To: Niel Fischer

From: Ken Moore

Subject- DFG's NCNCR current policy for raptor surveys on THPs

Attached is the recent memo Program Manager Mark Stopher sent out to his staff within the
Department of Fish and Game's Northern California - North Coast Region, regarding the subject topic.

A couple clarifying notes about ties document.

This current policy direction only applies to DFG's NCNCR timber review staff and may be modified in
the future based on changing circumstances.

This direction is based primarily on workload (i.e. staffing) and priorities as determined by and within
NCNCR's timber review program

Other functions (i.e. outside of timber) within DFG and other Regions may and do have different
priorities. (e-g- Coho is a dominant issue on the north coast whereas the California Spotted Owl is a
major issue in the central Sierra.)

The statute and regulatory language within this document should be consistent throughout DFG
although it's application regionally may be different due to varying circumstances; i.e. species being
considered, and fair arguments regarding significance under CEQA.

If you have questions regarding this document please call me at (707) 441-5670 or Mark Stopher at
(530) 225-2275.

Over the past year, issues relating to implementation of Fish and Game Code (FGC) Section 3503.5 have generated considerable discussion within the Department of Fish and Game (Department) and our stakeholders. During the review of individual THPs, Department staff have developed and made recommendations for raptor surveys and nest site protection measures based upon this statute. Previously I have expressed reservations regarding this activity for reasons which follow in this memorandum.

In the interim, there has been considerable further discussion regarding the procedures and the workload priority we should apply for the protection of raptors, nests, and eggs. Some landowners have agreed to initiate surveys to identify potential raptor nest sites and to implement protective measures. These measures have been implemented on some THPs. Further, there has been some agreement with timber companies to implement programmatic survey measures.

There has been resistance to implementing specific measures for raptor-S by many landowners and the registered professional foresters and biologists in their employ. Their views have been articulated in many discussions and through voluminous correspondence over the past months objecting to some of our recommendations.

Recently I met with supervisors of timber functions from this and other regions to outline my assessment of the issue, propose direction for the future, and to receive feedback on those views. In addition, I have reviewed applicable literature and have reviewed these issues with senior biologists, managers, and Department of Fish and Game legal counsel.

As the State trustee agency for fish and wildlife, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) authorizes the Department to identify potentially significant adverse impacts to fish, wildlife, and native plants and make recommendations to mitigate those impacts to below a level of significance. The CEQA Guidelines require that impacts which reduce the number or restrict the range of species listed as rare, threatened. endangered, or which meet the criteria for listing are presumed to be significant In addition, the Forest Practice Rules designate species, which may or may not meet the criteria for listing, for which specific consultation procedures and minimum mitigation standards are required. In order to satisfy these statutory and regulatory standards in the course of reviewing individual THPs, the Northern California-North Coast Region (NC-NCR) will continue to make specific recommendations for raptor surveys as an enforceable condition when rare, threatened, endangered, and Board of Forestry sensitive species may be found within the THP area.

FGC Section 3503.5 makes A unlawful to take, possess, or destroy birds of prey, their ne5tS- or eggs except as otherwise provided by the FGC or a regulation. The Department may not authorize the prohibited impacts to these species. Even so, the need for comprehensive assessments, including surveys, is less compelling biologically for species that are not protected under the California Endangered Species Act, not considered a threatened, endangered, or rare species under CEQA and are not a Board of Forestry sensitive species. There is no legislative mandate, regulation, or policy suggesting that impacts to such raptors are necessarily significant.

In terms of assigning relative priority to our potential activities, we should consider that there are much larger biological risks in forest landscapes than the loss of individual nests and unlisted bird species. These risks include habitat simplification, seral stage compression, loss of structural components, spatial modification, and rearrangement of different habitats including migratory corridors, timberland conversion and the list goes on. Traditionally, we have devoted most of our time to the review of individual THPs and consultations for sensitive species. We are just beginning to implement a monitoring program which documents the effectiveness of those efforts. Further, we are only beginning to develop concepts and approaches for comprehensive planning with large landowners- I believe these are some of the activities that can begin to address some of the risks mentioned above. We should use existing and recently developed information on raptor utilization of forested habitats in our recommendations for larger planning processes so that future landscape conditions provide nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat for these species. At the same time we should 'not divert ourselves to simpler but less valuable tasks.

There are biological risks associated with choosing to focus on activities other than protection of individual birds, nests, and eggs. These risks include the probability that, unless surveys are performed, some timber operations will directly or indirectly violate the statute. The public has an obligation to comply with this statute regardless of the level of Department involvement. When violations occur, the effect will not necessarily be individually or cumulatively significant in the context of CEQA unless the species is rare, threatened, or endangered. Aside from species already listed by the State and Federal governments, there are few if any raptor species that currently warrant this consideration. Except where a species has been diminished to the point where listing is warranted, our focus should be on populations and ecosystems, not individual animals or nest sites. In short, the biological risks that accrue by not devoting considerable staff effort to surveys, consultations, and development of protective measures for raptors and their nests are minor.

For the above reasons, in the course of reviewing individual THPs the NC-NCR will not make specific recommendations for raptor surveys as an enforceable condition for a THP from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Exceptions will be made for rare, threatened and endangered, and Board of Forestry sensitive species.

If you have any questions regarding this memorandum, please feel free to contact me at (530) 225-2275.