project consistency evaluation form for esa...

Last updated 7/2014 1

PROJECT CONSISTENCY EVALUATION FORM for ESA Consultation– Part I

Olympic National Forest Programmatic Biological Assessment

PROJECT INFORMATION

Date 1/29/2015 Project Coordinator Joel Nowak

Project Name Green Diamond 2345-100 Access Road District Hood Canal Project Size (acres or miles)

0.3 Acres

Watershed(s) and Hydrologic Unit Code(s) (See Table A below) Satsop River 1710010401

Legal Description (T/R/S) T21N, R6W, Sec 11

Program Area Lands and Special Uses

Project Type (from program descriptions in BA)

VEGETATION TYPE (acres or % of project area)

Forested 100 Road prism Riparian/wetland Other

***You can have 100% in more than one vegetation type (ERFO may be Road Prism and Riparian)**

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Current canopy closure (if trees present) 100

Will trees be felled/removed/modified? Yes If yes, number, size, and species

How many trees ≥ 20” dbh will be felled? Few if any – GD cruised their stand nearby and found a few, but they think there

shouldn’t be very many on the ridgetop.

Number of hazard trees ≥ 20” dbh to be felled?

Are any of the hazard trees considered suitable nest trees for owl or murrelet?

(wildlife biologist to fill out) Unlikely

No If yes, how many?

Will other vegetation be modified? Yes Estimate how much and which species Little salal and sword fern

Will the project be ground disturbing? Yes If yes, size of area 0.3 acres

Does project have the potential to affect a waterbody? No If yes, name Located approx. 2500 ft. from Dry Bed

Lakes

If yes, have you incorporated provisions of the 2012 HPA MOU? Select One

Slope distance from project to nearest water body (stream, wetland, lake) >2500 ft

LAND ALLOCATION

Acres or % of project area:

Late-Successional

Reserve

Adaptive

Management Area

100 Riparian Reserve

Administratively Withdrawn

(developed campgrounds,

administrative sites)

Congressionally Withdrawn

(Designated Wilderness)

Inventoried

Roadless

NEPA and PROJECT TIMELINE

NEPA Type CE Expected NEPA Decision Date: April

Scheduled implementation dates (months of operation in each year) Start January End December

Expected project duration (#days/months) 5 years Fiscal years in which project will occur 2015-2020


EQUIPMENT and TIMING

Equipment Type Additional information on

Equipment Type if

necessary (ex. type of

aircraft)

Start Date

(MM-DD-YYYY)

End Date

(MM-DD-YYYY)

Frequency of

Equipment Use

Heavy Equipment April November 2 weeks to

construct road

Select One

Select One Select One

INSTREAM WORK DATES

Stream Name Start Date

(MM-DD)

End Date

(MM-DD)

N/A

BRIEF PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Please describe the purpose, scope and extent of the project; type of work involved; project prescriptions; and specific design

features incorporated to minimize adverse impacts to species or habitats. Include associated work (i.e. road building for a

timber sale or bucking and hauling logs for a fish structure) and other pertinent information not covered above.

Special Use Application from Green Diamond:

“The Green Diamond Resource Company (Green Diamond) 837D road/ United States Forest Service (Forest Service)

2345-100 road requires six hundred and fifty feet of forest road construction on a ridgetop across Forest Service land in

the Northeast ¼ of the Northeast ¼ of Section 11, Township 21 North, Range 06 West, Willamette Meridian, Mason

County, Washington State, USA. USFS trees will be cut and decked and a low volume, Road Maintenance Level 2,

outsloped road will be constructed with a subgrade width of 16 feet using insitu soil material. Local “pit run” or crushed

rock will be used as surfacing. The gradient of the 837D road is not to exceed 12%.

The purpose of the 837D road is to access timber harvest on Green Diamond property, adjacent to Forest Service lands,

which are otherwise inaccessable. (d,e)The usage term for this road will be approximately five years from date of

construction.

The initial purpose of this road will be to facilitate road construction onto Green Diamond property. (f) During

construction of the Green Diamond road, approximatley 7,000 cubic yards of material wil be hauled for wasting on

Green Diamond property.The use of this road for timber harvest will be limited to a timing window of five years

beginning at construction and approximately 800 MBF of timber will be transported.

(g) This road is to be built between the months of April and November when the spring rains have subsided and before

the winter rains begin; construction of this road should require two weeks.Sometime on or before the end of the five year

operating period the 837D road will be placed in a Road Maintenance Level 1 condition.”


TABLE A - Olympic National Forest 5th-Field Watersheds and HUC Codes

WATERSHED HUC WATERSHED HUC

Hood Canal RD Pacific RD

Satsop River 1710010401 Calawah River 1710010104

Wynoochee River 1710010402 Bogachiel River 1710010105

South Fork Skokomish River 1711001701 Sol Duc River-Quillayute River 1710010106

North Fork Skokomish River-Skokomish

River 1711001702 Hoh River 1710010107

Jefferson Creek-Hamma Hamma River 1711001802 Clearwater River 1710010201

Lilliwaup Creek-Frontal Hood Canal 1711001803 Queets River 1710010202

Duckabush River 1711001804 Raft River-Frontal Pacific Ocean 1710010203

Dosewallips River 1711001805 Upper Quinault River 1710010204

Big Quilcene River 1711001806 Lower Quinault River 1710010205

Little Quilcene River-Frontal Hood Canal 1711001807 Wishkah River 1710010403

Snow Creek-Frontal Discovery Bay 1711002001

Humptulips River-Frontal Grays

Harbor 1710010501

Jimmycomelately Creek-Sequim Bay 1711002002 Elwha River 1711002005

Dungeness River 1711002003 Lyre River 1711002101

Morse Creek-Frontal Port Angeles Harbor 1711002004

Lyre River-Frontal Strait of Juan

De Fuca 1711002102


PROJECT CONSISTENCY EVALUATION FORM for ESA Consultation– Part II


Species-specific Information – Puget Sound Chinook Salmon

1. Is the project in a fifth-field watershed that contains or has the potential to contain P. S. Chinook salmon (Y/N)? No

If No → What is your basis for this determination? The Satsop watershed is not in the Puget Sound Chinook ESU.

Project will have No Effect on Puget Sound Chinook salmon or designated critical habitat

If Yes → go to question 2.

2. Do the stream(s) in which impacts may occur contain suitable habitat for Puget Sound Chinook? No

3. How far (approx., in river miles) is project from nearest suitable habitat for Puget Sound Chinook salmon? N/A

4. Does the proposed action have the potential to alter or affect the following indicators: temperature, sediment, chemical

contamination/nutrients, physical barriers, substrate embeddedness, large woody debris, pool frequency, pool quality, off-channel

habitat, refugia, wetted width/depth ratio, streambank condition, floodplain connectivity, peak/base flows, drainage network, road

density and location, disturbance history, function of riparian reserves?

Use Enclosure A to answer this No

If No → Project will have No Effect on Puget Sound Chinook Salmon or designated critical habitat

If Yes → Use Decision Pathway for Aquatic Effects Determinations to make effects determination, document rationale

Effects Determination

Species: X NE NLAA LAA

Critical Habitat: X NE NLAA LAA

Rationale (based on project info, Enclosure A, and required conservation measures):

The Satsop watershed is not in the Puget Sound Chinook ESU.

Project Conservation Measures (see project descriptions, generate additional measures if necessary):

Submitted by: /s/ Marc McHenry Date: 4/8/15

Fisheries Biologist

Level 1 agreement with the above effect

determinations Not needed Not needed

NMFS Representative and Date Forest Service Representative and Date




Species-specific Information – Hood Canal Summer Chum Salmon

1. Is the project in a fifth-field watershed that contains or has the potential to contain H. C. summer chum (Y/N)? No

If No → What is your basis for this determination? The Satsop watershed is not in the Hood Canal summer chum ESU.

Project will have No Effect on Hood Canal summer chum salmon or designated critical habitat


2. Do the stream(s) in which impacts may occur contain suitable habitat for H. C. summer chum salmon? No

3. How far (approx., in river miles) is project from nearest suitable habitat for H. C. summer chum salmon? N/A






If No → Project will have No Effect on Hood Canal summer chum salmon or designated critical habitat






The Satsop watershed is not in the Hood Canal summer chum ESU.



Fisheries Biologist





PROJECT CONSISTENCY EVALUATION FORM for ESA Consultation – Part II


Species-specific Information – Puget Sound Steelhead Trout

1. Is the project in a fifth-field watershed that contains or has the potential to contain P. S. steelhead trout (Y/N)? No

If No → What is your basis for this determination? The Satsop watershed is not in the Puget Sound steelhead ESU.

Project will have No Effect on Puget Sound steelhead trout


2. Do the stream(s) in which impacts may occur contain suitable habitat for Puget Sound steelhead? No

3. How far (approx., in river miles) is project from nearest suitable habitat for Puget Sound steelhead? N/A






If No → Project will have No Effect on Puget Sound steelhead






The Satsop watershed is not in the Puget Sound steelhead ESU.



Fisheries Biologist




ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT (EFH)

Effects Determination: X No Adverse Effect May Adversely Affect

Rationale:

New road construction is on a ridgetop with no stream crossing, closest stream is more than 2500 ft away.




Species -specific Information – Bull Trout

1. Is the project in a fifth-field watershed that contains or has the potential to contain bull trout (Y/N)? Yes

If No → What is your basis for this determination?

Project will have No Effect on bull trout


2. Do the stream(s) in which impacts may occur contain suitable habitat for bull trout? No

3. How far (approx., in river miles) is project from nearest suitable habitat for bull trout? N/A

4. Does the proposed action have the potential to alter or affect the following indicators: subpopulation size, growth and survival, life

history diversity and isolation, persistence and genetic integrity, temperature, sediment, chemical contamination/nutrients, physical

barriers, substrate embeddedness, large woody debris, pool frequency, pool quality, off-channel habitat, refugia, wetted width/depth

ratio, streambank condition, floodplain connectivity, peak/base flows, drainage network, road density and location, disturbance

history, function of riparian reserves, disturbance regime, or integration of species and habitat conditions?


If No → Project will have No Effect on bull trout






New road construction is on a ridgetop with no stream crossing, closest stream is more than 2500 ft away.



Fisheries Biologist


determinations and consistency with the

programmatic consultation

Not needed Not needed

USFWS Representative and Date Forest Service Representative and Date


ENCLOSURE A - Environmental Baseline and Effects of the Proposed Action on Aquatic Indicators at the 5th

Field Watershed and

Project Action Area Scales.

In the appropriate column(s), mark S for short-term impacts (within first year), L for long-term impacts (>1 year).

BASELINE

Project Action Area Scale

BASELINE

5th

Field Watershed Scale

EFFECTS OF ACTION

Project Action Area Scale

EFFECTS OF ACTION

5th

Field Watershed Scale

Indicator Proper

Function

At

Risk

Unaccept

able

Proper

Function

At

Risk

Unaccept

able

Restore Maintain Degrade Restore Maintain Degrade

Temperature Sediment Chemical Contaminants Passage Barriers

Substrate Embeddedness

Large Woody Debris

Pool Frequency and Quality

Large Pools

Off-channel Habitat

Refugia

Width/ Depth Ratio Streambank Condition

Floodplain Connectivity

Change in Peak/Base Flows

Drainage Network Increase

Road Density & Location

Disturbance History

Riparian Reserves

Disturbance Regime (BT)

Subpopulation Size (BT) Growth and Survival (BT) Life History Diversity and

Isolation (BT)

Persistence and Genetic

Integrity (BT)

Integration of Species and

Habitat Conditions (BT)

Restore = project is likely to have a beneficial impact on habitat indicator N/A = project does not have the potential to impact the habitat indicator Maintain = project may affect indicator, but impact in neutral (BT) = indicator only to be evaluated for bull trout

Degrade = project is likely to have a negative impact on the habitat indicator




Terrestrial Species-specific information

Northern Spotted Owl

Is the project within a known home range

(2.7 mile radius)?

No Is the project within a known nest core

(1.4 mile radius)?

No

Distance to nearest known Activity Center 8.55 miles Activity Center site status Occupied

Activity Center name and WDFW number Church/Pine Creek, #63

Are there more than one Activity Center whose home range is affected by the project? No

Activity Center names and WDFW number ---

Activity Center site status ---

Project distance to nearest suitable habitat .68 miles

Habitat surveyed? No To protocol? N/A

If surveyed, year of surveys and results ---

EFFECTS TO HABITAT

Will suitable habitat be modified? No dispersal habitat? Yes

If yes, acres of suitable habitat that would be modified dispersal habitat .3 acres

What would be the effects to the suitable habitat? Select One dispersal habitat? Remove

Will the project remove or alter a suitable nest tree? No

If yes, how many? ---

Is the suitable nest tree(s) considered a hazard? Select One

Will the tree be removed or altered during the breeding season? Select One

Will the project remove large coarse woody debris and

standing dead trees?

Yes

NOISE DISTURBANCE

Will project occur during the early breeding season

(3/1 to 7/15)?

Yes late season (7/16 to 9/30)? Yes

If the project occurs in the early breeding season, will equipment be operating within the harassment

distance of suitable habitat for the equipment being used?

No

Acres of habitat affected by temporary increased noise disturbance 0

Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat

Percent of project area within a CHU 100 CHU# NCO 2

Will the project impact primary constituent elements (NRFD)? No

Which PCE would be affected?

Acres and/or number of PCEs affected within the CHU

Will impacts to CHU be adverse? No

Will the stand within the project area still function as critical habitat? Yes

Definitions:

Removal – complete loss of habitat function following an effect (e.g. nesting, roosting, or foraging no longer provides that habitat function).

Downgrade – a kind of removal, but refers to a reduction in the function of the habitat (e.g. nesting, roosting or foraging habitat now provides only

dispersal habitat after the effect).

Degrade – a reduction in habitat quality, but not habitat function (e.g. foraging remains foraging, but perhaps is more limited due to temporary

reduction in prey base).





Marbled Murrelet

Is the project within 0.5 miles of a historic or known nest site or survey point with occupied behavior? No

Distance to nearest known site 1.9 miles Murrelet # or Murrelet-ID #2386

Is there more than one location within 0.5 miles of the project? No

Murrelet # or Murrelet-ID ---

Project distance to nearest suitable habitat .68 miles

Habitat surveyed? No To protocol? N/A

If surveyed, year of surveys and results ---

EFFECTS TO HABITAT

Will suitable habitat (nest tree or buffering trees) be modified? No Type of habitat

altered

What would be the effects to the suitable habitat? N/A

Acres of habitat altered 0

Will the project remove or alter a suitable nest tree? No If yes, how many?

Is the suitable nest tree(s) considered a hazard? Select One

Will the tree be removed or altered during the breeding season? Select One

NOISE DISTURBANCE

Will project occur during the breeding season (4/1 to 9/23)? Yes

If the project occurs in the breeding season, will equipment be operating within the harassment

distance of suitable habitat for the equipment being used?

No

Acres of habitat affected by temporary increased noise disturbance 0

Marbled Murrelet Critical Habitat

Percent of project within a CHU 0 CHU#

Will project impact primary constituent elements (PCE #1 – nest tree; PCE #2 – buffer tree)? Select One



Will impacts to CHU be adverse? Select One

Will the stand within the project area still function as critical habitat? Select One





Taylor’s Checkerspot

Is the project >400 meters from potentially suitable habitat? No

Is the project within or is ≤ 400 meters of suitable habitat? No

Has the suitable habitat been surveyed to an established protocol, or 3 visits per year for 2 years? Select One

If surveyed, did they indicate that Taylor’s checkerspot are present

in the project area?

Select One

Indicate year(s) and results of surveys

Could the project directly injure or cause death of Taylor’s checkerspot? Select One

Could project design criteria and conservation measures avoid injury or death? Select One

EFFECTS TO HABITAT

Will suitable habitat be modified? No Describe type of habitat altered

(e.g., larval host or nectar plants)

What would be the effects to the suitable habitat? Select One

Acres or square feet of

habitat altered

Will the project remove or alter nectar or host plants? Select One If yes, what type

and how much?

Will habitat be altered during the flight or larvae season? Select One

Taylor’s Checkerspot Critical Habitat

Percent of project within CHU 0

Will project impact primary constituent elements (short-statured plant communities composed of

grasses & forbs; host plants; nectar plants; aquatic features)?

Select One



Will impacts to CHU be adverse? Select One

Will the project area still function as critical habitat? Select One




ADDITIONAL INFORMATION/EXPLANATIONS for TERRESTRIAL SPECIES

Include here if habitat for any species will be modified and determination that this modification will not remove or degrade

habitat. Provide rationale for this determination. If suitable habitat and/or dispersal habitat for the spotted owl will be

removed or degraded, but the determination is that this removal/degradation will not have an adverse effect on spotted owl

habitat in the long-term, explain the reason for this effects call. If suitable habitat for the Taylor’s checkerspot will be

degraded or removed but will not have an adverse effect on Taylor’s checkerspot habitat, explain the reason (eg. degradation

won’t occur at a meaningful scale).

The 800’ of proposed road construction on National Forest land goes through a stand that is approximately 57 years old (year of origin

1958). Though there is a tiny bit of mapped owl dispersal habitat within the area of the road, most of it is not mapped as dispersal (nor

suitable). The nearest suitable habitat is .68 miles to the northeast, and so there should be no effects from disturbance to either

species. Though there may be some small snags removed with this road work, it is not anticipated that there will be any that would

have been left from the earlier harvest operations that would meet the needs of owls or murrelets. The nearest murrelet critical habitat

is approximately 1.7 miles to the west; the project area does lie within owl critical habitat.

There is no suitable habitat in this area for Taylor’s checkerspot butterfly.

PROJECT CONSERVATION MEASURES for NSO, MM, and Taylors Checkerspot

TERRESTRIAL SPECIES EFFECTS DETERMINATIONS (to be filled out and signed by project biologist based on above information)

Effects Determination for species or Designated Critical Habitat

below:

Rational for effects determination (e.g., acres of harassment,

suitable nest trees removed, etc.)

Northern Spotted Owl NE

Marbled Murrelet NE

Spotted Owl Designated Critical Habitat NLAA

Marbled Murrelet Designated Critical Habitat NE

Taylor’s Checkerspot NE

Taylor’s Checkerspot Designated Critical

Habitat

NE

WILDLIFE REVIEW and ESA CONSULTATION

Submitted by: /s/ Betsy L. Howell Date 31 March 2015

Wildlife Biologist


determinations and consistency with the

programmatic consultation

* /s/Karen K. Holtrop 4/10/2015

USFWS Representative and Date USFS Representative and Date

*Note: Susan has talked with Bill Vogel (FWS), and he concurs with such projects. They have agreed that his signature is not

necessary for all projects. Only needed for higher impact or controversial projects.

(Distribution after consultation: copy to project file, copy to project lead, copy to PCEF completed folder)

***INSERT PROJECT MAP AND SPECIES HABITAT/LOCATION MAPS BELOW***

project consistency evaluation form for esa...

Documents