west gravel pit project -...
TRANSCRIPT
West Gravel Pit EA
Biological Evaluation
- 1 -
West Gravel Pit Project
Wildlife Biological Evaluation
Hiawatha National Forest Munising Ranger District
400 E. Munising Ave. Munising, Michigan
49862
Prepared by:___________________________________ _March 26, 2009
Matt Cole / HNF West Side Wildlife Biologist Date
West Gravel Pit EA
Biological Evaluation
- 2 -
Table of Contents
Section Page
Introduction
- Federally endangered, threatened, or proposed species 3
- Forest Service Region 9 Sensitive Species 3
Proposed Management Actions 4
Project Area Description 4
Identification of all Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive Species 5
- Occupied Habitat 6
- Unoccupied Habitat 6
Effects Analysis with Determinations 10-17
Conclusion 18
References Cited 19
West Gravel Pit EA
Biological Evaluation
- 3 -
INTRODUCTION Biological evaluations are required to document effects to federally endangered,
threatened, or USFS Regional Forester listed sensitive species.
1) Federally endangered, threatened, or proposed species.
Section II of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (as amended 1978, 1979, 1982
and 1988), the National Forest Management Act of 1976 and various directives in the
Forest Service Manual (2600-95-7) specify the need to protect endangered, threatened
and sensitive species. Specifically, the ESA requires each federal agency, in consultation
with and with the assistance of the Secretary of the Interior and/or Commerce, insure that
any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such agency is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species which is determined by the
Secretary, after consultation as appropriate with affected States, to be critical, unless such
agency has been granted an exemption for such action by the Committee pursuant to
subsection (h)(7) of the Act. In fulfilling the requirement of this paragraph, each agency
shall use the best scientific and commercial data available. The Forest Service shall use
the biological evaluation to assess compliance with these regulations.
To facilitate compliance with the requirements of subsection (a)(2) each federal agency
shall, with respect to any agency action of such agency for which no contract for
construction has been entered into and for which no construction has begun on the date of
enactment of the Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1978, request of the Secretary
information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present
in the area of such proposed action. If the Secretary advises, based on the best scientific
and commercial data available, that such species may be present, such agency shall
conduct a biological assessment for identifying any endangered species or threatened
species that is likely to be affected by such action.
2) Forest Service Region 9 Sensitive Animal Species for the Hiawatha National Forest.
The Forest Service Manual requires the Forest Service to address the viability of Region
9 listed sensitive species to avoid impacts that may cause a trend towards federal listing
or loss of viability. For Regionally listed sensitive species a determination is made as to
whether the action will likely have “no impacts, beneficial impacts, may impact
individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability, or likely
to result in a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.”
West Gravel Pit EA
Biological Evaluation
- 4 -
PROPOSED MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
The West Zone of the HNF is proposing to meet the purpose of and need for action by
expanding the existing 16 Mile Pit and developing the Halfmoon, Hickey Creek, and
Kilpecker sites as new gravel pits to be used for Forest Service administrative use. It
would also include developing the Whitefish site for Forest Service administrative use
and potentially public and local government use. Before each pit is developed, a
management plan would be completed for each site which identifies procedures for
development, operation, and rehabilitation of the pit.
Due to pit development, a total of 50-60 acres of vegetation (jack pine, balsam fir, paper
birch, sugar maple, beech, and yellow birch) would be removed. The existing roads into
the pits would be locked, and non-native invasive plants would be monitored and
controlled with herbicide.
Specific herbicides that could be used include the following:
Imazapic
Glyphosate
Triclopyr
Clopyralid
Dicamba
All sites would be large enough for a crushing operation to take place. This entails a
machine being brought into the site and crushing rock to meet standards for the various
road classifications. Crushing would most likely take place in July, August, September,
and possibly October when the ground is drier. Crushing operations would take place on
a sporadic basis, depending on the year and if there are any projects going on in the area
of the pits. Crushing operations could occur once or twice a year for approximately one
week. It is possible to go up to 2 to 3 years without entering a pit again.
PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION
Halfmoon
The Halfmoon Pit site is surrounded by mixed northern hardwoods, primarily sugar
maple/beech, with rolling topography. Halfmoon Lake is less than ¼ mile away.
In order to develop this site, 10-15 acres of hardwood overstory will need to be cleared.
West Gravel Pit EA
Biological Evaluation
- 5 -
Hickey Creek
The Hickey Creek Pit site is not currently developed; however, there is a developed
mineral material pit on adjacent private lands to the southeast of the proposed site. The
proposed site is within an extensive stand of mature sugar maple/ beech/ yellow birch.
Kilpecker
The Kilpecker Pit site is not currently developed. The area is within a large stand of
pole-size jack pine. In order to be developed, approximately 10 acres of jack pine
overstory will need to be cleared. There will be a gate with berms on each side at the
entrance of the pit to control access.
Whitefish
The Whitefish Pit area is not currently developed and is located within a stand of mature
mixed northern hardwoods, with a red pine plantation adjacent. In order for the pit to be
developed, 10-15 acres of hardwood overstory will need to be cleared.
16 Mile
The 16 Mile Pit has been used in the past and has approximately 2 acres of opening. In
order for the pit to be developed, an additional 8-10 acres of overstory will need to be
cleared. The overstory is made up of mature beech, with sugar maple and yellow birch.
The topography is rolling to steep.
IDENTIFICATION OF ALL ENDANGERED, THREATENED. OR SENSITIVE SPECIES (ETS)
Habitat for a variety of game, non-game, threatened, endangered and sensitive wildlife
species occurs within the project area. Forest types include sugar maple, beech and
yellow birch mixed hardwoods and jack pine.. Many wildlife species are associated with
these forest types, including coyote, gray wolf, broad-winged hawk, northern goshawk,
red-shouldered hawk, ruffed grouse, black-throated green warbler, wood thrush,
ovenbird, American marten, black-backed woodpecker, and pileated woodpecker.
Information Review
In order to determine any known locations of TES species in the project area, the
following tasks were performed:
Findings from recent surveys conducted in the project area were reviewed.
Forest Service specialists and private individuals with specific knowledge of the
area were consulted.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was consulted for federally listed species.
West Gravel Pit EA
Biological Evaluation
- 6 -
The following data sources were then reviewed to identify known sensitive species
locations in the general project area and to determine the habitat potential for species
included on the HNF Region 9 sensitive species list:
Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) county element lists for Alger,
Delta, and Schoolcraft Counties and MNFI Element Abstracts.
Hiawatha National Forest Natural Resources Information Service (NRIS) Wildlife
database.
Habitat maps, vegetative maps (current and historic), soils maps, National
Wetlands Inventory wetlands maps, and aerial photographs.
Journal articles, field guides, books and recent environmental analyses performed
on the HNF.
Michigan DNR 2008 Bald Eagle Nesting Survey in the Eastern Upper Peninsula
(UP).
Surveys
The project file contains the survey records. The following surveys have been completed
within the Gravel Pit Analysis Area:
June-July 2008 callback survey for woodland raptors in stands identified for
potential clearing, adjacent stands, and along the access routes. Survey was
conducted using the standard protocol developed on the Forest, titled HNF
Woodland Raptor Inventory Protocol (1995 as amended), which utilizes
directional broadcast calling techniques to elicit vocal or visual responses. The
protocol targets include northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) and red-shouldered
hawk (Buteo lineatus).
Incidental observations of other wildlife species were recorded during the raptor
surveys mentioned above.
Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species
Within the West Gravel Pit Project Area no listed or proposed “critical habitat” has been
identified by USFWS for any of the federally listed or proposed wildlife species. The
project area provides suitable habitat for Canada lynx and gray wolf.
Table 1 lists each TES animal species for the Hiawatha National Forest, its status, and
whether suitable habitat exists within the project area. Those with habitat or occurrence in
the project area will be carried through an effects analysis.
Table 1. TES Animal Species of the Hiawatha Scientific name Common name Status Habitat? Documented ?
Federally Listed Species
Charadrius melodus Piping plover E,SE No No
Dendroica kirtlandii Kirtland‟s warbler E, SE No No
Canis lupus Gray wolf E, ST Yes No
Lynx canadensis Canada lynx T,SE Yes No
Somatochlora hineana Hine‟s emerald dragonfly E, SE No No
Regional Forester Sensitive
Mammals
West Gravel Pit EA
Biological Evaluation
- 7 -
Canis lupus Gray wolf RS, ST Yes No
Birds
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle RS,ST Yes No
Accipiter gentilis Northern goshawk RS, SC Yes No
Ammodramus leconteii Le Conte‟s sparrow RS No No
Asio flammeus Short-eared owl RS, SE No No
Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered hawk RS, ST Yes No
Chlidonias niger Black tern RS No No
Coturnicops noveboracensis Yellow rail RS, ST No No
Cygnus buccinator Trumpeter swan RS, ST No No
Dendroica discolor Prairie warbler RS, SE No No
Falco peregrinus anatum Peregrine falcon RS, SE No No
Gavia immer Common loon RS, ST No No
Lanius ludovicianus migrans Loggerhead shrike RS, SE No No
Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned night heron RS, SC No No
Oporornis agilis Connecticut warbler RS No No
Picoides arcticus Black-backed woodpecker RS Yes No
Sterna caspia Caspian tern RS, ST No No
Sterna hirundo Common tern RS, ST No No
Tympanuchus phasianellus Sharp-tailed grouse RS, MIS No No
Insects
Gomphus quadricolor Rapid‟s clubtail dragonfly RS No No
Hylogomphus viridifrons Green-faced clubtail RS No No
Lycaeides idas nabokovi Northern blue butterfly RS,ST No No
Somatochlora incurvata Warpaint emerald dragonfly RS No No
Trimerotropis huroniana Lake Huron locust RS, ST No No
Williamsonia fletcheri Ebony boghaunter dragonfly RS No No
Williamsonia linteri Ringed boghaunter dragonfly RS No No
Reptiles
Emydoidea blandingii Blandings turtle RS No No
Mollusks
Catinella exile Land snail RS No No
Euconulus alderi Tawny glass snail RS No No
Vallonia gracilicosta albula Land snail RS No No
Vertigo morsei Six-whorl vertigo RS No No
Vertigo paradoxa Mystery vertigo RS No No
Vertigo bollesiana Delicate vertigo RS No No
Planogyra asteriscus Eastern Flat-whorl snail RS No No
U.S. Status: T = Listed threatened E = Listed endangered
R9 Status: RS = R9 Sensitive, Documented extant occurrence within the Forest Proclamation Boundary
MIS = Management Indicator Species on Hiawatha
Michigan Status:
SE = State Endangered
ST = State Threatened
SC = Special Concern
Occupied Habitat:
No federally-listed or Regional Forester Sensitive Species are known to occupy the
project area or those areas immediately adjacent.
West Gravel Pit EA
Biological Evaluation
- 8 -
Unoccupied Habitat:
Federal Species
Gray wolf
The gray wolf was listed as “endangered” by the U.S. Department of Interior in 1967.
Wolves were officially protected in 1974 under the federal Endangered Species Act of
1973. In 2003, the gray wolf was reclassified to “threatened” in Michigan and the
remainder of the Eastern distinct population segment outside of Michigan. A FWS Final
Rule was issued in the Federal Register on Feb. 8, 2007 to delist the gray wolf Western
Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment (USDI, 2007). Management authority in
Michigan was transferred to the State. In September, 2008, the USFWS was directed to
return gray wolf to „endangered‟ status, as a result of recent litigation. On March 6, 2009
FWS reissued the delisting decision, currently published in the Federal Register for 30-day
review. Because of the potential for future appeals and litigation, and the possibility of
gray wolf being relisted (again), the species will be analyzed as both federally-listed and as
RFSS.
Gray wolves occupy many vegetative community types. Habitat can be characterized by
areas of low human occupancy, low levels of human-wolf interaction and an adequate
prey base. White-tailed deer are consumed most often. The wolf is a social species and
requires a large home range that is relatively free of human occupancy and low road
densities (Thiel 1985, Mech et al 1988).
A number of wolf packs and individuals have been documented with ranges overlapping
the HNF west unit. While exact population information for the HNF west unit is lacking,
we can likely assume a trend that parallels the recent upward trend for the Upper
Peninsula of MI. The following table shows increases in recent decades.
Table 9. Michigan Wolf Population (Upper Peninsula)
1980 0
1995 80
2000 216
2004 360
2008 520 (MDNR 2008)
The latest winter telemetry data for gray wolf territories (MDNR 2008) shows ten wolf
packs occupying the west unit of the Hiawatha, but does not show any locations,
rendezvous areas, or home range polygons intersecting the project areas. However,
individual wolves may disperse at any time and could travel through any of the five
proposed sites. Potential effects to wolves will therefore be discussed.
Canada lynx A lynx survey, the “National Lynx Detection Protocol” was developed in order to add
reliability, and efficacy to the process of lynx detection. Various locations across the
United States followed this “hair-snare” protocol to detect lynx in areas where lynx are
West Gravel Pit EA
Biological Evaluation
- 9 -
known to occur or where lynx occurred historically. In 2003, the HNF completed three
years of this survey on each unit of the HNF and did not detect lynx. Additionally, no
lynx were detected on the Ottawa National Forest.
The most recent record of a Canada lynx in Michigan was an incidental capture in a
private trap on the Forest, in Mackinac County in November 2003. Genetic tests verified
the individual as a Canada lynx, with no evidence of hybridization (USDA FS 2003).
This is the first documented lynx specimen in Michigan in approximately 20 years; the
last verified lynx was caught in 1983, also in Mackinac County (Beyer et al. 2001).
The lack of recent observations, extensive tracking efforts and the review of mandatory
registration of bobcat pelts indicate that lynx are very rare in the UP (Beyer et al. 2001;
Harger 1965). Earle and Tuovila (2003) noted that the absence of lynx track crossings
after seven years and 2,741 kilometers (km) of winter track surveys in the Upper
Peninsula highlights the rarity of the species. Beyer et al. (2001) reported that in a survey
of records for lynx occurrence in the UP, no verifiable evidence of successful
reproduction was located.
The variety of forest types within the project area and immediately adjacent could
provide lynx dispersal habitat, and marginal denning and/or foraging habitat.
Regional Forester Sensitive Species (RFSS)
Gray wolf
The gray wolf was listed as “endangered” by the U.S. Department of Interior in 1967.
Wolves were officially protected in 1974 under the federal Endangered Species Act of
1973. In 2003, the gray wolf was reclassified to “threatened” in Michigan and the
remainder of the Eastern distinct population segment outside of Michigan. A FWS Final
Rule was issued in the Federal Register on Feb. 8, 2007 to delist the gray wolf Western
Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment (USDI, 2007). Management authority in
Michigan was transferred to the State. In September, 2008, the USFWS was directed to
return gray wolf to „endangered‟ status, as a result of recent litigation. On March 6 FWS
reissued the delisting decision, currently published in the Federal Register for 30-day
review. Because of the potential for future appeals and litigation, and the possibility of
gray wolf being relisted (again), the species will be analyzed as both federally-listed and as
RFSS.
Gray wolves occupy many vegetative community types. Habitat can be characterized by
areas of low human occupancy, low levels of human-wolf interaction and an adequate
prey base. White-tailed deer are consumed most often. The wolf is a social species and
requires a large home range that is relatively free of human occupancy and low road
densities (Thiel 1985, Mech et al 1988).
West Gravel Pit EA
Biological Evaluation
- 10 -
A number of wolf packs and individuals have been documented with ranges overlapping
the HNF west unit. While exact population information for the HNF west unit is lacking,
we can likely assume a trend that parallels the recent upward trend for the Upper
Peninsula of MI. The following table shows increases in recent decades.
Table 9. Michigan Wolf Population (Upper Peninsula)
1980 0
1995 80
2000 216
2004 360
2008 520 (MDNR 2008)
The latest winter telemetry data for gray wolf territories (MDNR 2008) shows ten wolf
packs occupying the west unit of the Hiawatha, but does not show any locations,
rendezvous areas, or home range polygons intersecting the project areas. However,
individual wolves may disperse at any time and could travel through any of the five
proposed sites. Potential effects to wolves will therefore be discussed.
Both northern goshawk and red-shouldered hawk could find suitable habitat within the
project areas, primarily in the mature northern hardwood stands in the Whitefish,
Halfmoon, Hickey Creek, and 16 Mile pit areas. Individuals were not detected during
surveys, but could appear at anytime during the implementation period.
Black-backed woodpecker could find potential habitat within the extensive jack pine
stands surrounding the Kilpecker pit area. Only those trees showing signs of disease or
stress would be used as foraging or nesting habitat (Evers, 1991). The stands appear
healthy at this time.
Effects Analysis & Determinations
Scope of analysis
Direct and Indirect Effects
Spatial bounds for direct and indirect effects to gray wolf and Canada lynx include only
those stands where actions would occur, and their immediate vicinities and travel routes.
The rationale for this boundary is based on the mobility of wolves and lynx and their
ability to move to unaffected nearby areas. Temporal bounds would include the period of
implementation plus an additional five years, as the stands become re-vegetated and
begin to provide food for prey species (approximately 2011 to 2036). Habitats would
continue to change, but predictions become increasingly speculative at longer time
frames.
West Gravel Pit EA
Biological Evaluation
- 11 -
The geographic bounds for analyzing impacts to nesting raptors will be up to ½ mile from
the proposed pit sites and access routes, to consider noise disturbance. Temporal bounds
would extend for the life of the pit(s), or as long as excavation and crushing operations
last. Spatial bounds of analysis for black-backed woodpecker will be limited to those
stands where clearing will occur. Temporal bounds would begin 10 years prior to
implementation and end with beginning of re-vegetation.
Cumulative Effects
The Council on Environmental Quality has defined cumulative impact as “…the impact
on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added
to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what
agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). In
determining cumulative effects, the following list of past, present, and future actions were
added to the direct and indirect effects of the Proposed Action and alternatives.
Site Activity Name Timeframe
Halfmoon Jack Pine Budworm Munising 2006
Halfmoon Jack of Hearts 2002
Hickey Creek North Hickey, Hickey OSR 2002
Kilpecker Jack Pine Budworm 2007
16-Mile Bay 2004
Whitefish Carmen 2005
Direct and indirect effects from this project are not expected to extend beyond the areas
described above. Therefore, the areas used for analysis of cumulative effects will be
limited to those same areas. Temporal bounds also would be the same as for direct and
indirect effects.
Cumulative effects under the Endangered Species Act are those effects of future state or
private activities, not involving federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur
within the action area of the Service action subject to consultation (50 CFR 402.02)
(Federal Register 2004). This project is not subject to formal consultation; therefore,
analysis of cumulative effects to ESA listed species is not required for this project.
Species Analysis: Federally-Listed
Gray Wolf
The recovery plan for the eastern timber wolf, or gray wolf, lists five main critical factors
for long-term survival of the wolf (USDI 1992). These are:
a. Large tracts of wild land with relatively low human densities and minimal
accessibility by humans.
b. Ecologically sound management.
c. Availability of adequate prey.
West Gravel Pit EA
Biological Evaluation
- 12 -
d. Adequate understanding of wolf ecology.
e. Maintenance of populations large enough to resist parasites, disease, and other
adverse effects.
Alternative 1
Direct and Indirect Effects
Over the entire project area, the amount of forested habitat available to wolves would
decrease by 50-60 acres due to clearing. Therefore, these areas would not be suitable
habitat for wolves or prey species until extraction is completed, and pit rehabilitation and
succession has occurred. None of the sites represent unique or critical habitat for wolves.
The loss of such a small amount of habitat is not expected to affect gray wolf.
Disturbance would be the most likely effect to wolves: during clearing, extraction, and
hauling of material. Impacts are expected to be minor, if any, due to wolves‟ ability to
quickly move to nearby equally-suitable habitats. If an active gray wolf den or
rendezvous area is located during any portion of preparing or implementing the proposed
project, protection measures on page 2-23 in the HNF Draft Wildlife Technical Guide
will be implemented (USDA Forest Service, 2006). These measures would establish a
no-activity buffer zone around the active den site.
If Alternative 1 is implemented, mitigation measures, Forest Service policy, State and
Federal laws, and manufacturer recommendations would all be followed during the
herbicide application process in order to minimize environmental impacts. The data
suggest that the herbicides proposed for use are generally safe to mammals, birds, and
other wildlife if used in accordance with the manufacturer label (see Appendix B, Tables
E-1 – E-3). Additionally, these chemicals would only be used within the pits, which are
not considered important wolf habitat.
Cumulative Effects
Although it is difficult to estimate the cumulative effects resulting from management of
the National Forest along with neighboring land management and land uses from 2000-
2036, we can estimate cumulative effects related to habitat conditions and human
disturbances. Clearing and thinning of timber stands has occurred recently within the
analysis areas, with a resultant slight increase in fragmentation. Forested travel corridors
have diminished, but still remain for gray wolves. Clearing also provides a temporary
beneficial effect, with increased levels of browse for prey species (deer, hare).
Private land occurs within the cumulative effects area, and further development is
expected. These activities could result in the permanent loss of potential gray wolf
habitat. Additional actions performed on private lands that may adversely affect the gray
wolf in the future are fire suppression, timber harvest, and increased human disturbance.
Overall, implementation of the proposed action with HNF conservation measures is
expected to provide a very minor and probably discountable contribution to cumulative
effects within the analysis area.
West Gravel Pit EA
Biological Evaluation
- 13 -
Determination
Due to the relatively small amount of habitat that would be impacted by constructing
these pits, and the fact that hauling would occur on roads that are already present, this
project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” gray wolf, for Alternative 1.
Alternative 2 (No Action)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Implementation of the No Action Alternative would maintain the existing plant
communities and allow natural succession to occur. There would be no loss of forested
habitat from clearing.
Disturbance to wolves from harvest and pit operations also would not occur at the sites.
No increase in traffic on surrounding roads would result from Alternative 2. Therefore,
impacts such as direct mortality and road avoidance behavior would not increase.
Because the gravel pits would not be constructed, there would not be a need to control
NNIS. To summarize, there would be no direct or indirect effects from the No-Action
Alternative.
Cumulative Effects
With no direct or indirect effects at any of the five proposed sites, there would be no
change in conditions for wolves, and therefore no cumulative effects to consider from the
No-Action Alternative.
Determination
There would be “no effect” to gray wolf from Alternative 2 (No-Action).
Canada Lynx
In the Great Lakes states the lynx may inhabit areas of boreal, coniferous, and mixed
coniferous/deciduous vegetation types (Baker 1983). Lynx are closely associated with
the habitats and populations of its primary prey, the snowshoe hare. Red squirrels may
also be an important alternate prey species, especially during snowshoe hare population
lows. Lynx den sites are found in forests with large coarse woody debris including
downed logs or root wads. Older forests with a substantial understory of conifers or
small patches of shrubs and young trees, that provide dense cover, generally provide
quality lynx foraging habitat.
Alternative 1
Direct and Indirect Effects
There are five Forest Plan guidelines that address the following factors of lynx habitat
(Forest plan p. 2-18 and 2-19).
1. Maintain sufficient habitat connectivity.
Connectivity is defined as forested areas in size class 2 (i.e. saplings 4.5 feet to 4.9 inches
DBH). There is sufficient connectivity habitat for lynx under both alternatives. Pit
West Gravel Pit EA
Biological Evaluation
- 14 -
development would lead to loss of potential lynx habitat. Habitat may not be suitable
until extraction is complete, pit rehabilitation has occurred, and natural succession takes
place. However, at a landscape scale, the conversion of 50-60 acres of habitat to
gravel/sand pits is not expected to impact connectivity.
2. Retain 10% of areas affected by fire, blowdown, insects or disease.
No salvage activities are proposed by this project.
3. Protect habitat integrity when planning and designating snow compacted trails.
There are no new snowmobile trails proposed by this project.
4. Attempt to keep road densities below 2 miles per square mile in lynx habitat.
The focus of the project is gravel/sand pit construction; no roads are proposed for
construction or decommissioning.
5. At least 10% of habitat should be denning habitat in blocks greater than 5 acres.
The proposed sites contain marginal habitat for denning and given the low probability of
lynx occupying any of the sites, Alternative 1 would not impact lynx denning habitat.
Other factors:
None of the sites represent unique or critical habitat for lynx. The loss of 50-60 acres of
forested habitat is not expected to adversely affect lynx.
Disturbance would be the most likely effect to lynx: during clearing, extraction, and
hauling of material. Impacts are expected to be minor, if any, due to lynx ability to
quickly move to nearby equally-suitable habitats. If an active lynx den is located during
any portion of preparing or implementing the proposed project, a special closure order
may be used for protection as stated in the HNF LRMP, p 2-17 (2006). These measures
would establish a no-activity buffer zone around the active den site.
If Alternative 1 is implemented, about 50-60 acres of habitat would be lost, and herbicide
use would take place. This project does meet habitat guidelines within the Forest Plan.
Mitigation measures, Forest Service policy, State and Federal laws, and manufacturer
recommendations would all be followed during herbicide application. Data suggests that
the herbicides proposed for use are generally safe to mammals, birds, and other wildlife if
used in accordance with the manufacturer label (Appendix B, Tables E-1 – E-3).
Additionally, these chemicals would only be used within the established pits, which are
not considered lynx habitat.
Cumulative Effects
Clearing and thinning of timber stands has occurred recently within the analysis area with
a resulting increase in fragmentation. Connectivity habitat has diminished due to
fragmentation, but still remains in sufficient quantities.
Present actions include timber sales, involving jack pine salvage and red pine thinning,
which can reduce habitat temporarily. These effects are mostly discountable, as harvested
West Gravel Pit EA
Biological Evaluation
- 15 -
areas return to suitability within 5 years, and because sufficient suitable habitat remains
throughout the analysis area.
It is likely that the distribution of cone-bearing conifers across the analysis area will be
sufficient to function as red squirrel habitat, meeting the needs of the lynx for an alternate
source of prey, both at present and in the future.
Private, state, county, and other landowners may continue to build roads, many of which
would become permanent or, if needed temporarily, may not be effectively closed after
use. However, it is possible that the majority of state and county road systems are already
in place and that additional major construction and changes in broad access patterns are
unlikely.
Determination:
Based on this analysis, and on the extremely low probability of lynx occurring within the
project area, the project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” Canada lynx for
Alternative 1.
Alternative 2
Direct and Indirect Effects
Implementation of the No Action Alternative would maintain the existing plant
communities and allow natural succession to occur. There would be no loss of forested
habitat from clearing.
Disturbance to lynx from harvest and pit operations also would not occur at the sites. No
increase in traffic on surrounding roads would result from Alternative 2. Therefore,
impacts such as direct mortality and road avoidance behavior would not increase.
Because the gravel pits would not be constructed, there would not be a need to control
NNIS. To summarize, there would be no direct or indirect effects from the No-Action
Alternative.
Cumulative Effects
With no direct or indirect effects at any of the five proposed sites, there would be no
change in conditions for lynx, and therefore no cumulative effects to consider from the
No-Action Alternative.
Determination
There would be “no effect” to Canada lynx from Alternative 2 (No-Action).
West Gravel Pit EA
Biological Evaluation
- 16 -
Species Analysis: Regional Forester Sensitive Species
Gray wolf
Alternative 1
Direct and Indirect Impacts
Over the entire project area, the amount of forested habitat available to wolves would
decrease by 50-60 acres from clearing. Therefore, these areas would not be suitable
habitat for wolves or prey species until extraction is completed, and pit rehabilitation and
succession has occurred. None of the sites represent unique or critical habitat for wolves.
The loss of such a small amount of habitat is not expected to affect gray wolf.
Disturbance would be the most likely effect to wolves: during clearing, extraction, and
hauling of material. Impacts are expected to be minor, if any, due to wolves‟ ability to
quickly move to nearby equally-suitable habitats. If an active gray wolf den or
rendezvous area is located during any portion of preparing or implementing the proposed
project, protection measures on page 2-23 in the HNF Draft Wildlife Technical Guide
will be implemented. (USDA Forest Service, 2006). These measures would establish a
no-activity buffer zone around the active den site.
If Alternative 1 is implemented, mitigation measures, Forest Service policy, State and
Federal laws, and manufacturer recommendations would all be followed during the
herbicide application process in order to minimize environmental impacts. The data
suggest that the herbicides proposed for use are generally safe to mammals, birds, and
other wildlife if used in accordance with the manufacturer label (see Appendix B, Table
3). Additionally, these chemicals would only be used within the pits, which are not
considered important wolf habitat.
Cumulative Impacts
Although it is difficult to estimate the cumulative effects resulting from management of
the National Forest along with neighboring land management and land uses from 2000-
2036, we can estimate cumulative effects related to habitat conditions and human
disturbances. Clearing and thinning of timber stands has occurred recently within the
analysis areas, with a resultant slight increase in fragmentation. Forested travel corridors
have diminished, but still remain for gray wolves. Clearing also provides a temporary
beneficial effect, with increased levels of browse for prey species (deer, hare).
Private land occurs within the cumulative effects area, and further development is
expected. These activities could result in the permanent loss of potential gray wolf
habitat. Additional actions performed on private lands that may adversely affect the gray
wolf in the future are fire suppression, timber harvest, and increased human disturbance.
Overall, implementation of the proposed action with HNF conservation measures is
expected to provide a very minor and probably discountable contribution to cumulative
effects within the analysis area.
West Gravel Pit EA
Biological Evaluation
- 17 -
Determination
Due to the relatively small amount of habitat that would be impacted by constructing
these pits, and the fact that hauling would occur on roads that are already present, this
project „May Impact Individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a
loss of viability‟ for gray wolf.
Alternative 2 (No Action)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Implementation of the No Action Alternative would maintain the existing plant
communities and allow natural succession to occur. There would be no loss of forested
habitat from clearing.
Disturbance to wolves from harvest and pit operations also would not occur at the sites.
No increase in traffic on surrounding roads would result from Alternative 2. Therefore,
impacts such as direct mortality and road avoidance behavior would not increase.
Because the gravel pits would not be constructed, there would not be a need to control
NNIS. To summarize, there would be no direct or indirect impacts from the No-Action
Alternative.
Cumulative Effects
With no direct or indirect effects at any of the five proposed sites, there would be no
change in conditions for wolves, and therefore no cumulative effects to consider from the
No-Action Alternative.
Determination
There would be “no impact” to gray wolf from Alternative 2 (No-Action).
Black-backed Woodpecker
The black-backed woodpecker occurs locally across the Upper Peninsula and parts of the
northern Lower Peninsula. It occupies open and closed black spruce-tamarack bogs,
northern white cedar swamps, mixed forests with eastern hemlock, jack-pine plains and
conifer clearcuts where disturbance (insect outbreak, fire) provide areas with a large
number of dead trees (Evers 1991).
Bark-boring beetle larvae provide 75 percent of the black-backed woodpecker’s diet.
They also consume other insects and spiders. Nesting cavities are drilled in dead or live
conifers, with spruce and pine trees being preferred. Foraging sometimes occurs far from
its nesting territory (SVE 2002). Most nests overlook openings such as lakes, peatlands,
clearcuts and roads. This woodpecker quickly inhabits areas where wildfire or disease
events create stands with large numbers of snags, these woodpeckers move between areas
with large disturbances. Dead standing and dead and downed logs are used for foraging.
West Gravel Pit EA
Biological Evaluation
- 18 -
Stands with lesser numbers of snags are used in the interim. Of the five proposed sites,
only Kilpecker represents potential habitat for black-backed woodpecker, as the jack pine
matures and becomes diseased or dies.
Alternative 1
Direct and Indirect Impacts
The loss of approximately 10 acres of jack pine at the Kilpecker site is not expected to
impact black-backed woodpecker, with thousands of acres of equally suitable habitat in
close proximity. Clearing, extraction, and crushing operations could disturb individuals
foraging nearby, and cause them to forage elsewhere. Birds nesting near the pit would
also be affected by disturbance, and there may be potential for nest abandonment. This
potential could be lessened by restricting operations to late summer-fall, and could reduce
impacts to other nesting birds.
The impact that herbicide use may have on black-backed woodpeckers is not well known.
Mitigation measures, Forest Service policy, State and Federal laws, and manufacturer
recommendations would all be followed during the applications process in order to
minimize environmental impacts. The data suggest that the herbicides proposed for use
are generally safe to mammals, birds, and other wildlife if used in accordance with the
manufacturer label. However, according to Table E-3, impacts on insects are possible,
and black-backed woodpeckers are insectivores, so there may be potential for impact to
individuals that feed adjacent to pit locations. Chemicals would only be used within the
pits, which are not considered black-backed woodpecker habitat, but impacts to the
surrounding area could potentially impact black-backed woodpeckers.
Cumulative Impacts
The most relevant factor for this species is the removal of dead or dying conifers. The
past and current practice of removal of dead and dying timber has negatively impacted
black-backed woodpecker across the landscape. Under a natural disturbance regime,
wildfire would likely follow a budworm outbreak, creating extensive areas of quality
woodpecker habitat with thousands of acres of dead standing trees.
Recent actions (Jack pine Budworm Project, 2007), within ½ mile of the proposed
Kilpecker pit and travel route include clear cut of 15 acres of diseased jack pine. Effects
from this sale would combine with gravel pit clearing to increase fragmentation within
the cumulative effects area, and would reduce habitat for black-backed woodpecker. The
amount of vehicular use of FR2225 E is unknown and therefore the potential increased
level of traffic (with gravel hauling) is impossible to estimate. An increase in traffic
could disrupt wildlife travel patterns on a daily and seasonal basis. No impacts to black-
backed woodpecker from other actions are anticipated.
Determination
Because of the small amount of habitat affected and the opportunity for individuals to
move to nearby undisturbed areas, the determination for Alternative 1 is ‘May Impact
Individuals but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability’.
West Gravel Pit EA
Biological Evaluation
- 19 -
Alternative 2 (No Action)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Implementation of the No Action Alternative would maintain the existing plant
communities and allow natural succession to occur. There would be no loss of forested
habitat from clearing.
Disturbance to black-backed woodpecker from harvest and pit operations also would not
occur at the sites. No increase in traffic on surrounding roads would result from
Alternative 2. Therefore, impacts such as direct mortality and road avoidance behavior
would not increase. Because the gravel pits would not be constructed, there would not be
a need to control NNIS. To summarize, there would be no direct or indirect impacts from
the No-Action Alternative.
Cumulative Effects
With no direct or indirect effects at any of the five proposed sites, there would be no
change in conditions for black-backed woodpecker, and therefore no cumulative effects
to consider from the No-Action Alternative.
Determination
Alternative 2 would have ‘no impact’ on black-backed woodpecker.
Northern goshawk
The northern goshawk inhabits large stands of boreal and northern hardwood forests
having a dense overstory and a relatively open understory (Postupalusky 1991). In
Michigan, nests are most often constructe d in deciduous trees and less often in pine. On
the Hiawatha NF, maple, yellow birch and American beech are the most frequently used
trees for nesting (Gibson 2003). Ten confirmed Northern goshawk nests in the
West Unit Raptor Database were found in eight stands; one of which was a red pine saw
log stand and the remainder of the stands were northern hardwoods (hardwood/yellow
birch, mixed hardwoods and dry site red maple).
Alternative 1
Direct and Indirect Impacts
The proposed action would remove approximately 50 acres of sugar maple, beech, aspen,
paper birch, and balsam fir at four pits (excluding Kilpecker). Therefore, this project
would result in loss of goshawk nesting and foraging habitat. Additionally, gravel/sand
hauling may impact individuals that utilize habitat near roads. Impacts from disturbance
would likely be more significant than from the loss of habitat. Design criteria (Appendix
A) will be initiated if an active goshawk nest is located near the pits at any time during
implementation. The design criteria include a no-activity buffer around the nest area and
seasonal restrictions on hauling, if necessary. The design criteria will reduce the
potential for disturbance to nesting goshawks.
West Gravel Pit EA
Biological Evaluation
- 20 -
Herbicide use within the pits is not expected to impact northern goshawks. Mitigation
measures, Forest Service policy, State and Federal laws, and manufacturer
recommendations would all be followed during the applications process in order to
minimize environmental impacts. The data suggest that the herbicides proposed for use
are generally safe to mammals, birds, and other wildlife if used in accordance with the
manufacturer label (Tables E-1 – E-3). Additionally, these chemicals would only be used
within the pits, which are not considered to be important northern goshawk habitat.
However, impacts of herbicide use, specific to goshawks, are not well known.
Cumulative Impacts
Actual trend data for northern goshawk within the west unit of the Hiawatha is lacking.
Past and present actions that may impact goshawk include clearing and subsequent
fragmentation, conversion to red pine, and increased human activity across the area.
Recent actions include a paper birch shelterwood cut and hardwood thinning within ¼
mile of the Halfmoon pit site. These actions resulted in a more open condition. Removal
of an additional 15 acres would add to this open condition, further reducing habitat for
species requiring more closed canopy conditions, such as northern goshawk. Overstory
removal of jack and red pine within ½ mile of the proposed Hickey Creek pit would
combine with gravel pit clearing to increase fragmentation within the cumulative effects
area, thus reducing habitat for northern goshawk. Recent actions within ½ mile of the
proposed Whitefish pit and travel route include pine and hardwood thinning. Thinned
stands will return to a more closed canopy condition within five years and would not
combine with the proposed gravel pit clearing to increase fragmentation, but would
contribute to temporary habitat loss for northern goshawk.
Clearing can also provide a temporary beneficial effect, with increased levels of forage
for prey species (ruffed grouse).
Private land occurs within the cumulative effects area, and further development is
expected. These activities could result in the permanent loss of potential gray wolf
habitat. Additional actions performed on private lands that may adversely affect northern
goshawk in the future are timber harvest and increased human disturbance. The mostly
insignificant impacts to goshawk from the proposed action alternative are not expected to
add appreciably to other past, present, or future impacts.
Determination
Based on the analysis above, the management activities proposed in Alternative 1 “may
impact individuals but are not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability”
for northern goshawk. If a northern goshawk nest is located in the project area during
project preparation or implementation, protection measures listed in Appendix A of this
Biological Evaluation will be used.
West Gravel Pit EA
Biological Evaluation
- 21 -
Alternative 2 (No Action)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Implementation of the No Action Alternative would maintain the existing plant
communities and allow natural succession to occur. There would be no loss of forested
habitat from clearing.
Disturbance to northern goshawk from harvest and pit operations also would not occur at
the sites. No increase in traffic on surrounding roads would result from Alternative 2.
Therefore, impacts such as direct mortality and road avoidance behavior would not
increase. Because the gravel pits would not be constructed, there would not be a need to
control NNIS. To summarize, there would be no direct or indirect impacts from the No-
Action Alternative.
Cumulative Effects
With no direct or indirect effects at any of the five proposed sites, there would be no
change in conditions for northern goshawk, and therefore no cumulative effects to
consider from the No-Action Alternative.
Determination
The determination for Alternative 2 is “no impact” to northern goshawk.
Red-shouldered hawk
The red-shouldered hawk is associated with mixed coniferous-deciduous woodlands,
lowland hardwood forests, swamp, river bottomlands, and wooded marshy areas. Prey
species are highly varied, and include numerous kinds of small mammals, snakes,
amphibians, small birds, frogs, toads, and also insects. Red-shouldered hawk habitat
includes extensive areas of mature forests with wetland foraging areas nearby. Forest
stands dominated by beech and sugar maple are frequently selected for nesting (Brewer et
al. 1991).
Alternative 1
Direct and Indirect Impacts
In the HNF, red-shouldered hawks appear to nest in mature northern hardwood stands. .
The proposed pits (excluding Kilpecker) would remove about 50 acres of sugar maple,
beech, aspen, paper birch, and balsam fir. Therefore, this project would result in a loss of
red-shouldered hawk nesting and forage habitat. Additionally, gravel/sand hauling may
impact individuals that utilize habitat near roads, but design criteria would be
implemented to minimize this impact. For example, no pit development, hauling, or
other extraction activities would occur between March 1 and August 31 around active
nest sites.
Herbicide use within the pits is not expected to impact red-shouldered hawks. Mitigation
measures, Forest Service policy, State and Federal laws, and manufacturer
recommendations would all be followed during the applications process in order to
minimize environmental impacts. The data suggest that the herbicides proposed for use
West Gravel Pit EA
Biological Evaluation
- 22 -
are generally safe to mammals, birds, and other wildlife if used in accordance with the
manufacturer label (Tables E-1 – E-3). Additionally, these chemicals would only be used
within the pits, which are not considered to be important red-shouldered hawk habitat.
However, impacts of herbicide use, specific to red-shouldered hawks, are not well
known.
Cumulative Impacts
Actual trend data for red-shouldered hawk within the west unit of the Hiawatha is
lacking. Past and present actions that may impact red-shouldered hawk include clearing
and subsequent fragmentation, conversion to red pine, and increased human activity
across the area.
Recent actions include a paper birch shelterwood cut and hardwood thinning within ¼
mile of the Halfmoon pit site. These actions resulted in a more open condition. Removal
of an additional 15 acres would add to this open condition, further reducing habitat for
species requiring more closed canopy conditions, such as red-shouldered hawk.
Overstory removal of jack and red pine within ½ mile of the proposed Hickey Creek pit
would combine with gravel pit clearing to increase fragmentation within the cumulative
effects area, thus reducing habitat for red-shouldered hawk. Recent actions within ½ mile
of the proposed Whitefish pit and travel route include pine and hardwood thinning.
Thinned stands will return to a more closed canopy condition within five years and would
not combine with the proposed gravel pit clearing to increase fragmentation, but would
contribute to temporary habitat loss for red-shouldered hawk.
Private land occurs within the cumulative effects area, and further development is
expected. These activities could result in the permanent loss of potential red-shouldered
hawk habitat. Additional actions performed on private lands that may adversely affect
red-shouldered hawk in the future are timber harvest and increased human disturbance.
The mostly insignificant impacts from the proposed action alternative are not expected to
add appreciably to other past, present, or future impacts.
Determination
Based on the analysis above, the management activities proposed in Alternative 1 “may
impact individuals but are not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability”
for red-shouldered hawk. If a red-shouldered hawk nest is located in the project area
during project preparation or implementation, protection measures listed in Appendix A
of this Biological Evaluation will be used.
Alternative 2 (No Action)
Direct and Indirect Effects
Implementation of the No Action Alternative would maintain the existing plant
communities and allow natural succession to occur. There would be no loss of forested
habitat from clearing.
Disturbance to red-shouldered hawk from harvest and pit operations also would not occur
at the sites. No increase in traffic on surrounding roads would result from Alternative 2.
West Gravel Pit EA
Biological Evaluation
- 23 -
Therefore, impacts such as direct mortality and road avoidance behavior would not
increase. Because the gravel pits would not be constructed, there would not be a need to
control NNIS. To summarize, there would be no direct or indirect impacts from the No-
Action Alternative.
Cumulative Effects
With no direct or indirect effects at any of the five proposed sites, there would be no
change in conditions for red-shouldered hawk, and therefore no cumulative effects to
consider from the No-Action Alternative.
Determination
The determination for Alternative 2 is “no impact” to red-shouldered hawk.
EFFECTS DETERMINATIONS
Table 2. Summary of Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Determinations
Species Status Habitat (H) or Species
Present (S)
Determination Alternative 1 Determination
Alternative 2
Gray Wolf E, ST H NLAA where the effects are
expected to be discountable
No Effect
Canada lynx T, SE H
NLAA where the effects are
expected to be discountable
No Effect
Gray Wolf RS H MINL No Impact
Black-backed
Woodpecker
RS H MINL No Impact
Red-shouldered
hawk
RS H MINL No Impact
Northern goshawk RS H MINL No Impact
NE: No Effect, NI: No Impact, NLAA: Not Likely to Adversely Affect, BI: Beneficial Impact
MINL May Impact individuals but Not Likely to cause a Trend to federal Listing or loss of Viability
Conclusion
The USFWS will be informally consulted and concurrence will be requested for
determinations for federally listed Threatened and Endangered Species made in this
Biological Evaluation. The consultation will be Level 2 project-specific consultation
pursuant to the Programmatic Consultation for the HNF Land and Resource Management
Plan (Forest Plan), including the Programmatic Biological Assessment (BA) and
Biological Opinion (BO), completed on March 2, 2006. The history of this consultation
is documented in the Programmatic Biological Opinion for the revision of the Forest
Plan. The relevance of program-level consultation to this project includes those elements
of species ecology and biology, risk factors and general effects, analysis parameters,
monitoring, and management direction in the revised Forest Plan. A project-level BA will
provide more specific information on how relevant information in the program-level BA
West Gravel Pit EA
Biological Evaluation
- 24 -
is incorporated. Additionally, other factors relevant to this project not discussed in detail
in program-level consultation will be discussed in detail in the project-level BE.
The USFWS will determine if this proposed project is in compliance with the applicable
Forest Plan standards and guidelines for each listed species and has no additional effects
on those species other than those discussed within the Programmatic BO.
After reviewing available scientific literature and assessing the effects presented in this
Biological Evaluation, it is my conclusion that implementing the proposed action would
not violate laws or regulations applicable to Federally Endangered, Threatened, or
Regional Forester Sensitive Species considered in this document.
References Cited:
Baker, Rollin H. 1983. Michigan Mammals. Michigan State University Press.
Beyer, Dean E., Jr., Brian J. Roell, James H. Hamill, and Richard D. Earle. 2001.
Records of Canada lynx, Lynx canadensis, in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
Canadian Field –Naturalist 115(2): 234-240.
Earle, R.D. and V. R. Tuovila 2003. Furbearer Winter Track Count Survey of 2002.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 10 pp.
Evers, David C. 1991. Black-backed Woodpecker. In: Atlas of Breeding Birds of
Michigan. Brewer, McPeek, and Adams, editors. Michigan State University Press. pp.
270-271.
Gibson J. 2003. Productivity, Predation and Habitat of Woodland Raptors on the West-
Unit Hiawatha National Forest in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, USA. 77 pp.
Harger, Ellsworth M. 1965. The Status of the Canada Lynx in Michigan. The Jack pine
Warbler 43(4). December, 1965.
HNF Land and Resource Management Plan. 2006. Canada Lynx guidelines. Pp 2-17 - 2-
19.
Mech, L. D., S. H. Fritts, G.L. Radde, and W. J. Paul. 1988. Wolf distribution and road
density in Minnesota. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16:85-87.
Michigan Gray Wolf Recovery Team. 1997. Michigan Gray Wolf Recovery and
Management Plan. Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Lansing, MI. 59 pp.
Michigan State University Extension. 2007. Michigan Natural Features Inventory.
West Gravel Pit EA
Biological Evaluation
- 25 -
Web Database Search for “Element Occurrence Records” in T 43 N, R 20 W, Section 31;
T 43 N, R. 18 W, Section 10; T 45 N, R19 W, Section 35; T 46 N, R 18 W, Section 34;
and T 45 N, R 20 W, Section 10.
Postupalsky, S. 1991. Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis pages 168-169 in: Brewer , R.,
G.A. McPeek, and R.J., Adams (eds). 1991. The Atlas of Breeding Birds in Michigan.
East Lansing, Michigan State University Press 594 pp.
Thiel, R. P. 1985. Relationship between road densities and wolf habitat suitability in
Wisconsin. American Midland Naturalist 113(2):404-407.
USDA Forest Service, Hiawatha National Forest 2006 Wildlife Technical Guide for gray
wolf protection page 2-26.
USDA Forest Service, Hiawatha National Forest 2006 Wildlife Technical Guide for
Northern goshawk and Red-shouldered hawk protection pages 2-36 and 2-37.
USDI- Fish and Wildlife Service, 4/29/2005. Letter to Forest Supervisor Thomas
Schmidt, List of Threatened and Endangered Species for the Hiawatha National Forest. 2
pgs.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Recovery Plan for the Eastern Timber Wolf. Twin
Cities, MN. 73.
Appendix A: Design Criteria
Woodland Raptors
The following measures apply to any northern goshawk or red-shouldered hawk nest that
may be constructed in the project area between the signing of the decision for this project
and the final implementation of the associated work in the Decision Notice.
Nest Area
Defined as a 30-acre area around an existing goshawk nest. The nest is typically the
center of a circular area approximately 1320 feet across (660 foot radius from the nest).
No timber harvesting will be permitted within this area, regardless of nest status.
Actions related to timber harvest, such as hauling or use of existing temporary roads
would only be permitted outside the nesting season (March 1 to August 31).
West Gravel Pit EA
Biological Evaluation
- 26 -
Forest service local roads within 960 feet of the nest will be seasonally (March 1 to
August 31) restricted or closed. Minimal human presence will be permitted during the
same period.
Post-Fledging Area (PFA)
Defined as a 400-500 acre forested area, typically the center of a circular area,
approximately one mile in diameter (1/2 mile radius from the nest). This area should
contain a mosaic of vegetative structural stages in small patches.
All sale activity within the PFA will only be permitted outside the nesting season
(March 1 through August 31).
No more than 20% of the PFA will be in upland openings and/or in the 0-9 yr. age class.
Small openings are important. Openings should be less than 400 feet across and range
from 1/3 to 4 acres in size.
Sixty percent of the PFA should be in 30+ year age classes (100 year rotation) within the
long rotation forest types. Management prescriptions that have emphasis areas
(Kirtland‟s warbler or grouse) will strive for 44% in 30+ year age classes (55 year
rotation).
Dead and Down
An important component in goshawk prey base management.
Snags: at least two large ( 10” dbh and 10‟ in height) snags per acre will be left or
created throughout the foraging area.
Downed logs: at least three large ( 10” diameter at midpoint and 10‟ in length) downed
logs per acre will be left or created throughout the PFA
Appendix B: Effects from Proposed Herbicides
Tables E-1, E-2, and E-3 provide herbicide information for all of the animals and groups
analyzed in this BE. Table E-1 presents mammalian toxicity data from the 2006 edition
of the Herbicide Handbook (WSSA 2006) for each of the five herbicides selected for use
in the proposed program. The data reflect the potential for toxicity to terrestrial
mammalian wildlife exposed to areas treated with the herbicides. The data consist of
LD50, LC50, and NOEL values. A LD50 (Lethal Dose50) represents the dose (amount
supplied orally) to a test animal species in a controlled laboratory experiment that causes
50 percent mortality. An LC50 (Lethal Concentration50) represents the concentration
causing 50 percent mortality when a test animal species is externally exposed to the
chemical in a controlled laboratory experiment. A NOEL (No Observed Effects Level)
West Gravel Pit EA
Biological Evaluation
- 27 -
represents the highest dose or concentration (expressed as mg per kg body weight per
day) observed not to cause noticeable effects in a test animal in a controlled laboratory
experiment. For all three parameters, a higher value indicates a safer (less toxic)
chemical.
Data are presented for two categories of toxicity: acute and chronic. Acute toxicity results
from exposure to the chemical for a short time, for example when an animal enters an
area immediately after herbicide application when the foliage is still wet. Chronic toxicity
results from continuous exposure to the chemical over an extended time, for example
should an animal inhabit an area that is repeatedly sprayed with a herbicide at regular
intervals over multiple years. Because the proposed program would consist mostly of
single applications, or at most, an initial application and one to three subsequent
applications, the acute toxicity data is most relevant. For each herbicide, we presented
separate rows of data in Table E-1 for the technical product (unformulated active
ingredient) and for several common formulations. How a product is formulated can
significantly affect its toxicity. Because it is the formulations and not the technical
product that are used in the field, formulation data are more relevant, if available. While
data based on exposure of mammalian test organisms are a useful predictor of toxicity to
mammalian wildlife, they are less useful as a predictor of toxicity to birds, fish, and other
wildlife whose physiology substantially differs from that of mammals.
Table E-2 presents toxicity data generated specifically for these other types of wildlife.
Because mammalian toxicity data are also useful in assessing toxicity to humans, they are
usually more widely available. However, when data based on other animals is available,
they are more useful for assessing potential impacts to those animals and associated
groups of animals.
Table E-3 includes information related to minimum, average and maximum application
rates, when available, for the chemicals included in the proposed actions. The table
presents ecological risk assessments summarized from Forest Service publications and
Cornell University publications for the proposed herbicides. The ecological risk
assessments consider not only the potential toxicity of herbicides to ecological receptors
but also the likelihood of exposure of receptors to the herbicides. Thus, they provide a
more realistic assessment of risk to ecological receptors from herbicide use than do
toxicity data alone.
Herbicides on the market today are generally regarded as safe to both humans and to
wildlife if used in accordance with the manufacturer label. For purposes of comparison
against data in Table E-1, the oral LD50 for rats exposed in their diet to table salt (sodium
chloride) is reported at 3,000 mg/kg body weight (BW) (Mallinckrodt Baker Inc. 2004),
which is somewhat lower (less safe) than the oral rat LD50 values for most formulations
of glyphosate and clopyralid. Furthermore, the oral LD50 data suggests that most of the
other herbicide formulations are not substantially more toxic than table salt. For purposes
of comparison against aquatic toxicity metrics in Table E-2, the reported 48-hour LC50 for
Daphnia pulex exposed to table salt is 1,470 milligrams per liter (mg/L) (Salt Institute
2004); this value is lower (less safe) than the corresponding values for most herbicide
West Gravel Pit EA
Biological Evaluation
- 28 -
formulations reported in the table. Values for many of the formulations do not greatly
differ from this value.
West Gravel Pit EA
Biological Evaluation - 30 -
Table E-1. Mammalian toxicity data for herbicides proposed for non-native invasive plant (NNIP) control on the HNF as part of the proposed action (Alternative 2)
Herbicide Acute Toxicity Chronic Toxicity
(Technical product
unless specific
formulation noted)
Oral
LD50
(rat)
Dermal
LD50
(rabbit)
4-Hour
Inhalation
LC50
(rat)
Skin
Irritation
(rabbit)
Skin
Sensitization
(guinea pig)
Eye
Irritation
(rabbit)
24-Month
Dietary
NOEL
(mouse)
24-Month
Dietary
NOEL
(rat)
12-Month
Dietary
NOEL
(dog)
mg/kg BW mg/L mg/kg BW/day
Glyphosate
Glyphosate acid 5600 >5000 NA None No Slight 4500 400 500
Glyphosate
isopropylamine salt
>5000
>5000
NA None
No
Slight
Chronic toxicity data available
only for technical glyphosate acid
Glyphosate trime-
thylsulfonium salt
748
>2000
>5.18
(unspec.)
Mild
Mild
Mild
ROUNDUP >5000 >5000 3.2 None No Moderate
RODEO >5000 >5000 1.3 None No None
Imazapic
Imazipic acid >5000 >5000 NA None No Slight Long-term dietary administration
produced no adverse effects in mice
and rats.
Imazipic ammonium
salt
>5000 >5000 2.4 None No None Chronic toxicity data available
only for technical imazipic acid
PLATEAU >5000 >5000 2.4 None No None
CADRE >5000
>5000
(rat)
2.4
None
No
None
Triclopyr
Triclopyr acid 713 >2000 NA None Positive Mild 5.3
(22mo)
3 NA
West Gravel Pit EA
Biological Evaluation - 31 -
Herbicide Acute Toxicity Chronic Toxicity
(Technical product
unless specific
formulation noted)
Oral
LD50
(rat)
Dermal
LD50
(rabbit)
4-Hour
Inhalation
LC50
(rat)
Skin
Irritation
(rabbit)
Skin
Sensitization
(guinea pig)
Eye
Irritation
(rabbit)
24-Month
Dietary
NOEL
(mouse)
24-Month
Dietary
NOEL
(rat)
12-Month
Dietary
NOEL
(dog)
mg/kg BW mg/L mg/kg BW/day
GARLON 3A 2574 >5000
>2.6
(unspec.)
NA NA Severe
Chronic toxicity data available
only for technical triclopyr acid
GARLON 4 1581 >2000
>5.2
(unspec.)
Moderate
Positive
Slight
Clopyralid
Clopyralid acid >5000
>2000
>1.3
(unspec.)
V. Slight
No
Severe
500
(18mo)
(mouse)
50
(rat)
100
(dog)
STINGER >5000
NA NA NA NA NA Chronic toxicity data available
only for technical clopyralid acid
Dicamba
Dicamba acid 1707 >2000 9.6 Slight Possible Extreme 115
(18mo)
125 60
BANVEL 2629 >2000 >5.4 Moderate No Extreme Chronic toxicity data available
only for technical dicamba acid BANVEL 720 2500 NA NA NA NA NA
BANVEL SGF 6764 >20000 >20.23 Slight N/A Minimal
WEEDMASTER
Dicamba+2,4-D
>5000
>20000
>20.3
Minimal
N/A Minimal
Table E-2. Toxicity data for other types of wildlife for herbicides proposed for non-native invasive plant (NNIP) control on the HNF as part of the proposed action (Alternative 2)
Herbicide
Formulation
Avian Receptors Terrestrial
Invertebrates
Aquatic Receptors
West Gravel Pit EA
Biological Evaluation - 32 -
(Technical product
unless specific
formulation noted)
Bobwhite Quail Mallard Duck Earth-
worm
Honeybee Daphnia Bluegill Rainbow
Trout
Oral
LD50
8-day
dietary
LC50
Oral LD50 8-day
dietary
LC50
LC50 Topical
LD50
48-hour
LC50
96-hour
LC50
96-hour
LC50
mg/kg
BW
ppm
(in food)
mg/kg BW ppm
(in food)
ppm
(in soil)
ug/bee Mg/L (in water)
Glyphosate
Glyphosate acid >4640 >4640 4640 >100 780 120 86
Glyphosate
trimethylsulfo-nium
salt
>5000 950 >5000 >62.1 71 3500 1800
ROUNDUP >5000 >100 5.3 5.8 8.2
RODEO 930 >1000 >1000
Imazapic
Imazapic Acid >2150 >5000 >2150 >5000 100 32
Triclopyr
Triclopyr acid 2934 1698 >5620 >100 133 148 117
Triclopyr
butoxyethyl ester
5401 >5401 >100 1.7 0.36 0.65
Triclopyr
triethylamine salt
>10000 3176 >10000 >100 775 891 613
Clopyralid
Clopyralid acid >4640 1465 >4640 1000 >0.1 232 125 104
Dicamba
Dicamba acid 216 >10000 1373 >10000 110
(TL50)
135
(TL50)
135
(TL50)
BANVEL >4640 >2510 >4640 1600 >1000 1000
BANVEL SGF >10000 >4640 >10000 38.1 706 558
WEEDMASTER >4640 >4640 >4640 >1800 >1000 >1000
West Gravel Pit EA
Biological Evaluation - 33 -
Herbicide
Formulation
Avian Receptors Terrestrial
Invertebrates
Aquatic Receptors
(Technical product
unless specific
formulation noted)
Bobwhite Quail Mallard Duck Earth-
worm
Honeybee Daphnia Bluegill Rainbow
Trout
Oral
LD50
8-day
dietary
LC50
Oral LD50 8-day
dietary
LC50
LC50 Topical
LD50
48-hour
LC50
96-hour
LC50
96-hour
LC50
Dicamba+2,4-D
Table E-3. Risk assessment information for herbicides proposed for non-native invasive plant (NNIP) control on the HNF as part of the proposed action (Alternative 2)
Risk
Assessment
Application
Rate
Terrestrial Mammals Birds Insects Fish & Other Aquatic
Receptors
Glyphosate (Source: SERA 2003a; Tu et al. 2001)
West Gravel Pit EA
Biological Evaluation - 34 -
Risk
Assessment
Application
Rate
Terrestrial Mammals Birds Insects Fish & Other Aquatic
Receptors
2 lb a.e./acre
(average rate)
7 lb a.e./acre
(maximum
rate)
Effects resulting from
average application rate
are minimal. Some risk
exists for large mammals
consuming foliage for an
extended period of time in
areas treated with
maximum application rate.
Effects resulting from
average application rate
are minimal. Some risk
exists for small birds
consuming insects for an
extended period of time
from areas treated with
maximum application rate.
Effects resulting from
average application rate
are minimal. Some risk
from maximum application
rate to bees exposed to
direct spray.
Effects resulting from
average application rate
are minimal. Some risks
exists to fish near areas
treated with maximum
application rate using
some of the more toxic
formulations not labeled
for use in aquatic settings.
Imazipic (Source: SERA 2004c, Tu et al. 2004)
0.100 lb a.e.
/acre
(average rate)
0.1875 lb/acre
(maximum
rate)
No substantial risk to small
mammals at maximum
rates.
Some risk exists for large
mammals, if consumed
over long period (i.e. 2
years).
No substantial risk at
maximum rates.
No substantial risk at
maximum rates. Non-toxic
to bees
No substantial risk at
maximum rates. However,
limited toxicological data
available. Potential for
risk to aquatic plants from
maximum rates is
borderline.
Triclopyr (Source: SERA 2003b, Tu et al. 2003)
West Gravel Pit EA
Biological Evaluation - 35 -
Risk
Assessment
Application
Rate
Terrestrial Mammals Birds Insects Fish & Other Aquatic
Receptors
1 lb a.e./acre
(average rate)
10 lb a.e./acre
(maximum
rate)
No substantial risk at
average rate. Some risk for
mammals exposed via
direct spray or consuming
sprayed vegetation when
applied at maximum rate.
No substantial risk at
average rate. Some risk for
large bird exposed via
direct spray or consuming
sprayed vegetation when
applied at maximum rate.
No substantial risk to
terrestrial vertebrates and
invertebrates from salt and
ester formulations. Risk to
aquatic invertebrates when
if exposed to the
butoxyethyl ester (BEE)
formulation.
No substantial risk when
triethylamine (TEA) salt
formulations are applied at
average rate. Some risk to
aquatic species when
butoxyethyl ester (BEE)
formulations are applied at
average rate. Substantial
risk when BEE
formulations applied at
maximum rate.
Clopyralid (Source: SERA 2004b, Tu et al. 2001)
0.1 lb
a.e./acre
(typical rate)
1.0 lb
a.e./acre
(maximum
rate)
Reported to be relatively
non-toxic, with little
potential for adverse
effects.
Reported to be relatively
non-toxic, with little
potential for adverse
effects.
Reported to be relatively
non-toxic to bees, with
little potential for adverse
effects. Low toxicity to
soil invertebrates and
microbes.
Reported to be relatively
non-toxic, with little
potential for adverse
effects.
Dicamba (as Vanquish, the diglycolamine salt of dicamba) (Source: SERA 2004a, Cornell 1993)
West Gravel Pit EA
Biological Evaluation - 36 -
Risk
Assessment
Application
Rate
Terrestrial Mammals Birds Insects Fish & Other Aquatic
Receptors
2 lb a.i./acre
(foliar
application)
1.5 lb a.i./acre
(cut surface
application)
(VANQUISH
)
No plausible and
substantial hazard under
normal conditions of
Forest Service use.
No plausible and
substantial hazard under
normal conditions of
Forest Service use.
Reported to be non-toxic
to bees.
No plausible and
substantial hazard under
normal conditions of
Forest Service use.