biological assessment/evaluation thom-seider...

1

Final

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT/EVALUATION

for

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Wildlife Species that

May be Affected by the

THOM-SEIDER VEGETATION MANAGEMENT AND FUELS REDUCTION PROJECT

HAPPY CAMP/OAK KNOLL RANGER DISTRICTS, KLAMATH NATIONAL FOREST

PROJECT LOCATION:

Township (T).16N. Range (R) 7E., Sections 1, 2, 11-14 and 24; T.17N.R.7 E., Sections 1, 2, 11-13, 24, 25, 35, and 36; T.18N.R.7E., 1-3, 10-15, 22-26, 35 and 36; T.19N.R.7E., Sections 33-36;

T16N.R.8E., Sections 4-6, 7-9, 15-18, 19-20 and 28-30; T17N.R8E., Sections 4-6, 7-9, 16-21, and 28-33; T18N.R8E., Sections 7-9, 16-21, and 28-33; Humboldt Meridian. T.45N.R.10W.,

Sections 6 and 7; T46N.R10W., Sections 19, 29, and 30-32; T.45N.R.11W., Sections 1-18; T46N.R.11W., Sections 3-10 and 13-36; T47N.R.11W., Sections 7-10, 15-22, and 27-34;

T.45N.R12W., Sections 1-21; T.46N.R12W., Sections 1-36; T47N.R12W., Section 7,8, and 13-36; Mount Diablo Meridian

Contact Person: Cliff Oakley, (530) 340-2802

Document Prepared By: /s/ Cliff Oakley Date: July 10, 2009 Cliff Oakley Wildlife Biologist Document Edited and Reviewed By: /s/ Karen West Date: July 22, 2009

Document Approved By: /s/ Ken Harris Date: July 22, 2009

2

Table of Contents

Table of Contents Wildlife Biological Assessment for the Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project.......................................................................................................................................................3

1. INTRODUCTION: ..........................................................................................................................3

II. CONSULTATION TO DATE .........................................................................................................5

III. CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION..................................................................................5

IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA ..................................................................................5

V. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ..........................................................................7

VI. EFFECTS ON WILDLIFE SPECIES...........................................................................................11

Klamath National Forest Sensitive Species ........................................................................................39

Cumulative Effects..............................................................................................................................66

References (Literature Cited) .................................................................................................................71

3

Wildlife Biological Assessment for the Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project

1. INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this biological assessment/biological evaluation (BA) is to determine the effects of the Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project (project) on wildlife species listed as Endangered or Threatened under the Endangered Species Act; on designated Critical Habitat for those species; and on species listed as Sensitive by the Pacific Southwest Region, USDA Forest Service (FS).

This BA is prepared in accordance with the legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended [16 U.S.C. 1536 (c) et seq. 50CFR 402] (ESA), and follows the standards established in the FS Manual direction (FSM 2672.42; USDA Forest Service 1991).

The list of federally listed species was obtained online at http://arcata.fws.gov/specieslist (reference #32912430-104936). The FS, Region 5, Sensitive Species list was provided by the USDA Pacific Southwest Region (October 15, 2007). This BA addresses the following species from those lists:

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)

Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), designated August 6, 2003, revised August 11, 2005

Sensitive Northern goshawk (Accipter gentiles)

Great gray owl (Strix nebulosa)

Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni)

4

Willow flycatcher (Empidonax trailii)

Greater sandhill crane (Grus canadensis tabida)

California wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus)

Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti pacifica)

American marten (Martes americana)

Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator)

Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus)

Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii)

Northwestern pond turtle (Emys marmorata marmorata)

Foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii)

Cascade frog (Rana cascade)

Southern torrent salamander (Rhyacotriton variegates)

Siskiyou Mountain salamander (Plethodon stormi)

Blue-gray taildropper slug (Prophysaon coeruleum)

Tehama chaparral snail (Trilobopsis tehamana)

Critical Habitat Northern spotted owl, designated January 15, 1992, revised August 13, 2008.

Marbled murrelet, designated May 24, 1996.

Tidewater goby, designated November 20, 2000.

Vernal pool fairy shrimp, designated August 6, 2003, revised August 11, 2005.

The project is not within the range of the Sierra Nevada red fox (Cascades Mountains and Sierran Crest). Habitat for the Swainson’s hawk (perennial grassland, grassy shrub-steppe, or agricultural landscapes), greater sandhill crane (wetlands, marshes, grasslands, or irrigated fields), shortnose and Lost River suckers (lakes and their tributaries), tide water goby (coastal lagoons, estuaries and streams a short distance from these habitats), and vernal pool fairy

5

shrimp (seasonal wetlands that dry up in spring or summer) does not occur in the project area. Critical habitat for the, tidewater goby, and vernal pool fairy shrimp does not occur in the project area. These species and designated critical habitat will not be addressed further in this document.

II. CONSULTATION TO DATE Wildlife biologists Devlin Madrone and/or Cliff Oakley (Representing the USFWS) have participated in all Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) meeting for the project. At these meetings the IDT has discussed all aspects of project development including stands to treat, treatment options, impacts to watersheds and wildlife, and supporting activities. Devlin Madrone and Cliff Oakley also reviewed proposed units, assessing habitat quality and appropriate treatments. A phone call between Dave Johnson of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Cliff Oakley to discuss northern spotted owl Critical Habitat on Thom Seider was conducted on August 8, 2008 and a follow up meeting to review maps of proposed units and Critical Habitat was held on August 13, 2008. The Project Initiation Letter was presented to the USFWS Klamath National Forest (KNF) Level 1 representative Dave Johnson on October 22, 2008. The initial Level 1 meeting for the Thom Seider Project was held on November 7, 2008. The Draft BA was submitted to the Level One team on April 20, 2009 and a final BA was agreed upon on July 20, 2009.

III. CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION Programmatic management direction for the Forest is provided by the Klamath Land and Resource Management Plan (KLRMP) (USDA Forest Service 1994). The KLRMP 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 – also known as the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) (USDA Forest Service & USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994a). The KLRMP 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.

On July 24 2007, the Forest Service signed a Record of Decision adopting a proposed action to eliminate the Survey and Manage standards and guidelines.

IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA

6

Location and background: The project occurs within the California Klamath and Oregon Klamath Mountains physiographic provinces (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994b) and is approximately 1 mile east of Happy Camp, California, and is located both north and south of the Klamath River to just east of Hamburg California. The project is located on the Happy Camp Ranger district. The legal location is Township (T).16N. Range (R) 7E., Sections 1, 2, 11-14 and 24; T.17N.R.7 E., Sections 1, 2, 11-13, 24, 25, 35, and 36; T.18N.R.7E., 1-3, 10-15, 22-26, 35 and 36; T.19N.R.7E., Sections 33-36; T16N.R.8E., Sections 4-6, 7-9, 15-18, 19-20 and 28-30; T17N.R8E., Sections 4-6, 7-9, 16-21, and 28-33; T18N.R8E., Sections 7-9, 16-21, and 28-33; Humboldt Meridian. T.45N.R.10W., Sections 6 and 7; T46N.R10W., Sections 19, 29, and 30-32; T.45N.R.11W., Sections 1-18; T46N.R.11W., Sections 3-10 and 13-36; T47N.R.11W., Sections 7-10, 15-22, and 27-34; T.45N.R12W., Sections 1-21; T.46N.R12W., Sections 1-36; T47N.R12W., Section 7,8, and 13-36; Mount Diablo Meridian.

The Analysis Area covers approximately 150,000 acres of which 95% are public lands administered by the Klamath National Forest. Approximately 132,000 acres within this Analysis Area comprise the Thom-Seider Action Area (Action Area). The Analysis Area was selected to encompass the total Action Area and to allow for the analysis of wide ranging species like northern spotted owls and fisher that may be affected by the Thom-Seider Project. The Analysis Area also allows for the analysis of connectivity to other major watersheds for mid- and late-successional species. Land allocations and acres for U.S. Forest Service lands within the Action Area are listed in Chapter 1 and include Late Successional Reserve (LSR), Backcountry, Riparian Reserves and Matrix Land Allocations. The Thompson/Seiad/Grider Ecosystem Analysis was completed in 1999 and it is assumed that forest seral stages or habitat classifications have not changed in the 10 years since the completion of the analysis. Wildfire activity in the Analysis Area has been limited to 395 acres and treatment has been limited to 4,387 acres. Treatments have been primarily precommercial thinning (3,077 acres) and are not expected to alter habitat classifications (Silviculture report, pgs. 5&6).

Patterns of fire severity play an important role in determining stand and landscape diversity (Skinner et al. 2006). Historically, the general fire regime within the Klamath Mountains Bioregion (northwestern California and southwestern Oregon) was frequent, low- to moderate-intensity fire (Ibid). Under this regime, stands were generally more open, especially the understory, and the landscape was characterized by a mosaic of successional stages and a high degree of spatial complexity due to the creation of openings of variable size within the forest matrix (Taylor and Skinner 1998; Taylor and Skinner 2003). This suggests that dense, homogenous stands of late-successional forest were historically distributed in a complex mosaic across the landscape. As fire occurrence in the Klamath Mountains has declined (Skinner et al. 2006) changes in landscape patterns have become evident. Today forests are generally denser, have a greater concentration of fuels, have a higher incidence of shade-

7

tolerant species, and are less spatially complex; the size and total acres of forest openings is declining (Skinner 1995; Taylor and Skinner 2003; Skinner et al. 2006). Effects of recent high-severity burns appear to be different than historic patterns with more area burning at high intensity (Skinner et al. 2006). This pattern suggests that late-successional habitat is currently less sustainable than it was historically.

Approximately 80% of the Analysis Area landscape supported vegetation with point fire return intervals of less than 20 years. Due to fire suppression, large fires today are much less frequent on the landscape, and current fire return intervals are well beyond historic conditions. Approximately 57% of the landscape has not had a large fire since 1910, and 76% of the Analysis Area is characterized as severely departed (condition class III) and another 13% as moderately departed (condition class II) from historic conditions. Understory stocking has increased with small-and medium-diameter trees and shade-tolerant species providing ladder fuels that also increase fire severity and intensity.

V. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION The Proposed Action would authorize approximately 29,600 acres of treatment across the 132,000 acre project area. Underburning is prescribed across approximately 22,000 acres of National Forest System lands (17 percent of the project area, see map), within the Defense and Threat Zones of the Wildland Urban Interface. Variable density thinning (commercial and non-commercial) is proposed for approximately 2,000 acres within the underburn. These activities would occur in Matrix, Late-Successional Reserves, and Riparian Reserves.

The Proposed Action includes understory thinning along 77 miles of roads (equating to about 2,700 acres of treatment) throughout Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). Landowners would also be permitted on request to perform understory thinning and hand piling on Forest System land within 500 feet of their private property, and area totaling 6,100 acres. An additional 40 acres of commercial thinning is proposed in plantations outside of the proposed underburn.

The project is expected to last 10 years or more from the time the decision is made to full implementation. This landscape scale project is intended to reduce the potential for damaging wildfire and maintain and restore older forest habitat over a large area. The underburn locations were selected based on fire history, vegetation condition, proximity to communities and private land parcels, and logistics. The underburn is expected to result in a mosaic; not every acre will be burned, and burn intensity would vary, with the majority of the area being in low severity/intensity burns with small inclusions of moderate severity/intensity burns. Burn plans would be developed and would vary depending on conditions present at the time of burning. The variable density thinning stands within the underburns were selected based on the size, density and structure of the forest and the practicality of thinning. The results in these areas would be more predictable (the chain saw is a more precise tool than fire alone), and aid in control of the surrounding underburn. General species preference for thinning trees would be: sugar pine, ponderosa pine, incense cedar, Douglas-fir, large black oak, Shasta red fir,

8

white fir, pacific madrone, and live oak (in descending order of preference to retain).1 About 430 acres are stands proposed for non-commercial treatments within high priority Late-Successional Reserve stands; additional understory thinning outside these areas may occur to facilitate fuels treatment.

All tree thinning would be “from below” to favor retaining larger trees over smaller trees but (1) thinning regimes would retain a proportion of the understory stocking to maintain uneven-aged stands and (2) thinning would be “variable density” in which small groups of more closely-spaced trees would be retained with more widely-spaced trees between the groups and at times larger trees may be removed to achieve the variable density objective.

Units proposed for commercial thinning may also have a portion of the non-commercial-sized trees and brush thinned as necessary to meet stocking and fuels reduction objectives.

Elements of the Proposed Action are summarized in the table below.

Table 1 – Acres of treatments proposed for Alternative 2

Elements of the Proposed Action

Thinning and Burning Acres

Total Acres that would be treated 29,600

Portion of the project Within the WUI 99%+

Underburning 22,000

Roadside Fuels Treatment 2,700

Private Property Boundary Understory Thinning 6,100

Variable Density Thinning – Non-commercial 430

Variable Density Thinning – Commercial Thinning 1,610

Roads and Landings Units

Temporary roads needed for commercial thinning 9 segments, 1.5 total miles

Landing Sites 208 total landing sites

1 This general order of preference may be modified in individual stands to take into account management

objectives such as species diversity, site and stand‐specific factors, as well as other design criteria.

9

Landings that Require New Construction approximately 40 new landings that cover approximately 14 acres

Landings that Require Limited New Construction (on roads or existing landing sites)

Approximately 168

The project has been designed to promote the development of late-successional habitat by reducing stocking levels in overstocked stands and to create stands that are more resilient to wildfire by reducing surface and ladder fuels and restoring the landscape to a species composition more resembling historic conditions. The activities proposed for the project are listed below. See Table 1 for information specific to the alternatives.

Project Design Features:

Northern spotted owl A seasonal restriction of February 1st to September 15th will apply to all activities

that modify2 habitat (including activities that degrade or are beneficial) within 0.25 mile of a NSO activity center 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 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 nesting/roosting habitat.

A seasonal restriction of February 1st to July 31 will apply to all activities that create smoke within 0.25 mile of an occupied activity center or unsurveyed suitable habitat.

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 treated (thinned and/or underburned) annually.

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

2 For the purpose of this BA 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.

10

heavy or concentrated smoke begins to inundate occupied nesting/roosting habitat or occupied activity centers late in the afternoon, ignition should be discontinued.

Protocol surveys for northern spotted owls will be kept current in the Action Area. For areas that include removal or downgrade of northern spotted owl habitat surveys will be conducted to the 1992 U.S. Fish and Wildlife protocol. In areas where habitat will not be removed or downgraded but actions occur within 0.25 mile of nesting/roosting habitat or historical activity centers, a three-visit, year of action survey, covering all nesting/roosting habitat and/or historical activity centers within 0.25 miles of the action, may be substituted for the 1992 protocol surveys. These areas will be primarily thinning in non-suitable northern spotted owl habitat and underburns.

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

When burning in spring, smoke is managed so that light to moderate smoke is 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.

Commercial thinning will leave 60 percent canopy cover, trees greater than 20 inches in diameter, snags, and down wood in suitable northern spotted owl habitat in the Late Successional Reserves, or within 0.5 mile activity center of any northern spotted owl site.

If new landings are to be built in locations other than those indicated on the project map a Forest Service biologist would be consulted to ensure that landings are not constructed in an northern spotted owl nest stand.

Bald Eagle Bald Eagle Caroline Creek Management Area will have a limited operating period

from September 1 to December 31 of each year, unless monitoring of the bald eagle site indicates that the eagles are not nesting or have failed. If nesting does not occur or the nest has failed burning could be implemented in the spring of that year

Goshawk

11

Restrict habitat‐modifying activities 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 the same period. Normal levels of vehicle traffic on existing roads may be excluded in cases where goshawks appear to be habituated to such activities

Siskiyou Mountains/Scott Bar Salamanders Known salamanders sites will be protected with a one site tree no cut buffer around the

talus habitat.

Tehama Chaparral Know sites for this species will be protected by a one site tree no cut buffer around the

talus habitat.

Two maps are provided for this Biological Assessment/Evaluation. Map 1 includes the proposed action (treatment stands, yarding systems, proposed landings, and proposed temporary spur road construction). Map 2 includes NSO nesting/roosting, foraging, and dispersal habitat and estimated core area and home ranges of current and historic activity centers.

VI. EFFECTS ON WILDLIFE SPECIES Federally Listed Species

Northern Spotted Owl

Reasons for Listing The NSO 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).

Species Range The distribution of the NSO includes southwestern British Columbia, Washington and Oregon, and northwestern California south to Marin County (Gutiérrez 1996). The project area lies in northwestern California and south western Oregon in the Klamath Mountains within the range of the NSO.

Habitat NSOs generally inhabit 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

12

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 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 owls 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).

Reproductive Biology

13

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).

Dispersal Most young disperse by early 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).

Prey 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. Although not abundant, habitat for dusky-footed woodrats in the project area occurs in regenerating plantations, natural brush fields, in limited numbers in mature and late successional stands and 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). Within the project area, habitat for northern flying squirrels is fairly abundant. Camera stations set up for carnivores surveys have confirmed the presence of northern flying squirrels in the project area.

Populations and Trends

14

Results of the January 2004 northern spotted owl demographic meta-analysis workshop indicate that across the range of northern spotted owl, 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 Forest wide Late Successional Reserve Assessment (USDA Forest Service 1999), there have been approximately 261 northern spotted owl activity centers located on the Klamath National Forest. Because portions of the Klamath National Forest 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 US Forest Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service in the Collins-Baldy, Johnny O’Neil, and the Mount Ashland Late Successional Reserves indicate that current activity centers are similar to those reported in 1999.

Threats (existing and potential):

Habitat Trends The amount of northern spotted owl 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 northern spotted owl, particularly on Federal lands within the Northwest Forest Plan boundary (Bigley & Franklin 2004). Existing habitat trends are a function of both management actions and natural events.

Wildfire At the time of listing, the US Fish and Wildlife Service recognized that catastrophic wildfire posed a threat to the northern spotted owl (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1990a). The amount of habitat lost to wildfire in the relatively 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 northern spotted owl habitat has been lost to fires since 1994 (Bigley 2004), with approximately 5,400 of these acres occurring on the Klamath National Forest.

Barred Owl Since 1990, the barred owl (Strix varia) has expanded its range such that it is now roughly coincident with the range of the northern spotted owl (Gutiérrez et al. 2004). Barred owls apparently compete with northern spotted owls 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 northern

15

spotted owls (Kelly et al. 2003) and Anthony et al. (2006) reported that barred owls had a negative effect on northern spotted owl survival in three demographic study areas in Washington. Although the barred owl currently constitutes a significantly greater threat to the northern spotted owl 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 northern spotted owl (Gutiérrez et al. 2004). Barred owls have been located at two locations in the action area during the 2007 and 2008 northern spotted owl surveys.

West Nile Virus and Sudden Oak Death Health officials expect that West Nile Virus (WNV) will eventually spread throughout the range of the northern spotted owl (Blakesley et al. 2004), but it is unknown how West Nile virus will ultimately affect northern spotted owl populations. 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 northern spotted owls 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.

Response to Auditory and Visual Disturbance Although information specific to behavioral responses of northern spotted owls 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).

Suitable Habitat in the Project Area Prior to timber harvest activities beginning in the 1930s, much of the Analysis Area, which includes the Action Area, was late-successional mixed-conifer forest (USDA Forest Service 1999a). This suggests that late-successional stands were well-distributed, even though late-successional forests in the Analysis Area were naturally fragmented due to its historic fire regime. The historic fragmentation of the late-successional forest in the Analysis Area has been further exacerbated by timber harvest and fires with uncharacteristic severity levels like the 1987 wildfires (USDA Forest Service 1999a).

Currently late-successional and mid-successional forest are still relatively well distributed across the Analysis Area with the exception of upper Seiad Creek, Devils Peak area, the ridge west of Grider Ridge, Walker Creek and lower Thompson Creek as a result of past management and the 1987 wildfires (MIS habitat Map; USDA Forest Service 1999a, pg. 3-23).

16

Late-Successional Reserves Approximately 56 percent of the project is within the boundaries of the Seiad and Johnny O’Neil Late-Successional Reserves. Currently, 34 percent of the ground capable of supporting late-successional forest in the Seiad and Johnny O’Neil Late-Successional Reserves contains late-successional forest. In addition, the Seiad and Johnny O’Neil Late-Successional Reserves include 32 percent and 43 percent respectively of mid-successional forest. Mid-successional forests are often patchy and with inclusion of some habitat components that provide habitat for late-successional species. As a result, stands that are primarily mid-mature stands or northern spotted owl forage habitat may be used by late-successional species. Northern spotted owls, for example, will use mid-successional forest for foraging and on occasion nesting, depending on the number and type of nest structures available in the stands. Seiad Late-Successional Reserve is 9 percent below the desired amount of suitable northern spotted owl habitat and Johnny O’Neil is within the desired range of northern spotted owl habitat (USDA Forest Service 1999b, pg. 2-71and 2-78).

Approximately 72,600 acres (72%) of the Seiad Late-Successional Reserve and 9,600 acres (21%) of the Johnny O’Neil Late-Successional Reserve are in the analysis area. The Seiad and Johnny O’Neil Late-Successional Reserves provide an important link to Late-Successional Reserves north and south, and provide connectivity between interior and coastal mountain ranges. Connectivity or dispersal habitat for late-successional species is rated at moderate for both the Seiad and Johnny O’Neil Late-Successional Reserves. Barriers to dispersal for late-successional species are located in Upper Seiad Creek Devils Peak area, the ridge west of Grider Ridge, Walker Creek, and lower Thompson Creek where large areas are lacking in late-successional habitat as a result of past management and the 1987 wildfires (MIS habitat Map; USDA Forest Service 1999a, pg. 3-23). Lower Thompson Creek is largely forested with young stands and although they do not provide late-successional forest many of the stands do provide dispersal habitat for northern spotted owls and fisher. Dispersal barriers for less mobile species like mollusk and salamanders are present throughout the analysis area and include major roads like Highway 96 and major Forest System roads and rivers and streams like the Klamath River as well as natural openings.

When LSRs were designated, not all forested stands within LSRs were in late-successional stage. Thus, the NWFP recognized the role of silviculture in providing and maintaining late-successional components within the LSR network (USDA Forest Service & USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994b). Because many of the early- and mid-successional stands within the project area are healthy, they are expected to respond favorably to silvicultural treatments designed to promote the development of late-successional stands.

Riparian Reserves Riparian reserves vary in width from 170 feet on either side of non-fish bearing streams to 340 feet on fish streams. These buffers are intended to provide shade, large down wood and act as a filter to keep sediment from the streams. Riparian reserves should provide late seral

17

forest of both conifer and hardwood species, that shade most of the stream. Large trees will provide terrestrial wildlife habitat while standing and when they fall provide important in stream structure for fish and other aquatic and terrestrial wildlife. Water quality will be high and include clear, cold water and stream beds as a result will be clear of silt and other sediment. Vegetation along the water channel will be healthy and resilient providing habitat for species like water shrews, tailed frogs, and voles. For a detailed discussion of riparian reserves see the Hydrology and Fisheries Reports for this Project.

Matrix Matrix land allocations in the project area are higher at 35 percent than the overall analysis area. Mid-successional forests in the matrix allocation include 15,800 acres or 43 percent, and late-successional forests include 4,530 acres or 13 percent of the analysis area (USDA Forest Service 1999a pg. 3-44). Stands selected for thinning were primarily mixed conifer mid-successional forest. Other vegetation or habitat types, (oak woodland, ponderosa pine and brush are the primary other vegetation types) were not selected but are present in some thinning units as small inclusion (Silviculture report, pg 4). These areas would not be thinned but may be affected by proposed prescribed fire activities. Oak woodlands are a major component of the areas along the Klamath River especially the southern exposures. There are 359 acres of oak woodland in the areas proposed for fuels treatments adjacent to private property primarily in the area around Hamburg, CA. Proposed treatments in these areas are limited to trees less than 6 inches in diameter, brush and other ground fuels.

Northern Spotted Owls

Northern Spotted Owls in the Project Area There are 21 historical northern spotted owl activity centers in the Action Area (USDA Forest Service 1999a). All suitable northern spotted owl habitat and sites within 0.5 mile of Action Area units were surveyed to protocol in 2007 and 2008. Proposed activities were within 0.5 mile of 15 historic sites, resulting in surveys at those sites. Northern spotted owls were located at 10 of the historic sites surveyed and 6 new sites were located.

Critical habitat in the analysis area On January 15, 1992, the USFWS designated 6.9 million acres of critical habitat for the northern spotted owls across Washington, Oregon, and California (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1992). Critical habitat for a listed species contains the physical or biological features (primary constituent elements) essential to the conservation of the species. The primary constituent elements identified in the NSO critical habitat final rule include those physical and biological features that support nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal (Ibid).

Critical Habitat for northern spotted owls was modified in September 2008 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008a). The Scott and Salmon Mountains Unit were modified slightly from the existing northern spotted owl Critical Habitat units (see Northern Spotted Owl Critical

18

Habitat Map 2008). Unit 25 includes the Klamath National Forest west of Interstate Five and is very similar to the 1992 critical habitat units. The 1992 critical habitat units have been given subunit numbers and CA 15 and CA 17 are now subunits 28 and 30. Subunit 28 (CA 15) is located in the Seiad and Johnny O’Neil Late Successional Reserve north of the Klamath River. The units are all within the two Late Successional Reserve with the exception of a small area on the south west side of the Johnny O’Neil Late Successional Reserve in T.47N.,R.11W., Sections 19, 30, and 32. Critical Habitat unit CA 17 is located in the Seiad Late Successional Reserve south of the Klamath River.

Critical habitat for a listed species contains the physical or biological features (primary constituent elements) essential to the conservation of the species. The primary constituent elements identified in the NSO critical habitat final rule include those physical and biological features that support nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal (Ibid).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is considering remanding the 2008 Critical Habitat designation. The decision to remand the 2008 Critical Habitat designation has been postponed until July 30, 2009. However, because the distribution and total acres of the newly designated subunits do not significantly differ from the 1992 northern spotted owl critical habitat designation within the Action Area, it is reasonable to assume that pair objectives will be comparable. In the Thom Seider project area boundary there are 1,228 more acres in the 2008 Critical Habitat designation as compared to the 1992 designation (http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/nso/NSO_CH_92vs08_legal.pdf). The 2008 Critical habitat includes units 247, 248 and most of unit 277, (these units were not included in the 1992 Critical Habitat boundaries). Units 247, 248 and nearly all of unit 277 are located within the Late Successional Reserve and will receive the same protection as all units located in the Late Successional Reserves and Critical habitat. Therefore, for the purpose of this document, the 1992 northern spotted owl pair objectives will be used as a surrogate for the newly designated subunits. There are no current surveys that include the suitable habitat in northern spotted owl Critical Habitat subunits 28 and 30, but surveys conducted for this Project and in adjacent Late Successional Reserve suggest that northern spotted owl numbers have not changed significantly since more wide spread surveys were conducted in the early 1990s. For example in the Action Area 15 historic northern spotted owl sites were surveyed in 2007 and 2008. Northern spotted owls were located at 10 of the historic sites and 6 new sites. The area historically supported 15 northern spotted owl sites and is currently supporting 16 northern spotted owl sites.

Suitable northern spotted owl habitat in the area has not changed significantly since the completion of the Forest Wide Late Successional Reserve Assessment in 1999 (Silviculture Report). Critical habitat units CA15 and CA17 overlap the Analysis and Action Areas. The 1999 the Forest Wide Late Successional Reserve Assessment estimated that Critical Habitat Unit CA 15 (52,130 acres) in California had 18 northern spotted owl activity centers, CA 15 originally included an area in Oregon that is no longer included. Critical Habitat Unit CA 17

19

(44,440 acres) had 19 northern spotted owl activity centers (USDA Forest Service 1999b, pg 2-72). When the Oregon area was included in CA15 there were 22 pairs of northern spotted owls located in that critical habitat unit. Units CA15 and CA 17 were designed to support 20 pairs of northern spotted owls.

The Forest Wide Late Successional Reserve Assessment (USDA Forest Service 1999b, pg. 2-71) concludes that the Seiad and Johnny O’Neil Late Successional Reserve perform all of the intended functions of northern spotted owl Critical Habitat Units CA 15 and 17. Overall the intent of the Critical Habitat designation is exceeded by the Late Successional Reserve. The revised Critical Habitat Sub Units 28 and 30 do not vary significantly from Critical Habitat Units CA15(in California) and 17; it is reasonable to assume that the functions of the northern spotted owl critical habitat revisions of 2008 are currently being met.

2008 Spotted Owl Recovery Plan The current spotted owl Recovery Plan may be remanded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the date for that decision has been set for July 30, 2009. The Recovery Plan is still in effect until that decision is completed, and the guidance and effects of that plan are discussed below.

On May 16, 2008, the US Fish and Wildlife Service released the final spotted owl recovery plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008b). The plan describes four primary recovery criteria, 36 recovery actions and establishes a network of Managed Owl Conservation Areas (MOCAs) totaling more than 6.4 million acres of federal land west of the Cascades’ crest.

It also describes recovery actions specific to NW California and the MOCA established on the west side of the Klamath National Forest (MOCA 25). It is specific to the need for the creation of more fire resilient forests in the Klamath Mountains and allows short-term impacts to provide for long-term benefits under an adaptive management scenario. The following is excerpted from the Recovery Plan:

Recovery Action 8: Manage the Klamath Provinces in Oregon and California to meet spotted owl recovery objectives while creating more fire-resilient and fire-resistant forests. An interagency work group will be needed to develop a strategy to achieve an ecologically sustainable landscape that supports northern spotted owl recovery.

The Thom Seider Project is consistent with the objectives of Recovery Action 8; it minimizes effects to owls by using silvicultural prescriptions that maintain habitat function, surveys to locate and determine reproductive status, limited operating periods to limit activities within the appropriate home ranges of northern spotted owl sites, would result in a more fire-resilient landscape as a result of ground and ladder fuel and crown density reductions, the retention of large (>20 inches diameter) fire adapted trees, and would, over the long-term, contribute to the recovery of northern spotted owls within the Analysis Area and the recently described MOCA.

20

Recovery Action 32: Maintain substantially all of the older and more structurally complex multi-layered conifer forests on Federal lands outside of MOCAs in the Olympic Peninsula, Western Washington Cascades, Western Oregon Cascades, Oregon Coast Range, Oregon and California Klamath, and California Coast Provinces, allowing for other threats, such as fire and insects, to be addressed by restoration management actions. These forests are characterized as having large diameter trees, high amounts of canopy cover, and decadence components such as broken-topped live trees, mistletoe, cavities, large snags and fallen trees.

Units of the Thom Seider Project were selected for their mid-mature stand qualities such as, smaller trees, single layered stands with high stem densities. Stands in the Project are diverse and may contain small areas of late successional forest, but are primarily mid-successional stands. However there are four stands that are located in the matrix and primarily late successional forest (stands 23, 47, 88, and 89). In the Thom-Seider Proposed Action, four stands (51 acres) are primarily comprised of late-successional forest (stands 23, 47, 88, and 89). Overstory crown cover may be reduced to below 60 percent canopy cover in the current prescription in units 23, 88, and 89. Canopy cover will however, be maintained at 50 percent in units 23, 88 and 89 and at 60 percent in unit 47. The Forest Supervisor has chosen not to change the project at this time to maintain all existing habitat in these stands because significant funds and time have been invested in the work to plan and analyze effects of thinning in these units.

Alternative 1-No Action

Direct Effects Under Alternative 1 there would be no activities conducted in northern spotted owl habitat that would result in the displacement or death of northern spotted owls. As a result there would be no direct effects to northern spotted owls under Alternative 1.

Indirect Effects Under the No Action Alternative late-successional habitat would be slow in developing and the potential fire behavior in the Action Area would remain unacceptable relative to LSR objectives. Density related mortality is expected to continue, including many of the large old-growth remnants and minor species including large sugar pine, ponderosa pine and black oak. Thus, surface fuels are expected to continue to increase over time. Fire behavior is expected to increase 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 increases the potential for fire to remove the desired structural components of a Late Successional Reserve and does little to promote and maintain a functional, interactive, late-successional and old-growth forest ecosystem (Thom Seider fuels report).

21

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Commercial Thinning

Direct Effects There are 21 historical northern spotted owl activity centers in the Action Area. All suitable northern spotted owl habitat and sites within 0.5 mile of Action Area units were surveyed to protocol in 2007 and 2008. Proposed activities were within 0.5 mile of 15 of the historic sites, resulting in surveys at those sites. Northern spotted owls were located at 10 of the historic sites surveyed and 6 new sites. Table 2 lists the owl activity centers, habitat pre Project, habitat post Project and habitat degraded in the 0.5 and 1.3 mile core and home range areas. Habitat within the northern spotted owl 0.5 mile core areas will not be removed, units within the cores will maintain canopy cover, multi layered canopies, large trees, snags and large down wood where available. 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.

Habitat in the core areas will be degraded in the short term, in that the canopy will be more open in places, there will be fewer snags, and there will be yarder corridors and skid roads in the skyline and tractor units. The above conditions 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).

Table 2 Northern spotted owl activity centers, active in 2007and 2008 with pre and post project habitat,

survey and activity status for 2007 and 2008.

Northern Spotted Owl Activity Center Number

Habitat Within 0.5 Mile Core Pre Project

Acres Habitat Within 0.5 Mile Core Degraded Post Project

Habitat Within the 1.3 Mile Home Range Pre Project

Habitat Within the 1.3 Mile Home Range Post Project

Habitat within 1.3 degraded

Survey status 2007 &08

Activity status in 2007 &08

KL0211 F= 237 N=119

0 F=1,273 N=913

F=1,273 N=913

0 NS>0.5mi.

KL0241 F= 293 0 F=1,712 F=1,712 0 S07 &08 N. Barred

22









N= 66 N= 329 N=329 owls present

KL0252 F=42 N=225

0 F=1,631 N=322

F=1,631 N=322

10 S.07&08 M. 07

KL0253 F=252 N=115

F=67 F=1,770 N=917

F=1,669 N=917

0 S.07&08 M.07P.Moved to New 7 in 08

KL1112 F=245 N=146

0 F=1,407 N=932

F=1,407 N=932

F=39 NS.07S.08 M08

KL1121 F=180 N=255

0 F=1,438 N=723

F=1,438 N=723

0 NS.>0.5MI.

KL1122 F=34 N=157

0 F=1,239 N=605

F=1,239 N=605

0 NS. Separated by major ridge

KL1130 F=161 N=204

F=18 F=1,539 N=863

F=1,539 N=863

F=152 S.07&08 P.N.07F.08

KL1160 F=21 0 F=695 N=333

F=695 N=333

F=76 S.07&08 NR.07&08

KL1161 F=135 N=229

F=37 F=1,364 N=489

F=1,364 N=489

F=74 S.07&08 M.07NR.08

KL1162 F=210 N=126

0 F=1,231 N=312

F=1,231 N=312

0 NS.>0.5

KL1164 F=145 0 F=721 F=721 F=80 NS. River

23









N=108 N=1,148 N=1,148 divided from units

KL1212 F=46 N=149

F=8 F=1,027 N=619

F=1,027 N=619

0 S.07&08 P.Y.07U.08

KL1213 F=119 N=180

0 F=1,379 N=716

F=1,379 N=716

F=5 NS.>0.5MI.

KL1265 F=126 N=165

0 F=1,274 N=1,235

F=1,274 N=1,235

F=8 S.07&08 M.07NR.08

KL1266 F=75 N=316

F=67 F=1,388 N=1,082

F=1,388 N=1,082

F=43 S.07&08 NR.07NR.08

KL1300 F=137 N=207

0 F=453 N=947

F=453 N=947

0 S.07&08 M.07M.08

KL4131 F=161 N=290

0 F=1,650 N=1,053

F=1,620 N=1,053

F=10 S. 08 NR.08

KL4132 F=230 N=212

0 F=1,423 N=1.326

F=1,423 N=1.326

0 S. 08 NR.08

KL4133 F=163 N=257

F=28 F=1,164 N=1,017

F=1,164 N=1,017

F=160 S.07&08 M.F.07NR.08

KL9991

F=109 N=170

Core area mapped on north side of Klamath

F=1,083 N=736

F=1,029 N=702

0 S.07&08 P.07NR.08

24









River

F=109 N=170

KL9992

F=93 N=242

0 F=1,365 N=651

F=1,277 N=651

F=96 S.07&08 P.07M.08

KL9993 F=126 N=228

0 F=1,270 N=1,473

F=1,270 N=1,473

0

KL New 3 F=363 N=14

F=39 F=1,567 N=955

F=1,567 N=955

F=61 S.07&08 P.07P08

KL New 4 F=2 N=176

0 F=527 N=908

F=527 N=908

0 S.07&08 P.07P.08

KL New 5 F=107 N=87

0 F=755 N=999

F=755 N=999

0 S.07&08 F.07F.08

KL New 6 F=265 N=0

F=36 F=1,030 N=510

F=935 N=493

0 S.07&08 NR.07M.08

KL New 7 F=217 N=109

F=67 F=1,619 N=452

F=1,518 N=452

0 S.07 &08 New 08 N

F= Forage habitat. N= Nesting/roosting habitat. S = Survey for the years listed. NS= Not surveyed for years listed. NR= No

response from northern spotted owls. M= Male northern spotted owl response. F= Female northern spotted owl response.

P= Pair of northern spotted owls. N= nesting confirmed. >0.5= owl core area was greater than 0.5 mile from project

activities.

25

The acres of habitat lost and 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. Only one historic northern spotted owl home range is below the 1,340 acre, may affect, not likely to adversely affect threshold. That site KL1160 was burned in the 1987 wildfires and has only 21 acres of suitable habitat in the 0.5 mile core area. KL1160 was surveyed in 2007 and 2008 with no response. It is highly unlikely that this owl site will be active again until the habitat in the core area recovers. All remaining sites will remain above the 1,340 acre threshold even when degraded acres and acres lost are added together (Table 2).

Nesting barred owls were located in historic site KL0241; northern spotted owls were not located at this site. However, a single northern spotted owl was located at KL New 6, just over the ridge west of this site. The area occupied by this single male has no nesting roosting habitat in the 0.5 mile core area, only 265 acres of forage habitat. The 265 acres of forage habitat are mostly plantations with pocket of larger trees to 20 inches diameter. Occupation of this site by a northern spotted owl was not expected. With no nesting roosting habitat in the core it is unlikely that this bird will be located here next year. It is possible that this northern spotted owl was displaced by the barred owls just to the east where historical northern spotted owl site KL0241 was and where there is abundant nesting roosting habitat.

Suitable northern spotted owl habitat will not be removed from 0.5 mile core areas. Northern spotted owl site KL9991 is located on the north side of the Klamath River. Suitable habitat on the north side of the Klamath River is limited to an area close to the existing nest site. Habitat mapped includes all suitable habitat within 0.5 mile of the river and surrounding the site. The area on the south side of the river is not expected to be used by the owls at KL9991 due to the large open area created by the River. As a result the 0.5 mile core area was mapped on the north side of the Klamath River in the area most likely to be used by the owls. Units 23, 88 and 89 are also located in the 1.3 mile home range of owl site KL9991, these units were field reviewed and mapped as nesting roosting habitat. These units will have the canopy reduced to less than 60 percent but greater than 50 percent. It is unlikely that owls at this site use habitat located on the south side of the Klamath River therefore the short-term downgrading of this nesting roosting habitat should have no effect on northern spotted owl site KL9991.

The most suitable northern spotted owl habitat that will be degraded at any one site is 67 acres (KL0253 and KL1266). Northern spotted owls were located at KL0253 in 2007 and owls with juveniles were located approximately ¾ mile west downstream of the old location in 2008. The site KL0253 was moved to the location of the 2008 nest site (New 7) and the analysis for effects was conducted at this site. Surveys in 2007 and 2008 did not locate northern spotted owls at KL1266. Degradation of northern spotted owl habitat is expected to be short term, less than one year, at which time overall prey species biomass is expected to return to pre-treatment levels (Monroe and Converse 2006; Manning and Edge 2008; Suzuki

26

and Hayes 2003). These thinned stands will still provide suitable habitat; function of the habitat will be retained.

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 such as operational trees. Operational trees are those that are cut for road and landing construction and clearing for yarder corridors in skyline units. Yarder corridors are expected to occupy approximately 60 acres (pers. com. Mike North). 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 felling of individual large trees may be required. In the Late Successional Reserves and northern spotted owl 0.5 core areas, trees that are felled for safety or operational reasons, and are outside of yarder corridors, will be left in place, except in case where felled trees create safety issues. In Matrix units, large trees felled for safety or operational reasons may be removed. Down wood greater than 20 inches diameter averaged 4.9 pieces per acre across units surveyed (Soils Report). Amounts of down wood vary greatly by units surveyed, ranging from 0 to 14 pieces per acre. The number of large trees to be felled or removed is expected to be minimal. Additionally, where stand conditions permit, incorporation of recommendations for snags and down wood will ensure that these components are retained (USDA Forest Service 1994, pgs 4-25 & 4-39).

Over time, thinning is expected to maintain and enhance the connectivity and late-successional and old-growth ecosystem function of the Late Successional Reserves and Matrix lands by increasing the amount, distribution, and diversity of late-successional habitat. An increase in the amount of large-diameter trees also improves the recruitment of large snags and down wood.

Thinning from below in the Late Successional Reserves is expected to maintain large conifers and hardwoods in the stands, create growing room and canopy gaps in the stand allowing the development of large trees sooner than unthinned area, and an increase horizontal diversity. Thinning will free up resource for growing habitat that is expected to last about 10 years in the Late Successional Reserves and about 20 years in the Matrix stands. At the times listed above, tree canopies are expected to close and trees in the stands will again be competing for resources and be in the range of imminent mortality (Silviculture Report).

There will be no downgrading or loss of habitat in northern spotted owl home ranges located in the Late Successional Reserves; however some northern spotted owl home ranges are located in the Matrix or overlap the Matrix boundary and may have habitat removed in the area that extends from the 0.5 mile core to the 1.3 mile home range boundary. All northern

27

spotted owl home ranges will continue to have at least 1364 acres of suitable habitat within the 1.3 mile home range except northern spotted owl site KL1160. Northern spotted owl site KL1160 was burned in the 1987 wildfires and currently contains only 1,028 acres of suitable habitat within the home range. Surveys conducted in 2007 and 2008 indicate that this site was not active. Thinning will not remove or downgrade habitat from the home range.

At the landscape scale, 32 units will remove or downgrade (units with less than 60 % canopy cover listed in Table 3) 495 acres of northern spotted owl foraging habitat and 34 acres of nesting roosting habitat, 0.6 percent of the 83,305 acres of the mid-and late-successional forest (suitable northern spotted owl habitat) located in the Analysis Area (USDA Forest Service 1999a). The 34 acres of nesting roosting habitat that will be removed in the Matrix are located in the 1.3 mile home range of northern spotted owl site KL9991 and New 6. As mentioned above northern spotted owl site KL9991 is located across the Klamath River from the 34 acres in units 23, 88 and 89 and this area is not expected to be used by the owls in this home range. Unit 47 is located in the 1.3 mile home range of northern spotted owl site New 6. Unit 47 will have the canopy cover maintained at 60 percent and will continue to provide nesting roosting habitat after thinning.

Canopy cover in the remaining 29 units may be reduced to less than 60 percent; however, with variable density thinning areas of large trees and riparian areas will not be thinned and may form edges with areas thinned to 40 percent canopy cover. Short term effects on prey species are expected to be minimal with some small mammal populations recovering in 6 months to 1 year from the date of treatment (Manning and Edge 2008; Suzuki and Hayes 2003). Heavily thinned areas will provide habitat with increased amounts of herbaceous and shrub growth due to the increased light; this will lead to increases in northern spotted owl prey species that depend on this herbaceous undergrowth. Edges that provide habitat for prey species are thought to be important in the productivity and survivorship of northern spotted owls (Franklin et al, 2000). At a minimum, the heavily thinned areas will provide dispersal habitat for northern spotted owls. Units 62, 98, 306 and 609 are to be treated using a non-commercial thinning and will have portions of the stands reduced below 60 percent. However the stands are highly variable and the areas that are currently providing suitable northern spotted owl and goshawk habitat (the majority of trees greater than 9 inches in diameter) will continue to provide habitat after treatment. Those areas that are not currently providing habitat (the majority of trees are less than 9 inches in diameter) will be thinned to less than 60 percent canopy cover and thus, the units are listed in Table 3 as less than 60 percent canopy cover post treatment. No dispersal habitat for northern spotted owls will be removed in the Action Area.

Table 3 Canopy Cover by Unit and Acres Post Treatment

28

Units > 60 % canopy cover after treatment

Northern spotted owl habitat function retained

Units>50% canopy cover after treatment

Northern spotted owl habitat function not retained

Units <50% canopy cover after treatment


Unit No.

Unit Acres

Northern Spotted Owl Habitat

Unit No.

Unit Acres


Unit No.

Unit Acres


16 31 yes 20 17 yes 29 9 yes

17 7 yes 22 24 yes 32 18 yes

18 14 yes 23 12 Yes/NR 33 23 yes

46a 10 yes 28 7 yes 34 18 yes

47 17 yes 30 10 yes 45 13 yes

59a 26 yes 31 15 yes 63 20 yes

614 6 yes 42 8 yes 78 9 yes

63 NC 20 yes 44 21 yes 80 14 yes

84 9 yes 46 37 yes 160 13 yes

195NC 29 yes 59 11 yes 182 13 yes

196NC 25 yes 88 18 Yes/NR 257 34 yes

205NC 127 yes 89 4 Yes/NR 309 15 yes

285NC 59 yes 92 10 Yes 500 27 yes

312NC 35 yes 95 16 yes 62NC

30 yes

602NC 4 no 254 20 yes 98NC

32 Goshawk

608NC 2 no 306NC

21 yes

29

Units > 60 % canopy cover after treatment

Northern spotted owl habitat function retained

Units>50% canopy cover after treatment


Units <50% canopy cover after treatment


Unit No.

Unit Acres


Unit No.

Unit Acres


Unit No.

Unit Acres


601NC

2 no

511NC

no 609NC

19 yes

512NC

no

513NC

no

517NC

no

518NC

no

523NC

no

525NC

no

530NC

no

547NC

no

Total 398 230 288

30

NC = Noncommercial treatments. Total = total acres of suitable northern spotted owl habitat

by canopy cover.

Road Construction

Approximately 1.5 miles of new temporary road will be constructed to facilitate harvest in 10 units. Approximately 0.8 miles of the road construction is on existing roads or in early seral stage vegetation where large trees will not be removed. The remaining roads would be constructed in mid-or late-seral forest where large trees may need to be removed. The 0.7 miles of road to be constructed where large trees may need to be removed will cover about 1.5 acres, a small fraction of the mid and late seral habitat available in the Action Area. 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 closure. Openings created by road construction will be limited to 0.6 acres in one northern spotted owl home range and less than 0.25 acres in other home ranges. Due to the small amount of habitat disturbed in individual northern spotted owl home ranges, the acreage is not listed in Table 2. Opening of this size are common in northern spotted owl habitat and will have minimal short term negative effects on northern spotted owls.

Landing Construction Landings will be constructed at 40 new sites and total approximately 14 acres. An additional 168 landings that require limited new construction on roads or existing sites will be required for the project. Landings would be placed along existing roads and new disturbance for landings would be minimized. Landings outside of existing roadbeds would be located in previously disturbed or open areas and would avoid patches of larger trees where possible. However, some larger tree may need to be felled to clear landings. These trees would be removed as part of the timber sale. Landing would not be constructed in Riparian Reserves. There are six landings proposed outside of existing road beds (Project Map), however landings may be moved and in this case Forest Service Fish and Wildlife Biologist would be consulted to ensure minimal impacts to those resources. Landings outside of existing roadbeds would be rehabilitated for proper runoff drainage, improved infiltration, and effective soil cover a prescribed by and engineer and/or and earth scientist. This can include shaping the slope for better drainage, subsoiling to 18 inches to break up compaction, and mulching/revegetating to provide short- and long-term cover. The above sighting guides should limit the amount of late successional habitat degraded to less than the 14 acres listed above. Each new landing constructed would occupy approximately 0.35 acre and are spread over the project area. Due to the low amount of northern spotted owl habitat disturbed per site the acreage is not listed in Table 2. Openings of this size are common in mid and late

31

successional habitat and will degrade the habitat in the stand over the short-term but should provide horizontal diversity. Landing openings will have only minimal effects on northern spotted owl habitat in the short-and long-term. If new landings are to be built in locations other than those indicated on the project map, a Forest Service biologist would be consulted to ensure that landings are not constructed in a northern spotted owl nest stand.

Roadside Fuels Treatments Fuel treatments are proposed along 77 miles of road that will cover 2,700 acres. Treatments would be understory treatments extending 250 feet below and 150 above selected roads. Understory thinning will not remove or degrade suitable northern spotted owl habitat. Hazard trees may also be felled and removed if excess to the down wood needs. Loss of individual trees and snags in northern spotted owl habitat will degrade suitable habitat in the short term.

Private Land Thinning Thinning to be conducted on National Forest land within 500 feet of private lands would be the responsibility of the land owners on a voluntary basis. The area available for this optional treatment totals 6,100 acres. Many of the private lands that abut National Forest lands are located along the Klamath River and the major tributaries. Northern spotted owls do not typically use low elevation habitat along large streams and rivers for nesting. However there are several parcels of private lands that occur in the upland conifer forest and may be adjacent to northern spotted owl core areas. Private lands along China Creek, middle Thompson Creek and some areas in the middle Seiad Creek are examples of areas that are adjacent to northern spotted owl habitat and core areas. Agreements for private land owners to treat fuels on National Forest lands will be required. At the time when permit applications are submitted, the Klamath National Forest will review the proposed activities in relation to unsurveyed suitable northern spotted owl habitat or active cores areas and apply appropriate limited operating periods, if needed.

Prescribed burning Prescribed burning is proposed on 22,000 acres in the Action Area. Prescriptions for underburns will be designed to minimize damage to the existing habitat. Snags and down wood will be reduced with the use of fire, however, there will be new snags created which will contribute to the down wood over time.

Effects to Prey 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

32

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 consume some of the existing dead wood in a stand, which could negatively affect these species; however, very low and low intensity burns do not normally burn all areas within the fire and will 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; Fisher and Wilkin 2005) 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 prescribed fires will have minimal short tern negative effects on small mammal biomass.

In the long-term, fuel reduction treatments are expected to have significant 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 significantly reduce predicted stand mortality in the event of a fire start. The area susceptible to some type of crown fire in the Action Area would be reduced by 17 percent and the area that would present control problems (flame length greater than 8 feet) would be reduced by 12 percent (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.

Effects to Populations and Trends The project will remove some nesting/roosting habitat and will result in insignificant changes to the amount and distribution of foraging and dispersal habitat across the landscape. Therefore, the project will have no effect on the local or regional population trends of northern spotted owls. By promoting the development of late-successional stands and the amount and distribution of northern spotted owl habitat, the project is expected to improve the ability of the project area to support a population cluster over time.

33

Effects on Existing Threats: 1. Habitat trends: The amount of nesting/roosting or foraging habitat to be removed is inconsequential with respect to current habitat trends for the northern spotted owl. By promoting the development of northern spotted owl habitat on approximately 1,600 acres, the project is expected to increase habitat over time.

2. Wildfire: Stands in the project area will be more resistant to uncharacteristic wildfire following thinning and fuels reduction treatments. Thus, proposed treatments will reduce the threat that uncharacteristic wildfire currently poses to existing northern spotted owl habitat. Additionally, in the event of a fire start, fire behavior would be more consistent with historic patterns following the proposed treatments.

3. Barred Owl: The effect of forest management on barred and spotted owl interactions has not been demonstrated. However, due to the limited impact to northern spotted owl habitat and their prey, it is unlikely that the proposed thinning and fuel reduction treatments will have an effect on influencing the likelihood or outcome of barred owl and northern spotted owl interactions.

Effects to NSO Critical Habitat: Effects of the proposed alternatives Alternative 1 – No action

Under the no action alternative the primary constituent elements of critical habitat would be slow in developing in mid mature stands and the potential fire behavior in the project area would remain unacceptable relative to critical habitat objectives. Surface fuels are expected to continue to increase over time. Additionally, in the event of a fire start, several general patterns regarding fire behavior and fire induced tree mortality over time including (1) a constant or increasing crown fire potential under both moderate and severe weather conditions, (2) an increase in surface fire intensity under both moderate and severe weather conditions, and (3) either a constant or increasing level of tree mortality and basal area reduction. Thus, the no action alternative maintains or increases the potential for fire to remove the existing physical and biological features important to functioning critical habitat and does little to promote the development of such characteristics.

Alternative 2 –Proposed Action

Thinning and Fuels Reduction

Thinning designed to promote the development of late-successional stands and the primary constituent elements of NSO critical habitat will not remove important structural components of nesting, roosting, or foraging habitat such as large diameter trees, snags and DWD. A minimum of 60 percent canopy closure will be retained in existing nesting, roosting, or

34

foraging habitat and 40 percent in dispersal habitat in the Critical Habitat areas. Trees infected with mistletoe may be removed, but silvicultural prescriptions have been designed to ensure that this component will remain on the landscape. Fuel reduction treatments have the potential to remove DWD and snags but prescriptions are designed to retain Klamath National Forest Land Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1994) recommendations for these habitat components.

Over time, thinning and fuel reduction treatments are expected to enhance the function of CHUs CA15 and CA17(1992) or subunits 28 and 30 (2008) by increasing the amount and distribution of nesting, roosting, foraging and dispersal habitat and by reducing fuels to a level that would result in an acceptable fire behavior and post fire stand condition. It is expected that in the long-term post thinning the average tree diameter within a stand would increase. Stands with larger trees and snags are more typical of stands associated with NSO nesting and roosting habitat (Solis & Gutiérrez 1990; LaHaye & Gutiérrez 1999). More large stems per acre would also increase recruitment of large snags and DWD. Stands will also be less dense and will average between 120 and 240 square feet of basal area per acre. Thinning and subsequent fuels treatment will generally reduce crown fire potential or maintain a surface fire type and significantly reduce predicted stand mortality in the event of a fire start. 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, which would create a mosaic of stands in different successional stages, would be consistent with patterns under historic fire regimes. Over time, this pattern would likely enhance critical habitat function by providing horizontal diversity of habitat across the landscape.

Determination of Effects for Northern Spotted Owl, and Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat

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

No nesting or roosting habitat within the Late-Successional Reserves or northern spotted owl cores would be removed or downgraded

Only one percent of existing foraging habitat within the project area would be removed or downgraded

None of the existing dispersal habitat within the project area would be removed The majority of foraging habitat to be removed or downgraded occurs in the outer

portion of estimated northern spotted owl home ranges, and no northern spotted owl home range would be reduced to less 1,340 acres of suitable habitat as a result of the Proposed Action

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

35

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

Impacts to the primary constituent elements of critical habitat are expected to be minimal and would not affect the nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal function of MOCA 25.

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 and northern spotted owl critical habitat

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 last 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

36

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).

Under the Northwest Forest Plan, 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 importance in 1994. In the Northwest Forest Plan 10 year review of marbled murrelets (Huff et al, 2004) described Zone 2 as follows:

Of the two marbled murrelet Inland Management zones in the Plan, the Zone farthest from the coast, Zone 2, accounted for <2 percent of the estimated high quality habitat on federally administered lands. In addition, our data and models suggested that, in general, nesting habitat maintained and restored in marbled murrelet Inland Management Zone 2 has a low likelihood of being used for nesting. Potentially important nesting habitat for murrelets in Zone 2 may occur in localized areas; however, data were inadequate to address this.

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 fragmentation, 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,

37

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.

Marbled Murrelets in the Project Area 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 section within. 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 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.

Marbled murrelet Critical Habitat is located in the project area in Critical Habitat unit CA10a. There are two plantation thinnings (units 530 and ½ of unit 547) and in addition, there are two underburn units (A31 and A32) located in marbled murrelet Critical Habitat unit CA10a. The proposed thinning operations located in Critical habitat are in plantations that do not currently provide suitable marbled murrelet habitat.

Alternative 1 – No Action, and Alternative-- 2 Proposed Action The Thom-Seider Project has 66 stands that are located in marbled murrelet Zone 2 starting approximately 45 miles inland from Pacific Coast. The Northwest Forest Plan marbled murrelet 10 year review determine that of the two marbled murrelet Inland Management

38

zones in the Plan, the Zone farthest from the coast, Zone 2, accounted for <2 percent of the estimated high quality habitat on federally administered lands

Selection criteria for stands to be included in the Project were: stands were to be mid mature in age, they were to be single-storied, and they were to have limited structural diversity. After field reviews of the 66 stands 4 were determined to have old growth characteristics. Additional field reviews of stands 23, 47, 88 and 89 found that nesting platforms suitable for marbled murrelet nesting were rare. 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. These stand do have large trees with large limbs but there is no or very limited dwarf mistletoe in these stands and in addition, there are no moss covered limbs (the primary substrate used by nesting marbled murrelets). 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.

In addition several studies conducted in and adjacent to the project area in northern California (Hunter et al. 1998, Meyer and Miller 2002, and Meyer 2003) concluded that their study areas were not within the range of the marbled murrelet. In southwest Oregon the area (approximately 14 miles north of Hunter’s study area) the Siskiyou and Rogue River National Forests and the Medford District of the Bureau of Land Management conducted marbled murrelet survey from 1988 through 2001. Analysis of those study results demonstrated that murrelets are not likely to occur east of the western hemlock/tanoak vegetation zone (fog belt) in southwest Oregon (Alegria et al. 2002).

Critical Habitat Operations in the commercial thinning units (530 and ½ of 547) will not remove primary constituent elements of marbled murrelet Critical Habitat. The proposed underburns (A31 and A32) will be conducted at low intensity and severity and will not remove primary constituent elements of marbled murrelet Critical Habitat. The Thom-Seider Project will have no effect on marbled murrelet Critical Habitat.

In addition the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed to drop Marbled Murrelet Critical Habitat Unit CA10a along with several other Critical Habitat units on the Happy Camp Ranger District and on the Forest Service in southern Oregon.

“Approximately 191,370 ac (77,450 ha) in zone 2 in northern California and southern Oregon would be removed where extensive surveys have demonstrated marbled murrelets are very unlikely to be found (Hunter et al. 1997, pp. 16-25; Schmidt et al. 2000, pp. 16-22; U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 2002, p. 16.). Zone 2 includes areas from 35

39

miles (56.3 km) to 50 miles (80.5 km) from marine environments (FEMAT 1993, p. IV-24). Both of these studies acknowledge that it is possible that marbled murrelets may occasionally use some portion of the study areas; however, if the species does occur, the number of individuals is probably very low. Accordingly, it appears that the habitat in these areas does not contain the physical and biological features in the necessary spatial configuration that is essential for the conservation of the species. Therefore, we believe these areas do not meet the definition of critical habitat.” (Federal Register: July 31, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 148) Proposed Rules Page 44678-44701).

Determination of Effects for Marbled Murrelet, and Marbled Murrelet Critical Habitat The following criteria were used to reach a determination for marbled murrelets as a result of the Thom-Seider Project.

Marbled murrelet habitat located in Zone 2 has a low likelihood of being used for nesting.

Marbled murrelets were absent from sites further west that had abundant platforms but moss was scarce. Project units are located in the mixed-conifer vegetation association that is on the eastern edge of marbled murrelet Zone 2 and does not have moss covered limbs.

Known marbled murrelet nest sites in northern California and southern Oregon are all located in the coastal fog belt that is < 37 miles inland. In northern California, the area directly west of the project area, marbled murrelet nest sites are all located within 10 miles of the coast.

Studies conducted in northern California and southern Oregon indicates that marbled murrelets are absent or highly unlikely to occur in Zone 2.

The project will not remove primary constituent elements of marbled murrelet Critical Habitat in Unit CA10a.

Based on the above criteria it is my determination that the Thom-Seider Project will have no effect on marbled murrelets or marbled murrelet Critical Habitat.

Klamath National Forest Sensitive Species

Sensitive Species: 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

40

increased or stabilized. The notice to delist bald eagles was published in the Federal Register on July 7, 2007 and 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 (Buehler 2000). 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 and report new nest locations on the Klamath River (Sam Cuenca, pers. com. 2008). There are 2 known bald eagle nest sites that have bald eagle management areas associated with the nest in the Analysis Area, Gordon’s Ferry and Caroline Creek (USDA Forest Service 1999a, pg 3-25).


Direct Effects Under Alternative 1 there would be no activities conducted in bald eagle habitat that would result in the displacement or death of bald eagles. As a result there would be no direct effects to bald eagles under Alternative 1.

Indirect Effects Under the No Action Alternative late-successional habitat would be at risk because the potential fire behavior in the Action Area would remain unacceptable. Without treatment surface fuels are expected to continue to increase over time. Fire behavior is expected to increase 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 (Thom-Seider Fuels Report). The No Action Alternative increases the potential for fire to remove the desired structural components within the bald eagle management areas.

Alternative 2-Proposed Action

Direct Effects

41

Under the Proposed Action (Alternative 2), there would be no activities conducted in bald eagle habitat that would result in the displacement or death of bald eagles. As a result there would be no direct effects to bald eagles under Alternative 1.

Indirect Effects Proposed activities included in the Caroline Creek bald eagle management area are limited to underburn A186. Bald eagle sites are to be managed to protect and maintain nesting and roosting sites (USDA Forest Service1999a, pg. 4-107). Underburning in this management area will reduce fire severity levels and help maintain the nest and roost structures that are currently there. Underburning in the Caroline Creek Bald Eagle Management Area will have long-term beneficial effects in that it will reduce fire severity in the area and help maintain nest and roost structures. The proposed action will have positive short and long-term benefits to the Caroline Creek Management Area. No activities are planned in the Gordon’s Ferry bald eagle site.

Determination for Bald Eagle The following factors were considered in making the determination of the effects for bald eagles:

No habitat would be removed from the bald eagle management areas.

Limited operating periods would protect bald eagles from disturbance.

Fuels treatments (underburns would reduce fuels) in the Caroline Creek bald eagle management area, reducing the possibility of stand replacing fires.

Based on the above factors it is my determination that the proposed project will have positive short and long-term benefits to the Caroline Creek Bald Eagle Management Area.

Sensitive Species: 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

42

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 clear-cuts, 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 are 10 goshawk management areas in the Analysis Area (USDA Forest Service 1999a, pg 3-28) of which 6 are located in the Action Area. Goshawk management areas in the Action Area that contain treatment units or are adjacent to proposed treatment units were surveyed in 2007 and 2008. In addition one historical site in Walker Gulch was surveyed in 2008, no goshawks were found. One active goshawk site was located in the Action Area near Wolf Creek in 2008; this site is outside of established management areas.


Direct Effects Under the no action alternative no activities would occur in the Goshawk Management Areas or the one active site located in 2008, and there would be no direct effects to goshawks.

Indirect Effects In the absence of large-scale natural disturbance it is unlikely that the amount of goshawk habitat in the Action Area will significantly change in the near future. Fire behavior is expected to change in the long term, increasing the potential to remove existing and future goshawk habitat in the event of a fire start within the Analysis Area. 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.


Direct Effects Activities conducted in the Goshawk Management Areas under the Proposed Action are very limited in the established management areas and is limited to non-commercial thinning and underburning in the active Wolf Creek site. Implementation of the limited operating period in the Wolf Creek site for goshawks will remove the potential for direct effects. Approximately 10 acres of unit 501 are in one established management area and there are proposed

43

underburns proposed in 4 of the established management areas. As a result there would be no direct effects to goshawks under Proposed Action.

Indirect Effects Of the areas surveyed, the Wolf Creek site is the only active goshawk site in the Action Area; proposed activities under alternative 2 include precommercial thin in units 98, 285, and 306, with underburn, A70 in the units and surrounding area. Habitat in the goshawk area is being encroached on by young conifers and hardwoods, which, if left untreated, would reduce the value of the habitat for goshawks. Precommercial thinning will cut most of the encroaching understory vegetation that will then be burned opening up the understory, improving habitat for goshawk foraging. Under burning will reduce potential fire severity, thus protecting the existing stand structure in the short term. Underburns in four of the other established management areas will reduce future fire severity and intensity in the areas treated. The Seiad goshawk management area will have the majority of the site treated with underburns, these treatments will reduce the possibility that future wildfires will remove existing habitat. Under burns in the remaining three units will treat only a small percentage of the management areas and will not have a significant effect on future wildfires in the management areas.

In the long-term, fuel reduction treatments are expected to have significant benefits to goshawk by reducing fuels in the Wolf Creek and Seiad Creek management areas 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 significantly reduce predicted stand mortality in the event of a fire start. When completed the proposed underburns will reduce fire severity on 22,000 acres and provide anchor points for future fire suppression activities and prescribed fire use. 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.

Determination

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

No habitat would be removed from the one active goshawk site in the project. Limited operating periods would protect goshawks from disturbance. Thinning in the goshawk habitat would remove understory vegetation, improving

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

44

Based on the above factors it is my determination that the proposed project will have positive short and long-term effects on the goshawk

Sensitive Species: Willow flycatcher Willow flycatchers (Empidonax virescens) are listed as a Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive Species 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 Cascades Range. In California, this species most often occurs in broad, open river valleys or large mountain meadows with lush, high-foliage volume of willows (Harris et al. 1987; CDFG 2006). 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 (S. Cuenca, pers. comm. 2008). This mist-netting station is located in the middle of the Action Area. 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.

Habitat for willow flycatchers is primarily located along the Klamath River and the larger streams, Seiad Creek, Grider Creek and, Thompson Creek. Small patches of habitat usually one acre or less in size are scattered throughout the Action Area but all are adjacent to streams and are within riparian reserves.


Direct Effects Under Alternative 1 none of the proposed activities would be implemented and under the existing conditions there would be no direct effects to willow flycatcher.

Indirect Effects In the absence of large-scale natural disturbance it is unlikely that the amount of willow flycatcher habitat in the Action Area will significantly change in the near future. However, in the event of a fire, fire would burn through many riparian areas, potentially removing riparian shrub habitat


45

Direct Effects Habitat for willow flycatchers occurs only in riparian reserves. Thinning and road construction will not occur in areas of riparian reserves that support willows and/or alders under the Proposed Action (Alternative 2). Spring underburns that back 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 area 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. Wildfire that burned subsequent to the treatments would burn with less severity, resulting in less damage to treated riparian zones.

Indirect Effects Under the Proposed Action, willow flycatcher habitat may be affected by spring underburning. Habitat for willow flycatchers occurs only in riparian reserves; thinning, and road construction will not occur in the areas of riparian reserves that support willows and or alders. Areas with suitable willow flycatcher habitat are primarily located on the Klamath River and the larger tributaries at low elevations. These areas tend to be flat and are primarily private lands, and where there are public lands, no underburns are planned. Willow flycatcher habitat is rare in the steep gradient streams on National Forest lands where most of the underburns will occur. However there may be some small areas of suitable habitat where stream gradient declines and the channels broaden out. The possibility of fuel reduction treatments occurring within suitable willow flycatcher habitat will be low, however the possibility does exist. Although prescribed fire will not be ignited within riparian reserves, underburns will be allowed to back into them. Some minimal amounts of willow flycatcher habitat may be underburned. Potential impacts include the removal or degradation of habitat. 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.

Determination 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.

Sensitive Species: Wolverine

46

Wolverines (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), 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). 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).

Wolverines have extremely large home ranges (up to 375 square miles) (Hornocker and Hash 1981) 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).

Numerous carnivore surveys have been conducted adjacent to the Action Area in the Rogue-Siskiyou and Klamath National Forests and on private lands in northern California in the past decade, including: over 150 baited camera stations on the Cascade Zone of the Rogue River National Forest and baited stations in the Ashland Watershed (USDA Forest Service 2005a); 12 track plate and camera stations that were periodically monitored by the KNF on the Oak Knoll and Scott River ranger districts from 1992–1996 (USDA Forest Service no date); 19, 4-square-mile survey areas in the Collins-Baldy Late Successional Reserve in 2004 (Farber and Franklin 2005); 60 track plate stations monitored by the USFWS on the Oak Knoll and Scott

47

River ranger districts in 2005 and 2006 (S. Yaeger, pers. comm. 2008). None of these efforts detected wolverines

There have been unconfirmed sightings of wolverines on the Scott River Ranger District on Scott Bar Mountain and in the Canyon Creek watershed approximately 8 to 12 miles south of the Action Area. However, there are no historic records of this species in the Action Area. Due to the large home ranges used by wolverines, their ability to travel long distances over rugged terrain, the variety of 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 Action 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 unit (2 male and 4 or more females) overlaps with the Action Area.


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

Indirect Effects In the absence of large-scale natural disturbance, it is unlikely that the amount of wolverine habitat in the Action Area will significantly change in the near future. 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 Action 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.


Direct Effects 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 Action Area, it is expected that disturbance or disruption of normal breeding/feeding activities will be unlikely. These

48

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 construction. Commercial thinning in the Action Area is designed to retain large trees, snags and large logs; however canopy cover may be reduced in some matrix units. Decrease canopy cover should be inconsequential in the ability of the treated areas to provide habitat for wolverines. Road and landing construction will affect about 18 acres of land and yarder corridors will affect 60 acres of mid-and late-successional forest. The above actions will fall some large trees and create small openings in the forest canopy, which may affect suitable habitat in the short term. However, 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). Proposed activities in the Action Area would affect approximately 546 acres or 0.6 percent of the mid-and late-successional forest in the Analysis Area, but this is not expected to result in direct effects to wolverines.

Indirect Effects Indirect effects 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.

The moderate to heavy roading in the Action Area and the human use that is associated with those roads make it unlikely wolverines will be in the Action Area during Project activities. Silvicultural prescription for the Action Area will leave suitable habitat for wolverines and may increase deer, elk and small mammal numbers increasing the food supply. The proposed Project will only treat 0.6 percent of the mid-and Late-successional forest in the Analysis Area and the proposed treatments will not render the area unsuitable for wolverines (Hornocker and Hash, 1981).

Determination Due to the small area proposed to be treated mechanically, the thin-from-below silvicultural prescription and the unlikely presence of wolverines in the area, the Thom-Seider Project would have no effect on the California wolverine.

Sensitive Species: Fisher

49

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. FEMAT’s analysis of the Northwest Forest Plan gave the fisher a 63 percent chance of remaining well-distributed throughout the northwest and a 37 percent chance that it would become locally restricted. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been petitioned to list the fisher by several environmental organizations in November 2000. After a 12-month review, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found the Pacific Coast population of fisher to be a distinct population segment and gave a “warranted but precluded” decision to the petition. As a result of that decision, the West Coast distinct population segment has become a Federal Candidate species under the ESA (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2004).

Historically, fishers were distributed across North America from Hudson Bay southward to Virginia in the east and to Yellowstone and the southern Sierra Nevada in the west. By 1900, trapping and logging had led to extirpations of fishers from most of the eastern United States. Regrowth of forest and regulation of trapping in New England and the northern Great Lakes states and numerous reintroductions have allowed fisher to recolonize those areas (Carroll et al. 1999). Populations in the western United States, however, have continued to decline (Powell & Zielinski 1994), resulting in the apparent extirpation of fishers throughout much of their historical range in the Pacific states (Zielinski et al. 1995; Lewis & Stinson 1998; Aubry & Lewis 2003). The population in the Klamath Region, which includes the project area, may be the largest remaining in the western United States (Carroll et al. 1999). Fisher’s typically avoid humans and as a result they are generally more common where human disturbance is limited (Powell & Zielinski 1994).

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).

In the western United States, fisher den sites are usually located in forested stands with complex structural characteristics typical of late-successional forests (Powell & Zielinski 1994). These characteristics include large trees and snags, multi-layered vegetation, large woody debris, and high canopy closure. Cavities in large trees or snags are most commonly used for denning, but hollow logs may also be used (Lewis & Stinson 1998; Powell & Zielinski 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

50

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).

Within the Action Area mature, structurally diverse stands that provide high quality denning and resting habitat are common and well distributed with the exceptions of upper Seiad Creek Devils Peak area, upper Walker Creek, the area west of Grider Ridge and lower Thompson Creek (MIS Map and USDA Forest Service 1999a, pg. 3-23).

Numerous carnivore surveys have been conducted within and adjacent to the Action Area on the Klamath National Forest and on private lands in the past decade. Thirty fisher track plate stations monitored by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service were conducted in the Analysis Area in 2005 and 2006 (S. Yaeger, pers. comm. 2008) no fishers were detected in this survey effort. Fishers were detected in the above study 3 miles to the east of the Action Area and several fisher sightings in the Action Area have been reported by Forest Service employees (pers. Comm. Carol Sharp 2008). Numerous other detections of fisher have occurred within 3 to 12 miles, east of the Action Area (Farber and Franklin 2005; S. Yaeger, pers. comm. 2008).


Direct Effects 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.

Indirect Effects Under the No Action Alternative activities designed to promote late-successional habitat would not occur. High quality fisher habitat would be slow to develop and density related mortality is expected to 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 fisher habitat and increases the potential for fire to remove existing fisher habitat.


Direct Effects

51

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 but is not expected to effect the overall population.

Thinning prescription designed to maintain and promote the development of late-successional habitat will not remove important structural components of fisher habitat such as large-diameter trees, snags, and down wood. Trees infected with mistletoe, which may provide resting structure may be removed, but silvicultural prescriptions have been designed to ensure that this component will remain on the landscape. Thinning prescriptions will leave up to 10% of each stand in unthinned condition. Unthinned areas will consist of groups of large trees, providing fisher denning and resting sites. Thinned stands in the Late Successional Reserves or northern spotted owl core areas will maintain a minimum canopy cover of 60%. Stands located in the Matrix may be thinned to less than 60 percent canopy cover. The 33 stands that occur in the Matrix and will have the canopy cover reduced to less than 60 percent include 546 acres or 0.6 percent of the mid-and late-successional forest in the analysis area. Although stands may have an average canopy cover of less than 60 percent the variable density thinning will leave areas with denser canopy cover allowing fisher to forage in or disperse or move through these stands. Stands thinned to less than 60 percent canopy cover are expected to recover canopy cover in approximately 10 to 20 years.

Indirect Effects 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.

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

52

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). 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 significant 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. More large stems per acre would also increase recruitment of large snags and down wood. Stands with this type of structural complexity contain the specific habitat requirements for this species. Modeling indicates that thinning and subsequent fuels treatment will generally reduce crown fire potential and maintain a surface fire type and significantly reduce predicted stand mortality in the event of a fire start. 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.

Approximately 0.7 mile of temporary road will be constructed in mid-and late-successional habitat and 14 acres will be used for landing construction. Up to 60 acres of yarder corridors will be cleared in suitable habitat, spread across 36 units. Yarder corridors will be placed to minimize the removal of large trees and snags. Openings created by the yarder 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 road, landing, and yarder corridor construction however will remove some large trees suitable for denning or resting. Trees cut for road, landing, and yarder corridor construction in the matrix land will be removed if they are surplus to the down wood guidelines (USDA Forest Service 1994). Openings created by temporary roads and yarder corridors are not expected to be barriers to fisher movements.

Determination Due to the disturbance, removal of individual large trees and snags, and the short-term reduction in canopy closure in thinned stands, the Thom-Seider Project may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for fisher.

53

Sensitive Species: 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. FEMATs analysis of the Northwest Forest Plan gave the marten a 67 percent chance of remaining well distributed throughout the northwest. In the Klamath National Forest LRMP (USDA Forest Service 1994), additional Standards and Guides for coarse woody debris and snags provide additional protection of habitat components for marten.

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 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 Action 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 Oak Knoll and Scott River Ranger Districts from 1992 to 1996 (USDA Forest Service no date); 19 baited camera stations in the Collins-Baldy Late Successional Reserve 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 Action 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 south end of the Action Area. Proposed activities in that area are limited to underburns A-21, A-22, and A-38.

Alternative 1-No Action and Alternative 2-Proposed Action

54

Indirect and Direct Effects There are no historical records of marten in the Analysis Area. There have been no detections of marten in proximity of the Action Area and there have been only two, 12 miles south of the Action Area. The probability of martens occurring in the area is very low.

Determination Based on negative survey data, current range of the species, and low likelihood of occurrence, it is expected that the Thom-Seider Project will have no effect on American martens.

Sensitive Species: Pallid Bat Pallid bats (Antrozous pallidus) are listed as a Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive Species because of the increasing use of caves by humans, loss of oak woodland habitat, potential effect of pesticides use and grazing on ground-dwelling insects. Pallid bats are very sensitive to disturbance at their maternity and hibernating roost sites. It is important that these sites remain undisturbed because these sites are essential for metabolic economy and juvenile growth (CDFG 1990).

Pallid bats are known to occur across the Pacific Northwest. Pallid bats will use a variety of habitats, including grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and mixed conifer but are most common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting (CDFG 1990; Cross 1996). Suitable habitat for day roosts includes rock crevices, tree hollows, mines, caves and a variety of human-made structures (Vaughn and O’Shea 1976; CDFG 1990; Cross 1996) while night roosts are typically more open and include open buildings, porches, mines, caves, and under bridges (Lewis 1994; Szewczak et al. 1998; Cross 1996). Pallid bats forage in the air as well as on the ground and prey on items including crickets, beetles, grasshoppers, and some small vertebrates (Csuti et al. 1997).

Suitable roost sites for pallid bats in the form of large trees snags and rocky outcrops are scattered throughout the Action Area. Other structures including buildings and bridges also occur within the Action Area. Surveys have not been conducted within the Analysis Area, and it is unknown if pallid bats occur in the area (USDA Forest Service 1999a, pg. 3-30). The closest documented occurrence is at Indian Scotty Camp Ground (Pierson et al, 1998). Habitat is present throughout the analysis area and it is assumed that pallid bats occur in the area.


Direct Effects Under the No Action Alternative there would be no direct effects to pallid bats.

Indirect Effects Under the No Action Alternative activities designed to promote late-successional habitat would not occur. Large roost trees would be slow to develop and density related mortality is

55

expected to 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.


Direct Effects 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. However, thinning and fuels reduction activities are within and adjacent to potential roosting habitat. Because this species is sensitive to disturbance at roost sites, the Project has the potential to effect individuals if roosting pallid bats are present.

Indirect Effects 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.

Determination Due to disturbance and the loss of individual large trees and snags the Thom-Seider Project may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for pallid bats.

Sensitive Species: 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’ (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 man-made 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

56

2002). The Townsend's bat is a moth specialist, with over 90% of its diet composed of lepidopterans (Sherwin 1998).

Townsend’s big-eared bats are extremely sensitive to disturbance at roost sites (Humphrey and Kuntz 1976 and may abandon a roost site following a single disturbance (CDFG 1990)

Suitable roost sites for Townsend’s big-eared bats in the form of large-diameter trees, mines and small cave are scattered throughout the Action 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 Analysis Area.


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

Indirect Effects Under the No Action Alternative activities designed to promote late-successional habitat would not occur. Large roost trees would be slow to develop and density related mortality is expected to 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.

Alternative 2- Proposed Action

Direct Effects 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. 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 Action Area. Activities are not proposed for the areas where the caves are located on the north end of the Action Area. Mines are spread throughout the Action Area; during field reviews no open mines were located in Action Area units. However, 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.

57

Indirect Effects 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.

Determination Due to disturbance and the loss of individual large trees and snags, the Thom-Seider 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.

Sensitive Species: 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) and the introduction of exotic species such as predatory fish and bull frogs.

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).

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 the Klamath River, the larger tributaries, Seiad Creek, Grider Creek, and Thompson Creek in the flat low elevation areas of the streams near the Klamath River and a small pond and its adjacent forest in unit 45 of the Action Area.


58

Direct Effects Under the No Action Alternative there would be no direct effects to northwestern pond turtles.

Indirect Effects Under the No Action Alternative there would be no indirect effects to northwestern pond turtles


Direct and Indirect Effects Habitats along the Klamath River and the larger tributaries are mostly private property and the only activity proposed in the Forest Service lands that do occur in those areas is underburns and non-commercial land owner treatments. The pond in Unit 45 will have a 100 foot no equipment protection zone that should protect pond turtle habitat in and around that pond. Underburns conducted in the spring in areas adjacent to the Klamath River could burn in northwestern pond turtle winter habitat. Although no studies could be found that dealt with the effects of prescribed fire on wintering turtles, it is expected 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 their aquatic habitat (Jennings and Hays, 1994). Underburns in the area along the Klamath River are expected to be fall burns. Most (90 to 95 Percent) (Pers. Com. Susan Daniels 2008) of the fall underburns are expected to be completed by the end of October. Northwestern pond turtles usually move to the winter areas in November (CDFG 1988) so most underburns will not impact turtles.

Determination Underburns A64 and A68 are proposed for areas adjacent to the Klamath River; therefore, 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.

Sensitive Species: 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).

59

In-stream environments within the Action Area are characterized by steep gradients and fast currents in the upper areas of the Action Area and slower lower gradient streams in the valley areas of the Action Area. Streams like Grider, Seiad, Thompson and Fort Goff Creek all have habitat suitable for foothill yellow-legged frogs, so it is reasonable to assume that this species is present in the Action Area.


Direct Effect Under the No Action alternative there would be no direct effects on foothill yellow-legged frogs.

Indirect Effects In the absence of large-scale natural disturbance it is unlikely that the amount of foothill yellow-legged frog habitat in the Action Area will 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 foothill yellow-legged frogs.


Direct Effects Riparian reserves are designed to act as a filter and provide shade to maintain water quality in local streams (Hydrology Report). Riparian Reserves will protect foothill yellow-legged frogs from the effects of thinning, and underburning, there will be no direct effects on foothill yellow-legged frogs from the proposed action.

Indirect Effects 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 (refer to fisheries and hydrology reports) and protection measures for fish will eliminate any potential downstream effects in slow moving waters of Seiad, Girder, Thompson and other low gradient streams in the Action Area and the Klamath River. There will be no indirect effects on foothill yellow-legged frogs

Determination 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 (Hydrology and Soils Reports). As a result the Proposed Action 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.

60

Sensitive Species: Cascades Frog Cascades frogs (Rana cascadae) 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.

Cascades frogs are closely associated with water and are found in mountain lakes, small streams, and ponds and their surrounding vegetation (Stebbins 2003). Most common in small pools of streams flowing through subalpine meadows or in aquatic environments in open coniferous forests (Leonard et al. 1993; Stebbins 2003). Eggs are attached to vegetation in shallow water of stream pools, lake margins, and ponds (CDFG 1988; Leonard et al. 1993). This species hibernates in the mud on the bottom of lakes and ponds during winter (Briggs 1987).

It is found in areas lacking predatory fish, as fish (including salmonids) predate these frogs. Nesting generally occurs in water sources that can have many un-shaded hours of daylight and standing water is required for reproduction. Developing egg masses are affected by UV radiation (CDFG 1988; Nussbaum et al. 1983).

A juvenile Cascades frog was located adjacent to Unit 29 during mollusk and salamander surveys in 2008. Tributaries in this area drain into China Creek and the juvenile Cascades frog was probably dispersing from habitat in China Creek when it was located in a talus area.


Direct Effects Under the no action alternative there would be no direct effects to Cascades frogs.

Indirect Effects In the absence of large-scale natural disturbance, it is unlikely that the amount of Cascades frog habitat in the Action Area will 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 Cascades frogs.


Direct Effects Riparian reserves will protect Cascades frogs from the effects of thinning, and underburning, there will be no direct effects on Cascades frogs from the proposed action.

Indirect Effects 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

61

Practices (refer to fisheries and hydrology reports) and protection measures for fish will eliminate potential downstream effects in Seiad, Girder, Thompson and other streams and their tributaries in the Action Area.

Determination 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 (Hydrology and Soils Sections). As a result the Proposed Action may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of the Cascades frog.

Sensitive Species: 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 are lungless salamanders that require moisture in order to respire through their skin and avoid desiccation (Nussbaum et al. 1983). These traits limit the time the species can be active at the surface where they forage (Nussbaum et al. 1983; Feder 1983). Surface conditions favorable for foraging are therefore limited to brief periods when soil moisture and relative humidity are high and temperatures are moderate (Feder 1983; Nussbaum et al. 1983; Clayton et al. 1999).

Siskiyou Mountains salamanders, the newly described Scott Bar salamander (Plethodon ausupak) and the Del Norte salamander are closely related; the Analysis Area is considered a range of contact for the three species. Current Klamath National Forest policy dated July 15, 2007 states that “Given that the October 1999 survey protocol for Siskiyou 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”. Units to be mechanically treated were surveyed for talus habitat, which was mapped, and then surveyed for salamanders in 2007 and 2008. Siskiyou Mountains/Scott Bar salamanders were found in Units 29 and 277.

62


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

Indirect Effects In the absence of large-scale natural disturbance it is unlikely that the amount of Siskiyou Mountains/Scott Bar Salamander habitat in the Action Area will significantly 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 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.


Indirect and Direct Effects Salamanders located in units 29 and 277 will have the talus habitat protected by a one site tree no-cut buffer. There will be no direct effects on Siskiyou Mountains/Scott Bar Salamanders as a result of the buffers in these units. However the areas of proposed underburns were not surveyed (because underburning does not have significant, negative effects on habitat and direct effects can generally be avoided by timing of burning) and there may be populations of Siskiyou Mountains salamanders in these areas. Most salamanders will have retreated deep into the talus 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.

Determination Salamanders located in the prescribed burn areas may be susceptible to the effects of the proposed burns in the Proposed Action. As a result the Proposed Action 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.

Sensitive Species: 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.

63

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 grave or under small cobbles in silt free, very shallow water that is flowing or seeping. Adults may also be found under debris or stream banks or in streamside forest and talus during rainy periods (Corkran and Thoms 1996).

The Analysis Area is located east of most known southern torrent salamander site, however several populations have been located in areas removed from the general range including the Seiad Valley area on the Klamath River (Sam Cuenca Personal communications, 2008) and a specimen was found during salamander surveys in Unit 57. Unit 57 is about 2 miles downstream from the mouth of Grider Creek and is also located on the south side of the Klamath River. Habitat for southern torrent salamanders is wide spread throughout the Action Area and it seems reasonable to assume that populations of the salamander occur in Grider Creek and in other streams, seeps and springs in the Action Area.


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

Indirect Effects In the absence of large-scale natural disturbance it is unlikely that the amount of southern torrent salamander habitat in the Action Area will 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.


Direct Effects Riparian reserves 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.

Indirect Effects 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 (refer to fisheries and hydrology reports) and protection measures for fish will eliminate most potential downstream effects in Seiad, Girder, Thompson and other streams and their tributaries in the Action area.

64

Determination 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 (Hydrology and Soils Sections). As a result 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.

Sensitive Species: 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 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 resulted in no detections of blue-gray taildropper on the Forest. After thousands of acres of pre-project surveys on the Forest over the last 10 years, blue-grey taildroppers have been located in one project on the Happy Camp Ranger District with eight sites found and 2 projects on the Goosenest Ranger Districts, with 11 sites found. While abundant in Oregon, the occurrence of this species on the Klamath National Forest is very rare and distribution is extremely spotty.

The blue-gray taildropper 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 blue-gray taildropper 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).

Suitable habitat was identified for the blue-gray taildropper within the Action Area in stands proposed for thinning. Surveys conducted in these areas in 2007 and 2008 found no blue-gray taildroppers.


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

Indirect Effects Surveys conducted for blue-gray taildropper indicate that it does not occur in the project area activity units; however the areas of the prescribed burns were not surveyed and it is possible

65

that populations of the blue-gray taildropper occur in these areas. In the absence of large-scale natural disturbance it is unlikely that the amount of blue-gray taildropper habitat in the project area will significantly change in the near future. However, in the event of a fire, fire would burn through much of the habitat areas, potentially removing overstory habitat. The effect of such a fire on blue-gray taildropper is 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.


Direct and Indirect Effects Surveys conducted for blue-gray taildropper indicate that it does not occur in the project area treatment units. However the areas of the proposed underburns were not surveyed and there may be populations of blue-gray taildropper in these areas. 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.

Determination Occupied site would be protected with no harvest buffers, however some individual animals may be removed in the prescribe fire areas. The Proposed Action may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of the blue-grey taildropper.

Sensitive Species: Tehama Chaparral Tehama chaparral (Trilobopsis tehamana) snails are listed as Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive Species due to a small number of known sites.

The Tehama chaparral snails range is very limited; currently only known from 11 sites in Northern California (8 sites in Siskiyou County, 1 in Tehama County, 1 in Shasta County, and 1 in Butte County). Known locations on the KNF include areas along the Shasta River on the Scott River Ranger District.

Habitat for the Tehama chaparral includes shaded talus and rock piles (Weasma 1999). When environmental conditions are favorable, individuals may range from their refugia and can be found under leaf litter and other debris in adjacent forested habitat (Ibid). Although not well understood, it is expected that Tehama chaparral snails are slow to disperse (Ibid). On the Klamath National Forest, the occurrence of rock as a dominant surface and subsurface feature is common to all known sites (USDA Forest Service 2003).

66

Suitable habitat was identified for the Tehama chaparral in the Action Area and was surveyed in 2007 and 2008, Tehama chaparral was found in Units 254 and 257 during the surveys. Occupied sites in units 254 and 257 will be protected by a one site tree no cut buffer.


Direct Effects There will be no direct effects to the Tehama chaparral as a result of the No Action Alternative

Indirect Effects In the absence of large-scale natural disturbance it is unlikely that the amount of Tehama chaparral habitat in the project area will significantly 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 effect of such a fire on Tehama chaparral is 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, the snails would be expected to survive high severity fires and the loss of the overstory vegetation. Areas of talus that were located in the treatment areas were surveyed for the presence of the Tehama chaparral, but the large underburn areas were not surveyed. Most Tehama chaparral will be deeper in the talus by the time that the fuels are dry enough to sustain a prescribed burn. There may be a few individual that are located in areas such as down logs that may be vulnerable to the effects of the prescribed burns.


Direct and Indirect Effects Areas of talus that were located in the treatment areas were surveyed for the presence of the Tehama chaparral, but the large underburn areas were not surveyed. Most Tehama chaparral will be deeper in the talus by the time that the fuels are dry enough to sustain a prescribed burn. There may be a few individual that are located in areas such as down logs that may be vulnerable to the effects of the prescribed burns.

Determination Occupied site would be protected with no harvest buffers, however some individual animals may be removed in the prescribe fire areas. As a result the Proposed Action may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of the Tehama chaparral.

Cumulative Effects In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a

67

proxy for the impacts of past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects.

This cumulative effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human actions by adding up all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. There are several reasons for not taking this approach. First, a catalog and analysis of all past actions would be impractical to compile and unduly costly to obtain. Current conditions have been impacted by innumerable actions over the last century (and beyond), and trying to isolate the individual actions that continue to have residual impacts would be nearly impossible. Second, providing the details of past actions on an individual basis would not be useful to predict the cumulative effects of the proposed action or alternatives. In fact, focusing on individual actions would be less accurate than looking at existing conditions, because there is limited information on the environmental impacts of individual past actions, and one cannot reasonably identify each and every action over the last century that has contributed to current conditions. Additionally, focusing on the impacts of past human actions risks ignoring the important residual effects of past natural events, which may contribute to cumulative effects just as much as human actions. By looking at current conditions, we are sure to capture all the residual effects of past human actions and natural events, regardless of which particular action or event contributed those effects. Third, public scoping for this Project did not identify any public interest or need for detailed information on individual past actions. Finally, the Council on Environmental Quality issued an interpretive memorandum on June 24, 2005 regarding analysis of past actions, which states, “agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical details of individual past actions.

The cumulative effects analysis in this EIS is also 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

68

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)”

For these reasons, the analysis of past actions in this section is based on current environmental conditions.

There are currently no plans by the Klamath National Forest or Private Lands (Private lands report 4-2008) for activities that will remove or otherwise affect wildlife habitat in the Analysis Area.

For these reasons, there will be no cumulative effects on wildlife habitat from the Tom-Seider Project.

VII. PROJECT SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS FOR ALL SPECIES

Species: Determination of Effects

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

Northern spotted owl Critical

Habitat

May affect, and is not likely to adversely affect

Bald eagle May effect beneficial

Marbled murrelet No effect

Marbled Murrelet Critical

Habitat

No effect

Serra Nevada red fox Outside of range

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

Tidewater goby Critical Habitat Outside of range

Vernal pool fairy shrimp No effect; no habitat in project area

Vernal pool fairy shrimp Critical

Habitat

Outside of range

Northern goshawk May effect beneficial

69

Species: Determination of Effects

Great gray owl No effect no habitat in the project area

Willow flycatcher May impact individuals, but not likely to lead to a trend

toward Federal listing or loss of viability

California wolverine No effect

Pacific fisher May impact individuals, but not likely to lead to a trend


American marten No effect

Pallid bat May impact individuals, but not likely to lead to a trend


Townsend’s big‐eared bat May impact individuals, but not likely to lead to a trend


Northwestern pond turtle May impact individuals, but not likely to lead to a trend


Foothill yellow‐legged frog May impact individuals, but not likely to lead to a trend


Cascades frog May impact individuals, but not likely to lead to a trend


Blue‐gray taildropper May impact individuals, but not likely to lead to a trend


Tehama chaparral May impact individuals, but not likely to lead to a trend


Siskiyou Mountains salamander May impact individuals, but not likely to lead to a trend


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


71

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.

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 marmota). Natural history. Unpublished document. U.S.D.A. Forest servie, Redwood Sciences Laboratory, Arcata, CA.

Aubry, K. B., and C. M. Raley. 2002. Selection of nest and roost trees by pileated woodpeckers in coastal forests of Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management. 66:392–406.

Aubry, K. B., and J. C. Lewis. 2003. Extirpation and reintroduction of fishers (Martes pennanti) in Oregon: implications for their conservation in the Pacific states. Biological Conservation. 114:79–90.

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.

Banci, V. 1994. Wolverine. Pages 99–127 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.

Basile, J. V., and T. N. Lonner. 1979. Vehicle restrictions influence elk and hunter distribution in Montana. Journal of Forestry. 77:155-159.

Beedy, E. C. 1981. Bird communities and forest structure in the Sierra Nevada of California. The Condor 83:97-105.

72

Beier, P., and J. E. Drennan. 1997. Forest structure and prey abundance in foraging areas of northern goshawks. Ecological Applications 7:564–571.

Bingham, B. B., and B. R. Noon. 1997. Mitigation of habitat “take”: application to habitat conservation planning. Conservation Biology 11:127–138.

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.

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.

Briggs, J. L. 1987. Breeding biology of the cascade frog, Rana cascadae, with comparisons to R. Aurora and R. Pretiosa. Copeia. 1:241–245.

Brody, A. J., and M. R. Pelton. 1989. Effects of roads on black bear movements in western North Carolina. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 17:5-10.

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.

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.

73

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. H. Hohmann. 1994. Breeding biology of northern goshawks in northeasternOregon. Studies in Avian Biology. 16:103–105.

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.

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.

74

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., and S. M. 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.

Clayton, D. R., L. M. Ollivier, and H. H. Welsh. 1999. Survey protocol for the Siskiyou Mountains salamander (Plethodon stormi) version 3.0.

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.

75

Cole, E. K., M. D. Pope, and R. G. Anthony. 1997. Effects of road management on movement and survival of Roosevelt Elk. Journal of Wildlife Management. 61:1115-1126.

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.

Cross, S. P., H. Lauchstedt, and C. Harmes. 1996. Characterizing forest roost sites of some bats of special concern occurring in Roseburg and Medford BLM Districts. Final report Department of Biology, Southern Oregon University, Ashland, OR.

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.

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.

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.

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 Service and USDI Bureau of Land management.

Eaton, S. W. 1992. Wild Turkey. In A. Poole et al. editors. The Birds of North America,No.22.The American Ornithologist’ Union, Washington, D.C.; The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA.

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.

76

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 Products Company report submitted to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Feder, M. E. 1983. Integrating the ecology and physiology of Plethodontoid salamanders. Herpetologica. 39:219–310.

Fellers, G. M., E. D. Pierson. 2002. Habitat use and foraging behavior of Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsedii) in coastal California. Journal of Mammalogy. 83:167–177.

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., 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.

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 (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.

77

Goggans, R., R. T. Dixon, and L. C. Seminara. 1988. Habitat use by three-toed and black-backed woodpeckers, Deschutes National Forest, Oregon. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Nongame Program Technical Report, no. 87-3- 02.

Grayson, K. L., and M. E. Dorcas. 2004. Seasonal temperature variation in the painted turtle (Chrysemys picta). Herpetologica. 60:325–336.

Grinnell, J., J. S. Dixon, and J. M. Linsdale. 1937. Furbearing mammals of California,volume 1. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

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.

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 inYosemite 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.

Hoffman, N. 1997. Distribution of Picoides woodpeckers in relation to habitat disturbance within the Yellowstone area. M. S. Thesis. Montana State University, Bozeman, MT.

78

Holbrook, H. T., and M. R. Vaughn. 1985. Influence of roads on turkey mortality. Journal of Wildlife Management. 49:611-614.

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

Humphrey, S. R., and T. H. Kuntz. 1976. Ecology of a Pleistocene relict, the western big- eared bat (Plecotus townsedii), in the southern Great Plains. Journal of Mammalogy. 57:470–494.

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.

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. 1988. North American Owls. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D.C.

79

Johnsgard, P. A. 1990. Hawks, Eagles, and Falcons of North America. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D. C.

Jones, J. L. 1991. Habitat use of fisher in north central Idaho. M. S. Thesis. University of Idaho, Moscow, ID.

Jones, C. A. 1992. Review of the effects of fire on Peromyscus and Podomys. Florida Scientist 55, pp 75-84, 9p.

Jones, P.H. 2001. The marbled murrelets of the Caren Range and Middlepoint Bight.Western Canada Wilderness Committee, Vancouver, BC.

Joy, J. B. 2000. Characteristics of nest cavities and nest trees of the red-breasted sapsucker in coastal montane forests. Journal of Field Ornithology. 71:525–530.

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.

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.

Koehler, G. H., and M. G. Hornocker. 1977. Fire effects on marten habitat in the Selway- Bitterroot Wilderness. Journal of Wildlife Management. 41:500–505.

Koper, N., and R. J. Brooks. 2000. Environmental constraints on growth of painted turtles (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.

80

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.

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.

Loschl, P. 2004. Territory occupancy by spotted owls and barred owls on the Oregon Coast Ranges spotted owl demography study area. Oregon State University, CooperativeWildlife Research Unit, Corvalis, OR. Unpublished report

Lutz, R. S., and J. A. Crawford. 1987. Seasonal use of roost sites by Mriam’s wild turkey hens and hen-poult flocks in Oregon. Northwest Science. 61:174–178.

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.

Mackey, D. L. 1984. Roosting habitat of Merriam’s turkeys in south-central Washington.Journal of Wildlife Management. 48:1377–1381.

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 Oregon.Wildlife Society Bulletin. 12:265–268.

Manaan, R. W., E. C. Meslow, and H. M. Wright. 1980. Use of snags by birds in Douglas-fir forests, western Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management. 44:787– 797.

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.

81

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.

McGrath, M .M., S.Destefano, R. A. Riggs, L. L. Irwin, and G. J. Roloff. 2003. Spatially explicit influences on northern goshawk habitat in the interior pacific northwest. Wildlife Monographs. 154:1–63.

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. 2002. 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. 2002. 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

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.

Milne, K. A., and Hejl. 1989. Nest-site characteristics of white-headed woodpeckers. Journal of Wildlife Management. 53:50–55.

82

Monroe, M. E., S.J. Converse. 2006. The effects of early season and late season prescribed fires on small mammals in a Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forest. Forest Ecology and Management 236 (2006) 229-240. 11pp.

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.

Morrison, M. L., and K. A. With. 1987. Interseasonal and intersexual resource portioning in hairy and white-headed woodpeckers. Auk. 104:225–233.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

83

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.

Reynolds, R. T., and S. M. Joy. 2006. Demography of northern goshawks in Arizona, 1991–1996. Pages 63–74 in M. L. Morrison editor. The northern goshawk: a technical assessment of its status, ecology, and management. Studies in avian biology No.31.

Roberson, D. 1993. Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus. Pages 200–201 in D. Roberson and C.Tenney editors. Atlas of breeding birds of Monterey County. Monterey Peninsula Audobon Society, Pacific Grove, CA.

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.

Rost, G. R., and J. A. Bailey. 1979. Distribution of mule deer and elk in relation to roads. Journal of Wildlife Management. 43:634-641.

Rowland, M. M., M. J. Wisdom, B. K. John, and J. G. Kie. 2000. Elk distribution and modeling in relation to roads. Journal of Wildlife Management. 64:672-684.

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.

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.

84

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.

Skinner, C. N. 1995. Change in spatial characteristics of forest openings in the Klamath Mountains of northwestern California, USA. Landscape Ecology. 10:219–228.

Skinner, C. N., A. H. Taylor, and J. K. Agee. 2006. Klamath Mountains Bioregion. Chapter 9 In N. G. Sugihara et al. editors. Fire in California Ecosystems. University of CaliforniaPress. Berkeley, CA.

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.

Solis, D. M., and R. J. Gutierrez. 1990. Summer habitat ecology of northern spotted owls in northwestern California. The Condor. 92:739–748.

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.

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.

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.

85

Taylor, A. H., and C. N. Skinner. 1998. Fire history and landscape dynamics in a late- successional reserve, Klamath Mountains, California, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 111:285–301.

Taylor, A. H., and C. N. Skinner. 2003. Spatial patterns and controls on historical fire regimes and forest structure in the Klamath Mountains. Ecological Applications. 13:704–719.

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.

Torgersen, T. R., and E. L. Bull. 1995. Down logs as habitat for forest-dwelling ants-the primary prey of pileated woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon. Northwest Science. 69:294–302.

USDA Forest Service. 1994. Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. U. S. Forest Service, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA.

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. 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.

USDA Forest Service. 2005b. Soil monitoring data from 1998–2005. U. S. Forest Service, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994a. Final supplemental environmental impact statement on management of habitat for late- successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Portland, OR.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened status for the northern spotted owl. Federal Register 55:26114–26194.

86

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. 2008. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; determination of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl. Federal Register/Vol.73, No.157.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Recovery plan for the northern spotted owl. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR.

Vaughn, T. A. and T. J. O’Shea. 1976. Roosting ecology of the pallid bat, Antrozous pallidus. Journal of Mammalogy. 57:19–42.

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.

Weasma, T. R. 1999. Draft Management recommendations for Trilobopsis tehamana, Tehama chaparral and Trilobopsis roperi, Shasta chaparral (Land snails) version 2.0. Section 14 In N. Duncan editor. Management recommendations for survey and manage terrestrial mollusks version 2.0. Regional Interagency Executive Committee Survey and Manage Work Group.

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 southcentral British Columbia. Journal of Wildlife Management. 67:73–82.

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.

87

Welsh, H. H., and A. J. Lind. 2002. Multiscale habitat relationships of stream amphibians in the Klamath-Siskiyou region of California and Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management. 66:581–602.

Welsh, H. H., and K. L. Pope. 2004. Impacts of introduced fishes on the native amphibians of northern California Wilderness areas. Final report submitted to California Department of Fish and Game. USDA Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences Laboratory, 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

Witmer, G. W., and D. S. deCalesta. 1985. Effects of roads on habitat use by Roosevelt Elk. Northwest Science. 59:122-125.

Yaeger, J. S. 2005. Habitat at fisher resting sites in the Klamath Province of northern California. M. S. Thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA.

Zielinski, W. J., and N. P. Duncan. 2004. Diets of sympatric populations of american marten (Martes americana) and fishers (Martes pennanti) in California. Journal of Mammalogy. 85:470–477.

Zielinski, W. J., N. P. Duncan, E. C. Farmer, R. L. Truex, A. P. Clevenger, and R. H. 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.

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.html

88

Personal Communications

Cuenca, Sam, 2008. Klamath National Forest, Fort Jones, CA.

Daniels Susan, 2008. Klamath National Forest Happy Camp, CA

Laura Finley, 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Yreka 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.