Since the DEIS BE, we obtained information on forest management activities occurring on private lands from the WDNR within the project area and the 1 mile buffer. Many of the private properties in the area are enrolled in the MFL and a majority of this is owned by Wisconsin Timber Association Inc. As a result, records of forestry activities are available from the DNR’s county foresters. Other timber harvests taking place on private lands are required to file a cutting notice with the DNR. However, this information should be noted that compliance with the cutting notice requirement has been variable. Also, information on past harvest treatments were not available because once the harvest treatment was completed, those records are deleted from the DNR’s system. However, the results of those treatments would have been reflected in the private land habitat analysis completed by Veen and Pierre (2009). Currently, there are the following timber management activities occuring on 130 acres of MFL lands:

• 45 acres of commercial thinning in red pine • 77 acres of selection cutting in northern hardwoods • 8 acres of clear cutting aspen

Future timber management through 2020 includes approximately 613 acres that involve the following: • 57 acres of thinning (40 in northern hardwoods, 8 in red pine, 9 in fir/spruce) • 464 acres of selection cutting in northern hardwoods • 10 acres of clear cutting aspen • 13 acres of shelter wood in northern hardwoods • 69 acres of selection (5 in aspen, 64 in northern hardwood)

The other largest private lands owners, which are not enrolled in the MFL, are Forest County Potawatomi Community (1,970 acres) and Milwaukee Council Boys Scouts of America (BSA) (1,120 acres). Forest County Potawatomi Community was contacted to obtain information on their past, current and future timber management activities but we did not receive this information. As a result, we applied the above harvest assumptions to the management of their lands. About 1,760 acres (89%) of their property is upland hardwood forests and thus would typically be managed for uneven-aged conditions. This type of treatments would not result in those stands becoming unsuitable habitat for TES/RFSS due to the canopy closure would remain > 80% following treatment. The remaining 11% (210 acres) is made up of non –suitable habitat; openings, pine and lowland conifer that would not be harvested. Timber harvest management on BSA property from 1984 to 2000 includes 369 acres mixed hardwood were thinned and 44 acres aspen regenerated. Since 2001, there has been 61 acres mixed hardwood thinned and 21 acres aspen regenerated. These past treatments would also be reflected in the private land habitat analysis completed by Veen and Pierre (2009). Future timber harvests (up to 2015) planned on BSA lands includes:

• 130 acres of thinning in mixed northern hardwood • 25 acres of red pine thinning • 25 acres of clear cutting aspen

With all these private lands, there would be no effect to sensitive species from the red pine and fir/spruce harvest due to this habitat is not considered suitable habitat for RFSS being analyzed. Also, there would be no effect from the hardwood selection harvests due to the canopy closure before and after the cut would remain at 80% or greater and thus the stands do not become unsuitable habitat. The hardwood stands that will be thinned or have a shelterwood harvest total about 183 acres. The canopy closure in these stands would be reduced to around 70% and is expected to return to greater than 80 % closure in five years or less. During that 5 year period the stands would be considered unsuitable, but this is considered a small impact because it only comprises about 1 % of the total available hardwood habitat and also grand total of suitable habitat (species that utilize aspen and hardwood

24

forest types) on private lands for RFSS (Table 9). Clear cutting of aspen stands would take place on about 43 acres and would make those stands unsuitable for 50 years. This is also a small impact due to it only comprises 1% of the suitable available aspen habitat and about 0.3% of the grand total of suitable habitat (species that utilize aspen and hardwood forest types) on private lands for RFSS. (Table 8). Table 8. Acre totals of suitable habitat for TES and RFSS on non-FS lands from within the project area and the 1 mile buffer used for cumulative effects analysis.


Aspen 3,435 17% 3,435 0 3,435 3,435 3,435

Lowland Conifers 1,788 9% 0 0 0 0 1,788

Lowland Hardwoods 1,479 7% 0 1,479 0 0 0

Spruce/Fir 119 1% 0 0 0 0 119

Upland Hardwoods (hrdwds) 8,970 45% 8,970 8,970 8,970 8,970 8,970


Upland Hrdwds - c/d hemlock 1,340 7% 1,340 1,340 1,340 1,340 1,340

Sub Total 20,113 100% 16,727 14,771 16,727 16,727 18,634

Acres of harvest treatments (private lands) 226 183 226 226 226

Grand Total 16,501 14,588 16,501 16,501 18,408

226 acres hardwood and aspen harvest acres; 183 acres aspen harvest only

6.1.1 FEDERALLY THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

6.1.2 EASTERN TIMBER WOLF (Canis lupis) The Eastern Timber Wolf occurred throughout Wisconsin prior to settlement about 1832; (Nowak, 1995, p.338). Estimates of presettlement numbers vary, with the most credible being 3,000-5,000 (Wydeven, 1993, p.18), (Jackson, 1961, p.293). Prior to settlement, five species of ungulate were found in Wisconsin: bison, elk, moose, caribou, and white-tailed deer (Schorger, 1942, p.28). All five species were potential prey for wolves (Mech, 1970, p.172). Indeed, fur traders in the Wisconsin-Minnesota region between 1770 and 1830 documented wolf predation on bison and deer (Thiel, 1993, p.18). By 1880, deer were the only wild ungulate species remaining in viable numbers within the state (Theil, 1993, p.19). Early fur traders were generally indifferent to the presence of wolves because they posed no threat, and were not considered valuable furbearers. Negative attitudes towards wolves prevailed among Europeans who settled in the Territory in the late 1830s and in 1865 the State legislature instituted a bounty (Thiel, 1993, p.19). By 1930, wolves were restricted to less than a dozen counties in northern Wisconsin and by this time, sport hunters were killing wolves because they were considered unwanted competitors for deer (Flader, 1974, p.217) (Thiel, 1993, p.22). The wolf population declined from an estimated 150 in 1930 to less than 50 by 1950. The last wolf packs in Wisconsin disappeared by 1956-57, just when the State legislature removed the timber wolf from the bounty. The last Wisconsin wolves were killed in 1958 and 1959. Wolves expanded back into Wisconsin in winter 1974-75 when a wolf pack was discovered in the border area between Wisconsin and Minnesota south of Duluth-Superior and by 1980, five wolf packs were known to occur in northern Wisconsin (WDNR, 2009a).

An intensive wolf-monitoring program was instituted by the WDNR and the FWS in 1979. During the 1980s, wolf numbers fluctuated between a low of 15 animals in 1985 to a high of 31 in 1989 (Wydeven et al.,1995, p 151). High mortality rates (greater than 35% annually) were caused primarily by humans, with gunshot the

25

leading cause of death (Wydeven et al.,1995, p.151 ). Wolf numbers have steadily increased since 1993 when there were 40 animals in the state to the 2009 estimate of 626 animals (Wydeven, A.P. et al, 2009, p.41) (Figure 05). Since the early 1980s, the CNNF has participated annually in wolf survey and monitoring activities. These activities are done cooperatively with the WDNR and the FWS. Survey and monitoring activities consist of winter carnivore tracking surveys, summer howling surveys, radio tagging of new wolf packs and weekly aerial telemetry tracking of radio marked packs. These survey and monitoring activities provide the CNNF with critical information on; pack establishment or losses, animal and pack movements, territory locations, shifts and sizes, breeding activities, productivity and causes of mortalities.

Figure 6. Wolf population trends in Wisconsin since 1980 (packs and individuals) (Wydeven, A.P. et al. 2009).

Wolves live in family groups referred to as “packs” that consist of a dominant breeding pair, surviving offspring from the previous year and current year pups. Pack sizes vary from 2-10 animals with the average pack size of 4.3 animals. Each family occupies an exclusive territory ranging from 50-160 square miles with an average 70 square miles in Wisconsin (WDNR, 2009a). Currently, the WDNR estimates there are 162 wolf packs in Wisconsin (Figure 6). Wolves are susceptible to disease, predation, human persecution, starvation, and vehicle collisions. Human-caused deaths in Wisconsin declined from 72% of mortality during a period of 1972-85 to 22% from 1986-1992 (WDNR, 2009a). During the period 1993-96, 50% of wolf mortality in the State of Wisconsin was caused by humans and over 25% of that resulted from vehicle collisions. Disease also plays a role in wolf mortality across its range and in Wisconsin, with wolves being susceptible to canine distemper, canine parvovirus, Lyme disease, mange, and blastomycosis (WDNR, 2009a).

25 20 23 19 18 14 15 18 26 31 34 39 45 40 5483 99

148178

204248

257

327335373

435467

546549

626

5 5 4 5 4 4 5 5 6 7 10 12 13 12 16 20 31 35 47 57 65 70 83 94 108 113116

141150162

1…

'81

'82

'83

'84

'85

'86

'87

'88

'89 1…

'91

'92

'93

'94

'95

'96

'97

'98

'99 2…

'01

'02

'03

'04

'05

'06

'07

'08

'09

_ _ _ Number of individual wolves

____ Number of wolf packs

26

Wolf habitat has been defined as areas having the following characteristics (Mladenoff D. T., 1995, p. 289 - 292) (Mladenoff D. T., 1997, p. 23-24) (WDNR, 2009a):

1. Low human population densities

2. Sufficient prey (deer, beaver, etc.)

3. Low road densities (4.8 km/km2 or 2.9 mi/mi2

4. Appropriate vegetation cover and landscape patterns

)

Of these elements, road density and complexity of the spatial landscape pattern (low fragmentation from agricultural or urbanizing landscape) appear to be the most important. Based on these criteria, the WDNR (2009a) estimates that there are currently 15,052 km2 (5811 mi2

Wolves are adaptable and can survive on large landscapes with adequate prey populations consisting of mainly white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and at times beaver (Castor canadensis), snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus) and miscellaneous small animals. Their territory size tends to increase as local deer populations decrease and territory size decreases when deer number increase. A Wisconsin study showed wolf densities were about 1 wolf /15 mile

) of favorable habitat in the state. This includes an estimated 75% of the CNNF landbase, because it is relatively undeveloped and generally falls in the road density range suitable for wolves as described in the Eastern Timber Wolf Recovery Plan (FWS,1992, p. 17-19) (WDNR, 2009a).

2 in an area supporting deer densities of 22 deer/ mile2

(WDNR, 2009a). Deer are generally associated with early successional habitat and the amount of this habitat varies across the Forest and also within individual deer management units (DMU’s). Since the mid-1990’s (a period of significant herd growth), the WDNR has used the T-Zone and Earn-a-Buck tools to effectively reduce herds in various deer management units that were 20% or greater over population goals (including many on the CNNF) (Quinn, et al, 2006).

The HCP Project Area resides in DMU #44 and this unit recorded a post-hunt population of 11 deer per sq. mile in 2008. Adjacent DMU’s # 43 to the west and #45 to the east both had 12 deer/sq mile (Rolley, 2008, p. 4-5). The population goal for DMU #44 is 17, and for DMU’s #43 and #45 are 15 and 20 deer/sq mi respectively. Even though deer population have declined from the 2008 totals in the DMU that the project resides in (-40%) and in the Northern Forest Region (-31%), wolves are unlikely to be limited by the availability of prey because white-tailed deer and beaver are still mostly common to abundant. Wolves are still maintaining their established territories over the past year of declining deer numbers, but it would be expected that if prey becomes limiting, wolves would successfully expand their territories. There is an abundance of unoccupied habitat in and around the HCP Project Area and northeastern section of the LKLN RD.

27

Figure 7. Distribution of wolf territories in Wisconsin in 2008 (Wydeven, et al. 2009). Diseases in wildlife are difficult to manage. The Forest coordinates with and relies upon State and local efforts to control animal disease transmissions from pets and livestock (i.e. rabies, distemper, parvovirus, etc.) to wildlife species through administration of and enforcement of vaccination requirements. Natural disease phenomenon (i.e. blastomycosis, mange, etc.), while not routine, are managed by the State with Forest cooperation when human health and safety risks are present.

Effects to wolves from management activities can be measured in three ways:

1. Amount of direct disturbance to denning or rendezvous sites

2. Changes in road densities within suitable and/or occupied habitat

3. Changes in present prey availability - distribution and density

Because no wolves are known to occur in the project area, measure 1 does not apply. Measure 3 is not likely to be informative because prey is abundant and is unlikely to be limiting the wolf distribution. Consequently, only changes in road density (measure 2) are likely to provide a useful measure to compare effects of the management alternatives on wolves.

6.1.2.1 BOUNDARY AND SCALE OF EFFECTS ANALYSES Direct and indirect effects to wolves are analyzed at the scale of the project area. If there are direct and/or indirect effects, cumulative effects will be analyzed at the scale of the project as well as at the scale of the entire CNNF. Such a cumulative effects analysis area is appropriate because the species is highly mobile and may move between the Chequamegon and Nicolet landbases of the CNNF.

28

6.1.2.2 THRESHOLD OF EFFECTS The federal status of the eastern timber wolf has changed several times over the past few years. On February 8, 2007 the FWS published a final rule identifying and removing the gray wolf from the Endangered Species Act (ESA) protection. A court decision in September 2008, however, vacated and remanded the 2007 final rule back to the FWS. On December 11, 2008, FWS published a notice in the Federal Register that protections for the gray wolf in the Western Great Lakes (WGL) were reinstated pursuant to the September 30, 2008 court-order. On January 14, 2009, the Department of Interior announced that the final rule to delist the WGL Distinct Population Segment (DPS) would be published (Federal Register) but this announcement was withdrawn on January 20, 2009 in order for the new presidential administration to review the order. On March 6, 2009, the Secretary of the Interior affirmed the decision to delist the WGL- DPS of gray wolf and on April 02, 2009, the Final Rule to Delist Gray Wolf WGL- DPS was signed. However, on July 01, 2009 the FWS again withdrew the delisting to provide opportunity for public comment as a result of a lawsuit challenging this decision. This action is currently being reviewed by the Courts, at which point wolves are once again relisted as an Endangered Species. (FWS, 2009).

The CNNF wolf population has exceeded the 4 pack/40 animal goal set in the federal recovery plan (FWS, 1992, p. 27-28) for at least five years. It has exceeded the 80 animals/3 consecutive year goal of the Wisconsin state recovery plan for a similar period of time (WDNR, 2009a). Across Wisconsin, the gray wolf population is estimated to be approximately 626 animals. A threshold of effects will have been crossed when management activities on the Forest cause the CNNF to fail to meet population goals set forth by the FWS and the WDNR.

There are no established wolf pack territories within the project area; the closest packs are Knowles Creek Pack (map #136), which totals 1 animal and the Ada Lake Pack (map #129) that also has 1 animal. We have no reports of wolf sightings within the HCP Project Area.

6.1.2.3 DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS TO EASTERN TIMBER WOLF Alternative 1 (No Action)

Under this alternative, no vegetation management or road construction would occur and there would be no effect on wolves.

Direct and Indirect Effects:

Without any direct or indirect effects on wolves, there can be no cumulative effects.

Cumulative Effects:

No effect.

Determination:

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

No wolf pack exists in the project area, therefore disturbance to wolves due to increased human presence during the logging operations, increased truck traffic, and noise generated from the trucks, saws, and logging equipment are not anticipated from these action alternatives.


Implementation of the action alternatives would reduce both open and total road density from the existing condition and from the No Action Alternative. Overall, open road density under all alternatives would be reduced by about %, and by when compared to the existing condition and Alternative 1 (Table 10). Decommissioning removes a road from the landscape, by activities such as removal of surfacing, restoration of the natural

29

topography, scarifying and revegetation of the roadbed, removal of culverts, planting trees, and placement of natural obstructions in the roadbed. Decommissioning has a direct effect of putting more land back into a productive state, which can eventually lead to increased forest cover and wildlife habitat.

Decommissioning can change both the total and open road density figures for an area, and addresses the human access concern. Due to declassification and tail conversion, there would be less public motorized access within the project area. This could result in fewer impacts to wolves from accidental/illegal shootings or trapping.

Road closures are used where a road is still desired for future management needs. A gate or other barrier is used to prevent public motor vehicle use, while leaving the area behind the closure open to foot travel or administrative use. Road closures affect only the open road density, but still address the human access concern. Table 9. Proposed actions in the HCP Project affecting road density.

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Authorized Roads

Total project mileage 150.0 150.0 150.0 150.00

Decommission 0.0 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5

Construct 0.0 +3.5 +3.5 +1.2

Unauthorized Road

Decommission 0.0 -53.8* -51.1* -51.5

Trail conversion 0.0 -8.2** -10.9** -10.9

Alternative Road Mileage 150.0 91.0 91.0 88.3

Wolves do not require any particular forest type, thus the timber management under the action alternatives would not have an effect on wolves except for the possibility that wolves would temporarily avoid treatment areas while the logging operations are occurring. This temporary avoidance of the area is not a meaningful effect on wolves.

Given that there are no known wolf packs within the project area and that the proposed land management activities would not reduce the suitability of the habitat for wolves, there are no expected direct or indirect effects of the HCP Project under any of the action alternatives. Without any direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects on wolves.

Cumulative Effects:

No effect.

Determination:

6.1.2.4 DESIGN FEATURES FOR THE EASTERN TIMBER WOLF No design feature would be needed. However, if during implementation of the project, wolves reestablish territories in the project area, the forest plan standards and guidelines (USDA 2004b; p. 2-19) would be reviewed and the protection measures for denning and rendezvous sites would be applied, as appropriate.

30

6.1.3 REGIONAL FORESTER SENSITIVE SPECIES - ANIMALS

6.1.4 NORTHERN GOSHAWK (Accipiter gentilis) Historical nesting territories were obtained from T. Erdman, goshawk biologist who has been conducting research on the NNF for the past 30 years. Due to the sensitivity of goshawk nest sites, their locations will not be disclosed in this document. One goshawk nest has been active within the last 10 years in the project area. Forest plan standard and guidelines for goshawks (USDA, 2004a, p 2-20) would be followed to prevent disturbance to nesting birds. A summary of Erdman’s NNF Goshawk Nesting Surveys from 1996-2008 indicates that populations are fluctuating with no definitive trend. Erdman states “it is very difficult to assess the population status of goshawks in Wisconsin in terms of abundance and density, due to territories are widely dispersed, non-randomly, and undergo fluctuations of up to 50% though the 10-year prey cycle” (Erdman, et al. 1998, p 26 ).The northern goshawk was considered a rare summer resident in Wisconsin around the time of settlement and until the early 1900s when most of the mature pine and old-growth hardwood forests had been over-exploited and repeatedly burned. After that lumbering era, records of goshawk in Wisconsin were scant; in fact, only 10 nesting records exist from the period between 1902 and 1968 (Erdman, et al. 1998, p. 17). Since then, monitoring efforts by T. Erdman, J. Jacobs, J Woodford and others have documented more nests and are contributing to a greater understanding of the habitat requirements of and restoration potential for goshawk in northern Wisconsin.

The northern goshawk is a large, forest-dwelling raptor generally associated with mature deciduous, conifer, or mixed forest (Boal, et al. 2001, p. 02) (Boal, 2003, p. 213). These forest types of southern Ontario and the northern portions of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin are the southernmost extent of its current breeding range. Due to it being a peripheral population in Wisconsin, goshawks are expected to occur at a low density with more variation in demographic parameters than with populations from the center of its range (Kennedy and Anderson, 2001, p. 11, Currnutt, 2009, p. 15). Recent habitat modeling using a Geographical Information System (GIS), predicted that only 7.6% of the northern highland landscape of Wisconsin had >50% probability of being occupied by breeding goshawks (Woodford et al. 2003, p. 8).

The goshawk is morphologically well adapted for life in forested lands and is considered a habitat generalist as it occupies most of the forested types in its range. Specific nesting habitat information is limited for eastern populations due to a lack of studies that examine nest site placement in the context of available habitat features. A summary of western data indicated that goshawks tend to select stands with relatively large trees and high canopy closure (Kennedy and Anderson, 2001, p. 11). Rosenfield et al., (1998, p. 193) supported this conclusion as his mean nest-tree height was 25 m, tree diameter breast height (DBH) was 41 cm and canopy closure was 82 percent. He also reported that goshawks are flexible in the vegetation types used for nest site using pine plantations, maple and maple-oak uplands, black ash swamps, and aspen monotypes within forest fragments. A number of studies indicate that nests maybe located near natural or man-made openings in the overstory as they provide travel corridors, reduce flight barriers for fledglings, and increase prey diversity (PVA, 2000, p 06 ).

Goshawks are active and opportunistic hunters that take large prey, including snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus), ruffed grouse (Bonasa umbellus), larger songbirds, squirrels, and other species that occupy the ground-shrub zone (PVA,2000, p. 07). Snags, downed logs, openings, large trees, shrubby understories, and interspersion of vegetation structural stages (grasses to old forests) are important habitat features for prey species used by the goshawk.

31

Table 10. Nesting data for goshawks on the NNF, 1998 - 2008.

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Territories Checked 63 62 unk 72 74 65 65 57 63 63 51

Active Territories 16 17 unk 16 12 12 17 13 12 9 8

Active Nest 11 16 14 13 10 11 17 13 12 9 6

Successful Nests 9 12 9 9 3 9 13 8 9 9 6

# Fledged 16 27 19 15 7 20 23 13 20 18 18

Unk – data not provided in 2000 report submitted by T. Erdman.

Currently, the goshawk is an uncommon resident in the north and an uncommon migrant in the central and southern parts of the state. However, exceptional numbers of goshawks may occur approximately every 8-10 years when ruffed grouse and snowshoe hare populations are low in the bird’s northern range (Cutright et al. 2006, p.164).

In 2008, the Northern Goshawk Bioregional Monitoring Study was conducted to evaluate the viability and distribution of goshawks in the Western Great Lakes (WGL). These results could be the foundation for a population viability risk evaluation at the bioregional scale. The WGL Bioregional Monitoring provided an unbiased estimate of distribution and abundance across agency boundaries and addressed a wide range of management regimes, all of which have documented occurrences of goshawk. It also used agency-developed and peer-reviewed protocols that have been used in multiple bioregions of the species and is currently the best available science.

Results of WGL Bioregional Monitoring Report (Bruggeman, et al. 2009, p. 02) concluded that northern goshawks occur at greater densities than was previously thought throughout the WGL. It determined that across the WGL, goshawk occupancy was estimated to be 5,184 ±199 (individuals) and are widely distributed and abundant (consistent with densities expected for a “low-density species”). They were detected in 12 different forest types and the majority of the detections were in northern hardwoods (30%) and also aspen/birch forest types (13%). The study likely underestimated the occupancy because habitats in Michigan (both Central Upper Peninsula and Lower Peninsula) were not surveyed as part of this project.

These results should be interpreted as a minimum estimate of occupancy and not an absolute population count for the WGL. In Wisconsin, Bruggeman et al. (2009, p.22) estimated 903± 110 individuals and on the CNNF the estimate was 442±224 goshawks based on detection probabilities. A review of these results by Dr. John Curnutt (Currnutt, 2009, p. 02) indicated that northern goshawk Minimum Viable population estimate is likely secure for more than 40 generations, which is a commonly applied threshold of viability. Based on these results, the CNNF will continue to implement the current forest plan standards and guidelines for this species to ensure continued abundance and distribution and ensure compliance with our Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act MOU with FWS. The CNNF will also continue with current survey and monitoring efforts until the next bio-regional effort occurs (desired in 2013) and this would be consistent with our need to sustain localized trend data for forest plan MIS.

Risks to the northern goshawk populations include:

• Habitat disturbance during the nesting season. T. Erdman states there can be problems with Forestry practices where there are no guidelines for nest protection (1993, p.16). There is a lack of guidelines for nest site protection on private lands, however, the CNNF has established Forest guidelines to protect nest sites (USDA, 2004a, p. 2-20). These guidelines are consistent with those implemented by WDNR (Woodford, 2008, p. 01) for goshawks nest protection on state lands:

o No-cut area; in all forest types, create a no-cut buffer around the active and any alternative nest trees; the area of no-cut depends on stand type, conifer density, topology, and distance to sale boundary. The

32

recommended minimum no-cut radius is 660 feet around all nest trees. This distance provides a no-cut area of 31 acres for a territory with one nest.

o The no cut buffer is designed to eliminate disturbance within the nest area and reduce the impact of weather on nesting birds. This reserve area also will reduce the likelihood of predation and interspecific competition from red-tailed hawks and great horned owls. All these factors have been shown to negatively affect or eliminate nesting goshawks in established territories).

o In a letter to the FS, March 2003, T. Erdman indicated that his research on the NNF has “evidence that the current reserve areas work”.

• Loss of mature forest habitat or habitat alterations that promote a fragmented forest canopy. Habitat may be improved with silvicultural activities that reduce the density of shrubs, saplings, and small poles, while maintaining or enhancing the canopy of large trees within foraging range of nests (Crocker-Bedford, 1990, p. 266). The HCP Project would not affect this risk.

• Avian or mammalian predation of both young and adults. According to T. Erdman, fisher depredation is the single most important factor affecting northern goshawks on the NNF and is considered the limiting factor for a stable goshawk population (Erdman, et al., 1998, p.23 ) (Erdman, 2005, p.02 ). Fisher populations have increase every year over the past 10 years, except 2003, in northeastern WI (Zone D). Currently the population is estimated to be at 3,400 which is 700 animals over management goal (Rolley, 2008, p.03 ). The HCP Project would not affect this risk.

• Other risks include, lows in prey populations (ruffed grouse and snowshoe hare (Erdman, 1993, p.08 ) (Erdman et al.1998, p.22), disease (West Nile virus and cold, wet weather conditions during the yearly periods of the nesting season (Boal et al., 2005, p. 226). The HCP Project would not affect all of these risks except low prey populations where management would have a positive impact by increasing the amount of their habitat (early successional) and then possibly their populations.

6.1.4.1 MEASURES In the effects analysis for goshawk, suitable habitat is defined as northern hardwoods (CDS codes 81-89), hardwoods with hemlock (type 20), and aspen (types 91, 93 and 95) (USDA, 2008, p. 07). All of the above types must be 50+ years old to be considered suitable for goshawk because that age is approximately when the forest is expected to have a closed canopy and some trees are large enough to be used for nesting. Selection harvesting is not expected to have an effect on goshawk because the canopy closure before and after the cut would remain at 80% or greater. For hardwood stands that are thinned (such as an initial cut to begin uneven-aged management), canopy closure would be reduced to around 70% and is expected to return to greater than 80 % closure in five years or less. This open canopy also makes suitable nesting habitat for Great horned owls and red-tailed hawks that are predators and competitors of goshawks. Stands managed using even-aged silvicultural methods are assumed to be unsuitable for nesting for a period of approximately 50 years following a treatment. However, this early successional habitat is ideal for supporting high densities of grouse and hare populations that are preferred goshawk prey.

In general, some timber harvest management can have adverse consequences on goshawk nesting territories (abandonment of the nest). The greatest impact could occur from harvesting all of a stand containing the nest. There could also be harmful impacts if any activities within the territory occurred during the nesting or brood-rearing season of mid-February to early August. Excess disturbance can cause birds to leave their nests long enough for eggs or young to be susceptible to exposure to cold, wet weather or predation. Also, timber harvests within the bird's territory that changes the quality of the nesting habitat could have the similar negative results. The birds may avoid nesting because of these disturbances within an otherwise suitable nesting area. The proposed harvesting within HCP Analysis Area will not result in any of the above disturbance situations due to implementation of FS Guidelines and project design measures. A goshawk protection zone will be defined as a 30-acre area (circle) surrounding the nest site and a secondary buffer zone extending 330 feet beyond the 30-acre zone; these zones surrounding the nest are the same as the protection zones for goshawk in the forest plan (p. 2-

33

20 to 2-21). When private lands fall within this territory, how that land is managed is discussed to the extent that such information is known.

6.1.4.2 SURVEYS Historical nesting territories were obtained from T. Erdman. There is one historical nesting territory within the HCP Project Area that has not been active since 2005 when it failed at egg time. A new goshawk nest was located in 2009 from our surveys just outside the project boundary. Both goshawk nests, as well as their protective buffer zones surrounding the nests, are all located on FS lands.

A total of 6,839 acres were surveyed for breeding goshawks during leaf-off conditions in 2007 – 2009. The surveys consisted of a combination of walking through target stands in a grid pattern to look for nests, and playing of goshawk alarm calls to elicit a response from territorial birds. Playback stops were done approximately every 200 meters, although some stands had a higher rate of stops. The majority of the surveys were done during late winter and early spring, during the courtship phase. Although a limited amount of surveying occurred during the incubation period, this period was generally avoided because the response by goshawks is lower, and it risks disturbing any incubating birds, especially in inclement weather. Some studies have shown greater response rates to taped calls during the nestling and fledging-dependency phases (Kennedy and Stahlecker, 1993, p.253). A disadvantage to surveys during these periods, however, is that the full canopy makes searching for nests more difficult. Surveying was only conducted in suitable weather conditions, when winds were less than 12 mph and little to no precipitation was occurring.

Follow up surveys were conducted at sites that had a positive response. These surveys were conducted until a nesting territory was located or it was determined that no breeding activity was occurring. A conspecific call was played at predetermined locations to “cover” all potential habitats near the response site. Visual search for nests in theses stands were also conducted while walking to the next survey point. Additional nest surveys would be completed during timber-marking procedures by personnel that attended a “Woodland Raptor Nest Identification Workshop” conducted by FS biologist.

6.1.4.3 BOUNDARY AND SCALE OF EFFECTS ANALYSES Multiple spatial scales were used to evaluate meaningful effects to goshawk. For evaluating direct and indirect effects to the species, the project area was used. Any goshawks nesting or foraging within the project area have the potential to be directly (destruction of nest tree) or indirectly (loss of habitat) affected by the proposed activities.

Cumulative effects to goshawk are analyzed at the scale of the LKLN RD, the Nicolet landbase (not the entire CNNF and not including the southern portion of the Ottawa NF). This analysis area is appropriate for several reasons:

1) In over two decades of study of goshawks in Northern Wisconsin by Tom Erdman and others, no birds have been recorded to move between the Forest’s Chequamegon and Nicolet landbases and dispersal between these two areas is extremely unlikely based on recorded movements of banded individuals. In only one instance was a bird banded on the Nicolet landbases found a great distance away (more than 50 miles); in this case, Ontario. This individual, a juvenile male, dispersed, as juvenile males of many raptor species are known to do, but returned to its natal territory to breed, thus having no effect on the distant population. Studies showed that the hawk populations do not interbreed, compete for resources, or have a predator/prey relationship. Consequently, the appropriate geographic bounds for cumulative effects analysis of the HCP Project is limited to the Nicolet landbase where effects may meaningfully accumulate.

2) The cumulative effects area is relatively contiguous and, because it is predominantly a forested landscape, it is reasonable to assume that individuals could move freely within this boundary.

34

3) Although goshawk nesting in the northern portion of the Nicolet landbase may forage in the Ottawa NF (particularly the 212Xc02 Land Type Association (LTA) that extends approximately 10 miles into the Ottawa NF), no known occupied goshawk territories are known from the WI/MI border north greater than 20 miles. In addition, the southern portion of the Ottawa NF that adjoins the Nicolet NF includes a substantial proportion of private land (especially along HWY 2) that partially breaks up the suitable habitat. Furthermore, the Ottawa NF has not been actively managing the vegetation of that portion of the Forest for over 15 years and, for that reason, there are no effects of forest fragmentation on goshawk to include in a cumulative effects analysis for the HCP Project.

However, acres of available suitable habitat on the CNF will be presented for discussion purposes only. The temporal scale of the cumulative effects analysis includes past actions (with emphasis on those that have occurred over the past five years) and those that are reasonably foreseeable. Beyond five years, the effects to goshawk are undetectable in northern hardwoods forest because within five years canopy gaps created during thinning or improvement cuts have closed such that canopy closure at the stand meets or exceeds 80 percent. Activities such as even-aged harvest have long-lasting effects because they take habitat that may be (or may have been) suitable to goshawk and make it unsuitable for approximately 50 years. Essentially, the effects of even-aged treatments in the past are manifest in the records and projections of suitable goshawk habitat. These actions would be considered for each of the geographic areas described above.

6.1.4.4 THRESHOLD OF EFFECTS In the species viability evaluation (SVE) process for the 2004 forest plan, no minimum numbers of goshawk or their habitat were identified although the quantity of habitat was expected to be relatively stable through implementation of the forest plan BE (USDA, 2004c, p.3-147-148 and USDA, 2004b, J-74). Alternatives 3-9 and the Selected Alternative were judged to result in beneficial effects to goshawks as a result of standards and guidelines protecting the species and the increase in northern hardwoods forest types (USDA, 2004c, p.3-169). The cumulative effect analysis for the project will determine if the trend in the quantity of suitable habitat is stable, increasing or decreasing. The relevance of the projected trend in habitat availability is discussed in the context of the forest plan forecast to determine whether past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions would result in a habitat trend different from the forest plan projection (stable habitat quantity).

6.1.4.5 DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS TO NORTHERN GOSHAWK Alternative 1 (No Action)

Under this alternative no actions would occur. The result of not implementing any timber harvesting activities within the project area would be the passive maintenance or enhancement of nesting habitat for the species, which would occur through the maintenance or increase of canopy closure in northern hardwoods stands. In addition, habitat conditions for goshawk prey such as ruffed grouse and snowshoe hare may decline because these prey species prefer early successional habitats, none of which would be regenerated through active vegetation management under the No Action Alternative. Such succession is not anticipated to result in a meaningful or measurable effect to goshawk, because the response of prey to such gradual change in forest type would be largely masked by population cycles, which are independent of forest management practices and are intrinsic to both hare and ruffed grouse. However, goshawk numbers have been shown to be responsive to the prey cycles (Erdman, et al. 1998, p. 20).


Although no direct or indirect effects to goshawk are expected, it is worthwhile to note that within the project area as well as Forest wide; there is a trend toward increasing the representation of longer lived species and maintenance or restoration of northern hardwoods ecosystems at multiple scales (USDA,

Cumulative Effects:

35

2004b, p. 3-93 to 3-109). Consequently, selection of the No Action Alternative would passively contribute toward the general direction for portions of the project area by allowing about 5,700 acres of northern hardwood (i.e. suitable habitat) in the project area to continue to develop large trees (suitable for nest sites) and maintain or increase canopy closure which are important features of goshawk habitat. Under the forest plan, the HCP Project Area contains areas that are designated as Management Areas 2A and 2C, which have forest type composition goals that range from 30 to 70 % for the northern hardwood forest type (USDA, 2004a p. 3-8 and p 3-10).

No impact. There would be no vegetation management under this alternative; therefore there would be no effect on goshawks nesting habitat. Lack of management would result in passive maintenance of existing suitable habitat within the project area. Over the next 10 years, there would be a gradual increase in availability of suitable nesting habitat, due to maturing of 30 acres that are not currently suitable. However, there would be no aspen management (early successional habitat) that would benefit prey species such as ruffed grouse and snowshoe hare. Goshawk prey species are not known to be a limiting factor at this time therefore there would be no effects to goshawk. But as more late-seral habitat is developed across the HCP Project and CNNF, prey species and their habitat may become a limiting factor to goshawk.

Determination:

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

The two goshawk nests would be protected following the guidelines of the forest plan (USDA, 2004a, p. 2-20 to 2-21) such that within a 30-acre buffer surrounding the nest for Alt. 2 and 3, no activities would occur. Out to 330 feet beyond that buffer, only activities that do not lower canopy closure below 80 percent and that are considered uneven-aged management could occur. These guidelines are consistent with the WDNR working guidelines for forestry (Woodford, 2008, p. 01) and would be followed under all action alternatives to protect goshawk reproduction, which is believed to be the limiting life history stage of the species in Wisconsin. Alternative 4 would have a 124-acre buffer surrounding goshawk nests.

Direct and indirect effects:

The alternatives vary in the amount of unoccupied goshawk habitat beyond these buffer zones that would be affected by vegetation management. Currently, there is 6,880 acres of unoccupied habitat available to goshawk within the project area. The historical nest site that is buffered resulted in 50 acres of habitat considered occupied and at the new nest there is 2 acres; thus approximately 0.70 % of the suitable habitat within the project area is occupied by a nest site. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 propose to treat 860, 870 and 815 acres respectively of unoccupied habitat with harvest treatments other than selection cuts (Table 12). Selection cutting in unoccupied habitat would not adversely affect goshawk because the result of the harvest is a stand that still has high (greater than 80 %) canopy closure and trees in the large-diameter classes preferred for nesting by the species. Other harvest treatments such as clear-cuts, improvement cuts, thinning and removal cuts make the habitat unsuitable over the short or long term. The immediate results of harvest treatments in the HCP Project Area would be a temporary reduction of about 12% of unoccupied habitat in all alternatives.

However, by 2015 (five years after the treatment is expected to occur), many of the stands considered habitat before the treatment would again be considered suitable habitat and additional stands in the project area will have matured and would then also be considered suitable habitat. As a result, in the project area there would be 6,621, 6,386 and 6,750 acres of suitable habitat under Alt. 2, 3 and 4 respectively. These totals are a reduction of -4.5% in Alt. 2, -7.9% with Alt. 3 and -2.6% in Al.t 4 when compared to the suitable habitat available in 2010. In addition to management that would temporarily affect goshawk habitat, the action alternatives include management that would increase the amount of young-age aspen. Areas of dense young aged aspen are important for goshawk prey species such as ruffed grouse and snowshoe hare. Currently, only 6% of the aspen in the project area is within the age class of 0-10 years old. This very small percentage of suitable prey habitat could be a factor in low numbers of goshawk nests in the project area. T. Erdman et al. (1998, p.20 ) indicated that

36

goshawk numbers can respond positively to increase in prey levels such as ruffed grouse and snowshoe hare. Implementation of the action alternatives would add 366 acres of young aspen in Alt. 2, 612 acres for Alt. 3 and in Alt. 4 , 262 acres . The desired percentage for this age class is 20%; Alt. 2 would increase the 0-10 age class to 17.6%, Alt. 3 to 23.5% and Alt. 4 15 %.

All tree regeneration and release projects occur in stands that have harvest treatments. The tree release activities would occur in immature stands and therefore would not affect nesting habitat. The tree underplanting work would provide for potential nesting habitat to develop in the long term. Habitat for prey species would remain intact for short-term period in the release stands, but would gradually be reduced in the future with an open understory as the stand matures.

Across the LKLN RD, no activities are proposed to occur in occupied habitat for the reasonably foreseeable future.

Cumulative Effects:

On the LKLN RD, the amount of habitat available to goshawk is expected to increase slightly (+0.2%) after implementation of all alternatives in 2010. By 2015, these increases in suitable habitat will continue with all alternatives. Other than the No Action Alternative, Alternative 4 shows the largest increase of 3,056 acres (+2.5%) followed by Alternatives 2 with an addition of 2,927 acres (+2.4%). At the NNF level, there are slight increases in available habitat immediately after treatment (+0.1%) in all alternatives. Five years after treatment, this positive trend continues with increasing habitat acres over the NNF landbase in Alt.2 and 3 by 2.4 % and 2.5% with Alt 4 (Table 12). These increases are due in part to more habitat is being created through natural processes (stand maturation) than is being lost as a result of timber harvest. Also, these increases are well above the rate projected (+0.26% to +0.51% in ten years) during the forest plan process for the entire CNNF.

37

Table 11. Goshawk habitat within the HCP project, LKLN and NNF. For the 2010 and 2015 projections, the effects of all other projects within the analysis area are included. Values are in acres and the percent change is the change from current (2009) conditions.

HCP Project Area Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

Currently (2009) Unoccupied 6,880 6,880 6,880 6,880 Occupied 52 52 52 52 Total 6,932 6,932 6,932 6,932

Immediately following treatment (2010)

Unoccupied 6,883 0.0% 6,020 -12.5% 6,010 -12.6% 6,065 -11.8% Occupied 52 0.0% 52 0.0% 52 0.0% 52 0.0% Total 6,935 0.0% 6,072 -12.4% 6,062 -12.6% 6,117 -11.8%

Five years after treatment (2015)


Lakewood-Laona Ranger District Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4



Unoccupied 124,800 0.9% 123,937 0.2% 123,927 0.2% 123,982 0.2% Occupied 855 1.9% 855 1.9% 855 1.9% 855 1.9% Total 125,655 0.9% 124,792 0.2% 124,782 0.2% 124,837 0.2%



Nicolet National Forest Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

Currently (2009) Unoccupied 243,170 243,170 243,170 243,170 Occupied 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600 Total 245,770 245,770 245,770 245,770


Unoccupied 244,344 0.5% 243,481 0.1% 243,471 0.1% 243,526 0.1% Occupied 2,600 0.0% 2,600 0.0% 2,600 0.0% 2,600 0.0% Total 246,944 0.5% 246,081 0.1% 246,071 0.1% 246,126 0.1%


Unoccupied 249,516 2.6% 249,148 2.5% 248,913 2.4% 249,277 2.5% Occupied 2,636 1.4% 2,636 1.4% 2,636 1.4% 2,636 1.4% Total 252,152 2.6% 251,784 2.4% 251,549 2.4% 251,913 2.5%

At the CNNF trend data level, there is a temporary downward trend for years 2010 – 2012 and this is largely due to the anticipated loss of aspen in the first decade from conversion to other species and harvest needed to maintain the species long term (Figure 7). This loss was disclosed in the 2004 CNNF FEIS (USDA, 2004c, p. 3-283, Table 3-70) and as such was considered by the SVE panel when assigning a Biological Outcome judgment for the northern goshawk. However, this downward trend does change with an increase of suitable habitat after 2012 to 2015 on the NNF (+2.4%). As such, implementation of any of the action alternatives does not result in a deviation below the forest plan threshold for goshawk habitat quantity.

38

Figure 8. Northern goshawk habitat trends for Chequamegon and Nicolet landbases; all suitable forest types included.

When combining the suitable habitat acres from of both landbases, this pattern of increased acres from 2012 to 2015 is repeated with an addition of 7,996 acres (+1.6%) (Figure 8)

Figure 9. Northern goshawk habitat trends for CNNF; all suitable forest types included.

On non-FS lands within and adjacent to the HCP project area, there are approximately 16,501 acres of forested habitat that is considered suitable based on forest types only and that would be available after harvest treatments (Table 8). These results are based on the minimum amount of projected harvest treatments on private lands. The maximum effect scenario would be to consider that all upland forest types would be harvested in the next 15

230,000234,000238,000242,000246,000250,000254,000258,000262,000

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Acr

es

Years

CNF NNF

470,000475,000480,000485,000490,000495,000500,000505,000510,000515,000

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Acr

es

Years

CNNF

39

years. This would presume that the age structure of the northern hardwood forest is similar to the hardwoods on FS land and most of those acres are suitable now. Roughly 75% of the aspen may be suitable now too but if the aspen age structure is similar to that on the FS lands, the vast majority of those aspen acres will be clear-cut and regenerated in the upcoming five to ten years or lost to natural succession from passive conversion on the landscape (aspen is a short lived tree species <100 yrs). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that only the northern hardwoods and conifer mix habitat (13,109 acres) are likely to support goshawk beyond the next decade. Assuming a 15-year re-entry cycle for the northern hardwoods and that the other ownership land stands are evenly distributed among the years since their last harvest, approximately 875 acres of that habitat will be selective harvested in any given year and these treatments will make that habitat unsuitable for a period of five years at most. The result is approximately 93% of the non-FS land hardwoods (12,235 acres) are assumed to be available to nesting goshawks in any given year. These acres of habitat on private lands add to the abundance of suitable unoccupied habitat on FS land.

Within 1 mile of the historic goshawk nesting site in the project area are approximately 1,150 acres of suitable habitat (450 acres FS lands and 700 acres private) and 86% (999 acres) of this is northern hardwoods and is thus considered to be habitat beyond a decade, except 40 acres that are planned to be harvested (thinning). These acres will then be unsuitable for about five years after harvest but no direct impact will occur due to being 0.9 miles from nest. It is assumed that all aspen (152 acres) is not habitat now or will be clear cut in the next decade. At the new nest site, there is about 1,051 acres of suitable habitat within 1 mile radius (373 private and 678 FS lands); 88% (924 acres) is northern hardwoods and is also considered habitat beyond a decade. Aspen acres total about 126 acres and will be harvested within the next 10 years. The one mile extended analysis of adjacent and other ownership lands is two to four times greater than the average distance goshawk are known to relocate following abandonment or disuse of a previously occupied nest site. This provides context for the relative availability of habitat on adjacent and other ownership lands and CNNF lands when combined with HCP harvest outcomes.

The Phelps Project proposal on the ER/FL RD contains suitable goshawk habitat that would be affected. The data provided in Table 11 accounts for suitable goshawk habitat within the Phelps project area. There are 3 nesting territories within and 1 partially within the Phelps project area; however this occupied habitat will have no harvest treatments. About 113 acres of suitable hardwood habitat is proposed for overstory removal and shelterwood harvests which would result in a long term loss of suitable unoccupied habitat. Also, about 187 acres of mature aspen would be regenerated, thus this unoccupied suitable habitat would be unsuitable nesting habitat for the long term. However, these aspen treatments would create important prey habitat utilized by grouse and hare. Table 11 displays habitat gains of 2.2% to 2.5% by 2015 for all action alternatives, at the District and Nicolet landbase levels respectively. Implementation of the Phelps Projects would not cumulatively alter these percents, and would not result in a long-term net loss of habitat. In conclusion, the two goshawk nesting territories would be protected from disturbance through the design features described in the forest plan. Goshawk occupy less than one percent of the suitable habitat available to them on the NNF landbase and there would be no net loss of available habitat to the species within the cumulative effects area for the reasonably foreseeable future (2015); therefore, there would be no effect of the HCP Project on goshawk under any of the action alternatives.

No impact. Across the LKLN RD, no activities are proposed to occur in occupied habitat for the reasonably foreseeable future. Over the NNF landbase, habitat for goshawk is expected to increase under all of the HCP alternatives in 2015. These increases range well above the rate projected during the forest plan process for the entire CNNF. Goshawk occupy less than one percent of the suitable habitat available to them on the NNF landbase of the CNNF and there would be no net loss of available habitat to the species within the cumulative effects area.

Determination:

40

6.1.4.6 DESIGN FEATURES FOR THE NORTHERN GOSHAWK The forest plan standards and guidelines for northern goshawk management would be used to protect the species (USDA, 2004a, pp. 2-20 to 2-21).

6.1.5 RED SHOULDERED HAWK (BUTEO LINEATUS) The red-shouldered hawk is a medium to large woodland hawk that is widespread in eastern United States, southeastern Canada, California, and Mexico. Prior to 1900 it was one of the most common hawks in eastern US, but as with the goshawk, the logging era of the 1900s destroyed prime nesting habitat and the use of pesticides probably contributed to the decline. Presently red-shouldered hawk populations are scattered throughout the north-central states, with a few local areas where they are relatively common (Jacobs and Jacobs, 2002, p.06 ). In Wisconsin, the red-shouldered hawk is an uncommon summer resident and breeding birds have been reported from many counties across the state. This raptor is less frequent in the southeastern one-third of the state where agriculture dominates. On the National Forest of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan, possibly more than 95%, of the red-shouldered hawk’s that summer there migrate south in fall. While a very small percentage will winter in the same state, the vast majority of red-shouldered hawk’s will migrate 300-1,700 km to winter several states father south (Jacobs and Jacobs, 2002, p. 28).

According to Cutright et al. (2006, p. 166), the red-shouldered hawk was probably never common in Wisconsin but was most abundant in mature bottomland forests along major rivers such as the St. Croix, Wisconsin, Chippewa and Wolf. Other mature hardwood forests, particularly those adjacent to lakes and streams, provided suitable habitat for the species but these areas were heavily logged during the lumbering era that ended around 1930. There are accounts of successful nesting of red-shouldered hawk’s since that time and nest productivity has been monitored on the Nicolet landbase since the 1970s by Tom Erdman (UWGB), John Jacobs (Green Bay), the WDNR and others. Unfortunately, the effects of timber management practices on the species have not been a focus of monitoring (Woodford and Schuessler, 2003, p.3). John Jacobs has been monitoring red-shouldered hawks on the NNF for over 30 years and recently attempting to monitor all 88 nest sites on the NNF each breeding season has proven to be extremely challenging. Due to constraints in time, weather, and financial support, it has become necessary to divide the workload into two years. Starting in 2008, the 35 nest sites north of the town of Lakewood would be checked and then in 2009, the ~ 53 sites south of Lakewood. Red-shouldered hawks in northern NNF are fewer and more widespread and possibly have larger nesting ranges. The sites north of Lakewood are spread over a much greater area that is at least four times larger in size than the area south of Lakewood. Nest finding has always been more challenging in this area of the NNF and J. Jacobs acknowledged that this would result in far fewer active nests to monitor each year.

J. Jacobs’ monitoring results suggest that the birds may have a stable population with low reproduction and low mortality rates (Table 13) (Jacobs, 2005, p. 12).

41

Table 12. Red shouldered hawk nesting data for NNF, 1998 - 2008.

Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008*

Territories Checked 64 54 57 53 57 61 58 66 68 80 35

Active Territories 18 26 25 19 20 31 28 40 31 39 12

Active Nests 14 21 18 14 19 20 19 23 21 22 2

Successful Nests 6 10 7 7 8 6 7 5 10 4 1

# Young 10 24 13 16 18 12 15 10 20 8 na

% Success Nest 43 48 39 50 42 30 37 22 48 18 50

2008* - only northern NNF was searched for active nests; Na = no data reported

Because 2008 represents only the northern NNF, comparing that data to other years should be done with caution. A very late cold spring in 2008 may have contributed to late nesting, or lack of nesting attempts. A lower number of active nests for 2008 doesn’t necessarily reflect a drop in the overall nesting population, but more likely, the fact that southern NNF was not searched (Jacobs, 2008, p. 02 ).

Preferred habitat for red-shouldered hawks is mature hardwood forest, especially those found in riparian areas, wet or moist forest and upland forest adjacent to ponds, wetlands or swamps. Nest trees most commonly used are American beech, maple, oak, and birch. These trees are typically taller and larger than other trees in the stand that are typically 17-40 cm DBH and have a canopy closure 70 percent or greater. Forested landscapes that have very open canopy and/or fragmentation enables red-tailed hawks and great horned owls to possibly displace or kill red-shouldered hawks. Water is also a critical element because these wet areas are used as foraging sites. Primary food items can vary from area to area or year-to-year but common species are frogs, toads, small mammals, and birds. Home range sizes are dependent on the availability of nesting and foraging habitat. In northeastern Wisconsin, Jacobs and Jacobs (2002, p. 06) found that the average home range size is between 90 and 175 hectares. These territories and nest trees do have a high percentage of occupancy from one breeding season to the next. Some reuse of nesting territories has occurred in stands that have had select timber harvests take place during non-breeding months (Jacobs and Jacobs, 2002, p.41 ). Reuse of the same nest as the previous year has been shown to be very high for red-shouldered hawk. Sometimes the same nest will be used 2, 3, even 4 consecutive years. A new nest is often constructed within 150 m of the previous year's nest (Jacobs and Jacobs, 2002, p. 30).

Risks to the red-shouldered hawks include:

• Habitat disturbance during the nesting season (see details in goshawk section). • Loss of mature forest habitat or habitat alterations that promote a fragmented forest canopy. Breeding

habitat alterations appear to have been and probably continue to be the greatest threat to red-shouldered hawk populations. However, J. Jacobs states that selective harvesting of hardwoods, if done properly, can be compatible with red-shouldered hawk. The HCP Project would not effect this risk.

• Avian or mammalian predation of both young and adults. J. Jacobs reports that he has not collected detailed information on nest predation; however, the nests where he was able to determine predation it has been due to fisher, raccoons and great–horned owls. The HCP Project would not affect this risk. The HCP Project would not effect this risk.

• Poor weather conditions during the nesting season. The HCP Project would not affect this risk.

• Gypsy moths. Defoliation of the forest by Gypsy moth larvae could have a severe detrimental affect on red-shouldered hawk nest success. During May and June of 1989 the NNF was severely defoliated by tent caterpillars. During that year only one of 19 active nests was successful. J. Jacobs attributes that low reproduction to predation on young and adults at the nest because of lack of leaf cover. The HCP Project would not affect this risk.

42

• West Niles Disease. Raptor rehabilitators at the Bay Beach Wildlife Sanctuary, Green Bay reported a large number of deaths of young raptors from West Nile virus in northeast Wisconsin in 2005. This could be partly responsible for the lower RSH reproduction for 2005 (Jacobs, 2005, p.12). The HCP Project would not affect this risk.

6.1.5.1 MEASURES As with the goshawk, multiple factors are involved in nest site fidelity and nesting success. Red-shouldered hawks may abandon nest sites in areas under total protection, as well as in areas under active management. Nesting successes and failures are known to occur likewise in both managed and unmanaged habitats, and birds have been observed to move among the various habitats, often relocating to suitable habitat within a mile or so of the original nest site.

In the effects analysis for red-shouldered hawks, suitable habitat is defined as northern hardwoods (CDS codes 81-89) and hardwoods with hemlock (type 20), northern red oak (type 55), and lowland hardwoods (types 71, 76 and 79). All of the above types must be uneven aged or 50+ years old to be considered suitable for red-shouldered hawks, because that condition or age is approximately when the forest is expected to have a closed canopy and some trees would be large enough to be used for nesting. Water is a critical element of red-shouldered hawk, however it is not included in the habitat model run for the species. This is due to a FS review of nest locations in proximity to wetland habitat. Generally, this analysis (St. Pierre et al. 2008 unpublished report) found that compared to the model that did not stratify for proximity to wetlands, most, or about 96% of existing habitat already occurs near a riparian type. Also, woodland ponds, small streams and wetlands and other ephemeral water resources are abundant throughout the project area and NNF.

Selection harvesting is not expected to have an effect on red-shouldered hawk because the canopy closure before and after the cut would remain at about 80 percent or greater. For hardwood stands that are thinned (such as an initial cut to begin uneven-aged management), canopy closure is reduced to around 70 percent and is expected to return to 80 percent or greater closure in five years or less. Stands managed using even-aged silvicultural methods are assumed to be unsuitable for nesting for a period of approximately 50 years following a treatment.

A red-shouldered hawk protection zone will be defined as a 30-acre area (circle) surrounding the nest site and a secondary buffer zone extending 330 feet beyond the 30-acre zone; these zones surrounding the nest are the same as the protection zones for red-shouldered hawk in the forest plan (p. 2-20 to 2-21).

6.1.5.2 SURVEYS Historical nests and nesting territories were obtained from J. Jacobs. There were no historical red-shouldered hawk nests in the project area and none were located from surveys conducted for the HCP Project. There were call responses and follow-up surveys were completed with no positive results.

A total of 5,836 acres were surveyed during leaf-off conditions in 2007 – 2009. The surveys consisted of a combination of walking through target stands in a grid pattern to look for nests, and playing of red-shouldered hawk alarm calls to elicit a response from territorial birds. Playback stops were done approximately every 200 meters, although some stands had a higher rate of stops. The majority of the surveys were done during early spring, during the courtship phase. Although a limited amount of surveying occurred during the incubation period, this period was generally avoided because the responses by red-shouldered hawks are lower, and it risks disturbing any incubating birds, especially in inclement weather. Some studies have shown greater response rates to taped calls during the nestling and fledging-dependency phases (Kennedy and Stahlecker, 1993, p.253). A disadvantage to surveys during these periods, however, is that the full canopy makes searching for nests more difficult. All surveys were only conducted in suitable weather conditions, when winds were less than 12 mph and little to no precipitation was occurring. Follow up surveys were conducted at sites that had a positive response. These surveys were conducted until a nesting territory was located or it was determined that no breeding activity was occurring. A conspecific call was played at predetermined locations to “cover” all potential habitats near the

43

response area. Visual search for nests in theses stands were also conducted while walking to the next survey point. Additional nest surveys would be completed during timber-marking procedures by personnel that attended a “Woodland Raptor Nest Identification Workshop” conducted by FS biologist.

6.1.5.3 BOUNDARY AND SCALE OF EFFECTS ANALYSES Multiple spatial scales were used to evaluate meaningful effects to red-shouldered hawk. For evaluating direct and indirect effects to the species, the project area was used. Any red-shouldered hawks nesting or foraging within the project area have the potential to be directly (destruction of nest tree) or indirectly (loss of habitat) affected by the proposed activities. Cumulative effects to the species are analyzed at the scale of the LKLN RD and at the Nicolet landbase (not the entire CNNF). This analysis area is appropriate for three reasons:

1) The cumulative effects area is contiguous and, because it is predominantly a forested landscape, it is reasonable to assume that individuals could move freely within this boundary.

2) Red-shouldered hawks are rarely found on the Ottawa NF and it is unlikely that those found in the northernmost portions of the Nicolet landbase use the Ottawa NF (Eklund pers. comm. with Robert Evans 5/11/2005). Red-shouldered hawks are rare on the Ottawa and possibly only nest in the Sylvania Wilderness (Jacobs and Jacobs, 2002, p. 52 ).

3) Similar to the goshawk, the degree to which populations on the Chequamegon and Nicolet landbases interact is unknown but no bird bands or other information exists that compels an analysis area that is so large as to include both the landbases of the CNNF.

However, acres of available suitable habitat on the CNF will be presented for discussion purposes only. Similar to the goshawk analyses, the temporal scale of the cumulative effects analysis includes past actions (with emphasis on those that have occurred over the past five years) and those that are reasonably foreseeable.

6.1.5.4 THRESHOLD OF EFFECTS In the SVE process for the forest plan, no minimum numbers of red-shouldered hawk or its habitat were identified although the quantity of habitat was expected to be relatively stable through implementation of the forest plan (USDA, 2004c, p.3-147-148 and USDA, 2004b, J-74). Alternatives 3-9 and the Selected Alternative were judged to result in beneficial effects to red-shouldered hawk as a result of standards and guidelines protecting the species and the increase in northern hardwoods forest types (USDA, 2004c, p.3-169). The cumulative effect analysis for the project will determine if the trend in the quantity of suitable habitat is stable, increasing or decreasing. The relevance of the projected trend in habitat availability is discussed in the context of the forest plan forecast to determine whether past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions would result in a habitat trend different from the forest plan projection (stable habitat quantity).

6.1.5.5 DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS TO RED-SHOULDERED HAWK

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Under this alternative no actions would occur; therefore, there would be no effects to red-shouldered hawks or their habitat. The result of not implementing any timber harvesting activities within the project area would be the passive maintenance or enhancement of nesting habitat for the species, which would occur through the maintenance or increase of suitable habitat conditions in northern hardwoods stands. The majority (~400 ac) of existing unsuitable hardwood habitat is < 10 years of age thus would take many decades before they could be considered suitable habitat.


44

Absent any direct or indirect effects, there can be no cumulative effects.

Cumulative Effects:

No Impact. No actions affecting red-shouldered hawks or their habitat would occur under this alternative therefore there would be no impacts to this species.

Determination:

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 No red-shouldered hawk nests were located in the project area from our surveys. If any nests are located in the future, habitat protection measures similar to those of goshawk will be implemented (USDA, 2004a, p. 2-20). This would include within a 30-acre buffer surrounding the nest, no activities would occur. Out to 330 feet beyond that buffer, only activities that do not lower canopy closure below 80 percent and that are considered uneven-aged management could occur. These guidelines would be followed under all action alternatives and are consistent with the WDNR work guidelines for forestry and raptor nest site protection (Woodford, 2008, p.01). These measures protect red-shouldered hawk reproduction, which is believed to be the limiting life history stage of the species in Wisconsin.

Within the project area, there is currently 6,718 acres of suitable, unoccupied red-shoulder hawk habitat. Immediately following treatment, there would be a reduction of 34 acres (0.5%) in Alt. 2 and 44 acres (0.7%) in Alt 3 and Alt 4 of suitable red-shouldered hawk habitat. By 2015, 13 acres in Alt 2, 23 acres with Alt. 3 and 4 would become suitable habitat again within the project area. This is due to those acres were associated hardwoods thinnings prescriptions which result in the stand being unsuitable for only 5 years. Immediately after treatments of any action alternative, there would be no negative to red shouldered hawks due to the large amount of suitable unoccupied habitat in the project area (Table 14). All tree regeneration and release projects occur in stands that have harvest treatments. The tree release activities would occur in immature stands and therefore would not affect nesting habitat. The tree under planting work would provide for potential nesting habitat to develop in the long term. Habitat for prey species would remain intact for short-term period in the release stands, but could gradually be reduced in the future with an open understory as the stand matures.

45

Table 13. Red-shouldered hawk habitat within the HCP Project, LKLN and NNF. For the 2010 and 2015 projections, the effects of all other projects within the analysis area are included. Values are in acres and the percent change is the change from current (2009) conditions.


Currently (2009)

Unoccupied 6,718 6,718 6,718 6,718 Occupied 0 0 0 0 Total 6,718 6,718 6,718 6,718




Unoccupied 6,718 0.0% 6,697 -0.3% 6,697 -0.3% 6,697 -0.3%

Occupied 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Alt. 2 0.0%

Total 6,718 0.0% 6,697 -0.3% 6,697 -0.3% 6,697 -0.3%


Currently (2009)

Unoccupied 133,194 133,194 133,194 133,194 Occupied 4,089 4,089 4,089 4,089 Total 137,283 137,283 137,283 137,283


Unoccupied 132,821 -0.3% 132,787 -0.3% 132,777 -0.3% 132,777 -0.3% Occupied 4,089 0.0% 4,089 0.0% 4,089 0.0% 4,089 0.0% Total 136,910 -0.3% 136,876 -0.3% 136,866 -0.3% 136,866 -0.3%


Unoccupied 132,286 -0.7% 132,265 -0.7% 132,265 -0.7% 132,265 -0.7%

Occupied 4,089 0.0% 4,089 0.0% 4,089 0.0% 4,089 0.0%

Total 136,375 -0.7% 136,354 -0.7% 136,354 -0.7% 136,354 -0.7%


Currently (2009)

Unoccupied 253,360 253,360 253,360 253,360 Occupied 4,678 4,678 4,678 4,678 Total 258,038 258,038 258,038 258,038




Unoccupied 252,901 -0.2% 252,880 -0.2% 252,880 -0.2% 252,880 -0.2%

Occupied 4,678 0.0% 4,678 0.0% 4,678 0.0% 4,678 0.0%

Total 257,579 -0.2% 257,558 -0.2% 257,558 -0.2% 257,558 -0.2%

All of the HCP action alternatives would result in slight reductions of suitable red-shouldered habitat on the LKLN RD by 2015. This slight reduction would only be -0.7% of the available suitable red-shouldered hawk habitat in 2009 with all action alternatives (Table 14). This trend of a very limited reduction in habitat is also seen at the NNF scale (Table 14); this amount would be about 0.2% with all action alternatives. These decreases in the amount of habitat under all action alternatives are also slightly below the rate projected during the forest plan process for the entire CNNF (+0.26% to +0.51% in ten years).

Cumulative Effects:

46

Figure 10. Red-shouldered hawk habitat trends for Chequamegon and Nicolet landbases.

Figure 10 shows the trend data for the entire NNF and CNNF, and considers upland and lowland hardwoods as well as the oak forest type. A downward trend with a slight increase is evident during the period between 2009 and 2015. This is largely due to the long term loss of oak and some hardwoods on each landbase. On the NNF, approximately 1,300 acres of combined mature oak and hardwood is lost long term as a result of impacts from the 2007 Quad County Tornado event and oak wilt disease since 2004. At the CNF level, there is also a long term loss of 1,600 acres of oak mainly due planned harvests on the Washburn Ranger District of the CNNF (from which no red-shouldered hawks are known). The reason for this area is about 700 acres will be converted to pine barrens, while most of the remaining 900 acres is over mature and in decline, and will require an even-aged regeneration harvest treatment in order to maintain this type on the forest. When the acres suitable habitat for both landbases are combined for this time period, the short term loss trend is shown with a decline between 2009 – 2012 (-0.42%) and an increase from 2012 to 2015 (+0.39%); overall this is a loss of only 0.42%. The loss of oak was anticipated during forest plan development since 96% of the oak component is over 70 years (USDA, 2004a, p. 3-284).

On non-FS lands within and adjacent to the HCP project area, there are approximately 14,588 acres of forested habitat that is considered suitable based on forest types only and that would be available after harvest treatments (Table 8). These results are based on the minimum amount of projected harvest treatments known to occur on private lands. The maximum effect scenario would be to consider that all upland forest types would be harvested in the next 15 years. This would presume that the age structure of the northern hardwoods forested acres (13,109 acres) is similar to the hardwoods on FS lands; most of those acres are suitable now. Assuming this 15-year re-entry cycle for the northern hardwoods and the adjacent and other ownership lands stands are evenly distributed among the years since their last harvest, approximately 875 acres of that habitat will be selectively harvested in any given year and these treatments will make that habitat unsuitable for a period of five years at most. The result is approximately 93% of the other ownership land hardwoods (12,235 acres) are assumed to be available to nesting red-shouldered hawks in any given year. These 12,235 acres, along with the 1,479 acres of lowland hardwoods habitat (total 13,714 acres) add to the abundance of suitable unoccupied habitat on FS land (Table 14). Also, about 1,480 acres are lowland hardwoods that would not be harvested due to access problems from wet soil conditions; these habitat acres are unlikely to become unsuitable, no matter the ownership category.

245,000

250,000

255,000

260,000

265,000

270,000

275,000

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Acr

es

Years

CNF NNF

47

The Phelps Project proposal on the ER/FL RD contains suitable red shouldered hawk habitat that would be treated. The data provided in Table 13 accounts for suitable red shouldered hawk habitat within the Phelps project area. There are no additional acres of occupied habitat since there are no known recently occupied nesting territories. About 125 acres of suitable northern hardwood habitat is proposed for harvest (110 acres shelterwood and 17 acres clearcut or removal) which would result in a long term loss of suitable unoccupied habitat. Table 13 displays habitat losses of 0.2 % and 0.7 % by 2015 for all action alternatives, at the District and Nicolet landbase levels respectively. Implementation of the Phelps Projects would not cumulatively alter these percents and this very limited reduction in habitat would not negatively impact the local and forest red-shouldered hawk populations mainly due to no red-shouldered hawks in the Phelps Project area. In conclusion, across the NNF area, all Alternatives result in a slight decrease in the amount of unoccupied habitat by the year 2015 (Table 14). However, this decrease is no more than 1.0% of the available habitat on the District and NNF and would not negatively affect the local and forest red-shouldered hawk populations (J. Jacobs 2009, pers. comm).

No impact. There are no active red shouldered hawk nests within the project area. Across the CNNF, no activities are proposed to occur in occupied habitat for the reasonably foreseeable future. Over the Nicolet landbase, habitat for red shouldered hawks is expected to decrease slightly under all of the HCP alternatives in 2015(Table 14). However, these decreases are only approximately 1.0% at the District and 0.40% at the NNF of the total available suitable habitat which is abundant across the CNNF.

Determination:

6.1.5.6 Design features for the Red-shouldered Hawk The forest plan standards and guidelines for red-shouldered hawk management would be used to protect the species (USDA, 2004a, p. 2-20).

6.1.6 BALD EAGLE (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) The bald eagle is a wide-ranging species that historically nested throughout North America, in at least 45 of the contiguous 48 United States (USDI, 1983, p.3). Nesting bald eagles are associated almost exclusively with lakes, rivers, or seacoasts and reach sexual maturity when they are four or five years old. Nests are primarily in trees, and to a lesser extent on cliffs, or rarely on the ground and are directly associated with water that contains adequate fish populations for prey. Bald eagles have few natural enemies and generally require an environment of limited disturbance, tall, mature trees, and clean water with ample fish for prey (WDNR, 1986a, p.18). Predation generally occurs during chick development or egg incubation by great horned owls, ravens, raccoons, etc. Although primarily fish eaters, eagles will also prey on other terrestrial and aquatic wildlife and readily consume carrion if it is available. Frequently, eagles are observed feeding on road-killed carrion across Wisconsin (Eckstein, et al. 1997, p.6).

Habitat requirements for the bald eagle include large productive lakes and river systems with relatively low human disturbance, and adequate number of supercanopy nest trees, especially white pine (WDNR,1986a, p. 19). On the CNNF eagles are generally found on lakes and flowages within the Forest and along several river systems. Nests are along the shore, directly adjacent to water, in white pine or other trees with occasional use of artificial nest structures designed for osprey (Pandion haliaetus).

Disturbance, although difficult to assess, has been suggested as a cause of reproductive failure in some breeding areas and adversely affects the suitability of some wintering areas (USDI, 1983, p.7). Each pair of eagles exhibits different tolerances to direct human disturbance during critical periods such as nesting or winter roosting. Automobiles and planes do not disturb eagles as much as boats, and other human disturbances (WDNR, 1986a, p.20). Sudden increases in the amount of human disturbance around a nest such as increased public viewing or

48

intensified localized land use can cause unacceptable disturbances during critical portions of the nesting period (Eckstein, et al., 1997, p. 8).

Aerial surveys on the CNNF are conducted annually in cooperation with the WDNR. These surveys determine nest condition, status of use and productivity of nests across the Forest. These surveys have been ongoing since the early 1980s and provide a trend for the species across the Forest.

The Forest continues to cooperate with the WDNR and the USDI to monitor nest activity annually (Chequamegon) or semi-annually (Nicolet) for occupancy and productivity. Additionally, the Forest continues to implement the recovery criteria found in the USDI recovery plan as “Land and Resource Management Plan” standards to protect:

• Active and historic territories from human-induced loss or disturbance via implementation of buffers and activity closures and relocation of trails and roads when feasible

• Potential nesting, perching, and roost trees during vegetation management activities • Manage fisheries on the Forest to ensure adequate fish prey sources

In 2008, Forest and Oconto Counties had 29 and 12 active bald eagle nesting territories respectively; this was one less then reported for 2007 (Eckstein 2007 and 2008). Within the project area, there are no documented bald eagle nests, however there are four nests within approximately 1 mile of the project area to the north near Wabikon and Birch Lake. Hardwood Lake Potential Essential Eagle Habitat (PEEH) is mostly in the project area and small sections of the Himely Lake PEEH, Roberts, Wabikon and Riley Lake Existing Eagle Habitat (EEH) are also in the project area. Birch Lake EEH is outside the project and borders the project area in the northeastern section.

Elsewhere in the project area, there are 3 lakes that have the potential for supporting a new nesting territory but none have FS property adjacent to them. The highest potential is the complex of lakes within the Boy Scout Camp lands that have mostly undeveloped shoreline, especially Hardwood and Popple Lakes that total 132 acres. Silver Lake at 320 acres has the water resource and numerous white pines on the shore line. The limiting factor here could be the amount of development and recreational activities on the lake. Trump Lake is a large enough lake (172 acres) also, but its shoreline is heavily developed with homes and the lake has a high recreational use year round. Even though there are no eagle nests associated with these lakes, they could be used by them as a feeding area due to their good fisheries resources.

There are no proposed harvest treatments of mature pine (red and white) in the project area that are 50 years or older which occur near a water source that would qualify as potential nesting habitat.

6.1.6.1 BOUNDARY AND SCALE OF EFFECTS ANALYSES Direct and indirect effects to bald eagles are analyzed at the scale of the project area. If there are direct and/or indirect effects, cumulative effects will be analyzed at the scale of the project as well as at the scale of the entire CNNF. Such a cumulative effects analysis areas is appropriate because Wisconsin’s Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (WDNR, 1986a, p. 25) and Federal recovery Plan (USDI, 1983, p. 37) sets statewide population goals and the actions across the entire CNNF may affect eagle numbers.

6.1.6.2 THRESHOLD OF EFFECTS Since the bald eagle was placed on the Endangered Species Act list in 1973, the FWS (Northern States Recovery Plan 1983) and the WDNR (Wisconsin Bald Eagle Recovery Plan 1986) have undertaken efforts to create and implement recovery plans for which the CNNF has been an active participant. In 1991, there was an estimated 414 active territories in the state, which surpassed the recovery plan goal of 360 set by the FWS. This goal has been achieved annually since 1991. The WDNR set a productivity goal of 1.2 young per occupied nest and that goal is also regularly exceeded. The 1986 Chequamegon and Nicolet Forest Plans also contained goals of 30 active nests by the year 2000 (USDA, 1986). Currently, nests on the Chequamegon landbase vary between 32

49

and 42 occupied territories annually and the Nicolet contains 41 historic territories with 30 active annually. Both Forest landbases have met or exceeded the recommended recovery goal. A threshold of effects will have been crossed when management activities on the CNNF cause the inability to meet population goals set forth by the FWS and the WDNR.

Because the eagle has made a strong recovery from the lows of the 1960s and 70s, the FWS reclassified the bird from endangered to threatened in 1995. In 2007, the FWS delisted the species. In Wisconsin alone, there were 1,134 active nest territories in 2007 and at least 1,438 young were produced (Eckstein 2007 and 2008). This is approximately 16% percent of the 1,200-bird goal set by the 1986 Plan across the Northern States (Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, etc.). Survey information from the WDNR indicates the population has been increasing steadily for approximately 20 years (Eckstein 2007 and 2008). Statewide survey results for 2008, however found an increase of eight pairs bringing the total active nesting territories to 1,142.

6.1.6.3 DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS TO BALD EAGLE

ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION)

Under this alternative, no vegetation management or road construction would occur and there would be no effect on bald eagles.


Due to no direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects.

Cumulative Effects:

No impact.

Determination:


The timber harvest activities proposed under all action alternatives would not affect any Potential Essential Eagle Habitat (PEEH) in the project area. There would be no loss of potential super-canopy nest trees within 660 feet of selected lakes, there would be no significant loss of perch trees throughout the analysis area, and no negative effects on fish or other prey species is expected to occur as a result of activities in any of the action alternatives.


On the LKLN RD, nest trees, especially white pine, exist in sufficient numbers and at acceptable locations to provide expansion of the eagle population and lakes, providing a fishery suitable for eagles is abundant and is expected to remain so. Under all action alternatives, the nest tree and lake foraging habitat would remain intact. No nesting trees would be removed and the fish forage base would remain unchanged regardless of the alternative selected.

The results of analysis indicate that the HCP Project, under all action alternatives have no direct or indirect effects on bald eagle; therefore, there would be no cumulative effects of the actions.

Cumulative Effects:

No impact.

Determination:

6.1.6.4 DESIGN FEATURES FOR THE BALD EAGLE: Design features are not needed due to no nests being affected or EEH or PEEH.

50

6.1.7 AMERICAN MARTEN (MARTES AMERICANA) The American marten is a weasel species that prefers mature, dense conifer forests of northern white cedar, balsam fir, spruce, and eastern hemlock and mature northern hardwood forest, especially where trees have fallen (WDNR, 2009b). The mature conifer forests that covered northern Wisconsin before the 1800s provided prime habitat for American martens, which lived throughout the northern part of the state. With the arrival of European settlers, trappers and lumbermen who cut forests and trapped martens without any regulations, marten populations declined. Trapping was banned in 1921, but by 1925 martens had been extirpated from the state (WDNR, 2009b).

Efforts at reestablishing an American marten population in Wisconsin began in 1953, when the Wisconsin Conservation Department imported five animals from Montana and released them on Stockton Island in Ashland County and none survived. Marten were again reintroduced by the Wisconsin WDNR between 1979 and 1990 through release of animals on both the Chequamegon and Nicolet landbases of the Forest (WDNR, 2009b) and the populations of marten that currently exist remain concentrated in the reintroduction areas on National Forest land (Woodford et al., 2005, p.2).

During the 2004-2005 winter, hair snare surveys were conducted on LKLN RD to assess occupancy and if found, genetic relationships of marten in Northern Wisconsin (Williams and Scribner, 2006). No marten were detected on the LKLN RD (including the project area). Marten are included nonetheless in this analysis, because the WDNR distribution map (Figure 10) includes the LKLN RD, possibility of colonization by marten from northern populations and there is suitable habitat in the project area that is proposed for timber management.

Marten is generally considered a disturbance-sensitive animal that avoids areas of intensive use. Timber harvest (other than clear-cutting or removal harvest) and road construction and improvement work may temporarily (days to weeks) displace individuals due to avoidance of people, noise, etc. Selectively harvested units (such as would occur in suitable marten habitat) would not be harvested below 80 ft2

6.1.7.1 MEASURES

/ acre and are therefore not considered to alter habitat suitability for marten. Furthermore, other structural characteristics (adequate numbers and sizes of snags and downed logs) would be maintained in the harvesting proposed in the HCP Project.

For the effects analysis for the HCP Project, suitable habitat for marten is defined as mature upland deciduous forest, especially with a conifer component, with accumulated standing and downed woody debris and large cavity trees (WDNR, 2009b) (Wright, 1999, pp. 8-9, 34-35) (Gilbert et al., 1997, p. 135-136). In the effects analyses for this project, mature upland forest is defined as stands coded as hardwoods (CDS codes 81-89) and must be at least 50 years old. During the forest plan analysis of marten habitat, all age classes of northern hardwoods, 40+ year old aspen, 50+ year old paper birch and 60+ year oak forest types were considered suitable. In both that programmatic and this site-specific analyses, stand age is assumed to be positively related with the

Figure 11. . American marten distribution in Wisconsin.

51

amount of debris and cavity trees in the stand. The assumption is necessary because the Forest does not have data on amounts of coarse woody debris present in each stand.

Marten habitat in the effects analyses is stratified by occupancy. Occupied territory was determined from telemetry of collared individuals (Wright, 1999, p. 14) (Gilbert & Wright, 1997 unpublished data). Areas with known marten occurrence were given a 655 acre territory centered on the point of detection and/or observation. Unoccupied habitat is all other suitable marten habitat.

Selection harvesting is not expected to have an effect on marten because the canopy closure before and after the cut would remain at 80 percent or greater. For hardwood stands that are thinned (such as an initial cut to begin uneven-aged management), canopy closure is reduced to around 70 percent and is expected to return to 80 percent or greater closure in five years or less. Along with reduced canopy closure, marten are impacted by such treatments through increased risk of predation, loss of denning sites and foraging structure through the removal of both live and dead trees. Stands managed using even-aged silvicultural methods are assumed to be unsuitable for a period of approximately 50 years following a treatment.

In the WDNR’s Pine Marten Recovery Plan (WDNR, 1986b) forest management recommendations maintain that shelter wood and selection cutting in hardwoods is compatible with the preservation of marten habitat (p. 26) and that through reserve tree retention and buffer strips, clear-cutting can be done such that it minimally affects marten habitat (p. 26-27). For the purpose of the effects analysis for marten, it is assumed that aspen stands in the older [+50 years old] age classes, although they may be suitable for marten now, would become unsuitable following a clear-cut until the stands once again provide suitable structure. Payer & Harrison (2003, p.153), suggest stands are suitable for adults when mean basal areas reach 18 m2 of basal area/ha (about 80 ft2

Limiting factors for the marten include habitat disturbance during denning season as well as a loss of existing denning habitat, such as tip-up mounds, and large tree stumps, hollow logs and trees, and a loss of mature forest conditions in general. Habitat alterations that promote a fragmented forest canopy, namely large (greater than 50 acres) clear-cuts, may also negatively impact this species because of the reluctance of this species to cross open areas that lack hiding cover (Kyle and Strobeck, 2003, p. 58) (Forsey and Baggs, 2001, p.168) (Hargis et al., 1999, p. 165-166).

/ac.), and tree heights reach a mean height of 9 m or about 30 feet (this occurs around 20 years after clear-cut) and ample snags are present. Snag volume is unlikely to be sufficient for at least two more decades. Therefore, a regenerating stand following a clear-cut is not expected to become suitable for marten until it is 40+ years old.

6.1.7.2 BOUNDARY AND SCALE OF EFFECTS ANALYSES Multiple spatial scales were used to evaluate meaningful effects to marten. For evaluating direct and indirect effects to the species, the project area was used. Any marten residing within the project area have the potential to be directly (destruction of den tree) or indirectly (loss of denning or foraging habitat) affected by the proposed activities. Cumulative effects to marten are analyzed at the scale of the project area, the LKLN RD and the Nicolet landbase). These analysis areas are appropriate given that marten have displayed only limited dispersal since their reintroduction and that the maximum distance a marten has been recorded to disperse from its home range is approximately 15 miles (Eklund, 2009, pers comm). Although hair snare surveys in winter 2004-2005 recorded marten in the reintroduction area on the Eagle River-Florence District over 50 miles (Williams and Scribner unpublished). The ongoing reintroduction efforts on the Chequamegon landbase has recorded post-release dispersals greater then this but such movement is expected during relocation efforts (Eklund, 2009, pers comm). Currently, no information yet exists that indicates the two populations are mixing, thus nothing biologically compels an analysis area that is so large as to include both the landbases of the CNNF. However, acres of available habitat on the CNF will be presented for discussion purposes only.

The temporal scale of the cumulative effects analysis includes past actions and those that are reasonably foreseeable. Actions within the last five years may not have been incorporated into the FS vegetation database and were tracked separately from older past actions, the effects of which are assumed to be manifested in current conditions (as represented in the vegetation database). Beyond five years, the effects to American marten are

52

undetectable in northern hardwoods forest because within five years canopy gaps created during thinning or improvement cuts have closed such that canopy closure at the stand meets or exceeds 80 percent. Activities such as even-aged harvest have long-lasting effects because they take habitat that may be (or may have been) suitable to American marten and make it unsuitable for approximately 45 years. Essentially, the effects of even-aged treatments in the past are manifest in the records and projections of suitable marten habitat. These actions would be considered for each of the geographic areas described above. Reasonably foreseeable conditions become very speculative past 5-10 years. Although we may be able to simulate stand growth and development from seedling conditions, it is very difficult to assume stability of management objectives beyond 10 years based on the expected ‘lifetime’ of a forest plan. However, it is reasonable that stands between 40 and 49 years of age will be allowed to mature to 50+ years over the next decade. Therefore, the following definitions of short and long term are used in this analysis:

• Short-term: effects recover in 0 to 5 years, or ingrowth over the next decade • Long-term: effects lasting more than 5 years after implementation. Here it is assumed that

implementation of future projects will occur two years after the decision for the project is signed • Not reasonably foreseeable: ingrowth beyond a decade.

6.1.7.3 THRESHOLD OF EFFECTS Viability of the introduced marten populations is unknown and continues to be studied by the WDNR and cooperators. Snow-tracking surveys have been used to monitor populations in the two reintroduction areas on the CNNF. During forest plan process, two Species Viability Evaluation panels were convened to assess the risks/opportunities/impacts of the forest plan alternatives (USDA, 2004b, pp. B-25 to B-33). The Panels did not identify minimum population sizes or habitat areas and such thresholds have not been identified by any group (FWS, FS, GLIFWC, etc.) before or since then. Consequently, the relative objective of maintaining or increasing the quantity or quality of marten habitat has taken the place of absolute viability objectives. The 1986 Recovery Plan for marten (WDNR, 2009b) listed 300 and 100 individuals as its 1990 goal for the Nicolet and Chequamegon populations, respectively, but these numbers aren’t discussed in the Recovery Plan as minimal for viability.

Surveys conducted in 2005 by the WDNR (Woodford et al., 2006, p.05) indicated that the marten population was approximately 221 animals +/- 61, with most animals still occurring in or near the Nicolet segment of the Marten Restoration Area (MRA). During winter 2008-09 tracks were located 2-3 miles east of the MRA, and at least two marten were trapped (accidentally) just north of the MRA, and another just to the southeast (Jim Woodford, 2009, per comm w/ CNNF). Regardless, this does not represent an expansion of the marten range on the Nicolet landbase, because marten have been found in these areas in the past. This does demonstrate though, that there is some colonization of habitat beyond the MRA.

6.1.7.4 DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS TO AMERICAN MARTEN


Under this alternative, no vegetation treatments would occur and there would be no effect on marten. Mature upland deciduous forests would continue to maintain and develop stand characteristics that represent suitable habitat. Aspen and birch stands are not expected to break up and be reduced measurably in the next five years.


Without any direct or indirect effects, there would be no cumulative effects.

Cumulative Effects:

53

No impact.

Determination:


No marten are known to occur in the project area; therefore, there would be no direct effects of the HCP Project under any of the action alternatives. There is the potential to have an indirect effect on marten through changes in the amount of suitable habitat available for colonization by marten.


Within the HCP Project Area, there are currently 6,998 acres of habitat suitable for marten. Timber harvest activities in the HCP Project would reduce that amount in Alt. 2 by 967 acres (-13.8%), Alt. 3 by 990 acres (-14.1%) and Alt. 4 by 931 acres (-13.3%) (Table 15). Many of stands classified as suitable habitat now would be treated such that there would be no effect on their suitability (selection harvest) or the effect would be short-lived (initial thin to begin uneven-aged management) such that the stand would again be considered suitable within five years. When comparing only the amount of habitat that is made unsuitable beyond five years from the time of treatment, Alt. 2 would treat 6.5% (455 acres), Alt. 3 would treat 10.1% (713 ac), and Alt. 4 would treat 4.9% (345 acres) of the suitable martin habitat. The decrease in habitat with Alternatives 2 and 3 is a result of greater emphasis on regenerating aspen stands currently considered suitable to marten now because they are 40+ years old.

54

Table 14. Marten habitat within the HCP Project, LKLN and NNF. For the 2010 and 2015 projections, the effects of all other projects within the analysis area are included. Values are in acres and the percent change is the change from current (2009) conditions.






Unoccupied 6,941 -0.8% 6,486 -7.3% 6,228 -11.0% 6,596 -5.7% Occupied 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total 6,941 -0.8% 6,486 -7.3% 6,228 -11.0% 6,596 -5.7%


Currently (2009) Unoccupied 152,956 152,956 152,956 152,956 Occupied 0 0 0 0

Total 152,956 152,956 152,956 152,956






Currently (2009) Unoccupied 276,613 276,613 276,613 276,613

Occupied 16,574 16,574 16,574 16,574

Total 293,187 293,187 293,187 293,187


Unoccupied 277,724 0.4% 276,757 0.1% 276,734 0.0% 276,793 0.1% Occupied 16,574 0.0% 16,574 0.0% 16,574 0.0% 16,574 0.0%

Total 294,298 0.4% 293,331 0.0% 293,308 0.0% 293,367 0.1%


Unoccupied 293,170 6.0% 292,715 5.8% 292,457 5.7% 292,825 5.9%

Occupied 16,574 0.0% 16,574 0.0% 16,574 0.0% 16,574 0.0% Total 309,744 5.6% 309,289 5.5% 309,031 5.4% 309,399 5.5%

Even though there are habitat losses at the project scale, these losses are outpaced by the habitat additions through aspen stands reaching 40 years old, paper birch or hardwood stands reaching 50 years old and harvested stands becoming suitable at the District level. In 2015, this positive trend is shown in all action alternatives with increases in suitable habitat between +5.2% and +5.5% (Table 15). At the NNF, these increases in habitat also occur with all action alternatives: Alt. 2 at +5.9%, Alt. 3 at +5.4% and Alt. 4 at +5.5% (Table 13). Habitat over time also continues to increase following treatments at the CNNF scales (Figure 11). A slight decline is evident however, during years 2010 – 2012 on the CNF due largely to the loss of aspen habitat, which was anticipated in during forest plan development. Habitat does however recover towards suitability by about 2013 and continues to 2015.

Cumulative Effects:

55

Figure 12. Marten habitat trends for Chequamegon and Nicolet landbases 2009-2015.

On non-FS lands within and adjacent to the HCP project area, there are approximately 16,501 acres of forested habitat that is considered suitable based on forest types only and that would be available after harvest treatments (Table 8). These results are based on the minimum amount of projected harvest treatments on private lands. The maximum effect scenario would be to consider that all upland forest types would be harvested in the next 15 years. This would presume that the age structure of the northern hardwood forest is similar to the hardwoods on FS land and most of those acres are suitable now. Roughly 75% of the aspen may be suitable now too but if the aspen age structure is similar to that on the FS lands, the vast majority of those aspen acres will be clear-cut and regenerated in the upcoming five to ten years. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that only the northern hardwoods and conifer mix habitat (13,109 acres) are likely to be potentially suitable habitat for marten beyond the next decade. Assuming this 15-year re-entry cycle for the northern hardwoods and that the other ownership land stands are evenly distributed among the years since their last harvest, approximately 875 acres of that habitat will be thinned or selective harvested in any given year and these treatments will make that habitat unsuitable for a period of five years. The result is approximately 93% of the non-FS land hardwoods (12,235 acres) are assumed to be available to marten in any given year. These acres of habitat add to the abundance of suitable unoccupied habitat on FS land.

The Phelps Project proposal on the ER/FL RD contains American marten habitat that would be treated. The data provided in Table 14 accounts for this suitable American marten habitat within the Phelps project area. There are no additional acres of occupied habitat since there are no known recently occupied marten territories. About 113 acres of suitable hardwoods habitat is proposed for overstory removal, clearcut and shelterwood harvests which would result in a long term loss of suitable unoccupied. Under the Phelps Project, about 206 acres of mature aspen would be regenerated, thus this unoccupied suitable habitat would decline by this amount for the long term. Table 14 displays habitat gains of over 5.2% to 5.5% by 2015 for all action alternatives, at the District and Nicolet landbase levels respectively. Implementation of the Phelps Projects would not cumulatively alter these percents, and would not result in a long-term net loss of habitat.

In conclusion, although habitat suitable to marten would be treated under any of the action alternatives and some of that habitat would be made unsuitable for as long as 50 years, these reductions would not have an effect on marten because more habitat is being created through successional processes across the LKLN RD, NNF and

56

CNNF landbases. Furthermore, no marten are known to occur in the project area despite the abundance of suitable habitat.

No impact. No marten are known to occur in the project area despite the abundance of suitable habitat. Although habitat suitable to marten would be treated under all of the action alternatives and some of that habitat would be made unsuitable for as many as 50 years, these reductions would not have an effect on marten because more habitats are being created through successional processes across the LKLN RD, NNF and CNNF.

Determination:

6.1.8 SWAINSON’S THRUSH (CATHARUS USTULATUS) The Swainson’s thrush (SWTH) is one of the North American spotted thrushes within a guild of ground-foraging, mainly insectivorous birds, and is described as a complete long-distance Neotropical migrant. It breeds in the western and northern U.S. to Alaska and Canada, and winters from southern Mexico to northern Argentina (Rinaldi and Worland, 2004, p.4). Nests are generally constructed in small conifers (3.0 ft. to 19.7 ft.) off the ground and close to the trunk on a horizontal branch. Eggs generally are laid from mid-April to late June, with latter dates presumed to be re-nesting. Clutch size ranges from 1 to 5, with 4 being most common (Rinaldi and Worland, 2004, p.07).

Habitat for this species is generally described as conifer forests or mixed-conifer hardwoods with a dense overstory canopy and a moderate shrub density in the understory. Regional differences occur across the species breeding range with the species being associated with underlying shrubs in conifer forests in the Rocky Mountains, and also being associated with mixed hardwood-coniferous forest in the north central and northeastern United States (Rinaldi and Worland, 2004, p.9-10). In New England the species was found to be associated with saw timber-sized balsam fir, red spruce (Picea rubens), as well as seedling northern hardwoods. Although mainly insectivorous, the species will eat seeds and fruits. This species has been observed to irrupt in abundance concurrent with irruptions of forest caterpillar species. While being placed in a ground-foraging guild, this species spends considerable amounts of time foraging in amongst the foliage in the sapling layer of its habitat (Rinaldi and Worland, 2004, p.08).

Although there are conflicting regional differences, range-wide the species is considered a generalist regarding habitat and is found in both mature and early successional habitats (Rinaldi and Worland, 2004, p.04). Results of breeding bird surveys (BBS) across the northeast found the species to be most abundant in mature northern white cedar (Thuja occidentalis), with much less occurrence in shrub-scattered conifers, young or lowland black spruce (Picea mariana), medium to mature black spruce, and tamarack (Larix laricina). In Wisconsin, it is considered an abundant migrant during spring in early May to June and during fall in early August to October. It is an uncommon resident in the coniferous habitat of the northern part of the state (Cutright, 2006, p. 350). On the CNNF, this species is found in the northern conifer swamps and bogs in limited boreal forests along Lake Superior’s shore and less frequently in the abundant northern mesic forests (Rinaldi and Worland, 2004, p.12). On the Nicolet landbase the species appears to show a definite preference for northern hardwood forest types (Rinald and Worland, 2004, p.13). On the Chequamegon landbase, SWTH abundance was the greatest in mixed swamp conifer and saw timber sized jack pine types with much lower densities in sugar maple (Acer saccharum) and sugar maple/basswood (Tilia americana). Wisconsin Breeding Bird Atlas (WBBA) shows that most of the “confirmed/probable” records in the state are within the Great Divide and ER/FL RD’s. The WBBA records have only one each of a confirmed or possible record of breeding occurring within the LKLN RD. The Chequamegon BBS has recorded 42 observations from 1991 to 2007. Due to limited records, trend analysis is not appropriate or reliable.

On the Nicolet landbase, the Nicolet Breeding Bird Survey (NBBS) has reported SWTH’s at 62 survey sites with a total of 68 birds being recorded since 1987. This low level of observation is spread across both ranger districts; 43 on ERFL (67%) and 21on LKLN (33%). These records have occurred in a variety of habitats that include mixed northern hardwoods, red pine, aspen, lowland black spruce, and mixed swamp conifer. During the 21

57

years of conducting the NBBS, the species has been recorded once among the 10 survey points located within the project and 2 times among the 6 survey sites within the 1 mile buffer of project boundary (NBBS, project file).

6.1.8.1 MEASURES Suitable habitats were defined in the forest plan as lowland conifer or mixed upland deciduous/conifer types, characterized by CDS types 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 95. This is consistent with the habitat descriptions from Rinaldi and Worland (2004), except that it does not adequately capture the situation of northern hardwood with conifer understory. This situation is present in many stands Forest-wide and in the project area, but is not identified by a separate CDS type.

6.1.8.2 SURVEYS There is approximately 1,283 acres of suitable habitat for SWTH in the project area and about 210 acres of this habitat are proposed for harvest treatments in each alternative. These areas were surveyed for SWTH during the spring 2007 and 2008 by FS biologists. No birds were recorded at any of these survey plots and also within the one stand that the NBBS had the SWTH observation.

6.1.8.3 BOUNDARY AND SCALE OF EFFECTS ANALYSIS Multiple spatial scales were used to evaluate meaningful effects to SWTH. For evaluating direct and indirect effects to the species, the project area was used. Any thrush that nest or forage within the project area have the potential to be directly (destruction of nest tree) or indirectly (loss of habitat) affected by the proposed activities. Cumulative effects to the species are analyzed at the scale of the LKLN RD and at the CNNF. Cumulative effects were analyzed at the scale of the entire CNNF due to the lack of detailed information on the factors affecting habitat quality, and given that the species is known from both the Chequamegon and Nicolet landbases. Cumulative effects did not include lands beyond the area described Section 6.0. This was due to CNNF actions can only reasonably influence the quantity or quality of the breeding ground habitat (St. Pierre, 2008). CEQ regulations (CFR 1502.1) instruct the federal agencies to “focus on significant environmental issues and alternatives and shall reduce paperwork and the accumulation of extraneous background data.” As such, effects analysis logically focus on this potential effect.

6.1.8.4 THRESHOLD OF EFFECTS In the SVE process for the forest plan (Schenck et al. 2004), no minimum numbers of SWTH or acres of habitat were identified. However, Alternatives 3-9 and the Selected Alternative were judged to result in beneficial effects to this species (USDA 2004b, p. J-93) as a result of standards and guidelines protecting the species (USDA 2004a, p. 2-21) and maintaining lowland conifer, lowland hardwood, and hemlock (USDA 2004a, p. 2-13).

6.1.8.5 DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS FOR SWIANSON’S THRUSH Alternative 1 (No Action)

Under this alternative no actions would occur. Since there would be no vegetation management, there would be no direct effect on nesting sites. There would also be no indirect effects through project related changes in habitat.


58

Since there would be no direct or indirect effects, there would also be no cumulative effects from this alternative.

Cumulative Effects:

No impact. SWTH habitat would continue to be available in the project area and on the CNNF.

Determination:


No SWTH were recorded in the HCP Project Area including the stand that contained the one record from the NBBs. This site also has no harvest treatments proposed. There are no direct effects on this species. Indirectly, harvest of any stand with a large understory conifer component could affect this species habitat.


Within the project area, there is currently 1,283 acres of suitable unoccupied habitat. If implemented in 2010, harvest activities would reduce this amount by 212 acres (-16.5 %) in Alt. 2 and 3 and by 177 acres (-13.8%) in Alt.4 (Table 14). In Alt. 2 and 4 about 60% and in Alt. 3 about 42% of the habitat reductions would not last longer than five years. This is because treatments such as initial thins and improvement cuts are only going to make the habitat unsuitable for a period of up to five years. As a result, by 2015, there would have been an in growth of suitable habitat of 128 in Alt. 2, 88 acres in Alt. 3 and 108 acres in Alt.4. This would have resulted in a total amount of suitable habitat in the project area of 1,227 (-4.4%) in Alt. 2, 1,187 (-7.5%) in Alt. 3 and 1,242 acres (-3.7%) with Alt.4. These reductions in suitable habitat occur from harvest treatments in forest types 95 (aspen-white spruce-balsam fir mix). The majority of the suitable habitat (mixed swamp conifer) would not have harvest treatments and will provide most of the suitable habitat within the project area and across the LKLN RD. Selection harvest would maintain 80% or greater canopy closure and have no effect (some canopy gaps are not detrimental to the species). In addition, the understory component important for this species would be maintained or improved. In cases where there is an existing conifer understory, harvest prescriptions will call for maintaining that cover. Also, selection harvest treatments are known to increase regeneration of hardwood species, which would add to the density of the understory layer.

59

Table 15. SWTH habitat within the HCP Project, LKLN RD and NNF. For the 2010 and 2015 projections, the effects of all other projects within the analysis area are included. Values are in acres and the percent change is the change from current (2009) conditions.













CNNF Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4






Within the LKWD RD, the total amount of SWTH habitat would have increased slightly in 2015 after implementation of harvest treatments in 2010; 46,039 acres (+ 0.2%) in Alt. 2, 45,999 acres (+ 0.1%) in Alt. 3 and 46,054 acres (0.3%) in Alt. 4 (Table 14). This trend of increasing habitat quality at the District level would also take place at the CNNF scale in 2015 with an increase of about 0.4% in all alternatives (Figure 12). These increases would occur mainly due to habitat additions through aspen mixed stands reaching at least 40 years of age and thus becoming suitable habitat. There would also be quality habitat from the aging of some hardwoods stands along with the stability in lowland conifer habitat. However, aspen-balsam stands are also associated with the reduction in habitat, and this is largely due to the harvesting of those maturing stands. But the acres maturing or becoming suitable habitat exceed the acres that are being removed through harvesting. These decreases from mixed aspen-balsam fir harvesting were anticipated in the forest plan (USDA, 2004a, 3-284 and 3-285) such that no change in outcome is anticipated from this decrease.

Cumulative Effects:

60

Figure 13. Swainson’s thrush habitat trends on the Chequamegon landbase.

On non-FS lands within and adjacent to the HCP project area, there are approximately 18,408 acres of forested habitat that is considered suitable based on forest types only and that would be available after harvest treatments (Table 8). These results are based on the minimum amount of projected harvest treatments on private lands. The maximum effect scenario would be to consider that all upland forest types would be harvested in the next 15 years. This would presume that the age structure of the northern hardwood forest is similar to the hardwoods on FS land and most of those acres are suitable now. Roughly 75% of the aspen may be suitable now, but if the aspen age structure is similar to that on the FS’s land, the vast majority of that aspen will be clear-cut and regenerated in the upcoming five to ten years. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that only the northern hardwoods, spruce/fir mix and lowland conifer (15,016 acres) are likely to support SWTH habitat beyond the next decade. Assuming this 15-year rotation cycle for the northern hardwoods (13,109 acres) and assuming the adjacent and other ownership land stands are evenly distributed among the years since their last harvest, approximately 875 acres of that habitat will be thinned or selective harvested in any given year and these treatments will make that habitat unsuitable for a period of five years at most if at all. The result is approximately 93% of the other ownership land hardwoods (12,235 acres) and spruce/fir mix and lowland conifer (1,907 acres) are assumed to be available to nesting goshawks in any given year. These acres of habitat (14,142 acres) add to the abundance of suitable unoccupied habitat on FS land.

The Phelps Project proposal on the ER/FL RD contains suitable Swainson’s thrush habitat that would be treated. The data provided in Table 15 accounts for suitable Swainson’s thrush habitat within the Phelps project area. About 140 acres of suitable balsam fir-aspen habitat is proposed for clearcut or strip cut harvests which would result in long term loss of suitable unoccupied habitat. Under the Phelps Project, about 146 acres of mature aspen would be regenerated, thus this unoccupied suitable habitat would decline by this amount for the long term. Table 15 displays habitat gains of over 0.1 % to 0.4% by 2015 for all action alternatives, at the District and Nicolet landbase levels respectively. Implementation of the Phelps Projects would not cumulatively alter these percents, and would not result in a long-term net loss of habitat.

Impacts to Swainson’s thrush also considered effects of proposed road management in the project area. Again, these activities would not directly affect Swainson’s thrush because no birds are known to occur in the project area. The impact of roads would have a minimal effect since more roads are being closed then constructed in thrush habitat within the project area and newly constructed roads would be low standard, narrow, and driven at low speeds.

234,000

235,500

237,000

238,500

240,000

241,500

243,000

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Acr

es

Years

CNNF

61

No impact. There has been no record of SWTH in the project area or in the surrounding 1 mile buffer. There are reductions in the amount of suitable habitat short term, but such losses are offset by gains in available habitat at the scale of the LKLN RD and at broader scales. Surveys of suitable habitat prior to treatment found no use of this habitat. Across the all areas of analysis levels, there is an abundance and increasing trend of available habitat after the implementation of this and other Forest management projects. In 2015, at the CNNF level there is an increase of suitable habitat in any action alternatives (+ ~0.37%).

Determination:

6.1.9 WEST VIRGINIA WHITE BUTTERFLY (Pieris virginiensisWest Virginia White butterfly’s (WVW) are a small all white butterfly with underside hind wings with veins colored a diffuse gray-brown. They look very similar to mustard white butterflies, (Pieris napi), but their underside have dark veins and there is a trace of yellow to the ground color. These two species are very difficult to separate and location must be considered (Finnell and Lehn, 2007, p.5). The range of WVW butterflies includes Northern Wisconsin, upper and lower Michigan and Illinois, and from New England southwest along the Appalachians to north Georgia and northeast Alabama. Little is known of the historic distribution of the WVW’s in Wisconsin. Observation records confirm the butterfly in eight counties of Wisconsin: Vilas, Oneida, Forest, Florence and Langlade (Opler et al., 2009).

)

WVW’s utilize rich, mesic, closed canopy, deciduous forests or mixed deciduous-conifer forests, dominated by sugar maple and basswoods. Toothwort (Dentaria diphylla and Dentaria laciniata) are the host plant for WVW caterpillars and must be present in the understory for the butterflies to inhabit those stands (NatureServe, 2009). These butterflies will move rather freely within forests however they do stray from their host food plants. Flower nectar from the toothwort, spring beauty, and violets are consumed by adults (Opler et al., 2009). This species spends most of the year as pupae. Adults fly in early spring, generally as the canopy closes with leaves, then following reproduction and egg-laying they die by about mid June. Larvae must complete development before the host plant senesces, again, generally by mid June. Chrysalids hibernate on stems of host plants or in plant litter beneath the plant (Scott, 1986).

Limiting factors:

• Loss of the host plant. The host plant, toothwort, could be directly impacted by logging activities if equipment tramples or compacts the soil or otherwise disturbs the plant or butterfly larvae. Host plants may also be impacted by loss of canopy closure since the provided shade keeps soils moist, and thus favorable for toothwort.

• Introduction of vegetation competing with the host plant, especially aggressive non-native invasive plants such as garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata). Garlic mustard also causes direct mortality to WVW because it is sometimes accepted by ovipositing females despite the fact that it poisons the developing larvae.

• Unfavorable weather. The WVW butterflies flight period is early spring, primarily during May and early June. A late-arriving spring can impact populations of the butterfly if it begins flying before toothwort emerges. Early flying individuals may have difficulty mating and laying eggs if the host plant is not yet above ground. The HCP Project would not effect this risk.

6.1.9.1 MEASURES On the CNNF, suitable habitat is defined as closed canopy forests of northern hardwoods (CDS codes 81-89) and hardwoods with hemlock (type 20), that is at least 50 years old. Aspen (CDS types 91 and 93) is also considered suitable if at least 60 years old. Closed canopied deciduous forests, or mixed deciduous-conifer forests, dominated by sugar maple and basswood are very common in the project area.

62

6.1.9.2 SURVEYS West Virginia white butterflies and toothwort have been observed on the LKLN RD including the project area. Surveys for WVW’s and toothwort were conducted in stands with proposed harvest treatments that were identified as suitable habitat for toothwort in spring 2008 – 2009. Toothwort plants were located within stands totaling 1,622 acres scattered throughout project area along with WVW at some of these same locations. All of these stands will have winter harvest design features to protect the plants and butterflies. Winter harvest will not impact these species because the plants are dormant and chrysalids are in hibernation below the snow. There will be an additional 2,025 acres of potential habitat (upland hardwood) that will also have winter harvest only restrictions due to other sensitive plants being located in them.

6.1.9.3 BOUNDARY AND SCALE OF EFFECTS ANALYSIS Multiple spatial scales were used to evaluate meaningful effects to WVW. For evaluating direct and indirect effects, the project area was used. To analyze cumulative effects, only the Nicolet landbase of the CNNF was used. Although the species is known from both the Chequamegon and Nicolet landbases, most of the records (93%) are from the Nicolet landbase (USDA, 2004a, p. J-116). The butterfly does not have strong dispersal abilities as they will not travel great distances (greater than 0.5 mile) to forage or mate. They also avoid crossing large open areas (anecdotally) which may effectively isolate populations, particularly in fragmented forest landscapes. Because of its limited ability to move about and the low number of occurrences on the Chequamegon landbase, it is very unlikely that there are any interactions between populations of the species within the two landbases. However, acres of available suitable habitat on the CNF will be presented for discussion purposes only.

Cumulative effects analysis includes past actions and those that are reasonably foreseeable. Silvicultural treatments that occurred in the past are manifest in the current conditions reflected in the corporate databases and beyond five years ago, the effects to WVW habitat are undetectable in northern hardwoods forest types because within five years canopy gaps created during selection harvest have closed considerably. Activities such as even-aged harvest have long lasting effects because they take habitat that may be (or may have been) suitable for the species and make it unsuitable for approximately 50 years. These actions will be considered for each of the spatial scales described above.

6.1.9.4 THRESHOLD OF EFFECTS In the species viability evaluation process for the forest plan, no minimum numbers of WVW’s or its habitat (northern hardwoods) were identified for the maintenance of viability of the species (USDA 2002). Alternatives 3, 4, 5, 7, and 9 were all given the same ecological judgment (Outcome C) for the CNNF; this judgment was based largely on the amount of MA 2 (especially 2B) allocations (SVE notes, 2002). Logically, the selected alternative would have the same outcome because it falls within the range of these alternatives in its MA 2 (especially 2B) allocations (USDA 2004a, Figure 3-21). The cumulative effects analysis for this project will determine if the effects of this project alter the trajectory of the amount of northern hardwoods types on the CNNF such that this total is heading outside the range of the Outcome C forest plan alternatives. If the cumulative effects of this and other projects remain within the range of cumulative effects analyzed in the forest plan process, then a threshold will not have been crossed and management direction as it relates to the species will not demand reevaluation. The forest plans alternative with a species viability evaluation Outcome of C, but the lowest projected total of hardwoods, was Alternative 5 (451,100 acres Forest-wide after 10 years). There are approximately 447,000 acres of northern hardwood (interior) forest on the CNNF (USDA, 2004a p. 3-155; USDA 2003).

63

Table 16. West Virginia whites butterfly habitat within the HCP Project, LKLN RD and NNF. For the 2010 and 2015 projections, the effects of all other projects within the analysis area are included. Values are in acres and the percent change is the change from current (2009) conditions.










Unoccupied 65,081 -0.2% 64,636 -0.9% 64,626 -0.9% 64,646 -0.9% Occupied 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total 65,081 -0.2% 64,636 -0.9% 64,626 -0.9% 64,646 0.0%









6.1.9.5 DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS: Alternative 1 (No Action)

Under this alternative no actions would occur. Since there would be no vegetation management, there would be no direct effect on WVW butterflies or toothwort plants or their habitats. There would also be no indirect effects to these species through project related changes in habitat.


Although no direct or indirect effects to WVW are expected, within the project area as well as Forest wide, there is a trend toward increasing the representation of longer lived species and maintenance or restoration of northern hardwoods ecosystems at multiple scales (USDA, 2004c, pages 3-93 to 3-109). Consequently, selection of the No Action Alternative would passively contribute toward the general direction for portions of the HCP Project Area by allowing about 5,700 acres of northern hardwood (i.e. suitable habitat) in the

Cumulative Effects:

64

project area to continue to develop and maintain or increase canopy closure which are important features of WVW habitat. Under the forest plan (USDA, 2004a), the project area contains areas that are designated as Management Areas 2A and 2C, which have forest type composition goals that range from 30 to 70 % for the northern hardwood forest type.

No impact. There would be no vegetation management under this alternative; therefore there would be no effect on WVW habitat. Lack of management would result in passive maintenance of existing suitable habitat within the project area.

Determination:


Within the project area there is 7,220 acres of suitable habitat for WVW’s. If harvest treatments are implemented in 2010, this suitable habitat would be reduced by 445 acres (-6.2%) in Alt. 2 by 455 acres (6.3%) in Alt. 3 and 435 acres (6.0 %) in Alt. 4 (Table 17). Most of these reductions would occur in quaking and big tooth aspen forest types. However, surveys showed that there were no WVW or toothwort plants in any of these aspen stands. In Alt. 2, about 158 acres (35%) of the habitat reductions would not last longer than five years because treatments such as initial thins and improvement cuts in hardwood stands are only going to make the habitat unsuitable for a period of up to five years. Under Alt. 3, this amount would be 63 acres (13%) and in Alt. 4 would be 352 acres (81%). By 2015, these reduction and in growth would result in a reduction of 4.0%, 5.4 %, and 1.1% of suitable habitat with Alt. 2, Alt. 3 and Alt. 4 respectively. In all actions alternatives, approximately 6,650 acres will have winter harvest design features to protect WVW’s and toothwort plants. Habitat would be maintained in those stands with selections cuts because they would be expected to maintain canopy closure at 80 % or greater and thus suitable habitat would remain.


In 2010, after implementation the District level of suitable habitat would decrease slightly (-0.9%) with Alt. 2, 3, and 4 would remain the about the same. However, by 2015, both the District and NNF levels increases in suitable habitat in all action alternatives from the 2009 amount (Figure 7). The abundance of hardwood forest which is typically maintained near 80 -100% canopy closure provides long-term stability of habitat favored by Cardamine sp. and thus by the WVW. If there are some unknown small pockets of toothwort and they are impacted by harvest treatments, it would not affect the overall population due to an abundance of toothwort habitat in the project area and across the NNF.

Cumulative Effects:

The increases at the NNF and CNF levels would occur mainly due to habitat additions through aspen and mixed aspen stands reaching at least 60 years of age and thus becoming suitable habitat. Where habitat does decline is mainly in the harvest of mature aspen forest type, and if left untreated by harvest, the canopy may deteriorate possibly toward unsuitability in the future.

65

Figure 14. West Virginia white butterfly habitat trends on the Chequamegon landbase.

On non-FS lands within and adjacent to the HCP project area, there are approximately 16,501 acres of forested habitat that is considered suitable based on forest types only and that would be available after harvest treatments (Table 8). These results are based on the minimum amount of projected harvest treatments on private lands. The maximum effect scenario would be to consider that all upland forest types would be harvested in the next 15 years. This would presume that the age structure of the northern hardwood forest is similar to the hardwoods on FS land and most of those acres are suitable now. Roughly 75% of the aspen may be suitable now, but if the aspen age structure is similar to that on the FS’s land, the vast majority of that aspen will be clear-cut and regenerated in the upcoming five to ten years. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that only the northern hardwoods, (13,109 acres) are likely to support WVW habitat beyond the next decade. Assuming a 15-year rotation cycle for the northern hardwoods and assuming the adjacent and other ownership land stands are evenly distributed among the years since their last harvest, approximately 875 acres of that habitat will be thinned or selective harvested in any given year and these treatments will make that habitat unsuitable for a period of five years at most if at all. The result is approximately 93% of the other ownership land hardwoods (12,235 acres) are assumed to be available to WVW in any given year. These acres of habitat add to the abundance of suitable unoccupied habitat on FS land (Table 8).

The effect of road construction, reconstruction, and road density, specific to WVW butterflies is not known, but it is assumed any activity that removes the host plants would cause a loss of suitable habitat, which could occur specifically with new road construction. Closing roads would greatly benefit the butterflies as it would reduce the chance of them being killed by vehicles that would have been using those roads due to the butterflies use roads as travel corridors and obtain water from the puddles. Also, closed roads provide habitat that the host plant, toothwort, have grown very successfully on and near throughout the project area (Anderson, 2009, toothwort/WVW butterfly surveys). Due to there being more roads closed then reconstructed or built in the project area, WVW butterflies and toothwort plant populations would benefit from the proposed road projects in the HCP area.

Besides removal or damage to host plants from ground disturbing activities, another threat includes weed infestation, and in particular, garlic mustard. Garlic mustard is detrimental to the WVW’s because adults confuse this plant with toothwort and will lay eggs on it. Any eggs deposited on the mustard plant result in death to larva

111,000113,500116,000118,500121,000123,500126,000128,500131,000133,500136,000138,500141,000143,500

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Acr

es

Years

CNF NNF

66

once they begin feeding because of a poisonous substance in the leaves. Weeds (primarily seeds) are commonly spread by vehicles such as road maintenance equipment, logging vehicles, passenger cars and trucks, and ATVs. At this time there are no known garlic mustard patches in the project area.

The Phelps Project proposal on the ER/FL RD contains suitable West Virginia butterfly habitat that would be treated. The data provided in Table 16 accounts for suitable West Virginia butterfly habitat within the Phelps project area. About 113 acres of suitable habitat is proposed for shelterwood or clearcut harvest which would result in long term loss of suitable unoccupied. Under the Phelps Project, about 44 acres of mature aspen would be regenerated, thus this unoccupied suitable habitat would decline by this amount for the long term. Table 16 displays habitat gains of 0.1% to 1.4% by 2015 for all action alternatives, at the District and Nicolet landbase levels respectively. Implementation of the Phelps Projects would not cumulatively alter these percents, and would not result in a long-term net loss of habitat. In summary, direct effects to the species would be avoided through temporal restrictions on most of the timber harvest of the hardwood treatments. Effects to other suitable habitat due to clear-cutting, removal or shelterwood harvests of aspen stands would result in a long-term loss of a portion of the suitable butterfly habitat but these losses are not contributing to a trend of habitat loss at larger scales because acres of habitat increase over time. Finally, as indicated by estimates of habitat availability on non federal lands, suitable habitat appears abundant.

1) On northern hardwood sites that have documented populations of toothwort plant, harvest activities will be restricted to frozen ground conditions.

Management Requirements:

2) To prevent the spread of garlic mustard and other noxious weeds, an equipment cleaning provision for all timber harvesting activities will be mandated when present.

May impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability. West Virginia white butterfly and toothwort plants are known to occur in the project area specific to stands proposed for treatment. In addition, reductions in the amount of available habitat would result from implementation of any of the action alternatives but such losses are offset by gains in available habitat at the scale of the LKLN RD and at broader scales.

Determination:

6.2 PLANTS The plant analysis required a number of different approaches then those of the animal sections. As a result, there are separate Introduction, Survey, Boundary’s and Scales of Effects Analysis, Threshold of Effects and Determination of Effects sections for the plants. These sections will not be presented with each individual plant species but once as this information represents all the plants analyzed.

6.2.1 INTRODUCTION For Botrychium species, American ginseng, walking sedge, and many other understory plants associated with the northern hardwoods ecosystem, their distribution prior to European settlement of the Great Lakes area is unknown. However, their habitat affinity is known and the distribution of their preferred habitat has been approximated based on reconstructions of the pre-settlement vegetation cover from General Public Land Survey records (Schulte, L. A., Mladenoff, D. J., & Nordheim, E. V., 2002). Based on such assessments, northern hardwood forests of shade-tolerant species such as sugar maple, basswood, hemlock, yellow birch, and elm were more abundant before the logging era around the beginning of the 20th century than after the logging era. Forest types dominated by these long-lived tree species have slowly increased since that time as they replaced stands dominated by early successional species such as aspen and paper birch. The shade-tolerant, slow-growing tree

67

species that typify these rare plant habitats are still in the process of returning to the uneven-aged conditions that existed prior to the logging era. The CNNF generally manages forest types dominated with these tree species to promote uneven-aged conditions and maintain closed canopy conditions.

6.2.2 SURVEYS Botanists surveyed 6,753 acres of suitable habitat in the project area in the 2005 and 2006 field seasons (May through September). Before an area is surveyed, it is screened for suitable habitat of RFSS plants, as well as stands adjacent to suitable habitat. Some surveys are conducted in May and June for early flowering species, but the primary survey effort is from late June through September when most of the target species are visible and identifiable. The primary survey method is the intuitive meander where the surveyor concentrates efforts in areas most likely to harbor RFSS plants while still covering the full extent of stands.

The Forest Service developed habitat based models to analyze impacts to RFSS plant species (USDA Forest Service, 2008). These models were used for the analysis in this document. Suitable habitat for Botrychium species, American ginseng, and walking sedge is defined as northern hardwoods (FS VEG codes 81-89, and 20 for walking sedge) with closed canopy conditions. Stands of these forest types are considered to have closed canopy conditions unless they have been treated within the past five years. In five years or less, a hardwood stand that has been thinned to less than 80% canopy closure is assumed to have returned to favorable physical conditions (canopy closure, high humidity, cool temperature) and is once again suitable. For Botrychium species, the minimum stand age is 70 years, and for American ginseng and walking sedge, the minimum stand age is 50 years old. These models are based on known habitat characteristics and conservation assessments (USDA Forest Service, 2001) (USDA Forest Service, 2005). Table 17. Acres of suitable RFSS plant habitat in the HCP Project Area.

RFSS Species Acres of suitable habitat in project area

Acres of suitable habitat proposed for harvest

Goblin fern, blunt-lobed grapefern 6,213 5,384

American ginseng 6,609 5,021

Walking sedge 6,679 5,021

Northern wild comfrey 5,649 946

The type of timber harvest activity has different effects on habitat suitability. Selection harvests do not reduce average canopy closure below 80%, so habitat remains suitable following a selection harvest. Thinning harvests reduce canopy closure to around 70% which recovers to 80% in about 5 years, so habitat is unsuitable for 5 years following a thinning. Even-aged treatments including clear-cutting, shelterwood, and overstory removal will cause habitat to become unsuitable for 50 years.

Northern wild comfrey suitable habitat is considered to be solid and mixed conifer stands, and aspen/conifer and birch stands (FS VEG codes 1-3, 49, 55, 91-93, 95 and 99 with restrictions). Northern wild comfrey is often found in openings or gaps and near conifers or birch or both. It prefers sandy soils but has been found on rich soil types. There is no meaningful stand age requirement for this species.

Analyses differentiate between currently occupied habitat and suitable unoccupied habitat. The total acres of any stand with an occurrence of these species will be entirely considered as occupied when calculating habitat loss and gain. An RFSS plant patch is defined as an area that completely outlines the aboveground portions of the plants and is usually a subset of a stand’s total acres.

Although non-native earthworms may have a profound negative effect on understory plants in northern hardwoods ecosystems by consuming the duff layer and mycorrhizal fungi (Bohlen, et al., 2004) (Hale, Reich, & Frelich, 2004) they are not expected to be spread by logging equipment at sites treated during frozen ground conditions (all stands with RFSS plants would be harvested under frozen conditions) and are not considered any

68

further in the effects analysis of occupied stands. Timber harvesting activities in this project would be required to follow equipment cleaning regulations to minimize the spread of undesirable organisms in soil, which includes worms.

Forestry practices include management activities such as harvesting, construction or use of skid trails, haul roads, and other related actions. These actions can cause soil disturbance across stands, increasing the potential for invasive species, disturbing the duff layer, and physically disturbing native vegetation. The Forest soil scientist developed an estimate, based on current literature, CNNF reviews and reports, that 13% of the soil in each stand (in acres) is disturbed from forestry practices (Hoppe, 2007). The effect of soil disturbance has been considered in the determination of effects to RFSS plants. The effect of soil disturbance on non-native invasive plant species (NNIP) is analyzed in the NNIP specialist report.

New road construction may affect RFSS species and native vegetation by increasing the risk of spread of non-native invasive plants, which are superior competitors to native plants, to new sites which may adversely impact the physical environment where native plants grow (Watkins, Chen, Pickens, & Brosofske, 2003). In the case of American ginseng, roads may also increase the likelihood of illegal harvesting. The spread of invasive species would be minimized through winter-only harvesting, washing vehicles, and harvesting “clean” stands before infested stands (see the NNIP Specialist Report for more information). However, the effects to the physical environment that increase the potential for NNIP introduction or spread are not mitigated, thus the total miles of construction and decommissioning will be calculated for each alternative. This analysis assumes that decommissioning or closing a road decreases the likelihood that the road will contribute to the spread of non-native invasive plants by reducing human vectors. The first 300 feet of roads to be decommissioned are covered in slash, bermed several times, planted with small trees, and piled with large rocks to deter motor vehicles.

6.2.3 BOUNDARY AND SCALE OF EFFECTS ANALYSIS Regional Forester Sensitive plant populations are not likely to interact between landbases (Nicolet and Chequamegon) of the CNNF, or even between ranger districts on the same landbase. However, the HCP Project may affect RFSS habitat across the LKLN RD and the Nicolet landbase, the change in habitat will be analyzed starting at the project level out to the Nicolet. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects within suitable habitat at these spatial scales will be included in the analysis area.

Alternatives are compared on the amount of suitable habitat that currently exists, what would exist immediately following the treatment, and what would exist after five years. Beyond five years, the effects of thinning and improvement treatments in suitable habitat are assumed to resolve. Alternatives are also compared by the amount of miles of road built and decommissioned in the project area. These totals will be combined with the past (up to five years), present, and reasonably foreseeable transportation activities at the spatial scales described above.

Additional habitat for these plant species is available on adjacent and other ownership lands but no occurrences of Regional Forester Sensitive Species are known from those lands within the project area. Assuming all of these lands (Table 18) are enrolled in the Managed Forest Law program and all are managed for uneven-aged conditions on a fifteen year rotation, it is assumed that 2/3 of these lands have closed canopy conditions favorable to Botrychium species, American ginseng or walking sedge. The 2/3 proportion is the result of assuming that the adjacent and other ownership lands that provide habitat are evenly distributed within the 15-year rotation cycle and that treatment of these lands results in a five year period of unsuitability. The remaining 1/3 of these lands may or may not be suitable habitat for northern wild comfrey. Given that no known occurrences of these species are known from other ownership in the project area, this adjacent and other ownership land habitat is assumed to contribute to the surplus of habitat in the area. Undiscovered plant locations on adjacent and other ownership lands managed for timber production are assumed to be unprotected by seasonal harvest restrictions or no-disturbance buffers. A more detailed discussion about activities occurring on private lands can be found in the Private Lands section at the beginning of the BE, Section 6.0.

69

6.2.4 THRESHOLD OF EFFECTS In the Species Viability Evaluation process for the forest plan, no minimum numbers of plants or plant patches for any of these species, or their habitat, were identified. The forest plan’s Alternatives 3-9 received outcome scores of D (which matches its judgment of the existing conditions in 2002 when the panel was convened) (USDA Forest Service, 2002). SVE panelists were not optimistic that these species would be able to spread to suitable but unoccupied habitat or to new habitat created through conversion to hardwoods. Both Botrychium species and American ginseng have very limited dispersal capabilities (USDA Forest Service, 2002) (Camacho & Liston, 2001) (Cruse-Sanders & Hamrick, 2004) (USDA Forest Service, 2001). Walking sedge vegetatively spreads by stolons, enabling it to grow into large areas (Penskar & Higman, 1999). Northern wild comfrey seeds mostly drop next to the plant, although they can attach themselves to animal vectors and be moved elsewhere (USDA Forest Service, 2005). However, land fragmentation largely prevents populations from moving across districts and landbases.

Through project design features that protect known RFSS patches (the area of the above ground portions of the plants) from detrimental effects, loss of existing patches due to land management activities is not expected to occur. However, should any loss of patches occur as the result of land management activities (such as timber harvesting) in this project, project design features for these plant species will be re-evaluated.

6.2.5 DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS As shown in Table18, Alternatives 2 and 3 both propose identical amounts of new road construction and decommissioning. Alternative 4 proposes less new road construction and more decommissioning. As a result of these differences, Alternative 4 would cause 8.4 fewer acres of direct disturbance than Alternatives 2 and 3 due to new construction. The primary effect is to create fewer disturbed acres available for NNIP infestation, which can be a threat to RFSS plant habitat and populations. Newly constructed roads will be closed after project activities cease. Over time, the decommissioned roads will recover and eventually become part of their surrounding habitat. In addition to recovering habitat, the risk of non-native plant and worm invasion will decrease because human vectors will be restricted. During construction and decommissioning, utilization of the measures discussed in the NNIP Specialist Report would reduce the risk of the introduction of non-natives.

Table 18. Miles of road activities within the HCP Project Area with an equivalent of acres affected. Alternative Miles of road constructed Acres Miles of road decommissioned Acres

2 3.5 12.7 15.3 55.4 3 3.5 12.7 15.3 55.4 4 1.2 4.3 15.7 56.8

70

Table 19. Summary of Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Vegetation and Transportation Management Activities within the HCP Project Area, the LKLN RD, and the NNF that were considered in the cumulative effects analysis of RFSS plants.

Project Name Total Harvest

Acres Net Change in Road

Miles * RFSS Plants

Boulder 5,448 34.7 X

Hardwood Biomass Study 829 0 X

LKLN Plantation Thin 10,167 0 X

LKLN Plantation II 11,072 0 X

McCaslin 8,561 28.0 X

Quad County Tornado Salvage 3,650 0 X

Argonne 360 0 X

Fishel 5,372 54.3 X

Grubhoe 3,262 18.8 X

Long Rail 7,925 45.8 X

Northwest Howell 7,191 16.0 X

Polecat Pine Thinning 4,195 0 X

Tucker Salvage 241 0 X

Ruffed Grouse Management Areas 350 0 X * a plus (+) sign indicates an increase; no sign indicates a reduction.

6.2.6 REGIONAL FOREST SENSITIVE SPECIES - PLANTS

6.2.7 GOBLIN FERN (Botrychium mormo) Goblin fern, a state endangered moonwort fern, occurs under the full shade of northern hardwood forest dominated by sugar maple and basswood. Basswood appears to be an important component in the goblin fern’s life cycle, as is micro-habitat (cradle-knoll topography, ephemeral ponds, etc.). As is true with many Botrychium species, goblin fern is often closely associated with other Botrychium species. Although it can be found throughout the summer and into the fall, late-June through July appears to be the best time for surveys. Limiting factors for goblin fern include changes in soil characteristics (pH, structure, aeration, nutrients, mycorrhizal fungi, organic layer) due to exotic earthworms, forestry practices, and road building. Reduction of canopy cover below 80% is detrimental to the species (USDA Forest Service, 2000, p. 2-3) (USDA Forest Service, 2001, p. 16-19). Goblin fern is known from 107 sites on CNNF and 41 sites on the LKLN RD. One site is within the project boundary, but it is not in a stand proposed for harvest in any alternative.


No vegetation treatments would occur; therefore, there would be no direct or indirect effects.


This alternative would have no direct or indirect impacts to Botrychium mormo. Therefore, this alternative would not have cumulative impacts.

Cumulative Effects:

71

No Impact.

Determination:


Occupied Habitat


There is one known occurrence of goblin fern in the project area and the occupied stand is not proposed for harvest in any alternative. As a consequence, there will be no direct effects to goblin fern plants or occupied habitat.

Unoccupied habitat

Indirect effects can change habitat suitability. Selection harvests are not expected to have an effect on suitable habitat because canopy closure before and after the treatment would remain at or above 80% (not including the existing canopy gaps). In all action alternatives, one stand (17 acres) of suitable unoccupied habitat proposed for a shelterwood harvest would become unsuitable for approximately 50 years. Two stands (13 acres) in Alt. 2, and 4 stands (23 acres) in Alt. 3 and 4 propose thinning harvests in suitable unoccupied habitat causing that habitat to become unsuitable for up to 5 years following treatment.

Of the 6,187 acres of suitable habitat proposed for treatment, 3,538 acres are restricted to frozen ground harvest due the presence of one or more RFSS plant species. This means 2,649 acres are not restricted to harvest during frozen ground conditions. This acreage would likely be subject to a greater amount of soil disturbance than winter harvested stands. This could lead to a higher likelihood of NNIP introduction and spread as well as transport of non-native earthworms on equipment. These factors could reduce habitat suitability in the 43% of suitable stands not restricted to winter harvest.

The majority (99%) of the suitable habitat within the project area is unoccupied. Eighty seven percent (Table 20) of the currently unoccupied habitat is proposed for treatment in all action alternatives, and five years after treatment, primarily due to ingrowth, the amount of suitable habitat in both alternatives will increase by 6% over current levels (Table 20).

Given that there would be no disturbance to the known goblin fern patch and that the amount of suitable unoccupied habitat will have increased 5 years after treatment, indirect effects to goblin fern would be minor under all action alternatives.

72

Table 20: Goblin fern habitat within the project area, the LKLN RD and Nicolet Landbase. For the 2010 and 2015 projections, the effects of all other projects within the analysis area are included. Values are in acres and the percent change is the change from current (2009) conditions.


Currently (2009)

Unoccupied 6,187 6,187 6,187 6,187 Occupied 26 26 26 26

Total 6,213 6,213 6,213 6,213


Unoccupied 6,421 3.8% 6,391 3.3% 6,381 3.1% 6,381 3.1% Occupied 26 0.0% 26 0.0% 26 0.0% 26 0.0%

Total 6,447 3.8% 6,417 3.3% 6,407 3.1% 6,407 3.1%



Lakewood-Laona RD Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

Currently (2009)

Unoccupied 95,806 95,806 95,806 95,806 Occupied 4,633 4,633 4,633 4,633

Total 100,439 100,439 100,439 100,439


Unoccupied 97,194 1.4% 97,164 1.4% 97,154 1.4% 97,154 1.4% Occupied 4,633 0.0% 4,633 0.0% 4,633 0.0% 4,633 0.0%

Total 101,827 1.4% 101,797 1.4% 101,787 1.3% 101,787 1.3%


Unoccupied 98,200 2.5% 98,335 2.6% 98,335 2.6% 98,335 2.6% Occupied 4,114 -11.2% 4,114 -11.2% 4,114 -11.2% 4,114 -11.2% Total 102,314 1.9% 102,449 2.0% 102,449 2.0% 102,449 2.0%

Nicolet Landbase Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

Currently (2009)

Unoccupied 189,087 189,087 189,087 189,087 Occupied 9,456 9,456 9,456 9,456

Total 198,543 198,543 198,543 198,543


Unoccupied 189,852 0.4% 189,822 0.4% 189,812 0.4% 189,812 0.4% Occupied 9,351 -1.1% 9,351 -1.1% 9,351 -1.1% 9,351 -1.1%

Total 199,203 0.3% 199,173 0.3% 199,163 0.3% 199,163 0.3%



Occupied Habitat

Cumulative Effects:

On the Nicolet landbase there are 9,456 acres of occupied habitat. The HCP project does not propose treatment in any occupied habitat. Selection harvest in occupied habitat is proposed in other projects (i.e. McCaslin, Long Rail, Northwest Howell, Phelps) but no effect is anticipated because; 1) canopy closure will remain above 80% and 2) disturbance to plant patches will be mitigated by design features. The McCaslin project proposes thinning in some occupied stands that would reduce habitat suitability in the short term (5 years). At the scale of the Nicolet landbase there would be a short term reduction of suitable

73

occupied habitat of 463 acres (about 5%) (Table 20). Most of that loss in is due to thinning in the McCaslin project and that habitat would again become suitable in 2017.

Unoccupied habitat

On the Nicolet landbase there are 189,087 acres of suitable unoccupied habitat. The HCPProject plus six other projects (McCaslin, Northwest Howell, Long Rail, Grubhoe, Boulder, and Fishel) propose harvest treatments that would make unoccupied habitat unsuitable. In 2010 following implementation of HCP, habitat on the Nicolet would have increased by over 700 acres (0.4%) (Table 20).

By 2015, the amount of habitat available to the species would have increased by about 8,500 acres or 4.5% (Table 20). The increase in habitat by 2015 is primarily due to the aging of northern hardwoods stands.

In conclusion, there is an abundance of suitable, unoccupied habitat, under all alternatives of the project, and other projects on the LKLN RD do not meaningfully affect the availability of suitable habitat. Across the Nicolet landbase, unoccupied habitat is abundant now and would remain so in the reasonably foreseeable future (Table 20) even though there are a number of projects that are occurring or will occur in suitable habitat (e.g. Long Rail, McCaslin, Northwest Howell, Fishel, Grubhoe, and Boulder).

The goblin fern model outputs do not include affected acres resulting from the Managed Old-Growth Research in the Argonne Experimental Forest Project. The Argonne Project proposes a modified shelterwood harvest that would treat 345 acres of suitable habitat, of which 120 acres is occupied. The Argonne project would make 99 acres of occupied habitat unsuitable for more than 10 years.

The Phelps Project proposal on the ERFL RD contains suitable unoccupied goblin fern habitat that would be affected. The data provided in Table 20 accounts for total suitable goblin habitat within the Phelps project area, but does not include the acres affected by the project. About 17 acres (2 stands) of suitable hardwood habitat is proposed for clearcut and overstory removal harvests which would result in a long term loss of suitable unoccupied habitat. The remaining treatments in suitable habitat are selection harvests which would have no effect to suitable habitat. Table 20 displays habitat gains by 2015 for all action alternatives at the Nicolet landbase level. Implementation of the Phelps Projects would not cumulatively alter these increases, and would not result in a long-term net loss of habitat.

The HCP project proposes to build 3.5 miles of new road in Alternatives 2 and 3 and 1.2 miles in Alternative 4. Alternatives 2 and 3 would decommission 15.3 miles of road and Alternative 4 would decommission 15.7 miles of road, reducing the net mileage of roads in the project area. The majority of the projects across the district do not have decommissioning proposed, and the projects that have decommissioning proposed range from 28 miles to almost 35 miles (Table 19), for a total of 78 miles of road decommissioned across the district.

No impact. The occupied stand within the project area is not proposed for treatment so the known goblin fern site would not be impacted by project activities. Project activities will affect a small amount of unoccupied habitat and the total suitable habitat in the project area is increasing over time. Nicolet-wide there is an increase in total suitable habitat of over 4% by 2015.

Determination:

6.2.8 BLUNT-LOBED GRAPEFERN (Botrychium oneidense) Blunt-lobed grapefern occurs in northern hardwood forests, often at the edges of seasonally wet areas. It is also found in low, wet shady woods and swamps, including the edges of woodland ephemeral ponds and transitional zones between upland and lowland forest. Like the goblin fern, the blunt-lobed grapefern is often closely associated with other Botrychium species in an assemblage referred to as a “genus community.” Although it can be found throughout the summer and into the fall, July through September appears to be the best time for surveys. Limiting factors for blunt-lobed grapefern include changes in soil

74

characteristics (pH, structure, aeration, nutrients, mycorrhizal fungi, organic layer) due to exotic earthworms, forestry practices, and road building. Reduction of canopy cover below 80% is detrimental to the species (USDA Forest Service, 2003, p. 14-16). Blunt-lobed grapefern is known from 85 sites on the CNNF, and 41 sites on the LKLN RD. None of these sites are within the project area; however, suitable habitat occurs in the project area and will be analyzed.




There would be no direct or indirect impacts to Botrychium oneidense. Therefore, implementation of this alternative would not have cumulative impacts.

Cumulative Effects:

No Impact. Determination:


There are no occurrences of blunt-lobed grapefern so no direct effects would occur; however there is suitable habitat in the project area.


Indirect effects can change habitat suitability. Most of the harvest activity in grapefern habitat is selection harvest, which is not expected to have an effect on grapefern habitat because canopy closure before and after the treatment would remain at or above 80%. Alt. 2 proposes 13 acres of thinning and Alt. 3 and 4 propose 23 acres of thinning, which would make habitat unsuitable for 5 years. The canopy would recover within 5 years and again be suitable habitat. In all action alternatives, a 17 acre stand is proposed for a shelterwood harvest, which would make the habitat unsuitable for 50 years. This means that 17 acres of habitat would become unsuitable for at least 50 years.

Eighty seven percent (Table 21) of the currently unoccupied habitat is proposed for treatment in all action alternatives, and five years after treatment, primarily due to ingrowth, the amount of suitable habitat in both alternatives will increase by 6% over current levels (Table 21).

Given that there is no occupied grapefern habitat, and that the amount of suitable unoccupied habitat will have increased 5 years after treatment, indirect effects to blunt-lobed grapefern would be minor under all action alternatives.

Occupied Habitat

Cumulative Effects:

On the Nicolet landbase there are 7,772 acres of occupied habitat. The HCP project does not propose treatment in any occupied habitat. Selection harvest in occupied habitat is proposed in other projects (i.e. McCaslin, Long Rail, Northwest Howell, Phelps) but no effect is anticipated because; 1) canopy closure will remain above 80% and 2) disturbance to plant patches will be mitigated by design features. The McCaslin, Boulder, and Northwest Howell projects propose thinning 346 acres, 113 acres, and 105 acres respectively of occupied stands that would reduce habitat suitability in the short term (5 years). At the scale of the Nicolet landbase there would be a short term reduction of suitable occupied habitat of 564 acres (about 4%) (Table 21). Most of that loss is due to thinning in the McCaslin project, and that habitat would again become suitable in 2017.

75

Unoccupied habitat

On the Nicolet landbase there are 191,488 acres of suitable unoccupied habitat. Theis project plus six other projects (McCaslin, Northwest Howell, Long Rail, Grubhoe, Boulder, and Fishel) propose harvest treatments that would make unoccupied habitat unsuitable. In 2010 following implementation of HCP, habitat on the Nicolet would have increased by over 700 acres (0.4%) (Table 21).

By 2015, the amount of habitat available to the species would have increased by about 8,900 acres or 4.6% (Table 21). The increase in habitat by 2015 is primarily due to the aging of northern hardwoods stands.

In conclusion, there is an abundance of suitable, unoccupied habitat, under all alternatives of the HCP project, and other projects on the LKLN RD do not meaningfully affect the availability of suitable habitat. Across the Nicolet landbase, unoccupied habitat is abundant now and would remain so in the reasonably foreseeable future (Table 21) even though there are a number of projects that are occurring or will occur in suitable habitat (e.g. Long Rail, McCaslin, Northwest Howell, Fishel, Grubhoe, and Boulder).

The blunt-lobed grapefern model outputs do not include affected acres resulting from the Managed Old-Growth Research in the Argonne Experimental Forest Project. The Argonne Project proposes a modified shelterwood harvest that would treat 345 acres of suitable habitat, of which 120 acres is occupied. The Argonne project would make 99 acres of occupied habitat unsuitable for more than 10 years.

The Phelps Project proposal on the ERFL RD contains suitable unoccupied blunt-lobed grapefern habitat that would be affected. The data provided in Table 21 accounts for total suitable blunt-lobed grapefern habitat within the Phelps project area, but does not include the acres affected by the project. About 17 acres (2 stands) of suitable hardwood habitat is proposed for clearcut and overstory removal harvests which would result in a long term loss of suitable unoccupied habitat. The remaining treatments in suitable habitat are selection harvests which would have no effect to suitable habitat. Table 21 displays habitat gains by 2015 for all action alternatives at the Nicolet landbase level. Implementation of the Phelps Projects would not cumulatively alter these increases, and would not result in a long-term net loss of habitat.

The HCP project proposes to build 3.5 miles of new road in Alternatives 2 and 3 and 1.2 miles in Alternative 4. Alternatives 2 and 3 would decommission 15.3 miles of road and Alternative 4 would decommission 15.7 miles of road, reducing the net mileage of roads in the project area. The majority of the projects across the district do not have decommissioning proposed, and the projects that have decommissioning proposed range from 28 miles to almost 35 miles (Table 19), for a total of 78 miles of road decommissioned across the district.

No impact. There is no occupied habitat within the project area so no blunt-lobed grapefern sites would be directly impacted by project activities. Project activities will affect a small amount of unoccupied habitat and the total suitable habitat in the project area is increasing over time. Nicolet-wide there is an increase in total suitable habitat of over 4% by 2015.

Determination:

76

Table 21: Blunt-lobed grapefern habitat within the project area, the LKLN RD and Nicolet Landbase. For the 2010 and 2015 projections, the effects of all other projects within the analysis area are included. Values are in acres and the percent change is the change from current (2009) conditions.



















6.2.9 WALKING SEDGE (Carex assiniboinensis) Walking sedge occurs in rich, mesic hardwood forest including floodplains. Identification is easiest during the peak summer months of June and July, although if this plant’s stolons are well developed, it is identifiable into the early autumn. In the last 5 years, surveys on the Nicolet landbase indicate that walking sedge is probably more common than previously thought. Many new sites have been found in the Long Rail, Grubhoe, and HCP project areas. In addition to the large number of new sites, many of these sites are large in extent, including sites where the plant is common over areas up to 5 acres in size. The project area has at least 6 sites over an acre in size, with thousands of plants at each site. Observational evidence indicates that this species is tolerant of some level of disturbance including a partially opened canopy. Walking sedge is known from 125 sites on the CNNF and 31 sites on the District. Twenty five sites occur in the project area and 23 sites occur in stands proposed for harvest.

77

ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION)

No vegetation treatments would occur; therefore, there would be no direct or indirect effects. Direct and Indirect Effects:

This alternative would have no direct or indirect impacts to walking sedge. Therefore, implementation of this alternative would not have cumulative impacts.

Cumulative Effects:

No Impact.

Determination:

ALTERNATIVES 2, 3, AND 4

Occupied Habitat


There are 12 occupied stands within the project area. All these occupied stands are northern hardwoods and are proposed as selection harvests in all alternatives. Direct effects would occur if a plant was trampled by logging machinery or other soil disturbing equipment during harvest operations. Direct effects would be minimized by restricting harvest in these stands to frozen ground conditions.

Unoccupied Habitat

Indirect effects can change habitat suitability. Selection harvesting is not expected to have an effect on suitable habitat (occupied or unoccupied) because canopy closure before and after the treatment would remain at or above 80%. Thinning of 13 acres in Alt. 2 and 23 acres in Alt. 3 and 4 would make habitat unsuitable for the short-term. All action alternatives would make 17 acres unsuitable in the long-term from a proposed shelterwood harvest.

Occupied Habitat

Cumulative Effects:

There are 1,801 acres of occupied walking sedge habitat in the project area, 2,313 acres occupied on the LKLN RD, and 6,419 acres occupied on the Nicolet landbase (Table 22). Selection harvest is proposed in occupied habitat in the project area as well as in other projects on the Nicolet landbase. However, selection harvest does not make the habitat unsuitable, and no other projects on the Nicolet propose activities that would reduce occupied habitat short or long-term.

Unoccupied Habitat

Suitable unoccupied habitat for the project area, the district, and the Nicolet landbase are 4,883 acres, 99,435 acres, and 203,493 acres, respectively (Table 22).

The LKLN RD shows a loss of 1,450 acres by 2015 and the Nicolet has a loss of 1,258 by 2015. However, all of that loss is due to thinning in the McCaslin project which is projected to recover by 2017. Due to ingrowth over the intervening years, acres of suitable habitat in 2017 will be greater than currently available.

The walking sedge model outputs do not include affected acres resulting from the Managed Old-Growth Research in the Argonne Experimental Forest Project. The Argonne project proposes to treat 345 acres of suitable unoccupied habitat, of which 99 acres would be made unsuitable for the long term (approximately 10 years).

The Phelps Project proposal on the ERFL RD contains suitable unoccupied walking sedge habitat that would be affected. The data provided in Table 22 accounts for total suitable walking sedge habitat within

78

the Phelps project area, but does not include the acres affected by the project. About 17 acres (2 stands) of suitable hardwood habitat is proposed for clearcut and overstory removal harvests which would result in a long term loss of suitable unoccupied habitat. The remaining treatments in suitable habitat are selection harvests which would have no effect to suitable habitat. Table 22 displays a 0.6% unoccupied habitat loss by 2015 for all action alternatives at the Nicolet landbase level. However, as described above, by 2017, acres of suitable habitat will again be on an increasing trend. Implementation of the Phelps Projects would not cumulatively alter this change, and would not result in a long-term net loss of habitat.

The project proposes to build 3.5 miles of new road in Alternatives 2 and 3 and 1.2 miles in Alternative 4. Alternatives 2 and 3 would decommission 15.3 miles of road and Alternative 4 would decommission 15.7 miles of road, reducing the net mileage of roads in the project area. The majority of the projects across the district do not have decommissioning proposed, and the projects that have decommissioning proposed range from 28 miles to almost 35 miles (Table 19), for a total of 78 miles of road decommissioned across the district.

May impact individuals but will not result in a trend towards federal listing in both action alternatives. The occupied stands will be selectively harvested under all action alternatives. The frozen ground harvest restriction for occupied stands will reduce the possibility of damage occurring to existing populations and will reduce soil disturbance, and the canopy closure would remain at 80% after harvest. The acreage of unoccupied habitat is increasing over time.

Determination:

79

Table 22: Walking sedge habitat within the HCP, the LKLN RD and Nicolet Landbase. For the 2010 and 2015 projections, the effects of all other projects within the analysis area are included. Values are in acres and the percent change is the change from current (2009) conditions.




Unoccupied 4,883 0.0% 4,853 -0.6% 4,843 -0.8% 4,843 -0.8% Occupied 1,801 0.0% 1,801 0.0% 1,801 0.0% 1,801 0.0% Total 6,684 0.0% 6,654 -0.4% 6,644 -0.6% 6,644 -0.6%















6.2.10 AMERICAN GINSENG (Panax quinquefolius) American ginseng grows in rich loamy soils under the full shade of mixed northern hardwood forest often dominated by sugar maple and basswood. American ginseng blooms early in the summer and can easily be identified through September by its deep red fruit. Limiting factors for American ginseng include illegal collection, as well as modification or removal of canopy cover below 80% (NatureServe, p. 1-10) (World Wildlife Fund, 2002). American ginseng is known from 503 sites on the CNNF and is found at 324 sites on the District. Fifty seven sites are within the Honey Creek-Padus project boundary and 53 of those sites are within stands proposed for treatment.


No vegetation treatments would occur; therefore, there would be no direct or indirect effects as a result of the No Action Alternative.


80

This alternative would have no direct or indirect impacts to ginseng. Therefore, implementation of this alternative would not have cumulative impacts on the species.

Cumulative Effects:

No impact.

Determination:


Occupied Habitat


There are 24 occupied stands in the project area. Twenty-three of these stands are proposed for selection harvest and 1 is proposed for thinning in all action alternatives. All of the occupied stands are northern hardwoods proposed for selection harvest, with the exception of the one thinning which is actually an aspen stand. Aspen is not a preferred habitat for ginseng, and the thinning of these stands for conversion to hardwood will have a long-term beneficial impact on ginseng habitat. Direct effects would occur if a plant was trampled by logging machinery or other soil disturbing equipment. There would be no direct effects to this species since known sites and any new sites found prior to or during project implementation would be protected by a 100-foot buffer. In addition to the buffer, all occupied stands would be harvested under frozen ground conditions to reduce disturbance to undiscovered plant patches.

Unoccupied Habitat

Indirect effects can change habitat suitability. The majority of the stands would be selectively harvested and canopy cover would be 80% after harvest. Alternative 2 proposes 13 acres of thinning and Alt. 3 and 4 propose 23 acres of thinning which would make habitat unsuitable for 5 years. The canopy would recover within 5 years and again be suitable habitat. In all action alternatives, a 17 acre shelterwood harvest is proposed, which would make the habitat unsuitable for 50 years.

Occupied Habitat

Cumulative Effect:

There are 2,912 acres of occupied ginseng habitat in the project area, 21,858 acres occupied on the LKLN RD, and 28,542 acres occupied on the Nicolet landbase (Table 23). Selection harvest is proposed in occupied habitat in the HCP Project Area as well as in other projects on the Nicolet landbase. The Boulder project proposes a harvest that would make 46 acres unsuitable in the long-term. Thinning harvests in Boulder, McCaslin, Northwest Howell, and Long Rail would make about 519 acres unsuitable in the short-term on the Nicolet landbase. By 2015, suitable occupied habitat on LKLN RD and the Nicolet landbase both would be reduced by less 0.1%.

Unoccupied Habitat

Suitable unoccupied habitat for the project area, LKLN RD, and the Nicolet landbase are 3,771 acres, 85,506 acres, and 185,486 acres, respectively (Table 23).

The LKLN RD shows a loss of 1,316 acres by 2015 and the Nicolet has a loss of 1,124 by 2015. However, all of that loss is due to thinning in the McCaslin project which is projected to recover by 2017. Due to ingrowth over the intervening years, acres of suitable habitat in 2017 will be greater than currently available.

The ginseng model outputs do not include affected acres resulting from the Managed Old-Growth Research in the Argonne Experimental Forest Project. The Argonne project proposes to treat 345 acres of suitable unoccupied habitat, of which 99 acres would be made unsuitable for the long term (approximately 10 years).

81

The Phelps Project proposal on the ERFL RD contains suitable unoccupied American ginseng habitat that would be affected. The data provided in Table 23 accounts for total suitable American ginseng habitat within the Phelps project area, but does not include the acres affected by the project. About 17 acres (2 stands) of suitable hardwood habitat is proposed for clearcut and overstory removal harvests which would result in a long term loss of suitable unoccupied habitat. The remaining treatments in suitable habitat are selection harvests which would have no effect to suitable habitat. Table 23 displays a 0.6% unoccupied habitat loss by 2015 for all action alternatives at the Nicolet landbase level. However, as described above, by 2017, acres of suitable habitat will again be on an increasing trend. Implementation of the Phelps Projects would not cumulatively alter this change, and would not result in a long-term net loss of habitat.

The Honey Creek-Padus Project proposes to build 3.5 miles of new road in Alternatives 2 and 3 and 1.2 miles in Alternative 4. Alternatives 2 and 3 would decommission 15.3 miles of road and Alternative 4 would decommission 15.7 miles of road, reducing the net mileage of roads in the project area. The majority of the projects across the district do not have decommissioning proposed, and the projects that have decommissioning proposed range from 28 miles to almost 35 miles (Table 19), for a total of 78 miles of road decommissioned across the district.

May impact individuals but will not result in a trend towards federal listing in all action alternatives. Most of the occupied stands will be selection harvests, and management requirements such as the frozen ground harvest restriction and a 100-foot buffer would limit the possibility that occupied stands would be affected by project activities. The canopy closure would remain at 80% after harvest. Individuals could still be impacted by harvest activities, as some stands may harbor undiscovered patches of American ginseng which may not be protected by a buffer or frozen ground harvesting.

Determination:

82

Table 23: American ginseng habitat within the project area, the LKLN RDand Nicolet Landbase. For the 2010 and 2015 projections, the effects of all other projects within the analysis area are included. Values are in acres and the percent change is the change from current (2009) conditions.




Unoccupied 3,771 0.0% 3,741 -0.8% 3,731 -1.1% 3,731 -1.1% Occupied 2,912 0.0% 2,899 -0.4% 2,899 -0.4% 2,899 -0.4% Total 6,683 0.0% 6,640 -0.6% 6,630 -0.8% 6,630 -0.8%






Unoccupied 84,965 -0.6% 84,935 -0.7% 84,925 -0.7% 84,925 -0.7% Occupied 21,753 -0.5% 21,740 -0.5% 21,740 -0.5% 21,740 -0.5% Total 106,718 -0.6% 106,675 -0.6% 106,665 -0.7% 106,665 -0.7%









6.2.1 NORTHERN WILD COMFREY (Cynoglossum virginianum var. boreale) Northern wild comfrey occurs in northern dry-mesic hardwood forest and mixed conifer forests with gaps or with edges caused by trails, roads, clearings, and gravel pits. There are 123 sites on the CNNF and 7 on the district. There is one site within the project area in a hardwood stand proposed for selection harvest. This site actually occurs in a small opening within the hardwood stand. Limiting factors for northern wild comfrey have not been defined, however based on location data it prefers more open conditions compared to the hardwood suite of species. This indicates that if the canopy closes over suitable habitat, northern wild comfrey would not thrive.




83

There would be no direct or indirect impacts to wild comfrey. Therefore, implementation of this alternative would not have cumulative impacts.

Cumulative Effects:

No impact.

Determination:


Occupied Habitat


There is one occupied stand in the project area and it is proposed for a selection harvest in all action alternatives. Because this site occurs in a gap in a hardwood stand, it is likely that this site will eventually disappear as the canopy closes. Direct effects would occur if a plant was trampled by logging machinery or other soil disturbing equipment during harvest operations. Direct effects would be minimized by restricting harvest in this stand to frozen ground conditions.

Unoccupied Habitat

Indirect effects of harvesting in unoccupied habitat would include decreasing canopy closure, which may improve habitat suitability for wild comfrey. Habitat may be created in all action alternatives where clearcutting would create edge effects with adjacent suitable habitat. Wild comfrey prefers open canopy conditions (such as forest gaps and forest edges) in order to germinate and propagate (USDA Forest Service, 2005 p. 11-16).

There are 5,649 acres of suitable unoccupied habitat in the Honey Creek-Padus Project Area and 950 acres of that are proposed for harvest in Alternatives 2 and 3 and 891 acres in Alternative 4 (Table 24). Alt. 2 proposes 512 acres of thinning and 370 acres of clearcutting and 68 acres of shelterwood harvest. Alt. 3 proposes 254 acres of thinning and 628 acres of clearcutting, and 68 acres of shelterwood harvest. Alt. 4 proposes 563 acres of thinning, 264 acres of clearcutting, and 64 acres of shelterwood harvest. Thinning would temporarily open the canopy, creating more suitable habitat until the canopy again closes. Clearcutting would not leave any trees behind and would not provide the minimal canopy that wild comfrey seems to prefer, since it is generally found in or on the edge of a forest (USDA Forest Service, 2005, p. 11-16). These more intense harvest activities and the subsequent increased light would increase the risk of NNIP to invade these stands. Using clean equipment and avoiding travel through NNIP infestations would reduce the risk of NNIP introduction and spread (See NNIP Specialist Report).

Occupied Habitat

Cumulative Effects:

There are 209 occupied acres in the project area, 279 on the LKLN RD, and 419 acres on the Nicolet landbase (Table 24). None of the projects on the Nicolet landbase will make occupied habitat unsuitable.

Unoccupied habitat

Suitable unoccupied habitat for the project area, the LKLN RD and the Nicolet landbase are 5,649 acres, 119,911 acres, and 207,997 acres, respectively (Table 24).

The LKLN RD shows a loss of up to 2,466 acres (2.1%) by 2015 and the Nicolet has a loss of up to 4,096 acres (2.2%) by 2015. Alternative 3 has a greater reduction in suitable habitat than Alternatives 2 and 4 because of larger amount of clearcutting. Despite the initial loss of habitat due to clearcutting, comfrey habitat will likely benefit in the future as more of the preferred edge and partial canopy habitat is created.

The northern wild comfrey model outputs do not include affected acres resulting from the Managed Old-Growth Research on the Argonne Experimental Forest Project. The Argonne Project did not include

84

northern wild comfrey in its analysis. There are no known populations occurring within the Argonne Experimental Forest.

The model outputs also did not include the Rugged Grouse Management Area project on the Nicolet landbase, which is still in the planning stages. For the purposes of this analysis it was assumed that 189 acres of aspen would be clearcut on LKLN RD and 161 acres on ERFL RD. These numbers have been included in Table 24.

The Phelps Project proposal on the ERFL RD contains suitable unoccupied northern wild comfrey habitat that would be affected. The data provided in Table 24 accounts for total suitable northern wild comfrey habitat within the Phelps project area, but does not include the acres affected by the project. About 254 acres (23 stands) of suitable habitat is proposed for thinning harvests which would result in a short term loss of suitable, unoccupied habitat. About 699 acres (53 stands) of suitable habitat is proposed for clearcut, overstory removal, and shelterwood harvests which would result in a long term loss of suitable unoccupied habitat. Table 24 displays a loss of unoccupied habitat by 2015 for all alternatives at the Nicolet landbase level. The Phelps project would increase that loss by 0.3% to 0.4% depending on the alternative. However, as described above, despite the initial loss of habitat due to clearcut, removal, and shelterwood harvests, comfrey habitat will likely benefit in the future as more of the preferred edge and partial canopy habitat is created.

May impact individuals but will not result in a trend towards federal listing in all action alternatives. The known occurrence will be protected by a frozen ground harvest restriction. Undiscovered individuals could be impacted by project activities, especially in areas where clearcutting would make habitat unsuitable.

Determination:

85

Table 24: Northern wild comfrey habitat within the project area, LKLN RD and Nicolet Landbase. For the 2010 and 2015 projections, the effects of all other projects within the analysis area are included. Values are in acres and the percent change is the change from current (2009) conditions.



















6.3 Design Features for RFSS Plants • Activities which could disturb American ginseng (Panax quinquefolius) plants, their habitat, or

microhabitat should not occur within 100 feet of ginseng populations. The extent of ginseng populations will be determined by a Botanist, Biologist, Ecologist, or other qualified observers (technicians or contractors) designated by a Botanist, Biologist, or Ecologist.

In suitable habitat that is immediately adjacent and contiguous to existing American ginseng populations, site disturbing activities should occur only during frozen ground conditions.

• In stands with known occurrences of walking sedge (Carex assiniboinensis), site disturbing activities should only occur during frozen ground conditions.

• In stands with known occurrences of northern wild comfrey (Cynoglossum virginianum var. boreale), site disturbing activities should only occur during frozen ground conditions.

86

• Retain butternut trees with more than 70% live crown, and when cankers affect less than 20% of the combined circumference of the bole and root flares. Retain butternut trees that have no cankers and at least 50% live crown. Dead and poor vigor butternut trees may be harvested (USDA Forest Service, 2004).

87

7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boal, C.W., D. E. Anderson and P. L. Kennedy. (2001). Home range and habitat use of northern goshawks

(Accipiter gentiles atricapillus) in Minnesota – Final Report May 2001. St. Paul, MN.: Minnesota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit.

Boal, C.W., D. E. Anderson and P. L. Kennedy. (2003). Home range and residency status of northern goshawks breeding in Minnesota. The Condor , 105:811-816.

Boal, C.W., D.E. Andersen, and P.L. Kennedy. 2005. Productivity and mortality of northern goshawks in Minnesota. Journal of Raptor Research 39:222-228.

Bohlen, P. J., Scheu, S., Hale, C. M., McLean, M. A., Migge, S., Groffman, P. M., et al. (2004). Non-native earthworms as agents of change in northern temperate forests. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment , 2 (8), 427-435.

Bosakowski, T. (1999). The Northern Goshawk: Ecology, Behavior and management in North America . Blaine WA : Hancock House publ.

Bruggeman, J.E., Andersen D.E., and James E. Woodford. (2009). Bioregional Monitoring for Northern Goshawks in the Western Great Lakes States. St. Paul, MN.

Camacho, F. J., & Liston, A. (2001). Population structure and genetic diversity of Botrychium pumicola (Ophiglossaceae) based on inter-simple sequence repeats (ISSR). American Journal of Botany , 88 (6), 1065-1070.

Carmean, W.H., J.T. Hahn, R.D. Jacobs. (1989). Site index curves for forest tree species in the eastern United States. St. Paul, MN: USDA Forest Service North Central Forest Experiment Station - GTR-NC-128. , St. Paul, MN.

Crocker-Bedford, D. (1990). Goshawk reproduction and forest management. Wildlife Society Bulletin , 18:262-269.

Cruse-Sanders, J. M., & Hamrick, J. L. (2004). Spatial and genetic structure within populations of wild American Ginseng (Panax quinquefolius L.) Araliaceae. American Journal of Botany , 91 (4), 540-548.

Currnutt, J. (2009). Conservation Assessment for Northern Goshawk (Accipitor gentilis) in the Western Great Lakes Region. Milwaukee, WI, USDA Forest Service.

Currnutt, J. (2009). Excerpt from Western Great Lakes Region 2008 Survey Results - Goshawks. Unpublished paper.

Cutright, N, B. R. Harriman and R.W. Howe. 2006. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Wisconsin. Wisconsin Society for Ornithology. Waukesha, WI. pp. 602

http://www.rw.ttu.edu/boal/CWBoal%20web/Web%20PDFs/JRR%2039%20Boal%20et%20al..pdf�

http://www.rw.ttu.edu/boal/CWBoal%20web/Web%20PDFs/JRR%2039%20Boal%20et%20al..pdf�

88

Eckstein, R.G., S. Matteson and P. Manthey. (1997). Bald eagles in Wisconsin - a management guide for landowners. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

Eckstein, R. (2007 and 2008). Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Retrieved September 2009, from WDNR - Wildlife Surveys : http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/wildlife/harvest/harvest.htm

Eklund, D. (2009, September). Marten Release Movements. (S. Anderson, Interviewer)

Erdman, T. (1993). Wisconsin goshawk and the 10-year cycle. Proceedings of the northern goshawk management workshop, (p. 7). Madison, WI.

Erdman, T.C., D. F. Brinker, J. P. Jacobs, J. Wilde, and T. O. Meyer. (1998). Productivity, population trend, and status of Northern Goshawks, (Accipiter gentiles atricapillus), in Northeastern Wisconsin. Canadian Field-Naturalist , 112 (1): 17-27 pp.

Erdman, T. (2003). Letter to CNNF Re: Nest Buffers. Northwest-Howell Project-Biological Evaluation, Eagle River-Florence, Appenex E-Evaluation of 20 ac Raptor Reserve Area Effectiveness. p.54-55

Erdman, T. (2005). Northern Goshawk Nesting Survey 2005 - Nicolet National Forest. Report submitted to Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest - Unpublished Data.

Finnell, A.S. and Cathi A. Lehn. (2007). Conservation Plan for West Virinia White. Cleveland, OH: Biodiversity Alliance.

Flader, S. L. (1974). Thinking Like a Mountain: Aldo Leopold and the Evolution of an Ecological Attitude Toward Deer, Wolves, and the Forest. . Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Forsey, E.S. & E.M. Baggs. (2001). Winter activity of mammals in riparian zones and adjacent forests prior to and following clear-cutting at Copper Lane, Newfoundland, Canada. Forest Ecology and Management , 145:163-171.

Gilbert, J.H., J.l. Wright, D.L. Lauten & J.R. Probst. (1997). Den and rest-site characteristics of American marten and fisher in northern Wisconsin. In H. B. G. Proulx (Ed.), Martes: taxonomy, ecology, techniques and management (pp. 135-145). Alberta, Canada: Provincial Museum of Alberta,.

Gore, J.A. and W.A. Patterson III. . (1986). Mass of downed wood in northern hardwood forests in New Hampshire: potential effects of forest management. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research , 16: 335-339.

Hale, C. M., Reich, P. B., & Frelich, L. E. (2004). Allometric equations for estimation of ash-free dry mass from length measurements for selected European earthworm speciees (Lumbricidae) in the western Great Lakes region. American Midland Naturalist , 151 (1), 179-185.

Hargis, C.D., J.A. Bissonette & D.L. Turner. (1999). The influence of forest fragmentation and landscape pattern on American martens. Journal of Applied Ecology , 36:157-172.

Hoppe, D. (2007, June 11). Personal Communication. Rhinelander.

89

Jackson, H. H. (1961). Mammals of Wisconsin. Madison: Univ. Wisconsin Press.

Jacobs, J. (2001). Summary of red-shouldered hawk reproduction for Nicolet National Forest. Report submitted to Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. Unpublished 25 pp. Unpublished 25 pp.

Jacobs, J. and E. A. Jacobs. (2002). Conservation Assessment for red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) on National Forests of North Central states. Milwaukee, WI: USDA Forest Service; Eastern Region, Milwaukee, WI. 100 pp.

Jacobs, J. (2005). Summary of red-shouldered hawk reproduction for Nicolet National Forest. Report submitted to Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. Unpublished 17 pp.

Jacobs, J. (2008). Summary of red-shouldered hawk reproduction for Nicolet National Forest. Report submitted to Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. Unpublished.

Kennedy, P. L. and D. E. Anderson. (2001). Research and monitoring plan for northern goshawk (Accipiter gentiles atricapillus) in western Great Lakes Region.

Kennedy, P.L., and D.W. Stahlecker. (1993). Responsiveness of nesting northern goshawks to taped broadcasts of three conspecific calls. Journal of Wildlife Management , 57: 249–257.

Kyle, C.J. & C. Strobeck. (2003). Genetic homogeneity of Canadian mainland marten populations underscores the distinctiveness of Newfoundland pine martens (Martes americana atrata). Canadian Journal of Zoology , 81:57-66.

Mech, L. (1970). The Wolf: the Ecology and Behavior of an Endangered Species . Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday/Natural History Press.

Mladenoff, D. T. (1995). A regional landscape analysis and prediction of favorable gray wolf habitat in the northern Great Lakes region. Conservation Biology 9:279-294. Conservation Biology , 9:279-294.

Mladenoff, D. T. (1997). Causes and implications of species restoration in altered ecosystems: a spatial landscape project of wolf population recovery. Bio-science , 47(1): 21-31.

NatureServe. (2009). Comprehensive Report Species - Panax quinquefolius. Retrieved August 27, 2009, from NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer

NatureServe. (2009). West Virginia White Butterfly. Retrieved from http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe

Nowak, R. (1995). Another look at wolf taxonomy. In S. F. L.N. Carbyn, Ecology and conservation of wolves in a changing world. (pp. Pages 375-397). Edmonton, Alberta: Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Occasional Publication No. 35. 642 pp.

Opler, Paul A., Kelly Lotts, and Thomas Naberhaus, coordinators. 2009. Butterflies and Moths of North America. Bozeman, MT: Big Sky Institute. http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/species?l=1397 (Version 09/2009).

90

Payer, D.C. and D.J. Harrison. (2003). Influence of Forest Structure on Habitat Use by American Marten in and Industrial Forest. Forest Ecology and Management , 179:145-156.

Penskar, M. R., & Higman, P. J. (1999). Special plant abstracts for Carex assiniboinensis (Assiniboia sedge). Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Lansing.

PVA. (2000). Notes from the Population Viability Assessment Group #8 – Raptors. Unpublished (p. 11). Duluth, MN: USDA-FS.

Quinn, B, Eklund St. Pierre, M. and J. Schmidt. 2006. Internal Report: Aspen and deer trends on the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest Park Falls and Rhinelander, Wisconsin

Rinaldi, T. and M. Worland. (2004). Conservation Assessment for Swainson’s Thrush (Catharus

ustulatus). Milwaukee, WI: USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region.

Rolley, R. (2008). White-tailed deer population status. Retrieved August 2009, from Wisconsin Departmetn of Natural Resources - Wildlife Surveys: http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/wildlife/harvest/reports/wtaildeerpop08.pdf

Rolley, R.E. (2008). Fisher Population Analysis. Retrieved September 2009, from Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources - Wildlife Surveys: http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/wildlife/harvest/reports/08fisherpop.pdf

Rosenfield, R.N., D.R. Drexel, T.C.J. Doolittle. (1998). Breeding distribution and nest site selection of northern goshawks in Wisconsin. Journal of Raptor Research , 32:198-194.

Schenck, T., C. Chaney, T. Doyle, M. Shedd, M. St. Pierre & S. Hess-Samuelson. (2004). Expert panels for species viability evaluation for preliminary draft EIS alternatives - National Forests in WI and MN. USDA-FS.

Schorger, A. W. (1942). Extinct and endangered mammals and birds of the upper Great Lakes region. Transactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, (pp. 34:23-44).

Schulte, L. A., Mladenoff, D. J., & Nordheim, E. V. (2002). Quantitative classification of a historic northern Wisconsin (U.S.A.) landscape: mapping forests at regional scales. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research , 32, 1616-1638.

Scott, W. (1939). Rare and extinct mammals of Wisconsin. Wis. Conserv. Bull. 4(10): 21-28. Wis. Conserv. Bull. , 4(10): 21-28.

Scott, J.A. (1986). The Butterflies of North America. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.

St.Pierre, M. (2008). Effects Analysis: Migratory Songbirds. Rhinelander, WI: Unpublished: Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest.

SVE notes. (2002). SVE Screening Insects 2002_0509 (West Virginia Whites). Rhinelander, WI: CNNF.

91

Thiel, R. (1993). The Timber Wolf in Wisconsin: the Death and Life of a Magnificent Predator. Madison: Univ. Wisconsin Press.

USDA Forest Service. (2004a). Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest 2004 Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). Rhinelander: USDA Forest Service.

USDA Forest Service. (2004b). Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forests Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices A-P to accompany the 2004 Land and Resource Management Plan. Rhinelander, WI.: R9-CN-FEIS-Appendices-0404.

USDA Forest Service. (2004c). Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forests Final Environmental Impact Statement to accompany the 2004 Land and Resource Management Plan. Rhinelander, WI: R9-CN-FEIS-0404.

USDA Forest Service. (2003). Conservation assessment for Blunt-lobe grapefern (Botrychium oneidense). Unpublished.

USDA Forest Service. (2001). Conservation assessment for Botrychium mormo (Little Goblin Moonwort). Unpublished.

USDA Forest Service. (2003). Conservation assessment for Butternut or white walnut (Juglans cinerea) L. Unpublished.

USDA Forest Service. (2005). Conservation assessment for Northern wild comfrey (Cynoglossum virginianum var. boreale (Fern.) Cooperrider). Unpublished.

USDA Forest Service. (1986). Nicolet National Forests - Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). Rhinelander, WI: USDA-FS.

USDA Forest Service. (2008). Process Paper: Habitat Models for Effects Analysis; Animals RFSS. USDA Forest Service - Chequamegon - Nicolet National Forest, Wildlife: St. Pierre and Eklund. Rhinelander, WI: USDA Forest Service.

USDA Forest Service. (2002). SVE Notes - Species Viability Evaluation Screening Upland Plants (Botrychiums and Ginseng). Unpublished.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (1983). Northern States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. Twin Cities, MN: USDI-FWS.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. (1978 and 1992). Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf. Twin Cities, MN. 73 pp. FWS. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plans/1992/920131.pdf

USDI-FWS. (2009). USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. Retrieved September 2009, from Eastern Timber Wolf: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/wolf/

Veen, D. and Pierre M.S. (2009). Characterization of Lands of Other Ownership within and adjacent to the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. Rhinelander: USDA Forest Service.

92

Watkins, R. Z., Chen, J., Pickens, J., & Brosofske, K. D. (2003). Effects of forest roads on understory plants in a managed hardwood landscape. Conservation Biology , 17 (2), 411-419.

Williams, B. W. and K. T. Scribner. (2006). Spatial genetic structure of Wisconsin martens: potential directions and ideas. Unpublished report.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. (1986a). Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources - BER - Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. Madison, WI.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. (2009a, October). Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Retrieved from1999 Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan: http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/er/publications/wolfplan/toc.htm)

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. (2009b, September). Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Retrieved from Endangered Resource Program Species Information - American Marten: http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/biodiversity/index.asp?mode=info&Grp=17&SpecCode=AMAJF01010

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. (1986b). Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Pine Marten Recovery Plan. Madison, WI: WDNR Bureau of Endangered Resource.

Woodford, J. (2005). Proposed Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Management Guidance for Northern Goshawks. Rhinelander, WI: WDNR Bureau of Endangered Resources.

Woodford, J. (2008). Working Management Guidance for Northern Goshawk Nesting Area. Rhinelander, WI: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources - Bureau of Endangered Resources.

Woodford, J. B., W. Smith, and T. Doolittle. (2003). Predicting Northern Goshawk Nesting Areas in Northern Wisconsin with an Empirical Model. Final Report . Rhinelander, Wisconsin: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

Woodford, J. B. and M.S. Schuessler. (2003). Red-shouldered hawk cooperative research project – 2003 Summary Report. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Rhinelander, WI. Rhinelander, WI: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

Woodford, J., B. Kohn, K. Russell, C. Thomas, T. White and A. Wydeven. (2005). Summary Report: Inventory, Status, and Management Needs of American Marten in Wisconsin. Madison, WI: WDNR - Bureau of Endangered Resources : Ecological Inventory and Monitoring Section.

Woodford, J,C. Eloranta, T. Rinaldi and B. Kohn. 2006. Inventory, status, and management needs of American Marten in northeast Wisconsin. Bureau of Endangered Resources Ecological Inventory and Monitory Section. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Rhinelander, WI.

World Wildlife Fund. (2002). Panax quinquefolius factsheet. Retrieved July 22, 2005, from http://www.wwf.org/uk/filelibrary/pdf/pquinquefolius.pdf

Wright, J. (1999). Winter home range and habitat use by sympatric fishers (Martes pennanti) and American martens (Martes americana) in Northern Wisconsin. Stevens Point, WI: UW-Stevens Point - Masters Thesis.

93

Wright, J and Gilbert, J. 1997. Winter home range and habitat use by sympatric fishers (Ojiig) and American martens (Waa-bi-zhe-shi) in Northern Wisconsin. Great lake Indian Fsih and Wildlife Commission. Project Report 97-3, Aug. 1997. Odanah, WI.

Wydeven, A. (1993). Wolves in Wisconsin: recolonization underway. International Wolf , 3(1)18-19.

Wydeven, A.P., J.E. Wiedenhoeft, R.P. Thiel, R.N. Schulz and S. R. Boles (2009). Progress Report of Wolf Populatin Monitoring in Wisconsin for the Period October 2008 - March 2009. WDNR, Park Falls WI., 46 p.

Wydeven, A.P., R.N. Schultz, and R.P. Thiel. (1995). Monitoring of a recovering gray wolf population in Wisconsin, 1979-1991. In S. a. L.N.Carbyn (Ed.), Ecology and Conservation of Wolves in a Changing World (pp. p.147-156). Canadian Circumpolar Institute, Occ. Publ.

a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · biological evaluation ....

Documents