Free Declaration - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB

Document 43-4

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 1 of 50

EXHIBIT C

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB

Document 43-4

,1: .:""

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 2 of 50

. UIited States Deparinent of the Interior
FISH ÁN WIDLIF SERVICE
New Mexico Ecological Services Field Offce .

21050sunaNE
Albuquerque, New MèxicoS71 13
Phone: (505) 346-2525 Fax: (505) 346-2542
.

SUMy
ALLOTMNT, SACRATO RAGER
Cons. #2-22-00-F-473

BIOLOGICAL OPINON ON TH EFFECTS TO

TH MEXICAN SPOTTD OWL, SACRAENTO MOUNAIS THISTLE, AND SACRANTO MOUNTAIS PRICKLY POPPY FROM TH PROPOSAL TO ISSUE A
PERMT FOR TH SACRANTO GRAING

. DISTRCT, LINCOLN NATIONAL FOREST, OTERO COUN, NEW MExiÇO
Date of the final opinon: Febru 4, 2004
Action agenCY: Sacramento Ranger Distrct, Lincoln National Forest

.' ~

. . ..
range and key areas on the sumer rage; 2) 40 percent allowable forage use guideline for all the winter unt; and 3) 70 facilties (livestock traps). These forage Species affected: Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucid

Proiect: The proposed action includes issuing a 10-year term grazg permt for the Sacramento

Grazg Allotment for 200 to 412 cattle and 5 horses from May 15- October 31 on the summer 200 to 335 cattle and 5 horses from November 1 - May 14 on the winter unit. Ths term grazg permt is proposed to be issued in 2004. The proposed Sacramento Grazg Allotment includes thefollowirig forage use: 1) 35 percent allowable forage use guideline for all
key area on

percent allowable forage use withn tymporar livestock holding use guidelines include use by wild ungulates (e.g., elk).

a), Sacramento Mountains thstle

(Cirsium vinaceum), and the Sacramento MountainS prickly poppy (Argemone pleiacemtha ssp.

pinnatisecta)
Biological Opinion: The proposed action is not likely to jeopardize the Mexican spotted

owl,

the Sacramento Mountain thstle, or the Sacraento Mountains prickly poppy.
Incidental take statement: There are two Mexican spotted owl protected activity centers (P ACs)
that are expected to be taen though harassment as a result of ths project. We have

provided

reasonable and prudent measures and terms and conditions for the species.

Conservation Recommendations:. Implementation ofconservatiön recommendations is
discretionar.. Nine conservation recommendations are provided.

PL02274

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB
Gl

Document 43-4

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 3 of 50

United States Deparment of theInterior.
FISH AN WIDLIF SERVICE
New Mexico Eclogical Services Field Öffce

21050sunaNE
Albuquerque, New Mexico 87113. Phone: (505) 346-2525 Fax: (505) 346-2542

Febru 4,2004
Cons. #2-22-0Q-F-473

Jose M. Marez,Forest Supervsor
Lincoln National Fprest

Federa. Building Avenue Alamgordo, New Mexico 88310-6992
1101 New York

Dear Mr. Marinez:
Ths doclIent constitutes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service) biological opinon based on our review of the proposed reauthorization of livestock grazg on the Sacramento

Grg Allotment, Sacramento Rager Distrct, Lincoln National Forest, USDA Forest Servce the Sacramento, Dry Canyon, and Davis Grng Allotments Draf Enyironmental Impact Statement
(Forest Service), New Mexico. The proposed action is described under Alterntive B of

(DEIS) (Forest Service 2002) and the Biological Assessment for the Sacramento Grazg
..

Allotment Mangement Plan and Ten- Year Term Grazng Permt (BA) (Sacramento Allotment) this project on the Mexican a) (MSO), Sacramento Mountain thstle (Cirsium vinaceum)
(Forest Service 2003a). The BA evaluates the potential impacts of spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucid (thistle),

the Sacramento Mountains prickly poppy (Argemone pleiacàntha ssp. pinnatiseáa)

(poppy), ard the proposed endagered Sacramento Mountains checkerspot butterfy (Euphydryas
that the proposed action "may afect, is likely to.adversely affect" the

anicia cloudcrofti) (checkerspot butterfy) and îtsproposed critical habitat. You have determined MSO, the poppy, and the thistle, ard will have "no effect" on the checkerspot butterfy and its propose4 critical habitat.
The checkerspot butterfly and its proposed critical habitat are found withiu a portion of the sumer range of t.e Sacrament Allotment. According to the BA, ths
area does not receive any cattle use because of topography and lack of

Nelson Pastue, on the

water. The ForestService

also indicated that the checkerspot butterfy and its proposed critical habitat are located within

meadows that livestock are not prone to use, because'the mea:dows are bounded by steep canyons and are inaccessible (G. Garcia, Forest Servce, pers. comm., 2003). Moreover, there are no
range improvements proposed for ths area tht would provide,'a water source for livestock;

Russia Canyon is known to contain New, Mexico penstemon (Penstemon neomexicanus) and
orage sneezeweed (Helenium hoopesii), the laral and adult foociplants ofthecheckerspot

butterfy (E. Rein, Service, pers. obs., 2003). However, adult and laral checkerspot butterfy
sureys that have been conducted withn the Sacraento Allotment in Russia Canyon have failed

PL02275

:".
t1i;.'

;,

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB

Document 43-4

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 4 of 50

. JosedM.Marez, Forest Supervisor
any individuas (Forest Servce 1999, 2000a, 2000b, 2002c). Durgi site visit June 9, . 2003,. the Strvce aId Forest Servce discussed the proposed livestock grg and any potential
to locate' . impac~ to the clieckerspòt butterfy. Forest Service sta was onlY-known to occur with the nortern porton of

2.

indicated that the checkerspot butterfy
the Nelson Pastue (G. Garcia, pers. .

comm.,2003). The Forest ServiCe also indicated that the best information available supportd "no effect" for the checkerspot butterfy, because the occupied and Forest Servce stted that they would reintiate consultation if the checkerspot butterfy was documented withn any
their determtion' of proposed critical habitat will not be grd by livestock. Additionally, the

porton of the Sacraento Allotment tht was grd by livestock, because ths new information
would ievealeffects of

the proposed action'that may afectthe checkerspot butterfy in a maner or to an extent that was not considered (50 CFR 402.16).

.. .

Ths document represents Our biological opinon for the MSO, the thistle, and the poppy in
accodace with-section 7 of

the Endangered Species Actof 1973, as amended (Act).

Consultation History
Ths biological opinion is based on information provided in the BA (Forest Service 2003a); the
DEIS for the project (Forest Service 2002); the previous consultation's adinistrative record

including the June 9,2003, revised and subsequently Withdrawn, biological assessment for

ongoing grg on the Sacramento Allotment (Forest ServÌce 2003e); email and telephone conversations between our staffs; data in our fies; data presented in the MSO Recovery Plan
(Recovery Plan), tlstle, and poppy Recovery Plan (Service 1993, 1994, 1995a); Forest Service

regional MSO data; literature review; and other sources of information including ''the final rules

. to list the MSO as threatened (Service 1993; 58 FR 14248) and fial rule to designate critical
habitat complete

(Service 2001; 66 FR 8530). References cited in this biological opinion are not a
bibliography of all

literatue available on the MSO, the thstle, poppy, or on other subjects considered il this opinion. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on file at ths offce~ We received all the information necessar to begin formal consultation on July 14,2003, when you submitted an amendmenttothe proposed action. Comments on the draf biological opinon from attorneys for the applicant were forwarded to the Service by the Forest
. Service on December 23, 2003. We have taen these comments into consideration during the

preparation of the biological opinion.
Additionally, the following proposed action includes issuing a graing permit for the Dry .

Canyon Allotment to the Sacramento Grazg Association. The Environmental Analysis for the

Allotment was completed in late 1998, but is reinitiated as par of

14, 1999. A biological assessment and evaluation was completed and signed on September 10; 1998. Consultation on the Dry Canyon this proposal bécause the Forest Service analyzed the Dry Canyon Allotnent in the DEIS, and updated the BA for the Dry Canyon Allotment and submitted it to the Service (Forest Service 2003f). The BA was updated because the Forest Service proposed to issue a term gring permt for up to 75 cattle on the Dry Canyon Allotnent in the DEIS, and the 1998. grng criteria (Forest Service 1998) was revised
Dry Canyon Allotment was coinpleted on April

PL02276

, :1'iY . "--

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB

Document 43-4

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 5 of 50

Jo~M. Marez, Forest Supervsor
. on Apnl. is, 2002 (revised grg criteria) (Forest Service 2002c). Using the revised grg .
. criteria, the Forest Servce deteimined that the proposed . likely :to adverselyafèct". for the poppy. We

3
action would result in a "mayafect, not
concur with your determation for the .

followig .

.

reasons: I) you will inure that monitorig of

forage/rage gudelines occurs (see'descripti9n

below), and- implement remedies (e.g., livestock will be moved to other areas of the allotment) when your gudelies artt not met; 2) no poppies or viable poppy seeds are present with the Dry Canyon Allotment; and 3) rangewide monitoring will occur for the poppy (Forest Service 2Q03f,
.2003g). Thus, we concur with your determnation.

The DEIS also considered reauthorization of livestock grg on the Davis Allotment, but
proposed the preferred action would not issue a grazng permit because of resoure and . management problems.

DESCRITION OFHE PROPOSED ACTION
Protection provided by the Grazg Stadards and Guidelines
For clarty in both use oftermand process, we describe in detal our asSumptions concerning the

issuace and administrtion oftle Sacramento Allotment. The Sacraent Grang Allotment
and other grazg permits are administered and enforced under the Forest Service's range

are regulated by the National Forest System Land and Resource Management Plang (36 CFR 219).
mangement regulations (36 CFR 222), whereas Forest Plan In 1996, the 11 National Forest Plan-in the Southwestern Region of

the Forest Service were

amended to add specific stadads and gudelines for the MSO, grng, and other management
prescriptions (Forest Plan Amendments) (Forest SerVice 1995, 1996b). Stadards and gudelines

are the bounds and constraints within which all Forest Service management activities .are to be
. cared out in achieving Forest Plan

objectives (Forest Service 1996b, p. 87). Guidelines are the

detaled information about implementation standards. Whle stadards and guidelines both
specify mangement bounds and constraints, the stadards contan no discretionar elements,

whereas the gudelines may occasionally contain discretionar elements. Grazing standards and guidelines were identified in the Forest Plan Amendments and were recently analyzed for the

MSO in a progratic biological opinion (Forest Service 1995; Service 2003). The languge
and intent of the Forest Plan Amendments were to incorporate the recommendations of

the

Recovery Plan (Service 1995a) to provide primar direction for site-specific project design through project level (Forest Service 1995) (Le., the ForestPlan Amendments are applied

environmenta analysis and decisions).
The Forest

Plan Amendments provided stadards and guidelines applicable to livestock grazing
Forest Service developed

and the MSO. Following these stadards and guidelines, the . criteria for determning the eff~cts of on-:going grazng and issuig term grazng permits threatened, proposed, or endagered species (Forest Service 2002). The purpose of

guidance on this guidance

is to streamine consultation by using criteria to niake section 7 effects determinations for

PL02277

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB
'.~..
. 4,.p

Document 43-4

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 6 of 50

. . JòseM. Mare~ Forest Supervsor
. liveStock grg do activities in the Forest

. -

4.
Servce's Southwestem Region. These gudancecnteria

not çonstitute an amendment to Forest Plan~ nor the Lincoln National Forest used thecnteria in the

~ètiön. However,

do they provide allotnent management curent BA to aSsess

wh~ther adverse afects are anticipated from the issuace of a lO-yea grazg permt on the
Sacraento'

and Dry Canyon Allotments. The Forest Service ha proposednotissuig a permit.

for the Davis Allotment; thus, no. speies or critical habitat will be afected.
The

Forest Service issues term permts for grng allotments, and manages livestock graZg

. though the development of an allotment management plan (AM). Terms and

conditions of a 10-year term grg permit can be modified to conform to curent situtions (e.g., drought) or . hecause of resource conditions. These conditions can be modified in anual operating
Rager to the permttee.

i.ctions or though the permt revision process, which is generally a letter from the Distrct

The Lincoln National Forest Plan provides mangement direction and stadards and gudelines for maaging grazng on National Forest lands. These stadads and guidelines are listed in the

1985 Lincoln National Forest PLan as amended, (Lincoln Nationa Forest Plan) and in the Forest
Plan Amendments (Forest Service 1986, 1995). Generally, these 1).managerange conditions to promote long-term health and susabilty of

stadards and guidelines will:. key forage species;

.'

2) provide for other multiple resources and uses; 3) identify and monitor key forage areas and allowable forage use; and 4) assure therecovery and continued existence oflisted species (Forest
Seryce 1986, 1995).

The applicab1estandards and guidelines from the Lincoln National Forest Plan are:

1.. Meet T&E species requirements in all range or grazing activities (p. 35);

2. Protect and enhance T &E species habitat. Collect plant seed. Protect riparian habitat
(p. 87);
3. Achieve moderate (C) and high (D) levels of by end

management on all full capacity range

of ~econd period (moderate is defined as mangement that provides, ~ a

minmui, for deferment of pastues and improvement in livestock distrbution.
Moderate management may also provide for full rest of one or more pastues on an allotment, but requies additional improvement not normally associated with low

level management; high is defined as management associated with extensive improvement development, which assures year-long rest of paStues and good distrbution of livestock. . Provides fuly for plant and livestock needs. May ental extensive non-strctual improvement for maxmization and utilzation of forage production) (p. 87 and 211); .

PL02278

!:"-r-"' .

'i

;,

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB

Document 43-4

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 7 of 50

Jost M. Marez, Forest Supervisor

5

4. . Maita level A niangement in Alamogordo watershed (level A excludes livestock

grg to protect other values or elimte cOnficts with other uses) (p; 87 and
211); .
. 5. Protect and mange essential and critical habitats of

theatened endagered, and

sensitive species.though ensurg tht leg~l and biological requiements.of
. designated plant and anal species are met; fuer, identify data needs for'

. theatened, endagered, and sensitive species (p~ 205);
6. Identify, protect, and enhance existing and potential habitat of all T &E and sensitive

. species(p. 205);

7. Mange T&E species to att total recovery levels over time (p. 205);

8. Limt human activity in protected activity centers durg the breeding season (p. . 206);
9. Forage use by unguates recovery and 'continued existence of

will be maintaned at or above a condition which assures
threatened and endagered speèies (p. 206);

10; Manage and enhance the vegetation resource and brig permitted grazng Use in balance with the forage allocated for use by domestic livestock. Place all allotments
under appropriate levels of

mangement (page 12);

11. Manage riparan areas to provide optimum vegetation and ecological diversity (page

13); and
12. Protect

and enhance riparan habitat consistent with riparan area management policy

set fort in the Regional guidelines (page 32).

The Forest Plan

Amendments guidelines (Forest Service i 996b) applicable to this consultation

. are: ..

i. Implement forest plan forage utilzation stadards and guidelines to maintan MSO
prey availabilty, maitan potential for beneficial fire while inhbiting potential

destrctive fire, maintan and restore riparan ecosystems, and promote development
. ofMSO habitat. Strve to attin good to excellent range conditions (ROD p. 90);

.2.. Emphasize restoration of lowland riparan habitats (ROD p. 90); and
3. Identify key ungulate forage monitoring areas. These key areas will normally be 1/4
to 1 mile from water, located on productive soils on level to intermediate

slopes, and

be readily accessible for grazng. Size of the key forage monitoring areas could be

PL02279

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB
,i',

Document 43-4

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 8 of 50

~

. . '. 'JoseM. Marinez, Forest Supervsor

6

20 to 500 acres. . In some situons such as high mounta meaows with perennal
stream, key areas ~ay be closer th 1/4 mile from water and less

than 20 acres. With key forage monitorig areas, select appropriate key species. to monitor average allowable use (ROD p. 94).

4. . In consultation with the Service, develop site-specific forage use levels. In the event

that site-specifc information. is not available, average key species forage utilzation not exceed
in key forage monitonng areas by domestic livestock and wildlife should levels identified on page 94 of the ROD

durg the growig season.
non-discretionar actions

The Forest Service has indicated that the Forest Plan Amendments are that must be implemented by each of

the i 1 National Forests in the Southwestern Region (p.

Gaule, Forest Service, pers. comm:,2003). We also note that, similar to other site-specific

decisions, authorized grazg pemiits must be consistent with the applicable Forest Plan at the are issued (36 CFR 219;10). The DEIS found that the proposed action is consistent the DEIS that relate to the consultation are:
time they with National Forest ManagementAct (50 CFR 219). The applicable findings of

1.' Permitted grg would be brought into balance with forage use allocated for use by
domestic livestock;

2. The Sacramento Allotment would be under an appropriate level and intensity of

mangement;
3. Forage use would be consistent with other resources and uses. Watershed, riparan, and surace water conditions would all improve. Recreation and wildlife conficts would be reduced;
4. Forage use is at a level that assures recovery of

theatened and endagered species;

5. Key monitoring areas are identified; and
6. Specific forage use levels are specified.

The Forest Service concluded in 1996 that the Forest Plan Amenctments would be applied across
the landscape durng site-specific projects design (e.g., range allotments), and not MSO habitat (Forest Service 1995). The primar purose of guidelines from the Forest residual plant cover,

just withi

ths and other stadards and Plan Amendments is to mainta and restore adequate levels of

prey species and development of futueMSO foraging and dispersal habitat. One of our major assumptions in
frts, seeds, and regeneration to provide for the needs of

Prograiaticand site-specific consultations for the Forest Service is that activities will be
planed with the bounds of

the MSO, as well as the grazng management stadads and guidelines. For these reasons, the Servce assumes that the proposed
the Forest Plan Amendments for

PL02280

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB
it,'

Document 43-4

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 9 of 50

"

Jose .M. Marez, Forest Supervsor
. action will conform to the Lincoln National Forest PLaÍ as amended, includig

7

the Forest Plan

Amendments.
Sacraento Allotment Perit
The proposed action includes issuing a 10-yearterm grg permt for the Sacraento
Allotment for 200 to 412 catte and 5 horses from

May 15 - October 3l'on the sumer rage and

200 to 335 cattle and.s Iiorses from November 1 ~ May 14 on the witer unt This term grg
permt is

proposed to be issued in 2004.

percent allowable '. forage use gudeline for all key areasoii the suner range; 2) 40 percent allowable forage use 3) 70 percent allowable forage use withil .gudeline for all key areas on the witer unt; and temporar livestock holding facilties (livestock traps). These forage use gùidelines include use
The proposed Sacramento Allotment inCludes the following forage use: 1) 35

by wild.unguates (e.g., elk). A gudeline is defied in the DEIS as, "any issuace that assists in
determnig the course of direction to

be taen in any planed action to accomplish a specific

objective" (Forest Service 2002). The Forest Servce has indicated that the implementation of
the proposed action will irprove overall rage conditions. Although .there is no specific time
fre to accomplish this goal, our analysis' assumes tht the Forest Service will improve range
conditions over the life of

the 10~year term permit.

the Forest Service's BA and subsequent discussions withthe Forest Service indicate that the term "leaf lengt" in the proposed monitorig section of the BA should be
Our analysis of replaced by the term "herbaceous ground cover heighf' as it applies.

to the 4-in threshold

proposed forMSO (G. Garcia, pers. comm, 2003). Within key areas, the 35 percent allowable forage utilzation level on key forage species will be met. The Forest Service indicated tht
maintaining a 4-in herbaceous ground cover height for MSO prey habitat is par of

the curent

prpposal, and they will comply with ths and öther guidelines by monitoring key areas

(Attchment A).
the pròposed action is that the Forest Service wil attempt to the following range/forage guidelines on the Sacramento Allotment (Le., the 10-year term grazg permit will be managed to ensure that the range conditions are not reduced below thes.e minimum thesholds): 1) herbaceous ground cover height, which applies to both to the Forest Plan Amendments palatable and non-palatable species and is a stadard that relates Therefore, our understading of maintan

ançl the subsequent development of the MSO grazg ,criteria. Herbàceous ground 'cover height is
proposed to be 4 in across the allotment; and

.,

2) forage utilization is a percentage that indicates

. the difference between the amount of anual forage (Le., as it applies to key palatable forage .
species) produced and consumed durg the grówig season:

Forage utilzation is proposed to be
leaf

35 and 40 percent for thesum~r and winter unts, respectively, and 70 percent within the
livestock traps. Forage utilization will be monitored, and could ental

lengt measurements,

clipping and .weighing, utilzation cages or other methods the Forest Service determines is

PL02281

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB
dr, ".

Document 43-4

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 10 of 50

..

Jose M. Marinez, Forest Supervisor
. appropriate. Thoughout ths biological opinion we refer to these term collectively as
forae/rage gudelines.

8,.

The Sacraento Allotment consists of a sumer and a witer unt. The sumer grg season
would be from May 15 to October 31 and the winter grag seaon from November 1 to May 14.. The May 15th entr and the move dates on the sumer pastues may var up to 15 days in either direction, dependig on rage readess, use, and the time it taes to move anals.

Withn the sumer unt are two mai pastues, the Nort (Benson) and South (HaylWils).
These pastues are proposed to be gred under a two-yea deferred rotation system. Each of pastues are proposed to receive grng use dUrg

the . approximately half of the sumer season,

receive use durg May, June, and Jily, and the Benson Augu, Septeber, and October. Durg year

alternting early and late season use anllllY. Durng year one, the HaylWils pastue would pastue would receive use durng two, the HaylWils pastue would receive use

durg Augut, September, and October, whereas the Benson pastue would receive use durg

the sumer unit and would be on a two-year deferred rotation system. Durg year one, the Atkion pastue pastue would receive use durg
May, June, and July. Likewise, the Atknson and Nelson pastues are also par of 'YOlild rec~iveuse durng May, June, and July and: the Nelson

August, September~ and October. Durng year two, the Atkinson-pastue would receive use durng August, September, and October, whereas the Nelson pastue would receive use durng
May, June, and July. Under ths proposal, no more than 412 cattle and five horses would be' : grazed among the four pastues.

. November 1 to Janua 31 durng the first two years of years of the permit, livestock use

Within the winter unit, there are four IIain pastures, Alamo, Mule (Burleson), Pastue Ridge and . Grapevine. Mule (Burleson), Pasture Ridge; and Grapevine Pastures would be grazed anually . .durng the winter season (November 1 to May 14). Alamo Pastue wil be grazed from the new permit In the eight subsequent
in

Alamo Pasture wil be monitored each December or Januar

potential for livestock impacts on the poppy from ental

to determine whether an adjustment is needed to the number of livestock commensurate with the herbivory and trampling. Adjustments could
livestock removal, herd management (moving livestock within Alamo Pastue), or

. livestock reductions. Each

pasture would only be grazed durng par of the growing season (Le.,

Alamo Pastue would be grazd from November 1 to Januar 31, whereas Mule (Burleson),

from November 1 to May 14 each year. proposal, no more than 335 cattle and five horses would be divided and distrbuted in Under ths. all 4 pastures. .
Pasture Ridge, and Grapevine Pastues would be grazd

The proposed action Will also manage the Sacramento Allotment to provide forage for the
allotment's portion of the 1~000 head elk herd to be maintaned in Game Unit 34. As par of

ths

. proposal the Forest Service and New Mexico Deparent of Game & Fish will jointly monitor
. livestock and elk use with

utilzation cages and pellet group transectS established in key areas.

The Forest Service indicated that livestock numbers and elk numbers may require additional
adjustment depending on monitoring results. An estimated $72,000 in additional rage

PL02282

,..
¡;,.

,

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB

Document 43-4

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 11 of 50

.' Jose M.Marez, Forest Supervsor
improvements and Iltigation meases (identied below) would be implemente on the

9.

. Sacramento Allotment (costs include materials fuded by Rage 'Betterment Funds). We assume
that the Forest Servce Will provide

a detaled schedule for these projects in the fortcomig
key areas (see discussion

AM; including a description of monitoring methods and selection of

below).
The BA identifies a varety of

Rage Betterment Improvement Projects and Mitigation Projects

tht are par of the proposed action on the Sacramento Allotment; These include projects to

exclude livestock from environmentally sensitive areas, trck ta and pipeline repai and

consction, .and corr and livestock trap building and reconstrction. These prOjects are-

described below orare hereby incorporated by reference (Forest Service 2003a).

. Livestock trps are small pastues designed specifically to hold livestock as they are gathered for

a pastue move or durng the anua shipping of calves. The penittees on the Sacraento Alotment do not have any adjacent private lands; therefore, livestock traps are located on Forest
Allotment (e.g., see 502 acres (ac) of

Service lands. We are not aware of specifics relating to base propert for the Sacramento traps will encompass
36 CFR 222.3). Under the proposed action, livestock Forest Service lands (Table

1).

PL02283

c "

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB

Document 43-4

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 12 of 50

.,'

t1~,

Jose M. Marez, Forest Supervsor
Table 1. ExistiIg'and 'proposed Natiomir livestock trps with the Sacramento Allotment; LincolI Forest~ .' .'
.

10

Exitig Trap

Acres
100

Proposed Trap
Masterson
..

Acres

Wils
PeñacO
Wnght Springs
. Mule' (Burleson)

.10
20
5.

"165
186

Russia

Mule (Burleson) expansion'

0.5
12
3

SacraentO River
,. .

. Benson Cany~n .

Tota

.' 467

Total

35

the forage use guiddine in the livestock traps is proposed to be 70 percent of which is higher tha the 3S percent on the sumer and

curent grovi, ,
40 percent on the witer unit. The
areas. The major use period for

allowable forage use guideline in the existing and proposed livestock traps Will be higher as a
result of high-intensity, short-dUrtion graz~g on these small

livestock traps wil occur around schedulec; pasture moves, which occur in early sprig, mid-

sumer and late fall (J~ Goss, Sacramento Grang Association, pers. comm., 2003). Forest. Servce staff and the permttee indicated that the livestock trps are used for approximately 14

these periods, unless livestock are injured and require medical care (1. Goss, pers. comm., 2003; G. Garcia, pers. comm., 2003).
days durg each of

the Sacramento Allotment. Under ths proposal, grazing exclosures will encompass 284 ac (Table 2).
Grazng exclosures are located withn the Sacramento Allotment boundar but are not par of

Table 2. Existing and proposed exclosures'that are not par of the Sacramento Allotment, Lincoln National Forest.

Existing Exclosure
Sacramento Lake
Hubbell

Acres
28
13

Proposed Exclosure Telephone Canyon
Wils Canyon

Acres
10

4
3 3

Upper Mauldin Lower Mauldin

6

Water Canyon
.

2

S.acramento River

PL02284

..
"" .

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB

Document 43-4

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 13 of 50

.
11

JoseM. Mare~ Fdrest Supervsor'
Western Riparan
.

3

i

Upper Peñaco

96
116

Bluf Sprigs
Tota .

264

20

The proposed action also includes the followig:

.1. Reconstct the Wils Corral;
2. Reconstrct the Thousand Mile Corrl;
.3. Constrct a 20-ac livestock trap in Russia Canyon;

. 4. Reconstct Wright Spring livestock trap;
5. Constrct a trck tan apron, storage, and trough in the head of Atknson

Canyon.

6.. Construct a livestock trp approximately i 0 ac in siz in the Hay Canyon

area;

7. Extend the existing pipeline in Grapevine Canyon by approxiately 1 mile; .

8. Expand the livestock trap in Mule (Burleson) pasture to less than 5 ac in size;
9. Fence about 2 ac of riparan wetland at the mouth of

McAfee Canyon to exclude

livestock;
10. Expand the existing wetland exclosure at Sacramento Lake by less than 1 ac;
11. Modify the .phunbing of the existing troughs in Alamo and Caballero Canyons; and
12. Clean five existing earen ta in the Mule (Burleson) Pastue.

13. Fence a lane for cattle passage in the edge of

the Upper Rio

Penasco exclosure.

The following were identified in the BA and DEIS as actions that will be fuly implemented as
par of the proposed action. These conservation measures represent actionS proposed by the

Forest Servce that were evaluated below as par of our jeopardy analyses. . They are intended to and poppy. minimze or avoid tae associated with the MSO, and adverse impacts to the thistle are non-discretionar, and must be Underten by the Forest Servce Therefore, these actions
because they are par of the proposed action. If

they are not fully implemented, the Service

PL02285

,.
~..:.

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB

Document 43-4

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 14 of 50

. Jose M. Marez, Forest Supeivsor
shoÜldbe contacted to determe ifreIttiåtionoÎformal consultation is requtred (50 CFR

..
402.16).

.,

12

We'assume.thatas par of

also occur: . .
the proposed action docum~ntation and reporting of . 1. . Livestock use of trps will be limited

the following will

to approximately 14 days in early spring, midsumer and late fall, uness livestock requie medical care;

2. . Exclosures will have no livestock use at any time;

3. A livestock/elk monitorig plan wil be developed and implemented;

4. A noxious weed as.sessment will be completed for all ground distubing or site
altering rage improvement projects to determine the risk of increasing the spread of

noxious weeds;
5. Salt locations will be rotated to reduce impacts caused by concentration oflivest~ck

around salt grounds;

6. Use of salt will be prohibited within 1/4 mile of riparan areas or withn sight of the Highway #6563 and the Sacramento River Road #537; Cloudcroft to Sunspot
7. Livestock gring will be excluded with temporar fencing on futue revegetation
projects and on sites where livestock

grazg is hindering natural revegetation;
at all existing and futue water

8. Water wil be made available for wildlife use

development projects in pastues where livestock are present. Storage tans wil be

left ful, where feasible, when livestock are removed from a pastue;
9. Cattle will be removed years of

from Alamo Pastue prior to Februar 1 durng the first two the permit (Le., grazng will'only occur from November 1 to Januar 31). In

the eight subsequent years of the permit, livestock use in Alamo Pastue will be .
monitored each DeceInber or Januar to determine whether an adjustment to the number of livestock is necessar commensurate with the potential for livestock impacts on the poppy from herbivory and trampling;
. 10. Regular scheduled and uncheduled allotment inspections

will be conducted to

'detenhine the condition and effciency of range improvements, forage/rage

guidelines, livestock distrbution pattern, and locations of salt and mineral supplements;
i 1. Monitorig guidelines and thesholds of

when management changes are needed have'

PL02286

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB
".. .

Document 43-4

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 15 of 50

Jose M. Marinez, Forest Supervsor
been

13

estblished (Attchment A). Proposed monitorig includes visits on: 1) May 1st or prior to the entr of cattle to the winter and sumer pastues; 2) May 31 st or

withn i 5 days afer livestock leave winter pastues; 3) Augut 1 st at approxiately
the mid-point of the grg season or i 0 days after rai sta in the sumer unt

the 4-in herbaceous ground cover height is being achieved); 3) both the sumer and winter pastues with 15 days the permtted grg season; and 4) the winter unt in October. The afer the end of
(moniorig in all key areas willdeterie if Forest Service indicated that management action will be taen if

. .

the forage/rage

. utiliztion), are not met As part

guidelines, as described above (i.e., herbaceous ground cover height, and forage of this process, they will also include the effect of and deer on forage/range elk guidelines;

12. Measure long-term range condition and trend on key sites durng the 10-year life . permit;
13. Assess adherence

to the prescribed forage utilzation guidelines using measurements on key forage species. Monitorig on key areas will determe compliance with
forage/rage guidelines.

14. Constrct and maintain the Wils Canyon riparan exclosure within the existing Wils Canyon Trap. Water troughs will also be established in the trap to provide livestock water;
15. . Constrct and mainta the Peñasco pens riparian exclosure within the existing

PeñaSco Trap. This action wil exclude about 2 ac in the upper portion of the trap in the trap;
Water Canyon and fence two thistle populations in the eastern portion of

16. Reconstrct two trck tan in Mule (Burleson) Pastue. This açtion will replace the

catchments pads and ensure these existing tanks are functional;

17. Constrct and maintain up to a 0.5 miles of a ri drift fence between the winter and
. sumer unts. This action wil prevent unauthorized livestock drift between the

winter and sumer units; and
18. Constrct an additional fence in the existing Rio Peñasco exclosuie The fence will
. be situted along the west side of the intersection of

Forest Road 164 from the existing cattle guard at New Mexico Highway 6563 and Forest Road 164, to the first
Forest Road 16( The additional fence will create Upper Rio Peñasco exclosure

cattle gud about % mile south of a lane where cattle can only pass through tle edge of

without having to pass through the center of it.

STATUS OF THE SPECIES (range-wide)

PL02287

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB
" ('

Document 43-4

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 16 of 50

Jose M. Marez, Forest Supervsor
. Mexican spotted owl
. a. Species/critical habitat description

14

The MSO was listed as theatened on March 16, 1993 (Service 1993;.58FR 14248). Critical
habitat was withdrawn on March 25, 1998 (Service . on July

designted on June 6, 1995 (Servce 1995; 60 FR 29914), but wa subsequently 1998; 63 FR 14378). Critical habitat was proposed agai

21, 2000 (Service 2000; 65 FR 45336) and finized on Febru 1,2001 (Service 2001;

66 FR 8530). There is no critical habitat designated on Forest Service lands in New Background and statu inormation on theMSO is found in the Final

Mexico. .

Rule listing the MSO as a

federaly-theatened species (Service 1993; 58 FR 14248), previous biologicaJ opinions provided
by us to the ForestServce, and

the Recovery Plan (Service 1995a). The inormation òn species.

description, life history, population dynamcs, statu~ distrbution, and rage-wide trends proVided in those documents is included herein by reference and is sumarzed below;

The American Ornthologist's Union recognizes thee spotted owl subspecies: Californa spotted a), and northern spotted owl (S. o. cauriria).The MSO is distinguished from the Californa and nortern subspecies by plumage, genetic makeup, and geographic distrbution. The MSO is mottled in appearance with irregular white and brown spots
owl (S. o. occidentalis), MSO (S. o. lucid

on its abdomen, back and head. Its white spots are larger and more numerous than in other

. subspecies givig it a lighter appearance. Several thn white bands mark its brown tal. Unlike
most other owls,

al spotted owls have dark eyes.

Although the vegetative communties and strctul attibutes used by the MSO var across its

range, they consist priarly of war-temperate and cold-temperate forests, and to a lesser extent, woodlands and riparan deciduous forests. The mixed-conifer communty appears to be the most frequently used communty (Skaggs and Raitt 1988, in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servce
. 1995a).
b. Life history

MSOs breed sporadically and do not nest

every year (Gutierrez et al. 1995)~ Reproductive

chronology vares across its range. MSOs call mainly from March though November and are. usually silent from December though Febru (Ganey 1990). Callng activity increases from

though May (although nesting females are largely silent dUrng April and early May), and then declines from June through November (Ganey 1~90). In Arzona, courship apparently begins in March with pairs roosting together durng the day and calling to each other át dusk
March

(Ganey 1988). Eggs are laid in late March or early ApriL. The iÌcubation begins shortly afer the the female egg is laid and is done entirely by first (Ganey 1988). Incubation period for ¥SOs is assumed to be 30 days (Gaey 1988, Forsmanet al. 1984). During incubation and the first half
ofthe'brooding period, females leave the nest

defecate, regugitate pellets, or receive prey from their mate (Forsman et al. 1984, Ganey 1988). Foraging is done entirely by males during incubation and the first half of the brooding period.
only to

PL02288

.e ~ W'¡

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB

Document 43-4

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 17 of 50

Jose M. Maez Forest Supervsor'
. Clutch sizs of i to 3 eggs have been reported but little inormation on clutch size exit

15

because
6

of genera in~ssibilty of nests (Gutierrez et at. 1995). Geo-Mare (2002) reported that .
. durg the 2001 field season in their stdy, 12 pais established nests, 8 hatched young, and

fledged at least 1 young (9 owlets fledged).

juveniles disperse in September and 15

Nestlings fledge ir four to five weeks and disperse in September and October (Gaey i 988, Gutierrez et al. i 995, Arsenault ct al. i 9.97, Wiley and van Riper 2000). Eighty-five percent of percent in October (Wiley and vanRiper 2000). MSOs banded as juveniles were not obserVed settlig in natal terrtories (Gutierrez ei al. 1996,
Arsenault et aI, 1997, Wiley and van Riper 2000). Arsenault et al. (1997) reported tht

thee

sub-adult females paired temporarly with adult males.in their.

fit sumer, but left in the fall,

suggestig tht dispersal ca contiue though the second year. More data are needed on.pattern

of juvenile disperSal to help form the basis for strctug individua and metapopulation models.

Little research has been conducted on causes ofMSO mortlity. Great homed owls (Bubo
viginianus) and nortern goshawks (Accipiter gentils) are the primar causes of 'fledged young and dispersing known mortity factors are mortity.

for

juveniles and raely for adults (Gutierrez et al. i 995). Other
staation and accidents.

. . .

Previous studies (reviewed in Gaey and Dick 1995) suggest that MSOs are higWy selective for roosting and nesting habitat, but forage in a wider aray of habitats. The Recovery Plan assumed
that availabilty of MSOs prefer the coolest pars of roosting/nesting habitat was a key factor limitig the distribution of

the MSO.

the forest in order to dissipate their body heat, and therefore, usually choose nest sites on northern and norteastern facing slopes (peery et al. i 999). These communties are strctuly diverse and are çharacterized by uneven-aged, multistorÍed forests with high canopy closure (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995a).

Nesting habitat is tyically in complex forest strctue or rocky canyons and contains matue or
old-growt stds with uneven-aged, multistoried, high canopy closure (Ganey and Balda 1989a,
Peery et al. 1999). Nest sites have been reported at elevations of

7,000 feet (ft) to 9,350 ft

(Seamans and Gutierrez 1995, Geo-Marne 2003). Aspect at the nest site ranged from northwest
to norteast with slope ranging from 5 percent to 62 percent (Seamans and Gutierrez 1995, Geo-

Marne 2003). In southern Uta and Colorado, most nests are in caves or on cliff ledges in steepwalled canyons. Gutierrez and Rievich (unpublished 1991) reported that all MSOs were found

were always found in some tye of

in deep, steep-walled canyons in Zion National Park, Uta. In the Gila National Forest, nests forest (Douglas-fir/mixed-conifer, white fir,
mixed-conifer in their study were on limbs deformed by dwar mistetoe

Engelmann or blue. spruce forest) (Oeo-Marne 2003). Seaans and Gutierrez (1995) reported
that all nests

infection in Douglas-fir.
and Gutierrez 1995). In

Nest trees were the oldest and largest within the nest stad (Seamans

nort-central Arizona, MSOs nested in areas with 70 percent or higher proportions of a closed canopy (Grbb et al. 1997). Ths is also consistent with MSO habitat descriptions in other areas Seamans and Gutierrez 1995;
of Arina and in New Myxico (Ganey and Balda 1989, 1994;

Ganey et al. 1999).

PL02289

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB
'l1'

Document 43-4

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 18 of 50

, Jose M.'Marez, tores Supervisor

16

A wider.

tree species are used for roosting, but Douglas-fi is stil used mostftequeDtly (Ganey 1988, Fletcher and Holls 1994, Zwariket ai. 1994, Seam and Gutierrez 1995, Yowig
varety of et al. 1998, Peery et ai. 1999, Ganey et ai. 2000', Geo-Mare 2003).

Roost site~ tend to have

stper slopes, more canopy layers, higher caopy height, greater canopy closure, and greater
live tree and snag basal area th random sites and 'are closely associated with well-shaded areas,

. low on canyon slopes or in canyon bottoms and cool areas and riparan habitats (Ganey and
. Balda 1989, Zwàn etal. 1994, Gaey et al. 1998, Young et al. 1998). Gutierrez and Rinkevich
vegetatiOl'tstrataand high percentage ofgrotId litter in narow canyons. nortwest to norteast (Seaman and Gutierrez 1995, Geo-Marne 2003). ,roost .sites (94 percent) on the Seaans

(1991) reported fiding MSOs in steep canyons characterid with high humdity, multiple Mean slope aspect was The position of most slope was withn the lower two-thrds (Zwan et al. 1994,'
and Gutierrez 1995, Ganey et al. 2000, Geo..Mare 2003). Seaman and Gutierrez

(1995) .suggested that mixed-conifer forests provide stable and favorable year-round conditions, whereas MSOs residing in pine-oak forests are forced to adjust roost-site use. Roost sites have and Gutierrez 1995, Targo et ai. 1997, Younget al. 1998, Goo-Mare 2003). Slope angles rage from 0 to
been reported at elevations of6,200 ftto 9,200 ft (Zwan et ai. 1994, Seaman

67 degrees (Targo et al. 1997, Geo-Marine 2003). In piie-oak stads where mixed-conifer is
not available,

MSOs roost in th middle to upper third of the slope (Young et al. 1998, Ganey'et

al. 2000). . Canopy closure at roost sites rages from 48 percent to 85 percent (Tarango 1997,
Seaman and Gutierrez 1995, Young et al. 1998, ft to 100 ft in height and .i 0 in to 24 in diameter

Goo-Marne 2003). Roost trees range from 30
at breat height (dbh) (Tarango et al. 1997, Geo-

. Arizona

Marne 2003). Ganey and Balda (1994) reported both roosting and foraging sites in nortern both trees
had greaterc~opyclosure, more big logs, greater densities and basal areas of

and snags than random sites. Gaiey and Balda (1994) also

concluded that mature forests are

importt to MSOs.in northern Arzona, anddiffererit forest tyes may be used for different
activities. In Chiuahua, Mexico, Young et al. (1998) reported 16 percent of MSOs roasted in

caves, all with high timber component surounding the caves. .
of MSOs are varable. Some MSOs are year-round residents others remain in the same general area, but show shifts in habitat use pattern. Some MSOs move 12 to and Balda size appeas to var considerably Wildlife Service 1995a). It ranges in siZe and Balda
Seasonal movement patterns 31 miles (mi) in winter, generally to more open habitats at lower elevations (Ganey 1989b, Wiley 1993; Ganey et al. 1998). MSO home-range' between habitats and geographic areas (U.S. Fish and from 647 to 3;688 ac for individua birds, and from 945 to 3,846 ac for pairs (Ganey

1989b, Gaey et al. 1999).'

'MSOs. disperse into diverse biotic communties. Litte information exists about habitat use by
juveniles durg natal dispersal. Arsenault et al. (1997) reported dispersingjuveniles were found

to roost .in habitat unike that normally used by adults, including open ponderosa pine and pinyon/junper habitat. Ganey et al. (1998) foimd dispersing juveniles in a varety of habitats
ranging from high-elevation forests to pinyon-junper woodlands and riparan areas surounded by desert grslands. The onset of juvenile dispersa is sudden and in vaious directions

PL02290

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB
fl7.

Document 43-4

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 19 of 50

..

"

Jose M. Marinez, Forest Supervisor

17

. (Arsenault et al. 1997, Wiley and van Riper 2000). Juvenile dispersa taes place in September and October, with 85 percent leaving in September (Gutierrez et aZ.. i 995, Arenault et aZ. i 997,

Wiley änd van Riper 2000). .
. Ripanan forest fuction as importt components of ecosystems

supporting MSOs. 'These communtie~ paricularly matue, multilayered forests, can be importt linages between movement as direct avenues of otherwse isolated subpopulations ofMSOs. They may serve

between mounta rages or as stopover sites and connect large expanes of landscape tht

otherwse would.be inospitable to dispersing MSOs. Historical evidence shows that MSOs
once nested in riparan habitats (U;S.

Fish and Wildlife Service 1995a).

. Geo-Mare (2003)

as signficant predictors ofMSO presence, Their prelimar results showed tht MSOs preferred areas with greater rainfalL. Closed and unused roads were also significant predictors ofMSO pair
reported that witer and early sprig raiall emerged

occupancy (Geo~Marne 2003).

Ward (2001) provided strong evidence that spotted MSOs select habitats according to the forest conditions (mixedtheir prey. MSOs generally use a wider variety of distrbution of
conifers, pine-oak ponderosa pine, pinyon-juniper) for foraging than they use for

nestjiigJroosting. In nortern Arzona, Ganey and Balda (1994) reported that MSOs foraged Douglas-fir and white fir, frequently with a strong component of ponderosa pine, than in.managed forests.
more in unogged forests contaning uneven-aged stads of

. spp.), and microtine voles

The primarMSO prey species are woodrats (Neotoma spp.), peromyscidmice (Peromyscus (Microtus spp.) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995a, Young et al.
1997, Seamans and Gutierrez 1999). MSOs also consume bats, birds, reptiles, and aropods

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995a). Habitat correlates ofMSO's common prey show that . each prey species uses unique habitats. A diverse prey base is dependant on availabilty and quality of diverse habitats. MSO foraging habitats include canyon bottoms, cliff faces, tops of
. canyon rims, and riparan aras (Wiley 1993 ,Gutierrez and Rinkevich 1991). Previous studies

varation in MSO's prey according to geographic region (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995a, Young et al. 1997). Pattern in the consumption of some prey, like woodrts, var as a latitudinal-longitudinal cline, with more woodrat biomass consumed in northwestern the MSO's range and the leaSt taen in southemportions (Sorrentino and Ward of other species, like voles, is clearly limited to areas where MSOs hunt near or within montae meadows (Sorrentino and Ward 2003).
have found portions of 2003). Consumption

typically found in areas with considerable shrub or understory tree cover and high log volumes, or rocky outcrops associated with pinyon-juniper woodlands (Ward 2001).WiIey (unpublished data) found that MSOs in canyons were foraging
Mexican woodrats (N. mexicana) are

primarly in pinyon-juniper. Ths corresponds to woodrt distrbution and abundance (Sureda
and Morrson 1998). Ward (2001) reported moderate amounts of corresponded to higher.woodrat abundance. Mexican woo

tree cover and snags drat abundance increased with the

PL02291

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB
-j;

Document 43-4

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 20 of 50

. Jose M..Maez, Forest Supervisor
volume of large, undecmposed and highy decomposed logs (Ward 2001). The diet of

18

Mexican wooclts wa 70 perceiit forbs and 7 percent shrbs (Ward et aL 2003). These proportons were
'. simar to tht found in the woodrats' local environment.

. .Sorrntio and Ward (2003) considered woodrts an importt food source for the MSO

occurg in the Guaupe Mounta, New Mexico. Seaman and Gutierrez (1999) found that white-footed mice. Delaney et al. (1999) and Young et al. (1997) reported tht woodrats represented the in MSOs' diets in the Sacramento Mountains and in
woodrts were the most importt prey based on relative biomass, followed by highest percentage of prey biomass

Agucalientes, Mexico, respectively. .
Deer mice (P. maniculatus) are ubiquitous in distrbution in comparson to bruh mice (P. tree cover (Ward 2001). sampled, Ward (2001) found them to
boyle;), which are restrcted to drer, rockier substrates, with sparse Although deer mice were comIon in all vegetation types.

be more abundat in the mid-seral stage (60 to 1 00 years in age) of mixed-conifer forests. Sureda mice distribution in all vegetation types.they sureyed. They and Morrson (1998) reported deer
attbuted its ubiquitous distrbution to the heterogeneous distrbution of vegetation types in their

study area

Mexican voles (M mexicanus) are associated with montae meadows and high herbaceous cover, primarly grasses; whereaS, long-taled voles (M long;caudus) are found in mesic forest habitats with dense herbaceous cover, priarily forbs, many shrbs, and limited tree cover (Ward 2001). Ward (2001) reported that when biomass in montae meadows dropped below 1
kilogram per

hectae, no Mexican voles were found in either mesic or xeric forests in the Sacraento Mountans. Production of grasses and forbs had a strong positive association with
Mexican voles (Ward 2001). In his study, mea maximum height of

sumer abundance of

(6.6 cm) of

Ward (2001) reported 2.6 in summer grasses or forbs was a theshold, above which

. Mexican vole abundance increased with the height of herbaceous vegetation durng sumer

months.
Geo-Marne (2003) results suggest that MSOs avoid areas with aircraft noise and were found in
areas with low aircraf noise. Johnon and Reynolds (2002) and Geo-Marne (2003) reported that

MSOs did not flush from their roost or nest as a response to aircraft noise. Delaney et al. (1999) found that MSOs did not flush when noise stimuli from helicopters and chainsaws were greater than 115 yd (105 m) away. Chainsaws were more distubing to MSOs than helicopter flghts at
comparable distaces (Delaney et al. 1999). Delaney et al. (1999) recommended a i i 5-yd bufer
for helicopter overflights to minimize MSO flushing responses and

any potential effects on n~sting activity. Other recommendatioris were diurnal flghts and separating overflghts along

the same path by 7 days (Delaney et al. 1999).
c. Population dynamics

Historic population estimates and range distributions are not known; however, present population
size and distrbution are thought to be similar (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995a). Ninety-

PL02292

'.
Ie.

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB

Document 43-4

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 21 of 50

Jose M. M3.ez, Forest SupeIvsor
. one percent oflmown MSOs existing in the United States between 1990 and 1993 occured

19

on

:.(RU), 5

. and Rage East, (4) Basin and Rage The Recovery

lan adered by the Fore~t Service; therefore, it ~s the pijrnaradminstrtor of lands supportg MSOs. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995a). Most MSOs have been found with 11 National Forests of Arzona and New Mexico. It is unown why forest in Colorado and Uta supportfewerMSOs. The Recovery Plan divides the MSO's range into 11 Recovery Units Mexico and 6 in the United States. The six RUs in the United States are: (1) The Southern Rocky Mountans - Colorado, (2) Southern Rocky Mountain - New Mexico, (3) Basin West, (5) Upper Gila Mounta, and (6) Colorado Plateau. Plan identifies locations, descriptions, recovery criteria, and provides distrbution,
in' abundace, and density

estiates for each RU.

. -In 2003, the Forest Servce, Region 3 reported 987 P ACs in Arzona and New Mexico (Forest Service'2002e). Based on ths numberòfMSO sites, total MSO numbers in the National.Forests bird ora pair occupies the with Region 3 range from 987 to 1,974, depending on whether one PAC. Geo-Marne (2003) reported that 306 out of 662 (46 percent) MSO detections were made in known Forest Service P ACs. The remaining 356 of 662 (54 percent) detections were in previously undentified areas on Forest Service land, indicating that additional sureys are needed. Surey effort in areas other than Forest Service lands are also likely to result in
additiort sites thoughout the different RUs. The Service believes that 12 PACs are in Colorado

and 105 PACs are in Utah on Forest Service lands. Therefore, a total of 1,104 PACs ha been

identified on Forest Service lands. Tribal, State, private lands, and Mexican P ACs are not
included in ths calculation.Seaman et al. (1999) reported strong evidence of lO percent or central Arzona and west-central New Mexico. Populations in

greater population declines in
both of

the study sites (Le., the upper Gila Mountains on the Cocpnino Plateau, Arzona and the Tulorosa Mountains, New
Mexico) experienced lower survival rates at the end of the study period (late 1990s), Trends

in

anual fecundity and juvenile surival were similar between study areas; MSOs experienced
higher fecundity andjuvenile survival in the earlier years of

the study. Seaman et al. (1999)

stated tht the large inux of subadult birds into the terrtorial populations in early years and the
. rapid decline of

the populations thereafer suggests that no floater (i.e., non-breeding, non-

terrtorial)populatiòn existed on either study area or that the floater population was not large

enough to compensate for mortlity among teITtorial individuals. In addition, density on the two closely related to reproductive output from the previous 2 years
study areas appeared to be

(Seamans et al. 1999). This suggested that the floater population was nonexistent or declining and that population densities were sustained oruy after relatively "good" years of reproduction.

Because the trends in reproduction were strongly correlated between the two study areas, the regional phenomenon, possibly in combination with other factors, may . . have inuenced population dynamics (Seamans et al. 1999).
authors suggested that a

d. Status and distrbution

TheMSO has the largest geogrphic rage of the thee subspecies. The range extends nort from

PL02293

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB
ir.

Document 43-4

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 22 of 50

Jose M..Marez Forest Supervsor
Agucalientes; Mexico, though the mountains of Arzona, New Mexico, and 'western Texas,

20

to

the 'canyons of southern Uta, and southwestern Colorado, and the Front Rage of centr
Colorado: Because ths is a broad area of rema unown Mexico where much of

the southwestern Qnited States and Mexico, much'

about the species' distbution within ths range. Ths is especially tre in

the MSOs' range has not been sureyed. The MSO occupies a . :fgmeriteçl distbution thoughout its United States rage corresponding to the availabilty of . . forested mountans and canyoii,and in some cases, rocky canyon lands.
". Past,. curent;. and futue tiber harest practices in Region 3 of the Forest Service, in addition to

. catatrophic wildfire, were cited as primar factors leading to the listing of the MSO as a
federaly theatened species. Other factors that have or may lead to the decline of ths species

include a lack of adequate regulatory mechansms; In addition, the Recovery Plan notes tht forest management has created ecotones favored by. great homed owls, increasing the likelihood on the MSO.Scientific research, birding, educational field trps, and agency trps are also'likely to increase and could lead.to harassment. Finally, there is a potential for
of predation

increasing maicious and accidenta anthopogenic har, and the potential for the bared owl (Strix varia). to expand its range, resulting in competition and/or hybridization with the MSO.

. Bond et al. (2002) reported on short..term effects of wildfires on spotted owls thoughout the
species rage. The authors reported that relatively large wildfires that bured ne.st and roost

..areas appeared to have little short-term effect on surival, site fidelity, mate fidelity, and owls, as rates were similar to estimates independent of fire.
reproductive success of spotted

Bond et al. (2002) hypothesized that spotted owls may withstad the immediate, short-term (1-

year) effects of fire occurng at primarly low to moderate severities withn their territory. The
Forest Service (2003) reported similar

results following the 2002 Lakes Fire inthe Jemez

Mountans of nort..central New Mexico. Daney Salas (Forest Service, pers. comm., 2003) reported that of the .ten.P ACs that are currently being monitored withn the footprint of the Scott . Able Fire, nine sites has MSO detected. He also reported thatthe same number ofMSOpairs before and afer the Bridge Fire have been detected and have reproduced within the fire fOotprint.
He also indicated that there were two MSO nest areas found in areas where fire retardant (sluI)

. .

wasused.durng suppression activities. Since the fire, these areas have not been used as nest sites, in Spite of the trees not having bured at the nest sites; however, MSOs have been detected . in the general area (D. Salas, pers. comm., 2003). Given historical fire regimes within its. range, the MSO may be adapted to surive wildfires of various sizes and severities.
the owl was listed, we have completed or have in draf form a tota of 125 formal consultations for the MSO. These formal consultations have identified incidences of anticipated incidental tae of MSO in 347 P ACs. These consultations have primarily dealt with actions
Since

proposed by the Forest Service, Region 3. However, in addition to actions proposed by the
Forest Service, Region

3, we have also .reviewed the impacts of actions proposed by the Bureau Defense (including Air Force, Ary, and Navy), Deparment of Indian Affairs, Deparent of of Energy, National Park Service, and Federal Highway Administration. These proposals have
included timber st1es, road constrction,. fire/ecosystem management projects (including. .

PL02294

,.
:t~

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB

Document 43-4

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 23 of 50

Jose M. MareZ; Forest Superv~or

21

. prescribe natu and maagement ignted fies), livestock grng, recreation activities, utilty these projects location information) has resulted in a biolngical opinon that the proposed action would likely jeopardize the continued existence ~fthe MSO.
-corrdors, milita and sightseeing overfights, and other activities. Only one of (release of site-specifc owl. In 1996, the Service issued a biological opinon on Forest Service Region 3's adoption of

the

Recovery Plan recommendations though an amendment of

their Forest Plan. In ths
incidenta tae of MSOs, with approximately 26 of those P ACs

. non-jeopardy biologica opinion, we anticipated that approximately 151 PACs would be afected
by activities tht would result in

. - located in the BasÌn aId Rage East RD. In addition, we completed a reinitiation of the. 1996
Forest Plan

Amendments biological opinion which anticipated the additional incidental tae of five MSO P ACs in Region 3 due to the rate of implementation of the grazng stadards and
total of 156 PACs. To date,

. gUdelines, for a

consultation on individu, actions under the

amended Forest Plan have r-eulted in 262 PACs adversely afected, with 41 of

those in the

Basin and Rage Eat RD.
Sacramento Mountains prickly poppy
a. Species/critical habitat description

The poppy was described in 1958 (Ownbey 1958). The tye locality for the poppy is 9.6 miles

west of Cloudcroft, New Mexico, at an elevation of 6,600 ft. Ths subspecies occurs from the the ponderosa pine community down through the pinyon/junper zone into the the Sacraento
lower. edge of Chihuauan Desert (7;100 ft to 4,300 ft). It is found only on the west face of

Mountains escarment between La'Luz Creek and Escondido Canyon where it occurs in seven canyon systems. Occupied canyons have largely intermittent flows after stomi':events or have
springs that flow for a limited distace. However, plants do not grow The poppy is an early successional plant, often occupying sites that have exhbit enhanced soil moisture conditions. Plants grow directly in the rocks and gravel. beds, on vegetated bars of directly in

satuted soils.
of stream

been distubed and

silt, gravel, and rock, on cut slopes, and occasionally up on the ban.

Sites range from full exposure to 50-75 percent shaded.

The poppy was listed as endangered August 24, 1989 (Service 1989,54 FR 35302). No critical
habitat was designated. The Recovery Plan for the poppy was signed in August 1994 (Service

1994).
b. Life history

The poppy is a short-lived, perennal, herbaceous, sub-shrb that dies back to the root crown

the subspecies includes germination iu the late winter/spring, as early as Februar at the lower elevations. Germination sites must have suffcient moistue for
each year. The life-cycle of

es.tablishment of seedlings, conditions that likely require episodes of suffcient ranfall or semi-

riparan conditions (Malaby 1987). Seedlings grow slowly, producing a juvenile plant rosette the

PL02295

Case 1:04-cv-00786-SGB

Document 43-4

Filed 08/15/2008

Page 24 of 50

Jose M. Marez; Forest Supervisor.

. 22

. fi yea. Young plants must surve susned drought conditions from germtion, as early 4&
FebrU, unti the sta of

monsoonal ra, usualy in July. Seedlings have ben described al

delicate and not toleratig distbance well until they have had a chance to establis thei tapt
(Wood and

Galeano Popp 1992).

Second-yea plants green-up in Februar at lower elevations. Adult plants bloom after the plant

bolts, generay the second year, if moistue availabilty has allowed for sufcient growt.
. Flowers are present from late May into September at the lower elevations. Fruits matue thoughout the flowerig seaon, shedding seed tht are distrbuted by water flow, soil .movement, birds, or insects. Observations on life span indicate that individua plants live about seven to nine year. Matue plants have been observed to be large and vigorous for year, and then to not re-grow in a subsequent year (Forest Service 2003a).
Sarah We, MailllGloudcroft Distrct Botast, observed in 1991 that poppy populations

appear to increase afer flash floods (Wood 1991). The tubling action of the water and grel
is believed to provide scratching or scarfication of

the seed coat needed to allow germination.

Although the soil seed ban may be high, a lack of distubance may result in a lack of

germination in some years leading to wide fluctutions in poppy occurence. Sivinski (1992),
cönducted a study of

poppy seed germnation. 'He determined that cold treatment and
Botacal Gardens in Phoenix, Arzona (2003). Seeds were not.

scaIfication together led to the highest germination rates. Seedling geriation trals were also
cared out by the Desert

scarfied or cold treated. There was no germination success for 110 seeds placed on sterile
medium and kept in

temperatue and light conditions simulating natual conditions for the five-

month trial period (Forest Service 2003a). Both of these studies support the assumption that.
poppy seeds require some kid of seed coat scarf