Appendix A

East Dunes Campground Environmental Assessment Page 1

Appendix A East Dunes Project

Project Design Criteria

Introduction Design criteria for actions identified in the East Dunes Campground Project EA (EA) were developed to ensure the project is consistent with the standards and guides of the 1990 Siuslaw Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (SLRMP), as amended by the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan (NFP). Other requirements were followed, including those described in consultation documents for federally listed species or designated critical habitat and those in the Late-Successional Reserve Assessment (LSRA) for Oregon’s Northern Coast Range Adaptive Management Area (USDA, USDI 1998). The objectives of this project are linked to the project needs identified in the EA, chapter 1: to provide a safe and enjoyable recreation opportunity for the public. The design criteria apply to all action alternatives, unless otherwise specified. Appropriate specialists will be consulted before any design criteria for proposed activities are changed. Forest Service direction, regulations, and standards and guides for resource protection may change over time. If changes occur prior to completion of any project actions, then the actions should be modified to reflect mandatory changes.

Project Design Criteria Applicable to All Action Alternatives This section discusses criteria related to the design of treatments and actions (i.e., Project Design Criteria), applicable to all Action Alternatives. These criteria are to be employed during on the-ground project designation/implementation and are designed to address overall objectives (attain the Purpose and Need) and resource objectives and manage consequences (obtain compliance with Standards and Guidelines). Other criteria that manage consequences during actual operations are termed “mitigation measures” and are discussed later in this Appendix.

Streams and riparian vegetation Appropriate design of the pavement as described by the Hydrologist’s review would be implemented and maintained to minimize the transport of fine sediment or potential contaminants from the parking/camping area.

Given the potential for increased surface runoff due to an increase in paved area, the project design should include drainage features that allow infiltration or capture and redirect water off the expansion.

Appendix A

East Dunes Campground Environmental Assessment Page 2

Scenic Quality and Recreation Setting The goal for all work is to enhance and protect the natural scenic qualities of the Sand Lake estuary - the coast range foothills, the valley edges, the estuary edge, the setting of small coast towns.

Grading - Wherever possible, contour waste piles, fill disposal, and grade road entrances and points along roads to blend with the surrounding topography. Continue patterns of topography, drainage patterns, native vegetation from above to below roads or other construction or disturbance.

Avoid creating a smooth continuous slope. Generally aim for a rolling, natural grade. Create small shelves in continuous grades to allow native vegetation to establish. Grade to continue surrounding natural grade, and to meet surrounding natural grade.

Access routes and undeveloped area. - Establish a natural setting area for the parking area. Establish a more predominant area that is for at site use at the East Dunes site in the natural area around parking lot.

Create space around new parking lot for access routes, with native vegetation setting. Establish generous pedestrian access routes, as possible, around parking area; through site of East Dune Site facilities, which take people into the site. Give existing buildings, parking lots, and access routes “gracious” access space around them where possible as part of new parking lot design.

Create protected area to allow vegetation to establish and be retained, in order to break up parking area and allow more natural site area. Use protected naturally vegetated areas to break up scale of parking.

Parking lot orientation - Consider whole parking area in design. Re-orient with new construction with the dominant land form, and to highlight direction to ocean, natural site features.

Parking lot shape - Adjust shape to natural site, rather than dominate or clearing natural site features. Particularly, the north and northwest corner of proposed parking area, adjust shape from rectangle to be responsive to the site. Create asymmetric forms, so that the built is more subordinate to the landscape.

Constructed elements – including parking lot, parking barriers, and sign structures - to be roaded natural in material and character. Parking with edge blended with site by use of rustic barriers and leave areas. Use of rustic wood, over-scaled elements of construction for barriers and sign structure. Simple, rustic appearance, avoid chamfering and other detailing. Appropriate vernacular types are rural, farm landscape examples from the surrounding countryside. Heavier scale. Align built facilities with larger land form.

Mitigation Common to All Alternatives __________________

The Forest Service is required by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations to implement the procedural provisions of NEPA to identify all relevant, reasonable mitigation measures that could improve the project or reduce adverse environmental effects. Mitigation, as defined in the CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1508.20), includes:

Appendix A

East Dunes Campground Environmental Assessment Page 3

• Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. • Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation. • Rectifying or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations

during the life of the actions. • Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments. • Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment.

Proposed mitigation measures and standard operating procedures designed to avoid or minimize adverse effects (or implement positive effects) for the Action Alternative are identified by resource topic area. These measured are specific to implementation of actions considered within this EA. Standards and Guidelines and mitigation measures identified in the Siuslaw National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan are incorporated by reference as required measures.

Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, or Sensitive Species (PETS), and Essential Fish Habitat

Fish

The project has been designed with appropriate Design Criteria so that there will be no impacts to ESA listed species (including Critical Habitat) or to essential fish habitat (EFH).

Wildlife

Project activities must include the most current requirements from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for federally listed wildlife. These requirements are described in a biological assessment (BA) and corresponding letter of concurrence (LOC) for either habitat modification (Habitat Modification FY 2011-2012; FWS reference: 13420-2010-I-0105) or disturbance (Disturbance FY 2010-2013; FWS reference 13420-2009-I-0152). The programmatic Oregon and Washington BA, biological opinion and LOC (FWS Reference 13420-2007-F-0055) describe the aquatic and riparian restoration activities and practices that have been consulted on.

Sensitive Wildlife The following information is from Region 6 Bald Eagle Policy Following Delisting and During the Five-Year Monitoring Period:

No project or associated activities would be implemented between January 1 and August 31 within 0.25 mile or a 0.5-mile sight distance of a known bald eagle nest site, unless the unit biologist verifies that the nest is unoccupied.

Appendix A

East Dunes Campground Environmental Assessment Page 4

No activity within 0.25 mile or a 0.5-mile sight distance of a bald eagle winter roost shall be implemented between October 15 and April 15 unless the roost is verified to be unoccupied by the unit wildlife biologist.

Water Quality

Follow Siuslaw Plan standards and guides (FW-114 through FW-118) to meet water-quality standards outlined in the Clean Water Act for protecting Oregon waters, and apply practices as described in General Water Quality Best Management Practices, Pacific Northwest Region, November 1988. Design criteria, including these practices, are incorporated throughout the project, such as in project location, design, contract language, implementation, and monitoring. The State has agreed that compliance with these practices will ensure compliance with State Water Quality Standards (Forest Service Manual 1561.5, R-6 Supplement 1500-90-12).

If the total oil or oil products storage at a work site exceeds 1,320 gallons, or if a single container (e.g., fuel truck or trailer) exceeds a capacity of 660 gallons, the purchaser shall prepare and implement a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan. The SPCC plan will meet applicable EPA requirements (40 CFR 112), including certification by a registered professional engineer. (SLRMP: FW-119, 120, 122).

Heritage Resources

Should heritage resources be discovered as a result of any project activities, earth-disturbing activities must be suspended in the vicinity of the find, in accordance with federal regulations (NHPA and 36 CFR 800). The Forest Archaeologist must be notified to evaluate the discovery and recommend a subsequent course of action.

Monitoring Activities Monitoring items include those required for implementation and effectiveness monitoring. Implementation monitoring determines if the project design criteria and Siuslaw Forest Plan standards and guides, as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan, were followed. Effectiveness monitoring evaluates whether applying the management activities achieved the desired goals, and if the objectives of the standards and guides were met. Findings resulting from project observations and monitoring are expected to help influence the design of future projects and development of future monitoring plans.

Forest Plan Standards and Guides

Before a contract is advertised, it will be reviewed for consistency with the standards and guides of both the Northwest and Siuslaw Plans, and project design criteria.

Appendix B

East Dunes Campground Environmental Assessment Page 1

North Nestucca Environmental Assessment References Altman, B. 1999. Conservation strategy for landbirds in coniferous forests of western Oregon and

Washington, Version 1.0: Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight.

Altman, B. 2000. Conservation strategy for landbirds in lowlands and valleys of western Oregon and Washington, Version 1.0. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. 138 pp.

Altman, Bob, Hagar, Joan, 2007. Rainfoest Birds: A Land Manger’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest, U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5304, 60 p.

Burke, N. 2005. Conservation assessment for Deroceras hesperium, Evening fieldslug. USDa Forest Service Region 6 and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington. 16 p.

Christy, J. A., J. S. Kagan and A. M. Wiedemann. 1998. Plant associations of the Oregon dunes national recreation area. Technical Paper R6-NR-ECOL-TP-09-98. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. 170 pp.

Henny, C. J., J.E. Pagel. Peregrine Falcon. Pp. 166-170. in Birds of Oregon: A General Reference. D.B. Marshall, M.G. Hunter, and A.L. Contreras, Eds. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.

Kogut, T. and N. Duncan. 2005. Conservation assessment for Cryptomastix devia, Puget Oregonian. Originally issued as Management recommendations September 1999 by Thomas E. Burke. Part of the Interagency Special Status Sensitive Species Program. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna-invertebrates.shtml

Mazzacano, C., S. Jepsen, S. Black. 2010. Project Completion Report on Surveys to determine the status of tow rare insect species on the Oregon coast: the Siuslaw hairy-necked tiger beetle (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae: Cicindela hirticollis siuslawensis Graves, Krejci, and Graves, 1988) and the Oregon plant bug (Hemiptera: Miridae: Lygus oregonae Knight, 1944). The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. 39pp.

Michel, N., D. F. DeSante, D. R. Kaschube, and M. P. Nott, 2006. The Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) Program Annual Reports, 1989-2003. NBII/MAPS Avian Demographics Query Interface

Nott, M. P., D. F. Desante, P. Pyle, and N. Michel. 2005. Managing Landbird populations in Forests of the Pacific Northwest Region Publication No. 254 of The Institute for Bird Populations. http://www.birdpop.org/usfsr6/usfspnwr6_publications.htm

Oregon Wetlands Joint Venture a. 1994. Joint venture implementation plan: northern Oregon coast. Prepared for: Pacific Coast Joint Venture. 18 pp.

Oregon Wetlands Joint Venture b. 1994. Joint venture implementation plan: southern Oregon coast. Prepared for: Pacific Coast Joint Venture. 16 pp.

Oregon Wildlife Viewer Natural Resources Digital Library. 2010. Information on Oregon wildlife. Oregon State University and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. http://oe.oregonexplorer.info/Wildlife/about/birds.aspx?Res=17404

Pinto, C., E. Silovsky, F. Henley, L. Rich, J. Parcell, and D. Boyer. 1972. Resource inventory report for the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area, Siuslaw National Forest. U.S. department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Portland, Oregon. 294 pp.

Rich, T. D., Beardmore, C. J., Berlanga, H., Blancher, P. J., Bradstreet, M. S. W., G. S., Demarest, D. W., Dunn, E. H., Hunter, W. C., Inigo-Elias, E. E., Kennedy, J. A., Martell, A. M., Panjabi, A. O., Pashley,

Appendix B

East Dunes Campground Environmental Assessment Page 2

D. N., Rosenberg, K. B., Rustay, C. M., Wendt, J. S., Will, T. C., 2004. Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan: Ithaca, N. Y., Cornell lab of Ornithology. http://www.partnersinflight.org

Rodgers, J. and H. Smith. 1997. Buffer zone distances to protect foraging and loafing waterbirds from human disturbance in Florida. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 25(1):139-145.

Rosenberg, D., J. Gervais, D. Vesely, S. Barnes, L. Holts, R. Horn, R. Swift, L. Todd, and C. Yee. 2009. Conservation assessment of the western pond turtle in Oregon (Actinemys marmorata), version 1.0. Sponsored by USDI Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Wildlife Service, USDA Forest Service Region 6, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and City of Portland. 80 pp.

Stein, M. 2012. Forest Botanist. Siuslaw National Forest. Corvallis, Oregon. [Personal communication with Cindy Burns]. 2012.

Stone, T. 2009. Spotted taildropper species fact sheet. Umpqua National Forest. 5 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008c. Birds of conservation concern 2008. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010. http://www.fws.gov/arcata/es/birds/baldEagle/b_eagle.html.

U.S. Forest Service. 1998. Coastal lakes watershed analysis. Corvallis, OR: Siuslaw National Forest. 125 p., plus maps and appendices.

Appendix C

East Dunes Campground Environmental Assessment Page 1

Fisheries Biological Evaluation East Dunes Campground Project

USDA FOREST SERVICE

SIUSLAW NATIONAL FOREST – HEBO RANGER DISTRICT Prepared By Justin Gerding, Acting District Fish Biologist – 8-29-2012

Introduction This Biological Evaluation evaluates the effects of the East Dunes Campground Project on the Regional Forester’s Special Status Fish Species, including Oregon coast steelhead and chum salmon. The BE also evaluates the effects of the project on Threatened species including Oregon Coast coho salmon, southern Distinct Population Segment of green sturgeon, and Pacific eulachon and their designated critical habitat, and essential fish habitat. Coho salmon are also a Management Indicator Species for the Siuslaw National Forest and the effects to it will also be evaluated. The proposed campground is approximately 1000 feet from the Sand Lake Estuary, which is designated critical habitat for coho salmon. Runoff from the parking area would enter into vegetated or sandy areas at a minimum of 350 feet from the estuary. Location and Description This project includes the planning, design, and construction of 20 new campsites at East Dunes Campground. The project area is located within Sand Lake Recreation Area. The project is located in Township 3S, Range 10W, Sections 18, 19, and 30. Design Criteria The following design criteria cover the East Dunes Campground Project and are in addition to any criteria recommended by the Hydrologist’s review:

1.) Appropriate design of the pavement as described by the Hydrologist’s review would be implemented and maintained to minimize the transport of fine sediment or potential contaminants from the parking/camping area.

Project Effects Temperature- The East Dunes Campground Project would have no effect on stream temperature. Fine Sediment- The East Dunes Campground Project would have no effect on fine sediment into aquatic habitat. Large Woody Debris- The East Dunes Campground Project would have no effect on input of large wood into aquatic habitat. Determination- Based on information provided from the Hydrologist’s review, a site visit, and other information available I conclude that the East Dunes Campground Project would have no effect on ESA Threatened Oregon Coast coho salmon, Pacific Eulachon, southern Distinct Population of green sturgeon, and their critical habitat. It would also have no effect on the Regional Forester’s sensitive Oregon coast steelhead and chum salmon, and essential fish habitat for chinook and coho salmon. The East Dunes Campground Project would also have no effect on forest wide viability of coho salmon as a Management Indicator Species for the Siuslaw National Forest. /s/ Justin Gerding Acting District Fish Biologist Hebo Ranger District/ Siuslaw National Forest

Appendix D

East Dunes Campground Environmental Assessment Page 2

East Dunes Campground Project

Biological Evaluation

and

Wildlife Specialist Report

Prepared by: Michelle Dragoo Wildlife Biologist

for: Hebo Ranger District

Siuslaw National Forest

August 30, 2012

1

Table of Contents

A. Project Description and Location 2

B. Biological Evaluation (Wildlife) 3

C. Survey and Manage Species 7

D. Wildlife Management Indicator Species 8

E. Landbird Assessment 12

F. References 14

Attachments

A. Siuslaw National Forest Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Wildlife Species List

B. Biological Evaluation Process – Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Species Project Proposal

C. Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives

A. Project Description and Location The East Dunes Campground Project (The Project) is located in Township 3S, Range 10W, Sections 18,19, and 30 and includes the planning, design, and construction of 20 campsites at East Dunes Campground. New sites at East Dunes Campground will replace sites lost at Sandbeach Campground due to encroachment of estuary and erosion from severe winter storms. Erosion washed out the service road for the 70’s campground loop, forcing us to close this area to the public. Closing the 70’s loop resulted in the loss of 20 campsites. The project area is located within Sand Lake Recreation Area.

Demand for camping at Sand Lake is very high and maintaining the number of sites to the public is a priority. Most campsites are occupied on weekends during the peak season that runs from April to the end of October. Implementing this project will result in Sand Lake retaining the same number of campsites as before part of Sandbeach Campground was closed. New campsites will be located on north end of East Dunes Campground, away from the estuary and offer picnic tables and fire-rings. East Dunes is a developed recreation area with 38 paved campsites and restrooms.

Continuing to improve accessibility is another priority. All campsites at East Dunes Campground have paved corridors connecting campsites to restrooms. However, fire-rings are not accessible to all users because they are placed in sand adjacent to campsite. Implementing project will help us improve user access by creating paved corridors connecting campsites to fire-rings and picnic tables on all new campsites. The project also includes re-stripping all of East Dunes Campground.

The goal of The Project is to maintain developed camping capacity to levels equivalent of those at Sand Lake Recreation Area prior to the encroachment of the estuary that caused us to close 20 campsites for public health and safety.

Summary of Proposed Actions Alternative 1 - No Action

This alternative does not add any additional designated campsites in East Dunes Campground

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

The objectives of the project are to construct 20 new campsites at East Dunes Campground and improve accessibility at East Dunes Campground. The following activities are proposed as part of implementing the Project:

• Design of new camping area layout • Excavation of material • Installation of sub-grade material • Paving new addition • Installation of riprap along the expanded lot’s perimeter

3

• Purchase and installation of concrete barriers • Removal and installation of ATV entrance/exit signs • Striping of new and existing lot to include 20 additional sites • Construction of campsite at Sand Beach estuary closure

.

Management Direction The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that proposed projects be analyzed for effects to the human environment, including effects to aquatic species and their habitats, and that these effects be disclosed to the public. Species and habitats for which an analysis is required include management indicator species (MIS) designated in the Siuslaw National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP 1990), threatened or endangered species listed (and those proposed for listing) under the endangered species act (ESA), species listed as sensitive by the Regional Forester, and any essential fish habitat (EFH) designated under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA).

B. Biological Evaluation for Federally Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened Species, and Regional Forester Sensitive Species (PETS)

Introduction Forest Service Policy requires that all actions be taken to “assure that management activities do not jeopardize the continued existence of sensitive species or result in an adverse modification of their essential habitat” (FSM 2670.3). Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (as amended in 1978, 1979, and 1982) directs Federal departments/agencies to assure that actions authorized, funded, and/or conducted by them are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or result in destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitat. The Act also directs each Federal agency to confer or consult with the appropriate Secretary on any action that is likely to jeopardize or affect the continued existence of any species or its habitat. All Forest Service projects, programs and activities require review and documentation of possible effects on Proposed, Endangered, Threatened or Sensitive (PETS) species (FSM 2672.4). In compliance with these directions and policies a biological evaluation must be performed for all federalized ground disturbing activities.

Table 1 lists the PETS species occurring on the Siuslaw National Forest. They are based on the Region 6 Regional Forester’s Special Status Species list dated December 9, 2011 and the current U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Species List. General habitat requirements for each species are summarized in Attachment A. The process used to address PETS species currently listed for the Siuslaw National Forest (Table 2 and Attachment B) consists of 1) pre-field review of existing information; 2) an evaluation of project effects on species and habitats to determine if a conflict may be present; 3) an analysis of the significance of the project’s effects on local and entire populations of PETS species; 4) conferencing or

4

informal/formal consultation with USFWS, as outlined in FSM 2673.2-1, if the biological evaluation determinations indicate there may be an effect to proposed or listed species.

Table 1. Siuslaw National Forest Threatened (T), Endangered (E) and USFS Region 6 Sensitive (S) Wildlife Species List

Scientific Name Common Name Classification Brachyramphus mamoratus Marbled murrelet T Strix occidentalis caurina Northern spotted owl T Pelecanus occidentalis californicus

California brown pelican S

Charadrius nivosus nivosus

Western snowy plover T

Speyeria zerene hippolyta Oregon silverspot butterfly T Aleutian Canada Goose S Falco peregrinus anatum American peregrine falcon S Haliaeetus leucocephalus Northern bald eagle S S Progne subis Purple Martin S Rana boylii Foothill Yellow-legged frog S Actinemys marmorata Pacific pond turtle S Arborimus longicaudus Oregon red tree vole S Gulo gulo luscuss North American wolverine S Martes pennanti (west coast) Pacific Fisher S Myotis thysanoides Fringed myotis S Gonidea angulata Western ridged mussel S Cryptomastix devia Puget Oregonian S Deroceras hesperium Evening field slug S Littorina subrotundata Newcomb’s Littorine Snail S Cicindela hirticollis siuslawensis

Siuslaw Sand Tiger Beetle S

Bombus occidentalis Western bumble bee S Plebejus saepiolus littoralis Insular Blue butterfly S Pomatiopsis californica Pacific walker S Pterostichus rothi Roths’s blind ground beetle S Lygus oregonae Oregon plant bug S Callophrys johnsoni Johnson’s hairstreak S Callophrys polios maritima Hoary elfin S Rhyacophila haddocki Haddock’s rhyacophilan

caddisflys S

Namamyia plutonis caddisfly S

5

Table 2. Biological Evaluation Process Summary by Species

SPECIES Step #1 Step #2 Step #3

Step #4

(TES) Prefield Review

Conflict Determination

Analysis of Significance

USFWS Review

Habitat, Species present?

Conflict? Important? Consultation Completed?

BIRDS Marbled murrelet NO NO NO N/A Northern spotted owl NO NO NO N/A California brown pelican NO NO NO N/A Western snowy plover NO NO NO N/A Aleutian Canada goose NO NO NO N/A American peregrine falcon NO NO NO N/A Northern bald eagle NO NO NO N/A Purple Martin NO NO NO N/A MAMMALS Oregon Red tree vole NO NO NO N/A North American wolverine NO NO NO N/A Pacific fisher NO NO NO N/A Fringed myotis NO NO NO N/A HERPTILES Foothill yellow-legged frog NO NO NO N/A Pacific pond turtle NO NO NO N/A INVERTEBRATES Oregon silverspot butterfly NO NO NO N/A Newcomb’s Littorine Snail NO NO NO N/A Puget Oregonian NO NO NO N/A Evening fieldslug NO NO NO N/A Western ridged mussel NO NO NO N/A Pacific walker NO NO NO N/A Roths’s blind ground beetle NO NO NO N/A Siuslaw sand tiger beetle NO NO NO N/A Oregon plant bug NO NO NO N/A Western bumble bee NO NO NO N/A Johnson’s hairstreak NO NO NO N/A Hoary elfin NO NO NO N/A Insular blue butterfly NO NO NO N/A Haddocks’ rhyacophilan caddisfly NO NO NO N/A

Caddisfly - Namamyia plutonis

NO NO NO N/A

6

Effects Analysis The following were used to determine PETS (proposed, endangered, threatened, or sensitive) species occurrences and suitable habitat within the project area: Forest GIS layers, discussions with the Forest Biologist, existing species accounts and distribution maps, survey records and field review.

Federally-listed Species

No known nest sites, suitable habitat, or proposed or designated critical habitat exist in the project area for marbled murrelet, northern spotted owl or Oregon silverspot butterfly. The project area is currently unoccupied by the western snowy plover, and is outside of designated critical habitat. Additionally, the area of proposed expansion is further from the water than plovers are known to nest, and is characterized by a high amount of OHV and human disturbance. For these reasons, these species will not be further analyzed.

Sensitive Species

No suitable habitat exists in the project area for any of the wildlife species on the Regional Forester's Sensitive Species List. Thus, none of the proposed alternatives would have any effect on these species or their habitats.

California brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus) Alternative 1 Direct/Indirect Effects - No modification of habitat would occur under Alternative 1, therefore, no direct or indirect effects are anticipated.

Alternative 2 - Direct/Indirect Effects - This species commonly rests on open sand beaches and in estuaries. Although it may fly over beach foredunes habitat is generally not present within the project area. Effects if any to this species due to implementation of this alternative are expected to be very minor and are not expected to cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum)

Although once rare on the Oregon Coast, the peregrine falcon inhabits coastal areas year round. Decades of widespread use of DDT lead to reproductive failure and subsequent Federal listing of this species. Due to a ban on the use of DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons in 1972, as well as an intensive captive breeding and rearing program, populations rebounded enough to allow delisting of the species in 1999.

In Oregon, peregrines occur as resident and migratory populations. Adults remain in the vicinity of nest sites throughout the year at Pacific Northwest locales below approximately 4,000 ft. elevation. Peregrine falcons typically nest on cliffs greater than 75 ft. in height or structural features of bridges, and within 1 mi. of some form of water. Their primary prey item is birds (Henny and Pagel, 2003).

7

Alternative 1 - Direct/Indirect Effects - No modification of habitat would occur under Alternative 1, therefore, no direct or indirect effects are anticipated.

Alternative 2 - Direct/Indirect Effects - The project area does not contain any nesting habitat for this species. Peregrine falcons potentially utilize open habitats within the project area for opportunistic hunting, but due to the high level of human use in the project area, this is unlikely. Effects if any to this species due to implementation of this alternative are expected to be very minor and are not expected to cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

Northern Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Bald eagles are usually found near coastlines, rivers, large lakes or streams that support an adequate food supply. Their primary prey item is fish. They exhibit strong mate fidelity and return to the same nest to rear young year after year (Oregon Wildlife Explorer 2010). Nests are built in large trees with an open structure and large limbs. Although the widespread use of DDT lead to reproductive failure and subsequent Federal listing of this species, the bald eagle was de-listed throughout most of its range in 2007. Current threats to the bald eagle include disruption, destruction, or obstruction of roosting and forage areas (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010).

Alternative 1 - Direct/Indirect Effects - No modification of habitat would occur under Alternative 1, therefore, no direct or indirect effects are anticipated. Alternative 2 - Direct/Indirect Effects - There are no known bald eagle nests within the project area, and no suitable habitat exists within the Project Area. The closest known bald eagle nest site to the project area is approximately 1.3 miles southeast of the Project Area. Most eagle foraging is expected to occur in estuaries, along rivers and in the ocean surf, outside of the proposed project boundary. Effects if any to this species due to implementation of this alternative are expected to be very minor and are not expected to cause a loss of viability to the population or species.

C. Survey and Manage Species The Forest Service (FS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM), referred to as the Agencies, are implementing the January 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines (2001 ROD S&Gs) as modified by the 2011 Settlement Agreement in Conservation Northwest v. Sherman et al., No-08-1067-JCC (W.D. Wash).

Statement of Compliance. The Siuslaw National Forest applied the 2011 Settlement Agreement Species List to the East Dunes Campground Expansion Project. There are no species on the list for which suitable habitat exists within the project area, and therefore no pre-disturbance sueveys are required

8

D. Wildlife Management Indicator Species The Siuslaw National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (USDA 1990) identified 11 terrestrial and 1 aquatic management indicator species. The EIS stated the following: “Management indicator species were selected because a change in their population, in response to management activities, is believed to represent changes in a larger group of species. Selection of management indicator species was based on the following categories as specified in 36 CFR 219.19:”

1. Endangered and threatened plant and animal species identified on state and federal lists for the planning area.

2. Species with special habitat requirements s that may be influenced significantly by planned management programs.

3. Species commonly hunted, fished, or trapped. 4. Non-game species of special interest. 5. Additional species selected because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects

of management activities on other species of selected major biological communities or on water quality.

Table 3 summarizes the information on the 11 terrestrial management indicator species identified in the FEIS. The Record of Decision (ROD) for the Siuslaw National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement did not change the management indicator species list and there have been no subsequent forest plan amendments that changed the list. On the date the Record of Decision was signed (March 7, 1990), there were five species listed on the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as amended (ESA) including four species that were previously identified as endangered under the Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966. Since 1990, four of the listed species are considered fully recovered and have been removed from the endangered species list. Two management indicator species were added to the endangered species list after the ROD was signed. Thus the table reflects both the basis for why the species was included as a management indicator species at the time of the final EIS as well as its current legal status under the Endangered Species Act.

Four of the management indicator species on the Siuslaw are primarily associated with coastal habitats (deflation plain wetlands, beach/estuary environments, costal bluffs/cliffs). Three of the four (Aleutian Canada goose, brown pelican and peregrine falcon) are considered fully recovered and have been removed from the endangered species list. Their primary habitats, and thus the basis for their decline, recovery objectives and ultimate recovery were associated with habitats and populations not associated with lands administered by the Siuslaw National Forest. Management for the Aleutian Goose (nests in the Aleutian’s) and brown pelican (nests in southern California-northern Mexico) was primarily to insure protection of potential habitat that may be used in the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area during the non-breeding season for these two species. Seasonal closures are used at the Cascade Head Scenic Research Area to protect the known nesting activities of one peregrine pair using the site.

9

Discussion of effects will be limited to those species with habitat in the project analysis area. The potential effects from the proposed project to the brown pelican and western snowy plover were disclosed in earlier sections. There will be no direct or indirect impact to species which do not have habitat in the analysis area.

Table 3 Siuslaw Management Indicator Species (MIS)

Species

Forest Plan EIS (Table III-15, pg

III-68) Habitat Feature

Specific Habitat on Siuslaw Nature Serve State

Status* Federal Status

Habitat Present in Analysis

Area

Species Present in Analysis

Area

Aleutian Canada goose

T&E habitat

Inland lakes and large expanses of flooded

deflation plain on the Oregon Dunes NRA for

potential migratory/transitory habitat-little if any

suitable feeding habitat.

G5T4S2N

Listed Endangered 3/11/1967

Reclassified Threatened 1/11/1991 Delisted

3/20/2001

No No

Bald eagle T&E habitat

Multi-storied stands with old-growth components near water bodies which support an adequate food

supply. Includes large conifer trees or snags(50-

90 inches in diameter)

G5S4BS4N T

Listed Endangered 3/11/1967 Reclassified Threatened 8/11/1995

Delisted 8/8/2007

No No

Brown pelican

T&E habitat

Resting/roosting in estuaries and along

beaches on the Oregon Dunes NRA.

G4T3S2N E Listed Endangered

6/2/1970 Delisted 12/17/2009

Yes Yes

Marten

Mature conifer (down logs)

Mature and older age stands of timber G5S3S4 S/V No No

Northern spotted owl

Old growth & mature

Old growth and mature conifer habitat(large G3T3S3 T Listed Threatened

6/26/1990 No No

11

Species

Forest Plan EIS (Table III-15, pg

III-68) Habitat Feature

Specific Habitat on Siuslaw Nature Serve State

Status* Federal Status

Habitat Present in Analysis

Area

Species Present in Analysis

Area

conifer trees, multi-storied, large snags, down logs)

Silverspot Butterfly

T&E habitat

Open coastal grasslands, including ocean spray

meadows G5T1S1 Listed Threatened

7/2/1980 No No

Peregrine falcon

T&E habitat

Rocky cliffs with ledges for nesting near foraging

areas G4T4S2B S/V

Listed Endangered 6/2/1970

Delisted 2/25/1999 No No

Pileated woodpecker

Mature conifer (large snags,

down logs)

Large snags, defective trees, down material. G5S4 S/V No No

Primary cavity

excavators

Snags (≥20” dbh)

Dead and defective trees throughout the forest

types. No No

Roosevelt Elk

Mix of forage and cover areas

Mosaic of foraging areas close to thermal and

hiding cover. G5 No No

Western Snowy Plover

Open sand near

estuaries

Sandy areas virtually devoid of vegetation,

driftwood,. G4T3S3B S/C Listed Threatened

3/5/1993 Yes No

*T=Threatened, E=Endangered, S=Sensitive, V=Vulnerable, C=Critical

E. Landbird Assessment Landbirds include resident, short-distance and neotropical migrant species, that generally use terrestrial and wetland habitats. Since 1999 a number of conservation and management guides have been prepared addressing landbird conservation at the national, regional and local scales (Altman 1999, Rich et.al. 2004, Nott et.al. 2005, Altman and Hager 2007, US Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). In conjunction with the Institute for Bird Populations (the Institute), the Siuslaw NF has participated in the Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) program since 1992. The Institute developed websites and publications disclosing the species found and the productivity on the forest (Michel et. al. 2006). Table 4 represents the species of concern identified in the conservation plans documented at the monitoring stations operated by the Institute.

Table 4 Fish and Wildlife Service and Partners in Flight bird species of concern or conservation focal species associated with forest habitats on the Siuslaw National Forest

Species

Fish and Wildlife Species of

Concern in BCR 51

Partners In Flight High Priority

Focal Species in Oregon2

Partners in Flight Focal Species in

Oregon3

MAPS Site Breeding Status4

Band-tailed Pigeon X X 5-U, 1-O Black-throated Gray Warbler X X 1-B, 3-U, 1-O, 1-T

Brown Creeper X 3-B, 3-O Hammonds Flycatcher X 3-U, 2-O, 1-T

Hermit Warbler X X 3-B, 2-U, 1-O Hutton Vireo X 2-U, 3-O, 1-NL Olive-sided Flycatcher X X X 1-B, 1-O, 1-T, 3-

NL Pacific-slope Flycatcher X X 6-B

Pileated Woodpecker X 5-U, 1-O

Rufus Hummingbird X X X 1-B, 3-U, 2-O

Varied Thrush X X 4-B, 2-U Willow Flycatcher X 1-U, 4-T, 1-NL Wilson’s Warbler X 6-B

Winter Wren X 6-B 1Birds of Conservation Concern 2008 (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2008) 2Rainforest Birds: A Land Manager’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forest in the Pacific Northwest (Altman and Hagar 2007) 3Conservation strategy for landbirds in coniferous forests of western Oregon and Washington (Altman 1999) 4Cumulative breeding status at six sampling stations on the Siuslaw National Forest from 1992-2003

B- Regular breeder. Summer resident or suspected summer resident during all years the station was operated. U- Usual breeder. Summer resident or suspected summer resident for more than ½ of the years stations were operated. O- Occasional breeder. Summer resident or suspected summer resident for ½ or fewer of the years stations were operated. T- Transient. The station lies in the species breeding range, but no individual of the species was a summer resident during any year.

13

NL- Not listed. The station did not have a record of the species for any year the station was operated.

Based on the MAPS data for the Siuslaw National Forest, Nott et. al. (2005) evaluated adult population trends for 12 species. They concluded that six species were showing measurable changes in the adult population, One neotropical migrant (western flycatcher), and two short-distance migrants (chestnut-backed chickadee and winter wren) were declining. Two neotropical migrants (swainson thrush and Wilson’s warbler) and one short-distance migrant (song sparrow) were increasing in populations. Considering the stability of habitat conditions on the forest, Nott (personal communication) has indicated that weather conditions along migration routes and winter grounds in Mexico and Central America currently has a greater influence on population trends for neotropical migrants as the condition on the breeding grounds.

Alternative 1 - Direct/Indirect Effects - No modification of habitat would occur under Alternative 1, therefore, no direct or indirect effects are anticipated.

Alternative 2 - Direct/Indirect Effects - Habitat in the project area is limited to open sand directly adjacent to an existing parking area for RV’s and is exposed to a high level of human disturbance primarily in the form of OHV riding. None of the species of concern or conservation focal species (Table 4) utilize this type of habitat for nesting or feeding, and so it is anticipated that the expansion of the existing parking area in this location will result in minimal effects to landbirds, and while the project may impact individuals, the effects will not contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species

14

F. Working References Altman, B. 1999. Conservation strategy for landbirds in coniferous forests of western Oregon

and Washington, Version 1.0: Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight.

Altman, B. 2000. Conservation strategy for landbirds in lowlands and valleys of western Oregon and Washington, Version 1.0. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. 138 pp.

Altman, Bob, Hagar, Joan, 2007. Rainfoest Birds: A Land Manger’s Guide to Breeding Bird Habitat in Young Conifer Forests in the Pacific Northwest, U.S. Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5304, 60 p.

Burke, N. 2005. Conservation assessment for Deroceras hesperium, Evening fieldslug. USDa Forest Service Region 6 and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington. 16 p.

Christy, J. A., J. S. Kagan and A. M. Wiedemann. 1998. Plant associations of the Oregon dunes national recreation area. Technical Paper R6-NR-ECOL-TP-09-98. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. 170 pp.

Henny, C. J., J.E. Pagel. Peregrine Falcon. Pp. 166-170. in Birds of Oregon: A General Reference. D.B. Marshall, M.G. Hunter, and A.L. Contreras, Eds. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.

Kogut, T. and N. Duncan. 2005. Conservation assessment for Cryptomastix devia, Puget Oregonian. Originally issued as Management recommendations September 1999 by Thomas E. Burke. Part of the Interagency Special Status Sensitive Species Program. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/species-index/fauna-invertebrates.shtml

Mazzacano, C., S. Jepsen, S. Black. 2010. Project Completion Report on Surveys to determine the status of tow rare insect species on the Oregon coast: the Siuslaw hairy-necked tiger beetle (Coleoptera: Cicindelidae: Cicindela hirticollis siuslawensis Graves, Krejci, and Graves, 1988) and the Oregon plant bug (Hemiptera: Miridae: Lygus oregonae Knight, 1944). The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. 39pp.

Michel, N., D. F. DeSante, D. R. Kaschube, and M. P. Nott, 2006. The Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) Program Annual Reports, 1989-2003. NBII/MAPS Avian Demographics Query Interface

Nott, M. P., D. F. Desante, P. Pyle, and N. Michel. 2005. Managing Landbird populations in Forests of the Pacific Northwest Region Publication No. 254 of The Institute for Bird Populations. http://www.birdpop.org/usfsr6/usfspnwr6_publications.htm

Oregon Wetlands Joint Venture a. 1994. Joint venture implementation plan: northern Oregon coast. Prepared for: Pacific Coast Joint Venture. 18 pp.

Oregon Wetlands Joint Venture b. 1994. Joint venture implementation plan: southern Oregon coast. Prepared for: Pacific Coast Joint Venture. 16 pp.

Oregon Wildlife Viewer Natural Resources Digital Library. 2010. Information on Oregon wildlife. Oregon State University and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. http://oe.oregonexplorer.info/Wildlife/about/birds.aspx?Res=17404

Pinto, C., E. Silovsky, F. Henley, L. Rich, J. Parcell, and D. Boyer. 1972. Resource inventory report for the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area, Siuslaw National Forest. U.S. department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Portland, Oregon. 294 pp.

15

Rich, T. D., Beardmore, C. J., Berlanga, H., Blancher, P. J., Bradstreet, M. S. W., G. S., Demarest, D. W., Dunn, E. H., Hunter, W. C., Inigo-Elias, E. E., Kennedy, J. A., Martell, A. M., Panjabi, A. O., Pashley, D. N., Rosenberg, K. B., Rustay, C. M., Wendt, J. S., Will, T. C., 2004. Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan: Ithaca, N. Y., Cornell lab of Ornithology. http://www.partnersinflight.org

Rodgers, J. and H. Smith. 1997. Buffer zone distances to protect foraging and loafing waterbirds from human disturbance in Florida. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 25(1):139-145.

Rosenberg, D., J. Gervais, D. Vesely, S. Barnes, L. Holts, R. Horn, R. Swift, L. Todd, and C. Yee. 2009. Conservation assessment of the western pond turtle in Oregon (Actinemys marmorata), version 1.0. Sponsored by USDI Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Wildlife Service, USDA Forest Service Region 6, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and City of Portland. 80 pp.

Stein, M. 2012. Forest Botanist. Siuslaw National Forest. Corvallis, Oregon. [Personal communication with Cindy Burns]. 2012.

Stone, T. 2009. Spotted taildropper species fact sheet. Umpqua National Forest. 5 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008c. Birds of conservation concern 2008. United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2010. http://www.fws.gov/arcata/es/birds/baldEagle/b_eagle.html.

U.S. Forest Service. 1998. Coastal lakes watershed analysis. Corvallis, OR: Siuslaw National Forest. 125 p., plus maps and appendices.

16

Attachment A Siuslaw National Forest

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Wildlife Species List

(Status Codes: T = Threatened, E = Endangered, C = Critical, P = Proposed, S = Regional Forester Sensitive, V = Vulnerable, U = undetermined, D = Documented to occur on forest (All others are Suspected to occur on forest). Listing order is: Regional Foresters List/Federal/State/Documented to occur on the forest.) Birds Habitat Status Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus)

Nests in mature forests within 50 miles of the coast

-/T/T/D

Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina)

Nests in mature forests with old growth characteristics

-/T/T/D

California Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus)

Lakes, estuaries, coastlines, and bays S/-/-/D

Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius nivosus nivosus)

Nests on sandy beaches and in dunes -/T/T/D

Aleutian Canada Goose (Branta hutchinsii leucopareia)

Potential presence only during migration and wintering. Feeds on agricultural lands such as pastures and grain fields. Roosts on inland lakes and coastal islands

S/-/-/D

American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum)

Nests and feeds along coast near cliffs and headlands

S/-/-/D

Northern Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Nests and roosts in mature forests near lakes, coast, rivers

S/-/-/D

Purple Martin (progne subis)

Variety of terrestrial habitats, preferably near open water with access to natural or artificial cavities (snags, bird houses, pilings etc.)

S/-/C/D

Mammals Habitat Status Oregon Red Tree Vole (Arborimus longicaudus)

Mature and overmature/oldgrowth conifer dominated stands.

S/-/-/D

North American Wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus)

Subalpine, remote forest areas. Extirpated in Coast Range

S/-/-/S

Pacific Fisher (Martes pennanti) west coast

Mature and over mature/old growth conifer dominated stands.

S/-/V/D

17

Mammals Habitat Status Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanoides)

Utilize caves, mines, and buildings for hibernation, maternity, and solitary roosts. Feed predominately on moths along forest edges, roads, or open areas within the forest. Utilizes, but not dependent upon snags or down material.

S/-/V/S

Reptiles and Amphibians Habitat Status Foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii)

Known distribution does not occur on SNF, but species is suspected on eastern foothills. Highly aquatic and found in vicinity of permanent streams with open cobble gravel bars.

S/-/V/S

Pacific Pond Turtle (Actinemys marmorata)

Ponds, slow moving water mostly in Willamette Valley

S/-/C/D

Invertebrates Habitat Status Oregon Silverspot Butterfly (Speyeria zerene hipppolyta)

Coastal meadows with viola adunca spp. -/T/T/D

Newcomb’s littorine snail (Algamorda newcombiana)

Inter-tidal habitat on glasswort/pickleweed salt marshes at the edges of bays and estuaries.

S/-/-/S

Puget Oregonian (Cryptomastix devia)

Believed to be associated with big leaf maple in mature to old growth moist conifer forests that have over 70 percent canopy cover.

S/-/-/D

Evening Fieldslug (Deroceras hesperium)

The Evening Fieldslug has been reported to be associated with wet meadows in forested habitats in a variety of low vegetation litter and debris; rocks may also be used. Little is known about this species or its habitat. Surveys may be limited to moist surface vegetation and cover objects within 30 m. (98ft.) of perennial wetlands, springs, seeps and riparian areas.

S/-/-/D

Western Ridged Mussel (Gonidea angulata)

Cold creeks and streams with constant flow, shallow water (< 3 m in depth) and well oxygenated substrates in low to mid elevations.

S/-/V/D

18

Invertebrates Habitat Status Pacific walker (Pomatiopsis californica)

Semiaquatic; characteristically found among wet leaf litter and vegetation beside flowing or standing water in shaded situations where humidity remains high. Range limited to coastline, inland up to 0.5 miles.

S/-/-/D

Roths’s blind ground beetle (Pterostichus rothi)

Restricted to cool, moist, closed-canopy coniferous forests with well drained, deep, coarse-crumb structure soils that have developed in place, not alluvial soils on floodplains. Associated with deeply embedded rocks and logs on slopes 20-50%.

S/-/-/D

Oregon plant bug (Lygus oregonae)

Host-specific and lives on Ambrosia chamissonis (Beach-bur) a composite associated with open sand adjacent to tidal influence.

S/-/-/S

Johnson’s hairstreak (Callophrys johnsoni)

Old-growth and late successional second growth coniferous forests that contain mistletoes of the genus Arceuthobium. The mistletoes occur mainly on western hemlock and occasionally true fir.

S/-/-S

Hoary elfin (Callophrys polios maritime)

All life stages are closely associated with kinnikinnick. Oregon populations occupy sites on coastal bluffs and ancient sand dunes.

S/-/-/D

Insular blue butterfly (Plebejus saepiolus littoralis)

Coastal terrace meadows. The species overwinters as early instar caterpillar in flower head of host clover

S/-/-D

Haddock’s rhyacophilan caddisfly (Rhyacophila haddocki)

Cool mountain streams in the Mary’s Peak area.

S/-/-/D

A caddisfly (Namamyia plutonis)

Small streams in densely forested old growth or mature forest watersheds

S/-/-/S

Western bumblebee (Bombus occidentalis)

Associated with a wide variety of plant species throughout the western US and Canada

S/-/-S

Siuslaw Sand Tiger Beetle (Cicindela hirticollis siuslawensis)

Immediate sandy edge of river mouths on beaches along the Pacific Coast

S/-/-/D

19

Attachment B

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION PROCESS - THREATENED, ENDANGERED, PROPOSED

AND SENSITIVE SPECIES PROJECT PROPOSAL

Biological evaluation-- Step 1-prefield review of available information and idenfication of species known or potentially occurring

No evidence -------of species or habitat------

Appropriate documentation

---------------

Project Proceeds

| Evidence of species

or habitat

| Biological evaluation-- Step 2-conflict determination

-----------No adverse ----------- effect or conflict

Appropriate documentation

--------------- Project Proceeds

| Potential for adverse effect

or conflict

| Is modification of project to remove adverse or questionable conflict possible?

--------------Yes----------------

Appropriate documentation

-------------- Project Proceeds

| \ | \

No Sensitive | Species---------------------------------

Withdraw Project

| |

\ \

Proposed or Federally

Listed Species

Analysis of significance of effects

------ Data not sufficient to assess significance

| | | Follow consultation (conference) requirements with USFWS/NMFS Exhibits 1 & 2

Data sufficient to assess significance

------ Biological/ botanical investigation

| Project disposition

based on determination of significance of effects on species conservation and population objectives

20

Attachment C Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives-Wildlife

Objective 2--Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds. Lateral, longitudinal, and drainage network connections include floodplains, wetlands, upslope areas, headwater tributaries, and intact refugia. These network connections must provide chemically and physically unobstructed routes to areas critical for fulfilling life- history requirements of aquatic and riparian-dependent species.

The project area is outside of Riparian Reserves, and would not sever existing connections between essential habitats and among watersheds. The physical nature of existing movement corridors will remain unchanged.

Objective 9--Maintain and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian-dependent species.

The project area is outside of Riparian Reserves, and would not affect aquatic resources. The proposed activities include converting the existing OHV riding area to a paved area for additional campsites. This is not anticipated to have an impact on aquatic resources.