Appendix K Wildlife Review for Migratory Bird Species of Conservation Concern

Transcription

1 Appendix K Wildlife Review for Migratory Bird Species of Conservation Concern

2 APPENDIX K WILDLIFE REVIEW FOR MIGRATORY BIRD SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN NORTHERN SAN JUAN BASIN COAL BED METHANE PROJECT San Juan National Forest, Columbine and Pagosa Ranger Districts, Bureau of Land Management, San Juan Field Office, La Plata and Archuleta Counties, Colorado LAND MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR BIRD CONSERVATION: The San Juan Public Lands Center recognizes the ecological and economic importance of migratory birds. The Forest Service and BLM implement bird conservation actions on a daily basis through applying National Forest Land Management Plan (Forest Plan) and BLM Resource Management Plan (RMP) objectives, standards and guidelines to project-level and planning-level decisions, through applying mitigation and effects analyses for bird species of concern, and through participating in a longterm statewide habitat-based bird monitoring program, Monitoring Colorado s Birds (Beason et al. 2005), and a number of local bird monitoring activities such as the North American Breeding Bird Survey (Sauer et al. 2005). Bird Conservation on National Forest System Lands: The San Juan National Forest (SJNF) conducts bird conservation activities at several levels by implementing: (1) Forest Plan objectives, standards and guidelines, (2) Forest-wide bird monitoring activities (Beason et al. 2005, Sauer et al. 2005), and (3) site-specific project design standards, mitigation and effects analyses for identified species of concern. Forest Plan direction that is most relevant for bird conservation relates to vegetation diversity, landscape structural diversity, snags and down woody material, riparian condition, habitat improvements, and disturbance processes. In addition, the San Juan National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1992) includes a suite of management practices that may affect the condition of habitats used by migratory birds. These practices are guided by a variety of management directions that includes management area prescriptions, desired conditions, management goals and objectives, and management standards and guidelines. Implementing the Forest Plan, along with applicable laws, regulations and policies, supplies a framework for project design and mitigation that promotes management practices designed to conserve migratory birds. Forest Plan direction relevant to bird conservation includes direction relating to vegetation diversity, landscape structural diversity, snags and coarse downed woody debris, riparian condition, and habitat improvement. Examples of other laws, regulations and policies that are applicable to migratory bird conservation and that are applied during Forest Plan implementation include: 1. The Endangered Species Act, with its list of Threatened, Endangered, Proposed or Candidate species. Section 7 of the ESA requires analysis of project effects to individuals and priority habitats, along with consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in cases where a federal K 1 NSJB CBM FEIS

3 action may affect a listed species or its habitat. Results of the analysis of project effects are documented in a Biological Assessment (BA). 2. Other federal legislation, such as the Bald Eagle Protection Act, requires federal agencies to analyze potential project effects to other bird species or their key habitat components. 3. The U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region (Region 2) Sensitive Species list (USDA Forest Service 2005), with its list of species for which there may be viability concern and agency actions may influence population trends or habitat value. Agency policy requires analysis of project effects to each species and its habitat with determination of effects documented in a Biological Evaluation (BE). 4. Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1983/1992) standards and guidelines for snag and coarse woody debris require maintaining minimum densities of standing snags (page III-11), coarse woody debris (page III-11), habitat for management indicator species (page III-26) and landscape structural diversity (page III-11, III-141, III-142, III-152) within Project Areas after project completion. 5. Forest Plan standards and guidelines that specifically protect active raptor nests from disturbance or vegetation manipulation within specified time frames and distances from the nest (page III- 148). 6. Forest Plan standards and guidelines that specifically protect water quality and water influence zones (i.e. riparian zones) (page III-46). 7. Conservation measures recommended for game species by the Colorado Division of Wildlife and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (mainly waterfowl). Bird Conservation on Bureau of Land Management Lands: The BLM s San Juan Field Office (SJFO) also conducts bird conservation activities at several levels by implementing: (1) Resource Management Plan standards and guidelines, (2) Field Office bird monitoring activities include annual participation in the North American Breeding Bird Survey (Sauer et al. 2005) and Monitoring Colorado s Birds (Beason et al. 2005) statewide bird monitoring project, and (3) site-specific project design standards, leasing stipulations and effects analyses for identified species of concern. Resource Management Plan direction that is most relevant for bird conservation relates to timing limitations, disturbance buffers, riparian condition, management of domestic livestock, and habitat improvements. Similar to the SJNF Forest Plan, the SJFO Resource Management Plan includes a suite of management practices that may affect the condition of habitats used by migratory birds (USDI BLM 1985, USDI BLM 1991). These practices are guided by a suite of resource objectives, planned actions and implementation priorities. Implementing the RMP, along with applicable laws, regulations and policies, supplies a framework for project design and mitigation that promotes management practices designed to conserve migratory birds. Examples of other laws, regulations and policies that are applicable to migratory bird conservation and that are applied during Resource Management Plan implementation include: 1. The Endangered Species Act, with its list of Threatened, Endangered, Proposed or Candidate species. Section 7 of the ESA requires analysis of project effects to individuals and priority habitats, along with consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in cases where a federal action may affect a listed species or its habitat. Results of the analysis of project effects are documented in a Biological Assessment (BA). K 2 NSJB CBM FEIS

4 2. Other federal legislation, such as the Bald Eagle Protection Act, requires federal agencies to analyze potential project effects to other bird species or their key habitat components. 3. The Colorado State Director s Sensitive Species list (USDI Bureau of Land Management 2000), with its list of species for which there is conservation concern and BLM management actions may influence population trends or habitat value. Agency policy requires analysis of project effects to each species and its habitat documented in a biological analysis. 4. RMP direction for management of riparian habitats, crucial big game winter range habitats, and habitats for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species (USDI Bureau of Land Management 1985, pages 12-13). 5. RMP timing limitations and lease stipulations that specifically protect active raptor nests from disturbance within specified time frames and distances from the nest (USDI Bureau of Land Management 1991a, pages 19-21). 6. RMP management guidance for wildlife habitats in various emphasis areas (USDI Bureau of Land Management 1985, pages 26-59). 7. Conservation measures recommended for game species by the Colorado Division of Wildlife and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (mainly waterfowl). 8. RMP lease stipulations such as CO-034 (Notice of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species). 9. Candidate Species policy, BLM Manual 6840 direction (USDI Bureau of Land Management 1991b, page.11f3). Bird monitoring is conducted at the local-level (National Forest and BLM Field Office) to determine species distribution, abundance, and population trend. The SJNF and SJFO participate in annual bird monitoring activities using habitat-stratified point count transects and special species census techniques (Beason et al. 2005). This integrated statewide bird monitoring program is designed and conducted by the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory (Leukering et al. 2003) and provides statistically rigorous population trend and habitat association data for at least 95 species of birds, many of which breed on San Juan Public Lands and in the Project Area. Breeding bird population trend data assists local land managers in determining whether additional conservation measures are necessary. BACKGROUND: An Executive Order titled responsibilities of federal agencies to protect migratory birds was enacted in 2001 (EO 13186). This Executive Order highlights the important role of cooperation and communication among federal agencies in implementing bird conservation activities. The order requires federal agencies to consider the effect of land management planning and project implementation on migratory birds, particularly those species for which there may be conservation concern. Executive Order requires federal agencies to support the conservation intent of the migratory bird conventions by integrating bird conservation principles, measures, and practices into agency activities and by avoiding or minimizing, to the extent practicable, adverse impacts on migratory bird resources when conducting agency actions. Agencies are to restore and enhance the habitat of migratory birds, as practicable and to evaluate the effects of actions and agency plans on migratory birds, with emphasis on species of concern. This direction is to be implemented to the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations and within administration budgetary limits, and in harmony with agency missions. K 3 NSJB CBM FEIS

5 There is conservation concern for some species of migratory birds due to naturally small ranges, observed population declines, loss of habitat, and other factors. Migratory bird species of concern, for which there may be project-level conservation opportunities, are identified by a variety of sources. These sources include the federal Endangered Species Act (addressed in the Biological Assessment, Appendix H), the Regional Forester s sensitive species list (addressed in the Biological Evaluation, Appendix I), the BLM Colorado State Director s Sensitive Species List (addressed in Appendix K), the SJNF Management Indicator Species list (addressed in the MIS analysis, Appendix J), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service s Birds of Conservation Concern list (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2002), the Partners in Flight Colorado Bird Conservation Plan (Beidleman 2000), the Colorado Division of Wildlife s Colorado Listing of Endangered, Threatened and Wildlife Species of Special Concern (CDOW 2005), and internal and public scoping. To implement the conservation opportunities described in the Executive Order, all the bird conservation lists described above were reviewed. There is much overlap among lists, with many species occurring on more than one list and some species occurring on five or more lists. Table 2 displays all species that occur on at least one bird conservation list, and shows the general habitat type each species is most often associated with on San Juan Public Lands. BIRD CONSERVATION LISTS CONSIDERED: This migratory bird analysis focuses on species that have been identified as candidates for conservation actions by at least one of the following seven lists: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern list (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2002) for the Southern Rockies/Colorado Plateau Bird Conservation Region (BCR 16), Partners in Flight Colorado Bird Conservation Plan (Beidleman 2000) for the Southern Rocky Mountains Physiographic Area (PA 62), Colorado Listing of Endangered, Threatened and Wildlife Species of Special Concern (Colorado Division of Wildlife 2005), the U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region Sensitive Species List (USDA Forest Service 2005), the BLM Colorado State Director s Sensitive Species List (USDI Bureau of Land Management 2000), species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2005), and species designated as Management Indicator Species on the San Juan National Forest (USDA Forest Service 1983 and 1992). There are 55 species of migratory birds included on at least one of these seven lists, and there is much overlap among these lists. Table 2 (below) displays each bird species and the list(s) it is identified on. Table 2 also describes the general habitat type each species is most closely associated with on San Juan Public Lands during their primary season of occurrence, and its likelihood of occurrence in the Project Area. More detailed information about the habitat requirements, status, distribution, abundance, and key habitat components of most species is on file at the San Juan Public Lands Center office in Durango, Colorado and will not be reviewed here. The following sections provide a brief description of each bird conservation list considered in this migratory bird analysis that has not been discussed in another appendix of this Final EIS. K 4 NSJB CBM FEIS

6 Birds of Conservation Concern List, BCR 16: Birds of Conservation Concern are those bird species of the United States identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2002) that, due to population decline, naturally small range, small population size, threats to habitat, or other factors, are candidates for pro-active conservation action. This list is intended to focus conservation attention on species that may be declining or have special habitat needs, and promote the long-term conservation of bird diversity in the United States. The Birds of Conservation Concern list partitions North America into 37 bird conservation regions (BCRs), shown below in Figure 1. The SJNF and SJFO are included in BCR 16, the Southern Rockies/Colorado Plateau (see Appendix 1). There are 29 bird species on the BCR 16 list, of which 21 species are known or thought likely to occur in the Project Area. A total of 8 species on the BCR 16 list are not likely to occur in southwestern K 5 NSJB CBM FEIS

7 Colorado. Table 2 (below) displays the 8 species on the BCR 16 list that are not likely to occur on Federal lands in the Project Area, and the 13 species that are known to occur or thought likely to occur on Federal lands in the Project Area. Colorado Bird Conservation Plan, PA 62: Colorado Partners in Flight developed the Colorado Bird Conservation Plan (Beidleman 2000) to highlight priority bird species and habitats that occur in Colorado, based on the Partners-In-Flight Species Prioritization Process. The Colorado Bird Conservation Plan divides the state of Colorado into three Physiographic Areas. The entire San Juan National Forest, the BLM s Silverton unit of the San Juan Field Office, all BLM lands east of Durango and the Northern San Juan Basin coal bed methane Project Area are within the Southern Rockies Physiographic Area (PA 62). The PIF plan identified 11 priority habitats for PA 62 including: alpine tundra, aspen, cliff/rock, high elevation riparian, lowland riparian, mixed-conifer, mountain shrubland, ponderosa pine, sagebrush shrubland, spruce-fir, and wetlands. All 11 of these priority habitats occur on San Juan Public Lands but 3 of these habitats (alpine tundra, high-elevation riparian and spruce-fir) do not occur in the Project Area. The three PIF priority habitats that are most common in the Project Area are ponderosa pine, piñon-juniper and Gambel oak and together comprise about 70% of the Project Area (Table 1). There are 31 bird species on the Colorado Bird Conservation Plan PA 62 list (Lewis s woodpecker occurs twice), of which 25 species are known or thought likely to occur in the Project Area. Table 2 (below) displays the 10 species on the PA 62 list that are not likely to occur on Federal lands in the Project Area, and the 21 species that are known to occur or thought likely to occur on Federal lands in the Project Area. K 6 NSJB CBM FEIS

8 Colorado Listing of Endangered, Threatened and Wildlife Species of Special Concern: The Colorado Wildlife Commission has designated a listing of Endangered, Threatened, and Wildlife Species of Special Concern (CDOW 2005). Species that are listed as endangered are in imminent peril of becoming extinct in Colorado, while those listed as threatened are at risk of becoming endangered in the state. The state also maintains a list of species that may be at risk of becoming threatened or endangered at the state level and these species are labeled Species of Special Concern. The Colorado state list of Endangered, Threatened and Wildlife Species of Special Concern was reviewed and 9 bird species were identified that occur, are suspected of occurring, or have habitat present on San Juan Public Lands. Of these, 4 species are not known to occur on Federal lands in the Project Area, 2 species regularly occur on Federal lands in the Project Area, and 2 species are thought to be irregular visitors to Federal lands in the Project Area. All of these species are also listed under the Endangered Species Act or are also designated as sensitive by the USFS or BLM. U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region Sensitive Species List: USFS sensitive species policy is to identify those species that occur on National Forest System lands for which there is conservation concern and whose key habitat components are or may be directly affected by the agency s forest management activities (FSM ). Eight criteria were considered and evaluated to determine whether a species merited sensitive status in the Rocky Mountain Region (FSM , , exhibit 02). These criteria included 1) geographic distribution within the Region, 2) geographic distribution outside the Region, 3) capability of the species to disperse, 4) abundance of the species in the Region, 5) population trend in the Region, 6) habitat trend in the Region, 7) vulnerability of habitats in the Region, and 8) life history and demographic characteristics of the species. Application of these eight criteria to hundreds of species resulted in the designation of a list of sensitive species in the USFS Rocky Mountain Region (USDA Forest Service 2005). Several species designated as Sensitive are also candidates for federal listing under the Endangered Species Act. There are 34 bird species on the Rocky Mountain Region sensitive species list, of which 19 species are known to occur, are thought likely to occur, or have habitat on the SJNF. Table 2 (below) displays these 19 species, of which 9 species are known to occur or thought likely to occur on SJNF lands in the Project Area. Twelve species are not likely to occur on SJNF lands in the Project Area. BLM Colorado State Director s Sensitive Species List: The Colorado State Office of the BLM developed a list of sensitive species in This list identifies vulnerable species that occur on lands managed by the BLM for the purpose of preventing the need for future listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act (USDI BLM 2000). Four criteria were considered and evaluated to determine whether a species merited sensitive status on BLM lands in Colorado. These criteria included 1) species under status review by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2) species with numbers declining so rapidly that federal listing may become necessary, 3) species with typically small and widely dispersed populations, or 4) species inhabiting ecological refugia or other specialized or unique habitats. Internal and external comments and written reviews were collected and evaluated for many species. In March 2000 the Colorado State Director designated a sensitive species list for the San Juan Field Office. This list included eight birds, two of which are also candidates for federal listing under the ESA and five of which are also designated as sensitive by the SJNF. There are 14 bird species on the Colorado State Director s sensitive species list of which 8 species are known to occur, are thought likely to occur, or have habitat on the SJFO. Table 2 (below) displays these K 7 NSJB CBM FEIS

9 8 species, of which 3 species are known to occur or thought likely to occur on SJFO lands in the Project Area. Five species are not likely to occur on SJFO lands in the Project Area. SCOPE AND SCALE OF ANALYSIS: This migratory bird analysis examines more than 75 bird species of concern drawn from 7 different bird conservation lists. These lists overlap to varying extents, with each list carrying its own particular set of administrative policies and geographic scale of inference. To simplify the large number of bird species from lists that overlap to varying extents, we have selected the geographic scale of analysis for direct and indirect effects as being Federal lands (National Forest [49,384 acres] and BLM [6,672 acres]) plus non-federal lands with underlying Federal mineral rights (8,567 acres) within the Northern San Juan Basin Project Area, totaling 64,623 acres. The scale of analysis for cumulative effects encompasses the Colorado portion of the San Juan Basin and is described in detail in Chapter 3 of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). This ensures consistency with the cumulative effects analysis area for other wildlife sections of the FEIS. This migratory bird analysis will provide a detailed review of the effects of the proposed alternatives for those bird species identified on one of the bird conservation lists described above that have a moderate or high probability of occurring on Federal lands (National Forest or BLM) in the Project Area. Species that are likely to occur only on non-federal lands in the Project Area will not be reviewed in detail because this FEIS has no decision-making authority over surface management decisions or bird conservation opportunities on non-federal lands. Therefore, the following sections will focus on those species of concern identified on one of the seven lists described above that have high or moderate likelihood of occurring on Federal lands in the Project Area. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES AND PROPOSED ACTION: See Chapter 2 and Appendix J of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for a complete description of each of the proposed alternatives. In brief: Alternative 1 is the companies CBM development proposal, Alternative 2 is a maximum development scenario that assumes demand for and price of natural gas will increase significantly in the future and that companies would seek to develop wells to a density of four per section through out most of the Project Area, Alternative 5 is the no action alternative where no new development of Federal leases would occur but drilling would continue on private and state leases and access across Federal lands would be granted where other reasonable access routes were not available, Alternative 6 responds to comments from local governments, advisory boards and public comment on the Draft EIS, Alternative 7 is the Agency s Preferred Alternative and is similar to Alternative 1 in the long term but defers development in a number of sensitive areas. K 8 NSJB CBM FEIS

10 For non-federal lands in the Project Area, Alternatives 1, 5, 6, and 7 are very similar in the amount of CBM development that would occur. Alternative 2 would greatly increase CBM development on non- Federal lands as wells are in-filled to a density of four per section. EXISTING VEGETATION: Table 1 displays the amount and distribution of wildlife habitat types by land ownership in the Northern San Juan Basin coal bed methane Project Area. The migratory bird analysis contained in the following sections is tiered to the habitat types listed below in Table 1. The most abundant wildlife habitat type in the Project Area is ponderosa pine, totaling about 45,000 acres on all ownership lands, of which about 42% is on Federal lands. The next most abundant wildlife habitat types in the Project Area are piñonjuniper (about 21,800 acres and 53% Federal), mountain shrub (about 20,900 acres and 61% Federal) and grasslands that include agricultural lands (about 20,100 acres and 16% Federal). The least common wildlife habitat types in the Project Area are warm-dry and cool-moist mixed-conifer (together totaling about 6,000 acres and 88% Federal) and aspen (about 1,300 acres and 96% Federal). Table 1 Distribution of Wildlife Habitat Types in the Project Area Areal Extent Total Acres (Federal Acres*) Portion of the Project Area (percent) Portion of Habitat on Federal Lands* (Percent) NFS Land BLM State Private Vegetation Type (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Grasslands 2, ,471 20,184 (3,652) Sagebrush 1, ,595 5,187 (1,990) Piñon-Juniper 9,645 1, ,714 21,834 (13,161) Mountain Shrub 10,307 2, ,493 20,938 (14,618) Ponderosa Pine 18, ,155 23,623 45,097 (22,777) Warm-dry Mixed Conifer 2, ,398 (2,916) Cool-moist Mixed Conifer 2, ,589 (2,329) Aspen 1, ,302 (1,259) Riparian/Wetlands ,622 3,484 (992) Barren/Rock/Unknown ,187 (901) Water (4) Total 49,384 6,672 4,462 64,829 Source: FS and BLM ,347 (64,623) *Federal acres and lands = National Forest (49,384 acres), BLM (6,672 acres) and non-federal lands with underlying Federal mineral rights (8,567 acres). K 9 NSJB CBM FEIS

11 MIGRATORY BIRD SPECIES CONSIDERED: There are a total of 55 bird species that occur on at least one of the bird conservation lists described above and that are known to occur, are thought likely to occur, or have habitat on San Juan Public Lands. Table 2 presents the full list of these 55 migratory bird species with codes indicating which list they occur on, their primary habitats and primary season of occurrence on San Juan Public Lands, and likelihood of occurrence on Federal lands in the Project Area. Of these 55 bird species, 5 are listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as Threatened, Endangered, proposed or candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act and were evaluated in the Biological Assessment (Appendix H). A total of 22 species are duplicated on the USFS Regional Forester s and/or BLM State Director s Sensitive Species lists and were evaluated in Appendix I and Appendix K, respectively. A total of 10 species are designated as Management Indicator Species (MIS) on the San Juan National Forest and were evaluated in Appendix J. A total of 27 species have not been evaluated in other sections of this Final EIS. Of the 54 bird species of concern listed on Table 2, 18 species are not expected to occur on Federal lands in the Project Area due to lack of breeding and/or non-breeding habitats, and 6 additional species are considered irregular visitors. A total of 36 species have breeding and/or non-breeding habitats on National Forest or BLM lands in the Project Area. Of the 36 species that are likely to occur on Federal lands in the Project Area, 21 species occur only during the breeding season, 6 species occur only during the non-breeding season, and 9 species occur year round. The preferred habitats described below in Table 2 refer to the general habitat types where the species is most commonly found on San Juan Public Lands during the nesting season, or in the non-breeding season for those species that occur primarily during the non-breeding season. It should be noted that not all of the species or habitats listed below have the potential to occur on Federal lands in the Project Area. Also, some birds (such as Williamson s sapsucker and northern goshawk) nest and forage in a wide variety of habitat types and thus are placed in the analysis group representing the habitat type with which they are most commonly associated. Other species (such as golden eagle and prairie falcon) nest in one habitat type (e.g. rock cliffs) but usually forage in another quite different habitat type (e.g. grassland). Also, some species that breed on San Juan Public Lands (such as black-throated gray warbler and cordilleran flycatcher) leave in late summer for remote wintering areas, while other species (such as blue grouse and pinyon jay) are found on San Juan Public Lands year round. K 10 NSJB CBM FEIS

12 Table 2: Migratory birds that are listed on the FWS BCR 16 list, PIF PA 62 list, Colorado Listing of Endangered, Threatened and Wildlife Species of Special Concern, USFS Rocky Mountain Region Sensitive Species List, or BLM Colorado State Director s Sensitive Species List. All species are known or are thought likely to occur on lands administered by the SJNF and/or SJFO, but some are not likely to occur on Federal lands in the Project Area. Species Status* Preferred Habitats American FS Riparian/Wetlands Bittern (cattail marsh) American PIF Riparian/Wetlands Dipper (fast-moving streams) American Pipit PIF Agricultural, American Threetoed Woodpecker Bald Eagle Band-tailed Pigeon Black Swift FS ESA, State, MIS Alpine Tundra Spruce-Fir, Mixed Conifer Riparian/Wetlands (cottonwood gallery forest), Grassland, Sagebrush, Piñon- Juniper, Ponderosa Pine Black Tern BLM Riparian/Wetlands (cattail marsh) Likelihood of of Occurrence Project Area (PA) Analysis Group Low N/A N/A, no marshes on Federal lands in PA Low N/A N/A, no habitat on Federal lands in PA Low N/A N/A, no habitat on Federal lands in PA Moderate Non-breeding Cavity Dependant High Non-breeding Riparian/Wetlands PIF Ponderosa Pine High Breeding Ponderosa Pine FS, BCR, Riparian/Wetlands Low N/A N/A, no waterfalls on PIF (waterfalls) Federal lands in PA Low N/A N/A, no cattail marshes on Federal lands in PA Black-throated BCR Piñon-Juniper High Breeding Piñon-Juniper Gray Warbler Blue Grouse PIF Mixed Conifer High Year Round Mixed Conifer Boreal Owl FS, PIF Spruce-Fir Low N/A N/A, no spruce-fir on Federal lands in PA Brewer s Sparrow Broad-tailed Hummingbird Brown-capped Rosy Finch FS, PIF Sagebrush High Breeding PIF Mountain Shrub, High Breeding Aspen, Ponderosa Pine, Mixed Conifer, Riparian/Wetland Sagebrush Mountain Shrub PIF Alpine Tundra Low N/A N/A, no alpine tundra on Federal lands in PA K 11 NSJB CBM FEIS

13 Table 2: Migratory birds that are listed on the FWS BCR 16 list, PIF PA 62 list, Colorado Listing of Endangered, Threatened and Wildlife Species of Special Concern, USFS Rocky Mountain Region Sensitive Species List, or BLM Colorado State Director s Sensitive Species List. All species are known or are thought likely to occur on lands administered by the SJNF and/or SJFO, but some are not likely to occur on Federal lands in the Project Area. Species Status* Preferred Habitats Likelihood of of Occurrence Project Area (PA) Analysis Group Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse FS, BLM, State, Mountain Shrub Low N/A N/A, not known to occur in La Plata or Archuleta Counties MIS Cordilleran PIF Riparian/Wetlands High Breeding Riparian/Wetlands Flycatcher (canyon streams) Ferruginous Hawk High Non-breeding Sagebrush FS, BLM, BCR, State Grasslands, Agricultural, Sagebrush Flammulated Owl FS, BCR, PIF Golden Eagle BCR Barren (rock cliffs), Agricultural, Grasslands, Alpine Tundra Ponderosa Pine High Breeding Cavity Dependant High Year Round Rock Cliff Nesting Grace s Warbler BCR, PIF Ponderosa Pine High Breeding Gray Vireo BCR Piñon-Juniper High Breeding Green-tailed PIF, MIS Mountain Shrub, High Breeding Towhee Sagebrush Gunnison Sage Grouse Hairy Woodpecker FS, BLM, BCR, ESA, PIF, State MIS Ponderosa Pine Piñon-Juniper Mountain Shrub Sagebrush Low N/A N/A, not known to occur in La Plata or Archuleta Counties Ponderosa Pine, Mixed Conifer, Spruce-Fir, Aspen, Piñon-Juniper, Riparian/Wetlands (cottonwood gallery forest) Mixed Conifer, Hammond s PIF Flycatcher Spruce-Fir Lazuli Bunting PIF Riparian/Wetlands (riparian shrublands) High Year Round Cavity Dependant High High Breeding Breeding Mixed Conifer Riparian/Wetlands K 12 NSJB CBM FEIS

14 Table 2: Migratory birds that are listed on the FWS BCR 16 list, PIF PA 62 list, Colorado Listing of Endangered, Threatened and Wildlife Species of Special Concern, USFS Rocky Mountain Region Sensitive Species List, or BLM Colorado State Director s Sensitive Species List. All species are known or are thought likely to occur on lands administered by the SJNF and/or SJFO, but some are not likely to occur on Federal lands in the Project Area. Species Status* Preferred Habitats Lewis FS, BCR, Ponderosa Pine, Woodpecker PIF Riparian/Wetlands (cottonwood Loggerhead Shrike MacGillivray s Warbler FS PIF gallery forest) Sagebrush, Piñon- Juniper, Agriculture Riparian/Wetlands (riparian shrublands) Mallard MIS Riparian/Wetlands (lakes and rivers) Merriam s MIS Turkey Mexican Spotted Owl Mountain Bluebird Northern Goshawk ESA, PIF, State, MIS MIS FS, BLM, MIS Ponderosa Pine, Mixed Conifer, Grasslands, Aspen, Mountain Shrub Mixed Conifer in steep rock-walled canyons Ponderosa Pine, Mixed Conifer, Spruce-Fir, Aspen, Piñon-Juniper, Sagebrush, Grasslands Ponderosa Pine, Mixed Conifer, Spruce-Fir, Aspen Northern Harrier FS, BCR Riparian/Wetlands (cattail marsh), Agricultural Olive-sided Flycatcher Peregrine Falcon FS, PIF FS, BLM, BCR, PIF, State Mixed Conifer, Ponderosa Pine, Spruce-Fir Likelihood of of Project Area (PA) Occurrence Analysis Group High Year Round Cavity Dependant Moderate High Non-breeding Breeding Sagebrush Riparian/Wetlands High Year Round Riparian/Wetlands High Year Round Ponderosa Pine Moderate High Non-breeding Breeding Mixed Conifer; one confirmed occurrence nearby but none in PA Cavity Dependant High Year Round Ponderosa Pine Low N/A N/A, no cattail marshes on Federal lands in PA High Breeding Mixed Conifer Barren (rock cliffs) High Breeding Rock Cliff Nesting Pinyon Jay BCR Piñon-Juniper High Year Round Piñon-Juniper K 13 NSJB CBM FEIS

15 Table 2: Migratory birds that are listed on the FWS BCR 16 list, PIF PA 62 list, Colorado Listing of Endangered, Threatened and Wildlife Species of Special Concern, USFS Rocky Mountain Region Sensitive Species List, or BLM Colorado State Director s Sensitive Species List. All species are known or are thought likely to occur on lands administered by the SJNF and/or SJFO, but some are not likely to occur on Federal lands in the Project Area. Species Status* Preferred Habitats Likelihood of of Occurrence Project Area (PA) Analysis Group Prairie Falcon BCR Barren (rock cliffs), High Year Round Rock Cliff Nesting Grasslands Purple Martin FS, PIF Aspen Low N/A N/A, not known to nest in La Plata or Archuleta Counties Red-naped PIF Aspen High Breeding Cavity Dependant Sapsucker Sage Sparrow BCR, Sagebrush Moderate Breeding Sagebrush PIF Short-eared Owl FS, BCR, PIF Riparian/Wetlands (cattail marsh), Low N/A N/A, no cattail marshes on Federal Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Swainson s Hawk Violet-green Swallow Virginia s Warbler Western Burrowing Owl ESA, State, MIS Agricultural Riparian/Wetlands (riparian shrublands) Moderate Breeding lands in PA Riparian/Wetlands, no confirmed occurrence on Federal lands in PA BCR Agricultural Low N/A N/A, not known to nest in La Plata or Archuleta Counties PIF BCR, PIF FS, BCR, State Aspen, Ponderosa Pine, Barren (rock cliffs) High Breeding Mountain Shrub High Breeding Grasslands (prairie dog colonies) Cavity Dependant Mountain Shrub Low N/A N/A, not known to nest in La Plata or Archuleta Counties White-tailed Ptarmigan FS, PIF Alpine Tundra Low N/A N/A, no alpine tundra on Federal lands in PA Willet PIF Riparian/Wetlands (mudflats) Low N/A N/A, no habitat on Federal lands in PA Williamson s Sapsucker BCR, PIF Ponderosa Pine, Mixed Conifer, High Breeding Cavity Dependant Wilson s Phalarope Wilson s Warbler BCR PIF Spruce-Fir Riparian/Wetlands (lakes) Riparian/Wetlands (riparian shrublands) Low N/A N/A, no habitat on Federal lands in PA Moderate Non-breeding Riparian/Wetlands K 14 NSJB CBM FEIS

16 Table 2: Migratory birds that are listed on the FWS BCR 16 list, PIF PA 62 list, Colorado Listing of Endangered, Threatened and Wildlife Species of Special Concern, USFS Rocky Mountain Region Sensitive Species List, or BLM Colorado State Director s Sensitive Species List. All species are known or are thought likely to occur on lands administered by the SJNF and/or SJFO, but some are not likely to occur on Federal lands in the Project Area. Species Status* Preferred Habitats Western Yellowbilled Cuckoo FS, BLM, BCR, ESA, State Riparian/Wetlands (cottonwood gallery forest) Likelihood of of Occurrence Project Area (PA) Analysis Group Low N/A N/A, no cottonwood gallery forest on Federal lands in PA Status Codes*: BCR = On Bird Conservation Region 16 (Southern Rockies/Colorado Plateau) Birds of Conservation Concern List (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2002). BLM = On Colorado Bureau of Land Management Sensitive Fish and Wildlife Species List (USDI Bureau of Land Management 2000). Effects to these species were analyzed in the Biological Evaluation, Appendix I. ESA = Listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as Threatened, Endangered, Proposed or Candidate for Federal listing and known or likely to occur or have habitat on lands administered by the SJNF or SJFO (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2005). Effects to these species were analyzed in the Biological Assessment, Appendix H. FS = On US Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region Regional Forester s Sensitive Species List (USDA Forest Service 2005). Effects to these species were analyzed in the Biological Evaluation, Appendix I. MIS = Management Indicator Species for the San Juan National Forest. Effects to these species were analyzed in Appendix J. PIF = On Colorado Partners in Flight Physiographic Area 62 List (Beidleman 2000). State = On Colorado Division of Wildlife s Listing of Endangered, Threatened and Wildlife Species of Special Concern (Colorado Division of Wildlife 2005). Likelihood of on Federal lands (National Forest or BLM) in the Project Area: High = Species is known or thought likely to occur on Federal lands in the Project Area during either breeding or non-breeding seasons due to documented occurrence or presence of suitable habitat. Species may occur in small numbers or in widely distributed areas. Moderate = May occur on Federal lands in the Project Area during some years, but is unlikely to breed due to lack of habitat. Or, occurrence in the Project Area is irregular and unpredictable and during the non-breeding season only. Low = Species is not known or thought likely to regularly breed or winter on Federal lands in the Project Area due to lack of suitable habitat. Direct and Indirect Effects: In Table 2 (above), bird species of concern were combined into eight analysis groups based on preferred general habitats (i.e. piñon-juniper species) or key habitat components (i.e. cavity nesters). The analysis sections below describe the expected effects from project implementation to each analysis group and the K 15 NSJB CBM FEIS

17 likely impact of implementing each alternative on the conservation of species of concern within each group. Activities associated with CBM production are expected to be much less impacting to bird species of concern than activities associated with project development. Activities associated with CBM production include vehicle movement (usually pickup-class) typically one trip per day or less per well site for purposes of equipment monitoring and maintenance. Sites with remote telemetry are expected to be visited less often. Production facilities such as compressor stations and injection wells will be visited more often (daily), by larger-class vehicles, and for longer periods of time. Activities associated with project development include movement of drilling and earth moving equipment, clearing of well pads and corridors for roads and pipelines, noise associated with generators and construction activities and equipment, and night lighting of drill rigs during well drilling operations. These production-associated effects are expected to be relatively high at and immediately surrounding work sites but relatively short in duration and small in scale in relation to the amount of habitat available on Federal lands in the Project Area. Habitat Loss: Varying amounts of nesting and/or foraging habitat for bird species of concern will be lost to project development under each alternative. The extent of impacts would depend primarily on the number of wells drilled, the length of access roads to those wells, and the juxtaposition of infrastructure facilities to key habitat components or preferred habitat types. Bird species that nest or forage in open or grassland habitats would generally gain habitat with infrastructure development because the Project Area is currently mostly forested, while species that nest or forage in forested and shrubland habitats will generally loose habitat with infrastructure development. Because not all infrastructure sites (e.g. roads) will provide habitat for species associated with open or grassland habitats, there will be a proportionately small habitat gain for species associated with open habitats and proportionately larger habitat loss for species associated with forested or shrubland habitats. Habitat loss for species associated with forested or shrubland habitats would be long term (decades) due to the normally extended time for regeneration of habitat conditions useful to these species (e.g. mature sagebrush, snags and largediameter trees). In contrast, the gain in habitat for species associated with open or grassland habitats will be almost immediate with benefits continuing long term (e.g. as long as the infrastructure openings are maintained). Table 3 summarizes estimates for the amount of habitat lost to each alternative for each migratory bird analysis group (from Table 2) on Federal lands in the Project Area, and ranks alternatives from least (1) to most (5) impacting. The rankings displayed in Table 3 are based on the relative amounts of habitat that may be lost under each alternative to project infrastructure and facilities. In general, the amount of habitat lost under each alternative is relatively small in comparison to the amount of habitat currently available on Federal lands in the Project Area (less than 1% to 2.5%), and thus the effects of direct habitat loss to each bird analysis group are expected to be generally small. None of the alternatives is expected to cause population-level effects or result in changes in species distribution within the Project Area for any analysis group or bird species of concern. However, all alternatives will result in some loss of breeding, foraging or wintering habitat for some species of concern. For this reason, all alternatives are expected to cause some disturbance and/or displacement of varying numbers of individual birds. K 16 NSJB CBM FEIS

18 Table 3 Relative impacts on bird species of concern, by alternative, on Federal lands and lands of private surface ownership with underlying Federal mineral rights in the Project Area. Alternative Analysis Group Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 Alt. 7 Cavity Dependant Group Amount of Habitat Affected (% of Available Habitat) 546 (1.3%) 848 (2.0%) 108 (0.3%) 268 (0.6%) 406 (1.0%) Ranking of Alternatives Mixed Conifer Group Amount of Habitat Affected (% of 70 (1.3%) 93 (1.8%) 8 (0.2%) 22 (0.4%) 57 (1.1%) Available Habitat) Ranking of Alternatives Mountain Shrub Group Amount of Habitat Affected (% of Available Habitat) 125 (0.9%) 274 (1.9%) 7 (<0.1%) 25 (0.2%) 64 (0.4%) Ranking of Alternatives Piñon-Juniper Group Amount of Habitat Affected (% of Available Habitat) 125 (0.9%) 225 (1.7%) 16 (0.1%) 80 (0.6%) 103 (0.8%) Ranking of Alternatives Ponderosa Pine Group Amount of Habitat Affected (% of Available Habitat) 336 (1.5%) 507 (2.2%) 83 (0.4%) 167 (0.7%) 236 (1.0%) Ranking of Alternatives Riparian/Wetlands Group Amount of Habitat Affected (% of 4 (0.4%) 7 (0.7%) 3 (0.3%) 4 (0.4%) 4 (0.4%) Available Habitat) Ranking of Alternatives Rock Cliff Nesting Group Amount of Habitat Affected (% of 7 (0.7%) 19 (2.1%) 0 (0.0%) 8 (0.8%) 7 (0.7%) Available Habitat) Ranking of Alternatives Sagebrush Group Amount of Habitat Affected (% of 30 (1.5%) 30 (1.5%) 6 (0.3%) 23 (1.2%) 30 (1.5%) Available Habitat) Ranking of Alternatives Notes: Rankings are in order from the least impact (1) to the greatest impact (5); ties are assigned equal average ranks. K 17 NSJB CBM FEIS

19 The degree of effect to each analysis group, or effect to individual bird species of concern, will depend primarily on which alternative is selected, the span of time (i.e. number of years) taken to complete full project build out, and the seasons during which most construction activities occur. In general, smaller numbers of individual birds will be affected by longer periods for complete full project build out because fewer wells will be constructed in any given year and construction activities are likely to be more widely distributed. Conversely, a shorter span for full project build out would affect more area simultaneously across a larger portion of the Project Area, thereby likely increasing the number of individual birds affected by project development. If most project construction activities occur outside the bird breeding season, effects will be reduced for species that breed in the Project Area (30 species) but effects will be increased for species that use the Project Area primarily during the non-breeding season (15 species). Habitat Loss by Alternative: For all analysis groups, Alternative 5 is expected to result in the least habitat loss (less than 0.4% of available habitat on Federal lands in the Project Area). For all but one analysis group, Alternative 2 is expected to result in the most habitat loss (0.7% to 2.2% of available habitat). For the sagebrush analysis group, Alternative 1, 2 and 7 are expected to result in equal amounts of habitat loss (1.5% of available habitat). For the riparian/wetland group, Alternative 1, 6 and 7 are expected to result in equal amounts of habitat loss (0.3% of available habitat). For the rock cliff nesting group, Alternative 1 and 7 are expected to result in equal amounts of habitat loss (2.5% of available habitat). The ranking of alternatives from least to most impacting was the same for five out of eight analysis groups, with the order being Alternative 5, 6, 7, 1 and 2 respectively. These five analysis groups were the cavity dependant, mixed-conifer, mountain shrub, piñon-juniper and ponderosa pine analysis groups. For the remaining three analysis groups (riparian/wetlands, rock cliff nesters and sagebrush) Alternatives 5 was least impacting and Alternative 1 and 7 were ranked as equally impacting. Selection of Alternative 5, the least impacting alternative for all analysis groups, will result in a relatively small loss of habitat for all analysis groups (0% to 0.4% of habitat available on Federal lands in the Project Area). Selection of Alternative 5 will have the greatest impact on the cavity dependant group because most of the habitat loss associated with selecting this Alternative (108 acres) will occur in habitats used by cavity dependant species. Effects to the ponderosa pine analysis group (83 acres) will be almost as large as the cavity dependant group. However, the effect of selecting Alternative 5 will be mitigated for these two groups by the large amount of habitat available on Federal lands in the Project Area, about 42,400 acres and 22,800 acres respectively. Selection of Alternative 6 over Alternative 5 will shift a greater proportion of the effects of habitat loss from the cavity dependant analysis group to the piñon-juniper and sagebrush groups. Compared to Alternative 5, selection of Alternative 6 would more than double the amount of habitat loss for all analysis groups, except for the riparian/wetland group. The largest rate of increase in acres of habitat loss associated with selection of Alternative 6 would be for the piñon-juniper analysis group. However, the largest amount of habitat lost in comparison to the amount of habitat available (1.2%) on Federal lands in the Project Area will be for the sagebrush analysis group. Selection of Alternative 7 (the Preferred Alternative) will have the greatest effect on the sagebrush and mixed-conifer analysis groups. Compared to Alternative 6, selecting Alternative 7 will result in another 2/3 increase in the amount of habitat lost for five of the eight analysis groups. The sagebrush group will K 18 NSJB CBM FEIS

20 have the largest amount of habitat loss compared to the amount available on Federal lands in the Project Area (1.5%).The greatest rate of increase in loss of habitat from selecting Alternative 7 over Alternative 6 will be for the mixed-conifer group (0.4% to 1.1% of available habitat). Although there will be a relatively small amount of habitat lost from mixed conifer habitats, the relatively small and isolated patch size of most mixed conifer stands makes a small habitat loss more impacting than in other habitats with larger and more continuous patches. A relatively small loss of mixed conifer habitat may render naturally small patches unsuitable for occupancy by some mixed conifer species, potentially reducing the continuity of species distribution across the Project Area. Selection of Alternative 1 will shift the burden of habitat loss to the mountain shrub and ponderosa pine analysis groups. The greatest proportionate increase in habitat loss from Alternative 7 to Alternative 1 will be for the mountain shrub and ponderosa pine analysis groups (0.5% increase in loss of habitat available on Federal lands for both groups). There will be a relatively small increase in habitat loss over Alternative 7 for five of eight analysis groups. There will be no increase in loss of available habitat from selecting Alternative 1 over Alternative 7 for the riparian/wetland, rock cliff nesting and sagebrush analysis groups. Selection of Alternative 2 (the most impacting alternative for all analysis groups) will shift the burden of habitat loss back to the ponderosa pine and cavity dependant analysis groups. Alternative 2 will result in the greatest loss of habitat for all analysis groups. The cavity dependant group will loose the greatest amount of habitat (848 acres) but the ponderosa pine group will have the greatest loss in percent of habitat available on Federal lands in the Project Area (2.2%). The mountain shrub and piñon-juniper groups will similar rates of habitat loss in comparison to the amount available (1.9% and 1.7% respectively). Habitat Loss by Analysis Group: Cavity dependant bird species of concern are divided into two categories, primary cavity excavators that construct a new nesting cavity each season, and obligate secondary cavity nesters that do not regularly construct their own nesting cavities but depend primarily on cavities constructed in previous seasons by primary excavators. Primary cavity excavators that are known to occur or thought likely to occur on Federal lands in the Project Area include American three-toed woodpecker, hairy woodpecker, Lewis woodpecker, red-naped sapsucker and Williamson s sapsucker. Obligate secondary cavity nesters that are known to occur or thought likely to occur on Federal lands in the Project Area include flammulated owl, mountain bluebird and violet-green swallow. All primary cavity excavators except American threetoed woodpecker and all secondary cavity nesters are known or thought to be fairly common and widespread on Federal lands in the Project Area. The American three-toed woodpecker is an irregular visitor to the Project Area and likely occurs only in years and areas with bark beetle outbreaks or immediately following stand-replacement fires. Of the primary cavity excavator group, all except American three-toed woodpecker construct cavities in ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, white fir and blue spruce, especially trees greater than about 16 diameter, as well as aspen greater than about 9 diameter (Schultz 1996, Tobalske 1997, Barrett 1998a, Winn 1998b, Winternitz 1998, Yanishevsky and Petring-Rupp 1998, Schultz 2001). American three-toed woodpeckers construct nest cavities primarily in Engelmann spruce or subalpine fir trees, preferably trees greater than about 16 diameter (Versaw 1998, Yanishevsky and Petring-Rupp 1998, Schultz 2001). Engelmann spruce and subalpine fir trees are relatively rare on Federal lands in the Project Area and thus this species is likely to be a relatively rare nesting species in the Project Area. Of the species in K 19 NSJB CBM FEIS

21 the primary cavity excavator group, only hairy woodpecker regularly constructs nest cavities in piñonjuniper habitat (Winternitz 1998). All of the obligate secondary cavity nesting group are known to be relatively common and widespread on Federal lands in the Project Area. On San Juan Public Lands, flammulated owl is most often associated with mature and old growth stands of ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir, especially stands mixed with large-diameter aspen trees (Winn 1998a, SJNF MIS Assessment, unpub.rpt.). Mountain bluebird most commonly nests in mature stands of piñon-juniper and ponderosa pine that border sagebrush and grassland foraging habitats (Barrett 1998b, SJNF MIS Assessment, unpub.rpt.). The violet-green swallow nests in abandoned woodpecker cavities in snags bordering open meadows, sagebrush parks, river corridors, beaver ponds, and riparian areas (Pantle 1998). About 76% of Federal lands and non-federal lands with Federal mineral rights in the Project Area (about 42,450 acres) are forested habitats used by cavity dependant species. The most abundant forested habitat type on Federal lands in the Project Area is ponderosa pine, with smaller amounts of piñonjuniper, mixed-conifer and aspen habitats. Aspen is a very important wildlife habitat type for the cavity dependant analysis group. There is very little aspen-dominated habitat in the Project Area (about 1,300 acres) of which most (97%) is on Federal lands. In addition to stands dominated by aspen trees, many parts of the Project Area have coniferdominated stands with smaller numbers of aspen trees mixed in the forest overstory. Aspen stands usually provide higher quality habitat than surrounding pure conifer stands for snag and cavity dependant birds because of the typically high number of standing dead trees and abundant nest cavities present in aspen trees. The mitigation measures protecting standing snags from loss to fuel wood harvesting and facility development (see FEIS wildlife mitigation and monitoring Section ), as well as mitigation to protect old growth ponderosa pine (see FEIS vegetation mitigation and monitoring Section 3.8.5) will protect key habitat components for the cavity dependant analysis group. The most important key habitat components for the cavity dependant group are large-diameter [> 16 DBH] standing snags, green snag replacement trees and pre-settlement trees that are used as nesting and foraging substrate. Mixed conifer bird species of concern include blue grouse, Hammond s flycatcher, olive-sided flycatcher and Mexican spotted owl. Mixed conifer habitats are less common on Federal lands in the Project Area (about 5,250 acres) than other forested wildlife habitat types and occur mostly in relatively small and isolated patches on north and east facing slopes. Most (88%) mixed conifer habitat in the Project Area occurs on Federal lands. As the name implies, mixed conifer stands in the Project Area are highly variable in species composition and habitat structure (SJNF MIS Assessment, unpub.rpt.). Many mixed conifer stands have some aspen trees mixed in with the overstory conifers. Of the four bird species of concern in the mixed conifer analysis group, blue grouse, Hammond s flycatcher and olive-sided flycatcher are detected in limited numbers through out Federal lands in the Project Area. Hammond s flycatcher and blue grouse are thought to be somewhat more abundant and widespread than detection data indicate (Sedgwick 1998a, Toolen 1998a). Olive-sided flycatcher is a relatively rare nesting species on Federal lands in the Project Area due to the generally dense canopy conditions of most mixed conifer stands and lack of surface water and riparian or wetland openings (Jones 1998a). On Federal lands in the Project Area, old growth ponderosa pine stands, especially those on steeper slopes, likely provide the best habitat for olive-sided flycatcher (SJNF MIS Assessment, K 20 NSJB CBM FEIS

22 unpub.rpt.). The Mexican spotted owl has never been confirmed to occur in the Project Area but two detections of a lone individual in the Fosset Gulch area were reported in late summer 1996 (SJNF MIS Assessment, unpub.rpt.). Follow-up surveys failed to detect any owls. It is estimated that 1,980 acres of marginal owl habitat occur in the Project Area but the lack of narrow rock-walled canyons is thought to be a factor that may limit their occurrence in the Project Area. None of the alternatives propose infrastructure development within the 1,980 acre area identified as marginal habitat for Mexican spotted owl (USDA Forest Service 2003). Selection of Alternative 7, the agency s Preferred Alternative, will have proportionately the greatest effect on the mixed conifer analysis group and result in the loss of about 54 acres or 1.1% of mixed conifer habitat on Federal lands. Although this is a relatively small amount of habitat loss, the relatively small and isolated patch size of most mixed conifer stands makes a small habitat loss more impacting to species associated with mixed conifer than other more abundant and continuous habitats. A relatively small loss of habitat could render a small habitat patch unsuitable for occupancy by some species thus reducing the continuity of species distribution across the Project Area. Olive-sided flycatcher populations have declined at a rate of about 4% per year for the past 30 years, which amounts to about a 75% drop in population size (Jones 1998a) and is on the Partners in Flight national watch list (Rich et al. 2004). For this reason, olive-sided flycatcher is perhaps the most at-risk bird species of concern regularly breeding on Federal lands in the Project Area. Therefore, it is important to implement flycatcher conservation opportunities at the project level when ever possible, such as protection of flycatcher key habitat components. Because of their habitat associations and foraging strategy, the snag and old growth ponderosa pine mitigation measures (see FEIS mitigation and monitoring sections and ) will protect key habitat components for olive-sided flycatchers (standing snags, super-canopy conifers and pre-settlement trees). Mountain shrub habitat provides valuable food and cover for many birds and mammals, including a number of bird species of concern such as band-tailed pigeon, Lewis Woodpecker, Merriam s turkey, green-tailed towhee and Virginia s warbler. In addition to Gambel oak, many other shrubs in this community produce edible fruits in late summer that provide high quality food for many wildlife species (Beidleman 2000). For example, black bears travel long distances in late summer to reach Federal lands in the Project Area to take advantage of the rich foods in this habitat type (see FEIS bear MIS; section J.4.5.4). Because of the unique importance of mountain shrublands in the Project Area as late summer wildlife foraging habitat, the small losses of productive mountain shrubland habitat proposed by each alternative may adversely affect wildlife at a larger scale than the small acreage figures in Table 3 suggest. Mountain shrub habitat occurs in fairly large and relatively uniform stands in some parts of the Project Area. A habitat management objective of Colorado Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan (Beidleman 2000) is to re-introduce small-scale and relatively controlled fire events back into mountain shrub habitats to promote landscape heterogeneity, increase production of native grasses and forbs, increase shrub productivity, and leave healthy mosaic patterns of various aged stands. CBM production may enhance management options in this habitat type by providing road access to formerly remote parts of the Project Area, thereby providing opportunities for the use of prescribed fire for resource benefit in areas where it was formerly not practical due to lack of access and lack of fire control options. Bird species of concern in the mountain shrub analysis group include broad-tailed hummingbird, greentailed towhee and Virginia s warbler. All three species are widespread and common on Federal lands in K 21 NSJB CBM FEIS

23 the Project Area, and all are closely associated with mountain shrub habitat dominated by Gambel oak (Boyle 1998a, Melcher 1998, Richter 1998). Mountain shrub habitat is the second most abundant habitat type on Federal lands in the Project Area, with about 61% of the habitat in the Project Area occurring on Federal lands. The breeding range of Virginia s warbler is small, restricted mostly to the states of the 4-corners, and it is on the PIF national watch list with an estimated 62% of its breeding population in the Intermountain west avifaunal biome (Rich et al. 2004). Colorado contains between 20% and 40% of the green-tailed towhee breeding population, and maintaining shrub species diversity and habitat mosaics within managed landscapes is important to species conservation (Beidleman 2000). Forest plan standards and guidelines require maintaining minimum habitat capability levels for green-tailed towhee (see FEIS management area direction section J.5.2) and all three mountain shrub bird species of concern will benefit from these standards. The mitigation measure protecting large-diameter Gambel oak stands (see FEIS turkey MIS section J.3.3.6) will also protect habitat for all three bird species of concern. Piñon-juniper is the third most abundant wildlife habitat on Federal lands in the Project Area (about 13,150 acres) with about 60% of habitat in the Project Area occurring on Federal lands. Piñon-juniper woodlands are in a stable to increasing trend on San Juan Public Lands (SJNF MIS Assessment, unpub.rpt.). Piñon and juniper trees are encroaching into lower-elevation areas that were once extensively sagebrush and associated grassland cover types. This is largely due to the exclusion of frequent fire. Ips bark beetles and black stain root disease are mostly responsible for significant mortality of piñon pine in the Four Corners region noted over the last few years. In general, piñonjuniper woodlands that were once dominated by large trees with openings composed of younger trees, grasses, forbs, and shrubs are now denser, with a corresponding loss of openings (ibid). Piñon-juniper bird species of concern include black-throated gray warbler, gray vireo, and pinyon jay. Black-throated gray warbler is a widespread and relatively common breeding species on Federal lands through out the Project Area. Pinyon jay is a widespread though less common breeding species in the Project Area that is closely associated with piñon-juniper woodlands and is typically found breeding in loose colonies up to several dozen pairs (Dexter 1998a). They have co-evolved with piñon pine and depend on the tree as their principal source of food (pine nuts), nesting sites and protection. Pinyon jay is on the Partners In Flight national watch list with an estimated 92% of its breeding population in the Intermountain west avifaunal biome (Rich et al. 2004). Gray vireo is a rare and local breeding species on Federal lands in the Project Area (Dexter 1998b). Its preferred habitat is lightly forested mesas, steep hillsides, canyons and valleys where junipers grow widely spaced, typically the lowest elevations and driest sites occupied by piñon-juniper woodlands. This habitat is rare on Federal lands in the Project Area. Gray vireo has a small distribution limited to the Great Basin with an estimated 40% of its breeding distribution in Colorado. Some references place gray vireo among the ten most threatened of Colorado s breeding species (ibid). It is on the Partners In Flight national watch list with an estimated 68% of its breeding population in the Intermountain west avifaunal biome (Rich et al. 2004). Selection of Alternative 7, the agency s Preferred Alternative, will result in the loss of about 103 acres of piñon-juniper habitat (0.8% of habitat on Federal lands in the Project Area). This is a relatively small amount of habitat, but when added to the recent drought and beetle induced mortality of piñon pine which has been extensive in some parts of the Project Area, implementation of any of the project alternatives will have a greater impact on species associated with piñon-juniper woodlands than the figures in Table 3 suggest. K 22 NSJB CBM FEIS

24 Ponderosa pine is the most abundant wildlife habitat on Federal lands in the Project Area (about 22,800 acres) with about half of the habitat in the Project Area occurring on Federal lands. More than 80% of ponderosa pine habitat in the Project Area is in low- to mid- canopy closure stands with trees that average greater than 9 inches in diameter (wildlife habitat structural stages 4A and 4B). Forest stands with this structure provide good nesting and hunting habitat for all four bird species of concern in the ponderosa pine analysis group (band-tailed pigeon, Grace s warbler, Merriam s turkey and northern goshawk). Ponderosa pine bird species of concern include band-tailed pigeon, Grace s warbler, Merriam s turkey and northern goshawk. All four species are widespread though may be relatively uncommon on Federal lands in the Project Area (Barrett 1998c, Boyle 1998b, Dexter 1998c, Levad 1998a). In this analysis group, band-tailed pigeon may be the least detected species on Federal lands in the Project Area and populations may have declined up to half since the early 1970 s (Dexter 1998c) though monitoring population trends of this species is difficult. Goshawk population trends or estimates of breeding population size cannot be determined with accuracy for Colorado (Kennedy 2003). Goshawk is regularly detected on Federal lands in the Project Area and two active nests and two inactive nests have been documented (see Biological Evaluation FEIS Appendix I). Grace s warbler and turkey are common and widespread on Federal lands in the Project Area. Selection of Alternative 7, the agency s Preferred Alternative, will result in the loss of about 240 acres (1.0%) of ponderosa pine habitat on Federal lands in the Project Area, the most from any habitat type in the Project Area. When compared to the large average home range size and wide ranging nature of northern goshawk ([about 5,400 acres] see Biological Evaluation FEIS Appendix I, Kennedy 2003) and band-tailed pigeon (Dexter 1998c), however, both species are likely to continue using areas and habitats affected by project development to some degree. The large amount, wide distribution and often large patch size of ponderosa pine habitat on Federal lands in the Project Area in comparison to the relatively small size of most project infrastructure sites also helps mitigate the effects of habitat loss. The snag and old growth ponderosa pine mitigation measures (see FEIS mitigation and monitoring sections and ) and raptor nest buffers (see FEIS mitigation measures section J.3.3) will protect key components of goshawk nesting and hunting habitat. The mitigation measure protecting large-diameter Gambel oak stands ( FEIS section J.3.3.6) will protect foraging habitat for band-tailed pigeon. Riparian/wetland habitats are used to some degree by most bird species that use the Project Area and thus even small impacts to this habitat type have the potential to affect many more species of concern than the species list and acreage figures presented above suggest. Small amounts of riparian and wetland habitat will be lost under each alternative despite the intention to avoid these environmentally sensitive areas where possible. There is a total of about 990 acres of riparian/wetland habitat on Federal lands in the Project Area, about 29% of the habitat in the Project Area. Between 3 and 7 acres of riparian/wetland habitat will be lost to project development, depending on which alternative is selected, resulting in a loss of between 0.3% and 0.7% of riparian/wetland habitat on Federal land in the Project Area. Selection of Alternative 7, the agency s Preferred Alternative, will result in the loss of about 4 acres (0.4%) of riparian/wetland habitat on Federal lands in the Project Area. This is an area roughly equal to the average home range size of most neotropical migratory bird species of concern in the riparian/wetland analysis group. Riparian/wetland bird species of concern include bald eagle, cordilleran flycatcher, lazuli bunting, MacGillivray s warbler, mallard, southwestern willow flycatcher and Wilson s warbler. Two of these species, bald eagle and southwestern willow flycatcher, are protected under the Endangered species act K 23 NSJB CBM FEIS

25 and several features have been incorporated into project design to ensure protection of habitat used by these species (see FEIS mitigation and monitoring section ). It was determined that CBM development in the Project Area may affect but is not likely to adversely affect either species or their habitats (USDA Forest Service 2005). Wilson s warbler is unlikely to breed in the Project Area due to lack of suitable habitat and low elevation (Toolen 1998b) but passes through each year during spring and fall migration. Cordilleran flycatcher is an uncommon breeding species on Federal lands in the Project Area that prefers streams, moist ravines with vertical cliffs, outcrops or steep banks (Sedgwick 1998b). Lazuli bunting and mallard breed through out the Project Area in small numbers that are limited by the availability of suitable riparian shrub and open water habitats (Boyle 1998c, Righter 1998). MacGillivray s warbler is a relatively common and widespread breeding species on Federal lands in the Project Area, breeding in riparian shrublands as well as drier shrubby hillsides (Carter 1998a). There are a few small springs and seeps at widely scattered locations on Federal lands in the Project Area. These features, surrounded by an otherwise generally arid landscape, provide much needed habitat diversity and are especially important for birds of concern in the riparian analysis group such as lazuli bunting, MacGillivray s warbler and migrating Wilson s warbler. For example, a spring in Armstrong Canyon and several seeps in Ignacio Canyon provide unique micro-habitats that support riparian/wetland species of concern which would otherwise probably not occur in the nearby area. These seeps and springs are also probably utilized to some degree through out the summer by most bird species breeding in adjacent ponderosa pine and mountain shrubland habitats. Ensuring these springs and seeps are not affected by CBM development or other potential project effects, such as dewatering or changes in water quality, is critical to ensuring that habitat quality and diversity is maintained for the riparian/wetland analysis group. In general, riparian and wetland habitats present unique design challenges and construction difficulties and thus would be avoided wherever possible during project development. In addition to committed conservation measures protecting bald eagle and southwestern willow flycatcher habitat (see Biological Assessment Appendix H), the mitigation measures protecting riparian and wetland habitats (see FEIS mitigation and monitoring sections and J.3.3) will protect habitat for all species of concern associated with riparian and wetland habitats. Rock cliffs provide nesting substrate for three species of concern, all raptors. These species include peregrine falcon, prairie falcon and golden eagle. There is one known peregrine falcon nest site on Federal lands in the Project Area but no known prairie falcon or golden eagle nest sites. All three species prefer to nest on prominent cliffs, have high nest site fidelity from year to year, have large home ranges and regularly forage more than a dozen miles from their nest cliffs during a single day (Craig and Enderson 2004). There are few cliffs on Federal lands in the Project Area that have sufficient stature or prominence to provide high quality falcon nest sites or have sufficient structure on the cliff face to hold the bulky stick nest required by golden eagle (Barrett 1998d, Jones 1998b, Levad 1998b). All three birds of concern in the cliff rock nesting analysis group frequently forage far from their nesting cliffs and in a variety of different habitats. Large home ranges and utilization of a diversity of foraging habitats provides good flexibility in adapting to changes in habitat structure such as human development. Although this analysis group shows a relatively large increase from 0.0 to 2.1% habitat loss to project development, these numbers are misleading because no cliffs of sufficient stature to support nesting by these raptors will be lost to project development under any alternative. The estimate K 24 NSJB CBM FEIS

26 of 7 acres (0.7%) of habitat lost under Alternative 7, the Preferred Alternative, and the acreage figures for other alternatives presented in Table 3 likely reflect loss of bare ground and polygons of unknown habitat type, not loss of cliff nesting habitat. Nesting habitat for the cliff nesting analysis group would be protected from project development by existing mitigation measures. A half mile no surface occupancy buffer would be placed around the known peregrine falcon nest cliff and any new nests discovered during project implementation (Craig 2002, see Biological Evaluation FEIS Appendix I). For the known peregrine falcon nest, a pre-existing road passes through the outer edge of the half-mile buffer zone and one well pad is proposed under alternative 7 within the buffer zone but the falcon nest is protected from these infrastructures by intervening landscape features. If other active raptor nests are found during project implementation disturbance buffers would be applied where possible (see Biological Evaluation FEIS Appendix I, and FEIS Appendix J Management Indicator Species section J.3.3). Sagebrush habitat is perhaps the habitat that has been most heavily modified from its condition prior to European settlement due to conversion to agriculture, livestock grazing, eradication of sagebrush, changes in fire regimes and invasion by non-native grasses with subsequent declines in bird populations (Rich et al. 2004). In the Interior Columbia River Basin, sagebrush was identified as the highest priority habitat for conservation based on bird population trends (ibid). There are about 2,000 acres of sagebrush on Federal lands in the Project Area most of which is in relatively small isolated patches, and about 38% of sagebrush habitat in the Project Area is on Federal lands. Sagebrush bird species of concern are Brewer s sparrow, ferruginous hawk, loggerhead shrike and sage sparrow. Of these, Brewer s sparrow and loggerhead likely shrike breed on Federal lands in the Project Area, but ferruginous hawk and sage sparrow do not breed and are present only irregularly and in limited numbers in the Project Area during the non-breeding season (Carter 1998b, Lambeth 1998a, Lambeth 1998b, Preston 1998). Sage sparrow is not known to breed in La Plata or Archuleta counties (Lambeth 1998a) but may have historically, with alteration of sagebrush habitat the likely cause of its disappearance. Brewer s sparrow and loggerhead shrike populations appear to be declining range-wide (Carter 1998b, Lambeth 1998b). Brewer s sparrow and sage sparrow are sagebrush obligates, while ferruginous hawk and loggerhead shrike breed and winter in a wider variety of habitat types. Brewer s sparrow is on the Partners In Flight national watch list with an estimated 90% of its breeding population in the Intermountain west avifaunal biome (Rich et al. 2004). The effect of selecting Alternatives 1, 2, 6 and 7 would be very similar on sagebrush species of concern. Alternatives 1, 2 and 7 (the Preferred Alternative) would result in the loss of 30 acres (1.5%) of habitat on Federal lands in the Project Area, while Alternative 6 would result in the loss of 23 acres (1.2%) of habitat. The effect of habitat loss on sagebrush species of concern is likely to be greater than the acreage figures in Table 3 suggest, and greater than for most other bird analysis groups. Because there is little sagebrush habitat on public lands and range-wide populations of all species of concern in this analysis group are declining, the loss of small amounts of habitat would have a proportionately larger impact to sagebrush species of concern than for other analysis groups. The relatively small patch size of current sagebrush habitat on Federal lands in the Project Area and relatively isolated nature of many habitat patches make birds in this analysis group more vulnerable to local declines or extirpation. K 25 NSJB CBM FEIS

27 Noise and Disturbance: Noise and human disturbance from project development and production activities will reduce habitat effectiveness for bird species of concern to some unknown degree in both the short and long term but the extent, intensity and mechanism of this effect is almost entirely unknown (Van Der Zande et al. 1980). Most noisy disturbances are mild enough that detecting a population response to noise is very difficult against the background of normal annual population variation (Bowles 1995). High levels of human disturbance have been shown to affect the abundance and nest success of birds breeding in grassland and forest habitats (Miller et al. 1998). Busy roads have also been shown to affect bird abundance, productivity and species composition in wetland, forest and grassland habitats (Foppen and Reijnen 1994, Reijnen et al 1995, Reijnen et al 1996). Elevated levels of background noise associated with human development have also been shown to adversely affect breeding bird communities (Stone 2000). Noise levels associated with project activities could increase significantly above existing background levels. Noise associated with development, including drilling and infrastructure construction, would be short-term, intense and closely associated with individual construction sites. Noise associated with production (maintenance traffic, compressor stations, pump jacks, etc.) would be long-term but measurably less and more widespread than noise from construction activities. Noise generated by pump jacks would decrease to 50 dba at 350 feet, and noise from with building-enclosed compressors would decrease to 50 dba at 450 feet from the building (Final EIS Table? [Table in the DEIS]). These levels are within the COGCC night-noise standard (50 dba) at residential areas (see Final EIS Noise Section ). Very few studies have been conducted specifically on the effect of CBM development and production noise on birds of conservation concern. A study was conducted during summer 2005 in nearby San Juan County, New Mexico on the effects of gas well compressor noise on birds nesting in piñon-juniper habitat similar to that in the Northern San Juan Basin Project Area (Ortega and Francis 2005). This was the preliminary results from an unpublished report of a study based on only one year of data. Therefore the report has not been peer reviewed and the results may change after the study is repeated in subsequent field seasons. The study found that compressor noise did not affect abundance of nesting birds, but species composition was somewhat altered. There was no significant difference in nest density or nest success between experimental and control plots. Compressors did not affect nest orientation. The study found a strong trend for birds to nest further from compressors, when house finch was removed from the analysis. House finch was commonly found nesting in the compressor equipment. This finding implies that the loss of useable habitat due to noise, for some species, could be much greater than the loss of suitable habitat due to infrastructure development. Unexpectedly, this study (Ortega and Francis 2005) found a significantly greater nest predation rate on control plots (away from compressor stations) than on experimental plots (near compressor stations). In addition, all cowbird nest parasitism found by this study was on control plots (n=6 nests) and no parasitized nests were found on experimental plots and the difference between plots in parasitism rates was significant. Although the authors drew no conclusions from their observed results, they theorize that because nest predators and cowbirds rely in part on bird activity to locate nests, compressor noise may mask bird activities and make nest detection more difficult on experimental plots. Further years of research will be needed however to confirm or disprove the results found in this one-year study. K 26 NSJB CBM FEIS

28 The study found noise levels exceeded BLM standards (48.6 dba at 300 feet from source) at 25% of nests in treatment plots. The study recommended that noise from gas well compressors, while not a problem for all species, may present impediments for others and thus noise should be mitigated to the extent possible until further studies can determine the effect of noise on breeding bird communities. Noise-Related Displacement and/or Home Range Shift: Some habituation to elevated levels of background noise from CBM production is expected for some bird species and some individuals, moderating the loss of habitat effectiveness as they adjust to new noise sources. The degree to which habituation would occur and which species would more readily adapt to increased background noise levels and sources is unknown (Bowles 1995). More noise may cause nearby individuals to shift their home range temporarily or permanently away from areas with noise levels above their tolerance. Home range shifts may be temporary in response to short term construction activities, or home range shifts may be permanent in response to elevated background noise levels associated with long term production activities. For bird analysis groups and species associated with ponderosa pine, mountain shrub, piñon-juniper and grassland habitats, there is abundant habitat in similar condition within and immediately adjacent to the Project Area providing opportunities for displaced individuals to relocate during project development. For bird analysis groups and species associated with sagebrush, riparian/wetlands, aspen and mixed conifer habitats, there is a limited amount of habitat in and immediately adjacent to the Project Area and thus few opportunities for displaced individuals to relocate during project development. Recreation-related Disturbance: High levels of human recreation activity have been shown to affect the abundance and nest success of birds breeding in grassland and forest habitats (Miller et al. 1998). CBM development provides increased motorized and foot access via road networks developed to access well pads and pipeline corridors. New roads proposed under each Alternative will provide access to areas that were formally too remote to receive regular recreation beyond occasional dispersed use. Therefore, the new road networks necessary to facilitate CBM development may reduce bird habitat effectiveness through the effects of disturbance, nest predation and habitat loss or alteration associated with increased recreational use of formerly remote areas. To reduce these impacts and impacts to other wildlife, all Alternatives would prohibit off-road motorized travel and limit motorized uses to designated roads and trails only (see FEIS Wildlife and Recreation Mitigation Measures section and ). Only authorized vehicles (mainly industry, agency, and law enforcement) would use new roads developed for the purpose of CBM production. These new roads however, would be open to horse, foot and bicycle travel. Most new roads will be plowed in winter to allow access for maintenance purposes thereby providing opportunities for snowmobile and Nordic ski access into areas that formerly received little or no use. Low elevations and low average winter snows through out the majority of the Project Area however, will minimize snowmobile use in most years and in most locations. Therefore the effect to habitat for birds of conservation concern will be an increase in habitat effectiveness from the prohibition of off-road motorized travel offset by an increase in non-motorized access to formerly remote areas via roads developed for CBM access. K 27 NSJB CBM FEIS

29 Recreation use on most new CBM roads is expected to be light to moderate in most parts of the Project Area due to distance from motorized access points but likely to increase slowly over time as human populations and demand for recreational opportunities continue to grow in nearby communities. Horseback and bicycle use are likely to be the most common means of accessing more remote portions of the new road systems. Cowbird Parasitism and Predation: Cowbird parasitism and predation are the primary sources of nesting mortality for open-cup nesting birds (Ortega 1998, Ortega and Francis 2005). Brown-headed cowbirds are native to the Four-corners region and to the Project Area (C. Ortega pers. comm.) thus migratory birds nesting in the Project Area have evolved in the presence of brood parasitism. Cowbirds have been declining across the Breeding Bird Survey region since 1966 (Chace et al. 2005). Cowbird distribution and abundance is determined primarily by spatial distribution of preferred foraging habitat (open habitats) and breeding habitat (habitats with more complex structure) and they establish spatially separate foraging and breeding home ranges (Chace et al. 2005). In landscapes where feeding and breeding habitats are spatially separated, cowbirds commute daily between the two for an average of 0.6 to 1.8 miles (ibid). Ortega (1998) listed 226 bird species known to have been victims of brown-headed cowbird parasitism. Fifteen birds of conservation concern that may occur in the Project Area (42%, Table 2) are documented to have been parasitized. Not all migratory songbirds are likely to be victims of cowbird parasitism (i.e. cavity nesters), and not all victims of cowbird parasitism are adversely affected. Some host species eject cowbird eggs while other hosts build new nests over top of parasitized nests (Robinson et al. 1995, Ortega 1998). Cowbirds are attracted to habitat edges and livestock feeding sites (Robinson et al. 1995, Ortega 1998) and thus project infrastructure development may increase habitats favorable to cowbirds, thereby potentially increasing cowbird parasitism rates in the Project Area. In a single-year study in an area of CBM development similar to and near the Project Area, Ortega and Francis (2005) found a relatively low overall rate of cowbird parasitism compared to other areas of southwest Colorado (Ortega and Ortega 2001, Ortega and Ortega 2003). Ortega and Francis (2005) found significantly greater rates of nest predation and cowbird parasitism on control plots away from CBM compressor noise than on experimental plots near compressor stations. Finally, Miller et al. (1998) found no relationship between cowbird abundance or parasitism and distance from forest trails in a heavily used recreation area of eastern Colorado. Grazing by domestic livestock in the Project Area is brief, relatively light and closely managed each year. Livestock grazing seasons, movements and stocking rates will not be affected by CBM development and thus CBM development is unlikely to affect cowbird distribution or abundance in the Project Area through changes in livestock grazing patterns. Numerous studies have linked habitat fragmentation with increased cowbird parasitism rates and increased rates of predation of open-cup nesting birds (Robinson et al. 1995). However, these studies have been conducted primarily in eastern and mid-western landscapes that are comprised primarily of large contiguous tracks of densely forested habitats. Forested habitats in the Rocky Mountains are naturally more fragmented than eastern or mid-western forests by steeper terrain, much greater variation in altitude, aspect and exposure, naturally integrated grasslands and other forest openings, and other geographic factors. For this reason, it cannot be determined with certainty whether fragmentation from CBM development in the Project Area would cause increased cowbird parasitism rates in the naturally K 28 NSJB CBM FEIS

30 highly fragmented landscapes of the Rocky Mountains and the Project Area. In addition, despite the currently heavily fragmented nature of forested habitats in the Project Area, cowbird abundance in the Project Area and in a nearby New Mexico study area (Ortega and Francis 2005) is substantially lower than in most eastern and mid-western studies (Robinson et al. 1995). Cumulative Effects: Habitat fragmentation has the potential to significantly reduce habitat capability for migratory birds. Faaborg et al. (1998) define habitat fragmentation as occurring where isolated remnants of once broadly occurring vegetation types exist within a matrix of dramatically altered habitat. As it is generally used, fragmentation occurs when formerly large expanses of relatively uniform habitat is converted to other habitat types to such an extent that only small fragments of the original habitat remain. In its classic sense, fragmentation causes outright loss of habitat area, an increase in habitat edge and edge effects, changes in micro-climate, higher rates of nest predation, higher rates of cowbird parasitism, and lower nest success (Faaborg et al. 1998). Some species have been shown to be sensitive to small patch sizes, especially long-distance migrants. Most studies of habitat fragmentation however, have been conducted primarily in eastern and midwestern landscapes (Faaborg et al. 1998) that are comprised primarily of naturally large contiguous tracks of densely forested habitats inhabited by bird communities adapted to large contiguous blocks of habitat. Forested habitats in the Rocky Mountains are naturally much more fragmented than eastern or mid-western forests by steeper terrain, much greater variation in altitude, aspect and exposure, naturally integrated grasslands, and other geographic factors. For this reason, it is unknown whether the fragmentation effects found in these eastern and mid-western studies are applicable to bird communities adapted to the naturally highly fragmented landscapes of the Rocky Mountains and the FEIS Project Area. For this reason, it cannot be determined with certainty whether or not additional minor fragmentation associated with CBM development would cause declines in species richness or other classic fragmentation effects. The small forest openings created by infrastructure sites and road and pipeline corridors would resemble the many openings that naturally occur through out the Project Area due to aspect and terrain and thus are unlikely to alter habitat quality for migratory birds in any detectable way. The effect of infrastructure openings on migratory bird habitat would be long term because it would take decades after project completion before reclaimed sites return to a forested condition. Other factors that affect habitat capability for migratory birds include timber harvesting, forest restoration, fuels reduction and fire suppression, grazing, road building, agricultural development, rural development, and recreation. Cumulatively, these activities have altered the amount, distribution and suitability (both positive and negative) of habitat for migratory birds. For example, timber harvest over the past 60 years has converted about 1,500 acres of ponderosa pine forest on Federal land within the Project Area to other vegetation types, primarily Gambel oak, resulting in a net increase in available habitat for the mountain shrub analysis group. Together, historic fire suppression and timber harvest activities have changed the structure of ponderosa pine stands and increased the amount and density of Gambel oak and other shrub species through out the Project Area. Fire suppression has changed the structure of ponderosa pine and pinyon-juniper woodlands over the past 100 years and restoring the role of fire is a recommended management action for improving migratory bird habitat in western ponderosa pine forests (Rich et al 2004). In general, fire suppression has increased the density of pine stands in the Project Area. Pine stands have become more densely K 29 NSJB CBM FEIS

31 stocked with smaller diameter trees, have more uniform stand structures and more closed canopies than prior to European settlement (SJNF MIS Assessment, unpub.rpt.). Increased pine stand densities have resulted in greater mortality of small diameter trees, providing increased foraging opportunities for woodpeckers in the primary cavity excavator analysis group, but the reduction in trees in the largest diameter classes (< 16 inches d.b.h.) has reduced the availability of their preferred nesting substrate. Populations of some cavity excavator species fluctuate in response to insect infestations particularly after stand-replacement fire (Andrews and Righter 1992) and therefore fire suppression has removed an important source of seasonally abundant food. On non-federal lands adjacent to the Project Area, past agricultural practices, increasing residential development and associated fire suppression activities have probably caused a significant expansion in mountain shrub, piñon-juniper and grassland habitats, benefiting birds of conservation concern in those analysis groups. Residential development is expected to continue in the cumulative effects area for the foreseeable future. Fuel reduction and wildfire mitigation, grazing, oil and gas development and urban development activities are likely to continue altering the amount and condition of migratory bird habitat in the cumulative effects area. However, unless the scope of these activities changes significantly in the future, these activities are not likely to change the overall distribution of migratory bird habitats across the area. Monitoring: Suggest periodic annual monitoring of surface flows, water quality and vegetation condition for at least 4 springs/seeps, including upper Armstrong canyon and upper Ignacio Canyon, due to their importance for riparian/wetland birds of conservation concern and the uniqueness of their associated habitats for migratory birds. LITERATURE CITED: Barrett, N. 1998a. Red-naped sapsucker. Pages in Colorado breeding bird atlas, H. E. Kingery, ed. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. Barrett, N. 1998b. Mountain bluebird. Pages in Colorado breeding bird atlas, H. E. Kingery, ed. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. Barrett, N. 1998c. Northeern goshawk. Pages in Colorado breeding bird atlas, H. E. Kingery, ed. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. Barrett, N. 1998d. Golden eagle. Pages in Colorado breeding bird atlas, H. E. Kingery, ed. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. Beason, J., R. Levad, and T. Leukering Monitoring Colorado s birds: the 2004 field season report. Unpublished report on file at the San Juan Public Lands Center, Durango, CO. 60 pp. Beidleman, C. A Partners in Flight land bird conservation plan: Colorado; version 1.0. Available on the World Wide Web at: K 30 NSJB CBM FEIS

32 Bowles, A. E Responses of wildlife to noise. Pages in Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research, R. L. Knight and K. J. Gutzwiller, eds. Island Press, Washington D.C. Boyle, S. 1998a. Broad-tailed hummingbird. Pages in Colorado breeding bird atlas, H. E. Kingery, ed. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. Boyle, S. 1998b. Wild turkey. Pages in Colorado breeding bird atlas, H. E. Kingery, ed. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. Boyle, S. 1998c. Mallard. Pages in Colorado breeding bird atlas, H. E. Kingery, ed. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. Carter, M. 1998a. MacGillivray s warbler. Pages in Colorado breeding bird atlas, H. E. Kingery, ed. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. Carter, M. 1998b. Loggerhead shrike. Pages in Colorado breeding bird atlas, H. E. Kingery, ed. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. Chace, J. F., C. Farmer, R. Winfree, D. R. Curson, W. E. Jensen, C. B. Goguen, and S. K. Robinson Cowbird (Molothrus spp.) ecology: a review of factors influencing distribution and abundance of cowbirds across spatial scales. Pages in Management of cowbirds and their hosts: balancing science, ethics, and mandates, K. P. Ortega, J. F. chace, and B. D. Peer, eds. Ornithol. Monogr. No. 57. Colorado Division of Wildlife Colorado Listing of Endangered, Threatened and Wildlife Species of Special Concern. Available on the World Wide Web at: list.asp. Accessed 5/19/2005. Craig, G. R Recommended buffer zones and seasonal restrictions for Colorado raptors. Colo. Div. Wildl. Unpublished report on file at the San Juan Public Lands Center, Durango, CO. 7 pp. Craig, G. R., and J. H. Enderson Peregrine falcon biology and management in Colorado Colo. Div. Wildl. Tech. Pub. No. 43, DOW-R-T-43-04, Denver, CO. 80 pp. Dexter, C. 1998a. Pinyon jay. Pages in Colorado breeding bird atlas, H. E. Kingery, ed. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. Dexter, C. 1998b. Gray vireo. Pages in Colorado breeding bird atlas, H. E. Kingery, ed. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. Dexter, C. 1998c. Band-tailed pigeon. Pages in Colorado breeding bird atlas, H. E. Kingery, ed. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. Executive Order Responsibilities of Federal agencies to protect migratory birds, January 10, pp. Available on the World Wide Web at: eo13186.html. Accessed 5/24/2005. K 31 NSJB CBM FEIS

33 Faaborg, J., M. Brittingham, T. Donovan, and J. Blake Habitat fragmentation in the temperate zone. Pages in Ecology and management of Neotropical migratory birds: a synthesis and review of critical issues, T. E. Martin and D. M. Finch, eds. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. Fitzgerald, J.P., C.A. Meany, and D.M. Armstrong Mammals of Colorado. Denver Museum of Natural History, and University Press of Colorado, Boulder. 467 pp. Foppen, R., and R. Reijnen The effects of car traffic on breeding bird populations in woodland. II. Breeding dispersal of male willow warblers (Phylloscopus trochilus) in relation to the proximity of a highway. J. Appl. Ecolo. 31: Forest Service Manual. R2 Supplement Wildlife, fish, and sensitive plant habitat management. Chapter 2670, threatened, endangered and sensitive plants and animals. Supplement No Effective date December 1, Jones, S. 1998a. Olive-sided flycatcher. Pages in Colorado breeding bird atlas, H. E. Kingery, ed. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. Jones, S. 1998b. Prairie falcon. Pages in Colorado breeding bird atlas, H. E. Kingery, ed. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. Kennedy, P. L Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis atricapillus): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain region. Available on the World Wide Web at: Accessed 5/24/2005. Lambeth, R. 1998a. Sage sparrow. Pages in Colorado breeding bird atlas, H. E. Kingery, ed. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. Lambeth, R. 1998b. Brewer s sparrow. Pages in Colorado breeding bird atlas, H. E. Kingery, ed. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. Leukering, T., J. Beason, and R. Levad Monitoring Colorado s birds, the 2003 field season report. Unpublished report on file at the San Juan Public Lands Center, Durango, CO. 54 pp. Levad, R. 1998a. Grace s warbler. Pages in Colorado breeding bird atlas, H. E. Kingery, ed. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. Levad, R. 1998b. Peregrine falcon. Pages in Colorado breeding bird atlas, H. E. Kingery, ed. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. Melcher, C Virginia s warbler. Pages in Colorado breeding bird atlas, H. E. Kingery, ed. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. Miller, S. G., R. L. Knight, and C. K. Miller Influence of recreational trails on breeding bird communities. Ecolog. Applicat. 8: K 32 NSJB CBM FEIS

34 Ortega, C. P Cowbirds and other brood parasites. The University of Arizona Press. 371 pp. Ortega, C. P Personal communication. [September 19 conversation with C. Schultz, USDA Forest Service, San Juan National Forest. RE: brown-headed cowbird parasitism]. Professor of biology, Fort Lewis College, Durango, CO. Ortega, C. P., and C. D. Francis Efects of gas well compressor noise on nesting birds in the Rattlesnake Canyon Habitat Management Area, San Juan County, New Mexico. Unpublished report on file at the Bureau of Land Management office, Farmington, NM. 168 pp. Ortega, C. P., and J. C. Ortega Effects of brown-headed cowbirds on the nesting success of chipping sparrows in southwest Colorado. Condor 103: Ortega, C. P., and J. C. Ortega Brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) parasitism on warbling vireos (Vireo gilvus) in southwest Colorado. Auk 120: Pantle, D Violet-green swallow. Pages in Colorado breeding bird atlas, H. E. Kingery, ed. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. Preston, C. R Ferruginous hawk. Pages in Colorado breeding bird atlas, H. E. Kingery, ed. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. Reijnen, R., R. Foppen, and H. Meeuwsen The effects of traffic on the density of breeding birds in Dutch agricultural grasslands. Biol. Conserv. 75: Reijnen, R., R. Foppen, C. T. Braak, and J. Thissen The effects of car traffic on breeding bird populations in woodland. III. Reduction of density in relation to the proximity of main roads. J. Appl. Ecolo. 32: Righter, R Green-tailed towhee. Pages in Colorado breeding bird atlas, H. E. Kingery, ed. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. Rich, T. D., C. J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P. J. Blancher, M. S. W. Bradstreet, G. S. Butcher, D. W. Demarest, E. H. Dunn, W. C. Hunter, E. E. Inigo-Elias, J. A. Kennedy, A. M. Martell, A. O. Panjabi, D. N. Pashley, K. V. Rosenberg, C. M. Rustay, J. S. Wendt, T. C. Will, Partners in Flight North American landbird conversation plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. 84 pp. Righter, R Lazuli bunting. Pages in Colorado breeding bird atlas, H. E. Kingery, ed. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. Robinson, S. K., S. I. Rothstein, M. C. Brittingham, L. J. Petit, and J. A. Grzybowski Ecology and behavior of cowbirds and their impact on host populations. Pages in Ecology and management of Neotropical migratory birds: a synthesis and review of critical issues, T. E. Martin and D. M. Finch, eds. Oxford University Press, New York, NY. San Juan/San Miguel Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement, K 33 NSJB CBM FEIS

35 San Juan/San Miguel Resource Management Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Statement, San Juan National Forest Management Indicator Species Assessments. Unpublished report. San Juan National Forest, Durango, Colorado. Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon The North American Breeding Bird Survey, results and analysis Version , USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Available on the World Wide Web at accessed May Schultz, C Lewis woodpecker distribution and ecology in Southwestern Colorado. Unpublished report on file at the San Juan Public Lands Center, Durango, CO. 2 pp. Schultz, C Characteristics of trees used by cavity-nesting birds in western Colorado. Unpublished report on file at the San Juan Public Lands Center, Durango, CO. 16 pp. Sedgwick, J. A. 1998a. Hammond s flycatcher. Pages in Colorado breeding bird atlas, H. E. Kingery, ed. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. Sedgwick, J. A. 1998b. Cordilleran flycatcher. Pages in Colorado breeding bird atlas, H. E. Kingery, ed. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. Stone, E Separating the noise from the noise. A finding in support of the niche hypothesis, that birds are influenced by human induced noise in natural habitats. Unpublished report in press (Anthrozoos) and on file at the San Juan Public Lands Center, Durango, CO. 10 pp. Tobalske, B.W Lewis s woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis). In A. Poole and F. Gill, eds., the birds of North America, No The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. Toolen, J. F. 1998a. Blue grouse. Pages in Colorado breeding bird atlas, H. E. Kingery, ed. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. Toolen, J. F. 1998b. Wilson s warbler. Pages in Colorado breeding bird atlas, H. E. Kingery, ed. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. USDA Forest Service Final environmental impact statement for the land and resource management plan for the San Juan National Forest. USDA Forest Service. Durango, CO. USDA Forest Service Final supplemental environmental impact statement for the amendment of the land and resource management plan, San Juan National Forest. USDA Forest Service. Durango, CO. USDA Forest Service Biological assessment, Northern San Juan Basin coal bed methane development environmental impact statement, October 23, pp. Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendix H. K 34 NSJB CBM FEIS

36 USDA Forest Service R2 Regional Forester s sensitive species list. Rocky Mountain Region; FSM Supplement No , April 28, USDI Bureau of Land Management San Juan/San Miguel Planning Area Resource Management Plan. Bureau of Land Management, Montrose District, Colorado, September USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1991a. Record of Decision. San Juan/San Miguel Resource Management Plan Amendment. Bureau of Land Management, Montrose District, San Juan/San Miguel Planning Area, Colorado, October USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1991b. Manual transmittal sheet, 6840 special status species management, release January 19, USDI Bureau of Land Management Colorado Bureau of Land Management Sensitive Fish and Wildlife Species list for the San Juan Resource Area, Information Bulletin No. CO (April 2000). USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of conservation concern Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 99 pp. Available on the World Wide Web at: Accessed 5/19/2005. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Unit Species List of federally threatened, endangered, and candidate species for the San Juan Public Lands, October 24, from USFWS Grand Junction office on file at the San Juan Public Lands Center, Durango, CO. van der Zande, A. N., W. J. ter Keurs, and W. J. van Der Weijden The impact of roads on the densities of four bird species in an open field habitat evidence of a long-distance effect. Biolo. Conserv. 18: Versaw, A. Three-toed woodpecker. Pages in Colorado breeding bird atlas, H. E. Kingery, ed. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Div of Wildlife, Denver, CO. Winn, R. 1998a. Flammulated owl. Pages in Colorado breeding bird atlas, H. E. Kingery, ed. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Div of Wildlife, Denver, CO. Winn, R. 1998b. Williamson s sapsucker. Pages in Colorado breeding bird atlas, H. E. Kingery, ed. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Div of Wildlife, Denver, CO. Winternitz, B. L Hairy woodpecker. Pages in Colorado breeding bird atlas, H. E. Kingery, ed. Colorado Bird Atlas Partnership and Colorado Div of Wildlife, Denver, CO. Yanishevsky, R., and S. Petring-Rupp Management of breeding habitat for selected bird species in Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, Colorado. 791 pp. K 35 NSJB CBM FEIS

37 36 NSJB CBM FEIS