Two Bit Vegetation Managementa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · 2012. 11....

Two Bit Vegetation Management

Wildlife Report

Prepared by:

___________/s/ Timothy Burnett 4/8/10___________

Timothy D. Burnett Wildlife Biologist

for: Happy Camp Ranger District

Klamath National Forest

4/6/2010

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Title of Project

i

Table of Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1 Overview of Issues Addressed ................................................................................................ 1

Affected Environment ................................................................................................................. 1 Existing Condition ................................................................................................................... 1 Desired Condition .................................................................................................................. 29

Environmental Consequences ................................................................................................... 30 Methodology ......................................................................................................................... 30 Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis .............................................................. 30 Alternative 1 – No Action ..................................................................................................... 32 Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 .......................................................................................................... 38

Monitoring Recommendations .................................................................................................. 65 References (Literature Cited) ...................................................................................................... 1

List of Tables

List of Figures

No table of figures entries found.

Title of Project

1

Introduction This report shall identify and evaluate the effects of the proposed Forest Service actions on Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Sensitive (TES) species and Critical Habitat or trend to federal listing or loss of viability for any Sensitive species. In addition, the report will state what effects the alternatives have on management of late-successional reserves (LSR), Management Indicator Species Habitat and Managed Wildlife Area 6 (KNFLMP, 4-113). Management Indicator species (MIS) and Migratory bird species are discussed in separate report (refer to these reports)

Overview of Issues Addressed

Issue Indicators Based on the information obtained through the scoping process, the ID Team identified that no significant issues regarding wildlife were recognized.

Threatened species, Management Indicator Species (MIS), Forest Sensitive Species, and species of interest were all analyzed based on effects to habitat change as a from the four alternatives. Also considered are potential disturbance from implementation of treatment.

Habitat was analyzed using the forest Northern Spotted Owl(NSO) GIS layer, The Northern Spotted Owl(NSO) layer that was developed for this specific project for all NSO activity centers that had proposed treatment within 1.3 miles. Management indicator species habitat was analyzed using the forest MIS habitat layer. Forest sensitive species habitat was assesses using the Forest NSO layer and field verification.

Affected Environment

Existing Condition The Two Bit Project is located in the 135 square mile Indian Creek watershed. Indian Creek is the largest tributary to the Klamath River between the confluences with the Scott and Salmon Rivers. The Project proposes thinning treatments within six Management Areas as identified in the Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). This report will address the following land allocations (Late Successional Reserves (MA-5), Peregrine Falcon (MA-5) and Managed Wildlife Area (MA-6) potentially affected by the proposed action.

The dominant vegetation class within the project area is Douglas-fir dominated sites (51,687 acres or approximately 76% of project area) which occur just below the elevation gradient of the Klamath Mixed Conifer vegetation type. In the Douglas-fir vegetation type, Douglas-fir comprises of at least eighty percent of the overstory trees, with sugar pine and ponderosa pine frequently represented. Similar understory species occur; however, they are generally denser than at higher elevations.

White fir forest types occur at higher elevations within the Two Bit project (9,662 acres or approximately 14% of the project area) below the Red Fir type and above Mixed Conifer - Fir forests. Vegetation typing used for the Indian Creek WA had many areas typed as Mixed Conifer that are typed as White Fir in this latest updated layer. Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and red fir (A. magnifica) may be common associates at lower and upper elevations, respectively. Understory shrubs and hardwoods are uncommon due to the density of these stands. Shrubs of the

Two Bit Vegetation Management Project Wildlife Report

2

Upper Montane Mixed Chaparral and Shrub Alliances may occasionally be present in forest openings, including Huckleberry Oak (Quercus vaccinifolia), pinemat manzanita (Arctostaphylos nevadensis), bush chinquapin (Chrysolepis sempervirens), greenleaf manzanita (A. patula), Brewer oak (Q. garryana var. breweri), and bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata).

The Klamath Mixed Conifer also occurs (approximately 170 acres in the project area) at higher elevations and is generally a transitional stage of Douglas-fir mixed conifer type and cooler and moisture sites (primarily Northerly aspects) of white fir. Overstory species of mixed conifer can include sugar pine, Douglas-fir, white fir, incense cedar, and ponderosa pine. Port Orford cedar is often present in moist sites or riparian influenced areas. Relic populations of Brewer spruce, mountain hemlock, western white pine, and Alaska yellow cedar occasionally occur. Understory species are often sparser at higher elevations compared to lower and middle slope positions, but commonly include chinquapin, black oak, saddler oak, thimbleberry, snowbrush, and other montane chaparral species.

Within the project area there are 14 Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) territories and one Peregrine falcon management area. The Project also proposes thinning and under-burning in Marbled Murrelet Critical Habitat and Late Successional Reserves. The project area has one Goshawk Management Area, but no treatments are proposed within the Goshawk Management Area. There are other areas within the project area that have historical observations of Northern goshawks and/or Northern goshawk nests. In addition other species such as Willow flycatcher and Siskiyou salamander have been know to occur within the project area.

Threatened and Endangered Species

Endangered Shortnose sucker (Chamistes brevirostris) Lost River sucker (Deltistes luxatus)

Tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi)

Threatened Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmorata)

Shortnose and Lost River suckers (lakes and their tributaries), and tide water goby (coastal lagoons, estuaries and streams a short distance from these habitats) does not occur in the project area. Critical habitat for the tidewater goby does not occur in the project area. These species and designated critical habitat will not be addressed further in this document.

Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) The northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) was listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act on June 26, 1990, due to widespread habitat loss and the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to provide for its conservation (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1990a).

Title of Project

3

The distribution of the NSO includes southwestern British Columbia, Washington and Oregon, and northwestern California south to Marin County (Gutiérrez 1996). Northern Spotted Owls (NSO) generally inhabits older forested habitats because they contain the structures and characteristics required for nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal (Forsman et al. 1984; Gutiérrez 1996; LaHaye & Gutiérrez 1999). Specifically, habitat features that support nesting and roosting include a multi-layered, multi-species canopy dominated by large overstory trees; moderate to high canopy closure (60 to 90 percent); a high incidence of trees with large cavities or other types of deformities (e.g., broken tops, mistletoe, etc.); numerous large snags; an abundance of large, dead wood on the ground; and open space within and below the upper canopy for NSOs to fly within (Thomas et al.1990). Basal area within nest stands often exceeds 200 ft2/acre (Solis & Gutiérrez 1990). Foraging habitat generally consists of attributes similar to those in nesting and roosting habitat, but much variation exists over the NSO range. Recent research addressing spotted owl foraging habitat in California, suggests that the basal area of a stand influences use, with 160-240 ft2/acre basal area providing optimal foraging conditions (Irwin et al 2004; Irwin et al 2006). Dispersal habitat, at minimum, consists of stands with adequate tree size and canopy closure (> 40 percent) to provide protection from avian predators and some foraging opportunities (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1992). Physiographic features (i.e., slope position, distance to water) also appear to influence habitat used for nesting, roosting, or foraging (Solis & Gutiérrez 1990; Blakesley et al. 1992; LaHaye & Gutiérrez 1999; Folliard et al. 2000; Irwin et al. 2004; Irwin et al. 2006). Studies from northern California indicate that NSOs typically nest and roost on the lower ½ of slopes within a given drainage while avoiding the upper 1/3 of slopes. Similarly, both California spotted owls and NSOs generally forage on lower slopes adjacent to streams. Recent landscape-level analyses suggest that in the southern portion of the subspecies’ range a mosaic of large patches of late-successional habitat interspersed with other vegetation types may benefit NSOs more than large, homogeneous expanses of older forests (Franklin et al. 2000; Zabel et al. 2003; Olson et al. 2004). Franklin et al. (2000) hypothesized that a mosiac of different vegetation and seral stages may offer a stable prey resource for NSOs while providing adequate protection from predators. Franklin et al. (2000) and Dugger et al. (2005) also reported habitat fitness potential (the potential fitness that can be achieved by an owl occupying a given territory with certain habitat components) was greater where large amounts of older forest were present in the NSOs core area. Home range size varies geographically, likely in response to differences in habitat quality (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1990b). Home ranges are smaller during the breeding season and often increase dramatically in size during fall and winter (Forsman et al. 1984; Glenn et al. 2004). The average home range size is approximately 3,300 acres in the California Klamath Province. Bingham & Noon (1997) defined the portion of the owl’s home range that receives disproportionate use as the core area. Radiotemetery studies in northern California and the western Oregon Cascades indicate that NSO core areas are typically between 500 to 900 acres (Bingham & Noon 1997; Irwin et al. 2000). The amount of suitable habitat within a home range has also been shown to influence NSO productivity and survivorship (Simon-Jackson 1989; Bart 1995; Franklin et al. 2000; Dugger et al. 2005). Nesting typically occurs from March to June. At about 35 days old, the young leave the nest but are incapable of flight (Forsman 1976). Juveniles typically spend the summer in close proximity to the nest core (Forsman et al. 1984, Miller 1989). Forsman et al. (2002) referred to this area occupied by juveniles after leaving the nest but before dispersing as the natal territory. Juveniles may begin to disperse by September (Forsman et al. 1984; 2002). Most young disperse by early


4

November (Forsman et al. 1984; 2002). In addition to dispersing juveniles, a small percentage of non-juveniles disperse in search of new mates and/or territories (Forsman et al. 2002). Dispersing owls typically traversed a wide range of forest conditions and levels of habitat fragmentation. Large non-forested valleys (e.g., the Willamette Valley) are apparent barriers to dispersing juvenile and adult NSOs (Ibid). Composition of prey in NSO diet varies likely in response to prey availability (Carey 1993; Forsman et al. 2001). Northern flying squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus) and woodrats (Neotoma spp.) are usually the predominant prey both in biomass and frequency (Forsman et al. 1984; Ward et al. 1998; Forsman et al. 2001, 2004) with woodrats generally the dominant prey item in the drier forests typically found in the southern portion of the NSO range (Forsman et al. 1984; Sztukowski & Courtney 2004). Other prey species (e.g., voles, mice, rabbits and hares, birds, and insects) may be seasonally or locally important (Rosenberg et al. 2003; Forsman et al. 2004). Dusky footed woodrats are arboreal herbivores generally found below 5,000 feet (Williams et al. 1992). Nests are built of sticks or other woody debris and are typically located on the ground but may also be found in shrubs, trees, or rock crevices (Ibid). Dusky-footed woodrat densities appear to follow stages influenced by habitat quality (Hamm 1995; Sakai & Noon 1993; Carey et al. 1999) with the highest densities found in sapling/bushy pole timber and older forests with brush understories. Intermediate aged forests with little understory appear to be poorly suited for dusky-footed woodrats. Habitat for dusky-footed woodrats in the project area occurs in regenerating plantations, oak stands, and within some riparian reserves. Northern flying squirrels are nocturnal rodents that nest in trees in a variety of forest communities (Williams et al. 1992). Flying squirrel den sites include cavities in live and dead old-growth trees; cavities, stick nests, and moss-lichen nest in second growth trees; cavities in branches of fallen trees; nests in decayed stumps; and witches brooms formed by mistletoe infections (Carey et al. 1997; Carey 2000). Results of the January 2004 NSO demographic meta-analysis workshop indicate that across the range of NSO, populations declined at an average of approximately 3.7 percent per year from 1985–2003 (Anthony et al. 2006). The number of populations that have declined and the rate at which they have declined are noteworthy, particularly the precipitous declines in Washington. Populations on the demographic study areas closest to the project area, Oregon south Cascades and northwest California, appear to be stable and experiencing a slight decline during the same time period, respectively (Ibid). According to the Forestwide LSR Assessment (USDA Forest Service 1999), there have been approximately 261 NSO activity centers located on the KNF. Because portions of the KNF have never been surveyed and survey efforts have been reduced in the recent past, the actual number of occupied sites is unknown. However, surveys conducted in 2002-2005 by the USFS and USFWS in the Collins-Baldy, Johnny O’Neil, Thom-Seider and the Mount Ashland LSRs indicate that current activity centers are similar to those reported in 1999. The amount of NSO habitat continues to decline on a range wide basis across all ownerships, although at a rate that is less than in the years prior to the listing of the NSO, particularly on Federal lands within the NWFP boundary (Bigley & Franklin 2004). Existing habitat trends are a function of both management actions and natural events. At the time of listing, the USFWS recognized that catastrophic wildfire posed a threat to the NSO (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1990a). The amount of habitat lost to wildfire in the relatively

Title of Project

5

dry East Cascades and Klamath Provinces suggests that fire may be more of a threat than was previously thought. In the California Klamath Province approximately 15,900 acres of NSO habitat has been lost to fires since 1994 (Bigley 2004), with approximately 5,400 of these acres occurring on the KNF. Since 1990, the barred owl (Strix varia) has expanded its range such that it is now roughly coincident with the range of the NSO (Gutiérrez et al. 2004). Barred owls compete with NSOs through a variety of mechanisms: prey overlap (Hamer et al. 2001); habitat overlap (Dunbar et al. 1991; Herter & Hicks 2000;Pearson & Livezey 2003); and agonistic encounters (Leskiw & Gutiérrez 1998; Pearson & Livezey 2003). Recent research and observations also indicate that barred owls may displace NSOs (Kelly et al. 2003) and Anthony et al. (2006) reported that barred owls had a negative effect on NSO survival in three demographic study areas in Washington. Although the barred owl currently constitutes a significantly greater threat to the NSO than originally thought at the time of listing, it is unclear whether forest management has an effect on the outcome of interactions between barred owls and NSO (Gutiérrez et al. 2004). There are no known barred owl nests within the project area. One single barred owl was detected once within the project area in 2009. The project is not expected to affect the spread of barred owls. West Nile Virus and Sudden Oak Death: Health officials expect that West Nile Virus (WNV) will eventually spread throughout the range of the NSO (Blakesley et al. 2004), but it is unknown how WNV will ultimately affect NSO populations. The project is not expected to affect the spread of West Nile Virus. Sudden Oak Death poses a threat of uncertain proportions because of its potential impact on forest dynamics and alteration of key habitat components (i.e., hardwoods); especially in the southern portion of the NSOs range. Because the magnitude of these threats is unknown at this time, they do not represent relevant information pertinent to analyses conducted for this biological assessment. Although information specific to behavioral responses of NSOs to disturbance is limited, research indicates that recreational activity can cause Mexican spotted owls (Strix occidentalis lucida) to vacate otherwise suitable habitat (Swarthout & Steidl 2001) and helicopter overflights can reduce prey delivery rates to nests (Delaney et al. 1999). Additional effects from disturbance, including altered foraging behavior and decreases in nest attendance and reproductive success, have been reported for other raptors (White & Thurow 1985; Andersen et al. 1989; McGarigal et al. 1991). Historic timber harvest within the project area has impacted NSOs by removing habitat suitable for nesting, roosting, or foraging. Additionally, the stands that have regenerated following timber harvest typically lack the structural attributes and diversity necessary to support nesting pairs (multi-layered and multi-species canopies; large, decadent trees and snags; and large downed woody debris). Past timber harvest has also reduced the amount and recruitment of important habitat components of NSO prey such as large diameter snags and downed woody debris. Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat On July 30, 2009, the Department of Interior (the government) filed several documents with the U.S. District Court, District of Columbia, in response to Case no. 1:08-cv-01409-EGS. In their filings, the government requested that the Court remand and vacate the 2008 northern spotted owl critical habitat rule and reinstate the 1992 critical habitat rule. The government also requested that the Court remand the 2008 recovery plan for the northern spotted owl and order the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to issue a revised plan within nine months of the Court’s remand order.


6

Lastly, the government requested that the Court order the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, after issuance of the revised recovery plan, to evaluate whether revision of the 1992 critical habitat designation is appropriate, and if so, to complete rulemaking for a new critical habitat designation within 24 months of the issuance of the recovery plan. The government is requesting this because they are confessing legal error as to the 2008 critical habitat designation and recovery plan. The judge has not ruled on the government’s motion and proposed order yet. There is NSO Critical Habitat within the Eastern portion of the project area; however no treatment is proposed in Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat that was designated in 1992 or 2008 for the project. Thus, Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat will not be discussed further in this report. Marbled Murrelet The marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) is a small, fast-flying seabird in the alcid family that occurs along the Pacific coast of North America. Murrelets forage for small schooling fish or invertebrates in shallow marine waters near shore and primarily nest in coastal older aged coniferous forests within 52 mi of the ocean. Incubation is shared by both sexes, and incubation shifts are generally 1 day, with exchanges occurring at dawn (Nelson 1997, Bradley 2002). Hatchlings appear to be brooded by a parent for 1-2 days and then left alone at the nest for the remainder of the chick period while both parents spend most of their time at sea. Both parents feed the chick – usually a single fish carried in the bill – and a chick typically receives 1-8 meals per day (Nelson 1997). About two-thirds of the meals are delivered early in the morning, usually before sunrise, and about a third at dusk with a few meals sometimes scattered through the day (Hamer and Nelson 1995). Bradley et al. (2002) documented significant differences between sexes during chick-rearing; males made 1.3 times more inland trips than females overall and made 1.8 times as many trips at dusk. During early chick-rearing, nest visitation rates by males and females were found to be similar, but toward the end of chick-rearing female visitation declined while males maintained the same visitation rates. Males therefore provision the chicks more often than females, especially during the last half of chick rearing (Bradley et al. 2002). Chicks have been found to fledge 27-40 days after hatching, at 58-71% of adult mass (Nelson 1997). Fledging has seldom been documented but appears to occur typically at dusk (Nelson 1997, Jones 2001). Fledged juveniles appear to receive no parental care and are often seen solitarily on marine waters after leaving the nest (Nelson 1997). The first flight of a fledgling is risky, and there are several documented cases of grounded fledglings. When attending nesting habitats during the breeding season (and much of the non-breeding season in southern parts of the range), adult murrelets are restricted to foraging within commuting distance from the nest site. Populations of this species are thought to be in decline primarily because of nesting habitat loss; 50 to 90 percent of older aged forest habitat in the Pacific Northwest has been lost because of logging and development, and much of what remains is highly fragmented (Alig et al. 2000, Bolsinger and Waddell 1993, Garman et al. 1999, Hansen et al. 1991, Wimberly and Spies 2000). Other factors such as mortality in gill nets and oil spills, and high predation rates at nest sites have also affected population viability (Carter and Kuletz 1995, Carter et al. 1995, Nelson and Hamer 1995, Raphael et al. 2002b). The murrelet was listed as a federally threatened species in Washington, Oregon, and California in 1992 (USFWS 1997) and British Columbia in 1990 (Rodway 1990). In the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) marbled murrelet habitat was divided into two zones. Zone 1 was located from the Pacific Coast to 35 miles inland and Zone 2 from 35 to 52 miles inland. Zone 1 is the primary nesting area and Zone 2 included habitat that was determined to be of

Title of Project

7

importance in 1994. In the Northwest Forest Plan(NWFP) 10 year review of marbled murrelets (Huff et al, 2004) described Zone 2 as follows: Since the marbled murrelet was listed in 1992, studies of terrestrial habitat suitability from British Columbia to California have consistently confirmed that, in general, murrelets select old-growth forests for nesting, typically within about 37 miles (60 km) of the coast (Lank et al. 2003). Other stand structures important to marbled murrelet habitat include old growth patch size, tree size, canopy cover, moss cover and depth and platform density. From field data, gathered on Queen Charlotte Islands, 4 categories of platform densities were developed as indices of habitat quality: low (0-20/acre [0-50/ha]), medium (21-61/acre [51-150/ha]), high (62-121/acre [151-300/ha]), and very high (>121/acre [>300/ha]). In a comparison of habitat characteristics at a sample of occupied and unoccupied stands in southwest Oregon, logistic regression was used to determine which combination of habitat variables best predicted occupancy of stands by marbled murrelets (Hamer 1996). Cross validation procedures were used to test the model on an “independent” sample of stands. Forty-one forest variables were measured from a sample of 21 occupied and 21 unoccupied sites. T-test results from independent samples indicated that 7 variables were significantly different between occupied and unoccupied sites. Occupied sites had higher potential nest platform densities, higher densities of platform trees, higher percent moss cover on tree limbs, increased moss depths, more canopy layers, and were found on more moderate slopes. A predictive model consisting of platform density and percent slope had one of the highest classification accuracies, preformed well under cross validation, and made biological and intuitive sense. Overall classification accuracy was 78.6%. Moss depth and moss cover variables were most likely not included in the model because platform diameters and platform counts in the field were made with moss cover included in the estimate of diameter. Thus, platform density took into account the amount of moss cover and depth of moss on tree limbs and was positively correlated to both variables. Slope was negatively correlated with occupancy because sites on steeper slopes were typically located near ridge tops and away from the lower valley bottoms. These sites typically had lower mean tree diameters, lower density of trees with platforms, and platform density was either low or platforms were absent. Meyer et al. (2004b) also found that murrelets in northern California preferred cool slopes near the bottom of drainages, where large trees with large limbs grow abundantly. On a regional scale, occupied sites were located within the fog zone (<35 mi inland) in northern California where large coast redwood trees occur (Meyer et al. 2002, 2004a). Local variation in presence of moss appears related to moisture levels; trees on the lower portion of slopes and in proximity to streams had more moss cover in older aged forest stands along the central Oregon coast (Nelson and Wilson 2002). At inland sites (12 to 37 mi) in southwestern Oregon and northern California, however, murrelets were absent from dry stands where platforms were abundant but moss was scarce (Dillingham et al. 1995, Hunter et al. 1998). The lack of moisture in these dry stands appears related to high daily temperatures in summer and low tree density, not aspect. In 1998 Hunter et al. examined the presence or absence of murrelets in the inner north coast range of California, south of the Klamath Mountains. A stratified random sampling design was utilized to survey within the 2 coniferous forest habitat types most likely to be used by murrelets: late mature and old-growth Douglas-fir and late mature and old-growth tanoak. Within the study area, 30.8% of the Douglas-fir sampling units were surveyed in 1995 and 1996, and 58.6% in the tanoak stratum were surveyed in 1995. Murrelets were not detected in either habitat. Due to the high power associated with their findings, the authors concluded that their study area was not within the current range of the marbled murrelet. These conclusions have the potential to be


8

biased as there was only 1 year of surveys conducted in the tanoak sampling units; however, recent studies (Meyer and Miller 2002, Meyer et al. 2003) corroborate their findings. Surveys on U.S. Forest Service lands have been done in connection with management related projects or as a part of an extensive Marbled Murrelet Range and Distribution Study. The results of 2,022 management related surveys conducted at 972 stations from 1992 through 1997 on Six Rivers National Forest were summarized by Hunter (1997). Away from the Redwood Zone, murrelet detections have been reported from the Orleans Ranger District near Onion Mountain. Three detections at two sites in 1992 were followed by a single detection in 1995. Timber sale surveys have also occurred on the Happy Camp Ranger District. Approximately 20,000 acres of suitable habitat have been surveyed to protocol, resulting in five “presence” detections approximately 37 miles inland. Additional surveys not to protocol have also been conducted. No occupied sites have been recorded to date anywhere on Klamath National Forest. Detections that occurred in the Indian Creek drainage (Happy Camp District) were in low elevation Douglas-fir and mixed conifer old-growth stands. No occupied behavior was associated with the detections; no nest trees were located. These records, unfortunately, lacked detailed documentation or subsequent follow-up surveys (see especially Hunter and LeValley, 1996). Hunter et al. (1998) used ornithological radar at three far-inland sites where some of the previous reports originated. Ground based observers surveying in conjunction with the radar work did not get detections, but the radar unit detected targets that were “probably” Marbled Murrelets at one site near the headwaters of Notice Creek on Six Rivers N.F., approximately 16 miles from the ocean. These birds were using a site that was characterized as “often experiencing summer fog” (Hunter et al., 1998). Slightly farther inland, in the area designated Zone 2 murrelet habitat, Six Rivers National Forest conducted a Range and Distribution Study with over 1,400 surveys at more than 350 sites in the Douglas-fir forests with a Tanoak component with no detections (Hunter et al., 1997, 1998, Schmidt et al., 2000). As a result of these surveys, the Fish and Wildlife Service wrote a letter of technical assistance July 17, 2000, (Reference 1-14-1997-61.2). That letter described the Central Study Area as encompassing the eastern portions of the Lower Trinity Ranger District (Six Rivers National Forest) and Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation, the Orleans (Six Rivers National Forest) and Ukonom (Klamath National Forest) Ranger Districts southeast of the Klamath River, and portions of the Happy Camp Ranger District (Klamath National Forest) east of the Klamath River within Marbled Murrelet zone 2. The Service also supported the recommendation to discontinue any further surveys for murrelets in the Central Study Area of Zone 2 and agreed that implementation of existing and future projects in this area will not result in harassment of nesting Marbled Murrelets; therefore, section 7 consultation relative to disturbance of Marbled Murrelets will not be necessary. A marbled murrelet study conducted throughout Southwest Oregon on lands administered by the Siskiyou and Rogue River National Forests and on lands administered by the Medford District BLM, distinguished 4 zones, representing areas at increasing distances from the Oregon Coast. After many years of survey, marbled murrelets were not detected in zone C and D (inland mixed conifer/mixed evergreen zone up to 50 miles inland), with the exception of one survey visit where murrelet calls were heard. As a result of this study, the Fish and Wildlife Service no longer requires surveys in zones C and D because of a “very low likelihood of murrelet occurrence” (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002). Zones C and D occur directly north of Zone 2 and Zone 1 on Happy Camp Ranger District.

Title of Project

9

Based on the results of surveys and studies in Zone 2 in Southwest Oregon and Northwest Oregon, FWS technical assistance, and the topography and distance to coast in Zone 2 in California outside of the Central Study Area, it is reasonable to conclude that murrelets also have a low likelihood of occurring within Zone 2 in northwest California. The project area is located on the eastern edge of marbled murrelet Zone 1 and the majority of the treatments are located in Zone 2 (Figure 3). Marbled Murrelet Critical Habitat Critical habitat for marbled murrelets was designated in May, 1996. It includes mapped LSRs within zone 1, Runaway LSR and a portion of Seiad LSR (USDI 1997). A final marbled murrelet recovery plan was released in September 1997. The marbled murrelet recovery plan emphasized recovery strategies within Recovery Zones. On the Forest, the Siskiyou Coast Range (Recovery) Zone coincides with the "Zone 1" boundary, described by FEMAT. Recovery actions within this zone should focus on preventing the loss of occupied nesting habitat (none identified on the Forest at this time), minimizing the loss of unoccupied habitat, and decreasing the time for development of new suitable habitat (USDI 1997). Within areas essential for successful marbled murrelet nesting, the Service has focused on the following primary constituent elements: (1) individual trees with potential nesting platforms, and (2) forested areas within 0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles) of individual trees with potential nesting platforms, and with a canopy height of at least one-half the site-potential tree height. This includes all such forest, regardless of contiguity. These primary constituent elements are essential to provide and support suitable nesting habitat for successful reproduction of the marbled murrelet. Marble murrelet critical habitat is located in the project area in critical habitat unit CA-10-a and CA-01-d (Runaway LSR). Plantation thinning and underburning are the only actions proposed within marbled murrelet critical habitat unit CA-01-d. Field review, conducted by Timothy D. Burnett (USFS Biologist), Karen West (USFS Biologist), and Jan Johnson (USFWS Biologist), of the Marbled Murrelet critical habitat located within the project area, determined that no suitable nesting habitat for MAMU (i.e. old-growth component large trees, trees must have large branches or deformities with moss or lichen substrate) was within 0.25 miles of the treatment units. Late Successional Reserves (LSRs) LSRs are land allocations established in the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) also known as the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994a). LSRs in combination with other land allocations and associated standards and guidelines (S&Gs), were established to maintain a functional, interactive, late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystem. They were designed to serve as habitat for late-successional and old-growth related species including the NSO. Specific to NSOs, LSRs primary function are to support population clusters.

Runway LSR


10

This LSR is about 3,030 acres in size; it encompasses portions of The West Fork and Little South Fork of Indian Creek. Elevations range from 2,200 feet to about 4,800 feet. The terrain is steep, and is dissected by sharp ridges and streams. There is a small parcel of private land located at the northern portion of the LSR. The Runway LSR is also designated Marbled Murrelet Critical Habitat (CA-01-d).

Unlike most LSRs on the Forest, Runaway did not originate as a Habitat Conservation Area under the ISC's spotted owl management strategy. It was identified as an area of important late-successional habitat during the LSOG mapping effort (Johnson and others 1991).

Late-successional and mid-successional conditions account for 68% of the capable land base. Plantations account for 27% of the current land base (22% > 20 years and 5% < 20 years). Approximately 45 acres of plantation are currently stocked exclusively with ponderosa pine while these sites are more adapted to Douglas-fir. These pine plantations are rapidly losing vigor due to the high stocking levels (Forestwide LSRA).

The dominant plant series in the LSR is Mixed conifer - pine. It accounts for approximately 42% of the landbase. The Douglas-fir/tanoak and Douglas-fir - white fir vegetative types are also major components within the LSR. They account for approximately 27% and 25%, respectively. The other plant series are white fir and noncommercial - other, account for minor percentages of the landbase.

Forty percent of the LSR is described as a FM-8, and 44% is described as FM-10. FM-10 is where the ground fires will be more intense than the other timber models making initial attack more difficult. The west portion of the LSR is very rugged with steep terrain. The western portion will receive higher intensity fires and will be harder to contain due to the accessibility and terrain. Fire access is good from the north but is limited from the south. Only 12% of the LSR has burned historically. This has allowed fuels to build up creating heavier fuel loadings and denser stands.

The fire risk is rated as a moderate meaning that you can project at least one fire in 11-20 years per thousand acres. With a risk rating of moderate, the potential exists for three fire starts in the LSR during the next 20 years (KNF Forestwide LSR).

Fire effects are generally equal between the "lethal" and "mixed" categories (refer to fuels specialist report). This would create large areas of fire mortality where reforestation would be needed. Some fire resistant species would survive when low to moderate fire intensities occurred.

Plantations make up 27% of the LSR land base. Most of these plantations are located in the north and eastern portion of the LSR. The closed nature of plantations creates a continuous fuel condition with the dense tightly packed crowns, increasing the likelihood of a crown fire. Generally conditions outside the LSR pose a low to moderate threat from wildfire with the most potential from the north.

There is currently a substantial amount of late-successional habitat within the LSR, 45% of the capable land base. This LSR has also been heavily impacted by timber harvesting as 27% of the total land base is currently in plantations. Management of the early seral vegetation is key for the development of future late-successional habitat. Stocking levels need to be managed in order to allow for these stands to progress through the various seral stages. Because many of the early- and mid-successional stands within the project are young and healthy, they are expected to respond favorably to silvicultural treatments that reduce stand density. Some legacy late-

Title of Project

11

successional components from the original stand exist in mid-successional stands but generally large-diameter trees, snags, and downed and woody debris (DWD) are lacking. Based on the Klamath NSO habitat layer the Runway LSR is 43 percent nesting/roosting habitat and 37 percent non-habitat for NSO. The project includes thinning of plantations and underburning within the Runway LSR. 100 acre LSR 100-acre LSRs represent a network of stands of late-successional habitat that are to be retained in their natural condition with natural processes, such as fire, allowed to function to the extent possible. Within the Klamath Province, past management practices have decreased the abundance of some types of old growth that are dependant upon low intensity fires. Vegetation that is less fire resistant or less desirable for long term sustainability of late-successional habitat has become more widely distributed. Within and adjacent to the 100 acre LSRs, the potential for stand replacing events has greatly increased. The project includes thinning of plantations and underburning in 100 acre LSR. Management Area 6 A Managed Wildlife Area 6 that is approximately 6,600 acres has been established on the west-side of Indian Creek on the Happy Camp Ranger District, which provides habitat for a broad range of species dependent on structural features common to late-successional vegetation in an ecosystem approach. This area includes one Sensitive wildlife species, fisher (Martes pennanti). The Managed Wildlife Area is at low to mid-elevation (below 4,000 feet). It currently provides open to dense stands of mid- to late-seral stage conifers. The area also has inclusions of early seral stage vegetation. Currently Management Area 6 has approximately 30 percent habitat that is suitable for fisher denning resting habitat (KNF LRMP). Management guidelines for management area 6 include:

Manage the area to provide for late-successional habitat.

Manage habitat attributes, compatible with ecological processes, to provide moderate to high quality habitat conditions on the Forest as defined in the Fisher Habitat Capability Model (refer to Appendix I of the EIS).

Test and demonstrate the effectiveness of treatments for use in LSRs in an adaptive

management approach. The project proposes underburning and one acre of roadside pole thinning in Management area 6. Forest Sensitive Species

Southern torrent salamander (Rhyacotriton variegatus) Cascade frog (Rana cascade) Foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) Western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata) Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis)


12

Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) Greater sandhill crane (Grus Canadensis) Great gray owl (Stix nebulosa) Willow flycatcher (Empidonax trailii) Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhius townsendii) Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes)

Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti) American marten (Martes americana) California wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus) Siskiyou mountain salamander (Plethodon stormi) Blue-gray tail-dropper (Prophysaon coeruleum)

Tehamana chaparral (Trilobopsis tehamana) The project is not within the range of the Sierra Nevada red fox (Cascades Mountains and Sierra Crest). Habitat for the Swainson’s hawk (perennial grassland, grassy shrub-steppe, or agricultural landscapes), greater sandhill crane (wetlands, marshes, grasslands, or irrigated fields), or pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) (CDFG 1990) and does not include open, xeric forests suitable for roosting and foraging (S. Livingston et. al. 2002). This project is outside the range of the Tehama chaparral snail (Trilobopsis tehamana) and Cascades Frog (Rana cascadae). Bald Eagle

The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) was originally listed as Endangered because of a severe decline in numbers. This decline was primarily attributed to the use of certain organochlorine pesticides, which caused reproductive dysfunction and eggshell thinning and habitat loss (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1995). Eagle populations have rebounded since the banning of DDT and the increased protection for nesting and winter roosting habitat. Bald eagles were down listed to Threatened as a result of increased populations and as populations increased or stabilized bald eagles were removed from the endangered species list in September 2008. Once a species is delisted the Endangered Species Act requires that the species be monitored to insure populations are stable and as a result the Bald eagle was added to the Forest Service Sensitive Species List after it was delisted.

Bald eagles forage on a variety of foods based on prey species availability, with birds, fish, and mammals being the most common prey items (Swen et al. 1986; Stalmaster and Kaiser 1998; Buehler 2000). Carrion is also an important food source especially during winter (Swen et al.1986; Buehler 2000).

Nest sites typically occur in forests with old growth components such as very large open-limbed trees (Buehler 2000), and nest sites are usually within a mile of a large body of water (Lehman 1979; Swen et al. 1986; Anthony and Isaacs 1989). Roost sites are associated with foraging areas but are not necessarily as close to water as nest sites (Buehler2000). Throughout the species’ range roost sites are typically in super-canopy trees (Keister and Anthony 1983; Chester et al. 1990; Buehler et al. 1991).

Surveys for bald eagles are not routinely conducted in the area; however, there are several Forest Service biologist and interested public that routinely watch for bald eagles, conduct opportunistic nest monitoring, and report new nest locations on the Klamath River (Sam Cuenca, pers. com. 2008). There are no known bald eagles nests within the analysis area; however bald eagles have

Title of Project

13

been observed feeding at Kelly Lake (Jon Grunbaum pers com)that is approximately 0.5 mile from proposed thinning units and it is considered possible that Bald Eagles are located within the project area.

Northern Goshawk

Goshawks are listed as a Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive Species due to the loss of mature conifer forest habitat in the western United States. Goshawks (Accipiter gentilis) inhabit a wide variety of forest habitats, including true fir (red fir, white fir, and subalpine fir), mixed conifer, lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, Jeffrey pine, montane riparian deciduous forest, and Douglas-fir (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). Goshawk nest sites tend to be associated with patches of relatively larger, denser forest than the surrounding landscape; however, home ranges often consist of a wide range of forest age classes and conditions (Ibid). In the Pacific coastal states, goshawks typically nest in conifers (Hargis et al. 1994; Bull and Hohmann 1993; McGrath et al. 2003). Numerous habitat studies and modeling efforts have found nest sites to be associated with similar factors including proximity to water or meadow habitat, forest openings, level terrain or ‘benches’ of gentle slope, northerly aspects, and patches of larger, denser trees, but these factors vary widely (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). Goshawks are sensitive to noise disturbances during nesting and often exhibit defensive territorial behavior around nest sites when disturbed (Squires and Reynolds 1997).

Results of radio telemetry studies on goshawks in California, and elsewhere in the west, suggest that foraging goshawks avoid dense young forest stands, brush, and clearcuts, but use a wide variety of stand conditions, showing some preference for relatively mature stands with moderate canopy closure (Austin 1993; Hargis et al. 1994; Beier and Drennan 1997; Bloxton 2002; Drennan and Beier 2003). Goshawks feed primarily on small mammals and birds. Prey is caught in air, on ground, or in vegetation, using fast, searching flight or rapid dash from a perch (Squires and Reynolds 1997).

There is one goshawk management areas in the Project Area (USDA 1994, 4-38), no proposed treatments are in goshawk management areas. There are two historical nest sites Poker and Deadman’s Point. The Poker site was discovered in 1987 with the detection of three goshawk fledglings in August. The site was surveyed again once in September of 1990. White wash was found and the site was assumed occupied for that year. Surveys have been conducted for the area in 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996 with no observations of goshawk. A goshawk was detected at the Deadman’s site in July of 1995; several suspect goshawk nests were located. No other records of surveys of this area have been conducted since 1995.

All suitable habitat within 0.5 mile of the Poker and Deadman site were surveyed in 2009, no goshawks were detected. The project proposes underburning in suitable Goshawk nesting habitat and commercial thinning in suitable goshawk foraging habitat.

Willow flycatcher

Willow flycatchers (Empidonax virescens) are listed as a Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive Species. The species is at risk due to the loss and degradation of riparian shrub habitats throughout its range, cowbird nest parasitism, and livestock grazing. The willow flycatcher is a rare to locally uncommon summer resident in wet meadow and montane riparian habitats at 2000–8000’ in the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Range.


14

In California, this species most often occurs in broad, open river valleys or large mountain meadows with lush, high-foliage volume willows (Harris et al. 1987; CDFG 1990). Across its range, willow flycatchers typically select willow for nesting but may use other species of shrubs (Sedgwick 2000). Willow flycatchers have been captured at the Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship banding station in large willow thickets at Seiad Valley along the Klamath River over the past twelve years. Breeding adults have been captured in the spring and a flush of young of the year juveniles are captured in the fall, indicating that the species breeds in the Siskiyou Mountains (S. Cuenca, pers. comm. 2008).

Habitat for willow flycatchers is primarily located along Indian Creek and its larger tributaries. Patches of habitat of varying sizes are scattered throughout the project area but all are adjacent to streams, meadows and within riparian reserves.

Wolverine

Wolverines (Gulo gulo luscus) are listed as a Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive Species due primarily to naturally low population densities that have been impacted by trapping, human disturbances (roads, logging, etc), and overgrazing in high mountain meadows. Across their range wolverines are restricted to boreal forests, tundra, and western mountains (Banci 1994). Wolverines will roam through a variety of vegetative types including Douglas-fir, red fir, lodgepole pine, mixed conifer, subalpine conifer, dwarf shrub, and barren areas, and likely use wet meadows, montane chaparral, and montane riparian (CDFG 1990). They also can travel over extremely rugged topography (Copeland and Yates 2006).

Wolverines have extremely large home ranges (up to 375 square miles) (Hornocker and Hash1981) and may undertake extensive daily and seasonal movements (Inman et al. 2004; Copeland and Yates 2006). Wolverines are considered a solitary species, with adults apparently associating only during the breeding season. Recent research indicates that male home ranges may overlap (up to 30%) while female home ranges are exclusive or have very limited overlap (Krebs and Lewis 2000; Copeland and Yates 2006).

Wolverines use caves, hollows in cliffs, logs, rocky outcrops, and burrows for cover, generally in denser forest stages (CDFG 1990). They den in caves, cliffs, hollow logs, cavities in the ground, under rocks, and may dig dens in snow or use beaver lodges (CDFG 1990; Magoun and Copeland 1998; Krebs and Lewis 2000; Weir 2004; Copeland and Yates 2006). Habitat for wolverines is more likely defined by distribution and abundance of food and structures for denning and avoidance of high temperatures, humans, or human caused disturbances than specific vegetative parameters (Hornocker and Hash 1981; Weir 2004). Throughout the year wolverines use a wide variety of structural stages although mature and old forest stages may be used predominately (Weir 2004). Carnivore surveys have been conducted adjacent to the Project Area (USDA Forest Service 2005a) none of these efforts detected wolverines

In California, wolverines are considered a scarce resident of the north Coast Mountains and the Sierra Nevada and have been sighted from Del Norte, Trinity, Shasta and Siskiyou Counties in the north and south along the crest of the Sierra Nevada to Tulare County (CDFG 1990). Because wolverines are wary and elusive and sightings are rare, accurate population estimates are difficult to obtain. Observations of wolverines in California have occurred between 1,600 and 10,800’ in elevation (CDFG 1990).

There are no historic records of this species in the Project Area. Due to the large home ranges used by wolverines, their ability to travel long distances over rugged terrain, the variety of

Title of Project

15

habitats that they use, and the proximity of remote, rugged habitats in Wilderness areas, it is expected that wolverines may disperse into, or forage in the Project Area, either as part of individual home ranges or as individuals dispersing through the area. Based on home range sizes and limited intrasexual territoriality of the species, there is the potential that several reproductive units (2 male and 4 or more females) overlaps with the Project Area.

Fisher

Fisher (Martes pennanti) is a Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive Species due to the loss and fragmentation of habitat across California, as well as the fact that they are easily trapped. Fisher home range size is variable and likely reflects habitat quality (Zielinski et al. 2004a). Using studies from across the United States, Powell and Zielinski (1994) calculated a mean home range size of approximately 25 square miles for males and 10 square miles for females.

Habitat for fisher is typically characterized as mature, structurally complex, conifer and mixed conifer-hardwood forest (Buskirk and Powell 1994; Zielinski et al. 2006). Habitat necessary for denning, foraging, and daily resting bouts constitute the specific habitat requirements for this species (Zielinski et al. 2006). It is assumed that fishers will use patches of habitat that are connected by forested stands, but will not likely use patches of habitat that are separated by large openings or areas lacking adequate canopy cover (Buskirk and Powell 1994). Fishers appear to be more selective of habitat for resting than foraging (Powell and Zielinski 1994). Fishers typically choose structurally diverse, closed canopy forests with the largest woody structure (both live trees and snags) available for resting bouts (Powell and Zielinski 1994; Zielinski et al. 2004b; Zielinski et al. 2006) but may rest in younger or managed stands if large remnant structures exist (Jones 1991; Yaeger 2005). Rest sites include a variety of structures including mistletoe brooms, squirrel and raptor nests, and brush piles but most commonly occur in cavities of large live and dead trees or large-diameter logs (Zielinski et al. 1994; Weir and Harestad 2003; Zielinski et al. 2004b). In more xeric areas, rest sites are typically located near drainage bottoms close to water (Zelinski et al. 2004b; Yaeger 2005). Rest sites are seldom reused, suggesting that fishers require multiple rest sites distributed throughout their home range (Zielinski et al. 2006).

There is suitable denning/resting habitat within the project area. Only underburns are proposed in suitable denning/resting habitat.

American Marten

The American marten (Martes americana) is listed as a Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive Species due to loss and fragmentation of habitat, and the fact that they are easily trapped. In the western United States, martens inhabit mature, late-successional stands of mesic coniferous forests and are often associated with high-elevation spruce-fir forests (Buskirk and Powell 1994; Powell et al. 2003). Complex structure near the forest floor such as low hanging limbs, logs, stumps, and/or squirrel middens are important to martens because they provide subnivean access to prey, cover from predators, and thermoregulation (Buskirk 1984; Buskirk and Powell 1994; Buskirk and Ruggerio 1994; Powell et al. 2003). Large-diameter logs, snags, or live trees are important structures for denning and resting sites (Buskirk 1984; Buskirk et al. 1989; Ruggiero et al. 1998). A low and closed canopy has also been shown to be an important habitat component for martens (Koehler and Hornocker 1977; Hargis and McCullough 1984).

Based on specimens of marten taken at known localities in California, Grinnell et al. (1937; cited in Kucera et al. 1995) concluded that “two well-marked races occur within the State [of California]”. The Humboldt marten, M. americana humboldtensis, occurs in the coastal redwood


16

zone and the Sierra Nevada marten, M. a. sierrae, occurs from Trinity and Siskiyou counties east to Mt. Shasta and south through the Sierra Nevada.

Within and immediately adjacent to the Project Area, numerous carnivore surveys have been conducted over the past decade. These include 12 track plate and camera stations that were periodically monitored by the Klamath National Forest on the Happy Camp River Ranger Districts from 1992 to 1996 (USDA Forest Service no date); 19 baited camera stations in the Collins-Baldy LSR in 2004 (Farber and Franklin 2005); 60 track plate stations monitored by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the Oak Knoll and Scott River Ranger Districts in 2005 and 2006 (S. Yaeger, pers. comm. 2008) These combined survey efforts resulted in only a two marten detections in 2005 (S. Yaeger, pers. comm. 2008) approximately 12 miles south of the Grider Creek drainage. Grider Creek drainage is approximate 10 miles east of the Project area. It is not known if this animal is associated with a population within the Marble Mountain Wilderness or if it is a dispersing individual from the coastal population.

Habitat for marten occurs in a narrow band of high elevation true fir stands on the Project Area, martens are not likely to occur in the project area.

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat

Townsend’s big-eared bats (Plecotus townsendii) are listed as a Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive Species due to a steep decline in numbers and its high sensitivity to human disturbance at roost sites. Townsend's big-eared bats occur throughout the western United States. In California, the species utilizes a wide variety of habitats and can be found from sea level up to 10,000 feet (Pierson and Fellers 1998; Szewczak et al. 1998). Distribution of this species is strongly correlated with the availability of caves and cave-like roosting habitat although the species also makes use of manmade structures such as abandoned buildings, water diversion tunnels, and bridges (Maser 1998; Pierson and Fellers 1998; Fellers and Pierson 2002). Large-diameter trees have also been shown to be used for roosting in California coastal forests (Fellers and Pierson 2002; Mazurek 2004).

Foraging associations include edge habitats along streams and areas adjacent to and within a variety of wooded habitats (Fellers and Pierson 2002). The Townsend's big-eared bat is a moth specialist, with over 90% of its diet composed of lepidopterans (Sherwin 1998). Suitable roost sites for Townsend’s big-eared bat is large-diameter trees, mines and small cave are scattered throughout the Project Area and other structures including buildings and bridges are also present. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that Townsend’s big-eared bats are present in the Project Area.

Northwestern Pond Turtle

Northwestern pond turtles are listed as Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive because of declining populations throughout its range due to habitat alteration and loss, population fragmentation, past and possibly present day exploitation, predation, illegal collection and pollution (Holland, 1991).

In the Pacific Northwest the distribution of western pond turtles (Clemmys marmorata) is disjunct but includes southern Oregon and northern California (CDFG 1988; Brown et al. 1995). The northwestern pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata marmorata), which is recognized as a subspecies of the western pond turtle (Stebbins 2003) is found only in northern California (Ashton et al. 1997).

Title of Project

17

Western pond turtles are a highly aquatic species that can be found in ponds, lakes, streams, rivers, marshes, and irrigation ditches that have a muddy or rocky bottom and abundant vegetation (Stebbins 2003). They generally require emergent basking sites (Nussbaum et al. 1983) which are important for thermoregulation and growth (Koper and Brooks 2000; Grayson and Dorcas 2004). They feed on aquatic plants, insects, worms, fish, amphibian eggs and larvae, crayfish, and carrion (Stebbins 2003).

Western pond turtles use terrestrial habitat for nesting and sometimes for overwintering. Females lay their eggs in soil and have been recorded nesting up to 300’ from water (Holland 1994). Reese and Welsh (1997) reported that individuals moved an average of 600’ from water to their overwintering sites. Western pond turtles have also been reported to hibernate in mud.

Potential habitat for northwestern pond turtles is present in Indian Creek and its larger tributaries in the flat low elevation areas of the streams near the Klamath River and in small ponds and its adjacent forest in the Project Area.

Foothill Yellow-legged Frog

Foothill yellow-legged frogs (Rana boylii) are listed as a Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive Species because of declining populations. Many of the same reasons for decline listed for the western pond turtle also apply to this frog. The range of the foothill yellow-legged frog extends from west-central Oregon to southern California (Stebbins 2003). This species is almost always found near water and are most common in streams with a rocky or gravelly substrate (Nussbaum et al. 1983: Stebbins 2003). Breeding takes place in shallow, slow moving water (Fuller and Lind 1992; Leonard et al. 1993). Streams occupied by foothill yellow-legged frogs are located in a variety of habitats, including valley-foothill hardwood, valley-foothill hardwood-conifer, valley-foothill riparian, ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, coastal scrub, mixed chaparral, and wet meadow types (CDFG 1988; Blaustein et al. 1995). Adults eat aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates while tadpoles forage on algae (Nussbaum et al. 1983).

In-stream environments within the Project Area are characterized by steep gradients and fast currents in the upper areas of the Project Area and slower lower gradient streams in the valleys of the Project Area. Streams like Indian Creek and its larger tributaries have habitat suitable for foothill yellow-legged frogs, so it is reasonable to assume that this species is present in the Project Area.

Siskiyou Mountains Salamander

The range of the Siskiyou mountains salamander (Plethodon stormi) is limited to portions of two counties in southwestern Oregon and Siskiyou County in northern California (Clayton and Nauman 2005). Siskiyou Mountains salamanders are found on forested slopes where rocky soils and talus outcrops occur. Occupied habitat for the species ranges from small, isolated rock outcrops to entire hillsides (Clayton et al. 2004). Although an association with closed canopy forests on north facing slopes has been reported (Nussbaum 1974; Ollivier et al. 2001), the species can be found in stands containing a more open canopy and all slope aspects (Farber et al. 2001; Clayton et al. 2004; CDFG 2005).

Siskiyou mountains salamanders, the newly described Scott Bar salamander (Plethodon ausupak) and the Del Norte salamander are closely related; the Project Area is considered in the range of contact for the two species (Siskiyou Mountains and Del Norte). Current Klamath National Forest policy dated July 15, 2007 states that “Given that the October 1999 survey protocol for Siskiyou


18

mountains salamander does not designate the ranges of the two species and because the two species are not easily distinguished in the field, the Forest will continue to apply current management direction to both the Siskiyou Mountains Salamander and Scott Bar salamander. This applies to all previously discovered and newly-discovered Scott Bar and Siskiyou mountains salamander sites”.

The Siskiyou Mountain Salamander range only occurs to the East of Indian Creek within the Project Area. Units to be mechanically treated were assessed and no talus habitat was identified. However suitable talus habitat is likely to occur within underburn only areas located in the range of the Siskiyou Mountains Salamander.

Blue-gray Taildropper

Blue-gray taildroppers (Prophysaon coeruleum) are listed as Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive Species due to a small number of known sites. The blue-gray taildropper (BGTD) ranges from southern Washington to northern California (Duncan et al. 2003). In 1999 and 2000 about 100, randomly-selected, 10-acre plots were surveyed for terrestrial mollusks on the KNF. These surveys discovered eleven and eight sites on the Goosenest and Happy Camp Ranger Districts, respectively.

The BGTD is a forest-dwelling slug. Typical habitat for this species includes moist, usually late-successional forests, or second growth forests with late-successional attributes, often with a hardwood component (Burke et al. 2000). The BGTD normally comes to surface during moist conditions and is otherwise thought to be subterranean. Its habitat has been described as, “sites with relatively higher shade and moisture levels than those of the general forest habitat” (Duncan et al. 2003). It is usually associated with partially decayed logs, leaf and needle litter (especially hardwood leaf litter), mosses and moist plant communities such a big-leaf maple and sword fern associations (Burke et al. 2000; Duncan et al. 2003).

Occupied sites of BGTD are located within the project area. Commercial thinning and underburns are proposed in suitable BGTD habitat although it is unlikely that BGTD occur in the proposed units. Areas proposed for surveys for BGTD are units of natural stands located within riparian reserves. It is believed these areas had the highest likelihood of presence BGTD within the Project Area. Surveys will be conducted prior to ground disturbing operations in suitable BGTD habitat. If BGTD are located they will be protected in accordance to the standards and guidelines were amended in January 2001 with the Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines (USDA, USDI 2001).

Southern Torrent Salamander

Southern torrent salamanders (Rhyacotriton variegates) are listed as Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive Species due to a small number of known sites. Southern torrent salamanders range is limited to Coast Range of Oregon south of the Little Nestucca and northern California Coastal Mountains.

Southern torrent salamanders live very cold, clear spring, seeps, headwater streams, and waterfall splash zones, and they may forage in moist forest adjacent to these areas. They lay their eggs in rock crevices in seeps, mostly in the spring. Larvae and adults live in gravel or under small cobbles in silt free, very shallow water that is flowing or seeping. Adults may also be found under

Title of Project

19

debris or stream banks or in streamside forest and talus during rainy periods (Corkran and Thoms 1996).

The Project Area is located east of most known southern torrent salamander site; however several populations have been located in areas outside the general range including the Oak Flat Creek, Independence Creek, and King Creek in the Happy Camp Ranger District (Welsh 1989)

Habitat for southern torrent salamanders is wide spread throughout the Project Area and it seems reasonable to assume that populations of the salamander occur in streams, seeps and springs in the Project Area.

Great Grey Owl

FEMAT (July, 1993) analyzed that management under the Northwest Forest Plan (Option Nine) gave the great gray owl an 83% chance of remaining well distributed throughout the northwest. Population trends for great gray owls (GGOs) are uncertain due to limited long term survey data (Hayward and Verner 1994; Panjabi et al. 2005) and difficulty in detection (Godwin pers. Comm.. 2005). The Klamath National Forest is on the edge of the known range of the species and is not included in the range as described by CDF&G (1990). However, according to the most recent GGO protocol (USDA and USDI 2004), GGOs have been observed during the breeding season in CA Klamath and CA Cascades Physiographic Provinces, but have not been confirmed to be breeding in those areas. There are no records of GGOs nesting on the Klamath National Forest and it has been suggested that the few sighting on the Forest (roughly 4 or 5), are a result of dispersing individuals, winter movements, or stressed and starving birds at the edge of the species range (i.e. recent daylight observations of an adult GGO on the Scott River Ranger District) (CDF&G 1990; Sibley 2000). Great gray owl prey species consist mainly of small mammals, especially rodent. Voles and pocket gophers are primary species with shrews, moles, mice and flying squirrels also consumed (Hayward and Verner 1994). Based on recent survey data in Oregon, we assume GGOs are using mid- to high elevation mixed conifer and true fir forest habitats adjacent to large montane meadows in the project area. Preferred breeding habitats in California studies (Sierran) were pine and fir forests adjacent to montane meadows between 750 m (2469 ft) and 2,250 m (7,380 ft) in elevation (Winter 1986). Ponderosa pine was the dominant tree species within the home ranges of breeding owls, followed by incense cedar and white fir. The project area does contain suitable habitat as described above for great gray owl, primarily in the upper elevation meadow/mixed conifer forest complexes near Dry Lake Mountain and along the Klamath Siskiyou crest. There are no historic detections of GGO within the project area. Table 1: Management Indicator Species List

MIS LRMP Habitat Level of Analysis Reasons for Selection as

MIS

Habitat Located within Project Area

Hardwood Species Association

Acorn woodpecker Oak woodlands

with associated large conifers

Forest Plan and Project

Indicator for diversity of oak species and large

conifers

YES


20

Western gray squirrel Mature hardwood and mixed

hardwood-conifer


Indicator for mature hardwood and mixed

conifer-hardwood

YES

River/Stream Species Association Tailed frog Perennial montane

streams with dense vegetation


Indicator for water quality, in-stream woody debris,

bottom substrate, flows and channel condition

YES

Cascades frog Higher elevation streams


Indicator for water quality, instream woody debris, bottom substrate. flows, and grassy streamside

vegetation

NO

American dipper Cold, swift, perennial streams


Indicator for water quality, instream woody debris,

bottom substrate and flows

YES

Northern water shrew Riparian w/dense grass-forb cover


Indicator of riparian vegetation including

canopy, deciduous veg, and grass/forb.

YES

Long-tailed vole Mesic habitats, dense riparian

vegetation


Indicator of riparian vegetation including

canopy, deciduous veg, and grass/forb.

YES

Marsh/Lake/Pond Species Association Northern red-legged frog

Shallow wetlands, ponds and streams

with emergent vegetation.


Indicator of standing open water and associated

vegetation, chosen for sensitivity to physical aquatic conditions and

CWD.

NO

Western pond turtle Permanent or nearly permanent water in a variety

of habitats.


Indicator of standing open water and associated

vegetation, chosen for sensitivity to physical aquatic conditions and

CWD.

NO

Snag Species Association Red-breasted sapsucker

Mid- to late seral mixed conifer and riparian deciduous


Indicator of snags as a habitat element and of other

species which depend on sapwells for food.

YES

Hairy woodpecker Riparian deciduous habitats with large trees for cavities


Indicator of snags as a habitat element and of other

species which depend on woodpeckers for cavities or

as prey.

YES

White-headed woodpecker

Ponderosa pine and high elevation

mixed-conifer


Indicator of snags as a habitat element and for

other species which depend on woodpeckers for cavities

or as prey.

NO

Title of Project

21

Vaux’s swift Late-successional forests with large

hollow snags


Indicator of large snags as a habitat element

YES

Downy woodpecker Riparian deciduous habitats




or as prey.

YES

Pileated woodpecker Late-successional coniferous forests




or as prey.

YES

Black-backed woodpecker

High elevation fir and lodgepole pine




or as prey.

NO

Grassland/Shrub-Steppe Species Association (Butte Valley National Grassland - BVNG) Pronghorn Grassland, shrub-

steppe and agricultural lands


Indicator for coverage of perennial grasses, increased

mesic conditions and diverse sagebrush/grassland

mosaic on the BVNG.

NO

Montane vole Grasslands with relatively high plant moisture




mosaic on the BVNG.

NO

Loggerhead shrike Diverse shrub-steppe habitats


Indicator for diverse sagebrush mosaic on the

BVNG.

NO

Swainson’s hawk Perennial grasslands and shrub-steppe.


Indicator for coverage of perennial grasses and

diverse sagebrush/grassland mosaic on the BVNG.

NO

Sage thrasher Low, moderately spaced sagebrush




mosaic on the BVNG.

NO

Burrowing owl Open habitat near seasonally flooded wetlands and dense

brush

Project level Indicator for coverage of perennial grasses, increased


mosaic on the BVNG.

NO

Mature Ponderosa Pine Species Association Flammulated owl Mature conifer

stands and eastside pine habitats

Project level Indicator for mature eastside Ponderosa pine habitat with large snags

NO


22


Ponderosa pine and high elevation

mixed-conifer

Project level Indicator for mature eastside Ponderosa pine habitat with large snags

NO

Pinyon jay Eastside pine and pine/juniper

habitats

Project level Indicator for mature cone-producing eastside

ponderosa pine and juniper

NO

Hardwood Species Association.

Acorn Woodpecker

Acorn woodpeckers (Melanerpes formicivorus) are listed as a Klamath National Forest management indicator species for diversity of oak species and large conifers. The Acorn woodpecker prefers pine-oak woodlands where oak trees are plentiful. They are also found in riparian corridors, and in Douglas firs, redwood and tropical hardwood forests as long as oaks are available nearby. Urban parks and suburban areas that possess numerous oak trees are often also home to the species. Acorn woodpeckers live in communal groups of 2-16 consisting of at least 2 breeding adults, their offspring, and cousins. Groups defend territories containing 1-7 large trees, isolated trees are used for acorn storage. Groups often select the largest trees as their storage site. These permanently occupied territories varied in size from 8.7 to 22 acres (CDFG 1999).

Hardwood habitat is present in the lower elevations of the Project Area along the Indian Creek where white oak woodlands are common (personal observation Timothy D. Burnett 2009).

Western Grey Squirrel

Western grey squirrel, (Sciurus Griseus) are listed as a Klamath National Forest management indicator species as an indicator for mature hardwood and mixed conifer-hardwood habitat. Western grey squirrels are common in hardwood-conifer habitats in the Klamath, and Cascade, Ranges. Western grey squirrels habitat can be pine, pine oak or mixed conifer as long as oak trees are present. They are opportunistic feeders; diet varies with the availability of seasonal and local foods. They eat hypogeous fungi, pine nuts, acorns, fruits of California bay, other fruits and nuts, forbs, and other tender shoots and leaves. Fungi are important spring and summer foods, and acorns, when available, are very important summer, fall, and winter foods. Western grey squirrels use mature tree stands for cover and require cavities in trees and snags for nests. In winter, they make brood nests in tree and snag cavities, often enlarging an abandoned woodpecker cavity. They also build nests on branches of oak, fir, or pine trees. Nests are lined with shredded bark, grass, moss, and lichen (CDFG 1990).

Mature hardwood and mixed hardwood-conifer forest types are located in the Project Area in the mixed conifer habitat where black oaks are present.

River/Stream Species Association.

Tailed frog

In the Pacific Northwest tailed frogs (Ascaphus truei) range from the Cascades to the coast from southwest British Columbia to northwestern California (Leonard et al. 1993). Tailed frogs were chosen to indicate water quality, in stream woody debris, bottom substrate, flows and channel condition.

Title of Project

23

Tailed frogs frequent clear, cold, rocky streams in humid forests (Stebbins 2003). Important habitat components include large stones, cobbles, and stable boulders in the streambed and riffle and cascade microclimates. These components provide cover and protection from predators for adults and larvae and also provide attachment sites for eggs (Welsh and Lind 2002; Stebbins 2003). Some quieter side pools are also needed, so that eggs and hatchlings won't be washed away. The streams must contain water year round, since tailed frog tadpoles need to stay in the water for a long growth period. Tailed frogs are mostly aquatic, but adults may emerge during cool, wet conditions to forage on land (Stebbins 2003). Tailed frog abundance also appears to be positively correlated with annual rainfall (Welsh and Lind 2002). Bury (1968) reported most populations in California occur in areas that receive >40” of rain annually.

Potential habitat for tailed frogs within the Project Area occurs in narrow fast moving headwaters of perennial streams. There is approximately 134 miles of perennial streams in the Project Area and many of the headwater and side streams are expected to provide habitat for the tailed frogs.

American Dipper

American dippers (Cinclus mexicanus) are associated with fast-moving, clear, unpolluted streams with cascades, riffles, and waterfalls (Kingery 1996). This species was chosen to indicate water quality, instream woody debris, bottom substrate and flows.

Streams selected for breeding rarely exceed 15 meters in width or 2 meters in depth (Ibid). Important habitat elements include rock, sand and rubble within the stream; instream or streamside boulders for perching; and overhanging ledges, and crevices for nesting. Rocks, fallen trees, and driftwood provide cover for escape from predators and serve as refuges for molting. Fallen logs and tree roots are sometimes used for nesting and roosting. Streamside habitat per se is not important, as suitable streams may flow through prairie, sagebrush, urban areas, or barren ground (Ibid).

Streams containing suitable habitat for American dippers occurs throughout the Project Area along Indian Creek and its major tributaries.

Northern Water Shrew

Northern water shrews (Sorex palustris) range through mountainous areas of central and eastern Oregon and northern and central California. The Northern Water Shrew is an indicator of riparian vegetation including canopy, deciduous vegetations and grasses and forbes. Water shrews are closely associated with streams, marshes, lakes, and ponds (Csuti et al. 1997). They may also be found in riparian or other wet areas with thick vegetation and in coniferous forests immediately adjacent to riparian areas (CDFG 1990; Csuti et al. 1997). This species uses logs, streamside vegetation, and rocky stream bottoms for cover (CDFG 1990). Northern water shrews nest very close to water in moss or other soft material in protected bank or hollow or decaying log (Conaway 1952; Maser 1998).

Streams containing suitable habitat for northern water shrews occurs throughout the Project Area. Events or actions that impact riparian habitat and/or instream habitat components pose the major threat to this species.

Snag Species Association

Pileated Woodpecker


24

Pileated woodpeckers (Dryocopus pileatus) are a wide ranging species occurring throughout the eastern United States, southern Canada, and the west coast to northern California (Bull and Jackson 1995). Throughout its range pileated woodpeckers are associated with late successional coniferous forest.

In Oregon, nest sites are usually located in mature, closed canopy forests and the nest tree is typically a large-diameter snag (Bull 1987; Mellen et al. 1992; Bull and Holthausen 1993). Similarly, roost sites are typically in hollow trees or cavities in large-diameter live or dead trees in closed canopy forests (Bull et al. 1992). Aubry and Raley (2002) reported that pileated woodpeckers in western Oregon were selecting nest and roost sites with a higher density of decadent large tress and snags. Individual woodpeckers typically use several roost sites (Bull et al. 1992; Aubry and Raley 2002).

Pileated woodpeckers forage primarily on ants and woodboring beetles (Bull and Jackson 1995). Downed logs have been shown to be an important substrate for forest dwelling ants (Torgersen and Bull 1995) and are often frequented by foraging woodpeckers (Manaan 1984; Bull and Holthausen 1993; Boleyn 1997). Pileated woodpeckers typically forage in large-diameter trees, logs, and stumps (Bull and Jackson 1995; Boleyn 1997).

Late successional forest habitat is located in the Project Area in scattered areas of various sizes. Events or actions that remove large-diameter trees and/or snags pose the major threat to this species.

Hairy Woodpecker

Hairy woodpeckers (Picoides villosus) are a wide ranging species occurring throughout much of the United States and Canada. This species occupies both coniferous and deciduous forest habitat, with habitat preferences varying geographically (Jackson et al. 2002). In the western portion of the species’ range they are often found in mature forests (Roberson 1993 as cited in Jackson et al. 2002, Jackson et al. 2002). Hairy woodpecker is associated with riparian deciduous habitats.

The selection of nest sites by hairy woodpeckers is opportunistic in that trees of adequate size and decay are essential (Jackson et al. 2002). In California, hairy woodpeckers typically excavate nest cavities in large-diameter snags (Raphael and White 1984; Roberson 1993 as cited in Jackson et al. 2002). Studies from the western United States and Canada suggest that aspen is selected by hairy woodpeckers for nesting (Li and Martin 1991; Martin et al. 2004) although other species will be used (Raphael and White 1984). Hairy woodpeckers forage for arthropods on the surface and subsurface of woody material. They forage in both live and dead trees and downed logs (Raphael and White 1984; Morrison and White 1987; Weikel and Hayes 1999). Weikel and Hayes (1999) reported that hairy woodpeckers in western Oregon tended to select the largest diameter trees and downed logs available for foraging. Hairy Woodpecker habitat is located within project area.

Red-breasted sapsucker

The Red-breasted sapsucker’s (Sphyrapicus ruber) range encompasses the west coast of the United States and Canada. This species occurs in a variety of coniferous species forests, deciduous forests, and riparian habitat (Walters et al. 2002). This species is indicator of Mid- to late seral mixed conifer and riparian deciduous habitats.

Title of Project

25

In Oregon and California red-breasted sapsuckers have been shown to nest in Douglas fir, white fire, red fir-lodgepole pine- aspen forests, riparian areas, and hardwoods (Raphael and White 1984; Manaan et al. 1980). Nest cavities are typically excavated in dead trees or dead portions of live trees (Raphael and White 1984; Joy 2000).

Most foraging occurs on live trees but red-breasted sapsuckers will forage on snags, logs, and the ground (Raphael and White 1984). Sap wells used for foraging have been found in a variety of tree species including Douglas fir and white fire (see Walters et al. 2002). Habitat suitable for nesting and foraging for red-breasted sapsuckers is widely distributed through the Project Area.

Vaux’s Swift

The Vaux’s Swift is an indicator of late-successional forests with large hollow snags.

The breeding range of Vaux’s swift (Chaetura vauxi) extends along the west coast from central Canada to central California. It occupies late-seral coniferous and mixed forests and is most common in old-growth forests (Bull and Hohmann 1993; Sterling and Paton 1996). Vaux’s swifts typically nest in old-growth forests with high canopy closure (Bull and Cooper 1991). Nests are made of twigs and are attached to the inside of a hollow tree or chimney (Bull and Collins 1993).

In northeastern Oregon Vaux’s swifts nest in large-diameter trees whose heartwood cores are decayed and hollowed out by fungus (Bull and Cooper 1991). Large diameter hollow trees are also used by roosting swifts (Bull 1991). Vaux’s swifts are entirely insectivorous. They typically forage over mature forest but have also been observed foraging above water and grasslands (Bull and Collins 1993. Vaux’s Swift habitat occurs within project area.

Black-backed Woodpeckers

Black-backed Woodpeckers are indicators of high elevation fir and lodgepole pine habitat.

The black-backed woodpecker’s (Picoides arctus) breeding range extends from central Alaska and northern Canada to montane areas of California (Dixon and Saab 2000). Despite its wide distribution the species is mostly confined to burned coniferous forests (Dixon and Saab 2000) but may be found in unburned forests if adequate forage is present (Bull et al. 1986; Goggans et al. 1988). Black-backed woodpeckers are an irruptive species that often forages opportunistically on outbreaks of wood boring beetles following fires (Goggans 1988; Murphy and Lenhausen 1998).

Black-backed woodpeckers typically inhabit boreal or montane coniferous forests with tree species composition of habitat varying geographically (Dixon and Saab 2000). In central Oregon, Goggans (1988) reported black-backed woodpeckers predominately occurred in lodgepole pine and lodgepole pine dominated mixed conifer forests.

Foraging occurs on a variety of both live and dead coniferous species (Raphael and White 1984; Bull et al. 1986; Goggans et al. 1988). Species and condition of tree appear to be less important for foraging than abundance of prey species.

High elevation true fir stands are present within the project area and have proposed thinning and underburn treatments.



26

The White-headed woodpecker is an indicator of Ponderosa pine and high elevation mixed conifer habitat.

The white headed woodpeckers (Picoides albolarvatus) range is restricted to the montane coniferous forests of western North America from south-central British Columbia to southern California (Garret et al. 1996). This species is typically associated with forests dominated by mature ponderosa pines and reaches its greatest abundance where two or more pine species are present (Ibid). In California, white-headed woodpeckers have also been reported to nest in fir stands (Raphael and White 1984; Milne and Hejl 1989).

White-headed woodpeckers will nest in a variety of tree species including ponderosa pine, Jeffery pine, lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, red fir, aspen, and Salix species (Milne and Hejl 1989; Buchanan et al. 2003). Nests typically occur in large-diameter snags although live trees and logs may also be used (Raphael and White 1984; Milne and Hejl 1989; Dixon 1995; Buchanan et al. 2003).

Potential habitat for white-headed woodpeckers is limited to the mature mixed conifer and true fir stands in the southern portions of the Project Area. Within the Project Area, mature pine is limited to south and west exposure and may support limited numbers of white-headed woodpeckers.

High elevation true fir stands are present within the project area and have proposed thinning and underburn treatments.

Downy woodpecker

Downy woodpeckers are an indicator of riparian deciduous and associated hardwood and conifer species in the Analysis Area. Abundant snags, and tree/shrub and tree/herbaceous, and shrub/herbaceous are required.

They forage primarily on insects but also feed on cambium, berries, and other nuts, fruits, and seeds. Downy woodpeckers are closely associated with riparian softwoods, but also frequent adjacent hardwood and conifer habitats (CDFG 1999). Downy woodpeckers excavate nest cavities in snags or dead branches 4 to 50 feet above the ground. Trees need to be at least 9 inches in diameter, and new nest cavities are excavated each year (CDFG1999).

Habitat for downy woodpeckers is available along the Klamath River, Indian Creek, and possibly many of the smaller streams that have flatter gradients that support moderate stands of riparian hardwoods.

Other Species of Interest

Peregrine Falcon

On October 17, 2007, Region 5 of the U.S. Forest Service disclosed that the peregrine falcon was not designated as Sensitive by the Regional Forester after it was removed from the list of endangered and threatened species (1999). The project area has one Peregrine management area (Management Area 5 KNF LRMP). Therefore, this report shall evaluate the effect to the Peregrine management area.

Prominent cliffs are the most common habitat characteristic of peregrine nesting territories. Prominent cliffs function as both nesting and perching sites, and provide unobstructed views of the surrounding landscape. Nest site suitability requires the presence of ledges that are essentially

Title of Project

27

inaccessible to mammalian predators, that provide protection from the elements, and that are dry (Johnsgard 1990). A source of water, such as a river, lake, marsh, or marine waters, is typically in close proximity to the nest site and likely is associated with an adequate prey base of small to medium-sized birds (Ibid). Foraging areas include wooded areas, riparian areas, open grasslands, shrubby areas, and along rivers. Peregrines feed primarily on avian prey (White et al. 2002) and have been recorded foraging as far as 26 miles from nesting areas (Enderson and Craig 1997).

There are 15 active peregrine falcon nesting territories being managed on the Klamath National Forest. There is one peregrine falcon nesting territory that overlaps the Project Area boundary. The project activities include underburning and a small amount 73 of thinning plantations and approximately 284 acres of underburning within the peregrine falcon management area.

Red Tree Vole The Oregon red tree vole is endemic to moist coniferous forests of western Oregon and extreme northwest California and its’ known and suspected range extends from the Columbia River south through western Oregon and the Siskiyou Mountains south to the Salmon and Klamath Rivers in northern California. On page 5 of the Survey Protocol for Red Tree Vole, Version 2.0 the known and suspected geographic range follows the 5,500-foot elevation contour. Red tree voles have been documented in conifer stands from sea level to 5,500 feet in elevation (Manning and Maguire 1999). The literature on the red tree vole indicates that the species inhabits conifer forests containing Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), grand fir (Abies grandis), Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla ) (Johnson and George 1991) and white fir (Abies concolor) (Manning and Maguire 1999). Carey (1991) identifies optimal habitat for red tree voles to be old-growth Douglas-fir forests. Gomez (1992) did not capture the species in hardwood stands, and generally hardwoods are not recognized as an important habitat component. Aubry et al. (1991) found that red tree voles occur in old-growth forests significantly more than in younger forests, and also suggested that the parameters associated with age (such as large, live, old-growth trees) are important habitat components. Voles do occur in younger stands (Maser 1966; Corn and Bury 1986, 1991; Carey 1991; Johnson and George 1991; Aubrey et al. 1991; Gillesburg and Carey 1991; Gomez 1992), but these younger forests are most likely population sinks rather than sources (Carey 1991) and are unlikely to provide population persistence of red tree voles over the long term. Recent studies confirm that red tree voles are closely correlated to old-growth habitat (Dunk and Hawley, 2007).

Based on the literature, old-growth habitat appears to provide optimum conditions for red tree vole populations. The tall, multi-layered canopies of old growth retain humidity and intercept fog, which functions as a climatic buffer and a source of free water. Large branches provide stable support for nests, protection from storms, and travel routes (Gillesberg and Carey 1991). Active nests have been found in remnant older trees in younger stands indicating the importance of legacy structural characteristics (Biswell pers. comm.). However, little is known about the minimum number or size of conifer trees, or other stand characteristics, required to sustain a local population of red tree voles.

The major threats to this species are the continued loss of occupied sites where these sites may be important to the persistence of vole populations and the increased geographic isolation of remaining populations. This species has many life history characteristics that cumulatively


28

raise concerns for its long-term persistence such as very small home ranges, low dispersal capability, extremely low reproduction potential, short life span and a sensitivity to stand level disturbances.

The project area is within the suspected range of the Oregon red tree vole (Arborimus longicaudus), a Category C species of the Survey and Manage that is outside the Central Range. Oregon red tree voles are almost exclusively arboreal. They have been documented in conifer stands ranging in elevation from sea level to 5,500 feet (Manning and Maguire 1999 in Biswell et al. 2002). General habitat for the red tree vole consists primarily of older growth conifer stands with multi-layered canopies and large branches capable of supporting nests and providing travel routes. The estimated minimum stand diameters, as associated with red tree voles, are: quadratic mean diameter (QMD) 16 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) or arithmetic mean diameter (AMD) 14 inches in dbh (Biswell et al. 2002). In 2000, distribution of the genus Arborimus in Siskiyou County in general and on the Happy Camp Ranger District in particular, was not well known. There is an historical account of red tree voles in the Elk Creek area by Zentner (1977). In 2002 and 2003 surveys for red tree voles (RTVs) were conducted to the standards of the SURVEY PROTOCOL FOR THE RED TREE VOLE Arborimus longicaudus Version 2.0 over approximately 2,256 acres for the Happy Camp Fire Protection ’03 (506 ac.), Oak Flat Thin (850 ac.), Elk Thin (400 ac.), Luther Gulch Underburn (50 ac.), and Happy Thin (450 ac.) projects on the Happy Camp Ranger District. These surveys included the climbing of 61 trees to identify suspected RTV nests. No red tree vole nests were detected in any of these surveys. Historical locations at Happy Camp, Cecilville and Somes Bar, as recorded in Zentner (1966), were east of the known range of A. pomo and south of the known range of A. longicaudus. In addition, northern spotted owl pellets collected in the Scott River watershed in 1986 and 1999 indicate the presence of Arborimus sp. east and south of either species’ known ranges. In 2000, the Klamath National Forest and the Yreka U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service developed a proposal to survey strategic locations on the Klamath and Six Rivers National Forests. Survey sites were identified in “appropriate habitat” near historical red tree vole (RTV) locations reported in the literature and areas within one-mile radius of northern spotted owl sites where pellet analysis indicates, or has indicated, the presence of red tree voles. The identified survey area extended from an area adjacent to the known range of A. pomo on the west to Scott Valley on the east. The survey period was scheduled for June 1, 2000 to November 30, 2000. These strategic surveys included areas within the Two Bit Vegetation Management Project (refer to West survey history in project file). Habitat disturbing activities are defined as those activities “likely to have a significant negative impact on the species’ habitat, its life cycle, microclimate, or life support requirements.” Based upon the retention of older trees, the maintenance of a high proportion of conifer canopy closure, and the fact that there have been no recent detections of RTVs on the Happy Camp Ranger District following extensive strategic and project-related surveys, no significant negative impacts to RTVs or their habitat are expected. I therefore recommend that pre-disturbance surveys are not required for red tree voles. This recommendation is in accordance with the S&G’s identified on page 22 of the “Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines, January 2001” under Habitat Disturbing Activities. Red tree voles will not be analyzed further in this document.

Title of Project

29

Desired Condition Programmatic management direction for the Forest is provided by the Klamath Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (1995), which incorporates direction in the Record of Decision for Amendments to the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (1994). The Forest Plan was developed utilizing the guidelines provided by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resource Planning Act of 1974, as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976, and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1976. The Klamath National Forest is divided into 17 management areas (land allocations), each with distinct management direction which has been developed in response to Forest resource opportunities and public issues. Activities proposed as part of the Project would occur in four land allocations, in accordance with Forest Plan direction, as follows: Retention Visual Quality Objective, Partial Retention Visual Quality Objective, General Forest, Late Successional Reserves and Riparian Reserves. The purpose of the wildlife report is to identify and evaluate the effects of proposed Forest Service actions on Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Sensitive (TES) species, and to assess determinations of the proposed actions affects any Threatened, Endangered, Proposed species or Critical Habitat or cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability for any Forest Sensitive species. This report will provide biological information to ensure USDA Forest Service and the Klamath National Forest compliance with the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Forest Service Manual 2670, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended [16 U.S.C. 1536 (c) et seq. 50CFR 402], and follows the standards established in the Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 2672.42; USDA Forest Service 1991) and 1995 Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) for the Klamath National Forest. This document complies with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act to disclose effects on listed species and their habitats. Additionally, this document provides a standard process to provide full consideration of federally Threatened or Endangered, and Sensitive species, and their habitats in the decision-making process. Late Successional Reserves (LSR)

The objective of LSRs is to protect and enhance conditions of late-successional and "old growth" forest ecosystems, which serve as habitat for late-successional and "old growth"-related species including the northern spotted owl. These reserves are designed to maintain a functional, interacting, late-successional and "old growth" forest ecosystem.

The characteristics of individual areas vary according to the dominant vegetative species, site class, topography and other site factors. Well-dispersed and continuous areas of multi-layered forests with high quality habitat characteristics and attributes are common: (1) under optimum conditions on north slopes, (2) at high elevations, and (3) in cool, moist areas. The overstory trees are large diameter, tall and have obvious signs of decadence. Some are broken-topped, have mistletoe, or have platforms of branches capable of holding organic materials that serve as a nest. Snags are common and fallen trees visible on the ground, providing for adequate prey populations. Within true fir habitats or where hardwoods occur, mid-seral stage forested areas provide suitable habitat as well. Although overstory trees are smaller and stands are less dense, important structural elements, such as snags and nesting platforms, are present. South slopes and drier areas are more open due to frequent natural fires.


30

Management Area 6 Large stands of mid- to late-seral stage, mixed conifer or Douglas-fir provide habitat for a variety of species. Canopy closures are as dense as the capability of the site allows. Hardwoods occur as a component of the coniferous forest, or as pure stand providing for acorn woodpeckers and squirrels. Many forest stands are multi-layered. Large snags and logs are available, serving as denning and resting habitat for fisher as well as maintaining populations of cavity-dependent species, fungi, arthropods, bryophytes, amphibians, and other organisms. Stream riparian areas, where present, are well-developed with dense forest providing travel habitat for fisher as well as maintaining populations of frogs, turtles, and birds. Signs of vegetative management might be noticeable, but do not occur as large openings. Open roads are managed at desired levels.

Environmental Consequences

Methodology Methodology for the analysis included field review, literature and research review, GIS analysis and local expertise for the consideration of the direct, indirect and cumulative effects.

Review of the analysis area and review of forest service management indicator species habitat typing to analyze affects on forest sensitive species and management indicator species.

Northern Spotted owl habitat was analyzed using the Klamath NSO habitat layer derived from the Habitat Land Management Plan Timber Type crosswalk for analysis done on the landscape scale (i.e. LSR, Management Area 6, Project Area and 7th field watershed areas).

Northern spotted owl habitat in the 0.5 mile radius core area and the 1.3 mile radius home range for all existing and new spotted owl activity centers were habitat typed by Timothy D. Burnett (USFS biologist) using 1-meter resolution digital color imagery, GIS data and field confirmation. Field reviews of proposed treatment units were conducted in 2009 by biologist of the Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office and USFS.

Talus habitats in proposed treatment units were searched in 2009 Siskiyou mountain salamanders and mollusk by all specialists (biologist, soils, hydrology, silviculture etc) while conducting field reviews of proposed units. No suitable talus habitat was identified within proposed units.

Suitable northern spotted owl habitat within 0.5 mile of proposed treatment units was surveyed in 2009.

Goshawk surveys were conducted in 2009 in areas with historic Goshawk sightings.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis The analysis area consists of the project boundary that includes majority of the Indian Creek 5th field watershed (approximately 67, 700 acres), as well as, management area 6, a peregrine 1.5 mile territory buffer and five Northern Spotted Owls 1.3 mile territory that extend beyond the project boundary. In total the wildlife analysis area comprises approximately 77,822 acres and includes portion of Thompson Creek, Perkins Gulch and Little Gridder Creek (Figure 1).

Short term effects will be those occurring within ten years of Project implementation and long term effects will be those occurring more than 10 years after Project implementation.

Title of Project

31

Connected Actions, Past, Present, and Foreseeable Activities Relevant to Cumulative Effects Analysis According the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations, “cumulative impact” is “…the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such actions” (40 CFR 1508.7). The project area lies wholly within the Indian Creek 5th field watershed, which is approximately 86, 200 acres in size, and was evaluated in detail during 1990-1995 by the Forest Service (USDA 1997). Because the Two Bit project area lies completely within this watershed and encompasses a large percentage of it, and because of the potential for impacts of multiple actions on the natural environment within one watershed, it was selected as the area for cumulative impact analysis.

The Indian Creek watershed has been the focus of two watershed-specific analysis efforts in the recent past: The 1997 Indian Creek Watershed Assessment (USDA 1997) and the 2004 Indian Creek Roads Analysis (USDA 2004). The Indian Creek Watershed has approximately 318 miles of system roads, with an average road density of 2.9 miles per square mile (USDA 2004). Populated communities near the watershed include Happy Camp, Seiad Valley, Yreka and Scott Valley. Generally, the major use of private property located within the watershed is for the rural residential life-style. There are also commercial uses, with some ranching and agricultural parcels, mining, and smaller tracts of timberlands. Most residences are occupied year-round, while a few are visited by the property owners seasonally. Contemporary uses by Native Americans in the watershed area include gathering traditional resources such as artisan and basketry materials and Native American religious freedom uses. Artisan and basketry gathering sites have been identified by Native Americans within the watershed area. The baseline for cumulative effects analysis is the current condition. The cumulative effects analysis in this report is consistent with Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Regulations (36 CFR 220.4(f)) (July 24, 2008), which state, in part: “CEQ regulations do not require the consideration of the individual effects of all past actions to determine the present effects of past actions. Once the agency has identified those present effects of past actions that warrant consideration, the agency assesses the extent that the effects of the proposal for agency action or its alternatives will add to, modify, or mitigate those effects. The final analysis documents an agency assessment of the cumulative effects of the actions considered (including past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions) on the affected environment. With respect to past actions, during the scoping process and subsequent preparation of the analysis, the agency must determine what information regarding past actions is useful and relevant to the required analysis of cumulative effects. Cataloging past actions and specific information about the direct and indirect effects of their design and implementation could in some contexts be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the proposal. The CEQ regulations, however, do not require agencies to catalogue or exhaustively list and analyze all individual past actions. Simply because information about past actions may be available or obtained with reasonable effort does not mean that it is relevant and necessary to inform decision making. (40 CFR 1508.7)”


32

A catalog of certain actions occurring within the Indian Creek watershed was done as part of a watershed analysis (Bousfield 2009) and is summarized in the DEIS. In-progress or planned actions, known as of this writing, are also included and were compiled from the Klamath National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions (queried on July 22, 2009) and with input from district staff. The Indian Creek Watershed Analysis (USDA 1997) provides a detailed description of the existing and historic conditions of the watershed including past history, reflecting the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment, and might contribute to cumulative effects.

Approximately 20,000 acres within the watershed have been treated or are planned for treatment in the foreseeable future with either a timber sale or an underburn/fuels reduction project, the majority of which has been on Forest System lands. Since 1987, approximately 3,500 acres were burned in wildfires. Road decommissioning has also occurred in the watershed, totaling approximately 20 miles. These roads are now no longer part of the road network. Since the Watershed Analysis was written, several projects have been undertaken to reduce road densities in this watershed through decommissioning, storm-proofing and hydrological stabilization. The 2004 Indian Creek Roads Analysis recommended the decommissioning of 28 miles of road and storm-proofing of 136 miles of road.

Cumulative effects under the ESA are those effects on the environment that result in incremental effects on the proposed action when added to the effects of other past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions on state, tribal, local or private lands (henceforth call private) that do not have a Federal nexus requiring Federal consultation under Section 7 of the ESA.

Projects of this nature generally become known when private project proponents contact the Forest Service to analyze the effects of their projects on surrounding Federal lands.

With the exception of some Happy Camp Fire Safe Council fuels reduction work on private lands are expected to be negligible, there are no known past, present or reasonably foreseeable future projects on private lands that would cause effects that would be cumulative with the TBVM project.

For the purposes of this report Happy Camp Fire Protection Commercial Thinning (Phase 2) and Happy Camp Fire Protection 03 were evaluated as existing conditions. Neither project resulted in an adverse affects to Northern Spotted Owls and did not downgrade any suitable NSO habitat (refer to wildlife report HCFPCT phase 2 and HCFP03).

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct Effects and indirect effects

Northern Spotted Owl, Marbled Murrelet, LSR, Management Area 6 and Marbled Murrelet Critical Habitat

These effects were combined under the no action alternative because they all are expected to be similar under the no action alternative. All are associated with late seral conditions and habitat characteristics.

Under the No Action Alternative activities designed to promote late-successional habitat would not occur. No direct effects would occur from the no action alternative.

The indirect effect of the no action alternative are late successional dependant species habitat would be slow to develop and density related mortality is expected to continue, increasing surface

Title of Project

33

fuels over time. Existing fire behavior is expected to worsen over time including: a constant or increasing crown fire potential under both moderate and severe weather conditions; an increase in surface fire intensity under both moderate and severe weather conditions; and either a constantly high or increasing level of basal area mortality (Isabel, 2010). The No Action Alternative does little to promote the development of habitat for late successional species and increases the potential for stand-replacing fire to remove existing late successional habitat (Table 2).

Table 2: Number of trees greater than 24” dbh 40 years post treatment in thinned units compared to unthinned units (derived from Carol Sharp FVS, Plot data modeling)

Units Units modeled

% of trees > 24” DBH in 2049 No action

SDI in 2049 No Action (% of max)

% of trees > 24” DBH in 2049 Alt 2,3,4

SDI in 2049 alt 2,3, 4 (% of max)

97 (pine) 97 21% 317 (74%) 65% 170 (40%) 99, 102, 11 32% 368 (67%) 62% 213 (39%) 101, 104, 110, 110 60% 356 (65%) 91% 323 (59%) 105, 106, 109, 111, 100 47% 358 (65%) 64% 299 (55%) 108, 120 108 49% 369 (67%) 88% 320 (59%)

Cumulative Effects

There are no Cumulative Effects from the no action alternative because there are no other known or reasonably foreseeable future projects that will occur within the project area.

Forest Sensitive Species

Bald eagle

There are no direct, indirect or cumulative effects on bald eagles from the no action alternative because there are no know bald eagle sites located within the project boundary and there are no other known or reasonably foreseeable future projects that will occur within the project area.

Goshawk

Under the no action alternative no activities would occur and there would be no direct effects to goshawks.

Indirect effects may result in fire behavior is expected to change, increasing the potential to remove existing and future goshawk habitat in the event of a high intensity wildfire start within the Analysis Area (Isabel, 2010). No thinning would result in suitable Goshawk habitat taking longer to develop in the proposed treatment units. Thus, the No Action Alternative does little to promote the development of goshawk habitat and increases the potential for wildfire to remove habitat in the long term.


Willow flycatcher


34

Under the no action alternative no activities would occur and there would be no direct effects to Willow flycatcher.

It is unlikely that the amount of willow flycatcher habitat in the Project Area would substantially change in the short-term. However, in the event of a high intensity wildfire, many riparian areas could lose riparian shrub habitat that provides willow flycatcher habitat. Without treatment of meadows the meadows would eventually be replaced with conifers.


Wolverine

There would be no direct effects to wolverine under the no action alternative.

It is unlikely that the amount of wolverine habitat in the Project Area will substantially change in the short-term. Fire behavior is expected to change in the long term, increasing the potential to remove existing habitat in the event of fire starts within the Project Area. Thus, the No Action Alternative does little to promote the development of or maintenance of wolverine habitat and increases the potential for wildfire to remove habitat in the long term

Wildfires that burn with mixed severity levels in a mosaic pattern could benefit wolverines by improving habitat for deer and elk. Increase in ungulate numbers could benefit wolverine especially in winter when more carrion would be available.


Pacific Fisher

Under the No Action Alternative thinning and fuel reduction activities would not occur. There would be no direct effects to the Pacific fisher under this alternative.

High quality fisher habitat would be slow to develop and density related mortality is expected to continue under the No Action alternative, increasing surface fuels over time. Existing fire behavior is expected to worsen over time including: a constant or increasing crown fire potential under both moderate and severe weather conditions; an increase in surface fire intensity under both moderate and severe weather conditions; and either a constantly high or increasing level of basal area mortality (fuels and silviculture report). The No Action Alternative does little to promote the development of fisher habitat and increases the potential for high intensity wildfire to remove existing fisher habitat.


American Marten

There are no historical records of marten in the Analysis Area. There have been no detections of marten in proximity of the Project Area and there have been only two detections in one area of marten within the known range. The probability of martens occurring in the area is very low. Thus there are no direct or indirect effects to American Marten

Title of Project

35


Townsend’s big-eared Bat

Under the No Action Alternative there would be no direct effects to Townsend’s big-eared bats.

The No Action Alternative would not promote the development of late-successional. Large roost trees would be slow to develop and density related mortality would continue, increasing surface fuels over time. Existing fire behavior is expected to worsen over time including: a constant or increasing crown fire potential under both moderate and severe weather conditions; an increase in surface fire intensity under both moderate and severe weather conditions; and either a constantly high or increasing level of basal area mortality. The No Action Alternative does little to promote the development of large tree/roost habitat and increases the potential for fire to remove existing large snags.


Western Pond Turtle

Under the No Action Alternative there would be no direct or indirect effects to northwestern pond turtles because habitat is expected to remain under the no action alternative.


Foothill yellow-legged frog

Under the No Action alternative there would be no direct effects on foothill yellow-legged frogs. Existing habitat conditions is expected to remain under the no action alternative.

In the absence of large-scale natural disturbance it is unlikely that the amount of foothill yellow-legged frog habitat in the Project Area will substantially change in the near future. However, in the event of a high intensity wildfire, fire would burn through many riparian areas, potentially removing riparian habitat and high severity fires would increase sediment in the streams. Increase temperatures and sediment could adversely affect foothill yellow-legged frogs.


Siskiyou Mountains/Scott Bar Salamanders

There will be no direct effects to Siskiyou Mountains/Scott Bar Salamanders from the No Action alternative.

In the absence of large-scale natural disturbance it is unlikely that the amount of Siskiyou Mountains/Scott Bar Salamander habitat in the Project Area would substantially change in the near future. However, in the event of a fire, fire would burn through many of the talus areas, potentially removing overstory habitat. The effects of such a fire on Siskiyou Mountains/Scott Bar Salamanders are unclear, as they have survived these types of fires in the past. In areas where the talus is shallow the lack of an overstory may cause heating and drying of the talus leading to


36

the loss of the salamanders at those sites; however in areas with deep talus the salamanders would be expected to survive high severity fires and the loss of the overstory vegetation.


Blue-gray taildropper

There would be no direct effects to the blue-gray taildropper as a result of the No Action Alternative

Indirect effects of the no action alternative could result in a high intensity wildfire that could burn through much of the habitat areas, potentially removing overstory habitat. The effects of a fire on blue-gray taildropper are unclear, as they have survived these types of fires in the past. In areas where the talus is shallow, the lack of an overstory may cause heating and drying of the talus leading to the loss of the snails at those sites; however, in areas with deep talus or other refugia the snails would be expected to survive high severity fires and the loss of the overstory vegetation.


Southern torrent salamander

There will be no direct effects on southern torrent salamanders as a result of the No Action alternative.

The indirect effects of the no action alternative would result in the amount of southern torrent salamander habitat in the Action Area will not significantly change in the near future. However, in the event of a fire, fire would burn through many riparian areas, potentially removing riparian habitat and high severity fires would increase sediment in the streams. Increase temperatures and sediment could adversely affect southern torrent salamanders.


Great gray owl

In the absence of large scale natural disturbance it is unlikely that the amount of habitat will significantly change in the near future. However, in the event of a fire, crown fire potential and expected tree mortality will increase over time. Nesting structure will likely continue to be recruited as winter storms in the higher elevation fir stands create broken-topped trees and snags. Foraging habitat may decline as conifer encroachment continues to reduce the size of natural meadows. Management Indicator Species

Hardwood species association

(Acorn woodpecker and Western gray squirrel)

There will be no direct effect to the hardwood species association as a result of the No Action alternative habitat is not expected to change in the short term.

Title of Project

37

In the absence of large-scale natural disturbance it is unlikely that the amount of hardwood habitat in the Project Area would substantially change in the near future. However, in the event of a fire, fire would burn through many of the hardwood areas, potentially removing hardwood habitat.


River/stream species association

(Tailed frog, Cascade frog, American Dipper, Northern Water shrew and Long-tailed vole)

There will be no direct effects on the river/stream species association with the No Action alternative because and therefore there would be no cumulative effects because habitat is not expected to change in the short term.

The no action alternative would not result in changes in the amount or quality of habitat for these river/stream associated species in the near future. As fuels continue to accumulate with increasing tree mortality wildfire behavior is expected to increase with wildfires of higher severity and intensity. Following high intensity fire, surface erosion is expected to occur and the potential for landslides increases. These processes would contribute sediment to streams potentially impacting turbidity and stream substrate. High intensity fire also has the potential to remove riparian vegetation and structure such as downed logs. A reduction in riparian vegetation has the potential to increase stream temperatures. The extent of these impacts is dependent upon fire intensity and size.


Snag associated species

(Red-breasted sapsucker, Hairy woodpecker, White-headed woodpecker, Vaux’s swift, Downy woodpecker, Pileated woodpecker, Black-backed woodpecker)

There would be no direct effects created by the No Action Alternative.

Under the No Action Alternative indirect effect could result in several general patterns regarding fire behavior and fire induced tree mortality over time are expected, including:

• Constant or increasing crown fire potential under both moderate and severe weather conditions

• Increased surface fire intensity under both moderate and severe weather conditions

• Either a constantly high or increasing level of basal area mortality

These patterns may have some benefit to snag associated species by creating nesting and roosting structure and by increasing foraging opportunities in the short-term. However, uncharacteristic wildfire has the potential to remove existing habitat components such as large snags and down wood, to impact recruitment of these components over the long-term, and to substantially reduce or create large gaps in the canopy. The actual extent of these effects, whether beneficial or adverse, is dependent upon fire intensity and size. Fire behavior that is expected to continue to


38

increase in severity and intensity over time would likely result in long-term impacts that would exceed short-term benefits for the snag associated species habitat.


Species of Interest

Peregrine Falcon

There will be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects from the No Action Alternative

Compliance with Forest Plan and Other Relevant Laws, Regulations, Policies and Plans The no action alternative would comply with the Endangered Species Act. It would not comply with the Klamath National Forest Land and Resource management plan which states that managing stands to develop late successional characteristics and encourage underburning in LSR, Management area 5 and 6.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 The three action alternatives (2, 3, and 4) would have similar effects to Northern Spotted Owl, Marbled Murrelet, Marbled Murrelet Critical Habitat, Late Successional Reserve, Management Area 6 (furbearer management), Forest Sensitive Species, Management Indicator Species and other Forest Sensitive Species because all three alternatives involve management of habitat and similar management designs although the amount of acres being treated slightly vary. Therefore all three alternatives will be discussed together except where specifically stated otherwise.

Design Features and Mitigation Measures Common to All Alternatives Northern Spotted Owls

For the purpose of this report modify refers to activities that changes forest structure; remove refers to activities that change suitable habitat to non-habitat; downgrade refers to activities that change nesting/roosting habitat to foraging or dispersal habitat or foraging habitat to dispersal habitat; and degraded refers to activities that modify habitat but the function of the stand is retained post treatment. Suitable NSO habitat is equivalent to NSO nesting/roosting and foraging habitat.

Protocol surveys for northern spotted owls will be conducted in 2009 and 2010. For areas that include removal or downgrade of northern spotted owl suitable habitat surveys will be conducted to the 1992 U.S. Fish and Wildlife protocol. In areas where habitat will not be removed or downgraded a three visit year of action survey may be substituted for the 1992 protocol surveys. These areas will be primarily thinning in non-suitable northern spotted owl habitat and underburns.

A seasonal restriction of February 1st to September 15th will apply to all activities that modify habitat (including activities that degrade or are beneficial) within 0.25 mile of a NSO activity center identified in the USFS GIS NSO layer, nesting pair of NSO or unsurveyed suitable habitat. This same restriction also applies to activities that remove or downgrade suitable habitat within 0.5 mile of an activity center or unsurveyed suitable habitat. A seasonal restriction of February 1st

Title of Project

39

to July 9th will apply to all activities that create noise above ambient levels within 0.25 mile of an occupied activity center or unsurveyed suitable habitat.

A seasonal restriction of February 1st to July 9 will apply to all activities that that create smoke within 0.25 mile of an occupied activity center or unsurveyed suitable habitat. When burning in spring, smoke is managed so that light to moderate smoke may be present within a canyon or drainage but dissipates or lifts within 24 hours. If heavy or concentrated smoke begins to inundate occupied nesting/roosting habitat or occupied activity centers late in the afternoon, ignition should be discontinued.

If protocol surveys indicate that historic activity centers and/or suitable habitat are not occupied by breeding NSOs, seasonal restrictions may be waived.

Prescribed burning will not be implemented in more than 50 percent of a northern spotted owl’s 0.5 mile activity center or 1.3 mile home range in any given year.

Underburns

a) No more than 50% of the nesting NSO habitat within a 7th field watershed will be under-burned within a given year.

b) No more than 50 percent of the suitable habitat within an occupied NSO core area and no more than 50 percent of the suitable habitat within an occupied NSO home range will be under-burned annually.

c) Review of underburns post treatment will be conducted by the district biologist to determine amount of NSO habitat degradation occurred. If treated areas are determined to have not degraded NSO habitat then greater number of acres may be underburned within an NSO core, home range or 7th field watershed.

Coarse Woody Debris (CWD):

a) Protect existing CWD by having ground-based equipment avoid the larger diameter logs greater than 20 inches and 8 feet long as much as practical.

b) Where excessive number of downed trees creates a fuel hazard, existing logs may be lowered down the Regional minimum of 5 logs/acre.

Snags and wildlife trees:

a) snags > 20 inches dbh or groups of snags will not be felled unless hazardous to operations.

b) Some wildlife trees greater than 20 inches dbh that posses multiple tops, broken tops, cavities or other wildlife features will be maintained with the units.

d) In unsurveyed “high probability” habitat and known NSO activity centers, no burning will occur between 2/1 and 7/9 or spring surveys will be conducted during the year of activity (3 visits prior to action, starting after March 1 with visits at least 5 days apart);

Blue grey tail dropper


40

Surveys for blue grey tail dropper (BGTD) will be conducted in all riparian reserves that are located within proposed units of natural stands prior to harvest of natural stands. If surveys locate any BTGD in the survey areas then they will be protected from ground disturbing activities in accordance the Standards and Guidelines were amended in January 2001 with the Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines (USDA, USDI 2001). .

Historic locations of BGTD are located within 100 feet of unit 116. Landings will not be located in the BGTD area and the existing skid trail along west boundary will not be used (refer to figure 2). No ground disturbing act ivies shall occur within the occupied areas.

Goshawks

Goshawks surveys will be conducted in and around the two historic goshawk nest locations. If nesting goshawks are located, then they will be managed according to the Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP Standard and Guidelines 8-20).

Establish a 0.5 mile radius circle (504 acres) around nest location. Maintain 60% in dense mature forest condition(>60 canopy cover, >24 inches dbh [4B,C+]. The remaining 40% maintain in a mosaic dominated by large-tree conditions and open understories (3N, G-4P, N G+)

Restrict habitat modifying act ivies between March 1 and August 31 within primary nest zone (0.5 mile radius). Restrict loud and/or continuous noise within 0.25 miles of active nest sites during same time period.

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects Direct Effects

Northern Spotted Owl

There are 14 historical northern spotted owl activity centers in the Action Area. All suitable northern spotted owl habitat and sites within 0.5 mile of Project Area units were surveyed to protocol in 2009. Proposed activities were within 0.5 mile of 11 of the historic sites, resulting in surveys of those sites. Northern spotted owls were located at 3 of the historic sites in 2009.

Approximately 1,665 acres of plantations are proposed for thinning, 315 acres of natural stands are identified for thinning treatment and about 7,250 acres are proposed for underburning. No thinning will occur in NSO nesting/roosting habitat. Thinning treatment is occurring in suitable NSP foraging habitat (Table 1).

Currently, approximately 48.7 percent of the project area contains suitable NSO habitat (Table 3). This includes approximately 17,354 acres (25.7%) of nesting/roosting habitat and 15,578 acres (23%) of foraging habitat. An additional 8,981 acres of dispersal quality habitat also exists within the project area. In general, nesting/roosting habitat occurs in small widely scattered patches. Foraging habitat is more widely distributed and occurs in somewhat larger blocks. At the landscape scale approximately 1600 acres (10 % of project area) of foraging habitat and 2700 acres (17% of project area) of nesting/roosting habitat will be degraded (Table 5). However the majority of these acres will be degraded through underburning. Approximately 1,414 acres of foraging and 2,709 acres of nesting roosting will be underburned only.

Title of Project

41

Degrading Northern Spotted Owl habitat results in attributes being reduced (i.e. down woody debris, trees with mistletoe) but not eliminated to the extent that the habitat cannot be used by NSO. Degrading habitat still retains the quality (stand diversity, canopy cover etc.) to still be utilized by NSO. For the purposes of this report degraded NSO habitat will be divided to habitat that is being degraded via commercial thinning verses by underburning only. It is important to separate the two types of treatment because they each result in different effects to the habitat while both still retain habitat post treatment. Commercial thinning will result in reduction in canopy cover and stand density of trees greater than 10 inches. Commercial thinning tends to result in stands that are more uniform though they have some variation within the units. Underburning is expected to have much more variation, is less likely to result in less canopy closure and tree density of trees greater than 10 inches. Therefore underburning though still regarding as degrading NSO habitat is expected to have minimal effects to NSO habitat. Table 3: Northern Spotted Owl Habitat currently within Project Area

Habitat Acres Percent

Dispersal 8981 13.3

Forage 15578 23.0

Nest/Roost 17354 25.7

Non-Habitat 23483 34.7

OFF-FOREST* 2236 3.3

67632 *off-forest = land located in Oregon the Klamath Forest no habitat data Table 4: Treatment types per alternative (Acres)

Treatment Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Alternative 4

PCT 3 3 3

Roadside Pole Thin 84 84 84Roadside Sanitation Thin 36 36 36

Thin Natural Stand 329 200 329

Thin Plantation 1631 1493 1631

Thin Plantation/PCT 36 36 36

Underburn Only 7252 7321 568

Table 5: Treatment types in Northern Spotted Owl habitat

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Alternative 4

Treatment Habitat Acres Acres Acres

Roadside Pole Thin Dispersal 52 52 52 Roadside Sanitation Thin Dispersal 3 3 3

Thin Plantation Dispersal 118 116 118

Thin Plantation/PCT Dispersal 5 5 5

Underburn Only Dispersal 530 530 20

708 706 198


42

Roadside Pole Thin Forage 14 14 14 Roadside Sanitation Thin Forage 1 1 1

Thin Natural Stand Forage 121 57 121



Thin Plantation Forage 62 62 62

Underburn Only Forage 1414 1447 81

1710 1620 377

Underburn Only Nest/Roost 2709 2720 87

PCT Non-Habitat 3 3 3

Roadside Pole Thin Non-Habitat 18 18 18

Roadside Sanitation Thin

Non-Habitat 32 32 32

Thin Natural Stand Non-Habitat 73 66 73

Thin Plantation Non-Habitat 1489 1353 1489

Thin Plantation/PCT Non-Habitat 31 31 31

Underburn Only Non-Habitat 2600 2625 380

4246 4128 2026 Plantation Units were determine to be suitable NSO dispersal habitat, except units 103, 104 108, 109, 110, and 111 which were determined to be suitable foraging habitat. All units in natural stands were determined to be NSO foraging habitat, except 208, 234, 237, and 254 which were determined to be dispersal habitat. Similarly units 400, 300 and 301 were determined to be dispersal habitat. All pine plantation units and meadow treatments were not considered suitable habitat.

Table 6: Summary of all thinning units that are treating suitable NSO habitat (nesting/roosting or foraging) and results post treatment of units (Units that are treating unsuitable habitat are not listed)

Unit# Silvicultural Treatment

Yarding System

Acres

NSO Habitat Type

BasalArea Pre-

HarvestAVG

BasalArea Post-

Harvest AVG

Canopy Closure

AVG

Effect Post

103 Thin Plantation Tractor TE 9 Foraging 188 120 >60 Degrade

104 Thin Plantation Tractor TE 7 Foraging 180 120 >60 Degrade

108 Thin Plantation Mech Harv 11

Foraging200 130 >60 Degrade



Title of Project

43

Unit# Silvicultural Treatment

Yarding System

Acres

NSO Habitat Type

BasalArea Pre-

HarvestAVG

BasalArea Post-

Harvest AVG

Canopy Closure

AVG

Effect Post




Foraging

200 120 >50 Degrade

200 Thin Natural Stand Tractor TE 14


201 Thin Natural Stand Mech Harv 17




205 Thin Natural Stand Cable 7












217 Thin Natural Stand Tractor TE 3 Foraging 220 140 >50

Degrade


Foraging340 170 >60

Degrade

219 Thin Natural Stand Cable 15 Foraging

260 140 >50

Degrade


Foraging240 140 >50

Degrade


Foraging220 140 >50

Degrade


Foraging320 150 >50

Degrade


Foraging230 150 >60

Degrade


Foraging320 150 >50

Degrade


Foraging240 140 >60

Degrade


Foraging260 160 >60

Degrade


Foraging360 190 >60

Degrade


Foraging280 120 >50

Degrade


Foraging240 140 >50

Degrade


Foraging240 160 >60

Degrade


44

Thinning designed to promote the development of Northern Spotted Owl habitat will not remove important structural components of NSO habitat such as large-diameter trees (>20”), hardwoods, snags, and down wood. Trees infected with mistletoe may be removed, but prescriptions have been designed to ensure that this structural component will remain on the landscape.

The prescriptions in stands that are suitable foraging habitat shall retain all NSO foraging post harvest (i.e. 50 percent or greater canopy cover, thinning from below and retention of snags, down woody debris, hardwoods, variable density thinning, and tree species diversity). Dispersal habitat shall be retained dispersal habitat post harvest. Prescriptions are designed to increase growth in mid-seral and younger trees left after treatment, increasing the development of late-seral conditions sooner than untreated stands

The thinning may affect prey species immediately following treatment; However, where thinning treatments similar to those proposed in this project have been applied, effects to small mammal species diets and small mammal biomass have been shown to be insignificant or of short duration (Monroe and Converse 2006; Manning and Edge 2008; Suzuki and Hayes 2003).

Thinning plantations is expected to open stands to allow foraging habitat conditions sooner than if no treatment. Many plantations are currently too dense to allow access for NSO to prey species. By thinning stand it is expected that NSO will have more accessible habitat to forage and movement through stands. Also prey numbers and species of prey may increase due openings and burn treatments resulting in increases of grasses and forbs for prey species. The majority of plantations within the project area have little to no snags, coarse woody debris or trees over 20 inches dbh; therefore, when treating these units it is expected to remove very few of these features from the landscape.

Table 7: Northern Spotted Owl Home Range Analysis (U = Underburn T = thinning)

Activity Center Number

0.5 mile radius Acres (N/R)

0.5 Mile radius

Acres

(foraging)

1.3 mile radius Acres (N/R)

1.3 Mile radius

Acres

(foraging)

0.5 mile radius Acres (N/R) Degrade

0.5 mile radius Acres (Foraging) Degrade

1.3 mile radius Acres (N/R) Degrade

1.3 mile radius Acres (Foraging) Degrade

KL

0235

376 49 515 945 3 U

0 3 U 185 U

18 T

KL

0236

0 278 0 1623 0 11 T 0 53 T

KL

0286

0 249 0 1599 0 0 0 507 U

KL

0289

0 394 195 1511 0 128 U 0 361 U

KL

0294

0 263 0 1834 0 0 0 18 T

244 U

KL

0339

0 299 0 1570 0 299 U 0 726 U

15 T

Title of Project

45

KL

0340

0 239 345 1365 0 0 0 26 U

28 T

KL

0342

0 321 0 1870 0 10 T

152 U

0 31 T

818 U

KL

1300

0 269 0 1292 0 0 0 0

KL

4205

22 260 156 1453 0 0 0 18 T

313 U

KL

4206

88 228 165 1771 0 0 0 269 U

KL

4208

0 297 0 1744 0 0 0 53 U

28 T

KL

4209

0 204 124 1517 0 0 0 2 T

KL

4234

0 321 0 1932 0 0 0 54 U

The acres of habitat degraded in the table above are not cumulative; many of the northern spotted owl sites overlap and the same acres are counted in several sites. Many of the sites are lacking sufficient amounts of nesting/roosting habitat at 0.5 and the 1.3 mile home range.

Only one site, KL1300, is below the 1336 amount of suitable habitat within the 1.3 mile homerange (Table 6). Only thinning of pine plantation (i.e. not suitable habitat) is proposed within 1.3 mile of this NSO activity center.

Under the three action alternatives alternative 2 and 4 propose degrading 296 acres of suitable foraging habitat via commercial thinning. Alternative 3 proposes slight less (173 acres) (Table 4). Nesting roosting habitat will be degraded by underburning 1414 acres in alternative 2, 1447 acres in alternative 3, and only 87 acres in alternative 4. Underburning is believed to have minimal impact to suitable NSO nesting/roosting habitat. Using mastication in alternative 4 will have no impact to NSO habitat because mastication is only being proposed in commercial treatment units post harvest. Thus it is not expected to further reduce canopy cover or stand density further than what was analyzed from the commercial thinning.

Operational trees are those that are cut for road and landing construction and clearing for yarder corridors in skyline units. Placement of yarding corridors will be such that patches of large trees and snags will be avoided whenever possible; however in some cases due to yarder anchors and or geographical conditions corridors may need to be placed where individual large tree felling may be required. Large trees felled for safety or operational reasons may be removed. Removal of these incidental trees is not expected to have a measurable affect on NSO habitat.

Down wood greater than 20 inches diameter averaged 4.9 pieces per acre across units surveyed (Walters 2009). Amounts of down wood vary greatly by units surveyed ranging for 0 to 14 pieces


46

per acre. Additionally, where stand conditions permit, incorporation of recommendations for snags and down wood will ensure that these components are retained in the landscape (USDA Forest Service 1994, pgs 4-25 & 4-39).

There will be no loss of habitat in northern spotted owl home ranges. Short term effects on prey species are expected to minimal with small mammal populations recovering in 6 months to 1 year from the date of treatment (Manning and Edge 2008; Suzuki and Hayes 2003).

No dispersal habitat for northern spotted owls will be removed in the Project Area.

Temporary Road Construction

Table 8: Temporary Road Construction in NSO foraging habitat

Temp Rd# Status Unit# Treatment

Miles in Natural Stand

T110A New 110 Thin Plantation 0.08

T201A New 201 Thin Natural Stand 0.09






Approximately 2.9 miles of new temporary road will be constructed to facilitate harvest in units. Another 4.3 miles of temporary road re-construction are on existing temporary road or is new temporary road construction that is in early seral stage vegetation that in is not suitable NSO habitat. Approximately 0.5 miles of road (approximately 1 acre) to be constructed that is suitable NSO foraging habitat (Table 8).

Openings created by road construction will be linear and at most 20 feet wide. Existing canopy in mid-and late-seral forest will cover all or most of the openings. Road clearings may have short term effects on small mammal movements and occupation of the road surfaces. All temporary roads used for this Project will be closed after use and should be covered by leaf and needle drop and start accumulating down wood within one year of their closure. Openings of this size are common in northern spotted owl habitat and will have minimal short term negative effects on northern spotted owls.

No new temporary road construction will be removing suitable NSO habitat within 0.5 mile of a known NSO activity center.

Landings:

Landing can vary in size from 0.1 acre to as many as 2 acres with the average being approximately 0.5 acres. New landings that are within tractor units are expected to average approximately 0.5 acres in size, while landings for cable units are expected to average 0.1 acre (North, 2010). Landings in tractor units will remove approximately 18 acres of NSO foraging habitat. Landing for cable units will remove approximately 5.6 acres of foraging habitat.

Title of Project

47

Six new landings will be constructed within 0.5 of a known NSO activity center. Of these six three are proposed in plantations thus will not be removing suitable NSO habitat. Three cable landings are within the same NSO (KL0236) 0.5 mile activity center (core) and are expected to remove approximately 0.3 acres of foraging habitat from that activity centers core area.

Prescribed burning

Prescribed burning is proposed on approximately 7,250 acres in the Project Area. Prescriptions for underburns will be designed to minimize damage to the existing habitat. To ensure the distribution of northern spotted owl prey will not be significantly impacted by fuel reduction treatments, project design features will limit the amount of northern spotted owl habitat that can be burned annually to less than 50 percent of the suitable habitat within a northern spotted owl core area and home range. However, the area within a fire perimeter that actually burns is highly variable (Sugihara et al. 2006). Unburned areas within the fire perimeter may act as refugia for some small mammals (Lyon et al. 2000).

Underburn monitoring data collected by the Forest Service from 1998 to 2005, indicates that an average of 31% of the area within an underburn remains unburned post treatment (USDA Forest Service 2005b). Therefore, the actual number of acres burned within a northern spotted owl core area or home range is expected to be considerably lower than 50 percent of the core and home range.

Prescribed fires can influence prey communities via consumption and creation of snags and down wood and effects on understory vegetation. Several important prey species are associated with decaying standing and down wood structures, including flying squirrels and red backed voles. Prescribed fires typically consumes some of the existing dead wood in a stand, which could negatively affect these species; however, low intensity burns do not normally burn all areas within the fire and are expected to leave hard down wood and snags in place, providing refugia for small mammals. A number of studies have found strong support for positive low severity prescribed fire affects on deer mouse densities (Kaufman et al. 1990; Jones. 1992) an important prey species for northern spotted owls. However, in a study conducted in mixed conifer forest of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, deer mice densities did not change significantly as a result of prescribed fire and overall small mammal biomass did not change significantly for three years following spring and fall prescribed burns (Monroe and Converse 2006). Other effects described as, year effects, (weather and food availability), had a greater influence on deer mice and total small mammal biomass than did the prescribed fire effects (Ibid). Therefore, it is expected that low severity and intensity prescribed fires will have minimal short tern negative effects on small mammal biomass.

In the long term, fuel reduction treatments are expected to have benefits to northern spotted owls by reducing fuels to a level that would result in an acceptable fire behavior and post fire stand condition. Fuels treatments will generally reduce crown fire potential and maintain a surface fire type and reduce predicted stand mortality in the event of a wildfire start. The area susceptible to some type of crown fire in the Project Area would be reduced and the area that would have control problems (flame length greater than 8 feet) would be reduced (Fuels Report).

These factors indicate that stands will be more resistant to large-scale fires but will burn with sufficient intensity to create small openings within forested habitat. This type of pattern, would create a mosaic of stands in different successional stages, and be consistent with patterns under historic fire regimes. This pattern of successional stages would likely benefit northern spotted owls by creating horizontal diversity of habitat across the landscape.


48

Additional projects that are ongoing that are within the project area will not remove NSO habitat. Thus there will be minor cumulative effects because they are small and will incorporate the project design features to reduce the effect on NSOs.

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act Determination of Effect for Northern Spotted Owl

The following factors were considered in making the determination of the effects for northern spotted owls and northern spotted owl critical habitat:

• No nesting/roosting or foraging habitat would be removed or downgraded

• None of the existing dispersal habitat within the project area would be removed

• Effects to northern spotted owl prey species are expected to be minimal and of short duration.

• Project design features minimize the likelihood that northern spotted owls would be killed or injured during project implementation or that normal breeding behaviors would be disrupted by noise or smoke

Based on the above factors it is my determination that the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect northern spotted owls.

Marbled Murrelet

No nesting habitat for marbled murrelet was identified in or within 0.25 miles from the proposed units during many field reviews. Most of the project area stands are located in the Klamath mixed conifer vegetation association which is dryer and less likely to have moss covered limbs than the tan oak/Douglas fir and Douglas fir vegetation associations surveyed in Hunters 1998 study area. There are stands that have some large trees with large limbs but there are no moss covered limbs (the primary substrate used by nesting marbled murrelets). In addition units are located in the upper third of the slope and away from major creeks and rivers where marbled murrelets generally are found nesting.

At inland sites (12 to 37 mi) in southwestern Oregon and northern California murrelets were absent from dry stands where platforms were abundant but moss was scarce (Dillingham et al. 1995, Hunter et al. 1998) As a result of limited platforms and the lack of moss these stands were determined to be non- suitable marble murrelet nesting habitat.

Section 7 Determination of Effects for Marbled Murrelet

The following factors were considered in making the determination of the effects for Marbled Murrelet:

No Marbled murrelet nesting habitat will be removed or downgraded

No Marbled murrelets have ever been found nesting in the Project Area

Marbled murrelet are unlikely to be found nesting in the project area

No suitable of nesting habitat within ¼ mile of the proposed treatments

Based on the above factors it is my determination that the proposed project will have no effect marbled murrelets.

Title of Project

49

Marbled Murrelet Critical Habitat

The Runway LSR is designated as Marbled Murrelet (MAMU) critical habitat CA10a. Only 119 acres of the 3,000 acres will have thinning treatments. All of these plantations are approximately 50 years old. None of the thinning is in Marbled Murrelet nesting habitat. These thinning are designed to increase growth of trees creating trees with large limbs that could provide suitable nest structure for marbled murrelets. Thinning will reduce the probability of a stand replacing fires within the units. Thinning will not remove or affect any of the primary constituent elements for MAMU critical habitat.

Underburning is planned for approximately 1,197 acres of the 3,000 area (approximately 40%) (Table 9). This area would not be underburned in one year and is expected to take several years to completely burn the designated area. Underburning will decrease the probability of stand replacing fires and is expected to create a more fire resilient ecosystem. Underburns will not remove or affect any of the primary constituent elements for MAMU critical habitat.

There are no cumulative effects because there are no foreseeable future projects within MAMU CHU.

Table 9: Treatments in MAMU CHU

MAMU CHU ACRES Treatment

Alt 2acres

Alt 3acres

Alt 4 acres

Runaway 3034 Thin Plantation 119 119 119 Underburn Only 1197 1197 0

Determination of Effects for Marbled Murrelet Critical Habitat

The following factors were considered in making the determination of the effects for Marbled Murrelet Critical Habitat:

No Marbled murrelet nesting habitat will be removed or downgraded within MAMU CHU

Operations in the commercial thinning units and underburns will not remove primary constituent elements of marbled murrelet Critical Habitat.

Thinning and underburning will be beneficial to Marbled Murrelet Critical Habitat.

Based on the above factors it is my determination that the proposed project will have no effect marbled murrelets critical habitat.

Late Successional Reserve

Only thinning of plantations (119 acres) is proposed within the Runway LSRs. In the 100 acres LSRs there is only one acre of thinning in natural stands proposed for treatment and four acres of plantation thinning (Table 10). Plantations may be reduced to lower than 50 percent canopy cover if they are not suitable NSO habitat. Prescriptions shall reduce tree densities by thinning from below (Sharp, 2010). Treatment shall maintain or enhance tree species diversity by retaining all species present in the stand. The prescription shall also favor thinning around hardwood to promote large hardwoods in the future. Although LSR guidelines suggest retaining


50

10 percent of units as unthinned, the IDT team determined that it would be more beneficial to thin the entire unit and instead ensure that unthinned units remain in adjacent units so that un-thinned habitat would still be present in the LSR and near the units being treated. Thus at a stand level diversity will be maintained and enhanced in the LSRs.

Thinning designed to promote the development of late-successional habitat will not remove important structural components of Late Successional Reserves such as large-diameter trees (>20”), hardwoods, snags, and down wood. Trees infected with mistletoe may be removed, but prescriptions have been designed to ensure that this structural component will remain on the landscape. The removal of large-diameter trees would only occur under limited circumstances and such as operational trees. Operational trees are those that are cut for road and landing construction and clearing for yarder corridors in skyline units. The small amount of temporary road to be constructed (0.08 mile) will have minimal impact to species and habitat. The amount of road decommissioning (0.8 miles) compared to road construction, will result in a net decrease in roads in the Runway LSR. Therefore, the effects of disturbance to wildlife from vehicles traveling on roads will be reduced. All temporary roads will be barricaded and hydrologically restored to allow natural revegetation within several years after project completion, thus further reducing negative impacts to wildlife. No cumulative effects are expected because no foreseeable future projects have been identified and ongoing project do not remove suitable NSO habitat within the LSR. Table 10: NSO Habitat within 100 acres LSRs.

LSR-id

Existing Habitat Type

NSO Habitat Available Acres

Stand Type Alt 2 (Acres)

Alt 3 (Acres)

Alt 4 (Acres)

KL0286 Dispersal 4 Thin Natural

Stand 1 1 1

KL0286 Forage 51 Thin Plantation 1 1 1

KL0286 Non-Habitat 13

68

KL0289 Dispersal 30 Underburn Only 45 45 0

KL0289 Forage 51

KL0289 Nest/Roost 19


100

KL0342 Dispersal 4 Thin Plantation 3 3 3

KL0342 Forage 30 Underburn Only 56 56 0

KL0342 Nest/Roost 53


105

Runaway Dispersal 68 Thin Plantation 119 119 119

Runaway Forage 546 Underburn Only 1197 1197 0

Runaway Nest/Roost 1303

Title of Project

51

Runaway Non-Habitat 1117

3034

Management Area 6 (furbearer management)

For the purposes of analysis NSO nesting/roosting habitat shall be used as a proxy for suitable denning/resting habitat for fisher because NSO nesting/roosting habitat has large decadenttrees large down woody material that fisher are associated with. Underburning is proposed on approximately 586 acres within the management area 6 (Table 10). Other than underburn only one acres of roadside pole thinning is proposed for management area 6. Due to size of the area treated and the fact that the treatment itself would have minimal effects to forest structure, roadside pole thin will have no effect on management area 6.

Table 11: Treatments within Management Area 6 per alternative

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

Habitat Acres Treatment Acres Treatment Acres Treatment AcresDenning/resting Available 2719

Roadside Pole Thin 1



6408 Underburn Only 586

Underburn Only 586

Forest Sensitive Species

Bald Eagle

There are no known Bald eagle nest sites within the Project area. There are no direct, indirect or cumulative effects from the action alternatives 2, 3 or 4 because there are no known nest sites and there is no potential effects to affect bald eagle habitat or individuals.

Goshawk

There is one goshawk management areas within the project area. No treatment is proposed within the Goshawk Management Area. There are two historic “nest” locations within the project area. These two historic “nest” locations were surveyed in 2009 with no detection of Goshawks and will be surveyed again in 2010. There are areas of un-surveyed suitable goshawk habitat within the project area.

Nesting/roosting NSO habitat was used to quantify amount of suitable nesting habitat for goshawks. Natural stands were considered suitable nesting habitat for goshawks, while plantations were considered un-suitable nesting habitat.

There is approximately 17,354 acres of suitable northern Goshawk nesting habitat within the project area. Approximately 2,975 acres (17% of project area) of goshawk nesting habitat will be degraded. The majority of habitat to be degraded is by underburning. Roughly 2,709 acres of nesting habitat will be underburned only.

No Goshawk habitat will be removed and habitat within plantations will improve goshawk foraging in the short term (1-5 years) and nesting habitat in the long term (greater than 10 years) .


52

Habitat in the historic goshawk nest sites is currently being encroached on by young conifers and hardwoods, which if left untreated would reduce the value and utility for goshawks. Precommercial thinning will reduce the encroaching understory vegetation that will then be burned, opening up the understory, and improving habitat for goshawk foraging. Under burning will also reduce potential fire severity, thus protecting the existing stand structure in the short term from stand replacing fires.

In the long term, fuel reduction treatments are expected to have substantial benefits to goshawk by reducing fuels to a level that would result in an acceptable fire behavior and post fire stand condition. Fuels treatments will generally reduce crown fire potential and maintain a surface fire type and reduce predicted stand mortality in the event of a fire. Treated stands will be more resistant to large-scale fires but will burn with sufficient intensity to create small openings within forested habitat. This burn pattern, would create a mosaic of stands in different successional stages, and be consistent with patterns under historic fire regimes. This pattern of successional stages would benefit goshawk prey species by creating horizontal diversity of habitat across the landscape.

There no cumulative effect to goshawk or goshawk habitat because on-going projects will have little affects to goshawks or goshawks habitat. There is no foreseeable future project within the project area.

The following factors were considered in making the determination of the effects for northern goshawks:

No habitat would be removed in the project.

Thinning in the goshawk habitat would remove understory vegetation, improving goshawk habitat

Thinning of plantation would be beneficial for goshawk

Operations would occur during the nesting season in and within 0.5 mile of unsurveyed goshawk nesting habitat.

Fuels treatments would reduce the possibility of stand replacing fires in the habitat.

Based on the above factors it is my determination that the proposed project may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability for willow flycatcher.

Willow flycatcher

Habitat for willow flycatchers occurs only in riparian reserves and meadow treatment areas. Approximately 13.3 acres of meadow restoration/enhancement could affect Willow flycatchers. Underburns are also proposed within riparian areas that have suitable willow flycatcher habitat. The riparian reserves with suitable flycatcher habitat are small and patchy and are located adjacent to the wetted edge that is unlikely to have much effect from underburning.

Project design feature and the aquatic conservation strategy for the project will reduce negative impacts from management with riparian reserves and is expected to provide long-term benefits to willow flycatcher habitat.

Title of Project

53

Spring underburns that back down into riparian reserves may directly affect some willow flycatcher habitat. Willow and alder habitat are located in the area directly affected by the water in the riparian reserves, these areas will be wet with green herbaceous vegetation and willow and alder will also have high live fuel moistures in the spring. It is highly unlikely that these areas would burn during the spring nesting season, however smoke may inundate nesting habitat resulting in nest abandonment. Treatment of riparian zones with underburns would reduce the fuels in these areas. Because underburns are designed to imitate low intensity fire and shrubs such as willow and alder often become established following a disturbance (Petrides 1992), any impacts to willow flycatcher habitat are expected to be short term.

There no cumulative effect to habitat or individuals because on-going projects will have little affects to habitat. There is no foreseeable future project within the project area.

Because fuel reduction treatments may remove habitat or disrupt breeding activities, the project may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability for willow flycatcher.

Wolverine

Direct effects of noise disturbance from use of heavy equipment during Project activities can lead to displacement of animals or disruption in breeding or feeding activities. Noise disturbance related to the above activities would be short-lived and last for one season in any given location. Given the natural low densities of wolverines, their tendency to avoid human activities, and the low likelihood of their presence in the Project Area, it is expected that disturbance or disruption of normal breeding/feeding activities will be unlikely. These activities will have inconsequential effects on individuals and will have no overall effect on the population.

Direct effects on mid- and late-successional habitat will occur through commercial thinning, landing construction, and spur road construction. Commercial thinning in the Project Area is designed to retain large trees, snags and large logs; however canopy cover will be reduced. Decrease canopy cover should be inconsequential in the ability of the treated areas to provide habitat for wolverines. The above actions will fall some large trees and create small openings in the forest canopy, which may degrade suitable habitat in the short term.

In a study area in Montana, no differences in movements, habitat use, or behavior was noted between wolverines occupying logged areas vs. unlogged areas (Hornocker and Hash, 1981).

Indirect effects from variable density thinning and associated fuels treatments may include beneficial effects to prey species habitat. Creating small openings in treated stands, protecting large hardwoods and reducing ladder fuels and ground cover may improve habitat for deer, elk and small mammals. Thinning and fuels treatments may temporarily reduce snag and large down wood, decreasing resting and denning habitat and habitat for small mammals. In addition, fuels treatments will reduce the fire behavior potential thereby reducing the risk of loss of forested habitat to catastrophic wildfire. Silvicultural prescription will leave suitable habitat for wolverines and may increase deer, elk and small mammal numbers increasing the food supply.

The moderate to heavy road density in the Project Area and the human use that is associated with those roads make it unlikely wolverines will be in the Project Area. The project will not increase road densities within the project area.


54

There no cumulative effects to habitat or individuals because on-going projects will have little affects to habitat. There is no foreseeable future project within the project area.

Because wolverine habitat would not be removed and the presence of wolverines is unlikely in the area, the Project would have no effect on the California wolverine.

Pacific Fisher

For analysis NSO nesting/roosting was used as a proxy for fisher denning/resting habitat NSO habitat contains features that are associated with fisher use (large decadent trees, large dwd etc) Approximately 17,354 acres of suitable denning/resting habitat occurs in the project area. Only underburning is proposed in fisher denning/resting habitat (Table 12).

Table 12: Fisher habitat being treated per alternative

Habitat Alt 2

(acres)Alt 3

(acres)Alt 4

(acres)

Underburn Only Denning/Resting 2709 2720 87 Denning/Resting 17354

Thinning will not be conducted in fisher denning/resting habitat. Thinning prescriptions in plantations and natural stands are designed to maintain and promote the development of fisher habitat will not remove significant amounts of important structural components of fisher habitat such as large-diameter trees, snags, and down wood. Trees infected with mistletoe will be removed, but silvicultural prescriptions have been designed to ensure that this component will remain on the landscape.

Thinning and fuel reduction treatments also have the potential to impact some fisher prey species by removing or reducing the availability of important habitat components. However, where thinning treatments similar to those proposed in this Project have been applied, effects to small mammal species commonly found in fisher diets have been shown to be insignificant or of short duration (Carey and Wilson 2001; Suzuki and Hayes 2003). Underburns carried out at very low and low intensity do not normally burn all areas within the fire and will leave hard down wood and snags in place, providing refugia for small mammals. In a study conducted in mixed conifer forest of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, overall small mammal biomass did not change significantly for three years following prescribed fire (Monroe and Converse 2006). Other effects described as year effects (weather and food availability), had a greater influence on total small mammal biomass than did the prescribed fire effects (Ibid).

Modeling indicates that thinning and subsequent fuels treatment will generally reduce crown fire potential and maintain a surface fire type and substantially reduce predicted stand mortality in the event of a fire start (fuels report). These factors indicate that stands will be more resistant to large-scale fires but will burn with sufficient intensity to create small openings within forested habitat. This burn pattern, would create a mosaic of stands in different successional stages, and be consistent with patterns under historic fire regimes. This pattern of successional stages would likely benefit fisher by creating horizontal diversity of habitat across the landscape.

Openings created by the yarding corridors will be narrow and will be covered or partially covered by canopies of adjacent trees. These openings will be linear in nature and smaller than many natural openings that occur in mid-and late-successional forest. Temporary roads, landings, and

Title of Project

55

yarding corridor construction however may remove some large trees suitable for denning or resting. Openings created by temporary roads and yarder corridors are not expected to be barriers to fisher movements. No temporary roads or landings are located in suitable fisher denning/resting habitat.

Direct effects of noise disturbance from use of heavy equipment during Project activities can lead to displacement of fisher or disruption in breeding/foraging activities. Noise disturbance would be relatively short-lived and last for one season in any given location. Given the natural low densities of fishers, based on survey data, it is expected that disturbance or disruption of normal foraging activities will be minimal. In addition, fishers are highly mobile animals and would likely avoid areas of human activity during foraging. The human activity during Project activities may disrupt forage or breeding behaviors of individuals.

Underburns will be carried out in a manner that keeps burns at low severity levels, which may remove some snags and down wood. Snags and down wood lost to under burns will likely be replaced by trees killed by the underburns. Burn prescriptions are designed to retain snag and down wood at the amount recommended in the Klamath National Forest LRMP (USDA Forest Service 1994) where stand conditions permit. Fuel reduction treatments are not expected to have a significant impact to the important structural components of fisher habitat. Because fisher have a diverse diet and may switch prey in response to changing density (Zielinski et al. 1999), they would likely find abundant prey in the event of a short-term reduction in some prey species following a prescribed fire.

Based on this information effects to fisher prey species are expected to be minimal and of short term. In the long term, thinning and fuel reduction treatments are expected to have benefits to fisher by increasing the amount and distribution of denning and resting habitat and by reducing fuels to a level that would result in an acceptable fire behavior and post fire stand condition.


Due to the disturbance and the removal of individual large trees and snags, and disturbance to denning fisher the project may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for fisher.

Marten

There are no historical records of marten in the Project Area. There have been no detections of marten in proximity of the project Area. The probability of martens occurring in the area is very low. Effect to Marten habitat is expect to be minimal and underburns is likely to benefit habitat for marten.

Based on negative survey data, current range of the species, and low likelihood of occurrence, it is expected that the Project would have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects on American martens.

Townsend’s big eared bat

Thinning and fuels reduction treatments may remove or fall individual trees or snags that may be used for roosting. By meeting the recommendations for snags in the Klamath National Forest LRMP (USDA Forest Service 1994) and because the felling or removal of large trees would only occur under limited circumstances, impacts to roosting habitat are expected to be minimal.


56

Townsend’s big-eared bats are more commonly found roosting in caves or mines, caves are located on private property near the Klamath River and on the north end of the Project Area.

Mines are spread throughout the Project Area, thinning and fuels reduction activities are within and adjacent to potential roosting habitat. Because these species are sensitive to disturbance at roost sites, these actions would likely have an effect on roosting behavior if bats are present.

Thinning is expected to have long-term benefits for pallid bats by promoting the development of large-diameter trees which may provide suitable roosting sites. Also the proposed thinning and fuel treatments would change expected fire behavior over time, resulting in fires of less intensity, reducing the potential that existing habitat will be lost.


Due to disturbance and the loss of individual large trees and snags, the Project may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for Townsend’s big-eared bats.

Western pond turtle

Habitat for Western Pond Turtle is present along the Indian Creek and the larger tributaries. Underburns conducted in the spring in areas adjacent to the Indian Creek could burn in western pond turtle winter habitat. Although no studies could be found that describe the effects of prescribed fire on wintering turtles, it is possible that turtles may be harmed by a low intensity fire. The turtles are buried in the leaf litter during this period and are generally within 600 feet of a permanent water source (Jennings and Hays, 1994).

Underburns, except for alternative 4, are proposed for areas adjacent to Indian Creek.


The Proposed Action may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for northwestern pond turtle because aquatic conservation design and BMP will reduce adverse effects to riparian species like the western pond turtle.

Foothill yellow-legged frog

Less than 5 percent of any 7th field watershed will be impacted by thinning (Table 13). Forty-three ephemeral and 50 intermittent streams are adjacent or within the proposed treatment units. Eight perennial streams were located adjacent to proposed treatment units. No commercial treatments are located in fish-bearing stream course riparian reserves (RRs). All of the landscape scale underburn units are adjacent to anadromous and/or resident fish-bearing stream course RRs (hydro report). Larger buffers are also required for perennial streams to lower the risk of shade reduction. All of the perennial streams flow adjacent to, not throughout, treatment units. Therefore any treatment to perennial stream course RRs would only occur on one side of the stream course. The effects to stream temperature should be minor due to the larger buffer widths for perennial streams

Thinning with ground based and skyline equipment, underburning and road use may have negligible, short-term indirect effects on stream habitat as a result of the potential for sediment

Title of Project

57

delivery to streams within the project area. Implementation of Best Management Practices (Bousfield, 2010, Gurnbaum, 2010) and protection measures for fish will reduce any potential downstream effects in slow moving waters of Indian Creek and its tributaries and the Klamath River.

Table 13: Proposed Action commercial treatment acreage located in stream course RRs by 7th –field watershed. Ground based treatment acreage includes feller buncher, tractor endline and traditional tractor yarding (hyrdo report).

Total Stream Course RR treatment acreage with project design feature

(% of all RR)

7th -field Watershed name Total Stream Course RR (acres)

Commercial Treatment

Ground Based

Indian Creek Headwaters 1,915 59.9 (3.1) 42.5 (2.2)

West Branch Indian Creek 1,288 40.0 (3.1) 40.0 (3.1)

Indian/Mill Creek 1,326 9.8 (0.7) 9.8 (0.7)

Coon-Wagner 1,598 46.3 (2.9) 46.3 (2.9)

Little SF Indian Creek 1,469 13.4 (0.9) 13.4 (0.9)

Cole-Clauson 2,344 26.6 (1.1) 24.3 (1.0)

East Fork Indian Creek 2,605 11.1 (0.4) 11.1 (0.4)

Luther-Ikes 1,850

Indian/Doolittle Creek 1,480 23.2 (1.6) 22.0 (1.5)

Indian Creek 5th -field 20,068 230.3 (1.2) 209.4 (1.0)

Underburning is proposed within the riparian reserves that have suitable foothill yellow-legged frog habitat. Riparian reserves are designed to act as a filter and provide shade to maintain water quality in local streams (Bousfield, 2010). Riparian Reserves aquatic conservation standard and KNF BMP will protect foothill yellow-legged frogs from the effects of thinning, and underburning.

Project design features and BMPs ensure that any fire in the inner stream course RR will be due to backing and be low severity which will retain adequate soil cover. Additional project design features recommend spring burning on portions of the proposed underburns located on steep slopes directly above the main stem of Indian Creek. Spring burning will reduce the possibility of extreme fire behavior resulting in moderate to high soil burn severity. Moderate to high soil burn severity in those locations could lead to sediment delivery and reductions in stream shade on anadromous main stem reaches of Indian Creek. Effects to water quality due to prescribed fire will be short-term (1- 2 years) and occur at the site scale. Prescribed fire would not cause adverse impact to beneficial uses of water (Bousfield, 2010).


As a result the project may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of the foothill yellow-legged frog.

Siskiyou mountain/Scott Bar Salamander


58

No talus habitat was identified within the thinning units and therefore thinning would not affect habitat or individuals. Plantations are no suitable habitat because they lack sufficient amounts of large down woody debris.

Proposed underburns were not surveyed and there may be populations of Siskiyou Mountains salamanders in these areas. Underburn areas were not surveyed because underburning is regarded to have minor impacts to individuals and habitat. Salamanders are surface active when conditions are wet and humid. Thus when conditions are best to underburn, most salamanders will have retreated deep into the talus. In addition, prescribed burns are designed to mimic low-intensity fire and therefore have low impact to overstory trees that provide shade to talus area. However a few individuals may be in down wood or other flammable material and would be susceptible to the effects of the prescribed burns


Salamanders located in the prescribed burn areas may be susceptible to the effects of the proposed burns in the project area. As a result the project may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of the Siskiyou Mountains/Scott Bar salamanders.

Blue-gray taildropper

Historic locations of BGTD are located within 100 feet of unit 116. Landings will not be located within the BGTD area and the existing skid trail along west boundary will not be used (refer to Figure 2). No heavy equipment shall enter these occupied areas.

Surveys will be conducted within the proposed thinning of natural units where it overlaps with stream riparian reserves. If blue-gray taildroppers are located then they will be buffered from ground disturbing activities according to the protection measures of one site potential tree.

The areas of the proposed underburns were not surveyed because Underburn areas were not surveyed because underburning is regarded to have minor impacts to individuals and habitat. . Most mollusks will have retreated underground prior to the conditions being right for a prescribed fire. However a few individuals may be in down wood or other flammable material and would be susceptible to the effects of the prescribed burns.

Occupied sites in Unit 116 and any located during surveys in natural stands would be protected with no buffers from ground disturbing activities; however some individual animals may be affected directly or indirectly in the prescribed fire areas.


The project may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of the blue-grey taildropper.

Southern torrent salamander

Riparian reserves aquatic conservation strategy and KNF BMP will protect southern torrent salamanders from the effects of thinning, and underburning, there will be no direct effects on southern torrent salamanders from the proposed action.

Title of Project

59

Thinning with ground based and skyline equipment, underburning and road use may have negligible, short-term indirect effects on stream habitat as a result of the potential for sediment delivery to streams within the action area. Implementation of Best Management Practices (Bousfield, 2010, Grunbaum, 2010) and protection measures for fish will eliminate most potential downstream effects in Indian Creek and its tributaries in the Project area.

Due to protection of Riparian Reserves, best management practices and protection measures for fish changes in water quality in the project area streams are expected to be minimal and short term (Bousfield, 2010, Grunbaum, 2010).


The Proposed Action may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of the southern torrent salamander.

Great Grey Owl

Great grey owl habitat will benefit from meadow treatments. Furthermore underburns will increase prey availability and opening may be beneficial to GGO. Although no GGO have been observed it is possible that noise disturbance could occur during management activities during GGO nesting period.


Therefore all alternative may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of the great grey owl.

Management Indicator species

Table 14: Treatments per habitat type for Management Indicator Species

Alt 2 Alt3 Alt 4

Treatment Habitat Acres Acres Acres

PCT early seral 3 3 3

Roadside Pole Thin brush 0 0 0

Roadside Pole Thin early seral 20 20 20

Roadside Pole Thin mature dense MC 35 35 35

Roadside Pole Thin mid seral 29 29 29

Roadside Sanitation Thin brush 3 3 3Roadside Sanitation Thin early seral 25 25 25Roadside Sanitation Thin

mature dense MC 5 5 5


60

Roadside Sanitation Thin mid seral 3 3 3

Thin Natural Stand OFF-FOREST 2 2 2

Thin Natural Stand brush 5 5 5

Thin Natural Stand early seral 48 41 48

Thin Natural Stand mature F 15 4 15

Thin Natural Stand mature dense MC 185 99 185

Thin Natural Stand mid seral 75 49 75

Thin Plantation brush 8 8 8

Thin Plantation early seral 1406 1294 1406

Thin Plantation mature F 3 3 3

Thin Plantation mature MC 4 4 4

Thin Plantation mature dense MC 80 72 80

Thin Plantation mid seral 130 113 130

Thin Plantation oak 0 0 0

Thin Plantation/PCT early seral 28 28 28

Thin Plantation/PCT mature dense MC 7 7 7

Thin Plantation/PCT mid seral 0 0 0

Underburn Only brush 189 189 51

Underburn Only early seral 2142 2147 355

Underburn Only hg 8 8 0

Underburn Only mature F 349 349 0

Underburn Only mature MC 16 16 0

Underburn Only mature dense MC 3185 3222 125

Underburn Only mature hardwood 2 2 0

Underburn Only mid seral 1281 1308 37

Underburn Only oak 7 7 0

Underburn Only other 2 2 0

Underburn Only riparian 66 66 0

Harwood associated species

Acorn Woodpecker /Western Gray Squirrel

There is approximately 608 acres of oak stands and 90 acres of mature hardwoods are within the project area (KNF MIS GIS Layer). Treatments in the Project Area include approximately 27 acres of oak woodland restoration. Two acres of mature hardwoods and seven acres of oak stands are expected to be underburned. The objective for these underburns is to remove conifer encroachment on oaks stands to reduce fuels and improve oak woodland habitat.

Title of Project

61

Acorn storage trees are actively defended and are very important to the survival of the species like the acorn woodpecker and western gray squirrel (CDFG, 1990). Acorn storage trees are likely to be located in larger areas of oak woodlands; territories usually range from 2 to 20 acres (CDGF, 1990). Small inclusions of hardwoods in the commercial thin stands would not be targeted for treatment and the negative effects on the hardwood species association is expected to be minimal because prescription measure will be thinning around large hardwoods to encourage growth and mast production.

Prescriptions for the Project will maintain and develop the large black oaks that are quickly disappearing from the stands due to conifer encroachment. The maintenance and development of black oak is expected to be a short and long term benefit for the hardwood species association. Thinning and fuels treatment in and around oak woodland inclusions are designed in part to reduce the risk of high intensity wildfire which can damage oak woodlands. Overall the thinning will be beneficial to acorn woodpecker and the western grey squirrel.

Prescribed burns conducted in the spring would also affect acorn woodpeckers and western grey squirrels through smoke intrusion through their nesting habitat which could be heavy at times. The fuels treatments will help protect oak woodlands from stand replacing fires and would benefit both western grey squirrels and acorn woodpeckers by protecting their habitat. Fuels treatments have the potential remove some snags for safety reason which will be short term effects; however, the potential for reduced fire severity in these hardwood stands will provide an overall long term benefit for the hardwood species association habitat.

River/stream species associated species

Tailed frog/ American Dipper/Northern Water Shrew/Long-tailed vole

Less than 5 percent of any 7th field watershed will be impacted by the thinning units. Forty-three ephemeral and 50 intermittent streams are adjacent or within the proposed treatment units. Eight perennial streams are located adjacent to proposed treatment units. No commercial treatments are located in fish-bearing stream course RRs. All of the landscape scale underburn units are adjacent to anadromous and/or resident fish-bearing stream course RRs (hydro report). Larger buffers are also required for perennial streams to lower the risk of shade reduction. All of the perennial streams flow adjacent to, not throughout, treatment units. Therefore any treatment to perennial stream course RRs would only occur on one side of the stream course. The effects to stream temperature should be minor due to the larger buffer widths for perennial streams.

Thinning with ground based and skyline equipment, underburning and road use may have negligible, short-term indirect effects on stream habitat as a result of the potential for sediment delivery to streams within the project area. Implementation of Best Management Practices (refer to fisheries and hydrology reports) and protection measures for fish will eliminate any potential downstream effects in slow moving waters of Indian Creek and its tributaries and the Klamath River. Thinning and fuels reduction in riparian reserves are designed to ensure that riparian reserves are intact and functioning post treatment and that existing stream shading is not reduced (USDA Forest Service 1994). Although the turbidity in some streams may elevate slightly during initial storm events following treatments in riparian reserves, these impacts are not expected to be significant (hydro report). The retention of functioning riparian reserve buffers around streams will also minimize the probability of any mobilized sediment originating from stands outside of riparian reserves from reaching the stream channel.


62

Underburning is proposed within the 66 acres of riparian habitat (table 14). Riparian reserves are designed to act as a filter and provide shade to maintain water quality in local streams (Hydrology Report). Project design features and BMPs ensure that any fire in the inner stream course RR will be due to backing and be low severity which will retain adequate soil cover. Additional project design features recommend spring burning on portions of the proposed underburns located on steep slopes directly above the main stem of Indian Creek. Spring burning will reduce the possibility of extreme fire behavior resulting in moderate to high soil burn severity. Moderate to high soil burn severity in those locations could lead to sediment delivery and reductions in stream shade on anadromous main stem reaches of Indian Creek. Effects to water quality due to prescribed fire will be short-term (1- 2 years) and occur at the site scale. Prescribed fire would not cause adverse impact to beneficial uses of water (hydro report).

Water drafting, for road water, has the potential to directly kill or injure tailed frogs or impact habitat for the other river/stream associated species. All drafting equipment will be screened and water drafting will not reduce naturally occurring flow by more than 10% (fisheries report). Thus, direct impacts to tailed frogs and impacts to stream water quality are expected to be negligible

Habitat important to River and Stream species association will be protected by riparian buffers on all streams that are adequate to filter sediment. New road construction has been limited to 2.9 miles of temporary road, no new roads will cross stream channels, and best management practices applied to ground based logging. Impacts to important components of tailed frogs, American dipper, northern water shrew, and long-tailed vole habitat, such as stream turbidity, temperature, and substrate; riparian vegetation; and downed woody debris adjacent to streams are expected to be negligible and short term.

Snag Associated Species

Red-breasted sapsucker/Hairy woodpecker/White-headed woodpecker/Vaux’s swift/ Downy woodpecker/ Pileated woodpecker/Black-backed woodpecker

There are roughly 0-5 snags per acre in the project area. In plantations, most snags are under 15 inches dbh and are not likely to be used by snag associated species. In the natural stands there are approximately 1-2 snags per acre (Carol Sharp pers com).

Temporary road and landing construction, and building yarder corridors would remove some large trees and snags suitable for nesting and roosting but would not be targeted for removal; snags and large trees would only be removed in these situations for safety reasons. Thus, at the scale of the project area, these impacts to large tree and snag habitat are expected to be minimal

Thinning designed to promote the development of late-successional habitat would not eliminate important structural components of snag associated species such as large-diameter trees, snags, and down woody debris. Canopy cover, an important element of pileated woodpecker and Vaux’s swift habitat, is not expected to be substantially changed within potential habitat for these species because reduction of large trees is expected to be minimal and suitable trees will be readily available throughout the project area. Impacts to the distribution and abundance of these habitat components are expected to be minimal.

Fuel reduction treatments also have the potential to remove snags and down wood; however, prescriptions are designed to imitate low intensity fire and are designed to retain Klamath National Forest Plan recommendations for these components. As a result, fuel reduction

Title of Project

63

treatments are not expected to have a measurable? impact to important structural components of snag associated species habitat.

Over time, thinning and fuel reduction treatments are expected to result in increases in amounts and distribution of important habitat components for snag associated species. Thinning and subsequent fuels treatments are expected to reduce crown fire potential by maintaining a surface fire type; reducing potential stand mortality in the event of a fire start. These factors indicate that stands would be more resistant to large-scale fires but would still burn with sufficient intensity to create snags and small openings within forested habitat. Thus, these fire behavior patterns have the potential to create important structural components for snag associated species without significantly reducing existing components.

The implementation of the Proposed Action could result in the incidental loss of individual large trees and snags; New snags will be created by the used of fires and the overall effects to snag habitat will be minimal and short term.

Species of interest

Peregrine Falcon Management area 5

Direct and indirect Effects

All treatments are greater than 1 mile, but less than 1.5 mile from the falcon eyrie. Approximately 72 acres of thinning of plantations and 280 acres of underburning will be implemented within the peregrine management area. Silvicultural prescriptions in these units are designed to promote late-successional forest and would maintain large trees, snags and down wood. Maintenance of these structures would sustain populations of cavity nesting birds that are prey for peregrine falcons. There may be short-term reduction in some prey species; however, there would be long-term benefits of increased tree diameter and thus, larger snags, and in the event of a fire start, reduced fire severity in the thinned and underburned treatment units.

Silvicultural prescriptions for the stands in the peregrine falcon management area are designed to develop large trees and snags sooner than untreated stands. Fuels treatment in the area would help reduce the possibility of stand replacing fires, thus protecting the existing habitat. As a result, the Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would have short and long-term benefits for the peregrine falcon.

My determination for the Peregrine Falcon Management area is no direct, indirect or cumulative effect.

Table 15: Peregrine Home range analysis Treatments within 1.5 miles of Peregrine eyrie

Habitat present

Habitat being

treated Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

Habitat Type

Acres Habitat

Type Treatment Acres Percent Acres Acres

brush 231 early

seral Thin Plantation 70 7 70 70

early seral

1021 mature

dense MC Thin Plantation 2 0 2 2

mature F

308 mid

seral Thin Plantation 1 0 1 1


64

mature MC

41 Early

seral Underburn Only 57 6 57

mature dense MC

1673 mature

dense MC Underburn Only 211 13 211

mid seral

1355 mid

seral Underburn Only 16 1 16

other 4

riparian 8

Summary of Effects

VII. PROJECT SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS FOR ALL SPECIES Species: Determination of Effects

Northern spotted owl May affect, and is not likely to adversely affect

NSO critical habitat May affect, and is not likely to adversely affect

Marbled murrelet No effect

Marbled murrelet critical habitat No effect

Bald eagle No effect

Shortnose sucker No effect; no habitat in project area

Lost River sucker No effect; no habitat in project area

Tidewater goby No effect; no habitat in project area

Northern goshawk May impact individuals, but not likely to lead to a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability

Great gray owl May impact individuals, but not likely to lead to a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability

Willow flycatcher May impact individuals, but not likely to lead to a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability

California wolverine May impact individuals, but not likely to lead to a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability

Pacific fisher May impact individuals, but not likely to lead to a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability

American marten No effect

Pallid bat No effect, outside range

Townsend’s big-eared bat May impact individuals, but not likely to lead to a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability

Northwestern pond turtle May impact individuals, but not likely to lead to a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability

Title of Project

65

Foothill yellow-legged frog No effect

Cascade frog No effect

Blue-gray taildropper May impact individuals, but not likely to lead to a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability

Tehama chaparral No effect, outside range

Siskiyou mountains salamander May Impact individuals, but not likely to lead to a trend toward Federal listing

Swainson’s hawk No effect; no habitat in project area

Greater sandhill crane No effect; no habitat in project area

Southern torrent salamander May impact individuals, but not likely to lead to a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability

Sierra Nevada red fox Outside of range

Monitoring Recommendations Field review and documentation on underburn area post treatment to determine how much and what intensities fire affected NSO habitat and NSO prey habitat.

Project area should be surveyed and known NSO sites should be monitored for till 2011.

Historic Goshawk sites should be monitored till 2011.


66

Title of Project

67

Figure 1: Project Areas and Analysis Areas for the Two Bit Vegetation Management Project


68

Figure 2: Blue Grey Tail Dropper Known Site location and Protection Boundary

(Orange Boundary indicates equipment exclusion zone)

Title of Project

1

Figure 3: Marbled Murrelet Zone Boundary in relation to Two Bit Vegetation Management Project Area


2

References (Literature Cited) Alig, R.J.; Zheng, D.; Spies, T.A.; Butler, B.J. 2000. Forest cover dynamics in the Pacific Northwest west side: regional trends and projections. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-522. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 22 p. Alegria, J., L. Folliard, J. Lint, S. Madsen, T. Max, and L. Webb. 2002. Southwest Oregon inland survey assessment for marbled murrelets. Final Report U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland OR Alexander, J. D., N. E. Seavy, and P. E. Hosten. 2007. Using conservation plans and bird monitoring to evaluate ecological effects of management: an example with fuels reduction activities in southwest Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management 238:375-383. Andersen, D. E., O.J. Rongstad, and W. R. Mytton. 1989. Response of nesting red-tailed hawks to helicopter overflights. The Condor 91: 296-299. Anthony, R. G., E. D. Forsman, A. B. Franklin, D. R. Anderson, K. P. Burnham, G. C. White, C.J. Schwarz, J. Nichols, J. E. Hines, G. S. Olson, S. H. Ackers, S. Andrews, B. L. Biswell, P. C. Carlson, L. V. Diller, K. M. Dugger, K. E. Fehring, T. L. Fleming, R. P. Gerhardt, S. A. Gremel, R. J. Gutiérrez, P. J. Happe, D. R. Herter, J. M. Higley, R. B. Horn, L. L. Irwin, P. J. Loschl, J. A. Reid, and S. G. Sovern. 2006. Status and trends in demography of northern spotted owls, 1985-2003. Wildlife Mongraphs. 163:1-48. Anthony, R. G., and F. B. Isaacs. 1989. Characteristics of bald eagle nest sites in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management. 53:148–159. Ashton, D. T., A. J. Lind, and K. E. Schlick. 1997. Western Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata). Natural History. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Soutwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences Laboratory, Arcata, CA. Aubrey, K.B., M.J. Crites, and S.D. West 1991. Regional paterns of small mammal abundance and community composition in Oregon an dWashington. In Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir forests (L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, A.B. Carey, and M.G. Huff, tech Cords.) USDA Forest Service. GTR-PNW-285, 532pp Austin, K. K. 1993. Habitat use and home range size of breeding northern goshawks in the southern Cascades. M.S. Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvalis, OR. Bart, J. 1995. Amount of suitable habitat and viability of northern spotted owls. Conservation Biology 9:943-946. Beedy. 1981 Bird communities and forest structure in the Sierra Nevada of California. The Condor 83:97-105.

Title of Project

3

Beier, P., and J. E. Drennan. 1997. Forest structure and prey abundance in foraging areas of northern goshawks. Ecological Applications 7:564–571. Bigley, R. E., and J. F. Franklin. 2004. Habitat trends. Pages 6-2 to 6-35 in Courtney et al. Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, Portland, OR. Biswell, B., M. Blow, R. Breckel, L. Finley, J. Lint. 2002. Survey Protocol for the Red Tree Vole. Version 2.1, Revision October 2002. Blakesley, J. A., A. B. Franklin, and R. J. Gutiérrez. 1992. Spotted owl roost and nest site selection in northwest California. Journal of Wildlife Management. 56:388-392. Blakesley, J. A., W. LaHaye, J. M. Marzluff, B. R. Noon, and S. P. Courtney. 2004. Demography. Pages 8-2 to 8-46 in Courtney et al. Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, Portland, OR. Blaustein, A. R., J. J. Beatty, D. H. Olson, and R. M. Storm. 1995. The biology of amphibians and reptiles in old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-337. USDA Pacific Northwest Research Station, Corvallis, OR. Bloxton, T. D. 2002. Prey abundance, space use, demography, and foraging habitat of northern goshawks in western Washington. M.S. Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Boleyn, P. C. 1997. Pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) habitat use study on Six Rivers National Forest, California. M.S. Thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. Bolsinger, C.L.; Waddell, K.L. 1993. Area of old-growth forest in California, Oregon, and Washington. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-197. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 26 p. Bousfield. Greg. 2010. Hydrology Report for the Two Bit Vegetation Management Project Internal report.

Bradley, R.W.; McFarlane Tranquilla, L.A.; Vanderkist, B.A. [et al.]. 2002. Sex differences in nest visitation by chick-rearing marbled murrelets. Condor. 104: 178-183. Brown, H. A., R. B. Bury, D. M. Darda, L. V. Diller, C. R. Peterson, and R. M. Storm. 1995. Reptiles of Washington and Oregon. R. M. Storm and W. P. Leonard Buchanan, J. B., R. E. Rogers, D. J. Pierce, and J. E. Jacobson. 2003. Nest-site habitat use by white-headed woodpeckers in the eastern Cascade Mountains, Washington. Northwestern Naturalist. 84:119–128.


4

Buehler, D. A., T. J. Mersmann, J. D. Fraser, and J. K. Seegar. 1991. Nonbreeding bald eagle communal and solitary roosting behavior and habitat use on the northern Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Wildlife Management. 55:273–281. Buehler, D. A. 2000. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). In A. Poole and F. Gill editors. The Birds of North America, No. 506. The American Ornithologist’ Union, Washington, D.C.; The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA. Bull, E. L., and J. A. Jackson. 1995. Pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus). In A. Pooleand F. Gill editors. The Birds of North America, No. 148. The American Ornithologist’Union, Washington, D.C.; The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA. Bull, E. L. 1987. Ecology of the pileated woodpecker in northeastern Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management. 51:472–481. Bull, E. L., and R. S. Holthausen. 1993. Habitat use and management of pileated woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management. 57:335– 345. Bull, E. L., R. S. Holthausen, M. G. Henjum. 1992. Roost trees used by Pileated woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management. 56:786– 793. Bull, E. L., and J. E. Hohmann. 1993. The association between Vaux’s swifts and old Growth forests in northeastern Oregon. Western Birds. 24: 38–42. Bull, E. L., and H. D. Cooper. 1991. Vaux’s swift nests in hollow tree. Western Birds. 22:85-91. Bull, E. L., and C. T. Collins. 1993. Vaux’s swift (Chaetura vauxi). In A. Poole and F. Gill editors. The Birds of North America, No. 148. The American Ornithologist’Union, Washington, D.C.; The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA. Bull, E. L. 1991. Summer roosts and roosting behavior of Vaux’s swifts in old-growth forests. Northwestern Naturalist. 72:78–82. Bull, E. L., S. R. Peterson, and J. W. Thomas. 1986. Resource partitioning among woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon. USDA Forest Service. Research note PNW- 444. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. Burke, T. E., N. Duncan, and P. Jeske. 2000. Management recommendations for terrestrial mollousk species. Regional Interagency Executive Committee Survey and Manage Work Group. Bury, R. B. 1968. The distribution of Ascaphus truei in California. Herpetologica. 4:39– 46.

Title of Project

5

Buskirk, S. W. 1984. Seasonal use of resting sites by marten in southcentral Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management. 48:950–953. Buskirk, S. W., S. C. Forrest, M. G. Raphael, and H. J. Harlow. 1989. Winter resting site ecology of marten in the central Rocky Mountains. Journal of Wildlife Management. 53:191–196. Buskirk, S. W., and R. A. Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and american martens. Pages 283–296 in Buskirk et al. editors. Martens, sables, and fishers biology and conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. Buskirk, S. W., and L. F. Ruggerio. 1994. American marten. Pages 7–37 in Ruggerio et al.editors. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. General technical report RM-254. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, FortCollins, CO. California Department of Fish and Game. 1988. California’s Wildlife Volume I Amphibians and Reptiles. Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. California Department of Fish and Game. 1990. California’s Wildlife Volume II Birds California Department of Fish and Game. 1990. California’s Wildlife Volume III Mammals. Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. California Department of Fish and Game. 2005. Petition to the State of California Fish and Game Commission supporting information for Siskiyou Mountains Salamander (Plethodon stormi). California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. Carey, A. B. 1991. The biology of arboreal rodents in Douglas-fir forests. I(M.H. Huff, R.S. Holthausen, and K.B. Aubry, tech Coords.) Biology and management of Old-growth forests. USDA Forest Service, PNW-GTR-276. Carey, A. B. 1993. Prey ecology and northern spotted diet. Abstract of presentation, Spotted Owl Symposium, annual meeting of the Raptor Research Foundation, Inc., Bellevue, WA, November 11-15, 1992. Journal of Raptor Research 27:53-54. Carey, A. B., T. M. Wilson , C. C. Maguire, and B. L. Biswell. 1997. Dens of northern flying squirrels in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Wildlife Management. 61:684-699. Carey, A. B., C. C. Maguire, B. L. Biswell, and T. M. Wilson. 1999. Distribution and abundance of Neotoma in western Oregon. Northwest Science. 73:65-80. Carey, A. B. 2000. Ecology of northern flying squirrels: implications for ecosystem management in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Pages 45-66 in R. Goldingay and J. Scheibe (eds.) Biology of gliding mammals. Filander Press, Furth, Germany.


6

Carey and Wilson 2001. Induced spatial heterogeneity in forest canopies: response of small mammals. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:1014–1027

Carter, H.R.; Kuletz, K.J. 1995. Mortality of marbled murrelets due to oil pollution in North America. In: Ralph, C.J.; Hunt, G.L., Jr.; Raphael, M.G.; Piatt, J.F., eds. Ecology and conservation of the marbled murrelet. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-152. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 261-269. Carter, H.R.; McAllister, M.L.C.; Isleib, M.E. 1995. Mortality of marbled murrelets in Piatt, J.F., eds. Ecologyand conservation of the marbled murrelet. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-152. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 271-283. Chester, D. N., D. F. Stauffer, T. J. Smith, D. R. Luukonen, and J. D. Fraser. 1990. Habitat use by nonbreeding bald eagles in North Carolina. Journal of Wildlife Management. 54:223-234. Clayton. D. R., D. H. Olson, and R. S. Nauman. 2004. Conservation assessment for the Siskiyou Mountains salamander (Plethodon stormi). USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service and USDA, Forest Service. Unpublished report. Clayton, D., and R. Nauman. 2005. Siskiyou Mountains salamander. Pages 137–138 in Amphibians of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle Audobon Society, Seattle, WA. Conaway, C. H. 1952. Life history of the water shrew (Sorex palustris navigator). American Midland Naturalist. 48:219–248. Copeland, J. P., and R. E. Yates. 2006. Wolverine population assessment in Glacier National Park. Spring 2006 Progress Report. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT. Corkran CC and C Thoms. 1996. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. Lone Pine Publishing, Renton, Washington, 175 pp. Corn, P.S. and R.B. Bury. 1986. Habittat use and terrestrial activity by red tree voles (Arbprimous longicaudus) in Oregon. J. Mammology 67: 404-406. Corn, P.S. and R.B. Bury 1991. Small mammal communities in the Oregon Coast Range. In wWildlife and vegetation of unmanages Douglas-fir forests (L. F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, A.B. Caqrey, and M.G. Huff, tech cords.) USDA Forest Service, GTR-PNW-285, 532pp. Csuti, B., A. J. Kimerling, T. A. O’Neil, M. M. Shaughnessy, E. P. Gaines, and M. P. Huso. 1997. Atlas of Oregon Wildlife. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.

Title of Project

7

Dillingham, C.P.; Miller, R.C.; Webb, L.O. 1995. Marbled murrelet distribution in the Siskiyou National Forest of southwestern Oregon. Northwestern Naturalist. 76: 33-39. Dixon, R. D. 1995. Density, nest-site and roost-site characteristics, home-range, habitat- use, and behavior of white-headed woodpeckers: Deschutes and Winema National Forests, Oregon. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Nongame Report 93- 3-01. Dixon, R. D., and V. A. Saab. 2000. Black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus). In A.Poole and F. Gill editors. The Birds of North America, No. 509. The American Ornithologist’ Union, Washington, D.C.; The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA. Delaney, D. K., T. G. Grubb, P. Beier, L. L. Pater, and M. H. Reiser. 1999. Effects of helicopter noise on Mexican spotted owls. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:60-76. Drennan, J. E., and P. Beier. 2003. Forest structure and prey abundance in winter habitat of northern goshawks. Journal of Wildlife Management 67:177–185. Dunbar, D. L., B. P. Booth, E. D. Forsman, A. E. Hetherington, and D. J. Wilson. 1991. Status of the spotted owl, Strix occidentalis, and barred owl, Strix varia, in southwestern British Columbia. Canadian Field Naturalist 105:464-468. Duncan, N, T. Burke, S. Dowlan, and P. Hohenlohe. 2003. Survey protocol for survey and manage terrestrial mollusk species from the Northwest Forest Plan. USDA Forest Serviceand USDI Bureau of Land management. Dunk , J.R. and Hawley J. J. V.G. 2007. Red tree vole habitat and reserve associations in Oregon and Northern California. Department of Environmental and Natural Resource sciences, Humboldt State University. Dugger, K. M., F. Wagner, R. G. Anthony, and G. S. Olson. 2005. The relationship between habitat characteristics and demographic performance of northern spotted owls in southern Oregon. The Condor 107:863-878. Enderson, J. E, and G. R. Craig. 1997. Wide ranging by nesting peregrine falcons (Falcoperegrinus) determined by radiotelemetry. Journal of Raptor Research. 31:333–338.

Farber, S., R. Hawkins, and J. Whitaker. 2001. Habitat relationship of Sikiyou Mountain salamander (Plethodon stormi) on Timber Products forestlands in northern California. Timber Products Company report submitted to the California Department of Fish and Game. Farber, S., and T. Franklin. 2005. Presence-absence surveys for pacific fisher (Martes pennanti) in the Eastern Klamath Province of interior northern California. Timber


8

Products Company report submitted to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fellers, G. M., E. D. Pierson. 2002. Habitat use and foraging behavior of Townsend’s bigeared bat (Corynorhinus townsedii) in coastal California. Journal of Mammalogy. 83:167–177. Folliard, L. B., K. P. Reese, and L. V. Dillard. 2000. Landscape characteristics of northern spotted owl nest sites in managed forests of northwestern California. Journal of Raptor Research. 34:75-84. Forsman, E. D. 1976. A prelimenary investigation of the spotted owl in Oregon. M. S. Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvalis, OR. Forsman, E. D., R. G. Anthony, J. A. Reid, P. J. Loschl, S. G. Sovern, M. Taylor, B. L. Biswell, Ellingson, E. C. Meslow, G. S. Miller, K. A. Swindle, J. A. Thrailkill, F. F. Wagner, and D. E. Seaman. 2002. Natal and breeding dispersal of northern spotted owls. Wildlife Monographs 149:1-35. Forsman, E. D., R. G. Anthony, E. C. Meslow, and C. J. Zabel. 2004. Diets and foraging behavior of northern spotted owls in Oregon. Journal of Raptor Research 38:214-230. Forsman, E. D., I. A. Otto, S. G. Sovern, M. Taylor, D. W. Hays, H. Allen, S. L. Roberts, and D. E. Seaman. 2001. Spatial and temporal variation in diets of spotted owls in Washington. Journal of Raptor Research 35:141-150. Forsman, E. D., E. C. Meslow, and H. M. Wight. 1984. Distribution and biology of the spotted owl in Oregon. Wildlife Monographs 87:1–64. Franklin, A. B., D. R. Anderson, R. J. Gutiérrez, and K. P. Burnham. 2000. Climate, habitat quality, and fitness in northern spotted owl populations in Northwestern California.Ecological Monographs 70:539–590. Forsman, E. D., R. G. Anthony, E. C. Meslow, and C. J. Zabel. 2004. Diets and foraging behavior of northern spotted owls in Oregon. Journal of Raptor Research 38:214-230. Fuller, D. D., and A. J. Lind. 1992. Implications of fish habitat improvement structures for other stream invertebrates. Pages 96–104 in H. M. Kerner editor. Proceedings of the Syposium on Biodiversity of Northwestern California. University of California, Berkeley, CA. Garman, S.L.; Swanson, F.J.; Spies, T.A. 1999. Past, present, future landscape patterns in the Douglas-fir region of the Pacific Northwest. In: Rochelle, J.A.; Lehmann, L.A.; Wisniewski, J., eds. Forest fragmentation: wildlife and management implications. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishing: 61-86. Garrett, K. L. M. G. Raphael, and R. D. Dixon. 1996. White-headed woodpeckers

Title of Project

9

(Picoides albolarvatus). In A. Poole and F. Gill editors. The Birds of North America, No.252. The American Ornithologist’ Union, Washington, D.C.; The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA. Gillesberg, A. and A.B. Carey. 1991. Arboreal nests of Phenacomys longicaudis in Oregon. Journal of Mammology 72: 784-787. Glenn, E. M., M. C. Hansen, and R. G. Anthony. 2004. Spotted owl home-range and habitat use in young forests of western Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 68: 33-50. Goggans, R., R. T. Dixon, and L. C. Seminara. 1988. Habitat use by three-toed and blackbacked woodpeckers, Deschutes National Forest, Oregon. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Nongame Program Technical Report, no. 87-3- 02. Gomez, D.M. 1992. Small mammal and herptofauna abundance in riparian and upslope areas of five forest conditions. Master’s Thesis Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR Grayson, K. L., and M. E. Dorcas. 2004. Seasonal temperature variation in the painted turtle(Chrysemys picta). Herpetologica. 60:325–336. Gutiérrez, R. J. 1996. Biology and distribution of the northern spotted owl. Pages 2–5 in E. D. Forsman et al., editors. Demography of the northern spotted owl. Studies in Avian Biology No. 17. Cooper Ornithological Society, Camarillo, CA. Gutiérrez, R. J., M. L. Cody, S. P. Courtney, and D. Kennedy. 2004. Assessment of the potential threat of the northern barred owl. Pages 7-2 to 7-51 in Courtney et al. Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, Portland, OR. Hagar, J, S. Howlin, and L. Ganio. 2004. Short-term response of songbirds to experimental thinning of young Douglas-fir forests in the Oregon Cascades. Forest Ecology and Management 199:333-347. Hagar, J. C., W. C. McComb, and W. H. Emmingham. 1996. Bird communities in commercially thinned and unthinned Douglas-fir stands of western Oregon. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:353-366. Hamer, T.E. 1996. A predictive model of habitat suitability for the marbled murrelet and habitat rating strategy for the Elliott State Forest. Coos Bay, OR: Oregon Department of Forestry. 45 p. Hamer, T. E., D. L. Hays, C. M. Senger, and E. D. Forsman. 2001. Diets of northern barred owls and northern spotted owls in an area of sympatry. Journal of Raptor Research 35:221-227.


10

Hamm, K. A. 1995. Abundance of dusky-footed woodrats in managed forests of northern California. M. S. Thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. Hansen, A.J.; Spies, T.A.; Swanson, F.J. [et al.]. 1991. Conserving biodiversity in managed forests. BioScience. 41: 382-392. Hargis, C. D., C. McCarthy, and R. D. Perloff. 1994. Home ranges and habitats of northern goshawks in eastern California. Studies in Avian Biology. 16:66–74. Hargis, C. D., and D. R. McCullough. 1984. Winter diet and habitat selection of marten in Yosemite National Park. Journal of Wildlife Management. 48:14-146. Harris, J. H., S. D. Sanders, and M. A. Flett. 1987. Willow flycatchers surveys in the Sierra Nevada. Western birds. 18:27–36. Herter, D. R., and L. L. Hicks. 2000. Barred owl and spotted owl populations and habitat in the central Cascade Range of Washington. Journal of Raptor Research 34:279 286. Holland, D. 1994. The western pond turtle: habitat and history. Final report submitted to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR. Hornocker, M. G., and H. S. Hash. 1981. Ecology of the wolverine in northwestern Montana.Canadian Journal of Zoology. 59:1286–1301. Huff, M.H.; Raphael, M.G.; Miller, S.L.; Nelson, S. K.; Baldwin, J.. 2006 Status and Trends of Populations and Nesting Habitat for the Marbled Murrelet. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-650. USDA Forest Service Northwest Research Station

Hunter, J. 1997. Management-related Marbled Murrelet Survey Effort on the Six Rivers National Forest, California, 1992-97. Unpublished report on file Six Rivers National Forest, 1330 Bayshore Way, Eureka CA 95501. 10 pp.

Hunter, J. and R. LeValley. 1996. Improving the reliability of Marbled Murrelet surveys in low abundance areas. Pacific Seabirds 23(1):3-4 Hunter, J.E.; Schmidt, K.N.; Stauffer, H.B. [et al.]. 1998. Status on the marbled murrelet in the inner north Coast Ranges of California. Northwestern Naturalist. 79: 92- 103. Hutto, R. L. 1995. Composition of bird communities following stand-replacement fires in Northern Rocky Mountain (U.S.A.) conifer forests. Conservation Biology 9:1041-1058. Isbell, Clint. 2010. Fire and Fuels Report for the Two Bit Vegetation Management Project. Internal report.

Title of Project

11

Inman, R. M., R. R. Wigglesworth, K.H. Inman, M. K. Schwartz, B. L. Brock, and J. D. Rieck. 2004. Wolverine makes extensive movements in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.Northwest Science. 78:261–266. Irwin, L. L., D. Rock, and S. Rock. 2004. Adaptive management monitoring of spotted owls Annual progress report January 2004. National Council for Air and Stream Improvement. Unpublished report. Irwin, L. L., L. A. Clark, D. C. Rock, and S. L. Rock. 2006. Modeling foraging habitat of California spotted owls. Journal of Wildlife Management. In press. Jackson, J. A., H. R. Ouellet, and S. B. Jackson. 2002. Hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus). In A. Poole and F. Gill editors. The Birds of North America, No.702. The American Ornithologist’ Union, Washington, D.C.; The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA. Jennings, M. R. and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern of California. California Department of Fish and Game. Rancho Cordova. 255pg

Johnsgard, P. A. 1990. Hawks, Eagles, and Falcons of North America. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D. C. Johnson, M.L. and S.B. George 1991. Species limits within the Arborimus longicaudus species-complex (Mammalia:Rodentia) with a description od a new species from California. Contributions in Science 429: 1-16 Jones, J. L. 1991. Habitat use of fisher in north central Idaho. M. S. Thesis. University of Idaho,Moscow, ID. Jones, P.H. 2001. The marbled murrelets of the Caren Range and Middlepoint Bight.Western Canada Wilderness Committee, Vancouver, BC. Kaufman, D. W., E.J. Finck, G. A. Kaufman. 1990. Small mammals and grassland fires In: Collins, S.L., Wallace, L.L. (Eds) Fire in North American Tallgrass Prairies. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma, USA. Pp 46-80. 34p. Keister, G. P. and R. G. Anthony. 1983. Characteristics of bald eagle communal roosts in the Klamath Basin. Journal of Wildlife Management. 47:1072–1079. Kelly, E. G., E. D. Forsman, and R. G. Anthony. 2003. Are barred owls replacing spotted owls? The Condor 105:45-53. Kingery, H. E. 1996. American dipper (Cinclus mexicanus). In A. Poole and F. Gilleditors.The Birds of North America, No. 229. The American Ornithologist’ Union, Washington,D.C.; The Academy of NaturalSciences, Philadelphia, PA. Koper, N., and R. J. Brooks. 2000. Environmental constraints on growth of painted turtles


12

(Chrysemys picta). Herpetologica. 56:421–432. Kotliar, N. B., S. J. Hejl, R. L. Hutto, V. A. Saab, C. P. Melcher, and M. E. McFadzen. 2002. Effects of fire and post-fire salvage logging on avian communities in conifer-dominated forests of the western United States. Studies in Avian Biology 25:49-64. Krebs, J. A., and D. Lewis. 2000. Wolverine ecology and habitat use in the North ColumbiaMountains: Progress Report. Pages 695–703 in L. M. Darling editor. Proceedings of the conference on the biology and management of species and habitats, Kamloops, British Columbia. Kucera, T. E., W. J. Zielinski, and R. H. Barrett. 1995. Current distribution of the American marten Martes Americana in California. California Fish and Game. 8:96–103. Lank, D. B. , N. Parker, E>A> Krebs, and McFarlane-Traquilla. 2003. Geographic distribution, habitat selection, and population dynamics with respect to nesting habitat characteristics of marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus). Ctr Wildlife Ecol. Simon Frase University, Vancouver, British Columbia. LaHaye, W. S., and R. J. Guitierrez. 1999. Nest sites and nesting habitat of the northern spotted owl in northwestern California. The Condor 101:324–330. Lehman, R. N. 1979. A survey of selected habitat features of 95 bald eagle nest sites in California. Wildlife Management Branch, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. Leskiw, T. and R.J. Gutiérrez. 1998. Possible predation of a spotted owl by a barred owl. Western Birds 29:225–226. Leonard, W. P., H. A. Brown, L. L. Jones, K. R. McAllister, and R. M. Storm. 1993.Amphibians of Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, WA. Lewis, S. E. 1994. Night roosting ecology of pallid bats (Antrozous pallidus) in Oregon. American Midland Naturalist. 132:219–226. Li, P., and T. E. Martin. 1991. Nest-site selection and nesting success of cavity-nesting birds in high elevation forest drainages. Auk. 108:405-418. Lyon, L. J., M. H. Huff, E. S. Telfer, D. S. Schreiner, and J. K. Smith. 2000. Fire effects on animal populations. Pages 25–34 in J. K. Smith editor. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on fauna. General technical report RMRS-42. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT Magoun, A., and J.P. Copeland. 1998. Characteristics of wolverine reproductive den sites.Journal of Wildlife Management. 62:1313–1320. Manaan, R. W. 1984. Summer area requirements of pileated woodpeckers in western

Title of Project

13

Oregon.Wildlife Society Bulletin. 12:265–268. Manning, J. A. and W. D. Edge. 2008. Small mammal responses to fine woody debris and Forest Fuel reduction in southwestern Oregon Journal of Wildlife Management 72:625-632. Maser, C.O. 1966. Life histories and ecology of Phenacomys albipes, Phenacomys longicaudus, phenacomys silvicola. Master’s Thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA Martin, K., K. E. Aitken, and K. L. Wiebe. 2004. Nest sites and nest webs for cavity nesting communities in interior British Columbia, Canada: nest characteristics and niche partitioning The Condor. 106:5-19. Maser, C. 1998. Mammals of the Pacific Northwest: from the coast to the high Cascades. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. Mazurek, M. J. 2004. A maternity roost of Townsend’s big-eared bats (Corynorhinus townsendii) in coast Redwood basal hollows in northeastern California. Northwestern Naturalist. 85:60–62. McGarigal, K., R. G. Anthony, and F. B. Issacs. 1991. Interactions of humans and bald eagles on the Columbia River estuary. Wildlife Monographs 115:1-47. Mellen, T. K., E. C. Meslow, and R. W. Manaan. 1992. Summertime home range and habitat use of pileated woodpeckers in western Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management. 56:96–103. Meyer, C.B.; Miller, S.L. 2002a. Use of fragmented landscapes by marbled murrelets for nesting in southern Oregon. Conservation Biology. 16: 755-766. Meyer, C.B.; Miller, S.L.; Ralph, C.J. 2002b. Multi-scale landscape and seascape patterns associated with marbled murrelet areas on the U.S. west coast. Landscape Ecology. 17: 95-115. Meyer, C.B., S.L. Miller, and C.J. Ralph. 2003. Logistic regression accuracy across different spatial and temporal scales for a wide-ranging species, the marbled murrelet. In: Proceedings of the 1st annual conference on resource selection by animals. January 13-15, 2003. Laramie, Wyoming. Meyer, C.B.; Miller, S.L.; Ralph, C.J. 2004a. Logistic regression accuracy across different spatial and temporal scales for a wide-ranging species, the marbled murrelet. In: Huzurbazar, S., ed. Resource selection methods and applications. Madison, WI: Omnipress: 94-106


14

Meyer, C.B.; Miller, S.L.; Ralph, C.J. 2004b. Stand scale habitat associations across a large geographic region for an old-growth specialist, the marbled murrelet. Wilson Bulletin. 116:197-210. Miller, G. S. 1989. Dispersal of juvenile spotted owls in Western Oregon. M.S. Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvalis, OR. Milne, K. A., and Hejl. 1989. Nest-site characteristics of white-headed woodpeckers. Journal of Wildlife Management. 53:50–55. Morrison, M. L., and K. A. White. 1987. Interseasonal and intersexual resource portioning in hairy and white-headed woodpeckers. Auk. 104:225–233. Morrison, M. L., and E. C. Meslow. 1983. Avifauna associated with early growth vegetation on cleracuts in the Oregon coast ranges. General Technical Report PNW-305. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station,Portland, OR. Murphy, E. C., and W. A. Lenhausen. 1998. Density and foraging ecology of woodpeckers following a stand-replacing fire. Journal of Wildlife Management. 62:1359–1372. Nelson, S.K.; Hamer, T.E. 1995. Nest success and the effects of predation on marbled murrelets. In: Ralph, C.J.; Hunt, G.L., Jr.; Raphael, M.G.; Piatt, J.F., eds. Ecology and conservation of the marbled murrelet. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-152. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 89-97. Nelson, S.K.; Wilson, A.K. 2002. Marbled murrelet habitat characteristics of state lands in western Oregon. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Forestry; Portland, OR: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 151 p. Nelson, S.K. 1997. Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphusmarmoratus). In: Poole, A.; Gill, F., eds. Birds of North America, No. 276. Philadelphia, PA: Academyof Natural Sciences; Washington, DC: American Ornithologists Union. 32 p. Nussbaum, R. A. 1974. The distributional ecology and life history of the Siskiyou Mountains salamander, Plethodon stormi, in relation to the potential impact of the proposed Applegate Reservoir on this species. Unpublished report submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Nussbaum, R. A., E. D. Brodie, and R. M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and reptiles of the Pacific Northwest. University of Idaho Press, Moscow, ID. Olson, G. S., E. M. Glenn, R. G. Anthony, E. D. Forsman, J. A. Reid, P. L. Loschl, and W. J. Ripple. 2004. Modeling demographic performance of northern spotted

Title of Project

15

owls relative to forest habitat in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management. 68:1039-1053. Ollivier, L. M., H. H. Welsh, and D. C. Clayton. 2001. Habitat correlates of the Siskiyou Mountains salamander, Plethodon stormi (Caudata: Plethodontidae); with comments on the species’ range. USDA Forest Service, Redwood Sciences Laboratory. Unpublished report. Pearson, R. R., and K. B. Livezey. 2003. Distribution, numbers, and site characteristics of spotted owls and barred owls in the Cascade Mountains of Washington. Journal of Raptor Research 37:265-276. Petrides, G. A. 1992. A field guide to western trees. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston MA

Pierson, E. D., and G. M. Fellers. 1998. Distribution and ecology of the big-eared bat, Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendii in California. Report prepared for the Department of the Interior, U. S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Species at Risk Program. Powell, R. A. 1993. The fisher: life history, ecology, and behavior. 2nd edition. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN. Powell, R. A., and W. J. Zielinski. 1994. Fisher. Pages 38–73 in Ruggerio et al.editors. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. General technical report RM- 254. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Raphael, M. G., and M. White. 1984. Use of snags by cavity nesting birds in the Sierra Nevada.Wildlife Monographs. 86:1–66. Raphael, M.G.; Evans-Mack, D.; Marzluff, J.M. [et al.]. 2002b. Effects of forest fragmentation on populations of the marbled murrelet. Studies in Avian Biology. 25: 221-235. Reese, D. A., and H. H. Welsh. 1997. Use of terrestrial habitat by western pond turtles, Clemmys marmorata: Implications for management. Pages 352–357 in roceedings of the Conservation, Restoration, and Management of Tortoises and Turtles. New York Turtle and Toroise Society. Rodway, M.S. 1990. Status report on the marbled murrelet in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Committee on the status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 59 p. Rosenberg, D. K., K. A. Swindle, and R. G. Anthony. 2003. Influence of prey abundance on northern spotted owl reproductive success in western Oregon. Canadian Journal of Zoology 81:1715-1725.


16

Ruggiero, L. F., D. E. Pearson, and S. E. Harvey. 1998. Characteristics of American marten den sites in Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management. 62;666–673. Sakai, H. F., and B. R. Noon. 1993. Dusky-footed woodrat abundance in different-aged forests in northwestern California. Journal of Wildlife Management. 57:373-382.

Schmidt, K.N., Hunter, J.E., Stauffer, H.B., Miller, Ralph, C.J., and Roberts, L. 2000. Status and Distribution of the Marbled Murrelet in Interior Northwestern California: Final Report. Unpublished report on file Six Rivers National Forest, Eureka, CA. Sedgwick, J. A. 2000. Willow flycatchers (Empidonax traillii). In A. Poole and F. Gill editors.The Birds of North America, No.533. The American Ornithologist’ Union, Washington, D.C.; The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA. Sherwin, R. 1998. Presentation to the western bat working group. Reno, NV. Siegel, R. B., and D. F. DeSante. 2003. Bird communities in thinned versus unthinned Sierran mixed conifer stands. The Wilson Bulletin 115:155-165. Simon-Jackson, T. 1989. Spotted owl inventory and monitoring program: annual report for 1989. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, San Francisco, CA. Unpublished report. Solis, D. M., and R. J. Gutierrez. 1990. Summer habitat ecology of northern spotted owls in northwestern California. The Condor. 92:739–748. Smucker, M. K., R. L. Hutto, and B. M. Steele. 2005. Changes in bird abundance after wildfire: importance of fire severity and time since fire. Ecological applications 15:1535-1549. Squires, J. R. and R. T. Reynolds. 1997. Northern Goshawks (Accipiter gentiles). In A. Poole and F. Gill editors. The Birds of North America, No. 298. The American Ornithologist’ Union,Washington, D.C.; The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA. Stalmaster, M. V., and J. L. Kaiser. 1998. Effects of recreational activity on wintering bald eagles. Wildlife Monographs. 137:1–46. Stebbins, R. C. 2003. Western reptiles and amphibians, 3rd ed. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA. Sterling, J., and P. W. Paton. 1996. Breeding distribution of Vaux’s swift in California. Western Birds. 27:30–40.

Title of Project

17

Sugihara, N. G., J. W. vanWagtendonk, and J. Fites-Kaufmann. 2006. Fire as an ecological process. Chapter 4 In N. G. Sugihara et al. editors. Fire in California Ecosystems. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA. Suzuki, N., and J. P. Hayes. 2003. Effects of thinning on small mammals in Oregon coastal forests. Journal of Wildlife Management 67:352–371. Swarthout, E. C. H. and R. J. Steidl. 2001. Flush response of Mexican spotted owls to recreationists. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:312-317. Swen, J. E., K. L. Alt, and R. L. Eng. 1986. Ecology of bald eagles in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Wildlife Monographs. 95:1–46. Szewczak, J.M., S. M. Szewczak, M. L. Morrison, and L.S. Hall. 1998. Bats of the White and Inyo Mountains of California-Nevada. Great Basin Naturalist. 58:66–75. Sztukowski, L., and S. P. Courtney. 2004. Prey. Pages 4-2 to 4-32 in Courtney et al. Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, Portland, OR. Thomas, J. W., E. D. Forsman, J. B. Lint, E. C. Meslow, B. R. Noon, and J. Verner. 1990.A conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl: a report of the Interagency Scientific Committee to address the conservation of the northern spotted owl. USDA Forest Service;USDI Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service, Portland, OR. USDA Forest Service. 1994. Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. U. S. Forest Service, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994a. Record of Decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl; standards and guidelines for management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Portland, Oregon: U.S.D.A. Forest Service, U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management. USDA Forest Service. 1999a. Thompson/Seiad/Grider Ecosystem Analysis. U. S. Forest Service, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA. USDA Forest Service. 1999b. Forest wide Late Successional Reserve Assessment. U. S. Forest Service, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. January 2001. Record of Decision for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other


18

Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. USDA Forest Service. 2003. Draft TRTE Local habitat associations and range description.U.S. Forest Service, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA. USDA Forest Service. 2005a. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Ashland Forest Resiliency. U. S. Forest Service, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Medford, OR. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990b. 1990 status review: northern spotted owl: Strix occidentalis caurina. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; determination of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl. Federal Register 10:1796-1838. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; proposed special rule for the conservation of the northern spotted owl on non- federal lands. Federal Register 60:9484–9495. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. 1997. Recovery plan for the marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon and California. Portland, OR: Region 1. 203 USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Status review of the northern goshawk in the forested west. Office of Technical Support, Forest Resources, Portland, OR.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002. Technical Assistance on the Final Results of Landscape level Surveys for Marbled Murrelets in Southwest Oregon (FWS reference: 1-7-02-TA-6401). Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, Portland, Oregon. Walters, E. L., E. H. Miller, and P. E. Lowther. 2002. Red-breasted sapsucker (Sphyrapicus rubber). In A. Poole and F. Gill editors. The Birds of North America, No. 663. The American Ornithologist’ Union, Washington, D.C.; The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA. Weikel, J. M., and J. P. Hayes. 1999. Foraging ecology of cavity nesting birds in young forests of the northern coast of Oregon. Condor. 101:58–66. Weir, R. D. 2004. Accounts and measures for managing identified wildlife-version 2004 Wolverine. Ministry of Water, Land and air Protection, British Columbia, Canada. Weir, R. D., and A. S. Harestad. 2003. Scale-dependent habitat selectivity by fishers in southcentralBritish Columbia. Journal of Wildlife Management. 67:73–82.

Title of Project

19

Welsh, H. H. 1989. Summary of sites sampled for Olympic salamander (Ryacotriton olympicus) on the Klamath National Forest during 1989. Report from the herpetofaunal research group. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Redwood Sciences Laboratory. Arcata, CA Welsh, H. H., and A. J. Lind. 1992. Population ecology of two relictual salamanders from the Klamath Mountains of northwestern California. In D. McCullough and R. Barrett editors.Wildlife 2001 Populations. Elsevier Science Publishers, London, England. White, C. M., and T. L. Thurow. 1985. Reproduction of ferruginous hawks exposed to controlled disturbance. The Condor 87:14-22. Williams, D. F., J. Verner, H. F. Sakai, and J. R. Waters. 1992. General biology of major prey species of the California spotted owl. General technical report. PSW-133. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Arcata, CA. Wimberly, M.C.; Spies, T.A. 2000. Simulating historical variability in the amount of old forests in the Oregon Coast Range. Conservation Biology. 14: 167-180 Yaeger, J. S. 2005. Habitat at fisher resting sites in the Klamath Province of northern California. M. S. Thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. Zabel, C. J., J. R. Dunk, H. B. Stauffer, L. M. Roberts, B. S. Mulder, and A. Wright. 2003. Northern spotted owl habitat models for research and management application in California (USA). Ecological Applications 13:1027-1040.

Zielinski, W. J., N. P. Duncan, E. C. Farmer, R. L. Truex, A. P. Clevenger, and R. Barrett. 1999. Diet of fishers (Martes pennanti) at the southernmost extent of their range. Journal of Mammalogy. 80:961–971.

Zielinski, W. J., R. L. Truex, J. R. Dunk, and T. Gaman. 2006. Using forest inventory data to assess fisher resting habitat suitability in California. Ecological Applications. 16:1010-1025. Zielinski, W. J., R. L. Truex, G. Schmidt, R. Schlexer, K. N. Schmidt, and R. H. Barrett. 2004a. Home range characteristics of fishers in California. Journal of Mammalogy. 85:649–657. Zielinski, W. J., R. L. Truex, G. Schmidt, R. Schlexer, K. N. Schmidt, and R. H. Barrett. 2004b. Resting habitat selection by fishers in California. Journal of Wildlife Management. 68:475–492. Zentner, Phillip L. 1977. The nest of Phenacomys longicaudus in northwestern California. M. A. Thesis, California State Univ., Sacramento, CA. 59pp.


20

On-line Resources California Department of Fish and Game. 2006. California Department of Fish and Game Habitat Conservation Planning Branch Species Accounts. Available: www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/species/search.html88 Personal Communications Cuenca, Sam, 2008. Klamath National Forest, Fort Jones, CA. North Mike, 2008 U.S. Forest Service TEAMs Sharp Carol, 2008. Klamath National Forest, Happy Camp, CA. Woodbridge, Brian. 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Yreka, CA. Yaeger, Scott. 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Yreka, CA.

.

Two Bit Vegetation Managementa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · 2012. 11....

Documents

Transcript of Two Bit Vegetation Managementa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · 2012. 11....