DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR PROPOSED JDSF MANAGEMENT PLAN 6.6 Wildlife and Wildlife Habitat 6.6.1 Affected Environment and Environmental Setting Regional Setting Placing redwood and associated codominant tree species such as Douglas-fir into a regional context helps in the identification of conservation opportunities and priorities at considerably larger scales than has been done historically. Several efforts to identify ecological regions and capture the distributional limits of these forest types have occurred; the actual boundaries being driven by the varying objectives of the efforts. The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) (Ricketts et al. 1999) sought to compare conservation assessments for 116 ecoregions in the United States and Canada and placed redwood and associates into the Northern California Coastal Forests Ecoregion (http://www.worldwildlife.org/wildworld/profiles/terrestrial_na.html). This ecoregion designation ranked high in comparison with others in the U.S. and Canada as a result of its high biomass, forest structural complexity and unique ecological qualities. The northern boundary was determined by the northernmost extent of coast redwoods. There is also approximate congruence with Bailey’s Northern California Coast Section (263A), which is broader towards the north and does not include the Redwood areas south of San Francisco Bay. The ecoregion generally corresponds to Küchler’s vegetation classes, Redwood Forest, Mixed Evergreen Forest with Rhododendron, and Coastal Prairie and Coastal Scrub. The redwood region also has been described by Noss (2000) based primarily on the distribution of the redwood species, for a paper on redwood biology and ecology. He notes that the issues related to the conservation of redwood are complex and differ significantly across the ecoregion. Socioeconomic factors and local attitudes concerning redwood conservation and management are likewise different across the northern, central and southern portions of the redwood distribution in California. Similarly, the USFS identified the Northern California Coast Ecological Subregion as an area located along coastal California of approximately 4,600 mi2 (11,900 km2) that ranges in elevation from sea level to 3,000 ft (0-912 m) (Figure VII. 6.6.1). (http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/projects/ecoregions/). The ecological components of the subregion are largely influenced by persistently moist, maritime climate conditions that are maintained by Pacific storms in the winter and coastal fogs in the summer. Cool temperatures and wet conditions characterize the winter and much of the spring and fall, and cool, sunny conditions with intermittent fog characterize the summer months. The JDSF EIR considers these or other regional scale landscapes depending on the issue or resource examined and the availability of data for analysis. Page VII.6.6-1 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR PROPOSED JDSF MANAGEMENT PLAN Regional Extent of Wildlife Habitats The regional extent of wildlife habitats for JDSF relative to the approximately 7-million- acre Klamath/North Coast Bioregion (Figure VII.6.6.1) and Mendocino County was determined by overlaying the Multi-source Land Cover Data (FRAPVEG) and Management Landscape GIS coverages developed for the 2003 FRAP Assessment with current ownership, and the JDSF 2004 vegetation layer (Tables VII.6.6.1 and VI.6.6.2; Figures VII.6.6.1.1, VII.6.6.1.2, and VII.6.6.1.3). All of the analyses involving vegetation found on the JDSF were done using the JDSF vegetation layer, whereas vegetation outside JDSF is derived from the FRAPVEG multi-source vegetation coverage. The FRAPVEG coverage uses the California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) habitat classification system as a standard (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988). The JDSF vegetation layer also uses a CWHR classification scheme; however there are difficulties associated with making a direct mapping comparison between the two. For example, differing mapping /classification methodologies and the scale differences between the two vegetation layers can be problematic. These include errors inherent in mixed-scale analysis, that lead to difficulties with the identification of inclusions of less common vegetation types into larger mapped areas of more common types. In addition, thematic inclusions of type/size combinations into more generalized multi-typed classes due to differences in mapping methodologies also can confound direct comparisons. Both of these kinds of errors can lead to (a) a relative over representation of spatially rare types on JDSF due to the finer scale mapping effort conducted or (b) a relative under representation of spatially rare types outside of JDSF due to the coarse scale of mapping effort conducted. 1 Regional Biological Diversity in Predominant Forest Types Species richness (the number of species present in an area) in contrast to species diversity (number of species and their relative abundance) provides one basic description of biological diversity. Species richness is typically greatest in those areas where a mosaic of stages of forest development is found since edge effects are high and species with a preference for a particular forest stage coincide. The richness metric must be interpreted with caution however since species preferring forest interior conditions may be negatively affected by patch size in the mosaic and higher numbers of species of concern are typically found in late stages of forest development. Species richness is affected by changes in forest type, tree size and density. This relationship is illustrated for the redwood forest type (Figure VII.6.6.2) but is also very similar to that for Douglas-fir and Montane Hardwood Conifer forest types. Species richness is typically highest in the sparse and open levels of canopy closure (10-39%) in all size classes. 1 The mapping methodologies for FRAPVEG are detailed in the FRAPVEG documentation (http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/projects/frap_veg/methods/Methods_Development_Habitat_Data_02_2.pdf Page VII.6.6-2 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR PROPOSED JDSF MANAGEMENT PLAN Figure VII.6.6.1. Location of Klamath/North Coast Bioregion. Table VII.6.6.1. Percent CWHR type, size and density for types found on JDSF and relative to the Klamath/North Coast Bioregion. CWHR CWHR CWHR Percent of Regional Acres in Percent of Acres in Type Size Density Acres in JDSF JDSF Region Region AGS 0 48 16% 1,103,955 BAR 0 9 2% 121,570 CPC U U 77.6 13 <1% 17 CPC 1 <1% 19 CPC 2 D 18 120 <1% 668 CPC 2 M 0.7 30 <1% 4,060 CPC 2 P 0.7 49 <1% 6,655 CPC 2 S 14.2 37 <1% 259 CPC 3 _ <1% 7 CPC 3 D 0.3 51 <1% 15,565 CPC 3 M 0.1 25 <1% 19,901 CPC 3 P 0.7 72 <1% 9,682 CPC 3 S 23 185 <1% 807 CPC 4 D 5.7 302 <1% 5,315 CPC 4 M 1.1 103 <1% 9,161 CPC 4 P 3 187 <1% 6,292 CPC 4 S 28.9 43 <1% 149 CPC 5 D <1% 6,859 CPC 5 M <1% 15,422 CPC 5 P <1% 7,712 CPC 5 S <1% 189 CPC 6 D 100 59 <1% 59 Page VII.6.6-3 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR PROPOSED JDSF MANAGEMENT PLAN Table VII.6.6.1. Percent CWHR type, size and density for types found on JDSF and relative to the Klamath/North Coast Bioregion. CWHR CWHR CWHR Percent of Regional Acres in Percent of Acres in Type Size Density Acres in JDSF JDSF Region Region DFR U _ <1% 5 DFR U D <1% 8,267 DFR U M <1% 2,365 DFR U P <1% 1,278 DFR U S <1% 262 DFR 1 _ <1% 166 DFR 1 D <1% 9,271 DFR 1 M <1% 4,371 DFR 1 P <1% 2,338 DFR 1 S <1% 124 DFR 2 _ <1% 32 DFR 2 D 0 26 1% 55,062 DFR 2 M 0.1 28 <1% 25,551 DFR 2 P <1% 11,223 DFR 2 S 0.1 9 <1% 7,128 DFR 3 D 0 14 4% 309,285 DFR 3 M 1% 65,208 DFR 3 P 0 2 <1% 24,343 DFR 3 S <1% 21,742 DFR 4 D 1.4 8979 9% 649,128 DFR 4 M 1.4 1338 1% 97,421 DFR 4 P 4 1271 <1% 31,758 DFR 4 S 0.1 11 <1% 17,171 DFR 5 _ <1% 17 DFR 5 D 14% 979,477 DFR 5 M 0.5 351 1% 75,380 DFR 5 P 0.3 86 <1% 31,816 DFR 5 S 0.1 40 <1% 28,718 DFR 6 D 0.5 1841 6% 389,350 FEW 0.4 9 <1% 2,263 MCH U U 100 77 <1% 77 MCH 2 S <1% 16,229 MCH 3 D 1% 74,499 MCH 4 D 10% 693,859 MHC U U <1% 3,487 MHC 1 D 100 33 <1% 33 MHC 2 D 0.1 18 <1% 18,167 MHC 2 M <1% 5,266 MHC 2 P <1% 9,012 MHC 2 S <1% 2 MHC 3 D 0 3 2% 157,283 MHC 3 M <1% 29,315 MHC 3 P 0 5 <1% 33,213 MHC 3 S <1% 12 MHC 4 D 0.4 1167 4% 301,535 MHC 4 M 0.5 109 <1% 21,647 MHC 4 P 1.2 181 <1% 14,744 MHC 4 S 53.3 11 <1% 21 MHC 5 D <1% 8,391 MHC 5 M <1% 7,344 Page VII.6.6-4 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR PROPOSED JDSF MANAGEMENT PLAN Table VII.6.6.1. Percent CWHR type, size and density for types found on JDSF and relative to the Klamath/North Coast Bioregion. CWHR CWHR CWHR Percent of Regional Acres in Percent of Acres in Type Size Density Acres in JDSF JDSF Region Region MHC 5 P <1% 15,557 MHC 5 S 100 43 <1% 43 MHC 6 D 0.2 317 3% 191,171 MRI U U <1% 119 MRI 2 D <1% 1,050 MRI 2 M <1% 1,273 MRI 2 P <1% 7,365 MRI 2 S <1% 1,571 MRI 3 D <1% 29,568 MRI 3 M <1% 6,563 MRI 3 P <1% 6,598 MRI 3 S <1% 8,705 MRI 4 D <1% 12,360 MRI 4 M <1% 5,987 MRI 4 P <1% 5,367 MRI 4 S <1% 5,867 MRI 5 D <1% 64 MRI 5 M <1% 2 MRI 5 P <1% 5 MRI 5 S <1% 5 MRI 6 D 100 9 <1% 9 RDW U U <1% 869 RDW 1 M 100 25 <1% 42 RDW 2 D 1.6 679 1% 42,863 RDW 2 M 4.3 695 <1% 16,036 RDW 2 P 1.9 72 <1% 3,835 RDW 2 S 0.2 7 <1% 4,162 RDW 3 D 0.2 322 2% 137,886 RDW 3 M 3.6 599 <1% 16,563 RDW 3 P 1.6 92 <1% 5,796 RDW 3 S 1.2 108 <1% 9,178 RDW 4 D 6.6 11349 2% 171,703 RDW 4 M 18.2 2909 <1% 16,014 RDW 4 P 5.3 325 <1% 6,114 RDW 4 S 3.1 224 <1% 7,292 RDW 5 D 5% 338,488 RDW 5 M 3.7 1265 <1% 33,885 RDW 5 P 2.6 385 <1% 14,711 RDW 5 S 2.1 416 <1% 19,879 RDW 6 D 7.9 11833 2% 149,046 URB _ 0 35 2% 123,631 Page VII.6.6-5 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR PROPOSED JDSF MANAGEMENT PLAN Table VII.6.6.1.1. CWHR vegetation codes. CWHR Code Description AGS Annual Grass BAR Barren CPC Closed Cone Pine - Cypress DFR Douglas-fir FEW Freshwater Emergent Wetland MCH Mixed Chaparral MHC Montane Hardwood Conifer MRI Montane Riparian RDW Redwood URB Urban Table VII.6.6.1.2. CWHR density. CWHR Density % Canopy Closure Range S—Sparse Cover 10 to 24.9 percent P—Open Cover 25 to 39.9 percent M—Moderate Cover 40 to 59.9 percent D—Dense Cover >60 percent U—Unknown Table VII.6.6.1.3. CWHR size codes. CWHR Size Size Class Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) 1 Seedling Less Than 1 inch 2 Sapling 1 to 6 inches 3 Pole 6 to 11 inches 4 Small Tree 11 to 24 inches 5 Medium/Large Tree Greater Than 24 inches 6 Multi-Layered Size 5 Over Size 4 Or 3; Total Tree Crown Closure Greater Than 60 percent U Unknown Page VII.6.6-6 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR PROPOSED JDSF MANAGEMENT PLAN Table VII.6.6.2. Percent CWHR type, size and density for types found on JDSF relative to Mendocino County. Percent of CWHR CWHR CWHR County Acres in Percent of Acres in type size density Acres in JDSF County County JDSF AGS 0 48 18.9 284,479 BAR 0.1 9 0.8 11,914 CPC U U 90.9 13 0.0 130 CPC 2 D 35.9 120 0.0 335 CPC 2 M 1.1 30 0.2 2,773 CPC 2 P 0.9 49 0.4 5,345 CPC 2 S 21.6 37 0.0 170 CPC 3 D 5.5 51 0.1 930 CPC 3 M 0.9 25 0.2 2,656 CPC 3 P 4.6 72 0.1 1,559 CPC 3 S 68.2 185 0.0 272 CPC 4 D 39.2 302 0.1 772 CPC 4 M 8.2 103 0.1 1,243 CPC 4 P 27.5 187 0.0 679 CPC 4 S 89.7 43 0.0 48 CPC 5 D 0.2 3,140 CPC 5 M 0.4 6,225 CPC 5 P 0.3 4,164 CPC 5 S 0.0 62 CPC 6 D 100 59 0.0 59 DFR U U 0.0 326 DFR 1 0.0 373 DFR 2 D 0.2 26 0.8 11,643 DFR 2 M 0.6 28 0.3 4,736 DFR 2 P 0.1 907 DFR 2 S 0.4 9 0.2 2,646 DFR 3 D 0 14 4.1 62,509 DFR 3 M 0.6 9,778 DFR 3 P 0.1 2 0.2 3,076 DFR 3 S 0.3 4,482 DFR 4 D 10.1 8979 5.9 89,037 DFR 4 M 16.7 1338 0.5 8,002 DFR 4 P 33.1 1271 0.3 3,840 DFR 4 S 0.3 11 0.2 3,160 DFR 5 D 4.9 73,936 DFR 5 M 2.2 351 1.0 15,613 DFR 5 P 1.4 86 0.4 6,319 DFR 5 S 0.4 40 0.6 9,283 DFR 6 D 2 1841 6.2 93,412 Page VII.6.6-7 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR PROPOSED JDSF MANAGEMENT PLAN Table VII.6.6.2. Percent CWHR type, size and density for types found on JDSF relative to Mendocino County. Percent of CWHR CWHR CWHR County Acres in Percent of Acres in type size density Acres in JDSF County County JDSF FEW U U 1.6 9 0.0 585 MCH U U 100 77 0.0 77 MCH 2 S 0.0 110 MCH 3 D 1.2 17,965 MCH 4 D 4.4 65,597 MHC U U 0.0 35 MHC 1 100 33 0.0 33 MHC 2 D 0.2 18 0.6 9,296 MHC 2 M 0.0 141 MHC 2 P 0.2 2,508 MHC 3 D 0 3 0.8 12,221 MHC 3 M 0.0 531 MHC 3 P 0.1 5 0.2 3,295 MHC 4 D 7 1167 1.1 16,569 MHC 4 M 20.3 109 0.0 536 MHC 4 P 6.3 181 0.2 2,857 MHC 4 S 100 11 0.0 11 MHC 5 D 0.0 703 MHC 5 M 0.0 302 MHC 5 P 0.4 6,074 MHC 5 S 100 43 0.0 43 MHC 6 D 2.2 317 1.0 14,327 MRI U U 0.0 23 MRI 2 D 0.0 167 MRI 2 M 0.0 232 MRI 2 P 0.0 642 MRI 2 S 0.0 506 MRI 3 D 0.1 1,709 MRI 3 M 0.1 1,066 MRI 3 P 0.1 983 MRI 3 S 0.1 1,486 MRI 4 D 0.1 1,190 MRI 4 M 0.1 851 MRI 4 P 0.0 492 MRI 4 S 0.1 889 MRI 5 D 0.0 2 MRI 5 M 0.0 2 MRI 5 S 0.0 5 MRI 6 D 100 9 0.0 9 RDW U U 0.0 536 Page VII.6.6-8 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR PROPOSED JDSF MANAGEMENT PLAN Table VII.6.6.2. Percent CWHR type, size and density for types found on JDSF relative to Mendocino County. Percent of CWHR CWHR CWHR County Acres in Percent of Acres in type size density Acres in JDSF County County JDSF RDW 1 100 25 0.0 42 RDW 2 D 1.8 679 2.4 36,892 RDW 2 M 5.3 695 0.9 13,057 RDW 2 P 4.7 72 0.1 1,526 RDW 2 S 0.2 7 0.2 3,487 RDW 3 D 0.4 322 5.2 79,096 RDW 3 M 6.6 599 0.6 9,065 RDW 3 P 3.2 92 0.2 2,843 RDW 3 S 2.9 108 0.2 3,706 RDW 4 D 13 11349 5.8 87,603 RDW 4 M 35.3 2909 0.5 8,231 RDW 4 P 16.3 325 0.1 1,995 RDW 4 S 8.7 224 0.2 2,588 RDW 5 D 11.4 172,304 RDW 5 M 5.6 1265 1.5 22,674 RDW 5 P 4.8 385 0.5 8,067 RDW 5 S 3.2 416 0.8 12,801 RDW 6 D 9.3 11833 8.5 127,782 URB 0.2 35 1.3 19,526 Page VII.6.6-9 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR PROPOSED JDSF MANAGEMENT PLAN WHR Size and Density 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% U 1 2U 2D 2M 2P 2S 3U 3D 3M 3P 3S 4D 4M 4P 4S 5U 5D 5M 5P 5S 6D Figure VII.6.6.1.1. Distribution of CWHR Size and Density Classes across the North Coast Region. Note: The code “U” denotes a missing WHR label for either Size or Density or both. Page VII.6.6-10