Biological Evaluation for Lakewood Southeast Project

Page 0

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION LAKEWOOD SOUTHEAST

PROJECT

Lakewood-Laona Ranger District Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest

Evaluation Conducted By: /s/ Scott Anderson 02/21/2013 .

Scott Anderson, Wildlife Biologist Date

Evaluation Conducted By: /s/ Steve Janke 02/21/2013 .

Steve Janke, Plant Ecologist Date

Reviewed: By: /s/ Dan Eklund 02/18/2013 .

Dan Eklund, Forest Biologist Date

Reviewed: By: /s/ Matt St. Pierre __ 02/18/2013 .

Matt St. Pierre, Planning Biologist Date

1

N 1.0 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................... 4 2.0 DATA USED IN ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 5 3.0 LOCATION OF PROJECT ..................................................................................................... 6 4.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................... 8 5.0 SPECIES CONSIDERED AND STATUS OF FEDERALLY LISTED, PROPOSED

AND SENSITIVE SPECIES AND THEIR HABITATS ........................................................ 9 6.0 ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS ...................................................................................................... 17

6.1 ANIMALS .............................................................................................................................. 17 6.1.1 FEDERALLY THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES ................................................... 21

6.1.1.1 CANADA LYNX (LYNX CANADENSIS) 21 6.1.1.2 Fassett’s Locoweed (Oxytropis campestris var. chartacea) ....................................... 22

6.1.1.3 Kirtland’s Warbler (Dendroica kirtlandii) .................................................................. 23

6.1.2 REGIONAL FORESTER SENSITIVE SPECIES – ANIMALS .................................................... 23

6.1.2.1 Eastern Timber Wolf (Canis lupis) ............................................................................. 23

6.1.2.2 Wood Turtle (Clemmys insculpta) .............................................................................. 29

6.1.2.3 Red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) ....................................................................... 33

6.1.2.4 Black-backed Woodpecker (Picoides arcticus) .......................................................... 42

6.1.2.5 Connecticut Warbler (Oporornis agilis) ..................................................................... 46

6.1.2.6 American Marten (Martes americana) ....................................................................... 50

6.1.2.7 Bats ............................................................................................................................. 51

6.1.3 REGIONAL FORESTER SENSITIVE SPECIES – PLANTS ....................................................... 65

6.1.3.1 Small round-leaved orchis (Amerorchis rotundifolia) ................................................ 66

6.1.3.2 Missouri rock cress (Arabis missouriensis var deamii) .............................................. 66

6.1.3.3 Blunt-lobed grapefern (Botrychium oneidense) .......................................................... 67

6.1.3.4 Rocky mountain sedge (Carex backii) ........................................................................ 67

6.1.3.5 Northern bog sedge (Carex gynocrates) ..................................................................... 68

6.1.3.6 Many-headed sedge (Carex sychnocephala)............................................................... 68

6.1.3.7 Ram’s head lady’ slipper (Cypripedium arietinum) .................................................... 68

6.1.3.8 Butternut (Juglans cinerea) ......................................................................................... 69

7.0 LITERATURE CITED ........................................................................................................... 70

2

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Summary of project’s forest types. ................................................................................................... 6

Table 2: Relevant management activities, by alternative, for the project ....................................................... 9

Table 3: Species considered: threatened, endangered, and Regional Forester Sensitive Species. ................ 10

Table 4: Likely-to-occur Regional Forester Sensitive Species. .................................................................... 13

Table 5: Determination for TES and RFSS. ................................................................................................. 14

Table 6: Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future vegetation management activities that were considered in the cumulative effects analysis. ........................................................................................ 16

Table 7: Habitat type composition of the non-federal lands within the project area and the species which may find suitable habitat within these cover type categories. ................................................................ 18

Table 8: Habitat type composition of the non-federal lands within a 1 mile buffer outside the project area and the species which may find suitable habitat within these cover type categories. ............................. 19

Table 9: Habitat type composition of the non-federal lands within a 1 mile buffer outside and within the project area and the species which may find suitable habitat within these cover type categories. ......... 20

Table 10: Proposed actions in the project affecting road density. ................................................................ 29

Table 11: Red-shouldered hawk nesting data for NNF, 1998 - 2008. .......................................................... 34

Table 12: Red-shouldered hawk habitat at the scale of the project, district, and Nicolet landbase. For the 2011 and 2018 projections, the effects of all other projects within the analysis area are included. ....... 38

Table 13: Red-shouldered hawk habitat at the scale of the project, district, and Nicolet landbase after change with shelterwood harvest treatments to only prep cuts. .............................................................. 39

Table 14: Black-backed woodpecker habitat at the scale of the project, district, and Nicolet landbase. For the 2011 and 2018 projections, the effects of all other projects within the analysis area are included. . 44

Table 15: Connecticut warbler habitat at the scale of the project, district, and Nicolet landbase. For the 2011 and 2018 projections, the effects of all other projects within the analysis area are included. ....... 48

Table 16: Regional Forester Sensitive Species - Bats ................................................................................... 51

Table 17: Summary of Anabat acoustic transects survey results for project area. ........................................ 57

Table 18: Summary of species-specific foraging and roosting requirements for the RFSS bats. ................ 58

Table 19: Percent of summer foraging habitat proposed for treatment by alternative .................................. 60

Table 20: Acres of summer foraging habitat impacted by proposed treatment ............................................ 61

Table 21: Percent of summer roosting habitat proposed for treatment by alternative .................................. 62

Table 22: Acres of summer roosting habitat impacted by proposed treatment. ............................................ 62

Table 24: RFSS plant species with known occurrences or potential habitat within the Lakewood SE project area. C = confirmed. .............................................................................................................................. 66

3

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Project’s existing and desired aspen age class distribution .............................................................. 6

Figure 2: Project’s existing and desired red pine age class distribution ......................................................... 7

Figure 3: Project’s existing and desired oak age class distribution................................................................. 7

Figure 4: Project’s Existing Forest Cover Types ............................................................................................ 8

Figure 5: Wolf population trends in Wisconsin since 1980 (packs and individuals). ................................... 24

Figure 6: Distribution of wolf territories in Wisconsin in 2011. ................................................................... 26

Figure 7. Red-shouldered hawk habitat trends for Chequamegon and Nicolet landbases ............................ 41

Figure 8. Red-shouldered hawk habitat trends for CNNF landbase.............................................................. 41

Figure 9: North American Distribution of the Little Brown Bat (Nature Serve 2011c). .............................. 52

Figure 10: North American Distribution of the Northern Myotis (Nature Serve 2011d). ............................ 53

Figure 11: N. American Distribution of the Tri-colored bat (Nature Serve, 2011e) ................................... 54

Figure 12: White nose syndrome occurrence by County and Province as of 03/30/2012. ........................... 56

4

1.0 INTRODUCTION 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" (Forest Service Manual {FSM} 2672.4).

"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 United States Department of Interior 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" (Forest Service Manual [FSM] 2670.5). The Forest Service (FS) is responsible for protecting all federally proposed and listed species and the Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS). In addition, the Forest Service 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) (USDA, 1983) directs the Forest Service 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 (USDA Forest Service, 2005) (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, USFWS and NMFS. The Forest Service Manual (2670.5) 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

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

5

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 design features 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 and new literature. It also how the scientific information was used in the development of the 2004 Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest (CNNF) Land and Resource Management Plan (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 (St. Pierre, M., 2010). These models include a description of suitable habitat, both in qualitative terms and in the Forest Service’s Vegetation (FSVeg) database, which describes forest cover or vegetation type, size, density, and year of origin. The habitat variables of forest type, age of the stand, and canopy cover were chosen because they represent the larger suite of variables (including tree height, stand basal area, amount of large woody debris and snags) that are related to 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 structural complexity of the stand; older stands have more structure (downed wood, snags, trees of variable height, etc.) It is recognized that the relationships between stand age and these other variables may not be linear but they are positive height (Carmean, W.H., J.T. Hahn, R.D. Jacobs., 1989), LWD in 40+ year old stands (Gore, J.A. and W.A. Patterson III. , 1986). 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 a number of species with an affinity for mature hardwood forest (such as northern goshawk, red-shouldered hawk, and American marten). Additional variables such as slope, density of predators, the amount of tip-up mounds in the stand, fragmentation metric, patch size, and proximity to water either could not be included in a habitat model. This is because no data exists or, if included in the model, any threshold (e.g. minimum patch size) criteria 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 red-shouldered hawks, 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.

To systematically analyze cumulative effects of this project and many other projects, information about all major current and planned vegetation management projects on the CNNF were evaluated. This information was organized by species and by using their habitat models described above, we are able to calculate the current amount of habitat (acres) and annual changes to the availability of this habitat resulting from the short and long-term effects of each management project. For the purposes of wildlife effects analyses, short-term effects are five years or less and long-term effects are greater than that (often up to 50 years) (St. Pierre 2010). Where applicable, in growth and outgrowth of habitat (changes resulting from natural aging of stands) was also projected. These projections represent a major component in the cumulative effects analysis for any CNNF project and cumulative effects analysis boundary. Data used in the cumulative effects analysis for individual species can be found in the project record.

6

3.0 LOCATION OF PROJECT The Lakewood Southeast (project area) project area is located southeast of the town of Mountain, Wisconsin in the southeastern portion of the Lakewood/Laona Ranger District (LKLA) of the CNNF. All areas of the project area are located in Oconto County. The project area contains vegetative structure and composition that are the result of historical actions and of management activities that started in the late 1800s and continue today. The project area is dominated by forest plant communities known as Northern Dry Forests that are made up of mostly pine or pine hardwood communities. These communities are located on dry sandy soils that are mainly on glacial outwash and glacial lake plains and ridges. Prior to European settlement, Northern Dry Forest typically originated in the wake of catastrophic fire, and frequent, low-intensity ground fires, which maintained the red pine systems. The primary upland forest types in the project area are red/white pine (33 %), aspen (26 %), and northern hardwoods (16 %). See Table 1 for the project area forest type breakdown and Figure 4 for a graphical representation of forest cover types on FS lands. Over the past eighty years, fire has been largely excluded from these ecosystems through aggressive fire suppression policies and minimal use of prescribed fire. The removal of fire from the Northern Dry Forest has altered stand densities, species composition, and age class distributions. Stands are generally more dense, contain more fire-intolerant species, more oaks, and understory grasses and forbs are less robust and prevalent. The lowlands in the project area are about 54 % conifer and 33 % hardwood lowlands. The remaining 13 % are openings. Within the project area, there are about 6,990 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.

Figure 1: Project’s existing and desired aspen age class distribution

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 project area and at the NNF level. It is for this reason that one of the 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 815 acres of aspen needs to be regenerated. This would take place primarily in MA 4A where aspen management is expected to be prevalent (USDA Forest Service 2004a, p. 3-17). The age class

Table 1: Summary of project’s forest types

FOREST TYPE ACRES % Upland Types

Red / White Pine 8,949 32.9% Aspen 6,987 25.7% Northern Hardwood 4,237 15.6% Oak 2,027 7.5% Jack Pine 1,928 7.1% Upland Openings 1,774 6.5% Balsam Fir 819 3.0% Other Types 462 1.7%

Summary Uplands 27,183 100.0% Lowland Types

Lowland Conifer 5,228 53.5% Lowland Hardwood 3,227 33.1% Lowland Openings 1,308 13.4%

Summary Lowlands 9,763 100.0% Total All FS Acres 36,946

0500

1000150020002500300035004000

0-10 11-20 21-45 46+

Acr

es

Age classes

Existing AC

Desired AC

7

distribution of aspen would be modified mainly by regenerating the older stands into a new, young stand using the clearcut method.

Figure 2: Project’s existing and desired red pine age class distribution

There is also an overabundance of mid and older aged red pine and a shortage of young red pine in the project area and on the CNNF. The objective is to have 15 % (or about 1,100 acres) of red pine in the 0-20 year age class (forest plan, p. 2-10). Currently, there is 4 % (about 300 acres) of red pine in the 0-20 year age class and 52 % in the 61-100 year age class. This means that there is currently a deficit of about 800 acres of young red pine. The age class distribution of red pine would be modified mainly by regenerating the older stands into new,

younger stands using the clearcut method and replanting the site. In Management Area 4B natural regeneration of pine using the shelterwood method is the favored method (USDA Forest Service, 2004a) p. 3-19). Once the understory has enough pine seedlings an overstory removal cut may be used to release the newly-established stand.

Figure 3: Project’s existing and desired oak age class distribution

Currently, there is an overabundance of the 80+ oak age class and a shortage of 0-19 and 20-59 oak age classes on the Forest and in the project area. The current project area contains approximately 3 % (about 50 acres) of oak in the 0-19 year age class. The desired condition is to have 19 % (or about 380 acres) of oak in the 0-19 year age class (forest plan, p. 2-9) within this MA. There is currently a deficit of about 330 acres of young oak that needs to be created. To work

toward the desired future condition, there is a need to convert older oak to younger oak age classes. Other needs are to increase the 20-59 age class from 5 % to 38 % and reduce the 80+ age class from 72 % to 24 %. There are also currently no uneven-aged hardwoods in the project area. While the project area is dominated by even-aged forest types, there are about 300 acres of overstocked northern hardwood stands within the project area that are good candidates for uneven-aged management. The forest plan (p. 2-8) gives recommended stocking levels in managed, uneven-aged northern hardwood stands to maximize growth and quality of forest products. Commercial treatment can move stands towards uneven-aged conditions to meet the forest plan desired conditions. Single tree selection harvests are be the main method of moving the stands toward uneven-aged conditions.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0-20 21-60 61-100 101+Age classes

% existing

% desired

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

0-19 20-59 60-79 80+Age classes

% existing

% desired

8

Figure 4: Project’s Existing Forest Cover Types

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

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES See chapter 2 of the Lakewood Southeast Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a detailed description of the alternatives, maps of the project area, and summary of other proposed management activities.

9

Table 2: Relevant management activities, by alternative, for the project

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Total Acres Harvested 0 11,707 10,751 6,486 Acres selection harvest 0 194 194 64 Acres thinning 0 5,592 4,249 4,354 Acres clear cut 0 1,246 2,021 374 Acres of shelterwood 0 4,282 3,894 1,422 Acres special cut 0 393 393 272 *Acres aspen regeneration 0 1,246 2,021 374 Estimated volume (MBF) 0 00 00 00 Acres of stand improvement 0 903 850 519 Acres of salmon blade 0 97 97 97 Acres of precommercial 0 48 48 48 Acres under plant 0 2,045 1,768 948 Acres of full plant 0 510 598 339 Acres under story burn 0 2,527 2,733 2,039 *Miles of road construction 0 2.1 1.2 1.8 *Miles existing road reconstructed 0 32.8 30.7 0 Decommissioned open unauthorized 0 23.4 23.4 23.4 Decommissioned open road 0 3.1 3.1 3.1 Close roads outside non-motorized area 0 3.9 3.9 3.9

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 December 14, 2011 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 USDA-FS, FWS, and Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). FWS response (12/01/11) indicated that the gray wolf (Canis lupus) was the only federally listed TES that occur or had potential habitat within or near the project area or Oconto County. Since that letter, the FWS has removed the wolf from that list and thus it would be analyzed a RFSS per FSM direction. The Canada lynx was not identified by the FWS and thus a detailed analysis was not required, however one was completed due to special interest on this species. The WDNR response (05/03/2011) did not address any TES but commented on wildlife opening management and its possible effects to American woodcock and Golden-winged warbler habitat.

10

Neotropical migratory birds are considered in the effects analyses of a Biological Evaluation 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 provides 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 forest plan.

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 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 Acipenser fulvescens 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 C Y Callophrys henrici Henry's Elfin G5, S2, SC N N

Canis lupis Gray (Timber) Wolf G4, S2, ST C Y Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler G4, S2S3B, ST N N Falcipennis canadensis Spruce Grouse G5, S1S2B, ST N N Glyptemys insculpta Wood Turtle G4, S3, ST C Y Gomphus viridifrons Green-faced Clubtail G3, S3, SC M N Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle G4, S3B, SC M N Martes americana American Marten G5, S3, SE M N Moxostoma valenciennesi Greater Redhorse G4, S2S3, ST N N Myotis lucifugus Little Brown Myotis G5, S2S4, ST C Y Myotis septentrionalis Northern Myotis G4, S1S3, ST C Y Notropis anogenus 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 M N Oporornis agilis Connecticut Warbler G4, S3B, SC M Y Perimyotis subflavus Tri-colored Bat G5, S1S3, ST M Y

Picoides arcticus Black-backed Woodpecker G5, S2B, SC M Y

Pieris virginiensis West Virginia White G3G4, S2, SC N N

Plebejus idas nabokovi Northern (Nabokov's) Blue G5, S1, SE N N

Tympanuchus phasianellus Sharp-tailed Grouse G4, S2B, SC N N Venustaconcha ellipsiformis Ellipse G3G4, S2, ST N N

11

Species Common Name Status Occurrence or Habitat Potential 2

Evaluated in Detail (Y)

Amerorchis rotundifolia Round-leaved orchis G5, S2, ST C Y Arabis missouriensis v. deamii Missouri rock cress G5?Q, S2, SC C Y

RFSS – Plants Asplenium trichomanes-ramosum Green Spleenwort G4, S1, SE N N

Astragalus alpinus Alpine Milkvetch G5, S1, SE N N Botrychium minganense Mingan’s Moonwort G4, S2, SC M Y Botrychium mormo Goblin fern G3, S3, SE N N Botrychium oneidense Blunt-lobed Grapefern G4Q, S2, SC C Y Botrychium pallidum Pale Moonwort G3,S1,SC N N

Botrychium rugulosum Ternate Grapefern G3, S2, SC N N

Callitriche hermaphroditica Northern water-starwort G5, S2, SC N N Callitriche heterophylla Larger water-starwort G5,S1,ST N N Caloplaca parvula A lichen G1 N N Calypso bulbosa Calypso orchid G5, S3, ST M Y Carex backii Rocky Mountain Sedge G4, S1, SC C Y Carex crawei Crawe's Sedge G5, S3, SC N N Carex gynocrates Northern Bog Sedge G5, S3, SC C Y 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 C Y Ceratophyllum echinatum Spineless Hornwort G4?, S2, SC N N

Cypripedium arietinum Ram's head lady's slipper G3, S2, ST C Y

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 M Y

Eleocharis olivacea Bright Green Spikerush G5, S2, SC N N Eleocharis quinqueflora Few-flowered Spikerush G5, S2, SC N N Epilobium palustre Marsh Willow-herb G5, S3, SC M Y Equisetum palustre Marsh Horsetail G5, S2, SC M Y Eriophorum chamissonis Russet 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 Moor Rush G5, S1, SE N N

Leucophysalis grandiflora Large-flowered Ground-cherry G4?, S1, SC N N

Littorella uniflora (=Plantago americana) American Shoregrass G5, S2, SC M Y

Melica smithii Smith's Melicgrass G4, S1, SE N N Moehringia macrophylla Largeleaf Sandwort G4, S1, SE N N

12

Species Common Name Status Occurrence or Habitat Potential 2

Evaluated in Detail (Y)

Myriophyllum farwellii Farwell's Water-milfoil G5, S3, SC N N Panax quinquefolius American Ginseng G3G4, S4, SC M Y

Parnassia palustris Marsh Grass-of-Parnassus G5, S2, ST N N

Piptatherum canadensis Canada Mountain Ricegrass G5, S1, SC M Y

Poa paludigena Bog Bluegrass G3, S3, ST N N Polemonium occidentale ssp lacustre Western Jacob's Ladder G5?T1Q, S1, SE 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 Snowline Wintergreen G5, S1, SE N N Ranunculus gmelinii Gmelin's Buttercup G5, S2, SE N N Rhynchospora fusca Brown Beakrush G4G5, S2, SC N N Sparganium glomeratum Northern Bur-read G4?, S2, ST N N Streptopus amplexifolius Clasping Twisted-stalk G5, S3, SC N N Tiarella cordifolia Heartleaf Foamflower G5, S1, SE N N Usnea longissima Beard Lichen G4, S1 N N Vaccinium cespitosum 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

Occurrence or Habitat Potential of Occurrence: 1. Confirmed: Species has been observed within or near (within 0.25 miles) the project/proposed project area; a documented occurrence is on file for uncommon or rare species. 2. Probable: Habitat is suitable; species has been documented on the Forest but not necessarily within project/proposed project area. Likelihood of occurrence is high. (Consideration is given to transient species such as eastern timber wolf.) 3. Minimal: Some habitat exists; species may or may not have been documented on Forest. Likelihood of occurrence within the project area or proposed project area is low. 4. None: No suitable habitat exists; species has not been documented in project area.

13

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

Species Common Name Status** Occurrence or

Habitat Potential 2

Evaluated in Detail

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 project EIS. More than 90 RFSS, including LRFSS, were considered in this BE. Field surveys were conducted during 2010 and 2011 within the project area specifically for those species in which that habitat was deemed suitable and had potential effects. Of the species identified in Table 3, 10 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 (M)” or “none (N)” since the likelihood of these species occurring within the project area was determined to be very low. 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” (St. Pierre, M., 2010). 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 LKLA and CNNF projects that were included in the cumulative effects analysis are listed in Table 6.

14

Table 5: Determination for TES and RFSS

Species Common Name Status Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 TES Charadrius melodus Piping plover G3, S1, SE, FE NI NI NI NI Dendroica kirtlandii Kirtland’s warbler G1, SNA, SC, FE NI NI NI NI Lynx canadensis Canada lynx G5, SNA, SC NI NI NI NI Lycaeides melissa samuelis Karner blue butterfly G5, S2S3, SC, FE NI NI NI NI Oxytropis campestris var. chartacea Fassett’s locoweed G5T1T2, S1S2, SE NI NI NI NI

RFSS - Animals Acipenser fulvescens Lake Sturgeon G3G4, S3, SC NI NI NI NI Ammodramus leconteii Le Conte's Sparrow G4, S2B, SC NI NI NI NI Bartramia longicauda Upland Sandpiper G5, S2B, SC NI NI NI NI Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered Hawk G5, S3S4B, ST NI MINT MINT MINT Callophrys henrici Henry's Elfin G5, S2, SC NI NI NI NI Canis lupis Gray (Timber) Wolf G4, S2, ST NI NI NI NI Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler G4, S2S3B, ST NI NI NI NI Falcipennis canadensis Spruce Grouse G5, S1S2B, ST NI NI NI NI Glyptemys insculpta Wood Turtle G4, S3, ST NI NI NI NI Gomphus viridifrons Green-faced Clubtail G3, S3, SC NI NI NI NI Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle G4, S3B, SC NI NI NI NI Martes americana American Marten G5, S3, SE NI NI NI NI

Moxostoma valenciennesi Greater Redhorse G4, S2S3, ST NI NI NI NI

Myotis lucifugus Little Brown Myotis G5, S2S4, ST NI MINT MINT MINT Myotis septentrionalis Northern Myotis G4, S1S3, ST NI MINT MINT MINT Notropis anogenus Pugnose Shiner G3, S2S3, ST NI NI NI NI Oeneis chryxus Chryxus Arctic G5, S2, SC NI NI NI NI Ophiogomphus anomalus Extra-striped Snaketail G3, S1, SE NI NI NI NI Ophiogomphus howei Pygmy Snaketail G3, S3, ST NI NI NI NI Oporornis agilis Connecticut Warbler G4, S3B, SC NI NI NI NI Perimyotis subflavus Tri-colored Bat G5, S1S3, ST NI MINT MINT MINT

Picoides arcticus Black-backed Woodpecker G5, S2B, SC NI NI NI NI

Pieris virginiensis West Virginia White G3G4, S2, SC NI NI NI NI

Plebejus idas nabokovi Northern (Nabokov's) Blue G5, S1, SE NI NI NI NI

Tympanuchus phasianellus Sharp-tailed Grouse G4, S2B, SC NI NI NI NI Venustaconcha ellipsiformis Ellipse G3G4, S2, ST NI NI NI NI RFSS Plants Amerorchis rotundifolia Roundleaf Orchid G5, S2, ST NI NI NI NI Arabis missouriensis v. deamii Green Rockcress G5?Q, S2, SC NI NI NI NI

Asplenium trichomanes-ramosum Green Spleenwort G4, S1, SE NI NI NI NI

15

Plants continued…. Species Common Name Status Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Astragalus alpinus Alpine Milkvetch G5, S1, SE NI NI NI NI Botrychium minganense Mingan Moonwort G4, S2, SC NI NI NI NI Botrychium mormo Little Goblin Moonwort G3, S3, SE NI NI NI NI Botrychium oneidense Bluntlobe Grapefern G4Q, S2, SC NI NI NI NI Botrychium pallidum Pale Moonwort G3,S1,SC NI NI NI NI

Botrychium rugulosum Ternate Grapefern G3, S2, SC NI NI NI NI

Callitriche hermaphroditica Autumnal Water-starwort G5, S2, SC NI NI NI NI

Callitriche heterophylla Twoheaded Water-starwort G5,S1,ST NI NI NI NI

Caloplaca parvula A lichen G1 NI NI NI NI Calypso bulbosa Fairy Slipper G5, S3, ST NI NI NI NI Carex backii Rocky Mountain Sedge G4, S1, SC NI NI NI NI Carex crawei Crawe's Sedge G5, S3, SC NI NI NI NI Carex gynocrates Northern Bog Sedge G5, S3, SC NI NI NI NI Carex livida var radicaulis Livid Sedge G5T5, S2, SC NI NI NI NI Carex michauxiana Michaux's Sedge G5, S2, ST NI NI NI NI Carex sychnocephala Many-headed Sedge G4, S2, SC NI NI NI NI Ceratophyllum echinatum Prickly Hornwort G4?, S2, SC NI NI NI NI

Cypripedium arietinum Ram's-head Lady's-slipper G3, S2, ST NI NI NI NI

Diplazium pycnocarpon Glade Fern G5, S2, SC NI NI NI NI Dryopteris expansa Spreading Woodfern G5, S2, SC NI NI NI NI Dryopteris filix-mas Male Fern G5, S1, SC NI NI NI NI Dryopteris fragrans var remotiuscula Fragrant Fern G5T3T5, S3, SC NI NI NI NI

Eleocharis olivacea Bright Green Spikerush G5, S2, SC NI NI NI NI Eleocharis quinqueflora Few-flowered Spikerush G5, S2, SC NI NI NI NI Epilobium palustre Marsh Willow-herb G5, S3, SC NI NI NI NI Equisetum palustre Marsh Horsetail G5, S2, SC NI NI NI NI Eriophorum chamissonis Russet Cotton-grass G5, S2, SC NI NI NI NI Huperzia selago Fir Clubmoss G5, S2, SC NI NI NI NI Juglans cinerea Butternut G3G4, S3?, SC NI NI NI NI Juncus stygius Moor Rush G5, S1, SE NI NI NI NI

Leucophysalis grandiflora Large-flowered Ground-cherry G4?, S1, SC NI NI NI NI

Littorella uniflora (=Plantago americana) American Shoregrass G5, S2, SC NI NI NI NI

Melica smithii Smith's Melicgrass G4, S1, SE NI NI NI NI Moehringia macrophylla Largeleaf Sandwort G4, S1, SE NI NI NI NI Myriophyllum farwellii Farwell's Water-milfoil G5, S3, SC NI NI NI NI Panax quinquefolius American Ginseng G3G4, S4, SC NI NI NI NI Parnassia palustris Marsh Grass-of-Parnassus G5, S2, ST NI NI NI NI

16

Plants continued…. Species Common Name Status Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

Piptatherum canadensis Canada Mountain Ricegrass G5, S1, SC NI NI NI NI

Poa paludigena Bog Bluegrass G3, S3, ST NI NI NI NI Polemonium occidentale ssp lacustre Western Jacob's Ladder G5?T1Q, S1, SE NI NI NI NI

Polystichum braunii Braun's Holly-fern G5, S3, ST NI NI NI NI Potamogeton confervoides Algae-like Pondweed G4, S2, ST NI NI NI NI Potamogeton hillii Hill's Pondweed G3, S1, SC NI NI NI NI Pyrola minor Snowline Wintergreen G5, S1, SE NI NI NI NI Ranunculus gmelinii Gmelin's Buttercup G5, S2, SE NI NI NI NI Rhynchospora fusca Brown Beakrush G4G5, S2, SC NI NI NI NI Sparganium glomeratum Northern Bur-read G4?, S2, ST NI NI NI NI Streptopus amplexifolius Clasping Twisted-stalk G5, S3, SC NI NI NI NI Tiarella cordifolia Heartleaf Foamflower G5, S1, SE NI NI NI NI Usnea longissima Beard Lichen G4, S1 NI NI NI NI Vaccinium cespitosum Dwarf Huckleberry G5, S2, SE NI NI NI NI Valeriana uliginosa Marsh Valerian G4Q, S2, ST NI NI NI NI

Determinations for Regional Forester Sensitive Species:

(a) NI “No Impact”, (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”.

Table 6: Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future vegetation management activities that were considered in the cumulative effects analysis

Project Name Landbase Project Name Landbase Boulder Vegetation Management LKLA Fishel Vegetation Mgmt. ERFL

McCaslin Vegetation Management LKLA Argonne EIS ERFL

Flower Lake HFRA LKLA Grub Hoe Vegetation Mgmt. ERFL

Honey Creek / Padus Project LKLA Northwest Howell Vegetation Mgmt. ERFL

Blackwell Blowdown LKLA Long Rail Vegetation Mgmt. ERFL

Lakewood Southeast Project LKLA Phelps Vegetation Mgmt. ERFL

Quad County Tornado Salvage LKLA Early Successional Habitat Improvement Vegetation Mgmt. CNNF

Hardwood Biomass LKLA Spruce Decline II CNNF

Lakewood-Laona Plantation Thinning LKLA Spruce Decline II EA CNNF

Wabeno Blowdown Salvage LKLA

There were 19 vegetation management projects that were considered for the cumulative effects analysis in this BE (Table 6). However, not all projects were considered for every species because some species suitable habitat was not in the project area or was not affected by project activities.

17

6.0 ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS

6.1 Animals Private lands were analyzed inside and within a one mile buffer outside the project area. The one mile extended analysis of adjacent property is specifically for red-shouldered hawks that required cumulative effects analysis and for goshawk that are a Management Indicator Species. The one mile distance far exceeds the distance they are known to relocate following abandonment or disuse of a previously occupied nest site (Ennis, K. R., J. Blum, J. Kelly, C. Schumacher, E. Padley, and T. Schuetz, 1993), (Bosakowski, 1999) (Woodford J. , 2005). This provides context for the relative availability of habitat on adjacent, non-USFS lands.

There are approximately 8,610 acres (Table 7) and 18,006 acres (Table 8) of non-Federal lands within and outside the project area respectively and these lands are 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, D. and Pierre M.S., 2009). This land cover data for lands of other ownerships was created using manual delineation and classification based primarily on 2005 National Agriculture Imagery Program 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 cover was 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. Some of the non-FS lands were WDNR managed lands in Oconto and Marinette counties and as a result had field generated data related to current forest types. This situation was unique to this project and it allowed us to update and improve the vegetation type coding of adjacent similar habitats that were previously only identified by NAIP imagery.

Habitat types of non-FS lands within the project area are mostly urban, water, forested, and agriculture (Table 7). A majority of the forested lands are aspen (8.9 %) upland hardwoods (8 %), and lowland conifer (6.2 %). Most of the urban areas are located around the lakes in the northern section (Crooked and Boundary Lake), southern section (Chute Pond) and a few scattered areas in the central part of the project area.

Suitable upland habitat for red-shouldered hawks is scattered throughout the project area with the largest blocks around Bear Paw Lake and south of Crooked Lake. There is another area near Chute Pond but this land is surrounded by large blocks of urban land. The lowland hardwood component for red-shouldered habitat is located mostly in the northern third of the project area. Lowland habitat for Connecticut warbler and black-backed woodpeckers is scattered evenly throughout the project area in small blocks. Suitable pine habitats for black-backed woodpeckers are for the most part in the southern 2/3’s part of the project area.

18

Table 7: Habitat type composition of the non-federal lands within the project area and the species, which may find suitable habitat within these cover type categories

Cover Type Acres % GOS RDSH COWA BBWP BATS

Agriculture 470 5.5% 0 0 0 0 0 Aspen 769 8.9% 769 0 0 0 0 Aspen - mixed c/d 388 4.5% 388 0 0 0 0 Aspen - young 251 2.9% 0 0 0 0 0 Clear-cut 155 1.8% 0 0 0 0 0 Lowland Conifers 530 6.2% 0 0 530 530 0 Lowland Hardwoods 469 5.4% 0 469 0 0 469 Lowland Opening 239 2.8% 0 0 0 0 0 Oak 347 4.0% 0 347 0 0 347 Pine 173 2.0% 0 0 173 173 0 Pine - mix c/d 326 3.8% 0 0 326 326 326 Spruce/Fir 5 0.1% 0 0 5 5 0 Upland Hardwoods 693 8.0% 693 693 0 0 693 Upland Hardwoods - mix c/d 92 1.1% 92 92 0 0 92 Upland Opening 82 1.0% 0 0 0 0 0 Urban 2,618 30.4% 0 0 0 0 0 Water 1003 11.6% 0 0 0 0 0

Total 8,610 100% 1,942 1,601 1,034 1,034 1,927

Private lands within the one mile buffer are mostly lowland habitat (12 % conifer and 11 % openings), forested habitat (11 % upland hardwoods, 10 % young aspen), and agricultural land (Table 8). The largest blocks of upland habitat for red-shouldered hawks are east and south of the project. Lowland habitat is also just south of the project area. Suitable habitat for Connecticut warbler and black-backed woodpeckers is south of the project area and to the southeast.

19

Table 8: Habitat type composition of the non-federal lands within a one mile buffer outside the project area and the species which may find suitable habitat within these cover type categories

Cover Type Acres % GOS RDSH COWA BBWP BATS Agriculture 1,641 9.1% 0 0 0 0 0 Aspen 1,636 9.1% 662 0 0 0 0 Aspen - mixed c/d 412 2.3% 413 0 0 0 0 Aspen - young 1,853 10.3% 0 0 0 0 0 Birch 7 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 Clear-cut 125 0.7% 0 0 0 0 0 Hemlock 13 0.1% 13 13 0 0 13 Jack Pine 487 2.7% 0 0 9 34 0 Lowland Conifers 2,211 12.3% 0 0 1,769 1,771 0 Lowland Hardwoods 1,126 6.3% 0 510 0 0 510 Lowland Opening 1,912 10.6% 0 0 0 0 0 Oak 169 0.9% 0 42 0 0 42 Red Pine 518 2.9% 0 0 0 0 0 Pine 114 0.6% 0 0 114 114 0 Pine - mix c/d 72 0.4% 0 0 72 72 72 Pine - young 75 0.4% 0 0 0 0 0 Road / trail 30 0.2% 0 0 0 0 0 Scrub oak 1,536 8.5% 0 0 0 0 0 Spruce/Fir 27 0.1% 0 0 27 27 0 Upland Hardwoods 1,974 11.0% 1,720 1,720 0 0 1,720 Upland Hardwoods - mix c/d 420 2.3% 420 420 0 0 420 Upland Opening 178 1.0% 0 0 0 0 0 Urban 825 4.6% 0 0 0 0 0 Water 398 2.2% 0 0 0 0 0 White Pine 247 1.4% 0 0 0 0 0

Total 18,006 100% 3,228 2,705 1,991 2,018 2,777

Cover type acres identified as being suitable for TES and RFSS on non-FS lands within the project area and the one mile buffer, were totaled for cumulative effects analysis (Table 9). Upland hardwood was the most common habitat and had the most species associated with it for cumulative effects analysis.

20

Table 9: Habitat type composition of the non-federal lands within a one mile buffer outside and within the project area and the species which may find suitable habitat within these cover type categories

Cover Type Acres % GOS RDSH COWA BBWP BATS

Aspen 2,405 19% 1,431 0 0 0 0 Aspen - mixed c/d 800 6% 801 0 0 0 0 Hemlock 13 0% 13 13 0 0 13 Jack Pine 487 4% 0 0 9 34 0 Lowland Conifers 2,741 22% 0 0 2,299 2,301 0 Lowland Hardwoods 1,595 13% 0 979 0 0 979 Oak 516 4% 0 389 0 0 389 Pine 287 2% 0 0 287 287 0 Pine - mix c/d 398 3% 0 0 398 398 398 Spruce/Fir 32 0% 0 0 32 32 0 Upland Hardwoods 2,667 21% 2,413 2,413 0 0 2,413 Upland Hardwoods - mix c/d 512 4% 512 512 0 0 512

Total 12,453 100% 5,170 4,306 3,025 3,052 4,704

Comprehensive data on these private lands including age structure within each forest type category, specific management history, and future management plans are not available. Given this limitation, the following assumptions for the analysis were made:

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

• 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, we assume that all lands are managed for timber production, which uses a “maximum effect” scenario.

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

• Aspen stands are clear-cut when they are approximately 45 years of age. • Lands that are currently aspen cover type would be maintained as aspen and lands that are currently

hardwoods would 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.

21

6.1.1 Federally Threatened and Endangered Species

6.1.1.1 CANADA LYNX (Lynx canadensis) Canada lynx are closely associated with the distribution of the northern boreal forest (USDI Fish and Widlife Service, 2000). In Canada and Alaska, lynx inhabit the classic boreal forest ecosystem of the Taiga but lynx in the contiguous United States are at the southern periphery of their range and are associated with the boreal forest populations of central Canada (USDI Fish and Widlife Service, 2000).

Canada lynx have never been common in Wisconsin. Northern Wisconsin forms the southern edge of their historic range. A breeding population may have existed in the state, but declined as trappers caught lynx for the fur trade and

loggers and settlers destroyed the northern forests (WDNR, 2011). In addition, lynx suffered from the prevailing prejudice against predators like the wolf. Beginning in 1865, a state-financed bounty encouraged the killing of lynx. It is thought that by the early 1900s, lynx no longer bred in Wisconsin, however, the bounty was not lifted until 1957 (WDNR, 2011). Since 1900, lynx sightings in Wisconsin have correlated directly with the low points in the 10 year cycles of snowshoe hares in Canada. When snowshoe hare populations crash, lynx migrate south through Minnesota into Wisconsin in search of prey. The primary diet of the lynx is snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus), comprising 35-97 % of the species diet throughout its range (USDI Fish and Widlife Service, 2000). Other prey includes red squirrels, grouse, and an assortment of other forest mammal species (USDI Fish and Widlife Service, 2000). Because primary prey species such as the snowshoe hare are cyclic in abundance, other prey species become important during low cycles when hare or grouse are scarce. In northern regions, when hare densities decline, the lower quality diet causes sudden decreases in the productivity of adult female lynx and decreased kitten survival.

In Canada and Alaska, lynx populations experience extreme fluctuations in response to snowshoe hare population cycles, enlarging or dispersing from their home ranges and ceasing the recruitment of young into the population after hare populations decline (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000). In the southern part of its range, lynx appear to be naturally limited by the availability of snowshoe hare, as suggested by large home ranges size (8 to 800 square kilometers) and the capacity to disperse over long distances (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000). In the Great Lakes geographic area, population dynamics in recent decades appear to be strongly driven by immigration from Canada (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000). It is likely that some areas in the southern periphery act as source populations and some areas act as sinks for the species. Sink habitat are most likely those areas on the periphery of the southern boreal forest where habitat becomes more fragmented and more distant from larger lynx populations (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000).

The Canada lynx was listed by the USDI in 2000 as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended). During this period, the CNNF initiated an analysis of potentially suitable habitat and field surveys using the National Lynx Conservation Assessment protocols (Weiland, 2002). These field surveys were conducted to assess the presence of the species on CNNF lands (Weiland, 2002). The results of this analysis and field survey concluded that lynx were not present and that suitable habitat for the species did not exist. Since that analysis, lynx have been documented as present and breeding on the Superior National Forest in northeastern Minnesota and another lynx was captured near Trout Lake, Michigan during the winter of 2003-04 in the eastern portion of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula (these areas contain much larger amounts of boreal or boreal-like forest than exists on the CNNF). Additionally, based on review of harvest records of lynx in Ontario, Canada, it appears that lynx populations in the Great Lakes are at the highest levels in over a decade and likely explains the recent appearance of lynx in upper Michigan and northern Minnesota (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000). Based on this, the FWS indicated in a Consultation Letter to the CNNF in March 2004 (Letter from Janet Smith FWS, State Supervisor to Anne Archie, Forest Supervisor) for the revised forest plan, that any lynx in Wisconsin and on the CNNF:

22

• Are likely to be animals dispersing from source populations in Minnesota and Canada

• Are not anticipated to become residents in any particular area of the Forest or State

• Would benefit from the forest plan’s emphasis on increasing interior forest habitats, increasing patch sizes, and increased emphasis on roadless and non-motorized areas

• Would have most suitable habitats in lowland conifer types that are not proposed for vegetative management actions under the forest plan (USDA Fish and Wildlife Service, 2000)

This indicates that any lynx found in Wisconsin is likely a transient animal that is unlikely to establish itself in the state and the CNNF. This is further supported by the fact that since completion of the CNNF’s 2000 analysis, additional snow tracking efforts by the WDNR and the CNNF, in areas with possible lynx sightings failed to locate any information that confirmed lynx are present in the CNNF. Since the winter of 2006, over 5000 miles of winter carnivore surveys were conducted in 78 surveys blocks across 19 northern Wisconsin counties with zero lynx detected. The CNNF, working with the WDNR, continues to follow up on reports of lynx in the CNNF or the state in an attempt to confirm if lynx are present. So far, these reports have not resulted in confirmation of lynx presence.

Therefore, the project, under any alternative, is anticipated to have no effect on Canada Lynx or its habitat because it is not known to occur in the CNNF and the project does not impact any lowland conifer, the most suitable forest type for lynx.

Determination (All Alternatives):

No Effect. No lynx have been found or are known to reside within the project. An analysis of suitable lynx habitat (Weiland, 2002) did find any suitable lynx analysis units (LAUs) on the CNNF. Hence, any lynx found here are considered by the USFWS and the CNNF to be transients.

6.1.1.2 FASSETT’S LOCOWEED (Oxytropis campestris var. chartacea) Fassett’s Locoweed is an herbaceous perennial that has many leaves clustered in a rosette at the base of the stem. Populations of this species appear to persist indefinitely in a zone above the high water line along landlocked, hard-water lakes where the Cambrian sandstone bedrock is overlain by sandy glacial drift. Since the water level in these lakes may fluctuate greatly from one year to the next, Fassett’s locoweed is present above ground only in this upper zone during times of high water. Nearly all lakes with historical populations of the species are less than 40 acres in size and occur at approximately 1,200 feet elevation. At some sites, such as at Pigeon Lake in Bayfield County, populations may fully

disappear for relatively long periods of time, only to reappear after water levels recede. Fassett’s locoweed was absent from Pigeon Lake from the late 1920s to the early 1990s, reappearing after prolonged drought in the 1980s lowered water levels for several successive years.

Suitable habitat for this species within the CNNF boundary is limited to the shoreline of groundwater seepage lakes on the Washburn Ranger District. These locations are visited annually to document whether the plant is active or dormant, and the extent of its occupation. In 2009, both locations were occupied by this species with one location experiencing a significant bloom after approximately 30 years of dormancy caused by normal to high water levels (USDA Forest Service, 2012).

Because no Fassett’s Locoweed occurrences are known from the project area and no suitable habitat has been identified within the project area or anywhere on LKLA, no effects to Fassett’s Locoweed would occur. No further analysis is warranted.

Determination (All Alternatives):

No Effect. No fassett’s locoweed has been found or is known to occur within the project.

23

6.1.1.3 KIRTLAND’S WARBLER (Dendroica kirtlandii) Kirtland’s warbler was previously only known to be found in Michigan until summer 2007 when breeding was documented in south-central Wisconsin. Preferred habitat for Kirtland’s is young jack pine between 5-23 years old with scattered openings in areas 200 acres (80 hectares) or larger (Cutright, N.J., B.R. Harriman, and R.W. Howe, eds., 2006). These larger 200 acre blocks are also usually located within a matrix of jack pine in the thousands of acres. Kirtland’s warbler was recently confirmed on the Washburn Ranger District on the CNNF on July 2, 2008 but have not been found since. There is no known nesting activity yet from this newly discovered location and no documented activity by

the species has occurred on the Washburn Ranger District or the CNNF since that 2008 discovery.

There is approximately 626 acres of suitably aged jack pine in the project area. However, these acres are scattered among 34 blocks that are no greater than the required 60 acre block size and do not exist within or near a matrix of jack pine that are thousands of acres. Therefore, under any alternative there would be no effect on Kirtland’s warbler or its habitat because there is no suitable habitat (larger blocks of young jack pine).

Determination (All Alternatives):

No Effect. The project does not contain any suitable Kirtland’s Warbler habitat. There are stands of jack pine within the project that would be treated; however, these stands are small and not situated within a suitable habitat complex that would be considered appropriate Kirtland’s Warbler habitat.

6.1.2 Regional Forester Sensitive Species – Animals

6.1.2.1 EASTERN TIMBER WOLF (Canis lupis) The Eastern Timber Wolf occurred throughout Wisconsin prior to settlement about 1832 (Nowak, 1995). Estimates of presettlement numbers vary, with the most credible being 3,000-5,000 (Wydeven, Wolves in Wisconsin: recolonization underway., 1993). Prior to settlement, five species of ungulate were found in Wisconsin: bison, elk, moose, caribou, and white-tailed deer (Schorger, 1942) (Scott, 1939). All five species were potential prey for wolves (Mech, 1970). By 1880, deer were the only wild ungulate species remaining in viable numbers within the state (Scott, 1939). 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). 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) (Thiel, 1993). The wolf population declined from an estimated 150 in 1930 to less than 50 by 1950 (Thiel, 1993). 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 (Thiel, 1993).

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 (Thiel, 1993) and by 1980, five wolf packs were known to occur in northern Wisconsin (Thiel, 1993) (Wydeven, A. P., R.N. Schultz, and R.P. Thiel., 1995).

An intensive wolf-monitoring program was instituted by the WDNR and the USFWS in 1979. During the 1980s, wolf numbers fluctuated between a low of 15 animals in 1985 to a high of 31 in 1989 (Wydeven, A. P., R.N. Schultz, and R.P. Thiel., 1995). High mortality rates (greater than 35% annually) were caused primarily by humans, with gunshot the leading cause of death (Wydeven, A. P., R.N. Schultz, and R.P. Thiel., 1995).

24

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 USFWS. 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 5: Wolf population trends in Wisconsin since 1980 (packs and individuals).

Wolf numbers have steadily increased since 1993 population of 40 animals in the state to the winter of 2010-2011with an estimated population of 782 animals (Figure 5) (Wydeven et al, (2011). This represents the 8th year in a row that the Wisconsin wolf population has exceeded the state management goal of 350 wolves outside of Indian reservations in the state.

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 two to ten animals with the average pack size of 4.3 animals. Each family occupies an exclusive territory ranging from 19-159.8 square miles with an average 69.9 square miles in Wisconsin (WDNR, 1999). 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, 1999). 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 (WDNR, 1999). In April 2012, the Wisconsin Legislature passed a bill allowing a wolf hunting/trapping season to occur later that fall season. This would obviously reduce the number of wolves in the state but the WDNR would monitor the population numbers and close the season early if it feels that is necessary for wolf management. 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.

25 20 23 19 18 14 15 18 26 31 34 39 45 40 54 83 99

148 178

204 248

257

327 335 373

435 467

546 549

637

704

782

5 5 4 5 4 4 5 5 6 7 10 12 13 12 16 20 31 35 47 57 65 70 83 94 108 113 116

141 150 168

188 202

1980 '8

1'8

2'8

3'8

4'8

5'8

6'8

7'8

8'8

919

90 '91

'92

'93

'94

'95

'96

'97

'98

'99

2000 '0

1'0

2'0

3'0

4'0

5'0

6'0

7'0

8'0

920

10 '11

25

Wolf habitat has been defined as areas having the following characteristics (Mladenoff D. T., 1995) (Mladenoff D. T., 1997) (WDNR, 1999):

• Low human population densities • Sufficient prey (deer, beaver, etc.) • Low road densities (4.8 km/km2 or 2.9 mi/mi2) • 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 (1999) estimates that there are currently 15,052 km2 (5811 mi2) 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 USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 1972 and 1992) (WDNR, 1999).

Additionally, prey availability also plays a key role in defining wolf habitat. Wolves are large carnivores that require an abundance of prey such as white-tailed deer and beaver to survive. There are 12 WDNR deer management units (units 3, 6, 13, 29A, 30, 39, 40, 44, 45, 49A, and 50) in the Northern Forest Management Region that are either solely or partially within the CNNF. These deer management units over-winter goals averaged approximately 16 deer / sq. mile of deer range when implementation of the forest plan began (USDA Forest Service, 2004a). Although increases and decreases in deer populations vary in deer management units (DMUs) across the Forest, these CNNF units were below post-hunt population goals in 2004. Since that time, deer population levels within these units have fluctuated (from more than 20 % above post-hunt goals to a range of 5 to 57 % below post-hunt goal) due to a host of factors. These factors include but are not limited to: special hunts (T-Zones, Earn-A-Buck), archery and firearm seasons frameworks and success rates, winter weather conditions, and predation (USDA Forest Service, 2012). The project area resides in DMU #49A that recorded a post-hunt population of 19 deer/square mile in 2010 (Rolley R. E., 2010). In 2009, the white-tailed deer population goal for DMU# 49A was lowered from 25 deer/square mile to 20 deer/square miles due to concerns for forest regeneration and composition (WDNR, 2009). The deer density for this unit at the end of the 2010 hunting season was 5 % under that population goal. Adjacent DMU’s #49B to the east and #51B to the south both have deer population density goals set at 25 deer/square mile. The 2010 post hunt population density for DMU #49B was 30 deer/square mile (19 % above goal) and for 51B was 50 deer / square mile (99 % over goal). DMU #44 to the west has a deer population goal density of 17 deer/square mile; however, the 2010 post hunt population density was nine deer/square mile (-46 % under goal).

Even with the WDNR reducing the goal of deer/square mile in the project area and below the desired densities in one adjacent DMU, wolves are unlikely to be limited by the availability of prey because white-tailed deer and beaver are still common to abundant in this area of the Nicolet National Forest (NNF). Wolves are still maintaining their established territories over the past years, 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 project.

According to the criteria listed above, the majority of the CNNF can be considered suitable wolf habitat. Mladenoff et al. (1995) determined that approximately 45 % of National Forest lands in northern Wisconsin could be classified as “primary wolf habitat” and 36 % could be classified as “secondary habitat”; which leaves 19 % classified as unsuitable (WDNR, 1999). Essentially all of the project area can be considered suitable habitat due to human population densities, prey availability, current road densities, and landscape pattern.

26

Figure 6: Distribution of wolf territories in Wisconsin in 2011.

Diseases in wildlife are difficult to manage. The CNNF 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 wolf denning or rendezvous sites are known to occur in the project area, measure one does not apply. Measure three 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 two) are likely to provide a useful measure to compare effects of the management alternatives on wolves.

27

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 would 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 (CNF) and Nicolet landbases of the CNNF.

THRESHOLD OF EFFECTS

The CNNF wolf population has exceeded the four pack/40 animal goal set in the federal recovery plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 1978 and 1992) for at least five years. It has exceeded the 80 animals/three consecutive year goal of the Wisconsin state recovery plan for a similar period of time (WDNR, 1999). Across Wisconsin, the gray wolf population had a winter 2010-2011 estimate of 782-824 animals (Wydeven et al (2011). A threshold of effects would have been crossed when management activities on the Forest cause the CNNF to fail to meet population goals set forth by the USDI FWS and the WDNR.

There are two wolf pack territories confirmed in the project area; however, a majority of both territories exist outside the project area on non-FS property. The Peshtigo Brook pack (map #154) consists of two animals and has about 25 % of its territory along the eastern boundary of the project area. The Evergreen Pack (map #142) has two animals and has only about 0.5 % of its territory in the southeastern part of the project. There are no confirmed locations of wolf dens or rendezvous sites within the project area.

In August and September of 2011 there were two reported dog depredation cases in the project area associated with the Peshtigo Brook Pack. When these types of depredation cases occur there generally is a rendezvous or den site nearby. However, the WDNR was not able to locate either of these in both cases and as a result, no protective measures were put in place. Forest standard and guidelines are required (Wydeven, Peshtigo Wolf Pack Information, 2011), if a den or rendezvous site is located prior to or during project implementation, design features would immediately be implemented to avoid any direct effect to wolves (forest plan p. 2-19).

In 2012, the WDNR approved the first wolf-hunting season in the state of Wisconsin. Management of wolf populations and harvest quotas are controlled and determined by the WDNR and as a result is beyond the scope of this project and control of the FS, however some general analysis is provided.

The WDNR set a statewide wolf harvest quota of 201 wolves, 85 of which were reserved for American Indian tribes. There were six wolf management zones and each with a harvest quota. The Lakewood Southeast Project area is part of Zone 2 that had a quota of 20 wolf kill permits. This zone covered the northeastern section of the state and included portions of 11 counties (WDNR, 2013). Within Zone 2, the wolf population was estimated to include about 44 packs with a total of 191-203 wolves. The project area only has 2 % of Zone 2’s wolf population and those pack territories cover only about 25 % of the project area. Harvesting wolves from the project area is possible but it is very unlikely to result in eradication of that population. This is due in part to the low density of wolves, small territory size of the packs in the project area and the difficult challenges with hunting wolves. Wolf hunting in Zone 2 was closed on Nov. 16, 2012 after 19 wolves had been harvested since the opening date of the season; no wolves were harvested within the project area. It was closed prior to reaching the quota to ensure hunters did not exceed the quota. The WDNR thought this was a possible outcome because they were anticipating an increase in harvest rates with the opening of the nine-day deer hunt the following weekend (WDNR, 2013).

28

DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS TO EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

Alternative 1 - No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects:

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

Cumulative Effects:

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

Determination:

No effect.

Alternative 2, 3, and 4 - Action Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects:

Disturbance to wolves are not anticipated from the proposed action alternatives that would include such activities as increased human presence during the logging operations, increased truck traffic, and noise generated from the trucks, saws, and logging equipment. This is because both wolf packs have such a large part of their territories off the CNNF and away from the project that they may not be near the activities when they occur. If the wolves are close to these activities, they would be able to move easily and freely about the rest of their territory to undisturbed areas that could occur inside or outside the project area. Also, since parts of the packs territories do reside on the CNNF and have for many years, these types of activities would not be new occurrences in their environment and the animals may have already have a certain tolerance for them. There could also be direct effects on wolves if treatments were to occur at a den or rendezvous site. Presently, no den or rendezvous sites have been identified in or near the project area. If a den or rendezvous site is located prior to or during project implementation, design features would immediately be implemented to remove any direct effect to wolves. Indirectly, prey density, especially white-tailed deer would be expected to fluctuate somewhat, but generally stay near goal and therefore provide a consistently available prey species.

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 action alternatives would be reduced 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 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 trail 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.

29

Table 10: Proposed actions in the project affecting road density

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 System Roads

Existing Total Project mileage 258.0 258.0 258.0 258.0

Decommission 0.0 -4.2* -4.2* -4.2* Construct 0.0 +2.5 +1.6 +2.2

Unauthorized Road

Decommission 0.0 -59.7** -59.7** -59.7**

Alternative Road Mileage 258.0 196.6 195.7 196.3 * 3.3 miles are currently closed and unavailable for public use. Administrative action. ** 27.9 miles are currently closed and unavailable for public use. Administrative action.

Cumulative Effects:

There would be no direct or indirect effects on wolves as a result of the project under any of the action alternatives, there would be no cumulative effects on wolves.

Determination:

No Impact. 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.

While there would be increase in disturbance from habitat manipulation treatments in the project area, this disturbance is anticipated to be temporary in nature and not anticipated to have any long-term negative direct effects to wolves in or near the project area. The action alternatives would not increase open road density when compared to the existing condition and Alternative 1. As a result, at this road density levels there be no detrimental effects to wolves and would encourage habitat for prey species desirable to wolves.

DESIGN FEATURES FOR THE EASTERN TIMBER WOLF

There are no known wolf den or rendezvous locations within the project areas that would be affected. However, the potential for their existence does exist due to two depredation cases occurring in the project area. If wolf den and rendezvous are located the sites would be protected through the implementation of the forest plan’s standards and guidelines (forest plan, p. 2-19).

6.1.2.2 WOOD TURTLE (Clemmys insculpta) The wood turtle is a medium-sized turtle with a low, broad, gray to brown, usually keeled shell with concentric growth layers. The lower shell (bottom) is yellow and each “square” has an irregular dark lateral blotch. An adult usually reaches 5-8 inches (14-20 cm) in shell length. They can be long-lived, as evidenced by a 58 year old captive specimen. However, it is likely that most Wood turtles in natural populations do not live this long, and the oldest reported turtle from a natural population was a female of approximately 46 years (Nature Serve, 2011a). Wood turtles have an original North American range that extended from Nova Scotia to eastern Minnesota, south to northeastern Iowa,

east to Virginia and north to New York. In Wisconsin, wood turtles were once found throughout the state, except in the southwestern-most portion. Currently it is listed as Threatened, as only small-scattered populations exist in isolated habitat mainly along the Black, Wisconsin, St. Croix, Brule, Oconto, and Baraboo Rivers (WDNR, 2011). On the CNNF, wood turtles have been observed on all ranger districts except the Washburn Ranger District (RD). On the NNF side, the Eagle River-Florence (ERFL) Ranger

30

District (ERFL) has had approximately 17 observations since 1994. Most of these observations have been within or near the Pine River. Other reports have been made on the Wisconsin and Popple River and on smaller systems that include the Woods, Gaspardo, and Simpson Creeks. The LKLA has 20 observations and all of these have been in the southern half. Most have occurred along the Oconto River and its tributaries where there is also one active communal nesting location on the CNNF.

Wood turtles are most commonly associated with forested riparian areas with clear rivers, streams, or creeks with a hard sand or gravel bottom and moderate current are best. Although they are a forest species, they appear to prefer areas in which there are openings in the streamside canopy rather than unbroken forest. The turtle may occasionally be found in non-riparian habitats such as swamps, bogs, wet meadows, upland fields, and farmland. In northern Wisconsin, one study found that juvenile wood turtles vary in habitat preference by month. However, the transition zone between alder thickets and open grassy areas near the river channel consistently has the highest frequency of occurrence of turtles. In eastern Minnesota, wood turtle habitat was suggested as having a generalized slope of 0-2 or 2-6 %, pine, elm-ash-cottonwood, or aspen-birch forest, and hard soil substrate texture such as sand and gravel to rock, sand, sand and gravel, or gravel to sandy loam (Bowen K.D. and J.C. Gillingham, 2004). Other habitat studies have found that river channels, lowland wet areas and alder stands were the most preferred habitats (Arvisais et al 2004) (Bowen K.D. and J.C. Gillingham, 2004). The 20 turtle observations on LKLA occurred in the following habitat: five in water, five in red pine, three in upland hardwoods, three in black ash/elm/red maple, two mix swamp conifer, and two on private lands. Winter dormancy takes place in water with some hibernacula reported in muskrat burrows, under overhanging tree roots along banks, beaver ponds, and the bottom of streams. Wood turtles are opportunistic omnivores and have a strong preference for vegetable matter, including fruits, berries, tender leaves, and mushrooms. They will however consume insects, mussels, carrion, with invertebrates and plant matter predominant (WDNR, 2011) (Nature Serve, 2011a).

Wood turtle’s home ranges are generally centered on a creek, stream or river and may be elongate in shape as a result. Due to this close association with a water system, the turtles are mostly found within 300 meters of them (Arvisais, M., J.C. Bourgeois, E. Levesque, C. Daigle, D. Masse and J. Jutras., 2002). The turtles do show some variation in home range size but often display site fidelity to a particular stream or brook and may aggregate in or near hibernation sites and therefore, a home range may change very little from season to season (Bowen K.D. and J.C. Gillingham, 2004). A Wisconsin study found that wood turtle home ranges averaged less than 2.5 acres.

Reproductive activity (eg. courtship, copulation) is aquatic and they lay clutches of 4 to 18 eggs (avg. 8) in late May or June. This species is a communal nester and females from several miles of stream may congregate in a discrete, traditional site each year to nest. Nesting occurs once a year, usually in sandy, exposed, elevated soil with a southerly aspect near the river or stream. Arvisais et al (2002) reported in Quebec, that during nesting season the turtles related to stand type (mixed), tree and upper shrub cover (young, short, low tree cover, moderate upper shrub layer, and low canopy closure), as well as nearness to an aquatic habitat. Compton et al. (2002) also showed that within their activity area, turtles tended to select non-forested areas that were close to water and had low canopy cover.

Within the project area along the Oconto River is the only large communal turtle nesting site on LKLA. This site receives a lot of use by wood turtles and other turtle species and as a result, there is a high percentage of predation from raccoons and fox on the nests. To reduce this predation and increase the survivorship of young turtles, a predator barrier enclosure was constructed (40 ft. x 80 ft.) in 2010. The construction was of a 6 foot wire fence (4 foot above and 2 foot below ground) that incorporated a special turtle entrance/exit area. This section had several electrified wires about 6-20 inches above the ground, which would allow turtles to travel under it. The turtles would be able to enter and exit the enclosure at this location but it would not allow predators in the fenced area.

31

MEASURES

Potential threats include damming, stream bank stabilization, and intensive timber harvesting activities within 300 m of inhabited wetlands. Stream bank stabilization may impact populations if affected areas are used for nesting. While wood turtles appear to prefer woodlands with mixtures of closed and open canopy and forest edges, complete removal of forest and underbrush on a broad scale is likely to be harmful. Other threats are predation of nests by raccoons, skunks, crows, ravens, and coyotes. Hatchlings and juveniles have many potential predators including raccoons, skunks, opossums, birds, other turtles, and fish. Adults may also fall victim to predatory attacks from mostly raccoons, however, any opportunistic predator might attack an adult wood turtle. Also, the removal of turtles of any age by humans for exploitation in the commercial pet trade will have negative effects on the population.

The forest plan and FEIS include management guidelines in the following section; forest plan (pp. 2-22 to 2-23), RFSS Standard and Guidelines, Wood turtle Guidelines;

• Protect known communal wood turtle nesting sites from predator impacts, where feasible, and protect from site disturbance due to construction, or recreation use impacts.

• Stream bank stabilization projects must protect wood turtle nesting sites. Utilize the following mitigation measures: (1) Reshape the bank and smooth contours when revegetating exposed stream banks; (2) Partially cover stabilization structures with sod and revegetate with species similar to those growing on the adjacent bank; (3) Vary the rock size and utilize native rock for rip rap and within-water rock structures; and (4) Maintain natural lake edges and stream meanders when making shoreline and within stream improvements.

SURVEYS

No detailed population trend data on wood turtles is available for the CNNF. Since 1992, LKLA has been conducting a mark recapture project near the one nesting site where we have captured 48 turtles (80 recaptures).

Surveys have been conducted to assess habitat on LKLA and to locate other existing or potential nesting sites. In 2003, Dave Casper, Milwaukee Public Museum, provided qualitative assessment of general habitat, advice on identifying nesting areas, and made recommendations for research and monitoring. His impression of the southeastern section of LKLA were that communal nest sites on eroded banks are rare and perhaps the known site is the only such one on FS lands. Stream habitat quality for wood turtles is generally good in the 212Ta01, 212Tc18, and 212Tc04 Land Type Associations, but poorer to the north and west and streams become less sandy, rockier, and surrounded by more mesic forest. In the absence of eroded sandy banks, wood turtles are probably nesting individually, at widely dispersed sites. In 2007, Joel Flory, Borealis Ecological Services, conducted streamside reconnaissance surveys to determine locations of wood turtle nesting habitat. Joel recorded data at 153 points along the Peshtigo River, First South Branch Oconto River, North Branch Oconto River, Waupee Creek Drainage, Hay Creek Drainage, Thunder Mountain Area, near Mountain Lakes, and Second South Branch Oconto River. Flory’s survey found very few bare sand areas along the streams and rivers and those located were generally less than 30-40’ in length and 10 foot in height. Most sand banks or adjacent uplands had significant ground cover regardless of overstory. Disturbed soils located were typically a 2 foot by 2 foot area of shallow digging with extensive herbaceous ground cover. He did find that the greatest area for large potential communal nesting could be along a utility corridor. This area has the largest openings for solar radiation and good sandy soils, but is limited in its vicinity to waterways and receives heavy vehicle use. The waterways it does intersect are those not having documented sightings of wood turtles.

32

BOUNDARY AND SCALE OF EFFECT ANALYSIS

Two spatial scales were used to evaluate effects on wood turtles. For evaluating direct and indirect effects, the project area was used. Any turtles foraging in upland habitat within 300 m from an occupied river have the potential to be affected directly (through disturbance or direct contact of harvesting equipment) or indirectly (by loss or modification of habitat). To analyze cumulative effects to the wood turtles, the LKLA landbase was used. Although the species is known to occur in both the Chequamegon and Nicolet landbases, most of the records are from the LKLA (forest plan, p. J-98). Because of the turtle’s limited mobility, non-connectivity of river systems occupied by wood turtles, localized nature as well as the small number of occurrences on the Chequamegon and ERFL landbases, it is unlikely that any interactions occur between populations of the species between these landbases.

THRESHOLD OF EFFECTS

No threshold of effects has been established for this species. However, the BE for the forest plan Appendix J p. 98 to 100) identifies key factors that were determined to be important to the assessment of viability of wood turtles. These key factors were derived from the species viability evaluation (SVE) process for the forest plan revision. Key factors include steep, eroding, sandy, or gravely slopes along riverbanks for nesting and down logs and other woody debris. The forest plan reports that the amount and quality of wood turtle habitat were expected to remain stable or increase under all the forest plans alternatives. Standards and Guidelines that provide greater protection to known and potential nesting sites, and riparian areas would apply under Alternatives 2-9 and the Selected Alternative. This would improve habitat quality under these alternatives beyond what would be expected under Alternative 1 (USDA Forest Service, 2004b).

DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS TO WOOD TURTLES

For this project, the only potential negative effect to wood turtles would occur in stands proposed for harvest that occur near (300 m) known turtle observation points and/or are adjacent to water systems that include historical turtle sightings. The proposed treatments would not negatively alter the stands habitat to make them unsuitable habitat for turtles. However, the operation of harvest equipment within these stands could make contact with turtles causing death or injury. These stands on sandy soils could contain individual nesting sites as indicated by Casper (2003) and Flory (2007).

Alternative 1 - No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects:

Under this alternative, no vegetation management or road construction would occur and there would be no effect on wood turtles and their habitat would remain in its current condition for several years.

Cumulative Effects:

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

Determination:

No effect.

Alternative 2, 3, and 4 - Action Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects:

Within 300 meters of river systems that include turtle sightings there are a total of 122 stands (3,312 acres), 93 stands (2,890 acres), and 51stands (1,703 acres) proposed for harvest in Alternatives (Alt.) 2, 3, and 4 respectively. Of these stands, 107 stands (2,556 acres), 78 stands (2,133 acres), and 38 stands (1,033 acres) would have design features. Design features would have seasonal harvest restrictions, which would only allow harvest activities between October 1 and April 30 while the turtles would be hibernating in streams. It would also eliminate any chance of killing or injuring turtles with the harvest equipment. The others stands do not require design features because they are not suitable habitat and/or the stand has little to no area in the 300 meter buffer located at the furthest boundary from the river. Selection, thinning, and

33

shelterwood harvest treatments would maintain a mix of closed and open canopy and forest edges that wood turtle prefer (Bowen, 2004). Clear cut treatments in the 300 meter buffer would total 228 acres (2.8 %) for Alt. 2, 335 acres (4.1 %) for Alt. 3, and 34 acres (0.4 %) for Alt. 4 which would occur in aspen dominated and jack pine stands. These stands are scattered across the project area and at low percentage of the 300 meter buffered area and thus would not cause a threat from being at a broad scale (Bowen, 2004).

There would be opportunities to create turtle nesting sites within stands that have proposed treatments and are adjacent to streams, which have documented wood turtle occurrences. Alt. 2 has ten, Alt. 3 has seven, and Alt. 4 has five possible stands that are suitable for these sites. A selection of 2-3 of these locations would be based on site-specific conditions that would be determined when the harvest at these candidate areas occurs. Some major criteria used for selection would be funding, adequate access for equipment, remoteness, open exposure to south or southwest and within 200 feet from the stream. The nesting sites would be at least 3,000 square feet in size (e.g. 55’ X 55” or 35’ X 86’). The existing vegetation and top soil would be removed by bulldozer to help reduce and delay the establishment of vegetation. A heavy-duty geotextile fabric (similar to that used to stabilize dikes) is placed on area to help stabilize and to halt weed growth. The nesting material is a mix of concrete sand and crushed road shoulder gravel mix that is dumped over the entire site at a depth of about 4 inches. A 6 foot tall chain link or welded wire exclusion fence would be constructed around the nesting site to keep raccoons, foxes and other predators out of the nesting area.

No proposed biomass removal or prescribed burn projects occur in stands within the 300 meter stream buffers and thus would have no effect on wood turtles and or their habitat.

Road management within the 300 meter buffer area would have the same results with all action alternatives in the following areas: 9.4 miles of decommissioned roads, 1.61 miles of open roads that would be closed, 24.6 miles of open roads that would stay open and 0.36 miles of motorized trail use. The only difference is with construction of roads that would then be closed after use; Alt. 1 is 1.62 miles, Alt. 2 is 0.98, and Alt. 3 is 1.30. Road construction activities would occur in months of turtle inactivity and thus would have no effect on the wood turtles. All other road management activities would have positive effects because they would be reducing the amount of road miles in the area. This would then decrease vehicle traffic in the area that would also reduce the chance of vehicles hitting turtles on these roads.

Cumulative Effects:

Because no negative effects are anticipated under the alternatives analyzed, there would no direct or indirect effects to wood turtles in the project area. Because there are no direct and indirect effects, no cumulative effects exist to be analyzed.

Determination:

Beneficial Effect. There would be no impact from the management activities within the 300 meter buffer around rivers with known wood turtle activities due to mitigation measures to avoid effects to wood turtles. No activities are occurring near the one known communal nesting site within the project area. Beneficial effects would result from the creation of the turtle nesting sites in stands that have proposed treatments adjacent to streams that have wood turtles.

6.1.2.3 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, J. and E. A. Jacobs, 2002). In Wisconsin, the red-shouldered hawk is an uncommon summer resident and breeding birds have been reported from many counties

34

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 would winter in the same state, the vast majority of red-shouldered hawks would migrate 300-1,700 km to winter several states father south (Jacobs, J. and E. A. Jacobs, 2002).

According to Robbins (1991a), 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 hawks 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. John Jacobs has been monitoring red-shouldered hawks on the NNF for over 30 years and 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 J. , 2005)). Another possible factor in maintaining this population is from immigration of red-shouldered hawks from outside the study area. This probability was proposed for sustaining another red-shouldered population with low productivity on the nearby Menominee Indian Reservation (Woodford, J., C. A. Eloranta and A. Rinaldi, 2008)

Table 11: Red-shouldered hawk nesting data for NNF, 1998 - 2008.

Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008* 2009~ 2010 2011 Territories Checked 53 57 61 58 66 68 80 35 52 62 65 Active Territories 19 20 31 28 40 31 39 12 25 25 30 Active Nests 14 19 20 19 23 21 22 2 12 17 11 Successful Nests 7 8 6 7 5 10 4 1 3 5 6 # Young 16 18 12 15 10 20 8 na 6 16 10 % Success Nest 50 42 30 37 22 48 18 50 25 29 55

2008* = only northern NNF searched for nests; 2008~ = only southern NNF searched for nests; Na = no data reported

Because 2008 represents only the northern and 2009 the southern 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 J. , 2008). The spring of 2011 was also unseasonably cold with snow resulting in phenological events at least 14 days behind average. As a result, most red-shoulder hawks laid eggs about 2 weeks later than normal and some probably did not lay or laid only one or two eggs. At nine sites, Jacobs located nests with just “greens” in them but no other nesting activity. He believes that these birds did not lay because of lack of food (especially frogs) caused by the late, cold spring. There were fewer active nest found in 2011 (11) than 2010 (17), which had a very warm, early spring (Jacobs J. , 2011).

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 % or greater.

35

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) found that the average home range size is between 222.4 and 432.4 acres. 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, J. and E. A. Jacobs, 2002). Reuse of the same nest as the previous year has been shown to be very high for red-shouldered hawk. Sometimes the same nest would be used two, three, even four consecutive years. A new nest is often constructed within 492 feet of the previous year's nest (Jacobs, J. and E. A. Jacobs, 2002).

Risks to the red-shouldered hawks include:

• Habitat disturbance during the nesting season. The CNNF has established forest guidelines to protect nest sites (USDA Forest Service, 2004a) and these guidelines are consistent with those implemented by WDNR (Woodford J. , 2005) for goshawks nest protection on state lands which is applicable for red-shouldered hawks:

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 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 would reduce the likelihood of predation and interspecific competition from red-tailed hawks and great horned owls.

• 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 the red-shouldered hawk. The project would not affect 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 project would not affect this risk. Poor weather conditions during the nesting season. The project would not affect this risk.

• Gypsy moths. Defoliation of the forest by Gypsy moth larvae could have a severe detrimental effect 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 project would not affect this risk.

• West Nile 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 red-shouldered hawk reproduction for 2005 (Jacobs J. , 2005). The project would not affect this risk.

• Biomass removal. An emerging issue is the potential impacts to red-shouldered hawk prey population from biomass removal. There are currently many unknowns, but the overall concern is that more biomass removal reduces the amount of small mammal, reptile (snake), and amphibian habitat in hawk foraging areas.

36

MEASURES

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 habitat; 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, M and J. Schmidt, D. Eklund, 2008) 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, 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 % 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 % and is expected to return to 80 % 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).

SURVEYS

Red-shouldered hawk nesting territories and nest locations were obtained from J. Jacobs. There are 10 active nesting territories (active in the past 10 years) in the project area; five of these currently have a nest in a tree. A total of 3,399 acres were surveyed during 2010 – 2011survey season and one new nesting territory was located.

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, P.L., and D.W. Stahlecker, 1993). A disadvantage to surveys during these periods, 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 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 a FS biologist.

37

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 LKLA 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, Distribution of red-shouldered hawks Ottawa NF, 2005) . Red-shouldered hawks are rare on the Ottawa and possibly only nest in the Sylvania Wilderness (Jacobs, J. and E. A. Jacobs, 2002).

3) The degree to which red-shouldered hawk 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.

Summaries of the availability of suitable habitat across the entire are presented to provide further context for the effects 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.

THRESHOLD OF EFFECTS

In the SVE process for the forest plan (USDA Forest Service, 2004b), 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 (forest plan BE; page J-74). Alternatives 3-9 and the Selected Alternative were judged to result in beneficial effects to red-shouldered hawk (USDA Forest Service, 2004a) as a result of standards and guidelines protecting the species and the increase in northern hardwoods forest types (USDA Forest Service, 2004a). The cumulative effect analysis for the project would 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.

DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS TO RED-SHOULDERED HAWK

Alternative 1 - No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects:

There are 10 active red-shouldered hawk nesting territories within the project area. There would be no vegetation management under this alternative; therefore, there would be no effects to red-shouldered hawks or their habitat from timber harvest treatments. The result of not implementing any timber harvesting activities would be the passive maintenance or enhancement of nesting habitat for the species. This would occur from northern hardwood stands continuing to develop large trees (suitable for nest sites) and maintain or increase canopy closure, which are important features of red-shouldered hawk habitat. Road activities, wildlife opening improvement would not be implemented, thus impacts to this species would not occur specific to these actions. In this alternative, the amount of coarse or fine woody debris (CWD & FWD) deposited on the forest floor would not change from the current accrual rate. This biomass would continue to provide forage and cover habitat for several red-shouldered hawk prey species.

Cumulative Effects:

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

38

Determination:

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.

Alternative 2, 3, and 4 - Action Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects

There are 10 red-shouldered hawk nesting territories within the project area. Direct impacts to birds would be minimized from implementation of protective no cut buffer around active nest sites. If any new territories are located in the future, habitat protection measures would be implemented (USDA Forest Service, 2004a). This would include within a 30-acre buffer surrounding nests, no activities would occur. Out to 330 feet beyond that buffer, only activities that do not lower canopy closure below 80 % 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 J. , 2008). These measures protect red-shouldered hawk reproduction, which is believed to be the limiting life history stage of the species in Wisconsin.

The impacts at the project, LKLA, and NNF levels for all alternatives are displayed in Table 12. At the time of implementation and five years post implementation for Alt. 2 and 3 there would be a loss of 30-37 % of suitable habitat. This was mainly due to the many shelterwood harvests planned in mature oak and upland hardwood stands. This amount was a concern based on the assumption that all of the shelterwood harvests proposed include additional seed/removal cuts making that habitat unsuitable for > 50 years.

Table 12: Red-shouldered hawk habitat at the scale of the project, LKLA, and Nicolet landbase. For the 2011 and 2018 projections, the effects of all other projects within the analysis area are included.

Project Area Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Current Condition (2011) 8,664 8,664 8,664 8,664

Following Implementation (2013) 8,657 -0.1% 5,484 -36.7% 5,706 -34.1% 7,942 -8.3% Five years after Implementation

(2018) 8,841 2.0% 5,849 -32.5% 6,071 -29.9% 8,248 -4.8%

Lakewood-Laona Ranger District Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Current Condition (2011) 139,255 139,255 139,255 139,255

Following Implementation (2013) 139,033 -0.2% 135,860 -2.4% 136,082 -2.3% 138,318 -0.7% Five years after Implementation

(2018) 137,931 -1.0% 134,939 -3.1% 135,161 -2.9% 137,338 -1.4%

Nicolet National Forest Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Current Condition (2011) 260,697 260,697 260,697 260,697

Following Implementation (2013) 257,005 -1.4% 257,005 -1.4% 257,227 -1.3% 259,463 -0.5% Five years after Implementation

(2018) 258,546 -0.8% 255,554 -2.0% 255,776 -1.9% 257,953 -1.1%

In an effort to reduce the long-term effects of the proposed treatments on red-shouldered hawk habitat, approximately 1,035 acres of suitable habitat (429 acres oak, 606 acres upland hardwood) would be limited to shelterwood prep cuts that would be similar to a commercial thin cut. While these treatments would probably result in fewer acres of young oak stands over the next fifteen years, they would still move the stands toward long-term desired conditions while ensuring nesting habitat is maintained. These stands are located in the core use area for red-shouldered hawks within the project area and contain active nest sites or are adjacent to untreated stands with active nests. Also, these stands are near or adjacent to each other which would then continue to provide the large block hardwood habitat that this species utilizes. As a result, this would eliminate the long-term unsuitable habitat conditions from the original proposal to these stands being unsuitable habitat for possibly five years instead of fifty years and thus reducing the impacted acres by almost 12 %. The acres of affected habitat could be less because the harvested stands may still be suitable and utilized by red-shouldered hawks immediately after harvest. This is due to the stands would

39

have a canopy closure between 70 - 80 % which is a level that red-shouldered hawks have used in stands for nesting (Jacobs, J. and E. A. Jacobs, 2002). Additionally, the mature upland hardwood trees would still remain throughout the stand with improved growth and possibly used as nest trees. Also, in the “core area stands” winter harvest only mitigations measures would be implemented to insure no disturbance to the birds during the breeding season from harvest operations.

Table 13: Red-shouldered hawk habitat at the scale of the project, LKLA, and Nicolet landbase after change with shelterwood harvest treatments to only prep cuts.

Project Area Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Current Condition (2011) 8,664 8,664 8,664 8,664

Following Implementation (2013) 8,657 -0.1% 5,484 -36.7% 5,706 -34.1% 7,942 -8.3%

Five years after Implementation (2018) 8,841 2.0% 6,884 -20.5% 7,106 -18.0% 8,356 -3.6%

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

Current Condition (2011) 139,255 139,255 139,255 139,255 Following Implementation

(2013) 139,033 -0.2% 135,860 -2.4% 136,082 -2.3% 138,318 -0.7%

Five years after Implementation (2018) 137,931 -1.0% 135,974 -2.4% 136,196 -2.2% 137,446 -1.3%

Nicolet National Forest Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Current Condition (2011) 260,697 260,697 260,697 260,697

Following Implementation (2013) 257,005 -1.4% 257,005 -1.4% 257,227 -1.3% 259,463 -0.5%

Five years after Implementation (2018) 258,546 -0.8% 256,589 -1.6% 256,811 -1.5% 258,061 -1.0%

Despite the modified prescriptions described above, long-term reduction in suitable habitat for red-shouldered hawks would occur in the project area, consistent with forest plan (Management Area) direction for this area. By 2018, there would be a recovery and in growth of 1,216 acres of suitable habitat with Alt. 2, 3, and 4 would have a recovery and in growth of 230 acres. At that time, there would be a reduction of suitable habitat 18-20 % for Alt. 2 and 3 and only 4 % for Alt. 4. These reductions would result in limited opportunities for the project level red-shouldered hawk population to expand and establish new nesting territories in the area. However, these are the consequences of restoring a Northern Dry Forest community and an extirpated barrens habitat. Both of these habitats historically existed prior to fire suppression activities and are not considered suitable woodland hawk habitat. The Northern Dry Forest community is considered rare (S3) in the state and has a global ranking of very rare (G3). The WDNR has identified this part of LKLA and project area as having a major opportunity to accomplish this goal (WDNR, 2011). Pine barren communities are considered imperiled both globally (G2) and in the state of Wisconsin (S2) by the WDNR Natural Heritage Inventory program. Because many rare species of flora and fauna depend on barrens habitat, there is great concern that Pine Barrens habitats in Wisconsin be maintained or restored. The forest plan also gives direction to restore and/or emulate natural disturbance regimes that were historically present within these currently existing pine communities (Objective 1.4c p. 1-3). This would be done through a combination of timber harvests and prescribed fire. The harvest treatments would change the current high density forests in the area to variable-density conditions. Under planting and timber stand improvement activities would aid in the establishment of white pine and other desirable species (see under planting chart project file). The resulting habitat is not considered ideal habitat for red-shouldered hawks in the project area but the Species Viability Evaluation panel focused only on the Forest wide conservation measures for the species through the forest plans standards and guidelines and mainly through the allocation of MA 2B; this project does not contain any MA 2B areas.

40

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.

Biomass harvesting is proposed on 293 acres (3.4 %) of suitable red-shouldered hawk habitat in Alt. 2 and 3. All these stands also have prescribed burns proposed in them after the completion of the harvest and biomass treatments. Although existing structural features such as very large downed logs, cavity trees, and snags would be retained in treated stands, the removal of smaller woody debris would ultimately result in less material on the forest floor in these stands as would be expected in a forest savanna environment. These activities could have an effect on some of the prey species of red-shouldered hawk in these stands by the removal of this cover, though there is little published or unpublished information on the impacts of tipwood or biomass harvest on wildlife species in Upper Great Lakes region northern hardwood habitats. However, the impacts from these activities to the red-shouldered population would be minimal due to it occurring only in about 3 % of its available habitat and none of the stands have red-shouldered hawk nesting activity. Also, all these stands are being treated as part of the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) program that is needed to protect private residential houses in the area from the potential wildland fires. Prescribed burns without biomass removal occur in additional 30 acres for Alt. 2. There are also 110 acres (101 acres lowland hardwood and 10 acres upland hardwood) in Alt. 2 and 3 that would act as firebreaks. As a result, these stands are unlikely to have fire move completely through them due to the lowland stands high moisture content. There are no red-shouldered hawk nests in these stands and as a result, no negative effects to the birds would occur. Road management within red-shouldered hawk habitat would have the same results with all action alternatives in the following areas: 16.2 miles of decommissioned roads, 4.1 miles if open roads that would be closed, 20.1 miles of open roads that would stay open, 5.9 miles of motorized trail use. The only difference is with construction of roads that would then be closed after use; Alt. 2 and 3 are 0.5 miles and Alt. 4 is 0.3. Road management activities would have no effect in all alternatives because they would not occur within the critical “no cut 30 acre” buffer surrounding the nest. There would also be a reduction in the amount of road miles in the red-shouldered hawk’s habitat across the project area which would then decrease vehicle traffic in that area reducing vehicle and human disturbance to the birds.

Cumulative Effects:

By 2018, suitable habitat for red-shouldered hawks across LKLA would experience a small reduction (Table 13). This reduction would occur mainly from the harvest treatments on LKLA within the McCaslin, Honey Creek-Padus, and project areas. This limited reduction trend in habitat is also seen at the NNF scale (Table 13 and Figure 8). It would be between -1.0 % and -1.6 % with all action alternatives. An early downward trend with a slight increase is evident in the future during the period between 2016 and 2021. This decrease is largely due to the long-term loss of oak and some hardwoods on each ranger district 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.

A review at the CNF level also shows loss of habitat until about 2016 (Figure 7). There is a decrease of several thousand acres from hardwood management on the Medford/Park Falls RD and about 1,600 acres of oak harvests on the Washburn Ranger District (WRD). The oak management on the WRD includes about 700 acres that would be converted to Pine Barrens habitat. Also, most of the remaining 900 acres is over mature and in decline, and would require an even-aged regeneration harvest treatment in order to maintain this type on the forest. The loss of oak was anticipated during forest plan development since 96 % of the oak component is over 70 years (USDA Forest Service, 2004a). However, these reductions are occurring over a small period of time with increase occurring afterwards that would re-establish that habitat close to those at the current levels. Following 2016, there is an increase in red-shouldered hawk habitat for 6 years in which those acres return near the current levels of the CNNF (-0.6 %).

41

Figure 7. Red-shouldered hawk habitat trends for Chequamegon and Nicolet landbases

Figure 8. Red-shouldered hawk habitat trends for CNNF landbase

On non-FS lands inside and adjacent to the project area, there are about 4,300 acres of habitat that may be suitable to red-shouldered hawks (Table 9). Assuming that the age structure of the northern hardwoods forested acres (3,327 acres) is similar to the hardwoods on FS land, most of those acres are suitable now. In the past 10 years there has been 119 acres (3 %) of timber harvest in suitable habitat on state and private lands enrolled in the MFL program, 102 was clearcut and thus made unsuitable for 50 years and 17 acres was thinned which is a short-term loss of 5 years. Over the next 10 years, timber harvests throughout the same land base would involve 396 acres (8 %). Most is scheduled to be clearcuts (306 acres) that would make those stands unsuitable long term and 90 acres would be thinned making them unsuitable for five years. For the other suitable habitat on lands with harvest information we would assume a 15-year re-entry cycle for the northern hardwoods that they are evenly distributed among the years since their last harvest, Approximately 200 acres of that habitat would be selectively harvested in any given year and the treatments would 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 (2,820 acres) are assumed available to nesting red-shouldered hawks in any given year. As a result, there are almost 4,000 acres of long term suitable habitat on non-FS lands to add to those on FS lands within the project area (Table 14).

250,000

255,000

260,000

265,000

270,000

275,000

280,000

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

Acr

es

Years

CNF NNF

515,000

520,000

525,000

530,000

535,000

540,000

545,000

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

Acr

es

Years

42

Determination:

May impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability. At the project level, there would be a loss of suitable habitat but the core use areas would be maintained that have most of the red-shouldered hawk nesting activity. Across the NNF area, all alternatives result in small decrease (approximately 1.5 %) in the amount habitat by the year 2018 (Table 14). However, these decreases are a small amount of the available habitat across on LKLA and NNF. Further, nearly 4,000 acres of additional habitat exists on non-FS lands within the project area. Regardless of which action alternative is selected, the total amount of available habitat to red-shouldered hawks on the NNF would be abundant in 2018 (255,554 - 257,953 acres) and at the district level (134,939-137,338 acres).

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 Forest Service, 2004a).

6.1.2.4 BLACK-BACKED WOODPECKER (Picoides arcticus) In Wisconsin, the black-backed woodpecker (BBS) was once known from the forested portions of the state including the southeast, but due to logging in the 1800s to the early 1900s, particularly the exploitation of pine early on, the species has been restricted to the northern third of the state (Robbins, 1991b). Black-backed woodpeckers persisted in lowland conifer areas such as tamarack bogs and were likely to have taken advantage of the recently burned pine/slash areas that would have been abundant in the early 1900s as a result, of the pine volume left in the woods and the fires set to eliminate the risk of uncontrolled wildfires. Other than in coniferous lowlands, habitat for black-backed

woodpecker was scarce after the early logging era. With the creation of the National Forests and the work of the Civilian Conservation Corp in the early part of the last century, many young stands of primarily red and jack pine were established in the northern half of Wisconsin. Many of those stands provide potential habitat to the species today because they are mature enough that mortality of some trees in these stands provides forage to the species. Additional habitat is created as a result of fires, insect outbreaks, and other natural events.

Today the black-backed woodpecker are known to occur in low numbers in the Lake States in habitats that include pole and mature size spruce or fir, pole or mature pine (red, white or jack), tamarack or white cedar. They also use spruce bog habitat and mixed forest with a hemlock component (Short, L.L., 1982) (Corace, R. G., III, N.W. Lapinski and S.J. Sjogren, 2001). The species is attracted to invertebrates that live in or under the bark of recently killed or dying trees (Green, J.C., 1995). Apfelbaum et. al. (1981) found that black-backed woodpeckers foraged almost exclusively on severely burned, mostly dead, jack pine that contained an abundance of wood-boring insects in a study in the Great Lakes Region. The species is considered an irruptive species, with more frequent numbers reported during years following outbreaks of conifer-killing diseases (Corace, R. G., III, N.W. Lapinski and S.J. Sjogren, 2001). Several irruptions of the species have been noted across the United States (Van Tyne, J., 1926) (Axtel, H.H., 1957) (Yunick, R.P., 1985). Northern Wisconsin is considered the southern edge of this species’ breeding range (Corace, R. G., III, N.W. Lapinski and S.J. Sjogren, 2001).

On the CNNF, the black-backed woodpecker prefers decadent jack pine, balsam fir, tamarack, cedar, white spruce, and black spruce stands impacted by fire, disease or wind throw, for foraging and nesting sites. Currently, the CNNF contains approximately 7,700 acres of upland habitat (jack pine and balsam fir 60+ yrs. old) and another 186,000 acres of lowland swamp conifer habitat, which is considered to comprise approximately 90 % of the species habitat across the CNNF (USDA Forest Service, 2004b), p. J-85 to J-88). With the advent of spruce decline and jack pine bud-worm, observations of black-backed woodpeckers have increased over the last several years. During winter 2008 through fall 2010, approximately 15- 20 individual woodpeckers were observed by Forest Service biologists and others across the northern portion of the Nicolet landbase. At least one nest was confirmed in June of 2008, and a second was reported. Some

43

observations were also reported from the Chequamegon landbase as well. Although sightings have increased, no population estimates can be made for the CNNF. It remains likely that the species continues to exist in low numbers on the CNNF and erupts in abundance when suitable habitat becomes available, such as with the spruce and jack pine mortality as discussed above. An analysis of Breeding Bird Survey data from 1966-1996 shows considerable long-term increases in some populations of this species, but no significant population trends.

Limiting factors to the black-backed woodpecker include:

• Habitat disturbance to nesting trees during the nesting season • Loss of pole and mature conifer forest • Intensive salvage logging or other losses of the dead and dying component within pole and mature

conifer forest salvage • Fire suppression

All of these limiting factors have a common element that limits this species. Because black-backed woodpeckers are dependent upon disturbance to create desired habitat, the loss of large amounts of dead and dying conifer habitat on the landscape becomes limiting for the species. This loss occurs either through prevention of events like wildfire or by salvage logging after fire or other events (insect/disease outbreaks, wind disturbance events, etc.) that create desired habitat conditions to allow the species to erupt (Corace, R. G., III, N.W. Lapinski and S.J. Sjogren, 2001). In addition to prevention or salvage of disturbance events, changes in age class from decadent conditions (60+ years on CNNF) to young age classes or conversion from conifer to hardwoods also can reduce habitat thus further limiting the species.

In the analysis of effects, suitable habitat for black-backed woodpecker is defined as decadent (60+ year old) jack pine and decadent balsam fir (FSVeg forest type 1 and 24, respectively) and lowland conifer forest types (FSVeg forest type 12-15, 18, 19, and 22; including upland white cedar) of all ages. Additionally, dead or dying individuals of red pine, white pine, hemlock or spruce may be used by the species as forage sites and nest trees (Corace, R. G., III, N.W. Lapinski and S.J. Sjogren, 2001). Healthy stands of these forest types (red pine, white pine, hemlock, and spruce) are not categorized as suitable habitat in this analysis.

Black-backed woodpeckers have not been documented in the project area. The NNF BBS has documented only two observations since 1987 on LKLA and those are approximately 13 miles north of the project area. All suitable habitats (181 acres) with proposed harvest treatments were surveyed in 2010 and no birds were recorded.

BOUNDARY AND SCALE OF EFFECTS ANALYSES:

Two spatial scales were used to evaluate meaningful effects to black-backed woodpecker. For evaluating direct and indirect effects to the species, the project area was used. Black-backed woodpeckers nesting or foraging within the project area have the potential to be directly (destruction of nest tree) or indirectly (loss of foraging habitat) affected by the proposed activities. Cumulative effects to black-backed woodpeckers were analyzed at the scale of the project area and at the scale of the entire CNNF. Such a large analysis area is appropriate because 1) little is known about the population biology of the species, 2) the species is highly mobile, and 3) based on the ephemeral nature of its habitat, black-backed woodpecker abundance is likely related to resource availability at the landscape or regional scale.

The temporal scale of the cumulative effects analysis includes actions that have occurred over the past three years and those that are reasonably foreseeable. Three years after a tree dies, the suitability of dead conifer stands or individual trees is greatly diminished because the snags no longer harbor abundant insects on which to forage.

44

THRESHOLD OF EFFECTS

In the SVE process for the forest plan FEIS, no minimum numbers of black-backed woodpecker or its habitat were identified. The majority of suitable habitat for the species on the CNNF is lowland conifer forest types, which would not be harvested under any vegetation management project. The remaining habitat for the species is conifers in the older (~60+ year) age classes.

SVE panelists determined that all of the forest plan revision alternatives would have a beneficial effect on the black-backed woodpecker except for Alternative 1(current forest plan) which would have no effect, (USDA Forest Service, 2004b, p. J-86). The action alternatives analyzed in the forest plan revision projected between a 29 % and a 36 % decrease in the amount of upland habitat available to the black-backed woodpecker after 10 years of forest plan implementation. All action alternatives in the forest plan FEIS were expected to have a beneficial impact on the black-backed woodpecker despite the projected losses of upland habitat.

Reserve tree guidelines, emphasis on retention of conifers in upland/lowland transition zones, salvage deferral, and the stability of the majority of the species habitat (lowland conifers) under the revised forest plan were expected to maintain the viability of the species.

DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS TO BLACK-BACKED WOODPECKER:

National Forest system lands within the project area were evaluated for direct and indirect effects of alternatives to this species or its habitat. Harvest treatments were considered as well as opening improvements, biomass harvest, cultural treatments, and road actions.

Table 14: Black-backed woodpecker habitat at the scale of the project, LKLA, and Nicolet landbase. For the 2011 and 2018 projections, the effects of all other projects within the analysis area are included.

Project Area Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Current Condition (2011) 5,408 5,408 5,408 5,408

Following Implementation (2013) 5,393 -0.3% 5,205 -3.8% 5,205 -3.8% 5,283 -2.3% Five years after Implementation

(2018) 5,430 0.4% 5,249 -2.9% 5,242 -3.1% 5,320 -1.6%

Lakewood-Laona Ranger District Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Current Condition (2011) 39,062 39,062 39,062 39,062

Following Implementation (2013) 38,964 -0.3% 38,776 -0.7% 38,776 -0.7% 38,854 -0.5% Five years after Implementation

(2018) 38,878 -0.5% 38,697 -0.9% 38,690 -1.0% 38,768 -0.8%

Nicolet National Forest Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Current Condition (2011) 93,740 93,740 93,740 93,740

Following Implementation (2013) 93,582 -0.2% 93,394 -0.4% 93,394 -0.4% 93,472 -0.3% Five years after Implementation

(2018) 92,939 -0.9% 92,758 -1.0% 92,751 -1.1% 92,829 -1.0%

Alternative 1 - No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

No actions would occur within the project area under the EIS. However, past decisions would be implemented which include two stands for spruce decline salvage harvests. Upland conifer stands that are decadent now would remain so and would eventually convert to another forest type. As the trees die, they may be utilized by black-backed woodpeckers. Lowland conifer forest would remain habitat for the species for the foreseeable future.

In the project, there are about 5,219 acres of lowland conifer forest and 183 acres of jack pine. These forest types are considered primary lowland and upland habitat utilized by this species. Spruce forest types 16

45

and 17, are not considered habitat unless diseased, dying, or recently killed. In the project area, some diseased stands have been harvested or are scheduled for treatment under salvage sales. Generally, these stands of spruce are no longer suitable habitat because they have been dead for more than three to four years.

Cumulative Effects

Losses of mature upland black-backed woodpecker habitat as a result of No Action would occur over a period of decades as stands break up. During break-up, the conifer stands are likely to be used by the species, and individual dead or dying trees are used for a short time while insects remain present. Presently in the project area, there are about 809 acres of upland spruce older than 60 years, and about 175 acres of jack pine, which could provide habitat in the future. Under this alternative, these habitats would likely convert to other types such as hardwood, or a mix of spruce, balsam fir, red pine, white pine, and jack pine and may or may not provide black-backed habitat in the future. Regardless, abundant habitat remains available in other preferred forest types, especially lowland conifer.

Determination

No Impact.

Alternative 2, 3, and 4 - Action Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects

Habitat affected by implementation of this project includes clearcutting, thinning or specialty cuts of approximately 188 acres of jack pine in Alt. 2 and 3 and 110 acres in Alt 4. In both cases treatments would remove most of the dead conifer component, except for reserved areas. The project area contains about 5,408 acres of suitable habitat, of which 5,228 acres (97 %) is lowland conifer and would not be treated. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, a loss of 188 acres of suitable habitat amounts to only 3 % of available habitat and similarly under Alternative 4, a loss of 110 acres results in a loss of about 2 % of suitable habitat (Table 14).

Under Alternatives 2 and 3, 58 acres of the harvested jack pine would be planted back to jack pine, 92 acres to red pine and 38 acres to oak-pine. In Alternative 4, the only difference would be 14 acres are converted to red pine. Black-backed woodpecker may also find conifer snags that provide some resources to them scattered throughout other forested stands in the project area. For example, stands in which white pine, red pine, tamarack or balsam fir is a component, are used at times, but the density of resident black-backed woodpeckers are generally low. Individual birds could be impacted if trees are harvested during the nesting season (typically May – June), but foraging impacts and impacts to the population as a whole, are unlikely given the abundance of habitat available.

Road management within black-backed woodpecker habitat would have the same results with all action alternatives in the following areas: 1 mile of decommissioned roads, 0.40 miles of open roads that would be closed, 4.24 miles of open roads that would stay open, 1.7 miles of motorized trail use, and 0.1 mile construction of roads that would then be closed after use. There would be no effect from any alternative’s road management activities due to the limited amount of this work occurring in black-backed woodpecker habitat. Also, black-backed woodpeckers do not avoid road edges, openings or open corridors and have been observed either foraging or nesting in or near such areas.

Impacts from prescribed fire and biomass removal projects are not expected to have negative affects to this species. Prescribed fire and biomass removal are proposed together within 33 acres of suitable habitat for Alternatives 2 and 3. In addition to this, in Alternatives 2 and 3 there is 76 acres of habitat that is being used as a firebreak and 60 acres in Alt. 4. While removal of dead and down conifer, for biomass harvest could reduce foraging habitat, there remains an abundance of standing dead and down in both reserved areas and untreated units across LKLA and CNNF (Table 14). There could also be a positive impact from the prescribed fires due to some trees may die producing foraging habitat for the birds in those stands.

46

Cumulative Effects

By 2018, suitable habitat across LKLA would experience a small reduction (Table 14). This reduction would be less than 1.0 % and occur mainly from jack pine harvest treatments on LKLA within the McCaslin, Boulder, and Flower Lake projects areas. This trend of a limited reduction in habitat is also seen at the NNF scale (Table 14). It would be a loss of about 1.0 % with all action alternatives. At the NNF level, from 2011 to 2018 there is a small and slow decline of habitat that is largely due to the harvest of mature jack pine. Most of those treatments are occurring within the Long Rail, Fishel, Northwest Howell, and Phelps projects on the ERFL. However, there remains abundant habitat both at the project level and at the larger scales of LKLA and CNNF levels, even though the amount of acreage of suitable habitat declines.

On non-FS lands inside and adjacent to the project area, there are about 3,050 acres of habitat that may be suitable for black-backed woodpeckers (Table 9). In the past 10 years there has been no timber harvest activities within the bird’s habitat on state and private lands enrolled in the MFL program. In the next 10 years on these lands, there is a total of 132 acres (4 %) harvest treatments. There would be about 28 acres of clearcuts and 105 acres of over mature tree harvest treatments that would make those lands unsuitable for 60 years. There are also about 63 acres being thinned and 186 acres having selective harvest that would make these stands less than ideal but would still have some habitat components that would be beneficial to the birds.

No negative effects to black-backed woodpeckers or their habitat is expected as a result of implementation of the action alternatives. The loss of habitat for the black-backed woodpecker is less than or equal to 1 % at LKLA and NNF levels but there is ample suitable habitat available at those levels and also on non FS lands in and around the project area.

Determination

No Impact

DESIGN FEATURES:

Forest plan standards and guidelines (USDA Forest Service, 2004a) p. 2-14) for reserve tree management would provide conifer snags for the black-backed woodpecker. In all conifer-thinning activities, single trees and inclusions of poor quality conifer would be maintained as well as additional healthy trees to provide for future habitat.

6.1.2.5 CONNECTICUT WARBLER (Oporornis agilis) The Connecticut warbler, a Neotropical migrant, has been found in association with fifteen different forest types on forests in Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the provinces of Canada (Kudell-Ekstrum, 2002). Breeding habitat consists of spruce-tamarack bogs, muskeg, poplar woodlands, moist deciduous forests, and jack pine. In northern Wisconsin, they are most often associated with lowland conifer and jack pine; there is a notable population centered in the jack pine belt in the northwest portion of the state.

A well-developed shrub layer is considered by some to be the most important habitat feature for this bird (Kudell-Ekstrum, 2002). With respect to habitat age

and stand density, habitat for the species includes mature lowland coniferous habitat; mature jack pine with a dense shrub understory; pole-sized jack pine; pole-sized ash, elm, and red maple; red pine; and pole-sized mixed swamp conifer. Connecticut warblers nest on the ground in a small hollow or on a moss mound in bogs or in grasses or weeds or at the base of a shrub (Kudell-Ekstrum, 2002).

On the CNNF, this species is found in low numbers on both the Nicolet and Chequamegon sides. There are approximately 19 occurrences recorded from the Nicolet National Forest Breeding Bird Survey at 16 sites (Nicolet Breeding Bird Surveys 1987–2010, but no birds have been confirmed at survey points since 2007.

47

Additionally, there are approximately 72 observations on the Chequamegon for survey years 1992–2007 (Danz, N.P., A. Bracey and G.J. Niemi, 2008). The Breeding Bird Surveys have recorded low numbers of individuals on both landbases, in years when they are detected. The observations occurred in a variety of habitats that include conifer lowland habitat types (northern white cedar, mixed swamp conifer, and mixed black ash swamps), red pine, and jack pine. Overall observations across the CNNF appear to be higher in the north and lower in the south.

Numbers of Connecticut warbler’s observations decreased between years 1989–2002 for the Nicolet National Forest. Similar decreases were reported from the North American Breeding Bird Survey data for 1989–2000 (Howe, R. W. and L. J. Roberts, 2005). Trend data for the northern portion of the Nicolet should be looked at cautiously, since some years this warbler is not reported at all during the two day survey period, and other years only one bird is detected and only on one occasion was two birds reported.

Limiting factors to the Connecticut warbler include:

• Striking buildings, lighthouses, or towers during migration (Nature Serve, 2011b). • Loss of pine barren forest and jack pine from budworm and fire suppression are threats on the

CNNF (Kudell-Ekstrum, 2002).

Connecticut warblers have not been reported at any of the semi-annual breeding bird survey point count locations within or near the project area between since 1987. There were also no occurrences from road point surveys conducted in or near the project in the years that these surveys were conducted (1992-2000). Finally, 2010 and 2011 project level surveys conducted in suitable habitat with proposed harvest treatments did not locate any occurrences of this species.

BOUNDARY AND SCALE OF EFFECTS ANALYSES

Two spatial scales were used to evaluate meaningful effects to Connecticut warbler. For evaluating direct and indirect effects to the species, the project area was used. Connecticut warblers nesting or foraging within the project area have the potential to be directly (destruction of nests) or indirectly (loss of nesting or foraging habitat) affected by the proposed activities. Cumulative effects to this species are analyzed at the scale of the project area. If appropriate, it was analyzed up to the scale of the CNNF landbase. This analysis area is appropriate because (1) little is known about the population biology of the species, (2) the species occurs at low densities (relatively few observations reported), and (3) based on the availability and abundance of jack pine and lowland conifer habitat, its abundance is likely related to the availability of these types at the larger scale.

The temporal scale of the cumulative effects analysis includes actions that have occurred over the past five years and those that are reasonably foreseeable and specific to suitable habitat. Actions within the last five years may not have been incorporated into the Forest Service vegetation database and were tracked separate from older past actions, the effects of which are assumed to be manifested in current conditions (as represented in the vegetation database).

On National Forest system lands within the project area, approximately 9,218 acres are currently classified as suitable Connecticut warbler habitat. Forest cover types, (FSVeg codes) 01, 12 - 15, 18, 19, 22, 48, and 71 are considered suitable habitat for Connecticut warblers if stands are 30 years old or older (Table 15).

THRESHOLD OF EFFECTS

In the species viability evaluation process for the forest plan revision (Schenck, T., C. Chaney, T. Doyle, M. Shedd, M. St. Pierre & S. Hess-Samuelson., 2004), no minimum numbers of Connecticut warbler or acres of habitat were identified. However, Alternatives 2-9 and the selected alternative were judged to result in beneficial effects to this species as a result of standards and guidelines protecting the species and maintenance of the jack pine forest type, (forest plan p. 2-19 and 20) by harvesting jack pine in blocks of 100 acres or more (forest plan, p. 2-21). Additionally, no management would occur in mature lowland conifer habitat where this species is most abundant.

48

DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS TO CONNECTICUT WARBLER:

In the project area, there are approximately 5,219 acres of lowland conifer, 3,219 of lowland hardwoods and 780 acres of jack pine on private lands that meet suitability criteria for Connecticut warbler habitat. National Forest system lands within the project area were evaluated for direct and indirect effects of alternatives to Connecticut warbler and its habitat. Harvest treatments were considered as well as opening improvement, biomass harvest, fuels treatments, cultural treatments, and road actions.

Table 15: Connecticut warbler habitat at the scale of the project, LKLA, and Nicolet landbase. For the 2011 and 2018 projections, the effects of all other projects within the analysis area are included.

Project Area Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Current Condition (2011) 9,218 9,218 9,218 9,218 Following Implementation (2013) 9,408 2.1% 8,850 -4.0% 8,896 -3.5% 8,928 -3.1%

Five years after Implementation (2018) 9,579 3.9% 9,039 -1.9% 9,078 -1.5% 9,110 -1.2%

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

Current Condition (2011) 48,292 48,292 48,292 48,292

Following Implementation (2013) 48,545 0.5% 47,987 -0.6% 48,033 -0.5% 48,065 -0.5%

Five years after Implementation (2018) 48,831 1.1% 48,291 0.0% 48,330 0.1% 48,362 0.1%

Nicolet National Forest Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Current Condition (2011) 102,966 102,966 102,966 102,966

Following Implementation (2013) 102,670 -0.3% 102,670 -0.3% 102,716 -0.2% 102,748 -0.2%

Five years after Implementation (2018) 103,385 0.4% 102,845 -0.1% 102,884 -0.1% 102,916 0.0%

Alternative 1 - No Action

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effect

There would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to Connecticut warblers or their habitat. No vegetation or other management would occur with this alternative under this project. Existing available habitat and conditions for Connecticut warblers would remain the same.

Determination: No Impact.

Alternative 2, 3, and 4 - Action Alternatives

Direct and Indirect Effects

There are 9,218 acres of suitable Connecticut warbler habitat in the project area. Under Alternative 2, there would only be 558 acres of this habitat harvested by either clearcut or removal harvest. After harvest 216 acres would be converted to other forest types not considered suitable habitat for this species (Table 15). However, there would be 58 acres replanted back to jack pine, which would become favorable habitat after 30 years. There would also be 284 acres converted to either pine-oak or red oak, which are not considered suitable but may have small components of suitable within them. Under Alternative 3, there would only be 512 acres harvested and 96 acres of this would be replanted to jack pine. There would also be 253 acres converted to either pine-oak or red oak. These habitats are not considered suitable; however, they may contain small components of suitable within them. The remaining 163 acres would be converted to other

49

habitat types not considered suitable. Under Alternative 4, there would only be 480 acres harvested with 138 acres converted to other forest types not considered suitable habitat for this species. There would also be 284 acres converted to either pine-oak or red oak. These habitats are not considered suitable: however, they may contain small components of suitable within them. Immediately after harvest in 2013, Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would result in a habitat loss of -4 %, -3.5%, and -3.1% respectively. By 2018, there would be an in-growth of suitable habitat within the project area of 361 acres. This would result in a loss of about only 1 % for all action alternatives (Table 15). Impacts to Connecticut warbler would not occur due to no birds were detected during project surveys and approximately 8,700 acres of suitable habitat does not have proposed harvest treatments.

Also under Alternatives 2 and 3 in suitable habitat are fuels treatments, which include 270 acres of potential biomass harvest. The fuels treatment would remove understory brush and ladder fuels in portions of seven stands (191 acres) that are not otherwise treated for clearcut harvest. These partially treated stands would still provide habitat for this species of warbler. Prescribed fire is planned in only one stand of 11 acres that has no harvest treatment. The habitat would remain unsuitable for several years until a shrub layer is developed. No birds were detected in this stand and as a result, no negative effects from this activity would occur.

Road management within Connecticut warbler habitat would have the same results with all action alternatives in the following areas: 4.47 miles of decommissioned roads, 0.9 miles if open roads that would be closed, 14.63 miles of open roads that would stay open, 3.97 miles of motorized trail use. The only difference is with construction of roads that would then be closed after use; Alt. 2 and 3 are 0.1 miles and Alternative 4 is 0.08. There would be no effect from any alternative’s road management activities due to the limited amount of this work occurring in this warbler’s habitat.

Cumulative Effects

At the district level, Connecticut warbler habitat decreases at very small percentages (< 0.6 %) for all alternatives in 2013 and essentially stays unchanged in 2018 (Table 15). It is important to note that 30+ year old jack pine would only provide habitat for a limited time because jack pine is an early successional species that naturally regenerates after fire events or clear-cut harvest. Without disturbance jack pine forest would most likely convert to other longer lived forest types, which may or may not provide suitable habitat for this species. At the scale of the NNF for all alternatives, suitable habitat also stays basically unchanged in 2018 (- 0.1 %). This is due to the in growth of jack pine habitat becoming suitable throughout the NNF that then off sets those acres of harvested stands.

On non-FS lands inside and adjacent to the project area, there are about 1,035 acres of habitat that may be suitable for Connecticut warblers (Table 9). In the past 10 years, there has been no timber harvest activities within the bird’s habitat on state or private lands enrolled in the MFL program. In the next 10 years on these lands there are 101 acres (9 %) of clearcut planned; 67 acres in mature jack pine and 34 acres in low land conifer habitat that would make those lands unsuitable for 60 years. There are also about 34 acres of jack pine and 63 acres of low land habitat with planned thinnings (9 %) which would make these stands unsuitable for five years. About 300 acres of low land conifer would have selection harvests conducted and thus no negative effects to the habitat would occur.

No negative effects to Connecticut warbler or their habitat is expected as a result of implementation of the action alternatives. The loss of habitat for the warbler is less than or equal to1.0 % at LKLA and NNF levels but there is ample suitable habitat available at those levels and also on non FS lands in and around the project area.

Determination

No Impact. Habitat does decline following treatments within the project area (3 % to 4 %) and at very small amounts at LKLA and NNF levels (0.0 % to 0.6 %). However, there are large amounts of suitable habitat at all levels of FS and non-FS lands that do not receive treatment and are available. Also, based on surveys conducted within proposed treatment stands, Connecticut warblers remain absent from those stands in the project area.

50

6.1.2.6 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, 2011). 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, 2011).

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 CNNF (WDNR, 2011) and the populations of marten that currently exist remain concentrated in the reintroduction areas on National Forest land (Woodford, J., B. Kohn, K. Russell, C. Thomas, T. White and A. Wydeven, 2005).

During the winters 2004-2005 and 2008-2009, the USDA Northern Research Center and FS conducted hair snare surveys on LKLA to assess occupancy and if found, genetic relationships of marten in northern Wisconsin (Williams, B. W. and K. T. Scribner, 2006). Survey blocks were determined by GIS analysis that selected the highest likelihood of occurrence by marten based on habitat conditions. The two areas selected were along Forest Road (FR) 2123 (Diamond Roof) and FR 2131 (Catwillow) and no marten were recorded. The project area has habitat but it was identified as having low potential (0-10 %) of being suitable for pine marten occupancy (Zoller, 2004). For those reasons there was no detailed analysis completed for American marten for this project.

Determination (All Alternatives)

No Impact. There are no reports of American marten in the project area. The potential for occurrence of this species in the project area is extremely low due to poor habitat and this area is about 40 miles south of the nearest documented marten observations on LKLA. Marten have displayed only limited dispersal since their reintroduction on the Eagle River Ranger District (45 miles north of project area) and the maximum distance a marten has been recorded to disperse from its home range is approximately 15 miles (Eklund et al 2003).

51

6.1.2.7 BATS The Little brown myotis (LBM), Northern long-eared myotis (NLE), and Tri-colored bat (TCB) were recently added to the updated CNNF’s RFSS list due primarily to concerns over White-Nose Syndrome (WNS) and not because of current scarcity or viability concerns on the CNNF. The three RFSS bats have been listed Region-wide as a proactive measure due to their vulnerability to WNS. Currently, WNS has not been documented in any hibernacula in the upper Midwest, and the CNNF continues to provide essential summer roosting and foraging habitat. Our forest plan standards and guidelines lend themselves to providing and protecting those habitat characteristics which bats favor during the period of time in which they utilize the CNNF the most.

Table 16: Regional Forester Sensitive Species - Bats

Species Required Habitat Known Occurrences

Suitable Habitat Present?

Little brown myotis

Roosting: caves/mines in winter, in buildings, bat houses, trees with loose bark in spring, summer, and fall. Foraging is in forested areas over water, along margins of lakes and streams.

Forest-wide Yes

Northern long-eared

myotis

Roosting: caves/mines in winter, in trees with crevices or cavities, and bat houses in spring, summer, and fall. Foraging is under forest canopies with cluttered understories, along forest edges and paths, especially in uplands.

Forest-wide Yes

Tri-colored bat

Roosting: caves/mines in winter, in dead leaf clusters in tree foliage, especially oaks, and sometimes in buildings in spring, summer, and fall. Foraging is along forested streams and forest edges, in both uplands and bottomlands.

Great Divide Washburn Yes

Assumptions:

1. The CNNF does not contain any known bat hibernacula. The primary focus is for protecting and providing adequate roost sites, and foraging locations not only during the summer months, but also during the spring and fall migratory periods.

2. By following the goals/objectives and standards/guidelines outlined in the forest plan we would contribute to a species-rich, diverse, robust, and healthy forest system that can provide for a wide range of wildlife and plant species needs, including those of the RFSS bats.

3. Bats will continue to be of increasing interest and concern on the CNNF, and across the country, into the foreseeable future. By incorporating them into our management strategy and future planning, the CNNF will continue to be advocates for bat conservation, and will be better able to provide proactive and innovative responses to threats such as white-nose syndrome. See Appendix D for a list of forest plan standards and guidelines that could be applied to RFSS bats.

52

BAT SPECIES SPECIFIC LIFE HISTORY

Little Brown Myotis (Myotis lucifugus)

Life History and Habitat: Like most other bats, the little brown is active primarily at night. The bats will congregate together before going out to feed at places called night roosts. These roosting areas are different from the daytime roosting sites where the bats spend the day. The bats will also take breaks while foraging at night to digest food and to regain energy reserves for additional foraging. While taking these breaks, the bats will temporarily roost under tree bark, on branches, eaves of houses or under rocks. Diets of the little brown bat include moths and aquatic insect larvae. The preferred foraging area for the bat is open areas free of clutter like tree branches and tall ground cover. Foraging

little brown bats can be most frequently seen along the edges of forests, and over streams and lakes (UW Stevens Point, 2012a). The adult bats will begin foraging in more cluttered areas when the juveniles begin to find their own food to decrease intraspecific competition with the young (Adams, 1997). Summer colonies form in tree cavities, buildings, and bat houses. They hibernate in caves and old mines, sometimes migrating hundreds of miles to reach a suitable site.

In Wisconsin, the little brown bat will roost during the day in buildings, under the bark of some trees, under rocks, and sometimes in caves and abandoned mines. During the winter, the bats will find a different place than their summer roosting sites to use as their hibernacula. Again, in Wisconsin, these sites tend to be caves or abandoned mines. The bats will choose a winter roost based on humidity (greater than 90 %) and choose places where the temperatures above freezing (UW Stevens Point, 2012a).

Before the young are born, female little brown bats have an average home range size of about 74 acres, but this range is decreases to about 42 acres after the young are born. This is likely due to lactating females returning to the maternity roost a few times during their normal feeding time to nurse the young. The females shorten the distance they fly from the roost at night to forage so that during their rest times they can return to the roost (Henry, M., D.W. Thomas, R. Vaudry, and M. Carrier. , 2002).

Predators to the little brown bat include snakes, house cats, raccoons, and other small predators. By far humans kill more little brown bats in Wisconsin than natural predators by exterminating colonies that may take up residence in attics of homes (UW Stevens Point, 2012a).

Foraging habitat requirements for this species are generalized; usually forages in woodlands near water. In winter, a relatively constant temperature of about 40 degrees F and 80 % relative humidity is required; uses caves, tunnels, abandoned mines, and similar sites. Maternity colonies commonly are in warm sites in buildings and other structures; also infrequently in hollow trees. Narrow micro (Nature Serve, 2011c) climate is suitable for raising young, and availability of suitable maternity sites may limit abundance and

distribution.

Population Status and Trends: The little brown bats range spans north to Alaska, south to central Mexico, west to California, and east as far as Maine and Costal Canada (Figure 9). The little brown bat is distributed state wide in Wisconsin; however, it is less common in urban areas. Myotis lucifugus has been

Figure 9: North American Distribution of the Little Brown Bat (Nature Serve 2011c).

53

known to roost in attics of peoples’ houses and take up residence in barns and sheds. Female little brown bats will establish a maternity colony commonly in attics where it is warm. The bat roosts in dark secluded areas during the summer days, and hibernates in caves or abandoned mines during the winter (Nature Serve, 2011c). It is not listed as endangered or threatened by the Federal Government but in the State of Wisconsin, it has recently been listed as threatened. Little brown myotis have been documented on all five ranger districts on the CNNF, which include Ashland, Bayfield, Florence, Forest, Oconto, Price, and Taylor Counties. No population or trend data is currently available for the CNNF.

Northern Myotis (Myotis septentrionalis)

Life History and Habitat: The northern myotis or northern long-eared myotis, formerly Keen’s myotis (Myotis keenii), is an insectivorous bat feeding on caddis flies, moths, beetles, flies, and leafhoppers and emits high intensity sonar when hunting most flying insects (Nature Serve, 2011d). They provide a valuable role in pest control. Northern myotis uses specialized gleaning attacks, which allow them to passively listen and utilize a frequency of echolocation that cannot be heard by moths (Nature Serve, 2011d). Other than in maternity roosts the northern myotis is fairly solitary and is most likely to be found alone, however, there are times when it can be found in groups of up to 100 individuals

(BCI, 2001). At the end of summer, this species has been known to move up to 35 miles to hibernate, which they will do for eight to nine months. In the fall, the northern myotis is commonly found at cave and mine entrances, where some hibernate. However, large numbers have been reported entering caves in March, leading to the suspicion that they hibernate outside, perhaps in cliff-face crevices.

This species is generally associated with forested communities. The northern myotis has an apparent reliance on mature forest habitats. Tall, wide-diameter, partially dead trees with a high percent of bark remaining are favored by the northern long-eared bat. Such trees tend to be found in over-mature forest stands (UW Stevens Point, 2012b). A study in New Hampshire found that northern long-eared bats relied on the largest available snags as summer roosts.

Nursery colonies have rarely been located. Those that have been found were small and in a variety of sites, including a barn (UW Stevens Point, 2012b) and a small cabin (Brandon, 1961), though most likely the majority occur under the loose bark of trees, similar to the colonies reported from Indiana (Mumford & Cope, 1964).

Population Status and Trends: The northern myotis inhabits eastern North America from Manitoba across southern Canada to Newfoundland, south to northern Florida, and west to Wyoming. This bat is widely distributed in the eastern and north central U.S. and

adjacent southern Canada. It ranges from Newfoundland and eastern Quebec south through New England and the mountains of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia to the north central panhandle of Florida (formerly) and northwestward through Alabama, northern Arkansas, the eastern Great Plains, and the western provinces, reaching its northwestern limits in northeastern British Columbia and southern Northwest Territories (Figure 10). Three individuals, including a lactating female, were (Sasse, D.B.; P.J. Pekins, 1996) recently recorded in Louisiana. The general summer and winter ranges appear to be identical, locally distributed throughout the range all year.

The species is more common in the northern part of the range than in the south and rare in the northwestern portion of its range. It has been reported as very rare in Alabama, uncommon in Indiana, Kentucky,

Figure 10: North American Distribution of the Northern Myotis (Nature Serve 2011d).

54

Tennessee, and Wisconsin. It is not listed as endangered or threatened by the Federal Government however, in the State of Wisconsin it has recently been listed as threatened. The northern long-eared myotis have been documented on all five ranger districts on the CNNF, which include Ashland, Bayfield, Florence, Forest, Oconto, Price, and Taylor Counties. No population or trend data is currently available for the CNNF.

Tri-colored Bat (Perimyotis subflavus). Formerly known as the Eastern pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus)

Life History and Habitat: The tri-colored bat is found throughout the eastern forests of America. These bats are one of the first to enter hibernation, typically in September or October, and one of the last to emerge in the spring. Mating typically occurs in the autumn, before hibernation. Fertilization occurs in the spring when they become active, typically in April or early May, and birth usually occurs from late May to mid-July. The pups, usually twins, are capable of flight in about three weeks and are completely weaned by week four. In the wild, these bats can live up to 14 years.

Figure 11: N. American Distribution of the Tri-colored bat (Nature Serve, 2011e)

Tri-colored bats spend approximately six to nine months per year hibernating in caves or mines. They typically hibernate singly on cave walls or ceilings where there is minimal airflow and stable conditions. These bats show high roost site and hibernation site fidelity, and have been shown to return to the same cave or mine every winter of their lives (BCI, 2001). During their active period, the sexes live separately. Males will typically stay solitary while females congregate into small, 35 individuals or less, maternity colonies in tree cavities, and rock crevices. They are rarely found in buildings or in deep woods, seeming to prefer edge habitats. In the fall, these bats perform short annual migrations between winter hibernation and summer roost/nursery sites.

Tri-colored bats are among the first species to emerge in the evening. They are weak fliers and demonstrate an erratic, fluttering flight pattern. Foraging typically occurs along forest edges, over ponds, and waterways for small insects, such as leafhoppers, ground beetles, flies, small moths, and flying ants (BCI, 2001). Bat foraging also occurs along edges between intact forests and cut areas, but rarely in the middle of large regenerating stands. These bats usually have two foraging periods per night, one beginning soon after sunset, and another around midnight or before sunrise.

Snags, dead wood, and suitable live trees are very important habitat elements and typically provide the primary summer bat roosts in forested landscapes. Most eastern bat species will roost in tree crevices, cavities (hollows), or foliage. Large trees in older forest stands with an open understory are more often selected, and bats especially rely on deep tree cavities, loose bark, and lightning strike crevices for roosts. Older forest stands, and stands with characteristics of older forests, such as high snag densities and large trees, appear to have the greatest abundance of bats (BCI, 2001).

Little is known about tri-colored bat summer roosting and feeding habitat requirements. Initial information concerning summer habitat indicates use of deciduous forest trees in landscapes that include interspersed non-forested patches. Since this habitat is widespread and abundant in eastern North America, the primary risk to habitat may involve availability and suitability of winter habitat or pesticide exposure in summer habitat, as described above (Thompson, 2006). Better knowledge of summer habitat requirements and the

55

impact of management activities on this habitat is a prerequisite to further management guidelines (BCI, 2001).

Threats and Limiting Factors

The three species of bats analyzed below are considered cave-dwelling species that spend a majority of their maternity and/or hibernation period in caves, mines, or similar structures. Like many other cave- and mine-dependent bat species, disturbance during hibernation or maternity periods is a significant factor in their widespread decline (Thompson, 2006). The foremost factor leading to population declines is unwarranted destruction of roost sites, particularly hibernacula. Widespread recreational use of caves and indirect or direct disturbance by humans during the hibernation period poses the greatest known threat to these species. Bat conservation efforts have therefore focused primarily on protecting hibernacula from vandalism and physical alterations. Food chain poisoning by the use of particular insecticides, such as organochlorines and anticholinesterase, is a secondary factor demonstrating negative impacts on insectivorous bats.

Recently a greater threat to hibernating bats has emerged in the northeastern United States in the form of a disease called white-nose syndrome (WNS). This disease is named for the white fungus evident on the muzzles and wings of affected bats. This disease was first documented in eastern New York during the winter of 2006-07. Since then WNS has rapidly spread to multiple sites throughout the northeast. White-nose syndrome has been associated with a recently identified psychrophilic (cold-loving) fungus (Geomyces destructans) that thrives in the cold and humid conditions characteristic of the caves and mines favored by bats. In addition to the characteristic white fungus found on affected bats, they will also have low body fat, will move to colder parts of the hibernacula, fly during the day and during cold winter weather when insects they feed upon are not available, and exhibit other uncharacteristic behavior (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2012).

Since its initial discovery, WNS has spread quickly and at the end of the 2010-2011 hibernating season has been confirmed in 16 states and four Canadian provinces. More than half of the 45 species of bats found in the United States rely on hibernation for winter survival. Eleven cave-hibernating bats, including four endangered species and subspecies are already affected by or are potentially at risk from WNS (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2012). Of these species, four are found on the CNNF (big brown bat, little brown myotis, northern long-eared myotis, and tri-colored bat-three are analyzed). Big brown bats are typically found in lower numbers in the affected sites, and few have been found with the signs of WNS. Bats are dying in record numbers and as of January 2012 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists and partners estimate that at least 5.7 million to 6.7 million bats have died from WNS in the Northeast and Canada. In many hibernacula, mortality rates of 90 to 100 % have been reached (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2012). Due to these extreme declines many experts believe that the once-abundant and universal little brown myotis has the potential to become extinct in the Northeast in only 7-30 years, and that a similar fate may exist for the Indiana, northern long-eared, and tri-colored bats (Turner, Gregory G., DeeAnn M. Reeder, and Jeremy T.H. Coleman, 2011).

56

Figure 12: White nose syndrome occurrence by County and Province as of 03/30/2012.

Though WNS has not yet reached Wisconsin, it has come as close as southern Indiana and Missouri (approximately 200-250 miles from the southern Wisconsin state line) and Ontario, Canada (approximately 190-200 miles from the northern Wisconsin state line). As a result of the devastation of WNS in the Northeast, its rapid spread and potential impacts, the Wisconsin Natural Resources Board in 2011, listed these three cave bat species, little brown myotis, northern long-eared myotis, and tri-colored bat as threatened species. They also added the WNS fungus as a prohibited invasive species, and instituted mandatory decontamination procedures when entering or exiting caves or handling bats.

In 2011, the Eastern Region of the USFS along with the CNNF also listed these once common bat species as Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species. This is because there has been no consensus from experts as to how WNS spreads, how to prevent its continued spread, or a possible cure. The Eastern Region, incorporating USFWS recommendations, has implemented a WNS Regional Response Plan with strict guidelines for the decontamination of persons and gear and has curtailed non-essential contact with bats (USDA Forest Service, 2011).

It should be noted although, that on the CNNF, no bat-accessible mine openings, caves, or other structures that could be used for fall swarming or winter hibernation habitats are known to exist. Thus, the spread of WNS and disturbance of winter hibernacula is not an issue. However, CNNF management actions that could be considered threats to the bats are associated with disturbance of summer roosting and foraging habitat.

Unfortunately, little is known about the summer roosting and feeding habitat requirements for all three species of bats listed above. Initial information concerning summer habitat indicates use of deciduous forest trees in landscapes that include interspersed non-forested patches. Since this habitat is widespread and abundant in eastern North America, the primary risk to habitat may involve availability and suitability of winter habitat or pesticide exposure in summer habitat. Better knowledge of summer habitat requirements and the impact of management activities on this habitat is a prerequisite to further management guidelines (BCI, 2001).

57

MONITORING AND SURVEYS

Eight bat species, accounting for approximately 12 % of the state’s mammal diversity, have been recorded in Wisconsin; which include the big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus), northern long-eared myotis (Myotis septentrionalis), tri-colored bat or eastern pipistrelle (Perimyotis subflavus), and the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), which has not been found in Wisconsin since the 1950s. Of these species, all have been documented on the CNNF, excluding the Indiana bat.

Active monitoring and surveying for bat species began in 2006 on the CNNF and prior to this any documented occurrences primarily came from reports by county health officials, neighboring National Forests, the WDNR, and to some extent the public. These reports typically were of bats found near the CNNF boundary and stemmed from dead bats that were recovered, or bats brought in for disease testing.

Bat monitoring on the CNNF actively began with the initiation of summer absence/occurrence mist net surveys on the Medford-Park Falls landbase. Since then a different District has been surveyed each year between the months of June and August. With the completion of surveys on the LKLA landbase in 2010, the first round of surveys has been accomplished. The second round began in 2011. This would continue into the future with each District being revisited every five years. In addition to mist netting, site specific absence/occurrence acoustic surveys began in 2008, and in 2009 a Region-wide acoustic monitoring program was initiated across Forest Service Regions 8 and 9 in response to white-nose syndrome. Since the inception of this program, the CNNF has remained actively involved with 12 established survey routes and a representative serving on the three-member Eastern Region Acoustic Centers of Excellence team. These acoustic transects are completed using a bat detector placed on the roof of a vehicle. The vehicle is then driven on a 30 mile transect, no faster than 20 mph. These transects, usually two per District, are run a minimum of three times per season. The collected acoustic recordings are then analyzed. In addition to gathering valuable bat species absence/occurrence data across large portions of the landscape, it is hoped that it will provide baseline data for areas currently unaffected by WNS. The CNNF additionally maintains and monitors nearly 80 bat houses across all five ranger districts. These bat houses are typically monitored a minimum of once per year between May and August.

The most recent acoustic transects and/or mist net surveys conducted in the project area occurred in August 2011. Miss netting surveys were completed on August 4 and two species of bat were captured, big and little brown bats. Acoustic recordings were conducted on approximately 35 miles of roads within and adjacent to the project area. The following data table shows the results of the survey completed on August 4.

Total recorded Anabat files: 318, Total files with quality bat data: 200. The remaining 118 files were of poor call quality making ID difficult or impossible, or were non-bat in origin such as road noise or other interference.

Table 17: Summary of Anabat acoustic transects survey results for project area.

Number of Anabat Files

Date HFG Myotis LABO LACI LANO EPFU EPFU/LANO LFG TOTAL

8/4/2011 22 77 33 13 13 8 23 11 200

HFG = High Frequency Group - ≥35 kHz (Myotis lucifugus, Myotis septentrionalis, Lasiurus borealis, Lasiurus cinereus, and Perimyotis subflavus); Myotis = Myotis species including Myotis lucifugus and Myotis septentrionalis; LABO = Lasiurus borealis; LACI = Lasiurus cinereus; PESU = Perimyotis subflavus; LANO = Lasionycteris noctivagans; EPFU = Eptesicus fuscus; EPFU/LANO = Eptesicus fuscus and Lasionycteris noctivagans LFG = Low Frequency Group - <35 kHz (Lasiurus cinereus, Lasionycteris noctivagans, and Eptesicus fuscus)

Each file does not necessarily represent a single or individual bat record. The chances that the same bat is recorded multiple times is unlikely in most cases due to the transect are being driven at or over 20 mph, but multiple times can never be completely eliminated. However, the survey and data does show a good

58

presence/absence occurrence and indicates that this part of LKLA has a good representation of Wisconsin bat species.

ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS

While there are some species specific differences in use of summer roosting habitat and foraging habitat (Table 18), we do not have adequate information to analyze these individual differences at the project scale. However, there is enough similarity in the type of roosting and foraging habitat among the three bats species to analyze them together at the project scale.

Thus for the purposes of this analysis, the following suitable summer foraging and roosting habitat criteria apply to all three bat species and were derived from USDA Forest Service Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data contained in the 2006 Conservation Assessment (CA) for Five Bat Species in the eastern United States (Thompson, 2006). The FIA habitat status data for the tri-colored bat and the northern long-eared myotis were used in conjunction with forest type codes, also known as CDS or FS Veg codes, to come up with the following description.

Potentially optimal or preferred suitable foraging habitat for these species could generally be defined as upland hardwood (CDS codes 53, 54, 55, 59, 60, 63, 80-87, 89, and 90), bottomland hardwood (CDS codes 70, 71, 74, 76, and 79), and pine-hardwood (CDS codes 20, 41, 43, 47, 48, and 49) forest types. Potentially optimal or preferred suitable roosting habitat could generally be defined as stands ≥60 years old in upland hardwood and pine-hardwood forest types. See Table 18 for a summary of species-specific foraging and roosting requirements for further information.

Table 18: Table is a summary of species-specific foraging and roosting requirements for the RFSS bats.

Activity Little Brown Myotis Northern Long-eared Myotis Tri-colored Bat

Roost Trees Cavities, under loose bark; tree in gap

Live or dead tree; cavity, crevices, and (under bark); tree in gap not required

Live (or dead) trees; in dead (seldom live) leaf clusters

Use of manmade roosts?

Buildings, bat boxes & condos; possibly use more than trees

Manmade roosts (bat boxes, sometimes buildings) are used, but less than trees.

Manmade roosts (open, lighted areas, e.g., under porch roofs) are used, but less than trees.

Roost Tree Species Not available Oak, maple, ash, understory

spp.

Deciduous forest, especially in oaks. Occasionally in pine-dominated stands and in pine

Roost Tree Habitat

Riparian, open forest, edge, near water Upland forest Upland or riparian

Roost Area Fidelity

Yes, especially manmade roosts

Yes, but with frequent roost switching within an area

Yes, especially compared to other foliage-roosting bats

Foraging Habitat

Forested areas over water, along margins of lakes and streams

Cluttered conditions under forest canopy in uplands: paths, edges, harvest areas

Forested streams with open spaces, edge habitats, uplands & bottomlands

Foraging Strategy

Aerial hawker & less often gleaner Gleaner & aerial hawker Aerial hawker

POTENTIAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS TO RFSS BATS

No bat-accessible mine openings, caves, or other structures that could be used for fall swarming or winter hibernation habitats are known to exist on the CNNF. Thus, there is no direct impact to the winter

59

hibernacula. However, proposed management actions or treatments within this project that may be considered an indirect impact or threat to the preferred summer roosting and foraging habitat would include the following:

Treatment Description

Shelterwood Preparation Cut,

Oak

Oak stands, which have not reached rotation age, would be treated to improve the crown condition and seed potential of selected residual trees in preparation of the shelterwood seed cut. Residual crown closure would be approximately 80 %.

Individual Tree Selection Northern

Hardwood

Hardwood stands would be selectively marked for harvest to reduce stand density, remove undesirable tree species, and promote growth on residual trees. In pole size hardwood stands, residual crown closure would be 75-80 %. In sawtimber size stands, residual crown closure would be 80 %. Canopy gaps would be created in all stands to initiate a new age class. Four to eight 25 to 40 foot gaps per acre would be created by harvesting groups of pole sized trees or one to two large crowned trees. Species diversity would be encouraged in stands. Stands with mid-successional species (red oak, white ash, basswood, yellow birch, and black cherry) would be encouraged with one 60-foot gap for every two acres. Following the 2009 Ash Management Strategy for the Forest, selective marking or canopy gap creation would focus on the largest ash in the stand and retained ash would be in the smaller size classes. In stand 154.017 focus would be to improve spruce grouse habitat by keeping spruce, encouraging spruce regeneration, and breaking up thick balsam fir regeneration.

While some of the projects proposed actions may impact the bats species foraging and roosting habitat, there are forest plan standards and guidelines that may minimize these impacts and are applied to all alternatives. However, bats are not directly addressed in the forest plan, several of the standards and guidelines (e.g. snag retention and recruitment, reserve areas, permanent forest openings, watershed protection, etc.) deal with many key habitat characteristics and are beneficial to bat species. Additionally the forest plan has various management areas outlined with differing desired future conditions that are distributed across the CNNF. These management areas, together with the standards and guidelines for management actions and prescriptions for vegetation composition, contribute to a species-rich, diverse, robust, and healthy forest system that can provide for a wide range of wildlife and plant species needs.

Specific standards and guidelines within the project that address key roosting and foraging habitat characteristics, are beneficial to bats, and minimize treatment impacts include the following:

• Emphasize diversity, cover and (or) mast by reserving tree species such as hemlock, northern white cedar, white pine, red oak, American beech, hickory, ironwood, blue beech, yellow birch, paper birch, and other species that may not have strong local or forest wide representation.

• Reserve the above-listed tree species in small clumps or islands of trees within clearcuts, overstory removal cuts, and other regeneration harvest areas.

• Reserve two to five live trees per acre greater than 11 inches in diameter, or select the largest trees available; and reserve variable size reserve islands/clumps that total up to ½ acre for every 10 acres managed with an even aged harvest.

• Reserve all dead snags and live den trees up to 10 trees/snags per acre, unless they present a safety concern. Emphasize the largest snags and den trees available. Those snags felled for safety reasons should be left on site as coarse woody debris wherever possible. Additional snags would be recruited from live reserve trees.

• Retain long-lived conifers and hardwoods as reserve trees within aspen clearcuts. Where long-lived trees are not present, retain short-lived conifers if they are available.

• Reserve 4 to 9 live trees per acre larger than 11 inches. Focus on the largest trees. • Develop and retain trees over 24 inches in diameter to increase the probability of natural gap

formation and tip-up mounds. The number of reserve trees over 24 inches in diameter should be

60

included within the 4-9 reserve live tree total. Large (over 24 inches) basswood, ash, yellow birch, and red oak are preferred for retention.

Alternative 1 - No action

The little brown myotis was recently recorded within the project area during the 2011 field season and there is a high probability that the northern myotis bat was also present within the project area.

There are approximately 10,939 acres of potentially suitable foraging habitat and approximately 6,640 acres of potentially suitable roosting habitat for these species across the project area.

Under the No Action Alternative, no activities would be implemented in suitable habitat for this species. The result of not implementing the proposed activities within the project area would be the passive maintenance or enhancement of habitat for the species. This would occur as some of the older stands gradually become decadent, increasing the number of snags and dead wood available for roosting. This uncertain use is speculative, so any changes in the condition of stands in the project area would not be possible to quantify and are not likely to have a discernible effect on the little brown, northern myotis or tri-colored bat. Also, since snags are not currently limiting the species in the project area, there would be no indirect effects from this alternative. Since there are no direct or indirect effects, there would also be no cumulative effects on RFSS bats or their habitat.

Determination

No impact.

Alternative 2, 3, and 4 - Action Alternatives

Indirect impacts to summer foraging habitat Within the project area, there are approximately 10,939 acres of foraging habitat (Table 19) for bats. Proposed treatments within summer foraging habitat vary by alternative and affected acres depending on the alternative (Table 19).

Table 19: Percent of summer foraging habitat proposed for treatment by alternative

Summer Foraging Habitat in Project Area

Existing Habitat Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Upland Hardwood 4,234 3,714 3,492 879

Pine-hardwoods 3,486 1,002 790 635 Bottom-land Hardwood 3,219 24 24 24

Total 10,939 4,740 (43%) 4,306 (39%) 1,538 (14%)

[The following description of impacts from forest management to foraging habitat and management recommendations are taken from the “Forest Management and Bats” (Taylor, 2006 Bat Conservation International)].

Bats forage along forest edges, over riparian areas, land adjacent to and influenced by bodies of water, along forest roads and trails and in natural forest gaps or harvest-created openings. Feeding strategies vary greatly among the three bat species. Some forage around ground-level shrubs, while others prefer to forage under the tree canopy, or in the canopy or above it. They feed on a variety of night-flying insects, catching them in the air or picking them off vegetation. Most bats prefer to hunt in small to medium forest openings or gaps, like those created by timber harvests, roads and watercourses or by lakes and ponds. Bats often forage along the vertical or horizontal edges where these habitats or different- aged forest stands meet and along forest corridors and buffer strips.

Bat foraging activity is often concentrated in riparian zones and in gaps in older, more-diverse forest stands. Riparian habitat is especially important because it provides drinking water and high quality foraging habitat, as well as high-quality roosting habitat in more level terrain where cold-air drainage is not a factor. Beaver ponds provide high-quality bat habitat that combines drinking, foraging, and roosting resources. Bats often follow corridors of forest when traveling from roosts to feeding areas.

61

Forest management practices that create small forest openings may foster development of suitable foraging habitat and may even enhance roosts located along forest gaps and edges. Bats often forage along edges between intact forests and cut areas. Smaller harvest areas increase edge habitat per unit area, promoting plant and insect diversity that is beneficial to bats and other wildlife. However, some bat species cannot forage in the middle of large (at least 120 acres) regenerating stands. Roost-tree loss should be minimized when creating openings so that the loss of roosts doesn’t offset the benefits of increased foraging habitat.

A majority of the treatments are even-aged methods (shelterwood and specialty cuts) that are used to regenerate forest habitat through several harvest treatments, which can alter roosting and foraging habitat with both negative and beneficial effects. In the short-term, even-aged methods can reduce canopy cover, which can reduce suitable foraging conditions in large openings for up to 50-70 years after entry, but the size of harvests are limited by forest plan standards and guidelines, and forest bats are known to use forested edge habitats for foraging. Flight corridors can also be maintained through early successional patches by tying together leave-trees and protected filterstrips around streams. Residual trees in the resulting open condition of an even-aged harvest are also subject to increased solar radiation, which increases the suitability of any given tree to becoming a suitable bat roost tree.

In the long-term, even-aged methods are used to regenerate such forest types as oak and oak/hardwoods, which are considered beneficial for the RFSS bats as suitable foraging and roosting habitat, depending on age class and eventual structure. Long rotation periods can also help ensure that mature forest stands would be available into the future. Some of the reserve trees that are required in many proposed actions are retained for future growth. They can potentially create large maternity-grade snags when they die. New herbaceous or herbaceous/shrub openings are sometimes created through these harvest treatments. Minimal or no adverse effects can be expected from the small-scale conversion of favored forested habitat to open habitat. Additionally, any planned future maintenance of these openings would provide long-term foraging and roosting opportunities to RFSS bats. This is done by providing small-scale forested edge habitat, contributing to a diversity of habitat types, which aids insect prey production, and allowing increased solar radiation to reach residual and edge trees. Thinnings benefit bats by increasing flight space in the stand and sunlight to the stand floor, which increases herbaceous growth for bats’ insect prey. Trees left on-site provide some mature forest structure in the form of snags and green trees.

Selection cut treatments proposed in bat summer foraging habitat within the project area are designed to establish an uneven-aged structure. Harvest treatments such as individual tree selection, which leave a variety of tree sizes and ages, create small gaps similar to those formed by natural forest disturbances. This type of harvest treatment maintains diverse forest structure and roost trees, while creating small gaps and enhancing edge habitat for foraging. It also can promote diverse vegetation structure and some increases in herbaceous vegetation, favorable to production of bats’ insect prey.

Table 20: Acres of summer foraging habitat impacted by proposed treatment

Treatments Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Clearcut (4113) 78 109 78 Shelterwood Cuts (4131) 2,679 2,245 700 Selection Cuts (4151) 192 192 64 Thinning Cuts (4220) 1,472 1,472 438 Specialty Cuts (4220) 288 288 234

Total 4,709 (43%) 4,306 (39%) 1,514 (14%) Table includes shelterwood cuts treatments that were changed to “thinnings” in red-shouldered hawk analysis.

About 14 % - 43 % (depending on the alternative) of the summer foraging habitat for bats would receive some harvest treatment (Table 20). However, the built-in project standards and guidelines and vegetation prescriptions are anticipated to minimize any direct or indirect impacts to foraging habitat. In general, the standards and guidelines for management actions and prescriptions for vegetation composition along with the desired future condition for the project area, would contribute to a landscape that is species-rich, diverse, robust, and contains a healthy forest system that can provide for a wide range of wildlife and plant species needs. Although anticipated effects of each management action may vary somewhat by bat species,

62

by adhering to the standards and guidelines, the overall effects of a particular project or action are likely to be beneficial to the little brown, northern long-eared, and tri-colored bats.

Indirect impacts to summer roosting habitat There are approximately 6,624 acres of summer roosting habitat for the little brown, northern myotis, and tri-colored bat within the project area. Treatments proposed by the project would occur in 18 % -64 % of that habitat, depending on the alternative (Table 21).

Table 21: Percent of summer roosting habitat proposed for treatment by alternative

Summer Foraging Habitat Existing Habitat Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Upland Hardwood 5,510 3,490 3,268 671 Pine-hardwoods 1,114 777 596 503

Total 6,624 4,267 (64%) 3,864 (58%) 1,174 (18%)

The three bat species either roost in dead and dying trees (snags), especially beneath loose bark, in tree cavities and hollows, in crevices left by lightning strikes or in the foliage of living trees. These roosts are required for rearing young (maternity roosts), as migratory stopover sites, and occasionally for hibernation.

Most forest bat species move frequently between several roost trees that they have established. This is especially true of maternity colonies, although bachelor colonies also exhibit this behavior. This roost switching may be an effort to avoid predators or parasites or to seek a warmer or cooler roost. For tree roosting bats, switching could also be tied to the temporary nature of dead and dying trees. If a roost tree becomes unstable or falls, the bats would already know of an alternative roost (Taylor, D.A.R., 2006). It is common for bats to return to the same roost tree or group of trees in the same patch of forest in successive years. Thus, a direct impact on bats and summer roosting habitat may occur if an occupied roosting tree is removed. However, there is a low probability of this occurring due to dead or dying trees are not typically part of harvest prescriptions. Also, bats do establish more than one roost tree in the same patch of forest and these would be available for use.

Table 22: Acres of summer roosting habitat impacted by proposed treatment.

Treatment Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Clearcut 78 109 78 Shelterwood Cuts 2,563 2,129 628 Individual Tree Selection Cuts 192 192 64 Thinning Cuts 1,278 1,278 302 Specialty Cuts (shelterwood) 156 156 102

Total 4,267 (64%) 3,864 (58%) 1,174 (18%) Table includes shelterwood cuts treatments that were changed to “thinnings” in red-shouldered hawk analysis.

Roost trees are often located along the edges of forests or in open forest stands, where they generally receive greater solar heating and have a less obstructed flight approach. The structural characteristics of a dead tree – height, diameter, stage of decay (“decay class”), and its position in the stand and on the landscape appear to be the most important factors in determining its suitability as a roost site. These factors affect the roost’s temperature, an important component in roost selection. The species of the tree is important only as it relates to these structural attributes. Tree species that are more susceptible to fungal infestations attract cavity excavators such as woodpeckers. Also, those that retain bark for longer periods are more likely to provide appropriate roosting spaces. For this analysis, we assumed that trees greater than 60 years of age in upland northern hardwood and pine-hardwood forest stands would contain the optimal or preferred roosting trees. Bats that roost under the bark or in crevices and cavities of dead trees frequently select the largest available snags, which often extend above the forest canopy. This is especially true for roosts of maternity colonies, since larger snags can better retain the sun’s warmth, which benefits the pups. Unproductive females and males often roost alone or in bachelor colonies and appear to use a wider range of snag sizes. Some of the forest bats that roost under bark, in cavities or in lightning-strike crevices in dead trees also use these same features in healthy living trees or those that are damaged or dying. Roosts

63

are often considered the most important habitat component, and roost switching appears to be essential for most species. The most important action land managers can take to maintain bat populations is to provide a continuous supply of potential roost trees (Taylor, D.A.R., 2006.). These include snags in various stages of deterioration (especially those in early stages of decay), hollow trees, and the green and dying trees that can provide future snags. A majority of the treatments are shelterwood cuts that would open up the canopy allowing increased sun light (heat) on existing trees enhancing roosting habitat.

The exact number of roost trees needed to maintain forest-bat populations is unclear and likely varies by forest type and region. Bats that use live trees can find roosts in most forests, but managers need to ensure that enough dead and dying trees are left for the species that depend on them. Bats need multiple roosts, and because snags are a short-lived resource, the availability of suitable roost trees for snag roosting bats fluctuates over time. Older, more mature forest stands produce more snags, so well distributed, variably sized patches of mature and old growth forest should be maintained where possible. Natural fall rates would eventually reduce snag numbers unless new snags develop naturally or man-made. Leaving as many large green or cull trees as possible as “leave trees” to become future snags is preferable. Cull trees include those with broken tops, forked tops, wounded areas or other defects that reduce their commercial value. Project standards and guidelines address many of these issues of future roosting in reserve tree criteria.

While the proposed project has the potential to impact 18-64 % of the summer roosting habitat, many of the project standards and guidelines address current retention of snags and future creation of snags for summer roosting trees. While individual summer roost trees may be harvested, possibly affecting some bats and habitat, it is anticipated that the remaining trees in a similar patch of forest would provide adequate opportunities to roost.

Road management activities have the potential for direct and indirect effects to RFSS bats through the removal of suitable roost trees and temporary alteration of foraging habitat, which are both discussed in the above section related to harvest treatments. The primary difference here is that in certain circumstances connected actions have a higher likelihood of permanently removing undetected occupied roost trees due to less flexibility in the placement of these features on the landscape because of requirements to protect non-biological resources (e.g., steep slopes and erodible soils) and to meet other needs, such as engineering considerations. Conversely, these activities, particularly temporary skid road/trail construction, can also create beneficial conditions for foraging bats. The temporary skid roads and trails are typically narrow and linear, and the forest canopy is usually retained or partially retained. RFSS bats are known to exploit linear habitat features, such as roads, trails, streams, and forest edges as travel corridors and foraging habitat, especially if water sources are located nearby (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2007). Log landings may provide relatively small canopy openings that would be suitable for foraging or increase solar radiation to potential roost trees along the edge. These activities would open the canopy and understory, thereby moving localized conditions closer to that of optimal foraging habitat. Typically after activities are complete, these landings and temporary roads are closed off to vehicular travel and left to revert to a forested state. Generally, the temporary, short-term loss of this habitat is small in comparison to the adjacent forested landscape, and is further minimized by the creation of flight corridors and the long-term enhancement of roosting and foraging habitat. Road management within bat foraging and roosting habitat would have the same results with all action alternatives in the following areas: 20.3 mile of decommissioned roads, 4.65 miles if open roads that would be closed, 33.4 miles of open roads that would stay open, and 8.25 miles of motorized trail use. The differences occur with miles of construction of roads that would then be closed: Alt. 2 is 0.7 miles, Alt. 3 is 0.5 miles, and Alt. 4 is 0.3 miles. There would be no effect from any alternative’s road management activities due to the limited amount of this work occurring bat habitat.

Biomass treatments occur within 892 acres of suitable foraging and roosting habitat for Alternatives 2 and 3. There would be no effect to bat roosting habitat because no large dead or live trees would be removed from the stand. Vertical foraging habitat would be maintained throughout the stand; however, ground level horizontal habitat would be reduced. The vegetation material being removed from the forest ground floor could be considered a source of insect habitat and thus a food source for the bats. However, the potential effect to the bats insect population would be very minimal due to only 8 % of the foraging habitat is having

64

biomass treatments and there is abundant insect habitat at the mid and upper forest canopy levels were most bats conduct their foraging behavior.

On non-FS lands inside and adjacent to the project area, there are about 4,700 acres of habitat that may be suitable to the three RFSS bats (Table 9). Assuming that the age structure of the northern hardwoods forested acres (3,327 acres) is similar to the hardwoods on FS land, most of those acres are suitable now. In the past 10 years there has been 187acres (4 %) of harvested timber in suitable habitat on state and private lands enrolled in the MFL program. About 179 was clearcut and 8 acres had overstory removal that made those stands unsuitable long term for roosting habitat but the open habitat would be good foraging areas. Over the next 10 years, timber harvests throughout the same land base would involve 1,629 acres. There is 375 acres with selection cuts that would have little or no effect on bats or their habitat. Most is scheduled to be clearcuts (1,072 acres or 23 %) that would make those stands unsuitable long term for roosting habitat. There would also be 83 acres (1.7 %) thinned and 84 acres with overstory removal. For the other suitable habitat on lands with harvest information, we would assume a 15-year re-entry cycle for the northern hardwoods that they are evenly distributed among the years since their last harvest. Approximately 200 acres of that habitat would be selectively harvested in any given year and the treatments would 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 (2,820 acres) are assumed to be available to bats in any given year. These acres of habitat add to the abundance of suitable habitat on Forest Service land (Table 19 and Table 22).

Determination

This project may impact individuals but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability. Direct or indirect impacts to the summer foraging and summer roosting habitat for the little brown myotis, northern myotis or the tri-colored bat by the proposed project may occur. While individual summer roosting trees or trees for maternity colonies may be removed during harvest treatments, bats would have suitable roosting habitat within or near the same location that can be utilized. Since roost switching is common and expected among these bat species, there is a high probability that with implementation of project guidelines for reserved trees, suitable roosting trees would be found. There is also a large quantity of suitable foraging and roosting habitat in and outside the project area on FS and non-FS lands (Table 9, Table 19, and Table 20).

The recent RFSS listing of these three bat species did not occur as a result of current population declines or viability concerns on the CNNF or in the state of Wisconsin. It was in response to the potential vulnerability to WNS and declining bat population in eastern states and Canadian provinces as a result of WNS. The potential for WNS occurring on the CNNF and project area is highly unlikely. This is due to WNS has not been documented in any hibernacula in the upper Midwest and no hibernacula are located on the CNNF. The CNNF and this project area continue to provide essential summer roosting and foraging habitat and recent surveys show a good presence or absence occurrence and representation of bat species. The forest plan would continue to provide and protect those critical bat habitats during the period of year in which they utilize our CNNF the most.

65

6.1.3 Regional Forester Sensitive Species – Plants The plant analysis required a number of different approaches than those of the animal sections. As a result, there are separate Introduction, Survey, Boundary, and Scales of Effects Analysis, Threshold of Effects and Determination of Effects sections for the plants. These sections would not be presented with each individual plant species but only once as this information represents all the plants analyzed.

ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS – PLANTS

Rare plant species inventory on the Nicolet landbase formally began in the early 1980s with a contract for rare plant inventory through the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. There was very limited additional formal inventory of plants, rare or otherwise, until 1994. Since then, the CNNF has cataloged 53 rare plant species formally listed as Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS), occurring in over 2,000 sites. The CNNF now actively inventories for rare plants on all suitable lands with planned activities.

A pre-field review of the analysis area was conducted to identify currently known rare plant locations, and potential survey needs based on suitable habitat and possible effects from proposed actions. A GIS (Geographic Information System) computer analysis was used incorporating spatial information from previously known rare plant sites, soils, habitat types, and overstory cover types. Also considered were information from the Wisconsin NHI (Natural Heritage Inventory) and the University of Wisconsin-Steven Point Robert W. Freckmann Herbarium. This computer analysis, which is a coarse filter for identifying potential or suitable habitat, helps prioritize which stands may need on-the-ground surveys. Actual on the ground surveys may or may not agree with the suitability of habitat for rare plant species identified by the analysis. It should be noted that the computer analysis used to identify suitable habitat is dynamic and parameters used to define suitable habitat are refined as new information is gathered.

The project area includes two landtype associations dominated by well drained, nutrient poor sandy soils. More detailed information on soils and landtypes can be found in the Soil Specialist Report. The landtypes are briefly described as follows:

• Butler Plains – The characteristic landform pattern is nearly level outwash plain. Soils are predominantly excessively drained sand over outwash.

• Waupee Knolls – The characteristic landform pattern is rolling collapsed outwash plain with isolated remnant moraines. Soils are predominantly well drained fine sandy loam over outwash.

The predominant landtypes in the project area as described above have soils that generally do not support northern hardwood forests typical of most of the Nicolet landbase. Sugar maple-basswood forests are mostly absent from the project area and so are the RFSS species associated with that habitat. The grapefern, moonwort, and ginseng species likely to be encountered in many other project areas are not likely to be found in this project area.

As displayed in Table 23, the pre-field screening identified known occurrences of eight RFSS listed plants species within the Lakewood Southeast Project Area. Localized surveys have been conducted sporadically throughout the project area since the early 1980s and surveys for this project were conducted during the 2009, 2010, and 2011 field seasons. While the species in Table 23 were targeted for survey, all plant taxa listed on the CNNF RFSS and LRFSS (Likely to Occur Regional Forester Sensitive Species) lists are considered.

66

Table 23: RFSS plant species with known occurrences or potential habitat within the Lakewood Southeast Project area C = confirmed

Species Common Name Likelihood of occurrence

Potential Habitat Y/N

Amerorchis rotundifolia Round-leaved orchis C Y Arabis missouriensis var deamii Missouri rock cress C Y Botrychium oneidense Blunt-lobed grapefern C Y Carex backii Rocky Mountain sedge C Y Carex gynocrates Northern bog sedge C Y Carex sychnocephala Many-headed sedge C Y Cypripedium arietinum Ram’s head lady’s slipper C Y Juglans cinerea Butternut C Y

The spatial scale for evaluating effects to plant species is the project area. Rare plant species have limited dispersal ability, and no negative effects are anticipated from project activities, so there is no need to consider lands beyond the project boundary.

The temporal scale for evaluating effects to plant species is the period of on-the-ground project activities. Because there would be no negative effects from project activities for all eight plant species, and two species would experience beneficial effects from prescribed burning, there is no need to consider time beyond the period of project activities.

For Alternative 1, the No Action Alternative, there would be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to these plants or their habitats. No vegetation or other management activities would occur and existing habitat and conditions would remain the same.

6.1.3.1 SMALL ROUND-LEAVED ORCHIS (AMERORCHIS ROTUNDIFOLIA) Small round-leaved orchis has been known in one location in the project area since 1982, and records indicate the most recent observation was in 1998. This species inhabits cold, white cedar-tamarack-black spruce swamps, usually with underlying calcareous deposits. It occurs under shade and in the open, blooming from early June to late July. The habitat at the known site has not changed and the population is likely to be present. In addition, forested wetlands such this are not actively managed on the CNNF. This site is also within the boundaries of Management Area 8E (Research Natural Area) and is well buffered from management activities.

This plant could potentially be found in other locations in the project area, but as noted above, suitable habitat is not actively managed on the CNNF and thus there would be no direct or indirect effects from federal actions, and therefore there would be no cumulative effects.

6.1.3.2 MISSOURI ROCK CRESS (ARABIS MISSOURIENSIS VAR DEAMII) Missouri rock cress is known in six locations in the project area. There is one site on private property discovered in 1981. There are three sites within Management Areas 8F and 8G where timber management is generally not allowed. There are two sites in Management Areas 4A and 4B where timber management is allowed. One of these two sites is within a stand proposed for shelterwood harvest in Alternatives 2 and 3. At all six known sites, the habitat is likely to be suitable for Missouri rock cress.

All of these populations are associated with bedrock glades and outcrops, which are common in the project area. There are numerous bedrock outcrops in the

project area that rise above the surrounding landscape, and these outcrops typically have open areas of bare

67

rock called bedrock glades. Missouri rock cress grows in the thin soil around these bedrock glades in full to partial sun. In general, this species prefers dry-mesic soils with some occasional disturbance to maintain an open canopy. Harsh conditions on these outcrops limit tree growth, and historically, most of them were repeatedly burned by wildfire. Fire suppression in the last 80 years has allowed increased growth of trees and shrubs on these outcrops, increasing shade and likely reducing habitat suitability.

This plant is likely to be found on other bedrock outcrops in the project area. Rock outcrop areas that provide the best habitat for Missouri rock cress are unlikely to be affected by timber harvest, because of difficult access and the general lack of commercial timber. There may be suitable habitat in areas proposed for prescribed burning. Allowing prescribed fire to burn over rock outcrops would increase habitat suitability primarily by helping control shading vegetation. No direct or indirect effects are anticipated from timber harvest, only beneficial effects are anticipated from prescribed burning, and therefore there would be no cumulative effects.

6.1.3.3 BLUNT-LOBED GRAPEFERN (BOTRYCHIUM ONEIDENSE) Blunt-lobed grapefern is known in one location in the project area and was discovered in 2008. The site is along the receding shoreline of a small pond below the high-water mark. The shoreline is being invaded by 8 foot high white pine, so the water level has been down for some time. Blunt-lobed grapefern can occupy this is ephemeral or temporary habitat, and eventually this site would again be under water. Shoreline habitats such as this are protected from potential activity impacts by Best Management Practices (BMPs) for water quality. In other areas of the CNNF, this species is more typically found on silty soils in northern mesic forest habitats dominated by sugar maple and basswood.

This plant could potentially be found in other receding shoreline habitats in the project area, but as noted above, similar suitable habitat would be protected by BMPs and thus there would be no direct or indirect effects from federal actions, and therefore there would be no cumulative effects.

6.1.3.4 ROCKY MOUNTAIN SEDGE (CAREX BACKII) Rocky mountain sedge is known from two locations on the CNNF and both are within the project area. One site was discovered in 1982 and has not been observed since that time. The habitat is likely still suitable and is within the boundaries of Management Area 8F (Special Management Area) where timber management is generally not allowed.

The second site was discovered in 2009 and is about two miles from the 1982 site. At this site, the plants were growing in thin soil on a partly shaded granitic rock outcrop. The canopy over the plants was mostly small red oak and red maple. This site is within a stand proposed for shelterwood harvest in

Alternatives 2 and 3.

Both populations are associated with bedrock outcrops, which are common in the project area. Rocky mountain sedge grows in the thin soil on outcrops in partial sun. Harsh conditions on these outcrops limit tree growth, and historically, most of them were repeatedly burned by wildfire. Fire suppression in the last 80 years has allowed increased growth of trees and shrubs on these outcrops, increasing shade, and likely reducing habitat suitability.

This plant is likely to be found on other bedrock outcrops in the project area. Rock outcrop areas that provide the best habitat for rocky mountain sedge are unlikely to be affected by timber harvest, because of difficult access and the general lack of commercial timber. There may be suitable habitat in areas proposed for prescribed burning. Allowing prescribed fire to burn over rock outcrops would increase habitat suitability primarily by helping control shading vegetation. No direct or indirect effects are anticipated

68

from timber harvest, only beneficial effects are anticipated from prescribed burning, and therefore there would be no cumulative effects.

6.1.3.5 NORTHERN BOG SEDGE (CAREX GYNOCRATES) Northern bog sedge was observed at one location in the project area in 1982. The plant has not been observed at this site since it was originally found, but the habitat is still suitable. On the CNNF, typical habitat is primarily openings in sphagnum-rich cedar, spruce or tamarack swamps. Forested wetlands such as this are not actively managed on the CNNF. This site is also within the boundaries of Management Area 8E (Research Natural Area) and is well buffered from management activities.

This plant could potentially be found in other locations in the project area, but as noted above, suitable habitat is not actively managed on the CNNF and thus there

would be no direct or indirect effects from federal actions, and therefore there would be no cumulative effects.

6.1.3.6 MANY-HEADED SEDGE (CAREX SYCHNOCEPHALA) Many-headed sedge has not been observed in the project area since it was originally located on private property in 1983. It is a species of wet sandy or mucky shores of receding lakes or rivers. Habitat similar to the known site can be found in other places in the project area. Shoreline habitats such as this are protected from potential activity impacts by BMPs for water quality.

This plant could potentially be found in other locations in the project area, but as noted above, similar suitable habitat would be protected by BMPs and thus there would be no direct or indirect effects from federal actions, and therefore there would be no cumulative effects.

Ram’s head lady’ slipper (Cypripedium arietinum)

Ram’s head lady’s slipper is known in one location in the project area, discovered in 1982 and last observed in 1998. On the CNNF, it occurs in wet swamp conifer forest (mixed white cedar-balsam fir) and cool forest edges. The habitat at the known site has not changed and the population is likely to be present. Forested wetlands such as this are not actively managed on the CNNF. This site is also within the boundaries of Management Area 8E (Research Natural Area) and is well buffered from management activities.

This plant could potentially be found in other locations in the project area, but as noted above, suitable habitat is not actively managed on the CNNF and thus

there would be no direct or indirect effects from federal actions, and therefore there would be no cumulative effects.

69

6.1.3.7 BUTTERNUT (JUGLANS CINEREA) Butternut has been observed in the project area mostly as scattered individuals. It is found throughout Wisconsin except for the northern-most tier of counties and is found growing on rich, loamy, well-drained soils as well as on drier, rocky soils when associated with limestone. Although rarely a common tree, it was found in a number of different forest types and could be locally abundant. Butternut’s range has been under severe contraction since the 1960s due to a fatal fungus that forms multiple branch and stem cankers.

The project would follow forest plan guidelines to protect butternut seed sources. Timber harvest around butternut trees would be beneficial by providing

regeneration opportunities, but the canker disease will continue to cause mortality to individual trees.

DESIGN FEATURES FOR RFSS PLANTS

Retain butternut trees with more than 70 % live crown. Also, retain butternuts 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, 2004a).

70

7.0 LITERATURE CITED

Adams, A. A. (1997). Onset of Volancy and Foraging Patterns of Juvenile Little Brown Bats, Myotis Lucifugus. Journal of Mammology, 78, 239-246.

Apfelbaum, S. and A. Haney. (1981). Bird populations before and after wildfire in a Great Lakes pine forest. Condor, 83, 347-354.

Arvisais, M., J.C. Bourgeois, E. Levesque, C. Daigle, D. Masse and J. Jutras. (2002). Home range and movements of a woodturtle (Clemmys insculpta) population at the northern limit of its range. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 80, 402-408.

Arvisais, M., Lévesque, E., Bourgeois, J.-C., Daigle, C., Masse, D., and Jutras, J. (2004). Habitat selection by the wood turtle turtle (Clemmys insculpta) population at the northern limit of its range. Canadian Journal of Zoology(80), 402-408.

Axtel, H.H. (1957). The Three-toed Woodpecker invasion. Audubon Outlook, 6, 13-14.

BCI. (2001). Bats in Eastern Woodlands. Austin, TX, USA: Bat Conservation International, Inc.

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

Bowen K.D. and J.C. Gillingham. (2004). R9 Conservation Assessment for Wood Turtle – Glyptemys insculpta. USDA Forest Service Eastern Region Threatened and Endangered Species Program, Milwaukee, WI.

Brandon, R. A. (1961). Observations of young keen bats. . Journal of Mammalogy, 42(3):400-1.

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.

Casper, G. S. (2003). A Rapid Assessment of Wood Turtle Nesting Habitat. unpublished report.

Compton, B.W., J.M. Rhymer and M. McCollough. (2002). Habitat selection by Wood turtles (Clemmys insculpta): an application of paired logistic regression. Ecology, 83, 833-843.

Corace, R. G., III, N.W. Lapinski and S.J. Sjogren. (2001). Conservation Assessment for the Black-backed Woodpecker (Picoides arcticus). USDA Forest Service Eastern Region Threatened and Endangered Species Program, Milwaukee, WI.

Cutright, N.J., B.R. Harriman, and R.W. Howe, eds. (2006). Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Wisconsin. Waukesha, WI: The Wisconsin Society for Ornithology, Inc.

Danz, N.P., A. Bracey and G.J. Niemi. (2008). Breeding Bird Monitoring in Great Lakes Nationa - lNRRI Technical Report NRRI/TR-2008/11,. Duluth: University of Minnesota.

71

Eklund, D., J. Schmidt and B. Quinn. 2003. Supplemental Informational Report (SIR) for Northwest Howell Vegetation Management: A Review of New Information Relating to cumulative effects on American marten from the Northwest Howell Vegetation Management Project. P. 05

Eklund, D. (2005). Distribution of red-shouldered hawks Ottawa NF. (R. Evans, Interviewer)

Ennis, K. R., J. Blum, J. Kelly, C. Schumacher, E. Padley, and T. Schuetz. (1993). Management Recommendations for the northern goshawk on the Huron-Manistee National Forests. Huron-Manistee National Forest. Cadillac, MI: U.S.D.A. Forest Service.

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.

Flory, J. A. (2007). Wood turtle nesting habitat surveys on the Lakewood-Laona Ranger District, Chequamegon-Nicolet national Forest. unpublished report.

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.

Green, J.C. (1995). Birds and Forests – A Management and Conservation Guide. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources.

Henry, M., D.W. Thomas, R. Vaudry, and M. Carrier. . (2002). Foraging Distance and Home Range of Pregnant and Lactating Little Brown Bats (Myotis Lucifugus) . Journal of Mammology , 83:767-774.

Howe, R. W. and L. J. Roberts. (2005). Sixteen Years of Habitat-based Bird Monitoring in the Nicolet National Forest. In C. a. Ralph (Ed.), Bird Conservation Implementation and Integration in the Americas: Proceedings of the Third International Partners in Flight Conference. (pp. 963-973). Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service.

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.

Jacobs, J. (2011). Summary of Red Shouldered Hawk Reproduction Nicolet National Forest 2011. Green Bay, WI.

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.

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.

Kudell-Ekstrum, J. (2002). Conservation Assessment for Connecticut Warbler - Oporornis agilis. Milwaukee: USDA Forest Service.

72

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.

Mumford, R., & Cope, J. (1964). Distribution and status of the Chiroptera of Indiana. American Midland Naturalist, 72(2): 473-489.

Nature Serve. (2011a). Nature Serve - Explorer. (An online encyclopedia of life web application Version7.1) Retrieved 2011, from Wood Turtle - Glyptemys insculpa: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchSciOrCommonName=wood+turtle&x=7&y=7

Nature Serve. (2011b). Nature Serve - Explorer. (An online encyclopedia of life web application Version7.1) Retrieved from Connecticut Warbler (Oporornis agilis): http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchSciOrCommonName=connecticut+warbler

Nature Serve. (2011c). Nature Serve - Explorer. (An online encyclopedia of life web application Version7.1) Retrieved Jan. 2012, from Little Brown Myotis - Myotis lucifugus: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer

Nature Serve. (2011d). Nature Serve - Explorer. (A. o. Version7.1, Producer, & Arlington, Virginia.) Retrieved from Northern Myotis - Myotis septentrionalis: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer

Nature Serve. (2011e). Nature Serve - Explorer. Retrieved from Tri-colored bat - Perimyotis subflavus: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer

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.

Robbins, S. (1991a). Red-shouldered hawk. In Wisconsin Birdlife: Population and Distribution - Past and Present (p. 702). Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.

Robbins, S. (1991b). Black-backed Woodpecker. In Wisconsin Birdlife: Population and Distribution - Past and present (p. 370). Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.

Rolley R. E. (2010). White-tailed Deer Population Status 2010. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

Sasse, D.B.; P.J. Pekins. (1996). Summer roosting ecology of northern long-eared bats (Myotis septentrionalis) in the White Mountain National Forest. In B. R. Barclay R.M.R. (Ed.), Bats and Forests Symposium (pp. 91-101). Victoria, BC, Canada: British Columbia Ministry of Forests.

73

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 Wisconsin and Minnesota. In P. u.-N. Forest (Ed.). (p. 19). Unpublished paper 1/8/2004.

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).

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

Short, L.L. (1982). Woodpeckers of the World. Delaware Museum of Natural History Monograph Serial, 4, 338-343.

St. Pierre, M and J. Schmidt, D. Eklund. (2008). Unpublished Report - Habitat Model Development Note - Red-shouldered Hawk.

St. Pierre, M. (2010). Process Paper: Habitat Models for Effects Analysis; Animals RFSS. Wildlife. Rhinelander, WI: USDA Forest Service Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest.

Taylor, D.A.R. (2006.). Forest Management & Bats. Austin, Texas: Bat Conservation International.

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

Thompson, F. R. (2006). Conservation assessments for five forest bat species in the Eastern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-260, North Central Research Station, USDA - Forest Service, 82.

Turner, Gregory G., DeeAnn M. Reeder, and Jeremy T.H. Coleman. (2011). A Five-year Assessment of Mortality and Geographic Spread of White-nose Syndrome in North American Bats and a Look to the Future. Bat Research News, 52 (2), 30.

USDA. (1983). Fish and Wildlife Policy. Retrieved from USDA Department of Regulation: http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/dr9500-004.pdf

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. (2005). Chapter 2670 - Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals. Retrieved from FSM 2600 - Wildlife, Fish and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management: www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/fsm/2600/2670-2671.doc

USDA Forest Service. (2011). White-nose Syndrome Regional Response Plan 2011-2012. Regional Office. Milwaukee: Eastern Region.

74

USDA Forest Service. (2012). CNNF Land and Resource Management Plan : Planning. Retrieved 2012, from Monitoring and Midterm Evaluation Report: 2009 - 2010: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5349964.pdf

USDI Fish and Widlife Service. (1978 and 1992). Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf. Twin Cities, MN. 73 pp.: USFWS.

USDI Fish and Widlife Service. (2000). Correspondence to Ms. Kathleen A. McAllister, U.S. Forest Service. regarding transmitting a Biological Opinion to the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management regarding the effects of agency Land and Resource Management Plans on the Canada Lynx (Lynx canadensis), 81.

USDI Fish and Widlife Service. (2004). Correspondence from Janet Smith, Field Supervisor, Ecological Services to Anne Archie, Forest Supervisor (CNNF). Regarding the effects of the revised CNNF-Land Resource Management Plan on Federal Threatened and Endangered Species, 3.

USDI Fish and Widlife Service. (2007). Indiana Bat (Myotis sodalis) Draft Recovery Plan: First Revision. Minnesota: Fort Snelling.

USDI Fish and Widlife Service. (2012). White-Nose Syndrome: Something is killing our bats. Retrieved from USDI - FWS : Northeast Region: http://www.fws.gov/WhiteNoseSyndrome/

UW Stevens Point. (2012a). Mammals Database. Retrieved Jan. 2012, from Myotis lucifugus. Little Brown Bat: http://www4.uwsp.edu/biology/facilities/vertebrates/mammals_of_wisconsin_database.htm

UW Stevens Point. (2012b). Mammals Database. Retrieved Jan. 2012, from Myotis septentionalis. Northern myotis or Keen’s bat.: http://www4.uwsp.edu/biology/facilities/vertebrates/mammals_of_wisconsin_database.htm

Van Tyne, J. (1926). An unusual flight of Arctic Three-toed Woodpeckers. Auk, 43, 469-474.

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.

WDNR. (1999). Wisconsin Wolf Management Plan. Madison. WI: Wisconsin Endangered Resources Publ. #099 99.

WDNR. (2009). Natural Resources Board Meeting Notes. Retrieved 2011, from Deer management Unit Boundary and Goal Review on Board Order WM-16-09.: http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/2009/October/10-09-3B2.pdf

WDNR. (2011). Canada lynx fact sheet. Retrieved 2011, from http://dnr.wi.gov/org/caer/ce/eek/critter/mammal/lynx.htm

WDNR. (2011). Ecological Landscapes of Wisconsin. Retrieved from The Northeast Sands Wisconsin Land Legacy Report: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/landscapes/index.asp?mode=detail&Landscape=15

WDNR. (2011). Endangered Resources Program Species Information - AM. Retrieved from American Marten (Martes americana):

75

http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/biodiversity/index.asp?mode=info&Grp=17&SpecCode=AMAJF01010

WDNR. (2011). Wood Turtle (Glyptemys insculpta). Retrieved 2010, from Endangered Resources Program Species Information: http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/er/biodiversity/index.asp?mode=info&grp=49&speccode=araad02020

WDNR. (2013). Gray wolf in Wisconsin. Retrieved February 2013, from Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WildlifeHabitat/wolf/index.html

Weiland, N. (2002). Lynx habitat suitability assessment for the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest. Unpublished Report. Park Falls: USDA Forest Service.

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

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 Managment Guidelines for Northern Goshawks Nesting Areas. Rhinelander, WI: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources - Bureau of Endangered 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. A. Eloranta and A. Rinaldi. (2008). Nest density, productivity, and habitat selection of red-shouldered hawks in contiguous forest. Journal of Raptor Resource, 42(2), 79-86.

Wydeven A. P., J. E. Wiedenhoeft, R. N. Schultz, J. E. Bruner, R. R. Thiel, S. R. Boles, and M. A. Windsor. (2011). Wisconsin Endangered Resources Report #140 Status of the Timber Wolf in Wisconsin. Performance Report 1 July 2010 through 30 June 2011. Park Falls, WI: WDNR.

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

Wydeven, A. P. (2011, August 15). Peshtigo Wolf Pack Information. (S. Anderson, Interviewer) Email. Laona.

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.

Yunick, R.P. (1985). A review of recent irruptions of the Black-backed Woodpecker and Three-toed Woodpecker in eastern North America. Journal of Field Ornithology, 138-152.

Zoller, P. (2004). Documentation for Landscape Level Marten HIS Model (unpublished). Rhinelander, WI: North Central Research Center.